Howdy, Stranger!

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

If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

2006 Chevrolet Impala



  • charts2charts2 Posts: 618
    My point about the leg/foot room is if someone in the front has the seat all the way back, and many people over your height do the foot room is noticeably smaller then the previous 00-05 Impalas. Check out the bolstered seats in the 2006 Pontiac GXP. I know a lot of car testers have indicated that the SS should have front seats with more side support. Maybe in 2007 they will address this. I have seen a lot of 2006 Impalas lately. GM indicates that they are slowly reducing the number of their vehicles sold to fleet. Down to 30% for the 2006 model year, this might help resale value down the road on these cars.
  • Yeah, I will agree with that, if I put my seat all the way back the rear leg room is a little tight. I've actually never been in an older Impala however, so I can't compare my 06' to anything else. I needed the width of the back seat to accomodate my three car seats, that's where it's pretty good.

    I actually thought about the Grand Prix, but I'm not really crazy about the way it looks. I really like the clean look of the Impala.

    Plus, I'm not sure the Grand Prix has the I-pod input on the radio like the Impala, I couldn't find any information about this on the web page.

    It's a moot point now, I bought the Impala SS and I'm VERY happy with the car. I really look forward to driving the car whenever I get the chance.

  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    The thing with the La Crosse was more than numbers: they didn't look too bad on paper (37.6"), but actually seating there it was disappointingly small.

    The Impala sports the same measure, but I hope that the shape of the seats perhaps makes a difference.
  • I am 6'2" and when trying to sit in the back seat of a new SS I could not get out, my feet became wedged between the left and right seat adjusters. There is no room to turn your foot side ways to get out, you must lift up. Such a nice design on the outside but useless on the inside, very disap :sick: pointing
  • tina5tina5 Posts: 11
    I finally took delivery of my new Impala LTZ on Wednesday. So far I have only put 75 miles on it. But I'm very pleased with the car. It handles very well and I think the interior is just awesome, especially the radio controls on the steering wheel. That makes life so much easier. And I know I'll use the heating in the seat every morning. It feels so good. I really really love this car. Tried out the built-in phone, hehehe, just for the fun of it. Anyway, the only thing I find a little bit annoying is (like others mentioned before) the static on the radio. If this is such a great radio why does it produce the static sound. It just shouldn't be there. It bothers me. Hopefully they come out with a fix at some point in time.
  • jpstax1jpstax1 Posts: 197
    [quote]Where did you read the DOD has problems? I haven't heard about any problems on the Chrysler system, so I figured maybe they (the collective automobile world) has worked out the problems this time around. Honda even has one on its minivan.[unquote]

    I swear I read a post somewhere from an '06 SS owner. He complained his car was occasionally stalling. He said the dealer's mechanic traced it to the engine's DOD system. I searched all the forums I usually read, but can't fine it. I'll keep searching. If I do end up buying one next spring, I'll be sure to get the extended warranty like you suggested. Added insurance in case the DOD fails.
  • See message 553 in this thread. They talk about their SS stalling but don't say the DOD is causing the problem.
  • zjimzjim Posts: 51
    I'm going to definitely be buying an '06 Impala. I'd like to buy the SS, but I'm concerned about the gas mileage, especially considering that it burns premium fuel. What say ye who owns one?
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Don't have to use premium, V8 runs on regular ok. Just a few less HP.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    I'm only 5 11" but I found the back seat not much worse than any other midsize. Only car I have seen with an amazing back seat is the Malibu Maxx.
  • charts2charts2 Posts: 618
    Edmunds has done a full road test of the 2006 Impala SS. They indicate that the Impala is 9.3" longer them an Accord but less then half inch better leg room front/rear. The Impala also has a wheelbase 2.6" longer then the Accord. The gas mileage numbers are poor, check them out, Edmunds. Motor trend also indicates poor fuel economy with the SS. The LTZ is probably a better all around value. Just my opinion.
  • zjimzjim Posts: 51
    I realize that you don't HAVE to use premium, but I'd I like to talk to someone who owns one to get the real world figures. Using regular grade fuel will probably cause the computer to serve up a less efficient engine management program, due to pinging, which will result in lower mileage figures. Any savings by using the regular fuel will be lost. When magazines such as Motor Trend and even Edmunds give mileage figures, they are figures based on their aggresive driving tactics, including drag strip times, 0-60 runs, slalom runs, panic stops, road course speed runs, etc., etc. . . . Not "normal" driving situations by any measure. Do you own an SS? If so, have you checked your mileage for day to day driving situations? Anyone out there have any info? :confuse:
  • Quick question for the '06 Bose Premium upgrade owners: Did you receive a separate "Bose Owner Manual" supplement?

    I've seen one or more references to this manual (e.g., see p. 14 in the "Getting to Know Your 2006 Impala", which is like a quick start guide). My salesman says he's never seen a separate Bose manual delivered with the Impala, and referred me back to this quick start guide.

    Just trying to determine if there is one, and whether I need to call GM myself to get it.
  • tina5tina5 Posts: 11
    I didn't get a seperate manual for the Bose system either.

    Quick question to you: Do you also have the static noise at low volume on the Bose radio ? Many people complained about it and I can hear it on my radio too.
  • Thanks tina5. I get the hiss too, see my prior post (#825) in this forum.

    I rarely have it that low, as I usually have it at more normal mid-volume levels.

    Anyone else get a separate Bose supplement? Trying to figure out if there actually is one. Thanks.
  • I also have an 06 Impala LT with the Bose system and I didn't get a Bose supplement. My dealer said he has never seen one. Guess we are on our own. By the way, I really love the Bose system. I have the upgraded stereo with the 6 CD changer and XM radio. It's great! Very clean sound.
  • charts2charts2 Posts: 618
    Edmunds test of the Impala SS. They indicate that they did the fuel mileage test....."heavily weighted to highway driving" 18.6 mpg......"stop and go city driving" 14.7 mpg.....they don't use the performance testing 0-60 etc, as part of their mileage calculations. If worrying about fuel economy is a concern then a pruchasing decision has to be made.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Little Rock, ARPosts: 872
    Just read the earlier posts about seats in the new Impala...happened to visit my cousin who has driven several Impalas over the past few years as work cars. I drove up in my 2000 model, and he had a new 2006 LT (with the 3.9l engine) in the driveway, so we started doing comparisons. The only complaint he had was about seating; said back seat leg room was tighter than the previous model, and he said the front bucket seats are too flat. He said he preferred the previous model seat which has more of concave surface...he compared the seat in the '06 to that of a Taurus. I didn't get a chance to sit in/drive it, but if you're moving from a 2000-2005 model to the new one as he was (and I likely will be down the road), you might pay attention to those items.
  • charts2charts2 Posts: 618
    Overall the 2006 Impalas are a huge improvement over the previous models but there are still a few glitches.....almost every road test that I have read indicates more lateral support front seats are needed especially in cars with leather......Check out the Monte Carlo SS front seats and the Pontiac GXP front seats on the GM websites. huge improvement over the Impala SS front seats. Also the brakes are basically a carryover except an additional piston on the rear ones.....the new Impala is over 100 pounds heavier then previous models and the braking numbers are not too impressive. The 2006 Impala took 138 feet from 60 mph to 0..thats last by todays standards. Police Impala testing indicated 151 feet from 60 mph to 0. That would result in a poor rating. Maybe in 2007 a few of these issues will be addressed. I just read the latest Consumers reports for the 2006 cars/trucks and the Impala is now off the reccommended list. The only Chevy car reccommended was the Malibu Maxx. Interesting!
  • charts2charts2 Posts: 618
    Competition today is much more aggressive then ever before. When this new Impala came out back in the summer many car testers were impressed. Since then, other new 2006 models have now been tested the Impala falls to the middle or back of the pack in its segment. Though major improvements have been made to this new Impala other car makers have not been sitting still. GM better keep improving their models every year to stay fresh, not like the 6 model years the previous Impala ran without major changes/improvements. You just can't do that today and stay competitive. Check out these tests of 2006 cars.....
  • zjimzjim Posts: 51
    I've decided to pass on the 2006 SS. It wasn't an issue of gas mileage, although it is definitely poor when compared to the performance factor. The 5.3 has power, but with the front drive, it's scarry! It's got the worst case of torque steer that I've ever encountered. The SS would be a great car if they had gone rear wheel drive. 300+ horsepower does not make a performance car by itself. This car is NOT fun to drive. I was very disappointed. That said, . . . I'll be buying the 3LT. It's definitely not a performance car, but it will make a nice family cruiser.
  • Update: Finally got tired of guessing and called GM customer service. They had to research it for a day or two and called back. Their answer is that the Bose Owner Manual Supplement mentioned in the other owner materials does not exist.

    This was disappointing stupid given the other printed references to it, but I guess that's their "final answer". At least it explains why none of us or the salesman have ever seen one.
  • After having driven in three snow storms in the past 2-3 weeks, I've been impressed by the '06 3LT's winter handling.

    Traction control really helps. From a dead stop, the front wheels still slip, but it's more controlled and you get moving traction. With TC off, the front wheels just free spin and you don't go anywhere. Definitely a noticeable difference. ABS, of course, is a wonderful thing in the snow. My other car has it too, and wouldn't ever buy another one without it.

    Negative commenters about the Impala being big and heavy should consider that a blessing snow. The car feels very surefooted (with proper driving, of course). I've seen other cars slide into curbs in front of me on turns where the Imp just kept on going where I wanted.

    Indeed, I've noticed the Imp's driving feel is very similar to the late 90's Lumina/Monte Carlo line, so those who have compared it to the Lumina should feel a bit vindicated. Again, that's a good thing in my book, as those were very surefooted cars in snow as well.

    So, while others are dissing GM for not making the most "trendy" looking car, so far, I think they've made one that is very easy to drive, with very good winter manners. With that said, I'm looking forward to when GM finally adds stability control. I'll take all the safety features I can get.
  • charts2charts2 Posts: 618
    The 2000-05 Impalas are basically the same size as the new Impala, and also have ABS & Traction control available. They handle about the same as the 2006 car does.

    I believe the new Impala is a big leap from the past car, but the competition is giving it a run for its money.
  • Thanks charts2, this is my first Impala. Agreed that the Asian models are eating GM's lunch and dinner.

    One look at the upcoming 2007 Camry (available in early 2006) ought to make the Big 3 very worried indeed. I just bought the Impala, but the redesigned Camry was the first car that made me wonder if I should've waited a few months. It looks sleek and very Lexus-like.

    Then I remembered the Impala's standard OnStar and remote start features, which are currently unique to the Impala in comparison. I love having both. Will be interesting to see if the new Camry has a remote start option, but OnStar is definitely a GM thing. Also love the noticeably larger trunk and flip and fold seats. Sounds like the new Camry is about the same size as its predecessor.

    Having gone through a bitter cold spell with temperatures hovering around zero for nearly a week with cars covered with snow and ice, the remote start with automatic window defrosting is truly a wonderful feature. Costs a little in the gas mileage department to idle for 10 mins, but sure makes cleaning off the car much easier, and is gentler on the engine to warm it up before jumping on the freeway. Not to mention that as I have the cloth seats (no bun warmer ;) ), it's nice to get into a warm car.

    Which reminds me: The Impala's 3.9L engine warms up the fastest out of any car I've ever owned, bar none. The downside is the coarser engine note on acceleration, definitely not as pleasing as others. But GM makes pretty reliable engines, and if's it's durable, then the sound is a minor quibble.

    In the end, I guess it's all about which trade-offs we want.
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,978
    I received a 2006 LS as an Enterprise rental from the Dealer who is working on my car. It is virtually new: 126 miles when I picked it up. I have driven it about 15 miles – all in heavy rush hour traffic & mostly on Interstates.

    A couple of initial impressions:

    Mirrors are too small, as someone else indicated above.

    The chrome trim rings with (very pale blue green) lights to indicate where the control (like heat amount, fan, etc.) may be interesting, from a styling perspective – but they made it very difficult to see. Staring down at the controls is not recommended in Atlanta traffic.

    The seats (‘bench’) offer no lateral support.

    The v6 is acceptably smooth in my driving thus far. But it certainly does not feel like over 200 HP. (Even accounting for the fact that I’m used to 303.)

    The ride strikes me as neither good nor bad. Most bumps are felt, but muted.

    I will be driving this to lunch and then back to the dealer.

    - Ray
    Just 1 man’s very early impressions . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • evandroevandro Posts: 1,108
    I think that engines warm up faster because of new emissions regulations in 2006. I love to have heating after driving just a couple of blocks. ;)
  • rayainswrayainsw Posts: 2,978
    "Mirrors are too small, as someone else indicated above. "

    After driving another 5 or 6 miles, I'll add that the shape (styling) also limits the usefulness of the outside mirrors.
    - Ray
    Who will be soooo glad to turn this back in for MY car . .
    2016 BMW 340i
  • worrworr Posts: 45
    I haven't purchased yet, but it is coming down to these two cars. I've done several test drives in both cars including alternate versions of the same--LTZ, LS as well as the SXT in the Dodge.

    I have a couple criteria:

    1) Leg room

    I'm 6' 4" and got into this game looking for leg room and good power as well as comfort. Overall I'd say the Charge, though the Impala is listed as a "full size", has more room. Leg room is practically the same, but there is more head room, shoulder room, etc. Also the back seat is roomier in the Charger for the family.

    So the Charger gets the nod here.

    2) Pricing

    Chargers were selling for MSRP when they fist came out, but now they are coming down in price. My first offer was $600 over invoice and I would expect to get lower.

    However, the Impala is selling right now below invoice and is priced lower from the start with more options. I seems the Charger has a lot of add ons that jack the MSRP. My comparison is the Impala SS with leather, block heater, polished wheels, Bose Sound, convenience package, $29995 MSRP going for $27003 with an additional 1,000 rebate.

    Charger R/T with R/T performance package, convince group, Bose Sound, $33,095 MSRP. Invoice is $31,177 with the option of another 1,000 rebate if you take their financing which is higher than I could get.

    Is there 3,000 in value difference here?

    Impala SS might do OK with value because they aren't fleet cars, buy the regular Impala will suffer for this. Charger will be rarer. But the Charger has more power and rear wheel drive is attractive even up in the North lands.

    The R/T package is above and beyond, but really is only $500 because there are other options thrown in with it such as dual a/c one touch pwr windows, etc.

    3) Handling

    The Impala is smoother...much smoother than the Charger. However you can feel the weight up front compared to the equal weight distribution in the Charger. So even though it is rear wheel drive it does well in the snow and ice. Torque steer is an issue in the SS.

    4) Interior

    Impala is superior here. Charger is bone crusher hard on the arm rests, and looks cheap in comparison. Radio might be better in the Charger, but both are exceptional.
  • worrworr Posts: 45
    5) Milage

    Charger R/T owners are saying they are getting what is advertised even with limited break in. Impala SS owners are reporting much less than the EPA numbers.
Sign In or Register to comment.