2015 Mustang Conceptualized Below is Said to Look Like "The Real Thing"

[FoMoJo]

Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless

Aren't most of them AWD now?

[12,000 RPM]

Aren't most of them AWD now?

Naw, they just have big tires and launch control. I would actually argue that AWD is useless in a supercar....

[GoCougs]

Eh, most supercars aren't that fast in the quarter mile.

lol - super cars (and cars that are far less so such as the GT-R and 911 Turbo) are now breaking into the 10s...

[GoCougs]

Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless

Solid axle = cheap out.

I'm not sure what Ford's problems are with IRS. First, the Mustang is 10 years late to the party, and now that it has arrived, somehow Ford couldn't do it without adding ~3" to rear track making the car look bit like a turtle.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

Naw, they just have big tires and launch control. I would actually argue that AWD is useless in a supercar....

Is that meant to be sarcastic?

I hope so.

[12,000 RPM]

Is that meant to be sarcastic?

I hope so.

Messes up the balance, adds weight, interferes with steering feel. No thx

[Soup DeVille]

Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless

Solid axles still work better for drags. But, by the time somebody has built a drag car fast enough for it to matter, they've done a crap load of fabricating already (and likely needed an IHRA chassis sticker too).

Guys that go to that length; well, they don't give a damn about ordering bolt in parts from Ford.

[Soup DeVille]

lol - super cars (and cars that are far less so such as the GT-R and 911 Turbo) are now breaking into the 10s...

Which puts them- on a drag strip- in the same class as Bubba with his fo-fiddy-fo Nova down the street.

[Soup DeVille]

Its amazing how many super cars out there can launch superbly with an IRS... solid axle is worthless

The stresses put on the driveline are quite different for an AWD with traction control on street tires than on a RWD on wrinkle walls where traction control is outlawed.

Plus, there's the fact that internal parts for the nine incher are plentiful and relatively easy to change, right down to the gear ratios. I can understand why a serious weekend racer would want one, I just don't see why he'd care whether he got it from Ford or from any of the many dozens of shops that build race axles that are going to offer it anyways. 

[Raza]

Messes up the balance, adds weight, interferes with steering feel. No thx

We're talking about supercars here, right?  No one who buys them cares about that shit.  They want autopilot, but will settle for "race bred" automatic transmissions and stability control for the time being. 

[12,000 RPM]

We're talking about supercars here, right?  No one who buys them cares about that shit.  They want autopilot, but will settle for "race bred" automatic transmissions and stability control for the time being.

And nobody here cares about your beef with supercar owners.... yet, you persist.

Paddle shift gearboxes DO enable drivers to get way more out of high performance cars on the track. Stability control does the same as well. Your philosophical conflicts with those technologies don't change that. If you want a no holds barred whatever build a Factory Five Cobra. Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche owe you nothing.

[MX793]

Solid axle = cheap out.

I'm not sure what Ford's problems are with IRS. First, the Mustang is 10 years late to the party, and now that it has arrived, somehow Ford couldn't do it without adding ~3" to rear track making the car look bit like a turtle.

What makes you think the increase in track was an unintended consequence of the IRS?

[Raza]

And nobody here cares about your beef with supercar owners.... yet, you persist.

Paddle shift gearboxes DO enable drivers to get way more out of high performance cars on the track. Stability control does the same as well. Your philosophical conflicts with those technologies don't change that. If you want a no holds barred whatever build a Factory Five Cobra. Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche owe you nothing.

I never said it did nor did I say that they did.  Supercar makers are building cars for their target audiences, most of which don't get the "true" benefit of those technologies.  You say faster shifting at the track--the reality is that they take less concentration to drive on the road and you never stall and look silly.  You say stability control gets you faster lap times--in reality it keeps people from spinning because they're driving a car that's way more capable than they are.  But I wouldn't ask companies to build cars that wouldn't sell.

Nor will I refrain from voicing an opinion because it annoys you. 

[S204STi]

That's handy, because clearly there's no way else to get a 9 inch rear end from any other place cheaper.

[GoCougs]

What makes you think the increase in track was an unintended consequence of the IRS?

Increasing track by ~3" adds weight and decreases aero.

[12,000 RPM]

I never said it did nor did I say that they did.  Supercar makers are building cars for their target audiences, most of which don't get the "true" benefit of those technologies.  You say faster shifting at the track--the reality is that they take less concentration to drive on the road and you never stall and look silly.  You say stability control gets you faster lap times--in reality it keeps people from spinning because they're driving a car that's way more capable than they are.  But I wouldn't ask companies to build cars that wouldn't sell.

Nor will I refrain from voicing an opinion because it annoys you.

No, the reality is still faster shifting at the track and faster lap times. Whether or not the buyers of the cars use these capabilities in their element is another matter, but more importantly not really relevant to this thread/discussion. AFAIK all Mustangs will still be available with good old 3 pedal manuals, along with pretty much every car you will ever want/be able to afford. So to ask why you are bringing up completely unrelated cars/buyers/gripes in this thread seems like a pretty valid query. Not to mention the fact that your gripes are a little silly.

[Raza]

No, the reality is still faster shifting at the track and faster lap times. Whether or not the buyers of the cars use these capabilities in their element is another matter, but more importantly not really relevant to this thread/discussion. AFAIK all Mustangs will still be available with good old 3 pedal manuals, along with pretty much every car you will ever want/be able to afford. So to ask why you are bringing up completely unrelated cars/buyers/gripes in this thread seems like a pretty valid query. Not to mention the fact that your gripes are a little silly.

I didn't start the discussion on supercars--you were the one who made a comment about balance, weight, and steering feel on supercars, so don't act like I brought them up out of the blue.  Then you challenge me as to why I responded to your claim?  Come on, Sporty, that's starting an irrelevant argument than dismissing a counterpoint because the argument was irrelevant to begin with, even though you're the one who started it.  You're being ridiculous.

And the reality of the matter is exactly as I stated it.  Yes, if you were to, for example, add bluetooth to a dildo, you could sync your phone up to your dildo, but in reality, it's still just something you stick in your pussy when you're lonely and horny.  Doesn't make it any more versatile.  Unless you can control it with your phone....hmm, business idea....

But that's what we're talking about.  You're saying it can do something, I'm saying what it really does.  I have never once disputed that fancy automatics shift faster than a manual--not once--though your arguments hinge on pretending that I have.

Before you attempt to berate me for discussing something again, you should make sure that you're not the one who brought it up. 

[Soup DeVille]

Increasing track by ~3" adds weight and decreases aero.

And there are a dozen different reasons for them to do so. Assuming that had to because of the IRS is silly.

[GoCougs]

And there are a dozen different reasons for them to do so. Assuming that had to because of the IRS is silly.

Adding 3" to rear track so altered the look and size of the car that I don't buy that it was anything but an unintentional byproduct:

[12,000 RPM]

There are plenty of RWD IRS cars with significantly narrower rear tracks. The idea that it was a byproduct and not intentional is ridiculous.

[Soup DeVille]

Adding 3" to rear track so altered the look and size of the car that I don't buy that it was anything but an unintentional byproduct:

Or, an intentional styling decision. Or, it simply handled better being a little wider. Ford has made narrower IRS vehicles in the past. Really, it's ridiculous to think they couldn't have made a narrower track IRS vehicle. This is the only domestic manufacturer with an extensive Formula One history, and I don't see many live axle F1 cars around.

[SVT666]

Increasing track by ~3" adds weight and decreases aero.

They added the 3" in track for cornering stability.  Everything is explained here:

Talking 2015 Ford Mustang! Wide Open Throttle Ep. 90

[GoCougs]

Nailed it - it's an integrated link style IRS, which has the suspension links bolted to a sub carrier rather than the car, which says it's a parts bin special, and at present any Ford car with powered IRS is big - MKZ, Aussie Falcon, etc. Mustang forum scuttlebutt points to new MKZ/Fusion as the donor.

[MX793]

Or they widened the track to ensure they could fit the car with sufficiently wide tires.  As it stands, the Mustang is under-tired compared to the Camaro (by at least 20mm, comparable model to comparable model).  The GT500 with 600+ hp has only 285 width tires on the rear whereas the ZL1 is wearing 305s.  Camaro SSes have 275s while the widest you can get on a Mustang GT is 255.  And the current Mustang's rear track is an inch or more narrower than the Camaro's.

[Cobra93]

Or maybe they did it so they could dial in tons of positive camber like they did on the S197's live rear axle 

[GoCougs]

Or they widened the track to ensure they could fit the car with sufficiently wide tires.  As it stands, the Mustang is under-tired compared to the Camaro (by at least 20mm, comparable model to comparable model).  The GT500 with 600+ hp has only 285 width tires on the rear whereas the ZL1 is wearing 305s.  Camaro SSes have 275s while the widest you can get on a Mustang GT is 255.  And the current Mustang's rear track is an inch or more narrower than the Camaro's.

I'm gonna guess probably not for wider tires, as there are cars of similar or smaller size to the Mustang that have similar or smaller rear track widths and same or wider rear tires; Corvette (62.9", 285), Viper (61", 355), e9x M3 (60.6", 255). Also, the Camaro has a 1.5" narrower rear track than the 2015 Mustang (63.7" vs. 64.9").

Ford chose tires for the S197 Mustang for a holistic reason, and it wasn't because they couldn't fit bigger meats.

[GoCougs]

Or maybe they did it so they could dial in tons of positive camber like they did on the S197's live rear axle 

So you know what suspension camber is? I would like for you to explain how that's gonna happen with a live rear axle.

[Cobra93]

So you know what suspension camber is? I would like for you to explain how that's gonna happen with a live rear axle.

Maybe you should go back to the eleventh post on page 5 and get back to me on that one.... 

[GoCougs]

Maybe you should go back to the eleventh post on page 5 and get back to me on that one.... 

Do you know what a live rear axle is?

[12,000 RPM]

Hey goofball.

LOL at the positive camber in the rear!