Chevy Impala 2004 Redesign

jpstax · March 2003

Here is link to the '04 GTP. Color appears to be a shade of silver:

http://www.edmunds.com/future/2004/pontiac/grandprix/100076346/ph- - otos.html?tid=edmunds.f.review.leftsidenav..3.Pontiac*

johnclineii · March 2003

Yeah, but the SS comes ONLY in black.

My point is that the GTP will no doubt come in many colours, white being ONE of them!

And it IS available, colour code 40U, name Ivory!

regfootball · March 2003

actually, i read that the marauder was indeed killed.

Ford needs to learn to

make auto trannies that actually help acceleration and maybe not lie about their horsepower either.

jpstax · March 2003

I wasn't disputing your statement. I merely wanted to point out that you WERE correct in stating that the '04 GTP would probably be available in OTHER colors, not just black (like the Impala SS). The site I showed a link to just happened to show a SILVER colored '04 GTP. I'm sure the car WILL be available in white, and a lot of other colors as well.

johnclineii · March 2003

I know, and thanks! No harm, no foul! (and no black SS's for me, thanks!)

kirbstoy · March 2003

Black only, huh? That will go over well in Northern California's 112* days in the summer! Besides, Chevy will raise the price so high for the old technology, you might as well buy the Maxima, available in numerous colors, and with a lot better long-term frequency-of-repair history! Or, buy the new Accord for less money and 240 HP without the hassle of a supercharger. See ya Chevy!

atbear · March 2003

"you might as well buy the Maxima, available in numerous colors, and with a lot better long-term frequency-of-repair history!"

I'd like to see those long-term repair numbers please.... don't have them? Didn't think so.

If you don't like the black only SS for '04, then wait til '05... Or get the new Grand Prix, which is EASILY the best car in the class. Hello Pontiac.

BTW there is no "hassle of the supercharger".. where'd you get that from?

regfootball · March 2003

he meant to say 'band-aid'.

garnes · March 2003

The new Accord is 240 HP and what - 212 lb-ft of torque vs a very low end 280 lb-ft for a SC 3.8 and 225 for a non SC engine. That 240 is only available at quite high rpms too - 6250. Even more telling, the peak torque of 212 is available at a very high 5000 rpms. Peak numbers are only a fraction of the picture. Please also consider that the BMW 330's (3 liter 6 cylinder) produce "only" 225 HP and 214 lb-ft of torque. Gee, what's the matter with those performance minded BMW engineers? - can't keep up with Honda? Well, that 225 comes in at 5900 and the torque of 214 is available at a much much lower 3500 rpms. Don't get me wrong, the Honda is an awesome engine, but you just can't look at peak numbers. Even with the rpm's known, you still don't know if the peak torque occurs at a spike in the curve or if the torque curve is very flat. The total power curve and the gearing strategy matter a lot. Unfortunately, most of the public just looks at peak numbers - same for magazines.

Also, cars are sent to the magazines for "first drive" hype and the car performs incredibly (of course) only to perform less incredibly in later "comparison" tests 6 months later with other cars. Worse, 0 to 60 is all the focus and the "street start" (C&D tests a 5 to 60 street start that eliminates the gains from a trick launch - it is more indicative of real driving experience/performance) is much lower for some cars. Example: the WRX tested well under 6 seconds in C&D to 0 to 60, but the 5 to 60 number was 7.4. Hmmmm.

I just don't see any intelligence in this constant "bash" mentality sometimes displayed on some boards. If you don't own an Impala or care to own one in the future, why deposit your refuse here? Do you also hang around the grocery store and ridicule those that buy foods you don't like (for whatever "reason")?

This "old technology" stuff is goofy. I have both a DOHC (4 cam), 32 valve V8 car and the Impala with the 3.8. I love them both and don't find the 3.8 lacking in any respect. I find it to deliver plenty of power with lots of low end torque, incredible fuel economy, and a great value as part of a nicely equipped, very roomy, safe, full sized comfortable car.

atbear · March 2003

The Series II 3.8 S/C engine produces more like 315TQ... it's very underrated. 240HP is about right for it though....
The Series III 3.8 S/C engine produces even more torque, and this time the HP is underrated as well. Just like most GM cars and trucks.

garnes · March 2003

Yeah, they do that and I think it's stupid. Some that come to mind are the outgoing 5.7 L Camaro and Firebirds. I've seen chassis dyno's that clearly indicate the engine is producing power closer to the corvette (a huge amount of power is making it to the wheels). But they underrate the power so as not to "compete" with the vette.

Also, I've always found it weird that the 3.8's in some Pontiacs make 230 torque and the Chevy is 225. Yeah right. The set up is the same as far as I can tell. I wouldn't be surprised that the Chevy is simply listed 5 less than the Pontiac just to keep some sort of artificial line between the divisions.

GM is infamous for this and they think they are helping their divisions. It's stupid.

kirbstoy · March 2003

OK. OK. Sorry for the negativity on the new Impala SS. I really like the new Impala and, in fact, am seriously considering a new LS when my current vehicle lease is up. My disappointment really comes from it being available only in black...but, as mentioned in a previous listing, Pontiac (and Buick) offer the same driveline with other colors, so I guess that's ok. I guess my biggest disapointment is that its not a rear-drive Vortec V-8 which Chevy has done recently to demonstrate it could be done. The new Stage III engine (the supercharger hassle comment was out of line)would have been better also, but, well maybe we should be happy they're going to have a SS. Happy motoring!

02lssport · March 2003

regfootball - "he meant to say 'band-aid'. "

Do you want me to name all of the cars (foreign and domestic) that come with forced induction from the factory?

Its funny that I don't hear anyone complaining that Saabs, VW's, or Volvo's come with turbo's. Plus Mitsu and Mazda are coming out with turbo cars. Superchargers can be more reliable and drive better without that turbo lag.

Band-aid? NOT. You are just a domestic hater.

magnetophone · March 2003

Well, I'd rather have a Saab, Volvo or VW any day over a Chevy

regfootball · March 2003

cars are global. there are no domestic cars and no foreign cars. get past the homerism buddy.

atbear · March 2003

Saab is made by GM....

anyways.. y'all are without hope or reason...

johnclineii · March 2003

If SAAB is made by GM, then Volvo is made by Ford. And it is a very short hop to Intrepid is made by Mercedes.

As was said in the parent group for quite some time:

IMPALA

On with the show...(SHO?)

magnetophone · March 2003

I know Saab's a GM product. I still like Saab regardless of that.

vcjumper · March 2003

Don't forget Kompressor equiped MB's. Why don't they just make them as powerful without them? Just aweful :-). I mean look how happy Audi S4 buyers/enthusiasts where when the new S4 was announced with a NA V8 rather than a TT v6.

regfootball · March 2003

yeah the kompressor Benzs are a way to sell a 'starter' 4 cylinder Benz that won't fall on its [non-permissible content removed] from a dead stop. Then they can advertise a Cclass 'starting at 29,900!' even though they just want to get you in the showroom to see the v6 model at 8 grand more.

I'm not so much opposed to turbos and superchargers in four cylinders as the fours usually have very small displacement. A saab turbo 4 is 2 litres. I wouldn't expect 265hp out of a 4 cyl non turbo.

But in the v6 game, I think the basic design of the motor (valvetrain) and size (displacement) should be enough to get serious horsepower without really needing a supercharger or turbo. Shoould be able to get 240hp or so without one.

johnclineii · March 2003

People like you are one reason that superchargers are made. It is torque, especially low in the power band, that matters in making a car accelerate quickly. All that horsepower does is keep it moving.

Torquey engines often have relatively unimpressive horsepower ratings. But, the public looks for horsepower ratings. I doubt 5 out of 100 could even tell you what torque is.

Thus the supercharged engine on the Impala. The better question is why do they STILL keep the Series III for Pontiac and not let Chevy use it? I see little reason to even consider an Impala when the new GTP is out with the newly improved engine. ESPECIALLY since it, unlike the Chevy, comes in colours other than black and even with cloth seats, should one so desire.

vcjumper · March 2003

Back seat room and comfort.. When I checked it out at the auto show, the GTP struck me as pretty cramped back there for a 3500lb W-Body.

regfootball · March 2003

no v6 should NEED a supercharger. Any v6 will have enough torque so it doesn't gag on its own lunch. Rarely in the US is a v6 smaller than 2.5 or 3.0 litres.

too many four cylinders have too small a displacement which is why a blower seems to be handy. If they just made the four cylinder a little bigger, it may make a blower a waste of time. For example, the Nissan SpecV has a 2.5 litre four that gets as much power as Mazda's 2.0 with a turbo. And Saab has a 2.0 trying to lug a big car around, hence add a blower. Maybe Saab should just enlarge the displacement. The Altima does wonderfully with its larger 2.5 litre four cylinder. The Altima 4 cyl. is more refined than and can outdo a 3.1 Grand Prix and be within striking distance of the 3.8 Grand Prix.

Oddly, with the 3800, it seems to need more displacement AND a blower to get up in the 240hp range. Take away the blower and it makes power more similar to other cars with engines in the 3.0 litre range.

atbear · March 2003

"But in the v6 game, I think the basic design of the motor (valvetrain) and size (displacement) should be enough to get serious horsepower without really needing a supercharger or turbo. Shoould be able to get 240hp or so without one."

Yeah, but where is their torque? Huh.... that's right they have no where close to 300 ft/lbs like the '97 GTP does.

"Oddly, with the 3800, it seems to need more displacement AND a blower to get up in the 240hp range. Take away the blower and it makes power more similar to other cars with engines in the 3.0 litre range."

You still don't understand that it's a different type of engine do you? Why are you so hung up on displacement and superchargers? What's the big deal? It makes the power you could want AND it have great fuel economy... what is your problem with it???

regfootball · March 2003

sounds like you're the one with 'issues'.

atbear · March 2003

Why? I'm on an Impala forum talking about an Impala.... you're here talking about other cars...

johnclineii · March 2003

And every time someone points out to him that OHV engines have greater torque on the low end than DOHC engines, he ignores them and changes the subject!

jbk5 · March 2003

Does he really think he's going to change our opinions of the 3800? This could go on forever.

02lssport · March 2003

...and ever and ever and ever... LOL

"But in the v6 game, I think the basic design of the motor (valvetrain) and size (displacement) should be enough to get serious horsepower without really needing a supercharger or turbo. Should be able to get 240hp or so without one."

If its sooo easy then how come Honda and Nissan are the only ones that I know of with 240 hp in a v6? Perhaps they choose to tweek the engine in the higher RPM range to sqeeze out an extra 20 or so peek horsepower.

Each car maker is different. They don't all aim to make extra peek HP just to sell more cars to numb nuts who ONLY look at peek HP.

I would rather have 240 HP or 260 HP and 280 TQ any day over 240 HP and 240 TQ (Nissan) or 212 TQ (Honda - lame). In terms of cost, gas mileage, power, and reliability its a win for GM. Like I said before the Nissan makes good power but the other's can't compete wih the SC 3800.

atbear · March 2003

Do y'all remember the GM 3.4L DOHC V6 in the mid 90's that made 281HP N/A? It's not that hard... it's just not cost effective sometimes.. GM is about to introduce some new engines in the next couple of years.. a lot of them DOHC. I can't wait to see the GM 3.6L DOHC in action in the next few years...

02lssport · March 2003

Damn I don't remember that engine. What car was that in? But you are right - car makers can do many things. It about what makes sense at the time and is cost effective. I can't wait to see what they in store too. Its sounds like they have some great engines coming soon.

vcjumper · March 2003

I thought it only made 215.. Was a rework of the 3.1L OHV with new heads.

atbear · March 2003

It wasn't put into cars in that incarnation due to not having a FWD automatic tranny that could handle 275HP. The engine was ready, but no tranny, so they detuned it to 210HP 215TQ for production. Go here: http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/34Performance/dohc.html

Here's some quotes:
"The 3.4 was concepted as a V6 version of the Olds 2.3L "quad 4"."
"The 3.4L DOHC was actually the forerunner of many current motors. The Cadillac Northstar 4.6L 32 Valve V8, and later the Aroura 4.0L 32-Valve V8, were sons of the V6 program."
"Well, the GM engine gurus went to their counterparts at GM Hydramatic, with a challenge. Build a FWD auto trans, that will take 275 HP. You have 2 years to be in production. In a car."
"and it was by far, the BEST motor that GM engineers could build for its application. Emission certification verifed an honest 281HP on the sheets. Emission 7000RPM screamer. This was in early 1990, January I believe. Transmission? Anyone? Hydramatic had its own challenges to conquer."
"Hydramatic went to the market with their finished product just days before the deadline. Will it take 275HP? NO! Will it take 250HP? NO! How bout 225Hp? Maybe. GM engine ground was peeved! All this effort, just to be cut down at the flywheel....225HP? I want 275! Well, the rest is corporate decision making at its worst. Cut the horsepower of the 3.4L to 200 with an automatic. You can have 210 on a stick. Makes a guy want to cry, don't it?"

It's a damn shame they couldn't get it out then... but at least we have good trannies now... GM and Ford are even now working on a 6 speed FWD tranny right now together. Should be good. Now all we need are some manual trannies!!!

Also, for more GM DOHC, check out the Northstar, and the ZR-1 Corvette.

regfootball · March 2003

that 3.4 twin dual cam was designed to adapt the 3.1 pushrod motor into a DOHC in order to utilize some existing tooling and factories.

In other words, a half butt approach to engine design.

atbear · March 2003

Sorry, but that's just not true.... It was designed from top to bottom to be a fully performance engine in FWD form... You are wrong.

regfootball · March 2003

no, you are. I'm gonna have to dig through my old car and drivers to find that article.

I think if you look you will find the bore centers are exactly the same which is part of what enabled them to utilize some existing tooling from the pushrod version.

A way to cheap out on the design in other words.

atbear · March 2003

Are you saying that this engine was supposed to be anything other than a full out performance engine? If you are then you are way off. This engine was based off a quad four, not a pushrod six.

magnetophone · March 2003

I don't believe that's the case.

The 3.4 DOHC is a separate engine, one that evolved from the Quad 4 and was used in several other cars in the late 80's and early 90's.

The 3.4 pushrod in the Impala is based off of the 3.1, 2.8 pushrod series which is a completely different engine that I believe debuted in 79 with the Citation.

atbear · March 2003

Yeah... I didn't even think he could be talking about the wrong engine... LOL...

I'm talking about the DOHC 3.4L V6, not the 3.4L Pushrod V6 which is based pretty much on the 3.1L Pushrod V6.

vcjumper · March 2003

Here is some info.. Too bad the engine was practically stillborn with the reliability issues and unsuitable trannies.
3.4

regfootball · March 2003

I didn't get a chance to look through my magazine archives today at home, but the link vc posted above I read through last night. I also found another web link where someone had experimented with using the OHC heads on a pushrod block or something. Also, many Fiero sites have info on where people have swapped the Fiero 2.8 v6 for the Twin Dual Cam which suggests they have near identical block configurations and sizes.

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/5007/fiero_osg/60-degre- - e-V6.html

this link also suggests the 3.4 TDC was an evolution of the far too ubiquitous Citation engine.

I don't disagree that perhaps the head design for the Twin Dual cam was modeled after the Quad four, but from what I have read in the past, the block design started with the pushrod v6 because of the desire to utilize some existing tooling and manufacturing capabilities. The oiling system was modified to work with OHC and a complete DOHC top end was half@$$ed on top of the modified pushrod block.

I will find the tech report in Car and Driver that breaks this out in detail. I've seen it / read it. Just need to dig some boxes up in the bedroom to get to it and find it.

Besides, in the early 80's to mid 90's GM never designed an all new v6, much less an OHC, so it was par for course for them to take a half hearted approach. So like them.

atbear · March 2003

The 3.4 Pushrod and 3.1 Pushrod engines are very similar, I'm not saying they aren't. But the DOHC 3.4 and Pushrod 3.1 are completely different.

Also, the 3.4 DOHC is a pretty good engine with pretty good reliability... it was just coupled with a poor alternator, and a poor tranny... vcjumper just posted the same article I did......

magnetophone · March 2003

Why are we talking about the DOHC 3.4? It's not being offered anymore, and is certainly not the engine in the Impala.

atbear · March 2003

Because we are talking GM engines, and DOHC engines. And that is a GM DOHC engine.

magnetophone · March 2003

One that hasn't been used in years and shows little of GM's supposed engineering prowess...

atbear · March 2003

So? You asked a question and I gave you an answer... If you want GM's engineering prowess, look at the new Cadillacs, the Northstar, the LS6, the new GM 3.6L DOHC, the 4.3L Vortec V6, and the Ecotech 4 cylinder.

magnetophone · March 2003

The 3.6 DOHC isn't out yet, so I can't attest to it. The inline six on the trailblazer is a good engine...the Ecotec 4 cylinder is smooth but underpowered and generally no better than its competition.

Wow, I'm so overwhelmed.

atbear · March 2003

The Ecotech 4 cylinder is just a good reliable durable engine with good power and the ability to take boost from superchargers or turbos.

regfootball · March 2003

the only force fed Ecotec so far is the Saab. Its too early to tell yet if it will spill its innards or not when its getting rammed.

atbear · March 2003

They sell factory/dealer installed superchargers on all Ecotecs, reggie.... Esp the Sunfire.

Chevy Impala 2004 Redesign

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles