http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=125968
Once again the Live rear axle lets the Mustang down.
"On the other end of the evolutionary suspension timeline, the Bullitt's highway manners remind us why live-axle rear suspensions are relics found in pickup trucks. If the Mustang isn't required to tow anything, why does it need a live axle? So omnipresent were the motions of the rear suspension on anything but freshly steamrolled asphalt that it was damn near impossible to read the already inscrutable speedometer. We'd hate to guess what would happen if the Bullitt's 18-inch wheels were replaced with the Challenger's 20s."
"In the end, however, the Bullitt's old-school solid rear axle limited its slalom speed because slight pavement irregularities upset the rear of the car long before the front goes off line, ultimately making the Bullitt more of a handful than the Challenger."
Uh, huh - no surprise.
But then again I seriously doubt that you'll be able to get a 5.7L Challenger R/T for a base MSRP of $26k...
EDIT: DUDE - I just read that the '09 will be available with a Trak Pak - including a pistol-grip 6sp MT. Cool.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 05, 2008, 08:02:03 PM
Uh, huh - no surprise.
But then again I seriously doubt that you'll be able to get a 5.7L Challenger R/T for a base MSRP of $26k...
EDIT: DUDE - I just read that the '09 will be available with a Trak Pak - including a pistol-grip 6sp MT. Cool.
Really? thats interesting.
nice the duo gets to battle it out again. Did Edmunds forget that live axles are cheaper and stronger and lighter than an IRS? Most people drag race their Mustangs anyways.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on May 06, 2008, 02:28:25 AM
nice the duo gets to battle it out again. Did Edmunds forget that live axles are cheaper and stronger and lighter than an IRS? Most people drag race their Mustangs anyways.
most? as in like 2%?
Quote from: r0tor on May 06, 2008, 06:38:21 AM
most? as in like 2%?
I think he also means that most just stomp on the go pedal from a light or in a straight line(like a 40-100) type of thing.
I'm not surprised. It better be better for that price.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on May 06, 2008, 08:47:28 AM
I think he also means that most just stomp on the go pedal from a light or in a straight line(like a 40-100) type of thing.
which leads to an advantage for a solid rear axle how?
Quote from: r0tor on May 06, 2008, 11:08:04 AM
which leads to an advantage for a solid rear axle how?
A solid rear axle has a huge advantage in drag racing, but only a small number of Mustang owners actually go to the track. I think Ford should make IRS standard with an optional solid axle for those who want drag racing capabilities.
There is certainly not a whole lot wrong with the Mustang's setup since only a small number of buyers will actually drive their car hard enough to experience any of the drawbacks of a solid axle. It's more the perception that matters. I've driven a few of the new Mustangs and not once could I have ever picked a moment in those drives where I thought, "Oh, that was because of the solid axle".
Hmm, you forgot the most important part of the article:
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/dodge.challenger.srt8/08.comparo.bullitt.vs.challenger.group.3.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/dodge.challenger.srt8/08.comparo.bullitt.vs.challenger.group.5.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/dodge.challenger.srt8/08.comparo.bullitt.vs.challenger.group.1.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/dodge.challenger.srt8/08.comparo.bullitt.vs.challenger.group.2.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/dodge.challenger.srt8/09.dodge.challenger.act.f34.1.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/dodge.challenger.srt8/09.dodge.challenger.act.r34.1.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/dodge.challenger.srt8/09.dodge.challenger.burn.1.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/dodge.challenger.srt8/09.dodge.challenger.f34.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/ford.mustang.bullitt/08.ford.mustang.bullitt.act.f34.2.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/ford.mustang.bullitt/08.ford.mustang.bullitt.act.f34.3.500.jpg)
(http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/comparison/2008/ford.mustang.bullitt/08.ford.mustang.bullitt.r34.500.jpg)
The more I see the challenger the more I want one.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 06, 2008, 11:13:50 AM
A solid rear axle has a huge advantage in drag racing, but only a small number of Mustang owners actually go to the track. I think Ford should make IRS standard with an optional solid axle for those who want drag racing capabilities.
There is certainly not a whole lot wrong with the Mustang's setup since only a small number of buyers will actually drive their car hard enough to experience any of the drawbacks of a solid axle. It's more the perception that matters. I've driven a few of the new Mustangs and not once could I have ever picked a moment in those drives where I thought, "Oh, that was because of the solid axle".
I'm sure 90+% of the Mustang buyers as well as regular car buyers could not tell the difference between IRS and Solid Live Axle. As long as it looks cool and goes fast in a straight line, that's all that matters, what's a corner??
Quote from: NomisR on May 06, 2008, 12:15:18 PM
I'm sure 90+% of the Mustang buyers as well as regular car buyers could not tell the difference between IRS and Solid Live Axle. As long as it looks cool and goes fast in a straight line, that's all that matters, what's a corner??
I've never driven the new Mustang on the highway, but on some pretty bad backroads, the Mustang's ride was fine, and the turn in wasn't bad at all.
Quote from: r0tor on May 06, 2008, 11:08:04 AM
which leads to an advantage for a solid rear axle how?
That it's cheap (as in trading an anachronism for more power).
The performance numbers and price of the SRT-8 are a lot closer to the GT500 then the Bullitt. I wonder why it wasn't compared to that.
Of the two, I'd pick the Bullitt based on looks and price. If I wanted to beat a Challenger SRT8 I'd get a GT500.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 06, 2008, 01:25:15 PM
The performance numbers and price of the SRT-8 are a lot closer to the GT500 then the Bullitt. I wonder why it wasn't compared to that.
It would seem that Edmunds has it out for the mustang. Why else pit the expensive all show and no go shelby GT vs the STI. A $26K GT would do just about as good but that would make the $10K price difference the factor.
If they picked a GT500, it would have totally blown away the SRT in acceleration at the very least. Therefore, they pick an expensive Mustang that doesn't really perform any better than a base GT to make the SRT look better.
No matter how you look at it, a GT500 and SRT are closer in price and are more the direct competitors.
Quote from: SVT32V on May 06, 2008, 04:35:41 PM
It would seem that Edmunds has it out for the mustang. Why else pit the expensive all show and no go shelby GT vs the STI. A $26K GT would do just about as good but that would make the $10K price difference the factor.
If they picked a GT500, it would have totally blown away the SRT in acceleration at the very least. Therefore, they pick an expensive Mustang that doesn't really perform any better than a base GT to make the SRT look better.
No matter how you look at it, a GT500 and SRT are closer in price and are more the direct competitors.
Agree with everything above except the smidge on Edmunds, because I don't know about that.
The R/T is more of a Shelby GT/Mustang GT competitor and the SRT-8 is more of a GT500 competitor.
Quote from: NomisR on May 06, 2008, 12:15:18 PM
I'm sure 90+% of the Mustang buyers as well as regular car buyers could not tell the difference between IRS and Solid Live Axle. As long as it looks cool and goes fast in a straight line, that's all that matters, what's a corner??
Most serious drag racers have a ton of money invested in the rear end anyway! So put the IRS in standard and let the dragsters swap it out for a live axle.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=14484.msg816783#msg816783 date=1210098837
I've never driven the new Mustang on the highway, but on some pretty bad backroads, the Mustang's ride was fine, and the turn in wasn't bad at all.
A solid rear axle isn't going to affect turn in.
i love the dodge charger srt-8. i have yet to drive a new challenger, and with sales so brisk, may not get the chance. i did check out the 'stang (in gt, shelby and bullit forms) and think it is desperate need of a redesign and upgrade; yet, still, an awesome car. i bet the upcoming chevrolet camaro will be a pretty funky vehicle, too.
i think we are mighty fortunate to have these sporty offerings to choose from. grab one while you can, as i'm afraid that the bush era gas prices and overall frightening economy will soon make these wonderful "sets of wheels" a thing of the past. sadly.
thank god for choice, gm, fmc and mopar fans. we pray that the economy will improve with the next president of the u.s. -- perhaps our only chance!!!
Quote from: Submariner on May 06, 2008, 12:15:14 PM
The more I see the challenger the more I want one.
:hesaid:
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 06, 2008, 11:13:50 AM
A solid rear axle has a huge advantage in drag racing,
Well, for what most people do with their mustangs, IRS would actually be better. Lighter, better handling, and better everyday performance.
The 03 and 04s had the IRS, and they do just fine with reliability and racing ability for the everyday Joe. Even up to 5-600 horse!
Give me an IRS Cobra anyday of the week over the old and stodgy live axle cars.
Quote from: NomisR on May 06, 2008, 12:15:18 PM
I'm sure 90+% of the Mustang buyers as well as regular car buyers could not tell the difference between IRS and Solid Live Axle. As long as it looks cool and goes fast in a straight line, that's all that matters, what's a corner??
Until they go over any type of bumps in the road and cause the axle hop most stangers hate.
Quote from: JYODER240 on May 06, 2008, 06:02:05 PM
A solid rear axle isn't going to affect turn in.
Turn in, handling, all that shit.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on May 06, 2008, 05:31:26 PM
Most serious drag racers have a ton of money invested in the rear end anyway! So put the IRS in standard and let the dragsters swap it out for a live axle.
Shazaam! I completely agree. Draggers will appreciate the SLA, while the rest of humanity will appreciate the IRA.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=14484.msg816987#msg816987 date=1210123903
Turn in, handling, all that shit.
Like everyone else I didn't notice until the road turned bumpy. Unfortantly the pavement on all the good backroads near my house is older than I am. It was well composed on smooth corners but the chassis still suffered but a general disconnect from the driver. Far better than the previous generation though.
Quote from: hounddog on May 06, 2008, 07:29:08 PM
Well, for what most people do with their mustangs, IRS would actually be better. Lighter, better handling, and better everyday performance.
The 03 and 04s had the IRS, and they do just fine with reliability and racing ability for the everyday Joe. Even up to 5-600 horse!
Give me an IRS Cobra anyday of the week over the old and stodgy live axle cars.
You have obviously never driven a 2005+ Mustang because if you had you would know that they handle and ride better then the Terminator Cobras do with an IRS. I've driven Mustang from all generations and the 2005+ is the best by far, even better then the Terminators.
Oh and by the way, Terminator Cobras shred their transaxles at the track all the time and many of them replace the IRS with a solid axle. It's a popular conversion for Terminators that are used at the track on a regular basis.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 06, 2008, 09:47:44 PM
You have obviously never driven a 2005+ Mustang because if you had you would know that they handle and ride better then the Terminator Cobras do with an IRS. I've driven Mustang from all generations and the 2005+ is the best by far, even better then the Terminators.
Oh and by the way, Terminator Cobras shred their transaxles at the track all the time and many of them replace the IRS with a solid axle. It's a popular conversion for Terminators that are used at the track on a regular basis.
Comparing the IRS in the Cobras to the SRA on the 05+ isn't really a fair comparison.
We've got a Terminator with over 500hp at my work right now. You're right that they don't handle well, but it is probably the best sounding car I've ever driven.
Quote from: JYODER240 on May 06, 2008, 09:52:21 PM
Comparing the IRS in the Cobras to the SRA on the 05+ isn't really a fair comparison.
I was simply responding to Hounddog's comment that he would take a Terminator over the '05 Mustang because of the IRS.
QuoteWe've got a Terminator with over 500hp at my work right now. You're right that they don't handle well, but it is probably the best sounding car I've ever driven.
They sound great, have stupid power, and I would take one in a heartbeat simply because of the unbelievable potential and relatively light weight, and the suspension can be upgraded in the aftermarket.
Quote from: hounddog on May 06, 2008, 07:29:08 PM
Well, for what most people do with their mustangs, IRS would actually be better. Lighter, better handling, and better everyday performance.
A better tuned SRA will be better than a crappy tuned IRS, of course a really good tuned IRS will do wonders, but from what I heard FMC didn't do well enough while figuring out an IRS setup and found the SRA in the mustang to be the best cost/performance design. But how is the IRS lighter than the SRA? In the celicas of my generation the weight difference between a SRA and a IRS is about 140lbs, it's part of the reason why I went for the SRA in the 3rd gen celicas. Same goes for the Cobra and the GT from the last gen mustang. An IRS setup is great when done right, but for lower cost, more robust and lighter SRA is the choice and I'm sure FMC wanted to keep the mustang price low.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 06, 2008, 09:47:44 PM
You have obviously never driven a 2005+ Mustang because if you had you would know that they handle and ride better then the Terminator Cobras do with an IRS. I've driven Mustang from all generations and the 2005+ is the best by far, even better then the Terminators.
Actually, I have. I drove a 2007 gt convertible. It was ok, but it seemed a little blah when I ran it through some curves, it felt almost exactly like a Crown Victoria.
QuoteOh and by the way, Terminator Cobras shred their transaxles at the track all the time and many of them replace the IRS with a solid axle. It's a popular conversion for Terminators that are used at the track on a regular basis.
Well, those are not "everyday Joes" now are they? As for they handle and ride better bit, overall the car might handle better but it is a different car. Put the IRS on the back and it WILL handle better, which is why the great handling cars of the world use IRS instead of the stodgy old SLA. And, put the SLA on a bumpy road and you WILL get axle hop.
Sure, Ford tried to dampen it with five link Watts, and huge sway bars but in the end it still suffers from the age old problems they have always suffered.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on May 06, 2008, 11:30:27 PM
An IRS setup is great when done right, but for lower cost, more robust and lighter SRA is the choice and I'm sure FMC wanted to keep the mustang price low.
This is the reason Ford opted not to use it, mostly it was cost. They simply did not have the cash to put into the R&D, and have all but admitted to that.
Quote from: hounddog on May 06, 2008, 11:30:34 PM
Actually, I have. I drove a 2007 gt convertible. It was ok, but it seemed a little blah when I ran it through some curves, it felt almost exactly like a Crown Victoria.
Well, those are not "everyday Joes" now are they? As for they handle and ride better bit, overall the car might handle better but it is a different car. Put the IRS on the back and it WILL handle better, which is why the great handling cars of the world use IRS instead of the stodgy old SLA. And, put the SLA on a bumpy road and you WILL get axle hop.
Actually axle hop is what you get in a Porsche 911 at launch. Hitting a bump in mid corner with a Mustang GT is no worse then hitting a bump in a stifly sprung sports car. Is it perfect? Aboslutely not. The IRS in the Terminators was a terrible setup and the current car handles and rides much better. Most people could never tell the difference.
Ford has done a marvelous job with the current live axle in the Mustang, and IRS is coming in the near future and I've got nothing against that. I just hate how people use words like stodgy, archaic, etc. when describing things like live axles (that work just fine) and pushrods engines.
I love pushrod engines. The HEMI has high rpm range, and acts like a DOHC. I wish they put it in boats!
And, I am sorry to disagree with you, but SLA is stodgy and archaic. There is a far far far better suspensions out there, the IRS. A marvelous SLA setup is still behind a merely good IRS setup.
Solid rear axles work okay, it's the truck style axles that use leaf springs to locate the axle that are the problem. Modern setups use multilink panhard or Watts linkage setups.
Many racecars use solid axles. Mazda's RX-7 had (and still has) a lot of racing success despite the solid rear axle.
It's not better than IRS and it's less than ideal, but it can be made to work well.
I don't think any mustang came stock with a watts link, that would be really cool. I want to install one on my celica in the near future.
I think it's an over statement that a marvelous SRA is behind a good IRS setup especially in smaller application. This is what should go into a CR Mustang if they were ever to make one
(http://images.mustang50magazine.com/howto/p62200_image_large.jpg)
the shaw link for the older mustangs is just bad ass.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on May 07, 2008, 02:50:04 AM
I don't think any mustang came stock with a watts link, that would be really cool. I want to install one on my celica in the near future.
You're right it never came with a Watts link. It comes with a panhard bar instead. The Watts link is far better at doign the job and can be bought through any number of suppliers including Saleen.
Quote from: hounddog on May 06, 2008, 11:45:59 PM
I love pushrod engines. The HEMI has high rpm range, and acts like a DOHC. I wish they put it in boats!
The HEMI redlines at 5700 rpm. I have seen aftermarket tuners that get it up to 6800 or so, but that's really getting up there for that engine.
QuoteAnd, I am sorry to disagree with you, but SLA is stodgy and archaic. There is a far far far better suspensions out there, the IRS. A marvelous SLA setup is still behind a merely good IRS setup.
That's simply not true. The SLA in the Mustang GT is a very good setup, but to make it marvelous one must buy a Watts or Saleen Link for it and that setup works absolute wonders with the live axle. Just look at how the racing Mustangs kick ass every weekend in road racing events around the world.
On a racetrack it's not going to make much of a difference if the car has IRS or SRA, atleast in theory. The problem with SRA is that it resists allowing the wheels to move indepentantly of each other. It will act similarly to a sway bar. A car that has IRS and extremely stiff sway bars will handle similar to a SRA in that the car will get upset when either only one side of the car hits a bump and it transfers it to the other side or when the car hits a bump mid corner and it upsets the cars composure. On a smooth racetrack a SRA shouldn't have any handling disadvantages over an IRS. The problem with SRA comes up in that none of us drive on smooth bump free roads.
Quote from: hounddog on May 06, 2008, 11:32:49 PM
This is the reason Ford opted not to use it, mostly it was cost. They simply did not have the cash to put into the R&D, and have all but admitted to that.
DogDude: Mostly true. They put the cash into IRS R&D for the Mustang years ago and came up with one that could generate around 1.1 G :wub: on all-season radials, and much more on track rubber :wub:. The coil-overs were mounted horizontally above the differential and its two axles, with the upper and lower A-arms transmitting the compression to the coil-overs by forged aluminum "L-shaped" items. They had a tech term for these "L-shaped" items but I can't recall it (
Update: Good googling found that tech term used to describe these suspension bits: "bell cranks"). There were pivots at the top of the "L" and at both ends of the bottom of the "L". The top pivots connected to the coil-overs, the inner bottom pivots connected to the body/frame, and the outer bottom pivots connected to the lower A-arms or to the bottoms of the hubs. There was a second, developmental version--significantly lighter--that replaced the upper A-arms with a single swaybar connecting the tops of the left and right hubs. The "regular" version was terrific, but it was costly and required a transverse "hump" across the trunk to clear the coil-overs, and to clear the upper A-arms at high spring compression. This had a detrimental effect upon the cargo area, naturally--and ended all hope of a flat cargo space with the rear seats folded down. The utility of the flat cargo space with the rear seats folded down was an amenity that Ford would not forsake for IRS as the 60/40 fold-down rear seats are a high value item to the great majority of Mustang customers. In a vehicle with the massive cargo volume of a Crown Vic, that "hump" would make only a minor difference in trunk capacity, but we ain't talkin' Crown Vic cargo volume in a Mustang...
The Ford GT IRS :wub: is splendid, too, but that may require extending the rear wheel tubs further inwards to clear all suspension components, resulting in a different version of the same problem--restricted cargo volume. But this would presumably leave the cargo floor flat--although narrowed considerably by the extended rear wheel tubs. This sounds like the way to go to the Nethead here, but mock-ups should be shown to lots of younger Mustang owners to see how they feel about the narrowed cargo area when the rear seats are folded down. I say "younger" owners because they're the ones far more likely not to have second vehicles with bigger cargo capacities--and thus the ones who would have to pass on a Mustang if the cargo area is insufficient for their needs.
But it ain't up to the Nethead here to decide, and we haven't gotten the word from those who will...
Quote from: Sigma Projects on May 06, 2008, 11:30:27 PM
A better tuned SRA will be better than a crappy tuned IRS, of course a really good tuned IRS will do wonders, but from what I heard FMC didn't do well enough while figuring out an IRS setup and found the SRA in the mustang to be the best cost/performance design. But how is the IRS lighter than the SRA? In the celicas of my generation the weight difference between a SRA and a IRS is about 140lbs, it's part of the reason why I went for the SRA in the 3rd gen celicas. Same goes for the Cobra and the GT from the last gen mustang. An IRS setup is great when done right, but for lower cost, more robust and lighter SRA is the choice and I'm sure FMC wanted to keep the mustang price low.
Unsprung weight is lighter which may be the greatest advantage of IRS. Axle hop can easily be resolved on both IRS and live axles if needed.
Motivemag.com did a comparison (sort of) between the GT500 and Challenger SRT8.
http://www.motivemag.com/pub/feature/versus/Motive_Versus_Dodge_Challenger_SRT8_versus_Ford_Shelby_GT500.shtml (http://www.motivemag.com/pub/feature/versus/Motive_Versus_Dodge_Challenger_SRT8_versus_Ford_Shelby_GT500.shtml)
No instrumented testing, but they did get to thrash them both a bit side by side:
(http://www.motivemagazine.com/emAlbum/albums/Features/Versus/2009%20Dodge%20Challenger%20versus%20Ford%20Mustang%20GT500/Motive-Dodge-Challenger-Mustang-GT500-030.jpg)
Their conclusion:
Quote
So, to sum up: The Challenger has a more advanced suspension, superior ride, incredible brakes, a more gratifying engine, a better-crafted interior, and posts similar numbers. The Mustang is more adrenal, currently has better steering, and can play the guitar solo to Stairway to Heaven while administering a roundhouse kick to your face. The GT500 is rough and raw, while the SRT8 is a very powerful, very competent cruiser. This test has turned out to be a fair illustration of the differences between a muscle car based on an intermediate body and one based on a pony-car platform. If you want a high-strung, nine-testicled pet, get a GT500; if you want a chilled-out muscle car you can drive everyday, put your name on the Challenger waiting list.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 07, 2008, 10:01:01 AM
(http://www.motivemagazine.com/emAlbum/albums/Features/Versus/2009%20Dodge%20Challenger%20versus%20Ford%20Mustang%20GT500/Motive-Dodge-Challenger-Mustang-GT500-030.jpg)
That picture makes both cars look so damn muscular and downright frightening. I would take the GT500, but if the Challenger had a manual tranny then that's the car I would park in my driveway.
The GT500, on the other hand, rides on front struts and a live rear end, and it's about as stable and behaved as a crack-smoking monkey. Driving it provokes alternating fits of abject terror and uncontrolled giggling, and it takes a sure hand to control. Go in to a turn with too much throttle, and you'd damn well better commit, stay in it, and let the rear end do the turning for you.
Sounds like my kind of car :ohyeah:.
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 07, 2008, 11:31:48 AM
The GT500, on the other hand, rides on front struts and a live rear end, and it's about as stable and behaved as a crack-smoking monkey. Driving it provokes alternating fits of abject terror and uncontrolled giggling, and it takes a sure hand to control. Go in to a turn with too much throttle, and you'd damn well better commit, stay in it, and let the rear end do the turning for you.
Sounds like my kind of car :ohyeah:.
Me too, although every other magazine says it's extremely predictable and very well behaved. :huh:
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 07, 2008, 07:14:51 AM
The HEMI redlines at 5700 rpm. I have seen aftermarket tuners that get it up to 6800 or so, but that's really getting up there for that engine.
That's simply not true. The SLA in the Mustang GT is a very good setup, but to make it marvelous one must buy a Watts or Saleen Link for it and that setup works absolute wonders with the live axle. Just look at how the racing Mustangs kick ass every weekend in road racing events around the world.
I think there may be a problem with adjustability though. We scrapped the Watts linkage for a panhard setup on our Mazda RX-7 racecar. :huh:
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 07, 2008, 11:38:57 AM
Me too, although every other magazine says it's extremely predictable and very well behaved. :huh:
In the next paragraph they say...
The Shelby is chuckable in the extreme. It's lighter and tighter than the SRT8, and it maintains that impression even in the presence of heavier control feel. The steering is firm and progressive, and you never have to make annoying, minute corrections mid-corner.It almost contradicts what was said before.
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 07, 2008, 11:59:09 AM
In the next paragraph they say...The Shelby is chuckable in the extreme. It's lighter and tighter than the SRT8, and it maintains that impression even in the presence of heavier control feel. The steering is firm and progressive, and you never have to make annoying, minute corrections mid-corner.
It almost contradicts what was said before.
Actually it doesn't almost contradict the previous paragraph, it does contradict it.
Quote from: JYODER240 on May 07, 2008, 08:43:00 AM
The problem with SRA comes up in that none of us drive on smooth bump free roads.
The other problem is that none of us
should be driving FAST enough to notice the difference on the roads we do drive on.
Those of us that drive on the track, and don't drive at track speeds on the street, don't seem to have a problem with it. My Fiat Spider was live axle, and it handled just fine on the street.
OTOH, I have pushed cars hard on the street, too, and have found that even independant setups can skitter over bumps, both rear AND front suspensions, especially as you get suspensions modified to maximize cornering forces.
Basically, it's not a deal breaker for me. I've driven the new Mustang and the suspension felt fine.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on May 07, 2008, 02:50:04 AM
I don't think any mustang came stock with a watts link, that would be really cool. I want to install one on my celica in the near future.
I think it's an over statement that a marvelous SRA is behind a good IRS setup especially in smaller application. This is what should go into a CR Mustang if they were ever to make one
(http://images.mustang50magazine.com/howto/p62200_image_large.jpg)
the shaw link for the older mustangs is just bad ass.
Sigma Projects: SigmaDude, the shaw linkage photo is intriguing, to say the least! Are there blogs telling how it actually performed in practice? Preferably, blogs by some party or parties not involved in the manufacture and/or sale of shaw linkage kits, for obvious reasons!
Yet another profoundly informative posting by SigmaDude! Good work, Sig :rockon:
Quote from: ChrisV on May 08, 2008, 06:40:24 AM
The other problem is that none of us should be driving FAST enough to notice the difference on the roads we do drive on.
Guilty. But to be the fair I only push it that hard on corners where I can clearly see what's coming and there's nothing else around but open fields.
On the Mustang though I noticed it getting nervous and I wasn't near track speeds. Some of the roads here are pretty bad.
I guess they chose the Bullitt because it and the SRT8 are both flavour of the month.
If I remember correctly, wasn't the current Mustang designed so it could fit either an IRS or a SRA? I could've sworn I remember read something somewhere about Ford having one of each in development, but I could be wrong.
thanks nethead, I don't hear much about it, but it's from ConTex, I found it on this review. http://www.mustang50magazine.com/howto/15419_contex_ultra_sport_suspension_system/index.html
I was searching for it since Mustangs do a lot of road racing and have a SRA, so I was looking around for ideas for my celica. Not sure how many people will get this kind of setup since it it's really for the track, this for sure wouldn't be comfortable on bumpy roads. But the article said that on the track it's more comfortable than the traditional ultra stiff suspension.
FoMoJo: Oh ok, yea IRS would have less unsprung weight, just when he said IRSs are lighter than SRAs, that's why I responded since SRAs can be lighter by 100~150lbs in the overall assembly.
just incase someone doesn't quite understand why a watts link is superior to a Panhard bar it's that a watts link it eliminates the scrubbing action that occurs with a Panhard bar and creates a better center axis for the rear axle to twist on.
(http://www.teamvenomracing.com/images/slib/cobra/WattsLink-TA.JPG)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J4xkHuP7QY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J4xkHuP7QY)
Quote from: Sigma Projects on May 06, 2008, 11:30:27 PM
But how is the IRS lighter than the SRA? In the celicas of my generation the weight difference between a SRA and a IRS is about 140lbs, it's part of the reason why I went for the SRA in the 3rd gen celicas.
i believe your research failed and didn't include 100% of the SRA is unsprung weight, the enemy of a good suspension
Quote from: r0tor on May 08, 2008, 05:39:58 PM
i believe your research failed and didn't include 100% of the SRA is unsprung weight, the enemy of a good suspension
So horrible in fact, that Colin Chapman abandoned the original DeDion tube suspension on the Lotus 7 and upgraded it to a live axle...
Quote from: r0tor on May 08, 2008, 05:39:58 PM
i believe your research failed and didn't include 100% of the SRA is unsprung weight, the enemy of a good suspension
thanks for pointing out something that I corrected myself in my last post addressing FoMoJo saying "Oh ok, yea IRS would have less unsprung weight, just when he said IRSs are lighter than SRAs, that's why I responded since SRAs can be lighter by 100~150lbs in the overall assembly." =P
Quote from: Schadenfreude on May 08, 2008, 09:27:51 AM
If I remember correctly, wasn't the current Mustang designed so it could fit either an IRS or a SRA? I could've sworn I remember read something somewhere about Ford having one of each in development, but I could be wrong.
Engineers are like that; a bit of an undisciplined rabble.
Quote from: Sigma Projects on May 08, 2008, 03:09:31 PM
thanks nethead, I don't hear much about it, but it's from ConTex, I found it on this review. http://www.mustang50magazine.com/howto/15419_contex_ultra_sport_suspension_system/index.html
I was searching for it since Mustangs do a lot of road racing and have a SRA, so I was looking around for ideas for my celica. Not sure how many people will get this kind of setup since it it's really for the track, this for sure wouldn't be comfortable on bumpy roads. But the article said that on the track it's more comfortable than the traditional ultra stiff suspension.
FoMoJo: Oh ok, yea IRS would have less unsprung weight, just when he said IRSs are lighter than SRAs, that's why I responded since SRAs can be lighter by 100~150lbs in the overall assembly.
Sigma Projects: Sig, that's a heckuva article! Thank you for the trouble you went to on our behalf! It would be terrific to see an FR500C maxed around a track to get a best time in five laps--and then have first the rear suspension swapped out for the ConTex Ultra Sport rear suspension and another five laps followed by the front suspension swapped out for the ConTex parts and a third set of five laps put in. Then we'd have minutes & seconds for a highly developed "conventional" SRA set-up, minutes & seconds for just a ConTex rear swapped in, and minutes & seconds for the full ConTex front-and-rear swapped in. This would be damned interesting! Cory Shaw ought to be taking blueprints and hardware to Dan Davis of Ford Racing and showing Dan what his equipment can do! If it works well enough, he could license its use to Ford, and perhaps its production to Ford if they would be interested in equipping large numbers of Mustangs with it. Ol' Cory Shaw is a slick dude indeed!
np, yea Shaw is pretty crazy. I too would really like to see the track times. It's also nice how much the ConTex kit lightens up the car.
Quote from: omicron on May 09, 2008, 08:56:44 AM
Engineers are like that; a bit of an undisciplined rabble.
More often, they aim high and are burdened by the ridiculous requests of
people who don't actually know how shit works, and the more insidious
people who only know what everything costs.
lol, excellent line!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 09, 2008, 03:15:43 PM
More often, they aim high and are burdened by the ridiculous requests of people who don't actually know how shit works, and the more insidious people who only know what everything costs.
I don't actually know how shit works!
Quote from: omicron on May 11, 2008, 06:52:34 AM
I don't actually know how shit works!
You'll be able to understand this: I was once asked to install a light that indicated when all power to the machine had been disconnected.
:clap: :wtf:
Dodge Challenger SRT8 causes hour delay at Detroit-Windsor Tunnel
May 11
The 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8 has been making touring the U.S. auto shows for a few months now, but apparently the new hasn't worn completely off yet. A Challenger SRT8 piloted by Chrysler Canada CEO Reid Bigland caused an hour delay at the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel as the border patrol checked out the new ride.
The Chrysler exec was traveling from his Ontario office to his Detroit office when the incident occurred. Apparently the border patrol inspected every inch of the car before letting it pass, causing an hour delay for everyone behind Bigland.
But despite the attention the car received, Bigland didn't garner much attention. "They checked out everything but my ID," Bigland told The Detroit News.
SMS to offer two performance versions of 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T
May 12
The 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T isn't even on the market yet, but famed tuner Steve Saleen has announced that his newest company ? SMS ? will be offering two performance variation of Chrysler's newest pony car. Dubbed the SMS 570TM Challenger and SMS 570XTM Challenger, the two models promise to up the Challenger's performance to supercar levels.
Both models will feature a supercharger atop the Challenger R/T's 5.7L HEMI V8, but the SMS 570XTM Challenger will take top bill in the performance department. While the SMS 570TM Challenger will make a stout 500 horsepower, the SMS 570XTM Challenger will pack over 700 angry ponies, according to AllPar.com.
In addition to dragster-esque horsepower ratings, the two cars will sport a number of other performance features, including an upgraded drivetrain, a beefier suspension, performance wheels and tires, aerodynamic improvements and a unique interior.
To finish off the package, all modified Challengers will wear special badging and will be signed by Steve Saleen.
People should know that Mustangs, even the Bullitt, come pretty soft from the factory.
The real of joy of Mustangs (and really ANY cheap performance car) is what you do with them after you make the purchase...
ditto.
That's why I really like the idea of buying a cheap base and then modding the crap out of it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on May 12, 2008, 08:28:41 PM
SMS to offer two performance versions of 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T
May 12
The 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T isn't even on the market yet, but famed tuner Steve Saleen has announced that his newest company — SMS — will be offering two performance variation of Chrysler's newest pony car. Dubbed the SMS 570TM Challenger and SMS 570XTM Challenger, the two models promise to up the Challenger's performance to supercar levels.
Both models will feature a supercharger atop the Challenger R/T's 5.7L HEMI V8, but the SMS 570XTM Challenger will take top bill in the performance department. While the SMS 570TM Challenger will make a stout 500 horsepower, the SMS 570XTM Challenger will pack over 700 angry ponies, according to AllPar.com.
In addition to dragster-esque horsepower ratings, the two cars will sport a number of other performance features, including an upgraded drivetrain, a beefier suspension, performance wheels and tires, aerodynamic improvements and a unique interior.
To finish off the package, all modified Challengers will wear special badging and will be signed by Steve Saleen.
The Short Messaging Service Five Hundred And Seventy Ex Tee Em Challenger?
I don't think that's long enough.
omicron: Okay. Then howzabout "The Short Messaging Service Five Hundred And Seventy Ex Tee Em Challenger Road/Track Ess Ar Tee Eight"?
Better?