Comparaitive look at 5th gen's dimensions.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 413
From: Mannheim, Germany
Re: Comparaitive look at 5th gen's dimensions.
Originally Posted by Dan Baldwin
Still blows my mind GM couldn't sell the 4th gen, while Ford apparently had no problems selling the underperforming Mustang 
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Comparaitive look at 5th gen's dimensions.
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Funny you should bring that up, because I've done my homework since the previous thread. 
Primarily, any increased weight would come from an IRS's cradle rather than the suspension itself. You can go without a cradle, but this is not favored due to increased noise and vibration. The design of the actual IRS also matters. The descriptions include double A-arm, 3-link, 4-link, 4.5-link and 5 link. Obviously the more links the more mass associated with the links. The more links however, means more control and better ride. IRS does allow for a more efficient use of the space required to hold the suspension.
In the end you can trade mass in one area for mass in another, more cradle stiffness could mean less rail strength required. There are trade offs for all types of suspensions.
The same goes for the live axle. The axle support could be simple leaf springs
and it could be a multi-armed affair. Just check out all the clap-trap
used in the solid axle NASCAR cars.
In the end, a well designed IRS will add 25-50 pounds.
And this comes from an impeccable source.
Primarily, any increased weight would come from an IRS's cradle rather than the suspension itself. You can go without a cradle, but this is not favored due to increased noise and vibration. The design of the actual IRS also matters. The descriptions include double A-arm, 3-link, 4-link, 4.5-link and 5 link. Obviously the more links the more mass associated with the links. The more links however, means more control and better ride. IRS does allow for a more efficient use of the space required to hold the suspension.
In the end you can trade mass in one area for mass in another, more cradle stiffness could mean less rail strength required. There are trade offs for all types of suspensions.
The same goes for the live axle. The axle support could be simple leaf springs
and it could be a multi-armed affair. Just check out all the clap-trap
used in the solid axle NASCAR cars.
In the end, a well designed IRS will add 25-50 pounds.
And this comes from an impeccable source.
The ideal IRS that would probally be the best combo is the one on the VZ (mounted directly to the body), but that's swimming against the flow... the wrong direction.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 356
From: Providence, RI, USA
Re: Comparaitive look at 5th gen's dimensions.
Steel construction (for cradle and arms) doesn't *have* to equate with HEAVY. Steel is nearly 3 times as heavy as aluminum, but it's also 3 times as strong (i.e., similar strength/weight). Ducati ain't doing to bad with steel-framed street and race (incl. non production based MotoGP) bikes vs. other motorcycles with aluminum frames.
What is the IRS configuration on the "VZ"? When you say "mounted directly to the body", you mean no cradle, right? What *is* a "VZ"?
Chapman struts would be a cheap, lightweight, and effective IRS arrangement. Not ideal, but very practical. Hey, that setup HAS to be great, it's on my 240Z
What is the IRS configuration on the "VZ"? When you say "mounted directly to the body", you mean no cradle, right? What *is* a "VZ"?
Chapman struts would be a cheap, lightweight, and effective IRS arrangement. Not ideal, but very practical. Hey, that setup HAS to be great, it's on my 240Z
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Comparaitive look at 5th gen's dimensions.
Originally Posted by guionM
Right on all counts, except that 25-50 pound part. Using an alumunum cradle and arms would probally be a mere 25 to 50 pounds over a steel live axle, but that isn't going to be very likely on a low priced Sigma.
The ideal IRS that would probally be the best combo is the one on the VZ (mounted directly to the body), but that's swimming against the flow... the wrong direction.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Comparaitive look at 5th gen's dimensions.
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Considering the source it came from, I'll take that 25-50lbs number to the bank.
Sigma is a well engineered IRS, and it's perhaps 50# heavier than that on the Camaro, but GM has already determined that this system is too expensive for a Camaro.
Many people feel that the VZ's archaic semi trailing arm rear suspension....erm...sucks.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Comparaitive look at 5th gen's dimensions.
Originally Posted by guionM
I wouldn't because your source wasn't very specific as to what type of comparison he's making when he says a "Well engineered" IRS, and what type of live axle system he's comparing it to. Much like blanket statement that Camaro is lighter than Mustang without mentioning you are comparing a V6 Camaro to a V8 Mustang or a base Z28 to a Cobra.
Actually, they were quite specific. I added the "well engineered" part, to avoid the SN95 Cobra IRS analogy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post