so i went to a cruise night today and some guys were talking about 94' b-bodies being faster than the 95's and 96's. this is not the first time i've heard this but just wanted to see if anybody else in here has heard about this and if they know if it's true or not. also they were talking about cars that are made to be sold on the east coast are less restricted and faster than cars that are made to be sold in california. also wanted to know if that a fact. thanks

Idk, but I've had a 94 caprice LT1 and I now have a 96. And for some odd reason I always felt as if my 94 was faster.... I thought I was just trippin. And before some smart fella blames is it on the tranny I have a recently rebuilt one with a shift kit

Idk, but I've had a 94 caprice LT1 and I now have a 96. And for some odd reason I always felt as if my 94 was faster.... I thought I was just trippin. And before some smart fella blames is it on the tranny I have a recently rebuilt one with a shift kit

your not the only one to experience that, wolf will be here soon lol

96 is the slowest year! OBDII sucks

your not the only one to experience that, wolf will be here soon lol

ask wolf why he THOUGH the 96 was the fasstest and i had to tell him it was the slowest and he looked it up and i was right ;)

yea i've heard that rumor aswell, i dnt no if its true or not i'm just glad i have a 94 :D:D

96 is the slowest year! OBDII sucks



ask wolf why he THOUGH the 96 was the fasstest and i had to tell him it was the slowest and he looked it up and i was right ;)

thats funny because every since i met him he kept going on and on about how his 94 9c1 was faster then his 96 ss

idk ive never driven a 94 lol

thats funny because every since i met him he kept going on and on about how his 94 9c1 was faster then his 96 ss

idk ive never driven a 94 lol
thats kuz he got tha vette tranny!

but we was fighting because he THOUGH the 96 imp was faster than 94 95 and its the other way around! thats the one thang he learned from me.

and i learned ALOT from him and his girl lol.

and 94 95 the same. me.SSlim and SSerigo was racing on the way to houston from austin and we was nec and neck everytime. SSlim and SSerigo got 94's

http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/120/l_e906443f943e4f9196342b430dbd7dd6.jpg
http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/140/l_d55d453108924546930b288ffc22201b.jpg

when i first got my 94' impala i noticed the difference right away that it was faster than my 95' clone and when i got my impala it was all stock. it was before i installed all those upgrades. heard that it had something to do with the cam that made the 94s' faster or something. i guess Jon Moss would be the only one that can give us the truth.

96 is the slowest year! OBDII sucks



ask wolf why he THOUGH the 96 was the fasstest and i had to tell him it was the slowest and he looked it up and i was right ;)

my 94 is faster...period...

i said my 96 was faster then 95's and other 96's....dont try to twist my words fool

you did correct me stock for stock. 96 is slower vs the 95 due to extra smog bull****....

however in my defence i have the fastes 96(stock) i have ever been in....i have driving other 96ss and been in other and they feel alot slower...as anyone who has been in it,my 96 is rare.

but how many other varriables do you need to take into concideration..... soo many varriables that can cause a difference in performence in the motor..

but yes all my cars are faster then IMPALASS_RIDER, and i always felt the 94s are faster

thanks
Wolf

but yes all my cars are faster then IMPALASS_RIDER, and i always felt the 94s are faster

thanks
Wolf
bruh my dcm will kill that half impala you got.

and you dont know anything about my cars lol you still roll on flowmasters SMFH!

you happy you BOUGHT a fast cappy?

put your own cars together ;)

My 95 impala was a lot faster than my 94 impala. Both was stock and my 95 had 20's.

bruh my dcm will kill that half impala you got.

and you dont know anything about my cars lol you still roll on flowmasters SMFH!

you happy you BOUGHT a fast cappy?

put your own cars together ;)

lol @ this house ninja... last time i help you *******.

My 95 impala was a lot faster than my 94 impala. Both was stock and my 95 had 20's.
ENOUGH SAID!

SSlim dad was the orig owner of there 95 and sold it and got that 94 with 49k miles and he alwayz say the 95 was faster!

but i think the 94 95 are the same just know the 96 are SLOWER

was the place that they were originally shipped play a part in this too? like i said those guys at the cruise night were saying that cars sent to the east coast were faster than cars sent to the west coast. i bought my 94' Impala in Yonkers, New York so maybe thats why it's faster than the 95' i used to have?

I've had two 96's. Right now I have an all white 9c1 that was an FBI car and never really ran hard from what I can tell, looked like they never really used it. Before that car, I bought an ex-Orange County sheriff car that was an everyday black&white patrol car. Both were LT1's, but for some reason that first 96 I had ran like a bat outta hell.....Maybe that police department used power programmers or something, but I bet that's what 94's feel like..lol

the beast aka shamboo the killa whale:
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/410/p1010004zg1.jpg

was the place that they were originally shipped play a part in this too? like i said those guys at the cruise night were saying that cars sent to the east coast were faster than cars sent to the west coast. i bought my 94' Impala in Yonkers, New York so maybe thats why it's faster than the 95' i used to have?
C'mon son. you comparing caprice impala here. there can me reasons why it was slower.

gears maybe smaller, possi wasnt working ECT!

or it could be a mind think knowning its an impala.

but SSlim had both impala's 95 and 94. and he always say how he miss his 95 because it was faster.

I have two 94s and theyre both faster than eachother :)

east coast are different, in NC we dont have emissions on cars older then 96 so my 95 can shoot back smoke for days but dont have to have smog test. also i was hearing something about cali headers....an you HAVE to have cats there, here not so much

My beat up, rode hard, put away wet, high mile, 94 9C1 was a good bit faster than my pristine, extremely low mile, 95 9C1. Both were stock.

Due to mods, the story is way different currently :D

I have had a few of these cars . I used to have a public service white 94 9c1 and it was bone stock. For some reason it was faster than my other 94 9c1 I had and my 95 9c1. I wish I new what gears were in it. That 94 was really fast for some reason. I think it was just in really good shape. My 94 roadmaster wagon almost bone stock is faster than my 95 9c1 (ex chp) with a k@N fipk , 52 bbk throttle body and flowmasters. That one shocked me!

bruh my dcm will kill that half impala you got.

and you dont know anything about my cars lol you still roll on flowmasters SMFH!

you happy you BOUGHT a fast cappy?

put your own cars together ;)

:eek: oh snap!!

east coast are different, in NC we dont have emissions on cars older then 96 so my 95 can shoot back smoke for days but dont have to have smog test. also i was hearing something about cali headers....an you HAVE to have cats there, here not so much

no we dont :D

but you do have different gas in cali right?

:eek: oh snap!!



no we dont :D

he is just mad because my caprice will rape all his cars put together. and i mean my 94 not the new sexy blue one :)


and for your information, that car didnt run good until Rainy and I got into it....so know what your talking about befor you open your trap.

thanks
Wolf

he is just mad because my caprice will rape all his cars put together. and i mean my 94 not the new sexy blue one :)


and for your information, that car didnt run good until Rainy and I got into it....so know what your talking about befor you open your trap.

thanks
Wolf
i laugh hard at this guy!

he got a stock cappy ugly ass paint, vette tranny and gaymaster exhaust and he fasster than my impala's LMAO!

my BBB all stock and i dont even think you crappy kan beat that.

ok. when you wanna run?? or you wont leave cali for IMPALA events in your caprice?

and what i got to be mad about? i got my imp's all stock so i can put them together myself. you see what BB doing? not something someone already beat up. and that blue one sexy? really?

but you do have different gas in cali right?

As in different, you mean horse piss? Then yeah, our gas is different.

As in different, you mean horse piss? Then yeah, our gas is different.

water-down horse piss you mean?

Both of my 94 9c1 cars were quicker than my 95 imp and my 96 9c1. Don't know y, just seemed to get to speed much quicker, and pull harder.

Cant we all just get along?? lol

and what i got to be mad about? i got my imp's all stock so i can put them together myself. you see what BB doing? not something someone already beat up. and that blue one sexy? really?

That's awesome to find a stock car is superhard nowadays.

As for the debate, my 96 9C1 was ran hard all day and loved it, my 95 Impala is babied, so it doesn't like when I punch the gas. I would think that 94 is faster than the other years, just due to the known differences - but EVERY motor and car has a story.

BTW: ImpalaSS Rider: you are a funny mofo. :)

i laugh hard at this guy!

he got a stock cappy ugly ass paint, vette tranny and gaymaster and he fasster than my impala's LMAO!

my BBB all stock and i dont even think you crappy kan beat that.

ok. when you wanna run?? or you wont leave cali for IMPALA events in your caprice?

and what i got to be mad about? i got my imp's all stock so i can put them together myself. you see what BB doing? not something someone already beat up. and that blue one sexy? really?

dude your a moron on the forum, but in yahoo messenger your cool wtf? stop putting a front douche bag....


i have a 96 ss with a vette tranny, with flowmaster mufferles x pipe and custom pipes and its faster then your impala......

i have a 95 caprice i just purchased, fixed it got it running ****ing great and its WAY faster then your impala....i wont even need 3rd gear.

i have a 94 caprice classic 9c1 and its faster then your impala.


wtf is with you and your impala ss superiority you swallow too much bk man milk and has caused you to belive that your ss is god gift to the world....

when you can fix the egr with out my help or johnner you can comment back... since you want ot get personal....

Whoa whoa whoa, you guys ghey it up outside the forum too?

Whoa whoa whoa, you guys ghey it up outside the forum too?
he swallows you dont, you gellous.? however only if you talk impala, he is too good for caprice..

dude your a moron on the forum, but in yahoo messenger your cool wtf? stop putting a front douche bag....


i have a 96 ss with a vette tranny, with flowmaster mufferles x pipe and custom pipes and its faster then your impala......

i have a 95 caprice i just purchased, fixed it got it running ****ing great and its WAY faster then your impala....i wont even need 3rd gear.

i have a 94 caprice classic 9c1 and its faster then your impala.


wtf is with you and your impala ss superiority you swallow too much bk man milk and has caused you to belive that your ss is god gift to the world....

when you can fix the egr with out my help or johnner you can comment back... since you want ot get personal....
should i komment back??? or should i laugh???

why bring up johnny? thats the only dude that ever komes threw and help me with anything i need help with! so why you mad?



BTW: ImpalaSS Rider: you are a funny mofo. :)

i try
he swallows you dont, you gellous.? however only if you talk impala, he is too good for caprice..
LMAO! did going to say i swallow but craca dont LMAO!! that has to be gayer than what JJ or BYB would say

bruh you like what you like!

i wouldnt buy a caprice so you mad at that?

should i komment back??? or should i laugh???

why bring up johnny? thats the only dude that ever komes threw and help me with anything i need help with! so why you mad?



i try

LMAO! did going to say i swallow but craca dont LMAO!! that has to be gayer than what JJ or BYB would say

bruh you like what you like!

i wouldnt buy a caprice so you mad at that?

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/3/19/128819720189651997.jpg

:)

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/3/19/128819720189651997.jpg

LOL at the lil puppy..cwm2

I had a 94,95,an now a 96 all lt1 an my 94 was a problem with just an k&n an flowmaster with cats running right. An my 96 is tight but has way more work then the 94 an it running 14.3 without a stall an gears so I guess I just lucky with them lol

C'mon son. you comparing caprice impala here. there can me reasons why it was slower.

gears maybe smaller, possi wasnt working ECT!

or it could be a mind think knowning its an impala.

but SSlim had both impala's 95 and 94. and he always say how he miss his 95 because it was faster.

Not trying to get in this raging pissing match that is going on here, but are you saying that a caprice 9C1 and impala are made differently, and I am talking drivetrain, not ascetics like different interior or what not. Sure it depends on the options, like G80 for the posi, but really that is it, most if not all 9C1's have the 3.08 option in them. I am betting that a 9C1 Caprice is probably 100 pounds lighter due to the minimal interior that was in them, but really that is just an opinion, don't have any thing to back this up.

Maybe you have something against us Caprice folks or something but the drivetrain between the Impala and the 9C1 is exactly the same, point blank, with of course what I noted above about the posi. So really this should be a year comparison not a Caprice, Impala comparison as it seems that is what you are referring to, unless I read this wrong then disregard.

But really it is your own thing whether you buy a caprice or impala, they are the same damn car. unless you can prove to me otherwise, and i am not talking interior, wheels or suspension either.

Just an opinion.

Mike

Not trying to get in this raging pissing match that is going on here, but are you saying that a caprice 9C1 and impala are made differently, and I am talking drivetrain, not ascetics like different interior or what not. Sure it depends on the options, like G80 for the posi, but really that is it, most if not all 9C1's have the 3.08 option in them. I am betting that a 9C1 Caprice is probably 100 pounds lighter due to the minimal interior that was in them, but really that is just an opinion, don't have any thing to back this up.

Maybe you have something against us Caprice folks or something but the drivetrain between the Impala and the 9C1 is exactly the same, point blank, with of course what I noted above about the posi. So really this should be a year comparison not a Caprice, Impala comparison as it seems that is what you are referring to, unless I read this wrong then disregard.

But really it is your own thing whether you buy a caprice or impala, they are the same damn car. unless you can prove to me otherwise, and i am not talking interior, wheels or suspension either.

Just an opinion.

Mike

That was always my theory too. a 9C1 should in theory be faster than an Impala because of the weight differences. Hell, even the Impala's rims weigh more.

Well now days Caprices have the better reputation to be bragging about since it never got turned into a fwd V6 Lumina......I mention a Caprice to anyone I know and they think old school big muscle car.....I mention Impala and they gotta think of the 2000's and up..the reputation got destroyed....Even the new 2011 Caprice cop car is still a big RWD sedan with V8 power...Here's another era in time when having the Caprice meant you had the top of the line model:

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5559/impala8.jpg



And I'm adding fuel to the fire of this already heated discussion...LOL

Not trying to get in this raging pissing match that is going on here, but are you saying that a caprice 9C1 and impala are made differently, and I am talking drivetrain, not ascetics like different interior or what not. Sure it depends on the options, like G80 for the posi, but really that is it, most if not all 9C1's have the 3.08 option in them. I am betting that a 9C1 Caprice is probably 100 pounds lighter due to the minimal interior that was in them, but really that is just an opinion, don't have any thing to back this up.

Maybe you have something against us Caprice folks or something but the drivetrain between the Impala and the 9C1 is exactly the same, point blank, with of course what I noted above about the posi. So really this should be a year comparison not a Caprice, Impala comparison as it seems that is what you are referring to, unless I read this wrong then disregard.

But really it is your own thing whether you buy a caprice or impala, they are the same damn car. unless you can prove to me otherwise, and i am not talking interior, wheels or suspension either.

Just an opinion.

Mike

i could never understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for some people

i could never understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp for some people

+1, I have love for all B Bodies, idk why some people feel they have a larger Wang just ckuz they own an impala. It's not like your in a lambo or anything....

On subject.. I have had all three years lt1 yrs of B Bodies and my 94 was by far the fastest. Matter of fact, my homboy who i sold it to is still runnin it with 240,000 miles!!

+1, I have love for all B Bodies, idk why some people feel they have a larger Wang just ckuz they own an impala. It's not like your in a lambo or anything....

On subject.. I have had all three years lt1 yrs of B Bodies and my 94 was by far the fastest. Matter of fact, my homboy who i sold it to is still runnin it with 240,000 miles!!

they paid more money so they have bragging rights or something ??

This was covered in another thread just last month. I don't believe there's definitive proof though. I can only state what I learned years ago and which was discussed before the big crash.

I was told that STOCK, brand new 94's have between 5 and 10 more HP and torque than 95/96. I know when I got my 94 in 98 and it was totally stock with just over 55k on it, it would easily beat 95's and 96's to 60 and up to 85 when I would drop back down. That was with old BFG's even.

The reason supposedly was the stock exhaust manifolds port shape. The exhaust ports on the heads are a rectangle with rounded corners. The stock 94 manifolds ports match that shape without any "lip" to interfere with the flow of air.

However, the ports on 95/96 manifolds are more round. This causes restriction and back pressure.

People who have changed out their manifolds for headers should have noticed this. I saw a few examples of it back in the late 90's too. But who knows, maybe they were odd cases.

...Here's another era in time when having the Caprice meant you had the top of the line model:

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5559/impala8.jpg


your quote is so true, but isnt that an Impala??
caprice noses (grill, side lights) are diff..

your quote is so true, but isnt that an Impala??
caprice noses (grill, side lights) are diff..

exactly.....I wanted to show the base model as opposed the fully loaded model.

exactly.....I wanted to show the base model as opposed the fully loaded model.

I hear ya..
my 85 Imp is as basic as it gets. sliding bench, manual windows, no tilt, not even a WIPER DELAY, just low and high! cwm6
love the car, just not very driver accommodating (on a good note tho, less electrical probs :D

Thank Mike (94MI9C1) for summing it up for these guys, I would have no problem believing that a 94 is a lil bit faster than a 96 but it is said that 96 heads flow better, so I've heard multiple things that don't add up. I would also believe and bet on a 9C1 being faster than SS solely on the fact that they don't have our heavy ass SS wheels and lighter interior.

Wolf and ImpalaSSRider why must you two argue all the time? Get along and accept the fact that I have an SS and could have had a faster car if I would have bought a Caprice. I went for the appearance and the fact that I could actually get a loan for a SS. i have a Roadmaster Wagon and more than half the time I'd rather drive it then my SS, don't ask me why either. Its stock with no exhaust and rust and my SS has mods, maybe the fact that the more work I do to it, the more **** breaks.

96 BEST YEAR PERIOD, most wanted year hold the best value and if it is "slower" its not by much apperently if no ones sure about it ...

96s have smaller cams and ob2,thats why they are slower. 94s have a big rep on being faster,is it a fact?? who knows.
94/95 stock for stock,my moneys on the 94!!!
I do mean either caprice or impala,same girl different clothing.
Id still bang both...:D

they paid more money so they have bragging rights or something ??

I just did a kelley blue book search of two cars, a 96 Impala SS, and a 96 caprice classic both cars same mileage, and condition. The Impala numbers were Sug retail $10,380, Private party $8380, and trade in $6525. The Caprice numbers were Sug retail $3045, Private party $2095, and Trade in $1150. It may be mostly the same car, but the Impalas SS is worth more than the Caprice. Who on this forum would or has paid $1000 or more for a used low mileage caprice? I'm sure a lot have people on this forum have paid at least that much or more for a used low mileage impala ss.

Sure, you make a good point that the value of the Imp is more than Caprice, but that is neither here nor there in this discussion or rather pissing match, especially grabbing the value off of Kelley Blue book, as sometimes, not all times the values in that book suck. I just sold a 92 Mustang GT all stock, with 113K on the clock, for 3500 cash, Kelley bluebook standard would rate this as 1800 bucks private party. Just to give you an example. not saying that anyone would pay more for a Caprice over what Kelley says. It is proven that the value of the Imp has plummeted and really it isn't worth sh#$ nowadays.
Sure wolf stated the money thing first, but it was in response to the post that I put up about a so called bash on Caprices as you can pay less for a car that would run faster than an Imp, point blank and proven. Just because someone who owns an Imp and would never buy a caprice, doesn't give them the right to bash on someone that has a Caprice that is known to be faster. Maybe it is a status thing, maybe it is a my dick is bigger than yours thing, I don't know. I don't really much care, I just don't find it necessary to bash on someone for having a cloned caprice or what not, that is there prerogative to have a cloned version of the original, it has been done for years. If done right there is no way for a person that doesn't know the code to look for in the SPID label to tell the difference. If you clone a 94 Caprice to an Imp would it still be as fast as a Caprice in natural form with the same gear set and posi options?! Probably not as imps weigh more with all the look good items on them, that is just a fact. Can you make a Caprice look as good if not better than an Impala, definitely, but that is really not the point of this post.

Just my .02 cents

96 BEST YEAR PERIOD, most wanted year hold the best value and if it is "slower" its not by much apperently if no ones sure about it ...

Most wanted year, for anyone actually looking for collector value, would be 94. Only something like 6500 made. So rarest and fastest. All the more reason to buy a 94.

Most wanted year, for anyone actually looking for collector value, would be 94. Only something like 6500 made. So rarest and fastest. All the more reason to buy a 94.

im not knocking the 94 or nothing but mostly everybody that i know wants the 95 or 96 when looking for a impala just because its more caprice like because of the rear window and mirror honestly would u pay 15k for a 96 or 95 with 25 k on the clock or would u take the 94 with the same mileage same condition regardless of theres only 6500..imo i would take the 96/95

I just did a kelley blue book search of two cars, a 96 Impala SS, and a 96 caprice classic both cars same mileage, and condition. The Impala numbers were Sug retail $10,380, Private party $8380, and trade in $6525. The Caprice numbers were Sug retail $3045, Private party $2095, and Trade in $1150. It may be mostly the same car, but the Impalas SS is worth more than the Caprice. Who on this forum would or has paid $1000 or more for a used low mileage caprice? I'm sure a lot have people on this forum have paid at least that much or more for a used low mileage impala ss.
I heard you can get both of them for 4500 or less for Cash for clonkers?

"im not knocking the 94 or nothing"

Being worth more and popular demand doesnt sway me so I have to say respectfully that I feel the opposite way. I would rather take a nicer 94 for less money

im not knocking the 94 or nothing but mostly everybody that i know wants the 95 or 96 when looking for a impala just because its more caprice like because of the rear window and mirror honestly would u pay 15k for a 96 or 95 with 25 k on the clock or would u take the 94 with the same mileage same condition regardless of theres only 6500..imo i would take the 96/95

ill take the 94, because its the first year of the SS and of the rarity-is that a word? lol

and a if its a 95 it better be a DGGM because of the same reason, rarity

bottom line if your collecting, its a must to have a 94, 95 DGGM, and a 96 DCM, atleast thats me

If we are going by KBB the '96 is the most sought after, or atleast the most expensive. All things being equal the '94 was the cheapest being $2000 dollhairs less than '96. FWIW. I'd take the '96. Analog gauges and floor shifter are what sold me on my '96.

IDK I have a 94 when it ran right it was a beast. From a colllector part Id have to agree with baby blue 94 was the first year back witht the SS option, so it would prolly be the best option. But if I was a lucky man id have all three years in all three colors. On another note I have driven a 9c1 and it had more lower end grunt than my car.

I perfer the 96, which is why I bought one, DCM of course. The floor shifter looks way better than the column shifter does in the 94, and 95. Everone has different taste, but to me the 94 side mirrors look weird mounted to door, and I don't like the insert for the side windows, so if its faster so be it, but the 96 looks better to me.

Also to the guy that say Impala's are not worth anything anymore, spoken like a bitter caprice owner. The price has dropped some, but they still are worth more than your caprice. 94MI9c1 I like the paint job on your caprice, it is a nice looking car.

i dont agree with the price drop ether these cars held up there value go look at a low mile{around20k} impala there prices arent that far off from what some of you guys paid for them used or new in the 90's. it mite have dropped some because of the recession and all but if i could sale my impala for 8k with almost 170 on the clock in four days that really not bad at all

ill take the 94, because its the first year of the SS and of the rarity-is that a word? lol

and a if its a 95 it better be a DGGM because of the same reason, rarity

bottom line if your collecting, its a must to have a 94, 95 DGGM, and a 96 DCM, atleast thats me
baby blue already know

the 94 is the collector one! and plus with only 6,303 made

the rarest being the 95 DGGM 4,442 made

the 96 thay made 41,941 in LMAO! so there EVERYWHERE

thay made HALF that in 95- 21,434 and of course only 6,303 in 94 so yall do the math!

having a slower imp but got a floor shifter makes you look down on the 95's and 94's? lol

thay made 19,085 black 96's alone. the WHOLE 95 line up was just 21,434 LMAO!

So if you wanna look at numbers and rare and stuff 95 DGGM and 94 is the best

i need that 95 DGGM in my life and than get my 94 and get me a 96 for the DD;).

oh yea and kan forget my gold caprice

As a caprice owner, the fact that it is worth less than an imp is a moot point. It only really becomes a factor if you sell it. At the point I plan on getting rid of my caprice, it won't be worth anything even if it was an imp. I plan on squeezing every bit of life out of this car before I get rid of it. Until somebody builds a suitable replacement I will go to great lengths to keep this jalopy on the road.

Are imps "nicer"? Yeah I think they are. But, if I was worried about all that extra junk I would skip right over the impy and get a fleetwood. And if you have an imp and that is your thing then great. But some of us are not into "show", that is all an imp really has to offer over a caprice.

If you have the kind of money to just park it in a garage somewhere and not ever drive it, then what I just said above does not apply to you, as you have a TOTALLY different mindset to your average caprice owner.

everybody that i know wants the 95 or 96 when looking for a impala just because its more caprice like because of the rear window and mirror

Umm, what?? More Caprice like? How is a 95/96 Impala more Caprice like then a 94 Impala?? I just do not understand the logic of basing this on the rear window and mirror.

Well imp rider, if what everyone else says is true then you bought 2 slow impala's so who is LMAO now? I dont look down on 94's and 95's, I just like the 96's better, but I guess you cant be all that bad, because you did buy a DCM.....

Umm, what?? More Caprice like? How is a 95/96 Impala more Caprice like then a 94 Impala?? I just do not understand the logic of basing this on the rear window and mirror.

i ment the 94 is the closest to a caprice beacuse of those 2 things

As a caprice owner, the fact that it is worth less than an imp is a moot point. It only really becomes a factor if you sell it. At the point I plan on getting rid of my caprice, it won't be worth anything even if it was an imp. I plan on squeezing every bit of life out of this car before I get rid of it. Until somebody builds a suitable replacement I will go to great lengths to keep this jalopy on the road.

Are imps "nicer"? Yeah I think they are. But, if I was worried about all that extra junk I would skip right over the impy and get a fleetwood. And if you have an imp and that is your thing then great. But some of us are not into "show", that is all an imp really has to offer over a caprice.

If you have the kind of money to just park it in a garage somewhere and not ever drive it, then what I just said above does not apply to you, as you have a TOTALLY different mindset to your average caprice owner.

CASE AND POINT... The Impala SS is a caprice with the "SS/WX3" package-leather interior, lowered suspension, aluminum wheels, different gear ratio with posi traction. LABELED AS AN IMPALA because of the heritage, but built on the exact same frame, drivetrain, and body as a caprice, in the past the caprice was the luxury model and impala was the dog..take it how you want...

i think im done with this debate, on and off the forum, impalass96dcm let me know when you find that research

As a caprice owner, the fact that it is worth less than an imp is a moot point. It only really becomes a factor if you sell it. At the point I plan on getting rid of my caprice, it won't be worth anything even if it was an imp. I plan on squeezing every bit of life out of this car before I get rid of it. Until somebody builds a suitable replacement I will go to great lengths to keep this jalopy on the road.

Are imps "nicer"? Yeah I think they are. But, if I was worried about all that extra junk I would skip right over the impy and get a fleetwood. And if you have an imp and that is your thing then great. But some of us are not into "show", that is all an imp really has to offer over a caprice.

If you have the kind of money to just park it in a garage somewhere and not ever drive it, then what I just said above does not apply to you, as you have a TOTALLY different mindset to your average caprice owner.


What if I got a 9c1 that I drive every day and an impala garage queen? What mindset category do I fall into then?:)

What if I got a 9c1 that I drive every day and an impala garage queen? What mindset category do I fall into then?:)

collector

That makes me sound cool I like it

Well with these cars being 14 to 16 years old, it now boils down to how well the car has been maintained as to how quick it is now.
I have a 96 SS that I bought new and raced it 1/4 mile mile against other Impalas at the track and stock for stock when these cars were new the '95 was the quickest. Once the mods start all bets are off.

I've had all years and none were as fast as my 94. I remember there was a write up before the crash about this topic. Also the topic of this caprice/Impala comparison. I really don't know what it is but people like that(rider) gets on my nerves wit that bullshyt. They're the same car and yes wolf blue one is sexy Iike it. You always hatin on caprices cuz you need to cut that **** out u bring that slow ass impala to Philly and the caprices here will run a train on it!!!

CASE AND POINT... The Impala SS is a caprice with the "SS/WX3" package-leather interior, lowered suspension, aluminum wheels, different gear ratio with posi traction. LABELED AS AN IMPALA because of the heritage, but built on the exact same frame, drivetrain, and body as a caprice, in the past the caprice was the luxury model and impala was the dog..take it how you want...

Impala was never the dog baby blue.If you want to bring up the past the caprice was actually made from the impala.Same frame same body.Impala was built first. I have owned 3 old school impalas 63 65 67,all with power windows all a/c cars.Not sure why people were made to believe the caprice was a luxury model.I also had a fully loaded 71 caprice (2 door) It was optioned just like an impala,if different emblems and seat patterns were concidered luxury well then be it...cwm1 if you want to call a car a dog talk about the super base no optioned biscayne,del ray..some bel airs...NOT the impala bro.
Its still personal prefference,I prefer impalas.

Oh yeah...94s are faster.;)

YouTube- impala ss 95 vs impala ss 96

Impala was never the dog baby blue.If you want to bring up the past the caprice was actually made from the impala.Same frame same body.Impala was built first. I have owned 3 old school impalas 63 65 67,all with power windows all a/c cars.Not sure why people were made to believe the caprice was a luxury model.I also had a fully loaded 71 caprice (2 door) It was optioned just like an impala,if different emblems and seat patterns were concidered luxury well then be it...cwm1 if you want to call a car a dog talk about the super base no optioned biscayne,del ray..some bel airs...NOT the impala bro.
Its still personal prefference,I prefer impalas.(FACT)Caprice came from impalas so if impalas are dogs caprices are the runt on the pack.

i stand corrected, but the dog comment wasnt negative, i meant performance wise, the SS package, the faster car back then, and definitely a personal preference

i stand corrected, but the dog comment wasnt negative, i meant performance wise, the SS package, the faster car back then, and definitely a personal preference
They both had the same engines,just like now.

They both had the same engines,just like now.

guess i need to brush up on my history, only differences were certain caprices came with 307s and 396s

guess i need to brush up on my history, only differences were certain caprices came with 307s and 396s
big dawg impala in 63 had that 409

big dawg impala in 63 had that 409

had a 427 also, Z-11 package, so did the caprice in 66, with a optional manual 4 speed

Caprice > Impala

haha

Impala def. came first way back when...Caprice, I felt was always considered more luxurious, but I don't have specs to back that up. All I know if after 64, I don't really go too crazy over the body styles.

But a Glasshouse Caprice is > IMO than a 65+ SS, but again, that's just personal preference.

Oh yeah, Caprice > Impala, and BK wipes his ass with Caprices, therefore he uses Charmin 2 ply, not that 1 ply crap you guys SS guys drive around.

Oooooooh! :D

My old 94 Cavalier could take ANY of your stock SS's..sss...ssss...ssssssssssssss

Impala def. came first way back when...Caprice, I felt was always considered more luxurious, but I don't have specs to back that up.

i read this..

The Caprice began life in mid-1965 as a luxury trim package (http://www.impalassforum.com/wiki/Trim_package) for the Impala four-door hardtop sedan (16639), in response to the successful Ford LTD (http://www.impalassforum.com/wiki/Ford_LTD) series. This included a stiffer suspension, higher-grade cloth and vinyl seat and door trim (as well as thicker, higher-grade carpeting), walnut trim on the dashboard and door panels, pull straps on the doors, extra convenience lights, special full wheel covers and an optional vinyl top.

but who knows... hey Kev i'll race your Cav for bragging rights, but not in the cappies, in the olds :D

Just curious, I know I'm bumping a 2 year old thread, but has anyone found out if the 1994's are faster. I've heard things from different cams, to different exhaust manifolds, to the OBI vs OBII, but have never reached anything conclusive.

Anyone know? or are we still just all guessing.

There were minor differences in lift/duration on the cams iirc correctly but nothing enough to make any measurable difference imo. Im sure there were ever so slight differences is castings as well but again, nothing that can produce a measurable difference.

Only thing that I would speculate could make any real difference is a difference in tuning parameters between the OBD1 cars and OBD2, but I don't think any such difference has ever been noted (i.e; seeing any significant difference in timing/air fuel ratios enough to produce any measurable increase in performance).

You are talking about things so small that you might as well throw the aerodynamic qualities of the side mirrors into the mix lol

As far as all the "I had 9X and it was faster than my friends/my previous 9Y impala"; when comparing 10+ year old cars (or even 5 year old cars) you have way too many variables at play to blame anything on the car being inherently faster. plugs, wires, 02 sensors, transmission, converter, any number of a million factors that can cause even slightly diminished performance in an older car are at play. Even going back to the first year of how the car was broken in may affect performance.

In the past the 94 and 95 with OBDI could be programmed better than the OBD II computers, so many had a slight advantage over the 96's. Today's programmers have narrowed the gap and that is no longer the case. The difference in cam's from 94-96 was supposed to be very minor and the better coil system on the 96 was supposed to make up for any difference. Many people change to a 96 coil system in their 94/95, believing it will add a couple of HP. As far as I know no test have ever been done on this to confirm.

Cars with Mechanical fans were rated 10hp less.

As SSandman said when you are comparing older cars there are so many other things to consider that in today's world you can not really state that if you buy a 94 it will be faster than a 96.

the only impala most people mention is a 96ss, im not going to lie thats the car i wanted but once i started looking into it if your going to buy a SS it may as be one with low miles and no mods, which is the opposite of what i planned to do, so i went caprice 94 and never looked back!! i do want a 67 SS impala tho! CAPRICE FOR EVER!! lls

in my own personal experience...I raced a '94 roady(loaded,mech fan, 2.93 gears,posi,cheapo intake)against our '96 ss(cheapo intake) and the two cars ran door to door up to the roadys speed limiter...My '94 b4u stock felt stronger than the '96 too.

CAPRICE FOR EVER!! lls

Yea? Cool story bro.

Besides Caprices are frail. Bottom line.

Yea? Cool story bro.

Besides Caprices are frail. Bottom line.

how so? tell me the difference

The 94 is faster due to the mirror being mounted the door compared to the window. Less wind resistance.

The 94 is faster due to the mirror being mounted the door compared to the window. Less wind resistance.

lol looking back at this thread i remember this bs, well the fact is that the 94s have different internals.

thats why they are faster....

and we can now end this

thanks