Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM
Get real. Most of the Mustang posters who post here are way more willfully ignorant than any of our members. But prove me wrong, see if you can get one of them to write up an honest post about an independent rear suspension, and it's benefits. If that's too hard, pick any other common car component (sunroof, or whatever) that isn't available on this year's Mustang. I've been trying for weeks now; nothing. "Solid rear axle, it's not that bad on a clean track" and "solid rear axles, they're better at the quarter mile" are about the only responses I've gotten. So much for the "car enthusiast" reasoning.
|
Actually, my view here is that Camaro enthusiasts often use this argument in reverse. Put simply, I frequently hear how any IRS is superior to the best SRA and as such the Camaro is obviously better than the Mustang. The problem is that this just isn't true. An IRS does indeed have more potential than a SRA, but you have to actually realize that potential in order to reap those potential advantages.
BMW and the Mac strut IFS is the best parallel example I can think of. For years you were beyond hard pressed to find a better sorted front suspension than the one offered by the M3 despite the fact that, on paper, a double wishbone IFS is theoretically superior. So how did BMW do it? Simple, their MacStrut was an superbly executed example of the same while the rival double wishbone setups were, almost universally, just good. That difference in execution forgives a lot of sins.
So yeah, there is absolutely an argument that the Mustang's SRA is superior to the Camaro's IRS based on the argument that it is better executed. And honestly, I think the counter to that, which is that IRS is superior to SRA just because, it a bit contrived and that arguments like that are how we ended up here.