Is that IRS on that 2010 Mustang??

[eddiehaskell]

No. The Camaro will likely be packing the 425hp LS3 as their only V8 offering, and we might be talking about a $30,000-$35,000 base price for a cloth-seated manual model. Add leather and various electronic goodies, we're easily looking at a $40,000+ V8 Camaro.

 

Consider that Dodge's 425hp Challenger model starts at $38,000, and it makes more sense.

So let me see - the Pontiac G8 GT cost $29,995 with a 6 speed automatic and a good set of features (6 airbags, w/ full-length side curtain airbags, 18 inch alloy wheels, sports body kit, power-adjustable front seats, and a 7-speaker audio system with satellite radio system).

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Camaro V8 start at the same price or possibly $28,995 with the same features. The current base Mustang cost $27k, so a refreshed Mustang GT with a new engine and possibly IRS will likely be a $28,xxx - $29,000 car. That would put the Camaro and Mustang right in line with each other when it comes to pricing.

Edited February 10, 2008 by eddiehaskell

[Edstock]

There is a good Falcon IRS but don't expect it on Mustang before platform unification and then only as an option.

 

Optional is fine. With the advent of the new Boss V-8's, the SRA Mustang can be the drag Mustang, for the John Force crowd, and an IRS Mustang can be offered for the road-circuit crowd, like the one Parnelli Jones had, or maybe a reprise of the SVO turbo.

[wescoent]

So let me see - the Pontiac G8 GT cost $29,995 with a 6 speed automatic and a good set of features (6 airbags, w/ full-length side curtain airbags, 18 inch alloy wheels, sports body kit, power-adjustable front seats, and a 7-speaker audio system with satellite radio system).

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Camaro V8 start at the same price or possibly $28,995 with the same features. The current base Mustang cost $27k, so a refreshed Mustang GT with a new engine and possibly IRS will likely be a $28,xxx - $29,000 car. That would put the Camaro and Mustang right in line with each other when it comes to pricing.

 

The Pontiac G8 has only 360hp or so, not to mention a significant cost advantage from being identical to an existing high volume GM product.

 

The LS3 is a fairly premium engine (65hp advantage), whose low volume will need to be justified by a higher price. If the Camaro comes to market with the G8's engine as the normal V8, then we might be talking about a lower base price.

 

Again... why will Dodge be able to sell a 425hp Challenger for $38,000, but GM will magically be able to sell a similar car for $10,000 less?

 

Hasn't Ford been doing fairly well lately keeping pricing down from generation to generation?

[Ford Jellymoulds]

So let me see - the Pontiac G8 GT cost $29,995 with a 6 speed automatic and a good set of features (6 airbags, w/ full-length side curtain airbags, 18 inch alloy wheels, sports body kit, power-adjustable front seats, and a 7-speaker audio system with satellite radio system).

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Camaro V8 start at the same price or possibly $28,995 with the same features. The current base Mustang cost $27k, so a refreshed Mustang GT with a new engine and possibly IRS will likely be a $28,xxx - $29,000 car. That would put the Camaro and Mustang right in line with each other when it comes to pricing.

Mustang will still be the best seller whatever the price, who would want to waste their money on a Pontiac or Camaro?

[Sixt9coug]

Mustang will still be the best seller whatever the price, who would want to waste their money on a Pontiac or Camaro?

 

 

Even the die hard GM and Mopar guys still at least agree that the Mustang will still be the sales king of all 3 of the new pony cars. The Camaro wont topple it, but its a nice car. Dodge is only doing what? 5000 Challengers the first year right? Hell, Ford will probably sell more than 5000 RED Mustangs in 09.

[jpd80]

The more I see of Ford's RWD plans the better they look.

Mustang and Falcon cater for different markets, they do that well and can share much without technically bumping heads

on suspensions and unique styling cues. The old fashioned "GM home room platform" creation really stifles of a lot of

individuality in the cars and Ford are to be applauded for side stepping that issue for now. Ford 2000 proved that the various divisions were street wise with their products and much efficiency can be gained from common sub-systems.

 

The 2008 Falcon picks up a lot of Mustang building techniques, the next in 2010 will be on common power trains and after that we'll be basically at the common platform. At that stage, only top hats will be the realm of the home room.

 

GM's Camaro will sell OK but I think Ford has a far better handle on the RWD products.

Edited February 10, 2008 by jpd80

[eddiehaskell]

The Pontiac G8 has only 360hp or so, not to mention a significant cost advantage from being identical to an existing high volume GM product.

 

The LS3 is a fairly premium engine (65hp advantage), whose low volume will need to be justified by a higher price. If the Camaro comes to market with the G8's engine as the normal V8, then we might be talking about a lower base price.

 

Again... why will Dodge be able to sell a 425hp Challenger for $38,000, but GM will magically be able to sell a similar car for $10,000 less?

 

Hasn't Ford been doing fairly well lately keeping pricing down from generation to generation?

 

Do you know how much $$ each engine cost to produce??? You can't just say engine X has more HP therefore it cost more to produce. Also, keep in mind, the G8 is currently built in Australia and imported to the US. The Camaro will be built here (cost savings).

 

Additionally, where has GM said what engine will be in the Camaro?

 

Use your common sense - GM wants to sell around 100k Camaros per year. To do that they will have to keep the car within $2-3k of the Mustang....i.e. $29-30k base price.

 

Now the Camaro SS (500+hp?) will likely be in the low-mid $40ks, but that is a GT500 competitor.

[Edstock]

Isn't there likely to be a Lincoln variant on the new platform?

[eddiehaskell]

Mustang will still be the best seller whatever the price, who would want to waste their money on a Pontiac or Camaro?

As far as I know, GM hasn't said they are gunning to be #1 in sales.

 

As far as who would choose a Pontiac or Camaro....I'm going to go out on a limb and say....someone that likes them better. Just a theory.

[SVT_MAN]

Drag racers who keep demanding that the Mustang keep an SRA are holding the car back. I could care less about a Mustang with 400 horsepower. Horsepower wars are getting stupid. We have 250 hp + sedans on the road that can't handle worth anything. It's a sad day when the traditionally view "redneck" Camaro ends up being more sophisticated than the Mustang.

 

I want an IRS underneath. The GT-500 is making Ford big profits, but it is a laughing stock of a car because it's so front heavy that it can't make corners. Would I take one? Sure, but I think the regular GT is a much better balanced package. The GT-500 is waaay overpriced for what you get.

 

People who say the Mustang needs an SRA to keep costs down are the same people who have held Ford back in the past. It's called being complacent - and that will get you into trouble when you have competitors. This reminds me of the Ford Focus situation. Ford is taking a loss on every Focus sold. Why? Because the idiots who designed and allocated resouces for the car didn't bother figuring out how to make it turn a profit.

 

When Mullaly asked them why the Focus isn't turning a profit, they said they needed the car to keep within CAFE standards. This is the truth: People at Ford are both asking AND answering the wrong questions. I'd like to see how many people actually drag race Mustangs. The majority do not. I can tell you that already. It's stupid to please a minority and hurt the majority. The Mustang has always been sustained by non-enthusiasts. You do realize that everybody, right? Non-enthusiasts are buying the base model cars and making it so your hopped up V8 versions are justified for Ford. It's always been that way. I guarantee that if Ford wants to keep their car more liveable than the Camaro, they need an IRS. On a test drive, it will be no contest.

 

Ford needs to ask what the customers want, not what drag racers want. If drag racers want an SRA setup, they can put one under the car a lot more easily than a regular customer can put an IRS underneath. Plus, Ford could easily offer a drag-pack option for the people who really want an SRA setup.

Edited February 11, 2008 by SVT_MAN

[P71_CrownVic]

Mustang will still be the best seller whatever the price, who would want to waste their money on a Pontiac or Camaro?

The Pontiac? Thats easy. It is for those people who want a sporty, great handling 4-door sedan.

[CarShark]

Optional is fine. With the advent of the new Boss V-8's, the SRA Mustang can be the drag Mustang, for the John Force crowd, and an IRS Mustang can be offered for the road-circuit crowd, like the one Parnelli Jones had, or maybe a reprise of the SVO turbo.

What about normal people? I'm tired of every Mustang conversation centering on enthusiasts. They are such a small part of the equation. I'm not saying they aren't important, but I keep hearing that one of the reasons the Mustang has always outsold the Camaro/Firebird is that it was always more "livable". Every article I've read since this thread started has said that a good SRA won't ride as well as a good IRS. My own personal experience has borne this out. I don't know why suv_guy keeps saying it doesn't matter.

 

I think the cost argument is somewhat overblown. I think people have shown that if something is better, they will pay more for it. But if they don't know why the IRS is better, they may not take advantage of it as an option, which pretty much defeats the purpose. Anyways, wouldn't making the IRS standard help amortize the cost quicker?

 

And about the extra complexity: does anyone know if there's a large recall rate for IRSs? I'd think that'd be easier to sort out, being a mechanical issue, than what the Germans are trying to do with electronics systems managing everything.

Edited February 11, 2008 by CarShark

[SVT_MAN]

Some people on this forum are living in 1970, CarShark. My mom owns a 2000 Jaguar XJ8 which has a rear end that doesn't even need service on it, despite the fact it's an IRS setup. Granted, Jaguars are more expensive cars, but this sort of technology is trickling down to lesser cars. Mustang should have had an independent rear suspension years ago, it's just that Ford has been complacent with their engineering because they can be: they've had no competition since 2002. I'm glad that the Challenger and Camaro are coming to market because it will force Ford to make the Mustang better. I just hope they actually do something about it.

[CarShark]

*sigh*

 

I don't know why I'm about to do this. The conversation up 'til now has been civil, if a bit circular. Maybe it's because I read the article immediately after my last post and agreed with it. Dunno. All I know is that someone else has an opinion on all this. Ladies and Gentlemen...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Jeremy Clarkson.

 

What fascinates me about this simple principle most of all, though, is that sometimes soul can be like chilli sauce. Pour enough over the mix and it’ll mask the fact that underneath you’re driving around in the automotive equivalent of two dead rats.

 

This brings me on to the Ford Mustang. It’s a terrible car. Bouncy, underbraked, nowhere near as fast as it should be and equipped with a live rear axle. Something that went out of fashion at about the same time as the Bailey bridge.

 

Ford argued that it had fitted museum technology because that’s what America’s drag-racing fraternity had asked for. I see, so you wreck a car’s handling and ride simply to keep half a dozen fat men in Kentucky happy. Sure, I believe you. And the decision had nothing to do with the fact that live axles cost 4p whereas more modern alternatives don’t.

 

Anyway. None of this matters, because whenever I see a Mustang I’m filled with a sometimes uncontrollable urge to buy one. I know the stripes are silly, I know the wheels are slightly wider than is strictly necessary and I realise the big bulge on the bonnet is as laughable as the hosepipe attachment Robert Plant used to sport in his pants.

 

I’m also aware that the seats are made from UHT leather, that the dash is made from materials that Lego would reject, that it can be beaten off the lights by a Golf (cart) and that in England such a car would mark me out as someone who in pubs says, “I’ll take a Bud,” because secretly I want to be American.

 

And yet the feeling persists. Maybe it’s the badge and all that Bullitt nonsense. Maybe it’s the style. It is a good-looking car. But mostly it’s the fact it’s the only Ford made today with rear-wheel drive. That shows that beneath all the rubbish it was designed by someone who cares.

 

In every way, it’s worse than a dull-as-ditchwater Kia Rio. But because it was plainly created by an enthusiast it has a heart and a soul. That’s why I’d buy a Mustang and why, even if my dog’s life depended on it, I wouldn’t buy a Rio.

 

Times Online

[suv_guy_19]

What about normal people? I'm tired of every Mustang conversation centering on enthusiasts. They are such a small part of the equation. I'm not saying they aren't important, but I keep hearing that one of the reasons the Mustang has always outsold the Camaro/Firebird is that it was always more "livable". Every article I've read since this thread started has said that a good SRA won't ride as well as a good IRS. My own personal experience has borne this out. I don't know why suv_guy keeps saying it doesn't matter.

 

First, I don't care either way. It could have IRS, but it doesn't have to. Second, I'm sure Ford knows more about the Mustang and what the customers want than any of us. Third, IRS does not always mean that something has a better ride than something with a SRA. Its all about the tuning of the particular setup. I can tell you that the ride on my 300 with touring suspension is very rough in some conditions. It borders on truck. Its all about the tuning.

[jpd80]

And about the extra complexity: does anyone know if there's a large recall rate for IRSs? I'd think that'd be easier to sort out, being a mechanical issue, than what the Germans are trying to do with electronics systems managing everything.

Not a problem with the Aussie IRS, it's used in lots of taxis since 2002, most units see well past 500,000 klm (300,000 miles)

[silvrsvt]

Thats the interesting thing, how many every day drivers, outside of the enthusiasts really even care about whats under car?

 

People buy the Mustang because its a Mustang...I think the biggest problem with every day drivers is that many don't get it because its RWD (because they think FWD is better in bad weather etc), not because it have SRA or IRS under it.

 

I've owned two different Mustangs, a 98 GT and now a 06 GT. The 06 GT is LIGHTYEARS better in the handling dept then the old Mustang was. I'd even say its almost as good as my SVT Focus was, give its weight and other limitations.

 

Anywyas, if IRS can be offered as a option, I'd test drive one to see whats so great about it...

[P71_CrownVic]

Mr. Jeremy Clarkson.

Times Online

Clarkson rocks!

 

Its all about the tuning of the particular setup...Its all about the tuning.

I bet the tires have more to do with it than tuning.

[suv_guy_19]

I bet the tires have more to do with it than tuning.

 

 

Nope, I have Cooper CS4s. They are supposed to be very good at smoothing things out. Everything else they say about them is true, so I have no reason to doubt that the tires are not the problem.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

*sigh*

 

I don't know why I'm about to do this. The conversation up 'til now has been civil, if a bit circular. Maybe it's because I read the article immediately after my last post and agreed with it. Dunno. All I know is that someone else has an opinion on all this. Ladies and Gentlemen...

QUOTEWhat fascinates me about this simple principle most of all, though, is that sometimes soul can be like chilli sauce. Pour enough over the mix and it'll mask the fact that underneath you're driving around in the automotive equivalent of two dead rats.

 

This brings me on to the Ford Mustang. It's a terrible car. Bouncy, underbraked, nowhere near as fast as it should be and equipped with a live rear axle. Something that went out of fashion at about the same time as the Bailey bridge.

 

Ford argued that it had fitted museum technology because that's what America's drag-racing fraternity had asked for. I see, so you wreck a car's handling and ride simply to keep half a dozen fat men in Kentucky happy. Sure, I believe you. And the decision had nothing to do with the fact that live axles cost 4p whereas more modern alternatives don't.

 

Anyway. None of this matters, because whenever I see a Mustang I'm filled with a sometimes uncontrollable urge to buy one. I know the stripes are silly, I know the wheels are slightly wider than is strictly necessary and I realise the big bulge on the bonnet is as laughable as the hosepipe attachment Robert Plant used to sport in his pants.

 

I'm also aware that the seats are made from UHT leather, that the dash is made from materials that Lego would reject, that it can be beaten off the lights by a Golf (cart) and that in England such a car would mark me out as someone who in pubs says, "I'll take a Bud," because secretly I want to be American.

 

And yet the feeling persists. Maybe it's the badge and all that Bullitt nonsense. Maybe it's the style. It is a good-looking car. But mostly it's the fact it's the only Ford made today with rear-wheel drive. That shows that beneath all the rubbish it was designed by someone who cares.

 

In every way, it's worse than a dull-as-ditchwater Kia Rio. But because it was plainly created by an enthusiast it has a heart and a soul. That's why I'd buy a Mustang and why, even if my dog's life depended on it, I wouldn't buy a Rio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Jeremy Clarkson.

 

 

 

Times Online

 

Jeremy Clarckson's Greatest Flops - Bad cars usually lack one vital ingredient - SOUL. They are built by accountants, not a man with a passion.

That why the Mustang, F-Series, Ford E-Series, Transit are all lead their class because they have SOUL, when you destroy its SOUL your locals jump ship to an equal souless car like a Camry as a protest vote. Jeremy is right.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds

[wescoent]

Do you know how much $$ each engine cost to produce??? You can't just say engine X has more HP therefore it cost more to produce. Also, keep in mind, the G8 is currently built in Australia and imported to the US. The Camaro will be built here (cost savings).

 

Additionally, where has GM said what engine will be in the Camaro?

 

Use your common sense - GM wants to sell around 100k Camaros per year. To do that they will have to keep the car within $2-3k of the Mustang....i.e. $29-30k base price.

 

Now the Camaro SS (500+hp?) will likely be in the low-mid $40ks, but that is a GT500 competitor.

 

Originally, the Camaro was intended to have the 3.9L OHV V6 (240hp-ish) and the 5.3L small block (300hp) for its normal version, with the LS3 being the top dog competitor. However, during development, weight spiraled out of control, and GM dumped its OHV engine family in favor of the 3.6L engine. It got the point where the Camaro would need the 6.2 LS3 to keep up with what GM assumed would be the 2009-2010 Mustang (massaged 4.6L 3V).

 

The Camaro's cost savings by being domestic were completely wiped out by the declining US dollar as well as the fact that the Zeta Impala and Lucerne were dropped, leaving the Camaro by itself to support an entire plant.

 

Ultimately, I don't know what engine GM ultimately settled on for the Camaro, and I don't know what my finance brothers at General Motors will decide to price the Camaro at. I have a suspicion we'll see a directly injected 290hp V6 Camaro as GM's main push for the car, with the V8 relegated to a less prominent role in the program's cost and marketing structure.

[SVT_MAN]

Thats the interesting thing, how many every day drivers, outside of the enthusiasts really even care about whats under car?

 

People buy the Mustang because its a Mustang...I think the biggest problem with every day drivers is that many don't get it because its RWD (because they think FWD is better in bad weather etc), not because it have SRA or IRS under it.

 

I've owned two different Mustangs, a 98 GT and now a 06 GT. The 06 GT is LIGHTYEARS better in the handling dept then the old Mustang was. I'd even say its almost as good as my SVT Focus was, give its weight and other limitations.

 

Anywyas, if IRS can be offered as a option, I'd test drive one to see whats so great about it...

 

How is your 06 in terms of how it rides? You can make a live axle handle well, but does it ride well? Again, an IRS setup allows for no compromise. Look at the Ford Falcon in Aussieland.

 

Ford said that they ran an SRA setup because drag racers asked for it. I think it was a cost issue. You don't base your entire car based off what enthusiasts ask for.

Edited February 11, 2008 by SVT_MAN

[eddiehaskell]

Originally, the Camaro was intended to have the 3.9L OHV V6 (240hp-ish) and the 5.3L small block (300hp) for its normal version, with the LS3 being the top dog competitor. However, during development, weight spiraled out of control, and GM dumped its OHV engine family in favor of the 3.6L engine.

 

Weight spiraled out of control? Where did GM say that? I'm sure they knew 3-4 years ago what the zeta platform would weigh.

 

Where did they ever say 300hp was the original intent?

 

The Mustang had 300hp in 2005 and GM's intent was to give the '09/'10 Camaro only 300hp to match the '05 Mustang? Unless they somehow thought the Mustang would never get a power increase, I don't think so.

 

It got the point where the Camaro would need the 6.2 LS3 to keep up with what GM assumed would be the 2009-2010 Mustang (massaged 4.6L 3V).

 

I'm sure they knew 3-4 years ago what the zeta platform would weigh. Why would the car need 430hp to keep up with a ~340-350hp Mustang??? It's not 1000lbs heavier than the Mustang. It'll likely be 200-300lbs heavier MAX (if the Mustang gets IRS probably closer to 200lbs). An extra 20hp with more displacement (torque) would easily offset that. Hmm, the 362hp L98 seems perfect.

 

The Camaro's cost savings by being domestic were completely wiped out by the declining US dollar as well as the fact that the Zeta Impala and Lucerne were dropped, leaving the Camaro by itself to support an entire plant.

 

Impala and Lucerne were dropped and the G8 which is made in Australia and shipped to the US is still under $30k. I seriously doubt making new body panels and interior is going to drive the price well above $30k. If anything, selling 100k Camaros will drive the cost to produce zeta cars down.

 

Ultimately, I don't know what engine GM ultimately settled on for the Camaro, and I don't know what my finance brothers at General Motors will decide to price the Camaro at. I have a suspicion we'll see a directly injected 290hp V6 Camaro as GM's main push for the car, with the V8 relegated to a less prominent role in the program's cost and marketing structure.

 

I'd say the DI V6 cost more to produce than the L98 or LS3.

 

I say LS3 or L98 Z28 for $29-30k (about $2-3k more than the Mustang) and around $42-$45 for the SS with maybe the 550hp CTS-V engine. Unless GM plans to produce only about 15-20k units per year, they know they'll have to meet the price points of the Mustang.

Edited February 11, 2008 by eddiehaskell

[timmm55]

How is your 06 in terms of how it rides? You can make a live axle handle well, but does it ride well? Again, an IRS setup allows for no compromise. Look at the Ford Falcon in Aussieland.

 

Ford said that they ran an SRA setup because drag racers asked for it. I think it was a cost issue. You don't base your entire car based off what enthusiasts ask for.

 

As I've said before it's much ado about nothing, the SRA rides and handles very well 99% of the time....it's only the rare turn AND bump where you'll notice it.

 

 

In the Mustang's case, you do "what enthusiasts ask for" or at least the legends of Mustang buyers. Remember the Probe? It was to be the Mustang replacement way back when....they can be a VERY vocal group! It (the drag racing stuff) may have been a bit of spin too....the cheaper more durable SRA may have been all that was available here in 05, vs importing the Aussie IRS.

[eddiehaskell]

Oh, and according to the exchange rates I just looked up....

 

$1 USD = 1.1094 AUD

$1 USD = 1.0005 CAD

 

So it would cost more to build and ship a $30k Commodore from Australia than it would to build (and not have to ship) a Camaro in Canada.