I don't think that the solid rear is all that old or really outdated, but it only shines in a drag racing scene. As for what the V6 buyers want, I would say a nice ride would top the list. In my car alone, 100 people have ridden in it (lots more, but for ease of argument). 98 of those people commented on the harsh ride from the solid rear axle and asked me how I could live with that every day and for the distances that I drive (1600 or so miles from NC to TX, and the same for either to IA).

The other two, the ones that actually cared about performance (and yes, these are the only two that didn't notice and criticize the ride) never noticed and only commented about how it hooked up.

So in this quick example, 98% of the people that rode in my car hated the ride of the solid rear axle and probably wouldn't live with it everyday. Before you say, well you had the stiffer suspension Z28, another friend of mine who had a V6 firebird with a mild turbo setup got the same response for his stock suspension solid rear.

Maybe I live around a bunch of pussies or hung out with too many girls, but that doesn't seem like a good percentage to me. Also, consumers today, thanks to the internet among other things, are much more edumacated. A ten minute search on the internet would tell them that the new camaro is a solid rear and won't have a pleasant ride. Damn, I went on a little too long about that.

Yep, that happened so well that the Fbody died and a lot of people still think that the mustangs are faster. Remember the herd mentality that America has. Mustangs sold far better, lots more of them, equals better to John Q. Public.
Again, today's buyer is much better informed, and cares about many things other than looks. If the solid rear was that close to IRS in performance/ride/etc, why is it that the only cars that still have it are the mustangs? There may be more, but I don't know them.

 

Wouldn't that be all in the suspension?

No idea what you're talking about. Not only have I not noticed a "harsh" ride in mine, but I have also never gotten a comment about it, ever. Now, the hump on the passanger side to fit the cat on the other hand...

Maybe. I think so, but hard to say, really. 'Spose we could get a poll on it or something. "Do you get comments on your ride being harsh with your stock suspension car?"

Dude, are you claiming that the fbody died because it had the LS1 instead of the OHC alternative engine? I'd say that's not true at all. As I said, it was other factors (mostly marketing and union terms w/the plants where they were built). My point was only that the "old" engine was a world beater and the car didn't suffer for its use (nor do any of the cars it's in now, including the much more image-conscious 'vettes and caddies!)

Well, which is it? Are they an ignorant herd or are they informed? You can't argue it both ways...

That dog don't hunt. OHV engines aren't too common either, but the LS1 kicks @ss. Just because a lot of other people aren't doing something doesn't mean it isn't the right tool for the job.

Now, you might have a point about ride harshness, for all I know. I'm not a ride engineer. But I'd bet you dollars to donuts that they can make a live axle ride just as smoothly as an IRS by turning down the suspension for the V6 cars. You'd get your goal for less money and that is the winner for the mass market.

Again, pure speculation. Just my $0.02.

 

Solid rear = 200-???lbs of unsprung weight = truck like ride.

I'm not sure where the volume **** is on the suspension, but you will never...PAY ATTENTION...never get a solid rear to handle, ride, etc. like an IRS.

I'll take $20 and one jelly please.

 

Black_Knight, go back to your trailor and take your ignorance with you. You are your inbred-ignoramous type that give America a bad name. If you wish to post...post with intelligence, or do not post at all.

W

 

Not often....IRS is just better handling and much more comfortable...when was the last time you saw a solid rear on a Z06... Calling people a JACKASS is not nice either..let's all be civil to each other please.

 

Look at the stereotyping going on here. That's exactly the sort of reply I'd expect from the person who wrote that insulting poll. I wrote a few pages of intelligent replies in this thread where I listened to what was said. The response I get from WECIV is: DUH YOO LIKE SOLID AXLE? YOO MUST BEE HILLBILLY.

I'll let the contrast speak for itself.

 

How many lbs of unsprung weight would an IRS be, then?

It doesn't have to. Since we're talking about the idiot-V6-buyer market, it only has to ride well enough so that they don't notice a problem. I've yet to hear a review of the Mustang that says "harsh ride," so obviously it can be done.

 

Black_Knight, my poll did include some humor (you obviously have issues with confidence and as a result cannot joke about cheap steps Americans have taken to create affordable fast cars)...however everyone else understood the reason for this thread...debate the pro's and cons of the two types of rear-ends. I also wanted to simply see how many ppl were for or against different types of rear-ends. Every person that replied here debated the issue well, except for your ignorant ***.

W

 

Your poll was loaded to insult anyone who might favor the solid rear. Don't even try to pretend it was "humor." You saw my example in the first post. If you really were joking, you'd just tell me to chill instead of further insults like calling solid rears "cheap" and me "ignorant." I've already posted ample evidence that I don't hold my opinions out of ignorance. You've yet to post anything but attempts at intimidation along the lines of "anyone who disagrees with me must be an ignorant hillbilly." Well, I'm not intimidated and I haven't been distracted from the fact that you have not posted a single argument or shown an iota of knowledge.

You can imply I have "issues" all you want. I won't try to psychologize you or try to guess what motivates you to be such a jerk. I'll just note that you are, in fact, a jerk.

 

However much the wheels, tires, brakes, and knuckles weigh. Basically the same except for however much the solid axle itself weighs...which is substantial. Losing 30-40 lbs. of unsprung weight is huge so just imagine how much of an improvement losing the weight of a soild rear would be. That translates into less noise, less rebounding, overall better ride. Then there is the handling aspect. You can't keep both tires planted in a turn with a solid rear like you can with IRS. You'll notice the inside wheel (the one being lifted) will spin much easier with a solid rear. Our rear suspensions on the 4th gens have *one* bar that locates the rear and fights lateral movement. One bar vs. e.g. Double a-arms that can precisely located the wheels.

One thing that gets overstated around here is how an IRS performs on the strip. CTS-V's and GTO's have had issues not because of an IRS, but because of the particular IRS they have. Vette owners don't complain until they reach that threshold where any IRS begins to show its weakness... low 10's? Faster?

You also don't have to road race or autoX to justify an IRS. You'll benefit from an IRS over a solid rear on a daily driver. I have to travel over some bumpy roads, and my SS let's me know just how bumpy they are.

What cars are you comparing? I've driven mustangs, camaros, etc. and they're all harsh. Catch a ride in a GTO or Vette...you'll see the difference.

 

Black-Knight...my post did include humor. I do not think there is anyone else offended that I stated that a solid rear was a cost cutting measure. Even Ford stated it was on its new Stang. Sure there are those that disagree with IRS for the new camaro, however; they state their opinions in a more professional/polite humorous manner (reasons such as drag racing, weight savings, cost cutting...all of which I agree with--however, I believe the IRS is a more capable system for reasons stated in above posts). You sounded like a rude, ignorant, inbred redneck in your initial posts so I pointed that out. And, I have argued for IRS for quite a time. I think my argument was made with my humor in the initial post and I owe no response to a person whose arguments consisted of calling the other side Bolshevistic, non-hetrosexual, and jackasses.

W

 

Your attempt to back off and be civil is kind of hollow when you continue to call me an "ignorant, inbred redneck."

I'll let the content of my posts, and your posts, stand. The record speaks for itself. You might want to quietly disappear before you dig yourself a deeper hole...

 

See, something just didn't add up with what you're saying. I know for a fact that IRS is heavier than a solid axle setup. Well, I looked it up, and the truth is somewhere in between.

Here is some info on the solid vs IRS for the old Mustang Cobra:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehi...S184.A763.html

Well, there you have it. It is heavier, but saves a lot of unsprung weight. And I don't have to tell anyone how important unsprung weight is. But still, it's a give-and-take proposition.

Anyhow, I don't dispute that a solid setup is at a disadvantage in terms of handling and ride. (I've just personally never noticed the ride in my car to be "harsh") However, I hope you don't dispute that it is at an inherent advantage in terms of strength.

Oh, and another point on the mustang's solid axle setup: every press release from Ford that I read said that they chose it because they wanted to please the weekend drag racer crowd who knows how superior that setup is for their needs. Yes, it is also less expensive. But this isn't one of those "detroit bean-counter" things, so don't misconstrue it that way, folks.

 

I'll clarify that statement then. "...just imagine how much of an improvement losing the *unsprung* weight of a solid rear would be."

I wouldn't put too much stock into the fact that Ford's setup cost an extra 80lbs. in curb weight given the restriction of "not modifying the stock chassis." A steel subframe vs. aluminum is probably worth ~40lbs. of that extra weight.

I dispute the point/threshold at which an IRS becomes a disadvantage when applying high HP and trying to launch.

 

Doesn't matter to me. I'd probably throw a 9" in it right after I hooked the jug up on it anyway.

 

This clearly WAS an economic decision. It is simply more economical to build a solid rear that can handle double duty in the economy v-6 and the 300hp V8, and future iterations like the GT500. The "it was for the drag guys" is a sexy statement for the press and public a like, as opposed to saying for economical reasons we decided to use a cheaper solution.

For the record I prefer an IRS.

This motortrend article states as much as I just did:

"The last largely new car introduced in this country with a live rear axle was the 1993 Camaro. Has Ford taken this retro thing too far? Forget all that guff about drag-racing customers demanding a live axle, this setup's a cost-cutter. Ford chose to invest more heavily in powertrain upgrades, and only the live axle can be built cheaply enough to sell in a $20,000 V-6 car and yet strongly enough to withstand 300 horsepower in a $30,000 one."

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._handling.html

 

I do agree with black night about the question. It may have been a joke, but it was certainly slanted towards the IRS. As I said in another post though this topic seems to get a lot of eye rolling from the SRA guys. Asking this question seems to be just like asking do you like ford or chevy. It seem the opinions are hot blooded on both sides.

 

Yes, I think that's accurate.

Technical, I don't know what you plan on throwing at your car, but I know I'm going to give it a lot.

LOL.

Anyway, I've given you guys something to think about. I think my work here is done.

 

Black_Knight, I was not attempting to be civil to you, Troll. And, yes this was slanted towards IRS...Ray Charles could read that. However, I was looking for and got intelligent discourse on both sides. Thank God and Greyhound you are done teaching us oh sage Black_Knight.

W

 

Autoweek reports on the new Ford Shelby Cobra, which has a solid rear axle:

I'm not going to comment on it, just something else for folks to consider...