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.
Comments
Lets take those mileage figures as accurate. Drive the Accord 15k a year and average 24 mpg city and hwy. You'll spend $1875.00 on gas @ $3.00 gal. Drive the Malibu 15k and average 21 mpg city and highway and you spend $2142.00 @ $3.00 gal. That's $267.00 more per year. Now lets suppose you keep the car 5 years. You will have spent $1335.00 more on gas with the Malibu. How much more will you have to spend upfront to buy the Accord? Probably more than that. Operating costs include more than just gas. GM parts and maintenance are usually less than Honda's plus the GM warranty covers the drivetrain for 5yrs or 100k. Seems like the Malibu is a way better deal to me. If gas prices are a concern opt for the 4cyl. See my post under MPG Real World Numbers (#140). I've averaged almost 30 MPG in 15k miles of driving with my 4 cyl 2006 Malibu. Will be replacing my wife's Buick Lacross with another Malibu (4 cyl) when the initial pricing goes away and deals can be made!
You would probably have to keep them for over 10 years before the resale values started to get within a couple thousand dollars of each other similarly equipped.
Even then, a 10 year old out of warranty Accord is still much easier to sell than a 10 year old Malibu.
Then you will have a much higher depreciation expense on the Malibu.
8 years, 120K miles for under $1000.
It would be around 2 to 3 times that cost for the Malibu for similar bumper to bumper coverage.
Does GM even offer a zero deductible extended warranty for 7 years, much less 8?
That displays their perceived risk of having payouts on the warranty and how much they would have to take in per contract to make a profit.
A manufacturer-subsidized lease on a Malibu might make sense.
GM would put money towards it to offset the poor residuals of the Malibu to make the lease payments competitive with cars that have better resale value and you are able to get in and out of the Malibu without risk of driving it after factory the warranty expires and still save paying for the major expense of the GM extended warranty.
I'm wondering how you arrived at the $1800.00 to $2700.00 amount for an extended 7 yr. Malibu warranty? Especially since GM is guaranteeing the power train for all but the final two years. Can you provide some documentation of that cost and for the cost of the Accord warranty? Then you ask whether or not GM even provides the warranty that you just gave us the cost on? Next, you seem to assume that they don't offer such a warranty (that same one you provided us the cost on) and since they don't, that fact displays their perceived risk of having to make payouts on such a warranty. Please, lift the fog I'm in after reading your post!
Discounted Hondacare plan pricing is available online on a few web sites.
The best way to deal with the Malibu is with a short lease with lease payments subsidized to a competitive amount with the help of GM incentives. Without incentives, the lease payments would not make any sense because you could get a nicer car that held it's value well (lease depreciation cost to pay for in the lease) for the same lease payment or less.
With the short lease you don't need to worry about the cost of extended warranties or repair costs because you would be able to jump out of the car before the factory bumper to bumper warranty expires.
A heavily subsidized lease program might be one way to get around some of the Malibu depreciation costs.
You made a lot of statements about the high cost of a Malibu extended warranty, or the lack there of, and haven't backed any of it up with proof. It's easy to state what you would like to believe as fact, but a little harder to prove if it isn't true!
BTW, if you go to the manufacturers websites and check the MSRP's (including destination charges) you'll find that the 2008 Malibu LTZ 6cyl, 6 speed auto lists for $1,700.00 less than the 2008 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with a 5 speed automatic. And the LTZ comes with a better warranty, better audio system, adjustable pedals, remote start, and On Star.
Camry and Accord dont offer a 4 cylinder with 6 speed, period so I dont see why you are complaining about Malibu making you step up to LTZ to get that combination.
You would probably have to keep them for over 10 years before the resale values started to get within a couple thousand dollars of each other similarly equipped.
Even then, a 10 year old out of warranty Accord is still much easier to sell than a 10 year old Malibu."
except for the fact that GM residuals are on the way up you are on target. The residuals on the Aura are only slightly below Accord and I would expect same for Malibu. Paying more for a car upfront is never a good thing if you are financing, trust me. The idea that you should borrow more money just to get more back is illogical.
21/31 and 22/30 seem very close to me and the LTZ model should be able to get 23/31.
Folks will write off the Malibu/Aura Hybrids because they don't get the mileage of the Camry Hybrid, even though they'll never drive the car long enough to offset the extra dollars they'll spend for the Camry. And if they do drive it the 150,000-200,000 miles it'll take to break even, I suspect the cost to replace the batteries on the Camry will knock a big chuck out of that back-end money they've got coming. :P
Maybe if GM throws money into a subsidized lease, you would be able to lease one for about 3 years for a reasonable price and then jump out of the car before you the factory warranty expires.
5-speed is decent, 6-speed is better, but 4-speed is very poor at this date in time.
The 6-speed LTZ 4 cylinder could be a nice package if it wasn't for the bad interior colors. The only hope is that the brown/tan LTZ interior looks better in person than than it does on the Chevy website. The black and orange interior has no hope.
New car coming in the next 12 to 18 months.
I'm actually looking at buying two new cars around that time, as we'll have a child turning 16 then and the plan is to pass my wife's 2003 Accord down to her, and she'll get a new car (which will in turn pass down to our next child a few years down the road). So on the one hand I need to delay my purchase as long as possible, since I'll be driving whatever I get next for a LONG time (so the more miles I put on my current car, the fewer I have to put on the new one). On the other hand, if I procrastinate too long we may be into so much debt with college expenses and everything else that my window of opportunity might close. I'd love to hold out for the Volt, but I doubt I can wait that long.
The 4 speed is obviously getting the job done if the Malibu gets 22mpg in the city with a heavier car. Sure, 6 speeds is better but the 4 speed is no slouch at all and most people wont know the difference. Whats the point of a 5 speed if the combined mileage of the Accord and Malibu is the same?
More gears on an automatic means better acceleration, smoother, less jarring shifts and less gear hunting because of less ratio gap between gears.
You can still get good EPA estimates with a 4 cylinder 4-speed with a 4th gear that's as tall as a 5 or 6 speed would have been, but then you have widely spaced gears that hamper drivability.
Do not make mistake that people prefer Accord or Camry because of depreciation. I know enough people owning these cars to know that it is not true. Buying decision based on depreciation probably was invented by journalists to explain why one car is more popular than another. But it certainly does not explain why Taurus was bestselling car not so long ago.
There is a massive supply of used ex-fleet Tauruses on the market and low desirability because the design is so out of date. 2007 Taurus is still mostly based on the 1996 Taurus and looks almost the same as a 2000.
The only way to get rid of the huge oversupply of the used Tauruses on the market is with super-low prices.
The Malibu is not as extreme as the Taurus, but there are quite a few ex-fleet used Malibus for sale and the Malibu is not sought out used like Camrys and Accord, so you need to sell cheap to get rid of a used Malibu today.
that is totally untrue. A well designed 4 speed may gear hunt less than a 5 or 6 speed automatic. GM's 4 speeds are amongst the best trannies out there when it comes to shift quality. More gears does NOT guarantee better shifting as evidenced by the 6 speed in the new camry.
Unless you have driven the Malibu or G6 with the 4 cylinder engine I am confused as to how you can comment on reduced drivability. Besides, the primary issue here was efficiency and the Malibu does well in that regard.
Also on the LTZ interior, I found a high-res LTZ interior photo at gminsidenews.com that makes the black/red interior look a little better; the black has more of a brown tint, and the red looks more orange. Still kind of Halloween-ish to a degree, but more pleasing than the photo on the official Malibu site would indicate. If you go to gminsidenews.com and click on the media gallery link near the top of the page, then click on the 2008 GM product photos, then Chevrolet and scroll through the Malibu photos you should run across the one I'm talking about.
The black/orange still looks bad in those photos. Maybe the brownish two tone will look better in real life or better quality photos. The pics on the Chevrolet site seem to be either just computer renderings or pictures that were heavily altered to simulate the colors.
They should have had a more conservative interior choice for the LTZ. Not everyone wants those loud colors and over the top two-tone look just to get the other LTZ features.
If the combination is so bad why does the Malibu exceed the city mileage of the Accord? Most people defendng the Accord's use of a 5 speed are saying a 6 speed is unnecessary and the 5 speed gets the job done. If that is the case, why does the MAlibu "need" a 5 speed or 6 speed if the 4 speed is getting the job done?
The 4 cylinder 6-speed LTZ would be a likely choice if only they didn't go crazy with the wild interior colors that are better suited for a concept show car than a production car.
It would have been fine if those colors where just an available choice rather than the two only possible choices for the LTZ. They are crazy for making colors that are going to be HATED by a significant number of buyers. It will be a deal breaker for many.
It could have been so easy for them to have also have had tasteful light beige and dark charcoal interior choices for those who do not want to live with the odd color scheme.
This is almost as bad as if Chevy had made the LTZ come with a choice of only two paint colors. Bright yellow or purple.
Some people will love those colors, but it will turn away many more.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/09/2008-chevy-mali.html#more
The interior looks better than the top of the line LTZ
Aren't those weird gauges, though?!
Thanks for posting pictures for us - I need to learn how to do that!
we need to wait and see if this is correct. You are making some bold assumptions based on your tastes. I assume that people who are addicted to imports will find any interior that is something other than all black or all gray to be over the top because thats what Honda and Toyota offer and thus it has to be right. The previous Malibu was crticized for a bland interior color palette and that has been addressed. The LTZ model will be the smallest volume car and thus I dont think Chevy is worried about turning off the majority of buyers. Most buyers wont get the LTZ anyway due to price. Import people always want the status quo but I applaud them for taking some risk and adding some color to a mainstream interior. While you hate the LTZ interiors I kind of like them, especially the ebony and brick combo.
I also never said everyone would hate it, but when you get that bold, you are going to turn off a large number of people.
I know people who absolutely love purple paint, but if GM made a car with purple or yellow paint as the only 2 color choices, they are going to have problem.
The big problem is not having a "normal-looking" color scheme as an available choice if you want the LTZ features especially the availability of the 4 cylinder 6-speed combo.
I can believe someone is actually defending this madness.
The particular color choices on the Malibu are the problem because you are not given any normal choices.
They are throwing away a lot of potential sales to not only Toyota and Honda, but to Ford and Mazda and Nissan.
Even people who personally like these colors are going to have to deal with consequences of their decision at resale time.
Even people who personally like these colors are going to have to deal with consequences of their decision at resale time."
they are not, as I noted the LTZ will not be the volume model. Mot people will have the LT model and thus the two tone issue is a non-issue regardless of how much you beat the dead horse. When the LTZ V6 starts at $27k you can rest assured it will be the smallest volume trim. Same applies to G6 GTP- I believe Edmunds said only 6% of sales were GTP trim.
If the LTZ ends up selling in low numbers, the LTZ interior colors will play a large part in that circumstance as people try in vain to option up a 2LT with LTZ content until they hit the snag of not being able to upgrade to the 6-speed on on the other trims.
Getting the LTZ is the only way to obtain the 4 cylinder 6-speed automatic combination Chevrolet was touting. "LTZ – the first four-cylinder engine/six-speed transmission combination in the segment."
Aren't Saturns still fixed prices?
That was OK when they had their own unique models, but now that they are sharing platforms with other GM divisions, I don't see how that works for them. People will say "Why should I pay MSRP for this Outlook or Aura when I can get a similar Malibu or Acadia discounted to a much lower price?"