Car and Driver from a few months back.... I'll give a couple of quotes from it tonight...

 

Cool. Let me know what issue. I've got a couple here with me.

Autoweek did a recent test and they felt the handling favored GT. GTO felt less poised in that department according to them, but it braked just as well as the GT although they experienced some fade and it was 1/4 second quicker to 60 and 3 tenths quicker through the 1/4 mile than GT. Overall, it performed better, but they seemed to like the GT better in terms of handling/feel.

Article:
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101521

 

I've mentioned this a few times, but my biggest beef with the way my GTO drives is the slow steering... it makes it feel sluggish or heavy going into a turn at times.

A boardmember from Oz mentioned that Holden has a faster steering ratio available over there that can be retrofit to a GTO...

IMHO, the folks that are saying the Mustang handles better is more due to this than anything related to the rear suspension...

Just my .02 on that subject... I mean, I see where they are coming from, I just don't think it is because of the live axle or IRS... it's the GTO's somewhat mushy steering (having to work the steering wheel a lot more than you do in a Camaro or Mustang)...

 

that is arguable... Only strong positive i'll give the 3rd gens is its lower weight.

 

Steering and overall feel was the largest complaint in that article. The stang felt more nimble and poised.

As for the handling, i agree that it is beyond IRS vs Live axle. I think it has more to do with the steering and how the overall chassis, steering, and such are tuned and setup. Mustang has the benifit of being on a newer platform and it does undercut GTO by 200+lbs. Two things that help it considerably. So i'm sure the reasons go beyond just Live axle vs IRS.

 

Absolutely. When I first brought this up I in no way was trying to argue that a live rear axle makes a car handle better than irs. All I was saying was that there are in fact many other things that contribute to how a car handles, and that just because a car has the "buggy axle" doesn't mean it can't be made to handle very well.
The bottom line is that as someone above said, we really need a product to test. I hate to see people saying they would not buy this car just because of one part.

 

But it is that one single part of my car which I dislike the most...

 

Okay...Jan. '05 is the issue....I was hoping they made an IRS vs. solid axle comment, which would have put this more into context, but none were to be found.

GTO
Bend the GTO into a series of corners that require no downshifting, and it's easy to be seduced. Steering is far more communicative than the system in the Mustang; the effort increases as cornering loads increase. Turn the wheel off-center, and the GTO dives into the corner as rpedictably and voraciously as a goat at an all-you-can-eat tin-can buffet. A bit of body roll accompanies maneuvers near the 0.88-g threshold, but understeer almost never rears its head.

Mustang
There might be a lot of grip on tap, but enter a corner, and you'll find the car difficult to place. The problem lies in the light and fast steering that is too eager to turn in. Dial in even the slightest provocation off-center, and you're on the inside of the corner. Venturing through a turn rapidly requires constant correction to keep the Mustang on course. Making the task more difficult is the lack of feedback coming through the giant steering wheel. Not much information as to what the front tires are experiencing comes through.

Lets not get too far off base here....as I was thinking that they attributed some of it to the GTO's IRS vs. the GT's live rear....

-Jason

 

^^ wierd. Complete opposites. Autoweek thought the Mustangs steering was right on as far as feel and communication and thought the GTO's felt numb, slow, and with poor feedback by comparison; and C&D on the other hand thought the GTO's steering was right on with the Mustang's being too light, fast, and not as much communicative with less feedback.

Just found that interesting.

 

I don't get it.

GM must use a different group of beancounters with different standards for some projects. How is it the Solstice at $20K could have the modern gear and the higher priced Camaro get something rather crude in this day and age? I couldn't care less what Mustang has in its rear, that's Ford's problem. GM should be aiming higher with competitive pricing.

Methinks its about time some beancounters got the chop from GM. Streamline the process, that'll save 'em money, just leave the 'gotta have' cars alone.

 

Grrrr.

And you shouldn't be.

I agree 100%.

Zeta is a cheaper chassis than Sigma, yet GM STILL decided it's too expensive... and that's before they knew they were facing a financial meltdown. That being the case, it's probally safe to say that $300 to them is a huge deal. Pittiful, yes, but still something they would be concerned about.

I doubt it. You forget Zeta is a modular chassis, engineered to accept multiple attachments.

It's quite possible (or should I say likely?) that live axle capability is already engineered in, just like the current Ford Mustang was engineered from the start to accept both suspensions. The current Holden Tonner is essentially a live axle GTO and Ford's previous Mustang had both IRS & live axle.

I think I'm giving out the impression that I am a 100% supporter of a live axle instead of being someone who simply wants a top grade handling car. I'm probally one of the few people on the board who actually own both a RWD performance IRS car and a RWD performance live axle car, and both are great handling cars. But at the same time, both have drawbacks and there is no way on the planet I'll say that IRS or live axle is perfect on everything, because it simply isn't.

Sure IRS is great on curves that are less than smooth. But you aren't going to get an IRS that can handle massive amounts of torque without some expensive heavy-duty pieces. I think any engineer here on this site will tell you that. IRS also adds weight. Look how many people slammed the new GTO for being heavy. Then there's that dreaded axle hop.

On the flip side, live axle is lightweight, extremely durable, low cost, and aftermarket friendly (couple of hundred to change gears on a Mustang vs over $1200 to do it on a T-Bird. ). Downside is that it tends to hop when agressively taking a curve on a rough road & takes up more space.

Both can be made to handle exceptionally well, and both can be screwed up. I'm not dismissing a live axle car simply because it's not glamourous. The live axle 4th gen Camaro Z28 outhandled IRS C5s for awhile. The current Mustang muted the live axle's tendancy to hop on curves.

Sure, just like the next person, I'd prefer IRS and I hope that's what the next Camaro replacement comes with. But, I'm willing to wait and see what GM comes up with.

Lord knows they are taking long enough.

Attached to that old pushrod engine....... oops. Sorry.

 

So I hear.

Best point of the tread.

 

Arguable ain't the word for it.

A 4th gen SS on 275's is going to show any 3rd gen you care to pick taillights on any road course in the nation, and NOT JUST because of the motor.

For some reason the "3rd gen handles better" nonsense has been around here for years.

4th gen...
Stiffer...
Better suspension...
Better brakes...
275's...
Seeyalaterbyeee!

 

they also came with better tires, wider tires on the ss's, etc.
but yea, typically people say the 3rds "feel" better but in actuality, the 4ths handle better
personally i like taking my soft ride suspension rs in corners a bit more than my z28
just because of the feel really

 

Thirds Gens do typically turn in and out better and usually had higher g ratings per test, but they're ride quality is lower than you'd like these days because of it. (4th's are more compliant) Being lower, lighter, having stiffer suspension, bigger sway bars, easier steering, etc., (the IROC steering box is still the choice of many buildups these days) any of their testing then was still done on 80's tire tech and with 245/50/16's. Add new 4th Gen rims/tires to make it fair and then see what happens. Both cars actually had almost the exact same slalom times with the 4th's supposed "better" suspension and bigger tires/rims. A few magazine buildups have shown how easy it is to get high g numbers out of 3rd's over 4th's. Driving both back to back usually tells it all. As many have noticed, they have a sharper and more responsive feel, (4ths have a tough wheel and feel slightly less connected) but when you mod both cars, as always, all bets are off.

I'm fine with struts/axle over SLA/IRS. I don't think many people are really going to care, just make it handle great and have some compliance. (well for the lower models anyway) Add things later if they're really needed for some reason. Sometimes simple is better. It's also by default easier to work with.