GTP Cool Wall: 7th Gen Chevy Impala SS. Voting Closed

[homeforsummer]

But the thing is I know that Europe has a similar horsepower output and maybe with forced induction a similar torque number--the price per torque/bhp is more of what I was referring to.

And on that, we essentially can't compete. Though of course, we also don't get many of your cars over here and when we do, they magically double in price and become ridiculously uncompetitive...

When I drove my Camaro everyday (5.0L V8 w/autobox) I loved that I could just barely touch the accelerator and get moving without any effort at all. It is a satisfying feeling, but I do understand the opposite end of that spectrum having owned a 5th gen Prelude.

Exactly. Pretty much anything can be fun if you're in the right mood for it. Even... an Aveo. If you have a course laid out on a big muddy field... and there are a dozen other Aveos... and you have an afternoon to kill

Caprice vs. Crown FTW.

That battle would make a change from GT-R vs. 911...

 

[C-ZETA]

Uncool. Doesn't do the muscle car business for me.

 

[niky]

Exactly. Pretty much anything can be fun if you're in the right mood for it. Even... an Aveo. If you have a course laid out on a big muddy field... and there are a dozen other Aveos... and you have an afternoon to kill

Going to be a pretty short afternoon... they'll all understeer off into the sunset in the space of five minutes... ...shockingly, a bunch of Yarii will probably be more fun.

That battle would make a change from GT-R vs. 911...

GT-R what?

 

[JCE]

And on that, we essentially can't compete. Though of course, we also don't get many of your cars over here and when we do, they magically double in price and become ridiculously uncompetitive...

Unfortunately that's the sad thing.

Exactly. Pretty much anything can be fun if you're in the right mood for it. Even... an Aveo. If you have a course laid out on a big muddy field... and there are a dozen other Aveos... and you have an afternoon to kill

Yup, loved my Focus even though it was slow.

That battle would make a change from GT-R vs. 911...

The Crown Vic always wins that argument for me.

 

[Tornado]

Oh, BTW: Sub-Zero 81.6%.

 

[Prosthetic]

Yup, loved my Focus even though it was slow.

What engine?

 

[Dragonistic]

I was highly against responding... But obviously my point was misinterpreted.

Jeremy Clarkson certainly fuels much of that view, but despite his influences, he's not the be all and end all of the nations opinion. I'll forgive and forget though.

With everything else you said in your post Dragonistic, I can agree with you just about word for word.

Great post, I'd give you +rep if it would let me.

Good to hear I wasn't just talking my own dribble, I rarely make any quality posts .

 

[Prosthetic]

Jeremy Clarkson certainly fuels much of that view, but despite his influences, he's not the be all and end all of the nations opinion. I'll forgive and forget though.

I know what he says is for pure entertainment purposes... Besides hes owned a Ford GT and a Hummer. I'm not talking about him.. I'm talking strictly from what I've read on these forums for the past (almost 5 years now.)

 

[JCE]

What engine?

D20 2.0L I4 Duratec with a putrid 136bhp 136tq. But it was fun and felt fast around corners.

 

[Prosthetic]

D20 2.0L I4 Duratec with a putrid 136bhp 136tq. But it was fun and felt fast around corners.

Aww.. I got the 2.3L... 148hp and 152tq.. Pretty light in nimble car and very easy to get a speeding ticket in

Now we are off topic.. xD

 

[Irons]

A nice conservative-looking car, despite the fact that gangstas and wangstas alike think it's "bangin'" and "pimp". No, this car is what a clean cut modern American sedan/saloon should look like. I look at this as an attempt as a throwback to the saloon-style muscle cars of the 60's, it doesn't really fit that bill for me.

COOL

 

[neanderthal]

I'm not enamoured.
Not special. Corvette motor? Woo hoo.
It's attached to a barn from circa 1540, solid axle probably with leaf springs, chassis thats a relic from the 70s, just updated a little.

Lipstick... pig.... nuff said.

American cars have sucked from the late 60s/ early 70s till very recently. And they still do in some cases (Chrysler Sebring/ Dodge Avenger anyone?) There has been huge improvement in the last few years, some hit and miss, but for a long time, buying an American car was diving into a wasteland of suck.

Now, when they finally do make a decent full size car, they remove it from the market.
Thank God for Ford. Pity they don't make anything decent and full sized thats rear drive.

 

[neanderthal]

Haha, I love this part. Again I must come to the defense of the American V8 from the 1980's to late 1990's. One word Joey, TORQUE. It was never about horsepower but TORQUE. TORQUE wins at the lights not horsepower. TORQUE is what makes the wheels burn rubber. And at 4,221lbs I'd expect a vehicle with these numbers to get to 7s with an automatic. Throw a 6spd and it drops to the low 6s. I doubt your Blazer would of touched 60mph in anything less than 7.5s.



Show me dollar for dollar / pound for pound / frank for frank / etc any European 6cyl with as much torque and horsepower as this car and then we can start discussing "European engineers". YOU CAN'T. The American V8 from the mid-70's to the present day is about lazy low-revving torque. Not high end horsepower. kthx



True, but imagine how awsome it would of been with the T-56.

The "dollar for dollar" equation always works out in favour of the large engine that was first designed in the 60s and mildly updated since then. Just like the "horsepower per liter" argument always works in favour of the smaller more modern engine.

What's farcical is your wanting to compare a large V8 engine with a smaller 6 cylinder engine. ARE. YOU. SERIOUS?

A valid comparison would be a 6 cylinder engine of about the same size but since no one really makes any that's a mute point.

A W124 Mercedes E420 matches up rather nicely. Little more power, little less torque, about the same weight. Performance figures are about the same if not slightly better, but fuel economy is similar according to fueleconomy.gov. What happened to lazy torque?

 

[Pupik]

Drove one the other day, on a test drive after the owner had the front and rear brakes replaced.

It felt like everything wanted to fall off in my hands, yet this car was kept up meticulously. Everything was a reach for me: No ergonomics. It's as if all the power is wasted because the thing is a huge barge of a car. It reminded like of that girl who's in a pair of jeans that's 2-3 sizes too small for her.

Seems like a "mine's bigger than yours" excuse of a car with no moves other than a nice exhaust sound. I don't get the fascination, to be honest.

Uncool, but not seriously so.

 

[Watchman]

 

 

[Joey D]

Hmmm... Sub-Zero. Nothing special, nothing bad.

How would that make it sub-zero then? Basically you just said it was a middle of the road car.

 

[Radracing]

Hmmm... Sub-Zero. Nothing special, nothing bad.

huh?

 

[Watchman]

 

 

[Jetboy.]

Purely based on the car (cause I will be forever a follower of late 80's to mid-90's GM "Performance" offerings) it will immortally be Sub Zero for me. I voted Sub Zero and I think all cars should have three pedals, believe it or not (Although dropping a Tremec T-56 in it would be Absolute Negative Kelvin.)

I don't give a flying lawn gnome who drives it, what it's used for, and what it doesn't match up against. I'm here for the car.


Cheers,
Jetboy

 

[Joey D]

Just my opinion.

Ya I understand it's your opinion, but you basically said that it's a middle of the road car that inspires nothing. I'm asking how can that be subzero?

 

[Watchman]

 

 

[Joey D]

It's just how I rate cars... There's nothing to say 'Wow' for and there's nothing to give it a 👎 for (In my opinion, at least).

So cars that inspire zero emotion what-so-ever are the coolest thing on the road? Typically a cool car makes you at least go "ya that's cool". I'm really failing to see how you came to your reasoning.

 

[Watchman]

 

 

[buickgnx88]

I certainly see a mistake, I never knew sub-zero=average.

 

[Joey D]

I voted Sub-Zero, because of the facts said in my last post. I don't see any mistake in there... Really...

I'm not saying you are mistaken, I'm saying it doesn't make any sense to me how a car that doesn't really evoke any emotion one way or another can go to the highest possible choice.

 

[Watchman]

 

 

[Prosthetic]

You aren't even explaining why you think its one of the coolest cars on the road...

 

[Watchman]

 

 

[Joey D]

So the more average and less emotion evoking a car is the cooler it is? Wow that is possibly the strangest way of looking at anything regarding coolness I've ever heard.

 

[buickgnx88]

You know, I'll bet he thinks that sub-zero means sub-standard (i.e. average).