I don't agree. Every year there are plenty of new models of cars in the $35k and below category. I'd like to see a detailed road test of a Cobalt or Aveo or Fusion or Accent for a change and not the supercharged models. Seems like the only people who test mid line models of cars are the people at CU.
Car magazines don't test base model cars? Oh no! Drop your subscription you say! I guess Motor Trend and Car & Driver magazines will soon go out of business. (LOL)
Dispencer1 you give conflicting information. One minute your upset the Impala doesn't get recognition in comparison testing and in your post #1720 (check it out) you say: " The Impala is a relatively cheap full sized car that holds 5-6 people, rides well, has a good sterio but has HIGH depreciation because the Impala is nothing special. NOTHING SPECIAL! If its nothing special you say then I guess in comparison testing the Impala would be near the bottom in your view. "The Impala's interior doesn't even compare with the interior of the top of the line CAMRY or CAMRY SOLARA" you say. (the car you dumped you say). "GM needs to get its act together". "Chevrolet produces a good durable rental car, but thats about it" "Many of you are expecting too much of this vehicle". Dispencer1
Classifying the Impala as a durable rental car, but thats about it you say, would indicate to me that your impressions of the Impala are similar to the car magazine testers. Not at the top of their class & could do much better.
Most car magazines test eg: the SS models or top of the line models because car enthusiasts want to see the results. Who waits every year to see what the new Impala base model looks like? NOBODY! Most everyday drivers will buy the Impala LS or LT but car enthusiasts who actually buy car magazines want to see results of the best they have, in the Impalas case its the SS model. I don't know of anyone who can't wait to see the next Impala LS. Its the SS they want to see and thats what testers usually test. How much attention would this new camaro thats coming get if it was shown in plain base model with small plain wheels only........No attention at all. How many Ford enthusiasts can't wait for the new base model mustang. NONE. The buzz is the new 2007 Mustang Cobra. Thats what they want to see tested.
Asia includes India, Russia, Korea, etc. It can hardly be argued that Russian cars have anything that one can call reliability.
2/3 of Russia is in Europe, 1/3 (Sibir) in Asia, by area. By population it is about 85% to 15%. All Russian automotive plants are in Europe, mostly on the Volga river and in Moscow.
However, to name Russian cars European would be the same as to name Brazilian cars American. Legally right, but wrong in substance.
I think a lot depends on what you intend to use the car for and the model or trim line you are buying. To me, the Impala is a second car. I would like to see it tested in an auto magazine -at least the LS or 2LT version - because when I bought it (for $22,800 delivered plus NM tax) I had a number of cars to choose from. I could have used Consumers Reports but they lean too heavily -right or wrong - toward Japanese cars. I drove a number of cars. I was tempted to buy the cheapest best gas mileage car I could instead of the Impala, but I discovered that there wasn't a lot of difference between gas mileage in a Cobalt or an Impala -just a couple of miles to the gallon and I also figured I might use the car for day trips -400-800 miles so I thought the Impala would be more comfortable. I didn't buy the luxury model but I think it is kind of silly to spend $27k or so on an LTZ when for the same money you can buy an Avalon which has a nicer interior and far better resale value or even a less than a year old Lincoln Town Car or base Deville. I have a friend with a new Avalon and he gets better mileage both in town and on the road than I do in the Impala with the 3.5 litre. Sorry about the conflicts. I don't sleep with photos of the Impala under my pillow. It is just a car -better than some, worse than others. I think it is a fine choice for the money. I'm getting tired of replacing window strips however. They just did the driver's side Friday and it started screeching on Saturday. I sprayed it with Armorall and it stopped. We will see how long that lasts.
You are absolutely right. If I was 17 instead of 65 and drooled over a Cobra or TransAm/GTO/Solstice with V8 etc etc, I'd like to see an article testing the cars. One magazine even had a comparison test between the new Mustang Cobra and a Camaro using a computer simulator - not the real cars since they aren't out yet. I assume that people actually read the article. I sort of skipped over it. It had the same validity as a statistical prediction of how long I'll live based on how long I've already lived. I still maintain that I'd like to see road tests of not base models but at least midline ones. Motor Trend actually did one in the current issue -Lucerne vs Mercury vs 300. I thought it was pretty good. I know that the base model Corvette is more comfortable than the top of the line model. I'll assume that the Mustang Cobra probably won't be as pleasant to drive as the V6 model. I still would like to see some tests of mid line cars. Obviously they aren't as exciting as a Z06 but they are the ones I buy along with most people. You are right though -dreams sell magazines. I guess lots of people lust after things they can't possess. This is why Playboy has existed since 1953.
I have stated several times that the current Impala is a nice car. From Base model to SS there is lots to choose from, but I have also stated that they just don't go far enough in some areas. My personal choices would be put the larger exterior mirrors back on the Impala. LTZ & SS should have memory seats available, The SS should have bolstered front seats and a gauge package available to seperate its interior appointments from the LTZ. Not big issues but nice touches. The 2006 Impala has an identity problem even though it's classed as a midsized car. It's really too large to compete with the Camry/Accord/Fusion (1 foot shorter) and can't compete directly with the Charger/300 being RWD. The Impala is sort of on its own. I think Chevy realizes this and are now focused on the next generation Impala that will go head to head with Charger/300 and any other RWD car in its class then as a large RWD car. A bold new direction will be taken according to GMs Bob Lutz. I hope they get it right.
Off topic: I wouldn't mind owning the first month of the 1953 Playboy magazine. I am not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe but with her on the cover it commands big bucks.
Actually, I do this very thing occasionally in my SS. Unless you completely "floor" the car it accelerates out of corners quite well.
I also have to thank Priggly, he's the reason I own an Impala SS.
Last year he mentioned the car on volkswagenvortex.com and his praise prompted me to take a look. As it turns out, I need the space for three car seats, so a Passat wasn't even an option. However, it's been 7 months and I'm still very happy with my SS.
I agree with your recommended changes, especially the side mirrors. I think that -at least on the LTZ and SS they need to do something with the door panels. My Deville is nothing to brag about door panel-wise but what's wrong with putting some carpet on the bottom or something to keep it from looking like it was stamped out of a single piece of plastic. When you look at the Impala interior and then look at even a base Avalon there is no comparison at all. Check one out. I'm confused with the 300. Every car writer thinks it is really neat. It looks stubby to me with a grossly oversized grill . The little side windows make you feel like you are in a cave. MT tested the 300, Lucerne, and the Montego and thought the styling of the 300 was best. I sure didn't. I liked the Lucerne minus the silly portholes and the Montego looked streamlined too. I hope that the RWD Impala doesn't try and copy the 300.
OK, 11,000 miles and still no improvement in MPG. The best I get is still 22mpg highway. :mad: So, I drive my 1998 Buick LeSabre 4 door back and forth to work and it gets 24-26 mpg with a 3.8L engine. Per the dealer at the 9500 mile service, they ran out of reasons why it gets at best 22mpg, so they offered me the phone number of a rep at Chevy.....shoot me now.
PONTIAC , Mich. – GM Powertrain announced today it will deliver a 3.6-liter V-6 gasoline engine with direct injection and variable valve timing (VVT) technologies in the 2008 model year. A vehicle application will be announced later in the year.
Additionally, it was forecast that by the end of 2008, GM will produce as many as 200,000 vehicles globally with direct injection technology, and by 2010, GM projects one out of every six GM vehicles in North America will be equipped with a direct injection engine.
The application of direct injection technology to the 3.6-liter VVT engine – a member of GM Powertrain’s family of high-feature V-6 powerplants used on cars and trucks around the world – contributes greatly to a 15-percent increase in horsepower over the current levels that range from 240 to 267; an 8-percent increase in torque, and up to a 3-percent improvement in brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC). An approximate 25-percent reduction in cold-start hydrocarbon emissions is also achieved.
With direct injection, precisely metered fuel is delivered directly to the combustion chamber, which has a cooling effect in the chamber. Cooling the incoming air charge enables a higher compression ratio, which also improves engine efficiency. Less fuel is required to produce the equivalent horsepower of a conventional port injection combustion system.
“The 3.6-liter VVT with direct injection will be our highest specific output non-turbocharged V-6 engine, as well as one of the most fuel-efficient offerings in our high-feature family,” said Tim Cyrus, chief engineer for high feature V-6 and Northstar V-8 engines. “It’s the latest example of our strategy to continue to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy without sacrificing performance.”
This is GM’s third engine with gasoline direct injection. The announcement of the 3.6L VVT V-6 with direct injection comes on the heels of the introduction of GM Powertrain’s Ecotec 2.0-liter four-cylinder Turbo engine with direct injection on the 2007 Saturn Sky Red Line and Pontiac Solstice GXP roadsters. Also, since 2004, a naturally aspirated Ecotec 2.2-liter direct injection engine is equipped on Opel models in Europe.
How direct injection works
Direct injection differs from the fuel delivery process of a conventional engine by delivering fuel directly into the engine cylinder, where it is mixed with air. The combustion process of conventional fuel injected engines uses air and fuel that partially evaporates in the intake port or intake manifold prior to being introduced into the combustion chamber. Direct injection is a continuation of the evolutionary process of moving the fuel introduction point closer to the cylinder to improve control.
With the 3.6-liter VVT with direct injection, fuel is introduced directly to the cylinder during the intake stroke. As the piston approaches top-dead center, the mixture is ignited by the spark plug.
The fuel injectors are located beneath the intake ports. The intake ports only transfer air, unlike port fuel injection, which flows air and fuel, thus increasing efficiency. D irect injection also permits a slightly higher compression ratio than if the fuel were delivered with conventional fuel injection. The result is better fuel consumption at part and full throttle. The engine uses conventional spark plugs similar to other high-feature V6 engines.
A high-pressure, returnless fuel system is employed. It features a high-strength stainless steel fuel line that feeds a variable-pressure fuel rail. Direct injection requires higher fuel pressure than conventional fuel injected engines and an engine-driven high-pressure fuel pump is used to supply up to 1,740 psi (120 bar) of pressure. The system regulates lower fuel pressure at idle – approximately 508 psi (35 bar) and higher pressure at wide-open throttle. The exhaust cam-driven high-pressure pump works in conjunction with a conventional fuel tank-mounted supply pump.
Direct injection’s fuel delivery enables very efficient combustion to help reduce emissions, particularly on cold starts – the time when most tailpipe emissions are typically created. Also, direct injection permits a higher compression ratio – greater than 11.0:1 in the case of the 3.6 – which has a positive influence on fuel economy.
3.6-liter VVT DI
The 3.6-liter VVT DI is based on GM Powertrain’s sophisticated 60-degree dual overhead cam (DOHC) V-6 engine. It is the latest member of a growing family of GM Powertrain V-6 engines developed for applications around the world, drawing on the best practices and creative expertise of GM technical centers in Australia, Germany, North America and Sweden.
Features found on the 3.6-liter VVT DI include:
-Aluminum engine block and cylinder heads -Dual overhead cams with four valves per cylinder and silent chain primary drive -High-pressure, engine-driven fuel pump -Advanced multi-outlet fuel injectors developed to withstand high pressure and heat -Stainless steel, variable pressure fuel rail -Four-cam phasing (VVT – see description below) -11.3:1 compression ratio -Aluminum pistons with floating wrist pins and oil squirters -Polymer coated piston skirts -Forged steel crankshaft -Sinter-forged connecting rods -Structural cast-aluminum oil pan with steel baffles -Electronic throttle control with integrated cruise control -Coil-on-plug ignition -Advanced direct injection capable engine control module (ECM) -Optimized exhaust manifolds with close-coupled catalytic converters -Fully isolated composite camshaft covers -Outstanding noise, vibration and harshness control -Maximum durability with minimum maintenance -Common manufacturing practices for efficiency and exceptional quality -Four-cam phasing
The 3.6-liter V-6 VVT DI employs four-cam phasing to change the timing of valve operation as operating conditions such as rpm and engine load vary. The result is linear delivery of torque, with near-peak levels over a broad rpm range, and high specific output (maximum horsepower per liter of displacement) without sacrificing overall engine response and driveability. When combined, direct injection and cam phasing technologies enable an unmatched combination of power, efficiency and low-emissions in gasoline V-6 engines.
Cam phasing pays big dividends in reducing exhaust emissions by optimizing exhaust valve overlap and eliminating the need for a separate exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system.
By closing the exhaust valves late at appropriate times, the cam phasers allow the engine to draw the desired amount of exhaust gas back into the combustion chamber, reducing unburned hydrocarbon emissions. The return of exhaust gases also decreases peak temperatures, which contributes to the reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NO x) emissions. In tandem with the dramatic 25-percent reduction in cold-start hydrocarbon emissions brought on by direct injection, th
GM should make all their engines direct injection, not just a measly 200,000. I hate it when GM waltzes along. They need good press, they need better engines. Whats it gonna take for them to fire full steam ahead!? And they need to raise their warranties-now
New technology is great when it works properly but it isn't good business to jump fully into one technology segment. Not everyone is going to trust the technology, some will wait years to determine the reliability. If GM moved everything to one new, fairly uncertain technology, sales would suffer for suspicion alone not to mention if there was a flaw that appeared later. Give it time, allow production to work out any bugs. We'll get there soon enough.
As I said - My LT2 is lucky to get 18 in town with the AC on. I get around 20 with it off. Perhaps my reasoning about getting the small 6 was wrong. The larger one might not have to work as hard and might get better mileage. I do get 30 on the road without air but on the last trip with the air on most of the way I ended up with around 26. My Cadillac gets 30 and around 16 in town regardless of air conditioning. I'm really disappointed and when the warranty is up on the Caddy in 2008 I'll sell both the Impala and the Deville and get a DTS. I had, as I've said, thought about getting some sort of a base 4 cylinder Cobalt instead of the Impala for town driving. It probably would have been a good idea. Wonder what people are getting in town with an automatic Cobalt? Speaking of your Buick -I ALWAYS got 30 on the road with my '94 and 2002 LeSabres. The 3.8 is the best engine GM makes. The LaCrosse with the 3.8 would have been a better deal than this Impala.
1. The 3.6L direct injection, high tech engine will be reserved only for Cadillac and Buick models. The 200K covers the annual V6 volume for CTS, STS, LaCrosse (they do not use this name in Canada, BTW), and Lucerns. And they sell it to Suzuki to put in the XL-7 (Equinox clone, using the low cost Chinese imported 3.4L V6)
2. Chevy will soldier on with the low cost, "high value" pushrod V6's : 3.4L, 3.5L, 3.9L V6 for some years to come yet. They have to get back the tooling investment on these engines yet (probably 10 years min)
That is the thing that upset me about GM: they are withholding the best (engine, styling, transmission) from Chevy. They forgot that Chevy is the one responsible for the bulk of the company volume. May be they should use the Toyota's approach: implement the best on the volume vehicles. The new technology may be a bit more expensive, but it spread out on larger volume and that will drive down the cost quicker. Even their low life Scion vehicles have VVT engine.
thats how it has alwayse been, the best tech goes to the caddillacs, because of the pretige and the margins assicated witht he brands. It would be pretty screwed up if your chevy was more advanced than a cadillac.
The problem is that the competition makes similar engines for their chevy equivalents. This is changing as GM is really doing right by its high value strategy, and with VVT and DoD, the pushrod V6's will give nothing to the fancier alumium blocks. Buyers can even brag about the DoD tech, as most DOHC's do not have that feature!
What is left, is for chevy to figure out how to do 3 valves per cyllinder for the OHV's. That would further refine the engines. For now, this is excellent and cannot be understated, the lower costs of these engines help GM be competetive as best it can.
The High feature engines getting DI is excellent, as buicks and cadillacs need a 300hp V6 to keep up with the asians and leave the europeans in the dust bin of history.
A good dead is how the previous gen. V6 3.6 is getting into pontiacs and Buicks. I would love to see a base lacrose 3.9 VVT DoD with 233hp, and a mid and uplevel 3.6L with 260+ hp. The Pontiac G6 is getting a 252hp version, and so is the aura. Sounds good. Gm is moving, and that benefits us all, as consumers, as workers in any company (since GM indirectly provides millions of jobs) assiciated with GM and as Americans.
Here in New York, managers are worried about GM because a GM collapse could cause serious reprecussions on the entire banking and finance indutries who have serious funds tied to GM.
A good GM is good for all of us, and I am so happy they took the lead with DI in the 3.6, just a few paces behind toyota, and infront of everyother company offering DI in such a high output, and cost effective package with VVT and the DOHC V6 format.
"thats how its always been the best tech goes to cadillac". Right!. There has always been a pecking order of divisions at GM. For those old enough to rememeber back in the 70s when Chevrolet and Oldsmobile both made a 350 cubic inch engine for their full sized cars. Their was a shortage (for whatever reason of oldsmobile engines) and GM put lower tech chevrolet 350 engines (without informing the consumers) into the oldsmobiles. Lawsuits came about and Oldsmobile owners were compensated for cars equipped with the cheaper chevy engine. It cost GM many millions $.
So far my mother is getting 15 MPG city driving. Her old Celebrity got about 20. Has anyone here noticed a thumping in the trunk everytime they brake? I noticed it today when I had to drive her somewhere.
That's the main reason I didn't get one. The ratings were pretty close to the Impala -closer than they should have been with a small car and a 4 but I'd be very happy to get 25-26 in town. Lots better than 17-18.
I wonder if the vast majority of Impala buyers (other than the ones who purchase the SS) care in the least about their sixes or whether or not they are pushrod, overhead cam, etc. I'm a car buff so I'm interested but the people I've talked to are more concerned with gas mileage than how the engine operates. I don't think that the Impala engines, number of speeds in the transmission, or things like that are critical to the success or failure of this car or any other midsize sedan.
quote - dispencer1: I wonder if the vast majority of Impala buyers (other than the ones who purchase the SS) care in the least about their sixes or whether or not they are pushrod, overhead cam, etc....
Finally, a post I can relate to! I bought my '06 LTZ under a little bit of "duress" (needed a car after Hurricane Katrina drowned my '03 Impala LS), but I also did specifially choose my LTZ - I wanted an up-level Impala but I specifically didn't want the SS/V8; was concerned about having an early-edition of the DoD setup. I also looked into the fact that the 3.9 was new, but that it was rated at 242 horses, so it would have plenty of get-up-and-go, and hopefully a little better gas mileage than the V8.
So far after 12000 miles my LTZ has met my expectations. Gas mileage averages around 26 in pure highway driving, and the 17 or so in city driving is perfectly fine with me given my lead-footed driving habits.
More to the point of the purpose of this point (the initial quote above), while technology does fascinate me to a certain extent, I'm more interested in whether the car and engine meet my needs (sufficient power and adequate enough gas mileage), and whether it will be reliable long term with few if any repairs if I do my part on the regular-maintenance end (so far so good). I also "know what I bought" in terms of my realistic expectations for an American-built car (i.e., stuff DOES happen, quality MAY be an issue on some components, and I paid $24K, not $40K); hence the extended warranty I bought.
I am a tech person for the most part, but I don't need to have the latest electronics, engines, etc. When it comes to car engines I pretty much prefer pushrod engines especially when they are reliable and efficient.
Wow, 18 and 20 oh highway, you don't floor it all the time. My GP GXP (Pontiac Impala SS equivalent) gets 21-23 mixed city/hwy with the 5.3L V-8. I plan on a long trip soon and expect 25-27. This is all with AC on 24/7.
is important even if people are not interested in bragging rights, because the DoD and VVT will improve Fuel economy. The new 3.9 will have 233hp, BUT I think they said it will get 20mpg IN THE CITY.
Hmmm...I'm surprised I got this in before Charts2 chimed in about whether or not the new technology is worth the cost. I'm all for high-tech when it is an actual improvement over proven low-tech. In the case of OHC, I don't think GM has gotten to a point where their "high-tech" makes business sense. They have offered DOHC, 4-valve engines over the years but the increased cost vs. modest performance improvements have likely been the reason they still sell pushrod engines. I remember specifically when the LT-5 Corvette came out in '87. It had a higher max horsepower number than the old small block but to get there you were up in the higher RPMs. Unless you bought the car for use in a racing circuit, you'd never benefit from the high hp numbers because you just don't drive day to day at 5,000+ RPM. The general public doesn't really understand the characteristics of engine performance (not that I'm an expert). The fact that many of the competitors have higher max hp ratings in their cars isn't as big a deal as many may think. Overall performance, throughout the powerband, is what's most important. The old 3800 had a modest (by today's standards) 200hp but the power curve on that engine wasn't curvy at all which made it a very friendly engine (even if it was noisy). Most current driver's are affraid of pedal to the floor acceleration and likely never see the max hp that their foreign car makers advertises.
One more thing, someone asked recently about oil use in the 5.3L, I think. Mine used about a quart over the first 2000 miles. I changed oil at that point and I only buy Mobile 1. With about 3000 miles on Mobile 1, I haven't noticed any oil usage.
I don't think that the Impala engines, number of speeds in the transmission, or things like that are critical to the success or failure of this car or any other midsize sedan
I have to disagree with you. If the customer isn't aware of these features directly then they're aware of these features indirectly by how the car drives down the road better.
Manufacturers don't come up with these features simply for the sake of bragging rights (but I have to admit that's partially true in some cases), they do it because they think it will improve the driving experience of the car.
Sure, your typical car consumer doesn't know the difference between an OHC and OHV engine. But they most likely can tell the difference on how they perform.
Kudos to GM for implementing these new features in their 3.6L engine. I'm sure most consumers won't know or even care about the new technology, but they will appreciate the improvements in the engine. And that is important in the success of a car.
I agree that most when you ask people how many speeds they got on their Impala, they probably don't know. But they do know the followings:
1. Fuel Efficiency of the car 2. Smoothness of the engine 3. Shift Quality of the transmission 4. Tightness or Softness of the ride 5. Acceleration around town and hwy driving
Customers are not stupid. That is why they are buying more car based SUVs now than the good old body on frame vehicles nowaday. Majority probably do not know that the RAV4 is the car-based vs. Explorer being a truck-based SUV. All they know that the RAV4 is easy on their pocket book as far as gas purchase is concerned. Those who buy Lexuses or Buicks, expect the dead quiet car environment. They do not care how both companies go about things
As auto engineers or executives, it is their duty to translate these simple requirements into the system design. If someone says they expect 50 MPG and still meet California emission control standard in 2010 for example, car makers know that current Diesel engine design is out and Hybrid with OHC gas engine is more likely the only option.
GM is killing the legendary 3800 engine because more and more, it is tough for them to meet future emission control standard without doing an expensive redesign.
I felt the same way about the engine but I opted for the 3.5 because I thought gas mileage would be better. It still has plenty of passing power as long as you don't cut it too close. If this was not a second car I would have gotten the 3.9 because I would use the car for long distance trips.
Of course people buy a car based on the way an engine and transmission performs. I do, but I'm not as interested in the technical attributes of a powertrain as I am in gas mileage, passing power, smoothness, noise, etc. I think most buyers feel this way. If engine improvements don't affect drivability and gas mileage then they aren't very important to the average buyer.
Thinking of buying a Impala 2007 but want to know if anybody here is having any major-minor problems with the 2006 car-reliability etc. I have searched here but could not find anything other than the radio and a few other small concerns. Nothing in the "problems and solution" section, of course I didn't really go through all the pages. So is the Impala a good buy? I was also thinking of the 2007 Toyota Camry (more money) but it appears at the moment there is major problems with the V6, 6 speed auto trans. Is it just me or are the Asian, Japanese cars over rated because they all seem to have major issues in the past and present. So on the Impala thumbs up or down? Thanks
Thumbs up for me. We have three '06 Impalas in my family. Mine's an SS (5.3L), sister has a 3LT (3.9L), and nephew has a 1LT (3.5L). MY only major issue has been with the Bose sound system. It's finally being addressed and will HOPEFULLY be fixed this week. Other than that, there is a dash clicking (sounds like a rock hitting the windshield) problem but I believe that has been addressed in manufacturing. My driver's seat adjuster has a squeak but that also will be fixed this week. Other than that, a couple have had AC issues (not cold enough) and a window screaching sound (weather stripping). The only other thing I can think of is an occasional issue with the ventilation. In my case, it sticks in defrost but it corrects itself after I cycle through the settings.
Fuel mileage seems to be less than advertised with the 5.3L and 3.9L but I haven't heard any complaints on the 3.5L. Seems to come down to priorities, power vs. efficiency. Driven at legal speeds, highway mileage gets close to the EPA numbers but most people drive faster and economy suffers.
I think the '06 Impala offers an excellent buy for the money. To get more car, you have to pay well above $30K, in my opinion. Our LTZ has been virtually flawless, so far, and gets quite good mileage. I prefer the tighter suspension on the LTZ, but even the softer suspensions are very good. The engine runs butter smooth, and I have to watch the tachometer to tell when the transmission shifts. We looked at the Camry, Altima, Maxima, Avalon, Lacrosse, 300C, etc., etc. To me, the LTZ offered more overall value than the others.
IMHO the '06 Impala is a "best buy" in its LTZ and SS configurations in the sports sedan arena. I have nothing but praise for the Impala SS.
I was also thinking of the 2007 Toyota Camry (more money) but it appears at the moment there is major problems with the V6, 6 speed auto trans. Is it just me or are the Asian, Japanese cars over rated because they all seem to have major issues in the past and present.
The Asian cars are overrated, overhyped and overpriced. Take a gander at the new Camry and Lexus ES 350 boards and check out the comments on ongoing transmission issues, viz. hesitation. The 4-speed GM transmission does NOT hesitate. In the SS the power is right there and right NOW.
Take a look at the Acura TL boards where some owners complain bitterly about harmonic vibrations (a "feature" of the car), rattles, poor quality vinyl dashboard prone to early fading, poor quality leather prone to early cracking and stretching, etc. Or peruse the BMW and M-B boards to see the many complaints of technology guffaws such as i-Drive or poor mechanical reliability, and all at exaggerated premium prices.
The situation with the imports, including both the Japanese and the German, is that now that they have captured market share their quality is falling and they have become apathetic. This is the exact reverse of the situation which existed 20-30 years ago when the domestics which had market share had become lax and the imports, then struggling to "make it" in the domestic market, offered increasing reliability and value. This of course now makes the domestics the better buy as their reliability and value quotients have had to rise to fend off the competition and the two have essentially switched positions compared to previous.
I purchase American cars because of the ease of getting them fixed anywhere I happen to be. There are many more Chevy dealerships than there are Lexus and Toyota ones. So far the lack of reliability of the Toyotas -sludge problem, transmission, etc. haven't affected the resale price. I agree with you that quality is really slipping. I drove an '06 Camry Solara convertible for a month last spring before I could sell it. I got sucked into all the praise for the car and couldn't drive one before I ordered it. The car had a stiff ride and the convertible flexing was awful except on a glass smooth road. Luckily I only lost a couple of thousand dollars on it. These cars are "huge sellers" but nobody apparently wanted one with 200 miles on it -fully loaded, red, top of the line etc. and offered a savings of $2,000. Big deal - cars are priceless when you are buying and worth nothing when you are selling. I'm happy with my LT2 but disappointed with the in-town gas mileage. In a couple of years I'll sell it and my '03 Deville and get one DTS. Mileage isn't that much different in town and I'll cut down on one car.
So far the lack of reliability of the Toyotas -sludge problem, transmission, etc. haven't affected the resale price. I agree with you that quality is really slipping.
There is a lag period in the market between realization of today's falling quality and the strong reputation of the past. The same phenomenon occurred with Mercedes-Benz. It took some time before that brand's dismal quality of today impacted the previous reputation of prior solidity and reliability built up over many years. Same for VW. Most buyers are not savy enough to peruse the internet to inform themselves of the experiences of present day buyers but these days in view of all the information available there is really less chance of making an uninformed decision.
...it appears there is a lot of interest concerning Impala and warranties/extended warranties. Therefore, a new discussion has been created and a few posts moved there. Please continue this subject in there.
Wow, 18 and 20 oh highway, you don't floor it all the time. My GP GXP (Pontiac Impala SS equivalent) gets 21-23 mixed city/hwy with the 5.3L V-8. I plan on a long trip soon and expect 25-27. This is all with AC on 24/7.
Good luck on that 25-27 mpg estimate. My GXP has made several long highway trips, the only time I came close to 25mpg was on a day with no headwind, and mostly flat roads. It is possible, maybe, if you keep it to 70mph or less, my mileage was 21-22 at about 80-83mph.
My highway/city mix is similar to yours, around 21.5 if the city driving is kept to about 20% or less of the fuel tank.
Not complaining, the GXP is a fun car. Just don't get sucked in by the sticker on the window and look for 28mpg.
Just bought my 06 Impala (LT 2 3.5 V6) have not drove it much about 350 miles on it, did a lot of research came to this site a lot so far air is fine, windows good every thing else good but it's early yet got a good deal for me GM discount I'm a employee, plus $2000.00 off (rebate)and 1.99 for fuel for one year. Mileage per gal. so far on target. Good value for us we are retired plan on making a some long trips lots of room great ride so far. For the money we payed for the car Great price $19,500.00 tax, lic, a couple of opps.(out the door.) Regards Quig
I woke up this morning to find my 06 SS sitting on blocks. :mad: I never thought the standard SS rims looked that good but I guess at least one person found them nice. Does anyone have any recommendations on what is the best locking lug nut available?
Why is Chevy placing their car's batteries in the trunk? Is it a design flaw or is it better to place it there? I'd rather have it up front. :surprise:
Can't tell you what locking lug nuts to recommend but I am sure your dealer sells them. Maybe somebody just wanted them for the tires and the rims were a bonus. You might find them for sale one day in your local newspaper or auto rag.
Luckily, my SS stays in the garage at night. Did you have the polished aluminum or standard rims? What state do you live in? I'll be extra careful when I travel. I would agree that they don't look all that special.
Benefits to the battery in the rear are better weight distribution (which I think is the main reason), and longer batter life (since the trunk tends to be much cooler than the engine compartment. Also frees up room in the engine compartment I suppose for other stuff.
Something I hadn't thought of...if your battery is in the rear, are there posts under the hood that would allow you to jump start the car from either the front or the rear? It'd actually be kind of nice if you could, since invariably when my battery goes dead I'm pulled into a spot, and you can't get cables to reach all the way around.
Didn't know Chevy was moving batteries to the trunk but I'll bet it's for weight distribution. The Charger/300 has it's battery in the trunk and has nearly 50/50 weight distribution. That improves handling and all-around performance.
I actually came to this site because I was having problems according to the message system. I had alignment issues and a tire that had to be replaced-----twice. It was aligned three times before it held. I was so frustrated and was ready to dump the car, but wanted to know if others were having any problems. I was dealing with GM Customer Service at the time.
I could live with a Bose issue. I couldn't handle some message light every time I headed off somewhere. I trust the dealership/ service department that I work with and they assure me that if I trade this one off.......I want another Impala LTZ.
The service writer told me that mine is the only one that they have seen on a regular basis. One other one has had a few minor issues, but that this is the best overall car from his standpoint that Chevrolet puts out. The general manager says the same thing. It's just that they don't want my car.
This is the third Impala that I have owned. The '03 sold me after some issues with the first one (an '02). When someone asks now about my car, my answer is, "I love the car, but hate this particular one." It was pretty bad when the service people knew it was mine before they even saw the dropoff notice.
I am still not sure about the air conditioning, but it seems to at least be putting out cool air now, rather than the warm fan air from Memorial Day. That is also my frustration. It does something and then by the time it makes it to the shop there doesn't seem to be a problem.
I stated in an earlier post, on the mechanical issues I have learned to ask ONSTAR to run a diagnostic. (If they detect a problem they keep it in the system for 5 calls.) That way, when it is not in the car's memory, I have someone to back up what the stupid car was trying to tell me.
By the way, the gas mileage yesterday for strictly highway driving was 30+. It dropped to 24 when I added the in town driving needed, but needless to say, I was pleased.
Comments
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Dispencer1 you give conflicting information. One minute your upset the Impala doesn't get recognition in comparison testing and in your post #1720 (check it out) you say: " The Impala is a relatively cheap full sized car that holds 5-6 people, rides well, has a good sterio but has HIGH depreciation because the Impala is nothing special. NOTHING SPECIAL! If its nothing special you say then I guess in comparison testing the Impala would be near the bottom in your view. "The Impala's interior doesn't even compare with the interior of the top of the line CAMRY or CAMRY SOLARA" you say. (the car you dumped you say). "GM needs to get its act together". "Chevrolet produces a good durable rental car, but thats about it" "Many of you are expecting too much of this vehicle". Dispencer1
Classifying the Impala as a durable rental car, but thats about it you say, would indicate to me that your impressions of the Impala are similar to the car magazine testers. Not at the top of their class & could do much better.
I rate the Impala higher then you do.
2/3 of Russia is in Europe, 1/3 (Sibir) in Asia, by area. By population it is about 85% to 15%. All Russian automotive plants are in Europe, mostly on the Volga river and in Moscow.
However, to name Russian cars European would be the same as to name Brazilian cars American. Legally right, but wrong in substance.
Sorry about the conflicts. I don't sleep with photos of the Impala under my pillow. It is just a car -better than some, worse than others. I think it is a fine choice for the money. I'm getting tired of replacing window strips however. They just did the driver's side Friday and it started screeching on Saturday. I sprayed it with Armorall and it stopped. We will see how long that lasts.
Off topic: I wouldn't mind owning the first month of the 1953 Playboy magazine. I am not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe but with her on the cover it commands big bucks.
I also have to thank Priggly, he's the reason I own an Impala SS.
Last year he mentioned the car on volkswagenvortex.com and his praise prompted me to take a look. As it turns out, I need the space for three car seats, so a Passat wasn't even an option. However, it's been 7 months and I'm still very happy with my SS.
Thanks!
John
I'm confused with the 300. Every car writer thinks it is really neat. It looks stubby to me with a grossly oversized grill . The little side windows make you feel like you are in a cave. MT tested the 300, Lucerne, and the Montego and thought the styling of the 300 was best. I sure didn't. I liked the Lucerne minus the silly portholes and the Montego looked streamlined too. I hope that the RWD Impala doesn't try and copy the 300.
So, I drive my 1998 Buick LeSabre 4 door back and forth to work and it gets 24-26 mpg with a 3.8L engine.
Per the dealer at the 9500 mile service, they ran out of reasons why it gets at best 22mpg, so they offered me the phone number of a rep at Chevy.....shoot me now.
Additionally, it was forecast that by the end of 2008, GM will produce as many as 200,000 vehicles globally with direct injection technology, and by 2010, GM projects one out of every six GM vehicles in North America will be equipped with a direct injection engine.
The application of direct injection technology to the 3.6-liter VVT engine – a member of GM Powertrain’s family of high-feature V-6 powerplants used on cars and trucks around the world – contributes greatly to a 15-percent increase in horsepower over the current levels that range from 240 to 267; an 8-percent increase in torque, and up to a 3-percent improvement in brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC). An approximate 25-percent reduction in cold-start hydrocarbon emissions is also achieved.
With direct injection, precisely metered fuel is delivered directly to the combustion chamber, which has a cooling effect in the chamber. Cooling the incoming air charge enables a higher compression ratio, which also improves engine efficiency. Less fuel is required to produce the equivalent horsepower of a conventional port injection combustion system.
“The 3.6-liter VVT with direct injection will be our highest specific output non-turbocharged V-6 engine, as well as one of the most fuel-efficient offerings in our high-feature family,” said Tim Cyrus, chief engineer for high feature V-6 and Northstar V-8 engines. “It’s the latest example of our strategy to continue to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy without sacrificing performance.”
This is GM’s third engine with gasoline direct injection. The announcement of the 3.6L VVT V-6 with direct injection comes on the heels of the introduction of GM Powertrain’s Ecotec 2.0-liter four-cylinder Turbo engine with direct injection on the 2007 Saturn Sky Red Line and Pontiac Solstice GXP roadsters. Also, since 2004, a naturally aspirated Ecotec 2.2-liter direct injection engine is equipped on Opel models in Europe.
How direct injection works
Direct injection differs from the fuel delivery process of a conventional engine by delivering fuel directly into the engine cylinder, where it is mixed with air. The combustion process of conventional fuel injected engines uses air and fuel that partially evaporates in the intake port or intake manifold prior to being introduced into the combustion chamber. Direct injection is a continuation of the evolutionary process of moving the fuel introduction point closer to the cylinder to improve control.
With the 3.6-liter VVT with direct injection, fuel is introduced directly to the cylinder during the intake stroke. As the piston approaches top-dead center, the mixture is ignited by the spark plug.
The fuel injectors are located beneath the intake ports. The intake ports only transfer air, unlike port fuel injection, which flows air and fuel, thus increasing efficiency. D irect injection also permits a slightly higher compression ratio than if the fuel were delivered with conventional fuel injection. The result is better fuel consumption at part and full throttle. The engine uses conventional spark plugs similar to other high-feature V6 engines.
A high-pressure, returnless fuel system is employed. It features a high-strength stainless steel fuel line that feeds a variable-pressure fuel rail. Direct injection requires higher fuel pressure than conventional fuel injected engines and an engine-driven high-pressure fuel pump is used to supply up to 1,740 psi (120 bar) of pressure. The system regulates lower fuel pressure at idle – approximately 508 psi (35 bar) and higher pressure at wide-open throttle. The exhaust cam-driven high-pressure pump works in conjunction with a conventional fuel tank-mounted supply pump.
Direct injection’s fuel delivery enables very efficient combustion to help reduce emissions, particularly on cold starts – the time when most tailpipe emissions are typically created. Also, direct injection permits a higher compression ratio – greater than 11.0:1 in the case of the 3.6 – which has a positive influence on fuel economy.
3.6-liter VVT DI
The 3.6-liter VVT DI is based on GM Powertrain’s sophisticated 60-degree dual overhead cam (DOHC) V-6 engine. It is the latest member of a growing family of GM Powertrain V-6 engines developed for applications around the world, drawing on the best practices and creative expertise of GM technical centers in Australia, Germany, North America and Sweden.
Features found on the 3.6-liter VVT DI include:
-Aluminum engine block and cylinder heads
-Dual overhead cams with four valves per cylinder and silent chain primary drive
-High-pressure, engine-driven fuel pump
-Advanced multi-outlet fuel injectors developed to withstand high pressure and heat
-Stainless steel, variable pressure fuel rail
-Four-cam phasing (VVT – see description below)
-11.3:1 compression ratio
-Aluminum pistons with floating wrist pins and oil squirters
-Polymer coated piston skirts
-Forged steel crankshaft
-Sinter-forged connecting rods
-Structural cast-aluminum oil pan with steel baffles
-Electronic throttle control with integrated cruise control
-Coil-on-plug ignition
-Advanced direct injection capable engine control module (ECM)
-Optimized exhaust manifolds with close-coupled catalytic converters
-Fully isolated composite camshaft covers
-Outstanding noise, vibration and harshness control
-Maximum durability with minimum maintenance
-Common manufacturing practices for efficiency and exceptional quality
-Four-cam phasing
The 3.6-liter V-6 VVT DI employs four-cam phasing to change the timing of valve operation as operating conditions such as rpm and engine load vary. The result is linear delivery of torque, with near-peak levels over a broad rpm range, and high specific output (maximum horsepower per liter of displacement) without sacrificing overall engine response and driveability. When combined, direct injection and cam phasing technologies enable an unmatched combination of power, efficiency and low-emissions in gasoline V-6 engines.
Cam phasing pays big dividends in reducing exhaust emissions by optimizing exhaust valve overlap and eliminating the need for a separate exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system.
By closing the exhaust valves late at appropriate times, the cam phasers allow the engine to draw the desired amount of exhaust gas back into the combustion chamber, reducing unburned hydrocarbon emissions. The return of exhaust gases also decreases peak temperatures, which contributes to the reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NO x) emissions. In tandem with the dramatic 25-percent reduction in cold-start hydrocarbon emissions brought on by direct injection, th
I hate it when GM waltzes along. They need good press, they need better engines.
Whats it gonna take for them to fire full steam ahead!?
And they need to raise their warranties-now
Speaking of your Buick -I ALWAYS got 30 on the road with my '94 and 2002 LeSabres. The 3.8 is the best engine GM makes. The LaCrosse with the 3.8 would have been a better deal than this Impala.
1. The 3.6L direct injection, high tech engine will be reserved only for Cadillac and Buick models. The 200K covers the annual V6 volume for CTS, STS, LaCrosse (they do not use this name in Canada, BTW), and Lucerns. And they sell it to Suzuki to put in the XL-7 (Equinox clone, using the low cost Chinese imported 3.4L V6)
2. Chevy will soldier on with the low cost, "high value" pushrod V6's : 3.4L, 3.5L, 3.9L V6 for some years to come yet. They have to get back the tooling investment on these engines yet (probably 10 years min)
That is the thing that upset me about GM: they are withholding the best (engine, styling, transmission) from Chevy. They forgot that Chevy is the one responsible for the bulk of the company volume. May be they should use the Toyota's approach: implement the best on the volume vehicles. The new technology may be a bit more expensive, but it spread out on larger volume and that will drive down the cost quicker. Even their low life Scion vehicles have VVT engine.
jt
The problem is that the competition makes similar engines for their chevy equivalents. This is changing as GM is really doing right by its high value strategy, and with VVT and DoD, the pushrod V6's will give nothing to the fancier alumium blocks. Buyers can even brag about the DoD tech, as most DOHC's do not have that feature!
What is left, is for chevy to figure out how to do 3 valves per cyllinder for the OHV's. That would further refine the engines. For now, this is excellent and cannot be understated, the lower costs of these engines help GM be competetive as best it can.
The High feature engines getting DI is excellent, as buicks and cadillacs need a 300hp V6 to keep up with the asians and leave the europeans in the dust bin of history.
A good dead is how the previous gen. V6 3.6 is getting into pontiacs and Buicks. I would love to see a base lacrose 3.9 VVT DoD with 233hp, and a mid and uplevel 3.6L with 260+ hp. The Pontiac G6 is getting a 252hp version, and so is the aura. Sounds good. Gm is moving, and that benefits us all, as consumers, as workers in any company (since GM indirectly provides millions of jobs) assiciated with GM and as Americans.
Here in New York, managers are worried about GM because a GM collapse could cause serious reprecussions on the entire banking and finance indutries who have serious funds tied to GM.
A good GM is good for all of us, and I am so happy they took the lead with DI in the 3.6, just a few paces behind toyota, and infront of everyother company offering DI in such a high output, and cost effective package with VVT and the DOHC V6 format.
Has anyone here noticed a thumping in the trunk everytime they brake? I noticed it today when I had to drive her somewhere.
I don't think that the Impala engines, number of speeds in the transmission, or things like that are critical to the success or failure of this car or any other midsize sedan.
Finally, a post I can relate to! I bought my '06 LTZ under a little bit of "duress" (needed a car after Hurricane Katrina drowned my '03 Impala LS), but I also did specifially choose my LTZ - I wanted an up-level Impala but I specifically didn't want the SS/V8; was concerned about having an early-edition of the DoD setup. I also looked into the fact that the 3.9 was new, but that it was rated at 242 horses, so it would have plenty of get-up-and-go, and hopefully a little better gas mileage than the V8.
So far after 12000 miles my LTZ has met my expectations. Gas mileage averages around 26 in pure highway driving, and the 17 or so in city driving is perfectly fine with me given my lead-footed driving habits.
More to the point of the purpose of this point (the initial quote above), while technology does fascinate me to a certain extent, I'm more interested in whether the car and engine meet my needs (sufficient power and adequate enough gas mileage), and whether it will be reliable long term with few if any repairs if I do my part on the regular-maintenance end (so far so good). I also "know what I bought" in terms of my realistic expectations for an American-built car (i.e., stuff DOES happen, quality MAY be an issue on some components, and I paid $24K, not $40K); hence the extended warranty I bought.
How is your oil usage?? Are you burning any?
Gary
One more thing, someone asked recently about oil use in the 5.3L, I think. Mine used about a quart over the first 2000 miles. I changed oil at that point and I only buy Mobile 1. With about 3000 miles on Mobile 1, I haven't noticed any oil usage.
I have to disagree with you. If the customer isn't aware of these features directly then they're aware of these features indirectly by how the car drives down the road better.
Manufacturers don't come up with these features simply for the sake of bragging rights (but I have to admit that's partially true in some cases), they do it because they think it will improve the driving experience of the car.
Sure, your typical car consumer doesn't know the difference between an OHC and OHV engine. But they most likely can tell the difference on how they perform.
Kudos to GM for implementing these new features in their 3.6L engine. I'm sure most consumers won't know or even care about the new technology, but they will appreciate the improvements in the engine. And that is important in the success of a car.
1. Fuel Efficiency of the car
2. Smoothness of the engine
3. Shift Quality of the transmission
4. Tightness or Softness of the ride
5. Acceleration around town and hwy driving
Customers are not stupid. That is why they are buying more car based SUVs now than the good old body on frame vehicles nowaday. Majority probably do not know that the RAV4 is the car-based vs. Explorer being a truck-based SUV. All they know that the RAV4 is easy on their pocket book as far as gas purchase is concerned. Those who buy Lexuses or Buicks, expect the dead quiet car environment. They do not care how both companies go about things
As auto engineers or executives, it is their duty to translate these simple requirements into the system design.
If someone says they expect 50 MPG and still meet California emission control standard in 2010 for example, car makers know that current Diesel engine design is out and Hybrid with OHC gas engine is more likely the only option.
GM is killing the legendary 3800 engine because more and more, it is tough for them to meet future emission control standard without doing an expensive redesign.
jt
If this was not a second car I would have gotten the 3.9 because I would use the car for long distance trips.
So on the Impala thumbs up or down?
Thanks
Fuel mileage seems to be less than advertised with the 5.3L and 3.9L but I haven't heard any complaints on the 3.5L. Seems to come down to priorities, power vs. efficiency. Driven at legal speeds, highway mileage gets close to the EPA numbers but most people drive faster and economy suffers.
That's my $.02.
IMHO the '06 Impala is a "best buy" in its LTZ and SS configurations in the sports sedan arena. I have nothing but praise for the Impala SS.
I was also thinking of the 2007 Toyota Camry (more money) but it appears at the moment there is major problems with the V6, 6 speed auto trans. Is it just me or are the Asian, Japanese cars over rated because they all seem to have major issues in the past and present.
The Asian cars are overrated, overhyped and overpriced. Take a gander at the new Camry and Lexus ES 350 boards and check out the comments on ongoing transmission issues, viz. hesitation. The 4-speed GM transmission does NOT hesitate. In the SS the power is right there and right NOW.
Take a look at the Acura TL boards where some owners complain bitterly about harmonic vibrations (a "feature" of the car), rattles, poor quality vinyl dashboard prone to early fading, poor quality leather prone to early cracking and stretching, etc. Or peruse the BMW and M-B boards to see the many complaints of technology guffaws such as i-Drive or poor mechanical reliability, and all at exaggerated premium prices.
The situation with the imports, including both the Japanese and the German, is that now that they have captured market share their quality is falling and they have become apathetic. This is the exact reverse of the situation which existed 20-30 years ago when the domestics which had market share had become lax and the imports, then struggling to "make it" in the domestic market, offered increasing reliability and value. This of course now makes the domestics the better buy as their reliability and value quotients have had to rise to fend off the competition and the two have essentially switched positions compared to previous.
There is a lag period in the market between realization of today's falling quality and the strong reputation of the past. The same phenomenon occurred with Mercedes-Benz. It took some time before that brand's dismal quality of today impacted the previous reputation of prior solidity and reliability built up over many years. Same for VW. Most buyers are not savy enough to peruse the internet to inform themselves of the experiences of present day buyers but these days in view of all the information available there is really less chance of making an uninformed decision.
Chevrolet Impala: Warranty/Extended Warranty
Thanks for your cooperation!
Good luck on that 25-27 mpg estimate. My GXP has made several long highway trips, the only time I came close to 25mpg was on a day with no headwind, and mostly flat roads. It is possible, maybe, if you keep it to 70mph or less, my mileage was 21-22 at about 80-83mph.
My highway/city mix is similar to yours, around 21.5 if the city driving is kept to about 20% or less of the fuel tank.
Not complaining, the GXP is a fun car. Just don't get sucked in by the sticker on the window and look for 28mpg.
Mike
Regards
Quig
Something I hadn't thought of...if your battery is in the rear, are there posts under the hood that would allow you to jump start the car from either the front or the rear? It'd actually be kind of nice if you could, since invariably when my battery goes dead I'm pulled into a spot, and you can't get cables to reach all the way around.
I could live with a Bose issue. I couldn't handle some message light every time I headed off somewhere. I trust the dealership/ service department that I work with and they assure me that if I trade this one off.......I want another Impala LTZ.
The service writer told me that mine is the only one that they have seen on a regular basis. One other one has had a few minor issues, but that this is the best overall car from his standpoint that Chevrolet puts out. The general manager says the same thing. It's just that they don't want my car.
This is the third Impala that I have owned. The '03 sold me after some issues with the first one (an '02). When someone asks now about my car, my answer is, "I love the car, but hate this particular one." It was pretty bad when the service people knew it was mine before they even saw the dropoff notice.
I am still not sure about the air conditioning, but it seems to at least be putting out cool air now, rather than the warm fan air from Memorial Day. That is also my frustration. It does something and then by the time it makes it to the shop there doesn't seem to be a problem.
I stated in an earlier post, on the mechanical issues I have learned to ask ONSTAR to run a diagnostic. (If they detect a problem they keep it in the system for 5 calls.) That way, when it is not in the car's memory, I have someone to back up what the stupid car was trying to tell me.
By the way, the gas mileage yesterday for strictly highway driving was 30+. It dropped to 24 when I added the in town driving needed, but needless to say, I was pleased.
I like it better in the trunk, personally.