[jedhead]

IRS raises the cost and complexity. Ford went with the live axle for cost and simplicity.

Bob

[Shaolin Crane]

Originally Posted by Vettezuki

Chevy can build IRS that handles considerably more power, so Ford ought to be able to.

And i hope they do. But it seems like its going to be the same problem that the termis had, and irs that was shoe horned into a car designed specifically for a solid axle, i highly doubt ford will change tooling to give the cars an irs.

[Sonic03SVT]

The termi IRS was good to WAY more than 444hp. The first problems really came up at about 600 whp on sticky tires, and people would sometimes blow up halfshafts. The system was more than capable of mid 400hp levels. As far as a compromised system? yeah, but its better than no IRS at all :P (Plus the S197 was designed with an IRS in mind, it got scrapped halfway through development, the IRS was designed, prototyped and mounted on many of the mules...the work is already done if they want to go to it, and it wasn't a compromised system like the new edge IRS was. )

[SeanPlunk]

Originally Posted by jedhead

IRS raises the cost and complexity. Ford went with the live axle for cost and simplicity.

Bob

While it definitely adds complexity, the added cost was quite nominal:

It seems that any discussion about a modern Ford Mustang inevitably turns into a debate about its solid rear axle. While Ford has done an incredible job of optimizing the pony car's suspension, many still find it unacceptable that such an antiquated technology is used on a modern day performance car. Motor Trend boss Angus MacKenzie, however, says that the S197 Mustang platform almost received an independent rear suspension a while back – and for a lot less than you might think.



According to MacKenzie, the 2005 Mustang was set to get an independent suspension shared with the BA-series Falcon sedan built in Australia. Even when it was decided that the two cars would use different platforms, Ford designers set about designing an independent suspension specific to the Mustang. So why did it still end up with a solid rear axle? According to MacKenzie, product development executive Phil Martens convinced Bill Ford Jr. that they could save $100 per car if they dropped the IRS and went with the solid axle. For all of you non drag-racing types that wish the Mustang had an independently suspended rear, this news probably makes you sick to the stomach.


But wait... there's more! MacKenzie's sources say that the cost of sorting out the current Mustang's suspension actually cost $98 more per car than the IRS that could have gone in the car. Like Angus, we love the current Mustang but have to wonder if it could have been that much better.

[Shaolin Crane]

Originally Posted by Sonic03SVT

The termi IRS was good to WAY more than 444hp. The first problems really came up at about 600 whp on sticky tires, and people would sometimes blow up halfshafts. The system was more than capable of mid 400hp levels. As far as a compromised system? yeah, but its better than no IRS at all :P (Plus the S197 was designed with an IRS in mind, it got scrapped halfway through development, the IRS was designed, prototyped and mounted on many of the mules...the work is already done if they want to go to it, and it wasn't a compromised system like the new edge IRS was. )

Ive pushed tuned stock pulley termis off the lanes at irwindale from trying to lauch with slicks. Probably comparible power levels, still turned half shafts into medley. As much as i'd love an IRS in my car, on a prepped road course its been well proven the 3 link is as lethal as a irs. Shoddy roads and city streets is where the irs shines, imo you shouldnt be driving like that in city to need the irs, but thats me. Sure less unsprung weight yada yada. But i can drop my rear axle in about 30min, not so much for an irs, but thats also comparing to the new edge irs.