[Eric SS]

Originally Posted by gajagfan

I agree with this. From what I read back in the day, part of the death of the Gen 4 was so many variations of the car. It does drive up manufacturing cost.

I heard that it would have been almost impossible for the Gen 4 to pass more stringent crash testing. Not to mention that the model was made for 10 model years.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Eric SS

I heard that it would have been almost impossible for the Gen 4 to pass more stringent crash testing. Not to mention that the model was made for 10 model years.

All of the above...and more...

[detltu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

All of the above...and more...

Yep lots of reasons.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Eric SS

I heard that it would have been almost impossible for the Gen 4 to pass more stringent crash testing. Not to mention that the model was made for 10 model years.

...and out of all my Camaros I've owned, my second (2000 SS) 4th generation was one of my favorites, go figure. I had a built motor, Viper spec T-56, 12-bolt, etc, that thing never flinched, and I beat the piss out of it for ten years...

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Waiting46
I am confused why people are so obsessed with the aesthetics of lowered vehicles on a highly track-focused vehicle. If the ride height was optimum (or close enough that minor variations had minor impact and major variations had negative impact) for the vehicle, why would you want to mess with that? Isnt that the exact opposite of what you would want to do with this car?

Originally Posted by SS 1LE

A lower center of gravity is very important when tracking (plus it looks good). GM can not choose to use optimum ride height as many drivers wouldn't be capable of carefully driving a low car on a regular basis. They would hit stuff, and head right to the dealer for warranty work and such. There are companies making lowering springs for the MRC on the Corvette and V Series Caddy's, so it is only a matter of time before they are out for the Camaro. A 1"-1.25" drop would be perfect...

It's not that important. Not even if you can lower the car without adversely affecting the suspension geometry (not an assumption you should be making). Check that . . . it would be important - in an SUV fitted with grippy tires. But not in the Camaro or in its direct competition.

Once you stop letting the appearance suggest how much benefit there is to lowering and actually run some numbers, you find that dropping the CG height isn't the all-conquering mod that the aftermarket spring companies would have you believe.

Sure, out around 1.5g having a lower CG does become important, because up there you're operating at the verge of lifting the inside tires (handling balance gets a little weird when your car becomes a tricycle, and the point of rollover isn't so far off any more). But you aren't going to get there on true street tires, certainly not in the street driving where the appearance is going to actually seen.


Norm

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

Originally Posted by Waiting46
I am confused why people are so obsessed with the aesthetics of lowered vehicles on a highly track-focused vehicle. If the ride height was optimum (or close enough that minor variations had minor impact and major variations had negative impact) for the vehicle, why would you want to mess with that? Isnt that the exact opposite of what you would want to do with this car?

It's not that important. Not even if you can lower the car without adversely affecting the suspension geometry (not an assumption you should be making). Check that . . . it would be important - in an SUV fitted with grippy tires. But not in the Camaro or in its direct competition.

Once you stop letting the appearance suggest how much benefit there is to lowering and actually run some numbers, you find that dropping the CG height isn't the all-conquering mod that the aftermarket spring companies would have you believe.

Sure, out around 1.5g having a lower CG does become important, because up there you're operating at the verge of lifting the inside tires (handling balance gets a little weird when your car becomes a tricycle, and the point of rollover isn't so far off any more). But you aren't going to get there on true street tires, certainly not in the street driving where the appearance is going to actually seen.


Norm

Meh, depends on many factors. All I know is on my old C5 Z06 I went consistently quicker (by the tune of about a tenth) on a shortish autocross when I dropped the coilovers about 1.25"...

[1leNPP]

Norm Perterson

I hear what your are saying on the ride high and fender gaps but for me I have to like what I am looking at first before I can move on to how well the car works . If I do not like how the car looks the other stuff dose not matter . I am sorry to say I just don't like the looks of 6gen than add in the tires to fender air gaps on top of that there no way I could buy the car no matter how good it is, now that just me .

If the 17 1LE sat 1' to 1 1/4 lower it mite be able to pull off the new look the car has but with the car sitting like a 4X4 truck it can not .

[Bosse'sBoss]

The Guys that sell you the lowering spring, never tell you that you would need additional suspension parts when you lower your car, even at just 1". I found out after lowering my prior 5.0. Your suspension geometry will change, alignment seetings, etc. After lowering the rear of my car it began to jump to the right upon strong take off. The only advantage was the looks and improved CG, but I was scrapping the lower part everywhere and had to repaint my front lip spoiler several times.

[Waiting46]

Al O said all of their computational hours included factoring ride height.

As for liking what you look at, the two most important views are the one over the hood, and the other the back end of the car when you pass everyone else.

[SS 1LE]

Originally Posted by Bosse'sBoss

The Guys that sell you the lowering spring, never tell you that you would need additional suspension parts when you lower your car, even at just 1".

If you buy from the right place they do, and in all honestly, you should know.

Originally Posted by Bosse'sBoss

I found out after lowering my prior 5.0. Your suspension geometry will change, alignment seetings, etc. After lowering the rear of my car it began to jump to the right upon strong take off.

The Mustang had a live axle, when you lower it the axle moves towards one side. An adjustable pan hard rod (about $100) solves this, and improves bite. The alinement doesn't change on the rear of that car, and my Mustang's front alignment was barely out of spec when I had it checked.

Originally Posted by Bosse'sBoss

The only advantage was the looks and improved CG,

Only if you don't do it right. My car handled much better afterwards.

Originally Posted by Bosse'sBoss

but I was scrapping the lower part everywhere and had to repaint my front lip spoiler several times.

I never had an issue, and I had the CS front valence and Boss splitter on mine. You just have to be more careful.

[IOMike]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

Nah, Ford and Chevy already make models for the automatic buyers.

They already make a manual SS for the manual transmission buyer.

Simply put, they are leaving cash on the table by not offering a a8 1le.

[ST1LE]

Originally Posted by IOMike

They already make a manual SS for the manual transmission buyer.

Simply put, they are leaving cash on the table by not offering a A8 1le.

You make a solid point actually. Sometimes the more options offered, the more expensive manufacturing becomes. If this is truly the case in this instance, then it stands to reason that GM is not going to ruin the 1LE package's affordability(it's bread and butter) just to appease the 20 or so forum members that want an A8 1LE. I say that sarcastically of course. My point is that GM knows this is a car for the 2%, they know exactly what they are doing.

If people spent less time whimpering, and more time trying to realize why things are this way, maybe there would be no need for a thread like this and people could move on.

[justjoshin]

I don't think most guys are wanting an auto 1LE, but just the option to get the upgraded suspension, wheels, and splitter. I know this would be something I would have wanted as an option and wouldn't care if it were labeled a 1LE. I don't do track days so I have not desire for a manual trans at all. And no this is not a debate on the auto vs. manual either. Whether you drive a manual or auto, who wouldn't like the better suspension? The aftermarket success of the splitters and z28/1LE wheels is proof there is a demand for them on all models. So, keep the 1LE manual but offer some of the upgrades on other models without calling it a 1LE would be a success IMO.

[gajagfan]

Originally Posted by IOMike

They already make a manual SS for the manual transmission buyer.

Simply put, they are leaving cash on the table by not offering a a8 1le.

I personally think that if the A8 is important enough to not get the 1LE, then that buyer is probably OK with just getting an A8 2SS. Either that or they will get an A8 2SS / 1SS and add suspension goodies.