durability of IRS

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

09-04-2006, 06:27 PM

#46

OBE1 95Z28

Registered User

Join Date: Dec 1969

Location: San Diego, CA

Posts: 4,950

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, 06:57 PM

#47

R377

Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2000

Location: Ontario

Posts: 2,712

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, 07:28 PM

#48

Z284ever

Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2000

Location: Chicagoland IL

Posts: 16,179

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 08:07 PM.

09-04-2006, 08:45 PM

#49

stars1010

Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2001

Location: Houston

Posts: 3,122

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.