atomaro Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 all of us here have exceptionally high expectations, and the Mustang IS Fords identity....to be slightly dis-appointed is nothing new.... Ford has had carry-over powerplants virtually each and every launch...its not like this is something new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Besides, and I know the reference to 'polishing the brass on the Titanic' is generally a bit forced, but folks, GENERAL MOTORS said they may not see out the year. GENERAL MOTORS is suspending reimbursements to dealers. GENERAL MOTORS may never tighten bolt number one on Camaro JOB 1. And you guys are arguing about how it's going to smoke the Mustang GT.....? B-I-G - P-I-C-T-U-R-E people. BIG PICTURE!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Besides, and I know the reference to 'polishing the brass on the Titanic' is generally a bit forced, but folks, GENERAL MOTORS said they may not see out the year. GENERAL MOTORS is suspending reimbursements to dealers. GENERAL MOTORS may never tighten bolt number one on Camaro JOB 1. And you guys are arguing about how it's going to smoke the Mustang GT.....? B-I-G - P-I-C-T-U-R-E people. BIG PICTURE!!!!! Yeah, but....its gonna smoke the Mustang GT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I like what they did with the body on the new Mustang, even with being disappointed when I was looking at the test mules earlier. The end result is clean, and looks better than the current car. I can dig that. It looks a lot less feminine. As much as I would have loved to see more HP, it looks as if Ford did a good thing. They took one of the two biggest media complaints about the car - the interior - and made a significant effort to upgrade it. Given you get new power-trains the next year, it makes sense for performance (which no one really complained about in automotive reviews) would take a back seat to an interior a lot of people (including me) hated. I would like to see a significant power upgrade, a six-speed manual (for Christ sake my Xterra had it as an option in 05) and an IRS standard for 2011, with a MODEST price increase. That's another thing people need to remember. Cost has to be factored in, and one reason the Mustang does as well as it does is it's value. Leave the insane performance and the solid rear axle for the specialty mustangs and Shelby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Fffft. Two of the three vehicles you own have solid rear axles. I call foul! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Fffft. Two of the three vehicles you own have solid rear axles. I call foul! Every vehicle i have owned has been a 2 door, RWD, SRA equipped vehicle. I swear, it wasnt on purpose. two of those cars had power windows and most of those windows still worked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Fffft. Two of the three vehicles you own have solid rear axles. I call foul! I 'll take a SRA in my trucks and suvs, not my cars. Yes, if I was a track hound, driving under straight-line perfect-road conditions, I wouldn't need an IRS. But I don't, and neither do the majority of people that drive Mustangs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Yeah, but dude, most people don't drive their cars in such a way as to need an IRS. The '05+ Mustang SRA does not kick the tail sideways except over severe deformities at speed on curves. The geometry is just about flawless. Unlike the fox body 'Stangs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devodev Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Yeah, but dude, most people don't drive their cars in such a way as to need an IRS. The '05+ Mustang SRA does not kick the tail sideways except over severe deformities at speed on curves. The geometry is just about flawless. Unlike the fox body 'Stangs. Hey-Leave those Fox body 'Stangs out of this! They are the best vehicles ever made! On the powertrain issue, I think it's all about marketing. Heck, folks were giving me these little cards at the Woodward Cruise offering me a chance to come see underneath the 2010 Stang, like some peep show or something, kind-a-creepy. Then all these peek-a-boo photos, etc. Just don't get my hopes up so high and then I won't be disappointed I guess. Like someone said, it was just a re-fresh year. Lets just hope "next year" means, late-2009 for 2010. Not 2010 model year for 2011 or '12 like GM is doing with the Camaro as those cats have been waiting forever for that thing to drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 so they mentioned a optional supercharger where hp jumps to either 400 or 500hp any news on this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Why are people trying to pick fights over IRS? It's not available in the Mustang anyway. As one who has experienced Ford's Control Blade IRS in a high performance Falcon some of you respectfully don't know what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Yeah, but dude, most people don't drive their cars in such a way as to need an IRS. The '05+ Mustang SRA does not kick the tail sideways except over severe deformities at speed on curves. The geometry is just about flawless. Unlike the fox body 'Stangs. No joke. As if it is not already apparent, I'm probably one of the worst automotive elitists on the face of this planet. It's easy for someone like me to say that I need to have an IRS in any vehicle. This is the one case where I will agree that it makes sense to use an SRA. The main reason: WEIGHT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 (edited) No joke. As if it is not already apparent, I'm probably one of the worst automotive elitists on the face of this planet. It's easy for someone like me to say that I need to have an IRS in any vehicle. This is the one case where I will agree that it makes sense to use an SRA. The main reason: WEIGHT control blade rear suspension ala Australia's falcon...100 lb penalty.....so real reason...COST Edited November 19, 2008 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Why are people trying to pick fights over IRS?It's not available in the Mustang anyway. As one who has experienced Ford's Control Blade IRS in a high performance Falcon some of you respectfully don't know what you're talking about. I'd say that your typical Mustang owner on his/her typical daily routine will never know the difference between SRA & IRS, and (moreover) that the electric nannies will kick in to prevent him/her from discovering the difference at high speeds. In fact, the suspension geometry on the CB and the SRA are remarkably similar. They both feature 0º & 90º linkages which keep the wheel's vertical direction of travel from adversely affecting horizontal direction of travel under most circumstances. The SRA in the Stang has 3 trailing links and a horizontal panhard rod. The CB has 2 trailing arms and four horizontal links (including both rear wheels). The noticeable difference comes when cornering at speed over major surface irregularities-- Then the panhard rod (which is very long to minimize horizontal displacement over minor irregularities) kicks the wheels (or pulls the wheels--kicks if the bump is on the passenger side, pulls if the bump is on the driver's side) toward the driver's side which can cause loss of control--assuming the driver doesn't expect it. In straightline performance, surface irregularities (if large enough) will produce horizontal deflection however, since there are is only one force vector acting on the rear wheels it's much more manageable. Why more manageable? Because, horizontal deflection while cornering is always inline with the centrifugal/centripetal force vector, and that force vector has a tendency to increase the effect of the horizontal deflection. Seen either in a tendency on a right hand curve to place an extraordinary degree of force behind displacement to the left, or in an abrupt jerk to the vehicle on a left hand curve, as the horizontal displacement encounters the centrifugal force pushing in the opposite direction. -- This is far different from the panthers and the Fox bodies which had semi-trailing links that moved the rear axle to the left or right over -any- surface irregularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 control blade rear suspension ala Australia's falcon...100 lb penalty.....so real reason...COST Huh? A hundred pounds ain't chump change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Huh? A hundred pounds ain't chump change. but its a good design and 100lbs is not that bad considering if they could adapt it to the Mustangs chassis then a GT would weigh around 3650lbs.....not bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 but its a good design and 100lbs is not that bad considering if they could adapt it to the Mustangs chassis then a GT would weigh around 3650lbs.....not bad But then people would be bitching even more about it not having 650,382 horsepower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I'd say that your typical Mustang owner on his/her typical daily routine will never know the difference between SRA & IRS, and (moreover) that the electric nannies will kick in to prevent him/her from discovering the difference at high speeds. In fact, the suspension geometry on the CB and the SRA are remarkably similar. They both feature 0º & 90º linkages which keep the wheel's vertical direction of travel from adversely affecting horizontal direction of travel under most circumstances. The SRA in the Stang has 3 trailing links and a horizontal panhard rod. The CB has 2 trailing arms and four horizontal links (including both rear wheels). The noticeable difference comes when cornering at speed over major surface irregularities-- Then the panhard rod (which is very long to minimize horizontal displacement over minor irregularities) kicks the wheels (or pulls the wheels--kicks if the bump is on the passenger side, pulls if the bump is on the driver's side) toward the driver's side which can cause loss of control--assuming the driver doesn't expect it. In straightline performance, surface irregularities (if large enough) will produce horizontal deflection however, since there are is only one force vector acting on the rear wheels it's much more manageable. Why more manageable? Because, horizontal deflection while cornering is always inline with the centrifugal/centripetal force vector, and that force vector has a tendency to increase the effect of the horizontal deflection. Seen either in a tendency on a right hand curve to place an extraordinary degree of force behind displacement to the left, or in an abrupt jerk to the vehicle on a left hand curve, as the horizontal displacement encounters the centrifugal force pushing in the opposite direction. -- This is far different from the panthers and the Fox bodies which had semi-trailing links that moved the rear axle to the left or right over -any- surface irregularity. oh, i totally agree...i just want ford to shut everybody up.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Huh? A hundred pounds ain't chump change. cut down on fast food.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 But then people would be bitching even more about it not having 650,382 horsepower. true but thats because there are some people who are jealous that it is the most iconic vehicle ever thats my honest opinion....i don't know anybody who does not know what a Ford Mustang is lol only 5% of people know what a G8 is....probably less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 true but thats because there are some people who are jealous that it is the most iconic vehicle ever thats my honest opinion....i don't know anybody who does not know what a Ford Mustang is lol only 5% of people know what a G8 is....probably less Anonymity has its benefits. The G8 is probably near the bottom of the most-stolen cars list. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 i just want ford to shut everybody up.... you won't live long enough to see that happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Anonymity has its benefits. The G8 is probably near the bottom of the most-stolen cars list. :lol: oh i don't know i have to drive through the ghetto to get to and from work and the looks you get from the "no-jobs" at the various liqour stores..... i drive a big four door car....they love that stuff although i can kill the car if it ever gets stolen by calling OnStar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 oh i don't know i have to drive through the ghetto to get to and from work and the looks you get from the "no-jobs" at the various liqour stores..... i drive a big four door car....they love that stuff although i can kill the car if it ever gets stolen by calling OnStar I'm sure you know, but most cars aren't stolen for joyriding. They are stolen for parts. Because of that, less common cars usually aren't stolen as often as the demand for parts is lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Yeah, but....its gonna smoke the Mustang GT. yeah, but ford will win the sales war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.