2002 Chevrolet Impala Base Model from North America

Summary:

The " police officer's personal car", that's also family friendly

Faults:

Nothing.

General Comments:

My late husband and I were glad to have traded in the 1995 Sable for the Impala. Why? Because like what the other people who have done the survey about these cars have said about them is true. They're simply " undercover like police cars". No wonder why police officers like them better than the old fashioned Crown Victoria's. They're roomier than the Crown Victoria's, and very reliable. Trust me, I love it! They're great family cars, as well as great second cars.

So, if you like your family cars with front wheel drive, and want to drive around in the vehicle that police officers use, but don't like the foreign cars, look no further. Buy one and you'll love it. Be prepared for police officers to stare at you.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 28th March, 2006

29th Mar 2006, 00:04

They actually like the crown victoria better because it has much higher integrity.

4th May 2006, 00:30

I personally know a handful of police officers and I've never had any of them tell me that they preferred the Impala over the Crown Vic. One officer from a department that drove Fords, told me that they decided to go with Impalas in 2002. Three years later they immediately ordered more Crown Vics. He said they can't wait to get those Impalas out of their fleet. That department is on the rougher side of town and they see their fair share of high speed pursuits. I guess they missed the old reliable Crown Vic. There is another agency that uses Impalas now instead of Fords. The officer told me that he sorely missed his Crown Vic and wishes the department still puchased them. When the agency retired his Vic he was offered a new Impala. He politely declined and asked to have the older, gutless, Blazer that was not even a pursuit capable vehicle. That's pathetic. Officers from agencies that are involved in a lot of high speed emergency driving seem to prefer the Crown Vic. The Impala may be a decent family car, but it should not be partroling our city streets and highways.

9th Jul 2006, 19:32

Hi All,

I recently purchased a 2002 Chevrolet Impala with 71,900 Kms on odometer. The car seems fine, however I have some questions just out of curiosity.

1. The car has no radio antenna, so reception on even some of the clearest stations is static filled. At times. the radio faceplate etc. gets VERY hot!, unusually hot.

2. The transmission seems a little sluggish, maybe it is the throttle body needs adjustment? There seems to be an awful lot of gas pedal travel - when at higher speeds you really have to punch it down to get it going.

Would appreciate ANY comments or suggestions.

Thanks All.

Take Care.

In reply to 9th Jul 2006, 19:32

12th Sep 2011, 09:02

Radio antenna is part of the rear glass. If you have ever had the transmission fluid replaced and they used GM's new Dextron 6, replace it with good old Dextron 3 and it will solve many of the transmission issues, if not all of them!

2002 Chevrolet Impala LS 3.4L V6 from North America

Summary:

Horrible

Faults:

Went through 2 sets of brake pads in less than a year.

Brakes squealed horribly.

Had three wiper motors replaced. Wipers stuck in vertical position.

Engine knocked on highway acceleration.

Check engine light came on the 2nd day of ownership.

General Comments:

This was a very nice looking comfortable car.

Mechanically this car sucked. This car caused me to never own another Chevrolet.

This Impala must have been built on a Monday or Friday!

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 17th February, 2006

2002 Chevrolet Impala LS 3.8 from North America

Summary:

It may look nice, but it isn't worth the cost to repair it

Faults:

Transmission at only 10,000 miles.

Stereo quit working at around 13,000.

Brakes wear incredibly fast.

Cruise control failed.

General Comments:

I picked this car over a Chrysler 300M and another Ford Taurus and now I'm really not sure why. It is a very nice looking car, however, its mechanically challenged. since day one, minor things have been been happening, like the windshield wipers quitting. But when you have to replace a transmission at only 10,000 miles, then there is something wrong. the dealer was not pleasant to deal with and they tried to blame it on me. I take excellent care of my vehicles with oil changes at every 3 thousand miles and all required maitenence at the required times. Thanks to that, I had a 1997 Ford Taurus that I kept for 160,000 miles with hardly any problems and my wife is still driving her 1996 Dodge Intrepid with almost 155,000.

The second problem I had was first, all the stereo lights failed, and the dealer said that I had to replace the entire stereo to fix it. shorty after, the entire thing quit and I had to replace it.

The Impala does have a decent ride and acheives decent highway fuel mileage.

The 3.8 may look impressive, but don't be fooled, its hardly what its cracked up to be. it provides adequate power, but it certainly isn't neck-snapping.

GM needs a lot of work on this car as well as the rest of their line of cars. The quality just doesn't stack up to the others.

Thank God, I've traded it in and i am totally happy with my new Chrysler 300M

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 26th March, 2005

18th Apr 2006, 16:43

I agree with you totally. I had a 2002 Impala LS for about a year before I had to trade it in. There were just way too many problems. I've never owned a car that needed so much work within 20,000 miles. I bought a 2003 Chrysler Concorde, after telling myself that I would never own a Chrysler. The quality is just so much better and there is so much more attention to detail. I have driven the Concorde for over 60,000 miles and have not had a problem with it. It just goes to show the difference in terms of quality. I will never own another GM vehicle.

View 14 more comments