Some things I DON'T like about IRS:
1) driving behind one with too much negative camber, looks broken down.
2) although curves seem to give it an advantage; I don't think dips,( loading and unloading the chassis ) would create disirable changes in camber either.(each wheel full neagative loaded, full positive unloaded) but I don't have an MBA in ME either.(?) Probably NOT a big problem for Joe Daily, but an enthusiest might push the envolope a tad.
3) rear ride height changes would require an Alignment...?
4) heavier, harder to repair with more parts.
5) reliability when majorly raising the HP.
6) more expensive
(Just my observations, could be wrong.)

 

So was my post.

The fact that anyone took it seriously enough to make a contrived response only makes my point even better...

YOU GUYS ARE WAY TOO HUNG-UP ON THIS ONE TOPIC.

Let it go....
GM will (hopefully) put the car together right if they do it at all. They won't put out a car with rear leaf springs, so just let it go...

Concentrate on SOMETHING that 200k people a year will actually give a sh1+ about... PLEASE?

 

1- good point
2- got me
3- most people when they lower cars get an alignment anyways
4- good point
5- compare anything to the 10 bolt, and it's a winner
6- good point

just my take on it

 

Everything else in this thread is rather moot (to the original topic).

 

Thats not a Camaro, thats some clapped out mitsu****zi or scabaru in disguise.

When I think Camaro, I think rear wheel drive and big tires with scads of torque and some serious HP. Besides ABS+TC+ASR nearly equals or equals the real everyday world performance of AWD, you dont get the weight penalty, the added complexity and maintenece woes (as an example it will void a subaru warranty if there is more than a 1/4 (or is it 1/16) differerence between the lowest and highest diameter tires)

You want a Camaro that can compete, all you need is something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Look at the rival Mustang. dead simple, tough and cheap to build, yet performs pretty good. (e.g. dealers are already listing Shelby mustangs with a 25k markup even before Ford has set a price, one buffon dealership is also asking for a 1,000 dollar deposit to secure a market adjustment of not more than 25k)

there is nothing wrong with a mac strut/lra set-up, its tough, easy to mod and cheap to build. and for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of camaro buyers who will never use the full potential of the car they will never know the difference.

Now the bench racing fraternity, they would be getting ripped because they couldn't brag about such a technically inferior setup.

 

I agree with everything you said Bosco.....except one point: ABS+TC+ASR isn't near the equal of AWD, IMHO. Especially TC...that's the first thing I get rid of (via the computer) in any car that has it.

Then again, I don't want AWD either....sucks up too much power and adds too much weight. And yes, that's my bias shining through again.

 

And adds too much COST which is critical for Camaro to keep low. Nobody's going to buy an AWD v6 camaro if its equal or costlier than the Z28 or SS or whatever the performance model is.

Besides, how the hell are they going to package AWD in a Camaro if the base car is RWD? All AWD cars I've ever seen are essentially FWD with an adapted rear drive...transverse mounted engine, etc. If you want an AWD built from a RWD check out a Chevy Truck. I think AWD off of a RWD chassis would be prohibitively heavy and expensive and the idea needs to be dropped and never spoken of again.

 

TC is a major downer if your using it for fun or in a competitive capacity, but on a more practical level its a good saftey feature. just needs a memory button.

--->edit<---

All this talk about adpating this or that platform, how essential is it cost wise to adapt a good portion of any exsisting chassis? I'm no chassis engineer, but maybe just using a central floor pan then developing the bulkheads and suspension attachment points as needed for the new f-body might in the long run be cheaper than using an exsisting chassis wholesale then relocating attachment points and trying to locate the bulkheads.

Personally if it were me, i would try to bring this thing to market using as much aluminum in the suspension as possible to reduce unsprung weight and in the case of a crossmember, a good stiff attachment point for the lower suspension. All this plus a nice stiff body would minimize the need for heavy springs, shocks, and bushings - good for handling and ride (read broader audience appeal).

Anywhosit - enough of that, what about trim levels and options? I could see a 4 package car like this

A - V6 car, nicely equipped - light on actual perf parts, but still a good car if the chassis is dialed in right.

B - Entry level V8 car - Direct GT competitor - Only difference is if you want your car in bowtie or blue oval variety

C - Mid level V8 car - The car most of the guys on this board want- and you cant get from the blue oval except in SE form

D - Mac Daddy V8 car - banish the 6.0 liter GTO to never never land, This is what the GTO should have been from the start, made in america with looks that could kill and performance to match.

 

I think many of us could agree on that, but the thing is can GM/Chevy do that a price the public will actually buy this future 12 second 1/4 mile car.

 

I think so if you could keep weight down and use K.I.S.S engineering. An LS1 or LS2 powered car wouldn't have to much of a problem I think and would fill the mid level role pretty well.

Again with the 4 model concept performance wise and price wise

V6 - mid 15 sec car - 18,000
Entry V8 low 14 sec car - 24,000 (also car with the highest intial aftermarket support)
Mid V8 - low 13 sec or high 12 sec - 28,000
Mac V8 - low 12 sec or high 11 sec - 35,000

Also don't consider bringing back the firebird - its dead let it rest in peace - Why - no need, your chopping your market in half. Poncho fans might cry about it, but given the alternative I think they will buy bowtie before blue oval. This also reduces and focuses money where it needs to be and allows you to build on successive models with minor trim and appearence items.

 

How are the AWD STS, Magnum and 300 packaged?

 

Those are all big cars, not a smaller car like the Camaro will be, and all of them are HEAVY. Another good car to look at for AWD technology with a longitutidual mounted engine is a GT-R Skyline. Its the only sports car I can think of with this type of configuration.