Quote:
Originally Posted by /Angelo350Z/
Why is that? Because ultimately the new GT keeps up with an M3 on a track?
Just curious what your opinion is.
|
Because it hasn't really hindered performance, and contrary to what most believe live axles are not always inferior to a independent setup.
Here's a bit of what Billy Johnson had to say on the matter over on S2KI. Billy races the Roush Mustang in the Continental Tire series and has also done some NASCAR road racing.
Quote:
|
It's been said that the recent 'purist' viewpoint/train of thought has shifted the generally accepted consensus that IRS (Independent Rear Suspension) is superior to stick-axles when it is not necessarily true. While the camber gain and bumpsteer of IRS can edge out a stick-axle in peak mid-corner grip, it can become a disadvantage on entry and especially exit of corners. "The fastest accelerating cars in the world have stick-axles". By maintaining an even rear platform, stick-axles have inherent advantages that at the end of the day, can be as good if not better than an IRS. In many cases its harder to make an IRS work better than a stick-axle, pending rules of the series, which stick-axle design you are looking at, etc... But at the end of the day, in CTSCC, a ~stock geometry Mustang out handles and comes out of corners better than the E92 M3 but currently due to rules, the M3 outbrakes and has more power to out accelerate the Mustang on the top end.
|
Ultimately you end up having to move to a IRS setup on a street car (next gen Mustang is going to be IRS), but not necessarily for performance reasons. For one, you don't have to design a chassis with a big ole hump in the back to fit the rear axle. This gives you more efficient use of space and would actually make the rear seats of the Mustang useful.
There are more reasons we could get into, but the bottom line is as far as performance goes, the solid axle is not the crutch that most like to say it is.