Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Don't get me wrong, the Maxx is a great car. I am not knocking it. But when people stress mileage, they need to look at the big picture. How do bigger wheels and tires affect the car? How does my driving technique affect the mileage? How does the type of commute affect mileage (long trips w/ cruise or short stop and go trips)? How fast do I drive?
The Maxx is quite a bit heavier as well which undoubtedly have an impact, especially in stop and go driving around town.
The sedan also comes with smaller wheels in the less expensive models.
I don't know that the gearing is any different between the various models.
Just for an idea of how big of a deal this is...the new Accord is touted as being extremely aerodynamic for a family car. The last version Accord had a Cd of .33 while the new Accord has a Cd of .30. This translates into about 10% better mileage at 55 mph, and an even greater amount at higher speeds. So I am sure that the Maxx to Malibu difference will be greater. As another comparison, I know that the new Vette had a Cd of .28, and I believe the old Vette was either .30 or .31.
As far as gearing differences, I don't know if the tranny or differential are different between the sedan and Maxx, but the final drive can definitely be different due to different sized tires.
The question I ask myself is, as the outside diameter of a tire increases and the manufacturer were not to recalibrate sp./od., logic tells me that it would be manifested as an apparent decrease in gas mileage (because the wheels would travel a greater distance for each revolution of the wheel). However, if the driver were to measure the fuel used for a fixed known distance (your commute, for example), you would be able to calculate if the mileage really did fall off. Perhaps the true fuel mileage might even improve, as what you are doing when increasing the tire diameter is tantamount to lowering the final drive ratio (numerically lower).
So, I wonder if you could increase your true gas mileage by increasing outside tire diameter, no matter what your trip computer might tell you.
BTW, the Maxx does have a numerically higher final drive ratio when compared with the sedan's, surely to account for both it's higher weight and poorer coefficient of drag. I've noted that the Maxx, while typically getting somewhat poorer mileage than the sedan, the difference seems to be hardly worth mentioning. I'd guess the difference would be more pronounced at higher cruise speeds, where the Maxx's higher CD would have a greater impact (drag being a function of the square of your speed through the air, and all that...).
ronbo10, you must be an engineer or something, right? :shades:
For one thing, the transmission appears to calibrate itself to the driver and itself, which helps improve mileage.
It also helps to run the tire pressure a little higher than recomended (especially in the front tires which are carrying most of the vehicle's weight) - I usually run 33 psi front/ 30-31 psi rear. Good note on the Yokahama tires (CU toprated one of these recently) - will check those out!
What did you eventually decide? I have the Comfortreads and have no loss of milage at all. They have a good ride, they handle well and are very quiet.
Note: These numbers are from my DIC, which I've found to be usually right on or within 1MPG high. Average speed as indicated by my DIC when I get 24MPG is around 35MPH and is 38-40MPH when I get 22MPG.
We drove from Pgh to Hiton Head in the summer and averaged 31 on the way down and 29 on the way back (drove about 5-10 mph faster comming home).
The only real comment I have about the tripletreds are their grip. Holy cow do they hold the road! I have always had an all-season tire. The OEM Bridgestone 450s that I replaced were not a bad tire as far as grip is concerned, but they became a bit noisy and rough at about 28k miles. There tread design was a bit blocky, which to me means "noise". The Tripletreds are quite a bit quieter than the OEMs, but they are a bit stiff. On smooth roads they are perfect. On rougher roads, they are quiet but not as soft as I would have liked. The flip side is the handling. These tires handle awsome! Wet or dry, these things corner like a dream. The car is much more responsive. I will see snow in the next few weeks, and by January can comment on thier snow capabilities.
Ask me in spring about mileage gains or losses.
Where we drive so much we can't even drive the 2000 for a full school week without having to refill it (as it only has about a 280 mile range, which is lame for a car of it's size; this is due to GM advertising it's gas tank as being 3 gallons bigger than it actually is.) It is extremely frustating :mad: WE have friends that have a 1997 Buick LeSabre and they get 27 mpg reguarly, and up to 30 on roadtrips. How could GM produce a full size sedan 3 years older that gets better mileage than a 3 years newer midsize sedan? A mechanic at the dealer we got the car from said GM changed something on the 2001 models so they got better MPG. Has anyone else had this type of consistenly low MPG on a pre-2001 Malibu? If so, post because I would like to know about it. Because I have an inkling that if other people HAVEN'T been getting this low mileage like our 2000 LS has, we might have a lemon on our hands. :lemon: Other than the MPG, everything else about the car(aside from interior plastics quality)has been great thus far. Hopefully typical GM reliability issues will not begin to manifest themselves as the miles continue to accumlate (this car will probably be pushing 90,000 miles by May of 2006 with the amount of driving we do.)
On the trip west I averaged 32.4 mpg and on the trip east, with the wind, I averaged 34.4. I am more than satisfied with these numbers and expect that they will improve somewhat in warmer weather and after the engine is broken in. I can offer no advice on the reliability of the 2.2L. I can tell you that it is somewhat lacking for passing power at highway speeds but most of my driving is on the interstates so that is not critical to me. I leased the car primarily because of it's fuel mileage rating plus it's value for the dollar and am not disappointed with the results so far.
My 2000 Malibu gets about 35-37 MPG highway on regular unleaded. (Calculated by 65 mile one way trip using an eyeballed 1/8 gas tank, tank capacity given as 14.1 US gal in the owners manual.)
I haven't calculated out her city MPG, but I do 90% long trips and maybe 10% short.
This summer we will probably have $3.00 plus fuel. Both gas and diesel. This is not going to get any better until we cut down on the use of fuel.
Add a good diesel to these cars and our fuel use would be much less. We wouldn't be able to win many 0 to 60 contest, but our billfold would be happier.
On a trip from Central Pennsylvania to Chicago, I got 35.9 on the trip out and 34.5 on the trip back, with cruise on, and taking it steady and easy, and with my trunk loaded up.
Just my opinion, but I think maybe something is not adjusted right with your car's fuel system..??? That mileage sounds low for a Malibu of that year.
My overall average fuel economy is 26.915 mpg calculated. The meter's average is 28.384 but the meter is usually more optimistic than actual calculated. The best fuel economy was 38.17 mpg and the worst was 22.564 mpg. On a 3000 mile mostly highway and freeway trip last summer I averaged 34.97 mpg at an average highway speed from the meter of 67.556 mph.
My normal in city commuting with a combination of freeway and city streets in about a 50/50 mix yielded an average fuel economy of 25.147 mpg at an average speed of 25.76 mph.
Personally I'm quite happy with the Malibu, the level of performance of the 201HP V6 and the comfort when taking long trips. It has delivered better than the EPA fuel economy and is the first vehicle I've owned that I've been able to regularly exceed the EPA's average highway mileage.
I have used Mobil 1 in the vehicle ever since the first oil change, it was purchased new in April of 2004. Oil is changed when the meter reading gets around 10% oil life left. The air filter is changed every 10K miles. I live in Phoenix AZ where the AC is used a lot more than it would be in a more moderate climate.
Just keep in mind that the GM Oil Life System is algorithm based and calibrated for "normal" oil. So it isn't allowing you any extra miles for using a synthetic.
Your number (40.12 mpg) is very heart-warming for a Malibu owner, but
I am afraid it is an aberration and can't be taken as a serious data
point. It is well above of what I remember other people have been
reporting, including your own post #87.
Consider this:
| Just returned home from northern Michigan. Filled up just before
| getting on the freeway. Mostly level driving with some rolling
| hills.
1. Since you didn't make a round trip, you can't be sure that your
trip was not "net-downhill". It might have seemed "mostly level
driving" to you, but in fact the difference in the start and finish
altitudes might have helped you to get the high mileage you are
reporting in this post.
| Filled up again near my home. 162.1 miles driven, 4.04 gallons to
| fill up = 40.12 MPG for the trip.
2. Your fuel purchase might have been too small to expect an accurate
MPG computation.
At the first and second gas stations, the fuel valves might have
shut off at slightly different levels of gas in your tank, either
due to to a sensor operation, or to the "attendant" (e.g. you)
holding the handle at slightly different angles.
How much of an inaccuracy should we expect here? I'd say, 0.25
gallons would not be too much.
Let's do the math:
162.1 / 4.04 => 40.12 (reported by you)
162.1 / (4.04 + 0.25) => 37.78 (much more realistic -- and surely great).
162.1/ (4.04 + 0.5) => 35.70 (even more realistic -- and still great).
| This is a 2006 LS sedan with the 4 cyl. and 5,702 miles one the
| ododmeter. My average for the 5,700 miles is about 31.6 MPG combined
| city/highway driving.
About 31.6 MPG I am not surprised :-)
I love watching the economy display going to 42 MPG and higher on a
short (say, 10-mile) trip, soon after a fill-up -- only I know this is
not a real data :-)...
I just returned from a five-day round-trip. Here is what I've got:
* Distance: 2741 miles
* Avg. speed: 59 mph
* Fuel used: 75.47 gallons
* Fuel economy computer reading: 38.6 mpg
* Fuel economy real: 36.32 mpg
I am not unhappy with 36.32 mpg for that trip -- not at all!
Was going through the terrible (North-) Eastern rains, pouring over
the roads from MA to VA this past week. Was climbing the great Smoky
Mountains in NC and TN -- mostly in the left-most driving lane, both
in the mountains and on the roads with the posted speed limit of 70
mph :-)
Never felt a lack of power, always was curious as to what my real MPG
was going to be in the end (the economy display was mostly fluctuating
between 37.3 and 38.6).
36.32 -- a mile better than the advertised economy range.
I am **very** happy with the car.
2005 Malibu Base Sedan.
1. I checked the elevations for both the start and end points of my trip. I actually climbed 246 ft. in elevation to reach my destination. If you have ever been to Michigan you know that with the exception of the Porcupine Mountains in the western end of the Upper Peninsula, we have very little terrain that could even be described as "hilly". The rolling areas I referred to were located along the Lake Michigan shoreline south of Ludington MI. Most of my trip was on relatively flat terrain.
2. I agree with your point that the short length of this trip could compound any error in determining actual MPG. However, I did attempt to make fuel use as accurate as possible by "topping off" each time by slowing adding fuel until the tank would take no more. I may be off a little here but I don't believe by more than the quarter of a gallon you mention.
3. As far as my 40 MPG being an aberration, I'm not so sure. Remember, this trip was made during dry, warm (upper 70's) conditions on a weekday with very little traffic to contend with. I was alone in the car and did not use the A/C. I did use cruise control set at 70 mph for most of the trip, except when slowing for construction areas with posted speeds of 60 mph or 45 mph. I filled up just before entering the highway and just after exiting it.
In my previous post #87 I mentioned getting 37.09 MPG. This was done on the exact same route only going north instead of south and the car only had 3,797 miles on it at that time. The trip was in mid May with much colder temps.
In your post you mention that you came within 3.68 MPG of getting 40 MPG yourself in a year older car on a much longer trip that entailed mountain driving and heavy rain. You didn't mention if you used your A/C during any of your trip. Were you making on conscious effort to stretch your fuel?
Anyway, I put the info up for what it's worth. Maybe others out there can confirm that the Malibu 4 cylinder sedan will do 40 MPG under the right conditions?
First, thank you for your detailed response -- it does clarify some
things.
,--- You said
|
| First, let me say that I was not trying to boast about my fuel
| economy in my earlier post, I was just reporting on the results I
| obtained under the conditions stated. But here is some additional
| info in response to your post:
In post #93, I, of course, didn't mean to say that you were trying to
boast. You definitely provided interesting and detailed information
-- but the number seemed too good not to be scrutinized.
| But here is some additional info in response to your post:
| 1. I checked the elevations for both the start and end points of my
| trip. I actually climbed 246 ft. Most of my trip was on relatively
| flat terrain.
You just eliminated one suspicion I had. Very impressive!
| I agree with your point that the short length of this trip could
| compound any error in determining actual MPG. However, I did attempt
| to make fuel use as accurate as possible by "topping off" each time
| by slowing adding fuel until the tank would take no more. I may be
| off a little here but I don't believe by more than the quarter of a
| gallon you mention.
So, let's say that you MPG was not less than
| 162.1 / (4.04 + 0.25) => 37.78 (much more realistic -- and surely great).
-- which seems great to me, too.
| 3. As far as my 40 MPG being an aberration, I'm not so
| sure. Remember, this trip was made during dry, warm (upper 70's)
| conditions on a weekday with very little traffic to contend with. I
| was alone in the car and did not use the A/C. I did use cruise
| control set at 70 mph for most of the trip, except when slowing for
| construction areas with posted speeds of 60 mph or 45 mph. I filled
| up just before entering the highway and just after exiting it.
With this information in mind, 40 mpg doesn't seem like a stretch to
me now -- it doesn't go against my own data.
| In my previous post #87 I mentioned getting 37.09 MPG. This was done
| on the exact same route only going north instead of south and the
| car only had 3,797 miles on it at that time. The trip was in mid May
| with much colder temps.
Yeah, I have noticed the dramatic difference the temperature makes to
the MPG. The data you have reported looks very coherent now.
Mind you, I am a **huge** Malibu fan -- so huge that I have two of
them -- almost complete twins (and I am the only one who drives them
both for now). Your data makes me love the car(s) even more :-)
| In your post you mention that you came within 3.68 MPG of getting 40
| MPG yourself in a year older car
First, the car that made that trip from MA to the South and West and
then back is not quite a year old -- it was produced in November 2004
but then spent a year on some dealers' lots. I purchased it in
January 2006.
I started the trip with 5458 miles on the odometer (counting from the
gas station, right before the trip) -- and ended it with 8199 miles
(again, counting it on the same gas station, visited shortly after the
trip).
Three days before the trip, I dumped the OEM oil and replaced it with
Mobil-1 synthetic (I change oil and rotate tires myself).
The trip was by far not under the optimal conditions. Consider this:
my average speed for the trip was 59 mph. This is after going mostly
over the roads with 65 and 70 mph posted speed limits (and not
dragging feet there).
That is:
a. I did have some city driving during the trip (my points of
interest were obviously off the highways.)
b. I did go through some stop-and-go maneuvers on the major
highways. In this regard, going from DE and MD to Washington DC
was the hardest -- we had to creep for miles to cross bridges
and toll plazas... A sad experience.
Both "a" and "b" accrued much smaller miles compared to the rest --
the normal highway driving, but obviously they took my number somewhat
down. I want to say, by 0.5 mpg -- but I don't know, of course.
| on a much longer trip that entailed mountain driving and heavy rain.
These two were likely significant factors working against me.
Roughly a third of the trip was under a scary blinding rain -- with
the car's AC working periodically to defog the windows.
Mountain driving was such that the car's MPG display (showing the
cumulative data for the trip) went from 38.3 to 36.8 -- and this after
making one third of the (long) trip. The mountains certainly didn't
help...
| You didn't mention if you used your A/C during any of your trip.
Moderately -- perhaps running it over 1/3 of the miles, too.
| Were you making on conscious effort to stretch your fuel?
No -- my absolute priorities were getting to the four pre-set
destination points on time.
Also, I should mention that I had a passenger in the car, plus a
meaningful load to stay mostly autonomous for five days -- food,
water, clothing -- perhaps an equivalent of a slim second passenger.
| Anyway, I put the info up for what it's worth.
Me, too :-)
| Maybe others out there can confirm that the Malibu 4 cylinder sedan
| will do 40 MPG under the right conditions?
Thinking about what your reported and my own data, I want to hope that
under the right conditions 40 mpg is possible -- and I mean a long
trip, taking at least 8 gallons of fuel -- without net-descending, of
course.
But I've never seen an evidence of such an experience -- that is,
until reading your last post. Would be lovely to hear from somebody
else that 40 mpg has been achieved -- on a long "level" trip.
When I was going on my long trip, I was hoping to get 38-39 mpg in the
end, based on my past experience.
Got 36.32 mpg, as you know -- great in itself, and even better when
taking the circumstances into account.
BTW, my MPG experience is very consistent between my two Malibu's.
The first one was bought in May 2005 and, as of last fill-up, has
11562 miles on the odometer. On both cars, MPG falls during winter
months, and during warm months (April-November?) the city MPG can be
estimated as falling in the range of 24-26 mpg, while on a level
highway, under good circumstances, I could hope to get around 36-38
mpg -- in line with the results of my long trip.
Hope to get 40 mpg, one day, though :-).
All in all -- Malibu is a perfect car for me, and the MPG is just one
of the things I love. Thank you Chevy and e2helper, if you read this!
Coincidently, I just changed out the OEM oil today with Mobil One. Car has 6210 miles on the odometer and the DIC was showing 22% oil life left. Didn't want to push it any further on the original oil though.
I will be making this trip to and from northern Michigan often as I have a summer place "up north" in Manistee. Will see if I can duplicate the 40 MPG again.
|
| Only other thing I can add is that I keep my tires inflated to 32
| psi cold. This might make a slight difference too.
I keep mine at 32 psi cold -- checked right before *that* trip, too
:-)
| Coincidently, I just changed out the OEM oil today with Mobil
| One. Car has 6210 miles on the odometer and the DIC was showing 22%
| oil life left.
Which comes to the 7961 miles (6210 / .78) OCI, per your computer.
I do this computation after every gas fill-up and (just checked it)
normally have an estimate of full oil life to be somewhat lower than
your number. It may fluctuate from 6500 to 8000+, but, I'd say, 7500
is my idea of what the average result would be. Your reading, if
consistent, probably indicates that you are driving gentler than I --
and/or under better conditions.
FYI, after my long trip (with the oil changed on the eve of it), the
oil data was:
* Run on this oil: 2785 m
* Oil life left (as per DIC): 64%
--> Estimated oil life (between the changes): 7736 miles.
| I will be making this trip to and from northern Michigan often as I
| have a summer place "up north" in Manistee. Will see if I can
| duplicate the 40 MPG again.
I will be rooting for you and expect the results eagerly. Good luck!
Almost AC on all the way.
I must say based on the standard figures given by Chevy(20 local 29 high way), the result is reasonable. But I have seen so many of you have a terrific mpg which my result is only a mediocre.
This is just a very different car than the 2001 Malibu.
Is that true?
I have a Cobalt with the same 4 cylinder, but a stick shift, and get 35 mpg on my daily freeway commute and up to 37 mpg on road trips. I'd love to have a 4 cylinder Malibu for the extra space and the automatic!
|
| I just finished a trip from Gulf Shores Alabama to Buffalo and back
| - I logged 2,600 miles. From Start to stop ... I posted an over-all
| 33.7 MPG average. However I got 39.9 the last leg of my trip where I
| was doing 72MPG, and up and down hills for a point.
But can you tell that you were not going net-down-hill on this last
leg?
| I have seen my car get over 40 MPG before, but I am making this post
| because I know many people just can't beleive this car get's this
| mileage, but for me and the other owners, it's not fantasy, rather
| reality.
I love my two Malibus (both base 2005 sedans) -- love them more with
every day I drive them (well, one at a time :-) -- and am glad to hear
other people's happy stories about the car, but I haven't seen the
evidence that this car can make anywhere close to 40 mpg on a "closed
loop" trip.
See my posts starting from #93 and notice #99 by gdubya2 -- I am still
waiting to see anybody to report a long (more than 8 gallons of fuel
spent) round trip with the result exceeding 37 mpg.
My own best result (as stated in #93) was 36.32 mpg on a 2741 miles
round trip.
| Why this car isn't listed in the Top Fuel Economy Sedans is beyond
| me. I now have ZERO respect for Consumer Reports who hasn't given
| this car much praise,
How could CR have adequate knowledge about essentially every car on
the market? It takes at least weeks of operating to get an idea of a
new car's behavior and peculiarities. Where would CR get time and
money to do this research?.. Their reports are a joke, often carried
over from a year to a year.
E.g., in the 2005 and 2006 (if memory serves) April editions, CR
claimed that Malibu Maxx was more reliable than the sedan.
Where did they get it? I've been watching the Malibu forums on
Edmunds.com from the early 2005 and am under a firm impression that
the number of problems with Maxx reported in these forums is by orders
of magnitude higher than the ones for the *new* sedan.
Was CR comparing the reliability of Maxx to the reliability of the
*old* (Classic) Malibu, maybe?
Beats me how people can still take CR seriously, when better sources
(e.g. Edmunds.com) are available.
| but I have owned Toyota's and Honda's and my 4 cylinder acts like a
| 6 cylinder, and divvies up some impressive numbers for it's owner
Can't compare Bu 4 to Bu 6, but I drove on a 6-cylinder 3.8L engine
for 6 years prior to Malibu and don't have a bit of regret that both
my Bu's are Ecotec 2.2L-driven. Nice torque, among other things!
,-- micweb --
|
| I have a Cobalt with the same 4 cylinder, but a stick shift, and get
| 35 mpg on my daily freeway commute and up to 37 mpg on road trips.
These numbers sound just right -- higher than Malibu's numbers I can
trust, as they should be.