General Motors Fans

uplanderguy · April 2014

I can't remember specifically reading about the '73 Cutlass Salon, but I do remember reading about the Monte Carlo and Grand Am. Mags liked the handling in my memory. First U.S.-use of radials, and up through the '80 model, even the cheapest third-gen Monte Carlo had 205-70's and stabilizer bar in back. In fact, I remember CR saying how their '78 Monte test car rode hard. In '81, the Monte got the same soft suspension of the Malibu, standard.

andre1969 · April 2014

One other detail I remember about GM's '73 intermediates, from CR, is that they mentioned the use of frameless door windows all around, similar to what Ford started doing with the '72 Torino/Montego, but mentioned that Ford's were sealed better.

They also had one test car, I think it was a '73 Malibu station wagon, where they commented that NONE of the windows rolled all the way down! The back windows were designed like that, stopping with about 4-5 inches of glass still exposed (must have been fun to slam the door extra hard on those) but even in the front doors, I think one stuck up about a half inch and the other a full inch!

Ah, the 70's. Remind me again why I like those cars so much?

roadburner · April 2014

The next generation of GM intermediate sedans had rear passenger door windows that didn't roll down at all. That went over big...

imidazol97 · April 2014

Keeping it all positive for this topic, GM is being proactive in handling the recalls lately. Their latest I just read about is for those who have 1953-1955 Corvettes which didn't get the small block V8 engine.

" GM has informed the NHTSA it will voluntarily recall all 1953-1954 and some 1955 Chevrolet Corvette's over lacking the vehicles iconic Small Block V8. For unexplained reasons, the 1953-1955 Corvette's were installed with an Inline 6 engine instead of the proper V8. Every 1953-1954 Corvette and some 1955's that rolled off the assembly line managed to get by quality checks and sold to customers with the wrong motor installed. Seeing how this massive slip up has managed to go by undetected for over 50 years has current GM management flabbergasted. GM's new CEO Mary Barra stated, " This is clearly unacceptable. We will make this right for our customers owning those Corvette's affected by this blatant oversight". Current chief engineer for the Corvette Tadge Juechter had this to say over this issue, " I am personally insulted by this. This has been a black eye on the Corvette's illustrious history. Every person who owns a Corvette deserves to experience our legendary Small Block V8 engine"

"How does GM plan to rectify the problem? GM will be installing free of charge their new fifth generation Small Block V8 that is currently found in the C7 Corvette Stingray producing 460 HP and 465 lb.-ft. of torque. All current 1953-1955 Corvette owners affected by this issue have to do is bring their Corvette's to their Chevrolet dealer where they will be shipped to Detroit to make the swap. When the owners pick their Corvette's up from the dealer, not only will they find a LT1 installed under the hood, the vehicle will also be restored to mint condition.

"Owners will be notified starting in May. "

gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/gm-recalls-1953-1955-chevrolet-corvettes-over-lacking-small-block-v8-159409/

andre1969 · April 2014

@roadburner said:
The next generation of GM intermediate sedans had rear passenger door windows that didn't roll down at all. That went over big...

Yep. My grandparents bought a new '82 Malibu Classic Estate wagon in February of '82. It replaced a '72 Impala 4-door hardtop. Nobody even thought about trying out the windows and such. Until one warm Sunday in April of that year, I went to church with them. Grandmom sat in the back seat. Started fumbling around, and then muttered "How the hell do you open the damn windows?!" Or something along those lines. We looked all over and sure enough, no way to open them! They just had the little flip out vent quarter windows.

I remember Grandmom started referring to that thing at "The most expensive cheap car we ever owned". It was an attractive looking car though; I'll give it that. Midnight blue metallic with fake woodgrain trim on the sides. I went to a private school for a few years where you had to pay extra for the bus. My parents worked, as did Grandmom, so Granddad would help out with a local carpool to get us kids to school. On his days to drive he usually took us in his '76 GMC crew cab. But sometimes, if Grandmom was home, he'd drive the Malibu. The housewives who were also in that carpool all remarked about how sharp looking that Malibu was. So either they liked it, or they were using it as conversation to hit on Granddad!

As for those flip out vent windows, I read in a CR that GM had done some tests, and found out that air flow was actually better in those cars with the vent windows open, than it would have been if the back windows rolled down, with no vent. But, most people would probably have preferred a roll-down window. I guess not enough complained though, as GM never did modify them. The wagons, along with the Malibu sedan, were built through 1983. The Regal sedan's last year was 1984. 1986 for the Bonneville, and 1987 for the Cutlass Supreme sedan.

Chrysler tried a similar stunt in 1981, with the K-cars. However, enough people complained that in mid-1982, they started making the back windows in the sedans and wagons roll down. Making the windows stationary, with flip out vents was initially a cost savings move, but it turned out, that over the scale they were producing, it wasn't any cheaper to just make the windows roll down. I wonder though, if part of that decision was because when the LeBaron and Dodge 400 came out for 1982, they had roll-down windows from the start? So it might have been cheaper to make them all roll down, rather than having some roll down and some stationary.

I think Chrysler even carried over some of that rear window foolishness into later years. IIRC, with the Neon, if you got power windows, only the front windows were power; rears were still crank. I can't remember if they did that with the 2000-2005 model as well, but I remember it in the '95-99.

uplanderguy · April 2014

Funny, imidazol!

My sister and brother-in-law actually bought a new '73 Chevelle Deluxe station wagon...six cylinder!

I was all over it, as I was a weird kid and thought '73 Chevelles were an improvement over '72's! The rear windows (as in Chevelle sedans that year, too), opened maybe 2/3 of the way down, but theirs didn't have CR's front-window problem. I'd have known, too, as that baby didn't have six-cylinder with A/C! (Actually, that wasn't even available I don't think.)

Theirs was a pretty (IMHO) very dark brown metallic, with cheapo saddle-colored interior.

andre1969 · April 2014

I've heard that the '73 intermediates were built better than the '72's in some ways, but then they cheaped out in others. For instance, I think the bodies were a bit stiffer, and less rust-prone. But then they'd cheap out in other areas, such as trim pieces, interior stuff, glues, plastics, vinyls, etc.

I think the '73's, when they came out, seemed a lot more attractive, and modern, than equivalent Fords and Mopars. The 4-doors and wagons, especially, seemed open and airy, with large windows, thin pillars, and the quarter windows in the C-pillar. The Fords and Mopars had a beltline that kicked up toward the rear, making the rear windows seem smaller, and the interiors a bit claustrophobic, in general.

uplanderguy · April 2014

We had a '67 Chevelle and Dad had been talking about a new car for six months or so (as usual). He liked the looks of the '71 and '72 Chevelle coupes. When the '73's came out, he didn't like them at all and he bought a Nova coupe instead. I, for one, liked the Chevelles (I actually preferred the Malibu to the Laguna, because I didn't like the Laguna's body-colored rear bumper), but I was glad that mid-way through the year, the filler between the grille and the front bumper was changed from silver on all cars, to body color--made that front bumper look a teeny bit less like a railroad tie! I did like the simple grille.

You're right--the interiors (Malibu comes to mind, especially) did not hold up as well as '72 and earlier.

Personally--other than liking the interior of the new Malibu Classic--I didn't like what they did to Chevelle for '74. They had a luxury line, pushed the Malibu down to 'Deluxe' territory, and had no model in the middle.

andre1969 · April 2014

I think one thing that made the cars start looking a bit cheap was when they went to those two-piece door panels, where the upper part was vinyl, fabric, etc, and the lower part was hard plastic, with an integrated armrest, and glued on carpeting for the nicer models. It didn't look bad when the cars were new, but as the interiors aged, the vinyls, fabrics, plastics, rubbers, and carpeting seemed to all fade at different rates. And often, that carpet would start to come loose.

I thought GM made a really good move for 1977 in the big cars, moving away from that two-piece door panel, even though the midsized cars still used them in the '78 downsizing.

uplanderguy · April 2014

True. I did like the one-piece, soft door panel of our '77 Impala compared to our '74.

I remember this quote in a CR review of a Chevelle (I want to say a low-line six-cylinder) of the '73-77 era: "The Chevelle inspires driver confidence". I seem to remember hearing even owners of base GM intermediates saying they 'drove' so nicely.

uplanderguy · April 2014

One thing I definitely remember about the '73-77 4-door GM intermediates--from my sister's wagon and my best friend's parents' '76 Malibu Classic--those doors had the stiffest detents I can remember...they were actually hard to close even though they were short. They also closed with a very distinctive sound--not tinny, not particularly solid, but I could probably identify one by sound if I heard it even today.

If you were checking out B-O-P's more than Chevys then, you may or may not have noticed how on the cheapest Chevelles, you didn't get a roof gutter molding. I detested that, as the car looked unfinished there. Even my sister's Deluxe wagon had the optional "Exterior Decor Group" which got you wheel opening moldings and roof gutter moldings...an absolute must.

elias · April 2014

iirc the 1970s rear-windows that wouldn't roll down more than halfway were due to federal requirement in order to stop little kids from somersaulting out the rear windows.
and the late 1960s the rear-windows and lack of rear-seatbelts did apparently result in kids egressing the vehicle while in motion.
ps - thanks for the frightening memories of the 1971 metallic-green plymouth satellite wagon. my dad's best friend had the Olds VISTA CRUISER with the roof windows. I remember my vehicular preferences switching to GM from MOPAR in the mid-1970s...

andre1969 · April 2014

@elias said:
iirc the 1970s rear-windows that wouldn't roll down more than halfway were due to federal requirement in order to stop little kids from somersaulting out the rear windows.

I don't know if there ever was a federal regulation on that...if there was, wouldn't all cars have had windows that only went down about half way? On the 1976 Aspen/Volare, and the 1977 Diplomat/LeBaron, the back windows went down just about all the way, only leaving about an inch or two of glass exposed. On my '79 New Yorker, the windows go down all the way in back. However, it's a fairly small window, as the quarter window is extra-bulky, built to simulate an opera window. On lesser models, like the Newport and St. Regis, the window went down about 3/4 of the way. Maybe still enough to keep a kid from being ejected, but not enough that they couldn't climb through if they had a notion.

I think a more logical explanation is a combination of downsizing, the trend towards larger window area, more widespread use of air conditioning, and cost cutting. When GM kicked off their first wave of downsizing, the cars were smaller, yet the glass area was larger and taller. There was a taller window, but less area in the door for it to go down into. As air conditioning became more and more common, I think buyers tended to care less about the windows rolling down. As for cost cutting, well, some of those older windows had to go through a couple of different maneuvers to get all the way down. They didn't just drop straight down. Sometimes, they'd roll backwards a bit, and then pivot down. I remember with GM's '71-76 full-sized 4-door hardtops, they would leave just a slight corner sticking up once fully down. I'd imagine that it's easier to make a window do one maneuver as it rolls down, rather than several.

Apparently, there was talk about federal regulations on the horizon regarding better rollover protection for cars, that existing hardtops and convertibles would not have been able to pass. Supposedly, that's why GM eliminated those body styles for the '73 midsized cars, in anticipation of it. But, in reality, who knows? Convertible sales had been declining for a few years. I'd imagine that 4-door hardtops, in the midsized ranks at least, were dropping as well. Ford only offered them in '70-71 on the Torino/Montego, and Mopar never even bothered to offer them, unless you count the '62-64 models. The hardtop coupe was still a mainstay, but the trends were heading toward a more formal roofline, with thicker C-pillars and a smaller rear window. So GM might have figured, let's just take a chance and get rid of the hardtops altogether.

uplanderguy · April 2014

I can plainly remember our salesman telling us when we picked up our new '67 Chevelle, that the reason the rears didn't roll down the whole way was so kids couldn't fall out. They rolled down most but not all of the way. I guess our Fairlane before it had windows that rolled the whole way down.

stever · April 2014

Honestly, it sounds more like some reasoning made up by the salespeople to explain the issue instead of it being a federal reg. But trying to search the regs is about impossible so who knows. I think it's just an issue with the wheel wells being in the way.

uplanderguy · April 2014

andre, talking about things CR noticed on cars in the '70's--I plainly remember their test of a '73 Buick Electra 225. It had 46 defects (back when they'd count them), and there was a pic of how opening the right front door actually dented the upper fender sheetmetal where the fake 'portholes' were! A kid I knew in school was obnoxious about how much-better Buicks were built than Chevys. I made sure to show him that article. LOL

fintail · April 2014

I don't know about that supposed regulation about windows rolling down - never had or seen an MB where the windows didn't go down normally. MBs tend to have a "soft" pillar in the rear door, which helps.

andre1969 · April 2014

@fintail said:
I don't know about that supposed regulation about windows rolling down - never had or seen an MB where the windows didn't go down normally. MBs tend to have a "soft" pillar in the rear door, which helps.

I think often that "soft" pillar, with the little quarter/spacer window, makes it much easier for a window to roll down all the way. With midsized cars, Mopar and Ford usually had those quarter windows in the back doors, to allow a window to roll all the way down, whereas the GM midsized cars didn't. Chrysler did away with those quarter windows on the midsized cars for 1971, and IIRC, the windows stuck up a few inches. Ford did away with them for 1972 in the Torino/Montego, but the windows were fairly small, and the kick-up in the beltline helped hide them as well, so I think they did still go all the way down.

Now that I think about it, I don't think the back windows went down all the way in GM's big '71-76 pillared sedans. I believe they stuck up about 3-4 inches, but as they rolled down, they created a gap at the back because of the slant, so you could still put your arm out the window. Even once they put a spacer window in the sedans for '75-76, I think they still stuck up a few inches.

I think the pillared version of the '74-78 big Mopars also stuck up a few inches, but it's been ages since I've seen one of those, I can't remember. Usually, with those, the survivors I see are hardtop sedan versions of the Newport and New Yorker. I think the '73-78 big Fords and Mercurys rolled down all the way, but they were fairly small.

stever · April 2014

Rear windows that don't roll all the way down are a real pain. We should start a campaign to ban them - for safety reasons naturally. Just imagine some poor car-sick kid cutting his throat on that glass edge from a halfway rolled down window.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2014

I always thought the windows didn't roll down because of design problems in fitting the glass into the door's limited space.

robr2 · April 2014

@MrShift@Edmunds said:
I always thought the windows didn't roll down because of design problems in fitting the glass
into the door's limited space.

I think this is the real reason. Child safety was just a side benefit that could be advertised.

Notice today with higher belt lines and narrower windows, that the windows now roll down much further? There's room for the windows now. Is child safety no longer important? Now, it's just that kids sit in their seats with their belts on.

andre1969 · April 2014

I remember my uncle saying that they would make the back windows roll down all but just a few inches, to keep kids from hanging their arms out the window. My grandparents had two full-size Chevy wagons in the 60's, but nobody in our family can remember if they were a '60 and a '64, or a '61 and a '65. I think the '59-64 wagons all stuck up a few inches, so my uncle might remember that, from when he was a kid. Dunno if GM really did it to keep kids from hanging their arms out the window, or if that was just something Granddad told him.

uplanderguy · April 2014

I swung by my Chevy dealer today to look at the SS they have in the showroom. It looked sharp but at $47K it ought to be! 7% N.A. parts content; I'm surprised it's that high, being built in Australia. I liked the suede, or pseudo-suede, trim on the dash and seats.

I looked again at Malibus and Impalas. I really like the Impala, but it certainly is a large car. I'd think my wife would think it was too large, but I don't know. It seems like there should be a car between the Malibu and Impala, maybe. I know that wouldn't happen!

I did bring the Impala and Malibu brochures home...to fantasize.

andre1969 · April 2014

@uplanderguy said:
It seems like there should be a car between the Malibu and Impala, maybe. I know that wouldn't happen!

I think the reason for that is that the Malibu is a bit on the small side for a midsized car, while the Impala is finally on a platform worthy enough, IMO at least, to be called "full-sized".

In the past, I used to think there was too much overlap between the Malibu and the old W-body Impala, but now it seems there's a bit of overlap between the Cruze and the Malibu.

But, GM isn't the only one with some overlap. IMO, the Dart seems to overlap with the Avenger/200, with the "big compact/small midsize" thing going on. Meanwhile, at Ford, I think the overlap is with the Fusion and Taurus. The Fusion feels about "right" for a midsized car, But then, other than a larger trunk, the Taurus doesn't seem to give you much more useable room. And, looking at EPA volumes, I've seen the Taurus at around 102 cubic feet of passenger volume. About the same as a 1978-83 Malibu sedan. Which, to me, is about as midsized as it gets!

Maybe I need to plan a little trip to the Chevy dealer to snag an Impala brochure, myself. And, in a perverse sort of way, I'm curious to take a 4-cyl Impala out for a test drive and see how it feels. I remember Imidazol97 saying it seemed decent enough. I think the latest Impala is the first Chevy that I've been seriously interested in, in a long time. Even though the Camaro is cool in its own way, I've always found ponycars to be a bit impractical. If I wanted performance in the 60's, I would've gone with an Impala SS or Catalina 2+2 instead of a Camaro. In the 80's, while most of my high school buddies wanted a Camaro or Trans Am, I wanted a Monte SS or Grand National! Or, my one teacher's '78 Catalina sedan, which had a 400, and was a gorgeous dark burgundy over light.

uplanderguy · April 2014

I was weird that way, too. When 18, I was looking at Malibu Classics and Monte Carlos and walking right past Camaros...although I was intrigued by the V8 Monza 2+2 when it came out, and I liked '75 Novas a lot. I loved the '77-79 2-door Caprice, properly-optioned. My college roommate at 22 bought a very nice, new '81 Firebird V6, while at 22 I bought a new '81 Monte Carlo with bench seat. LOL

andre1969 · April 2014

@uplanderguy said:
My college roommate at 22 bought a very nice, new '81 Firebird V6, while at 22 I bought a new '81 Monte Carlo with bench seat. LOL

I was a late bloomer when it came to new cars...didn't get my first new one until I was 29. My 2000 Intrepid, on November 6, 1999.

I was 22 when I bought my '68 Dart 270. Bought it a day after my birthday on April 3, 1992. Wow...half my life ago, yet it doesn't seem all that long. In fact, today I happened to drive past the house it was sitting in the driveway of, when I first saw it for sale.

I wonder sometimes...is the excitement of getting a new car something that fades as you get older, or is it just that there isn't as much variety and "new-ness" these days? Or maybe a combination of both? I don't know if I'd call it "excited", but the new Impala definitely has me interested. I like the color choices they give you with the Impala, too. There's a "Silver Topaz" color that to me looks like a pale, silvery blue, that I really like. The only other car I think I'd seriously consider these days is a Charger, but it seems like the choices there are either too loud, or too dull, but no happy medium. But, as much as I like that Silver Topaz, I don't think it would look right on a Charger. Maybe a 300, though.

uplanderguy · April 2014

I think the last new car I got that I was very excited about--here goes--was our '93 Caprice Classic. I was 35 and my wife was 28. I wanted the base model with F41, posi, in a maroon with maroon interior, wire wheelcovers (GM's looked the best at the time IMHO--small center and long spokes), and the Eagle tires with pinstripe whitewalls. My local dealer only found one matching exactly what I wanted, and it was in Pittsburgh. The day they said they were going to get it, I must have made three or four eight-mile roundtrips to the dealer to see it, and at about 8:30 p.m. I did see it on their lot.

You came somewhat after this, but you've heard me and others mention what a big deal in the fall when the redesigned models came out. Planned obsolescence, perhaps, but it was magical. I remember it almost as much as Christmastime of my youth.

lemko · April 2014

The last new car I bought was my 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance and it looks as if it's going to be with me a long, long time. The XTS doesn't do much for me and Cadillac cancelled the proposed RWD flagship. I imagine any next new car in my family will be a replacement for my wife's Buick LaCrosse which is likely another LaCrosse. I do like the new Impala, but to have one spec'd out to my standards, it would be close to $40K! I have a hard time paying that much for a Chevrolet that isn't a Corvette. As far as I'm concerned, that's Buick or low-end Caddy territory.

uplanderguy · April 2014

BTW andre, I'm looking at the Impala brochure and I see the Silver Topaz you mean. That's a nice light blue and probably the color I'd choose too, and it's not even extra-cost! They also have 'Champagne Silver' (goldish) and 'Silver Ice' (silver). I wish they'd add a dark brown metallic and a dark green metallic, personally, and offer a side molding on Impalas other than LTZ. I think the 4-cyl. LTZ might be interesting, to get the nice trim and side molding, wheels, etc., and that's the only LTZ you can get without a sunroof and I don't like sunroofs (except on Studebakers, LOL). I've never seen a 4-cyl. LTZ on a lot.

imidazol97 · April 2014

@uplanderguy said:

I've never seen a 4-cyl. LTZ on a lot.

That's probably because as soon as they come in they are purchased by someone like me who doesn't need the 3.6 L. and they like the lower price. As soon as the 4-cyl hit the lot at another dealership near me, the X discount retirees were buying them. Makes sense to me and probably a good price. The salesman commented they get bought the day they fall off the truck, to paraphrase his terms.

The champaign silver is a pretty color with the light tan interior in the Malibu. That was my wife's pick when we looked at one the saleslady brought up BUT it had the 2.0 Turbo, 3LT.

That light interior is not offered in the Impala.

I definitely would negotiate the body shop placing the LTZ body moulding on a different model as part of the purchase.

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Help Center/Download a Brochure/02_PDFs/CHEVY-IMP 7_MY14 Impala eBrochure_102313.pdf

uplanderguy · April 2014

The lesser models do look naked in that spot IMHO, without that chrome molding.

What did CR test results say...has anything but the top Benz and Tesla outscored it in that class?

imidazol97 · April 2014

@uplanderguy said:
The lesser models do look naked in that spot IMHO, without that chrome molding.

The chrome door handles also are an easy snap on with a torx screwdriver. I found a video for adding them on the Malibu and Impala has to be identical. Some dealers add them on as a pack. I am interested in pin striping my own Malibu. Few have it done by the new car sellers as a pack, but I'm not sure where to run it. I have a roll of antelope which would look good on my black. I've seen a couple on the road while we were shopping, but I don't recall how they placed the pin striping.

andre1969 · April 2014

I was out running an errand this morning, and happened to see a few Impalas out in front of the local Chevy dealer. Stopped off to have a quick look. There was a pearly white one that caught my eye, with a sunroof. Looked at the window sticker, and it was $33K. Didn't seem like a bad price...until I realized it was just a 4-cyl! There were three others, and none of them had a sunroof. There was a white and black 4-cyl, and then a red one with no window sticker, so I don't know which engine it had.

Just checked their website though, and I think I found my dream Impala!

Oddly though, those pics show trees with leaves on them and green grass that looks a bit dry. Plus the shadow angles are all wrong, so these pics were probably taken last summer. Probably of a different car that happened to be the same color. At least, I hope so...hope this thing hasn't been sitting around since last August!!

uplanderguy · April 2014

I dunno, that looks like an awful lot of car for $35K. I like it. I tend to not like gray interiors but there's not much else to choose from out there. I want to drive one so bad I can taste it! What else that size, equipped like that, can be bought for that money?

andre1969 · April 2014

@uplanderguy said:
I dunno, that looks like an awful lot of car for $35K. I like it. I tend to not like gray interiors but there's not much else to choose from out there. I want to drive one so bad I can taste it! What else that size, equipped like that, can be bought for that money?

Yeah, I agree it's a lot of car for the money. But then, I go check out the Dodge dealer and find this Plum Crazy Hemi Charger for $31K!

I think the Impala is a bit larger inside than the Charger, though, and has a larger trunk. Also, while Mopar improved the interiors of these cars considerably with the 2011 refresh, I think the Impala is still a nicer car inside. And even though the Charger has a Hemi, there might not be that much of a difference in performance. I've heard the Impala 3.6 can do 0-60 in about 6.1 seconds. I just found a time listed of 5.2 seconds for a 2011 Charger RT, and 5.1 seconds for a 2013 Charger police car. So, if you're gonna drag race the two, you'll notice the difference I'm sure. But I'm sure the Impala 3.6 is still a blast to drive!

uplanderguy · April 2014

The current Charger is a nice-looking car I think. I didn't like the previous one--I liked the original 300 (my sister and her husband have an '05 300-C which is still a nice car), but the refresh on the Charger was a good one I think.

I do like how Chrysler has brought back 'Plum Crazy' and I think the orange is 'Vitamin C'. Very original these days, and excellent homage to their interesting past.

berri · April 2014

I was catching up on some reading and saw a couple of comparison reviews between the 300/Charger and the Chevy SS. I know it's not the same as the Impala, but they both indicated the Chevy had better comfort and ergonomics over the Mopars. The Impala is probably plusher than the SS. But it's always an individual thing, so you'd probably want to drive them back to back.

uplanderguy · April 2014

I'll tell you, the SS costs more than the Impala--a lot more. I looked at one the other day and it was $47K. I think it's a nice looking car, but that's pretty large $$ IMHO.

andre1969 · April 2014

I just did a cars.com search, and it found four SSes within a 20 mile radius. One for $46,186, one for $46,310, and two at $47,170.

Also found a slightly used 2014 Impala 2LT, with the 3.6 and 6,022 miles, for $22,995. No sunroof and seats are a combination of cloth and vinyl, but it seems like a lot of car for the money.

I wonder if the Chevy SS would compete more with the Charger SRT-8, or just the regular Charger RT?

uplanderguy · April 2014

Man, that's a great price with 6K miles IMHO.

robr2 · April 2014

Are you sure that isn't an "Impala Classic" at that price??

uplanderguy · April 2014

robr2, excellent question.

andre1969 · April 2014

Nah, it's a 2014 style... Thar she blows!

I agree though, the price does seem cheap...tempting enough for me to go look at it. That dealer is in kind of a sketchy neighborhood though, so I wonder if that has something to do with the price? Maybe it would be higher if it was in a ritzier neighborhood? Another possibility, maybe it's just a 4-cyl, but they mis-labeled it as a V-6 in the ad?

imidazol97 · April 2014

@andre1969 said:
Nah, it's a 2014 style...

I agree though, the price does seem cheap...tempting enough for me to go look at it. That dealer is in kind of a sketchy neighborhood though, so I wonder if that has something to do with the price? Maybe it would be higher if it was in a ritzier neighborhood?

Price might be higher if it hadn't been in a multiple impact collision accident from which it had to be towed. And it was a fleet /rental vehicle, which would be a positive for me.

Another possibility, maybe it's just a 4-cyl, but they mis-labeled it as a V-6 in the ad?

The 8th digit is a "3" meaning 3.6 engine. The 2.5 is an "L" for the engine vin digit.

They have had the car since Feb 17, at least. I wonder how the accident location can be determined? Then look at the report and photos from the accident scene...

andre1969 · April 2014

Wow, how did you find that info so quick? Did you run it through Carfax it or something?

js06gv · April 2014

Unless the pics are wrong, I'd still be surprised if this is a V6. It doesn't have the nice dual chrome pipes running out the back like all V6 cars do.

robr2 · April 2014

@andre1969 said:
Wow, how did you find that info so quick? Did you run it through Carfax it or something?

Nope - just click on the auto check link in the ad and it shows all that info.

imidazol97 · April 2014

@andre1969 said:
Wow, how did you find that info so quick? Did you run it through Carfax it or something?

They offer a free carfax on their site.
The VIN number has a digit for the engine, I just didn't know which one. I was comparing the digits. I knew the first 5 or 6 are the body style and level. I knew my Malibu has an "L" in it in the middle when and I compared the listings on a Chev dealer for 6 and 4 cylinders and saw the "L" again I had it figured out without checking my Buick factory service manuals for the engine digit.

Also I tried looking at the stock numbers on a car in a dealer's offerings. With most dealers they are assigned as the new cars fall off the truck. So the lower stock numbers indicate older vehicles which the dealer might be more interested in moving. However, the silver topaz Impala dealer uses an odd system where the first digits may indicate type, model, and location since they have more than one store? I couldn't make heads nor tails out of the stock number to see the car had been around since the deciduous trees had leaves.

Dealers do use pictures of other almost identical cars instead of getting fresh photos for each one.

fintail · April 2014

Makes sense, banged up rental. Looks like it was fixed well, from pics taken 10 feet away. I'd hold out for an LTZ.

imidazol97 · April 2014

Here's a nice 2014 LTZ that's in our area. Not Silver Topaz but 18000 mi. Carfax calls it a company car implying a GM car used for 6 months.

http://www.smedleys.com/VehicleDetails/certified-2014-Chevrolet-Impala-2LTZ-Vandalia-OH/2203178483

Here's a 2014 Classic for 19999, a real bargain for an auto.
http://www.smedleys.com/VehicleDetails/certified-2014-Chevrolet-Impala-LS-Vandalia-OH/2191563633

General Motors Fans

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles