- 41,183
Because they weren't very reliable, mostly. And until computers became so engrained in automobiles like they are today, they were far more complex to implement.I always wondered why they weren't more popular.
Because they weren't very reliable, mostly. And until computers became so engrained in automobiles like they are today, they were far more complex to implement.I always wondered why they weren't more popular.
Chalk this up to potential old-person-crazy-talk, but when I mentioned how the '10+ Mustangs have sequentials to my dad (in an effort to sway his planned purchase of a sports car of that class in 2 years), he mentioned that an older muscle car back in the 60's or 70's had it too. I always wondered why they weren't more popular.
On a similar note, BMW experimented with brake lights that changed their intensity depending on pedal pressure. While I see the problem there (braking lightly would hardly illuminate anything), tweaking the formula could work. Using the Mustang's taillights as an example, light braking uses one bar; medium, two; full on emergency stop uses three?
What's wrong the 5.0 ND4SPD? And if you're selling, depending on price, dibs!
Because they weren't very reliable, mostly. And until computers became so engrained in automobiles like they are today, they were far more complex to implement.
So you want a 99-04? Hmm pick the Cobra with Independent rear suspension. Supercharge it and you will have great sports car.
I still cant believe the 2011 models still have a live axle in the rear, if it had independent it could be the greatest sports car of this generation! Ford should make an OPTION for independent suspension, even if it was 2-4 K more, people would gladly buy it!
Depends on just how good it is. I'm not sure what the Mustang's using back there, personally, I feel the 4-link is the best setup, but I'm sure some people rather the panhard bar setup, but it don't matter much...Ford hath wrought a damn good LRA setup.
The main advantage to a LRA is the ability to handle lots of torque suddenly without frying CV joints. It's also lighter when properly made, EXTREMELY durable (hence one reason Monster trucks haven't moved to independent suspension, the other that there's no independent Planetary setup) and easier to maintain. It's why the drag racers have held onto it so fervently...They don't seem to know how to make IRS work for them. I think, with the Terminator, Holdiacs, and new Charger, they figured it out somewhat, but a lot of guys running 1000+hp will switch it back to a hugely overbuilt solid rear end. Usually a Ford 9".
On the other hand, there's the road course guys. We won't get into offroad (where I think Independent suspension holds the biggest advantage over solid axles,) but on the road course, the big advantage is on a rough surface. You see, when one tire hits a bump with a LRA setup, it changes the camber angle of both tires, and can also cause the entire axle jump a bit, which makes traction hard to find, even with a limited slip diff. Not to mention, the whole system is unsprung weight, while in an IRS system doesn't have the pumpkin, and the halfshafts and control arms are all partially supported.
However, when dealing with massive power and torque, the CV joints become weak points. Regulations aside, it becomes cheaper with LRA to build an 800+hp tube-frame road or circle-track racer. I'm not saying it's impossible - F1 handled over 1200HP in the '80s, but it's a lot more expensive to develop halfshafts and IRS diffs for road race cars. The other thing is that camber angle on an independently suspended car is dependent on body lean, while LRA systems are independent of the body. I think there's even cambered rear ends nowadays. However, an LRA setup typically has no camber, and it can't be adjusted without removing the entire axle and replacing it. Personally, I think the body lean issue is minimal, since road race cars have so little suspension travel, anyway. It'd only be a disadvantage in an application with lots of lean, like a trophy truck or buggy.
That being said, there are now kits on the market that allow hot rod builders to run IRS setups based around the Ford 9", but they're pricey. Looking one up, it'll run you about $4,500 U.S. complete.
Photoshop one up so we can see what it would look like. I bet it would look ok.
You can't do sequential turn signals with only 2 lights!If anything, though, if ambers are needed, two of the four reverse lights can be sacrificed.
Who said anything about sequential ambers? Vaughn gittins drift car has the outside reverse lights converted to ambersYou can't do sequential turn signals with only 2 lights!
When I first saw the sequential tail lights on the new Mustang, I thought it was an aftermarket mod. They do look sweet!
Pretty nifty, but also a bit weird to see in person.
The redline is clearly at 8000, not 9. Whoever wrote that article probably thinks their Camry can go 150 just because that's where the speedometer ends.A 9,000 rpm, twin turbo, Mustang? Ya I'll chime in. That's full of huge amounts of win. I hope they drop the V8 program (or just leave it for the GT500) and make this thing a beast.
7500. The reasons they think it may be a smaller turbo engine is because of the higher redline and requirement for premium gas. If the Mustang is going to get any new engines, I think an Ecoboost 4 replacing the V6 makes the most sense.How high did that Boss engine rev?
The redline is clearly at 8000, not 9. Whoever wrote that article probably thinks their Camry can go 150 just because that's where the speedometer ends.