Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
2000-2011 Chevrolet Malibu
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It's funny that people rave about the looks of the Mazda 6 but it's sales have not picked up much from the dull 626. Meanwhile the ultra dull Camry sells like hotcakes.
Mazda6 - I'm not sure why the Mazda 6 is not selling. The only reason I can think of is the dealership base for Mazda is too small to get the car into the mainstream. Similar to the Mazda MPV. Great little minivan but sales keep going down despite having the best reliability in its class.
I'm here in PA and I haven't seen a 2004 Malibu yet but I also haven't been lookng for one either. Keep posting the reviews, they are reminding me of 1997 when the current Malibu came out. Handles better then the Camry but not as good as theAccord. the ride is firmer then the Camry but not as much as the Accord. Yep same as 1997. So far the reviews are good, but it's the reviews 2-3 years later that matter.
Another review
http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/04malibu.htm
1 - They goofed on inital product mix. They advertised the loaded 6 and supplied their dealers with the low-end base i version.
2 - They haven't sold surpluses to fleets.
However, sales of the 6 have been rising every month since its introduction.
I don't think the Accord is boring at all. The Camary may be. But, either one at least looks refined. The Malibu looks like something I drew in 5th grade. A mix of the Silverado front end with some Saturn cues and a dash of shoe box.
My point? well, I thought that was obvious. Guess not. So here it is again -
...it'll sell to those who only want an American car or only want GM but, it's not going to take any market share from Honda and Toyota.
I did notice a blurb near the front of the magazine that states that Mazda 6 sales have taken off like a rocket lately (probably due to MAJOR discounting).
My dealer is the smallest near me (on purpose; I hate "mega dealers") and does not have a single car yet. The big dealer that has 4 LTs also has 3 LSs; another large dealer has one LT and one LS. I'll have to wait for my dealer to get one. I really don't want to invade unfamiliar territory.
But this is a segment where people are buying for practicality, reliablity, value, economy, not looks. The 'Bu has a good chance with economy, value and practicality. It will have to prove itself on reliability. I think it has a good chance.
Throw in the fact that Chevrolet dealers tend to be a lot better to work with than either Honda or Toyota, lower available interest for qualified buyers, and there are some good arguments for buying a 'Bu over a CamCord.
Looks always matter. If you think they don't look no further than the Aztek. It fit all of your criterion but it was a complete failure.
To take potential buyers from Honda and Toyota, you have to give people something they can't get from H/T. The Malibu can't say that. It's as good but, not better. And even that's questionable. Agree or not Honda and Toyota have a rep for reliability and resale that GM can't touch.
The Malibu for 04 is light years ahead of the old ones. It may not get H/T trade ins, but it has a good shot at car 'fence-sitters'.
And the new 'Bu will offer somewhat better mpgs, a better price, and somewhat different - and possibly to some - more useful interior configurations.
I agree that reliability and resale parity will have to be earned. But making the 'Bu more beautiful is not going to help it in those categories.
IMO, the best looking entry level mid-size Sedan recently is the Chrysler Sebring. But its looks did not help it overcome its other limitations. While it remains to be seen how far the Mazda6 will ultimately go, its looks did not help it out of the box.
You obviously hate the car and that's fine but bread and butter cars like this are what many people want.
your reasons for buying cars in this segment seem valid but some people are willing to pay thousands more for the accord/camry/passat because of the more advanced engineering and quality.
looks are subjective but i have to say the accord has a look of a more upscale car. for example, the fixed black exterior mirrors of the malibu is low budget.
Did you look at interior pics? Compare Accord, Camry, 6 and Malibu. It's not even close. Seriously. Mono-tone grey plastic is only going to appeal to those that haven't or won't look at other options.
It's outclassed. Just my opinion.
but it is no Aztec
Never said it was. I just commented that styling matters. Even if you hit on every need and want it has to appeal aesthetically.
It'll sell, GM has lots of loyalist and employees. And it may take many of the "fence sitters".
Just disappointed. That's all.
It's been my experience with Hondas that at this mileage not only has there been no repair work done (just routine maintenance), but every knob and button and their functions are all still working and they are still a joy to drive.
GM has a lot to prove to most import buyers, but I do hope that they do finally deliver on their promises. I'll take a wait and see approach.
I'm currently interested in the Mazda3/Mazda6 hatch/wagons. So it will be at least 1 purchase more before I would consider a Malibu/Maxx.
Show us GM, pleeaasee.
ICVCI: let me be the first to tell you that I am a die hard Toyota buyer who is going to buy the Maxx. They did indeed lose my business because GM was smart enough to put in adjustable pedals, and will keep me from buying those midget mobile japanese cars. While the outside of the Malibu sedan isn't as trend setting as it ought to be, it sure beats the heck out of the Accord's exterior. The Maxx also has features that the others can't match.
i just don't see the overall execution of the car appealing to import buyers.
Um, no. The reason is GM pockets the money they saved building pushrod motors while convincing you its a better deal.
Moving merrily along...
The Epsilon platform is superior to the Passat's. It is as modern as the CamCords. Subjective responses in the buff rags are that the 'bu is more lively on its wheels than the Camry and equal to the Cord.
Say what you might about the 3.5. The fact remains that it is less expsensive, gets superior mileage, can get by fine without synthetic oil in almost all conditions, and maintenance should prove less costly than the competitor's V6s
icvci : I don't why you are bringing the CTS into your "arguments", but it costs almost twice as much FYI. If you think of the Bu as a poor man CTS you could not be further from reality.
Maxx : Innovative features will definitely sell this car to many people. In the north, people will be thrilled with factory remote start. Tall people and short people will love the telescopic steering wheel and adjustable pedals. The Maxx option opens numerous possibilities not avaialbe anywhere. There will always be nay sayers, maybe they are right, but I doubt it.
that's not reflected in the MSRP. The Malibu I saw a couple weeks ago stickered at over 25 grand. Absurd. At that price it should have a high feature powerplant LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. We're not motivated to save GM money when we buy. Its about the customer, not GM's internal ledger accounts.
Using your logic for the engine needing to be less expensive, then why don't we just put pushord 4 cylinders in the Malibu, they are cheaper to build than a v6 and you say it doesn't matter. If Nissan Honda and Toyota can get excellent performance out their 4 cylinders then let GM follow through on their reasoning and just make a big displacement cast iron 4 cylinder with 2 valves and pushrods. after all
"very few buyers care"
"can get by fine without synthetic oil in almost all conditions"
which family sedans NEED synthetic? a) change your oil every 3000 miles for one. b) aside from a turbo (Passat) tell me one that mandates synthetic
"and maintenance should prove less costly than the competitor's V6s"
oil changes and air filters cost the same regardless if its smushrod or OHC. Nothing else should ever break down or need tuneup or adjustment in the period of time you will that new vehicle. Other items that can break are not engine, its stuff like trannies, fuel and cooling system parts. Make sure you buy an OHC engine with a timing chain. Most cars will go 100,000 miles before any engine maintenance is needed. Let me restate that. Most cars WILL go tor 100,000 nowadays without tuneup. Certainly no modern engine should ever need to be taken apart for any reason for major repair or even minor repairs before 150,000 miles.
Unless you have a 'reliable' GM pushrod engine that loves to blow off its plastic manifold..........
I sure hope they fixed that problem when the guys in the machine shop bored out those leftover 3.4 litre blocks to make the new 're-engineered' 3.5 litre.
Take a grand automatic off the 25k plus and factor in savings on better interest rates. The 'Bu is significantly less expensive than the CamCords. Around the same for the Mazda6.
Now to be clear here, is it your position Reg that every CamCord goes 150k miles without needing any engine maintenance?
Can we talk about the Malibu again, please? It was JUST getting interesting!
Hope you end up with the car you want!
The Camry is VERY short on front-seat legroom (as are most Toyotas), and more expensive, comparably equipped, than the Accord.
The Accord is somewhat out of my price range. Could handle the LX V-6 (no four for me), but head curtain airbags are a no show on the LX V-6. A recent study on the national news revealed that regular side airbags are not much help, but side curtains are a huge help.
For the money, the Malibu and Maxx have everything I'd want (and according to recent posts, acceptable legroom as well).
So, it's not all based on styling and perceived reliability/durability, and I COULD CARE LESS if it ain't got an OHC engine..
johnclineii : I don't think the Bu is going to be superior to the main targets but from all the reports I have read the car is competitive which is light years from where the current car is. The added features is what GM hopes will differentiate it and I suspect they are right. Remote starter will be huge up here.
The Accord may fall short by not offering head protecting side airbags on the LX models- but the Malibu ALSO falls short, by not offering chest protection for front seat passengers. This too is detrimental. (I dont agree with all aspects of the NHTSA side impacts, but the necessity of BOTH head and chest protection can be seen in the side impact scores of the Saturn L-series).
Some moderately priced midsize offerings that combine head and chest protection for front passengers include the Mazda6, VW Passat, Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, and as you know, the EX Accords. All of these use side chest airbags coupled with front to rear curtains.
Also, I am interested in the trim/options for which you say the Camry is more expensive when comparably equipped than the Accord. This mostly holds true only for the XLE V6 models vs. the EX V6 Accords.
just my .02
~alpha
why do cavalier buyers rave about their new ohc i4 after their experience with the previous ohv i4?
automobile magazine said it best about GM's ohv v6 engines. it's a lazy powerful engine. i'm referring to the gand prix in the 30K sport sedan roundup.
when edmunds and car and driver come out with their latest family car comparison tests we'll see how the malibu finishes relative to the accord/passat/camry.
The engine in your Matrix is one of the highest revving engines available in a lower priced car. Synthetic is necessary imo. With normal driving in a Maxx, you should never go above 4k rpms. Synthetic is not necessary.
If I commuted by car, I would be very happy with a car like the Malibu with a very high mpg V6 that develops torque in the lower range.
You make a blanket, unsupported statement when you say the new 3.5 (an engine you cannot possibly have experienced personally) does not compare well to the listed engines. Compare well how? For fun and sport, maybe not. For practical family and commuter needs very much so. The 3.5 will get better mpgs. It will stop and go better. It will need less maintenance.
The Automobile Magazine article refers to the 3.8 in a car that is meant to be a sports sedan. Most likely the next GP (and probably a version of the G6) will get a version of the GM OHC 3.6. But those will be cars meant for the weekend enthusiast.
The new 'Bu is meant to be a practical car. If the 3.5 proves reliable along with the other attributes it has coming out of the shoot, it will be a great engine for a practical car.
the malibu will do just fine with its current engines, but wouldn't you prefer GMs 3.6l ohc engine?
It's surprising the Malibu Sedan is so cheap. Mazda is coming out with a 6 wagon next year. Here is some competition for the Maxx. Of course, Mazda had this planned when Chevy started the plan, so it'll be even.
In the end, more people will buy the Camry or Accord. One of the most DUMBEST, SHOWN features are the back of the front seats. There plastic. But besides that, the Malibu 2004 looks good. Not that I'd buy one (I just bought a CTS, give me a break), but it looks impressive. I really liked the 97' styling when it came out. Then it became boring. Then it just bored me.
But now this new styling may be good. It is also getting some good ratings. Way to go Chevrolet. Maybe you're in a revival process.
Overall impression, Chevy is changing a lot faster (and for the good) than I thought it could. Droping the aging look and giving it a larger engine (3.5l) is going to make this car a winner. Sticker price is too high, but I don't see many dealers charging more than invoice for it. If this holds true, I don't think you will see many of them in the rental fleets.
Logic, show me ONE family sedan that MANDATES in the OWNERS MANUAL (not your UNQUALIFIED OPINION) that synthetic be used.
All you say is that in your opinion its necessary. Hardly scientific proof from the manufacturer.
I counter by saying, change your oil every 3000 miles. On a family sedan you won't need synthetic. Maybe if its a turbo you'd wanna think about it.
So in what way THEN would the valvetrain have ANY influence on the PRICE of an oil change?
Half the idiots who got the toyota engine sludge should have maybe got a clue and checked or changed their oil every now and again.
Oil changes are darn cheap anyways. A good reason to get the car on the hoist and let someone have a looksy. Oil changes will hardly break your budget. The Midas on the corner from work does em for me for 12.95 including new filter. From time to time i hit the VIOC with my coupon and get it done in 15 minutes for under 25 bucks. In the course of a year I spend maybe 100 bucks or a little more on oil changes. That's HARDLY gonna break anyone who's gonna shell out 3 or 4 grand a year for car payments.
"With normal driving in a Maxx, you should never go above 4k rpms. Synthetic is not necessary"
Hardly any fun. But since the wheezing begins about then, I could see why you'd wanna cease acceleration at 4000 rpm. Just hope you're not out on a two lane road trying to pass anybody with oncoming traffic approaching.
And I guess synthetic oil won't do much to prevent manifold coolant leaks anyways.
"a better comparison would be with honda's 3.0l v6 or nissan's 3.5l v6. both engines feel lively at any speed"
"i do not need to rev up my accord to have it scoot from a stop. you can have your cake and eat it too with the latest ohc v6 engines."
yeah, exactly. Some folks don't want to eat.
"the malibu will do just fine with its current engines, but wouldn't you prefer GMs 3.6l ohc engine?"
The Malibu would be more impressive if it had it. Even a bit smaller version of it. It might be FINE with the "3500". Is it a problem for it to be BETTER with the 3.6 or a 3.2l version of it?
The sub 10,000 dollar Cavalier has two cams overhead and 16 valves, by the way. It didn't seem to ruin that car to switch to OHC.
"It has a more sensitive accelerator pedal when accelerating from a stop"
That's just GM playing with the ratio on the throttle linkage, to make the car 'seem' like its 'launching' off from a start.
"The 3.5 will get better mpgs."
It might, but not by much. Might save you 100 bucks a year in gas.
"It will stop and go better."
Define 'stop and go'. I see GM finally decided it would be worth 4 wheel discs on a sedan. So maybe it will now stop COMPETITIVELY. Go? Let's see the acceleration numbers. In general driving and steering feel, and handling, I'd bet the UJS's (Universal Japanese Sedans) will still have it beat. And even if the numbers are the same, then the UJS's will be much more enjoyable to run through the rpms, the entire powerband.
"It will need less maintenance"
IT WILL. ? Not sure for what reason. Aside from regular oil changes and tuneups there is no other criteria for that logic to proclaim this. At best, it will have equal reliability to an Accord, maybe (as long as the manifold decides not to blow before 40,000 miles). I am not sure what scheduled maintenance mr. l is suggesting is SO COSTLY on non GM cars that leads him to think that AUTOMATICALLY a GM car is less expensive in maintenance. I would retort that history has quite a way of showing that GM powertrains can quite often need REPAIR, where the UJS's more often do not, and the costs of those PRICEY REPAIRS would seem more detrimental to the cash strapped sedan buyer.
"Most likely the next GP (and probably a version of the G6) will get a version of the GM OHC 3.6. But those will be cars meant for the weekend enthusiast."
LOL! WEEKEND ENTHUSIAST? As if someone doesn't want to, or need to have fun with their car on Monday-Friday? A GP buyer leaves his GTP in the garage all week so he can drive his Century because 'we can't have fun in a car Monday-Friday'. The law must read somewhere that a car having four doors shall not be allowed to be fun to drive then. But so many folks nowadays thumb their nose at that outdated concept. Its an antique and backwards assumption.
Sedans can be fun AND PRACTICAL.
Mazda6. Altima.
"The new 'Bu is meant to be a practical car. If the 3.5 proves reliable along with the other attributes it has coming out of the shoot, it will be a great engine for a practical car."
'If it proves to be reliable'.
Yeah, but you already said it would cost less to maintain. Now your not entirely sure about its reliability?
In the end it may turn out to be a pretty darn good engine as you say. but really, if GM would once in a while just aim higher and do things like put its new v6 in the Malibu, maybe good would be transcended into something a step above. So then the books wouldn't have to say things like 'yeah its much improved but its still a notch below HONDA in the engine department'.
Bet GM would love to have some of those near 400,000 Accord sales each year. As much of a cult following as Honda has, Chevy still has a longer history, more name recognition, etc. If Chevy did indeed build a superior product it should be fairly easy to begin to win back buyers. But in order to do that, they would have to put a better motor in their car than Honda. Close only counts in horseshoes and slow dancing. Wouldn't it be cool if Chevy built a sedan that would cut away 100-200 thousand units from Honda's and Toyota's market share? The only way to do it is to go the extra step. Give the customer MORE than what they expect.
This new Malibu should do well the first year or so and actually might have a small chance to go above 200,000 units.
But for the history Chevy has, the amount of dealers it has, and the amount of marketing it does in comparison, it seems to me if the car was a home run then Chevy should take its rightful place as number one.
OHV isn't going anywhere, so what?
1) reg, please try to keep 'em shorter. Took me half an hour to get thru that "Gettysburg Address".
2) Alpha: Comparing the Camry SE V-6 vs. the Accord LX V-6, since the engines are most comparable. Camry LE V-6 needs to be really loaded up, so that model hardly saves any dough over the SE V-6, in comparison to the 'Cord LX V-6.
3) Airbags: I agree totally that BOTH side and curtains are the best bet. But, if I have to choose between the two, I'd prefer not to have instant death when my head hits the side glass. Better to take a chance on living thru chest injuries. We have a LOT of side crashes down here when old folks have heart attacks driving their Town Cars or Grand Marquis'!
4) Trunk Space: I too am disappointed that the new 'Bu is down compared to my '98. That's one reason the Maxx appears to be the better bet. And by the way, Chevy DID screw up in saying that 22.8 cu ft was with the rear seats down. It's in fact with 'em up. Good deal.
5) Oil changes: Nearly all '04 GM models (including the new 'Bu and Maxx) have something called an oil life monitor as part of the driver info center. It calculates when the oil needs to be changed based on driving style and other factors. Could be 10K miles, could be 2K miles. You can forget about remembering when to change the oil. The readout will tell you. The competition doesn't do that.
Later.
Brand management. Individual cars, not divisions, were pushed during the Zarella days. Malibu. Impala. Trailblazer. NOT Chevrolet.
Contrary to what Reg thinks, Chevrolet, standing alone, means NOTHING to most people nowadays.
That being said, the brand Malibu does not bring a lot of GOOD things to this party. Why on earth was this car not introduced as, say, the new Chevy Cantata or some other new name?
Much easier to get people to look at the new Cantata than the new Malibu.
And GM needs to market Chevrolet, just as Honda markets Honda. Once upon a time, Chevrolet and Ford were THE two main brands in this country, and there was A standard Chevy (like Honda's Accord or Toyota's Camry) and a standard Ford.
Too many models. Too much confusion. No division image. It's so simple to see.
And has a lot more effect than if a DOHC or OHV engine is under the hood.