Given the horrible experiences with the glass-jaw 10-bolt, I agree.

"Bullet-proof rear end" needs to be right next to "no converter hump" on the engineering hit list.

 

Has anyone heard of the Z06 having problems?

Seriously though. 95% of new Camaro buyers will not be drag racing their cars. So why should GM build a drag race specific rearend and screw with the handling and general performance? Secondly, since drag racing will void your warranty anyway, you'd probably be paying for an upgraded rearend specifically designed for drag racing at some point anyway, no?

If the C6 Z06 rearend can handle 500+hp, I don't see why GM can't design one for the Camaro that does as well.

 

I hope GM makes the rear end stronger than the GTO's. Although nice and ok for daily driving it seriously lacks the strength to handle the LS2's power.

IRS can be done the Corvette and Viper have lots more power and they handle it with ease.

 

Serious question here............ do you honestly feel that a significantly smaller percentage of V8 Camaro owners drag race their cars, than V8 Mustang owners???

 

Very good point

It is MAJOR concern , just like the other aspects of the car were speaking of ...such as body lines , interior ect.

The 4th gen LS1 m6 cars had the power to break the 10 bolt in stock form . Seen it with my own eyes more than few times . GM really needs to put a perfomance rear end in a performance car this time around .

When all else fails , you will have a "for real" indestructible Ford 9" center section to choose from . The 9 second BMR GTO uses a 9" center section on the stock IRS . I dont hear them ( publicly anyways) complaining about their GTO having IRS with 9 second power .

 

Gloria, when did I ever mention the Mustang?

No one has answered the question though, if GM can build a IRS rearend that can handle the Z06's 500+ hp, why can't they do the same for Camaro?

 

Bottom line is cash. Why cant they make it lighter? Why cant the camaro have 500 hp from the factory? Why cant... If they took all the parts from the z06 it would cost as much as a z06. I also agree that most people dont drag race their cars but do have fun in the cars... not enough fun to break the rear end. Putting in a stronger rearend would probably have added 1k-2k to the sticker. For a camaro (which alot of people call a poor man's corvette), price is important. Especially considering the competitions price, not quality, but price. When a kid who wants a fast car, doesnt know alot about cars, see he can buy a v8 mustang much cheaper than a v8 camaro, he will probably save the money and get a lower quality sports car... but care about the 8 cylinders. If the new camaro cost too much, it is doomed. The SSR, cost almost as much as a vette. It is going away. My biggest fear of the new camaro is being priced too high for the market that is buying mustangs.

 

Well that at least proves they CAN do it, but the GTO, CTSv, etc cars that are in at least a similar price point (and use a similar chassis) have a rep for weak rear ends. I don't have a real good feeling about the Camaro's rear but maybe they'll address this specifically.

I feel more torque management crap and a less than stellar rear end is more likely though...

 

Wrong.

Don't lose any sleep over it.

 

GM has proven that they are capable of producing a good IRS that can handle horsepower and provide good traction. Just look at any Corvette. Since the Camaro won't have a rear-mounted transaxle, you can use the C4's IRS as a starting point and upgrade the half shafts.

However... any IRS that's strong is going to cost more than a solid axle that's just as strong. I'd rather see the car come with a solid axle that's stronger than a comparably priced IRS, or lower cost by using a solid axle that's just as strong but cheaper than a comparable IRS.

 

Nor was I suggesting that it shouldn't handle "stock torque".
My point precisely.
It all depends on whether or not the bean-counters let the engineers do their job. No self respecting engineer is going to design a weak rearend for a 500+hp car. That would go against everything engineers stand for.

But then of course we have as saying in engineering:

You can have it... on time, on budget, or done right... pick two.

 

Pacer, I would have to disagree with you there. Most people that own ls1 fbodies keep them completely stock (not even bolt ons), never drag race, and never break the rear end. About pricing, well, that is another problem that the fbodies had before they went away. They were priced out of the market that would really want them. Hopefully GM will not make the same make twice.

 

The rearend will be designed for whatever power the stock and/or factory optional motors produce, assuming NORMAL usage. As I recall from ordering my SS, there were two optional diffs. One was an Auburn I believe. Perhaps the GM boys will see fit to offer an optional, more robust diff at an extra cost.

 

It's more than just cost vs. strength. A stronger rear end is heavier, and as we've seen on the 'weight' threads around here, engineers fight for every ounce in weight savings they can find. (On the F4 this was even more important because it was unsprung weight, but of course that won't matter with the F5).

Stronger rear ends are also less efficient. Pretty much any F4 that swapped their 10-bolt for a 9-inch lost a mph or so in the quarter. It would also have a small effect on fuel economy, again an area where every tiny improvement is fought for tooth and nail. So given all the opposing requirements, you can see it's not a simple decision to just say, "yeah go ahead and stick that 12-bolt in there."

As an aside, I believe the 10-bolt was okay for the F4. Sure you could bust one with a stock car if you really abused it, but that could be said about many different components. At what point do you stop over-engineering things for the few that take their cars beyond what it was designed for? If you don't draw the line somewhere you end up with a car that's strayed so far from its original intentions that it begins to alienate its core audience. I personally think the CTS's rearend is a much worse decision given the number of failures on a much less powerful car that is not likely beat on nearly as much.

 

Given the new Camaro's presumed heftier curb weight , a nice strong rear end should be all the more important . In a 3600-3800 lb car , the rear end is not where I would like to see weight savings if it meant a compromised rear . Unlike the solid axle that is EASILY swapped out for a 9" or 12 bolt when the need arises , we are stuck with this IRS . Step up to the plate GM , and give the performance crowd something to work with . You may not hear too much about the broke IRS rears in GTO's or CTS-V's , but let the IRS be the weak link in the Camaro and everyone and their grandmother is gonna hear about . Remember again , UNLIKE the Mustang ...we are STUCK with this IRS .

Overkill overkill overkill