Make IRS an option

[redsnake99]

Owners of SVT Cobras from 99 to 04 really do like the independent rear suspension for everyday driving as well as on the road race track. Granted, the drag racers want the solid axle for good launches at the tree. Can an option be created to serve both types of drivers?

[TruBlu01]

The new platform has been proven by SVT, Ford Racing and Steeda that it can easily hang with IRS cars on the open track. In all honesty, if your on alot of the Mustang boards, the majority of people street and drag race their Mustangs. Either swapping out to a live axle of upgrading half shafts to hold some serious HP/TQ.

[wildosvt]

Come on. This has been proven to NOT be worthy already! GT Mustangs are tearing it up on Speed!!!

 

Sure for everyday use its great (my 04) but I hate to worry about it.

[DVS2XS]

IRS - There are a couple of other issues as well. The IRS does not transmit the torque to the pavement as well as a live axel - drag or road racing use. The GT500 is going to be a torque monster - especially when modified.

 

And the IRS robs between 2-3% more power from the rear wheel output than the live axel does - an unfortunate fact.

[PhotoRick]

AND ... road race drivers want a 4000 pound car?

 

Do drag racers want a 4000 pound car?

 

I guess making LOTS of horsepower is cheaper than weight control.

 

Did anyone see the article in the new MM&FF about the new Shelby? The wrighter said that Ford should be ashamed to produce such a heavy super performance car.

 

Ford should make a great new small block Boss Mustang. Get it down to 3100 pounds with 350 hp and make it a great road-race, no-nonsense, no-compromise, driver's car.

[68fastback]

 

Did anyone see the article in the new MM&FF about the new Shelby? The wrighter said that Ford should be ashamed to produce such a heavy super performance car.

 

Ford should make a great new small block Boss Mustang. Get it down to 3100 pounds with 350 hp and make it a great road-race, no-nonsense, no-compromise, driver's car.

 

 

Hey, PhotoRick, hope you don't mind if I use your post to think out loud (as I'm prone to do ;-)

 

No. is that Mod Mustangs and Fast Fords? Hadn't seen it -- is there a link?

 

Yes, but... well, I'd like to see 3100lbs too (and the old small block goes to 427 and more because of .5" greater bore spacing than modular), but the sad facts are that a 3100 lb 350+ HP car can't get crash ratings unless it costs a lot more than a mustang. As soon as you make it light you can't make it strong unless you use materials and technologies that cost considerably more (or go the Saleen Stage-3 route and essentially gut it and sub lighter parts = $71K base price and it's still +/-3350 lbs). To bring the cost down you need volume, but if you rolled those technologies into all mustangs, a base v6 would be unaffordable in it's market... and there's no way Ford will do two fundamentally dif 'stangs (and even if they did, the low weight 'stang would just cost even more spread over only a portion of the volume).

 

The only real solution is to keep ramping and spreading the light weight technologies (as JETSOLVER suggests in another thread), like the aluminum composites of the Jag XKR and honeycomb/carbon-fiber like in the FordGT, gradually to other platforms and, as the costs come down, push the technology broader and down lower in the corporate product food chain (lower risk, but takes years!) *OR* bite the bullett and do a fresh high tech sports chassis/car and hope you can sell volume in a viper/Z06 price range (higher-risk). If Ford already had a lightweight hi-po marque, keeping it current through step-wise refinement would be fairly easy, and the option to 'lift' the whole design to other cars (like the 'vette- caddy) is possible. Jumping in from scratch is the problem when red ink is flowing. That's why our trusty mustang is the donor tech for high-peformance.

 

(personally, I'd be willing to wave having my car meet many of the crash standards to save serious weight, but I think we'd never find anyone to insure it and I suspect the chance of any manufacturer doing that is close to zip -- could you imagine the GT500 motor in a factory car with the weight of a '68 fastback or early Fox?!!! Oh my God!)

 

But if we revise our 'demands' a bit, a 3400lb 400-450HP alum-DOHC may be doable in the next mustang by selectively substituting HSSteel, aluminum, fiber and a lot of materials design care... but it will still cost more and I suspect the hard-point design for '09 is already pretty much what it's going to be. OR our 'lightweight' stang could be based a GT but with 350-375HP alum 4.6 and an 'R' de-opt package that sucks as much weight out of the interior and subs a lighter hood, fenders and trunk lid, with battery in the rear and call it a Boss! (these ideas and many more have been discussed on the S197 Boss threads)

 

Actuallty, I would really want IRS on a road car like a Boss 302 (even tho I know it isn't gonna happen and the existing design is good). The problem with the IRS in the terminators is it wasn't designed for high-HP with slicks. The Ford GT500 rep told me that it was seriously considered for the GT500 but the only building block in the parts bin that could take the power was the Land Rover IRS, a really slick design, but, he said it would add $10-15K! (exactly why that much I do not know -- probably, once again, doing a low-volume adaptation just for select hi-po 'stangs makes it expensive -- you can't just bolt it up ;-) And even the prior stang IRS design, though clever, was not done the way you would if it was natively designed for all mustangs. But that's history now.

 

It will be interesting to see the price points and weight on the new camaro. I think Hau Tai Tang was 'selling' GM on a V6 base camaro in the interviews because he knows if the Camaro is only the hi-po 'Z28' model, they could build it on a downlevel vette chassis, which would still be fairly light and the design and tooling is well understood (and mostly paid for and available). We shall see...

[JETSOLVER]

I just found out that there was a complete IRS engineered for the S-197 platform. It was killed for three reasons. Weight, complexity on the assembly line and cost. It was hoped that all the S/E's could have it(they made it to fit the solid hard points again) but the tradeoffs where just to much. It was felt that the 200 horse for 20k and 300 horse for 25k were just to good a marketing angle to pass up. And the bad press with people tearing up the New Edge Terminators was to much to take. And on top of everything the engineering resources were needed for the "turn around " vehicles such as the Edge and the Fusion. I hope they now have the wherewithall to revisit this but I have to wonder with the 500 needing major TLC.

[68fastback]

I just found out that there was a complete IRS engineered for the S-197 platform. It was killed for three reasons. Weight, complexity on the assembly line and cost. It was hoped that all the S/E's could have it(they made it to fit the solid hard points again) but the tradeoffs where just to much. It was felt that the 200 horse for 20k and 300 horse for 25k were just to good a marketing angle to pass up. And the bad press with people tearing up the New Edge Terminators was to much to take. And on top of everything the engineering resources were needed for the "turn around " vehicles such as the Edge and the Fusion. I hope they now have the wherewithall to revisit this but I have to wonder with the 500 needing major TLC.

 

 

Very interesting... and I can understand why they didn't do it.

 

I started a thread on a real no-nonsense lightweight drivers' car whether it's a GT350 or Boss 330 or ??? I still think an IRS is essential in at least ONE such a car if you want credibility with the weekend road-course/track-dog crowd, and a perfect car for SVToA on-track events. This car would never see a drag strip and would actually be marketed as a no-nonsense road car (a market segment Ford is under-serving) consistent with the spirit of the original GT350.

 

If interested:

GT350/Boss329: Make it a Road Car -- Drivers Wantred

[DutchGT500]

I thought we passed this station. I also would like an IRS but alas. That is the case.

[68fastback]

.

.

Well, we have and we haven't... some things need to be said about this because there are fundamental business truths that are constant, so let me attempt to apply them to IRS, Mustang, and Hi-po as a true market segment.... I obviously don't have the market nums, but Ford does some of the best market-research and requirements analysis on earth, so I'll assume they have performed due diligence here...

 

All these IRSs being talked about are 'adaptations,' either existing designs or purpose-designed but for common hard-points so you can build the same chassis two ways. That approach will always be more complex, have more negative tradeoffs (weight, geometry, fragility, etc) and force more assembly complexity. How about a purpose-built IRS actually designed natively for the mustang chassis? We're assuming that's a non-possibility. Yes, it would then go into all 'stangs (but could come in two duty-flavors) and the design could be much simpler and the costs would be spread over 10x as many units. That's what you'd do if you were serious about cracking the door open into a range of hi-po road machines in the future. Then, later, you'd parlay that, possibly, into a transaxle, if the volumes/market research confirm acceptance for the IRS/transaxle 'mustang' is genuine and strong. That's how you evolve (into) new market segments while preserving the base.

 

But if we hold constant the notion that the only way Ford will do an IRS (IF it did) is for it to be plug-n-play in a non-native chassis, there will always be the same reasons for not doing it. Maybe if the flavor-of-the-year approach produces enough volume over time it could justify the expense, but if the design isn't native to a chassis, it will still be a compromise as well as being unnecessarily complex and heavy. If there's no chance of Ford considering such an approach, why waste R&D on try-ons for which they know what the answer has to be in advance? It just wastes money. Ford is a better and smarter company than to succumb to such inherently circular logic.

 

I would suggest that what is really happening here is that the 'car-guys' keep trying to make a compromise design work because they 'know' they have to have it in the chute ready to go if, for some apparently unlikely reason, the need for the save-your-way-to-success red-ink-watchers is eventually obviated by a growing hi-po revenue stream. We can only hope! Heck, I'm getting tired of the excuses. Do it once, do it right! That's always cheaper than changing the rules every year or so while driving good engineers to frustration. The circular logic will not end until someone has the balls to give engineering a green light to design to market-hearts-and-minds and to differentiate product so as to actually generate revenue and make money as opposed to just manage expense and 'milk' a staic base design (the Panthers come to mind -- a high-volume cash-cow milked into the ground; technologically static; maximized profit at the expense of Ford's future in that segment).

 

I've seen this deadly corporate constipation before in different industries. If the acceptance of the new 'stang, the GT, and GT500 doesn't make it clear that this de-ja-vu hi-po segment can be grown, rather than just milked, then we either have play-safe middle management or lack of profit-center delegation and accountability or both. Is it more profitable in the short term to 'milk' rather than 'grow'? Certainly, but that's how Ford got to where it is now -- the house that Jack (Nasser) built. As soon as a segment shows solid promise, let's gradually and prudently open investment there. Not just on projects that 'milk' existing tech, but also select projects that 'grow' the market segment with new tech and differentiation targeted on hearts-and-minds. There is no other way to break out of red-ink! And just because the hi-po segment is relatively tiny doesn't mean it should be the tail on the dog. It should, and must, be another (tiny) dog with full profit-center ownership and accountability. And that accountability has to be able to permit and reward prudent short/long tradeoffs or managers will cover their asses and do what's safe, and that's always 'milking' the cash cow.

 

Ok, I'll shut up now... and I realize I may be overly critical and generalizing a bit, but I know it's just a matter of time before Ford figures this out (if they haven't already) because a higher calibre corporation would be hard to find. Motorola did it, IBM did it, and Ford will do it too. Godspeed, Bill Ford. I'm not getting any younger.

.