Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Geeeeezzzzz, you got to be kidding !!.........Snow in central Texas...???? !!!! " Deep in the HEART OF TEXAS "
And, What happened to all that global warming stuff..??
Anyway.... Ya , we get our fair share here in Toronto, but certainly nothing like they get in Buffalo, NY or Niagara Falls, etc.
Some of our snow falls here were up to about 5-6 inches this year. Not tooooo bad...!! But, We sure had more than our fair share of extremely fridged days ..!!
On the positive side, the beauty here is that the snow is almost gone in a day or two. So, when I do need to drive in it, I honestly had no trouble at all with my Goodyear Eagle RS-A's (235/50-18). You should be just fine at this point..
Obviously, you do have to compensate for the winter driving conditions by yes driving slower and more carefully. I will say as much as I prefer RWD, that front wheel vehicles are very good in the snow here
Frank
Ps. What I do hate here is all the salt and sand they use on our roads. While it does melt the ice and snow and makes it safer to drive, you can image what my Black beauty looks like after a snow fall. Yuuuuuuuuk..!!! :sick:
I know exactly what you mean here. My Black '06 seems to get a wash every other day..!! Gee, I told my wife exactly the same thing, but guess what...she didn't Laugh...!!! :sick:
With her silver-grey car, she just doesn't understand..
Oh well, there's nothing like a high gloss black car when it's clean.
Enjoy your ride...
Frank
Clark
You know , the only times I really tried the California Duster on my Street Machines was back in '89 on my Black 5.0 Mustang, and then again in '94 on my Red Z28 SS Camaro. Back then, both experiences left me wondering what the heck all the hipe was about... Personally, I thought it left too much dust behind for my liking, and I really wasn't a happy camper with some of the fine lines it left on the Black paint of the Mustang over time. You know how unforgiving Black can be without water..!!! I don't know Clark, maybe I was using it incorrectly, if that's possible, or I was just expecting tooooo much from the Duster.....
Any way, I wonder if I should give it another try on my Black Impala.. I have to admit, I'm still a little bit nervous here..!!
Thanks...
Frank
I only use it after I've done my "spring cleaning" on the car - the full Zaino process. Once that's done I use the duster only to remove dust. If there are watermarks etc, I wash the car. The duster works great for what the name says.
The only problem I had was I tried to dust my LTZ with the sunroof open and I got grease on the duster, so I had to throw it out (definitely not the fault of the product - strictly user-error). A brand new duster can leave a bit of parafin wax on the car, but it washes off easily the next wash. Once you've used the duster a couple of times it's great. It's true that the dirtier it gets, the better it seems to work. Just make sure you give it a really good shake between every wipe.
Clark
Not a lot of them here in SC, either. I saw another Ebony/Black one owned by a guy that worked about 5 blocks away from me on the base just after I bought mine but he must've moved away. Now, there's a guy with a Silverstone Metallic that works in the next building at my new job. Other than those two, I've only seen one other Impala SS on the road in SC and 1 on the road in WV. I have only seen 1 Monte Carlo SS on the road so those must be EXTREMELY rare(of course I'm only referring to the '06/'07 models).
I agree with you, we are indeed a rare breed.
Ron
I know that many of you follow the old advice, but since it isn't good for the environment or my budget, I will follow the monitor and continue to milk the system for the miles I can.
Rare might be a term used if there is no more production of a certain model that is in very high demand, but as long as they are making the SS their value depreciates nearly as fast as the LS/LT/LTZ models. I believe I read recently that the Impala SS production/demand is about 18% of total Impalas sold.
Autotrader has several used LOADED 2006 Impala SS cars asking price $21-$22,000, even a few under $20,000. Could probably make a deal for $18,000- $19,000. 2008 Impala production starts in 2 months.
I have been driving only chevys since 1969. Proud owner of a 2001 LS, 1964 red/red Impala SS loaded 327, and a 1963 black/black Impala SS 409/425hp. Will purchase a 1 year old 2007 SS in a few months, hopefully for around $20K. The bargains are out there.
Obviously, you love your Chevies... An SS Impala 409/425 hp ...Wow..!!!!!
Ya, I've said it before, I know... I'm still kicking myself for getting rid of my '69 chevelle 427/425 hp
from GM.
Frank
GMs Bob Lutz just announced today April 10th that the RWD large Impala replacement is now on hold. Lutz also indicated that they have not confirmed that the name Impala would go on a RWD sedan as previously stated. GM states that with government higher CAFE numbers and much more stringent emissions coming for 2010 GM would not be able to comply with a heavier RWD full sized car at this time and meet the new laws for emissions reductions. High performance cars for 2010/11 could be hit with up to a $5,000 emissions tax he says, and most purchasers would not be willing to pay for that. Lutz indicated it was too late to put the Camaro on hold. It will arrive in dealerships in eary 2009. Thats big news!
The 63 SS is very primitive to todays SS cars. It goes great in a straight line but cornering is terrible. Brutal on gas. Sunoco 94 only. 8-10 miles to the gallon (OUCH!) but great memories for me.
Bob Lutz indicated today that the future RWD Impala is now on hold, until they figure out if its possible to build the car to meet the stringent Emission/Cafe standards coming in a few years. GM indicated the RWD car could be a much as 30% heavier then the current model. If they don't build it I can see the Impala continuing as a FWD but refreshed and made larger to not be so close in size to the new revised 2008 malibu thats coming out in a few months.
Interesting times!
The things that held these cars back as compared to a 2006 Impala SS were the skinny 5 1/2" wide nylon tires, carburators that are no match for todays fast fuel injection, and slow shifting transmissions.
They held their own in 62 and 63 but by 64 Ford/Mopar had figured out their own performance needs and chevy was left in the dust.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.