When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
From: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Originally Posted by Little Mouse
Nope. On a race car with coilovers you can make adjustments different from one side to the other, something cant be done with a transvere's spring Nonsense. If you crank up the adjustment on a coilover, it will raise the height of that corner, and jack weight to the diagonal opposite corner, the same as cranking up a leaf spring.The advantage in coilover springs is the bigger selection of spring rates, and the ease of replacement when tuning the suspension. important on some tracks. When chevy started racing the then new C5 the transverse springs were not used. Yes, because they needed the wide selection of spring rates, and IIRC, a non-production transaxle was used, limiting packaging options. Also every other sports car you can think of as street cars they do not use transverse springs , Pretty much every other sportscar doesn't have a 7 liter pushrod V8, either,but that doesn't mean there's any performance or engineering deficiencies there. so guess your argument is they dont know what there doing.Your guess would be wrong, but I have to admire your consistency in that area. Bottom line the transverse is a cheap simple inexpensive way to do it. In the engineering world we call that efficiency. Same argument henry ford used to use it in the early 1900s. Henry was for efficiency, yes. Torque tube no need for it something ford stopped using on 49 models. The rear independent suspension on the 61 jaguar and 63 up to the end of C4 vette very cheap poor design was finally fixed with the C5. Only thing holding the C2/C3 rear suspension together the half shafts, **** poor way to make something.
The **** poor thing here is your understanding of suspensions, particularly the torques tube differences between a model T and a C5. You've still avoided answering my question of what you would have done differently connecting the C5-C7 engine and transmission assemblies, given your disparaging remarks in your original post.
I thought part of the reason they went to mid-engine was to increase the performance separation between the Camaro and the Vette.
They should definitely keep the Camaro just make it a little more driver-friendly like the Mustang. So much talk about how it's hard to see out of.
I'll be honest, I immediately wondered how much I could get for my C3 to use as a down payment on a C8 in a couple of years.I don't want the first year of this big redesign, let them iron out some kinks first and add 25 HP to the engine like they seem to always do.
Love the C8 Vette.....stayed up for the live unveiling on the 18th........I was impressed. Nobody but GM could pull this off.......and due to the 08' recession, GM has had 10 years of development on it as well.
Can't wait for a road test!
If I had the money I'd purchase a C8 base model, park it in my garage, and have a nice, numbers matching, classic to drive in 40 years.
Ah $#!t I'll be dead by then.
I could sell my 73 and all the parts I've collected, and drive a new C8 base model now.
Win Win...
Furthermore....the switch from Transverse STEEL Leaf to Transverse Fiberglas was a 44 lbs. weight savings on one component.. The Transverse spring is like 8 lbs
Div by 2 = 18 lbs of unsprung weight GONE, per wheel. McClellan said at the time "it was the Single Most weight reduction for one component in the history of Chevrolet."
Fiberglass transverse= 4 lbs PER SIDE (rear).....So now pick up a Coil spring with one finger! Prolly NOT.
except for that garish tail light panel, think the c8 is much better looking than any of its predecessors, post c3. Of course it's all academic now but i think if zora's 60's era mid engine car had come to fruition, it would have been a much better looking car than anything 1984 and up including the c8. The technology available today certainly makes for a more advanced machine but when it comes to body design, i think the early guys leave the later guys in the dust.
Coil overs are a combination of both spring and shock combined. Your shocks on a leaf spring car be it vette, pickup, coil spring car they dont last very long without degrading and needing replacement. So your arguments for the leafs is a falsehood argument. monroe reps when i worked in parts said shocks should be changed at 25, 000 miles so your 200,000 miles you need to change the shocks 8 times. truth is i have never seen any form of leaf spring car last much more then 125, 000 miles without sag in the steel spring and cars with coil springs worse then that. My brand new 69 Z/ 28 that i admit to running the **** out of the front coil springs had to be raplaced before it hit 36,000 miles. The front end had dropped 1 1/2 inch on it.
Last edited by Little Mouse; Aug 1, 2019 at 04:44 PM.
It's not a simple exercise in engineeering to relocate the engine behind the seats. So, obsolete in the sense that the C8 is a whole new breed of corvette than any other ever produced to date.
I don't know if I would go that far. Look at the 1963 vs. 1953-62. The '63 was a whole new breed of Corvette over what was being produced up to then. This is the same. The C8 is an evolution which should have been done in the '70's with Dontov at the helm. I'm waiting on a good deal for a C7 when the dealerships can't sell their excess inventory.
From: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Originally Posted by Little Mouse
Coil overs are a combination of both spring and shock combined. Thank you Mr. Obvious. Your shocks on a leaf spring car be it vette, pickup, coil spring car they dont last very long without degrading and needing replacement. Um, don't be assuming the rest of us buy cheapass shocks like you do. So your arguments for the leafs is a falsehood argument.
More nonsense from you.
I'm still waiting for your better idea than what Chevrolet implemented to connect the engine and transaxle in the C5-C7 models.
I'm still waiting for your better idea than what Chevrolet implemented to connect the engine and transaxle in the C5-C7 models.
Why the torgue tube.all the nonsense came from **** poor el cheapo design chevy. The IRS very poorly made and not enough caster built into front suspension, aftermarket has come up with solutions for poor enginering.
Last edited by Little Mouse; Aug 1, 2019 at 05:08 PM.
From: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Originally Posted by Little Mouse
Why the torgue tube.all the nonsense came from **** poor el cheapo design chevy.And again, what is your recommendation for a better way to connect the engine and the transaxle in the C5-C7 Corvette? The IRS very poorly made and not enough caster built into front suspension, aftermarket has come up with solutions for poor enginering.
The only nonsense I'm seeing is your lack of understanding that the C7 torque tube doesn't have a damn bit to do with the rear suspension.
Honestly, if you're going to drink heavily in the middle of the day, please spare us your posts.
It's actually an enclosed driveshaft.. not a torque tube as we understand it in Engineering..so it's pretty clever... just like those 'cheapo' Bentley Continentals at $260,000.
Because the differential basically does not move the enclosed driveshaft housing is not transmitting torque.
I have ACTUALLY owned a transverse leaf spring torque tube equipped Sports car...the rear axle was a solid Salisbury type (solid rear axle) and the torque tube carried the driveshaft and provided an 'anti axle hop' long member that pivoted on the front U-Joint.
(Can any older Guys guess what car it was?) Hint= GM subsidiary. PS the 1982 Firebird /Camaro had a torque ARM on the solid rear axle.
From: Some days your the dog and some days your the hydrant.
Royal Canadian Navy
Originally Posted by Kacyc3
I heard the same thing and read it will be on hold till the new platform it will be built on comes out. WE all die hard loyalist will not sway and the v6 pony car crowd wont pay 60k for a car.
But the pony crowd that can afford the high performance $60K+ cars might come over to our side, lol. The V6 low performance cars are for guys with kids. The real enthusiasts buy the 700 HP pony cars for themselves.
From: I tend to be leery of any guy who doesn't own a chainsaw or a handgun.
Originally Posted by OldCarBum
It was a nice thread until you chimed in.
Why don't you keep out of this thread and stop posting so others can enjoy it.
Thanks for this value added post of yours.
I'm trying to get a straight answer out of Mouse. He's been bitching about Chevrolet's engineering designs and capabilities, despite his lack of understanding the actual functions of some key components. If this interchange is upsetting your sensitivities, might I suggest you ignore parts of it.
The only nonsense I'm seeing is your lack of understanding that the C7 torque tube doesn't have a damn bit to do with the rear suspension.
Honestly, if you're going to drink heavily in the middle of the day, please spare us your posts.
Never said the torque tube had anything to do with the suspension sonething you have made up within your own mind. Porsch used one on the 928 to move there trans back long before chevy did. Makes no difference all early 1900 ford stuff. The torque tube added to C5 was never any problem and they fixed the really bad rear IRS that chevy put off on people all the way through the C4. The 61 XKE and chevy C2, C3, C4 rear IRS plain and simple **** poorly made. Transverse leaf spring like i said many posts back ok for street car. Is it the best way you could do it for a street or race car no it is not, its only a cheap way to do something. Henry ford was trying to build cars as cheaply as they could be built so he could sell them cheap so people could afford to buy themselfs some transportation. The vette within GM has always been one of its more expensive cars to buy not a bargain basement deal. So you should not get cheaply made poor design for the money your spending.
Last edited by Little Mouse; Aug 1, 2019 at 10:09 PM.
the C2 / C3 frame a flexy flyer as i recall chevy claimed the C4 was 30 percent stiffer on torsional twist then what it replaced. So along comes the C5 frame now chevy said it was 500 percent stiffer in torsion then the C4 frame. So you have to ask yourself why was such a bad frame used from 1963 to 1982. Answer there still buying it why change spend any money to fix it. Even the skip welding on the C2, C3 is comical to look at any welder would be embarresed to weld anything that bad and charge a customer for the job.
Last edited by Little Mouse; Aug 1, 2019 at 10:55 PM.
LM, While I don't go in for personal insults on the forum, I do enjoy a spirited debate. I have to take umbrage with your comment:
"....the really bad rear IRS that chevy put off on people all the way through the C4. The 61 XKE and chevy C2, C3, C4 rear IRS plain and simple **** poorly made."
I'm not sure what you base this comment on, unless it's just a personal preference thing. You need to remember that in 1963 this was real groundbreaking stuff for an American car and received kudos across the board for its handling. Road & Track is an unbiased source and they gave the IRS high praise indeed when they tested the new '63 Corvette: https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...et-corvette-1/
I spent years working for GM and know this suspension system intimately. It is a well made system and quite heavy duty by any standard. I believe it has stood the test of time quite well. That being said, I'm speaking, of course, about IRS systems that are maintained as GM intended. Not some rusty, neglected rear end with all,the bushings/bearings hammered out and the alignment shims rusted solid or missing. If that's was one's only exposure to this set up, I agree it would look pretty grim. I'll stick by this admittedly dated system and, when tuned properly, will still outperform most suspension systems available in American cars today. Greg
