I wonder if it will actually look like this? It is a modern more compact design but still holds the Mustang lines.
I'd rather drive this is they want to go "modern"...
Yep, its got IRS......
- Thread starter SRT8tech
- Start date
I'd rather drive this is they want to go "modern"...
I'd rather drive this is they want to go "modern"...
Yeah... pretty sure I'll be buying one if they look like that.
One thing that I noticed is that the Strut and Spring Location on the 6th Gen is very similar to another car.
Mustang
BMW M3
Mustang
BMW M3
you think that's similar, you should see the front suspension of the S197 vs the M3. to be fair though, there isn't a whole lot of other logical options as far as spring placement on a double wishbone IRS though.One thing that I noticed is that the Strut and Spring Location on the 6th Gen is very similar to another car.
Mustang
BMW M3
No, the typical BMW IRS is more similar to the '03-'04 Cobra than Control Blade. BMW Technology Guide : Multi-link rear suspension
http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/models/years/1997/images/3er_rear_suspension.gif
Control Blade Independent Rear Suspension uses large trailing arms while the BMW (and Cobra) uses just simple mounting points.
http://www.carbibles.com/images/unauthorised.gif
You will also notice the BMW spring and strut mount almost directly to the chassis. The Control Blade spring and shock assembly sit within the upper and lower control arms in a subframe that bolts to the chassis as a modular unit. This is why Multi-link suspension feels "floaty" or like your the head of the Jack-in a Box. The springs are basically free to bounce around (coilovers stabilize this creating an axis for the spring). The Cobras IRS springs mounted on the lower arm.
Traditional Multilink IRS spring and shock assembly sit on the upper arm (Linked above). Sport applications move the spring to the lower arm now and upper arm mounts are for trucks and SUVs. However, This allows Ford to isolate the handling and ride components separately. This also allows them to tune each quality without affecting the full potential of the other (Handling vs Ride). It also eliminates the need of multiple upper or lower control links which are fragile. No worry about suspension travel differences, a CBIRS can be used in road racing, off road, drag racing and just street in one design. The design also saves room in the rear passenger area and trunk because there are no tall strut towers... Center of gravity should be much lower than traditional IRS as well...
OH yeah, it's almost as light as the solid axle as a whole but has far less unsprung weight.
It's actually quite simple and drag racers love the big trailing links to push the rear down.
Edit: Instead investing millions into advanced smart shocks to bandaid the spring movement or, use the handling friendly coilovers while affecting ride, wheel/tire clearance and interior space, Ford of Australia and Dana created a simple answer that is now cheap enough to go into a base Focus. There are countless versions of CBIRS, too many to list.
The Black Control Blade above uses something similar to what was seen on the mule. Anyone wanna guess what a CBIRS can do with a compact Coilover?
Other than that, both the CBIRS and BMW IRS have relocated the springs to the bottom and moved the spring and shock as close together as possible.
http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/models/years/1997/images/3er_rear_suspension.gif
Control Blade Independent Rear Suspension uses large trailing arms while the BMW (and Cobra) uses just simple mounting points.
http://www.carbibles.com/images/unauthorised.gif
You will also notice the BMW spring and strut mount almost directly to the chassis. The Control Blade spring and shock assembly sit within the upper and lower control arms in a subframe that bolts to the chassis as a modular unit. This is why Multi-link suspension feels "floaty" or like your the head of the Jack-in a Box. The springs are basically free to bounce around (coilovers stabilize this creating an axis for the spring). The Cobras IRS springs mounted on the lower arm.
Traditional Multilink IRS spring and shock assembly sit on the upper arm (Linked above). Sport applications move the spring to the lower arm now and upper arm mounts are for trucks and SUVs. However, This allows Ford to isolate the handling and ride components separately. This also allows them to tune each quality without affecting the full potential of the other (Handling vs Ride). It also eliminates the need of multiple upper or lower control links which are fragile. No worry about suspension travel differences, a CBIRS can be used in road racing, off road, drag racing and just street in one design. The design also saves room in the rear passenger area and trunk because there are no tall strut towers... Center of gravity should be much lower than traditional IRS as well...
OH yeah, it's almost as light as the solid axle as a whole but has far less unsprung weight.
It's actually quite simple and drag racers love the big trailing links to push the rear down.
Edit: Instead investing millions into advanced smart shocks to bandaid the spring movement or, use the handling friendly coilovers while affecting ride, wheel/tire clearance and interior space, Ford of Australia and Dana created a simple answer that is now cheap enough to go into a base Focus. There are countless versions of CBIRS, too many to list.
The Black Control Blade above uses something similar to what was seen on the mule. Anyone wanna guess what a CBIRS can do with a compact Coilover?
Other than that, both the CBIRS and BMW IRS have relocated the springs to the bottom and moved the spring and shock as close together as possible.
Last edited:
Thanks for the info Pill.
Ah, pictures speak louder than words. Looking at BMW's state of the art IRS, it appears they may be using a spring in subframe as Ford and Dana designed in the late 90's.
The Control Blade on a 2012 Titanium Focus. The black arrow is the "Control Blade" which controls fore and aft movement (eliminates brake dive and wheel hop). The white arrow is the big lower link that holds the spring. The white and red arrows (toe) control vertical movement. The setup also traps the spring between the front and rear lower links and between the upper (yellow arrow). The new BMW suspension is similar to Fords older design, except for the trailing arms or Control blades... So imagine M3 handling with less brake dive and no IRS wheel hop. One less lateral link and the addition of trailing arms, more performance, better ride, less weight, less cost and less moving parts.
Everything is labeled the same here except the control blades, they are the blue arrows. Note how thin the links and blade are, specifically designed for lateral or fore/aft strength.
I see at least 3 lower links here on the new BMW IRS, there is at least one more on top. It's unclear if this IRS has Control Blades or still use a simple cross member.
According to BMW, there are two additional upper links for a total of 5. The BMW IRS still uses a cross member (which is just a useless, heavy mounting point) while Ford's IRS gives the cross member a job, new name and new design. No matter how hard BMW tries, they will not be capable of eliminating dive and squat like a CBIRS.
Here's a perfect example of a de-evolving IRS. It has almost everything you don't want... Cross member, 4 large links, huge subframe, the coilover is located behind all the control arms. The coilover is good however!!!! designing a lateral link to bend forward around it is poor design. That link is now required to sustain fore and aft loads when it should only be a guide...
The Cobra IRS is of poor design as well. The spring and shock are too foreign as far as placement goes. A perfect spring/shock axis is optimal for performance. Ride, packaging limitations and $$$ suffer. The Cobra IRS took a different approach, alienating those two components on a huge lower arm. The whole system looks like a 2 link Short arm/Long arm or simple wishbone. They can be tuned of optimal track or optimal ride quality... Not both...
The Control Blade on a 2012 Titanium Focus. The black arrow is the "Control Blade" which controls fore and aft movement (eliminates brake dive and wheel hop). The white arrow is the big lower link that holds the spring. The white and red arrows (toe) control vertical movement. The setup also traps the spring between the front and rear lower links and between the upper (yellow arrow). The new BMW suspension is similar to Fords older design, except for the trailing arms or Control blades... So imagine M3 handling with less brake dive and no IRS wheel hop. One less lateral link and the addition of trailing arms, more performance, better ride, less weight, less cost and less moving parts.
Everything is labeled the same here except the control blades, they are the blue arrows. Note how thin the links and blade are, specifically designed for lateral or fore/aft strength.
I see at least 3 lower links here on the new BMW IRS, there is at least one more on top. It's unclear if this IRS has Control Blades or still use a simple cross member.
According to BMW, there are two additional upper links for a total of 5. The BMW IRS still uses a cross member (which is just a useless, heavy mounting point) while Ford's IRS gives the cross member a job, new name and new design. No matter how hard BMW tries, they will not be capable of eliminating dive and squat like a CBIRS.
Here's a perfect example of a de-evolving IRS. It has almost everything you don't want... Cross member, 4 large links, huge subframe, the coilover is located behind all the control arms. The coilover is good however!!!! designing a lateral link to bend forward around it is poor design. That link is now required to sustain fore and aft loads when it should only be a guide...
The Cobra IRS is of poor design as well. The spring and shock are too foreign as far as placement goes. A perfect spring/shock axis is optimal for performance. Ride, packaging limitations and $$$ suffer. The Cobra IRS took a different approach, alienating those two components on a huge lower arm. The whole system looks like a 2 link Short arm/Long arm or simple wishbone. They can be tuned of optimal track or optimal ride quality... Not both...
Last edited:
Be nice to see an IRS in the Mustang again.
Ford has to appeal to the masses not the few serious 1/4 mile racers.
Ford has to appeal to the masses not the few serious 1/4 mile racers.
Last edited:
Ford hears everybody loud and clear. The Control Blade was designed initially for off road use in Australia. Later, road racers loved it for the anti brake dive qualities and more stability instead of body roll in corners vs. Multi-link. Anti-squat and hop for drag racers are a direct result of the Control Blades as is the anti-dive and roll properties. The suspension was adopted by Audi for its ride tuning qualities, packaging freedom and low cost. BMW loved the "false axis" the spring and shock placement provided between the links and arms. It eliminated the need of coilovers which had packaging downfalls as well as cost. Most cheerish it's ability to tune the stiff handling to the max while the noise, vibration and harshness is never translated to the driver. The ride components are tuned (and act) independently from the handling components on a forced or false axis.
It's almost perfectly optimal... add in some smart coilovers and that's the next rear design of the next 70 years. It will become standard and widely used... Mostly dominant like MacP was (and is still) in the front.
Sold me!!
Users who are viewing this thread
