mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

Wordless Wednesday: 2013 Chevy Malibu Is Still A Looker

Who says that GM should be the least concerned with the looks of the all-new Malibu for the upcoming refresh?

GM Authority Executive Editor with a passion for business strategy and fast cars.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. It looks better then Camry, that’s for sure! Although most people find Sanata and Fusion as best looking, personally I like the looks of the ‘BU better.

    Reply
    1. Agreed!

      Reply
  2. the front looks fine, same goes for the interior, needs to loose the camaro’s tail lights, and the Eco version needs to get better mpg than camry hybrid.srsly I want to be able to convince my folks that gm (including chevy) make the best cars on the road

    Reply
    1. Hafeez — I’d shoot one step higher and ask for a Voltec implementation in the Malibu. GM simply doesn’t have a real two-mode hybrid system, so they’re really at a disadvantage there; their only advantage in the alternative propulsion space is Voltec. That said, I wouldn’t change a think about the Malibu’s exterior design. I would, though, simplify the color combinations in the cabin…

      Reply
  3. this car is a good family cars and it looks good .if the driving behavior andthe technologiy are as good as the car looks not only the people be satisfied also the manufacturer.

    Reply
  4. definitely looks great. just needs some tweeking with the suspension, steering, and total powertrain revisions to appease the auto journalists. the competition in the midsize segment is fierce.

    Reply
  5. The car look OK but the nose looks and will look very dated. I often at a glance think it is a Cruze. or older Malibu. the Refresh is needed.

    Also they have other issues like rear seat room that need addresses. The front seat backs need scooped out like the last model for more leg room.

    Overall it is not a bad car but with the delayes release of this design it was out dated by the time it reached market. Some may remember this car was first shown to the press in 09 and really should have been out in 2011.

    I am glad to see GM jumping on it to update the car. In some ways I almost think it was more planed vs a reaction. The rush to be the Fusion I think left them short of all they wanted.

    Reply
  6. Except for the Bangle Butt …

    Reply
  7. I think the 2013 Bu’ is beautiful, it just needs a light titanium/ebony-jet black leather interior option on the LTZ and also AWD as an option.

    Reply
  8. Looks were never the problem with Malibu – Just MPG & Cabin Size.

    Reply
  9. Yes, it’s so beautiful that it’s intimidating thus the retail market embraces the uglier comp. Thankfully the non retail market has no such hang-ups. Home run GM/Chevrolet; a grand slam.

    Reply
  10. Well „all-knowing gurus that judge all objectively” from Motor Trend seem not to like it, I dare to say they hate it. I`ve got no idea why this car was so badly welcomed by the press. One complaint – they should get rid off “plastiwood” out of its interior.

    Reply
  11. At least gm is quick to react and setting a change ~ this forum discussed a 1.6 turbo as an alternative and that’s part of the plan. Hopefully an 8 or 10 speed transmission is as well. Its amazing hyundais mis size sells 60% more than the malibu each month.

    Reply
  12. I never liked the previous Malibu. This one is much better looking, especially in the back. The nose is bit heavy looking in profile, but overall, it’s a nice exterior design.

    Reply
  13. I always think that this Malibu looks more sportier some how than the rest. Camry is boring as ever, accord somehow has a Genesis back answer that’s in a bad way. Altima looks like a frog and really why you have to put turning signals on the front bumper? I’m not really feeling the fusion even though it looks long but it looks weird without wider stance. Sonata looks as bland as a Camry now and optimas interior doesn’t look good at all. That goes the same for the Mazda 6.

    Reply
    1. You lost me at Mazda 6, that car looks great! Interior is real nice too. (full disclosure: ex Mazda employee). But if it was ugly (like EVERY 626 & 6 before it) I would say so.

      Reply
      1. Have you seen the interior quality on the the new Mazda 6??

        Reply
  14. I think the front is a definite improvement over the outgoing car, and that it’s certainly good enough, even if it’s not as striking as I would like for a car that can approach $35,000 (it’s still my favorite part about the car–the area I thought they did the best with). The rear…. a complete disaster; the so-called Camaro tail lights are, IMO, the worst in the industry, and they share nothing with the rest of the car’s design DNA. From the side… it looks like a bloated 2002 Accord, or an enlarged Grand Am—not unattractive, just rather boring and sort of dated. Overalll, it’s not bad considering cars like the Accord and Camry, but you’ve got to admit: the old car’s styling made a splash when it was introduced, this one… a ripple, at best.

    Reply
  15. Again the issue was how it was introduced, you dont intro 1 engine choice and the eco version at that. The other issue people like to get equanted with there mid size cars styling thus the Camry styling remains fairly consistent. Its percieved size may be the issue here, the previous gen was smoothly sculpted, this model has larger percieved proportions due to its desire to look like a Camaro… The BU needs time to catch on… when it does it will do well, and when it gets a V6 I will be in line at the dealership.

    Reply
  16. Vic1212,
    Sporty is right, all the more why you would not offer an ECO model as the only option when introduced… This was a product planning marketing, crack smokin fiasco. And on top of that NO V6, RU kidding me…

    Reply
    1. I do agree for the eco part but no V6 it’s a toss up

      Reply
  17. Vic have you driven a V6 powered car over a 4 cyl… The torque alone… Come on…. My V6 powered car gets better gas mileage then several 4 cyl options…

    Reply
    1. Yaba — I personally like the smooth power delivery of well-engineered V6 engines… but turbocharged units often produce the same (or more) torque at lower RPMs — making for a more engaging driving experience. I wouldn’t knock a well-made boosted four-banger and would even take one over a comparable six… especially in the Malibu. Have you tried a Malibu Turbo yet?

      Reply
    2. Well all of my cars are V6… I haven’t driven a turbo 4 not even a twin scroll turbo

      Reply
      1. Time to pay a quick visit to a dealer! 🙂

        Reply
        1. Oh nvm I did drove the 1.4T found in the Cruze and I though it was as fun as the G6 in terms of the pick up and go… but not the 2.0T that are found in Regals, Malibus, Veranos, and such

          Reply
  18. Isnt 2013 the year New Fuel Economy Stardards are being introduced and phased in?
    I thought I read the reason why the ECO was the only option, was because it was A ready to go & B the only version that met the new fuel economy standards!

    It was also brought to market early to be out first before the new Altima, Camry & Accord.

    Reply
    1. True all around. The biggest reason the Eco was made available first, though, is precisely because GM wanted to launch the new ‘Bu ahead of the competition:
      http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/04/chevrolet-malibu-to-begin-production-4-months-ahead-of-schedule/

      It would have been undoubtedly a better much better launch if the Malibu were available with all engine choices (and price points) at launch, but the bankruptcy got in the way of those plans. Needless to say, GM did its best with the circumstances; I don’t expect any of this to be an issue starting in 2013, or any time thereafter.

      Reply
  19. Styling is subjective, but I like this car because it LOOKS like a Chevrolet from its 1972 Impala split grill to its traditional 2 tail-lights. I like it from EVERY angle. Front looks “substantial” to me, plus you don’t mistake this car for anything else. In red, it looks like a $30,000 car.
    The only problem I see is the rear seat legroom- and a “freshening” won’t be solving that. The launch was another GM disaster- how much are these people getting paid?

    Reply
    1. @Michael W I’m right there with you. Leave the design be; its excellent.

      I’m not one for emulating old-school designs, but this car car simply looks excellent. It’s not ostentatious like the Fusion, and won’t look dated in 3 years like Sonata. It’s classy, not boring (Camry); reserved, but not mum (Accord).

      In regards to the rear seat legroom: we hear the front chairs will be entirely redesigned, allowing for more room. This is from an unconfirmed source, so take it with a grain of salt. 🙂

      Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel