Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2006 Chevrolet Impala

1161719212268

Comments

  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    This is clearly a generalization:
    many problems that plagued the 00-05 models. cracked, body mounts, intake manifold leaks, warped rotors, Intermediate steering shaft problems, cheap interiors, etc etc
    inasmuch as my 03 Imp hasn't had any of these problems (I don't consider the interior a problem as it is well assembled, doesn't rattle, and doesn't distract me while I'm driving.)
    The early model years probably had most of these problems but not likely in 03-05. Likewise I would wait at least a year to buy a new Imp.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    Probably good advice for any automaker, not just GM. Granted I might not sweat a 1st year Honda or Toyota as much, but even they have their problems (my wife's 2003 Accord has brake clunking to rival my 2000 Impala ISS noise, but all we're told is "they all do that"...at least Chevy fixed my ISS!!).
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    Granted the Impala has many new features and a new interior and engines but is it really "all new"? I'm ordering one in February and I haven't heard many complaints about first year problems. My next choice was a new Malibu but the price differential between a Malibu LT and an Impala LT2 is very little and the interior in the Impala is far more attractive.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    New engines, new interior, new exterior...that doesn't leave much to carryover from the previous model! :-)

    One of the reasons I bought they 2000 Impala was for the "bullet-proof" 3800 engine...which due to the plastic intake manifold ended up being one of the biggest problems encountered with the car. I don't know much about the current line of engines available, but if they've been used in other GM products I'd suggest checking those threads to see if any consistent problems have arisen.

    Despite that I'm very happy with my 2000 Impala, and I'd have no qualms in a couple of years when I'm ready to replace it with buying one of the new versions. It was the best combination of size, power, fuel economy, safety and value 6 years ago, and it's looking that way again!
  • deminindeminin Member Posts: 214
    We're approaching 3K miles on our '06 LTZ (3.9), and getting fairly good gas mileage. A few days ago, I gassed up and hit the Interstate with light traffic conditions. People were running about 80, so I just stayed up with them. We pulled off after about 150 miles, and I gassed up again. Average speed for this run was 78.6 MPH, and I got 26.2 MPG. A couple of weeks ago, we ran a couple of hundred miles on state highways at 55 to 60, and I averaged 28.1 MPG. We don't have these "designer" fuels here, and I have been using the midrange 89 Octane fuel. This is one of the best cars I have owned in the past several years. After 3 months, I have found zero problems.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    Two things that I recall being stressed when the 2000 Impala came out were 1) how the car was designed with police/taxi service in mind, and 2) how the structural piece around the door openings was comprised of ONE piece (no welds or seams anywhere within the openings which would weaken in a crash).

    I admittedly haven't followed the introduction of the 2006 Impala as closely, but does anyone know if either/both of these details of the 2000-2005 model are applicable to the new version? Even if not promoted as such, it would be nice to know if the same (or better) level of structural integrity was built into the new car.
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    A lot more steel support brackets have been used in strengthening the chassis of the new Impala. Larger steel support rails in the engine compartment and engine and transmission supports strengthened. Chevy now using quiet steel for many components (like Ford trucks) to cut down on interior noise. I believe they are using much stronger steel supports that are boxed railed rather then weak open ended supports from previous. If you look at the wheel wells of the 06 Impalas they are enclosed much better then the 00-05 models. The side window glass is thicker to enhance quietness to the interior. The DIC now has an option that gives pressures for each tire, rather then previous just letting you know that one of your tires is down 20% or more. Better quality interior plastics and cloth and leather appointments. A lot of improvements that you can see and a lot you can't. With many of these improvements the car is more then 120 pounds heavier then previous Impalas.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    I thought the 3800 had the intake design fixed in 1999. The 2000s didn't have the breakdown of EGR tube and leaks from throttle body into or out of the manifold. What kind of problem did you have?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    I too had the 3800 engine -on '90, 94, AND 97 LeSabres -always trouble free. The 2000 Impala was a great car -glad you are happy with it. I'll take my chances with the new one -luckily I'm not commuting anymore so it will not be run to the ground. I expect to have it at least 5 years.
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    Those of you who might be considering Glacier Blue should actually look at the real car, not the photo in the catalog. The catalog photo looks like silver with a blue tint but it is a lot bluer in real life. The Silverstone I think looks nicer. It is sort of like the Cadillac Cashmere but with a silver instead of tan tint -I saw both colors side by side and was suprised at the Glacier Blue. I've switched to Silverstone.
  • deminindeminin Member Posts: 214
    It's all in the eye of the beholder. We've got a Glacier Blue LTZ, and it changes colors depending upon the lighting. In bright sunlight, it shows more of a bluish hue, but on cloudy days, or under lights, it is more of a silver/grey. One thing I am glad of is it doesn't show dust or road film too much. We live out in the country, on a gravel road, so darker colors get to looking bad real fast. This GB looks pretty good even when quite dusty.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    There was ultimately a recall on many of the early Impalas because of a coolant leak related to the upped intake manifold (if memory serves correctly). I noticed the smell of warm coolant and had the repair done (at @ $800), and then later a recall was issued and I got reimbursed for the repair. My understanding is the intake used to be metal, but somewhere along the line they switched to a plastic/synthetic part, which tended to warp or something, which led to the leak.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    Another feature which was a big topic of discussion on the 2000-2005 Impala board back in the day was the aluminum engine cradle; does anyone know if the 2006 model retains this, or did they go back to a more traditional setup? I've had no problems with mine, so it wouldn't really impact my decision one way or the other, just curious to see if they stuck with this or not.
  • evandroevandro Member Posts: 1,108
    I had the intake manifold leak (luckily) outside the engine in my Bonneville '02, with about 20000mls. It was replaced under warranty and then I took it back again for a recall to replace the manifold nuts, IIRC.
  • deminindeminin Member Posts: 214
    That advice has some merit...on any new model, from any car company. However, there are 2 schools of thought on that subject.
    1. They build a car that tests good, and looks good on paper, then spend the next 5 years trying to work out the bugs.
    2. They build a quality car with very few troubles the first year, then spend the next 5 years trying to build it cheaper, and start cutting corners on quality.
    Personally, I have had better luck buying cars that are newly designed. The manufacturer is taking a gamble that the new styling, etc., will capture more sales. They have to go to extra measures to make sure that the new model does not get an early reputation as being a lemon. So far, our '06 LTZ is following that pattern...over 3 months, and ZERO defects. I ran into a guy at the casino parking garage a few days ago with an '06 LT, and he said the same thing about his....no problems.
  • fredvhfredvh Member Posts: 857
    What year Impala needed this manifold repair? What engine does it have?
  • ironjasperironjasper Member Posts: 21
    I've had my 06' SS for a little over a month now with about 900 miles. I've not only had ZERO defects, but I am still amazed at how quiet this car is, there aren't any rattles, squeaks, or vibrations to speak of! :shades:

    BTW - the Laser Blue is a nice color too!

    John
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    The intake manifold problem involved the 2000 and 2001 Impala 3800 engine cars and other GM cars... there was a recall on these and at the time mine went in for the retrofit. Which included more secure bolts for the intake and ground up walnut shells for the radiator to keep the coolant from leaking. I know over the past few years many had this problem and were outside of warranty and the costs run near $700- $800. I would be very careful buying a used 2000 and 2001 Impalas...there was a host of problems with these cars and not all went in for repairs. Intake manifold leaks, engine cradle, Itermediate steering shafts, and poorly designed brake rotors to name a few.
    The 2000 and 2001 Impalas made the first 9 months of 2001 had the problem with the aluminum engine cradle. The welds would crack and the car would creak. It was a big problem and several posters here back then had the issue. Several fixes were tried including using shims and rewelding, but finally better aluminum welding and much better joint aluminum materials were used to strengthen the cradle. According the Chevrolet the 2006 Impalas use a much stronger different design engine cradle then the previous 00-05 models.
  • deminindeminin Member Posts: 214
    When I changed the oil/filter at 1000 miles on our '06, I was a little surprised to see that aluminum sub frame from the firewall forward. I spent some time under the car, checking that out. That's quite a piece of "bridgework" they've welded in. I guess the main reasoning is to have a better crush zone in the event of a frontal crash. It certainly looks strong enough to me. It looks like the factory did a good job on assembly in this area.
  • ivanadrivealotivanadrivealot Member Posts: 35
    Just received a letter from Chevy today:

    It's not a "recall" per se, but is being called a "voluntary customer satisfaction program" that affects certain 2006 Impalas equipped with ABS and 17" or 18" wheels (which I believe should be the 3LT, LTZ, and SS). Although the return address was from their "Recall Processing Center".

    Explanation: "A revised brake module calibration is available that can enhance your vehicle's antilock brake performance slightly by reducing minimum stopping distance on dry pavement. The braking performance of your vehicle meets the applicable federal safety standard and all of GM's rigorous internal requirements, but we have identified a performance improvement that we want to make available to you."

    Per the letter, Chevy will reprogram the electronic brake control module at no charge until Dec. 31, 2006. Courtesy transportation may be provided if it's within the new vehicle limited warranty.

    I'm actually glad to hear this for several reasons:

    First, I was disappointed and a little concerned to read/watch Motorweek's review of the brakes: "Braking was disappointing, however. The Impala's four-wheel-discs with optional ABS leisurely stopped in 148 feet from 60. We consider 130 feet a good result." After all, it's the always last few feet that make all the difference when you're trying to avoid a collision, not the first ones. ;)

    Second, Chevy is taking ownership of the problem and offering it proactively. Yes, they may be taking a hit now to limit any future liability, but it's a win-win for everyone.

    Remember, Chevy also made a production change in Aug. to fix the early horrible lumbar support, which is now very good indeed.

    So, say what you want about Chevy, but they seem to be doing some of the right things. Believe me, after reading the recent Ford recalls (including the one that involved weak gas tank supports!!), this is most welcome in comparison -- assuming of course that Chevy is being forthright about the real reason for the reprogramming. :confuse:
  • zjimzjim Member Posts: 51
    I picked up my '06 3LT yesterday. I obviously liked the car, or I wouldn't have purchased it, . . . but after driving a '99 Z28 for the last almost seven years as my everyday transportation, the Impala's performance is not impressive. That said, I do enjoy driving the car for what it is.

    It's nice to hear that Chevrolet has worked on correcting the cause of this criticism of the car's performance. Braking is, and should be, one of the most important "performance" characteristics. The question I have to ask is, why wasn't this "enhancement" incorporated in the original design? GM has to make sure that critical performance characteristic are optimized before production starts.
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    The brakes on the 2006 Impala have had the brake module recalibrated because when the Police Impala was tested in September it failed the braking test of not stopping 60-0 in less then 150 feet. Chevrolet was allowed under the Police testing rules to make this adjustment for the police impala to be retested. When it was retested it made the regulation under 150 feet but still came last among the Ford CV and Dodge Charger police vehicles
  • evandroevandro Member Posts: 1,108
    150ft??? That's way too long to stop! The magazine is being generous stating that 130ft is OK, yet the Impala can't make it?

    I'd be curious to see the fading resistance... :confuse:
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    The police Impalas are much heavier cars then civilian cars, and they use the same brakes. I do believe that Chevy should have upgraded the brakes stopping ability on the 2006 Impalas because the civilian cars are over 120 pounds heavier then the previous Impalas and use basically the same braking size/system as before. We all know better brakes could be the difference between stopping safely or an accident. Watch for braking improvements on the Impala for 2007.
  • mike7ywmike7yw Member Posts: 7
    I've had my '06 Impala 2LT for 2 months now (just over 2000 miles) and I am very impressed. The car is so quiet! No squeaks, rattles, etc. There have been no problems with anything. GM has done a great job on this car. The fit and finish is very good and my few complaints are minor. I ordered the ABS with traction control and it has done very well in the snow we have had here in CT so far this winter (I have the base 3.5 V6 which is very adequate). The brakes feel good but I haven't had to make a panic stop yet. I got black with the grey interior (front buckets) and the car looks very sharp. I have had more people come up to me and comment favorably on the car than than any other car I have ever owned (except my '64 GTO...back in the day!). Mike
  • fredvhfredvh Member Posts: 857
    Mike,
    What kind of mpg are you getting?
  • mike7ywmike7yw Member Posts: 7
    I'm getting 23-24 MPG in mostly city driving. I am also using the remote start a lot on these cold mornings and evenings. Don't know how I lived without it before!
  • minarets1minarets1 Member Posts: 49
    the remote starter is one of my favorite features. some find it pointless, but i thinks its an easy yet great idea!---i know its been around aftermarket for a long time
  • emanoil1960emanoil1960 Member Posts: 1
    We have just bought a 2001 impala from a car dealership, with only 35 ooo km on it. We had gotten a very good deal and the car itself is in very good shape, it had been leased before and then bought at an auction by the dealership. I am just wondering what are the most frequent problems that I might experience with Impalas? I know that they are more reisistant than other cars but I am just wondering if it is worth buying a 4000$ warranty for 3 years or so to cover for my car. Is it worth it ?
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    $4000 for a 3 year warranty sounds about $2000 - $2500 too much. I am not a big fan of extended warranties but to each his own, shop around there are definetly cheaper cost extended warranties out there. I have a 2001 LS. One maintenace item that often gets overlooked on these cars is the air filter replacement. Its not easy to do and often mechanics skip this, get that checked. Also the air cabin filter thats located below the exterior windshield on the passenger side. Its usually done after 3 or 4 years. If you have no previous service records with this car, I would get the serpentine belt replaced its 5 years old and cracks over time and miles. The rad is due for a flush, and possibly the transmission fluid. Have the brakes checked. The battery is getting close if it has not already been replaced. You might spend $500 or so, on some of these maintenace procedures but will give you peace of mind in the long run.
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    Don't buy the warranty. Extended warranties are not really warranties and are underwritten by insurance companies. You know they never loose so you can guess the odds are low you will need them. $4000 is way way high also, skip it and put the $4k in a good oil stock.
  • evandroevandro Member Posts: 1,108
    I guess you've paid about $10 grand on it, give or take. If you're unsure about its reliability, you're probably better off by shopping for a car you think is more reliable or newer for $14 grand.

    Mind you, I bought a close to bumper-to-bumper 2-year warranty "extension" with a deductible of $100 from GM on my then new '02 Bonneville for about $500. Regardless of whether you're purchasing that "warranty" or not, you're being ripped off at $4 grand for 3 years.

    HTH
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Member Posts: 489
    Has anyone tried out both of them on the '06 Impala? Which one is more comfortable? It looks like the bench seat has one of those armrests like the '94 LeSabre. After a while it won't stay up and flops down on the seat. How about storage in both?
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    I didn't have trouble with 93 LeSabre armrest staying up nor the one in the 98 LeSabre. Odd that you got one that wouldn't cooperate. I did break the cupholder off the 93 IIRC.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • deminindeminin Member Posts: 214
    A 90 day trial of XM radio was bundled with our '06 Impala. According to the dealer, and the documentation included with the car, if we wanted to continue the service, we needed to contact XM to keep the account active. BULL PUCKEY! Today, we got a bill from XM for $600. They "assumed" we would want to continue their service for 5 years, and wanted to be paid up front. I listened to XM for a couple of hours, and in my opinion, its not worth more than a couple of bucks per month. Needless to say, I called XM, and told them how high they could shove their service. Then, I called Chevy, and filed a complaint with them against their bundled XM service using deceptive business practices. If a person gets one of these bills, and just pitches it, it could do serious damage to their credit rating, under the latest rules.
  • drat19drat19 Member Posts: 28
    Re post 960:

    Yes, it is unfortunate that they "assume" you want to continue your XM subscription beyond the trial period (and if you think about it, it's a great marketing tactic, because in most cases XM far exceeds terrestrial radio in programming quality/content, IMHO, and YMMV of course).

    Having said that, while it is presumptuous to just bill you, as opposed to "offering" you the option to continue, it really is just a simple phone call to have XM discontinue your service/subscription. They just have to pull up your radio ID, which pulls up your account, and cancel it...no harm, no foul to your credit rating.

    "Should" this be how it works (i.e., should you have to be the one who has to make the call)? I agree with you...no. And it would be nice if this reality were disclosed to you somehow. But even so, in my opinion it's a small price to pay to have the option of XM Radio even included with your new car.
  • jerrymcshane1jerrymcshane1 Member Posts: 195
    Of course it's a ripoff. I wouldn't pay $2/month to listen to music/weather or some blowheart radio talk rap. GM should be reprimanded via the court system for its conduct.
  • blckthreeblckthree Member Posts: 153
    I had the same attitude toward XM-radio when I first got it. I was never going to pay for radio, it is free or I can listen to CDs. After the free 3 month trial, I was hooked. I NEVER listen to anything but XM-radio. A great value for the money and outstanding reception everywhere I have driven. That was back in 2003.

    On my '06 Grand Prix, XM was activated when I picked up the vehicle. About 30 days before the end of the 3 month trial, I received a statement telling me my options as far as continuing, cancelling, etc. I never got a bill from them. It is good to get the early notification, if you let your subscription run out, they can charge an activation fee.

    To each his own, but I think there is a story being blown way out of proportion here. I don't have the statement sent to me, but I seem to remember if no action was taken, the service would be discontinued at 3 months.

    Mike :)
  • mike7ywmike7yw Member Posts: 7
    I got a new Impala just over 2 months ago with the XM radio. Last week I received a notice in the mail outlining my options at the end of the 3 months - not a bill. I have had XM radio for a while and intend to add the new car to my present subscription (I think they have a program to add a second radio for about $6.95/mo). I am hooked on XM and intend to keep it around in my house and car. Maybe you should re-read the notice from XM.
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    I'm sure XM will reverse any bill and disconnect the service if you don't want to continue. It's just not that big a deal.

    Personally I am only in my car 20 minutes a day so it's not worth it for me but for people who have long commutes or live in remote areas I can totally see it being awesome.
  • ahightowerahightower Member Posts: 539
    I had a new Impala as a rental car the other day. I have thought they were nice looking since they came out, but never been up close with one. I was very impressed with this car. The back seat was very roomy for me at 6'3". The "superior blue metallic" color was very attractive. The interior and dash materials were very nice and seemed well put together. It was an LT - because it had alloy wheels (which are very nice), and because rental fleets usually go for the small engine option, I am guessing it was an LT2. I didn't even know about the folding rear seat until I checked out the Chevy website recently. That is very handy. And the trunk is HUGE! I didn't get to drive it, but my boss who was driving commented on how it had decent power. I bet the 3.9 is very lively.

    I would really consider buying one of these for my next car. I would probably go for the LT3, because I really like the fact that you can get leather with a front bench seat rather than buckets. The buckets have adjustable lumbar support, and the console gives extra storage space, but in most cars with bucket seats and a center console, my long legs don't fit so well, and my right knee is always bumping up against the center console. Also with a bench you can fit one extra passenger on rare occasions. I would like to sit in one with front buckets and see for myself how roomy it is. Maybe there is enough leg room after all, in which case I would really like an LTZ with the more sporty styling.

    Overall, I was highly impressed with the Impala. This car is definitely as nice as any import I have been in recently. A couple of months ago, we had a new Pontiac G6 as a rental car, and I was also very impressed with that one. Good looks, nice interior, powerful engine. I would say GM is definitely back in the game with their latest new vehicles.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    I have bought about 50/50 the last five years - mixing imports and domestic - although I haven't driven any of them long enough to know about long term reliability, domestics and imports have been roughly comparable in terms of initial "take-back" warranty issues (and in no case has any glitch been serious). So I have no particular bias for or against any maker, although I am trying to direct my new car money to GM and Ford in the near future since they are ailing (for nostalgic reasons).

    I personally like the Impala much more than the Accord or Camry. It's a little bigger, and has a very fuel efficient (by all reports) V-6 engine family. What I like better than Accord and Camry are:

    1. Onstar, which is standard, since I go to out of the way areas to hike, and worry what would happen if I had a breakdown or accideent;

    2. The pseudo-"bench" seat, which is pretty nifty in an emergency (squeeze in one more person, hopefully a small person);

    3. The LARGE trunk (only the Five Hundred beats it);

    4. The flip up rear seat cushion (underseat storage, or put backpacks in there and keep them off the upholstery);

    5. XM radio availability;

    6. Standard side curtain airbags (not a competitive advantage, since they are available on Honda and Camry too, but certainly a "must" for any new car I'd like to get);

    7. Did I mention it's bigger, standard with a V6, and cheaper than a comparable Camry or Accord?

    The competitors, for me, are the Five Hundred (positives are the "opera" seating for the back seat, and "rollover sensing" side air bag deployment; negatives are the anemic 3.0 liter motor); and the Dodge Charger (positives are the "balanced handling" of rear wheel drive, standard stability control and ABS, and available side air bags; the main negative is the lower gas mileage on the admittedly stronger, higher tech, and costlier to build V6 DOHC engine).

    I'd like to see GM make ABS standard on ALL Impalas (didn't they do that in past years) and make stability control an option, at least. Also, the side curtain airbags should be supplemented by side TORSO air bags, like on the Malibu....
  • evandroevandro Member Posts: 1,108
    Dodge Charger (positives are the "balanced handling" of rear wheel drive, standard stability control and ABS, and available side air bags; the main negative is the lower gas mileage on the admittedly stronger, higher tech, and costlier to build V6 DOHC engine).

    Chrysler's V6 looks good only on paper when coupled with its automatic transmissions. It seems that they are quite inefficient. But as the Charger shares components with Mercedes cars, I wonder if it uses a better automatic...
  • jntjnt Member Posts: 316
    Chrysler's V6 looks good only on paper when coupled with its automatic transmissions. It seems that they are quite inefficient. But as the Charger shares components with Mercedes cars, I wonder if it uses a better automatic...

    I think they are using the 5 speed Automatic from Mercedes. This is older M-B design while new M-B vehicles now are using 6 or 7 speed Auto. In addition, Chrysler is also using M-B other RWD hardwares. That is why they can offer relative inexpensive RWD vehicles without investing billions in tooling.

    jt
  • drat19drat19 Member Posts: 28
    I've owned my Superior Blue '06 Impala LTZ since late Sept. '05, and I continue to be impressed, by all but one of the features you mentioned. I also stand 6'3" and I find driving to be very comfortable.

    My only complaint is that the rear seat legroom and foot room are just terrible compared to import competition...especially the foot room. For some silly reason they designed the bottoms of the backs of the front seats (i.e., your rear seat footroom) with these bolsters or some sort of extra material, and if you're anything bigger than below-average sized, it's next to impossible to easily get your feet in and out from the rear.

    This has not diminished my enjoyment of my LTZ as I seldom carry rear-seat passengers, but you definitely need to re-visit that rear seat, and if this is an issue for you it's an important consideration.
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    I have sat in the back seat of a new Impala on 2 occasions and both times found the rear seat room perfectly acceptable. It's not huge but from a pure numbers standpoint the rear seat is very similar in size to the competition.
  • lwhodsonlwhodson Member Posts: 1
    I bought a 2000 LS in 2003. It had 26,000 miles on it. The only problem I had with it was a faulty solenoid in the transmission. That cost me about $700. Overall I have been very satisfied with it and am planning on buying a 2006 LTZ. My wife is on her second Camry. Hasn't rally had any problems with them either but in my opinion the Camry is not near as nice a car as the Impala. :)
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    Post #971 isn't referring to the seat room in the back of the Impala he is talking about the foot room. The 00-05 Impalas have more rear foot room then the 2006 models do. In the rear at the bottom of the front seats near the floor are two pieces of cloth material that cover the seat tracks for the front seats. They go right down to the floor and cover an area where your feet should be able to go under the front seat at the sides but are blocked by this material. I posted back in August when I took out a 2006 SS and LTZ. Sitting in the back it is awkward when trying to enter/exit your feet from the rear seat foot area because of these obtrusions in the footwell at the bottom of the back of the front seats. My 2001 LS does not have these obtrusions.

    With the dashboard being 7" narrower on the new Impala then the previous models I thought foot/leg room would increase, but has actually got a little smaller and with these footwell obstacles that weren't there before, makes it more difficult to enter/exit with your legs/feet. The Impala a much larger car, is over a foot longer then the Camry/Accord but rear foot/leg room is almost the same. The Camry/Accord do not have these obtrusions in the rear footwell area. Check it out.
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    At the Michigan Police testing back in September for this model year police vehicles the Impala failed the braking test requirements on its first attempts. The Impala came last behind the Dodge Charger,& and heavier Ford CV. GM was allowed to make emergency adjustments and the Impala was re-tested a few weeks later, and just got under the required 60-0 mph of 150 feet. The police Impala uses the same sized brakes as the civilian Impala. The 00-05 Impalas have better braking statistics then the 2006 Impalas even with the latest adjustments Chevy made recently. More then likely the 2007 Impalas will have upgraded pads/rotors to shorten stopping distances.
  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    The major drawbacks of the 06 seem to be the braking efficiency, lack of rear footwells and small mirrors leaving blindspots. Hope GM gets these items fixed for the 07.
Sign In or Register to comment.