Why Civics have IRS and Mustangs don't

that. Seems

down KIA POS.

buying them.

Darn straight. I'd love a GTS or LX stripper: GT guts, but with the V6 styling, cloth interior, and power nutin'.

(For my desktop wallpaper, I'm trying to decide between

and and leaning toward the former... Those wheels are so sweet!)

There are many millions cars out there with power and torque equivalent to the Mustang that also use irs and we haven't heard of any of them poping half shafts. I'm sure Ford can come up with a relatively sturdy half shaft that'll handle the load. Actually they have. The Lincoln LS and the Mustang Cobra. The Cobra half shafts would live very happily in the plain or GT Mustang. It would have made more sense to use irs for all Mustangs and make the live axle an expensive option for dragsters. How many Mustang owners actually need the added extreme durability of a live axle? Only those few highly modified 1/4 mile dragsters. I'm sure they represent less than 0.01% of all mustang owners.

Like I said before, my opinion is that Ford is trying to maintain enough of a technological and performance gap between the GT and the Cobra to justify the huge Cobra markup, and to make cobra buyers feel like they're getting something special for the extra $$$$$. BTW there's usually a significant price to pay in ride and comfort to get similar performance from a live axle as you would with irs. Try taking a high speed corner on rough pavement with a live axle and watch your rear end dance around. A real boost in confidence.

Having said all this, I'm sure Ford will make a load of money selling Mustangs because they are cheap and look good. The irs issue is a matter of principle. I'm sure the decision was made by the marketing department rather than engineering. Being an engineer, I'm not too fond of marketing departments.

Raffi

Uh, wait just a minute there! ;-) In 1999, the Mustang V6 coupe and the Civic Si coupe had allot in common. I looked at both.

I chose the Civic because the seats were shaped better (sportier), the

5-speed shifter was allot slicker, and I felt more comfortable in the back seat (my wife occasionally drives her mother around and I take the back).

The Mustang had better low-end but the Civic had better mileage (much better city mpg). The Mustang was slightly larger and much heavier (no doubt making it safer), though the '99 Civic coupe was considered to be one of the safest small cars in at least two separate tests, second only to the VW Golf/NB. Overall performance (0-60 and 1/4m) was similar, with the 5-speed V6 Mustang being slightly quicker.

The Mustang had ricey fake scoops while the Civic (even for the "sporty" model), was very conservatively styled (no factory rice whatsoever - not even a rear spoiler was standard).

The Civic cost a little more but had a power moon roof (nice to have in FL). Had I been able to afford the convertible (my #1 priority and the reason I was at the Ford dealership in the first place), I would have chosen the Mustang.

Plus, my previous Civic at 7 yrs / 140k was remarkably dependable (my current Civic at 5 years / 70k miles also has an immaculate service record so far - knock on plastic). However, my parent's '87 Escort GT also had a stellar service record at that age.

So at one time, you COULD compare at least one brand new Civic model to a Mustang model, IMHO. But not today (no Civic Si coupe and performance gap has widened).

My next car may or may not be a convertible, but it WILL be a Mustang GT (regardless or rear suspension)! That's only because I'm absolutely crazy about the new styling (inside and out)!

Follow-up: =======

Oh, and the 300 horses!

I may know nuthin' about cars, but this HAS to feel good! My friend's brand new 92(?) 300ZX turbo sure did (300 hp / 283 ft-lbs). Man, that was one smooth ride (pearl white w/black leather)!

True but how many car makers offer 300+ hp/torque RWD vehicles with IRS for less than $24k?

I wouldn't say they are idiots. They keep the engineers in check IMO so the vehicle's cost doesn't get out of control. They also are there to insure Ford makes a profit AND sells as many cars as possible which in turn keeps the Mustang alive. I give the marketers as much credit as the engineers for giving us what I consider to be the best Mustang ever.

I have a question for you or anyone else. I've stated the following stuff about my '99 Civic coupe (from the original sticker and magazines)...

- f/r dbl wishbone

- f/r stabilizers

- progressively valved gas charged struts

- front torsion

- 4-wheel disk

- V-rated Michelin Pilots

What I love about my car is that it always feels tight, even 5 yrs / 70k miles later. Granted, I get my car serviced by Honda and strictly by the book. I also take very good care of it (always waxed and hardly ever abused), and it's completely bone stock. I also replaced the tires with the same Michelins that it came with (XGT R205/50 R15 84V).

The car stays straight on the road and the steering wheel is always perfectly lined up (dead-on center). I feel connected to the road. When I drive quickly on a cloverleaf for example, I always feel in complete control. Is it the dbl wishbone? Is it that my car is light (3650 lbs.)? Is it the $500.00+ tires (I can't believe tires cost so much for an econobox)?

Of course, the power will be no comparison, but will the new GT feel this good in the turns or even better? Honestly, I'm a little concerned as some previous Mustangs felt a little sloppy to me (steering felt vague and...I dunno...rubbery). That was some time back, though.

Oops. Make that 2650 lbs.

You're comparing apples to oranges... A Civic to Mustang comparison, simply can't be done.

Bullits with few suspensi> > > There are many millions cars out there with power and torque

So does my '97 mustang at 96K

I do it almost all myself. Honda does a good job selling it's service and maintence. So a person buys brand X, never changes the oil let alone takes care of anything else and the car of course never lasts as long as the honda he replaces it with that gets taken care of.

Even my beat up winter car manages that.

Another so....

That statement right there shows you don't know the process. Engineers are aware and responsible for the cost of the product. If I had a penny on the dollar for every bit of cost I've taken out of products on my own I would never need to work again.

As far as an IRS line item option, this should be easy to accomplish in the factory for such a small cost it could just be passed right on to the customer as part of the added cost for optioning the IRS.

But the marketeers like to do all this branding and exclusivity crap so the line item optioning is denied for some things and not for others. It's arbitary in most cases. And when they are pulling the BS they do with the cobra by creating a rariety situation, it's not like they aren't going to sill sell every cobra they build if people can get IRS on the GT. In fact they might sell a few more GTs to people who would have gone to another manufacturer instead.

The marketeers are the ones that say cheapen the brakes and put in cup holders. Because the brakes don't sell cars but cupholders do.

But it WAS done in my case! Two brand new coupes with similar price tags and similar overall performance.

"WraithCobra" wrote

Well, after reading the contributions to this thread, I take it back. If gearheads don't esteem irs over a solid axle, then why should Ford? It appears to be the ramfm consensus that it is logically impossible to hold the Mustang-buying public in contempt, that you can rate its taste and discretion as low as you like and it's called realism, not contempt.

But here's the truth: while neither Honda owners nor Mustang owners may "care" what's going on under their butts, Honda owners get irs and Mustang owners don't. Why? Because Honda has always tried to build the best cars they can for their customers and Ford has only rarely done so. That's a fact, and all the preachings to the choir in this thread don't make it any less a fact. And another fact is that, while the consuming public might not "care" if they have irs or any other technically advanced feature in their vehicles, they do care about the feel of their vehicles, about all the intangibles that go into the ownership experience, and about the status that their vehicle choices confer on them. Over the long run, a consensus is reached as to who makes the good cars and does not. So Ford or GM or Mopar makes a cost-saving decision here and another one there and pretty soon you've got a crappy car and a line-up full of crappy cars, and the poor, ignorant, doesn't-care-about-technology buying public knows it. And pretty soon after that, Detroit is out of business.

Now that's something I "care" about.

Here are some figures for 2003, comparing the top ten selling cars in the U.S. in 2003 for the U.S. as a whole, for California, and for the San Francisco Bay Area:

---------U.S.----------California--------Bay Area

1. Toyota Camry--------Toyota Camry------Honda Accord
2. Honda Accord--------Honda Accord------Toyota Corolla
3. Ford Taurus---------Toyota Corolla----Honda Civic
4. Honda Civic---------Honda Civic-------Toyota Camry
5. Toyota Corolla------Ford Focus--------Ford Taurus
6. Chevrolet Impala----Nissan Altima-----Ford Focus
7. Chevrolet Cavalier--Ford Taurus-------Volkswagen Jetta
8. Ford Focus----------Ford Mustang------Nissan Altima
9. Nissan Altima-------Volkswagen Jetta--Ford Mustang

10.Chevrolet Malibu----Mercedes-Benz C---BMW 325

Think of this as a crystal ball look at what the U.S. market might look like in five years, with the California column moving into the U.S. column, and the Bay Area column moving into the California one. You doubt it? Consider that the three Detroit automakers are on the verge of dropping below a combined 50% market share; that the "Big Three" combined no longer claim as large a share of the new car market as GM alone enjoyed just 20 years ago.

As to the contention that it's not possible to build a bullet-proof half-shaft, that's just plain silly. Vettes have had irs since 1963, and have had some pretty torquey motors in the lineup during that timeframe. Currie and other hotrod outfits are currently making Ford

9" inch irs setups basically in their own garages. If shadetree hotrodders can do it, why can't Ford?

Also silly is the idea that a solid axle can be made to handle better than a "stock" Cobra irs. Real roads have real bumps. IRS rides and handles better, with lower spring rates, than a solid axle. This is what gives the Civic, the BMW, the Ferrari, the what have you, a quality feel, a feeling of competence, that no solid axle car can ever have.

Also silly is the idea that we can't change from what we have because the new setup will be too expensive to mod compared to the old one. If Ford built 170,000 irs Mustangs per year (actually I predict sales over the first few years in the 200,000's), within four to six years there would be 1,000,000 of them out there. With a market like that, the ability to mod the irs would be there too.

Whatever. The Usenet is so useless for actual discussion. All this "rolls eyes" stuff and "I'm ignorant, I don't read Car & Driver, and I'm proud of it" and "why don't you post to the Civic group," and "this must be bait." The guys who post that kind of crap are a bunch of morons whose opinions don't mean shit.

180 Out TS 28

'65 Ford Mustang fb (solid axle) '70 Mercury Cougar (solid axle) '88 Ford Aerostar (solid axle) '01 Toyota Echo (irs) (Guess which car has the best "feel"?)

Follow-up: =======

I know the Civic competes with the Focus (and in the past, the Escort) and NOT the Mustang. This much is obvious.

Just pointing out that once-upon-a-time, there was at least an overlap in new models (for a new car shopper who doesn't mod his cars). Also, before the Civics' suspension gets too flamed in this thread, it's not THAT bad - I think Honda put a decent suspension in my car, for an econobox.

BTW, there's been no Civic / Mustang overlap in the most recent years IMO, and the new V6 will most likely blow away even the quickest new Civic (which keep getting slower with crappier suspension).

The current Civic was designed for "Jennifer, the young female professional..." and I doubt Jenny knows or even cares what suspension she has.

This is all way over my head. I saw "Civics" in the title of the thread and thought I must defend, but I don't even know what I'm trying to defend. My mistake.

Dude, the new Mustang is gonna rock! Damn, the car looks nice! I don't care what if it has IRS or not, as long as it "feels" good. We shall see...

IMO, what makes your car feel the way it does is in large part due to its light weight. I have a Triumph Spitfire in my younger days and while it was way underpowered it handled better than any car (a 240SX I had was very close though) I have owned since. It weighed 1,900 lbs. and it would take 90 degree turns at 70-80 mph with ease. I could four wheel drift it at will. I remember a friend had a '78 Trans Am and if I could get in front of him on a twisting road I would leave him in the dust. Even though the car had 56 hp it was simply a blast to drive.

Also, a getting performance from a front wheel drive car is much different than how you get it from a torquey rear drive one. I think if you could drive a car like a 240SX or Miata that is small and rear wheel drive you'll see a difference in steering feedback and handling performance relative. The steering will feel much lighter since the car isn't being steering by the drive wheels. Also, steering feedback would likely be better.

Honda makes decent handling cars but IMO they are inherently limited by being front wheel drive. A lot of this comes from weight transfer from the front to the rear of an accelerating car. This gives traction to the drive wheels for a rear wheel drive car while in a FWD car it takes traction away from them. If front wheel drive had a performance advantage over rear wheel drive then there would be car makers utilizing it their higher performance vehicles (i.e. Corvette, Viper, Porsche, M3, etc.).

No because the civic is a FWD car. There is no savings in making a non-IRS rear in a FWD car. You have to go out of your way to make a non IRS on a FWD car.

It's a fact that honda does a good job with the image.

I'll bet if I go over my parents' honda I can find a variety of cost cutting designs. As far as 'feel' is concerned, there is no way that a FWD car is going to 'feel' better to me than a RWD car.

A consensus of *PERCEPTION* is reached.

If you think 'japan' isn't doing that think again. My favorite was a cutout of an *ACURA* engine that they used to have at the auto shows. I coined the phrase '12th century crank shaft' to describe the crank in the engine. The casting process was so crude that not only did the surface finish suck, the weight parts had been _machined_ to get them balanced and remove interferences with the block.

Then I suggest you don't buy cars. Because they've all been cost cut. And they all have been cut to where performance in one aspect or another has been compromised.

Wooptie do.

I cannot comment well on the topic as I don't know all that much about the current cobra IRS. The current cobra IRS is a very compromised unit I am sure. It has been designed to be a *BOLT IN* for a car that was never designed to have an IRS. Also, there are things backyard folks can do because they are making one that ford can't do because they are making thousands.

The '05 mustang should have no such suffering.

A good solid axle can be better than a poor IRS. That's what you are missing.

You're a brand troll, the suits fits so wear it. You could have had a discussion of ford's IRS choices alone and not come off as a brand troll. Instead, you decided to do a why-honda-is-better troll post.

Thanks for that explanation. :-)

My '89 CRX Si was very light and nimble, but of course it was still FWD. I don't know what the Honda S2000 weighs, but I reckon having RWD makes it feel like no other Honda (except maybe for the NSX).

In '99, I test drove a GT (salesman insisted) and I remember that the steering felt...I dunno...sorta disconnected and that was a bit odd to me for being a sports car. I'm sure I just wasn't used to it and it may have just been the one I tried that day. It sure had power, though! I've been meaning to rent a Mustang V6 convertible for the weekend to see if I REALLY want a smaller convertible (compared to something like a Sebring).

I never thought of FWD having any performance advantages except for foul weather driving, so I'm told. My only RWD car was my very first car, a '78 Mustang II 4-banger. LOL! I don't remember how it drove or handled (not that it would matter).

Do I hear a big fat Zero? The Cobra can pop the new and improved half shafts with a few hard drag radial launches. It's been said before, Ford can save a mint shaving a few bucks off each car it builds and will where they can. Why else was the lock cylinder on the passenger door deleted? The Cobra's IRS is not much better than the GT's live axel for everyday driving. How many people will buy a Mustang GT and notice any difference on the street if it were IRS? I suspect very few. As a new Cobra owner I could have cared less about the IRS before I bought. I didn't purchase a Cobra in the past becuse I didn't think the performance difference was worth the premium price. Now the supercharger and the 390+ hp/torque numbers, that's what I wanted to see and is why I bought one. If you want to modify the GT for track use or just for better handling, there are much better alternatives then a factory IRS.