Lincoln LS and IRS

[Dave07997S]

Exactly!

Dave, what would you think if your M3 had 400 RWHP, torque to match, and had about a 53/47% weight balance? That's not out of reach for this new chassis... with a little bit of engineering work on the part of SVE (versus some paint stripes and an Expedition engine).

And it wouldn't list at 50 grand either, which is essentially the starting price for an M3 (and on the low end of how they go out the door).

Or, conversely, what would you think if your M3 had a solid rear axle? :-(

Oh I definitely think that this is obtainable with the S197. In fact the IRS would add weight where its needed..to the rear. What Ford should do is give us the Al. block and the IRS and that would get us very close to the perfect 50/50 wieght distribution. M3's have almost a perfect 50/50 weight distribution. Even my wifes new X3 has a 50/50 weight distribution.

Never would have boughten the M3 with a live axle. Live axle is such a turnoff to Euro buyers. Like I said..alot of us M3 owners that I know of on the M3 boards came out of Cobras. 45K for a GT500 properly equipped is a super bargain . For those of you who think that this price range would put us in Vette material better rethink this. 1st off the Vette is only a 2 seater, 2nd alot of us just don't like Vettes..I never have never will. Remember I could have boughten a ZO6 in 01 and 04 cheaper than I bought my M3 for, even though the ZO6 would kick the crap out of me on the straights and the twisties..Whats even funnier is that they coudlnt' give the C5 ZO6 away..all the incentives I saw and such..it wasn't until the 5th year in its production cycle can you get a M3 under MSRP.

So the buyers are out there for this type of coupeGT. I posted this info regarding the GT 500 on the M3 forums and there was alot of interest.

Dave

 

[Dave07997S]

Ok..guys....the competition is no longer GM or Chrysler. It's the Niissans, Mitsus, and Subarus of the world.

The sooner that we (and the knuckleheads in Dearborn) realize this, the sooner Ford can get back on track to actually regaining market share.

There's a reason why Toyota is threatening to become the second biggest carmaker in the world. Why GM and Ford continue to lose marketshare. It's because we're all so worried about what GM will do.

You'd think we'd learned our lessons from the 70's.

Exactly...before the cancellation of the FBodies the SN95 Mustang was already out selling the FBody 2:1. There hasn't been any competion for the Mustang as far as GM is concerned since the mid 80's. The GT500's competion is this:

John Coletti even said so before he left. quite a few engineers that work for SVE own E46 M3's...how could they have strayed...

Dave

 

[MikeF]

Maybe I am a liitle different but I came at this in a different way than some of you guys. I went from an M3 to a Cobra. In my case the Cobra is a 2000R but it is still a Mustang. I believe that the R is superior in most ways to an M3. M3s started as a light simple car and have gotten progressively more complex and heavier. The 1st generation was a very responsive car without much grunt. It was much like an S2000, you keep the revs up to get the best from it. The 3rd gen M3 is much better than the 1st two as far as power but it is heavy and afflicted with bland styling and the German affection for overly complex electronics.
The R is a blast to drive and is a fairly simple car, no traction control or other stuff to take away the feel of driving a fast car. The R has another thing that the M3 can't hope to match, the sound coming out the pipes. The next M3 will have an 8 but it won't be the same.
I have never driven a regular Mustang or Cobra so I won't compare them to a BMW, but I will say that I will not buy a Shelby because it has a supercharger and the live axle. Ford took the cheap way out and aimed low. If there is a decently powered non-turbo IRS Mustang I will look at it very seriously but until then, no chance.
After all this, I think that Ford can and does make excellent cars with quality comparable or better than BMW but they can do much better.

 

[KevinB120]

It had a 4.6 - a variant of the Cobra engine with an electronic throttle body and somewhat diff exhaust system.

The struts were not necessary for the modular engines - they fit fine otherwise. They were necessary for the assembly line so that the engine could go in from underneath. And of course they were primarily necessary for cost - aka keeping cost out of the car. Otherwise, we would have had a modern SLA suspension instead of ye olde struts in front and a conestoga wagon suspension it the back.

BMW and Porsche use struts to name a few

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

why do people have a problem when ford uses a supercharger but no one says anything about porsche using turochargers??? it doesnt make any sence. if forced induction is the cheap way out then porsche must be going pretty cheap by using 2 turbochargers(it was originally 1 big one but they switched to 2 small ones to do away with turbo lag). and if a supercharger is the only cheap way out then why is that? why arent turbochargers considered cheap in that case? they both do the same thing, just use a different method.

and theres another good point in the post above, BMW and porsche use struts. wow, porsche must be going really cheap now. first forced induction and now struts??? yet they still run those awesome numbers.

leaf springs are considered old age yet the corvette still uses them.

whats the next thing people are gonna start complaining about, using a V-8 since its "old age"? this is getting rediculous, by the sounds of it you people are wanting this car to be the biggest flop since the mustang II.

 

[MikeF]

I for one don't want it to flop. it's just not what I want in a car. I couldn't care less what other cars have or don't have. I want a traditional American muscle car and now only the Mustang and Corvette are even close to that. I sure won't buy a Corvette because it is such a cliche, a mid-life crisis car.

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

i can respect that. but isnt the GT500 american muscle just like it used to be? unless your talking about wanting modern day american muschle. i do agree that i would like to see some things different but i could care less about if its blown or not and if a stick in the back is gonna save me some weight compared to an erector set then ill take the lighter one.

 

[Chris!]

Guys... the car is being underrated...by alot. Thats all I have to say.

 

[Joes66Pony]

Guys... the car is being underrated...by alot. Thats all I have to say.

I could care less if it's underrated or whatever. I don't care how much power I have if all it's good for is going in a straight line.

 

[Joes66Pony]

i can respect that. but isnt the GT500 american muscle just like it used to be?

That's the problem...it's no longer 1967. There are people that actually want a muscle car that can brake, trun, and ride somewhat comfortably.

 

[MikeF]

That is exactly what I have now and it is better than most of the so-called exotics but the Shelby to me is a step backward to 1967. Ford took the easy way out.

 

[Chris!]

I could care less if it's underrated or whatever. I don't care how much power I have if all it's good for is going in a straight line.

It will be far more than just a straight line car.

Ford isnt that naive.

 

[Joes66Pony]

It will be far more than just a straight line car.

Ford isnt that naive.

Hmmmm...I'll reserve judgement on that one.

Ok..so it is going to get some different suspension setting than the GT...but it will still be mainly a straight line car. The handling will be "good enough".

 

[Chris!]

Lets just put it this way, the car is being built for the driving enthuiast. Not for a drag racer or a road racer, it was built with both in mind. You will be happy.

 

[jwfisher]

Rediculous answer - and from a dealer too. Bah!

 

[Joes66Pony]

Lets just put it this way, the car is being built for the driving enthuiast. Not for a drag racer or a road racer, it was built with both in mind. You will be happy.

If it really was being built for the driving enthusiast...it would have IRS. Even with the introduction of the Mustang GT...HTT acknowledged that the live axle was added to please the drag guys.

A true modern enthusiast car (like the M3, the 350Z, et al) all have IRS. True enthusiasts cars focus on all around performance, not at just doing one thing well. With all the hoopla about car's 450+ hp....I'm thinking this is a one trick pony...with just enough handling to be acceptable.

 

[killrSVT]

That's the problem...it's no longer 1967. There are people that actually want a muscle car that can brake, trun, and ride somewhat comfortably.

Such a great point.. are we jumping in our time machine to "out do" GM in a straight line?. Does Ford realize we have foreign competition that has engineering technology that we must compliment? This is not to just appease the international market, but retain American car buying confidence.. At $40K I can buy a Lexus, Audi, BMW with so many technological advances that will produce consumer loyalty in that car, destroying the Shelby in performance and its retro-gressive technology.

 

[Chris!]

If it really was being built for the driving enthusiast...it would have IRS. Even with the introduction of the Mustang GT...HTT acknowledged that the live axle was added to please the drag guys.

A true modern enthusiast car (like the M3, the 350Z, et al) all have IRS. True enthusiasts cars focus on all around performance, not at just doing one thing well. With all the hoopla about car's 450+ hp....I'm thinking this is a one trick pony...with just enough handling to be acceptable.

I'm not here to start an argument, just letting you know what I have been told. You dont have to believe me, thats fine, completely understandable. I guess you'll just have to wait and see. But please hold your judgements as its not as set in stone as you think it is.

jwfisher- Not just a dealer, more than that.

 

[jwfisher]

That's all 99% of car dealers have: what they've been told by Ford marketeers. Almost none of them have the real-world experience it takes to tell the difference between one type of feature and another.

And it frankly makes no difference to 99% of them either. The flashy Shelby will make more of Ford's typical customers light up and come into the showroom for an F-150 than a form-follows-function car would.

The rest of us who have long ago lost patience with typically lousy Ford dealers (and products that too often show a bit of sunlight then quickly fade) will continue deserting Ford for manufacturers who build *complete* cars, not just a pantomine image.

 

[jwfisher]

That's the problem...it's no longer 1967. There are people that actually want a muscle car that can brake, trun, and ride somewhat comfortably.

Exactly right on, and to add to the other responses you've gotten on this, another big difference between now and 1967 (and I started in a '67 Mustang) is that the Feds, safety folks, environmental activists, and insurance companies are just looking for an excuse to put an end to this.

Balanced performance means a car that can turn and brake safely. It also means a car with an intelligent enough suspension to help an owner who is a poorly experience driver stay out of trouble.

A modern car - not an old canastoga wagon like a Mustang - with a modern rear suspension (with toe change and good squat and anti-lifty characteristics), good weight balance, ABS and electronic brake force distribution, excellent brakes and traction, can be an asset to a poor driver.