Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Impala Chevrolet Impala Real World MPG
117 messages, Last post on Apr 15, 2009 at 11:28 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Impala Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
I have been making myself crazy trying to figure out what kind of car to buy. Currently I have a Cadillac DTS and with my 90% in city driving i get between 10 & 12 mpg. I have been toying with the SS because of the cylinder shut down in stop and go traffic, but i can't seem to get a real handle on how substantial my mileage will increase over my caddy. HELP!!!....
|
|
|
Replying to: giltrdn (Aug 26, 2006 1:25 pm) 
|
|
|
|
|
Just figured I add to the discussion since I own 2 Impalas. My 2002 LS with a 3.8 does 30 - 32 MPG on the Highway even at 75 MPH and with the A/C on. It has been this way since the break in mileage, to now with 67,000 on it. I get around 25 to 27 city and highway. I use 89 octane, it is dog with 87! Compare that to the 2006 LT3 with the 3.9 which I now have 7,000 miles on. It does 27 MPG on the highway and 22 to 24 city and highway. Same speeds, same octane, same conditions. Even though there is not a big difference in engine displacement, I attribute this big difference and decrease in MPG for the 2006 to the way the transmission is set up for shifting. The 2006 shifts down at relatively slower speeds than the 2002. If I want the 2002 to down shift I have to put a decent amount of pressure on the pedal, where it takes only slight pressure for the 2006 to down shift. Fact is that the 2006 is going to down shift whether I like it or not, where as the 2002 I can regulate better with my foot. Fact is, I like the way the 2002 shifts compared to the 2006. Also, the transaxle gearing (or what was known as the rear end in the rear wheel drive cars) is different on the 2006. The 2002 is at about 2,000 RPM at 65 - 72 MPH where the 2006 is at about 2,300 RPM at the same speed. Maybe with the new 3.9 engine they had to use different shift points and gear it differently? Any comments are welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: pbaranello (Sep 05, 2006 9:16 am) |
|
|
With the 3.8, the wife gets 19 to 22 mpg around town, depending on weather (better in summer). On trips to our son's place, 150 miles all hyway or expressway, we get between 27 and 31. The computer is within .1 mpg of fill up calculations, and one trip recorded 29.4 ave mpg / 78.9 ave mph. I was very satisfied with this economy at this speed, the needle passed 90 on some stretches. The 96 Lumina 3.1 we had before did slightly better on fuel, but the performance of the 3.8 is good enough to be worth the change. Harry |
|
|
I am pondering on whether to purchase the SS with the V8 or the LTZ with the 3.9 L V6. I am commuting approx. 30 miles to work each day and would use this vehicle for commuting. I have read postings regarding gas mileage on the SS and how it compares to the V6's. I love the V8 and the idea of owning the SS. Given a total commute of approx. 60 miles each day that is mostly rural driving (not highway), will the gas mileage difference from the V8 to the V6's make a significant enough impact from an expense perspective? I currently have a 1999 Grand Prix with a 3.8L V6, gas mileage has been average at best. I would appreciate any responses. Your responses will have a significant impact on my decision. Thank You.
|
|
|
Replying to: mike186 (Feb 20, 2007 8:25 am) It would help to have a little more info about your commute. Average speed? Lots of stops? However, from the tone of your comment about your Grand Prix, you don't seem too happy about the gas mileage you get with it. Is it supercharged? Even if it is, an SS will be WORSE on gas than your Grand Prix. So if you're not happy with the Grand Prix the SS is out of the question. Actually even the LTZ might be too much engine if you have a normally aspirated 3.8 and want better mileage... might be looking at a 3.5 then. Maybe your GP isn't running up to snuff? Low 20s in city driving and high 20s in highway driving is what you should expect from it. |
|
|
Replying to: bxd (Feb 20, 2007 10:25 am) I realize the new Impala SS has an EPA of 18 and 27. Just wondering how realistic this is. My driving is fairly steady at optimal mpg levels. At the very least, given the above information, I don't want to backslide for a mileage perspective if I purchase the SS. Any comments are appreciated.
|
|
|
Replying to: mike186 (Feb 20, 2007 12:52 pm)  60% city driving and 40% highway. I can then plug in the city/highway figures of other cars at the same ratios, and figure I get a pretty accurate depiction of what a new car would deliver, based on the way I drive. You can also do this at www.fueleconomy.gov...find your car and do a comparison with others; there's a small-print link that allows you to adjust the % of city/highway driving to get an apples-to-apples comparison. In my case I'm averaging 23 MPG, and the 2007 Impalas would deliver 24 w/3.5, 23 w/3.9, and 21 w/5.3 (indicating the 3.9 should be comparable to the 3.8). |
|
|
Replying to: mike186 (Feb 20, 2007 12:52 pm) I now own on '06 Impala SS and get between 16-18 mpg on the same commute. So, for your commute, it would be safe to say you'd get about 2 mpg less with the SS than you are with your GP. Highway mileage was pretty similar. I got 26 mpg consistently at 75 to 80. With the SS, about 24 mpg. Hopefully this helps you. BTW, the SS can run on premium or regular but I've noticed no difference in mileage with either fuel.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Impala Chevrolet Impala Real World MPG
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Impala
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
