Today and tomorrow, we’re spending time with the 2016 Chevrolet Malibu, 2016 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid and the engineers, designers and marketers that made it happen. We’ve already taken all three variants out for brief drives;Â the hybrid, the 2.0L turbocharged model, and the base 1.5L Â turbo model.
Honestly, we’re quite impressed. Initially, we’re enjoying the supple vehicle dynamics, the clean interior layout, and the material textures. Moreover, it’s unquestionably improved over the outgoing Chevy Malibu. With that said, let us know if you have any specific questions in the comment section below.
Comments
I personally don’t think its a bad car at all. I like it a lot. But it doesn’t seemed like the other magazines are impressed by it. So would you think it’s as good as how the magazine article mentioned it or it’s more impressive?
You have to keep in mind there are still many GM haters out there. The media will scare you by saying how horrible the 2015 Malibu, so many will hesitate at buying the 2016. The best thing to do is go lout to a GM dealer, try the car, and go to the other dealers and compare. Then make you own decision.
It’s genuinely good. Sure, you can gripe about some of the material usage on the interior. Or that it’s not the fastest. Or the apex in efficiency — though it’s very close. The turn on here is the tech. The 4G LTE, the 8-inch touchscreen, the Apple CarPlay. Then there’s the quiet ride and the lightness. Definitely more to like here than complain about.
I would love to see a comparison from the 08 V6 Malibu to this one in performance and differences. To me this is a continuation of the this model more than the last one.
I know as a V6 owner that the engine is ok but pales compared to my Turbo. This car being light and having more torque in the 2.0 it has to drive better.
Also I know you could not test it but generally real world MPG tends to be better with GM than the posted numbers I have found in most newer GM cars I have driven. My 2.0 has never gone below the EPA numbers even when I use the Remote start on cold mornings.
I currently have the 2015 Malibu and I thought there’s plenty of soft touch materials. It has more soft touch materials than my terrain for sure
Why did they discontinue HID headlamps on the new generation? I didn’t see it in the order guide, but it was offered on the previous generations and much of the competition.
Chevrolet marketing officials said there was a very low penetration rate with the outgoing model with the HID headlamps. Secondly, they brought up their pricing targets, priorities of most buyers, etc.
Short end of it is that most buyers researched didn’t want to pony up the extra money for the HID option when it could go into something else, and just as well, Chevrolet didn’t want to absorb the cost of the HIDs as standard equipment, as it would exceed the pricing targets set in place.
What many always fail to understand here is pricing is a trade off. You can put in HID at the cost of cutting something some where else. Cars like Hyundai do not give them to you with out removing the cost else where in the car that you may not notice till the seats start to show wear a year or so into ownership or a number of cheaper parts.
I have the HID headlights on my 2013 LTZ and absolutely love them, they were a must have option for me when i bought my current car. Now that they are no longer an option I do not think that I will be trading my car in for this, I will wait for another couple years and hope they add them back as an option.
Does it beat the camry hybrid? thats what i want to know.
I averaged 42.9 miles per gallon with the Malibu Hybrid. Mixed use of highway and city, with aggressive launches at the lights.
Ok the only real review so far was Motor Trend.
They liked the car but did not like the interior of the LT base model. Is it as good as anything in class in a base model or is it not a fair assessment from MT.
They do say the premium models and Hybrids were fine and felt like a more expensive car than they were.
The bottom line is are these new Bu’s refined as well as I expected to be a major step up or not. Also keeping in mind the class they are in. I am not expecting a CT6 interior but in class how does the refinement add up for the price.
Car & Driver also tested they didn’t seem overly impressed stating no 6 had no advantage since turbo 4 slower than 6 cyl in Camty & Accord with no difference in fuel economy.
I do not understand this review. The engine was fine before in a heavier car.
I will watch to see what the others say on the 2.0. Either way the v6 is not coming back. The others will lose their soon to.
Note my 2.0 similar weight and more power and gets better than posted MPG with spirited driving. I wonder just how they drove there too. It may be something to watch in other reports.
Yes, that’s what I thought. there were no gripes about the 2.0 ltr Turbo before.
I found that odd about the Car & Driver review also.
Better than Lacrosse & cheaper.
Car and Driver tested the new Malibu 2.0T and says it has a 156mph top speed. Can you confirm? Sounds like a sleeper to me.
Can you test the 1.5T model to see how it does at 70-90 mph in hilly/mountainous highway?
Also, can you comment on the rear passenger room for tall people? Thanks Manoli
I would not call it a sleeper. Most 2.0 Turbo cars will easily top 150 MPH. My HHR with the tune will push 160 if anyone is dumb enough to try it in a box.
The handling is not what I would call SS or RS grade here as it is just what it is a family car. From the reports I read some are critical of the feel or they are expecting more than is offered in a Family car.
I would like to see what those here thing of the feel but keeping in mind this is a family car not an SS.
Did not confirm a 156 top speed. I’ll take C&D’s word for it. The 1.5L was tested at 70-90… time your throttle in relation to the boost and all should be fine. Though the turbo four cylinders do not pass as well above 70 mph than, say 55-70 mph.
Watching the Youtube video where Daryl Wilson, Lead Development Engineer for Chevy Malibu Hybrid was speaking Emme Hall, it’s almost like General Motors was almost breaking the laws of physics as the new Malibu is bigger yet 300 lbs lighter (obviously using advanced materials and engineering techniques); but 48 mpg for the city should make the new Malibu especially the Hybrid version to be very popular.
It’s easy to make the car lighter when the last gen of vehicles were all 300lb too heavy. Fritz Henderson admitted this was a huge GM problem when I asked him while he was CEO. The Bob Lutz malibu was far better than the current version, and the new one is a return to that longer design.
why did chevy detune the 2.0 turbo engine from 295 to 260 torque?
Interesting…Kia also detuned their 2.0 Turbo for 2016 Optima from 274hp/269tq to the now 245hp/260tq
Perhaps those are the numbers it makes on regular gas? It would be a shame if a malibu required premium fuel.
Targets.
According to Chevy Malibu engineers, the 2.0L targets included greater/equal performance with a 2 mpg fuel economy improvement. The fuel economy is more important than a torque figure on paper in this segment.
what does the key fob look like?
Just like the 2016 Camaro key fob.
Would this new model of Malibu make me switch from a Camry or Accord , definitely not . This is GM’s third attempt to be relevent in this mid size segment an even Motor Trend and Car & Driver give it so so initial reports . No AWD , presumably to keep the new weight savings ? The 2 L engine gets about the same fuel economy as the great smooth running V6s available in the Camry and Accord . I don’t understand GM , designers severely slope the windshield , causing the interior to shrink rather than expand and sacrificing dash refinement for glitz . Will it sell , probably as respectable as the 2015 , not bad at all , but not great , I think the Cruze is the stand out for volume sales and this model for next year gets a severely sloped windshield , an inch chopped off the roofline which , no doubt , caused an inch lower seating with a resulting shrinking of visibility , which was so outstanding in the 2015 and prior models . If you can figure out this sad progress ?? in GM car designs , someone enlighten me , please !!
You griped about the windshield slope before, and you were corrected before. please keep in mind these three things. The windshield is sloped to improve aerodynamics/fuel economy. It is sloped by bringing the bottom of the windshield farther forward to INCREASE interior space (come on – compare the dash size of current cars to anything from the 80’s or older). And third, crash tests and US safety regulations mandate a minimum distance between the windshield and the front seat passengers.
Regarding the inch less of roofline, this was created by raising the door sill. The overall height is on par with the others. No lower seating position needed. The only visibility lost is by looking at the ground immediately next to the car – insignificant at best.
I hope these simple facts enlighten you…
The roofline isn’t so much for style as it is for aerodynamics. GM uses something called a wind tunnel. Not sure if Honda or Toyota have heard of one. The choices of no V6 and no AWD were hardwired into the DNA of this car from day one of development. Less reinforcement (weight) needed and space saved as a result.
In addition, part of the reason the old Malibu was so heavy and space inefficient was because it was spun off an Opel program that built in V6, AWD, hatch and convertible(!) capabilities into the structure, which had to be scaled in order for the program to turn a profit. As a result, the outgoing American Malibu faltered based on what the competition was doing. This is according to a Chevrolet Malibu marketing official.
Actually the outward visibility is very good on this car and the amount of interior space is something to experience, not at all what you’d expect. For example, at a recent product comparison course I attended, we sat a 6’2″ rear passenger behind a 6″4″ driver and both were comfortable. The 2.0L is a blast to drive and though Toyota and Honda may offer smooth v6 engines( at least for now) their 4 cylinder engines are their primary sales leaders from what I understand.
if you like boring then go with a Camry and Accord. How could you even rate them better than the Malibu?! You are just one of the many people that ruined the US buying those inferior products.
While I would like to agree with you they are not inferior but they are not really any better overall. Each model has it’s good and bad and appear to be very similar anymore.
There is nothing appealing about a camry or accord…sorry…but they are crap. Just open and close their doors then open and close the Malibu door. The other two sound like a tuna fish can when you close it or tap on the door.
Accord v6 is faster than current mustang 2.3 and c5 camaro v6, with better fuel economy. I don’t recall any other car on C&D top 10 as many years- not even the 3 series. The last gen malibu wasnt even in the same class as these cars – GM castrated the back seat legroom to push people into the impala (which nobody cared for). They would be wise to drop the impala and make this malibu even better with a proper sport option and tons of cameras and tech.
The 8th gen Malibu was able to accelerate a little faster than the 5th gen camaro. Both having similar v6 just different outputs.
What seems to have more torque/power: the hybrid or the 2.0L Premium model? Does the hybrid come with a leather interior?
The 2.0L turbo for sure. You can get the hybrid with leather.
Would love to know why they chose that awful 2.0L turbo over their gorgeous new 3.6 V6. It also produces big numbers on regular gas, and would compete with the offerings from Honda and Toyota.
Yes but really what are the take rates on their V6 buyers?
Admittedly low, but likely comparable to 2.0 turbo numbers.
I remember reading somewhere that 95% of Malibus sold had start-stop, which means that the other 5% have the Turbo 2.0. I’m sure the take rate or the Accord or Camry with the V6 is much higher than 5%. I’d like to know what percentage of the previous gen. Malibu had the V6 as well.
The 2.0 is inferior to the 3.6 V6, it gets very similar mileage in the real world, especially if you’re doing spirited driving, and due to the premium fuel actually costs more to operate depending on the current state of fuel prices. I really think the customer would be better served with the 3.6, or a slightly smaller V6 based on it. The 2.0 is there instead because the numbers look better on paper to help GM comply with CAFE, and most of the sheeple see better MPGs on the window sticker, and fail to figure for premium fuel.
While the 2.0T may compare to the 3.6 V6 in stock form, the turbo can be easily tuned and mine puts out close to 300 hp and 300 lb-ft at the wheels, while doing 0-60 in 5-5.2 seconds and achieves averages between 40-42 mpg on the highway and about 30 in the city if i do not give it the beans and drive with a light foot. So in my opinon the 2.0 is vastly superior to the 3.6 because of the ability to tune it like so. Since this is the same 2.0 in the 2016 the same can be done and make the Malibu a much faster car than it could ever be with the V6.
You’re describing a 42 mpg sports car. If it were truly possible to produce it, why has nobody else tuned their engines to such unbelievable specs? 300b-ft (at the wheels!) and 40mpg.
it’s a company called trifecta performance, they tune GM engines and while they may not claim these gain except for the power (my bad on the power it is only 270 hp at the wheels, but 307 lb-ft at the wheels), I am most definitely averaging 40-42 on the free way at 65. Also if you look at the chevy malibu forum many 2.0 owners have tuned the car to these specs.
http://www.wot-tuning.com/forums/store/product/2180-2013-chevrolet-malibu-20l-turbo-advantage/
Does this mess with warranty?
Regarding the V6:
1. Chevy still has to give people a reason to buy an Impala.
2. Not hardwiring V6 capabilities into the structure allows for adding lightness. Less bracing/reinforcement needed.
I overall like the vehicle very much for me personally. It looks like it would be a nice highway cruiser with all the bells and whistles (4G, apple car play, heated/ventilated seats, heated steering wheel, power lumbar) as I drive 65 miles each way to work! My questions are: In opting for the Premier version you get the 2.0 turbo, it appears you have to put premium fuel in, #1 is this true? #2 Is it necessary or optimal to do so, or can you safely use regular unleaded for this engine?
Premium fuel is recommended, not required. You can use regular safely.
Regular can be used safely, but at the expense of power or fuel economy, maybe both.
Regular Recommended is on all GM turbo engines to give the owner a option. It generally cost about 20 HP if you go reular.
Also with the MPG the cost of premium is minimal.
“Also with the MPG the cost of premium is minimal.”
Really?
2016 Impala with 3.6 V6 is rated at 19 city/29 highway (22 combined)
2016 Malibu 2.0 T is rated at 22 city/32 highway (no official combined, but we’ll assume 25)
If you drive 12k miles/year, with the current cost of regular fuel in my area ($2.19 regular), you’d spend $1194.55 in fuel/year on the Impala V6.
Add $.30/gallon for premium, and figure in the improved MPG, you’d spend $1195.20 in fuel/year for the Malibu 2.0T.
I’ll stick with my V6, thanks.
With the new malibu being longer now, Impala size. Will Impala suffer with this new malibu? Will the hybrid system find its way into other models? How much will they cost? When will they be available? Is the hybrid noisey? Start/stop seemless?
What is the best feature of the new malibu? Worst feature?
The new Malibu is nowhere near Impala size. The Impala still has roughly 7 inches of length on the Malibu… which lends to a different design and more back seat legroom.
The new hybrid system is a version of the Chevy Volt’s system but with a smaller battery, and this is why the Malibu is a hybrid and not an EREV. But if this system sells well, it will be installed on future models, as the EDU (Electric Drive Unit , per SAE description) eliminates all other mechanical and hydraulic transaxles for FWD. The Cadillac CT6 Hybrid has the RWD version, which will be in future RWD applications, up to the Camaro and Corrvette.
Impala still has a few USPs that may keep customers coming — even though it’s in a slowly dying segment. Such as: width, trunk space, and a V6.
Pricing for the 2016 Malibu has been announced: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/09/2016-chevrolet-malibu-officially-priced-will-start-at-22500/
The first 2016 Malibu shipments are on their way to dealers now.
The hybrid had more of a drone than I expected. I want to say the new Volt is quieter when its engine is running.
Start/stop… depends how quick you are with the throttle.
How was the ride with the Premium / 19″ Wheels? Noise, handling, etc?
Quiet.
I’d like to know if they finally implemented a way to turn off the auto start-stop like every other car out there with it has?
The Malibu Hybrid doesn’t use a “start-stop” system. It uses the same system as in the 2016 Chevy Volt, and will drive almost all electric, until the battery discharges, then the engine powers up and works with the electric drive, up to 99 MPH, just like in the Volt. It is much better, smoother, and quiet than any other hybrid,
I was referring to the non-hybrid model
The 1.5L Malibu start/stop cannot be disabled. The 2.0L doesn’t have it, however.
Has anyone measured the noise level yet? The old car was significantly noisier than Accord and Camry at speed.
Really? Every last-gen Malibu I drive was very quiet. I can’t imagine the Camry or Acclrd being quieter.
Not officially. I don’t know who is saying the Accord or Camry is quieter than the outgoing Malibu. If there was anything the outgoing Malibu had going for it, it’s that it was exceptionally quiet.
Come on Manoli, live life on the wild side :p. Thanks for the info. Can you guys post a video review? That would be great.
Video reviews are all the rage these days, aren’t they?
Hi Manoli, thank you for your reply!
Again because I have a long daily commute, how would you rate the seat comfort for long hauls vs the competition:
Altima (with zero gravity seats), Mazda 6, Accord? Also, how was the Bose stereo quality in the Premium? Good punch, sound quality?
Anytime!
I rode shotgun for a leg with another auto writer driving 50+ miles, and I took a nap. So, yeah. Seats felt pretty good by my standards. Though I have to admit I haven’t spent any time in a Mazda6 or Nissan Altima. IMO if you’ve heard any Bose system in any modern GM car, you’ve pretty much heard them all.
I can already said that the zero gravity seats are like sofa. But again I was in a murano and there was a lot of body roll
Why did GM not stay with the 2014-15 2.0t 256hp-295ftlb in the Malibu for 2016 ? 0-60 in 5.9. And I avg. 29.4 mpg in my 2014 with 21,000 mi. on it.
Just a quick question, I’ve seen conflicting information regarding the output of the new 1.5L turbo engine. Most automobile publications say it is rated at 160 horsepower yet a GM source shows 163 horsepower. What is the correct rating in the new Malibu?
Did they leave room for a real spare tire in the trunk for the 2016 Malibu Hybrid? I will not buy any car if I can not have one.
I like the new 2016 Malibu a lot and was going to buy one until I found out that I couldn’t get one with fog lights or a spare tire and jack. These are important items for me and won’t have a car without them.
Put the 3.6tt in the Impala, call it SS and I will buy it now!