Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Brad Johnson on February 18, 2013, 12:47:35 PM
-
Nice to see that Chevy is bringing back the hot-rod family grocery getter. V8, real wheel drive, four doors (ins breaks, yay!), and under $40k. Tailor-made for use middle aged responsible types who like to get a little crazy(ish) now and then but can't afford an extra toy in the garage.
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/02/16/2014-chevrolet-ss-debuts-at-daytona/?intcmp=features
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1302_2014_chevrolet_ss_first_look/
Too bad it's a Chevy, though, what with the whole buyout thing. (Hey Ford, ya listenin...?)
Brad
-
Ford beat this car several years ago.
Taurus SHO. Turbo V6, AWD. Better performance in every category, better millage when not being crazy.
-
I thought you meant a step-side pickup.
-
I still have a hardtime with 4 Drs and SS badge.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/SS_396_logo.jpg
-
V8, real wheel drive, four doors (ins breaks, yay!), and under $40k.
You mean like the 6.0L AWD Trailblazer SS I've been test driving at local dealerships lately?
-
Honestly does 2 or 4 door really make a difference on insurance? I think this is some old wives tale from the 1980's.
-
Insurance killed the 2-door muscle cars of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
I can only imagine what this latest generation of large-displacement Mustang/Camaro/Challenger will do to raise the eyebrows of the insurance folks...
I agree that the extra doors are probably Detroit's insurance alibi when stuffing big V8s in the recent Marauder, Charger, 300C, Malibu SS, Impala SS, Trailblazer SS, and this leftover Holden/G8 thingy.
Nobody's gonna wrap a 4-door around a tree or bridge abutment at high speed, they have children on board! ;/
-
Insurance killed the 2-door muscle cars of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
I thought reasons steming from the early CAFE standards and the oil embargo of 1973 did those cars in.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fed%2FFLAG_POLICY_DURING_THE_1973_oil_crisis.gif&hash=a20bbfefbd0c5ef4264368862839b6450fed8c52)
-
I thought you meant a step-side pickup.
With a wood floor :lol:
-
Ford beat this car several years ago.
Taurus SHO. Turbo V6, AWD. Better performance in every category, better millage when not being crazy.
Yeah, but sans that nice V8 rumble and ability to throttle-steer on demand.
Brad
-
I still have a hardtime with 4 Drs and SS badge.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/SS_396_logo.jpg
The Super Sport trim package was originally offered on the 1961 Impala. It was available in both the two door and *gasp* four door body styles.
Brad
-
I had a 1965 Impala 2dr SS with a 283 and Powerglide.
It was hardly a "muscle car" ;/
-
Without a manual trans. it's kind of a waste.
-
Without a manual trans. it's kind of a waste.
Yeah, that's a shame. But, hey, I could force myself to live with a slushbox given the rest of the driveline goodness. First thing I'd do, though, is ditch the 3.27 final drive for a 3.73 cinched to a TruTrac diff. Minimal expense, maximum grin.
Brad
-
Yeah, that's a shame. But, hey, I could force myself to live with a slushbox given the rest of the driveline goodness. First thing I'd do, though, is ditch the 3.27 final drive for a 3.73 cinched to a TruTrac diff. Minimal expense, maximum grin.
Brad
Y'all keep talking about all AT's as slushboxes but the last couple of automatic trannys I have own have been pretty firm, not like the T-400, t-350, c-4 or 727's of the past. I've given up looking for a manual in vehicles that I want because they are rarer than functional teets on a boar.
-
Its sounds almost identical to the 2004-2006 Potiac GTO- RWD, 400hp 6.0 V8, meh styling. Same car, released 7 years later- not too impressive. They didn;'t sell many of those either...
GM is teh obama suxxors in my book anyway these days.
-
I think this'll be dissapointing for Chevy.
The last time they tried to sell this very car with a classic mucsle car badge (gto) it didn't go that well for them. And the G8GT (same car, diffirent badge) only sold a little better.
I drove the GTO in '08 and while it was a good car, it had less grunty fun then my Cobra. Course it is probably easier to live with daily.
As a dude that daily drives a 550hp V8 rear drive car.......they're more fun in theory then actually getting groceries with.
-
Y'all keep talking about all AT's as slushboxes but the last couple of automatic trannys I have own have been pretty firm, not like the T-400, t-350, c-4 or 727's of the past. I've given up looking for a manual in vehicles that I want because they are rarer than functional teets on a boar.
Automatic transmissions *have* improved a lot. Some, at least the ones I've looked at, deliver better results in 0-60 and MPG than manuals.
As someone who has driven almost nothing but MTs since getting my first car in 1990 (4xMT, 1xAT), I'm perfectly content to get an AT for my next car.
Chris
-
Its sounds almost identical to the 2004-2006 Potiac GTO- RWD, 400hp 6.0 V8, meh styling. Same car, released 7 years later- not too impressive. They didn;'t sell many of those either...
GM is teh obama suxxors in my book anyway these days.
It didn't sell because it looked teh suk. A generic jelly bean profile, no side character at all, and a butt like a hampshire hog. IIRC they were also a little on the pricey side. The only thing they had going for them was the drivetrain.
Brad
-
Yeah, but sans that nice V8 rumble and ability to throttle-steer on demand.
Perzacly.
NOTHING drives as nicely as a well-balanced, well-set-up rear wheel drive chassis. Neutral cornering when you want it, power-induced oversteer on demand.
Nirvana.
-
Except that as power increases it's more and more impossible to set up that chassis, at least with a front engine/rear drive set up. And I guarantee that Holden didn't manage to do it.
-
Well, yeah, but the price point difference between the Holden and a Bugatti Veyron pretty much means you can live with a little less finesse in the chassis tuning department.
-
Except that as power increases it's more and more impossible to set up that chassis, at least with a front engine/rear drive set up. And I guarantee that Holden didn't manage to do it.
You mean the Zeta platform? It's been around a since 2006, plenty of time for Holden to figure out the bugaboos. It underpins the current Camaro. From the article it seems like they're trying to at least make the basic steps (50/50 weight distribution, etc). The chassis is plenty stiff, if a bit on the pudgy side. If the same team who set up the current Caddy CTSV had even the tiniest mote of influence on the SS's setup, it should be fine.
Brad
-
Well....Kiss my backside......
My '12 Mustang with the Pony Package 3.7L is 310HP and weighs 400 lbs less than the GT with more HP than the 2011 GT
0-60 under 5 seconds and 30 MPG at steady state 75 mph
PFFFGHAG..............
=D
-
Erik, that's the Mustang I want to get.
Chris
-
My '12 Mustang with the Pony Package 3.7L is 310HP and weighs 400 lbs less than the GT with more HP than the 2011 GT
0-60 under 5 seconds and 30 MPG at steady state 75 mph
PFFFGHAG..............
Yeah, but it's still a Ford... :P
(My mom still has her convertible Mustang GT. I'm equal opportunity!)
-
Nobody needs a car with that much power.
-
Nobody needs a car with that much power.
I sees what ya's did therrrr... >:D
Brad
-
Except that as power increases it's more and more impossible to set up that chassis, at least with a front engine/rear drive set up. And I guarantee that Holden didn't manage to do it.
AMC didn't do it with the 390 AMX, either -- but I did.
-
AMC didn't do it with the 390 AMX, either -- but I did.
I did it with my 96 Mustang GT as well, but it wasn't easy. And I found as RWHP goes north of about 450 it can't really be done to an existing chasis. Above that level it really needs to be set up right from the start. You can make it better, but not really good.
Luckily GM doesn't really care about handling, so this doesn't bug them.
-
You say that as a former Corvette owner? :rofl:
-
Luckily GM doesn't really care about handling, so this doesn't bug them.
I disagree. I had a chance to drive a CTSV last year. Absolutely wonderful balance, even with will north of 500 HP on tap.
Brad
-
I keep forgetting about Ford Performance Vehicles. They have the perfect counter to the SS. Unfortunately I've got a better chance at being a tall, blonde, Norwegian supermodel than the US market does of ever seeing a GT. :'(
I like the GTe. All the go, but sans the gaudy, garish boy-racer-wannabe stripes. It's even available with a gin-u-wine manual tranny.
http://fpv.com.au/gt_showroom/gte
Brad
-
Well....
Yeah, even as not a fan of GM, the CTSV and the C6 ZO6/ZR-1 handle pretty dang good. Of course both of them are into the GT-R, S8, and M5's price range. I know the GT-r outran both on Nurburgring.
what's the old saying? Speed is a matter of cubic dollars.
G98- You mean Mustang owner right? I got my Mustang to handle great. It only took replacing........uh.....well I was still using the stock front spindles. And the....no switched that.....yeah pretty much changed everything else on the suspension.
-
what's the old saying? Speed is a matter of cubic dollars.
"Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"
Brad
-
Erik, I wish they'd put that motor into the 2005-2010 Mustang GT bodies.
It's too bad GM couldn't go retro with the SS the way Ford did with the 2005-2010 Mustangs and Dodge with the Challenger.
-
They did.
It's called the Camaro.
Although, everybody goes retro for a while, then outgrows it after a period of time.
You'll see the current versions of the Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro drift away from their 1960s-inspired styling as time goes on, and then whaddya know?
Retro again.
This new whatever-they're-gonna-call-it Ozzie SS may be a departure, especially if it goes by just a solitary SS badge. My gut feeling is that it's not intended to be anything retro, just a fast RWD sedan in a FWD world, with easily-obtainable tooling.
Chevy's not done that before, Super Sport always denoted a trim/performance package on a given platform, something they've previously plastered on the Malibu, Impala, El Camino, Chevelle, Chevy-II, Nova, Camaro, Lumina, Monte Carlo, S-10, HHR, Cobalt, Silverado, 454 pickup, and Trailblazer.
I would've thought Chevy would piggy-back on the Cadillac ATS chassis, it generates some respectable numbers for a 2.0L turbo.
-
My gut feeling is that it's not intended to be anything retro, just a fast RWD sedan in a FWD world, with easily-obtainable tooling.
Bingo. They're going after the middle-aged guys who long for a little taste of the hot rods of their youth, but don't have the means or time to buy or build a dedicated toy. This way they can have their hot rod, but in the guise of a sensible family sedan that is decently affordable.
Brad
-
I don't think the Camaro is retro-looking at all. I think it looks fat, and the grill looks too stylized.
Compare:
Camaro
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-7dVn-ScKlJY%2FUI54c2qAxnI%2FAAAAAAAJwiE%2F6PVqsAGtyDI%2Fs1600%2F2013-Camaro-HotWheels-5.jpg&hash=760935a407c66293ca6a474dbf08795dfb10e02a)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.cargurus.com%2Fimages%2Fsite%2F2008%2F07%2F10%2F00%2F55%2F1969_chevrolet_camaro-pic-41101.jpeg&hash=5bad2129afa0d294262f45682f1ed5bea04289b3)
Mustang
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunshopfinder.com%2Fleft3quarter_9_20_4.jpg&hash=ca143495df30e265ea8789b6d538ff5e040c3bbd)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmustangnizate.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2F1969mustang-mach1.jpg&hash=86669d9c2471c3676b485cf39f0585bda438805c)
Challenger
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.challengerking.com%2FImages%2FEvox%2F2013%2FDodge%2FChallenger%2F8378_st0640_046_md.jpg&hash=503c4fab3240fce786ddca7b2624ebc4b4bc6437)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.cargurus.com%2Fimages%2Fsite%2F2008%2F10%2F09%2F00%2F03%2F1970_dodge_challenger-pic-41990.jpeg&hash=790abeaa34b80ff38567741fa597c759bcd22672)
-
You're being selective, ML.
Compare the current Camaro:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.caranddriver.com%2Fimages%2F11q1%2F381411%2F2010-chevrolet-camaro-v-6-lt-photo-381425-s-1280x782.jpg&hash=46dd026a8daa7afece1719e6d6376b6a2ff0edb6)
To this Camaro:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss165%2Frajcam%2F1980%2520camaro%2520berlinetta%2FDSC02308.jpg&hash=12de1e05273f6ab6d2535e4b3750e6742beaea56)
And the first-generation Camaro:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zorly.com%2Fimages_camaro%2Fgen1_gallery%2F1968%2520Chevy%2520Camaro%2520original.jpg&hash=4efc7229da50beef39d503aff2ef0f82e69f378a)
I'll call the current Camaro "retro", no problem.
Of course, this is a Mustang, so maybe comparisons of Detroit iron should best be left to one's imagination.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi626.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt349%2FJeffBlackwell_photos%2FMustang%2520II%2520Cobra%2FMustangIIfront34.jpg&hash=5b5a47a882d4f90f92746884a19ea7d7ea1ebfbd)
That was fun. Let's do it again:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.perficient.com%2Fspark%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F06%2Fmustang_pinto.jpg&hash=975fa149d98a55a969aac034cfd159306881c378)
=D
-
Bingo. They're going after the middle-aged guys who long for a little taste of the hot rods of their youth, but don't have the means or time to buy or build a dedicated toy. This way they can have their hot rod, but in the guise of a sensible family sedan that is decently affordable.
Brad
Or just anything resembling a full size four door RWD car of the sixties/seventies/etc ;/
-
I think the Challenger is the best looking of the bunch, but its a chrysler product [barf]
-
I think the Challenger is the best looking of the bunch, but its a chrysler product [barf]
The transmissions suck ass
-
GW98, I think they're trying to go for a ~1970 feel for the retro look, not 1975. ;)
The Challenger looks good, but there's just something wrong. It has too much body on the lower part in the rear. Peformance-wise, it doesn't measure up to either the Mustang or Camaro. It looks good, though.
-
A reborn Chevelle would be pretty cool as long as they don't try to make it a 2DR Malibu.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmusclecarsheetmetalrepair.com%2Fgroups%2Fimages%2F032409011949Clayton%25203.24.08.4.JPG&hash=638cd74dbeb6f730e6b9279d9915af9c4d410795)
-
The Challenger looks good, but there's just something wrong. It has too much body on the lower part in the rear.
It might be the ratio of the window size to the body is way out or porportion (too short). The new Camaros suffer from this as well.