New Boss 302!!

[Fourcam330]

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:

No hard feelings here. I would also love to see a Boss rendition come back, maybe with a 330 suffix ;-) Fingers crossed that it's a 4v.

 

[SGL]

Serpentnoir:

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.

I understand what you are saying. There are few things to keep in mind:

1. I bring up the comfort "factor" because the IRS is the only way to have what's called in the industry "best in class" comfort and "best in class" handling. Sure an SRA can be made to handle just as well, but a lot of factors get compromised and that is a compromise that a lot of potential customers are not willing to accept in this day and age. You may be willing to accept it but in general the market is not.

2. Urethane bushings are the domain of the aftemarket for several reasons. The main reason being the way urethane is typically designed. You have a crush sleeve that supports the clamp load of the fastener and the bushing is free spinning around the sleeve. This requires lubrication or else the bushing will squeek and/or wear out. We have no reliable way of adding this lubrication in a consistent manner. Plus how will the maintenance be done? The industry is moving away from zirk fittings and general maintenance and going towards "lubed for life"/sealed components. Plus exposed lubricated joints attract dirt which defeats the purpose of lubrication in the first place. Not good. I would question the longevity of urethane bushings in any production scenario. Don't get me wrong, they have their uses (i.e. jounce bumpers) but not as suspension bushings on a car expected to go 150~200k miles with a factory warranty.

Keep in mind that rubber bushings are pressed in and/or bonded. Thus the rubber actually twists when the suspension goes through it's motion. No need for lubrication. We can increase the durometer of the rubber and make it as hard as urethane but then you're back to harshness issues again. So no point in doing that. The same could be applied to urethane (i.e. bonded) but rubber is cheaper and urethane offers only marginal improvements.

I have a full MM suspension on my car with urethane bushings. I like it like that. But is does feed back a lot of harshness and vibration that most buyers would find objectionable. I can only imagine how bad it would be if the rear end was a SRA with a similar treatment.

Bottom line: it's all about compromise and what the market is willing to accept. The mustang has had a very good run all these years with an SRA. I thinks it's more than time to move into the future. Just my opinon.

 

[bmxr]

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 actual data just edumacated guesses! :shrug:

Good guesses. I think this speculation stuff is really interesting, but what I honestly want for myself more than anything, is a car with the clean visual cues (Shelby stripes aside) that the GT500 has, but much lighter and naturally aspirated. Since the Boss 302 version may be an impossibility, the Mach 1 is the one I'll be holding my breath for.

 

[Joes66Pony]

Bottom line: it's all about compromise and what the market is willing to accept. The mustang has had a very good run all these years with an SRA. I thinks it's more than time to move into the future. Just my opinon.

I agree...and I think there are a lot of people who agree with you, it just seems like the drag racers and the beancounters are being heard better. Like I said, My kidneys and I remember driving the old Fox Mustangs, which was fine for 1987...but not for 2007.

 

[moridin2004]

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

I think the unsprung weight comments have quite a bit to do with performance. Too much unsprung weight for those shocks to deal with and you'll see many of them boil fluid over and over again in a road racing situation.

Ford should properly engineer an IRS and offer it as an option.

 

[blksn8k]

What engine is in the new Mustang GT race cars that are now running in Grand Am? I was under the impression they used a version of the 5.0 Cammer crate motor....If this is true, and I believe it is, then why is this engine able to withstand the rigors of endurance racing if it has all these claimed design flaws?

 

[Fourcam330]

What engine is in the new Mustang GT race cars that are now running in Grand Am? I was under the impression they used a version of the 5.0 Cammer crate motor....If this is true, and I believe it is, then why is this engine able to withstand the rigors of endurance racing if it has all these claimed design flaws?

You're correct the GTRs use 5.0L cammers, some with FR500 top ends, others with GT/R heads and a new experiemental dual stage intake.
The rigors of road racing are one thing, the rigors of being a daily driver are another all together.
The Ford sponsored RR cars have the luxury of tear downs between every race to replace worn or damaged parts, no such luck on a production car. Also, you'll never see as many heat cycles with a weekend OT car vs. a daily driver.

 

[blksn8k]

So are you saying the old adage about racing improving the breed doesn't apply in this case?

 

[Fourcam330]

So are you saying the old adage about racing improving the breed doesn't apply in this case?

As I've said before, Ford has had 5.0L cammers running around for 10 years at this point. If production was a feasability, it would have happened by now. Hell in '08/'09 a completely new motor design is going to replace the Modular. Let's also remember that those cars are powered by FRPP parts, which have no warranty whatsoever.
So, in this case, no, you won't see any new engine technology from the GTRs dribbling down to production stangs.

 

[blksn8k]

If you are referring to the Hurricane engine program I thought that was canceled months ago. Or is there something else?

 

[Fourcam330]

Hurricane, it's not dead.

 

[blueovalkid]

I had heard that the Hurricane was dead too. :shrug:

 

[MustangEd]

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.
...............

Ok i am a little late to this thread but, with soaring gas prices we will probably
see some sort of turbo 4 or 6 in the mustang's future. Considering that the
baddest, affordable, modern production motors (read as cobra :rockon: )
are only 4.6 liters, the trend is to smaller displacement high performance motors.
Remember the 80's shelby datonas? They used to hand out some serious
beatings to most v-8 cars and still 25+ mpg. With huge leaps in these areas
its almost certain this is our future in the perf. world. :shrug: