2016 Impala rental 4cyl review

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
15,674
Location
Jupiter, Florida
Rented a brand new (1200 miles) 4 cylinder Chevy Impala for a week of highway driving in the NorthEast. My first impression is that the car uses some form of noise cancelling system. As I could not initially hear the engine at all. The interior noise level was remarkably low, and a bit artificial feeling. Nice, but weird too.

Low end torque is good and the engine moves the car off the line without difficulty and will keep up with block to block city traffic without drama. No real way to tell it's 4 cylinders. Until one calls for actual acceleration, that is. This is where the 4 cylinder engine falls far short. Hills force a downshift or three, and the engine strains against it's redline to maintain speed up a steep hill. Annoying. Passing is similarly slow and unresponsive.

As many know, leaving NYC, it's a rat-race during/after rush hour and people tend to move along quickly on the winding roads leading North. The Impala strained to manage speed with the rapidly accelerating and decelerating traffic. Instead of easily matching speed, it would downshift a few gears, and lag behind traffic. Then catch up, and I'd hit the brakes. Over and over again for an hour, infuriating. Then came the hills of New England. Ugh. The last car I've driven that actually struggled up the Merritt Parkway hills was a 1300cc Honda Civic made in the early 1980's. The Impala barely has the HP to do it. Especially when loaded up with 4 people and bags.

The interior is somehow very cramped for a full size car. 4 modern American men are way too much for this "full size" car. Chevy does a nice job making the cockpit feel like a cocoon, with wrap around styling at the expense of a bit of wiggle room. Feels tight and compact.

The GM suspension feel is there in abundance. It rides really well on smother roads, with a well damped, quiet ride. But good-god, when the road gets rougher, the suspension tops out on "droop" with regularity. Annoying. Few modern cars have this issue anymore. I was actually surprised to notice how out of shape the Impala becomes on the less than perfect roads of the NorthEast. A back to back drive in an Accord really highlights the differences. With the Accord easily performing properly in comparison.

Fuel economy was 25 on the highway and 18 in the city. Exactly the same as the V6 Impala would deliver in real world use.

While my initial impression was good, It did not take long to dislike this car. Mostly due to the 4 cylinder engine and the front suspension performance.
 
An honest well written opinion from a trusted poster.

My last impala was a V6 with great second gear pull. Very good acceleration when demanded. Unrefined ride. And a slam bangin high fluid temp tranny. Local trans shop said, "oh those are my bread and butter".

IIRC those new impalas arent small or light. Yet mentioned as not overtly spacious in the review...disappointing.
 
They have a way to go, IF their "marketing" people will let them put money where it belongs, in basic hardware, instead of "connectivity".
 
Last edited:
Great review
However the 2013 Accord Sport irritated the heck out of me driving to Florida.
Tons of wind and road noise and suspension booming over everything but a perfect road.
I had looked at the Impala and the 4cyl had below average durability because I assume its worked too hard.
 
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Chevy put a 190 hp I4 in a 3800 lb. full-size car? Yikes.

Is that the same basic 2.4L 4-cylinder that goes into the Buick Regal (the one I have) and LaCrosse? 182 is underpowered for the Regal, which doesn't weigh as much, I think, as an Impala. You have to shift and rev it some.
 
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Chevy put a 190 hp I4 in a 3800 lb. full-size car? Yikes.

Is that the same basic 2.4L 4-cylinder that goes into the Buick Regal (the one I have) and LaCrosse? 182 is underpowered for the Regal, which doesn't weigh as much, I think, as an Impala. You have to shift and rev it some.


It's a evolution of the 2.4L in your Regal, I think the SAE Horsepower is 197. It's DI, Variable Cam Timing on both cams, etc.
 
I have a 2015, which has some minor engine differences (it has the "variable lift" system with different cam lobes for low and high speed operation) but the same torque and horsepower ratings. It's the first GM car that I can say I love in a long time.

When I first got it though, I was underwhelmed by the performance of the highway acceleration and wondered if I made a mistake. It has gotten a lot better as the car gained some miles (I'm at ~16K now). Maybe the mechanical parts are "making nice", or the electronics are learning. Either way the performance and fuel economy are noticeably better as it ages. Now I'll get 21-24 around town (depending on the weather) and get 31-35 on the highway, with an all time high of 37 on one uninterrupted nice day. When I first got it, 18 in the city and 28 highway was about all it would do, it has been steadily going up.

As far as room, I'm surprised you found it cramped. I'm a huge guy (6'6", NFL lineman build) and have had 4 people in the car for a two hour drive each way with everyone comfortable. Also driving around Detroit with the wonderful roads, I didn't notice the suspension being a problem like you did. I wonder if that one had a different suspension package than mine does? I have the 18" steelies and a base suspension.

All of the 4 cylinder Impalas have the noise canceling system, which I love. I have found a couple of "holes" in it where I can hear the engine (such as having the radio on a moderate volume during a quiet part of a song and accelerating on the freeway in a higher gear, you can really hear the 2.5 honking on the intake side) but overall am delighted with the way it works.

Maybe it just needed a little time to break in, if there is such a thing anymore.
 
Good write up, although I'm not surprised of the results. Pretty much any mid-full sized sedan feels the strain with 4 adults and their gear in it, especially if it's a 4cyl.
 
Honestly, I wouldn't expect any more from a 4 cylinder with 4 modern American men (is that code for "full sized"?) and luggage in *any* car, regardless of the size of the car.

If you think the Impala is cramped inside, have you been in a Taurus? Not only is the Taurus small inside, it is a chore to see out of it.
 
Originally Posted By: mrsilv04
Honestly, I wouldn't expect any more from a 4 cylinder with 4 modern American men (is that code for "full sized"?) and luggage in *any* car, regardless of the size of the car.

If you think the Impala is cramped inside, have you been in a Taurus? Not only is the Taurus small inside, it is a chore to see out of it.


I'm very surprised that they put a NA 4 in this car. I'd have expected at least a turbo 4. The experience seems about the same as a 2000's Camry with the 4 that we rented to come back North from down South with 5 in it. It was painful in the mountains, foot to the floor and listen to the engine whale. "I think I can" was the motto. Did get good fuel economy though.

Maybe I'm used to it over the past 6 years but I don't find the Taurus that cramped inside. It does seem "tight" but I like the "cockpit" styling. I'm 6'2" and even with a moonroof have good headroom. No complaints from backseat passengers although there doesn't seem to be much legroom behind me. Visibility seems about par for a modern car.

IMHO the Impala has very nice styling.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Cujet
4 modern American men are way too much for this "full size" car.

While my initial impression was good, It did not take long to dislike this car. Mostly due to the 4 cylinder engine and the front suspension performance.


LOL. Code for + size guys?? I would have expected poor performance in a 3800lb full size car with 4 big guys and luggage and a 4 cylinder with 195 hp/ 187 ft/lb torque.
21.gif


That's why they make Tahoes!
 
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Chevy put a 190 hp I4 in a 3800 lb. full-size car? Yikes.


and yet people managed that kind of weight/power in the 1990s and 1980s quite easily.
 
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
... and yet people managed that kind of weight/power in the 1990s and 1980s quite easily.
... yes, and even lower power/weight ratios earlier. For one obvious example, any 6-cylinder full-size Chevrolet during the many decades those were common. Basic V-8 ones too, in the 1970s.
 
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Chevy put a 190 hp I4 in a 3800 lb. full-size car? Yikes.


and yet people managed that kind of weight/power in the 1990s and 1980s quite easily.


Because they didn't know any different? The performance noted could have been normal back then.

Were the OP's expectations too high considering the power train and payload?
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: Cujet
4 modern American men are way too much for this "full size" car.

While my initial impression was good, It did not take long to dislike this car. Mostly due to the 4 cylinder engine and the front suspension performance.


LOL. Code for + size guys?? I would have expected poor performance in a 3800lb full size car with 4 big guys and luggage and a 4 cylinder with 195 hp/ 187 ft/lb torque.
21.gif


That's why they make Tahoes!


Yeah, non of us are small. I'm the smallest at 210 pounds! The other guys and the boss are 6 foot 4.

Next time I rent an SUV!

The 4 cylinder may make 197HP somewhere, but the torque curve is meager for a full sized car. It never really gets going in the midrange. Pulling all that weight up hills feels like a struggle. A V6 would make a world of difference.

I do like the noise cancellation system. It was even fairly effective at redline. A good thing, as the engine spent plenty of time there.
 
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Chevy put a 190 hp I4 in a 3800 lb. full-size car? Yikes.


and yet people managed that kind of weight/power in the 1990s and 1980s quite easily.


Heck, 100-120HP, 200 cubic inch six cylinder engines were common in the 60's and 70's.

But many of the cars were lighter, the engines redlined at 4400RPM and they made more torque. Leading to less drama.

It's not the peak HP number that leads to ease of operation. My turbo Honda S2000 is slower than a Camry off the line. Despite it's lighter weight and 400HP. That is unless I'm above 6000RPM.
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Chevy put a 190 hp I4 in a 3800 lb. full-size car? Yikes.


and yet people managed that kind of weight/power in the 1990s and 1980s quite easily.


Because they didn't know any different? The performance noted could have been normal back then.

Were the OP's expectations too high considering the power train and payload?


Not sure I had any expectations. Other than to say, I expected to be able to keep up with rush hour traffic and climb hills without drama. It's been a long time since I've driven a car that sluggish.

Clearly, selecting the proper gear manually and keeping RPM high somewhat annoyingly mitigates the issue. "Eco" tuning and wimpy mid range torque don't play well together in a heavy car. And I guess that was my point.
 
I had a V6 LTZ rental and thought it was a great car. Silent, really comfortable ride and a great interior. I thought it was a really nice car overall.

No way would I buy a car of that size with a 4 cylinder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top