Be all end all IRS > SRA thread

[heymrdj]

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.

So it appears. I was wrong on that one.

Quick googling shows that the front end up to 2011 has had a hard time competing on the front axle category, weight limits too low and too much front end sag. Supposedly 11 changed the suspension to make it stronger so I'm curious to see if they finally engineered out the IFS's drawbacks or if it's still settling. Supposedly it matches the F-350's weight capability (which is solid) but I haven't seen how the sag is accounted for. Chevy is also the only manufacturer that doesn't expand their trucks to chassis cabs, chevy forces you to go to the medium duty Kodiaks to get above the GCWR limit of the 3500, while ford and dodge both sell 4500/5500 models on the same chassis.

 

[heymrdj]

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.

You're not going, legally, to that limit on public streets. If your tires are of a proper compound they shouldn't be letting go on a bump at 45mph. If they are, you need to check your pressures and see if you have sidewall cracking.

 

[Throckmorton]

You're not going, legally, to that limit on public streets. If your tires are of a proper compound they shouldn't be letting go on a bump at 45mph. If they are, you need to check your pressures and see if you have sidewall cracking.

What are you, a driver's ed teacher?

It sounds like you're making an argument for driving a Prius, which of course handles well enough at prudent speeds on well-maintained roadways. :|

 

[jlee]

What are you, a driver's ed teacher?

It sounds like you're making an argument for driving a Prius, which of course handles well enough at prudent speeds on well-maintained roadways. :|

And it sounds like you're making an argument solely to make an argument.

 

[LTC8K6]

Looks like another vote for making the Mustang FWD, because "it doesn't matter to the average driver"...

Heck, let's go back to the 90s when almost every domestic car was FWD, because "it doesn't matter to the average driver". After all a "properly set up" FWD car handles "very well" and the Prelude is "better" handling than the 240sx! Long live the 90s! If you complain you're an elitist and I bet you can't tell the difference! BMWs are for elitists, just settle for a FWD Cadillac.

Nothing is better than anything else! It's all about magic engineering and properly set up.

Well, a Mustang has a large fan base. Most cars don't.

I don't think you risk that lightly.

 

[exdeath]

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...

So stop driving over boulders?

 

[Throckmorton]

And it sounds like you're making an argument solely to make an argument.

So you don't think the handling advantages and disadvantages of different types of suspension isn't worth discussing? Then why do certain people argue so adamantly that a solid axle handles as well as independent?

 

[jlee]

This thread started more as a universal declaration than a discussion- and there are a couple people here who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that a SRA can be more than adequate. I don't see anyone here insisting that it's perfect; you're the one seemingly pulling that out of thin air.

Go race an IRS car against a 7 (as posted earlier) and you'll see that compromises can be acceptable.

 

[Throckmorton]

This thread started more as a universal declaration than a discussion- and there are a couple people here who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that a SRA can be more than adequate. I don't see anyone here insisting that it's perfect; you're the one seemingly pulling that out of thin air.

Go race an IRS car against a 7 (as posted earlier) and you'll see that compromises can be acceptable.

No, SpatiallyAware created this thread because there are certain people who consider it heresy and elitism to say that the Mustang would handle better with IRS on real roads. The issue is not people believing that the Mustang is good enough, it's people believing that it's just as good due to Ford's engineering.

Look up a few posts. Even exdeath seems to believe that panhard bars and antiroll bars somehow eliminate the fact that both wheels are linked rigidly.


If they would admit that a solid axle isn't as good on bumpy roads, and that the effect is noticeable when driving spiritedly, there would be no need for arguing.

 

[heymrdj]

No, SpatiallyAware created this thread because there are certain people who consider it heresy and elitism to say that the Mustang would handle better with IRS on real roads.

Would it handle better? Possibly, depends how cheap they make it. The more important question is what will be given up to put it in there. Price? Losing market, it's supposed to be a cheap sports car not an elitist. Size? Alot of people buying mustangs aren't single and I've heard quite a few enjoy the mustang for the fact it still has usable space. Power? It's supposed to be near the top in power for its price class, that's what people have come to expect from the mustang name.

A lot to be foreseen. But of course you'll write it off as better because you're a religious fundie that can't understand cars as systems.

EDIT:

It's not noticeable when driving within the legal limit on public roads, which is WHAT THE CAR IS BUILT FOR. Stop being stupid and regurgitating the same lies, come up with actual evidence. You're not supposed to be driving 70 miles an hour up a public mountain road for the fun of it, if you lose control it endangers others. Ford has no reason to support your "spirited" driving out of the box. The car does what it is supposed to do at a specific price point. There's no point in arguing with you about it because you're just a child with a religious view over a particular suspension system.

You can have more answers when you answer the other accusations and stop ignoring them. Why is jeep using an inferior suspension design. Why do trucks even use SRA. Why did you lie about knowing the Expeditions past when apparently you knew squat. You just brushed all this off and you didn't answer a single question correctly.

You've proven well enough that your "knowledge" is void.

 

[Throckmorton]

Would it handle better? Possibly, depends how cheap they make it. The more important question is what will be given up to put it in there. Price? Losing market, it's supposed to be a cheap sports car not an elitist. Size? Alot of people buying mustangs aren't single and I've heard quite a few enjoy the mustang for the fact it still has usable space. Power? It's supposed to be near the top in power for its price class, that's what people have come to expect from the mustang name.

A lot to be foreseen. But of course you'll write it off as better because you're a religious fundie that can't understand cars as systems.

The 2005 Mustang was supposed to have IRS and it was already engineered, but beancounters decided to go with a solid axle to save money. It may have just been the LS suspension, and that is known as a good handling car. If the new Mustang is on a new platform, there's no reason to think it won't be as good as any of their other cars. Even the lowly Focus has an innovative IRS that has made it well known as a good handler.

I don't get what IRS has to do with size or power. The Camaro is just as big, and has more power with the regular V8 and V6. It costs the same too.

 

[Throckmorton]

Would it handle better? Possibly, depends how cheap they make it. The more important question is what will be given up to put it in there. Price? Losing market, it's supposed to be a cheap sports car not an elitist. Size? Alot of people buying mustangs aren't single and I've heard quite a few enjoy the mustang for the fact it still has usable space. Power? It's supposed to be near the top in power for its price class, that's what people have come to expect from the mustang name.

A lot to be foreseen. But of course you'll write it off as better because you're a religious fundie that can't understand cars as systems.

EDIT:

It's not noticeable when driving within the legal limit on public roads, which is WHAT THE CAR IS BUILT FOR. Stop being stupid and regurgitating the same lies, come up with actual evidence. You're not supposed to be driving 70 miles an hour up a public mountain road for the fun of it, if you lose control it endangers others. Ford has no reason to support your "spirited" driving out of the box. The car does what it is supposed to do at a specific price point. There's no point in arguing with you about it because you're just a child with a religious view over a particular suspension system.

You can have more answers when you answer the other accusations and stop ignoring them. Why is jeep using an inferior suspension design. Why do trucks even use SRA. Why did you lie about knowing the Expeditions past when apparently you knew squat. You just brushed all this off and you didn't answer a single question correctly.

You've proven well enough that your "knowledge" is void.

That's interesting that the first Expedition was based on an extended Explorer platform. You learn something new every day. But you thought that GM, Ford, and Dodge 1 ton trucks were all IFS 4x2 and SFA 4x4... But I just corrected you and left it at that, because not knowing the particulars about those trucks is irrelevant to this discussion.

What exactly do you think I was wrong about besides that? I said that they switched to IRS for ride and space saving...

I explained why Jeep uses solid axles and why I specifically bought a Jeep for its solid axles. You're the one who refuses to accept that one type of suspension is better than another for a specific purpose.

BTW, let me also point out that you agreed with exdeath when he said that panhard bars etc somehow eliminate the camber change of a cycling solid axle. You guys are both ignorant of the way these suspensions actually work...

 

[jlee]

No, SpatiallyAware created this thread because there are certain people who consider it heresy and elitism to say that the Mustang would handle better with IRS on real roads. The issue is not people believing that the Mustang is good enough, it's people believing that it's just as good due to Ford's engineering.

Look up a few posts. Even exdeath seems to believe that panhard bars and antiroll bars somehow eliminate the fact that both wheels are linked rigidly.


If they would admit that a solid axle isn't as good on bumpy roads, and that the effect is noticeable when driving spiritedly, there would be no need for arguing.

This thread started more as a universal declaration than a discussion-

IRS > SRA

and there are a couple people here who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that a SRA can be more than adequate.

There is no other reason to specifically want a SRA setup, and drag racing is the only positive aspect of SRA.

If you use your car for ANYTHING other than drag racing (daily driver, weekend car, track, mountains) you are better off with IRS.

I don't see anyone here insisting that it's perfect; you're the one seemingly pulling that out of thin air.

Go race an IRS car against a 7 (as posted earlier)

and you'll see that compromises can be acceptable.

 

[Throckmorton]

This thread started more as a universal declaration than a discussion-

and there are a couple people here who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that a SRA can be more than adequate.

I don't see anyone here insisting that it's perfect; you're the one seemingly pulling that out of thin air.

Go race an IRS car against a 7 (as posted earlier)

Just because the 7 is fast doesn't mean it wouldn't handle better with IRS. It might even have the best possible handling on a smooth track, doesn't mean it's as good on a real road

and you'll see that compromises can be acceptable.

That's exactly the point, that SRA on the Mustang is a compromise to save money ($100). The decision was made by beancounters. The other guys argue that it's not a compromise.

 

[jlee]

Just because the 7 is fast doesn't mean it wouldn't handle better with IRS. It might even have the best possible handling on a smooth track, doesn't mean it's as good on a real road




That's exactly the point, that SRA on the Mustang is a compromise to save money. The decision was made by beancounters.

It likely handles better than any vehicle you'll ever push within 70% of its limit in your lifetime, and I'm sure it does well enough.

Since you're the genius, though, I suggest you build a 7 with IRS and prove the original designers wrong. I shall await your build thread.

 

[Throckmorton]

It likely handles better than any vehicle you'll ever push within 70% of its limit in your lifetime, and I'm sure it does well enough.

Does that mean you think a Mustang handles better than a Miata?

Well, on a smooth surface I'm sure it can pull more Gs. But what about a bumpy one?

Since you're the genius, though, I suggest you build a 7 with IRS and prove the original designers wrong. I shall await your build thread.

The original designers themselves said that they went with a solid axle because it was easier to engineer and fit with the chassis they had. They didn't choose it because it's better. Didn't YOU just call it a compromise?

 

[jlee]

Does that mean you think a Mustang handles better than a Miata?

It means exactly what I said. Read my words, not what you think I might be implying.

Well, on a smooth surface I'm sure it can pull more Gs. But what about a bumpy one?

No idea; I don't like racing on bumpy surfaces. Cars get skittish, IRS or not.

The original designers themselves said that they went with a solid axle because it was easier to engineer and fit with the chassis they had. They didn't choose it because it's better. Didn't YOU just call it a compromise?

Or perhaps it is better for that specific application because it was easier to engineer and fit with the chassis they had. Like I said, go build your own IRS car and then compare them.

 

[heymrdj]

That's interesting that the first Expedition was based on an extended Explorer platform. You learn something new every day. But you thought that GM, Ford, and Dodge 1 ton trucks were all IFS 4x2 and SFA 4x4... But I just corrected you and left it at that, because not knowing the particulars about those trucks is irrelevant to this discussion.

What exactly do you think I was wrong about besides that? I said that they switched to IRS for ride and space saving...

I explained why Jeep uses solid axles and why I specifically bought a Jeep for its solid axles. You're the one who refuses to accept that one type of suspension is better than another for a specific purpose.

BTW, let me also point out that you agreed with exdeath when he said that panhard bars etc somehow eliminate the camber change of a cycling solid axle. You guys are both ignorant of the way these suspensions actually work...

You're back pedaling. I told you why they changed axle types, besides ride and floor height. There were more basic and fundamental reasons for the changes.

You still haven't answered about Jeep using crappy suspension. When are you going to write jeep and complain about them not using portal axles, there's no excuse for them not to. Solid axles only win on cost, which you've already buried yourself on that point, companies are not allowed to make that concession.

Foolish little boy thinking we don't understand how the systems work, what was listed doesn't 100% alleviate the issue, but brings the issue into a respectable percentage. But you've crossed the line of being able to compromise, you've made it so that the only way to be acceptable is to build it the 100% best way. So now it's your turn to answer the questions, why does what you drive make concessions. Go on, amaze me with an answer.

Hint: Either way you answer, you've put yourself into a catch 22.

 

[SSSnail]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfgTWY_h-1o

 

[Throckmorton]

You're back pedaling. I told you why they changed axle types, besides ride and floor height. There were more basic and fundamental reasons for the changes.

You still haven't answered about Jeep using crappy suspension. When are you going to write jeep and complain about them not using portal axles, there's no excuse for them not to. Solid axles only win on cost, which you've already buried yourself on that point, companies are not allowed to make that concession.

Foolish little boy thinking we don't understand how the systems work, what was listed doesn't 100% alleviate the issue, but brings the issue into a respectable percentage. But you've crossed the line of being able to compromise, you've made it so that the only way to be acceptable is to build it the 100% best way. So now it's your turn to answer the questions, why does what you drive make concessions. Go on, amaze me with an answer.

Hint: Either way you answer, you've put yourself into a catch 22.

Mopar actually does build portal axles for the Wrangler. The cost difference is much more than $100 (what Ford switched from IRS to solid to save)

Does Ford sell an IRS kit for the Mustang?

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/suspensions/portal-axles.html

 

[heymrdj]

Mopar actually does build portal axles for the Wrangler. The cost difference is much more than $100 (what Ford switched from IRS to solid to save)

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/suspensions/portal-axles.html

That's an axle swap, many people do that, exactly what enthusiasts do. That's not stock. Every wrangler should be portal regardless of cost, that mentality is exactly what you've been arguing. The truck is a offroader it should be built as such juat as you say mustangs should be. I told you would catch 22 yourself.

 

[manimal]

I think the reliant robins rear suspension layout is better.

 

[Throckmorton]

That's an axle swap, many people do that, exactly what enthusiasts do. That's not stock. Every wrangler should be portal regardless of cost, that mentality is exactly what you've been arguing. The truck is a offroader it should be built as such juat as you say mustangs should be. I told you would catch 22 yourself.

First, the cost difference would be much more than $100. Using portals requires a much stronger axle and control arms. Mopar uses Dana 60s instead of the standard Dana 44 axles.

Second, the portals wouldn't be better. They'd be better for extreme rock crawling, but the extra unsprung weight (I think 500lb per axle) and driveline loss would be bad for every other offroad purpose.

The Mustang's solid axle is only an advantage to the 0.001% of owners who drag race, doesn't matter to people who drive like grannies, and negatively affects handling for enthusiasts. The Wrangler's non-portal axles are an advantage to 100% of owners who don't offroad, and 99% of owners who do offroad.

 

[jlee]

First, the cost difference would be much more than $100. Using portals requires a much stronger axle and control arms. Mopar uses Dana 60s instead of the standard Dana 44 axles.

Second, the portals wouldn't be better. They'd be better for extreme rock crawling, but the extra unsprung weight (I think 500lb per axle) and driveline loss would be bad for every other offroad purpose.

The Mustang's solid axle is only an advantage to the 0.001% of owners who drag race, doesn't matter to people who drive like grannies, and negatively affects handling for enthusiasts. The Wrangler's non-portal axles are an advantage to 100% of owners who don't offroad, and 99% of owners who do offroad.

Damn, I had no idea there were only 1.6 2005 Mustangs that have been raced. Although...if we include all 2005-2011 US sales, we're almost up to eight!

 

[HarryLui]

Must be a good thing that my car uses semi independent suspension for the rear.

Best of both solid axle and independent suspension...

LOL