Lately, Chevy’s all-new Malibu midsize sedan seems to have fallen prey to certain journalists and automotive media outlets that haven’t been too keen on the vehicle. One of the areas of the new Malibu that seems to be a common point of contention is the rear-seat leg room as it compares to the car’s segment rivals, including the Ford Fusion, Hyundai Sonata, VW Passat, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima.
Granted, the 2013 Malibu is now a global car, rather than a vehicle specific to North America, as was the case with the previous model. In making its transition to a worldwide product, the Malibu made the switch to the short wheelbase version of GM’s global Epsilon platform from the longer U.S.-specific Epsilon architecture that underpinned the last-gen model. The result is that the 2013 model sports a wheelbase that’s 4.5 inches shorter than its predecessor — a move that we initially thought may not have such an affect on the vehicle’s total passenger space due to the new model being more space-efficient. And we were correct in thinking so, as the 2013 model — despite its shorter wheelbase — has more interior room than the 2012 model. For instance, the new Malibu has significantly more passenger volume, more trunk space, and grew increase in every other type of interior room measurement, except for front headroom, front legroom, and rear legroom; all of these are down by less than an inch.
Not convinced that the Malibu is, in fact, so small compared to its rivals that it deserves MotorTrend’s title of “unusable at its most basic function — family sedan”, (seriously guys?) we went on a quest to assemble all interior measurements of the Malibu and pit it against its competitors.
The Measurements
Note: volume measurements in cubic feet; length measurements in inches.
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2012 Chevy Malibu
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2012 CHEVY MALIBU | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 97.70 | +2.60 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 39.40 | -0.40 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 53.00 | +2.00 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 42.20 | -0.10 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 55.90 | +1.60 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.20 | +0.30 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 52.10 | +2.20 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 37.60 | -0.70 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 53.90 | +3.20 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 112.30 | -4.50 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 15.10 | +1.20 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Honda Accord
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 HONDA ACCORD | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 103.20 | -2.90 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 39.10 | -0.10 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 55.60 | -0.60 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 42.50 | -0.40 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 58.60 | -1.10 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.50 | +0.00 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 54.70 | -0.40 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 38.50 | -1.60 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 56.50 | +0.60 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 109.30 | -1.50 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 15.80 | +0.50 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Nissan Altima
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 NISSAN ALTIMA | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.3 | N/A | N/A |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 40.00 | -1.00 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 54.00 | +1.00 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 45.00 | -2.90 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 56.40 | +1.10 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.10 | +0.40 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 52.10 | +2.20 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 36.10 | +0.80 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 56.10 | +1.00 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 109.30 | -1.50 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 15.40 | +0.90 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Toyota Camry
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 TOYOTA CAMRY | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 102.70 | -2.40 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 38.80 | +0.20 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 54.50 | +0.50 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 41.60 | +0.50 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 58.00 | -0.50 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 38.10 | -0.60 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 54.50 | -0.20 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 38.90 | -2.00 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 56.60 | +0.50 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 109.30 | -1.50 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 15.40 | +0.90 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Ford Fusion
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 FORD FUSION | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 102.80 | -2.50 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 39.20 | -0.20 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 55.00 | N/A |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 44.30 | -2.20 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 57.80 | -0.30 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.80 | -0.30 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 54.00 | +0.30 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 38.30 | -1.40 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 56.90 | +0.20 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 112.20 | -4.40 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 16.00 | +0.30 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Subaru Legacy
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 SUBARU LEGACY | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 103.00 | -2.70 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 40.30 | -1.30 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | N/A | N/A |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 43.00 | -0.90 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 56.30 | +1.20 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.50 | 0 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | N/A | N/A |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 37.80 | -0.90 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 56.10 | +1.00 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 108.30 | -0.50 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 14.70 | +1.60 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Mazda6
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 MAZDA6 | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 101.90 | -1.60 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 39.40 | -0.40 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 55.10 | -0.10 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 42.50 | -0.40 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 57.30 | +0.20 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.30 | +0.20 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 55.90 | -1.60 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 38.00 | -1.10 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 56.50 | +0.60 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 109.80 | -2.00 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 16.60 | -0.30 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Volkswagen Passat
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 VW PASSAT | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 102.00 | -1.70 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 38.30 | +0.70 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | N/A | N/A |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 42.40 | -0.30 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 56.90 | +0.60 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.80 | -0.30 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | N/A | N/A |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 39.10 | -2.20 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 57.00 | +0.10 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 110.40 | -2.60 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 15.90 | +0.40 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Hyundai Sonata
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 HYUNDAI SONATA | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 103.80 | -3.50 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 40.00 | -1.00 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 55.20 | -0.20 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 45.50 | -3.40 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 57.90 | -0.40 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.80 | -0.30 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 54.90 | -0.60 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 34.60 | +2.30 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 56.70 | +0.40 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 110.00 | -2.20 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 16.40 | -0.10 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Chevy Cruze
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 CHEVY CRUZE | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 94.60 | +5.70 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 39.30 | -0.30 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 53.00 | +2.00 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 42.28 | -0.18 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 54.76 | +2.74 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 37.90 | -0.40 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 52.40 | +1.90 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 35.35 | +1.55 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 53.90 | +3.20 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 105.70 | +2.10 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 15.00 | +1.30 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2013 Buick Regal
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2013 BUICK REGAL | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | N/A | N/A |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 38.80 | +0.20 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 55.40 | -0.40 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 42.10 | +0.00 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 56.70 | +0.80 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 36.80 | +0.70 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 52.30 | +2.00 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 37.30 | -0.40 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 54.40 | +2.70 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 107.80 | +0.00 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 14.20 | +2.10 |
Interior room - 2013 Chevy Malibu vs 2006 Pontiac G6
| MEASUREMENT | 2013 CHEVY MALIBU | 2006 PONTIAC G6 | +/- 2013 MALIBU |
|---|---|---|---|
| PASSENGER VOLUME | 100.30 | 95.00 | +5.30 |
| FRONT HEAD ROOM | 39.00 | 39.00 | +0.00 |
| FRONT HIP ROOM | 55.00 | 52.70 | +2.30 |
| FRONT LEG ROOM | 42.10 | 42.20 | -0.10 |
| FRONT SHOULDER ROOM | 57.50 | 55.40 | +2.10 |
| REAR HEAD ROOM | 37.50 | 36.50 | +1.00 |
| REAR HIP ROOM | 54.30 | 51.90 | +2.40 |
| REAR LEG ROOM | 36.90 | 37.60 | -0.70 |
| REAR SHOULDER ROOM | 57.10 | 55.40 | +1.70 |
| WHEELBASE | 107.80 | 112.30 | -4.50 |
| TRUNK VOLUME | 16.30 | 14.00 | +2.30 |
Less Total Passenger Volume, Huge Trunk
According to the tables, the Malibu has less overall passenger volume than every single one of its competitors (notwithstanding the lack of a measurement for the Nissan Altima). The next smallest sedan by total passenger volume is the Mazda6, followed by the Volkswagen Passat.
However, the Malibu has more trunk volume than most of its competitors, with only the Hyundai Sonata and Mazda6 having more trunk capacity.
Chevy Malibu vs. Toyota Camry
Compared to the segment’s sales leader, the Toyota Camry, the Malibu has a shorter wheelbase (by 1.5 inches) and a smaller overall passenger volume (by 2.4 cubic feet). That passenger volume deficit breaks down to the following throughout the cabin:
- Less front shoulder room by (an insignificant) 0.50 inches
- Less rear headroom by 0.60 inches
- Less rear hip room by 0.20 inches
- Perhaps most importantly — less second row legroom by 2 full inches
The Malibu, however, has a few specific advantages, including:
- A larger trunk by 0.90 cubic feet
- More front head room by .20 inches
- More front hip room by .50 inches
- More front leg room by .50 inches
- More rear shoulder room by .50 inches
On The Smaller Side
At the end of the day, it’s apparent that the eight-generation Malibu is on the smaller side of the midsize sedan segment, at least when it comes to interior volume. However, it’s more spacious than the outgoing (seventh-gen) model, even with a shorter wheelbase, and remains a great overall package that’s stylish, safe, and fun to drive, among other positive qualities. And it’s by no means unusable at its most basic function of being a midsize family sedan.
And in my opinion, rear seat legroom — just like all other features of any vehicle — need to be considered as part of the overall package. So while some may have trouble fitting in the second row seat of Chevy’s midsize offering (an issue I’ve never run into), others will experience their head grazing the ceiling of Ford’s Fusion thanks to the car’s aggressively-sloping roofline.
The Malibu isn’t a a space leader… but does it need to be?
Increase The Wheelbase For The Next-Gen Malibu?
Since updating the dimensions tables with info about the Chevy Cruze and Buick Regal, two observations are in order:
- There’s no doubt that the Cruze is smaller than the 2013 Malibu… but some if the compact’s interior dimensions are very, very close to those of its larger brother. In fact, the Cruze is larger than the Malibu in three specific areas: front head room, front leg room, and rear head room. So while the Cruze has less space overall, the real question might be whether the Malibu is substantially bigger and more attractive to warrant the jump in price by stepping up from the Cruze.
- The new Malibu’s cabin is nearly the same size as that of its platform mate, the Buick Regal (and by connection, the Opel Insignia). Ironically, Opel is having a hard time selling Insignias over Astras in Europe. Is it possible that a noticeable increase in cabin space (by way of a longer wheelbase) would make the Insignia (and also the Malibu) more desirable in Europe compared to the smaller, yet nearly as spacious C-segment offerings such as the Astra and Cruze?
Perhaps it would be a wise idea for GM to add an inch or two to the next-gen Epsilon/E2 architecture that will underpin the next-gen Malibu and Opel Insignia, among others. Doing so would silence the critics who think that midsize sedan such as the ‘Bu live and die by their rear seat legroom… but it would also make the backseat room argument moot — which, in my opinion — takes the focus away from what is an otherwise excellent vehicle.
What say you? Sound off in the comments below!
Comments
The US Government classifies the 2013 Chevy Malibu Cubic Passenger Volume @ 95 Cubic Feet. The 2009 Malibu was 97 Cubic Feet.
2013 Hond Accord 103
2013 Ford Fusion 101
FuelEconomy.gov – Heres a link:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32208&id=25486&id=33170&id=33083
Looks like the EPA numbers are flawed they list the trunk at 16 cubic feet. It’s not that big with e assist. And they list the regal trunk at 13 cubic feet with or without e assist. Same with the Lacrosse 16 cubic feet with or without e assist. Remember this is the same government that tells us a tomato is a vegetable.
Hal — not sure where the EPA is getting their figures from, but the numbers we used were directly from the manufacturers.
They get vehicle dimensions from GM as do most all sources.
GM and all OEM’s put the data on a database called Chrome.
http://www.chromedata.com/solutions/index.do?task=solutions&subtask=research.specs&area=Solutions
I have driven the new Malibu it has plenty of room for me. I am 5’8″ tall and American sized wide. The Malibu is wider than my 06 Grand Prix. Legroom in the backseat don’t know about that I don’t sit back there. What is the position of the Front seat Is it all the way back when the rear leg room is measured.
The Malibu needs a slight improvement in this area to win the critics over. It also needs more improved gas mileage with the base 4 and turbo 4. 8 speeds should help that. And I’d like to see tighter handling (they whine about that too) but then again you don’t want it intruding on the Regal. I think the Malibu will do just fine. Remember that MT and ecspecially Car and Driver don’t like cars that aren’t sporty. This they aren’t find of the Malibu. Search Malibu reviews on YouTube. More of the real world journalists really like the Malibu, some love it. These are the reviewers that are looking for real world handling and acceleration. Look at reviews from CNET, drivencarreviews, autobytel, and roadflytv
can you guys do the interior volume of this malibu against the G6 and Regal?
Updated with stats for the Cruze and Regal. G6 isn’t sold today, so it’s not as relevant in this comparo.
I know but she kinda wants to replace her G6 with either Regal or Malibu so that’s why I ask?
Vic — ask and you shall receive. Updated with Malibu vs. G6 specs. Merry Christmas! 🙂
I hope you notice but it’s listed as a Cruze
Sorry vic, what’s listed as a Cruze?
The Malibu vs. the G6 part
Vic — the Malibu vs. G6 is the last table in the article; right under the regal table… do you not see it?
I saw it but on the measurement area you listed instead of the Pontiac G6 it says Chevy Cruze… I’m not sure if you saw it
Ah, the column heading. I didn’t label it correctly and just fixed it. The data itself was correct, though. Thanks for the heads up.
but wait how is the G6 has less rear legroom than malibu though??
G6 has 37.6
Malibu has 36.8
@62vetteefp because that’s not what it says according to the list
Looks a lot like the conversation we had a while ago Alex. Thanks for the info!
Measurements aside, that rear seat FEELS cramped. The 2012 Fusion FEELS much larger. It is a problem. Got in one at the OC, CA auto show and I couldn’t believe it, didn’t have the driver seat all the way back either. Car is awesome in every other way, looks great. Has more brand “identity” than any other car in it’s class, including the new Fusion. Love the ’72 Impala split-grill.
I have not sat in the other cars, but recently I’ve sat in the Malibu at the Petit. I thought it looked great, especially in white. The front seats were just fine, loved the steering wheel leather and the way it looked (not to mention the telescoping action). I thought the dash looked a little cheap on the passengers side, but overall the front interior looked above average. Then theres the back…..
First off I didn’t like the seats. They looked high quality, and were, but they were pretty hard and uncomfortable. Also they were tilted upwards, probably to make it seem like there was more room. But, there just wasn’t. It didn’t seem very wide. And there was barely enough leg room for me (I’m about 6’1). Once again, I have not sat in the other cars, but I’m just saying that I agree with the magazines. The Cruze, also on display, was barely smaller and had better seats. The best I might add, was by far the Sonic. It had plenty of room, a very nice quality interior, and the most comfy seats I’ve ever sat in.
@vic1212 The measurements I originally published for the G6 were incorrect.
It seems that many sources on the web have inaccurate interior dimensions for the G6, for whatever reason. We did some legwork on this and received the interior dimensions for the 2006 G6 sedan from GM itself — which are now listed in the table. So, the Malibu vs. G6 table should be accurate now. Sorry for the confusion.
– Alex
Why is everyone reducing the amount of front headroom?
I have a 2012 Accord with 41.4″ of front head room. the 2013 Accord has dropped to 39.1″.
My head is in contact with the ceiling on any sedan under 40″ of front headroom. So I won’t even look at the Malibu for a future purchase.
Why can’t automakers consider tall drivers when they redesign their sedans?
Hello, I am interested in the Malibu. I need to know the distance in feet for trunk space when rear seat is folded down. I carry paintings up to 6′ in length. I cannot translate the cubic measure. Thank you