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 9 of 24: 1; ...; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; ...; 24; Prev; Next; Last

#74 of 233 by regfootball Feb 24, 2003 (12:33 am)
you better go check the 0-60 on a 2003 accord and then go find out what the 0-60 is on a regular Buick Regal.
#75 of 233 by 02lssport Feb 24, 2003 (3:06 am)
Torque steer is not bad in the W bodies cause it is built to handle the torque. Check out the numbers and keep in mind what atbear said about the push rod engine - power comes on strong right away. Its better to have more torque and more HP down low on the street. I think it is clear that the 3800 engines are up to par or beat out the competition. The numbers don't lie. These are for cars in the same price range. Grand Prix GTP - Very Good Max HP - 240 5200 rpm Torque - 280 3600 rpm MPG - 18 mpg / 28 mpg Weight: 3559 lbs. Impala LS - Very Good Max HP - 200 5200 rpm Torque - 225 4000 rpm MPG - 20 mpg / 30 mpg Weight: 3466 lbs. Altima 3.5 - Very Good Max HP - 245 5800 rpm Torque - 246 4400 rpm MPG - 19 mpg / 26 mpg Weight: 3246 lbs. Toyoda - Good Max HP - 210 5800 rpm Torque - 220 4400 rpm MPG - 20 mpg / 28 mpg Weight: 3362 lbs Honda Accord - Good Max HP - 240 6250 rpm Torque - 212 5000 rpm MPG - 21 mpg / 30 mpg Weight: 3360 lbs. Mazda 6 - way overrated Taurus engine Max HP - 220 6200 rpm Torque - 192 5000 rpm MPG - 20 mpg / 27 mpg Weight: 3311 lbs
#76 of 233 by regfootball Feb 24, 2003 (7:01 pm)
that 'overated' Taurus motor generates more power and spots the 38000 motor almost a whole litre of displacement to make up for its feeble 19th century valvetrain.
#77 of 233 by atbear Feb 24, 2003 (7:34 pm)
Mazda 6 - way overrated Taurus engine Max HP - 220 6200 rpm TORQUE!!! - 192 5000 rpm MPG - 20 mpg / 27 mpg Weight: 3311 lbs You just don't get it do ya regrugby?
#78 of 233 by jbk5 Feb 24, 2003 (7:49 pm)
Wow, I bet they loved that feeble 19TH CENTURY engine during the Civil War.
#79 of 233 by atbear Feb 24, 2003 (10:01 pm)
Ya know, jbk5.. I wasn't sure whether he was joking or serious! hmmm...
#80 of 233 by regfootball Feb 25, 2003 (12:10 am)
ummmmm 220 hp vs. 200 you putz. also you fail to acknowledge that GM needs to have extra .8 litres of displacement just to have comparable numbers. Plus the 3800 has major issues with plastic manifolds popping off and leaking coolant all inside.
#81 of 233 LOL!!!!@@@@!!!!! by 02lssport Feb 25, 2003 (5:03 am)
Don't even compare GM's reliability with Mazda. Mazda cars are known to be duds. They are plagued with a ton of issues. And I have see a lot of complaints with new Accord. Don't you understand that its a completely different type of engine. The 3800 has better MPG and better torqe. And basically the same HP up to 5200 rpm. It just don't make any extra power above 5200 rmp like the jap engines. Let me make this really clear for you... Mazda6 Max HP - 220 6200 rpm So what is the HP at 5200 rpm? Its probably around 200 give or take 10 hp. I bet GM could rework the engine and let it make 20 more HP at a higher RPM but 90% of the time that extra 20 HP is worthless. It is just a trick to SELL CARS to numb nuts like you who don't look deeper into the numbers. Mazda6 Torqe - 192 5000 rpm. The 3800 makes 225 4000 rpm. How can you not see how much better that is. The mazda is making like what 170 or 180 lb-ft at 4000 rpm while the 3800 is making 225 at the same rpm!!! So the 3800 is making the same HP up to 5200 rpm and it is making way more torqe at every rpm AND getting better MPG on the highway. If that is concidered 19TH CENTURY then I guess I'm a 19th century guy.
#82 of 233 02LSSport... by dgonzalez13 Feb 25, 2003 (6:16 am)
Thanks for putting into words what those of us who drive Imps know and feel every day. Great car, solid, strong, and reliable. over 70k miles in 2 years, 4 accidents (3 rear ended me, one ford explorer sideswiped me on road)and my Imp was always fully driveable afterwards (even when one VOLVO who rear ended me had to be towed!) Good car, decent price. Buying another one when the SS comes out.
#83 of 233 by 02lssport Feb 25, 2003 (8:49 am)
Cool. Let us know how the new SS drives and how much you paid.