5.0 Is back
01-05-2010, 01:02 PM
#71
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Jan 4 2010, 10:52 PM
You'd never be able to shave off a few hundred pounds *and* add an IRS. Independent suspension adds a lot of total weight over a solid axle. The advantage is in the reduction of unsprung weight, not in total weight overall. And not all IRS designs are created equal. I think we all would prefer a superior suspension of any design over losing camber to body roll as in a poorly designed IRS.
01-05-2010, 01:48 PM
#72
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Jan 4 2010, 10:52 PM
Honestly, the engine bay of a Mustang GT isn't bad to work on at all. There's no plastic beauty cover to get in the way, just about everything is easy to access, and simple maintenance jobs like swapping alternators has never been that hard to do.
I wouldn't describe it as a "black tangled mess" under any circumstances.
But cleaner is better, I'll agree.
You'd never be able to shave off a few hundred pounds *and* add an IRS. Independent suspension adds a lot of total weight over a solid axle. The advantage is in the reduction of unsprung weight, not in total weight overall. And not all IRS designs are created equal. I think we all would prefer a superior suspension of any design over losing camber to body roll as in a poorly designed IRS.
I'd guess the base price of a Mustang GT goes up a few grand. Which is fine given the bump in power.
I wouldn't describe it as a "black tangled mess" under any circumstances.
But cleaner is better, I'll agree.
You'd never be able to shave off a few hundred pounds *and* add an IRS. Independent suspension adds a lot of total weight over a solid axle. The advantage is in the reduction of unsprung weight, not in total weight overall. And not all IRS designs are created equal. I think we all would prefer a superior suspension of any design over losing camber to body roll as in a poorly designed IRS.
I'd guess the base price of a Mustang GT goes up a few grand. Which is fine given the bump in power.
http://www.themustangnews.com/tech_08/st-0508irs102.htm
01-05-2010, 01:56 PM
#73
Banned
Originally Posted by overst33r,Jan 5 2010, 11:08 AM
Ford 5.0 - 430lbs
M3 S65 - 445lbs
GM LS3 - 415lbs
Very impressive. This engine weighs 15lbs less than the engine from the M3, a car costing twice as much.
http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/7357
M3 S65 - 445lbs
GM LS3 - 415lbs
Very impressive. This engine weighs 15lbs less than the engine from the M3, a car costing twice as much.
http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/7357
01-06-2010, 12:16 AM
#75
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheDonEffect,Jan 5 2010, 02:02 PM
mmkay.
Argue all you want that the Mustang is handicapped by the solid axle, but all the people who race every weekend on the drag strip combined by the astronomical numbers who show up every weekend at the road course put the lie to your argument.
I don't remember which independent rear suspension you designed that solved the complex problems of maintaining camber during body roll, controlling huge amounts of power, and still being cheap to manufacture and not adding weight to a the rear end of a rear drive car. Maybe you just need to remind me which production vehicle it was that showed the world your unique knowledge.
On the off chance that you haven't yet designed a single independent rear suspension system that was cheaper to produce yet provided a significant performance benefit over a solid rear axle that suffers no camber change under body roll, maintains toe under power, and is capable of handling immense power, maybe you should withhold judgement until you know a little more about suspension designs. It is entirely possible that you are not qualified to comment. I'll let you make that call, yet reserve the right to veto your comments. I'm sure you think that's a presumption, but you don't yet know enough to know what you don't know.
It's pretty obvious you think you know all there is to know about suspension yet have done nothing but graduated from a college. Perhaps you might want to add a little real-world practical knowledge to what you were taught in school before opening yourself up to ridicule. I'm just throwing that out there, make your own choice.
Keep in mind that I don't discount your opinions out of hand. I agree with much of what you have to say. But your perspective is a bit skewed in favor of TheDonEffect being the resident expert when TheDonEffect has rather limited experience. But I'd happily buy you a beer and argue with you all night if that takes the sting out of it. I'd rather disagree with someone I think knows something than with someone who doesn't.
01-06-2010, 12:48 AM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vash_241987,Jan 5 2010, 02:48 PM
If ford did put an IRS, would they have to redo the chasis? It's just something I read from the interweb about the pros and cons of putting an IRS on the mustang. In fact here is the link.
http://www.themustangnews.com/tech_08/st-0508irs102.htm
http://www.themustangnews.com/tech_08/st-0508irs102.htm
The guys who worked on the C6 benefitted from 50+ years of knowledge. The people who worked on the 1999 Cobra were starting from scratch. The Cobra IRS was designed to mate to the existing trunk, and these people were working from theory to non-negotiable mounting points. What they came up with was undeniably an IRS, and it worked pretty damn well. But compared to what comes in a Corvette or an M3, it was a compromise. It's not from lack of knowledge or skill, but lack of experience combined with external constraints. A BMW has a much smaller trunk than you'd expect from the outside, mostly from intrusions on the trunk space by suspension components. If Ford had shrunk trunk space to accomodate an ideal IRS, the Cobra would have cost much more just in the different floor pan configurations required for prodcution.
God knows what a Corvette team would have come up with, or a BMW team, when faced with the same task Ford gave it's engineers for the 1999 Cobra. But I'm guessing the result wouldn't have been much different and the engineers at GM and BMW were probably impressed with what showed up under the 1999 Cobra. Even if some Cobra owners weren't. There's only so much you can do with a sow's ear, and as far as I can tell, Ford *mostly* came up with a silk purse. In general, as long as the bushings are OEM and intact, there is no real issue with wheel hop. But with worn bushings and/or other worn factory components, dropping the clutch can result in harsh wheelhop that doesn't exist with the solid-axle vaiant of the same chassis.
01-06-2010, 06:22 AM
#77
Originally Posted by Onehots2k,Jan 4 2010, 05:32 PM
Black is the only color for this beast.
I'm a chevy guy.. ALL the way.. i can't stand ford although the new stang's with some lip kits are pretty cool looking..
I drove a friends v6 mustang and it was an auto.. man i did NOT like it..
But damn those mustangs with their exhaust's they have... it sounds better than any camaro or vette that i've personally heard... just has that deep *inside* sounding exhaust... like the sound is coming from inside the car while your standing outside of it... love that sound
01-06-2010, 08:41 AM
#78
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Jan 6 2010, 01:16 AM
OK, genius. Read the article linked by vash. Then present your own well-researched counter-argument. Start by listing all the sports cars with IRS that sell in larger numbers than the Mustang. Yeah, that's what I thought.
Argue all you want that the Mustang is handicapped by the solid axle, but all the people who race every weekend on the drag strip combined by the astronomical numbers who show up every weekend at the road course put the lie to your argument.
I don't remember which independent rear suspension you designed that solved the complex problems of maintaining camber during body roll, controlling huge amounts of power, and still being cheap to manufacture and not adding weight to a the rear end of a rear drive car. Maybe you just need to remind me which production vehicle it was that showed the world your unique knowledge.
On the off chance that you haven't yet designed a single independent rear suspension system that was cheaper to produce yet provided a significant performance benefit over a solid rear axle that suffers no camber change under body roll, maintains toe under power, and is capable of handling immense power, maybe you should withhold judgement until you know a little more about suspension designs. It is entirely possible that you are not qualified to comment. I'll let you make that call, yet reserve the right to veto your comments. I'm sure you think that's a presumption, but you don't yet know enough to know what you don't know.
It's pretty obvious you think you know all there is to know about suspension yet have done nothing but graduated from a college. Perhaps you might want to add a little real-world practical knowledge to what you were taught in school before opening yourself up to ridicule. I'm just throwing that out there, make your own choice.
Keep in mind that I don't discount your opinions out of hand. I agree with much of what you have to say. But your perspective is a bit skewed in favor of TheDonEffect being the resident expert when TheDonEffect has rather limited experience. But I'd happily buy you a beer and argue with you all night if that takes the sting out of it. I'd rather disagree with someone I think knows something than with someone who doesn't.
Argue all you want that the Mustang is handicapped by the solid axle, but all the people who race every weekend on the drag strip combined by the astronomical numbers who show up every weekend at the road course put the lie to your argument.
I don't remember which independent rear suspension you designed that solved the complex problems of maintaining camber during body roll, controlling huge amounts of power, and still being cheap to manufacture and not adding weight to a the rear end of a rear drive car. Maybe you just need to remind me which production vehicle it was that showed the world your unique knowledge.
On the off chance that you haven't yet designed a single independent rear suspension system that was cheaper to produce yet provided a significant performance benefit over a solid rear axle that suffers no camber change under body roll, maintains toe under power, and is capable of handling immense power, maybe you should withhold judgement until you know a little more about suspension designs. It is entirely possible that you are not qualified to comment. I'll let you make that call, yet reserve the right to veto your comments. I'm sure you think that's a presumption, but you don't yet know enough to know what you don't know.
It's pretty obvious you think you know all there is to know about suspension yet have done nothing but graduated from a college. Perhaps you might want to add a little real-world practical knowledge to what you were taught in school before opening yourself up to ridicule. I'm just throwing that out there, make your own choice.
Keep in mind that I don't discount your opinions out of hand. I agree with much of what you have to say. But your perspective is a bit skewed in favor of TheDonEffect being the resident expert when TheDonEffect has rather limited experience. But I'd happily buy you a beer and argue with you all night if that takes the sting out of it. I'd rather disagree with someone I think knows something than with someone who doesn't.
I wasn't arguing with you, I understand completely how successful a solid rear axle can be even in autocross because, well, a guy I know autocrosses them and sold me on them.
And I know not all IRSs are the same, I think that part is self explanatory.
My mmmkay was directed at your position of using a negligle sample of the populace of sports cars to discredit my preference for an IRS. Yes, we know all IRSs arent the same, and at least I know a solid rear axle setup can be successful in racing. You can argue that the mustang is a better handler than a Camaro, and I would agree, but it does't make the solid axle>IRS, it might have someting to do with... weight? tires? track pack equipped mustang? GM's historical preference to gear towards the flossy flossy type vs. the cone dodger?
It's like if we were talking about the Z, and you go maaan if it had a V8 that'd be stuff of dreams! And then I go well not all V8s are the equal, hey I agree with you, but they're not all equal, and then I go on to use whatever example to bolster my argument. What would be your response to that? a) argue that they are b) say yes, thank you for pointing that out as I did not know that, by the way can you tie my shoes for me too, or c) ...mmmkay.
And I'm not the resident expert, but folks here know I'm a fan of the stang solid axle and all, and I'm far from prejudice in my preference of cars (or at least I think so, I'm sure oneshot will beg to differ since I always find ways to knock BMWs, lol).
Constructive advice: might want to argue points made by someone before writing an essay based on the fact that they're not nodding their heads infront of you.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FlyingTR
California - Southern California S2000 Owners
7
08-28-2013 11:12 AM