Go to car


Latest Comments
Car: 91935   By: DiRF   Comment: "I actually kinda liked these when they came out, b..."
Car: 85938   By: DiRF   Comment: "Normally I can find aspects of a squarish, blocky ..."
Car: 96594   By: Skid   Comment: "If I could have any 911, it would be the short-nos..."
Car: 44941   By: DiRF   Comment: "So, North Wilkesboro has been refurbished, and ret..."
Car: 96905   By: Adambomb   Comment: "This things been sitting at an oil change place ne..."
See last 25 comments
 Go to

Next picture
Ricecop Home
Linkage
Plates
Bling Bling
Photo
Free Post

 Top 10

Top 10 Ricers
Top 10 Non-Ricers
Top 10 Other Good
Top 10 Other Bad

 New & Retired

Newest Images
Retired Images

 Other

Submit a picture
Profile Lookup
FAQ
Site Log
Leader Board
Site Stats

 Online Now

0 Ricecops
1 Guests

Detailed List

 Login

Username:

Password:


Remember Login?

Sign up!
Why sign up?
Forgot my password


View this image at full size
Click here to let us know if the image above is broken.


Go back and vote on this image.

Picture Information
URL: http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=43198
Submitted by: Adambomb
Comments: 24  (Read/Post)     Favorites: 0  (View)
Submitted on: 08-17-2005
View Stats Category: Photoshop/Art
Description:
Impala SS coupe.


   Comments

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

#2
8-17-2005 @ 02:06:06 PM
Posted By : 427 Vette Reply | Edit | Del
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]


#4
8-17-2005 @ 02:08:04 PM
Posted By : ricerocketboy Reply | Edit | Del
#3, sorta like the Marauder.

#5
8-17-2005 @ 02:09:26 PM
Posted By : ambientFLIER Reply | Edit | Del
#4, at least the marauder has an excuse, a smallish 4.6

#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

#10
8-17-2005 @ 02:29:17 PM
Posted By : stang392 Reply | Edit | Del
#9, mid 90s also wasn't known for big HP numbers

#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

#14
8-17-2005 @ 02:39:15 PM
Posted By : 427 Vette Reply | Edit | Del
#9, It wasn't as quick as the other 260+hp sedans?

#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

#20
8-17-2005 @ 09:50:46 PM
Posted By : DiRF  Reply | Edit | Del
#19, *stands up, applauds*

Showing page: 1 of 2
[
1 2 ]


Login to leave a comment

Classifieds 
Click here to post your own classified ad






Want to send some feedback? Click here.

Server time: Thursday, March 28, 2024 02:34:51 PM

All pictures on this site are property of their respective owners.
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Ricecop. All rights reserved.