The Official Mustang Thread

[GoCougs]

You're right, but if you don't believe that most hardcore Mustang fans don't want to keep the solid rear axle then you are sadly mistaken.? The Mustang will get IRS in 2010, but not because of buyer pressure to do so.

I don't buy that assertion in the least. It's the same as arguing for the return of BoF, drum brakes and leaf springs. I think you're getting carried away a bit in this thread.

[giant_mtb]

 

[Onslaught]

Oh those quirks: the same kind of quirks old Jag owners talk about when their wiring harness catches on fire...

Oh, and the shifter thing isn't weird, a lot of cars do that. Live axles aren't weird either except as a quaint anachronism.

Look, I like Mustangs. Hell, I think somebody has to have serious mental health issues not to like Mustangs, but let's love them for what they are and not try to make them into something they aren't.

HEY! The voice in my head told me that's not true. It's ok not to like it. Burn......burn them all......

[r0tor]

its remarkable that GM, Dodge, Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and even Ford all have IRS vehicles with over 500 hp and axels that don't snap like toothpicks.... wait a sec, did I say Ford has already done it 

[SVT666]

its remarkable that GM, Dodge, Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari, Porsche, and even Ford all have IRS vehicles with over 500 hp and axels that don't snap like toothpicks.... wait a sec, did I say Ford has already done it?

On cars that cost multiple times more and I guarantee that if you take a Ferrari and stick drag slicks on it and go to the track you will be shredding halfshalfts before too long.

[SVT666]

I just think they're kinda knocking you because you, like me, love your car.? I realize that mine is a 110 hp economy car, but I wouldn't trade it for the world.? I realize its flaws, however.

I think everyone just wants you to acknowledge that the 'Stang isn't perfect for some reason.

I've never said it was perfect.  I've acknowledged that throughout this thread.  Of course it's got faults, what car doesn't?

[r0tor]

On cars that cost multiple times more and I guarantee that if you take a Ferrari and stick drag slicks on it and go to the track you will be shredding halfshalfts before too long.

Last time I checked a GTO costs not a whole lot more and has more power then any mustang besides the GT500... last time I checked there were plenty of Vette owners with drag slicks and cars costing not a whole lot more then a GT500.? Last time I checked, Viper owners can be pretty brutal to their cars...




Someone please tell the Ford GT owners that they need to switch to a solid rear axel because they have toothpicks out back...

[Soup DeVille]

On cars that cost multiple times more and I guarantee that if you take a Ferrari and stick drag slicks on it and go to the track you will be shredding halfshalfts before too long.

So what you're saying is that Ferraris aren't raced?

[Soup DeVille]

What would I be trying to make them into?

Something other than flaws. Like they were intentionally put there to make the car more endearing.

[GoCougs]

On cars that cost multiple times more and I guarantee that if you take a Ferrari and stick drag slicks on it and go to the track you will be shredding halfshalfts before too long.

Actually, I think that it is you who are mistaken if you do believe that the Mustang 8.8" rear can stand toe-to-toe with the IRS on an Expedition, Viper, Z06, or 599.

Besides, most anyone doing serious drag racing would dump the 8.8 for a beefed up 9".

[280Z Turbo]

I for one don't find the flaws in my car charming.

The cracked dash is not nice.
The chronic rust is not charming.
The poor brakes add nothing to the car.
The poor aerodynamics are not fun.
The weird roofline of the 2+2 model is quirky, and not as nice looking as the coupe.

I love my Z, but at least I can admit what the faults of the car.

[SVT666]

Actually, I think that it is you who are mistaken if you do believe that the Mustang 8.8" rear can stand toe-to-toe with the IRS on an Expedition, Viper, Z06, or 599.

Besides, most anyone doing serious drag racing would dump the 8.8 for a beefed up 9".

The 8.8" rear end is nearly as good as the 9" and you can ask any drag racer that question and they will tell you the same thing.

[SVT666]

I for one don't find the flaws in my car charming.

The cracked dash is not nice.
The chronic rust is not charming.

Those aren't flaws. That's age.

[SVT666]

Double Post

[GoCougs]

GoCougs:? CougDude, it depends on the length of your right leg.? That 8.8" has dusted off 996s/997s/Targas, M3s, 350Zs, Firebirds, GTOs, GXPs, and CTS-Vs in the Grand American Road Racing Association's Koni Challenge; and Aston Martin Vantage N24s (the factory-built racers), Maserati Trofeo Competiziones (also factory-built racers), Caymans, BMW Z4s, Sport Exiges, more 350Zs, et al in the FIA's GT4 class.? That 8.8" has done it so handily to the various and sundry IRSs found under the competion (except the Firebird, of course, which is not handicapped with IRS ) that Eric De Doncker doesn't have to race in any more events in 2007 because he sewed up the 2007 GT4 driver's championship in his 8.8" Mustang at Spa-Francorchamps back in August.? Both these series are WFO, so all these dudes have long, long right legs.? And in the Koni Challenge, 8.8" Mustangs are required to run with over a tenth of a ton of lead plates bolted to the front passenger floorboard, a seventy percent intake restrictor plate, a punitive exhaust system, and a punitive final drive ratio so that they race at the highest weight of any vehicle in the series.? And at Spa and Virginia International Raceway, they stuck it to the IRS-handicapped vehicles in the rain.

Naturally, you may not drive WFO for up to 2.5 hours.? Those who do have found that the 8.8" can produce wins on the roadracing tracks at Spa-Francorchamps, Silverstone, Oschersleben, Daytona, Homestead, Iowa Speedway, Laguna Seca, Mosport, Mid-Ohio, VIR, et al.? And in all these races, every car has to use the series-mandated tires:? hard-compound Hoosiers in the Koni Challenge and soft-compound Pirellis in the FIA--so the Mustangs didn't win because of more suitable tires than the competitors...

Dragracing requires nothing less than a 9" once power and grip reach certain levels--Grumpy Bill Jenkins never built a dragracing Chevy for himself with anything else.? But the 8.8" can handle really serious horsepower if the slicks aren't too wide--again it's about power and grip, with a little technique thrown in to separate the cans from the can'ts...

Most of what you're mentioning are road coarses, not drag racing with slicks.

Nonetheless, we'd all be mistaken if the 8.8 under the rear of even a road race car didn't have profound upgrades; axles, bearings, housing and axle tube reinforcements and ductile ring/pinion assemblies.

The point remains - a live axle isn't inherently stronger than an IRS. Each is as strong as they are designed to be.

[280Z Turbo]

Those aren't flaws. That's age.

Somewhat, but they're also inherent flaws in the design and manufacturing processes.

They could easily rust out in a year or two. The dash cracked because of poor materials selection and bad market research.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is, the bad things about a car don't make it good.

[r0tor]

GoCougs:? CougDude, it depends on the length of your right leg.? That 8.8" has dusted off 996s/997s/Targas, M3s, 350Zs, Firebirds, GTOs, GXPs, and CTS-Vs in the Grand American Road Racing Association's Koni Challenge

with a completely non production OEM Mustang drivetrain....

[Onslaught]

Those aren't flaws. That's age.

Not completely true. Lot's of old cars don't' have these problems near as bad as the Z car. I love the Z but I've never seen a old one without a busted dash and I hear they rust really bad.

[Soup DeVille]

GoCougs:? Thank you for the prompt and informative reply!? Actually, a live axle might be stronger than an IRS unit--no universal joints aft of the universal joint that connects the driveshaft to the pinion shaft.? Most IRS units use four aft of the universal joint that connects the driveshaft to the pinion shaft--one on each end of the two halfshafts.? That's a weakness, and those universal joints also create some (minor) power loss compared to a solid axle.

Yes, there are significant upgrades on roadracing live axles.? Maybe as many significant upgrades as would be found on roadracing IRS units, but I doubt it.? Ill see what I can easily find on the FRPP website about non-stock OEM live axle parts on the FR500C's 8.8"...

ADDENDUM:
From the FRPP catalog:
- M-4033-G1AXLE GIRDLE?
- M-4204-C319"/8.8"/7.5" DIFFERENTIALS AND SPOOL?
- M-4210-B8.8" RING & PINION INSTALLATION KIT?

These are the parts needed to convert your stock live-axle to a GARRA-specs FR500C live-axle:?
The first part number is merely a cast aluminum rear differential cover that allows longer/stronger bolts than does the steel counterpart, and it saves a few pounds, too.? ? $209.00
The second part number is several choices of differentials--Open, Locker, or two types of limited slips (I believe the Torsen is the one used in the FR500C)--in various ratios (I think the GARRA rules only allows 3.55:1 to slow the FR500C's acceleration off the corners).? ? $750.00
The third part number is an installation kit for the second part number, and includes seals & shims as needed for the type of differentials you selected in the second part number.? ? $90.00

No oversized bearings (they're already big) or special alloy parts are used, other than the aforementioned aluminum rear differential cover.? No rad housings are used, either.?

Competitors might run a second bead around the junctions of the axle tubes with the differential housings--I'd do it, but then I'm an off-roader and that may be excessive for a track car.? And that's a service--not a part--like blueprinting or porting & polishing...

Mustang GT front brakes are used as the rear brakes on the FR500C--but they are direct bolt-on upgrades.? Technically, they aren't part of the live axle per se, which is what you were addressing.

Pretty straightforward stuff--inexpensive, reliable, and has won a lot of races...

So for, a little over a thousand dollars plus welding and installation and the initial cost of the stock axle, an 8.8 axle fitted car can compete with IRS race cars. Wow! you've really made your point about the superiority of the design there!

[SVT666]

2010 Ford Mustang Production Mule Spotted!

Brenda Priddy's done it again, snagging the first shot we've seen of a test mule for the 2010 Ford Mustang. Here's what she has to say, and take a look at the high-res shot of the mule after the jump:

"Our shooter managed to get only one shot of this Mustang, as once the driver saw the camera - he quickly ducked for cover. But this Mustang, with a well-padded bra, is believed to be an engineering mule for the 2010 mid-cycle overall.

Not too much is currently known about the upcoming changes to the Mustang, but we're expecting the "new" (as in extensive facelift) Pony car to start production in January of 2009, with an on-sale date early in the first quarter of '09. Although it will reach dealerships very early in 2009, it's expected to be sold as a 2010 model.

The 2010 Mustang will debut will all-new front and rear styling details, and the new BOSS 5.7-liter V8 is expected to be offered as an option, but we'll have to wait a bit longer to find out about other engine offerings."

[SVT666]

08-13-07: So what does one write about in the dead of summer when little real news is aplay? One writes another article on the upcoming 2010 Mustang. Are there any huge new developments that we have not already covered? No. Is there definitive news about what the face lifted Mustang will have under the hood? No. Does a story like this generate web traffic like a bloody car accident? Hell yes.

Really though, there have been some developments in the past month or so that continue to back up our previous reports about the mid-cycle facelift for the S-197 Mustang. As it is scheduled right now, the new redesigned will arrive in mid 2009 as a 2010 model. We expect cars to be on display at the 45th Mustang Anniversary Celebration in April.

We have previously reported that Ford is working on a new family of large displacement V8 engines that will enable more power and torque in naturally aspirated trim than the current 4.6 liter engines. The new BOSS V8 is believed to be a larger version of the overhead cam modular engine family and will come in two sizes which are reported to be 5.8 and 6.2 liters. While those sizes could change, they are right in line with what GM and Chrysler will be offering in the upcoming Camaro and Challenger which are due out about the same time as the 2010 Mustang.

We had reported early on that cylinder deactivation technology may play a role with the new larger V8 engines. It has been largely denied, but in recent months a Ford engineer made mention at a press event that they are indeed working on such technology. The system deactivates up to half of the cylinders while driving when the extra power is not needed to save fuel. When power is needed, the engine seamlessly goes back to V8 mode. Both GM and Chrysler have been able to increase fuel efficiency on their large V8?s with this system. With the looming government legislation to raise CAF? MPG standards, Ford is carefully looking in to the future of their V8 engines.

The V6 base engine continues to be favored as the new 3.5 liter DOHC Duratec engine that has been released in the new Taurus, Edge and Lincoln MKZ. This engine puts down about 265hp and would make base Mustangs competitive in its class in both power and technology. There is also a larger variant of 3.7 liters being developed which could get the nod as well.

There has also been talk about use of the Twin Force V6 engine that debuted in the Lincoln MK-R concept last January. A twin turbo version of the 3.5 liter V6, the engine produces about 400hp and is said to offer better efficiency than a V8 with equal power. We have been running a poll on our site for the past couple of weeks asking whether people would opt for a 400hp twin turbo V6 or a 400hp V8. The results have been surprisingly in favor of a Twin Force engine. If Ford were to offer such an engine in the Mustang it would surely not replace a V8, but likely be an optional engine that would be offered in a special edition of the car. Mustang Twin Force?

On the styling front, the most definitive news that has been gleaned from new reports as well as a number of recent spy photos is that the next Mustang will take a number of cues from the Guigiaro Concept Mustang shown last fall. Our renderings on this page depict styling themes taken from the bright orange Italian Stallion that made the show circuit all year. The few spy photos that have surfaced with camouflaged front ends show the same hard forms as the front clip of the Guigiaro car. Add this to innuendo and hints that various Ford employees have dropped in the past year that the concept car hints at the design direction of the next Mustang.

Again, this all ties closely with our previous reports that outlined the look and feel of the 2010 Mustang. Its rear flanks will be more defined with pronounced ?hips? that take a page from both the 1969-1070 Mustang but also the Guigiaro Concept. The front will be more aggressive with a meaner stance, again much in theme to the aforementioned concept car.

So, do you feel smarter than you did 10 minutes ago? Probably not. But, we continue to look forward with anticipation. Until better spy photos come about and until someone at Ford breaks the silence we will continue to stick by what we know, what we have surmised and deduced from the scant information that has leaked out thus far.

[GoCougs]

Good Heavens, it that's true Nethead, why would Ford bother with a two-valve OHC V8?

[SVT666]

HEMI666:  I can't replicate the nodes I used to find a forum posting about the Hurricane/Boss/Whatever engine.  The dude posted that the engine will be called the Boss when it debuts in trucks, and then in a special 2009 Mustang, with general availability in all Mustangs in 2010.  He says there'll be 5.8 liter and 6.2 liter versions to start, with room to go beyond 7.0.  The block will share much with the modulars--deep skirt block with cross-bolted mains and OHC valvetrain--but the bore spacing will be 4.015 in/102 mm.  Stroke for the 6.2 will be 3.74"/95 mm and the 5.8 will be 3.503"/89 mm.  The first release will be a two-valver (at 2.10" & 1.65") with two sparkplugs per cylinder, and there is a DOHC Gasoline Direct Injection version currently in development.  There's supposedly a twin-turbo variant of the DOHC four-valved GDI 6.2, but probably not for 2009 or 2010.  I doubt that there will be room for a second sparkplug in the four-valve version.

I've seen and heard a lot of the same.  Although, I have also heard Ford has all but killed off the two valve heads and will be going with 3 and 4 valve heads only. 

[Soup DeVille]

SoupDude: Yes and no. The series requires Mustangs to race only with a 3.55:1 final drive ratio--this is a punitive action whose intent is to reduce the acceleration off the corners that the Mustangs had when they raced with 4.10:1s and to cut the top speed that the Mustangs had when they raced with 3.31:1s. GARRA has put on a circus for three years trying to slow those Mustangs down--the final drive ratio dog & pony show has just been one of them! For awhile, GARRA was mandating a final drive ratio change after every two races back in '05.

Soooooo, yes, you have to spend the bucks, but it's because of the rules.  You don't need to do this, but the rules say you have to change the final drive ratio to 3.55:1 to keep lap times down.  The aluminum rear differential cover is a nice touch, I suppose, but it has never been a factor in the finishing positions.  Don't use it and save $209.00.  If they allowed Mustangs to run with their OEM rear axle, they'd still win.

You don't realize the aluminum rear cover aids in the diff cooling, do you? Or that 3.55 gears produce significantly less stress on the components? Or even that the GARRA has juggled all the rules for all the cars in order to attempt to have the remain at something resembling parity?

Anyways, you seem to have missed my main point: and that is that showing what can be done with a stock rear end when modified for racing is pretty pointless when talking about the production piece, or even more pointless when debating about solid axles versus IRS: as far as road racing is concerned that argument was won in 1963.

[ChrisV]

Anyways, you seem to have missed my main point: and that is that showing what can be done with a stock rear end when modified for racing is pretty pointless when talking about the production piece,

Actually, his point is valid. gear ratio change cost is going to be the same for IRS R&Ps as it is for live axle, so what someone is forced to do by the rules in that area is a wash as far as if the production piece works better or not (especially if the rules are being made to REDUCE the advantage the stock piece has, as in this case). So being forced to spend money to REDUCE it's effectiveness actually puts a positive light on what the STOCK part is capable of.

or even more pointless when debating about solid axles versus IRS: as far as road racing is concerned that argument was won in 1963.

Was it? if that was the case, then the supposedly inferior setup on the Mustangs would mean that they couldn't possibly win a road race with the weight and engine penalties that live with, and certainly not a SEASON of road races.

Apparently they work just fine, and are capable of beating IRS equipped cars handily. 

racers use what they know, and if it's good enough for F1, then by gods, that's what they want on EVERYTHING, even if it's not in fact better. back in the day, the cars that had live axles were worse in a lOT of ways, and it's possible that the live axle wasn't really one of those ways. There have been a lot of tube frame GT1 cars in SCCA road racing that were just as fast with live axles as their racing counterparts with IRS.

IRS has advantages on rough road surfaces, in ride and grip. But in drag racing and modern road racing, that rough road ability is largely moot. As modern Mustang road racers are proving.

[r0tor]

Was it? if that was the case, then the supposedly inferior setup on the Mustangs would mean that they couldn't possibly win a road race with the weight and engine penalties that live with, and certainly not a SEASON of road races.

Its winning GS races with a 5.0L cammer engine and a whole list of modifications against nearly stock base model Porche 911's... not exactly a great argument there

[Soup DeVille]

Actually, his point is valid. gear ratio change cost is going to be the same for IRS R&Ps as it is for live axle, so what someone is forced to do by the rules in that area is a wash as far as if the production piece works better or not (especially if the rules are being made to REDUCE the advantage the stock piece has, as in this case). So being forced to spend money to REDUCE it's effectiveness actually puts a positive light on what the STOCK part is capable of.

Was it? if that was the case, then the supposedly inferior setup on the Mustangs would mean that they couldn't possibly win a road race with the weight and engine penalties that live with, and certainly not a SEASON of road races.

Apparently they work just fine, and are capable of beating IRS equipped cars handily. 

racers use what they know, and if it's good enough for F1, then by gods, that's what they want on EVERYTHING, even if it's not in fact better. back in the day, the cars that had live axles were worse in a lOT of ways, and it's possible that the live axle wasn't really one of those ways. There have been a lot of tube frame GT1 cars in SCCA road racing that were just as fast with live axles as their racing counterparts with IRS.

IRS has advantages on rough road surfaces, in ride and grip. But in drag racing and modern road racing, that rough road ability is largely moot. As modern Mustang road racers are proving.

These are all valid points: but answer this question honestly:

Would any road race car designer/engineer in the world who had the ability to start a clean sheet design and was not prevented from doing so by the rules of whatever race he/she is building for: would they choose a solid axle over an IRS?

[SVT666]

911s are 2+2 just like Mustangs Nethead.

[Soup DeVille]

Soup DeVille:  SoupDude, yes they would:
Not long before his death, Colin Chapman (who needs no introduction), proposed that the very best way to get grip is to keep the tires perpendicular to the road surface, and the very best way to do that is with solid axles.  This is Colin Chapman speaking, so a more credible authority on handling can hardly be found.  'Surprised the Nethead here when I read it, too, but it certainly makes sense. 

So, how many solid axle Lotuses were ever built then?

[280Z Turbo]

Soup DeVille:  SoupDude, yes they would:
Not long before his death, Colin Chapman (who needs no introduction), proposed that the very best way to get grip is to keep the tires perpendicular to the road surface, and the very best way to do that is with solid axles.  This is Colin Chapman speaking, so a more credible authority on handling can hardly be found.  'Surprised the Nethead here when I read it, too, but it certainly makes sense. 

Kind of hard to to that when there are bumps, curbing, springs compressing in turns, etc.

We run negative camber on our racecars for a reason.

Solid axles don't stay perpendicular to the road.