Old Chuck

Was looking in Mustang monthly and saw an add for Mustangsirs.com. It seems that this person is doing IRS conversions for old and new mustangs based on the original ford design that they never chose to use in the Mustang. Has anyone ever had any experience with this type of IRS?
I know it may be non purist to go away from the live axel but it was in the plans at Ford and they never put it in the Mustang. With the stiffer body, it would seem made for the S197.
Any thoughts from suspension folks? May not be the best for drag applications but for cornering it would seem better. But then, the Viper and Vette are not bad in acceleration with IRS.

Sleeper_08

Chuck

The article had the wrong link - try this one - http://mustangirs.com/about.php

Sleeper_08

I ofund this link to the Hot rod article http://mustangirs.com/pdf_articles/Hot_Rod_Magazine.pdf

Old Chuck

You guys are right. I put an s after mustang. It should be mustangirs.com. Does anyone have any thoughts on the IRS?

Sleeper_08

The concept is very interesting but presently very expensive. According to the website they have taken the product created for the pre S197 chassis and adapted it to fit into the S197 chassis.

As there are so many variables involved in this kind of major change IMO it would be necessary to find someone who has done a before and after test. Then qualityandrelibility would need to be verified over time.

If the price was little lower it would certainly be a really attractive alternative to upgradingthe PHB, BHP Brace, LCAs, UCA, LCA Relocation Brackets, springs and shocks of the live axle setup.

Sleeper_08

Some more interesting links about the CTM Engineering Mustang IRS

http://www.suspension.com/Must-IRS.htm

http://www.geocities.com/ctmengineering/mustanghome.htm

Norm Peterson

I'd like to see the upper control arms/lateral link function separated from the half shafts, even though that would involve a little more weight. Suspension accuracy should not depend on the condition of the drivetrain pieces, and your suspension geometry should not have to be compromised to suit U-joint life and the limited range of options for "upper arm" length and pivot point coordinates. At least not if you're going to run it hard.

Keep in mind that this general IRS arrangement dates at least as far back as slightly before 1961 (when it appeared in the E-type Jaguars).


Norm