Equipped with the 2.0L turbocharged Ecotec engine (LTG) making an impressive 295 lb.-ft. of torque, the new 2014 Chevrolet Malibu Turbo is capable of accelerating from 0-60 mph in “under six seconds.” That torque figure is not only best in class, but it’s also superior to many V6-equipped models — even those outside of the midsize sedan segment.
Take for example the current Ford Mustang and its 3.7L V6 engine rated at 280 lb.-ft. of torque — 15 lb.-ft. lower than the front-wheel-drive Malibu Turbo. That’s even the case when comparing the 2014 Malibu Turbo to the Camaro V6, which has a lesser 278 lb.-ft.. More to the point, the 2014 Malibu Turbo is capable of beating the current Camaro V6 in a zero-to-sixty miles per hour sprint, with its sub-six-second time to the Camaro’s 6.4-second time. That’s pretty impressive for a family sedan.
With these performance figures in mind, does the Malibu still need a V6? We don’t think so. If anything, it’s the Camaro that might need a heart transplant.
[nggallery id=549]Amid a legal battle with a GM supplier.
Generally following the market trend.
Plus, special leases on all-new premium three-row crossover.
Refreshed SUV in crisp, clean colors.
Top-dog Caddy hits the racetrack.
View Comments
that's awesome for a Malibu owner but a slap to the face of v6 camaro owners wtf? Chevy?
Times change. A lot of normal cars are faster than last year's base model "fun" cars. The new base model Camaro will just have to be that much better!
I have gotten home and broke out the stop watch and did multiple runs in my 2011 RS V6 automatic Camaro with the stock Pirelli's
My best 0-60 on auto was 5.9 sec and 5.7sec using the paddle shifter with TC on
I suspect a manual V6 Camaro would be faster, and the 2012-13 with the new engine 324hp. would be even faster still! it's about 74 degrees outside low humidity and I have 8742 miles on her. I don't know how Chevy managed a 6.4 second time unless my grandfather was driving it. that figure is wrong. I had to test it for my self. Any other V6 Camaro owners try it out safely of course.....
and sound off.
Unless you did this with a an automotive performance measurement tool (something with a built-in accelerometer), the margin of error is too great to draw any conclusions. It is unlikely that your test was accurate, if you were using a stopwatch.
Even Chevy's website shows the Camaro as 5.9 0-60, this article is whack.
The 5.9 seconds is for the bare-bones LT and 1LS trim levels. I'm guessing that the 6.4-second time mentioned here is for the heavier 2LT trim.
My guess is the next gen camaro gets this as its base engine and after a little diet from going to the alpha base it will be faster than the Malibu
if so it needs more power. if the twin turbo V6 is in the next SS. about the same hp as the current V8.
Malibu Turbo is also expensive, go build one, they're about $29-33K? Plus, what's it going to be worth a few years down the line? The improvements/re-fresh are OK , but really I would pass all the way on this Malibu and recommend others do the same. The way to buy one of these is, especially the Turbo, is to pick-up a barely used one for thousands less than new.
Sorry but today nothing is cheap. The average price of a car today is over $35K and with the new health laws and inflation it will only continue to grow.
I agree it is expensive but even a Sonic is now over $20K loaded.
The LTZ carries a pretty good resale value used.
Chevrolet should decrease the price on the Malibu by $2-$4K plus keep the rebates and incentives. I would probably buy another Malibu if that was the case
Ok in the misleading story on this site that had the Impala nose I stated more torque could be on tap for better MPG. Well they did it.
Note that with this engine the torque helps get the car up to speed faster and lets the driver get off the gas sooner. In the new DI engines from GM if you are off throttle they shut the gas off to the engine when coasting off throttle.
My 2.0 Turbo with the GM Turbo Upgrade package added torque up to 315 FT LBS and increased my MPG 1-2 MPG. I confirmed this with the GM Performance engineer that said they found this result by pleasant accident. I expect we may see this put to use in more of their engines.
Note while the engine makes more torque hooking up vehicle is more difficult. My SS will spin the tires now at times up to 50 MPH on concrete freeways that are not grooved. At least with the crummy OE pilots that came on it.
Keep in mind with the FWD when you get on it the nose and front tires unload weight as it transfers to the rear tires.
My HHR SS is fast but hooking it up is difficult. I have launch control that helps but it removes some performance so it is a balancing act between Launch control and using your foot.
So If anyone wants to run a Camaro I would recommend you get your launch down well and watch the road surface as you may be faster but it will have to be under the right conditions.
For the record I hated 4 cylinders and Turbo engines and today nearly 5 years after buying one I love it to death. I just wish my car was RWD.
Note the same tune in the Solstice with a 5 speed will give you 340 FT LBS as the drive line will take it so much better.
GM has more of these tuner kits coming and we should see them soon. I expect to see one for the Bu, Regal and ATS.
Scott -- are you referring to this rendering?
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/05/rendered-updated-2014-chevrolet-malibu/
If so, I'm perplexed as to what it is that you find "misleading" about it, as it clearly states it is a rendering.
So then will it run about in the high 5 sec like the Camry V6 or the Accord V6?
If it can hook up it should dip into the high 5 second range. I still expect many road test may show low 6 seconds possibly due to the weight.
My SS will do low 5 seconds with a auto and 315 FT LBS at 3200 pounds. The BU is heavier but does have a better transmission and gearing. We may just have to wait and see.
*Mind blown*
Hi! I understand this is sort of off-topic but I needed to ask.
Does building a well-established website like yours require a massive amount work?
I am brand new to blogging but I do write in my diary daily.
I'd like to start a blog so I will be able to share my experience and thoughts online. Please let me know if you have any kind of recommendations or tips for brand new aspiring bloggers. Thankyou!
I do want to know whatever happened to the Malibu Eco?
Malibu Turbo beats a Camaro. Cool, is this what they would call a stoplight sleeper? Still don't like those taillights the Camaro will be seeing though.
I wouldn't be too quick to come to that conclusion.....GM's numbers for the camaro are wrong.....See my above post.
No, GM make a mistake? HA HA HA. Thanks for the heads up.
Hmmm, funny how C&D reports 6.3 time for Malibu? Could this be a BS story, with writer falling for GM claims without trying to verify them? There seems to be plenty of V6 Camaros hitting 0-60 in 6.1 and 6 flat... Considering Malibu is FWD, no matter how fat Camaro is, it still should be more fun to test than Malibu.
With regards to V6 Mustang, even though there is less torque, it is readily available at wider range of RPM, unlike Malibu. Apparently the author forgot to mention that Mustang V6 hits 0-60 in 5.3-considerably faster than either Camaro or Malibu. Great piece of journalism, LMAO.
The Bu could do this time easily if it can get the traction. Not all conditions can do this nor every driver.
My HHR SS will dip well into the 5 second range can out run many V8 models but only if I can get the traction to get a good launch. On a surface with a lot of grip it is no issue but I have spun the tires on worn concrete freeways at 50 MPH and had the traction control kick in.
RWD or FWD matters little if tuned properly as with my SS. Now I do not expect the handling in the Bu to be up the my GM Performance tuned SS as it is just a passenger sedan with no claims to being a performance car.
It just happens to be a good sedan with very good power and makes no claims to being a sports sedan.
I think the performance claims are just to give a better impression that the Turbo 4 is more than up to the task of replacing the 3.6 V6,
I own two 3.6 and on in a Malibu and neither are up to what my 2.0 Turbo can do.
Note my HHR SS does have the GM tune at 290 HP and 315 FT LBS along with the major changes the GM performance division did to the suspension. The SS did not get the same things as the LT.
Note too that cars like the new BU and the other cars that have recently come out have all been tuned from the start by the folks who did the GM Performance division cars. The same people who did the V series cars and other SS models are now integrated into the system at the development level. They are now designing these systems vs. just fixing them. This is why cars like the new Impala may give a great ride but still will take a corner even though it is not claimed to be a performance car.
Has for your the Mustang it is so much lighter than the Camaro even with a V6. Weight is one performance factor that is more important than HP. Less weight not only makes things faster but handle better and stop faster. We will see that soon in more and more cars. The Alpha is only the first step.
Anyways I am sure GM can reproduce these times a the Warren proving grounds if needed. They have a conditions there to meet any traction challenge.
Yes, of course FWD or RWD do not really matter in 0-60 times, this is why I specifically mentioned FUN while testing, not the actual numbers. My Mini Cooper S is plenty quick as well but front wheel burn outs are just not as cool, not to mention the torque steer and front wheel hop when encountering irregularities on the road while accelerating hard.
Mustang V6 is actually not that light, about 110 less than Malibu-about the same number that separates Malibu from Camaro. If Malibu was AWD at the same weight as FWD, then GM could brag about something. As it is, Malibu is nothing else than a heavy compact sedan with enough power to keep the driver busy, should the driver be foolish enough to push it.