Ok, how's the first Impala SS vs Charger R/T comparo gonna go?

Thoughts?

Prediction:

Enthusiast minded folds will blast the looks of both cars, but choose Charger because of the RWD.

Then, the other 97% of the public will choose and actually buy the Impala, and it will continue to be a great selling vehicle.

Who knows, Chargers' sheetmetal may cancel out it's RWD advantage.

Unlike the 300...which may be polarizing, yet compelling...the Charger is just plain hard to look at.

Who knows, Chargers' sheetmetal may cancel out it's RWD advantage.

Unlike the 300...which may be polarizing, yet compelling...the Charger is just plain hard to look at.


Agreed on all counts.

Prediction:

Enthusiast minded folds will blast the looks of both cars, but choose Charger because of the RWD.

Then, the other 97% of the public will choose and actually buy the Impala, and it will continue to be a great selling vehicle.

100% agree. Perfect prediction.

I think dodge will sell just as many Chargers as they did what it replaces at first. Then I think the sales will increase quickly. Personally I think this car is bad ass looking and it reminds me of the 05 mustang in a way. When you get down to it, 4 doors dont mean a thing if the car is fun to drive and good quality at the proce they are coming in at.

I honestly think that some of the negative opinions of the car are based, at least unconciously on the fact that it really doesnt need to be carrying the Charger name. I think, and I bet a good deal would agree with me, that the car is actually pretty nice, and deserves more of a shot, but likely wont get one because of DCX's whoring of the nameplate.

I honestly think that some of the negative opinions of the car are based, at least unconciously on the fact that it really doesnt need to be carrying the Charger name. I think, and I bet a good deal would agree with me, that the car is actually pretty nice, and deserves more of a shot, but likely wont get one because of DCX's whoring of the nameplate.

Nope. See here's the thing. Charger name aside, the car really just looks like a quirky 300. They haven't done anything here with the LX platform that we hadn't seen before. :tired: The 300 is also a nice car, so why am I choosing the "Charger"? It all seems like just another LX iteration, and a rather uninspiring one at that....wearing a legendary Muscle Car name just makes matters worse.

Chevy won't need to apologize for it's upcoming Impala SS. Sure it isn't exactly what we as enthusiasts want, but we aren't what the car is trying to attract either. Impala SS will be MUCH more successful with its target audience than "Charger" will be to Dodge's. Ironically, you can probably blame that on Dodge's name choice.

So, someone up there said the public is buying the Impala. How many Impala SS's sell? I think I've seen one on the road. People may buy Impala, but not the SS.

I predict the Charger will sell well. People here complain on how ugly it is...it's a Magnum coupe. Magnum is selling plenty fine, and this is a coupe version of the same car and will probably cost a bit less. Why exactly is this all of the sudden sales failure?

I don't really love the new Impala or the new Charger, but I think Charger has more of an identity. It's also RWD and I'm sure will have the 340hp hemi available. One of these is a car I'd look at when car shopping. It isn't the 240hp FWD car.

Think about this for a second...Impala SS MSRPs at the same price as Magnum RT. For 100 less horsepower, and FWD. Charger RT should be even cheaper. Neither of these cars are winning beauty competitions, so why would people buy Impala SS again?

So, someone up there said the public is buying the Impala. How many Impala SS's sell? I think I've seen one on the road. People may buy Impala, but not the SS.

I predict the Charger will sell well. People here complain on how ugly it is...it's a Magnum coupe. Magnum is selling plenty fine, and this is a coupe version of the same car and will probably cost a bit less. Why exactly is this all of the sudden sales failure?

I don't really love the new Impala or the new Charger, but I think Charger has more of an identity. It's also RWD and I'm sure will have the 340hp hemi available. One of these is a car I'd look at when car shopping. It isn't the 240hp FWD car.

Think about this for a second...Impala SS MSRPs at the same price as Magnum RT. For 100 less horsepower, and FWD. Charger RT should be even cheaper. Neither of these cars are winning beauty competitions, so why would people buy Impala SS again?


This Impala SS is different, since it has a V8.

Either way, it doesn't matter much.

TOTAL Impala sales will undoubtedly crush total Charger sales...

This goes back to the whole enthusiast point of view, and you summed up my predictioon to a tee...

So, someone up there said the public is buying the Impala. How many Impala SS's sell? I think I've seen one on the road. People may buy Impala, but not the SS.

I predict the Charger will sell well. People here complain on how ugly it is...it's a Magnum coupe. Magnum is selling plenty fine, and this is a coupe version of the same car and will probably cost a bit less. Why exactly is this all of the sudden sales failure?

I don't really love the new Impala or the new Charger, but I think Charger has more of an identity. It's also RWD and I'm sure will have the 340hp hemi available. One of these is a car I'd look at when car shopping. It isn't the 240hp FWD car.

Think about this for a second...Impala SS MSRPs at the same price as Magnum RT. For 100 less horsepower, and FWD. Charger RT should be even cheaper. Neither of these cars are winning beauty competitions, so why would people buy Impala SS again?

Coupe? What coupe? Last time I checked, that bastardized Magnum had FOUR doors!

I'd be willing to bet a similarly optioned "Charger" and Impalla SS (the one with 303HP and DOD) will run about the same price...

Impala SS will be MUCH more successful with its target audience than "Charger" will be to Dodge's. Ironically, you can probably blame that on Dodge's name choice.

I've come to grips with the Charger name on a 4 door. It's not the name that bothers me so much anymore. It's not the 4 doors that bother me so much either.
It's the odd sheetmetal that really bothers me.

So when comparing Charger R/T and Impala SS, for the same cost, you'll have your choice of: a great chassis and great motor with bizarre coachwork.........or a competent, if not world beating chassis, good motor and somewhat bland styling.

Thems your choices.

Somehow, for me, I wish someone could just hit the "sweetspot".

A 300C with less chrome and tortoise shell, and with a manual trans, comes pretty close.

Coupe? What coupe? Last time I checked, that bastardized Magnum had FOUR doors!

I'd be willing to bet a similarly optioned "Charger" and Impalla SS (the one with 303HP and DOD) will run about the same price...


I misspoke, I meant to say Sedan. Why is it the Charger is "bastardized" and awful for having 4 doors, but it's AOK on the Impala?

I imagine the 303hp Impala SS will run a similar price to the 340+ HP Charger RT when similarly equipped. The question is why is the Impala the better buy?

I don't think the general public is going to freak out as much about the name as the people on this board. Wow, it's a 4 door...so? Most people have no problem with a sporty 4 door, look at how many are out there selling well.

This will be a cheaper alternative to 300C and Magnum, both of which are selling very well. Magnum is styled very similarly and selling well. Impala is a great example to show this car is offering good value in it's segment.

For the enthusiast, it's RWD and has a high horsepower V8. The enthusiast would never pick the Impala. The average buyer doesn't care about the name, the styling is going over well and the car will over similar equipment at a similar price.

Why is this car a failure again?

The question is why is the Impala the better buy?



Why is the Charger a better buy?

As Z284ever pointed out....for me, it is the awful aesthetics of the Charger. I can get past the fact that it is a sedan, but I cannot overlook it's odd exterior. That alone would convince me to buy the Impala (especially considering it would be my daily driver and I already have a RWD muscle car).

Why is the Charger a better buy?

As Z284ever pointed out....for me, it is the awful aesthetics of the Charger. I can get past the fact that it is a sedan, but I cannot overlook it's odd exterior. That alone would convince me to buy the Impala (especially considering it would be my daily driver and I already have a RWD muscle car).

I never thought I'd see the day on an enthusiast forum where someone asks why the car with 350hp and RWD is a better buy than the 300hp FWD car.

If that point isn't obvious, then there's no point discussing it any more. :)

Charger is going to sell for, what mid $40k's?

I really don't think the Impala SS is going to sell for that much. The original Impala SS went for about $28k MSRP right? I'm better the new Impala SS is going to be around that price.. maybe $30k flat.. Or at least I hope Chevy isn't expecting anyone to pay more than that on MSRP.

a better comparison for the price range would be a base 300 with a bunch of options

maybe a loaded up awd Ford 500..

and whatever Japanese sedans in the $30k flat pricerange.. probably like Accords and Camry's loaded up all with all the options..

Charger is going to sell for, what mid $40k's?

I really don't think the Impala SS is going to sell for that much. The original Impala SS went for about $28k MSRP right? I'm better the new Impala SS is going to be around that price.. maybe $30k flat.. Or at least I hope Chevy isn't expecting anyone to pay more than that on MSRP.

a better comparison for the price range would be a base 300 with a bunch of options

maybe a loaded up awd Ford 500..

and whatever Japanese sedans in the $30k flat pricerange.. probably like Accords and Camry's loaded up all with all the options..

Woah, where'd you get that from? Charger pricing should be slightly less than the Magnum's pricing, considering it's the sedan version of the same car. The Magnum RT is $29,995 with the Hemi. The supercharged V6 Impala SS is $29,995 as well. What makes you think that the Dodge version of the more luxurious 300 is going to cost more?

I'm not a big fan of the Charger, but when they make an SRT-8 version, it'd be hard not to buy it.

I want a big car for my family, and if it goes for ~$36k and runs the same numbers as the 300C SRT-8, I'd be all over it.

If you're curious where I get my numbers . . .
SRT-8 package adds $6900 to the MSRP of the 300C.
Magnum RT MSRP is $30,070.
Charger *MAY* be cheaper than the Magnum RT.

Main thing you're missing w/ the Charger is the classy look. Otherwise, the interior is still huge.

this autoweek article seems to agree with me, at least for the wagon Magnum SRT8
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=101530

My guess is, SRT-8 option is going to put another $5-6k onto it in pricing, and load it with some other manditory options to nudge it to at least tickle right below if not slightly above $40k.. But I guess they strip out the Charger to make it cheaper, than maybe I can see it for $35k at the very least.. But, by all means Chysler, prove me wrong and make it a insane bargain! Maybe I'll pick one up then!


If GM is smart, they wouldn't budge the price of the Impala SS by much or at all.. Unless the interior and fit and finish is absolutely AMAZING(more lux and better quality than say, a $30k lexus) , I can't imagine spending any more than $30k on it, no matter how much HP they are putting thru the front wheels.


Woah, where'd you get that from? Charger pricing should be slightly less than the Magnum's pricing, considering it's the sedan version of the same car. The Magnum RT is $29,995 with the Hemi. The supercharged V6 Impala SS is $29,995 as well. What makes you think that the Dodge version of the more luxurious 300 is going to cost more?

1) the 300C SRT-8 is selling for $39,995
2) the SRT-8 is not even a comparable car to the Impala. It's packing the 420hp 6.1L Hemi. The regular RT will easily outpower the Impala by a large margin for the same price.

Edit: Thinking about it, I'd be willing to bet that Charger SRT-8 comes in priced the same as the GTO. Those two will be pretty much in the same class...similar HP outputs and market segments, just one a coupe one a sedan.

I never thought I'd see the day on an enthusiast forum where someone asks why the car with 350hp and RWD is a better buy than the 300hp FWD car.

If that point isn't obvious, then there's no point discussing it any more. :)

This coming from a person who sold a RWD Z28 to purchase a FWD Toyota econobox :confused:

I never said the car wouldn't be more fun to drive and more than likely quicker. I said it was ugly and not neccessarily a "better" car. Tell me again how it is "better" than the Impala...

well it depends.. what do they have to strip out to make it cheaper by $7000 from the 300c srt-8, which goes for $40k (and where does that number come from? )7


Edit: Thinking about it, I'd be willing to bet that Charger SRT-8 comes in priced the same as the GTO. Those two will be pretty much in the same class...similar HP outputs and market segments, just one a coupe one a sedan.

well it depends.. what do they have to strip out to make it cheaper by $7000 from the 300c srt-8, which goes for $40k (and where does that number come from? )7


If you're thinking about the Charger SRT-8, you're not cross shopping the Impala SS.

The SS Impala and charger will be in totally different price classes. Aren't we talking about $28k for an SS impala? And about 36-38k for a Charger.

Speaking of impala SS sales...has anyone considered a V8 impala (perhaps without SS badging) as a fleet vehicle for taxi and law enforcement? That would certainly impact sales.

The SS Impala and charger will be in totally different price classes. Aren't we talking about $28k for an SS impala? And about 36-38k for a Charger.



I think you guys are confusing the Charger R/T and Charger SRT-8.

Charger R/T will have a 340 hp 5.7 Hemi, and be priced under $30K.

Charger SRT-8 will have a 425 hp 6.1 Hemi, and be priced in the $36-$38K range.

The R/T is the Impala SS competitor.

Also, I'm curious to see how the 5.3 performs compared to the current SC3800. Sure, it's gonna have lots more power.....but it will be heavily torque managed. I wonder if all that torque management will end up neutering the V8's performance advantage?

I think the Charger will win on all counts cept the boring sedan for hte masses. The charger will be much like the 300 series. If going for fleets, people will choose the charger over the impalla in any case, especially in the police and taxi cases, however taxi's dont matter much as most of their vehicles are pre-owned police vehicles.

The charger will no doubt have more interior space, more power, and is RWD.

The regular folks who are looking for a 4 door sedan dont really care much about a name.

This coming from a person who sold a RWD Z28 to purchase a FWD Toyota econobox :confused:

If there would have been a 200hp car with RWD at $17,000, then it would have been a no brainer to choose that over my car. Unfortunately in the "cheap car to drive back and forth to work" segment there aren't a lot of RWD performance options. In the high 20's there are plenty, which is why the Impala SS never would win or enter my thought process.

I think the Charger will win on all counts cept the boring sedan for hte masses. The charger will be much like the 300 series. If going for fleets, people will choose the charger over the impalla in any case, especially in the police and taxi cases, however taxi's dont matter much as most of their vehicles are pre-owned police vehicles.

The charger will no doubt have more interior space, more power, and is RWD.

The regular folks who are looking for a 4 door sedan dont really care much about a name.

Exactly what I was saying. Enthusiasts have a no brainer, for the average person they don't care if it's Charger or not. People keep bringing up styling without acknowledging that this style is already on the market and selling well beyond expectations in the Magnum.

A lot of people are getting kind of wild with the price estimating here. Let's look at what's established:

Magnum SE, 190hp V6: $22,645
Magnum SXT, 250hp V6: $26,145
Magnum RT, 340hp V8: $30,695
Magnum SRT-8, 420hp V8: ~$40,000

300, 190hp V6: $23,995
300 Touring, 250hp V6: $27,895
300C, 340hp V8: $33,720
300C SRT-8, 425-hp V8: ~$43,295

So, base charger is 250hp V6...figure that will come in right around the Magnum SXT, I'd say at $25,000. Wagons always cost a bit more, look at most cars that offer a wagon model.

So that would make the Hemi Charger RT 1-2k less than Magnum RT, so figure ~$28,000-29,000. SRT-8 will probably come in in the high 30's. I'd be willing to bet that Charger RT comes in within $1000 of Impala SS, and likely on the cheaper side. Impala SS is already $29,995 MSRP with the V6, I don't see that going DOWN with the DoD V8.

300C SRT-8 is priced at $39,995, not $43,xxx.

I never thought I'd see the day on an enthusiast forum where someone asks why the car with 350hp and RWD is a better buy than the 300hp FWD car.

If that point isn't obvious, then there's no point discussing it any more. :)

Depends on what the car is to be used for. For family transportation/company car I'll take the FWD over RWD every time, thanks.

If I want to have a nice fair-weather car as a toy, I'll take RWD.

The Charger RT is going to be mustang GT competeition, not GTO. The Charger srt8 will be a GTO and Hipo mustang(cobra or whatever the next one is) competitior.

yes, I agree, well at least the enthusiast, but we were talking about the ChargerSRT-8 and the GTO.. ;)


if the 300c SRT-8 is going to be around 40k at least, the only way the Charger SRT-8 would be about $33k, is if they stripped $7k worth of stuff out of it.. to bring it down to the GTO's price, of $33kish, while still having a nice interior like the GTO....

I bet you, the Charger will cost the same as the SRT-8..


but then again, unless they radically change the looks of the Charger, there's no way you can convince me, that its a coupe.. its a 4 door sedan..


About a DoD V8 vs V6 in the Impala SS.. I view this as GM using the V8 because they don't have a competative HO V6 for this car.. Thats just fine.. But bumping the price up some more, would make it too pricey... My thinking is, the enthusiast isn't really going to care for it, since its FWD.. and the avg buyer is going to look at cheaper alternatives, thats just a 30 hp shy, but with the same or better quality build and ride..

Where's that new platform for GM?




If you're thinking about the Charger SRT-8, you're not cross shopping the Impala SS.

Yeah, but this thread is about Impala SS vs Charger R/T....not SRT-8 vs GTO. :)

Depends on what the car is to be used for. For family transportation/company car I'll take the FWD over RWD every time, thanks.

If I want to have a nice fair-weather car as a toy, I'll take RWD.

And in many areas of the country, this is what matters most. Pacer, I could not have said it myself.

So who would buy an Impala or Monte SS over a Charger R/T? Me, actually. We're talking a 45 HP deficit, however the 5.3 already makes 15 HP more than my LT1, which is faster than what I need anyway! There is one factor everyone is forgetting...

WEIGHT. Charger should be around 4,200 lbs...the 300 is spot on that number. With the 5.3 being lighter than the S/C 3800, the Impala should be no more than 3,600 lbs. Same chassis as a GP, and my '01 GP weighs in at 3,475 lbs by comparison with a boat-anchor 3800. What does this mean??

12.17 lbs/HP for the Charger, 12 lbs/HP for the Impala :D

True, torque management will be an issue, but to what degree we do not know. This is going to be closer than anyone thinks, I believe. GXP Grand Prixs are running 0-60 under 6 flat, per GM's claims. Hemis are what, 5.5-5.7 or so?

I'll sacrifice 2 tenths 0-60 for superior gas mileage, a better appearance IMO, a TWO DOOR with the MC, and gee...I can drive it in the snow!!!!

There's your "enthusiast's" answer as to why the Impala should win the comparo in the showroom. I don't really care what the mags say. Never have, never really will.

This is going to be closer than anyone thinks, I believe.



I believe it also.

WEIGHT. Charger should be around 4,200 lbs...the 300 is spot on that number. With the 5.3 being lighter than the S/C 3800, the Impala should be no more than 3,600 lbs. Same chassis as a GP, and my '01 GP weighs in at 3,475 lbs by comparison with a boat-anchor 3800. What does this mean??

Actually, the Charger will weigh around conservatively 3900 pounds (the 300C is 4046#). The current V6 Impala SS weighs 3606. The new Impala will be slightly heavier than the current one while the Charger will be slightly lighter than the 300, so optimistically, it seems to be about 250# difference in weight max.

True, torque management will be an issue, but to what degree we do not know. This is going to be closer than anyone thinks, I believe. GXP Grand Prixs are running 0-60 under 6 flat, per GM's claims. Hemis are what, 5.5-5.7 or so?

GXPs aren't running under 6 seconds. GM claims 6.5 seconds, and the quickest stock is around 6.2. The slowest published time for the 300C is 6.2, but once broken in seem to be running consistantly in the mid 5s (not mentioning C&D's 5.3 run). The Charger will have a different computer program, different exhaust, and likely different gearing as well being slightly lighter than the 300C.

I'll sacrifice 2 tenths 0-60 for superior gas mileage, a better appearance IMO, a TWO DOOR with the MC, and gee...I can drive it in the snow!!!!

There's your "enthusiast's" answer as to why the Impala should win the comparo in the showroom. I don't really care what the mags say. Never have, never really will.

I like the looks of the new Impala over the Charger myself. But even if I lived back in Pennsylvania, snow is on the ground only 3 months out of 12, and even then 95% of the time I could drive my old RWD cars very easily in the snow (I learned to drive before everyone got brainwashed with "Buy-FWD-or-you'll-die-a-horrible-death-when-it-snows-or-rains" propaganda of the 80s & 90s).

Add modern traction control, and FWD becomes irrelevent to 99% of US drivers, even in the winter. If snow actually influences a decision between FWD & RWD, you'd be better off with looking at an AWD vehicle or an SUV. :lol:

No doubt the Impala SS will have better gas mileage (GM's specialty as far as powertrains :thumb: ) But given a choice between the Impala SS 5.3 and the Charger R/T, I'd pick a GTO. If I had no other choices, Charger R/T hands down.

RWD always over FWD, and the more horsepower & torque, the better. :D

True, torque management will be an issue, but to what degree we do not know. This is going to be closer than anyone thinks, I believe. GXP Grand Prixs are running 0-60 under 6 flat, per GM's claims. Hemis are what, 5.5-5.7 or so?

Torque management only comes into play for drag racers. 95%+ of these family sedans will never be raced. 80% of the owners will proabably never do a burn out. (these are Sedan people, not sports car people ;) )

For the bulk of the people buying these car torque management will be a non-issue. Both cars even come with only automatics.


Depends on what the car is to be used for. For family transportation/company car I'll take the FWD over RWD every time, thanks.

If I want to have a nice fair-weather car as a toy, I'll take RWD.

You must live in the snow belt or North East :D

GXPs aren't running under 6 seconds. GM claims 6.5 seconds, and the quickest stock is around 6.2. The slowest published time for the 300C is 6.2, but once broken in seem to be running consistantly in the mid 5s (not mentioning C&D's 5.3 run). The Charger will have a different computer program, different exhaust, and likely different gearing as well being slightly lighter than the 300C.


Pontiac claims the GXP will run 0-60 in "approximately" 6.0. Are you sure you're not thinking about the GTP?

Chris

I'll sacrifice 2 tenths 0-60 for superior gas mileage, a better appearance IMO, a TWO DOOR with the MC, and gee...I can drive it in the snow!!!!


1. The Impala should have superior fuel economy, but there again, GM cuts alot of corners for the sake fuel economy. Personally, I don't really care all that much about fuel economy. I'd willingly pay the $7K premium for a SRT-8 just to avoid the future maintainence headaches of the 300C/RT's cylinder deactivation system.

2. The Charger sure looks a whole heck of a lot more modern than the "new" Impala. The aero "jellybean" look is getting old. I'm not sure I like the high beltline of the LX cars, but I'm certain that I don't like GM's dated W-body ("Mid-Lux":lol:?) products.

3. With relatively narrom tires and stability control, the Charger RT might just be better in the snow that Chevy's Wimpala SS.

4. Like I've said before, the 2006 Impala will be a great USED car in a few months. A buyer with an Aveo sized budget should wait 12-18 months for a low mileage 2006 Impala SS. These cars will be great values for the SECOND owner.

The bottom line is that the '06 Impy/MC duo are artifacts from GM's past and the 2006 Charger RT is just a hint of even better things to come at Daimler-Chrysler.

Actually, the Charger will weigh around conservatively 3900 pounds (the 300C is 4046#). The current V6 Impala SS weighs 3606. The new Impala will be slightly heavier than the current one while the Charger will be slightly lighter than the 300, so optimistically, it seems to be about 250# difference in weight max.



GXPs aren't running under 6 seconds. GM claims 6.5 seconds, and the quickest stock is around 6.2. The slowest published time for the 300C is 6.2, but once broken in seem to be running consistantly in the mid 5s (not mentioning C&D's 5.3 run). The Charger will have a different computer program, different exhaust, and likely different gearing as well being slightly lighter than the 300C.



I like the looks of the new Impala over the Charger myself. But even if I lived back in Pennsylvania, snow is on the ground only 3 months out of 12, and even then 95% of the time I could drive my old RWD cars very easily in the snow (I learned to drive before everyone got brainwashed with "Buy-FWD-or-you'll-die-a-horrible-death-when-it-snows-or-rains" propaganda of the 80s & 90s).

Add modern traction control, and FWD becomes irrelevent to 99% of US drivers, even in the winter. If snow actually influences a decision between FWD & RWD, you'd be better off with looking at an AWD vehicle or an SUV. :lol:

No doubt the Impala SS will have better gas mileage (GM's specialty as far as powertrains :thumb: ) But given a choice between the Impala SS 5.3 and the Charger R/T, I'd pick a GTO. If I had no other choices, Charger R/T hands down.

RWD always over FWD, and the more horsepower & torque, the better. :D

Hey, goofball...

You coming out to MI for the NAIAS?

If so, schedule a day for you and I to meet for dinner. I'm buying.




PS - I hope it snows like it did last night. If so, I'm gonna give ya some FWD vs. RWD in the snow learnin'....

I think that it's one boat or the other. Either you want a FWD hauler so you can have the "benefit" of bad weather performance. Personally, on a modern RWD car with traction control, the advantage is minimal IMO. My current car doesn't feel any more stable in the rain than my Camaro did. But all of that aside, if someone's primary concern is bad weather safety, then they won't be looking at a high powered model of a certain car. If someone's concern is performance, they won't be looking at a FWD car. If people were really concerned about driving in the snow they'd go opt for the AWD car and leave FWD and RWD entirely. Which raises the good point, considering Magnum already has an AWD model, you can be pretty much certain that Charger will get AWD as an option as well.

Magnum RT AWD: $32,695

Figuring Charger to be $1-2K less, that should place it within $1000 or so of the new Impala SS.

So, a FWD 300hp Impala SS for $29,995, assuming the more complex DoD V8 didn't raise the price, or the larger, roomier, AWD, higher horsepower Charger RT AWD for around the same price?

Sorry, I don't see where Impala wins this comparison. Even with your limited "Well the high performance buyer who also needs to haul his family in the snow would pick Impala!" the DCX cars are offering better options at a comparable price. Why opt for FWD over RWD for performance? Why get FWD over AWD for safety? Why get the smaller car on the more dated platform for the same price?

Impala SS does not stack up to the competition. MC is available as a coupe? I'm sure there are a few drivers who would take a FWD lower hp coupe just because it has 2 doors, but not enough to make a significant impact. Impala SS is a big time miss. If you want a great example of how much the pricing is a miss, it's priced within $700 of the CTS.

and threads never go off topic here either, huh? ;)

Yeah, but this thread is about Impala SS vs Charger R/T....not SRT-8 vs GTO. :)

You must live in the snow belt or North East :D

Michigan.

I'd love to have had all the RWD guys on I-75 this morning... about 8 inches last night, with a little freezing rain thrown in for good measure.

I learned to drive with a Chevrolet Monza hatch and my second car was a 1978 Grand Prix, so I'm no stranger where RWD and snow are concerned.



Nobody in Michigan slows down for rain.

Who wants to place bets?

I am willing to bet just about anything that the 2006 Impala will outsell the 2006 Charger.

Who wants to place bets?

I am willing to bet just about anything that the 2006 Impala will outsell the 2006 Charger.

I'll take it a step further...

I'll bet the Impala outsells the ENTIRE PLATFORM the car is based on.

I'll take it a step further...

I'll bet the Impala outsells the ENTIRE PLATFORM the car is based on.


That is quite a statement considering how popular 300 and Magnum are at the moment... but.......... you are probably right!!!

I'll bet $20 that Impala SS outsells the debilitating polio virus

I'll take it a step further...

I'll bet the Impala outsells the ENTIRE PLATFORM the car is based on.

That's not hard to imagine. Daimler-Chrysler has shifted away from fleet sales with the shift from the unwanted LH sedans to the strong selling LX-platform cars, GM's outdated FWD products will fill the rental lots. I'm sure the Impala will generate huge fleet sales while Chrysler racks up retail sales with the Charger - with minimal incentives.

Of course, I could be wrong. Even rental car customers might demand something better than an endless stream of Grand Prixs, Impalas, LaCrosses and even Monte Carlos.

Michigan.

I'd love to have had all the RWD guys on I-75 this morning... about 8 inches last night, with a little freezing rain thrown in for good measure.

I learned to drive with a Chevrolet Monza hatch and my second car was a 1978 Grand Prix, so I'm no stranger where RWD and snow are concerned

I had a 1999 Grand Prix GT with traction control and only all season tire and that thing was amazing in the snow. The only way you could get stuck is by bottoming out, which I did once (20" Noreaster). Since the Impala/monte are basically on the same platform I'm sure they are just as good. TC makes these cars tanks in the snow. Basically the only thing you would need the AWD on one is for acceleration in the 3.9L & V8 models.

I had a 1999 Grand Prix GT with traction control and only all season tire and that thing was amazing in the snow. The only way you could get stuck is by bottoming out, which I did once (20" Noreaster). Since the Impala/monte are basically on the same platform I'm sure they are just as good. TC makes these cars tanks in the snow.

I've driven plenty of FWD cars in the snow, but I never was impressed. I also think that traction control systems (without stability control) are utterly worthless. Until I jumped ship and became a SUV owner, I made do with a big, fullsized RWD "winter rat." Believe me, a heavy traditional car with cheap snow tires on the rear handles better in the snow than a FWD sedan with a useless (non-stability control) traction control system.

Did you ever noticed that the State Troopers in the snowbelt states still drive Crown Vics. Snow doesn't keep those guys off the roads.:lol:

Basically the only thing you would need the AWD on one is for acceleration in the 3.9L & V8 models.

The acceleration in the 3.9L and "detuned" V8 won't be fierce enough to require the assistance of AWD.

I've driven plenty of FWD cars in the snow, but I never was impressed. I also think that traction control systems (without stability control) are utterly worthless. Until I jumped ship and became a SUV owner, I made do with a big, fullsized RWD "winter rat." Believe me, a heavy traditional car with cheap snow tires on the rear handles better in the snow than a FWD sedan with a useless (non-stability control) traction control system.

How is stability control going to help a stopped car? or one going slow up a slippery hill? I've driven FWD with and without TC and it makes a huge difference (with an automatic). I'm not saying RWD suck in the snow like the automakers brainwashed everyone in the 80's to believe. Just that the W-bodies with TC are so good that there is no need for AWD in winter as long as you have TC & maybe SC.


The acceleration in the 3.9L and "detuned" V8 won't be fierce enough to require the assistance of AWD.

My 3800 GP could chrip those tires pretty damn good, AWD would be very usefully with the added 100HP/100tq. Remember LS4>LT1

Believe me, a heavy traditional car with cheap snow tires on the rear handles better in the snow than a FWD sedan with a useless (non-stability control) traction control system.

Did you ever noticed that the State Troopers in the snowbelt states still drive Crown Vics. Snow doesn't keep those guys off the roads.:lol:



There is no way a RWD car with snow tires is going to take on snow better than a FWD with the same tires (or even a lesser tire). I've owned both and find this to be a rediculous statement. My FWD GTP could go through what a RWD could only dream of...

I seem to recall a few snowstorms while living in upstate NY when plenty of troopers were stranded on the Thruway in their Crown Vics...

There is no way a RWD car with snow tires is going to take on snow better than a FWD with the same tires (or even a lesser tire). I've owned both and find this to be a rediculous statement. My FWD GTP could go through what a RWD could only dream of...

I seem to recall a few snowstorms while living in upstate NY when plenty of troopers were stranded on the Thruway in their Crown Vics...



Um, there is a huge market for RWD cars for the general public. The three most populated states are RWD climate.... Cali, Texas and Florida. I drove my Z06 thru the winter in Chicago..... (with the stock tires)They plow and salt the crap out of the roads. I never had a problem in the winter. Just stay off the happy pedal.


There were seven days last winter in Chicago that a signifacant amount of snow fall. I was driving once during last winter when the plows had not come thru yet. So, I was troubbled once last year. fair trade if you ask me. Id take that over suffering with a FWD car the rest of the year.

BTW- Most RWD cars tend to be performance tuned. FWD cars that are performance cars are horrible in the winter. My wifes old SRT-4 was more of a handfull then the vette. Try steering with your spinnig tires! Yea, thats safe :rolleyes:

Um, there is a huge market for RWD cars for the general public. The three most populated states are RWD climate.... Cali, Texas and Florida. I drove my Z06 thru the winter in Chicago..... (with the stock tires)They plow and salt the crap out of the roads. I never had a problem in the winter. Just stay off the happy pedal.


There were seven days last winter in Chicago that a signifacant amoutn of snow fell. I was driving once during last winter when the plows had not come thru yet. So, I was troubbled once last year. fair trade if you ask me. Id take that over suffering with a FWD car the rest of the year.

BTW- Most RWD cars tend to be performance tuned. FWD cars that are performance cars 2 are horrible. My wifes old SRT-4 was more of a handfull then the vette. Try steering with your spinnig tires! Yea, thats safe :rolleyes:

Actually NY state is #3. I'm glad you said that. I counted days last winter were they would have bee trouble for my SS and found there to only be 7 really bad days. That was a performance car. With something like a CTS with 50/50 weight distro and 235 vs. 275 rear tires I would have drove all 7 of those days and thought nothing of it.

Tires are usually #1 factor in poor weather driving.

How is stability control going to help a stopped car? or one going slow up a slippery hill? I've driven FWD with and without TC and it makes a huge difference (with an automatic). I'm not saying RWD suck in the snow like the automakers brainwashed everyone in the 80's to believe. Just that the W-bodies with TC are so good that there is no need for AWD in winter as long as you have TC & maybe SC.

I've never had a real problem with getting stuck and my pre-SUV vehicles have never had traction control. Spinning out under heavy braking on slippery curve is more of a worry (not that that's ever happened to me either). That's why I think that the foul weather advantages of FWD and old-school traction control systems aren't worth very much. Now stability control is another story.....




My 3800 GP could chrip those tires pretty damn good, AWD would be very usefully with the added 100HP/100tq. Remember LS4>LT1

This does raise the question of just how many neutral drops the 2006 Impala SS will take before something "warranty related" happens.

I've never had a real problem with getting stuck and my pre-SUV vehicles have never had traction control. Spinning out under heavy braking on slippery curve is more of a worry (not that that's ever happened to me either). That's why I think that the foul weather advantages of FWD and old-school traction control systems aren't worth very much. Now stability control is another story.....

Stability control is great, but is only good when moving. To get going that is were traction control comes in. It work a lot better with automatics than manuals, but trust me it works and is very usefully on a 2wd car.

This does raise the question of just how many neutral drops the 2006 Impala SS will take before something "warranty related" happens.

No more than any other V8 automaic car I would imagine.

Stability control is great, but is only good when moving. To get going that is were traction control comes in. It work a lot better with automatics than manuals, but trust me it works and is very usefully on a 2wd car.



No more than any other V8 automaic car I would imagine.

FWD transaxles tend to be weaker. There is a space constraint in a FWD package. You wont find a dana 60 or 8.8 sized rear end gear in a FWD car.

Actually, the Charger will weigh around conservatively 3900 pounds (the 300C is 4046#). The current V6 Impala SS weighs 3606. The new Impala will be slightly heavier than the current one while the Charger will be slightly lighter than the 300, so optimistically, it seems to be about 250# difference in weight max.



GXPs aren't running under 6 seconds. GM claims 6.5 seconds, and the quickest stock is around 6.2. The slowest published time for the 300C is 6.2, but once broken in seem to be running consistantly in the mid 5s (not mentioning C&D's 5.3 run). The Charger will have a different computer program, different exhaust, and likely different gearing as well being slightly lighter than the 300C.



I like the looks of the new Impala over the Charger myself. But even if I lived back in Pennsylvania, snow is on the ground only 3 months out of 12, and even then 95% of the time I could drive my old RWD cars very easily in the snow (I learned to drive before everyone got brainwashed with "Buy-FWD-or-you'll-die-a-horrible-death-when-it-snows-or-rains" propaganda of the 80s & 90s).

Add modern traction control, and FWD becomes irrelevent to 99% of US drivers, even in the winter. If snow actually influences a decision between FWD & RWD, you'd be better off with looking at an AWD vehicle or an SUV. :lol:

No doubt the Impala SS will have better gas mileage (GM's specialty as far as powertrains :thumb: ) But given a choice between the Impala SS 5.3 and the Charger R/T, I'd pick a GTO. If I had no other choices, Charger R/T hands down.



guion,

It isn't often I disagree with you, but I definitely cannot agree with most of the above statement.

1) Maybe where you live FWD is unimportant to 99% of the people where you live, but not here. There's several MILLION people in the Northeast and NY that swear by FWD or AWD vehicles. Indeed, you can drive a RWD in snow...I drove an F body through 4 winters, never got stuck once. So? It does NOT mean I prefer it by any stretch! I have 4 snows on my GP, and its a tank. We had a very bad snow/ice storm today in which we all left work 3 hours early (never happens where I work :D). This car is far superior than my old Camaro was with its lightning-fast 135hp and studded snows!

2) I have dealer literature stating GXPs are running 0-60 in under 6 flat. GTP times are about 6.4...this thing is faster than a GTP, for sure.

3) Why do you assume the new Impala is heavier? The 5.3 is well known to be lighter, and this is NOT a new chassis...so why do we assume a weight increase? I think 3,600 lbs is a very fair assessment. I do admit you probably have info I am unaware of, but it doesn't add up to me. Also, why do we assume Charger will be lighter than a 300C? Same chassis...same powertrain...same basic equipment. I doubt there is THAT much more sound deadening in a 300 to make it way significantly more. I just read a 300 SRT-8 article pegging it at 4,190.


I agree with Pacer...on my daily driver, FWD is the preferred choice. Its amazing how many Firebird sales I lost because people felt they needed a second car for the winter (which is somewhat true unless you want to deal with studded snows). I'm also amazed by the amount of buyers turned off by the GTO being RWD too!!!! Same theory as the 'Bird...they need 2 cars.

I have said this a million times. Sure, you CAN drive RWD in the snow. People did it for years. But people also drove 4 bbl V8s with bias ply tires for years, too. Doesn't mean people prefer it.

I don't care how much traction control and stability programming you throw at a RWD car...its a Band Aid for a system that does NOT work as well in inclement weather, period. While I'm ignoring the rest of redzed's comments as usual, one thing I will agree with is his take on traction control in a FWD car. Its completely worthless...when I have somewhere to go and it tries to kick in, I turn the damn thing off. It hinders progress more than it helps.

2 more things...

1) Z28x hit the nail on the head with the stability control assessment. What I meant when I said that's a band aid for an inferior set up is in terms of getting moving. FWD simply gets you going better than RWD in slippery conditions. Whether it was the Camaro or the GP or any other car I've ever owned that has been driven in snow, once I'm going I'm fine. Its getting going on an icy hill which is where the value of FWD really comes into play.
2) guion, PA does not have the snow MA does :) Hell, my girlfriend lives 2 hours north of me in VT and I can't believe how much more snow she gets than me!!! Everyone in VT has snows. And BTW, you never see ANY RWD cars out where she is...you see a ton of F bodies, Mustangs etc. in the summer when I'm up there, but this time of year you're lucky to see any. Again, that's my point.

Sure, they CAN drive them...but why?

Now getting back on topic, nobody has mentioned the rebate factor on the Impala. Right now on a 2005 Impala there is a $2500 rebate. So lets assume the 2006 Impala SS keeps its current price of $29,000 and will have a $2500 rebate(more likely sooner than later). Now its a $26,500 Impala SS with the V8 versus $29,000 for the Charger R/T. If it were me, I'd still get the Charger.

Also, you'll be able to do a fairly nice burnout in the 2006 Impala SS. My old car was a 91 Regal with the 3.8 V6, and it would do a nice job peeling out. Also gave that nice torque steer sensation with only 170hp. Just imagine what it will be like with all that V8 torque :( On another note, that old 3.8 V6 said series II on the fuel rail cover, just like the new 20005 3.8's say. :rolleyes:

The rebate factor is there, but doesn't help the fact that GM can't get a car that the public likes enough to buy without a blue light special. I would not want a 303hp FWD car, while we're at it. My car only has 160hp and it feels like **** when I accelerate it, torquesteer sucks hard.

What are current sales numbers like for Impala SS? I bet you Charger RT outsells it, easily. I would not want to drive a 303hp FWD car in the snow, so this entire snow concern would be pretty moot. if you're the type of person who really needs a snow car, you're not going to be looking at 300hp+ cars.

GM could make cars without the blue light special rebate. Just make the sticker price of that Impala SS $26,500. Of course GM will not do this because they are greedy and want to get those few suckers for full MSRP at $29,000. Also the public has been trained to expect a rebate on a GM car, so if there isn't one, people might hold out until there is one.

I don't understand why so many people complain about rebates...

GM stepped up to the plate after 9/11, at the request of the President, to help keep the economy going... now they have to deal with the residual effect... poeple EXPECTING to get a rebate new cars.

BTW... GM's not the ONLY company offering rebates.

I just find it funny that CONSUMERS are complaining about CASH BACK OR ZERO PERCENT FINANCING TO THEM... but, I'd be willing to bet a lot of the people complaining are not even really in the market to make a purchase right now anyway.

I would not want a 303hp FWD car, while we're at it.

Thats why they make a 210HP & 240HP version too.

My 200HP/225tq 3800 V6 GP never had torque steer problems.

Thats why they make a 210HP & 240HP version too.

My 200HP/225tq 3800 V6 GP never had torque steer problems.

Cadillacs have been running 300hp at the front wheels for years.

Again, I'll take a DTS over a CTS-V as a year-round car any day of the week.

AWD STS-V would be even better...

Thats why they make a 210HP & 240HP version too.

My 200HP/225tq 3800 V6 GP never had torque steer problems.

Nor did my friends 240hp/280tq 3800 S/C V6 GP GTP.
Even after he modded it somewhat too.
I know, I drove it :)

Chris

GM could make cars without the blue light special rebate. Just make the sticker price of that Impala SS $26,500. Of course GM will not do this because they are greedy and want to get those few suckers for full MSRP at $29,000. Also the public has been trained to expect a rebate on a GM car, so if there isn't one, people might hold out until there is one.That makes them "greedy"? If someone decides a car is worth a certain amount of money to them, they'll buy it. For many people, the attraction of the rebate pulls them in and seals the deal. For some willing to buy before the rebates come in, they are getting a car for a price that is agreed upon by both buyer and seller. No one is putting a gun to their head. I personally would also rather see the prices just be lower to begin with, rather than piling on a rebate (since I would just put the rebate toward the price of the car, though some people actually take the cash) - a higher price with a rebate also forces you to pay a little more in sales tax (rebates come off AFTER sales tax has been figured, because they are technically giving you a cash back reward AFTER you've bought the car - just like a mail-in rebate on a cell phone or computer). But, like you said, the public seems to be accustomed to rebates, and the companies are probably afraid to change suddenly. Also, you don't want to put a lower sticker on the car because people might think it is a lower-level car (an image Hyundai and Kia are trying to overcome, for example). Too much freaking psychology involved. :) But the bottom line is, we shouldn't get TOO worked up over sticker prices until we start to see what actual transaction prices are. The GTO stickered at 33 grand, but they really started moving in volume when the transaction prices dropped to the mid/upper 20s.

The rebate factor is there, but doesn't help the fact that GM can't get a car that the public likes enough to buy without a blue light special. I would not want a 303hp FWD car, while we're at it. My car only has 160hp and it feels like **** when I accelerate it, torquesteer sucks hard.

What are current sales numbers like for Impala SS? I bet you Charger RT outsells it, easily. I would not want to drive a 303hp FWD car in the snow, so this entire snow concern would be pretty moot. if you're the type of person who really needs a snow car, you're not going to be looking at 300hp+ cars.

Interesting that your 160hp FWD car has horrible torque steer, and yet my 200hp car shows none. My 175hp '02 Grand Am GT had a slight bit, but nothing horrible. I can also verify GTPs at 260hp have no torque steer, either. Could it be Toyota actually did something less than perfect? Can't be!!

As to your second point, my friend's 295hp '94 Eldorado Touring Coupe is fantastic in the snow with snow tires...he said it was fine with the all-seasons as well...just wanted that extra security snow tires provides. I am sure the Impala will be fine. The snow concern is far from moot...and I for one AM the type of person who would love a 300hp snow car :D

Aron,
Check the engine cover on your Buick again...there's no way it can say "Series II 3800." The engine did not debut until '95 in the Bonneville and Eighty-Eight (one year later in the LeSabre...I know, my grandfather has a '95). It should say "3800 Tuned Port Injection." Indeed, 3800s were TPI, too :) I am 99% sure its a 3800 TPI in that car...unless someone swapped the motor!!

Darth,
I don't get it either, but whatever. A $3k rebate helped me buy my first new car, an '02 Grand Am GT. Still hated it, still traded it in, but at least I can say I helped GM financially :D

'96_Camaro,
MA must be different than some states...we figure sales tax on the actual purchase price after all discounts and rebates.

How come during this entire "snow car" topic the fact that the Charger offers AWD (which I brought up on the last page) was completely ignored? besides which, the only advantage the Impala seems to have based on this thread is that you can drive it better in the snow than the RWD Charger if you're the type that's inclined to believe that FWD is required for snow. So, the run down..

Impala SS will likely MSRP more than Charger RT in RWD model.
Impala SS will likely MSRP right near Charger RT in AWD model.

So, for the majority of states that don't spend most of their time in the snow as some of you guys appear to, you could get the cheaper RWD model, get a roomier car with a lot more power.

For you guys who drive in the snow more than on a dry road, you could buy the AWD model, giving you a benefit over either FWD or RWD, and still get a roomier, more powerful car for the price.

I see people saying that it's ugly. It's not a particularly great looking car, and Impala isn't either. Looks are subjective and I think some people will like or dislike either car.

So, let's run the tally:

Price: Comparable for both cars at MSRP.
Power: Charger RT has a large HP advantage over Impala SS
Economy: Impala will likely offer better fuel economy
Drivetrain options: Impala offers FWD only, Charger offers RWD for performance and AWD for poor weather. AWD pricing should be within 5-10% of Impala SS at MSRP
Space: Charger is a larger car, and will offer more room

So I guess if your main concerns are getting a FWD economy car, the 303 HP Impala SS fits your needs? Color me confused as to why that makes any sense.

Stability control is great, but is only good when moving. To get going that is were traction control comes in. It work a lot better with automatics than manuals, but trust me it works and is very usefully on a 2wd car.


If you've got Stability Control you've also got Traction Control. However, there are cars where you can turn off the traction control but leave the stability control on.

Impala SS will likely MSRP more than Charger RT in RWD model.
Impala SS will likely MSRP right near Charger RT in AWD model.

So, for the majority of states that don't spend most of their time in the snow as some of you guys appear to, you could get the cheaper RWD model, get a roomier car with a lot more power.

I see people saying that it's ugly. It's not a particularly great looking car, and Impala isn't either. Looks are subjective and I think some people will like or dislike either car.

So, let's run the tally:

Price: Comparable for both cars at MSRP.
Power: Charger RT has a large HP advantage over Impala SS
Economy: Impala will likely offer better fuel economy
Drivetrain options: Impala offers FWD only, Charger offers RWD for performance and AWD for poor weather. AWD pricing should be within 5-10% of Impala SS at MSRP
Space: Charger is a larger car, and will offer more room

So I guess if your main concerns are getting a FWD economy car, the 303 HP Impala SS fits your needs? Color me confused as to why that makes any sense.


So because the Impala is FWD it qualifies as an ECONOMY CAR? Give me a break...really...

Under what assumption do we assume Impala will sticker higher than a RWD Charger? The Charger, you know, isn't even for sale yet!!! But you assume its cheaper? Prove it. Meanwhile, GXP is going to sticker for barely $1k more than a Comp G...which means a tick under $30K. I bet Impala will be about $1K behind that, like the current model. That means $29K is probably a solid bet...meanwhile your Magnum R/T is $29,995. At BEST, they're even...Charger will not be cheaper.

I love the economy car statement though. Because Charger is RWD and Impala is FWD, that somehow makes the Impala cheap? So I assume a Chevette was a better alternative to a GTI back in the day because the Chevette had superior RWD? Like I said...give me a break.

You also ignore my statement that Impala is lighter and therefore has a nearly identical HP/weight ratio...it doesn't NEED 345hp to be about as fast.

Economy I meant more in the sense of fuel economy. I should have fleshed that out a bit, typing in a hurry.

Current Impala SS is $29,995 per Chevy's website. It is reasonable to assume that Charger will cost no more than Magnum at the same trim level, so you can compare it directly to the price of Magnum RT, if you'd like.

I believe that Guy made a nice response to the comments on the weight and felt that I didn't need to address it further.

Let me ask you this, outside of the snowbelt, why would someone buy an Impala over a Charger RT? Styling? It's not winning any awards there. Please enlighten me to any advantages the car has besides being FWD instead of AWD or RWD, and improved fuel economy.

So because the Impala is FWD it qualifies as an ECONOMY CAR? Give me a break...really...

Under what assumption do we assume Impala will sticker higher than a RWD Charger? The Charger, you know, isn't even for sale yet!!! But you assume its cheaper? Prove it. Meanwhile, GXP is going to sticker for barely $1k more than a Comp G...which means a tick under $30K. I bet Impala will be about $1K behind that, like the current model. That means $29K is probably a solid bet...meanwhile your Magnum R/T is $29,995. At BEST, they're even...Charger will not be cheaper.

I love the economy car statement though. Because Charger is RWD and Impala is FWD, that somehow makes the Impala cheap? So I assume a Chevette was a better alternative to a GTI back in the day because the Chevette had superior RWD? Like I said...give me a break.

You also ignore my statement that Impala is lighter and therefore has a nearly identical HP/weight ratio...it doesn't NEED 345hp to be about as fast.

Yes, I would rather modify the Chevette. didnt hot rod put a 500cid caddy motor in one? Do that to a GTI!

Yes, I would rather modify the Chevette. didnt hot rod put a 500cid caddy motor in one? Do that to a GTI!

Chevy built a prototype Chevette with an HO 2.8 V6 in the early '80s which was cool.

I've had recent thoughts about building a turbo Ecotec Chevette. Call me crazy.

So because the Impala is FWD it qualifies as an ECONOMY CAR? Give me a break...really...


Actually, the "economy car" title is something I'd attach to any of the "Mid-Lux:lol:" cars. These are rental units, pure and simple

Depends on what the car is to be used for. For family transportation/company car I'll take the FWD over RWD every time, thanks.


Sad to hear a fellow engineer say that :(

Hmm, guess I should go trade in the '91 Caprice wagon winter beater for something more... sensible. And perhaps I shouldn't have driven RWD vehicles for all five winters I spent in Houghton (including one winter where I used my '96 Impy as a daily driver, on the stock 255/50 BFGs, when we got 160" of snow in 6 weeks). And how our parents lived with only RWD, I've got no idea.

I could care less whether I've got RWD or FWD in poor weather - quality tires make far more difference than which wheels are being driven. But I know damn well I can drive a RWD car anywhere I can drive a FWD car, and without a decrease in mobility or safety. If only manufacturers would have stuck decent limited-slips in the back of RWD family cars, it would have been much harder to sell everyone on the myth of FWD traction. But had manufacturers stuck decent limited-slips in high-powered FWD cars, I'm sure that particular drive configuration could have also enjoyed a longer lifespan.

On the issue of the Charger vs. the Impala and overall sales, GM may very well sell many more Impalas than Chargers, but we'll see who makes more money on each model.

Sad to hear a fellow engineer say that :(


Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

On the issue of the Charger vs. the Impala and overall sales, GM may very well sell many more Impalas than Chargers, but we'll see who makes more money on each model.

Right here is a good question. Who will make more money per unit?

I can only imagine that the simpler and fully amortized W-car is cheaper to build than the more sophisticated LX. Powertrains should be cheaper for GM also, especially the V6's.

But....

If we go by recent history, Charger should sell at slightly below MSRP....but it may be difficult for GM to get that big rebate monkey off it's back.

I wonder really, who will actually make more money per car. I think GM can sell Impala for less than Charger and still make more money. As long as they don't need to resort to dropping $5,000 on the hood of each Impala.