Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
And how would you know that I am wrong?
Measure the mileage and fuel, then divide, at each fillup, you'll likely see the difference.
Of course, believing the DIC's reading is a pleasanter thing :-)
My other gripe (also posted previously) is the way the transmission hunts and takes so long to down-shift. I almost got hit two days ago because I started to make a lane change, but the transmission wouldn't downshift quickly enough. I had to dodge back into my own lane and wait a bit longer. Even then, I slapped the shifter into "M" and made a manual down-shift before beginning the lane change. Even manually, it takes way too long to complete the down-shift. Our old VW Beetle with the 90 hp turbo-diesel was better at "point and squirt" driving than the Malibu.
But I'm getting a bit off-subject here. Suffice it to say that, while there is much to recommend the car, on the whole, the fuel mileage and transmission have me looking forward to my next trade.
Basically, I get about 4 to 5 mpg less than the EPA rating... So I
have been rather disappointed in the fuel mileage... My other gripe
... is the way the transmission hunts and takes so long to
down-shift. I almost got hit two days ago because I started to make a
lane change, but the transmission wouldn't downshift quickly
enough.
When such things happen, do you care about the quality of internal
materials or how your car looks? (I don't think so :-))
This is one of the reasons that brought GM down, in my opinion.
Instead of polishing to perfection at least one practical model, they
went for what they thought was "pretty" with the new Malibu.
Most 2004-2008 Malibu's owners have been happy with their car, no
matter what others say about its looks. Many Impala owners have been
happy with theirs -- but in both cases, up to a point. Doesn't
appear that Impala is a reliable and comfortable vehicle (I'd be
scared to buy one), and the 2004-2008 Malibus might have been made a
bit better without dramatic changes, preserving their excellent MPG,
and making the already not-so-bad reliability even better.
"The car of the year", Malibu 2008, comes, impresses with the quality
of materials and ride... And then what happens?
Precisely:
Suffice it to say that, while there is much to recommend the car,
on the whole, the fuel mileage and transmission have me looking
forward to my next trade.
Silly GM! (I am not saying this happily -- it's just that I am
grieving the lack of my own desire to buy a new GM car...)
Yes I'm old and tire technology has made some really good changes since the days of bias belts and fiberglass, but what tire they promote on a race track has nothing to do with everyday driving.
Michilen Weatherwise which was very similar to a Euro tread. They
improved the ride tremendously and the wet/dry traction as well
This is very interesting; I am honestly at a loss about the tires'
impact on the whole experience. Yes, I realize that a tire should not
be worn out -- as a matter of fact, I rotate tires on my three Malibus
myself and carefully inspect them every time I do this (done just once
on my latest, 2006 Maxx).
At this time, I have three kind of tires on these cars:
1. (2005 Base Sedan) Sumitomo HTR T4 Ultra Premium Touring
2. (2005 Base Sedan) The oiginal Goodyear Eagle
3. (2006 Maxx) Front: Cooper; Rear: Continental
Switching between the cars often, I wouldn't be able to tell which
tires are better or worse -- from any perspective. I know which tires
are where, but only by my brain, not by my back or ear. Car #1 has been
driven in pretty bad conditions, rains and snow, and I have nothing
but praise to say for it.
But I would be interested in trying something else, when time comes.
Do you have a recommendation, what to try -- all season tire?
Michellin Weatherwise? Something else?
appearance gets people into the showroom.
Impala: looks great. Sit in it, when you have a chance (I bet you
will not like it for a moment after any Malibu). Read the owners'
forums here at Edmunds (I bet you will not regret not having Impala to
care for).
So, the new Impala was, in a sense, a GM killer. Not a killer model,
a killer. The car that had to be almost like a tank, bulletproof --
the new hope for GM some five years ago, is such that even I, a GM
die-hard by today's metrics, won't buy it. But I much enjoy its looks
when I see one.
I would never have considered the old model because it did not
offer the style and features I wanted.
What specific must-have features did it miss, in your opinion?
Say, an MP3 port. GM could have added it to the old model at
next-to-zero cost. This is something I meant when I was saying, "make
the current model flawless."
When you say "would never have considered the old model", you know, of
course, better, but realistically, you don't know -- it would depend
on the presentation given to the car at the time you were looking to
buy a new one.
You probably won't have time and/or desire to read owners' reviews for
that generation of Malibu here and at Carpoint / autos.msn.com, but I
did read them again this summer before buying my third Malibu -- and:
Wow!... And this is the car GM decided to drop?...
When on the road, pay attention to how the 2004-2008 Malibus look: not
to their boxy shape (the appreciation comes with time), but at the
condition of these cars. Watching many such cars in driveways, on
local roads and highways, I can't help but notice in what great shape
most of them are. Some of that is, perhaps, due to the cars' internal
properties, but plenty, I want to think, is due to the care they
receive from their owners. They all look like loved ones...
Hey, I didn't like the shape of 2005 Malibu until I got my first one.
Now you should see me dotting over them :-)
By the way, I was complimented twice on the looks of the Malibu
yesterday.
I do enjoy seeing the new Malibu, and I liked its ride when I briefly
tried. But I equally enjoy seeing the old (2004-2008) Malibu. These
two seem to be cars for different buyers: the older is more
utilitarian, the new one for those who want "the other look". Should
the 2004+ model be available and legendary reliable, it would sell all
right, I think, even today. They should have worked on making it that
reliable!... They should have been replacing the flawed steering
columns free of charge for 100K miles, no questions asked. Etc. It
would be cheaper than what they ended up with. (They -- GM.)
I'd readily compliment you on the looks of your Malibu, though. Truly
hoping you'll be enjoying it, and if in a couple of years I'll see
owners giving it the review similar to what my generation has now,
I'll buy one, I swear :-)
I have heard some good things about Sumitomo and Continental and the Eagles on some vehicles, but to me the Eagles seem to have a stiff sidewall and without the proper suspension the ride could be harsh. Also passing that harshness to the suspension could beat it to death.
I will store your info in my mind, but not sure what changes might have been done to '08 and up regarding suspension. Since GM likes to use old parts, even from other models, it is likely they made no change.
As for features, I'll admit that I never took a close look at the feature set on the old Malibu. But I do like the mp3 port. That is not a deal killer, however. What I do require are heated leather seats with an adjustable lumbar support. The leather is just a preference. And, I'll admit I'm spoiled, but those heated seats are awfully nice on a cold midwestern morning. (BTW - I'll stipulate that the '07 Malibu was available with those - although I don't think it offered a power passenger seat.) The adjustable lumbar, though, is a necessity, as I have a bad lower back. If I do not have proper support, even the 2.5 hours from here to DesMoines can be painful.
The other feature I don't recall seeing on the old model is dual zone climate control. Again, I've become spoiled, but it does allow my wife to control the temperature on her side - especially on trips where the sun comes beaming in on one side and not the other - so that we are both comfortable.
The old model also came with only a 4 speed automatic. I know I've ragged on the 6AT in the current model, but most cars in its class have had a 5AT for a while. And, given their history, there is no excuse for GM failing to produce a transmission that is equal to or better than their competitors.
All that said, I'm not trying to denigrate your car. You obviously like it very much and it evidently fits your wants and needs. And it probably fits my needs - just not my wants.
As for the plastic, I am all for improving it, so that it doesn't break, at least. But honestly, haven't had any such problems with my cars. The inside feels much better than the upscale Bonnevile 1999 and not worse than the 2002 VW Jetta, both of which I had. My wife is *very* noise-sensitive; I asked her today, "Are our cars noisy?". "No", she said. That's the definitive judgment for me :-) Oh, and we have made several 2000-mile trips in one of the cars. Heavily loaded, often in 100F heat -- comfortably and with the up to 38.2 MPG over the trip (calculated by the fuel used). Beat this :-)
Leather -- available. Heated -- I think so, but I am too lazy to check. Lumbar support? Even my Base Sedans have it -- and it is *perfect*. The seats (cloth) are terrific (I am speaking with the experience of several 2200-miles trips.)
I live in cold MA -- the remote start takes care of cold mornings, frozen windows etc.
No dual zone climate control.
I love the transmission in my sedans (still getting used to Maxx's ways, though -- a different dynamics.)
Thank you for the informative exchange! I am looking at the new Malibu with a more interested eye for the second day now -- hope you'll be able to recommend this car in about two years -- my wants may change, too :-)
If you are considering the 2010 Malibu, let me offer several thoughts. I downsized from a Cadillac DTS to a 2010 2LT Malibu. I actually had no problems with my Caddy that had 60,000 miles on it when traded in, but wanted something with better gas mileage ( even though my Caddy got 26.6 MPG on the highway which I thought was great). I'm not going to try to compare the Malibu with my Caddy but I've got to say that I have nearly every option in the Malibu that I did in the Caddy., and cost me $20,000 less! Plus I have bluetooth and a sunroof in the new Malibu, options I didn't have in the DTS. Obviously the ride is not as smooth but it still is a wonderful riding car ( Malibu). I now wish I would have purchased an LTZ instead of 2 LT to get the leather seats and automatic climate control, which I get tired of adjusting the climate control knob- something I haven't been used to doing for some time! The 4 Cyl. 6 speed automatic gives me all the power I need, so I would stay with the 4 Cyl- and I as I said in a previous message getting 32-37 MPG on the highway. You won't go wrong with purchasing a new Malibu.
I don't see any difference between 09 and 10 that would give you the extraordinary MPG compared to others with the same setup.
Which tires came on yours?
But now also wonder how much the lighting draws if it is on unncessarily since I run it in auto all the time.
To get seat memory it seems I'd have to move to a Buick or Cadillac.
I now see why you got over 30MPG (72MPH). The last few times I've hit the road, interstate, most places you would get run over doing less than 80MPH. There is one stretch of I-95 midway between Savannah and JAX that they enforce speed more carefully. Even with four lanes each way it often can not handle capacity and is accident prone so most set cruise at 79MPH.
With the 4 cyl, 6-speed, I have gotten 30 MPG every tankful since the day I drove it off the lot. Every time. If you can believe the trip computer, it says that my around-town driving yields around 24 MPG, and my interstate driving yields from 33 MPG (doing 70 mph) to 43 MPG doing 55.
Great car. My first American car and I don't regret it at all.
If it is the I4, you might have a problem, unless you are driving really hard on city streets or really fast on interstate. You should get really good mileage if driving below 70MPH. But above that I'm not impressed. I stretched it out to 90 for a short time and the DIC was showing only slightly better than what you got. The V8 Aurora I had would get upper 20's at 70. 25-26 MPG at 80 and 23 MPG at 90, better than the Malibu at that speed and it still had plenty of acceleration at that speed.
Interestingly, I've generally gotten the EPA mileage on the Monroney with my other GM products (a Chevy pickup, 2 Yukons, a Yukon XL, an Avalanche, an Olds Cutlass and a Corvette). That's why I was rather surprised that I'm so far off with the Malibu. On my current tank, I'm below 20 mpg.
Since I don't know how the DIC calculates mileage, does the fill and calculate with miles show a difference?
Assuming no, does the service engine light come on during the boot up? If it does, that does not mean no computer problem and also does not mean there is, but it is just not setting a code for the problem.
Eliminate external leaks from the tank to the engine. Sniff for gasoline also. You could have a leak near the top of tank and cruising you are sucking gas from tank. You might try a series of half fills to find out if mileage varies. Topping off the last one to get total gallons.
Ruling out external leaks, the fuel pressure regulator, used for some years now, is noted for leaking diaphrams allowing fuel to be pulled through manifold. This however should show up as a rich mix which the computer should then try to lean. and often sets a code for being outside parameters or other codes. Often the leaking diaphram is proved by removing vacuum line from it and checking for wetness (gasoline).
Beyond that, you will likely need a thorough diagnostic, unless you have equipment that can read the data from computer and you can interpret it.
With the degree of richness you imply by poor mileage it is likely the catalytic converter is damaged or will have a shortened life.
Good Luck.
Cutting that hole in the roof will certainly weaken the roof, unless extra reinforcement is added. Sort of like the difference between a convertible and sedan. To make up for the loss of the bracing created by a steel roof, extra steel is added to stiffen the unibody.
Also, glass weighs more than steel. In the 60's Mustangs the Fastback weighed about 65# more because of that extra glass. Many preferred it though because the Mustang was quite light on the rear otherwise, but gas was also 5 gallon for $1.
55-60 mph: 39 mpg
65-70 mph: 33 mpg
75-80 mph: 29 mpg
city: 22 mpg
I never thought I'd own an American sedan. Japanese and German cars before. This is my favorite car to date.
One week, set the cruise at 60. The next, set it at 65.
I took all the data over 40,000 miles, and those are my results.
But, since 6K it does not seem quite as peppy.
And you don't think that the temperature differences are a contributor to your results?
for the duration of our 10 day trip.
I usually fueled up when down to 1/4 tank, but topped off 7-8 gallons twice for the 10 stops for fuel. The grand total for 2,942 miles was 80.68 gallons or 36.465mpg. This included the drive up and down the Tennessee mountains, two 30-45 minute traffic stop and go situations through construction and the infamous Chattanooga after work drive. We also made two round trips from Anna Maria, to Sarasota in city excursions, and few more grocery runs and shopping trips into Bradenton. So this was the AVERAGE for the entire trip.
I CALCULATE each tank full and obtained a high of 39.1mpg on one leg of the trip. Our car had 14,604 when we left and 17,546 at the gas station in town when we arrived and filled up for our last tankful. We understandably got the lowest mpg when we had some head winds, but only had some limited low/tail winds on our return through Illinois. I also tried to alternate tier 2 name brand premium with regular fill ups. I also filled up at least twice with the cheapest truck stop gas we found along the way when we needed to refill. So I have no conclusive evidence of one gas performing better than another. I try and use tier 2 fuels as much as possible since they are usually the same price in our area as no names, but supposedly contain fuel system and combustion chamber detergents. Who really knows?
So we are well pleased and find our Malibu LTZ gets better than listed mpg. Around town we get 20 -26 mpg ( lower for winter-stop and go, etc) and 28 - 34 mpg combined when including occasional interstate 40 to 70 mile runs for my wife's shopping trips. We're happy , and comparing this to our 2005 Malibu Maxx LT with the 3.5L it is somewhat better, but for a V6 that Malibu Maxx got within 2mpg of the above figures. We owned the Maxx for 4.5 years and wished they still made them. The 3.5L 200hp V6 was a great engine and GM seemed to have had the push rod design really refined for performance and mileage.
Well, hope this wasn't "too much information". :-)
luggage, going mostly between 72 - 78 mph... under varying weather
and wind conditions.
... 36.465mpg. This included the drive up and down the Tennessee
mountains ... the AVERAGE for the entire trip....
... a high of 39.1mpg on one leg of the trip...
Great results and a great review!
For comparison, quoting here my post # 243 (Base Sedan 2005, 1100
miles for each leg of the trips, and the likely comparable driving
conditions and mode):
| +-------+-------+------+
| |__When_|__Where|__MPG_|
| --------+-------+------+
| |_08/05_|_MA-TN_|_36.6_|
| |_______|_TN-MA_|_36.8_|
| +-------+-------+------+
| |_08/08_|_MA-TN_|_36.6_|
| |_______|_TN-MA_|_37.4_|
| +-------+-------+------+
| |_09/05_|_MA-TN_|_38.2_|
| |_______|_TN-MA_|_37.8_|
| +-------+-------+------+
|
| The bottom line: 38.2 MPG, the highest so far; 37.8 MPG with the car
| fully loaded, going over mountains easily.
Looks like we are comparable :-)
So I have no conclusive evidence of one gas performing better than
another. I try and use tier 2 fuels as much as possible since they are
usually the same price in our area as no names, but supposedly contain
fuel system and combustion chamber detergents. Who really knows?
Watching my MPG very carefully, I've never been able to detect its
dependence on the gas brand (while I prefer Shell due to its
detergent).
We owned the Maxx for 4.5 years and wished they still made
them. The 3.5L 200hp V6 was a great engine and GM seemed to have had
the push rod design really refined for performance and mileage.
Having now owned Maxx 2006 LT for about seven months and 2,000 miles,
I agree. What an enjoyeable and practical car, and so well made
(knock on the wood)!..
Well, hope this wasn't "too much information".
That was just terrific -- thanks!
goes, will be a sad one on these forums... Take good care of your now
legendary Maxx! :-)
And for the brake pads: do you use the OEM Delcos or some other brand?