I hate cars

Damn, you need to control your emotions and stick with the facts.

The IROC was a low 15 second car on a good day. You can argue all you want but that's what it ran. Put it up against a base 5at TL and you might get disappointed.

The GN varied greatly because powerbraking could make over half a second difference. Just stabbing the pedal to the floor would get you a 14.2-13.8 1/4. I've personally driven a stock GN to mid 13s with lots of practice on a cool day.

I'm the first to admit because it's kind of funny that a well driven TL-S 6mt on a very good day could hang with a stock GN. You apparently need to leave some of the pride behind.

Each car exploits it's strong points. The IROC will never be quick in a straight line without mega bucks so of course the owners embrace the cornering even though the overly stiff IROC was only average in the corners. It still did not hold a candle to the Vette but the overly stiff suspension could trick some owners into believing it cornered better than it did. The GN goes very fast very cheap in a straight line.

I've never argued that a GN will match an IROC in the corners stock for stock, that's all you. I never mentioned all the IROCs I beat up on out of respect until you brought up the one GN you supposedly beat in a modded IROC. I beat up on a ZZ4 crate engine IROC with a K&N and a chip. That's $80 in mods for the GN, an entire engine swap for the IROC.

The worst of it is we're arguing over relatively slow cars. The thing the GN has going for it is it can be made competitive with today's best with only a few hundred dollars.

Calling it an hyped souped up 6 banger is not helping your cause when it was so nearly 2 seconds quicker than your V8.

And why are we talking about Vettes now? The GN was quicker evey year, it's well known it held the title as the quickest American production car. The Vette is still made and it's now quicker than the GN was as it should be. You're not going to get me to say anything bad about the Vettes.

At this point in life I could care less. I have a true 10 second street car with easy 9 second capability that I commuted to work 210 miles each day in. It's broken and when I had the choice to get it on the road again or spend the $1,000+ on a set of dynaudio speakers for the TL I chose the speakers. None of this really matters to me. I've been out there, spent 10 years of racing every single weekend shutting up the trash talkers, now I'm just having fun. If I were serious about racing I sure as hell would not have the car's true timeslip listed in my sig on a public forum. In fact, I ran a fake sig on another forum for over 7 years.

If someone with a more objective opinion that has actually owned an IROC like Inaccurate wanted to add something I might listen but I'm not arguing with pure emotional nonsense.

I hate cars

Really, making fun of the car's roots? Buick's luxury car with a lowly 6 banger beating up on Chevy's V8 "performance" car, sad. How's that mullet coming along?

Inaccurate

Regarding the handling - I concurrently owned a '85 IROC and a '81 Regal (regular, not GN). The Regal had the full Rancho aftermarket suspension kit with wider tires. I would rate my two cars the same in handling, generally speaking. No day/night difference. Around town, I can tell you that I enjoyed the handling of the Regal a lot more than the IROC. The Regal's full Rancho kit (with HUGE swaybars, lowered, stiff springs) was a blast to drive.

I hate cars

As always, nice to have your experiences. Of course, I would never compare a GN's handling stock to an IROC, that was a certain other individual. Over the regular Regal, it did get stiffer springs and shocks, harder control arm bushings, a larger front swaybar and a rear swaybar along with a quicker steering ratio. They were all great upgrades for the day but "good handling" was relative considering it was a mid '80s coupe.

I hate cars

This thread is making me feel old though. I can remember when both of these cars looked new and modern. Maybe that's why I like them.

Inaccurate

Regarding the acceleration - "anything is possible out on the real streets."

Chad says that his '86 IROC beat a GN during a freeway pull. Seems plausible. The factory 86 IROC had 190-215 HP. Chad did not state what year the GN was. It could had been a *non-intercooled* '84 GN with 200 HP from the factory (according to Wikipedia).

No one would ever believe that a 2006 TL would pounce a 1992 ZR-1 Corvette. But, I did. Anything is possible on the street.

I hate cars

Agreed. I almost mentioned the non intercooled '84 but figured it would add fuel to his fire and his argument was almost purely emotional at that point. It was his "detuned" comment that got to me, signaling the IROC was either modified and detuned or it wasn't running right yet still beat a GN. One is comparing a stock car to a modded car and one is just impossible. What if I said I would detune mine to only 19psi and 550whp and offer to run a stock IROC? Not exactly fair but it would be a "detuned" GN beating an IROC.

I'm not sure why he felt the need to get so defensive in the first place but it sure sounds like insecurity.

Inaccurate

I agree with you about the usage of "detuned". It did appear that he used the term in a derogatory fashion. On the other hand, perhaps he meant the say that his car was unmodified (stock).

Detuned = Not Tuned = unmodified

99_orange_SS

iTrader: (1)

Alright both of you guys are hitting points right on and way off at the same time. I worked re-engineering suspensions for a very prominent kit car company for quite awhile and have some decent experience in both live axle and irs to say the least.

When it comes to the iroc vs the gn, they are both awful in handling in the grand scheme of things. Yes they can be improved upon, especially since your gn has had the mounts repositioned in the front and so on; however there is not much more you can do for your rear except go 4 link w/ the live axle and the improvements will still be minimal for the price. Yes your iroc probably had relocation brackets and all those goodies, yet again the improvements are minimal when it comes to the big picture. I hate cars is right though, irs are made for handling, live axle's are made for straight line and dragging.

Thanks for informing me on the weights, I knew they were close I was just thinking for some reason it was the opposite. That ratio is off on the distribution of the weights, however the overhang on the gn in the front and rear is what I was referring to as well; there are several other factors but no need now.

I don't have alot of time to go in depth about this cause its another late night in the library with far more important things on my plate. The TL's rear is essentially a double wishbone, yes it is "multi-link" to be technical but with the way the "multi-link" is designed it is a double wishbone setup and hence called a multi-link double wishbone. An irs does have far less unsprung weight and depending on its style the anti-squat plays a huge role. Role bar's play an enormous role too; however there effectiveness lies in the material, size/shape, attachment, whether they are adjustable or linear or progressive or have a dampener incorporated, and whether they are directly tied into coilovers or not like F1 suspensions which is exactly how I am doing my TA (no pics yet but will soon ).

Tires play a huge role as well, however even though the rubber is "better" on the gn, that only means it is better suited for its application and not the TL's, the same goes for the TL.

This could go on forever and go alot deeper which I'd love to touch on but can't at this moment. Keep this going guys and I'll keep jumping on as much as possible. Let two things be known though, 99% of the time irs is better for handling and live axle is better for drag racing. I probably didn't hit on everything but keep this going, I love talking about this stuff!

I hate cars

I agree. The IROC is the better handling car but neither is a great handling car. I'm not sure why this became a GN vs IROC corning battle when I'm well aware the GN will lose. Both have flaws that take tons of money to correct. I'm sure you're well aware of the common issues and the common fixes. Fixing the front geometry was IMO the only way to do it right. I would never have been happy with just throwing a set of stiffer springs and shocks and calling it a day. The rear ironically uses stock mounting points with Metco billet aluminum lower control arms which interchange with the F-bodies and the 1LE bushings from the F-bodies.

I basically have a car that handles ok, like any average modern car. That was the whole goal as I knew it would never be a great handler but it's also not a danger on the road and the ride quality is greatly improved.
Yep, GN has something like 10" more overhang than the TL. Luckily the bumper supports are aluminum but it's still not ideal to have all of that weight out in front of the tires.
Correct again. One thing worth mentioning is how my rear swaybar is attached. It's only bolted to the lower control arms but not the axle, reducing it's effectiveness. This is part of the reason I had to go with a 1-5/8" rear bar. It gets the job done in this 10 second car but on the quicker GN we have a Wolfe Bar setup.
Yep. I have what I believe to be optimized rubber for each car. GN rides on drag radials when it has to travel any distance but most of the time it's on the Hoosier Quick Time Pros. Fronts are BFG-KDW which will be replaced with Nitto NT05 if/when they wear out. TL is on NT05s on all 4 corners. Different rubber for different applications.
I enjoy the discussion too. The car hasn't run in roughly a year so it's nice to talk about some of this stuff that I haven't thought about in a while. Makes me feel younger... Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.