[IROCNROL1]

First off, I had intended to write a scathing rebuke of your obviously anti-GM/pro Chrysler review, but it was well written enough to make that difficult. Fortunately I'm more than capable of finding fault with Mother Teresa or Walt Disney so I'll proceed.

As far as leather interiors are concerned, while admitting Chrysler isn't the only one at fault, it would have been better to omit any reference to animal hide draped interiors so as not to offend our friends at PETA. While I realize Neanderthals are incredibly insensitive to this important issue, that's no excuse. You should cater to the majority unless the minority makes more noise. BTW, chiropractors need love too.

Speaking of noise, since you didn't mention the sound systems I'll have to assume that the Impala's was superior.

Been in a Toyota lately? If so, then you'll have to admit that the vast majority of American drivers prefer the gooey, unattached driving experience, so the Impala wins again, hands down.

Since the next big PC push will be better fuel mileage, both these cars are losers, IMO. Since my Elantra gets 40+ mpg along with whiplash inducing acceleration, I'm of the opinion that all cars should do this well, at a minimum. However, since the Impala sucks less dinosaur blood than the LHS, guess who wins this segment of the test.

Being a various expert, I can indeed proclaim "That sucks!" with impunity. However, in the interest of being non-contentious, I'll refrain from doing so. All I'll say in this regard is take a look at what all the major companies are puking out and you will have to conclude that bland is better. That being the case, we would have to call this one a draw, except the Impala looks better.

In conclusion, the Impala is chiropractor friendly, has a better stereo, has the ride that motorists love, gets better mileage, and looks better while accomplishing all this. We have a winner.