gimp19 Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 The '94-96 Impala/Caprice would have had power ratings like the Lt1 Corvette, but they used Iron heads instead of Aluminum. The reason is the Iron ones are more heavy duty, I have also heard GM didn't want too put so much hp/torque in the hands of unexpecting buyers. Anywas the B-body version, was built much better and had a much nicer look to it, 260hp. and 330ft-lbs. of torque isn't a bad start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 No kidding, eh? Damn girl, grab something to eat! She needs to stop by some buffet or something like that. Eat more biatch! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 The LT1 in the 94-96 Impala SS never produced 400HP, they were only 260HP, 330ft-lbs torque. I know, I said "Can produce 400 horsepower" Yeah, but so what? Off the dealer's lot, it didn't. An L67 can produce 400HP too. A souped up 4-cyl can produce 400HP too. An "SS" is supposed to be a performance machine bone stock, right off the lot. If they gave cars the SS moniker based on potential HP, every single smallblock V8 equipped Chevy should have been an "SS". i DUNNO how that was assumed but I don't think the 94-96 got an SS badge because of potential power! It deserved the SS badge because it was everything that SS always stood for! All we'd need now is SS badges on buzzy little 4 cyl's that will put that badge right in line with "type R". We're awfully close to that arent we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91GranSport Posted June 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 Y'know, sometimes I think that this W-Body forum is one of the most hilarious forums I've been to over the years. I still laugh when I think about that frikking grocery bagger post you had a while back! No kidding, eh? Damn girl, grab something to eat! She needs to stop by some buffet or something like that. Eat more biatch! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91GranSport Posted June 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 I'm with you on that, hell the "SS" is legendary and should only be placed on vehicles that are worthy of it. Hell, if the current '00+ Monte Carlo isn't worthy of it's name, then it definitely isn't worthy of the "SS". i DUNNO how that was assumed but I don't think the 94-96 got an SS badge because of potential power! It deserved the SS badge because it was everything that SS always stood for! All we'd need now is SS badges on buzzy little 4 cyl's that will put that badge right in line with "type R". We're awfully close to that arent we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 The LT1 in the 94-96 Impala SS never produced 400HP, they were only 260HP, 330ft-lbs torque. I know, I said "Can produce 400 horsepower" Yeah, but so what? Off the dealer's lot, it didn't. An L67 can produce 400HP too. A souped up 4-cyl can produce 400HP too. An "SS" is supposed to be a performance machine bone stock, right off the lot. If they gave cars the SS moniker based on potential HP, every single smallblock V8 equipped Chevy should have been an "SS". i DUNNO how that was assumed but I don't think the 94-96 got an SS badge because of potential power! It deserved the SS badge because it was everything that SS always stood for! All we'd need now is SS badges on buzzy little 4 cyl's that will put that badge right in line with "type R". We're awfully close to that arent we? "SS" stood for "Super Sport". It meant performance. Every thing I dug up on the web about SS history said SS = Performance. If that's what it means, then the new Impala SS deserves the title as much as the previous one did, because it HAS the performance. It's faster than the 94-96 in both 0-60 and 1/4-mile. It can out handle and out run a 94-96. Even the new Monte SS can run circles around an '83 Monte SS (175HP). So that's why I say if you think the current Impala/Monte SS doesn't deserve the "SS" moniker, then the only reason the 94-96 deserved the badge is due to potential power since it sure as hell didn't have the power to keep up with the current SS. Historically, the SS badge predominantly put on RWD V8 cars, but that's only because in the 60's and 70's, there was no such thing as a V6 car that could outperform a car with a V8. There was no such thing as a Chevy with FWD to begin with. "SS" never meant V8 and RWD was mandatory. In fact, the Nova II SS of the 60's and 70's could come with a 120HP I-6! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 I'm with you on that, hell the "SS" is legendary and should only be placed on vehicles that are worthy of it. Hell, if the current '00+ Monte Carlo isn't worthy of it's name, then it definitely isn't worthy of the "SS". i DUNNO how that was assumed but I don't think the 94-96 got an SS badge because of potential power! It deserved the SS badge because it was everything that SS always stood for! All we'd need now is SS badges on buzzy little 4 cyl's that will put that badge right in line with "type R". We're awfully close to that arent we? Well I consider the new monte carlo worthy of its name because it has many characteristics of a Monte: bodylines on rear and front fenders, taillights, crest emblems...I don't consider the 95-99 a Monte- that should have been badged a Lumina. Heck the new Impala would have suited the Lumina name better, all you'd have to do is change the taillights. Instead of Impala SS, make it a Lumina LTZ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 The LT1 in the 94-96 Impala SS never produced 400HP, they were only 260HP, 330ft-lbs torque. I know, I said "Can produce 400 horsepower" Yeah, but so what? Off the dealer's lot, it didn't. An L67 can produce 400HP too. A souped up 4-cyl can produce 400HP too. An "SS" is supposed to be a performance machine bone stock, right off the lot. If they gave cars the SS moniker based on potential HP, every single smallblock V8 equipped Chevy should have been an "SS". i DUNNO how that was assumed but I don't think the 94-96 got an SS badge because of potential power! It deserved the SS badge because it was everything that SS always stood for! All we'd need now is SS badges on buzzy little 4 cyl's that will put that badge right in line with "type R". We're awfully close to that arent we? "SS" stood for "Super Sport". It meant performance. Every thing I dug up on the web about SS history said SS = Performance. If that's what it means, then the new Impala SS deserves the title as much as the previous one did, because it HAS the performance. It's faster than the 94-96 in both 0-60 and 1/4-mile. It can out handle and out run a 94-96. Even the new Monte SS can run circles around an '83 Monte SS (175HP). So that's why I say if you think the current Impala/Monte SS doesn't deserve the "SS" moniker, then the only reason the 94-96 deserved the badge is due to potential power since it sure as hell didn't have the power to keep up with the current SS. Historically, the SS badge predominantly put on RWD V8 cars, but that's only because in the 60's and 70's, there was no such thing as a V6 car that could outperform a car with a V8. There was no such thing as a Chevy with FWD to begin with. "SS" never meant V8 and RWD was mandatory. In fact, the Nova II SS of the 60's and 70's could come with a 120HP I-6! Well the 80's had plenty of FWD cars that they could have easily stuck the SS badge on if you think SS should just be on cars that are "fast". I think of cars like the Citation X11 among maybe 1 or 2 more. SS have always been given to RWD cars on a chassis, yes most had V8's and the exception being the Nova II. The SS monte's horsepower ratings? Compare that # to the other numbers of that era. Many V8's GM used were in the 130-range, the Camaro was under 200, the vette was stifled as well. And the 94-96 made more "power" than the 3.8 SC, it was in a heavier car so it was a little slower in 0-60, a little less responsive on the skidpad, and everything else you can dig up in motor trend test articles. I haven't bothered checking. Seeing it as you explained it, the SS badge will be on Cavaliers in no time. They can supercharge an ecotech and I'll bet it can keep up with the FWD impala SS, does that mean it deserves the SS name too? Well, call me old fashioned. If these are the times, then let it be. What's "SS" to GM anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 And the 94-96 made more "power" than the 3.8 SC, it was in a heavier car so it was a little slower in 0-60, a little less responsive on the skidpad, and everything else you can dig up in motor trend test articles. I haven't bothered checking. Seeing it as you explained it, the SS badge will be on Cavaliers in no time. They can supercharge an ecotech and I'll bet it can keep up with the FWD impala SS, does that mean it deserves the SS name too? Well, call me old fashioned. If these are the times, then let it be. What's "SS" to GM anyway... From that way of thinking, No W-body except the Lumina really deserves its name. Cutlass Supreme, Regal, Monte Carlo, and Grand Prix were all strictly full-framed RWD marques until their 1988 W-body intro. The W-bodies have nothing in common with their predecessors. Other cars that wouldn't be worthy of their names would include the Pontiac Bonneville, Cadillac Deville, early 90's Cadillac Fleetwood, Mercury Cougar, Chrysler 300M, and probably a ton of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian89gp Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 I like the styling of the new Monte SS, especially the red/silver ones. Hell, I like the styling on most 03 and before w-body's. I think Lutz will get GM out of the hole they are currently in. Sure that will probably mean re-arranging everything and dropping some lines but in the end things should be much better. The one thing I hate is the new retro styling appearing on all cars (I do like the new Bonneville though). If only my dash didn't rattle/squeek/vibrate so fucking much and the plastic body panels move around/creak in the sun like plastic house siding/rattle I would love my car just the way it is. They should keep the current design and just improve the quality. I can tell you one thing, I am not going to buy another new GM vehicle till they stop looking like ass. One thing that GM needs is a true performance division, all they got now is ram air and a new shiney badge. Ford has an excellent performance division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 well, I see the W-body as a midsize replacement for a midsize lineup (G-body). Now you can also say the new Impala is a Full size replacement of a fullsize car, but I would think an H-body would have served better. Hell at least they could use the V8 in it like the 04 Bonneville. The Impala barely makes it as a full size, maybe more influenced because Chevy wants the Malibu to be the midsized car in the lineup so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91GranSport Posted June 7, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 Speaking of the H-Body, is it possible to fit a V-8 in the engine bay? Personally I think full-size vehicles should be RWD only. Everything from the H-Body should be RWD. That's just my opinion. well, I see the W-body as a midsize replacement for a midsize lineup (G-body). Now you can also say the new Impala is a Full size replacement of a fullsize car, but I would think an H-body would have served better. Hell at least they could use the V8 in it like the 04 Bonneville. The Impala barely makes it as a full size, maybe more influenced because Chevy wants the Malibu to be the midsized car in the lineup so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 The W-body is actually quite a bit smaller than the G-body it replaced. H-body would have been a more suitable replacement for the G if GM wanted to keep the dimensions closer. Yeah, a V8 will fit in the engine bay of an H-body and even a W-body. A DOHC V8 won't fit in a first-gen W-body, but a pushrod V8 would have. A DOHC V8 WILL fit in the engine bay of a gen-2 and newer W-body. I don't know why GM didn't put the LS1 in the Impala SS as was originally rumored, but I'm sure that decision was made after some cost/benefit analysis. They didn't put the DOHC V8's into the SS because of cost/complexity and they don't offer any performance benefit over the 3800 SC. An RWD H-body would have been nice, but I think GM actually wanted to sell some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91GranSport Posted June 8, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 A DOHC V-8 in the W-Body? Christ, I can only dream of such a thing! I remember hearing that the Gen2 W-Body's frame and chassis design is so advanced and superior compared to the Gen1, it would be like comparing a C5 Corvette to a C4 Corvette. I've never had a chance to peer underneathe the hood of a Gen2, is there really that much room in there? I don't think GM wouldn't put the LS1 into the Impala SS or Monte Carlo SS because they would have to modify the W-Body to accept a rear wheel drive set up, and the LS1 couldn't possibly be mounted in a tranverse configuration for a FWD W-Body. I'm sure GM used the H-Body to replace the aging G-Body but they should have a Gen2 H-Body that supports a RWD platform. Actually, all the H-Body cars should be RWD to begin with! I sure hope they keep the frame set up as a unibody rather than using the older style "ladder-frame" from the G-Body. By the way, thanks for clarifying that the Impala, Caprice, Roadmaster and Fleetwood were G-Body cars. I couldn't remember off-hand what their designation was. I know the newer Park Avenue is now based on the ultra-stiff platform that's shared with the Seville, Gen1 + Gen2 Aurora and Eldorado. I'm not sure, is that an "E-Body"? Anyways, do you know if that platform would support RWD? I don't mean to sound like a RWD freak but personally full-sized vehicles should be RWD, especially if it's a luxury car. You'll never see Merecedes or BMW with a damn FWD car. The W-body is actually quite a bit smaller than the G-body it replaced. H-body would have been a more suitable replacement for the G if GM wanted to keep the dimensions closer. Yeah, a V8 will fit in the engine bay of an H-body and even a W-body. A DOHC V8 won't fit in a first-gen W-body, but a pushrod V8 would have. A DOHC V8 WILL fit in the engine bay of a gen-2 and newer W-body. I don't know why GM didn't put the LS1 in the Impala SS as was originally rumored, but I'm sure that decision was made after some cost/benefit analysis. They didn't put the DOHC V8's into the SS because of cost/complexity and they don't offer any performance benefit over the 3800 SC. An RWD H-body would have been nice, but I think GM actually wanted to sell some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 A DOHC V-8 in the W-Body? Christ, I can only dream of such a thing! I remember hearing that the Gen2 W-Body's frame and chassis design is so advanced and superior compared to the Gen1, it would be like comparing a C5 Corvette to a C4 Corvette. I've never had a chance to peer underneathe the hood of a Gen2, is there really that much room in there? I haven't seen anything particularily advanced or superior about the gen 2, but it definitely has a little more clearance on the firewall side. It WILL fit a Northstar V8, no question about that (it's been done). I don't think GM wouldn't put the LS1 into the Impala SS or Monte Carlo SS because they would have to modify the W-Body to accept a rear wheel drive set up, and the LS1 couldn't possibly be mounted in a tranverse configuration for a FWD W-Body. It can, and it has. GM has a developed an FWD LS1, only real difference is the tranny bolt pattern and front timing cover are specifically designed for clearance between the frame rails. It was VERY production ready. The W-body can't be simply modified to accept a rear-drive setup, it would have to be redesigned. I read somewhere there were considerations to move the Monte to a RWD platform, possibly ending up sharing the same Holden platform as the GTO. I'm sure GM used the H-Body to replace the aging G-Body but they should have a Gen2 H-Body that supports a RWD platform. Actually, all the H-Body cars should be RWD to begin with! I sure hope they keep the frame set up as a unibody rather than using the older style "ladder-frame" from the G-Body. By the way, thanks for clarifying that the Impala, Caprice, Roadmaster and Fleetwood were G-Body cars. I couldn't remember off-hand what their designation was. Actually, I think I confused you further instead of clarifying anything. G-Body is the 87 and previous Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo, Regal, and Grand Prix. They are what the W-body replaced. However, I was just saying the W-bodies are smaller than the cars they replaced. The H-Body is closer in dimensions to the G-Body. Impala, Caprice, Roadmaster, and Fleetwood were B-Body. None of those ever got replaced... they just got killed off. I don't know if the Bonneville was ever a B-Body... I thought the B-Body Pontiac was called the Parisienne, but I'm not certain on that because they were boxy and I don't follow boxy cars! I know the newer Park Avenue is now based on the ultra-stiff platform that's shared with the Seville, Gen1 + Gen2 Aurora and Eldorado. I'm not sure, is that an "E-Body"? Anyways, do you know if that platform would support RWD? I don't mean to sound like a RWD freak but personally full-sized vehicles should be RWD, especially if it's a luxury car. You'll never see Merecedes or BMW with a damn FWD car. Yeah, the Seville and Eldo are E-body I think. I'm not too sure, my parts catalog lumps them into "E-K Body" and also includes the Deville. No... you never see a Mercedes or BMW with an FWD car, but then they have the brand name and snob appeal that people want, so they sell well. I think most non-car enthusiasts opt for FWD, because at one point BMW even had to put a little explanation on their website about the benefits of RWD. It's as if they get a lot of inquiries as to why they don't have an FWD car to offer. When American car companies offered RWD cars that didn't have the snob appeal that BMW and Mercedes have, the sales were so poor they ended up either making the car a low-volume niche market product (i.e. 94-96 Impala SS, 02+ Thunderbird), changing it to a smaller FWD, or killing it off altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
91GranSport Posted June 8, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 Shawn, now I know why you started the W-Body website. Because you are the man with all the answers! Seriously though, thanks for clearing things up for me man, I think you should quit your job and head on over to GM and work for them as an engineer. I'll work in their styling department for Buick and Pontiac. I can't remember whether it was in Road & Track, Car & Driver, Motor Trend or any other automotive magazine but I remember back in '97 when the first Gen2s came out there was a lot of praise behind the unibody redesign. I believe back then it was only the Century, Grand Prix and Intrigue. Anyways, the unibody itself was supposed to have 40% more torsional rigidity over the Gen1 and a more optimal suspension configuration. Also, it was supposed to be more crash worthy and apparently it's design was intended to be a compromise between "performance and comfort" and it was supposed to be a better "balanced" car during cornering and high speed maneuvers. Honestly I can't tell you how I'd personally evaluate it, I'm still stuck with my Gen1 and I don't really like too many of the Gen2s except the Intrigue 3.5, Regal GS and Grand Prix GTP ('97-'03 only). I remember reading that there was an LS1 powered W-Body but I thought it was merely a concept car and the frame itself was redesigned to accept RWD. Perhaps I'm mistaken then. It would be interesting to see a torquey V-8 on a W-Body, but it has to be RWD. That much torque and you'd have some serious torque steer problems during take-off. I think for what it's worth a Supercharged 3800 Series II can do just as well. By the way, what tranny did they mate to the LS1? I woulnd't think it would be the 4T80/4T80-E because that wouldn't fit. However I don't think the regular 4T65-E/HD can handle the LS1! I haven't seen anything particularily advanced or superior about the gen 2, but it definitely has a little more clearance on the firewall side. It WILL fit a Northstar V8, no question about that (it's been done). It can, and it has. GM has a developed an FWD LS1, only real difference is the tranny bolt pattern and front timing cover are specifically designed for clearance between the frame rails. It was VERY production ready. The W-body can't be simply modified to accept a rear-drive setup, it would have to be redesigned. I read somewhere there were considerations to move the Monte to a RWD platform, possibly ending up sharing the same Holden platform as the GTO. Actually, I think I confused you further instead of clarifying anything. G-Body is the 87 and previous Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo, Regal, and Grand Prix. They are what the W-body replaced. However, I was just saying the W-bodies are smaller than the cars they replaced. The H-Body is closer in dimensions to the G-Body. Impala, Caprice, Roadmaster, and Fleetwood were B-Body. None of those ever got replaced... they just got killed off. I don't know if the Bonneville was ever a B-Body... I thought the B-Body Pontiac was called the Parisienne, but I'm not certain on that because they were boxy and I don't follow boxy cars! Yeah, the Seville and Eldo are E-body I think. I'm not too sure, my parts catalog lumps them into "E-K Body" and also includes the Deville. No... you never see a Mercedes or BMW with an FWD car, but then they have the brand name and snob appeal that people want, so they sell well. I think most non-car enthusiasts opt for FWD, because at one point BMW even had to put a little explanation on their website about the benefits of RWD. It's as if they get a lot of inquiries as to why they don't have an FWD car to offer. When American car companies offered RWD cars that didn't have the snob appeal that BMW and Mercedes have, the sales were so poor they ended up either making the car a low-volume niche market product (i.e. 94-96 Impala SS, 02+ Thunderbird), changing it to a smaller FWD, or killing it off altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 Fleetwoods are actually D-bodys, very simular to a B-body just a little longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 For further clarification the Bonneville was a G-body, closely resembled the 78+ Malibu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cutlassdude96 Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 The E-Body's were the Toronado, Riviera, Reatta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimp19 Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 For further clarification the Bonneville was a G-body, closely resembled the 78+ Malibu Dont remind me of my old '82 Bonne that thing was my worst nightmare :? I did almost buy a '83 Malibu and yes they are nearly identical along with the old 4-door cultass's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Shawn, now I know why you started the W-Body website. Because you are the man with all the answers! Seriously though, thanks for clearing things up for me man, I think you should quit your job and head on over to GM and work for them as an engineer. I'll work in their styling department for Buick and Pontiac. Actually, I started the website because I like W-bodies for their looks and all their toys (the upper-level W-bodies anyway). I'd actually love to be an engineer for a car company, but I'm unwilling to move to creepy Detroit! :shock: I can't remember whether it was in Road & Track, Car & Driver, Motor Trend or any other automotive magazine but I remember back in '97 when the first Gen2s came out there was a lot of praise behind the unibody redesign. I believe back then it was only the Century, Grand Prix and Intrigue. Anyways, the unibody itself was supposed to have 40% more torsional rigidity over the Gen1 and a more optimal suspension configuration. Also, it was supposed to be more crash worthy and apparently it's design was intended to be a compromise between "performance and comfort" and it was supposed to be a better "balanced" car during cornering and high speed maneuvers. Honestly I can't tell you how I'd personally evaluate it, I'm still stuck with my Gen1 and I don't really like too many of the Gen2s except the Intrigue 3.5, Regal GS and Grand Prix GTP ('97-'03 only). Ah, well, all those things are possible. The gen 1 is actually a very unusual and unique car as far as the front and rear suspensions go. The gen 2 went back to a more conventional suspension setup. Gen 1 also has beefier 4-bolt hubs rather than the simpler 3-bolt on the gen 2. Overall, I'm sure the gen 2 is an improvement, although not enough of an improvement that I'd really care. I prefer the uniqueness and personality of the gen 1's better. I remember reading that there was an LS1 powered W-Body but I thought it was merely a concept car and the frame itself was redesigned to accept RWD. Perhaps I'm mistaken then. It would be interesting to see a torquey V-8 on a W-Body, but it has to be RWD. That much torque and you'd have some serious torque steer problems during take-off. I think for what it's worth a Supercharged 3800 Series II can do just as well. By the way, what tranny did they mate to the LS1? I woulnd't think it would be the 4T80/4T80-E because that wouldn't fit. However I don't think the regular 4T65-E/HD can handle the LS1! LS1 powered W-body was production-ready, and it was FWD. It was put in an entirely UN-modified W-body frame. They used the 4T65-E HD behind the LS1's. I'm not sure the reasoning behind that, because the 4T80-E fits in a gen 2 W-body just fine. It could be that tranny was too big and interfered with something on the LS1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolt_Crank Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 V8 in a W-Body.... such sweetness.... I think I'll have to do it ...after I figure out a way to reduce/remove torque steer... (btw, a 4x4 truck, with no rear-end and has to be FWD... has more torque steer than anything I've driven!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 V8 in a W-Body.... such sweetness.... I think I'll have to do it I heard GM will actually sell you an FWD LS1 for $15k. Not sure what it comes with though. You can put a Caddy 4.9L V8 in a W-body, but that's not a very good engine. They do sound real sweet though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolt_Crank Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 I heard GM will actually sell you an FWD LS1 for $15k. Not sure what it comes with though. You can put a Caddy 4.9L V8 in a W-body, but that's not a very good engine. They do sound real sweet though. that's pretty good but... I need to get the brain in to gear to get rid of torque steer.... any hints/clues/secrets? (the reason I never really liked FWD in the first place.... except for W-Bodies o.o) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 If you've got the money for an FWD LS1, maybe you could invest a bit more and adapt the rear end out of a Versatrak Aztek! Then you'd have an AWD setup like the GP G8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.