Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Are you shopping for a new car and having a hard time finding what you want or did you recently buy a car but had to settle for something different than what you originally wanted? A reporter wants to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by 10/22 for more info.

Chevrolet Impala Real World MPG

Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,092
edited September 2014 in Chevrolet
This topic is for Impala owners to share and compare their actual MPG.

"Real World" Fuel Economy vs. EPA Estimates
«13

Comments

  • 02impalals02impalals Posts: 19
    I bought my 2002 LS car used from one of the well known rental companies. it had 27500 miles May 03 on it and it now has 37k.

    but my MPG has been fine.

    Average 22 mpg
    Low 19.5
    high 26
    median 22

    I only use regular 87 octane gas and mostly 76. Most of the dirving is in the city with Stop/n/go. Ive never taken the car on a road trip where ive used a whole tank of gas. But recently ive been getting 25 mpg with mostly city driving and going to school 2x/week. (approx 20~30 min drive @ 40~60 mph on freeway depending on traffic condition).
  • axel7axel7 Posts: 2
    I get about 23 mpg religiously. I have a 2001 STD Impala w/ about 87k miles. No leaks, no squeaks, nothing. My only complaint is that I am upside-down in the loan, probably like most people.
  • michel4michel4 Posts: 2
    I am seriously considering purchasing a 2003 or 2004 Impala with the 3.4L engine. My question to you owners is,

    WHAT SORT OF GAS MILEAGE ARE YOU GETTING?

    Please specify what year and engine size you have and whether you are giving highway, city or combine mileage.

    I will really appreciate your response!!
  • kwhittumkwhittum Posts: 12
    3.4L 2001 Impala.... 23.5 city MPG and 30MPG highway (trips traveling 65/75mph on cruise)
  • I have a 2001 Impala and it got 33 highway and 30 city brand new. Now it has 144,000 and gets about 26 highway. Not sure about the city.
  • 2003 Impala 9C1 police package, 3.8 V6... 41k miles when I got it, has about 65k (had it about a year)... I get about 22-24 around town... mostly about 23... I've gotten about 29-30 before on a trip (all interstate driving)... I was happy with that...
  • I have a 2004 Impala base, bought new Dec. 04 and now has 20,000 on it. I get 29-31 typically on the road, up to about 33 for the best; in town I get in the low 20s. I use brand name gas and occasionally fill with premium or mid grade. Coming across S. Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana where the only gas available was corn gas, 85.5 octane for regular, I got about 2-3 mpg less. Highway for me is 65-85 mph. I keep the tires at about 35lbs. I did my initial oil and filter at 1,000 miles. Last oil change I used synthetic and I plan to continue with synthetic oil, changing about every 5,000. I run a K&N air filter.
  • I bought a 2004 Impala with 8100 miles on the odometer in Oct 2004. Engine is the "base V-6" (3.4 liter). In my case I get no where near the EPA rating (no surprise there) which is 21 city and 32 highway. City driving gets me only 16-18 mpg and so far one trip has given a high of 26.3 mpg, however to be fair, most of that was mountainous with many upgrades and downgrades, so the tranny was shifting up and down most of the way. I am, therefore, assuming a trip across level interstates might return a 28-30 figure, but that is only an assumption at this point.
    So far the car has been reliable, has good performance and is smooth and quiet. I carry 32 psi in the tires, and change oil and filter at 3,000 mile intervals. My use of gasoline is generally wherever the price is lowest and I have noticed NO difference in performance or mileage regardless of the brand of gas (always 87 octane) used.
    It's a good car, but if mileage is important I'd consider the Malibu which is lighter and more fuel efficient. (I also understand the Malibu V-6 gets better mileage than its 4 cylinder counterpart).
  • Howdy, I'm in the market for a new Car. I tend to buy the engine first. I currently own a 2001 pontiac Grand prix GT. I has the 3.8 L 90 deg. V6. In the real world I get about 23 city and about 28 hwy. I love this car, It is a great combo of performance and economy. Plus it's durable I have about 197k miles on it and still going strong.

    I have driven the impala 06 with both the 3.5 and 3.9. I like the power with the 3.9 however I'm concerned about the milage Being a Gm/domestic buyer with 2k on my Gm card I will definately buy some gm product. So if you own an impala with either the 3.5 or 3.9. I would like to here about your (after breakin milage)

    Thanks

    Jfcnet (el Paso,tx)
  • I had a 2001 Monte Carlo SS that got great mileage close to the sticker (28-31 HWY) with great performance, fit/finish and handling! I felt I had to trade it at 100K as the warranty was up. The new Impala SS get's terrible mileage (22 tops expressway, no wind, no hills, no traffic, 69MPH average over 200 miles)! The mileage seem's to be stuck around 19-22 both in town and out. The driver and trips have not changed, just the car. The "EPA" sticker was virtually the same for both cars. The performance, like the mileage, is not as good as other choices. The fit and finish is bad as well along with bad heated seats, windshield washers, side and roof trim falling off, inner-fender wells gaping, etc. I have even had the folks at GM corporate here in MI involved (including the platform mgr. and a marketing person)! All I have gotten is gee that's too bad, don't you like the exhaust sound though. Is any body else getting this run around after paying good money? After 7K+ miles I really miss my old MC SS!
  • p100p100 Posts: 1,116
    Well, I have to mention this, but your SS has the same engine as my '06 Silverado crew cab 4X4 Z71 pickup. I get 15 MPG in town, 16-17 on the highway out of my truck. Impala SS, being more aerodynamic and much lighter, having the DOD system, and taller gearing, will probably get 5 MPG more. This is nothing abnormal. Large engine = lower fuel economy. I understand your frustration, because you are not getting the mileage anywhere near to what the sticker says. However, if you buy ANY car or truck with a 300+ HP engine, forget the upper 20's or low 30's. Low 20's at best.
  • I would have to agree and disagree with some of RealCarGuy's comments.

    In my SS, I'm averaging about 15 mpg in town driving. This is with 93 octane gas and a decent amount of "pushing the pedal down".... I am also not real happy with this number.

    I haven't taken many highway trips yet, but when I have I've averaged about 23-26 mpg with the cruise set on 68 most of the time.

    My car doesn't have ANY trim issues. Everything fits well, and nothing is falling off. Actually, after 2500 miles, I haven't had any problems with the car, including the seat heaters.

    Just like any car, it's possible to get a lemon. Not to belittle RealCarGuy's experience, but I don't think his SS is representative of the car in general.

    John
  • 2004 Impala LS, 13,000 miles, 3.8 V6. This is not my car, but my grandma's, and we both love to drive it! She usually averages 27-28 mpg normal driving. Lives in rural hilly area, so she's happy with those numbers. Took a trip to Kentucky, did about 350 miles worth of driving (interstate, city streets, hilly 2-lane byways). Got 31.3 mpg!! Couldn't be happier with a full-sizer that gets better than 30!!
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    I'm getting between 16.5 and 18 mpg with mixed driving. Comparing the actual mileage to the car's computer, is very close. The computer usually calculates about .5 mpg less than my calculations. It is within the margin of error since I can't be sure I'm getting an exact amount of fuel in the tank during fill-up. It's much more accurate than my '02 Monte Carlo SS. :)
  • wold_77wold_77 Posts: 3
    I am getting the same 16.5 to around 19 in town. On the freeway I can go about 325 miles on a tank of gas I think that adds up to around 21-23 mpg not what they claim on the sticker. I think it will take my grandfather driving the car to get the mileage they claim on the sticker!
  • zjimzjim Posts: 51
    Initially, I was a little disappointed with the mileage on my 3.9 Impala. I now have about 2500 miles on it and the mileage continues to improve. (So is the straight line performance) Most of my driving is suburban highways and streets, in relatively heavy traffic. When I first got the car it was getting only around 17.5 mpg, but I'm now up to 19+ mpg. This is with an occasional romp from the stoplight, just for kicks!! My wife and I took a short trip from Milwaukee to Chicago a couple of weeks ago. I filled up to the "brim" before we left, jumped immediately on the freeway, where we drove through several toll booths. The highway mileage to our destination was constantly in the 30 to 32 mpg range according to the computer. (Using manual mileage checks, I find that the computer's mileage is actually about 1/2 mpg lower than the actual.) We took a side trip to Northbrook, got lost in extreme stop and go traffic, and bucked a strong headwind on our return trip and still averaged just under 27 mpg by manual check. I'm very satisfied with those numbers!
  • I have a 05 Impala. The question I have is. I live in WI. but the car has California emission's on it. Should I exspect better , worse or the same mpg. then a standard emission car ?
    Right know the best I get on the hwy. with the curse lock at 69 is 25 mpg. not what I espected.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    Just thought I'd post an update and some tips. I just finished an 1,100 mile roadtrip and managed to squeak out just over 25 mpg (25.34) in my '06 SS. I experimented a lot on the trip and have found that I can usually keep DOD activated at speeds up to 75 mph by following almost any vehicle with up to a 3-5 second following distance. Obviously 18-wheelers have the largest wake but SUVs and other mid or full-size cars seem to create enough of a wake to maintain DOD activation. Even better, traveling behind a group of vehicles.

    I found that trying to keep the DOD engaged helped alleviate the stress I normally feel when people insist on driving side-by-side and blocking the passing lane. :)
    Some may think I'm following too closely but I assure you, I was keeping a more-than-adequate following distance, usually 2 to 3 seconds. The hardest part was finding someone travelling at a consistent speed although I was usually able to find a "buddy" or two traveling at 75 mph. A final note, I could even maintain up to 80 mph (with DOD) as long as I had a large truck or group of cars to follow or even intermix with. But, not many seem to use their cruise control consistently over 75 mph.

    My experimenting helped keep me occupied during the long and boring stretch of I-10 between Pensacola and Jacksonville, FL. It also kept me from getting too heavy-footed. :D
  • I agree!! I have an 05 std v-6 that is only getting 22mpg freeway? YEP, me too,, I went the same, about 320 miles on that tank. So far Im very disappointed. My city driving is a bit lower than that. I tested it.. Filled my tank and hit the freeway on a trip I had to make, and that was my result. Not sure if its the fact that Im going 78mph or what? I have it on cruise. Not at all what I was told at the dealership.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    That does sound a little low. Were you driving with windows up? With or without AC? Was the vehicle loaded with extra weight? Hilly or flat terrain? All of those factors can make a difference and there may be another one or two I'm forgetting. Keep in mind the EPA rating is based on a much slower 60 or 65 mph.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    I rented a 2006 Impala over the weekend to make the drive to Indianapolis for the 500 (which was great despite the heat). We stopped for gas somewhere north of Cairo, IL on the way there, and because the Illinois State Police were enforcing the 65MPH speed limit pretty heavily, I set the cruise control at 65 and left it there. According to the DIC we were getting 35 MPG as we crossed into Indiana, so I exited in Terre Haute and filled it up to see how accurate that was. We'd driven 174 miles at an average speed (per the DIC) of 64 MPH, on 4.836 gallons of fuel, which figures out to 35.98 MPG!! And that's with the AC on the entire trip (exterior temps were in the mid-80s as I recall). This car had @ 22k miles on it (which had been put on in the past 8 months), so it was well broken in which probably helped.

    The best mileage I've ever gotten in my 3.8l 2000 Impala was @ 34 MPG, and that was driving @ 60 MPH in the Arkansas Delta (absolutely flat) with no AC (temps in the 50s), so getting 36 MPG with the AC on in the rolling hills of southern Illinois was darn impressive.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    You didn't mention which model Impala you rented. I'm assuming an LS or LT with the 3.5L engine?
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    It was an LT w/the 3.5L engine. I've got the specifics for each tank at home, and will try to remember to post them here later tonight. Being accustomed to the 3.8L engine I thought the 3.5L might disappoint me, but only once did I feel the car was a little underpowered. At one point I was merging onto the Interstate in front of a semi and I didn't feel quite as confident about it as I might in my 3.8L, but I think this was more of a lack of torque than a lack of horsepower/speed (I made it in front of the semi anyway :) ).
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    Okay, here are the specifics on my brief stint with a 2006 Impala LT (3.5L):
    Fill #1-338.7 miles-11.824 gallons-28.65 MPG-avg 65.9 MPH
    Fill #2-174.0 miles- 4.836 gallons-35.98 MPG-avg 64.0 MPH
    Fill #3-257.0 miles- 9.594 gallons-26.79 MPG-avg 42.6 MPH
    Fill #4-437.0 miles-13.683 gallons-31.94 MPG-avg 65.8 MPH
    Fill #5-227.0 miles- 8.054 gallons-28.18 MPG-avg 47.0 MPH
    Total 1433.7 miles-47.991 gallong-29.87 MPG

    As indicated by the speed average (per the DIC), fills 1, 2, and 4 were 100% highway driving; 3 & 5 were a mix of highway and city (skewed heavily towards highway). AC was on for the duration as best I remember.

    For comparison, the best mileage we've gotten in my wife's 2003 Accord 4-cylinder was 38.83 MPG, but that was in January, so we certainly weren't running the AC at that point. :)

    I think the EPA estimate highway is 31 for this car/engine; based on my experience that's a pretty accurate figure.
  • zizithzizith Posts: 11
    The mileage is slowly getting better on this LT 3.5: 26.1 with mostly highway miles, but also some city traffic. My husband says it may get better as the engine loosens up. I hope so. May post later after a few thousand miles. AC on. (AC never pulled down my mileage in my 98 Chevy Venture, but winter driving did.) :)
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    I don't think I mentioned it earlier, but the rental Impala I drove to Indianapolis turned over 22,000 miles on it during the trip, so it was well broken in - hopefully that's an indication of things to come for everyone!
  • deminindeminin Posts: 214
    We have about 10,000 miles on our LTZ/3.9L now, and the fuel mileage has stabilized to an average of around 27.5 MPG. about 85% of our driving is highway, and I have recorded 29.3 as the best, so far, holding steady at 68 MPH on the interstate.
    A few weeks ago, I let the car have a run coming across Kansas. Traffic was light, and I ran about 200 miles between 85 and 90, and got 26.5MPG. That is quite good, in my opinion, for that speed. Luckily, I had a guy in a BMW running about 1/2 mile ahead of me at that speed, and the cops finally got him just west of Salina. I stopped, gassed up, and came the rest of the way at the speed limit.
    The LTZ handles great at 90!
  • dispencer1dispencer1 Posts: 489
    Back in the spring before I had to run the AC full blast in this 90-100 degree weather I was getting about 20-22 around town (LT2). This is a small town where you normally drive 30-45 mph and stop only at stop signs and lights. No bumper to bumper traffic, I'm now lucky to get 18. Really disappointing. I did lots better than this with my 3.1 litre Malibu. My Deville isn't much worse. I get around 15-16 with it. I guess the answer is to get a 4 cylinder Malibu. I'll do that next time or sell both the Caddy and the Impala and get one Avalon. That will save a lot of money and get better gas mileage than either car so says a friend with a new one.
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    Does anyone have any knowledge or know of any data posted on fuel consumption during idle? I was "forced" to wait an hour today with the engine idling. I hated doing it but had no choice. While I sat there and stewed, I wondered just how much fuel I was burning. If anyone has any idea, please pass along the info. I know consumption will vary by engine, possibly by other conditions such as temperature, AC use, etc. but I wanted to get an idea.
  • wremotewremote Posts: 2
    I have a 06 Impala LT 3.5l with 3000 Miles on it. I get 26 MPG US mixed, and 32 MPG US Highway. I Expect better once I have more miles on it!!! Had A Saturn ION Quad Coup that did slightly better.(29/34) I'll Take the Impala any Day
  • quigquig Posts: 16
    I just bought a new Impala Lt 3.5 the book says break in at 500 miles should not the break in be a little more than that. and what speed should I drive it at for a good break in.
    Thanks
    Quig
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    The most important thing to avoid is driving at one constant speed for an extended period of time. Don't use your cruise control, and stay off Interstates if you can. I'd probably avoid driving over 60MPH if possible...maybe take a long trip over the holiday on a two-lane backroad somewhere! :)
  • quigquig Posts: 16
    Thanks Nosirrahg
    Quig.
  • zizithzizith Posts: 11
    On straight highway driving I get 32 + a tenth or two, and 26 in town averaging about 28. I wanted to downsize from the minivan due to the gas prices (and with the middle east thing getting shakier again, it will go up some more.) Going 70 mpg drops it down to 28mpg.

    I am pleased with the mileage--after reading so many posts in edmunds, I was beginning to think that nothing but Toyotas and Hondas could get good gas mileage. I was brought up in a junk yard in Iowa, and learned to prefer Chevys, and I still do; they have usually served me VERY well over the years.

    This one is white with lots of pinks stripes and decals, so if you ever see one like that, please wave, as there probably aren't many out there with that color combo. zmartha :):)
  • quigquig Posts: 16
    Hi question I bought a new 3.5 Lt 2 at what mileage point did you start driving over 60 to 70 MPH highway driving.(What was your mileage break in point)

    Thank you
    Quig
  • prigglypriggly Posts: 642
    I am pleased with the mileage--after reading so many posts in edmunds, I was beginning to think that nothing but Toyotas and Hondas could get good gas mileage.

    I have a new SS which has less than 1,700 miles on the odometer and am currently getting 31-32 miles per US gallon at a steady 60 mph on the highway. In the city the mileage is 17-18 mpg. These numbers are exactly in line or better than EPA estimates. The car is simply great and I could not be happier with it!
  • timothyawtimothyaw Posts: 148
    60 mph?? That's pretty slow on todays American freeways! You'll get ran over, literally! With that big V8, you're wasting it only going 60!

    Toyota's and Honda's get low to mid 30's going 70, 75!
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    Toyota's and Honda's get low to mid 30's going 70, 75!

    Yeah, and it only takes them twice as long to get up to that speed. :D
  • bxdbxd Posts: 186
    I don't have any hard data, but I can help you think this through somewhat. Would be nice if someone could find some manufacturer's data on it.

    Take car "A", gets 30mph on the highway, like the Impala. That means about 2 gallons per hour burned. Now that is at about 3 times the RPM of simply idling.

    So one hour of idling would consume 2/3 gallon of gas IF the engine load was similar. Which it isn't - even if the AC is on the engine has it easy just idling compared to going down the highway.

    So my (admittedly rough) guess would be about 1/2 gallon of gas per hour of idling. Maybe I'm missing some other factor that someone will point out, but I think RPMs and engine load (which affects fuel injector duty cycles) pretty much sums up gas usage.
  • giltrdngiltrdn Posts: 2
    I have been making myself crazy trying to figure out what kind of car to buy. Currently I have a Cadillac DTS and with my 90% in city driving i get between 10 & 12 mpg. I have been toying with the SS because of the cylinder shut down in stop and go traffic, but i can't seem to get a real handle on how substantial my mileage will increase over my caddy. HELP!!!....
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    I have an acquaintance with an '06 SS and he drives very short distances. He gets around 14 mpg. I drive stop and go ranging from 60 mph down to stop and go and average about 16 mpg. You can squeeze out decent mileage if you can manage to keep your foot out of the accelerator but it's difficult. The SS sounds so good it's hard to resist. :)
  • Just figured I add to the discussion since I own 2 Impalas.

    My 2002 LS with a 3.8 does 30 - 32 MPG on the Highway even at 75 MPH and with the A/C on. It has been this way since the break in mileage, to now with 67,000 on it. I get around 25 to 27 city and highway. I use 89 octane, it is dog with 87!

    Compare that to the 2006 LT3 with the 3.9 which I now have 7,000 miles on. It does 27 MPG on the highway and 22 to 24 city and highway. Same speeds, same octane, same conditions.

    Even though there is not a big difference in engine displacement, I attribute this big difference and decrease in MPG for the 2006 to the way the transmission is set up for shifting. The 2006 shifts down at relatively slower speeds than the 2002. If I want the 2002 to down shift I have to put a decent amount of pressure on the pedal, where it takes only slight pressure for the 2006 to down shift. Fact is that the 2006 is going to down shift whether I like it or not, where as the 2002 I can regulate better with my foot. Fact is, I like the way the 2002 shifts compared to the 2006.

    Also, the transaxle gearing (or what was known as the rear end in the rear wheel drive cars) is different on the 2006.

    The 2002 is at about 2,000 RPM at 65 - 72 MPH where the 2006 is at about 2,300 RPM at the same speed.

    Maybe with the new 3.9 engine they had to use different shift points and gear it differently?

    Any comments are welcome.
  • Your 2002 3.8 LS has a 3.05 final drive ratio, compared to a 3.29 for the 2006 3.9 LT3/LTZ. That alone can account for up to 10% diffence in highway mileage.
  • oldharryoldharry Posts: 413
    With the 3.8, the wife gets 19 to 22 mpg around town, depending on weather (better in summer). On trips to our son's place, 150 miles all hyway or expressway, we get between 27 and 31. The computer is within .1 mpg of fill up calculations, and one trip recorded 29.4 ave mpg / 78.9 ave mph. I was very satisfied with this economy at this speed, the needle passed 90 on some stretches.

    The 96 Lumina 3.1 we had before did slightly better on fuel, but the performance of the 3.8 is good enough to be worth the change.

    Harry
  • I am pondering on whether to purchase the SS with the V8 or the LTZ with the 3.9 L V6. I am commuting approx. 30 miles to work each day and would use this vehicle for commuting.

    I have read postings regarding gas mileage on the SS and how it compares to the V6's. I love the V8 and the idea of owning the SS. Given a total commute of approx. 60 miles each day that is mostly rural driving (not highway), will the gas mileage difference from the V8 to the V6's make a significant enough impact from an expense perspective?

    I currently have a 1999 Grand Prix with a 3.8L V6, gas mileage has been average at best.

    I would appreciate any responses. Your responses will have a significant impact on my decision. Thank You.
  • bxdbxd Posts: 186
    Hi-
    It would help to have a little more info about your commute. Average speed? Lots of stops?

    However, from the tone of your comment about your Grand Prix, you don't seem too happy about the gas mileage you get with it. Is it supercharged?

    Even if it is, an SS will be WORSE on gas than your Grand Prix. So if you're not happy with the Grand Prix the SS is out of the question. Actually even the LTZ might be too much engine if you have a normally aspirated 3.8 and want better mileage... might be looking at a 3.5 then.

    Maybe your GP isn't running up to snuff? Low 20s in city driving and high 20s in highway driving is what you should expect from it.
  • My average commute speed is approx. 60 mph. There are two stops through smaller towns. My Grand Prix is the normally aspirated 3800 V6 with 200 HP. My average MPG in the city ranges 12-17 and approx. 21-23 on the highway (approx. 65 MPH).

    I realize the new Impala SS has an EPA of 18 and 27. Just wondering how realistic this is. My driving is fairly steady at optimal mpg levels. At the very least, given the above information, I don't want to backslide for a mileage perspective if I purchase the SS.

    Any comments are appreciated.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    FWIW as I'm considering replacements for my 2000 Impala w/3.8l, I played around in Excel and took the EPA MPG figures for the car (which I think were 20 city/30 highway) and adjusted the percentage of each until it equaled my overall average in the car - which was somewhere around 22.5 MPG, and meant @ 60% city driving and 40% highway. I can then plug in the city/highway figures of other cars at the same ratios, and figure I get a pretty accurate depiction of what a new car would deliver, based on the way I drive.

    You can also do this at www.fueleconomy.gov...find your car and do a comparison with others; there's a small-print link that allows you to adjust the % of city/highway driving to get an apples-to-apples comparison. In my case I'm averaging 23 MPG, and the 2007 Impalas would deliver 24 w/3.5, 23 w/3.9, and 21 w/5.3 (indicating the 3.9 should be comparable to the 3.8).
  • quietproquietpro Posts: 702
    Here's the best I can offer. I used to own an '02 Monte Carlo SS with the 3800. With it, my daily commute would get me 18-20mpg. Some days it was an easy commute with just a few stops and 55-60 mph. Other days, a lot of stop and go and maybe 45 mph max.

    I now own on '06 Impala SS and get between 16-18 mpg on the same commute. So, for your commute, it would be safe to say you'd get about 2 mpg less with the SS than you are with your GP.

    Highway mileage was pretty similar. I got 26 mpg consistently at 75 to 80. With the SS, about 24 mpg.

    Hopefully this helps you. BTW, the SS can run on premium or regular but I've noticed no difference in mileage with either fuel.
  • bobber1bobber1 Posts: 217
    My 2002 with the 3800 now has 147,000 miles on it. It averages about 26 mpg per year on 75% highway and 25% town driving. It will get close to 30 mpg on road trips and 22 to 23 in town. Great car with almost no repairs and it still doesn't burn any oil and original brakes.

    I'm looking at getting a new Impala this fall. I've driven both the 3.5 and 3.9 engine and the 3.9 wins easily in the fun to drive category but I am just a bit concerned about the mileage. I want the stability control system and it looks like the only way I'll get it is with the 3.9 engine.
This discussion has been closed.