Yankee Econo-Car Comparo: 1st Place: 2009 Chevrolet Malibu

William C Montgomery
by William C Montgomery

The General’s Chevrolet Malibu LS won this competition versus the Chrysler Sebring LX and Ford Fusion S because it’s a complete car with no manifest weaknesses. For less than $18K, I could have driven away from the Chevy dealership in the only vehicle capable of going head to head with the very best entry level cars in its class. In a prior competition, I compared the Honda Accord LX, Toyota Camry (base model), Nissan Altima 2.5 and Mazda Mazda6i Sport. Neither the dismally shameful Sebring nor the uninspired Fusion compares well to even the weakest of these Japanese models. On the other hand, this Malibu fully deserves serious consideration by cost conscious consumers.

The mission of the new Chevrolet Malibu is to fight, penetrating the market dominated by Camcords. Designing the seventh-generation Malibu to be more attractive than its predecessor was, let’s face it, an easy task. The unfortunate design made the old Malibu look like a fat guy who carries his weight low on his abdomen so that it bulges out below his belt. All the engineers had to do: strike the heavy chrome band across the Gen 6 ug-mobile’s front below the bug-eyed headlights and above the bumper. The worst that can be said for the new Bu is that it might be bland. On the other hand, you could say the conservative look saves it from the gaffes Toyota and Honda made with the latest Camrys and Accords.

Malibu’s front-end carries Cadillac’s bone structure without the harsh edges and up-market bling. Otherwise, the new ’Bu’s expansive steeply raked windshield, expansive door panels under small sidelights, and beefy rear quarters are positively Lexusian. Of the three cars in this comparison, the Malibu is the only one with standard alloy wheels and exclusive touring tires, which helps make the Chevrolet Malibu look like it costs $10K more than it does.

The attractive classic lines carry over to Malibu’s inner confines. The Chevy’s switches and buttons have the look and feel of those found in the current Camry. That is not really a compliment. But it does indicate that the equipment is class-compliant. Front seats are comfortable and the grippy fabric offers decent lateral support. Again, the driver’s seat is the only of these three cars with standard power adjustment. Just be careful of the low bridge when you are climbing in and out of the car.

The Malibu is unabashedly tuned for comfort, floating over bumps the way creamy salad dressing pours over lettuce. My preference is normally for a chassis that feels a little more athletic, but Malibu’s ride is so well-refined that I had to give it top honors in this test over competitors that neither regally waft nor sportingly bob and weave. While the Chevrolet Malibu exhibited a bit more roll than the Ford Fusion, GM engineers have done a superb job quelling most unwanted motions. The ’Bu is nothing you would want to take to the track, but it does deliver safe and predictable handling.

The base Malibu is powered by GM’s LE5 Ecotec engine. The 2.4-liter DOHC mill utilized variable intake and exhaust valve timing to flatten the torque curve. Mated to GM’s workmanlike four-speed automatic transmission, which isn’t as primitive in the real world as it looks on paper, the car eeks past the Ford for power, while quietly delivering the best gas mileage of the three. The EPA predicts a thrifty 22 mpg in town and up to 30 mpg on the highway. (Buyers must pony up for Chevy’s optional six-speed cog swapper to realize the Malibu’s oft-advertised 32 mpg.)

When I coldly plug numbers for all seven entry level Japanese and American sedans that I have tested into the simple, non-scientific, rank-based evaluation tool I use, the Sebring stinks things up in dead last, well behind everyone else. The Fusion takes sixth place well ahead of the Sebring but posing no threat at surpassing the rest of the pack. Only three points separate the Accord, Altima and Camry in third, fourth and fifth places, respectively.

Surprisingly, the Mazda6 takes second closely behind the Malibu LS. This demonstrates a flaw in my un-weighted system. I would much sooner buy the Mazda because it is so much sportier to drive. To my 4-valve, 4-chamber, 1 hp (human power) pistonhead heart, this is worth more to me than the demerits the Mazda receives for having relatively a poor ride and gas mileage.

Nonetheless, I scored the Malibu in first or second place in six of ten evaluative categories; it did not rank last or next to last in any. In the final analysis, comfort-minded drivers will choose the strong-showing Malibu while those of us desiring a little more pizzazz in our commute will give a nod to the Mazda6.

William C Montgomery
William C Montgomery

More by William C Montgomery

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 110 comments
  • Autofixer Autofixer on Jul 15, 2009

    Hello, I am amazed and confused that there are few of you out there, that have not been paying attention to the facts behind the scenes, that all of your comparisons of the new Malibu, as well as the last version Malibu Maxx, to Saabs are in fact cheap versions of the Saab 95 and the Saab 9000, as well as the fact that the Ecotech engine is a 1993 Saab designed Engine, for GM because they where unable to make one for themselves, or to cheap to design it for themselves and as well as most if not all of the designs for the Saturn company, Gm has been and will continue to ripoff Saab R&D for a few more years, as far as not paying Saab in there agreement in the contract between Saab AB and GM back in 1981 when Gm Bought up the controlling 51% interest in Saab Scaina, to a fair split of all Saab Sales, in 1997 Gm stopped paying Saab there fair share, Gm not only owes it life blood But all its future to the this Fact, to Saab AB, I am sure that now one will believe me, that is OK, but it will come out when Saab Sues GM for Breach of Contract and puts the Gm we all have come to Love to Hate in the Ground Forever!, YYYYYYYEEEEEAAAAAHHHHH! Prove me wrong I have documents.

  • Matzel Matzel on Aug 28, 2009

    Just let me get out my tinfoil hat and I will ask you to e-mail your documents, autofixer.

  • Jkross22 When I think about products that I buy that are of the highest quality or are of great value, I have no idea if they are made as a whole or in parts by unionized employees. As a customer, that's really all I care about. When I think about services I receive from unionized and non-unionized employees, it varies from C- to F levels of service. Will unionizing make the cars better or worse?
  • Namesakeone I think it's the age old conundrum: Every company (or industry) wants every other one to pay its workers well; well-paid workers make great customers. But nobody wants to pay their own workers well; that would eat into profits. So instead of what Henry Ford (the first) did over a century ago, we will have a lot of companies copying Nike in the 1980s: third-world employees (with a few highly-paid celebrity athlete endorsers) selling overpriced products to upper-middle-class Americans (with a few urban street youths willing to literally kill for that product), until there are no more upper-middle-class Americans left.
  • ToolGuy I was challenged by Tim's incisive opinion, but thankfully Jeff's multiple vanilla truisms have set me straight. Or something. 😉
  • ChristianWimmer The body kit modifications ruined it for me.
  • ToolGuy "I have my stance -- I won't prejudice the commentariat by sharing it."• Like Tim, I have my opinion and it is perfect and above reproach (as long as I keep it to myself). I would hate to share it with the world and risk having someone critique it. LOL.
Next