Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
What it is: The refreshed version of the Chevy Malibu, which is coming a year-and-a-half ahead of its originally scheduled arrival, and just 18 months after the car first launched. Under the mask hides a new fascia, which we believe will be brought in line with the wide-mouth look recently introduced on the Traverse. It’s possible we’ll also see a light upgrade for the interior, which would add higher-quality materials.
Why it matters: Because to shoppers, the Malibu doesn’t matter. Chevrolet botched the launch of the car, introducing the unimpressive hybrid version, the Eco, before models with conventional gasoline engines. All Malibu variants have bland, mediocre-quality interiors—according to Automotive News, the rear-seat setup will receive particular attention. Exterior styling is as thrilling as vanilla pudding, leaving the Malibu an anonymous entry in a mid-size segment where the Hyundai Sonata and the Ford Fusion, among others, offer real couture. Chevy needs the Malibu to be a success, not a wallflower.
2014 Chevrolet Malibu Spy Photos
Regards,
OW
IIRC, the seats on the Malibu are fairly thick. I guess they could always make them a bit thinner to free up some room. However, in doing so they run the risk of making the seats TOO thin, and uncomfortable.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the Malibu's style. While being a wallflower is not a goal they should be shooting for, there's still something to be said for a car that's attractive, without being in-your-face-edgy and spur-of-the-moment in styling. I'm not a fan of the Sonata's styling. Or the Camry, or Altima. However, people don't buy Camrys because of the styling. They buy them because they're predicable. For the most part. I have a feeling that none of them are going to wear very well. The Fusion, I have mixed feelings about. The Accord isn't exactly cutting edge, but it at least has a comfortable sort of familiarity about it, and wears its look well.
Similarly, I think the styling of the Malibu is okay. I think they just need to do something about that back seat, and get the MPG up a bit on their engines. The 22/34 rating of the standard 2.5 is nothing to rave about, although it equals the rating of the 2.5/auto in the Fusion that will probably power most examples. And it beats out the 200C, which is rated 21/29 with the 2.4/4-speed auto, and 20/31 with the 6-speed. It's still a bit below the Accord, Camry, and Altima though.
You and I both know the old GM would have slapped on big rebates and let it go stale for the next 7 years. Maybe 10.
The fact that they are working to make it better so soon is a radical departure.
Very good point; have to give GM credit for at least reacting quickly in this case and doing what is practical in a short time period.
We'll see if the radical redesign is a radical improvement. It may just be, if it addresses the problem areas.
I'd suggest reading Mustang Genesis, the relevant chapters in The Reckoning, or articles in Special Interest Autos and Collectible Automobile, as all of them give far more detailed and accurate accounts regarding the Mustang's conception and development than Wikipedia.
The "early Corvair line" means the first sedans and coupes that debuted in the fall of 1959. Thes cars failed to make the hoped-for impression on buyers compared to the Ford Falcon. But GM saved the car with the sporty Monza variant, which debuted in the spring of 1960.
The first Monzas were revolutionary for the domestic industry in that they were well-trimmed, sporty coupes aimed at people who wanted more than economy transportation (a role that was filled by the sedans and base coupes).
xrunner2: By no stretch of the imagination can anybody consider that the Beetle, Falcon, Valiant, Nash or Rambler were sports or sporty cars. Corvair offerings were 4-door, 2-door, station wagon, van and a convertible.
The original Monza was a success because none of the cars you listed competed directly with it. This is why Ford rushed the Falcon Futura coupe into production in 1961, and Chrysler offered the uplevel Valiant Signet hardtop coupe the same year. Both were attempts to compete with the new market uncovered by the Corvair Monza for low-cost compact coupes with bucket seats, uplevel trim and consoles.
xrunner2: In contrast, the roots of the production 1964.5 Ford Mustang was the mid-engine, 2-seat roadster. A sports car. Thus, Mustang genealogy as a sports car, the Corvair an economy car.
Ford executives considered the Mustang I sports car to be a dead end. It showed them what NOT to do. The Corvair Monza showed them the more lucrative path. There is no debate about this; the late Don Frey (considered by those within Ford to be the REAL father of the Mustang), as well as Sperlich and Iacocca, are all on the record regarding this.
xurnner2: Ford executives no doubt realized a new untapped market segment of sports or sporty cars and thus the development of the prototype Mustang I in 1961 and a working model driven at the U.S. Grand Prix in 1962. They discarded the mid-engine two seater as a production idea due to probable very limited buyer interest in this configuration.
Yes, because the Corvair Monza showed them the more lucrative path.
xrunner2: The front engine, rear drive, 4 passenger configuration was chosen for production due to parts availability and simplicity of engineering and likely broad appeal. Not a rear engine, rear drive as on Corvair. Ford's design decision was a home run.
You have to stop focusing on the rear-engine layout of the Corvair. That is ultimately irrelevant. What influenced Ford was the first Monza's package of bucket seats, sporty trim and console in a low-cost coupe. Just because the Monza had a rear-engine configuration and the Mustang didn't does not mean that Ford wasn't influenced by the Monza.
Ford tried to counter the Monza with the 1961 Futura, and then the 1963 1/2 Sprint, but these failed to make the desired impression among buyers. The relatively tall and narrow Falcon didn't translate as well into a sporty car, even with special trim, unlike the Corvair. Hence, the 1964 1/2 Mustang, with unique sheetmetal and a new name covering Falcon/Fairlane mechanicals.
xrunner2: This The Corvair design, in the long history of GM, has to be considered a flop. It was never repeated again by GM till this day in 2013.
The Corvair was selling 250-300,000 units per year until 1966. That hardly makes it a flop.
xrunner2: The first Mustang design is completely different from the Corvair design. Corvair did not influence the Mustang. Not in design, nor marketting.
The Monza's success influenced Ford's decision to move forward with what became the Mustang, and showed Ford what it needed to offer. There is no debate about this. Those involved with the development of the car have said this.
In which case you are wrong, too. Read the sources I cited to gain a better understanding of this issue.
andres3: First, quoting or relying on former Big 3 Auto Execs is like quoting or relying upon data from nitwits, retards, and other mentally challenged individuals. The Big 3 auto execs are about as incompetent a group as has ever been in place in corporate America. Wait, no, I take that back, they are the most incompetent.
You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Iacocca and Sperlich were responsible for some of the biggest successes in the history of the American automobile industry. To say that every American executive is stupid or incompetent is ridiculous, at best.
andres3: Big 3 auto executives don't know or understand the auto industry, and they certainly don't know or understand what they say, what they have said, or what they will say in the future.
Which, of course, is why the car conceived by Sperlich and Iacocca set a record for first-year sales and was one of the biggest successes in automotive history, and why, 20 years later, they hit upon a new category of vehicles for the domestic market with the Chrysler minivan, a segment in which Chrysler still leads.
andres3: Frankly, a bunch of monkeys could have done a better job making decisions by throwing darts at a board.
You appear to be confused - we aren't talking about the executives running BMC, Fiat and Renault in the 1970s and 1980s, Daimler-Benz and VW in the 1990s, or Peugoet-Citroen today.
That's not the old GM at all.
You and I both know the old GM would have slapped on big rebates and let it go stale for the next 7 years. Maybe 10.
The fact that they are working to make it better so soon is a radical departure.
The jury is out until they prove it to me. I don't know about you.
There's a lot of old GM in the Malibu launch.
Regards,
OW
The conventional model is better and cheaper.
Launch is extremely important, you know what they say about first impressions? Vehicle launch is the first impression on the entire industry. And they screwed it up.
IIRC, the only the vertical panels like door skins and fenders were plastic. The hood, roof and trunk were either aluminum or steel (can't recall) to meet crash test standards.
Those plastic panels also had problems with growth and shrinkage which is why panel gaps were something like 1/4" and hardly ever were consistent.
I also recall the reliability on them was really good for the first couple of years and they were 99.9% "American made" having only something like (2) components that were sourced from outside Countries...
Absolutely not IMO. In the 80's and 90's I sampled a lot of 4 cylinder cars and Honda was far superior to any domestic 4cyl and better than most others too.
I think that likely comes from there back ground with small engines. Motorcycles, power equipment, and marine engines etc.
Then roll out the volume models, which is what people actually buy.
I think the idea of teaming up with brands from markets that preferred small cars made sense. I'm not yet convinced that Daewoo was the best choice, but hopefully we see quick improvement like we have from Hyundai and Kia.
One area to focus on is weight - the Sonic would perform a lot better if it were lighter. The 1.4T could be tuned, do an SS and relaunch the pocket rocket.
Those plastic panels also had problems with growth and shrinkage which is why panel gaps were something like 1/4" and hardly ever were consistent.
I also recall the reliability on them was really good for the first couple of years and they were 99.9% "American made" having only something like (2) components that were sourced from outside Countries...
The hood, truck lid, and body shell were definitely aluminum and steel. So were the door frames which would definitely rust.
My wife, my SIL, my MIL, and a few friends had Saturns and they ranged from being okay to problematic with various issues.
My wife's '92 SL2 was reliable other than heavy oil use after 60-70k miles. My sister in-law bought a new '95 SC-1 that leaked trans fluid the first week she bought it. My MIL bought a '95 SL-2 which also had trans leak issues and was just a crude car by that time. It rode rough, was loud, and fit-n-finish was non existent. A friend of mine bought his wife an SC-1 the first year with the 3rd door. They ended up returning it under the (return policy) because the dealer couldn't fix water leaks around the 3rd door. The replacement wasn't much better and they didn't keep it long either.
IMO, Saturn was a failure. It was a good idea which in typical GM fashion was poorly executed due to GM's toxic culture. Like some have mentioned, Saturn was successful in the beginning (though I don't think it was ever financially successful). They had a cult like following with their yearly owner meetings in Spring Hill and consumer focused dealerships and purchase process. RV'ers liked them because they could be towed w/o disconnecting a drive shaft or raising the drive wheels off the ground etc.
But what started off as something different and successful was quickly killed by the managers of GM's other divisions. They acted like a bunch of bratty spoiled kids that felt like they shouldn't have to share resources and attention. Saturn died the day they started using parts from the GM parts bin and just became another GM brand.
My MIL looked at Saturn again after her '95 was needing replaced. By that time it was the Ion. Neither my MIL and FIL were remotely impressed and my MIL ended up buying a Camry and now they're even more impressed with Toyota.
I personally think GM should get into WRC. Ford is learning a lot about suspension and chassis tuning by being in WRC in addition to touring car racing and NASCAR. GM participates in NASCAR and WTCC but not WRC.
I'm only talking 4 cylinder engines. Yeah, GM certainly countered with v6 powered cars.
No, it will be sold to men who's wives say "You're not getting that thing, get this so I can use it to get groceries and pick up the kids too!" :shades:
To long;)
Europe won't be booming for several years, I don't think the timing is right for WRC.
Hey, they worked.
GM missed this season for WRC, but the Sonic would be an interesting rally platform if they can cut some of the weight, and the 1.4L Turbo engine is a good starting point, since current WRC rules limit things to 1.6L displacement. They could easily make the 2015 season, and could maybe squeak into 2014. Hyundai's going in in 2014 (and they really need to also, they have NO idea how to do sport chassis, steering, OR suspension).
True
Remember the superbirds? I'm no Dodge fan but they were playing by the rules.....hey Ford and GM cant keep up you gotta go.
The so called "stock cars" they run now please, go buy a V8 RWD Chevy Impala with a carb....what you cant?
Technologies like pushrod V8s, 4 speed manual transmissions, recirculating ball steering, and (until 2012) carburetors, and now port fuel injection.
In the meantime, WRC uses turbocharged 4 cylinder DOHC engines, DCTs, rack and pinion, and direct injection.
Tell me, which racing spec is more in line with where the market is again? :shades:
Do manufacturers really have anything to do with building a WRC car/team other than sponsoring and providing the money for the race teams to do the work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_2000
My younger daughter (born in 1987) had a classmate whose parents could have easily been the Saturn "ministers of propaganda" for the first few years of production. At any event where either was present, the subject of how great Saturns were always arose.
By the time the girls reach High School, their attitude had started to change, and talk resembling dissatisfaction was much more common. By the time the girls graduated, her parents had moved on from Saturn to non-GM brands.
The problems that I recall hearing them speak of were mainly drive train issues, especially transmission woes and poor response from the dealership/Saturn on repairs and related expenses. Also, by that time frame, Saturn had pretty much become American Opel and moved away from the original promise Saturn espoused.
I remember other folks that owned Saturns who were no different than the average car owner, but this couple really stood out. If I had a condensed time-lapse video of the discussions over the years, it would be an excellent demonstration of how one can lose faith in a brand/product over the years.
I responded due to your Hyundai example. I would presume that they would leave the engineering and design to the pros.
At some point after they got married, they bought a Vue. And, it must have served them well, as they now have an Outlook. However, at this point, I don't know if they're Still Saturn-huggers or not. My uncle was always a Ford guy, and has had several F-series trucks over the years (and still has one), as well as an 80's Bronco. But I guess when he decided he needed an economy car, the Saturn impressed him enough to lure him in.
Good low end torque allowed tall gearing, which is how the Corvette got a 25 mpg rating on EPA highway. Not bad given the performance.
Even with modern tech they're not doing significantly better now.
That's because they're using that modern tech to get more performance out of the cars. Plus, the engines have gotten a bit bigger. At some point they quit using 350's and went to a 6.0, which I think is around 365 CID? And now they're using a 6.2, which probably comes out to around 375-378 CID.
And, all things considered, they're still surprisingly economical. The 2013, with the base 6-speed stick, is rated at 16/26. If you go way back to 1985, under the current rating system, the stick is only rated 15/20, and the automatic is 15/21.
The Corvette even offers a monstrous 7.0 Liter, which is probably around 425-427 CID, which gets 15/24.
It does kinda make you wonder though...if they had taken all of the technological advancement since 1985 and applied it toward fuel economy, rather than performance, what kind of mpg it would get today? Of course, then we'd have to put up with a Corvette that takes a long 5-6 seconds to get from 0-60 with the stick, and probably 6-7 with the automatic.
Except for the 5.3 which replaced the Vortec 350 in the trucks and SUVs. The 5.3 gained HP vs the 350 but is short on torque. All the power is at high rpm with the 5.3 vs. 5.7. I think the 350 torque output peaked at 2,500rpm or so vs over 4k for the 5.3.
AFAIK, their Vue has been very reliable, but I can't say how many miles it has on it. I remember liking its looks when I first saw it.
'01 L200
'03 L300
'05 VUE
'06 ION
'08 VUE
The only one left is the '06 ION - my daily driver.
A few personal observations about Saturn ---
The dealership experience was second to none. My wife loved buying Saturns, since the process was so easy (all but the '01 L200 were bought new).
Service was great, too. Felt like a member of an extended family every time one of our vehicles was brought into the dealership.
The reliability of the cars was average - the '03 L300, especially, cost quite a bit to maintain after the warranty was up.
The panel gaps were tough to get used to, but knowing that you weren't going to get any parking lot dings sort of made up for that.
Overall, I was kinda sad to see Saturn "assimilated by the Borg" that was GM. I always thought it should have offered more Euro-flavored products (the Astra and Sky were too-little, too-late, IMO). But, I understood that the finances made it close to impossible for GM to continue with "a different type of car".
RIP.
Yes, but their finances didn't make it possible to continue with "the same old types of cars", either.
IMHO Saturn was a huge missed opportunity that they squandered.
IMHO Saturn was a huge missed opportunity that they squandered.
Agreed .. GM couldn't, or wouldn't, deal with the myriad of issues that they faced since the mid 1960's.
Saturn could have been much more euro focused in their product line, if GM had decided to bring over the right models.
Back in 2006 I wrote a document that outlined the Vauxhall (Opel) lineup and opined whether or not that model should come to the US:
Agila - Rebadged Daewoo. Surprisingly, I think this might be too small for the US Market, but if the Smart car gets some traction, I suppose an argument could be made for offering it as a 'city' car.
Corsa - As has already been mentioned, a new version is just being released, and GM is stating that the "next" iteration will be brought over to the US around 2010. Would compare with the Fit, Yaris, etc.
Meriva - Small MPV - smaller than the Mazda 5. Might be able to compete with the likes of the Scion xB. Looks nice and is quite configurable, seating-wise.
Tigra - Hardtop convertible, but looks to be a 2-seater. Probably not meant for Saturns' lineup, what with the Sky.
Astra - Will be brought over as the ION replacement starting next fall. World class car; lets hope GM doesn't screw it up for the US market. Will be offered as a 3-door and a 5-door.
Astra Twin Top - Another hardtop convertible, but this one has 4 seats. Might make life difficult for the VW Eos and Pontiac G6 Convertible, so bring it on!
Zafira - An MPV that is larger than the Meriva, and available with 7 seats. This one would compete with the Mazda 5 quite nicely.
Vectra - See Aura.
Signum - See Malibu Maxx, but with way better styling, IMO.
Monaro - Pontiac GTO; probably not for Saturn.
Service was great, too. Felt like a member of an extended family every time one of our vehicles was brought into the dealership.
As your experience points out, a great dealer can overcome a mediocre product (not that yours was mediocre, but that many buyers will return again and again to a dealer - the "face" of the manufacturer - even if the product isn't superb).
Many domestic -3 auto owners/buyers eventually got fed up with being taken for granted by their local dealerships (I remember the local Pontiac dealer my dad bought from for years telling him "I'm not worried about you going anywhere else...". He should have been worried, because my dad, like so many others, DID go elsewhere).
Foreign make dealers were hungry, and many offered a higher level of service and customer relations, which, along with well manufactured products, put the squeeze on the big-3 over the years.
It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to keep an existing customer than it is to go out and find a new one...
Prior to the Saturns, the wife and I bought / leased 4 Fords and 1 VW. Once we became accustomed to the Saturn way of selling, it was easy for us to go back - again and again.
Would we have remained with Saturn had GM kept the brand alive? Possibly - the product wasn't so bad that we felt we had to go somewhere else. One of the Saturns was traded in for a MINI (also from a 'no haggle' dealer) and another was traded in for a Mazda.
As previously mentioned, only the '06 ION remains. 83K and still on the original brake pads. The only major issue I've had with it was that the rear struts had to be replaced a year or so ago. Every time I take it to my local shop for maintenance, they tell me what good shape the car is in, mechanically.
Well, I did, the last time I filled up my Ram. 12.3 mpg, in mostly local driving. In all fairness though, with the onset of winter, and the ultra-short trips it's had to endured, would probably kill the economy of any car. I usually put my antique cars up for the winter, but there was one year I had to press my '79 5th Ave into somewhat regular service. In that type of driving, I was getting around 8-9 mpg! And my '85 Silverado would probably get about the same.
So, even there, you can see the improvement over the years, with a modern 345 CID engine with something like 380 hp using 1/4-1/3 the amount of fuel that a 165 hp 305, or a 150 hp 360, uses.
There have been times that I've sunk the fuel economy of my 2000 Park Ave into the 15 mpg range, as well, this time of year.
People will remember the experience more than any model. Will any Saturn ever be collectible? Think about it.
Haven't you been spouting over and over that the Camaro often outsells the Mustang?
And I think it's been well established on this forum and everyone has already agree that the Minivan is a dead concept that didn't last and there's no room in the market for more than the 2 good one's that already exist with Honda and Toyota (and hence why everyone's exited the short-lived market for it).
"•Dodge Grand Caravan is the best-selling minivan in United States with 141,648 units sold in 2012, a 28 percent increase over previous year
•Chrysler Town & Country sells 111,744 units in 2012, an 18 percent increase over previous year
•Chrysler Group LLC sold 253,392 minivans in 2012, a 23 percent increase, and nearly half of all minivans sold in the U.S. in 2012"
Dodge Grand Caravan takes the minivan sales crown for 2012 (The Auto Channel)
You mean the Geo Prisms sourced from Toyota with a Geo emblem and grille on them differentiating them?
I know the Metro's didn't have a good rep in my parts.
Hmmm... maybe there is room for GM to re-enter the market then. A Pontiac Aztek with sliding doors won't cut it though.