anyone thinking about a 5th gen irs into a first gen yet?

[SR71]

I ran across a pic of a 2010 camaro ss rear suspension unit. doesn't look like it would be too hard to make work. since all of the arms are steel, it might not be too hard to narrow down a little bit. I've got a welder and a chopsaw that I'm not the least bit afraid to use. hmmmm.....

[Nessumsar]

I have been contemplating using the G8 GT/GXP rear in my Nova, you can find whole units including brakes for around $900 on ebay. I haven't done any measuring, but they should be close enough to bolt in; just make a frame to bolt the suspension carrier to and done!

[6'9"Witha69]

I have been dreaming of the whole C6 setup, rear mount trans and everything. The F5 rear should be much easier.

[srh3trinity]

I wondered the same thing about the GTO rear setups, they are even cheaper, but I have never seen them get great reviews. I hadn't thought about the G8 setups.

[LeighP]

If you search for Harrop engineering in Australia, I believe they make a much tougher centre for the Holden rear end than the factory set up. Should be exact fit for the G8 rears....
http://www.harrop.com.au/drive_detai...99-AHSG7327-00

[piratebaseball]

I've wondered the same thing from some of the prices I've seen on ebay. If anybody knows if this would work and the horsepower limits these rear ends have please let us know.

[Rhino]

doesn't look like it would be too hard to make work. since all of the arms are steel, it might not be too hard to narrow down a little bit.

Keep a few things in mind here... when shortening the arms you're doing two pretty significant things. 1.) changing the geometry of the suspension, and 2.) requiring modification of the half shafts of equal distance.

[ProTour69Bird]

now i am! packaging shouldnt be to difficult with my positive offset ZR1 wheels. the track width just might be perfect with the narrower ss clip. 63.7". all others are 64.1". seems to be a heavy unit from my readings, minus springs and shocks, 390lbs!!!!!!!! would be awesome if there was an aftermarket tubular crossmember!! havent seen anything about power limits yet. definitly interesting. price is just right for the whole clip though, damn.

[BMR Tech]

The nice thing about them is that the whole cradle mounts with only 4 bolts. These cars are 3800 lbs. and there are tons of guys running 10's with just upgraded halfshafts and bushings. The differentials don't have a lot of gear options but seem to be holding up just fine. With the assembly in a 3400 lb. car, they would probably last forever...

[BMR Tech]

We will be making a lighter tubular version of the rear cradle later this year. If I remember correctly, when we weighed our OE cradle it was around 85 lbs. all by itself!

[monteboy84]

If I remember correctly, when we weighed our OE cradle it was around 85 lbs. all by itself!

Wow, overkill much? That's beastly.

-matt

[Z06vet]

I think Heidts makes a IRS for the first gens now. Just saw an ad in super chevy. I'm not much of a fabricator, so I like anything bolt-in... I suppose you could do it cheaper by using a pullout & fabbing it up. I do a little drag racing & they aren't too great for the strip, so I doubt I'd consider an IRS for me personally. Should be awesome for a track car. Scott

[nickcornilsen]

I like that all the pick-up points are contained in one unit, but i've never been a fan of that style of upper control arm. By its nature it's very compliant, and I'd guess its gonna wheel hop like heck. Then again i haven't heard of it being a big issue in camaros... so maybe I'm off base here.

Not cheap though, the only one I see on ebay at the moment is 2000 bucks!

[19,69camaro]

Hey if anyone is interested in a 06 gto irs I have a complete one sitting in my garage just taking up space that I would really like to get rid of

[silver69camaro]

Personally I wouldn't bother. There are much better IRS systems out there that would require just as much work and end up looking better. Not to mention a solid axle can perform just as well with only a slightly rougher ride quality.

[lees02ws6]

Personally I wouldn't bother. There are much better IRS systems out there that would require just as much work and end up looking better. Not to mention a solid axle can perform just as well with only a slightly rougher ride quality.

Why doesn't AME build a solution to accommodate this with C5/C6 or something else? Didn't AME build something based around the C4 at one time, and then stop? There seems to be some demand for it. Maybe an a solid axle would be "right there", but that's not always the point.

[ProTour69Bird]

this post got my imagination going crazy. i was fully decided to fabb up a 3link. now im working on getting the C5 irs and transaxle stuffed under the rear, jus like teetoe's 50/50. no updates. still figuring out dimensions.

[silver69camaro]

Why doesn't AME build a solution to accommodate this with C5/C6 or something else? Didn't AME build something based around the C4 at one time, and then stop? There seems to be some demand for it. Maybe an a solid axle would be "right there", but that's not always the point.

We discontinued the C4 IRS a while back for two reasons:
1. Toe change was awful, and the bump/rebound had to be severely limited to minimize this
2. Parts were no longer available from GM - customers had to rely on used parts. We don't like used parts.

The reason why we haven't done a C5/C6 based IRS is because we haven't found a good way to do it. The geometry and performance is great, but only a handful of customers want a FWD-type wheel (read: lots of backspace) in the back...most guys want lots of dish which isn't always possible with a C6 IRS. Also, most musclecars, if not all, just are not designed around the packaging requirements needed for a performance type IRS. Camaros guys, like others, would have a chop the rear floors in order to get things to fit...most don't want to do that. I understand the cool factor with IRS, but we won't build something just because it's "cool" - it has to work right too. I'm not bashing anybody else's IRS systems out there, we just have our own way of doing things.

I should add we do have some R&D going on for a IRS system that would be very unique and, well, badass. I hope everything works out!

[dhutton]

[QUOTE=silver69camaro;787229

I should add we do have some R&D going on for a IRS system that would be very unique and, well, badass. I hope everything works out![/QUOTE]

What a tease. My G-Bar doesn't feel anything like the rear in my C6. I'd like to believe an IRS similar to the C6 would be a great match for my AME front clip which does compare well to my C6. I hope everything works out too.

[lees02ws6]

We discontinued the C4 IRS a while back for two reasons:
1. Toe change was awful, and the bump/rebound had to be severely limited to minimize this
2. Parts were no longer available from GM - customers had to rely on used parts. We don't like used parts.

The reason why we haven't done a C5/C6 based IRS is because we haven't found a good way to do it. The geometry and performance is great, but only a handful of customers want a FWD-type wheel (read: lots of backspace) in the back...most guys want lots of dish which isn't always possible with a C6 IRS. Also, most musclecars, if not all, just are not designed around the packaging requirements needed for a performance type IRS. Camaros guys, like others, would have a chop the rear floors in order to get things to fit...most don't want to do that. I understand the cool factor with IRS, but we won't build something just because it's "cool" - it has to work right too. I'm not bashing anybody else's IRS systems out there, we just have our own way of doing things.

I should add we do have some R&D going on for a IRS system that would be very unique and, well, badass. I hope everything works out!

I think this is a sensible move. Whether you believe solid axles are antiquated or not, there is a segment of the market that wants IRS.