IZ28 should be happy.

 

ahahaha....give or take. Thirdgen with a stiffer chassis.
Point is people who buy a Camaro expect a certain performance aspect, and throwing in that BIG 14 bolt rear end into a Sigma, and parts binning the interior (again) is not what I wanted in a Camaro.
A live axle to me, in a modern sports coupe, is OLD. Outside of the Mustang, I cant think of another sports car ranging from 25-40k that uses it.

As for the "expensive" GTO, I would like to recall the price of SS and WS6's when loaded. It was about the same price as the GTO. GTO got better everything, and still keeps close to the Fbody's price. I dont see what would be send the price of the Camaro through the roof if they used IRS, especialy when the chassis was designed for IRS. Its not like they had to come up with a NEW set up. I think that the cost would be the same, either to keep IRS in production, or develop a live axle set up for Sigma.

 

Would parts binning the interior really be that bad? Realistically we'd only be talking about switchgear, controls, door handles and maybe a steeringwheel. Things I don't think anyone would notice in an overall newly design interior.

I think it could be exectued right. Although I get the feeling I'm one of the more progressive around here.

 

KEY point.

 

You just answered your own question. Mustang (and Camaro) is not a "sports car", it is a Pony Car. There's a distinct, though perhaps subtle, difference.

Pony cars are 2+2, and are all about bang for the buck.

Sports cars are 2 seaters and are premium cars. The key to a successful Camaro is the PONY CAR formula, because that sells V6 cars a lot better than a sports car formula would.

 

Aren't we really splitting some fine hairs now?....

Most people classify the Camaro and Mustang as 'sports cars', not 'pony cars'. Most people being defined as the non-enthusiasts, non-hard core drivers.

The V6 cars qualitlies are gonna make or break the entire line, that means as good a street ride as possible with a sporting nature (again my defintition for the V6 (!) car).

 

Why is Sigma all of a sudden the right platform? Because its there?

Wasn’t the tall cowl height Sigma has the reason we discussed it wouldn’t be a good choice of platform the Camaro’s design?

Wasn’t it decided that reengineering the cowl height to make it more appropriate for Camaro’s style would be very expensive and not worth it.

I know a platform can be stretched and shrunk without much problem, but why hasn’t anyone brought up cowl height on Sigma?

A CTS tall cowl would not look good for Camaro.


On the topic of rear ends….

I don’t mind a live axle on the base car if it will truly save money. Save an IRS set up for the top model Camaro or as a pricey option. Like someone said we don’t need a $35,000 base car. Cut out the fancy stuff and go head to head with the Mustang.

 

It was brought up but not discussed. It's been over shadowed by the IRS vs. solid axle debate.

 

Sounds pretty interesting, but I'm pretty sure the aft portion of the 4th gen is nearly identical to the 3rd gen's.

 

Can a brother get a "Halelujah" from the crowd!

THIS man's got the message.

You can "kind-of" turn a pony car into a sports car, but you can't go the other way. Yet the secret to making a car successful is selling it to the masses... and the "masses" do not want to pay $40k for a dedicated two-seat land missile.
They want every day liveability and low operating costs. That's what better be offered to them or the car will be a short-lived pipe dream.

 

Scott has also brought up the question of what is Zeta anyway? regarding Zeta's cancellation.

Zeta cancelled here in the US. The person running the program here is back in Australia. There are no longer current plans to make "Zeta" here in the US. GM press release itself stated the program was cancelled here.

However, Holden will also be working with GM on other future RWD programs.

OK, wiseguy. We'll see what comes up.

 

I believe they use struts throughout their entire lineup all the way upto the 7 series and the now-dead sub-150k Z8 roadster flagship.

Porsche also makes extensive use of struts since it is on all their Boxsters and 911's.

But Chris is right in that BMW and Porsche put in alot of time and $$ tuning and refining their strut setups, something GM probably wouldn't do for a camaro.

But that doesn't mean they CAN'T get a strut front suspension to handle well without spending too much $$$. Subaru's like the STi and WRX and Mitsu's EVO are all relatively affordable, employ struts, and handle really well. As long as the chassis and the rest of the suspension is done/tuned right, struts would be perfectly fine in my book.

But like everyone else, i'd prefer the SLA setup. As for the rear, i could live with a live axle if GM were to go that route. I have lived with it for the last 5 years and have no real complaints. A refined ride would be the only noticeable plus and i wouldn't really rank ride quality as a high priority in a car like the camaro. So while i'd welcome an IRS setup, i wouldn't raise stink if GM decides they'll stick with a live axle. Just give us a rear-end that's durable...that would be my priority. I'd rank that higher than an IRS on my priority list.

 

Does anybody realize how few cars actually have independent rear suspension?

No trucks have it. No larger SUVs except the Explorer have it. Minivans don't have it.

Most FWD cars don't even have it.

I'm just not sure why or when IRS became the mandatory point of entry for rwd cars to be considered legitimate when there's so many other vehicles on the road that are FWD with a solid dummy axle for the rear.

 

I could be wrong, but I was under the inpression that almost all FWD cars today have IRS setups....???

EDIT: Just did a spot check of a few Chevrolets... Monte Carlo and Malibu both have 4 wheel independant suspensions... I would think it is fairly common...

 

1st gen Z/28 - 302 ci was the only available motor. It was concieved to compete in the Trans Am series.

2nd gen Z/28 - 350 ci was the motor. To my knowledge there has never beena large ci option for the Z28.

1st and 2nd gen SS' were available with large displacement. Therefore the Z28 should not get the highest diplacement/power option offered.

Logical now. No need to get testy.

They need:

Base/RS - some V6, auto (5/6 speed no cost option), and they can leave the 10-bolt.

Z28 (RS available) - 5.3 V8 (maybe 6.0 optional), auto/6speed, 12-bolt (IRS ipotentially optional.

SS - 6.0 standard (option for LS7), heavy duty auto/6speed, 12-bolt (maybe the big 14-bolt, and IRS options).

The parts are laying around drivetrain wise.