|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
Picture
Information
|
URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=43198 |
|
Comments: 24 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 08-17-2005
|
View Stats |
Category:
Photoshop/Art |
|
Description:
Impala SS coupe. |
Showing page: 1 of 2 [ 1 2 ]
|
#1 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:01:45 PM |
Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
i'm starting to not care for these...stupid iron block/heads and lack of speed |
|
#3 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:07:34 PM |
Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#2, yeah...they aren't as fast as people make them out to be, about the same as my ex se-r, and that's a 4 cylinder
[Edited by ambientFLIER on 8-17-2005 @ 02:09:51 PM] |
|
#6 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:19:22 PM |
Posted By : stang392 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#5, the size isn't the problem, its the fact its the DOHC (thus no low end torque). |
|
#7 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:19:51 PM |
Posted By : 427 Vette |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#3, Let's see, 4000lbs 260hp and 330 ft lbs of tq vs 2800lbs 200hp and 180 ft lbs of tq. Apples to oranges? |
|
#8 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:25:30 PM |
Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#6, bah...it's not the fact that it's dohc...just the way it's tuned
a dohc 5.4 would make it much faster, plus it would have 30lb-ft more than the impala ss
[Edited by ambientFLIER on 8-17-2005 @ 02:26:37 PM] |
|
#9 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:27:41 PM |
Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#7, sure...the point is, mid 90's wasn't a gas crunch year...they had quick cars, the ss wasn't that great |
|
#11 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:30:41 PM |
Posted By : Adambomb |
Reply | Edit | Del |
And given the choice between one of these and a Sentra.....well you know the rest. |
|
#12 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:33:45 PM |
Posted By : Adambomb |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Just looked it up and the mid-90s Z28 had 275 HP, the mid 90s Mustang GT had 215 HP and the Cobra had 240. |
|
#13 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:35:56 PM |
Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#12, yeah, but they were still quicker...i guess i just hate the fact that the ss got a crappy version of the lt |
|
#15 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:41:04 PM |
Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#14, it was as quick as a 190hp maxima, which i think qualifies as a large car, or maybe midsize...anyway, as i said, i just don't like the lt that's in there |
|
#16 |
8-17-2005 @ 02:47:01 PM |
Posted By : stang392 |
Reply | Edit | Del |
I have a feeling that they are still a good bit more fun to drive, even if they aren't as quick. also even if the Maxima is a fullsize (which I doubt) its still a unibody. so again apples to oranges. |
|
#17 |
8-17-2005 @ 03:12:32 PM |
Posted By : ambientFLIER |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#16, these have a frame? hah, weird, it's a late 90's sedan...thought it would be unibody |
|
#18 |
8-17-2005 @ 03:21:26 PM |
Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#15, The Impala SS was built as a "sports sedan", like the Maxima. Just bigger and in the more traditional sense. While it's true they weren't as fast as they're made out to be, they were plenty cool for the time they were built in. I just can't figure out why they go for twice what Camaro Z/28s from the same time period go for.
#17, Large sedans were slow to accept unibodies...manufacturers were comfortable with the simplity and rigidity of a full frame, and in a non-performance car it doesn't make a difference. This car is based on a large luxury sedan designed in 1990, when all large American luxury sedans were full-framed. |
|
#19 |
8-17-2005 @ 09:47:15 PM |
Posted By : 89Rettagt |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#1, there is this thing named low end torque. it is quite useful in moving a 4200lb vehicle. youve cried about the impala twice now. at least. its not the fastest at high end. SHOCKING! considering the cam profile is designed for... low end torque. no to mention the OHV format. it is 10 years old and yet you compare it to modern cars. and as for the maxima reference. my father owns an impala ss. ran mid 15s. His father owns a 98 maxima. also rans mid 15s with my dad as the driver. so yes the big heavy 'slow' american sedan ran the same times as a maxima. (which im guessing is about 700 pounds lighter) so keep bashing the impala ss. this performance and size for around 25k new. i havent seen a better deal since. and to skid. im sure it has to do with its rarity compared to the Z28s of that time. and the fact it has a back seat :P |
Showing page: 1 of 2 [ 1 2 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|