Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord
This discussion has been closed.
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
What the Intellichoice numbers do not reflect, TMK, is the fact, that on a Honda, sticker price means something, on a Malibu, sticker means much less, something that logically should decrease the Malibu's COO. But the bottom line is, nonetheless, that cars like the Camcords are not generally any more expensive to own over a defineable period of time than less expensive cars like the Malibu - and that even assumes that the required repairs to any of the 3 are equal.
So, let's see.
Using an autotrading site (link title) I came up with this. Based on the medium selling price, I came with the following difference in Accord's price less Malibu's price (Can dollars):
Year Price of Accord less Price of Malibu (Can dollars)
2006 10002$
2005 8939$
2004 9859$
2002 6005$
2001 4325$
2000 4905$
A pretty picture of the above:
See the data I took for as input below.
Soppose you buy both cars and sell in 7 years. Here's what I am getting for a price paid (based on the detailed data below):
Accord 17984 $ Cdn ~= 15370 USD
Malibu: 11595 $ Cdn ~= 9910 USD
I realize that this is not quite a precise research. I have not looked at what exactly cars are in all the selection groups (i.e. rare more expensive models, salvage, mileage, etc). Hovewer, I did look at 6 model years. So, you decide what it means and what it doesn't mean.
---------------------------------------------------
More detailed data (copy and paste from the website car query page, prices high-med-low):
There are 67 2006 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
$20,000.00
$16,495.00
$11,750.00
There are 34 2006 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
$33,888.00
$26,497.50
$412.00
------------------------------------------------------
There are 26 2005 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
$42,500.00
$13,995.00
$8,995.00
There are 38 2005 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
$27,888.00
$22,894.00
$15,950.00
--------------------------------------------------------
There are 32 2004 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
$14,999.00
$11,382.50
$8,495.00
There are 54 2004 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
$25,888.00
$21,241.50
$13,900.00
--------------------------------------------------------
There are 99 2003 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
$12,995.00
$9,900.00
$4,999.00
There are 176 2003 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
$24,995.00
$16,900.00
$269.00
---------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 2002 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
$9,995.00
$7,495.00
$3,900.00
There are 75 2002 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
$17,998.00
$13,500.00
$6,995.00
----------------------------------------------------------
There are 18 2001 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
$10,995.00
$6,625.00
$1,300.00
There are 47 2001 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
$14,995.00
$10,950.00
$7,900.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
There are 56 2000 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
$14,900.00
$9,900.00
$600.00
There are 16 2000 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
$7,995.00
$4,995.00
$1,998.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
There are 17 1999 CHEVROLET MALIBUS in our listings.
$7,800.00
$4,900.00
$2,995.00
There are 35 1999 HONDA ACCORDS in our listings.
$12,995.00
$8,495.00
$6,444.00
Quite simple - loss of money in the long term ownership scenarios. An accord has to be much more reliable to justify a difference of five and a half grand in repairs over the period of 7 years.
But, Accord is nicer, more power, etc. Looks like you're paying for this. Over long time Accord has no financial advantage.
When I have more time, I might play with data more and see where exactly during it's life the accord stops being an investment (if it ever is).
the graph in that post of mine a diffefence in average price for a partucular year. Accord start off costing a lot more and over the years it's price make closer and closer to the Malibu. I fail to see anything but a bad investment in Accord according to that data.
mmm...i am tired....am I missing something ?
Incidentally, if if really want to find a car with COO numbers that make the Camcords/Malibus absolutely sick, do some research on the Toyota Prius.
when is the last time anyone broke open the manual..read the scheduled maintenance requirments...then ask the dealership to cost them out for ya
Maintenance, repair, gasoline, and insurance cost will be different for each individual. When you consider I did all my own maintenance, and repairs (which were very few over 12 years and 140k miles), the same car could have cost someone else (who had all services done at the dealership) much more. I think the Accord would only improve it's position, if these factors were averaged into the cost equation. And do we really want to dig that deep? Who keeps track of every dime they spend on maintenance? Most people don't even keep track of what was done, much less the cost.
Did we conclude the part where we compare things like engines, transmissions, ride characteristics, interior/exterior design and quality, etc? Or are we down to just numbers?
I know, the numbers appeal to many, I'm just pleading for a little shred of discussion on something tangible about the cars. Please? Won't somebody come out and play?
Since the Malibu has only 145 hp to work with, how is it in acceleration compared to others in the class of cars? It looks like it'd be bottom of the heap with a 4-speed and only 145hp.
I really do like the new design of the (2008?) Malibu; it'll be a real looker!!! Maybe it'll offer a more competitive I-4 (the 2.4L 170+ hp engine from the HHR perhaps? And for the love of all things Chevy, a 4-speed is ok in a torquey V-8 truck if you must, but in a 4-banger these days? It's unacceptable for me (this from the owner of a Honda 130 hp 4-speed auto Accord - 1996).
The data I pposeted illustrates than if you take initial year price hit and keep it fo 7 years you're loosing. What I should have done is start the data from new not 06. Cause so far I only 'proved' that investment in a 06 Accord tends to steadily dissipate with time. Give me 10 minutes, i will add new prices to the mix.
I added the first item to my list
2007 3890$(Accord SE V6) or 874$(Accord Ex V6)
2006 10002$
2005 8939$
2004 9859$
2002 6005$
2001 4325$
2000 4905$
So the cost of ownership (based on prices only):
Accord Ex V6 25705 ~= 21970 USD
Accord Se V6 22689 ~= 19392 USD
Malibu LTZ 25410 25510 ~= 21803 USD
I included 2 accorda there because I had problems comparing Se with Malibu LTZ which is quite loaded.
So, yes, captain2, I see. If one absolutely must buy NEW then Accord Se V6 wins over Malibu. I guess whatever Se may lack in amenities it sort of makes up on the engine. Ok.
So, it looks like I comfirmed what was said before many times :)and get a used Malibu, that will bring the cost of your long term ownership to 5.5 grand less, which is adequate price drop (in my opinion) for the all the shortcomings of Malibu vs Accord.
New Malibus just dont make sense ! Get them used.
And if I may add another thing...There's something to be said about not commiting more money and wait to get it back in a few years.
Plus....what about interest on lease/dinancing...does Honda do 0% like Gm and Ford ? If they don't that works against Accords.
Pretty good I say but now lets take my last car, a one year old GM which was purchased for $12k. It had all the features, was a great car to drive, safe, economical and looked sharp. If I sold it after about 4 years, I'd get about $7k. Thats a loss of $5k, a bit less than his loss of $15k and that's not including other possible differences such as financing or fuel costs.
The classical find-an-obscure-example argument. You are comparing a new car vs. an old car, a luxury car vs. an economical car. Your friend probably bought a Lexus RX350 and you probably bought a Ford Taurus (according to the prices you provided) and you thought you got a deal?
Let me give you an obscure example, using your line of logic:
One person bought a Cadillac Escalade at $50k and sell in 2 years typically gets $30k back. Cost is $20k. Another person bought a 10 year old Accord at $7000 and after 2 years the Accord can still be sold for $6500. Cost is $500.
:P
Most of the posters here, I submit, are looking to or have just bought one one there cars new, all your numeric exercise really prove, is that they might as well cough up the extra bucks on a Camcord - the Malibu (without that depreciation hit) being a suspect investment.
Rebate and/or financing packages, BTW, are things you will indeed not find at a Honda/Toyota dealership (except on trucks) because they don't need to and do nothing but cost the buyer in resale value down the road - same thing applies when you see all those Malibus over on the Hertz lots.
I like my Malibu for many reasons but wish it had the upgraded seats. Mine are a cloth, almost feels like canvas and I dont really like it. The upgrade looks alot better but I've never felt it or sat on it but it would be something I'd upgrade.
The rest of the interior is great. Good location of controls, great heater and a/c. The stereo is impressive for a stock type. I'm toying with the idea of adding a small amp to power the back 6x9 stock speakers and add a little more ooomph. But this stereo is the best I've ever had as far as a factory set up goes. Enough bass to vibrate the windows.
The driver information centre (DIC)...nice acronym hey....is also great. Gives outside temp, fuel consumption, when to change the oil, and much more. I've never had a vehicle with all that info available on the dash. All in all the layout and quality of the interior is very good. Mine also has the OnStar option but it's never been activated. If I traveled alot, it'd be something I'd look into.
i wasn't trying to substantiate just that. another point was that...after the initial depreciation hit of the first year, the investment in Accord is really not that great compared to the Malibu. The price difference between 2 cars is less and less yeach year so ironically Accord loses more that Malibu in absolute $$. About 800$ more.
It is still ok in terms of that Accord has maybe more to offer, that's up to a buyer.
So if you if you want to wait a year and are not really hooked up on those extra hp you can play it in the way that you will spend less. And that's how Malibu makes sense. So, that was the point #2 expressed in long way
Broadly speaking how much a rippoff is a new Malibu is a good question for me. Say, I can get a Mazda 6 for about 3 grand less. But I will be getting a car with a JD Powers 2.5 out of 5 initial qualiy rating as opposed to a Malibu which 3.5-4 depending on a year. Power is about the same, but Mazda's mileage is notably higher.
Sorry about getting off topic.
Yep Funny ain't it
I fugure there's still someone willing to take a hit, otherwise it wouldn't sell new. Who does that is beyond me. Same with ppl who are willing to buy 8 yo Accords for their relatively high price.
My experience--
1. Unlike a former post, I like the seats on my 05 a lot as far as comfort. They are ugly, however.
2. The dic is much better than my other car an 07 Kia Optima, although the look of the dash certainly is not.
3. I, for one, have no problems with the antiquated ohv v-6 and four speed transmission. I'm sure it wouldn't keep up with either the Camry or Accord but it's low, low maintenance and gets about 23 in town and 32 on the road. Not bad at all, considering the OLM indicates 7000 mile change intervals.
4. I just wound up paying $800 to get the steering column replaced. Don't really mind the electric steering, a bit vague on center, but probably adds 2 mpg. The rack and steering column are weak points on the car, however. Things go wrong with a big stick of grease packed with electronic equipment. Ever since the Corvair, GM has experimented with cutting edge engineering and then screwed the details-- the steering may very well be the weak link on this car. Notice they're going back back to hydraulic on most of their newer 'Bu's.
As far as comparing with the Camcords, I'm sure that both are far better with resale. However, I only paid $16.0 for the BuMaxx and (and $16.1 for the Kia with leather and the appearance pack.). With both of these cars, if you drive them into the ground they can be a good deal. At ten years and 175,000 miles I doubt if the resale is going to be that great for any car.
I have a lot of experience with early ninties Camcords. In those days the Camry was well thought out, the Accord was years ahead of the competition. Although the last gen Camry and next gen Accord may change things a bit, I think both cars have lost their technologic edge compared to the competition. They've gotten very, very conservative and peddled based on past reputation. For most people that's enough. I can't fault Hon-yota's business plan.
In the four cylinder arena, Car and Driver's last review had my Kia ahead of the Camry 4 and behind the Accord. Motor Trends cars of the year put Camry ahead of the Optima based on the V-6 (certainly true), but indicated that things were very close on the four cylinder end. Car and Driver mentioned that the Kia had better build quality and that's true in my experience in looking at both cars.
I know this isn't a broader comparo so I'll lay off further mention of the Optima. In my experience, however, the last gen. 'Bu Classic was a very disagreeable car. The new one is much, much, better, ugly front-end clip not withstanding. The Maxx is odd looking, but far better looking than the present generation sedan. I wish I had a Camry and Accord hatch back to consider for purchase. I wish that I could have bought a v-6 (or even 4 cylinder) Camcord for sixteen grand with the level of goodies that my Maxx has. That not being the case, and hoping that I don't burn through any more steering columns, I'm very happy I made the choice I did.
this is really old tech - reminds me of a 89 Ford Aerostar van I had, some pieces of which Ford is still using. But I do agree that 'Detroit' has made some strides in fit and finish. Engine development (as it relates to both power and FE), overall drivetrain sophistication (refinement etc.), and some safety features continue to lag well behind. That said, there is no reason to assume that cars like the current Malibu with that 'vintage' 3.5 will be any more (or less) troublesome than its (initially) more expensive competition. For those of us that appreciate things like the Camcordima V6s (and even the 4s in the Accord and Altima), there are 3 available cars that are 'fun' and one that is much more of an A-to-B appliance.
Let's not get carried away here, Taurus is a piece of crap...pardon me Malibu was a competitor for Camry in the hp department for a number of years until current. Something tells me that majority if Camcord buyers were such for a couple of decades I wonder how they were able to defend their point without having a 270 hp Camry nowdays
I am personally convinced a lot of it is the brandname minbdset.
and why would you say that, the Taurus in many ways is very similar to a Malibu - decently reliable, strained pushrod or OHC V6), reasonably economical, and dirt cheap to boot.
The reason for the new 268hp engine in the Camry, BTW, all has to do with money (Toyota is saving hundreds of millions using that engine in many cars, and the fact that the Camry's real competitors, the Accord V6, and Altima 3.5, were already pushing 240-250hp (2002) when the Camry had a mere 200 or so. I seriously doubt that Toyota/Honda/Nissan even worry about GM/Ford/Chrysler anymore, they make good trucks - but they better keep an eye on those 'Korean' companies.
and why would you say that, the Taurus in many ways is very similar to a Malibu - decently reliable, strained pushrod or OHC V6), reasonably economical, and dirt cheap to boot.
153 hp with mileage 20 mpg / 27 mpg ? for model year 2006. Great car That's what Malibu was in it's initial year, 1998 if memory serves.
OK, reliability wise, JD Powers gives it 3.5-4 stars, so I guess I was under wrong impression thinking it was very low quality.
nonetheless. we can play the low resale value to the extreme, but....the specs just don't do it for me.
as to the 'crap' comment, ok I retract it
LX $21,870.00
EX (MANUAL) $23,245.00
EX $24,045.00
EX-L (MANUAL) $24,945.00
EX-L $25,745.00
EX-L w/NAVI (MANUAL) $26,945.00
EX-L w/NAVI $27,745.00
LX V6 $25,895.00
EX V6 6-SPEED $28,095.00
EX V6 $28,095.00
EX V6 6-SPEED NAVI $30,095.00
EX V6 w/ NAVI $30,095.00
What am I missing here. Isn't $25,895 the starting point for Accords with V6 and auto? Where do they sell SE's? I can't find it on any Honda site. I would like a v6 over a 4 cyl regardless of Chev or Honda. I would only save 20 bucks a month in gas to get a 4 cyl. My v6 requirement pushes me over 25,000 for Honda.
The Aura XR is also a decent car. Not worth the extra money though, and I found all on the lot were loaded on up. As for the New Malibu to come, well let's say it will likely be a pretty fair deal. I am confident though, I got the best deal. As for the Camry, I would give it another year to be sure the bugs which can occur the first year, are worked on out. My Dad has a 2000 year Camry which is fairly good, though there is always the possibility of sludge problems occurring for that model year. The car has been good, but not as good, IMHO as his 1991 which looked like new after 9 years. The Accord is just more fun to drive and the best deal, so I did not consider the Camry. I would consider a Camry as a lower choice for me personally than the Aura XR.
Loren
The Fusion will be a fun car for you to own, no doubt. With the six, it is pretty quick, and the steering is pretty good. The look is fresh. As for the Fusion not being the typical Ford? Well, it will be in the future if they use more Mazda platforms. They do have Volvo to play with too.
Loren
in Canada. all that was based on Canadian hondas and prices in canadian dollars.
Loren
I've actually never had serious engine problems on any of my North American vehicles other than a 289 in a 67 Cougar I bought that had the crap driven out of it. I had to do the main bearings in it. My 03 Malibu had a 3.1 with some piston slap noise, but again that problem isnt confined to North American engines.
My 3.5 now at 35,000 kms is very quiet and smooth.
I've owned vehicles with 289, 225, 302, 350, 305, 360, 3.5L 3.8, 3.1, 1.9. The only non pushrod engine in that group is the 1.9, in my kids Escort. It's one of the more noisier engines I've owned.
Sometimes what is considered old technology isnt so bad. The pushrod engines of the world are solid, tough, time proven engines. And when you can get the fuel economy out of a 3.5 that GM has done, that's a combination tough to beat.
This is really old tech - reminds me of a 89 Ford Aerostar van I had, some pieces of which Ford is still using.
Pfftt....so whats that mean? It's a digital readout, gives all sorts of info, in nice little LEDs. Has buttons to push, things to see and get information from. What new technology is there and what can it do? Wash your car for you? There's only so much info the average driver needs...or wants.
And I simply do not agree that my Malibu cant be fun to drive. I've driven the rest and some are more refined or tuned to be more sporty but for a heavy, midsize car, this things handles quite well and certainly has enough juice to be fun. In fact, I have fun every time I drive it