Impala Forums banner

81 - 100 of 139 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Funny 2010 how people's tastes are so different- no surprise in a country of 308 million?

I love the camel interior with any exterior color in the way a pair of khakis will go with any color shirt.

Gray can be tricky-nice dove grey like BMW/MB or ugly wet cement like an early 2000s Grand Prix?

I had a medium blue '88 Beretta (not a good color or car) and a nice Indigo blue '80 Citroen CX D (fuel door on the passenger's side) but blue is without a doubt my least favorite clolor on a car although the deepness of the impala looks quite good. Their medium blue is also very nice. Gumball, cobalt, radiant, and nearly all other blues are awful for me.

I would love an Impala with a metallic silver/ice blue like a mid '80s 450SEL.

2 weeks ago I saw a report that white is the most popular color followed by black. I happen to like white and certain red hues. Having never owned a red car I am leaning that way.

I drove a Malibu e assist to get an idea about the powertrain as that is what I am planning for the Impala. It was above adequate. MPG were at 21.5 (well below the city EPA of 25). It had only 50 miles on it but I seriously doubt that it will average 29 after broken in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
The tank in modern cars is usually under the seat so it can be filled from either side.

Actually the Europeans have been doing it for many years as a safety measure. Every MB, BMW, Saab, etc that I have owned even my '72 Capri had the filler on the passenger side.

If you are side swiped or hit broadside, statistically the odds are much higher that your driver's side will be hit based on traffic flow. Having the filler neck located on the passenger side of the car, reduces the risk of it being yanked off and causing a fuel spill in a crash. This is a very normal location for those of us who have owned many European cars.

Many newer GM and Fords are based on thier European designs (which are better)- I say BRAVO.
Except for most of the europeans drive on the other side of the road don't they? And even if you do crash hard enough to tear the filler off, it's not going to leak unless you are dirty side up... even then a simple grav valve on the tank would limit any potential spill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Not surprised at all.
I knew there were people that like that camel interior. Look up Hyundai Sonata. Rare to find one without.
The gray interior in as you call it "dove gray or ugly wet cement" either color would look great to me.
LOL As I type this I have an ugly wet cement colored half ton pickup with ugly wet cement colored interior (not leather) sitting in the drive. I hope not to get kicked off here but the pickup is not a Chevy. My 77 C10 Chevy pickup was the ugly wet cement color and it had red interior. In the 70's red interior seemed very popular no matter what color the car was. I have always been glad the red interior kinda went away.
The Chevy white? Love it. Both the 2010 Impala and the 2011 Cruze Lt are white. I think maybe the same color white.
Edit to add my 2000 Z71 was red with black interior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Remember when GM had the burgandy and blue interiors where EVERYTHING was the same color. Carpet, seats, dash, steering wheel, headliner. it was as if someone set a dye bomb off in the car- my horrible blue on blue Baretta is a great example- I am still not sure what possesed me to buy that car.

Thankfully in the last 15-20 years they learned about contrasting colors starting with the early '90s Seville with real Zebrano wood just like MB.

My 750Li and MDX are white- both wifey and I like the color especially if metallic but the Alpine non metallic 750 is great. Of note, the Ohio State Patrol changed the color of their cars from charcoal grey (wet cement) which blended into the pavement (even with lights flashing) to white and parked trooper rear end crashes dropped 40% because of better visibility. White is a safer color, DRLs notwithstanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Except for most of the europeans drive on the other side of the road don't they? And even if you do crash hard enough to tear the filler off, it's not going to leak unless you are dirty side up... even then a simple grav valve on the tank would limit any potential spill.
Only in England, the rest of the entire continent drives on the right. Yes, the valve is a safety measure but even with that it is better not to have the filler neck banged up in a crash. Maybe the valve would nort even come into play? Not saying right or wrong, but there is logic behind the decision to place the filler where it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I would guess they don't put to much thought into the filler location. I would think the best reason for it being opposite of the driver IF the tank doesn't go completely from one side to the other, would be to offset the drivers weight and balance the car more. If the tank goes side to side then put the filler where it's more convenient on the driver's side. It's also safer there because of car jackings, and the lower likelihood of driving away with the fuel hose still in the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
The filler neck location really has nothing to do with the balance of the car any more than a watermelon sitting on the back seat. I have no idea if the tank goes from one side to the other. Most do as they straddle the driveshaft hump (even on FWD) under the entire rear seat. Even if the tank were asymmetric, the filler neck would not contribute to balance in the suspension or weight distribution.

The car is based on a European platform and nearly all Euro models have it on the passenger side for reasons already stated, and there may be other reasons too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I like the new style..it looks like they spent a lot of time and creativity on the front end and sides, but that happened when they got to the back of the car? I too have to get used to those tail lights. why halogen, why not L.E.D.? Otherwise it is a very sweet looking ride. Man the base value sounds super high though... for crying out loud my dad just got a 2013 suburban 2500 for about 48-49 grand! :dizzy:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,726 Posts
I still have to look at the arrow on the gas guage to remember which side to fill on. One of my cars is driver side, other is passenger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
My point was if the tank sat to one side of the car like on a Chevy pickup, then it's better on the passenger side to offset the drivers weight. If the tank was all the way to one side then obviously the filler would be on that side. Most cars I know the tank runs from side to side and is centered so the filler can be either side, but then the drivers side makes more sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I prefer drivers side as well... Reading others posts about the drivers side being more accident prone, I wonder if they did it to help with the safety rating?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
The old camaro's yes, the new ones are on the passenger side... which is a big reason that my '96 is still in the garage and also why my next convertible will have to be a vette or a mustang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
U serious about deciding on a car based on where the filler cap is? I will only buy a convertible with a factory roll bar which rules out all Gm and Ford cabrios. Porsche, MB, and BMW fit the bill.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,726 Posts
Hey guys, I got to drive a new AWD Cadillac XTS today, on which the Impala is based. I have not even seen one on the road yet. This was not a pre-production car - it was for sale. My dealer currently has two in stock. Great fun - not enough time to write about the experience right now. It was an AWD model, close to the top trim, but not the very top (Platinum). Back seat is really roomy and the 3.6 moves it along fine. Not awesome, but perfectly acceptable. Beautiful interior materials and very cool CUE system. In all honesty, the exterior looks a lot like the MKS. The ride/quietness is very similar too (excellent). The XTS interior is much more modern though than the MKS. If they offered a bigger powerplant, I would be really interested in buying a used one in a year or two.

p.s. After driving the XTS for a while, my son asked if we could take a ride in a CTS-V, so we also went in a black 2012 CTS-V Sedan (automatic) . Basically a CTS with all the same short-comings as the CTS, but on steroids. What a fricken BLAST!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
To get the awesome cue and other safety features like LDWS and adaptive cruise you have to go nearly top end which puts you near $50k. Too much money. I'll take an impala for $32k without the fantastic cue which I live but can live without.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,726 Posts
Top is over 60k. The one I drove (not a Platinum) was $55000.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,726 Posts
Pics:



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Very nice indeed. I am scheduled to drive one in a couple of weeks and I get a $20 Starbucks card for test driving.

A striking, handsome car. It does look a little nose heavy in a typical FWD way and has rather high hips. Thankfully it does not suffer from short side window syndrome pioneered by the 2005 300C and perfected by the LaCross. Those cars have the feel of sitting in a high sided tub with a baseball cap on.

Both XTS and MKS seem to have short deck lid syndrome, however, that results in loading luggage through a narrow opening akin to a mail slot. That is the price of a steeply raked rear window.

The XTS is suprisingly similar to the blue MKS in the picture if you ignore the Hofmeister kink on the MKS. Clearly the XTS is more edgy and fresh with a ton of features many of which are available on the Impala.
 
81 - 100 of 139 Posts
Top