And ask me. I think back to last year at this time...car shopping. Let's see...there was the 2003 Accord with 80,000kms with a strange noise from the engine and NOT a good test drive experience but yet the overly arrogant Honda salesman wanted over $20k for that car and others like it! No full airbag set up, not near the power of the Malibu, many more km's, older model, virtually no warranty left. So yes I picked very wisely, the top rated 05 Malibu. I wont go over the price and details again, you can look back at my posts for that.
I did lots of research, lots of test drives and in the end, the Malibu was the true quality value over the rest, its why I chose it! I'm not a kid buying their 1st car here. I've done it alot in the past 30 and have always come out the winner but yet no Hondas or Toyotas ever purchased by me. Hmmm...how can this be? I must be an idiot, broke, always driving a broken down North American car or paying to get it out of the shop. Not so. Not even close.
Most people buy with a price in mind, they're on a budget. I happened to get more than I set out to with less money. No amount of blabbering on about other cars can change that fact. I saved money, got a great car and came in under budget. Couldnt have done that buying a comparable import, simple as that. And believe me, I tried!
I've come to trust my own judgement and it's been proven to be very reliable. Now I'll drive the 05 Malibu for the next 5-10 years and prove once again that MY cost of ownership will beat most anyone's.
A FYI....anyone interested in one of the safest cars in this class, the Malibu is doing even better for 07. Now number 3. Above Honda and Toyota and only beat out by an Audi and a Subaru. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30
That raises a question that I don't know the answer to...does the Malibu still come with the 2.2L Ecotec from the Cobalt? Or is the 3.5L standard now?
Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that if anything, it is the 2.2L Ecotec that is the true standard in the 2006+ sedans. One needs to go rather high in the sedan lineup in order to get the 3.5L engine (that was my impression from studying the 2006 lineup.) In the year 2005, 2.2L Ecotec was only offered in the very base sedan; the LS and LT levels had the 3.5L engine.
The 2.2L Ecotec is a marvelous engine -- you probably know that apart from the Cobalt, Malibu and G6 (?) it also goes into Saab -- and GM's European models, such Opel (if things haven't changed by now).
People are claiming to be able to get up to 40 mpg in a 2.2L Ecotec under good conditions. My personal peak on a 2700-miles trip through rains and mountains was 36.3 mpg, at the average speed 59 mph (measured by the distance / fuel purchased).
I've come to trust my own judgement and it's been proven to be very reliable. Now I'll drive the 05 Malibu for the next 5-10 years and prove once again that MY cost of ownership will beat most anyone's.
Now I'll drive the 05 Malibu for the next 5-10 years and prove once again that MY cost of ownership will beat most anyone's
My brother bought a truck for $800, and he is still driving it today (8 years later). $100 dollars per year, how's that for true cost to own. Low true cost to own is easy, if you buy used (a car someone else picked out, and drove around for a couple of years). If you want a car you choose yourself (new) it will cost more, but I would rather not drive someone else's hand-me-down car.
Since you mentioned the 03 Accord, I did a little checking. Seems that if you want to get the same horse power (240) as my Accord 3.0L you have to get the 3.9L engine in the Malibu. This engine is almost a full liter larger, not nearly as smooth or quiet, it's also heavier, and less fuel efficient. Wow, what a bargain. What does the SS stand for? Super Slug.
Do you think that the torque 217 @ 4000 RPM makes a weaker engine than the one that has it at 212 @ 5000 RPM? Is Malibu's fuel economy listed above not good enough?
SS stands for Super Sport if you happen not to know. Hurling insults doesn't make your point any stronger, IMHO.
Why did you pick a 5 year old V6 Accord to compare with the Latest Malibu Sedan? Your engine info is a little skewed since you picked the Accord before the horsepower bump.
He didn't mention the 3.5L, he was comparing power in the 3.9L vs. the 3.0L in the Accord. What economy does the 3.9L get in the Malibu SS?
Do you think that the torque 217 4000 RPM makes a weaker engine than the one that has it at 212 5000 RPM?
When it comes to performance, YES, horse power matters most. The smaller 3.0L Accord engine is smoother, quieter, and more powerful than the Malibu's 3.5L engine. Since these cars are only rated to haul 1,000 pounds, your extra 5 pounds of torque is wasted.
I just found your flaw...I have a 4-cylinder Accord, and never said the mileage in a Cobalt was better than the mileage in a V6 Accord, just Accord. The 4-cylinder Honda is even rated higher in the EPA tests than the Cobalt. I would expect the 145 hp Cobalt to have much better economy than the 244 hp Accord V6...
was that addressed to me ? I can't recall talking about Cobalt's mileage at all.
Ok so the outcome of such discussion would be volatile like the stock market If some manufacurer makes a breakthrough, does it negate the the history of the close competition of the prior years ?
No, it surely doesn't, but I can almost guarantee that nobody will want to be talking about the old Malibu when the new one comes out, since it will only be on pre-owned lots and in driveways already. People will have generally reached a conclusion about the car already. I didn't mean to imply we can't talk about it, because that's not my place to say!
If anyone here is considering buying the Cobalt, I would suggest considering the Malibu instead. For about the same gas mileage, you get a bigger, more comfortable car. If you can afford the difference in price, go for it. You can find lease turnins with 10K miles or so for a good bargain. In the Richmond, VA area, Saturn of Richmond has a 2004 Malibe 4 cyl. for the asking price of $11,995. As far as the imports are concerned, I haven't had any problem with GM (knocks on wood) and have owned GMs since 1982.
If anyone here is considering buying the Cobalt...
wow, that's weird. i just checked - Cobalts (with auto) mileage is the same as the 4 cyl Malibu. even worse on the highway. what's up with that, it's the same engine, right ?
What do you think about Malibu/3.5L's fuel economy, in comparison to your Accord/3.0L? Are they comparable?
I think the Malibu's 3.5L mileage is pretty good, for that size engine. Large gears in the transmission probably have something to do with that. If I was very concerned about gas mileage, I would have bought an I4 Accord. My V6 gets mileage as good as my old 4cyl. Accord did in the city, and better on the highway, so I'm happy with it. Now I have 100 more horses, with about the same mileage. Can't knock that.
If I'd have based my main need on handling and power I would've bought an Altima. Gotta love the feel of those cars! I'm not really into street racing anymore and didnt buy the Malibu for the 1/4 mile track. Words like "huffs and puffs", "all in the next county before a Malibu driver can even realize what's happening", "may 'feel' quick initially", "antiquated and slow (and noisy)", dont come to mind when I step on the throttle and I feel the solid pull of acceleration. The passing and taking off power of the Malibu is more than adequate for most driver's needs and downright scary for some I'd bet.
And now, some numbers! These were the closest I could find on a quick search. 1st number is 0-60, 2nd is 1/4 mile time.
2005 Nissan Altima Se-R 6.1/14.8 2004 Honda Accord EX Sedan V-6 5-Speed 7.0/15.5 1998 Toyota Camry LE V-6 (auto) 7.8/15.9 2004 Chevrolet Malibu 7.8/15.9 2001 Honda Accord LX V-6 8.3/16.6
A good 0-60 and 1/4 mile time depends on many factors such as transmission type, tires, type of surface, driver skill, etc. so I take those with a grain of salt. The most accurate numbers come from owners making their own 1/4 mile run.
The Pontiac G6 is the twin of the Chevrolet Malibu and here's some actual 1/4 mile numbers posted by the G6Performance members who made them: G6 - 3900 Engine 1 ) 14.679 @ 95.65 - G6GTPV6HO 2 ) 14.900 @ 94.39 - Doctor Kyle 3 ) 14.930 @ 93.57 - ByGeSg6GTP 4 ) 14.993 @ 94.62 - CoupeOfG6 5 ) 15.099 @ 91.88 - Skotbb
I'm confused why we're using numbers from old cars here? Is your Malibu the older one (200 hp)? That would explain that you are comparing the market from when you bought yours, I'm guessing?
The Malibu and Accord have had power bumps, and the Camry and Altima are both around 270 hp now.
0-60 and 1/4 mile times are not really important to me at this point in life (44 years old). When I was 20 or so years old, I had a Chevelle Malibu (yes, a Malibu) with a souped up 327 engine swapped in it, that was a lot of fun racing with on weekends. The reason I wanted the V6 for my Accord was for quick passing, and merging into fast moving traffic (50mph - 80mph type acceleration). I have never had the need to go full throttle from a stop sign or red light. Even if I need to get ahead of the guy in the other lane, at a red light, full throttle is usually not necessary. Midsize family cars are not drag racing material.
Ok. I typically pull all of my numbers from either Motor Trend or Car and Driver since I know they test cars in the same way. They have had the Accord V6 Automatic at 6.6sec consistently since 2003. They also had quicker numbers for the Malibu as well (7.6 sounds right from a 2004 test? I'll have to doublecheck).
I was just trying to figure things out. That clears things up.
I dont take any of those numbers as iron clad. How can they be, there's way too many variables even if they say they're all tested the same way. In order for that to be true, it'd have to be the same driver, the same day, same weather, same time of day, same tank of fuel (and level)...etc..etc. All these numbers do is give a ballpark number for consumers to chew on. I think it's pretty safe to say, add "ish" after any of those numbers.
As far as a possible reason for using old numbers, I think comparisons should take place within the same generation of this class from the respective manufacturer. I believe the present Camry & Accord are into a new generation as compared to the Malibu current generation which is 2004-2007. The 2008 model will bring in the new Malibu generation.
The 2004 test I referenced had 6.5 or 6.6 sec for the Accord and 7.6 sec for the Malibu. Same day, same testers. It also tested the Mitsubishi Galant and the Camry I think.
shadow5599 said...:I dont take any of those numbers as iron clad. How can they be, there's way too many variables even if they say they're all tested the same way. In order for that to be true, it'd have to be the same driver, the same day, same weather, same time of day, same tank of fuel (and level)...etc
There are still variables, but the comparison tests are generally more reliable sources to get an idea of at least "relative" performance figures.
What was the cost of ownership per year on your last few vehicles?
One of my recent ones was just over $200/yr and another, a 2003 Malibu came in at a cost per year of $250. Thats simply purchase price plus service costs minus selling price divided by years owned.
What was the cost of ownership per year on your last few vehicles?
A low "true cost to own" is easy, if you buy used. My brother's true cost to own, on his present truck is $100/year, and dropping. I don't want a hand-me-down car. So I'll pay a little more, no problem.
I'll make it easy for you............Resale!!!!!!!!!
was a statement favoring Camcord over Malibu on the basis of the higher resale value. shadow5599's fair request for a factual support of that claim was answered with a totally different thesis:
I'll make it easier. Blufz1's Razor. Always buy resale... You used the "Razor." You just did it with a used car. Good #'s.
Backing away from the original claim? What is discussed here: Camcord vs. Malibu or new vs. used?
As I said before, I have no doubts that Camry and Accord are excellent vehicles but if they are a truly better choice than Malibu, the costs considered, why this can never be illustrated with numbers?
shadow5599's last post, as his many posts before, was very direct and simple:
$200/yr and another, a 2003 Malibu came in at a cost per year of $250.
OK, owning a used truck may be even less expensive than that -- but what about owning a Camcord? How does their high resale price translate into the annual cost of ownership? What is it?
Let me put forward my own thesis, which I expect to be challenged:
Person A bought a new Accord. Person M bought a new Malibu. Their cars are comparable -- very close in trim and features. In X years both A and M sold their cars and calculated their costs of ownership.
I claim that for any number X, the annual cost of ownership for person M will be lower than that for person A.
Is it possible to prove that my thesis is wrong? With numbers, please, not emotions.
Is it possible to prove that my thesis is wrong? With numbers, please, not emotions.
Emotions have nothing to do with the fact that:
A car buyer's true cost to own any car, depends on it's worth. Used, high mileage, cheap cars, cost less to own. But guess what, you get what you pay for.
I could have a car that costs less than $100/year to own, but would I enjoy driving it? Probably not.
Person A bought a new Accord. Person M bought a new Malibu. Their cars are comparable -- very close in trim and features. In X years both A and M sold their cars and calculated their costs of ownership.
Let me add another problem here.
Person A bought a 2 year old low Accord with say 20000 miles on it. Person B bought a 2 year old Malibu with the same mileage. Both drove their cars for 10 years, say 13000 miles a year uo to 150000 miles. I think Malibu will win.
And that's how Malibu makes most sence. that alone can keep this car up as viable alternative.
while I have enjoyed reading this thread ...I would challenge that 90% of the car buying public makes an automobile purchase on two factors.....do I like it..is it the right color..does it have the options I want.....is it a new car...is it the latest version....does it beat the neighbors..my friends....( all emotional).....and can I write a check for it...or make the monthly car payment (with the latter being the most calculated number)
I would say.....very few spend the time to calculate life cycle costs, gas consumption, scheduled maintenance costs...or even think about resale value when they set foot on a dealership lot.....
I look for a car that fits my needs at the time Im in the market for a car...new or used...currently own an 03 KIA Sorento EX (89K), 04 Malibu Maxx LT (88K), and 06 Pontiac Solstice (23K on the odometers).....
and will admit the Solstice was an emotional purchase...but one we could afford....and wrote the check for the day we took delivery........we drive all our cars way into the 6 digit category on the odometer...so anytime a car crosses the 100K market.....I would argue resale value is a mute point...at least to me......cheers
Buying a car is as an emotional process as it is "calculating" -- in some cases the former will prevail, in others -- the latter. Nothing stupid about buying a car purely on emotions. I do this all the time -- of the five cars I owned, only the first was a used one (wouldn't have been able to afford otherwise). I just want a *new* car -- I don't calculate here -- I am all right if this is not the best financial move (although it may be).
But the point of me putting forward my thesis:
I claim that for any number X, the annual cost of ownership for person M will be lower than that for person A.
was to challenge the indefensible claim that just the higher resale value of Camcords makes them a better purchase from the economical perspective. This cannot be -- there are equally important factors to determine the cost of ownership.
I call that claim indefensible because I never saw it being supported by any data -- and still it's being made over and over. Somebody thinks it *is* defensible? Go ahead, defend it -- we are all ears!
A car buyer's true cost to own any car, depends on it's worth EXACTLY - what it is worth when you buy it and what is it worth when you sell it. Cheaper cars, let's say that Malibu, will be worth less when you get done with it, than any Camry in comparable condition. A 2003 Camry will fetch about $14k, the same Malibu $8k. Did the Camry cost $6k more to purchase - maybe, maybe not, but also something that should be considered if you are really looking at 'value'. Just because the Malibu is cheaper to purchase than the Camry does not make it necessarily a cheaper car to own, or a better 'value' - kind of depends on how long you keep either of them.
There are a lot of factors involved in cost of ownership and in the end when a smart purchase is made and the car isnt a complete piece of crap, it doesnt matter a whole lot what type it is.
Although a $600 truck that lasts 10 years represents a very low cost it's not exactly comparable here. I take advantage of the 1st year depreciation that hits all new cars, and even more so on most North American vehicles. My current car, the 05 Malibu only had 10,000 miles on it, still smells new, absolutely no exterior or interior flaws, has lots of warranty and the last owner took the large 1st year depreciation hit, not me.
But if a person insists on being the 1st owner, thats a personal choice and usually a costly one.
if a person insists on being the 1st owner, thats a personal choice and usually a costly one sure, the way to minimize costs on anything is to buy used, although you do take some chances buying it - anybody out there 'beat the bejeepers' out of that airport rental? And the same thing applies costwise if you are buying Malibus or Camcords. The Camcord will still be worth more a few years down the road, in effect, 'justifying' the extra money you had to pay for used Camcord vs. that used Malibu. It doesn't change anything other than you are working with lower numbers to begin with. There is certainly a satisfaction and a degree of control that you have buying anything new (especially cars), but you do pay a price for the privilege...
My last Accord (bought new) cost me $1000/year to own (price paid minus price when sold, divided by years). You may have had a lower cost to own a Malibu, but in my opinion, I was driving a better car, that was worth more per year.
using Intellichoice as a reference the Accord 4 cyl has the lowest cost to own (for 5 years) than any car in this class. I think our friend, malexbu, is making an incorrect leap from cheap to buy - to cheap to own. Personally, I too would rather drive a 4 cyl Honda than a V6 GM product - but that would be a personal preference.
I actually don't make this leap: I don't know -- I would be interested in knowing, based on the information that flows in.
The numbers provided by some folks here, elroy5 and shadow5599 especially, did expand my horizon. From all I know, I couldn't conclude which car is less expensive to own -- and I emphasize that I am not talking about any Malibu vs. any Accord: I am talking about perfectly comparable ones. Obviously, there are Accords that don't have a Malibu equivalent -- coupes, e.g., or as elroy5 illustrated, V6 340HP-engined ones. If one wants just such a car, no argument of a "cheaper Malibu" can be made -- there aren't any.
But surely (or am I wrong here?), some parallels can be found.
Take a base Malibu sedan. Is there a similar Camcord model? What does it cost -- to purchase and to own? (Again, talking about new cars, as I expect many more variations with the used ones.)
If the base Malibu sedan is below the lowest Accord, say so. Then take the lowest Accord and ask if there is a comparable Malibu -- how would they compare cost-wise?
See, I don't know the answers here --- I never pretended I did. I gave my own Malibu numbers way back when and hoped I'd meet a match. If somebody demonstrates that I made a wrong choice, I'll say thank you and perhaps consider another car next time. But so far I haven't seen this. If anything, I only got a stronger feeling that my choice was, let's put it this way, not unreasonable.
The thesis I made
I claim that for any number X, the annual cost of ownership for person M will be lower than that for person A.
is a strawman -- it is no worse that the thesis it was made in response to. If it's obviously wrong, it'll be beaten. Personally, I believe that it is correct but it's something I am not qualified to try to prove. I can only share the information I have re: my own car, which I did.
Comments
So yes I picked very wisely, the top rated 05 Malibu. I wont go over the price and details again, you can look back at my posts for that.
I did lots of research, lots of test drives and in the end, the Malibu was the true quality value over the rest, its why I chose it! I'm not a kid buying their 1st car here. I've done it alot in the past 30 and have always come out the winner but yet no Hondas or Toyotas ever purchased by me. Hmmm...how can this be? I must be an idiot, broke, always driving a broken down North American car or paying to get it out of the shop. Not so. Not even close.
Most people buy with a price in mind, they're on a budget.
I happened to get more than I set out to with less money. No amount of blabbering on about other cars can change that fact. I saved money, got a great car and came in under budget. Couldnt have done that buying a comparable import, simple as that. And believe me, I tried!
I've come to trust my own judgement and it's been proven to be very reliable. Now I'll drive the 05 Malibu for the next 5-10 years and prove once again that MY cost of ownership will beat most anyone's.
A FYI....anyone interested in one of the safest cars in this class, the Malibu is doing even better for 07.
Now number 3. Above Honda and Toyota and only beat out by an Audi and a Subaru.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30
Malibu still come with the 2.2L Ecotec from the Cobalt? Or is the
3.5L standard now?
Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that if
anything, it is the 2.2L Ecotec that is the true standard in the 2006+
sedans. One needs to go rather high in the sedan lineup in order to
get the 3.5L engine (that was my impression from studying the 2006
lineup.) In the year 2005, 2.2L Ecotec was only offered in the very
base sedan; the LS and LT levels had the 3.5L engine.
The 2.2L Ecotec is a marvelous engine -- you probably know that apart
from the Cobalt, Malibu and G6 (?) it also goes into Saab -- and GM's
European models, such Opel (if things haven't changed by now).
People are claiming to be able to get up to 40 mpg in a 2.2L Ecotec
under good conditions. My personal peak on a 2700-miles trip through
rains and mountains was 36.3 mpg, at the average speed 59 mph
(measured by the distance / fuel purchased).
Tell me, what lottery numbers should I pick?
and you are going to win with any number! :-)
Haha...if I could do that I'd be posting on the Lamborghini forum...from my private island....while my harem girls fan me and feed me grapes.....and
My brother bought a truck for $800, and he is still driving it today (8 years later). $100 dollars per year, how's that for true cost to own. Low true cost to own is easy, if you buy used (a car someone else picked out, and drove around for a couple of years). If you want a car you choose yourself (new) it will cost more, but I would rather not drive someone else's hand-me-down car.
--------------------
Honda 2003 LX V6 Coupe:
Engine: 3.0L 240 hp V6
Horsepower: 240 @ 6250 RPM
Torque (lb-ft): 212 @ 5000 RPM
Economy: N/A
--------------------
2007 Chevrolet Malibu: LT2 or LTZ
Engine: 3.5L 217 hp V6
Horsepower: 217 @ 5800
Torque (lb-ft): 217 @ 4000
Economy: 22 / 32 mpg
--------------------
Do you think that the torque 217 @ 4000 RPM makes a weaker engine than
the one that has it at 212 @ 5000 RPM? Is Malibu's fuel economy
listed above not good enough?
SS stands for Super Sport if you happen not to know. Hurling insults
doesn't make your point any stronger, IMHO.
Thanks.
He didn't mention the 3.5L, he was comparing power in the 3.9L vs. the 3.0L in the Accord. What economy does the 3.9L get in the Malibu SS?
the one that has it at 212 5000 RPM?
When it comes to performance, YES, horse power matters most. The smaller 3.0L Accord engine is smoother, quieter, and more powerful than the Malibu's 3.5L engine. Since these cars are only rated to haul 1,000 pounds, your extra 5 pounds of torque is wasted.
Malibu Sedan?
Only because I think elroy5 was originally used his 2003 Accord for
comparison. No?
He didn't mention the 3.5L, he was comparing power in the 3.9L vs. the
3.0L in the Accord.
I noticed. I was asking his opinion on M-3.5L vs A-3.0L. Could not
ask?
What economy does the 3.9L get in the Malibu SS?
Look it up if you are curious.
OK, the point is taken. Just was wondering what you thought about
Malibu's 3.5L engine.
What do you think about Malibu/3.5L's fuel economy, in comparison to
your Accord/3.0L? Are they comparable?
was that addressed to me ? I can't recall talking about Cobalt's mileage at all.
If some manufacurer makes a breakthrough, does it negate the the history of the close competition of the prior years ?
After reading it now, I can see how it got mixed up.
ok, got it
wow, that's weird. i just checked - Cobalts (with auto) mileage is the same as the 4 cyl Malibu. even worse on the highway. what's up with that, it's the same engine, right ?
your Accord/3.0L? Are they comparable?
I think the Malibu's 3.5L mileage is pretty good, for that size engine. Large gears in the transmission probably have something to do with that. If I was very concerned about gas mileage, I would have bought an I4 Accord. My V6 gets mileage as good as my old 4cyl. Accord did in the city, and better on the highway, so I'm happy with it. Now I have 100 more horses, with about the same mileage. Can't knock that.
And now, some numbers!
These were the closest I could find on a quick search.
1st number is 0-60, 2nd is 1/4 mile time.
2005 Nissan Altima Se-R 6.1/14.8
2004 Honda Accord EX Sedan V-6 5-Speed 7.0/15.5
1998 Toyota Camry LE V-6 (auto) 7.8/15.9
2004 Chevrolet Malibu 7.8/15.9
2001 Honda Accord LX V-6 8.3/16.6
A good 0-60 and 1/4 mile time depends on many factors such as transmission type, tires, type of surface, driver skill, etc. so I take those with a grain of salt. The most accurate numbers come from owners making their own 1/4 mile run.
The Pontiac G6 is the twin of the Chevrolet Malibu and here's some actual 1/4 mile numbers posted by the G6Performance members who made them:
G6 - 3900 Engine
1 ) 14.679 @ 95.65 - G6GTPV6HO
2 ) 14.900 @ 94.39 - Doctor Kyle
3 ) 14.930 @ 93.57 - ByGeSg6GTP
4 ) 14.993 @ 94.62 - CoupeOfG6
5 ) 15.099 @ 91.88 - Skotbb
G6 - 3500 (1st gen) Models
1) 15.951 @ 85.10 - reubenk
I tried to find some current numbers on the 3 cars....
Honda Accord 2003-2006
ohc V6 3.0l/183cu 240HP/212ft-lb
MPG - 5-speed automatic: 21city/30highway
Malibu 2004-2005
ohv V6 3.5l/213cu 200hp/220ft-lb
MPG - 4-speed automatic: 23city/32highway
Camry 2005?
dohc V6 3.0/183 192hp/209ft-lb
MPG - 4-speed automatic: 20city/27highway
dohc V6 3.3/202 225hp/222ft-lb
5-speed automatic: 20city/29highway
Some fun stuff:
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/malibu/1/891e48f3-0730-456e-a42c-98500123c1d- 4.htm
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/camry/0/e14c1dc6-008f-4856-b7e3-98bc001096bb- .htm
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/camry/1/86596e9d-c3b2-4f71-ad8b-984b0168714c- .htm
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/accord/3/7947a865-f5c9-4d83-8fe3-985e013a36d- d.htm
http://videos.streetfire.net/search/accord/5/2b02e370-e618-4e2e-8808-983200f280a- 5.htm
The Malibu and Accord have had power bumps, and the Camry and Altima are both around 270 hp now.
I was just trying to figure things out. That clears things up.
As far as a possible reason for using old numbers, I think comparisons should take place within the same generation of this class from the respective manufacturer. I believe the present Camry & Accord are into a new generation as compared to the Malibu current generation which is 2004-2007.
The 2008 model will bring in the new Malibu generation.
shadow5599 said...:I dont take any of those numbers as iron clad. How can they be, there's way too many variables even if they say they're all tested the same way. In order for that to be true, it'd have to be the same driver, the same day, same weather, same time of day, same tank of fuel (and level)...etc
There are still variables, but the comparison tests are generally more reliable sources to get an idea of at least "relative" performance figures.
If your debut time for the Malibu is correct (2004), then the Accord is older than the Malibu, making it more than a fair fight for Chevy.
Explain yourself.
What was the cost of ownership per year on your last few vehicles?
One of my recent ones was just over $200/yr and another, a 2003 Malibu came in at a cost per year of $250.
Thats simply purchase price plus service costs minus selling price divided by years owned.
A low "true cost to own" is easy, if you buy used. My brother's true cost to own, on his present truck is $100/year, and dropping. I don't want a hand-me-down car. So I'll pay a little more, no problem.
I'll make it easy for you............Resale!!!!!!!!!
was a statement favoring Camcord over Malibu on the basis of the
higher resale value. shadow5599's fair request for a factual support
of that claim was answered with a totally different thesis:
I'll make it easier. Blufz1's Razor. Always buy resale... You used
the "Razor." You just did it with a used car. Good #'s.
Backing away from the original claim? What is discussed here: Camcord
vs. Malibu or new vs. used?
As I said before, I have no doubts that Camry and Accord are excellent
vehicles but if they are a truly better choice than Malibu, the costs
considered, why this can never be illustrated with numbers?
shadow5599's last post, as his many posts before, was very direct and
simple:
$200/yr and another, a 2003 Malibu came in at a cost per year of
$250.
OK, owning a used truck may be even less expensive than that -- but
what about owning a Camcord? How does their high resale price
translate into the annual cost of ownership? What is it?
Let me put forward my own thesis, which I expect to be challenged:
Person A bought a new Accord. Person M bought a new Malibu. Their
cars are comparable -- very close in trim and features. In X years
both A and M sold their cars and calculated their costs of ownership.
I claim that for any number X, the annual cost of ownership for person
M will be lower than that for person A.
Is it possible to prove that my thesis is wrong? With numbers,
please, not emotions.
please, not emotions.
Emotions have nothing to do with the fact that:
A car buyer's true cost to own any car, depends on it's worth. Used, high mileage, cheap cars, cost less to own. But guess what, you get what you pay for.
I could have a car that costs less than $100/year to own, but would I enjoy driving it? Probably not.
cars are comparable -- very close in trim and features. In X years
both A and M sold their cars and calculated their costs of ownership.
Let me add another problem here.
Person A bought a 2 year old low Accord with say 20000 miles on it. Person B bought a 2 year old Malibu with the same mileage. Both drove their cars for 10 years, say 13000 miles a year uo to 150000 miles.
I think Malibu will win.
And that's how Malibu makes most sence. that alone can keep this car up as viable alternative.
(with the latter being the most calculated number)
I would say.....very few spend the time to calculate life cycle costs, gas consumption, scheduled maintenance costs...or even think about resale value when they set foot on a dealership lot.....
I look for a car that fits my needs at the time Im in the market for a car...new or used...currently own an 03 KIA Sorento EX (89K), 04 Malibu Maxx LT (88K), and 06 Pontiac Solstice (23K on the odometers).....
and will admit the Solstice was an emotional purchase...but one we could afford....and wrote the check for the day we took delivery........we drive all our cars way into the 6 digit category on the odometer...so anytime a car crosses the 100K market.....I would argue resale value is a mute point...at least to me......cheers
Buying a car is as an emotional process as it is "calculating" -- in
some cases the former will prevail, in others -- the latter. Nothing
stupid about buying a car purely on emotions. I do this all the time
-- of the five cars I owned, only the first was a used one (wouldn't
have been able to afford otherwise). I just want a *new* car -- I
don't calculate here -- I am all right if this is not the best
financial move (although it may be).
But the point of me putting forward my thesis:
I claim that for any number X, the annual cost of ownership for
person M will be lower than that for person A.
was to challenge the indefensible claim that just the higher resale
value of Camcords makes them a better purchase from the economical
perspective. This cannot be -- there are equally important factors to
determine the cost of ownership.
I call that claim indefensible because I never saw it being supported
by any data -- and still it's being made over and over. Somebody
thinks it *is* defensible? Go ahead, defend it -- we are all ears!
two sentences.
But, OTOH, while quoting my message, you didn't challenge it -- my
thesis was about new cars with comparable features.
EXACTLY - what it is worth when you buy it and what is it worth when you sell it. Cheaper cars, let's say that Malibu, will be worth less when you get done with it, than any Camry in comparable condition. A 2003 Camry will fetch about $14k, the same Malibu $8k. Did the Camry cost $6k more to purchase - maybe, maybe not, but also something that should be considered if you are really looking at 'value'. Just because the Malibu is cheaper to purchase than the Camry does not make it necessarily a cheaper car to own, or a better 'value' - kind of depends on how long you keep either of them.
Although a $600 truck that lasts 10 years represents a very low cost it's not exactly comparable here. I take advantage of the 1st year depreciation that hits all new cars, and even more so on most North American vehicles. My current car, the 05 Malibu only had 10,000 miles on it, still smells new, absolutely no exterior or interior flaws, has lots of warranty and the last owner took the large 1st year depreciation hit, not me.
But if a person insists on being the 1st owner, thats a personal choice and usually a costly one.
sure, the way to minimize costs on anything is to buy used, although you do take some chances buying it - anybody out there 'beat the bejeepers' out of that airport rental? And the same thing applies costwise if you are buying Malibus or Camcords. The Camcord will still be worth more a few years down the road, in effect, 'justifying' the extra money you had to pay for used Camcord vs. that used Malibu. It doesn't change anything other than you are working with lower numbers to begin with.
There is certainly a satisfaction and a degree of control that you have buying anything new (especially cars), but you do pay a price for the privilege...
in knowing, based on the information that flows in.
The numbers provided by some folks here, elroy5 and shadow5599
especially, did expand my horizon. From all I know, I couldn't
conclude which car is less expensive to own -- and I emphasize that I
am not talking about any Malibu vs. any Accord: I am talking about
perfectly comparable ones. Obviously, there are Accords that don't
have a Malibu equivalent -- coupes, e.g., or as elroy5 illustrated, V6
340HP-engined ones. If one wants just such a car, no argument of a
"cheaper Malibu" can be made -- there aren't any.
But surely (or am I wrong here?), some parallels can be found.
Take a base Malibu sedan. Is there a similar Camcord model? What does
it cost -- to purchase and to own? (Again, talking about new cars, as
I expect many more variations with the used ones.)
If the base Malibu sedan is below the lowest Accord, say so. Then
take the lowest Accord and ask if there is a comparable Malibu -- how
would they compare cost-wise?
See, I don't know the answers here --- I never pretended I did. I
gave my own Malibu numbers way back when and hoped I'd meet a match.
If somebody demonstrates that I made a wrong choice, I'll say thank
you and perhaps consider another car next time. But so far I haven't
seen this. If anything, I only got a stronger feeling that my choice
was, let's put it this way, not unreasonable.
The thesis I made
I claim that for any number X, the annual cost of ownership for
person M will be lower than that for person A.
is a strawman -- it is no worse that the thesis it was made in
response to. If it's obviously wrong, it'll be beaten.
Personally, I believe that it is correct but it's something I am not
qualified to try to prove. I can only share the information I have re: my own car,
which I did.