2009 Impala 50th Anniversary Edition

[Camino LS6]

C'mon, guys, it's just an option package. At least it's not struck with the ugly bat. We're stuck with the G6 GXP. What's worse?

Both are hideous and pointless.

The GM10 and W should never have existed in the first place, something much better could, and should, have been in place. Like the creation of Saturn, these cars are a defining blunder.

[K.C.]

It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback, especially when 200 or so Mondays have past. The W-body in 1988 was a huge step towards what was competitive at the time, and they were thoroughly modern. Rear wheel drive was not in fashion at that time. The thinking has changed. Since the W-body has aged, so has my love for it. I think it's time to replace it with something more modern, and preferrably rear wheel drive. With the state of the market, gas prices rising, the volume customer does not want a heavy rear wheel drive large sedan. These sedans and coupes will become niche cars, and to have niche cars we need mundane cars like the W-body right now feeding GM's earnings. Without the mundane customer buying quality mundane GM cars, then the enthusiasts would not have cars that cater to their needs at all. The Impala is one of those cars.

[Camino LS6]

The wholesale abandonment of RWD after years of neglect wasn't fixed by the advent of these lackluster products, now so long in the tooth. Mundane wasn't good enough then, and it isn't good enough now.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

The W was not a failure, it kept GM alive and well for 20 years. Without the W, there would be no GM today, or at least not the GM you recognize. My GXP and the Bonneville GXP were one of the cars Lutz 1st changed, put the V8 in it, or did you forget that?

In my opinion, it was a failure, mostly in a lot of the little things: not having both sedan and coupe models ready at launch (one example of Smith's ignorance to the market; the market was moving away from coupes when the W was launched, and this did inflict damage on GM), how it eroded away some of the individual identity of Buick, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile, just to name a few points.

I didn't forget that Lutz added the V8 to the W for production (GM had been experimenting with shoehorning small-blocks in the W for a period of time before Lutz made it an option). But, like the saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

You do have one thing right, though. If the W was never launched, we would have a different GM.

Yeah I didn't like Roger Smith, trust me that's no secret, but please don't include me in your irrational hate of a man, you didn't know or even work under, or for that matter weren't even born yet at that time. :AH-HA_wink:

Irrational? Not really, no. When I do rant about Smith, I'm not like Sixty-8 ranting about B-pillars and how there is no Cadillac Sixteen. Smith seriously damaged GM more than he ever could have helped it and set it on a self-destructive pattern that has now cost GM serious market share. It's only now that GM has begun to truly stabilize and work its way back to greatness again and build products that enthusiasts and buyers alike can really give praise for. If GM gets set off this path and back to the path of old, then only God can help it back out.

It doesn't matter if I worked under or knew Smith or not, I'm aware of what he did to GM and what effect it has had.

And I didn't include you in my dislike for Smith, I was simply stating a fact. We both do dislike the era of GM where Smith was put in the driver's seat. I dislike it from an enthusiast's standpoint, you dislike it from mostly an employee's standpoint. Maybe I'm not making that comment (or any of my others) that much clearer, but I hope you get what I am saying here.

Edited January 16, 2008 by YellowJacket894

[The O.C.]

There was no other platform at that time to take up the cause of midsize cars within GM, as much as you don't like it, it did serve GM well, sales today of the Chevy Impala prove that, up 11% over this time last year.

And smallchevy, you right about a live ass being better than a dead lion, especially if that lion is rolling a ball.

And how many of those W-bodies have they had to cart off to the rental companies just to keep the plants crankin'....?

Answer....

....a TON....

[Robert Hall]

And how many of those W-bodies have they had to cart off to the rental companies just to keep the plants crankin'....?

Answer....

....a TON....

One positive about having a lot of GM rental cars, though..rental cars are the only way many people have an opportunity to drive new GMs..

Edited January 17, 2008 by moltar

[The O.C.]

One positive about having a lot of GM rental cars, though..rental cars are the only way many people have an opportunity to drive new GMs..

That's not saying much if the cars are substandard......(bad for W-bodies.....good for new Malibus and Lambdas....)

[Robert Hall]

That's not saying much if the cars are substandard......(bad for W-bodies.....good for new Malibus and Lambdas....)

True...I know plenty of people that drive Impalas, Grand Prixs, and other other Avis rides during the work week and drive Camrys and Accords when they go home..

[vonVeezelsnider]

Our 2007 Impala did 3 months in a Budget fleet before we bought it from our dealer...

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Our 2007 Impala did 3 months in a Budget fleet before we bought it from our dealer...

We had a 2004 Impala that did duty as a rental car.

It wasn't a bad car, but certainly not one that would set a real fire under my ass under any circumstance or in any trim level.

[ponchoman49]

It's interesting all the hate piled on the old fashioned low tech outdated W-body. But lets take a look at the all new Malibu with way more modern Epsilon underpinnings a DOHC V6 and modern 6 speed automatic.

Impala LT V6 3.9 V6 vs Malibu LT V6 3.6 V6

mileage 18/28 17/26

weight 3637 3649

trunk cu.ft. 18.6 15.1

passengers 5/6 5

V8 option model yes no

overhead assist grips yes no

flip and fold rear seat

with rear center armrest yes no

passenger volume cu.ft 104.5 97.7

wheelbase 110.5 112.3

length 200.4 191.8

width 72.9 70.3

fuel tank 17 16.4

Sure the Malibu has a prettier interior look, a telescoping wheel and is a few ticks quicker to 60 but the old W-body seems to stack up better in most other catagories compared to the all new Malibu.

Edited January 25, 2008 by ponchoman49

[Drew Dowdell]

I think it wounded GM every year of its existence. It is a symbol of a GM that lost its way.

come come now. I know you like RWD, but the W-body wasn't that bad.

The Cutlass was fairly popular. The Grand Prix did have some performance cred. The Intrigue was one of the best of the large mid-sized cars of it's era. And you have Grandpa's Regal when you pry it from his cold dead hands.

We're not talking J-body here....

[Paolino]

Is the Impala going to get a MCE?

[ToniCipriani]

come come now. I know you like RWD, but the W-body wasn't that bad.

The Cutlass was fairly popular. The Grand Prix did have some performance cred. The Intrigue was one of the best of the large mid-sized cars of it's era. And you have Grandpa's Regal when you pry it from his cold dead hands.

We're not talking J-body here....

Agreed... in fact the W-Body Grand Prix has quite a fanbase following. And I was just talking to a friend, he'd consider an Impala but not the Malibu for its size. Our family's Lumina was one of my personal fave as well. It's sooo comfortable and roomy inside.

[Duncan]

Is the Impala going to get a MCE?

If you mean Massive Cardiac Embolism, then hopefully.

I don't despise the W-body outright; there have been some nice models. I always thought the original Cutlass coupes were the best-looking of the W-bunch, and you can't deny the sheer force of any of the 3800 or 3800 Supercharged versions. Then there's the turbocharged McLaren Grand Prix...that one was already rare when it was new.

The problem, though, is that the vast majority of people's experiences with the W involve some combination of low-level trim, four doors, and a thrashy 3100 under the hood. Thankfully, at least they hold together forever like the A-bodies do - or maybe that's not a good thing. I'm not sure.

As many have said, the W is the final vestige of the "old" GM. The Zeta was supposed to be the biggest switch for the "new" GM, but apparently we're now going to be stuck with some sort of a "transitional" GM for a while.

[The O.C.]

It's interesting all the hate piled on the old fashioned low tech outdated W-body. But lets take a look at the all new Malibu with way more modern Epsilon underpinnings a DOHC V6 and modern 6 speed automatic.

Impala LT V6 3.9 V6 vs Malibu LT V6 3.6 V6

mileage 18/28 17/26

weight 3637 3649

trunk cu.ft. 18.6 15.1

passengers 5/6 5

V8 option model yes no

overhead assist grips yes no

flip and fold rear seat

with rear center armrest yes no

passenger volume cu.ft 104.5 97.7

wheelbase 110.5 112.3

length 200.4 191.8

width 72.9 70.3

fuel tank 17 16.4

Sure the Malibu has a prettier interior look, a telescoping wheel and is a few ticks quicker to 60 but the old W-body seems to stack up better in most other catagories compared to the all new Malibu.

Okay....let's not forget about.....

Styling..........old-school, HUGE front-and-rear overhangs..........clean, modern, upscale, with-the-times

V6s..........thrashy, pushrods, 4-speeds, slow (compared to 'Bu)..........smooth, revvy, powerful, quicker, 6-speeds

Rear seat room..........tight, low cushion, limited foot/leg room..........surprisingly roomy, much better use of interior space

Ride/handling..........floaty, ponderous even in SS trim..........ranked as one of the best-in-segment by even the buff mags

Impala is an anachronism.

Edited January 26, 2008 by The O.C.

[ponchoman49]

The new Malibu does not have more rear seat legroom than the Impala. I know because my buddy actually owned a 2007 Impala 3LT before it was sadly totaled on the thruway. Both cars are rated at 37.6 and my tall friend with the seat adjusted where he is comfortable has the rear seatbacks of both touching my knees back there. The Impala as I stated above has more interior volume and greater width which shows up right away when squeezing 3 people into the back seat of the Malibu vs 3 people sitting with arms touching in the Impala.

Styling is very subjective. Personally neither me or my friend cared for the Malibus rear end treatment and without the optional bodyside moldings the side of the car looks rather plain and bland.

Sure the Malibu has less of a front and rear overhang and has a longer wheelbase. Too bad that longer wheelbase translates into LESS rear legroom, trunk space, shoulder room and much greater weight compared to my 2007 Malibu LT.

Motor Trend, Car & Driver and CR ranked Malibu midpick in real world tests not quick walk by glances based on styling judgements or emotional appeal.

My buddys 3LT 3900 handled amazingly well and we never felt the need for better cornering prowess. The suspension handles every bump really well and the ride is very quiet. The W-body cars I have owned have been very reliable and rattle free. My 2007 Epsion Malibu with only 27K has already developed front end rattles, intermediate steering shaft failure and replacement and now the drivers side strut is making noise everytime I make a left hand turn. All this and I baby the car. The new Bu is based on the longer wheelbase Maxx that suffered the same rattles and noises according to many on the forums.

We have g-forced his Impala with it's old fashioned outdated pushrod 3900 and outdated 4 speed automatic tranny more times than I care to remember and it consistently averages out to 6.3-6.4 seconds 0-60. The new Malibu with it's fancy DOHC twin cam engine and 6 speed automatic did the same run on the same roads in 6.2-6.3 seconds which is a small difference. That 3900 can really get you into trouble quick on the highway because the Impala is so quiet and you really have to look down to see how fast your going.

That revvy DOHC V6 and 6 speed automatic are great on paper and the automotive journalists love them because they are trendy but in real world the Malibu gets worse gas mileage, costs more to make and outright performance is pretty darn close. Plus the 4 speed automatic always shifts smooth and is right there when you need it. The Malibu and Auras we have driven with the 6 speed didn't always shift smoothly and always had the engine revving which grew annoying in hilly terain. This is a well documented fact in many write ups of both of those Epsilon cars.

Yes the DOHC V6 is quieter and more refined, I will give you that.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Sure the Malibu has less of a front and rear overhang and has a longer wheelbase. Too bad that longer wheelbase translates into LESS rear legroom, trunk space, shoulder room and much greater weight compared to my 2007 Malibu LT.

My 2007 Epsion Malibu with only 27K has already developed front end rattles, intermediate steering shaft failure and replacement and now the drivers side strut is making noise everytime I make a left hand turn. All this and I baby the car. The new Bu is based on the longer wheelbase Maxx that suffered the same rattles and noises according to many on the forums.

That revvy DOHC V6 and 6 speed automatic are great on paper and the automotive journalists love them because they are trendy but in real world the Malibu gets worse gas mileage, costs more to make and outright performance is pretty darn close. Plus the 4 speed automatic always shifts smooth and is right there when you need it. The Malibu and Auras we have driven with the 6 speed didn't always shift smoothly and always had the engine revving which grew annoying in hilly terain. This is a well documented fact in many write ups of both of those Epsilon cars.

You hit three nails right on the head as to why I like the W-Cars over the Epsilon Cars. I can empathize with you on your Malibu, I really feel your pain. Why, you may ask? Because We've replaced the driver's side strut on our 2006 Maxx, and yes, over the last few Mos, the car has been developing concerning rattles of various assortments too. Our Venture was solid as a rock in this aspect, and my Cavalier rattles very little considering it's a J-Bod. I look for economy and durability over refinement, which is why I prefer pushrods in the first place.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

I sat in both the Malibu and Impala today along with other ones. I want so much to like the new Malibu but I just cant seem to get in it without hitting some part of my body. My head or my side. Plus it does feel tighter than the Impala which to me fits like a comfortable old pair of shoes if you catch what I am trying to say. The Aveo believe it or not fits me like the Impala does. The Cobalt is ok as long as the seat is down. The HHR is pretty good. Might look at one of those in a year or year and a half when it comes time to shop.

[Intrepidation]

If I wanted something bigger than a Malibu I'd buy an LX. Try driving a W and an LX back to back and you'll notice a ride and handling difference.

Or hell, I'd buy another LH. Nicer interior (more soft touch surfaces) great suspension tuning, lots of features, better looking, very roomy.

Edited February 10, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Satty]

You forgot to add 'less reliable"

[vonVeezelsnider]

Don't get me wrong, I love the look of the LX cars and the idea of an AWD 300 or Charger would be great, but I just can't get around those tiny windows. My grandparents had a 300C as a loaner when their old 2001 Caravan was in the shop, he let me take it for a spin, and I just couldn't live with it because of the lack of visibility. Not three months later, he got sick of repair bills and could choose between a 300, Charger, LaCrosse, and Impala. He bought an Impala for this reason, even though he loved almost everything about the 300 and Charger, from the Awesome styling, to the Kick-Ass interior and RWD proportions, and was, low, generally a Mopar man.

[The O.C.]

The new Malibu does not have more rear seat legroom than the Impala. I know because my buddy actually owned a 2007 Impala 3LT before it was sadly totaled on the thruway. Both cars are rated at 37.6 and my tall friend with the seat adjusted where he is comfortable has the rear seatbacks of both touching my knees back there. The Impala as I stated above has more interior volume and greater width which shows up right away when squeezing 3 people into the back seat of the Malibu vs 3 people sitting with arms touching in the Impala.

Styling is very subjective. Personally neither me or my friend cared for the Malibus rear end treatment and without the optional bodyside moldings the side of the car looks rather plain and bland.

Sure the Malibu has less of a front and rear overhang and has a longer wheelbase. Too bad that longer wheelbase translates into LESS rear legroom, trunk space, shoulder room and much greater weight compared to my 2007 Malibu LT.

Motor Trend, Car & Driver and CR ranked Malibu midpick in real world tests not quick walk by glances based on styling judgements or emotional appeal.

My buddys 3LT 3900 handled amazingly well and we never felt the need for better cornering prowess. The suspension handles every bump really well and the ride is very quiet. The W-body cars I have owned have been very reliable and rattle free. My 2007 Epsion Malibu with only 27K has already developed front end rattles, intermediate steering shaft failure and replacement and now the drivers side strut is making noise everytime I make a left hand turn. All this and I baby the car. The new Bu is based on the longer wheelbase Maxx that suffered the same rattles and noises according to many on the forums.

We have g-forced his Impala with it's old fashioned outdated pushrod 3900 and outdated 4 speed automatic tranny more times than I care to remember and it consistently averages out to 6.3-6.4 seconds 0-60. The new Malibu with it's fancy DOHC twin cam engine and 6 speed automatic did the same run on the same roads in 6.2-6.3 seconds which is a small difference. That 3900 can really get you into trouble quick on the highway because the Impala is so quiet and you really have to look down to see how fast your going.

That revvy DOHC V6 and 6 speed automatic are great on paper and the automotive journalists love them because they are trendy but in real world the Malibu gets worse gas mileage, costs more to make and outright performance is pretty darn close. Plus the 4 speed automatic always shifts smooth and is right there when you need it. The Malibu and Auras we have driven with the 6 speed didn't always shift smoothly and always had the engine revving which grew annoying in hilly terain. This is a well documented fact in many write ups of both of those Epsilon cars.

Yes the DOHC V6 is quieter and more refined, I will give you that.

First of all....on the rear seat room, I don't know what you are smokin'. The Impala is wider but with two people in back, the Malibu is far more efficient with it's rear seat room (even if it's technically less on paper).....has more foot room (you can't put your feet underneath the front seats in an Impala) and has a rear bench bottom that is shaped better for under-thigh support. Impala rear seat forces you into a "knees up" sitting position. Malibu is more natural. I'm 5'9, 165 lbs and my friend is about 6 foot and heavier (muscular) and we both agreed, BY FAR, the rear seat in the Malibu was far more comfortable for two people.

Styling IS subjective.

C&D ranked the new Malibu mid-pack because that car is now deserving of contention in the largest car segment in the industry. Something that's never been said before as long as I've been alive. I can damn near guarantee you the Impala would not have compared NEARLY so favorably in a similar test.

Performance? I don't know what a "g-force" is.....but a 3.9L Impala 0-60 in 6.3-6.4 sec? "Not Gonna Happen.com." No way that car is that quick. In fact, let's compare apples-to-apples and use Car & Driver's test numbers as a basis (because I found readily available specs for both cars.) C&D tested an LTZ Impala 3.9L in April of '07 and got 0-60 in 7.4secs and 1/4 mile in 15.6@91mph. In their inaugural road test of the Malibu LTZ with the 3.6L V6, they go 0-60 in 6.5secs and the 1/4 mile in 15.1@94mph. As-tested fuel-economy for the Impala was 18mpg...Malibu, 21mpg. Hmmm....faster, more economical (contrary to your opinons above), and a smoother and quieter powertrain!

As far as handling? You are probably right and the Impala probably suits your needs just fine. However, C&D had these comments to make about the Impala: "In a straight line, the Impala soaks up bumps well—occupants hear more of a crash than the slight jiggle they feel—but once the road starts to wind, the Impala dips, leans, and squats as though the road were one big yoga mat. Steering inputs are likewise imprecise, needing about 15 degrees of input before the car starts to react."

With the Malibu LTZ, they said: "There's no shilly-shallying as you pick up the arc of a fast bend. Malibu V6s have hydraulic power steering with a trusty feel. This ride is smoother than the Accord's and tire noise is well controlled for such a low profile." Also: "Agile moves on the road."

I've been in numerous Impala LTZs as rental cars (ironically they've been LTZs with 3.9L engines, leather, and sunroof......as opposed to the "rental queen" LS version.) All I can say, is to the dedicated GM fan, the Impala is probably a quite nice ride. It's smooth to drive and quiet and has good features-for-the-money. However, as a GM fan AND an import fan, I find the Impala outdated, outmoded, and ancient in it's ride-and-handling (floppy and floaty to me), powertrains, styling, and interior packaging.

The new Malibu is clearly the best mainstream sedan GM has built in quite some time and one of the few GM products that appeals to not only the GM fan in me, but the import fan in me as well....! I haven't driven a new Malibu yet....but from everything I'm reading in the supposedly "import-biased" press, I think I'll love driving the car very much. And GM is finally offering the kind of chassis/suspension tuning and powertrain offerings that should finally appeal to import owners as much as dedicated GM/domestic fans! Don't forget C&D's overt praise of the refinement and smoothness of even the 2.4L ecotec in the Malibu!

That being said, I agree there is room in Chevy's lineup for a large car....one larger than the Malibu. The current Impala, IMHO, is not sufficient for the task. I'd still vote for a large, stylish RWD sedan. But even if the new one stays FWD, let's hope it's executed as well as the new 'Bu and can appeal to import and domestic fans/consumers alike. Remember...GM can't survive only building products that appeal to their current fan base.

Edited February 10, 2008 by The O.C.

[2005 EquinoxLS]

No doubt they did an excellent job on the new Malibu. It looks beautiful and the quality control is VERY good. Not to mention being willing to go out on a limb with some of the interior choices. But if I am going to inadvertently hit my head or some other part when getting in or out of it then that kind of spoils the whole thing. I would like to drive one and have it for a day. Maybe I could get more used to it. But for now the Impala just fits me better. Like I said so does the Aveo believe it or not. The Cobalt does if the seat is all the way down. Otherwise I hit my head there too. Chevrolet as a whole though has come a long way these past few years.

[Paolino]

Already?

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

First of all....on the rear seat room, I don't know what you are smokin'. The Impala is wider but with two people in back, the Malibu is far more efficient with it's rear seat room (even if it's technically less on paper).....has more foot room (you can't put your feet underneath the front seats in an Impala) and has a rear bench bottom that is shaped better for under-thigh support. Impala rear seat forces you into a "knees up" sitting position. Malibu is more natural. I'm 5'9, 165 lbs and my friend is about 6 foot and heavier (muscular) and we both agreed, BY FAR, the rear seat in the Malibu was far more comfortable for two people.

Styling IS subjective.

C&D ranked the new Malibu mid-pack because that car is now deserving of contention in the largest car segment in the industry. Something that's never been said before as long as I've been alive. I can damn near guarantee you the Impala would not have compared NEARLY so favorably in a similar test.

Performance? I don't know what a "g-force" is.....but a 3.9L Impala 0-60 in 6.3-6.4 sec? "Not Gonna Happen.com." No way that car is that quick. In fact, let's compare apples-to-apples and use Car & Driver's test numbers as a basis (because I found readily available specs for both cars.) C&D tested an LTZ Impala 3.9L in April of '07 and got 0-60 in 7.4secs and 1/4 mile in 15.6@91mph. In their inaugural road test of the Malibu LTZ with the 3.6L V6, they go 0-60 in 6.5secs and the 1/4 mile in 15.1@94mph. As-tested fuel-economy for the Impala was 18mpg...Malibu, 21mpg. Hmmm....faster, more economical (contrary to your opinons above), and a smoother and quieter powertrain!

As far as handling? You are probably right and the Impala probably suits your needs just fine. However, C&D had these comments to make about the Impala: "In a straight line, the Impala soaks up bumps well—occupants hear more of a crash than the slight jiggle they feel—but once the road starts to wind, the Impala dips, leans, and squats as though the road were one big yoga mat. Steering inputs are likewise imprecise, needing about 15 degrees of input before the car starts to react."

With the Malibu LTZ, they said: "There's no shilly-shallying as you pick up the arc of a fast bend. Malibu V6s have hydraulic power steering with a trusty feel. This ride is smoother than the Accord's and tire noise is well controlled for such a low profile." Also: "Agile moves on the road."

I've been in numerous Impala LTZs as rental cars (ironically they've been LTZs with 3.9L engines, leather, and sunroof......as opposed to the "rental queen" LS version.) All I can say, is to the dedicated GM fan, the Impala is probably a quite nice ride. It's smooth to drive and quiet and has good features-for-the-money. However, as a GM fan AND an import fan, I find the Impala outdated, outmoded, and ancient in it's ride-and-handling (floppy and floaty to me), powertrains, styling, and interior packaging.

The new Malibu is clearly the best mainstream sedan GM has built in quite some time and one of the few GM products that appeals to not only the GM fan in me, but the import fan in me as well....! I haven't driven a new Malibu yet....but from everything I'm reading in the supposedly "import-biased" press, I think I'll love driving the car very much. And GM is finally offering the kind of chassis/suspension tuning and powertrain offerings that should finally appeal to import owners as much as dedicated GM/domestic fans! Don't forget C&D's overt praise of the refinement and smoothness of even the 2.4L ecotec in the Malibu!

That being said, I agree there is room in Chevy's lineup for a large car....one larger than the Malibu. The current Impala, IMHO, is not sufficient for the task. I'd still vote for a large, stylish RWD sedan. But even if the new one stays FWD, let's hope it's executed as well as the new 'Bu and can appeal to import and domestic fans/consumers alike. Remember...GM can't survive only building products that appeal to their current fan base.

On the mantra of choice, the Impala serves a very good market. There is a significant difference between the LT and LTZ in terms of the suspension/ride. This is no BMW, but it shouldn't be. I've driven my brother's Impala many times and love it. I've also driven the BMW 5 series a few times and am not impressed. No way, no how would I shell out that kind of $$$ so I can sit in traffic and look cute while I fart with the iDrive.

[Sixty8panther]

W-Body. 1988 to 2015. Twenty-seven years of mediocrity.

I've lost my pulse.

Now that I've read THAT I've lost my dinner.

The W-body Impala may be a great car* but it IS a disgrace to the Imapala nameplate

and the fact that a REAL Impala has not been made in 12 years makes this even more

of a joke... (not to mention the 80s & early 90s when an Impala did not exist as a

nameplate and 1997-2000 when GM's flagship was the flacid, buttplug shaped Lumina)

* As compared to an average Japanese competitor... (Avalon comes to mind)

[caddycruiser]

Already?

Yes, oddly enough, they're out there.

All the little snippets said 2009, but I was just browsing a local dealer's inventory and saw a recently delivered 2008 LT in the special Carbon Black color (upgrade on some and used as a "special" on other GM models), with the 50th Anniversary thing.

Beats me. Maybe they just said the hell with it and started building some, even though they're "49's"?

[Oracle of Delphi]

Hmmmmm 1958 - 2008, sounds like 50 years to me!

[Sixty8panther]

As many have said, the W is the final vestige of the "old" GM. The Zeta was supposed to be the biggest switch for the "new" GM, but apparently we're now going to be stuck with some sort of a "transitional" GM for a while.

Hmmm...

Sounds a lot like purgatory.

The fact that after 12 years we are still yet to even see the promisse, nevermind

the reality of a TRUE B-body replacement (at least a RWD/V6/V8 large sedan) if

not a BOF than at least a rock solid unibody in the guise of an old school (1980s)

Mercedes Benz S-class... well I have just been getting more and more & MORE

disgusted with GM's utter stupidity.

Whoever is making the case to NOT sell Zetas in every GM division & ESPECIALLY

at Chevrolet, the moth*&fuc%ing VOLUME/VA:LUE brand, is so dumb-foundingly

shirt-sighted & blind to the consumer demand for them that I wonder quite often

if they rode the short bus & got a 12th place medal in Kinder-garden for pounding

a square-peg through a round hole by way of hammer so as not to damage their

fragile, developing ego.

I love Camaros, Camaros ARE my Jesus... (well only 1st generation ones) but as

cool adn awsome as the Gen.5 car is, even if it WAS a true hardtop it will never

amount to anywhere as important a product as a ZETA Caprice Classic & Impala

would have been/would be.

An ecclectic lineup of ZETA Chevrolet cars (along with Buick & Cadillac sisters)

would be the best effort of the past 25 years by GM to stop the bleeding that

is GM's neck wound (losing market share, weak dollar...) and a huge bitch-slap

to T666yota & Hon-DUH market share.

Zetas for every division (even Oldsmo-Saturn) but esp. Chevy would be the

MOAB that GM needs to defeat the dirty-fightingh Insurgent-Japanese.

[Sixty8panther]

Hmmmmm 1958 - 2008, sounds like 50 years to me!

Really? Show me a 1989 Impala? or a 1997?

[caddycruiser]

Hmmmmm 1958 - 2008, sounds like 50 years to me!

What I just thought after I posted...and further makes me wonder why '09 was going to be the 50th?

Eh, not that anyone cares. A few will just get their Impala bargain with a set of the bigger wheels and a couple extra emblems. Woot.

[Blake Noble]

Really? Show me a 1989 Impala? or a 1997?

They were called Lumina. :AH-HA_wink:

[knightfan26917]

They were called Lumina. :AH-HA_wink:

...and Celebrity before that!

Cort:34swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve&pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.legos.HO.models.MCs.RTs.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Time is a natural healer" ... John Conlee ... 'Years After You'

[caddycruiser]

Here's an example of one of the late '08 50th anniversary cars in Black Granite:

http://www.countrychevrolet.com/cars/80195_.html

Odd that they also now used SS wheels on these, but big deal. Much better looking 3.5L model, at least with the seats & wheels.

[daves87rs]

Here's an example of one of the late '08 50th anniversary cars in Black Granite:

http://www.countrychevrolet.com/cars/80195_.html

Odd that they also now used SS wheels on these, but big deal. Much better looking 3.5L model, at least with the seats & wheels.

I'm not sure why-but those wheels just look really strange-and that spoiler...

It just looks like dealer rice (on the outside)

The seats are nice though..

[Drew Dowdell]

Funny I and others have a special hatred for another platform.

And other Germans think David Hasslehoff is a great actor/singer... so what?

[The O.C.]

Here's an example of one of the late '08 50th anniversary cars in Black Granite:

http://www.countrychevrolet.com/cars/80195_.html

Odd that they also now used SS wheels on these, but big deal. Much better looking 3.5L model, at least with the seats & wheels.

I'm hedging a bet the dealer swapped the wheels on this car.

All the anniversary photos I've seen from GM don't indicate the inclusion of the SS (or any) 18-inch wheels.

But damn.....don't they make the car look ALOT better....?

[The O.C.]

I'm not sure why-but those wheels just look really strange-and that spoiler...

It just looks like dealer rice (on the outside)

The seats are nice though..

I say take off the REALLY TACKY bodyside stripes (who friggin' does this anymore?) and the rear spoiler, and the car would look actually pretty good.....clean, uncluttered, with wheels/tires that fill out the wheel wells. Perhaps one of the better-looking Ws out there.......

Why does this look better/cleaner than an SS with the same wheels? Perhaps it's the lack of a bodykit on the lower rocker panels?

[ponchoman49]

First of all....on the rear seat room, I don't know what you are smokin'. The Impala is wider but with two people in back, the Malibu is far more efficient with it's rear seat room (even if it's technically less on paper).....has more foot room (you can't put your feet underneath the front seats in an Impala) and has a rear bench bottom that is shaped better for under-thigh support. Impala rear seat forces you into a "knees up" sitting position. Malibu is more natural. I'm 5'9, 165 lbs and my friend is about 6 foot and heavier (muscular) and we both agreed, BY FAR, the rear seat in the Malibu was far more comfortable for two people.

I'm talking about the space between the rear seatbacks and my legs. Yes toe space under th seat is better in the Malibu. I never had to force myself to sit in a knees up position with the Impalas bucket seat most of the way back. Again me and my buddy actually have driven in the new BU and he actually owned 2 Impalas, one 06 and one 07 3LT.

Styling IS subjective.

Agreed.

C&D ranked the new Malibu mid-pack because that car is now deserving of contention in the largest car segment in the industry. Something that's never been said before as long as I've been alive. I can damn near guarantee you the Impala would not have compared NEARLY so favorably in a similar test.

The Impala would be rated against a different level of cars such as the Taurus and Charger. it would probably finish mid pack there too but i'm not quite sure.

Performance? I don't know what a "g-force" is.....but a 3.9L Impala 0-60 in 6.3-6.4 sec? "Not Gonna Happen.com." No way that car is that quick. In fact, let's compare apples-to-apples and use Car & Driver's test numbers as a basis (because I found readily available specs for both cars.) C&D tested an LTZ Impala 3.9L in April of '07 and got 0-60 in 7.4secs and 1/4 mile in 15.6@91mph. In their inaugural road test of the Malibu LTZ with the 3.6L V6, they go 0-60 in 6.5secs and the 1/4 mile in 15.1@94mph. As-tested fuel-economy for the Impala was 18mpg...Malibu, 21mpg. Hmmm....faster, more economical (contrary to your opinons above), and a smoother and quieter powertrain!

A G-force plugs into your outlet and mounts to the windshield and measures your distance and speed with acceleration times and 1/4 mile times. Most cars we have tested it on are very close to the rags. We must take note here that both his Impala 3LT's were not initially that quick with no break in miles. These times we got with the G-force were with 20-30K miles. When both cars were new they were typically in the 7.3-7.4 second range like C&D quoted on there more loaded up LTZ model. C&D's fuel economy is very low for the AFM 2007 Impala. The trip computer never dropped below 21 ever, even in mostly city driving. We of course always hand calculate the mileage and come within .1-.2 MPG of the trip computer. His 2006 non AFM car did dip below 20 a few times in the Winter months so anything is possible. The new Malibu we test drove for a partial weekend was always hovering around 19-20 but it was new with less than 500 miles on the clock. And i'm not giving opinions but facts calculated by a trip computer, calculator, G-force and reality after break in miles. yes the Malibus 3.6 was smoother and quieter in a boring Camry sort of way which took some of the sportiness out of it IMO.

As far as handling? You are probably right and the Impala probably suits your needs just fine. However, C&D had these comments to make about the Impala: "In a straight line, the Impala soaks up bumps well—occupants hear more of a crash than the slight jiggle they feel—but once the road starts to wind, the Impala dips, leans, and squats as though the road were one big yoga mat. Steering inputs are likewise imprecise, needing about 15 degrees of input before the car starts to react."

With the Malibu LTZ, they said: "There's no shilly-shallying as you pick up the arc of a fast bend. Malibu V6s have hydraulic power steering with a trusty feel. This ride is smoother than the Accord's and tire noise is well controlled for such a low profile." Also: "Agile moves on the road."

I've been in numerous Impala LTZs as rental cars (ironically they've been LTZs with 3.9L engines, leather, and sunroof......as opposed to the "rental queen" LS version.) All I can say, is to the dedicated GM fan, the Impala is probably a quite nice ride. It's smooth to drive and quiet and has good features-for-the-money. However, as a GM fan AND an import fan, I find the Impala outdated, outmoded, and ancient in it's ride-and-handling (floppy and floaty to me), powertrains, styling, and interior packaging.

We never found either of his Impala 3LT models floaty. They were always very firm riding and handled corners at surprising speeds were 98% of the general public would never go.

The new Malibu is clearly the best mainstream sedan GM has built in quite some time and one of the few GM products that appeals to not only the GM fan in me, but the import fan in me as well....! I haven't driven a new Malibu yet....but from everything I'm reading in the supposedly "import-biased" press, I think I'll love driving the car very much. And GM is finally offering the kind of chassis/suspension tuning and powertrain offerings that should finally appeal to import owners as much as dedicated GM/domestic fans! Don't forget C&D's overt praise of the refinement and smoothness of even the 2.4L ecotec in the Malibu!

I would suggest driving a new Malibu instead of always relying on what rags like C&D say. There opinions are based usually on outright power and handling prowess. We drove both and each had it's negatives and positives. We were both very dissapointed for instants in the Malibus tiny shallow trunk with small opening, lack of rear seat center armrest and overhead assist grips. The Impala had all this and a larger more usefull trunk. On the flip side we couldn't believe the Impala didn't have auto climate control or telescoping wheel. But both of us kept hitting our heads getting into the more claustrophobic Malibu interior. Where did the space go with the stretch in wheelbase? Go sit in a Maxx and notice the extra interior volume and space. Both are on the same 112.2" wheelbase.

That being said, I agree there is room in Chevy's lineup for a large car....one larger than the Malibu. The current Impala, IMHO, is not sufficient for the task. I'd still vote for a large, stylish RWD sedan. But even if the new one stays FWD, let's hope it's executed as well as the new 'Bu and can appeal to import and domestic fans/consumers alike. Remember...GM can't survive only building products that appeal to their current fan base.

The Impala does have a place in Chevys lineup as a decently furnished larger sized value sedan with lots of choices for the consumer who isn't into the forign is automatically better scene. Throw a telescoping wheel and optional climate control, open up the toe space under the front seats and spice up the interior a little and the Impala can easily survive for quite a few more years.

[The O.C.]

The Impala does have a place in Chevys lineup as a decently furnished larger sized value sedan with lots of choices for the consumer who isn't into the forign is automatically better scene. Throw a telescoping wheel and optional climate control, open up the toe space under the front seats and spice up the interior a little and the Impala can easily survive for quite a few more years.

"......can easily "survive" for quite a few more years......."

Doesn't sound like the product plan GM needs to survive IMHO..........

[caddycruiser]

I'm hedging a bet the dealer swapped the wheels on this car.

All the anniversary photos I've seen from GM don't indicate the inclusion of the SS (or any) 18-inch wheels.

But damn.....don't they make the car look ALOT better....?

Uh...actually, no. The "50th anniversary" car shown before had 18" LTZ wheels on it and these late 2008's being built have the machined 18" SS wheels on them, straight from the factory. Really.

Not sure if they will change back to the originally shown 18" LTZ wheels or not for '09 or later, but this is how they are being built now...nothing dealer added except for the stripe and front plate.

[Robert Hall]

So the '09 Impy is going to be pretty much carryover from '06-08, I assume? I guess Avis needs plenty of them to replace their GPs...

[Robert Hall]

Is the Impala going to get a MCE?

That was 2006. So it looks like the Dubya Impy is 2000-2005 then 2006-2010 (or 2016 if Chevy decides to do a 10-yr styling cycle like Ford did w/ the CV)?.

Edited April 12, 2008 by moltar

[Blake Noble]

(or 2016 if Chevy decides to do a 10-yr styling cycle like Ford did w/ the CV)?.

God forbid such a nightmare plays out.