GM Announces 2016 Chevrolet Malibu - Page 7

stoopid · 03-11-2015, 12:12 PM

The Fusion's sales since the revamp all the way back to 2010 (still the 'fugly cousin' design) have been solid, often 20%+ better than Malibu. But even between 2013 and 2014 Fusion sales are flat. There isn't a lot of room in this segment, damn it! lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fu...rly_U.S._sales

2005 16,983 n/a
2006 142,502 +739%
2007 149,552 +5.0%
2008 147,569 −1.3%
2009 180,671 +22.4%
2010 219,219 +21.3%
2011 248,067 +13.2%
2012 241,263 -2.7%
2013 295,280 +22.4%
2014 306,860 +3.9%

Rough pricing on Ford's website has the comparable Fusion packages with their 2.0T in the same ballpark as the Malibu with a 2.0T . I do like that they have an AWD option though.

Firefighter · 03-11-2015, 12:17 PM

The 2.5L I've driven were (at least to me) a modern version of the old Iron Duke. Just enough power to keep you from killing your self merging onto the highway but not enough to make you inspired by your ride.

The 2.0 Turbo has some nice pep and aside from some low end TQ was pretty stout. The ATS 2.0 T with the sport option is a nice fun car that would serve well as a fuel efficient DD that could keep you happy.

Felt like a dog when I got back into my Camaro though. It's a totally different beast.

Before the wife called me off of Caddy (still miffed by that) I really wanted to get into one with a 3.6L V6. I bet that's a fun car with the low end TQ I missed in the 2.0 T.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

GretchenGotGrowl · 03-11-2015, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

I can't tell if it is just my eyes playing tricks on me because of the changes in front/rear overhang, but that looks quite a bit bigger than the current Malibu.

stoopid · 03-11-2015, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter

... but not enough to make you inspired by your ride.

That's exactly how I felt after almost a year, and ended up in the Camaro instead.

ssrs2lt · 03-11-2015, 12:28 PM

The more New Malibu I see, I think it's growing in size..

Firefighter · 03-11-2015, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoopid

That's exactly how I felt after almost a year, and ended up in the Camaro instead.

I assume your Camaro with the 3.6L is more than sufficient.

I still wish I had talked the wife into the ATS with the V6. The slightly smaller package and basically the same motor. I bet that car is quick and fun.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

stoopid · 03-11-2015, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssrs2lt

The more New Malibu I see, I think it's growing in size..

I superimposed a red 2014 over the video shot of the 2016. [this is no means a really good job, just what I could do in a few minutes] They look VERY close (identical?) in size.

GretchenGotGrowl · 03-11-2015, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoopid

I superimposed a red 2014 over the video shot of the 2016. [this is no means a really good job, just what I could do in a few minutes] They look VERY close (identical?) in size.

To me it looks like the front overhang has increased (maybe it is the camo) and the rear is slightly longer. Given a 4 inch increase in wheelbase then if those two increased the car would be longer. Additionally, it looks wider to me, but again the camo is likely skewing my perception.

MEDISIN · 03-11-2015, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoopid

I superimposed a red 2014 over the video shot of the 2016. [this is no means a really good job, just what I could do in a few minutes] They look VERY close (identical?) in size.

Nice work stupid. I don't see it bigger from the front but from the side it looks like its grown. Could just be the camouflage. But stretching it out would be a bonus for backseat space.

stoopid · 03-11-2015, 12:58 PM

Yes, it definitely looks longer. We'll see if that actually translates to the interior.

FenwickHockey65 · 03-11-2015, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stoopid

Equinox! Oops.

Yes, a smaller turbo like the 2.0T definitely brings the car to life. Not sure why people are doggin that engine though, I had no problems getting it up to speed. Granted, a turbo would be sweeter and not that big a penalty in terms of efficiency.

It's not in Equinox either.

Theta-IIs still use the old 2.4L.

FenwickHockey65 · 03-11-2015, 01:14 PM

Also, did anyone notice the rear wheels spin up on that dyno...?

stoopid · 03-11-2015, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

It's not in Equinox either.

Theta-IIs still use the old 2.4L.

GretchenGotGrowl · 03-11-2015, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Also, did anyone notice the rear wheels spin up on that dyno...?

No, but I went back and looked at it. Awesome!

03-11-2015, 12:17 PM	#86
Firefighter Drives: Black '13 2SS/RS/1LE w/NPP/NAV Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Tampa by way of Miami... Posts: 4,934	The 2.5L I've driven were (at least to me) a modern version of the old Iron Duke. Just enough power to keep you from killing your self merging onto the highway but not enough to make you inspired by your ride. The 2.0 Turbo has some nice pep and aside from some low end TQ was pretty stout. The ATS 2.0 T with the sport option is a nice fun car that would serve well as a fuel efficient DD that could keep you happy. Felt like a dog when I got back into my Camaro though. It's a totally different beast. Before the wife called me off of Caddy (still miffed by that) I really wanted to get into one with a 3.6L V6. I bet that's a fun car with the low end TQ I missed in the 2.0 T. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk __________________ My Build Thread... http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285054

03-11-2015, 12:28 PM	#89
ssrs2lt Drives: too many Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: oh va pa ma tx Posts: 3,046	The more New Malibu I see, I think it's growing in size.. __________________

03-11-2015, 01:14 PM	#96
FenwickHockey65 General Motors Aficionado Drives: 2023 GMC Canyon, 2023 Expedition Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 37,375 View My Garage	Also, did anyone notice the rear wheels spin up on that dyno...? __________________ 2023 GMC Canyon Elevation 2023 Ford Expedition SSV (State-Issued)

03-11-2015, 12:12 PM	#85
stoopid Drives: 4 wheels Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: anyplace, USA Posts: 1,177	The Fusion's sales since the revamp all the way back to 2010 (still the 'fugly cousin' design) have been solid, often 20%+ better than Malibu. But even between 2013 and 2014 Fusion sales are flat. There isn't a lot of room in this segment, damn it! lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fu...rly_U.S._sales 2005 16,983 n/a 2006 142,502 +739% 2007 149,552 +5.0% 2008 147,569 −1.3% 2009 180,671 +22.4% 2010 219,219 +21.3% 2011 248,067 +13.2% 2012 241,263 -2.7% 2013 295,280 +22.4% 2014 306,860 +3.9% Rough pricing on Ford's website has the comparable Fusion packages with their 2.0T in the same ballpark as the Malibu with a 2.0T . I do like that they have an AWD option though.

03-11-2015, 12:58 PM	#94
stoopid Drives: 4 wheels Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: anyplace, USA Posts: 1,177	Yes, it definitely looks longer. We'll see if that actually translates to the interior.