Quote:
Originally Posted by sizl1
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.
|
FORD designed, engineered and marketed a compromised car...PERIOD. As is every vehicle marketed. Thank God for GRIGGS which, BTW, is an aftermarket (non-OEM) supplier.
Solid axle is better for handling? REALLY?!
Name ONE manufacturer that continues to use this archaic system on a vehicle of such capabilities? Ferrari? Porsche? Lambo? Audi? BMW?
Even the FORD GT was IRS...because it rode better... RIGHT!
NASCAR, that paragon of leading-edge technology, insists on solid-axle architecture. And they'd be the ONLY non-production-based major motorsports body who does...
Even Jamal is forced to move into the late-20th Century, this time around.