5th gen with both IRS and live rear axle.

All this hunting down future Mustang facts and rumors has me thinking.......


Rumors are that Ford is considering making a live rear axle available on some future Mustang models. Perhaps;....as some of the brainstorming goes;....the base car would have a live rear to keep base price below $20K. Also, it may be available (or standard), on a V8 model to keep drag racers happy.

Would an available live rear axle be appropriate on some model of the next Camaro? Personally, I may have some anxiety over this. Camaro, finally, at long last, really needs a modern chassis, which includes a good IRS. Not just for better vehicle dynamics but to raise the bar on the Camaro's image.

While my preference would overwhelmingly be for a modern IRS....I wonder if engineering a live rear axle for some Camaro models would be useful.

If for no other reason, it would help differentiate Camaro SS (live rear axle), from Z/28 (IRS).

What do you guys think?

As long as the axle is a twelve bolt, I'd love the option of choosing between them.:D

I could definitely see a V6/solid axle and a V8/IRS. Only problem is that I seriously cannot imagine GM offering both options, with their cookie-cutter tendencies to their own detriment I might add. Exclusive IRS on all models seems more likely for a 5th gen if it ever happens

i think there outta be a option package with the IRS available, but the live axle standard on most models
i could care less about a damn IRS, personally
maybe they outta make the Z28, like the original......the performance package that handled, with the IRS, 1LE type suspension
and make the SS, the standard "drag racer" with the live axle

Just because Mustang does it does not mean Camaro should. Camaro should be a leader, not a follower. Short/long arm IRS on all models.

Quite frankly if the IRS is engineered right ala Corvette there is no need for a solid axle for drag racing. Mustang guys complain about the Cobra's drag racing characteristics because its IRS is quite poor from what I understand.

Originally posted by cmc
Just because Mustang does it does not mean Camaro should. Camaro should be a leader, not a follower. Short/long arm IRS on all models.

That would really sit well with die-hard drag racers... :rolleyes:

Nothing like having to lay out a couple extra grand for an IRS that you get to dump outside the back door of your garage and replace with an $800 live rear end, huh?

Or I guess you could just stiffen everything else up on the car and go down the strip listing 15-degrees to the right... ;)

Again... options and choices let a person get EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT, and are willing to pay for. If a guy wants to drag a Camaro, he should be able to get a beefy live axle for his car, IMO. IRS should definitely be available for those who want better everyday ride or want to try autocross, but I think it should not be mandatory.

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Quite frankly if the IRS is engineered right ala Corvette there is no need for a solid axle for drag racing. Mustang guys complain about the Cobra's drag racing characteristics because its IRS is quite poor from what I understand.

The IRS used on cars until '02 did not perform as well as had been hoped for in general. First attempt, shared parts, and shoe-horn fitting cost in the end. The new blade IRS (developed in OZ I beleive) is going into the new '03 Cobra and is designed FOR this application. It is getting rave reviews, and is quite a bit lighter than it's predecessor too. Ford has invested quite a bit on IRS in the last few years... it is now making it into the Explorer, Mustang, as well as some of the Linc/Merc luxury models. I think we'll see it more and more as it gets cheaper to produce and lighter.

As far as drag racing goes... I have to agree with you that it CAN be done so as to work in most drag applications. BUT - if you are the average Joe and don't have thousands to spend on your rear set-up, you can't come close to the performance and modification capability of a live axle. Adding traction bars, ladder bars, stiffeners, coil-overs, etc. to a live rear is very easy and the parts are all available... have been for years now. IRS is MUCH harder to tune or modify to withstand a rear-tire-stand type of hard launch. It boils down to $, how much you wanna put in a rear-end to go try and tear up every weekend? And how much $ you wanna spend repairing/modifying it?

U-joints can take a whole lot of abuse, but give me the solid axle for twisting +500 hp consistently. :D

I could see the place for the option, but I doubt it would be cost effective...

Plus, It's just time for Camaro to step up to IRS, IMO.

AND... as, Z28Wilson said, if the IRS is done right, like Corvette, there really isn't much need for the solid axle...

Yeah, I don't hear anyone complaining about any launch issues with the new '03 Cobra IRS, as opposed to the more compromised IRS on the'99/'01 Cobra.

From my perspective, IRS offers so many advantages over a solid axle..especially in a car like Camaro. Sure it costs alittle more and may in some cases be marginally heavier ( unless lighter materials are used), but it is far superior to a live rear end in most other areas of ride and handling.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Yeah, I don't hear anyone complaining about any launch issues with the new '03 Cobra IRS, as opposed to the more compromised IRS on the'99/'01 Cobra.

From my perspective, IRS offers so many advantages over a solid axle..especially in a car like Camaro. Sure it costs alittle more and may in some cases be marginally heavier ( unless lighter materials are used), but it is far superior to a live rear end in most other areas of ride and handling.

When you mention ride , and I think this is where sales will benefit most from IRS...

You can retain great handling, while taking the potholes and cruddy roads a lot easier on your spine... you dont get jostled all around the car, and have it bouncing around the road...

This is what most average buyers will love....

Since FWD cars have become commonplace, the average customer has come to expect a good car to handle the bumps in the road like an IRS setup can.

Plus, with the cockpit being knocked around less harshly, you'd think less squeaks and rattles would develop over time... built-in bonus!

Originally posted by ProudPony
The new blade IRS (developed in OZ I beleive) is going into the new '03 Cobra and is designed FOR this application. It is getting rave reviews, and is quite a bit lighter than it's predecessor too.

I knew the reasons behind the complaints about the IRS on previous Cobras, but if the '03 Cobra's IRS is vastly improved you've helped to prove my point. Sure a solid axle will always be ideal for weight/cost savings and probably is the better drag setup but I'd say the vast majority of Mustang and F-body owners would prefer the characteristics of an IRS. Again, I don't see Corvette enthusiasts complain about drag racing in their cars. C5 may be a more sophisticated setup I'll give you that but I think GM could come up with something similar at a reasonable cost to us.

One thing I need to throw in, being the killjoy I am at times.

Until the C5 got active suspension, the solid axle Camaro Z28 actually OUTHANDLED the IRS Corvette on the track.

Also, John Coletti (Ford's SVT boss) has a history in drag racing, so (though I haven't heard anything outside the magazines) if Mustang does come with 2 suspension setups, I'm sure he probally had a influence in it (ie: Mach1)

Originally posted by guionM
Until the C5 got active suspension, the solid axle Camaro Z28 actually OUTHANDLED the IRS Corvette on the track.


True, but a smooth track is much different than most real-world situations. As few people as there are that actually go to a drag strip and race their cars I'm willing to bet that just a fraction of those few actually go autocrossing...

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
I'm willing to bet that just a fraction of those few actually go autocrossing...

Most autoX courses are on parking lots with lots of bumps (as is the real world). Enter one and you will invariably be tasked as a corner worker for a portion of the day. This really gives you the chance to see different car types "up close and personal" going around the same course at 10/10ths.

I can tell you first hand that the solid rear cars have far more drama going around than ones with IRS...especially with mid corner bumps.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Most autoX courses are on parking lots with lots of bumps (as is the real world). Enter one and you will invariably be tasked as a corner worker for a portion of the day. This really gives you the chance to see different car types "up close and personal" going around the same course at 10/10ths.

I can tell you first hand that the solid rear cars have far more drama going around than ones with IRS...especially with mid corner bumps.
PS

If you like a good workout.....volunteer for the heat that consists of the F-body and Mustang classes.....you'll be chasing plenty of knocked over cones.

Originally posted by ProudPony
That would really sit well with die-hard drag racers... :rolleyes:

Nothing like having to lay out a couple extra grand for an IRS that you get to dump outside the back door of your garage and replace with an $800 live rear end, huh?

I'll buy it off you. I've always wanted IRS on my third gen. What's your price? ;)

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Sure a solid axle will always be ideal for weight/cost savings and probably is the better drag setup but I'd say the vast majority of Mustang and F-body owners would prefer the characteristics of an IRS.

Agreed 100%.
Don't get me wrong...
I'm not saying we don't need or want IRS - just the opposite - I even said we are going to see it more and more. I agree that 99% of the cars purchased will be plain-old street-driven cars that will never see a track of ANY kind, straight or curvy, and these cars will benefit from IRS both in everyday handling and ride quality.

I was addressing Z284ever's initial question regarding whether or not a live axle should be an available option. Given that SOME people do buy a new car (or more like a 3 y/o car) and weld roll cages in them, add cowl stiffeners, frame stiffeners, sub-frame connectors, remove the A/C and P/S, replace virtually everything in the rear of the car, relocate the battery to the back, throw away the rugs, etc. - I don't think they really car about ride quality at that point. ;) Hence my comment about throwing your high-$ IRS out the back door and bolting in a 9" Detroit Locker with traction bars, etc. I'm just not seeing much IRS here (http://www.nmraracing.com/multimedia/gallery/2002/race4/) or here (http://www.nmraracing.com/2002/race3/gallery/).

I think an optional live axle is a viable option that more than a few guys would want. The Mach 1 is a prime example. That was one of the most advertised, most talked-about things on the car.

Originally posted by ProudPony
The IRS used on cars until '02 did not perform as well as had been hoped for in general. First attempt, shared parts, and shoe-horn fitting cost in the end. The new blade IRS (developed in OZ I beleive) is going into the new '03 Cobra and is designed FOR this application. It is getting rave reviews, and is quite a bit lighter than it's predecessor too. :D

Uh you dont know nothing about 99-01-03 Cobras do you?They all have the same set-up.They changed the spring rates and put in a pinion brace on the 03's.They still have wheel hop.As per Vettes.

Originally posted by guionM
One thing I need to throw in, being the killjoy I am at times.

Until the C5 got active suspension, the solid axle Camaro Z28 actually OUTHANDLED the IRS Corvette on the track.


Eh, is this true?

Doesn't the Corvette weigh more than the Camaro and have a longer will base? If this is so, this isn't an Apple to Apple comparison. Those other factors could've contributed to the 'Vette performing worse. That active suspension upgrade may have just helped the Vette overcome the shortcommings.

Originally posted by cmsmith
Eh, is this true?

Doesn't the Corvette weigh more than the Camaro and have a longer will base? If this is so, this isn't an Apple to Apple comparison. Those other factors could've contributed to the 'Vette performing worse. That active suspension upgrade may have just helped the Vette overcome the shortcommings.

Corvette does have a longer wheelbase than Camaro (104.5 vs 101.1)

But Corvette is substantially lighter than a Z28... (3246 vs 3433) and the Z06 is even lighter than the Corvette Coupe (which is the 3246)

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Quite frankly if the IRS is engineered right ala Corvette there is no need for a solid axle for drag racing. Mustang guys complain about the Cobra's drag racing characteristics because its IRS is quite poor from what I understand.

Yes ....true there , BUT , from the prospective of a drag racer ( ME ) . I in no way want the complication of an independent rear . If for anything the simplicity of a live rear axle wins . Show me a die hard mustang drag racer that races a 99-03 cobra that has retained the IRS , and I'm talking serious cars here ...not street cars that are taken to the strip every so often . That list is a very very short one . Yes , it does work well in vettes . Vette guys are running DEEP into the 9's on their IRS , so your point is a valid one in that respect . Which brings me back to the simplicity of a live rear axle .

GM needs to follow Fords LEAD , and really take a look at their core enthusist . Ford has already stated that the V6 will not have IRS for cost reasons and further more went on to say they recognize drag racing community and the stangs huge popularity in that form of motorsports , so a V8 live rear axle mustang is still an important part of the lineup . "IRS will go into the TOP model mustangs only" ....Fords words , not mine .

I would be wise for GM to do the same . It would add alot more appeal to the car and satisfy a very broad range of enthusists .

Base = live rear
mid = live rear
TOP= IRS

...And , to satisy the SCCA guys/gals give the 1LE IRS well . There would be your affordable IRS car

One thing that we haven't addressed is cost. If we see a new Camaro..it presumably will be based on a platform with an IRS (or at any rate , it better).

With RP's previous comments on controling costs, ie, limited powertrains, etc., will it be cost prohibitive for GM to reverse engineer a live rear axle to fit where an IRS would go?

If we did have the option of either/or, I would like the idea of the SS being the straight-line car with a solid axle while the Z28 becomes the lighter, road-race ready car with IRS. Some on this board have been critical in the past of the F-body using a live rear axle in this "modern" day and age but now that Ford is going to continue to use it, it seems ok. Strange. :rolleyes:

Ford seems willing to target every performance niche possible with the next Mustang. A commitment that I would have a hard time seeing GM have with a future Camaro.

But if there were a choice of rear suspensions.......I agree, the SS could come with a solid rear, maybe with some sort of "drag pack" package. The Z/28 would of course come with an IRS.....road race wheel/tire combo and maybe some Brembo ( or at least upgraded ) brakes.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Most autoX courses are on parking lots with lots of bumps (as is the real world). Enter one and you will invariably be tasked as a corner worker for a portion of the day. This really gives you the chance to see different car types "up close and personal" going around the same course at 10/10ths.

I can tell you first hand that the solid rear cars have far more drama going around than ones with IRS...especially with mid corner bumps.

The Camaro has never been an ideal car for autocross. I think they should leave that niche to the Solstice. Let's not forget that drag race enthusiasts have been behind musclecars from day one - alienating that market would be a big mistake.

Here is teh Control-Blade IRS that proud pony was tlking about for Ford... click here (http://www.micro-op.com.au/execls1/cbladea.jpg) and here (http://www.micro-op.com.au/execls1/cbladeb.jpg)

If drag-racing is your thing, then yes nothing beats a solid rear... they should offer a stripper version with it.

Irs is good to get good ride compliance without sacrificing handling...

but if you go all out handling and ride compliance be damned, here is what the Holden V8 supercar uses.. im not even sure i think its solid rear axle...

REAR AXLE: Heavy duty full floating with safety hubs, centre lock wheel nuts, adjustable camber and toe-in.

SUSPENSION: .
Front: HRT-developed McPherson strut designed for racing, with adjustable camber. Front dampers: 4-way adjustable Penske inserts.

Rear: Penske coil over shock absorbers, also 4-way adjustable gas filled. Location by four-link parallel arms and Watts link.
Cockpit-adjustable front and rear anti-roll bars.

......as to about how many people would actually order the live axle vs the IRS (providing of course it's a good IRS)??:confused:

I'd venture a guess of 5k max.........I know I sure wouldn't!

The 5th gen has to have IRS as the standard setup.......but I don't see GM seeing it as being economically viable to engineer a strong unit (why else do it?), crash test, provide spare parts, etc....a solid, live axle setup for a car that probably will sell between 50k - 100k units / yr. total....the press and competitors will murder GM if it brings back the Camaro with the same old setup as it left with....and rightfully so.

Let's face it, the "drag racing crowd" ain't near as large as we'd like to think.......and I sure as heck doubt that this option will make or break the 5th gen's sales.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, but I don't see this market segment as being large enough to support the costs to provide the old, solid axle set-up.....the Mustang can because it sells enough units to have the extra $$ to loose on two rearend designs.

One of the only things GM is probably happy about this hiatus is the hope that the Camaro will loose the bad parts of it's image and will be allowed to enter the 21st century.:D

Originally posted by Doug Harden
......as to about how many people would actually order the live axle vs the IRS (providing of course it's a good IRS)??:confused:

I'd venture a guess of 5k max.........I know I sure wouldn't!

The 5th gen has to have IRS as the standard setup.......but I don't see GM seeing it as being economically viable to engineer a strong unit (why else do it?), crash test, provide spare parts, etc....a solid, live axle setup for a car that probably will sell between 50k - 100k units / yr. total....the press and competitors will murder GM if it brings back the Camaro with the same old setup as it left with....and rightfully so.

Let's face it, the "drag racing crowd" ain't near as large as we'd like to think.......and I sure as heck doubt that this option will make or break the 5th gen's sales.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying, but I don't see this market segment as being large enough to support the costs to provide the old, solid axle set-up.....the Mustang can because it sells enough units to have the extra $$ to loose on two rearend designs.

One of the only things GM is probably happy about this hiatus is the hope that the Camaro will loose the bad parts of it's image and will be allowed to enter the 21st century.:D

That is pretty much the exact way I see it, and I even think your 5k estimate for solid axle orders may be on the generous side...

Speaking of IRS.Did any of you notice that the Chevy Cheyenne concept at the NAIAS had IRS?They even had a display of the IRS off the truck.I'd say GM might be following Ford in the IRS dept. in trucks/SUV's:eek:

Originally posted by Darth Xed
That is pretty much the exact way I see it, and I even think your 5k estimate for solid axle orders may be on the generous side...

From my personal view.....THERE IS NO WAY I WOULD ACCEPT A NEW CAMARO WITHOUT A GOOD IRS! I was thinking that more "drag racers" would come to the live rear axles' defense.


BTW...I agree about the hiatus possibly having a silver lining. Camaro has alot of "image baggage" to lose. This is a good time to do it.

On a flat track the handling of a solid axle car vs a IRS car would likely be indentical (assuming its the same car with the rearend swapped). Solid axle cars dont have camber change due to body roll, so you have the ability of running a car with more bodyroll just as fast around a track, the roll can actually help traction by downward loading of the outside tires.
IRS, even the best, has camber change during its vertical travel (i believe the corvettes setup is a double wishbone, maintains 0 camber change during 95% of its travel) but has a handling benefit on the street with uneven roads and the comfort factor.

I guess what I'm saying is the solid axle car can, on an even track, handle pretty much just as well as the IRS car, so unless GM marketed it to those who dont understand the setup for sales, where would they get them from?

Engineering-wise, here's the deal....

Live axles require more space between the body pan and the centerline of the wheels cross-car than IRS rear ends do.

While it is manageable to go from a live axle to IRS, going the other way (from IRS to a live rear axle) is much more problematic. A significant limitation on rear seat room for the Camaro and the full-size GM SUV's (third row).

K, that being the deal, you're left with a set of engineering trade-offs.

1) If you go BOTH IRS and live axle, the IRS vehicles will have their interior space limited by the need to design clearance for the vehicles that get a live axle. If that percentage of volume is JUST drag-specific cars (like just the SS's or 1LE's or Z28's and not the others), then you've shot yourself in the foot on the interior.

2) If you go just IRS, you upset the drag racers.

3) If you go just live-axle, you limit interior space and upset the autocross/road racing/journalists.

4) Remember, the 10-bolt was used in the 4th gen cars for a reason - it's basically common with the S-10 10-bolt and was further (nearly) common with the B-bodies at the time the car was designed. No 12-bolt was used for cost and weight reasons, and the 12-bolt is physically larger (packaging).

5) With the advent of the Holdens, the GTO, CTS, and Corvette, there will be a multiplicity of IRS RWD cars to scavenge components from to keep costs down. A solid business case could be made to commonize with CTS or the Holdens.

As interior space was a #1 complaint with the 4th gen, I'm guessing if a Camaro ever comes to light it's going to have an IRS.

If Ford can pull off the option of both , I think GM is more than capable . While the Mustang is entirely ground up new , the live axle will have to be reverse engineered there too . The chassis its based on currently has no live axle versions;)

The ONLY 2-door cars on the market that have decent backseat room are full size coupes , I.E Monte Carlo , Solara (sp?), Status , GTO . The extra room IRS might "possibly" give to making the back seat more liveable will not be great enuff to really make that big of a difference .

I'm certainly not gonna complain or not buy a camaro because my friends or any other full size adult isnt comfortable in the back seat ;)

Originally posted by PacerX
.
As interior space was a #1 complaint with the 4th gen, I'm guessing if a Camaro ever comes to light it's going to have an IRS.

Actually , it wasnt the space that was lacking . Its was all in the packaging . The space WAS there , the packaging was not . A clean sheet floor pan , and lack of a 68* windshield ...which meant what seems like 1/2 the inside literaly was a dashboard would have went a long long way .

"Actually , it wasnt the space that was lacking. Its was all in the packaging."

To-MA-to or TO-ma-to? The thing that forced the rear seats forward in the vehicle was... you guessed it... clearing the axle.


"The extra room IRS might "possibly" give to making the back seat more liveable will not be great enuff to really make that big of a difference."

Believe it, bro. It's a fact. End of story. Now you know why Expeditions have more 3rd row room than Tahoes.


"If Ford can pull off the option of both , I think GM is more than capable."

Like I said, you can go from live axle to IRS easily, just like Ford did with the Mustang - and like GM is considering with the full size SUV's - but going from IRS to live axle easily means that you designed your IRS vehicle wrong. A live axle will simply not fit well in a body designed for IRS... unless you spend some time with the old Sawzall....

See, in a live axle set up you have to have all kinds of room in the middle cleared out of the way so the pumpkin doesn't smack the body as it moves up and down. Since the driveshaft is moving up and down at the same time, you have to clear out a larger tunnel area also.

IRS vehicles don't have this issue because the center section is fixed and don't have to take that movement into account.

i doubt this is likely, but for the drag racers GM COULD offer a DeDion axle, it's a solid axle without the pumpkin located on the axle tubes, less unsprung weight and should theoretically fit closely within a car designed for IRS since the pumnpkin could mount in the same place.
I dont see any downside in a drag racing sense personally.

We couldn't even convince the Camaro guys (including RP) to get a middle engine option, but you think they'll go for 2 different rear suspension setups?

Riiiiight. :D

Well maybe its time GM decides to have a few drive train options. Look how well the 2 engine 1 rear end combo sold. I hear next years sales are going to be though the roof.

let me adress some alarming issues i see while reading this:

RIDE QUALITY who HONESTLY buys an f-body for the ride quality?! i mean i dont see anything wrong with the ride on my 91 or even on my 87 that had over 200k on it when i sold it. i knew guying these cars that the ride was gonna be a bit harsh but its not bad. CERTAINLY not enough to complain about.

ROAD RACING and its heritage with the camaro. correct me if im wrong but the camaro didnt start SCCA or any kind of sanctioned event until 69 2 YEARS after the start of production. if anything history dictates that these cars are more suited for drag racing than they are in the handling department. leave the handling to the people who cant drag race.

MY OPINION is that there should be a choice on all these things. if you want a Z28 to drag race, then by god you shouldnt have to put up with all this useless IRS crap. if i want an SS with IRS then i should be able to gt it. what im saying is this package crap MUST go. i remember when i had my little spurts of building my own camaro and firebirds i would want a certain option but not the other 30 i must have to get it. i think that is a load of crap. if i want a trans am but i donnt want leather then i should be able to get it. i think alot of people were lost there because they couldnt get tthe car exactly how they wanted it.

just my 0.02 here...:)

the very first Z28's were designed for Trans Am racing, the 302 Ci limit was also where this came from, the Z28s did excellent in those races. the 3rd gen Fbody is also another one which did great in the IROC races, probably a large reason why the 1LE cars were around, the better suspension was used to compete in the IROC (international race of champions, fyi) and the 4th gens still handle well, simply limiting them to drag racing takes out a huge market and type of racing alot of people enjoy, and which the cars are good at.

I agree there needs to be less group packaging, in fact having all of them AVAILABLE apart from each other is a good idea, even if you have to wait a bit longer to get the car. group packages are a good way to make money from those who dont want to wait for a specially ordered car.

Originally posted by 87camracer


ROAD RACING and its heritage with the camaro. correct me if im wrong but the camaro didnt start SCCA or any kind of sanctioned event until 69 2 YEARS after the start of production.

Consider yourself corrected.

The Camaro started road racing at birth...that would be 1967.

I want a world class performance car, and they don't come with buggy suspensions.

Originally posted by 87camracer
let me adress some alarming issues i see while reading this:

RIDE QUALITY who HONESTLY buys an f-body for the ride quality?! i mean i dont see anything wrong with the ride on my 91 or even on my 87 that had over 200k on it when i sold it. i knew guying these cars that the ride was gonna be a bit harsh but its not bad. CERTAINLY not enough to complain about.

There's nothing that says you can't have both. The fact is, many, many peole complained about the ride of the Camaro....my old '86 IROC was harsh to say the least.......my '94 Z/28 is still somewhat harsh (I made it that way), but BMW and others have proven for years harsh ride does not equate to good handling...otherwise a one ton pickup would be a true corner-carver........:rolleyes:

ROAD RACING and its heritage with the camaro. correct me if im wrong but the camaro didnt start SCCA or any kind of sanctioned event until 69 2 YEARS after the start of production. if anything history dictates that these cars are more suited for drag racing than they are in the handling department. leave the handling to the people who cant drag race.

Wrong again....the 1967 competed very successfully in Trans Am racing and SCCA events...the 1967 Z/28 was made specifically to do this, it didn't even have emblems, because GM didn't know of it's extreme popularity..........yet! :D

MY OPINION is that there should be a choice on all these things. if you want a Z28 to drag race, then by god you shouldnt have to put up with all this useless IRS crap. if i want an SS with IRS then i should be able to gt it. what im saying is this package crap MUST go. i remember when i had my little spurts of building my own camaro and firebirds i would want a certain option but not the other 30 i must have to get it. i think that is a load of crap. if i want a trans am but i donnt want leather then i should be able to get it. i think alot of people were lost there because they couldnt get tthe car exactly how they wanted it.

just my 0.02 here...:)

In a perfect, Disney kinda' world this might be the case...but you have to be able to pay for it in the real world. You have to spread the cost of each option over many cars to make them affordable. Most option packages today are set due to buying trends......no dealer wants an oddly optioned car sitting there waiting for one or two buyers...

Factories operate much more efficiently if they aren't having to specically build each and every car......it's about the $$ after-all.

Besides, 95%++ of the Camaros will be sold as daily drivers and to people who can actually turn left and right while racing...;)

Originally posted by fyrhwk1
the very first Z28's were designed for Trans Am racing, the 302 Ci limit was also where this came from, the Z28s did excellent in those races. the 3rd gen Fbody is also another one which did great in the IROC races, probably a large reason why the 1LE cars were around, the better suspension was used to compete in the IROC (international race of champions, fyi) and the 4th gens still handle well, simply limiting them to drag racing takes out a huge market and type of racing alot of people enjoy, and which the cars are good at.



What part of the 1LE cars have to do with IROC?IROC cars (for the racing series) were just a fake rendition of a 3rd gen.NASCAR hasnt been NASCAR (true stock car racing like SCCA) since what the late 70's early 80's.Im not putting you in front of the class but I dont see the comparison.??But yes the car has to handle well it is the bigger part of the market.If they built a car only for the 1/4 it would be the stupidest car ever made.Yeah I can see it now some jack@** running into gaurdrails, flying off exit ramps because they didnt want handling...;) :eek:

Make mine with an IRS please.

Originally posted by guess who
What part of the 1LE cars have to do with IROC?IROC cars (for the racing series) were just a fake rendition of a 3rd gen.NASCAR hasnt been NASCAR (true stock car racing like SCCA) since what the late 70's early 80's.Im not putting you in front of the class but I dont see the comparison.??But yes the car has to handle well it is the bigger part of the market.If they built a car only for the 1/4 it would be the stupidest car ever made.Yeah I can see it now some jack@** running into gaurdrails, flying off exit ramps because they didnt want handling...;) :eek:

To my knowledge those cars had to run a stock style, or even stock suspension, which was available on a production run car that you or I could buy. Obviously the IROC cars were quite a bit different but i didn't think they could urn all out suspensions & chassis in those races :confused:

Originally posted by fyrhwk1
To my knowledge those cars had to run a stock style, or even stock suspension, which was available on a production run car that you or I could buy. Obviously the IROC cars were quite a bit different but i didn't think they could urn all out suspensions & chassis in those races :confused:

The IROC series started with real Porsche 911's. In 1977 the switched to real Z/28's, modified for racing.

From '78 and on they became tube frame, silouette cars with no relation to production cars.

Thank you Pacer X for your...as always...interesting technical input.

After reading that, I am officially for IRS across the board for Camaro!

For everyone crying money issues , and in a " Disney " world . Why is Ford reverse engineering and already IRS chassis to make the V6 and GT models more affordable ? Everyone keeps on reffering to the FOX body ........but Im talking about the NEW mustang .

And PacerX .....sorry man . I still don't think its gonna make such a difference for an adult they would be like " Wow, its actually liveable back here " . Don't take it personal man , its just my opinion :)

I hope back seats are the last thing on the list of priorities on the theoretical new Camaro;)

Originally posted by 87camracer
let me adress some alarming issues i see while reading this:

RIDE QUALITY who HONESTLY buys an f-body for the ride quality?!



Few. If any at all... And I think that is a major part of the problem. Lot's of missed sales.

And that's why I think IRS is essential to the success of a future Camaro and/or Firebird.

"Thank you Pacer X for your...as always...interesting technical input."

I appreciate that, thanks a lot. It's good to have a forum where I can unload some of this stuff sometimes, because what I work on now requires little, if any, brain work.


"And PacerX .....sorry man . I still don't think its gonna make such a difference for an adult they would be like " Wow, its actually liveable back here " . Don't take it personal man , its just my opinion "

Not personal at all bro, your opinion is cool. Differing opinions make the world go around.

Originally posted by Z284ever
The IROC series started with real Porsche 911's. In 1977 the switched to real Z/28's, modified for racing.

From '78 and on they became tube frame, silouette cars with no relation to production cars.

ahh, i wasnt aware that it switched like that, my mistake.

Originally posted by Darth Xed
Few. If any at all... And I think that is a major part of the problem. Lot's of missed sales.

And that's why I think IRS is essential to the success of a future Camaro and/or Firebird.

this is what i am talking about. the ride doesnt have to be absolutely horrible but at the same time there is not one person that bought a camaro in the 35 years it was made for the ride quality.

it was either a status symbol or to be a true performer.

to the person that talked about BMW ride quality, notice how much those cars cost? they cost that much for a reason. notice how much a vette costs? it costs that for a reason. it takes alot of money to design and test over and over and over again to get everything just perfect. thats not what the camaro is about.

and finally to whoever said making these cars drag race only cars eliminates a large portion of the market. thats on reason why OPTIONS and lots of them would be a good thing. like i said you want a true strip only car, option it that way. you want a true road race car, option it that way. i think (and i guess my point was confused in my last post) that IRS SHOULD be on the camaro but as an option only. that pleases everybody in one sweeping motion.

and as far as dealer optioned cars, i think the ealers have a pretty good idea of what sells and they can order the cars ackordingly. then when you have a true enthusiast come in, they can have their car optioned exactly how they want it.

Originally posted by 87camracer
this is what i am talking about. the ride doesnt have to be absolutely horrible but at the same time there is not one person that bought a camaro in the 35 years it was made for the ride quality.

it was either a status symbol or to be a true performer.

to the person that talked about BMW ride quality, notice how much those cars cost? they cost that much for a reason. notice how much a vette costs? it costs that for a reason. it takes alot of money to design and test over and over and over again to get everything just perfect. thats not what the camaro is about.



Whoa, whoa, whoa, my friend! I don't like the sound of that!

To me it sounds like you are saying ..."We are Camaro people....of course we will accept crap!"

You can go down to your Mazda dealer right now and buy a Mazda 6, for about $20k. It has an extremely sophisticated chassis that rides like a dream and handles like a race car.


THERE IS NO WAY I WILL EXPECT ANYTHING LESS ON A CAMARO!!!!!:death:

no thats not what i meant to imply. i am simply saying doing all this is going to push the camaro further away from its targeted maket. how many 16-30 year olds do you know that can afford a base model car starting at 35k? i say that because i know all the developement and parts for an IRS system are going to hike the already pretty high price...

of course it might just be lack of sleep too.


and the camaro was never meant to be a ferrari or viper threat. thats the vettes job. the camaro was meant to be an all around performer. cheap while still doing a damn good job of whatever it was doing at the time. which meant it could have a cheaper price tag.

i feel there are alot of other problem areas that need to have money spent on rather than a tried and true spot like the suspension.:)

Originally posted by 87camracer
no thats not what i meant to imply. i am simply saying doing all this is going to push the camaro further away from its targeted maket. how many 16-30 year olds do you know that can afford a base model car starting at 35k? .......

The current target for the Camaro is the 40-45 year old.which I'd agree is too old & affluent (I'm both of those but refuse to spend over $35k for a car).....but the target has never been 16-24 years old buyers....nor should it be. Way too much car (Z/28 - SS) for this age group.

I'd like to see the 5th gen priced (in today's prices) from a base of near $20k to a fully loaded model being in the low $30k range.....IOW not too much different than today, but it needs to be a better car...a much better car.

GM is trying to fix the lower end models, Cavalier, Grand Am, etc...and with the Ecotec engines will make up the performance lead the Imports now have....

The Camaro will remain a poor man's Corvette....

Originally posted by 87camracer
no thats not what i meant to imply. i am simply saying doing all this is going to push the camaro further away from its targeted maket. how many 16-30 year olds do you know that can afford a base model car starting at 35k? i say that because i know all the developement and parts for an IRS system are going to hike the already pretty high price...


Somehow, they manage to put an IRS on the 14,000 Honda Civic. I think they could do it on Camaro. [Before anyone says "yeah, but it's FWD", the front is independent also.]

BTW, I don't think it should top 30K in today's dollars.

Originally posted by WERM
Somehow, they manage to put an IRS on the 14,000 Honda Civic. I think they could do it on Camaro. [Before anyone says "yeah, but it's FWD", the front is independent also.]



Exactly... IRS (and IFS if that is correct) is on almost every car outthere anymore... time for Camaro to step into the modern world with IRS.

I really dont think the extra cost would be that drastic.

When I started this thread I was intrigued that Ford would even consider offering a live rear axle on a future Mustang...and wanted to gather opinion on how that may relate to future Camaro.

After all of this discussion...I am back to my original position.

IRS ON EVERY CAMARO! From the most basic V6 coupe to the balls out, canyon carving Z/28.:metal:

Originally posted by Z284ever
When I started this thread I was intrigued that Ford would even consider offering a live rear axle on a future Mustang...and wanted to gather opinion on how that may relate to future Camaro.

After all of this discussion...I am back to my original position.

IRS ON EVERY CAMARO! From the most basic V6 coupe to the balls out, canyon carving Z/28.:metal:
One GOOD thing about Ford offering a solid on the new Mustang is you can bet there will be parts for it.Cheap at that.BUT if someone who would want a New F bod weekend warrior would more then likely have to buy a "NEW" special solid axle special control arms of whatever config.If they didnt offer a solid, Where as a 05 Cobra buyer can find a rear after a few months due to some people crashing and totaling a GT some how.Look at it this way.Can you get a solid axle for a Vette right now complete for under $900?A 03 Cobra buyer has many wrecked GT's to salvage from if he doesnt want to buy new.
So with saying that youll have to be stupid NOT to offer a solid in a "PONY" car...


:bow: <<guesswho is the man>>

I know:D

Originally posted by guess who
Look at it this way.Can you get a solid axle for a Vette right now complete for under $900?A 03 Cobra buyer has many wrecked GT's to salvage from if he doesnt want to buy new.
So with saying that youll have to be stupid NOT to offer a solid in a "PONY" car...




Sorry buddy, that argument doesn't fly with me. I'm not willing to live with the compromises of designing a car for both, as illustrated by Pacer X, just to have a ready supply of junked solid rear axles from totaled Camaros.

Originally posted by Z284ever
Sorry buddy, that argument doesn't fly with me. I'm not willing to live with the compromises of designing a car for both, as illustrated by Pacer X, just to have a ready supply of junked solid rear axles from totaled Camaros.

I see that you might not understand something here.If they design it STRICTLY for IRS then it doesnt mean a solid will go in the IRS's place without tubbing it.A solid axle WONT go under a new T-brid with out modifying the rear of the car to accept a solid axle.IRS cars need less room in back for articulation where they only need minimal for either wheel where as with a solid you need more room for the WHOLE axle to articulate.
So if this doesnt still fly with you,You guys must not know much about IRS.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by guess who
.IRS cars need less room in back for articulation where they only need minimal for either wheel where as with a solid you need more room for the WHOLE axle to articulate.


That is precisely my point!

The Camaro will face many design compromises before it rolls off an assembly line. Designing an IRS car to accept a live rear axle, shouldn't have to be one of them.

Originally posted by Z284ever
That is precisely my point!

The Camaro will face many design compromises before it rolls off an assembly line. Designing an IRS car to accept a live rear axle, shouldn't have to be one of them.

Im sorry I missed your point in your pervious post.Im sure you could see how I was thinking.I for one dont think that designing the car for either is not a big deal myself.They would need to make both or they will lose pontential sales to Ford with the Mustang that is coming.

Ford for offering both IRS and solid=:bow:

Chevy for offering Both IRS AND a solid=To be continued........:death: