2008-2009 Chevrolet Malibu

1679111230

Comments

  • gdubya2gdubya2 Member Posts: 32
    JK,
    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!
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    If you sell after 5 years, you will probably get all the extra money and more you spent on the Accord returned in the higher resale value.
    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.
  • bmarkbmark Member Posts: 52
    I have to say I agree with you. Just went to Honda's website and an accord v6 that is comprably equipped is 30,000. The top of the line ltz is 28,000 so right off the bat you are saving 2,000. Thant makes up for the difference you are paying in gas.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    No, they are not comparably equipped. The $30,000 Accord includes their $22,000 nav system with bluetooth.
    Then you will have a much higher depreciation expense on the Malibu.
  • lostwrenchlostwrench Member Posts: 288
    Let's not forget the higher cost to repair an Accord. And, did you check with your insurance agent to see how much more it costs to insure an Accord?
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    Insurance is going to vary by location. The Accord will have less to repair. Look at what the manufacturer's extended warranties cost. You can get a 7 year 100K mile $0 deductible full coverage extended warranty on an Accord for about $900.
    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.
  • gdubya2gdubya2 Member Posts: 32
    Jaxs,
    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!
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    Goodbye trusty 3.5 ohv. I would bet that even with the new mpg comp. methods and the loss of the electric steering that in real world it would have been within striking distance of the Accord.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    They will at least have the 6 year warranty that your can get discounted on an Accord for roughly $900. Maybe a bit less.
    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.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    I forgot about the cylinder deactivation on the V6 Accord. That probably helps the V6 Accord's mileage a lot and the Malibu cannot compete with that. If you can get he Malibu much cheaper than the Accord, you can make up for the gas. Unfortunately the depreciation costs may still make the Malibu cost much more to own in the long run when you sell/trade the car.
    A heavily subsidized lease program might be one way to get around some of the Malibu depreciation costs.
  • gdubya2gdubya2 Member Posts: 32
    Jaxs,
    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.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "Too bad you have to get the LTZ to get the 6-speed automatic with 4 cylinder. "

    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.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "If you sell after 5 years, you will probably get all the extra money and more you spent on the Accord returned in the higher resale value.
    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.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    A comparable accord is about $28,600 or so without nav. That Accord doesnt have a manumatic, trip computer, trunk stuts, hood strut, rear outlet with sunshade, Onstar or remote start. The Malibu is the better deal, period. The only thing you get with the base Accord EX-L is dual zone AC.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    I dont know why you are here if you clearly prefer the Accord. You failed to mention that most Accords are four cylinder models and the mileage of the Accord I-4 is almost identical to that of the Malibu 4. So much for the mileage advantage you keep speaking of- it just doesnt exist for most buyers of these cars. I believe 80% or so of Accords are fours so thats the model that REALLY counts to most buyers.

    21/31 and 22/30 seem very close to me and the LTZ model should be able to get 23/31.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    And the same folks who talk about the "significant" fuel mileage difference between the V6 cars will also be the ones to scoff at the Malibu Hybrid because it "only" improves mileage over the standard 4-cylinder by about 2mpg...though that's the same difference between the V6 cars.

    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
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    excellent point. If fuel economy is your main goal and you want to spend $23k or so the Malibu hybrid is the way to go. The V6 mileage on the Accord is impressive, but if the car costs $2k more I dont think that 2mpg advantage is all that significant.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    I said before that the fuel cost would be saved with a lower priced Malibu, but depreciation is the real killer.
    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.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    Because if you get a non-LTZ 4 cylinder you get a 4-speed automatic.
    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.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    I generally drive my cars long enough that depreciation is more or less a non-issue (drove my '89 until 2000, and planning to drive my 2000 at least until 2009). From what I've seen in the past you'll pay closer to sticker price for a Toyota or Honda than you will a Chevy, and by the same token you'll see a comparable difference in resale price down the road. To my way of thinking it all evens out if you keep the car long enough. If you trade cars more often you may be better off with a Camcord from a resale standpoint, but by the same token you're losing money by trading cars so often just by always having a car payment. Cars are an expense, not an investment (at least not daily drivers)...anything you can do to minimize the money you're spending on them and invest the difference in something that appreciates in value will put you in a better position financially. Sticking extra money into a depreciating asset with plans to hopefully get it back in a few years just doesn't make financial sense; buy the least car you can get away with and drive it into the ground, and invest the extra $$ in something that'll grow in value.
  • jkinzeljkinzel Member Posts: 735
    I keep all my cars for more than ten years. Had a 75 Chevy pick-up for 25 years and almost 225K miles. Our Explorer is a 1993 purchased new with 192K miles.
    New car coming in the next 12 to 18 months.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    I'm hoping to hold out until 2009 for my next car, but if my plans change and I end up getting something sooner I'm probably 85% certain I'd get a Malibu (likely the hybrid). Granted I still have to see/drive one before I'd decide, but based on what I've seen of the Aura (similar size/design) and the photos I've seen the Malibu would have to look pretty bad in person or drive terribly for it not to be at or near the top of my list.

    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.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    depreciation means the most if you plan to get out of your car in 4 years or so. If you are going to keep your car for a while it means little. Besides, unless you have residuals for the new Malibu (and you don) I dont see the point of your commentary. I think the Malibu will have respectable residual values.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    There are no solid color options for the LTZ?

    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?
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    The Chevy web site is not listing any solid color choices on the LTZ. You get multi-tone leather interiors as the only option.

    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.
  • savethelandsavetheland Member Posts: 671
    I do not think about depreciation when buying cars. I just buy cars that I personally like and keep as long as I want. After 5 years most cars become obsolete but there should be reason I would like to replace the car. Car buying is emotional I highly doubt that buyers really take depreciation into account when buying cars. Otherwise nobody would buy luxury cars or even pedestrian car like Volvo (which depreciates like a rock).

    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.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    The Taurus was best selling because of fleet sales and that was also the biggest cause of high depreciation.
    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.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "More gears on an automatic means better acceleration, smoother, less jarring shifts and less gear hunting because of less ratio gap between gears. "

    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.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    I can guarantee you my 4-speed Impala shifts MUCH smoother than my wife's 2003 5-speed Accord.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    A V6 Impala is not a 4 cylinder Malibu with droning Ecotec engine. The torquey Impala could probably squeeze by with a 3 speed.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "droning"? what are you talking about? 4 speed autos are mostly used in conjunction with 4 cylinder engines. The ecotec/4 speed combo is no worse than the powertrain in the RAv4 base model or corolla. The ecotec actually makes decent torque for a I-4 due to its size. It has more torque than the Camry's engine I believe.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    The Corolla is ancient and about to be replaced. It is no benchmark. Other new vehicles put on the market with 4-seed automatics today such as the Rav4 and xB are also heavily criticized for this.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    Did I dream it or did I read somewhere that the 4-speed would be available initially in the non-LTZ models, but as production ramped up for the 6-speed the 4-speed auto would be phased out?

    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.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    I haven't heard that the 4-speed was going away for the Malibu anytime in the next year or two. It has go away eventually, but when?
    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.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they look better in person than they do online. Right now I think a Malibu Hybrid could make sense for me in a year or two (when prices have relaxed, and I've got more $$ saved up on my GM Card), but I'm not too excited at the all-gray interior option on the hybrid. And the tan alternative will probably show dirt more than I'd like. I wish the ebony interior were available on the hybrid...maybe if I can wait another year it'll be an option on the 2009 models.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    The combination still gets the job done and thats what customers care about. BTW, I have seen no criticism of Toyota for using a 4 Speed in the Rav4.

    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?
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    The 6 speed will come on the LTZ 4 in April 2008. I would assume that in subsequent model years the 4 speed will be phased out. I know GM has some more FWD 6 speeds coming on board in 2009 or 2010 and I believe they will be for vehicles with 4 cylinders. I would say within 2 years the Malibu should have a 6 speed standard. If you dont want a 4 speed get the LTZ, that is my suggestion. If you find that to be unacceptable than I suggest you get an Accord.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    I may do that unless the brown leather LTZ looks much better in real life than it does in photos.
    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.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    image
    image
    image

    http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/09/2008-chevy-mali.html#more

    image
    image
    imageimage
    image

    The interior looks better than the top of the line LTZ
  • irismgirismg Member Posts: 345
    Pretty! And it doesn't look to have that bedsheet-thin cheap fabric seating like the Cobalt LS does. I was surprised that the LTZ Malibu is so different in the Malibu than in the other Chevrolet sedans, and the 08 looks like GMC's King Ranch truck (A nice change from all the black interiors, and is a lot like Saturn Aura's interior, but it is a little overwhelming to those who prefer subtlety). Looks like the LT2 is a good compromise.

    Aren't those weird gauges, though?!

    Thanks for posting pictures for us - I need to learn how to do that!
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "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. "

    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.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    It has nothing to do with Toyota and Honda colors. Do other Chevys or Buicks or even Pontiacs have midsized family sedans that restrict your interiors to only 2 wild multi-color schemes on a certain trim line?
    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.
  • nosirrahgnosirrahg Member Posts: 872
    At least you aren't limited to 2 color choices across the entire Malibu line. My wife's current car is an Accord, and as I recall there was virtually NO interior color choice with that car - if you wanted a silver car, you got the black interior...if you wanted the white car, you got the tan interior...no choice at all. At least the Malibu offers some options throughout, so even if you can't find your ideal color scheme, at least should be able to find something you can live with.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    Having a common color such as black or gray or tan as the only choice for certain paint colors is not comparable to having two strange two-tone colors schemes being the only "choices" regardless of what paint color you choose if you want a certain powertrain on a mainstream sedan.
    I can believe someone is actually defending this madness.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    here's a suggestion, dont buy the car. To me the monochromatic malibu interiors are actually kind of dull so the LTZ combinations give the interior a little pizzaz in my book. I dont see whats so hot about single color interiors. Perhaps down the road Chevy will add more options if the two tone interiors are not well liked. In the meantime, you should be able to find a dull interior at your local Honda or Toyota dealer.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    They don't even have to be single color interiors. Many cars have a dashboard and maybe door panels with two tones. They just happen to use more neutral and inoffensive color combinations.
    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.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "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."

    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.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    The LTZ is not a GTP and will be available in 4 cylinder form at a lower price. It is not a low volume, high performance model like an SS or Pontiac GT-P.
    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."
  • drwilscdrwilsc Member Posts: 140
    Anyone attracted to the LTZ but not liking the interior colors should check out the Saturn Aura XR. This car is virtually identical to the 08 Malibu LTZ, but offers milder, more palatable interior color schemes. Mine is mostly black with some chrome-like trim. A wood-grain trim is optional. It has the tighter suspension and 3.6 L engine, as well as the 6-speed transmission. Take a look at a picture of the Saturn's dash here in Edmunds, it is almost identical to the Malibu's. The entire car is virtually identical. You also get Saturn's great dealer network.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    When Saturn has an Aura model with the 4 cylinder and 6-speed and it is priced around the same as the street price of an LTZ after discounting, it will be worth looking at.
    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?"
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.