The Ford Interceptor

[twintornados]

Interesting concept, it looks good, it looks "fast" sitting still. I would lower the beltline a tad for more "greenhouse" and tone the grille down a bit....not too much, just a bit. I realize that cars like Chryslers' 300 have that 'in your face' attitude, but look at the numbers....the 300 is already dying.

 

Here are my ideas for it...

 

Build it with 4 doors and call it the Falcon, upscale version called the Falcon LTD, and top version (as a 2 door coupe??) Falcon Crown Victoria...of course the police model naturally to be called the Falcon Police Interceptor.

 

A wagon version named Fairlane.....

 

3.5 liter as base, mod V8 for upscale....Hurricane V8 for the "SVT" model, ultimate special engine for PI model

Edited January 5, 2007 by twintornados

[Hemiman]

I think Ford should use a flat head V-8 in this car. Much cheaper to produce, fewer parts & has some nostalgic value.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Hemiman

[Blue II]

What a nice surprise that they continued where they left off with the 427 concept. Of course, it must have a higher roof and an independent rear suspension to be a production model. However, the key word is concept. Unless Ford starts building cars like this very, very soon, they will probably run out of money and be gone forever. How soon? What do all of you think? Given thier dire financial situation, it seems to me that they had better have this and other substantial and stunning (nothing less will do) new products on dealer lots within 18 months.

 

Of course, GM is coming out with a whole new line of rear wheel drive cars. If Ford thinks they can wait until they see the GMs selling well, I wonder where they think they will borrow even more money?

 

I am almost sure that the revised Five Hundred will have fender vents, and they do seem to be in style.

 

Anything with the 3.5/3.7 GTTDI will have functional fender vents. The GTTDI generates a lot of heat.

[Sizzler]

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.

 

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.

 

Peace.

 

-Dan

 

Does no one eat fruit anymore? No one can tell the difference between an apple and a fuzzy peach?

 

2001 Cobra, MSRP somewhere close to $30,000 at a time when a 2001 GT was listing for, what, $23,000?

vs a 2007 GT that is bascially a whole new car on a whole new structure?

 

And the whole difference in handling characteristics can be lain at the foot of IRS? Changing wheelbases, different goals in suspension design, the passage of 5-6 years? It's all because one SVT-prepped top of the line model running on an entirely different chassis had IRS, and the current (for all intents, basic everyday) grocery getter doesn't.

 

All your narrative tells me is just how excellent the rear suspension is in the new Mustang; it is very closely comparable to the IRS in the Cobra you had to pay a 33% premium for 5 years ago. In a secretary car no less.

 

Don't "Peace" me, you haven't proved anything except you need to spend more time in the produce department of your local grocery store.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Sizzler

[Biker16]

Does no one eat fruit anymore? No one can tell the difference between an apple and a fuzzy peach?

 

2001 Cobra, MSRP somewhere close to $30,000 at a time when a 2001 GT was listing for, what, $23,000?

vs a 2007 GT that is bascially a whole new car on a whole new structure?

 

And the whole difference in handling characteristics can be lain at the foot of IRS? Changing wheelbases, different goals in suspension design, the passage of 5-6 years? It's all because one SVT-prepped top of the line model running on an entirely different chassis had IRS, and the current (for all intents, basic everyday) grocery getter doesn't.

 

All your narrative tells me is just how excellent the rear suspension is in the new Mustang; it is very closely comparable to the IRS in the Cobra you had to pay a 33% premium for 5 years ago. In a secretary car no less.

 

Don't "Peace" me, you haven't proved anything except you need to spend more time in the produce department of your local grocery store.

 

If ford comes to market in 2008 with a sedan with a live-axle Ford is dead.

[JETSOLVER]

And the whole difference in handling characteristics can be lain at the foot of IRS? Changing wheelbases, different goals in suspension design, the passage of 5-6 years? It's all because one SVT-prepped top of the line model running on an entirely different chassis had IRS, and the current (for all intents, basic everyday) grocery getter doesn't.

 

All your narrative tells me is just how excellent the rear suspension is in the new Mustang; it is very closely comparable to the IRS in the Cobra you had to pay a 33% premium for 5 years ago. In a secretary car no less.

 

Your kind of simple right? The fact that a 7 year old design(99 Cobra) can outdo the 3 link is pretty telling. The fact that Ford had pretty much decided on an IRS(rumour admittedly, but confirmed in many guises) and shelved it for typical Ford disrespecting the customers intelligence reason is additional confirmation. The fact that you and Ford are STILL trying to defend such cheapness is stunning, and more than a little telling about how they hold the typical Ford customer in contempt. And the premium for the Cobra was in the engine as well, the 315 horse underrated engine that NEEDED THE IRS TO MANAGE IT!!! so don't lets confuse the cost issue as well.

 

And now we hear that the "on the shelf" unit is to reappear not only in the Mustang, but the Lincoln on a version of same chassis means what?

 

Although I am loath to give you another attempt to make a non-existant case, I too have driven both solid and IRS SN95's on race tracks and somewhat illegally on public roads. I have also driven both bread and butter S197 and a Steeda version of same.

 

In the average bad road in my city, the IRS is not only noticable, it is noticable by its absence. On our little not so great race track, the solid in the 05 Steeda was good but only up until I used the supercharger, then the power on unsettled feel is pretty scary. The rear tends to get light and float, you get the feeling its ready to come around at any instant, and when you ease the power, it starts to weave back and forth, almost uncontrolled. And thats the modified car.

 

So, now Ford proposes to offer a driver focused sedan of something more than 300 horses and you attempt to defend the indefensible. Sorry, your just plain wrong on this one. Flat out, REIS wrong.

 

And if on the off chance an actual Ford employee with any pull is watching, do your employer(and I guess yourself) a favour and quit treating your paying customers like shiat. We know that you cheap us out, and your disrespect and contempt for customers has reached about all tolerable limits. See market share for supporting evidence.

Edited January 5, 2007 by JETSOLVER

[XTerminator]

If ford comes to market in 2008 with a sedan with a live-axle Ford is dead.

 

AGREED!

[NickF1011]

Just my two cents:

 

I own a 97 Cobra. Solid axle.

 

I've driven 99's, 03's and 04's with IRS.

 

To put it simply: If I purchased an IRS SN95, it would have a solid 8.8" in it by now.

[Sizzler]

...

Although I am loath to give you another attempt to make a non-existant case, I too have driven both solid and IRS SN95's on race tracks and somewhat illegally on public roads. I have also driven both bread and butter S197 and a Steeda version of same.

 

In the average bad road in my city, the IRS is not only noticable, it is noticable by its absence. On our little not so great race track, the solid in the 05 Steeda was good but only up until I used the supercharger, then the power on unsettled feel is pretty scary. The rear tends to get light and float, you get the feeling its ready to come around at any instant, and when you ease the power, it starts to weave back and forth, almost uncontrolled. And thats the modified car.

...

 

A lot of verbiage. Let me try to parse it out for my simple mind.

 

"I too have driven both solid and IRS SN95's on race tracks and somewhat illegally on public roads. I have also driven both bread and butter S197 and a Steeda version of same."

 

You drive on closed courses, or publically in an unsafe and illegal manner. So you represent what? 1% of the typical Mustang purchaser? You drive heavily modified Mustangs, including a Steeda version that is designed for handling, not ride comfort. Again, Steeda purchasers are what? less than 1% of the typical Mustang purchaser? You care about ride comfort and rear seat room. Ford should bend over backwards trying to build you a race car so you don't have to pay those nasty 33% premiums?

 

"the solid in the 05 Steeda was good but only up until I used the supercharger, then the power on unsettled feel is pretty scary"

 

You drive a Steeda, designed for handling by Steeda, paid a pretty premium for it, and Steeda (you know, the guys who know what they're doing) left a solid in it instead of transplanting an IRS (which for Steeda, wouldn't be too difficult).

And this Steeda, with the supercharger, producing power levels found in 99% of Mustangs purchased by the average consumer I'm sure, breaks lose if you get on it too hard? Yeah, that's a scenario Ford needs to address and design for.

 

You should head for the yellow section of produce, try to learn the difference between a banana and a plantain...

[XTerminator]

Does no one eat fruit anymore? No one can tell the difference between an apple and a fuzzy peach?

 

2001 Cobra, MSRP somewhere close to $30,000 at a time when a 2001 GT was listing for, what, $23,000?

vs a 2007 GT that is bascially a whole new car on a whole new structure?

 

And the whole difference in handling characteristics can be lain at the foot of IRS? Changing wheelbases, different goals in suspension design, the passage of 5-6 years? It's all because one SVT-prepped top of the line model running on an entirely different chassis had IRS, and the current (for all intents, basic everyday) grocery getter doesn't.

 

All your narrative tells me is just how excellent the rear suspension is in the new Mustang; it is very closely comparable to the IRS in the Cobra you had to pay a 33% premium for 5 years ago. In a secretary car no less.

 

Don't "Peace" me, you haven't proved anything except you need to spend more time in the produce department of your local grocery store.

 

 

ARE YOU KIDDING?!

Had the S197 been equipt with the IRS it would be that much better. I've driven an 07 MGT, put a few thousand miles on it, and I say with 100% certainty the S197 SRA is inferior to my 04 Cobra's IRS in every day driving. Which, BTW, 99% of Mustangs drive on regular roads 99% of the time.

You must be a drag racer to so blindly defend such an antiquated technology.

[Sizzler]

ARE YOU KIDDING?!

Had the S197 been equipt with the IRS it would be that much better. I've driven an 07 MGT, put a few thousand miles on it, and I say with 100% certainty the S197 SRA is inferior to my 04 Cobra's IRS in every day driving. Which, BTW, 99% of Mustangs drive on regular roads 99% of the time.

You must be a drag racer to so blindly defend such an antiquated technology.

 

I think you're all idiots. You think I'm an idiot.

 

This is nothing but a repackaging of the timeworn "manual vs automatic" argument. Despite a clear victory for automatics by the 99%'s, buff-books and troglodytes still clamor for a stick. It'll never end satisfactorally for anyone on either side. Personally, I don't see how you can argue with the vast majority who actually pony up real actual money for the (usually) extra-cost automatics. And I don't see how you can be arguing the Mustang's sales success, even hobbled as it is with a solid rear axle. Beat yourselves up all you want. I'll let actual sales numbers prove my point.

 

Just one more point: Dodge can't produce a new Challenger cheap enough to compete with a base Mustang, so they're planning on "all premium" models. Probably with IRS, certainly bloated and overweight. The reason they can't compete with Mustang price-wise is that Ford has made some decisions that aren't well-received by 100% of the market, but have kept the pricing reasonable. And for all the racers out there, if you want IRS, there's nothing stopping you from putting it in yourself.

[FStephenMasek]

you should keep track of just what you post:

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...

The 2002 Mountaineer is an example of a sub-par IRS design, but it was still better in most every situation than the '96 Impala SS which it replaced. As I mentioned earlier, I have driven the new Mustangs (most recently over the Thanksgiving holiday) and the solid axle shortcomings are still very evident. Of course, the 2006 Explorer is significantly better than the 2002 Mountaineer. Edited January 5, 2007 by FStephenMasek

[silvrsvt]

If ford comes to market in 2008 with a sedan with a live-axle Ford is dead.

 

 

if its used in Severe duty fleet for Cop and Taxis (if they want to pursue that market still), its a good idea...but for retail, its be fucking stupid

[68fastback]

I think Ford should use a flat head V-8 in this car. Much cheaper to produce, fewer parts & has some nostalgic value.

 

 

Starter buttons on the dash are back too!

 

.

[68fastback]

If ford comes to market in 2008 with a sedan with a live-axle Ford is dead.

 

+1

[68fastback]

Does no one eat fruit anymore? No one can tell the difference between an apple and a fuzzy peach?

 

2001 Cobra, MSRP somewhere close to $30,000 at a time when a 2001 GT was listing for, what, $23,000?

vs a 2007 GT that is bascially a whole new car on a whole new structure?

 

And the whole difference in handling characteristics can be lain at the foot of IRS? Changing wheelbases, different goals in suspension design, the passage of 5-6 years? It's all because one SVT-prepped top of the line model running on an entirely different chassis had IRS, and the current (for all intents, basic everyday) grocery getter doesn't.

 

All your narrative tells me is just how excellent the rear suspension is in the new Mustang; it is very closely comparable to the IRS in the Cobra you had to pay a 33% premium for 5 years ago. In a secretary car no less.

 

Don't "Peace" me, you haven't proved anything except you need to spend more time in the produce department of your local grocery store.

 

Fruit? wtf?

 

I don't know what your problem is but it seems from your responses you have one with this topic.

 

I suppose you would have liked it better if we used the exact same car -- one with and one without IRS?

 

You can pick on the value of IRS and the comparo all you want -- picking and twisting being things you seem to do well. But unless you actually address the topic/content with logic, facts and/or experience that are actually relevant, I see no point in responding in the future to such drivel.

 

Are you sure you're not the local GM schill in here?

 

Btw, by "peace" I was trying to express that no hostility was meant -- we just disagree on the topic. You're rejection of that says a bunch about you. Have a good day.

 

.

 

.

[68fastback]

a ) And for all the racers out there, b ) if you want IRS, there's nothing stopping you from putting it in yourself.

 

 

 

a ) we're not talking about racers! we're talking about enthusiasts AND everyday people who enjoy spirited road-driving

b ) yeah, right -- silly me for wanting my car company to do that for me.

 

By your logic who needs rack & pinion and hydraulic shocks and....

Edited January 5, 2007 by 68fastback

[StevenCaylor]

Build it with 4 doors and call it the Falcon, upscale version called the Falcon LTD, and top version (as a 2 door coupe??) Falcon Crown Victoria...of course the police model naturally to be called the Falcon Police Interceptor.

 

For the top version (if a 2-door) I would suggest the Falcon XL instead of Crown Victoria

[matthewq4b]

I always get a kick out of the IRS SRA arguments. A lot of disinfomation and plain wrong facts.

 

IRS and SRA both have shortcommings. The question that has to be asked is the SRA going to be a handicap in the Interceptor other than braggin rights?

 

Ride this is very subject. Rember one ot the cars with best ride on the market is SRA equipped. Many many articals have boasted of the ride of the TC say it is on par with cars costing twice as much. But that it a comprimise to achive that ride with the SRA in the TC it pretty much falls down when pushed hard. Some thing a IRS car would not struggle with so much.

 

As for handeling there is no advantage in IRS over SRA on smooth surfaces. That has been proven time and time again. In the 80's when the SCCA alowed both SRA and IRS cars to compete the IRS had no mesuarble advatage in the corners. But did show short commings under accleration.

 

But we are not dealing with race tracks here.

 

The comment about if the cars was not IRS equipped it would be a disaster are pretty much bull. As all the same comments were posted about he new stang when it was relased that they would be SRA equipped. And we all know how that turned out.

 

IRS is not the B-all to end all. It has shortcommings.

 

I have millions of miles under my belt in both IRS and SRA cars hell I got over 600K alone in the 92 GM.

 

Lets face it there are very very few well done IRS on the market. Considering the number that have been over the years there are literally less than a hand full that had acceptable rear suspentions that were not exoctics.

 

Even the Current LX cars that had the engineering resources of MB behind them that have decades of IRS experiance are less than ideal. This I know first hand as I own a 06 hemi Charger.

 

IRS in most cases will provide a compliant and better ride, but is also way more likly to provide squirly handling while cornering if vehical loading changes abruptly. Even my Charger is subject to that and way less controlable in the corners than the GM was if vehical loading Changes .In fact I have never driven and IRS car that did not get squirrly in the corners if you had to brake heavy mid turn. The worst was the 85 Mekur which borrowed it's IRS design from Porche. Get on the brake in that thing in the corner and you will be quickly be looking at where you just came from.

 

Even the Charger suffers from this to a degree. SRA cars are much more predictable on all surfaces. Of course this is subjective you have to have the expriance to knwo what they will do. And not many today do. But regardless of who built the damn car if it is a multi link SRA they will behave all the same. The same can not be said about IRS equipped cars as each manufactures car will react differently.

 

This is compounded by the fact that IRS systems provide little or no Anti Squat (keeping the ass end from sinking when power is apllied) making large power applications while cornering tricky. As you upset the balance of the car.

 

Also since these are road cars Rubber bushing have to be used and not helm joints like in race cars. you will end up with unwanted Chamber and Toe changes when cornering it can not be helped.

 

 

Also rember if the Interceptor is going to be a CV replacment keeping the SRA will pretty much gaurentee 60K a year worth of sales with out even advertizing or letting any one known it is being made.

 

The Current CV is the Police car of choice. A big part in due to it's reliabilty and durabilty and handeling.

 

You may balk at the handeling thing but it is true. Rember these are police cars and genrally have the trunks full of crap. The anti squat properties of the SRA help keep the cars balanced under acceleration especially while conering. In fact it is possible to achive over 100% antisquat with a SRA and the 3 link system is one of those set ups that can do it.

 

The EPS here tested the Magnum and the Charger. The EPS is harder on cars than almost any other PD dept in NA. With the temp extremes and the road desinitgration cause of it the EPS is very hard on cars. In the spring it is not uncommon to have up to 8" or more deflection in the tarmac due to frost heaving.

The LX cars were nixed due to the squirrly handeling when loaded. And the EPS opted to stay with the CV. They replace their cars every 3 years regarless of milage. And to date the only stuff that can make the 3 years is the CV. Everything else tested in recent history has failed befor that time.

 

SRA loses it's advantage under constant conrnering on rough surfaces. The axel just can not stick to the road surface like IRS. The time through the corner will not be as fast. Or as easly controllable. An experianaced driver can use this to an advantge by power sliding (drifting) around the corner. But it takes great skill to do so. and can basically match a IRS car.

 

Ford has more expriance With multi link SRA than any one on the planet. Every new Generation of SRA is leaps and bounds better then the last. That fact that the Current SRA Stang is able to best and match most similarly priced IRS cars is a testiment to that.

 

If the Intercpetor is going to replace the CV the retention of the SRA is a must. Lose that and you will automatically have every PD in NA comparing the offerings of Ford DCX and the furue GM Zeta's to each other and it will be a given that Ford will lose 10's of thousands sales off the hop.

 

The SRA is more reliable stronger and durable.

Yes it is the Bane of PD's and taxi's. But it is those constant sales that have kept the current crop Panthers in prodution for 25 years. And given Ford billion's upon billion's in profits.

 

Also rember Ford has commited to keep offering the the PD's of NA (And the world) what they want. So the SRA in the Interceptor if it is going to replace the CV is pretty much a given. Remember the Panthers the only NA car that is exported gloablly. To the Middle east and to Russia

 

Do not Knock the SRA in the Interceptor yet ,no one has driven the car and no one even know what kind of SRA set up it is. Or how it will handel It may very well be a watts 3 link. Which will put it on par with 85-95% of the IRS cas out there. And one thing Ford does know how to do and that is Build the best handleing SRA's cars on the planet.

 

Some of the issues with SRA such as axel hop over closely spaced rough surfaces (IE train tracks) can be tuned out with proper suspention set up.

Rember unlike IRS you can use very soft springs in SRA with out sacraficing hard accelration or handleing. The manufactues have never properly set up a SRA suspention.

 

Idealy you want varible rate srpings that are very soft for the first couple inches. Multi valved shocks and big ass sway bars. You retain the ride and do not lose any handleing. Aslo in this set up the axel is better able to stick to the road surface.

 

The Interceptor being built with a proper SRA will not noticably affect the ride or handing unilt you get to with in 90 to 95% of the vehicals capability. Some thing 99% of the cars will never see.

 

If the Interceptor does go IRS it HAS to be the Falcons Swing Arm (Control Blade) IRS.

 

The CB IRS is so sucsessfull due to it's abilty to provide a measurable amount of of Anti-sqaut. Unike most IRS systems

 

Personaly if it was me I would SRA the Interceptor and IRS the Mercury and Lincoln counter parts.

 

Years ago I said Ford had to Cheapen up the Linc LS and stuff a Ford badge on it .

 

Looks like after 8 years they finally got the message.

 

In all reality this is what should have been built instead of the Fracken 500. Ford could have met the LX cars head on. And possibly grabbed a chunk of the 250K sales they have managed to aquire in a segment, the RWD sedan that many said there was no hope of selling any thing in.

 

If these cars are going to replace the Panthers the logical place to construct them is STAP.

Lower operating costs (lower HC and exchange rate on wages) A supplier net work is in place. And the boys at STAP already turn out some of the highest quality product in the Ford camp. The Bulk of NA's PD's cars are already built in Canada. And PD's would have no issues buying these units built at STAP unlike there may be with a Mexican built product.

 

I said the logcal place for the TC was STAP although many said it was just dead and made no economical sence to move it there. Apparently Ford thought other wise.

 

 

Yes AAI makes sence as well but it would require expanding the facility or acquireing Mazda's part. With the Interceptor a Merc counter part and a Linc it would make sence to utilize a facility that costs less to operate and has workers that have specialized in RWD cars only for deacades. And who's future is in question.

 

Either way Ford needs to build this Car. The concpet styling is not to my liking the front end is horrid. But it has appealed to many. Ford do not let this be anouther missed opurtuninty. You Blew the Bronco concept the Conti Concept and the 427 concept do not miss the boat again.

 

Matthew

Edited January 6, 2007 by matthewq4b

[Biker16]

I always get a kick out of the IRS SRA arguments. A lot of disinfomation and plain wrong facts.

 

Matthew

 

3 things against the whole SRA thing

Ride+ handling

Packaging: large hump in floor

perception that IRS is better.

[galaxie guy]

I'am in love!! This is one of the best cars to come from Ford in a lone time. Thsi Car has sexy looks and remind me of the times when fast 4 doors and 2 doors of the mid 60's. The Vehicle has the look that reminds me of the old Galaxies. The tail light shape from the 65' and 66' fords. The stacked douple head lamps with a full wilth grill. The Vehicle does not say reto Galaxie but has bits and pieces to bring the big saze car back but with style. This time A ford person Can feel confident that this is a very fast family car. I with 2 boys would feel like taking on some hot rod on a saturday night and celebrate a win at the neaster dairy queen and still look good repenting my law breaking ans winning at church. Please MR. Ford, I beg you. Build this beautifull car. I want my name on the list for the first one. The grandfather of this car a 65' Ford Galaxie LTD is aiting for the grandson to come home. What a reunion they will have. :hyper:

[Tony Alonso]

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

 

And it is excellent, relative to the previous 4-link live axle suspension set-up of the SN-95

 

It's all about the "positioning"!

Edited January 6, 2007 by Tony Alonso

[GT40 2]

Is ford going to realease more photos of this car later?

[akirby]

3 things against the whole SRA thing

Ride+ handling

Packaging: large hump in floor

perception that IRS is better.

 

The hump is for the driveshaft and tranny - has nothing to do with IRS or SRA.

[68fastback]

I always get a kick out of the IRS SRA arguments. A lot of disinfomation and plain wrong facts.

....

 

Matthew

 

Matthew, outstanding post -- thanks for your insights.

 

I agree that if the Inteceptor is to replace the panthers, especially in police service, SRA-watts is the ticket as you say. I've always felt that it should be possible for a single chassis architecture should be able to be designed such that it can be successfully fitted to accept SRA or IRS. Do you see this as feasible? Is the differences in unibody stresses significantly different such that the overall chassis must be designed for one to the exclusion of the other (i.e. two sep chassis)? Appreciate your thoughts.

 

In the mustang camp for the upcoming Boss, I think IRS is mandatory, especially for the curve-carver segment that is hungering for that car -- folks that yearn to operate in that 90+% of capability range just for the sheer enjoyment. The control blade design would seem robust enough and well suited for such a vehicle. Your thoughts?

 

-Dan