Chevy Impala SS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts
4

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There is a black 96 caprice civi 9C1 for sale by me. It has a tan cloth interior and other than 2 door dings very clean. It has 75,000 miles. They are asking $8,500.00. What does everyone think?

Thanks
Dennis
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Ummm... There is no Civi-9C1. It's either a Civi with a 4.3L, or the 5.7L LT1 V-8, but with a 7.5" rear end and drum brakes. Or it is a 9C1 with a 4.3 or 5.7, but with the 8.5" rear and disc brakes at all 4 corners.
You need to find out more info to ask your question. Things like:
Engine
Drivetrain
9C1 or Civi
How it performs, ie test-drive

These little things can definately determine the "value" of a Caprice.
I would say if it is a true 9C1 with an LT1 it is a bit high for that car, maybe more like $7000, if it is really clean.
If it is a civi, then I guess you gotta think about what options you want and what you plan to do with it. If you want to clone it to WX3 status, then you'd be better off IMHO, to go with a 9C1. But if you are looking for the best car GM made that seats 5+, and can get to where ever you want to go with authority, :eek: :D then maybe this your car.
Personally I would say it's too much, whatever variety it is.
 
4

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It has the 5.7 engine and the eighth number/letter is a "P". She bought the lease out from a friend of her parents and said that he ordered it with the 9C1 options. I didn't check the rear end for what type of brakes it had. I did drive it and although it didn't have the pull of my 94 Impala it still had really good get up and go.

She is selling it because, believe it or not, it is too small for her family. She is getting a mini-van.
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
If it doesn't have the pull of an Impala but it has an LT1 then it is probably a civilian car, not a 9C1. I say this because the civilian car had different rear end gears (not as good as the 9C1) and also probably has a mechanical cooling fan. Just pop the trunk and look at the sticker on the underside of the trunklid to be sure. If you don't see 9C1, then it isn't a 9C1, but I don't think it is.

Also, if it isn't a 9C1, then it wont have the heavier duty frame rails that a 9C1 has, and it probably wont have the other heavy duty thigns in it that a 9C1 has. It might not even have the stronger alternator that the 9C1 and Impala got.
 
V

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
if you're gonna be adding the WX3 option to it then you're better off buying a cheaper 9C1 and going from there.

around here, a 94 9C1 with 100K goes for $2500-$2700 at the auctions all day long. and this is for a west coast-no salt-no snow-no rust car.


a 95 with 65K went for $3200 at the last auction, so $8500 is NUTS.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike454SS:
If it doesn't have the pull of an Impala but it has an LT1 then it is probably a civilian car, not a 9C1. I say this because the civilian car had different rear end gears (not as good as the 9C1) and also probably has a mechanical cooling fan. .

It might not even have the stronger alternator that the 9C1 and Impala got.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why is it that everyone seems to think the civi cars run slower than a SS or 9C1?? My civi with VO8 and GW9 2.93 axle ran a 14.68 STOCK!!! Somebody must have forgot to tell the car and me that while we were at the track.


ALL LT1 cars got the 140 amp alternator, regardless of what form they came in.

And you could get a 3.23 LT1 civi car (95-96 have a 3.42 listed as available also), which are better gears than a SS or 9C1 got.
 
V

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My civi with VO8 and GW9 2.93 axle ran a 14.68 STOCK!!! Somebody must have forgot to tell the car and me that while we were at the track <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

????????????????? :confused: :confused:
something is wrong with the timing device of the track you're running on ( this is not a smart comment, it's a real possibility, I've seen it with my own eyes).
I'm sure you ran what you say you ran, but there's no way on God's green earth that you can run that on a "stock" caprice.

if you did, you're the "one and only".
specially when there are over 250,000 other caprice and impala's that never ran that, even with higher gears.

my car with opened up exhaust, SSRI, hypertech, 3.42 gears ran 14.60 ( rolled off the line, didn't load the convertor), so I'm having a hard time accepting your timeslip.
run the car at a different track to get the "real" time.
what were the 60' times, I'm curious.
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Maybe he was in death valley on a really cold day (I don't think those 2 things belong in the same sentence but I've never been there).

From what I hear, death valley is below sea level, and cold air makes your engine run stronger, so I'm coming up with a hypothetical thingy, I don't know if death valley ever gets cold. I know that my car was a monster, it could smoke the impala SS tires freely without aid of the brakes even if the car was already rolling a bit, and I'm sure that stock it would probably be a low 15 in the quarter, and thats with electric fans and 3.08 gears and a posi. I never got it to the track, but I don't think a stock 94-96 caprice (and by stock I mean exactly the way it came from the showroom, no disconnected belt or any other tricks) could ever run a 14.68 without some sort of perfect weather conditions or a slightly "off" timing device. Can't trust a G-Tech too much here either. It is very very close to accurate, but isn't the same as a track timer, plus the G-Tech gives you instant speed at the end of the run, the track timer gives you average over the last part of the track, I forget how many feet it averages it over).
 
W

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I dunno if you guys have ever noticed, but Sleeper really knows his stuff. I think that timeslip sounds a little off, but I do not doubt Sleeper. Sleeper, can you scan the slip and clear all this up?
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Dennis, I have a 95- 9C1 with 76,000. LT1 and loaded. Tilt,cruise,pw,plocks, Alpine stereo. Cold AC. Former Secret Service, No holes. I will take $6500 and deliver it to your door in Blaine, MN. Email if interested. [email protected]
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sleeper:
Why is it that everyone seems to think the civi cars run slower than a SS or 9C1??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean quicker (in ET/trap) not speedwise.

WX3 and 9C1 with LT1 get 3.08 and 130 mph, or higher, speed limiter.

Civvy 94-96 Bcars with LT1 get 2.93 and 108 mph limiter.

Assuming the cars weigh almost the same, the WX3 and 9C1 get a slight advantage off the line due to the gearing, over the civvy LT1. But the advantage is just that -- slight.

The options/trim on each model is more likely to affect a run, because of the excess weight it has. IMO the WX3 weighs 50-70 lbs more than a 9C1 (wheels, tires, interior seats are heavier on WX3), and I'd guess that the 9C1 weighs the same as a civvy car (the 9C1 lacks some options, but it also has heavy rubber floor mats, and a few other functional HD parts). Then there is the weight of the driver. Are you over 200 lbs, like many Bcar owners, or are you lightweight (under 130 lbs)? Less weight matters.

So from the above, the differences are slight enough to make most people agree that among WX3, 9C1, and civvy Caprice sedans, all with LT1s, they are all about the same in ET & trap. And yet you're car is a good 0.15 (cold weather) to 0.3 sec (warm) quicker. It doesn't add up. THAT'S why people don't believe it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My civi with VO8 and GW9 2.93 axle ran a 14.68 STOCK!!! Somebody must have forgot to tell the car and me that while we were at the track. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was the trap speed?

My '94 ran 14.96 sec @ 92.5 mph (corrected for sea level, but not for air temp nor humidity), and that was with the K&N (but no cold air box), TB bypass, LT4 ESC, a leaky rf tire, and a sewerpipe, and when it had 122k miles on it. It was probably a 15.0 @ 92 mph car when it was brand new. Maybe 14.9 on a cold day. My times are typical for what the car SHOULD run, assuming the optispark and plugs are ok, and everything else is ok too.

I heard you on the 14.68, and your posts are credible (believable) but you know enough that the timeslip should bother even you if the car was really bone stock. Cold air intake plus muffler mod, plus serp delete for the run and the TB bypass usually results in an ET close to that. You might even need to do the throttle body coolant bypass as well to get to high 14.6s. Yet you've claimed 14.68 on a stock 2.93 LT1 car.

So by all accounts of the people that inhabit the digests and the forums since 1994, 15.0 is about what any LT1 sedan runs in the summer (60s to 70s temp, at sea level, low humidity) and maybe 14.8x on a very cold day in the winter with a very good launch.

So I wonder: it must have been very cold when you ran, and I bet there was a stiff tailwind aiding you. Or the track is short. Or some combo of these things. I know you want to believe 14.68 bone stock, but it's a good 0.15 to 0.3 secs off what the LT1 Bcar runs cold to warm. And that's why no one believes it.

If it is true, and there was no tailwind or other explanation, then your engine would have to be a ringer, and/or something was non-std from the factory. Like having an LT4 cam installed by Powertrain, and having the V4P 3.42 GU6 installed on the line at Arlington. Rare things like that have happened before, and they would result in a car quicker than stock. BUT we'd be able to reconcile the performance with what went into the car from the factory. We could explain it, it would make sense. Your timeslip, so far, doesn't make that much sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ... And you could get a 3.23 LT1 civi car (95-96 have a 3.42 listed as available also), which are better gears than a SS or 9C1 got.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, 3.23 was available only on the L99 9C1. 3.42 was listed only on the Fleetwood with V4P towing package and the Fleetwood is longer and heavier and probably taller and wider, so it's not going to be as quick nor as fast as any other Bcar LT1 sedan.

Let me put it another way: is there anyone out there that ran 14.68 (or better) in their car (any LT1 sedan) when it was bone stock? Anyone get close? What were the conditions?

Finally, let me add that a number of owners have been sensitized by wild claims of 170+ mph stock Impalas owned by the Florida HP, stock LO5 Caprice 9C1s beating an SS, and even the rare factory silver '95 SS with the 93 dash and aftermarket front bumper (also a Florida car).

14.68 sec stock civvy Caprice isn't as outrageous a claim, but it does make you wonder. IMO. - Ken
 
U

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I've never seen an LT1/L99 with a mechanical fan. what about the waterpump?
 
4

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Well, I bought it! I didn't pay the $8,500.00 (talked her down) When I went to pick it up I found out that she bought it from her parents friend who ordered it new. I have the order sheet. It has the 3.23 gears, LT-1 with the mechanical fan, a trailering package and I got every slip of work that has been done to it except for one tire rotation. All the oil changes and the warranty work.

Thanks everyone for the info on what to do. It finally came down to what was available locally. Do a search in the 55421 zip code for Caprices within 250 miles. Most of them are the 4.3 engines and they still want $10,000.00 for them.

Thanks CFM for the offer. The wife to be (in 9 days!) wanted to get it taken care of and she really liked this one. Now I guess we can go out with his and hers. Me in my Black 94 Impala and her in the Black 96 Caprice Classic!
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Damn you paid to much but if you liked it! A couple members of our MN club just bought a couple 9C1s. Mike just got a nice 95 9C1 for 4000 and the kid in our club got his 94 for $2500 and its in good shape!!!

14.6 is believable. My B4U caprice ran the number in the signature with glasspacks and a cone filter. The conditions were perfect!
No humidity, 58 deg with a light tail wind, mostly sunny skys and a sticky track!!!
Its a once a year day! Sometimes it falls on a race day! If your there it'll give you a number to chase!
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 4Impalasandcounting:
The wife to be (in 9 days!) wanted to get it taken care of and she really liked this one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congrats on getting married! Is all the last minute stuff taken care of yet?
Looks like I'm one week behind your schedule; my big day is 8/11!
 
4

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Congrats to you too casava13! I don't think the last minute stuff will ever be taken care of. (She was up until 2:00 working on wedding favors.) To top it all off we are also building a house. The roof is being put on as we speak. A buddy of mine (and the best man) is helping with the wiring of the telephone, cable and cat5. That has to be done before August 7th and we can't get in there until August 1st. The way we figure it, come the end of September, it will all be over. And then I can re-focus on the cars!
 
C

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Thanks!

Building a house too? Suddenly I don't feel so busy anymore! I hope everything goes according to plan. Or at least close to the plan.


Geez, I've been throwing a lot of discussions off topic lately. Oops!

Congratulations on the car, too!
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sleeper:
Why is it that everyone seems to think the civi cars run slower than a SS or 9C1?? My civi with VO8 and GW9 2.93 axle ran a 14.68 STOCK!!! Somebody must have forgot to tell the car and me that while we were at the track. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think SOMEBODY (you) forgot to tell us the whole story. On Karl's web site,
http://www.impalass.net/quickss/stock.htm

you wrote:

"Patrick Flavin, White 94 Caprice Classic LS, Bone Stock LT1 350

60'-2.194 1/8th-9.638 at xx.xxmph 1/4-14.968 at 91.75 [Mech. fan belt ON] 4/2/97 at Milan Dragway, Milan MI, 72F, ?RH, 30.02 bar
Notes: 2.93 rear gear (GW9), Posi (G80), Heavy Duty Cooling (V08), Brand new 235-70-r15 BFG Radial T/A's,

More Notes: 60'-2.182 1/8th-9.433 at 74.63mph 1/4-14.682 at 92.90 [Mech. fan belt off] 4/9/97 at Milan Dragway, Milan MI, 45-50F, 35-40%RH, 30.15 bar."


Somewhere in the note *I* wrote (above), I said that if you removed the serp belt, and if you ran in cold weather you could run close to 14.68. You did just that, and you had the favor of low humidity and cold temps too. We also don't know whether there was a tailwind.

When your car ran in warmer weather and with the belt ON, it ran 14.97 @ 91.7 mph --- exactly where it should run.

Were there any other "stock" mods during the 14.68 run that we should know about, that the car forgot to tell you?

Your credibility just dropped a step. - Ken
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
The original thread here was a gentleman thinking of buying a Caprice. A little bantering went on and Sleeper posted:

"Why is it that everyone seems to think the civvie cars run slower than a SS or 9C1??"

So what are the real power adder differences between them? Now I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think engine wise, the SS/9C1' have electric fans versus a mechanical one. The 9C1 has a real oil pressure sender, the SS/Caprice have on/off types. So, the only power adder the SS/9C1's have (really a power robber from the Caprice standpoint) is the fan. I've read where the V08 robs you of 5 HP. Frame wise, the SS/9C1 have a thicker frame but how much? Does the Caprice have a weight advantage? Also the rear end gearing is 3.08 versus 2.93, not a huge difference, but again advantage SS/9C1. So, how does one compare a Caprice to a SS/9C1? Maybe by pulling the mechanical belt so there's no draw (equal to the electric fans). That's probably the closest one can get without swapping the fans over to electric. The gears and weight the SS/9C1 have probably make up for the lower gear in the Caprice. I own both a 96 SS and a 94 B4U. I've run 1/4 mile times with the SS (intake and exhaust mods) anywhere from 14.98 to 15.7 depending on the weather. I just bought the 94 a few months ago and haven't been to the track - yet. So, if someone has a real stock Caprice, that runs 14.968 at 91.75 [Mech. fan belt ON] @72F, that proves the point that Caprices need not be slower than an SS/9C1. At least not compared to my SS. Maybe my 96 came out of the factory with a dog of an LT1 while another Caprice came out with a tighter one. I've seen a lot of stock SS's run low to mid 15's and Caprices do the same. So in my mind, again I may not be as credible as others, not much difference 1/4 mile wise between any LT1 equipped b-body. I personally know Pat (aka Sleeper). He's helped a lot of other owners with their questions, be it racing technique or parts. He is very open to sharing and does not intentionally try to hoodwink people, just the opposite. To say "Were there any other "stock" mods during the 14.68 run that we should know about, that the car forgot to tell you? Your credibility just dropped a step." is a cheap shot.

Steve

Not trying to start a flame war.... email me offline if you wish.
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve96:
... I personally know Pat (aka Sleeper). He's helped a lot of other owners with their questions, be it racing technique or parts. He is very open to sharing and does not intentionally try to hoodwink people, just the opposite.[/QUOTE

I don't doubt any of the above.

[QB}] To say "Were there any other "stock" mods during the 14.68 run that we should know about, that the car forgot to tell you? Your credibility just dropped a step." is a cheap shot. Steve.. Not trying to start a flame war.... email me offline if you wish.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor am I. But Sleeper said "stock" together with "14.68"... and that makes no sense.

Sleeper specifically wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Why is it that everyone seems to think the civi cars run slower than a SS or 9C1?? My civi with VO8 and GW9 2.93 axle ran a 14.68 STOCK!!! Somebody must have forgot to tell the car and me that while we were at the track."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*I* never said the civvy LT1 Caprice was slower.

I even presented many of the same arguments you did (in an earlier post in this thread) to show that it's a wash between civvy, 9C1 and WX3. They should all run around the same times/traps. The differences are so slight that the weight of the driver and the options of the car (weight adders, reducers) might matter most. I said that, backing up the assertion of the civvy LT1 Bcar being as quick.

It was Sleeper that claimed 14.68 sec on the stock civvy LT1 car.... and he didn't understand why people found it hard to believe.

I offered reasons why it was 'so hard for everyone to believe', and backed them up with numbers. I then asked Sleeper about the conditions used during the 14.68 run. Sleeper never responded.

I later stumbed on the timeslips for Sleeper's B4U car, and they showed exactly what I talked about: right around 15.0 @ 92 mph stock, and 14.7 modded and run in cold weather.

Sleeper didn't tell us anything about his run or the modifications he made to the car - he only told us that it was stock. Here is what he said in case you missed it:

"My civi with VO8 and GW9 2.93 axle ran a 14.68 STOCK!!!"

So whose shot is cheaper?

Me for taking him to the mat with his own words (both the "14.68 stock" post, and his post on Karl's web site), or Sleeper for suggesting that a stock LT1 Bcar can run 14.68 without disclosing the facts and then failing to comment when I told him exactly what he would have to do to a stock LT1 Bcar to run 14.7 ? I predicted almost exactly how his car ran that fast, and it wasn't stock.

GMHTP once did a 94,95,96 stock WX3 shootout once. The 94 ran 15.01 best, and the 95 and 96 were a bit slower. After the stock runs were done, one of the test participants Mike Houle proceeded to run around 15.1 pure stock, and then made some 5 minute tweaks to his engine. The main ones I recall were cold air intake, K&N, serp belt delete. He ran 14.68. His car was CLOSE to stock, but a genuine stock Bcar is not going to run 14.68.

A pure stock LT1 Bcar won't run that quick unless there is very cold weather (say 20 degs or lower, for very dense air) with a pre-warmed engine (all drivetrain fluids less viscous when warm), and the driver launches optimally on tires suited for the weather.

I knew all that when I read Sleeper's comments, and I further knew that he had to be wrong. And then I used Sleeper's own words to prove it. It was the best way to prove the point.

I don't have anything more to add to this that hasn't been written already.
- Ken, no flames, just the facts
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top