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.
109 Comments on “Yankee Econo-Car Comparo: 1st Place: 2009 Chevrolet Malibu...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
This isn’t fair! TTAC is obviously biased against domest…oh, wait… :P
The new Mazda6 isn’t quite the hard-crow sports-esque sedan its predecessor was.
A moment of silence for the five-speed, Duratec-powered Mazda6 liftback. One bad-assed little family car.
Clearly, the new Bu and a poster of Rob Schneider saying “You can do it!” are now all that holds GM back from success.
This car, whatever its good points, is unavailable with a manual transmission. I realize that few potential Malibu buyers will take this into account, but it needed to be said…
Another surprisingly positive review for a GM product from TTAC.
Ahh… but with GM’s lack of a future, would anyone buy one? In part because I read TTAC, I stayed far away from GM last year.
Lesuxian
Is this a mid-word Spoonerism referring to the high end Toyota brand or an adjective I’m not familiar with?
The ‘bu may be better looking than the last one, and as inoffensive as your above average Japanese car, but it certainly doesn’t qualify as attractive. If I were GM I would have used styling cues from the second gen Corvair (timeless) or the ‘64 Chevelle. Why do cars have to be so uninspired in appearance???!
I suppose I should be happy that it doesn’t have pokemon eyes.
I’m just going to come out and say that I find this car flat-out ha-ooougly. The word that comes to mind when I see that dopey bisected grille is “simpering”, the rear end looks unfinished and out of proportion, and the whole thing has a sense of “bigness” that is inappropriate for what’s supposed to be a mid-sized car.
I like that handsome two-tone interior, very nice.
Malibu over Camry/Accord?
I mean, it’s encouraging to see a failed student make a come back and pass the exam. But it’s too much to claim he becomes the new top student.
The most important trait that mid-size sedan buyers look at is reliability.
By default, the previous Malibu is inferior to Camry/Accord in that regard. The new Malibu is new and thus unproven. Given GM’s track record, it’s very safe to assume that the new Malibu is inferior again, until proven otherwise.
I will look at a 2019 Malibu, if by that time, people still regard the 2009 Malibu as high as a 2009 Accord.
2 co-workers have Malibu’s, both different trim levels. Both of them are extremely happy with their cars (no issues whatsoever), and I’m still a fan of the look of them.
Shows what they can do when they want to… :D
David Holzman: If I were GM I would have used styling cues from the second gen Corvair (timeless) or the ‘64 Chevelle. Why do cars have to be so uninspired in appearance???!
Two words: wind tunnel
So did it receive 3, 4 or 5 stars?
The Sebring got 1 and the Fusion 2.
BTW, this Malibu is 70% bland + 30% ugly.
The best looking midsize would be the new Fusion.
The sencond best would be the Accord.
what i’m still unable to figure out is how the ‘bu can consistently score so much higher than the saturn aura–same platform, same factory (i think) and damned near the same interior. i don’t get it.
A new lean Chevrolet Motor Company carrying forward only the very best of its predecessor General Motors’ products could be a fierce competitor.
olivehead :
March 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
what i’m still unable to figure out is how the ‘bu can consistently score so much higher than the saturn aura–same platform, same factory (i think) and damned near the same interior. i don’t get it.
Perhaps GM PR demanded it. They need to promote this car, but will have to justify dumping Saturn.
David Holzman: Lesuxian
Is this a mid-word Spoonerism referring to the high end Toyota brand or an adjective I’m not familiar with?
I don’t know. I’ve never been very good at English.
A moment of silence for the five-speed, Duratec-powered Mazda6 liftback. One bad-assed little family car.
Hear Hear! Almost bought one last year. The Forester’s seats won out (the wife has two exploded lower discs in her back so seat comfort for her is a totally different experience from the rest of the planet).
Tons of room. God I love hatch/liftbacks.
And yet honda get’s ragged on for only havinging a five speed auto?
And yes, the ‘Bu is ugly. Not butt ugly but ugly nonetheless.
Of course that’s a characteristic it shares with most of its competitors. I tell ya, auto designers seem to get teh stooopids like a dose of the flu when it comes to crafting fugly cars . And it’s seasonal. And contagious.
Having rented several of these (along with platform mate Saturn Aura), I concur that these are very competent cars. While not exceptional, neither to they have any obviously glaring flaws.
The problem is that it is an answer to a question that does not exist. Most Camcordima buyers are not looking for an alternative.
I’ll take the Aura’s exterior, the Malibu’s cocoa/cashmere interior, and the 3.9/6-speed manual combo that was formerly available in the G6. And brand it as an Oldsmobile, please.
Malibu over Camry/Accord?
I mean, it’s encouraging to see a failed student make a come back and pass the exam. But it’s too much to claim he becomes the new top student.
The most important trait that mid-size sedan buyers look at is reliability.
By default, the previous Malibu is inferior to Camry/Accord in that regard. The new Malibu is new and thus unproven. Given GM’s track record, it’s very safe to assume that the new Malibu is inferior again, until proven otherwise.
I will look at a 2019 Malibu, if by that time, people still regard the 2009 Malibu as high as a 2009 Accord.
————————————————————
Good point wsn. But I think even more relevant is the resale value. In my opinion, all but the bottom 30% of vehicles are pretty darn reliable up to 100,000 miles. Possibly more. Especially if you ‘have a clue’ and actually follow the maintenance schedule. In other words, I don’t think it’s going to cost you any more in repair/maintenance bills owning a Malibu, Accord, or Camry for the first 100,000 miles.
BUT, look at the value of an Accord/Camry that is 6-7 years old with 100,000 miles. Now look at the value of the Malibu with equal age/mileage. This is what makes the Malibu a tough sale IMHO. People tend to overpay for used Japanese cars, but I don’t write the rules. This is the reality, and something you have to consider when buying new.
BUT how much more did you pay for the Accord/Camry in the first place?
The Malibu is in fact a great car. It’s kind of hard to believe, but there it is. Even the styling is very well thought out and coherent, modern without being boring. It puts the Camry (dull dull dull) and the Accord (did the Wu-Tang Clan design those doorhandles?) to shame.
The part I don’t understand is the gas mileage. The numbers you quote are what I get in my gas-sucking turbo-charged, 210 hp SAAB 9-3, a much more powerful car. The math just isn’t adding up for me here.
Now if GM would just produce a smaller car with the same quality, I’d be on their lot in a second.
there really is something to be said for the resale value of the camcord vs. what you actually pay for your brand new malibu/aura/fusion, etc. for example, in my neck of the woods you could pick up a ‘09 accord lx-p (with some nice features above the base lx like power driver’s seat) for around $21,000-21,500. a comparably equipped fusion SE can be had for something like $16,000-17,000 (given dealers selling for no more than invoice and $3,500 in rebates). so there’s a possible difference of up to 5,500 bucks for comparably equipped, comparably reliable (if several reputable sources are to be believed) mid-sized sedans. i’m just looking at the numbers here, not whether you hate domestics, hate fords, like fords but wouldn’t buy one, just don’t like the fusion for other reasons, etc. that $5,500 more than makes up for the current resale value of each car with 100k miles on it.
At 6′5″ I fit in the Malibu quite well. The driver’s seat is nice and comfy and the steering wheel adjusts so my knees have room while not resting on any hard surfaces. Lots of headroom.
In the Malibu you do notice it has Redwood trunk sized a-pillars, which I guess is to be expected in cars these days. The a-pillars also have very cheap appearing tweeter integration; looks like a monkey with an ice pick perforated random holes in the lower pillar trim. Other than that, the interior is quite nice.
Count me as a fan of the Malibu’s exterior. I dislike the direction Mazda, Toyota and Honda have gone with their wacky, just to be different, cus thats what the other guys are doing, with their front ends. The Malibu keeps it simple and the proportions are right.
Unfortunately, this is the car GM should have built 10+ years ago. Then its reliability could have a chance to be at least somewhat established by now.
What went wrong? This is not the GM we have grown to love to hate. How can it be?
Oh well even a monkey could type a shakeseperian sonnet given enough time I suppose. Lord knows these people certainly have flushed a ton of models away to come up with a winner finally.
I would still be a bit leary on longevity beyond the 100k plateau.
Just me sayin.
gaycorvette : March 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
The part I don’t understand is the gas mileage. The numbers you quote are what I get in my gas-sucking turbo-charged, 210 hp SAAB 9-3, a much more powerful car. The math just isn’t adding up for me here.
Mileage is not dependent on how much power your engine is capable of, but how much you use. The Saab’s 4 cyl has few internal bearing surfaces which allows it to be more efficient also.
Vehicle weight, aerodynamics and tire choice have far greater impact on mileage.
It looks a lot better as an Aura. The front and rear are trimmed down a lot more on the Saturn.
I drive an Aura with the 3.5 and 4-speed, and average about 26 mpg in mixed driving, so I’m not quite sure why one would opt for an Ecotec that gets the same.
Who cares how many gears an automatic has? Or a manual for that matter. To me, a car with more gears indicates an engine with a narrow powerband.
If the Malibu can get decent mileage, acceleration and smoothness with a 4sp auto, then right on. Keeps cost, complexity and weight down. Whats not to like?
While I’m bitching, I dont really want thirty-twelve airbags, eleventeen speakers, nor fully articulated power seats either.
Victell:
Your answer is not terribly convincing to me. How do you know that the SAAB 4-cylinder has “few internal bearing surfaces which allows it to be more efficient also”? I’m assuming you meant “fewer of these than the Chevy four cylinder”. Really? How do you know this? And what does it mean?
My SAAB weighs about as much as the 4 cylinder Malibu, has bigger tires, a bigger engine and a turbo attached to it. Logic and physics tell me the Chevy should be getting much better mileage.
I wonder if it’s the transmission that’s the culprit?
My wife owns a Saturn Aura (you know, the car that GM decided to keep a secret) which is a twin of the Malibu. This is a very, very good car from both quality and driveability standponts.
We test drove the usual suspects and the Aura came out a clear winner. It’s been a year and a half with no issues whatsoever (fingers and toes crossed).
Too many cars are now all the same….of six tested cars four ended up with less than a 3 point difference between them according to the tester…….no wonder car sales are decreasing, there are too many cars all very much the same being manufactured and sold today.
Maybe should have posted this on the Fusion review but I don’t think you are comparing apples to apples here. The Fusion S is a bassssse model. As a poster on that review said it is meant to make all Fusion uplevel models look better and sell better in comparison. When you are comparing plastic hubcaps to alloy wheels (Fusion to Malibu) then I think you may want to move a trim level higer to really get a fair comparison. Honestly the first review I have read that did not have great/good things to say about a Fusion and to compliment the driving dynamics.
Doesn’t take away from the Malibu, but not a true this vehicle is better because comparo.
“BTW, this Malibu is 70% bland + 30% ugly.”
Totally agree. Moreover, buying any American car is a gamble of the highest order. Why not just buy what has been proven to last over the long haul? Any Japanese car of your choice. Another silly thing is the names of some of these American cars; i mean Malibu? People in rich areas tend to not buy POS American cars. How about a Chevy “Compton?”
Think if GM made only the following models:
Malibu
Cruze (or Astra until it comes out)
Vue
G8
CTS
CTS-V
SRX
Corvette
Tahoe
Suburban
Silverado
Enclave
hey, they’d be pretty good!
Eric the Red:
The point of this comparison test was to evaluate the most economical (basic) available entrant by each of these manufacturers. The base Bu is simply better equipped than the frugal Fu. It’s Ford’s strategic misstep to embarrass the Fusion lineup by putting out such a poorly appointed variant.
Mike S:
I actually prefer the Malibu to the Aura (I’ve driven both on several occasions). For one thing, the Malibu is much quieter than the Aura (it has more sound-deadening material in its structure), and it’s turning circle is much smaller than the Aura’s.
These two things make it much more relaxing to drive and maneuver.
The Malibu is about the only sub-$50K vehicle that I can think of (excepting perhaps the 3-series) that has received UNIVERSAL thumbs-ups in every road test I’ve encountered.
Nonetheless, suggesting it to my mom as a replacement for her Buick LaCrosse (shudder) seemed a bit of a longshot at the time. To my surprise, she took my advice, drove it, loved it and bought one. Silver over gray, (faux) suede inserts in the heated leather seats, very sharp-looking alloys, rockin’ V-6, the works.
It’s almost embarrassing to admit how close that $21K car comes to my beloved $40K + Euro-sedans.
Well done, GM.
You are right. This wasnt very scientific.
I’m normally a Ford guy, but the Malibu is a seriously good car. Well, except for the hybrid, which missed the point. Ford’s monkeying with the options in order to force people into the more expensive SE and SEL is ridiculous, though typical Ford.
Awesome car. Shame about the rest of the company, though.
It’s too bad that such a nice car isn’t going to have anybody to build it next year.
Any car that occupies 70% of the stalls at any given rental car lot is never, ever going to get my attention, ever as a car that will occupy my garage.
I like this car’s front end, I think the back side is hideous, and I found it to navigate the Arizona highways as a rental about average.
Sure, these may not be your criteria. But if this is GM’s best, my best advice is “goodbye”.
am I the only one who hates this car’s front-end and back design? the back looks just cheap like a cobalt and the front end is way too busy. this corporate chevy grille only works well on trucks, IF it does. the profile looks nice, though.
How hard would it be to swap a CTS-V powertrain into one of these?
gaycorvette : Victell: Your answer is not terribly convincing to me. How do you know that the SAAB 4-cylinder has “few internal bearing surfaces which allows it to be more efficient also”? I’m assuming you meant “fewer of these than the Chevy four cylinder”. Really? How do you know this? And what does it mean?
My SAAB weighs about as much as the 4 cylinder Malibu, has bigger tires, a bigger engine and a turbo attached to it. Logic and physics tell me the Chevy should be getting much better mileage.
I wonder if it’s the transmission that’s the culprit?
My guess is that these are the factors of gas mileage, in order of greatest to least. Driving style, weight, frontal area or drag coefficiency, engine efficiency, tires, transmission, alignment.
Looking up the specs of your Saab…
2.0t engine: Double overhead chain-driven camshafts, four valves per cylinder and dual counter-rotating balance shafts
3,210-3,570 lbs weight, your car has the 2.0T so probably on the lower end of weight, say ~3300 lbs
drag coefficient 0.28
you didn’t say if you had a manual or auto, but I assume manual
Malibu…
3415 lbs
2.4 engine: DOHC, VVT, chain driven cams, balance shafts (engine details not as easy to find)
drag coefficient 0.34
4sp auto
Engine… Most 4 cyl DOHC engines are mechanically the same. So both your 2.0t and the Ecotec 2.4 engines have these bearings and wear surfaces that contribute to friction. Listed in order of most to least friction (guessing): 5 main bearings, 4 pistons and piston rings, 4 rod bearings, 4 wristpins, about 12 cam bearings, balance shaft bearings, cam followers, valve guides, and so on. Where your engine and the Malibu engine differ is displacement and turbo. The Malibu 2.4 engine has more displacement, so it would have more internal friction from heavier parts and more piston side thrust. Your 2.0t has added friction from the turbo, but the turbo can add efficiency at part throttle by using normally wasted exhaust pressures to boost (haha) intake efficiency. So if the engines are mostly the same internally, they would have about the same internal friction.
But that is moot once you ask an engine to actually do something, like push a car around. Then fuel economy is based solely on how much you ask the engine to do. The more you ask, the more fuel it uses. Driving style, weight, drag, etc all require power. And you can ask your 2.0t to make more power than the Malibu’s 2.4. But we’re not talking about max engine output efficiency, we’re on about part throttle city and highway driving.
For weight, your car comes in probably about a hundred or so pounds less than the Malibu. Aerodynamically your Saab has a much better drag coefficient than the Malibu. Your manual transmission, if used properly, will always be more efficient than an automatic. Automatics have torque converters and other hydraulic duties that manuals don’t. Your Saabs tires are probably wider and more performance oriented (more friction) than the Malibu tires.
So, looking at all these things, I’d say the aerodynamics of your Saab is the primary reason you would see better gas mileage on the highway. Then I would guess the Malibu’s auto trans and extra weight brings the gas mileage down for city driving. The engine has much less of an impact.
@06M3S54B32
“People in rich areas tend to not buy POS American cars. How about a Chevy ‘Compton?’”
You have to reach pretty far to find a way to trash poor people after reading a review of the Chevy Malibu. But you have made your point, nonetheless.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a Malibu by any other name would fight foo with creamy salad dressing just as well.”
I found this blog on searching on the google than i visit and find it is very nice and informative blog. I glad to post a comment on your blog. I am optimist automotive fan so thats why i cant say this one is bad or this one is good. I always says all cars have their own qualities.
Mohammad Zohaib Khan from Toyota Deals