Test drove a Mustang yesterday
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: Eugene, Oregon
Um. Quoting a source from Motortend isn't really all that. It might be cheaper but Ford did not set out to build a road racing car when they built the S197. If you can't understand that than god help you. Also the rear end is NOT the same in the V6 and V8, so much for MT knowing their stuff. 
PS: Didn't the F-Bodies have straight axles? They were made after 1993 ... Once again, MT is wrong. See how credible they are ... Errr, I mean how un-credible they are.
PS: Didn't the F-Bodies have straight axles? They were made after 1993 ... Once again, MT is wrong. See how credible they are ... Errr, I mean how un-credible they are.
The whole effing point was that a live axle is old school technology that is not good for a true driving vehicle. It is also used to save Ford money. That is a fact. And if the GT had an IRS I would own one.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California
The solid rear axle is for cost savings, and doesn't belong on any sports car.
The Mustang is a muscle car though, and though it grips well, it has a lot of drag racing heritage, and the solid rear is preferred by 1/4 mile guys.
Aftermarket has provided great products to combat the handling problems that a solid rear has on a road course or auto-x. I've seen modified Mustang GTs beat stock Lotus Elises before.
That being said, I am not happy with the stock handling of a Mustang GT, it's simply isn't very good.
The Mustang is a muscle car though, and though it grips well, it has a lot of drag racing heritage, and the solid rear is preferred by 1/4 mile guys.
Aftermarket has provided great products to combat the handling problems that a solid rear has on a road course or auto-x. I've seen modified Mustang GTs beat stock Lotus Elises before.
That being said, I am not happy with the stock handling of a Mustang GT, it's simply isn't very good.
Suspended
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,622
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Lol? Is that a personal assessment? I think the rest of the world might have some beef with that claim.
Suspended
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,079
Likes: 0
My response is in bold. I'm done with the Jap, I've made my correct and valid points but that won't ever change his opinion, so why waste my time.
The solid rear axle is for cost savings, and doesn't belong on any sports car.
It's not a Sports Car so that's why it's not pretending to be something it's not.
The Mustang is a muscle car though, and though it grips well, it has a lot of drag racing heritage, and the solid rear is preferred by 1/4 mile guys.
Exactly.
Aftermarket has provided great products to combat the handling problems that a solid rear has on a road course or auto-x. I've seen modified Mustang GTs beat stock Lotus Elises before.
Exactly. The SLA set-ups from Agent 47 and Griggs Racing provide an insane amount of Gs through corners. I've seen a Griggs Racing Mustang with their suspension set-up, tires and wheels, nothing else, hold constant 1.2-1.3 Gs in the corners !!
That being said, I am not happy with the stock handling of a Mustang GT, it's simply isn't very good.
Nope, but not too many people buy a Mustang to keep it stock. Throw springs and shocks on it and it's a whole different car.
It's not a Sports Car so that's why it's not pretending to be something it's not.
The Mustang is a muscle car though, and though it grips well, it has a lot of drag racing heritage, and the solid rear is preferred by 1/4 mile guys.
Exactly.
Aftermarket has provided great products to combat the handling problems that a solid rear has on a road course or auto-x. I've seen modified Mustang GTs beat stock Lotus Elises before.
Exactly. The SLA set-ups from Agent 47 and Griggs Racing provide an insane amount of Gs through corners. I've seen a Griggs Racing Mustang with their suspension set-up, tires and wheels, nothing else, hold constant 1.2-1.3 Gs in the corners !!
That being said, I am not happy with the stock handling of a Mustang GT, it's simply isn't very good.
Nope, but not too many people buy a Mustang to keep it stock. Throw springs and shocks on it and it's a whole different car.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California
Also, I didn't mention Japanese cars, but BMWs.
And apparently you agreed with my post, so I don't see where you think I was trying to change your opinion.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: Eugene, Oregon
You are correct, I think I will stick with opinions of car experts, not a Mustang fan boi. Now go do some straight line burnouts! And leave the real driving to those with an IRS.
Suspended
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,079
Likes: 0
Car experts? That's pretty funny. I just showed you two points that they were incorrect about but yet they are experts. Anyways, I have nothing against foreign cars but it's annoying when someone is going to bash a Mustang when they probably have no idea which you proved yourself. Anyways, as far as your little "straight line burnout" comment that's funny. My car is running a full suspension and I race SCCA low-speed so there goes that !!
I wasn't talking to you. However that was my fault, I can see where you thought that. I was talking about the "kami".
Where did I say anything about changing your opinion? My previous post was about a trait I don't like about the Mustang, not the whole car in general.
Also, I didn't mention Japanese cars, but BMWs.
And apparently you agreed with my post, so I don't see where you think I was trying to change your opinion.
Also, I didn't mention Japanese cars, but BMWs.
And apparently you agreed with my post, so I don't see where you think I was trying to change your opinion.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: Eugene, Oregon
Car experts? That's pretty funny. I just showed you two points that they were incorrect about but yet they are experts. Anyways, I have nothing against foreign cars but it's annoying when someone is going to bash a Mustang when they probably have no idea which you proved yourself. Anyways, as far as your little "straight line burnout" comment that's funny. My car is running a full suspension and I race SCCA low-speed so there goes that !!
I wasn't talking to you. However that was my fault, I can see where you thought that. I was talking about the "kami".
I wasn't talking to you. However that was my fault, I can see where you thought that. I was talking about the "kami".
Well since your car knowledge is vastly superior to paid car journalists, you should submit your resume immediately! I'm sure they'll snap you right up! You should also inform them that a live axle isn't cheaper than an IRS. You really need to e-mail them and set the record straight!!
Again, since you don't seem to comprehend, I like the Mustang, I just wish it had the IRS stock, I don't want to spend money to upgrade a 2008 model year car from 1990s era technology.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: Dallas
i didn't notice thumper saying the solid axle wasn't cheaper, he said that cost wasn't the sole deciding factor for using it in the car...i agree with him too, these aren't 'sports cars' as much as muscle cars and it's apparent in many aspects of the design that the engineers didn't intend to design a sports car
it's fine that you don't own one because of the live axle...we own one because of the live axle--so we cancel each other out
it's fine that you don't own one because of the live axle...we own one because of the live axle--so we cancel each other out
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, California
Car experts? That's pretty funny. I just showed you two points that they were incorrect about but yet they are experts. Anyways, I have nothing against foreign cars but it's annoying when someone is going to bash a Mustang when they probably have no idea which you proved yourself. Anyways, as far as your little "straight line burnout" comment that's funny. My car is running a full suspension and I race SCCA low-speed so there goes that !!
I wasn't talking to you. However that was my fault, I can see where you thought that. I was talking about the "kami".
I wasn't talking to you. However that was my fault, I can see where you thought that. I was talking about the "kami".
Suspended
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,079
Likes: 0
Well since your car knowledge is vastly superior to paid car journalists, you should submit your resume immediately! I'm sure they'll snap you right up! You should also inform them that a live axle isn't cheaper than an IRS. You really need to e-mail them and set the record straight!!
Again, since you don't seem to comprehend, I like the Mustang, I just wish it had the IRS stock, I don't want to spend money to upgrade a 2008 model year car from 1990s era technology.
Again, since you don't seem to comprehend, I like the Mustang, I just wish it had the IRS stock, I don't want to spend money to upgrade a 2008 model year car from 1990s era technology.
I guess you don't have very good reading comprehension skills either, possibly a bad public school. Anyways, I never said it wasn't cheaper. I said that Ford did not do it because it was cheaper. Ford built a retro muscle car, not a sports car. The car was built around it's roots. It was because it was what the market wanted. The people who buy Mustangs don't want IRS, we want solid axles. Just ask all the guys with 03-04 Cobras who swapped that crap out for a solid rear axle. If you want a Mustang with a IRS so bad, just go buy a stock 03-04 Cobra.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: Eugene, Oregon
So what are you saying? Car journalists know more about cars than anyone else out there? That's a joke, if you disagree than you must not know too much about cars either.
I guess you don't have very good reading comprehension skills either, possibly a bad public school. Anyways, I never said it wasn't cheaper. I said that Ford did not do it because it was cheaper. Ford built a retro muscle car, not a sports car. The car was built around it's roots. It was because it was what the market wanted. The people who buy Mustangs don't want IRS, we want solid axles. Just ask all the guys with 03-04 Cobras who swapped that crap out for a solid rear axle. If you want a Mustang with a IRS so bad, just go buy a stock 03-04 Cobra.
I guess you don't have very good reading comprehension skills either, possibly a bad public school. Anyways, I never said it wasn't cheaper. I said that Ford did not do it because it was cheaper. Ford built a retro muscle car, not a sports car. The car was built around it's roots. It was because it was what the market wanted. The people who buy Mustangs don't want IRS, we want solid axles. Just ask all the guys with 03-04 Cobras who swapped that crap out for a solid rear axle. If you want a Mustang with a IRS so bad, just go buy a stock 03-04 Cobra.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,834
Likes: 0
From: Palm Desert, California
IRS can't handle power like a solid axle can. Especially the Ford 8.8" which is an EXCELLENT diff.
And Thump, you're correct. V6 equipped Mustangs have a 7.5" diff as opposed to an 8.8" in the GT.
And Thump, you're correct. V6 equipped Mustangs have a 7.5" diff as opposed to an 8.8" in the GT.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
I knew I'd gat flamed for this thread.
I'm not saying my truck is faster, I'm saying my truck has a touchier response. At a pressure which would spin up my truck pretty fast, the Mustang's DBW system just accelerated REALLY slow. Granted I only drove ~5 miles, I couldn't really get to drive it like most of you have. I'm just wondering why the impressive 4.0L has bad throttle response. Maybe because of fuel concerns, but my moms 4-banger Solara is the same way. No throttle response, but full throttle will spin the front tires and it can do ~115 easy. Is that something that can be changed with a tuner on that sort of car? I just thought it would accelerate a lot quicker since it weighs half as much.
Also sat in a different one today. Also a V6 (why are there used V6's all over the place and all the GT's on the road
) and this time in park I brought it up to ~4,000 and again, it needed a lot of push on the throttle just to spin it up.
Anyone know why Ford went with plastic intake manifolds?
I'm not saying my truck is faster, I'm saying my truck has a touchier response. At a pressure which would spin up my truck pretty fast, the Mustang's DBW system just accelerated REALLY slow. Granted I only drove ~5 miles, I couldn't really get to drive it like most of you have. I'm just wondering why the impressive 4.0L has bad throttle response. Maybe because of fuel concerns, but my moms 4-banger Solara is the same way. No throttle response, but full throttle will spin the front tires and it can do ~115 easy. Is that something that can be changed with a tuner on that sort of car? I just thought it would accelerate a lot quicker since it weighs half as much.
Also sat in a different one today. Also a V6 (why are there used V6's all over the place and all the GT's on the road
) and this time in park I brought it up to ~4,000 and again, it needed a lot of push on the throttle just to spin it up. Anyone know why Ford went with plastic intake manifolds?
Last edited by Wild Bill; Jul 21, 2008 at 02:52 AM.
