2014 Mustang Rumored IRS
01-25-2010, 06:39 PM
#21
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 1,440
I love stirring up a little s***...the bottom line is I am paying for such a car...I want to love everything about it...and my opinion is the rear sucks...to bad they wont give options on the design...pick the one you want!
01-27-2010, 10:21 AM
#22
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
Counterpoint
The S197 may catch flak for not having the suspension du jour, but there seems to be near-universal consensus in comparative testing performed by/for the motoring press that the actual handling behavior of the Mustang is better than either of the others. At least over reasonably smooth pavement.
Keep in mind that once you let the wheel on one side of the rear axle toe or camber somewhat differently than its mate on the other side, you are still giving away some grip and some predictability. Up front, a little less grip normally becomes a relatively benign understeer effect, and since you have direct steering control over the front wheels, overall predictability is not a significant issue. Not so out back, and the compliances and passive steers that can be made to work for you up front tend to work against you back there in at least some situations.
My point here is that a car with a well-executed stick axle is still better than one with an indifferently-done IRS.
I'd argue that better predictability is primarily a geometry issue rather than one involving unsprung mass. Less unsprung mass certainly is a desirable trait, but it isn't a magic-bullet fix for every imaginable suspension ill.
More like an idle daydream. 53/47, at a stretch maybe 52/48. Simply adding weight over the rear axle to shift the static tire load balance around also tends to increase the pitch and yaw moments of inertia. Perhaps that makes sense on a twitchy little formula car or sports racer, but increasing the yaw MOI on a 3500 lb car with a 107" WB isn't the sort of thing you'd choose to do if steering response is very high up on your list of priorities.
The Mustang is an American icon that's not really "broken" as far as most of its customer base is concerned. Nor would any major change in its direction be soon accepted by those who favor high-tech imports. Keep in mind that the Corvette has been on a trend toward greater sophistication for some time now, and is still viewed as having shortcomings by those with a preference for the European nameplates.
"Fixing" the Mustang to suit a few potential buyers brings the risk of muddying its heritage, and there is no guarantee that high-tech buyers are going to see any mass-produced Ford product as meeting their image requirement.
The Mustang is (and has been) more about "fun to drive" than a demonstration of technical tour-de-force. Its character is accessibility rather than exclusivity. It's not a GT-R or IS at all, and I seriously doubt that potential Mustang owners would ever cross-shop those cars. It's not a WRX/Evo wanna-be, either – if anything those cars are to their companies and culture what the Mustang has been to Ford (making them the copycats).
dominant1 - I don't think we've ever posted in the same thread, and just so you know, my primary automotive interest is with chassis topics, hard cornering, and handling. Not the straight line stuff.
If it could be guaranteed that IRS – taken by itself here – would be significantly better over the wider variety of normal to very hard driving and would not be part of an effort to alter the Mustang's current image, I might be interested. The current setup is pretty good most of the time, and at least tolerable the rest, so the devil would certainly lie in the details of any such IRS.
Philosophically, I am convinced that technical complexity should not be considered an end in itself, nor should it overshadow, insert itself into, or interfere with the physical experiences of driving a car. Just because something can be accomplished in complex fashion does not necessarily make it a good idea to do it that way, and there's nothing wrong with keeping some things simpler.
Norm
• Marketing: It’s the modern and mainstream format for all other rear-wheel drive sports cars and sedans - and now the Camaro and Challenger. Today the Mustang is widely beaten down by the motoring press and consumer publications for being “old fashioned“. Lack of an IRS could be hurting Mustang’s mass appeal regardless of whether or not it would actually improve the car.
• Handling & Safety: Independent rear suspension allows each wheel to react individually to bumps, undulations, and traction variations without affecting the other. Because one wheel is not affecting the geometry or stability of the other, rear axle skate and mambo dance on washboard surfaces is eliminated. This translates into increased stability, increased refinement, and better overall traction in day to day driving.
Keep in mind that once you let the wheel on one side of the rear axle toe or camber somewhat differently than its mate on the other side, you are still giving away some grip and some predictability. Up front, a little less grip normally becomes a relatively benign understeer effect, and since you have direct steering control over the front wheels, overall predictability is not a significant issue. Not so out back, and the compliances and passive steers that can be made to work for you up front tend to work against you back there in at least some situations.
My point here is that a car with a well-executed stick axle is still better than one with an indifferently-done IRS.
• Less Un-Sprung Weight: Without the weight of a live axle and differential assembly directly on the wheels, suspension tuners can concentrate on traction, road feel, and cornering poise. With a live axle they have to compromise those settings to also control the dead weight of the axle. Less un-sprung weight always translates to better predictability, less harshness, and better traction on rough surfaces.
I'd argue that better predictability is primarily a geometry issue rather than one involving unsprung mass. Less unsprung mass certainly is a desirable trait, but it isn't a magic-bullet fix for every imaginable suspension ill.
• Better Front/Rear Balance: An IRS system almost always weighs significantly more than a live axle, but it’s “sprung weight“. While the extra pounds are a bummer there is an upshot. That increased weight is at the rear of the car which can help bring a balance to the traditionally nose-heavy Mustang. By changing the front/rear weight balance from the current 55/45 to perhaps 50/50 would move the center of rotational gravity to the middle of the car which can vastly improve handling balance. 50/50 is a lofty goal, but wouldn’t that be nice in a Mustang?
More like an idle daydream. 53/47, at a stretch maybe 52/48. Simply adding weight over the rear axle to shift the static tire load balance around also tends to increase the pitch and yaw moments of inertia. Perhaps that makes sense on a twitchy little formula car or sports racer, but increasing the yaw MOI on a 3500 lb car with a 107" WB isn't the sort of thing you'd choose to do if steering response is very high up on your list of priorities.
Why not improve the breed to make the car more appealing to the non-Mustang faithful?
The Mustang is an American icon that's not really "broken" as far as most of its customer base is concerned. Nor would any major change in its direction be soon accepted by those who favor high-tech imports. Keep in mind that the Corvette has been on a trend toward greater sophistication for some time now, and is still viewed as having shortcomings by those with a preference for the European nameplates.
There is a new crop of buyers entering the market who idolize technically complex import cars like the Nissan GT-R, Lexus IS, Subaru Imprezza WRX, Mitsubishi Eclipse and so on. For many it’s the technological prowess of these cars that make them exciting to buyers. Why not bring the Mustang’s technology inline with these modern contemporaries so these buyers would be more likely to add it to their shopping lists, thereby increasing market share?
The Mustang is (and has been) more about "fun to drive" than a demonstration of technical tour-de-force. Its character is accessibility rather than exclusivity. It's not a GT-R or IS at all, and I seriously doubt that potential Mustang owners would ever cross-shop those cars. It's not a WRX/Evo wanna-be, either – if anything those cars are to their companies and culture what the Mustang has been to Ford (making them the copycats).
dominant1 - I don't think we've ever posted in the same thread, and just so you know, my primary automotive interest is with chassis topics, hard cornering, and handling. Not the straight line stuff.
If it could be guaranteed that IRS – taken by itself here – would be significantly better over the wider variety of normal to very hard driving and would not be part of an effort to alter the Mustang's current image, I might be interested. The current setup is pretty good most of the time, and at least tolerable the rest, so the devil would certainly lie in the details of any such IRS.
Philosophically, I am convinced that technical complexity should not be considered an end in itself, nor should it overshadow, insert itself into, or interfere with the physical experiences of driving a car. Just because something can be accomplished in complex fashion does not necessarily make it a good idea to do it that way, and there's nothing wrong with keeping some things simpler.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 01-27-2010 at 10:24 AM.
01-28-2010, 09:32 AM
#23
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 659
I'm convinced that Ford is going in this direction in the future. Twin i beam suspension was once the standard on ford trucks and suv's. It was eventually replaced by a better suspension design. I don't think ford would change the current set up, unless they found something better. I trust that ford will get it right when they do the change over...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
2011, 2012, 2014, boss, f150, ford, fully, independant, irs, mustang, pics, rear, rumors, suspension, thunderbird
