2006 Impala & Monte Carlo SS Models to Get Small Blocks!

My friends know that one of my passions is 60s and 70s GM mucslecars (Like my current '69 Olds 442).  But I do have tastes that extend beyond that somewhat.  One of my all-time favorite current-era musclecars is the 94-96 Impala SS.  It represented the end of the classic musclecar era -- mid-size cars packing performance-tuned V8 engines.  I've always craved a black '96 Impala SS.  Chevy dropped V8s in mid-size cars after that, and it appeared that Chevy-branded classic muscle would only be a memory.  It looks like things are changing once again...

A couple weeks ago, Chevy announced that the 2006 Impala & Monte Carlo SS models will feature a new 5.3L small-block V8!  I realize these cars may not be everybody's cup of tea, but the more important thing to me is Chevy amping up their commitment to performance in something besides a Corvette.

Will someone like Callaway take the next logical step and put together a package for these cars marrying them with the new LS7 engine that powers those new 11-second Corvettes we've been hearing about?

I can dream can't I?

Published Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:52 AM by Stavanja
Filed under: ,

Comments

Stavanja said:
I agree with you about the smallblock. The new 5.3L also has the Displacement on Demand (DOD) technology and I'm sure you know about that. It's a fast engine, and economical. I think GM will sell quite a bit of those. Unfortunately, I don't think that we will ever see the LS7 7.0L in those cars--it's just simply too much muscle for the car. 500 horsepower in a midsize car would be sweet, but meerly a dream.
March 4, 2005 8:28 AM
Stavanja said:
This car with an Ls7 would be awesome! But, first they need rear whell drive and a hurst 6 speed.
May 13, 2005 5:34 AM
Stavanja said:
First of all------I'm shocked at the uninspired Lumina looking vehicle that is supposed to be the next Impala.

The last 3 cars I've owned have all be Chevys. From the Beefy Z28, take me to school S-10 to my pride and joy------------2000 Impala.

Lately I've been noticing the beefy trend in Chryslers 300m, the Dodge Magnum and the jaw dropping Charger.

Hey Chevy!!!!!!!!!! What happened to the Beef!!!!!!!!! you passed the ham instead of the filet Mignon.

Sure you've added a small block regulated 4 to 8 cylinder which is eye opening. But MAN!!!!!! wheres the inspiration!!!!!!

After seeing the Dodges, I was hoping and crossing my fingers that the Impala would rival these monsters. but instead are food for the dodge beasts.

Sorry Chevy-----I'll be buying the Dodge Charger 6.1 HEMI with the scoop and the 20 inch rims.

It's a sad day
July 7, 2005 7:41 PM
Stavanja said:
i think chevy f k uppppp
August 6, 2005 10:10 AM
Stavanja said:
Front wheel drive V8??? Seeya chevy, these two cars don't even compare to the 05 mustang. I have a 2004 supercharged monte and with a few upgrades, i can get those 5.3 numbers.
August 9, 2005 2:38 PM
Stavanja said:
I just picked up my 06 Impala SS, and it has some beef to it, so much so that I wish it was rear wheel drive, because the torque steer is hard to control. Even when punching the gas to pass while going 50 MPH, better hold obn to the wheel. Very resposive, but stay alert!
August 15, 2005 6:27 AM
Stavanja said:
GM PERFECT CAR BUT, GM WAKE UP WE NEED REAR WHEEL DRIVE!!!!!!!!.
August 25, 2005 7:17 PM
Stavanja said:
Again Chevrolet just doesn't get it. In a recent article Motortrend website, Chevrolet's Director of vehicle marketing, Jim Campbell, cited the Ford SVT Lightning as an excuse (I guess) for Chevy's sorry lineup. He says that the Lightning didn't make it. An 11 year production run and plans to introduce a version with the new body style doesn't sound like a failure to me. What is a failure is the Silverado SS (a Denali with a bowtie), the Monte Carlo SS (weak), and the new Impala SS. What's with these "understated", non-inspiring designs? I have a 96 Impala SS and there is no mistake when I pull up in this car that it means business. Yes, there are a lot of newer cars and even cars of that same year that are faster and handle better, but there is not one that has the same image. Chevrolet has always had great V8's with industry-leading performance. PUT THEM IN SOMETHING WE WILL REMEMBER!!!!!
August 26, 2005 10:05 AM
Stavanja said:
Were in the hell is the rear wheel drive?
September 7, 2005 11:32 PM
Stavanja said:
GM fans need somthing to get excited about. Build a cool looking car around the LS2 and T56 with a solid Rear axle and two doors. Sell it for around 25 grand and I think people will buy. The GTO is too plain and too expensive. As for the Impala and Monte (rear wheel drive is where its at). In my opinion GM has the best V8 for a modern muscle car. But no car.
September 14, 2005 5:39 PM
Stavanja said:
Looking to buy the 2006 Chey Impala with the small block. Wish it was rear wheel drive. Maybe should wait till 2007. Maybe then it will be rear heel drive.
September 17, 2005 10:51 AM
Stavanja said:
I agree..........Come on chevy back in the day they were the mad note. I think they need to bring back the camaro but not looking like a copycat of the mustang....Ill never own anything but a chevy a true chevy lover.....I guess it dosent matter i got a 70 Chevelle SS adn that hulls. Im pulling for you chevy
September 25, 2005 10:09 PM
Stavanja said:
I can't think of a V-8 FWD WTH. Oh well ill go buy a corvette then.
September 25, 2005 10:11 PM
Stavanja said:
Make the Impala 2006 a rear wheel drive and you might sell a few more GM
September 28, 2005 8:35 PM
Stavanja said:
i got the real one..........96 impala ss!
October 4, 2005 2:26 PM
Stavanja said:
The guy with the '04 MC SS who can equal the 5.3: First, he has 20 hp less than the supercharged engines in other cars like the GTP and Buick GS (bet he didn't realize that). A 'few mods' will get his 3400 lb car 240hp car another 60 hp? He makes it sound like '60 hp for 20 bucks'! This car guy apparently hasn't even done a thing yet to improve his car's performance. If a few mods is all it takes, it seems like they'd been done already and he wouldn't be talking in "if's and but's". You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? Talk to the Ford guys - fake Cobra emblems don't make a car any faster.
October 9, 2005 9:04 PM
Stavanja said:
Well, all interesting banter both pro and con. If you can drive, you can handle torque steer..... All of you wishing for rear wheel drive must not be able to drive. Hmm - Bummer ( go learn ) cuz this is a great freakin car. And I have driven anything from an e30 M3, an 03 M Roadster, Corvettes from 72 to 2006, and MANY increadible things in between from all over the world. This car is FAST, and even faster with a flip of the bit from a Tech II. I am waiting on my Corsa exhaust upgrade, and middle fingers up to anyone who dis's this beast! If you can drive it shoudln't matter, front, rear, or mid...... In fact, it will probably make you a better driver to be able to handle all three!

Hats off to Mr. Savant for saying what we all were thinking. Yea, we all want to wait till 4K rpms for the power to kick in NOT, while we get it off the bat!

Its been a decade since we had an Impala SS, and given the times, Not much to say bad about this car! cheers GM! The only thing missing is a Z51 type of upgrade for the Impala SS.

Liquid Dano
October 21, 2005 4:37 PM
Stavanja said:
I got my 2006 Impala SS two months ago. I put 2K on it in 3 weeks (gently), changed the oil, and have been having fun ever since. I agree with Daniel Lord 100%. The car is solid and fast. Make no mistake, I like the 94-96 Impalas. My father got one of the limited production SSs in 1994, but my 2006 is a MUCH better car. BTW, those 94-96 Impalas also took a lot of flak for being nothing more than monotone Caprices (one critic actually called it a dressed up taxi - ouch). What a difference a decade makes. In any event, FWD or RWD the 2006 Impala is a very good car. In fact, the FWD makes it seem even faster, and really helps in inclement weather. The rest of you monkeys who are simply parroting each other ("where's the RWD") are as clueless as your posts suggest you are.
November 3, 2005 10:14 AM
Stavanja said:
Iv'e owned 4 monte carlo's in my life...I was excited about the small block but the wind was blown from my sail when I saw that it was rear wheel drive....I'm not buying another Monte until it's rear wheel drive...sorry about that chevy, but if I want a front wheel drive I'll buy a 4 banger dodge neon.
January 2, 2006 8:52 PM
Stavanja said:
Hi all you Chevy Owners! I've waved the MOPAR BANNER for many years & switched back over to Chevrolet, I looked @ the Dodge Charger,drove it.....nice car BUT it has a Dodge Dakota looking grill, what's up with that? I currently own (1) 2001 Vette 6spd. , 2004 Vette auto. & the SS impala so far the car drives & performs great! But I also wished it was rear wheel drive, the front wheel drive will due for me because of the weird weather I am exposed to it's my daily driver car. See U on the Flats!
January 4, 2006 3:46 AM
Stavanja said:
I read somewhere that the 06' Impala SS requires premium fuel. can anyone confirm or deny this?
February 9, 2006 11:41 AM
Stavanja said:
I for one am a fan of the 06 monte ss. I rather have it be a front wheel drive so I can drive it year round here in Michigan. I don't want to be one of those dorks driving a new mustang in the snow stuck at a traffic light cause my back tires won't stop spinning.
February 12, 2006 4:33 PM
Stavanja said:
Chevy is going bankrupt because it is making SS models for grandmoms. SS models should have horses and be rwd. Maybe they should get ideas from Chip Foose.
February 23, 2006 7:02 PM
Stavanja said:
ALl you loosers who don't own one of these are not qualified to give your opinion. This car is four temths of a second slower than charger and its a family car. If you can't handle a FWD with some HP then stay out of them. ALl you supposed Chevy fans that turned to Mopar are going to find out why you were chevy fans to begin with. You deserve to stay where you are at. As far as Mustangs There are only a few that have my respect and they are definetly not new ones. Get your calculator out before you bash and see where the power to weight ratios are on a big fat gas gussling mopars are, or your Mustang that weighs in close to the Impala. And by the way hows the ride. I might remind all you bashers and new found GM back stabbers that this car is comfortable, has more storage space than any foriegn crap, and is designed to be used daily. Futher I would remind you that everything on this car is 92% US and CANADIAN made parts with the ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION MADE IN THE USA. What do your documents say. Are you buying American made products that work, or or sticking your chest out while standing on the American Flag.
February 24, 2006 5:21 AM
Stavanja said:
I just bought an Impala SS and yes it is a little squirrlly when your on the throttle but it has lots of power and is very fun to drive. As for it being a grandma's car, well I have had more than one chic turn her head to take a look
February 26, 2006 7:29 PM
Stavanja said:
THE 06 IMPALA DOES NOT REQUIRE PREMIUM FUEL! The rumor that it does can be squelched by looking in the owners manual under fuel requirments. Of coarse if you look at the fuel requirements of Beamers(BMW) recommends that Sunoco 94 octain is the only one that meets their clean intake valve requirements. If you care about your new Impala SS and are looking for the average MPG to go up instead of down, I would stay away from the octain levels that produce less HP per gallon, these low octain fuels produce engine cabon and injector varnish that you don't want. You can actually get better numbers on emission tests by sticking with with the better fuel. Miles per gallon directly relates to the volatiliy of the fuel, there are seven octain points between 87 octain and 94 octain. The extra expense is actually debatable when you consider long range maintenance costs and how far you can drive on fuel that can do more work per gallon.
February 27, 2006 12:21 PM
Stavanja said:
I totaled my 2001 Impala a couple of weeks ago. I absolutely loved the 2001 impala so I decided to go with the 2006 Impala SS. I have driven everthing from a 1968 chevelle SS (396), 1972 chevy truck (custom 454), 1991 camaro (305), and my first 6-cylinder the 2001 impala 3.8L V-6. The new 2006 Impala SS is very comfortable and just plain fun to drive. I agree it is a little squirrely when you punch the gas, but it is not as bad as some would have you to believe. The power is truely there. I thought it was hillarious when I punched it at a light and the tires squealed. First time I have really ever done that in a FWD vehicle. I would have liked a rear wheel driven SS, but front wheel driven vehicles do fair better on slick road conditions. There are pluses to the FWD just not what a muscle car enthusiasts would want.
March 1, 2006 9:02 AM
Stavanja said:
I picked up my '06 SS last September....16000 miles later and I couldn't be happier. FWD rocks! There's plenty of RWD vehicles out there- give me muscle in the snow! 0-60 in 5 seconds. Haven't checked the 1/4 mile yet.
As for the styling... At first glance, it looks like every other goofy 4 dr crappy little family sedan- till you punch that pedal. This is a getaway car, plain and simple - and I don't mean "get away" for the weekend.
I also love that fact that besides driving all day every day (I'm a salesman) I've only seen 2 others on the road since I bought mine (as opposed to the hundreds of Mustang GTs that were supposed to be soooo rare).
You whiners out there don't know what you're talking about. Test drive one and then post yer comments.
March 5, 2006 9:02 AM
Stavanja said:
i bought my 06 impala ss in december and to me far better than the charger. the ss goes 0-60 in 5.6 seconds.which is faster than the charger rt. plus it has a lot more options. for instance the factory standard remote starter. onstar equiped with hands free phone, etc. and with a top speed of over 140 mph. i love it! ----------------------------------- go chevy!!! -------------------------------
March 5, 2006 2:19 PM
Stavanja said:
I like the '06 impala ss, but i wouldn't give my '95 black ss for it.
March 6, 2006 7:35 PM
Stavanja said:
Like some others have said, FWD is practical for all seasons, the average consumer needs practicality. For those of us that actually experience a true winter GM acknowledges us. FWD and RWD both have their pro's/con's...bottom line, FWD is safer. Even the torque steer can be controlled, like anything you just have to learn how to handle the vehicle first and then test the waters. As far as comparing power from GM-Ford-Dodge, they all have respectable power but the last time I checked people don't drag race everyday on the way to work. Every automaker in the world could keep trying to one-up each other but there is no point. It's about finding middle ground and the SS gives you plenty, if you want more supercharge it and Ram Air it but let's try and remember the rising cost of gas. If you want a muscle car, find a time machine or restore a muscle car...the rest of us prefer an everyday car instead of a Sunday car. There's always going to be people that are bias towards GM-Ford-Chrysler and when one becomes so bias they overlook a lot of things that others appreciate. These cars offer a lot of practical options like the other posters pointed out. We can find things we dislike. i.e. I was hoping for a bit more of a unique look to the Monte, myself I would have probably gone with a meaner look but that doesn't mean it's not a nice car. These 2 cars offer a good balance of needs/wants for those looking, others that critisize it probably come to a conclusion before they gather the facts. Fact: Chrysler Corp. has always produced less quality of a product than almost any other automaker in the world...they look flashy and have power galore but still don't have the longevity of their price tag. If automakers were still going for the power trophy Chevy has and could once again take the title, they're just trying to adapt to changing times and stumbling as they go. I hope they fire their design team but as far as the rest goes they deliver.
March 17, 2006 10:23 PM
Stavanja said:
Just picked up a SS and man I love it! FWD will work just great for me up here in Canada. Way to go chevy!
April 6, 2006 7:31 PM
Stavanja said:
well ive pretty much read every comment but the most reasonable one is Roberto's. I have a 1995 SSE (Pontiac Bonneille) with a 3800 Series 2 in it same one on the Monte/Impala, and believe me that engine delivers when you want it to even though it ran out of oil almost all of its 4ltrs it kept on running, i had a broken transmission case once exactly close to a bolt on the ATF oil pan and it lasted 80 km but with 2 huge gallon refills every 20 kms, the car hasn't been serviced for a hell of a long time. what im getting to here is that its a car with too much drivabillity and i do mean the engine and tranny. for racing hmmm... a Twin Turbo MKII (Toyota) manual gear and even with a roling start at 30km/h he didn't even reach my rear bumper plus there were two other adults inmy car and a ton of shopping bags ow and a tool box (i'm a mechanic). so power is not a problem. don't get me wrong here im also getting a 96'SS soon enough and blowing it and Chevy should reconsider its 4x4 section if ur talking about production and sales they are a FAILURE because they kept on producingem on and on with no sales at all. Chevy you bet on them and you LOST. as we all know Ford and Dodge have the upper hand and Chevy should start thinking of poducing something worth buying or their going down, thanks. ow and by the way the new Dodge Charger SUCK A$$ i don't know why people buy it damn..
April 10, 2006 1:51 PM
Stavanja said:
I have both a 96 ss and the new ss I love them both equally.
The 96 is the car that i fell has the most power but you can't compete with the fuel ecomony of the 06. Not to mention the way the FWD handels in the slick stuff. I really love the features and room in the 06. All I got to say for the mustangs,chargers and 300s out there is if you pull up beside me at a light you better go for what you know cus either one of my impalas will take you. Point blank.
April 29, 2006 9:11 PM
Stavanja said:
I had the pleasure to drive an Impala LT with a 3.9L V-6 while on vacation in Orlando Fla. This car with a V-6 stoal my heart. I have ordered my own SS. Way to go Chevy you won me back.
May 9, 2006 10:47 PM
Stavanja said:
You guys and your stupid comments really ticked me off! For all u idiots who think the impala ss is a grandma's car, you guys obviously don't know crap about this car. I know what a grandma's car is. A grandma's car is a lincon or a ford. Those cars have no balls and aren't sporty one bit. The impala ss is sporty and has balls like an older corvette. I am a big chevy fan and I absolutely hate fords. I've ridden in a 2005 ford taurus and it has horrible power, acceleration, and gas mileage. THAT IS A GRANDMA'S CAR. The impala ss combines power, acceleration, and gas mileage. I am a young teenager who goes to school but I know a lot more about the impala than most of u adults out there. I've been studying this car before it even came out and I go to the chevy place often to see the impala ss. And u guys are also stupid to think this car needs RWD. I live in New York and we always get snow and icy roads. The combination of FWD and power is awesome! I agree that if you don't own this car, you shouldn't be throwing in your suggestions in what the car needs. I have argued with many people about this car and I have always won the arguements. Yes, the impala can use a better back end, but that's what makes the impala's power and acceleration jump up and punch you in the face when you least expect it. Don't get too cocky you ford mustang fans because the impala's performance is pretty darn close to it!

oh and one last comment. For all you guys who have performance cranked cars who think have faster cars than the cops, you won't when the 2006 impala ss is the new cop car!
June 3, 2006 12:16 PM
Stavanja said:
Hey, I'ts the yougn teen here! What do you guys mean when you say, "when you punch the gas it's squirley?"
June 7, 2006 1:14 PM
Stavanja said:
As the proud owner of an'06 Monte SS, I must protest the people whinning about FWD! Suck it up already ladies, or call the Whaaaaaambulance! This is my 3rd Monte ('72 custom w/ the 402BB, and a '77 Landau 305SB). This new Monte trumps the others hands down! The car is fast, if you don't believe me bring your '94-'96 Impala SS down to AZ and when you catch up to me at the next stoplight you'll believe. Torque steer? Yes, it does...but it is very manageable by any competent driver. The car appears to be screwed together right, is comfortable for 4 adults, has a great sound system(6 disc cd, XM, uprated speakers), ice cold a/c, decent fuel economy, a factory warranty, and was priced fairly compared to other new cars and older classics (I saw in Hot Rod a '77 Mercury Comet that brought over $10K at auction...Really). For those of you with the '94-'96 Impalas, I don't mean any disrespect, it was a great vehicle then and now. Just don't trash the new one until you've spent some real time in one, try it...you might like it!
July 8, 2006 2:26 PM
Stavanja said:
For those who want a RWD Impala...

1996 Impala SS for sale. Under 25K miles. Asking $20K (U.S. dollars).
July 27, 2006 5:27 PM
Stavanja said:
How cruel the irony!!!!

My dream car is a 96 Impala SS, and because of a post I put on my blog, an opportunity to buy one lands in my lap. But the timing couldn't have been worse!!!

why couldn't this have happened six months from now?!!

Aaarrrggghhh!!!
July 27, 2006 11:06 PM
Stavanja said:
FYI,
Here are the 1/4 mile times for these 2006 cars in showroom stock condition:
Monte Carlo and
Chevy Impala SS 14.210 sec@ 101.060MPH
Dodge Charger R/T 14.100sec@ 100.900MPH
Dodge ChargerSRT8 13.510sec@ 106.310MPH
Mustang GT convertible 13.906sec@ 99.800MPH Ref. Dragtimes.com

It is pretty clear that all except Charger SRT8(well over 400 HP) finish within .304sec of each other, thats looking out the side window at the hump and seeing the other car right there. The Impala/Monte Carlo with 60 foot times that require a little practice to get right has a higher top end speed which means that it has recovered a possible slow launch and has started to close on/run down the Mustang and Charger R/T. Given a little more room it would be the back of an SS for both. I put the SRT8 in there so you could see how close the performance is to a muscle car with a much bigger car loan, higher insurance and gas gussler taxes. These Mopar and even Cobra retro like muscle cars will have to get behind Corvette Z06 (11.204sec@127.550MPH)in performance, ride, and fuel economy(no Gas gussler tax on Corvette either). Thanks Chevrolet... I never gave up on you...You Rock!
September 1, 2006 7:53 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled

Tags

Navigation

Syndication

Recent Posts

Archives

My WebCam

My ScreenCam

SpokaneCam

MetaData

Favorite Blogs

Friends & Family

Montana Stuff

Spokane Stuff

Sports