Yeah. Like those billiard-table smooth onramps and freeways we all travel every day. I don't know about you guys, but I've never seen a poorly done asphalt patch on my way to work.

Jake's got a point here- there's absolutely no reason to put a smoother, better handling IRS on the Camaro. People who have never driven a Camaro before will never notice the difference, and even if they did GM doesn't care if they buy the car.

 

Please allow me to put my quote in context. I was responding to a guy that said he was amazed at how well the 4th gens handled with the live rear axle. At no point did I imply that the benefits of IRS weren't worthwhile or that I thought the 5th gen should stick with LRA.

Perhaps I should be rolling my eyes at you.

Since you brought it up, though -- most of the freeway onramps around me are nice and smooth.

 

Apologies. I assumed that you were touting LRA as the way to go. Nice to know that's not the case.

Around here the onramps are smooth, but they're built in sections and there's always a small lip at the meeting point. If you're really hustling a solid axle around one of the curved ones there's a slight, but noticeable, hop. Makes me nuts.

 

Solid axle for this cat.

IRS= too heavy, too complicated, more crap to break.

Put a good solid axle under there or at least design the car so that it can be swapped in.

 

Engine in a box thread.
I think that this 5th gen section should be redone into the following
- Camaro Concept Models: Saw a new toy at Wal Mart? Discuss here!
- Engine in a Box: If you want a Big Block powerd, M-22 or TH400 trans'd, 12 bolt leaf spring, out of the box dragster, discuss here!!
- Actual 5th Gen Discussion: Password Required

With that said, IRS all the way for the people that arent going to drop big money on a straight to the track dragster.

 

well, the way I see it, I'll be fine with the IRS if they build a strong enough one. but if I have to pay a couple thousand dollars more for the car for them to force me to buy an IRS, AND its weak, that will suck. the camaro is supposed to be for the younger, not so rich buyer and the closer the price gets to the vette, the less people will be able to afford it. and for the people who can afford 35K for a car, how many of those can afford 50K instead for a vette that will actually be worth something still in a few years? they need to keep the big seperation between the cars in order to sell more camaro's.
and, for the people who you say dont care if it can handle lots of power, and are fine with the car stock, those same people probably wont notice the diff. between LRA and IRS, but do pay attention to how comfy the seats are or not. right? which is where the 4 gen missed the mark big time. a car thats "hard" to get in and out of and has poor vision of the road in front of you will not sell to the masses. they will get in the car cause it looks sporty and go OMG, I cant see ****. looks like the fixed that problem already though from the pics. I have yet to see one of them in person let alone sit in one.

 

Sorry, I would disagree with you there. Average buyers would be able to tell the difference between a LRA and an IRS. They might not know why -- but they could feel it.

There just aren't enough enthusiasts to support the "engine in a box" mentality. IRS is a more mainstream solution (meaning it appeals to more people) these days, and with platform sharing, it shouldn't cost that much more.

I remember the Ford Mustang debate hearing initial rumors of it costing $500 more. Then, after everyone started complaining it wasn't in, then they starting through out $2k figures (of which I still would have paid if it was a good system). And that is with virtually no platform sharing. With all the GM vehicles that are expected to share the suspension architecture with the Camaro, it probably won't cost much more at all. Heck, it might even cost more to engineer a LRA system to fit within the platform.

 

I just dont trust them to produce a tough axle for the price the car is supposed to be at because of how we've been taking it in the *** for the last 25 years with the 3 and 4 gen Fbody's. and, what do you have to say about the GTO IRS? yeah, great piece. piece of SH$T. I work at a pont. dealership, and while I dont do axle's, I see them being turned away for service all the time becuause that "whine" is "normal" for that axle. and those are cars that are not built. some Im sure are beat'n on, but stil stock cars nonetheless.
back to my thoughts though, I would be all for the IRS IF its strong and wont add the the cost of the car.
I see your point though about the cost poss. not even being that much more due to how there goin to share the chassis. thats the best fricken idea theyve put into motion in a long time.

 

call me old fashion but id prefer a nice strong solid axle myself. people bitch about the way the f bodies drove but compared to what i was driving before mine... its like a caddy

 

irs is heavy.. i vote no.. i am happy with the 93-02 f-body live axle

 

Agree and disagree.

IRS = heavy? Yeah, probably .

Happy with the '82 - '02 live axle? Not in the least .

It's about time we got something that can handle the torque being produced by the great engines GM decides to put into Camaros ..... and if IRS will handle even better than a live axle car, then it's just icing on the cake .

 

If it is IFS with no option for solid I gusss I'll buy dodge.

 

Challenger is going to be IRS.

 

IRS unless GM put's a 9" in for me

 

See 'ya.