Over the weekend, I was in the vicinity of Chico CA. I checked out a few car dealerships and there were some 2007s around. On this basic Impala, the sticker said it was a 3.5 VVT V6. The mileage (for gas) read:

20 city / 29 highway

Last year's (2006) model sticker for this engine indicated:

21 city / 31 highway

That is screwed. The bigger V6 in GP/LaX comes in at 20/30. I'm scratching my head on this one. What's the deal?

the 3.5 sucks and they should use 3800's. Maybe new EPA testing guidelines? who knows but that sucks the worse gas mileage.

the 3.5 sucks and they should use 3800's. Maybe new EPA testing guidelines? who knows but that sucks the worse gas mileage.

180463[/snapback]

You're not kidding. We won't go down that road as many seem to get heated (pros and cons) over the 3800. I myself wish they had kept it. It was around through 2004 or 2005 in their SS version, the latter year with a S.C.. With a 3800 in a Monte Carlo coupe, I wouldn't have needed to run a thread asking what car I should get.

Over the weekend, I was in the vicinity of Chico CA.  I checked out a few car dealerships and there were some 2007s around.  On this basic Impala, the sticker said it was a 3.5 VVT V6.  The mileage (for gas) read:

20 city / 29 highway

Last year's (2006) model sticker for this engine indicated:

21 city / 31 highway

That is screwed.  The bigger V6 in GP/LaX comes in at 20/30.  I'm scratching my head on this one. What's the deal?

180458[/snapback]

the 3.5 was listed like that on the aura on saturn.com ...maybe new testing?...maybe a gear change... maybe they just want to say it WILL get better mpg than that(after it's broken in)...

i thought the 20/29 was for the new 3.9...? on the impala

http://www.chevrolet.com/impala/specifications/

for the 07, it's still 21/31 for the 3.5L

http://www.chevrolet.com/impala/specifications/

for the 07,  it's still 21/31 for the 3.5L

180479[/snapback]

I see. I wish I would have taken a picture of the sticker as I took other photos which I will eventually post.

This car, at $21,900 +/-, was a 3.5 equipped base model with NO options at all.

Didn't the base model get the 224HP engine from the Aura instead of the 211HP one?

Didn't the base model get the 224HP engine from the Aura instead of the 211HP one?

180487[/snapback]

nope. still has last year's engine. probably would have to recertify it if they did... or gm didn't have that engine capacity to upgrade it...?

The EPA fuel economy website (www.fueleconomy.gov) showed multiple listings for the 2007 Impala.

2007 Chevrolet Impala

6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(4), 400-425, Gasoline or E85

Gas 21 31

E85 16 23

6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(4), Regular 20 29

6 cyl, 3.9 L, Auto(4), Regular 20 29

8 cyl, 5.3 L, Auto(4), Premium 18 27

The EPA fuel economy website (www.fueleconomy.gov) showed multiple listings for the 2007 Impala.

2007 Chevrolet Impala

6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(4), 400-425, Gasoline or E85

Gas                                    21    31

E85                                    16    23

6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(4), Regular   20   29

180590[/snapback]

THANK YOU. Exactly. Why the difference in the 2 gas engines? What does 400-425 mean in your first listing?

Edited August 17, 200619 yr by trinacriabob

I wondered what those numbers meant, but I have no idea (I just did a cut/paste). If you go to the website and pull up the Impala those are the possible engine choices that showed. You can compare other cars, previous model years, etc.

I found it interesting that the flexfuel E85 capable motor got slightly better mileage when running on gasoline than the gas-only motor.

Edited August 17, 200619 yr by BigPontiac

I found it interesting that the flexfuel E85 capable motor got slightly better mileage when running on gasoline than the gas-only motor.

181262[/snapback]

Well, that's the only way I would buy a 3500 (or what was a 3400)...to get those 32+ mpg. I've reported elsewhere that I have consistently gotten 31 to 33 mpg on rented Impalas and MCs when driven purely on the freeway. For such a heavy and comfortable car, that is stunning. It is the high mileage number that would justify the purchase and have me grinning ear-to-ear. At 29 mpg, I'm just "eh" with it.

I see.  I wish I would have taken a picture of the sticker as I took other photos which I will eventually post.

This car, at $21,900 +/-, was a 3.5 equipped base model with NO options at all.

180481[/snapback]

well i know the E85 vehicles generally have lower eps results by 1 or 2

also these vehicles have the AFM correct and the Sticker does not reflect the AFM advantages... at least according to our product trainer...

The EPA fuel economy website (www.fueleconomy.gov) showed multiple listings for the 2007 Impala.

2007 Chevrolet Impala

6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(4), 400-425, Gasoline or E85

Gas                                    21    31

E85                                    16    23

6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(4), Regular  20  29

6 cyl, 3.9 L, Auto(4), Regular  20  29

8 cyl, 5.3 L, Auto(4), Premium 18 27

180590[/snapback]

2006 Chevrolet Impala

6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(4), FLEX-FUEL, Gasoline or E85

Gas 21 31

E85 16 23

6 cyl, 3.9 L, Auto(4),

Regular 19 27

8 cyl, 5.3 L, Auto(4),

Premium 18 28

This is 2006 ...it seems that the gas only 3.5l is a new engine ... the FFV 3.5l stayed the same, while the 3.9 and the V8 went up slightly

Igor

Edited August 17, 200619 yr by Igor2

well i know the E85 vehicles generally have lower eps results by 1 or 2

also these vehicles have the AFM correct and the Sticker does not reflect the AFM advantages... at least according to our product trainer...

181545[/snapback]

no afm on the 3.5L......

The 3500 V6 that gets 20/29 in the new Impala is the new LZ4 vin code "N" as in the new Aura, Malibu and G6. If you check out the G6 and Aura you will see the same 20/29 ratings. The Malibu keeps the old 22/32 rating because it keeps the electric steering. It astonishes me that electric steering can gain you 3 mpg! So the total mystery here is what hp and torque the LZ4 puts out in the 07 Impala and why it loses 2 mpg from the E85 engine which carries over from last years cars. I would also think that Chevy would be a tad embarressed offering both the base 3500 and optional 3900 with identical mileage ratings!