Quote:
Originally Posted by REEFBLUE93
Oh man, I used to own a 2003 Ranger. It had the 4.0 and that little truck was fun, and speaking of bullet proof....
|
We have a 98 Ranger with 198k miles right now, not origional engine (has around 140k miles and NOT the trucks fault) just had to replace the transmission at 196k, not bad because it HAS been abused and just takes it, I am a believer Definatly one of the great things about a vehicle being built for a very long time is you eng up with the most bulletproof vehicles.
Quote:
fielderLS3 I've got a 3.4L with 122,000 miles that still runs like new and doesn't use any oil between changes. From what I understand, the 3.9L is basically a bored out 3.4, so it should be an equally solid engine in the long run.
Fuel economy will be pretty good for a large car as well, particularly if you drive it conservatively. I think 3.9L Impalas have AFM.
One thing I noticed about a 3.5L Impala I drove on a 200 mile round trip was that it feels much more powerful than it actually is. I think there is some electronic throttle trickery used to make it feel that way...as in if you press the gas pedal down 10%, the throttle opens a lot more than 10%, and once you are beyond about half pedal, the engine is already almost wide open, so the only thing that really changes from then on is the RPM the transmission shifts at.
Ultimately, the Impala is a boring car on a heavily aged platform, but if you need a roomy full size car, it is cheap to buy and operate, reliable, and will get the job done.
|
Same here, and for now i definatly need a good daily driver more than anything. Same as the Ranger, all the bugs have been worked out. I have no doubt it should be 1000 times better and more reliable than the 2000 GTP I had and the 2000 Regal my Parents have (engine is the only thing not to go bad there). The best part about both of those were the bulletproof 3.8s and of course the GTPs power
