 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / April 2005New Mustang Cobra rear suspension
Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear axle? If it ever comes out:) Al supposedly it will be solid no irs > Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear > axle? If it ever comes out:) > > Al >Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear >axle? If it ever comes out:) > >Al f.ck ford uses CHEAP suspension in all their products cheap tooooooo u cant even get 30k on balljoints in a f450 fords idea: sell the same part in all cars make them so they dont last btw if you seen what other auto manufactures use ford has blown it they are miles behind in this area hurc ast >>Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear >>axle? If it ever comes out:) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >ford has blown it >they are miles behind in this area ya think ? Not so in every area. Look at the Ford SUV line-up. What other american manufacturer has irs on all their suv's ? (I exclude the exvaldez since it's out of production anyways) The solid axle on the gt500 is supposed be a very good implementation. Let's wait and see. Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying >>>Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear >>>axle? If it ever comes out:) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >other american manufacturer has irs on all their suv's ? (I exclude >the exvaldez since it's out of production anyways) wow whats the only manufacture to get 30K out of there ball joints ????? hurc ast >The solid axle on the gt500 is supposed be a very good implementation. >Let's wait and see. lmfao who told ya that hurc ast >Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying >>>>Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear >>>>axle? If it ever comes out:) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >wow >whats the only manufacture to get 30K out of there ball joints Ball joints ? Did you keep them lubed ? Probably neglected. I've seen an F350 go way passed that. Then again, that truck WAS maintained. >????? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >lmfao >who told ya that A source who was involved with the development of it. Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying > Ball joints ? Did you keep them lubed ? Probably neglected. I've seen > an F350 go way passed that. Then again, that truck WAS maintained. It's been 20 years or so since cars came from the factory with grease fittings on ball joints. If we are supposed to lube them, then they should have fittings. (yes I know the boot can be pierced by a needle and they still can be lubed) >> Ball joints ? Did you keep them lubed ? Probably neglected. I've seen >> an F350 go way passed that. Then again, that truck WAS maintained. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >should have fittings. (yes I know the boot can be pierced by a needle and >they still can be lubed) yup but the boot then starts to rip hurc ast >>>>>Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear >>>>>axle? If it ever comes out:) [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Ball joints ? Did you keep them lubed ? Probably neglected. I've seen >an F350 go way passed that. Then again, that truck WAS maintained. lmfao yup you lube those joints lmfao they have no grease nipple TARD I have seen FLEETS of school buses and ambulances come in for WARRENTY ball joints ambulances , fire trucks and school busses are INSPECTED every 50 days by LAW buddy u are no ford teck or you would know this >>????? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying >>>>>>Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear >>>>>>axle? If it ever comes out:) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >buddy u are no ford teck or you would know this never claimed I was. now, go back to whatever you were doing, tecH Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying >>>>>>>Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear >>>>>>>axle? If it ever comes out:) [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >Remove NO-SPAM from email address when replying then your advice about this topic is null and void hurc ast > Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent rear > axle? If it ever comes out:) Al, It's going to be a solid axle. According to Ford, most Mustang enthusiasts like to drag race and there's nothing better than a solid axle for that. Plus, Ford says a solid axle helps keep the price down by a couple grand. Personally, I like both reasons. Patrick '93 Cobra >> Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent >rear [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Patrick >'93 Cobra yup and ya change your mind if ya could corner hurc ast >> Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent > rear [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Personally, I like both reasons. It's just ford bullshit. They can put an IRS in a simple base level family sedan in austrailia. Ford can also build one that can hold up to drag racing just fine. They simply choose not to do so with the mustang because most buyers in the USA won't notice. Then they can pocket the money they don't spend on development. And I doubt it keeps the price down to us any. The price is what they think the market will bare and not a penny less. The top mustang here in the USA doesn't even get the same consideration as a grocery getter in another country. In the USA it's all about marketing and getting away with cheapening the product in any way they can. Will I put up with this? If it's the only definency, the price is really $40K, they really do build it to demand so I can just order one, there are aftermarket corrective actions I can install myself, and I haven't said 'the hell with it' and bought something else by the time it comes out. >>>Anyone know if the new Mustang Cobra will have a solid or independent >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > grocery getter in another country. In the USA it's all about marketing > and getting away with cheapening the product in any way they can. That grocery getter isn't sporting a 5.4L, DOHC, four valve head, fordged rotating assembly engine topped with a twin screw blower either. Nothing is perfect but, IMHO, the GT500 is damn close. In the real world I bet the difference in performance between the new solid axle design and an IRS setup is minimal at best. > Will I put up with this? If it's the only definency, the price is really > $40K, they really do build it to demand so I can just order one, there > are aftermarket corrective actions I can install myself, and I haven't > said 'the hell with it' and bought something else by the time it > comes out. >> It's just ford bullshit. They can put an IRS in a simple base level family >> sedan in austrailia. Ford can also build one that can hold up to drag [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > world I bet the difference in performance between the new solid axle > design and an IRS setup is minimal at best. So you are going to tell me ford engineers are morons? Come on. They can do it. In fact, that 'grocery getter' has high performance models as well. http://www.fpv.com.au/ 388hp from the boss 290 V8... If ford engineers can't make a proper IRS, then I doubt their ability to design the rest of the car. That's what makes it a matter of marketeer and bean-counter will, not one of 'too much horsepower'. Because if they can't do an IRS, they couldn't do the engine or transmission either. >>>It's just ford bullshit. They can put an IRS in a simple base level family >>>sedan in austrailia. Ford can also build one that can hold up to drag [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > do it. In fact, that 'grocery getter' has high performance models as well. > http://www.fpv.com.au/ 388hp from the boss 290 V8... Of course they can do it. Keep in mind there are many factors that they must consider before releasing any car. I don't see where anyone can complain about the car yet. It hasn't even hit the streets. We should all be thankful Ford is building this car... IRS or no IRS. The beauty of the 5.4L Ford is putting in the GT500 is that it is built for forced induction. This means it will see HUGE hp gains for very little money (aka the '03-'04 Cobras). Now that's what I want in and engine! Also, no N/A engine will ever remotely match the torque curve of a twin screw blown 5.4L engine. > If ford engineers can't make a proper IRS, then I doubt their ability to > design the rest of the car. That's what makes it a matter of marketeer > and bean-counter will, not one of 'too much horsepower'. Because if they > can't do an IRS, they couldn't do the engine or transmission either. My guess is that with the new geometry the actual handling improvement of using an IRS was minimal and probably not worth the weight or cost penalty. Especially considering the sheer torque numbers (600+ ft-lbs at the rear wheels) it must handle. Most reviews I have read about the Mustang GT actually show surprise at how well the new solid axle design performs. The GT500 will be several orders of magnitude better than the GT's rear suspension. I don't think many people will care about it having a solid axle and, in fact, more would prefer it than an IRS. I know I do for a car with this hp/torque potential. >> So you are going to tell me ford engineers are morons? Come on. They can >> do it. In fact, that 'grocery getter' has high performance models as well. >> http://www.fpv.com.au/ 388hp from the boss 290 V8... > Of course they can do it. Keep in mind there are many factors that they > must consider before releasing any car. I don't see where anyone can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > no N/A engine will ever remotely match the torque curve of a twin screw > blown 5.4L engine. We should be thankful for ford.... huh? I'm tired of products being cheapened, tired of instant-collectable marketing. Back in high school, sure it was great to take the copy of Road and Track and say 'nananananana look what the mustang has now camaro boy'. The luster of that wore off. When I got my '97 GT I was like, ok, I'll just modify it. I've done a few things but I just can't take the car down long enough or have the time to do get what I really want done, done. And there is stuff I just can't do myself (weld in subframe connectors) and finding a competent shop to do it is a risk I don't want to take with my car. There are just too many incompetents. Now I want the car done much closer to 'right' when I drive it off the dealer's lot. >> If ford engineers can't make a proper IRS, then I doubt their ability to >> design the rest of the car. That's what makes it a matter of marketeer >> and bean-counter will, not one of 'too much horsepower'. Because if they >> can't do an IRS, they couldn't do the engine or transmission either. > My guess is that with the new geometry the actual handling improvement > of using an IRS was minimal and probably not worth the weight or cost > penalty. What weight penalty? Both suspensions have control arms, differentionals, bearings, and axles. Maybe the CV's and a little in a worst case situation. But hardly anything to be all that concerned about. > Especially considering the sheer torque numbers (600+ ft-lbs > at the rear wheels) it must handle. The falcon IRS is already taking 400ft-lbs... It's not like IRS is a new technology any more. IMO even the GT and base 6 cylinder cars should be IRS. > Most reviews I have read about the > Mustang GT actually show surprise at how well the new solid axle design > performs. Look what they are comparing it to, the old quad-shock. Or the now gone F-bodies. I've been driving solid axle since I learned how to drive and I have grown tired of it on IL's ever worsening pavement. > The GT500 will be several orders of magnitude better than the > GT's rear suspension. What are they doing to it? There is no overcoming the mere physics of the thing that what happens on the left is transfered to the right and vice-versa. > I don't think many people will care about it > having a solid axle and, in fact, more would prefer it than an IRS. I > know I do for a car with this hp/torque potential. Most people won't care, I wrote that already. I think in the 21st century we can have an IRS that can handle this car's output within the about 40K price range. The only excuse I can accept is that the marketeers wouldn't allow time for the IRS to be done. Then again, they could have done it if IRS would be the only suspension type. >>>So you are going to tell me ford engineers are morons? Come on. They can >>>do it. In fact, that 'grocery getter' has high performance models as well. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > incompetents. Now I want the car done much closer to 'right' when I drive > it off the dealer's lot. If you want a BMW then be prepared to pay the price of a BMW. That just isn't the Mustang market. Ford has given us a car that is the best Mustang ever from about any yard stick you care to measure it with. It's a new (and much improved) chassis, the looks are almost universally liked, the drivetrain is very good and it can be had for the price of most four-door econo sedans. No other car can touch it for price verses performance. If you think the GT500 is just another "instant-collectable" marketing exercise then you must not be reading the same specification sheet that I am reading. >>>If ford engineers can't make a proper IRS, then I doubt their ability to >>>design the rest of the car. That's what makes it a matter of marketeer [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bearings, and axles. Maybe the CV's and a little in a worst case > situation. But hardly anything to be all that concerned about. Just look at the weight difference between and '03/'04 Cobra IRS and the GT solid rear. It is substantial. The GT500 would need an even beefier one to handle the torque output of a blown 5.4L and consequently weight even more. Also, I don't blame Ford for using a solid axle just to win a few "atta boys" from some lame car magazine writers or a few buyers that think the Mustang should be a BMW "M" series clone for half the price. >> Especially considering the sheer torque numbers (600+ ft-lbs >>at the rear wheels) it must handle. > > The falcon IRS is already taking 400ft-lbs... It's not like IRS is a new > technology any more. IMO even the GT and base 6 cylinder cars should be > IRS. Most buyers just don't care whether its IRS or solid axle. The car is selling like mad with a solid axle. There are many GT buyers that want a solid axle for better drag strip performance. The GT500 will easily be capable of 600-700 ft-lbs or torque at the rear wheels. That is a far cry from a six cylinder or even 400 ft-lbs at the crank. >> Most reviews I have read about the >>Mustang GT actually show surprise at how well the new solid axle design [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > F-bodies. I've been driving solid axle since I learned how to drive and I > have grown tired of it on IL's ever worsening pavement. If you haven't driven an '05 GT how do you know it handles bad with a solid axle? As I said, many of the magazine writers have been pleasantly surprised by how well it performs. If you want a world class IRS then break the piggy bank and buy a BMW. >>The GT500 will be several orders of magnitude better than the >>GT's rear suspension. > > What are they doing to it? There is no overcoming the mere physics of the > thing that what happens on the left is transfered to the right and > vice-versa. They could lower the car, change spring rates/shocks, bushing composition and even change the entire linkage design. I will bet you the GT500 design team won't be that concerned with a nice supple ride. This car is for those that want a bare knuckled brawler with a few table manners. >>I don't think many people will care about it >>having a solid axle and, in fact, more would prefer it than an IRS. I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for the IRS to be done. Then again, they could have done it if IRS would > be the only suspension type. I think Ford could have done an IRS if they chose too. In the end my guess is they saw little performance improvements for the cost and weight gain. Add to this that the majority of the target market for the car either doesn't care whether it has IRS, or actually prefer the solid axle, and it was an easy decision to make. If Ford can stick more money in their pocket at the same time then I really don't have a problem with that either. They aren't a non-profit organization. After all, none of us have to buy the car if we don't like it, can't afford it or think Ford is ripping us off. >> When I got my '97 GT I was like, ok, I'll just modify it. I've done a few >> things but I just can't take the car down long enough or have the time to >> do get what I really want done, done. > If you want a BMW then be prepared to pay the price of a BMW. That just > isn't the Mustang market. The mustang wouldn't be a BMW with an IRS. Have I compared the mustang to a BMW at all? No, I've compared to other mass produced _Fords_. > Ford has given us a car that is the best > Mustang ever from about any yard stick you care to measure it with. And the new mini is the best mini ever made too I'll guess. > It's a new (and much improved) chassis, the looks are almost universally > liked, the drivetrain is very good and it can be had for the price of > most four-door econo sedans. No other car can touch it for price verses > performance. What good is it if the axle hops on the rough pavement on the connection between I57 NB and the dan ryan expressway and sends the car into the jersey barrier? I often don't dare use the stock power of my '97 in situations like this because I know it would be unwise given the pavement only to see some crappy front driver go around me like it was nothing. > If you think the GT500 is just another > "instant-collectable" marketing exercise then you must not be reading > the same specification sheet that I am reading. Depends on what rumors are true and which aren't. I'll believe it isn't when I can walk into a ford dealer and order one below sticker or no more than sticker at the WORST. And I get to test drive it first. Not the no-test-drive-this-car-is-special stuff. >>>My guess is that with the new geometry the actual handling improvement >>>of using an IRS was minimal and probably not worth the weight or cost >>>penalty. >> What weight penalty? Both suspensions have control arms, differentionals, >> bearings, and axles. Maybe the CV's and a little in a worst case >> situation. But hardly anything to be all that concerned about. > Just look at the weight difference between and '03/'04 Cobra IRS and the > GT solid rear. It is substantial. The special case that proves the rule? > The GT500 would need an even beefier > one to handle the torque output of a blown 5.4L and consequently weight > even more. Also, I don't blame Ford for using a solid axle just to win > a few "atta boys" from some lame car magazine writers or a few buyers > that think the Mustang should be a BMW "M" series clone for half the price. A new chasis doesn't involve making a bolt-on IRS work on an essentially 1970s design never intended for anything but a solid axle. >>> Especially considering the sheer torque numbers (600+ ft-lbs >>>at the rear wheels) it must handle. >> The falcon IRS is already taking 400ft-lbs... It's not like IRS is a new >> technology any more. IMO even the GT and base 6 cylinder cars should be >> IRS. > Most buyers just don't care whether its IRS or solid axle. I've stated as much. Most people in this country don't care much above looks and gizmos. > The car is > selling like mad with a solid axle. There are many GT buyers that want > a solid axle for better drag strip performance. The GT500 will easily > be capable of 600-700 ft-lbs or torque at the rear wheels. That is a > far cry from a six cylinder or even 400 ft-lbs at the crank. I can't believe I am alone in wanting to turn and not living with the rear end skating on bumps and rough pavement. Or am I the only person of thinking of driving the car on the street in a state where winter degrades the roads more every passing year? (note in winter or in snow, but in summer on the roads messed up _by_ winter) >>> Most reviews I have read about the >>>Mustang GT actually show surprise at how well the new solid axle design >>>performs. >> Look what they are comparing it to, the old quad-shock. Or the now gone >> F-bodies. I've been driving solid axle since I learned how to drive and I >> have grown tired of it on IL's ever worsening pavement. > If you haven't driven an '05 GT how do you know it handles bad with a > solid axle? As I said, many of the magazine writers have been > pleasantly surprised by how well it performs. If you want a world class > IRS then break the piggy bank and buy a BMW. I haven't said it 'handles bad'. And no dealership around here is going to let me push the car hard enough to find out anyway. And I repeat, I am not comparing to BMWs, although in the $40K zone that starts to be viable. I've been careful in my comparison to other _fords_ in this thread. >>>The GT500 will be several orders of magnitude better than the >>>GT's rear suspension. >> What are they doing to it? There is no overcoming the mere physics of the >> thing that what happens on the left is transfered to the right and >> vice-versa. > They could lower the car, change spring rates/shocks, bushing > composition and even change the entire linkage design. I will bet you > the GT500 design team won't be that concerned with a nice supple ride. > This car is for those that want a bare knuckled brawler with a few > table manners. Not talking up and-down smoothness. I am talking the left changing the geometery on the right and vice versa. If you have a bump that displaces the right wheel, the left wheel is going to be displaced too. If you are cornering, the forces involved on the left will be transfered to the right and vice-versa. Nothing is going to change that. Some of the force transfer in cornering can be delt with, but the displacements can't. If I move a bar up at one end, it's going to move down at the other. Restricting one end from the other means bending the axle and housing. >>>I don't think many people will care about it >>>having a solid axle and, in fact, more would prefer it than an IRS. I >>>know I do for a car with this hp/torque potential. >> Most people won't care, I wrote that already. I think in the 21st century >> we can have an IRS that can handle this car's output within the about 40K >> price range. >> The only excuse I can accept is that the marketeers wouldn't allow time >> for the IRS to be done. Then again, they could have done it if IRS would >> be the only suspension type. > I think Ford could have done an IRS if they chose too. Which has been my point. > In the end my > guess is they saw little performance improvements for the cost and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > us have to buy the car if we don't like it, can't afford it or think > Ford is ripping us off. Yes, it's about money and the fact that people in the USA don't care or notice. That's why we get something like the Taurus and Austraila gets a car like the Falcon. And as far as not buying it, I already covered that. If it doesn't meet those conditions, then it's not likely going to be the car I buy. > <snip allot of good debate material> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And as far as not buying it, I already covered that. If it doesn't meet > those conditions, then it's not likely going to be the car I buy. To boil this all down I see the new Mustang as Ford giving 95% of Mustang enthusiasts 95% of what they wanted in a new model at a price they can afford. I think in todays auto market that is an outstanding achievement. This car will also bring people to the showroom who will then buy minivans, sedans etc. and further add to the roles of the Mustang faithful. I never quiet understand why people bitch about Ford wanting to make money. If it wasn't for profit none of us would have a job or collect a paycheck. When is the last time you refused a raise from your employer? This is essentially what you are expecting from Ford. They have designed and built a very good car in the Mustang and, IMO, they are entitled to receive as much profit as we will let them make off this vehicle. > I never quiet understand why people bitch > about Ford wanting to make money. As Toyota and Honda have proven, you make more money if you slide the balance of value vs. cost cutting more in the direction of value. As Ford and GM are proving, you go out of business if the bias is always in favor of cost cutting. I agree with Brent P that the V6 and GT Mustangs should have, and could have, come with IRS. The bean-counters said no, and Team Mustang covered for them with the story that no one wants IRS anyway. I agree with Michael that IRS capable of withstanding 600 ft-lbs is too much to ask for at a Mustang price, and would not work well on the drag strip anyway. SVT is always going to be hemmed in by the fact that you can't ask $50,000 for an option package on a car whose base price is $19,000. And it's my understanding that drag racing Cobra owners can't get rid of their IRS setups fast enough. 180 Out >>I never quiet understand why people bitch >>about Ford wanting to make money. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ford and GM are proving, you go out of business if the bias is always > in favor of cost cutting. My comments are specific to the Mustang. I'm not defending Ford's other models. > I agree with Brent P that the V6 and GT Mustangs should have, and could > have, come with IRS. The bean-counters said no, and Team Mustang > covered for them with the story that no one wants IRS anyway. The Mustang buyer is a somewhat unique. They aren't looking for the latest IRS design (hell they aren't even looking for an IRS period) but are looking for good performance at a reasonable price point. If Ford did as well pleasing their target market with their other models they would dominate the American auto business. They have hit the bullseye with the '05 Stang and whether it had an IRS or not wouldn't have made one bit of difference to the car's success. For every person that would have bought the car solely for an IRS they might have lost two buyers that hated it for a variety of reasons ranging from ease of gear swaps, weight addition and/or poor drag strip performance. > I agree with Michael that IRS capable of withstanding 600 ft-lbs is too > much to ask for at a Mustang price, and would not work well on the drag > strip anyway. SVT is always going to be hemmed in by the fact that you > can't ask $50,000 for an option package on a car whose base price is > $19,000. And it's my understanding that drag racing Cobra owners can't > get rid of their IRS setups fast enough. IMO, the bulk of '03/'04 Cobra buyers would either prefer a solid axle or wouldn't care if it had no IRS. How many cars have RWD, IRS and a torquey, powerful V-8 engine that doesn't cost in the neighborhood of $35k-$40k or more? I'm sure there might be a few but none are coming to mind. IMO, the solid axle is one of thing things that help to define the Mustang as the average person's affordable pony car. This is, in the end, really why the car has stood the test of time so well. I'm sure that one day it will have an IRS as standard but that day isn't today. > IMO, the bulk of '03/'04 Cobra buyers would either prefer a solid axle > or wouldn't care if it had no IRS. i can attest to that. i would have chosen a solid axle if given the option when buying. i applaud ford for building the new cobra with a solid rear. my opinion is that a solid axle in a stang can be built for the best of both worlds, ie the roush stage 3. i have never had an irs car before in my life, and i am not sure but i dont particularly like it. it is terrible to launch with all this power, but since the car is not engineered (weight balance, brakes, etc) for it, me swapping in a solid is only something i will do when the car is no longer my daily driver and strictly a track drag racer. chris 04 comp orange cobra vert ps - my 96 vert never exhibited any wheel hop (the power was limited compared to this car however, but it did give good clean launches) >> IMO, the bulk of '03/'04 Cobra buyers would either prefer a solid axle >> or wouldn't care if it had no IRS. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my opinion is that a solid axle in a stang can be built for the best of both > worlds, ie the roush stage 3. So solid axle good because a best-possible-solid-axle is better than a heavily compromised IRS? Come on now, at least make a -fair- comparison. > i have never had an irs car before in my life, and i am not sure but i dont > particularly like it. it is terrible to launch with all this power, but > since the car is not engineered (weight balance, brakes, etc) for it, me > swapping in a solid is only something i will do when the car is no longer my > daily driver and strictly a track drag racer. The car was designed for solid axle, the IRS on an SN95 is a bolt in done 20 years after the fact. > I never quiet understand why people bitch about Ford wanting to make > money. That's not the message I am trying to convey. As a customer I want to be treated with the same respect they treat their customers in other parts of the world. Not as some moron easily blinded by marketing schemes and sales copy. You can see the difference at the auto show in chicago. The german cars we can open the hood. The domestics try to disable it. I still managed to open the mustang's hood though. Silly people thought just unbolting the bracket from the dash would disable it. Merely made it a two hand operation. Of course I get funny looks when look under a car at it's suspension too... >>I never quiet understand why people bitch about Ford wanting to make >>money. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the world. Not as some moron easily blinded by marketing schemes and > sales copy. The foreign car makers do the same thing. The Japanese and European spec cars for their market are better than the ones they sell here. Some of the reason for it is government regulations differing from country to country. Other reasons are they thing we don't care about such things or maybe the competition here is different and they need to conform to a certain degree. > You can see the difference at the auto show in chicago. The german cars > we can open the hood. The domestics try to disable it. I still managed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Of course I get funny looks when look under a car at it's suspension too... True car enthusiasts know the real beauty lies under the sheet metal. :) >> In article <u-Odnf066t90s9bfRVn-jg@comcast.com>, Michael Johnson, >> PE wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > True car enthusiasts know the real beauty lies under the sheet > metal. :) ...which is why the GTO is a neat car. ;) Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>>>So you are going to tell me ford engineers are morons? Come on. They can >>>>do it. In fact, that 'grocery getter' has high performance models as well. [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] >us have to buy the car if we don't like it, can't afford it or think >Ford is ripping us off. they are tard look inside the solid axle all the SAME BEARINGS as in other ford products SAME GEARS as in other ford products ford is out to sell PARTS tard the same part IF possable use your head FFS an irs in a stang would give ya way better cornering hurc ast >>>>>So you are going to tell me ford engineers are morons? Come on. They can >>>>>do it. In fact, that 'grocery getter' has high performance models as well. [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > hurc ast foad <gerald smith@impco.com> wrote in message: > they are tard > look inside [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > hurc ast This coming from a Canadian Jiffy Lube employee. I see nothing wrong with the solid axle, provide it is a 9" with either the (N)odular, or (W)ar Case carrier. You can't beat them! Why do you think the Chebby guys are putting them in their race cars? Ever look at the rear end of the serious drag cars lately? I'd be willing to bet that 80 to 90% (maybe more) of them are sporting the Ford 9"! Look at the dragsters to, while your at it. As for the IRS in the Mustang, I remember reading on the Ford website, that they stated that the new platform will have everything in place so that the IRS can be utilized at a later date, without having to make any changes. I think Michael was on the money as to why the GT500 won't have it right away. But I'm sure that when they are satisfied that they have an IRS that can handle the torque that this beast will be capable of, it will be made available as an option. Personally, I'd take the solid axle over the IRS any day! > handle the torque that this beast will be capable of, it will be made > available as an option. Personally, I'd take the solid axle over the IRS any > day! I rutinely drive over a piece of pavement that will change your mind, at least for a little bit that day. :) It's been potholed and patched since I started driving that segment of road in 1989. Never resurfaced, just patches on top of patches. Oh, it's also interstate, on a curve going from one interstate to another (meaning that it is expected that you maintain speed more or less), just before an expansion plate with narrow (by interstate standards) shoulders and concrete barriers at the sides. "Brent P" wrote in a message: > I rutinely drive over a piece of pavement that will change your mind, at > least for a little bit that day. :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > expansion plate with narrow (by interstate standards) shoulders and > concrete barriers at the sides. Then you should try some of the roads in PA. There you pray for snow in the winter time so it fills the pot holes, cause they some times go months without being even patched. I guess the state workers like to stay in the warmth of their trucks, cause you never see them out working on the roads during the winter, except to plow the roads when it snows, and some times they don't even plow the snow, if they think more snow is coming the next day. I've been driving them since the early 70's. You're not telling me anything new! ;-) I've driven both, and I still prefer the solid axle, cause I get a better feel of the road, and what the car is doing. I guess that comes from going to empty parking lots covered with ice, and practicing controlling skids. I had gotten to the point where I could go places with normal tires on my car where others couldn't go with studded winter tires or chains. > Then you should try some of the roads in PA. There you pray for snow in the > winter time so it fills the pot holes, cause they some times go months [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > normal tires on my car where others couldn't go with studded winter tires or > chains. I don't see how a solid rear axle gives a better 'feel' for the road than an IRS. I get a better feel for the road because it's a RWD car, not because it's a solid axle. Practicing skid control for snow isn't what I am talking about. Not talking about snow at all. I don't think IRS is going to make any difference in snow for good or bad. What I am talking about is the rear end picking some random direction to go over bad pavement. Sure, I've learned to compensate for it and how to deal with it. But I still don't like living with it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.