2008-2009 Chevrolet Malibu

1101113151630

Comments

  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    On the GM Canada site the 2LT model offers a performance package for a breathtaking $3170. It includes:

    Engine: 3.6L V6 VVT
    Horsepower: (hp / kw @ rpm): 252 / 188 @ 6,300.Torque (lb.-ft. / Nm @ rpm): 251 / 341 @ 3,200.
    Transmission: 6-Speed Automatic
    Includes driver shift controls (steering wheel mounted paddles, with 2nd gear start).
    Dual Chrome Exhaust Tips
    18" Ultra-Bright Sport Alloy
    Tires: P225/50R18 BW Touring AS
    Hydraulic Power Steering

    I presume everything (except the price) would be the same in the USA since they all come off the same assembly line.
  • bmarkbmark Member Posts: 52
    Yes we have the same Package in the States, except that is $2060 down here.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    Why the price difference? Have they not adjusted for the weak U.S. Dollar? If I lived in Canada I'd be a bit torqued on that one.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    image
    image
    image
  • aa5byaa5by Member Posts: 3
    Noted in your post on the performance package was hydraulic power steering. This might be something I wished we had on our 2LT with 4 cyl. Let me say quickly, that my observations are very preliminary with only one outing of 200 miles on the interstate and it with a 15mph cross wind. Around town, I've no issues with the electric power steering but I didn't find a feel for the steering in those 200 miles of interstate at 70 mph. It could have been the cross wind or that more time is needed. I'd like to hear what others think on this.

    One other thing that does bother me (a lot) is the speedometer. Whoever designed it, should be demoted to janitor. Because it is graduated to 140 mph, there was no space for 5 mph increments... and it is extremely difficult to dial in 55 for example or to find 25 or 35mph school zones speeds. I can't believe this got past testing. Perhaps it is no issue for younger drivers but it drives this geezer nuts.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    I'm sure the 08's are better than the previous platform. I moved to an 05 Maxx from a Hyundai Elantra which was also a relatively soft-sprung car. It took me at least 3000 miles to get used to the electric steering (also the larger size). Eventually I got to like it, it does increase mileage. The one thing I don't like with electric steering is the problems with failing steering columns and racks. The column replacement cost me a bit over $1000. No further problems but some people have replaced several. The 05's were better than the 04's and I haven't seen much problem with the 06's and 07's (think the 07's went to hydraulic with the sixes, i.e. all Maxxes). There were definitely some first year problems with the 04's in a number of areas, hopefully the new 'Bu's will be reliable from the git-go.

    I did buy two first year Korean cars (Elantra and Optima) and had absolutely no trouble with them, nor did I hear any negative feedback from other owners. That is not the case with the 04 Malibus.

    On the other hand I like my Maxx a lot and would have no hesitancy about buying a new Malibu.
  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    I took a test drive in an '08 Malibu today after a call from my dealer inviting me over. The sales guy said they were just starting to get some into inventory after being in very short supply, and that GM Canada is planning a launch event in January. The lot was filled with '07s and they looked positively dumpy next to the '08 -- he said they were keeping the '08s hidden on the back lot because it would make it next to impossible to sell the '07s if the '08s were on display.

    The '08 is a very nice looking car -- mine, a 1LT, had the extra-cost red metallic paint and with the chrome wheels and bright trim it really stood out. The car looks long and low, though I had no trouble getting in. The interior in this example was gray ("titanium") cloth with silver dash trim. I hate gray interiors and this was no different, but for a gray interior it was nice enough. There was the requisite stainless-look plastic trim scattered throughout to break the monotony. Lots of storage cubbies scattered throughout, and I liked the dual-cove dash design. The trunk is very large, although the opening is pretty small due to the short, narrow lid.

    However, just as in the Aura, I found the interior claustrophobic. It seemed to be a couple of inches tight in the width department, and visibility was not as good as my existing car (Olds Intrigue) due to the high cowl, low roof, and narrow side windows. I could live with it, but wasn't crazy about it. I tried the back seat and found it barely habitable. My head was touching the headliner and I had to tuck my feet and knees in the narrow well made by scooping out the front seatbacks -- not a very comfortable space.

    On the road, though, the car was impressive. The 4-cylinder had more than adequate punch, and the handling and steering felt very secure. It rode very nicely, and the thing that impressed me most was the quiet. It was very serene, much quieter than the Intrigue. Considering it has a 4-banger, this amazed me the most.

    All in all, a very nice car. Would I buy one? I'd say I'm less likely after driving it than I was beforehand because of the tight interior, but I wouldn't rule it out. Unfortunately the dealer is trying to milk the situation with no dealing at all and a miserly trade-in allowance, but that's not surprising. But even if they were willing to deal I dunno if I would chase it. I am used to more interior room.
  • mazda6dudemazda6dude Member Posts: 283
    I have always bought imports, but I think this Malibu is excellent. Its definitely a import fighter. I currently drive a 2007 Nissan Altima Hybrid and have decided to trade it in next year and buy a 2008 Chevy Malibu LT. Go Chevy Malibu!
  • charts2charts2 Member Posts: 618
    Not only is there a huge difference in the cost of the vehicle (Malibu/Impala etc) Canada/USA.......check out the shipping/freight difference.......$650 US to anywhere in the USA.......$1,250 Canadian shipping in Canada......another rip off that applies to all cars made in North America.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    I'm sure your Altima Hybrid will depreciate less than my Maxx or Optima, but any one year old trade is going to cost in a big way. Why are you getting rid of it?
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    When the Loony was cheap, I thought Canadian cars cost a bit less. In fact, I remember some comments about "is it possible to go to Canada and bring back a car?", What happened? Did they fail to adjust prices for the difference in exchange rates? If true, you are getting ripped off.
  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    Csandste, you're right. Back when the Cdn dollar was 65 cents US, Americans would come to Canada and bring cars back to the USA. Now that it is at par, the automakers have not adjusted prices accordingly so Canadians pay an excessive price. There is now a booming trade in bringing US cars into Canada, one which manufacturers are fighting not by reducing prices, but instead by refusing to honor US warranties in Canada and instructing dealers in border areas not to sell to Canadians. It's a huge PR black eye for them.
  • mazda6dudemazda6dude Member Posts: 283
    My gas mileage is not that great. I was getting 37MPG overall, but I am getting 32-34MPG overall now and I have less than 10,000 miles on it. I used to own a Mazda6 and it got 29MPG. Plus, I have heard and read when lithium ion battery hybrids will come out, my resale value will tank and hybrids depreciate faster then gas cars. Any thoughts? I really like the new malibu and every review I have read about it has been very good. Hopefully there will be some rebates so I can get a LT1 for around $20K or less. You think there will be rebates soon?
  • mrsyjmrsyj Member Posts: 77
    The Malibu did very well in the edmunds consumer test. Out of 6 people I think 3 placed the Malibu in first place. They all seemed to agree the styling was superior to the Accord and Camry and several said the Malibu had the best interior of the group. The Malibu did far better in the consumer test than in Edmunds test.
  • lukeburgerlukeburger Member Posts: 4
    With the two-tone cocoa/cashmere leather option, is the only trim option available the faux dark wood or can you get the aluminum as is equipped in the ebony/brick interior?
  • mrsyjmrsyj Member Posts: 77
    wood comes with that interior as far as I know. You cannot substitute the trim from the darker interior.
  • jimmyfjimmyf Member Posts: 7
    Thanks for your review and comments! In particular, I note your comments about interior space being tight. I test drove an Intrigue back in '99 and was not impressed -- seemed small and cramped inside. I'm seriously thinking about the Malibu, but if it's claustrophobic inside, coupled with visibility problems, well...maybe I'll keep looking.

    The Pontiac G8 seems like an interesting newcomer!
  • lostwrenchlostwrench Member Posts: 288
    I test drove the new Malibu and found there to be a lot of room inside. I don't know how the interior could be labeled as claustrophobic. :confuse:
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    The back seat is tight for anyone around 6ft or taller. That's small compared to Camry and Accord.
  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    There seems to be a disconnect with reviewers when it comes to the new Malibu's interior room. Some reviews describe the interior as spacious. But that wasn't my experience at all. While the front cabin is OK in the space dept., it is definitely a bit narrower than the Intrigue's. The rear compartment is definitely tighter, almost ridiculously so for a car of that size. I can't understand how some reviewers have failed to comment on that. I know I couldn't spend much time back there. To me it seems only suitable for kids or small folks (I'm 6'0").

    If you found the Intrigue interior tight, the Malibu seems even tighter because of the window configuration. The Intrigue follows the 1990s philosophy of a low cowl and lots of glass, while the Malibu is in line with the current style of high cowl and sills and small window areas. That makes a tight interior feel even less spacious.
  • paopao Member Posts: 1,867
    I didnt find the interior smaller....just the perception that it is based on the cockpit styling I will call it..currently in an 04 Maxx..which is has a relatively flat dashboard across the front as opposed to the new Malibu..which is more contoured.....is how I would describe it......

    also owning a Pontiac Solstice.....this "effect" doesnt really bother me......even the new Cadillac CTS as that wrap around feel to it......as for the rear seating...6-1 here....and I always sit in the back..after I adjust the front seating to my liking...while I found I had more room in my Maxx.....I wasnt uncomfortable in the back of the new malibu either.....I felt there was sufficient room for a mid level sedan of this type.....again just another opinion
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    EPA Size Comparisons (Cu. Ft.)
    07 Malibu Maxx 106
    08 Accord 106
    Sonata 105
    Optima 104
    07 Accord 103
    07 Malibu 101
    Camry 101
    Elantra 98
    08 Malibu 95

    EPA space configurations don't tell it all. I have a Maxx and an Optima. The Maxx seems much larger because it has more leg room, however it's narrower and lower than the Optima. Unless I crowd 3 in the back, the Maxx seems bigger.

    The new 'Bu is pretty small however. I think it's 57 inches tall which isn't low, but headroom didn't feel great when I sat in it. According to the EPA, it's smaller than an Elantra.

    Still like the new Malibu, however. A decade ago, none of the midsize cars were much larger.
  • mrsyjmrsyj Member Posts: 77
    I have the Aura and like the Malibu it has a high beltline and what appears to be a low roof. The legroom in the Malibu is fine for anyone 6' or smaller as is the headroom. You wont have great headroom if you're taller than that though. The Accord and Camry are a little bigger in the back, but for most people the Malibu is just fine. Rear legroom is excellent and the cutouts in the back of the front seats make it even better. In addition, there is plenty of room for the feet of backseat passengers under the front seats.
  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    The cutouts in the seatbacks are the only thing that let me even get into the back seat -- otherwise I would have to sit sideways. But you can't sit with your knees and feet tucked into those little spaces for very long. It's just intolerable for more than a few minutes. No way would I describe rear legroom as excellent. Just the opposite. And I'm 6' tall. My point is that I can fit comfortably in the back seat of the Intrigue, but not in the Malibu.
  • rvothrvoth Member Posts: 147
    I too find the new Malibu rear seat less than adequate for a 6'0 220lb male. I too adjusted the drivers seat first then sat behind to check out the room. Must be the tall upper body i have but i could seat like that for a long road trip. My 05 Malibu rear seat has more room in the height department, but less legroom than the 08 Malibu. I would prefer my 05 over the 08.

    Hey pao why are you so interested with this car ???? Haven't you purchased that Thundergray CTS DI yet . Is the financing at 1.5 % worth it ,buying something that you might not fully like and might end up trading in two years !! I would go with the titanium interior and factory order it so you will be satisfied .

    My first car, the sales person said that 60 to 70 % of return sales were people that purchased a vehicle that DIDN'T have exactly what they wanted. Not the right color of interior,options or financing was low . After a couple of years they later purchased the car they desired to have. I agree this ,that's why I keep my cars for a very long time..........eighteen years.. my opinion. :)
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    It noticed that also. I think it would be fine for more than a few minutes, but it isn't nearly as good as the new Accord and Camry.
    I noticed it as a problem when I was in the back seat and I tried to scoot over and exit out the other door. My legs were getting caught up in the lack of space

    It probably really doesn't matter since how likely is a tall driver going to ride in the back seat of his own car?
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-to-offer-bluetooth-by-2009-model-year.html

    GM has finally stopped fighting bluetooth by saying you can just use OnStar to make hands free calls. Many 2009 models will have bluetooth, but I'm not sure that includes the 2009 Malibu.
    Since it will be on 30 models, there is a reasonable chance that it might include the Malibu.
  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    This makes no difference to me as I despise cellphones and am loathe to use one at any time, but I wonder if the trend I'm seeing in Canada of governments banning the use of even handsfree phones in cars will spread to the USA and make bluetooth a moot point anyway.
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Member Posts: 936
    Geez...maybe soon we wont be able to talk to someone in the passenger seat.Sounds like 1984. I can understand not allowing the regular use of a cel phone while driving...but hands free?????????? :confuse:
  • mrsyjmrsyj Member Posts: 77
    my parents have an intrigue and I dont find the legroom to be superior. The official measurements dont show that either. The Aura has more legroom than the Intrigue if I am not mistaken. Very few midsize cars are comfortable for those 6" and up if a tall driver is in the front seat. If you find the Accord to be "much" larger perhaps that is the car for you. I am 5" 10" and rarely sit in the back of my own car, but I can fit there easily.
  • mrsyjmrsyj Member Posts: 77
    gm was never "fighting" bluetooth. The STS has had it for years. GM was merely giving a response to those who asked about it. If you dont have a feature you have to say something and they noted that Onstar can be used for handsfree calling. It will likely take a significant change to GM's electronics to handle BT and this likely why its taken so long to be introduced. Since most GM vehicles use the same headunit NONE of those vehicles could have BT until GM made it compatible or came out with a new BT compatible headunit. We will see next year how they resolved the issue. For the record you couldnt get BT on most lower end import cars until recently and in many of them you can only get it with navigation.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    image

    The back seat truly is too tight for tall rear passengers to be comfortable. They only question is is it too small for the passengers that are likely to ride back there.
    I will not be riding back there and I do not anticipate anyone as tall or taller than me to ride in back. Average height and short rear passengers will be comfortable enough until they start looking for a center armrest on a long trip.
    So, the smallish rear seat isn't a deal breaker on its own for me.

    Check out this link and watch the video interview from Rick Bancroft:

    http://www.edmunds.com/advice/buying/articles/123972/article.html#
  • beach15beach15 Member Posts: 1,305
    Agreed. My grandmother has an Intrigue, and though not cramped, it certainly suffers from the typical ancient W-body architecture that squeezes in on the rear seat. The Intrigue is probably the best in the rear, especially versus a Grand Prix, etc., but still nothing hugely great.

    In comparison, I just had a last gen '07 Malibu 1LT rental for a month and with the same/similar seats and general size of the new '08...at 6'3", I found the front extremely roomy and comfortable and the rear seat was at just the right height and angle that I was just as comfortable in the back. If a front seat is really pushed back, it closes in, but overall quite spacious. Which is why it kind of is also odd to me that Malbu and cramped/narrow/etc. are in the same sentence. No, maybe not as boat-like as a new Accord, etc., but that's a good thing in many other regards--it hits a happy medium for most people, without being a tank on the outside.

    Or, suffering, like the Impala from being larger on the outside but smaller and more cramped inside due to the old W-body architecture. That one still gets me. It's not a small car, but with the old guts, it just feels too small inside, especially rear seat in comparison.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    The last gen. 'Bu may have been plug ugly but it's layout made it seem even larger than its capacity figures would indicate. The new model is just the opposite. I guess you can't have it all. I'll probably run my Maxx into the ground. The rear seats which are on tracks and partially recline are especially nice.
  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    The '07 Malibu and the '08 model share only the name. The '07's rear seat may well be roomy, I don't know, I've never been in one. But the '08 is on a different platform than the '07 and the rear seat is very cramped.
  • menolikeumenolikeu Member Posts: 1
    The 08 Malibu seems to be tapered towards the top instead of being as boxy as the 2007's. This would account for the perception of feeling smaller than the 07 malibu's. It is a little tougher for a tall person to be comfortable in the back, unless there are shorter people in the front. All in all, it is a very nice car.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    It wouldn't make any sense to put the tallest people in back, but if you need a vehicle to transport groups or tall people, this is the wrong vehicle.

    image
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    Yes, GM was fighting bluetooth. The STS is the single exception and is one of their most expensive vehicles in a huge lineup of vehicles.
    Bluetooth is a competitor for GM's fee for use OnStar cell service plan with Verizon that generates income.
    They have resisted it for as long as they could.

    See the link below:

    http://njection.com/blogs/jalopnik/archive/2007/12/20/onstar-no-longer-general-s- -only-bff-gm-to-add-bluetooth-by-2009-gadgets.aspx
  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    Great pics.

    Something I didn't notice on my test drive is apparent in your pics. The front seatbacks appear very thick. Now, they have hollowed out those little pockets in the rear of the seatbacks, but in my experience that doesn't work very well in terms of comfort. I wonder why they couldn't have made the seatbacks a little thinner overall?
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    It may be something to do with installing the side airbags in the front seats.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    According to the video below, you should be able to enter up to 5 destinations from your PC and send it to your car via the MapQuest website.
    I think that's still a bit clunky, but it's much quicker than having to call a live OnStar operator and have them send you the instructions each time you get in the car.

    http://videos.howstuffworks.com/medialink/1983-onstar-mapquest-partner-to-help-d- - - - - - - - - rivers-video.htm

    image

    image

    image

    I might be satisfied with this service if it it had a traffic service to route you around traffic jams.
    OnStar has a Virtual Advisor program that lets you get automated weather and traffic reports based on your location, but unfortunately they were not smart enough to integrate the traffic service with the turn by turn instructions so you would then be routed intelligently around those traffic jams. If you try to drive around the traffic instead of following the prompts, you will confuse the nav system.
  • ddeliseddelise Member Posts: 353
    This might be a record for time to a price increase after introduction.

    Looks like they raised the LTZ by $455. from $26,995 to $27,450.

    Must be selling very well for GM to put the increase in already.

    Damon
  • beach15beach15 Member Posts: 1,305
    It's NOT that. GM (and others) have had large increases in the cost of steel lately, and that had to be recouped somewhere--so most new GM's got a price bump of a few hundred. Regardless of how new they are, etc., it was across the board for that reason alone.
  • mrsyjmrsyj Member Posts: 77
    As I said, you cant even get bluetooth in most imports without getting nav and thus most cars that offer BT are sold without it. GM had handsfree calling before any competing manufacturers had BT so its kind of funny that people want to criticize GM for not quickly dumping the system they have invested in heavily to support BT. MY guess is when GM offers BT it will be offered in a more affordable way than most of the import companies that force you to spend $2k on nav to get it. At least Ford has a standalone system that costs only $300.
  • mrsyjmrsyj Member Posts: 77
    The 2007 and 2008 Malibu are on the same platform, they just have different wheelbases. The 2008 Malibu moved to the long wheelbase used by the Maxx, G6 and Aura. The old Malibu had a more upright greenhouse which led to more headroom and legroom in the rear. When you have sloping rear windows like the Malibu and Aura you tend to lose some room in the back because the rear bench has to be somewhat forward so there is enough headroom. I dont think the room in the rear of the Malibu is unreasonable at all. Most people are under 6' tall.
  • vanman1vanman1 Member Posts: 1,397
    Saw an LT 4 cyl on the road today. The car really stands out vs. the competition. A very handsome and upscale looking ride.

    I think the room in the new Bu is quite impressive. It's got a better back seat than the Impala in my opinion. Very good leg room for a midsize.

    RE : price hikes. Raw materials are really squeezing car makers right now. Steel has gone up substantially. China, India etc. continue to drive up demand and prices.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    It's 10 cubic feet smaller than just about anything out there. I think rear room would be dicey for anyone large. Other than that OK>
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    Yes the back is cramped for tall passengers, but if you don't need to carry tall passengers in the back seat for long distances, it should not be an issue.image
  • kplacerkplacer Member Posts: 97
    I think the room in the new Bu is quite impressive. It's got a better back seat than the Impala in my opinion. Very good leg room for a midsize.

    I'm not sure how you conclude that. The Impala is much wider inside and has much more rear seat room. The Bu has good front leg room but rear legroom is ridiculously tight.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.