Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
.
>If OnStar had been invented by anyone other than GM
I completely agree. The bias against anything GM permeats the attitudes of some people.
As I've been looking at the current car crop, I laugh about the shrinking of the rear seat legroom in the Malibu with the platform change: if that had come from Honda or toyota, it would be praised as a feature and as forward thinking. It would be mitigated as a negative for a fraction of the folks by pointing out that most of the time the vehicle is driven with 1 or maybe 2 people in the front seat and rarely with anyone other than children in the back seat.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So you're saying that C&D, which accepts advertising money from manufacturers, is more balanced than CR? Come on, now, I'm pretty sure that's not what I've heard here recently!
The CR review is more recent, and not of the Eco...but you know that.
It sort of reminds me of way back in 1980, when MT or C&D did a luxury car comparison and they pitted a Seville, Mark VI, and New Yorker 5th Ave against each other. In performance, the 5th Ave was grossly outclassed, as it only had a 120 hp 318, compared to a Caddy 368 that had around 150 hp, and a Ford 351W that probably had about 140, not to mention a lot of extra torque from those additional cubes.
The Caddy did 0-60 in about 10.5 seconds, quite respectable for the time. The Lincoln managed 10.9. The poor Chrysler came in a distant third, at 14.1.
That year, you could get an optional 360 in the Chrysler that put out 130 hp in 2-bbl form, or 180-185 in 4-bbl. Or in California/high altitude areas, there was a 318-4bbl with 155 hp. Any of those would have been a better match in this comparison.
However, the vast majority of Chrysler New Yorkers came with the 318-2bbl, so I wonder if it was fairer to compare these cars as they'd most commonly be equipped, versus making the engines more comparable? The 360-2bbl was very rarely ordered, and the 4-bbl isn't even listed in the sales brochure. It was mainly a police car engine, and had to be special-ordered.
But, IIRC, the Olds Diesel was actually the standard engine in the Seville, with the Caddy 368 (or Olds 350 gas) being a no-cost option? Most of them came with the gasoline engines though (although enough Diesels were ordered to do some serious damage to their reputation) Anyway, the test was definitely stacked against the Chrysler, but I don't know if I can really fault the reviewer.
In the case of this Malibu Eco, I think they should have just waited until the gasoline version came out to put it in a comparison test. The Eco should be tested with hybrids IMO...only problem there though, against dedicated hybrids like the Camry, it would probably fall even further behind. :sick:
I wonder if the Buick Regal would have done better in that comparison test, as it's essentially the same car underneath as the Malibu. Maybe its base price is too high to be competitive though?
Ford's logo is simple and very direct, I like that one too. I happen to like Caddy's emblem, even if it is a bit busy.
The problem has generally been the cars that OnStar is available on, not OnStar itself. Remember, GM is a car company, not an OnStar company.
Concerning the Regal, I've liked the looks when I 've seen them, but they look so small from the rear IMHO. I've not looked at one in a dealership though.
We should judge based on merit, not by the label of the manufacturer, and that's what I do.
Chevy's bow tie is just fine, much better than "GMC", IMHO.
Actually, if I hadn't heard anything bad about the Avenger's reliability from people, and the cost was low, it wouldn't keep me from buying one if I wanted one. The shape of the rear door would though.
Last time I looked at one at an auto show (several years ago), I was pleasantly surprised at its U.S. assembly point and very high 'domestic' content.
When I drive in that type of environment in my Expedition, I'm lucky to average 10mpg. No way will a Suburban get close to 15 in that environment.
It did improve when they added the Pentastar engine and the new 6EAT but CR may have tested one without that powertrain, or perhaps before the improvements happened. Back page has an index with the month and year each car was last tested for reference.
Even Chrysler fans agree, look at the uptick in sales with the recent improvements. Dodge sales were up 26% for 2012.
When you build cars that no longer suck, consumers flock to dealers. To be brutally honest I think the Avenger is still very weak, and needs a ground up redesign. I'm sure the next one will be a vast improvement.
I like Audi's four rings. Classy and historically meaningful.
I also like Subaru's, and there's a secret handshake, if you will: the hood latch release aligns with the right-most start in the Pleiades constellation. So the emblem actually serves a hidden function. Now that's cool design. :shades:
VW's logo opens the hatch of a GTI, but I don't like that it's just letters.
True, and Onstar did nothing to improve the lousy GM car's I've owned and certainly doesn't attract me to a GM vehicle. I have to like the vehicle first.
Though it would be highly unlikely I'd be willing to pay extra for Onstar as I never was compelled to pay for it in the past.
Maybe GM will just use Isuzu to distribute pickups for them? Strange.
The rest of the market seems to be downsizing and adding forced induction, but I wonder if this is the right move for Cadillac.
When Chrysler restyled these cars a couple years back, didn't they put a bit more effort into the 200 than they did the Avenger? My biggest beef with both is their awkward (IMO) proportions. I sat in a 200 a couple months ago at the dealer I bought my Ram from, and its interior was definitely upgraded compared to how they used to be. Can't remember if the Avenger got any interior upgrades too, or just the improved powerplants?
Anyway, considering it wasn't a ground-up redesign, I think the did a pretty good job. If all I wanted was an inexpensive/cheap midsized car and didn't care about the latest and greatest, I'd consider one. But I agree, it needs to be redesigned.
If forced to choose a Malibu or a 200, I'd probably go for the 200. While neither one is a car that I really WANT to own, the 200 has a more useable back seat (regardless of the published specs, I at least know I can fit decently in the back of it, but I can't with the Malibu), and would come in at a lower price. These days you could probably get a V-6 200 for about the price of a base Malibu...so while I'd still hate the proportions, at least it would be kinda fun! :shades:
It's also sandwiched by 2 better cars, IMHO, Dart and Charger.
I checked out Chryslers and the updates are half way there, but they still have a ways to go. I'd pick a Malibu and a Fusion over an Avenger even for a lot more money.
Um, and that could be done...how?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Brands/OnStar/pcmcat246300050007.c?id=pcmcat24630005- 0007
Judging from what I saw on the Best Buy web page, it doesn't appear to be a big seller....
And you do.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I believe it is now standard equipment on every GM, although not certain of that.
I doubt many people who wish they had it, like the lady from my town who was in the crash, would pay to have it added to their car, but wish their car had it when they bought it...obviously.
I agree. A refreshing change of pace on this board.
You avoid pretty ridiculous, 'on the fringe' postings, like "Sure there's Chevys made in Mexico...like the Captiva (which I couldn't buy if I walked into my local Chevy dealer), and 'OnStar can be added to an earlier vehicle' (yes, but do you know anybody who has actually done that? It's a good built-in feature, I think a lot of owners would concur).
Mostly you'll have to pay the subscription. $199 annually for the basic one that dials 911 in event of a crash, $299 if you want the turn by turn navigation.
This PC Mag review is a little older now and I think the cost and install prices are less.
Be really good if you have a new driver in the family and have stuck them in an older (non-GM) car.
True, but I'd gladly pay $700 to avoid driving something I don't want or like.
Regarding adding Onstar. Best Buy used to have a big display promoting adding Onstar to any vehicle. I haven't noticed the display in a while. I doubt there are many takers.
How 'bout an alert bracelet linked up to a smart phone, so you have 24/7 protection?
A lot of people do not renew their subscriptions once they expire.
Of course others have copied the idea, so kudos to GM for thinking of it first. It's just not for me, but I can see why some would want it.
I do have to wonder what the point is of the Malibu ECO with all the added complexity, yet identical mileage to non-hybrid models from its competitors.
This is the ongoing stench of GM behavior where they seem to put stuff out there and use names to try and act like they're accomplishing something that they really aren't. A hybrid called an "ECO" that matches non-hybrid mileage! Now there's a brilliant idea!
Why couldn't they just put out vehicles that actually do ok for mileage. They are the world's largest auto manufacturer, why can't they actually put something out that is innovative?
The Volt fits that description, but is an expensive niche vehicle. GM needs to put innovation into the heart of its lineup rather than into niche vehicles like Volt and ATS.
A lot of reviews seem to think the non-ECO model is the better car, and for a lot less $$$.
The problem is that you can buy a nav for like, $100 and then no more fees except maybe refresh the DB every year or two.
Also, most people have smartphones that have nav and already cost near $100/month. Most people don't want yet another monthly or annual fee.
I do agree that automatic calling in a crash is a nice feature, but that seems to be the only real advantage. Not needed hardly ever, but could be useful in an emergency.
Why IS the Malibu Eco so expensive, anyway? I just pulled it up and a few competitors using Edmund's, and, on the quick, got...
Camry Hybrid: $26,140
Fusion Hybrid: $27,200 (okay, that ain't cheap, either, but at least it's a "true" hybrid"
Prius: $24,200 (most people probably wouldn't compare it directly to the Malibu, but it's just about as good at holding 4 occupants, and has more cargo room)
Malibu Eco: $25,335.
I guess one advantage I could see to the Malibu Eco, versus the Camry at least, is that if you do a lot of highway driving, they're close in MPG. The Camry is rated 39 mpg, and the Malibu is 37. Now in town, the difference is much more noticeable...43 mpg versus 25.
The Malibu also gives you slightly larger tires, alloy wheels versus plastic wheelcovers, and a standard power seat. So, I guess they do at least pack a few nice features in for the price. And, while looks are subjective, I think the Malibu looks a lot better than the Camry. The overall shape of the Camry isn't too bad, although it looks to me like it's going back to that old "80's Aero-wedge" that was all the rage once upon a time. But it definitely needs a facelift!
General Motors Sells More Than 1 Million Vehicles That Get 30 mpg or Better in 2012 (automotive.com)
No other domestic manufacturer has matched that so they get some credit and bragging rights.
The problem with calling 911 on your cell is obvious - you may be unconscious and worse, you could be out of sight in a ravine on the side of the road.
Maybe OnStar should be required for cars that got a Poor like the Camry.
No other domestic manufacturer has matched that so they get some credit and bragging rights.
Yes, but that to me looks like typical corporate PR.
First, they've sold a lot of vehicles because they're the top domestic manufacturer.
Second, they limit it to "domestic". So that pretty much rules out everybody but Ford (and maybe Chrysler)!
So they're really not saying much of anything. It's kind of like Honda saying they're they have sold more Ohio-made sedans than any other foreign-nameplate manufacturer in Ohio.
Another typical headline that doesn't mean much other than trying to get some good press. Sort of like using a term like "ECO"!
GM keeps hyping the Corvette for the Detroit Auto Show, but I have to wonder if the new Silverados will draw more traffic.
They also sold more Mustangs than any domestic manufacturer, while GM leads all domestic manufacturers in Corvettes and front-end interest loans. :shades:
Camry Hybrid: $26,140
Fusion Hybrid: $27,200 (okay, that ain't cheap, either, but at least it's a "true" hybrid"
Prius: $24,200 (most people probably wouldn't compare it directly to the Malibu, but it's just about as good at holding 4 occupants, and has more cargo room)
Malibu Eco: $25,335.
Because the FE isn't all that impressive. The EPA ratings of the Malibu Eco are 25/29/37 vs the new Accord which is 27/30/36. Or you buy a real hybrid and get closer to 40 overall.
Maybe FE is part of the reason why the Malibu isn't selling so well. Looking at the EPA estimates, a 2.5 powered Malibu's FE ratings are 22/26/34.
too cheap... nah... On-Star's too expensive, or you'd be an adopter.
It just costs too much, and is TOO lame, for your to buy it.
Even cheap people buy things they think are worth it.
So, it seems logical to me that if a occupant isn't willing to use a basic safety device for bodily protection that has been standard equipment in every single vehicle for decades, then the occupant probably isn't going to pay anything extra to get the benefits of OnStar or any other competitive product.