i cant find any info on the 5.0 they used...was it a base? 3.73?

It was a Brembo equipped GT. Not sure what the gear ratio was.

ahh ok, thnx

im guessing 3.55...maybe 3.73

That C&D article is shyt anyway.


The Z held an advantage on the Mustang in every objective statistical handling category in the comparison. It was dinged by their opinions on the car "just not being very good" (whatever that means) and having its usual, well known track failures of brakes and oil temps.

Regardless, there is still the issue of tuning and adjustability. Ford may be able to extract great handling from that solid axle, but sooner or later you will hit the glass ceiling. Independent multilink suspension offers high levels of adjustability in terms of ride height, camber, toe, etc with aftermarket parts. With a solid axle, you're stuck with what the factory offers, without much room for improvement and customization.

Well, once again we're splitting hairs about 10/10ths modified tracking of the cars.

That's ok to do as long as it benefits the z.

I haven't even seen a single post discussing ideal camber curves for the z. Got any info to share? This was an area I was really stuck on when I had it.

:facepalm:

Second part of my post obviously directed at pharmacist in case you didn't pick that up.

It doesn't really seem to hurt them much, though. The 5.0s are consistently ruling the charts in the Continental Tire series and all of the other cars there are running IRS setups.

I think partly due to advertising BS the SRA gets too much of a bad reputation. People just assume that IRS is better regardless, but let me tell you, a good solid rear axle is much better than a mediocre IRS setup (they do exist!).

I certainly don't feel left wanting when it comes to the performance of the rear end. It's very well controlled in corners, over bumps, etc. It's very well done and can be made even better with aftermarket Watts Link systems, better dampers, control arms, etc.

There definitely is plenty you can do to a solid axle setup. It's a different animal so it requires a different approach.

That said, if Ford can develop a good IRS for the next generation Mustang I will gladly welcome it. But I am not opposed to the SRA based on the fact that it's "old" and "not adjustable."

lol I did not.

Um, no, since I have yet to tamper with the stock suspension. But being able to adjust camber and toe can definitely add to cornering performance. Go to the track section of the forum. Some people have altered their suspension alignment and gotten better results. Sorry to confuse you with facts, but that's what this forum is for. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know. I'm one of the guys that's actually playing with that stuff. I have tons of logs on how the car behaves at different settings....


...and I was willing to give up that adjustabilty, because the stock settings on the mustang are far above the modded z.

this thread =

http://blogs.technet.com/cfs-filesys...9-79/wrong.jpg

Your mom goes to college.