Paying for the S550

[KZStang]

Had the DEW98 been cheaper to produce and more flexible, the Mustang could have been its savior. But that's not how it happened. For the Lincoln LS that got the DEW98, they screwed up planning and production on it so badly that it was doomed to failure. They made a costly platform, didnt consolidate production locations, didnt plan product cycles well and didnt plan the model-line possibilities well. In the end the line sold so poorly by the time the 05 mustang was to be developed, that to cut costs they had to modify the DEW98 to the point where it had to become a whole new, cheaper and inferior platform (D2C).

All of this is ancient history now and "woulda, coulda shoulda" talk. We got some carryover components from the DEW98 but are left wondering how much better it could have been on the Mustang. On the other hand, I'm glad GM is pushing the envelope with the Alpha. No doubt we may still be seeing a solid axle in the 2015 if it weren't for Ford's competitors.

Sponsored

 

[DJ]

So, as I'm sure we'll all agree:
- lets not cut anything out of the Mustang budget at the last moment, as Ford did at the last moment for the 2005 S197 development (cut the IRS, the 3 liter DOHC V-6, and the Cobra model)
- lets fund a new "One-Ford" 4-door rear wheel drive platform for Lincoln and for a new Falcon, based on the S550.

Of course it not always very smart financially to spend all the money you just made. But then that's what many of Ford's most enthusiastic customers, namely us, have done all along!

what im worried bout is the original plans before the '05 was for IRS but ford said they abandoned it because it would add over 5 grand to the price. I'm sure parts are cheaper now but what else has really changed.... yea I know it wont add THAT much to the price, but are we looking at a 2k+ increase for the next gen?

 

[S550Boss]

NO - Ford said it would add 100 dollars in manufacturing costs, not the price of the car. Five grand is ridiculous.
Here is exactly what happened to the IRS that was designed and ready go for the 2005: http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=11329.



Let’s make sure we all know who to blame inside Ford: both Phil Martens, who canceled the IRS (and who was then "cancelled" himself), as well as Hau Thai-Tang (former Director, Advanced Product Creation and Special Vehicle Team and an absolute jerk). It was HTT who gave the press a couple of statements that encouragingly revealed the IRS, then later told us we didn’t need it anyway and labeled us all as “snobs”. In progression over the course of several months, he goes from addressing the requirements of his customers and promising they would be met, to outright insulting them:

1. “Drag racers and Ford’s accountants will be pleased at the choice of a live axle out back. Among our customer groups that know and care what sort of rear suspension their car has, a large number of them want a solid rear axle; they’re primarily the core enthusiast drag racers, and they like the durability, reliability, and ease of modification with it, changing axle ratios, etc.,” says Thai-Tang. “There’s another group that wants the sophistication and cornering advantage of an IRS, and we’re going to offer it on the upcoming SVT Cobra. Unlike the last time, when we kind of shoehorned the IRS in [an older platform]; this time, we’ve designed the rear architecture to accommodate both right from the beginning.”
2. “Ninety-two percent of (Mustang) Cobra customers wouldn’t have considered a Ford product”
3. “We’ll never appease those IRS snobs.”

 

[Maestro5.0]

5k?? That's crazy. You can fit it yourself for that amount. Didn't Ford say that the new IRS presumably in the 2015 Mustang would be ~$100 over the cost of the original one ?

 

[S550Boss]

That was for the 2005, not the 2015. And that's a production cost, not a price on the window sticker.

 

[GTsquid]

Amazing they ditched the IRS for $100. What other mod can you make for that cost and make that much of a performance improvement? Idiots.

Judging by the mule shots, it looks like a bolt in IRS that will be mounted exactly where the SRA is which makes me think it would be an easy swap for Ford and aftermarket solid axle purists. Is it entirely outside realm of possibility that we see IRS application with the GT and below, and the SRA for more straight line runners that will put massive strain on the suspension, like the GT500?

 

[groundnpounder]

Amazing they ditched the IRS for $100. What other mod can you make for that cost and make that much of a performance improvement? Idiots.

Judging by the mule shots, it looks like a bolt in IRS that will be mounted exactly where the SRA is which makes me think it would be an easy swap for Ford and aftermarket solid axle purists. Is it entirely outside realm of possibility that we see IRS application with the GT and below, and the SRA for more straight line runners that will put massive strain on the suspension, like the GT500?

Don't think we'd see two different suspension setups like that (would also be too expensive to tool for?). There's always the aftermarket swaps like you said for anyone who wants a pure drag racer.

 

[S550Boss]

Is it entirely outside realm of possibility that we see IRS application with the GT and below, and the SRA for more straight line runners that will put massive strain on the suspension, like the GT500?

So the GT500 puts more strain on a solid axle than a much lighter and as powerful ZR1 Corvette puts on it's IRS? No.

And no, because the problem with the last run of IRS in 99-04 was that the assembly line process had to be very different, and slow down significantly when the more complex IRS had to be installed in a car coming down the line. That's why the plan to offer it as an option on the other non-SVT models was cancelled. Time is money on the assembly line.



There is far more to it than bolting it in... an optimized and integrated IRS design will:

• save weight overall by reducing the need to flare the frame so high over the axle
• increase inside room by allowing a much smaller driveshaft tunnel - since the driveshaft no longer moves. This is much needed in the Mustang.
• optimize weight balance by leveling the engine in the chassis
• allow a much lower trunk floor, since up/down movement of the differential no longer has to be provided for.

In other words, everything needed to make this into a 2- or 4-door Lincoln or maybe even a 4-door Falcon one day. Anything less compromises those users, which would be higher volume and in the case of the Lincoln much higher margin. This negates the entire benefit of having a worldwide chassis.And it puts any future Mustangs in greater risk, because they would stay an orphan chassis instead of being able to be used elsewhere.

 

[NRMStand]

There is absolutely no need to go through the trouble and cost of assembling both the IRS and SRA because there is almost no benefit to keeping the SRA. Let the ancient tech die gracefully. Ford has eeked out just about as much as you can with the solid axle, but it's time to move forward.

Sponsored