I think the Challengers look mighty good too!
Now, if I had the $ to seriously shop for a new car in that price range- well, it sure would be fun test driving Mustangs, Camaros, & Challengers!
You choose --- 370z, Mustang 5.0, Camaro SS
- Thread starter RamFan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I would consider an IRS a huge selling point for the Camaro.
Even though it doesn't work as well as the Mustang's 3-link live axle?
Rear end hop out is virtually nonexistent on the newest Mustangs.
Now I've defended the sold axle...but where do we see that the live axle is showing definitive superior results?
The time sheet posted is way too convoluted to draw that from it, so I must have missed where the IRS in question has unarguably performed noticeably worse.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I would consider an IRS a huge selling point for the Camaro.
Even though it doesn't work as well as the Mustang's 3-link live axle?
Rear end hop out is virtually nonexistent on the newest Mustangs.
Now I've defended the sold axle...but where do we see that the live axle is showing definitive superior results?
The time sheet posted is way too convoluted to draw that from it, so I must have missed where the IRS in question has unarguably performed noticeably worse.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
This is true. And note the new GT500 is an ALL aluminum motor which finally brought the performance in anything other than a straight line up to the other cars in it's category.
But you are totally correct in assuming that a tighter course without big straights would benefit your smaller awd cars.
Yeah, I guess it was just to say that I don't think the trials on that course are the definitive answer to which vehicle handles the best. Cup cars run solid rear and I'd say they fare decent at road courses (albeit that I care nothing about those races). I don't have an AWD nor do I care for them per se, but I just thought it shows some discrepancy in how much the course actually requires maximum handling when a (I hate to say it) AWD STI finishes THAT far behind some of those heavy boat anchors included in that list.
This is true. And note the new GT500 is an ALL aluminum motor which finally brought the performance in anything other than a straight line up to the other cars in it's category.
But you are totally correct in assuming that a tighter course without big straights would benefit your smaller awd cars.
Yeah, I guess it was just to say that I don't think the trials on that course are the definitive answer to which vehicle handles the best. Cup cars run solid rear and I'd say they fare decent at road courses (albeit that I care nothing about those races). I don't have an AWD nor do I care for them per se, but I just thought it shows some discrepancy in how much the course actually requires maximum handling when a (I hate to say it) AWD STI finishes THAT far behind some of those heavy boat anchors included in that list.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I would consider an IRS a huge selling point for the Camaro.
Even though it doesn't work as well as the Mustang's 3-link live axle?
Rear end hop out is virtually nonexistent on the newest Mustangs.
Now I've defended the sold axle...but where do we see that the live axle is showing definitive superior results?
The time sheet posted is way too convoluted to draw that from it, so I must have missed where the IRS in question has unarguably performed noticeably worse.
Almost every comparison test has noted that the Mustang not only out-handles the Camaro, but rides better as well.
A great LRA outperforms a mediocre IRS, we've seen this before in the 99-04 Cobra and now in the Mustang/Camaro.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I would consider an IRS a huge selling point for the Camaro.
Even though it doesn't work as well as the Mustang's 3-link live axle?
Rear end hop out is virtually nonexistent on the newest Mustangs.
Now I've defended the sold axle...but where do we see that the live axle is showing definitive superior results?
The time sheet posted is way too convoluted to draw that from it, so I must have missed where the IRS in question has unarguably performed noticeably worse.
Almost every comparison test has noted that the Mustang not only out-handles the Camaro, but rides better as well.
A great LRA outperforms a mediocre IRS, we've seen this before in the 99-04 Cobra and now in the Mustang/Camaro.
Guys no doubt the Challengers look great but lets compare things for a second.
Challenger
3.5l V6 = 250HP = 23,245 Base = $92.98 Per HP
5.7l Hemi = 372HP = 30,860 Base = $82.95 Per HP
6.1l Hemi = 425HP = 42,930 Base = $101.01 Per HP
Mustang
3.7l V6 = 305HP = 22,145 Base = $70.60 Per HP
5.0l V8 = 412HP = 29,645 Base = $71.95 Per HP
Camaro
3.6l V6 = 312HP = 22,680 Base = $72.69 Per HP
6.2l V8 = 426HP = 30,945 Base = $72.64 Per HP
Challenger
3.5l V6 = 250HP = 23,245 Base = $92.98 Per HP
5.7l Hemi = 372HP = 30,860 Base = $82.95 Per HP
6.1l Hemi = 425HP = 42,930 Base = $101.01 Per HP
Mustang
3.7l V6 = 305HP = 22,145 Base = $70.60 Per HP
5.0l V8 = 412HP = 29,645 Base = $71.95 Per HP
Camaro
3.6l V6 = 312HP = 22,680 Base = $72.69 Per HP
6.2l V8 = 426HP = 30,945 Base = $72.64 Per HP
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
The Z is a chick car: the one you give to your trophy wife. I dont have the latter so I dont have the former. I do hear for 2011 the stying has be "masculinized" a bit. Too many silly circus do-dads on the 350Z.
To each his own.
And a Yaris is what, a MASCULINE car???
Lol....Very funny. I thought the same thing. A Yaris and even a Forrester are supposed to be....what....macho? Man 'o man.
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
The Z is a chick car: the one you give to your trophy wife. I dont have the latter so I dont have the former. I do hear for 2011 the stying has be "masculinized" a bit. Too many silly circus do-dads on the 350Z.
To each his own.
And a Yaris is what, a MASCULINE car???
Lol....Very funny. I thought the same thing. A Yaris and even a Forrester are supposed to be....what....macho? Man 'o man.
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Almost every comparison test has noted that the Mustang not only out-handles the Camaro, but rides better as well.
A great LRA outperforms a mediocre IRS, we've seen this before in the 99-04 Cobra and now in the Mustang/Camaro.
It's like when they show poll results on tv -- I didn't vote on it, so until then I take it with just about a grain of salt.
When you're dealing with something inherently qualitative..."better" tends to be opinions. If I ever drive a GT500 (don't hold your breath), I'll comment on my ruling.
Almost every comparison test has noted that the Mustang not only out-handles the Camaro, but rides better as well.
A great LRA outperforms a mediocre IRS, we've seen this before in the 99-04 Cobra and now in the Mustang/Camaro.
It's like when they show poll results on tv -- I didn't vote on it, so until then I take it with just about a grain of salt.
When you're dealing with something inherently qualitative..."better" tends to be opinions. If I ever drive a GT500 (don't hold your breath), I'll comment on my ruling.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
When you're dealing with something inherently qualitative..."better" tends to be opinions. If I ever drive a GT500 (don't hold your breath), I'll comment on my ruling.
Go drive an '11 GT with the Track Pak.
When you're dealing with something inherently qualitative..."better" tends to be opinions. If I ever drive a GT500 (don't hold your breath), I'll comment on my ruling.
Go drive an '11 GT with the Track Pak.
How does the Mustangs rear axle overcome the most fundamental shortcoming of a solid axle? Namely, that if one wheel goes up, the other must move down?
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Both the Mustang and Camaro do a better job of staying true to the source. That includes more than appearance.
Not sure I follow you.
As far as staying true to the course? The Challenger is a shortened LX platform much like it's original variety was a shortened version of the B-platform. (we're not counting that rebadged Misubishi Sapporo as a Challenger unless you want me to throw in the Mustang II)
If you are talking about the Daimler Mercedes Benz content, exclude the Camaro for it's Holden content. You could almost eliminate the Mustang as well because it's basic chassis design started out as the Jaguar S-type, but they altered it a lot.
Size? I'll concede that. It's more Muscle car sized than pony car. But they were already using the "Charger" name and the Road Runner, GTX, Fury, and Satellite were all Plymouth names. (Besides, only about 10 of us out here would be excited about a modern retro-styled Satellite)
We will be purchasing a Challenger. My wife has already decided that is her next car. We're waiting to see how the Pentastar 3.6 V6 works out. We drove the old Intrepid 3.5 powered model and quite frankly her PT-GT is way quicker. If she wants a Hemi Chally, she's going to have to feed that thing herself.
Both the Mustang and Camaro do a better job of staying true to the source. That includes more than appearance.
Not sure I follow you.
As far as staying true to the course? The Challenger is a shortened LX platform much like it's original variety was a shortened version of the B-platform. (we're not counting that rebadged Misubishi Sapporo as a Challenger unless you want me to throw in the Mustang II)
If you are talking about the Daimler Mercedes Benz content, exclude the Camaro for it's Holden content. You could almost eliminate the Mustang as well because it's basic chassis design started out as the Jaguar S-type, but they altered it a lot.
Size? I'll concede that. It's more Muscle car sized than pony car. But they were already using the "Charger" name and the Road Runner, GTX, Fury, and Satellite were all Plymouth names. (Besides, only about 10 of us out here would be excited about a modern retro-styled Satellite)
We will be purchasing a Challenger. My wife has already decided that is her next car. We're waiting to see how the Pentastar 3.6 V6 works out. We drove the old Intrepid 3.5 powered model and quite frankly her PT-GT is way quicker. If she wants a Hemi Chally, she's going to have to feed that thing herself.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: BBDartCA
I would choose 2010 Challenger RT Classic.
From all the retro cars this has to be the nicest looking one by far,nice smooth lines.The hood inlets look like they belong not a stuck on afterthought.
I like this car based only on its looks,the Hemi doesn't hurt it either.It looks like an American muscle car.
And (comically) is German at heart. Being based on the 300-chassis, which is an older Mercedes chassis, LOL!
Definitely a beautiful car however. And IMHO, a million times better looking than the Camaro, which looks like it was designed by Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder, with advice provided by Vin Diesel.
Originally Posted By: BBDartCA
I would choose 2010 Challenger RT Classic.
From all the retro cars this has to be the nicest looking one by far,nice smooth lines.The hood inlets look like they belong not a stuck on afterthought.
I like this car based only on its looks,the Hemi doesn't hurt it either.It looks like an American muscle car.
And (comically) is German at heart. Being based on the 300-chassis, which is an older Mercedes chassis, LOL!
Definitely a beautiful car however. And IMHO, a million times better looking than the Camaro, which looks like it was designed by Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder, with advice provided by Vin Diesel.
Originally Posted By: cchase
How does the Mustangs rear axle overcome the most fundamental shortcoming of a solid axle? Namely, that if one wheel goes up, the other must move down?
I can't answer specifics about the Mustang, but that is an incomplete concept about the rear axle.
A solid rear doesn't cycle from the dead center of the differential. It is very independent to the suspension setup. Leaf springs vs. coilovers (and their corresponding spring rates) are going to vary quite a bit.
If one side raises because of terrain, the result tends to be body roll to the opposite side ("correcting" the suspension angle discrepancy). A high quality suspension, complete with wide swaybars, can counteract a great deal of this. So, if the opposite side has no where to go down, what's the issue?
Solid axles may have varying degrees of advantages and disadvantages, but in turn so does IRS. Ever crested a hill and had the inertia lift the car further off the ground? What happens?
The a-arms both drop, throwing off camber and having the tires move laterally. Less traction is transferred to the ground, as a result. A solid rear doesn't have this problem, so it is give and takes for both of them.
In my honest opinion, you'd have to have some quite uneven ground to cause a fine-tuned solid setup to lose ground. IRS tends to be focused on ride and comfort, developed for passenger vehicles to remove the feel of the road. In a "go fast" situation, the feel of the road isn't necessarily a negative. Pushed to the their highest performance level, the driver is going to make more of a difference the majority of the time than the rear setups will.
I don't care for Ford, I only own GM, etc. etc. but I don't believe in this concept of a "comfort" oriented suspension being the end-all be-all of performance setups definitively. They both have their place and can both excel.
And IRS is under the back of my "go fast" car, so you can't claim conflict of interest here...
How does the Mustangs rear axle overcome the most fundamental shortcoming of a solid axle? Namely, that if one wheel goes up, the other must move down?
I can't answer specifics about the Mustang, but that is an incomplete concept about the rear axle.
A solid rear doesn't cycle from the dead center of the differential. It is very independent to the suspension setup. Leaf springs vs. coilovers (and their corresponding spring rates) are going to vary quite a bit.
If one side raises because of terrain, the result tends to be body roll to the opposite side ("correcting" the suspension angle discrepancy). A high quality suspension, complete with wide swaybars, can counteract a great deal of this. So, if the opposite side has no where to go down, what's the issue?
Solid axles may have varying degrees of advantages and disadvantages, but in turn so does IRS. Ever crested a hill and had the inertia lift the car further off the ground? What happens?
The a-arms both drop, throwing off camber and having the tires move laterally. Less traction is transferred to the ground, as a result. A solid rear doesn't have this problem, so it is give and takes for both of them.
In my honest opinion, you'd have to have some quite uneven ground to cause a fine-tuned solid setup to lose ground. IRS tends to be focused on ride and comfort, developed for passenger vehicles to remove the feel of the road. In a "go fast" situation, the feel of the road isn't necessarily a negative. Pushed to the their highest performance level, the driver is going to make more of a difference the majority of the time than the rear setups will.
I don't care for Ford, I only own GM, etc. etc. but I don't believe in this concept of a "comfort" oriented suspension being the end-all be-all of performance setups definitively. They both have their place and can both excel.
And IRS is under the back of my "go fast" car, so you can't claim conflict of interest here...
Last edited:
All well and good. Why are the majority of the world fastest cars including Formula 1 not running live axles?
Ferrari,Lamborghini,Maserati,Aston Martin,Veyron the list goes on and on all use IRS .If the live rear axle is comfort oriented as you say i guess Formula 1 drivers have a very cushy ride.
No offence Beancounter but your argument doesn't seem to hold water on the built for comfort and loss of road feel part.
Ferrari,Lamborghini,Maserati,Aston Martin,Veyron the list goes on and on all use IRS .If the live rear axle is comfort oriented as you say i guess Formula 1 drivers have a very cushy ride.
No offence Beancounter but your argument doesn't seem to hold water on the built for comfort and loss of road feel part.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
Originally Posted By: cchase
How does the Mustangs rear axle overcome the most fundamental shortcoming of a solid axle? Namely, that if one wheel goes up, the other must move down?
I can't answer specifics about the Mustang, but that is an incomplete concept about the rear axle.
A solid rear doesn't cycle from the dead center of the differential. It is very independent to the suspension setup. Leaf springs vs. coilovers (and their corresponding spring rates) are going to vary quite a bit.
If one side raises because of terrain, the result tends to be body roll to the opposite side ("correcting" the suspension angle discrepancy). A high quality suspension, complete with wide swaybars, can counteract a great deal of this. So, if the opposite side has no where to go down, what's the issue?
Solid axles may have varying degrees of advantages and disadvantages, but in turn so does IRS. Ever crested a hill and had the inertia lift the car further off the ground? What happens?
The a-arms both drop, throwing off camber and having the tires move laterally. Less traction is transferred to the ground, as a result. A solid rear doesn't have this problem, so it is give and takes for both of them.
In my honest opinion, you'd have to have some quite uneven ground to cause a fine-tuned solid setup to lose ground. IRS tends to be focused on ride and comfort, developed for passenger vehicles to remove the feel of the road. In a "go fast" situation, the feel of the road isn't necessarily a negative. Pushed to the their highest performance level, the driver is going to make more of a difference the majority of the time than the rear setups will.
I don't care for Ford, I only own GM, etc. etc. but I don't believe in this concept of a "comfort" oriented suspension being the end-all be-all of performance setups definitively. They both have their place and can both excel.
And IRS is under the back of my "go fast" car, so you can't claim conflict of interest here...
I just have a hard time coming up with advantages to a live rear axle other than that they are cheap and strong in a straight line. There are many examples of outdated technology that has been pushed the edge, that doesn't make it "better". Pushrod engines spring to mind immediately.
Originally Posted By: cchase
How does the Mustangs rear axle overcome the most fundamental shortcoming of a solid axle? Namely, that if one wheel goes up, the other must move down?
I can't answer specifics about the Mustang, but that is an incomplete concept about the rear axle.
A solid rear doesn't cycle from the dead center of the differential. It is very independent to the suspension setup. Leaf springs vs. coilovers (and their corresponding spring rates) are going to vary quite a bit.
If one side raises because of terrain, the result tends to be body roll to the opposite side ("correcting" the suspension angle discrepancy). A high quality suspension, complete with wide swaybars, can counteract a great deal of this. So, if the opposite side has no where to go down, what's the issue?
Solid axles may have varying degrees of advantages and disadvantages, but in turn so does IRS. Ever crested a hill and had the inertia lift the car further off the ground? What happens?
The a-arms both drop, throwing off camber and having the tires move laterally. Less traction is transferred to the ground, as a result. A solid rear doesn't have this problem, so it is give and takes for both of them.
In my honest opinion, you'd have to have some quite uneven ground to cause a fine-tuned solid setup to lose ground. IRS tends to be focused on ride and comfort, developed for passenger vehicles to remove the feel of the road. In a "go fast" situation, the feel of the road isn't necessarily a negative. Pushed to the their highest performance level, the driver is going to make more of a difference the majority of the time than the rear setups will.
I don't care for Ford, I only own GM, etc. etc. but I don't believe in this concept of a "comfort" oriented suspension being the end-all be-all of performance setups definitively. They both have their place and can both excel.
And IRS is under the back of my "go fast" car, so you can't claim conflict of interest here...
I just have a hard time coming up with advantages to a live rear axle other than that they are cheap and strong in a straight line. There are many examples of outdated technology that has been pushed the edge, that doesn't make it "better". Pushrod engines spring to mind immediately.
Ford did a lot with Mustangs live axle to get it to work OK. The Mustang is light and with the Track pack option it handles pretty good, but the Camaro SS is a better value with IRS and was the better ride and winner in Motor Trend's testing: http://www.motortrend.com/av/roadtests/1...J3ATXitUcqwOOyu
Also check out the Flashback to '83 where the Camaro was superior to the Mustang again
. It is an interesting read: Flashback '83
Also check out the Flashback to '83 where the Camaro was superior to the Mustang again
Originally Posted By: Trav
All well and good. Why are the majority of the world fastest cars including Formula 1 not running live axles?
Ferrari,Lamborghini,Maserati,Aston Martin,Veyron the list goes on and on all use IRS .If the live rear axle is comfort oriented as you say i guess Formula 1 drivers have a very cushy ride.
No offence Beancounter but your argument doesn't seem to hold water on the built for comfort and loss of road feel part.
#1 - You're referring to Euro cars, which don't have quite the solid axle history we do here, per se
#2 - At least half the cars you mention are rear or mid-engine vehicles. Want to stick a motor directly above a solid axle, you go for it.
No offense, but my water must not be "holding" because of the holes in your cup.
All well and good. Why are the majority of the world fastest cars including Formula 1 not running live axles?
Ferrari,Lamborghini,Maserati,Aston Martin,Veyron the list goes on and on all use IRS .If the live rear axle is comfort oriented as you say i guess Formula 1 drivers have a very cushy ride.
No offence Beancounter but your argument doesn't seem to hold water on the built for comfort and loss of road feel part.
#1 - You're referring to Euro cars, which don't have quite the solid axle history we do here, per se
#2 - At least half the cars you mention are rear or mid-engine vehicles. Want to stick a motor directly above a solid axle, you go for it.
No offense, but my water must not be "holding" because of the holes in your cup.
Originally Posted By: cchase
I just have a hard time coming up with advantages to a live rear axle other than that they are cheap and strong in a straight line. There are many examples of outdated technology that has been pushed the edge, that doesn't make it "better". Pushrod engines spring to mind immediately.
Who said they were "better"?
I'm simply disenfranchising the idea that an IRS is a dead ringer and a solid axle is ancient technology that is flawed and no longer capable.
I just have a hard time coming up with advantages to a live rear axle other than that they are cheap and strong in a straight line. There are many examples of outdated technology that has been pushed the edge, that doesn't make it "better". Pushrod engines spring to mind immediately.
Who said they were "better"?
I'm simply disenfranchising the idea that an IRS is a dead ringer and a solid axle is ancient technology that is flawed and no longer capable.
When you are driving over real roads everyday (bumpy and uneven at least where I live) then the live axle shows its disadvantages of high unspring mass and non-independent wheel movement. What I have against the Mustang and its live axle is while it saved some weight and cost, Ford didn't pass much if any savings on in the price as the Mustang is pretty expensive. Other than that, I have to hand it to Ford the Mustang is a nice car and it should be as long as Ford as been working on it.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
When you are driving over real roads everyday (bumpy and uneven at least where I live) then the live axle shows its disadvantages of high unspring mass and non-independent wheel movement.
I understand what you mean and agree that is where the disadvantages can show. But remember, like I mentioned, get much vertical inertia on the car and a solid tends to hold its paws on the ground better. It doesn't want to do the "float and bounce" nearly as much, I don't think.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What I have against the Mustang and its live axle is while it saved some weight and cost, Ford didn't pass much if any savings on in the price as the Mustang is pretty expensive. Other than that, I have to hand it to Ford the Mustang is a nice car and it should be as long as Ford as been working on it.
Won't argue with you there!
When you are driving over real roads everyday (bumpy and uneven at least where I live) then the live axle shows its disadvantages of high unspring mass and non-independent wheel movement.
I understand what you mean and agree that is where the disadvantages can show. But remember, like I mentioned, get much vertical inertia on the car and a solid tends to hold its paws on the ground better. It doesn't want to do the "float and bounce" nearly as much, I don't think.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What I have against the Mustang and its live axle is while it saved some weight and cost, Ford didn't pass much if any savings on in the price as the Mustang is pretty expensive. Other than that, I have to hand it to Ford the Mustang is a nice car and it should be as long as Ford as been working on it.
Won't argue with you there!
Then why did Ford use it in the Mustang Cobra and will again in 2014? Corvette ZR1,Ferrari 599 GTB are two of the worlds best performance cars both with front engines and IRS.
http://www.ferrari.com/English/GT_Sport Cars/CurrentRange/Ferrari_599_GTB/Pages/599GTB.aspx
The primitive live rear axle axle performs poorly in comparison to IRS on everything but straight stretches.
IMO trying to compare the live rear axle against the far superior IRS is pointless.The Live rear axle will very soon be relegated to truck use where it really does a good job.
http://www.ferrari.com/English/GT_Sport Cars/CurrentRange/Ferrari_599_GTB/Pages/599GTB.aspx
The primitive live rear axle axle performs poorly in comparison to IRS on everything but straight stretches.
IMO trying to compare the live rear axle against the far superior IRS is pointless.The Live rear axle will very soon be relegated to truck use where it really does a good job.
Last edited:
- Status
