New Boss 302!!

[SGL]

N/a 5.4 would most likely be dropped in over the 5.0 mod motor. I believe it would actually be much cheaper for Ford to go the 5.4 route over the 5.0. I would really love to see something like this in the near future. I say screw the IRS make it exactly like the Mach 1 right now except with the 5.4 It should be a car that is relatively affordable, slightly more than a GT and less than a cobra.

Paul

I say, screw you guys with your single solid axles. Sissys. I want a solid axles in front and back and make it a Ford 9" all around. This way it's very rugged and I can go rock climbing. I could put one of those air shock systems and some mud diggers. For the Saturday night cruise I would drop the car down a bit and put some bias plys on there. Now we're talking!

 

[SGL]

Did the Boss 302 have a handling problem? No, it actually was able to outhandle vettes that HAD IRS!

Paul

Using 40 year old technology to make a point proves your ignorance. It's as bad as using Formula 1 as an example. Some have done this too.

 

[grandestang]

Using 40 year old technology to make a point proves your ignorance. It's as bad as using Formula 1 as an example. Some have done this too.

Proves my ignorance? Formula 1? Are you smoking crack? Sorry but your response really makes no sense, and your previous sarcastic post makes your credibility plummit.

Formula 1 is based off all out race cars, while a Boss 302 was actually a production car. Your point is utterly retarded, in fact I've become more stupid after reading your post. Your point becomes even more useless when you consider the fact that up to 2005 the chassis was based off the '79 fairmont, making the actual chassis age difference between an '04 and say a '70 boss only 9 years.

If that 40 year old technology where Boss 302s with simple leaf springs and staggered shocks suspending the rear axle can perform image the '05 stang coil sprung with an advanced 3 link setup with panhard bar. I'd say thats quite a big step in development. Solid axle suspension has developed just as much as IRS has in the last 40 years. If solid axles mangaged to stick with IRS then, and it will continue to do so in the future period.

Paul

 

[SGL]

Proves my ignorance? Formula 1? Are you smoking crack? Sorry but your response really makes no sense, and your previous sarcastic post makes your credibility plummit.

Formula 1 is based off all out race cars, while a Boss 302 was actually a production car. Your point is utterly retarded, in fact I've become more stupid after reading your post. Your point becomes even more useless when you consider the fact that up to 2005 the chassis was based off the '79 fairmont, making the actual chassis age difference between an '04 and say a '70 boss only 9 years.

If that 40 year old technology where Boss 302s with simple leaf springs and staggered shocks suspending the rear axle can perform image the '05 stang coil sprung with an advanced 3 link setup with panhard bar. I'd say thats quite a big step in development. Solid axle suspension has developed just as much as IRS has in the last 40 years. If solid axles mangaged to stick with IRS then, and it will continue to do so in the future period.

Paul

I guess you don't get it at all. That's fine. By the way my credibility is my business, I don't recall having to show up in front of a "credibility committee" for your approval. How's that 70 mustang treating you anyway? Having fun with the old Detroit iron? Good for you.

 

[grandestang]

I guess you don't get it at all. That's fine. By the way my credibility is my business, I don't recall having to show up in front of a "credibility committee" for your approval. How's that 70 mustang treating you anyway? Having fun with the old Detroit iron? Good for you.

People like you love to make posts like this, without providing any actual supporting information of their argument. Prove me wrong, its not like I haven't been wrong before but until you actually make an argument of your case posting is pointless. To tell me "you dont' get it at all" doesn't really tell me much. Just tells me that you don't know what you're talking about.

Paul

 

[SGL]

People like you love to make posts like this, without providing any actual supporting information of their argument. Prove me wrong, its not like I haven't been wrong before but until you actually make an argument of your case posting is pointless. To tell me "you dont' get it at all" doesn't really tell me much. Just tells me that you don't know what you're talking about.

Paul

I'll remove my sarcasm hat and put on my engineering logic hat. I have several problems with your statements:

1. As you well know, the original pony car had leaf springs in the back and some sort of basterdized SLA in the front. The 79-04 cars had solid axles and MacPherson (or the intent of it like the Camaro). Ford adapted a basterdized IRS to the 99-04 cars. Now we have the 05 with a brand new chassis, a true Macpherson in front and a 3link with P/bar in the back.

OK. What do these cars have in common? NOTHING! They could have been manufactured by three different companies, and the result would have been the same. So let's stop the comparison game. Ford Motor Co of the 60's has nothing in common Ford of today except for the Ford name.

2. The common argument that: The IRS has wheel hop so a new IRS will have wheel hop is assinine (I'm not quoting you because I am generalizing). I hope my colleagues at Ford can design a IRS/Chassis combo properly. EVERYONE knows the 99-04 IRS was a compromised design. We also know how good the new car is. Imagine merging this to an IRS that is properly designed to work in unison with the new chassis. The compromised 99-04 IRS got people off on the wrong foot and now everyone is running scared.

3. Now to the technical stuff. What is common between a solid axle with leaf springs and a solid axle with coils? The wheel center cannot move in a pure vertical fashion. Try as you may, it will not happen. The motion is an arc. Why should we care about that? Because in a turn, the inside will droop and the outside will jounce. Result: the wheelbase changes and becomes unequal from side to side. You know what happens next: you get roll steer. In other words, the rearend seems to steer itself. It is minute, but very noticeable. I find it annoying.

4. Unsprung weight: Ever weighed a solid axle? Fairly heavy. Compare that to an IRS. Let's see: two aluminum knuckles plus half of each control arm (possibly aluminum also). I say half because they are attached to the body and that is an accepted calculation method. Plus half of the tierods weight. Assuming everything else is the same weight (brakes, wheels, tires) the IRS will have much lower unsprung weight. Why should we care about unsprung weight? Because unsprung weight has a dramatic impact on shock damping, harshness, vibration and bushing design. The higher the unsprung weight (i.e. solid axle) the more difficult it is to tune the shocks properly because of a variety of reasons (i.e. heat dissipation, valving, inertia.....). In addition, that mass vibrates and twists and has a lot of inertia. To isolate the occupants from all this nasty stuff, the industry has provided us with these big rubber bushings. That's great until you want to push things in the corners. Surprise, surprise, all this rubber makes things feel mushy. Thus the lack of precision that some people complain about regarding solid axles. Now imagine having a huge weight loosely attached to the rear end of your car. Imagine how unstable that would be. This is an exageration to describe the problem. i.e. I know I'd rather have a 25lbs dog at the end of the leash than a 150lbs Mastif.

Remember: I am not talking about "weight" of the IRS assembly. I couldn't care less (in a figurative way) what the weight of the IRS assembly is. The key here is "unsprung" weight.

5. Geometry: with an IRS you can fine tune item such as roll center height. Not so easy with a solid axle due to the "trailing style" of the design. The same goes with brake dive. A vehicle with IRS will exhibit much better brake dive behavior simply because of geometry and unsprung weight. Pure and simple.

Some thoughts about leafs springs: I used to design them at DCX many years ago. Very rugged and VERY cheap compared to anything else. But they have one nasty habit: get crud in between the leafs. Why is this a problem? Because it affects what we call "interleaf" friction. As the spring jounces or rebounds, the leafs rub against each other causing friction. That friction gets added to the effective damping ratio of the suspension. Thus it's additive to the shocks. The issue with the friction is that it varies all the time depending on the cleanliness of the spring. Thus you can never get a good hold on the damping ratio of the system. Another issue is that the roll-center must be as high as possible with leaf springs. That is detrimental to handling for reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread.

Another problem with them is that a "comfortable" spring uses less leafs. Less leafs means more axle wind-up. Not good for wheelhop. A secondary stage (extra thick/straight leaf) helps but it applies a point load to the main leaf and fatigue life is affected (traction bars have the same effect). Not good. There are plenty of examples of good handling cars with leaf springs (for example I worked on the suspension of 4x2 98 Dakota R/T and I consider it fairly good for a truck but it has limited potential). Very few are "great" handling. The ones that are, sacrifice comfort in a major way.

Side note: Some people (not necessarily you) always like to bring into the discussion the value of what is being done in racing i.e. Formula 1, stock car, rally car, TransAm,...... (thus my comment above). These same people do not understand that the technology used in racing is much more the product of rules than it is the result of required technology to win. It has nothing to do with one design being better than the next. But if I was a betting man and Nascar said: "for the 2006 season, IRS is allowed", the solid axle would disappear in less time than it takes a season to run it's full course. You can count on that.

 

[tito_146]

Well explained serpentnoir. Never seen anyone explain the pros and cons of both types of suspention. It is amazing how a segment of the Mustang followers swers (sp) by the solid axle. I for one will be keeping my IRS Cobra until a more refined one comes along. I don't need that much power as the GT500, but I will certainly like much better driving dynamics. Please guys dont get me wrong. The GT500 may be the best mustang ever. But alot of power to mask a lot of weight gained is not what I expected. One other turn off, at least for me, is the solid rear. I really believe the new car great handling is due to the new platform and not to the new rear suspention. I do believe it will handle much, much better with an IRS. After all, wasn't the IRS the goal of the new platform?

 

[CobraRed01]

I for one will be keeping my IRS Cobra until a more refined one comes along. I don't need that much power as the GT500, but I will certainly like much better driving dynamics. Please guys dont get me wrong. The GT500 may be the best mustang ever. But alot of power to mask a lot of weight gained is not what I expected. One other turn off, at least for me, is the solid rear. I really believe the new car great handling is due to the new platform and not to the new rear suspention. I do believe it will handle much, much better with an IRS. After all, wasn't the IRS the goal of the new platform?

Tito_146...a fellow 01 driver. Your mod list says you value handling. Kudos. With 200lbs less in the front-end than the 03/04 and the new GT500 you might be surprised how well you'd do against them on a tight road course. I agree with you, powers not everything...there's alot to be said about finesse and real handling. I'd wager you'd find a new Boss (or GT-350?) with a 5.4 aluminum block, open 32V heads and a good IRS hard to pass up. I know I would. I don't see full subs on your mod list. Do you have them? And if so, whose?

RE the unsprung weight and geometry argument. These are not terms the straight-line guys ever need to deal with so they need to be explained every once in awhile. (Nice job, Serpentnoir) A properly setup IRS rules. We need a least one new Cobra/Boss/Shelby with it.

 

[SGL]

Well explained serpentnoir. Never seen anyone explain the pros and cons of both types of suspention.

Actually, if you want to see some heated debates, go to www.Corner-carvers.com

Those guys live and die by suspension design.

A good source of info is Herb Adams book: "Chassis engineering". It's a little bit dated now but still relevant in it's general message.

 

[Joes66Pony]

Actually, if you want to see some heated debates, go to www.Corner-carvers.com

Those guys live and die by suspension design.

A good source of info is Herb Adams book: "Chassis engineering". It's a little bit dated now but still relevant in it's general message.

Great book. Also, any of Carroll Smith's books are worth a read to for those of us who like to fiddle with damper velocities and coil rates (among other things).

 

[jpetre]

I see the following future lineup in the Ford mustang vehicles

GT-500 - 5.4 4V - Twin Screw 500 (450 + Cool System = 500HP)
GT-350 - 4.6 4V - Eaton (400 HP)
BOSS 302 - 5.0 4V - 400 HP NA
Mach 1 - 5.4 3V - 375 HP NA
Bullet - 4.6 3V - 350 HP NA
GT - 4.6 3V - 300 HP
V6 - 3.5 4V - 260 HP (Dual Exhaust)

Not based on any acutal data just edumacated guesses! :shrug:

 

[SGL]

I see the following future lineup in the Ford mustang vehicles

GT-500 - 5.4 4V - Twin Screw 500 (450 + Cool System = 500HP)
GT-350 - 4.6 4V - Eaton (400 HP)
BOSS 302 - 5.0 4V - 400 HP NA
Mach 1 - 5.4 3V - 375 HP NA
Bullet - 4.6 3V - 350 HP NA
GT - 4.6 3V - 300 HP
V6 - 3.5 4V - 260 HP (Dual Exhaust)

Not based on any acutal data just edumacated guesses! :shrug:

Interesting. Good guesses I would say. I doubt you would see all of those in the same model year. But over a 5~6 year timeframe I could see several of those scenarios become reality. Especially the 3.5 V6.

I am amazed that it took Ford 12 years to compete with DCX and their 3.5 24 valve V6. GM also took several years to come to market with the Oldsmobile 24V 3.5 V6. Anyone who has driven a Chrysler 300M with the 3.5L knows how good that motor is.

 

[Fourcam330]

I see the following future lineup in the Ford mustang vehicles

GT-500 - 5.4 4V - Twin Screw 500 (450 + Cool System = 500HP)
GT-350 - 4.6 4V - Eaton (400 HP)
BOSS 302 - 5.0 4V - 400 HP NA
Mach 1 - 5.4 3V - 375 HP NA
Bullet - 4.6 3V - 350 HP NA
GT - 4.6 3V - 300 HP
V6 - 3.5 4V - 260 HP (Dual Exhaust)

Not based on any acutal data just edumacated guesses! :shrug:

For the thousandth time, you'll never see a big bore 5.0L/stroker 5.0L in production, EVER. 305s have too many block flex/ring issues, and strokers pull the piston too far out the bottom of the block causing excessive instability. More than likely you'll see a N/A 3v VCT 5.4 in the GT350 should it ever come to market. Where's the VCT GT head 5.4L in your grand scheme?

 

[SGL]

For the thousandth time, you'll never see a big bore 5.0L/stroker 5.0L in production, EVER. 305s have too many block flex/ring issues, and strokers pull the piston too far out the bottom of the block causing excessive instability. More than likely you'll see a N/A 3v VCT 5.4 in the GT350 should it ever come to market. Where's the VCT GT head 5.4L in your grand scheme?

I'm not sure I remember what you said. Is the 5.0L feasible? Just kidding. :-D

 

[Big 8]

Well I will throw a monkey at your wrench.

While I love big V8s right about now $3.00 a gallon is probably scaring the sh!t out of manufactures.

Ford has done a awesome job with the GT500 it caters to the old school fans of the Mustang. Big V8, boat loads of torque and power, live axel for the diggers and the names? Shelby, Cobra badges etc! Its everything the mustang has been and everything traditional mustang enthusiast could want.

So here is the problem. It caters to the current crop of fans and does nothing to bring in newbies? ( not a huge problem because they cant make em fast enough)

My pick. A real IRS. Add in the big names in performance....the Konis, the Brembos etc. Put it on a diet as so many have said. Then for the finishing touch!
The 4.0 six intercooled turbo from austrailia. I think this motor is good for about 360 HP and 390 Trq! Easy to turn up the wick as well.
It would be something different that would cater to new customers. Something that can advance the mustang as it seems so much is currently relying on the past.
:shrug:

 

[jpetre]

No need to get all excited! Hence the reason I put just guesstimates!

Maybe even dreams!

 

[jpetre]

For the thousandth time, you'll never see a big bore 5.0L/stroker 5.0L in production, EVER. 305s have too many block flex/ring issues, and strokers pull the piston too far out the bottom of the block causing excessive instability. More than likely you'll see a N/A 3v VCT 5.4 in the GT350 should it ever come to market. Where's the VCT GT head 5.4L in your grand scheme?

So your saying there will not be a BOSS 302? What about a BOSS 351????

oke:

 

[Fourcam330]

So your saying there will not be a BOSS 302? What about a BOSS 351????

oke:

If you're seriously referring to the 5.8L modular based (3.55x3.55") V10 found in the new Boss 351, don't hold your breath. That motor required a custom split pin crank (because of the 90 degree V8 block angle), block, heads, and intake among others. Not very production feasible, aside from the fact that V10s haven't historically been the powerplants of choice for Mustangsoke: :-D

 

[grandestang]

Serpentnoir:

Thank you for providing a logical argument to my side, alot of people on here just love to talk shit and not back it up.

Although I do see where you're coming from, it seems like alot of your argument still comes from a personal comfort level. Yes an IRS will be much more comfortable, and you may feel more in control of the car saying things like "I find it annoying" when describing the roll steer of the solid axle. Or saying "To isolate the occupants from all this nasty stuff, the industry has provided us with these big rubber bushings. That's great until you want to push things in the corners. Surprise, surprise, all this rubber makes things feel mushy." Things like polyurethane bushings and stiffer springs can almost eliminate the feeling of the rear end being a hunk of metal sloshing around in the back however the ride will be much much harsher. You're points in this aspect against the solid axle seem to be biased towards driver comfort, and less towards actual performance. You'll never see a properly setup solid rear from the factory for handling just becuase of the comfort level you will be sacrificing. But at the same time I don't think you'll ever see a factory IRS that can stand up to the abuse a comparable SRA can.

When you talk of geometry your flat our right the geometry is no where near that of an IRS. But does that mean that a solid axle rear setup properly cannot turn in just as good timeslips as a properly set up IRS car? I don't think this will be the case. Yes the ride will be much harsher and feel less controlled but I think it can be made to turn just as good times.


And for the record I was actually in no way trying to directly compare a 70 boss with modern suspension... In fact NEVER did I once compare the two directly compare them. It was simply part of my argument showing that a solid rear CAN be made to handle very well. Maybe it wasn't the best example but it annoys me when people assume solid rear cars cannot handle well. My 70 was recently updated with 4 1/2 springs, KYB gas-adjust-shocks, thicker sway bar, and heavy duty polyurethane bushed shackles. (Front end recieved total rebuild along with bigger sway, stiffer springs, poly bushings & shocks). The result was a car that in no way feels mushy out back even with the old outdated frame. Not trying to compare it to todays stuff, but if such an old setup can be made to work, why couldn't a modern 3 link work even better? We all know it can, as shown by the excellent handling characteristics of a stock 05 GT. With a more aggressive Cobra setup I don't think people will be dissapointed.

You could say well setup IRS will work even better, but if it comes at an added cost I don't see the need. This is not a BMW its a mustang. Even the Boss 302s could hold their own at the drag strip even though they were "handling" cars. One argument I don't think you can make is one that a SRA can be outmatched by a IRS in straight line racing. Like it or not, the Mustang will always be associated with drag racing in same way, even on an all out handling version.

It seems like this will never be an issue that is solved. Different people have different views. But I love threads like this because these are the threads where real information is learned. So serpentnoir :beer: i'll take my SRA you take your IRS. I'm done with this one. :thumbsup:

Paul

 

[jpetre]

If you're seriously referring to the 5.8L modular based (3.55x3.55") V10 found in the new Boss 351, don't hold your breath. That motor required a custom split pin crank (because of the 90 degree V8 block angle), block, heads, and intake among others. Not very production feasible, aside from the fact that V10s haven't historically been the powerplants of choice for Mustangsoke: :-D

Fourcam330 - I am just giving you a hard time. You know way more then I could ever imagine to know. The guesses above were just that guesses, so please don't kill the dreamer! :burn: You have to admit it would be really cool to have a Boss 302 , but I think Shinoda still owns the rights to the name right now, which they wanted like 5 Million for it. :cuss: It is just wishful thinking on my part! :bowdown: