IRS convertion in LS1 Camaro
#61
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. I've not only owned 7 4th Gen F-bodies, but also have cut apart at least 17 other F-bodies, then analysed them through FEM. I've also fabricated several years before I eventually went on to becoming a Materials Engineer.
2. The very few who do know what they want performance wise would like to see an IRS for the 4th Gen F-body that:
a) exceeds the performance and reliability of the Fays2 Watts link. Lap/Track times should be the ultimate test to verify this.
b) can at least have an MSRP for something at least less than the value of the most well preserved 4th Gen F-bodies out there.
c) is easy to retrofit with little or no modification to the monocoque, therefore will not introduce structural integrity issues for the vehicle with or without even further expense or the possibility of writing off the vehicle.
AFA custom work for the sake of driveway jewelry, that's been done already. What's next?
Also, bear in mind that almost all major auto manufacturers with decent engineering do "AX, drag race, and open-track" their prototypes. Like Sam and MLS could possibly agree a suspension is more about how effective it works and less about whether it's an AX, RR, or a drag race per se.
AFA a "practical F-body" goes, they actually do have quite a bit of practicality to them. Heck, there were enough times that I was able to use the interior space quite effectively than most "non station-wagon sedans."
I do believe that what I post is more objective and less subjective.
2. The very few who do know what they want performance wise would like to see an IRS for the 4th Gen F-body that:
a) exceeds the performance and reliability of the Fays2 Watts link. Lap/Track times should be the ultimate test to verify this.
b) can at least have an MSRP for something at least less than the value of the most well preserved 4th Gen F-bodies out there.
c) is easy to retrofit with little or no modification to the monocoque, therefore will not introduce structural integrity issues for the vehicle with or without even further expense or the possibility of writing off the vehicle.
AFA custom work for the sake of driveway jewelry, that's been done already. What's next?
Also, bear in mind that almost all major auto manufacturers with decent engineering do "AX, drag race, and open-track" their prototypes. Like Sam and MLS could possibly agree a suspension is more about how effective it works and less about whether it's an AX, RR, or a drag race per se.
AFA a "practical F-body" goes, they actually do have quite a bit of practicality to them. Heck, there were enough times that I was able to use the interior space quite effectively than most "non station-wagon sedans."
I do believe that what I post is more objective and less subjective.
Last edited by Foxxtron; 05-28-2009 at 10:37 AM.
#63
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually have yet to try any of Fays2 Watts, but I have custom fabbed other designs that are similar. I can tell by it's appearance that it should be plenty stout, and for those who've tried it know already it's quality first hand. The points to where the Watts frame mounts are actually strong enough as well.
To also reiterate, I DO welcome to see an IRS that can work significantly better, not just marginally better than the Fays2 Watts. I'm sure a lot could use a design that can not only allow better control over rear camber and toe, but also one that can readily provide much better overall quality with regards rear end control and can at least not add more unsprung weight than a Fays2 does (which according to Sam Strano only adds ~11lbs.). It would also help if the IRS can eliminate much of the wheel hop issues.
To also reiterate, I DO welcome to see an IRS that can work significantly better, not just marginally better than the Fays2 Watts. I'm sure a lot could use a design that can not only allow better control over rear camber and toe, but also one that can readily provide much better overall quality with regards rear end control and can at least not add more unsprung weight than a Fays2 does (which according to Sam Strano only adds ~11lbs.). It would also help if the IRS can eliminate much of the wheel hop issues.
Last edited by Foxxtron; 05-28-2009 at 11:00 AM.
#64
TECH Resident
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gardena, Ca
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://zeuscatalog.com/jay_cutshaw_s_irs_swap
this looks promising....
#65
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks promising, however I'd still like to know more about it, such as:
a) track/lap times: What would they be overall for this vs. a Fays2 Watts link?
b) price: these C4 Dana44 rear ends aren't cheap either in price nor quality per se. Labourwise, it appears quite intensive, so I imagine that the overall price will be quite high.
c) body modification: Whilst I'm not able to see all through the website, on some pictures I do notice there's some cutting to the body in some critical places. What are their experiences with this type of re-engineering?
b) has there been a comprehensively proven shock, spring, and swaybar combination run with this setup?
Again, it's possible to improve upon a Watts link, but at what costs?
My reasons for posting are not to stifle one technology over the other, but to get as many answers possible from this C4 setup. No doubt that the C4 design has been retrofitted to many older vehicles with lower box frame designs through simple bracket attachment welding and little invasive cutting, however the F-body is a monocoque and whilst monocoques aren't necessarily weak per se, any type of cutting modifications need to be insured that they're not weakening the rear overall body stiffness.
a) track/lap times: What would they be overall for this vs. a Fays2 Watts link?
b) price: these C4 Dana44 rear ends aren't cheap either in price nor quality per se. Labourwise, it appears quite intensive, so I imagine that the overall price will be quite high.
c) body modification: Whilst I'm not able to see all through the website, on some pictures I do notice there's some cutting to the body in some critical places. What are their experiences with this type of re-engineering?
b) has there been a comprehensively proven shock, spring, and swaybar combination run with this setup?
Again, it's possible to improve upon a Watts link, but at what costs?
My reasons for posting are not to stifle one technology over the other, but to get as many answers possible from this C4 setup. No doubt that the C4 design has been retrofitted to many older vehicles with lower box frame designs through simple bracket attachment welding and little invasive cutting, however the F-body is a monocoque and whilst monocoques aren't necessarily weak per se, any type of cutting modifications need to be insured that they're not weakening the rear overall body stiffness.
#66
TECH Resident
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gardena, Ca
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a reason why it seems the C4 is the IRS of choice? What about the C5 and the GTO? I would imagine that they would be ideal given their year of production....Personally, I feel the IRS is the 4th Gen FBody's missing link. Include IRS, and you have a C5 with a back seat and T-Tops. Our cars are the most hated/loved in the performance car world and IRS would be one more reason for the 4th Gen to be loved/hated even more. Simply telling a person to go get a GTO/Vette is like saying a Camaro/Firebird that ceased production in 2002 isn't good enough.
#67
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
If you look at a C5, the brackerery for the IRS is based around the frame, as well as using a rear mounted transaxle, solid mounted torque tube. and is not more like the C4's where it is more of a unit, the GTO IRS can be found for cheap, and I believe (I need to go under my car and look again, it's been 2 years since I really looked at the IRS design) it seems to tie into the body in several spots, and didn't appear to be a bolt in design, well, at least without building a support cradle.
The 2003-4 cobra design, is very interesting, and SVT was given a task to design this, allowing to to not require changes to the unibody. The result is a compromise, due to this requirement. It makes the setup somewhat valuable, for conversions, since it will bolt into millions of 79-2004 mustangs in the world.
Ryan
The 2003-4 cobra design, is very interesting, and SVT was given a task to design this, allowing to to not require changes to the unibody. The result is a compromise, due to this requirement. It makes the setup somewhat valuable, for conversions, since it will bolt into millions of 79-2004 mustangs in the world.
Ryan
#69
Teching In
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: where ever the army sends me
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the land of subjectivity the comments usually dwell in. People like foxxtron, MLS and the like will see little or no value in such a project unless it shaves time off around the track.
Comments about the Watts link, shocks, tires, etc are no doubt true. However, to me a project like this is less about the numbers and more about the customization. What's that saying about not really "owning the car" unless you've torn it apart and rebuilt it?
What's you're goal? Lapping the fastest. Would any sanctioned autoX body allow a car with this type of mod to run? Quickest 1/4? Why would you even consider this then? I know the OP said he'd dropped this idea.
But, IT IS a good idea for its own reasons. If you're goal is to make a true custom ride, here's a hint - anybody who can spin wrenches can put in a Watts link and nobody at the show will say wow.
Measure your goals and expectations accordingly, and don't let someone talk you out of it. BTW, the DANA 44 can be made to handle more than "210 HP" by quite a lot.
Comments about the Watts link, shocks, tires, etc are no doubt true. However, to me a project like this is less about the numbers and more about the customization. What's that saying about not really "owning the car" unless you've torn it apart and rebuilt it?
What's you're goal? Lapping the fastest. Would any sanctioned autoX body allow a car with this type of mod to run? Quickest 1/4? Why would you even consider this then? I know the OP said he'd dropped this idea.
But, IT IS a good idea for its own reasons. If you're goal is to make a true custom ride, here's a hint - anybody who can spin wrenches can put in a Watts link and nobody at the show will say wow.
Measure your goals and expectations accordingly, and don't let someone talk you out of it. BTW, the DANA 44 can be made to handle more than "210 HP" by quite a lot.
I have never understood this feeling. To me changing things on my car that provide no benifits to the driving or looks of a car but doing it just because it is different is weird. I mean I have never seen anyone take a LS1 out of a fourth gen and put in a 4 cylinder but it would be different right. So what do yo think should I go for it.
#71
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the ONLY reason you'd want a C4 IRS in your car is for show. Does no one remember the horrible handling that C4s had? Remember all those articles back in late 1996-early 1997 about how the C5 was light-years better than the C4?
In fact, I raced head-to-head with no fewer than 3 C4 Vettes this year. All of them had more power. All of them had bigger/fresher tires. All of them had bigger brakes. I could out-corner all of them.
Someone earlier said that not all IRSs are good. That's a fact. In fact, very few work well. RX-7 and C5 Corvette are 2 of them. C4 and Mustang are not. I'd put my live axle up against almost any IRS any day.
As for "most top-end cars have IRS", well that's true. Of course, they also have pro-drivers, crews, garages, factory/team support, test days, and no need to compromise. If those are the criteria, then it's EASY to make an IRS that is superb.
In fact, I raced head-to-head with no fewer than 3 C4 Vettes this year. All of them had more power. All of them had bigger/fresher tires. All of them had bigger brakes. I could out-corner all of them.
Someone earlier said that not all IRSs are good. That's a fact. In fact, very few work well. RX-7 and C5 Corvette are 2 of them. C4 and Mustang are not. I'd put my live axle up against almost any IRS any day.
As for "most top-end cars have IRS", well that's true. Of course, they also have pro-drivers, crews, garages, factory/team support, test days, and no need to compromise. If those are the criteria, then it's EASY to make an IRS that is superb.
#73
Whilst on the subject of IRS, let's all bear in mind that some IRS designs are actually WORSE than the F-body SRA. Some actually contain significantly more unsprung weight and some also don't allow for hardly any improvement with concerns to either static or dynamic camber and toe control, which are after all major reasons for an IRS.
It's a good thing that a properly designed Watts link retrofit is finally available because designing an optimally performing IRS for the F-body is not economical or practical at all.
It's a good thing that a properly designed Watts link retrofit is finally available because designing an optimally performing IRS for the F-body is not economical or practical at all.
#74
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
About the ONLY reason you'd want a C4 IRS in your car is for show. Does no one remember the horrible handling that C4s had? Remember all those articles back in late 1996-early 1997 about how the C5 was light-years better than the C4?
In fact, I raced head-to-head with no fewer than 3 C4 Vettes this year. All of them had more power. All of them had bigger/fresher tires. All of them had bigger brakes. I could out-corner all of them.
Someone earlier said that not all IRSs are good. That's a fact. In fact, very few work well. RX-7 and C5 Corvette are 2 of them. C4 and Mustang are not. I'd put my live axle up against almost any IRS any day.
As for "most top-end cars have IRS", well that's true. Of course, they also have pro-drivers, crews, garages, factory/team support, test days, and no need to compromise. If those are the criteria, then it's EASY to make an IRS that is superb.
In fact, I raced head-to-head with no fewer than 3 C4 Vettes this year. All of them had more power. All of them had bigger/fresher tires. All of them had bigger brakes. I could out-corner all of them.
Someone earlier said that not all IRSs are good. That's a fact. In fact, very few work well. RX-7 and C5 Corvette are 2 of them. C4 and Mustang are not. I'd put my live axle up against almost any IRS any day.
As for "most top-end cars have IRS", well that's true. Of course, they also have pro-drivers, crews, garages, factory/team support, test days, and no need to compromise. If those are the criteria, then it's EASY to make an IRS that is superb.
#75
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, what one could consider easy can be subjective. All I know is that if one were to take on that task, they should have a good structural engineering background (college or trade skill knowledge), many months of labour hours, precise tooling, several thousand dollars USD, and then good testing to ensure reliability, longevity, and most important of all...a substantial and highly consistent performance increase. If it's just marginal, then it's going to be a whole lot of sunk costs.
AFA the C4 IRS, it appears to be a sort of swing axle type, which is a design that's almost always worse than a trailing arm type SRA. I've driven many vehicles with swing axle designs (including C4's) and AFA I'm concerned, I avoid them like the plague.
Last edited by Foxxtron; 06-09-2009 at 03:38 AM. Reason: more precise clarification
#76
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
You could use a C5 IRS with out the trans axle, and a torque tube. There is at least one company I know of who makes a yoke, pinion, and cover for the C5 diff, that allows you to run the transmission of your choice and a normal driveshaft.
Last edited by lees02WS6; 06-09-2009 at 09:41 AM.
#79
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm of the opinion that, unless someone is paying you to race, you won't be able to take advantage of an IRS transplant over a well set up stock design. Yeah, the C5 IRS "might" be better if the rest of the car is set up perfectly, and you (as the driver) is able to drive at 10/10ths 100% of the time. But, if you are inconsistent as a driver, or the car is suboptimal, then a well set up live axle will beat it.
For proof, check out NASCAR (live axle) vs Speed World Challenge GT1 (IRS). Jamie McMurray ran a 1:15.0 at Infineon Raceway in April 2004. The best times that the GT1 guys could muster in June 2006 was a 1:19.650. Sure, it's not exactly apples-to-apples, but it shows that a live axle isn't exactly a boat anchor.
For proof, check out NASCAR (live axle) vs Speed World Challenge GT1 (IRS). Jamie McMurray ran a 1:15.0 at Infineon Raceway in April 2004. The best times that the GT1 guys could muster in June 2006 was a 1:19.650. Sure, it's not exactly apples-to-apples, but it shows that a live axle isn't exactly a boat anchor.
#80
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFA the C4 suspension, even though it's a somewhere between a SLA and a swing arm, some of the "swing arm behaviours" are very well present. I've owned 3 C4's from the mid-90's as well. The half-shaft CANNOT completely compensate for true upper wishbone control arms. If this was the case, there probably wouldn't be a need to have a complete SLA in the C5, however with that stated there are much more significant design improvements that contribute considerably to the C5's performance.
Nevertheless, I still want to see "real-world" application of a C4, C5, or maybe a C6 IRS retrofit compared to the Fays2 Watts. I do welcome it, but even with a 50% unspung weight savings and significant control over toe and camber, lap times will ultimately tell the truth.
With that stated, I've witnessed lots of what 00 TransAm has mentioned.
Last edited by Foxxtron; 06-09-2009 at 04:52 PM.