More On Next Gen Mustang

Keep in mind this comes from Motor Trend, not the most reliable
source...

http://www.motortrend.com/future/fut...hat_to_expect/

But from what I've been reading these changes seem to be the current
general consensus of industry speculators. I thought the most
interesting comments came from Jack Telnack.

Patrick

" > wrote in message
...
> Keep in mind this comes from Motor Trend, not the most reliable
> source...
>
> http://www.motortrend.com/future/fut...hat_to_expect/
>
> But from what I've been reading these changes seem to be the current
> general consensus of industry speculators. I thought the most
> interesting comments came from Jack Telnack.
>
> Patrick

They're gonna have to pry my live rear axle out of my cold, dead hands.

Seriously... I'm not sure I can drive a car with an independent rear
suspension.

I like Telnack's thinking here. The other two appear to be confused as to
what the name "Mustang" means.

d

On 2011-08-17, dwight > wrote:
>
> " > wrote in message
> ...
>> Keep in mind this comes from Motor Trend, not the most reliable
>> source...
>>
>> http://www.motortrend.com/future/fut...hat_to_expect/
>>
>> But from what I've been reading these changes seem to be the current
>> general consensus of industry speculators. I thought the most
>> interesting comments came from Jack Telnack.
>>
>> Patrick
>
> They're gonna have to pry my live rear axle out of my cold, dead hands.
>
> Seriously... I'm not sure I can drive a car with an independent rear
> suspension.

Now that the engineering teams have made the solid axle handle well my
concern would be ford cheapening out on the IRS and producing something
that wasn't as good in one or more respects. I would still have prefered
IRS for a number of reasons but it's a good solid axle set up now and it
would be shame to have a not-so-good IRS in its place.

> I like Telnack's thinking here. The other two appear to be confused as to
> what the name "Mustang" means.

But even a falcon today would have IRS. Although it would likely be FWD
too...

On 8/16/2011 20:58, dwight wrote:
>
> " > wrote in message
> ...
>> Keep in mind this comes from Motor Trend, not the most reliable
>> source...
>>
>> http://www.motortrend.com/future/fut...hat_to_expect/
>>
>>
>> But from what I've been reading these changes seem to be the current
>> general consensus of industry speculators. I thought the most
>> interesting comments came from Jack Telnack.
>>
>> Patrick
>
> They're gonna have to pry my live rear axle out of my cold, dead hands.
>
> Seriously... I'm not sure I can drive a car with an independent rear
> suspension.
>
> I like Telnack's thinking here. The other two appear to be confused as
> to what the name "Mustang" means.
>
> d
>
>

With the amount of power and times the stock Mustangs can run now,
that will be a problem at NHRA tracks.

On Aug 16, 10:27*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-08-17, dwight > wrote:

> > " > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Keep in mind this comes from Motor Trend, not the most reliable
> >> source...
>
> >>http://www.motortrend.com/future/fut...015_ford_musta....
>
> >> But from what I've been reading these changes seem to be the current
> >> general consensus of industry speculators. *I thought the most
> >> interesting comments came from Jack Telnack.

> > They're gonna have to pry my live rear axle out of my cold, dead hands.
>
> > Seriously... I'm not sure I can drive a car with an independent rear
> > suspension.
>
> Now that the engineering teams have made the solid axle handle well my
> concern would be ford cheapening out on the IRS and producing something
> that wasn't as good in one or more respects. I would still have preferred
> IRS for a number of reasons but it's a good solid axle set up now and it
> would be shame to have a not-so-good IRS in its place.

Agree.

Kinda like GM found out during the magazine tests when the Mustang's
suspension was often praised and the Camaro's panned. In fact one of
the magazines had a quote in a {Mustang vs Camaro] comparison
something like I'd rather have a world-class solid-axle setup than a
marginal IRS.

> > I like Telnack's thinking here. The other two appear to be confused as to
> > what the name "Mustang" means.

Me too... That's what I thought too, Dwight.

> But even a falcon today would have IRS. Although it would likely be FWD
> too...

But, and excuse the pun, I think too many people get wrapped around
the axle about a lack of IRS. I say who cares what it uses? It's all
about the performance! And when you see the plain-Jane Mustang GT
seriously being compared to a BMW M3 I think people should shut up
about the lack of IRS.

(Now I wish one of the magazines would run a solid-axle Boss 302
against the BMW M3, because I'd bet it would be no comparison --
Mustang would score a decisive knockout victory.)

Oh, and one more thing: It also gets me when some folks complain a
solid axle car, no matter how good it is, will shudder a little on
bumpy pavement when going around a corner. I say it's a performance
car -- they all have some compromises. And if you're not willing to
accept that you're shopping in the wrong market... let me direct you
to a nice vanilla, entry-level Toyota Camry.

Patrick

On 2011-08-17, > wrote:

> But, and excuse the pun, I think too many people get wrapped around
> the axle about a lack of IRS. I say who cares what it uses? It's all
> about the performance! And when you see the plain-Jane Mustang GT
> seriously being compared to a BMW M3 I think people should shut up
> about the lack of IRS.

I have and put my money behind it too
That said I think all the griping about the solid rear pushed ford to
make it a top notch solid axle suspension. Will there be enough push for
them to do the same with an IRS?

On Aug 17, 10:01*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-08-17, > wrote:
>
> > But, and excuse the pun, I think too many people get wrapped around
> > the axle about a lack of IRS. *I say who cares what it uses? *It's all
> > about the performance! *And when you see the plain-Jane Mustang GT
> > seriously being compared to a BMW M3 I think people should shut up
> > about the lack of IRS.
>
> I have and put my money behind it too *
> That said I think all the griping about the solid rear pushed ford to
> make it a top notch solid axle suspension. Will there be enough push for
> them to do the same with an IRS?

I don't doubt they could. Ford seems to have some very talented
chassis guys because since the 1993 Cobra (that Fox was as dialed-in
as it could be -- for what they had to work with) they've had a string
of hits.

Patrick

On 2011-08-18, > wrote:
> On Aug 17, 10:01*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-08-17, > wrote:
>>
>> > But, and excuse the pun, I think too many people get wrapped around
>> > the axle about a lack of IRS. *I say who cares what it uses? *It's all
>> > about the performance! *And when you see the plain-Jane Mustang GT
>> > seriously being compared to a BMW M3 I think people should shut up
>> > about the lack of IRS.
>>
>> I have and put my money behind it too *
>> That said I think all the griping about the solid rear pushed ford to
>> make it a top notch solid axle suspension. Will there be enough push for
>> them to do the same with an IRS?
>
> I don't doubt they could. Ford seems to have some very talented
> chassis guys because since the 1993 Cobra (that Fox was as dialed-in
> as it could be -- for what they had to work with) they've had a string
> of hits.

It isn't a question of ability, Ford has the ability, it's a question of
cost vs. marketing vs. engineering. If my product development
experience is any guide by giving ford grief over the solid axle it
motivated sales and marketing so engineering was free to do good work.
Marketing might be satisified just to have IRS which would make for a
bean counter beat down on cost.

On Aug 18, 2:31*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-08-18, > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 10:01*pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2011-08-17, > wrote:
>
> >> > But, and excuse the pun, I think too many people get wrapped around
> >> > the axle about a lack of IRS. *I say who cares what it uses? *It's all
> >> > about the performance! *And when you see the plain-Jane Mustang GT
> >> > seriously being compared to a BMW M3 I think people should shut up
> >> > about the lack of IRS.
>
> >> I have and put my money behind it too *
> >> That said I think all the griping about the solid rear pushed ford to
> >> make it a top notch solid axle suspension. Will there be enough push for
> >> them to do the same with an IRS?

> > I don't doubt they could. *Ford seems to have some very talented
> > chassis guys because since the 1993 Cobra (that Fox was as dialed-in
> > as it could be -- for what they had to work with) they've had a string
> > of hits.

> It isn't a question of ability, Ford has the ability, it's a question of
> cost vs. marketing vs. engineering. If my product development
> experience is any guide by giving ford grief over the solid axle it
> motivated sales and marketing so engineering was free to do good work.
> Marketing might be satisified just to have IRS which would make for a
> bean counter beat down on cost.

Good points. Though when I wrote "ability" I meant it to include the
engineers' instincts to hit the sweet spot. Case in point the 1993
Cobra's suspension tuning. None of the tweaks were costly, marketing
probably would have argued firmer suspension tuning sells better, but
the engineers knew to make it work better (than the standard 5-oh
cars) softer was the way to go. So that's what I meant.

Patrick