Quote:
Originally Posted by LOWDOWN
Car - Curb Weight -- HP -- P2W --- 'Ring
ZR1.....3,300............638....5.2.......7:19
GT500..3,850...........662....5.81.....7:39
Z06/7...3,200..........505....6.33.....7:22
Z/28.....3,827..........505....7.58.....7:37
ZL1......4,120..........580....7.10.....7:41
Chassis dynamics, including weight distribution, tire sizes and compounds, all come into play. IRS vs. SRA. Even the Laws of Physics cannot defy such a staggering P2W advantage the GT500 has over ALL except the ZR1.
The fact the 'Ring numbers are in the same neighborhood as the GMs listed is strictly due to one outrageous engine, wrapped in an outdated chassis. By moving to IRS with the next-Gen Mustang is a clear admission of this significant shortcoming by its parents...
|
No, you guys are all wrong. With a Watts link and Torque Arm, racing teams like Griggs Racing have created Mustangs that can outcorner Porsches. The problem with the stock Mustang is NOT the live rear axle. In fact properly set up, a live rear axle will outhandle IRS (as Griggs, for example, has proven) on the track because it mimics F1 "suspension" (which is really no suspension at all) on the track - that is wheels on both sides having the same angles at all times.
The PROBLEM with stock Mustangs is the use of a panhard bar, which means during s-turns, the car feels unsettled because turning left feels different from turning right. Most reviews state exactly this: that the GT500 felt unsettled during s-turns. A Watts link solves this problem.
The benefit of IRS has nothing to do with the track. The benefit of IRS is for regular roads that have potholes and other imperfections where an IRS would benefit - all of which is irrelevant on a track.
Google the reactions of people who have installed suspension like that from Griggs Racing on a Mustang. They are simply astounded about the difference. I repeat: the problem is not the live rear axle - it's the panhard bar.