Beats the berkeley out of the Smiley face EVERYONE else is doing.
Beats the berkeley out of the Smiley face EVERYONE else is doing.
93EXCivic wrote: Although the extra unsprung weight doesn't help on surfaces that aren't smooth.
I defy you to find a front engined rally car with IRS that was competitive with, let alone faster than, a solid axle car, when both were used in the same timeframe.
Mid-engined cars don't count because they need to be IRS by definition, and their traction is enhanced by the better weight distribution.
A good IRS is better than a bad solid axle but a good solid axle is GOOD. They take up more interior room, though.
Driven5 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Right. That this isn't the first time Ford has copied Aston Martin...Although now they've essentially stolen one of the most characteristic and iconic Aston Martin styling cues and are shamelessly trying to pass it off as their own brand identity.
Okay, I'll bite.
What did they "steal"? The styling of the '77 Vantage that looks remarkably like a '67 Mustang?
Maybe they should just stick to the stick rear axle then, since most people here believe it's so great. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The last Mustang I drove (2013 V6) was embarrassing; maybe on a smooth track lap times would be excellent, but otherwise I was bouncing everywhere. Reminded me of my uncles old F350.
Serious question for you guys: are there any modern "performance" cars out there that still use a solid rear axle? What would be the main reason for Ford to move to the new rear IRS if the current axle is so great? Might make waves with the dyed-in-the-wool Mustang fans of the older generations? Ford is definitely stepping in the right direction as far as I can tell, and I think it's great. The boomer generation won't be around forever, so appealing to the younger generations is a great move. Yes, I realize that they're super popular. Cool.
-Hamid
Any relationship between the possible departure of the solid axle and the dwindling NHRA? 
Knurled wrote: The styling of the '72 Vantage that looks remarkably like a '74 Mustang.
Fixed. Although, maybe the reason I hardly notice any Mustang II's at car shows is because they just look so similar to the 67 Mustangs too...
yamaha wrote: FWIW, I always considered that Vantage V8 to be styled a bit like the mustang, not the other way around
It may not be easily remember as such due to how few were produced, but that Vantage body did actually predate the Mustang II by 2 full years...Just enough time time to imitate.
Where does it say flat plane crank? While awesome, I doubt they would remove that 'murican V8 noise.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: Where does it say flat plane crank? While awesome, I doubt they would remove that 'murican V8 noise.
I couldn't find it either, I just copied and pasted the thread title from B.I.T.O.G.
Lets see..
Note the raised center section of a continuous 1 piece horizontal bar stainless steel grill of a generally horizontal rather than verticle appearance on this 1952 DB2.
Now in 1957 A-M introduced this little number. You can really start to see the Modern A-M grill start to take shape.
I think it's clear whom would of stolen from who if in fact purposeful imitation occurred and not just the fact that a smaller on top horizontal grill with horizontal bars is an attractive look on long hood sloping rear glass GT cars. By 1957 A-M had clearly established the grill shape that they carry over to modern cars.
AverageH wrote: Maybe they should just stick to the stick rear axle then, since most people here believe it's so great. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The last Mustang I drove (2013 V6) was embarrassing; maybe on a smooth track lap times would be excellent, but otherwise I was bouncing everywhere. Reminded me of my uncles old F350. Serious question for you guys: are there any modern "performance" cars out there that still use a solid rear axle? What would be the main reason for Ford to move to the new rear IRS if the current axle is so great? Might make waves with the dyed-in-the-wool Mustang fans of the older generations? Ford is definitely stepping in the right direction as far as I can tell, and I think it's great. The boomer generation won't be around forever, so appealing to the younger generations is a great move. Yes, I realize that they're super popular. Cool. -Hamid
I'll bite Troll McTrollerton.
No one here is claiming they are better than an IRS. But they certainly aren't "Truck like in ride", I owned a 2013 Track Pack GT Mustang and it rode better than any of the other previous newer cars I've owned ('06 Miata, '06 350Z, '10 MazdaSpeed 3, '11 Frontier).
However, stock the cars are very undersprung to keep them comfy.
But your superior opinion will not be changed, so I'll let you stick to bench racing.
The new face of the fusion is from the mondeo, which isnt the same as the Aston. Sheez, it's not like a Hyundai looks like a Honda that looks like a Toyota that looks like a Hyundai...
Oh no! The miata looks like a lotus élan!!!!! The NSX looks like a Ferrari!!!! The rx7 looks like a 944!!!!!
The sky is falling!!!!
z31maniac wrote:AverageH wrote: Maybe they should just stick to the stick rear axle then, since most people here believe it's so great. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The last Mustang I drove (2013 V6) was embarrassing; maybe on a smooth track lap times would be excellent, but otherwise I was bouncing everywhere. Reminded me of my uncles old F350. Serious question for you guys: are there any modern "performance" cars out there that still use a solid rear axle? What would be the main reason for Ford to move to the new rear IRS if the current axle is so great? Might make waves with the dyed-in-the-wool Mustang fans of the older generations? Ford is definitely stepping in the right direction as far as I can tell, and I think it's great. The boomer generation won't be around forever, so appealing to the younger generations is a great move. Yes, I realize that they're super popular. Cool. -HamidI'll bite Troll McTrollerton. No one here is claiming they are better than an IRS. But they certainly aren't "Truck like in ride", I owned a 2013 Track Pack GT Mustang and it rode better than any of the other previous newer cars I've owned ('06 Miata, '06 350Z, '10 MazdaSpeed 3, '11 Frontier). However, stock the cars are very undersprung to keep them comfy. But your superior opinion will not be changed, so I'll let you stick to bench racing.
Ok.... Yes, you are correct in that my opinions wont be swayed, and I appreciate your honest feedback, but do you have to be rude to me about it? I'm not looking for someone to convince me that I was wrong; my observations are based on my perceptions and personal experiences. I was in a stock vehicle, so as you said it was comfy- as far as a truck goes. While I was never a big fan of Mustangs beforehand, I was looking forward to give it a shot to see what all the enthusiasm was about. I didn't like it from the first few turns. Oh well.
Is it ok that some people here on the forum don't drink the same cool-aid on occasion? Some people don't like the miata here, whereas I'm a lifer. I don't get it but I try not to be an ass about it.
As far as my first post on this thread, it might have ruffled a few feathers. Oops! It seems like my initial posts are that way sometimes. Not a troll, but it'll prolly take a few more years for "dork status" as I'm mostly a reader.
I'm interested in hearing more about the new Mustang. I won't buy it but it's all a good thing.
My two "sense"
-Hamid
Knurled wrote:93EXCivic wrote: Although the extra unsprung weight doesn't help on surfaces that aren't smooth.I defy you to find a front engined rally car with IRS that was competitive with, let alone faster than, a solid axle car, when both were used in the same timeframe. Mid-engined cars don't count because they need to be IRS by definition, and their traction is enhanced by the better weight distribution. A good IRS is better than a bad solid axle but a good solid axle is GOOD. They take up more interior room, though.
I will bite. The Fiat 124. In stock form used a stick axle. When Abarthed into rally and race, that axle was thrown out for an IRS setup. While it was lived in the shadow of the Stratos, the Fiat Abarth 124 was -very- good
All Rustangs are junk
AverageH wrote:z31maniac wrote:Ok.... Yes, you are correct in that my opinions wont be swayed, and I appreciate your honest feedback, but do you have to be rude to me about it? I'm not looking for someone to convince me that I was wrong; my observations are based on my perceptions and personal experiences. I was in a stock vehicle, so as you said it was comfy- as far as a truck goes. While I was never a big fan of Mustangs beforehand, I was looking forward to give it a shot to see what all the enthusiasm was about. I didn't like it from the first few turns. Oh well. Is it ok that some people here on the forum don't drink the same cool-aid on occasion? Some people don't like the miata here, whereas I'm a lifer. I don't get it but I try not to be an ass about it. As far as my first post on this thread, it might have ruffled a few feathers. Oops! It seems like my initial posts are that way sometimes. Not a troll, but it'll prolly take a few more years for "dork status" as I'm mostly a reader. I'm interested in hearing more about the new Mustang. I won't buy it but it's all a good thing. My two "sense" -HamidAverageH wrote: Maybe they should just stick to the stick rear axle then, since most people here believe it's so great. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The last Mustang I drove (2013 V6) was embarrassing; maybe on a smooth track lap times would be excellent, but otherwise I was bouncing everywhere. Reminded me of my uncles old F350. Serious question for you guys: are there any modern "performance" cars out there that still use a solid rear axle? What would be the main reason for Ford to move to the new rear IRS if the current axle is so great? Might make waves with the dyed-in-the-wool Mustang fans of the older generations? Ford is definitely stepping in the right direction as far as I can tell, and I think it's great. The boomer generation won't be around forever, so appealing to the younger generations is a great move. Yes, I realize that they're super popular. Cool. -HamidI'll bite Troll McTrollerton. No one here is claiming they are better than an IRS. But they certainly aren't "Truck like in ride", I owned a 2013 Track Pack GT Mustang and it rode better than any of the other previous newer cars I've owned ('06 Miata, '06 350Z, '10 MazdaSpeed 3, '11 Frontier). However, stock the cars are very undersprung to keep them comfy. But your superior opinion will not be changed, so I'll let you stick to bench racing.
Elitist troll?
nocones wrote:petegossett wrote:Haven't they been down that road before?AverageH wrote: There better not be an Aston Martin clone grill on it like the rest of their lineup! -HamidWell if it's like this it wouldn't be too bad.
You didn't see my earlier post? 
petegossett wrote: With the smaller size, will they restyle it to look like a modernized Mustang II? That's one of my favorite Mustang body styles, and it sounds like it would be appropriate.
Nah, just wrong.
bravenrace wrote: The new face of the fusion is from the mondeo, which isnt the same as the Aston.
No the Fusion= Mondeo. The Fusion was first debuted in the US and recently a year later for England.
Old Mondeo
I sure nobody cares, but there was no stealing involved. The current nose of the Aston was designed by a Ford designer, when Ford owned AML.
Borrowing a theme, perhaps. As if that is so very bad.... I certainly don't understand the vitriol against a nose shape that looks pretty good. So it looks similar to an Aston, who cares?
As for the Mustang vs. "sporty cars that have IRS"- all I have to say is look at sales numbers. Mustang does well enough that I don't think input from a sporty car crowd that barely buys new cars really matters. It's really funny to see these kind of comments on the miata board, when Mustang is 5-10x the sales of miatas. With more premium pricing. Why should a car try to appeal to a smaller audience?
In reply to alfadriver:
Not to mention that IRS generally increases costs and weight and complexity for a benefit that almost nobody notices. Too many people get caught up in theoreticals and numbers instead of reality. And I agree about the grill, although I see a distinct difference in the Ford and Aston grills. They are NOT the same.
I can see them doing IRS for cost reasons. I think the Mustang is the only vehicle in Ford's lineup that still uses a stick axle. yes, the F150/250/350/etcetc all use it as does the Econoline, but those are beafy truck axles. The rest of Ford's Line that uses a driven rear axle has gone to IRS.
While I am sure most of it is bespoke, I am willing to bet it will use the centre diff casing from the Exploder, probably the axles too
In reply to mad_machine:
Exploder doesn't use a stick axle anymore now that it's a Taurus Wagon, so you have a very good point. No Ranger, no Exploder, no E-Series, there's just no small stick axles at Ford anymore.
mad_machine wrote: I can see them doing IRS for cost reasons. I think the Mustang is the only vehicle in Ford's lineup that still uses a stick axle. yes, the F150/250/350/etcetc all use it as does the Econoline, but those are beafy truck axles. The rest of Ford's Line that uses a driven rear axle has gone to IRS. While I am sure most of it is bespoke, I am willing to bet it will use the centre diff casing from the Exploder, probably the axles too
Which RWD car that Ford sells is IRS?
alfadriver wrote:mad_machine wrote: I can see them doing IRS for cost reasons. I think the Mustang is the only vehicle in Ford's lineup that still uses a stick axle. yes, the F150/250/350/etcetc all use it as does the Econoline, but those are beafy truck axles. The rest of Ford's Line that uses a driven rear axle has gone to IRS. While I am sure most of it is bespoke, I am willing to bet it will use the centre diff casing from the Exploder, probably the axles tooWhich RWD car that Ford sells is IRS?
All the SUV's use IRS, correct?
You'll need to log in to post.
