Jroc , every Gen5 SS I stomp a mudhole in at the Dragstrip says otherwise. and right next to that Dragstrip is a AutoX track...the other night there were 6 cars on that road course...2 Porsches , 1 Lambo , 1 open wheel car , 1 Vette , 1 Mustang. Nobody cares about road racing in the real world.We are not going to agree I guess. The Cadillac ATS is beating up on it's BMW, Audi, and Benz rival in the handling department. This is a luxury sedan, that won't be nearly as hard edged as a Camaro, and that is pretty much perfectly balanced and weighs barely over 3300 lbs. A current SBC v8 in a 2 door coupe will not add much if any weight to the chassis, and the new Alpha platform is much better than the old Lincoln LS platform that the Mustang owns it's origins to. Try and take your bias out of it for a second. All sources have reported that the ATS's chassis is an amazingly good platform. Ford knew the new Camaro was going to be built on this platform so they should have prepared better for it. The new mustangs design looks cheap, and heavily budgeted. Just because somethings redesigned doesn't make it great. Sure the new Mustang will handle very well I'm sure for a GT kind of car, but it will not handle as well as a modern all out sports car. People don't need to fall back on "well that's what it is. It's not a real sports car." No Mustang is Fords performance car. It's likely going to be a good handling, and big GT type car. Like when you think Aston martin, or performance Jaguar or something like that. Ever since the S197 Ford has been making the Mustangs handling do much better than it should on paper, but that starts to have it's limits as inferior designs just have their limits to where they're not going to work as well as a superior design, and you're not going to be able to massage it to when the competition it massaging their superior setup as well. Ford new suspension setup in nowhere near as advanced as most all other modern, performance orient, RWD cars. Fords new Suspension setup looks so shortcutted it ridiculous.
If you asked Ford I'm sure they'll claim that why they didn't go with a more traditional sport car suspension setup is because it's a little heavier or whatever, but trust me the real reason is because they're cheap, and they realized that they can better their benchmark Boss 302's handling with this setup, but it's far from the greatest performance car suspension design I've seen. The sad thing is when talking Mustang Ford tries to better themselves where GM tries to better Ford and that's why Camaro is traditional a better performance car than Mustang.
I am planning on taking a hard look at the '17's...both the Mustang and the Camaro. There is still a ton of fun left in this car and I want a single digit timeslip.4VFTW are you getting one? I have already decided. Lets just say that you will see a red blown 2015 at pbir in about a year or so LOL.
It doesn't matter. They aren't building that engine ever again.
Just because the 5.8 can fit with mods doesn't mean it's every going to go in the new Mustang. You're more likely to see a twin turbo 5.0.
1st , the LS1 was lightyears better in performance than the 4.6 and that is the only thing that propped the gen4 F-bodies up in that era. The LS? will have no advantage over the Coyote so it will come down to power to weight ratio and the Camaro already has a ton of ground to make up.
2nd , those early 2000's F-bodies were so good that they went extinct for 8 years while the Mustang went on to sell a million more units.
3rd , Nurburgring lap times mean dick. the current Mustang handles better than 99% of people are capable of extracting from the car. the Mustang needs its handling/ride refined and Ford is addressing that.
the total package will decide the winner. whichever company gets the mix right will come out on top...it's a bit premature to pronounce Chevy the winner , but if they do build the better car I will have no problem buying one.
Front suspension is definitely odd to me...looks flimsy for a high performance car , but wtf do I know?
Well now your just being a smart ass and taking what I'm saying totally out of context.
/QUOTE]
You are right, I was being a smartass... I apologize, but you were sort of asking for it by making some huge assumptions very early in the game. Let's move on...
Just because the 5.8 can fit with mods doesn't mean it's every going to go in the new Mustang.
The '15's front suspension is an upgraded MacP strut system that the S197 uses now... It now has an additional link to combat the very thing you were worried about before...
So, if the single link MacP strut system can handle 662hp applications, the double link can do it just as good...
The S197's struts are different, and beefer looking. They mount to 2 points on the chassis. The extra link on the new Mustangs front suspension is nothing more than something to keep the forward and aft movement that the single mounting point lower control arm is going to want to do in check. The extra link does the same thing to the new front lower control arms that a panhard bar does for a SRA. It's a totally unnecessary mod for a control arm that mounts to 2 points on the chassis.
I'm sure it works, but the vehicle is supported by front control arms that mount to a single point on the chassis instead of 2. Having 2 links does not mean the new Mustangs front setup is stronger or more robust than the outgoing Mustangs.
S197 front struts:
S550 suspension that you can see the front suspension setup in:
Jroc , every Gen5 SS I stomp a mudhole in at the Dragstrip says otherwise. and right next to that Dragstrip is a AutoX track...the other night there were 6 cars on that road course...2 Porches , 1 Lambo , 1 open wheel car , 1 Vette , 1 Mustang. Nobody cares about road racing in the real world.
Incorrect... The Tension Link and Lateral Link replaced the massive, lower arm. The strut/spring is literally the same. The MacP strut serves as the upper control arm. It has been that way since the Boss 302 in 1969.
Well yeah when talking a Macpherson strut setup the term strut is used so frequently that you start using it incorrectly.
Going off the picture the Lateral Link is what's supporting the front of the car. Or at least from the knuckle to the chassis. It and the strut setup is what's supporting the cars weight and absorbing the loads that are put on the suspension. Again the Tension Link doesn't make the front suspension any stronger or beefer and better able to sock up a shock any more than a panhard bar does to a SRA they just check to control arms new found tendency to move forwards and backwards during braking, cornering, and just normal driving in check.
I'm sure it does it's job, but it's just like..........Why? The only reason I can think to go to a setup like that is for a weight reduction. :shrug:
I'm sure it does it's job, but it's just like..........Why? The only reason I can think to go to a setup like that is for a weight reduction. :shrug:
No no... On ALL MacP systems, the actual Strut/Spring supports the weight via the forged steel knuckle (aluminum in the future). That Tension link absorbs lateral and twisting forces while the wheels turn under steering. The Lat Link also absorbs lateral forces (like the new IRS's IL Link). These two links can be tuned independently for camber and toe...
The old MacP systems were only a single A link that could not be adjusted at all. It didn't matter because the SRA couldn't either...
The 5th Gen uses the old MacP system and an IRS... Who told them that would be a good idea is beyond me. IRS can be adjusted, MacP can't... If Ford stuck with the old MacP system, they would be able to tune the rear suspension but not the front like the 5th Gen Camaro... Stupid if you ask me...
Yes you are correct the strut is supporting the weight of the vehicle. What I'm trying to say is the lateral link on this car is whats having to support the abuse that's going to get put on the control arm/arms. In fact it is the front control arm basically. If it works well then great. I hope so. It looks to be a noticeably lighter setup. I'm just resorting back to Fords history of trying to re-invent the wheel so to speak when coming up with their suspension setups. They try to be too smart and innovative, but not in terms of advancing the design, but in simplifying and lessening it's cost. Examples are the Foxbodies angled upper rear controls arm which were tasked with not only doing the traditional job of a upper control arm on a SRA, but also the panhard bars job so that they could not have to use a panhard bar or watts link. It was a very poor design, as was the Modified Macphersons. I don't necessarily think that it's general design was bad as much as it was just a bunch of cheap stamped steel with poor geometry for the car. Twin I-Beams are another example of a less than stellar design from Ford.
You're saying that the Tension rods, and Laterial links(lower control arms) allow you to adjust the alignment on the car when working in conjunction with one another? I'm sure adjustable links will become a very popular mod with the S550 then. One thing I've been wondering is how the tension link is going to affect tire clearance. It looks awfully in the way of a big front tire trying to turn sharp. Hopefully I'm wrong.
IDK we'll just have to see how the car does. I'm sure it's going to be very good, I'm just not sure it's going to be good enough to match the performance potential of the next Generation of it's main rival which I feel Chevrolet is going to work real hard at making very good, and resolving some of the issues with the Gen5.