Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord
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
For the 04-05 Malibu 3.5 I found 200 hp at 5,400 rpm and 220 lb-ft of torque at 3,200 rpm.
This site says they're the same.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/roadtest/05g6.htm
You may be thinking of the 3.9 which is 240 hp, and both G6 and Malibu have that available now.
and the 0-60 data was i an not even sure from what year,
so scratch that
Once leveled off in speed on the highway it runs 110Km/hr (about 70mph) at about 1700 rpm. Thats low in comparison to other cars I know. Maybe part of having good torque at the low end.
well, yes and no - pushrod engines will generally always have higher relative torque than the same size OHC engine - more reciprocating mass. Other the other hand, HP (which is the prime detriment of acceleration is a function of that torque applied over time - meaning that the more willingly and quickly the engine will gain rpm the more HP (and acceleration) it produces. The GM pushrods are antiquated and slow (and noisy) in this regard and therefore produce less HP and slower cars. Things like the Camry 3.5, Accord V6 or Altima 3.5 are all in the next county before a Malibu driver can even realize what's happening to him, a function of those great free revving engines they have. On the other hand, the higher torque available on the pushrod engine may 'feel' quick initially but flatten out substantially(acceleration-wise) during the time it takes the engine to gain rpms.
The most 'current' GM engine the 3.6 soon I'm understanding to replace the multitude of pushroods currently in the GM arsenal - it's about time! 252HP or so in a Malibu, should get those 0-60 times down into the 6s and also improve FE much like it is already doing in the Aura XR.
The pushrod has the torque at 3.5 thousand rpm. Camry's V6 is surely overall more powerful, but it's max torque only comes on at 4500 rpm, which is significantly higher. I mean, yes, if it revs up freely it's good, but you still have about 1000 rmp to go in comparission with the pushrod.
Now...most of us need power NOW, i'e. as soon as possible...Hence the question, what's Camry's torgue at 3500 rpm (which seems pretty NOW to me , Malibu gets to that rpm real quick) ? If Camry's curve is beefy enough that would result in a better drivebility, if not, that engine will not be much more driveable that the pushrod....4500 rmp is too high for a comfy acceleration even in small 4 cyl engines.
Now the max HP. It tends to be somewhere at the redline. The question: when you drive to work, how much time you spend at the redline ? Yes, 0%. So, another characteristic irrelevant to our daily life.
0-60. We don't do 0-60 often in a single burst. It's more like speed up to 30 mph, enter the ramp, go though it (a few deconds), go a bit faster towards the end of the ramp, and then only give it a quick burst of throttle to get to 60-70 mph. So it's like .... 40-70 accel that we do in a regular basis. Plus highway passing that is entirely different ball game.
You know, one of the people I know got a diesel Beetle at some point. That thing has like....what 90 hp max ? But, the guy said he would smoke Civics all the time, and those are 110-120 hp.
So, my point is numbers are nothing, the power/torque curve is everything. Say the upscale Civics they make now are rated at 200 hp. But...at the redline which is real high. Who drives at 7000 rpm ? It's only useful on a racetrack.
So if someone says that this car feels faster that that car that,in my mind, is more valuable than numbers. Of course, that's subjective, so the ultimate thing is to go for a test drive....the difference in max values may be nullified or reduced greatly by all the other factors.
That's not to say that Camry and Malibu are the same. Camry may very well be better in real world as it is better on paper...The question how much better. In other words, think about it....maybe the manufacturers are playing us a little bit ? An average person looks at the figures first, right ? And if the car is fast enough on the test drive the decision is made. But, is it as much better as the figures suggest or only a little better ?
so, for the sake of discussion....anybody test drove both ?
Forget the 07 Accord I'm gettin' me a 1990 Rolls. Discuss!
and Rolls is not, because the topic is entitled "Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord".
So, therefore, HP increases as rpms do, and the faster those rpms increase the more HP you will have. And it is HP that, for the most part, is going to push that Camry to 60 in 6 something, while that Malibu huffs and puffs its way in 8. Don't know that I can bite on your Civic/VW TDI story unless that Civic driver was short shifting it - diesels, of course, with very high relative torque but also very reticient to rev and therefore low HP and generally slow cars.
I agree with the other poster, the only way you will know how each car drives (nd sounds and feels doing it) is to drive each of them. I assure you there is a BIG difference.
sure, it would probably win over a TD at a race track, but in real life that Si felt like a SLOW car to me. Another example, 01 Sentra. Max values are pretty low, like at 2000 rpm. And, despite the fact, that the car's 0-60 is something ridiculous, like 10 or 11 seconds, it feels pretty peppy in real life and definitely more driveable than that old Si of mine (same max HP as Si, but only 15% more torgue)
My point is that pure max hp and torque numbers do not nesseserily reflect the daily drivebility. they perhaps better reflect racetrack performance which is not the same thing.
However, Camry, based on the figures may be quite a bit better that Malibu, I am not arguing that.
Exactly! And that's the ball game the Malibu looses. Most people don't need a lot of power at low rpm (taking off from stop signs, and red lights). Where I want the power, is when passing (40-70 or more), which is where the Malibu falls short.
Transmissions are also a large part of the power supplied to the wheels. The Malibu's 4 speed transmission is also outdated, when compared to the 5 and 6 speed transmissions the Camry and Accord have.
Exactly! And that's the ball game the Malibu looses. Most people don't need a lot of power at low rpm (taking off from stop signs, and red lights). Where I want the power, is when passing (40-70 or more), which is where the Malibu falls short.
That was said in favour on max torgue at low rpm. 3500 Seems to be a good spot.
Well, all said...probably Accord and Camry are not direct competitors...well we may compare and weigh pros and cons. But really we should probably compare Malibu to something like Mazda 6...
Plus, in Malibu's defence i would say this: look the prev gen Camry was close to what Malibu is powerwise (as far as specs go). So, seems like not that Malibu is that bad, but rather Camry has gotten better all of a sudden Good job, I guess But if it also droppen in price in the first year like Malibu, I would say "let talk "
Btw, still waiting for someone with first hand experince with both cars to come along and share....
Lets not get carried away.
I do believe we are discussing the current generations of these cars. For Malibu that is 2004-2007. The cars are being compared here because they're in the same class. Affordable mid sized sedans.
Prospective buyers such as I was myself about 1 year ago should look at all these cars and a few more such as the Sonata and compare value and base their decision on what they deem important.
I made my decision based on value, safety, cost of ownership , style and comfort. No amount of 0-60 or hp numbers can prove that my decision was wrong. Any discussion here has, on the contrary, only added to my confidence that I made the right choice based on my criteria.
Isn't this discussion attempting to give a few facts and opinions on each so these prospective buyers can gain some information from actual owners?
But I agree, it is fun to see numbers. After all, that's what the advertisers use to sway us consumers with. Numbers can be deceiving, confusing and manipulated. It's been done with all sorts of goods.
Here's an example of it from the automotive industry:
AutoInsider
all three cars/engines in this group will have relatively flat torque curves, although the old pushrod may indeed start at a slightly lower rpm, its not much thanks to these new VVTi and CVVTi engines in the Accord/Camry (and keep in mind that both also have more of it). We are not talking about high strung 4 bangers here. Under no circumstances or reasonable measure of performance will a Malibu 3.5 be in even the same neighborhood as the Accord/Camry V6s -not to mention slightly more subjective evaluations of engine smoothness or noise (refinement). Wait until 2008, the new GM 3.6 currently in the Aura and CTS is proving to be the same type of engine, and should really improve things and provide some basis for comparison.
You are right, the Camry/Accord/Altima are not direct competitors to Malibus/G6s etc. etc..
Since I'll contend that, at least for me, the drivetrain is what 'makes or breaks' a car, and I do own both the Toyota 2GR and the Nissan VQ and have limited experience with both the Malibu and G6 (thru the airport rental lots, of course), I'll further tell you that about all the current Malibu has going for it is price, because it certainly is not an enjoyable car to drive.
well, that depends where you're coming from. i am sure for a bmw/mersedes drivers both cars are 'not enjoyable'
for a someone who comes from a 4 banger it's a definite improvement. 4 banger Vibe seemed like heaven after a 4 cyl Ranger pickup and so on, so forth
i do like to drive, but i also got a morgage
that's what we are trying to establish, i think, if the price increase is backed with adequate increase in quality.
i recall someone here saying that there were not that much difference. now, i don't know if it was about the new Camry or perhaps the prev gen camry which, at least on paper, didn't look that much different while still carrying the same price tag.
now that one is almost impossible to quantify and/or make a judgement on. The Accords/Camrys ARE worth the few thousand extra simply because that's what people are paying for them and can be justified (by some but not to all) by things like better drivetrains, status considerations, and most of all - superior values (resale) a few years down the road. To another extreme, is a BMW 5 series worth 50-60k ? - well, yes, because that's what they sell for - can they be illustrated to be categorically 20-30k better vehicles than the same Camry/Accord, maybe not, it all depends on who you're asking....
Absolutely it depends. It depends on their buying history, their dealers, their needs, their likes, their opinions, their experiences. It's simple to say that something is better than another. Sometimes that is obvious, sometimes not. Sometimes it can be true but serves no purpose other than being able to say it is of better quality and more expensive.
Is a high end amp rated at a frequency response of 20Hz-18,000hz crap as compared to one rated at 10hz-40,000Hz? Who cares since most human's ears cant tell the difference so why spend more for what you cant hear?
But then again, one does have to remember those status considerations.
These cars we're discussing here are absolutely comparable!
People consider many many factors when buying a car and for most it is cost, safety, size, fuel economy, reliability, comfort, cup holders, warranty. The basic needs are being compared by most people and dare I say that all things figured, the Malibu is a clear winner. My $16,000/16,000km 05 Malibu had stiff competition from a 05 Nissan Altima when I was shopping. I had a tough choice...for awhile. That was long after I had eliminated the Sonata, Camry and Accords for being of inferior value quality.
The Altima drove amazing, handled great! But had 40,000kms, a 4 cylinder, no ABS brakes, no side airbags, no dealer support, etc....etc. But some say better quality? Not to me, absolutely not and the cost would've been $3,000 more! Obvious choice for me. Malibu wins hands down. Value quality feels great.
If the Import lovers here want to say they have more quality than North American vehicles, I for one could care less, so sure, keep saying it. I will also keep saying I will end up throwing away less money than you and I only buy North American cars. I will keep saying that I drive a very nice car, with quality, with power, top quality ratings, top safety ratings and I paid far less than you did.
They're only cars...which are about the biggest money losing thing and worst investment in most people's lives. If I can get away with spending less money to drive a dependable, quiet, comfy, full featured, safe, fuel efficient car, ....isnt that what one would call quality? It works for me, and has been for 30 years.
I encourage those car buyers interested in value, safety, great dealer support, reliability, performance, comfort, great fuel economy, etc. to seriously consider Malibu. It's a true quality value unless you consider the sound of a DOHC to be worth alot more $$ than a time proven, tough and powerful American iron pushrod engine.
Malibu Value Quality, opinion or fact? You decide
I just got rid of (after only 2 years) of a Vibe. Ok one can argue GM screwed it up...Howeve I know that at least some of the problems that I have seen are present im Matrix as well.
Now, while my Vibe was being fixed i drove a rental Cobalt...Oh man, what a supringly nice ride from a bargain basement 4 banger...So much better than Vibe.
So....it depends on a model. This day and age everything is mixed up.
As far as engines go, it's sad to hear someone generalize about a pushrod engine when they may not even know much about engines such as the dodge slant six, or the GM 350, LT1 or the Ford Boss line. Except to say they're antiquated. What's in a funny car these days, or a Nascar racer?
Tried true and proven, that counts for alot.
but in general, is there any difference in depreciation between a Camry v. Accord?
Thanks!
while there certainly is enough differences to 'justify' the higher prices of the Camcords and things like the Malibus of the world, there is not enough difference between the Toyota and Honda to speak of - while the Accord will have highest resale values, the Camry is very close.
those of us that might be tempted to say that - would only have statistics on our side - something like the new CR 07 auto issue, which does show far lower long term problem rates... with who? Honda, Toyota and Nissan! which BTW are more 'American' than many of those US brand names that statistically don't fare nearly as well. Ford, believe it or not, is the highest rated US brand championed by the Mexican made Fusion. It certainly depends on model, but if you explore further into that same publication's 'recommended' list, you will also find that every Honda product and almost every Toyota and Nissan product are all rated very highly and show much lower than average problem rates, both new and used. These ratings based on 1.3 million surveys, maybe a tad more significant than one owner having some problems with one car?
i dealt with 3 cars:
93 Civic. Mechanically ok, but not a miracle by any means. Fenders rusted through after 6 years.
01 Sentra. Was plagued with engine light problems (some sensor somewhere) at the age of 3 or 4 years old and mileage about 40000 km. We repaired the thing twice, once from own pocket (400$ no less). Second time we got a good will deal. Now, at mileage of 50000 km the fan only works at 4th speed.
Overall, not impressive at all.
05 Vibe...tranny replaced within 2 years...Mind you 03 Ranger I had before for 2 years was problem-free.
I think if you take a look at JD Powers you will find enough japanese with same or even lower ratings than american. Enough, to drop the generalized mindset and start looking into particular models.
histories and how they manage to process them. They must have pretty
deep pockets to do this. Hey, and the money should be left for their
own in-depth research into the new cars -- quite an expensive
exercise.
Anybody here has a positive history of submitting the surveys to CR?
Me, I always trash them -- CR certainly doesn't have my voice.
Not to knock their circulation figures but take a look at these reports:
http://www.mdsconnect.com/topcirculation.htm
Why is CR the only magazine that rounds off their circulation to the nearest million? Or do they just hit the magic number on the head. Strange.
That being said, I do consult CR, in addition to Edmunds and Car and Driver before making a purchase. They all do very different things.
you that about all the current Malibu has going for it is price,
because it certainly is not an enjoyable car to drive.
It is certainly an enjoyable car to drive for many owners -- check the
owners' boards.
As for comparing how various cars drive... Well, I bought my first Bu
within a month after renting a brand new Honda Accord. To me, Malibu
drove better -- reminded me of my beloved Jetta. Accord, honestly, I
probably liked less than the Impala I had rented before.
As for the price difference, it's an important factor, isn't it? In
that regard, I am still waiting for a new Camcord owner to share his
experience: how much was paid to buy exactly what. (I did the same
re: a 2005 Malibu.)
I should point to elroy5's valuable post #45:
Ok, I bought my 92 EX Accord in Sep.91 for $17,000...
It is this kind of straightforward, direct information that makes me
to respect the car. That's a very impressive experience, which can
influence my future buying decisions (Thank you, elroy5!)
As for which car can be enjoyed and which can -- I'll carefully listen
to a car's owner (Thanks, yury -- I won't even think about Vibe
anymore!). But you won't pay attention to my one-day experience with
Accord -- and rightly so. And I don't think I'll be worrying about
non-Malibu-owners' negatives about my car. I'll, however, will
appreciate the information about the cars you own(ed). Including the
price paid and maintenance costs. Thanks in advance to those who'll
share that.
I also look at CR at times -- why not? Always helpful to evaluate
information from various sources.
But I always, always, had the deepest doubts about their methods -- I,
for one, don't know people who bother sending CR their reviews.
CR lost my confidence completely (not to say that they cannot say
right things -- but they can equally say wrong things with the
straight face) when for two or three years (at least) their piece
about Malibu was saying (find it in your archives -- check me if you
wish), that the Malibu sedan had been long unreliable. And Maxx was,
in comparison to the sedan, a more reliable car. Well, reading the
Edmunds.com Malibu boards, I was of a firm impression that Maxx had by
far more complaints than the sedan. So, how did CR come to their
conclusion? By comparing Maxx to the pre-2004 Malibu sedan?... Wouldn't
that be... er... non-professional?...
don't need a lot of power at low rpm (taking off from stop signs,
and red lights). Where I want the power, is when passing (40-70 or
more), which is where the Malibu falls short.
It depends on the people. Where I do my morning commute, there is a
particular go-from-the-stop place where lots of folks apparently enjoy
the friendly races -- all within the posted speed limit, mind you.
Let me assure you that Malibu is doing just fine there. Very fine,
indeed.
As for falling short on a highway, at 40-70, I don't share your
opinion. I normally drive in the leftmost lane, on highways with the
posted speed of 65 mph. Don't have a problem with that, believe it or
not.
I just got rid of (after only 2 years) of a Vibe. Ok one can argue GM screwed it up...Howeve I know that at least some of the problems that I have seen are present im Matrix as well.
Now, while my Vibe was being fixed i drove a rental Cobalt...Oh man, what a supringly nice ride from a bargain basement 4 banger...So much better than Vibe.
So....it depends on a model. This day and age everything is mixed up.
Generally, your initial statement is something that should be followed. Making sweeping assumptions isn't quite fair to an automaker. True.
I do find it interesting that you liked the Cobalt amazingly well. To me, it had one of the poorly put together and finished interior of any car I've seen in the last five years. The Chevrolet Impala on the other hand was a very nice step-up that I did not expect from Chevrolet, quite nice inside. The 2.2L in the Cobalt is peppy if not particularly smooth or efficient, so I can see how it would be a step up in power from a 126 hp wagon weighing more than a Cobalt (Cobalt is 145 hp right?). My ex-gf had a Corolla (same 1.8L 126 hp as the Vibe/Matrix, albeit with less weight)... with the automatic, that car was a relative dog compared to my dad's 140 hp Civic with a 5-speed Auto. Pathetic low-end response, and it sounded like a Snapper Rear-Engine Rider on a good day. Superb interior quality seemed to abound, um, er, except for the large number of squeaks and rattles it had (2 years old, 25,000 miles last I drove it last October). The Corolla/Vibe/Matrix is NOT a car I would "choose" to drive - boring, slow, loud, with a very composed ride and great economy being its pluses.
Apparently, I'm tired after re-reading my post (it's a little bit mixed up, but I think my point comes across overall). A car company should not be based on one vehicle alone. Gosh, what if everyone based Honda as a company on the old Passport? Or Cadillac on the Cimarron? It would be idiotic to do so.
in comparison to the sedan, a more reliable car."
Sorry, that was my fault. I submitted the lone survey result to CR about our Maxx and it was all positive as there have been no problems with it.
Regarding Cobalt: i drove if for 3 days or so. What I liked, aside from more power is the quetness and smootheness of the ride. Being used to compact 4 bangers i didn't expect it to be that nice.
When I got my Vibe back it felt like it had solid steel rods for suspension
What partucular trim of Cobalt....don't know for sure. All I remember it didn't have any power stuff at all, must've been something basic, but with auto transmission.
Look...My point was very simple - unless you research a model that you buy it's easy to end up with a not impressive japanese car. Maybe overall there's a difference, but I would not call it decisive and thus making generalized approach not practically viable.
Another thing....Americans seems to be doing better nowdays than they were before. There's been enough crap cars made by americal auto industry in 90s...Cavaliers, Corsicas, Tauruses....you name it. If CR data is long term it must include a great deal of those.
And even the above statement deserves carefull analysis, because it's kinda mixed up and depends on a particular manufacturer. To me it seems (personal impression) GM is imporving, but Chrysler may not. Don't have a feel for Ford.
Then what about such Japanese manufacturers such as Suziki, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Nissan. Nissan's Sentra is a so-so car, Maxima's reliability is no more than about average, Mazda had it's problematic cars in the past...
Given all that, i think it's prudent to stop generalizing. It's the same as with Hundai....Common generalization in the past was that Koreans suck. Now, does current Sonata suck ? I don't think so.
i find this odd. i compared all V6 Malibus and V6 Accords for years 05 through 07 and found that Accords have consistently lower fuel mileage.
I used Ontario goverment test data for this comparision.
were your driving conditions identical ? i find that sometimes it's easy to make a mistake comparing different routes.
Let's go back in time and imagine we're having this discussion on 2005.
V6 Camry vs V6 Malibu. Camry - 210 hp (lowered to below 200 for 06), Malibu - 201. Torgue the same, but a on lower rpm for Malibu. Mileage about the same, 0-60: Camry 7.6, Maliby 7.8.
I fail to see much difference other than the price and depreciation. Well, ok 05 Camry's interior is nicer.
Ok, granted, Camry jumped ahead in 07...Malibu got a few more hp, but not as much. Good work on Toyota's part.
So, should we say rephase the statement than ... "Malibu lacks this and that compared to Camry in year 2007" ? The statement looses a lot of it's power now, does it not ?
It was the same commute; my parents got rear-ended in their 2003 Accord back in 2005, and had a rental until they bought their 2005.
For the record, I average about 30 MPG in my Accord on my typical route (7 miles stop 'n' go, 7 miles @ 70MPH interstate). I'll be honest, and say that I don't remember the exact figures the little Chevy got, but I remember being surprised at how we got better figures in our (then a 2003) Accord. Since, we have had a 2005, and I have a 2006 EX, and all get/got the same mileage for each driver.
Or we could just say that the Malibu lacks power compared to the Camry, since this discussion is typically about cars currently on the market.
The chevy would be my last choice.......cheap interior, not the greatest build quality, and so-so (boring) looks. I think most people would agree.
Also, if you want a very very fast car, you wouldn't by any of them.
As an experiment, why won't you ask me?... I think anybody is qualified to be a "someone" --- go ahead, ask away!...
route (7 miles stop 'n' go, 7 miles 70MPH interstate). I'll be
honest, and say that I don't remember the exact figures the little
Chevy got, but I remember being surprised
If you read the postings on the "Malibu MPG" board, you will probably
agree that 30 MPG is achievable (with the driving pattern of yours) in
any Malibu, which is a less economical car than Cobalt.
Also think about how you measured the rental Cobalt's fuel economy:
you probably only filled it once, with your 300 miles of cumulative
driving, right? In this case, you wouldn't know how much fuel was in
the tank in the beginning. Even a one gallon inaccuracy at this run
with Cobalt's economy would result in a noticeable error -- play with
the numbers yourself.
I am not saying that you were wrong, I am just pointing out certain
things you may want to think about.
The Malibu is a clearance rack car, best I can tell. You get a lot of product for the outlay, but it is on the clearance rack for a reason: nobody was willing to pay full price; it just wasn't desirable enough to the buying public.
Moving on...
If I can get higher than average EPA numbers in an Accord, I likely could in a Malibu, you are right. But at some point, the fact that the car is a 3.5L V6 with a 4-speed will catch up with it mileage-wise when comparing to a 2.4L 4-cyl with Variable Valve timing and a 5-speed.
That raises a question that I don't know the answer to...does the Malibu still come with the 2.2L Ecotec from the Cobalt? Or is the 3.5L standard now? I didn't know if any of that changed with the facelift the Malibu got recently. Thanks,
TheGrad