Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2000-2011 Chevrolet Malibu

1363739414296

Comments

  • jtrujillo86jtrujillo86 Member Posts: 300
    Well last night I was putting on a new front end cover on the Bu. When I had the hood raised I noticed an oil leak out of the side of the block...a pretty bad one. It's either the valve cover gasket, head gasket, or intake manifold gasket. For my wallets sake, I hope it's the intake manifold gasket (GM will replace for free since I just had it done in February). Has anyone had their valve cover gasket or head gasket go? I'll have to stop by the shop sometime this week :(

    It's starting to cool off in the mornings and nights here (so much that there is frost on my windows in the morning) and that nasty clunk under the dash has come back. What causes that? I've heard people talk of it here before, but couldn't find it in previous posts. I think I remember hearing it was the struts, front control arm or strut mounts...I can't recall. Can you guys refresh my memory? Thanks!

    RE Johnclineii: I'm aware this is a Malibu board. I was simply stating that I'm dumping my Malibu and getting a Jetta, and listed the reasons. Many people have done it before, so I didn't see anything wrong with it. If you'd like me to stay strictly Malibu, I will. Sorry.

    Jeremy
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Do yourself a favor an get anything but a VW.
  • jtrujillo86jtrujillo86 Member Posts: 300
    Johnclineii: As for a new car and college: I think I'll manage. I have two jobs now and go to school full time.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    There is review

    http://www.freep.com/money/autoreviews/phelan1_20030901.htm

    So now I understand that new Malibus I tested were preproduction hand built. In production car fit and finish may be even better.

    And he is right. New Malibu rides better than Camry. But Camry is intentionally geriatric anyway, like Buick.
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    Again, sounds like the Bu is pretty competitive.

    http://www.wheels.ca/Reviews.htm?CD=198&ID=2300
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Jeremy: Didn't mean that to come across THAT way! You did nothing wrong in my book. I just would hate to see you stuck in a low reliability car, especially one that might well be a stretch for you financially!
  • bcmalibu99lsbcmalibu99ls Member Posts: 625
    They do have a pretty impressive advertising campaign. Their TV ads are probably the most enjoyable of all automotive advertisement. However, good marketing does not make quality cars, it only sells cars, no matter the quality. So, if VW is indeed not worth the cash they are asking for it, then, perhaps, something else would be more appropriate for someone on a tight budget?
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    VW's are problematic but are of very high quality outside of reliability and are very safe. their interiors are outstanding, the standard equipment (especially in safety) is impressive and they drive like a dream. puts the mailibu (well the current one anyway) to shame in those regards.

    the passat actually has average reliability in the latest CR ratings.
  • maxx4memaxx4me Member Posts: 1,340
    As a CR junkie, the VW is one of two cars I do not see CR's perspective on. How can they rate the Passat as the best passenger sedan 2 years running over the Camry when it has "average reliability." Pardon the poor working man's opinion here, but if I'm gunna pay $25k + for a Passat, it better have more than just average reliability. Coupled with the fact that if you have a mechanical breakdown with the Passat, you are likely to cry in your beer when you see the repair cost for parts. The other CR mystery is the Focus. How can CR give it a "very good" rating, yet at the same time, not check it off as one of its recommended cars??? I'll admit that I have done well by CR's opinions over the years, keeping Toyotas in my driveway; I can only hope that when I buy the Maxx, I will not have purchased it too soon, having not waited for some consumer data to filter in. While I stand by CR's ratings overall, those two cars will remain a mystery to me. At this early stage, I'll have to rely on you all to steer me right when it comes to the new Malibu.
  • jtrujillo86jtrujillo86 Member Posts: 300
    Does anyone have a thought on my oil leak I have on the right (driver's) side of my engine block? I wasn't able to make it to the shop today (obviously).
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    for someone who follows CR i don't understand how you do not understand its procedures.

    first the ford focus. it's the highest rated small car in their road test. however if the car doesn't get at least an average reliability rating (completely separate from the road test) it will not be recommended. hence the ford focus doesn't get recommended because its reliability is below average.

    the passat. it's rated among the best along with the camry and accord in their road test for family cars. because it meets the threshold of having average reliability, it's recommended.

    you have a good point about price with the passat.
  • rwisemrwisem Member Posts: 96
    The Lienerts are usually very good in their reviews and this one is good except for the error about the "sohc" V6. Finally answered my question about the wood-no-wood interior trim.

    http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosconsumer/0309/03/g01-260823.htm
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Member Posts: 619
    There's also the error about the Malibu V6 having more power than the Camry V6.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    This will come in very handy hauling 2 x 4's home from Home Depot. Too bad they don't offer a power lumber support which would make it even easier! It's spelled lumbar not lumber. Spell checking doesn't catch everything!
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    V6 Camry is rated at 192 hp, the article is accurate.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member Posts: 1,565
    Toyota made a mid year 2003 tweak to Camry and upped their advertised HP to 210. Not that these small variations in horsepower mean much in the real world. My 200 HP Taurus prvides plenty of reserve and I am sure the new Malibu V-6 will be adequate as well. These are not exotic cars and a few HP one way or the other is inconsequential.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    Camry has better transmission than Taurus, so some people think that Camry has more power. Actually alot depends on how good is transmission. In new Malibu it seems to be good.
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    I think you mite be rite on that. I think the Bu still has a torque advantage though. The 3.5L on a torque basis isn't much less than the Accord either.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    For 2004 models:
    The Camry 3.0L V6 in LE and XLE models is rated at 210hp and 220lb ft. MPG: 21/29

    The Camry 3.3L V6 in SE models is rated at 225hp and 240lb. ft. MPG 20/29

    What is the Malibus 3.5L rating? 220 or 225? Either way, the Camry is close or better.

    ~alpha
  • dindakdindak Member Posts: 6,632
    They have pushed up power for 04 also.

    I guess GM will have to pump it up a bit for 05. That said, as long as power is good and competitive, I don't think most people care, especially given the Malibu's better fuel economy.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Member 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 Member 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.
  • bcmalibu99lsbcmalibu99ls Member Posts: 625
    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 Member 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.
  • bcmalibu99lsbcmalibu99ls Member Posts: 625
    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
  • wpbharrywpbharry Member Posts: 399
    $1,000 cash back on the new 'Bu already. Told you so!!

    Link below.

    http://www.media.gm.com/
  • bcmalibu99lsbcmalibu99ls Member Posts: 625
    And it's less than 200K, Yes!!!! Why couldn't the new Bu look like this?

    http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/firstdrive/100518/articl- e.html?tid=edmunds.h..reviews..18.*
  • maxx4memaxx4me Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 1,443
    keep the links for the road tests coming. i'm reading them all.
  • according2meaccording2me Member Posts: 236
    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 Member Posts: 1,340
    by the way...just ran past my Chevy dealer...no new Bu in site. They keep chasing me away because my nose keeps fogging up their showroom glass as I peek inside
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    HA HA HA HA HA HA

    That's a good one!

    Keep your nose clean!
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Member 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 Member 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.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Apparently dindak has not seen a Mazda6. Many find it exciting, exterior and driving-wise.
  • dindakdindak Member 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 Member 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.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    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.
  • bcmalibu99lsbcmalibu99ls Member Posts: 625
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 619
    I didn't look at the engine.
  • maxx4memaxx4me Member Posts: 1,340
    dooooooooh!
  • bcmalibu99lsbcmalibu99ls Member Posts: 625
    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 Member 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.
  • upsetter1upsetter1 Member Posts: 205
    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.
  • bcmalibu99lsbcmalibu99ls Member Posts: 625
    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
  • jtrujillo86jtrujillo86 Member Posts: 300
    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).
  • bcmalibu99lsbcmalibu99ls Member Posts: 625
    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.