Preach it, Lew. I just read his post about 15 minutes ago, and I'm having the day from hell in the showroom here (busy as hell selling 2 cars, then walked out back to the GP and found the RR flat with a nail in the tread ). I'm too tired to snap at the goofball today...nice work though

Oh and BTW, I realize both cars have 18s. What I was thinking is that the wider tires and the 1" wider wheels on the front of the GPs might make them heavier enough to blunt accelerative forces???

 

Where's the "extra space" and what conceivable advantage does front wheel drive confer to the owner of the poorly packaged Impala? I'd urge anyone to look at the comparably sized rear wheel drive Charger/300.



I'm sure that the same sort of arguement was used to defend the 2-speed Powerglide back in the early 1960s. In reality, the only reason GM is still using a 4-speed in the Impala is because a 6-speed unit isn't available - yet.




You really need to upgrade to a non-GM product. Something that's actually modern. Something that has rear wheel drive and stability control.

I can honestly say that I never really needed 4WD in my SUV last winter - despite a fair bit of bad winter weather and very wide tires. It seems as if the stability/traction control did all that was needed. More to the point, I was fully protected against spinning out on a corner during emergency braking.

You can continue in you uninformed believe that FWD is a winter weather cure all. It isn't.


Judging by GM's quarterly losses, we're already seeing the effects of this crop of mediocre new cars.

 

Whereabouts do you live, how long have you been driving, and what mix of FWD/RWD cars? Because I would have to say it's your opinion that is uninformed.

Traction/stability control system cannot make traction; all they can do is maximize what is already there. So when you're talking about getting a car moving in the snow, the vehicle with the most traction (which is the vehicle with the most weight over its driven wheels) is going to be be superior. Electronics cannot overcome physics.

In fact, traction control is a hindrance to getting moving in the snow (and this is why I question your experience). Anyone who's driven in more than 2" of snow knows that to get going you HAVE to spin the tires. The tires need to push off against the snow and dig down to better traction. Traction control systems prevent spinning and try to let the tires ride on top of the snow, which simply does not work.

I gave myself a first-hand demonstration of this a couple of winters back. I was caught in a blizzard with the Z28 and there was about 4" of snow on the streets when I was returning home late at night. As I tried to go up a street with a modest incline the TCS was working overtime and I was slowly losing momentum to the point that I was almost stopped. Meanwhile, 2WD pickups and vans were flying by me. I thought WTF was going on, this car with Posi should be doing far better than a pickup truck. Then I noticed the TCS was on (this was my first car so equipped). As soon as I turned it off, put the car in 2nd gear and let the tires churn a bit, I was back up to speed in no time. If was not able to turn off the TCS I would have had to call a tow truck.

Another problem with RWD in deep snow is that you have to be able to push the front wheels through the snow, as opposed to a FWD car where the front wheels can dig their own path and the rear wheels can follow in those paths. You may think this is a trivial concern but I can assure you it is not. It's one of the reasons why following other cars' paths in the snow is so much easier than blazing your own.

(Sorry for getting this derailed into another FWD vs. RWD snow argument )

 

I've been licensed for more than a decade and I've never owned a FWD car. Last winter was my first with a vehicle that had either stability or traction control.

There's more snowfall around where I live than you'd see in either Eastern or Southern Ontario. It's not just a case of the northern lattitude, but a topographical condition that creates a very localized snowbelt. It's nasty.


There are differences between traction control systems. I didn't bother ordering T/C on my Camaro because I didn't think the system's effectiveness justified the money. Of course, the same thing could have be said about the optional traction control system on an early 1990s Mercedes. Times change, and improvements have been made.

Personally, I never thought that traction control lived up to its potential until the first full stability control systems appeared on the market.

Once you've run out of ground clearance the show is over. I wouldn't be all that confident that a FWD car can "dig its own path." Your arguement only holds water if you're going to the extreme of comparing a rear engined/rear drive car (like the VW Type I "Beetle") with a conventional front engined-car.

What I can state with certainty is that the peculiarly nose heavy weight distribution of a FWD car or a pick-up truck is a huge disadvantage in low traction conditions - a bit like a Porsche 911 in reverse. Under conditions of forward weight transfer (braking, lifting of the accelerator) on a surface with minimal traction (ice for instance), bad things can happen very suddenly with nose (or tail) heavy vehicles.

 

Where is it that you are located with all the snow?

Not true. A FWD car with traction control offers 90% of the traction capable of a AWD vehicle. Do some research, it's true. They don't say that about RWD and traction control.

Absolutely true. But that is not the arguement, remember?

 

The folks on the vtec.net express the same sort of opinion about why their beloved TL is better than a BMW, etc.

For me, I want a RWD car, so both the TL and the Impala are automatically eliminated from my consideration. If you don't care about drive wheels, then the FWD cars will have a small advantage, due to higher volume, lower cost platforms.

But you have to realize that for someone like me, the Impala and the 300 do not even compete, and the Impala is automatically eliminated from my consideration.

It's too bad, because I like the Impala styling better than the 300 (or Charger) styling. I also like the Malibu styling. I don't care for the new Buicks or Pontiacs so much, except for the GTO.

Well, my GM card rebate won't fill up until 2009, so there are still four years for GM to produce a sedan that I want. In the meantime, I enjoy my 2002 Camaro (the teal '98 is now my brother's).

 

Have you ever sat in an Impala? There is plenty of space EVERYWHERE!!! I felt like the Impala had more space than the 300. Whether there was really more room is up to debate. The Impala feels roomier because of the clausterphobic nature of the tiny little windows in the 300.

 

I wasn't referring to cases where a car has run out of ground clearance. What I meant was if you're going through, say, 4" of fresh snow with no tracks, the non-driven front wheels in a RWD car will continually push back against the wall of snow ahead of them and try to climb up. This is additional resistance that the already traction-limited rear wheels have to overcome. However on a FWD car the leading edge of the front tires will dig through this "wall" and not face similar resistance.

 

I've seen the HHR and the Impala and think these cars will do very well. Haven't seen the revised Monte, so I can't comment, but it always seems to have a following. I think the Impala's neew interior is worlds better than the current one, and should help it maintain or gain market share. It is a nice car until a rwd sedan becomes available.

 

A couple of points...I no longer directly quote redzed, because he'll ignore my argument, answer no questions I pose to him, and generally act like a little girl...

1) The nose heavy weight distribution of FWD is exactly the reason it supplies a traction advantage in snow. You cannot defy the laws of physics.

2) Ground clearance or not, I don't care...FWD is superior in the kinds of conditions I face constantly for 1/3 of the year, without question. I can (and routinely do) plow snow with my Grand Prix. My fiance lived in Central VT from January to May this past year. She was forced to travel down 3 miles of dirt roads that were rarely plowed for 24 hours after a snow/ice storm on her way out of where she was staying to Mary Hitcock Hospital in NH for her internship. Her weapon of choice? Our old, beloved M5 '93 Probe. I put 4 studded snows on it for her before she left. The results? The car only got stuck once on their 250 foot long driveway...that night, she had snow over the pop-up headlights. To this day she believes she could have kept going if the car had been tall enough for the headlights to remain effective. When she stopped, she ran to the house and grabbed a tape measure and went back out....37" of snow in front of the car. For the record, I don't think a Probe is much taller than 50-52". Try that with RWD.

3) Lew posed a valid question as to where the Charger has superior space utilization to the "ancient" W body. I think he deserves an answer.

4) R377's assessment of F bodies in snow completely mirror my own. I will not even attempt to drive a V8 F body in winter...4 winters with a 135hp 2.8 Camaro on studded snows was enough for me.

5) Stability and traction controls will only defy the laws of physics for so long. When all a car can do is spin, as R377 learned, it will stop. No amount of computer programming will be any more than a band aid for inclement weather driving on a RWD car.

With that said...go Lew, go

 

I find it ironic that some people in this thread are saying this update was unnecessary and the current car could have soldiered on for another year or two before being replaced. Are these the same people who complain that GM updates their cars too infrequently while competitors refresh their cars every 3-4 years? In my opinion, refreshing the Impala is a good thing because it allows the car to continue its forward momentum instead of back-sliding into an all new replacement. I just can't see where its a bad thing for GM to not sit on its hands until the car is replaced.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. It's funny how some members here will bitch and a moan about a particular issue for one car model ( or comapny), then flat out have another, opposite point of view for another car. It baffles me.

 

I had a chance to crawl all over a new Impala SS a week ago and it's a great car.....has many new features and a V8 to boot.....and I think it looks a ton better than the current car...and quality took a leap forward too.

 

In other words, "I've never owned one, but for some reason I feel I am very qualified to speak about their disadvantages".

I've owned front drivers and rear drivers. The FWD is more forgiving to those who need it. I drove my '80 Camaro as a daily driver all winter long (this was when it had 425 hp, not 625 hp), and I had no problems, but would the litle old lady up the street want to do it? Probably not.

 

Excellent point. If GM held out with this refreshening until it could unveil a new generation of LX fighting RWD sedans, we would be stuck with current impala until when, 2009? 2010? I firmly believe they have done the right thing by refreshening the Impala.