I though they used to come with a V8?

 

We've been wondering that since the car came back. They should have just left the name alone until making a real Impala was possible IMO.

 

Double Post.

 

GM thinks you don't want a v8.

 

Chevrolet doesnt offer an Impala SS.....Just an Impala, and it is a poor excuse for one

 

You're thinking of Monte Carlo SS. And it comes with FWD so it won't stand out as anything significantly different from the rest of their car lineup which is all watered down and dull and counter-intuitively designed. In other words, bad decision making at GM.

 

Perhaps he is referring to the upcoming 2004 Impala SS with the SuperCharged V6....

 

My guess would be the hit they'd take on the CAFE. Perhaps, but less likely, packaging and cooling issues could be a factor.

 

My bad guys, I meant the Monte Carlo SS. The reason I was asking because I have seen Monte Carlo SS's with LT1's and I was wondering why did they not keep up the tradition and put LS1's in them?

 

Werd

A FWD V8? GM would have to dip into expensive Cadillac Northstar parts for that, and that would drive up the cost of the Impala.

 

Its bad enough they used the legendary Impala nameplate on a fwd car, but to call it an SS c'mon GM Good car, wrong name.

 

No Monte's had the LT1 from the factory... The 94-96 Impala SS did have it, however.

 

I don't mind the styling so much , but both of these cars should be RWD PERIOD......

 

go pick up the march 2003 edition of gmhtp and turn to page 62 top left corner.

 

Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly was it about the Impalas built in the late 70s/early 80s that made them "legendary?" The standard V6 or the radical styling?

I know the Impalas from that era, along with the mid 70s Impalas are very popular with the lowrider crowd, but I thought that was because so many were originally purchased by old women, who rarely drove them and subsequently sold them at rockbottom prices? Is that the stuff legends are made of?

Even with FWD, is the performance and handling of the new Impalas worse in any way, than those of the mid-70s to mid-80s? Is the 3800 V6 as powerful as the mighty 305 V8 of the oil crisis era? At 180 horsepower, is the 3400 V6 more powerful than many of the engines that have found their way in between the front tires of cars with the Impala nameplate before 1994?

Of all the years GM has built Impalas, which years outperformed their current offering and which engine options were needed to make that happen? I would guess the 94-96 cars would be included and some of the big block cars of the late 60s, right? What do the new ones run in the 1/4- 16s? Is that the worst that they've ever run before that? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand why the Impala name was held in such a high regard (and I own one!)

Is it just that owners of older generation cars just have a need to complain about how the new ones are in some way inferior to the ones they own? I always thought the GTO name was synonymous with performance, yet all the old GTO guys seem to complain about the styling of the new GTOs. The new GTO has the old ones beat in every facet from a performance perspective, so I guess the older GTO owners can't really complain there. It's kind of funny to read comments from old GTO owners about the styling of the new cars, especially when they claim they won't be able to tell the difference between a new GTO and a Cavalier at 100 yards, as if no GTO built up to 1974 shared any common sheetmetal with other GM models

I hate to get off the Impala subject here, but what exactly was the difference between a 1974 Nova and a 1974 GTO (besides the decals, badges and optional camper tent on the hatchback GTO)?

I think the important question to ask would be which GM nameplates haven't been bastardized yet?