If I Had Been Paying Attention

[Guest Sixcav]

If I'd been paying attention at the time I would have been much happier in the RX8 then I was in the Mustang. Furthermore, after having researched both cars, I have come to the conclusion that Ford is flat out full of crap when it comes to the Mustang. Ford maintains that if they had put an IRS on the Mustang it would have driven the cost of the car so high as to be out of price range. Though not officially, I have been told that the reason for the cheap interior in the Mustang is that once again, if they had put a well appointed or even decent interior in there it would have cost too much. Now lets skip on over to the RX8. It has of course 4 wheel independent suspension, IMO a pretty nice interior (definitely nicer than the Stang), performance numbers that are about the same and I think both are equally as nice from a body design point of view. So what you say? Well, I can get the RX8 for about what I would pay for the Mustang GT within a couple hundred dollars. And the RX8 has all these things that we are told would just make the Mustang too expensive. Yeah right. More like they cut costs and charge just as much for the Stang to get a higher profit margin. Anyway, enjoy the Top Gear review of the RX8. Maybe next time I trade.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfM74_pUanQ

 

 

P.S. Note the position of the driver when they run the car on the road course for time. Two different cars or did they reverse the film?

Edited November 19, 2006 by Sixcav

[01FOCI]

I got flamed on this board when I call the mustang interior cheap, and after riding in my friends RX8 a few months back I would also take an RX8 over a mustang. In the mountainous region of Oregon that I live, the RX8 would decimate the Mustang in the curves. Edmonds states "the RX-8 beat the Nissan 350Z in an Edmunds comparison test. Of course, that test also included a Mustang GT, which took first place to the Mazda's second, but driving enthusiasts who prize athletic handling and overall refinement above ripping acceleration will probably be happier with a 2007 Mazda RX-8."

[Guest Sixcav]

I got flamed on this board when I call the mustang interior cheap, and after riding in my friends RX8 a few months back I would also take an RX8 over a mustang.

 

Don't sweat it man. Plenty of guys around here on the "Ford can do no wrong" band wagon. If you dare step out of line they team up on you. Just keep a stiff upper lip. From first hand experience I can tell you, the 05+ Mustang interiors are cheap and cheesy. The RX8 is far better. I also agree about the handling aspects, I love a good handling car over a straight ahead drag monster. Hell you can make a Radio Flyer wagon fast in a straight line. lol

Edited November 19, 2006 by Sixcav

[jpd80]

If I'd been paying attention at the time I would have been much happier in the RX8 then I was in the Mustang. Furthermore, after having researched both cars, I have come to the conclusion that Ford is flat out full of crap when it comes to the Mustang. Ford maintains that if they had put an IRS on the Mustang it would have driven the cost of the car so high as to be out of price range. Though not officially, I have been told that the reason for the cheap interior in the Mustang is that once again, if they had put a well appointed or even decent interior in there it would have cost too much. Now lets skip on over to the RX8. It has of course 4 wheel independent suspension, IMO a pretty nice interior (definitely nicer than the Stang), performance numbers that are about the same and I think both are equally as nice from a body design point of view. So what you say? Well, I can get the RX8 for about what I would pay for the Mustang GT within a couple hundred dollars. And the RX8 has all these things that we are told would just make the Mustang too expensive. Yeah right. More like they cut costs and charge just as much for the Stang to get a higher profit margin. Anyway, enjoy the Top Gear review of the RX8. Maybe next time I trade.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfM74_pUanQ

P.S. Note the position of the driver when they run the car on the road course for time. Two different cars or did they reverse the film?

 

Hello from the other side of the planet, I've got an interesting tale for you.

 

I see an LHD 2007 RX8 is about MSRP? USD$27,000 so I take it the Mustang is about the same.

A work collegue here in Australia has placed an order for an '07 compliance plate RX8.

Now ours has to be a RHD model same as Japan but, his OTR Price was AUD$60,000 - that's USD $45,000.

Australia removed import duties years ago and even without our Goods and Services tax, that's still USD$40,500. The closest Fords we have to your RX8 is a couple of sporty Falcon Sedans, XR6 Turbo (USD$32,500) and XR8 (USD$33,500). Having seen the Mustang earlier this year in LA, Both of the Aussies' are well made and deserving of the extra cost.

 

My point is:

Don't focus on the Mustang being made down to a price of $27,000.

Enjoy the value you get with an otherwise $40 -45K car for a competitive $27,000

Edited November 19, 2006 by jpd80

[bec5150]

As an overall statement, I don't understand why Ford doesn't bring more from the Mazda line in the way of design and such and use it in the Ford line.

[Guest Sixcav]

jpd80

 

Here in the states the Mustang GT and RX8 are in roughly the same price category. The Mustang bases at 26K and the RX8 at 27K. With some options the RX8 can easily hit the 32 to 33K mark while Mustang tops out at about 31K. Honestly though I looked over some of the options on the RX8 and I could get one with the options I want for about 28,500. Easily in the price range of the Mustang GT. From a performance point of view, both cars perform well. But it just sort of irks me that Ford tells everyone they didn't put IRS on their cars because it would have made the car too expensive. The Mustang interior is cheap, features acres of cheap plastic and zero attention to detail. Again, a cost cutting measure. The point I'm trying to make is I just flat out don't believe Ford when they try to say "Well we didn't go with the IRS because of the cost." Well gee Ford, the RX8 has it for the same price and while I'm at it, their interior kicks your interiors ass. lol What I see is that Ford figured out where to cut costs to get the maximum amount of profit margin. It's all about greed and it will bite you in the ass nearly always, just ask Mercedes Benz.

 

By the way I think that Ford Falcon they sell in Australia is a great looking car. I wish that Ford would make one that looks like it here.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Sixcav

[swenson88]

Sixcav, I think you're a little off base here. You keep calling it "greed" that Ford cut costs in certain areas, but I think to be "greedy" Ford would have to be in the black. Let's face it, Ford is losing a ton of money each quarter. How can their cost-cutting measures be "greedy"? How about "necessity"? Granted, the Mustang is hardly a vehicle causing the hemorrhaging, but it's profits are most likely making up for some serious losses in other product lines. Ford just isn't a company that has money to burn right now. Don't get me wrong, I think the interior should be better, I'm not as concerned about the solid axle, but I happen to be a proponent of solid axles so there's some bias here. I think the problem was you bought a Mustang when it simply wasn't what you were looking for. Don't blame Ford, you shouldn't have bought the car to begin with.

[Guest Sixcav]

Swen,

 

Just about all car companies participate in cost cutting, it's nothing new to Ford, they were doing it back in the mid 90's when they were selling an Explorer every 1.7 seconds. lol They always look for ways to cheapen down the production cost of the a car. I guess all I'm really trying to say to Ford is "Don't even try and tell me that you couldn't put an IRS on the Mustang due to cost factors when I can get one on an RX8 at the same price. It can be done. It's just cheaper to put the solid axle under there and then still charge 30 grand for the car and get those extra profit dollars." If they had just come out and said that I'd respect them more than trying to blow a bunch of sunshine up everyones ass about the cost of an IRS and a better interior. Hell my 19K Mazda 3 has 4 wheel independent suspension. It can be done and it doesn't have to cost buyers 35 grand for it.

[tim kakouris]

the RX8 is a killer car, and it was on the "to buy" list, used. but, believe it or not, the rear seats are even smaller than the mustangs rear seats, and there is only a super tiny ski pass-through. it was a deal killer, as i frequently transport my road and mountain bikes...add insult to injury, bike racks for the car are nearly non existent. add to the fact that in our state kids have to have booster seats until age 8 and it's all over.

 

awesome interior, too. great looks. superbe handling.

 

something that i'm not sure i could get used to would be the lack of low end. i mean, severe lack of low end. it's not just soft, it's a pooch until you run that little rotary up the scale. i just don't drive like that. i'm used to having more umph at the bottom. it may grow on me if i owned it and drove it everyday.

 

i hope mazda continues to refine it, maybe even offer a more powerful version. it's too good of a car to die on the vine, ford style.

 

by the way, we know it's a cost consideration concerning the IRS...but it's also a hotrodder consideration, too. the IRS in the past cobras was problematic for those taking them to the strip, or pounding them on the street. it's a relatively small portion of buyers, but ford listens to them.

Edited November 20, 2006 by tim kakouris

[JM]

Don't forget, the RX-8 is a little more expensive to own, premium fuel, mpg, replacement parts, maintenance, etc. I can only imagine that the tendency to drive at higher rpms in the RX8 also increases wear & tear on the car, I drove a friends RX and it definitely wants to be driven at higher rpms!

[oldracer]

Corrections/Updates:

 

First Ford did a widely reported survey of current Mustang owner's before final design of the 05+ Mustangs and as also widely reported in multiple Mustang and car magazines; 85% said leave the solid axle and it's

accompanying flaws/charm as is.

Not surprisingly that was due to the overwhelming % of owners who drag race vs road race or do track days.

The factory race team has demonstrated that a properly set-up solid axle car gives little up in racing.

 

Most people are lucky if they know which wheels are driven, much less the difference between solid and IRS outside of the enthusiast world, (that would be us here, still a minority overall), and you know it.

 

Quit whing about IRS, I had a 1999 Cobra and our 2002 GT Vert is 99% as good without the headaches of a poorly designed, cheap IRS system my 99 had. Yes I did add full length Steeda subframe connectors to the 02, but I never had axle hop, axle shaft breakage etc.....more than I can say for my Cobra.

 

For the $$$ the new Mustang is a helluve bargain, and the minor flaws can easily be rectified with aftermarket parts, which still is a better financial deal than a Vette or M3, or any other RWD that can run with it.....or slightly ahead as the case may be..

 

Things must be different at Mazda, when we had Rotaries they would run on about any fuel.....Premium was not required, that arguement goes away because most of us retuned our Stangs to use premium anyway....SCT rules!!!

 

My 2 friends who have/had RX8's were complimentary about fun and handling, positively unhappy with 0 torque and 19 mpg best highway ever....worse when beating it in the city, one still has his, the other bought an STI and is delerious about that thing....he drools when he talks about it.....$33K so not that much more than a loaded version of the other 2.

 

My other buddy is planning on trading for a Saturn Sky Redline when he can get one at MSRP or better....

 

The GT Vert I priced out was $36.2K without the chessy mach 1000 or whatever it is now....so nothing is cheap anymore..

 

For me I would go Vette or Mustang 1st, then Boxter S...not much else interests me, if it were to be a daily driver that would probably be different...

[Guest Sixcav]

Yeah I'm looking at it from a daily driver point of view oldracer. I understand perfectly what you mean about drag racers and solid axles, I even read the articles where cobra owners were chunking their IRS for the solid axle. I'm just laying it out to you from my point of view, I'm a daily driver, don't want to race. I know the solid axle still handles quite well, absolutely no argument there. I put my stang into some pretty hard corners at high speed and it did very well. So I'm not upset that the solid axle is there. What upsets me is when the corporate line is "It would cost too much to put IRS in there" when I can get IRS in the RX8 for the same price tag. Obviously then it doesn't cost too much. That's a load of crap from Ford. I would have had more respect for them if they had said "We kept the rear axle because our demographics showed the majority of stang purchasers prefer it for strip racing." In some respect, swenson is right, looking back the RX8 is more the car for me than the Stang, I just didn't know it at the time.

[one2gamble]

I honestly think the rx8 would sell better with the Speed 6 engine. The rotary just doesnt have a good rep with the general public.

 

Its a cool car though and I love the interior.

[Michael Reynolds]

I always find it funny how people on this board find any and everything to piss on Ford about. It amazes me. Truly.

 

If I could do it all over again, I probably would have done the practical thing and bought an S40 T-5 like I started to do in the first place. The RX8 is a great car, but ownership longterm is NOT something I'd advise. It's a frigging 30K exotic, and it should be treated as such. The car is HIGH maintance, and FWIW when compared to Mustang does not hold up to the daily abuse that most drivers expose their vehicles to.

 

I love the RX8 and I cringe at the thought of having to offload it because it has been fun, but as soon as I get around to it I'm offloading it. Case closed end of story.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Michael Reynolds

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Just remember when you gripe about the RX-8 having an IRS and the mustang not: The top tune in the RX-8 barely cracks 200 lbs of torque on a good day, if then. The BASE engine in the mustang has almost 250 lbs of torque and the Gt has over 300 lbs. That means that the mustang IRS would have to cope with a lot more power and abuse than the lighter RX-8 does. That means more engineering resources and stronger materials.

 

Now, getting back to Ford iterviewing existing Mustang owners when they were designing the current mustang and asking them what they do with their cars. I think that it's a self surving survey if they are asking guys that know the handling defficiencies of the previous mustangs what they do with the car. Of course they drag race them, they'd get their butts handed to them and likely killed if they tried to take their stangs to a road race. Yes, the last cobra was very well sorted, but still didn't handle the twisties with the aplomb that many of its competitiors did.

 

I like the mustang as-is, for what it is. That being said, I'd like the next platform redesign to make an allowance for an IRS, platform expansion for a Sedan version at some point, and a Mustang that is designed for handling with an IRS and a 300+ hp 3.5L v6 under the hood. They could have 4 versions of the stang then:

The base model 260 hp 3.5L, SRA

The handling model 305 hp 3.5L v6 IRS

The Drag Model (GT) 340 HP V8 SRA

The total Performance Model 500+ HP V8, IRS

[01FOCI]

Just remember when you gripe about the RX-8 having an IRS and the mustang not: The top tune in the RX-8 barely cracks 200 lbs of torque on a good day, if then. The BASE engine in the mustang has almost 250 lbs of torque and the Gt has over 300 lbs. That means that the mustang IRS would have to cope with a lot more power and abuse than the lighter RX-8 does. That means more engineering resources and stronger materials.

 

Now, getting back to Ford iterviewing existing Mustang owners when they were designing the current mustang and asking them what they do with their cars. I think that it's a self surving survey if they are asking guys that know the handling defficiencies of the previous mustangs what they do with the car. Of course they drag race them, they'd get their butts handed to them and likely killed if they tried to take their stangs to a road race. Yes, the last cobra was very well sorted, but still didn't handle the twisties with the aplomb that many of its competitiors did.

 

I like the mustang as-is, for what it is. That being said, I'd like the next platform redesign to make an allowance for an IRS, platform expansion for a Sedan version at some point, and a Mustang that is designed for handling with an IRS and a 300+ hp 3.5L v6 under the hood. They could have 4 versions of the stang then:

The base model 260 hp 3.5L, SRA

The handling model 305 hp 3.5L v6 IRS

The Drag Model (GT) 340 HP V8 SRA

The total Performance Model 500+ HP V8, IRS

 

A SEDAN MUSTANG? HELL FIRE SHALL REIGN DOWN UPON YOU!

Edited November 20, 2006 by 01FOCI

[swenson88]

A SEDAN MUSTANG? HELL FIRE SHALL REIGN DOWN UPON YOU!

 

I think he meant a sedan built off the Mustang platform (RWD, V8, sporty), not an actual Mustang sedan. I don't think anyone would dare do that (I hope). Although, there are those hideous "shooting brake" Mustang drawings floating around the car mags . . .

[retro-man]

Maybe they'll develop a full Falcon lineup off the Mustang platform..... and we will have come full circle. By all means offer a 6 as well as the V8. I could go for a stripper sedan. Or a Ranchero. Or maybe a wagon.... or a panel van.......

Edited November 20, 2006 by retro-man

[silvrsvt]

I think another thing that alot of people forget is the fact that the Mustang GT isn't the only model you can buy of a Mustang, it has to share (and make a profit) with all those pesky V6 Mustang's that kept the Mustang from going to the glue factory.

 

While current Mustang might have somewhat cheap plastics (they aren't any worse then what I had my Focus nor my 98 Mustang GT and it really doesn't bother me like I've seen on some other cars), part of the reason is that its sharing those same plastics as a 19K car. I'm sure in the future, Ford will have some "soft-touch" plastics in the car in the next refresh, but overall for the costs they aren't that bad.

[JW]

I dunno, all the Mustang owners I know (and I know a lot of them) prefer a solid axle. One of them, who does road race his '94 Cobra, even talked me out of an IRS swap on my Ranger. A solid axle can very effectively be tuned for handling. This isn't to say that the Mustang is from the factory, but it could be, and that's what they should work on instead of an optional IRS that probably wouldn't sell in more than 10-15% of the cars.

[syrtran]

A SEDAN MUSTANG? HELL FIRE SHALL REIGN DOWN UPON YOU!

Technically speaking, all the Fox Mustangs are sedans (excluding verts & t-tops, of course). They have window frames on the doors.

 

And, as an owner of one of the few live-axle Mustang models that would've (when new) out-handled the RX-8, I sure would not have minded an IRS. You people have to remember that an IRS is a -street- axle, not a race axle. Race tracks tend to be smooth, and the difference between LRA and IRS is minimized. Outside the track, however, roads tend to be -slightly- rougher, and an IRS is better designed to absorb the bumps while still maintaining proper geometry for cornering.

[NickF1011]

and an IRS is better designed to absorb the bumps while still maintaining proper geometry for cornering.

 

There was nothing "proper" about the geometry in the 99-04 Cobra IRS. That was why it sucked so bad. I own a solid axle Cobra and wouldn't trade it for an IRS ever. With springs, shocks/struts, and tires it handles VERY well, regardless of surface condition...of course, 295mm wide rear tires certainly help. :shades:

[oldracer]

IRS has another problem no one mentioned, it's heavy....

 

The argument is nullified of course when looking at the Vette, IRS that works, and 3200-3300 lbs curb weight...

 

I am a Porsche person for many reasons, but I would buy a regular C6 as a daily driver and not worry about anything.

 

I am looking at getting a 2007 + Z06 when I complete my move to Boston and get the house built...after driving one, it is impressive, no plans to daily drive it of course...but it could be done

 

My heart says IRS is better because I'm an old roadracer, (17 yrs worth), in 911's but the execution and inability to use even 50% of Mustang/Vette/RX8 capabiltiy on the street due to morons and tickets, tempers my enthusiasm.

 

Honestly I would have too much daily driver with a V6 Mustang for the traffic here, but we are seldom practical in our car obsessions are we?