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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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........

Quote:

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!

Quote:

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...

 

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...