durability of IRS

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

09-04-2006 | 07:27 PM

#46

OBE1 95Z28

Registered User

Joined: Dec 1969

Posts: 4,950

From: San Diego, CA

Re: durability of IRS

I think it's still possible for GM to drop the IRS for a solid axle to keep costs down. The F-Body has always been about bang for the buck.

09-04-2006 | 07:57 PM

#47

R377

Registered User

Joined: Nov 2000

Posts: 2,712

From: Ontario

Re: durability of IRS

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBE1 95Z28

I think it's still possible for GM to drop the IRS for a solid axle to keep costs down. The F-Body has always been about bang for the buck.

I agree that costs need to be kept in check. My preference would be to use the GTO's simple semi-trailing arms. It would allow Chevy to boast having IRS while doing it in a cost-effective yet reliable and effective manner. That would free up some money for the HF V6 that Z284ever mentioned, which would be another real advantage against the Mustang's jurassic V6.

09-04-2006 | 08:28 PM

#48

Z284ever

Registered User

Joined: Nov 2000

Posts: 16,179

From: Chicagoland IL

Re: durability of IRS

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBE1 95Z28

I think it's still possible for GM to drop the IRS for a solid axle to keep costs down. The F-Body has always been about bang for the buck.

At this point, a live rear axle would probably add cost.

Last edited by Z284ever; 09-04-2006 at 09:07 PM.

09-04-2006 | 09:45 PM

#49

stars1010

Registered User

Joined: Mar 2001

Posts: 3,122

From: Houston

Re: durability of IRS

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg_nate

Ask Stars1010 or guionM about this, but I recall someone saying specifically that the suspension in the new Camaro was intentionally designed to withstand 500 hp. To me, that says a lot about insight into design considerations and enthusiast input.