Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord

13468927

Comments

  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    not beating anything or anybody, Intellichoice cost of ownership numbers are easily available thru the MSN auto section or thru Intellichoice themselves and it does consider things like original price (at MSRP, I think), residual value (this obviously to the Honda's advantage big time), fuel, insurance, maintainence, and financing costs (this to Honda's disadvantage). The 4 cylinder base Accord COO is LESS than the Malibu base 4 cylinder (by about $3k over 5 years) -the Camry incidentally right in the same neighborhood), the 6 cylinder models go either way depending on which trim you select and because the purchase premium on the Honda V6s is higher relative to the 4 banger.
    What the Intellichoice numbers do not reflect, TMK, is the fact, that on a Honda, sticker price means something, on a Malibu, sticker means much less, something that logically should decrease the Malibu's COO. But the bottom line is, nonetheless, that cars like the Camcords are not generally any more expensive to own over a defineable period of time than less expensive cars like the Malibu - and that even assumes that the required repairs to any of the 3 are equal.
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    Ok, data time. (I am not going to comment in this post to ceep it clean)

    So, let's see.

    Using an autotrading site (link title) I came up with this. Based on the medium selling price, I came with the following difference in Accord's price less Malibu's price (Can dollars):

    Year Price of Accord less Price of Malibu (Can dollars)
    2006 10002$
    2005 8939$
    2004 9859$
    2002 6005$
    2001 4325$
    2000 4905$

    A pretty picture of the above:
    image
    See the data I took for as input below.

    Soppose you buy both cars and sell in 7 years. Here's what I am getting for a price paid (based on the detailed data below):

    Accord 17984 $ Cdn ~= 15370 USD
    Malibu: 11595 $ Cdn ~= 9910 USD


    I realize that this is not quite a precise research. I have not looked at what exactly cars are in all the selection groups (i.e. rare more expensive models, salvage, mileage, etc). Hovewer, I did look at 6 model years. So, you decide what it means and what it doesn't mean.

    ---------------------------------------------------
    More detailed data (copy and paste from the website car query page, prices high-med-low):

    There are 67 2006 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
    $20,000.00
    $16,495.00
    $11,750.00

    There are 34 2006 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
    $33,888.00
    $26,497.50
    $412.00
    ------------------------------------------------------
    There are 26 2005 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
    $42,500.00
    $13,995.00
    $8,995.00

    There are 38 2005 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
    $27,888.00
    $22,894.00
    $15,950.00
    --------------------------------------------------------
    There are 32 2004 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
    $14,999.00
    $11,382.50
    $8,495.00

    There are 54 2004 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
    $25,888.00
    $21,241.50
    $13,900.00
    --------------------------------------------------------
    There are 99 2003 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
    $12,995.00
    $9,900.00
    $4,999.00

    There are 176 2003 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
    $24,995.00
    $16,900.00
    $269.00
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    There are 25 2002 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
    $9,995.00
    $7,495.00
    $3,900.00


    There are 75 2002 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
    $17,998.00
    $13,500.00
    $6,995.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    There are 18 2001 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
    $10,995.00
    $6,625.00
    $1,300.00

    There are 47 2001 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
    $14,995.00
    $10,950.00
    $7,900.00
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    There are 56 2000 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
    $14,900.00
    $9,900.00
    $600.00

    There are 16 2000 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
    $7,995.00
    $4,995.00
    $1,998.00
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    There are 17 1999 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
    $7,800.00
    $4,900.00
    $2,995.00

    There are 35 1999 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
    $12,995.00
    $8,495.00
    $6,444.00
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    a roundabout way of saying exactly what I was talking about in #146 - that most, if not all, you pay extra for the Honda, can be recovered a few years later, and that the difference shrinks as the cars get older? The Accord, incidentally, a somewhat unfair comparison in this regard, it has the class leading resale values.
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    Now, what I, personally, see in all this.
    Quite simple - loss of money in the long term ownership scenarios. An accord has to be much more reliable to justify a difference of five and a half grand in repairs over the period of 7 years.

    But, Accord is nicer, more power, etc. Looks like you're paying for this. Over long time Accord has no financial advantage.

    When I have more time, I might play with data more and see where exactly during it's life the accord stops being an investment (if it ever is).
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    did you read it right ? we just lost 5.5 grand over 7 years because we bought Accord and not a Malibu. At the end of the term the extra money we put in Accord was reduced .. what, about 2 times ?

    the graph in that post of mine a diffefence in average price for a partucular year. Accord start off costing a lot more and over the years it's price make closer and closer to the Malibu. I fail to see anything but a bad investment in Accord according to that data.

    mmm...i am tired....am I missing something ? :)
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I guess I need to give up - if I paid 25 grand for a new Accord, and let's say 20 for a similar Mailbu but after 4 years the Accord is still worth 14 but the Malibu is only worth 8 (these numbers come form Kelleys Blue Book), I have really paid $11k for the Accord (25 less the 14 residual value) and paid 12 for the Malibu (20 less 8). This is not higher math, and the reason why, for example, that leases on things on Camcords can be cheaper than on Malibus, because this is exactly what provides the basis for lease payment calculations to begin with!
    Incidentally, if if really want to find a car with COO numbers that make the Camcords/Malibus absolutely sick, do some research on the Toyota Prius.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Malexbu.........The Emperor has no clothes.
  • paopao Posts: 1,867
    I would say your math is flawed..if you are just looking at what you paid new.....what you sold if for..and the difference divided by the years owned....to truely calculate costs...you need to consider cost of gasoline, scheduled maintenance costs, insurance costs and the like to begin to determine the true cost of ownership....again..numbers...that I doubt none of us ever consider

    when is the last time anyone broke open the manual..read the scheduled maintenance requirments...then ask the dealership to cost them out for ya
  • I know it's fun to play with the numbers, but I drove around in a 2002 Cavalier (which never gave me any trouble at all and the only repair was front and rear brake job + rotors and new drums) for 5 years. It was very cheap to own, cost under 11K new but sometimes you just have to splurge a little and get what you really want and to heck with spending a little $$$. I just got an off-lease 2004 Impala 11K miles (paid $13,500) and love this car. It gets 26-28 mpg mixed driving (3.4 engine) and is way more comfy than the Cavalier. I would recommend either the Malibu or the Impala if you can spend a few extra bucks. Reliability seems good for the Impala as I have a friend with a 2003 (3.4) and he hasn't had any problems at all with 85K miles on the Impala. Sorry to get a little off-topic. ;)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I would say your math is flawed..if you are just looking at what you paid new.....what you sold if for..and the difference divided by the years owned....to truely calculate costs...you need to consider cost of gasoline, scheduled maintenance costs, insurance costs and the like to begin to determine the true cost of ownership....again..numbers...that I doubt none of us ever consider

    Maintenance, repair, gasoline, and insurance cost will be different for each individual. When you consider I did all my own maintenance, and repairs (which were very few over 12 years and 140k miles), the same car could have cost someone else (who had all services done at the dealership) much more. I think the Accord would only improve it's position, if these factors were averaged into the cost equation. And do we really want to dig that deep? Who keeps track of every dime they spend on maintenance? Most people don't even keep track of what was done, much less the cost.
  • jg6jg6 Posts: 70
    Lot of people out there driving ugly.............
  • dave8697dave8697 Posts: 1,498
    I got a quote for Accords thru internet at $1100 off MSRP. Then I went to Chevy dealer. I got the Malibu price and got a discount offered to me of $1100. I was comparing v6 auto to same. Then I saw the base Impala was only $900 more than a v6 malibu. I researched TCO on edmunds and graphed the difference in resale value between the Accord and Impala for the first five years and then filled in the blank space between where that data left off and what the dealer offered me in trade fom my similar to Impala car. Edmunds depreciation was harsh on Impala, knocking off over $7000 in year 1. Accord was about $5000 depreciation in year 1. Then Impala played catch up. This is what the graph looked like: The Accord started $5000 higher, difference grew to $7000 after 1 year then $6500 then $6300 then $6000 and eventually dipped slightly below $5000 for the 6th and 7th year before staying over $5500 in 8th year and beyond. The 9 yr old Impala was worth $2500 and the Accord was worth near $8000. I find that this data is not as believable in the latter years, because at 9 years of 15000 miles a year (135000 total miles), who is gonna drop $9000 for that Accord? Nobody. The truth is that the Honda falls big time after 99000 miles, like most cars do. The Honda owner thinks their car is worth $7000 more than the same year and optioned Chevy. The Honda owner pays extra insurance, sales tax, and excise tax on that extra $5-6000 of value for all those years and maybe keeps full coverage a few years longer, adding more cost. Then they realize at 8 years old and 120,000 miles that nobody actually wants to buy their car for $10000. The pipe dream ends. The Honda owner then says that even though they paid so much more for the car and the insurance, their car was higher quality for all those years and that Intellichoice supports their decision. In reality, only the Chevy still has the 100,000 mile powertrain warranty in years 5,6, and 7. The Honda has no warranty left, yet the as-is Honda is worth $5500 more? Then factor in the $1500 rebate you can get on the Chevy. Then factor in GM card earnings if you have them and knock off another $500 to 3500 off the Chevy. Edmunds TCO never accounts for these things. What I came up with was the equiv of a $25723 out the door Accord and $16830 out the door for Impala LT. To compare Malibu instaed, take about another $1000 off the new Impala price. My GM card earnings are up there, not having bought a GM since '01, so I would would be that much harder a sell on Honda. How many years after buying the new Accord does it finally fall to $15800 value(without tax), the price of a new Impala? 3? 4? Does it even have any warranty left when a new '07 Chevy still has 100,000 warranty miles left on it for the same price? I just don't find the intellichoice recommendations (higher Accord prices) good for much more than separating me and my money. The Accord will have a sunroof and heated mirrors that the larger and roomier Impala doesn't have in my comparison. Other than that I'm comparing similar cars. The new '08 Malibu will be out this summer and plenty of people will find it appealing.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I didn't realize this had turned into an Accounting and Statistics class! :sick:

    Did we conclude the part where we compare things like engines, transmissions, ride characteristics, interior/exterior design and quality, etc? Or are we down to just numbers?

    I know, the numbers appeal to many, I'm just pleading for a little shred of discussion on something tangible about the cars. Please? :) Won't somebody come out and play?
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    The purchase of a new Malibu would be a violation of Blufz1's Razor. See Shadow's posts for how to properly buy a Malibu.
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Posts: 101
    Ok Grad...lets play
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Whee!

    Since the Malibu has only 145 hp to work with, how is it in acceleration compared to others in the class of cars? It looks like it'd be bottom of the heap with a 4-speed and only 145hp.

    I really do like the new design of the (2008?) Malibu; it'll be a real looker!!! Maybe it'll offer a more competitive I-4 (the 2.4L 170+ hp engine from the HHR perhaps? And for the love of all things Chevy, a 4-speed is ok in a torquey V-8 truck if you must, but in a 4-banger these days? It's unacceptable for me (this from the owner of a Honda 130 hp 4-speed auto Accord - 1996).
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    I guess I need to give up - if I paid 25 grand for a new Accord, and let's say 20 for a similar Mailbu but after 4 years the Accord is still worth 14 but the Malibu is only worth 8 (these numbers come form Kelleys Blue Book), I have really paid $11k for the Accord (25 less the 14 residual value) and paid 12 for the Malibu (20 less 8).

    The data I pposeted illustrates than if you take initial year price hit and keep it fo 7 years you're loosing. What I should have done is start the data from new not 06. Cause so far I only 'proved' that investment in a 06 Accord tends to steadily dissipate with time. Give me 10 minutes, i will add new prices to the mix.
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    ok that's what i am getting now...

    I added the first item to my list

    2007 3890$(Accord SE V6) or 874$(Accord Ex V6)
    2006 10002$
    2005 8939$
    2004 9859$
    2002 6005$
    2001 4325$
    2000 4905$

    So the cost of ownership (based on prices only):

    Accord Ex V6 25705 ~= 21970 USD
    Accord Se V6 22689 ~= 19392 USD
    Malibu LTZ 25410 25510 ~= 21803 USD

    I included 2 accorda there because I had problems comparing Se with Malibu LTZ which is quite loaded.

    So, yes, captain2, I see. If one absolutely must buy NEW then Accord Se V6 wins over Malibu. I guess whatever Se may lack in amenities it sort of makes up on the engine. Ok.

    So, it looks like I comfirmed what was said before many times :)and get a used Malibu, that will bring the cost of your long term ownership to 5.5 grand less, which is adequate price drop (in my opinion) for the all the shortcomings of Malibu vs Accord.

    New Malibus just dont make sense ! Get them used.

    And if I may add another thing...There's something to be said about not commiting more money and wait to get it back in a few years.
    Plus....what about interest on lease/dinancing...does Honda do 0% like Gm and Ford ? If they don't that works against Accords.
  • killerbunnykillerbunny Posts: 141
    He proceeded to tell me how smart he is for buying a Japanese suv, purchased new for about $45k. He figures it's great that after 4 years it's still worth about $30k, a reasonably low depreciation rate and if he was to sell at that point, all it'd cost him to drive that suv is about $15k.

    Pretty good I say but now lets take my last car, a one year old GM which was purchased for $12k. It had all the features, was a great car to drive, safe, economical and looked sharp. If I sold it after about 4 years, I'd get about $7k. Thats a loss of $5k, a bit less than his loss of $15k and that's not including other possible differences such as financing or fuel costs.


    The classical find-an-obscure-example argument. You are comparing a new car vs. an old car, a luxury car vs. an economical car. Your friend probably bought a Lexus RX350 and you probably bought a Ford Taurus (according to the prices you provided) and you thought you got a deal?

    Let me give you an obscure example, using your line of logic:

    One person bought a Cadillac Escalade at $50k and sell in 2 years typically gets $30k back. Cost is $20k. Another person bought a 10 year old Accord at $7000 and after 2 years the Accord can still be sold for $6500. Cost is $500.

    :P
  • killerbunnykillerbunny Posts: 141
    In terms of exterior styling. The Camry and the Accord are blandly sleek. The Malibu is uniquely ugly. :lemon:
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    Yury, it is, of course, ALWAYS going to make more sense from a strictly financial viewpoint to buy ANYTHING used (see shadow's comments on the subject many, many, posts ago). This would include any Camcord or any Malibu. Heck, a Lincoln will lose 15-20k as soon as you drive it off the lot. So, if you are trying to substantiate here that the Malibu, because it loses some much value in the first year or two, is a rip-off to buy new - then, point taken!
    Most of the posters here, I submit, are looking to or have just bought one one there cars new, all your numeric exercise really prove, is that they might as well cough up the extra bucks on a Camcord - the Malibu (without that depreciation hit) being a suspect investment.
    Rebate and/or financing packages, BTW, are things you will indeed not find at a Honda/Toyota dealership (except on trucks) because they don't need to and do nothing but cost the buyer in resale value down the road - same thing applies when you see all those Malibus over on the Hertz lots.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    PS - if you really are looking for a car in this category that could project to have even lower costs than a used Malibu - look around for an 05/06 Taurus. Discontinued in 05, but a car made specifically for the rental lots in 06, and now coming available at about 11k-12k, in SEL trim. And then all you have to do, is put on a kidney belt to drive it!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If I wanted a Malibu, I have to buy used? That seems the jist (sp?) of what is being said here. Chevy isn't that competitive with its NEW cars it is producing, but dismal resale value makes it ok? Someone has to take the hit with the new car.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    I guess you have it right, a preposterous assertion, IMO. But, the 08 Malibu with the 3.6 should be much more competitive and may figure to hold value a bit better - don't know how the new Aura (same car) is doing thus far.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Right. Blufz1's Razor. Buy Resale! The less you pay for your ultimate resale price the more economical. It's more economical to buy quickly depreciating assets (Malibu) used.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    OK, and following this to its ultimate and illogical conclusion, why not wait until somebody is willing to pay you to take that Malibu off his/her hands - now that would be economical ;)
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    You should see the #s on a huffy bicycle..... Purchased used....... :)
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Posts: 101
    We have strayed a bit here, this really isnt helping someone who's looking to buy a midsize car. I think we've covered the cost enough.

    I like my Malibu for many reasons but wish it had the upgraded seats. Mine are a cloth, almost feels like canvas and I dont really like it. The upgrade looks alot better but I've never felt it or sat on it but it would be something I'd upgrade.

    The rest of the interior is great. Good location of controls, great heater and a/c. The stereo is impressive for a stock type. I'm toying with the idea of adding a small amp to power the back 6x9 stock speakers and add a little more ooomph. But this stereo is the best I've ever had as far as a factory set up goes. Enough bass to vibrate the windows.

    The driver information centre (DIC)...nice acronym hey....is also great. Gives outside temp, fuel consumption, when to change the oil, and much more. I've never had a vehicle with all that info available on the dash. All in all the layout and quality of the interior is very good. Mine also has the OnStar option but it's never been activated. If I traveled alot, it'd be something I'd look into.
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    Yury, it is, of course, ALWAYS going to make more sense from a strictly financial viewpoint to buy ANYTHING used (see shadow's comments on the subject many, many, posts ago). This would include any Camcord or any Malibu. Heck, a Lincoln will lose 15-20k as soon as you drive it off the lot. So, if you are trying to substantiate here that the Malibu, because it loses some much value in the first year or two, is a rip-off to buy new - then, point taken!

    i wasn't trying to substantiate just that. another point was that...after the initial depreciation hit of the first year, the investment in Accord is really not that great compared to the Malibu. The price difference between 2 cars is less and less yeach year so ironically Accord loses more that Malibu in absolute $$. About 800$ more.
    It is still ok in terms of that Accord has maybe more to offer, that's up to a buyer.

    So if you if you want to wait a year and are not really hooked up on those extra hp you can play it in the way that you will spend less. And that's how Malibu makes sense. So, that was the point #2 expressed in long way :)

    Broadly speaking how much a rippoff is a new Malibu is a good question for me. Say, I can get a Mazda 6 for about 3 grand less. But I will be getting a car with a JD Powers 2.5 out of 5 initial qualiy rating as opposed to a Malibu which 3.5-4 depending on a year. Power is about the same, but Mazda's mileage is notably higher.
    Sorry about getting off topic.
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    If I wanted a Malibu, I have to buy used? That seems the jist (sp?) of what is being said here. Chevy isn't that competitive with its NEW cars it is producing, but dismal resale value makes it ok? Someone has to take the hit with the new car.

    Yep :) Funny ain't it :)
    I fugure there's still someone willing to take a hit, otherwise it wouldn't sell new. Who does that is beyond me. Same with ppl who are willing to buy 8 yo Accords for their relatively high price.
13468927
This discussion has been closed.