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

1161719212227

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I wish they were all like that; unfortunately, (true for all makes) there will be bad apples in a bunch. My girlfriend's 2001 Saturn SC1 just bit the dust (needs a new transmission, and yes it was serviced ;)) at 90k miles. Now she's trying to get $1,800 for it.

    She got an '07 Santa Fe GLS to replace it (just for the record). :shades:
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    "Are you serious? It is the worst engines I have driven! Yes, the 6spd 4cyl was a bit better, but they certainly was not close to the feel of the 06 Accord 4cyl I had a year ago. Or close to the 08 Jetta SE engine. It could be a great engine, but the transmission, engine programming are completely off. Not to mention its loss of refinement and low smoothness".
    ----------------------

    Jetta engines are just not refined, I think you are dreaming. I would give the edge to the Accord 4 banger over the Ecotec BUT, inside the car GM has done a great job of isolating the engine to the point where it's not noticeable.

    Personally I prefer V6s though so I went with the 3.6L/6-speed Malibu.

    :-)
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    Why do you think you chose the V6? because the 4cyl was not up to snuff. You can get by without a V6 on a VW or Honda. However, I do plan to get the V6 if I get an Accord.

    Honestly though, I think my car's engine is not truly up to its full potential. As I have had my car in the shop for weird shifting transmission. The rentals I have had, are so much more refined and powerful, they were both the same 2.4 engine G6.

    The dealer cannot find anything wrong. But, I totally feel the difference, it shouldn't shift so noticeably and rough on one of the lower gears. My engine seems a little grumpy. I cannot figure it out. Its like I got cheated out of a good engine. I am not sure what to do, as the dealer is starting to think I am weird...lol. :cry:

    It may seem like I am picky, but I lease, and its only 13mths into the lease, and 2yrs left, only 16,000miles. If my cars were running like the rentals I have had, then I would agree, that it is a good little engine. I always felt the engine ran a bit sluggish since new, the car never really ran like the rentals.

    Well, I could just stick it out for 2yrs, or transfer the lease, get a second opinion. But, I am so tired of having my car at the shop.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Why do you think you chose the V6? because the 4cyl was not up to snuff. You can get by without a V6 on a VW or Honda. However, I do plan to get the V6 if I get an Accord.

    ----------------

    I think the Accord 4 engine is a snick smoother but it's still gutless. VWs are very unrefined, sorry you will never convince me otherwise. Go take a listen.

    You are also getting a V6 because you know 4 cyl. mid-size sedans are no fun to drive. You can get by with anything but the Accord is no better than the Malibu on base engine fun. At least the Malibu gets better mileage with the 6-speed.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    4-bangers? No fun to drive?

    Lighter weight over the front wheels = more agile handling; plus, better availability of a stick-shift. Those two things combined make driving much more fun.

    Easier to merge with? Now, that's where the V6 becomes the winner, but as for me and my house, we will drive the 4-pot. :)
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    Lighter weight over the front wheels = more agile handling; plus, better availability of a stick-shift. Those two things combined make driving much more fun.

    -------------

    No fun if it has no power. They are fine for compacts but in a mid-size loaded up, forget it!
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    0-60 in the low 7s doesn't happen in cars with "no power." :)

    And, loaded up, I'm typically not carving corners; I'm cruising down the highway. :shades:
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    I miss my Accord 4cyl engine. It was refined and smooth, and quick. Not a race car, but it got the job done. There are many other cars that offer a much better, updated engine than the 4cyl GM engine. Read the reviews, it will show much more engine issues and observation. I wonder why several people at my dealership want out of their GM cars, all with 4cyl's? We happened to have the same salesmen, and both there asking him to get out. Both with similar observations.

    Ironically enough, my salesmen, a GM fan, and leased a C-Class mercedes. He was the one who said that he wouldn't drive a foreign car. His mother also got a 09 Jetta. He loves them now! Night and day!

    The Malibu is nice, its pretty, but its guts are really no different, or any real reason to get too excited. At this point, a company should atleast grasp the concept of a good 4cyl. GM doesn't have it. Even with 6spd.

    This is my opinion only.
    I am not forcing this statement on anyone or being direct in my statement.
    I am also not saying anyone is wrong with their statement either. That is why there are so many cars. I like the Malibu, but would be forced to get the V6, and I don't want a V6.

    To each their own. I will never be convinced of GM again. Sorry.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    "The Malibu is nice, its pretty, but its guts are really no different, or any real reason to get too excited. At this point, a company should at least grasp the concept of a good 4cyl. GM doesn't have it. Even with 6spd".

    Have you even driven one?

    Not convinced of GM 4 bangers - go take a look at the new 2.4L Direct Inject in the 2010 Equinox. 32 MPG hwy and 183 hp with better mileage than any crossover on the market.

    Would not be surprised to see this mill in the Malibu next year.

    That said, there are no normally aspired 4-banger mid-size sedans out there. The Accords are fine but don't try and tell me they are fun to drive unless you slip a 6 under the hood. Yes I have driven one.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    That said, there are no normally aspired 4-banger mid-size sedans out there.

    Want to try that again, for the cheap seats in the back? I don't think that's what you meant.

    The Accords are fine but don't try and tell me they are fun to drive unless you slip a 6 under the hood.

    Actually, the most fun-to-drive Accords come ONLY in 4-cylinder models. They have a stick-shift. Also, the 4-cylinder models feel more lively and are better balanced thanks to less weight hanging over the front wheels.

    Fast doesn't mean "fun to drive." Just look at the Camry V6! :shades:
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    Yes, the Accord engine is a well rounded engine. Not saying its perfect, but the 4cyl is an engine that likes to be wound up. I am not sure you can really say that about a GM 4cyl. However, couple it with a better transmission and controls, it would be a huge improvement. That is the culprit to the GM engine.

    I bet the new Equinox will be nice, but then again, why are we offering yet another SUV? They are only now thinking green, because they are being forced to do so. I would much rather have a VW Tiquan, its got a 2.0T. Not as good of mileage, but I can feel confident, and have more fun!!

    Drive what you want. Its just my take on it.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    The Equinox is NOT a SUV which has a frame. This is a crossover which is built on a car unibody and can come with either FWD or AWD in which a SUV comes with 4 Wheel drive and gets a whole lot worst gas mileage. This is a replacement for the Trailblazer SUV which was discontinued last fall.
  • butch100butch100 Posts: 28
    GM can't build a good 4?, I guess you've never heard of the Cobolt SS, it's 260HP 4 blows any Honda 4 completely out of the water. Also faster than the Accord V6 as well..
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    Right, and for an extra $500 GM has a stage 1 kit that bumps that up another 30 HP for a total of 290hp and all under warranty.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I can turbocharge my Snapper and give it more horses but it doesn't make it any more than a really fast lawn-mower engine.

    Personally, I'm not even close to being in the market for one of these cars, but do love the smoothness of the Honda 2.4L. Engine power nonwithstanding, its a fantastic engine, at least it is in the 2003-2007 Accord, which I happen to drive. Delivering 36+mpg on every trip at 75mph, and takes an 8 second run to 60 MPH.

    I haven't driven a current GM 2.4L so I can't testify to how smooth or not it may be, but I did want to mention that horsepower isn't the only way you classify a "good 4."
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    Honestly, I would not feel safe in a cobalt. It would simply crumble in an accident.
    People looking for an Accord, are less likely to be looking at a Cobalt. Though, you may have more power in the Cobalt, the Accord and Cobalt are 2 different cars all together. Differences are greatly noted.

    I have to agree, the 06 Accord 4cyl is a great engine, no race car, but had confidence, quality, power. You have to understand I came from this engine, to the GM 4cyl, and it is simply NIGHT and DAY difference. My 06 Accord would blow the my 4cyl GM engine away. Got better mileage too. But, then again people getting an Accord are not out looking to race a Cobalt either. I would never dream of racing my 06 Accord 4cyl. I truly babied that car. Atleast, if I did push my Accord to feel it pull a bit on the interstate, it didn't feel, sound like it was straining as the GM car does.
  • butch100butch100 Posts: 28
    All cars are designed with "crumple zones" that will help dissipate energy in a crash. It's tough to compare Cobolt/Accord as they are totally different classes of car. Cobolt is an A to B basic transpo. where the accord is gotten to damm near the size of an Impala. It's a much nicer car than the Cobolt but for a lot more $$$ too..
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The Cobalt gets a 4-star rating for the driver from the NTHSA, 3-stars on the side impact, with Side Airbags.

    How about we talk about the Malibu instead of the Cobalt?
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,742
    No fun if it has no power. They are fine for compacts but in a mid-size loaded up, forget it!

    Disagree. I have a 2007 Mazda 5 (a micro-minivan, same platform as a Mazda 3). I also have a 2005 Acura TL, which is a 6 cyl. Guess what - the Mazda is more FUN to drive, as it is agile and has very tight steering. The Acura is a powerful highway cruiser and accelerates great (if you like that automatic lag when you punch it). But the Mazda is FUN.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    If all you want from an engine is horsepower, you can get that at a low price. If you want refinement, power, smoothness, reliability, and efficiency, you will have to look a lot harder, and probably pay a little more. Fun is defined differently also. Some see light weight, tight steering, firm suspension, and a responsive gearbox as the attributes they require for "Fun". Some are even more demanding, and want power to go along with all the rest. The 7th gen Accord V6 is a great package that has all these qualities. I know past Malibu models have not been refined, agile, or very powerful. I find it hard to believe GM has suddenly learned how to get all these things right with one model. Maybe they have, but I seriously doubt it. Previous Malibus were good, when new. They aged quickly however, and the lack of refinement, and quality showed up in short order.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    Nice response! I agree! Exactly, that puts the fact on whether or not the New Malibu's guts are any different than the previous Malibu model? Is it magically better? Only time will tell. You can put on a pretty face, but when the soul is lacking, well it'll surely uncover itself later on.

    There are many new models arriving, look appealing. But, all lead to that very same question. I am not convinced the whole package is there yet.

    I would love to compare these cars in say 5 years from now, see all their records, how their holding up. I would actually say, during the 5yrs, push a them a bit.
    It would be an interesting look on how they stand up to time.

    That would be a test for GM, to design a car that doesn't have silly parts going bad early in the game. I have already had a new catalytic converter replaced at 15,000miles, on my 08 GM. Oh, ya, and a window switch because I could not roll my windows down... Twice! I have had about 3 rentals, kept one for a week, others for 2 days or so.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    ".....Nice response! I agree! Exactly, that puts the fact on whether or not the New Malibu's guts are any different than the previous Malibu model? Is it magically better? Only time will tell."

    If what you mean by "guts" is the platform, the previous 2 Malibu's were W bodies, whereas the new Malibu is an epsilon platform. I believe the MAXX version was an epsilon as well.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    Yes, but I was referring to its overall parts used. Which are probably all the same. Nothing too new. That will only shown in time.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    Oh, no. While the 2.4L is a carryover, the 6 sp auto and 3.6L v6 are new to the model. The V6 generally gets good reviews for an engine.

    Where I think GM is missing it is the fact that while Toyota and Honda use 1 car for the $20-30K midsize price range (MSRP) Chevy uses 2. You can find a $30K Camry or Accord, but not a Malibu. That price range is left to the Impala, and that car sits on an antiquated platform. So, the Camcord can outclass it's GM competition on the high end with features, AND lay claim to the best selling models each year, because they use one model. I don't know about the last couple of years, but up to a couple years ago, Chevy was selling more cars in that category, just spread over 2 models (Malibu and Impala) instead of 1 (Camry or Accord).

    So, the imports score on 2 fronts; Better equiping the high end ($24K and up) versions, plus having a more refined driveline on the lower end, AND the perception that they "must be better because they sell more" which they didn't, because it was spread over 2 models.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I think, if you subtracted the fleet sales of the Impala, and Malibu (which are considerable), I they would still come up short, as far as consumer sales, compared to the Accord. It would probably be pretty close. I don't think sales numbers mean much in the "which car is better" debate any way. The fact is people will pay more for an Accord, because they think it's a better built car. I agree with this perception, but I know some people don't. They only way I will really be convinced the Malibu is much improved, is if I bought one myself. I'm not willing to take that chance right now.
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    After seeing the blast from many mags and rags and now Consumers Reports on the Insight Hybrid on what a piece of junk it is and CHEAP besides I sure have lost a lot of respect of Honda. As I'm old enough to remember the cheap junk they brought to America many years ago and how long it took them to even make something buyable they sure have taken 2 steps back in my humble opinion.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Posts: 1,721
    I have driven the new GM 4cyl engine. However, I was still less than satisfied. It was not inspiring. Even, the Manual shifting option did not add any more excitement. It was like pulling teeth to give me any excitement. I was taken off guard too, as I thought that at the least it would do something for me. The drive line is still a bit rough, and a bit unpredictable. Where is the torque? The 4cyl doesn't feel like it wants to wind up at all. Perhaps this is why so many opt for the V6?

    I do agree that I am not willing to give GM another chance after my lease is up. Why take that kind of risk? I have already driven the new engine, that is the best they could come up with? I know some people love their GM cars, or a big fan of them, but you can't honestly tell me you would pick the 4cyl GM engine over say an Accord engine or VW 5cyl, or the 2.0T engine. Which would both would blow the doors off the 4cyl GM engine. I know it would. Both getting similar or better mileage.

    Verdict-the GM 4cyl engine=BORING and moody
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    Yes I would, why because I'm American and am willing to back GM, an american company that has done more for me than Toyota or Honda. What have they done for you besides Pearl Harbor.
  • wayne52wayne52 Posts: 26
    What have Toyota or Honda done for ME besides Pearl Harbor? Like most Japanese companies, they brought me high quality, low cost, reliable products. I owned 4 UAW built cars in ten years and had NOTHING but trouble. I've owned my honda for the past ten years and have pretty much been trouble free. It is the longest I've ever owned a car! I'm not sure why you mention Pearl Harbor. Mitsubishi built the Japanese Zero, not Toyota or Honda, and the war has been over for quite some time. What have american auto manufacturers done for ME? To lightly touch the subject, they have built crap and overpaid their employees (management and line workers) to the extent that they broke the companies and now require MY money to bail them out of the mess. Toyota and Honda build cars in the US (non-UAW plants) that have a reputation of being high quality, low cost, and reliable. Hyundai and Mercedes and probably a few other companies do the same thing in the USA. And I don't hold the Nazis responsible for mercedes, either (same war as Pearl Harbor, just a different location).
  • dmathews3dmathews3 Posts: 1,739
    Well lets see, I had a 240Z that caused me nothing but trouble from the radiator rubbing on theframe and needed replaced, Rabbit that was a piece of crap, wife had a 04 Honda Van that needed a new tranny, and she has a STS built in America that the only problem was the Navigation unit which is built by a German company 1/2 owned by Toyota so does that mean the STS being American built is a piece of junk. I have had maybe 30 american cars and yes they have had problems all little nothing like a new tranny or radiator. The american cars are just as good as anybody elses and it helps our country. But I'm sure the people of Japan with there good schools, roads, etc are happy that your money is keeping them well equiped why our country goes down the tubes. There still must be a lot of Americans that think our cars are better than the [non-permissible content removed] since we still out sell them all.
Sign In or Register to comment.