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 2 of 24: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; ...; 24; Prev; Next; Last

#6 of 233 by machiavelli Jul 22, 2002 (8:52 am)
So it's not an 'all-new' car, just another engine option for the current Impala. I didn't think it would be an all-new car. Hopefully, they will at least "freshen" the whole Impala line at the same time they bring this out, new interior, etc...
#7 of 233 by hvan3 Jul 22, 2002 (1:54 pm)
Things I like to see on the somewhat "new" 2004 Impala SS 1) Matching color side moldings 2) Improve on the cheap leather seats 3) Bigger wheels and tires (confirmed by Edmunds) 4) More horsepower (confirmed by Edmunds) 5) Improve quality of the interior dashboard 6) Make sunroof/leather as standard 7) Redesign the rear tail lights That's about it. I think the SS should at least match the domestic entry level luxury car of the Chrysler 300M.
#8 of 233 moondawg by moondawg55 Aug 04, 2002 (8:46 am)
Why oh Why! don't Chevrolet use the 3.5L "Shortstar" from the discontinued Oldsmobile Intrigue? Where will GM put this motor?
#9 of 233 by machiavelli Aug 05, 2002 (5:32 am)
On the scrapheap.
#10 of 233 To magnetophone by jpstax Aug 07, 2002 (6:44 pm)
Thanks for the nice compliment about the Regal GS. I own a '98 and my wife owns a '00. On the plus side of the SC3800, you can add lots of mods to increase HP & torque. I'd wait and see what Chevy does. I read where they did install a detuned LS1, and RWD, but apparently the engine bay was too cramped. Maybe Bob Lutz killed the idea. The L-67 is a powerful and very reliable engine. I think Impala people will eventually love it, just like Regal GS & Pontiac GTP owners do.
#11 of 233 LS1 by wyoimp Aug 08, 2002 (7:10 am)
The LS1 fit wasn't the problem, nor was it de-tuned. It just had too much torque and wasn't ready for production / everyday driving. I agree with the LS-67 having alot of potential. Unfortunately too many people are unwilling to make the paradigm shift from RWD to FWD. Same goes with all the rest of the newer v.s. the older, more familiar automotive technology. Isn't it amazing how much better car ran and performed once the bugs were worked out of meeting Pollution requirements and incorporating electronics? The drawback is there aren't that many competant mechanics / technicians who know how to properly troubleshoot these newer systems. A pinched wire or bad ground takes patience and system knowledge to find and fix. In the meantime we pay parts that are needlessly replaced.
#12 of 233 To wyoimp by jpstax Aug 08, 2002 (9:56 am)
I don't mean to nitpick, but I thought the engine Chevy tried to install in the Impala was the same LS1 found in the Z-28. Isn't that a de-tuned motor (only 305, instead of the 345 ponies the 'Vette gets)? If that's true, then why does Holden sell a de-tuned LS1 with their Commodore SS (same basic body style as the Impala)?
#13 of 233 by machiavelli Aug 08, 2002 (10:27 am)
The US model Impala has nothing in common with a Holden Commodore. The Impala is FWD, the Commodore is RWD. The Commodore is more closely related to the old Cadillac Catera. wyoimp is right, as far as I know - the small block V8 will fit in the Impala, but it would have so much torque steer, it would be impractical. There is definitely a limit as to how much power you can put through the front wheels and still have decent handling.
#14 of 233 LS1 by wyoimp Aug 08, 2002 (1:11 pm)
If you go to GM Power Train Website you'll find that LS1 means the 5.7 family of engines. They can be anywhere from 285HP/320 ft/lbs to 354HP/350ft/lbs. I agree that LS1 has always meant the horsepower figure getting close to or exceeding 1HP/CI. Same as you can buy Good Wrench 350's well in excess of 350HP. As for the 5.7 in the 2000 Impala SS prototype, all that Hot Rod magazine mentioned was the high torque factor and the risk of some part(s) breaking. Looking at the Power Train Website, the two transaxles that GM makes 4T60E handles 280HP/400ft/lbs and the 4T80E handles 305HP/461ft/lbs. The 80E is for the Cadilacs but is only a 3 speed automatic. Which answers some of the comments about the FWD Caddies being sluggish in comparison to other vehicles. Nothing is mentioned about Manual transaxles. I think THRASHER or SLP sell parts to beef up the 65E transaxle. Hot Rod has also mentioned the VORTEC 4300 223HP/267ft/lbs (Marine Engine version) is basically a 350 with two cylinders missing and has parts out there to modify it also. What's this got to do with the 2004 Impala? If there is to be a fire breathing, tire smoke burning Impala SS in FWD form. The minimum must be the L67 3.8L V-6 Supercharged 240HP/280ft/lbs or try Cadilac's Northstar L37 300HP/285ft/lbs. Otherwise its going to have be a Holden Commodore or some other Chevy that is available internationally now but not sold here domestically. How about converting the W body to RWD? There is the hump from the exhaust system that lends itself as a driveshaft tunnel. Plus install a modified Camaro suspension / powertrain. Just trying to see what's in GM's parts bin. One can dream
#15 of 233 Check tihs out. by wyoimp Aug 08, 2002 (2:01 pm)
http://www.naisso.net/naisso/news/readnew.asp?id=24