Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2006 Chevrolet Impala

18990929495113

Comments

  • 30% heavier?...Ouch!! !...You would need 600 Horse power to move that thing!!
  • white6white6 Posts: 588
    Lutz stated that they don't know how to get 30% better gas mileage out of large RWD car, therefore RWD Impala program is on hold. This is due to the recent government call for 30% higher CAFE standards by 2016 and the Supreme Court ruling on allowing CO2 to be defined as a green house emission and therefore fall under regulation of the EPA exhaust emission standards.
  • charts2charts2 Posts: 618
    I might be wrong on 30% heavier. The CAFE numbers are suppose to increase by 4% per year. I believe for cars right now it is fleet average of 27.5 mpg. The current 2006/07 Impalas meet the standards. By the time the new Impala was to come out and years after GM would have to increase their fleet MPG by 30%. With the Impala scheduled to be larger and heavier RWD it would be near impossible to meet those numbers with out paying a huge penalty for emissions on each of these vehicles sold. Large cars by Ford/DC will be in the same mess. Remember any small cars that GM imports such as the Aveo does not help in the factor of average fleet MPG. The Aveo is built in Korea.
  • white6white6 Posts: 588
    This would not apply to cars built outside N.A., so it seems all this might do is shift more vehicle production overseas. Just what the country needs! The forthcoming Pontiac G8 (same basic Global RWD chassis as the future Impala) would not be affected, as it would be built in Australia.
  • garsarnogarsarno Posts: 72
    I remember the following Impala SS cars in the Buffalo, NY area when I was growing up:

    1963 - Dark maroon / black interior - I think it was a automatic but it looked like a stick shift

    1965 - A light purple metallic color?

    1966 - Marina Blue / black interior. I did like the Caprice finned tailight trim better.

    1968 - A teal metallic convertible with white bucket seats and top. 427 / Automatic / AC / chromed factory rallye wheels with whitewalls. Could have bought the car for $800 in great shape except for the spun bearing in the motor. Shoulda / coulda but "Dad" said it was a waste of money.
  • maroon with black int. was popular for that year..it was probably a 3 on the tree..
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    With the 2008 Malibu growing to almost the size of the current Impala, I can't see Chevy offering two FWD cars that similar (both in size and price). Methinks if the RWD Impala dies, the Impala dies (at least for the short-term).
  • charts2charts2 Posts: 618
    I hope you are wrong. This isn't GMs fault. For the past couple years GM has actually been building cars that people want 2006 Impala SS, Solstice, etc. and with new exciting products in the pipeline better times were coming. Lutz said today doing the math not meeting the future CAFE/EMISSION standards large cars can be levied up to a $5,000 surtax each. Don't be surprised if the Camaro isn't axed even though its along its way. GM said the Camaro couldn't make it on its own. Hopefully the 2006-09 Impala SS cars won't be the last. That would be disaster for Chevy. Back to the drawing board!
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    I hope it doesn't happen too...I'm trying to stretch the life of my 2000 Impala for at least a couple more years until I can see the 2010 Impala on the horizon, and then choose between it or the new Malibu.

    Question though on the Lutz comment...it's my understanding that for CAFE standard purposes a flex-fuel vehicle offers an advantage - the Govt. assumes these vehicles will run ethanol 50/50 to gasoline (even though in realty most folks won't/can't run E85 because of availability/cost). IF say a RWD Impala got an average of 15-MPG of gasoline, if it were a flex-fuel vehicle it would be twice as efficient (burning 50% less gasoline), or count at 30-MPG. If it really only costs @ $50-100 in parts to make an engine E85 capable, why not just make a RWD Impala SS Flex-fuel engine and move on?
  • garsarnogarsarno Posts: 72
    No, it was a floor shifter.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    say a RWD Impala got an average of 15-MPG of gasoline, if it were a flex-fuel vehicle it would be twice as efficient (burning 50% less gasoline), or count at 30-MPG.

    I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. GM will just have to bump up the efficiency across the board to make room for their bigger cars and trucks.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    Here's a link to the article where I read about the ethanol/CAFE deal...I found this in the "true cost of ethanol" forum elsewhere on Edmunds:
    http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar2007/bw20070328_446453.htm?chan=aut- - os_autos+index+page_news

    I may have oversimplified the math somewhat, but the basic idea came from here.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    I'm still not sure where you got the doubled EPA ratings but I'm glad that we're on the same page as far as ethanol is concerned. ;) I didn't have the heart to just say you were nuts. Basically, the article states that the domestic brands are using an 80s era law to avoid increasing CAFE standards. Hopefully, they are just trying to squeeze out as much money as they can, while they can (minimizing losses) until they are forced to up their fleet economy.

    Personally, I will welcome the demise of the SUV as the mainstream vehicle of choice. I've never seen the appeal of driving an SUV for an everyday hauler. Maybe with the predicted $4/gallon fuel prices this summer, some sanity will creep back into the American public.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    Here's the quote I was referring to from the article:

    "Automakers need to meet certain government standards for the fuel economy of their fleets. For flex-fuel cars, fuel economy is calculated based on the assumption that their owners use 50% gasoline and 50% ethanol. But the reality is that just 1% of the nation's flexible-fuel vehicles actually use what's known as E85—85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. The remaining 99% are using good old-fashioned gasoline."

    From the way I read this, a flex-fuel vehicle is more beneficial in determining CAFE figures than a straight gasoline vehicle...even though it's very unlikely any of those vehicles will ever be run on E85. So it's easier/cheaper for the car companies to adapt a car to run on E85 than it is to actually make it more fuel efficient.

    I'm with you on SUVs...typically on vacation we rent a vehicle, and I typically rent either a sedan or a minivan, depending on how many of us are traveling. A few weeks ago, since we were thinking about a small SUV as our next vehicle, we rented a Toyota Highlander for a 1,300+ mile round trip. Gas mileage was actually OK (comparable to a minivan), but the luggage space and comfort levels were horrible. I can carry twice the luggage in my 2000 Impala than I could in the Highlander...granted I guess I could have piled things up to the ceiling, but to me the ONLY advantage of the SUV over a sedan was loading the rear without having to lift over the trunk lid. I'm thinking a next-generation Malibu might be the way to go (especially in hybrid form) and rent a truck for those rare instances that I need one.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    Well, we're definitely of like minds there too. My buddy and I were recently discussing this very issue. His wife is pushing for an SUV replacement for their Saturn wagon and he is trying to convince her otherwise. He's making the exact same argument...that they can rent an SUV for the occasional long trip and save gobs of cash on gas and upkeep on day to day basis. But, she's convinced she'll be safer and happier in a tank. I don't guess we'll see a change until gas prices go up and stay up.
  • geffengeffen Posts: 278
    Are all of the 07 Impala's flex fuel engines? I'm looking at buying one of the LS's with the 3.5 engine however i havent seen anywhere that it states this model has the option.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    I'm pretty sure the only engine in the Impala that is flex-fuel ready is the 3.5, but I don't think ALL 3.5s are flex-fuel. I know I've seen some with the logo at the back and some without, and if you go to fueleconomy.gov and look up the 2007 Impala there's two listings for the 3.5; one that's gasoline only, and one that's gasoline and E85. I don't know if that's a transitional thing or not; could be they phased in the flex-fuel engines over time, and they all might be flex-fuel now.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    When I bought my 2000 Impala I toyed with the idea of getting an SUV or truck, but figured I could rent one with the money I'd save on gas by driving a sedan. I actually rented a truck a time or two, but at one point I convinced my wife (and myself) to buy a used truck to have around when I needed it. While it was handy to have a 3rd vehicle around when one of the others was out of commission, I realistically spent more on insurance each year then I would have renting a truck when I needed one (not to mention the 10mpg I got in the truck). I eventually sold it (for about half what I paid for it), fortunately just before gasoline prices started climbing a few years ago.

    One thing I did a couple of years ago was put a receiver hitch on my Impala; primarily to carry a bike rack, but I also got it wired so I could pull a small trailer from U-Haul if/when I might need to haul something. I've carried the bikes several times, but I have yet to actually need to haul anything I couldn't fit in the trunk (or the back seat).

    I did test drive a Saturn Vue Hybrid today, which would get comparable gas mileage to my wife's Accord 4-cylinder...but when you consider I could get a basic Impala for several thousand dollars less than the Vue (or a nice one for the same money), and it would get only slightly worse gas mileage, I'm still probably better off with the Impala and renting something it I never needed it.

    From a safety standpoint, I've never felt unsafe versus an SUV in my Impala. I survived a run-in with a Lincoln Navigator back when I was driving my '89 Toyota Celica (fortunately it was a glancing blow!); after that I decided to get the biggest, safest, and most fuel efficient car I could find (at a reasonable price). Back then I decided the Impala was the best answer; I suspect the same would hold true today as well.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    Too bad the rest of America isn't as smart as we are. ;) The safety "myth" of SUVs just won't go away. Sure, when an SUV hits a car, the car is at a disadvantage due to the weight but the car is likely better designed to absorb the energy of the impact. Aside from collisions, cars are much safer due to their lower center of gravity. Most people just don't consider how often SUVs are involved in rollovers due avoidance maneuvers on the highway. You rarely ever see cars that have rolled over.

    You COULD even take this argument further and say the SUV driver is more dangerous to the rest of us out there due to their greatly likelihood of rollover and the greater weight they're carrying around. But...that probably wouldn't be politically correct. ;)
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    Late in 1999 when I was narrowing down my car choices, the Wall St. Journal published an article about car safety, where they factored in the weight of the vehicle. It basically said all things being equal, the heavier vehicle fared better in a crash than a lighter one; they took that info and somehow factored it in with the govt. crash test ratings and ranked vehicles. I've never seen a follow-up story, but the high ranking of the Impala (due to it's crash ratings and heavier weight than smaller cars) pretty much clinched it for me.

    I wonder about the rollover topic - which is more dangerous (or more apt to have a rollover); a typical SUV, or a typical convertible? I bet most folks would feel more safe in the SUV, but I bet the odds of rolling over are much greater than they are in a convertible. The fact that Michael Waltrip just rolled his SUV ought to tell you something!

    Maybe I'm just getting older, but I'm pretty sure my next car won't even have a sunroof...I figure in a rollover a solid roof would be better than one with a hole in the middle of it.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    I don't think convertibles are any more likely to roll over (probably even less likely) but the results are much worse if/when they do since there is no protection from a roof and since they are less likely to continue rolling and more likely to remain flat on their top (with the occupants pinned underneath/inside). As for sunroofs, I doubt there is a significant difference in the crush resistance between the roofs but there would be an added ejection possibility by having that hole there. Even if you were belted in, the force of the roll could cause an arm to fall through the opening. Probably insignificant but still a possibility.

    As for added weight adding safety, you have to keep in mind that extra weight adds inertia that has to be stopped in one way or another. If it's being stopped by crush panels in a vehicle smashing against an object, that's less of a cushion for the passengers. More weight is also harder to maneuver so the goal should be a happy medium. That's where I believe the medium-large sedan comes in. The tiny vehicles can only offer limited protection and the ginormous vehicles are so big they become the hazard. :shades:
  • hess4hess4 Posts: 7
    Ref message 2916. Most of the time I shut off the engine I hear the boiling noise from the engine compartment. When I open the hood the noise seems to be coming from the recovery tank. There is no water under the vehicle, it seems like the tank is sucking water from the rad.. Is this common??Harry
  • 303ss303ss Posts: 5
    I never did care for a car that has a picture of your vehicle lying on it's side when you look up at the sun visor.They give you air bags, seat belts, Onstar etc. Then they put you in an SUV that flips over! Crazy!!
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    Harry - can you see a "full cold" and "full hot" mark on the recovery tank? I'm thinking if you're hearing the noise when the engine is off it's simply a matter of the coolant heating up once the fan shuts off and the pressure is released by moving coolant into the recovery tank. If you were having the boiling sound happen while the engine was running, I think that's a sign of internal (head gasket) problems. Is your coolant level dropping at all over time? A head gasket would probably lead to a loss of coolant (probably burned off versus leaking out somewhere), so if your coolant level isn't dropping I think it's probably not a problem.
  • topcop1topcop1 Posts: 28
    I found a Super Sport stripe kit online for WAY less than GM wants. This stripe kit is on the SS Monte Carlo and cost $395. I got mine from a graphic shop for way less than $395. Plus, I got a dark grey color. Should really off-set the silver paint. After this Nor'easter blows out of town, i'm laying down some stripes. 16 year old with a learner's permit, ran into a curb, alas...curb rash. Gonna cost about $300 for a new factory mag wheel.
  • mrdisco33mrdisco33 Posts: 58
    What are owner's opinion on the LTZ? (cdn spec to be specific). I'm considering the LTZ and the Accord SE 4cylinder (odd comparison you may say, but when i look at pricing they both come out equal by the time you get it on the road here in Toronto).
    I've owned nothing but American in the past, but have been burned by the huge repair bills as the cars got older. I'm hesitating so any pro (or cons) for either vehicle would be appreciated.
  • bh0001bh0001 Posts: 340
    I have an '06 LTZ and I absolutely love it! Check out my post #2105 on page 107 of this forum for my favourite things and least-favourite things.

    The fob range problem I mention is all fixed.

    The one thing I hated the most about the car was the original rubber. I've fixed this by getting Michelin X-Ice and rims for winter and Goodrich G-Force Sport for summer. The G-Force Sports give INCREDIBLE cornering ability!

    Personally, I wouldn't ever buy a 4-cylinder engine. I like my power too much, and with 242 in my Impala I'm more than happy!

    Good luck!
    Brad
  • Fine daily driver. That said after 14,000 miles and 9 mos. of ownership. Best features: seat height in relation to road, volume (interior, trunk), redesign of interior to eliminate mouse fur fabrics. RKE and TPMS are trouble spots; but fixed on first trip to dealership. Avoided GM for 19 years after dreadful experience with 1987 Olds 98. But newer GM products are competitive for first time in long time.
  • carl10219carl10219 Posts: 18
    Does anybody out there with Leather Interior treat it with anything and if so what do you use and how often do you use it?
    Thanks
    Carl
  • rysterryster Posts: 528
    While I do not live in Canada, all Impalas are made in the same Canadian facility and should be virtually identical for both the Canadian and US market.

    I purchased my '06 Impala 2LT 11,000 miles and 9 months ago. My experience has been fair. Overall, however, I am not satisfied with the car and have been actively shopping for a replacement for the past couple of months.

    Negatives:
    -Numerous dash rattles (that is after inserting felt shims in the dash to quiet down some really obnoxious noises)
    -Intermittent rattle in the rear interior somewhere
    -Driver's seat creaks
    -Driver's door clunks over bumps (unless I soak the weather stripping around the door frame with Armor All...then the clunk goes away for a couple of weeks until the Armor All wears off)
    -Suspension has become increasingly noisy as it "breaks in"
    -Overall fit and finish of some interior trim is poor

    Positives
    -Decent gas mileage
    -Relatively comfortable ride
    -Dealer service has been good
    -Remote Start is handy in the winter
    -Bose stereo sounds good (although it doesn't drown out some of the interior rattles)
    -OnStar is convenient

    When I bought the Impala, I traded in a 2003 Dodge Durango that was killing me at the gas pump. While the Durango was reaching the point where it was starting to "nickel and dime" me to death with nuisance repairs (it had 42,000 miles on it when I traded it), it had better build quality than my Impala.

    If I could go back in time to July 2006, I would have walked away from the Impala and either kept my Durango or gone for either a V6 Accord, V6 Hyundai Sonata, V6 Mitsubishi Galant, or Toyota Camry SE.

    Just like you, I have always purchased American vehicles. It could be my particular Impala wasn't built as well as it should have been. If it didn't have all of the rattles and creaks, I would be a much happier owner and probably wouldn't be looking to trade at this point.

    Best of luck with whatever you decide to buy.
Sign In or Register to comment.