By on April 4, 2012

The ancient Chevrolet Impala will finally get a replacement, in the form of the 2014 Impala shown above. The newest GM full-size will get a V6 engine, setting it apart from the 2013 Malibu. An eAssist 4-cylinder will be the base engine.

The 2.4L Ecotec with eAssist will make 182 horsepower while returning 35 mpg on the highway. The all-new 2.5L Ecotec 4-cylinder making 195 horsepower will also be available, but the jewel of the lineup will be the 3.6L V6 making 303 horsepower – a powertrain that really shines even in the current Impala. All engines will be mated to a 6-speed automatic.

Sharing a platform with the Buick Lacrosse and Cadillac XTS, the Impala should be a huge step forward in refinement for the nameplate, with 4-cylinders featuring an active noise cancellation system to help keep noise down. GM has said that fleet sales will be cut for this generation of car. Our New York Auto Show coverage will begin today, and hopefully we can get pictures of the car in a shade that isn’t black!

 

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

72 Comments on “New York 2012: Chevrolet Impala Back In Black...”


  • avatar
    lilpoindexter

    That little cut above the rear wheels is very Buick LaCrosse. USA Today says it has Audi-like style…I guess if you squint really hard when you look at the profile.

  • avatar
    Junebug

    Not bad, if the interior materials are up to snuff, then this car ought to sell very well.

  • avatar

    It’s easier to swallow knowing there will be some rear-drive something or the other coming next year to go with the new NASCAR Cup car.

    That said, the styling and interior look quite tasteful. Good thing no CVT but a 6-speed instead.

    If it’s well built and they paid attention to details, this will be a big step forward for Chevy.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    Looks nice – a lot like the VW CC.

    What’s the point of offering both the 2.4 eAssist and the 2.5? – fuel economy difference, price points, development schedule?

    • 0 avatar
      redliner

      I belive the main difference is that the 2.5 makes about 15 more hp, (about 195 total hp, can’t remember exactly) and because it is not an e-assist engine, it frees up some trunk space where the battery pack would go.

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      Yeah. Seems like a pointless duplication. Anyone who cares about fuel economy would have gone for the e-assist. A cheap skate would be buying a Chevy Cruze instead.

    • 0 avatar
      akitadog

      Yeah, those two 4-cyls don’t make sense to me either. What DOES make sense would be to include the 2.0T as the mid-range engine, with, say, 240-250hp/tq. This makes more sense as the engine that would balance the fuel economy concerns found in the e-assist engine with the power found in the 3.6.

  • avatar
    duo

    I don’t see the point of offering two four cylinders either. I personally think it should be 6 cylinder only. Also what the hell is going on with the steering wheel? The rest of the interior looks great but that wheel is ugly. It’s the worst wheel since the New camaro’s original wheel.

  • avatar
    DubTee1480

    Hey, they put the running deer back on the C-pillar! I like. Not sure how I feel about that steering wheel though…

  • avatar
    Hank

    So much more modern…and yet there still that E-Z-2-READ Fisher-Price font on the speedo and Fisher-Price sized icons on the touchscreen. They know who spreads the Parkay on their cold rolls at the 4:00 p.m. buffet.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Not production – we have no idea what the IP will look like at the end of the day. The UI shown is not off the shelf GM (which would be logical) so I’m going to a very educated guess that it is nothing but a PhotoShop job. The screen shown with the screen raised to expose a cubby behind it looks quite fake.

    • 0 avatar
      ciddyguy

      If you look at the larger dash photo from the driver’s side perspective, take a good look at the cap over the entertainment screen, there is a fine seam there whereby the top is made to raise up so that may WELL be something put into production.

      This may well be a pre-production vehicle and nothing’s set in stone, also, the fonts, while they may or may not be what you’ll see on the actual cars, don’t look Fisher-Price to me, but nice, simple numbers that are easy to read.

  • avatar
    VanillaDude

    This is supposed to be an IMPALA. It has a legacy that could have been banked on. GM could have returned the Impala into what made Impalas different from other vehicles in this price spread.

    This is nothing we haven’t seen before, dozens of times from dozens of manufacturers. The exterior is unremarkable. The interior could be from practically anyone.

    Being an also-ran isn’t what made this vehicle legendary, so this looks to me like a place holder for the current place holder.

    What is an Impala? Do we have to ask a 75 year old man? How about someone who respected it when it was America’s best seller? How about someone who is a family man looking for a family vehicle?

    First off, the car should be able to seat six. It would be a notable exception to the dearth of seating dreariness across the auto market if GM brought back a modern version of a bench seat in front and back. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with an excellent bench seating arrangement. It used to be done for generations in various price segments and in various fabrics and styles. It seems that everyone is following lemming style, to some version of four bucket seats eliminating two seats in the center of the front and back of the car that would allow seating flexibilities for the targeted family market.

    An Impala styled to seat six would give millions of folks a reason to consider it. What we see here is just plain dull.

    While the Impala was originally launched in 1958 as a sports sedan, it’s greatest sales years were when it was simply a great family car capable of moving Americans with their daily stuff around town with a modicum of style. Value was important, and while GM has been obviously recognizing the importance of price, it seems to have completely forgotten the packing combination that made it appear in millions of American driveways every year for a generation.

    Let’s not even begin with the sad tale that this vehicle fails to embrace any classic Impala styling for what appears to be some kind of 1998 Toyota Solara sedan look. Perhaps the GM styling staff is bored with the classic Impala styling signatures, but that is what the Market looks for. It ain’t here.

    What gives? Is Chevrolet merely interested in offering also-ran Toyota and Honda stuff? It looks like the styling guys were more focused on what they perceived to be their competitor’s style, than how an Impala is to be styled.

    Just as Lincoln has seemed to have forgotten what is a Lincoln, here we are seeing Chevrolet forgetting what an Impala is. Consider the millions manufactured since 1958, it is remarkable how they could have done this.

    The positive comments here are from folks who wouldn’t be buying this vehicle over the many look alikes from brands they already prefer. Chevrolet needs to be Chevrolet and give the Market an option only available through a Chevrolet. This is not it.

    Can you imagine a station wagon version of this? Me neither. Right there, you have a fail regarding the correct proportions for an Impala. Impalas are to be available as a wagon and styled with this in mind. Styling it into just another dull sedan isn’t making this vehicle different from it’s competition.

    Pathetic. While it might sell, it could have been a new benchmark in classic American automobiles. Sorry, but this isn’t going to cut it. Their willingness to simply flush everything away that made previous Impalas the “heartbeat of America” is just plain – disheartening.

    • 0 avatar
      tallnikita

      bench seat will probably cause so much headache that the designer’s heads explode and the spew they project may end up on the dash, which may give them another idea for another stupid dashboard curve, and we certainly don’t want that! plus, it may interfere with that retarded pop-up screen that opens to a cubby. Look ma, this is where I put my used blunts!

    • 0 avatar
      aristurtle

      No, no, no, no, no. Retro styling is a dead end. Not every new car needs to look like it was brought over from the 1960s. Besides, the last couple of retro excercises that Chevy did aged incredibly poorly (just ask Mr. Lang what the depreciation curve looks like on a Chevy HURR), and I suspect the new Camaro will, too. Just because it sort-of worked for the Mustang doesn’t mean it’s the answer to everything.

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        This car IS retro – retro Toyota.

        Tell me, besides the Impala badging, what makes this look like the inheritor of the Impala name? There is a difference between retro like the HHR, (yuk), and retro like the MINI. GM had over fifty years to cull through the best of Impala styling, but couldn’t find a thing to use? Instead they decided to cull from old Toyotas and the new Ford Focus?

        This is supposed to be an Impala, not a four door Solara.

      • 0 avatar
        aristurtle

        It’s the inheritor of the Impala name because it looks boring as shit, just like the Impala has since (at least) 1977. There’s a fairly big market for boring cars, and Chevrolet’s entry has been named “Impala” for the past 35 years or more. I’m sorry that you liked the two year interval between 1959 and 1960 where it actually looked impressive, but that was an outlier. I liked the El Camino; it’s not coming back either.

      • 0 avatar
        Athos Nobile

        Why retro style has to imply using fins?

        The Impala could have a defined “identity”: triple tail lamps at both sides, dual round headlamps and the 6 windows torpedo. See BMW or Mercedes or Audi and how they play with that.

        As is, VD has a point. It looks better than the current one, but I still like the simplicity of the first FWD gen. Although, I don’t think the bench seat is going to come back (and with FRD it could be terrific, because the floor would be almost flat). It seems that people with families are pushed to buy inefficient SUVs/CUVs/whatever (diesel or petrol, it doesn’t matter) when a sedan or SW should suffice.

    • 0 avatar
      salhany

      Is there ANY sedan on the current market that can seat six? The Avalon has one of the biggest rear seats in the industry, but has buckets up front as the sole option IIRC. Folks who want to seat six generally want minivans or big SUVs for the accompanying cargo capacity that six folks need.

      I dunno, I’m pretty comfortable with the idea that the front bench seat is essentially dead and gone.

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        All the more reason to have it as an option. What we have here is nothing different at a time when GM needs to offer something different.

        Also, it has been so long since a front bench had been done right, at least thirty years, most haven’t a clue what they are missing. The bench seats optional in old Tauruses, Luminas and Dodges were so nasty, they gave a generation of drivers a belief that bench seats were crap. They don’t need to be.

        At a time when there is no competition for full sized family sedans, GM decides to make an Impala look like a warmed over Camry.

      • 0 avatar
        rpol35

        Actually, yes, the Impala, if you specify the 40/20/40 front seat option. It moves the gear selector to the steering column and removes the center console.

        They are not real common but we have a 2006 version in our family and it still shows as an option for 2012.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        There is no point to a front bench. If you need to seat 6 you obviously have kids. Kids in the front has become a no no due to passenger side airbags and the general guidelines that kids are safer in the back. Furthermore that 4 year old that used to ride in the center in that 83 Caprice is now required to be in a car seat. I love me some vinyl bench seats too…but it just isn’t going to happen.

    • 0 avatar
      Hank

      To be frank, the number of people wanting to sit three across in the front seat of a sedan is generationally tied, and it’s a generation that is approaching its twilight. There’s a reason the console won the interior wars, and the front bench isn’t going to reemerge by appealing to X-ers or Millennials. No matter how great its merits, it’s gone the way of the three speed on the tree and the brontosaurus.

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        Future generations probably won’t be as fat and wide as the current generations of drivers are. Previous generations only ate when they were hungry, not when they needed entertainment. Three grown adults could sit across a front bench in 1968, today, a new bench seat would have to be able to handle possibly 1,000 pounds of wide body American ass.

        That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done. It is done in America’s most popular vehicle segment – pick ups. Have you seen the flabby girth of rural America?

        A good bench would set this vehicle apart from the rest. But then take a look at this “new” Impala. Being different wasn’t the plan apparently.

      • 0 avatar
        Hank

        @VanillaDude

        Bench seats started to self-exterminate even before the girth problem (you can thank the bucket seats craze of the 60s/70s for that). And most full-size pickup drivers don’t sit three across, that’s why they keep the armrest/Big Gulp holders down all the time, and why extended/crew cabs have taken over the market. Even the skinny Americans have full-sized space bubbles, more so the further west you go.

        Check out the F250/350 King Ranch for example…seats five, unless you click the option for a rear console, then it seats *four*.

      • 0 avatar
        Darkhorse

        If the industry would bring back the bench seat, there would be a renaissance for drive-in movies!

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      …Honestly, there is nothing wrong with an excellent bench seating arrangement…

      Nope. Nothing wrong beyond the fact that consumers have made it very clear, they don’t want a bench seat up front. They’ve made it clear with their wallets.

      If buyers REALLY wanted seating for six and were willing to buy it in quantity, you don’t think the Camry wouldn’t already offer it???

      • 0 avatar
        toplessFC3Sman

        Not to mention, if there was a bench seat in front, do you think a center airbag would need to be packaged in the middle of the dash? That’d sort of get in the way of the HVAC ducting & controls, radio interface, and all sorts of other things, and it would drive a LOT more cost into the interior for a feature that 99.9% of buyers couldn’t care less about. Not to mention the trouble they’d have trying to change radio stations or cycle through folders of songs etc when the screen placement has been jeopardized by that airbag and they no longer have a place for their elbow & jumbo diet coke.

      • 0 avatar
        ciddyguy

        Also, Europe quit offering bench seats a long time ago, putting buckets up front and 2-3 seating in back and that was it for all cars for decades.

        Even Japan, once they moved out of the 60′s began to offer buckets and it was America that took a very long time to finally ditch them in regular sedans.

        Glad they’re gone. Never liked that sedan paradigm even though I grew up with cars like it.

        I’m in my late 40′s and prefer cars like the Mazda Protege5/3, or more pedestrian hatchbacks even over any sedan, with a very, very few exceptions.

      • 0 avatar
        ciddyguy

        This is a nice looking car from the photos, the interior even more so.

        I like how they extend the seat fabric color up to the top of the dash here. It tones down what would otherwise be a sea of black everywhere.

        It has a bit of a retro touch to that dash top too without being too much so. I like it.

        However, the wheels almost look a tad too big for the car but overall, not bad but not what I’d want though.

    • 0 avatar
      DubTee1480

      RE: retro touches, I imagine the only things we will see are nods to previous generations of Impalas (but then I never read your statement as endorsing a full on retro model a la HHR, Challenger or Mustang anyway) like dual headlamps inside a single unit (like the 1st gen FWD) and segmented tail lamps (again, a single unit but with 3 lamps inside that will burn like 3 separate lamps). I agree that it would be nice to have a bench option, but given the way that dash bulges at the center bottom it’s still possible – this isn’t a final production model and doesn’t represent the entire offering lineup. My 2004 has that same bulge and the center console is tacked on and flows between the buckets. My father-in-law had a 2001 with a split bench, the bulge didn’t get in the way. Speaking of my ’04, I resent your implication that all the Impala love is coming from people that won’t buy the Impala… there’s at least me and Zackman :)

    • 0 avatar
      Toad

      Vanilla, your comments are usually on point but today you may need to switch to decaf.

      Front bench seat? Sure, the line of buyers forms here, right next to the buyers that want white wall tires, carburetors, and three on the tree shifting. Maybe Chevy could offer an 8 track player too.

      Four door sedans follow a design formula for a reason: what buyers want in the segment is pretty simple. A reasonable amount of style, decent combination of fuel economy and power, comfortable seating (including front bucket seats) and storage for their stuff (which usually involves a front console). The more you spend, the more those elements are upgraded.

      People who need more seating will use minivans or SUV/CUV’s because of the additional stuff that comes with hauling 5+ people and the need to accommodate child safety seats. Chevy and every other manufacturer knows that the vast majority of the time the Impala will haul one or two people, with a rarely used option of hauling two more in some comfort.

      No reason to reinvent the wheel.

    • 0 avatar
      stroker49

      I think you have a point here. I can also see the problem from a Swedish point of view, why buy a S80 when a S60 can do the same job for less. Why buy an Impala when a Malibu is basically the same vehicle. And the rear seats in modern cars! The roof line and the rear window makes it impossible to sit in the rear if you are tall. So you can’t even seat four, you can seat two adults and two kids, in a large car! I’m 6’2″ and can sit in the rear in an old Caprice or an old Volvo. I can hardly sit in any car’s rear seat anymore, but wagons. At least make it possible to seat two tall person in the back, then you can use it as a Taxi or Police car, and yes reinvent the big beutiful american wagon!

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Try a Pontiac G8. I’m 6’1″ tall and am quite comfortable front or rear. But completely agree it is a rare exception where 6′ adults can sit front and rear. This is something the Camry does extremely well (sit 4 6′ tall adults in comfort, five if you have to).

        Given automakers have less and less leeway on what they can do from the a-pillar forward (oh how grand were the days when pop-up headlights, chrome eyelids, and recessed grilles with bulging bumpers maimed pedestrians) to a blah sea of me too vanilla. I don’t blame auto makers, I blame the tight rules they have to operate within.

        All that’s left given strict side impact regulations to make a see we’re unique styling statement is the c-pillar back.

        We’re living in a golden age of horsepower, torque, reliability, engine efficiency and safety – but we are in a dank dark sad place when it comes to design – and very little stands outs.

      • 0 avatar
        stroker49

        APaGttH: Do they still make Pontiacs?

      • 0 avatar
        geozinger

        @stroker49: “Do they still make Pontiacs?”

        I wish…

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      The target audience for this car is not the “family man looking for a family car”. That guy goes for a CR-V. The real target audience for this car is a retiree who who never warmed to the SUV/CUV styling, and would rather not have to step up to the carseat.
      The other target audience for this car, sadly, is the fleet buyers. Ignore the rhetoric about this car ‘finally breaking out of rental fleet fodder’. This car will continue to be fleet fodder.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        “The target audience for this car is not the “family man looking for a family car”. That guy’S WIFE goes for a CR-V”

        There, fixed it for ya.

    • 0 avatar
      flameded

      I agree..to some extent.

      I’m not sure how you could fit a bench seat in there this day in age..
      BUT yes..make an impala look like an impala…with Impala styling cues…(I didnt say retro)-styling cues- like the right amount of tail lights..
      THAT would, 1 make it look more impala ish, and 2, totally set it apart from the crap thats currently be forced down our throats these days.
      NOTHING says Impala like 6 tail lights.
      I love seeing old impalas on the road at night from the rear…and you knew what the heck it was too.

      Yeah, I know the 59 didnt have the right number of taillights, but they were ok in my book… and the 66-67 were one unit, but still 3 separate sections underneath.
      I loved Impalas…oh well.

      Styling cues.. Not retro. ;)

  • avatar
    tallnikita

    given today’s state of the art, I say this is FAIL.

    The dashboard is like an overgrown eyebrow, heavy and gets in the way. The curves are pointless. Did they really need to have all fans mismatched? Symmetry – huh?

    The rest – overhanging heavy front, overhanging heavy rear, connected by swoopy and pointless A7-esque copy drawn by mid-antarctic midgets during their annual holiday to the warm places (Ushuaia).

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    Next years full-size rental car of choice. now with 20% LESS outward visibility. Yawn.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Impala – Come to papa!

    Man, that is nice in the photo. I can’t wait to see one in the metal…

    • 0 avatar
      SherbornSean

      I totally agree. This looks fine, and sufficiently differentiated from the Malibu to make sense for retail consumers.

      The call for seating for 6 is just ridiculous. The front isn’t safe for kids, and if I wanted some dude sitting next to me, his sweaty shirt full of blubber spilling into my space, I’d fly Delta. If need 6 seats, buy a Traverse.

      • 0 avatar
        kenzter

        Exactly! They don’t offer bench seats because we don’t buy bench seats. My giant old caddy has a front bench and I do not want anyone sitting on top of me while I’m driving. And I’m pretty sure it’s a lot wider than an Impala.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        +10000 – best comment in ages! As a 100K mile a year frequent flier, you ain’t kidding.

        The other issue with bench seats, is that SOME of us live in places where the roads actually have curves in them. A bench seat has ZERO lateral support – as a kid I had the joy of piloting an ’85 Oldsmobarge 98 with slippery red leather – you had to hang onto the steering wheel for dear life to keep from sliding all over the place. And that was at the feeble G’s an ’85 98 could generate. got to love a car that could squeal the tires turning into a parking space!

  • avatar
    thegamper

    Am I the only one who sees the (now dead) 2012 Saab 9-5 in this car. Quite a bit in the front end.

  • avatar

    It’s nice but mostly unremarkable. But that’s exactly what sells in that segment: This car isn’t competing with Audi, it’s competing with a zillion Sandy Beach Metallic (read: beige) Avalons. I don’t really love anything GM has done on this platform — the proportions are kind of bizarre — but the Impala will do just fine in the market, much better than the current car.

  • avatar
    Caboose

    If they want to reduce fleet sales, this is a good way to do it. Cops can’t use this.

    When I say I would like “headroom”, I mean Packard. I want to be able to wear my hat in my car, like a civilized person.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    There’s quite a lot of car there and not all that much motor. I have to wonder how this will work out. I expect the curb weight will top 3800 lbs.

  • avatar
    Contrarian

    The exterior styling is not so bad, although rather generic by recent standards. It’s the interior that is a show stopper. It is so Chevy, and just screams “unlimited miles included!” It’s not so different than the interior of my former 96SS, which was FAR more fun to drive – and be seen in. The dullification of Impala continues.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Looks good but I’m not so sure about the mechanicals. Then again cars like this need refinement & ease of use rather than blazing performance. Again though looks damn good, at least in LTZ car show trim.,

  • avatar
    getacargetacheck

    Nice looking car. So, what’s the purpose of Buick again? Once again, the Chevrolet version of the GM platform comes out looking cleaner and not vulgar. Though I love the IDEA of a front bench seat, the lack of shoulder belt regulation for the center occupant would prevent me from buying anyway.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    The rear end looks like the love child of a Sonata and A4

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    forever wrong wheel drive.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    Yawn.. and that steering wheel.. hideous. Those pics look quite doctored up too btw, especially the first exterior shot… I’ll wait to see it in person. Some of it is reminiscent of the new MKZ (from the side) everyone was dissing recently.

  • avatar
    chrishs2000

    It’s not bad, but nothing spectacular from a powertrain or design standpoint. Will be interested to see the first Taurus/Impala/Avalon comparo…I really see the full size FWD sedan market growing by leaps and bounds as people will be dumping their small and medium SUV’s in favor of something (a little) more fuel efficient. Here in MI I see boatloads of Taureses (Taurii?)

  • avatar
    dundurrbay

    Wow, what a hideous steering wheel.

  • avatar
    alluster

    Good job GM. Looks very nice and tastefully done, though it looks like a mash up of the Camaro, M35, A7 and new Jetta’s taillights. Autoblog has”real” pics of the car in two colors. I knew the Impala is going upscale but was not expecting this upscale. This will stop competing with the Malibu on price/content and fleet sales and let the Malibu grow in sales. Every new GM car or redesign has been a significant improvement in a lot of aspects. Looks, Build quality, overall quality, retail sales and transaction prices. The impala will be no different. Only gripe is that the Impala will no longer be a great value like it was until now. With the new Avalon also expected to look very good and the Taurus, Charger and 300 already looking great, I believe large cars are coming back with a vengeance.

  • avatar
    gasser

    BENCH SEATS????!!!!! What’s in the water in your area??? The best bench seat idea ever was the split bench
    with a center arm rest…….the dual seat. The last time I wanted a bench seat was to have BettyLou snuggle right
    up next to me in my ’68 Montego. BettyLou is now 200 pounds and on Medicare. Not to mention that 3 across the
    front would require a middle air bag and a seat belt/restraint system to keep heads from cracking together
    like coconuts in the event of a crash. This Impala is Dead On Arrival. Too big outside for the size inside.
    Why does Chevy have to be all things to all people??? What about the Olds 98 / 88 marketing of yore???
    Let there be a cheaper large size Buick and save the retool on the Impala. Even as rentals these won’t do well.
    Rental market wants good gas mileage which translates to a smaller car. Rental business success translates
    to good resale of the vehicle, which means good gas mileage. Three engines for one shell??? Too big, too small
    and just right… How about only manufacturing the just right and saving a ton of work?? The mild hybrid will never
    fly. Its too much equipment, weight, complexity and loss of trunk space (which is the only reason people rent Impalas) for a rather minimal real world mileage gain. EPA estimates are pipe dreams. In the traffic bound real
    worlds of suburbia and cities, weight and driving style far surpass aerodynamics as the determinants of mileage.

    • 0 avatar
      getacargetacheck

      “Not to mention that 3 across the front would require a middle air bag and a seat belt/restraint system to keep heads from cracking together
      like coconuts in the event of a crash.”

      That’s no joke. In my sleepy Florida town a few years back, a group of six senior citizens were t-boned in their Grand Marquis. All died. I’ve always wondered how much head trauma was caused by being too close to each other.

  • avatar
    Davekaybsc

    Am I the only one who sees A LOT of Kia Optima in this? It seems to be a near clone, just enlarged. The steering wheel also seems pulled from an S-class.

  • avatar
    Advance_92

    How would it look on anything smaller than the 18 inch chrome wheels?

  • avatar
    Pinzgauer

    The third picture makes it really look like an Accord Crosstour to me. Ugh.

  • avatar
    geozinger

    I’d like to see it in real life before I cast judgment on it, but it looks good on screen.

    That said, I WANT a ‘new’ car.

    I don’t want something with old styling. I don’t mind a clever homage to the cars that went before, though. This appears to move the Impala brand far beyond the current car’s idiom.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    now they have a car that can take on the Taurus

  • avatar
    CRConrad

    Hm… Is that the same house as they used in the pictures of the AM Rapide, or is it just by the same architect?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India