Be all end all IRS > SRA thread

[Throckmorton]

Just like a fundie...ignore facts and go straight to the "blasphemy" part. You look like you're throwing a tantrum right now, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalla". Only the lowest IQ that understand what a lug nut is would take the argument this direction. It's not black and white, please leave garage and don't ever touch a car again.

Huh? The fundies are the solid axle fanboys who swear up and down that it's just as good as IRS, due to Ford's magic engineering, and that most drivers can't tell the difference anyway (seemingly conflicting arguments). I'm trying to confront them by pointing out that the same logic was almost used to make the Mustang FWD. In the 90s the carmakers and some magazines (C&D) tried to convince us that FWD cars were just as good as RWD because they were so well "engineered".


The fact is that a solid axle has significant weaknesses on real world bumpy roads. You can't magically unlink the left and right wheels. It's just physics. SRA fanboys believe that you can, with enough Ford engineering.


And if you say otherwise, you're treated like a heretic. How dare anyone dispute the proclaimed reality that Ford made a solid axle without weaknesses inherent to the design?!

 

[heymrdj]

Huh? The fundies are the solid axle fanboys who swear up and down that it's just as good as IRS, due to Ford's magic engineering, and that most drivers can't tell the difference anyway (seemingly conflicting arguments). I'm trying to confront them by pointing out that the same logic was almost used to make the Mustang FWD.

And that would have been fine man..seriously. It wouldn't have been a competitor to the camaro, and Ford would have made something else by some other name to compete. It doesn't matter what it's damn running gear is, it competes in its class and competes damn well according to most review agencies and the consumers themselves. You're making an issue where there isn't one. When you have >75% of people saying the car handles like a wet turd, then you might have some ground to stand on. But it doesn't, and you don't.

As for the IRS coming to the mustang in the future, I'd really like to know the tradeoffs they are making to get the package in there. I really hope it's not the reason for making it shorter, because I think that's an utterly stupid decision.

EDIT

Forget the suspension, stop acting like a caveman beating the same drum, you've been debunked already. It's not the suspension, it's the entire package. IRS doesn't magically make a car better, as is the case for the camaro. When an SRA Mustang can beat out an IRS camaro that's your sign right there that it's proper package engineering, not just throwing the latest marketing term under the car and hitting the go pedal. You're a heretic because you won't take facts, you believe the holy book of IRS..that physics is the answer. Guess what, sometimes the base solution has far larger consequences.

And finally, for you to bash your brains on some more, yes an FWD in a class can be engineered to beat out an RWD depending on the situation, especially in terms of control (not performance, control). Again trade offs. It's not black and white, there are shades of grey. You can't defend all the holes, if someone has the right weapon they WILL breach your walls because you can't cover everything. There's no such thing as the perfect car and there never will be because physics (there maybe you can relate to that) makes it so that increasing your straight line and go power hampers your ability to steer and control.

 

[Throckmorton]

And that would have been fine man..seriously. It wouldn't have been a competitor to the camaro, and Ford would have made something else by some other name to compete. It doesn't matter what it's damn running gear is, it competes in its class and competes damn well according to most review agencies and the consumers themselves. You're making an issue where there isn't one. When you have >75% of people saying the car handles like a wet turd, then you might have some ground to stand on. But it doesn't, and you don't.

As for the IRS coming to the mustang in the future, I'd really like to know the tradeoffs they are making to get the package in there. I really hope it's not the reason for making it shorter, because I think that's an utterly stupid decision.

Yes, it does matter what the running gear is. A FWD Mustang would not handle as well as a RWD one. I don't give a damn what most consumers think, because I am a car enthusiast. I don't care how "well engineered" the FWD car is, I don't want FWD in a performance car. Do you see the point?

 

[heymrdj]

Yes, it does matter what the running gear is. A FWD Mustang would not handle as well as a RWD one. I don't give a damn what most consumers think, because I am a car enthusiast. I don't care how "well engineered" the FWD car is, I don't want FWD in a performance car. Do you see the point?

LOL. Says the guy driving a beater jeep. Guess what there fella, you're petty beans that you can pay for a car doesn't make a lick to GM and Ford. They will build what the common denominator wants, not what you as an "enthusiast" want. There's plenty of kits out there for people like you if you got the $$$ for them to make the ultimate car. Just don't be surprised when it runs upwards of 100-150k (which, and here's the shocker, an average enthusiast consumer doesn't have! Isn't that just the craps?)

 

[Throckmorton]

LOL. Says the guy driving a beater jeep. Guess what there fella, you're petty beans that you can pay for a car doesn't make a lick to GM and Ford. They will build what the common denominator wants, not what you as an "enthusiast" want. There's plenty of kits out there for people like you if you got the $$$ for them to make the ultimate car. Just don't be surprised when it runs upwards of 100-150k (which, and here's the shocker, an average enthusiast consumer doesn't have! Isn't that just the craps?)

Last I checked though, lots of people are buying RWD cars. Demand is driving the RWD revival.

Also, consumers have chosen the crossovers with the better riding and handling IRS over the truck based SUVs with solid axles. That's unfortunate because the solid axles are better offroad, but the market has spoken. Consumers can tell a difference even though they don't know why.

BTW it's ironic that Ford's own SUVs have all been IRS for half a decade now.... to the detriment of their stated purpose.

 

[heymrdj]

Last I checked though, lots of people are buying RWD cars. Demand is driving the RWD revival.

Also, consumers have chosen the crossovers with the better riding and handling IRS over the truck based SUVs with solid axles. That's unfortunate because the solid axles are better offroad, but the market has spoken. Consumers can tell a difference even though they don't know why.

BTW it's ironic that Ford's own SUVs have all been IRS for half a decade now.... to the detriment of their stated purpose.

Indeed they are IRS, I know I drive one (Expedition).

Now here's the fallacies in your post. 1. I never stated anything about the current state of RWD. In fact your last spew stated that Ford was going to make an FWD mustang, this was a long time ago. Things change. Now relate this to my TRUE post, that the companies are building what the people (IE the BIG consumers, not you the enthusiast) want, imagine that.

Now here's a question for you. Lets see if you can get it right. What sacrifices did they make to tuck IRS in the vehicle, if any. And why did it take so long to put IRS into the Expedition. I'd give you the answers but I want to see if you can come up with the correct ones first, then maybe you can understand this situation of suspension trade offs.

 

[Throckmorton]

Indeed they are IRS, I know I drive one (Expedition).

Now here's the fallacies in your post. 1. I never stated anything about the current state of RWD. In fact your last spew stated that Ford was going to make an FWD mustang, this was a long time ago. Things change. Now relate this to my TRUE post, that the companies are building what the people (IE the BIG consumers, not you the enthusiast) want, imagine that.

Now here's a question for you. Lets see if you can get it right. What sacrifices did they make to tuck IRS in the vehicle, if any. And why did it take so long to put IRS into the Expedition. I'd give you the answers but I want to see if you can come up with the correct ones first, then maybe you can understand this situation of suspension trade offs.

I'm an enthusiast though, so I want cars that perform well, even if that's not really what most buyers care about. Jeep enthusiasts know full well that 99% of owners don't offroad, but they're still buying offroad capable vehicles which otherwise wouldn't exist. Jeep considered making the Wrangler IFS, but they got a lot of angry letters just like Ford did when they wanted to switch the Mustang to FWD. Yes, we know most buyers don't care, but we do. We don't write letters that say "Go ahead and make the Wrangler less capable because most people don't care".

You're basically telling me I shouldn't care whether a car is FWD or has a solid axle, because non enthusiasts will buy them regardless.


In the case of the Explorer, they switched to IRS for ride and also to lower the cargo floor. That means they probably had to redesign the framerails to get rid of the curve required for a solid axle.
The major tradeoff is that the IRS has a lot less ground clearance than a solid axle, because the arms are huge and hang very low. Of course articulation also isn't as good as a coil sprung solid axle. I'm guessing the weight is also much greater, because they had to build the system strong enough for towing.

I think the Explorer and the Pathfinder with IRS are interesting vehicles. They'd make good high speed offroaders, but there's no aftermarket support.

 

[heymrdj]

I'm an enthusiast though, so I want cars that perform well, even if that's not really what most buyers care about. Jeep enthusiasts know full well that 99% of owners don't offroad, but they're still buying offroad capable vehicles which otherwise wouldn't exist. Jeep considered making the Wrangler IFS, but they got a lot of angry letters just like Ford did when they wanted to switch the Mustang to FWD. Yes, we know most buyers don't care, but we do. We don't write letters that say "Go ahead and make the Wrangler less capable because most people don't care".

You're basically telling me I shouldn't care whether a car is FWD or has a solid axle, because non enthusiasts will buy them regardless.


In the case of the Explorer, they switched to IRS for ride and also to lower the cargo floor. That means they probably had to redesign the framerails to get rid of the curve required for a solid axle.
The major tradeoff is that the IRS has a lot less ground clearance than a solid axle, because the arms are huge and hang very low. Of course articulation also isn't as good as a coil sprung solid axle. I'm guessing the weight is also much greater, because they had to build the system strong enough for towing.

I think the Explorer and the Pathfinder with IRS are interesting vehicles. They'd make good high speed offroaders, but there's no aftermarket support.

Go ahead and read again. I knew you took an english course sometime in your life. I nowhere said you have to accept it. You can write all the letters you want, a company will take it into consideration, and if they move to what something you disagree with, then too bad so sad.You're free to vote with your wallet. There's enthusiast cars out there for you from other companies.

As for the move to IRS, first of all it was the inherent weakness in an economical IRS solution that delayed deployment. Secondly, the first gen Expedition directly replaced the Ford Bronco, which was a true offroader, the new vehicle only semi-so. That's the biggest reason the first gen remained live axle. Secondly, Ford saw the market for what it was, pavement pounders. The choice to get the benefits of an IRS system outweighed the old Bronco lovers that pretty much left the ford brand at that point. Go to places like FTE and you'll see this, but you'll also see how these enthusiasts weren't even a drop in the bucket to the sales the second gen Expedition enjoyed. Again, trade offs.

I really didn't want to address your first point, but I will, even though it sounds beyond childish. Soo...waah? Boohoo? I want a Expedition sized car with the economy of a prius and the handling of a veryon, and the cost of a loaded fiesta, but it won't happen . Jeep has a huge following, after all it's pretty much the oldest 4x4 brand in the US. But it's following is also dieing off, and many today are bought strictly for their looks.

Interesting blog on Jeeps premise: http://www.swadeology.com/2012/04/just-how-popular-is-jeep/

 

[SparkyJJO]

SRA and IRS both have their pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. All else being equal, SRA is stronger than IRS. All else being equal, IRS will handle better than a SRA.

Claiming one is always flat-out better than the other is stupid.

 

[Throckmorton]

SRA and IRS both have their pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. All else being equal, SRA is stronger than IRS. All else being equal, IRS will handle better than a SRA.

Claiming one is always flat-out better than the other is stupid.

We have been saying over and over again that the SRA has advantages of higher strength and more articulation for offroading.

The problem is that the SRA fanboys refuse to accept that IRS handles better on the road.

 

[heymrdj]

We have been saying over and over again that the SRA has advantages of higher strength and more articulation for offroading.

The problem is that the SRA fanboys refuse to accept that IRS handles better on the road.

Stop saying crap like a politician. IRS handles better on the road depending on the entire package of the car. Or do we re-visit the camaro? Crap you're a hell of a broken record.

 

[JCH13]

We have been saying over and over again that the SRA has advantages of higher strength and more articulation for offroading.

The problem is that the SRA fanboys refuse to accept that IRS handles better on the road.

That's a negative ghost rider.

 

[Throckmorton]

Go ahead and read again. I knew you took an english course sometime in your life. I nowhere said you have to accept it. You can write all the letters you want, a company will take it into consideration, and if they move to what something you disagree with, then too bad so sad.You're free to vote with your wallet. There's enthusiast cars out there for you from other companies.

Then why are you so adamant about IRS supposedly not making a difference in the real world? Do you go to Jeep forums and tell them that independent suspension is just as good?

As for the move to IRS, first of all it was the inherent weakness in an economical IRS solution that delayed deployment. Secondly, the first gen Expedition directly replaced the Ford Bronco, which was a true offroader, the new vehicle only semi-so. That's the biggest reason the first gen remained live axle. Secondly, Ford saw the market for what it was, pavement pounders. The choice to get the benefits of an IRS system outweighed the old Bronco lovers that pretty much left the ford brand at that point. Go to places like FTE and you'll see this, but you'll also see how these enthusiasts weren't even a drop in the bucket to the sales the second gen Expedition enjoyed. Again, trade offs.

I have no idea why you think IRS was even on the table for the first gen Expedition. It was the SUV version of the F-150... Why would IRS even enter into the equation? It only got IRS later as crossovers with carlike rides were taking over the market. But that IRS makes the Expedition worse at being what it is, a truck... just like the SRA makes the Mustang worse at being what it is, a car. So explain to me why Ford deemed it necessary to give the Expedition and Explorer IRS rather than "super engineer" a better solid axle like they supposedly did for the Mustang. Heck, if a solid axle boosts profit margins so much, isn't that reason enough to keep the axle best suited to trucks?

I really didn't want to address your first point, but I will, even though it sounds beyond childish. Soo...waah? Boohoo? I want a Expedition sized car with the economy of a prius and the handling of a veryon, and the cost of a loaded fiesta, but it won't happen . Jeep has a huge following, after all it's pretty much the oldest 4x4 brand in the US. But it's following is also dieing off, and many today are bought strictly for their looks.

Interesting blog on Jeeps premise: http://www.swadeology.com/2012/04/just-how-popular-is-jeep/

Huh? When I first posted about the Mustang originally being IRS before bean counters had their way, I got flamed for being an "elitist". Apparently it's considered wrong to want IRS in a ponycar, especially when Ford magically engineered such a wonderful live axle.

 

[Throckmorton]

Stop saying crap like a politician. IRS handles better on the road depending on the entire package of the car. Or do we re-visit the camaro? Crap you're a hell of a broken record.

Do you understand that when a solid axle suspension cycles for one wheel, the other wheel's camber is changed? That's an inherent property of a solid axle that can't be changed and is detrimental to handling everywhere but a smooth racetrack. It is the reason why no other production car but the Mustang has one anymore.

This thread is not about one car being better or worse than another. It's about IRS being better for road cars than SRA. What next, you're going to argue that because a Civic handles better than a Crown Victoria that RWD isn't better for performance cars than FWD?

 

[herm0016]

That's a negative ghost rider.

for most stock cars and trucks, it is true. obviously a fully custom baja race machine will have more articulation than any solid axle. take a 1 ton chevy vs a 1 ton ford or dodge. The chevy has a better ride, and have less articulation because of its IFS.

 

[exdeath]

Do you understand that when a solid axle suspension cycles for one wheel, the other wheel's camber is changed?

What about things like spring rates, shock rates, Panhard bars, Watt's links, and sway bars, that cause the entire axle to move at once and remain parallel with the bottom of the car regardless which each wheel is doing? No camber change.

You make it sound like one wheel will compress the suspension on that side 16 inches and make the other tire ride on it's outer edge every time you hit an expansion joint.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

What about things like spring rates, shock rates, Panhard bars, Watt's links, and sway bars, that cause the entire axle to move at once and remain parallel with the bottom of the car regardless which each wheel is doing? No camber change.

You make it sound like one wheel will compress the suspension on that side 16 inches and make the other tire ride on it's outer edge every time you hit an expansion joint.

No... When you have a solid rear axle, if the left tire hits a bump the camber of the right tire goes positive.

In a worst case scenario (hard left turn, left tire hits bump, upsets camber of right tire while under 60-70% load) the rear end hops skip and jumps until traction control cuts power in order to recover.

No, you won't go in a ditch if you have TC and can recover. Yes, some people claim to like the SRA feel of their rear end shaking all over the place. But the bottom line, is for a street car, IRS will solve this issue.



I suspect a lot of our diehard SRA guys have never driven a properly setup IRS.(yes ex, I know you have IRS)

 

[heymrdj]

Then why are you so adamant about IRS supposedly not making a difference in the real world? Do you go to Jeep forums and tell them that independent suspension is just as good?

Actually if Jeep really cared about people it would use a Portal axle, but that would be way too expensive. Oh I'm sorry, does that hurt your feelings? That your awesome Jeep company is making tradeoffs to the enthusiast?


I have no idea why you think IRS was even on the table for the first gen Expedition. It was the SUV version of the F-150... Why would IRS even enter into the equation? It only got IRS later as crossovers with carlike rides were taking over the market. But that IRS makes the Expedition worse at being what it is, a truck... just like the SRA makes the Mustang worse at being what it is, a car. So explain to me why Ford deemed it necessary to give the Expedition and Explorer IRS rather than "super engineer" a better solid axle like they supposedly did for the Mustang. Heck, if a solid axle boosts profit margins so much, isn't that reason enough to keep the axle best suited to trucks?

Really? I suggest you bow out quietly. The first Expedition (1996 (as a 1997)-2002) was based on an extended U1 platform that the explorer, aviator, and explorer sport track all used. This platform was also used for the second gen (2003-2006). It's not until the Third Generation (2007-current) that the Expedition moved to the T1 platform. They are ALL based on the P platforms of the F-150 series, but they are not the same! As for "superengineering" a solid axle under there, I would imagine it's because technology came along far enough that an IRS could fit and still give the abilities needed. They weren't going to be allowed to do another Excursion, and the Excursions death whistle was already blown when the second gen refresh was on the table. There wasn't going to be 12'000lbs of tailpipe towing. So they put it in there for driver comfort, something that doesn't matter as much in a mustang or any sports car. Not everything is about profit margins, they make the decisions they make, and someone else comes in and makes more. Once someone chose a platform they were stuck with it for awhile, that nasty ROI deal and stock investors and what not.



Huh? When I first posted about the Mustang originally being IRS before bean counters had their way, I got flamed for being an "elitist". Apparently it's considered wrong to want IRS in a ponycar, especially when Ford magically engineered such a wonderful live axle.

It's not wrong, it's just not what Ford has wanted the car to be . Ford is going to make changes to the Mustang to get IRS in there, I personally think it will be to the cars detriment, but hey change happens. We'll see when the final system is out. I know we won't be putting 1,000HP down on the ground that's for sure. The car is too cheap to stand that with an IRS system, the bean counters will have their way, they have to. The bean counters have made cars that kept Ford out of bailout, unlike GM.

Do you understand that when a solid axle suspension cycles for one wheel, the other wheel's camber is changed? That's an inherent property of a solid axle that can't be changed and is detrimental to handling everywhere but a smooth racetrack. It is the reason why no other production car but the Mustang has one anymore.

Exdeath answered this stupidity, no need to address it again. The reason that other manufactures only use IRS is because marketing expects them to, it may handle well, but it's at the detriment of power and modability. Again, tradeoffs.

This thread is not about one car being better or worse than another. It's about IRS being better for road cars than SRA. What next, you're going to argue that because a Civic handles better than a Crown Victoria that RWD isn't better for performance cars than FWD?

Sorry you can't have your wish. Suspension isn't automatically better, it relies on the system that is the car. The package determines how well it handles.

This is a debate, I suggest you start acting like it instead of throwing around random baseless "facts" and painting black and white. In the adult world many things have a shade of grey, you discredit yourself immediately by going off on tangents "well why doesn't this do that". Waaaa.

 

[JCH13]

for most stock cars and trucks, it is true. obviously a fully custom baja race machine will have more articulation than any solid axle. take a 1 ton chevy vs a 1 ton ford or dodge. The chevy has a better ride, and have less articulation because of its IFS.

My point is, again, there's no absolute. Throck stated that SRA had more articulation, which isn't always true. It may be the case in some situations, but is not universally true.

The HMMWV (Humvee) has fully independent suspension with more ground clearance and articulation than most solid axle off-road rigs. Again, it's all a matter of execution. The HMMWV's geared hubs and inboard brakes make it extraordinarily effective off road.

 

[JCH13]

Double Post FTL

 

[heymrdj]

for most stock cars and trucks, it is true. obviously a fully custom baja race machine will have more articulation than any solid axle. take a 1 ton chevy vs a 1 ton ford or dodge. The chevy has a better ride, and have less articulation because of its IFS.

.......

Any source on this? I mean..just seriously...

All 3 1 tons share the same suspension systems. Front's get IFS on 4x2's, solid axle on 4x4's. Rears are all solid axle. I don't even..

 

[Throckmorton]

What about things like spring rates, shock rates, Panhard bars, Watt's links, and sway bars, that cause the entire axle to move at once and remain parallel with the bottom of the car regardless which each wheel is doing? No camber change.

You make it sound like one wheel will compress the suspension on that side 16 inches and make the other tire ride on it's outer edge every time you hit an expansion joint.

Those things don't have anything to do with camber change. A Watts link keeps the axle centered under the car which is necessary otherwise it would flop around. Same for an A link. A panhard bar is worse because it doesn't keep the axle exactly centered, and also causes the left and right wheel to behave differently.

The two wheels are rigidly connected. The angle change of the axle as one wheel goes over a bump is exactly the same as the camber change of the other wheel. It doesn't matter how stiff the springs and sway bars are. All those affect is how the axle's motion affects the rest of the car.

I'm seriously surprised that you don't seem to know how a solid axle suspension actually works...

 

[Throckmorton]

.......

Any source on this? I mean..just seriously...

All 3 1 tons share the same suspension systems. Front's get IFS on 4x2's, solid axle on 4x4's. Rears are all solid axle. I don't even..

Last I checked, the 3/4 ton+ GM pickups are all IFS. Dodge and Ford are both solid axle. They don't use different suspensions for 4x2 and 4x4.

 

[heymrdj]

Those things don't have anything to do with camber change. A Watts link keeps the axle centered under the car which is necessary otherwise it would flop around. Same for an A link. A panhard bar is worse because it doesn't keep the axle exactly centered, and also causes the left and right wheel to behave differently.

The two wheels are rigidly connected. The angle change of the axle as one wheel goes over a bump is exactly the same as the camber change of the other wheel. It doesn't matter how stiff the springs and sway bars are. All those affect is how the axle's motion affects the rest of the car.

I'm seriously surprised that you don't seem to know how a solid axle suspension actually works...

You're treating a tire as rigid. Here's a hint: They aren't. Quality tires are an integral part of an active suspension system. A depression should not cause a sudden loss of grip, or you're buying a shit compound tire.

 

[Throckmorton]

You're treating a tire as rigid. Here's a hint: They aren't. Quality tires are an integral part of an active suspension system. A depression should not cause a sudden loss of grip, or you're buying a shit compound tire.

Of course it doesn't cause a complete loss of grip... It causes a reduction of grip. Like SpatiallyAware was explaining, the worse case is when you're cornering and the inside tire hits a bump. Suddenly the outside tire is cambered the opposite way from what you want, leaning out of a turn.