Does the Ford Mustang really have solid rear axle?
06-22-09, 10:28 PM
#1
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MIchigan
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the Ford Mustang really have solid rear axle?
Ok...I can't believe this. I mean WTF has Ford been doing?
Seriously.
Enthusiasts please respond.
Is there any logical explanation as to why the Mustang has a solid rear axle?
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/22/r...t-rear-suspen/
I would never think to even look under any modern day North America passenger car to see if it has a IRS....
Seriously.
Enthusiasts please respond.
Is there any logical explanation as to why the Mustang has a solid rear axle?
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/22/r...t-rear-suspen/
I would never think to even look under any modern day North America passenger car to see if it has a IRS....
06-22-09, 10:43 PM
#3
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MIchigan
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Mustang isn't ourperforming IRS competition then it shouldn't have a solid rear.
06-22-09, 10:56 PM
#4
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/artma...icle_428.shtml
I was watching an interview with Carroll Shelby and discussing the new Mustangs. He said that the rear axle could have been independent, but he preferred the solid because it's less susceptible to twisting, hop, and allows for a lot of upgrades that have been developed over the years.
Think about it like this - from the V-6 to the GT500, which is the "money is no object" version of the car, it's a solid rear axle. Shelby could have had whatever he wanted, and he went with the proven package. Given his history, I'd trust his judgment on the issue. I don't fit into the cars easily, and hate the fact that the wheel doesn't telescope (at least, the 2008 didn't), but the car felt smooth when I drove it, and it definitely delivered the power.
Big Mack
I was watching an interview with Carroll Shelby and discussing the new Mustangs. He said that the rear axle could have been independent, but he preferred the solid because it's less susceptible to twisting, hop, and allows for a lot of upgrades that have been developed over the years.
Think about it like this - from the V-6 to the GT500, which is the "money is no object" version of the car, it's a solid rear axle. Shelby could have had whatever he wanted, and he went with the proven package. Given his history, I'd trust his judgment on the issue. I don't fit into the cars easily, and hate the fact that the wheel doesn't telescope (at least, the 2008 didn't), but the car felt smooth when I drove it, and it definitely delivered the power.
Big Mack
06-22-09, 11:19 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thats why the mustang is a joke in stock trim for track usage ( or corners in general). Its a cheap straight line car with decent power. Even the 500 hp shelby mustang have a solid rear axle. The morons at Ford added 200 hp to the platform and left the same suspension design on the car and I think even left the same brakes. According to top gear the people at ford did this to lower the price of the car by 5K.
If you want a cheap performance car that has even more hp that the lame horse ( that needs to head to the glue factory) get a 370Z. Its a much more refined performer that actually outperforms cars that are in the next price arena
If you want a cheap performance car that has even more hp that the lame horse ( that needs to head to the glue factory) get a 370Z. Its a much more refined performer that actually outperforms cars that are in the next price arena
06-22-09, 11:24 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
we both know it requires more than a few minor mods. The SCCA mustangs have more than a set of aftermarket springs on them . LOL
06-22-09, 11:32 PM
#7
And what car in SCCA is not fixed up? Spend some time at your local track, Stangs actually perform very well for an old chassis. Not the best, but certainly not the worst. It's a Ford, cannot have high expectation considering the costs. I agree a 370z would be a wiser choice, but that was not the question of the op.
Trending Topics
06-22-09, 11:38 PM
#8
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/artma...icle_428.shtml
I was watching an interview with Carroll Shelby and discussing the new Mustangs. He said that the rear axle could have been independent, but he preferred the solid because it's less susceptible to twisting, hop, and allows for a lot of upgrades that have been developed over the years.
Think about it like this - from the V-6 to the GT500, which is the "money is no object" version of the car, it's a solid rear axle. Shelby could have had whatever he wanted, and he went with the proven package. Given his history, I'd trust his judgment on the issue. I don't fit into the cars easily, and hate the fact that the wheel doesn't telescope (at least, the 2008 didn't), but the car felt smooth when I drove it, and it definitely delivered the power.
Big Mack
I was watching an interview with Carroll Shelby and discussing the new Mustangs. He said that the rear axle could have been independent, but he preferred the solid because it's less susceptible to twisting, hop, and allows for a lot of upgrades that have been developed over the years.
Think about it like this - from the V-6 to the GT500, which is the "money is no object" version of the car, it's a solid rear axle. Shelby could have had whatever he wanted, and he went with the proven package. Given his history, I'd trust his judgment on the issue. I don't fit into the cars easily, and hate the fact that the wheel doesn't telescope (at least, the 2008 didn't), but the car felt smooth when I drove it, and it definitely delivered the power.
Big Mack
The biggest challenge was to create the ultimate handling Mustang suspension while retaining the OE architecture, so everything was a true bolt-in. I spent a lot of screen time at the computer moving points around, adjusting parameters, running driving event simulations and balancing front to rear before the first prototype part was even built. And in the end the results were well worth it.
The key to the front suspension is the K-member. This rectifies many of the inherent Mustang shortcomings in one package. First the whole module is about 45 pounds lighter than stock which takes weight off the nose to improve front/rear balance. It stretches the wheelbase forward one inch (just enough so fender mods are not required), which shifts 1/2 percentage point of weight bias to the rear (Every little bit helps in a front engine car). The unique geometry addresses roll-center migration, anti-dive, bump-steer and camber gains with most of the camber gain dialed into steer rather than bump helping maintain a bigger contact patch under hard braking.
On 99-04 Cobras, we "hard-mount" the IRS carrier to keep it from moving around and literally cut off all the suspension pick-up points and weld them back on to reflect the new geometry I worked out on the computer. Included in the geometry change is a Rear-Steer kit (a KB exclusive) that helps reduce the unwanted effects of rear roll steer, which can be pretty unsettling in the middle of a fast turn. The combination of converting to Tubular Control Arms and Coil-over Shocks takes about another 45 pounds off the rear IRS assembly.
Two more KB exclusive additions to the IRS assembly are the heavy-duty Forward Torque brace and the front CSR Aluminum Differential Mount bushings. Our Forward Torque brace is far more robust than the original and the CSR Aluminum Differential Mount bushings are straight out of the Pro-Racer program. The combination of the two mounts -- the front differential solid mounts combined with the carrier/frame rear hard-mount reduces the infamous wheel-hop Cobras are known for. The Aluminum IRS Bushing kit is adjustable so it is easy to adjust pinion angle to reduce drive-line vibration and being solid aluminum. It also works as a heat sink to transfer heat from the aluminum carrier into the main IRS frame assembly.
With geometry optimized, its time for control and that comes in the form of KW double adjustable coil-over struts and shocks, springs and front sway bar. KW represents by far the best dampening I could find without going to ridiculously expensive (and difficult to dial-in) racing shocks, plus KWs are stainless steel and designed specifically as coilovers, not modified to be coilovers.
The key to the front suspension is the K-member. This rectifies many of the inherent Mustang shortcomings in one package. First the whole module is about 45 pounds lighter than stock which takes weight off the nose to improve front/rear balance. It stretches the wheelbase forward one inch (just enough so fender mods are not required), which shifts 1/2 percentage point of weight bias to the rear (Every little bit helps in a front engine car). The unique geometry addresses roll-center migration, anti-dive, bump-steer and camber gains with most of the camber gain dialed into steer rather than bump helping maintain a bigger contact patch under hard braking.
On 99-04 Cobras, we "hard-mount" the IRS carrier to keep it from moving around and literally cut off all the suspension pick-up points and weld them back on to reflect the new geometry I worked out on the computer. Included in the geometry change is a Rear-Steer kit (a KB exclusive) that helps reduce the unwanted effects of rear roll steer, which can be pretty unsettling in the middle of a fast turn. The combination of converting to Tubular Control Arms and Coil-over Shocks takes about another 45 pounds off the rear IRS assembly.
Two more KB exclusive additions to the IRS assembly are the heavy-duty Forward Torque brace and the front CSR Aluminum Differential Mount bushings. Our Forward Torque brace is far more robust than the original and the CSR Aluminum Differential Mount bushings are straight out of the Pro-Racer program. The combination of the two mounts -- the front differential solid mounts combined with the carrier/frame rear hard-mount reduces the infamous wheel-hop Cobras are known for. The Aluminum IRS Bushing kit is adjustable so it is easy to adjust pinion angle to reduce drive-line vibration and being solid aluminum. It also works as a heat sink to transfer heat from the aluminum carrier into the main IRS frame assembly.
With geometry optimized, its time for control and that comes in the form of KW double adjustable coil-over struts and shocks, springs and front sway bar. KW represents by far the best dampening I could find without going to ridiculously expensive (and difficult to dial-in) racing shocks, plus KWs are stainless steel and designed specifically as coilovers, not modified to be coilovers.
that sounds like an insane suspension setup!!!
06-22-09, 11:43 PM
#10
And what car in SCCA is not fixed up? Spend some time at your local track, Stangs actually perform very well for an old chassis. Not the best, but certainly not the worst. It's a Ford, cannot have high expectation considering the costs. I agree a 370z would be a wiser choice, but that was not the question of the op.
06-23-09, 07:01 AM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Sure, Very simple. I've posted on this matter several times in different threads.
The solid rear axle is not there just for simplicity or cost-cutting. Ford knows that a lot of Mustang owners, particularly the higher-powered V8 versions, do burnouts. A solid rear axle, with its beefiness and lack of numerous U-joints, is generally more resistant to this kind of abuse than other types of rear ends. This type of beefy, solid rear axle was used almost universally back in the 1960's, on the mega-torque muscle-cars of the era, for that very reason.
Of course, the solid-rear axle is not the answer for every high-powered car. Newer Cobra and Shelby Mustangs, for example, use an IRS because they are run more on the track than regular Mustang GTs, which primarily go in a straight line, and IRS, of course, improves handling (IRS conversion kits are available for some regular Mustang GT models if desired). It's also true that some of the highest-powered street cars in production, like Mercedes AMGs, use an IRS, but, once again, those cars are not built just for straight-line stuff, like cheaper Mustangs and Camaros. AMG owners also, in general, don't abuse their $100,000 cars with juvenile, teen-age burnouts like a lot of Mustang GT jocks.
Last edited by mmarshall; 06-23-09 at 07:06 AM.
06-23-09, 07:08 AM
#12
Lexus Test Driver
I have to laugh when when I see people bagging on the stang because its only a straight line car.
99% of people will never hit the track nor even test it on curves on the road, so Ford is smart here............
What will you find those in v8 muscle cars doing? Burnouts as MM noted, and straight line racing.......
99% of people will never hit the track nor even test it on curves on the road, so Ford is smart here............
What will you find those in v8 muscle cars doing? Burnouts as MM noted, and straight line racing.......
06-23-09, 07:50 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
It's a logical choice, both cheap and durable. The car still does well on the track because tracks are generally smooth. The ride/handling compromise is most noticeable on the street.
06-23-09, 10:43 AM
#14
Pole Position
Cost cutting is obviously a factor, but in the new Mustang, the solid axle works well, extremely well. The new Mustang is already winning comparos with its competitors, and doing it with less HP. So how does the Mustang win? As silly as it might sound, its chassis dynamics. I think one editor said that the chassis dynamics and handling of the new Mustang was so good, it probably couldn't do any better with an IRS.
Quote from Car & Driver
"In this company, the steering trumps—it’s fast, direct, and, though still a bit isolated, far more naturally weighted than that of the other two. (Challenger or Camaro) Body control with the Track pack is astounding. It doesn’t pogo, doesn’t shimmy, doesn’t slump to the outside and clop its way through a corner. The ride may be firm, but nothing throws it off the slot-like path you cut through turns. And somehow that live axle deals with pitching and pocked pavement with much of the sure-footed poise of an independent setup. A Track-pack Mustang used only at the drag strip is a Mustang wasted."
Quote from Car & Driver
"In this company, the steering trumps—it’s fast, direct, and, though still a bit isolated, far more naturally weighted than that of the other two. (Challenger or Camaro) Body control with the Track pack is astounding. It doesn’t pogo, doesn’t shimmy, doesn’t slump to the outside and clop its way through a corner. The ride may be firm, but nothing throws it off the slot-like path you cut through turns. And somehow that live axle deals with pitching and pocked pavement with much of the sure-footed poise of an independent setup. A Track-pack Mustang used only at the drag strip is a Mustang wasted."
Last edited by IS350jet; 06-23-09 at 10:54 AM.
06-23-09, 10:46 AM
#15
The live rear axle didn't start as a cost cutting move but keeping it alive nowadays is one. The mustang (base v6 / v8) is a high volume cheap muscle car so every dollar counts. It's not like a mustang buyer is going to pay more for a rear independent suspension (from Ford's view).
That said, Ford tweaks the design to get the most of it even though it is a inferior design. Same is true for BMW with Macpherson struts (vs double wishbone).
That said, Ford tweaks the design to get the most of it even though it is a inferior design. Same is true for BMW with Macpherson struts (vs double wishbone).