Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2000-2011 Chevrolet Malibu



  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Edmunds hasn't tested the Camry with it's tweaked engine, but it did test 2002 Camry when it was 192HP and came up with 0-60 time 8.1, quarter mile in 16.3 seconds and 1/4 mile top speed 85.8 mph.

    The Taurus with Duratec was tested in 2000 by Edmunds and tested at 0-60 time 8.3 seconds, quarter mile in 16.3 seconds and 1/4 mile top speed of 86.7 mph. So Camry had a little better acceleration in the low end, Taurus a little better in top end, basically nearly a wash.

    I don't know how new Malibu will stack up. Likely Camry numbers for their 3.0 L tweaked are slightly better than when it was 192 HP, and their SE with the 3.3 better yet. Still, I wouldn't buy one as Camry gets too pricey when you drop a V-6 into them and I think they look kinda ugly.

    Honda and Nissan seem to be trying to win the V-6 family sedan HP race these days.

    Still, how often do you wide open throttle accelerate in the real world?
  • dan165dan165 Posts: 653
    I saw a review of the new Malibu in the Toronto Star this past weekend. It was very positive on the car in general. I think I read 0-60 was tested at 7.9 with the 3.5L V6 Malibu LT.

    While I think the new Malibu is kind of dull looking, Camrys and Accords are nothing to write home about either. That's part of the reason I opted for an 04 Grand Prix.
    Still, I think GM has a winner with the Malibu. Lots of interesting features, class leading fuel economy and very competitive pricing should give it a big sales boost.
  • looks like a toad. Very unattractive. At least the back looks better than the "Bu classic's." But then again, my face (believe it or not) is somewhat prettier than my butt, and I cover my butt. The bottom line, Classic Bu looks better!

    And what's with this fashion of having the headlights extend almost all the way to the windshield? Almost all carmakers embraced this new "design." Now Toyotas, Fords, Hondas, and the new Bu - they all look like they are suffering from constipation :-)
  • maxx4memaxx4me Posts: 1,340
    agreed. the front of the Bu isn't great. The Maxx is simply mediocre. "Butt" I must say, the Accord is the worst looking thing on the road. I can't decide if I hate the front or rear more. The interior is very nice. Once again, Japan forgot to call Chrysler and ask for their advice on how to build a nice looking exterior.
  • Jeep/Chrysler makes GREAT looking vehicles which have very crappy quality, while the Japanese make ugly but high-quality cars. I guess these days you have to shell 200K to get a car which both looks nice and doesn't break every two months
  • $1,000 cash back on the new 'Bu already. Told you so!!

    Link below.
  • maxx4memaxx4me Posts: 1,340
    and the TL is 100% better looking than the Accord. I guess the postman must have paid a visit when the Accord was conceived!
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    i think they're by far the worst reviewers on the planet (regardless if Anita thinks the accord is the best midsize family sedan). they don't even get their facts straight. an accord v6 starts at 23k, not $26k.
  • venus537venus537 Posts: 1,443
    keep the links for the road tests coming. i'm reading them all.
  • Another Honda guy tracking the reviews of the Bu. I hope they make the ecotec available with a 5spd manual in later years. Also from a styling viewpoint, those front lamps should be lowered, and the bar through the grill eliminated. I like what I'm reading about the 4cyl model being agile.

    Now will it last 100K without major expense. I'll follow this vehicle until the 2nd-3rd model year before considering a switch back to the bow-tie.
  • maxx4memaxx4me Posts: 1,340
    by the way...just ran past my Chevy new Bu in site. They keep chasing me away because my nose keeps fogging up their showroom glass as I peek inside

    That's a good one!

    Keep your nose clean!
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Posts: 619
    I stopped by a Tucson Chevy dealer today, and they had a new LT in the showroom, that came into the dealership last night. They wouldn't let me drive it, but I checked it out pretty thoroughly. The styling is unimaginative at best, and the interior looks kinda cheap, but I liked the appearance of the seats. Unfortunately, the faux suede "leather" is pretty clingy. Don't know that I'd like that. There is plenty of headroom, even with the sunroof. Seats were reasonably comfortable. It would be nice if they had power recline, instead of manual, but I could live with that. I am surprised that they provided both tilt and telescope steering wheel AND power pedal adjustment. Does anyone else do that? I really liked the "sport shift" feature. The most surprising thing was the EPA mileage rating on the window sticker: 23/32, which is better than the published figures I've seen and the same as a Camry 4 cylinder. Pretty amazing. The trunk is nice sized and nicely done, with nets on each side walling off storage areas behind the wheel wells. The rear seat backs are easily reclined using levers in the trunk. The salesman said that there is already a $1000 incentive on the things! Looks like you could get an LT for at least $3000 less than a Camry XLE 4 cylinder, comparably equiped (or as close as you can get it.) Got to give GM credit: that's aggressive pricing. The salesman said they'd be getting several more cars in in the next 10 days, when I'll be able to get a test drive.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    according2me : Ecotec is already proven technology, it's been out for 4-5 years. I have not heard of any trouble what so ever.

    rcf8000 : The mileage on both the 4 and 6 are suppose to be class leading. The electric steering helps the car do this. I have seen the car only from the out side and while it's nothing very exciting, neither is much of the competition. Thanks for the post.
  • Apparently dindak has not seen a Mazda6. Many find it exciting, exterior and driving-wise.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    If you read more carefully you would see I said much, I didn't say all.

    I have said many times I like the 6 styling though I have not driven one.
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    So Bc, are you saying that it should be just the same to style an entry level mid-size as an entry level lux that will easily go for 10 to 15k more?

    What does extra money get you, if not better styling?

    If you want the real pretty Epsilon based car, get the Malibu's cousin, the Saab 9-3, or wait for the Grand Am replacement.

    The new 'bu is lunch bucket conservative as Chevy sells to lunch bucket conservative people. Don't see how that is a draw back.
  • I think they intentionally made Malibu front look like SUV. Max to remsemble SUV even more.

    My guess is they cannot make thing too exiting, because Grand Am replacement is supposed to be one. Neither Camcordus are. Still wonder why GM is using shiny cheap looking plastic in places you see most. They have to hire expert to choose right materials in right places, or it is not that simple ? But Japanese (even Ford) do that.
  • The price has almost nothing to do with styling. It doesn't take a billion to design a good looking car, and there are plenty expensive freaks out there (Jaguar with its toilet-like radiator, for example. Every time I see one, I was to unzip and urinate in there). Mid-size family sedans are supposed to be pleasing to as many people as possible, so conservative styling is understandable, but it just seems that the designers are not using the side of their brains responsible for imagination, and it's just too bad. I can live with a "boring" looking car, but I can't and won't drive a toad
  • maxx4memaxx4me Posts: 1,340
    thanks so much for the post rcf. I can't wait until it is my turn! How about the engine though? Did you take a look to see where the oil filter was, and if the engine was self-serviceable (ie: easily layed out, with room to work?)
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    the curves in the TSX sheet metal, which I assume are what you like about its styling, are more expensive to machine, execute and manufacture. That is why less expensive autos tend to be more boxy than more expensive autos.
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Posts: 619
    I didn't look at the engine.
  • Are you saying that unless a car has expensive curves, it could not be pretty? The current Bu is VERY attractive except the behind. And it's cheap compared to the competition.
  • vcjumpervcjumper Posts: 1,110
    I think thats a bit of overstatement but to each their own. The grille and headlight size are less obnoxious than the 04 for sure.

    I do notice on some economy cars like the previous Neon and the Cavalier, the sheet metal seems less smooth on the curvy parts of the doors. Almost like dings but not.
  • Look at asian cars or even VW. Exterior made better than Mercedes or Volvo (but Mercedes and Volvo are not paragons of quality anymore). I think it doesn't matter luxury car or not. E.g. Toyota makes the same high quality regardless of the price. Only materials may be cheaper. BTW Taurus is very curvy what wasn't easy to accomplish at a time.
  • I think I am quite unbiased when it comes to automotive beauty :-) I think the Bu "Classic," especially before they started putting a horizontal metal bar on the grille in 2000 (I think), is a very good looking vehicle up front and from both sides, with the butt looking very bland.

    Porshe Cayenne, on the other hand...hehehe
  • I take my car in tomorrow morning for the oil leak. I'll let ya know what turns up (please let it be the intake manifold gasket).
  • If that makes you feel any better, not so long ago I put the shifter into D instead of R, hit the gas, and my Bu had a very steamy kiss with a support beam in the parkade. The mechanic was so impressed that he charged me $1300 CAD to fix it. It's probably more than what the car is worth!!!
This discussion has been closed.