Yeah well I still think that the new Impalas are butt ugly (sorry)

They are one of the worst designs GM has put out in a while, but hell what do i know right.

Peace

 

The new "midsized" Colorado isn't midsized at all. Compared to even the outgoing Dakota (the new one will be much larger), it is just another compact. Admittedly, Isuzu needed to replace its aging truck range - yes, the same ones they pulled from the U.S. market a long, long time ago. However, as a clean sheet of paper design, the Colorado/Canyon was a waste of time and money. GM needed a Dakota competitor, and all they produced was a minor advance on the S-10.

Nissan has accomplished far more with a cheap reworking of the Frontier. They reworked the current Frontier on a shoestring budget, with more desirable result than GM. The Frontier's fender flare are tacky, the optional tires are oversized and the supercharger sucks gas at an alarming rate. For a vehicle that cost just about nothing to develope ('97 sheetmetal, '87 frame), the Frontier is more impressive than the Colorado. I mean seriously, does GM have a love affair with tiny 15" tires? Is a maximum of 225lb/ft of torque enough?

It strike me that nobody at Chevrolet or GMC understands the meaning of "midsized." If you want a real "midsized truck," the Dakota is still the only game in town. If you want a "compact" truck, buy a Tacoma...any Tacoma. They seem to run forever (especially overloaded with the the throttle wide open), and even the 4-bangers aren't all that bad (even when you run'em wide open).

 

What features do you feel makes a truck "midsize". As far as the interior goes, the Colorado is neck & neck w/ the Dakota.

Who TF cares about wheel sizes w/ trucks? Tire size is usually more important, unless it's strictly a street truck.

And 225 lb/ft of torque compared to Nissan's HUGE <sarcasm> 246 lb/ft of torque. . and they do it NA.

Quote:

It strike me that nobody at Chevrolet or GMC understands the meaning of "midsized." If you want a real "midsized truck," the Dakota is still the only game in town. If you want a "compact" truck, buy a Tacoma...any Tacoma. They seem to run forever (especially overloaded with the the throttle wide open), and even the 4-bangers aren't all that bad (even when you run'em wide open).

Well. . . I think the only truck more capable overall is the Dakota. And it's nearly as big as a fullsize, so why not get a real one, which is how GM thinks.

About the tacoma & engine. . .the inline Atlas engines in the GM SUVs and now Colorado/Canyon are some of the best out there, how do you know those won't be the same way or better mechanically than the Toyotas? Not to mention, I've read both the 4cyl. and 5 cyl. are pretty peppy and strong.

IMO, GM screwed up on the pricing and lack of standard options like the PW and PDL.
I was comparing a 4dr. 4x4 Z71 Colorado vs. a 4x4 Nissan Titan King Cab offroad pkg. . . and they're very close in price.

Gee, I don't need a fullsize truck, but the Nissan is so badass and you get so much more, why not get it.

 

Nothing else to say about the CTS-V, redzed?

Again, I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you haven't driven the Colorado/Canyon yet (like I have). Of course, to be fair, I've not driven a Frontier, so I won't try to do a back to back comparison. :blah:

 

I don't know the answer , so I'll ask...

Has Dakota ever ousold S-10/Sonoma?

If not... I don't know that you can intelligenty say that "GM needed a Dakota competitor" ...

 

Wow. I normally try and stay out of this kind of stuff since it's rarely productive, mostly based on opionion, and arguing with people who have made up their minds (on both sides of the argument - not singling anyone out here) is a futile exercise at best, but I can say with some authority that the 4 Cyl. Tacoma cannot get out of its own way.

My mother-in-law had a regular cab, rear drive, automatic 4 banger Tacoma and it was slow. She got rid of it when she got tired of getting dusted by 5 speed manual Geo Metros. It was slow unloaded and downright scary with a full bed. Merging required serious planning - you needed a Palm Pilot to schedule it, seriously. It was a well built, nice little truck, but even "wide open" I wouldn't call it adequate in a world where virtually every family sedan is a sub 8 second 0-60 performer.

 

The new impalas and montes are butt ugly. The old ones are sick. I don't care what you say about build quality, I have driven 96 impalas and they don't ride, they skate. That's how an impala is supposed to be, not some puny fwd v6. My friend's 96 has twin cutous before the muffler and that thing is loud. I'd like to see what a v6 sounds like with twin cutouts. Can you say, garbage???

 

That's your opinion... I disagree, in particular about the Monte Carlos...


Fair enough, the old ones are cool.

That "punny V6" will outrun the mighty V8 stock vs stock, as well as lightly modded vs lightly modded... the V8 probably has more potential if you go totally crazy with mods.

I guess it's a good thing that the new ones don't come from the factory with cutouts then...

 

Another vote for the old school here. My father-in-law has a '96 Caprice he retrofitted with Impala grill and badges. My wife's uncle has a true '96 Implala SS. Both run like a deer, have a comfortable ride, get good mileage, and get all kinds of attention from people at stop lights or in parking lots. IMHO, front wheel drive ain't all it's cracked up to be, and it certainly doesn't suit a lot of people.

I say put these cars back true to their original drivetrain layout, but make them with better-than-ever fit & finish and you've got a winner with everyone, especially law enforcement.

bburn

 

So did I hurt your feelings when I talked about V6 impalas because you seem to be butt hurt. Do you own one or something? They are truly garbage even the new montes. That "puny v6" is in a puny car, that's why it will outrun the V8. That's my point exactly, the impala has always been a big body with a big engine. Now what does chevy have to offer in full size 4 door cars? BS, that's what they offer. Also, exhaust on these new V6 cars sound worse than some rice rockets. A V8 has an unmistakable, unbeatable tone to it.

 

Why is that when someone disagrees people get an elementry school attitutde around here now?

I understand the arguments made, but there's no need to try to drag this into the mud by taunting...

Impala's have generally been big....but the mission of an Impala, until the 94-96 models, was a four door family car. Although there have been performance models, almost all Impala's have been run of the mill grocery getters. When put that way, the current car fits the bill. It doesn't need to be big given current packaging. Actually, I bet it wouldn't sell nearly as well if it were bigger.

That said....Yeah....The 94-96 Impala is much cooler. Love the style and V8 with RWD. A very successful newer "old school" car. Just don't forget it was based on that ugly whale of a car, the Caprice.

 

Xed has a Monte (2?) as do I, but I don't think he came across as "butt hurt." He just didn't agree with you about the Monte. Neither do I, but I'm not butt hurt, either. I like the style of the current Monte. I agree the Impala is a little bland, but I don't think it's awful. I also agree that it's not as "cool" as the previous Impala, but there's no question that stock for stock it's faster. I also agree that a 6 will never sound as good as an 8. I think that's pretty much a given on this board. It's so weird around here sometimes, though. I realize it's an enthusiast board and that most enthusiasts prefer V8 rear drive, but now it seems that front drive "fast" isn't as fast as rear drive "fast"? Lower numbers are lower numbers, period.

 

Well, I can agree that a rwd v8 setup is cool.
And that the 94-96 impala SS is better looking.

But the new ones are as big on the inside, and only lack ~2 cu. feet of trunk space. . .

The other was just big for the V8 I guess.

In any case, I still think, any goof that buys an Impala SS to race needs to open up his eyes.

Alot of people like to reply, "How many FWD V6's are in the 10's?"
Who cares? To put an Impala SS into the 10's, you probably need ~550rwhp.

It'd be much easier, and overall cheaper to buy a 2dr. car that weighs 1000lb's less and do it.

I guess it bugs the guys who like the 94-96 SS that a car w/ the SC'd 3800 can stay w/ them into the low 13's/high 12's, when it comes to mod/$$.

 

I can understand emotional attachment to a car... I love Corvettes. Always have, always will.

Anyhoo...

That the FWD Impala is quicker is darned impressive. I think I might buy one for a company car.

 

Nope, we're not bugged by it. We are bugged that it took Chevrolet this long (8 years) do bring out a big sedan that matches the performance of our cars, and we're also bugged that it's Front wheel drive. I'm anxiously waiting for the first 04 SS to pull up beside me at a stop light, er, make that, at the track