The DBK said:I wasn't asking for your driving history. You could be Michael Schumacher, but if you haven't driven the particular car, you have no frame of reference. That was my point.
I HAVE driven it, several hundred miles. It doesn't suck, but it is very poor and dissappointing. It is one of several cost-cutting aspects of the car, and certainly the worst of them.
This rear suspension is not a best effort job by the company. You won't see it's engineers talking about their pride in it's design - knowing it's the best thing they could have done. There isn't any pride in a task done to the lowest price point. This is not a highlight of their engineering careers. This is not something that can be presented at SAE. This is not something that further's one own engineering skills. Nor is it somehting that one can take to another company or even another department in the same company and leverage for a career move.
And I as a potential consumer, I won't be discussing the suspension with pride of ownership at car meetings. There aren't any features to brag about. I won't be inviting people to look underneath the car at a suspension that is about as interesting (and dated) as a cast-iron pushrod engine would be. I won't be comparing my car to the one parked next to it at a sports car show because that other car doesn't have pig iron parts underneath the back end.
As an owner of 14 FOX and SN95 Mustangs (4 STVs), I do not buy into their weak arguement. I know a lessor effort when I see one. And the amount of ostentatious flash on this car troubles me... this is not the SVT philosophy. It's more of an SRT type effort, minus the sophisticated suspension underneath.