Chevy Impala 2004 Redesign - READ ONLY

233 messages, Last post on Sep 10, 2003 at 7:13 PM

You are in the Future Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Future Vehicles Host for Directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Impala, Sedan

Outline

Messages Page 19 of 24: 1; ...; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; ...; 24; Prev; Next; Last

#173 of 233 by regfootball Mar 16, 2003 (12:17 am)
yeah the kompressor Benzs are a way to sell a 'starter' 4 cylinder Benz that won't fall on its arse from a dead stop. Then they can advertise a Cclass 'starting at 29,900!' even though they just want to get you in the showroom to see the v6 model at 8 grand more. I'm not so much opposed to turbos and superchargers in four cylinders as the fours usually have very small displacement. A saab turbo 4 is 2 litres. I wouldn't expect 265hp out of a 4 cyl non turbo. But in the v6 game, I think the basic design of the motor (valvetrain) and size (displacement) should be enough to get serious horsepower without really needing a supercharger or turbo. Shoould be able to get 240hp or so without one.
#174 of 233 by johnclineii Mar 16, 2003 (3:59 am)
People like you are one reason that superchargers are made. It is torque, especially low in the power band, that matters in making a car accelerate quickly. All that horsepower does is keep it moving. Torquey engines often have relatively unimpressive horsepower ratings. But, the public looks for horsepower ratings. I doubt 5 out of 100 could even tell you what torque is. Thus the supercharged engine on the Impala. The better question is why do they STILL keep the Series III for Pontiac and not let Chevy use it? I see little reason to even consider an Impala when the new GTP is out with the newly improved engine. ESPECIALLY since it, unlike the Chevy, comes in colours other than black and even with cloth seats, should one so desire.
#175 of 233 GTP vs Impala by vcjumper Mar 16, 2003 (7:38 am)
Back seat room and comfort.. When I checked it out at the auto show, the GTP struck me as pretty cramped back there for a 3500lb W-Body.
#176 of 233 by regfootball Mar 16, 2003 (9:15 am)
no v6 should NEED a supercharger. Any v6 will have enough torque so it doesn't gag on its own lunch. Rarely in the US is a v6 smaller than 2.5 or 3.0 litres. too many four cylinders have too small a displacement which is why a blower seems to be handy. If they just made the four cylinder a little bigger, it may make a blower a waste of time. For example, the Nissan SpecV has a 2.5 litre four that gets as much power as Mazda's 2.0 with a turbo. And Saab has a 2.0 trying to lug a big car around, hence add a blower. Maybe Saab should just enlarge the displacement. The Altima does wonderfully with its larger 2.5 litre four cylinder. The Altima 4 cyl. is more refined than and can outdo a 3.1 Grand Prix and be within striking distance of the 3.8 Grand Prix. Oddly, with the 3800, it seems to need more displacement AND a blower to get up in the 240hp range. Take away the blower and it makes power more similar to other cars with engines in the 3.0 litre range.
#177 of 233 by atbear Mar 16, 2003 (10:19 am)
"But in the v6 game, I think the basic design of the motor (valvetrain) and size (displacement) should be enough to get serious horsepower without really needing a supercharger or turbo. Shoould be able to get 240hp or so without one." Yeah, but where is their torque? Huh.... that's right they have no where close to 300 ft/lbs like the '97 GTP does. "Oddly, with the 3800, it seems to need more displacement AND a blower to get up in the 240hp range. Take away the blower and it makes power more similar to other cars with engines in the 3.0 litre range." You still don't understand that it's a different type of engine do you? Why are you so hung up on displacement and superchargers? What's the big deal? It makes the power you could want AND it have great fuel economy... what is your problem with it???
#178 of 233 by regfootball Mar 16, 2003 (11:28 am)
sounds like you're the one with 'issues'.
#179 of 233 by atbear Mar 16, 2003 (1:29 pm)
Why? I'm on an Impala forum talking about an Impala.... you're here talking about other cars...
#180 of 233 by johnclineii Mar 16, 2003 (1:40 pm)
And every time someone points out to him that OHV engines have greater torque on the low end than DOHC engines, he ignores them and changes the subject!
#181 of 233 by jbk5 Mar 16, 2003 (4:26 pm)
Does he really think he's going to change our opinions of the 3800? This could go on forever.
#182 of 233 by 02lssport Mar 17, 2003 (5:57 pm)
...and ever and ever and ever... LOL "But in the v6 game, I think the basic design of the motor (valvetrain) and size (displacement) should be enough to get serious horsepower without really needing a supercharger or turbo. Should be able to get 240hp or so without one." If its sooo easy then how come Honda and Nissan are the only ones that I know of with 240 hp in a v6? Perhaps they choose to tweek the engine in the higher RPM range to sqeeze out an extra 20 or so peek horsepower. Each car maker is different. They don't all aim to make extra peek HP just to sell more cars to numb nuts who ONLY look at peek HP. I would rather have 240 HP or 260 HP and 280 TQ any day over 240 HP and 240 TQ (Nissan) or 212 TQ (Honda - lame). In terms of cost, gas mileage, power, and reliability its a win for GM. Like I said before the Nissan makes good power but the other's can't compete wih the SC 3800.