| Toll Free: 1-866-739-0425 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Used Vehicle Review: Chevrolet Imapla, Avalanche
Used Vehicle Review: Chevrolet Impala, 2000-2009
By Chris Chase Since 2000, Chevrolet’s Impala has been one of General Motors’ best sellers in the family sedan class. Its simple styling, spacious interior and strong, if low-tech, V6 engines have made it popular with drivers looking for an economical, affordable and reasonably reliable way to get around.
In early cars, engine choices included 3.4-litre and 3.8-litre V6 engines. An SS trim added in 2004 got a supercharged version of the 3.8-litre motor. GM’s V6 engines are known for decent fuel consumption, and the Impala was no exception here. In 2002, the 3.4-litre model earned Natural Resources Canada ratings of 11.0/6.7 L/100 km, (city/highway) while the 3.8-litre model was rated at 12.6/7.9 L/100 km. The supercharged SS model was rated 13.4/8.2 L/100 km. In 2007, ratings for 3.5- and 3.9-litre models were very similar, at 11.5/7.2 and 11.9/7.5 L/100 km, respectively. The small block powered SS was rated at 12.9/8.1 L/100 km.
Of all of the engines offered in the Impala, my favourite is the 3.8-litre, for its well-documented durability. The older 3.4-litre V6 is one of the engines known for troublesome gasket leaks. The newer 3.5- and 3.9-litre engines used from 2006 on are based on the 3.4-litre’s design, but to my knowledge, GM addressed the gasket issues in these motors, so they should prove durable in the long haul. A hard-shifting transmission is often caused by a bad torque converter clutch solenoid. In fact, it would appear that many transmission issues in the Impala can be attributed to bad sensors in the tranny, rather than the mechanical bits, which seem to be fairly robust. From the looks of this thread at ImpalaForums.com, replacing these electronic bits is relatively straightforward for a capable DIYer, but is otherwise better left to a mechanic. Keep in mind, too, however, that many automatic tranny shift issues can also, often, be remedied by having the transmission fluid flushed and replaced. See this thread too, for some more information on wonky shifting.
A check engine light triggered by the evaporative emissions system could be caused by a bad vent valve, located at fuel filler neck, behind the rear quarter panel. According to this thread at ImpalaForums.com and this post in particular, it’s a pretty easy and inexpensive fix. Problems with the instruments (speedometer, tachometer, etc.) are common in the Impala; see this thread at ImpalaForums.com for a few suggestions.
Other notable trouble spots involve brake rotors prone to warping and premature brake pad wear.
The Impala’s crash safety record is excellent – even without the optional side airbags, this big sedan has earned five stars from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for driver and front passenger protection in frontal impacts and four stars for front and rear seat occupants in side impacts. Likewise, the Impala earned a “good” rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in that organization’s frontal offset impact test. The redesigned 2006-and-newer Impala earned an “acceptable” rating from the IIHS in frontal offset testing, and a “good” rating in side impact tests. From the NHTSA, the newer car earned five stars all around, except for a four-star rating in rear side side impact protection.
Used Impala values, according to Canadian Black Book, range from $4,575 for a 2000 base model, to $26,750. For about $11,000, you could pick up a basic 2006 LS model, and for around $14,000, a 2007 LS looks like a decent deal, considering that was the first year this car came with GM’s five year/160,000 km powertrain warranty. Despite its standard V6 power, the Impala comes in far less expensive than most similarly-equipped import family sedans – even those with four-cylinder engines. Whether you think the less-expensive Impala is a better deal than a more-reliable Camry or Accord is a subjective thing. I wouldn’t quite count on a used Impala being more reliable than an import (in particular, Japanese) family sedan, but careful shopping – look for a car with a detailed service history and have a checked by a trusted mechanic before you buy – can net you a reliable car at a very reasonable price.
Used Vehicle Review: Chevrolet Avalanche, 2002-2006
Photo Gallery: Most avalanches only travel downhill, but in 2002, Chevrolet invented one that could go up them, too. The Chevy Avalanche was – and still is – a nifty truck, aimed at those drivers who have long agonized over whether they should get a full-sized pickup or an SUV. It really is a conundrum: get a pickup for its haul-anything open bed or choose an SUV for its size-limited, but fully enclosed cargo area? The first-gen Avalanche (gen two is out now) was the best compromise yet: a four-door pickup truck with a bed that could be completely sealed off from the elements, plus a rear seat and “midgate” that could be folded down to add to the bed’s capacity. From the outside, first- and second-year models were distinctive for the acres of black plastic cladding wrapped around the lower half of the body. Thankfully, GM got the hint that this was fairly ugly and in 2004, the Avalanche got plain old sheetmetal all over. The Avalanche was originally offered in half and three-quarter ton versions. Half-ton trucks got a 5.3-litre V8 (285 horsepower), while three-quarter ton variants got an 8.1-litre (!) V8 that made 340 horses. The only transmission available was a four-speed automatic.
Fuel consumption ratings were, as you’d expect, on the high side but respectable for the kind of work the Avalanche could do (it was based on the Suburban SUV, which in turn was based on the then-current GMT800 pickup truck platform). The smaller V8 carried NRCan ratings of 16.8 L/100 km in the city and 11.8 L/100 km on the highway; surprisingly, the 8.1-litre motor didn’t use much more: its ratings were 16.9 L/100 km (city) and 12.7 L/100 km (highway).
One issue that seems to be fairly common is a bad valve in the evaporative emissions control system that causes the check engine light to come on; the replacement part is apparently inexpensive, so handy owners should be able to handle this one for relatively little cash. There’s an issue involving a loose intermediate steering shaft that causes poor steering feel. It can be fixed with the installation of a “lube kit.”
Automatic transmission problems appear to be common in all model years; some owners at the Chevy Avalanche Fan Club report a “service 4WD” warning message coming up randomly. On the surface, it looks like it’s mainly due to a faulty sensor, but one member is convinced that if left alone, that sensor will cause problems with the dash control switch for the four-wheel drive system as well as with the electronic actuators that engage drive to the front wheels when four-wheel drive is selected. One smaller issue is the frequent failure of power window regulators. On the whole, Consumer Reports gives the Avalanche a “worse than average reliability rating.”
The Avalanche’s crash safety story is a bit surprising, too. This truck earned three and four stars for driver and front passenger protection in frontal crash tests from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA didn’t conduct side impact tests on the Avalanche, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has no test results for the Avalanche, period. Used Avalanches carry notably higher resale values than their traditional pickup cousins, partly due, quite simply, to the fact the Avalanche came better equipped in basic form and was more expensive when new. Canadian Red Book pegs used values as ranging from $15,350 for a 2002 half-ton 4×2 model, to $29,425 for a 2006 version. I’d suggest sticking with the lighter-duty model unless you really need the extra hauling capacity or you have something else to compensate for. How about a 2004 model for about $20,000? The Avalanche has a lot going for it. Just look for a well cared-for example to avoid an onslaught of problems later on. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
