A friend was surfing for the 2005 ford mustang. I just happened to look at the screen and see this.


The 2005 mustangs are going with a solid rear axle. Their explanation below.



All the horsepower in the world doesn’t mean a thing if you can’t get the power to the ground. With that in mind, Mustang engineers developed a solid, new rear axle design with three-link architecture and a Panhard rod, for better off the line performance, and other advantages. Solid axles are robust, maintain constant track, and keep body roll under control. The solid axle pumping out torque to the rear wheel is an especially inviting feature for performance enthusiasts.

 

Do gforce engineerings mods and you essentially end up with exactly that package.

 

but I was looking at the fact thats its new and for the mustang so in a year or two when you can find them in the junk yard the aftermarket will catch up with it. If its not off a standard design already. Course it will probably a major PITA to get it in but I really just thought it was kinda funny that they went with a solid axle when independant suspension is so prominent.

 

"...better off the line performance, and other advantages" I believe the "other advantages are only cost and lack of complexity (which seriously is a consumer advantage if you like to work on the car). But I'm sure in the end a solid rear is what made the most sence to the bean counters.

 

I don't see where you're getting at with this?

That axle is a ford 8.8, common in the ranger, explorer, F-150, econoline van, used to be in crown victoria?, for some reason I thought mustangs had one at somepoint also.

You already have a solid axle, if you're looking for more strength theres plenty of other axles you can get without waiting years for one of those to show up in a junkyard. They won't come chrome plated if thats what you're after, lol

 

The mustang cobra uses an independent rear but the regular mustangs didnt use a independent rear.

The reason is cost, PERIOD

 

Alot of GT SCCA tube frame cars use solid rear axels were talkin 80 to 100+Grand race cars, If that tells you something

 

yep...ford says they went with the solid rear axle to please the customers who drag race the mustang...you mean all 1%...when did you hear of a company doing anything to please 1% of the market??? they did it cuz they are cheap, and dont care if the "stang can go around corners at all...on another note...did you know that the corvette (even the C6) has leaf springs?

 

The Corvette has a 1/4 eliptical, transverse mounted, Fiberglass Mono leaf spring.

By having one leaf, you eliminate the friction and non-linearities that make leaf packs ride poorly.

Since it is 1/4 eliptical, and transverse mounted, you don't get windup like a 1/2 eliptical, and you don't get cross talk like a buggy sprung setup.

It's Fiberglass = light

Because it's flat, it packages nicer than a coil.

There is a big difference between the semi-eliptical hotchkiss rear ends, where the springs provide transverse and fore/aft axle location as well as springing, and what is under the corvette.

 

So does NASCAR, what is your point?

What do the rules allow?

A tri-link panhard setup works great 90% of the time is cheap and durable. Why not use it? Well if you are competing at the highest level and money isn't an issue and you need to gain that .001s from your competition you do some interesting things.

IRS is better...there are FEWER compromises. It is really just a matter of cost when it comes to a production car.

There is no car on this planet that doesn't have some compromise in the suspension setup. Even F1.

 

Which goes along with my first post, Ford's already using the axle in many other setups, why not standardize it with the mustang? Cheaper for them.

 

OK, showing my age here but:

Back in the 70s when the gas crisis hit, all the car manufacturers had commercials talking about the good mileage their cars got. The geniuses in Ford Marketing bragged that the Pinto had, "More ground-hugging weight." LOL

Always take car manufacturers "advantages" with a grain of salt.

 

yea thats sweet

 

Yeah, it tells you that GT either has a weight penalty for IRS or doesn't allow it, depending on the class.

 

And they forgot to mention the built it rocket propulsion sytem that automatically engages when someone is tailgating "too" close??

A very big grain of salt is required

 

maybe i dont know too much, but from what i have read chevy uses the leaf spring set up in the corvette not because it is the better set up (i dont think there has been a situation in the auto world since the 50s where chevy has done something revolutonary) but because they are using a chassis that they designed for the C4, and that chassis uses leafsprings insted of coil-overs.

When every other manufactuer of high end sportscars uses an IRS Coilover set up...and chevy (who i already mentioned is behind on the game) & Ford use antique set ups...you know it is to save money...because unlike the rest of the world...americans will buy something based on where it is made...not on how well it does the job (this does not apply to all americans...you RX-7 guys are alright...untill you drop a pushrod V8 into a FB)

my biggest gripe with the new mustang and the new corvette is that no american car mag except sportscar international has lambasted chevy or ford for not moving forward...

 

Is it really necessary to do the spec and $ comparison?

The C6 is beautiful. Nothing under 100k will touch it in performance. The interior is nice. You can order it in "cruiser" "intermediate" and "racer" trim. It's even pretty light when you consider the 400 hp V8. It even gets 28 mpg on the highway.

The C6 chassis is an evolution of the C5, which was more or less all new. It uses hydroformed rails, composite floor panels, and any number of other neat tricks to keep the weight down (it's as light as a 911).

Once again, the leaf spring is not what you see in pickups. It is a 1/4 leaf. It is Fibreglass. It runs transversly across the car. It is 1 leaf.

So I guess the question is: If the corvette is faster and cheaper than pretty much anything out there, how is Chevy behind?

 

Having already provided evidence that I'm as old as dirt, let me put in my $.02 gained from many decades of Corvette watching. The reason Chevy uses a leaf spring on the Corvette is because of tradition. It's one of the "things" that they do to a Corvette. Just like the round tail lights. It's not an option, a Corvette will have round tail lights and a leaf spring rear suspension. Its also the reason that the styling of the C6 is so close to the C5, to the point of being, "who cares?"

The fact that the C6 doesn't have pop-up headlights is so revolutionary that it will take decades to recover. You should have heard the uproar when the Z05 had square tail lights, OHMYGOD. They sure haven't made that mistake a second time.

Very silly. Never owned a Corvette, never plan to.

 

True. Chevy has always been known for leaf springs. Bouncy leaf springs at that, lol.

 

ok...things that will out perform a corvette for under 100K

Lotus elise/esprit
Porsche 911 (any variant [993-997])
Honda NSX
Nobel M12/13/14
Nissan skyline GTR
BMW M3
Jaguar XKR
TVR tuscan/T350/T440R

Just to name a few...and that is around a corner for all of them...and in a straight line for some...

not to mention any 4 banger bike

 

i dunno man, looking at those new pics of the C6, it doesn't look too much like a C5 to me... there are many many differences... to me it looks more like a ferrari... and i love the way it looks...

 

in pics looks different but i saw it at teh auto show in january and in person the cars sems to resemble the c5 more.....weird i know.

as far as under 100k lets try cars that will beat it for under 50k. with the go fast packages i saw the retail GM quotes on their website is 47K so goodbye half of the list. and bikes, c'mon is that even a good comparison? hell the mclaren would prolly get beat by some of the high end sport bikes....

 

still half the list...and im talking about performance...if you want to take in to account build quality (the cavaleer has the same steering wheel) and the cheap interior (so much plastic) and the service you recieve at the dealership (buy a lexus and you will know what im talking about...great car best/service I have ever had...they bring you coffee and let you test the new models while you wait for service)...then the corvette comes in last...

also add Boxster S and Merceded SL 500 to the list above

now if you want to start talking about fit and finnish...then its more of the same...remember the lexus TV ad in the late 90s where they roll a ball berring over all of the pannel gaps...that is because each pannel is fit very carefully...a sign of quailty...have you ever seen a 'vette up close...the pannel gap is ****...hondas have better panel fitment at 1/4 the price!

 

sorry don't know too much those imports, poor college kid haha, i was all about domestics until i got the chance o race a 7 and crx....i thought the 50k cap would've gotten rid of them.... oh well

 

Now you're comparing apples and oranges.

The C6 interior is VASTLY improved over the C5. It looks really good. I haven't sat in it yet, but it looks great.

The C5 looks a lot different than the C6. The details are much more subtle and take a minute to sink in.



Also, you can not talk about a Nobel, a Jag, and a TVR, then slag the corvette for interior bits or dealer service. Also, which of those can you buy? And, will your local nissan dealer be able to service your GTR?

A 400 HP corvette, weighing 3200 lbs will run away and hide from a non turbo 911. A turbo 911 sells above 100k, does it not?

An NSX is not faster, and I believe it knocks on 100k ($142 canadian).

An M3 is not faster. 0-60 in 4.8. Corvette is 4.2.

Now you're left with the elise (the esprit was designed in what, 1965?). Yes, it is rocket ship fast, but again, build quality, dealer service, can you get one, creature comforts...

What does the corvette need to do to win fans? Even as the smoking bargan it is, with the huge performance, people still turn up their noses. weird.