Originally Posted by gavriil

So if I, the USAmerican engineer can build a car that uses all of the above, so that I SAVE YOU DOLLARS, but at the same time do it so that the car STILL PERFORMS (track or city), then why would you bash me and call me low tech?

QUOTE]

How much money is GM really saving though when even under 20k cars today have the 'high tech' suspension.

Originally Posted by SiGGy

Ya, I agree 100%. I was just trying to show they are using a leaf spring, but not in the old conventional way. That setup is nothing like an old pickup truck with leaf springs.

I'm with ya 100% man! just kinda ticked the way they worded it. So I was trying to show the suspension was not the way they depicted it.

Originally Posted by cusdaddy

If the handling is amazing (which it is) and the ride is very well controlled and acceptable (according to every other review I have read), then why do they have to use a different setup? This one clearly works and works very well.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Same thing with DOHC and multi-valve engines. GM has some 20k cars with these features (Ecotech engines for example) but it doesn't mean that the OHV Pushrod LS2 is a bad choice. They use what works and the current C6 setup works VERY well.

Hell, my 350Z has a supposed "advanced or high-tech" engine and suspension, but the car makes less hp and mpg than the LS2 and my supposedly "advanced or high-tech" suspension can knock your teeth out on rough roads vs the smooth and even better handling "low tech" C6.