The Cruze either has a watts (Z) link setup or nothing......the axle without depends on the axle tube itself to maintain rear wheel position and the design does work.
As stated though, the Z link imparts a bit more precise handling during transitions. For the majority of drivers, the additional handling capabilities are lost, so I can see why Chevy chose to utilize the system on the higher line, more 'driver oriented' versions.
Regarding the gen 3 and 4 'F' bodies.
With the introduction of the gen 3, and its coil spring (replacing leaf) rear suspension, obviously there must be some method to stabilize the differential laterally.
Since the area needed for the upper, angled trailing arm lateral controls are occupied by the fuel tank, the only method, from a expense standpoint, was a panard rod.
If the car was designed from the ground up to be nothing more than a grocery getter, this cheezeball approach to axle location would be largely unnoticed.
But, the Camaro was always marketed as a good handling car (used to be marketed as 'The Hugger'....hugged the road).
Because the panard forces the axle to move side to side through its travel arc, those that drive it in a 'spirited' manner will pick up a kind of 'Spooky' (my term) feel as the axle transitions from loaded to unloaded if you are trying to have fun in the twisties.
Add to this, a pair of lower trailing arm bushings that are soft enough to allow the side to side motion the panard rod imparts and you end up a somewhat goofy handling chassis from about 7/10ths on up.
Those that own the gen 3/4 (mine is a 2002) know well how easy (and rapidly) this car can swap ends.
BMR was the first to come up with a true Watts link setup, but, IMO, the Fays 2 version, from the standpoint of simplicity, is just fine.
I still have the stock setup, but likely will embrace the Fays 2 kit if the day comes I want to tighten it up.
Wow!
Sorry gang.....got a little chatty there....soft spot for F body thing.
Rob
