Q&A with Dave Pericak

[S550guy]

I wouldn't read too much into the pre production cars we have seen to tell us about packages and optional/standard equipment. One had Recaros and heated/cooling seats button and there were a few V8's with the boost gauge remember? something tells me they just slapped them together to show all the different options without worrying about what should go with what.

This. These vehicles are still Vehicle Prototypes, just painted up to look nice and interior bits that are production-intent, just no final packaging being decided on.

I have cautioned this multiple times on other threads as well. Keep in mind that we are still MONTHS away from ordering these cars, and final packaging decisions still have yet to be made.

Sponsored

 

[S550guy]

Im afraid we are starting to teeter totter on that fine line to where this secrecy of all this info with nothing leaking out is starting to become counter productive for Ford. Im sure all who are watching this '15 mustang are getting frustrated with the lack of info....people need time to make a big decision such as purchasing a $30,000-$40,000 vehicle...and in order to make that decision, we need INFO. I mean, price ranges havent even been released yet, how is one supposed to plan financially for this when everything gets released 2 months before orders can be placed? Not to mention, this Mustang is WORLD WIDE as of this year model, so people all over are waiting on this info. Now its beginning to spawn absurd rumors, contradicting info on the vehicle depending on which rep you talk to. I doubt they will lose potential buyers with this approach to marketing, but why not trickle in the important info slowly over the months? Feb could be pricing, march could be focused on weight, april during the NYC show could reveal all the HP numbers, then go more in depth on everything else in the following months. Just me on my soap box venting i guess with this lack of info coming from the Detroit show.

And the info will be released as soon as it is ready. Know why info isn't being posted? Because it hasn't been finalized. Everyone screamed bloody murder to see the car, that's why it was released early. Now is the penalty round: having to wait longer to know the exact specs of the car. Want to know the final weight of the car? So do I. Nobody knows yet because there are no production-level cars yet!! Want to know horsepower numbers from production engines? So do I, but Powertrain isn't finished fine-tuning yet!

Patience is a virtue. 'nuff said.

 

[jjw]

And the info will be released as soon as it is ready. Know why info isn't being posted? Because it hasn't been finalized. Everyone screamed bloody murder to see the car, that's why it was released early. Now is the penalty round: having to wait longer to know the exact specs of the car. Want to know the final weight of the car? So do I. Nobody knows yet because there are no production-level cars yet!! Want to know horsepower numbers from production engines? So do I, but Powertrain isn't finished fine-tuning yet!

Patience is a virtue. 'nuff said.

This should be required reading.

 

[S550guy]

This should be required reading.

I'm perfectly fine with copying and pasting this into every new thread started disputing specific numbers. That way, I'll have my own little speech memorized as an answer to such questions asked to me in person.

/endsarcasm

Agreed, I am equally excited as everyone here to know final numbers, but everyone needs to understand that it takes time to ensure this car performs every bit as good as it looks.

 

[Tony Alonso]

And the info will be released as soon as it is ready. Know why info isn't being posted? Because it hasn't been finalized. Everyone screamed bloody murder to see the car, that's why it was released early.

So if we screamed bloody murder to see the specs, would that help? Just kidding with you.

I interpret some of these comments as coming from zeal and excitement, which actually should be a good sign for future sales for Ford. I personally don't think anyone is out to "stick it to the consumer" and hide stuff to cause frustration to purchasers. As you mention, it is the nature of where things are at currently. And I think the comment here to which you are I believe responding

Im afraid we are starting to teeter totter on that fine line to where this secrecy of all this info with nothing leaking out is starting to become counter productive for Ford. Im sure all who are watching this '15 mustang are getting frustrated with the lack of info....people need time to make a big decision such as purchasing a $30,000-$40,000 vehicle...and in order to make that decision, we need INFO.

is that poster's experience and not necessarily the case exactly for others. I am pretty much already going to make that purchase happen!! I will admit to wanting to know certain things in order to facilitate my order....for example, will my 19" non-Brembo wheels from my 2010 GT fit this new car. I do recognize that there are likely many people working many hours to "bring it home" and make it great. In the meantime, I drive myself crazy by staring at pictures and imagining how I would spec out new car and figure out whether I trade or sell one of my other vehicles!

Feel free to personally convey my thanks to your colleagues for what has been shown so far. Many of us are just fighting with the "want it now so bad" feelings!

:ford:

 

[S550guy]

So if we screamed bloody murder to see the specs, would that help? Just kidding with you.

I interpret some of these comments as coming from zeal and excitement, which actually should be a good sign for future sales for Ford. I personally don't think anyone is out to "stick it to the consumer" and hide stuff to cause frustration to purchasers. As you mention, it is the nature of where things are at currently. And I think the comment here to which you are I believe responding

is only the poster's experience and not necessarily the case for others. I will personally admit to wanting to know certain things in order to faciliate my purchase decision. I do recognize that there are likely many people working many hours to "bring it home". In the meantime, I drive myself crazy by staring at pictures and imagining how I would spec out new car and figure out whether I trade or sell one of my other vehicles!

Feel free to personally convey my thanks to your colleagues for what has been shown so far. Many of us are just fighting with the "want it now so bad" feelings!

:ford:

Yep, that was the intended comment. And I appreciate the kind words as well! Everyone is working hard to get this car on the road, it just takes time. I am equally excited by the huge fan base this vehicle has already before even being released.

Cheers, all you S550 fans!! :clap2:

 

[S550Boss]

• "Aggressive goals" = aggressive goals. This is not euphemistic marketing speak and work is still being done in this area.
• Weight has been lost. This is a work in progress as stated.
• Power increase is also a work in progress.
• MT82 has received significant attention even though reported problems were greatly exaggerated.

What Dave said isn't anything new, it was all said at the press conferences. I was there: every single Ford guy there had been exactingly briefed (and probably rehearsed) on what they could and could not say. Right to the point of mouthing the sentence exactly the same across many people. Asking them questions differently got the same canned response. And that's ok, because the point was clearly made that they are introducing this car extraordinarily early compared to the usual schedule. WHY they are doing that has not been explained. Late this year we'll be able to gauge whether this had any effect on sales of the 2014.

But some of these bullits in the quoted post are not attributable to Ford people officially, or to anybody in the know unofficially. So they need more discussion.

Aggressive goals. This is one area where Dave clarified what was said before. The car's handling is not comparable to a 911 (and that is a good thing, speaking as an ex-PCA instructor who had to deal with many POS 911s and their often snotty owners). Instead, it was the 911s stability system that was analyzed to understand how to offer different modes. Which is exactly what the current car needs - badly. The current 2 modes aren't enough. This requires very sophisticated programming and takes time to get right. I'll look forward to instrumented testing showing the differences between the default mode and the track mode. I'll also measure on-track myself when my own 2015 comes in.

Weight has been lost. Of course they are not ready to announce it yet. Suppliers are finishing their work and parts that are entirely out-sourced (in production and/or engineering) may vary from prototype weight (but hopefully not specification, which has happened before in several notable quality disasters). The first production cars are August or September - so of course it's too early as of December 5th 2013 with prototypes that were possibly first built in September or October 2013.

Power Increase - again, too early. If tuning was complete, and emissions and mileage and power had already been counter-balanced, they'd be needlessly ahead of schedule. Also remember that the big bills for the base Coyote are paid by the F-150 development team (contrary to what the marketing boys claimed in 2011, and same for the 3.7). The F-150 engine is also receiving the same basic changes and that is going into production first. I suspect we'll see some numbers shortly after the F-150 launch when the base Coyote engine components are baselined and final tuning can be completed. (IMHO, too bad the F-150 team didn't spend the money on D.I.)

MT82. This part is ridiculous because "reported problems were greatly exaggerated" is total and complete BS. They know they screwed up, it cost them an enormous amount of service dollars, the "reports" are very thoroughly documented, and the 2011s have depreciated unnaturally because of it. The transmission as it stands today has received a lot of very close attention, but it's still not rated for the torque the first Coyote put out. Early statements about this said they did some work in the linkage and nothing else. If there are internal changes being made, they will be evolutionary and not major engineering. On my 2013 Boss, this thing is making noises inside, and thanks to soft bushings in the mount it won't shift when going flat out in 4th and trying to get into 5th. Bad engineering, and Ford covering their butt.

The other thing that I will clarify here is this claim that the GT+PP will "beat the Boss" on a roadcourse. Of course it will, easily. And this is not a "miraculous" bit of work. The single worst part of the current S197 is ye olde solid axle. The GT and Boss suffer exactly the same flaw here to pretty much the identical degree. Talk about Yaw - the solid axle reacts drastically different with each degree of yaw. There's a bad curve there. And it also reacts differently in a right and a left turn where the axle is fighting being pushed in the opposite direction respectively. It also bounces over any bumps in turns, and it even bounces when accelerating in a straight line. Then there is the huge unsprung weight. And the ridiculous brake dive. This is all inherent. The IRS changes everything here. The GT+PP will "beat" the Boss on the racecourse. And the [whatever it's to be named] will far exceed the Boss (just look at it's tires and brakes!).

Also on the front suspension, good to see some money spent here (although SLA would have been better yet). Ford seems to suggest that the new suspension is there to allow bigger rotors and calipers. The same rotors and calipers the GT500 already has. So that's not it. The real reason for the new front suspension design is an improvement in camber change. Camber change is the bane of the MacPherson architecture. The two lower arms provide a better camber curve and allow a wider tire to be more effective by keeping more of it on the ground (reminds me of a conversation I had with Coletti before the 94 came out when he asked me what size tire I wanted and I said 275s - his answer was that the geometry wouldn't keep enough of it on the ground in the turns to make the penalty of the extra weight worthwhile). An SLA would be far better yet but that's more money, and would have packaging problems in the current S197/S550 front end.

 

[Nemesis]

1. Is there a difference between the performance pack and the track pack, or are these just the same thing?
2. Have we seen the track pack wheels yet? Seems we should have asked that.
3. Am I wrong in thinking a base GT will have additional costs for track pack, 20inch wheels, and performance differential gear ratio?

 

[Husker]

What Dave said isn't anything new, it was all said at the press conferences. I was there: every single Ford guy there had been exactingly briefed (and probably rehearsed) on what they could and could not say. Right to the point of mouthing the sentence exactly the same across many people. Asking them questions differently got the same canned response. And that's ok, because the point was clearly made that they are introducing this car extraordinarily early compared to the usual schedule. WHY they are doing that has not been explained. Late this year we'll be able to gauge whether this had any effect on sales of the 2014.

But some of these bullits in the quoted post are not attributable to Ford people officially, or to anybody in the know unofficially. So they need more discussion.

Aggressive goals. This is one area where Dave clarified what was said before. The car's handling is not comparable to a 911 (and that is a good thing, speaking as an ex-PCA instructor who had to deal with many POS 911s and their often snotty owners). Instead, it was the 911s stability system that was analyzed to understand how to offer different modes. Which is exactly what the current car needs - badly. The current 2 modes aren't enough. This requires very sophisticated programming and takes time to get right. I'll look forward to instrumented testing showing the differences between the default mode and the track mode. I'll also measure on-track myself when my own 2015 comes in.

Weight has been lost. Of course they are not ready to announce it yet. Suppliers are finishing their work and parts that are entirely out-sourced (in production and/or engineering) may vary from prototype weight (but hopefully not specification, which has happened before in several notable quality disasters). The first production cars are August or September - so of course it's too early as of December 5th 2013 with prototypes that were possibly first built in September or October 2013.

Power Increase - again, too early. If tuning was complete, and emissions and mileage and power had already been counter-balanced, they'd be needlessly ahead of schedule. Also remember that the big bills for the base Coyote are paid by the F-150 development team (contrary to what the marketing boys claimed in 2011, and same for the 3.7). The F-150 engine is also receiving the same basic changes and that is going into production first. I suspect we'll see some numbers shortly after the F-150 launch when the base Coyote engine components are baselined and final tuning can be completed. (IMHO, too bad the F-150 team didn't spend the money on D.I.)

MT82. This part is ridiculous because "reported problems were greatly exaggerated" is total and complete BS. They know they screwed up, it cost them an enormous amount of service dollars, the "reports" are very thoroughly documented, had the 2011s have depreciated unnaturally because of it. The transmission as it stands today has received a lot of very close attention, but it's still not rated for the torque the first Coyote put out. Early statements about this said they did some work in the linkage and nothing else. If there are internal changes being made, they will be evolutionary and not major engineering. On my 2013 Boss, this thing is making noises inside, and thanks to soft bushings in the mount it won't shift when going flat out in 4th and trying to get into 5th. Bad engineering, and Ford covering their butt.

The other thing that I will clarify here is this claim that the GT+PP will "beat the Boss" on a roadcourse. Of course it will, easily. And this is not a "miraculous" bit of work. The single worst part of the current S197 is ye olde solid axle. The GT and Boss suffer exactly the same flaw here to pretty much the identical degree. Talk about Yaw - the solid axle reacts drastically different with each degree of yaw. There's a bad curve there. And it also reacts differently in a right and a left turn where the axle is fighting being pushed in the opposite direction respectively. It also bounces over any bumps in turns, and it even bounces when accelerating in a straight line. Then there is the huge unsprung weight. And the ridiculous brake dive. This is all inherent. The IRS changes everything here. The GT+PP will "beat" the Boss on the racecourse. And the [whatever it's to be named] will far exceed the Boss (just look at it's tires and brakes!).

Also on the front suspension, good to see some money spent here (although SLA would have been better yet). Ford seems to suggest that the new suspension is there to allow bigger rotors and calipers. The same rotors and calipers the GT500 already has. So that's not it. The real reason for the new front suspension design is an improvement in camber change. Camber change is the bane of the MacPherson architecture. The two lower arms provide a better camber curve and allow a wider tire to be more effective by keeping more of it on the ground (reminds me of a conversation I had with Coletti before the 94 came out when he asked me what size tire I wanted and I said 275s - his answer was that the geometry wouldn't keep enough of it on the ground in the turns to make the penalty of the extra weight worthwhile). An SLA would be far better yet but that's more money, and would have packaging problems in the current S197/S550 front end.

Very interesting + makes me wonder about the tranny...:shrug:

 

[Whiskey11]

The other thing that I will clarify here is this claim that the GT+PP will "beat the Boss" on a roadcourse. Of course it will, easily. And this is not a "miraculous" bit of work. The single worst part of the current S197 is ye olde solid axle. The GT and Boss suffer exactly the same flaw here to pretty much the identical degree. Talk about Yaw - the solid axle reacts drastically different with each degree of yaw. There's a bad curve there. And it also reacts differently in a right and a left turn where the axle is fighting being pushed in the opposite direction respectively. It also bounces over any bumps in turns, and it even bounces when accelerating in a straight line. Then there is the huge unsprung weight. And the ridiculous brake dive. This is all inherent. The IRS changes everything here. The GT+PP will "beat" the Boss on the racecourse. And the [whatever it's to be named] will far exceed the Boss (just look at it's tires and brakes!).

Also on the front suspension, good to see some money spent here (although SLA would have been better yet). Ford seems to suggest that the new suspension is there to allow bigger rotors and calipers. The same rotors and calipers the GT500 already has. So that's not it. The real reason for the new front suspension design is an improvement in camber change. Camber change is the bane of the MacPherson architecture. The two lower arms provide a better camber curve and allow a wider tire to be more effective by keeping more of it on the ground (reminds me of a conversation I had with Coletti before the 94 came out when he asked me what size tire I wanted and I said 275s - his answer was that the geometry wouldn't keep enough of it on the ground in the turns to make the penalty of the extra weight worthwhile). An SLA would be far better yet but that's more money, and would have packaging problems in the current S197/S550 front end.

Your reasoning for why the GTPP will outperform the Boss hinges on a very tired argument. There are advantages and disadvantages to both but the live axle in and of itself is not the reason the Boss 302 will not perform better than the GTPP. You have some good points pertaining to axle location, roll steer and axle hop as associated with the stock geometry and none of those qualities are 100% damning. Considering that the Boss 302, from a suspension standpoint, is nothing more than a stiffened and better damped GT, you don't have to do a whole lot to outperform one. Sure, you have the engine and exhaust changes as well as a marginally lighter car (what, 30lbs worth?), but hardly out of the realm of common mods for a standard GT. Hell, running a more aggressive alignment will probably result in Boss like performance.

I cannot emphasize enough that 90% of the "mid corner bump" argument hinges on the axle moving laterally under the car, not from the change in contact patch associated with one wheel going over a bump. Tires are elastic so a bump that is going to cause a significant change in the contact patch on the other tire on a live axle car is going to have to be significant enough that an IRS car is going to also have a negative reaction. That is especially true when you get into stiffer spring rates.

I don't know if you've ever been to the Lincoln Air Park but I'd reckon that there are enough changes in the height of individual slabs than height of the bumps on most road courses and enough autocrossers have run on it that you can see a trend. This last year both courses at Nationals had spots where one of these elevation changes was placed intentionally in the part of the corner where the tires are loaded heaviest in the lateral direction. Those bumps were in excess of an inch each, the one was 2.5" at the deep end and 1" at the shallow end. Of the multitudes of people who have driven my car on this pavement, not one has mentioned the bumps as being an issue. The weight, the softish springs and lack of tire, definitely, but never mid corner bump handling. Why is that? A watts linkage does not allow for lateral movement of the axle under the car. Plain and simple, any lateral movement of the rear axle (all 250lbs of it) acts like a pendulum and WILL upset the contact patches. The stock rubber bushings in the PHB do this car a huge disservice by allowing as much as half an inch to a full inch of lateral deflection. The stiffer the bushings in the PHB, the less this effect is noticed. Removing the PHB and going to a watts link with 0 lateral deflection results in a 90% removal of mid corner bump issues. The other 10% is more than "in the noise" for ANY car, not just live axle ones.

I wont deny brake dive as neither the front nor the rear are setup really with anti-dive/anti-lift in mind. It's curable through spring rates you'd probably run anyway. Even with Steeda Sport springs (200lbs/in and 175lbs/in front and rear respectively) the front end dive is dramatically reduced, get even more aggressive and it becomes a non-issue. "But that isn't OEM" I hear you exclaim... I bought a $28k Mustang, not a $60,000 BMW. If it was flawless, it wouldn't be a Mustang. I want a canvas to paint my own work of art, not a bought work of art from some other artist. For all the complaining about brake dive and body roll the base Brembo GT still does remarkably well, the Track Pack cars do even better in spite of those motions.

So what does it really boil down to? Lack of tuning. A live axle car can really only be set up for one purpose, putting power down. Try and tune it to be a momentum car all you want, it will never work. The lack of dynamic camber change in the rear will make it impossible to do correctly. An IRS car can be setup to do either or a mixture if you want. You will see better tire wear, although I can't say tire wear on the S197 when pushed hard is awful from a rear suspension standpoint.

By the time I take an IRS car to where I want it though, it will be stiff enough to handle bumps just as poorly as my 09GT does with a Watts link, or it'll be worse, It'll require more tweaking and tuning to get the camber set where I want it and all of the tuning components (anti-squat, roll steer, etc) are all tied together in ways that are extremely expensive to modify. About the only advantage the IRS will have for me is a reduction in parts I have to buy to make it work better. Instead of needing a Watts link (and a torque arm to get my %AS back after lowering when I can't run relocation brackets), I can spend that money on a higher end set of coilovers.


As for the front, the dual wishbone setup certainly has it's advantages over the S197 setup, dynamic caster change independent of body roll (and including body roll), better scrub radius with wider wheels/tires, and a different camber curve will all be important improvements. The current S197, as you stated, already supports big brakes with wide wheels, so it's more than that. At the end of the day, it's one more thing to worry about breaking, and one more thing to fiddle with while tuning. That has advantages. I'm not so sure I agree with the comment about an SLA front being compromised in geometry with the current setup. Both Griggs Racing and Cortex Racing have SLA kits that work on the stock front body paneling and they are definitely light years better than the OEM strut geometry. Probably not for the feint of heart for NVH though... The most important aspect for strut based cars from a production standpoint is cost. The performance "works" much like a live axle does. It isn't ideal, but none of the features are damning either.

 

[Tony Alonso]

Weight has been lost. ... The first production cars are August or September - so of course it's too early as of December 5th 2013 with prototypes that were possibly first built in September or October 2013.

The time you mention is your speculation, yes?

Power Increase - (IMHO, too bad the F-150 team didn't spend the money on D.I.)

In my opinion, I still remain unconvinced about the value for the money vs long-term reliability at this stage of general development, given reports of carbon build-up on valves and the high-pressure delivery system on other vehicles using this now. The 2014 Corvette was a notable exception where the engineers discussed measures they were taking to deal with the build-up situation (improved air/oil separation along with the better PCV).

MT82. This part is ridiculous because "reported problems were greatly exaggerated" is total and complete BS. They know they screwed up, it cost them an enormous amount of service dollars, the "reports" are very thoroughly documented, had the 2011s have depreciated unnaturally because of it. The transmission as it stands today has received a lot of very close attention, but it's still not rated for the torque the first Coyote put out. Early statements about this said they did some work in the linkage and nothing else. If there are internal changes being made, they will be evolutionary and not major engineering. On my 2013 Boss, this thing is making noises inside, and thanks to soft bushings in the mount it won't shift when going flat out in 4th and trying to get into 5th. Bad engineering, and Ford covering their butt.

With this I generally agree, based on anecdotal information shared by various folks I know who had issues in their 2011 cars. Reports that I viewed about warranty claims from the lawsuit information suggested enough issues that were statistically significant, although if you have some information that shows the dollars spent, which I would think is internal Ford information, I would be interested in seeing it. That said, I would expect that in addition to internal strengthening and noise management changes, I am fully expecting the bracing and mounting for the shifter to be much improved, based on lessons learned from the current iteration. Heck, I can even feel my 2010s 5-speed stock shifter torquing when I get into the throttle and go from second to third.

The other thing that I will clarify here is this claim that the GT+PP will "beat the Boss" on a roadcourse. Of course it will, easily. And this is not a "miraculous" bit of work. The single worst part of the current S197 is ye olde solid axle. The GT and Boss suffer exactly the same flaw here to pretty much the identical degree. Talk about Yaw - the solid axle reacts drastically different with each degree of yaw. There's a bad curve there. And it also reacts differently in a right and a left turn where the axle is fighting being pushed in the opposite direction respectively. It also bounces over any bumps in turns, and it even bounces when accelerating in a straight line. Then there is the huge unsprung weight. And the ridiculous brake dive. This is all inherent. The IRS changes everything here. The GT+PP will "beat" the Boss on the racecourse. And the [whatever it's to be named] will far exceed the Boss (just look at it's tires and brakes!).

I would call the effect "miraculous" on a comparison basis

Also on the front suspension, good to see some money spent here (although SLA would have been better yet). Ford seems to suggest that the new suspension is there to allow bigger rotors and calipers. The same rotors and calipers the GT500 already has. So that's not it. The real reason for the new front suspension design is an improvement in camber change. Camber change is the bane of the MacPherson architecture. The two lower arms provide a better camber curve and allow a wider tire to be more effective by keeping more of it on the ground (reminds me of a conversation I had with Coletti before the 94 came out when he asked me what size tire I wanted and I said 275s - his answer was that the geometry wouldn't keep enough of it on the ground in the turns to make the penalty of the extra weight worthwhile). An SLA would be far better yet but that's more money, and would have packaging problems in the current S197/S550 front end.

This I would also believe is a big reason for the change, especially since it was reported that the front became a limiting factor over the development timeline. However, given the change in the geometry (those shock tower mounts are angled differently than the current car, perhaps because of packaging as well as the new front suspension components), I would expect the engineers found some things bumping up against each other.

 

[Tony Alonso]

Your reasoning for why the GTPP will outperform the Boss hinges on ...

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Grimace427]

MT82. This part is ridiculous because "reported problems were greatly exaggerated" is total and complete BS. They know they screwed up, it cost them an enormous amount of service dollars, the "reports" are very thoroughly documented, had the 2011s have depreciated unnaturally because of it. The transmission as it stands today has received a lot of very close attention, but it's still not rated for the torque the first Coyote put out. Early statements about this said they did some work in the linkage and nothing else. If there are internal changes being made, they will be evolutionary and not major engineering. On my 2013 Boss, this thing is making noises inside, and thanks to soft bushings in the mount it won't shift when going flat out in 4th and trying to get into 5th. Bad engineering, and Ford covering their butt.

This misinterpreted 'torque rating' has been repeated a bit too often in my opinion. The 509nm(375ft-lb) 'rating' was for a 4,600-6,500KG(10,000-14,300lb) vehicle, not a 3,500lb Mustang. It's maximum torque holding ability far exceeds what the engine can put out.
http://www.getrag.com/de/products/manualshift/manual_transmissions_mt/manual_transmissions_mt.html


With that said, I think Ford's mentioning their changes to the shift linkage stems from the changes in the body of the car and how they plan to mount the shifter. Changes and updates to the transmission internals are always happening throughout production such as the August 2011 update which included the phosphate gears and changes to fluid specs. Ford indeed has some work ahead of them in this area and I hope they take the issues seriously.

 

[Whiskey11]

Thanks for your comments.

I forgot to add the real reason why I think the front change was necessary. 70mm more of rear track. Wider rear track, for the most part, is going to increase mechanical grip. Increasing grip at the rear = understeer. They probably could have fixed it with stiffer rear springs or a stiffer rear swaybar but it was easier to do a little of both and widen the front slightly (15mm per Dave Periack) and redesign the front suspension to hit their NVH and ride requirements out back.

 

[wproctor411]

Very interesting + makes me wonder about the tranny...:shrug:[/

I wouldnt worry about the MT82 and I think Ford is improving based on 4 years of customer testing.

My experience is a roller coaster....I noticed the notched shift points day one. I've had no real issues but I did replace the shifter, bushings, fluid and clutch lines the day after picking up the car. I had ordered them when the dealer gave me a delivery date. After all those mods the largest shifting improvement of all things is my aluminum driveshaft. Lightening up the driveshaft made the shifts silky smooth so something with rotating mass reduction has helped, or maybe there was an issue with the drive shaft?.

I received my car in August of 2010 and have put about 20 or so 1/4 mile runs into it with slicks and drag radials and never had an issue, many more runs on the stock tires as well. I've taken it to a few tracks in the Midwest and never had an issue other than brake fade so I purchased a set of Wilwoods for it.

There are some things you can do to help if you like shifting under full power, torque eliminators or billet engine mounts help keep the engine from moving under full load shifts, be patient and let the shifter fall in place, only a tad slower and keep in mind the gates are very tight so you can't put any side pressure on it, the gates are much closer than the T56, a new shifter and bushings will help too. I switched to MTL fluid and replaced my brake and hydraulic clutch lines with larger braided lines. I need a new clutch so in a few months I will be able to see how that helps.

This is how you shift the MT82...Obviously a pro driver.
http://www.steeda.com/blog/2010/11/2011-mustang-breaks-12-second-barrier-with-cold-air-intake/

I plan to sticking with Steeda on my S550 but am waiting for an SVT variant.
I've tried other brands but they offered little tech or racing assistance and always tried selling more parts I didn't need.

Sponsored