|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=36753 |
|
| Comments: 42 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 11-12-2004
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Photoshop/Art |
Photoshop of: 31692
|
Description:
I was just wondering, what if Mercury got a rebadged version of the new Ford Mustang...what would it look like?
My apologies to Lemming for mutilating his work. :( |
Showing page: 2 of 3
[ 1 2 3 ]
 |
| #24 |
12-13-2004 @ 11:46:33 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
If you look at the original celshaded image, you can see that I did indeed use complete ovals for all of the headlights/driving lights; it's just that some of them have shadows and other stuff.
edit: although I notice that I clipped the tops on the actual headlights. Either that was a lighting thing or it was actually how they appeared to be shaped in the original image. *shrug*
[Edited by Lemming on 12-13-2004 @ 11:47:52 AM]
|
|
| #25 |
12-13-2004 @ 11:47:20 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#20, 2005 Mustang GT: 64 mph in the slalom, .84 gs on the skidpad.
2003 Nissan 350Z Track: 65 mph in the slalom, .89 gs on the skidpad.
Source: Road and Track, which only had numbers for the '03 350Z track model. But, AFAIK, there haven't been any changes in performance in intervening years. Also, keep in mind this data is for the top-level track model of the car, which goes for $35,000, more than $10,000 more than the Mustang GT.
R&T didn't have numbers for the base 350Z, which is only one or two thousand higher than the 'stang, but given the lack of the track model's 18x8" wheels, high performance tires, vehicle dynamic control, LSD, and arguably its traction control, it wouldn't handle on the same level as the track model.
Apparently I was mistaken in my impression, but it doesn't change my point much: The Mustang handles about as well as a 350Z, even with its "outdated" live rear axle, and is cheaper.
|
|
| #26 |
12-13-2004 @ 11:48:53 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
At least they ditched the sloppy 4-link setup.
|
|
| #27 |
12-13-2004 @ 11:51:28 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Have 3-links ever been commonly used? I'm looking a diagram right now, and it looks pretty fresh to me.
|
|
| #28 |
12-13-2004 @ 11:52:58 AM |
| Posted By : kstagger |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Leaf springs forever! (remembering his 1st gen firebird)
|
|
| #29 |
12-13-2004 @ 11:58:54 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#27, I think that style of suspension originally dates back to some vintage Jaguars. At any rate, it's not that complicated, but it's an inherently better handling setup than a 4-link; there are fewer bushings that can bind, and forces are handled by "dedicated" components.
In a 4-link setup, the upper control arms must control axle windup, and the control arms must all work together to locate the axle laterally while cornering.
In a modified 3-link setup with a Panhard bar, the control arms simply control axle rotation and the Panhard bar provides lateral location.
IIRC, Camaros from the third generation onwards used a similar setup, but with a torque arm to control axle windup (rather than a third link).
|
|
| #30 |
12-13-2004 @ 12:03:34 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
The simplicity of it is one of the things that I find interesting. I had never seen a three link suspension prior to now (well, except for my Camaro, but I always thought it was a four link for some reason).
I should probably build up my suspension knowledge a bit, though. Up until about three years ago, I always thought MacPherson was a brand name of strut. :P
[Edited by Skid on 12-13-2004 @ 12:05:20 PM]
|
|
| #31 |
12-13-2004 @ 12:07:23 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
In the long run, I want to use a dedicated axle location device (either a Panhard bar or a Watts link; both have been adapted for use on Mustangs although the Panhard bar is an easier fit). I haven't decided whether I want to just keep the upper control arms, switch to a three-link (yes, they do make them for SN95s now) or install a torque arm.
|
|
| #34 |
5-01-2005 @ 03:26:20 AM |
| Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#25, every 350z has the same suspension...the track just has a chin spoiler and lightweight rims...plus good handling isnt just skidpad ratings, the car also has to feel settled and easy to control, which isn't the best trait of a soild axle in a bumpy corner
[Edited by ambientFLIER on 5-01-2005 @ 03:29:17 AM]
|
|
| #35 |
5-02-2005 @ 11:34:38 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#34, The track model has everything I listed in #25. And you're right, it's not just skidpad ratings. The best measure of handling numbers is a combination of skidpad and slalom, both of which I posted.
|
|
| #36 |
5-02-2005 @ 11:36:38 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
There are other aspects of handling which are difficult to set into numbers.
|
|
| #37 |
5-02-2005 @ 11:38:00 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#36, Hence my specific reference to "handling numbers". The rest of it is pretty subjective, and depends a lot on the driving style and preferences of whoever's behind the wheel.
|
|
| #38 |
5-02-2005 @ 11:43:43 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
May be true, but he actually does have a point regarding the overall usability of even a heavily modified live axle setup. There is a lot of unsprung weight being slung around back there (the axle alone easily weighs over 100 lbs), and although the car may do well on a nice flat smooth skidpad or slalom course, that doesn't say much about real-world usability. On bumpy surfaces and other "real world" conditions, the margin between the 350Z's handling and the Mustang's handling is only going to get larger. I'm not saying that Ford's chassis engineers have done a poor job engineering the Mustang's rear suspension. Far from it. However, there are some compromises that are inherent in any suspension design, just like how many IRS setups are poor for drag because they gain camber too quickly under weight transfer.
|
|
| #39 |
5-02-2005 @ 11:47:44 AM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Well I've never said solid rear axles are perfect. They're just my favorite. :)
There are trade-offs in either design, and IRS is the more reasonable setup for the majority of sports cars. I just think that for a car like the Mustang, the combination of simplicity and superior drag strip performance when combined with the best handling they can wring out of it is a superior setup.
|
|
| #40 |
5-02-2005 @ 11:53:03 AM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
They've done a very good job within those parameters. Personally, I wish they'd offer a version with an IRS, though (as with the previous Cobras) simply because there are some applications in which an IRS is a more usable setup.
I'm rather conflicted about what I should do with my own car as far as this goes. There are at least three different ways I can completely change the geometry of my 8.8 solid axle to improve grip and handling*. However, none of these are cheap, and certainly not a great bargain compared to the overall expense of a Cobra takeoff IRS. Considering that my car will never see dragstrip use...
*1)Three-link 2)Five-link 3)Two-link and torque arm
[Edited by Lemming on 5-02-2005 @ 11:56:08 AM]
|
Showing page: 2 of 3
[ 1 2 3 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
