Vs 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0 Vs. 2010 BMW M3 E92

[Merc1]

Hate to burst your bubble, but GT-R has IRS, so does FD-RX-7, Impreza STi, amongst other japanese cars, yet they tinker with it EVERY year and release newer cars with different and better set ups. Are you saying ALL of their cars are flawed so thats why they tinker? No, no you're not. So stop making assumptions like you know the inner workings of these companies.

There is no bubble to burst. All of those cars are matterless to the discussion here. They don't have a flawed layout to begin with and they were already praise for their handling. So try again.

Again, Ford themselves have admitted that the live-axle layout is not ideal, hence their diligence on trying to get it right.

Try again.

When you say that something is flawed and should be done anew, it basically implies that it's worthless, doesn't have to be said. Thats where reading comprehension comes in.

No it does not. Dead wrong here. A lot of cars in general are flawed let the press tell it and they're still prized. Flawed doesn't mean it needs to be re-done, not in my book. Again, those are your words.

Does Porsche need to start over because they started with the concept of hanging the motor over the rear axle? No of course not. Neither does Ford. Imagine what the Mustang would be if it did have IRS. Then you might have a true M3 competitor.


The fact that Mustang is minutely smaller than the Chevy doesn't excape me. What escapes you is the knowledge of IRS vs. Live Axle. Ask anyone who knows about them and they'll tell you that unless IRS is using really light weight materials, it's not lighter than Live Axle. It's something I've asked and have gotten that answer straight up from everyone.

A 5 inch wheelbase difference is not minute. Dude, who the hell said that IRS was lighter than a live axle. You're confused because I never at any point said that. Why don't you stick to what was actually said.

I said people on this board use it. I didn't say this thread and I didn't say you were one of them. Before you tell me to read, follow your own advice.

Then direct your comment about numbers elsewhere then, no need to address me with it.

This is the same exact argument I'm making for you saying that live axle is "flawed". How does your own medicine taste?

What are you talking about, do you know? You're the one that had to go behind what you said and fix it, not me. You said that IRS doesn't mean anything, and after realizing how foolish that was you added "if it isn't done right" or something like that. I maintain my postion from day one, the Mustang is not a competitor to an M3.

Thats your opinion, which has been discredited by hard numbers. The only thing left is an actual car vs. car comparo. Until then, the numbers DO stand. Once again, I'm not saying numbers are the end of the argument, but the fact that they're real means something, and in this case they are going up if not beating the M3.

BS. What numbers? The spec sheet that shows how the car lines up? Is that all you've really got? How weak that is. Again, until you come up with something that shows where the Mustang is superior to the M3 you ain't got "jack" as you say. Hell lots of cars have similar numbers on paper, doesn't mean their competitors on the road or in reality. Talk about being lost in the number crunch. I know (or at least I thought you did) you know that a Mustang and a M3 drive nothing alike. If you think they do because of the numbers you're beyond mistaken.

So you must have a 1 on 1 test that no one has ever seen.

You must have one also. Oh wait you have tale of the tape chart. Yeah that is really conclusive.

The M3 teaches it's class on handling, and the Mustang isn't in it. But until there is a 1 on 1 test done, don't sit on your high horse.

You're right the Mustang is several grades behind. M3 challenges 911s and what not, a Mustang doesn't. Just like you say that I have no test to prove anything neither do you, but there is the M3's reputation. The Mustang just now got to the point where it can actually handle. Now we're to believe it tops the M3. Right.

Did you even read the article? And if you did, did you even understand it?

Let me simplify it for you: They scrapped the IRS for Live axle because they did think it was going to be cheaper. And to have a "well set up", as they pointed out in the article, IRS for the mustang would've made it cheaper. The price for the the parts itself aren't everything, its the extra time spent on it that cost more. And the reason it ended up costing "more" at the end was because IRS was scrapped late in the game, thus extending original plans. Basically, it IRS was scrapped because they thought it will be cheaper but with extra crap they had to do ended up costing them more, which is STILL speculation. My "sources" say isn't a FACT, it's Fluff.

Your sources? What a joke. Due tell who they are. I love it, when a theory gets shot down with a reputable source (a Mustang loving magazine like MT) we bring out other phantom sources. Spin it anyway you like but at the end of the spin the fact remains that it cost Ford more to stick with the live-axle. That fact trumps the smoke/mirrors/sping you gave above.

You said that the live setup would be cheaper, it isn't. Period. Spin that. We're not arguing why it would be cheaper or more expensive. Who cares then the actual cost per unit price is included in the article. Gonna have to try harder than that.

And I'm done arguing. With the bias on this board, there is no reason to argue, no one ever gives credit where it's due unless it's German or European. Hell, GT-R had to beat pretty much everything and even then there are hella haters. But, this is the last post in this thread for me. Write all you want. Enjoy.

That is simply not true when it comes to me and you should know that. I have said the same thing to others here that you're saying to me. How the ZR-1 can't get a break here or the Mustang, Viper, or anything non-German.

This allegation towards me is baseless, completely so. Again, read up on what I've said in previous Mustang threads. There is no way anyone with facts in hand can say that I don't give non-German cars credit when its due. Hell the GT500 has been on my wish list for years dude.


M

IRS, taken as an entire unit, does tend to weigh more than a live axle setup. However, the point to keep in mind as it relates to handling dynamics is unsprung weight: Because an IRS's differential is more or less static (it doesn't move up and down with the motion of the suspension, but instead stays pretty much fixed to the subframe via bushings), there is less unsprung mass. When a live-axled car's wheel encounters a bump, it also has to contend with controlling the mass of the differential that goes with it.
Another factor is the uncoupling of vertical motion between left and rear axles. Because one side of an IRS can move independently of the other (assuming anti-roll bars that aren't ridiculously thick), it means it can control motions over bumps better than the live-axle.
Yet another factor is alignment: an IRS setup allows more freedom in toe and camber adjustment. With more negative camber, the IRS can better maintain a horizontal contact patch as the car pitches over under compression, where a live-axled car will run harder on its outside edge. I'm not sure that a live-axle setup can accomodate the additional toe-in that some cars with IRS use to help stability under braking.

The extra cost in the S197's development was to deal with the noise, vibration, harshness, and driveline angle issues which accompany live axles (perhaps due to the unsprung weight and alignment factors mentioned above). Had Ford kept to the IRS system, it would have cost them more for the parts, but the development of the live axle to deliver acceptible NVH was even costlier.

The GT-R was quite a bit different. It had a different development goal, with Nissan from the beginning targeting the Turbo and after that one fell, they set their sights on GT2/CGT levels of performance, costs be damned; Nissan are apparently taking a financial hit on each GT-R. Development on none other than the Nordschleife, with thousands of laps (and additional head-to-head testing against the Turbo at Laguna Seca). It also had in it arsenal AWD with some pretty advanced electronics and a dual-clutch transmission. With a former F1 driver doing much if not most of the driving, and a former Group C and Le Mans project engineer managing the GT-R's development. All pretty well documented...

Brilliant post. There will be no credible response to this post about the superiority of truck layout under a sports coupe.


M