View Poll Results: What type of rear shall we have?
IRS...good for road racing and fine for dragging
172
51.04%
Make mine a solid rear...I like to run around with my shoe laces tied together!!!
165
48.96%
Voters: 337. You may not vote on this poll
Maro...IRS or Solid Rear?
#21
Devil Dog, OohRah!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that the solid rear is all that old or really outdated, but it only shines in a drag racing scene.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.
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.
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.
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.
#22
Originally Posted by msgZ28
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
#23
TECH Addict
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fat Chance Hotel
Posts: 2,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by black_knight
Wouldn't that be all in the suspension?
...
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.
...
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.
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.
#24
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
W
#25
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver,[KITSILANO].B.C. Canada *WestCoast*
Posts: 8,807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by black_knight
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.
#26
Originally Posted by WECIV
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
W
I'll let the contrast speak for itself.
Last edited by black_knight; 06-13-2006 at 09:16 PM.
#27
Originally Posted by technical
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.
#28
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
W
Last edited by WECIV; 06-14-2006 at 04:24 AM.
#29
Originally Posted by WECIV
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
W
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.
#30
TECH Addict
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fat Chance Hotel
Posts: 2,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by black_knight
How many lbs of unsprung weight would an IRS be, then?
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.
#31
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
W
#32
Originally Posted by WECIV
You sounded like a rude, ignorant, inbred redneck in your initial posts so I pointed that out.
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...
#33
Originally Posted by technical
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.
Here is some info on the solid vs IRS for the old Mustang Cobra:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehi...S184.A763.html
The IRS assembly weighs about 80 pounds more than the solid-axle setup on the Mustang GT, but it allows a 125-lb reduction in unsprung suspension weight.
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.
#34
TECH Addict
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fat Chance Hotel
Posts: 2,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
However, I hope you don't dispute that it is at an inherent advantage in terms of strength.
#36
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
Originally Posted by black_knight
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.
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
#37
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
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.
#38
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.
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.
#39
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
W
#40
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...
Powerful it may be, more so than any ’Stang previously called Shelby—or Boss or Cobra or Mach, for that matter—but the GT500 shares more than its name and looks with its forebears. The Shelby uses a solid rear axle, scrapping the independently suspended (if add-on) rear end as found under the SVT Mustang Cobra the company last sold in 2004. Sure, Ford modified the tuning somewhat to distinguish the GT500’s ride and handling from lesser Mustangs, but it’s still a solid axle, and you can tell when you drive it.
That’s not to say it’s a bad drive. In fact, we found the car handles quite ably. That solid axle makes itself known while turning, however. The rear end jumps out when it encounters any sort of road imperfection with the steering wheel cocked, requiring extra-quick hands to keep it in line. (Perhaps a Watts linkage setup in place of this Panhard rod would help reduce the effect? In any case, it’s not a huge shortcoming.) “It’s incredibly easy to catch,” said one staffer here, “but you do need to do it.”
Ford argues that putting an IRS in the GT500 would add too much weight and cost to the car and still not perform better than the current configuration.
That’s not to say it’s a bad drive. In fact, we found the car handles quite ably. That solid axle makes itself known while turning, however. The rear end jumps out when it encounters any sort of road imperfection with the steering wheel cocked, requiring extra-quick hands to keep it in line. (Perhaps a Watts linkage setup in place of this Panhard rod would help reduce the effect? In any case, it’s not a huge shortcoming.) “It’s incredibly easy to catch,” said one staffer here, “but you do need to do it.”
Ford argues that putting an IRS in the GT500 would add too much weight and cost to the car and still not perform better than the current configuration.