If more ppl knew these things, I bet they would have sold more f-bodies!

 

of course an extra two gears never hurts

 

I've only gotten 24mpg highway/18 city in my 99 Z28.

Those mpg #'s are not impressive at all for the 3.9 V6

 

Yeah but it's also got a lumpy cam, race tires, etc. I've recorded similarly impressive numbers from the car before. I want to think something's wrong but it seems to do better than alright at the track. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with how the car is driven though.

Not too shabby for an ol' LT1.

 

pretty surprising. This highlights how efficient the Lsx engines are.

 

I get about 24 in town ...but it's still stock outside of the clutch.

 

It seems as if GM chose the wrong gearing for the 3.9 liter.

GM is attempting to position the 3.9 as a quasi-performance intermediate powertrain option. In reality, it only has the performance potential to be a base engine.

GM should drop the 3.5 liter completely and make the 3.9 liter the base engine in the 2006 Impala. They should also play around with final drive ratios until they can return a 32 MPG highway figure from the 3.9 that matches the far more powerful Toyota Avalon!

A 27 MPG rating from an unimpressive pushrod V6 is just plain unacceptable when a more powerful DOHC competitor gets 32 MPG!

 

So what do you call the 2.4L 4 cyl @ 150 hp & 160 ft-lbs in the base Camry? The sub-base engine? how about their 190 hp & 197 ft-lb mid grade engine or 210 hp & 220 ft-lb high end offering? Too funny! Best mpg of the 6 cyls just mentioned is 21/29.

How about the Altima? Base engine is again a 4 cyl @ 175 hp & 180 ft-lbs. At least the uplevel engine has 250 or 260 hp w/ 250 ft-lbs. MPG for 6 cyls is 21/27 w/ manual and 20/30 w/ auto.

 

Actually, the Camry's 160hp 2.4 liter compares to the Malibu's wimpy 2.2 liter - and you can expect far more power (and the 280hp V6 from the Avalon) in the upcoming new Camry.

More to the point, the 2006 Impala is supposed to be a "premium midsized," not an "entry-level" midsized like the Malibu. The Impala will have the weakest base engine in its class except for Ford's sluggish moving (and selling) Five-Hundred. Even if GM made the 3.9 liter standard equipment, which it isn't, the Impala would still trail cars like the base Charger, the Avalon and even the aging Maxima.

 

Depending on gearing I expect the Impala 3.9 to eat the Charger 3.5 for lunch. The LX cars had the 3.5 and were lighter and were killed by the old 3.8 Impala, so why would things be any different?

 

I guess I should have been more specific. I wasn't intending to compare the Camry & Altima directly to Impala. I was merely pointing out that pretty much every manufacturer has a "value leader" powertrain in what they consider their high volume mainstream vehicles. We both know the base powertrain in the Impala is once again a "value leader" that is aimed more at fleet sales than at the retail consumer. It fills a role that GM is willing to fill. I don't necessarily agree with that. Many people that have switched to foreign makes years ago only experience American cars through rental agencies. Since the Big 2.5 sell what for all intents and purposes are "fleet" only packages to the rental agencies, these potential customers are not getting a good taste of what GM, Ford and Chrysler have to offer. It's too bad they continue to make and sell these models to pump up their sales numbers. I think it only helps to reinforce stereotypes against the Big 2.5

 

Keep in mind that all Chargers - even the $22,995 base V6 models - have the 5-speed Mercedes designed slushbox. The smart money says that the Charger's more modern drivetrain should be both quieter, smoother and more durable - although neither the 3.9 liter Impy or Charger V6 will be very quick.

 

94_Z28 you made a great point about the big three producing crap fleet cars for the rental agencies. Case in point, my girlfriend and two other female associates have a business meeting in mexically, mexico. They fly to san diego and pick up a chevy classic (malibu), the leave sunny san diego where its 76 and proceed to mexico. One the way back its about 115 out and the have to leave the AC on full blast just to stay cool. As they are going up a long grade my girlfriend has to floor it the whole way up, max speed is 45 mph. @ WOT??? She said the car was really cheap inside and had no power. She drives a 175hp altima. Experiences like this will keep her from ever owning a malibu, and she knows that the G6 is a relative of the malibu and she cant stand it. The last time I rented I had an olds alero. It was probably one of the nicer cars I've rented and the ecotec in that car did okay in LA. The interior was great.

Anyways they complained so much about the Classic that on the trip they took last week they got a free upgrade, to an altima. The girlfriend was impressed with the interior redo for 2005.

Is a impy with the 3.9l faster than the 240hp GP gtp?

 

FYI, the "Classic" is not the Malibu (anymore), and it is NOT related to the G6. The new Malibu, and the G6, are Epsilon-based, and have nothing to do with the old "classic".

I've had "Classic" rental cars with the ecotec (and my g/f drives a similarly-sized Saturn L200 with the same engine). Certainly not fast, but more than adequate power.

What did she have in the car, 5 people with lead bricks for luggage? 45 mph top speed? Sounds fishy to me...

 

AH yes there is a new platform, same engines though. And she knows its a malibu, so she and her friends would associate this classic with the new malibu. There were three women, none fat , and three brief cases and a malibu, err, classic that did not like going up the hill with the AC on. Me and you know the differences in these cars and platforms, 95% of the population doesn't. Those three women came away thinking that chevy malibu (Classic) are junk. She knows that the malibu and G6 are the same platform, so now she has a bad view of them.

A few weeks ago she asked me what a LS1 was, I was so proud.

GM needs to make these fleet cars better, the colbalt is a start.