2008 Vettes get a tune up, more info added!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joey D
  • 80 comments
  • 3,600 views
Joey D
Meh it works, why would they spend the money to change it?
Click to expand...

"Works" and "works well off track" are two very different things. The whole issue of GM sticking to such antiquated suspension technology is strange when they really try hard to push the envelope in other areas (CFRP body panels, for example). It can't be a budget thing. How much can a decent multi-link setup really cost compared to that only-used-on-one-car transverse leaf spring? $50?
 
You'd be surprised what the development cost on something like that would be. GM doesn't want to spend the money and customers don't want to spend the money. You can't blame them though, in an era when American car companies aren't exactly gaining market shares there are more important things to worry about then the rear suspension on a sports car.
 
Never mind the fact that if GM had taken the time to come up with an IRS system years ago (they have had plenty of time to work on it, it's not exactly brand-new technology), it wouldn't be a problem.

There's a little thing called progress, and I'm not sure that word has been used in a GM building since about 1972.
 
There are a lot of things in the world that would be better if people would have done it sooner, but it didn't happen.
 
Joey D
Meh it works, why would they spend the money to change it?
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Its a well-proven setup that has worked time and time again, and while it may be "ancient," as long as it works well and doesn't break (what other thing at GM does the same?), I'm happy. They are in fact lighter and stronger than the proposed IRS setup, which has its advantages, but can be more expensive in some cases.

Lets put it this way:

When you're using such old technology in a car, it should be assumed that GM would be happy just to keep up to some of the competition. But when you're using such old technology and often beating even the best competition, I see no reason why it needs to change. Its still be best sports car you can buy for the price (well, in North America anyway), and if you have issues with performance, you're more than welcome to spend an extra $35K on a Dodge Viper, an extra $40K on a Porsche 911, and an extra $60K on an Audi R8.
 
YSS, its TWO THOUSAND EIGHT and the Corvette has had relatively the same suspension since 196x. Its about time for GM to evolve this aging beast. So what if it tacks on an additional $5~10k to the pricetag--its still the best bargain for your money in terms of what it delivers per dollar. With a more modern suspension don't you think it could possibly sell more units to previously uninterested buyers due to the rudimentary suspension? A stock C6 with a better suspension would probably get closer to ZO6 territory on a track as-is. Power isn't everything--as shocking as that sounds to the Americans.
 
The Mustang has the same live rear axle design...it just works for them so why change it?
 
Actually the C6.5 (as this updated model is referred to) is outstandingly close to the current C6 Z06, which isn't a bad deal after all. Its still the fastest car around a track you can buy for that money, furthermore actually live with every day. The General isn't having a problem selling every single Corvette and XLR they build, and that surely isn't because of the chassis.

People complain time and time again about the chassis, but it still works well, doesn't it? Sure, there are plenty of advantages and disadvantages to both setups, and I'm sure that GM has weighed them out many times when designing the Corvette. I'm sure they didn't even consider it for the C6, as it pretty much was an evolution of the C5, not a completely new model (I think the figures were about 80% all-new).

Leave it to Team Corvette for the C7, as we've still got more than a few years before that hits the streets. If they deem it important and crucial to the survival and sporting performance of the car, they will change. If they decide to hold up tradition and still manage to match or better the best performing cars out there, they'll stick with the current setup.

Every year since the debut of the C6 the car has gotten consistently better, new rear suspension or not.

I know I'm a crazy Detroit-loving Michigander, but I don't see any reason why GM needs to dump the pushrod setups, much less the leaf spring rear ends.
 
Joey D
The Mustang has the same live rear axle design...it just works for them so why change it?
Click to expand...

The next Mustang evolution I expect them to change it. Or you will see me be the first one to criticize it. After decades of the same thing I think now its time for something different. The next Mustang will probably get the new 6.2L Hurricane and what better time than to drop a modern suspension into it and make it a $30k monster that eats other coupes for breakfast.
 
Problem is, the updated Mustang likely won't be here until almost 2010, that is, if it ends up riding on the Orion (Falcon) chassis or not. Its going to come down to how much it weighs, much less if the Hurricane is worth a damn when it comes to performance. I'd imagine that the LS3 wouldn't have much of a problem out-doing the Hurricane, and I'm sure the 6.1L HEMI wouldn't have much of a problem either. If Ford can make it lightweight and compact (read, OHV) and pack a punch (420+ BHP), they'll have a shot.

A lot of that will be decided by the chassis, I believe.
 
Why are you overly negative on the Hurricane? For all you know it could pack out 450bhp+ and eat the LS3 for breakfast. Ford's on the right track with their engine design now, just take a peek at the new D35 Duratec. And in my opinion the 6.1L HEMI is overrated and underpowered for that much displacement. I'll make the same comment if the 6.2L Hurricane doesn't make more than 436bhp. ;)
 
Its not being overly negative, its being reasonably pessimistic. Remember, Ford canceled the program, and then for no reason brought it back. Furthermore, they were never clear if it was an OHV or DOHC design, and at least for my sanity's sake, I'd hope that it is OHV.

Personally speaking, I hope for the best on many occasions, but with Ford you never know.
 
I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. They seem to be heading in the right direction. And if/when the Falcon finally makes it's stateside appearance I believe Ford should start to gain back some ground its lost to Chrysler. The G8 will also regain some ground lost to the Chrysler 300.
 
Joey D
There are a lot of things in the world that would be better if people would have done it sooner, but it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

So since they didn't do it 40 years ago, it shouldn't ever be done? That's flat out idiotic, and exactly the kind of thinking that results in the continuing failure of the American auto industry. "You mean we should have done that decades ago? Oh, well, too late now." :banghead:

It's going to cost them a few million sooner or later, so why not do it now when they know they can still sell the car? Why wait for people to get fed up with old tech? Why wait for the baby boomer generation to pass on and the Corvette's relevance is gone? Why not make it at least seem like they care about the coming competition?

Believe me: these sales (Mustang/Corvette/old muscle cars) are all a fad of the baby boomers'. When they're gone, the sales are gone. It's got 10 left years at most. If GM/Ford/Chrysler don't have modern cars by then, they're toast.
 
It works and it works well, it's not like the leaf spring suspension makes the Corvette bad. I could see if it made the car handle like a shopping trolley but it doesn't.

It will cost GM more then a few million to redesign the rear suspension, it will cost them 10's of millions of dollars to do it. I'm sure on the C7 we will see a change but there is no point doing it on a generation that is half way through it's life cycle.

And you really think a car thats been around for over 50 years will just stop being bought in 10 years? I highly doubt it. Every kid dreams of owning a Vette in America, it's been that way since the car came out. It's an achievable sports car for a large percentage of the population.
 
Exactly. That is what will keep the Corvette going for as long as GM is able to build cars. I grew up with Corvette posters all over my bedroom. I spent most of my young life working around Camaros, Corvettes, and Caprices. Quite a few kids I went to school with had parents who owned Corvettes who planned to pass them down, or had kids who planned to buy their own (and often did). The car is appealing to folks who make $30K a year just as it is to people who make $300K a year.

Like Joey said, it would be absolutely stupid on GM's behalf to design a new rear suspension for the C6.5 Corvette, given that we're barely half-way through its cycle. The car has only been around for three years, and people are already demanding a change? Even when GM has been tweaking it to make it better year after year? And I thought Ford had it bad with the Mustang...

Give it time. I can't honestly say that GM will change the suspension for the C7 (probably due 2011 or 2012), but there is a good chance they will do so. The problem is, 90% of the people who talk about the Corvette, much less those who own them, don't complain about the current setup. It isn't like the Mustang where there was a great amount of outrage about ditching the IRS setup... The Corvette design works, its more than effective, and hasn't shown any major signs of needing replacement.

Sure, its stupid to prevent progress, but why bother to change something that works well and people don't complain about? It would be like me changing all the light switches in your house because a slightly better design is out there, one that really doesn't achieve anything better, but because its new you have to have it... Our light switches work fine, I'm not changing them...
 
That's all fine and dandy guys but isn't the new Camaro packed with a modern IRS? If it is then that kind of puts your arguements slightly skewed doesn't it?
 
The platform the Camaro is based on had the IRS to begin with if I'm not mistaken, there is no reason to change that either. It all comes down to GM not wanting to spending money. I can't blame them though, it's all good business sense.
 
The Zeta was designed with an IRS from the get-go, and I don't think there were any plans to equip the Camaro with an LRA at any point. It however is true that GM hated the idea that the IRS was going to make the car so expensive, particularly when the Mustang costs very little and Ford sells it for so cheap... But thats why the Camaro is getting a lot of shared mechanical bits and pieces that will be shared with the rest of the GM family. It keeps prices down, and really is the only way that you'll be able to get a V8 Camaro in that mid/high $20K window.

What Ford did with the Mustang was wrong. They knew that the IRS was the better setup, people even demanded that they do it, but they chose an LRA anyway. What GM is doing with the Corvette is very different. There has been a lot of in-fighting over which is better, as the pros/cons of each pretty much even out. No one in the Corvette community, at least that I know of, is marching on Bowling Green to get the rear end of the Corvette changed either.

So why change it now? It wouldn't do anything to the Corvette to make it any better if GM did it for 2009 instead of waiting for the C7 for 2011 or 2012. I seriously doubt on many occasions that the change would benefit the overall performance that much, if even noticeable at all. Just a change in tires on the current C6.5 Corvette would radically change the overall performance, and even I wonder why GM hasn't done so...
 
I have to agree with Joey and YSSMAN, sure the leaf spring suspension can be poked fun at and it can be very easilly. But it works on the C6, on top of that, why would they change it half way through the cars life. I can't think of any logical reason. The C7 will be out in what, 2-3 years, they'll save the big devlopments (if there ever are any in an American car.... Only kidding :sly:) for that. Like Joey said, if the C6 had IRS and it was crap there would be good reason to change it asap, but the C6 correct me if I'm mistake, the C6 has been a success both with the public and the media. It even got decent reviews over here (barring the Z06).
 

Latest Posts

Back