While the Japanese bubble bursting marked the end of an era for certain genres of performance car, more regular cars throughout the world continued to aim towards continuous improvement well after the party of the early ’90s was brought to a close. Amenities and refinement were boosted, powertrain choices saw improvement, and even some old model names were brought back from the dead. Case in point: In 1999 for the 2000 model year, Chevrolet announced that its new front-wheel-drive family sedan wouldn’t be called Lumina, it would be called Impala.
It was a bold move, partly because the second-generation Lumina was an entirely forgettable machine, one of the most blob-shaped, mediocre machines ever to roll out of Oshawa, Canada. It was a family sedan you only bought if you hadn’t driven any other midsize sedan, so improvement over that model wouldn’t be particularly hard.
On the flipside, 2000 was just four model years after the final year for the awesome B-body Impala SS, essentially a factory hot rod LT1-powered Caprice that felt like the last gasp of American muscle outside of the pony cars. Chevrolet needed this reboot to not fall flat and did its best to stack the deck. Welcome back to GM Hit or Miss, where we take a look back at GM’s pre-bankruptcy product planning approach of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck to determine what actually had some adhering properties.
A Restrained Face
Reviving such a storied nameplate is a tricky act, especially since some immediate visual familial link usually needs to be established. While retro styling was big in this era, GM didn’t smear it on with a trowel, instead just hinting at it with a handful of cues. A set of round taillights vaguely reminiscent of early ’60s models, an emblem on each pillar, an optional set of wheels visually similar to those on the 1994-1996 Impala SS, and that’s about it. They were just enough to contrast largely European-influenced styling cues, resulting in a thoroughly modern sedan for the period that looks just conservative enough to still be handsome.
Likewise, the interior styling falls into the conservative yet handsome category, with a firmly horizontal dashboard that’s aged far better than some of the curvy dashboards competitors offered in Y2K. Of course, this layout was also a pragmatic necessity because the Impala was available with a bench front seat, another element that drew from the past. The bottom line? The first front-wheel-drive Impala zigged when others zagged. As automakers like Ford and Dodge got swoopy, Chevrolet stayed the course, easing buyers into its reborn Impala. It learned its lesson from the old second-generation Lumina, and the result was a car with decent visual appeal.
Robust Underneath
Of course, conservative looks were only part of the equation. While the standard 180-horsepower 3.4-liter V6 was an upgrade in output over the Lumina’s base 3.1-liter V6, the expanded availability of the 200-horsepower 3.8-liter pushrod V6 made it easier to get the engine you really wanted. Buick’s one-gallon motor was famed for its durability and reliability, a big-cube six-cylinder workhorse that would stay running long after the car around it had fallen to pieces. Paired with a perfectly mediocre 4T65-E four-speed automatic transmission, the end result was a powertrain setup more robust than those in most V6 automatic Hondas of the period. Good job, GM.
However, a stout optional powertrain isn’t the only interesting thing under the skin of the eighth-generation Impala. The dash support was made of magnesium to save weight and boost rigidity, the engine cradle was made of aluminum, four-wheel disc brakes became standard, side impact airbags joined the menu, and a strut tower brace was a cheap and sensible way of stiffening up an old platform. The result was heralded as a cromulent family sedan for the new millennium, with a distinct feeling of sturdiness. As Motor Trend put it:
From a confident door slam to its competent handling on winding mountain roads, the weighty Impala feels quite solid compared with its domestic peers. Acceleration and braking are both strong, and the LS-grade suspension remains comfortably compliant. True to form, the Impala’s optional 3800 V-6 is smooth and torquey.
In short, the reborn front-wheel-drive Impala seemed to be everything sedan buyers were looking for, and GM’s uncharacteristic attention to detail meant that these well-built cars went on to be reasonably hot commodities as they aged thanks to their durability.
Getting Spicy
Of course, GM used to routinely turn up the wick on regular products, and for 2004, Chevrolet launched a trim it should’ve offered from the start — the Impala SS. Featuring the supercharged 3.8-liter V6 and beefed-up 4T65-E HD transmission previously seen in the Pontiac Grand Prix GTP and Buick Regal GS, among others, the Impala SS pumped out 240 horsepower and 280 lb.-ft. of torque, valiant numbers for the day that could completely incinerate a single front tire, as Road & Track found out.
Don’t be shy. bury the gas pedal of the new Impala SS, and its Roots-supercharged 3.8-liter pushrod V-6 will pin you against the seat like, well…remember the time you made fun of that bouncer’s earring outside the Viper Room? We’re talking torque here, 280 lb.-ft. of it delivered at 3600 rpm, and 240 bhp at 5200 rpm, enough to send at least one front tire into a smoking frenzy when the traction control is shut off.
Sure, it didn’t have the X-factor nor the rear-wheel-drive platform of the ’90s Impala SS, but it was quick enough, reliable enough, and a fitting halo to this family sedan range. Plus, it’s always fun to see a pragmatic vehicle with a boost gauge. Something for the kids in the rear seat to keep an eye on as you rush them to soccer practice.
Do You Really Want To Live Forever?
So, it’s time we called it — was the reborn front-wheel-drive Impala a hit or a miss? If you guessed it’s a hit, congratulations. Yes, this is one of the rare times where the stars aligned for General Motors on a mainstream product. From safe styling that wasn’t a complete snoozefest, to seriously strong available powertrains, a comfy ride, decent seats, solid practicality, and reasonable build quality, the reborn front-wheel-drive Impala was just the thing Chevrolet needed after the jellybean second-generation Lumina.
Plus, these are still somewhat desired cars today. As a result of the aforementioned underpinnings, the eighth-generation Impala was a hard car to kill. So long as they haven’t fallen victim to terminal rot or collision, these cars are still perfectly content carrying out everyday duties nearly 25 years on from launch. They might not be the most exciting things on four wheels, but few GM passenger cars of the time were this fit for purpose.
(Photo credits: Chevrolet)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
Here’s How The Chevrolet HHR Proves That Catching Up Is Hard
-
Here’s Why The Cadillac Escalade EXT Deserves To Ride Again: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Saturn Astra Died Too Soon: GM Hit Or Miss
-
Here’s How The Cadillac Catera Got Lost In Translation: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Saab Turbo X Was A Hail Mary Halo Car: GM Hit Or Miss
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
I’ve never driven one of these Impalas, but my wife had a 2000 Park Avenue that ran on the same platform and powertrain. It was a comfortable and competent car that gave the driver zero feedback. It just kind of ambled down the road like an old dog that has finally realized nobody expects it to run from place to place anymore. The fuel economy was decent for a heavy car with a V6, we got around 22mpg. In the year 2000 though Americans considered any vehicle that got 20mpg to have good fuel economy. If your point of comparison is early aughts BOF trucks and SUVs that got 12mpg, then yeah I guess you can call 20mpg fuel efficient.
Park Avenue was next size up, E-body I think. This was a W-body same as the Regal and Grand Prix.
Yep, Park Avenue was on the G-body platform in 2000. I had a 2001 Bonneville, also on the G-body platform, and I regret nothing, Esq. describes it well. Good highway cruiser with no real feedback, but very comfy and decent fuel economy (I averaged 24-27 mpg most of the time, but I also did 80% of my driving on the highway).
That’s right, E-bodies were the big coupes (Toronado, Riviera, Eldorado). The W-bodies were quite wide for their size at the time as I remember.
Mediocre? Yes. But interesting? Also, yes. I remember this car adding a spark to the Chevy lineup that actually looked like they were going in a good direction. But yeah, that feeling didn’t last….
For a “generic, boring four door sedan”, these are my favorite looking ones of all time. My dad has one and despite leaking oil, electrical problems, wipers stuck up, 3.4 instead of 3.8, and a few small things, it’s still going strong.
Thankfully, the power steering doesn’t leak really bad as the fill is in an inconvenient place.
A friend in high school had one of these. It was wrecked multiple times and he once drove it across town with no oil in it and it still ran relatively well.
These are really good cars, I’ve always wanted to pick up a SC Impala or Monte Carlo, but I’ve found my way into many of its cousins instead so far, this era of GM overall is really dependable, even if the interiors aren’t coach built quality. They’re easy to find parts for, things aren’t expensive for them, and when kept up they’re good cars for a long time. I’ve had lots of experience with the 4T60E/65E transaxles too, and they haven’t been that bad to me, but I keep the fluid happy and try to avoid destructive driving habits too. Currently I have 5 SC 3800s in my fleet, they’re hard to beat for the money even still in my opinion.
3800: Made of Beskar.
This is the way.
Lot of hate in these comments… I’ll support these cars. Them and their other 3800 powered brethren really are cockroaches. I’m not the biggest w-body fan, but I can respect them. Comfortable, stout driveline when cared for, and cheeeeeap to fix and run. Though if I was going to go for a mid 2000s GM Fwd, I’d go for a LeSabre or a Park Ave. Maybe one of the pontiacs… The only gripe I have about these cars, and its usually not even a big deal, why in the hell did they run coolant through a belt tensioner????
Sigh – have some hate due to owning an early W body, a 1988 Buick Regal with a 2.8. It treated me decent overall through college and I will admit GM’s rustproofing on these was second to none. That said, I never really warmed to it and some GM design decisions on that car drove me nuts. It ate a transmission and the rear disk brakes were a constant reliability problem, I had to rebuild them at least yearly as the built in parking brake calipers would stick. I also had a LOT of electrical issues and the car was just not built to be serviced easily.
All that said, yes these will run forever with minimal upkeep. Parts are cheap and plentiful and any competent mechanic can service them.
Yes, better than the Lumina, but, at the same time, so was everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. After two to three years, the interior parts started to fall off, wear out, fall down…the less said about the seats, the better. I speak from experience.
Any of these vehicles remaining are lucky if they roll at all. Standard GM “features” I guess. The only reason these cars were an option was because of Ford’s catastrophic use of ovals and the imports’ complete lack of power at the time without going top trim. I guess as options go at the time, it was one.
There were legitimately W-Bodies of this vintage that GM divisions actually tried with. Pontiac put far more effort than was necessary to at least evoke a sporty image with it. Oldsmobile tried far harder than the platform deserved to make a reasonable real competitor to a CamCord out of it.
The “Lumina except we cost cut it to shit” was not one of them.
The Poncho was by far the best W-body. The Olds Intrigue was terrible after they replaced the 3800 with the “Shortstar” V6.
Century was for geezers, but the Regal- especially in GS guise- was pretty good.
Yet the one you still see on roads today is the Century/Regal and an occasional Impala – The others are long gone.
Old first owners = good maint + low miles
I abhor the interior on these and honestly consider the preceding Lumina to be a better looking car overall. The concurrent Taurus was a complete POS but at least had a cohesive looking design language.
I recall a contemporary review saying it looked like it was designed by a husband and wife team who were no longer on speaking terms with each other.
Better than the Lumina. Better looking than the bar of soap shaped Impala that replaced this, although that one did get the ridiculous V8 with FWD version of the SS.
Today those Impalas terrorize the streets of Detroit lol you better move if you see one coming
Held together with bailer twine, duct tape, rust and zip ties, driving >85mph on bald rubber, and one foggy headlamp.
I think this is the car that got me interested in vehicle lighting, because it’s lights were so incredibly terrible. The girl I was dating had one of these, and every time I drove it unless it was on brights you basically couldn’t see more than a few feet directly in front of the car.
It was otherwise fine, a comfy cruiser but nothing great. It’s more a meh car than a hit for me.
Someone should have staged an intervention with GM in that era. They became fond of those tiny quad headlights, and every review stated that they were seriously inadequate. It was style over safety — and let’s be honest, it wasn’t much style.
My college roommate had ones of these with column shift and a front bench seat.
It was the most comfortable way to cart 6 of us back & forth to grocery stores and Sunday morning hungover Denny’s breakfast. While I’d never want to own one myself, that car was super comfortable and had bulletproof reliability.
I will always have a soft spot for the 2000-05 Impala. It was a pretty cool design for 2000. Angular, yet with some curves. The interior was hella comfy, and it handled pretty well for FWD.
My grandfather bought an 02 Impala LS with the Sport Apperarance package (with fun things like a front plate filler that said “IMPALA”, color matched tail light panel, chin spoiler, rear bumper spoiler, and a gauge cluster with extra gauges like a Trailblazer SS). We was t-boned by a pick up truck and pushed under a semi in that car. At 84, he walked away with just a few bruises. I credit that car to saving his life.
A few years later, I was able to get an 04 Impala LS Sport and LOVED that car. It regularly got 30+MPG, cruised for days, and still had some GM Performance Part support. I put a GMPP exhaust, heavy duty sway bars, and strut tower braces on it. I also did a ZZPerformance Plog, and CAI. I always wish I would’ve done a top swap, but I didn’t have the money for it.
I mean it was a perfectly Tame design, some would say the performance was Borderline, and The Less I know The Better
When it comes to GM, It Feels Like We Only Go Backwards.
Feels like a brand-new model but they make the same old mistakes.
I….no, man.
The Impala and other W-bodies were emblematic of the mediocrity of GM during the 1990s and early 2000s. Were they terrible cars? No, not really, aside from the lower intake gaskets on the 3.1/3.4 V6 engine that would fail and dump coolant into the engine. The 3.8 was okay and the supercharged 3.8 could fry front tires, but still ended up tied in a race with the 2003+ Accord V6 that didn’t need a blower and extra cubes to accomplish the same task.
Drive a late 1990s or early 2000s Camry or Accord. The Impala was released at the end of those cars’ model cycle. The Impala was just mediocre comparatively. There was no reason to recommend it aside it being ‘big and cheap’ with cash on the hood. Not saying the Toyota or Honda were perfect (especially in their following generations – Toyota V6 sludge, Honda 5-speed auto failures), but there is very little to recommend the Impala unto itself. About the best one could say is that it was better than a 2.7L Dodge Intrepid or a similar vintage Taurus.
If this was an article about the ‘93 Dodge Intrepid and LH sedans compared to the market of that time, maybe that’s something.
I’d give the Impala a Meh-car Monday rating.
I was always confused by the hierarchy of these. I always assumed the Impala was intended to be Chevy’s full-sized car to compete with… well mostly their other large cars now that I think about it. They tended to be priced around the equivalent Camry/Accord, but seemed a bit larger. At least you were getting a little more car for the money, if a lesser quality one.
The Malibu seemed more like the competitor to Camry/Accord, which is even more pathetic, because that car wished it was worth Meh-car Monday rating. It was trash.
That’s correct. The Impala competed with the Avalon but it was priced much more like a Camry or Accord. That was the Big 3 formula for many years before the 2008 recession: bigger, cheaper and unstressed powertrain
As much as I didn’t like many of the GM products of that era, I do wish that someone was willing to live in that end of the market again. Americans had a lot of budget options back then, some of which weren’t horrible products. Not so much anymore.
Agreed. Despite the questionable build quality and reliability being hit or miss, many people flocked to American cars as they looked ok and were considerably more affordable than foreign brands, specially when dealers were willing to put 10% to 20% on the hood. Sadly those times (and sedans) are gone..
I know that sometimes you guys run controversial articles to drive engagement, so maybe that is what is going on here, but after the LT1 powered impala, this car came out and literally every car enthusiast thought it was a complete joke of a car. The taillights are laughably bad, like a cartoonish version of someone who was told a R34 GTR was neat, and there rest of it was completely forgettable, like a videogame using unlicensed cars.
This car sucked when it came out, sucked since then, and will always suck.
What didn’t suck- Generation 8 sales compared to Generation 7.
Other than the taillight design, it’s not bad design-wise. Not as cool as an Alero/Intrigue, not shouty like a Grand Am/Prix, nor milquetoast as the Century/Regal.
The parents of a girl I really liked had one that she drove. If memory serves it had a bench seat – no, not a cop car version, just had the column shifter, I think. …and that’s all I’ll say about that.
If we’re going to ding the taillight design, we have to also throw the Alero in there. Look at those lenses! They’re threatening to take over the entire car!
As for front bench seats, I wish they would come back. There’s no reason for some of the massively wide cars we have today to have a gigantic plastic tunnel in between the driver and passenger when there’s no drivetrain running through it. Do we really need all that for two cupholders and a shifter? Especially in something like an electric car?
Full agreement on the bench seats. Bring them back. It is hard to find bench seats even in full size truck now.
Thank side and rear safety requirements for that. Buckets are easier to engineer for crash situations.
Nah, Alero has some of the best taillights of any gm vehicle yet made. Taillights SHOULD be big. Rear turn signals should be amber. Reverse lights should be easily visible. The Alero did all of that. Honorable mention to the Intrigue for similar design but keeping the light all on the quarter panel without intruding into the trunk (which I’m not against, but it does use less real estate for important functions). The rear of these cars looked almost Japanese, in a good way. They seemed inspired by the mid-’90s Mazda 626, Nissan Altima, and Honda Accord, off the top of my head.
The impala did have a big taillight panel, but not much of it actually ILLUMINATED. It also loses points for not having a separate turn signal from the brake light (IIRC), which of course prevents an amber rear turn signal option.
I’m gonna disagree on the Alero as I find the taillights cartoonishly large. But I respect the passion.
I do think that in general, the Alero and intrigue were decent looking cars, and GM would have been better off with those as their mainstream offerings instead of pretending that they were premium.
I also remember being sort of surprised at their demise, as GM managed to drop the ball in a serious way beyond those cars. I swear every fifth car on the road around here was an Alero when I was a teenager. They were everywhere.
The Alero might soon make for a good “ghost car” article by Torch, given that they were everywhere and then suddenly nowhere.
I agree with all of the above. The interior was still pretty crappy compared to foreign competitors, but otherwise these were pretty decent cars. I still see them on the road up here today, which is impressive as not much else from the early 00’s is still around in any quantity.
It was certainly GM’s best effort at the time, as their smaller cars, the Cavalier and the Malibu, were uncompetitive dreck by comparison.
My dad has two of those magnesium dash supports from the Impala, though I think they’re from the next generation vehicle.
A family friend worked for Meridian Magnesium, the supplier for the plant in Oshawa, as a quality assurance representative and he grabbed them for my dad.
One is displayed as industrial art in my dad’s garage, while the other was cut up into little chunks to throw in the bonfire.
I’m an engineer dork so I have lumps of weird materials hanging in the garage (aluminium/boron metal matrix, small heavy lumps of tungsten, large light lumps of titanium, that sort of thing).
I don’t have any magnesium because it’s too fun to burn.
“…the second-generation Lumina was an entirely forgettable machine…”
Yes, I had so completely forgotten it that I had to find a photo of one online. Oh, that thing.
The first gen Lumina on the other hand had a certain charm to it, all low and wide with Star Wars style taillights.
My family had one in Maui blue. It wasn’t the most reliable thing out there, unfortunately. But it was perfectly acceptable transportation, and it wasn’t awful to look at, if a bit bizarre (especially for GM).
The second generation had absolutely no personality whatsoever.
The 3800 was such a great engine. I really liked these, especially the last gen of the car that GM recently killed. I also loved the Lumina/Monte Carlo but I’m a weirdo.
The last generation Impala was the right car at the wrong time.
I like those, I might get one in a few years when I don’t feel like driving my truck
Glad to see I’m not the only one who thought these were low-key good looking. I forgot they’d made the SS version with the supercharged 3.8, having driven a couple of Gran Prix with that engine I’ll bet they were pretty fun in a sorta crappy muscle car way. Though calling the non-SS still desirable today seems a tad generous…
The blown 3800 isn’t a Boss 9 or anything like that, but it improves upon the NA 3800’s strength- low end grunt for days. The ones I drove pulled like a locomotive without even breathing hard.
Oh yeah I seriously considered buying a Pontiac Gran Prix GTP w that motor. Pulls like a v8, enough so to make up for some of the cars other deficiencies.
I drove a number of these as rentals and as useful transportation appliances they were perfectly fine. Certainly better than some of the other pieces of junk I was handed for rentals.
I drove a rented Impala on an 800 mile trip and, yeah, it was totally fine.