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

2006 Chevrolet Impala

1…5253555758…68

Comments

  • jz68jz68 Member Posts: 61
    There is an unfinished lot where I work that is the cause of my problems. The thing is, I had a Chevy S-10 for six years and parked in the same area with no scratches at all.
  • quietproquietpro Member Posts: 702
    Yeah...I think it is the combination of the design along with the presence of the abrasive dust. The window seals probably don't clean themselves (with wind/rain/etc) like other designs do. The only thing I would suggest is maybe washing the car more often or at least spraying down the windows regularly to clean out the excess dust.
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    I live in New Jersey, we get our fair share of snow..matter of fact it may snow tonite.....anyway , my advice?..Stay home!!!...don't go anywhere!!! :P ......but should you absolutely have to go out in it...like if your wife is going to have a baby ;) ...then by all means drive carefully and enjoy your Impala......make sure the traction control is on!!!
  • mymittiesmymitties Member Posts: 242
    Hi there Clark..

    Geeeeezzzzz, you got to be kidding !!.........Snow in central Texas...???? !!!! " Deep in the HEART OF TEXAS "
    And, What happened to all that global warming stuff..??

    Anyway.... Ya , we get our fair share here in Toronto, but certainly nothing like they get in Buffalo, NY or Niagara Falls, etc.
    Some of our snow falls here were up to about 5-6 inches this year. Not tooooo bad...!! But, We sure had more than our fair share of extremely fridged days ..!!
    On the positive side, the beauty here is that the snow is almost gone in a day or two. So, when I do need to drive in it, I honestly had no trouble at all with my Goodyear Eagle RS-A's (235/50-18). You should be just fine at this point..
    Obviously, you do have to compensate for the winter driving conditions by yes driving slower and more carefully. I will say as much as I prefer RWD, that front wheel vehicles are very good in the snow here

    Frank ;)
    Ps. What I do hate here is all the salt and sand they use on our roads. While it does melt the ice and snow and makes it safer to drive, you can image what my Black beauty looks like after a snow fall. Yuuuuuuuuk..!!! :sick:
  • garsarnogarsarno Member Posts: 72
    In Northeast PA, I'm washing my black 2007 Impala SS three times per week. My mailman commented on my washing the SS this past Wednesday and I told him "it's a black thing - you wouldn't understand". He laughed and laughed. Coming from three white vehicles to two black and one dark blue, it can be exhausting but I thiought I knew that going in.
  • mymittiesmymitties Member Posts: 242
    Hey garsarno...

    I know exactly what you mean here. My Black '06 seems to get a wash every other day..!! Gee, I told my wife exactly the same thing, but guess what...she didn't Laugh...!!! :sick:
    With her silver-grey car, she just doesn't understand..
    Oh well, there's nothing like a high gloss black car when it's clean. :blush:

    Enjoy your ride...
    Frank ;)
  • cnwcnw Member Posts: 105
    I had a black VW GTI back in the 80s. I understand the constant washing. It's a never-ending process with those colors. I now use a California Duster during the sumer to keep the dust from accumulating and creating the need as frequently. It works great. We've got three vehicles in the family: '99 GMC Sonoma--pewter; '03 Pontiac Montana--red; and '06 Impala--silver. Sometimes I think the red one is easier to keep clean. Yes--I favor General Motors vehicles. The Sonoma has a 2.2 liter 4-cylinder that I would like to swap for a small block Chevy one day. Have to steal it back from my 17 year old daughter in order to do that. She loves the 5-speed manual tranny; most guys can't drive one but she has learned a lot of the tricks with it.
    Clark
  • jz68jz68 Member Posts: 61
    Washing the vehicle every day wouldn't even solve the problem. I've let it sit at work for a few hours only to come out and find a bunch of particles sitting on the edge of the seal.
  • mymittiesmymitties Member Posts: 242
    Hi there Clark..

    You know , the only times I really tried the California Duster on my Street Machines was back in '89 on my Black 5.0 Mustang, and then again in '94 on my Red Z28 SS Camaro. Back then, both experiences left me wondering what the heck all the hipe was about... Personally, I thought it left too much dust behind for my liking, and I really wasn't a happy camper with some of the fine lines it left on the Black paint of the Mustang over time. You know how unforgiving Black can be without water..!!! I don't know Clark, maybe I was using it incorrectly, if that's possible, or I was just expecting tooooo much from the Duster.....
    Any way, I wonder if I should give it another try on my Black Impala.. I have to admit, I'm still a little bit nervous here..!!



    Thanks...
    Frank ;)
  • bh0001bh0001 Member Posts: 340
    I've used the California Car Duster on my previous Navy Blue '01 Impala and on my current Black '06 Impala LTZ. I really like it.

    I only use it after I've done my "spring cleaning" on the car - the full Zaino process. Once that's done I use the duster only to remove dust. If there are watermarks etc, I wash the car. The duster works great for what the name says.

    The only problem I had was I tried to dust my LTZ with the sunroof open and I got grease on the duster, so I had to throw it out (definitely not the fault of the product - strictly user-error). A brand new duster can leave a bit of parafin wax on the car, but it washes off easily the next wash. Once you've used the duster a couple of times it's great. It's true that the dirtier it gets, the better it seems to work. Just make sure you give it a really good shake between every wipe.
  • cnwcnw Member Posts: 105
    Frank--My experience has been the same as Brad discusses in this posting. I will admit that I was skeptical at first also, and also that a lighter car--mine is silverstone silver--doesn't have as much tendency to show dust except at an extreme viewing angle. Like Brad, I just use it for light dust--the heavier stuff and water-marks, etc get a thorough washing.
    Clark
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    Nope, hav'nt seen one other "06-07 SS here in Jersey...it's not like Jersey doesn't have the population!!..I've seen a couple of LT's , no SS's though.....I'm beginning to think the SS is /will be a rare breed and rarity increases value!!! :shades:
  • quietproquietpro Member Posts: 702
    Bryan,
    Not a lot of them here in SC, either. I saw another Ebony/Black one owned by a guy that worked about 5 blocks away from me on the base just after I bought mine but he must've moved away. Now, there's a guy with a Silverstone Metallic that works in the next building at my new job. Other than those two, I've only seen one other Impala SS on the road in SC and 1 on the road in WV. I have only seen 1 Monte Carlo SS on the road so those must be EXTREMELY rare(of course I'm only referring to the '06/'07 models).
    I agree with you, we are indeed a rare breed. ;)

    Ron
  • gocasskingsgocasskings Member Posts: 30
    I ran across a letter that I received a couple of months ago from the dealership. It explained that there was no need to change the oil in the normal 3-4 thousand mile fashion, but rather based on the monitor. (The light comes on at 4% as someone posted as a reply to you---mine came on last week.) Further, it states in the letter that it is important to change the oil within 600 miles of that warning to protect the system--as is stated in the manual. By following the monitoring system I have 23,000 miles on my car and have changed oil 3 times.

    I know that many of you follow the old advice, but since it isn't good for the environment or my budget, I will follow the monitor and continue to milk the system for the miles I can.
  • garsarnogarsarno Member Posts: 72
    Not many here in Northeast PA. Friend has a 2006 Impala SS in White / Gray interior but that's it. Local dealer still has three in stock (white, black and red) since early January. Would not deal on them so I purchased my '07 black SS from another dealer closer to my home. But, there were not too many in the sixties either. For more info, there are some interesting Impala websites: naioa.com and newimpala.com
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    There are lots of used 06 SS cars right across the country on autotrader.com for very good prices. There is a nice loaded 06 SS on ebay 9,000 miles $21,900 buys it!

    Rare might be a term used if there is no more production of a certain model that is in very high demand, but as long as they are making the SS their value depreciates nearly as fast as the LS/LT/LTZ models. I believe I read recently that the Impala SS production/demand is about 18% of total Impalas sold.
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    The SS was 9% of the total production of 200,000 Impalas for "06...approx. 18,000 .......
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    According to GM, Chevrolet sold 289,868 Impalas for 2006. There is another site that says 290,432. A few months back I was on a GM website and Ed Peper Chevrolets general manager said 2006 Impala SS sales were 18% of the total impala sales for the calendar year 2006. Higher then expected. 2005 Impala SS sold about 10% of total Impala sales.

    Autotrader has several used LOADED 2006 Impala SS cars asking price $21-$22,000, even a few under $20,000. Could probably make a deal for $18,000- $19,000. 2008 Impala production starts in 2 months.

    I have been driving only chevys since 1969. Proud owner of a 2001 LS, 1964 red/red Impala SS loaded 327, and a 1963 black/black Impala SS 409/425hp. Will purchase a 1 year old 2007 SS in a few months, hopefully for around $20K. The bargains are out there.
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    :confuse: there weren't any Impala Super Sports in 2005....
  • mymittiesmymitties Member Posts: 242
    Hey Charts...Real nice collection you have there..!!

    Obviously, you love your Chevies... An SS Impala 409/425 hp ...Wow..!!!!!
    Ya, I've said it before, I know... I'm still kicking myself for getting rid of my '69 chevelle 427/425 hp
    from GM. :cry:

    Frank ;)
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    The first FWD Impala SS came out in 2004. It was a supercharged 3.8 V6, same as the 05 SS. Style changed for 2006 with 5.3 V8. Check out Ebay or Google. I took out a 2004 Impala SS when they first arrived. Black was the only color you could get.

    GMs Bob Lutz just announced today April 10th that the RWD large Impala replacement is now on hold. Lutz also indicated that they have not confirmed that the name Impala would go on a RWD sedan as previously stated. GM states that with government higher CAFE numbers and much more stringent emissions coming for 2010 GM would not be able to comply with a heavier RWD full sized car at this time and meet the new laws for emissions reductions. High performance cars for 2010/11 could be hit with up to a $5,000 emissions tax he says, and most purchasers would not be willing to pay for that. Lutz indicated it was too late to put the Camaro on hold. It will arrive in dealerships in eary 2009. Thats big news!
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    I have driven the 2006 SS. Nice car! I am sure my 63 would equal or better 1/4 mile times/speed of the FWD SS. It has 4:11 gears. Probably runs low/mid 13s.

    The 63 SS is very primitive to todays SS cars. It goes great in a straight line but cornering is terrible. Brutal on gas. Sunoco 94 only. 8-10 miles to the gallon (OUCH!) but great memories for me.
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    So your saying there was an SS in 2005? A production model Super sport in 2005?...we're not talking a concept, were talking production.....if so , how many were made?
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    Yeah, they had them...but they were equal to the SS packages you bought back in the 60's to make anything an SS....The 04-05 SS's weren't "true" Super Sports...of course then again , the only True ones were in the 60's.......the 94-96"s were "beefed up' Caprices.....
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    Off topic. Production cars, 2004 Impala SS 2005 Impala SS. 3.8 supercharged V6. The SS cars came with monochrome black paint with the name Impala SS in vinyl letters along the front doors. Please google 2004 or 2005 Impala SS and you will see them. They came in black only. 17" wheels. They all had a special gauge package as well. You can see them on ebay and in every used auto trader magazine. Production was about 20,000 for each year. Three Impala models in 2004 & 05.....base model, LS, and SS.
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    I guess were going to have to start calling the the new Cobalts .."Super Sports" now too!! GM is using the term "SuperSport ' to loosely...
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    Charts, that is big news.....I had my doubts that GM would come out with a full size RWD.....Looks like the 06-09 Impala Supersports might be the last.....last of the"Impala Super Sports"
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    Just looked that up ..the 409/409 in "62 was 14.9 in the qtr....the new 5.3 is 14.7
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    Its all over the news today. Google: chevrolet news and read all the posts regarding this information.

    Bob Lutz indicated today that the future RWD Impala is now on hold, until they figure out if its possible to build the car to meet the stringent Emission/Cafe standards coming in a few years. GM indicated the RWD car could be a much as 30% heavier then the current model. If they don't build it I can see the Impala continuing as a FWD but refreshed and made larger to not be so close in size to the new revised 2008 malibu thats coming out in a few months.

    Interesting times!
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    I have seen tests from 62 with a 62 SS 409 with 4.56 gears running 14.02. Thats with skinny 14" wheels and nylon tires. Restrictive mufflers back then were terrible. A few tweaks could make these cars run in the 12s. 409s though was not a reliable engines. Most guys blew them up within a year.

    The things that held these cars back as compared to a 2006 Impala SS were the skinny 5 1/2" wide nylon tires, carburators that are no match for todays fast fuel injection, and slow shifting transmissions.

    They held their own in 62 and 63 but by 64 Ford/Mopar had figured out their own performance needs and chevy was left in the dust.
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    30% heavier?...Ouch!! !...You would need 600 Horse power to move that thing!!
  • white6white6 Member Posts: 588
    Lutz stated that they don't know how to get 30% better gas mileage out of large RWD car, therefore RWD Impala program is on hold. This is due to the recent government call for 30% higher CAFE standards by 2016 and the Supreme Court ruling on allowing CO2 to be defined as a green house emission and therefore fall under regulation of the EPA exhaust emission standards.
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    I might be wrong on 30% heavier. The CAFE numbers are suppose to increase by 4% per year. I believe for cars right now it is fleet average of 27.5 mpg. The current 2006/07 Impalas meet the standards. By the time the new Impala was to come out and years after GM would have to increase their fleet MPG by 30%. With the Impala scheduled to be larger and heavier RWD it would be near impossible to meet those numbers with out paying a huge penalty for emissions on each of these vehicles sold. Large cars by Ford/DC will be in the same mess. Remember any small cars that GM imports such as the Aveo does not help in the factor of average fleet MPG. The Aveo is built in Korea.
  • white6white6 Member Posts: 588
    This would not apply to cars built outside N.A., so it seems all this might do is shift more vehicle production overseas. Just what the country needs! The forthcoming Pontiac G8 (same basic Global RWD chassis as the future Impala) would not be affected, as it would be built in Australia.
  • garsarnogarsarno Member Posts: 72
    I remember the following Impala SS cars in the Buffalo, NY area when I was growing up:

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

    1965 - A light purple metallic color?

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

    1968 - A teal metallic convertible with white bucket seats and top. 427 / Automatic / AC / chromed factory rallye wheels with whitewalls. Could have bought the car for $800 in great shape except for the spun bearing in the motor. Shoulda / coulda but "Dad" said it was a waste of money.
  • colchester47colchester47 Member Posts: 261
    maroon with black int. was popular for that year..it was probably a 3 on the tree..
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    With the 2008 Malibu growing to almost the size of the current Impala, I can't see Chevy offering two FWD cars that similar (both in size and price). Methinks if the RWD Impala dies, the Impala dies (at least for the short-term).
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    I hope you are wrong. This isn't GMs fault. For the past couple years GM has actually been building cars that people want 2006 Impala SS, Solstice, etc. and with new exciting products in the pipeline better times were coming. Lutz said today doing the math not meeting the future CAFE/EMISSION standards large cars can be levied up to a $5,000 surtax each. Don't be surprised if the Camaro isn't axed even though its along its way. GM said the Camaro couldn't make it on its own. Hopefully the 2006-09 Impala SS cars won't be the last. That would be disaster for Chevy. Back to the drawing board!
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    I hope it doesn't happen too...I'm trying to stretch the life of my 2000 Impala for at least a couple more years until I can see the 2010 Impala on the horizon, and then choose between it or the new Malibu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Maybe I'm just getting older, but I'm pretty sure my next car won't even have a sunroof...I figure in a rollover a solid roof would be better than one with a hole in the middle of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles