2006 Impala SS

  • Thread starter Thread starter cheeser609
  • 43 comments
  • 2,854 views
MrktMkr1986
From what I've heard (and based on what you've said it's most likely false) most high-powered front-drive cars that aren't really sporty have torque steer.

It has to do with the car's design, not just having a lot of torque applied at the front wheels. Torque-steer is caused when a moment (torque) is created at the tire by an offset in the steering system. There is an imaginary axis (called the kingpin inclination) that passes through the centre the upper and lower steering pivots on the wheels. Here's a diagram:

kingpin.jpg


Torque is a force applied perpendicular to an axis about which it rotates. The wheel rotates about the kingpin inclination, and the force is applied at contact patch. This creates an extra torque, which pulls the car right or left. The closer the kingpin inclination is to the contact patch the less torque-steer is present. Naturally, as you increase the force on the tire, a greater torque is generated due to this relationship.

It's also caused by unequal drivetrain geometry. If the halfshafts (transverse driveshafts that go to the wheels) are of unequal length the angles at which the CV joints lie with respect to the wheels will be different, and under power this will result in more torque being sent to one wheel than the other.

GM was one of the first carmakers to use a longitudinally-mounted engine in a front-drive application, starting with the '66 Oldsmobile Toronado (and you thought 303hp was a lot to the front wheels: the Toronado had a 7.0L V8 that made 385hp!). The fact that the engine was mounted longitduinally meant that the transmission was smack dab in the middle of the car, and the halfshafts were pretty much the same length. GM was also one of the first carmakers to adapt their transversely-mounted front-drive drivetrains so that the halfshafts made the angles and lengths equal. The 4T65-E used in the Impala and Monte Carlo is designed so that the halfshafts are of equal length:
hyrda-matic-4speed.jpg

You can see in this photo that the transmission itself extends quite far around the engine so that the passenger side halfshaft is the same length as the driver side.

A lot of high-powered front-drive cars don't have very noticeable torque-steer. The Chrysler 300M had its drivetrain mounted longitudinally, equal length halfshafts, and little to no torque-steer at all. The previous generation Acura TL was the same way.

The Altima 3.5SE on the other hand is a good example of a high-powered front-drive car that has more than its fair share of torque-steer. Its drivetrain is trasverse, and the transmissions have unequal length halfshafts. As does the new Acura TL.
 
As for its acceleration, the current 3800 Series II SC'ed Impala SS can run 0-60 in less than seven seconds, so I'd wager it will run 0-60mph in around 6.5. Certainly one of the quickest front-drive cars in existence. The Accord Coupe V6 with a manual, Altima 3.5SE with a manual and Maxima with a manual are all probably a hair faster with a good driver behind the wheel.
 
The second a corner comes up though, the TL will just leave the Chevy way behind. One reason why the TL is getting such rave reviews is because of it's stellar handling (It's probably the best handling 4 door FF sedan ever made). The Maxima might be beat by the Chevy though, but then again, the Maxima is a large sedan, and performance is not it's number one priority.

But if you're trying to make a true performace car, power has to go to either the rear wheels or all four wheels. Think about it, outside of rally, where are any front wheel drive race cars? If the front wheels were a good place for the drive wheels, then we would be seeing lots more race cars with front wheel drive.
 
To Firebird: Thank you VERY much for the clear, concise and intelligent response! Much appreciated! :D 👍

As for the other post, it wouldn't make much sense to compare a car with a manual transmission to a car with an automatic (to me anyway) that's why I gave the stats for the automatics. I'm sure with a manual, the Japanese rivals would outrun the heavy (by comparison) Impala.
 
MrktMkr1986
To Firebird: Thank you VERY much for the clear, concise and intelligent response! Much appreciated! :D 👍

You're welcome.

I'm sure with a manual, the Japanese rivals would outrun the heavy (by comparison) Impala.

Heavy by comparison?

They're all about 3500lbs.
 
Well, the 5.7L LS6 was lighter than the VQ35DE, and the 6.0L LS2 is even lighter than the LS6 was, so I doubt that a 5.3L (LS4) version of the LS2 is significantly heavier.

An interesting feature of the LS4 V8 that hasn't been mentioned is "Displacement on Demand": while cruising the computer shuts down four cylinders.
 
Firebird
An interesting feature of the LS4 V8 that hasn't been mentioned is "Displacement on Demand": while cruising the computer shuts down four cylinders.

thats been around forever. it was first (for GM) on they early Northstar powered Caddi's.

About the MT, AT thing. I look at as comparing the top of the line performance models regradless of the tranny. If the car gets a MT good for it, if not too bad.
 
Firebird
Well, the 5.7L LS6 was lighter than the VQ35DE, and the 6.0L LS2 is even lighter than the LS6 was, so I doubt that a 5.3L (LS4) version of the LS2 is significantly heavier.

An interesting feature of the LS4 V8 that hasn't been mentioned is "Displacement on Demand": while cruising the computer shuts down four cylinders.

Thanks for the info!

BTW, did you know that the Cadillac V-8-6-4 shut down opposing pair of cylinders instead of just deactivating a bank of cylinders (like the V12 Benz, V8 Hemi, LS4 DoD)? That's probably what made the 80s version so unreliable. :yuck:

REAL reason why V-8-6-4 didn't work..

"the design was limited by a cable throttle, mechanically controlled transmission and lack of computing power. As a result, the engine behaved erractically when switching cylinders" 💡
 
Firebird
Well, the 5.7L LS6 was lighter than the VQ35DE, and the 6.0L LS2 is even lighter than the LS6 was, so I doubt that a 5.3L (LS4) version of the LS2 is significantly heavier.

I thought the LS4 was based around GM's 5.3L truck engine?
 
Back