It's funny to me that the owners of a car that
never in its 40+ year history offered a model with an IRS setup until its 5th generation suddenly jump on the IRS bandwagon now that it is the suspension of choice on the latest interation.
I don't recall a bunch of the 4th Gen guys saying much about the advantages of the IRS over the SRA from '99-2004 when the Cobra Mustang had it and the Camaro SS did not. Why was that?
In the past several years, I've owned and driven a pretty wide variety of makes and models, both with and without IRS under them, and I agree with the person that said both have their strengths and weaknesses. I don't believe either is the be-all, end-all of suspensions, as there are variants of both that can leave a lot to be desired.
In the end, a lot of myopic Camaro folks will continue to throw out the "archaic" SRA vs the "neuvo" IRS differences as a reason their car is better, and that is fine. In the end, if you, the owner, is happy with the ride/handling of your care regardless of what is under it, the other stuff is just fodder for the message boards/magazines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome
Actually, your logic is quite flawed.
The survey in question stated that IRS would cause the price of the car to go up and they were asking if people would be willing to pay extra for the IRS and they voted "no".
So, what I conclude from this survey is NOT that Mustang people didn't WANT the IRS, I see it more as proof that they are cheapskates.
Isn't it cool how surveys can be made to sound like something they are not???
|
Did you actually get on of those surveys from Ford and respond to it? No? I did, and I'm not sure where you received your information but the question was not framed the way you indicate; whether or not you would pay more for an IRS. At the time that survey was sent out, the IRS had been under the SVT car for three years. Nice try though.