One way that Ford has kept the costs down on the Mustang, and kept the traditional pony car feel alive, is buy using a coil-sprung, live axle. Now, Ford has a lot of experience with live axles, and the 2011 ‘Stang is probably the best handling stallion ever to emerge from the Blue Oval. But with the Chevy Camaro, and the Dodge Challenger rocking pavement-peeling IRS, does the Mustang seem like an also-ran?
Looking underneath the latest bow tie-wearing pony car may make traditionalists shake their heads when they see a pumpkin firmly bolted to the sub-frame, and sprouting a pair of half-shafts. Once they get behind the wheel, perhaps tradition will melt away as mid-corner irregularities fail to purturb the car, and the general ride feels more compliant than they’d expected.
But crawl under a Mustang and it’s 1964 and 1/2 all over again. Well, the semi-elliptics have been replaced with progressive-rate coils, but the wheels are bolted to a sturdy live axle that bounces up and down with every whoop and valley in the road. Despite that, the ‘Stang seems to be able to keep up with both of it’s more “independent” competitors. So, in this day and age, when image and feature matters as much as function, do you think the Mustang’s live axle makes it a lesser car than if it had an IRS?
Image sources: [ about.com, phtobucket]
My live axle and coils would like to tell the haters just where to stick it.
Lesser car? Hard to say. It's still a great car, whether because of – or despite – the axle.
No, and I love it more for being a solid axle. Ford has always done things a little diffrent, Twin Traction Beam I'm looking at you, and I think it has served them well.
The Mustang's cheap, quick, and handles well enough, the big iron stick out back doesn't really bother me. Then again, I've driven a Z4 though some bumpy corners, and its IRS didn't seem to stop it from getting upset, so IRS clearly isn't the final word on competent handling.
I'd rather have a $28k base Mustang GT with a live axle than a $33k base Mustang with IRS.
HOWEVER, there is no excuse for the $46,000 GT500 not having a IRS.
Maybe IRS is a more optimal solution, but I don't think the 'Stang loses any sales for lack of it. I've heard anyone say they'd buy one if they'd just switch to IRS…typically they're anti-Mustang stance is more broad-based.
Secondarily, by all accounts, the 2010 handles better than the IRS-equipped Challenger and Camaro. This is something Hooniverse needs to verify.
Lastly, I'm willing to bet 90% of drivers couldn't tell the difference in a blind test. Only avid backroad carvers are likely to notice or care, and they're probably not buying pony/muscle cars anyway.
Hi, my name is engineerd and I own a Mustang. It's not an addiction on the same level as cocaine, more on the level of crack. Hear me out.
What attracts people to the Mustang? The same things that attract people to crack: history, familiarity, and price. Everyone knows what crack is. They know that it's a good high. They know it's inexpensive. Sure, you could upgrade to cocaine but it's so expensive! The same thing applies to the Mustang. Everyone knows the Blue Oval is going to produce a decent car. They know what the Mustang is after 45 years of production (OK, less than that if you don't count the Mustang II). They know it is as fun as, if not more fun, than other pony cars but for essentially less money. Sure, my V6 doesn't match the output of the V6 in the others, but my car is lighter and more fun to toss around. Actually, you can toss it around as opposed to the boat-like bloat of the Challenger.
Therefore, the live axle of the Mustang is not a liability, but an asset. Just like crack.
Also, Car and Driver said they thought the live axle setup in the Mustang GT was much better than the IRS setup in the Camaro SS. That's a big reason why they gave the win to the Mustang in their comparo last summer. The Challenger was a distant 3rd. It could win a comparison with a 1991 Buick Roadmaster.
I think cocaine would be a Ford GT, while heroin would be a Pagani Zonda.
I can't see "Pagani Zonda" without thinking "Pia Zadora."
Which in turn makes me think of…
<img src="http://www.stavrotoons.com/cartoons/cannes_actresses/pia%20zadora-1982-04.jpg">
…I, therefore, like the Pagani Zonda.
That's better than coffee!
I will have whatever it is that makes you think that way.
Damn! I wasn't even born when that pic was taken. Definitely puts things in perspective. Especially at 6:30 on a Sunday morning. Either way, she is HOT. In a 1980s wild thing cocaine snorthing way.
The only ultimate drawback to a live rear axle is having two of your suspension pickups predetermined by your differential. Anything else, geometry and behavior wise, is possible with careful engineering. Deriding the 'Stang for its rear suspension components, rather than its ultimate ride or handling characteristics, places you in the same group of fools who think pushrods somehow don't open poppet valves as well as overhead cams. At that point, you're using big words you don't understand. Results speak for themselves, from reports of the Mustang's excellent handling to 13,000 RPM Can-Am Smallblocks. And regardless of your enthusiasm for the car, do yourself a favor by studying the Corvette's 'leaf spring' rear suspension; it's brilliant.
Very well said, as usual. I knew I liked you for a reason.
The basics, as I see them, are this: HOW DOES IT HANDLE? Every handling test I've seen puts it on par with the Camaro and superior to the Challenger by a huge margin, and it does it with a much simpler setup. Okay, great! So it's good, it works, and there's no reason to go to IRS. End of story.
I am bothered by this debate because the only reason it's happening is because people are obsessed with whatever badge they can put on their car. If it's theoretically an "upgrade" according to their "build menu" in their street-racer video game, then their car has to have it. By the same token, as I recall, Ford is running a DOHC engine, and Chevy is running a pushrod. Clearly, Chevy needs to upgrade to match, because that big beefy detuned Corvette engine is just all-around inferior to the Ford.
I have a few friends who also own Corrados, and I get a bit of flack from time to time because I have the first-year all-analogue 4-cyl supercharged version, not the much heavier and more powerful VR6. But with a few grand in upgrades, I'm pulling significantly better horsepower numbers, and hundreds of pounds less weight. But according to their mindset, they've got the better car, because of the badge on the arse end.
The important thing is what it can do, not the talking point in its press release.
Only on paper. Unless your nickname is "Grasshopper", you don't travel on paper.
I have not driven one, but the consensus I've seen from the press is that the live axle is only a downfall when cornering on uneven pavement. The rest of the time, it's just fine.
The new Stangs have a pretty nice panhard bar set up, instead of the old 4-link as used up to 2004. My own car has a solid rear end with a panhard bar and the ancient rear suspension has done me just fine while dicing it up with E46 BMWs and C5 Corvettes on the track.
Yep, my take on it mirrors Skitter's. Anybody decrying a car that, by most accounts, handles BETTER than its IRS competitors, is a fool.
I believe in using what works. Not what looks good on paper.
DoeDoes an unfortunate choice of suspension tech make an otherwise good car suck? No, but it's not doing the Mustang any favors. I've heard enough Mustang owners bitch about rear camber while autocrossing to turn me off of the concept. I'm sure it's no great liability in other situations, though, and from what I understand, it's actually just what you want for a dragstrip.
Suck, no. On the street, in the real world, the Mustang live axle isn't an issue.
On a race track…. on the other hand…. maybe. Depends on what iron you're competing against, doesn't it.
On blogs…..well, it has us typing.
I live my life a quarter-mile at a time, therefor, life axle does not suck.
A well-sorted live axle can offer better ride and handling than a poorly sorted IRS. Quite a few European cars, notably Volvo and Alfa Romeo, stuck with live axles for a long time, and, compared to the independent layouts of their time (primarily semi-trailing arms, or previously the single-pivot swing axle), it was probably the better part of valor.
A beam axle presents three principal limitations: greater unsprung weight; the lack of independent wheel motion; and consequently, the lack of camber gain in turns. Axle location can also be a challenge, as angled trailing arms, Panhard rods, and Watt's linkage all have their pros and cons.
On the other hand, in the real world, an appropriate balance of spring rates, shock damping, wheel travel, and tire tends to count for more than the theoretical points. Spring/shock tuning is something of a black art, and if it's not right, you get a car with a jiggly ride that still falls all over itself in aggressive maneuvers, even if you have a nice double-wishbone set-up all around. Experts like Lotus have gotten some near-miraculous results from quite ordinary hardware by appropriate tuning.
I haven't driven the new Mustang, so I can't say anything intelligent about it. The biggest complaint I've heard about the previous one is some ragged behavior on bumpy corners. I suspect that many of those complaints as much to do with its Panhard rod (which causes a slight lateral displacement of the axle that changes the suspension geometry) as with the live axle itself, but in any case, a lot of modern IRS cars don't do that well with bumpy corners, either. On broken L.A. pavement, big, heavy wheel/tire combos and relatively limited wheel travel can make for some squirrely responses, even with a theoretically more competent multilink set-up.
The area I would expect there to be more compromise is in balance of ride and handling — again, a consequence of unsprung weight. But in that sense, it depends on what you consider its competitors, and what your expectations are. And wheels and tires have an enormous impact, pun intended. The fetish for 19- and 20-inch wheels has its penalties.
I gave you a thumbs up because, well, I like you. And your musk. Uh…that wasn't supposed to be said out loud. How about I just say I think that was damn informative and we'll pretend this never happened? Great.
So this is where all the smart and poignant commentorati went!
Go read his site…it's on the sidebar.
I'd say a good 70% of my obscure care knowledge came from there.
Thank you. I know more now than I did a few minutes ago. Great concept: competent engineering can make simple technology outperform or equal something much more complex. I like the idea of that.
The 2011 Mustang with the new V6 is probably going to be my next new car, and I don't care that it has a live axle. Maybe I don't know any better (everything I've had was live axle, leaf spring RWD except the T-bird with its low-tech IRS) but I think the live axle behavior is just part of the fun of that kind of car.
I've had mixed experiences with the Mustang's live axle. (I've only driven the previous-gen 2005-2009 version, and I've heard that the 2010 is better tamed.) The standard GT was a hoot. It was a little loosey-goosey over rough surfaces (plus you could see the axle hop in the TV COMMERCIAL!), but it seemed in character with the car. The GT500 was like Kimbo Slice on rollerskates–I think my 150-horse Mazda3 had more ponies actually reaching the ground than that freakshow of a car. The main thing I don't understand is the price difference between IRS and the live axle–we don't really know what it would be, although someone threw out $5,000. Really? Five grand for something that comes standard on Kias and crap? At one point, Ford was audacious enough to say that the live axle was a performance choice made on the request of its drag-racing customers. I'm not a drag racer, so I'm not sure, but apparently those guys like chattering down the strip like a woodpecker while saving five grand in the process.
$1k-$2k might be a more realistic cost for a IRS. I did a little research and found that the price difference between a 1996 V-6 Mustang and a 1996 V-6 T-Bird was about $1700. Two similar sized cars with the same engine and transmission (I'm not sure the Mustang had an automatic, so that might account for half the price difference there), one live axle, one IRS. I assume the Kia's that you are referring to are the 4WD SUVs?. An IRS on a FWD is much cheaper to do than an IRS on a RWD car.
Typically, live-axles launch better (or can be set up to launch better) than IRS. The IRS cobras and a few others are notorious for it.
That said, I refuse to believe the $5k claim. $2-3k…probably.
I know it might sound silly, but as a Jeep Wrangler owner I can understand. That solid front axle is a major selling point when you're looking to serious offroading. Without it, they've got almost nothing. I suspect a higher percentage of buyers modify Jeeps and actually take them offroad than take Mustangs to the strip.
The first-gen CTS-V had more wheelhop than an army of unicycle riding kangaroos. That being said, IRS is generally better in the twisties, but a live axle can be made nearly as good if you know what you're doing.
Personally, I'd take a Mustang over a Challenger or Camaro any day, though an LS2 GTO and $10k in the bank would be nicer still…
Hell no. I would rock a Mustang over a Camaro/Challenger any day.
Yeah, you wonder if AteUpWithMotor has forgotten more things about cars than we will ever know.
I read that the IRS would only cost Ford like 150 bucks a car, so I don't think that was the issue.
I'm thinking about In and Out Burgers… the best around these parts. They just sell burgers fries and shakes. Have been for years… and man are they good. Haute Organic Fusion Cuisine it is not. But if they all of the sudden tried to sell me sushi or some Chipotle chicken sandwich I would be a little worried about.
Ford has perfected the solid axle to within and inch of it's life… starting over with IRS could spell disaster to dialed in handling that the 'Stang has now.
No
I'll only say that the lack of IRS in the Mustang makes it suck as much as the interior in the Vette makes IT suck. Which is to say not at all unless you happen to write for C&D or MT.
I'll round up some applause as soon as I collect my jaw from the floor.
Nicely said, and it's good to see you here!
I am absolutely 100% convinced this issue is a massive red herring. Virtually everyone who actively complains about a lack of IRS in a Mustang are not Mustang buyers. Virtually everyone who is in the market for a Mustang doesn't care one whit about live axle vs. IRS.
The cross section that is left is, most unfortunately, quite active on the internet. The amplitude of complaints is nowhere near the potentially lost sales volume. To me, this is incredibly, almost terrifyingly, similar to the endless e-whining of a lack of WRC coverage on TV, and the nauseatingly e-cheerleading for Ron Paul during the last election cycle. I wouldn't not be surprised to find out they were all the same people.
As for cost, I'd be interested in a fact-based, verifiable comparative analysis, if only to use as ammo against those who continue this harangue. In this blog post alone, we have people stating an IRS "upgrade" would cost $150 per car, and $5000 per car. Suffice it to say no one has the first clue on its cost, and those who do are not talking. Probably a wise policy.
I think whoever cited the T-Bird Vs Mustang of the early 90s probably has the best perspective. Very similar cars, aside from the IRS.
I love the Mustang and can tell you right now that I'm proud of it for handling the way it does with it's live axle. Does it make it suck? No. Do I deam of an IRS Mustang? Yes but thats why I'll go for a 99-04 mustang and pick up a used Cobra rearend on Ebay. I also happen to want to stick a Barra I6 from an Ausi Falcon under the hood, what does that tell you?
It tells us you're hanging out in the right place.
The main issue with a live axle from a handling perspective, the unsprung weight aside, is that the rear wheels are always at zero camber as long as the surface is even. The result is that the live axle can handle exceptionally well on smooth tracks and roads, and also that it can maintain the best traction on a drag launch where an IRS would be squatting and losing some of the available traction to a tire that is not square to the road.
So no, it doesn't suck. It's different and it needs to be tuned and driven by someone who understands why and how it's different, that's all.
I drive teh 09 GT and sometimes when I go around teh corner it's all like CHONK and that gets my attention and whatever but it's not like I have ten glass babies in teh back all worrying me with their fragility, so I'm all like HA YOU FEEL THAT CHONK? and I laugh agin then ERRRT I push the gas and everything fun again.
(Translation: does it handle smoothly on crappy city streets? Hell no. Do I care? If I was racing someone around those corners, I guess I would, but that's not happening, so the lack of handling in said situation entertains and injures as much as it hinders. Then, sooner than later, I partake in hearty acceleration and all is well again in the hooniverse.)
Yay! Eggwich is here! How ya doin' buddy?
Oh, and your statement had me chuckling.
WTF is CHONK? Maybe I am missing out of the street lingo.
It's like a "clunk" sound, but Asian.
I don't think the question is whether or not the live axle affects the Mustang's sales, but whether or not it affects its status among enthusiasts. Obviously not a life-or-death distinction, but certainly food for thought. The Mustang, like the Corvette, has a HUGE built-in following, but there are a handful of old chestnuts (live axle, bad interior) used by non-fans as justification for their non-fanship. In the case of the Mustang, the old conversation of "it's a great car for the money" responded with "but it's got a live axle" has been repeated for decades, by closed-minded enthusiasts on both sides who had their minds made up long before the latest model was introduced. If Ford added an IRS, it would shut both sides up, which may be the biggest benefit of all.
Thank you so very much for putting this out here.
[...] alive, is by using a coil-sprung, live axle. Now, Ford has a lot of experience with live axles, and the 2011 ‘Stang is probably the best handling stallion ever to emerge from the Blue Oval. But with the Chevy Camaro, and the Dodge Challenger rocking [...]