Opinions on the '94-'96 Impala SS?

[StevieMo]

Just wondering what you guys think of them. I've been pretty seriously considering getting one. I'm currently driving a Dodge Dakota and I'm looking for something with some more power and I'm about ready to get out of the truck scene. For those of you that don't know this is the SS(I would definetly get it in black). One in decent condition can be had for around $15,000(Canadian_ around here

Specs are:
5.7L V8
260 hp @ 4,800 RPM
330 ft/lbs @ 3,200 RPM
0-60 in 7.1 seconds
1/4 mile in 15.4
What do you guys think? Anything in particular I should be looking for while shopping around?

 

[69Dodge_Charger]

I knew a guy with one that looked almost exactly like that one, but different wheels. I've heard they are the best Impala ever made, from any generation. Definitely a fast car, and I'm sure the interior isn't lacking either. 15 grand isn't a bad price for one in good condition, and if you do decide to get one I'm sure you'll be happy.

 

[StevieMo]

It'll be nice to have some room and some luxuries. I'm driving a base 1987 Dodge Dakota regular cab right now. So it'll definetly be an upgrade.

 

[69Dodge_Charger]

Yeah I've seen pictures of your truck before, I'd drive it. I love those old Dakotas and Rams.

 

[inferno]

I like them, their huge though. It's rear drive, a redisigned Caprice I belive. Good power compared to the Cown Victoria, and ages better than the new Impala's. Best of all that 5.7 is a de-tuned LT1 small block, so lots of aftermarket possibilities there. If you plan to go that way of course.

[EDIT]
I love those wheels.

[EDIT2]
Awh, now I want it.

 

[1X83Z]

I have fairly strong opinions on this car. I technically like them though with very strong caution for two reasons:

1. They perform pretty poorly. If you believe that 0-60 in 7.1sec time, I suggest you drive a vehicle that does 0-60 in 7.1 and then drive the Impala. 7.6 is pushing it. They look fast, indeed, but they're doing the quarter in mid-fifteens and 0-60 in mid-to-high sevens, and I've even heard low eights suggested. Remember, these things weigh 4034lbs - that's forty pounds heavier than a Lexus LS430 (and with thirty less horsepower). If you're looking for something quick, this is NOT it, and if you're looking for something agile, this isn't it either.

2. They're very expensive for what they are. Blue Book quotes $10200 US retail - that's completely absurd given what you get, which is a huge car with poor handling and relatively mediocre acceleration. This price goes up notably if the seller has maintained it very well - I saw one for $13000 US around here lately. It'd be okay if you got some sort of standard features, but of course you don't - no CD, no sunroof, bench seat in '94, that sort of thing.

At the end of the day, you can do much better. Limiting myself solely to four-door sedans in your price range, I came up with:
- 93-97 Cadillac Seville STS
- 91-92 Dodge Spirit RT
- 93-95 Ford Taurus SHO
- 96-99 Ford Taurus SHO
- 95-00 Mazda Millenia S
- 91-92 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4
- 93-97 Saab 9000 Aero
- 94-97 Volvo 850 Turbo (94-96) or T5 (97)

All perform better (handling and acceleration) and most offer more stuff, all at a lower price. Also, all are automatic-only except the Saab, Dodge, and Mitsubishi; the latter two are manual-only while the Saab is mostly manual, though automatics do exist.

 

[StevieMo]

I'm not really limiting myself to anything right now. The only thing's I'm really looking for are a V8 and rear wheel drive. As for the Saab, I've never really been able to get into their styling so that one's probably out, and unless I'm mistaken the rest are either FWD or AWD. I'm always open for some suggestions though. What are your thoughts on the Lincoln Mark VIII?

 

[Slicks]

I have fairly strong opinions on this car. I technically like them though with very strong caution for two reasons:

1. They perform pretty poorly. If you believe that 0-60 in 7.1sec time, I suggest you drive a vehicle that does 0-60 in 7.1 and then drive the Impala. 7.6 is pushing it. They look fast, indeed, but they're doing the quarter in mid-fifteens and 0-60 in mid-to-high sevens, and I've even heard low eights suggested. Remember, these things weigh 4034lbs - that's forty pounds heavier than a Lexus LS430 (and with thirty less horsepower). If you're looking for something quick, this is NOT it, and if you're looking for something agile, this isn't it either.

2. They're very expensive for what they are. Blue Book quotes $10200 US retail - that's completely absurd given what you get, which is a huge car with poor handling and relatively mediocre acceleration. This price goes up notably if the seller has maintained it very well - I saw one for $13000 US around here lately. It'd be okay if you got some sort of standard features, but of course you don't - no CD, no sunroof, bench seat in '94, that sort of thing.

At the end of the day, you can do much better. Limiting myself solely to four-door sedans in your price range, I came up with:
- 93-97 Cadillac Seville STS
- 91-92 Dodge Spirit RT
- 93-95 Ford Taurus SHO
- 96-99 Ford Taurus SHO
- 95-00 Mazda Millenia S
- 91-92 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4
- 93-97 Saab 9000 Aero
- 94-97 Volvo 850 Turbo (94-96) or T5 (97)

All perform better (handling and acceleration) and most offer more stuff, all at a lower price. Also, all are automatic-only except the Saab, Dodge, and Mitsubishi; the latter two are manual-only while the Saab is mostly manual, though automatics do exist.

Unless I am mistaken, all of the above cars are lacking one major plus that the Impala has - rear wheel drive. 7.1 seconds is not at all a bad time for 0-60. Especially for a full-size car. So what if it has 260 HP, because it has 330 ft/lbs of torque. It is easily upgradeable, and looks many times better than any of the other cars listed above (although styling is subjective). They may not have the nicest interior, compared to anything above, but it'll do. Besides which, you'd buy this car because it's cool.

 

[1X83Z]

I'm not really limiting myself to anything right now. The only thing's I'm really looking for are a V8 and rear wheel drive. As for the Saab, I've never really been able to get into their styling so that one's probably out, and unless I'm mistaken the rest are either FWD or AWD. I'm always open for some suggestions though. What are your thoughts on the Lincoln Mark VIII?

I'd recommend against both a V8 and RWD. An SHO Taurus will outhandle and out-accelerate a Mark VIII or Impala SS, even though it doesn't have the gas-guzzling V8 or snow-unfriendly RWD. You live in Alberta for Christ's sake and one of your main points is RWD?!

I like the Mark VIII very much - especially the 1995-1998 LSC model. Horsepower and handling were slightly improved over the base model, and price is only slightly higher so they're worth it used. With that said, huge doesn't even begin to describe these behemoths. 3768lbs isn't too bad (though they are coupes) but the thing that gets me is length - 207". For a two-door!! They're damn quick though - 0-60 in 7 makes it a half second quicker than an Impala, and they've got way more stuff on them for a lower price.

Other V8/RWD stuff in the price range:
- 90-94 Audi V8
- 94-95 BMW 530i
- 87-92 Chevrolet Camaro V8 convertible
- 91-96 Infiniti Q45
- 90-96 Lexus LS400
- 92-94 Mercedes 400E (92-93) or E400 (94)

I'd look pretty seriously at all those (except maybe the Camaro). The BMW uses the smallest consumer-market V8 ever at a whopping 3.0 liters.

 

[StevieMo]

I'd recommend against both a V8 and RWD. An SHO Taurus will outhandle and out-accelerate a Mark VIII or Impala SS, even though it doesn't have the gas-guzzling V8 or snow-unfriendly RWD. You live in Alberta for Christ's sake and one of your main points is RWD?!

I like the Mark VIII very much - especially the 1995-1998 LSC model. Horsepower and handling were slightly improved over the base model, and price is only slightly higher so they're worth it used. With that said, huge doesn't even begin to describe these behemoths. 3768lbs isn't too bad (though they are coupes) but the thing that gets me is length - 207". For a two-door!! They're damn quick though - 0-60 in 7 makes it a half second quicker than an Impala, and they've got way more stuff on them for a lower price.

Other V8/RWD stuff in the price range:
- 90-94 Audi V8
- 94-95 BMW 530i
- 87-92 Chevrolet Camaro V8 convertible
- 91-96 Infiniti Q45
- 90-96 Lexus LS400
- 92-94 Mercedes 400E (92-93) or E400 (94)

I'd look pretty seriously at all those (except maybe the Camaro). The BMW uses the smallest consumer-market V8 ever at a whopping 3.0 liters.

Winter's never been that big of a deal for me, I've been driving RWD trucks since I got my licence, so I'm pretty used to it. You should sell me that Typhoon of yours. I love those trucks.

 

[skip0110]

I would say go for the Imp SS if you don't mind the size. Just about the only thing that is a direct competitor to it is the Mercury Maurader (and those are much more expensive).

Save for the Optispark, they are reliable (assuming the tranny hasn't been abused; they can take a beating in such a heavy car), and unlike any of the cars mentioned so far in the thread, there is a fair chance it will be worth more when you sell it then when you buy it.

 

[Sniffs]

o.O canadians actually got the Caprice based Impala for more than a single season?
whoa, we only got a coupe.

they have a point about the old 5.7...they were fine in the mid eighties, but by the mid ninties, they were moldy. if I were you, I'd look for a more modern engine if your gonna blow that much money.

and if nobody's told you guys, yet, the RWD is back. almost everything is going back to RWD, as the new Muscle car era and Horsepower race has started up again. or did you forget about DC and GM digging up their old labels and putting them in RWD. I personally think people got sick of FWD, which was the ONLY thing in the US for 20 years. dunno what it ran up there, but...

 

[skip0110]

they have a point about the old 5.7...they were fine in the mid eighties, but by the mid ninties, they were moldy. if I were you, I'd look for a more modern engine if your gonna blow that much money.

In the 80s GM ran variations of the TPI V8. These were still the Gen 1 small-block. (And you are right, a rather weak engine.)

The Caprice/Imp SS used the LT1/LT4 Gen 2, a fully electronic engine which has plenty of power from the factory, and shares no parts in common with the Gen 1.

The LT series will happily take a little shot of NOS, and responds well to headers/exhaust. None of these modifications will make the heavy SS lightning fast, but it is a torquey motor and willl move the car plenty well.

 

[RobcioPL]

Its a good cruiser...........hehehehehe

 

[Joey D]

I looked at getting one of these way back when, you know when gas was a $1.30 a gallon. It was a nice car with a pretty good ride. Not overly fast but it was enough to get you on the freeway with no problem. There was a lot toque though, smoking the tires required little effort.

The car looks like a Caprice, but better in my opinion.

The only down fall is the fuel economy. If you have a heavy foot, look to be filling up that tank a lot. But since you are used to trucks, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[VIPFREAK]

I was just going to start a search for the SS version of this car with deep dish rims. I'll post what I find. :tup:

 

[VIPFREAK]

Not bad but take those stupid strips off.

 

[skip0110]

They look the best in the Burgundy color with the SLP hood (which is unfortunately out of production). The Suncoast hood, as on this car, looks similar.

 

[Joey D]

What about the greenish blue color. I remember someone telling me it was pretty rare to find one in that color.

 

[skip0110]

Not sure about the production numbers, but all 94's were black, and the 95s and 96es could come in 3 colors, the green, the burgundy, and the black.

 

[Firebird]

I have and will continue to maintain the '94-'96 Impala SS is one of the most over-rated cars in recent memory.

The '90-'96 Caprice was an ugly, ugly car. Lowering it and slapping some gazelles on the C-pillars didn't change this. The only part of this car worth mentioning was the small-block Chevrolet V8.


...but that's also what makes it one of the most over-rated cars. It's NOT fast. The fact that it handles like the RMS Titanic could have been overlooked had it had the ability to storm to speed in an appreciably short time, but it can't. 7.1 seconds is usually quoted as the fastest it could get to 60. Quarter mile was high 14s (maybe...).

What bothers me most is that the recent front-drive Impala SS has been maligned as not being "true" to the Impala SS history because of, mostly, the old geezer '94-'96 SS. Granted, the whining comes mostly from idiots who hate anything with front-drive, but still. The '04 Impala SS is the fastest Impala in a straight line since the '60s and is by far the best-handling Impala ever built.

 

[1X83Z]

Winter's never been that big of a deal for me, I've been driving RWD trucks since I got my licence, so I'm pretty used to it. You should sell me that Typhoon of yours. I love those trucks.

I thought about recommending the Syclone, but it's not RWD or V8. Have you tried to find a Syclone or a Typhoon? You might be able to get a high-mileage one in your price range. Syclone was '91 and Typhoon was '92 and '93. I'd look around.

By the way, the 90-94 Audi V8 is AWD. I don't know how I missed that. It's still decent though.

Have you driven an Impala SS yet?

What about the greenish blue color. I remember someone telling me it was pretty rare to find one in that color.

None of the three colors are particularly rare. Black is obviously the most common but a good number of 1995 and 1996 models were made in both the dark red and the green-blue. The green-blue is the rarest but that's not saying too much.

The '04 Impala SS is the fastest Impala in a straight line since the '60s and is by far the best-handling Impala ever built.

Too bad it's late to the 240+ horsepower party and at a much higher price that rivals from Honda and Nissan. I agree with most of your points (and actually made some of them myself - because they're correct!) though. Overrated. Fun to look at though - I'm glad they exist, but I'm similarly glad I don't own one.

 

[StevieMo]

I thought about recommending the Syclone, but it's not RWD or V8. Have you tried to find a Syclone or a Typhoon? You might be able to get a high-mileage one in your price range. Syclone was '91 and Typhoon was '92 and '93. I'd look around...


...Have you driven an Impala SS yet?...

Syclones and Typhoons are nearly impossible to find here and when you do find one the owners are usually asking a lot. Since I've lived here(6 years) I've seen 1 Syclone and exactly 0 typhoons. Although I did see a new S10 with the badges. I haven't driven the SS yet, but when I get the chance I'm definetly going to take one for a test drive. I actually found a 1996 Q45 for sale locally and I'm considering taking a look. Is there anything else I should really know about them?

 

[1X83Z]

Although I did see a new S10 with the badges.

I haven't driven the SS yet, but when I get the chance I'm definetly going to take one for a test drive.

Good. Is handling a big factor in your decision?

I actually found a 1996 Q45 for sale locally and I'm considering taking a look. Is there anything else I should really know about them?

A couple things. I've started recommending these old Japanese luxury sedans because they're typically in great condition, they're RWD V8s, which everyone wants, they're loaded, they're safe, and most importantly they're reliable, which is a great quality. That allows you to go a bit further back - no need to look at just a '96 Q45 or a more recent LS400 - you should be able to pay a bit less and go a bit earlier to get the same design because they'll remain just as reliable. A '96 Q45 is a good buy but if you can find an earlier one I'd probably recommend it just as well if not more, depending on the price.

With that said. LS400 is more common that Q45 by far. Most LS400s will have fewer miles too and a more forgiving first owner. Both models favored first-owner middle-aged women more than German competitors. A good portion of Q45s are still with original owners. Same is not true for LS400.

Q45 0-60 was 7.2sec, from a 278-horsepower 4.5-liter V8; weighs 4039lbs. The only downside to this car, for me, is the front seats, which provide trashy support and offer hard leather which, given your climate (and frankly any climate plus the age of these cars) will be cracked. Otherwise, this car was great. Four-wheel steering and a very complicated fully-active suspension were available. LS400 0-60 was 6.7sec, from a 290-horsepower 4-liter V8; weighs 3693lbs. No downsides here except a bland interior, but it's well screwed-together so that's probably a good thing. Engines are great and don't tend to lose power. One other drawback is the following these things are getting because of the lowering prices - I see more and more with ugly aftermarket wheels and in poor shape. Try to buy from an original owner, or at least a sensible owner. SC400 was coupe version, but prices are exorbitant for what it is.

 

[StevieMo]

Thanks alot M5, I really appreciate all the help. It's definetly opened my eyes up to some alternatives for the SS. Although I'd still like to get one, I'm going to do some shopping around for sure.
*EDIT* Do you know what the aftermarket is like for the Q45 or for the LS400?

 

[1X83Z]

*EDIT* Do you know what the aftermarket is like for the Q45 or for the LS400?

No idea - though as I mentioned the coupe version of the LS400 was the SC400 which has gained a fairly good reputation among some enthusiasts, so I'd imagine some performance parts are available, at least for the Lexus.

 

[TRD_Power]

Here is my 95' SS 👍 I LOVE it!