Mustang IRS Article

[silvrsvt]

With photos....comments?

 

http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=11329

[BORG]

Fascinating!

Edited February 2, 2012 by BORG

[ZanatWork]

Biggest note: the author is a complete s**t.

 

Not ONE mention of the solid axle outperforming the IRS on both pony car competitors, no credit given for the fact that the Mustang is, log axle and all, the best car in its market and one still happily racing against BMWs and the like...just one long whine/bitch fest that basically made me hate the author.

 

I'm all for IRS in the Mustang, as long as it provides actual improvement. The Camaro and Challenger demonstrate that IRS does not necessarily mean better, and so I'd worry less about the number of control arms in the car and concentrate on driveability and lap times.

 

Y'know, results. The author didn't seem interested in those.

 

With photos....comments?

 

http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=11329

[mackinaw]

Interesting pictures, but that's it. A terrible bit of writing and a terrible blog.

[silvrsvt]

Interesting pictures, but that's it. A terrible bit of writing and a terrible blog.

 

I agree....most of the comments on his blog are strongly negative of Ford...I happened to run across this while looking up info on the MT82 transmission

[30 OTT 6]

Biggest note: the author is a complete s**t.

 

Not ONE mention of the solid axle outperforming the IRS on both pony car competitors, no credit given for the fact that the Mustang is, log axle and all, the best car in its market and one still happily racing against BMWs and the like...just one long whine/bitch fest that basically made me hate the author.

 

I'm all for IRS in the Mustang, as long as it provides actual improvement. The Camaro and Challenger demonstrate that IRS does not necessarily mean better, and so I'd worry less about the number of control arms in the car and concentrate on driveability and lap times.

 

Y'know, results. The author didn't seem interested in those.

 

The point of this article was to show off their discovery an all new world class IRS designed by Ford Engineers to give the S197 superior performance and less weight then the current live axle. All for $200. Sometimes the reader is a complete s**t, too.

 

Best line in the article:

 

"Those folks wanted to build the best car they could not a low common denominator for customers who didnt know any better."

Edited February 2, 2012 by 30 OTT 6

[goinbroke2]

What load of crap!

Where to start.."SVT itself was all but eliminated due to quality disasters, the Cobra was cancelled, and the IRS was shelved " YEAH! and yet you don't see a correlation between IRS and quality disasters? (yes it's the same on crapmaro and the chargers too)

 

SEE THE NUT?? SEE,SEE? THAT'S IRS, SEE THE NUT? Really? are your regular readers that inept they can only identify an IRS by a nut in the hub? Ever see the rear hub on a jeep dana20 axle? A NUT OMG A NUT!!!!!

 

"Notice the standard brakes, and the standard swaybar hanging down behind the axle. And the lack of the “nut” as shown above. This is a solid axle car" ....ok, I was confused and didn't know until you pointed out the LACK OF A NUT!!!

 

" Those folks wanted to build the best car they could – not a low common denominator for customers who didn’t know any better. "

Really? They didn't want to build base mustangs, just "sports cars huh? Imagine that, the SVT/SVO guys want to build a corner carver like the SVO mustang or the Boss...gee that's suprising. Oh wait, every single car ISN'T A BOSS THOUGH IS IT?????

 

“Drag racers and Ford’s accountants will be pleased at the choice of a live axle out back. Among our customer groups that know and care what sort of rear suspension their car has, a large number of them want a solid rear axle; they’re primarily the core enthusiast drag racers, and they like the durability, reliability, and ease of modification with it, changing axle ratios, etc.,” says Thai-Tang. “There’s another group that wants the sophistication and cornering advantage of an IRS, and we’re going to offer it on the upcoming SVT Cobra. Unlike the last time, when we kind of shoehorned the IRS in [an older platform]; this time, we’ve designed the rear architecture to accommodate both right from the beginning.”

Read that statement and then read it again....

 

“We’ll never appease those IRS snobs.”

VERY TRUE!! They'll just blog about it in pretentious ways.

 

"Their final product, the 2003 Cobra, had terrible engineering problems in several areas (including harmonics, general engine tuning, cold weather warmup, cylinder head casting, and transmission input shaft). Many owners suffered thru engine replacements that Ford didn’t want to perform (including myself, who was amazed to find three identical red Cobras like my own lined up at the dealer for the same purpose – total engine replacement). "

So let me get this straight...because it had a solid axle or an "afterthought" IRS..cyl head issues, cold weather warm up etc were all the result.....yeah, ok....

 

"Here, at last, is the final production-ready IRS. Found in a warehouse of discarded Ford engineering bits outside of Detroit"

Umm, no, that's A final production-ready IRS. Who beside YOU said it's for a mustang? He keeps on about explorer diff and "how robust" it looks...Ya think maybe it was a mule for a lincoln version of an Explorer????? Or a lincoln version of an Expedition?

 

"The Cadillac chassis uses a double A-arm front suspension, and that be well be shared with the Camaro as well for cost savings purposes. That would leave the Camaro ahead, again." ....um, yeah, ok...whatever...

 

"Couple this with a serious weight reduction, and maybe even a paradigm-breaking EcoBoost V-6, and we might finally have a truly world-class sporting coupe – the likes of which haven’t been seen since the Supra TT left us"

AHH Yes, the reknowned supra, after all that is what a mustang aspires to be, right?

 

 

 

 

 

This whole article is a load of crap based on the musings and wants of an arrogant "driving glove wearing" snob. If you were Ford, who would you support, an arrogant "sporty car" snob like this who wants a sporty handling street car to park by his bmw and lexus or the "majority" (in HTT's own words) who drag race and want reliability and strength because they will race them? :shades:

 

Regardless of what Ford does, this article is complete fabrication and delusional rants by a sporty car guy. PERIOD!

I saw the same type of blogs on dragracing sites when "spy pic's" were shown of the hurricane engine and what is now known as the coyote engine. Guys took pic's of Ford testing it at dragstrips, heck it was even in hotrod or one of the mags as the "777" engine. Guys were blogging everything from "this is the next engine" to "with this a stock mustang will run 9's in the 1/4". It was all bullshit as this is too.

 

Here's a pic of an explorer diff.....here's my story about hows it's actually for the 2015 Crown Vic. Hey as long as I'm making crap up, I can say whatever I want ok? It's for the NEW RWD platform, it fits the aussie falcon when it comes to N/A.... :hyper:

 

Complete fabricated bullshit!

[goinbroke2]

Forgot to mention, "discarded Ford engineering bits outside of Detroit"

Any asshole that uses the word "bits" to describe anything needs a punch in the throat!

[NickF1011]

What load of crap!

Where to start.."SVT itself was all but eliminated due to quality disasters, the Cobra was cancelled, and the IRS was shelved " YEAH! and yet you don't see a correlation between IRS and quality disasters? (yes it's the same on crapmaro and the chargers too)

 

Me thinks someone needs to show him the valve covers on a GT500.

 

[Ralph Greene]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/Camber-considerations Larry McReynolds on setting up solid rear for racing.

 

It's certainly true you can build a solid axle Mustang race car that can run with the IRS cars, especially if it has a strong engine and "handles good down the straights". Parts are available that allow you to put in some of the advantages of an IRS rear and taylor the car to whatever track you ae racing on.....build in some negative camber in rear, to go along with the pretty good 3 link panhard bar rear suspension (like a Sprint Cup car). You taylor front and rear suspension to whatever track you are racing on.

 

Street use is far different, and for street use, an IRS suspension (IMHO) is far superior for ride and general handling characteristics. There a good reason most modern cars have IRS suspensions for street use.

 

My last new GT Mustang, a 2008 4.6 V8, would step sideways every time you hit a bump in road under acceleration. I do understand the newer models have eliminated some of this.

 

I also understand why the drag racers would prefer the current set up. They need vertical rear wheels with all rubber planted.....no negative rear camber like most IRS rears run. Solid rears are strong and relatively simple, and drag racers know how to make them perform. I did some drag racing myself, and know what you do. Launching off rev limiter is hard on half shafts in IRS units LOL.

 

For street use, I won't buy another Mustang until it has a modern IRS rear. And I want another Mustang before too long (hopefuly with EB 3.5). Hopefully Ford won't allow the nostalgic drag racing crowd to dictate future Mustang design....if they want the car to survive.

 

I could buy into idea that Mustang is, and needes to remain, sorta a working mans performance car.....if a 5.0 with a couple options was priced under maybe $25,000. But have you priced a new 5.0 premium coupe lately? There are several good cars in the $35,000-40,000 range that compete with Mustang now.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Ralph Greene

[silvrsvt]

My last new GT Mustang, a 2008 4.6 V8, would step sideways every time you hit a bump in road under acceleration. I do understand the newer models have eliminated some of this.

 

Never had a problem in my 2006, unless it was a fairly substantial bump in the road

 

 

I could buy into idea that Mustang is, and needes to remain, sorta a working mans performance car.....if a 5.0 with a couple options was priced under maybe $25,000. But have you priced a new 5.0 premium coupe lately? There are several good cars in the $35,000-40,000 range that compete with Mustang now.

 

Avg cost of a new car is about $26K....a loaded Focus costs that much...

 

Anyways....I wouldn't mind seeing an IRS equipped Mustang myself, but I don't think I'll be getting another Mustang for quite a long time...since I'm keeping my current car after its replaced by something else.

[jpd80]

Interesting article but really full of supposition, don't know about the rest of you but to me, those alloy

castings look expensive and one of the reasons FoA chose stamped steel members for its IRS was

to keep costs down to a bare minimum. I think the difference between the two S197 rear ends was a

lot more than $170 or at least it would have been if engineering had only concentrated on a three link.

 

The article also doesn't mention that at the eleventh hour, FNA and FoA started working on a common IRS

that could be used with Mustang, Falcon and Territory. The sticking point was that the Aussie Territory was

at design lock in stage and it's IRS pick up points couldn't be moved. The key to this is that the Mustang is

the vehicle with constraints, not Falcon and Territory, so it's better to develop an IRS that fits Mustang first

and then adapt to the others that have more room.

 

 

The current sales of Mustang is a concern and I think the redesign can't come quick enough, people that

extoll the Camaro often forget that the Mustang is a 2005 product cycle that's still kind hanging in there

against a very expensive to develop Zeta Camaro....an evolutionary change to the S197's rear suspension

and body work will cost a fraction of a new platform and give almost as much without massive rework.

[Captainp4]

He's really not that far off. The solid axle they have in there performs great on a road racing track and most solid axles do, but the ability of an IRS to soak up the bumps on a bumpy back road around corners is much greater than the solid axle. As said in the article, there will probably still be an option for the solid axle for the drag racers and whoever wants one, because the platform can do both! What is wrong with having more options? The line used here all the time about camaro and challenger having IRS and being out performed by the mustang is as much BS as anything else. The cars have a serious weight disadvantage to the mustang, and just because it's IRS doesn't automatcially make it better. There may be compromises in geometry and design. Not to mention the new one with the magnetic dampers or whatever seems to perform very, very well. On the road courses that don't have any bumps the IRS guys put on the stiffest sway bars they can find to make the IRS act more like a solid axle in the corners. Admittedly I haven't done much research on the camaro, but are there many stories of them spitting out half shafts at the drag strip??? Not that it really matters, if you have the money to make enough power to break these half shafts with the motor, tires, etc, you're going to have enough money to do a simple swap back to a solid axle, if it isn't an option, which it probably will be. Not to mention, if you're making that much power you're probably upgrading to chromo and higher spline shafts in a solid axle anyway.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Captainp4

[goinbroke2]

The point is...this article was a load of crap!

 

Will the new mustang get irs and solid? Who knows? I hope it has both for the simple reason that there are those that the sun sets on irs only and regardless of what a sra does, "it's not an irs" so they're not happy. Great, stick an irs in for the "sporty" guys (both of them) and stick a solid in "for the majority" as stated by HTT.

 

Hey, if some want a smooth ride and it will sell more mustangs, GREAT! Just don't geld the fricken thing to pander to the driving glove crowd, as that is not the target audience of the mustang.

[BORG]

The point is...this article was a load of crap!

 

Will the new mustang get irs and solid? Who knows? I hope it has both for the simple reason that there are those that the sun sets on irs only and regardless of what a sra does, "it's not an irs" so they're not happy. Great, stick an irs in for the "sporty" guys (both of them) and stick a solid in "for the majority" as stated by HTT.

 

Hey, if some want a smooth ride and it will sell more mustangs, GREAT! Just don't geld the fricken thing to pander to the driving glove crowd, as that is not the target audience of the mustang.

 

The target/majority audience for the Mustang are dragsters with blown V8s who buy them used 20 years later? Then why are they selling automatics, V6s, Navigation, backup cameras, convertibles, and all sort of pretty bolt-on things like alloy wheels and vinyl graphics? Your perspective is stilted and not representative of any majority. The Mustang is a mass market car and it's now struggling to keep up and is in danger of loosing it's reputation if it doesn't adapt to a market where it's not the only cheap muscle car around.

 

And the next Mustang is getting IRS (and an I4 EB), there is no "Who knows" about it. Don't believe the solid-rear-axle dogma, it's not better..it's just cheaper.

Edited February 2, 2012 by BORG

[jpd80]

A lot of Mustang sales went away when Ford stopped selling $22,000 stripper V8s, those people probably now buy second hand.

 

A lot of impassioned fans on either side of the Pacific are saying to Ford, don't mess with our favorite car or we won't buy it but

the question is whether that white noise matters now that sales of both are so low, Ford needs to attract new buyers to its RWD

cars and that means broadening the appeal and when you increase the middle, the extreme POVs always shout at each other.

 

I suggest that everyone take a breath and understand that the next Mustang will be an improved evolution of the current car,

just be grateful that Mustang isn't going the way of so many other models that didn't make the cut....

Edited February 2, 2012 by jpd80

[630land]

"A lot of Mustang sales went away when Ford stopped selling $22,000 stripper V8s, those people probably now buy second hand."

 

And I am sure they make a lot more profit now! Stripper cars make pennies, and these buyers are 'grinders' wanting 'under invoice' sales. Just buy a damn used car if you're going to chop it up.

[jpd80]

"A lot of Mustang sales went away when Ford stopped selling $22,000 stripper V8s, those people probably now buy second hand."

 

And I am sure they make a lot more profit now! Stripper cars make pennies, and these buyers are 'grinders' wanting 'under invoice' sales. Just buy a damn used car if you're going to chop it up.

 

For the sake of thread harmony, I didn't continue with that analogy but it's probably true that ATPs are much higher now and that

Ford probably still does well with lower sales numbers. Some of the business processes for right sizing probably seem strange

and confusing to Ford fans but unless Ford took that clinical approach to every vehicles, they would still have Hertz and all the other

plants producing empty sales for rentals and special interst niche groups...all wanting low cost vehicles.

 

So yeah, while low sales sting, it adds clarity to the business case, "who buys our cars and why?" is the road to profitability.

Edited February 2, 2012 by jpd80

[NickF1011]

I'd be curious to see just how many "stripper V8's" Ford was selling in the first place. My guess is not very many. There's a reason they axed the GTS in the mid-90's and why you don't see any of them anywhere. People were buying the better-equipped cars then too. The Mustang, in my opinion, in its current form, has simply just run out of steam. Time to launch something fresh that goes in a more forward-thinking direction.

[goinbroke2]

The target/majority audience for the Mustang are dragsters with blown V8s who buy them used 20 years later? Then why are they selling automatics, V6s, Navigation, backup cameras, convertibles, and all sort of pretty bolt-on things like alloy wheels and vinyl graphics? Your perspective is stilted and not representative of any majority. The Mustang is a mass market car and it's now struggling to keep up and is in danger of loosing it's reputation if it doesn't adapt to a market where it's not the only cheap muscle car around.

 

And the next Mustang is getting IRS (and an I4 EB), there is no "Who knows" about it. Don't believe the solid-rear-axle dogma, it's not better..it's just cheaper.

 

Shouldn't you be out slamming lincoln's and fords somewhere like normal? :shades:

 

Since HTT was the one that stated THEY talked to enthusiest's and THEY told FORD not YOU what they wanted, are you saying you know more/better than Ford?

 

Of course the majority of mustangs were always the bread and butter and they still will be, but to call anybody who likes a sra "dragsters with blown V8s who buy them used 20 years later" is not only arrogant and misinformed but also plain wrong. There are the "bread and butter" mustang buyer's out there that buy the "pretty" cars. Then there are various enthusiest's who happen to be by a WIDE margin drag racers. Yes Ford IS selling both CobraJet's and body-in-whites for drag racing. You can buy various racing versions for left-right racing too but the MAJORITY of ENTHUSIEST'S who ford is listening to are CURRENT BUYER'S who race them.

As I said, I hope Ford puts an option for both in because contrary to your belief, there are many who buy NEW mustangs and race them every weekend.

 

The biggest question is, will the bread and butter buyers notice the difference of .03G in a corner or for that matter tell the difference in lane changability at 60mph? I didn't think so.

 

This is obviously a non-gearhead site where most pontificate on the significance of visible screws in an open console....get over yourselves. It's a mustang, not a freaking bmw. (that it currently gets it's ass kicked by the "lowly" mustang)

 

Speaking of which. Where was the official announcement that the next gen mustang is IRS? I saw lots of wink, wink, nudge, nudge and slobbering by the driving-glove crowd...but is there an OFFICIAL announcement that the next mustang WILL have IRS???

[rkisler]

With photos....comments?

 

http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=11329

 

Well, Mustang is always emotional as shown by several of the comments that followed your posting. While staying away from some of the more inflamatory remarks of the article, let me talk about some of the "true/not true" elements of the article. I'll also say that while drag racers are a vocal element, they are not the only buyers of Mustang. So while I don't characterize drag racers as "redneck", I also don't characterize those that might enjoy the positive attributes of IRS as "snobs". By the way, I'm not sure who the inside Ford contact was that the author mentions. So let me summarize a few points:

 

1. It is true that the original S197 concept started from a D2 (DEW98); these studies were begun when the LS was in prototype stage. The first cut, to create a base -- or stalking horse (no pun intended) -- was pretty much pure D2. The second cut was to hold commonality where it made sense and to modify as required -- primarily to package the larger V8 and to get cost down.

 

2. Despite some loud and emotional arguments, IRS was in the S197 program planning assumptions from the very beginning. Many of the long-tenured members of the Mustang team argued for solid axle based on tradition and also because they were afraid of offending the drag race crowd. But nevertheless, IRS was always planned.

 

3. The S197 drifted away from D2 to what became D2c which is really a unique platform (even though you might be able to find some "tie points" in some of the structural dimensions if you had that level of detail). There were a number of reasons including cost and proportions. But another key factor was the decision to build Mustang at AAI which meant the production facilities could not be shared with the LS.

 

4. It is true that there was a joint effort with FoA to design a common IRS with the Falcon. FoA sent engineers to Dearborn to help the process. In the end, it didn't happen. There were some legitimate reasons (packaging and fuel tank issues), and there were timing issues. Also, it was hard to show a business case due to the assembly plants and suppliers separated by thousands of miles and a big ocean. The FoA guys went home very, very disappointed.

 

5. So the S197 continued with IRS, but one unique from Falcon. The IRS was designed by Hau Tha- Tang, who had come over from the Chassis side of the LS. The LS multi-link was pretty much state of the art, but it was somewhat bulky and way too expensive for Mustang. So the team settled on a control blade which started life as the C170 rear suspension, and they were changing parts only as necessary (surprisingly few). There were some packaging issues (in particular, the front mount point of the CB was intruding on the door opening of the long Mustang front door), but they were eventually sorted out, and Mustang was to have a reliable, cost-effective IRS as standard equipment.

 

6. Phil Martens did indeed cancel the IRS. And, since Phil was right 100% of the time, he got rid of the people that argued with him that it was the wrong decision. He went for a dollar savings, but caused a huge tearup late in the program. This design change tore up the whole rear of the car and had all sorts of negative consequences including NVH. In the end, the word was it didn't save any cost.

 

7. I won't damn Hau Thai-Tang like the author does. You have to understand that once the decision is made, the person left has to salute and execute. You're not going to make statements like "Well, we had this great IRS, but I have to put in a live axle". Maybe his choice of words left something to be desired.

 

8. Given what they had to work with, I think the Mustang team did a good job. But you can only go so far with a live axle.

 

9. The picture of the rear suspension in the article has nothing to do with the IRS that was supposed to go in the Mustang. If you want a better idea, look at Falcon or Focus or upcoming Fusion AWD rear.

 

10. I have no idea what the program direction is for the upcoming Mustang (and wouldn't say if I did); but from my perspective, IRS was right for S197, and it's way overdue now.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Austin

[97svtgoin05gt]

IRS I feel will find its way into the Mustang. The biggest issue will be busted half shafts when people start modding them and sticking the slicks on them etc. This is no secret. I'd say the way to go is offer it with IRS standard and have FRPP offer a "Drag Pack" to convert to the stick axle for those who want to just do the 1/4 all the time. All in all I think it will be a good move to go IRS.

[jpd80]

IRS I feel will find its way into the Mustang. The biggest issue will be busted half shafts when people start modding them and sticking the slicks on them etc. This is no secret. I'd say the way to go is offer it with IRS standard and have FRPP offer a "Drag Pack" to convert to the stick axle for those who want to just do the 1/4 all the time. All in all I think it will be a good move to go IRS.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btqX5h6r2o8&feature=related

[goinbroke2]

Thanks Austin for adding some truth to the thread. The guy was full of shit and the blog was self serving. Any idea what the irs shown was actually for?

 

97svt, I think that is what I'm hoping for too. The irs will make the car "better" for the uninformed as well as the "pseudo snobs". Like radial tires being introduced. Yes we understand they were a step forward now, but in truth, at the time radials were like driving on flat tires and most didn't like them. AND the big push about not mixing radials with bias..wow that was big too.

 

So if they stick irs in and have a sra option, that would work. :reading:

 

Maybe the standard and "Boss" has irs and the "Mach 1" has a solid or something along those lines? :happy feet:

[jpd80]

Thanks Austin for adding some truth to the thread. The guy was full of shit and the blog was self serving. Any idea what the irs shown was actually for?

Austin has told us before S197 had CB IRS. I'm looking at those pics wondering what loos out of place....

 

LOL, whatever that IRS is, it had nothing to do with the article...

97svt, I think that is what I'm hoping for too. The irs will make the car "better" for the uninformed as well as the "pseudo snobs". Like radial tires being introduced. Yes we understand they were a step forward now, but in truth, at the time radials were like driving on flat tires and most didn't like them. AND the big push about not mixing radials with bias..wow that was big too.

 

So if they stick irs in and have a sra option, that would work.

 

Maybe the standard and "Boss" has irs and the "Mach 1" has a solid or something along those lines?

Yes, all about understanding who buys Mustang and why...

 

Boosting sales,

Perhaps a good addition would be to use the 380 hp F150 V8 as base model Mustang V8 at around $25,000?

Maybe for the guys and gals that just want the V8 sound, a bit more push under the pedal, just a nice package for doing miles..

Edited February 3, 2012 by jpd80