http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/07/2...ement-delayed/

What's the logic behind this expenditure (for two model years) on a car that is now basically a fleet special? Not flaming (my wife drove one for many years and really liked it) just sincerely curious. I doubt it will improve the mileage ratings; I got 40 mpg on a 200 mile highway trip in one of these with the 3.4/4-speed.

 

They are discontinuing the 3500 and 3900 engines. 4 speed automatics for FWD cars are out the door too. No sense making 2 special engines and a transmission just for the Impala.

The 2012 Impala should be a fun car to drive as the 3.6L is the same new models that the Camaro and SRX are getting. We know it is going to be good for a minimum of 312HP in the Camaro, but the speculation is it will be rated ~325HP.

 

It better be able to do 30 mpg highway. I'm still perplexed by the Malibu's low highway rating, even lacking DI.

The bigger Impala gets 29 mpg with the 3.5L, and 27 mpg (still 1 mpg ahead of Malibu) with the larger 3900 V6, using a 4 speed auto in both cases. The Malibu has the advantage of a six speed, so it ought to be able to run a tall axle for fuel economy and still offer good performance.

It would be tragic for the Impala to finally get the DOHC 3.6L / six speed combo and see its fuel economy numbers drop below their current levels. I'd like to see 30 mpg (or more) highway, personally. The Camaro V6 gets 29-30 mpg with the automatic...

Wish this had happened a few years ago!

 

LaCrosse gets 27MPG with the DI 3.6L and the Camaro is getting 29MPG. I'd expect the 2012 Impala to be in that range.

 

I guess it does make sense to whittle it down to one drivetrain. I'm guessing non-DI, ~260hp and 27 mpg highway.

 

I love the styling on the current Impala. I'm actually considering getting a used 06/07 LT for my daily driver.

Now you're telling me that GM will offer the 2012 Impala with the 3.6 DI V6 and a 6-spd Auto!?! Where do I sign up?

 

You guessed wrong, it is getting the new LFX, which has DI and will probably make 290-300HP. 27mpg is probably a good guess as that is what the LaCrosse gets.

 

Cool beans! I wonder if they'll do anything to spice up the interior?

 

Really?!?

 

What you got on a 200 mile highway trip...no disrespect or abrasiveness intended (my direct words tend to come across different than intended when typed than in conversation)... doesn't mean a speck of dirt. It's all about what GM can get on the EPA highway test cycles.

GM sells a gazillion (ok, I'm exaggerating... but Impala is consistantly one of the top 2 selling cars General Motors makes) Impalas annually.

That means that Impala has a HUGE impact on GM's CAFE numbers (the CTSv and any potential Z28's impact will be almost nonexistant due to extremely minute production numbers).

If GM gets a couple more EPA mpg switching engines and transm,issions on the Impala, that's well worth any cost..... which isn't a tremendous amount.

Keep in mind that GM fully tested and certified the old RWD B-body for an LS1 engine for the 1998 model year only to kill the whole line when they decided against moving production from Arlington to Mexico.

 

That would have been a sweet car.

 

To be honest (and this is personal, not from anyone I talked to at GM) I think this move has far more to do with improving performance and making the Impala a competitive option against other makes than with simply improving fuel economy as it will most likley do (my guess? 1 to 2 mpg).

Keep in mind that this 3.6 Impala should be roughly as quick as the last 5.3 Impala SS......

..... which was exactly as fast (0-60, quarter mile, and 157 mph top speed)... as the LT1 Camaro Z28.

 

Really.

I even posted previously in another thread that I think its better looking than the proposed Chevy Caprice. I feel so strongly about this that I'd even accept that its FWD, even though I have never owned (personally) a FWD vehicle. (Both my parents and in-laws had FWD Buicks, which I did drive on occasion.)

If that's the case, it may be easier to convince my wife that we get a new Impala and Camaro and sell my 95 Z28 and 67 RS.

 

To bad the Impala SS shreds transmissions as bad as they do, because its a decent performer. The tranny problems and the discontinued platform-mates is why GM canned the SS a couple of years ago. If the SS got a heavy duty 6-speed auto back then, that would have been sweet. Around here you can get a really good deal on a used SS, I've seen low mileage GM Certified examples priced in the $15K-$16K range. I've thought about picking one up, since my Camaro got totaled last week. But I think the way I drive the tranny wouldn't hold up. I think I am going to try and get a good deal on a Pontiac G8 GT, plus the G8 looks just awesome compared to the bland Impala.

I think the 3.6L and 6-speed combo is a good addition for the aging Impala, to bad the front nose couldn't be freshened up, IMO thats the worst part of the car styling wise. I am glad that its getting the new LFX with DI, as the non DI 3.6 is not a good fuel miser. I bet the Impala will have around 280 - 290 hp and get 28-29 mpg hwy.

 

The Impala is so far away from being competitive, that any improvements that the 3.6 would bring, wouldn't budge the needle for anyone who cared about such things. In other words, putting a middle-of-the-pack drivetrain in bottom-of-the-heap car isn't going to increase its desirability among those that crave a satisfying driving package.

And given that it's unlikely to do much better than the 3.6 Malibu's 26 mpg, or even meet the current Impala's 29 mpg, and it definitely costs more to build, the only explanation for the swap is so they can kill the OHV production line.