2006 Impala LTZ - review

[Bluesman2]

I drove one yesterday and I liked it much better than the SS. The LTZ has a better balance of power to weight and a much better ride. The power of the 3.9L wasn't overwhelming but I was hoping for just a bit more in that department. The seats were firm but could use a little more comfort. They've moved the dash and steering wheel forward in many of the new cars and the Impala is no exception. The extra space is nice but if you have long legs like I do then you're always reaching for the controls. A telescopic steering column would be very welcome.

The flip and fold rear seat is a great idea and the pass through to the trunk is absolutely huge! Rear seat leg room is adequate and so is the head room.

The car I drove had black paint and grey leather, it came standard with Goodyear Eagle tires and the only options it had were the sunroof and the radio group.

Overall I thought this was a nice car to drive and much improved over the last version. It had a good command of the road and the feel was very good. I would recommend it to anyone looking for a large sedan.

[boss2000]

So the 3.9L wasn't that quick? Did it not have much pick-up? Can you explain a little more about the drive with the 3.9 please.

[big swede]

Are you comparing an SS from the same model year. If so what's different with the ride.

[Bluesman2]

Originally Posted by boss2000

So the 3.9L wasn't that quick? Did it not have much pick-up? Can you explain a little more about the drive with the 3.9 please.

The 3.9 had pick up but compared to the 3.6 in the LaCrosse (DOHC VVT) it didn't quite have the same seat of the pants kick. I didn't tromp on it too hard since the sales guy was with me. I may have to try it again without a sales guy and see how hard I can punch it.


Yes I am comparing the 2006 SS Impala to the 2006 LTZ Impala, I drove the SS earlier this week. The SS has TONS of power but torque steer is a very noticeable problem, I had to correct the steering anytime I applied serious power. The ride is really strange since the suspension is stiffer and the front end seems a bit heavy. It feels like the rear end and front end bounce oppose each other over bumps. I felt this on an on ramp to the interstate and general driving around town.
The LTZ has a much better balance of power to weight and the ride is smoother.

The fuel economy of the SS is impressive for a V8 due to the DOD, 18/28. Of course you won't be able to keep your foot out of it so you'll easily blow those numbers.....

[WannabeRich]

Originally Posted by Bluesman2

The fuel economy of the SS is impressive for a V8 due to the DOD, 18/28. Of course you won't be able to keep your foot out of it so you'll easily blow those numbers.....

A little better than the 3.9L. However, I understand it requires premium unleaded at .20 per gal more than regular unleaded. I think I'd prefer the LTZ. Unfortunately, no local dealers in my area have any yet.

[Bluesman2]

I may not get another driving chance at that LTZ anyway, there was a lady standing there ready to take it home and show her husband while I drove it....I'm not sure if it's still there.

[member12]

If the 3.9 takes premium, it may go down as one of the dumbest moves GM has ever made. Design a new v6 engine exactly the same horsepower as another (better) V6 engine, except make it slower reving, more thirsty, and require premium gas, and put it in a cheaper car like an impala that is never meant to be a performance machine.

Why did they make this engine- the 3.6L would have worked perfectly. GM can actually use its size to its advantage and create an economies of scales by doing what nissan does with the VQ: put the good engine in whatever car that can fit it, and stop designing 8 engines to do what one engine can.

3.1L, 3.5L, 3.5LVVT, 3.4L, 3.8L, 3.8Lsupercharged, and 3.9LVVT- all OHV, all can be replaced by the 3.6L DOHC 250hp engine- and when they make hundreds of thousands of the same thing- they can save money than doing less of fewer engines, and keeping 4 or 5 different assebly lines running. Come on GM, Chevrolet deserves cars that can spank an Accord 3 Liter.

If it fits in the LaCrosse, it should fit in a Grand Prix and Impala.
If it fits in an Aura, it should fit in a Malibu and G6

Unfortunately, it will take more than a really good engine to fix the CSV's, but it would make them much more competative.

I happen to have seen an Impala at Gerry Lane Chevrolet yesterday (I thought they were not out yet? GM needs to update their website). The fit and finish of the exterior were not very good (it was covered with that white plastic crap that keeps the moisture off, so I could be a mistaken), and the car was very bland looking- I was amazed it still had a 4 speed transmission, when even Hyundai has 5 speeds for a lower price.

In any case, the new Impala seems like a typical Chevrolet- a stopgap until GM can find a better platform to base the next failure on. Hello incentives. The Impala will be a really good deal for those who are OK with being better than Ford, but not as good as Honda, though it is more than likely the Five Hundred will prove to be safer and more competent.

As GM fans, we should not accept anything but the best. It really makes me mad that GM has a better engine, and a better transmission to put in this car that would embarrass an Accord. It's like they just don't care.

[WannabeRich]

Originally Posted by member12

If the 3.9 takes premium, it may go down as one of the dumbest moves GM has ever made. Design a new v6 engine exactly the same horsepower as another (better) V6 engine, except make it slower reving, more thirsty, and require premium gas, and put it in a cheaper car like an impala that is never meant to be a performance machine.

I was referring to the 5.3L requiring premium unleaded. The 3.9L uses regular unleaded. GMBuypower has been updated somewhat. Click on the '05 model. When the screen comes up, change it to '06. You can build your own or check inventory.