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
I bet the new Equinox will be nice, but then again, why are we offering yet another SUV? They are only now thinking green, because they are being forced to do so. I would much rather have a VW Tiquan, its got a 2.0T. Not as good of mileage, but I can feel confident, and have more fun!!
Drive what you want. Its just my take on it.
Personally, I'm not even close to being in the market for one of these cars, but do love the smoothness of the Honda 2.4L. Engine power nonwithstanding, its a fantastic engine, at least it is in the 2003-2007 Accord, which I happen to drive. Delivering 36+mpg on every trip at 75mph, and takes an 8 second run to 60 MPH.
I haven't driven a current GM 2.4L so I can't testify to how smooth or not it may be, but I did want to mention that horsepower isn't the only way you classify a "good 4."
People looking for an Accord, are less likely to be looking at a Cobalt. Though, you may have more power in the Cobalt, the Accord and Cobalt are 2 different cars all together. Differences are greatly noted.
I have to agree, the 06 Accord 4cyl is a great engine, no race car, but had confidence, quality, power. You have to understand I came from this engine, to the GM 4cyl, and it is simply NIGHT and DAY difference. My 06 Accord would blow the my 4cyl GM engine away. Got better mileage too. But, then again people getting an Accord are not out looking to race a Cobalt either. I would never dream of racing my 06 Accord 4cyl. I truly babied that car. Atleast, if I did push my Accord to feel it pull a bit on the interstate, it didn't feel, sound like it was straining as the GM car does.
How about we talk about the Malibu instead of the Cobalt?
Disagree. I have a 2007 Mazda 5 (a micro-minivan, same platform as a Mazda 3). I also have a 2005 Acura TL, which is a 6 cyl. Guess what - the Mazda is more FUN to drive, as it is agile and has very tight steering. The Acura is a powerful highway cruiser and accelerates great (if you like that automatic lag when you punch it). But the Mazda is FUN.
There are many new models arriving, look appealing. But, all lead to that very same question. I am not convinced the whole package is there yet.
I would love to compare these cars in say 5 years from now, see all their records, how their holding up. I would actually say, during the 5yrs, push a them a bit.
It would be an interesting look on how they stand up to time.
That would be a test for GM, to design a car that doesn't have silly parts going bad early in the game. I have already had a new catalytic converter replaced at 15,000miles, on my 08 GM. Oh, ya, and a window switch because I could not roll my windows down... Twice! I have had about 3 rentals, kept one for a week, others for 2 days or so.
If what you mean by "guts" is the platform, the previous 2 Malibu's were W bodies, whereas the new Malibu is an epsilon platform. I believe the MAXX version was an epsilon as well.
Where I think GM is missing it is the fact that while Toyota and Honda use 1 car for the $20-30K midsize price range (MSRP) Chevy uses 2. You can find a $30K Camry or Accord, but not a Malibu. That price range is left to the Impala, and that car sits on an antiquated platform. So, the Camcord can outclass it's GM competition on the high end with features, AND lay claim to the best selling models each year, because they use one model. I don't know about the last couple of years, but up to a couple years ago, Chevy was selling more cars in that category, just spread over 2 models (Malibu and Impala) instead of 1 (Camry or Accord).
So, the imports score on 2 fronts; Better equiping the high end ($24K and up) versions, plus having a more refined driveline on the lower end, AND the perception that they "must be better because they sell more" which they didn't, because it was spread over 2 models.
I do agree that I am not willing to give GM another chance after my lease is up. Why take that kind of risk? I have already driven the new engine, that is the best they could come up with? I know some people love their GM cars, or a big fan of them, but you can't honestly tell me you would pick the 4cyl GM engine over say an Accord engine or VW 5cyl, or the 2.0T engine. Which would both would blow the doors off the 4cyl GM engine. I know it would. Both getting similar or better mileage.
Verdict-the GM 4cyl engine=BORING and moody
For many years, GM has had a reputation for building "subpar vehicles". Can the newly designed malibu compete on a level with japanese auto manufactures known for quality and reliability?
Can they / do they now produce a vehicle that can compete with the best the japanese have to offer in this class? I drove one malibu. It has a fine interior. In no way up to accord standards, but nothing like the typical cheap hard plastics that characterized GM for many years. I drove the 4 cylinder and found it to be disappointing, but have not driven the 6 cylinder. I believe the japanese have left a door open for GM. Camry has some fit and finish problems and issues with their transmissions. Honda has (6 cylinder) issues with their Variable Cylinder Management and back brakes. The long term reliability and resale of the japanese make their offerings quite appealing. I think GM has a very hard job ahead of them in convincing the public that they are beyond the "crap" they've produced for years and can now produce a vehicle in this class that will be reliable over the long run and hold its value when it comes time to sell or trade it. I've driven all three and as an accord owner I would rank them in the following order: camry, accord, malibu. I would strongly consider the two japanese vehicles, but it is my belief the malibu is not quite up to the level of the camry and accord at this time.
There's a blue-oval and a slanted H making some big strides too that I'm not sure Honda or Toyota see coming as well...
I see myself getting an EX-L V6 Accord, or a VW product.
I purchased a 2009 Malibu LT2 V-6 in May as a commuter car. I am extremely impressed with the vehicle and I genuinely enjoy driving it. After incentives, the Malibu sold for just over $21k plus tax and tags. I comparison shopped the Accord and Passat. For the price of a base model, stripped down 176 hp 4-cyl accord, this Malibu has:
- Very smooth and quick V-6 and 6-spd automatic
- 18" wheels
- 2 yrs free Satellite radio
- 2 yrs free OnStar
- Bluetooth connection and an outstanding stereo
- 100,000 mile power train warranty
- 2 years free maintenance along with a list of other features and benefits.
The Malibu is very quiet, comfortable, has optimal suspension tuning, and handles very well. It's also built on the European Opel designed Epsilon platform designed to appeal to drivers in europe and be competitive in North America.
The Accord is NOT competitive in this price range (ignoring the fact that the accord is a full-size vehicle and the Malibu is mid-size.) The 4 cylinder's passing power is laughable. The engine is noisy. Honda's brakes vibrate during hard stopping as a rule. I would have to pay 8 grand more to get satellite, V-6, sport wheels, and 6 speed transmission in an Accord. The Passat also is much more expensive and doesn't come close to being as quick, smooth, quiet, or feature packed as the Malibu.
Too many people are willing to let marketing tell them what to think because they're too lazy to do their homework. The perception is that Honda and Toyota can't make a dud and GM can't make a winner. So no one believes it when Honda and Toyota produce an over-priced, mediocre vehicle. And people who don't do their homework don't believe GM can produce a reliable, competitive, feature packed vehicle.
The other thing that most people ignore is the fact that GM has a legitimate halo brand in Cadillac (BMW's M division has the same "halo" effect for the BMW brand.) GM invested heavily in technology and engineering that allows the CTS to outperform a BMW M5 and Jaguar XFR for $30,000 less. Cadillac technology, suspension performance tuning, engine designs, and vehicle engineering are trickling down into its other brands. (That's how OnStar ended up in a Chevy, for example.)
Since I stroked a check and paid cash for that Malibu, I'm glad I did my homework instead of letting market perception do my thinking for me. Otherwise, I would have paid several thousand dollars too much for an Accord that just is not a better vehicle.
An endorsement like this from hard-core BMW enthusiast (extensive track time, road rallies, visits to factories on 2 continents, etc) should count for something.
I came from an 06 Accord, it seemed like it had more power than the car I have now!. Differences in horsepower are minimal. So, it might be the better transmission, more torque.. I am not sure. But, I know my Accord didn't sound rough or questionable either when passing. Or have a horrible transmission. I had to watch my speed more in the Accord. Oops! I am doing 80! I haven't had that issue in my car now.
I would still rather have an Accord or Passat way before a Malibu, but that is just me though. I am not taking that kind of risk, and I wouldn't even be driving a GM.. long story. Not something I would pick.
That doesn't make it wrong for anyone else though. So drive what you like and want. Why is it when I tell people my GM car has already had problems, such as a new catylic converter...etc. they are not surprised. They tell me, Get out! Now!
For example, I checked the values on 5 year old Malibu, Passat, and Accord models with 60,000 miles that would have sold for the same prices new. The Passat and Accord trade in values are about $2,000 higher than the Malibu (the old crappy Malibu model).
If your criterion for selecting a car is future value, then you'd better get a new calculator and take Accounting 101. It is NOT a good investment to pay several thousand dollars more today for a comparably equipped vehicle in order to gain $2k additional value five years in the future. That $2k future value is worth about $1,600 today when discounted at the rate of inflation. So if the Malibu is priced at least $1,601 less than the Accord, it's the better value (under equal assumptions.)
The single most significant variable in how a vehicle will "feel, sound, act" in 5 years is maintenance, driving style, and care of the vehicle. Those depend entirely on the owner. It's more likely that a vehicle will be well maintained in the long term when repairs are free under the Malibu's 100,000 mile warranty compared to the 36,000 mile warranty on the Accord.
So financial analysis tips further away from the Accord when the vehicle costs thousands less at purchase and you factor in the reduced costs associated with the Malibu's free maintenance for two years, 100k warranty, trade-in value guarantees, and an entire package of extended services. This is called Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), which ultimately measures the cost of one vehicle against another.
Also, Elroy5, you don't have a the slightest clue how the current Malibu will "feel, sound, act" in five or ten years. No one does. It's a completely new vehicle. The belief that GM's investments in vehicle engineering can't produce improvements and that only Japanese companies can follow quality engineering practices is just stupid. You're basically saying that American companies are inherently inferior and can only decline. I challenge you to support that claim.
Directly to the right of this posting are owner surveys that rate the 2009 Malibu higher than the Accord. So, apparently, the Malibu is less expensive and better rated according to people who own them.
Exactly right. Nice post. And right on about real cost of ownership. Why do so many Honda owners end up with an extended warranty if the cars don't need it?
I won't even talk about the attitude of the nearest Toyota dealership and their salesmen. I recall years ago stopping at the Acura dealership in scuff clothes and being treated like I was a car buyer (I did mention that my neighbor owned three), a total contrast to the Toyota Attitude.
The fantasy evaluations of futures on cars are a result of people's past biases. That's understandable. But to imply that the Malibu won't be as good as a this or a that auto in 5 years is impossible to determine. With all the troubles with VCM and Honda's transmissions of the past and current, making that kind of prediction is clearly a personal opinion.
In the previous Malibu line, the cars were not directly competing against most Accords for buyers. I felt that Chev had done, with the cost problems of UAW and legacy cots, was to build a car in between the Civic and Accord--same for Corolla/Camry. The comparisons can go on and on, but they are meaningless.
I possibly will buy another car in a few months and will drive used versions of the previous Malibu and the current new Malibu, along with other cars. I could follow the lead of others and base my opinion of Accords on the last ones I test drove in 2003, brutal suspension and noisy ride that would please only a high school/college student, road wander, popping when twisted in driveway to dealer, and other negatives, but I'll be open minded and drive an Accord. I'll also look at the LaCrosse, a midsizer.
One thing that has to change is judging cars based on the past a whole decade or two ago. GM is a new company, although not rid of high cost UAW labor due to political powers in DC, maybe they'll be able to use part time labor as do other companies..
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Good post. I totally agree with everything that you wrote.
If you talk to GMC and Chevy dealers, they will tell you that one of the most frustrating problems that they face is legacy market perception about GM cars being inherently less reliable and a poor value. Like you said, too many people cling to market perceptions from the 80s and 90's, even when Consumer Reports, J.D. Powers, and a host of rating services give many GM vehicles very high marks and recommendations. It's tragic how people fixate on a GM mechanical problem and punish GM, but ignore numerous problems in Hondas... like the transmission problems that you mentioned. It isn't rational.
What does it say about the quality and intelligence of a person who goes through life relying on decades old information and not learning anything new? Intelligent people grow and improve. So do companies.
The engineering science of building cars has become so automated, repeatable, and studied that the quality difference between a top rated car and an average rated car is measured by .8 defects per vehicle vs 1.4 defects per vehicle. Either way, you're likely to have 1 problem. The difference is not significant.
I completely understand why someone would buy an Accord, especially given that the Accord is roomier and has excellent ride quality, comfort etc. I like the Accord also and could easily drive it.
But I decided to research vehicles and buy the one that was the best value. It was an easy decision when the Malibu cost thousands less, is faster, has better braking, is quieter, has a better warranty, and has more luxury options (like satellite radio, bluetooth, OnStar navigation) for the price.
Even if the Malibu's Total Cost of Ownership ends up being higher over five years, I will have five years of driving pleasure from a car that is quieter, smoother, faster, and has lots of luxury features that make endless Washington DC traffic jams (second worst in the entire nation) more bearable.
I've been generally dismissive of American cars for a long time. But, if GM makes a quality vehicle, I will reward them by buying their vehicles and I won't make my decision based on something that happened in 1994.
It's always odd that Toyota's sludge and engine/transmission hesitations along with Honda's VCM and transmission failures along with road noise don't get played up like the past GM's problems that some found.
Cars need to be judged on what they offer in the current and forth-coming models.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I feel sorry for the Chevy salesman, but who created this "perception"? The "perception" I think is based on facts (cars that simply didn't measure up to the competition). Market perception has nothing to do with my opinion. The reality of owning and driving Accords and Malibus myself, has created my "perception" of them. As far as Consumer Reports and JD Powers in concerned, they had the 2001 Malibu as a "Recommended" car. I would not recommend that car to anyone. It seems "average" reliability, poor quality, and cheap materials, is good enough for CR. Not good enough for me.
So, considering the new Malibu is night and day different in terms of build and quality compared to the previous model would be too quick to say. It could go both ways. I am not sure. Time will only tell. It is a very sharp looking car with a great offering for the money. I can see why people like them.
I am certainly not going to bash anyone for driving one either. I will most definitely be impressed by the car if you drive by. I like a lot of cars, but which ones I would drive is my opinion. Heck, I think this Saturn Aura that drives locally here is one sharp looking car. Would I ever get one? No. That is just me. :shades:
So, I guess at this point it could go both ways. Perhaps GM will prove to do some great things! But, ask yourself this.....would GM be trying to change or doing the improvements now if they weren't forced to do so? Will they uphold these goals when no one is looking?
The engine is still not running right. The transmission is a bit off. The gas mileage has improved since the new converter. Perhaps a bit more power, but still acts weird. Its intermittently happening. GM stated they'll back their warranty, well, I will use it. I think I have ran up about $1,500 or so in warranty bills. Over silly stuff. Never had that with my Accord or my other 2 VW leases. I do not have time to play games. I work to hard and pay too much to be messed around with.
But, no car is perfect. But, this is my first GM car too.
With great deals out, you really don't have to pay $30k for a Honda. I lease, so soon I will have a new car. I will look closely at the new Accord, Acura TSX, VW, or even a new camry.
Now, if you are going to keep it for many years, than its a decent move. But, GM still needs to convince us that is will hold up to time. You certainly don't see many GM cars around that are year 91 or so that start up each and everyday in the winter like our honda.
Just because I won't drive another GM car and desperately want out, doesn't make it a bad choice for someone else. I am very much pampered with my car now, its just the engine that leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. Never again, Sorry GM!
There is a plethora of GM cars from the 80s that are driven daily around here. In fact more and more are showing up all the time.
>the winter like our honda.
I can't agree with the honda comment. Our friend's 95 Civic often wouldn't start. I'd go over and mess around and finally get it started for her. It wasn't even winter!!! in Ohio. She finally got rid of it and it was rusting out in front of the rear wheels already. At least she didn't have to put one of those tin can mufflers on it like Hondas seem to have around here.
I believe this thread should stick to comparing the current cars rather than trying to continue to put down GM from the past. I could list off many warts on certain foreign car's image from the past and the present... do we want to go there? I don't think so.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You mean like all those Mopar minivans rusting fenders and wheel wells or GM cars with blotched paint running around? I'm amazed how well most cars look these days after 5 or 6 years, but I think all brands have their good and bad models and model years. Can't say that one brand really rusts more than another. For example, I've seen a lot of old Corolla's running around up north with good bodies on them.
Yes, we should get back on track.. Lol.
Can you get a gm car in a manual anymore? Such as the malibu, don't Camry and accord have a option. Wasn't there a new engine soon to be used?
Yes you can. I believe the Aveo, Cobalt, CTS and obviously the sports cars.
Question is, how many Malibu buyers would want it, and is it worth it for them to make it available.
Not by much, but could help. But, yes, how many would opt for it. It beginning to be more rare to have a manual.
I know my mother had an 04 Jetta (manual) and now she has an 08 Jetta(auto)
Should would have wanted the manual, but its more hard to come by.
The auto's are getting more advanced, such as paddleshifters, DSG, but its really not a true manual. But, very close in some cars.
However I used the manual shift mode on the GM rental I had, and it was not exciting at all. 6spd shifting. I was surprisingly disappointed that it didn't work as well as I thought. So, probably in that case it would not compare to a true manual. Or maybe I wasn't using it right.
The camry perhaps may have more of a chance of getting a manual out of the 3 cars.