@cUr@-TL

there's this guy i see all the time with a black impala ss (1995 or so) with wheels, dropped (not sure) and some exhaust (sounds really nice!).. I always see him driving around.. taking corners sideways and stuff.. anyways... the car seemed fast but i didnt really know... until yeterday night!

i stopped beside him at a red light.. and he made some kind of "let's go at it" gesture.. so i thought why not.. there wasnt sh!t around except for a nice stretch of highway

to make a long story short.. we were even until i hit 4-5k rpm in 1st gear and then i was just gone he tried to follow/catch up but he realized he didnt stand a chance and eventually gave up

i really thought that car would be faster... it looked and sounded much faster!!

Another one bites the dust!

Ken1997TL

Very nice! I think those cars had an optional manual transmission, try racing one of those

sheikh3.2TL

nice kill!!!!!!!! those things got the vette ls1 motor nice one

sbuswell

those cars are very heavy over 4klbs. they have the GM 5.7L V8 in them and have I believe 275-286hp and close to 325tq stock and with a few bolt-on's are very fast. same bolt-on's that would juice up any 350 will do the same for the impala SS, but they are heavier than the camaro and much heavier than the corvette.

@cUr@-TL

from what i read it's suposed to be a low 15-sec car...

paul_huryk

Stock they are - but most aren't stock.

@cUr@-TL

yeah well this one had some kind of modified exhaust... that's all i could tell.. or maybe they did come stock with that loud, hot, sexy, 70s muscle car-ish rumble!

Roadmaster

1994-1996 Impala SS

5.7 liter LT1 (not LS1) V8 with iron heads.
260hp
330lb/ft of torque
4-speed auto (NO 6-speed manual transmission option - ever) conversions yes, but not from the factory.
Limited slip 3.08 gears
stock: 15.0-15.5 between 90 and 93mph
top end: 142mph

Ken1997TL

330 foot pounds of torque is pathetic for 5.7 liters...

onebadtls

those impalas are no joke...i got walked on by one at 110...we were side by side till around 110 then he just started pulling more and more..with a lil bit of work those are monsters

etxxz

like most american made things... this is why china is going to take over the world

and if in the process USA dont like it, a nuclear war will start and all of the current world powers and arabic countries will kill each other and so my VENEZUELA will become the new world leader

TLsu

Hugo Chávez is out of his mind. Venezuela will only become a world leader if oppression is viewed as desirable.

Mike clean up these last two posts.

paul_huryk

The LT1 cars gave up low end torque for top end horsepower, but a cam and head swap will put them at 400+ ft pounds. GM realized the mistake and went for overall torque on the LS motors - which obviously worked out well.

etxxz

dud...i was just messin around we all know he's out of his mind and i'm here in states because of his stupid ass. but he's been building up the venezuelan army. i dont know much about politics and such, but that rant might be somewhat accurate.

back to the SS

Roadmaster

Only really half true.

Your circa 1990 L98's were the big torque producers for emissions controlled GM small blocks.

The '92 LT1's took the L98's torque and added a smoother power delivery with higher overall peaking HP.

The '97 LS1 was not created because of a "failure" with the LT1. An LS1 on paper actually produces about the same peak torque number as an LT1, but higher in the rev range and slightly broader throughout the entire range.

On the street my LT1 powered Z28 is far more torquey off the line than my LS2 which produces 400lb/ft but at 4,400 rpm vs. 2,400 rpm.

What you get with the LSx engine in reletively stock form which isn't possible with an LT1 car, is the ability to rev happily. 6,200, 6,500, 6,800, 7,000rpm LSx engines are common place now and they produce power and usable torque throughout that entire range.

The recent LS2, LS7 and now L92 engines are pushing the torque back down low, upping the CI. and stretching fuel economy.