2006 Impala LS review

[ponchoman49]

I recently had the opportunity to pick up a light blue LS Impala from Enterprise for 4 full days to really get a feel for this revamped Chevy. To my surprise and delight this base LS model came with a trip computer and dual trip odometers so I could see what the computer said I was averaging and what the calculator said. This was again the LS model without the 2 only options of ABS and remote starter prep. My first observation upon pulling out of Enterprise and getting up to speed was how much quieter this 06 was compared to my previous 00 base model. This pleased me to see that Chevy has finally quelled some of the road noise that plagued earlier versions. This new Impala also impressed me with it's solidity. It felt rock(no pun intended) solid over bumps and could be tossed around with little in the way of complaint. That was the second thing that was instantly noticeable, the handling. This base model would easily out handle my 00 with 3800/suspension upgrade or my Buddies 01 LS. Whereas the older models always felt a bit ponderous and heavy handed around curves, this one actually liked taking them. I found the steering to be spot on too with pretty good communication. It felt slightly less heavy and more responsive. The 3500 proved to be a two sided coin. It was quite the performer for one thing. I timed it with a stopwatch 5 times at 7.8 seconds 0-60 on different roads. It was very consistant. This car had only 2100 miles on the odometer so may have not been fully broken in. If this car was anything to go by, Chevys accelleration times are very conservative. 7.8 seconds is what Chevy quotes the 3900 LTZ model at with performance 3.29:1 gears versus this cars 2.86:1 and 31 more hp! Also the 3500 revs up to 6250 rpms in first gear making this car one of the first I have driven that shifts from first to second at 60 mph! Now for the bad; engine noise was only slightly better than the 00-05 Impalas. Even at part throttle the 3500 made it'self heard. It wasn't a deal breaker but anybody used to a Camry would probably be put off. The 4T65 usually shifted smooth but sometimes felt clunky when getting a little aggressive with the throttle. Now is the time to be using that 6 speed automatic. Interior comfort was better than expected. The bench seat felt hard initially but proved comfortable after a long 5 hour drive. I was delighted to find a std power seat with power recliner and lumbar too. Of course power pedals and a telescoping wheel would have been nice but I quickly got comfortable behind the driver's seat. I also noticed that Chevy included a tachometer for the base cars for 06. My fully loaded 00 base car did not have this. And for those that don't know, sidecurtain airbags, cruise and CD player are now std too making this a pretty well equipped base car. The rear seats even have map pockets on both sides. I however noticed that a center rear seat armrest wasn't included and was only available on the up level LT models. The sound system was very easy to use and sounded very good overall. Kudos for the non intrusive trunk hinges and std cargo net. That 18.6 cu.ft trunk was plenty for all my gear. Dissapointments came in the very light gray seat fabrics and cheesy plastic on the lower part of the dash. Also shame on Chevy for axing the dark blue interior that was available in 00-05 models. At the end of my 5 hour drive the trip computer was reading an average of 28.5 mpg. Not bad considering it wasn't all trip driving. When more city driving was included the average dropped to 24.1 mpg. Checked against the calculator my 2 mileage readings were 28.1 and 23.9 which was very close. When bringing this car back to the rental agency I thought to myself that yes, I could own this car and be very happy with it. It does most things quite well and is a big improvement over the last generation. I even found myself enjoying the styling and found it more refined than the older gen. The only 3 changes I would want on my car would be floor shifter/buckets, ABS/traction control and alloy wheels. Would also like to see Chevy paint the steering wheel the same color as the interior instead of black. Moving the ignition to the steering wheel was a quality control induced move I hear from several dealers that say the dash mounted switches gave many people nightmares. Overall I was pleasantly surprised how competent this Chevy was and could be very happy overall owning one. I can't wait to see how these cars perform with 6 speed automatics if Chevy does indeed use them in this line anytime soon. Below is my pro and con table of the 06 LS Impala PROS: Excellent workmanship and solidity, gutsy base engine, decent fuel mileage, pretty well equipped for a base model, roomy front seats and trunk, above average handling, quiet ride CONS: engine noisy at times, gray and tan cloth seats are too light and show every little piece of lint and dirt, cheesy looking lower dash plastic, no telescoping wheel, even on top of the line SS versions, lacks some features that it's competitors has(AWD, automatic climate control, power pedals, 6 speed automatic) etc!

[I hope GMRULES again]

It sure is great to have a car for 4-5 days so you can really get a feel for it eh? I test drove an LT for about 20 minutes but I would like to rent one for a few days to get to know it better. Not sure if I'm barking up the wrong tree even looking at an Impala, I'm only in my 30's and I don't want people to think I'm driving an old mans car.

[sciguy_0504]

I wish I was old enough to randomly test drive cars without wasting a salesperson's time. Not that I do that, either, just it would be cool.

[gm_rocks]

It sure is great to have a car for 4-5 days so you can really get a feel for it eh? I test drove an LT for about 20 minutes but I would like to rent one for a few days to get to know it better. Not sure if I'm barking up the wrong tree even looking at an Impala, I'm only in my 30's and I don't want people to think I'm driving an old mans car.

[post="64849"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I don't think the Impala is an old man's car. I'm very young and very interested in the Impala. I like how the impala has a nice refined look with an updated interior, not too mention the 242HP in the LTZ.

I'm currently looking into the Impala LTZ as the next car for me ;)

[BlkHhr104]

Ive got a question, the new Impala isnt completely new, so does that mean its a W - Body 2.5 generation?

[haypops]

I'm only in my 30's and I don't want people to think I'm driving an old mans car.

[post="64849"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Don't mean to sound too sappy, but if you make everyone's life around you a little better, then they will think more of you than about you.

[Flybrian]

This is not an old man's car...


This is an old man's car...

[I hope GMRULES again]

Thanks for the reassurance guys. I know the SS is not an old man's car but I wouldn't be getting one of those, probably just an LT or maybe an LTZ. I keep going back and forth between the Impala and the G6 and I don't think I will make up my mind until I'm ready to buy next summer.

[I hope GMRULES again]

Ive got a question, the new Impala isnt completely new, so does that mean its a W - Body 2.5 generation?

[post="65768"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I guess you could say its a Chevy 4th generation W-Body, it started in 90 as the Lumina, got a major update in 95 when it ditched the troublesome rear disc brakes and went back to drums and lossed the Corvette inspired transverse leaf spring for struts, then went to the modified W-Body MS-2000 platform in 2000 and became the Impala, then for 2006 picked up the improvements the GP got in 2004 and Lacrosse in 2005 and added another 1000 refinements.

[I hope GMRULES again]

This is not an old man's car...


This is an old man's car...

[post="65897"][/post]

Wow, well I definately won't be getting a vinyl roof on my next car. :lol: My older brother picked up a 85 Town Car a few years ago and I drove it sometimes because the car is such a pleasure to drive but I really hate getting out of it cause people give you strange looks, especially last fall when gas around here hit $4 a gallon. :lol: Its got the full vinyl roof with wire wheels.

[The O.C.]

I guess you could say its a Chevy 4th generation W-Body, it started in 90 as the Lumina, got a major update in 95 when it ditched the troublesome rear disc brakes and went back to drums and lossed the Corvette inspired transverse leaf spring for struts, then went to the modified W-Body MS-2000 platform in 2000 and became the Impala, then for 2006 picked up the improvements the GP got in 2004 and Lacrosse in 2005 and added another 1000 refinements.

[post="65998"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Actually the platform started in '88 with the Regal, GP, and Cutlass coupes......the '90 Lumina architecture was a slight modification/improvement of the original ('88) W-car chassis.

[I hope GMRULES again]

Yeh I know. I meant it started as a Chevy in 1990.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

Dont be concerned about it being an old persons car. I have had a few of the old ones and currently have the 1981 Pontiac Bonneville which may be considered an old persons car. Know what? Dont care. I drove the parents former 2002 Impala quite a few times and didnt feel like an old person.

[gm_rocks]

Thanks for the reassurance guys. I know the SS is not an old man's car but I wouldn't be getting one of those, probably just an LT or maybe an LTZ. I keep going back and forth between the Impala and the G6 and I don't think I will make up my mind until I'm ready to buy next summer.

[post="65991"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm having the same issue rather to get an Impala LTZ or G6 GTP. I think I like the Impala better, feature wise and I've heard the ride comfort on the G6 isn't the greatest :P

[american_driver]

Not sure if I'm barking up the wrong tree even looking at an Impala, I'm only in my 30's and I don't want people to think I'm driving an old mans car.

[post="64849"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Youth is wasted on the young!

I bought my first Chevy W-Body when I was 30....

I'm on our 5th W-body now! My wive and I really like them.

[I hope GMRULES again]

Youth is wasted on the young!

I bought my first Chevy W-Body when I was 30.... 

I'm on our 5th W-body now!  My wive and I really like them.

[post="68917"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I beat you to it. I got my 91 Cutlass when I was 25 and I still have it but its not my daily driver. Right now its sleeping for the winter since it needs a lot of TLC, you know those Roger Smith era cars need a lot of care. Kind of like that Seinfield episode when George talks about relationship George and independant George, I call my Z24 independant Steve's car and the Cutlass Family Steve's car. :lol:

[ponchoman49]

Dont be concerned about it being an old persons car. I have had a few of the old ones and currently have the 1981 Pontiac Bonneville which may be considered an old persons car. Know what? Dont care. I drove the parents former 2002 Impala quite a few times and didnt feel like an old person.

[post="67890"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

What engine do you have in your 1981 Bonneville? 3.8(231), 4.3(265), 5.0(307) or 5.7 diesel. I love those cars and am currently looking for a 80-81 2 door coupe with factory snow flake alloys and the ultra rare factory bucket seat option. I have seen a few on Ebay but they are really rare.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

Mine is the 4-door and has the 5.0 liter(307). Engine is perfect. Had to get the transmisson rebuilt though. I dont think they made too many Bonnevilles in 1980-1981 versus the Oldsmobile-Buick-Chevrolet versions. I have seen those few on Ebay myself. People tell me I have the best engine offered at the time.

[ponchoman49]

Mine is the 4-door and has the 5.0 liter(307). Engine is perfect. Had to get the transmisson rebuilt though. I dont think they made too many Bonnevilles in 1980-1981 versus the Oldsmobile-Buick-Chevrolet versions. I have seen those few on Ebay myself. People tell me I have the best engine offered at the time.

[post="71433"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You are very correct about the engine. The 3.8 Buick V6 was all but overwhelmed with the curbweight in these cars. The diesel: need I say more. And the small Pontiac orphan motor was an unwise engine to buy as it was not only underpowered(120 hp) but whos number was up by April of 1981 as all Pontiac engines were retired from production. There are a few good 307 sites, one of which is oldsperformance307.com or something like that. Not sure if you do any work on the car yourself but I got spectacular results cleaning my EGR passages with a piano string under the carb with the EGR valve removed, getting the carb rebuilt, adjusting the base timing to 20 degrees, adjusting the TPS according to specs and tuning up the engine on my friends 1987 Olds Cutlass. 0 -60 litterally went from 14 second to 9.5 seconds doing those things above. His gas mileage went from 14-15 up to around 21 also as an average. You have the better flowing 5A heads on your 307 so it should respond pretty well. Good luck with it.

[I hope GMRULES again]

I had a 1980 Grand Prix with the 265 4.3 and I can tell you that was a fantastic engine. It was just a slightly different version of the 301 with 15-20 less HP.My brother bought that car new and I got it in 1990. I drove that car hard for 3 years and in 1993 decided to pulll out that motor and put in a Chevy 350. I remember the mechanic who took the 265 off my hands commenting on how it was in such great shape for 150K. One of my last trips was to Virginia Beach,1500 miles round trip and that baby didn't use a drop of oil.

[ponchoman49]

I had a 1980 Grand Prix with the 265 4.3 and I can tell you that was a fantastic engine. It was just a slightly different version of the 301 with 15-20 less HP.My brother bought that car new and I got it in 1990. I drove that car hard for 3 years and in 1993  decided to pulll out that motor and put in a Chevy 350. I remember the mechanic who took the 265 off my hands commenting on how it was in such great shape for 150K. One of my last trips was to Virginia Beach,1500 miles round trip and that baby didn't use a drop of oil.

[post="72004"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I too had that very same engine in my 1981 Grand Prix LJ. It was reasonably peppy in that 3390 lb car. However the heavier Bonnevilles which were 3600-3700 lbs felt sluggish with that engine. The 307 put out 150 hp in the Bonny and the 265 was 120 hp which is a 30 hp difference. The torque on the 265 was 205 and the 307 made 240. Also notable in the larger Bonneville was the fact that the 265 came in 3 speed automatic only guise with 2.41:1 rear gears whereas the 307 came with the then new 200R-4 4 speed auto overdrive tranny and better 2.73:1 gears which made a big difference in overall performance. The 1980 Bonnys had both the 265 V8 and the 301 V8 as the Olds engines were restricted to there own cars in that year. The difference between those 2 Pontiac engines was 20 hp and 30 torque. However the 301 didn't seem much quicker than it's little 265 brother because it used the same lazier 2.41:1 rear gears and had a whimpier cam than the 265. My 81 GP 265 engine also lasted for well over 150k with only a timing chain and was a good daily driver. I wish Pontiac had kept there V8's out longer and had developed them more. Imagine the 301 turbo in 1987 alongside the Grand National 3.8 turbo. That would have been a world beater in those years in the Trand Ams.

[I hope GMRULES again]

I know the 120 HP didn't seem like much but it must have been the 205 torque that helped this motor cause it did have a great kickdown and I was able to beat friends who had a 78 cutlass with a 260 and a 80 lemans with a 267 and I could almost keep up with another friend who had a 79 Monte Carlo with a 305 4 baril.

[MyerShift]

I only had one W-body. It was a 1997 Chevrolet Monte Carlo Z34. Unfortunately, due to the previous owner's neglect, this car was a nightmare for me. A shame, because I thought it was rather handsome in black. The cable to the shifter broke and left me stranded, it had some sort of engine management problem (it idled lumpily and unevenly with stalling, even with new plugs/wires), the transmission was failing (the engine would sometimes just free-rev during acceleration), the moon roof was broke, headgaskets were replaced and began failing again, yes, the alternator failed (big surprise there) and left me stranded at the main light in the left turn lane in the town where I live, and the airconditioning failed during summer #2, and because of that previous owner, something stunk in that car when I first got it, but I reduced the problem so it wasn't seriously noticable. I also didn't care for how the car handled off-throttle. I only had my Monte for one year. I traded it in as soon as I had my little personal loan paid off and got my 1996 Plymouth Breeze. I can say that the Monte is reasonable safe! I was going to Angola one February Sunday after work, and although the freeway was clear, there was slush on the exit ramp. The tail started to slide out. I thought I caught it. But it whipped back the other way, and that was it. Somehow, someway, I spun big time, and the car slammed (driverside, of course) into some massive sign post or whatever. Popped a piece of dash off, no more driverside mirror, no window, cell phone flew out the window, and the door was smashed in and cut in a few places.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

You are very correct about the engine. The 3.8 Buick V6 was all but overwhelmed with the curbweight in these cars. The diesel: need I say more. And the small Pontiac orphan motor was an unwise engine to buy as it was not only underpowered(120 hp) but whos number was up by April of 1981 as all Pontiac engines were retired from production. There are a few good 307 sites, one of which is oldsperformance307.com or something like that. Not sure if you do any work on the car yourself but I got spectacular results cleaning my EGR passages with a piano string under the carb with the EGR valve removed, getting the carb rebuilt, adjusting the base timing to 20 degrees, adjusting the TPS according to specs and tuning up the engine on my friends 1987 Olds Cutlass. 0 -60 litterally went from 14 second to 9.5 seconds doing those things above. His gas mileage went from 14-15 up to around 21 also as an average. You have the better flowing 5A heads on your 307 so it should respond pretty well. Good luck with it.






I dont do a lot of my own work on it. Dont have that kind of time or inclination. I should have though to clean the EGR passages when the carburetor was rebuilt.  Somebody working on it at the dealer found that the timing was way retarded so they put it where its supposed to be. That improved it quite a bit though its no powerhouse. The 1984 Buick Park Avenue that we have sitting around does seem to have a bit more performance than the Bonneville does. The 1984 Park Avenue by the way has 260,000 miles on it. I think the engine is origional on that car. That car though gets very poor gas milaege. Around 12. Hopefully we can figure something out by next spring when we start driving it again. As for the Bonneville, it needs new paint, hoses,belts and a new headliner to be perfect.

[post="71530"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[Paolino]

Does anyone know if the 3900 is quieter than the 3500?

[ponchoman49]

[post="74164"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Sounds like that Park Ave is running way too rich. I would have it put on an analyser and have the exhaust sniffed. Could be a bad oxygen sensor. That may account for it's better performance. The Bonny is lighter than that Park Ave with essentially the same 307 motor with 5A heads, 200R4 trans, 2.73:1 gears etc. Of course you need to check the sticker in your trunk on that Park Ave and find out what rear gears you have. They came with 2.73:1 GU2 and could get optional 3.08:1 GU4 or 3.23:1 GU5's. If that car has an optional ratio it would make it faster and worse on gas to some extent than the Bonneville. But if everything is equal and stock on both cars the Bonny should outperform the heavier Park Ave.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

I have thought about having the oxygen sensor replaced. As for the sniffer test will the fact that there is no converter on the exhaust make this test not work right? Both vehicles are bone stock.

[ponchoman49]

I have thought about having the oxygen sensor replaced. As for the sniffer test will the fact that there is no converter on the exhaust make this test not work right? Both vehicles are bone stock.

[post="76013"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes it could mess up the test. Exhaust back pressure is significantly altered which screws up the O2 sensor and your emmision levels will be off. These old computer controlled carbureted engines are very fussy and need every single emission device hooked up and working properly to get them dialed in. I have seen a single vacuum leak that caused the carb to go lean that really messed up the engine before which in turn caused the mixture control solenoid to compensate and go rich till the proper fuel/air mixture was reached. That car surged and bucked and got poor mileage as a result. There are so many factors involved in getting one of these cars to run right that I can't list them here. Best thing to do is get a service manual on Ebay for your car which has flow charts and such and diagrams that show where eveything goes. Or you could find an old timer mechanic somewhere that knows these cars and can get it up to snuff for you. Also do check out oldsperformance307.com site. Tons of good info that should get your car running like a top again.

[ponchoman49]

Does anyone know if the 3900 is quieter than the 3500?

[post="74190"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I drove both and didn't see much difference at all. In fact the 3900 Impala actually seemed to have a slightly sportier sounding exhaust than the 3500. Some reports seem to indicate that the 3900 is indeed quieter than it's predecessors such as in the G6 compared to the old Grand Am with it's hoary old 3400. I'm going to try and rent something with the 3900 to spend some more time with it.

[Drew Dowdell]

On my drive back from Detroit yesterday, an Impala LS and I were pacing each other. I don't know if it had the 3.5 or 3.9, but he didn't seem to have any trouble keeping up with me in the CTS.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

Yes it could mess up the test. Exhaust back pressure is significantly altered which screws up the O2 sensor and your emmision levels will be off. These old computer controlled carbureted engines are very fussy and need every single emission device hooked up and working properly to get them dialed in. I have seen a single vacuum leak that caused the carb to go lean that really messed up the engine before which in turn caused the mixture control solenoid to compensate and go rich till the proper fuel/air mixture was reached. That car surged and bucked and got poor mileage as a result. There are so many factors involved in getting one of these cars to run right that I can't list them here. Best thing to do is get a service manual on Ebay for your car which has flow charts and such and diagrams that show where eveything goes. Or you could find an old timer mechanic somewhere that knows these cars and can get it up to snuff for you. Also do check out oldsperformance307.com site. Tons of good info that should get your car running like a top again.

[post="76103"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Funny thing is it runs VERY good. It actually runs better than the Bonneville. It never so much as misfires.

[ponchoman49]

Funny thing is it runs VERY good. It actually runs better than the Bonneville. It never so much as misfires.

[post="76762"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It may just be running a tad rich then. That can indeed make a car run really smooth. A good scanner can tell if all your sensors are in parameter or out of parameter. I would start with a fresh 02 sensor.

[David]

We'll I have to say that for all the positive comments on the Impala and Malibu, I have had the complete 180 degree experiance with these two Auto's. On a 2 week business trip in CA, 1st week was in Sacramento and then I drove down to San Jose for the second week. 1st auto I got at the rental lot was an Impala, had 2480 miiles on the speedo. Engine, for a v6 has plenty of horsepower and Torque for get up and go getting on the freeway. 1st thing I noticed after getting on the freeway was how noisy the auto was, the freeway noise was terrible. Discovered that the suspension was very soft and seemed to not handle bumps or potholes well. Interior was totally Cheap plastic looking and like stated, the interior color light grey shows everything, dirt, dust etc. Not a good color for a rental auto. We'll this car got taken back via tow truck as it ended up dying on me and not willing to start again. Just like the complete electrical system shorted out. You get nothing, no lights, no turn over, it was dead. The rental company brought me out a replacement auto, a brand new Malibu with 148 miles on the Speedo. Same v6 with plenty of get up and go, but cheap plastic interior with light grey interior again. Noticed on the drive down to San Jose, The front passenger door had this noise like a rock rolling back and forth. Thought it was something in the door pocket. Checked it and there was nothing there. Had a passenger in the auto and they said it was in the door. So a noise that is driving me nuts. 2nd thing noticed. At 6'6" I have to have the seat all the way back. that leaves about 3 inches between the back of my seat and the back seat. NO ONE can sit behind me. What a poor design of interior space. 3rd noticed issue. Had 2 other people with me in the auto and went slowly over a parking lot speed bump and the exhaust system scraped as the auto bottomed out on the speed bump. 4th issue noticed, Trunk side carpet wall was not attached to wall seemed to be cut short so that it had a 1inch gap. Bottom board sits on 2 little plastic slots and they did not hold in place already sagging into the spare tire. 5th issue, suspension spongy and over all road noise very loud. My list could go on, as a new auto. This is not an impressive auto. Chevy needs to build some replacement auto's that are much higher in quality both inside and out. Very disappointed. :angry: Highlight B) was I stopped at the Chevy Dealership and WOW what an Awesome New Tahoe. That is what every auto, truck and SUV should be like! :D

[ponchoman49]

We'll I have to say that for all the positive comments on the Impala and Malibu, I have had the complete 180 degree experiance with these two Auto's.

On a 2 week business trip in CA, 1st week was in Sacramento and then I drove down to San Jose for the second week.

1st auto I got at the rental lot was an Impala, had 2480 miiles on the speedo.  Engine, for a v6 has plenty of horsepower and Torque for get up and go getting on the freeway.  1st thing I noticed after getting on the freeway was how noisy the auto was, the freeway noise was terrible.  Discovered that the suspension was very soft and seemed to not handle bumps or potholes well. 

Interior was totally Cheap plastic looking and like stated, the interior color light grey shows everything, dirt, dust etc.  Not a good color for a rental auto.

We'll this car got taken back via tow truck as it ended up dying on me and not willing to start again.  Just like the complete electrical system shorted out.  You get nothing, no lights, no turn over, it was dead.

The rental company brought me out a replacement auto, a brand new Malibu with 148 miles on the Speedo.

Same v6 with plenty of get up and go, but cheap plastic interior with light grey interior again.  Noticed on the drive down to San Jose, The front passenger door had this noise like a rock rolling back and forth.  Thought it was something in the door pocket.  Checked it and there was nothing there.  Had a passenger in the auto and they said it was in the door.  So a noise that is driving me nuts.

2nd thing noticed.  At 6'6" I have to have the seat all the way back.  that leaves about 3 inches between the back of my seat and the back seat.  NO ONE can sit behind me.  What a poor design of interior space.

3rd noticed issue.  Had 2 other people with me in the auto and went slowly over a parking lot speed bump and the exhaust system scraped as the auto bottomed out on the speed bump.

4th issue noticed, Trunk side carpet wall was not attached to wall seemed to be cut short so that it had a 1inch gap.  Bottom board sits on 2 little plastic slots and they did not hold in place already sagging into the spare tire.

5th issue, suspension spongy and over all road noise very loud.

My list could go on, as a new auto.  This is not an impressive auto.  Chevy needs to build some replacement auto's that are much higher in quality both inside and out.

Very disappointed. :angry:

Highlight  B)  was I stopped at the Chevy Dealership and WOW what an Awesome New Tahoe.  That is what every auto, truck and SUV should be like! :D

[post="78470"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree about the rear seat legroom. If you put the front seat all the way back there is little legroom left. I didn't find my rental base LS Impala noisy on the highway. In fact it was quieter than my 00 which wasn't really that bad for road noise. I did find the 3500 made more noise than it should have with a heavy throttle foot. The suspension on my LS was plenty firm and it would take any corner I threw at it better than my old 00 with sport suspension and 3800 package did. The ride was a bit firm and indeed it didn't like sharp pot holes that well. But overall I rated ride/handling as one of the Impalas strenghts, an opinion many editors seem to agree with. Agree about the dash looking cheesy and plasticy, especially the lower portion. The door panals could use a little more trim like the previous gen Impalas had. Sorry to hear the car stranded you. I luckily have never had that happen with any of my GM's knock on wood and hope never to in the future. I want to rent a V6 Malibu for a weekend to give a report on that.