Article on Ford's IRS

[GatorBlue371]

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6523204/...ugh/index.html

[MuscleCarz]

"well placed sources" from a rag like Motor Trend =

[THE EVIL TW1N]

eh, they're crying about a mostly non-issue. Give an inch, they take a mile.

[nester7929]

If my memory serves me right, the stang was the best out of all the current muscle on the skidpad by a good bit. If it ain't broke...

[stovt001]

The solid rear axle may work fine in ideal track conditions, but IRS shows its benefits in real world driving on less than glassy smooth roads. Much like Brembo brakes, the benefits aren't readily apparent in mere, simple highlight numbers.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by stovt001

The solid rear axle may work fine in ideal track conditions, but IRS shows its benefits in real world driving on less than glassy smooth roads. Much like Brembo brakes, the benefits aren't readily apparent in mere, simple highlight numbers.

Glass smooth is beyond an exaggeration. I agree that the IRS is a superior set-up when done right, but the SRA is not a bad option when done right either.

[GatorBlue371]

Originally Posted by nester7929

If my memory serves me right, the stang was the best out of all the current muscle on the skidpad by a good bit. If it ain't broke...

I think hes arguing that the Engineers at Ford have done a spectacular job with what they have, but unfortunately for them some big wig decided to try to save money on each model. Sounds like whenever they do switch over they will have an easy time building a nice IRS set up.

[Crowley]

I would aggree on the if it isn't broke don't fix it .. however, I think they should offer IRS as an option. I have had 3 mustangs and 1 camaro. My 2001 camaro put down about 400rwhp and I could spin the tires all day with the live axel. My 2004 Cobra had 509rwhp and 520rwtq and that IRS would plant it on the street period. I was very impressed with its street manors and the ability to keep the tires on the road from a dead stop or around corners. That being said, I am glad that the camaro has IRS and I do think if FORD can do what it does with a live axel, that is great, but I would LOVE to see what they could do with an IRS in there ...

I remember when the 2005 was being developed, at that time the FORD magazines were talking about how it would be built for IRS (instead of the IRS being thrown on the old chasis like it was in the 04 cobras) .. but when push came to shove, FORD said it would increase the price of the cars and that is why they went to the live axel. I don't know if this is the truth or not or if technology has changed enough that this is no longer true. Again, would be nice if this would be an option .. pay for it if you want it ..

As for this article ... it seems a lot of people are HARSH on the live axel in the mustangs .. but the Ford engineers have done great things with them ..



Crowley

[sabrescamaro]

It's ridiculous how stang fans jump all over the article. He didn't attack the stang, he just said what he would like them to improve to make the car even better. Constructive criticism, nothing bad about it.

[stovt001]

you say that as though Camaro fans here don't riot anytime an article mentions a Camaro shortcoming.

[camaro5]

Late in the S197 program, however, product development executive Phil Martens reportedly managed to convince Bill Ford Jr. he could save Ford $100 a car if the Mustang was switched to a live rear axle. The S197 platform was hurriedly torn up and reworked to accommodate the old-tech suspension. Martens was named Ford's group vice-president, product creation, North America, in October, 2003.


the S197's live rear axle actually ended up costing Ford $98 per unit MORE than the low cost independent rear end originally developed for the car.

[stovt001]

Sadly that mentality is all to common in American business culture. For example, Disney's original plans for the second Anaheim theme park was more along the lines of a west-coast version of Epcot or DisneySea, which Tokyo eventually got and turned out to be the best Disney theme park in the world. Instead, Disney saved some money by building the cheap, uninspiring Disney's California Adventure, and it flopped. Now the cost to fix it and make it into a proper Disney theme park dwarfs the cost of the original Westcot or DisneySea plans, and that isn't even counting the lost potential revenue that would have been generated by a quality project. I honestly can't understand why the mentality to cut costs even at the expense of lost revenue and massive additional costs later on survives today.

[UCF w00t]

Originally Posted by stovt001

Sadly that mentality is all to common in American business culture. For example, Disney's original plans for the second Anaheim theme park was more along the lines of a west-coast version of Epcot or DisneySea, which Tokyo eventually got and turned out to be the best Disney theme park in the world. Instead, Disney saved some money by building the cheap, uninspiring Disney's California Adventure, and it flopped. Now the cost to fix it and make it into a proper Disney theme park dwarfs the cost of the original Westcot or DisneySea plans, and that isn't even counting the lost potential revenue that would have been generated by a quality project. I honestly can't understand why the mentality to cut costs even at the expense of lost revenue and massive additional costs later on survives today.

Executives are usually rewarded on short-term gains/cost savings and not long term gains and stability. It's the same thing that caused the financial meltdown. They focused on getting their earnings up this quarter, not worrying what would happen 2yrs from now.

[stovt001]

Well yes, on an executive level I do understand these companies are responsible to investors who demand short term cost cuts. The part I can't understand is why investors keep this short-sighted mentality. They more than any other group should be looking for long-term success and rewarding strategies that focus on that.