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

24567…16

Comments

  • shadow5599shadow5599 Member Posts: 101
    As far as I know the G6 and the Malibu are the same car, same engine (3.5). It's possible that the electronic tuning is different resulting in more hp on the G6 but I always thought they were the same.

    For the 04-05 Malibu 3.5 I found 200 hp at 5,400 rpm and 220 lb-ft of torque at 3,200 rpm.

    This site says they're the same.
    http://www.canadiandriver.com/roadtest/05g6.htm

    You may be thinking of the 3.9 which is 240 hp, and both G6 and Malibu have that available now.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    actually, you're right, i comared 05 Malibu and 07 G6 :)
    and the 0-60 data was i an not even sure from what year,
    so scratch that :)
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Member Posts: 101
    I've been impressed with the fuel efficiency. I've got slightly over 40mpg on the highway and almost 30mpg in the city. Those are based on Canadian or imperial gallons.

    Once leveled off in speed on the highway it runs 110Km/hr (about 70mph) at about 1700 rpm. Thats low in comparison to other cars I know. Maybe part of having good torque at the low end.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    That 3.5 good ol reliable but yet high tech pushrod engine has amazing low end torque. Thats where most people will feel and need the power most, not at ultra high rpm's. The Malibu to me feels more powerful than the Camry or Accord. I believe the 0-60 number is 7.8 seconds but thats going by memory so I could be wrong!
    well, yes and no - pushrod engines will generally always have higher relative torque than the same size OHC engine - more reciprocating mass. Other the other hand, HP (which is the prime detriment of acceleration is a function of that torque applied over time - meaning that the more willingly and quickly the engine will gain rpm the more HP (and acceleration) it produces. The GM pushrods are antiquated and slow (and noisy) in this regard and therefore produce less HP and slower cars. Things like the Camry 3.5, Accord V6 or Altima 3.5 are all in the next county before a Malibu driver can even realize what's happening to him, a function of those great free revving engines they have. On the other hand, the higher torque available on the pushrod engine may 'feel' quick initially but flatten out substantially(acceleration-wise) during the time it takes the engine to gain rpms.
    The most 'current' GM engine the 3.6 soon I'm understanding to replace the multitude of pushroods currently in the GM arsenal - it's about time! 252HP or so in a Malibu, should get those 0-60 times down into the 6s and also improve FE much like it is already doing in the Aura XR.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    i could never understand the how 0-60 numbers and max hp relates to real life.
    The pushrod has the torque at 3.5 thousand rpm. Camry's V6 is surely overall more powerful, but it's max torque only comes on at 4500 rpm, which is significantly higher. I mean, yes, if it revs up freely it's good, but you still have about 1000 rmp to go in comparission with the pushrod.

    Now...most of us need power NOW, i'e. as soon as possible...Hence the question, what's Camry's torgue at 3500 rpm (which seems pretty NOW to me :), Malibu gets to that rpm real quick) ? If Camry's curve is beefy enough that would result in a better drivebility, if not, that engine will not be much more driveable that the pushrod....4500 rmp is too high for a comfy acceleration even in small 4 cyl engines.

    Now the max HP. It tends to be somewhere at the redline. The question: when you drive to work, how much time you spend at the redline ? Yes, 0%. So, another characteristic irrelevant to our daily life.

    0-60. We don't do 0-60 often in a single burst. It's more like speed up to 30 mph, enter the ramp, go though it (a few deconds), go a bit faster towards the end of the ramp, and then only give it a quick burst of throttle to get to 60-70 mph. So it's like .... 40-70 accel that we do in a regular basis. Plus highway passing that is entirely different ball game.

    You know, one of the people I know got a diesel Beetle at some point. That thing has like....what 90 hp max ? But, the guy said he would smoke Civics all the time, and those are 110-120 hp.

    So, my point is numbers are nothing, the power/torque curve is everything. Say the upscale Civics they make now are rated at 200 hp. But...at the redline which is real high. Who drives at 7000 rpm ? It's only useful on a racetrack.

    So if someone says that this car feels faster that that car that,in my mind, is more valuable than numbers. Of course, that's subjective, so the ultimate thing is to go for a test drive....the difference in max values may be nullified or reduced greatly by all the other factors.

    That's not to say that Camry and Malibu are the same. Camry may very well be better in real world as it is better on paper...The question how much better. In other words, think about it....maybe the manufacturers are playing us a little bit ? An average person looks at the figures first, right ? And if the car is fast enough on the test drive the decision is made. But, is it as much better as the figures suggest or only a little better ?
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    Only way to tell is drive a 2007 Malibu and then drive a 2007 Camry. Then make your decision.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    sure, but i already got me a used Malibu, would not have gone the Camry way because of the price.

    so, for the sake of discussion....anybody test drove both ?
  • saleemsaleem Member Posts: 114
    even more confusing discussion to add used malibu's to the list. why dont we add any sedan that at some point in its depreciation curve passes $20,000? So lets add Lexus ES, IS, GS, LS; Mercedes C, E, S; Altima, Maxima; bentley even!

    Forget the 07 Accord I'm gettin' me a 1990 Rolls. Discuss!
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    one of the big points of these cars is their rapid depreciation, so naturally that should be deiscussed in a topic like that.
    and Rolls is not, because the topic is entitled "Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord".
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    HP=(torque x rpm)/5252 - this is the actual mathematical relationship between the two.
    So, therefore, HP increases as rpms do, and the faster those rpms increase the more HP you will have. And it is HP that, for the most part, is going to push that Camry to 60 in 6 something, while that Malibu huffs and puffs its way in 8. Don't know that I can bite on your Civic/VW TDI story unless that Civic driver was short shifting it - diesels, of course, with very high relative torque but also very reticient to rev and therefore low HP and generally slow cars.
    I agree with the other poster, the only way you will know how each car drives (nd sounds and feels doing it) is to drive each of them. I assure you there is a BIG difference.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    I had a 93 Civic Si (VTECH). Besides being low on torque, it had both max hp an torque just below the redline. So, to get that little torque ouf of the car was a huge chore. even if was a very fast revving car i would not do it just for the deathening engine roar at that rpm. And yes, I was very much short shifting this car because of that.

    sure, it would probably win over a TD at a race track, but in real life that Si felt like a SLOW car to me. Another example, 01 Sentra. Max values are pretty low, like at 2000 rpm. And, despite the fact, that the car's 0-60 is something ridiculous, like 10 or 11 seconds, it feels pretty peppy in real life and definitely more driveable than that old Si of mine (same max HP as Si, but only 15% more torgue)

    My point is that pure max hp and torque numbers do not nesseserily reflect the daily drivebility. they perhaps better reflect racetrack performance which is not the same thing.

    However, Camry, based on the figures may be quite a bit better that Malibu, I am not arguing that.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    So it's like .... 40-70 accel that we do in a regular basis. Plus highway passing that is entirely different ball game.

    Exactly! And that's the ball game the Malibu looses. Most people don't need a lot of power at low rpm (taking off from stop signs, and red lights). Where I want the power, is when passing (40-70 or more), which is where the Malibu falls short.

    Transmissions are also a large part of the power supplied to the wheels. The Malibu's 4 speed transmission is also outdated, when compared to the 5 and 6 speed transmissions the Camry and Accord have.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    So it's like .... 40-70 accel that we do in a regular basis. Plus highway passing that is entirely different ball game.

    Exactly! And that's the ball game the Malibu looses. Most people don't need a lot of power at low rpm (taking off from stop signs, and red lights). Where I want the power, is when passing (40-70 or more), which is where the Malibu falls short.

    That was said in favour on max torgue at low rpm. 3500 Seems to be a good spot.

    Well, all said...probably Accord and Camry are not direct competitors...well we may compare and weigh pros and cons. But really we should probably compare Malibu to something like Mazda 6...

    Plus, in Malibu's defence i would say this: look the prev gen Camry was close to what Malibu is powerwise (as far as specs go). So, seems like not that Malibu is that bad, but rather Camry has gotten better all of a sudden :) Good job, I guess :) But if it also droppen in price in the first year like Malibu, I would say "let talk :)"

    Btw, still waiting for someone with first hand experince with both cars to come along and share....
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Member Posts: 101
    Forget the 07 Accord I'm gettin' me a 1990 Rolls. Discuss!


    Lets not get carried away.

    I do believe we are discussing the current generations of these cars. For Malibu that is 2004-2007. The cars are being compared here because they're in the same class. Affordable mid sized sedans.

    Prospective buyers such as I was myself about 1 year ago should look at all these cars and a few more such as the Sonata and compare value and base their decision on what they deem important.

    I made my decision based on value, safety, cost of ownership , style and comfort. No amount of 0-60 or hp numbers can prove that my decision was wrong. Any discussion here has, on the contrary, only added to my confidence that I made the right choice based on my criteria.

    Isn't this discussion attempting to give a few facts and opinions on each so these prospective buyers can gain some information from actual owners?

    But I agree, it is fun to see numbers. After all, that's what the advertisers use to sway us consumers with. Numbers can be deceiving, confusing and manipulated. It's been done with all sorts of goods.

    Here's an example of it from the automotive industry:
    AutoInsider
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    said in favour on max torgue at low rpm. 3500 Seems to be a good spot
    all three cars/engines in this group will have relatively flat torque curves, although the old pushrod may indeed start at a slightly lower rpm, its not much thanks to these new VVTi and CVVTi engines in the Accord/Camry (and keep in mind that both also have more of it). We are not talking about high strung 4 bangers here. Under no circumstances or reasonable measure of performance will a Malibu 3.5 be in even the same neighborhood as the Accord/Camry V6s -not to mention slightly more subjective evaluations of engine smoothness or noise (refinement). Wait until 2008, the new GM 3.6 currently in the Aura and CTS is proving to be the same type of engine, and should really improve things and provide some basis for comparison.
    You are right, the Camry/Accord/Altima are not direct competitors to Malibus/G6s etc. etc..
    Since I'll contend that, at least for me, the drivetrain is what 'makes or breaks' a car, and I do own both the Toyota 2GR and the Nissan VQ and have limited experience with both the Malibu and G6 (thru the airport rental lots, of course), I'll further tell you that about all the current Malibu has going for it is price, because it certainly is not an enjoyable car to drive.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    because it certainly is not an enjoyable car to drive.

    well, that depends where you're coming from. i am sure for a bmw/mersedes drivers both cars are 'not enjoyable'
    for a someone who comes from a 4 banger it's a definite improvement. 4 banger Vibe seemed like heaven after a 4 cyl Ranger pickup :) and so on, so forth :)
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    OK, I'll amend that to comparatively not an enjoyable car to drive. Submit to you that anyone who spent the kind of money they did on a BMW/MB, must love to drive - there would little justification for the purchase otherwise.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    i was trying to say that there's no limit :) if you got extra money you can always have more enjoyable car no matter you drive now....goes all the way up to Bugati Veyron for a few mil and 1000 hp :)

    i do like to drive, but i also got a morgage :)
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I have no problem with anyone's choice of car. You can drive whatever you want. The fact remains, the Malibu is not in the same class as the Accord. You get what you pay for, as far as these two cars are concerned. The price difference, reflects the quality difference.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    The price difference, reflects the quality difference.

    that's what we are trying to establish, i think, if the price increase is backed with adequate increase in quality.

    i recall someone here saying that there were not that much difference. now, i don't know if it was about the new Camry or perhaps the prev gen camry which, at least on paper, didn't look that much different while still carrying the same price tag.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    that's what we are trying to establish, i think, if the price increase is backed with adequate increase in quality.
    now that one is almost impossible to quantify and/or make a judgement on. The Accords/Camrys ARE worth the few thousand extra simply because that's what people are paying for them and can be justified (by some but not to all) by things like better drivetrains, status considerations, and most of all - superior values (resale) a few years down the road. To another extreme, is a BMW 5 series worth 50-60k ? - well, yes, because that's what they sell for - can they be illustrated to be categorically 20-30k better vehicles than the same Camry/Accord, maybe not, it all depends on who you're asking....
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Member Posts: 101
    And the same can be said for Japanese vs North American. Are they categorically better vehicles than the same Malibu/G6/Impala/Fusion/Charger....etc.? Maybe or maybe not, it all depends on who you're asking....

    Absolutely it depends. It depends on their buying history, their dealers, their needs, their likes, their opinions, their experiences. It's simple to say that something is better than another. Sometimes that is obvious, sometimes not. Sometimes it can be true but serves no purpose other than being able to say it is of better quality and more expensive.

    Is a high end amp rated at a frequency response of 20Hz-18,000hz crap as compared to one rated at 10hz-40,000Hz? Who cares since most human's ears cant tell the difference so why spend more for what you cant hear?
    But then again, one does have to remember those status considerations.

    These cars we're discussing here are absolutely comparable!
    People consider many many factors when buying a car and for most it is cost, safety, size, fuel economy, reliability, comfort, cup holders, warranty. The basic needs are being compared by most people and dare I say that all things figured, the Malibu is a clear winner. My $16,000/16,000km 05 Malibu had stiff competition from a 05 Nissan Altima when I was shopping. I had a tough choice...for awhile. That was long after I had eliminated the Sonata, Camry and Accords for being of inferior value quality.

    The Altima drove amazing, handled great! But had 40,000kms, a 4 cylinder, no ABS brakes, no side airbags, no dealer support, etc....etc. But some say better quality? Not to me, absolutely not and the cost would've been $3,000 more! Obvious choice for me. Malibu wins hands down. Value quality feels great.

    If the Import lovers here want to say they have more quality than North American vehicles, I for one could care less, so sure, keep saying it. I will also keep saying I will end up throwing away less money than you and I only buy North American cars. I will keep saying that I drive a very nice car, with quality, with power, top quality ratings, top safety ratings and I paid far less than you did.

    They're only cars...which are about the biggest money losing thing and worst investment in most people's lives. If I can get away with spending less money to drive a dependable, quiet, comfy, full featured, safe, fuel efficient car, ....isnt that what one would call quality? It works for me, and has been for 30 years.

    I encourage those car buyers interested in value, safety, great dealer support, reliability, performance, comfort, great fuel economy, etc. to seriously consider Malibu. It's a true quality value unless you consider the sound of a DOHC to be worth alot more $$ than a time proven, tough and powerful American iron pushrod engine.

    Malibu Value Quality, opinion or fact? You decide ;)
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    just a few comments.....those who generalize and say that Japanese are better than American are wrong. Depends on a model.
    I just got rid of (after only 2 years) of a Vibe. Ok one can argue GM screwed it up...Howeve I know that at least some of the problems that I have seen are present im Matrix as well.
    Now, while my Vibe was being fixed i drove a rental Cobalt...Oh man, what a supringly nice ride from a bargain basement 4 banger...So much better than Vibe.

    So....it depends on a model. This day and age everything is mixed up.
  • shadow5599shadow5599 Member Posts: 101
    Well said. It does so much depend on model, as with anything from any manufacturer and any product line. It's kinda always been like that.

    As far as engines go, it's sad to hear someone generalize about a pushrod engine when they may not even know much about engines such as the dodge slant six, or the GM 350, LT1 or the Ford Boss line. Except to say they're antiquated. What's in a funny car these days, or a Nascar racer?

    Tried true and proven, that counts for alot.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    You want to talk about racing. Honda competes, and dominates, against the WORLD's leading engine makers in the most advanced race cars in the WORLD.
    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
  • thechosonthechoson Member Posts: 32
    I know Malibu would depreciate the fastest,

    but in general, is there any difference in depreciation between a Camry v. Accord?

    Thanks!
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    in general, is there any difference in depreciation between a Camry v. Accord?
    while there certainly is enough differences to 'justify' the higher prices of the Camcords and things like the Malibus of the world, there is not enough difference between the Toyota and Honda to speak of - while the Accord will have highest resale values, the Camry is very close.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    .....those who generalize and say that Japanese are better than American
    those of us that might be tempted to say that - would only have statistics on our side - something like the new CR 07 auto issue, which does show far lower long term problem rates... with who? Honda, Toyota and Nissan! which BTW are more 'American' than many of those US brand names that statistically don't fare nearly as well. Ford, believe it or not, is the highest rated US brand championed by the Mexican made Fusion. It certainly depends on model, but if you explore further into that same publication's 'recommended' list, you will also find that every Honda product and almost every Toyota and Nissan product are all rated very highly and show much lower than average problem rates, both new and used. These ratings based on 1.3 million surveys, maybe a tad more significant than one owner having some problems with one car?
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    for me it's not.

    i dealt with 3 cars:

    93 Civic. Mechanically ok, but not a miracle by any means. Fenders rusted through after 6 years.
    01 Sentra. Was plagued with engine light problems (some sensor somewhere) at the age of 3 or 4 years old and mileage about 40000 km. We repaired the thing twice, once from own pocket (400$ no less). Second time we got a good will deal. Now, at mileage of 50000 km the fan only works at 4th speed.
    Overall, not impressive at all.

    05 Vibe...tranny replaced within 2 years...Mind you 03 Ranger I had before for 2 years was problem-free.

    I think if you take a look at JD Powers you will find enough japanese with same or even lower ratings than american. Enough, to drop the generalized mindset and start looking into particular models.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the reason why I reference the CR ratings is that they are actually based on repair histories from owners of millions of vehicles. Hence they can identify specific problem areas, and compare those frequecy of incidences to others with some degree of statistical validity. JD Powers TMK is nothing but an 'initial satisfaction' survey - and sure, anything you bought cheap will tend to do well in such things, but, in any case, not an owner survey of problems/repair histories anywhere the magnitude or significance, of CR. 3 cars not quite the same as 1.3 million cars, is it? All that said it is true that the US brands are doing better, although I'd point to a reliance on older (debugged) drivetrains and technologies used by many of those mfgrs.
  • malexbumalexbu Member Posts: 169
    I am always curious as to where CR gets these millions of repair
    histories and how they manage to process them. They must have pretty
    deep pockets to do this. Hey, and the money should be left for their
    own in-depth research into the new cars -- quite an expensive
    exercise.

    Anybody here has a positive history of submitting the surveys to CR?
    Me, I always trash them -- CR certainly doesn't have my voice.
  • csandstecsandste Member Posts: 1,866
    I have more respect for CR than many on here but I think their surveys (since they are subscribers) tends to be self-reinforcing. Honda buyers tend to buy CR.

    Not to knock their circulation figures but take a look at these reports:

    http://www.mdsconnect.com/topcirculation.htm

    Why is CR the only magazine that rounds off their circulation to the nearest million? Or do they just hit the magic number on the head. Strange.

    That being said, I do consult CR, in addition to Edmunds and Car and Driver before making a purchase. They all do very different things.
  • malexbumalexbu Member Posts: 169
    I ... have limited experience with both the Malibu I'll further tell
    you that about all the current Malibu has going for it is price,
    because it certainly is not an enjoyable car to drive.

    It is certainly an enjoyable car to drive for many owners -- check the
    owners' boards.

    As for comparing how various cars drive... Well, I bought my first Bu
    within a month after renting a brand new Honda Accord. To me, Malibu
    drove better -- reminded me of my beloved Jetta. Accord, honestly, I
    probably liked less than the Impala I had rented before.

    As for the price difference, it's an important factor, isn't it? In
    that regard, I am still waiting for a new Camcord owner to share his
    experience: how much was paid to buy exactly what. (I did the same
    re: a 2005 Malibu.)

    I should point to elroy5's valuable post #45:

    Ok, I bought my 92 EX Accord in Sep.91 for $17,000...

    It is this kind of straightforward, direct information that makes me
    to respect the car. That's a very impressive experience, which can
    influence my future buying decisions (Thank you, elroy5!)

    As for which car can be enjoyed and which can -- I'll carefully listen
    to a car's owner (Thanks, yury -- I won't even think about Vibe
    anymore!). But you won't pay attention to my one-day experience with
    Accord -- and rightly so. And I don't think I'll be worrying about
    non-Malibu-owners' negatives about my car. I'll, however, will
    appreciate the information about the cars you own(ed). Including the
    price paid and maintenance costs. Thanks in advance to those who'll
    share that.
  • malexbumalexbu Member Posts: 169
    Thanks, csandste!

    I also look at CR at times -- why not? Always helpful to evaluate
    information from various sources.

    But I always, always, had the deepest doubts about their methods -- I,
    for one, don't know people who bother sending CR their reviews.

    CR lost my confidence completely (not to say that they cannot say
    right things -- but they can equally say wrong things with the
    straight face) when for two or three years (at least) their piece
    about Malibu was saying (find it in your archives -- check me if you
    wish), that the Malibu sedan had been long unreliable. And Maxx was,
    in comparison to the sedan, a more reliable car. Well, reading the
    Edmunds.com Malibu boards, I was of a firm impression that Maxx had by
    far more complaints than the sedan. So, how did CR come to their
    conclusion? By comparing Maxx to the pre-2004 Malibu sedan?... Wouldn't
    that be... er... non-professional?...
  • malexbumalexbu Member Posts: 169
    Exactly! And that's the ball game the Malibu looses. Most people
    don't need a lot of power at low rpm (taking off from stop signs,
    and red lights). Where I want the power, is when passing (40-70 or
    more), which is where the Malibu falls short.

    It depends on the people. Where I do my morning commute, there is a
    particular go-from-the-stop place where lots of folks apparently enjoy
    the friendly races -- all within the posted speed limit, mind you.
    Let me assure you that Malibu is doing just fine there. Very fine,
    indeed.

    As for falling short on a highway, at 40-70, I don't share your
    opinion. I normally drive in the leftmost lane, on highways with the
    posted speed of 65 mph. Don't have a problem with that, believe it or
    not.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    just a few comments.....those who generalize and say that Japanese are better than American are wrong. Depends on a model.
    I just got rid of (after only 2 years) of a Vibe. Ok one can argue GM screwed it up...Howeve I know that at least some of the problems that I have seen are present im Matrix as well.
    Now, while my Vibe was being fixed i drove a rental Cobalt...Oh man, what a supringly nice ride from a bargain basement 4 banger...So much better than Vibe.

    So....it depends on a model. This day and age everything is mixed up.

    Generally, your initial statement is something that should be followed. Making sweeping assumptions isn't quite fair to an automaker. True.

    I do find it interesting that you liked the Cobalt amazingly well. To me, it had one of the poorly put together and finished interior of any car I've seen in the last five years. The Chevrolet Impala on the other hand was a very nice step-up that I did not expect from Chevrolet, quite nice inside. The 2.2L in the Cobalt is peppy if not particularly smooth or efficient, so I can see how it would be a step up in power from a 126 hp wagon weighing more than a Cobalt (Cobalt is 145 hp right?). My ex-gf had a Corolla (same 1.8L 126 hp as the Vibe/Matrix, albeit with less weight)... with the automatic, that car was a relative dog compared to my dad's 140 hp Civic with a 5-speed Auto. Pathetic low-end response, and it sounded like a Snapper Rear-Engine Rider on a good day. Superb interior quality seemed to abound, um, er, except for the large number of squeaks and rattles it had (2 years old, 25,000 miles last I drove it last October). The Corolla/Vibe/Matrix is NOT a car I would "choose" to drive - boring, slow, loud, with a very composed ride and great economy being its pluses.

    Apparently, I'm tired after re-reading my post (it's a little bit mixed up, but I think my point comes across overall). A car company should not be based on one vehicle alone. Gosh, what if everyone based Honda as a company on the old Passport? Or Cadillac on the Cimarron? It would be idiotic to do so.
  • malexbumalexbu Member Posts: 169
    What year and model Cobalt did you drive? For how long, if I may ask?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    2005 LS, family rented it for three days, and together we probably put 300 miles on it, and it delivered worse economy than my larger more powerful Accord (the biggest downer considering the fact that it didn't have a ton of usable power).
  • prdmprdm Member Posts: 145
    "And Maxx was,
    in comparison to the sedan, a more reliable car."

    Sorry, that was my fault. I submitted the lone survey result to CR about our Maxx and it was all positive as there have been no problems with it.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    Sorry, at this point I am confused as to who is making what point :)

    Regarding Cobalt: i drove if for 3 days or so. What I liked, aside from more power is the quetness and smootheness of the ride. Being used to compact 4 bangers i didn't expect it to be that nice.
    When I got my Vibe back it felt like it had solid steel rods for suspension :)
    What partucular trim of Cobalt....don't know for sure. All I remember it didn't have any power stuff at all, must've been something basic, but with auto transmission.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    3 cars not quite the same as 1.3 million cars

    Look...My point was very simple - unless you research a model that you buy it's easy to end up with a not impressive japanese car. Maybe overall there's a difference, but I would not call it decisive and thus making generalized approach not practically viable.

    Another thing....Americans seems to be doing better nowdays than they were before. There's been enough crap cars made by americal auto industry in 90s...Cavaliers, Corsicas, Tauruses....you name it. If CR data is long term it must include a great deal of those.
    And even the above statement deserves carefull analysis, because it's kinda mixed up and depends on a particular manufacturer. To me it seems (personal impression) GM is imporving, but Chrysler may not. Don't have a feel for Ford.

    Then what about such Japanese manufacturers such as Suziki, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Nissan. Nissan's Sentra is a so-so car, Maxima's reliability is no more than about average, Mazda had it's problematic cars in the past...

    Given all that, i think it's prudent to stop generalizing. It's the same as with Hundai....Common generalization in the past was that Koreans suck. Now, does current Sonata suck ? I don't think so.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    2005 LS, family rented it for three days, and together we probably put 300 miles on it, and it delivered worse economy than my larger more powerful Accord (the biggest downer considering the fact that it didn't have a ton of usable power).

    i find this odd. i compared all V6 Malibus and V6 Accords for years 05 through 07 and found that Accords have consistently lower fuel mileage.

    I used Ontario goverment test data for this comparision.

    were your driving conditions identical ? i find that sometimes it's easy to make a mistake comparing different routes.
  • yuryyury Member Posts: 146
    Let me put a different spin on this discussion.
    Let's go back in time and imagine we're having this discussion on 2005.
    V6 Camry vs V6 Malibu. Camry - 210 hp (lowered to below 200 for 06), Malibu - 201. Torgue the same, but a on lower rpm for Malibu. Mileage about the same, 0-60: Camry 7.6, Maliby 7.8.

    I fail to see much difference other than the price and depreciation. Well, ok 05 Camry's interior is nicer.

    Ok, granted, Camry jumped ahead in 07...Malibu got a few more hp, but not as much. Good work on Toyota's part.

    So, should we say rephase the statement than ... "Malibu lacks this and that compared to Camry in year 2007" ? The statement looses a lot of it's power now, does it not ?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    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.

    It was the same commute; my parents got rear-ended in their 2003 Accord back in 2005, and had a rental until they bought their 2005.

    For the record, I average about 30 MPG in my Accord on my typical route (7 miles stop 'n' go, 7 miles @ 70MPH interstate). I'll be honest, and say that I don't remember the exact figures the little Chevy got, but I remember being surprised at how we got better figures in our (then a 2003) Accord. Since, we have had a 2005, and I have a 2006 EX, and all get/got the same mileage for each driver.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    So, should we say rephase the statement than ... "Malibu lacks this and that compared to Camry in year 2007" ? The statement looses a lot of it's power now, does it not ?

    Or we could just say that the Malibu lacks power compared to the Camry, since this discussion is typically about cars currently on the market.
  • stlpike07stlpike07 Member Posts: 229
    Personally, I believe if you ask someone to pick one of the three cars that they would pick the Camry or Accord over the Malibu.

    The chevy would be my last choice.......cheap interior, not the greatest build quality, and so-so (boring) looks. I think most people would agree.

    Also, if you want a very very fast car, you wouldn't by any of them.
  • malexbumalexbu Member Posts: 169
    It believe if you ask someone to pick one of the three cars that hey would pick the Camry or Accord over the Malibu.

    As an experiment, why won't you ask me?... I think anybody is qualified to be a "someone" --- go ahead, ask away!...
  • malexbumalexbu Member Posts: 169
    For the record, I average about 30 MPG in my Accord on my typical
    route (7 miles stop 'n' go, 7 miles 70MPH interstate). I'll be
    honest, and say that I don't remember the exact figures the little
    Chevy got, but I remember being surprised

    If you read the postings on the "Malibu MPG" board, you will probably
    agree that 30 MPG is achievable (with the driving pattern of yours) in
    any Malibu, which is a less economical car than Cobalt.

    Also think about how you measured the rental Cobalt's fuel economy:
    you probably only filled it once, with your 300 miles of cumulative
    driving, right? In this case, you wouldn't know how much fuel was in
    the tank in the beginning. Even a one gallon inaccuracy at this run
    with Cobalt's economy would result in a noticeable error -- play with
    the numbers yourself.

    I am not saying that you were wrong, I am just pointing out certain
    things you may want to think about.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I would agree, IF that post were modified to say "for the same money, most people would pick the Camry or Accord over the Malibu." The Malibu is less expensive (I don't know exactly what a loaded Malibu costs, and I don't mean sticker - what do they go for?). A Malibu SS seems comparable enough to Camry and Accord V6 models (240 hp, 4-speed).

    The Malibu is a clearance rack car, best I can tell. You get a lot of product for the outlay, but it is on the clearance rack for a reason: nobody was willing to pay full price; it just wasn't desirable enough to the buying public.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Certainly our mileage estimate from the Cobalt may have been skewed if the tank was not filled properly. I guess I would just hope that an economy car would return great fuel economy, not economy "comparble" to an Accord. Since I do not know the exact numbers, only that we were surprised by how mediocre they were, I'll leave this point alone. I shouldn't have brought up the Cobalt anyway since it is off topic. Sorry for that.

    Moving on...

    If I can get higher than average EPA numbers in an Accord, I likely could in a Malibu, you are right. But at some point, the fact that the car is a 3.5L V6 with a 4-speed will catch up with it mileage-wise when comparing to a 2.4L 4-cyl with Variable Valve timing and a 5-speed.

    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? I didn't know if any of that changed with the facelift the Malibu got recently. Thanks,

    TheGrad
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles