We should know better by now. SS = Should Sell

 

I'm learning..

 

look at the past...SS cars were never the top performers in all areas. they had big engines and went really fast. they were alittle heavy in the front end but could fly in a straight line. i don't see guys in chevelles or impalas on road courses. they go straight for a 1/4 mile and do it pretty good for factory cars. want a good handling car, let gm do what they did in the late 80s and early 90s, slap a z(insert mumber here) on the side, give it the biggest engine that'll fit and a decent suspension and you have your road course car.

 

I got ahistory lesson last night at a cruise: '64 or '65 Nova SS Convert with a 6 cylinder...

...so Chevy hasn't always reserved the SS badge for the rip snorting cars.

 

SS on an Impala is a level to give more performance and nicer options (Interior/Exterior).

You think Chevy would be that stupid to make the SS Impala have a *rough* ride.

It's an Impala, You put a rough ride on it and you'll sell a FEW more to enthusiasts, and a LOT LESS to the General Population who purchases these cars.

Impala IS a Family Car.

 

I guess this is what happens when you engineer a foot of ground clearance into a car...

 

Most of us dont live in the rust belt, so **** on FWD. If I had to chose, I'll take the charger and pay more if I have to.

 

Damn...you beat me to it!!! A mid nineties on at that!!!

 

Funny thing with all the bad mouthing of the B-Bodies, i have a 96 black impala and get mor elooks and comments in that car then in any F body i or any of my freinds own COMBINED. The cars are classy and just look sinister. Most of the people talking in here have never driven an LT1 powered 9C1 or impala ss so they really shouldnt comment. Ive taken my 4200 lb whale of a car around some harsh curves and thrown it aorund highway lane changes at mind blowing speeds and the car took it better then my trans am does. Ya they dont run 13s out of the box. But with about 4-500 bux in mods you can be in the mid 14s all day. In a big luxurious car, with more room then any benz built in the 94-96 year, and could outrun pretty much anything but a f body/mustang in its day. The car was potent for its day especially considering its size and weight. Too bad it cant keep up with cars 10 years newer and much more advanced, especially since its already based on old school technology. That old school tech is a big part of why i bought taht car. I like big full frame cars with v-8 and rwd.

So im sorry it doesnt keep up with an f-body, but it wasnt ever intended too. It was the fastest in its class and faster then most any other car on the road in its day. So knock of all the bad talk and respect it for what it was. A big fast good handling awesome looking car FOR 1996, when it was made.

 

OK Put down the Impala Crack Pipe!

 

How diplomatic

I've got news for you...a large part of the U.S. population lives where it can snow at least some of the time. Many people prefer the advantages of FWD for situations like these. If you're selling cars, you'll take this into account. And if you're Chevy, you'll make both FWD and RWD cars, which they intend to do.

Look at a population map of the US, and see how densely populated the Rust Belt really is before making generalizations like that. Good to know you live in TN, but I have news for you...a lot of us don't.

 

Dude... I like Impala's, but I like reality too.

 

I know it wasn't diplomatic and I was just stirring the pot. I grew up in the rust belt (erie) and I know about snow and lake effect. We got 146 inches the last year I was there. The south and west will pass the northeast and great lakes in population soon if they allready haven't and it even though it snows here a few times a year that doesnt mean I need 4wd or even fwd. Thats what a posi is for. It should be standard on all rwd cars. I am just tired of GM throwing FWD junk at us. The GTO, CTS and Vette are the only cars I'd buy from them. They start at $33,000. Wheres the working mans car? The working man wants V-8 RWD four doors and room for five. Back when GM had a large chunk of the market thats what they did best. Then the accountants starting telling them how to build cars, they told them its cheaper to build a FWD. Thats when we got the chevy citation. Its been all down hill from there.

I think B-bodies with ZO6 rims are the shizz. If they went RWD again I think the car should be about a foot shorter and still come with the beefy 10 bolt.

 

More balanced with the engine in front, trans towards the middle, drive shaft in the middle, rear end in the rear, no torque steer, weight shift to the driven wheels during acceleration, rwd can be used to control understeer situations, not all jobs (braking, turning, power) are focused on just the one set...

Not to mention all the safety systems to help with situations like snow they have these days.

GM dropped the ball with this - especially when you take the TB SS into consideration. An SUV for Pete's sake! Tuned on the 'ring! Hello???

For a performance sedan, no fwd for me thanks.

 

Damn good post Kipp, I fully agree. I tolerate the colbalt SS, I think its a good car for the dollar but beyond that till you reach the GTO and CTS its a boring wasteland.