By on August 24, 2012

Few cars are subject to such intense rumor-mongering as the Ford Mustang. Luckily, an Automotive News report has confirmed two nuggets of information that will mark some of the biggest changes to Ford’s pony car.

AN reports

Ford brass have confirmed that an Eco-Boost engine will be added to the future portfolio. A smaller-displacement, high-output V6 (code-named Nano) would provide ample grunt while likely improving efficiency.

V6 Mustangs still carry a bit of a stigma with the muscle car faithful, but an Ecoboost Mustang would be a bit like a modern day SVO Mustang. The Buick Grand National substituted a turbo for a couple of cylinders, and it never lost any credibility or performance to its V8 brethren.

Also on deck for the next-generation Mustang is that

Ford will finally eschew the live rear axle in favor of an independent rear suspension, likely adding a bit of modern refinement to the occasionally raw (though energetic) feel of the contemporary car, which swings out easily from the tail

Again, we’ve seen an IRS setup on the venerated ’03 Cobra, though the independent-versus-live rear setup is still a subject of debate for Mustang enthusiasts. Ford seems to be looking at marketing the Mustang overseas, and these changes, along with more modern styling, are likely necessary to turn the Mustang into a “world car”/

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

119 Comments on “Next-Gen Mustang Confirmed For Ecoboost, IRS...”


  • avatar
    harshciygar

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Buick Grand National had one turbo, not two.

    Also, totally saving my pennies for the new Mustang.

    Do want.

  • avatar
    aircooledTOM

    Only one turbo on a GN. And you wrote it backwards. The turbo was substituted for the 2 cylinders. Not the other way around. You should proof-read this stuff.

  • avatar
    dave504

    The Grand National is a single turbo car.

  • avatar
    Speed Spaniel

    Bad move I think. The Mustang should be kept as an American icon, not a world car and that includes a V8 option. Thumbs up to the IRS. Do the world car on the Lincoln brand (if it’s still around) borrowing from the Mustang platform and parts bin.

    • 0 avatar
      harshciygar

      You really think they’ll dump the 5.0 after five years? Come on.

      It’ll still be an option. A premium option. If the EcoBoost is good enough, the Mustang might make it through the next few decades of high fuel economy standards.

      If not? Well, nice knowing you.

      • 0 avatar
        juicy sushi

        Defintiely, I could even see the model line in my head:

        Base (2.0 turbo 4)
        Mach 1: (Ecoboost V6)
        GT: the 5.0

        Most of the world would likely only get the 5.0 with a very healthy premium in limited numbers, but the other motors should more than adequately compensate.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        “Mach 1: (Ecoboost V6)”

        I’ll spare you the animosity unless your dieing to know what I really think about a V6 Mach (fair warning, its not nice).

        The only time such an abomination exsisted was the 74-78 Mustang II and it was an anemic 105hp and the base engine for the Mach 1 package.

      • 0 avatar
        Toad

        5.0 with CNG? That may solve emissions problem.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      Would be hard to do the world car on the Lincoln brand when Lincoln is not sold in many key markets.

      Does the Mustang have sufficient volume to be a US specific car? I suppose it has survived so far on that.

    • 0 avatar
      patman

      Don’t worry, there will not not be V8 models.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The 5.0 failed to meet new EU emissions. This is also why the M3 is V8 no more.

      • 0 avatar
        BobAsh

        Nope. EU emissions standards are the same for official and gray market cars. And lots of 5.0s are being imported in EU.

        M3 is going to be I6 because of fuel consumption/CO2 emissions (for which Europe has no standards), not because of CO/NOx/diesel particulates/other crap emissions, which are governed by Euro X standards.

        Anything sold in California can be sold in EU, and 5.0 will meet at least Euro 5 and Euro 6, and I bet that it can meet any future Euro 7.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BobAsh – You bring up a good point, but I wasn’t referring to gray market Mustangs. The Coyote 5.0 is still effectively banned from the EU for official import or domestic assembly.

        http://www.gas2.org/2010/04/06/turbo-diesel-mustang-europe-maybe-
        -some-day/

        “Speaking strictly in terms of fuel efficiency though, the Mustang’s 5.0 liter V8 engine just doesn’t meet the ever-increasing European emissions standards. And although it’s 3.7 liter v6 might do the trick (rated at 31 mpg highway by EPA standards), Europeans often clamor for even higher fuel efficiency.”

        OK, so I see it’s not just CO2 emissions but mostly fuel efficiency that killed off M3’s V8 or any chances of a global 5.0 Mustang. I knew it definitely couldn’t be for lack of global interest or desire for a 5.0 Mustang GT, Boss 302 or GT500.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        Proof?

        Load of old rubbish, I’m afraid. BMW M3 with V8 still available in Europe.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      I agree. It would lose a lot as a “World Car”. Ford Australia’s performance division FPV, has had IRS Falcons and Utes for years, Mustang has been pretty slow coming to the party in that respect.

      • 0 avatar
        Richarbl

        The Falcon has used an IRS since 2002 but the ute continues to have a live axle supported by good old leaf springs, even the FPV versions.

        More to the point though is the news that the Mustang will be engineered for IRS. This is important for the future of the Falcon because there is good chance it will survive if its development can be tied to the Mustang platform.

        Assuming that was to happen it does raise the possibility of a four cylinder Mustang. That might seem crazy but the Falcon now has the option of a 2.0 Ecoboost engine. Of course everyone in OZ was horrified at first but it is actually an excellent choice. It pulls a 15.5 over the quarter. gets much better fuel economy and handles much better due to losing 60 kg over the front wheels.

        If the Mustang was to use that engine it might make it much more acceptable to overseas markets that otherwise reject the six on fuel economy or even emission regulations.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert Gordon

        “The Falcon has used an IRS since 2002 ”

        Falcons have been available with IRS on the sedan since 1998.

        You are confusing your dates with when IRS became standard on all Falcon sedans which was indeed 2002 with the advent of the BA.

        Of course the Dana designed IRS unit is interesting in that it is a more or-less self contained unit, similar to the old Jag IRS in this respect. This would lend the design being used in a number of application. Perhaps they are considering it for the Mustang?

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Theyre not gonna ditch the V8. If anything, they will have the 2.0 in 2 states of tune (240HP, 320HP), and then the big daddy V8.

      IRS is long overdue. If they can shrink it down (or make the back seat inhabitable), I would seriously consider buying one new.

  • avatar
    Chicago Dude

    A smaller-displacement, high-output V6?

    Am I reading this correctly? Does this mean that they are developing an Ecoboost V6 that is smaller than the current Ecoboost V6? Are we going to see a 3.0L Ecoboost V6 or something of the sort? That would put some comfortable breathing room between the V6 and the 5.0L V8.

    • 0 avatar
      racer-esq.

      The current Mustang V6 is 3.7 liters, and the current Ford turbo V6 is 3.5 liters, so even if the current Ford turbo V6 is used in the Mustang it will be a slightly lower displacement engine.

      • 0 avatar
        Chicago Dude

        Read the quote again. The wording implies a new engine.

        The Cleveland engine complex has consolidated & expanded the existing 3.5L Ecoboost production to a single plant running 24 hours a day. There’s no way to further increase production enough to supply the Mustang without re-opening the other plant in the complex. But why would Ford have gone to all that trouble just to backtrack a year later?

        Hopefully they are getting the other plant ready for a new engine line. The timing certainly seems to line up!

    • 0 avatar
      kam327

      There was some press last year about the development of a 2.7L V6 Ecoboost. Probably in the neighborhood of 300 hp.

  • avatar
    mdensch

    A V-6 Mustang will have no trouble establishing credibility if it can establish street-cred, and it can. Case in point: At the Woodward Ave. Dream Cruise, I knocked down a 1980’s Corvette with my 3.7-liter Mustang not once but twice.

    • 0 avatar
      BrianL

      Really? That is street cred? The late 70’s and early 80’s had very very poor engines from new regulations and from high gas prices.

      A 1980 Corvette has at most 230hp stock. It could have had a little as 180hp.

      Your 3.7L Mustang has 305hp? Not sure what you are bragging about.

      • 0 avatar
        mdensch

        The point is that with modern engine technology you don’t need a big V-8 to be credible on the street. Those days are long gone, it’s time to move into the future.

      • 0 avatar
        noxioux

        +1

        Late 3rd Gen Corvettes are a JOKE in stock trim. L82 running through a slushbox=LOL. Smoking one of those is like mugging a fat lady on a Jazzy.

      • 0 avatar
        Joshua Johnson

        Agreed with Noxiux. My driving highlight for the month of July was pulling multiple car lengths on a C4 from a dig in my 2001 Buick Park Avenue.

        I was at a stoplight minding my own business when this guy in a white 1980’s Corvette pulls up. Looked like it came right out of that Miami Vice show my dad was always going on about when I was a kid. The other guy thought he was pretty cool too, what with his gangster lean, white sunglasses, popped collar and a loud exhaust. I am all for loud exhausts, as long as there is some power to back it up. So I couldn’t resit revving my engine to see what I could get out of him. Let me tell you, it was priceless – I wish I would of had my Flip video camera with at that moment.

        Afterwards I looked up the stats of the Corvette, and yea, I felt kind of dirty after seeing that it was only 200hp and 290lb compared to my 240hp and 280lbs.

    • 0 avatar
      mdensch

      So, you guys are basically making the same point I was. Modern engine technology will mean that a 6 cylinder (and possibly even a 4) will offer enough sufficient performance to establish street cred. Thank you for agreeing with me.

  • avatar
    Alexdi

    I’m more interested in the weight and size of the next Mustang. If they could shave it down to 9/10 scale, particularly the overhangs, it’d be compelling for those of us who might otherwise consider a BRZ or the like.

    • 0 avatar
      gessvt

      I’d be happy with 8/10ths

      Hopefully GM and Chrysler will also follow suit, as the Camaro and Challenger are simply full sized cars that happen to have two doors.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Still gonna be too big for you if your into the toyobaru – especially if the car is going global with the euro pedestrian standards requiring a certain amount of crush zone between the engine and hood. Unless Ford is going to do an 8 cylinder boxer motor the hood and cowl will probably be pretty high and that will beget a high belt line which will beget big wheels and so on.

      It may lose some weight by going with higher strength materials but I doubt it will shrink drastically (especially if Ford is interested in retaining some styling DNA)

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      If it’s smaller, great, but if it looks anything like the pics I’ve seen of the next gen, count me out. Awful. It looks like another Challenger (Or Cuda, if they don’t screw it up too), or a next gen Camaro for me. The present Camaro is too hideous to even think about.

  • avatar
    C170guy

    There is a time and a place for independent rear suspension, but generally not in a Mustang.

    Most of the people who buy mustangs will be better served with a real axle that isn’t so delicate, complicated or fussy.

    An option in the serious racing packages (or aftermarket from Ford racing or whatever) makes sense, but standard?

    Apparently they are trying to make it into a Jaguar or something.
    This may not be a good idea in the long run.

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      I think Ford is safe. Let those guys that demand a solid rear axle sports car buy from their competitors that offer a solid rear axle sports car.

      Perhaps we can make a list of those competitors:
      1) ????

    • 0 avatar
      keet

      “a real axle that isn’t so delicate, complicated or fussy” …hahahahaha, welcome to the 21st century Buck Rogers! too bad they had to replace horses with those fussy, delicate, complicated combustion engines, huh?

      How’s that Ford PR koolaid taste?

    • 0 avatar
      snakebit

      So you’re the one holdout for continuing to use the ’65 Mustang solid rear axle in the 2014 Mustang. When the 2005-6 Mustang GT-R was travelling around the auto show circuit, I asked the narrator up on the turntable why the Mustang GT still came only with the solid rear axle, and he said something like, ‘IRS can’t take the punishment of the GT.

      This guy was a pretty good narrator, but obviously not a Ford engineer, a Mustang GT, Cobra, or BMW driver.

      Let me list some ‘delicate, complicated, and fussy’ cars that have IRS: 1999-2004 SVT Cobra, all BMW 3-Series(including M3 with V8), the new Challenger, the new Camaro, never mind Ford’s own Lincoln LS, 2004-6 Thunderbird, the 1994 era Thunderbird, the dear,departed Merkur Scorpio and XR4Ti.

      I used to own a ’94 GT and a ’96 SVT Cobra. I’ve been lucky enough to have rented 2006 Shelby GT-H’s for a total of two weeks. I’m on my second BMW 3-Series.

      To me, the notion that Ford wouldn’t install IRS in previous versions of the Mustang GT is a profit issue, and has nothing to do with tearing up rear half shafts or third members. To the possibility that Ford will start installing standard IRS in more future Mustangs, I can only say it’s about bloody time.

      As to the charge that Ford might be trying to turn the Mustang into their version of a Jaguar, some of us would welcome a ponycar that handles like an XK or the new F-Type at half the cost.

      • 0 avatar
        01 ZX3

        Heck, the Expedition has an IRS too.

      • 0 avatar
        GiddyHitch

        “To me, the notion that Ford wouldn’t install IRS in previous versions of the Mustang GT is a profit issue, and has nothing to do with tearing up rear half shafts or third members.”

        Actually, it was a design issue on the turn-of-the-millenium Mustangs. Only a small percentage of the built Mustang chassis fit into the tight tolerance window necessary for installing the IRS and thus becoming an SVT Cobra. Hence why you never saw an aftermarket IRS kit from Ford Racing for GTs and such.

      • 0 avatar
        John

        The 1999-2004 SVT Cobras broke their independent rear axles time and time again in the Factory Stock class in drag racing – they couldn’t even handle the output of the stock engine. That gave IRS a bad name amongst Mustang enthusiasts. I hope this time Ford gets it right.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      The IRS will improve the car for 95% of the people who actually buy new Mustangs. Ford can offer a “drag pack” with a different rear subframe and the live axle for the few folks who really want an oxcart.

      • 0 avatar
        snakebit

        It sounds like ‘Giddy’ is saying that the SVT Cobra IRS wouldn’t fit the rear portion of the Mustang GT, that an SVT used a different stamping for the rear part of the platform. My understanding is that the bodies and chassis designs were identical, but the SVT Cobra’s used a unique bolt-on subframe to attach the rear trailing arms and third member(rear end)that were part of the IRS setup, and that a subassembly consisting of the crossmember, halfshafts, third member, rear brakes and knuckles was lifted up and bolted to cars destined to be completed as SVT Cobra’s

        It would be great if we could hear from a Dearborn assembly line worker that remembers how this particular job was accomplished. I say Dearborn because the cars I’m posting about were the 1999-2004
        versions, the last Mustangs to come out of Dearborn. Production of the new body(2005-) was switched to Flat Rock at the AAI joint Ford/Mazda plant.

      • 0 avatar
        John

        bumpy ii – I get so sick and tired of this constant “Drag racers are Neanderthals who can’t drive” vs “Road racers are effete Euro-trash”. For someone who compares a Mustang to an ox cart, it’s funny your avatar is a 1950’s technology pushrod V-8!
        There is a place for all motorsports, and with a younger generation who seem increasingly less interested in cars, I think it would be to all auto enthusiasts to promote all forms of motorsports.

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      The military Humvee (aka Hummer H1) has independent rear suspension and it does not seem to be too delicate or fussy. Me thinks your concerns are misplaced.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        Oh but it is, or was, when they fitted it with the plethora of up arming kits that became en vogue in the middle of the 00 decade. As you know the average mustang buyer uses his retro monstrosity for two things, 1 drag racing, 2 Insurgency fighting, so a IRS is clearly too weak.

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      C170guy:

      “Most of the people who buy mustangs will be better served with a real axle that isn’t so delicate, complicated or fussy.”

      Fussy like the Corvette IRS since the 1963 model year? or what, exactly?

  • avatar
    ehsteve

    To me, this is exciting news to me.

  • avatar
    BrianL

    The solid axle was a bad mistake. People are interested in performance, but most are interested in how a vehicle rides and drives off the track.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      If life was a road course, I’d disagree, but it would be a mistake to try to market a solid axle Mustang on the world arena. Plus whatever 4 door or Lincoln derivatives that could share its platform.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Current Mustangs have been tested against the FPV Falcons with IRS. Considering the fact that the Falcon is larger and heavier the Mustang just did not have any of the handling dynamics of the Falcon. If you want to accelerate in a straight line, the Mustang is fine.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        If a Boss 302 doesn’t have any of the driving dynamics of an FVP Falcon, it must be running with some seriously fast company. Like supercars.

        I’m not saying Mustang GTs compare with Boss 302s, but actually there’s not that much difference. Slightly firmer coils, bushings, shocks, and sway bars is all.

        Anyone thinking an IRS Boss 302 would have better driving dynamics is dreaming. Over rough pavement, you would have a point, but not a very big one. Sportscars and rough roads are a bad combination regardless.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        @Robert Ryan:

        “Current Mustangs have been tested against the FPV Falcons with IRS. Considering the fact that the Falcon is larger and heavier the Mustang just did not have any of the handling dynamics of the Falcon. If you want to accelerate in a straight line, the Mustang is fine.”

        To answer a few of your rather outlandish claims: I can find no record of a new Mustang Boss 302 running at Bathhurst. There was a Shelby Mustang running in 2009. And a 1970 Boss 302 decades ago.

        There was a Falcon Ute running with the usual BMW 135s and 335s. My understanding is that the Falcon Ute has a cart rear axle anyway. A new Boss 302 with usual preparation would eat all these mothers alive, much as I hate cart axles. I bet you haven’t even seen one. The V8 Supercars are still running ancient pushrod motors, which Ford calls Boss 302 engines, but here in NA, the Boss 302 Laguna Seca engine is a yowling quad cam 7500 rpm engine. 444 hp standard.

        Our own Jack Baruth has driven the car here on TTAC. I suggest you read his review before making even more Antipodean statements of hope and disparagement

        http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/02/review-2012-ford-mustang-boss-302-and-boss-302-laguna-seca/

    • 0 avatar

      IRS will “ride and drive” better off the track, unless there is some extreme failure of engineering at Ford.

  • avatar
    86SN2001

    Since Ford has an irrational hatred for the V8…I hope the next Mustang goes all I-4 and V6. Of course, then all we’ll have is a Mustang with a 4 banger that gets the same mileage as a V6 and a V6 Mustang that gets the same mileage as a V8. But all that matters is if it *sounds* “ECO”…

  • avatar
    Johnny Canada

    Any mention of the continuation of Chinese sourced manual transmissions?

  • avatar
    fredtal

    I bought a 1986 SVO when new, so I’m looking forward to it coming back. I’m also going to enjoy all the flames about Mustang changing, like when the Probe was to be the new Mustang.

  • avatar
    parabellum2000

    This sounds like it could be the perfect car for me. I own a 2006 mustang now, and previously owned a 2007 Mazda RX-8. I loved the handling of the Mazda, it was balanced, smooth, and predictable. I hated to constant mechanical demons and high maintenance costs.

    I love the torque of the mustang, the straight-line performance, and most of all, that every mechanical problem and maintenance issue I’ve encountered could be dealt with in the drive way with jack stands, stand tools, and a trip to advance auto or car quest. I’ve never had to order a single part for the mustang, and most parts are cheap.

    A smaller, more nimble Mustang, with a turbo V-6 might be perfect. I’ve never felt like the live axle actually hampers handling, but I definitely feels more unsettled on rough pavement. Even my 95 Cougar XR-7 felt more stable (it had IRS too).

    As long as the price doesn’t increase too much, and the reliability is up to par, I’d love to own one.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    You can park the IRS Mustang next to the rear-engine Corvette.

  • avatar
    multicam

    Sign me up for the 3rd MY of this in GT trim! I’m sure I’ll love the car if they do indeed make it smaller. I just don’t want all the wonderful growing pains of first-year adopters.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    I like the IRS. It gives the car some character instead of being just another 4-wheel-independent Box.

    I support the idea of making the 5.0L standard and offering the Ecoboost and 6.2L as options. That way, correctly optioned, it could meet fuel economy mandates.

    • 0 avatar
      multicam

      In your first sentence I think you meant solid rear axle? And I agree with you about the character, by the way, but I would also welcome IRS.

      But you’d put the truck engine in there?! In 2011 it made less HP than the Coyote and probably weighed more. I mean, it’s an interesting idea, and Chevy has a huge-displacement V8 in the SS. But if Shelby can make 662 HP out of a 5.8, I think the 5.0 will stay!

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      Make mustang all eco-boost instead, Base 2l i4, then 3,5 v6 and a 5.0v8 Eco-boost on top. Ditch the Shelby nonsense and all the other special ed editions. Put a Gertrag behind it and an optional auto and your set to go.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Never mind the Shelby name has been nothing but a win for both Shelby (when he was still kicking) and Ford – Transaction prices for the Shelby GT500 have remained considerably higher than for the SVT Cobra.

        So somebody explain to me why Ford should dump the Shelby moniker other than the trite excuse that using the name adds substantially to the cost of the car and/or that it locks up money that could otherwise be spent on things like an IRS (which seems to be about what Shelby charged Ford for his name according to the conspiracy theroist)

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        @raph

        I have a serious disliking of the man – even though he has passed away – so that is all the reason I need, It also – still in my subjective mind – cheapens the legacy of the true Shelby Mustangs of the sixties (further deepening my resentment of the chicken farmer), lastly I have a serious disliking for all “special editions” and would vastly prefer if they allow more equipment, color and drive train combinations straight from the factory, preferably encouraging À la carte car shopping instead of buffet style dealer troughs that would result in special cars instead of “special” editions.

        This rant must be read in the context – as in I will never, ever buy a retro car and will, if avoidable, never buy american – that my views maters far less than the average Joe’s.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    I’m really scared to see how the new Mustang looks. I’m a sucker for the old world long hood short deck look of the car. I don’t mind a chassis and powertrain update, but keep the retro looks please.

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      Sadly, it looks like the Mustang will be going to the squashed egg look that most “modern” cars seem to resemble, with “Mustang styling cues” tacked on. I’ll pass. Like on the other side of the road, as my grandfather and his brother did when they were having their 19 year feud. My grandfather even changed our last name to avoid people associating him with “that bastard”.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    “Mustang. I knew it definitely couldn’t be for lack of global interest or desire for a 5.0 Mustang GT, Boss 302 or GT500.”
    That could be as well. Hot Pony Cars are primarily a North American thing, the Emission problems and fuel efficiency issues only made it less desirable as a Global Vehicle.If the Mustang was more like a road going GT40, then the desire would be there.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “Hot Pony Cars are primarily a North American thing, the Emission problems and fuel efficiency issues only made it less desirable as a Global Vehicle.”

      OK, North America might have penned the ‘pony car’ class, but Europe and Australia have their own pony cars like the M3, C63 AMG, Monaro, Falcon and others. So there’s obviously world wide interest in ponys. Which grey market Mustangs do you think set sail for other lands? V6 Mustangs? Really?

      All V8 (and some 6 cyl) specialty cars suffer from relatively poor mpg and emissions. Almost all suffer more than Mustangs.

      “If the Mustang was more like a road going GT40, then the desire would be there.”

      What does this even mean???

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        Eurocentric and pretentious answer: The M3 or C63 AMG are not pony cars, they are homogenization specials (well where, sort of, or at least have that legacy) or Q-cars. When Americans and Arab discovered that they where top of the line cars market pressure demanded that they had to become the ridiculously styled monsters that they have become.

        Well in reality the legacy and – theoretical – point of the cars are very different compared to a Mustang.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @MeaCulpa – OK, I know it ruffles feathers around here to call an M3 or C63 AMG ‘pony cars’, but to a Martian with no preconceived notions, they’re the very definition.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        “OK, North America might have penned the ‘pony car’ class, but Europe and Australia have their own pony cars like the M3, C63 AMG, Monaro, Falcon and others”

        They are not two door coupes primarily. They are mainly 4 door sedans.Big Difference

        “All V8 (and some 6 cyl) specialty cars suffer from relatively poor mpg and emissions. Almost all suffer more than Mustangs.”

        Pretty outrageous statement, depends on the engine.
        ““If the Mustang was more like a road going GT40, then the desire would be there.”

        What does this even mean???”
        If it was a dedicated Sports car instead of a deriative of a sedan it would have a lot more interest.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “They are not two door coupes primarily. They are mainly 4 door sedans.Big Difference”

        Would the Mustang move out of the pony class if it also sold in 4 doors?

        [“All V8 (and some 6 cyl) specialty cars suffer from relatively poor mpg and emissions. Almost all suffer more than Mustangs.”]
        “Pretty outrageous statement, depends on the engine.”

        What engines are you talking about? The C63 AMG and M3 get 15 & 16 mpg (respectively) while the Mustang GT and Boss 302 each get a combined 20 mpg. 15 & 16 mpg is what full-size 4X4 crew cab trucks get. The GT500 gets 19 mpg combined and avoids the ‘gas guzzler tax’.

        “If it was a dedicated Sports car instead of a deriative of a sedan it would have a lot more interest.”

        If the Mustang was a dedicated Sports car, it wouldn’t be a Mustang. If you’re talking a GT40 like Sports car, why are you talking GT40 like Sports car?

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      The GT was a limited production mid-engine V-8, supercharged “halo” car for Ford that cost 140-150k. You could buy 2 or 3 Shelby Mustangs for what a GT cost. A true apples to oranges comparison. GT, not GT40 that kicked Ferrari’s ass.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    “If a Boss 302 doesn’t have any of the driving dynamics of an FVP Falcon, it must be running with some seriously fast company. Like supercars”

    One Example (Boss 302)was entered in a 12hour Production car race at Bathurst. A race that would favour it more than a twisty track. The car was seriously slow although it had a good team behind it.
    There have been several tests of Mustangs by various organizations here. General consensus, it looks great, unfortunately the handling and ride leave a lot to be desired.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “One Example (Boss 302)was entered in a 12hour Production car race at Bathurst. A race that would favour it more than a twisty track. The car was seriously slow although it had a good team behind it.”

      First, why would a Boss 302 that’s known for its road holding abilities be favoured at a track that’s mostly straights and a hill climb?

      Got links? I see no examples of a current Boss 302 ever racing in the southern hemisphere, let alone Bathurst.

      Top Gear UK and 5TH Gear TV had no problem get their hands on the previous generation of Mustangs, in fact were all over them. I guess they’ve been too busy the past 3 years to try the current crop of Mustangs, or so it seems.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    “Assuming that was to happen it does raise the possibility of a four cylinder Mustang. That might seem crazy but the Falcon now has the option of a 2.0 Ecoboost engine. Of course everyone in OZ was horrified at first but it is actually an excellent choice. It pulls a 15.5 over the quarter. gets much better fuel economy and handles much better due to losing 60 kg over the front wheels.”
    The Ecoboost does not sell, that is a major disappointment for Ford.15.5 over the quarter? hardly. I see there has been a movement back again to to LPI Injected vehicles, that maybe the saving grace for the Falcon. The problem is the 2 Litre Ecoboost, saves some fuel, but you lose towing ability, 1600kg instead of 2300kg. An issue in Australia where every vehicle seems to have a towbar.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert Gordon

      “The Ecoboost does not sell, that is a major disappointment for Ford.15.5 over the quarter? hardly.”

      Falcon Ecoboost can pull a 15.2 over 400m straight out of the box. The Falcon on LPG pulls a 15.1

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    The Mustang III, penned by eminent Belgian auto-modo designer Francis Deusche, will feature an independent rear suspension and a choice of a turbo four cyl, V6 turbo, and a hybrid powertrain. The V8 will be an upcoming option that will be introduced mid-model cycle if European sales are brisk. Also new, will be a four cylinder naturally aspirated diesel.

    The design will be Euro-fresh, combining elements of hip urban city life in Rome and spirited drives in Paris for baguettes and stinky cheese. The interior will have variable lighting and resemble a Berlin techno-wave night club. The model will be launched in Luxembourg, Europe’s go to destination for muscle cars, a year before America so that the Brazilian and Mexican plants that will build this American icon can re-tool their assembly lines.

    Autoguide, Motor Trend, and Car and Driver have already called this car a “game changer” and “surely to displace the no. 1 slots on Gran Turismo previously held by the Hibachi Roku.” Ford’s echelons of management agree, finding that what Americans really want/need, aside from clumsy infotainment systems designed by Microsoft, are European city cars and V6 turbo pick up trucks.

    Expect base prices for the Green-QWF four turbo to be 22,000 Euros, which is like some amount of American dollars.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    “To answer a few of your rather outlandish claims: I can find no record of a new Mustang Boss 302 running at Bathhurst. There was a Shelby Mustang running in 2009. And a 1970 Boss 302 decades ago.”

    Right, same solid rear axle and as slow as molasses. It was beaten by a HSV Sportswagon. Not a good look. The Mustang did not run the year after. The 2009 Shelby Mustang was supposed to be a cutting edge version of the Mustang.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      [“There was a Shelby Mustang running in 2009”]

      “Right, same solid rear axle and as slow as molasses. It was beaten by a HSV Sportswagon. Not a good look. The Mustang did not run the year after. The 2009 Shelby Mustang was supposed to be a cutting edge version of the Mustang.”

      At time, sure at was cutting-edge power wise, but clumsy. The 2009 GT500 was real nose heavy, and its poor handling wasn’t due to its solid rear axle. It was the sloppy way it was connected to the body.

      The Boss 302 fixed a lot of the 2009 GT500’s problems at the track (and on the street). Why go back in time and cherry pick an obsolete Mustang???

  • avatar
    fredtal

    Here is a couple links about late model Shelby Mustang at Bathurst

    http://www.caradvice.com.au/59715/ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-enjoys-bathurst-success-ahead-of-local-sales-launch/

    http://www.racecar.com/Motorsport/News/Bright-Unveils-Shelby-Mustang-at-the-Armor-All-Bathurst-12-Hour/32546.htm

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Not so complementary Road Test of the Mustang Locally. Same people will be doing roadtests of Japanese Diesel Pickups for a well known Pickup Truck site.
      http://www.caradvice.com.au/42958/ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-review/

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    The car qualified 10th, with a very strong lineup of drivers. The Holden Clubsport V8, a Sedan was not far behind it , 2 seconds slower in 13th.

    http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/results.cgi?14/02/2010.MOUN.Q6

    It finished 26th, the Clubsport 3rd.
    http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/results.cgi?14/02/2010.MOUN.R14
    It was its one and only start in the 12 Hour race. The team switched to the HSV Sportswagon and had considerably better luck.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    May I humbly suggest those in the Commonwealth who see kangaroos in the wild click on the reviews by make column vice providing links to two and three year old data for Australian centric races. Vehicles do change.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    “Would the Mustang move out of the pony class if it also sold in 4 doors?” Yes it would, it is not a two door coupe anymore.

    “The Boss 302 fixed a lot of the 2009 GT500′s problems at the track (and on the street). Why go back in time and cherry pick an obsolete Mustang???”

    It was at the time supposed to be cutting edge, as you concur it was total flop. The other cars it raced against have also become a lot faster. The 302 ,like its Shelby stablemate has not made any impression globally as far as stellar track performances.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “It was at the time supposed to be cutting edge, as you concur it was total flop. The other cars it raced against have also become a lot faster. The 302 ,like its Shelby stablemate has not made any impression globally as far as stellar track performances.”

      Yes, that was then and Mustangs had a lot of room for improvement.

      Cars improve all the time, but the Boss 302 hasn’t really been left in the dust yet. If so, give examples. Give examples of where the Boss 302 has failed around the world.

      Yes, Mustangs don’t have a stellar reputation around the globe but all of that is unfounded. Or based on dated info. You’re living proof of that.

      Most folks also believe solid rear axles slow you down at the track. We know that’s false too.

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    “If the Mustang was a dedicated Sports car, it wouldn’t be a Mustang. If you’re talking a GT40 like Sports car, why are you talking GT40 like Sports car?”
    Yes I would be if you want to sell it Globally. A Mustang Sports Coupe is a North American ,not Global “desirable” car.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “Yes I would be (interested) if you want to sell it Globally. A Mustang Sports Coupe is a North American ,not Global “desirable” car.”

      I say V8 Mustangs are hella desirable (around the globe) based on my research and you say they’re not based on your bias. Great, we will never know the truth because all V8 Mustangs were banned from the EU (for official importation) despite their decent fuel economy. Most current EU and OZ V8s thru V12s would be banned if they weren’t ‘grandfathered’ in.

  • avatar
    snakebit

    Now I know where the communication problem. Judging by all of the comments
    pertaining to drag racing and Mustangs, I must be in the minority. I haven’
    t shopped for any personal car with the intention of taking it to a drag st
    rip to race. Not one. The kind of racing I’m into is autocrossing, Solo 1 s
    tyle racing, and actual road racing. This is by no means a value judgement
    of drag racing, it’s just an activity that I don’t do.The idea that
    an owner of the extra-cost SVT Cobra would take it to the drags, and expect
    to dominate a GT or Camaro or Challenger is just foreign to me. If their goal
    was to compete and maybe trophy at the drags, buying a cheaper model and
    maybe having a driveline specialist help you beef up the rear axle seems
    to me to be the way to go to be successful. I don’t think I’ve got the SVT
    buyer wrong, but maybe I’ve got the GT buyer wrong. Maybe that buyer really
    is into drag racing much more than I thought they were, and maybe Ford’s
    insistance on keeping IRS out of the GT is they’re being shrewd about how their
    buyers are going to use the GT

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    Denvermike,
    “Cars improve all the time, but the Boss 302 hasn’t really been left in the dust yet. If so, give examples. Give examples of where the Boss 302 has failed around the world.
    Yes, Mustangs don’t have a stellar reputation around the globe but all of that is unfounded. Or based on dated info. You’re living proof of that.”
    You seem to contradict yourself. One One hand you say give examples where it has failed around the world, then say it does not have a stellar reputation around the Globe. So it has failed by your statement? Only way you cannot get a “stellar reputation “is to have tried and not done well. Anything else is only a guess.
    “I say V8 Mustangs are hella desirable (around the globe) based on my research”
    So how did you do this? ask your neighbors or someone on the internet?

    “Most folks also believe solid rear axles slow you down at the track. We know that’s false too.”
    Solid rear axles have their uses on a Drag Racing Car, Midgets, Sprintcars, Trucks and Pickups.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      “You seem to contradict yourself. One One hand you say give examples where it has failed around the world, then say it does not have a stellar reputation around the Globe. So it has failed by your statement? Only way you cannot get a “stellar reputation “is to have tried and not done well. Anything else is only a guess.”

      Well yeah Buddy, I’m still waiting for examples on where honest opinions can be based. Like facts, tests, races, whatever. Less than “stellar” reputations don’t have to be based on anything real. You’re proving that with every word you speak. You imply you have all these examples, so where are they???
      Anything else IS only a guess!

      “So how did you do this? ask your neighbors or someone on the internet?”

      No, I was born in Spain and been back several dozen times. I’ve traveled all over the EU and Mustangs create a buzz wherever they’re spotted. Italian super cars, not so much. Any American iron, especially muscle cars and full-size trucks, but Mustangs are at the top of the food chain.

      Australia is home to the biggest Mustang subcultures outside of North America. The Mustang Owner Club of Australia is separated into 5 regions, it’s so big!

      http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/australian-mustang–runs-and-shows.728335/

      You may hate Mustangs, but check with your neighbors and you’ll no doubt see a different picture. How can you call yourself a car enthusiast and hate anything automotive???
      It sounds like you have less hatred of American cars and trucks than you do of Americans.

      “Solid rear axles have their uses on a Drag Racing Car, Midgets, Sprintcars, Trucks and Pickups.”

      Solid rear axles are faster than IRS on road courses and that’s a fact. IRS is OK for spirited driving through the canyon or curvy roads, but in full race conditions, SRA prevails. Ask anybody.
      Trucks and pickups have little in common with Mustang suspensions.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        Denver Mike this dude is a semi-troll. He thinks Ford should make a GT and call it a Mustang. Never mind a Ford GT cost 140k when they made them. He blithely ignores TTAC’s reviews of newer Mustang’s with track packs. I forgot who did the Mustang reviews, but if Baruth or Karesh say the car’s worthy; it’s worthy. I’m rubbing my palms together and walking away from this auction of nonsense.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        Denvermike,
        ” You’re proving that with every word you speak. You imply you have all these examples, so where are they???
        Anything else IS only a guess!”

        Exactly , where is the highly desirable, affordable Boss 302 campaigned outside NA. Can you give me examples?

        “You may hate Mustangs, but check with your neighbors and you’ll no doubt see a different picture. How can you call yourself a car enthusiast and hate ANYTHING AUTOMOTIVE???”
        Anything Automotive!! Your Joking.

        “Australia is home to the biggest Mustang subcultures outside of North America. The Mustang Owner Club of Australia is separated into 5 regions, it’s so big!”
        I know and a lot of other car clubs as well. My Nephew has a pristine 1967 LHD Mustang. Mustangs were made famous by Allan Moffats 1972 Mustang he raced in Australia, yes a genuine very good Boss 302.

        “It sounds like you have less hatred of American cars and trucks than you do of Americans.”

        So someone disagrees with you and they are from outside NA they are “Anti American”?? Is that your best way of making a point? Not on facts but put the nationality down. You are starting to sound very Anti-Australian.

        “Solid rear axles are faster than IRS on road courses and that’s a fact. IRS is OK for spirited driving through the canyon or curvy roads, but in full race conditions, SRA prevails. Ask anybody.”

        Absolute Rubbish.

        “’Ive traveled all over the EU and Mustangs ”
        So have I and other parts you have not been too and NO they do not have a “buzz about Mustang”

        “Italian super cars, not so much. Any American iron, especially muscle cars and full-size trucks, but Mustangs are at the top of the food chain.”

        Bizarre. Every heard of Top Gear, the successful worldwide UK car show, that tests some Italian , European Supercar on every episode?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “Exactly , where is the highly desirable, affordable Boss 302 campaigned outside NA. Can you give me examples?”

        Why would anyone market a car to the entire world if it’s only sold
        in North America? Do you see worldwide marketing campaigns for F-150s? Grey market Mustangs are shipped all over anyways.

        “So someone disagrees with you and they are from outside NA they are “Anti American”?? Is that your best way of making a point? Not on facts but put the nationality down. You are starting to sound very Anti-Australian.”

        So I don’t know you, but is there a particular reason American cars and trucks rub you the wrong way? These have tremendous demand domestically and although that alone doesn’t guarantee world-wide success, it’s a terrific indicator. Mustangs are already one of the most popular grey market cars around the globe.

        I’m not calling you delusional or anything, but weren’t you the guy that thought the chicken tax was the only thing keeping the Holden ute from succeeding in North America???

        “Absolute Rubbish.”

        You’re joking right? Why even comment on something you know so little about? If you do, please explain the benefits of IRS on a road course vs. LRA.

        “Bizarre. Every heard of Top Gear, the successful worldwide UK car show, that tests some Italian , European Supercar on every episode?”

        Top Gear? Really? What are you 12? That show is (*spoiler alert*) mostly scripted by non car guys and all the fantastic drifting by the hosts (while simultaneously reviewing cars no less) is done by pro stunt drivers.
        You have got to be kidding my right? Top Gear???

        Top Gear is the most racist show on TV and their car reviews are complete fairytales. Really says a lot about you!

        Oh and Top Gear had no problem finding Mustangs to review back when they had much room for improvement and way down on power.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/06/review-2013-ford-mustang-gt-track-tested/#more-448434 Jack Baruth
    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/06/review-2013-ford-mustang-gt-track-tested/#more-448434 Brendan McAleer

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/02/review-2012-ford-mustang-boss-302-and-boss-302-laguna-seca/#more-384891 Jack Baruth

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/09/review-2011-ford-mustang-gt-5-0-take-two/#more-364668 Michael Karesh

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/06/review-2011-ford-mustang-gt500/#more-359622 Jack, again

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/05/track-test-2011-mustang-v8-wbrembo-brakes/#more-356761 Jack Baruth

    Ford GT review http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/11/review-2005-ford-gt-whipplecharged/#comments Sajeev Mehta

    Yeah, I think Ford got things sorted out.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      ” He thinks Ford should make a GT and call it a Mustang. Never mind a Ford GT cost 140k when they made them. He blithely ignores TTAC’s reviews of newer Mustang’s with track packs”

      That is not it , where they have done well as a track car outside NA?

      Here are some favourable reviews of the 2009 Mustang GT
      http://www.edmunds.com/ford/shelby-gt500/2009/

      http://www.motorauthority.com/review/1029732_review-2009-ford-mustang-gt-glasstop

      “Coupled with a nice smooth road and a disabled traction control system, the Mustang GT offers a surprisingly agile ride. There’s body roll, and a good bit of rear-end skitter on rough or choppy pavement, and ultimately quite a lot of understeer at the limit because of the nose-heavy weight distribution. But taken altogether, these characteristics join in an alchemical mix to form a car that’s fairly balanced just below the limit.

      http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/ford/2009-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500-1042.html
      . No longer a mere muscle car, the GT500, which finally sports a horsepower rating fitting of its name for 2009, can sprint, slow and handle in a manner that belies its hefty 4,000 pound curb weight.

      http://mustangs.about.com/od/2009/fr/test-bullitt09.htm

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    Denvermike,
    “Why would anyone market a car to the entire world if it’s only sold
    in North America”
    Campaigned as in RACED elsewhere.Selling is another issue not relevant.

    “So I don’t know you, but is there a particular reason American cars and trucks rub you the wrong way? These have tremendous demand domestically and although that alone doesn’t guarantee world-wide success, it’s a terrific indicator”
    It certainly is not. US Pickups are a niche product globally outside NA. If they had any sufficient demand, the “Big 3″ would be rapidly selling them , especially in these very trying times. Any sale would be a bonus.

    “I’m not calling you delusional or anything, but weren’t you the guy that thought the chicken tax was the only thing keeping the Holden ute from succeeding in North America???
    No ,but these people thought the same thing. They like me were trying to work out how a free trade agreement had tariffs.

    “GMInsidenews.com
    Australia Correspondent

    23 August 2012

    There was a lot of scratching heads and sunken hearts recently, when media in Australia cited import tariffs being too great an obstacle for the Holden Ute to cross the Pacific. Members on GMI raised the issue about the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Australia and the US.

    After reviewing the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website, clear statements are made about the key outcomes from the FTA, specifically relating to automotive products:

    “The 2.5 per cent duty on passenger motor vehicles, the 25 per cent tariff on light commercial vehicles and tariffs on auto parts and accessories exports were immediately eliminated.”

    To put an end to the confusion, GMInsidenews contracted @DFAT via twitter and this was their response:
    news

    It did not take long for Andrea Matthews, Social Media & Digital Communications Manager for Holden, to clear the air.

    “You’re joking right? Why even comment on something you know so little about. If you do, explain the benefits of IRS on a road course vs. LRA. ”

    Solid axles have disappeared on roadcourses for openwheelers, Sportscars and the bulk of sedans .

    “Why even comment on something you know so little about.”
    OK show examples of successful LRA Roadracers?

    “”Top Gear? Really? What are you 12? That show is (*spoiler alert*) mostly scripted by non car guys and all the fantastic drifting by the hosts (while simultaneously reviewing cars no less) is done by pro stunt drivers.””

    You showing your ignorance here, it is a globally liked series, with National spinoffs , the British main show tests mainly a lot of European exotics.

    “Top Gear is the most racist show on TV and their car reviews are complete fairytales. Really says a lot about you!”

    I think your comments are saying a lot about YOU. You know more than a Globally syndicated car show? What people preferences are? You must be a genius.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @Robert Ryan

    “[Campaigned as in RACED elsewhere.Selling is another issue not relevant.]”

    Why would Ford promote or race the Boss 302 outside of America? That’s silly. It’s a North American exculsive, limited edition that sells itself. It’s track debut is done and Ford has moved on.

    Anyone in Brazil lets say, that’s interested in a grey market Boss 302 and has internet can see it run and compare results. Why does he care where it was run? Does he need to see run in brazil? What’s the difference? If you’re in Belgium and can’t pull up a video, how are you going to manage to put one in a sea container? And why would Ford care?

    More importantly, why would Ford care to promote a car that already requires you to get on a waiting list to even sit in one?

    “[It certainly is not. US Pickups are a niche product globally outside NA. If they had any sufficient demand, the “Big 3″ would be rapidly selling them , especially in these very trying times. Any sale would be a bonus.]”

    The story on the F-150 is the same as V8 Mustangs. That ship has sailed and the EU will not allow official import because their fuel economy is unacceptable. It’s MPG is pretty good for what it is, but the EU has ruled.

    “[No ,but these people thought the same thing. They like me were trying to work out how a free trade agreement had tariffs.]”

    You need to let that one go. Makes you sound crazy to agree that the chicken tax (whether it applies or not) is what’s keeping the Holden ute from setting sail to America.

    “[Solid axles have disappeared on roadcourses for openwheelers, Sportscars and the bulk of sedans .OK show examples of successful LRA Roadracers?]”

    Solid axles disappeared from road courses because they disappeared from productions cars. Production cars went to IRS for the same reasons Mustangs will. You have to give up a little track dominance for highway piece of mind. Most of that is from public pressure, but IRS isn’t that much better on bad roads.

    Now dedicated race cars don’t have to make such compromises, but most have rearward engines and require transaxles and therefor IRS. Name the few dedicated front engine race cars that could’ve been designed for LRA. I can only think of two off hand and one of them, the Caterham has a Dedeon non independent.

    You still haven’t explained the virtues of IRS on a road course (this should be good!). The truth is LRA has a distinct advantage on road courses. I’m not say it’s a tremendous advantage, but it’s there none the less.

    “[You showing your ignorance here, it is a globally liked series, with National spinoffs , the British main show tests mainly a lot of European exotics. I think your comments are saying a lot about YOU. You know more than a Globally syndicated car show? What people preferences are? You must be a genius.]”

    No, Top Gear’s rating are thru the roof because it appeals mostly to kids. They pander to children with the all drifting of mega buck exotic supercars. Or funny challenges between hosts. It’s good fun, I’ll admit. Races between cars and boats (or vs. airplanes, helicopters or skydivers) are great fun too.

    These tests are meaningless, but are very interesting to young, old, man, woman. It’s all about ratings and very little is offered for car enthusiasts. I watch the show, but get very bored quickly. It’s a variety show for the masses. I might as well watch “Hee Haw”.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      There is no rule forbidding the import of pickup trucks into the EU; there aren’t even mandatory corporate fuel economy standards.

      The only thing that prevents the F-150 from being sold in Europe is the lack of interest by the customers. It simply hasn’t been designed to fit into the European driving environment.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        “It simply hasn’t been designed to fit into the European driving environment.”
        That is putting it mildly. I would hate to drive a F150 around some of side roads of some European countries.It would be an absolute nightmare. You can see why Pickups as a category are very much underrepresented in Europe.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @th009 – So you’re saying (officially sold) full-size trucks would be totally exempt from fuel economy standards in the EU?

        With the EU taking such a hard line against V8 passenger cars, muscle cars in the form of short bed and full-size V8 pickup trucks would seem like way to go.

        The EU environment is often too compact (in cities) even for compact cars.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      “Name the few dedicated front engine race cars that could’ve been designed for LRA. I can only think of two off hand and one of them, the Caterham has a Dedeon non independent.”

      Both DTM cars and the Australian V8 supercars use independent rear suspensions. Both are ground-up designs for racing only.

  • avatar
    Robert Gordon

    By road courses do you mean tracks that are derived from public highway roads?

    The whole purpose of IRS is to maintain in a controlled manner as possible wheel contact with the road surface and thus optimise traction.

    IRS is superior to LRA (in concept but not necessarily in execution) due to its decreased succeptibility to sypathetic camber changes. Obviously the rougher the track the more likely this is to be an issue and amplified by the unsprung mass disadvantage that LRA typically carry over IRS. On a billard table surface the difference is likely to be less apparant though. However not all race tracks are particularly smooth

    However I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that LRA actually have an advantage on race tracks. Apart from being cheaper, that assertion is patently not true. The quality of the track may be such that they are not at a disadvantage but that is the limit.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      I meant race tracks, but back when IRS became the rage, somewhere around the LBJ administration, tires were about as tall as their tread was wide. Yes IRS had a huge advantage over LRA back then. That gap started to narrow as tires got wider and profiles got lower. Sway bars also got thicker.

      Haven’t tracks and public roads become smoother since then?

      Anyhow, today’s 35 and 40 series tires hardly conform to the road leaving them to ride closer to the sidewall as IRS cars lean from left to right and suspensions compress and unload through their range of motion.

      LRA has the advantage of keeping the tires well planted and can use most of contact area as the suspensions compress or unload and the car leans.

      The change has come gradually as tires (and wheels) evolved and LRA cars gradually disappeared. No one really noticed, but this is why the current crop of Mustangs are embarrassing cars like the holier than thou M3.

      Most cars are IRS regardless for control on poorly maintained roads, but the thing is, equally stiff IRS and LRA sports cars will both have a hard time on rough roads. Of course IRS will do slightly better.

      The negative effects LRA unsprung weight can be cured by fine tuning the dampers.

      I don’t agree that tracks are rough enough to give IRS an advantage. Tracks that cause choppy ride qualities are equally bad for IRS cars.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert Gordon

        “That gap started to narrow as tires got wider and profiles got lower. Sway bars also got thicker.”

        Lower profile tyres make matters worse for LRA vehicles. Sidewall compression was an important tool to help deal with unsprung mass. It was the advent of IRS that begat low profile tyres since the damping qualities of the sidewall was not so critical. This in turn enabled lower profile wheels with improved slip angle control particularly in high cornering force applications.

        “LRA has the advantage of keeping the tires well planted and can use most of contact area as the suspensions compress or unload and the car leans.”

        Actually, you have described the advantage, and whole point of IRS.

        “The negative effects LRA unsprung weight can be cured by fine tuning the dampers.”

        How so exactly?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Your right, IRS cars have an unsprung advantage and better at handling bumps regardless of damping tuning. OK, we already knew this, but how good is IRS at planting the tires flat throughout their range of motion compared to LRA?

        Doesn’t available contact patch at any given time determine how efficiently a car can hold the road under hard cornering? What happens when you combine hard cornering and hard braking? Or accelerating? Quick elevation changes?

        What’s your take on how Mustangs are beating M3s so ugly at the track when in theory or common knowledge, they shouldn’t even come close?

      • 0 avatar
        Robert Gordon

        “OK, we already knew this, but how good is IRS at planting the tires flat throughout their range of motion compared to LRA?”

        Largely depends on the design – if the vehicle in question is a 1972 BMW then it is absolutely appalling with the swing axle giving capricious changes in toe and camber. If the suspension is a decent double wishbone set-up then camber control is much better than a LRA set-up. Controlling camber is the key to maintaining contact.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “If the suspension is a decent double wishbone set-up then camber control is much better than a LRA set-up. Controlling camber is the key to maintaining contact.”

        Decent IRS with double wishbone set-ups do a good job of maintaining camber relative to or 90 degrees to the roadway, but only under hard straight line braking, accelerating or quick elevation changes, right? That’s fine and good, but what happens under hard cornering or any combination thereof?

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    Robert Gordon said:
    “Perhaps they are considering it for the Mustang?
    Yes they are:
    http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/ford-mustang-for-australia-20120413-1wxil.html
    “Set for release in 2015 the new Mustang is believed the biggest change in the history of the iconic pony car that was first launched in 1964. The new car will ditch the retro design of the current model, add new efficient engines, cut weight with more advanced materials, and sit atop all-new underpinnings with modern independent rear suspension (the current Mustang still uses an archaic live axle rear end).

    It’s the last point that is the most interesting because it offers up a potential lifeline for a large rear-wheel-drive sedan such as the Falcon. One website whose author for the story is the editor.
    of TheMustangNews.com is taking it a step further; according to the PopularHotRodding.com story the Mustang would be based on an all-new global platform that could be shared with the Falcon.
    http://rumors.automobilemag.com/spotted-2015-ford-mustangs-independent-rear-suspension-146451.html
    “We now have photographic evidence that the Mustang will finally ditch the old live rear axle setup in favor of an independent rear suspension. As we reported yesterday, it was expected for the next-generation Mustang to use a version of the Control Blade trailing-arm setup used down under by the Ford Falcon. Thanks, to this picture, we can pretty much confirm that will be the case when the 2015 Mustang is revealed in 2014, most likely at the car’s 50th anniversary at the New York auto show”

    I hope this does happen as it will rescue the Iconic car from the slow slide to medioctity , that has been happening since the Halycon days of Ex-pat Australian Horst Kwech’s wins in in his early 1970’s Mustang in the Trans Am series,

  • avatar
    RobertRyan

    Robert Gordon said:
    “”The Ecoboost does not sell, that is a major disappointment for Ford.15.5 over the quarter? hardly.”

    Falcon Ecoboost can pull a 15.2 over 400m straight out of the box. The Falcon on LPG pulls a 15.1″

    That is from a Ecomomy tuned LPI unit. I think they can do a lot more with this technology.Holden has its HSV cars running LP1.
    My feeling about the 2 Litre Ecoboost it was a bit of a slug. Not as much horsepower, definitely not as much torque but better fuel economy.The Australian Public has been keeping away from it and have started buying the LPI vehicle again.
    http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/fourcylinder-falcon-flops-20120717-2272o.html
    “The four-cylinder engine that was supposed to be the saviour of the Ford Falcon has failed to set sales charts alight – despite being the most fuel-efficient Falcon ever made.

    Ford and its employees have bought three times as many four-cylinder Falcons as private buyers in the car’s first three months in showrooms.”

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Having just spent more than a week driving a rental Mustang convertible with the V-6, I’m somewhat apprehensive about this news. The 3.7 liter V-6 is a pretty impressive engine. Driven moderately and thanks to the autobox’s aggressive upshifting, which keeps engine rpm between 1K and 2K rpm, I achieved 31.9 mpg over the highway (2-lane) driving between 50 and 60 (people in the Great Northwest seem to take speed limits seriously). Yet, kick it to over 3,500 rpm and the motor makes a satisfying growl and more than satisfying thrust. I could certainly see this as the principal performance engine, with the V-8 reserved for the wilder versions and an ecoboost 4, as the base motor.

    The car did feel large to me, and the steering was pretty numb and seemed artificially weighted. That said, the suspension was compliant and controlled, although I did not attempt any hooliganism, with the standard 65-series Michelin primacy tires.

    Still, other than the obviously cheap base interior, this was a pleasant ride to spend time in while touring Washington’s Olympic Peninsula.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States