Would you recommend the Impala?
Any 3.5l current generation Impala owners?
- Thread starter 06RANGER
- Start date
- Status
I don't own one, but I think the Impala is a good value IF and only IF you are purchasing a used rental unit. Otherwise, its worse than average resale value doesn't make it a good deal for purchasing new.
I rented one of these a week ago in South Dakota. IMO, the 3.5 was very sluggish and seemed overwhelmed by the heft of the car. In an effort to attain good highway mpg, I think they installed a final drive that is a bit too high, and performance really suffers. You have to leave yourself a LOT of room to pass slow-moving motor homes on a 2-lane road unless it's downhill with a tailwind.
On the upside, the average mpg computer was registering 25.9, not too bad for a big car.
Another note I have was about the brakes. The car had 24,000 miles on it, and I can't be sure about past abuse of if this is normal with the Impala, but even using engine braking to slow down on long downhill roads, or to pull over on the highway completely overwhelmed the brakes. I experienced extreme fade on two occasions, and I wasn't doing any aggressive maneuvers (it was a sightseeing drive through the Black Hills and Devil's Tower.) It was a car I had to plan ahead with to make stops without making the brakes smell bad and feel very gravely through the pedal. IMO this car is screaming for bigger rotors and pads.
On the upside, the average mpg computer was registering 25.9, not too bad for a big car.
Another note I have was about the brakes. The car had 24,000 miles on it, and I can't be sure about past abuse of if this is normal with the Impala, but even using engine braking to slow down on long downhill roads, or to pull over on the highway completely overwhelmed the brakes. I experienced extreme fade on two occasions, and I wasn't doing any aggressive maneuvers (it was a sightseeing drive through the Black Hills and Devil's Tower.) It was a car I had to plan ahead with to make stops without making the brakes smell bad and feel very gravely through the pedal. IMO this car is screaming for bigger rotors and pads.
I've heard of brake problems for a couple of years in regards to the Impala.
Seems when they streched the Lumina into the Impala, they didn't upgrade the brakes, or didn't ungrade enough.
The Pontiacs and Buicks that share the platform don't seem to have the same problem.
Seems when they streched the Lumina into the Impala, they didn't upgrade the brakes, or didn't ungrade enough.
The Pontiacs and Buicks that share the platform don't seem to have the same problem.
I have the previous generation Impala, and so far it's been a good car. It only weighs a couple hundred # more than a Cobalt, and gets 32+ mpg on the highway. I get an average of 27-28 going back and forth to work. The brakes seem fine to me, and if you check the specs, the Impala isn't but a little more weight than a compact car. The subframe is aluminum, and it appears they took some effort in eliminating weight. I would buy used also, as they depreciate quickly in the first few yrs. I bought an lease return 2004 for 13.5K with 11K miles.
Wow! that's contradictory to most owner's reviews I've read.
I calls em likes I sees em.
http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USB70CHC131A0USB40CHC131A0 New Impala only 150# heavier than old one, but 3.5 engine has more power. My 3.4 has enough power to get up to speed on the ramps of I-95. Car gets good mileage but you have to keep your foot out of it. My worst mileage has been 25 mpg combined, but I drive like granny. Best mileage is 34. Average 27-28.
Oops, link not working. Sorry.
I have a 2002 Impala with the 3400 engine. Seems to have more than adequate power, especially after putting 610 miles on a 2007 Ford Taurus with a 3.0 Vulcan engine last week in Florida. With the AC running all the time that car had barely enough power and boy have they made the Taurus a cheap car.
I guess that is why they are the darling of rental fleets.
My friend has a 2002 he uses to commute over an hour each way every day. He loves it, he says its comfortable, quiet, and has plenty of power. I've ridden in it, VERY roomy, very smooth, very quiet. He gets great MPG too. His only complaint is that its not very reliable (his at least). He's had the car lock him in sometimes (security feature), where he cant open his own doors from the inside. And also something was always breaking on it.
I'd give it a shot, or a toyota camry or honda accord. Test those 3 i'd say.
I'd give it a shot, or a toyota camry or honda accord. Test those 3 i'd say.
It's my understanding that the post 2006 Impalas are more reliable than their predecessors.
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
I've driven my SIL's 2007 Imp company car. Not bad at all IMO for the short bursts I've driven it. Smooth, quiet & reasonably powerful. She racks up tons of miles, has had no problems and avgs low 30's hywy. She likes the Imp much better than the 2005 Subaru Forester company car it replaced. More comfort, power and better MPG's she claims.
Joel
Joel
I drive a 2006 Monte Carlo; which shares essentially all of its powertrain/steering/braking/suspension/etc. components with the Impala.
My particular car has the 3.9L engine which provides excellent power and economy. It's no drag racer, but the 3.9L climbs hills effortlessly, and you'll never exceed 3,000 RPM unless you're passing or just feeling frisky. Before purchasing this car I also drove the 3.5L and found the power to be comparable, however the extra torque the 3.9L makes down low makes for a bit of a smoother drive. You'll have no problem passing or hill climbing with either engine. A few weeks ago I passed a car while going up a steep hill, and I was able to pass him at about 1/2 throttle with plenty of room to spare, the transmission never even shifted out of 3rd.
I occasionally take a 330 mile trip from Maryland to New York, and setting the cruise control at 65, putting the A/C on, and sitting back and having a relaxing drive yields about 29.5-30 mpg. This past weekend I drove from Lake George, NY down to Maryland, and aggressively passed a few cars, and cruised at about 85 mph for most of the trip, again with the A/C, with a full trunk load (at least 300 lbs) and an additional passenger -- averaged 25.1 mpg. From what I understand, the 3.5L gets about 1-3mpg better than the 3.9L, on average.
I'm not sure what the issue was with CBDFrontier06's rental Impala, but I drove my car up and (obviously) back down Pike's Peak in Colorado, which is about 8,000 vertical feet of elevation change from Manitou Springs, CO. The brakes on my Monte Carlo performed flawlessly, and I had absolutely no problems stopping the car. They were beginning to overheat as I neared the bottom, the front brakes began to quietly squeal, but nonetheless pedal response was perfect. After 30 minutes the brakes stopped squealing and were operating normally. I can't think of a more challenging test for passenger car brakes, and I can't imagine them fading unless you took the car to a race track and put down some laps.
That said, as many other have already stated, these cars are an OUTSTANDING value slightly used. I purchased my Monte fully loaded with only 9,400 miles for $16,150. As new cars however, you do not get nearly as much bang for your buck. Still an excellent car, but you'll take a beating in value after the first year. If you plan to keep the car for 10 years anyway, this does not make as much of a difference, but the value of a used/certified used car is unbeatable.
My particular car has the 3.9L engine which provides excellent power and economy. It's no drag racer, but the 3.9L climbs hills effortlessly, and you'll never exceed 3,000 RPM unless you're passing or just feeling frisky. Before purchasing this car I also drove the 3.5L and found the power to be comparable, however the extra torque the 3.9L makes down low makes for a bit of a smoother drive. You'll have no problem passing or hill climbing with either engine. A few weeks ago I passed a car while going up a steep hill, and I was able to pass him at about 1/2 throttle with plenty of room to spare, the transmission never even shifted out of 3rd.
I occasionally take a 330 mile trip from Maryland to New York, and setting the cruise control at 65, putting the A/C on, and sitting back and having a relaxing drive yields about 29.5-30 mpg. This past weekend I drove from Lake George, NY down to Maryland, and aggressively passed a few cars, and cruised at about 85 mph for most of the trip, again with the A/C, with a full trunk load (at least 300 lbs) and an additional passenger -- averaged 25.1 mpg. From what I understand, the 3.5L gets about 1-3mpg better than the 3.9L, on average.
I'm not sure what the issue was with CBDFrontier06's rental Impala, but I drove my car up and (obviously) back down Pike's Peak in Colorado, which is about 8,000 vertical feet of elevation change from Manitou Springs, CO. The brakes on my Monte Carlo performed flawlessly, and I had absolutely no problems stopping the car. They were beginning to overheat as I neared the bottom, the front brakes began to quietly squeal, but nonetheless pedal response was perfect. After 30 minutes the brakes stopped squealing and were operating normally. I can't think of a more challenging test for passenger car brakes, and I can't imagine them fading unless you took the car to a race track and put down some laps.
That said, as many other have already stated, these cars are an OUTSTANDING value slightly used. I purchased my Monte fully loaded with only 9,400 miles for $16,150. As new cars however, you do not get nearly as much bang for your buck. Still an excellent car, but you'll take a beating in value after the first year. If you plan to keep the car for 10 years anyway, this does not make as much of a difference, but the value of a used/certified used car is unbeatable.
Does coolant flow through the intake manifolds on these new 3.5L and 3.9L motors? I've read conflicting things here about that? I know they have somehow solved the leaking intake problems.
Also, what year did the VVT come with the 3.5L, or do they all have VVT?
Also, what year did the VVT come with the 3.5L, or do they all have VVT?
There exists a version of the 3.5L that has coolant flowing through the LIM, as it did in the earlier 3.1L/3.4L design. This same engine does not have the VVT system either. This engine is essentially the same as the earlier 3.4L engines with minor improvements and added electronic throttle control. Supposedly some 15 years after they screwed up the intake manifold design when they discontinued the 3.1L MPFI and replaced it with the 2.8/3.1L SFI, they've finally fixed it again in this engine. Time will tell.
The VVT version of the 3.5L does not have coolant flowing through the LIM, instead it uses a U-flow design, with both the "upper" and "lower" hose connections on the front of the engine. This engine is essentially a lower displacement version of the new 3.9L, sans the variable intake manifold and optional active fuel management. This is the engine you really want, there is no way for coolant leak from the LIM, since it simply isn't flowing through it. Also, the extra smoothness, power, and simplicity that VVT adds is nice.
The non-VVT 3.5L was introduced with the redesigned Malibu, in 2004, IIRC. The VVT 3.5L/3.9L was introduced with the 2006 Impala/Monte Carlo. The Pontiac G6 GTP may have had the VVT 3.9L starting in 2005, I don't remember.
The VVT 3.5L/3.9L engines are made in Tonawanda, NY, where they've been making 60*V6 pushrods (and other engines) for many years. The non-VVT engine was made in a plant in Mexico, as I recall. I think as of this year they've stopped producing the non-VVT version, and all models have been upgraded to the VVT versions.
We rented an 08 Impala w/ the 3.5L in NM this weekend. Only had 1089 miles when we picked it up. Put about 500 miles on it.
The car was problem free but unremarkable in every way. The only thing that stood out about the car was NO CUPHOLDERS. None, zip, zilch. The rear seat had a 12v outlet on the back of the center console but again, no cupholders.
It has been years since I rode in a car without a single cupholder.
The car was problem free but unremarkable in every way. The only thing that stood out about the car was NO CUPHOLDERS. None, zip, zilch. The rear seat had a 12v outlet on the back of the center console but again, no cupholders.
It has been years since I rode in a car without a single cupholder.
I've rented a number of Impalas, and I think you got one that has had the **** beat out of it, possibly by multiple renters.
How can these cars be sold for law enforcement duty, with an inadeqaute braking system?
In my rentals, I've always gotten at least 28, and as much as 34 on the interstate, running around 75 mph.
When given a choice, I'll take an Impala over a Taurus or a Grand Prix anyday.
Wow! You'd pick the 3.5l Impala over the 3.8l Grand Prix?
- Status
Similar threads
