Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
knightfan26917

Reviewing the '06's

21 posts in this topic

I admit it ... I'm not all that enthusiastic about Chevrolet's current lineup, given that Chevrolet is offering FWD versions of what they claim to be the malibu, impala and monte carlo. So, I'm not sure what exactly possessed me to visit Huntley (IL) Chevrolet ... the dealership that showcases a '49 Chevrolet in its showroom ... this past Friday night. I think it was a combination of curiosity, the employee discount's final hours, and that I was itching to get into a showroom again.

I test drove a Cobalt during my short time there and was pleasantly surprised/impressed. My eyes also captured a glimpse of an '06 impala. Yes, I felt disdain/disheartened that the current rendition is still FWD. Yet, for whatever reason, I couldn't keep my eyes off the car. So, I "begrudgingly" took a closer look...and what I saw impressed me. I think Chevrolet has a winner here. I like the dashboard layout (more so than the Cobalt or malibu) and I like the looks of the woodgrain with the neutral interior better than the "chromish" look with the grey and black/ebony interiors. And, the current impala exterior, despite looking Toyota/Hondaish, is interesting...however, certainly not the sculpted lines of the RWD Impalas.

Do I see a new car in my immediate future? Not necessarily. But, who knows.

I want RWD. Yet, as much as I talk about purchasing a Mustang or Charger, somehow, I doubt that'll ever happen. Why? Because, for whatever reason, I haven't been able to "coax" myself into a showroom of Ford or Dodge, though I did see both the Mustang and Charger at the Chicago Auto Show last February. Despite Chevrolet turning my favorite car and a few other well-known names into FWD versions, I cannot see myself driving anything but a Chevrolet.... Heh, and some might question if my "evil twin" has returned if I'm driving anything but a RWD Monte Carlo...even in the winter. He he he.


Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker
MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/
"You've made a fool of everyone" ... Jet ... 'Look What You've Done'
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I was all loud about wanting RWD to return myself. I still have faith that it will on larger cars. But until then, I think Chevrolet (and Pontiac with G6) has done a good job with the FWD cars. I can't wait to see and hear an '06 Monte Carlo SS, even though it's prolly gonna be out of my price range.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just curious, a directly comparable car with rwd, would it have the same mpg as a fwd?.....because wasn't that part of the reason for the shift to fwd, mpg and better space for interiors?...Maybe GM will be a genius for sticking with fwd cars generally.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe it was because at that point they could make the car generally smaller overall and maintain passenger space to a point. Smaller, lighter cars = better mileage. It wasn't strictly the FWD layout. This was before the sophisticated fuel management systems and whatnot that are available today. Notice that cars in general are growing with each successive generation with ever-improving fuel economy, a testament to improving technology. There should be no reason why an Impala today couldn't have the same fuel mileage whether it's F or RWD, imo.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*nods* Yep, HarleyEarl, that was part of the switch, as ocnblu has already confirmed for you. Maybe, as you noted, GM is a genious for sticking with mainly FWD vehicles. But, as ocnblu noted, I, too, don't see any reason why RWD cars wouldn't have as good as gas mileage as their FWD counterparts. For the record, I've never _hated_ anything from Chevrolet. What I have a slight disdain for is Chevy's nack for using older names on formerly RWD vehicles...and slapping them on FWD vehicles to make sales. I understand the business side of it ... makes perfect sense. But, to me, an enthusiast, it is not exactly pleasing. AFAIK, it started with the "nova" of the 1980s, with the monte carlo nomenclature on FWD coming in 1995, followed 2 years by the malibu and then followed a few years later with the impala. *shrugs*
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWD was a means to an end in the early '80s to get the MPG numbers up - fast. Yes, technology in the '90s could mean a resurgence of RWD vehicles with better numbers than their 20 year old counterparts, but apples to apples, FWD would get better mileage than RWD. $5 a gallon will kill RWD platforms, plain and simple. I have said this before, the United States (and to a lesser extent, Canada) are exceptions to the rule. Nowehere else on the planet do we have this obsession with power, size and RWD because everywhere else on this planet they have been paying $5 a gallon or more for a very long time.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm.... I'm not so sure that $5/gallon gas will kill RWD platforms. Why? Do you honestly think no more trucks will be produced even if gas prices reach that high?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GM sticks with their FWD platforms because they are too cheap to develop new platforms quickly enough. But they developed them from the start due to packaging efficiencies and cost savings too. GM's older FWD platforms as not nearly as packaging efficient as they ought to be today, but the current Epsilon is an improvement and I'm sure future platforms will be improved too. In the meantime, I'm guessing the Grand Prix GXP is a good place for a GM fan who likes performance could stop to get a nice FWD sedan to challenge the ugly Charger. The Charger is one butt ass ugly automobile, i think my Aztek is prettier. The 300 is proof you could slap a Bentley grille on anything and folks will call it attractive. Plus, the Hemi sucks fuel. No shame in the GXP. 5.7 0-60 and great fwd handling. GTO 2 door and CTS/CTSv are options too. Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM sticks with their FWD platforms because they are too cheap to develop new platforms quickly enough.  But they developed them from the start due to packaging efficiencies and cost savings too.

GM's older FWD platforms as not nearly as packaging efficient as they ought to be today, but the current Epsilon is an improvement and I'm sure future platforms will be improved too.

In the meantime, I'm guessing the Grand Prix GXP is a good place for a GM fan who likes performance could stop to get a nice FWD sedan to challenge the ugly Charger.  The Charger is one butt ass ugly automobile, i think my Aztek is prettier.  The 300 is proof you could slap a Bentley grille on anything and folks will call it attractive.  Plus, the Hemi sucks fuel.  No shame in the GXP.  5.7 0-60 and great fwd handling.  GTO 2 door and CTS/CTSv are options too.

[post="24331"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Packaging-efficient? Have you seen the Pontiac G6, the coupe in particular? That is so inefficient, it makes a 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass want to beg for packaging efficiency! GM and the other manufacturers (save for Toyota and Ford in most cases) have been getting ridiculously lazy in this regard and there is no excuse for it. Every GM car and truck needs to make the most of its passenger and cargo room available, and if they don't do so immediately, they will be in serious trouble, just like the 1970's all over again (though they weren't anywhere near as atrocious as Chrysler Corp. and Ford were).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Corvette makes a great case for a performance, rwd car that gets very good gas mileage relative to the car...so it can be done. In my ideal world all Chevys would be rwd. Thanks Blu and Knight for the excellent points about fwd vs rwd.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my ideal world all Chevys would be rwd.


*grins*

On this, we agree ;).


Thanks Blu and Knight for the excellent points about fwd vs rwd.


You are welcome!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would get a 06 Monte carlo but can't get over some of Chevys cheapness and bewildering way of packaging these cars. Spoilers are standard equipment on all versions now but plastic wheel covers are included on LS and LT models. The interior is still too much like the previous version with rock hard door panals and armrests and too much hard plastic on the dash. The floor shifter looks odd with no numbers or night time light on it. Why are exterior bodyside moldings not at least an option on any model? This is just too silly. Why is Onstar and an 8-way power seat being shoved down out throats as standard equipment? I would much rather have the option to get my Monte in base LS form without Onstar, rear spoiler and have the option to put alloys on it and door moldings. They did do a good job with the engines and styling upgrade. The V8 is nice too but begs for rear drive. I really don't see too much excitement with this car and predict dimal showroom activity in the years to come.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see too much excitement with this car and predict dimal showroom activity in the years to come.


Hmmm...I'm not so sure about this.

I think that the '06 monte carlo is re-styled just enough that, coupled with the V8 engine option, it will sell plenty in '06. It may drop off excitement in succeeding years, but I think the "temptation" will be too great for most buyers.

Guess we'll see, eh?

BTW, I agree about the onstar and power seat options....
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With gas at $3 a gallon, the big RWD cars of the 60's 70s ain't coming back. No BOF full sized car, that people think will "Save GM", can get high mileage sudenly in demand, unless it's a diesel or hybird. And no "red blooded muscle car fan" is going to settle for those type of powertrains. Remember Zeta is unibody, not BOF. And if they do come to market at all, they will be in limited numbers. Not over 50% of the market that the big cars had in the 'good old days'.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Packaging-efficient? Have you seen the Pontiac G6, the coupe in particular? That is so inefficient, it makes a 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass want to beg for packaging efficiency! GM and the other manufacturers (save for Toyota and Ford in most cases) have been getting ridiculously lazy in this regard and there is no excuse for it. Every GM car and truck needs to make the most of its passenger and cargo room available, and if they don't do so immediately, they will be in serious trouble, just like the 1970's all over again (though they weren't anywhere near as atrocious as Chrysler Corp. and Ford were).

[post="24349"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


well i wasn't saying GM was the leader in this regard. But their cars today are getting better.

Packaging efficiency is one thing I like in a vehicle, which is why I have an Aztek and am currently looking at a Ford 500 or Freestyle.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

............. but apples to apples, FWD would get better mileage than RWD.
  $5 a gallon will kill RWD platforms, plain and simple. 
  I have said this before, the United States (and to a lesser extent, Canada) are exceptions to the rule.  Nowehere else on the planet do we have this obsession with power, size and RWD because everywhere else on this planet they have been paying $5 a gallon or more for a very long time.

[post="23724"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Carbiz, I think you have been drinking too much fermented applejuice!
Please explain, on an engineering level, or in otherwise logical terms, what in the hell difference is there, of applying engine power to a pair of driving wheels that can change the mileage efficiency?

Other factors can apply, but just the location of the powerplant relative to the driving wheels is not one of those factors!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RWD = more weight to carry, more driveline friction losses especially at 90 degree transfers of power. FWD allows the transaxle to spin parralel with crank if i remember. losing wieght allows the engine to downsize some too which saves fuel.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe that RWD is inherently heavier than FWD. I mean, it still has to have a transmission/transaxle and a differential whether it's all stuffed up front under and around the engine or separated by a driveshaft.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWD was a means to an end in the early '80s to get the MPG numbers up - fast.  Yes, technology in the '90s could mean a resurgence of RWD vehicles with better numbers than their 20 year old counterparts, but apples to apples, FWD would get better mileage than RWD.
  $5 a gallon will kill RWD platforms, plain and simple. 
  I have said this before, the United States (and to a lesser extent, Canada) are exceptions to the rule.  Nowehere else on the planet do we have this obsession with power, size and RWD because everywhere else on this planet they have been paying $5 a gallon or more for a very long time.

[post="23724"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Gas prices will not kill RWD platforms.....

I didn't feel too bad about getting 27.6mpg and 445 miles to a tank on one fill-up of my new C6 (that was with the cruise set at 85mph for the trip)

I've had plenty of FWD cars (with way-more pedestrian performance than a C6) that wouldn't do THAT....while cruising at that high of a speed.

In fact, overall, according to my trip computer, I'm averaging about 23mpg driving the C6 around....
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0