1961 Impala SS

 

The SS Corvette was a race car and it never was sold. I believe that GM only built one of them heres a picture of it for those who never knew it existed...


I want to say it was a 1954 Corvette but I'm not 100% on the year. I think that it was the first use of the Super Sport name.

 

I still think that GM should do something like Dodge's SRT group and label the engine, not the car. The SS label should follow the engine, and whatever car gets that engine (as well as some tuned breaks, suspension, etc.) should get the label. I don't see any reason why there can't be multiple engines in the SS's like bouncertime was saying with the old Chevelles. There could be a couple of each the 4, 6, and 8 cylinder "SS" engines, maybe one NA and one FI? That may be too many, but you get the point.

In defense of the 2.4 SS, isn't it about equal to a Civic Si (as far as performance)? And isn't an Si supposed to be the Honda Civic's top performing trim level? If Chevy's second highest performance trim level car can hang w/ Honda's top level car, that's not bad. I think our little "supercharged" badge is enough differentiation for me.

 

The Corvette's prototype name was Super Sport.

Without looking it up, do you know what SI stands for???

 

Is that a smart-ass remark, or is this another trivia question? Because I don't see the relevance to my post. But if I had to guess, I'd say it has something to do w/ "sport"

 

Both.

the S is easy, that is right, whats the I stand for though.

 

According to Wikipedia:

"The Si model name was formerly used in both Japan and North America, with it denominating the most powerful Civic available. . . Si stands for 'Sport Injected'."

I'm still confused at what you're trying to say?

 

Isn't that an oxymoron? Kinda like military inteligence or responcible govt spending or an honest politition.

 

I like my 2.4 thank you very much. And I want to say that SS has always been a trim level. The reason you had different engines in SS's back in the day was because you picked it when you ordered the car, or the dealer picked it on what they felt was right for their market. The engines used to be options, gm trucks are like that. I wish that was still the case for the cars, as I would order a striped car with the largest engine available like my dad's old 72 chevelle, with a 454 and it wasn't an SS. Ordered it from the dealer and picked everything he wanted in it, got it January 73, then proceeded to knock-up my mother in the back of it, I was born 10/73 ; } Yanko camaros were that way, the dealer ordered the monster engine and added dealer custom graphics, Yanko was a dealership you know....

 

SS Is and should have remained a build indentifier not just a trim choice. They made it a trim level on lesser models of the Cobalt to attract women and 16 year old who think they're cool that mommy bought em a new car to wreak. Those that don't fit in that catagory couldn't afford the extra 3k on the car and insurance, or didn't know how to drive a 5 speed but wanted to be "cool" with an SS badge on their car.

My '06 SS/SC/LSD is one of the rarest models I have seen yet.
25 years from now, mine will have true antique value equal to the muscle cars of the 60's, while the 2.4 SS's won't be worth their weight in scrap.

 

I highly doubt any of the Cobalt's will have antique value equal to the muscle cars of the 60's!!! In case you guys forget, they are just Economy Cars!!!! You don't have a car that will have value similar to the muscle cars of that era, so just come to your senses and realize the reality of it and move on!!!!!

 

I agree with you, but those "muscle" cars were often very similar to ours in terms of price point in the market. There weren't really "economy cars" in the 60s-70s like there are today. That was the whole idea behind them--put a big V-8 in a small, cheap car. So it more depends on what happens in the years to come in terms of performance car options, as well as people's continued interest in these types of cars.

 

Nice job re-igniting the thread that makes many of us 2.0 owners look like douchebags. This forum DOES welcome all Cobalts right? (I was bored the other night and read this whole thread)

 

Perhaps GM should retire using SS altogether. Unless a car currently being maufactured was manufactured prior which boasted the SS; ie if Chevelle were to be retro built, then sure make a 396 SS version as it was intended to be, but Cobalt , come on. Preserve it as term for the muscle car era.
Time to invent new terms for the fuel efficient, high power, low displacement binery controlled modern marvels. Some think its cool they have a SS/SC Cobalt---NOT, cool is a 396 SS Chevelle. A Cobalt that gets descent fuel economy, great performance and can be tuned to go 13's is COOL but not the term SS/SC, that's stupid. When you see the term iVTEC on a new Honda with a term that not all that old Si you want to give it a run because you know it'll be a fairly descent run. I don't think there is a monopoly on the term SS. Imagine a Honda SS/Si. Honda wouldn't--why because it would be just stupid. We call em rice r roni yet we rice up sunfires- makes no sense. Get what I'm tryin to get across.
Gm is no longer the top auto manufacturor in the world. GM could be with some fresh imaginative, pasionate minds.

 

They call it "Cobalt SS Supercharged Coupe". SS/SC is an abbreviation.

 

Say, haven't you been banned repeatedly from this forum?

 

Personally i woulda been down with a malibu SS if it had a 3800 supercharged in it and 2 doors And mabie one of those Retarded SS/SC wings on it. Oh and after market support thats a biggie.

 

If that was the case, why does a 20 year oldFiero still hold such a relatively high market value today?
Another 5 years I predict those cars, much like the pristine muscle cars of the 60's and 70's will also increase in value beyond their original sticker.

Cobalt SS/SC is a limited build of the total production. I would predict 25 years from now, they hot rod hybreds will be compared to the highly valued Tuners of the 90's and 2000's.


Don't blame me LethalSS, I didn't redig this post. First I read it when the guy before me brought it back up.

Plain and simple. Your 4 banger Mustang is NOT a GT, that's why they dont call it one. Your V6 Camero is NOT a Z28. It's more than just a badge and trim.
Your 2.4 Cobalt is NOT a SS in the sense of the term despite **** poor marketing tactics by throwing a Badge and a wing on a 4 door sedan.

 

Ford never made a 4-cyl. GT (a 4-cyl. SVO, yes)
Chevy never made a V6 Z28

They DID make a 2.4 SS.

I don't even have a 2.4 and I can understand the logic here. GM made the car and yet some of you guys feel threatened somehow. So only the SC car gets some sort of mythological inclusion into the "SS" club? Remember, GM has made multiple engine options available on their top cars for a long time. There were both 305 and 350 IROC and Z28 Camaros available simultaneously, for example. Also V6 and Quad 4 Beretta GTZs available at the same time. And the numerous engine options in the Chevelle SS has been mentioned in this thread already.

The 2.4s are also made in limited numbers. They are only slightly more numerous than the 2.0s thanks to the 4-door versions. Also they have the 4-wheel disc brakes and upgraded suspensions, unlike the 2.2 cars.

 

LOL So if those prices are any indication, my Fiero is probably worth about 10 grand! I should sell it tomorrow, since I only paid $3400 for it.

I mean, seriously. There's a guy on there with a nasty faded 85 GT with 133,427 miles, for $4995.00!! And several 84s over $4000. I might have to bookmark that page and see what they eventually sell for. Sure, a low-mile stock 88 is worth some good money, but anything else besides maybe an 84 Indy is not.

 

LOL....You are smoking some pretty good s**t or something man!!!! The 2.4 is very very much an SS just like the SS/SC is!!! Chevy labeled it that way and there is nothing that you can do to change it. No matter how much you want to think otherwise, it is and will be an SS if it is badged that way from the plant!!! So you and all the other SS/SC guys that have a problem with it need to just deal with it and get over it!!

 

in all honesty I sometimes debate whether any cobalt deserves the SS badge.

But since the 4 cylinder is fast becoming the hotrod of the 21st century, maybe thats a cool thing.

any of you 2.4 guys who know me know im not a trim level hater.
and I try and keep all that trim level stuff out of things, cuz its stupid.
but IMO, the 2.4 should have been named the sport.

Not because i dont think it deserves the name
Not because i dont think its fast enough, or any of that other ****.

but for this simple reason.
I think there should only be one Cobalt SS.
and naturally it should be the most "sport" trim level available

when the 2.0L LSJ is gone....let the 2.4 be the only SS. I dont mind at all.
but i think 2 DIFFERENT cobalt SS's is just confusing and misleading.

out of curiosity....was there any times in the past where there were 2 model year SS's with completely different engines

 

Except when the 2.0L LSJ is gone, the 2.4L will not be an SS at all. Its getting changed to the RS.

 

yes many times.

Nova SS:
1964 - 196 and 230 6-cyls, and 283 V8
1965 - 194 and 230 6-cyls, and 283 and 327 V8s
1966 - same as 1965
1967 - 194, 230 and 250 6-cyls, and 283 and 327 V8s
1968 - 350 and 396 V8s
1969 - 350, 396 and 427 V8s
1970 - 350 and 402 V8s
1971 and 1972 - 350 V8

Chevelle SS:
1964 - 283 and 327 V8s
1965 - 283, 327 and 396
1966 - 396 (3 different versions)
1967 - 396 (2 different versions)
1968 - 396 (3 different versions)
1969 - 396 and 427
1970 - 402 and 454
1971 - 350, 402 and 454
1972 - same as 1971
1973 - 350 and 454

note that this list is SS ONLY and does not include any base models like the 4-cyl. Novas (made up until 1970) or the 6-cyl. or 307 Chevelles.

All this is from these sites:

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...-history.shtml

and

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...-history.shtml

 

damn look at that eh.
thats alot!

so there were actually
4 cyl SS cars right beside V8s in the same year?