RFD Cool Wall: Car #21 - Chevrolet Impala SS

[puff_daddy_58_99]

Thanks to all who voted on last week's Escalade. It was a pretty overwhelming vote for uncool, and that's where it goes. Here's the updated cool wall;

http://www.robert-phillips.com/rfdcoolwall.gif

This week is a bit personal for me, as I'm looking into buying one in the coming weeks. It's the new Chevrolet Impala SS. Built on the same FWD platform as the rest of the W body GM cars, the main drawing point is the 5.3L V8 with 303HP. Does that make it cool, or does the impala brand drag it down? You decide on the RFD cool wall!

http://www.robert-phillips.com/impala.jpg

As always, voting will be up until next saturday. If you have a car you want to see on the cool wall, just send me a PM.

[B0000rt]

*cough* torque steer heaven *cough* Smallblock should never power a FWD car.

SS,
5.3L Smallblock
FWD
4 speed auto

:(

There should be more Japanese cars on here, like that FJ cruiser or something.

[masterballer]

Lets see here:

Its a 5.3L V8 and it ONLY makes 303 HP? :confused: Damn American engineering.

You have that much power and TQ going to the FWs? :lol: Good luck with that!

Looks Very Very Very Boooooooring.

Lets see that RS4 i suggested a while ago next week ;)

[puff_daddy_58_99]

Lets see here:

Its a 5.3L V8 and it ONLY makes 303 HP? :confused: Damn American engineering.

You have that much power and TQ going to the FWs? :lol: Good luck with that!

Looks Very Very Very Boooooooring.

Lets see that RS4 i suggested a while ago next week ;)

The RS4 is on the list along with the Volvo C30, the Acura NSX, the VW Phaeton, and the Cadillac XLR. I'll try and get it up soon, but there's only so many I can do at the rate of 1 per week :)

[B0000rt]

Lets see here:

Its a 5.3L V8 and it ONLY makes 303 HP? :confused: Damn American engineering.

You have that much power and TQ going to the FWs? :lol: Good luck with that!

Looks Very Very Very Boooooooring.

Lets see that RS4 i suggested a while ago next week ;)

Well you can't whine about 5.3L V8 only making 303HP. I mean there are other things to an engine than peak horsepower.

Would you buy a pair of speakers if the only thing I told you about them were that they were are to handle 4000 Watts peak? No you wouldn't, only someone uninformed would.

The torque would be nice on the front wheels, if and only if the car has an LSD, and/or it came in standard, but alas, none of these options exist :(

[Evil Techie]

where are the votes?
puff, if u need me to edit the thread, PM me with the options u want

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

Its a 5.3L V8 and it ONLY makes 303 HP? Damn American engineering.

Why do people always compare power with displacement? You should be comparing power to WEIGHT, and GM LS engines are some of the best you can get.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/331/chartvo5.jpg

2JZ with the tranny weighs 746lbs (compare that to the LS engines above), and the RBs are about the same. Damn Japanese engineering. :lol:

[B0000rt]

Why do people always compare power with displacement? You should be comparing power to WEIGHT, and GM LS engines are some of the best you can get.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/331/chartvo5.jpg

2JZ with the tranny weighs 746lbs (compare that to the LS engines above), and the RBs are about the same. Damn Japanese engineering. :lol:

Nice chart, where'd u get that from?

Edit: Nm found the Wiki link

[warpdrive]

uncool. If it was RWD and looked better, it would be cool to me just because I've always liked the idea of a full sized RWD muscle sedan. A cool car should be respectable, have head turning ability, just look great, be a segment leader, and/or be exotic. This is none of the above

Pathetic attempt from GM to cash in on the SS name. GM should look at the 300C as an example of how to make an cool full sized muscle sedan.

[Andro]

you forgot to put the poll :D ..........oh and a cool vote from me.

[trusoulja2g]

Where's the poll?
What I would've voted: seriously uncool.
This car just looks cheap to me. What's its appeal - cheapest V8? cheapest hp?

[frogger]

Its a good engine in a very mediocre car. And yes people oversimplify the displacement vs. horsepower thing.

[puff_daddy_58_99]

sorry, bit of a brain fart there for me, what can I say it was 2 in the morning and I had just got back from some intense lasertag. Anyways, I've PM'd evil techie, so the votes should be up soon. Just be sure to come back and vote.

[Andro]

sorry, bit of a brain fart there for me, what can I say it was 2 in the morning and I had just got back from some intense lasertag. Anyways, I've PM'd evil techie, so the votes should be up soon. Just be sure to come back and vote.

i'am pretty sure you can add the poll yourself, just go to thread tools........or am i wrong?

[sPiKyAZN]

Why do people always compare power with displacement? You should be comparing power to WEIGHT, and GM LS engines are some of the best you can get.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/331/chartvo5.jpg

2JZ with the tranny weighs 746lbs (compare that to the LS engines above), and the RBs are about the same. Damn Japanese engineering. :lol:

Impressive. However, if you want to compare the 2JZ-GTE, it weighs about 594lbs without the tranny. All the other engine weights above are without transmissions. Still not so good considering it comes with only 230hp, but you have to consider it is a pretty old engine.

Anyone know how much a 4G63 weighs (Mitsu EVO engine)? I read they're up to around 400hp in the UK version.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

Haha yup, but with the 2JZ/RB you also have to think of the weight of the IC, turbos, and all the other stuff that you need to get any power out of it. That's what really kills the performance of the Jap cars. The FD Rx-7's 1.3l 13b engine only weighs ~320lbs, but the twin turbo setup adds like another 150lbs, so basically it weighs as much as a V8 if you want to get more than 100hp out of it.

You can compare the late 90s Japanese engines to the LS1, which is a late 90s GM pushrod V8, and the LS1 comes out FAR ahead in terms of power to weight, especially since the japanese engines all need turbos.

Maybe that's why all the new cars that use to have I6 engines like the IS-F (Supra successor), new Nissan GTR and new BMW M3 are all going to V8 instead of I6? :cheesygri

[new_vr]

Using HP as a performance measure of a car is overrated. I much prefer a nice torque curve, with lots of power in the low RPM's. Something a V8 will give you, and a 4cyclinder will not, even if they have comparable HP numbers.

[masterballer]

Using HP as a performance measure of a car is overrated. I much prefer a nice torque curve, with lots of power in the low RPM's. Something a V8 will give you, and a 4cyclinder will not, even if they have comparable HP numbers.

I agree but not when its all going to the wrong wheels >:( thats just pure gayness.

And why are you comparing weight to power? you should compare displacement to hp/tq ... i am simply saying a 5.3L engine no matter how much it weight, could make more than 300 hp >:( look at the m3, 3.2L and it makes 333 hp.

And those who say the car has tq are right BUT in this car it USELESS unless at city speeds because its FWD.

I say Seriously Uncool.

[B0000rt]

I agree but not when its all going to the wrong wheels >:( thats just pure gayness.

And why are you comparing weight to power? you should compare displacement to hp/tq ... i am simply saying a 5.3L engine no matter how much it weight, could make more than 300 hp >:( look at the m3, 3.2L and it makes 333 hp.

And those who say the car has tq are right BUT in this car it USELESS unless at city speeds because its FWD.

I say Seriously Uncool.
Because displacement means nothing, when the engine weighs a tonne.

I mean, can you compare a SR20DET running 700+hp with this engine?

No, because there are other factors other than just displacement that affect the engine output.

Did you know the 3.2L in the M3 requires premium fuel? What about drivability? FC20c made how much peak torque at what RPM? Lol!

Sure a 5.3L can make more horsepower, at the expense of reliability, requiring premium fuel, sacrificing low end torque, many things the average consumer takes notice in, when driving a car. You don't want your engine breaking down prematurely, do you? You don't want to pay 10cents extra per L at the pump, do you? You're not a race car driver, are you?

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

And why are you comparing weight to power?

Because that's what governs how fast you can go? Who cares about displacement? What's the point of having a 2.0l 4cyl that has x tourque and y hp when the stupid engine weighs more than a bigger displacement V8 with 2x the torque and hp and your 4cyl compact car is actually a boat?

look at the m3, 3.2L and it makes 333 hp.

That doesn't mean **** all if the engine (and I don't know what it weighs, but the S54 is iron block, just like the 2JZ) weighs 500lbs, does it?

The guy who owns one of the biggest BMW tuner shops in town here has an E36 M3 with an LS1 swap. The 5.7litre V8 LS1 weighs 60lbs less than the old M3's 3.2litre I6 ironblock engine, sits lower in the chassis which improves handling, and makes 350hp stock. With a few mods he now has a 535hp E36 that can destroy most Ferraris.

Who cares about displacement?

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

I mean, can you compare a SR20DET running 700+hp with this engine?

Doesn't the SR20DET weigh 400+lbs not including the turbo? :cheesygri Nissan engines have horrible PW ratios, even VQ30DE is still iron block.

[masterballer]

Because displacement means nothing, when the engine weighs a tonne.

I mean, can you compare a SR20DET running 700+hp with this engine?

No, because there are other factors other than just displacement that affect the engine output.

Did you know the 3.2L in the M3 requires premium fuel? What about drivability? FC20c made how much peak torque at what RPM? Lol!

Sure a 5.3L can make more horsepower, at the expense of reliability, requiring premium fuel, sacrificing low end torque, many things the average consumer takes notice in, when driving a car. You don't want your engine breaking down prematurely, do you? You don't want to pay 10cents extra per L at the pump, do you? You're not a race car driver, are you?


Comparing price of fuel is wrong first of all (with the m3) because they will use the same amount of $$ i would think (since m3 is higher Compression and the V8 has more displac.)

The M3 engine is as reliable as any other car out there, its just that american cars CANT make cars with high Compression without it blowing up.

I am not a race car driver but if i am paying a **** load for fuel due to the huge engine i would want a bit more performance out of the engine or atleast RWD so i can use the TQ of the engine without worrying about crashing because the car tq steers like a ***** :lol:

[belfour]

uncool.... outside design is bland..

Honda is coming out with a V10 that should be interesting.

[masterballer]

Doesn't the SR20DET weigh 400+lbs not including the turbo? :cheesygri Nissan engines have horrible PW ratios, even VQ30DE is still iron block.

Look at any automotive comparison of engines and you will see what they look at is HP/TQ to L comparison because you can have a 5L i4 or a 2L V8 ... but HP and TQ are related dirrectly to the displacement of the engine...weight does not matter when comparing engines.

[puff_daddy_58_99]

ok, so the poll is in place, thanks for the heads up on the thread tools to get it. Be sure to vote before saturday!

[shabby]

Bland and boring.

[masterballer]

uncool.... outside design is bland..

Honda is coming out with a V10 that should be interesting.

Its probably going to have a very nice HP to L ratio ... and still be reliable because thats what a good engine does.

Why didnt the SS have a more powerfull engine? becuase they cant make it so it wont blow up so they bump the displacement to get the HP they want and keep it reliable...uncool

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

i am paying a **** load for fuel due to the huge engine

You know what happens when your engine is light? YOU GET BETTER FUEL ECONOMY because there is less weight to move!

According to the fueleconomy.gov:

Impala SS: 18mpg City, 27mpg Highway, 21mpg combined.
BMW M3: 16mpg City, 24mpg Highway, 19 combined.

:lol:

Look at any automotive comparison of engines and you will see what they look at is HP/TQ to L comparison because you can have a 5L i4 or a 2L V8 ... but HP and TQ are related dirrectly to the displacement of the engine...weight does not matter when comparing engines.

It does when comparing how fast one's car is. Because heavy == slow, and light == fast. I'm not an expert and I don't need to look at any "automotive comparison of engines" to know that. HP/Displacement is just what Honda drivers tell their girlfriends. :lol:

[B0000rt]

Comparing price of fuel is wrong first of all (with the m3) because they will use the same amount of $$ i would think (since m3 is higher Compression and the V8 has more displac.)

The M3 engine is as reliable as any other car out there, its just that american cars CANT make cars with high Compression without it blowing up.

I am not a race car driver but if i am paying a **** load for fuel due to the huge engine i would want a bit more performance out of the engine or atleast RWD so i can use the TQ of the engine without worrying about crashing because the car tq steers like a ***** :lol:
.... Not if you factor in displacement on demand. :razz:

Sure, American manufacturers can't make high compression engines without blowing, up. :rolleyes: Shows how much you know. Sure the M3 has a reliable engine, but why? Because it's soo damn expensive to manufacture.

I thought we were just talking about the engine and not the actual car?

[B0000rt]

It does when comparing how fast one's car is. Because heavy == slow, and light == fast. I'm not an expert and I don't need to look at any "automotive comparison of engines" to know that. HP/Displacement is just what Honda drivers tell their girlfriends. :lol:

Hah, right! HP/Displacement is worthless with you disregard torque!


masterballer:
Food for thought, why did Honda bump the displacement of the S2000 from 2.0L to 2.2L which did not increase horsepower?

[masterballer]

.... Not if you factor in displacement on demand. :razz:

Sure, American manufacturers can't make high compression engines without blowing, up. :rolleyes: Shows how much you know. Sure the M3 has a reliable engine, but why? Because it's soo damn expensive to manufacture.

I thought we were just talking about the engine and not the actual car?

I ment not be reliable...

also, all this "its heavier"...it might be heavier but it makes more power/weight ratio...so it evens out ;) that argument dosent work.

Either way, we can all agree this is another crappy american car...>:(

[B0000rt]

Either way, we can all agree this is another crappy american car...>:(

Yes to: Chassis, engine layout, interior, styling

But not the Engine itself :D

[masterballer]

Yes to: Chassis, engine layout, interior, styling

But not the Engine itself :D

its not the worst engine in the world but its not a great engine either, its good not amazing not a "SS" engine in my mind.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

Food for thought, why did Honda bump the displacement of the S2000 from 2.0L to 2.2L which did not increase horsepower?

And by not changing the name from S2000 to S2200, they are trying to trick Honda buyers into thinking their "HP/Displacement" is still the same! Honda == Evil! :lol:

also, all this "its heavier"...it might be heavier but it makes more power/weight ratio...so it evens out that argument dosent work.

Not for all cars, but you have to agree that you can easily make a "smaller" engine produce more power by making it heavier, which is stupid because 1) Heavier == Slower, 2) Worse torque curve because you have to rev higher to get the power and 3) you need turbos which add a huge amount of weight and complexity. Hardly a very elegant solution. So saying "my car makes so much power and it's only got 2l or 6 cylinders" is kind of silly when the engine weighs more than a V8 and you're making your car heavy and unbalanced to get the same amount of power.

[VivienM]

Sure, American manufacturers can't make high compression engines without blowing, up. :rolleyes: Shows how much you know. Sure the M3 has a reliable engine, but why? Because it's soo damn expensive to manufacture.

The M3 has a reliable engine? Weren't they blowing up a couple of years ago? Or was that the SMG making them blow up?

This 5.3L engine is a hybrid between the Corvette and the truck versions of the GM LS series engine, and if that those were blowing up regularly, people would know.

[KawaiiTentacleBeast]

Yup. From Wiki:

The S54 used to be known as the Engine of Damocles because of the tendency of early production M3s to explode spectacularly at elevated engine speeds. BMW attempted to blame vehicle owners for the failures early on but eventually started replacing rod bearings, oil pumps, and whole engines under warranty. [citation needed] This fault was not actually a BMW problem, but a problem with the connecting rod bottom-end bearing shells that were supplied to BMW by a third party. Some of the bearing shells provided did not meet BMW's specifications. [citation needed]. This problem was fully corrected by BMW on engines produced after 06/2003. A recall was done to retrofit all previously produced engines with the proper bearing shells.


I think it's pretty much accepted that the E90 M3 will be using a V8.

[masterballer]

Yup. From Wiki:




I think it's pretty much accepted that the E90 M3 will be using a V8.

Yea a V8 at like 4 L or a bit more (less than 5L) and making what? over 400 HP...try to compare to this car. you cant.

[new_vr]

Why didnt the SS have a more powerfull engine? becuase they cant make it so it wont blow up so they bump the displacement to get the HP they want and keep it reliable...uncool
More like because that is the way Chevy has always done it. Big V8's with lots of power.

[new_vr]

Yea a V8 at like 4 L or a bit more (less than 5L) and making what? over 400 HP...try to compare to this car. you cant.
Why would you compare these two cars? The Chevy will be a fraction of the cost

[masterballer]

Why would you compare these two cars? The Chevy will be a fraction of the cost

We are comparing engines not cars ... it does cost more and by comapring i am trying to show that the engine is not all that great if you look at it.

Who makes a "SS" super SPORT FWD? :confused:

[mescalito]

ok, you guys offically don't know what you're talking about

[puff_daddy_58_99]

I'm surprised that it has jumped out as seriously uncool so quickly. I'd consider this a pretty good sleeper, sure it doesn't look fantastic, but 0-60 in less than 6 seconds is pretty decent.....

[B0000rt]

I'm surprised that it has jumped out as seriously uncool so quickly. I'd consider this a pretty good sleeper, sure it doesn't look fantastic, but 0-60 in less than 6 seconds is pretty decent.....

It would be a great sleeper, if the engine was longitudinally!

[galanz]

Why do people always compare power with displacement? You should be comparing power to WEIGHT, and GM LS engines are some of the best you can get.

2JZ with the tranny weighs 746lbs (compare that to the LS engines above), and the RBs are about the same. Damn Japanese engineering. :lol:

Why would you want an underbuilt flexy engine? Compare the way gm and Toyota bolt their crankshafts in, this was especially noticeable back in the 80's and early 90's.

[Evil Techie]

i would consider GTO a sleeper since it has RWD

this Impala SS isnt a sleeper in my books
to me, straight line acceleration isnt everything

[masterballer]

i would consider GTO a sleeper since it has RWD

this Impala SS isnt a sleeper in my books
to me, straight line acceleration isnt everything

But it cant even accelerate well for the size and displacement of its engine...i mean a the newer model Type S RSX can do 6.2 sec and its 100 HP less.

An where are all those who say the engine weights less therefore it better...its slow even with the good power to weight ration of the engine...what you guys dont understand is you compare POWER to WEIGHT of the CAR not the engines...you compare POWER to L of DISPLACEMENT when comparing engines alone.

[Samir]

Meh... power itself is over-rated. These engines aren't about HP, they're about low end torque and that's why GM engines last so long (they dont have to rev like the sewing machine engine you find in a typical Toyota).

GM has always made good engines, it's the rest of the car they sometimes mess up (electronics, interiors, etc.).

I voted uncool, because it's a family car. Would vote the same for the Accord or the Maxima, and seriously uncool for the Camry because that car deserves its own special place in hell for being the pinnacle of passionless motoring.

[CompWizrd]

Too slow, too heavy, poor brakes.

No thanks.

[masterballer]

Meh... power itself is over-rated. These engines aren't about HP, they're about low end torque and that's why GM engines last so long (they dont have to rev like the sewing machine engine you find in a typical Toyota).

GM has always made good engines, it's the rest of the car they sometimes mess up (electronics, interiors, etc.).

I voted uncool, because it's a family car. Would vote the same for the Accord or the Maxima, and seriously uncool for the Camry because that car deserves its own special place in hell for being the pinnacle of passionless motoring.


You maybe the V8s..the i4 and other stuff is junk.

Now lets look at civics, they have a way better track record, which means that if honda made a V8 it would out do the GM V8s*

*those are assumptions, but based on previous track record.

The last post sums it all up (although i would say relatively slow). :lol:

[galanz]

GM has always made good engines, it's the rest of the car they sometimes mess up (electronics, interiors, etc.).

My last, and I do mean my last GM had the 2.8 l V6. A POS anyway you look at it. I'm also guessing you never had a quad 4 or the stupendously bad 5.7l diesel? GM has made some decent engines and more than it's fair share of junk as well.

[B0000rt]

My last, and I do mean my last GM had the 2.8 l V6. A POS anyway you look at it. I'm also guessing you never had a quad 4 or the stupendously bad 5.7l diesel? GM has made some decent engines and more than it's fair share of junk as well.

The Quad4 HO was a powerful engine for it's time, too bad it idled like a pos and had problems!

2.8L V6 DOHC?

[chriswalsh]

I love big american sedans with V8 power but the current-gen impala is just too bland looking to be cool... the '95 was a cool car.

Not sure why a couple of you guys are comparing to an M3... Completely different classes, but regardless, the M3 definitely has its fair share of problems, both powertrain and otherwise. I had a friend with an 03 (04?) that is always being towed. He doesnt complain since it is all under waranty including tows to/from the shop and he likes the prestiege of driving it.

[new_vr]

You maybe the V8s..the i4 and other stuff is junk.

Now lets look at civics, they have a way better track record, which means that if honda made a V8 it would out do the GM V8s*

*those are assumptions, but based on previous track record.

The last post sums it all up (although i would say relatively slow). :lol:
GM has actually made some pretty solid v6's too. I wouldn't touch there i4's either though.
I think that is a pretty wild assumption to make though, saying honda would out do the GM's. There is a fair bit of difference in the two beasts. Once you get a big v8, you are putting out a lot of torque, and if you dont have things right, that can cause you a lot of problems

[galanz]

The Quad4 HO was a powerful engine for it's time, too bad it idled like a pos and had problems!

2.8L V6 DOHC?

Nope, the 2.8 was a pushrod v6. Out of the 5 people who had one of these, 4 of them had to be rebuilt with less than 120,000 KM. They were introduced with the X cars back in the 80's, which drove well, looked alright and were relatively cheap to buy, but were an incredibly badly designed and built car.
I remember when my friend went to install a stereo in his Olds Omega, so he pulls up the carpet and finds half a dozen cigarette butts and ashes. Nice level of professionalism there...

[mdc]

If this car was RWD, I would vote cool ... an ultimate sleeper

But since it is FWD (and I have driven one), it sucks

Seriously Uncool

(and this is coming from a GM fanboy;) )

[baggio4eva]

i drive one of these bad boys.... nice car, but it's a guzzler :(.

Later:D

[masterballer]

GM has actually made some pretty solid v6's too. I wouldn't touch there i4's either though.
I think that is a pretty wild assumption to make though, saying honda would out do the GM's. There is a fair bit of difference in the two beasts. Once you get a big v8, you are putting out a lot of torque, and if you dont have things right, that can cause you a lot of problems

I trust honda to have things right before i trust GM.

[rubberband]

uncool.. not awful or anything, the design just doesn't do much for me. A pretty decent but ordinary car.

[puff_daddy_58_99]

uncool.. not awful or anything, the design just doesn't do much for me. A pretty decent but ordinary car.

I thought the SS might have something going for it, as 0-60 in 6 seconds isn't exactly ordinary, but I can understand the blah styling.

[puff_daddy_58_99]

poll closes at 2PM tomorrow, be sure to vote. You have the power to put my brand new impala in the seriously uncool category :cheesygri

[careener]

There's a pretty interesting review over at the TruthAboutCars.com

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=2865

[charliebrown]

how come no one is mentioning the fact that ppl would mistaken it for a taxi :D

Besides the crown vics, impalas seem to be pretty popular with cabbies (unless u go the airport limo route w/ the town cars)