RE: More horses for Pony car
Discussion
Adetuono said:
Not to mention the race between the Roush and the Elise (Exige?) on the Clarkson USA DVD, when 'Big Stig' was driving.
The Mustang was only a car length behind after a lap of a track that was as twisty as a very twisty thing. Not bad for a 19th Century live axle.
The Mustang was only a car length behind after a lap of a track that was as twisty as a very twisty thing. Not bad for a 19th Century live axle.
I'd take that review with a pinch of salt. The fact is that the Lotus got past in under a lap, despite the Ford jumping the start... I'd be interested to know how many seconds the Lotus would have pulled away on the second lap. I'd guess: lots
Gixer said:
I may be wrong but I always understood live axles were more popular with drag racers and that is of course what most US petrolheads will be doing.
i thought the story was that when Ford were specing the cars they asked the prospective buyers what they wanted, and the result of the research was that buyers wanted live axle. Ford merely did what buyers asked them to.
edb49 said:
BUG4LIFE said:
Isn't it to keep costs down [in the States where the GT500 is like £25k innit, not the £50k import companies are asking here]? There is enough tuning companies that can sort that live axle - buy the car, do it yourself!
I don't think it's really a cost thing. Look at the euro makes in the USA, eg Porsche, BMW, etc. They generally sell for about 50-60% of the UK price. So a 911 is about £35k in the USA, off the top of my head.
In April 2005, the Carrera S Coupe was around $79000 base price but the one Road and Track tested retailed at $91000. A Corvette C6 by comparison had a base retail of $43500 but an "as tested" price of $53500. I think the US may have a bigger options list but it's only the strength of the pound that makes them appear cheap.
Hi there
Every time a Yank car is mentioned the anti-american brigade always seem to be about to post "it will be crap in the twisties"
Now regarding the Shelby GT500 and this new KR edition yes they don't handle particular well. Mainly down to the cast iron 5.4l engine up front which weighs 200-300lb more than the ALU 4.6l model found in the Mustang GT. Plus Ford did quite a bad job with the suspension setup too. So even though the GT500 is reasonably quick around a track its really only quick on the straight bits and not that rapid on the twistier parts.
However to point blank say Mustangs don't handle due to a live axle is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard. Get yourself into a Saleen or Roush, they both still have live axles but are a huge improvement over the stock Mustang GT and far superior to the Shelby GT 500's.
The Roush and Saleen basically have uprated shocks/struts, springs and front swaybar. Its this small collection of parts that cost very little that transforms the car. This is only the beginning, further improve upon on that by adding front G-Trac and Strut braces to further improve turn-in. Then add camber bolts and heavy duty upper mounts so you can adjust camber. The result is a very sharp, instant reponsive front end. Now the rear-end, add an adjustable panhard bar, panhard brace, rear swaybar with HD links along with some stronger lower control arms and adjustable upper control. Now get everything calibrated like pinion angle, panhard bar etc. and what you have is one very capable road car. Take this to a track and the Mustang will indeed corner quicker or as quick as the best Europe has to offer.
Now you may say any car can be modded, but with the Mustang its different as Ford purposely made the car so it would have great tuning ability and a vast range of add-on parts available. You can now get a fairly new Mustang GT in the UK for less than £20,000 and all it takes is about £3000 to sort the suspension, brakes and increase power to circa 375BHP. The result is a car that will embarras an M3 on a track, on a road and in a straight line for a damn site less money. It may not have the build quality of the BMW and the class but instead you will have a rare car that makes you grin from ear to ear. Then when your no longer happy with 375BHP and hitting 100mph in less than 12s, well for about £3500 add a Supercharger and be running around 500-550BHP. The results are amazing and you'll see 100mph in circa 8s which is supercar territory and all for less than 30k.
Regarding Clarksons Good, Bad & Ugly video well ignore it, as it was no doubt highly edited anyway. For a better idea look at Top Gear Power Laps:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_La
You will see the Lotus Exige S laps 2.9s quicker than the Roush, but lets be fair the Lotus Exige S should be quicker as its been designed as a track car for track racing. The Mustang is a grand tourer that you can happily use daily and travel long distances in. The Lotus Exige on the other hand is a horrible place to be in on the road and its made from plastic. The Roush does well but imagine how well that Roush could have done with the extra suspension I talked about earlier such as the lower control arms, upper control arms, adjustable panhard bar, panhard brace, strut bars and rear swaybars etc. Then increase its power to circa 500BHP and I confident it would be lapping as quick as the Exige S but at the same time you'd have a nice friendly daily runner too. Back to straight line speed, well how does 30-130mph in sub 13s sound and 60-130mph in circa 10s, thats Lambo and 996TT beating performance.
Also if any of you read EVO magazine you will see those guys have tested the Roush and it went round their track quicker than Audi's new RS4, now everybody worships how great the RS4 is, yet a Roush Mustang with 415BHP beat it. So on that basis if the RS4 is a great handling car then how come the Mustang is not, well of course one with decent suspension setup? This same Roush beats the M3 CS as well, the Mustang really is not as bad, but some just seem to have this oppinion that American cars cannot go round corners, yet fact is they can and do so very well.
Every time a Yank car is mentioned the anti-american brigade always seem to be about to post "it will be crap in the twisties"
Now regarding the Shelby GT500 and this new KR edition yes they don't handle particular well. Mainly down to the cast iron 5.4l engine up front which weighs 200-300lb more than the ALU 4.6l model found in the Mustang GT. Plus Ford did quite a bad job with the suspension setup too. So even though the GT500 is reasonably quick around a track its really only quick on the straight bits and not that rapid on the twistier parts.
However to point blank say Mustangs don't handle due to a live axle is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard. Get yourself into a Saleen or Roush, they both still have live axles but are a huge improvement over the stock Mustang GT and far superior to the Shelby GT 500's.
The Roush and Saleen basically have uprated shocks/struts, springs and front swaybar. Its this small collection of parts that cost very little that transforms the car. This is only the beginning, further improve upon on that by adding front G-Trac and Strut braces to further improve turn-in. Then add camber bolts and heavy duty upper mounts so you can adjust camber. The result is a very sharp, instant reponsive front end. Now the rear-end, add an adjustable panhard bar, panhard brace, rear swaybar with HD links along with some stronger lower control arms and adjustable upper control. Now get everything calibrated like pinion angle, panhard bar etc. and what you have is one very capable road car. Take this to a track and the Mustang will indeed corner quicker or as quick as the best Europe has to offer.
Now you may say any car can be modded, but with the Mustang its different as Ford purposely made the car so it would have great tuning ability and a vast range of add-on parts available. You can now get a fairly new Mustang GT in the UK for less than £20,000 and all it takes is about £3000 to sort the suspension, brakes and increase power to circa 375BHP. The result is a car that will embarras an M3 on a track, on a road and in a straight line for a damn site less money. It may not have the build quality of the BMW and the class but instead you will have a rare car that makes you grin from ear to ear. Then when your no longer happy with 375BHP and hitting 100mph in less than 12s, well for about £3500 add a Supercharger and be running around 500-550BHP. The results are amazing and you'll see 100mph in circa 8s which is supercar territory and all for less than 30k.
Regarding Clarksons Good, Bad & Ugly video well ignore it, as it was no doubt highly edited anyway. For a better idea look at Top Gear Power Laps:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_La
You will see the Lotus Exige S laps 2.9s quicker than the Roush, but lets be fair the Lotus Exige S should be quicker as its been designed as a track car for track racing. The Mustang is a grand tourer that you can happily use daily and travel long distances in. The Lotus Exige on the other hand is a horrible place to be in on the road and its made from plastic. The Roush does well but imagine how well that Roush could have done with the extra suspension I talked about earlier such as the lower control arms, upper control arms, adjustable panhard bar, panhard brace, strut bars and rear swaybars etc. Then increase its power to circa 500BHP and I confident it would be lapping as quick as the Exige S but at the same time you'd have a nice friendly daily runner too. Back to straight line speed, well how does 30-130mph in sub 13s sound and 60-130mph in circa 10s, thats Lambo and 996TT beating performance.
Also if any of you read EVO magazine you will see those guys have tested the Roush and it went round their track quicker than Audi's new RS4, now everybody worships how great the RS4 is, yet a Roush Mustang with 415BHP beat it. So on that basis if the RS4 is a great handling car then how come the Mustang is not, well of course one with decent suspension setup? This same Roush beats the M3 CS as well, the Mustang really is not as bad, but some just seem to have this oppinion that American cars cannot go round corners, yet fact is they can and do so very well.
Well i don't think everybody is saying every American Car cannot go around a corner, but hey it has taken them a while to figure it out :-)
The slight problem i have with it is now adays all the new quick cars seem to come with all the latest technology implemented, with the latest suspension setups. For me all i am dissapointed with was actually more with the Shelby GT500 version as aposed to this. I was REALLY looking forward to it as i am a fan, but i kind of got the impression that it could have been better if they had put more in to it as apossed to saying Big engine lots of power goes like hell in a straight line. That is why i like the Rousch version as they seem to have taken the right approach and gone fore a balence of power/weight handeling which has paid off.
I know you could add all the suspensiony bits to make it go faster round the twisty bits but why should yo have to pay and upgrade when it should come standard. I suppose i am saying that it is the topline model, it should have been made to be as good as it possibly could be.
The slight problem i have with it is now adays all the new quick cars seem to come with all the latest technology implemented, with the latest suspension setups. For me all i am dissapointed with was actually more with the Shelby GT500 version as aposed to this. I was REALLY looking forward to it as i am a fan, but i kind of got the impression that it could have been better if they had put more in to it as apossed to saying Big engine lots of power goes like hell in a straight line. That is why i like the Rousch version as they seem to have taken the right approach and gone fore a balence of power/weight handeling which has paid off.
I know you could add all the suspensiony bits to make it go faster round the twisty bits but why should yo have to pay and upgrade when it should come standard. I suppose i am saying that it is the topline model, it should have been made to be as good as it possibly could be.
OcukGibbo said:
Also if any of you read EVO magazine you will see those guys have tested the Roush and it went round their track quicker than Audi's new RS4, now everybody worships how great the RS4 is, yet a Roush Mustang with 415BHP beat it. So on that basis if the RS4 is a great handling car then how come the Mustang is not, well of course one with decent suspension setup? This same Roush beats the M3 CS as well, the Mustang really is not as bad, but some just seem to have this oppinion that American cars cannot go round corners, yet fact is they can and do so very well.
Nice one m8 - the defence rests
And another thing..........
Likes and dislikes and suspension apart - lets not overlook the fact that there is and always will be a HUGE list of very reasonably priced aftermarket parts. Buying a mustang is only really the base model - a sort of place to start!!
Everything from bushes, bolts, electrics, wheels, windows etc can be upgraded (yes you can even get lightweight windows) and it is all dirt cheap by comparison to our prices. Just check out www.summitracing.com
Likes and dislikes and suspension apart - lets not overlook the fact that there is and always will be a HUGE list of very reasonably priced aftermarket parts. Buying a mustang is only really the base model - a sort of place to start!!
Everything from bushes, bolts, electrics, wheels, windows etc can be upgraded (yes you can even get lightweight windows) and it is all dirt cheap by comparison to our prices. Just check out www.summitracing.com
BUG4LIFE said:
Isn't it to keep costs down [in the States where the GT500 is like £25k innit, not the £50k import companies are asking here]? There is enough tuning companies that can sort that live axle - buy the car, do it yourself!
I find it inexcusable that Ford refuses to put a decent suspension on this car. It looks great, goes like piss, but it still has that solid rear axle. If I am not mistaken, Roush Racing builds one (after market) with an IRS. If they can do it, why should I pay Ford for this car? I should just get one from Roush !
I'd rather wait for the SS Camaro. New platform, better suspension, and better looking. I just hope I can get one on this side of the Atlantic.
Where is the extra 25K coming from? I know you have to pay VAT etc etc, but that is a huge markup.
thirsty said:
BUG4LIFE said:
Isn't it to keep costs down [in the States where the GT500 is like £25k innit, not the £50k import companies are asking here]? There is enough tuning companies that can sort that live axle - buy the car, do it yourself!
I find it inexcusable that Ford refuses to put a decent suspension on this car. It looks great, goes like piss, but it still has that solid rear axle. If I am not mistaken, Roush Racing builds one (after market) with an IRS. If they can do it, why should I pay Ford for this car? I should just get one from Roush !
I'd rather wait for the SS Camaro. New platform, better suspension, and better looking. I just hope I can get one on this side of the Atlantic.
Where is the extra 25K coming from? I know you have to pay VAT etc etc, but that is a huge markup.
All the Roush cars also have a live axle. A properly setup and tuned live axle can handle just as well if not better than a car with IRS. The Roush and Saleens are evidence of this as they both still have live axles. What those cars have different is front sway bar and much superior shocks/struts and springs which transforms them.
thirsty said:
BUG4LIFE said:
Isn't it to keep costs down [in the States where the GT500 is like £25k innit, not the £50k import companies are asking here]? There is enough tuning companies that can sort that live axle - buy the car, do it yourself!
I find it inexcusable that Ford refuses to put a decent suspension on this car. It looks great, goes like piss, but it still has that solid rear axle. If I am not mistaken, Roush Racing builds one (after market) with an IRS. If they can do it, why should I pay Ford for this car? I should just get one from Roush !
I'd rather wait for the SS Camaro. New platform, better suspension, and better looking. I just hope I can get one on this side of the Atlantic.
Where is the extra 25K coming from? I know you have to pay VAT etc etc, but that is a huge markup.
You are mistaken. The Roush is Live axled, as is the Saleen. As for the Camaro - yes, looks lovely. But it will be a LOT more expensive than the Mustang (I guarantee it) and it's totally unproven in the handling department at the moment, if indeed it gets made at all given GM have no money.
As Gibbo said, just having IRS does not guarantee a decent setup. Again, Audi RS4 vs Mustang and Mustang wins - that's live axled 'old school' muscle vs. hi-tech (vorsprung in fact) 4WD with IRS.
I'd set aside your prejudice and try it before writing it off as not having 'decent' suspension.
As for the markup. 10% import Duty. Shipping costs then 17.5% VAT on the sum of the car value, plus duty, plus shipping then a bit of dealer markup - it soon adds up.
My 2 pence worth of rant...
Live axles do not equal bad handling this is a myth. Sure IRS is better for bumpy roads and comfort, but on a smooth track, with wide tyres you really want maximum tyre contact at all times, which a good live axle set up will give you. Sure you need to minimise unsprung weight and it has to be set up well.
The 2 finest handling cars of all time according to Mark Hales and Nick Mason, who should know, lets face it, are the Maserati Birdcage followed by the Ferrari 250GTO. Ok so these are both 60's creations and later birdcages had De Dion tubes, but when it comes to "handling" they are still up there on the list. We all agree that the Caterham 7 handles well. Check out the De Dion tube at the back of that. No IRS there.
Roush seem to have set their Mustang up pretty well, and im sure Shelby/Ford could do the same if they were inclined. At the end of the day they dont need to though. They are appealing to the mainstream US market who want power, blue stripes, tyre smoke and traffic light burnouts. They arent designed to appeal to the UK buyer on our pot holed, twisty roads. Thats what the Monaro is for.
Live axles do not equal bad handling this is a myth. Sure IRS is better for bumpy roads and comfort, but on a smooth track, with wide tyres you really want maximum tyre contact at all times, which a good live axle set up will give you. Sure you need to minimise unsprung weight and it has to be set up well.
The 2 finest handling cars of all time according to Mark Hales and Nick Mason, who should know, lets face it, are the Maserati Birdcage followed by the Ferrari 250GTO. Ok so these are both 60's creations and later birdcages had De Dion tubes, but when it comes to "handling" they are still up there on the list. We all agree that the Caterham 7 handles well. Check out the De Dion tube at the back of that. No IRS there.
Roush seem to have set their Mustang up pretty well, and im sure Shelby/Ford could do the same if they were inclined. At the end of the day they dont need to though. They are appealing to the mainstream US market who want power, blue stripes, tyre smoke and traffic light burnouts. They arent designed to appeal to the UK buyer on our pot holed, twisty roads. Thats what the Monaro is for.
Since you guys are having so much fun ranting about this article and its comments, I'll jump in, too. Here are a few points:
1) Live axle vs IRS for the Mustang is largely a cost issue. Yes, Ford said that its customers want a live axle, but I never found that story as believable as the other one I'd heard. I'm sure some do want a live axle for cost reasons or for drag racing, but most street drivers probably wouldn't know the difference. The explanation that makes the most sense to me (I forgot where I read it) is that a live axle was cheap enough to use in the base V6 and yet robust enough for the V8's since it was to be used in all Mustangs.
2) Don't confuse a deflated US dollar with a car being a bargain in the US. A few years ago, the US decided to devalue the dollar to promote US exports. Some years back, 35,000 British pounds was about US$55,000. Now, it's about $70,000. That's great news for those on the European side of the pond (the Euro is strong, too), but for Americans, it's still $70,000. We're not getting any bargains.
3) That said, when the Aston Martin V8 Vantage was introduced, it was priced at about $110,000 in the US because its UK price in dollars would have been around $140,000 or so, which was more than the market would bear, but also keep in mind that quoted US prices for cars do not include sales tax, our equivalent of VAT. Sales tax in the US varies from state to state, but it's never more than around 8%. Where I live, it's 6%. Arizona currently does not have any. So it may be cheaper here than there, but not by much. When American cars are exported to the UK, you guys are getting gouged. Relatively speaking, maybe we are getting some bargains, but more so with American cars.
4) The Exige beats a Roush Mustang around a track, and the obvious conclusion is that live axle rear suspension sucks? Interesting, so nothing is said about the Exige being a car that is based on the Elise--a car designed with racing in mind--but even more track focused. It's a car that requires jungle gym tactics to enter and exit, and that for that reason alone, I would never own one as a daily driver, though I'd love to have one as a toy. It also has a mid-engined layout with its obvious weight distribution advantage over a Mustang, which was built as a practical, everyday car but is performance oriented. No one even bothered to mention the 1500 lb advantage of the Exige over the Mustang. Plenty of 1000-1200 lb Caterfields have had a live axle setup and superb handling.
5) Come visit the US some day. If you go where I live or to many other such places here, you'll understand why Americans in the past have largely ignored cars' handling ability and high-tech suspension design and focused instead on straight line go. We have very long, very straight roads going north/south, as well as other similar ones going east/west. Most of them are in pretty good shape. IRS results in less unsprung weight and allows for good handling with a good ride, and it also has a distinct benefit when you hit a bump on the road or track on a curve. For most street driving here, it wouldn't be much of an advantage. I love my Mazda MX5, but it is largely wasted here, though a friend in North Carolina tells me that I should go there to visit and drive on their curvy roads.
6) I do wholeheartedly agree that Ford could have done a better job on the Shelby GT500, though it's probably a moot point on our side of the pond. Its intended audience doesn't seem to care much about weight distribution and other such trivia. I think that a very nice Shelby GT500 could have been built using a bored and stroked 5.2 l version of the Mustang GT's stock aluminum block. Since the GT500 has to have monster torque for its typical buyers, the same positive displacement blower could've been used, which would almost make the heavier 4 valve DOHC heads reduntant. By keeping the stock GT block and 3 valve SOHC, minimal weight would've been added. As they did it, they essentially added 400 lbs to the GT, most of it to the front end. This is really a shame because the Mustang GT is the American muscle car with the best stock weight distribution ever, as far as I know.
7) dsf3g, I completely agree with you. Today's wheel sizes are totally out of control. I'm at the point where if I'm going to buy a car, I want the smallest diameter wheels that it can have because since the cars I like are driver oriented, even the smallest option is plenty agressive for me. Huge wheels do more than add unsprung weight, however. They also screw up the ride, offer less rim protection if you hit a bump, debris, or a pothole, and when you have to replace a tire, those ultra-low profile tires also make you spend more money. The saddest part is that a lot of these huge wheels are more for style than anything else.
Miguel
1) Live axle vs IRS for the Mustang is largely a cost issue. Yes, Ford said that its customers want a live axle, but I never found that story as believable as the other one I'd heard. I'm sure some do want a live axle for cost reasons or for drag racing, but most street drivers probably wouldn't know the difference. The explanation that makes the most sense to me (I forgot where I read it) is that a live axle was cheap enough to use in the base V6 and yet robust enough for the V8's since it was to be used in all Mustangs.
2) Don't confuse a deflated US dollar with a car being a bargain in the US. A few years ago, the US decided to devalue the dollar to promote US exports. Some years back, 35,000 British pounds was about US$55,000. Now, it's about $70,000. That's great news for those on the European side of the pond (the Euro is strong, too), but for Americans, it's still $70,000. We're not getting any bargains.
3) That said, when the Aston Martin V8 Vantage was introduced, it was priced at about $110,000 in the US because its UK price in dollars would have been around $140,000 or so, which was more than the market would bear, but also keep in mind that quoted US prices for cars do not include sales tax, our equivalent of VAT. Sales tax in the US varies from state to state, but it's never more than around 8%. Where I live, it's 6%. Arizona currently does not have any. So it may be cheaper here than there, but not by much. When American cars are exported to the UK, you guys are getting gouged. Relatively speaking, maybe we are getting some bargains, but more so with American cars.
4) The Exige beats a Roush Mustang around a track, and the obvious conclusion is that live axle rear suspension sucks? Interesting, so nothing is said about the Exige being a car that is based on the Elise--a car designed with racing in mind--but even more track focused. It's a car that requires jungle gym tactics to enter and exit, and that for that reason alone, I would never own one as a daily driver, though I'd love to have one as a toy. It also has a mid-engined layout with its obvious weight distribution advantage over a Mustang, which was built as a practical, everyday car but is performance oriented. No one even bothered to mention the 1500 lb advantage of the Exige over the Mustang. Plenty of 1000-1200 lb Caterfields have had a live axle setup and superb handling.
5) Come visit the US some day. If you go where I live or to many other such places here, you'll understand why Americans in the past have largely ignored cars' handling ability and high-tech suspension design and focused instead on straight line go. We have very long, very straight roads going north/south, as well as other similar ones going east/west. Most of them are in pretty good shape. IRS results in less unsprung weight and allows for good handling with a good ride, and it also has a distinct benefit when you hit a bump on the road or track on a curve. For most street driving here, it wouldn't be much of an advantage. I love my Mazda MX5, but it is largely wasted here, though a friend in North Carolina tells me that I should go there to visit and drive on their curvy roads.
6) I do wholeheartedly agree that Ford could have done a better job on the Shelby GT500, though it's probably a moot point on our side of the pond. Its intended audience doesn't seem to care much about weight distribution and other such trivia.
I think that a very nice Shelby GT500 could have been built using a bored and stroked 5.2 l version of the Mustang GT's stock aluminum block. Since the GT500 has to have monster torque for its typical buyers, the same positive displacement blower could've been used, which would almost make the heavier 4 valve DOHC heads reduntant. By keeping the stock GT block and 3 valve SOHC, minimal weight would've been added. As they did it, they essentially added 400 lbs to the GT, most of it to the front end. This is really a shame because the Mustang GT is the American muscle car with the best stock weight distribution ever, as far as I know. 7) dsf3g, I completely agree with you. Today's wheel sizes are totally out of control. I'm at the point where if I'm going to buy a car, I want the smallest diameter wheels that it can have because since the cars I like are driver oriented, even the smallest option is plenty agressive for me. Huge wheels do more than add unsprung weight, however. They also screw up the ride, offer less rim protection if you hit a bump, debris, or a pothole, and when you have to replace a tire, those ultra-low profile tires also make you spend more money. The saddest part is that a lot of these huge wheels are more for style than anything else.
Miguel
Edited by Miguel on Thursday 5th April 06:17
bad_roo said:
qube_TA said:
Also if you want to get yourself and a couple of mates round the Nurburgring quickly a racing prepared Exige would be slower than a stock, base model V6 Mustang.
By this logic a Carrera GT would also be slower than a Ford Focus 1.6.
Yup. If you needed to take a couple of mates, as you would need to do two trips. I think that's what he was trying to say...
Like people say, even comparing a 4 seater GT capable of crushing continents in one sitting to a dedicated and focused track car on track tyres is either a huge compliment to the Mustang or totally stupid. Personally, I'll be in and gone before the Exige driver has wrestled his way in and will be blasting some rock tunes while basking in the a/c.
Gassing Station | Mustangs | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff