First ! Lol !

I LOVE WHINING !

.

idiot...

Will they release this damn thing already??!?!

this is going to be such a head turner for a while to come. its a little bit retro but still holds its own unlike the charger which plays the retro card a bit much. definitely a competitor for the mustang.

lets go already! i want to see some on the road. hope the release is early in 09.

2 years too late and 400 lbs overweight!! The V6 will be a sled and you will certainly need the V8 to overtake the current Stang. God help Camaro when the eco-boost rears its head weighing in at a svetle 3500lbs. I'd rather buy a used Corvette than this pet project:)

aww this one rhymes even. How lame is that, lol.

This is one sexy beast. Can't wait for the after market parts to hit the floor. Classic muscle car with independent rear... Can't wait to see if something like Calloway or Lingenfelter can get ahold to a few of these LS engines. Should be insanely good.

I'm curious if the IRS will be a significant difference in daily driving compared to the Mustang live suspension. Clearly the IRS handles better on the track, but I drive on the street. I wonder if the large V8 will hop the IRS?

This car has a nice retro look, looks fun to own, and has personality or soul - something missing on most of the new cars. If is performs well (e.g. equal or better than the other retro's), it will be a hit. I will definitely take the V8 for a test drive.

Doh?

A head turner? You either live in South dakota, or have an IQ even lower than mine.

my family tree looks more like a circle

The IRS is crap, and doesn't need to be on the car. It's worse in a straight line, and no better on the track, and it adds weight. But this is because it's built on a global platform, and IRS is a selling feature that has the perception of being better (just like DOHC).

I want to see the pricing. If they price it right, they'll have a winner, but if it's like the Dodge Challenger ($42k for an SRT-8), then I think they've lost their minds.

IRS sucks? My GTO has a much better ride quality then my Firehawk thanks to IRS. Wheel hop is an issue though.

Them seem to have fixed it though with Zeta since the G8 GXP runs the quarter and 0-60 in the same time as a GTO with same power and 300 lbs more weight.

As for handling, my GTO handles much better then the Firehawk thanks to IRS. Live axle is better for dragging though.

Mustang GT should be faster then the v6 Camaro, but won't have a chance against the SS.

The car looks very promising. I look forward to seeing it in person.

On a side note; I can't help but notice that the rear fender "vents" before the rear wheel are only stampings in the steel on the V-6 model and appear open on the SS model.

Could they actually be *gasp* functional?

Page 10 of this booklet included pictures of celebrities exiting Camaros without panties on.

It's a good looking car IMO. I do agree that they are at least 1 year late with putting it out. I think we've been seeing pictures of it for 2-3 years now.

Lets hope for Ford that they have a 375ish HP option on their next Mustang or they will officially lose at the track. I'd actually rather have a TT V6 than a big V8. Much easier to buy a couple bigger turbos, retune, and have 50%+ more power.

AllNewAcurasAreUgly, dont buy my cars or people might think our car company caters to idiots...

@ Avatar:

IRS doesn't suck, it's just overrated. Your coments about the ride and handling comparisons between a live axle and IRS are apples and oranges, since the suspension type is only one factor in the ride and handling. Things like tires, springs, and shocks have a big effect. As an example, everyone I know how owns or has owned both a 3rd gen and a 4th gen Camaro/Firebird says that the 3rd gen cars handle better, even though the rear suspensions are basically identical, and the 4th gen cars have a better SLA setup than the simple struts used on the 3rd gen cars.

As far as competition for the Mustang, it won't matter if it's faster or handles better than the Mustang, and that is proven. The last generation camaro would outperform a Mustang in basically every category, and GM couldn't give them away, while Ford couldn't build Mustangs fast enough.

@Beavis:

Correct, which I why I said they would lose at the track, and not on the sales side...

@Bob Lutz:

Don't read my comments or people might think I cater to idiots.

If you have the same supension set up on an IRS and live axle, IRS will be a better ride and better handling. Live axle will be better for draging. There are exceptions however. Apples to oraganes? Its comparing one supension type to another, both have adventages and disadventages. Its like compairing an Intel cpu to an AMD one. We can't though because one uses a FSB a memory controller off die and the other uses HyperTransport and an on die memory controller?

You stated that its crap which isn't the case, as proven by the G8. It proforms better then the set up on the GTOs dispite more weight to the car, and straight line performance isn't affected either.

Will it be used for marketing kool aid? Yes, no more then SH-AWD or HP ratings.

It's certainly true that you can make a live axle handle but it will come at a price, ride quality. While wheel hop is correctable with IRS setup, but road noise is increased through vibration well beyond what would be acceptable with a factory model. The weight difference shouldn't be all that much for most applications. I imagine you could improve a live axle's ride quality with modern electronic shock control but it would still suffer on uneven pavement.

I have a launch kit on my car which has eliminated wheel hop and has no discernible difference in handle. There is a noticeable difference in noise in the car. Hard shifts also jolt the car more.

GM will likely address wheel hop with torque management and unequal shafts as they done with their other applications. This approach won't completely solve the problem but it doesn't increase vibration or road noise.

@AllNewAcurasAreUgly
Big turbos aren't cheap and bolting a super charger or turbos to V8 would have better results. You also would likely have to replace everything to get 50% boost assuming it was a twin turbo to begin with.

From my point of view V6's are rather pointless, particularly the larger ones that can compete with a V8 in terms of power.

And when did DOHC become a bad thing?

Or more specifically if you actually want better MPG. Sure you can take an old 2 valve pushrod V8, bolt on a blower and make gobs of power...of course you'll be running rich as hell while cruising and getting crap for gas mileage.

Most of your current valve timing technologies wouldn't work if it wasn't for DOHC (with the mild exclusion of some GM truck engines that use VVT and pushrod (or at least they did)). VTEC, VVTi, Vanos, ect.. I think every car on the market uses some kind of variable intake cam phasing to help reduce the apparent engine size at low rpm....

Another aspect that hasn't been touched with the IRS vs. solid axle is the unsprung weight. A typical solid axle design will have more unsprung weight and yield a harsher ride over bumps. You will also be using a lot of corrective devices to help control this, locater bars, and pan hard bars come to mind.

If you going for all out power, solid is the way you'll have to go. If it's going to be a daily driver, their is no reason not to push for IRS.

Don't start the push rod vs DOHC thing again. That has been beaten to a pulp on here. Both work better in different areas, DOHC in smaller displacement engines and push rod in larger displacement ones. Around the 300 hp mark is where they start trading blows, 400+ hp push rod is more fuel efficient.

VVT is on LY6, L76(truck version), and the L92 (first push rod engine to have it). They started at the top and are working down. Gen V gets VVT and Direct Injection across the line apparently.

i like it, it looks a bit like gary's honda, with a bit of Nissan and Toyota.

ok i admit it, i'm the one who posts under everyones name. not getting any credit was killng me

doh
"...not getting any credit was killing me."

And so can taking credit, where do you live?

The point about the IRS is that it isn't needed. It adds cost and complexity, for very little added benefit. The performance on a track is no better (and in some cases worse) than a live axle.

You could argue that it would have better performance on a rough road or a track that's not smooth, but how many people are going to be driving a car balls out on that type of surface in the first place?

And you could argue that it offers a better ride, but in a sports car, who cares? Most of these cars aren't known for their supple rides. I'd be willing to bet that a 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee, with solid axles front AND rear, offers a better ride than a G8 or a GTO. The suspension system is exactly that: a SYSTEM. You can't make blanket comments based on just one characteristic.

In that, you would be extremely wrong, since my GTO rides better then my cousin's '06 Cherokee, and leaps and bounds better then another cousin's '05 Mustang GT.

You take a turn and hit a small bump, both wheels on a live axle are effected, effecting grip. IRS, only one wheel reacts, maintaining grip. Now the faster you go, the more those small bumps effect you. Next, Camber Gain on IRS can be controlled, meaning you can make the outside wheel toe out in a corner to help it maintain grip and pull you through the corner. Solid Axle can't do that, because the wheels are connected, what happens to one effects the other. IRS also maintains a higher slip ratio, meaning more power to the ground. The one advantage Solid Axle has is that it has an anti-roll bar but into it, do to design. This is negated when you install a roll bar on IRS however.

As for weight, IRS weighs more. However, it makes up for it in the fact that it has less unsprung mass. Less unsprung mass, less vibrations transferred to the vehicle, better ride quality. Likewise, less unsprung mass, the more reactive tires are to the road to help maintain grip. Higher unsprung mass however improves wheel control when accelerating and braking hard. This is the reason Solid Axle is better for drag racing. However, vertical forces on higher unsrpung mass can cause wheel hop when under hard acceleration and braking, which is exactly what happens when you hit a bump, or are in a turn and and try to accelerate or brake hard, transferring mass to the outside wheel and lighten the inside wheel. Anti roll bar helps prevent this, but can only do so much. When you start to roll with an anti roll bar, it has the effect of lifting up the inside wheel in a turn. Blanket statements?

Some stuff above might be a little off, spring forces aren't my strong suit when it comes to physics.

IRS is not needed, but it helps make the Camaro a better car then a Mustang, just like my GTO is better then the Mustang GT and a better ride and handler then my Firehawk. In a drag race however, I will take my Hawk any day over my GTO no matter how much nicer it is, how better it handles, or how much nicer the ride is.

If the v6 Camaro does indeed start in the low 20s and performs almost on the level of a Mustang GT, they have a winner. GT starts in the mid 20s, and the v6 Camaro will destroy the v6 Mustang. 300 hp with a 6 speed manual or auto vs 210 hp with a 5 speed manual or auto and both have same gas mileage (based on estimates for the Camaro, no EPA ratings yet). The Mustang GT (300hp, 320 lb-ft, 3483 lbs) should edge out the new v6 Camaro (300hp, 273 lb-ft, 3750 lbs).

Your physics are WAY wrong.

On a smooth track, IRS has ZERO advantages over a live axle. It may have more unsprung weight, but it's self correcting when it comes to keeping the maximum amount of tire planted to the pavement in turns. The camber gain built into the IRS has to be very carefully designed to even approach this characteristic.

Yes, if the track is bumpy, then the IRS has an advantage, but that's the only time. I forget which racing class (one of the SCCA ones?) several years ago started allowing IRS instead of the mandated live axle. Many teams switched to IRS and guess what? They found ZERO improvement in the performance of the car.

And to say that your GTO handles better than [insert car here] says alot. The GTO is a SHITTY car with an awesome drivetrain. There's a reason that GM couldn't sell them. And I have plenty of experience with the GTO, my brother has one with over 600 RWHP. It's fast, but I wouldn't own one.

Before you start talking suspension, you might want to realize that some of us actually have experience designing, building and tuning suspensions. I have a couple of friends who make a living doing that actually.

The IRS on the Camaro is a detriment, and it adds cost to the car when its competition doesn't have it. You watch, the damn SS will be nearly $40k, and then GM will have another loser on its hands.

Last I checked, tracks have bumps, hills, changes in levels of the pavement. Faster you are going, more it effects you. Hit a speed bump at 10 mph and then again at 20 mph. Now unless you are talking speed ways and/or super speed ways, the track is smooth.

And if IRS really did nothing, why then would Ford spend quite a lot of money for the R&D on the SVT Cobra ('99-'04) for less then 35,000 vehicles? How about GM putting it on a car that costs the low 20s? Don't know of many modern BMWs (except the SUVs) without. Same thing with Benz and Audi as well. Look, Acura has all IRS too. Maybe all those car companies have no idea about suspension. They just put it in cars because it sounds cool, costs more to R&D, weighs more, uses more materials which means more cost, etc. And here is the kicker, BMWs are some of the best handling cars in the world. I know, because I have thought about getting an M3 a few times, but I like to keep my cars for a while. Too many problems with them.

That's great, 600 rwhp GTO. My GTO is stock minus so bolt on's as well as the Firehawk. I see no need to make 600 rwhp in things I often on roads.

And a 'SHITTY' car? Guess that's why it was compared to a CLK55AMG and 'provided 85-95% of the goodness for less then 50% the cost'. And that was the '04 version, which I have already been over the differences between the two. Yup, pretty shitty alright.

As for designing and building suspensions, great. I don't, don't really care. I know what I feel when I drive a car, what math tells me, and what the laws of the universe say. Math doesn't lie and neither do the laws of the universe. On top of that, I own a Firehawk, a GTO, and have access to a Mustang GT, so I think I can speak when I talk about the differences in suspension. And again, I guess pretty much every major car manufacturer in the world has no idea about suspensions.

Lastly, the cost for the SS is suppose to be around 30k, not 40k. That was around how much the Z28 was suppose to cost.

What tracks are you racing at where the maintenance is so bad that it drastically upsets a solid axle car? With the exception of races held on courses that are actually comprised of closed of public streets, I'd say that VERY few tracks have significant patches and bumps that would really disadvantage a solid axle car. Honestly, the Nurburgring WOULD be one of those tracks, because it's ancient and looks like it has been maintained by the New Orleans public works department.

As far as cresting hills and causing suspension movements that affect both tires, the solid axle has an edge there....no camber gain.

And those manufacturers that are using IRS......just like how those same manufacturers are all using DOHC engines because they are far superior to pushrods?

Oh wait, GM has disproven that with the "old tech" pushrod engines that make just as much power, have just as good fuel economy, but cost WAY less because a pushrod engine has FAR fewer parts than a DOHC engine.

But, Cadillac used the Northstar in the XLR instead of an LS series engine because of the PERCEPTION that DOHC is superior.

If you want to start comparing $30k Camaros (and I'll be SHOCKED if the SS is that cheap) with BMW and other luxo brands, then you're really grasping at straws. As far as Ford using IRS on the Cobra, they had to do SOMETHING to get someone to buy a Mustang that was approching Corvette pricing territory. But it looks as if they changed their minds and decided to save all that cash on the GT500. It got a solid axle AND a cast iron engine block.

I guess the best, most valid comparison would be to take two identical '04 Mustang GTs, and swap the IRS from the Cobra onto one of them, and then run them neck and neck and see what happens.

I'm not saying IRS doesn't have it's place, but that place is NOT on the new Camaro, and the benefits of it are very overrated.

Wow, so first you say IRS is crap, which I turn around and disprove by same my GTO handles better then my Firehawk thanks to IRS, which is true. I also state that solid axle is better for dragging, IRS racing. Again, true.

So then you turn around and say, "Your coments about the ride and handling comparisons between a live axle and IRS are apples and oranges". To which I then reply by making an analogy which again makes sense. And also disprove your 'IRS is crap' theory by stating that a G8 GXP is running the same times as a GTO with same power and 300 lbs more, which runs real close to a Firehawk that the GTO weighs 200 lbs more. So the G8 GXP with now 500 lbs more weight of a Firehawk runs the same times in a drag almost and handles better. The G8 GXP should be a slug around the track, but that's not what reviews are saying about the G8 GT. The GXP gets even better suspension. So why is a car weighing 500 lbs more, not making much more power, running similar drag times? Hmmm, the only major difference is one has IRS, the other doesn't. And the fact that a a G8 GT handles like a GTO is even more proof that GM fixed the issues with IRS they had on the GTO, since again, a car that is 300 lbs heavier is running the same drag time making the same exact power. (G8 GXP drag times aren't offical yet)

So after that, you state I make blanket statements. So I turn around and back myself up with physics. So then you say my physics are 'WAY wrong'. I didn't see anything in your next comment to disprove what I stated with my physics. No, you start talking about tracks instead, which is hilarious because I never mentioned tracks before, just ride quality, handling, and drag racing.

After that, you start talking about a 600 rwhp GTO, which again, has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You could have easily said, my brother has a GTO so I have experiences with one. Nope, instead you decide to show off a bit. Then, you start talking about how you know people who design suspensions. So because I now know someone who knows something, I know it as well? Just sounds like more show boating to me. But I replied, listing pretty much every major manufacturer in the world. Again, I am pretty sure they know about suspensions.

Then you state the Camaro SS will be around 40k, which funny again because 6 threads above this one, it states, "The Camaro SS is expected to start just under $30,000, with the V6 Camaros starting around $20,000. " So instead of reading, you state you will be 'SHOCKED' and then go on to say I am comparing a Camaro with luxury brands. I didn't see where I did that, please point it out. I talked about manufacturers using IRS, but compared the Camaro to nothing, simply stated it has IRS along with x,y, and z, which again, was in retort to you calling it 'CRAP' and talking about your friends.

What happens when you go over a hill on a turn, into a turn, or out of a turn? That's all I have to say about your next statement.

As for comparing IRS to DOHC to push rods, I think that is apples to oranges. Unless you want to take my stance, which was IRS is better for some things, solid axle others. And then, "Both work better in different areas, DOHC in smaller displacement engines and push rod in larger displacement ones." That's a comparison, not kool aid.

Hate to burst your bubble again, but the '03 and '04 Cobras used an iron block and stronger internals to handle more boost (8psi vs 6psi I believe for the '99-'01s, could be wrong). The 5.4L DOHC v8 used in the new GT500 is actually lifted for the Cobra R. The GT500 uses 9 psi of boost. Iron is more durable for handling boost, because it is stronger. Why would GM take the time and effort to line the LS9 aluminum engine with iron cylinder walls? Oh, that's right, it uses 10.5 psi of boost. And they dropped the displacement from the LS7 to improve strength.

As for it getting a solid axle, have you seen how much a GT500 costs? Oh, that's right, 4 grand less then a Corvette, which embarrasses it. Why does Ford sell them then? The age old Ford vs GM war. Some people won't touch Ford, others GM. But to take anther quote from you, "As far as Ford using IRS on the Cobra, they had to do SOMETHING to get someone to buy a Mustang that was approaching Corvette pricing territory." Why then, didn't they do it again with the GT500? 43k is in the same territory as 47k. Hmm, maybe to save money so it would be cheaper then a Vette and save some weight on a car that already weighs 700 lbs more then a Vette.

So you say it doesn't have it's place in the Camaro, state Ford puts it in the Cobra because it needed it, and then talk about how they didn't put it in the GT500. This is after I state, "IRS is not needed, but it helps make the Camaro a better car then a Mustang". Most of your arguments are track based, which you brought up. I stated but handling and ride for IRS. You said I could argue better ride, which I did. Unsprung mass proves it. So where exactly are most of the Camaros and Mustangs going to be driven, on a super smooth track or road? Ride quality for Camaro better then Mustang, +1 to Camaro.

Sorry, replace 'racing' with 'handling and ride quality' in the first paragraph. Very hard to proof read that much on here, lol.

Man, talk about rambling. You're an idiot. You're making comparisons on IRS and solid axles, not ever thinking that you're dealing with completely different VEHICLES.

You think that might some sort of an effect?

And I never said ANYTHING about Ford using IRS in the Cobra because it needed it. Ford probably did it because they needed something other than a 400 hp but no torque V8 to sell the car on.

And about GM using cast iron liners, they have done that with ALL of the LS engines, since the first one came out in the 1997 model year, genius. In fact, MOST aluminum engines use a cast iron liner. The only other practical option is to use an expensive and less durable coating on the cylinder walls.

I'm out of this discussion. It's tough to have any sort of a debate with someone who knows just enough information about the topic at hand to be dangerous.

Might I suggest you visit your local library and check out a few books before getting involved in any more suspension discussions?

Using a cast iron block is a cost saving measure, and nothing more.

"As far as Ford using IRS on the Cobra, they had to do SOMETHING to get someone to buy a Mustang that was approching Corvette pricing territory." Did you or did you not type that? Sounds like you are saying IRS is needed on the Cobra because its in Vette territory.

And no torque? It was rated at 390 ft-lbs. Was actually making more like 430 ft-lbs, which was, gasp, more then the Vette those years which was 350 ft-lbs, and more then the Z06 even at at 400 ft-lbs, with a flatter torque curve then the Z06 as well. That was one of the reasons the LS6 was dropped over the LS2, and it also cost more to make then the LS2. Yup, the Cobra needed now IRS because it was torqueless compared to the Vette which it was competing against.

And here is another quote for you, "Debuting in Spring 2002 as a 2003 model, the Cobra returned, this time with vastly increased power and handling. Dubbed during development as the "Terminator" Cobra, it received a T56 6-spd transmission coupled with a supercharged 4.6L DOHC V8. Due to the reduced power handling capability of the new WAP aluminum blocks, these new Cobras used the GT's cast iron engine block. Power was rated at 390 hp (290 kW). Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords and other Ford-themed magazines have performed dyno tests on several Cobras that put down rear-wheel power numbers in excess of 380 hp, which would suggest actual flywheel power to be around 450 hp. This amount of power meant that the 2003 Cobra was capable of mid-12-second quarter-mile times right off the showroom floor." Nope, was just a cost saving measure, lmao.

I think you need to learn to read, learn to remember what you say, and just learn how to debate. Don't open doors you can't shut.

Yep, must have used the cast iron block for strength, since the aluminum wouldn't handle it. Oh wait, the Ford GT used an aluminum block. Well, there goes that theory. Maybe they needed extra weight up front?

And the Ford boys can talk those Cobras up all they want, but I know a guy who showed quite a few Cobras the taillights of his stock Camaro SS...the funniest of which was a guy who had just bought one after a Ford salesman told him that he'd be able to "outrun a Corvette" in it.

This isn't a debate, since you're not informed enough to have one.

I am pretty sure that GT's aren't built to last as long as Mustangs. Its a super car, how many of those do you see or know of with even 75,000 miles on it? Sure, we can take a Lingenfelter Vette for example, crazy power, don't last too long. Google the Car and Driver 2003 SVT Cobra video. At 2:35, he talks about the block saying, "The block is now iron for durability." by 2:37. Here is yet another article quote, "Taking a page from the hot-rodder's handbook, SVT bolted an Eaton M112 Roots-type centrifugal supercharger to the Cobra's twincam V-8 and made numerous changes to accommodate it. These included using an iron block for durability under pressure, plus a water-to-air intercooler, new cylinder heads, and revised pistons with suitably lower 8.5:1 compression." Its funny, I take you advise and read even more, only to find everywhere I turn states they used an iron block for durability reasons.

Was it cheaper? Yes. Was a Terminator cheaper then a Vette? Yes. Is a GT500 cheaper then a Vette? Yes. Would IRS add more weight to a car that is already 22% heavier then what is is competing against and add more cost? Yes. Do they use it for durability? Yes. Would aluminum save weight? Yes. Would it cost more? Yes. Is a GT500 better then a Vette? Depends on what you like really, but from a performance number stand point, the Vette is better. If Ford used an all aluminum block for the GT500, would it save enough weight for the cost and be worth the hit to durability to make up for the number performance difference between it and the Vette? No. Good job Ford for keeping it under the cost of the Vette to actually get people to look at it, because that is the only thing it has number wise going for it.

The Cobras, like GTOs, have issues with wheel hop, thanks to IRS, which I stated in my first post. Good drivers get them sub 5s for 0-60 and mid 12s for quarter mile. An '02 Camaro SS or Firehawk can't hit mid 12s stock, high 12s yes, but not mid. I said that it looked like GM fixed those issues with Zeta, also in my first post. So looks like we have come full circle then, would you like me to copy and paste for you?

But what type of Cobras? I am a GM guy, but I know to respect a Cobra R or Terminator when I am in my Firehawk, especially if it has a driver in it. Older Cobras the Hawk and SS will walk all over. The Cobra R and Terminator has more Vette performance numbers (for those years). The Terminator was the best bang for the buck the two years it was out. If GM made the Trans Am and Camaro another two years, I am sure SLP and GM wouldn't let the crown go. But we will never know that.

As for being informed info, you haven't posted anything with a fact base, just opinion. I have give you numbers, physics, quotes from articles, what major car manufacturers do in the world, etc. You just state IRS is 'crap', track this and that, some apples and some oranges, IRS is not needed, 'SHITTY' car, 600 rwhp GTO, have 'a couple of friends' with 'experience designing, building, and tuning suspensions', then start talking about engines, mention how a 430 ft-lb which has more torque then what is going against is torqueless and need IRS because of it, and then bring a super car into the equation? Really? I suppose next we will talk about why the sky is blue.

Man, I would never have dreamed that there would be so many intellajent coments here on Torque Report.

Sorry Beavis, but I would rather have the Cobra Terminater over the Camaro SS.