Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.
[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.Participant[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.
[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.Participant[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.
Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.
[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).
Participant[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.
Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.
[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).
Participant[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.
Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.
[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).
Participant[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.
Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.
[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).
Participant[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.
Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.
[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).
Participant[quote flu]
(..and suddenly all the rear axle jokes on the Mustang stops…I can hear the crickets chirping..)
[/quote]The truth is, the mustang needs an independent rear suspension. I have owned and ‘aggressively’ driven more than one mustang. The rear end takes a jump sideways if you go over expansion joints or bumps when in a corner. The track that they tested the cars on is actually pretty smooth. This helped the mustang on the test. With the amount of power that the mustang can now put down, it needs a better way to ‘plant it’. Ford can put independent rear suspension on an SUV, why can’t it do the same for the Mustang?
Participant[quote flu]
(..and suddenly all the rear axle jokes on the Mustang stops…I can hear the crickets chirping..)
[/quote]The truth is, the mustang needs an independent rear suspension. I have owned and ‘aggressively’ driven more than one mustang. The rear end takes a jump sideways if you go over expansion joints or bumps when in a corner. The track that they tested the cars on is actually pretty smooth. This helped the mustang on the test. With the amount of power that the mustang can now put down, it needs a better way to ‘plant it’. Ford can put independent rear suspension on an SUV, why can’t it do the same for the Mustang?
Participant[quote flu]
(..and suddenly all the rear axle jokes on the Mustang stops…I can hear the crickets chirping..)
[/quote]The truth is, the mustang needs an independent rear suspension. I have owned and ‘aggressively’ driven more than one mustang. The rear end takes a jump sideways if you go over expansion joints or bumps when in a corner. The track that they tested the cars on is actually pretty smooth. This helped the mustang on the test. With the amount of power that the mustang can now put down, it needs a better way to ‘plant it’. Ford can put independent rear suspension on an SUV, why can’t it do the same for the Mustang?
Participant[quote flu]
(..and suddenly all the rear axle jokes on the Mustang stops…I can hear the crickets chirping..)
[/quote]The truth is, the mustang needs an independent rear suspension. I have owned and ‘aggressively’ driven more than one mustang. The rear end takes a jump sideways if you go over expansion joints or bumps when in a corner. The track that they tested the cars on is actually pretty smooth. This helped the mustang on the test. With the amount of power that the mustang can now put down, it needs a better way to ‘plant it’. Ford can put independent rear suspension on an SUV, why can’t it do the same for the Mustang?
Participant[quote flu]
(..and suddenly all the rear axle jokes on the Mustang stops…I can hear the crickets chirping..)
[/quote]The truth is, the mustang needs an independent rear suspension. I have owned and ‘aggressively’ driven more than one mustang. The rear end takes a jump sideways if you go over expansion joints or bumps when in a corner. The track that they tested the cars on is actually pretty smooth. This helped the mustang on the test. With the amount of power that the mustang can now put down, it needs a better way to ‘plant it’. Ford can put independent rear suspension on an SUV, why can’t it do the same for the Mustang?
Participant[quote davelj]
Sounds like there are also some tax issues. Seems like a better idea might be just to “federalize” the civil union (that is, remove it as a state issue) and give it the same benefits that married couples have. I see no reason why a civil union shouldn’t hold the same rights as a marriage.
[/quote]This is definitely something I would agree on. The concept of getting a ‘license’ from the state to marry, is mixing a religious concept with the state (there is supposed to be a separation of church and state). Civil union is a legal term while marriage is religious(that has legal connotations)..
Besides, if homosexuals want a ‘marriage’.. they could then create their own church.. ie. Church of the Latter-day Gays.. whatever floats their boat. This way they are also free of the ‘mainstream’ church’s condemnation of homosexuality.
[quote flu]
The only issue with that is then pretty soon you’ll get folks challenging whether civil union must be with another person…. 🙂 (….No really, I bond more with my PC than my spouse…..) :..
[/quote]
Or the PETA group might push it… civil rights for animals and then civil unions? (Ick, the mental imagery)[quote flu]
Not necessarily.. I’ve learned that some of the most beautiful women are also the ones not interested in men, and if you go to some places like in Thailand, some of the beautiful “women” aren’t women at all 🙂
[/quote]
That reminds me of a picture my sister took when she visited a ladyboy(Kathoey) contest out of curiosity. One of them really looked like a female…(wanna walk on the wild side?). Some of the ladyboys get breast implants to further their looks.. though not always the sex change.[quote briansd1]
Invasion of the Country Snatchers
Same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico and Canada, which makes America the straight meat in a big gay sandwich. (03:04)
[/quote]
I don’t know if you meant to word it that way or not.. ;-P..I’ve been working long hours (50% OT).. I think I am getting slap-happy already.
Participant[quote davelj]
Sounds like there are also some tax issues. Seems like a better idea might be just to “federalize” the civil union (that is, remove it as a state issue) and give it the same benefits that married couples have. I see no reason why a civil union shouldn’t hold the same rights as a marriage.
[/quote]This is definitely something I would agree on. The concept of getting a ‘license’ from the state to marry, is mixing a religious concept with the state (there is supposed to be a separation of church and state). Civil union is a legal term while marriage is religious(that has legal connotations)..
Besides, if homosexuals want a ‘marriage’.. they could then create their own church.. ie. Church of the Latter-day Gays.. whatever floats their boat. This way they are also free of the ‘mainstream’ church’s condemnation of homosexuality.
[quote flu]
The only issue with that is then pretty soon you’ll get folks challenging whether civil union must be with another person…. 🙂 (….No really, I bond more with my PC than my spouse…..) :..
[/quote]
Or the PETA group might push it… civil rights for animals and then civil unions? (Ick, the mental imagery)[quote flu]
Not necessarily.. I’ve learned that some of the most beautiful women are also the ones not interested in men, and if you go to some places like in Thailand, some of the beautiful “women” aren’t women at all 🙂
[/quote]
That reminds me of a picture my sister took when she visited a ladyboy(Kathoey) contest out of curiosity. One of them really looked like a female…(wanna walk on the wild side?). Some of the ladyboys get breast implants to further their looks.. though not always the sex change.[quote briansd1]
Invasion of the Country Snatchers
Same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico and Canada, which makes America the straight meat in a big gay sandwich. (03:04)
[/quote]
I don’t know if you meant to word it that way or not.. ;-P..I’ve been working long hours (50% OT).. I think I am getting slap-happy already.
-
AuthorPosts
