Okay. To put it simply, the new Chevrolet Malibu hasn’t been well-received. Despite the car being quieter, more efficient, and more modern than the outgoing model, the 2013 ‘Bu is shadowed by just about every other vehicle in the segment in some form or another — be it fuel economy, design language, refinement, technology, or cabin space. So in light of this, GM CEO Dan Akerson himself — who has gone on record in disproving of future product tips — told Automotive News that the Malibu will see a refresh as soon as next year.
All Akerson would mention is that the Malibu would receive a facelift of sorts. We expect it to adopt Chevy’s new design language seen on the 2014 Chevrolet Impala, and ditch the twin-port look currently adorning the Malibu’s front fascia. But the car’s biggest issues are a bit more concrete than what a facelift can fix. So we asked our sources what’s really going on, and they shared with us that changes will be happening underneath the hood just as much as in front of it.
As we pointed out, the Chevrolet Malibu is offered with a 1.6L turbocharged four cylinder Ecotec engine in other parts of the world, but not in North America. However, this particular 1.6T is outgoing, as GM Europe is currently busy putting the finishing touches on a new 1.6L turbo Ecotec engine, one capable of making 200 horsepower and 221 lb-ft of torque. The engine will first debut in the Opel Cascada, but is expected to eventually make its way to North America, where the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu may be one of the first models to receive such an engine. That being the case, we don’t see much need for the 2.5L naturally aspirated Ecotec, which delivers a lesser 197 horsepower and 191 pound-feet of torque in the Malibu, though perhaps Chevrolet will offer both in tandem for those who are shy about turbocharging technology. There’s no word on fuel economy for the new turbo 1.6 yet, but the small engine can only be so thirsty, if you ask us. Perhaps we’re just asking for too much here, but an eight-speed transmission should also do wonders for the ‘Bu’s fuel economy as well.
Stay tuned to GM Authority for more GM News and updates on what to expect from the Chevrolet Malibu’s upcoming refresh.
Comments
I’m excited about new powertrain options. That being said, doesn’t it seem odd that a GLOBAL company has one ‘division’ (Opel) working on a 200hp 1.6l while domestic/US GM working on a 200hp 2.5l? Doesn’t one hand of GM know what the other is doing? Isn’t GM paying attention to the marketplace (i.e. smaller displacement, di, turbo engines)? It would’ve made more fiscal sense to soldier on with the current 2.4l until the Opel 1.6l was ready for the US market.
US market is still skeptical about turbo charged engines, especially middle aged and older folks. I think it’s smart to offer a similar power naturally aspired engine to keep its customers. These turbo charged engines still need to prove themselves for few more years before dropping engines they’re replacing.
I wish NASCAR would allow teams to run unrestricted turbo 6s and 4s. When they started winning all the races it would be great PR for turbos.
I disagree. Turbocharging is the way of the future and the technology has come a long way since the sensitive turbocharged motors of the 20th century.
Mainstream turbocharged engines have been around for a few years now, and we aren’t hearing stories of major failures. The 1.4L Turbo Ecotec found in the Cruze and Sonic has millions of user miles of history now, and we have no mass failures as so many predicted.
Ford is way ahead of GM with adding turbocharged engines to it’s fleet, and the market is sapping them up like fresh chocolate cake. Within just a couple of years, the turbocharged V-6 offered on Ford’s F-150 easily takes 40% of the market; keep in mind this is a market that has been a stronghold V-8 market for decades. The US car market is beyond ready for smaller, turbocharged engines.
Clearly the train wreck here is GM introduced the ECO model first with no othe options. The consumer is still confused about this Malibu because of that. Imagine the the consumer who had a malibu previously with th V6 is told no there is only one option the Eco 4 cylinder option all other options wont be available for 8 months… See ya…
I think you got it. Is GM sure the styling is bad? I find it HARD to believe that this car did not clinic well. In person, the car looks GREAT. It has more “Chevy DNA” than any other car in its category!!! Including the new Focus, which is great, but what styling cue says “Ford” about it? They screwed up the launch, but the styling is AWESOME. They got big trouble at GM if they think this car is ugly.
Well, that’s the other thing: the 1.6l has start-stop technology.. so it will be remarkably similar to the eAssist 2.4l.. so GM poured how many $millions$ into R&D on two engines (2.5l and 2.4l eAssist) that could likely be replaced by this single 1.6l. Talk about waste!
@Mattsoca the 2.4 eAssist didn’t cost much to develop or to produce. It’s a “quick and dirty” solution to a real-world problem that happens to be effective (in some applications). Meanwhile, the 2.5 isn’t limited to the Malibu, as it is (or will be) the default engine in crossovers, Impala, and the ATS.
I think the exterior design is fine, but the new grill, engine, and updates will help. This refresh is similar to what Ford did with the ’10 Fusion with great success – and of course what Honda just did with the Civic.
Hopefully they will address rear seat comfort/legroom (maybe thinner front seat backs?) and simplify the interior design scheme with fewer competing materials. This car seems like a great improvement over the previous model, but GM has to be able to change with the marketplace just a little faster. Of course, execution is key to avoid quality issues that contribute to a less than stellar reputation.
Anyone remember GMs slogan in the sixties: mark of excellence?
Perhaps GM/Chevy is taking a page out of the Honda playbook. The 2012 Honda Civic was nearly universally panned by critics and even Consumer Reports – which usually slobbers over anything with a Honda badge – couldn’t recommend it.
So in less than 18 months and only one model year from launch, a 2013 Civic appeared at the LA Auto Show AND simultaneously at Honda dealers, complete with fresh, much better front and rear sheet metal and fascia, a vastly improved interior, more standard features, more soundproofing and a better ride. Honda didn’t change the powertrain options.
At the LA Auto Show, people walked by the 2013 Malibu as if it didn’t exist. All the mid-size family sedan buzz was over at the Ford booth with the new Fusion.
GM has the talent and resources to do the same for the ‘Bu. I’m not sure I’d trust Dan Akerson’s design aesthetics; however, if he can push for a better car that is more appealing to consumers, then more power to him.
Dan really has nothing to do with style.
All systems normal…….. all $#@’d up!
The styling of the current model is underwhelming. The Chevy front end is weak. The side styling is bland like the Camry and I personally like the rear styling, but the segment is high style with the Fusion and Sonata, high loyalty with Accord, Altima and Camry, so middle of the road, offend no one styling isn’t going to attract new buyers. Current Malibu buyers may like and if the price walk is done properly, it has a slot above the Cruze.
It would be interesting to see the clinic results and to know whether GM made any changes based upon clinic results. It would be hard to think that this car cliniced higher than the current generations of its competitors.
a while back, there was mention somewhere that with the new GM we are to expect more frequent styling updates to keep the model “fresh” vs the former 3-4 years for a MCE, twice that for a major update. The extra money spent on styling updates would come from the reduced need for incentives, and would also help resale value. Remember the days when styling changed every year? And I’m not talking about the cheesy annual grill changes that were common in the 80’s…
I agree that a lot of money was wasted in developing the 2.5L engine and it has been a big disappointment. It’s very important for GM to realize not to throw away any more money by keeping that engine around, and instead replace it with the 1.6L turbo. I also agree that whatever the fuel economy will be, it has to beat the 2.5L. Junk it and get the 1.6L into every small and smallish vehicle they can.
Whoa! The 2.5 is a “big disappointment” by whose standards? I know of a couple publications that didn’t like the mill (for whatever reason), but here are some non-subjective facts: the engine is the most fuel efficient NA 4-cylinder in mass production while also making the best power numbers for its size/displacement. The NVH levels are also class-leading. Meanwhile, the 1.6 has a different power band, but without assisting technology (auto start/stop, hybridization, etc.), I doubt it will get better fuel economy than the 2.5.
In addition, keep in mind that GM has some of the (if not the) most stringent powertrain/powerplant development standards in the industry. That’s to say that the mills produced by The General undergo a significant amount of R&D, testing, and analysis not only for performance (power, fuel economy), but also for durability. The same can’t be said of engines made by competitors (especially the Koreans).
Ultimately, I’m not seeing how the 2.5 is a disappointment, or how the 1.6 will help matters.
Hard to believe with no balance shafts. I just can’t get the “quad four” out of my mind.
Quad Four wasn’t the nightmare, the Iron Duke was!
But none of these were spectacular disasters like the V-8-6-4 or the Cadillac 4.1 head-gasket blowers, or the “cross fire” 305 Camaro V-8s, or the …
Wow, GM has been turning out junk motors for awhile now.
I am confused. Please straighten me out.
1.6L is a turbo. 2.4/2.5 liter is a basic engine.
There is a ~$1700 price difference.
Why would anybody force customers to pay $1700 more?
What I have not figured out is how much delta there is between the turbo and eassist.
Does anyone have a good comparison of cost of each and MPG?
From what I see GM is looking for the Eassist tech to be base on every vehicle they build to meet future mandated MPG. I do not believe the small/turbo engines will get them there. But looking for data.
I think the main concern is bit just about the engine but the wheelbase also
Very interesting to compare the 2013 Malibu to other recent new Chevy car roll outs.
The Cruze was already on sale and doing well in other markets around the globe before going on sale here. I remember the comments about making sure it was well sorted and tweaked before being sold in NA. The result? A very strong entry in the market, a very good Eco model and even though it has only one body style and no performance version it continues to do well.
The Sonic has been doing pretty good as well and like the Cruze(was Cobalt) it’s a big
improvement over the Aveo.
Akerson himself pushed the 2013 Malibu Eco on to the market ahead of schedule and now it looks like a big mistake? Has he admitted as much?
I have read some negative comments about the 2.5L, but the main disappointment is coming from myself. It replaces what was previously GM’s biggest dog of an engine, and we waited a long time for it. And it barely makes another 15-20 hp and holds the line on fuel economy compared to the 2.4L before it. That is very disappointing. And from the numbers I’ve seen, it does not lead the industry in power/fuel economy. Granted, though, part of the performance/fuel economy problem is the fact that the vehicles it is going into weigh more than the others in their respective classes. But that should change in a few years when the new platforms come out (the ’15/’16 Cruze is expected to lead off the next compact platform, for example).
I don’t see anything wrong with the 2.5. Personnally Ithink all GM needs to do is to make some improvements with the transmission, and any glitches in the 2.5, and it is right on the money.Reason; not everyperson is going to want a damn turbo, and second, I admire Nissan, Honda and company attaining good mpgs,without hte use of turbo technology. Also I hope this 2.5 makes its way in other Cheys with a CTV transmission or improve 6 speed. 8 speed would be nice.
Sorry, meant Chevys
I own a 2004 Malibu and it’s a perfect size for me and my kids – teenage boys. I’ve never had anyone remark that the legroom is inadequate in my car. I’m confused as to why the 2013 Malibu with a 107.8″ wheelbase only has 36.9″ of Rear legroom while my 2004 Malibu with a 106.3″ wheelbase has 38.5″ of legroom. The 2013 Malibu’s wheelbase is 1.5″ longer than the 2004 but has 1.6″ LESS legroom?? What’s up with that?!?
I test-drove the 2013 Malibu with the 2.5L engine. The best part of the drive WAS the 2.5L – powerful and responsive. I am seriously considering getting the 2014 model, but only if it has the 2.5L because I simply do not trust GM to build a long-lasting solid turbo. From what I’ve read, the weak reliability of the 1.4L turbo in the Cruze was the main reason Consumer Reports said they couldn’t recommend it in the initial model year (they did say more recent Cruzes improved in reliability). My concerns with the Malibu are the lack of legroom in the back seat and the loss of space for my left foot when driving compared to other mid size sedans.
The car that really needs the 1.6L turbo is the Cruze. The 1.8L naturally aspirated and 1.4L turbo are just not enough. Especially if you have some pass angers and their stuff. I read recently that the 2014 Cruze will be getting a powerful diesel. Looking forward to checking that out.
Considering that I’ve been driving mostly Japanese and German cars for the last three decades, I’m actually very impressed with GM’s recent efforts.
HenryE, I agree about the Cruze and the 1.6T. Just add it for instant sales improvement.