Just what the question says, I'd like to get your guys thoughts. If the F5 had to focus on either 1/4 mile performance or autocross-type performance, which would you rather have? Give a reason if you have one.

I personally would go with autocross performance. I used to be huge into drag racing, but since I started doing autocross-type driving I'm totally hooked. A high-revving V8 with a 6 speed tranny, killer suspension and brake setup, and lightweight would be incredible.


Thoughts?

 

As long as you mean running on a track, sure. It does take a different car to handle the likes of Laguna Seca than you would take out to the stadium parking lot to go cone-dodging.

 

It'll be capable of all the above and you didn't give me that option.

Face one fact:

The live rear axle is dead for the F5. Not gonna happen.

 

"Look Shaggy! Another clue!"

 

I don't think that the two need to be mutually exclusive.

 

"The live rear axle is dead for the F5. Not gonna happen."

PacerX, I don't know where you get your information, but that sounds GREAT! A good way to position against the new Mustang!

 

Why only one or the other? I don't want some knuckledragging machine with a solid live axle, big motor, and not much else going for it; nor do I want some flyweight car with no power but tons of negative camber.

Now, a vehicle that can do well at open-track days or in Solo I competition - that's what I want. Great handling and monster power. Gimme 90% of the Viper's performance for 30% of the cost. Yummy.

 

Back to perception vs. reality.

For the market, having IRS in a performance car is becoming as important as having 8 cylinders.

You and I know a live rear axle car can give an IRS car fits on a road course, ESPECIALLY if you can launch the car REALLY hard off the corners in a low gear (wheel hop anyone?). We know it is less expensive and has specific and large advantages in a drag race.

The GENERAL PUBLIC thinks it is low tech. Even dinosaurish.

Couple that fact with the fact that an IRS can provide much better packaging at the axle (a UNIVERSAL F4 complaint is the back seat, and guess what caused that???), and can be more robust if designed properly given current production considerations and the live axle gets dead.


As far as positioning against the Mustang, a few things have to happen:

1) GM has to hit the "sweet spot" of making a car that is not threatening to female buyers while laying down the law relative to performance relative to the Mustang.

2) Interior packaging HAS TO get better WHILE providing sleek, low-slung and stunning appearance. Girls will like you better if they don't feel like they are showing the world their nether regions when they get in the car with a skirt on.

3) PERCEPTION of quality has to go up. There is considerable room to be gained here. F4 Camaros WERE NOT horrible quality cars. They take amazing abuse (holy hell, we complain about the 10-bolt because a 400-450hp motor on sticky tires will grenade one...). Now, I think the bigger 10-bolts (8.5") should have been used, but the car WAS fairly well designed for stock power levels. The problem with the idea is that the STOCK power level is nearly irrelevant to many of us.

4) GM HAS TO get more modification friendly and aftermarket friendly. Quit voiding warranties as often on powertrains. Yeah, you've got to fix abuse cases and that costs money, but I would submit that it COSTS MORE MONEY to lose a hard-core performance buyer to a Mustang than it does to fix a trashed clutch, ESPECIALLY when we ALL know that that clutch is barely hanging on for dear life in stock form and has a MISERABLE hydraulics setup.

5) Quit skimping on the important stuff if you want to have a performance car. Like pistons, rods and rod bolts. Forged pistons in a production environment aren't THAT much more expensive. Neither are forged rods. And the situation with the rod bolts was just stupid - what is it... $.20 each for a better rod bolt??? Take the moron that decided on the el cheapo ones out behind the Tech Center AND SHOOT HIM/HER. The LS1 crank is a work of art. I'll pay you an extra $250-$500 for the option of better powertrain parts (rods, pistons, and rod bolts - trust me, you'll be making BIG money there) AND reliability goes up. It REALLY pisses me off that a freaking CORVETTE got the same rotten rod bolts.

6) Get the insurance industry under control. They're killing you in this market. GM has enough horsepower in Washington and at the state level to make those guy's lives miserable - but this is one tall order. Time to dig in and fight a rough one...


In short, the General has to beat Ford, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru and all other comers doing what they do best - producing a faster, better looking, higher quality, better handling, less expensive car.

Corvette has kicked the ever-loving **** out of Acura, Porsche, Toyota, Nissan and Mazda for years. There is NO reason why Camaro can't do the same.


Red Planet, my friend, take this as inspiration:

"Find the enemy and take the fight to HIM, spill HIS blood, shoot HIM in the guts, kill HIM for his country." - paraphrased from Patton... a little extreme for the business world, but it shows the attitude of a winner. GM needs to think like a winner. You're #1. Time to act like it.

"...build the best car in EVERY market." - Alfred Sloan... Alfie would have wanted you to kick Ford's *** in this market, and would have been DAMN INCENSED if GM stayed out of it.

"I am completely convinced that we can beat absolutely anyone in this industry at absolutely anything. There is no reason to fear our competition, we are going to make THEM fear US." - ummmm... me. In response to the "woe is me" tale being told by folks in my office about how good our competition is.

 

Neither.

The F5 should be designed for one thing and one thing alone... to take out the Mustang/Cobra in every performance category across the board.... i.e. HP, 0-60, 1/4 mile, braking & slalom... and all out sexy yet badass styling.

That should be the only goal/objective.

 

Both and all categories of performance.

 

On a pool-table-smooth surface, yea. Now, go take a solid-axle car out to Waterford Hills or Grattan and try to keep the rear tires on the ground.

Now, I can make a solid axle work pretty well, but I'd still prefer to deal with IRS. Maybe GM would have to make a bit of compromise with regards to camber control to make the car bite better in a straight-line situation - I could easily live with that. Even better would be something with two positions for the upper link - one that offered little camber change and would be good for straight-line apps, and another that offered the proper camber control for handling applications. Yea, it'd never happen due to a variety of reasons, but it'd sure be cool.

 

The way you worded that reminded me of the attitude GM had when designing the C5 from “All Corvettes are Red“.

Your right about your entire post. The next Camaro could do exactly what you just said.

But we need GM to think of this next car as a priority. That’s the Key. I think it really comes down to how important GM thinks this car is. Will the car people on the inside really put in the heart to get a great car past all the politics.

The C5 is proof that GM can go out and beat everyone of its competitors. We know it can be done for the next gen Camaro.

I guess we just have to ask. Does GM really want it?

 

AMEN!

 

The Camaro better do everything right. Why isn't there a choice for all of the above? But if it had to be done that way SS=staight line live axel, Z28= curves IRS. Just like the Mustang the real performer has the IRS.

 

I've covered this about a hundred times, but here it is again:

Live axles take up TONS of space in the rear of the car. They're dirt cheap, but your back seat is useless because of it. The center section has to have somewhere to go during jounce and rebound.

Retro-fitting an IRS into a car with a live rear axle is relatively easy, BUT YOU CAN'T GO THE OTHER WAY AROUND without a HUGE tear-up that intrudes on interior space.

If you protect the space for a live rear axle, you waste space if you end up with an IRS.

UNIVERSAL CAMARO COMPLAINT #1 - the back seat and interior packaging.