Alas... I will need to once again pull out my old muscle car statistics book

Some folks have a gigantic myth built up about the performance of SS vehicles in Chevy's past. Here are a few stats from my Consumer Guide Muscle Car Review book:

Year -- Model -- CID/Gross HP -- 0-60, s -- 1/4, s
63 Impala SS -- 409/340 - 6.6 - 15.2
67 Impala SS -- 427/385 - 8.4 - 15.8
69 Camaro SS -- 396/375 - 6.8 - 14.8
70 Chevelle SS -- 402/350 - 8.1 - 15.5

(04 Silverado SS -- 6L/340 net - 6.6 - 14.99)

Yes - I am aware of the special low volume SS models, the 409 Impalas, the LS6 454 Chevelle... but I'm speaking of mid-pack performance of SS cars. And speaking of trucks - again there are the outlyers like the Typhoon... but the 454SS from the early 90's was no dragstrip king either, with a whopping 255 net HP and no AWD.

The new Silverado SS has every right to wear its insignia with pride

 

Making the comparison of a new car with the classic muscle cars is like comparing apples to oranges. Believe it or not, those cars were fast for their time, and looking at their trap speeds proves it. My friends dad has an all origional '68 Z28 with a 302 and 4.10 gears. Back in teh 60s when he bought it he couldnt get better than a 15 flat in the quarter, but he trapped at 103mph! Part of those cars problem was traction.

None the less they were still fast for their time. What were old 6 cylinder versions and lesser powered versions of the cars you mentioned running? 17s and 18s!

Being that today is 40 years later, there should be an expected progression in peformance. Todays trucks, family cars and minivans will run with most classic muscle cars, and they ought to while getting better milage and beign more comfortable. Its the simple progression of technology. Accords are running 14 second quartermile times now. With that said, we should be expecting todays performance cars to be in the 12s and 13s.

When people think SS, they think performance and the new SS truck's performance is nothing spectacular. A car magazine I read the otehr day summed it up quite nicely. In terms of the Silverado, SS stands for Semi Sport.

 

I intentionally pointed out the numbers for these old cars. This is where the SS myth began. (It obviously didn't begin in the 1970's or 1980's, now did it? The SS cars of that era were an utter joke from a performance standpoint.) Sure - SS cars were faster than run-of-mill passenger cars back then. But trucks were even slower yet than passenger cars! They were incredibly heavy and poorly geared for acceleration. So to compare today's SS with the SS's of yesteryear, the new Silverado moves out pretty well for a truck. And the fact that it keeps up with many of today's 'quick' cars (not the extreme ones like the 03 Cobra of course) speaks volumes about its claim to be an SS.

Maybe one could make a case that people disappointed with the Silverado SS being called an SS are having fond recall of the LT1/LS1 Camaro SS... but in such a case it would be ME saying 'apples/oranges'... 'car' vs. 'truck' and all...

The operative word there - 'cars'. Contemporary performance cars do run in the 12s/13s.... but virtually no trucks do. The L, with its tiny niche, being the notable exception. Why? The reason is simple, there is not enough demand for extreme performance trucks. This is the same reason the Syclone/Typhoon were discontinued, and the main reason the new SS is a mix of performance and also features a lot of truck buyers want and need.

One other fact no one seems to be mindful of. There is a huge aftermarket now for the Gen III V8 thanks to the trail blazed by C5/4Gen FBody owners. Anyone wanting to make a rip-snorting SS could do so in a flash with a heads/cam pkg for a few $k.

I do not agree. The new SS holds many performance advantages over its competition... those have already been listed herein. Folks who focus only on whether it's the fastest in the 1/4 are missing a lot of the big picture, since as I've stated before, performance has a much wider meaning than it used to.

 

Forgot to mention...

SOME of today's vehicles can run with these old muscle cars... but your generalization is too wide to be supportable. Here's but a short list of modern vehicles which cannot keep up with the new SS or the old SS's of yore (data from C&D mag. testing):

make-model ..... 1/4, s

Acura MDX - 16.1
BMW X5 3.0i - 16.2
DCX Pacifica - 17.1
DCX 300M - 15.9
Dodge Ram Quad Cab 2500 - 16.1
04 Ford F150 SuperCab - 16.3
Honda Civic - 17.1
Hyundai Sonata V6 - 16.7
Jeep Liberty - 17.5
Nissan Quest - 16.5

*I'd continue but got tired at 'N' in the alphabet*

So you see, just like in the wondrous glory days of the old SS, the new SS is a cut above 'regular' vehicles. And it's a truck too!

 

Here’s my take/argument….

Very little (I’d think) would opt for an SS over an L. No one looking for extra rear room would look at a regular cab truck like the L to begin with. Those wanting that could order a HD (with 4 full doors). Plus, those looking for an L would be attracted more to it’s performance, and not it’s utility (although it does fine in this department).

L production is also purposely limited (like all SVT vehicles) to 7,500 units and they have no trouble selling every single one they make with NO rebates.

The SSR eating into L sales was an entertaining thought though. It’s hardly a muscle truck. Lemme guess…slower…uglier…not as much towing capability…more expensive…no more power than regular 04 5.4 F-150…..waaayy overpriced….and it really doesn’t perform like a car or a truck…Yeah, I could see how. The SS is a much better candidate against the L than the pathetic SSR. None is eating into L sales though (limited to 7500). The SRT-10 might be the only truck that’ll come close to doing that and it too is limited production and there’s a good chance it’ll cost more.

As for rear seating, the SS doesn’t offer much. The H-D comes with 4 full doors (like my truck) and doesn’t come with little half-ling doors and a rear seat that’s already being touted as nothing more than extra luggage room. Sounds camaro’ish or Mustang’ish as far as rear seating? Sure sounds like it from that article I’v read. Extended cabs don’t offer you roomy/comfy rear seats. They’re just like riding in the back seat of a Mustang. That Truck-Trend article you mentioned says not to put “anyone over 5’ in the backseat of the SS”.

Actually 6tenths and 6mph is a considerable gap. Can anyone do the math and see how many car lengths this would equate to? Just for comparison, the HD reaches 100mph 4.06 seconds faster than the SS and the lead just widens with every passing second till both trucks hit their top-speeds. That’s blowing the doors off.

Here are the 3 payloads for all 3 truck.
SS- 1,490 lbs (I don’t know where you got the 1,787 rating)
HD- 1,375
L- 1,400lbs

Gas mileage:
340hp HD- 12/16
380hp L- 12/16
345hp SS- 13/17

Again, not much of a difference….Especially when you take into account that the other engines offer a good amount hp/Tq more and one (HD) even comes with 4 full doors. Overall, I’m glad people who buy higher Hp and higher displacement v8 extended cab truck with AWD/4WD, 5,000+lb weight, automatic transmission, 4.10 gears, and 20” wheels actually put an importance on gas mileage.

The tow rating is where the SS really shines (7800lbs vs 4500bs). It runs away with that. But that’s not to say that the HD or L wouldn’t be upto the task. 4500lb tow rating and sub-1400lb payload rating would still get the job done in most cases.

Overall, the SS is still an excellent truck. My only disappointment is that it offers me little over a comparable Sierra C3. I just expected more in terms of performance. It’s fast, no doubt…but it doesn’t give you anywhere near the stock or potential performance of the L/HD.

 

I've already made clear my agreement with this. The HD is the most direct competition for the SS. Someone herein mentioned the almighty L, and I made a few comparisons. As for the full doors... I don't see what the big deal is. My dad has a 2000 ext cab Silverado and I've found the compact doors to be quite convenient.

So why don't they sell, say, 15,000? Wouldn't the shareholders demand the additional profit? The fact is, Ford has found the steady-state marketplace value and volume the market can absorb, and 'limited' production to just those lucky ( ) buyers.

It might surprise some here, I'm not a huge fan of the SSR. I don't like retro. But it will sell, and while it might not cut into the L's rigid 7500 quota, it will affect Ford's ability to raise production and still sell at their price. As for the SSR pricing - edmunds says its currently going for sticker, but the true market price will likely be lower as winter approaches.

Oopsy, should have checked the specs first! Here's the data from edmunds.com:

make/model - rear legroom - rear headroom

2004 Mustang - 29.9 - 35.5
2004 HD F150 - 32.3 - 37.8
2004 Silv. SS - 33.7 - 38.4

I've sat in the back of my dad's Silverado, and it's quite comfy thank you very much.

As for this Truck-Trend article, I know bias when I see it. They even chose a regular cab Ram to try to make things even. Here's a more balanced article reviewing the SS:

http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_r...do-1500-SS.htm

And here's how one Silverado SS fan/owner reflects on the truck:

http://www.silveradoss.com/1impressions.html

We could debate all day about the semantics... just keep in mind that in regular street encounters, the AWD on the SS is a great equalizer...

Take a look at my source, I stand by the number: http://edmunds.com/new/2004/chevrole.....8.Chevrolet*

As for the MPG... every bit matters to me. Maybe you have money you can just throw to the four winds...

There you go again, comparing to the L...

As for the stock HD, the SS has better braking, slalom speed, MPG, payload, rear legroom and towing... so performance advantages of the HD are pretty much limited to its ability to 'blow the doors off' ( ) the SS in the vaunted quarter mile.

 

Sometimes it isn't all about "profits". SVT is playing the image game too. You keep production down to increase the rarity and resale value. They sell enough to make a profit, but don’t go overboard. SVT has made exclusivity a goal.

Asking why they don’t sell 15,000 L’s is like asking why don’t they sell them through EVERY Ford dealer rather than a few SVT certified dealers? It wasn’t a goal to begin with.

Doesn’t surprise me seeing as how I’ve never come across anyone who was a fan of the SSR. I STILL doubt it’ll affect L sales. Did Thunderbird sales affect C5 sales? (and the TB was almost 10k cheaper than vette droptop where as SSR is more expensive then L). No, If I recall the C5 was still selling in record numbers. One was a serious performance machine and the other more of a tourer/cruiser. In this case the L is the serious performance machine and the SSR is the cruiser.

I have. Edmunds isn’t the only one with specs. It looks like Edmunds can’t differentiate between a CrewCab and the Supercab model seeing as how that is the same exact rear legroom as the Supercab F-150 models. I’d check a few more before taking everything one single site says as fact. According to Carpoint and New-car.com, the rear legroom in the Harley F-150 is 36.8 in. The rear headroom was also 39.8 in. I knew the numbers posted above were a little iffy. I’ve sat in the backseat of my own Crew-Cab truck and have personally looked at the back seat of an SS on display at the local Sams Club.

So the difference in back seat legroom between SS and HD is 3.1”. The SS and a Mustang rear legroom difference is 2.4”. Which seems more significant?

I questioned that myself. Can’t you get an extended or Crew cab Ram with the Hemi? I’m sure you can. For some reason, they didn’t think of that.

It isn't an equalizer in the sense that what ever lead it has (if any) will be limited to the lower end of the speedometer…and it’s all HD from there. Any lead would be shortlived. The HD also has more power/tq (although it's rated at 5hp less than SS) and that shows up in the faster 5.9sec 0-60. Like I said earlier, it’s 4.06 seconds faster to 100 so you know it’s pulling much harder. Even the 0-100mph difference between my anemic 94 GT (when it was stock) and the stock Ls-1 isn’t that pronounced. Of course the ¼ mile gap isn’t as large on the SS/HD, but acceleration still belongs to the HD. AWD is nice, but isn’t going to work miracles. Only in foul weather would it really stand a chance in beating a HD or an L, which you shouldn't be racing in to begin with.

Everywhere else I’ve checked said differently. It’s also only fair to note that Edmunds has the SS’s fuel economy at 12/16 (not 13/17), The Harley at 15/19 (not 12/16), and the L’s tow-rating at 5,000lbs (not the 4,500lbs we’ve seen). See the below link for proof. They also seemed to have messed up on the interior dimensions of the CrewCab HD. Hmm. I’d check with a few other sources before taking everything they say as fact seeing as how the above numbers are off when compared to other sites.
http://edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/...C6AZuz2zrlOhjV!-870056593?styleid=100274950&styleid=100316694&styl eid=100178460&refid=&maxvehicles=5&op=3&tab=specs

But I get the feeling you’ll stick to your numbers so here’s the ultimate proof from none other than Chevy themselves. They have the SS’s payload rating at 1387lbs which is the same as the HD/L.
http://www.chevrolet.com/comparator/compareVehicle.do

True every bit matters, but do I give up significant amounts of Hp/Tq for 1 mile per gallon? Not really, especially since I’d have that sucker running 12’s in no time. I don’t have money to throw out but my priorities aren’t as fuel biased in say a “performance” truck or car. Now a family car? and then fuel economy becomes very important for me. It’s all in where your priorities lie. If fuel economy mattered that much to ME, I’d have went with a less powerful, lighter, reg Cab, 2wd, truck with 16” wheels and 3.55 gearing.

Like it or not, The L is considered a competitor since both are marketed as performance trucks.

I compared it to BOTH the L and HD, not just the L. I used both because they have the same exact engine (1 running less boost). So whatever worked for the L will work for the HD. It has the potential to make just as much power as the L.

Actually, not only did it have a faster 0-60 and ¼ mile, it had a better track time, lateral g’s, and felt more controlled/poised when going around corners than the SS. As my info proves, the HD's rear leg and headroom are better, and it's payload is just as good as the SS's. It's ride is said to be smoother, and it's interior better. What's left? Towing, and the HD does a decent enough job to tackle most things. I'll give braking to the SS. Going by performance, the SS isn't the winner here. It's a good truck, but there are better IMO. You can disagree and that's fine.

 

I'm not entering this pissing matc, but I will say that I have seen several stock L's turn 1.9 60 foot times on stock tires. The AWD is not that much of an advantage especially with the stock L running mid 13 second 1/4's at 104-105

 

Um, OK, what did you prove here? No one was arguing that the SS was the best. We were just trying to show why it was unjust to **** all over it beacause some people were trying to act like it was a direct competitor to the Lightning. Didn't you read the rest of the thread?

 

I did read the rest of the thread, and i also put my 2 cents in.

I replied to specific quotes which i was in disagreement with. Read them and you'll see where my comments came from. I didn't pull things out of thin air. If you looked closely, I never compared the SS to the L, but the HD.

I never said it was a bad truck. 5 posts down, i said it was an "excellent truck overall". My only disappointment is that it is too much like the Sierra C3. With a designation like "super sport", you'd expect a little more than a truck that’s almost a Sierra c3 clone.

As for it not being a direct competitor to the L, unless GM notes otherwise, there’s a valid argument for both sides. I don’t think neither argument is wrong. Is it not a performance/sports truck? Are they both not upgraded full sized trucks? Is the SS not Chevy’s entry in the sports truck market? I think there’s a fairly valid argument for or against this notion. If the answer was that clear, none would label the Lightning as an SS competitor (but that isn’t the case). 2 vehicles can be somewhat different yet compete against one another. Example: BMW M3 and C5….but one has a back seat and a 6 banger. This example is much more extreme than the L vs SS compare, but you get the basic idea. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer here. I personally would compare it to the Harley edition, but I could see why others might compare it to the L.

 

Hooey. If they could sell more units, they would. Shareholders and company leaders would demand it. Yes, IT IS all about profit. Capitalism 101.



You weren't in Frankenmuth MI today like we were then, where we saw an SSR driver, his wife and another couple taking pictures of each other in front of what was apparently a pre-production unit, a bright yellow SSR!

Go read about how future SSR owners are waiting with excitement for their vehicles, at www.ssrfanatic.com .

Here you seem to have a point. I did check around and it does appear the HD has a slight edge in rear legroom...

....however I believe the latter legroom difference is more significant. You had said 'extended cabs were just like riding in a Mustang', and on that even you must admit you were incorrect. Three inches more than 33.7 seems like a hair-splitting difference to me, especially after riding in the back of my dad's 2000 Silverado. There is a MAJOR difference in rear seat comfort between a Mustang and an extended cab Silverado.

While we're at it let's talk about back seats. The HD it turns out, has two rear buckets instead of a bench. I imagine it might appeal to some, but can't help thinking most folks wanting a back seat in their truck will want a 3-person seat. I sure would. Oh wait... according to one of your favored info sites, carpoint.com, the HD has less rear hip room than the SS (58.0 vs 61.5 on SS). So maybe there was no room for a real 3-person rear seat in the HD!

I'm not sure you read my post. I was speaking of STREET performance. You know, where drag radials are patently unsafe - where there are often patches of salt dust, sand, water and uneven pavement - and where many encounters are only a few blocks long. AWD is a definite advantage under those circumstances.

You have a point there. (BTW your chevy web site link is no good). Looks like an error on edmunds. However, the bed on the SS is still much larger (78.x in. long, vs 67.x on the HD). Oh... I just got a vision... of a frustrated owner of two Harley's, kicking his truck and saying "DAMMIT! My hawg won't fit in the bed of my Harley!"


I suppose, since the HD 'blows the doors off' ( ) the SS, sure that would make it all worthwhile... not!

It's only considered that way by the marketers. In the real world, sport-y truck buyers make a basic decision regarding their configuration/capability needs that points them either to an L or a close comparison between the SS and HD.

This stuff about better track time, feeling more controlled/poised, etc, only goes to make me even more convinced of the bias of the Truck Trend comparo that 'your info' is coming from. This was the same comparo in which the SS had better braking and slalom speed than the HD... now how can that be? Talk about unreliable data - here's some too.

edmunds.com has some flukes in their data, that's for sure. But I do know this, I've seen their True Market Value prices to be accurate in many cases including with vehicles I have bought and sold. And they peg the SS at a street price of $35,144 w/dest while the HD is going for $38,049, approx $3k more. Tell you what, let's do a little experiment. You go get an HD and keep it stock. I'll get an SS and apply my $3k savings to heads and a cam (might even be able to throw in headers and/or a catback). Then we'll see who rules the streets

 

...Things that make you say 'HMMmmm'...

 

For the third time:

Why wont you answer that? Its completly realistic, and you completly ignore it.

I think you cant argue with it, so you ignore it. You just have a problem admitting that your wrong, or that someone on the other side of the fence is on to something.

Like I said earlier...you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

Sorry dude, didn't mean to ignore your question. It's a good question. As for Z84 I'm afraid people would confuse it with the Z24 Cavalier and it would have a strange connotation. SSE - sounds like a Nissan. I think the SS is a good name for this truck. I see them on the road now pretty much every day and they look like an SS. They have big fat 275 tires, custom exhaust tip and monochrome front end treatment. Looks like an SS to me.

As I've pointed out earlier - this truck has the performance to deserve the SS nameplate. An SS has historically been a couple ticks faster than your average vehicle. And this one is no exception.

I beg to differ... look up a little in the thread, I readily admitted where I had posted some erroneous stats from edmunds.

 

If that’s the case…then why not make the truck tamer and cushier? Why not sell it through every Ford dealer instead of a select few to maximize and reach more of the customers? Why not sacrifice performance for practicality like the SS did by offering an Extended Cab and 4wd/Awd? Why make/position it as a limited niche car? The questions go on and on. Profits and sales are only a part of the whole picture. SVT/Ford had set out specific goals.

I didn’t bother looking at the link, but I’m sure they’re out there. I never said such fans didn’t exist. I just don’t recall anyone here or any of the other posters on the half a dozen or so boards I frequent being a big fan of the SSR. You have to admit, on most of these forums, SSR fans are rare. It doesn’t perform like a car nor does it perform like a truck, and it’s very controversially style.

I was wrong on comparing it to the Mustangs. But still: My point was: the rear-leg room difference (in inches) between the HD and SS is greater than the one between the SS and Mustang. Percentage wise, it’s different since the SS is a 12% increase over the Mustang, and the HD a 9% increase over the SS. Regardless, that article mentioned how rear seat comfort is compromised when a person over 5’ sits in the back of the SS. That doesn’t mean people over 5’ can’t sit in the back. I’ve fit my 5’6” sister and my 5’4” younger brother in the backseat of my mustang and they had no complaints.

Say 2.4” of legroom is added to my Mustangs backseat. I still doubt if it’d be comfortable enough for a tall guy like me.

My Crew Cab as well as other Ford Crew/Super Cab trucks have room for 3. HD just decided to go with bucket seating over the traditional bench. It may or may not be popular with everyone. You give up the middle seat, but in return gain leather trimmed two-tone captain chairs with adjustable lumber and thigh support, middle console, dual powerpoints, and plenty of cupholders. There an optional power sliding rear window. I guess there are tradeoffs. Three inches more than 33.7 didn’t seem like a hair splitting difference to you earlier, but 3 inches of hip room more of than 58 is? . That’s an even smaller difference percentage wise.

I understood correctly. I’ve street raced before and have occasional done Gtech testing on empty back-roads with street tires (best stock Gtech 0-60 was 6.64). You have to watch your launch, but it’s fairly doable. This isn’t an off-road race, and so most Rwd cars do decently. Most streets are also in decent condition. AWD is an advantage, but it isn’t an “equalizer”. I doubt it really makes things “equal”. True equalizers don’t rely on pure luck or hoping that the other driver doesn’t get traction. In the end, the HD has both the grunt and the pull. It isn’t going to be tractionless for 2 blocks, and sooner or later it’ll be hauling ***.

Funny you should mentioned that. I don’t know if it’s rumor or fact, but that may have been intentional. I’ve heard that HD purposely limited the bed size and went with the full sized doors so owners couldn’t carry their Harleys. Again, I don’t know if this is rumor or fact. Even the 2004 F-250 HD comes in Crew-Cab/short bed configuration. No extended or regular cab option is offered.

I know the chevy link doesn’t work. It’s one of those weird pull-down comparo links. Just go on to their site, go under comparator, and pick the SS and you’ll see a listing of the stats. Edmunds was also a side by side comparation between HD and SS.

True. Even with cars as close as the Mustang/Camaro/rx8, personal preferences and differences in certain areas would be the deciding factor. This holds true for every vehicle.

TruckTrend said this:
“The Ford's extra length meant turn-in occurs later, scrubbing speed. Chief- tester Chris Walton noted the Harley felt as poised and capable as the Ram, but its size was a liability.”…………….“We'll cut to the chase: The handsdown winner was the Harley-Davidson around the 1.1-mile short course, posting a 1:09.4 lap time. The combination of quick turn-in, grippy 275/45R20 Goodyear Eagle GT II tires, and mountains of torque allowed the F-150 to easily drift past an apex and get out of the corners quickly. To say this truck impressed us would be a gross understatement, especially when it was a mere 0.5 second off the fastest lap set by a Ford SVT Focus the same day. No matter how hard we pushed the Harley, it said back to us, "Sure, we can do that. You got anything else for me, punk?"”

The HD also had more of lateral grip. Slalom is the speed through cones and braking was 60-0. On the track, there aren't any cones nor will you be braking to 0mph.

Looks like the extra length called for late turn ins which hurted the mph speed in the slalom according to truck trend. My truck is just as long, and so I know about the late turn-ins. If you’ve driven a long vehicle, you’ll know what I’m talking about. I guess this holds true for the SS to certain degree as well since it is an extended cab. A faster slalom speed doesn’t always equal faster or better handling though. There are other factors. Despite the better slalom numbers and braking, they said the SS’s overall handling was “rough around the edges”.

I wouldn’t buy a HD to begin with. I’d be pimping my $33k L and pocketing the 6k savings.

But if I had to choose between saving 3k and going for the SS or spending 3k more for the HD, I’d opt to spend more. I see it as an investment. Which do you think will have a better resale value? I’d “guess” the HD. I’ve also seen how potent the blown 5.4L is. This is like comparing a blown 4.6 Dohc to a N/A 4.6L Dohc…and giving the N/A Dohc a ported heads/intake, bolt-ons and cam upgrade. Sure it’ll be faster than a stock 03 Cobra, but the blown 4.6 Dohc will have a lot more potential at its disposal. Besides, a hundred dollar pulley and a 40 dollar K&N won’t be breaking the piggy bank so why not?

It’s just a matter of opinion/preference. I’m not taking anything away from the SS. It’s an attractive, somewhat practical, and fairly quick truck. I’d have liked it to have 400 horses, or at the least offer a cheaper regular Cab rwd SS option.

Would you pick an SS over an HD if both were to switch badging? I think a good bit of approval lies within brand loyalty.

In my defense, both were replies. One of them was in regards to the engines and I only mentioned the L because it shares engines with the HD. I was pointing out how potent the HD’s blown 5.4 is, and so that called for the L being used as an example to illustrate my point.

The second one regarded the comparison between the L and SS everyone seems to be making. And truth be told, both can be considered competitors and that was my point. People have compared them, and people will compare them.