InsaneJournal

Current mood:	blank
Current music:	"Eastbound And Down" - Jerry Reed

Why the Camaro should have had a live axle
The motoring press is lauding accolades on the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro for having independent rear suspension (IRS) when the Mustang still uses an archaic live rear axle in all its forms, including the high-priced SVT versions that, in earlier versions (SVT Cobra), had IRS.

I, however, am not lauding accolades on GM for doing this.  I see the use of a sophisticated, modern independent rear suspension of the Camaro as a sign that General Motors have forgotten who they are.

The Mustang proves that there are still thousands of people willing to do without the improved handling and ride offered by an IRS system in order to maintain low cost, low weight, and simplicity.  A live-axle Camaro would also appeal to these people.  Those who value the advantages of IRS would have the system available to them, at a cost reflecting the extra cost of the system, in the standard V-6 powered Pontiac Firebird and the V-8 powered Firebird T/A.

In the old days of the F-body, the Firebird was the better-handling of the twins, and was made even more so by the WS6 suspension package.  The Firebird was also the more expensive of the two, with Pontiac being generally more upscale than value-brand Chevrolet.  This heritage could have been continued with a live-axle Camaro and a IRS Firebird... but it wasn't.

Another opportunity lost (or is it?) would be a less exciting long-wheelbase version with IRS, which could be sold as a Buick Skylark.  The base would be a V-6, with a luxury-oriented V-8 powered R (for Roadmaster ...or maybe Riviera) version and a sport/power oriented version powered by a turbocharged V-6, which would be called either the GS or the GN.

But now it's just a Camaro.

Will the real General Motors please stand up?