Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Any REAL station wagon lovers out there?

Colossus

By Colossus
in Off-Topic

Recommended Posts

SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted

Yes, REAL slow and underpowered. :lol:

 

It seems the  first thing anyone with a few extra bucks does when they buy one is add power. Other than that, yeah those 90s Buicks floated like clouds, great cruisers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SnakeEyeSS said:

Yes, REAL slow and underpowered. :lol:

 

It seems the  first thing anyone with a few extra bucks does when they buy one is add power. Other than that, yeah those 90s Buicks floated like clouds, great cruisers.

 

 

I see you've never been introduced to the 1970 Impala 454 wagon. :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I see you've never been introduced to the 1970 Impala 454 wagon. :lol: 

I was referencing the ones he originally wrote of. The old TBI 350 slowboats. Reliable, but ssllooww

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colossus Senior Enthusiast

Colossus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

They were pretty quick at the time.  The 94-96 5.7L LT1 derived, 260HP.   A nice jump up from the 190HP 5.7L equipped 1990-1993 models.  (lower HP & carb controlled before 1990)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, SnakeEyeSS said:

I was referencing the ones he originally wrote of. The old TBI 350 slowboats. Reliable, but ssllooww

Sorry I could not have know that.       "Any REAL station wagon lovers out there"?  Was unaware the attached sale limited the title to a few wagons of a specific year and powertrain. I'm slow like that. My apologies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Sorry I could not have know that.       "Any REAL station wagon lovers out there"?  Was unaware the attached sale limited the title to a few wagons of a specific year and powertrain. I'm slow like that. My apologies.  

 

Just read the whole post next time.:thumbs:. 

 

last1
last/
adjective
  1. 1.
    coming after all others in time or order; final.
    final.
     
     
    The Caprice and Roadmaster went the way of the dinosaur after 96. 
On 5/7/2018 at 12:28 AM, Colossus said:

The last of the REAL wagons.. The Caprice Wagon/Roadmaster/Custom Cruiser

 

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/222397588311892

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Colossus said:

They were pretty quick at the time.  The 94-96 5.7L LT1 derived, 260HP.   A nice jump up from the 190HP 5.7L equipped 1990-1993 models.  (lower HP & carb controlled before 1990)

Yes, they were, but we have come a LONG way in those 20 years. A Mazda four banger crossover can smoke those TBI ones, who would have predicted that? The LT1s we're quick if optioned accordingly. The rear ends ranged from something like 2.56 to 2.93 and the acceraltion times ranged by 3 seconds according to some! That's a big disparity, so some of the engines probably we're built "better" too. 

 

But, Dax Shepard built one with the LSA connect and cruise Combo. I'd like to see that thing do a pass down the 1/4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, SnakeEyeSS said:

 

Just read the whole post next time.:thumbs:. 

 

last1
last/
adjective
  1. 1.
    coming after all others in time or order; final.
    final.
     
     
    The Caprice and Roadmaster went the way of the dinosaur after 96. 

The title sir, the title. Read the title. The remark referenced the add not the title. The title is the thread objective. Good lord does anyone speak English? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

The title sir, the title. Read the title. The remark referenced the add not the title. The title is the thread objective. Good lord does anyone speak English? 

Do you read it? If you read a book, say, "To Kill a Mockingbird", do you discuss it with someone, and only speak of killing Mockingbirds? 

 

I even wrote "90s" IN the post YOU QUOTED. Then you respond to THAT quote, referencing a car TWO DECADES earlier, and then imply I wasn't specific enough, and that  you "couldn't have known that"? Your own comments show you didn't read the post you quoted.

 

I guess I better TL;DR for you:

You respond to a post that specifically states a decade, and then say you couldn't know I specificed a decade. 

 

I have to pull out a picard for this one.

d26bb6c683fa18eb6d0126ca2687ce2f.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I have to agree with Grumpy Bear on this one. The OP first line was all inclusive. The example was a vehicle that wasn’t slow as an example. So an answer was that stated station wagons are slow by a poster would refer to the first line. That would open it up to all wagons and the 70 454 would certainly be a good answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grumpy Bear Senior Enthusiast

Grumpy Bear

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I have to agree with Grumpy Bear on this one. The OP first line was all inclusive. The example was a vehicle that wasn’t slow as an example. So an answer was that stated station wagons are slow by a poster would refer to the first line. That would open it up to all wagons and the 70 454 would certainly be a good answer.

Now that's a breath of fresh air. Thank you Stan. Sincerely. Thank you. (_________________) above. 

 

The title highlighted the word "REAL"  Limiting the discussion to GM 350 CID TBI models would imply the OP considers only those models as 'REAL" station wagons? That runs not only counter to his text, but rational.

 

Good movie though. Great in fact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted

There seems to be a contagious comprehension problem of the subject at hand. Allow me to draw a picture of the problem.

4qKe51Z.jpg

 

I was never speaking of a limited topic. I was responding to a response of a post I made.

 

http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sheep.physicsisbroken.c

If this doesn't explain it, I'll just leave it to Ron White

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnakeEyeSS Senior Enthusiast

SnakeEyeSS

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, KARNUT said:

I have to agree with Grumpy Bear on this one. The OP first line was all inclusive. The example was a vehicle that wasn’t slow as an example. So an answer was that stated station wagons are slow by a poster would refer to the first line. That would open it up to all wagons and the 70 454 would certainly be a good answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In  it's day maybe, but isn't but by today's standards. The wagon only had the 390 Gross HP rated engine, and here is a simulation of the sedan. http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1970/413525/chevrolet_impala_sport_sedan_454_v-8_turbo-jet_390-hp_hydra-matic.html

 

The wagon was bigger and heavier. so maybe 0-60 in 7.5 with a good run? Thats great if you are racing a 10 year old Corolla. They were paired with a TH400, which are black holes of drivetrain loss. Now THIS is a "REAL" station wagon, and IS FAST. https://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/model/class-E/model-E63S4S

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept