AutoWeek reviews the 2014 Chevy SS

[kevm14]

And now A/W does a drive of the 2015 Chevy SS, almost exactly a year after I first made this thread about the 2014.

http://autoweek.com/article/car-reviews ... dailydrive

And I still want this car so bad, now with manual trans, MR suspension and rear Brembos (it was front only before). I'm also curious how the 1/4 mile performance changes with the TR6060 (like trap speed).

In a way, the performance and luxury of this car (in addition to the commodious interior space) is almost like a baby Cadillac (the same way a loaded Caprice used to emulate the fullsize Cadillac across several decades). So there's precedent there. The performance doesn't make as much sense in a Buick, imo. Pontiac would have made some sense here (and of course we had the G8 for a few precious years).

There’s just something so right about an American rear-wheel drive sedan. I know, this SS is built in Australia and all that good jazz, but it’s wearing a Chevy bowtie on the grille, so it’s American in my book. With V8 power under the hood, an available manual transmission and a very well-sorted chassis, it’s difficult to find something to really be disappointed about in the SS now. Even the as-tested price of $46,865 doesn’t seem absurd considering the clean sheetmetal styling and amount of performance you get.

You can call the SS a budget BMW M3 of sorts. The M3 starts at $62,950 with 425 hp and 406 lb-ft of torque from its twin-turbocharged I6, which matches up fairly closely with the SS’ 415 hp and 415 lb-ft of torque from its V8.

It's even more of a steal at this price than it was before! And the SS can be a real family car in a way a 3-series is too cramped.

[kevm14]

M/T: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sed ... irst_test/

Yes!

The manual not only improves the driving experience but also helps performance. In our acceleration tests, the SS manual's 4.5-second time was a 10th quicker to 60 mph than the last SS automatic we tested. The row-your-own gearbox also shaved a 10th off the SS' quarter-mile time, which decreased to 12.9 seconds at a slightly faster trap speed of 110.8 mph

This car really punches above its weight class here. Bill, you were saying something about sporty vehicles having a shitty ride? Not with MR shocks.

The magnetic dampers really show their worth on the road. On a weekend road trip, the SS' suspension ate up the roughly 370 miles between Los Angeles and Phoenix, Arizona, offering a luxury car-smooth ride the entire way. The ride quality is matched by the upscale interior, which boasts faux-suede inserts on the dash and door panels, leather front seats with the SS logo embroidered on the seatbacks, and a tidy-looking center stack. The leather treatment also extends to the rear seats, which offer ample space for adults.

City MPG up by 1 I guess.

The SS manual is EPA-rated at 15/21 mpg city/highway, an improvement of 1 mpg in the city over the six-speed auto. On my trip, I averaged between 19 and 22 mpg each fill-up. Not terrible for a car with a V-8 and a near-4,000-pound curb weight.

Definitely faster than my CTS-V by a few tenths and MPH. Fuel economy, on the other hand, seems to have no advantages. I think the manual, since it is equipped with skip-shift, avoids the gas guzzler tax, which is why the price seems about the same as the 2014 even with the extra stuff (the manual itself is a no-cost option).

Automobile: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/dr ... ss-review/

It must be annoying to test this on cold pavement with Blizzaks...

[Bob]

C&D review of the manual SS: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/201 ... est-review

[kevm14]

Wow, nice sub-heading:

Chevy builds the E39 M5 that BMW won't

Never mind that this is more like an E38 7-series in space.

TEST NOTES: Nicely balanced with predictable breakaway on the skidpad. It barks the rear tires on the 2-3 shift. Not too many sedans can do that.

Refined muscle, sport and luxury, with plenty of space, at a reasonable price when you realize you get everything except a fancy badge. I still want one. The Impala SS tried to pull this off in the 90s. And at the time, it kind of did. This, like most other cars, is leagues better. Not that the B-body isn't still pleasurable to drive.

[bill25]

Well, in 1994, the Impala SS was 22,495.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/199 ... ented-test

So, today's price would be: 35,844.92.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/


I think I originally said this was about 10K too expensive...
Sure, the interior is nicer, but look at the new Impala compared to the 90's Impala, the new Impala is way nicer cosmetically also.

[bill25]

The top of the line Caprice LTZ with the 5.7 was 21,645 in 1993.
Today that would be: $35,373.62

Source: http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/1993-Chevr ... pecs-c1001

[bill25]

Another fun fact from the Caprice Car and Driver article listed above:

The LT1 was put in the Caprice because of smog restrictions on it's previous engine. I guess that is probably the first time that happened.

That is the equivalent of saying, Camaro, you will now get the Vette LT1 because the LS3 pollutes too much!
Too bad this wasn't the response in the 70s and 80s.

[bill25]

Another interesting point along the lines of car affordability:

The 1990 IROC-Z was $14,994 , or $27,091.42 today.

If the new Camaro SS was 27K vice 35, I may have bought one by now...

A 69 Camaro SS was 3,734.00, which is $24,026.92.
http://www.oldride.com/library/1969_che ... amaro.html

If I was 30 when the Camaro SS was available with the 396, I would have been able to afford it. That is depressing.

[kevm14]

The 1990 IROC-Z was $14,994 , or $27,091.42 today.

If the new Camaro SS was 27K vice 35, I may have bought one by now...

Ok, so the Camaro is roughly 30% more expensive than inflation would suggest, yes? ~$35k versus ~$27k. So that 94-96 Impala SS that cost an inflation-adjusted $35k actually turns out to be ~$45k when you add the same 30% that the Camaro had. 30% is the tax for additional regulations (safety, emissions, fuel economy, and the general everything-has-to-be-fancier industry push). So the price of the SS is exactly what it should be. And that's a loaded, top of the line one. The Camaro isn't even all optioned out at $35k, so the SS is actually a better deal.

The only argument I'll accept with the SS is that there would be one without some of the electronic doo-dads and options, for high $30s. At that price point, there would be nothing better, period.

[kevm14]

The LT1 was put in the Caprice because of smog restrictions on it's previous engine. I guess that is probably the first time that happened.

It was all pretty serendipitous, since that move perfectly coincided with the Impala SS launch. The 94 B-body LT1 (which was available in the Caprice sedan with the optional B4U ride/handling package, and standard in everything else, including all wagons, all Roadmasters and all Fleetwoods) had some upgrades that the F-body didn't get until 1995, such as a vented opti-spark distributor. The iron heads used on only the B-body LT1s also had better flow than the early aluminum LT1 heads.