Car Clash: Old Chevy Malibu vs. New Chevy Malibu
23
Sponsored Links
In this week’s Car Clash, we have two vehicles that are both loved and loathed. In the red corner, we’ve got a late-model Chevrolet Malibu, which gained a lot of praise from the media when it first launched in 2008 for raising the bar — and thus the expectations — of what people can find in a Chevy sedan. Its appeal was also heightened by attractive styling, and a solid line of engines. But this year it was replaced by its opponent in the blue corner, the new Chevy Malibu.
While the new model is an improvement over the outgoing one, the 2013 Chevrolet Malibu didn’t receive the same love from the press. It could be the powertrain, or the interior dimensions, or just some lack of pizzazz that’s keeping the new ‘Bu from standing out. But one could also opine that the automotive media is just blowing hot air, and can’t relate to the needs and wants of the average midsize sedan buyer.
You be the judge in the poll and comment section below!
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Sponsored Links
the low fuel economy in the malibu would be the main problem for me, if i was in this market
LOVE the new ‘Maliboo styling, looks more “muscular” overall and the back-end “Camaro-esq” lights are awesome. Best looking car in its class (yes, I have seen the Fusion/Mazda 6/Sonata).
GM screwed up the launch because they hired no-talent managers who featured the wrong model and rear seat legroom is a disaster (first hand opinion). The car is still great, one of the best Malibu’s in history. Unfortunately, when you blow a big launch it’s usually fatal now because Ford, Honda, Nissan and Toyota did not screw up their new model launches.
The choice to only have one powertrain option was from the top, not the choice of a manager. Mr. Akerson pushed to get the new Malibu out as soon as possible, the 2.5l was not ready and the only off the shelf powertrain that was around to put in the car was the 2.4 with eassist that was being built side by side in the same plant, in the Buick LaCrosse. In hindsight it was not a popular decision but it was not a launch screw up like Fusions catching fire, it was a marketing mistake.
As I have said time and time again, Akerson is a moron who needs to depart GM swiftly. Bob Lutz would never have made such a mistake and forced a model into showrooms that simply was not ready. Do we remember how long he delayed launching the Enclave because it simply wasn’t right? And only when it was right was it sold. THAT is how you run a car company. Not by trying to stuff rubbish down our throats. I’m not saying that the new Malibu is rubbish…it’s far from it. It’s a lovely car, in my opinion, but eAssist is a has-been technology that never was, is not, and never will be. A complete waste of time. The Malibu suffered as a result. I think it would have been better served if they had launched it with a diesel instead of eAssist.
Point of clarification – Lutz did not delay the Enclave, it was always intended to launch after the GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook.
I like the new one but wish that the wheelbase was a little longer
Today I just turned in my Malibu after 8 days at my parents – and they have a 2010 so I could compare side by side.
I surprised myself by loving the ne ‘bu! Styling inside and out is light years ahead and a better drive too.
My parents did ride in the back seat and were not as comfortable as their car, so that can be improved. I thought the engine could be a little stronger. Minor complaint: no inside trunk release – the only way is to use the remote button.
With a few tweaks, this car will be a strong competitor for 2014.
Love just about everything with the new ‘Bu, so I voted that way. However, I was VERY disappointed that the 3.6L V6 wasn’t available.
Outside of rear-seat legroom, the new ‘Bu is light years ahead of the old one. What will assuage all valid complaints is a longer wheelbase, which we should see add two inches or so for the next-gen Epsilon/E2 architecture for the Insignia and Malibu, while keeping the overall length the same.
Outside of that, the fuel economy complaint doesn’t pan out in the real world. Drive a comparably-powered competitive vehicle in the same environment (roads) and the MPGs will be equivalent. Move to hybrids, and the story is (obviously) different, as GM doesn’t have a two-mode hybrid system.
Also, let’s remember that the reason the new ‘Bu launched with the Eco trim/powerplant first is because that was the first powerplant available in GM’s goal to speed the car’s delivery to market (before new 2.5 and 2.0T).
And here’s an idea: what about a Malibu Diesel? The Cruze will soon offer a diesel variant, while VW offers TDI in the Passat. A diesel will offer an engine choice that’s both efficient and peppy.
Or maybe put Voltec underneath it
No Diesel? Of the 392 new Malibu registrations in Germany within the first 11 months of 2012, 77% were Diesel powered. Only 39% of the 5445 Cruzes.
So says the official statistic of the “Kraftfahrtbundesamt”.
No diesel in North America.
According to the same statistic quoted above, of all new car registrations Jan-Nov 2011, 48. 2% are Diesel powered. The three “premium” brands have even largers Diesel percentages:
Mercedes: 59.7%
Audi: 67.4%
BMW 67.9%
One of GM’s very big errors in Europe was not to offer Diesel engines for Opel cars, and being very late in developing such engines. Opel did, if I am not mistaken, not even offer Diesel engines for their “Biltz” trucks.
The Cadillac ATS needs a good Diesel engine… like Volkswagen’s 3.0 TDI DPF V6 which is available for the Audi A4, If GM wants to really compete against the Audi A4s (80.8% Diesel), BMW 3s (77.1% Diesel), or Daimler C-series (58.7% Diesel).
re my statement of the need of “a good Diesel engine… like Volkswagen’s 3.0 TDI DPF V6” … the “Opel Insignia” article in the German language Wikipedia linkes to a March 2007 press release (in German language) of GM Europe announcing such an engine: http://www.motor-talk.de/forum/aktion/Attachment.html?attachmentId=415803 , to be shown at the Geneva auto salon of March 2007.
The press release announced that this engine would see its first appearance in a GM production car in 2009 in a Cadillac CTS. The engine would be developed jointly by GM Powertrain in Italy and VM Motori. But in 2009 it was announced that this engine would not come for indefinite time.
Now, VM Motori does have this 184 kW engine called “A 630 DOHC”, and this engine is available in a Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Lancia Thema (aka Chrysler 300 M).
GM acquired 50% of VM Motori’s capital from Penske, and FIAT Powertrain acquired the remaining 50% in 2011.
So when will we see this engine in a GM automobile?
Thank you Alex. A diesel Malibu should have been launched instead of the eAssist.
Doesnt need an interior power trunk button because the button is located at the exterior of the car-right next to the rear centre brake light–most folks miss it–i did too for a while
The new BU needs time to catch on, the previous model was light years ahead of the 04-07 model in design and refinement. This model is also a jump in refinment. The challeng is competition, the Altima is new and tells the Altima story well and is very nice; the new Camry tells teh Camry story well and is a step up from the previous gen; The Accord is a huge step forward, offers a V6 and is up for the Car of the Year award allong with the ATS… GM must bring its A game to compete, dare I say the competition is thick… Even the “sleeper” Subaru Legacy brings a level of competition to this mix… As automakers want more and more for there vehicles consumers will seek out more niche vehicles that bring certain value for the money. People will pay more for piece of mind example: Subaru all-wheel drive. I would rather go and try to negotiate on price where I know I can get some added benefits even if I pay more. People are driving there cars longer today, and if I can get a low interest rate why not pay more and get more… The new BU did not hit the right note with the journalism world when compared to the competition, this is a problem….
I can’t believe how terrible the new Malibu is! It’s back seat is tiny, and my dad’s 11-year-old Buick Century achieves Malibu Eco-levels of mpg just commuting to and from work. Motor Trend also reported 21 mpg in the standard 2013 Malibu. Come on, GM!
Hard to believe your Dad’s car is getting 37 mpg on the highway…
“I can’t believe how terrible the new Malibu is! It’s back seat is tiny, and my dad’s 11-year-old Buick Century achieves Malibu Eco-levels of mpg just commuting to and from work. Motor Trend also reported 21 mpg in the standard 2013 Malibu. Come on, GM!”
What a load of bull.
Your dad’s old school Buick has less rear seat legroom than the new Malibu and even if he is getting good mileage in the Buick, the Malibu will trump it still.
I own a 2011 ‘Bu and test drove the 2013 with the 2.5L engine. Chevy improved a lot of things, but also took a couple large steps backwards. Two things in particular just annoyed me:
First, the rear seat room in the 2013 is TOO SMALL!!! Didn’t anybody in the design team notice that when you stick adults in the back seat they have no room? How can something like this happen? Why didn’t they just take a couple of inches from that enormous trunk so you could put adults in the back seat?
Second, the wheel well in the 2013 sticks in where I normally put my left foot. I REALLY appreciate the smaller turning radius from the aircraft carrier-sized turning radius of my 2011. But they went and increased the wheel size, and to have a decent turning radius, it looks like they made the front wheel wells enormous. I think the max wheel size for 2013 is 19″, which is a bit excessive for a family sedan. It wasn’t too long ago that 17″ was considered huge. I mean in the 1990’s, top-end Lexus and Mercedes models had 15″ wheels and drove great (I know, I drove them), so you don’t really need massive wheels.
I was planning on getting the new ‘Bu, but those two annoyances are making me hesitant.
http://www.autopult.hu/galeria/gal.php?name=1301teszt/malibuinsignia
It’s a pity that I do not understand the text, which would be very interesting to read.
I have to admit that from the side, the Chevrolet pleases me more than the Opel.
The Chevy does not have this single curve forming the roof line, but looks more like a car, especially of that side, should look. OK, in my view.