Why Irs?!?!?
12-09-2005, 05:23 PM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 248
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
Originally Posted by JoeliusZ28
my eagle F1's dont hop at all 
niether did my comp t/a's - fully stock suspension.
niether did my comp t/a's - fully stock suspension.My Eagle F1's (04 Cobra) hopped alot. A big improvment from the 01 Cobra though. Which the 01 was a tad bit worse with wheel hop. Both ride GREAT though.
12-09-2005, 05:49 PM
#77
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,252
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
Originally Posted by notgetleft
Costs money to go fast, but i don't have ot tell you that.
FWIW, there are ford 9" center sections available for the GTO rear if you want easy bolt in bullet proof. There are also now people moving to live axle as they push into the 9s, i think they might be using a kit/parts from Oz. So even though the rear frame wasn't designed for it, apparently it doesn't necessarily need to be a full custom job to do such a thing either. And especially if their is a RWD muscle sedan on the same chassis, within a couple years such kits might even be relatively cost effective.
Of course if it will suck if there is an unimproved CTSv diff in it that needs help just holding stock power. just like the previous fbody, inexcusable to have to spend a couple K off the showroom floor to go racing. If it's solid into the 11s/10s (well at least with upgraded half-shafts and stubs) like the GTO though, IMO it's going to be no skin of the back of 98% of people who will actually race their car, let alone 99.9992% of buyers in general.
FWIW, there are ford 9" center sections available for the GTO rear if you want easy bolt in bullet proof. There are also now people moving to live axle as they push into the 9s, i think they might be using a kit/parts from Oz. So even though the rear frame wasn't designed for it, apparently it doesn't necessarily need to be a full custom job to do such a thing either. And especially if their is a RWD muscle sedan on the same chassis, within a couple years such kits might even be relatively cost effective.
Of course if it will suck if there is an unimproved CTSv diff in it that needs help just holding stock power. just like the previous fbody, inexcusable to have to spend a couple K off the showroom floor to go racing. If it's solid into the 11s/10s (well at least with upgraded half-shafts and stubs) like the GTO though, IMO it's going to be no skin of the back of 98% of people who will actually race their car, let alone 99.9992% of buyers in general.
12-09-2005, 05:53 PM
#78
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,576
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
You're right, it does. But what is wrong with discussing it anyway? The car doesn't even exist yet - but we've been discussing it for years, correct?
12-09-2005, 06:16 PM
#79
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 3,463
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
IRS, Why because this Camaro has to compete with more than the Mustang and Charger/Challenger this is a global auto market now. GM also isn't the same company it was in 2002, or 1993 when the 4th gen was in service. I know lots of enthusiasts want Solid axle, but not just any one that will handle the power and drag racing potential the 5th Gen Camaro will have. But money needs to be made on this car and instead of using the cheapest and least equiped GM chose (will choose) to use better than needed equipment that it can sell head to head with competitors from Dearborn, Auburn Hills, and abroad. These are street cars first and foremost. If you want to drag race and be anything more serious than some steet playing buy a solid rear axle or get a cheap older race ready car and have at it.
12-09-2005, 06:28 PM
#80
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,252
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
Originally Posted by CLEAN
All of our discussions were about which one should it have. That question is now answered. If you want to continue to debate it, go ahead, but it's moot now.
12-09-2005, 07:26 PM
#82
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hemet, CA
Posts: 1,751
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
Originally Posted by stars1010
I'm not a NEWBIE
I've been in this forum posting nearly everyday for the past 5 years
I've been in this forum posting nearly everyday for the past 5 years
I'm posting a lot more now, sue me.
12-10-2005, 03:26 PM
#83
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
Originally Posted by NikiVee
IMHO a solid axle in 2009 for a performance car is just outdated period.
12-10-2005, 04:59 PM
#84
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,028
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
the first DOHC engine was made in 1912.. it's basically just as old as a pushrod engine..
by contrast.. IRS is probably around 50 years old compared to the solid axle which as been around for more than twice that long
by contrast.. IRS is probably around 50 years old compared to the solid axle which as been around for more than twice that long
12-10-2005, 05:06 PM
#85
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Exton, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,011
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
Originally Posted by FS3800
the first DOHC engine was made in 1912.. it's basically just as old as a pushrod engine..
by contrast.. IRS is probably around 50 years old compared to the solid axle which as been around for more than twice that long
by contrast.. IRS is probably around 50 years old compared to the solid axle which as been around for more than twice that long
12-10-2005, 06:00 PM
#86
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
IMO my impression after looking at the pic and seeing the chassis is, GM wants a nice ride, but also more space in the car, somebody pointed out that an IRS allows more interior space (maybe moot with the front-rear drive) and given the shape of the backlight and roof, they might want to fit 4 people in the car rather than have a vestigel rear seat like the mustang which has more in common with a McLaren F1 when it comes to passengers.
12-10-2005, 06:09 PM
#87
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Re: Why Irs?!?!?
Originally Posted by RussStang
Although you may be correct, it is the perception of the public that matters. Pushrods are generally looked at as old tech, and inferior, as are solid axles.
Sadly this is true, a 2 valve pushrod motor has some nice packaging features and does a good job of managing air and fuel mixture without having to resort to crap like port shutters or the like. The only place they really lose out is with valve motion and maybe port alignment. OHC engines have more potential when it comes to aggressive cam profiles, but IMO that advantage is transparent or non-exsistant in a production (read; not a racing engine) engine.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Joe K. 96 Zeee!!
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
6
01-26-2004 12:59 PM
unvc92camarors
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
9
10-29-2003 03:19 PM
Z284ever
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
64
01-23-2003 03:00 PM