I never said that a solid rear = a spool, you are complaining about IRS being too expensive and how you wouldn't want to have to spend money to throw in a 12-bolt, like everyone else has cited. Spools are much cheaper and if you are going drag racing, why not have a spool? And you can take turns with them, it's not fun but you can turn just fine with one, if you slow down enough . Still, it's easier to remove the IRS and throw in a crappy solid rear (especially a dirt cheap spool) to make your drag car, than it would be to toss a solid rear for a fabbed up IRS setup. They shouldn't be trying to sell the camaro to drag racers only. It'll flop like a fat kid slipping off a diving board if that's their angle. 03 Cobras have already shown us that a heavy car can run single digits with IRS and not cost an arm and a leg. 03s were 4-5K more than a loaded SS.

so a C5 Z06 on spray has a limited life because of the rear? I think we need to get some C5 or C6 owners in here to tell you otherwise. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the single digit race cars lingenfelter pumps out from their shop have any upgrades done to the IRS, other than gears, on their vettes, and I've seen and read about numerous daily driver vettes running 10s on stock IRS.

well 1964-1973 offers plenty of cars in all shapes and sizes, both engine and chassis for you to pick from complete with terrible braking, handling, and monstrous engines that are outclassed by neat things like gen III/IV engines. You can even get them in cherry condition for the same or less than a new car would cost you and unlike the newer vehicle, with maintenance and care, the classic would increase in value and no one would think you made a poor choice. For the rest of us (at least the majority of those voting here), we'd prefer a car that can accelerate in a straight line as well as it can tear up turns, especially in something new.


because the C4 vette, in all its glory was a poorer performer than the 5.7 powered WS6s and IROCs. Those 3rd gens had the beefiest suspensions of any camaro, including the 4th gen. The only thing they lacked were decent brakes and a manual with the 350. Testarossas were nothing to write home about then or now but they were ferraris best in the 80s. I didn't say porsche killer, I said testarossa killer

 

I'll accept "I live in Europe" as an answer.

 

Because spools literally can't turn. I never said I have a garage queen drag-only car or that I want the new 'camaro to be one. I said that a solid is good enough handling and that IRS is overkill. It's not worth the extra $. I'd never use the additional capability so I don't care to pay for it.

That's not the idea. The idea is, as I said, to make an inexpensive car that will out-accelerate just about everything. If you add "and also handles like a sports car" to that mix, then you kill the "inexpensive" part. The fact is that with the lowly solid axle, the old Camaro could pull high .8's. That's more than enough.

Yup.

Okay, let 'em come. Tell me the 'vette launches fine with no wheel hop. Tell me it hooks right. Tell me that it doesn't break when you add sticky tires and especially spray. I'd be willing to admit it if I was mistaken.

Again, you miss the point. You make it sound like the choice is between terrible handling and the IRS. That is completely not true. The 4th gen F-body had great handling. The choice is between great handling (with solid) and even better handling (with IRS).

For me, the handling is good enough. I can't see paying thousands extra to make it better (especially at the expense of dragability). I'd rather the car just stay inexpensive. If the car stays focused, it can be a world-beater. If you make it try to do too many things, that's when the problems start. It's called feature creep. You insist on BMW handling, BMW ride quality... pretty soon you have a BMW price tag to match.

If you want to make it an option, then make it an option. But it shouldn't be standard.

Well, you might have a point there. It was the 80's and just about everything on the road sucked, with a few shining exceptions (GN comes to mind).

 

Okay, let 'em come. Tell me the 'vette launches fine with no wheel hop. Tell me it hooks right.
If the shocks and such are in good condition and not old I will say "yes, it does not wheel hop., If the shocks are old and worn out then "yes, it does wheel hop."

The original muscle cars were made to handle as best they could for their day and if you look at their shapes they were evocative of European race cars...especially the camaro and Stang. And the camaro and Stang of yore were designed to handle well (just nothing handled to well back then, compared to now).

I only live in Europe a quarter of the year, I do like the Gulf Coast the best though!!! However, overlooking the European market when they like unique American muscle would be dumb. Europeans do not want most of our cars (they make their own), but muscle cars with American old school looks are something they do not have and would buy.

W

 

What are you comparing? Do you really believe 3rd gen f-bodies had the beefiest suspensions of all generation f-bodies? They didn't even have upper control arm in the front or sealed wheel bearings (4th gen). I can think of many things the 3rd gens lacked and a T-5 with a 350 isn't even at the top of the list.

If a Testarossa was "nothing to write home about" in the 80's, then what was?

 

IRS.look at all the cobras problems with IRS.thats

 

I've changed my mind, the hell with the IRS. In fact why do we have independent front suspension, when a solid would do? And on the subject of the font end, why not just have a manual steering rack, power assist is for homos. And why not use leaf springs instead of shocks and coils, when the leafs are perfectly adequate. And why not have drums, instead of disc brakes. Drum brakes are capable of stopping you. Hell why have a radio, when listening to the voices in your head would be enough, and surely it would be cheaper. And why have A/C, it only adds weight, just roll the windows down and stick your f'ing head out, it's good enough for the dog. I ask you why would you want all this stuff? Are you driving on roads or something? If you're not, than a frame with an engine and some wheels is good enough for you and you'll like it. Pffff technology your Yeah that's right the new z28 for a few grand, and you'll be the envy of the strip, and it'll have the amenities of a garbage truck.

 

That's right comrad, you tell us. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. This garbage about having capital and using market demand to communicate desired design is for capitalist pigs.

We should only have it if we actually NEED it. Having 450hp is clearly a need, but an IRS puh-lease.

 

Wow, you're in a mood.

I ask you for a reason and you go ballistic. I supppose that means you don't have one? Personally, I don't like paying for things I don't use. Maybe you like to buy things so you can brag about how great they are to your friends, but I buy them so that I can use them.

As for your stuff about me being a commie, that really makes me laugh (you know, since I'm the biggest anti-communist on this board). I've been called many things, but never a commie. I mean kudos for using "commie" as a random insult, but you got the wrong guy.

 

Black-Knight, Lees did not go ballistic at you he simply stated that need only products production is a product of a command structured economy, aka Communism. Lees is making a consumer based...free economy...argument.

If you do not want to pay for something you are not using look at your PC. I guarantee you that you do not use 90% of the programs preloaded on your PC, you probably only use 50% of your PC's performance for that manner, or I bet you are not using the remaining 30% of your cars road handling/braking/balance.

Lees has a great point that was made in a good manner, all we really need are push carts, but that is not what we want nor what we will drive.

As for old muscle cars being made for straight line only, that is clearly disproved by marketing ads for the old muscle cars...wide track Pontiacs anyone? And, I doubt anyone would state a 67-69 Z/28 was about straight lines only.

W

 

"I've changed my mind, the hell with the IRS. In fact why do we have independent front suspension, when a solid would do? And on the subject of the font end, why not just have a manual steering rack, power assist is for homos. And why not use leaf springs instead of shocks and coils, when the leafs are perfectly adequate. And why not have drums, instead of disc brakes. Drum brakes are capable of stopping you. Hell why have a radio, when listening to the voices in your head would be enough, and surely it would be cheaper. And why have A/C, it only adds weight, just roll the windows down and stick your f'ing head out, it's good enough for the dog. I ask you why would you want all this stuff? Are you driving on roads or something? If you're not, than a frame with an engine and some wheels is good enough for you and you'll like it. Pffff technology your Yeah that's right the new z28 for a few grand, and you'll be the envy of the strip, and it'll have the amenities of a garbage truck."


LOL

W

 

I still don't see what you (or they) mean. I'm not using need-based garbage. "Need" is such a BS term. I'm saying that if you don't use something, then it's pointless to want it.

I built my own PC. Nothing preloaded, LOL.

Lees' only point was to crudely equate my argument of "the handling is good enough... no sense in paying for more" with "lets all go back to the stone age! Wheeeeeee!"

How is high .8's considered "straight line only?" Are you people seriously saying that 4th gen F-bodies were "straight line only?"

I've only said that the 4th gen f-bodies with their solid axle handling was more than enough. There isn't anything to be gained from making it better than that unless you are an autoXer or similar.

Unless you present me with a reason as to why that handling wasn't good enough for you, I'm going to say that you want it because of some pointless BS like "well the magazines say that it's better." Or "the Europeans will make fun of me."

I've never seen such hostility to asking for a reason.

 

(me) (Black_knight)

If gm is doing market analysis (which they most certainly are), and if we were to say the polls here were scientific (they aren't i know, but lets pretend for a moment) then which rear end would the camaro have? GM will try to sell as many camaros at the highest possible price they can. Part of the analysis will be design features. What features the public will likely demand, and what features GM can revise to cut costs that will not impact the desire for the product.

If the factors of production are cheap enough that the IRS is being considered, which we know it is, and there is a market demand for a product that meets that criteria in place. Is it a design feature that is demanded? I don't know, but GM likely does.

GM will also consider it's competitors and what features they will likely need to match. The car will be aimed at the challenger, and the mustang. The mustang has a body capable of being fitted with an IRS, and that has been a stated goal for a future svt model. The challenger will already have one. So GM must be able to produce a car that will meet public desires (not needs), not be at a disadvantage to it competitors, and at a cost to meet the equilibrium between supply and demand so they will make money and not have left over inventory.

If you want evidence of market demand being a determinent look at the 4 door charger. The muscle car guys barf up bile, but Dodge did there research and determined that such a monstrosity would sell.

The IRS is one part of an economic decision, based on what will sell to the masses. They aren't trying to appeal to camaro and firebird drag racing faithful. They want to sell it to a demographic of 20-50 somethings that would likely buy this or that in the absence of the camaro. They will be by nature of the market also be forced to concede to advancing technologies like an IRS. If everyone else is doing it, and even if the market (all us consumers) are under the misconception that IRS is always better, than GM cannot afford to not include it.

 

No sir, my point which W got, is that our desire for things will generally prevail all else being equal. We have A/C because we desire it, in place of just opening the windows. We have springs instead of leafs because they improve ride quality. We have discs to improve stopping distance, when drums and greater distance between cars is sufficient. We have power assist because it makes steering easier as opposed to just possible. We have these things because the market desired them, it had nothing to do with need.

We need wheels to ride on, we need an engine to make it go, we need a manner of transport for power to reach the wheels...

I'm trying to answer your question of "what need do we have" by answering "market desire for it and an economic means to provide it" which historically has been enough.

 

yes. .8 is weak.

More than enough......for going straight.

If driving to work is similar, then yes. Handling over bumpy roads is severely hindered with a solid rear when compared to an IRS.

The handling isn't good enough for my driving style - period. I can live with it, but I've been thinking about installing some sort of IRS. I also don't like the noise and the obstruction for dual exhaust.

The horse power from the factory was 345, but that wasn't good enough for most of us. Are they fast stock, yeah. Could it be faster, yes. Does the car handle aptly stock, yes. Can it handle better with a solid rear without creating a rattling experience, ****NO****. I just don't see why you'd want a solid rear in a car...*in a car*...truck axle in a car.

 

AFAIK, the new chassis (Zeta) is being engineered to ONLY accept IRS.
More engineering for a live axle = more time and more money.

Keep in mind this chassis will probably be under 500,000+ cars per year when it's being fully utilized (much more than just Camaro & GTO).
That much volume will surely help the cost stay down.

 

I've got to admit; you have me there.

 

I don't think you understand what I mean. I'm not arguing from "need," in the way you mean it. "Need" (as you mean it) isn't defininable. It's a BS term. It means anything and nothing.

What I'm saying is: okay, folks... you're demanding IRS. Why? For what purpose? Will you actually use it? What use will you, personally, put this feature to? Is there any sense in asking for something you'll never use?

I'm trying to understand your argument, Lee... it seems to me like: "people want it. Don't question it.

 

The BMW 3 series does .8's. What the hell does a car have to do before you think it's something other than "weak?" I think you're full of it.

Where and how are you driving? I'd be more inclined to believe you if you provided a specific example of an instance where you thought "this thing doesn't handle well enough."

Clearly it wasn't. I'm not at all skeptical of that. However, think of it like this: suppose you're making 500rwhp and running street tires (and you never intend to switch them out). I think I might have a legitimate point in asserting that it would be kinda pointless to add more power when you can already spin the wheels in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gears. I'd be right in saying that you couldn't use more power at that point. It's called the point of diminishing returns.

For power, it highly depends on the tires you intend to run, and also the kind of races you race. If you run roll races, then your limit is a lot higher than someone who runs 1/8th mile runs (where traction > top end).

That's what I mean with handling. If you don't plan to race the car at a track, then I severely doubt you'll challenge the limits of a stock 4th gen fbody. I've taken every turn that the public roads have ever thrown at me at well over the speed listed on those yellow signs, and that's with drag radials on the rear, and the non-upgraded Firebird Formula suspension. I've also driven across the country, over mountain ranges... going 90 coming down the mountains in the twisties. So when you say that the stock Fbody's handling isn't up to your "driving style," I have to wonder what the hell you're doing!

 

"I still don't see what you (or they) mean. I'm not using need-based garbage. "Need" is such a BS term. I'm saying that if you don't use something, then it's pointless to want it."

A 1957 Chevy could take turns above the posted speed. Is that all the performance we need?

I anticipated your pithy "I built it myself comment," on the PC. There are elements of your internals that are not utilize and could be removed as well as parts of your windows or linux system that are not utilized but are apart of your software. However, the vast masses may need these portions and thusly your system contains them.

If every person gets an item built for them exactly you have to be very rich to own anything. By making items that will compromisingly please the masses items can be mass produced and thus sold at discount prices. However, those items have to please enough customers to make business sense. A.K.A. be cheap enough for the customers to buy, affordable enough so that many customers will buy, and expensive enough for the manufacturer to make a profit.

.8 in the twisties is not what really matter...Is the ride poised, balanced, easy to drive? Look in this month's car and driver I believe it is. There is an old Vette and an old Stang in the comparison. Both cars were only making nearly .7 g's. However, even though the limits are laughable today the Vette was well poised and thus drivable. Look at old Lotus and Ferrari (or a newer Miata for that matter) designs they do not have the stickiness of modern tires but are very raceable and poised. A solid axle can make numbers but those numbers are not achieved as well nor are they consistent enough. Likewise those number are harder to achieve.

I agree the 4th gens were not only about straightline. But, others on this thread including you yourself have stated that muscle cars are about being good at one thing above all others (price can only allow so many things you stated). Muscle cars of the day were meant to be good at anything its owner threw at them. Solid axles were allowable back in the day for IRS was exceedingly expensive and harder to produce. The 4th gen was evolutionary and the IRS in the 5th gen will likewise be evolutionary in making the camaro a better all around vehicle.

IRS is a great addition in daily drivability and cruising over less than great roads (example OKC, a great and modern city, shitty roads though, my Z28 would beat me to death on them). The old TPI's were more than enough...powerwise for daily commute, why do we need an LS7 in the new camaro?

It is not that we are hostile it is that we have explained our reason to adnausium and yet you persist. Being wrong is wrong no matter how many times you debate.

W