From a consumer sports car perspective, there is absolutely a 'best'.
Yes, there are special situations where you want SRA.. as throck mentioned, a HD truck, or a 'built from scratch' 800lb car where every 1lb matters...
But for a consumer driven supposed sports car, IRS is absolutely the clear cut "best" solution. It might not be the cheapest, therefore sometimes doesn't make sense (such as in the mustang, where saving $100 per car is apparently worth it), but they did this due to cost, not performance.
The mustang engineers wanted IRS, but it was canned due to cost. SRA performs acceptably in some situations, but it is very rarely the ideal setup.
Apparently nothing will convince you otherwise and just like a religious debate time spent proving points is completely wasted. There's two people arguing in this thread unable to be reasoned with, and I'm pretty sure you can easily identify who they are.
Cost, weight, and strength all factor into what is considered "the best" for a given application. IRS is not the end all be all best for every application, and that's what has been proven in this thread over and over and over again.
Is there even one mainstream sports car that still has SRA?
Hell, even mazda eats the $100 per car and puts IRS on their budget miata. GM has IRS on all of their sports cars, and ford is putting IRS on the new mustang.
Again, don't take this personal, SRA had (and has) its place. It just doesn't belong on a $35k sports car in 2012.
GM has taken a beating by it's owners over the inclusion of IRS on the Camaro as a drag platform car. The Mustang GT vs Camaro SS on a road track will probably be in the favor of a Mustang. The Mustang Boss 302 and GT500 may come up slightly short on a road track vs a ZL1 Camaro.
.. On a drag strip, which while being realistic about the majority of these cars owners intention for purchase (straight line performance) the SRA dominates.
Again. It saves costs, it's stronger, it's lighter, and when setup correctly there are little if any perceivable differences in daily commute quality, street cornering, or track cornering. All this with no arguments about being far superior for straight line acceleration.
What downsides do you perceive out of a 3500lb mustang gt with a properly setup IRS?
Ford is fully capable of making an IRS that is plenty strong, and as far as 100lb in weight savings... remove the spare and jack, there's your 100lb back.
GM was able to do it with the ZL1; MB, BMW, Porsche all have no problems with IRS behind ~600hp and apparently every other sports car manufacturer is capable of realizing the benefits of IRS over SRA without the extra 100lb ruining the handling characteristics. Again, if mazda put IRS in the lightweight miata then a mustang should handle all that extra weight with no problem.
The only legitimate position that I can see to favor SRA is cost. If you are buying a brand new mustang to convert to a 1200hp drag car then you're in the <1% who "need" SRA. Another 80% would benefit from IRS, then you have the ~19% who don't know and don't care what rear end they have.
And I've read nowhere where GM has 'taken a beating' over IRS other than from SRA fanboys. Every review praises the handling characteristics over the mustang, many reviews specifically discuss how the mustang really should have IRS at this price point. These are not $18k econo sports cars any more, if ford wants to compete they need to eat the $100 per car and setup IRS.
Result? Mustang won. Says Consumer Reports: Only the Ford is recommended. The Mustang has an excellent reliability record with the old V6; we expect this one to be similar. The Camaro is too new for us to have reliability data.
David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports test center said that the Mustang is the more agile and enjoyable car to drive of the two,. But what say you, B&B? Do you agree? Or do you think that the Camaro kicks arse more than the Mustang?
GM was able to do it with the ZL1; MB, BMW, Porsche all have no problems with IRS behind ~600hp and apparently every other sports car manufacturer is capable of realizing the benefits of IRS over SRA without the extra 100lb ruining the handling characteristics. Again, if mazda put IRS in the lightweight miata then a mustang should handle all that extra weight with no problem.
And I've read nowhere where GM has 'taken a beating' over IRS other than from SRA fanboys. Every review praises the handling characteristics over the mustang, many reviews specifically discuss how the mustang really should have IRS at this price point.
These are not $18k econo sports cars any more, if ford wants to compete they need to eat the $100 per car and setup IRS
What downsides do you perceive out of a 3500lb mustang gt with a properly setup IRS?
Ford is fully capable of making an IRS that is plenty strong, and as far as 100lb in weight savings... remove the spare and jack, there's your 100lb back.
GM was able to do it with the ZL1; MB, BMW, Porsche all have no problems with IRS behind ~600hp and apparently every other sports car manufacturer is capable of realizing the benefits of IRS over SRA without the extra 100lb ruining the handling characteristics. Again, if mazda put IRS in the lightweight miata then a mustang should handle all that extra weight with no problem.
The only legitimate position that I can see to favor SRA is cost. If you are buying a brand new mustang to convert to a 1200hp drag car then you're in the <1% who "need" SRA. Another 80% would benefit from IRS, then you have the ~19% who don't know and don't care what rear end they have.
And I've read nowhere where GM has 'taken a beating' over IRS other than from SRA fanboys. Every review praises the handling characteristics over the mustang, many reviews specifically discuss how the mustang really should have IRS at this price point. These are not $18k econo sports cars any more, if ford wants to compete they need to eat the $100 per car and setup IRS.
So what you've read is that, there are many people that have legit concerns and reasons for using SRA in their vehicles, and you simply ignore them if their opinion doesn't fit your argument.
Seems to me, and many critics that Ford is competing exceptionally well, regardless to whether they use an SRA or an IRS. You're writing as if their performance is actually lagging behind off in the distance somewhere. This absolutely isn't the case.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/09/ford-mustang-vs-chevrolet-camaro-and-the-winner-is/
Seems that, just perhaps, it's not as big of a deal as you're insisting it is.
It's hilarious that IRS fanboys think that any significant number of Consumer_IRS_based_vehicle owners actually go to a road course.
Unlike you, I've actually owned both in performance oriented vehicles. I've tested the limits of both on the streets and track, as well as daily driving commutes.
In a properly setup SRA vehicle, there is no perceived loss of quality while driving. What I gained was, confidence in my vehicle's reliability, money in my pocket, and additional performance when I go to the drag strip.
"My spec list is longer than your spec list and I have extra letters on my trunk lid that you don't!"
Pretty much sums up this whole debate.
Oh the diff cover and bushing kit required to make my IRS be as strong as and perform as good as a solid axle cost about twice what a solid axle swap would cost. And that's not even including coilover shocks and springs, or DSS Level 5 half shafts yet or spherical knuckle cross axis joints or stiffer toe links yet.
An IRS must mount the differential rigidly to the body of the vehicle. This increases NVH tremendously. OEMs about this by mounting the differential in sloppy rubber bushings, which causes wheel hop and all sorts of issues that you don't have with solid axles. In order for an IRS to be as strong and perform as well as a SRA, the differential and subframe MUST be rigidly mounted, and that WILL result in increased NVH over OEM. Need I also remind you of the E46 M3 subframe and diff bushing issues as well. More compromises and tradeoffs for you.
So if a solid axle would have cost less and handle just as well, why didn't you do the swap?
Because the IRS is one of the things unique to my car, and I'm somewhat of a purist. If I was going to do any major changes, I'd have just got a V6 roller and threw a bigger motor and Cobra body trim on it; that wasn't the point.
And I like my IRS. Doesn't mean I have to be a snob about everything else. I'm not the one always bringing up "eww SRA, eww pushrods, eww leaf springs, eww single cam, eww American" every time there is a discussion on domestic vehicles on this board.
I swear even when Mustang does get an IRS by default, you guys will just be right back in here thumbing your noses again because now it doesn't have a high revving German motor or something equally retarded.
Almost no one drives on the street in a manner that would show the difference between a good SRA and an IRS.
Very few drivers have any clue as to what's under the back or front of their car, except for the tires.
I'm certain a large percentage can't tell you what's under the hood, or which wheels are powered.
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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...71119.jpg/800px-Ford_Probe_front_20071119.jpg
http://www.cadillacforums.com/cadillac-models/Cadillac_STS_006.jpg
sarcasm
Sounds like a vote for "lets put everyone in RWD sports cars that are dangerous in the hands of non-enthusiasts and laypeople, they shouldn't have to suffer the horrible driving dynamics of FWD cars despite the massive strides in chassis dynamics to make them better! engineering and chassis tuning be damned! those fools don't know what they're doing."
/sarcasm
Dude, you're being ridiculous.
at the end of the day it's the car's integration as a whole system that makes a great car, not the decision to use one individual component, technology, or geometry.
The actual conclusion that a reasonable person should reach is that the type of suspension link does not matter nearly as much as the execution of the vehicle as an integrated system.
The general public doesn't know what drive setup they have and can't tell the difference. Not even BMW owners.
Enthusiasts and racers will always appreciate the advantages that different platforms and suspensions offer and the driving styles they respond well to. Drivers may prefer one over another, but at the end of the day it's the car's integration as a whole system that makes a great car, not the decision to use one individual component, technology, or geometry.
So why not a well integrated FWD Mustang? According to reviews at the time, the Probe was a good car after all...
Ford has the Focus ST to compete in the high-powered FWD market. It would be idiotic to impinge on their own market share with a different model.
A RWD platform is clearly superior to FWD for drag racing and straight-line speed, physics cannot be ignored. Many of the straight-line fan boys and paper racers would be pissed off, and rightfully so.
Obviously the mustang has a serious nostalgia market and a storied history. It would be marketing suicide. Ford would be crucified by car reviewers the world over for making a FWD Mustang. It would completely ruin the point of a pony car.
In unrelated news, I always wanted a Probe so I could get the bumper sticker: "I'm driving a Probe, aren't you glad I'm in front?"
But since very few people drag race, everybody else should be happy with FWD right? And supposedly physics can be ignored, with enough Ford magic engineering.