GT500 vs Terminator

[Secondo]

I would like to change the name of this discussion to "GT500 AND Terminator" NOT VS. Please let's stick together, not against. My '72 Mustang weighs 3380 pounds and you guys would still blow me away in any regard. My opinion mostly as a classic Mustang owner and switching (converting?) to new I would like to say that I respect ALL Mustangs and especially consider the '03-04 Cobras, '03-04 Mach 1's and the new GT500 exceptional musclecars with almost endless potential. After learning the HP potential of the Cobra Mustang and the "Evolution Performance" GT500 run in the 10's made a modern Mustang believer out of me!! Thanks everyone!

[JETSOLVER]

<edit:> as a frame of ref, I have driven a Mustang GT (with aftermarket springs and shocks) agressively over back roads and I assure anyone reading this that it is no where close to handling lumpy twisties like an '01 Cobra. Not knocking the GT (I may wind up with one) just a perspective to offer... not to worry, the '09 stang will almost certainly be IRS unless Camaro and Challenger reneg on their stated designs.

 

I wish Ford was as positve about that Dan. this link from coldwater article makes specific mention of this topic.

Q&A with Marketing mngr. Rob Parker "TMN: With the Camaro and Challenger reported to have independent rear suspensions (IRS), has the business case for an IRS in the Mustang become stronger?

 

Parker: I am surprised about the amount of conversation that goes on about an independent rear suspension in the Mustang. I’ve driven cars with IRS and solid axles. When some of our competitors have gone with a solid axle when we’ve gone independent they have shown they can do just as well. So there is not a lot of time and effort being spent on the subject as to whether or not their should be an IRS in the Mustang. We certainly have the tools in the toolbox, we have the parts on the shelf if we want to deploy that if necessary. But as we see Camaro and Challenger on the horizon that is not something we spend a lot of time considering “should we have IRS”. The Shelby GT can outperform anything on the road course that they can build and I am pretty confident of that. The products that we will have in that same time frame will give anybody a run for their money whether they have a solid axle or IRS."

I hope this isn't another quote that comes back to haunt people in the future...

[68fastback]

I wish Ford was as positve about that Dan. this link from coldwater article makes specific mention of this topic.

Q&A with Marketing mngr. Rob Parker "TMN: With the Camaro and Challenger reported to have independent rear suspensions (IRS), has the business case for an IRS in the Mustang become stronger?

 

Parker: I am surprised about the amount of conversation that goes on about an independent rear suspension in the Mustang. I’ve driven cars with IRS and solid axles. When some of our competitors have gone with a solid axle when we’ve gone independent they have shown they can do just as well. So there is not a lot of time and effort being spent on the subject as to whether or not their should be an IRS in the Mustang. We certainly have the tools in the toolbox, we have the parts on the shelf if we want to deploy that if necessary. But as we see Camaro and Challenger on the horizon that is not something we spend a lot of time considering “should we have IRS”. The Shelby GT can outperform anything on the road course that they can build and I am pretty confident of that. The products that we will have in that same time frame will give anybody a run for their money whether they have a solid axle or IRS."

I hope this isn't another quote that comes back to haunt people in the future...

 

 

Anyone whose title is "Ford Car Marketing Manager" has to be suspect as to anything they say. Seriously, though, I did not see one truly unambiguous or argueably tangible sentence in the entire article.

 

Maybe I'm too jaded, but the first rule-of-thumb of deciphering a company's strategy is to disregard all marketing statements -- really.

 

You'll notice that while he certainly did not confirm an IRS, he also in now way denied it. In fact, in all his words there was not one shred of tangible/grabbable content -- the mark of an excellent marketing manager. (Old joke... Q: do you know the dif betw a mktg mgr and a politician? A: there is no dif!). Ok, no flames, I don't know him and I'm sure he's a great guy -- I'm going only by his words, which are thoroughly vapid IMHO.

 

Surprisingly, the last paragraph provides some insight, but not into the mustang or IRS. The first stage of a company in the throws of a major turn-around is confusion; followed by optimism and related false-starts. This is often followed by the sincere, but thoroughly misguided, belief that all we need to do is get everyone rowing in the same direction (<-from that article, this is what the last paragraph telegraphed to me where Ford is at). Unfortunately, that's unlikely to be the solution because rowing in the same direction can be vastly different than rowing in the right direction. True VISION is needed. In fact supressing contention is dangerous. Chanelling contention into bet-your-job commitment, accountability and measurement is where the truly bold ideas that will save Ford are more likely to come from. And, not surprisingly, Mr. Parker gives us no insight whatsoever on that -- nor should he -- he's a marketing manager, remember -- you can't sell what isn't ...you 'spin' what isn't until you can 'sell' what is.

 

Which brings me to IRS. It could be a done deal for '09 and Mr. Parker would still not breathe a hint of it -- not now -- too early. I don't know if it is or isn't, but in strategy, never look at what is said, only what is being done -- like Ford Australia. If Camaro and Challenger have IRS, Ford will have IRS -- maybe not until the refresh, maybe not until later -- maybe an existing 'off the shelf' unit (certainly hope not), maybe a lot of things... and maybe the '09 refresh is a modest diversion to maintain inertia and there's a MY '10 signif engineering change in the wings -- dunno. But what Mr. Parker's statements most likely mean is that there's no concensus and two entrenched opposing camps of thought ...essentially, no plan! In that context, all his statements are accurate ...but take heart, they'd be accurate even if IRS was a done-deal if you read his words carefully (yeah, ...marketing manager words).

 

But Mr. Parker's treatment/wording of IRS DOES say to me he's either poo-poo'ing it because the MY'09 won't accommodate a dedicated unit (as opposed to an existing hard-points retrofit like the later Cobras) and they'll only go down that road again only if it impacts sales to NOT do it (bad for us), or they've got a great design plan to smack the competition upside the head and don't want to telegraph that (good for us). Notice, IRS is key to either of those scenarios! So, what would a Marketing Manager do this early on? Yep. poo-poo it; play it's significance down; try to bait the competition into a lower cost design (remember, GM and DCX might be playing baiting games too ;-) and then be ready to go either way.

 

The only words he said that can be argued with, because 'air' is hard to debate ;-), is his statements about the performance of the mustang's admittedly excellent live axle. Notice that his words were all couched in the context of a road course -- nice and smooth (both road course and words) -- and I'd have to agree with him in that context.

 

But the car I buy will see real-world roads and (Ford, are you listening <lol>) there is almost no chance to lure me to a non-IRS Boss302 or most any other replacement for an '01 Cobra (alloy, DOHC, IRS) that purports to be a road car. I'd even take an adapted-to-hard-points IRS like in the Cobras. But if you look at the design of the Dana IRS, it would seem that the mustang unibody could be readily designed to accept it or a live axle without significant wasted expense (but I'm not an engineer). A truly native IRS would be better done with a diff-mounted tranny or transaxle and torque tube design -- not holding my breath for that though ;-)

 

Still I'd be truly astonished if IRS does not come back into the future of the Mustang in some form at some point. Ford sure will avoid that in the base V-6 for as long as possible (price), since it's the duality of having both live-axle and IRS on the same production chassis that's the crux of the problem. And that is why Ford won't jump until they are dead-sure the competition definately does (IF they do) IMO and that sounds like the old Ford, not Bold Moves. Imagine the slick new 265HP V6 in an IRS mustang...and what the younger generation would do with that! But, nooo, no one would pay an extra couple-hundred bucks for that would they? Being a leader has risks; Ford needs to take some; this is a decision that won't go away and making it by default (no action) is a decision just the same.

 

 

-Dan

[RUFDRAFT]

I wonder how many Mustang owners really care about IRS.

 

I'm willing to wager most of them want a street car hot rod and couldn't give a hoot about road course racing.

 

If I wanted a road racer, I'd have kept the Z.

 

Just my rusty 2c.

[68fastback]

I wonder how many Mustang owners really care about IRS.

 

I'm willing to wager most of them want a street car hot rod and couldn't give a hoot about road course racing.

 

If I wanted a road racer, I'd have kept the Z.

 

Just my rusty 2c.

 

 

Good point, Bryan, I think that's true for a large portion of the mustang corral ...but what about the others? The diff in handling betw the GT and '01 Cobra is very noticeable in unsmooth curves (and the '01 Cobra doesn't have the benefit of the added tortional ridgidity).

 

It's almost barbaric to think that in 2009 Ford would not offer IRS in the face of competition in the company's ONLY relevant V8 RWD car.

 

I wish the Stangs Unleashed pollling mechanism permitted nested questions (if this, then Q...). Maybe I'll put one up anyway.

 

.

[zhb353]

I would like to change the name of this discussion to "GT500 AND Terminator" NOT VS. Please let's stick together, not against. My '72 Mustang weighs 3380 pounds and you guys would still blow me away in any regard. My opinion mostly as a classic Mustang owner and switching (converting?) to new I would like to say that I respect ALL Mustangs and especially consider the '03-04 Cobras, '03-04 Mach 1's and the new GT500 exceptional musclecars with almost endless potential. After learning the HP potential of the Cobra Mustang and the "Evolution Performance" GT500 run in the 10's made a modern Mustang believer out of me!! Thanks everyone!

 

 

 

 

I like your point, if I knew how to edit the title of this topic I would. I did not start this topic just to pit these two cars against one another. I wanted to talk about what I believe to be the two best mustangs ever built.

 

I also want to thank everyone on this board for all the information I have gotten reading your posts, even though I don't post very much at all, I spend alot of time on this site.

 

 

Zach

[Five Oh B]

I wonder how many Mustang owners really care about IRS.

 

 

I care a lot. So much, that in 2000 and 2001 I emailed then-chief-Mustang-engineer Art Hyde with my wish list for a new Mustang model. He and I traded emails back and forth several times about why Ford could deliver some of what I wanted and why they couldn't get the rest past the feds. Basically, I'm a drag racer at heart, but loved the free revving DOHC V8 in the '99-'01 SVT Cobras. What I wished for was...

 

• Solid rear axle to handle extreme drag racing duty.

• All aluminum 32 valve V8 with more low-end torque for drag racing.

• Bigger displacement 5.4L versus the smaller 4.6L.

• Flashy package backed with power - not just a tape & stripes special edition.

• More rear end gear than the 3.27's being offered at the time.

 

So, how did I do with my wish list 5-6 years ago? Art Hyde assured me then that a package was coming soon that answered everything I wanted except the 5.4L V8 which he assured me would never find its way into a Mustang (other than the "R" model of 2000) due to CAFE regulations and 5.4L demand in trucks/SUV's taking precedence. The model Ford delivered was the 2003-4 Mach 1. Solid rear axle with 3.55 gears for better acceleration and durability at the drag strip. Better low end torque by using the cams from the 5.4L DOHC in the Lincoln Navigator to improve acceleration. Flashy package (Mach 1) with real Shaker hood, bright colors, stripes, unique wheels, etc.

 

In summary, there are two points I'm trying to make here....

 

1. Ford listens to us enthusiasts, and

2. Many of us still demand a solid axle for our intended use of our Mustangs.

 

As for the elitist garbage I posted earlier, I hope you guys know I was just being sarcastic. My sarcasm grows deeper when 1) I've been drinking, or 2) I'm sleep deprived. I'll let you decide which one affected my judgement recently.

[RUFDRAFT]

Hey, man - it was only a sentence!

 

It would take a lot more than that for me to change my opinion of you.

 

I'm probably more sensitive to language than those who aren't in my profession.

 

Can you imagine how tough it is for my wife?

 

And - that last line of your's here works both ways. Burp.

[Five Oh B]

I did not start this topic just to pit these two cars against one another. I wanted to talk about what I believe to be the two best mustangs ever built.

 

 

Zach, you're correct about the Terminators and S197 GT500's being the two best Mustangs ever built. I'd be happy to have either in my driveway. The Terminators may very well be the absolute best performance bargain in Mustang history, while the S-197 GT500 may be the best performing Mustang in history, albeit by a very slim margin over a Terminator and at a greatly inflated price. Should I personally ever own a Terminator, however, I will definitely retrofit a solid axle into it for the drag racing I do.

 

Hey, man - it was only a sentence!

 

It would take a lot more than that for me to change my opinion of you.

 

I'm probably more sensitive to language than those who aren't in my profession.

 

Can you imagine how tough it is for my wife?

 

And - that last line of your's here works both ways. Burp.

 

 

Thanks, Bryan.

[68fastback]

name='Five Oh B' date='Sep 25 2006, 09:26 PM' post='45979']

Should I personally ever own a Terminator, however, I will definitely retrofit a solid axle into it for the drag racing I do.

 

 

Five Oh B, this is exactly why the mustang appeals to such a wide cross-section of enthusiasts, I think.

 

You may be onto something here that I also touched on in post #63 in that it may be fesible to eventually provide a choice (tho my pref is for IRS). If the Mustang were a native-design IRS and Ford wanted to permit the drag racer to easily convert to a live axle (for drag racing or just preference), I would think the hard points for a live axle are relatively easy to include in the basic design.

 

For example, back in the 70s when Pathfinder Equipment Corporation was selling thousands of Ford 4WD van canversions a year, I noticed that Ford added (in the '79 refresh) all the holes in the chassis in all the right spots for the front axle links and replacement/additional cross-members. 4WD drive vans became very popular, especially with utility companies, and I was fairly certin they'd offer one soon from the factory, but Ford never offered a package (which used mostly Ford components anyway) and pathfinder eventually went belly-up in the early 90s after nearly 30 years as the van customizing craze subsided.

 

Anyhow, my pref would certrainly be for a purpose-built native IRS mustang since I would not likely run my main ride at the drags, but I can sure appreciate those who would and would want an easy and pre-engineered way to swop in an FRP live axle or order it that way from the factory.

 

Doing it that way, rather than the other way around, would seem to make a lot more engineering sense to me -- but so did the factory 4x4 van ;-)

 

.

PS - I knew you were kiddin' on the elitist BS, that's why I was adding to it ...jist a li'l

 

.

[carnut]

I'm sure most of read that Ford's own testing proved the current solid axle configuration handled as well as the IRS with the exception of a little kick out on bumpy corners. Given that the solid axle is stronger, is less expensive and weighs less, it seems to me the solid axle is the obvious choice.

 

Why then would want the IRS ?

[68fastback]

I'm sure most of read that Ford's own testing proved the current solid axle configuration handled as well as the IRS with the exception of a little kick out on bumpy corners. Given that the solid axle is stronger, is less expensive and weighs less, it seems to me the solid axle is the obvious choice.

 

Why then would want the IRS ?

 

 

Ford's testing was on the track. Their IRS/live statements are always track-related. Even then, I don't fully buy the PR, but the diff is admittedly not so important. It was a cost-based decision because Ford didn't have an IRS that can hold 500HP/ft-lbs -- except the Land Rover IRS which is a mustang-inappropriate though sophisticated design. Ford conveniently leaves out that explanation -- I got that personally from a Ford employee involved with the GT500 decision to not do an IRS.

 

A little kick-out is absolutely HUGE! A little kick-out is like a little roll down the embankment <lol> to a driver who lives where virtually all the twisties provide the opportunity for a lot of kick-out. A little kick-out means you're forced to drive that much further below the 'edge' or, conversely, with a reduced safety margin. And turns don't announce all their subtleties in advance. Not a tradeoff I ever want to make.

 

The solid axle is stronger when you compare the retrofitted Cobra IRS to a live axle. There's absolutely no reason a live axle is inherently stronger than an IRS.

 

I agree that even a native IRS is more expensive, as opposed to the retrofit IRS which is unnecessarily even more expensive, but, in volume, as a native design, I don't think the difference outweighs the benefit. Heck, I'd give up a blower any day for IRS -- no second thought! I'd also give up side airbags, a fancy interior and about 400 lbs worth of other extranious BS <lol>

 

A retrofit IRS like in the Cobras weighs more, yes. But a native-designed IRS should be only slightly more, if at all, but with dramatically reduced unsprung weight -- that's why they handle so well.

 

So I guess I'm saying that a purpose-built native IRS design for the mustang would cost a bit more (but less than the Cobra IRS and hugely less that the Rover IRS Ford compared to for the GT500), and would not have to be weaker or significantly heavier (native design, no extra sub-mounts or adapting links).

 

I can also see why some would want the live axle -- really essential for the drags. But I'm not buying Ford's marketing PR-talk on the solid-axle decision. It's just as good except when it's not! That's like: "my car is faster than yours ...except when you beat me" -- nonsense! (can you tell I disagree? <lol>)

 

To me IRS is essential fare in the 21st century for any serious road car, and the cost dif is a great value! I'm not saying the GT500 doesn't handle -- I'm sure it does. It would have been so much more attractive to me with an IRS ...and for a BOSS it would be absolutely (couldn't consider buying it otherwise) essential. For a Mach (traditionally a go fast straight-liner) a live axle would be fine. Just my $.04 ;-)

 

.

[carnut]

Ford's testing was on the track. Their IRS/live statements are always track-related. Even then, I don't fully buy the PR, but the diff is admittedly not so important. It was a cost-based decision because Ford didn't have an IRS that can hold 500HP/ft-lbs -- except the Land Rover IRS which is a mustang-inappropriate though sophisticated design. Ford conveniently leaves out that explanation -- I got that personally from a Ford employee involved with the GT500 decision to not do an IRS.

 

A little kick-out is absolutely HUGE! A little kick-out is like a little roll down the embankment <lol> to a driver who lives where virtually all the twisties provide the opportunity for a lot of kick-out. A little kick-out means you're forced to drive that much further below the 'edge' or, conversely, with a reduced safety margin. And turns don't announce all their subtleties in advance. Not a tradeoff I ever want to make.

 

The solid axle is stronger when you compare the retrofitted Cobra IRS to a live axle. There's absolutely no reason a live axle is inherently stronger than an IRS.

 

I agree that even a native IRS is more expensive, as opposed to the retrofit IRS which is unnecessarily even more expensive, but, in volume, as a native design, I don't think the difference outweighs the benefit. Heck, I'd give up a blower any day for IRS -- no second thought! I'd also give up side airbags, a fancy interior and about 400 lbs worth of other extranious BS <lol>

 

A retrofit IRS like in the Cobras weighs more, yes. But a native-designed IRS should be only slightly more, if at all, but with dramatically reduced unsprung weight -- that's why they handle so well.

 

So I guess I'm saying that a purpose-built native IRS design for the mustang would cost a bit more (but less than the Cobra IRS and hugely less that the Rover IRS Ford compared to for the GT500), and would not have to be weaker or significantly heavier (native design, no extra sub-mounts or adapting links).

 

I can also see why some would want the live axle -- really essential for the drags. But I'm not buying Ford's marketing PR-talk on the solid-axle decision. It's just as good except when it's not! That's like: "my car is faster than yours ...except when you beat me" -- nonsense! (can you tell I disagree? <lol>)

 

To me IRS is essential fare in the 21st century for any serious road car, and the cost dif is a great value! I'm not saying the GT500 doesn't handle -- I'm sure it does. It would have been so much more attractive to me with an IRS ...and for a BOSS it would be absolutely (couldn't consider buying it otherwise) essential. For a Mach (traditionally a go fast straight-liner) a live axle would be fine. Just my $.04 ;-)

 

.

 

No, I wasn't quite sure you disagreed. Did you?

[Guest evilchris]

Ford didn't have an IRS that could handle 500? Terms hold up fine at that power level.

[68fastback]

No, I wasn't quite sure you disagreed. Did you?

 

 

Carnut, you're ok, man

 

.

 

 

Ford didn't have an IRS that could handle 500? Terms hold up fine at that power level.

 

 

Chris, that's from a warranty engineering point-of-view. Enthusiasts will always push beyond the design point, that's why it voids the warranty.

 

Similarly, the T-56 in the Termies, vettes and Vipers (even with special input shaft) is around 550-600 ft-lbs (depending on which spec), but they seem to hold up pretty well with heavily modded motors anyway

 

..

[Alloy Dave]

B)-->

QUOTE(Five Oh B @ Sep 25 2006, 09:22 AM) 45833[/snapback]

Sorry, guys, I was just trying to be an elitist, too, so that I'd fit in around here.

 

It's funny how different people interpret things. I didn't even notice it...because it said "many". Now if you would have said "ALL" of you...then I may have noticed it. As my dad used to say "If that's the worst thing in life you ever do, things will work out just fine for you". Little did he know all the things I did that he wasn't aware of.

 

Dave

[Sssss]

Yawn...

 

What is a Terminator? Never have given it a look or a thought. I wouldn't know it from any other earlier Mustang if it ran over me.

 

Love the GT500.

 

ABSOLUTELY BROTHER!! I feel the same! It could have a 1000hp,...yawn design!! Give me the retro styled Shelby anyday!!!

[Florida Chris]

ABSOLUTELY BROTHER!! I feel the same! It could have a 1000hp,...yawn design!! Give me the retro styled Shelby anyday!!!

 

 

Call me shallow, I confess, am a styling whore. Just like a woman, the body has got to look hot before I'm willing to give it a ride.