More On Next Gen Mustang

Keep in mind this comes from Motor Trend, not the most reliable
source...
formatting link

But from what I've been reading these changes seem to be the current
general consensus of industry speculators. I thought the most
interesting comments came from Jack Telnack.
Patrick
Reply to
patrick.mckenzie84
formatting link
They're gonna have to pry my live rear axle out of my cold, dead hands.
Seriously... I'm not sure I can drive a car with an independent rear suspension.
I like Telnack's thinking here. The other two appear to be confused as to what the name "Mustang" means.
d
Reply to
dwight
formatting link
Now that the engineering teams have made the solid axle handle well my concern would be ford cheapening out on the IRS and producing something that wasn't as good in one or more respects. I would still have prefered IRS for a number of reasons but it's a good solid axle set up now and it would be shame to have a not-so-good IRS in its place.
But even a falcon today would have IRS. Although it would likely be FWD too...
Reply to
Brent
formatting link
With the amount of power and times the stock Mustangs can run now, that will be a problem at NHRA tracks.
Reply to
WindsorFo
Agree.
Kinda like GM found out during the magazine tests when the Mustang's suspension was often praised and the Camaro's panned. In fact one of the magazines had a quote in a {Mustang vs Camaro] comparison something like I'd rather have a world-class solid-axle setup than a marginal IRS.
Me too... That's what I thought too, Dwight.
But, and excuse the pun, I think too many people get wrapped around the axle about a lack of IRS. I say who cares what it uses? It's all about the performance! And when you see the plain-Jane Mustang GT seriously being compared to a BMW M3 I think people should shut up about the lack of IRS.
(Now I wish one of the magazines would run a solid-axle Boss 302 against the BMW M3, because I'd bet it would be no comparison -- Mustang would score a decisive knockout victory.)
Oh, and one more thing: It also gets me when some folks complain a solid axle car, no matter how good it is, will shudder a little on bumpy pavement when going around a corner. I say it's a performance car -- they all have some compromises. And if you're not willing to accept that you're shopping in the wrong market... let me direct you to a nice vanilla, entry-level Toyota Camry.
Patrick
Reply to
patrick.mckenzie84
I have and put my money behind it too :) That said I think all the griping about the solid rear pushed ford to make it a top notch solid axle suspension. Will there be enough push for them to do the same with an IRS?
Reply to
Brent
I don't doubt they could. Ford seems to have some very talented chassis guys because since the 1993 Cobra (that Fox was as dialed-in as it could be -- for what they had to work with) they've had a string of hits.
Patrick
Reply to
patrick.mckenzie84
It isn't a question of ability, Ford has the ability, it's a question of cost vs. marketing vs. engineering. If my product development experience is any guide by giving ford grief over the solid axle it motivated sales and marketing so engineering was free to do good work. Marketing might be satisified just to have IRS which would make for a bean counter beat down on cost.
Reply to
Brent
: = :
Good points. Though when I wrote "ability" I meant it to include the engineers' instincts to hit the sweet spot. Case in point the 1993 Cobra's suspension tuning. None of the tweaks were costly, marketing probably would have argued firmer suspension tuning sells better, but the engineers knew to make it work better (than the standard 5-oh cars) softer was the way to go. So that's what I meant.
Patrick
Reply to
patrick.mckenzie84

Site Timeline Threads

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.