Some thoughts on Mustang....
01-10-2004, 01:11 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Posts: 2,947
Okay....Let's think about this in context for a minute.
Why are the SUV's going IRS???
Simply, axle articulation, meaning on uneven ground it'll allow greater flexibilty of the rear suspension, keeping all wheels in contact with the ground for a greater amount of time, correct ?..
*ANOTHER reason is, most small SUV's are basicaly FWD vehicles, and it's easier just to "slap a gear box in the center of the rear, add some axles and rear driveshaft, and leave the rear IRS intact
Why don't we see more IRS in Larger SUV's as small ones??
They aren't carrying the weight of these, basically "Passenger Trucks"or won't be used for "Towing"..
And Cars never leave the reasonably FLAT rolling surfaces and therefore don't NEED much axle articulation, where a live axle has ENOUGH flexibility to more than handle the uneven ROADWAYS..
Don't believe me? I do some 4x4'ing too, you should see how many solid axle truck handle more uneven ground than a car will EVER see..
MY OPINION:: (Ofcourse, this is all just my opinions..based on facts and experiences.)
***With a GOOD spring/shock/strut combination, IRS on the street IS a waste of money....***A luxury that most will NOT even be able to appreciate, like buying expensive speakers that operate OUTSIDE the range of human hearing..("It Sounds Cool!)
If it came as an option, we could see if it was going to make a difference or not, in reality not theory..
***And the only time the reliability of the current F-Body axle is called into question is when the vehicle is either; Considerably modified, or Drag Raced where traction has been greatly improved...***(Slicks/VHT/suspension mods etc)(What of a 12-Bolt, or Ford 9 inch??)
How many Vette's have you ridden in?? I have taken a ride in a few(very few granted), a fast C4 and some C3's and they rode stiffer than my IROC, witout IRS. I could feel every little crack in the road!..
Like I said, spring stiffness and strut or shock combination will affect the ride greater than IRS...True?
BETTER ?, I don't believe I sad that, I said "for certain intended purposes, it's better", some cars are intended for certain duties, right? Why try to make them do everything, half way, when they can do the thing they were meant to do ALL the way...Perform.
I personally like the feed back from the road in "Spirited Driving" episodes, where driving say a Caddy, would "disconnect" you from what's going on between your car and the road...and that can be dangerous!
Why are the SUV's going IRS???
Simply, axle articulation, meaning on uneven ground it'll allow greater flexibilty of the rear suspension, keeping all wheels in contact with the ground for a greater amount of time, correct ?..
*ANOTHER reason is, most small SUV's are basicaly FWD vehicles, and it's easier just to "slap a gear box in the center of the rear, add some axles and rear driveshaft, and leave the rear IRS intact
Why don't we see more IRS in Larger SUV's as small ones??
They aren't carrying the weight of these, basically "Passenger Trucks"or won't be used for "Towing"..
And Cars never leave the reasonably FLAT rolling surfaces and therefore don't NEED much axle articulation, where a live axle has ENOUGH flexibility to more than handle the uneven ROADWAYS..
Don't believe me? I do some 4x4'ing too, you should see how many solid axle truck handle more uneven ground than a car will EVER see..
MY OPINION:: (Ofcourse, this is all just my opinions..based on facts and experiences.)
***With a GOOD spring/shock/strut combination, IRS on the street IS a waste of money....***A luxury that most will NOT even be able to appreciate, like buying expensive speakers that operate OUTSIDE the range of human hearing..("It Sounds Cool!)
If it came as an option, we could see if it was going to make a difference or not, in reality not theory..
***And the only time the reliability of the current F-Body axle is called into question is when the vehicle is either; Considerably modified, or Drag Raced where traction has been greatly improved...***(Slicks/VHT/suspension mods etc)(What of a 12-Bolt, or Ford 9 inch??)
How many Vette's have you ridden in?? I have taken a ride in a few(very few granted), a fast C4 and some C3's and they rode stiffer than my IROC, witout IRS. I could feel every little crack in the road!..
Like I said, spring stiffness and strut or shock combination will affect the ride greater than IRS...True?
BETTER ?, I don't believe I sad that, I said "for certain intended purposes, it's better", some cars are intended for certain duties, right? Why try to make them do everything, half way, when they can do the thing they were meant to do ALL the way...Perform.
I personally like the feed back from the road in "Spirited Driving" episodes, where driving say a Caddy, would "disconnect" you from what's going on between your car and the road...and that can be dangerous!
Last edited by 90rocz; 01-10-2004 at 01:27 PM.
01-10-2004, 03:52 PM
#33
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally posted by 90rocz
Don't believe me? I do some 4x4'ing too, you should see how many solid axle truck handle more uneven ground than a car will EVER see..
Don't believe me? I do some 4x4'ing too, you should see how many solid axle truck handle more uneven ground than a car will EVER see..
Just so you know...there is a substantial difference between rock crawling in an off-road vehicle.....and hitting a mid-apex bump as you squeeze on the gas in a sports car. I'd say the Ferrari would eat that Wrangler there (that is if the 360 wasn't collected in the Wrangler's triple cartwheel)....solid axles, 4x4 and all.
How many Vette's have you ridden in?? I have taken a ride in a few(very few granted), a fast C4 and some C3's and they rode stiffer than my IROC, witout IRS. I could feel every little crack in the road!..
Like I said, spring stiffness and strut or shock combination will affect the ride greater than IRS...True?
FALSE!
An IRS....and for that matter an SLA front ...have a greater ride/handling tunability range than a lively axle and McPherson struts. On your IROC...and mine....if you want to increase handling...you need to limit wheel travel. That gives you a FAR stiffer ride...and oh BTW...beware those mid-corner bumps...they come with lots of drama on a stiffly sprung live rear axle.
Better handling------WITH BETTER RIDE------can be achieved with an IRS and a more sophisticated front suspension. If the C3 or C4 you rode in seemed stiff....it's because it was stiff.
And yes...not only have I ridden in Corvettes...I have actually driven them!
Let's forget about improved ride for a minute....take a live rear end car around a twisty bit of road....and do it again with an IRS car....you will feel the difference...I promise.
Last edited by Z284ever; 01-10-2004 at 03:56 PM.
01-10-2004, 06:13 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Panhandle of West Virginia
Posts: 1,548
Originally posted by Z284ever
Gee....I've never seen a live rear axle snap.
Gee....I've never seen a live rear axle snap.
I've seen 500+ hp pushed into a stock 28 spline t-lok and live multiple passes. A quick upgrade to some 31 spline forged mosers and a good differential and you can push it way beyond that.
01-10-2004, 06:23 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Originally posted by 90rocz
***With a GOOD spring/shock/strut combination, IRS on the street IS a waste of money....***A luxury that most will NOT even be able to appreciate, like buying expensive speakers that operate OUTSIDE the range of human hearing..("It Sounds Cool!)
If it came as an option, we could see if it was going to make a difference or not, in reality not theory..
***With a GOOD spring/shock/strut combination, IRS on the street IS a waste of money....***A luxury that most will NOT even be able to appreciate, like buying expensive speakers that operate OUTSIDE the range of human hearing..("It Sounds Cool!)
If it came as an option, we could see if it was going to make a difference or not, in reality not theory..
01-10-2004, 06:55 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mich.
Posts: 562
Wilson.I see what your saying about IRS and how nice it is to have on a daily basis.I have a IRS equipped Cobra and I know all to well the good and the bad of having IRS.Ill tell you one thing though "you hit a bump mid turn" in an IRS car and guess what?The @$$ end likes to come out too.Mainly when your on the throttle.Sure it isnt the same as solid but it is close.Alot of the stepping out has to do with your tire selection.
Being a die-hard "My blood runs BLUE" kind of guy and absolutly loving the Blue Oval my entire life I am VERY proud that they have a solid axle in the new Mustang.99% of the Mustang owners Ive EVER known are going to dragrace their car then run down to their local roadcourse and hit the twisties.There is no need of debating that information (being from Macomb Im sure you know there are a TON of Mustangs in Southeast Mich.)..Also "most" Cobra owners (99-04) will rather trade their IRS for a solid axle.Sure the IRS in the 99+ cars is a "tacked on" unit,It does what it was designed to do very well.Handle the twisties,The problem is SVT did not think of guys who want to run the snot out of their cars at the dragstrip though.{I can go on about durability issues but it is a waist of bandwidth.}
The part I have been waiting for.
The Shelby Cobra was designed with the Ford GT suspension.Think about this-
Ford GT=5.4 D.O.H.C.
Shelby Cobra=4.6 based V-10 D.O.H.C.
Beings the 5.4 in the GT has a taller deck hieght,Its a no brainer for the 4.6 based V10 to fit in a hole of equal size.
{warning:the above is not a flame!!}
"SLA-In the mind of a Mustang guy"
In another post.
Being a die-hard "My blood runs BLUE" kind of guy and absolutly loving the Blue Oval my entire life I am VERY proud that they have a solid axle in the new Mustang.99% of the Mustang owners Ive EVER known are going to dragrace their car then run down to their local roadcourse and hit the twisties.There is no need of debating that information (being from Macomb Im sure you know there are a TON of Mustangs in Southeast Mich.)..Also "most" Cobra owners (99-04) will rather trade their IRS for a solid axle.Sure the IRS in the 99+ cars is a "tacked on" unit,It does what it was designed to do very well.Handle the twisties,The problem is SVT did not think of guys who want to run the snot out of their cars at the dragstrip though.{I can go on about durability issues but it is a waist of bandwidth.}
The part I have been waiting for.
The Shelby Cobra was designed with the Ford GT suspension.Think about this-
Ford GT=5.4 D.O.H.C.
Shelby Cobra=4.6 based V-10 D.O.H.C.
Beings the 5.4 in the GT has a taller deck hieght,Its a no brainer for the 4.6 based V10 to fit in a hole of equal size.
{warning:the above is not a flame!!}
"SLA-In the mind of a Mustang guy"
In another post.
01-10-2004, 07:48 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
Posts: 2,947
My point is this;
The benefit isn't a huge casm that many believe, and for the most part its bragging rights. There's lots of refinement left in the live axles if they wanted to pursue it.
How many "FAST" Darg Racers do you know run IRS suspensions, barring the weekend warrior Vette?
Me? = NONE..
Drag Racing is just acceleration, if (RWD)IRS is so strong, why isn't it mainstream in racing?
The tune-ability is something I agree with you about, that's why the IRS is used in CART, or INDY racing. Most of which do NOT have brutal low end torque to deal with..
And if you've seen the newer "CV" style rear axles in the new Vette's, they look like the same type axles GM was complaining about being too weak to handle the torque of a "Beefy" V8 in FWD cars.
Even with some of the FWD turbo Chryslers I've owned, half-shafts could'nt even take the abuse of a modded 4 cyl turbo...More than a couple of times I've scattered ball bearings all over the road after a tire-smoking run through the first complete 2 gears...
A suspensions ability to hold a road is NOT greatly affected by IRS, a stiff suspension is a stiff suspension, only tuning the shocks, spring rates, roll bars and geometry will result in greater control. A extremely stiff suspension will hold its "line" right up to the point of total release, where a soft suspension will allow drifting, breaking traction b/c of weight transfer pulls weight off the inside tires.
(As far as windy roads, I live in the Ohio Valley, no wind breaks here. The side-stepping isn't b/c of a solid rear axle, it's the stiff suspension. My Suburban doesn't experience side-stepping and it has a solid front and rear axle.)
The benefit isn't a huge casm that many believe, and for the most part its bragging rights. There's lots of refinement left in the live axles if they wanted to pursue it.
How many "FAST" Darg Racers do you know run IRS suspensions, barring the weekend warrior Vette?
Me? = NONE..
Drag Racing is just acceleration, if (RWD)IRS is so strong, why isn't it mainstream in racing?
The tune-ability is something I agree with you about, that's why the IRS is used in CART, or INDY racing. Most of which do NOT have brutal low end torque to deal with..
And if you've seen the newer "CV" style rear axles in the new Vette's, they look like the same type axles GM was complaining about being too weak to handle the torque of a "Beefy" V8 in FWD cars.
Even with some of the FWD turbo Chryslers I've owned, half-shafts could'nt even take the abuse of a modded 4 cyl turbo...More than a couple of times I've scattered ball bearings all over the road after a tire-smoking run through the first complete 2 gears...
A suspensions ability to hold a road is NOT greatly affected by IRS, a stiff suspension is a stiff suspension, only tuning the shocks, spring rates, roll bars and geometry will result in greater control. A extremely stiff suspension will hold its "line" right up to the point of total release, where a soft suspension will allow drifting, breaking traction b/c of weight transfer pulls weight off the inside tires.
(As far as windy roads, I live in the Ohio Valley, no wind breaks here. The side-stepping isn't b/c of a solid rear axle, it's the stiff suspension. My Suburban doesn't experience side-stepping and it has a solid front and rear axle.)
01-10-2004, 11:01 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
Posts: 1,440
i personally haven't experienced the difference of a good IRS vs a good solid rear axle, so I can't comment on whether IRS is better or the solid axle is just as good as far as handling is concerned. i would agree that a lot has to do with tuning either suspention type when handling is concerned.
however, one thing that is undeniably better with all wheels suspended independently is ride quality. when a solid axle is upset by a bump on the road, especially when the bump is only traveled by one wheel, the entire axle still bounces, causing the whole rear of the car to bob. the solid axle is limited by its inherent design when it comes to absorbing road irregularities.
the IRS on the other hand does not upset the entire car when only one side of the car is going over a bump or some other roughness of the road. only the side that is being effected is upset. the suspention then does what its supposed to do and absorbs the energy on that side leaving the rest of the wheels planted and the car on its intended path. also, there is no way an IRS can "step out" because that is simply not possible due to its design. the solid axel on the other hand does indeed move laterally reletive to the frame/body of the car when it is upset in a turn. the panhard bar which is there to prevent this from happening is far from a perfect device for the job, but once again, little can be done due to the physics involved with the rigid axle.
what may be experience in an IRS suspended car mid corner is loss of traction if the suspention is overly stiff and is unable to absorb the energy transfered to it from the ground (bump). in this case the entiry rear end of the car is momenterily lifted (given a reasonably rigid body), causing loss of traction at the opposit wheel. the sensation may be similar, but its not the same thing. and much more can be done to help this case with an IRS than a solid axle using the numerous tuning options available to the IRS that are simply not there with a solid rear.
that's my take on it anyway.
however, one thing that is undeniably better with all wheels suspended independently is ride quality. when a solid axle is upset by a bump on the road, especially when the bump is only traveled by one wheel, the entire axle still bounces, causing the whole rear of the car to bob. the solid axle is limited by its inherent design when it comes to absorbing road irregularities.
the IRS on the other hand does not upset the entire car when only one side of the car is going over a bump or some other roughness of the road. only the side that is being effected is upset. the suspention then does what its supposed to do and absorbs the energy on that side leaving the rest of the wheels planted and the car on its intended path. also, there is no way an IRS can "step out" because that is simply not possible due to its design. the solid axel on the other hand does indeed move laterally reletive to the frame/body of the car when it is upset in a turn. the panhard bar which is there to prevent this from happening is far from a perfect device for the job, but once again, little can be done due to the physics involved with the rigid axle.
what may be experience in an IRS suspended car mid corner is loss of traction if the suspention is overly stiff and is unable to absorb the energy transfered to it from the ground (bump). in this case the entiry rear end of the car is momenterily lifted (given a reasonably rigid body), causing loss of traction at the opposit wheel. the sensation may be similar, but its not the same thing. and much more can be done to help this case with an IRS than a solid axle using the numerous tuning options available to the IRS that are simply not there with a solid rear.
that's my take on it anyway.
01-10-2004, 11:51 PM
#39
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Anyway......
If the Mustang guys like a live rear axle....well then, bless their hearts!
As far as I know....nothing but a well developed IRS has EVER been considered for a 5th gen. I just hope they don't get stingy on the front end.
Here's another point I'd like to bring up. Possibly, Ford had to skimp on suspension in order to pay for more expensive powertrains.
How much more do you think the Mustang GT's 300 hp 3v motor costs than the 400hp ( ) LS2? Forget that.....how much more than the LS2 will the future Mach 1's re-tuned '03/'04 Cobra motor cost? Forget that....how much more than the LS2 will the '06 Cobra's alloy, 4v, SC 5.4 cost?
I'm surprised Ford didn't consider leaf springs.
If the Mustang guys like a live rear axle....well then, bless their hearts!
As far as I know....nothing but a well developed IRS has EVER been considered for a 5th gen. I just hope they don't get stingy on the front end.
Here's another point I'd like to bring up. Possibly, Ford had to skimp on suspension in order to pay for more expensive powertrains.
How much more do you think the Mustang GT's 300 hp 3v motor costs than the 400hp (
) LS2? Forget that.....how much more than the LS2 will the future Mach 1's re-tuned '03/'04 Cobra motor cost? Forget that....how much more than the LS2 will the '06 Cobra's alloy, 4v, SC 5.4 cost?I'm surprised Ford didn't consider leaf springs.
01-11-2004, 02:34 AM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Houston TX (Chicago/Evanston IL)
Posts: 781
Dont knock leaf springs.... the C6 Corvette has them
You can make a Solid axle handle. It might not ride that great but some people cant afford a car like that. The new mustang is a great car for the cost. The wife has taken a liking to them. It might replace her SRT-4 in a year. My next car.... A GT0, 5th GEN or the next S/C offering from the mustnag camp.
A well done IRS will be on mustang. Thats not the issue. Its the front suspention that will be lacking on the Cobra.
Maybe a SLA/IRS 4.1 sc v8 from the jags for one bad *** handling Cobra R. Rumor has it that the jag s/c V8s will be incking upon the 500hp mark. It would all fit.
You can make a Solid axle handle. It might not ride that great but some people cant afford a car like that. The new mustang is a great car for the cost. The wife has taken a liking to them. It might replace her SRT-4 in a year. My next car.... A GT0, 5th GEN or the next S/C offering from the mustnag camp.
A well done IRS will be on mustang. Thats not the issue. Its the front suspention that will be lacking on the Cobra.
Maybe a SLA/IRS 4.1 sc v8 from the jags for one bad *** handling Cobra R. Rumor has it that the jag s/c V8s will be incking upon the 500hp mark. It would all fit.
Last edited by Evil Turbo SS; 01-11-2004 at 02:37 AM.
01-11-2004, 09:54 AM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 124
Originally posted by ProudPony
As a Mustang owner myself, I too was for the Live Rear Axle on the base and entry V8 cars. These cars are where the unwealthy individual strives to create his own weekend warrior/daily driver. I agree with Mark that a correctly designed and applied IRS shouldn't be a huge hindrance to the drag racer - but at what additional costs? There is NO WAY you can pull the Ring and Pinion swap, add roll-overs or traction control links, and narrow the axles for tub/slicks on an IRS system like you can with a Ford 8.8 or 9" for anywhere close to the same money - NO WAY.
IRS costs more - PERIOD. It therefore makes perfect sense that those who know what it is, and are savvy enough to enjoy it's benefits, should be willing to pay the premium that it requires. Hence, putting the IRS system on the upscale cars like Cobra is a perfect solution.
Also, the typical 16-24 year old high school or college kid that is likely the buyer/driver of the base V6 car couldn't tell you what IRS means, much less feel the difference in ride quality. The kids are just ecstatic to have a car at all, and "look cool" in a Mustang as opposed to dad's ol' Granada or something. And again, these kids don't have the extra $ching$ to lay out for un-necessary things like IRS.
As a Mustang owner myself, I too was for the Live Rear Axle on the base and entry V8 cars. These cars are where the unwealthy individual strives to create his own weekend warrior/daily driver. I agree with Mark that a correctly designed and applied IRS shouldn't be a huge hindrance to the drag racer - but at what additional costs? There is NO WAY you can pull the Ring and Pinion swap, add roll-overs or traction control links, and narrow the axles for tub/slicks on an IRS system like you can with a Ford 8.8 or 9" for anywhere close to the same money - NO WAY.
IRS costs more - PERIOD. It therefore makes perfect sense that those who know what it is, and are savvy enough to enjoy it's benefits, should be willing to pay the premium that it requires. Hence, putting the IRS system on the upscale cars like Cobra is a perfect solution.
Also, the typical 16-24 year old high school or college kid that is likely the buyer/driver of the base V6 car couldn't tell you what IRS means, much less feel the difference in ride quality. The kids are just ecstatic to have a car at all, and "look cool" in a Mustang as opposed to dad's ol' Granada or something. And again, these kids don't have the extra $ching$ to lay out for un-necessary things like IRS.
I think this hits the nail on the head squarely. Again, I've stated in other posts the group of people on this website are NOT "typical" car buyers. We are enthusiasts , which by nature are going to put performance on the top of our lists. If we could have our way, we would have a full aluminum lightweight suspension with IRS that could handle 600 HP from the factory (to match the 550 HP output of the car!). As purists, we want nothing but the best!
But that does not typify the masses of America. I agree with Ford's decision for a live rear axle. I think the chassis should be designed to accept either, and make IRS (as well as other goodies, I.E. cobra) as an option. And I hope they do the same for the next gen. camaro.
What I'm really miffed about is the VVT (variable valve timing) technology that Ford came out with on their new engine for the GT! 300 HP on 87 octane! UNREAL! We don't have that technology on our top of the line vette!
Good old general, caught with it's pants down again!
01-11-2004, 10:03 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Posts: 2,072
Originally posted by GOATCRAZY
What I'm really miffed about is the VVT (variable valve timing) technology that Ford came out with on their new engine for the GT! 300 HP on 87 octane! UNREAL! We don't have that technology on our top of the line vette!
Good old general, caught with it's pants down again!
What I'm really miffed about is the VVT (variable valve timing) technology that Ford came out with on their new engine for the GT! 300 HP on 87 octane! UNREAL! We don't have that technology on our top of the line vette!
Good old general, caught with it's pants down again!
Remember GM did this with the 300 hp Northstar engines years ago, same displacement, 300 hp, 87 octane. I don't find it that big a deal. 300 hp was good 12 years ago when the LT1 came out, even if the recomended fuel was premium.
01-11-2004, 12:29 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I know what you mean. Now we have to make due with only 400 under-rated horse power in the base Vette and soon to be V8 Camaro. What is GM thinking!
I know what you mean. Now we have to make due with only 400 under-rated horse power in the base Vette and soon to be V8 Camaro. What is GM thinking!
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Remember GM did this with the 300 hp Northstar engines years ago, same displacement, 300 hp, 87 octane. I don't find it that big a deal. 300 hp was good 12 years ago when the LT1 came out, even if the recomended fuel was premium.
Remember GM did this with the 300 hp Northstar engines years ago, same displacement, 300 hp, 87 octane. I don't find it that big a deal. 300 hp was good 12 years ago when the LT1 came out, even if the recomended fuel was premium.
. Extra cam, as well as an extra 8 valves. That and it was in a more expensive cadillac, not a camaro. I'd also be interested in the power/tq curves for it vs 4.6 3v, but i get the feeling that the 4.6 3v performs better.
01-11-2004, 12:29 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,313
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I know what you mean. Now we have to make due with only 400 under-rated horse power in the base Vette and soon to be V8 Camaro. What is GM thinking!
I know what you mean. Now we have to make due with only 400 under-rated horse power in the base Vette and soon to be V8 Camaro. What is GM thinking!
Originally posted by SNEAKY NEIL
Remember GM did this with the 300 hp Northstar engines years ago, same displacement, 300 hp, 87 octane. I don't find it that big a deal. 300 hp was good 12 years ago when the LT1 came out, even if the recomended fuel was premium.
Remember GM did this with the 300 hp Northstar engines years ago, same displacement, 300 hp, 87 octane. I don't find it that big a deal. 300 hp was good 12 years ago when the LT1 came out, even if the recomended fuel was premium.
. Extra cam, as well as an extra 8 valves. That and it was in a more expensive cadillac, not a camaro. I'd also be interested in the power/tq curves for it vs 4.6 3v, but i get the feeling that the 4.6 3v performs better.