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

145791040

Comments

  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    That's impressive -- thanks!
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Posts: 101
    If I'd have based my main need on handling and power I would've bought an Altima. Gotta love the feel of those cars! I'm not really into street racing anymore and didnt buy the Malibu for the 1/4 mile track. Words like "huffs and puffs", "all in the next county before a Malibu driver can even realize what's happening", "may 'feel' quick initially", "antiquated and slow (and noisy)", dont come to mind when I step on the throttle and I feel the solid pull of acceleration. The passing and taking off power of the Malibu is more than adequate for most driver's needs and downright scary for some I'd bet.

    And now, some numbers!
    These were the closest I could find on a quick search.
    1st number is 0-60, 2nd is 1/4 mile time.

    2005 Nissan Altima Se-R 6.1/14.8
    2004 Honda Accord EX Sedan V-6 5-Speed 7.0/15.5
    1998 Toyota Camry LE V-6 (auto) 7.8/15.9
    2004 Chevrolet Malibu 7.8/15.9
    2001 Honda Accord LX V-6 8.3/16.6

    A good 0-60 and 1/4 mile time depends on many factors such as transmission type, tires, type of surface, driver skill, etc. so I take those with a grain of salt. The most accurate numbers come from owners making their own 1/4 mile run.

    The Pontiac G6 is the twin of the Chevrolet Malibu and here's some actual 1/4 mile numbers posted by the G6Performance members who made them:
    G6 - 3900 Engine
    1 ) 14.679 @ 95.65 - G6GTPV6HO
    2 ) 14.900 @ 94.39 - Doctor Kyle
    3 ) 14.930 @ 93.57 - ByGeSg6GTP
    4 ) 14.993 @ 94.62 - CoupeOfG6
    5 ) 15.099 @ 91.88 - Skotbb

    G6 - 3500 (1st gen) Models
    1) 15.951 @ 85.10 - reubenk

    I tried to find some current numbers on the 3 cars....

    Honda Accord 2003-2006
    ohc V6 3.0l/183cu 240HP/212ft-lb
    MPG - 5-speed automatic: 21city/30highway

    Malibu 2004-2005
    ohv V6 3.5l/213cu 200hp/220ft-lb
    MPG - 4-speed automatic: 23city/32highway

    Camry 2005?
    dohc V6 3.0/183 192hp/209ft-lb
    MPG - 4-speed automatic: 20city/27highway

    dohc V6 3.3/202 225hp/222ft-lb
    5-speed automatic: 20city/29highway

    Some fun stuff:
    http://videos.streetfire.net/search/malibu/1/891e48f3-0730-456e-a42c-98500123c1d- 4.htm
    http://videos.streetfire.net/search/camry/0/e14c1dc6-008f-4856-b7e3-98bc001096bb- .htm
    http://videos.streetfire.net/search/camry/1/86596e9d-c3b2-4f71-ad8b-984b0168714c- .htm
    http://videos.streetfire.net/search/accord/3/7947a865-f5c9-4d83-8fe3-985e013a36d- d.htm
    http://videos.streetfire.net/search/accord/5/2b02e370-e618-4e2e-8808-983200f280a- 5.htm
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'm confused why we're using numbers from old cars here? Is your Malibu the older one (200 hp)? That would explain that you are comparing the market from when you bought yours, I'm guessing?

    The Malibu and Accord have had power bumps, and the Camry and Altima are both around 270 hp now.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    0-60 and 1/4 mile times are not really important to me at this point in life (44 years old). When I was 20 or so years old, I had a Chevelle Malibu (yes, a Malibu) with a souped up 327 engine swapped in it, that was a lot of fun racing with on weekends. The reason I wanted the V6 for my Accord was for quick passing, and merging into fast moving traffic (50mph - 80mph type acceleration). I have never had the need to go full throttle from a stop sign or red light. Even if I need to get ahead of the guy in the other lane, at a red light, full throttle is usually not necessary. Midsize family cars are not drag racing material.
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Posts: 101
    Yes mine is an older one, 2005. And the numbers were all I found on one particular site.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Ok. I typically pull all of my numbers from either Motor Trend or Car and Driver since I know they test cars in the same way. They have had the Accord V6 Automatic at 6.6sec consistently since 2003. They also had quicker numbers for the Malibu as well (7.6 sounds right from a 2004 test? I'll have to doublecheck).

    I was just trying to figure things out. That clears things up.
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Posts: 101
    I dont take any of those numbers as iron clad. How can they be, there's way too many variables even if they say they're all tested the same way. In order for that to be true, it'd have to be the same driver, the same day, same weather, same time of day, same tank of fuel (and level)...etc..etc. All these numbers do is give a ballpark number for consumers to chew on. I think it's pretty safe to say, add "ish" after any of those numbers.

    As far as a possible reason for using old numbers, I think comparisons should take place within the same generation of this class from the respective manufacturer. I believe the present Camry & Accord are into a new generation as compared to the Malibu current generation which is 2004-2007.
    The 2008 model will bring in the new Malibu generation.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    I'll make it easy for you............Resale!!!!!!!!!
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    Not sure what you are making easy but I'll gladly make the same easy for you: purchase price and insurance costs. (!!!!)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 2004 test I referenced had 6.5 or 6.6 sec for the Accord and 7.6 sec for the Malibu. Same day, same testers. It also tested the Mitsubishi Galant and the Camry I think.

    shadow5599 said...:I dont take any of those numbers as iron clad. How can they be, there's way too many variables even if they say they're all tested the same way. In order for that to be true, it'd have to be the same driver, the same day, same weather, same time of day, same tank of fuel (and level)...etc

    There are still variables, but the comparison tests are generally more reliable sources to get an idea of at least "relative" performance figures.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I believe the present Camry & Accord are into a new generation as compared to the Malibu current generation which is 2004-2007.

    If your debut time for the Malibu is correct (2004), then the Accord is older than the Malibu, making it more than a fair fight for Chevy.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    Figures. I'll make it easier. Blufz1's Razor. Always buy resale.
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Posts: 101
    Too many variables there Blufz.
    Explain yourself.

    What was the cost of ownership per year on your last few vehicles?

    One of my recent ones was just over $200/yr and another, a 2003 Malibu came in at a cost per year of $250.
    Thats simply purchase price plus service costs minus selling price divided by years owned.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    You used the "Razor." You just did it with a used car. Good #'s.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    What was the cost of ownership per year on your last few vehicles?

    A low "true cost to own" is easy, if you buy used. My brother's true cost to own, on his present truck is $100/year, and dropping. I don't want a hand-me-down car. So I'll pay a little more, no problem.
  • malexbumalexbu Posts: 169
    It seems to me that blufz1's original thesis:

    I'll make it easy for you............Resale!!!!!!!!!

    was a statement favoring Camcord over Malibu on the basis of the
    higher resale value. shadow5599's fair request for a factual support
    of that claim was answered with a totally different thesis:

    I'll make it easier. Blufz1's Razor. Always buy resale... You used
    the "Razor." You just did it with a used car. Good #'s.


    Backing away from the original claim? What is discussed here: Camcord
    vs. Malibu or new vs. used?

    As I said before, I have no doubts that Camry and Accord are excellent
    vehicles but if they are a truly better choice than Malibu, the costs
    considered, why this can never be illustrated with numbers?

    shadow5599's last post, as his many posts before, was very direct and
    simple:

    $200/yr and another, a 2003 Malibu came in at a cost per year of
    $250.


    OK, owning a used truck may be even less expensive than that -- but
    what about owning a Camcord? How does their high resale price
    translate into the annual cost of ownership? What is it?

    Let me put forward my own thesis, which I expect to be challenged:

    Person A bought a new Accord. Person M bought a new Malibu. Their
    cars are comparable -- very close in trim and features. In X years
    both A and M sold their cars and calculated their costs of ownership.

    I claim that for any number X, the annual cost of ownership for person
    M will be lower than that for person A.


    Is it possible to prove that my thesis is wrong? With numbers,
    please, not emotions.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Is it possible to prove that my thesis is wrong? With numbers,
    please, not emotions.


    Emotions have nothing to do with the fact that:

    A car buyer's true cost to own any car, depends on it's worth. Used, high mileage, cheap cars, cost less to own. But guess what, you get what you pay for.

    I could have a car that costs less than $100/year to own, but would I enjoy driving it? Probably not.
  • blufz1blufz1 Posts: 2,045
    This is just light conversation so relax and present whatever #s you want to present.
  • yuryyury Posts: 146
    Person A bought a new Accord. Person M bought a new Malibu. Their
    cars are comparable -- very close in trim and features. In X years
    both A and M sold their cars and calculated their costs of ownership.


    Let me add another problem here.

    Person A bought a 2 year old low Accord with say 20000 miles on it. Person B bought a 2 year old Malibu with the same mileage. Both drove their cars for 10 years, say 13000 miles a year uo to 150000 miles.
    I think Malibu will win.

    And that's how Malibu makes most sence. that alone can keep this car up as viable alternative.
  • paopao Posts: 1,867
    while I have enjoyed reading this thread ...I would challenge that 90% of the car buying public makes an automobile purchase on two factors.....do I like it..is it the right color..does it have the options I want.....is it a new car...is it the latest version....does it beat the neighbors..my friends....( all emotional).....and can I write a check for it...or make the monthly car payment
    (with the latter being the most calculated number)

    I would say.....very few spend the time to calculate life cycle costs, gas consumption, scheduled maintenance costs...or even think about resale value when they set foot on a dealership lot.....

    I look for a car that fits my needs at the time Im in the market for a car...new or used...currently own an 03 KIA Sorento EX (89K), 04 Malibu Maxx LT (88K), and 06 Pontiac Solstice (23K on the odometers).....

    and will admit the Solstice was an emotional purchase...but one we could afford....and wrote the check for the day we took delivery........we drive all our cars way into the 6 digit category on the odometer...so anytime a car crosses the 100K market.....I would argue resale value is a mute point...at least to me......cheers
145791040
Sign In or Register to comment.