Chevy Impala SS Forum banner

My 95 4VP

1798 Views 12 Replies 5 Participants Last post by  59186
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Damn photobucket. They do not allow 3rd party linking unless you pay $40 a month these days. Does anyone know of a good photo hosting service for a laptop using (I do NOT have a smart phone) for free?

Guess again. It's like $399. The basic package is cheap but only the top package allows 3rd party posting
I just signed up to IMGUR, and going back a ways to replace pics. Go back too far and the posts have turned uneditible bringing on even more contrivance.

...(I do NOT have a smart phone) ....?
"Trust no phone without a hinge"
- Wise Anonymous
Thanks, will look into it soon.

Under the cover is my 1996 FWB 4VP. In the garage are my two 1994 RMLS, one having the tow package as well.
See less See more
Houston, we have pics!

O. My. Gah. The same heinously blue-haired Octavos and Gold/White Vogues as I'm running. Pretty tails, damn near the same as my old gray '95. Where from please, in case I bust a move on new exhaust.

And creds to your 4 B/D-es eh. The DMV and insurance be loving you.
Oh yeah, I thought at least ONE of my B/Ds needed the Vogue wheel/tire touch. I am in AZ. I have the stock chrome wheels in storage.

My two RMLS have Michelin truck tires 235/75R15, the LTX II series. And the other FWB has Hankook 235/75R15. The Michelins are the best, but the Hankooks and especially the Vogues are smoother and quieter. Too bad I could not get 235/75R15s in the Vogues, had to settle for stock 235/70R15 (stock) size. Back when I had 56-57 T-Birds I had the repro Firestone Gum-Dipped WWW and they did not get as dirty as quickly as these Vogues. I made them spiffy clean last night and a 15 mile trip on DRY asphalt got them all dusty already.
¡Que lindo!
The V4P is definitely the underappreciated, underrated, underestimated dark horse of the B- & D- carline.
How about a group shot?

How ya like the 3.42?
It will take some co-ordination to get a good group shot. I was driving my 2:56 RMLS just now. I am still in love with the 2:56. But the 2:93 is my favorite so far. I suppose a 3:08 or 3:23 would be ideal.
Dam, you've had benefit of a whole range of gears; 2.93 in the middle and 2.56 and 3.42 on either end. What kind of mileage do you see out of each by comparison?

For reference I just got a good mileage test run on my FWB with a 700 mile funeral outing Saturday and show 20.2 mpg [near solid divided 4-lane state routes very light traffic mostly 65-73 on cruise].
My 2:56 typically gets 18mpg boulevard (once odometer corrected) and 25mpg at 80 mph. The 3:42s gets 16mpg and 22mpg at 80mph.

I have found that the stock ECM settings has the odometer running about 4% fast when stock. So my uncorrected MPG was too optimistic. I find that using the stock specs for 235/70R15 tires but actually running 235/75R15 tires makes the odometer very slightly slow (and speedo dead on!) and much closer to reality than what GM wants you to think you are doing! Yes, the stock settings make your odometer counter run fast as well as your speedo. That gives you BETTER MPG readings than actual.

I am a stickler about calculating my mpg with every single tank for the last 45 years. I always have a calculator, pen and pad in all my cars. I am OCD about this (as was my dad). Nothing confuses me more when people say "It takes $40 to fill my tank." Or "I fill my tank once every two weeks." What does THAT have to do with MPG?
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.