By on November 27, 2012

For 2014, the Chevrolet Impala will get a price hike of $850, and the return of an iconic badge that had been absent for years.

The base 2.5L Impala will start at $27,535, while the V6 models start at $30,760 and $36,580 respectively. Pricing for the eAssist version was not announced.

But the big news for 2014 is the return of the Impala badge, the little leaping chrome creature that’s been absent for so many years. According to the Wall Street Journal

 In a cost-saving move a few years ago, GM stopped equipping the car with the chrome, leaping antelope that had symbolized the Impala for decades.

A quick peek on the car’s C-Pillar shows that the antelope is back. The fact that hardly anyone noticed might be a bigger problem.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

73 Comments on “Where’s The Chrome Badging?...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    That image looks alot like the current Ford Taurus, which itself looks alot like a small SUV.

    • 0 avatar
      86er

      Welcome to the future!

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Very true.

      I just cannot believe how massive & tall the hoods and cowls are getting on sedans now.

      • 0 avatar
        MrWhopee

        Aww, cars were just getting slowly back to where the they were, height wise. Cars were of crossovers height back then (in the 1930s, 40s. The right height, IMHO, where the average humans kind of slide into the car, not having to climb up into, like trucks, SUVs or down, like the longer, lower, wider sedans popularized by Detroits in the ’50s, and whose time has apparently (and finally) ended.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        You know, I think I could live with that if the beltlines were lower. I love the minimalist sleek & low look of a 1991 Accord but don’t like sitting almost on the pavement. But big cars like that Impala feel really confining inside with those pillbox windows.

        So let’s combine them. Slide-in seat height with big windows for great visibility. Wait, Ford already did that with the 500.

      • 0 avatar
        TEXN3

        Sounds like you want an Outback then.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        TEXN3,
        Outback good. RAV4 V6 better. But you’re right. I do like CUVs and almost bought one instead of my Jetta wagon.

      • 0 avatar
        FuzzyPlushroom

        I loathe high beltlines and poor visibility, but I appreciate reasonable, comfortable seating positions. To me, the first few generations of Subaru Outback were just about perfect (the new one’s just too fat); driving my roommate’s old Civic is fun, but I can’t imagine having to climb in and out of it decades from now.

      • 0 avatar
        daveainchina

        @Mrwhoopee That trend of longer, lower, wider was the influence of Harley Earl. His stint GM design set trends that continue in some respect even today.

        You are right about the older cars being a bit higher, and as many have said, I can do without the ridiculously high belt-lines that make you feel like your sitting in a bunker instead of a car.

        For me the measure of a car has always been can I put my elbow on the window sill and my hand at the top of the window. It’s very comfortable for me to ride/drive a vehicle that way, new cars usually end up with the elbow too high and the window ending before my wrist.

        I really do NOT care for that. The limited visibility and huge A pillars and C pillars I find oppressive. I prefer lighter and more open interiors. That light airy feeling is gone from modern cars and it’s something I miss a lot.

  • avatar
    brettc

    What would a chrome badge like that actually cost GM to buy? I hope the $850 includes something useful besides a fancy badge that no one cares about. And based on the sketch above, the new Impala kind of looks like a larger new Accord (just an observation).

    • 0 avatar
      dolorean

      I believe it was estimated in 2005, that it would cost GM a little under a Billion dollars to add the lovely little Corporate GM badge to all of its cars and trucks sold in North America. Mark LaNeve, GM North America vice president, stated ironically “The GM badge is a promise of trust to our customers, reflecting our commitment to deliver the best value to them…”

      TTAC at the time lambasted GM for its ineptitude with general consensus that the corporation was heading for a very hard fall.

    • 0 avatar

      A larger Accord minus decent glass area. Seriously, low beltlines can be a thing people.

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    The Taurus, the Camry, Sonata and a host of others. This thing better be either really cheap or spectacular mechanically otherwise it’s going to be lost in the shuffle.

    • 0 avatar
      TEXN3

      $27k for a large 4-cyl sedan is not cheap. That’s competing with an Accord EX-L or Camry XLE/SE(in terms of equivalant engine size, and those are the top trim levels, I believe. People wanting an Impala are going to want a torquey 6 at that price point in that car. Like the Taurus, this will be a low-volume car on the retail level.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Agreed.

      • 0 avatar

        I suspect the 2.5L 4cyl is purely for CAFE purposes. I was wondering how good a 4cyl will move a 3500 LB sedan, but again the heavier and less aerodynamic Nox and Terrain do just fine with an even smaller 2.4L I4.

        The price hike is too high considering the current Impala can he had for around $22K after incentives. The 2014 MY will cost $8K more if you want the same engine. This is not a surprise though. GM should move away from low margin, high volume sales. The new Impala is worlds ahead of the current one in terms of technology and design. Its like GM skipped two model refreshes in one leap, which the kinda did.

      • 0 avatar
        KixStart

        “The 2014 MY will cost $8K more if you want the same engine. This is not a surprise though.”

        W-e-l-l… the market just might fix that.

  • avatar
    86er

    “In a cost-saving move a few years ago, GM stopped equipping the car with the chrome, leaping antelope that had symbolized the Impala for decades.”

    Chrome? Oh surely they jest.

  • avatar
    stars9texashockey

    TEXN3 + 1. That’s a lot of money for the current rental queen. Yeah, they’re taking it upmarket and I’m sure it’s a much better car, but perception is reality.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    If GM stays true to form, the shiny plastic antelope will be cost-binned for year 2 or 3, along with the turn signal mirrors, puddle lamps, and other stuff that generates goodwill in retail buyers.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Unless that stuff breaks, in which case not having it saves money on the front AND back ends.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        I can’t imagine wanting to own a 4 cylinder D-class cruiser long enough to have this stuff break. These little niceties are ancillary anyway, so if your puddle lamp somehow stops working and you are cheap, just don’t fix it. Car goes without it.

      • 0 avatar
        corntrollio

        Because, you know, replacing a light bulb is a high tech maneuver.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        “Because, you know, replacing a light bulb is a high tech maneuver.”

        I’ve decided to not replace things because it requires removing so many panels that it’s not worth it. My family has had platic bits peel up/fall off (but not in a long time, IIRC).

        I’ve heard horror stories of GM lights going out because a circuit board failed, so replacing the bulb would do nothing. Or lights not working right because something got rotated (friend’s Saturn had brake lights that functioned backwards due to this).

  • avatar
    dolorean

    Must have missed the original posting of the new Impala, but did I catch you right that this one will be the first of the lineage to receive a four-pot motor? Reminds me of the Fox-body Mustang of the ’80s watering down the legendary nameplate with the 2.3L four. Nearly killed the mark.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      Huh?

      The watering down of the Mustang marque was the star crossed Mustang II. Which came standard with the 2.3 Lima motor. That the Fox body ‘Stang had one as the economy or poverty version (your choice) only continued the line up from the previous generation.

      FWIW, the 2.3 in the Fox body wasn’t really bad, as back then Ford was trying to comply with CAFE, amortize the Fox platform further, AND survive to live another day.

      My mother got a naturally aspirated hatchback in 1980 and drove it for 15 years. You definitely were not going to win any races with it, but it was a very nice, comfortable, economical car for her to drive around in. It definitely was not another FoxBox Fairmont.

      My Mercury Capri Turbo RS was another story. Those carbureted turbo motors are what nearly killed turbos in the US. But Ford wasn’t alone in that deadly sin.

      The 2.5 in the Impala produces 190 HP, it should be enough to move the rental grade cars around pretty well (The 3.6 should be pretty zippy). I wonder if the four banger Impy will become the modern corollary to the Taurus MT5, the original 4 cylinder Taurus from the 80′s-90′s. Time will tell.

      • 0 avatar
        corntrollio

        The Taurus 4-cylinder had 90 hp and 130 ft-lbs of torque. Big difference from the 2.5 in the Impala that will have 195/187. For reference, the Taurus Vulcan 3.0 V6 had 140/160 in the first gen. The SHO had 220/200 from the Yamaha engine.

        Of course, that won’t stop the persistent criticism of smaller engines with higher power than the V6s of yore by illogical Luddites on this site who don’t understand economics or engineering.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        @geozinger, Agreed that the Mustang II not withstanding being a mistake Ford would rather not admit to NOW, was not the case at the time of the original Fox body. The Mustang II was lauded as the CoTY in ’74 and for that year sold the most Mustangs historical to this day, second only to the ’66 model year. The original Fox-body Mustang was a definitive dude from ’79 until ’82 with the revival of the High Output V8. The resulting years restored some of the excitement and lustre to the name, but the sales figures were dismal in comparison to the Mustang II. So dismal in fact “Ford thought that the Mustang had lost its place in the market. They subsequently announced that they would replace the rear-wheel drive Mustang with a Mazda-derived front-wheel-drive version.” (wiki)

        Your personal perceptions aside, the Fox body Mustang nearly killed the mark. The only reason you see so many around today is because of the amazing running time for a body style (’79-’93), cheap resale, and easy ability to maintain and modify.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        @corntrollio, you missed my point entirely. I was not alluding to the fact that the 2.5L is a very good engine with loads of potential. What I was referring to was HISTORICALLY the Impala was a large car with large displacement; IOW, a V8 or a V6. Not a four pot. It may take those that love the mark a bit to get used to the idea. Referrence PrincipalDan’s comment below.

      • 0 avatar
        corntrollio

        Dolorean, FWIW, I wasn’t calling you one of the Luddites. They know who they are. Mostly was just pointing out that this 4-cylinder has more horsepower than the 5.0 in my old Panther.

        Anyway, I had a V6 W-body as a daily driver for some period of time, and while I get the V6s and V8s have more cachet, times have changed.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        @corntrollio, my bad for being snippy brother. Corrected my previous statement.

      • 0 avatar
        geozinger

        @dolorean: WRT to MII to Fox body Mustang at introduction: Who launches a new car and then proceeds to call it’s immediate predecessor “junk” in public? There was no way Ford was going to call the MII anything but complimentary words in late 1978! To be honest, I don’t know how Ford “officially” regards the car now, I think the less than favorable assessment comes from the public at large. The 5.0L Mustangs saved the Mustang’s bacon (and reputation) almost single-handedly.

        On another point: The whole misadventure with the Mazda-stang was cost cutting, not that the Mustang had “lost it’s way”. That was corporate bullsh!t to ameliorate current and future Mustang owners that the ‘heritage’ of the car would be preserved (Kind of like what actually happened to the Mercury Capri. That heritage was definitely preserved. In a jar, somewhere.)

        Once fans of the marque (that is the correct spelling, BTW) were alerted to the possibility of a FWD Mustang, they went bonkers and petitioned Ford to keep the Mustang RWD. THOSE folks are the ones who saved the Mustang to exist in it’s current form. Inadvertently (since Ford was determined to undermine one if it’s best performing nameplates to save a few bucks), these folks also forced Ford to produce the Fox body long after it’s “use-by” date had expired.

        OTOH, it helped sustain a number of aftermarket parts suppliers and provided excellent fodder for racers of all types for years to come. A happy accident, as it were.

      • 0 avatar
        corntrollio

        My bad too for not being more clear there.

        Always did wonder what one of those W-body SS models with the V8 would be like. One of my neighbors who worked at a Chevy dealership had one, but never got a chance to try it out.

        I do think people need an attitude adjustment on these things, overall. Until recently, I’ve only ever driven V6s and V8s as daily drivers.

        I certainly haven’t felt like the turbo 4 loses much on those old V6s I had — more power, better gas mileage, hard to complain. Still like my V8 cars too, of course, but I’m not seeing how I’d lose much having an equivalent turbo/supercharged V6 for a daily driver.

        I’m also very sympathetic to the comment someone made recently comparing TDIs to the V8s of yore. It’s a perfect comparison.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The way I see it, your ‘large’ flagship sedan should always be a V6 at minimum. Maybe there is a market for a so called ‘four pots’ in larger cars such as Impala, Lacrosse, and Taurus but I’d be willing to bet they are in the minority. If GM is smart, the V6 will effectively become the standard Impala model shipped to dealers and the 4-cyl a special order/rental special.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        @ Deloren – are you taking the same foxbody that spawned several magazines, some racing organizations along with a huge aftermarket? I well remember from about the mid 80′s to the early 90′s before Ford took a real shit on Mustang enthusiasts (somehow thinking a 205hp 5.0 was serious competion for a 275hp LT1 V8) the hot cars to have were the Mustang in LX trim with a V8 or if you had the bucks, a Grand National, F-body cars were considered pigs (although they handled well and were easier to launch), the Corvette was well for the gold chain set or actual Corvette fans.

        Anyways it may have only been a phenomena south of the Mason Dixon but they were hugely popular.

      • 0 avatar
        joeveto3

        Nevermind 4cylinder power, I have a hard time with front-wheel-drive Impalas. That being said, most of the buying public, from the typical family car buyer down to the inevitable fleet buyer, don’t care.

        The Impala heritage died in the 60′s.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        @geozinger, of course you are correct in Mustang owners/lovers/angry old men with little to do were ‘outraged’ that Ford would assume to kill off the ‘marque’ (stoopid Gummint spel cheque) and did successfully petition Ford to lose the idea of a FWD Stang and return to its original design roots. However, the platform that the Fox-body rode on was (and should) to be replaced after ten years, but with all the fuss, Ford missed the window and continued the platforms lifespan into 2004. I own and love my beautiful ’95 Cobra Hardtop Convertible, but am forced to concede for all its promise, its still riding on a 1979 Fairmont chassis.

        @raph, I realize that at the time for us who had car posters on the walls, the Fox body Mustang seemed HUGELY popular. The sales numbers of the time, however, prove it to be largely a dude, due in a very large part, to the Four Cylinder Stang. Which connects me again to the Impala, a historical marque with muscle power, will lose core enthusiasts by having the base model with a four pot motor.

      • 0 avatar
        geozinger

        @dolorean: Off topic: Check out DYAC.com sometime. I loves me some spel chequerz! On topic: Yes, the Great American Pony Car Write-In forced Ford to continue on with the then current version of the Fox platform way too long, agreed. I personally owned a 1980, a 1985 and a 1986 Mercury Capri RS (the ’80 was a turbo, the other two were 5.0′s), so I can relate to your love affair with the cars. But by 1995, they were way past their “use by” date.

        I would agree with you on the whole Impala/Caprice debate, too. I’ve made mention on several boards that I’ve thought the current Fusion should have been called the Taurus, and the car that replaced the 500 should have been the Galaxie. Same thing here. Why does the bread and butter large sedan have the former ‘performance’ model’s name plate? Why are they calling the car that should be the Impala the SS?

        Why????

    • 0 avatar
      racer-esq.

      The issue isn’t that this car is going have a 2.5 liter I4. The issue is that this car is going to be called the Impala.

      The Holden RWD SS, coming out next year, should be called the Impala SS, and this stretched Malibu should be called a Caprice. The Holden cop car that is currently called the Caprice should be called the Impala SS also (and should be sold to non-fleet buyers as a LWB Impala SS).

  • avatar
    danio3834

    I think it’s a fair looking car with potenital. The real turnoff is the powertrain options. Nothing to be excited about at all.

    • 0 avatar
      KalapanaBlack

      It might not be super new and improved, but the 3.6 that’s being carried over from the current car is a stellar engine. It made the last W-Body Impala at least 50% nicer in my opinion.

      As for the leaping Impala, 2009 was the last year for the exterior C-pillar emblems. The smaller one on the dash (within the “wood” applique on the passenger side dash face) went blank after 2011, when they eliminated the so-called cam in block engines in favor of the 3.6 DOHC VVT DI.

    • 0 avatar
      srogers

      People have to look more than a year down the road. With rising fuel economy standards and probable rising fuel cost as well, engineering a new non-luxury car with a V8 seems like a dead end to me.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        I’m not holding my breath on a V8 option, but I wouldn’t count it out completely. This is GM we’re talking about here. The last gen Impala was made available with the LS4 V8 while the G8 (same car as the SS sedan) was available too.

        The more likely scenario would be a GTDI 3.6L with twin turbos, or no added performance option at all. But hey, we can dream.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        4cyl base Impala? Sigh… Makes me want to cry. If the Malibu is 4cyl ONLY then make the Impala 3.6 V6 only. The standard 4 pot is just going to make many rental/fleet customers sad…

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        @PrincipalDan

        As a 30-week+ a year car renter, the thought of getting stuck with ANY Impala makes me sad. These are cars you get upgraded FROM.

        And speaking of rental cars to get the B&B all hot and bothered, what did Hertz bless me with this week at SFO?? Why yes, everyones (but me) favorite automotive dinosaur, an honest-to-Dog Ford Crown Victoria. Which in rental trim is even worse than the Grand Marquis’ they occasionally stick me with. How do you make a car that is both jittery and bouncy AND heaving and wallowing at the same time?!?! Sheer joy to navigate this ark on crowded Hwy101. If I hadn’t arrived at 2:30am I would have gone back to the counter for something else. Anything else.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        @krhodes,

        UNWASHED PHILISTINE! Repent of your sins and admit that the Panther platform will run cheaply and reliably for 300,000 miles even though you shouldn’t want to endure anywhere near that distance in the thing.

      • 0 avatar
        KalapanaBlack

        @krhodes1 – You think that’s bad? We currently have a 38k mi ’11 Camry, a 49k mi ’11 Fusion, and a 36k mi ’11 Aveo5 in our off-airport fleet. I keep thinking I’ve seen the last of these cars, and we keep adding another one.

        It’s only been a month since I was in a rental Crown Vic. The 5-spoke alloys on the CV LX rental-spec always endeared me more to it than a comparable Marquis (which last came in “Ultimate Edition,” which was just like the pre-2010 LS but without a power passenger seat, power adjustable pedals, or fog lights). This isn’t saying much, however. Avis still has quite a few CVs in their fleet, but we at Hertz haven’t had one in awhile.

  • avatar
    Jeffer

    Okay, so we get the leaping Impala back, now how about changing the Bow Tie back to the original blue?

  • avatar
    Jean-Pierre Sarti

    drove around the country in a rented Impala for 2 weeks last summer. not once did i notice the impala badge not being there. in fact only thing i saw everywhere was the damn bowtie badge.

    the car itself was very capable for american highway driving. back seat could use more leg room for a supposedly full size car. the 3.6L DI engine is actually pretty damn peppy even in this big of a car.

  • avatar
    ott

    I think it’s a gorgeous car, lightyears ahead of the previous iteration, which was a great car in its own right, just boring.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    “The watering down of the Mustang marque was the star crossed Mustang II.”

    My turn. Huh? With the exception of the original extended-model year Mustang, the II sold many more units than previous or successive Mustangs if I’m not mistaken. Sure, it was a glorified Pinto with a better suspension and certainly more style and luxury…

    It was the right car at the right time (post-pony car; Gas Crisis I ready), but certainly no match for the much better Fox platform that followed in 1979.

    A disaster? It may have been what kept the Mustang name alive for a better day.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      Huh? I never claimed the MII was a disaster. Star-crossed, yes. Ford already was selling the perfect Mustang II, it was called the Mercury Capri. However, being assembled in (then West) Germany with a horrible exchange rate made the little beast rather pricey. But, rebodied to be the next Mustang, it would have been a far better basis for the car than the Pinto based MII. “Not Invented Here” wasn’t just a GM trait, all of Detroit seemed to have it.

      That said, Lido had fantastic luck, as the MII *was* the right car at the time. It probably DID keep the lights on until the late 1970′s. Not bad for a warmed over subcompact platform.

      The Fox-body Mustang is the one I fell in love with back in my high school days. I had high hopes for the turbo versions, especially the high-spec ones, with the Recaro seats, the Michelin TRX wheels and tires and the SEV Marchal driving lamps. In my case, it was too bad the actual car didn’t work out so well. At least the revived GT 5.0 models made up for it.

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    Ages ago you could buy the bubble body Caprice with an Impala SS package, complete with ridiculously wide rear tires that’d do dragstrip style burnouts.

    …that was probably the last car worthy to wear that badge.

    This move on behalf of GM reminds me of the fanfare Ford announced that the 500 would be renamed the Taurus.

    I still can’t tell this car apart from the Malibu, or whether they are still selling both of them, or whether I’d know which one would be the better deal the next time I’m at the airport Dollar coutner.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “Ages ago you could buy the bubble body Caprice with an Impala SS package, complete with ridiculously wide rear tires that’d do dragstrip style burnouts.”

      The 2006-2009 Impala SS with the 5.3L LS4 were pretty impressive burnout machines in spite of being FWD.

      Of course everyone likes to think that the ’94-’96 was the last and best Impala, but even as a multiple former B-body owner myself, the V8 W-bodies did everything better.

  • avatar
    65corvair

    The front is OK, way better than the “Chevy” fronts that they have been putting on most Chevys. Now if only they figured out that Impalas have six tail lights.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Yup, I want to buy an Impala built between 2000 and right now, de-badge the sucker and get some custom chrome script that says either: “Biscane” or “Bel Air”. Sadly only Zachman and I would get the joke.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        +1

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        Ha ha ha, PrincipalDan!

        The ONLY thing that kept me from making my old 2004 into a Bel-Air was the recessed script on the dashboard, otherwise, done deal.

        My new one? As you can see, I not only restored the badging but also added Impala letters next to it on the front doors. Might as well do my best! I gotta take a better photo, as it appears crooked – and it’s not.

        BTW, that thing is a rocket. 300 hp is not a slouch, but I do pay more for the privilege as to fuel…especially when I mash the gas!

        Somehow, I find it exciting. Occasionally, of course.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    This should be a pretty decent albeit over due replacement for the old W-body car. Going over to a std 4 cylinder makes sence with the 35 mpg 2016 CAFE mandate looming ever closer. The 197 HP 2.5 in the 3500 LB Malibu gives a 7.7 second 0-60 time and the 100-150 LB heavier Impala should do that same run in about 8 seconds flat which will be fine for most entry level buyers. The 305 HP 3.6 will be an option on the upper LT and LTZ trim levels so the 4 banger will be the only way to go on the base LS model. Expect about 32 highway MPG with the 2.5, 37 with the eAssist and about 28 with the 3.6. Also expect a big jump in rear seat leg room and a far larger trunk at 18.8 cu.ft. compared to the LaCrosses 13.3.

  • avatar

    You’d think a 4-cyl Impala would seriously cut into the profit margins of a 4-cyl Malibu, unless GM has something up its sleeve to keep that from happening (doubt it). Seems like it’s just a move to juice up those CAFE numbers at any cost.

    As far as large sedans with four-pot motors go, Citroen’s DS and CX were far ahead of the curve – relatively large, cushy machines with four-bangers of varying power. I don’t think anyone ever bought one of those for their swiftness from zero.

  • avatar
    Dimwit

    One of the things that everyone forgets is how hard it is to change anything in Detroit. All of these decisions were made years ago. Smaller, more fuel efficient engines seemed to work in the dark days of 2008/2009. So now, we have a ton of large sedans and CUVs that run on 4 & 6 cyl. engines.
    If the turbos start to fail prematurely or the marketplace doesn’t want them then it’ll change, but I don’t see that happening.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The 4-cylinder LS version is a CAFE and rental queen.

    You could insert the same, “its doomed” argument on the Jetta and the base model coming with the two-oh-slow under the hood. 115 HP?!?! It will never sell. Of course it doesn’t – only about 5% of Jettas today are sold with the two-oh-slow half-diesel (OK, so its appetite for lubricants has been addressed).

    The same will be for the Impala.

    A loaded LTZ with the excellent GM 3.6 mated to the smooth 6-speed auto goes for less than a loaded Kia Optima.

    Ponder that for a little bit…and I don’t hear anyone accusing GM of lying on the MPG of the 3.6L V6 engine that is in a number of its products. If anything, for those who have driven the 2012 rental Impala with the 3.6 have consistently reported superior to sticker MPG. Kia can’t claim that.

    A loaded Avalon? Now up to $40K, and the base Avalon starts at over $31K, the same price for a middle of the road 2014 Imp with a V6.

    The ‘bu starts much lower than $28K.

    I don’t think the new Impala will sell anywhere near the volume of the old one. But I also don’t care – I would rather a $28K sticker Impala sell for $27.5K with no cash on the hood (or minimal cash) than the current $25K Impala selling for $19K with the dealer begging on their hands and knees – and ironically the buyer getting the Toyota Corolla of full sized cars in the process. Dated, ancient, behind the times, and as reliable as an anvil.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      I agree with you but there is one big problem with the pricing. The Dodge Charger. It is a D class car and has a decent V6 as standard in the same price range as the base Impala. That is part of the reason the Charger (never mind the 300) outsells the Taurus (and Avalon for that matter) handily.
      Chevy should have been a bit lower in the price. I know incentives will come but they don`t help residual value.

      • 0 avatar
        panzerfaust

        And you get much more car for the money, and a car that seems to know what its supposed to be.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        @panzerfaust

        Seeing how no one has even driven a 2014 Impala in the motoring press, and considering there is almost no way possible you’ve seen one in the flesh, sat in one, turned a key, or even done a slow lap in a parking lot, how can you conclude, “you get much more car for the money.”

        FWIW, this isn’t a GM thing – if you had posted the exact same comparo on a to be announced Toyota Avalon, or Nissan Maxima, that is represented by an entirely new platform – not just an update, I would say the exact same thing.

        You haven’t even seen the car.

  • avatar
    panzerfaust

    Does GM ever take into account their competition, or do they just sit around looking at CAFE and Saftey standardand try to fit a car into them? Do they always assume that their customers are dimwits who will buy whatever they sell if it has the right brand and model? “Oh look honey, they’ve put the chrome Impala back on the Impala, Chevrolet is BACK!”

  • avatar
    nickoo

    I have no idea how they expect to get away with the suggested price range from 27-37k when that puts you firmly in competition with the top trim charger r/t with AWD not to mention a whole slew of near luxury cars.


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
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India