Camaro back for 07!! GARUNTEED!!!

http://njsr.org/pics/albums/userpics/07%20Camaro%20art.jpg

old news, but thanks for posting the article

whoever wrote that article must of been reading this site. cause we've known....for years

Originally posted by number77
whoever wrote that article must of been reading this site. cause we've known....for years


Johnny Hunkins wrote the article. He used to be editor for GMHTP. He is now the editor for PHR. He has many inside sources at GM. We also have inside sources so therefore the information is somewhat of a duplicate.

Originally posted by PDCamaro318
Johnny Hunkins wrote the article. He used to be editor for GMHTP. He is now the editor for PHR. He has many inside sources at GM. We also have inside sources so therefore the information is somewhat of a duplicate.

Haha, don't get me started in that one.....

He is famous for not listening to his inside sources in the past to be honest....ala LS2 in the 02 Special Edition SS's :)

Originally posted by number77
whoever wrote that article must of been reading this site. cause we've known....for years

We've known only from very good sources. Late last year & early this year items went out for bidding, meaning solid proof.

It's one thing having people actually working on the car tell you. It's a bit more exciting when you actually have the assemblies actually going out for bids.

I still think Johnny is a year off though. I believe the Buick may be out at the end of 2005, but unless Camaro is being made on the same line (which it very well may be), it won't be out till 2007 as a 2008. Plenty of sources say otherwise, but looking at plant schedules, I just don't see it yet.

Then again, I just may be loosing my touch. ;)

I like Johnny's stuff...and he seems like a nice guy.

But the last time I remember him posting here, was when he wrote that open letter to Bob Lutz....wanting the Camaro to return on the cheapest possible platform....with a live rear axle.:( :shame: :irk:

Originally posted by Z284ever
I like Johnny's stuff...and he seems like a nice guy.

But the last time I remember him posting here, was when he wrote that open letter to Bob Lutz....wanting the Camaro to return on the cheapest possible platform....with a live rear axle.:( :shame: :irk:

With the axle hop problem on the CTSv & the GTO in some instances (even my T-bird SC occasionally had that problem on a sustained burn-out), the apparent amout of 'snap' Cobra's IRS adsorbed, and the fact that the C5's IRS couldn't outrun a Z28 on a track leads one to believe that perhaps a live axle isn't exactly a bad thing.

People talked bad about GM's devotion to pushrods for V8 engines when everyone else including Ford & Chrysler went OHC. :think:

Getting off topic at blistering speeds.... I really hope IRS is at least offered on a 5th gen. I can't see me owning another live axle car. I would be one (of very few I'm sure) that would take a hit elsewhere to have the better road manners of IRS. I'm not a drag-strip kind of person, so I don't just communicate in 1/4-mile times. I would really like to see a more rounded Camaro. More of an all-around performance coupe than just the straight-line performer it's known as now. As a matter of fact, I would hope that GM would play up it's handling and roadworthiness (yes, making up my own words now) rather than just basic performance.

Yeah, I'm a dreamer... what of it?

Originally posted by RoMaD
... I would really like to see a more rounded Camaro. More of an all-around performance coupe than just the straight-line performer it's known as now. As a matter of fact, I would hope that GM would play up it's handling and roadworthiness (yes, making up my own words now) rather than just basic performance.

Yeah, I'm a dreamer... what of it? Dreamer? You just described every Z-28 since day 1.

:D

Originally posted by RoMaD
Getting off topic at blistering speeds.... I really hope IRS is at least offered on a 5th gen. I can't see me owning another live axle car. I would be one (of very few I'm sure) that would take a hit elsewhere to have the better road manners of IRS. I'm not a drag-strip kind of person, so I don't just communicate in 1/4-mile times. I would really like to see a more rounded Camaro. More of an all-around performance coupe than just the straight-line performer it's known as now. As a matter of fact, I would hope that GM would play up it's handling and roadworthiness (yes, making up my own words now) rather than just basic performance.

Yeah, I'm a dreamer... what of it?

Since 82, the Camaro has been made to be an all around performer not to mention the Z28's of the first and 2nd gens.

Originally posted by RoMaD
Getting off topic at blistering speeds.... I really hope IRS is at least offered on a 5th gen. I can't see me owning another live axle car.
You've got your wish.
A live rear was never seriously considered for the 5th gen.

Originally posted by Big Als Z
Since 82, the Camaro has been made to be an all around performer not to mention the Z28's of the first and 2nd gens.

In 1982, the Z/28 was being called "The American Ferrari"....by people like Dick Gulstrand and Car and Driver Magazine.

I hope the 5th gen can have such an impact.

Originally posted by Z284ever
In 1982, the Z/28 was being called "The American Ferrari"....by people like Dick Gulstrand and Car and Driver Magazine.

I hope the 5th gen can have such an impact.

Really? That's good to know, my '86 was a poor man's ferrari :p

Originally posted by NJSPEEDER24
Really? That's good to know, my '86 was a poor man's ferrari :p

hehehhe...very poor. :D :cool:

Originally posted by guionM
With the axle hop problem on the CTSv & the GTO in some instances (even my T-bird SC occasionally had that problem on a sustained burn-out), the apparent amout of 'snap' Cobra's IRS adsorbed, and the fact that the C5's IRS couldn't outrun a Z28 on a track leads one to believe that perhaps a live axle isn't exactly a bad thing.

People talked bad about GM's devotion to pushrods for V8 engines when everyone else including Ford & Chrysler went OHC. :think:
you guys are missing the point. if GM is to project on to the market that it's making progress and deserves the buyer's attention, IRS is paramount. most people who buy a car never take it to the track. what's more important is the interior, fit and finish, durability, and RIDE-QUALITY. it would take something really special to make a live-axle have as smooth a ride quality as an IRS. also, re: axle hop, GM's problems with their IRS are out of the norm, they're doing something wrong. on the other hand, you pretty much expect axle hop with a live-axle. meh.

this IRS better be optional... its by far the better choice for a daily-driver and even the occasional road racer. However, I didnt buy my car for the luxury, and I dont want wheel hop and/or a higher price, so give me the live axle with a 4.10 please

I would also prefer live-axle over IRS. I don't take 20MPH corners at 50 because it's stupid, with or without IRS.

Sign me up for a live axle with 4.10's and a 6-Speed.

Once package protected for a live rear axle, a vehicle loses all kinds of advantages if it maintains an IRS.

That high shelf in the hatch area of a 4th gen is a direct result of having a live axle, an IRS wouldn't need such an intrusive design. The other thing an IRS will allow is moving back the rear seats a little bit... which Buick will demand.

The magic will be maintaining the car as a Camaro (or whatever it ends up being called) while fighting off Buick's urges to turn it into a barge, relatively speaking...

That seems to be a mission for Marketing, so I imagine mighty arm-wrestling contests are underway as we speak... as Camaro enthusiasts, we can only hope that Chevrolet Marketing has enough steam behind their position to ensure that their car is packaged the way that is most advantageous for their market (2+2), while Buick can worry about making a true 4-seater... and hence a bigger, heavier car that would be intended to compete with BMW.

Live axle + Buick = non-starter. Don't even think about it. Concurrently, I wouldn't waste my time as Chevrolet Marketing even considering it. There are other, more important, battles to fight, and the IRS is an important selling point to move the car away from it's "dinosaur/barbarian" persona.

To be honest, I'd avoid anything that even smells like a 10-bolt at all costs and take a robust IRS in a heartbeat...

... notice that I used the word "robust".

No grenading half-shafts....

While I'm hijacking this thread... I'll continue...

My suggestion would be this...

Build a GTO mule with the proposed axle system and about 100hp more than the target for the production vehicle and a manual transmission, find a few generally abusive drivers (like... ummm.... ME!), give them a set of normal street tires and a set of drag slicks, and turn them loose with the edict to do everything they can to destroy the drivetrain (not the motor).

Find the failure modes and then progressively eliminate them through develoment.

At all costs I would avoid the fragility of the 4th gen drivetrain... weak clutch, poor clutch hydraulics, weak driveshaft, weak live axle...

The specifications as written were not catching the failures before they happen, particularly with the T-56 and clutch system. I think EVERYONE knew the 10 bolt was marginal at best. The 4th gen driveshaft is also puzzling... did anyone TRY to destroy one? Any launch at stock power levels on a true slick had a good chance of blowing something apart. The specifications should be written such that the drivetrain can survive greater than normal power launches (that's why you want the added 100hp...) on a drag slick REPEATEDLY without failure.

Originally posted by PacerX
My suggestion would be this...

Build a GTO mule with the proposed axle system and about 100hp more than the target for the production vehicle and a manual transmission, find a few generally abusive drivers (like... ummm.... ME!), give them a set of normal street tires and a set of drag slicks, and turn them loose with the edict to do everything they can to destroy the drivetrain (not the motor).

Find the failure modes and then progressively eliminate them through develoment.

At all costs I would avoid the fragility of the 4th gen drivetrain... weak clutch, poor clutch hydraulics, weak driveshaft, weak live axle...

The specifications as written were not catching the failures before they happen, particularly with the T-56 and clutch system. I think EVERYONE knew the 10 bolt was marginal at best. The 4th gen driveshaft is also puzzling... did anyone TRY to destroy one? Any launch at stock power levels on a true slick had a good chance of blowing something apart. The specifications should be written such that the drivetrain can survive greater than normal power launches (that's why you want the added 100hp...) on a drag slick REPEATEDLY without failure.

AMEN! It saddens me that I am scared to launch my LS1 equipped F-body. It is also disheartening that I can run 108mph trap speeds (off the bottle) and it's all for naught because of a poor sixty time.

Originally posted by PacerX
The magic will be maintaining the car as a Camaro (or whatever it ends up being called) while fighting off Buick's urges to turn it into a barge, relatively speaking...

That seems to be a mission for Marketing, so I imagine mighty arm-wrestling contests are underway as we speak... as Camaro enthusiasts, we can only hope that Chevrolet Marketing has enough steam behind their position to ensure that their car is packaged the way that is most advantageous for their market (2+2), while Buick can worry about making a true 4-seater... and hence a bigger, heavier car that would be intended to compete with BMW.



Wouldn't it be better for Buick to use a a "GTO sized" car rather than a "Camaro sized" car?

Or is the "GTO sized" car as small as it's going to get?

Zeta can be moved to fit many different sizes. What gets me is that how many coupes can you fit on to one chassis?
I also agree with IRS and not live axle. This is a deffinate move in the right direction, untill one of us wants to put in a set of 4.10's and we find out how much it is to install them:D . There are pros and cons to the IRS debate, but I think over all the IRS system wins out. It would be too expensive to redesign a rear subframe for a live axle and to have that produced along side the IRS cars.

Originally posted by Big Als Z
There are pros and cons to the IRS debate
There are indeed pros and cons to the IRS... which is why it should be optional. If its going to be expensive to modify zeta, well then make the live axle the more expensive option, even if its a simpler design. If the live axle were an additional cost option, I wouldnt be happy about it, but I probably would still fork out the extra cash to have it (assuming its not a 7.5" 10 bolt :rolleyes: )

I think the IRS should be an available option. Pony cars were made for tran am racing , not drag racing, but things have changed. It would be nice if maybe they had a drag and twistie version with different suspension set ups, different rear ends, different rear and tranny gearing. As for the CTSV's wheel hop. It does not effect 60ft times if you learn how to launch the car right and having IRS in the street enables me to take hard turns on bad roads and not have the ass end kick out on me. I don't think I could ever go back to a live axle.

Originally posted by JoeliusZ28
If the live axle were an additional cost option, I wouldnt be happy about it, but I probably would still fork out the extra cash to have it (assuming its not a 7.5" 10 bolt :rolleyes: )
you think GM is going to pop out a brand new rear end (car cirtified) just to put it in as a premium cost option in one car (where the hell else would they put it? not Buick, not Caddy, not Pontiac. oh, maybe a Saturn :rolleyes: )? the 7.5 is EXACTLY what you'd be getting.

you think GM is going to pop out a brand new rear end (car cirtified) just to put it in as a premium cost option in one car (where the hell else would they put it? not Buick, not Caddy, not Pontiac. oh, maybe a Saturn )? the 7.5 is EXACTLY what you'd be getting.

Lets see, first Buick is getting a sports car, Caddy has a bunch now, Gee, maybe the newly designed GTO could use one.......GM isn't going to put the usual 7.5 in a 400hp car. Glad you thought that one out though.;)

Originally posted by GN1270
Lets see, first Buick is getting a sports car, Caddy has a bunch now, Gee, maybe the newly designed GTO could use one.......GM isn't going to put the usual 7.5 in a 400hp car. Glad you thought that one out though.;)

Once again, I'll repeat:

THE PROBLEM WITH A LIVE AXLE IS WITH PACKAGING.

Package protecting for a live axle WASTES SPACE if you're going to end up using an IRS for the majority of cars.

Forget it. Ain't gonna happen.

GM should reverse engineer an architecture to accept a totally new solid rear axle...whose only advantages will be seen by people who drag race (an activity that voids most warrenties)?


Think like a business owner.....what would you do?

The Mustang has a rear axle because it would be in the majority of Mustangs made. As much as Ford clamors bout how they "listened to enthusiasts"....trust me, the hundreds of dollars in peice costs talked much louder.

Only way a Solid rear would make sense would be in GM designed Zeta from the start to accept both...last I heard...that was not the plan.

Problem is the solid rear axle is already fully developed. THe LCA/tq arm/Panhard bar arrangement is basically the highest evolution you can get to for a street driven live rear axle car. YOu could go to some kind of ladder bar arrangement but it would be beneficial only at the drag strip and would probably handle like garbage in the twisites.

Originally posted by formula79
Only way a Solid rear would make sense would be in GM designed Zeta from the start to accept both...last I heard...that was not the plan.
ford did it with the mustang by putting IRS in the cobra... and that is a car that by no means handles well:rolleyes:

Originally posted by JoeliusZ28
ford did it with the mustang by putting IRS in the cobra... and that is a car that by no means handles well:rolleyes:

Half assed solutions lead to half assed results:D

Originally posted by formula79
Half assed solutions lead to half assed results:D
thats true, they shouldve stuck with the live axle :p

All this hand wringing over IRS.

Look, if its designed right, its just as effective at the strip as a live axle.

Cobra: Bad design...crappy at the track
C5: Great design

Last year I saw Total Engine Airflow's C5 cut sub 1.5 sec 60fts on their way to a 10.10 ET on a car with a totally stock IRS except for some poly bushings. That's stock springs and shocks, no airbags or anything. Granted it was on ET streets but still, its a robust setup that can hook in the right situations with minimal squat. No reason the Zeta IRS can't be made to do the same thing, then everybody's happy because we haven't sacrificed refinement and ride quality and reduced a very modern car to 1950's technology by slapping in a rear suspension meant for trucks JUST to please the drag racers.