'64 or '96?
Options
Comments
-
numbaz...80's baby wrote: »64, the 96 reminds me of those ragedy ass bubble caprices too much.
That's 'cause it IS one of them raggedy ass bubble caprices.
All GM did was take the Caprice, throw a decent engine in it, tighten the suspensions a tad, and give it some external enhancements and it's an Impala.
Don't get me wrong now, the 96 wasn't bad, but it ain't seein the 427 63 impala or 409 64 Impala on the drag strip. bone stock, the 64 SS is flat out faster than a 96. -
=numbaz...80's baby wrote: »64, the 96 reminds me of those ragedy ass bubble caprices too much.
That's 'cause it IS one of them raggedy ass bubble caprices.
All GM did was take the Caprice, throw a decent engine in it, tighten the suspensions a tad, and give it some external enhancements and it's an Impala.
Don't get me wrong now, the 96 wasn't bad, but it ain't seein the 427 63 impala or 409 64 Impala on the drag strip. bone stock, the 64 SS is flat out faster than a 96.
FOH -
considering all the time and money it'll take to make a '64 look like it does in any of those pics, yeah gimme that '96.
-
=numbaz...80's baby wrote: »64, the 96 reminds me of those ragedy ass bubble caprices too much.
That's 'cause it IS one of them raggedy ass bubble caprices.
All GM did was take the Caprice, throw a decent engine in it, tighten the suspensions a tad, and give it some external enhancements and it's an Impala.
Don't get me wrong now, the 96 wasn't bad, but it ain't seein the 427 63 impala or 409 64 Impala on the drag strip. bone stock, the 64 SS is flat out faster than a 96.
FOH
? .
The 96 was hittin the quarter in mid to high 15's, the 64 w/409 was hittin' it in low to mid 15's. 0-60 on the 64 was right at about 6 and a half seconds, the 96 was just over 7 seconds.
-
considering all the time and money it'll take to make a '64 look like it does in any of those pics, yeah gimme that '96.
add this too
and then once you do it, thats a car you drive once in a while
I dont need a car just sitting