Come on Chevy, really!!

[papawattz]

Originally Posted by Frank in MD

While I agree that the car isn't Chevrolet's best effort, your logic is questionable. What makes you say it will not reliable, and dependable? It's got a better warranty than all others in that comparo. It's not priced more expensively than the others in the segment either, that's bunk. Possibly the magazine that did the comparo tested a high end Malibu but it's not priced more than others in the segment. Keep in mind, many others build their cars w/o union labor. The cost of the materials and labor from the big 3 is higher than their rivals, thus others can offer a lower starting price. Again, it's not a very big gap and what you get for the difference in price is clear to see, hear, touch and feel. Sad that the Camry places higher than Malibu. Camry is junk, JUNK! They use a maintenance battery, meaning you have to add distilled water. Hey Toyota, the 80' called, they want their car back.

Lastly you gave the Fusion high marks, which has by all accounts has edgy "over the top" styling, then you demerit Chevy for doing the same. Very confusing and inconsistent. The Fusion has beautiful styling, but the beauty of the Aston Martin styling is skin deep. It's going to be waaaaaaaaaaaaay under powered and as soon as people drive it they'll feel how underpowered it really is and will not consider it.

I agree on the fuel economy issue, as it's inconceivable to me GM's new engine gets just 34 hwy when the outgoing 2.4 got 33 hwy. Yes, the engine itself is impressive in it's performance, which is why Ward's gave it one of their annual 10 best new engine awards. Sadly, the new 'bu is just too damn heavy to make that engine any good.

For one I didn't question the reliability, that was the one positive I gave them(3 out of 4?) Second The Fusion's styling(TO ME) is flowing and consistant, kind of Aston martin, in which I think most would agree is stylish! The Malibu seems to be all over the place with camry/Camaro/ previous gen. malibu styling, cluttered, in my opinion. And last I really don't take Motortrends opinions to heart or I'm not to sure how they receive each car from the manufactures( options and all) All I know is the stats that were presented to me, and by the numbers and the styling this car is way off! Oh, also I'm all for union labor, I'm a union Electrician, I try to buy American only products if available, even at a higher price!

[papawattz]

Originally Posted by Chevy Fanatic

I 100% agree with GearheadSS. I have a 2013 Malibu LTZ. This is not at all a bad car as some of you are led to believe. I would listen to the tech that works on these cars all day long Vs some reviewer that sits at his desk badmouthing a car he maybe drove once (if at all). Having worked as a luxury auto tech for 21 years (Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Jaguar, etc.)qualifies me to say the 2013 Malibu is a lot of car for the price.

As far as reviews go, don't beleive everything you read. Go out and drive (or better yet purchase) one of these vehicles and form your own opinion based on your own driving experience.

I don't think this a bad car, build wise. I just think the styling,the dimensions, or lack there of, plus a hefty curb weight could have been addressed for this generation of Malibu? I drove a 2009 malibu LT with the 3.6 right after I drove a 2009 CTS AWD and shoot, I was more impressed with the malibu! I was so impressed that I went to this dealers HONDA dealership down the road and test drove a new 09' Accord with the same options, motor, etc...for comparison. And when I came back I told the salesman I thought the Malibu drove nicer, had more power and felt better built! He didn't know what to say? I meant every word, I loved that Malibu Now I haven't driven the new malibu, but last time when I was at the dealership they had one on the floor, so I looked at it....thought to my self this interior is very well put together, nice materials, shit better than the last! But where is the V6, or the stylingjust not for me! I also don't beleive everything I read, if I did I probably would have a rustang and not my Camaro

[papawattz]

Originally Posted by GearheadSS

lol, y'all are funny. Talking about fuel economy. Between the Malibu, Altima, Camry, Fusion, Sonata and Accord with the base 4 cyl. engines, only the Altima has a significant advantage in mileage. All of the others are within 1mpg or the same as the Malibu. Some 1 better, some 1 less.

So the base 2.5L in the Malibu is right in line with most of the competition out there and it's probably more powerful than most.

Not according to motortrend!

[FenwickHockey65]

...seriously, the car really is not that bad. I would like to see GM make some improvements over time, but for what it is, it's not a bad car.

And furthermore, it's MotorTrend. The car magazine that goes apesh*t over the latest and greatest and then forgets about it a few months later. When the last-gen Malibu debuted, MotorTrend couldn't stop praising it, calling it best in class, then a few months later ranked the freaking Camry over it.

[AZCamaroFan]

i was shocked reading the article. They claim the interior is from the 18th century...you look at the competition and they're all boring to look at. The Malibu looked to cost more than the competing cars too. 32K as tested price.
The engine i am wondering about. GM may have to go back to the drawing board on their 4 cyl's. That was the drawback on the recent Cadillac ATS vs. BMW comparisons.

[GearheadSS]

Originally Posted by papawattz

Not according to motortrend!

Well I got the information right from the EPA's website. Go ahead and believe MT if you want.

[GearheadSS]

[Frank in MD]

Originally Posted by Chevy Fanatic

I 100% agree with GearheadSS. I have a 2013 Malibu LTZ. This is not at all a bad car as some of you are led to believe.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

...seriously, the car really is not that bad. I would like to see GM make some improvements over time, but for what it is, it's not a bad car.

So this is what GM is aiming for, not bad? Ha, forget Chevy Runs Deep, we've broke new ground....

Chevrolet, it's not bad!

Originally Posted by Bonanza7

Small example, but an irritating one: no USB connector. Can't work my ipod through the radio. My cheapest of all Hondas has that. Half the price of my Camaro. They have a suicidal wish at GM.

I agree that USB should be standard on the LS, but your post seems to suggest that Honda has always had these things where GM was being cheap. The opposite is true, until the 2013 Honda didn't even allow satellite radio, LX Accord was synonymous w/ spartan.

Where GM makes up for the difference is things they're including that no one sees unless you have a good sales person. (I doubt very much on that happening though.) Things like rear side air bags, passenger airbag sensor, FNC coating on brake rotors to prevent rust, Onstar W/ two mobile apps, longer standard powertrain warranty, roadside assistance for 5 years (Honda has none).

Originally Posted by Baba

Man, I DEFINITELY have to agree with you. GM "most often" seems to be juuust a hair behind its competitors. What GM is "banking on" from their customers, I just don't know.

Most of the criticism from near everyone over the years has been the CHEAP (not inexpensive but CHEAP) interior hard plastics and lack of refinement - non-locking glovebox, no rear armrests, no interior passenger grab handles. Add to that, smaller, heavier, slower and LESS FUEL ECONOMY

Mostly I agree, but a few observations.

Who doesn't have cheap, hard plastics in a midsize car? Hell, any car. The Camaro certainly isn't exempt. They ALL have plastics in abundance, Chevrolet has made a strong effort to use soft touch material and extensive use of piano black. Unfortunately they also went heavy on the faux wood which no one seems to like.

The Malibu has has the side handles since '08. Maybe you looked at a rental that had those deleted?

The Malibu arguably has the MOST refined interior.



Locking glovebox? That seems like a pretty weak reason for buying a car. Our fuel filler door doesn't lock either, both are by design. as if a thief breaks into your car and your glovebox is locked he's going to force it, break it. Same w/ the fuel door.

We do have a rear seat armrest, it took a while, but no more than it took Honda to include some of the basics that customers are looking for.

Smaller & heavier, yes they are and I agree that GM has a weight problem. So much so that the new 2.5 can't shine as brightly as it should because it has to pull more weight. Most important fuel economy. In an era of $4 gas, no one wants the one w/ the poorest EPA score.

[Frank in MD]

BTW, Gearhead, the Honda you put into that is a V6 engine.

and you did not include Altima or Passat.

[Stack4]

At my school, we have two types of cars for Behind The Wheel. We have a 2012 Malibu. I have only driven it once, and I didn't much care for it...at all. The rest of the times, I drove Ford Fusions. I absolutely HATED those. They weren't comfortable, the power sucked, and the steering wasn't all that great.

[Fiveg56]

Good thing this is a Camaro forum and things of this nature don't concern us.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by papawattz

Why the hell would anyone even consider this car [the Malibu]?

Because it is a phenomenal car! If you take a test drive, you'll be hard-pressed to argue otherwise. And if you're a "diehard" Chevy fan...I'm awful surprised to read you seem to hate it so much based off of one magazine comparison.

It may not be the best according to a car magazine (which are generally no more than published opinion pieces). But what's important to understand is that the mid-sized segment is HIGHLY, STUPIDLY, UNBELIEVABLY competitive. So in order to declare any "winner"...you have to split hairs. We're not talking about a 2003 Malibu vs the competition, here.

[pgustavson]

I rented a 2011 Malibu, not sure of the engine, but I thought the Cruze I later rented was nicer and better performing. But, overall it was an OK car.

[GearheadSS]

Originally Posted by Frank in MD

BTW, Gearhead, the Honda you put into that is a V6 engine.

and you did not include Altima or Passat.

My mistake but the 4 cyl. is only rated for 35mpg hwy so it's still close.

The Altima is there and the Passat isn't because its base 2.5L 5 cyl. is only rated at 31mpg.