GM Releases 2013 Malibu Highlights
Sponsored Links
The all-new Chevy Malibu is set to make its U.S. launch in several months, and the fine folks at GM have just published the highlights of the Bowtie’s new midsize sedan. While we’re well aware of most of the items herein, the bit about the audio system (at the very end of the list) seems to be new.
- Redesigned and re-engineered to remain the best in the highly competitive Midsize Sedan segment
- All-new exterior design
- All-new global platform
- Dynamic proportions – wider than today’s Malibu
- All-new dual-cockpit interior design
- Flowing interior design with integrated center stack
- Available touch-screen display with concealed storage
- Wider compartment – 2″ in the front, more than 3″ in the rear
- All-new powertrain lineup
- Available Rear Back-Up Camera
- Available Rear Park Assist
- 8 standard air bags
- Available Forward Collision Alert and Lane Departure warning
- 2.4L DOHC ECOTEC 1-4 with VVT, SIDI and eAssist (Eco)
- Next-generation Hydra-Matic 6-speed automatic transmission
- MacPherson strut front suspension
- Multi-link rear suspension
- OnStar with 6 months Directions and Connections plan
- StabiliTrak Electronic Stability Control System
- 4-wheel ABS disc brakes
- Brake force distribution
- Tire Pressure Monitoring System
- Electric park brake
- Available USB port
- Bluetooth connectivity for select phones
- Available voice-activated navigation system
- Available Pioneer 9-speaker audio system with high-output amplifier
The GM Authority Take
We’re huge fans of Chevy’s aim to “remain the best in the highly competitive Midsize Sedan segment”. It’s that kind of mindset that makes the finest cars. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Nissan — we’re looking squarely at you.
Now, while we keep an eye out for the RPO codes for the new ‘Bu, be sure to check out our first impressions on the new midsize sedan here.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2021 C8 Corvette Z51 Convertible. Details here.
Sponsored Links
Where’s the info on that all new 2.0 liter engine?! Guess we will have to wait for the reveal of the ATS.
Here’s the thing about that: the Malibu will first launch with the eAssist 2.4, followed by the new 2.5. The 2.0 will come a bit later. It will be tuned differently in the Bu compared to the ATS, but will still offer impressive performance.
I think they should not tuned differently compared to the ATS in terms of HP. Look at in the case of the Passat and Camry they’re already in the 5.5-5.8 sec range from 0-60 and yet also provide comfort (which i don’t think Camry is suitable for that at all)
It will have to be a different tune due to powertrain differences (transmission, FWD vs. RWD), balance principles, and performance priorities.
However, that’s not to say that the top-end Malibu engine will be a slug. To the contrary, it will be very capable.
But then I thought you can put longitudinal engine as a fwd layout?
It’s possible, but it’s not what’s going to occur with the Malibu, which will retain a transverse layout. But that’s doesn’t even matter — since different drive applications will always produce different power ratings with the same powerplants due to the length of the powertrain components.
Think LFX in LaCrosse vs. the LFX in the CTS.
This motor needs to make at least 250 horsepower to be somewhat competitive. Chances are the ATS will be lighter than this car so it will most likely be quicker. This car needs to do what today’s V6 does and get better fuel economy. And whatever Version of the 2.0 turbo the Malibu gets, the Regal turbo must recieve also. The motors won’t be the exact same but the ATS unveiling in Detroit should give us an idea of what the Malibu will pack
This may sound trivial and anti enthusiast like but the Malibu gets only 8 airbags while the Cruze AND the Sonic both get 10?
Not at all, a very valid safety concern for everyone especially if you have kids. But, number of airbags dont neccesarily make a car safer. The malibu, because it is bigger, might have more structural integrity and perhaps better crumple zones or stonger sheetmetal/frame. After looking at the NHTSA ratings, we can make a better judgement on which car is safer
I still think that no V6 is a huge mistake. Why not borrow that nifty little 3.0 Caddy uses in the CTS?
Because that LF1 is not very good. The 2.0 liter turbo ECOTEC in the Regal GS outperforms that LF1 by a huge margin, while delivering better economy.
For comparison, the GS’s 4-banger is SAE rated at 270 horses and 290 lb.-ft. of torque vs. the LF1’s 270 hp and 223 lb.-ft. What’s the point of using a heavier engine that doesn’t perform as well as a lighter one?
I agree with both of you actually…
I understand that GM is pushing towards more economical and tech savy engines that pull more torque and power out of their 4-cylinders but I still think a V6 would be nice in say a high end LTZ or “SS” model. As you’ve shown the 3.0 is not the way to go. How about something from the 3.6 variety? The LFX is rated at 323hp and 278lb-ft (Camaro specs). I really don’t think the added weight or loss in fuel economy will be a problem with buyers. The aggressive styling of this new Malibu will fit perfectly with a sporty interior, dual exhaust, and a powerful 3.6 V6.
Honestly if GM made this car available I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Yeah, the LFX would be nice. It would make slightly less horsepower in the FWD application such as the Malibu (somewhere around 303), but 300 is 300 — no matter which way you slice it. Even then, the 2.0 will have more torque at 295 vs. the 264 in the LFX-equipped LaCrosse.
That said, it’s an industry trend to decrease displacement — in no small part thanks to the new CAFE regulations; so the ‘Bu will probably never see six cylinders for this generation. I expect others currently offering V6 power in their midsize offerings to follow suit.
I think a turbo four is a fine choice, but they need to lower the weight of the car so that it provides competitive acceleration with other V6’s. These days not many people buy the V6 anyways, so maybe it’s a moot point but whenever these cars get tested, it’s often the loaded top of the heap version that gets the press, and when it falls short of the competition (like the Regal) then it gives the whole line a bad name. I know the Sonata turbo trails the V6 competition and in a recent comparison test with a Passat and Accord V6, it didn’t offer any better fuel economy.
I think many people aren’t buying V6’s because they’re getting harder and harder to find. I was looking to get a 2011 Malibu LTZ but for the life of me couldn’t find one paired with a V6. (It might have just been unavailable at the dealers I went to so don’t jump all over me here) Several dealers offered to order me one but I ultimately decided to go with a 2012 Impala LTZ. I’m glad I did because I love this car, especially the power.
I don’t know if Malibu V6’s are THAT hard to find but I have noticed a lot more 4cyl’s available than in the past.
@Mozeby It’s kind of a priorities thing. A few years ago, Bob Lutz decided to focus on 1) great ride 2) low NVH and 3) silence — as per this quote:
“I said look guys, these vehicles are going to be robust, strong, I want a great ride, an absence of any noise, vibration and harshness, I want these things to be super-silent. So the guys put in heavy-duty components… also, Ed Welburn and I like big wheels, and the minute you say the minimum wheel size is 18 inches, you’ve automatically bought yourself an extra 50 lbs of weight. We willingly and knowingly made decisions in favor of design and appearance and noise, vibration and harshness… all the things that make a vehicle feel substantial. You know, everybody cries and moans that the Buick Enclave is 400 lbs too heavy, but it’s the last thing on the customer’s list. They don’t worry if it’s 400 lbs overweight or not, they love the way it rides and drives.
And, you know, we did a lot of programs very fast, so there wasn’t always time to go back and say “gee, could we make this part out of something else?” So I will cheerfully admit that making weight reduction targets was my lowest priority… and it shows. But other than the automotive press, nobody cares about it.”
– Bob Lutz
Personally (this is me — Alex — talking), I’m perfectly fine with GM’s cars being a bit heavier than the competition since it gives them that solid, planted feeling of quality. My Cruze drives way better than anything in its class (including the Focus, Elantra, Forte, and Civic) — and I firmly believe this is due to the additional quality that increases a vehicle’s weight. But that’s just me 🙂
Being a little overweight is fine (i have an Acadia) IF you have the power to motivate it with little to no compromise. The Malibu 4 bangers which are the bread and butter of the lineup, were trailing the competition because the Malibu was that much heavier than any other car it competes against. I owned a 09 Malibu LTZ with the 4 banger, and everything about the car was good to very good, minus the acceleration. That’s the problem with the regal too (which this new Malibu is closely related to). It’s too heavy, and I would bet you that a 270 hp version of the 3.6 would wipe the floor with the 270 hp turbo version. A 250 hp V6 malibu already is as quick as the regal GS, with less power and a larger heavier car to lug around. Never mind the associated turbo lag and non-linear power delivery. It’s like hitting the nitrous or turbo button in a video game when a small turbo engine comes on to boost.
I hope this car beats the new passat
Yeah ” the all American Chevy” with no V 6, really makes me laugh. A step backward in terms of powertrain. I mean a hefty car with no at least 200 hp under the hood.
Yeah I agree. First they kill V8’s and now they’re making a run at the V6’s. I sincerely hope the new Impala is done correctly. I don’t need it to have a hefty V8 but a V6 with at least 300hp is a must.
Does the fact that modern-day turbo-charged four-bangers make more power than most V6 engines also make you laugh?
The stock engine will have 190 horses — which is more than plenty for most people who could care less about power or performance; these people are looking for basic transportation in style and comfort. For those looking for more oomph, there will be a very potent turbo charged unit making north of 260 horsepower at a respectable RPM band. Heck, the current Bu’s V6 only makes 252 HP…
190hp is one thing, but torque is more important, and that’s what a car north of 3500lb needs the most. Look at the 3.0 in the Equinox. It makes 260 hp but only around 220lb/ft of torque. By your logic 260 would mean it has plenty of power. The current malibu v6 makes 252 hp but it also makes about 250ft/lbs of torque with a relatively wide torque band. These small turbo engines that put up big numbers usually make their power in a narrower band. Why is it that the new 3.6 in the SRX destroys the old 2.8 TT? And we’re supposed to believe that a 2.0T would beat this same 3.6. Come on.
The 2.8 you’re referring to is an old, outdated piece of junk whereas the 3.6 LFX is a new take on a proven 3.6 (LLT). You can’t take the 2.8, which was designed in the mid-late 90s and not updated since, into consideration because it was dropped for just that reason — and the only reason it was kept around is because of the “relationship” between the SRX and the SAAB 9-4x.
And yes, the 2.0 is an excellent mill. Have you drive a Regal Turbo? How about a Regal GS?
That 2.8 you describe as a piece of junk was designed and based on the the same block as the 3.6. Just a smaller bore. I think you’re thinking of the older narrow angle v6 that GM of europe designed and used in the Saabs from the 90’s and Caddy Catera, Saturn L-Series, and first gen CTS (3,2). That engine was a POS.
Nope, we’re talking about the same engine. It is based on the same block, but it’s far from an LFX in pretty much everything else. And the fact that it hasn’t been updated since its initial release just speaks to it being a one-off effort that didn’t gain much traction at GM.
I would argue that GM is directing all of its attention towards the 4-cylinder engines. Let’s take a look at a brief history of GM V6’s. The old 3.8 series II NA engines had 205hp. The 3.6 in the current Malibu makes 252hp and the current 3.6 in the Impala makes a shade over 300hp. Clearly GM has the ability and technology to make a lot of power come out of its V6 engines. With more development I’m sure the torque numbers can come up. It just seems as though GM would rather slap a turbo on a 4-cyl than drop in a V6.
It’s not just GM, but rather then entire industry.
Torque has more to do with engine size more than anything else. Look at all the 3.5-3.6 V6 engines that all the different manufacturers make. Their HP numbers might be all over the place but the TQ are much closer together.
And then you look at the 295 lb.-ft. of twist offered by the high output 2.0 ECOTEC — which is very close to the 278 lb.-ft. achieved by the LFX in the RWD Camaro application.
2011 Regal GS 0-60 6.3 1/4 14.9 at 96 mph. 3700lbs. 19/27 mpg
2012 Caddy CTS 0-60 6.2 1/4 14.7 at 98 mph. 4072 lbs 18/27 mpg
2012 Camaro V6 0-60 6.6 1/4 14.9 at 95 mph. 4100 lbs 18/29 mpg
Convertible
But then one is a FWD application and the other two are RWD and one is a transverse the others are longitudinal
My point is that the 2 much heavier and automatic cars accelerated and at least equal the economy of the lighter, manual equipped and smaller “more efficient” 2.0 turbo. Horsepower isn’t free so this belief that because an engine is smaller, it’s going to get way better mpg is misleading. Just like the ecoboost Ford trucks, it’s just a way to exploit EPA testing into getting higher MPG numbers.
Well then… the EPA and its requirements are to blame — not the automakers who are trying to abide by them.
I’d like to have a twin-turbo I4 in the Malibu and the twin-turbo V6 from the XTS in the Impala. I think both would have great power, and yet great fuel efficiency.
We’re planning on finding out some more information early December about both — but primarily about the new Impala. 🙂
I don’t think a twin turbo 4 has ever been done. I don’t recall any manufacturer ever making one. There would be almost more boost than the engine would be capable of using or needing. A single turbo on a 4 is all it would ever need.
The day of the 4 cyl is here; unfortunately for those of us that like 6cyl. But honestly I think Alex has great points about the ability of the 4 cyl to get the job done. Here is the thing, the consumer will respond by going else where, then GM will be forced to drop a hearty 6cyl in. But not everyone is a crazed car enthusiast who likes to drive like a maniac through their suburban neighborhood…
The idea of a turbo 4 is good, but it depends on the application. In a car like the cruze, it’s fine because it’s a relatively lightweight car. But in a heavy car like the malibu, it doesn’t work as well because as these 2.0 Turbos have proven in the Regal that they don’t work well where low end torque is needed. These 2.0T must be making all their power at the mid to high end because a 270 hp 290ft/lb engine in a Regal should be getting better than low 6s in the 0-60. Even the new Kia Sportage with a 2.0T hit 6.1 0-60.
The Kia Sportage? Have you drive one? It’s one of the worst-handling, worst-riding crossovers I’ve ever experienced. It’s light (in a bad way), bouncy, unplanted, and totally disconnected. But it’s light as heck — allowing it to have a respectable 0-60.
At the end of the day, most consumers who buy “normal” vehicles (not sports, pony, or muscle cars) could not care less about 0-60 or 1/4 mile times. But they do care about how the car drives on a daily basis… and the Malibu will remain one of the best-driving midsize mainstream sedans available. And as long as it’s perceived as being “peppy”, it will do just fine.
I never said the Sportage was a good vehicle, just quick. There’s no reason a CUV of that size and the same size turbo engine, should be that much quicker than a Regal. GM’s been neglecting performance in many cars lately in the name of MPGs. That and adding so much weight to all their vehicles that in nearly every class, they’re the heaviest. The Cruze, Equinox, Malibu, Regal, CTS, Traverse, Camaro. It’s fine if you want to have a model or engine that gives class leading economy, but you should also offer an alternative for those who don’t care about that. The Cruze for one should offer a more powerful motor. The 1.8 is useless. We’re already 2 years into a platform that was introduced even earlier around the world and still no word on a sportier model, just the diesel. The Malibu would be fine with 2.0 turbo if it weighed somewhere around 3500 lbs but instead it’s going to be even heavier that the last model which was closer to 3700. The V6 Malibu always carried itself well because it could handle that weight. A small turbo 4 is going to have it’s work cut out for it lugging around that kind of metal.
Well, the primary reason for my bringing up my discontent of the Sportage is to address your point about it being “quick.” It is quick — at the expense of everything else — like handling, sturdiness, and overall driving refinement. The Equinox is not as quick, but it drives much, much better — especially on uneven surfaces and high(er) speeds.
That said, I agree that there needs to be a newfound focus on performance at Chevy (Corvette and Camaro notwithstanding). The Cruze is a perfect example that’s just too good a car to waste on measly soul-less engines like the 1.8 and 1.4T. But for “mainstream cars”, I’m actually all for them being a bit on the heavy side for the aforementioned reasons.
Alex and what about reliability of pumped -up turbo wonders ? Otherwise I still think that there`s no replacement for displacement…
We’ll have to wait and see what kind of reliability a modern boosted engine will have. At the end of the day, it’s not a question of whether a boosted four or a N/A six should be used — since the entire industry is moving in the direction of the former… not just GM.
We have the wonderful CAFE standards to thank for that.
I’ve wonder if the 2.0 turbo will be on the Impala since Taurus is getting one and I”m not quite sure how will it handle
We’ll find out early next month at a little event 🙂
Hey Alex will you or anyone at GMA staff be going to the LA Auto Show on Monday or another day, Ill be there and Id like to meet any of you guys.
Unfortunately, we’re not there this year. But we will next year 🙂
With a live show!
The old Malibu looked better on the outside. I do see where GM borrowed a few design aspects from the old Pontiac G6 in terms of the angle of the rear windows. I know it was time for an update, Nissan and even Ford have been outselling BU; however, this car looks much better as a LaCrosse or Regal. Don’t get me wrong, it is a nice car but I can’t help but see something missing. Malibu still looks better than Toyota, though 😉
Steve — you’ve gotta see the new ‘Bu in person! It’s beautiful from all angles!
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/04/nyias-2011-2013-chevy-malibu-ltz-first-impressions-video/
You guys are getting info on the next generation Impala?! Please explain this alittle more this makes my mouth water. Rumors about new cars always make me excited
Hey Matt. We sure are. But we will only know more at the beginning of December.
There is a certain conference that we’re not at liberty to discuss right now 🙂
Thanks Alex that was all I wanted you to say! This gives me something to look forward to!