2005 Mustang suspension

I hope Ford re-thinks this. As I understand, their thinking is that all Stang buyers purchase their cars to go to the drag strip and this is far from the truth.

I own two Stangs, and 89 with a 5.0 and a 2000 GT with the 4.8, and the main criticism that I have to endure is the handling. Prior to this year, you did not get a significant performance advantage to pay out the additional amount for the Cobra just to get an independent rear end. Granted the 2003 Cobra has handling and HP to knock on the door to the Corvette for a little less than their sticker price, it is still way above what a lot of imports provide their sport cars with. I think that if Ford was to put and independent rear that the true diehard NHRA enthusiast will convert it to run on the strip (most already modify stock rearends to stand up to the abuse that running sub 11's take on the drivetrain).

I doubt this was Ford's reason for not using an IRS, as it is clearly stated that the warranty is void if the car is used for racing. It's the bean counters making these decisions. To keep the Mustang at a sub $20K sticker and the GT at around $26K, they had to use a cheaper solid axel set up over the IRS. And don't forget those warranty issues, more parts for something to go wrong with in an IRS. Alot of V6 Mustang buyers barely know the diference between FWD and RWD, so IRS is just another three letters of the alphabet. The majority of Mustang GT buyers wouldn't notice any difference between IRS and solid axel during every day driving on the street. The '03 Cobra IRS has seen major improvements over the '01 set up and still has many issues. I know I'm talking about a unit that is made to fit into the mounting points of a solid axel, but would a purpose built unit for a new frame designed for IRS be that much better? From Ford, I doubt it.

I've also owned an '89, '98, and '00 GT and this was also my reasoning for not moving up to the earlier Cobras. This also easily proves a point. Spend a few thousand on the GT frame and suspension, keeping the solid axel, and it will handle as well as or better than a stock Cobra. The IRS is a small part of the handling equation, so for the buying masses a cheaper platform turns more profit. Does a V6 coupe or convertable bought by Mr. or Mrs. Everyday really need IRS?

I think 99% of the V6 buyers could care less about IRS, so keeping the cost down is a selling point. Less than half of the GT buyers care about IRS so cost wins again, but 99% of the Cobra buyers want it and will pay to have it. The Cobra gets it although at a compromise, it has to fit in place of the solid axel. Oh well.

Far from the truth? I think you need to look at the demographics a little closer. Most Mustangs I know race straight line. The drag racing crowd on every Mustang forum I know of is by far the largest. Sure, there are a lot that road race and a lot that do both, but the vast majority of Mustang owners I've come into contact with do stoplight to stoplight and drag. Hang out at some other forums for any length of time and this will become pretty clear.

With this in mind, the 8.8 solid axle is a much better performer and cheaper to operate.

Really? I hang with drag racers who have been whining since '99 that the Cobra was compromised for their sport :). I hear more criticism about handling from non-Mustang owners than I do from owners. It's the favorite straw-man of the import crowd. And they aren't wrong, it just isn't the highest priority of most of the Mustang owners I've met.

The Cobra owners are the exception to this. But there are far fewer of them than the GT.

How do you define performance? In every year except '93 the Cobra outperformed the GT in every category. Every year after '95 the Cobra made more power with the same mods and went faster for a given amount of money. The 4V breaths better, that's all there is to it. Mod for mod, with the same driver, the Cobra will beat a GT every time.

What's that worth to you?

What imports provide 400 bhp for $35k? 500 bhp for $37k? 600 bhp for $40k!! The imports have an advantage in handling but lose horribly in overall bang-for-the-buck, even against the Cobra. And even '03 Cobra handling is nothing compared to a 'Vette. It's barely competitive at best. But it's cheaper to work on :).

Yeah, they'll do what they do now. Swap it out for a solid axle. Since, as far as I can tell, the straight-liners are far more numerous than the road racers, I think Ford will continue with it's proven course of action: put a solid axle on the GT.

Dan '03 Cobra convertible Some stuff and things

Maybe if handling was more part of the package, so many 1980s Mustang owner wouldn't have wrapped their cars around trees and the insurance wouldn't be 33% higher than an Acura CL-S, a car with a similar price to a Mach-1 and the same (relatively) power as a GT Mustang.

-Rich

It's easy to blame the car. Perhaps you should take a look at all the riced out integras that get wrapped around trees. It's certainly no fault of the driver, so it must be the car's handling.

Vic

Well said, Dan! Couldn't agree more! Except, for the '93 Cobra not outperforming the '93 GT in every category.

Patrick '93 Cobra

Rich,

How many owners of 80's Mustangs have wrapped them around trees? And how does this number compare with other makes of cars? Have you taken a poll or done a survey?

Me... I'd blame worn rear tires (from doing smokey burnouts), poor weight distribution, and a torqey engine for the reason(s) Mustangs get away from their drivers.

Added note: IRS isn't going to save a driver who does not understand and respect the limits of his car.

Patrick (been driving Fox Mustangs for 16 straight accident-free years) '93 Cobra '83 LTD

I driven a turbo Dodge Stealth. Believe me, it's at least partly the car.

-Rich

Handling has nothing to do with insurance rates. Even if the Mustang were the hottest road car on the planet, able to crush F1 race cars with ease but with a suspension that practically drove itself, the insurance rates would be high. Mustangs are raced, Mustangs have accidents, Mustangs are stolen, and Mustangs are typically owned by (younger) people who drive faster. More so than other cars. Unfortunately that makes for higher insurance.

Dan

[snip]

I apologize, you are correct. I was just reading my "SVT Mustang Cobra Recognition Guide", specifically about the '93 Cobra, and I had simply forgotten that they actually put some very nice pieces on that car's motor. I spoke out of turn.

My sincere apologies to the '93 Cobra and it's owners :).

Dan

Look at the accident and insurance for a vette. I suppose it needs better handling to cure that...................

----------------- Jim '88 LX 5.0 (now in car heaven) '89 LX 5.0 vert '99 GT 35th Anniversery Edition - Silver Mods to date - Relocated trunk release to drivers side, shortened throttle cable.

Mustangs dropped off the top 10 stolen list long ago, they used to be number 2 or 3. They now have ABS They have anti-slip. Airbags.

Better handling could only help with those inexperienced younger drivers.

-Rich

Where can I find this data?

-Rich

And they are still stolen.

Which allows Mustang drivers to drive faster because they think they can stop better.

Which allows Mustang drivers to take off harder in less than ideal conditions and go faster than they should.

Which does absolutely nothing to prevent accidents.

How? Mustang owners tend to already want a sporty car and already tend to drive too fast, hence the increased insurance rates. How does making the car capable of going faster and expanding the performance envelope diminish accident potential? You are assuming that a car with better performance equipment is treated the same way as the same car when it had poor handling. I think it's more likely that those people who buy Mustangs will tend to drive faster, not at the same speeds.

Improving the handling and balance of an Accord helps reduce accidents. I don't see any evidence that this is a true statement for a Mustang. The demographic is different. The owners expectations and reasons for ownership are very different.

Dan