RSXLNT

Has anyone driven the 2011 Mustang GT? If so, please give us your impressions. Thanks!

Mr.E.G.

You're beating a dead horse. He and I went round and round in some other thread and I explained that most of the things that solid rear axle does well only exist in a kinematic sense once loads start getting fed in it all degrades from there.

I'm preaching to the choir since you already know this, tarheel (this is more for everyone else who's reading), but solid axle cars can certainly handle well, but make no mistake about it, they are doing so in spite of their solid rear axle and not because of it.

Performance driving is all a matter of compromises and no single part or section of the car is going to make or break a car's abilities overall, but if anyone thinks that the fact that this Mustang performs well (as well as the numbers seem to indicate that it does) that is more a testament to the fact that Ford got a number of things right that added up to a competent package than it is an indication that, "Oh, I guess solid axles are just as good as x."

Mr.E.G.

Also, you guys do remember that when the e46 was out that there were cars like the Evo and Sti and whatnot nipping at their heels, right? It's not like the M3 has always had some huge lead over every other car. It's best to think of them as a good luxury car beefed up to perform better more so than to think of them as a car whose first order of business is to perform well.

Mr.E.G.

I also want to add that I very seriously doubt that tarheel is suggesting that the multi link setup on the 3 series is anything close to an ideal example of IRS, nor do I think he is insisting on the superiority of BMW suspension and he CLEARLY has a better understanding of how a solid rear axle works than you do, so maybe tone the insults down a bit.

The fact that you cite the panhard bar as an example of how everything is hunky dory and that there are no, let's call them odd or hard to account for, movements going on under the rear of the Mustang is a pretty bad way to prove your point.

A panhard bar naturally imparts asymmetry into the rear suspension which is by no stretch of the imagination any way to show that it doesn't do "crazy stuff". The panhard bar is a great addition as the lesser of two evils but it is ultimately a bandaid fix to an inherent problem with the live axle design.

Look, nunco I get it; you like the solid rear axle. What's not to like about it? It's so long and hard and there's usually a good deal of lube involved and you can barely get your hands around it -- Just kidding.

Seriously though, I like the solid rear axle too, well enough at least. It sure beats the shit out of a lot of wacky suspension designs and it has stuck around for a number of good reasons. There are several cars that I would love to take road racing that have solid rear axles and there are things about the solid rear axle from a tuning standpoint that really appeal to me. However, I really don't get the impression that you sat down at your drafting table with a list of ideal suspension requirements and after pouring through a dozen suspension theory books said, "Eureka! The solid rear axle accomplishes all of the primary goals and is clearly better than the most common forms of IRS." Rather, you're defending it because you like it and you're trying to fill in the blanks after you already decided that you like it.

Furthermore, I understand and applaud your desire to rebut the shit talking that most people, who don't know half as much about live axles as your left nut does, blindly say about it. But at some point you're also going to be talking to people who DO know what they're talking about and you just end up coming across as a person with religious conviction more so than a hard-earned conclusion.

Moral of the story: the solid rear axle is not as bad as people blindly credit for but it is far from ideal.

Again, I want to stress the fact that a performance vehicle is the culmination of many compromises and its success or failure is not usually limited to one single component. Hell, I'd rather go road racing in the Mustang with a solid axle than the IRS Camaro any day of the week.

rockville

Mr EG,
I just wanted to say that was a good, fair and balanced post.

tarheel91

Yeah, no the BMW suspension is far from being ideal in terms of performance. The ideal IRS is a dual wish bone set up with a toe link and a pull/push bar. There are 6 degrees of freedom and you have 6 ways to control them.

I wasn't even trying to rag on the Mustang so much as criticize the reviewers, their methods, and their knowledge.

NuncoStr8

I cited the 3-link and panhard bar because that's what's there. Most people's conception of a Mustang rear suspension is a Hotchkiss design, where the axle is bolted to leaf springs. Interestingly enough, that's also the uninformed picture of a Corvette suspension when its leaf springs are mentioned.

If the results show that Car A with suspension design X is just a fast around a road course as Car B with suspension design Y, how is it logical to assert design X is superior and design Y is inferior but accidentally works as well? Wouldn't the rational response be to suggest that in their current implementation, they are equally capable?

Review after review declares the Mustang solid axle a non-issue. As much as one can insist the solid axle is a detriment to performance driving, the reality says it's not. Is it the last word in suspension design? Certainly not. Nor are A-arms or multi-links or any other design. They each have benefits and drawbacks. But when a particular design works well in a particular application, it makes no sense to say "It's still inferior." If it works well, it works well. Why not just leave it at that?

There's plenty of examples in the automotive world of design solutions that are not theoretically ideal but still deliver results good enough to render the point moot. Might as well slag GM for using pushrods, BMW for using straight sixes, or Porsche for rear engines. "Ideal" is fine and all, but in the real world, ideal is rarely realized and so the difference between ideal and less than ideal is often nil.

rockville

Nunco,

I'm a big believer in the idea that the devil is in the details. Far to often people claim some design trait is always better than some other trait without really knowing what they are talking about. The Corvette's mono-leaf is certainly a great example but in that case it has NO inherent mechanical disadvantage (it does lose out on cost). A live axle is in most ways inherently inferior to a good IRS setup.

However, there are two big caveats that I would mention. First is that just because something is IRS doesn't make it better. The swing axle designs used on many German cars had many issues that hurt handling. Second the devil is in the details.

Right now we have been told the Mustang out handles both the Camaro and Charger. Of course we don't really know why. We can use that as proof that IRS doesn't guaranty better handling but we also can't take that to mean IRS isn't better. Of course I think this is your point.

However, I would disagree that similar track times equals similar handling. I'll use the example of the Star Formula Mazda vs the Formula Continental/F2000. Both are SCCA formula cars. The Mazda really is a lousy car that's relatively speaking low tech, over weight and generally gets decent lap times due to good power to weight. Having a big motor they can also run a good bit of wing to get the downforce needed for cornering. The FC/F2000 cars have similar lap times but have a lot less power. They have to use their power efficiently since they can't simply run big wings to get good cornering speeds. While these two cars turn nearly identical lap times the way they do it is much different. The FC is about conservation of momentum and fast cornering speeds. The FM is about acceleration and fast speed on the straights. We have the same results and the unsophisticated car turns a similar lap but the way we get there is much different. Also the way the cars drive is much different. Again the FC is very precise in it's handling and can be tuned to a very high degree. The FM is crude in comparison and the inherent limits of the chassis and allowed suspension options prevent the car from reaching the level of precision achieved by the FC.

My point to all that is we can't assume the more subjective aspects of handling just by looking at the numbers. BTW, this shouldn't be taken as a slight against the Ford. I think it's great that Ford has a car that compares so favorably to the BMW. Of course it could also be that BMW is slipping
Either way great job on Ford's part.

spooky205

The 2011 gt is a performance bargain no doubt. But there is alot more to a car than its performance. Thats where the BMW shines. Egronomics, handing, feedback, and build quality on M cars have always been just superb. Perhaps someone could test drive both and give their feedback? I would like to know where the mustang sits in the catagories mentioned above.

Mr.E.G.

The point I was trying to make is that I read your words as saying (paraphrasing) that the panhard bar keeps the suspension from doing goofy things (which is does, that is to say, it keeps it from doing some goofy things, don't you love my technical lingo ), when the panhard bar itself creates a lateral arc that the suspension follows that is asymmetrical and waaaaaaay goofy.

I'm not saying the panhard bar isn't good, which it is. Only that it is not a good example of taking the "crazy stuff" that a solid rear axle does out of the equation. It just makes some more crazy stuff that is even harder to visualize and quantify. For the record, it's fifty steps forward and one step back so well worth the added complexity. Again, I'm not talking bad about the panhard bar, just your use of it as an example of taking hard-to-predict suspension travel out of the equation.

[QUOTE]Most people's conception of a Mustang rear suspension is a Hotchkiss design, where the axle is bolted to leaf springs.