SS Billboards

Seen on Illinois Toll Roads ________________ FAST, POWERFUL, END OF STORY IMPALA SS

--------------------------

( Billboards shows a rear view of the SS going down the road.)

========= Harryface =========

1991 Pontiac Bonneville LE ~_~_~269,000 miles_~_~_
Reply to
Harry Face
Loading thread data ...

Yeah right,.....front wheel drive, V6! Fast, not like the REAL Impala SS,

1995~96 models.
Reply to
noyap

My "fast" favorite: '63 Impala 327" 2-dr coupe. Sentimental favorite: '60 Impala 283" 2-dr coupe.

Reply to
Bill Freeman

Had a 1968 Impala SS 427 coupe with the "rock crusher" Muncy 4-speed in it. The car was extremely fast (somehow, I don't think that the newer ones could measure up).

Reply to
Rich B

Yes .. . quite fast. Just curious .. . faster than the '64-'65 427" or the later 396"?

Reply to
Bill Freeman

I never matched it against any f those but I also had a 1966 Caprice 396 that was quick but I doubt that if was as good as the 427. The '69 had a custom interior and the engine was equipped for racing (Holley racing carb with no choke etc.). It was fast but very hard to start in cold weather. I ended up having to switch carbs for different seasons just so I could get it started in the winter. That old car surprised mre that a few guys that thought they had fast cars (ok so I broke a few laws - but they were only little ones LOL).

Reply to
Rich B

The 396": hot water choke? They sometimes stuck until warm. I usually associate Chevy with Rochester Quadrajets and Hollys with Ford. Chevy, correct me, dropped out of racing in '64. The 427"s of that pre-pollution control era were "hot stuff" by any standard. Ford had a margin of speed & power but only after Chevy dropped racing. No idea how the Mopar hemis faired by comparison. They had good specs. Today's "hot"

3-400 hp cars wouldn't hold a candle to most of those engines/cars (e.g. today's cars are too heavy with luxury, safety and pollution devices). Today's cars are "commuters" by comparsion. Nothing wrong with that. Different era, different technologic needs. On the other hand drag, formula etc. have different requirements and successes.

Reply to
Bill Freeman

The 396 had a choke coil in a well that was located on the exhaust crossover on the intake manifold. The well was a cast well, not the removeable type used on some engines. The 396 is my favorite engine of all times. Mine was so well balanced on compression, that it was hard to tell it was running even with the hood open. I lost that car in an accident but the wrecking yard that bought it, restored it and the last time I saw it (about 10 years ago) it was in pristine condition.

I "tinkered" with the car a lot and one thing I did (in 1969) was build a capacitive discharge ignition system for it (from scratch). I later repaced it with a kit system from Allied Radio. The CD ignition worked great in the 396 and I later moved it over to the '68 427 (which had a Mallory dual point distributor). I had a 1969 with a 427 SB but those engines just didn't measure up. Give a good 'rat' motor anytime.

Reply to
Rich B

Know what you say. I never heard anything but good about the 396. Hot air chokes, CD ignitions, Mallory dual-points .. . (not to mention the alternator, which Mopars developed first) .. . quick fixes for what the auto companies weren't developing fast enough. Muncie was a great transmission .. . sort of replaced in modern cars (4-6cyls) by the Warner T-10 design. Look at how long it took them to develop and refine disk brakes?! If it weren't for auto racing .. . they'd still be trying to figure 'em out.

"Rich B" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-2154.public.lawson.webtv.net...

Reply to
Bill Freeman

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.