Last post on Nov 07, 2013 at 4:56 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Impala
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Impala, Sedan
#1474 of 3636 Re: 2006 Impala: DOD [worr]
Apr 24, 2006 (1:16 pm)
For strictly mileage, the 3.9L is probably the better choice even though the EPA only rates it at 27 mpg highway(compared to the 5.3L at 28 mpg highway). If economy is your #1 concern, obviously the 3.5L is the best choice.
In my case, economy is very important but I have always loved the sound of a V-8 engine. I managed to get my first one when I bought a '94 Mercury Cougar (it also had rear-wheel drive, which I prefer). Unfortunately, I was involved in an accident and the car was totaled out by the insurance. In 2002, there was no V-8 or RWD vehicles out there (in my price range) but I found the 02 Monte Carlo SS which, although it only had V-6 and FWD, was great in all other aspects. The amount of technology Chevy packed into that car, along with it's great fuel mileage, made it an easy decision. Now, Chevy is putting extremely powerful V-8s in the same car. Fuel economy takes a small hit but the driving pleasure is much improved. So, I'm paying a small premium (average 1-2 mpg both in highway and city driving) to drive a car that makes me grin every time I pull away from a stop. I consider that a bargain.
If you test drive the SS and love the sound of the engine, it may be the right choice for you. If that isn't important (as was the case with my sister), the 3.9L still offers excellent performance and a little better economy.
I've mentioned before in this forum that we currently have three '06 Impalas in our family; my SS/5.3L, sister's 3LT/3.9L, and nephew's 1LT/3.5L. We're going on four months and all of us have no serious complaints.
#1475 of 3636 Re: 3.9L vs. V8 & DOD [worr]
Apr 24, 2006 (1:48 pm)
I almost find theres too much legroom in the Impala, I cant imagine that will be a problem.
As for the Altima, Nissan's suck. Horrible reliability and their service is awful. My mothers friends Altima has 7 recalls and she said the service is so bad she is badmouthing Nissan to everyone she knows.
If you're going to go Japanese go with Mazda. Good, sporty cars.
#1476 of 3636 2006 Impala DOD/quietpro
Apr 24, 2006 (2:16 pm)
Never said anything about not likeing the car. However everytime any technology is added their is a cost. Do the math on your own car and if your saving hundreds of $$ a year with DOD your ahead, but I just don't see it. My opinion is as valid as yours.
#1477 of 3636 Re: 2006 Impala: DOD [quietpro]
Apr 24, 2006 (3:12 pm)
quiet pro wrote:
"If you test drive the SS and love the sound of the engine, it may be the right choice for you. If that isn't important (as was the case with my sister), the 3.9L still offers excellent performance and a little better economy."
Engine sound ranks low on priorities. They are, again, leg room, power and economy. The Impala SS meets the first two squarely. It sounds like you gain only a little MPG with the 3.9 and but gain more power with the 5.3 so the trade off isn't a fair comparison.
Also, it was my hope the 5.3 would retain some value because it wouldn't be sold into fleets. There are plenty of LT3s in the rental market.
#1478 of 3636 Re: 2006 Impala 2007 [charts2]
Apr 24, 2006 (5:29 pm)
Bummer on the HP drop for 2007 but hopefully the DOD will yield over 30 on the highway.
#1479 of 3636 Re: 2006 Impala: DOD [worr]
Apr 24, 2006 (5:59 pm)
Good point on resale. I like to think you're correct; that would bode well for me. Personally, I'd rather have a top of the line Chevy than a stripped version of some upper level brand.
There have been some folks who mention the limited rear seat room but that only becomes a big issue with tall folks in the front seat. In my case, you don't want to sit behind me but my friends (average 5'10" height) have no issues, front or back.
#1480 of 3636 Re: 2006 Impala DOD [quietpro]
Apr 25, 2006 (4:25 am)
“As I stated in an earlier post, I'm fairly certain it's just a programming change for the engine computer, no physical hardware. At most, the added cost would be for fine tuning the engine programming which I imagine gets a lot of attention, DOD or not.” - quietpro
“The key to DOD’s efficiency and virtually imperceptible operation is a set of special two-stage hydraulic valve lifters, which allows the lifters of deactivated cylinders to operate without actuating the valves. These lifters, used only on the cylinders which are deactivated, have inner and outer bodies which normally operate as a single unit. When the engine controller determines cylinder deactivation conditions are optimal, it activates solenoids in the engine lifter valley which direct high-pressure oil to the switching lifters. This oil pressure activates a release pin inside the lifter which allows the outer body of the lifter to move independently of the inner body. With the pin is released, the outer lifter body moves in conjunction with camshaft actuation, but the inner body does not move, thus holding the pushrod in place. This prevents the pushrod from actuating the valve, thereby halting the combustion process. “
12,500+ miles on my 5.3L V8 (GP GXP) & no issues with DoD . .
#1481 of 3636 2006/2007 3.9 DOD
Apr 25, 2006 (4:47 am)
Additional information re: DOD Higher capacity oil Pump and larger coils on the coil near the ignition are needed for DOD. New Block casting has to be redesigned for oil galleries to meet oil requirements for DOD. Transmission has to have its own controller due to the demands of DOD puts on the ECM. DOD on the 3.9 V6 drops the left bank of cylinders when in DOD mode. So with the 3.9 more wear will be on the right side cylinder bank. The loss of 9 hp was because of the changes that DOD incorporates.
#1482 of 3636 My view of DoD
Apr 25, 2006 (5:20 am)
My view of DoD:
The consumer & the federal government (CAFE) are demanding higher fuel mileage and customers also increasingly desire better acceleration \ performance. With additional convenience items (power seats, etc) that add weight to vehicles.
These goals are largely in conflict.
In order to facilitate development & sale of such W Body variants as the SS and GP GXP with good acceleration (low 14s in the Quarter Mile at 100-ish = ‘good’ in my book) and also, still meeting the CAFÉ requirements means developing technology that allows the highest possible EPA fuel mileage numbers. Or at least this is highly desirable.
12% increase in steady state MPG (say 30 vs 26 or 27) at (EPA test speeds = still max. 60 mph!) cruise likely allows a higher posted EPA highway & average MPG number and (with GXPs now accounting for a rather high proportion of GP sales and likely SS also a significant portion of Impala sales) allows improved CAFÉ numbers.
So – I was able to purchase (at a relative bargain price, IMHO) a good accelerating, V8 equipped sedan capable of at least ‘decent’ fuel mileage.
Happy with my DoD equipped 5.3L V8 in most every way . .
#1483 of 3636 Re: 2006/2007 3.9 DOD [charts2]
Apr 25, 2006 (9:39 am)
that sucks. I thought they were gonna be randomly shut off, so that the wear and tear is proportional for each cyllinder. That really sucks, people are gonna windup having 1/2 the engine be older and in worse shape than the other half!
Has anone heard the news about GM switching to 3 valve heads with its OHV engines? Its based on an old article in wikepedia. I can't find the article now, though.
Still, its a good thing GM is advancing engine technology.