Soon after the VE announcement there was an article in one of the Australian newspapers (probably smh) that mentioned that the the IRS+rear subassembly (or something like that) added 30kg.

But even if a live axle saved 75 pounds, I don't expect to hear you asking for that.

 

Yeah, I remember that story. Assuming it's veracity is unimpeachable, regarding that 75 lbs, (actually I think they were comparing it to the old IRS w/o subframe rather than a live axle), that tells me the VE's structure is needlessly heavy.

Why? Because the IRS subframe adds mass and rigidity to the whole rear structure, which with careful analysis, can enable you to decrease mass somewhere else. IF we believe that 75 lbs number, then that would tell us, that the rear structure probably has some needless weight somewhere.

And there you have it!
__________________

 

Impressive vernacular mate, did you swallow a thesaurus today?

 

Is anybody's veracity unimpeachable?

I also remember that it was comparing to the old IRS, which I'm told was simple and not as effective as the newer IRS.

 

some body-in-white comparative masses would be insightful...