Wanna know why GM is hurting? Because they have no styling. GM doesnt even
have anything to go toe to toe with this car in styling or performance.
C'mon GM lets get rolling. A Nissan Altima...yes a Nissan Altima and GM cant
even beat this in style or performance. 270 HP out of a 3.5 L compared to
GMs 3.9 struggling to put out 250hp.
Styling is in the eye of the beholder. I don't care much for that Nissan at
all. Exterior is boring, and the interior isn't all that great either. When
I get in my '96 (yes, a 1996) Bonnie, it feels like I am in the cockpit of
a fighter jet. It will also go like a bat out of hell.
You like performance? Take a look at the GTO, the Grand Prix or the (no
longer made) Bonnie's. Damned fine looking cars, and they will move with the
best of them. But, like I said, styling is personal preference. Some people
can look at a Ferrari and vomit, while others will look at a Yugo and think
it's as good as gold.
Don't get me wrong I am not crazy about the Altima styling though they are
on the right track compared to previous models...yet it still looks better
than anything that GM is offering currently in that class. The sad truth is
that GM styling sucks. If GM had stayed with the original prototype G6
styling they would have one heck of a nice looking car but they strayed
from the original style and ended up with mediocrity.
Perhaps you might want to compare the torque rating for both. The Japanese
have a tendency to spin their engine rather wildly to obtain HP fro
advertising purposes. In doing so the torque drops off. I is torque that
gets you going a keeps you going on grades. That is why most Japanese cars
are the first cars to die on hills. The Camrys one sees on the road are
slugs. The reason is, eight our of ten sold in the US have only 4 cy
"Mike Hunter" proves yet again that he has never actually driven a
Camry... I'd far rather have a 4 cyl Camry (with available 5-speed no
less!) than the sluggish, automatic-only 3.4 V-6 Impala.... yes I have
been in both and the Camry is a better car in every respect.
Mike Hunter wrote:
No offence Nate, but I have a couple of relatives who own Impala's, and they
love them. One has the 3.4 (a 2003, if memory serves), and one the 3.8 (a
2000 with high KM's, if memory serves). Neither has complained about any
mechanical problems, and the one who owns the 3.4 version is a GM mechanic
at a dealership. We also use the Impala's with the 3.8 down here as Police
cars, not to mention building them at our local GM (Oshawa) plant. Maybe you
just happened to get a lemon? As for the cars themselves, I have driven the
3.4 Impala, and it seemed to move quite well. Not as well as the 3.8, but
that is to be expected.
Maybe I am spoiled (by what? my 20 year old German cars?) but my '05
with a 3.4 is a loud, coarse, unrefined slug. I sound like I'm racing
just driving around, it has to drop two gears to get anything resembling
Compare and contrast with a 4-cylinder Camry and the Camry wins, hands
down, plus it is so much less frustrating to have a manual transmission
than a badly programmed automatic (OK, well, maybe not BADLY programmed,
but programmed with fuel economy numbers as its ONLY priority)
80 Knight wrote:
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
I drove a 2002 or 3 grandam GT with the 3.4 and the car kicked ass when yiu
stepped into it. I actually enjoyed flooring it when I was alone on an empty
stretch of road. So I definatly would not call it a slug.
My sister's Grand Am is the same year. It's a quick little car, but,
unfortunatley, I haven't seen too many with manual transmissions. I think
they used them more in the Alero's (which is, as you know, the Grand Am's
twin). I remember the first time I saw one of the newly styled Grand Am's
was in "Lethal Weapon 4". Mel Gibson and Danny Glover actually got in a huge
chase scene with one, and even jumped it through a building. They destroyed
the car, but I liked them ever since.
The '05 Impalla 3.4L was not even close to my '95 Chrysler 3.3L LH in
responsiveness and handling, particularly in hilly driving. In fact I
found that Impalla a pain to drive. The auto transmission seemed very
low tech compared to that in my 11 yr older Chrysler.
It did have better highway fuel mileage, but the same in urban driving.
I wouldn't do a straight trade. >:)
Obviously you are an idiot and have never driven a 4-cylinder Camry.
It is much more pleasant to drive than a 3.4 Impala and FEELS LIKE IT
HAS MORE POWER. Jeez, I could put a "GM Mark of Excrement" badge on my
feces and you'd tell me it was better than a Toyota just because it
said GM on it.
Of course, GM could at least meet me halfway and offer a manual
transmission, but no...
Mike Hunter wrote:
I've had that Impalla as a rental. It has an extremely high top gear,
resists down shifting and as a result is a pain to drive.
It needs at least a 6sp, but GM obviously finds that too expensive.
The 4 cyl Camry would be OK in urban driving or on flat highways.
Certainly not in hilly country when fully loaded.
You didn't drive the one I have then. It downshifts at any hint of
requesting acceleration - making the accelerator pedal basically a
binary input. You can feather on the gas to keep it from downshifting,
but it won't accelerate AT ALL... give it a little more gas and
suddenly you've dropped two gears and the engine is screaming. It also
has a nasty habit of unlocking the torque converter the second you let
off the gas, meaning attempting to hold a constant speed on a somewhat
hilly road means that the TC is constantly locking and unlocking. A
pain to drive, but in a different way than you describe.
I dunno, a friend of mine owns one, with a 5-speed - it certainly
doesn't feel underpowered, and the engine is less thrashy and intrusive
than the Impala.
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.