I just came back from the Impala/Monte/HHR training, and I must say these cars will do very well in the market place. The Impy felt of much more quality than the current model, and the HHR is a very tight and fun ride.

Despite earlier predictions, I think if GM markets the HHR well, it will sell pretty well. The Impala just does everything well and at a very attractive price for what you get to boot.

I'm not doing a big review as I did for the Solstice and Torrent, but I will mention the point that caught my ears during the somewhat boring presentation:

The GM supplied 0-60 figure for the Impala SS is 5.7 seconds!

Now, this really caught my attention because the claimed 0-60 on the GXP is 5.9 sec. They also mentioned that the Monte is a little quicker than the Impy due to a little less weight.

I asked for a reason for the difference between the GXP and the SS and recieved a blank look, but remember, these aren't GM employees running the show.

When I drove the SS, the exhaust note is very sweet and deep, and really sets you back in the seat (I drove all three engines; 3.5, 3.9, 5.3) and came back impressed with all the engine options. But am still baffled why such a difference in 0-60. Keep in mind, the SS, though fast, doesn't handle like a GXP, which you would figure.

Figured you all would like to know!

 

Any figures on the MC SS?

 

No, just that it's a bit quicker than the Impy SS. They were too vague. Simple questions such as rotor diameters wern't even known, so I was somewhat disapointed.

 

Maybe the increased weight/rolling resistance of those fat front tires and wheels makes a little difference launching the GXP out of the hole? Although, technically I'd think that the extra traction provided by the more aggressive/wider tread might help it launch better.

Either way, wow

 

That's a quick 0-60 for a full size fwd car. I would think that the SS might creep into the 13's based on that info. Does anyone know if the 303 hp rating is with the new rating system or still the old?

On a related note about the looks of the Impala: I think the SS should be what the LS looks like and the SS should be a step or two beyond that because it is true that although the Impala looks pretty good, it still isn't very exciting.

 

Like the G6, I think the Impala raises the bar on the quality look. It's interior is as good as anything else you're going to find that doesn't have a German namplate, and it's a continuation of Bob Lutz's focus on interior quality & design. Also like the G6, although Impala is a very attractive car, you get the feeling that it's personality has been muted, though not as bad as the G6/Grand Am was. The new Impala's front end is light years better than the car it replaced, but the rest of the car (especially the round tail lights) gave the car personality.

That having been said, the acceleration time is awesome! I did a thread not too long ago predicting the Monte Carlo would be LT1 quick, and there were quite a few that dismissed me. With the Impala doing a factory 5.7 0-60 (factory numbers are usually a tick slower than what cars actually do) the Monte Carlo should be solidly around 5.5 seconds, which makes it one of the worlds quickest front drivers.



The HHR I've recently flipped and completely changed my opinion of them. I still think it's pretty pathetic when Mr Lutz and company try to deny it has anything to do with a PT Cruiser (even the same person designed both vehicles!), but the HHR is far nicer, muscular, and strange as it seems, "MODERN!

GM is on the right track. It only that everyone and their brother seems to move quicker. IMO GM needs to forget about trasition cars, and cut to the chase. I think we could have survived an extra year or so with the old Impala, Regal, and Park Avenue if GM would skipped the "transition" cars and leap frogged to the next version.

 

1) Modern is also the first thing I think of when I see the HHR. My friend thought I was nuts, but you agree, and so does Motor Trend. I like something that can be seen as modern AND retro. The retro doesn't slap you in the face the way it does with the Mustang. Are you listening, GM?

2) Maybe I really do need to check out the MC SS after all!!!!!

3) I think the G6 has plenty of personality...and a better one than the Grand Am to boot. I know we differ here, Guy The G6 looks and feels buttoned down, sporty and contemporary. Grand Ams just feel, well, sporty but cheap. I don't get a cheap sensation from a G6, at all. With that said, the Impala is CRYING for the 4 round tailights again. The new one is perfect aside from some better wheels for the SS, some side skirting for the SS, and 4 round tailights

 

Oh I agree with you about the Grand Am. It was cheap and wasn't very sophisticated. But it had personality.

Best analogy I can think of is that while the G6 is like James Bond's witty quips, the Grand Am was Rodney Dangerfield.

 

Well, I have one in my driveway. It gets a little respect, but between you, me and the rest of the board...

I'm glad she drives it She took my car to work yesterday because I needed to change her oil after I got out of work, so I had the GA for a day. The old 2.4 was torquier and better engine than the 2.2 Ecotec was/is, the seats are comfy enough, there's no squeaks or rattles at 58k, and the ride is pretty good. But the dash is still a tragic design IMO. The cloth is better than in later '99+ GAs, but the door panels look cheap and the entire interior overall is just pretty lousy.

We love the car for what it is...a reliable, economical, semi-sporty daily driver. Above that, like Dangerfield, it gets no respect from me. So long as she's happy...but we've already agreed she gets a new "Bond-like" G6 within 2-3 years...she flat loves them.

 

It sounds like GM is putting some exciting stuff on the market....but it still can't fulfill my desire for the return of the beloved f-body

 

I was thinking the same thing. Both the GXP and SS have 18" though, so I'm at a loss.

Gotta love that V8 power no matter which a person chooses!

 

Isn't it strange how you've come around to my way of thinking?

Mainstream FWD products like the 2006 Impala will prove to be the undoing of General Motors as we know it. Sure, a 2006 Impala is better than the 2000 Impala - but the improvement isn't worth the wasted investment.

What GM really needed was Chrysler LX competitor.

 

I don't see how a standard 211hp V6, a 240hp V6, and a 303hp V8 and good size doesn't make this a 300 competitor. I'm sure this new Impala will kick the 300's **** on the sales chart.

If you need true standout looks and RWD, then, admittedly, the Impala falls short of the 300. But for real world, as well as true four season, useage, I'd be taking the Impala.

 

The 2006 Impala is a fundimentally dated car. The 2006 Impala is a car that looks old even before you buy it. The the W-body platform's packaging is poor for a FWD sedan of this size - worse than Chrysler's RWD LX-platform.

Of course, the powertrain picture is equally grim. It should be obvious by now that the days of the 4-speed slushbox are at an end. It should also be obvious that V8 lash-up in the 2006 Impala SS is a desperate stop-gap, not a carefully conceived response to Chrysler Hemi powered LX cars.

The only thing the Impala has in its favor is the uninformed opinion that FWD cars are better in winter driving conditions RWD cars - something that stopped being true about 10 years ago when the first stability control systems came to the market.

In the end, the 2006 Impala is just another symptom of GM's seemingly inevitable decline. By any measure, the 2006 Impala is yet another example of "too little and too late."

 

That's your opinion. The new Impala is packaged nicely for those families needing the extra space and front wheel drive. Explain how you find them packaged poorly.

When you have powertrains that have torque, multi-gear automatics are less needed. In all reality, the four-speed auto is more than enough with the powertrain combinations in the Impala and other W bodies.

I'm not saying that a five speed could be better, HOWEVER, it's not apparent that it's needed in normal driving situations.

Tell you what, come up here after we get about only 10" of snow and help clear the lot and tell me that getting through snow is as easy in a RWD car as a FWD. You won't, I guarantee it.

Again, as I've said countless times over the years, it's not about stability going down the road, it's about getting moving in the first place and maintaining that pace through deep elements such as snow and sand. RWD just can't match up to FWD in these northern elements.

We shall see in due time.