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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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

'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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.