View Poll Results: What type of rear shall we have?
IRS...good for road racing and fine for dragging
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/polls/bar2-l.gif)
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/polls/bar2.gif)
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/polls/bar2-r.gif)
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/clear.gif)
172
51.04%
Make mine a solid rear...I like to run around with my shoe laces tied together!!!
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/polls/bar3-l.gif)
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/polls/bar3.gif)
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/polls/bar3-r.gif)
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/clear.gif)
165
48.96%
Voters: 337. You may not vote on this poll
Maro...IRS or Solid Rear?
#101
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iranndia
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
Right, but you want to talk not being able to turn? There's your "can't turn" option. That's my point exactly: you all are talking like a solid rear = spool, but it doesn't.
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
Er... no.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
We have a difference of opinion, then. I want a muscle car, not a sports car.
You're dreaming. If the 'vette couldn't earn that title with an IRS, then why would a camaro have? I swear, you guys are silly.
![Rotflmao](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/rotflmao.gif)
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
#103
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Quick1998Z28
Spools are much cheaper and if you are going drag racing, why not have a spool?
They shouldn't be trying to sell the camaro to drag racers only.
![Rolleyes](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/rolleyes.gif)
I think we need to get some C5 or C6 owners in here to tell you otherwise.
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,
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.
I didn't say porsche killer, I said testarossa killer
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
#104
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
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
#105
TECH Addict
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fat Chance Hotel
Posts: 2,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Quick1998Z28
...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 ![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
If a Testarossa was "nothing to write home about" in the 80's, then what was?
#107
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
![Gay!!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_rainbow.gif)
Last edited by lees02WS6; 06-27-2006 at 10:05 PM.
#108
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
then the people demanding it should have a reason.
High .8's on the skidpad is more handling than anyone will use unless autoXing. Or some other form of racing. Unless you're doing that stuff, then I'd like to hear what the reason for wanting more handling is.
High .8's on the skidpad is more handling than anyone will use unless autoXing. Or some other form of racing. Unless you're doing that stuff, then I'd like to hear what the reason for wanting more handling is.
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.
#109
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by lees02WS6
We should only have it if we actually NEED it. Having 450hp is clearly a need, but an IRS puh-lease.
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.
#110
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
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
#111
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"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
LOL
W
#112
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by WECIV
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
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.
And, I doubt anyone would state a 67-69 Z/28 was about straight lines 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.
#113
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Devil](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_devil.gif)
![MAD](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_mad.gif)
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.
#114
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
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!"
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.
#115
TECH Addict
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fat Chance Hotel
Posts: 2,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by black_knight
How is high .8's considered "straight line only?" Are you people seriously saying that 4th gen F-bodies were "straight line only?"
Originally Posted by black_knight
I've only said that the 4th gen f-bodies with their solid axle handling was more than enough.
Originally Posted by black_knight
There isn't anything to be gained from making it better than that unless you are an autoXer or similar.
Originally Posted by black_knight
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."
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.
#116
TECH Addict
iTrader: (6)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#117
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by lees02WS6
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.
#118
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by lees02WS6
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.
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.
#119
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by technical
yes. .8 is weak.
The handling isn't good enough for my driving style - period.
The horse power from the factory was 345, but that wasn't good enough for most of us.
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!
![Icon Confused](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies2/icon_confused.gif)
#120
TECH Junkie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gulf Shores and DC
Posts: 3,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"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
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