1962 Impala Ss. 100 Miles On Restoration. 62 Impala Ss on 2040-cars
Farmington, Connecticut, United States
|
Chevrolet Impala for Sale
Restored 1960 chevy impala 2 door sport coupe 383/4 spd new paint & interior
Low miles, one owner, like new, luxury package
2011 chevy impala 9c1 police, 89k miles, white, good tires, clean(US $6,995.00)
2005 impala 9c1 police, 125k hwy miles, well kept, clean in and out(US $3,295.00)
Police edition chevrolet impala(US $2,500.00)
Only $2,400 o.b.o.! great impala! awesome mileage! (lily, wi)(US $2,400.00)
Auto Services in Connecticut
Tires Plus Brakes LLC ★★★★★
T & F Collision Service Inc ★★★★★
Stevens Of Milford ★★★★★
Roy Motors ★★★★★
Premier Subaru ★★★★★
Payless Auto Glass ★★★★★
Auto blog
Next-gen Chevy Camaro ZL1 teases big changes under its camo
Mon, Aug 3 2015With work complete on the lighter, stiffer 2016 Camaro, it's time for Chevrolet's engineers to really start having fun by developing the next, ZL1 version. Here it is for the first time. Unfortunately, the muscle car is still wearing quite a bit of camouflage, but the concealment isn't enough to hide some of the meaner model's more obvious performance tweaks. Starting from the front, this Camaro now wears a much more aggressive front fascia with bigger air inlets. Managing the airflow around the engine bay is clearly a big deal because another photo reveals a fairly large extractor in the hood, as well. Moving down the profile, the lower side sills and orientation of the camo suggest some blistered fenders in the back to cover wider rubber, and at the very rear a much larger wing further suggests the need to keep things planted to the road. Check out the comparison images in the gallery for a better look at the tweaks. What will power the next ZL1 is still entirely a mystery, although sticking with a supercharged 6.2-liter V8 could be a possibility, especially if you take the big extractor in the hood as a hint. Whereas the current ZL1 makes 580 horsepower and 556 pound-feet of torque, the LT4 in the latest Cadillac CTS-V pumps out 640 hp and 630 lb-ft. Combined with the Camaro's other improvements, we're thinking that this new ZL1 will be quite a hot ticket, and based on these spy shots, we can't wait to find out.
1983 Motorweek showdown pits Porsche 928S vs. Chevy Camaro Z28
Mon, Jan 12 2015Last month, Motor Trend threw the Camaro Z/28 and Porsche 911 GT3 into the bear pit and let them fight it out. Way back in 1983, MotorWeek had the same idea, comparing the Camaro Z/28 to the Porsche 928S. At the time, the Camaro was America's best selling sports coupe, the 928S was Porsche's top-of-the-line model that also had the highest top speed of any car sold here. And the price differential was even more stark then: $13,600 for the Camaro, $45,000 for the Porsche. That put the Z/28's cast-iron, 5.0-liter V8 with 190 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque against the all-aluminum 4.7-liter V8 with 234 hp and 263 lb-ft in the 928S. Even with that and the Camaro being 14 inches longer than the Porsche, the American was a surprising 40 pounds lighter than the German. The show took them to Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia to see how close a relative performance bargain could hang with a the German GT. Both had five-speed manual transmissions, but the high-speed corners and tight sections of Summit Point would test other handling variables, including the "bone-rattling" Camaro's solid rear axle and disc and drum brake setup vis-a-vis the four-wheel disc brakes and independent suspension on the "firm-but-smooth" Porsche. Paradoxically, the larger disparity 22 years ago resulted in a closer result. Check out the video to see how the Summit was won. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Porsche Coupe Luxury Performance Classics Videos chevy camaro z28 porsche 928 retro review
BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index
Mon, Oct 10 2016While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.