[QUOTE]Originally posted by 30thZ286speed
With a few simple mods the '96 Impala SS would be just as fast if not faster than the new Impala SS. Also I believe MT has gotten faster times from either a '94 or '95 Impala SS. I remember C&D got 6.5 sec. to 60 in a Roadmaster LT-1 and a 15.0 flat in the quarter, I am not sure what the weight difference between a Roadmaster and an old ImpalaSS but the Roadmaster looks alot more bulker looking.

I would perfer the '96 ImpalaSS over the new one for one main reason, LT-1 torque. I took a Grand Prix GTP Coupe on a extensive test drive a few years ago, those cars were capable of a mid-six second time to 60 too, but they didn't feel that fast to me or at least not as fast as an ImpalaSS. I really liked the car alot and probably would have bought one if it was available with a manual gear box.

Is the 3800 Series II Supercharged V6 in the new ImpalaSS the same engine that was used in the old Grand Prixs. The hp rating is the same at 240. I thought I read somewhere were Chevy tweaked the motor alittle to produce more torque for the new ImpalaSS. The info card on the new ImpalaSS that I received from Chevy doesn't say anything about that, and lists the torque rating at 280 lb-ft.

Something really funny I noticed listed under Exterior Details was "Corvette-inspired rear taillight treatment" that is no joke it actually says that on the info card, I believe that is a bit of a stretch. [/QUOTE

actually the roadmaster you could get some heavy duty towing or something package..a guy at a car show had one 2 years ago documented those times on a paper from the track and the special RPO sheet on the car..said it was very rare and FAST.

 

Are you crazy, there are some great '03+ cars, CTS, CTSv, XLR, Bonnie GXP, C6, Colorado, Equinox, and many of the pre '03 car got some sweet power upgrades like the SS versions of the Silverado, Monte, and Impala, and Ion redline

I will agree with you about disliking the utility vans and the Cavalier front edn changes.

 

Sorry, I haven't been following the GTP/GS stuff much, I've been out ahead of them for a long time

I would be more "in the know" on them if my GF would've gotten the sweet 99 GS instead of the 96 Olds LSS last year

OK, to counter your mods, I don't have a pulley to change because my engine is NA. I've got a nice ram air type intake, a cat back, and some relatively easy mods to my drivetrain. It is a LOT easier to swap gears and torque converter in a front engine, RWD car than a transaxle equiped ride. I'm right along with the times you posted yet still weigh a bunch more and my engine makes less power. I haven't swapped headers on the dang thing yet!

Tell me this. Have any street driven FWD supercharged V6 W-bodies run 10s?

 

What I was talking about was styling alone. I dont think the cts looks very good, although a nice car. I dont like the styling on the new pontiacs either... while I like everything else that came with the change... like the tapshift for example. I like the SS package for the silverado, Im just not a fan of that re-done front end. I dont think the colorado and the equinox look good either....

I think for the most part I am complaining about the front fascias alone... not the vehicle itself. Its just that to me, the front end of every new design/vehicle seems to look horrible. Oh yeah, they dropped the f-bod for '03 too

 

I agree with just about everything you said, except the 2004 GTO. This car has a look that says "GM, circa 1995." Not a bad thing when you consider the current state of design at GM. The Monaro(aka GTO) would have made a wonderful Monte Carlo back in 2000 model year, but it's come way too late - not to mention the hurried development process. The same goes for the supercharged Wimpala, a product that should have appeared 5-years ago...

...or perhaps not at all.

 

All of the cars you mentioned, Corvette excepted, are seriously flawed.

1. The CTS is overpriced and underequiped - not to mention the boxiest styling since the '80s.

2. The CTSv has a Corvette drivetrain - including the low-buck gearbox.

3. The XLR is a Corvette with a Cadillac motor. (Think slower, uglier, more expensive 'Vette.)

4. The Bonnie GXP has the Northstar, but it also has the same old SSEi image. How about a "Pontiac Aurora?"

5. The Colorado is undersized and underpowered for its segment.

6. The Equinox is also shaping up to be underpowered with the old 160 hp 3.4l V6. Expect the 5-year old Ford Escape V6 to beat this thing at any stoplight.

7. The Silverado SS is a joke as a performance vehicle, and the supercharged MC and Wimpy offer 1998 levels of performance. On the other hand, the Ion is just plain horrible in design. It'll take alot more than a supercharger to fix the little Saturn. (Perhaps that's why a partial redesign is already in the works.)

 

1. Compared to what in its class and price range?

2. Yeah, the ZO6 did have a pretty crappy drivetrain

3. The auto press seems to be quite enamored with it. When did sharing a platform with America's favorite sportscar become a bad thing?

4. This isn't my favorite car, but it certainly isn't a piece of crap. It also doesn't cost a significant amount more than the old SSEi.

5. Again, compared to what? Aside from the Dakota, the Colorado competes rather nicely with the Tacoma, Frontier, Ranger, and Mazda in both size and performance.

6. It actually makes 185hp. I'm not sure that the ability to smoke other cute-utes at every stoplight is really the mission for vehicles in this class. Power should be plenty adequate.

7. Wow, I kinda have to agree with you on this one.

I'm just curious, do you like any auto manufacturers?


-Mike

 

How does having a 400HP Z06 engine make it "seriously flawed"?? The gearbox is a Z06 spec T-56, it is a lot better quality than what is in the LS1 Camaros, and I wouldn't call it low buck since isit cost more than most automatics on the market.

Both of these trucks offer more base HP than anything in their class. The Colorado I5 has more HP than the Nissan SUPERCHARGED V6
If the Colorado is too small for you then you should probably be shopping for a Silverado.

There is also no such thing as a 1999 Ford Escape, go check your facts


I disagree with you about the other cars too, One thing we can agree on is that the S/C Monte Carlo should have come out back in 2000 went the new monte came out. I think the 2004 SS cars/truck offer good performance, not great but at least they are a step in the right direction, The '05 Silverado SS is said to have 400HP and the '05 Impala will get a V8.

I like Aston Martin, BMW, Ford, Dodge, and Ferarri

 

Hmmm, no.

1. It is not overpriced for its segment. If you can't afford it, too bad for you.

2. Good point Wow. Do you not like 400hp?

3. So make the Caddy XLR faster than the Vette? I'd like to hear what you'd have to say about that.

4. Perhaps to you. The GXP is what the SSEi wished it could have been.

5. Do you look up anything before you type?

6. As transam8 said, 185hp, I do agree that it shouldn't have that motor. IMO, it should have had at least the 3.5 from the Malibu.

7. We sell every SS we get and the customers love them. People on this board just don't understand the Silverado SS's mission. It is NOT meant to be a SRT or SVT fighter. Rather a complete useful truck with some power.
As it goes for the Monte and Impy, it should have had that a long time ago, but it isn't out of place right now either. As is fact on the board, give GM some time if you don't like their current products. Lots in the pipeline. And for those of you who are complaining about every little freaking thing about GM now, you likely will about anything in the future and my Rx for you is to stop being an enthusiast and get a new hobby.

 

The LS-1/LS-6 isn't a commendable motor, but not exactly what I'd call "Lexus-like." More to the point, I haven't seen a version of the Tremec T-56 that had a world class shifter. Is a CTSv with a 'Vette motor and a jerk-lever tranny work upwards of $50k?

Oddly enough, a CTS with the same Northstar drivetrain as the SRX V8 would have been more in keeping with a luxury image. It also would have cost almost nothing to have engineered.

[B] "Most base horsepower in the class?" Big deal, most buyers opt for an optional V6. Whoops, the Colorado has an inline-5, something that must really please some old Audi 5000 fans. (Five cylinders, a great selling point in a galaxy of V6s How is having way less torque than the ancient "sawed-off 350" 4.3l V6 an improvement? Throw in the barely-bigger-than-the-S10 size, and I see a loser without rebates. This Isuzu-designed truck is sized and powered for the third world. Throw in a diesel, and Chevy will have the best selling vehicle in Thailand!

By the way, the Escape will be in its 5th model year by the time the Equinox finally hits the tarmac.

 

You still danced around many of the other questions posed to you by myself and a few other posters. This one in particular. How does the Colorado not match up with the OTHER trucks in its class? So what if it has an I-5. Does it not produce similar power when compared to other companies' V-6's? Does it not compete nicely with the other compacts in size? Umm....well....yes it does.


-Mike

 

Equinox will have class leading base HP and class leading torque.

Chevy Equinox will have less 15HP than the V6 Ford Escape but Chevy will have 15 more lb-ft of torque than Escape. The Chevy will also have more HP & torque then Honda CRV, Honda Element, and Toyota Rav4.

It will easily be enough HP for what it is meant to do, The owners of cute-utes aren't likly to drag race them.

 

Once again you sound like an 8th grader. The Northstar would likely have been much more difficult to fit into a CTS. Have you ever seen one sitting next to a Gen III V8? I have, and the differences in height and width are staggering. In an engine bay, if your engine is 1 mm too wide, you are screwed.

Also, having driven a CTS-V (and Z06, several times), I can tell you that it feels entirely different than an LS6 in the Z06. The Gen IIIs in general are actually quite smooth, with structural oil pans and many other design details intent on making them smooth, quiet, and durable. The LS6 in either car does have a slightly lumpy idle (for a stock vehicle) because of the more aggressive cam. But the engine doesn't give off bad vibrations or anything, and the better sound-killing ability of the CTS interior makes the engine noise almost a non-issue. The Z06 Corvette has much more intake and exhaust noise; these have been handled nicely in the CTS-V (also in the GTO) with different intakes, exhausts, etc. to carry the appropriate performance overtones without being as intrusive as the Vette allows. The CTS-V I drove was a very early one (didn't have the fully dressed interior or exterior), and even in that state I was impressed with the refinement of the package. My only gripe was a shifter that was a little too soft (not "jerky" enough); the current Corvette shifter is the best example of a stock T56 shifter I've come across. We'll see how it comes out in production (remember, the car I drove was basically a regular CTS that had been hand-cobbled into a CTS-V).

The only people who will complain about the CTS-V engine are the tweedle-dees who think that OHC means everything (or 8th graders who read too many magazines - not necessarily bad - and then post on message boards as know-it-all pessimists). The rest will appreciate the M5 type performance with better fuel economy and a $25k price drop (partially justified by the higher level of interior content on the M5). Just curious, have you driven a CTS-V?

Oh, and I've typed enough, so I won't hit on the Colorado/Canyon much, except to say that I've driven those as well. The Line 5 is quite nice, and I'd have no problem taking it over a 6. Very smooth, actually. And regarding the diesel, well, that would be sweet. I'd love to see that.

 

"The LS-1/LS-6 isn't a commendable motor, but not exactly what I'd call "Lexus-like."

Since "Lexus-like" generally means overpriced and underpowered, Id prefer to stick with the good old LSx family, thanks.

 

Amen.