Options
2000-2011 Chevrolet Malibu
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The 3.6L DOHC motor in the CTS will have 260 hp. So why would they go to all that expense when a pushrod motor would have only 20 hp less.
Also the malibu has the 4T45E transmission they would have had to put the 4T65HD in to handle 240 hp.
Sometimes, my gear selector will actually get stuck. On cold days when I first start the car, I can't take it out of gear, or it is very difficult to take it out of gear. Instead of using just my thumb, I literally have to grab it and push with the palm of my hands. Or just let the car warm up, then it is normal, perfectly normal. It just started that, recently, I have 115400 miles on my car now. It's a 98
Which of these 6 cars is the best in your opinion?The Malibu sparks my interest since GM is redesigning it next year. Therefore, Chevy is making some great deals.
Resale is crap on it but the Malibu is no resale champ either. What GM car doesn't have questionable resale.
I would not recommend the L if the cash incentive was not available....but this incentive makes the car a really good deal, especially if you like the attributes of cars like Camry and Accord rather than Grand Ams.
I would definitely say you can't go wrong with the Saturn at that price and the Taurus may actually be the best choice, especially if you want a larger, more solid road car. The 96-03 Taurus, aside from trannies in 96 and 97 have been very solid and reliable. The Sebring is nice too but The Saturn L is a little nicer IMHO. The Hyundai you ought to look at is the XG350, the Sonata has a good price but its other attributes are surpassed by the domestic names.
Consider also that well equipped base model Impalas and Intrepids are not much more than their smaller counterparts.
By the way, does it really save fuel when you go downhill on neutral?
Also, I read on auto.com that the new Bu will have 190 horses. Should be quite enough
Now, is this brand of firestone better then the Wilderness and steel-ex firestones that were on the explorers? I still feel stupid buying a car that has this brand of tires on it. I am going to ask the dealer if they could switch them but I probably will end up just going out and buying a new set of michelins or goodyears to stop the worrying that firestone has put in my mind. What should I do??
Homer61, Affinities are average tires at best, and I found them to be below average on wet asphalt. They are also somewhat noisy. But if you want to save some money, you should be just fine with Affinities for a couple of years. There hasn't been a safety problem with these tires. Firestone had the problem with tires for SUVs, and those tires are different. If you live in a rainy climate, I highly recommend Goodyear Aquatred III. Pricey, but AA traction is definitely worth it
But they do suck on wet asphalt with B traction, and it rains on average 160 days a year in Vancouver, so...as much as I loved those wonderful, wonderful tires...bye-bye, sweeties!
Bcmalibu99 is right. The tires are average at best but they are not unsafe. They will suit you fine for about 30k miles. Most OEM tires in this class fall into this category. About the only company that puts decent tires on their base models is the Honda.
Bcmalibu99 - A little secret..going downhill your car naturally gets better gas mileage. It's called gravity. I think it's a potentially dangerous situation by taking an automatic transmission car out of gear at speed. The shifting you are referring to for manual tranmission, the cars are slowing down (ie. approaching a stop sign or red light). Going down hill you could be approaching speeds in excess of 65 mph. It may be fine for the tranny, like I said I'm no mechanic, but I don't see the fuel savings benefit. Driving the speed limit, making sure your car is properly maintained...I understand those fuel savings but shifting into neutral while going downhill... I just don't get it. It doesn't mean it's wrong, I just don't understand it.
The fuel savings are there because your engine's role is to spin the wheels, and if you disconnect the engine from the wheels (when you shift to neutral), the engine does not have to spin the wheels, and thus it requires less fuel to operate. Is it making any sense?
I've been in cars with the computers that show the instantaneous gas mileage. As you go down hill, the computed instantaneous gas mileage jumps up to 50 mpg or more. So there is a natural fuel saving from just going downhill.
I think norbs gave a very good technical reason for not shifting into neutral on the hills. He obviously knows more about cars then I do.
.
Took the Bu into the dealer to figure out what was going on with this thing in neutral. Needless to say they didn't want to take the transmission apart. Brutal job. Anyway, so we test drove a couple brand new Malibu's sitting on the lot. Both of them did the same thing. Nice big clunk in neutral just before the car stops. The techs were amazed. So, apparently they all do it. Give it a try sometime with your when you're on a clear road with no one around.
If you don't like firestone, no big deal. i'm not a fan of Chrysler cars. I think they are crap but that is another discussion. Like I said earlier, I consider the tires one of the weak points of the car. You liked the ride of the Malibu with the "crap" Firestone tires on them so the ride should be even better with Michelins or Bridgestone (which is the parent company of Firestone and I am not a fan of Goodyear). But why buy a new car and then spend $400 right away on new tires. Run on them for 30k miles esp. since they are covered by warranty anyway. Then you can do research on tires in the meantime.
Good luck car shopping. You picked a good time of year to buy a car.
Thanks
Of all the cars you mentioned, if budget is 1st priority, as in our case, the Malibu is definately the one to go. It's like a faithful servant that doesn't have the glamor but does the job well. We have almost 5000 miles on ours and not a single problem. If money is tight, there's no way for me personaly to justify spending $5000 more on an import.
Thanks for the info, i guess i'll call the dealer, i'll let you know how it turns out.
Do some research here on Edmunds but also check out sites like carpoint.com. They give the malibu very nice reviews.
A scary incident did happen though. My oil filter wrench, which is made of metal, touched some part nearby the filter and sent off sparks! I immediately crawled out to check on the car. The key wasn't in the ignition when it happened, and I saw the parking lamps blinked a couple of times. I started the car and everything looked normal. Now maybe I'm a little paranoid and I think I'm hearing more engine noise. Let's hope it's just my imagination. Does anyone of you experts know what part I touched? Thanks!
tires. I recently replaced mine with Michelin
Harmony tires and the result was a smoother,quieter more responsive handling Malibu.
(mine is a base 99 model) I would advise anyone still running on those lousy Firestones to spend the extra money and go with a a set of these Michelins. I live in Toronto Ont. and the recent snow we've had convinced me these are the best all season tires i could have for my driving needs.Love this forum and have learned alot abot my car from it. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All.
check out http://www.gmcanada.com
I have no more warrenty, I have a 98 w/ 116500 miles
credman: I see you did not read your owner's manual. The red light comes on when there is approximately 2 - 3 gallons left in the tank. Then it blinks again when there is one gallon left in the tank. The fuel tank capacity is 14.2 gallons. I pusehed it one time and actually put 14.1 gallons of gas into the tank. I wanted to see approximatley how far I could go once the light goes on. (Good thing to know in case you're driving in an area where you are not familar). My Malibu can go about 60 miles.
Only when you run completely out of fuel will it not be cooled,but not for long.
We covered a variety of terrains from plains to mountains (West Virginia, I-77) and a lot of different weather conditions as well (heavy snow, pouring rain, etc.) Overall the Malibu did very well. We're extremely happy with it and glad we bought it! We had four adults and a toddler and a trunk filled to the brim with our stuff, and the power was adequate for the most part. With 31 psi front and 28 psi rear tire pressures, we got about 31 mpg with exclusive highway cruising at close to 80 mph. The handleing was secure and reassuring in the heavy rain and snow we encoutered. On the mountains it was an excersize trying to keep the transmission in the top gear while accelerating uphill or maintain a high speed (I wanted to keep the RPM low to save fuel). That's when I wished it had more power. Going downhill the engine keeps the speed nicely in check, and somehow it knows that you're going downhill and doesn't kick into neutral.
Throughout our trip, the Malibu was quiet at high speeds and the ride was very smooth and comfortable. The trunk swallowed all of our stuff without any problem. Man, for its practicality and quality, I can't believe we paid only 16 grands for it. The affinity tires did their job very well as far as I know. I'm not sure how much more one can ask of them. I just hope they last long too.
Now with 6900 miles, our Malibu has been trouble free. You just put gas in it and off you go. I follow the Edmunds' letters to the editor and there's quite a few angry letters about edmunds' "most wanted" picks for the lack of domestic cars. Here I just wanna throw out an interesting perspective regarding this topic: the imports ARE probably more refined cars and for the prices they are asking they absolute oughtta be. My thought is (let's take mid-size for example)if every auto maker makes cars the same calibor as the Accord and Camry, aren't they all gonna charge for the same prices? Then who would be left to make cars like the Malibu that offers this kind of size, power, equipment, and all and only costs $16000. What are folks like us with a small budget gonna do? That's why I think the most important issure here is reliability and not who is better! I'm getting more and more sick and tired of auto journalists' pretention and over emphasis on performance and 0-60 numbers. I think for the most part these things are totally irrelevant to regular car buyers. Kudos to GM and other domestic auto makers for making reliable cars affordable.