z31maniac wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
mad_machine wrote:
I can see them doing IRS for cost reasons. I think the Mustang is the only vehicle in Ford's lineup that still uses a stick axle. yes, the F150/250/350/etcetc all use it as does the Econoline, but those are beafy truck axles. The rest of Ford's Line that uses a driven rear axle has gone to IRS.
While I am sure most of it is bespoke, I am willing to bet it will use the centre diff casing from the Exploder, probably the axles too
Which RWD car that Ford sells is IRS?
All the SUV's use IRS, correct?
None of them are RWD- they are all FWD that is converted to AWD. Different animal.
Unless you are talking about the Expedition, which is a stick.
bravenrace wrote:
Not to mention that IRS generally increases costs and weight and complexity for a benefit that almost nobody notices.
Alternatively, even among Mustang faithful I've generally seen it specifically noted how much more smoothly bumps are handled on the IRS Mustangs vs their stick axle counterparts. It's hard not to notice a ~75lb reduction in unsprung weight on a single axle, even on a 3500lb car. Hell, I could easily feel the ride improvement dropping an unsprung ~15 lbs per axle from my Miata, even though that also used a bit stiffer sidewall of tires at the same time. In my opinion, the average masses of sporty car buyer are likely to notice a significant improvement in ride quality on the street more than any of the advantages that the solid axle can deliver on a smooth race track.
ransom
UberDork
8/21/13 11:02 a.m.
aussiesmg wrote:
Beats the berkeley out of the Smiley face EVERYONE else is doing.
Nobody stumbling into this thread is doing a smiley face... 
In reply to Driven5:
And you and the Mustang faithful are the minority of customers buying the Mustang. The average customer would never notice the difference.
Driven5 wrote:
bravenrace wrote:
Not to mention that IRS generally increases costs and weight and complexity for a benefit that almost nobody notices.
Alternatively, even among Mustang faithful I've generally seen it specifically noted how much more smoothly bumps are handled on the IRS Mustangs vs their stick axle counterparts. It's hard not to notice a ~75lb reduction in unsprung weight on a single axle, even on a 3500lb car. Hell, I could easily feel the ride improvement dropping an unsprung ~15 lbs per axle from my Miata, even though that also used a bit stiffer sidewall of tires at the same time. In my opinion, the average masses of sporty car buyer are likely to notice a significant improvement in ride quality on the street more than any of the advantages that the solid axle can deliver on a smooth race track.
I agree! Good points....
-Hamid, the elitist that owns a Spitfire with a swing spring
In reply to bravenrace:
You have your opinions based on your prejudices and experiences, and I have mine.
In reply to Driven5:
No prejudices here. I'd like it to get an IRS! But I've driven several Mustangs at length and certainly wouldn't condemn it for not having one. I also think it's a fairly safe assumption that the majority of Mustang buyers are not avid autosports enthusiasts.
In reply to bravenrace:
...And I think it's a fairly safe assumption that even non-enthusiast car buyers can feel a significant difference in ride quality, actually being the ones more likely to have their decision influenced by such things as comfort..
I don't condemn the current Mustang for having a solid axle either...They've done pretty much the best they can within it's limitations. It's just my experience and belief that in the long run, the improved ride quality alone of IRS will be far more beneficial to selling Mustangs than anything the solid axle can offer. And it's fine with if your experience runs counter to that, but I don't expect either of us will ever convince the other to change their opinion on the subject.
alfadriver wrote:
None of them are RWD- they are all FWD that is converted to AWD. Different animal.
Didn't stop GM from using a Buick Rendevous IRS on the Solstice, although it could be that GM overdesigned that IRS setup or used a larger rear torque split.
Driven5 wrote:
In reply to bravenrace:
...And I think it's a fairly safe assumption that even non-enthusiast car buyers can feel a significant difference in ride quality, actually being the ones more likely to have their decision influenced by such things as comfort.
Yes.
That's why the majority drive Civic's/Camry's/Accord's.
Or why you don't see people decrying BMW's use of a MacStrut setup in front instead of a dual A-arm.
Just more bench racing.
m4ff3w
UltraDork
8/21/13 11:55 a.m.
alfadriver wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
mad_machine wrote:
I can see them doing IRS for cost reasons. I think the Mustang is the only vehicle in Ford's lineup that still uses a stick axle. yes, the F150/250/350/etcetc all use it as does the Econoline, but those are beafy truck axles. The rest of Ford's Line that uses a driven rear axle has gone to IRS.
While I am sure most of it is bespoke, I am willing to bet it will use the centre diff casing from the Exploder, probably the axles too
Which RWD car that Ford sells is IRS?
All the SUV's use IRS, correct?
None of them are RWD- they are all FWD that is converted to AWD. Different animal.
Unless you are talking about the Expedition, which is a stick.
Didn't the Expedition go IRS in '03?
tuna55
PowerDork
8/21/13 12:13 p.m.
Just for laughs, in a few months when this thread is forgotten, I'll make a new one called "Mustang" and leave it at that and see how long it devolves into people preaching from the IRS pulpit.
In reply to tuna55:
I'm looking forward to that.
z31maniac wrote:
Or why you don't see people decrying BMW's use of a MacStrut setup in front instead of a dual A-arm.
Just more bench racing.
Having owned a BMW with the Strut front suspension.. it is -very- good. There is very little complain about with it
In reply to m4ff3w:
Same time when one could get IRS om a mustang and people took them off.
Thought this an interesting comparison... for all the fear/hype etc. about this taking on the corporate front end or copying an Aston or whatever, it sure looks like an evolution of the current design language to me (shrugs)
It's basically the current Mustang front end with slightly different headlights.
mad_machine wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
Or why you don't see people decrying BMW's use of a MacStrut setup in front instead of a dual A-arm.
Just more bench racing.
Having owned a BMW with the Strut front suspension.. it is -very- good. There is very little complain about with it
That's exactly my point. The current stick/3-link rear in the back of a modern Mustang is VERY good.
It's not as good, theoretically, as an IRS. Just like a MacStrut, isn't as good as a dual A-arm or multi-link.
It's just bench racing.
yamaha
PowerDork
8/21/13 1:29 p.m.
In reply to m4ff3w:
I thought that was just the explorer and sport trac......
In reply to yamaha:
http://machinedesign.com/archive/2003-ford-expedition-mighty-and-nimble
yamaha
UltimaDork
8/21/13 2:38 p.m.
In reply to bravenrace:
Touche, missed that one somewhere.
As far as the mustang is concerned, it hasn't seemed to handicap them any. Most of the people complaining about the live rear in this thread would complain if it had IRS anyway.
yamaha wrote:
In reply to m4ff3w:
I thought that was just the explorer and sport trac......
Being that we stopped making those, I was not including them on possible design usages. Moreso, since using trucks as examples of live axles was also being dismissed. Those chassis are long gone.
But, hey, if it's useful to the bench racing, particularly looking into the eye of the people who actually put down money to buy Mustangs, go for it. If the intention is to go back in time, just remember that this platform is a derivative of the LS. (and I seem to think that quite a few more Mustangs with live axles with this chassis has been sold than LS, given equal number of years)
Other than that, we do NOT make a RWD car other than the Mustang.
yamaha
UltimaDork
8/21/13 3:22 p.m.
I am confused by why you are "arguing".....there isn't anything to argue.
Can we now fight about how a C5 z06 sucks because it uses leaf springs? And how therefore it's suspension must be the same as an old horse drawn buggy that also uses leaf springs?
