And the Impalas...

[ToniCipriani]

Pearlescence-looking white:



Gray:


Blue:


Silver:


Red:

[Guest Josh]

I truthfully do not understand how people can like this. It's just so damn boring.

[BlkHhr104]

You live in Canada?

[HarleyEarl]

I love this new Impala. Yesterday saw a dark red LTZ in the showroom..very sharp car. Crisp, stylish. It was capturing a lot of attention. It is so much better in every way than the last Impala.

[ocnblu]

When has an Impala ever been truly exciting? Maybe in '58 when it was a new, sporty trim level on the basic workaday Bel Air, but even through the 60's, if you look at its contemporaries, and on through the bitter end, and on to its revival in '94 with the subtle sporty trim, it was never supposed to be exciting, it was supposed to be handsome and competent while going about its purpose. The '06 Impala is fine, and right in line with its ancestors... except for the FWD chassis, of course.

[Flybrian]

When has an Impala ever been truly exciting?  Maybe in '58 when it was a new, sporty trim level on the basic workaday Bel Air, but even through the 60's, if you look at its contemporaries, and on through the bitter end, and on to its revival in '94 with the subtle sporty trim, it was never supposed to be exciting, it was supposed to be handsome and competent while going about its purpose.  The '06 Impala is fine, and right in line with its ancestors... except for the FWD chassis, of course.

[post="1207"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

And even the FWD setup is in keeping with an 'Impala', that is a perfectly competant fullsize car. Most cars right now are FWD, hence...

Even the '94-'96 Impala never stood out like other hi-po cars do. I think that's one of the points and appealing natures of the Impala - its a nice, regular car wiht some kick-ass engine choices.

[ToneyTone]

Its sad to see people complain and wish this car to be something its not. Its always going to be plain and conservative. Edited August 20, 2005 by ToneyTone

[HarleyEarl]

When has an Impala ever been truly exciting?  Maybe in '58 when it was a new, sporty trim level on the basic workaday Bel Air, but even through the 60's, if you look at its contemporaries, and on through the bitter end, and on to its revival in '94 with the subtle sporty trim, it was never supposed to be exciting, it was supposed to be handsome and competent while going about its purpose.  The '06 Impala is fine, and right in line with its ancestors... except for the FWD chassis, of course.

[post="1207"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Perfectly said. The Bel Air/Impala has always been slightly understated with clean modern lines. And that is it's appeal. And along with some great engine choices. Now if Chevy would really go for it and bring back Impala 2-door hardtop coupes and convertibles, I would be in Chevy heaven.

[HarleyEarl]

....ok, well the '59 got a little flamboyant :)

[haypops]

Harley Earl: Do you have any other pictures of the car hauler?

[HarleyEarl]

Haypops, no, sorry, just this one. And on this subject, if anyone has any pics of haulers with cars on them, post them....I want to get a collection going. It's some sort of fetish....as a kid I would see these on the highway and just become entranced with the new vehicles loaded on them.

I get strangely aroused when I see a new car coming off a trailer ;)

Edited August 20, 2005 by HarleyEarl

[ToniCipriani]

I truthfully do not understand how people can like this. It's just so damn boring.

[post="1169"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Things are better when there is a contrast. It's like ANYTHING would be better sitting beside a rusted out 89' Corolla (well, of course, except another Toyota) :Where Is the Toyota sign??!!:

[haypops]

Haypops, no, sorry, just this one.  And on this subject, if anyone has any pics of haulers with cars on them, post them....I want to get a collection going.  It's some sort of fetish....as a kid I would see these on the highway and just become entranced with the new vehicles loaded on them. 

I get strangely aroused when I see a new car coming off a trailer ;)

[post="1255"][/post]

Daughter #1's husband drives a car hauler. I don't have any pictures, but will ask him to try and pick some up for you. He has lots of interesting stories over the years.

[4gm]

Yes, the design is on the boring side, and I complained about it when I first saw it, but now I think it's boring in a successful way, like the Camry. With the exception of the front end, which I'll address in a second, the overall design is well done and has a nice flow to it. Nothing really seems out of place. Even with its bland design, the car is somewhat distinctive. Now the front end, that's boring in a bad way. Totally generic and anonymous. Just about everyone's complained about it. What Chevy should have done, and should consider, was restyle the Cobalt's front end for the Impala. It wouldn't be hard to to. The headlights could stay and just the hood and bumper could be reworked. I know most you hate the Camry, but I think it's well designed in an inoffensive way, just like the 2006 Impala. Edited August 20, 2005 by 4gm

[regfootball]

The Impala has better proportioning than the Camry.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

I like the new one the way it is. The door panels seem different but I will not pass judgement until I get to drive it. To me the Impala has just kept up with the times as far as FWD is concerned. Its still the biggest Chevrolet family car in the the Chevrolet family. It still can hold 6 people if it has the bench front seat. I had a 1979 Impala. That wasnt exciting but it did the job just like todays Impala does.

[Chicagoland]

One thing that younger car fans have to understand is that until 1986, the full sized Chevy names were really trim levels, not the whole lineup. (One has to have lived then to fully understand) People are talking about "past Impalas", and forgetting that the Biscayne, BelAir, and Caprice, along with Impala SS were the same basic car. Before the first Impala, in 1957 it was 150, 210, and BelAir. 1958 on, is well known. The full sized cars used to be considered "standard cars", and the line was "The Chevrolet for 19xx". When the b bodies were donwsized in 1977, the ad campaign was "The New Chevrolet", meaning the new standards. Since the 1986, then Chevy called them all Caprice, and used the modern day letter code "LTZ", or suffix "Classic Brougham". Point is that comparing past Impalas to now is like comparing the 1966-77 Chargers to the 2006 version. Edited August 21, 2005 by Chicagoland

[The O.C.]

I set up the "fit-and-finish" post where I carped about the cheap plastics inside the car...so I won't repeat that here....but I have sat in my first Impala (silver LTZ with a great-looking "ebony" leather interior) and I've seen a few of them on the freeway now. Cheap plastics aside, I really like this car. I think the conservative exterior is also attractive and stylish without being overdone. I have two gripes.....first of all, the "spoiler-delete" option is a MUST! This car is too modern (if bland) to need a tack-on rear spoiler that was all the rage in the mid-80's. Imports aren't doing it any more....and Chevy doesn't need to either. It just adds a cheap look to the car that does it no justice. Secondly, the old W-car chassis severly reduces rear-seat comfort and leg-room. I found the same thing in the LaCrosses that I've sat in and driven. This is probably the Impala's worst failing....and one they couldn't get around until they totally redesign the vehicle on a new platform. Once seated in the back seat, there is very little foot and leg room....and you sit with your butt in a well, with your knees up...with very little upper-leg support. For a midsize passenger hauler, this is really bad. Other than that, it's the best GM midsizer out there.....the Grand Prix is too "white-trash tacky" and the LaCrosse is a poor excuse for Buick's "version of a Lexus." Chevy was the one that did it right with this old platform. I haven't driven them yet....but I think I'd probably take this car over a Ford 500.....! (alas but not over a Chrysler LX car...)

[stroke]

the headlights need to be angel eyes or blackout for the SS.

[Paolino]

I have to say, for the base version (the last pic being a red Impala LS), that's a generous piece of chrome they used on the back which definitely gives the car a more-upscale appearance than its base competitors.

[Robert Hall]

I'm sure the new Impala will do fine with its main target audiences (Avis and other rental agencies, fleet buyers, police departments, taxi companies).

[sciguy_0504]

I've never seen an Impala taxi before, didn't know they existed.

[Robert Hall]

I've never seen an Impala taxi before, didn't know they existed.

[post="1686"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes, I've seen them around a few airports... same with deVille taxis, Park Avenue taxis, etc...

[ToniCipriani]

I've never seen an Impala taxi before, didn't know they existed.

[post="1686"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They're here everywhere in Toronto. Not in Waterloo though. People there like using Mercedes S-Classes and VW Jetta TDIs.

[Paolino]

I have to say, I see TONS of Impalas on the roads... people buy them on Long Island big time. I'll be proud to see the refresh as abundant in a few months :)

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

When has an Impala ever been truly exciting?  Maybe in '58 when it was a new, sporty trim level on the basic workaday Bel Air, but even through the 60's, if you look at its contemporaries, and on through the bitter end, and on to its revival in '94 with the subtle sporty trim, it was never supposed to be exciting, it was supposed to be handsome and competent while going about its purpose.  The '06 Impala is fine, and right in line with its ancestors... except for the FWD chassis, of course.

[post="1207"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

1 ANSWER.

1959.

Beautiful car.

[Robert Hall]

1 ANSWER.

1959.

Beautiful car.

[post="2038"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The '61 -69 SSes, esp. the later SS 396 and SS 427s...definitely exciting cars..muscular land yachts..

(Styling-wise, the '65-66 is probably my favorite--crisp and clean.) Edited August 23, 2005 by moltar

[99camaroSS]

I truthfully do not understand how people can like this. It's just so damn boring.

[post="1169"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

im not to fond of it either but the blandness is the reason it will sell. there are so many boring people out there and so many more that think of a car as nothing more than an appliance... "just get them from point a to point b everyday without problems and they will be happy" why do u think toyotas sell so well?

[94camaroz28]

I am so tired of Chevys "smiley" cars i wish they would get it together a little more and maybe we will see something worth seeing

[dirtyvega]

I saw my first 06 Impala on the street Friday afternoon. The car looks alot better in person IMHO. The body is cleaner than the last gen car. I didn't think I would like it, but after seeing it in person I do. Good job Chevy!

[Matt276]

The rear is perfect, the front end could used some work though. The interior is a good average, not world-class. It's gonna sell well for the price.

[Coach]

Historically Impalas have been mainstream in styling with a few exceptions noted in previous emails. What makes the Impala of past so darned desirable was what it gave you; 409, 427, 454 LS-6, ect. If this new Impala had been delivered rwd with the current corvette motor (same motor as the GTO) and six speed manual transmission don't you think it would look a lot better? ;) It's a shame GM doesn't see the need for this type of mid sized car. :(

[bowtie_dude]

Historically Impalas have been mainstream in styling with a few exceptions noted in previous emails. What makes the Impala of past so darned desirable was what it gave you; 409, 427, 454 LS-6, ect. If this new Impala had been delivered rwd with the current corvette motor (same motor as the GTO) and six speed manual transmission don't you think it would look a lot better? ;)

It's a shame GM doesn't see the need for this type of mid sized car.  :(

[post="3026"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

GM doesn't see the need because there isn't one.

[Chicagoland]

1 ANSWER.

1959.

Beautiful car.

[post="2038"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

At the time it was considered ugly, Ford passed Chevy for #1. And again, Impala was a trim level, not the entire full sized line from 1958-85.

Big Chevys were exciting and popular after the '59 body was toned down, and then in the 60's they reined. The huge B bodies in the early 70's lost sales to Cutlasses and other smaller cars. But the 1977-78 came back to #1, only to decline in the 80's.

[ponchoman49]

I set up the "fit-and-finish" post where I carped about the cheap plastics inside the car...so I won't repeat that here....but I have sat in my first Impala (silver LTZ with a great-looking "ebony" leather interior) and I've seen a few of them on the freeway now.

Cheap plastics aside, I really like this car.  I think the conservative exterior is also attractive and stylish without being overdone.

I have two gripes.....first of all, the "spoiler-delete" option is a MUST!  This car is too modern (if bland) to need a tack-on rear spoiler that was all the rage in the mid-80's.  Imports aren't doing it any more....and Chevy doesn't need to either.  It just adds a cheap look to the car that does it no justice.

Secondly, the old W-car chassis severly reduces rear-seat comfort and leg-room.  I found the same thing in the LaCrosses that I've sat in and driven.  This is probably the Impala's worst failing....and one they couldn't get around until they totally redesign the vehicle on a new platform.  Once seated in the back seat, there is very little foot and leg room....and you sit with your butt in a well, with your knees up...with very little upper-leg support.  For a midsize passenger hauler, this is really bad.

Other than that, it's the best GM midsizer out there.....the Grand Prix is too "white-trash tacky" and the LaCrosse is a poor excuse for Buick's "version of a Lexus."  Chevy was the one that did it right with this old platform. 

I haven't driven them yet....but I think I'd probably take this car over a Ford 500.....!  (alas but not over a Chrysler LX car...)

[post="1522"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My 00-05 gen Impalas had terrific rear seat legroom. The new 06 seems to have slightly less for some reason but it still is far better than the LaCrosse and Grand Prix. The interior plastics are somewhat improved over the last gen also. They are right about in line with the price point with this car. Overall it's a good value.

[regfootball]

i followed an 06 this morning for about 2 miles. the new Impala is much more rakish than the last one, yet still is conservative enough to appeal to camry types. the rear end design is clean and well executed and the assembly quality is very good. small gaps. too bad the front end is not great. boy that back seat area is small Edited August 26, 2005 by regfootball

[mrmonte]

I saw one on the highway yesterday (a base model) from behind, from about 50 feet away it really looks like a Camry so did a silver base model I saw at a dealer. No way would I buy this car. I also saw a Bonneville GXP in a silver blue type color yesterday, way better looking car.

[Matt276]

I was surprised to hear my brother saying that he saw the new Impala SS and he was impressed. And he is not a GM fan... :huh:

[BuddyP]

It is boring and bland looking, saying that that's what it is is a poor excuse. I would buy a bonneville way before the new Impala... I would buy a lot of cars before the new Impala. Sorry, it just does nothing for me at all.

[Matt276]

I saw one yesterday and I can say it's a nice car. With fuel price, this car is gonna sell very well.

[LosAngeles]

I truthfully do not understand how people can like this. It's just so damn boring.

[post="1169"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You've never seen it on the street....trust, once the customizers start to play around with it a little, you'll feel it.

[LosAngeles]

Just look what front end made it onto the Impala....

[LosAngeles]

One thing that younger car fans have to understand is that until 1986, the full sized Chevy names were really trim levels, not the whole lineup. (One has to have lived then to fully understand) People are talking about "past Impalas", and forgetting that the Biscayne, BelAir, and Caprice, along with Impala SS were the same basic car. Before the first Impala, in 1957 it was 150, 210, and BelAir. 1958 on, is well known.

The full sized cars used to be considered "standard cars", and the line was "The Chevrolet for 19xx". When the b bodies were donwsized in 1977, the ad campaign was "The New Chevrolet", meaning the new standards.

Since the 1986, then Chevy called them all Caprice, and used the modern day letter code "LTZ", or suffix "Classic Brougham".

[post="1480"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yep, same case with all the american makes (nerdiness alert)

Buick: Electra, Invicta, LeSabre, Skylark, Century, Roadmaster
Pontiac: Bonneville, Catalina, Grand Prix, Star Chief, Ventura, Laurentian, Excutive, Parisienne
Ford: Galaxie, Customline, Victoria, LTD, Country Squire, Country Sedan, Fairlane

Yep, before the smaller (mid-size and compact) cars were created (to fill in the gap made by the standard (full-size) cars becoming 230 inches long, the model names were just trim levels of the exact same car. Hell, in the 30s and 40s merged-up GM, the BRANDS were simply trim levels of the same car, hence the Sloan ladder....even at Chrysler in the 50s (Plymouth, DeSoto, Dodge, Chrysler, Imperial)

There's so much variety, it's insane these days....because the only way you got it before 1961 was to go to a completely different company (which there were hundreds back then)

[mustang84]

Here's a quick Photoshop I did of a different strip of chrome for the rear...the current bar seems too tacked on. I think this would give the rear some better flow and give it a much more upscale appearance.

[ToniCipriani]

I think the current bar is fine. Family resemblance with the Malibu. I don't see why not.