GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
News Contributor
Joined
·
5,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A comment I made in another post about the new Caprice PPV essentially being the modern day successor to the 1994-96 Chevrolet Impala SS triggered an idea to compare the specification and performance numbers between the two cars.

Even with a 17 year gap between the two cars, they are actually fairly evenly matched. :)

1994-96 Impala SS2011-14 Caprice PPV
Dimensions
Passenger Volume115 cu. ft.112 cu. ft.
Headroom Front39.2”38.7”
Headroom Rear37.4”37.6”
Legroom Front42.2”42.2”
Legroom Rear39.5"43.2”
Cargo Volume20 cu. ft.17 cu. ft.
Fuel Capacity23 gal19 gal
Length214.1”202.2”
Width77.5”74.8”
Height54.7”58.7”
Wheelbase115.9"118.5”
Weight4,221 lbs4,200 lbs
Engine
Size5.7 (350 cu. in.)6.0 (364 cu. in.)
Horsepower260 hp355 hp
Torque330 lb-ft384 lb-ft
Performance
0-606.0sec5.3sec
1/4 Mile15sec / 92mph14sec / 102mph
Lateral Grip0.86 g0.84 g
Braking 60-0120 ft125.8 ft
Top Speed138 mph154 mph
Fuel Econ.15city / 23hwy15city / 24hwy

*I found that most of this information for the two cars isn't in a few/one location and thought it would be a good idea to consolidate them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,898 Posts
Didn't think the B body would have a higher G limit than the Zeta
 

·
Premium Member
News Contributor
Joined
·
5,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Didn't think the B body would have a higher G limit than the Zeta
That number came from here: 1994 Chevrolet Impala SS - Archived Instrumented Test - Car Reviews - Car and Driver
Body-motion control is excellent, although the stiff anti-roll bars tend to pull the entire car into one-wheel dips and bumps, resulting in a bit of head-toss on certain roads. Ultimate grip is impressive at 0.86 g.
Motorweek also praised the handling of upgraded suspension and sticky tires.

Just because a car is "old", doesn't mean it's outdated per modern standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,508 Posts
Oh I didn't doubt it, I was just surprised. The B-bodies had sketchy brakes. When they added the rear disks, GM didn't account for it with the proportioning valve. So I was shocked it could do better than the new one.
 

·
Premium Member
News Contributor
Joined
·
5,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Oh I didn't doubt it, I was just surprised. The B-bodies had sketchy brakes. When they added the rear disks, GM didn't account for it with the proportioning valve. So I was shocked it could do better than the new one.
Overall I'm surprised as well by the numbers and how well the car still holds up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Either the b-body has a massive filler neck or the fuel capacity is wrong. I filled my with 25, almost 26, gallons after I accidentally ran it dry cause of a bad fuel gauge. I doubt the filler can hold almost 3 gallons. Anyway, I cried when I recently sold my caprice. The car could literally do anything. The gas mileage was amazing too. my record was between 650 and 700 miles in a tank on that car. That was non stop at highway speeds with a fairly level grade. Had I been single I would of sold my Yukon and kept the Caprice. When I come back stateside you can bet your ass I will find another one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Although if I can get my hands on a new one with the 9C3 interior for a decent price I'll get it as well and make that my toy since it has a LS motor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cad1cts

·
Premium Member
News Contributor
Joined
·
5,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Either the b-body has a massive filler neck or the fuel capacity is wrong. I filled my with 25, almost 26, gallons after I accidentally ran it dry cause of a bad fuel gauge. I doubt the filler can hold almost 3 gallons.
Usually there is an extra "reserve" designed into most fuel tanks that is not stated in the official specifications. My current vehicle supposed to have a 21gal tank, but once I got it fuel range down to 5 Miles Until Empty, I filled it up and discovered it's close to 23 gallons.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top