Chevy Impala SS Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been in search of a Diecent 95 -96 wagon to mod and am still looking. ... But to get to the point I came across this Pic today and I REALLY LIKE the way they opened up the wheel wells. I think this car looks hot as hell. :D

Does anyone know who it belongs to?

 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I remember someone posting that they had a wagon with the rear wheel wells radiused like the sedans on here (though without pics), but I don't remember who it was without researching.

Um, I know this is just a personal preferance thing, and I can apprecaite body mods....but I like the stock wagon rear wheel opening better, as it looks more "sleak" in my opinion and flows the lines in the rear better. Just my 2¢. Granted, it is different, and you don't see it out there.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I like our wagons the way they are and I like sedans both pre and post round wheel wells. That car looks great I have seen pics of it before and I have always thought the stance was great and if they were going to keep making wagons they would have done that eventually.

Nick
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Dad-E-Wagin
Member # 4603 posted February 11, 2004 11:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it makes our wagons look lik ford taurus, Uggghhhh!!!!!.
That's it!!! I knew it didn't like it for some reason. Impala's look good rounded but wagon looks better the other way.

My .02
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
While everyone has an opinion and has a right to do what they want ... I vote thumbs down to radiused wheelwells, I didnt like them on the 55-57 chevys, 62-67 Chevy II's and I dont like them on this one either.....
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Originally posted by GRFMotorsports:
I vote thumbs down to radiused wheelwells, I didnt like them on the 55-57 chevys.....
You're lucky then, because only the '55 Nomad had the fully opened up style.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I like the closed wheel wells on the wagons, but not he sedans. I can't explain it. Maybe because on the 91-93 sedans, it makes it look boated and big, but since the wagons are already bigger, it's OK.

I dunno.....I'm rambling.....I need more beer....
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Heh, I know the guy in Florida who bought that Caprice pictured above, and trasported it down. It had grill work in the bumper opening though, when I saw it. It was a damn nice looking car, with a GREAT flame job, and a pristine redone red interior with a billet steering wheel. Unfortunately he took a beating when he resold it recetly....I'm not real sure, but I think it was sold to a guy in southern Florida (Miami?).

The thing I took away from seeing it, besides being impressed by how tight it looked, was how the air bag system came out (which granted, adds to how bad A$$ it looks). It had the setup where the bags and the shocks were seperate, and as a result of the fab work to fit the shocks it didn't have inner fenders, I guess because they interfered with the new stuff (I was thinking there should be a way to do it with just notching the inner fenders to clear, but whatever). Without inner fenders, the wheel would throw up stuff through the hood gap, which is directly above the front wheels, when the road surface wasn't clean (rain, mud, whatever).

Now that I'm thinking of possibly putting bags on my '91 Custom Cruiser I'd only go with the Shockwave system (if I indeed do it), which is a coil-over type setup, and you just have to clearance the A-Arm to get it in. Still, I'm debating the cost issues vs. just putting dropped spindles in the front and Chevy truck springs in the back. But the idea of how I can raise it all up when I see clearance issues up ahead makes me really want bags.

So, maybe I should post this elsewhere, but do I need spindles AND bags in the front to make it right? Will the camber be odd at cruising height (after alignment, of course) with ONLY bags if I don't also do spindles also? I don't want it SUPER low while cruising, just about 2 inches lower than stock.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
One of the former owners of the above Caprice is here on the forum.

You can keep the inner fenders and still use the standard "relocate the shock" style air suspension. Most of the time the inner fenders are removed due to tire clearance issues, which is what I suspect the above Caprice needed by looking at how the tire fits in the fender.

I currently have the Shockwaves on my wagon. You don't have to do anything to the a-arm, only notch out the spring pocket in the frame like you would need to on any air suspension setup in these cars. My wheels are also properly backspaced to keep me from having to remove the inner fender well when dumped. If you went the air suspension route, you'd get the car aligned at ride height. You only need the spindles and bags if you want to lay the frame on the pavement. While you can do just the spindles with regular springs, it isn't really recommended with the current coil spring offerings out there.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Thanks for the feedback threeimpalas. Yeah, I've heard so much feedback from so many people....now that you mentioned "notch out the spring pocket in the frame", that is what I was thinking of (to make sure the bags don't rub anything). Thanks. It has been a while since I rolled under my wagon and evaluted things, and I of course said the wrong thing.

And no, I'm not concerned with laying the frame on the gound, just having a low-slung car at normal ride height, with the option to raise it up when I see a clearance problem arise.

So....since it seems like you've already installed a VERY similar (if not exact) system like what I'm thinking about, when you raise your wagon up to max possible height, how hight would you figure it is compared to stock height?
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top