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?
06-21-2006, 10:39 AM
#65
10 Second Club
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: St. Michael, MN.
Posts: 4,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the new GMHTP the live axle option is still being debated inside GM. I test drove several GTO's and a CTS-V and love the way they handle, especially how smooth it is over bumpy roads. But my biggest concern is modifying the engine (like most of do here and will do with the new Camaro) beyond the hp capabilities of an IRS will cause huge headaches. So we have to be realistic in our expectations; do we want a cheaper, entry level car or more expensive, upscale vehicle? Let's be honest if GM sticks an IRS in the new Camaro it more than likely will not be nearly as stout (and expensive) as the Vette.
06-21-2006, 06:49 PM
#66
Originally Posted by DrkPhx
do we want a cheaper, entry level car or more expensive, upscale vehicle?
Trying to make it a road racer with IRS is going to do two things:
1) Make it not so good at going fast in a straight line
2) Make it not so cheap
IMO, that defeats both purposes of being a muscle car.
But, hey, that's me.
06-21-2006, 07:41 PM
#67
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without attempting to get into a fight I humbly interject this for debate purposes. If GM places IRS on all of its new RWD cars, Goat, camaro, Impy, Solistice, CTS, Caddy, Vette, Sky, Chevelle/Monte, UTE, et al...IRS will become less expensive. Also mass scale IRS will open the way for more downscale RWD application that sacrifice none of the ride we have come to expect in cheap FWD cars (imagine a world with economy cars with RWD and imagine the modding possibilities). Also IRS could become the rear end for GM trucks. I know we sacrifice the ability to get below the 10's or so with IRS. But IRS is easily changed to a solid rear, and you have a car that is more multifaceted, surefooted, and mercurial...and if built in sufficient numbers the rear end becomes cheap.
"Holy Sh*t WECIV, why didn't you just SAY that you nicked that "shoelaces" bit from Top Gear."
I had heard it before hand, we used to make fun of our old camaro's and FB's in HS saying we were running around with our shoe laces tied together. My 79 Z28 was not the top of the line for the twisties, LOL, and my 02 could be better, LOL.
I do apologize for being a tad rude, Black_Knight.
W
"Holy Sh*t WECIV, why didn't you just SAY that you nicked that "shoelaces" bit from Top Gear."
I had heard it before hand, we used to make fun of our old camaro's and FB's in HS saying we were running around with our shoe laces tied together. My 79 Z28 was not the top of the line for the twisties, LOL, and my 02 could be better, LOL.
I do apologize for being a tad rude, Black_Knight.
W
06-21-2006, 08:02 PM
#68
TECH Addict
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fat Chance Hotel
Posts: 2,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly I'm not sure who designed the rear suspension on the Goats/Monaros, but they must have been "experimenting" with more than just geometry. 
I vote for a double A-arm IRS. That will perform well straight and other...
I vote for a double A-arm IRS. That will perform well straight and other...
06-21-2006, 08:13 PM
#69
Originally Posted by WECIV
I do apologize for being a tad rude, Black_Knight.
if built in sufficient numbers the rear end becomes cheap.
06-22-2006, 05:49 PM
#70
Launching!
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fairmont, WV
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My vote goes to the live axle. It has nothing to do with ride, drag racing, or power handling ability. It has everything to do with weight savings.
It makes no sense to have a 400hp or even a 500hp vehicle but tip the scales at 4000lb to 4200lb. The sad reality of it is the IRS is going to be the norm and these over weight muscle cars will be a hurdle to overcome.
I want a 3400lb to 3600lb 450hp performance car. If they can do that and give me an IRS, GREAT!!! But I am afraid that will not be the case. What is the good of having big power if it all gets ate up moving the land yacht around. LOL
Dave
It makes no sense to have a 400hp or even a 500hp vehicle but tip the scales at 4000lb to 4200lb. The sad reality of it is the IRS is going to be the norm and these over weight muscle cars will be a hurdle to overcome.
I want a 3400lb to 3600lb 450hp performance car. If they can do that and give me an IRS, GREAT!!! But I am afraid that will not be the case. What is the good of having big power if it all gets ate up moving the land yacht around. LOL
Dave
06-22-2006, 09:07 PM
#71
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i'm no expert either, but i do know that the weight of the vehicle doesnt solely come from the rear end of a car.. i think the weight difference between IRS and live axle was stated earlier in this thread to be ~80lbs. that is acceptable to me as long as the axle can withstand added hp. as far as the people running drag radials in their current ls1's, dont most of them have 12bolts or 9" rears anyways? my vote goes to IRS.
06-23-2006, 12:10 AM
#72
Originally Posted by Sunset'01Z
as far as the people running drag radials in their current ls1's, dont most of them have 12bolts or 9" rears anyways?
06-23-2006, 09:53 PM
#75
Originally Posted by WECIV
The weight goal for the car is 3500-3600 as per Motor Trend and a few rumors we have been hearing for a while. That is entirely too heavy 
W
W
Still, it'll be better than that pig of a mustang.
06-23-2006, 11:30 PM
#76
Banned
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see what the big fuss is over IRS. It seems to be nothing but problems when used on Muscle cars.
It adds more significantly weight, more complexity, and its much more expensive. Not to mention it makes for wheel hop on hard launches, which is pretty much the idea of a Muscle car.
Perhaps they could put IRS on the top of the line model (SS) for handling reasons, but leave the Z28 and other models with a Solid rear axle
It adds more significantly weight, more complexity, and its much more expensive. Not to mention it makes for wheel hop on hard launches, which is pretty much the idea of a Muscle car.
Perhaps they could put IRS on the top of the line model (SS) for handling reasons, but leave the Z28 and other models with a Solid rear axle
06-24-2006, 12:24 AM
#77
Originally Posted by Domestic Demon
Perhaps they could put IRS on the top of the line model (SS) for handling reasons, but leave the Z28 and other models with a Solid rear axle
how come no one requested a strong IRS? why is that automatically out of the question?
i think that should be an available option for a heavy-duty built rear end with stronger diffs, half-shafts, and extra supports to avoid movement within the rearend.
06-24-2006, 12:32 AM
#78
Originally Posted by qwikz28
how come no one requested a strong IRS? why is that automatically out of the question?
06-24-2006, 12:40 AM
#79
Originally Posted by black_knight
The cost would be... troublesome. IRS is already expensive. A heavy-duty IRS would be worse yet.
06-24-2006, 01:54 AM
#80
Originally Posted by qwikz28
make it an option. lets be serious now, how many people on this board would widh out an extra $2,000 for a heavy duty rear that could hold, lets say <1.5 60's or 600tq at the wheels?