I know I'm several days late and I'm very surprised redzed never saw this, but the large Nissan Armada & the Infiniti version use IRS...

 

QUOTE=Bob Cosby]The Mustang isn't refined or sophisticated (at least to some), and its production has taken off like a rocket. Are those things related? QUOTE=Bob Cosby]

Actually, I was being facetious when I made that comment. I know the camaro was not killed because it did not have an IRS (I was in a hurry I forgot the smiley faces).

Your right though, despite being a brand new version from the ground up, the Mustang still is not refined or sophisticated. That is partially because it still uses a solid axle. It is selling well. I think there are plenty of reasons why this is true, despite having an inferior suspension design. I don’t think the Camaro will have it this easy. GM has alienated a lot of former F-body customers, the wait is way too long for a camaro replacement and the Mustang is very popular. If GM is going to get back into this market they need to be better than Mustang. Even with a perfect execution, the best they could hope to achieve is second in the market segment.

Now back to Camaro, I am a believer that if you are going to completely redesign a vehicle you should improve upon the previous generation’s short comings. The only way to substantially improve the ride and handling of the Camaro is to switch to a better suspension design. If you design the car around a solid foundation, you have something to build upon. If you design it around a weak foundation, nothing you do later will be able to compensate for it.


QUOTE=Bob Cosby]What laws of physics state that there is no more room for improvement with the solid axle?[/QUOTE]

Let’s put it this way. There have been no advancements or major break throughs on the solid axle in my lifetime. GM has been using it since the 60s on the Camaro (among) other things. If there were any buttons left to push, don’t you think they would have pushed them by now?

Now back to your physics question. It would probably be a derivation of Newton’s second law. You know F=MA. However you have to take into account the geometry and the Kinematics of the specific vehicle in question so that you can properly account for the instantaneous centers and the roll centers. You would also need to look at both static and dynamic camber curves so that you could determine how much traction you will be losing with displacement as the rear axle goes from zero camber to varying degrees of positive camber as the opposite wheel hits a bump in the middle of a tight corner. (Keep in mind this only addresses one of the inherent problems with the solid axle).

I’m not exactly making this sh_t up. I have a master’s degree in mechanical engineering; I have worked my entire career in the auto industry; and I have spent over half my career design suspensions.

If you want to discuss more we can. Do you feel lucky punk. Well do ya!

 

LOL. Nah, all that junk you just typed didn't do squat to convince me that the Camaro "must" have an IRS when it comes around again - I'm guessing nothing else will either. That said, I'm betting it will indeed have one (as much as I'd prefer it otherwise).

BTW....IRS has been around a long time too - how much more can it be refined? And believe it or not, some of us that have owned IRS-equipped performance cars don't care for them (2 Mustangs and 1 Vette for me). Of course, I will readily admit my drag-race bias.

 

The issue is not really that one has been around for longer than the other. The advantage with an IRS is that it has more variables available to tune with. There really are limitations with a solid axle that an IRS does not have. These can be improved with good tunning, but not eliminated. That is why I say it has reached its limit. I also understand the advantage of the solid axle to drag racers. My position on this is that serious drag racers are a small percentage of the total sales potential of a new Camaro. Everyone else will benifit from an IRS. The serious drag racers will modify the crap out of thier cars to shave fractions of a second off their time slips. These guys will be modifiying their cars anyway and they will figure out how to make the IRS hook up.

I am not saying that an IRS will automatically make a 5th gen a home run. I am saying that if you want the overall ride, handling and refinement to be an improvement over previous generations, it needs to switch to a better suspension design.

Oh, and for the record, a properly executed IRS is not as expensive everyone seems to think it is. It may or may not be heavier than a solid axle, but it will definetly have a lower unsprung mass.

 

You know thing I care about the most is will it be fast like my 67 (sold) my brothers 67 RS/SS 350 (fastest car I've ever been in, modified) sold and his current '02 SS completely stock were all fast to a degree. The '02 SS is sufficiently fast. He took me for a ride in it a couple weeks ago, took it up to ~3000 rpms gunned it and spun the tires. Somehow I don't think IRS would solve this traction problem. But an LS2 would help the performance aspect, an LS7 would be even better but unrealistic in this day and age.

So IRS is not something I'm concerned about and to sell ~100,000-~200,000 cars it must look good or it won't sell.

 

You see lots or IRS setups under NASCAR Nextel Cup cars don't you?
Heaven knows they don't handle well at all, running Watkins Glen, Riverside, and the like with 700-800hp and 650tq.

And those cars are biased toward drag-racing too, aren't they?

Why do I see American Iron cars taking class championships with tubes under them?


CRIPES!!! I'm SO SICK OF THIS DEBATE!!!

It boils down to this...
They both work, but they each have their advantage and disadvantage...
Pick your flavor, and eat it.
But just because you like Butter-Pecan doesn't mean that my Napoleon isn't just as good to me.
You want an incrementally (as in very slightly) better ride and you want to pay for it, buy the half-shafts in whatever you can.
You want guaranteed ruggedness, simplicity, and lower cost - get the tube and rods.


But no matter how you cut it - if you are so close-minded that you feel Camaro can ONLY offer one of these, then you are not helping the cause. Flexibility and options are second ONLY to customer satisfaction, and that is what will sell the car and make it successful. If 200k people a year will puke $25k for a Radio-Flyer wagon and a Briggs&Stratton 5hp - I'll sell it to them, not try to convince them that they need IRS and 19" rims to make the car "function better" somehow. They will just go to the next dealer who will sell them what they want to buy (hint-hint).

Taking that concept one step further, we have discussed before in this forum how the General has the worst reputation of the big 2.5 for "giving the public what it wants the public to have" instead of listening to the buyers and opening the options book. GTO is case-in-point... anybody in here know the TWO options you can get on a GTO?!?! So if GM is persed into offering an IRS-only Camaro, and the rest of the car wears the same mentality, do me a favor and save everyone the trouble.

And for Pete's sake, can we talk about SOMETHING ELSE ON THE CAR that will actually give it curb appeal and that "I gotta have it" syndrome!?!?
How 'bout that front-end, the ducktail spoiler, and vertical taillight panel, all painted in Sunset with black stripes, eh!

 

C'mon Proud, you know that this is a ridiculous comparison.

NASCAR race cars don't have (and obviously aren't meant to have) a suspension that would be even close to drivable on the street.

Take a stock car and drive it around town for a while... ya, I'm sure people would be lining up to drive this as a daily driver.

 

That's funny! Guess you missed the interview where Dale E raved about the handling of his C5R compared to his NASCAR Racer.

NASCARs handle like pigs.

 

End of debate. The Camaro should have a live axle, and a carbed V8 that only runs on leaded. If it's good for Nascar, it's good for Camaro.

 

Finally someone said something that made this thread worth clicking on.

 

I believe that was called sarcasm.

 

If the rules in NASCAR were not so restrictive, everybody would be running IRS, along with fuel injection, big wings, completely carbon fiber cars, DOCH V8's that wind up to 20,000 RPMs, and there would be more computing power on board than what NASA has. Oh wait, then it would turn into Formula 1, where it isn't about the drivers, its a pissing contest between engineers(this is no longer true, since Ferriari dumps ungodly amounts of $$$ into their cars).

Seriously though, if NASCAR rules were less restrictive, they would be running modern technology under the cars, including IRS.

 

However, that is not the case for the NHRA.

 

Just FYI..making an IRS hook is not the issue. The issue is strength, weight, and NHRA rules that mandate no C-clips at 10.99, and no IRS at that or a bit quicker - I'll have to check when I get home.

 

Eh, it may turn into more of a factory vs factory series like it used to be as opposed to the WWE like thing it is now.