The Ford Interceptor

[timmm55]

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9465

 

I posted some changes that to me at least make it look more attractive. Here's a couple others.

Edited January 4, 2007 by timmm55

[68fastback]

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9465

 

I posted some changes that to me at least make it look more attractive. Here's a couple others.

 

Wow! Subtle changes can make such a diff. The front I really like. The rear clip curves are nice too but almost give a more conventional look, with is pleasing but also removes some of the uniqueness -- I'm torn on that 'cause I like both ways!

 

.

[Mark B. Morrow]

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9465

 

I posted some changes that to me at least make it look more attractive. Here's a couple others.

 

Great work as usual Timmm55. The '68 style taillights widens the trunk opening for better access and the front end looks less like a RoboCop truck.

 

Any plans to try a Mercury version?

[FStephenMasek]

With the Mustang, Ford said it would have added about$1000 to the cost.

 

It's not a cost issue--it's that IRS is not necessary for any reason other than perceived superiority. The current Mustang has demonstrated that a live axle can handle and ride well.

 

1) It seems that the real cost is just $300, as posted above.

 

2) I have rented and driven the new Mustang, and it suffers from the shortcomings of a solid rear axle. I do have plenty of experience with solid rear axles and independent rear suspensions, having owned and driven for many years and miles the following vehicles:

 

1970 AMC AMX (360 automatic) - solid axle with leaf springs and factory torque links

1979 Pontiac Trans Am (400 4-speed WS-6) - solid axle with leaf springs

1979 Pontiac Lemans four door (heavily modified, hot-rodded V6) - solid axle with coil springs

1984 Pontiac J2000 Sunbird (turbo, 4-speed) - semi-indpendent twisting beam rear axle, excellent handling, good ride

1988 Pontiac Bonneville SSE - independent rear suspension, superior ride and handling

1994 Ford Thunderbird LX V8 - indpendent rear suspension, excellent ride and handling

1996 Chevrolet Impala SS - solid axle with four links

2002 Mercury Mountaineer RWD V8 - independent rear suspension, but still rode rough

2002 Mercedes-Benz C230 (still own) - independent rear suspension, excellent handling, relatively good ride

2005 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx - independent rear suspension, but rough ride, last FWD car will ever own

2006 Ford Explorer EB RWD V8 (still own) - independent rear suspension, better than 2002 design

Edited January 4, 2007 by FStephenMasek

[silvrsvt]

1) It seems that the real cost is just $300, as posted above.

 

The real cost is what it would cost Ford to put it into the car, then add in how much they have to charge to make a profit (say $600-1K per vechicle) and its not attractive to do so.

[FStephenMasek]

The real cost is what it would cost Ford to put it into the car, then add in how much they have to charge to make a profit (say $600-1K per vechicle) and its not attractive to do so.

Let's use the $1,000 figure. Is anyone seriously arguing that people would not buy the Interceptor if it cost $36,000 instead of $35,000 (a 2.8% difference), or $41,000 instead of $40,000 (a 2.5% difference)?

[timmm55]

I have a 05 Mustang GT, and the "lack" of IRS doesn't bother me a bit. My last few cars did have IRS (Mark VIII, SHO, Miata) and Ford did a great jobs of getting rid of the axle hop and side stepping live axles are noted for.

 

For me at least it's a non-issue, especially if they need to keep the costs down and reliability up....and be able to swap gears easier/cheaper. But if it's a marketing thing where IRS is a "gotta have" in the market segment, they probably should do it.

[Sizzler]

Let's use the $1,000 figure. Is anyone seriously arguing that people would not buy the Interceptor if it cost $36,000 instead of $35,000 (a 2.8% difference), or $41,000 instead of $40,000 (a 2.5% difference)?

 

I'll argue it. IRS is pointless except to poseurs. A Watts link is cheaper and better: both because it's cheaper but also because it allows for a stronger, more maintenance-free rear end.

 

An IRS takes away from either interior cabin room or trunk space and makes routing exhausts trickier. For no real benefit at the level of design Ford is likely to provide in a sub-100K sedan.

 

If you want an IRS soooooo bad, you can buy your own from any number of chassis companies and hack it into/onto your ride. Get back to us with an update about how much better it is blah blah blah blah blah...

[LincolnFan]

Now this is blind defence.

 

Even the 'get 16K off on our car' 300C has IRS.

[Sizzler]

Now this is blind defence.

 

Even the 'get 16K off on our car' 300C has IRS.

 

and why do they need to hack off $16K from the price? All because of that lousy IRS

 

IRS is for bragging. Buy a 300C if you want to brag about a "hem" (that isn't), buy a 300C if you want to brag about IRS (which is just an ongoing maintenance bill).

 

My defense of the Mustang's rear setup isn't blind, your (and others') push for it is.

 

Basically, I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Sizzler

[96 Pony]

I likey. It needs some tweaking for sure but this is the kind of car that Ford should build instead of such abominations as the Five Hundred.

 

To me overall it looks like the 300 with a modified Charger front end but that is fine since I give Chrysler credit for trying something different and I've always liked both cars. Hopefully Ford can take the basic concept and improve it more to take away some of that Chrysler feel.

 

So here's an idea kind of off the-wall as far as where to place it in the Ford lineup. Perhaps as the new Thunderbird? More luxurious than the Five Hundred, sharing the same engines as the Mustang? Ford no longer has a halo car . . .

 

Just a thought. :shades:

[BORG]

I don't care for this, too many retro cues that play VERY heavily on the 300. I like the overall body architecture, but the details are a total mess. I bet this will look better in person than it does in photos. Otherwise, Ford seems to have carried some of its Super Chief design language into this concept. I'm not sure any of it will work in the real world.

Edited January 4, 2007 by BORG

[Sizzler]

I don't care for this, too many retro cues that play VERY heavily on the 300. I like the overall body architecture, but the details are a total mess. I bet this will look better in person than it does in photos. Otherwise, Ford seems to have carried some of its Super Chief design language into this concept. I'm not sure any of it will work in the real world.

 

sorta anna nichole smith vs marilyn monroe?

[FStephenMasek]

I'll argue it. IRS is pointless except to poseurs.

You did not address my real world experience with both designs. No posing in that.

 

Ford would ignore what all of the competion is doing at their great peril. Do you think that all of the companies building cars with independent rear suspensions are silly fools who are wasting money? In addition to every rear wheel drive Bentley, BMW, Cadillac, Chrysler, Dodge, Maseratti, Mercedes-Benz, and Rolls-Royce car, the new GM full-sized cars and Camaro will also have independent rear suspensions. The independent rear suspension is one of the best features which sets the Explorer and Mountaineer ahead of the competition (e.g. the 4Runner). Ford is the only company still trying to sell solid axle rear wheel drive cars (Mustang, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Town Car).

Edited January 4, 2007 by FStephenMasek

[JETSOLVER]

Ford is the only company still trying to sell solid axle rear wheel drive cars (Mustang, Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Town Car).

 

Yep, and despite all intelligence(its called engineering) and experience to the contrary(hey all the kids are doing solid now, wait; what?), looks like they are going to die with that thinking.

 

From Bold Moves; still spinning the past bad choices;

 

"Responding to the commentators who are begging for an independent rear suspension (IRS) on the Interceptor, Autoblog reader the friendly grizzly (top 10 best handle, ever!) writes "To all of those who want IRS and feel it is necessary: this is another example of the 'whirly-bits-are-better' way of thinking. You know: eleventy-two parts MUST be better than twelve. Why? 'Because Car and Track-Trend says so!' I, for one, would FAR rather have a well-done solid rear axle setup than a run of the mill independent rear suspension."

 

BTW, Bold Moves is done. Was it good for you Ford? Myself, I've had better friends with benefits. Started strong, but like a lot of concepts from you, ended up pretty tame.

 

All in all, not much has changed, or has it? Perhaps you just needed to feel better about yourself ala DR. Phil. Or else it was pandering, in which case, you next appearance will be with that bounty hunter guy.

[Watchdevil]

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9465

 

I posted some changes that to me at least make it look more attractive. Here's a couple others.

 

I like the taillamp and decklid changes on this redo. However, the big truck grille is a NO. I veto anything that looks like a truck front end.

[jpd80]

Yep, and despite all intelligence(its called engineering) and experience to the contrary(hey all the kids are doing solid now, wait; what?), looks like they are going to die with that thinking.

 

From Bold Moves; still spinning the past bad choices;

 

"Responding to the commentators who are begging for an independent rear suspension (IRS) on the Interceptor, Autoblog reader the friendly grizzly (top 10 best handle, ever!) writes "To all of those who want IRS and feel it is necessary: this is another example of the 'whirly-bits-are-better' way of thinking. You know: eleventy-two parts MUST be better than twelve. Why? 'Because Car and Track-Trend says so!' I, for one, would FAR rather have a well-done solid rear axle setup than a run of the mill independent rear suspension."

 

BTW, Bold Moves is done. Was it good for you Ford? Myself, I've had better friends with benefits. Started strong, but like a lot of concepts from you, ended up pretty tame.

 

All in all, not much has changed, or has it? Perhaps you just needed to feel better about yourself ala DR. Phil. Or else it was pandering, in which case, you next appearance will be with that bounty hunter guy.

 

 

Ford Australia Quote:

[size="2"]Control Blade Independent Rear Suspension (IRS)[/size]

 

Falcon boasts an award winning# Control Blade Independent Rear Suspension (IRS) on all Falcon sedans*. Unlike the less sophisticated IRS systems found on other local cars, Control Blade IRS separates the ride and handling. From the first corner, you'll experience more accurate changes of direction and greater body control. The Control Blade's anti-dive technology allows for more of the braking pressure to be shared between front and rear brakes for improved stability. Control Blade IRS affords the best of both worlds to the driver, with superb road handling and a plush ride.

 

 

Having driven Falcons with the Watts Link SRA and later ones with Control Blade IRS, the difference is chalk and cheese on cornering and handling. I guess with all those drag strips and freeways, theres no place for top handling cars on American roads. As for that crap about SRA and IRS at the drag strip don't beleive any of it. Control Blade IRS is much lighter than other IRS set ups and a better mouse trap. Have a look at this Ford Australia Link

 

Heres a couple of XR6 Turbos that show how the Blade Control IRS plants and goes:

 

 

Edited January 5, 2007 by jpd80

[68fastback]

Let me just backtrack for a moment...

 

No car needs IRS, just like none need disc brakes, or lightweight wheels, or rack & pinion, or V8s, or.... etc, ad nauseum.

 

Wake up! The Mustang, Boss, Shelby, Interceptor, MKX, don't NEED any of those things. All those things exist because they are fundamentally better than the technologies they replace.

 

And the $1000 number in the Mustang was to add IRS to a car designed to not have it. It was not the differential cost (no pun intended) betw a car designed for IRS and having it to a car designed for live/panhard or live/watts and having it.

 

But cost is not the real issue.It's a red-herring argument intended to diffuse the real argument.

 

IRS is fundamentlly better because it greatly reduces unsprung weight and greatly augments stable behavior of the vehicle over uneven pavement in turns -- i.e. when it actually matters! But, you'd be 100% correct to say it's not needed when operating the car under conditions when it's not needed -- duh! Like disc brakes aren't needed unless you need rapid and repeated stopping capabilities with less fade, and rack & pinion isn't needed unless you want a better and more linear feel of the road, and V8s aren't needed unless you have enthusiast customers that want that sound (probably the least of these items in terms of true functional need <lol>), etc.

 

To argue that IRS is not needed is to argue that anything fundamentally better under specific conditions is not needed when those conditions are not actually occurring -- i.e. specious and self-serving.

 

If you do a spitrited drive of a live-axle mustang and an IRS mustang over the exact same set of twisty, challenging secondary roads (the road that many car guys crave and seek out whenever possible for the sheer joy of drving them) there is no comparison between the two technologies. To say otherwise just means you either haven't done that or don't know the difference. Nothing HTT or anyone else says can change the laws of physics.

 

There's an old story about the guy who complains to the farmer every year that the cost of his hay keeps going up and asks the farmer why he can't just give him a better price, to which the farmer responds: good quality, nutritous, fresh hay must be grown, harvested and stored properly and that takes time, money, equipment and care, however the price can be somewhat negotiable if you don't mind hay that's already been through the horse!

 

And that's exactly what Ford's argument against IRS is: horse !

[Sizzler]

...

But cost is not the real issue.It's a red-herring argument intended to diffuse the real argument.

 

IRS is fundamentlly better because it greatly reduces unsprung weight and greatly augments stable behavior of the vehicle over uneven pavement in turns

...

talk about fallacious and specious.

 

From a man who is not only a suspension designer, but a racer (Bruce Griggs of Griggs Racing):

 

"In many cases people talk of the lower unsprung weight of an IRS system, however, they forget that the overall weight of the system usually negates the unsprung savings."

A customer walks into a Hi-Fi store with his

girlfriend to help her make a decision

on which speakers to purchase:

 

Boyfriend: See, that's what i've got (he

says to his girlfriend as he

points to the Definator X-1

speakers which are as tall as he is).

 

Girlfriend: Yes, it's really pretty.

 

(The salesman approaches)

 

Salesman: Over here we have a great speaker.

Consumerphile Stereo has rated it

"Best Buy".

 

Boyfriend: What do you think of this one?

(Pointing to the Definator X-1s)

 

Salesman: The Definator is a GREAT marketing

idea, but it's really not a good speaker.

We give it a 500% markup and then

discount it 50% off so the customer

Thinks he's getting a good deal and

we still make a bundle.

 

Girlfriend: But it's so big and impressive.

 

Salesman: Size means very little. Bigger

isn't necessarily better. I sound

like Dr Ruth Westheimer.

 

Girlfriend: You mean the Definator is like, a, um...

 

Salesman: Well, the Definator is popular with men

who like to have...

 

Girlfriend: Bigger equipment?

 

Salesman: Exactly!

 

Only another guy might possibly be impressed with IRS under your rearend, what guy(s) are you trying to impress?

 

If you do a spitrited drive of a live-axle mustang and an IRS mustang over the exact same set of twisty, challenging secondary roads (the road that many car guys crave and seek out whenever possible for the sheer joy of drving them) there is no comparison between the two technologies.

 

This is nothing but Definator defecation. There is no proof of your statement. Have you actually done such a comparison drive? Don't be postulating without evidence. There is no way you could have tested such a scenario, it most probably isn't true. If it is, prove it, in our reality, not your wanna-be dream world.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Sizzler

[FStephenMasek]

No car needs IRS, just like none need disc brakes, or lightweight wheels, or rack & pinion, or V8s, or.... IRS is fundamentlly better because it greatly reduces unsprung weight and greatly augments stable behavior of the vehicle over uneven pavement in turns -- i.e. when it actually matters!

Thank you - your points were very well stated!

 

Did you notice that there has not yet been any meaningful reponse to my experience owning both types of vehicles? I have driven roughly 750,000 miles since I obtained my license in 1975, and can state categorically that solid axles are inferior. Besides that expereince, the laws of physics must be considered.

 

Perhaps the solid axle defenders are arguing that a good solid axle may be better than a bad IRS, but nobody here is suggesting that Ford install anything less than an exellent IRS in their new vehicles.

Edited January 5, 2007 by FStephenMasek

[Tony Alonso]

IRS is fundamentlly better because it greatly reduces unsprung weight and greatly augments stable behavior of the vehicle over uneven pavement in turns -- i.e. when it actually matters!

 

Fully agree!

 

To argue that IRS is not needed is to argue that anything fundamentally better under specific conditions is not needed when those conditions are not actually occurring -- i.e. specious and self-serving.

 

Specious - nifty SAT word!

 

If you do a spitrited drive of a live-axle mustang and an IRS mustang over the exact same set of twisty, challenging secondary roads (the road that many car guys crave and seek out whenever possible for the sheer joy of drving them) there is no comparison between the two technologies. To say otherwise just means you either haven't done that or don't know the difference. Nothing HTT or anyone else says can change the laws of physics.

 

On bumpy curved roads when trying to put the power down, there is definitely a difference. If the surface is smooth, then there is a comparison. I have autocrossed both IRS and live axle RWD cars. When hitting a tight corner and getting on the power, the feel was similar. Of course, there are cases where you can overload the wheels and get axle hop, but that is another dynamic.

 

And that's exactly what Ford's argument against IRS is: horse !

 

My suspicion is the live axle got the nod definitely because of price since the additional development time and cost to make it work for the GT500 might have come up against deadline and budget limits, respectively.

 

At any rate, I think we could see an IRS in this car and possibly the next Mustangs, but obviously nothing is certain.

[Sizzler]

Thank you - your points were very well stated!

 

Did you notice that there has not yet been any meaningful reponse to my experience owning both types of vehicles? I have driven roughly 750,000 miles since I obtained my license in 1975, and can state categorically that solid axles are inferior. Besides that expereince, the laws of physics must be considered.

 

Perhaps the solid axle defenders are arguing that a good solid axle may be better than a bad IRS, but nobody here is suggesting that Ford install anything less than an exellent IRS in their new vehicles.

 

you should keep track of just what you post:

2002 Mercury Mountaineer RWD V8 - independent rear suspension, but still rode rough

2002 Mercedes-Benz C230 (still own) - independent rear suspension, excellent handling, relatively good ride

2005 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx - independent rear suspension, but rough ride

 

All I see are a lot of apples, oranges, kumquats and grapefruits. Short wheelbase AMX compared to a jurasic Trans Am compared to SUV's and lounge-mobiles...

[Watchdevil]

 

[68fastback]

talk about fallacious and specious.

 

From a man who is not only a suspension designer, but a racer (Bruce Griggs of Griggs Racing):

 

"In many cases people talk of the lower unsprung weight of an IRS system, however, they forget that the overall weight of the system usually negates the unsprung savings."

 

He's correct -- on a race track -- not on real roads. You should know that. I'm sure he does. On a track the live axle can perform close enough to an IRS that the diff is rather negligable -- on real roads it's absolutely false! Race tracks don't have surfaces as variable and insideous as real roads. Also, weight is more critical on a race car -- you can afford to give up 2-3 hundreths in a less than perfect turn if you can get to the turn 5-10 hundreths quicker due to less weight. it's a whole 'nother dynamic for enthusiasts enjoying peformance driving on real roads where keeping it together over problem surfaces is encountered all the time.

 

 

Have you actually done such a comparison drive? Don't be postulating without evidence.

Sizzler, I would not make such a statement if I hadn't. I'm 58 and not prone to flights of fancy. I've owned hi-po cars since the 60s including a 2400lb handmade Italian sports cars (powered by hi-po Ford 302) with live axle/watts, mustangs, RS Capris, Cobras, etc and have driven them (not competitively though) at Watkins Glenn. Spirited driving is a sublime joy!

 

This fall ('06) we did just such a comparo between a 07 GT Mustang and an '01 Cobra (both coupes, similar weight and power). It was a subjective test run on several blacktop back roads in this area (eastern catskills of upstate NY have many superb driving roads). In spite of the Cobra's tortionally weaker chassis three drivers (of which I was one) concluded precisely what I have told you.

 

I'll admit that the GT faired very well over most surfaces, but when the turns got even a little lumpy, and especially over commonplace heat-induced blacktop ripples, (real-world conditions that Ford knows how to evaluate at the provig grounds), the GT would either kick-out the rear a good bit or 'dance' and require substantial correction; the IRS Cobra was much more predictable (even with 5-year old shocks). It was closer between them in smooth turns, but that's the point. IRS is most beneficial under poorer surface conditions. Even on surfaces with a little fine-gravel debris, the IRS was noticeably more stable (the Cobra's suspension is dead stock and original, has 57Kmi on it and has required no maintenance aside from annual standard allignment check/adjust) and able to recover more quickly.

 

If you don't believe me try it for yourself if you/friends have access to suitable comparable cars -- you'll be amazed at the diff.

 

We tried playng with tire pressures too (the GT owner was a bit miffed) -- dropping the GT's rear pressure, 5-6 lbs under recommended, helped but never got it to not kick or dance in two of the twisties that the IRS stang handled without fuss.

 

That's why I said you either haven't tried it or din't understand what I was saying -- didn't mean it as a put down, just as the only two alternatives that could explain your position to my mind.

 

Peace.

 

-Dan

[68fastback]

Fully agree!

Specious - nifty SAT word!

On bumpy curved roads when trying to put the power down, there is definitely a difference. If the surface is smooth, then there is a comparison. I have autocrossed both IRS and live axle RWD cars. When hitting a tight corner and getting on the power, the feel was similar. Of course, there are cases where you can overload the wheels and get axle hop, but that is another dynamic.

My suspicion is the live axle got the nod definitely because of price since the additional development time and cost to make it work for the GT500 might have come up against deadline and budget limits, respectively.

 

At any rate, I think we could see an IRS in this car and possibly the next Mustangs, but obviously nothing is certain.

 

+1 Tony ...I agree whole heartedly with your thoughtfull post.

 

I agree with your hunch that deadline and cost drove the GT500 decision, especially since it would mean a retrofit design ina chassis that was intended as live.

 

Ford had to put that in some perspective so rightfully they touted the excellence of the 3-link design. Apparently some folks bought ALL the rhetoric that went along with that spin -- you and I apparently two of the few who didn't

 

-Dan