Hey! I think someone got it!

 

Let's list the number of RWD cars that still have a live axle......

1. Mustang
2. Crown Vic
3. Large Caddies?
.................others?

 

Doug the only Caddies with live axles are the Escalades. The DTS is FWD and the rest are on Sigma.

 

Good point.

But i don't get how the mustang gets a free ride? A live axle is STILL a live axle. Magazines have grilled them for it, but people will still buy them. The reason mustang still sells well with it is because the majority of consumers really don't know difference and only know what they see on the outside. Go walk up to a typical v6 mustang owner and ask them whether they have a live axle or an IRS back there. 20 bucks says 98 out of 100 won't even know. Outside of the real enthusiasts that know the cars like the back of their hand, the general public really is blind on this matter. That's NO excuse to go with a live axle, but i don't really think a live axle would spell automatic doom for a 5th gen.

I think things like a more attractive/appealing quality interior/exterior as well as solid performance figures and some good marketing are more cruicial to the sales success of the 5th gen than the type of axle that resides in the rear. Some may find the live axle a turn-off on the mustang, but many more find the overall package attractive, especially for the price. As long as the Camaro's overall package is attractive, the type of rear won't make much of a difference in terms of sales success imo.

Just my 2 cents. I personally have a lot of concerns, priorities, and stuff regarding the 5th gen, but a live vs IRS is the least of my worries. But that's just me *shrug*. Like i said earlier, i'd rather see a solid/durable axle for once be it IRS or live as far as the rear is concerned.

 

Same can be said about the use of leaf spring on the rear suspension (ala vette) vs traditional coil-overs or pushrods over OHC. Yes, pusrods aren't as smooth as OHC and they don't have the breathing capability uptop like the OHC cars, but they still have their pluses and get the job done right? That and they've come a long ways.

Same with live. I've driven IRS equiped performance cars, and given the nature of high performance cars, the ride quality almost always sucks period given the stiffly sprung and low-slung nature of such cars. Outside of having an IRS for namesake, does anyone really think that an IRS will provide a significant improvement over a properly done up live axle in terms of handling and ride quality....Key word here is SIGNIFICANT. And does this ride quality rank high in a pony car purchases?

I'm not opposed to IRS btw, just playing devils advocate. I really don't think a live axle automatically spells doom for a 5th gen. I don't think it'll make it or break it either.

 

Mano-o-days, has this thread been going in circles?!?!

Know what? The axle thing is a smoke screen right now for false images to appear on. I find it hard to believe that if GM put a Camaro on dealers lots with a decent interior, good tranny, enhanced LS1, and fresh new sheetmetal, that most of you guys wouldn't consider it at all because it has a 10-bolt or 12-bolt under it.

Get this straight...
Refinements cost MONEY.
Technology costs MONEY.
Designwork costs MONEY.
Testing costs MONEY.
Tooling costs MONEY.
Training costs MONEY.
Documentation costs MONEY.

All of these need to be done to introduce a new subassembly into a production line, and more. Camaro (and Mustang) are not about refinement, comfort, and technology... never have been, never should be either. GM vas the Vette for that market, and now the GTO too. Why would they want yet another $40k or higher vehicle on the lots?!?!

For Chrissake, keep the d@mn car simple, basic, and sporty... PERIOD!
Give 'em the IRS, and they'll want SLA. Give them SLA and they will want coil-overs. Give them coil-overs and they will want Nav systems. Give them NAV systems and they will want DVD players. and so on ad-infinitum. And of course, they will want all this stuff with no increase to the base price. BLAH!
If you want a technologically advanced RWD V8, go buy a Caddy CTSv, Vette, or GTO and take your mortgage with you. But do me (and the other poor working stiffs in the world that just want to go fast on the cheap) a huge favor, leave the Camaros (and Mustangs and Firebirds) true to their roots and heritage and leave the "technology arguments" at home. Hell, I'm even leary about Ford pioneering a VVT-3V motor in the pony car, much less do I care about an IRS in a sub-20k car for teeny-boppers or twenty-somethings to go to school in.

Instead, how-bout we concentrate on things that will REALLY matter to a buyer, like colors, wheel packages, options lists, interior layout, interior quality, sheetmetal design, fit and finish, windshield acreage, dashboard acreage, ease of maintenance, limited editions, scoops and decals, engine/tranny options, T-tops, sunroofs, convertible models, exhaust systems, stereo packages... and so forth.
I can GUARANTEE these things will sell a car off a lot faster than any IRS option.


PS - to all the naysayers of live axles...
You should do a little research before you start harping on the Mustang's new 5-link units. They are getting great reviews from everyone that ACTUALLY DRIVES ONE instead of spreading internet chatter. Also, the live axle was chosen in public opinion polls and focus groups - not 100% of which were drag racers either.
I'm getting tired of people thinking Ford "got away with something" by putting a tube under the Mustang.... no wait, they DID get away with something... 200,000 SOLD VEHICLES, that's what they got away with! 200,000 people eager to throw their money at a car. It does sound like they "got away" with something, now doesn't it? Happy customers... think about it.

 

Some issue with this:

1) If you use GTO as a comparision, it's already been noted that a comparably equipped 4th Gen Camaro SS or TA WS6 would be priced only slightly less... and that car has been gone for 3 years, so it's price would have slid upwards over that time to boot.

2) If you take away the LS1/LS2, standard leather, 6 disc stereo, and a host of other things that GTO comes with standard, and plug in base Camaro pieces (V6, cloth interior, standard CD radio, etc...) your price would amazingly fall into an area that might only be a tad higher than what an acceptible Camaro base price would be.

3) Yes, if a live axle was used, most people from this site would probably buy it anyway... however, there are LOTS of people who want a comfortable riding sporty car... A LOT of people thought my 89 RS and 99 Z28 rode rough.... and the V6 buyers can easily go buy a FWD car, because they get the ride they want... (remeber that GRAND AM was listed as an alternative by Mustang buyers ahead of Camaro!!!!!) and they don't care about the drive wheels as much as they don't care about the type of suspension in the rear.... but they will feel the difference, and it could swing them in a different direction.

Yes, it is working for Mustang right now, but as recent history has shown... a new Camaro will probably have to be better than the Mustang to grow it's buyer base. Especially in the base car market.

 

ProudPony........take a deep breath.

This thread started as someone's idea that you could simply hang a buggy axle and struts (on a chassis that was never designed for them) and ****** up the rest of the parts out of the recycle bin and whalla...a Camaro could be born.

The debate about a live axle versus an IRS is a spin-off of that flawed premis to wit, those of us who would rather they "do it right or not at all" are simply arguing for the Camaro to not return as a re-run of the 3rd gens........and thereby be crucified by the automotive press causing yet another death of a species.

Honestly, IF a suitable platform (not convinced Sigma is or ever was "suitable") could be designed for either (as was the Mustang's platform) then there would be NO question that the entry level models should use whatever is cheaper and an IRS setup be reserved for the SS & Z/28.

But that's not the premis of this thread.......parts bin engineering is what's being tossed about like it's no big deal.....the axle/strut debate is a wish for advancement and longetivity of the design......

 

I totally disagree with this mindset. The GTO nameplate was not elevated into a status that nothing could represent it. That is ridiculous. What GM did was take an existing car and slap a nameplate of GTO on it. That is why the GTO has not seen great success. It is not rocket science.

GM needed to start from the ground up concerning the GTO and build a car that matches the stigma.. The new GTO fell way short, considering it was never designed with the GTO nameplate in mind to begin with.

On that note, GM just cannot make the same mistake over again and again.. Throwing together a parts bin Camaro would be suicide. Yes it would be great to have a new Camaro come out soon, but in reality it would fail and fail big time.

The Camaro's direct competition would be of course the Mustang. What Ford did with this latest car was amazing. They started from scratch, and used the Mustangs history and influence over the years to build a car that represents the Mustang to the tee... that is now almost an icon status, selling like hotcakes..

There is no way in hell a rush job Camaro thrown together from a parts bin to rush it for Camaro lovers satisfaction would come close to the Mustang. The only way for the next generation Camaro to succeed is to dedicate a ground up perspective for the Camaro, and grab the influence over the many existing years, and build a car ture to it's image. That is the key. A car that can also sell large volumes in the lower end models.

The Mustang did just that, and did it well.. The GTO did not , and we all can see the result of that. A rushed Camaro from the parts bin would accomplish nothing more than another failure.

 

My thought's exactly. The market has changed since the days of the 'simple' car and to be successful a new Camaro will have to sell to more than just the 'poor working stiff'. It'll have to sell to the college students, the secretaries, the automotive technofiles, etc.

WE, on this board, represent the MINORITY. Hell, I'm in the minority because I really DO NOT want the seating position to change.

 

Don't worry, I'm not menstrual over it... I just think some folks are playing that one card too heavily in this F5 formula.

 

Agreed.....

 

I think a person's perception of a better ride would be achieved with a better seating position. Getting into a camaro is like getting into a race car (nothing wrong with that but girls don't want that). The Mustang apparently is not like that, easy to get in and easy to get out of.

As for choice of engine people are bringing the LS1 back from the dead, I don't see how Chevy could take a step backward in performance regarding their smallblocks. Hell, they could slap a gen 1 350 in the Camaro and it would wipe the floor with the Mustang GT.

 

The God Damn Mustang comes with a solid axle. Put a damn solid axle on the damn Camaro. Geez already.

 

Isn't the 350Z a "parts bin" car? It seems to be doing pretty well.