Modern Camaro Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Any Gen 5 Camaro has a OEM quirk that Holden identified in 2000 but never fixed. The rear suspension moves at it's attachment points on the chassis a tiny bit. A little more as time goes by. Why? The chassis is not sufficently rigid oem. A piece of 2" diameter exhaust pipe goes a long way toward improving this issue without any negative effects. Along the floor in the trunk measure the exact distance between the bottoms of the wheel wells. Cut the pipe a little longer and force the pipe inbetween the bottoms of the interior wheel wells. 2" pipe spreads the contact points more than enough for it to be strong but not rip into the wheel well. A slight angle cut helps too. The car does not need a rear shock mount brace when the oem chassis is pre loaded just a tiny bit. The attachment point is plenty strong enough but the chassis does flex there oem. Not after doing this.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
45 Posts
I know the entire rear cradle moves under torque and hard cornering. They make solid bushings to correct that.

Can you provide a link, or area where you read what you're explaining?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I know the entire rear cradle moves under torque and hard cornering. They make solid bushings to correct that.
Holden made the same observations in 2000 about the rear chassis as they did about the front. They were not happy to learn that "frame flex" and "metal fatique" were causing issues they thought were related to bushings, suspensions or even steering components. Once they concentrated on the complaint of "imprecise steering", they isolated the front strut towers as actually moving in normal driving with a remote camera mounted under the hood. Expecting the unibody to remain motionless, the saw the opposite. Only <1/8" but the opposite of fixed. Initialy they thought the strut bushings at the top were flexing but it was the tower itself that was, even with a STB. Change orders in manufactoring was necessary but too much else got in the way and those changes never happened. Management ordered the 2000 Engineering report but ignored it. Taking a page from GM there. Close examination of the rear chassis led to similar conclusions. It wasn't the shock mount or spring perches making things a little suspect, nor cradle bushings. BMR in the advertising pitch for their solution copied the 2000 report. Here they are:
"These chassis flex dramatically, even with mild amounts of torque and horsepower. BMR’s sub-frame connectors are manufactured from a mix of heavy-duty square steel tubing, with laser-cut CNC-formed 3/16-inch steel plate, and add loads of strength in all the right places. These triangulated sub-frame connectors are engineered to considerably strengthen the chassis. The SFC015s connect the front and rear sub-frames, but also tie into the rear lower control arm mounts, as well as the transmission tunnel brace."
Sales pitch and suspect, sure, but they were channeling Holden all the way. The rice burners got heavily into rear shock tower braces years ago but that would NOT help the Gen 5 Camaro. The attachment points are not the problem, it's the flex in the unibody getting things all soft. As in other frame braces, tension between the wheel wells, or pre-loading, makes the unibody stronger. Just like SFC's do. A while ago I did an internet search for the 2000 report, as did a bunch of other people. None of us could find it. I read it in 2000 or 2001 and began implimenting its recommendations on my early 90's Commodores and had 94-96 Caprice's and SS's there. Its IRS made it a superior upgrade from US made solid rear axle cars. In Kuwait City then Commodores were readily available, new and used. Loved Holdens ever since. I began importing to Amman, Jordan in 1994, new 94 SS's with Tremec 6 speed conversions and Brembo Big Brake kits, Hotchkis sway bars and Koni adjustable's. 22 of them eventually, all sold for >$100,000. Full new car GM warranty. Nothing I could do to the 94 SS could make it handle any where near as well as the modified Commodores.
 

Attachments

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
45 Posts
In all the groups, and forums I have been in, not one person has said any of that. Where is their article or data that supports it. LINK to where you read all that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
The fact that you are unaware of the Holden Year 2000 Engineering Report and unaware of it's many insights should not prevent you from reading about it, and speculating about its conclusions. More than a few people have tried to find it without success. Not such a surprise with Holden gone. Nor is it a surprise that you have not read about it on other sites. It was hardly widely read even in Australia. In fact one engineer posted about it on line over 20 years ago and except for some who were building race cars then, it was ignored. My interest was from owning older Commodores. YOU should be able to constructively dialogue about the insights just by examining your own experience with any Holden Gen 5, Chevy SS or G8. Why is the steering imprecise/ it was so even when new. Not awful, imprecise. The very word Holden used. Why don't the firmer bushings you mentioned in the rear cradle eliminate the wheel hop? I'm reporting on something that was valuable to me 20 years ago. Why is that illegitimate?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Just Commodores
I remember that 2000 Report being here way back when one Holden Engineer was particularly proud of his in house work. As part of that thread, he documented a long, hard junk yard search. Seeking out ancient Holden cars and looking specifically for cracked front strut towers and flexed rear suspension body attachments. He found a great many. Even in new cars, he could identify structural weakness in both places with exotic imaging devices. On their racing forum was a number of guys previously talking about reinforcing those areas before they ever saw Holden's report.
Gen 5 Camaro guys complain all the time about their steering and rarely as gently as Holden did with "imprecise steering". The 14-15 Camaro Z-28 generated a lot of added load with its gigantic wheels and tires and those guys are not shy about complaining about the steering. I'm sure if you look the G8 and SS guys have similar (less vulgar) comments. If you are one of those who never found a fix to read about, then you never came across any of my posts in various places explicitly explaining the issue and the fix. Starting in 2001.

Try to see the humor I intend:
You wrote "In all the groups, and forums I have been in, not one person has said any of that"
Henry David himself once wrote (with humor) "I have travelled extensively in Concord" revealing that his extensive travels were not everywhere. Like Australia
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
45 Posts
"the Holden Year 2000 Engineering Report "
Now, you wrote "YEAR 2000"

Okay, then how does it apply to a 2010 car, from a year 2000 report, TEN years later?
This is a GEN5 section of the forum, not a 4th gen car. Your post was moved over at Camaro5
for this reason too, the lack of clarity.

You cannot prove that those so-called problems were "inherited" with this Zeta platform. The 2010 to 2015 Camaro was the ONLY Zeta platform model produced in North America.
All other Zeta platform vehicles were made in Australia by Holden. So, the CAMARO technically, is not a HOLDEN Zeta. The problem IS WITH; the HOLEN Zeta platforms, PLURAL.

Over at CAMARO5, your post was removed:
"Deleted by the moderator. Why? it was all about Holdens evaluation of all their chassis'."

ALL their Chassis, not the American ZETA, specifically.

So, I think I know who you WERE on the Camaro 5 forums, and your account was suspended for EXACTLY this
stuff you're trying to pawn off over here. You didn't prove it there either, and your continued falsehoods and demeanor
got your account suspended; Scotavo

You are done with this here.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top