By on September 10, 2015

2016 Chevrolet Malibu

Chevrolet will sell its next-generation Malibu for $22,500, including delivery, the automaker announced Thursday.

The pricing for the sedan, which sports a 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine, 2-liter turbo four or a hybrid powertrain, is aggressive in a difficult sales world for mid-size sedans. The base model L undercuts nearly all of its competition, which includes the Ford Fusion, Nissan Altima, Honda Accord and Toyota Camry. Only the Hyundai Sonata and Mazda6 are less expensive than the Malibu.

The 2016 Malibu is 300 pounds lighter and 4 inches longer than the current version and, according to the automaker, will achieve 37 mpg on the highway and 27 mpg city when equipped with a 1.5-liter four. Chevrolet says the 2-liter turbo will manage 22/32 mpg and the hybrid, which goes on sale next year, will muster 48/45 mpg.

Chevrolet says the LS model, which is now one step above the base L, will start at $23,995 and sport a 7-inch touchscreen.

The LT, which can be equipped with the 2-liter turbo, will start at $25,895 and adds LED headlamps and power seats. The top-of-the-line Premier model will run $31,795. Chevrolet did not announce pricing for its hybrid version.

The 2016 Malibu will go on sale later this year. Chevrolet said the Malibu Hybrid would go on sale in Spring 2016.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

70 Comments on “New 2016 Chevrolet Malibu Starts at $22,500...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    The tree yelled at him for being too loud, now he’s a sad parrot.

    “1.5-liter four-cylinder engine” <- Will almost certainly sound awesome and not be over-worked in this size car.

    • 0 avatar
      davefromcalgary

      Is 1.5L for realz? a 1.5L naturally aspirated engine in a midsize sedan? Nowhere in the article does it state that its a 1.5T, and it makes pain to specify the 2.0T.

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        It is obviously turbocharged.

        It’s the same engine as in the new Cruze. It’s also the same size as the turbo 4 available in the Fusion, but that Ford actually makes you pay for as an upgrade over their ancient 2.5L NA 4.

    • 0 avatar
      maestromario

      1.5-liter four cylinder engine… in a mid size family sedan, that’s depressing.

      Anyway if it’s touch screen integrates well with smartphones, it may attract the nerdy crowd looking for an transportation appliance.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        To me whats depressing here is the interior – I see green, I see blue, I see red, I see white, I see orange… I didn’t ask for disco-ball

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          The splashes of color are a refreshing change from the dark well of sadness that many midsize interiors have become. The overall dash shape and flow looks slick and the touch screen is more cohesively integrated into the dash than the chintzy tacked-on ipad look of Mercedes and the Mazda3. This may be a very nice interior.

          My only concern is the level of chrome trim; the sun will find your eyes more often than you want it to in there.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    FWIW, overall the looks are okay with me, save for parrot face and hood shut line up way too high. It nearly looks like it could be a liftback. What a day that would be.

    2016 CORSICA FTW!

  • avatar
    Acubra

    Oh shoot, for a moment I thought TTAC displaced a Chrysler 200 photo for this post! There seems to be a lot of stylistic ince… cross-pollination between these two – and Ford’d fusion too.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      The W-bodies certainly cribbed a bit of style from the ’86 Taurus/Sable when they were new too. The ’82 A-bodies were copied a little bit by the Fox-body LTD/Marquis and the Chrysler E-bodies. Full-size sedans are large enough to have their own distinct styling, but for midsize sedans, the name of the game has always been follow the leader.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    I’m skeptical that a 1.5 liter turbo is an ideal entry-level drivetrain for an American audience. But the styling isn’t bad at all.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Here’s an interesting article (link at the bottom), sort of related, GM anyway.

    We will find as turbochargers and associated tech becomes more efficient, especially at lower rpms, hooked up to smart automatic boxes, smaller engines will be viable.

    There is no reason why a 1.5 litre turbo can’t deliver 3 litre performance. A 2 litre turbo engine a 4 litre.

    I do like some of the comments regarding engine capacity and the American public. Imagine back in the 60s and even 70s stating that cars smaller than a Rambler would take over US highways……sort of like the comments above, silly. Let alone stating people would buy tiny Toyota Prii!

    Why hasn’t TTAC found this article?? It is of significance, especially the Holden Commodore replacement vehicle. The article itself is a teaser and most likely a GM initiated spy photo. Gauging feedback?

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/first-spy-photos-the-holden-commodore-of-the-future/story-fnjwucvh-1227519943026

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      That Insignia will also likely be our next Buick Regal in the U.S. It looks to have similar proportions to the 2016 Malibu, unlike the current Insignia which is a bit smaller (and has a tiny back seat for a midsize car).

      Are there any plans for Holden to get a version of the Buick LaCrosse or Chevy Impala to replace the Caprice? Or are they going to have the new “Commodore”/Insignia as the largest sedan offering?

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        derekson,
        I don’t know what will replace the V8s in the Commodore and the Caprice. GMH I would think will go the Ford way and import the Camaro as opposed to the ‘Stang for a V8 replacement.

        A Corvette would be nice.

        For a large vehicle, we are very much going the way of large CUVs.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      A 2 liter engine delivering 4 liter performance? Only if said 4 liter is an old truck engine or over 20 years old…

      240 horsepower is definitely not equivalent to what a modern 4 liter engine with all the gizmos would put out.

  • avatar
    PRNDLOL

    As much as I despised that 2012 Malibu I’m willing to give this one a shot. But the current model is such a dancehall wallflower loser that the stigma will be hard to rub off. However a 300lb diet and significantly improved interior can’t be ignored.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Maybe GM should just re-badge a Camry and call it a Malibooboo.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      The quality of the interior on this and the 2015 Impala make me question the continued existence of Buick in the US. Near luxury doesn’t have much purpose when the up level Chevies have interiors that are just as nice (and it’s also why most other marques that occupied this space have died already).

      It would make more sense to have a budget brand below Chevrolet at this point than to try to cram in a brand between Chevy and Cadillac, as all main line car brands now offer cars at least as nice as “near luxury” brands offer(ed). Having a bargain basement brand to compete on price without destroying margins for Chevy would probably generate more sales and profits than trying to squeeze into a disappearing niche between mainline and luxury cars. Pontiac at least had a viable niche as a brand making more exciting/sporty/performance oriented versions of mainstream Chevy products.

      VW in Europe actually does a good job of differentiating their brands like GM once did between Buick/Chevy/Oldsmobile/Pontiac. They manage to have Seat/Skoda/VW all as non-luxury brands that all target a specific type of consumer while offering cars that compete in the same space as far as size and price.

  • avatar
    tonycd

    GM seems to have decided that teal dash illumination and a brown interior option are part of Chevy’s brand identity, in much the way later Pontiacs all got red gauges, divided grilles and ribbed lower-body cladding.

    Thank goodness the photo seems to suggest they haven’t saddled this interior with the 15-year-old type font on the gauges that’s the only eyesore on the otherwise appealing Impala.

    This is a good-looking car. I assume they’ve addressed the rear legroom deficiency, since they’ve caught so much grief over it. I’m just waiting to hear how they’ve continued to hobble this car so it doesn’t step on the toes of the Regal or Impala. Maybe GM feels the lack of a V6 option answers that question, but I’m not risking a little 4-pot turbo in a car this size when Toyonda will sell me a dead reliable, naturally aspirated V6.

    • 0 avatar
      zip89105

      @ tonycd – I’m with you. I’m not yet sold on an “American” egoboast engine yet.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      Toyota, not for long.

      Base N/A 4, then turdocharged 4s in uplevel trims for the next Camry.

      Don’t know about Nissan. (Or did they already pull the V6 option from the Altima?)

      That leaves Honda. As an admitted fanboi, I hope they don’t pull the V6 option for the next Accord; their customer base is a little more enthusiast-oriented (I would think — and “oriented” — see what I did there? ;-) ), and as such, they’d be able to still make a case for the J-series V6, especially since they didn’t drop the new Pilot’s version — with DI and the 9-speed ZF slusher — into the Accord MMC.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    The article does not say that it is a 1.5 turbo, if it’s not a turbo, then it’s smaller than the 1.6 engine found in the Accent and Rio. Reminds me of my 72 Grand Fury with the 318 V8, putting out 150 ponies, zero to 60 eventually.

  • avatar

    I like the style of this car. It looks a lot like the current Impala minus the clunky rear-quarter styling. Overall, I’d go to the dealer to look at this if I was in the market for a midsize car right now.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Beautiful styling, but it looks remarkably like a 2011 Sonata Turbo:

    http://www.thesmokingtire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011-hyundai-sonata-rear1.jpg

    Maybe this time GM can build a good hybrid. Chevy is claiming the Malibu Hybrid has Volt roots, but it’s not a plug-in and it isn’t a serial hybrid. It likely uses some common hardware, but any comparisons to the Volt would be misplaced, IMO.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      It has the Volt driveline, which is what they said. It uses the same electric motor and various other electronics in combination with a smaller battery since it’s not a plug-in. They never claimed that it was a PHEV with attendant electric only range.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      The Hybrid would be the version of this car to get, if you plan on keeping it for a while.

      I’m just fearing what the used car market is going to look like in 5+ years, when all of these turbocharged lawn-mower engines with 100,000+ miles hit the market – I’d take a hybrid any day over those.

  • avatar
    MrGreenMan

    Here is hoping that the luxury cars go much, much simpler in appearance in the vein of the slab-sided Lincoln Continental of legend. Then midsize cars might return to look like regular cars in 10-15 years instead of trying so hard to look like there’s 25% Teutonic DNA in that shell.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Of course the 1.5 is a turbo, and the new car is supposed to weigh about 3250 lbs so equipped. Given that the current Cruze, weighing almost as much, manages to wobble around with a 1.4t offering just 138 hp, it seems unlikely this new Malibu will be totally gutless.

  • avatar
    zip89105

    Junk. Where’s the V6?

  • avatar
    readallover

    That 4 inches have better gone to rear seat legroom or this one is destined to be an also-ran, just like the last one. i don`t know what GMs`problems are with giving backseat passengers no room, but they had better mend their ways.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      At this point in the sedan’s evolution (i.e., vertically crushed by CAFE and popularly by CUVs) I’m wondering how much rear seat space and accessibility matter.

      Anyone with kids and a choice isn’t depending on a sedan as the sole family vehicle and those those driving only themselves and maybe a partner probably don’t care about rear seat anything.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    I’m sure it’s a fine car, but the new Sonata is by far my favorite car interior in the FWD midsize segment. Chevy, in my opinion, has had awful interior styling for the last 5 years or so. Like many of it’s competitors, it has the 3 spoke steering wheel, I will not buy a vehicle with a 3 spoke steering wheel with the third spoke at the bottom of the wheel.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      i have to ask, where else would the third-spoke be except the bottom on a three-spoke wheel? Or are you referring to three-spoke vehicles that have solid bottom spokes, which are exceedingly rare these days.

      I find three-spoke wheels to be more ergonomic and attractive. And this one definitely is. I don’t have a problem with the steering wheel. I do have a problem with just about everything else, because this is kind of an ugly car, IMO. And the interior, especially, is much too soft for the sharp-edged exterior. The exaggerated radii around the infotainment screen make it look like some fisher-price toy instead of a proper family sedan. I too would much rather have a Sonata, and that’d probably be my pick for a mid-sized sedan.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        It’s all about grabbing the steering wheel at the bottom while on a long-haul drive, which is effectively impossible with the spoke at the bottom. I’m ok with two spoke wheels, and 4 spoke wheels with room at the bottom.

        Another trend that I’m not a fan of is the shrinking steering wheel diameters that has taken place in the last 10 years, which limit hand positions even further.

  • avatar
    nels0300

    I think it looks nice and $26K sticker for the 2.0L turbo ain’t bad.

    I’d consider it if I ever had to replace the Camry V6. The Toyota V6 is sweet, but Toyota wants too much for them now.

    How durable are the GM 2.0L turbo and six speed autos? I know you used to be able to get a GM chip for the 2.0L turbo and get a pretty nice power boost with factory warranty.

  • avatar
    fishiftstick

    This is an aggressive segment, which means there’s not much fat to trim. When GM can beat its rivals’ prices in this segment, it worries me. What did they skimp on?

  • avatar
    fvfvsix

    Would it kill these guys to come out with a 2.5 liter turbo for those of us who realize that even a 2.0t will be pokey and tentative in a car this big?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I would much more prefer to see a normally-aspirated 2.8L V6, a 3.0L V6 or a 3.5L V6 as an optional engine in the Malibu or any midsize car.

      I’m just not into these tiny nervous-nellie fully-blown squirrel engines the OEMs are trying to perpetrate on the buying public. All in the name of CAFE and fuel economy. What a crock!

      Too much complexity. Not enough power-to-weight. A 1.5L bi-turbo setup for car of this size and weight!? What happens when you add people inside the passenger compartment. A dog is what happens. A screaming dog.

      Hey, even Camry still offers a V6 for their Camry. As do Nissan and Honda. Yeah, even Subaru with their H6.

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      It was probably developed for countries with displacement taxes and they couldn’t be bothered to change it for the US.

      Personally, My engineering brain can’t get over taxing based on displacement. Displacement means next to nothing, it is the volume that is swept by the cylinders during rotation of the crank, nothing more. Taxing based on this metric is about the stupidest, most useless, ignorant idea that I could ever dream of. Second place to displacement tax is hp/litre–as if that means anything of value.

      Countries that tax vehicles based on engine displacement volume == shamefully ignorant politicians. I’d love to see an intelligence test be put in place to keep these people with these mind boggling ignorant ideas out of positions where they get to make the rules.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Agreed that displacement means nothing. Unfortunately, most of these tax regimes are decades old, from a time before good breathing or turbos existed in any mass-market cars. At the time, displacement was a decent and hard-to-cheat metric for fuel consumption, and so the tax regimes were designed with it. Today, SAE or DIN power, or EPA fuel consumption (which is far more realistic than the Euro or Japan tests), would be vastly better bases for that type of tax.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        Well said. And it’s these same idiots who imposed this stupid 35.5 MPG for Cafe and are forcing these tiny corn fed mills on us that look good on paper but fail in the real world.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Your experience may vary, but I’ve driven the current,heavier Malibu Turbo (2.0T) and Impala (3.6), and I find the difference accelerating minimal. Mind you, the Malibu has only been driven empty, but the torque peaks fairly early, so as much as there’s probably turbo lag, the Impala pretty much needs to kick down a gear before it does anything (my kingdom for a manual transmission in a car that probably shouldn’t have it), while the Malibu is just suddenly going quicker. As a bonus, the Malibu gets slightly better highway fuel economy under my foot (about 8.0L/100kms to the Impala’s 8.5-9.0).

      Then again, the 3.6 sounds quite a bit nicer than the 2.0T, so there’s that (although the faint turbo whistling is amusing).

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I really don’t like the way this looks, so even though I have a soft spot for GM, I would not buy this new Malibu.

    What’s more, these turbocharged gas engines only seem to justify themselves on EPA tests, while under-delivering considerably when driven in the real world. Hell, the Altima with its likely-sturdier 2.5-liter engine (which is about as large as it gets for a four-cylinder) is rated at 27 MPG city and 38 MPG highway…and *actually* achieves those numbers in the hands of customers in the real world. I’m sure you could get a Sonata 2.4-liter to do just about as well (our 2012 certainly does), and it doesn’t have a CVT or a turbo. The only small turbo engine I can condone in this segment is the 1.8-liter in the Passat, because it’s actually fun to drive.

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      The inertia and secondary imbalance issues (up and down motion of the engine) of a flat plane crank 4 cylinder (which they all are in the auto world, yamaha sport bikes have a cross plane 4 cylinder crank) start to pop up when the engines get bigger than about 2.5 litres. There are some that are out there bigger than that, but not often seen in cars due to running too rough. GM, for example, had the atlas 2.9L 4 cylinder engine in their midsize trucks. I don’t know a lot about that engine, but I’m guessing it uses 1 or 2 balance shafts to smooth it out or put an unusually low redline (edit: redline at 6300, which is where most v8s redline) on it, as the imbalance becomes worse by the square of the crank velocity.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      Plenty of non-Ford turbocharged cars actually have good real world fuel economy. The 1.4T in the Cruze does great, for example. VW and BMW also seem to do well in general.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        I had a 428i Gran Coupe loaner from the BMW center, and it had rather abysmal fuel economy. I will agree on the Cruze, because I’ve had several of them as rentals and it is in fact my preferred rental.

        • 0 avatar
          krhodes1

          If you got abysmal fuel economy out of an N20, you were doing it wrong. I had no problem getting nearly 30mpg out of one in Atlanta traffic!

          I’ve been VERY impressed with the fuel economy of my N55 equipped M235i in the real world over the past 3500 miles, considering the performance on offer. That I used, too.

          As with so many things, Saab was right all along.

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    Eh, I actually think it’s a pretty good looking car, ditto for the new Volt and the Impala and I am far from a GM fan.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    I think it looks great especially for a GM. I think a turbo 2.0 four would do fine on the proviso its on a 3,500lb frame for example.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    This is a beautiful car. I hope to check one out soon and perhaps drive one.

    I understand the Cruze will also be restyled into a nicer-looking package, too.

    I’m very happy that Chevy has returned to the practice of restoring the model name on the sides of the car again. All cars should have that like it used to be. Be proud of your products!

  • avatar
    mjz

    I have mixed feelings about putting the model name on the sides. What I don’t like on the Malibu, unlike the Impala, is the nameplate stuck right in the middle of the door. It’s too high up. The Impala has it sitting lower on the door, and it looks better IMO.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • TimK: “There’s only one planet earth and 8 billion people better learn to share.” So to prove your sincerity for this...
  • TimK: @Greg H: “Shortages of goods only happen in capitalist countries. In communist countries, there is never a...
  • Socrates77: The world is shrinking, only idiots think the capitalism is the way to go. Tge time for competition has...
  • manu06: I’ve downloaded an app called Radio Garden. It accesses thousands of radio stations around the world with a...
  • Carlson Fan: “GM had an airbag system to cover all 3 front passengers going back to the last of the Fleetwood...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber