toastemcutlass Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 I just saw a comercail for the new impala and they just said it was superchared!! it has dual exhaust and it looks a little different then the normal one, about time chevy brought back the fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luminator94 Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 I disagree! It IS a step up for the Impala to earn the supercharger. BUT, I still don't think it earns the "SS" badging until there is a LS1 up front and RWD in the back! :gone2far: Ditto for the Monte Carlo SS. Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakesk8s Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Thats very true... The SS badge is something that has to be awarded not just giving to any car w/ some extra sport. I do enjoy the new GTO... It's RWD and Supercharged and puts out about 340hp and 360tq.... Not too bad for Ponitac! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Thats very true... The SS badge is something that has to be awarded not just giving to any car w/ some extra sport. If your criteria for awarding the SS badge is RWD and V8 then the new SS doesn't pass muster. If your criteria is performance, the new SS more than deserves it since it's faster and handles better than many of its predecessors that also wore the "SS" badge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Handling is not a requirment of the SS badge, RWD and a V-8 are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Handling is not a requirment of the SS badge, RWD and a V-8 are. V8 isn't... 60's and 70's Nova II SS could come with a 120HP I-6. Although maybe that car didn't deserve the badge either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Probably, I always see the 283 V8 in Nova SS's when they're stock show cars. I'm willing to bet not many people ordered the I6, or kept it in there for a long time. THat's gotta be a slug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 I agree that a V-6 Nova should not be an SS, the thing I really dislike about the new SS is it's nothing like it SS's of the past. I didn't mind the fact that they put the Impala name plate on the 2000+ W-body, but calling it an SS is crossing the line. I liked being able to say I want a Impala SS (meaning 94-96) without it being confused for a midsized, unibody, FWD, v-6 car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Probably, I always see the 283 V8 in Nova SS's when they're stock show cars. I'm willing to bet not many people ordered the I6, or kept it in there for a long time. THat's gotta be a slug I'd say! Here's a link to one: http://people.smu.edu/acambre/nova/novadaube67/novadaube67.html Apparently only 194cid = 3.1L or so. Isn't that pretty small for an I-6? In 1963, the I-6 was the ONLY available engine! I'll bet they're pretty rare, because most people don't remember that there was ever a SLOW SS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Yeah that's quite small for an inline engine in that era. Maybe it makes a butt-load of torque though...because I think some of GM's even bigger cars had inline 6's back in the late 50's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Yeah that's quite small for an inline engine in that era. Maybe it makes a butt-load of torque though...because I think some of GM's even bigger cars had inline 6's back in the late 50's I don't think it had enough torque, whatever it was. Check this: Engines: 194 I6 120 bhp. Performance: 194/120: 0-60 in 15.9 seconds, 1/4 mile in 21.0 seconds @ 67 mpg. Taken from http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/chevrolet-nova/chevrolet-nova-history.shtml Oh, that's really bad. 2.8L W-body could whip it's ass (5-seconds faster in the 0-60, ) I guess back then, "SS" stood for "Sloooow Slug". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 holy friggin crap thats like a riding lawnmower Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolt_Crank Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 I don't think it had enough torque, whatever it was. Check this: Engines: 194 I6 120 bhp. Performance: 194/120: 0-60 in 15.9 seconds, 1/4 mile in 21.0 seconds @ 67 mpg. Taken from http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/chevrolet-nova/chevrolet-nova-history.shtml Oh, that's really bad. 2.8L W-body could whip it's ass (5-seconds faster in the 0-60, ) I guess back then, "SS" stood for "Sloooow Slug". maybe, but that "Sloooow Slug" will go farther on one tank of gas than the average W-Body o.O unless our tanks are bigger... 67MPG.... that's pretty damn good for such an old engine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 I think he meant 67mpH, not 67mpG!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 He must have 67mpg would be really, really good for 2003 Honda. I bet that Nova averages 10-12mpg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toastemcutlass Posted June 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 yeah i dont think it diserves the ss badge and i dont really like the fwd impalas but at least there tring to give there cars some more ponys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redfox340 Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 I REALLY don't hope you guys argue about this having the "SS" nameplate. I sure as hell don't; not because of the drivetrain, but the overall makeover. http://neon.atsweb.net/lumina-ss/ - RedFox340 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 If thats a RWD Ls1 Lumina then it deserves to be a SS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91GranSport Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 You're right, although I don't find FWD vehicles to be all that sporty. To be "sport" means RWD. That's just my opinion though. I think the W-Body in L67 trim can outperform many of the musclecars of late 70s-'80s. But I think GM is trying to have Chevy name their current lineup of cars cars with famous names of their previous cars in order to make sales. Overall I don't think the Monte Carlo or Impala deserve their names. They're damn ugly cars to begin with why ruin the heritage of the Monte Carlo and Impala? If your criteria for awarding the SS badge is RWD and V8 then the new SS doesn't pass muster. If your criteria is performance, the new SS more than deserves it since it's faster and handles better than many of its predecessors that also wore the "SS" badge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 I think the W-Body in L67 trim can outperform many of the musclecars of late 70s-'80s. But I think GM is trying to have Chevy name their current lineup of cars cars with famous names of their previous cars in order to make sales. Overall I don't think the Monte Carlo or Impala deserve their names. They're damn ugly cars to begin with why ruin the heritage of the Monte Carlo and Impala? They may be damn ugly, but I still think the new Monte looks better than the G-body Monte of the 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luminator94 Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Now THAT is a Lumina I would be proud of to drive! Other then the ugly seats that are to retro for my tastes! Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Yeah, the Holden Lumina is nice, but I bet that sucker costs more than US$35,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91GranSport Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Ha ha ha! Ah yes, I must remind myself that you're one of the few people here who actually hate the Grand National and GNX! I'll be honest with you, I myself hate the G-Body with the exception of the Turbo Buicks, Grand Nationals and GNXs. When I see a G-Body I think of a white-trash dude with jacking up his rear and throwing on some straight pipes. I've never seen any nice G-Body cars that weren't Buicks. Personally I only like the Buick G-Body, and the rest is crap. BTW: Not to stray off topic, but how do you like the Cadillac Seville STS and Eldorado ETC? They're a little bit boxy but I think they're actually quite beautiful. I don't like the CTS though, it looks kind of funny. They may be damn ugly, but I still think the new Monte looks better than the G-body Monte of the 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 BTW: Not to stray off topic, but how do you like the Cadillac Seville STS and Eldorado ETC? They're a little bit boxy but I think they're actually quite beautiful. I don't like the CTS though, it looks kind of funny. I do like the STS and Eldo. I have a 1:18 scale STS on my desk at work. They look a bit dated, but that's probably why I like them. I don't think I'd buy myself one though, just because there are many other cars that I like better. I had thought about buying Penny a black Eldo until she decided she must have a Cutty convertible. I hate the CTS. It's fugly. Honestly, I have looked at many of them and I don't see at all why anyone would like it. There is not one angle or view of the CTS that I find even remotely aesthetically pleasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luminator94 Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Yeah, the Holden Lumina is nice, but I bet that sucker costs more than US$35,000. So why can't they import that Holden Lumina into the US? Honestly, I love the smooth lines of that car! Would it be due to emission restrictions in the US? Or maybe GM/Holden think they aren't going to make a profit off it in the US? Maybe they'll wait to see how the new GTO does. But I bet yer right on the price tag. Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.