A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
04-01-2005, 12:32 AM
#151
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 757
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by holeshot
I will gladly accept a solid rear axle……………The next time I am looking to buy a TRUCK OR OX CART. I will not purchase a new car, built in this decade, with a solid axle. Sorry isn’t going to happen.
Strut front suspension: This is an inferior design to what the 4th gen had.
Solid Rear axle: This is inferior to almost every other car on the planet
“Mustang has this configuration and it is doing well”……So what! This approach will be another case of GM taking a competitor’s vehicle that is already in production; spend 3 to 4 years to develop their own generic version; just to end up with a mediocre car that is almost as good as what the competion has been building for years.
I have seen members of this board criticize GM, multiple times, for this exact approach to vehicle development. Now suddenly this is OK for the next generation Camaro. I don’t think so!
GM has been trying this half baked, half azzed, parts bin, bargain basement, “close enough”, “almost good enough” approached to building cars for years. This my friends is why their market share and their reputation are in the crapper.
The only way GM is going to improve their situation is to start building world class vehicles, that are leaders in their target market segments, and that are superior to offerings from the competition. This proposal for a 5th gen. will absolutely not be world class, It will not lead its market segment and it will be lucky to be as good as the competition. Why even bother?
After the long wait that we have had to endure, I can’t believe how many people here are willing to accept this. I guess it goes to show you. If someone gets hungry enough, they will eat anything that’s put in front of their face.
Not me. There are other reausturants out there, and I am no longer settling for “Fast Food”.
Strut front suspension: This is an inferior design to what the 4th gen had.
Solid Rear axle: This is inferior to almost every other car on the planet
“Mustang has this configuration and it is doing well”……So what! This approach will be another case of GM taking a competitor’s vehicle that is already in production; spend 3 to 4 years to develop their own generic version; just to end up with a mediocre car that is almost as good as what the competion has been building for years.
I have seen members of this board criticize GM, multiple times, for this exact approach to vehicle development. Now suddenly this is OK for the next generation Camaro. I don’t think so!
GM has been trying this half baked, half azzed, parts bin, bargain basement, “close enough”, “almost good enough” approached to building cars for years. This my friends is why their market share and their reputation are in the crapper.
The only way GM is going to improve their situation is to start building world class vehicles, that are leaders in their target market segments, and that are superior to offerings from the competition. This proposal for a 5th gen. will absolutely not be world class, It will not lead its market segment and it will be lucky to be as good as the competition. Why even bother?
After the long wait that we have had to endure, I can’t believe how many people here are willing to accept this. I guess it goes to show you. If someone gets hungry enough, they will eat anything that’s put in front of their face.
Not me. There are other reausturants out there, and I am no longer settling for “Fast Food”.
I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.
Need I remind you that the Camaro that generated the loyal following we see at this and other enthusiast sites was not some perfected wundercar. It was crude, it had a "functional" interior, and it always featured a *gasp* live rear axle. The same can be said for the new Mustang that's capturing thousands of new customers.
I am not saying that this should be a crappy car. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion seeing the parts list. A sigma chassis - good so far, right? McPherson struts? You could argue here that its cheaping out, but I say that if its a good setup, you will be very happy with the result. Now for the big one - live rear axle. Beyond any of the issues of whether it saves cost or not - which it clearly does according to evok - I would have you take a look at every car review of the CTS-V. Remember what was the common complaint? WHEEL HOP!. That's right, the super duper IRS that you and others are saying you would hinge you purchase on is actually the weakest link on a $50,000 sport sedan.
04-01-2005, 06:50 AM
#152
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by dav305z
I'm just not sure what kind of car you think a Camaro is supposed to be. It's not a pure bred sports car, not by any stretch of the imagination. The Camaro's purpose was and should always be to provide incredible performance to the budget minded enthusiast. When you talk about producing a car that goes as fast as cars twice its price, you have to expect that something must be sacrificed in order to get it down to $25,000.
I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.
Need I remind you that the Camaro that generated the loyal following we see at this and other enthusiast sites was not some perfected wundercar. It was crude, it had a "functional" interior, and it always featured a *gasp* live rear axle. The same can be said for the new Mustang that's capturing thousands of new customers.
I am not saying that this should be a crappy car. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion seeing the parts list. A sigma chassis - good so far, right? McPherson struts? You could argue here that its cheaping out, but I say that if its a good setup, you will be very happy with the result. Now for the big one - live rear axle. Beyond any of the issues of whether it saves cost or not - which it clearly does according to evok - I would have you take a look at every car review of the CTS-V. Remember what was the common complaint? WHEEL HOP!. That's right, the super duper IRS that you and others are saying you would hinge you purchase on is actually the weakest link on a $50,000 sport sedan.
I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.
Need I remind you that the Camaro that generated the loyal following we see at this and other enthusiast sites was not some perfected wundercar. It was crude, it had a "functional" interior, and it always featured a *gasp* live rear axle. The same can be said for the new Mustang that's capturing thousands of new customers.
I am not saying that this should be a crappy car. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion seeing the parts list. A sigma chassis - good so far, right? McPherson struts? You could argue here that its cheaping out, but I say that if its a good setup, you will be very happy with the result. Now for the big one - live rear axle. Beyond any of the issues of whether it saves cost or not - which it clearly does according to evok - I would have you take a look at every car review of the CTS-V. Remember what was the common complaint? WHEEL HOP!. That's right, the super duper IRS that you and others are saying you would hinge you purchase on is actually the weakest link on a $50,000 sport sedan.
The most direct and accurate post on this entire thread! 
BTW: It's great to see debate focused on a 5th gen Camaro again, and thanks to Evok for a very interesting and plausable idea.
When was the last time there was a new discussion on a future Camaro that not only wasn't a re-hash of another conversation or attracted attention from certain people at GM, but scored 11 pages in just a few days?
04-01-2005, 08:06 AM
#153
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 917
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
...and then they read auto rags bashing their new purchase up and down because of the "ancient" architecture and poor choices executed by the manufacturer 
04-01-2005, 08:21 AM
#154
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,252
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Hmmm....if a person won't buy a new Camaro with an "ancient" live axle (that could probably still do a great job), would you buy one with an "ancient" pushrod V8 (that could no doubt still do a great job)? After all - this is the 21st century, and every other potential competitor has overhead cams, at least 3 valves per cylinder, and usually variable cam timing. Must Camaro have the same in order to be a viable choice? Further, the LSx engine would have to come out of GM's "parts bin". If we can't do that for suspension parts, then I suppose we'll have to upgrade that ancient engine architecture - a brand spanking new 3V/4V variable-cam timing OHC 5.x/6.x L engine should be just the ticket, I think.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
04-01-2005, 08:38 AM
#155
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,612
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by Bob Cosby
Hmmm....if a person won't buy a new Camaro with an "ancient" live axle (that could probably still do a great job), would you buy one with an "ancient" pushrod V8 (that could no doubt still do a great job)? After all - this is the 21st century, and every other potential competitor has overhead cams, at least 3 valves per cylinder, and usually variable cam timing. Must Camaro have the same in order to be a viable choice? Further, the LSx engine would have to come out of GM's "parts bin". If we can't do that for suspension parts, then I suppose we'll have to upgrade that ancient engine architecture - a brand spanking new 3V/4V variable-cam timing OHC 5.x/6.x L engine should be just the ticket, I think.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
04-01-2005, 08:38 AM
#156
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Metairie La.
Posts: 269
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6
I'm assuming you and everyone else out there saying LS7 understands its a pipe dream. GM's not going to pull the exclusivity of their $75,000 Supercar down by putting the LS7 in a Camaro. Its just not going to happen.
Expect the LS4 standard with 6.0L maybe optional on the SS and and then 6.0L standard on the Z28 with Z06 style suspension and braking upgrades.
Expect the LS4 standard with 6.0L maybe optional on the SS and and then 6.0L standard on the Z28 with Z06 style suspension and braking upgrades.
Isn't the LS4 for front drive applications
?
04-01-2005, 08:40 AM
#157
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,252
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by Chuck!
How much has the V8 changed since 1916? And how much has the live-rear axle changed since 1916?
I guess my point wasn't well made. Oh well.
04-01-2005, 08:52 AM
#158
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by uluz28
...and then they read auto rags bashing their new purchase up and down because of the "ancient" architecture and poor choices executed by the manufacturer
This is a real dilema.......the "word on the street" reaches nearly all consumers...especially sport coupe/pony car buyers. These buyers don't do this on a whim.....they don't want to "wear last years clothes".
I have NO idea why Ford is getting a pass on their use of a buggy axle.....and the cheezy plastics on the interior.....not to mention the sloppy shifters, etc..... Maybe it's because there's nothing really to compare it to.
Either way, if GM half @$$ed a new Camaro....especially after killing it in the first place....and believe me, if the used both a live axle and Macpherson struts.....along with obvious parts bin assemblies, Chevy would be crucified!
Every magazine cover, website and message board would be filled with vilification of GM for FAILING to fix what was wrong in the first place.
You can NOT go off half c o c k e d in today's market.
Price is important....
Styling is right behind price....
Quality will kill you if you don't achieve it....
Chevrolet lost it's heart when it lost the Camaro.
The very thing that, while it may have not been a sales leader, it still caused people to look twice as they passed the dealerships and the kid in all of us longed to buy THAT car instead of the SUV or sedan that our more practical side told us we should buy.
It put people in the showrooms.
Corvette does not do the same thing....it is easily dismissed because of it's two seater configuration AND it's price. Corvette has always just been a wet dream for the masses....but the Camaro WAS achievable....
It is more obvious now than ever that Chevrolet has lost it's direction and it's ability to connect to the consumer on a emotional level.
Trucks are tools.....
SUV's and sedans are basic transportation.....
The Camaro represented the LOVE of the automobile and the passion of driving...
You can't fix that with a bandaid......but you sure as hell better fix it soon.....REAL soon.
Last edited by Doug Harden; 04-01-2005 at 08:57 AM.
04-01-2005, 09:08 AM
#159
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,646
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Let me put another arguement for IRS, the V6 base cars. Granted people are not going to know and only a few really care have back there, but....they will care alot how it rides.
It's been stated here alot that at a few of us are keenly aware that the success of the model line depends hugely on the acceptance of the base or lower end models. Having driven live axle and IRS sport(y) cars, the IRS definately feels better on the street.
I think IRS offers a huge benefit to the non enthusiat driver, which will then be beneficial to the whole line.
Does the Corvette suffer from axle hop?
Now for the counter arguement, the Mustang has a solid axle, if it's good for them it's good for us. No, not really. One of GM's shortfalls with new models is they benchmark existing competitors models, which are soon redesigned leaving the GM product behing the 8-ball again very quickly. Plus, I've heard it suggested that Ford may have used the solid axle becuase with no direct competition there was no justification to spend the $$ on IRS. Giving the Camaro IRS leapfrogs the competition AND put's on even playing ground with more premium cars like the RX-8 and 350Z. Remember 'Bang for the Buck'?
And about cost, whose to say a solid axle is less expesive on the whole? Part for part, maybe (I've never looked into it), but, rework an IRS chassis for a truck's rear end (including tuning, crash testing, NVH and the rest) and after you spread that investment over the life cycle of the chassis (amoritization?), it very well might cost the same as IRS.
It's been stated here alot that at a few of us are keenly aware that the success of the model line depends hugely on the acceptance of the base or lower end models. Having driven live axle and IRS sport(y) cars, the IRS definately feels better on the street.
I think IRS offers a huge benefit to the non enthusiat driver, which will then be beneficial to the whole line.
Does the Corvette suffer from axle hop?
Now for the counter arguement, the Mustang has a solid axle, if it's good for them it's good for us. No, not really. One of GM's shortfalls with new models is they benchmark existing competitors models, which are soon redesigned leaving the GM product behing the 8-ball again very quickly. Plus, I've heard it suggested that Ford may have used the solid axle becuase with no direct competition there was no justification to spend the $$ on IRS. Giving the Camaro IRS leapfrogs the competition AND put's on even playing ground with more premium cars like the RX-8 and 350Z. Remember 'Bang for the Buck'?
And about cost, whose to say a solid axle is less expesive on the whole? Part for part, maybe (I've never looked into it), but, rework an IRS chassis for a truck's rear end (including tuning, crash testing, NVH and the rest) and after you spread that investment over the life cycle of the chassis (amoritization?), it very well might cost the same as IRS.
04-01-2005, 09:21 AM
#160
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,504
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by dream '94 Z28
Let me put another arguement for IRS, the V6 base cars. Granted people are not going to know and only a few really care have back there, but....they will care alot how it rides.
It's been stated here alot that at a few of us are keenly aware that the success of the model line depends hugely on the acceptance of the base or lower end models. Having driven live axle and IRS sport(y) cars, the IRS definately feels better on the street.
I think IRS offers a huge benefit to the non enthusiat driver, which will then be beneficial to the whole line.
Does the Corvette suffer from axle hop?
Now for the counter arguement, the Mustang has a solid axle, if it's good for them it's good for us. No, not really. One of GM's shortfalls with new models is they benchmark existing competitors models, which are soon redesigned leaving the GM product behing the 8-ball again very quickly. Plus, I've heard it suggested that Ford may have used the solid axle becuase with no direct competition there was no justification to spend the $$ on IRS. Giving the Camaro IRS leapfrogs the competition AND put's on even playing ground with more premium cars like the RX-8 and 350Z. Remember 'Bang for the Buck'?
And about cost, whose to say a solid axle is less expesive on the whole? Part for part, maybe (I've never looked into it), but, rework an IRS chassis for a truck's rear end (including tuning, crash testing, NVH and the rest) and after you spread that investment over the life cycle of the chassis (amoritization?), it very well might cost the same as IRS.
It's been stated here alot that at a few of us are keenly aware that the success of the model line depends hugely on the acceptance of the base or lower end models. Having driven live axle and IRS sport(y) cars, the IRS definately feels better on the street.
I think IRS offers a huge benefit to the non enthusiat driver, which will then be beneficial to the whole line.
Does the Corvette suffer from axle hop?
Now for the counter arguement, the Mustang has a solid axle, if it's good for them it's good for us. No, not really. One of GM's shortfalls with new models is they benchmark existing competitors models, which are soon redesigned leaving the GM product behing the 8-ball again very quickly. Plus, I've heard it suggested that Ford may have used the solid axle becuase with no direct competition there was no justification to spend the $$ on IRS. Giving the Camaro IRS leapfrogs the competition AND put's on even playing ground with more premium cars like the RX-8 and 350Z. Remember 'Bang for the Buck'?
And about cost, whose to say a solid axle is less expesive on the whole? Part for part, maybe (I've never looked into it), but, rework an IRS chassis for a truck's rear end (including tuning, crash testing, NVH and the rest) and after you spread that investment over the life cycle of the chassis (amoritization?), it very well might cost the same as IRS.
I strongly agree with everything here... I've been trying to say a lot of this, but I think you stated it very well!
The most important pieces, IMO are ride quality for V6 (read: bulk of build) cars for people who are going to compare the ride to other cars, and leapfrogging, rather than copying the compitition.
04-01-2005, 09:36 AM
#161
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,252
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Just because it uses a live axle doesn't mean GM would be "copying". My bet is that it would have four wheels/tires too - just like Mustang
Yessir - perhaps not as often, but it seems to be an issue (especially for Z06s): http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=812129
Originally Posted by dream '94 Z28
Does the Corvette suffer from axle hop?
04-01-2005, 09:45 AM
#162
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,646
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
[QUOTE=Bob Cosby]Just because it uses a live axle doesn't mean GM would be "copying". My bet is that it would have four wheels/tires too - just like Mustang[QUOTE]
I'm not saying 'copy' exactly. Let me use this example:
The new Cobalt uses a rear suspension design VERY similar to the current generation Golf. This is a huge improvement to the old model, and it's been praised by the automotive press so far as I've read (latest Motor Trend picks the Cobalt SS over the Neon SRT-4). The Cobalt uses independent traling arms and fluid filled bushings with a twist beam tying everything together. I think it's a 'quasi-irs" set up.
Now, this is great but...I've read a few places that it's not as responsive as a Focus or Civic that use IRS, and...the next generation Golf has IRS. Now how good will the Cobalt's handling be, on the road and during bench racing? And only 2 years into it's, life cycle.
I will admit (before anyone else has a chance) that this could turn out to splitting hairs, but it's indicitive of the process in general.
I'm not saying 'copy' exactly. Let me use this example:
The new Cobalt uses a rear suspension design VERY similar to the current generation Golf. This is a huge improvement to the old model, and it's been praised by the automotive press so far as I've read (latest Motor Trend picks the Cobalt SS over the Neon SRT-4). The Cobalt uses independent traling arms and fluid filled bushings with a twist beam tying everything together. I think it's a 'quasi-irs" set up.
Now, this is great but...I've read a few places that it's not as responsive as a Focus or Civic that use IRS, and...the next generation Golf has IRS. Now how good will the Cobalt's handling be, on the road and during bench racing? And only 2 years into it's, life cycle.
I will admit (before anyone else has a chance) that this could turn out to splitting hairs, but it's indicitive of the process in general.
04-01-2005, 11:26 AM
#163
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by dav305z
I'm just not sure what kind of car you think a Camaro is supposed to be. It's not a pure bred sports car, not by any stretch of the imagination. The Camaro's purpose was and should always be to provide incredible performance to the budget minded enthusiast. When you talk about producing a car that goes as fast as cars twice its price, you have to expect that something must be sacrificed in order to get it down to $25,000.
I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.
Need I remind you that the Camaro that generated the loyal following we see at this and other enthusiast sites was not some perfected wundercar. It was crude, it had a "functional" interior, and it always featured a *gasp* live rear axle. The same can be said for the new Mustang that's capturing thousands of new customers.
I am not saying that this should be a crappy car. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion seeing the parts list. A sigma chassis - good so far, right? McPherson struts? You could argue here that its cheaping out, but I say that if its a good setup, you will be very happy with the result. Now for the big one - live rear axle. Beyond any of the issues of whether it saves cost or not - which it clearly does according to evok - I would have you take a look at every car review of the CTS-V. Remember what was the common complaint? WHEEL HOP!. That's right, the super duper IRS that you and others are saying you would hinge you purchase on is actually the weakest link on a $50,000 sport sedan.
I think that in the Camaro's absense, people are doing the same as they did with the GTO - that is, glorifying it to the point that no real car could fill its shoes.
Need I remind you that the Camaro that generated the loyal following we see at this and other enthusiast sites was not some perfected wundercar. It was crude, it had a "functional" interior, and it always featured a *gasp* live rear axle. The same can be said for the new Mustang that's capturing thousands of new customers.
I am not saying that this should be a crappy car. I don't understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion seeing the parts list. A sigma chassis - good so far, right? McPherson struts? You could argue here that its cheaping out, but I say that if its a good setup, you will be very happy with the result. Now for the big one - live rear axle. Beyond any of the issues of whether it saves cost or not - which it clearly does according to evok - I would have you take a look at every car review of the CTS-V. Remember what was the common complaint? WHEEL HOP!. That's right, the super duper IRS that you and others are saying you would hinge you purchase on is actually the weakest link on a $50,000 sport sedan.
04-01-2005, 11:54 AM
#164
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,646
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by jg95z28
Ah, yes! Somebody finally gets it.
The new Camro need to be more than what it was, FOR THE BASE CARS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF SALES WILL BE!
It can't be "crude"....
The interior must be more than mearly 'functional'....
It has to appeal to the widest audience possible to be viable.
The same CANNOT be said of the new Mustang. It's interior is much better than the previous. It's no longer a crude chassis (despite a truck rear end).
04-01-2005, 11:56 AM
#165
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Re: A workable & practical way of getting a Camaro to market quickly & cheaply!
Originally Posted by Doug Harden
Chevrolet lost it's heart when it lost the Camaro.
Back on topic, Camaro WILL NOT GET the free pass the Mustang got for its suspension choice. Drag racers wanted it....ok sure....but again these are cars where 98% of its duties will be on real world roads....bumpy, pothole scarred....a more compliant suspension under everyday circumstances should be priority #1 at the very least on the secretary special V6's. End of story.