WECIV

Y'all,

Do you believe the new camaro should possess a Solid Rear Axle or an indendant rear suspensension.

IRS in my opinion would set the camaro on the right track and make it a more world class and road raceable car.

And, for those of you that seriously drag race...how many of you keep the stock rear end? IRS is easy to convert to a solid rear whereas a solid rear is hard to convert to an IRS. So what should it be after my IRS biased opinion?

W

Pontiacdreamin

IRS, nuff said.

OctaneZ28

iTrader: (6)

JB_94_z

^^ agree

Chris95Z

iTrader: (3)

you make a good point with the swaps. I would love IRS and I bet most would since many fbody's are daily driven and it would def help confort and handling. Those who are more hardcore strip guys know how to contact strange eng/moser/etc.

Order 66

Its going to be IRS. No reason to talk about any other rear. Its been decided already by GM.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Source?

I voted solid because IRS is not at all suitable for drag racing. Not like the 10 bolt was, either, but dammit it's a muscle car.

Pontiacdreamin

if you want a drag car, buy your own solid rear end.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

I'd rather not, thanks. The camaro should be fit to drag from the factory. What kind of muscle car snaps its axles and wheel hops all over the place like we all know IRS cars do. GTO anyone?

Yes, all the euro-trash make fun of the solid axle. They also advocate HP/Liter so they're dumbasses and I don't care what they think.

Order 66

Spoken from a upper GM. Wink Wink. Its a done deal. IRS

NHRAMAN

iTrader: (1)

either..as long as it is strong....for hardcore dragging..like said above..build it yourself. I like turning left and right also. So I am leaning towards IRS..

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Out of curiosity, do you road race? IRS is overkill IMO unless you actually take your car to a track and AutoX/rally or whatever it is called.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Oh, also nice poll, jackass.

First, "fine for dragging" is not at all accurate. And second, "shoe laces tied together?" Which kind of stupid sh*t is that? That's like my asking:

Poll: Do you like Hondas like a good smart person or do you like LS1's because you're a retarded clown pony who likes to eat paste and shove whipped cream up your nose?

technical

A solid rear is fine for my truck. The only reason the early muscle cars had solid rears was price. Last time I checked it was 2006...not 1906. Put an IRS in the car so we can actually call it a sports car.

I *don't* live my life a 1/4 mile at a time. Nor is my job 1/4 from my house.

msgZ28

iTrader: (1)

IRS has so many ride and handling benefits over the solid rear, it shouldn't be a tough decision. I'm sure that if the Z06 can run 11ish in the 1/4 on IRS, the Camaro should be fine. The fourth gens needed a better rear end too, so it won't be that much different. The drag racers need to give everyone else a chance at being the best in other things. And give the Camaro a chance as well. The majority of people see a solid rear as old and just about worthless technology, and it will need (well, maybe not need) the help of a modern suspension to sell the 100,000+ units every year it needs too.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

Again, I have to ask: are you guys racing these cars in autocross? If not, why the need for an IRS?

msgZ28

iTrader: (1)

I plan to as soon as I get back, buy the car and mod it a little. Also go to some track days at the big fun road courses. And I'll say it again, the public will see a solid rear as old, and the Camaro as a mullet mobile again. IRS will help get the V6 support the Camaro needs for the rest of us here to have the affordable V8 we just have to have.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

That's cool that you race. If you do, I can see wanting an IRS. The fact is that I don't AutoX so naturally I don't need an IRS. The solid is more than capable of any curve I'm likely to throw at it.

But I do not give a rat's @ss what public opinion is about what is "old." The "public" thinks OHV is "old" and they couldn't be more wrong. So let them think it's a "mullet mobile." I don't care and it is a weak man indeed who lets the public do his thinking for him.

I do, however, have to disagree with your comment that having IRS will make it more affordable. That's not true at all. IRS=$$$$$$$$$.

msgZ28

iTrader: (1)

black_knight, we all know, or should know, that the Camaro will live or die on the V6 models success. Like it or not, that is God's honest truth. So yes, the ignorant masses opinion will count more than ours.

As for the weak man comment, the needs (in this case wants, but still) of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I would rather sacrifice a little to be able to have the opportunity to own and modify another Camaro than not have one at all. I say it is a fool who can't accept the facts or change and adapt and overcome.

You are right that IRS is more expensive than a solid rear. Look at the big picture though. The more the public accepts this car as a modern, competitive vehicle, the more profit GM makes, which means lower overall cost, and more research and development money to give us even better future Camaros and engines for the same price.

So piece for piece, it is more expensive, but if it helps to attract buyers, it will lower the price of the car, or at least keep it competitive with what's out there. I do believe that we will see the benefits of profit with this car.

black_knight

iTrader: (1)

I hate that damn commie Spock quote, but since this is sales and not ethics, I'll let it slide, lol. The point is: do you think that non-IRS is "old" or "mullet," just because the public does? I think if the live axle actually fits the majority buyer better, then that's what should be used, regardless of opinion. The facts will speak for themselves.

Let me explain: Suppose there are two engines: engine "a" and engine "b." Engine "a" is in every way superior to engine "b," but engine "a" is popularly thought to be "old." If the company uses engine "a," you're thinking that sales will hurt because of the perception of "old."

But if they use "a," then the facts will come out: their car performs better. It trounces the competition. As long as they use proper marketing and actually inform the public of the superiority of their design, then they are good.

This actually happened. That engine was the LS1 and people thought that pushrods were "old." But guess what, the LS1 lives on to power trucks, corvettes, Cadillacs, and more. The dodge boys even went and copied it! (sure, the Camaro was lost, but that was more marketing and chassis issues than anything else) It's well known to be a world-beater engine and while people still make fun of pushrods, I've never heard them mock the LS1.

The point is that going with the "popular" thing versus the right thing is no way for a winner company to act. Real leaders innovate and aren't afraid to buck popular trends. In fact, they are the trendsetters. GM got into the mess it is in with a design-by-focus-group mentality. Look where THAT got them.

Now, am I saying that live axle is some kind of world beater like the LS1? No, it's a much closer call than that. But I am saying that popularity is no way to make engineering decisions.

I really would prefer that GM simply uses the solid axle, even in that case. It would mean a lower base price and it is essential that they keep the price competitive with the mustang (which is ALSO live axle). Do you think it will sell less with the same kind of axle setup as the Mustang?

How about this V6 buyer? What do THEY need, since you've pointed out that their needs are what will sell the most cars? I'll tell you what THEY need: they need the cheapest car they can get because they're only buying it for LOOKS. They don't know what the hell a solid axle or an IRS is. The only people who care about IRS are autoxers, eurotrash, and car magazines.

That's why I ask if anyone here is an AutoXer. Because if you're not, then you don't really need IRS and you're just a poser who wants it because the "in" crowd wants it.

There's nothing wrong with that logic, I just challenge your premise: that IRS will sell more cars. If the mass buyer is the V6 buyer then that buyer is buying for looks alone. For them, the lower price of the live axle is the winner.

Just my $0.02; I'm not a marketing manager or anything.