Now that things have cooled off from the 2015 New York International Auto Show, we’ve had time to really take in the 2016 Chevrolet Malibu and its new styling it has brought with it.
Specifications are obviously something very important to have a great product, and the 2016 Malibu delivers on that end with a new Malibu Hybrid promising 48 mpg, a 1.5-liter turbo four-cylinder with start/stop technology and plenty of new interior features to pack the car to the gills.
But all of that means nothing if a car’s styling doesn’t stir the soul.
Looks are always subjective, but the masses constantly come to a conclusion on if a particular car strikes it right in their eyes. We happen to think the 2016 Malibu is quite a handsome mid-size offering, and wears its new baby-Impala looks very well. Also, if you hadn’t picked up on it, staring at the tail-lamps long enough will reveal those C7 Corvette design traits Ed Welburn, GM Vice President of Design, was talking about.
Now, we leave it up to you, our dear readers. Is the 2016 Chevrolet Malibu an improvement over the outgoing car? Or should the car have taken a different styling direction? Let us know in the poll, and comments, down below.
[nggallery id=716]
Comments
The new Malibu is nice looking but it looks too much like the Impala. I think it needs to look as distinct from the Impala as the 2015 Malibu looks versus the 2015 Impala.
Nice idea but not reality based. Those guys at Chevy can’t make a good looking car to save their life outside of the Corvette/Camaro combo. They even screw up their trucks and suv’s. Just look at the new mess of a Tahoe face or the Silverado. Though I like the Colorado actually. The only good looking car they’ve had in Years is the current Impala. They have no choice but to go with it. Either that or hire designers from Buick or Ford. The new Malibu is light years ahead of the current rental queen just like the Impala is to the former rental queen model. I don’t think it’s enough though. The interior looks cheap. Even auto reviewers who sat in it at the auto show said the interior looked and felt on the cheap side. That’s never good. It also lacks an awd option. That alone would have given the car some much needed credibility in the auto mags. As is without awd and the lower rent interior, I see it destined for rental lots. People are better off buying Buicks for nearly the same money.
Low rent interior ? So you have been in one? Not seen report of cheap interiors.
As for AWD please post how many cars you expect it to sell if it had it. Also post what Ford sells in relation. How about how many Honda’s, Toyota’s and Nissan AWD’s are sold in class?
Buick will cost more but that is an option if someone wants more.
Should have had all wheel drive for the halo effect alone. This car needed everything it could get just to save the nameplate. Chevy buyers should be allowed to pay more for all wheel drive if they want it just like a Buick buyer. Doesn’t matter though, I see Buick’s offerings as more compelling for the price. You get more in a better looking package for about the same payment. I’m not seeing how Chevy will survive long term myself.
MPG, Value and Price is what the Halo of this segment is.
Once you get a Malibu to $42,000 plus look at the options available with AWD that you could have. The Malibu is a great car but not a car that competes in this segment.
The Malibu is and always has been a great car for the money and a value segment car. The same with the Accord, Camry and Altima. You price them too high and people move on to higher values names.
In marketing you need to know your limits.
Chevy is not going anywhere.
As For Buick I see you do get that. Also it is easier to get over $42K for a Buick and with the many other things they offer. Also it keeps these two cars from stealing sales from one another.
Yet the majority of what we heard on the present model was why did they not make it look like a smaller Impala.
I too wish it more of it’s own too but this one will sell like crazy and that is what this is all about.
Besides we are not all that long till the Impala gets replaced and it may be going it’s own direction.
Note do not get me wrong here as I do like the styling.
Love the look. This will do great things for Chevrolet credibility. Would love to drive a 2.0T model.
The front end is hideous. It looks like two different cars grafted together. The rest of the car is fine
I love it!! As much as I like the current design of the car and own one as well, it looks so good in my opinion. I think I’m the only one here that dont find a big deal of the back seat legroom as I fit behind myself just fine and I’m 6 ft 3 in.
Really like the looks. Can’t wait to see one in the flesh.
Who says looking like a baby Impala is a bad thing?
If it were only this , that made the difference in sales in North America , but sadly it isn’t ! The Japanese , Koreans and Ford have had years to refine their top selling mid size cars . Since bankruptcy , Malibu has been a hit and miss and not in the top ten in sales here . It has no V6 to counter the perennial best seller Toyota Camry , nor the money in the bank reputation , brand awareness . The longer wheelbase will provide more interior space but does it have the punch to become the benchmark for this segment ? I think the answer will not be immediate but will take several years to come clear .. No AWD is a big turn off , where winter driving conditions occur , plus the eco model , with huge oil surplus on hand , will be a tough sell . GM is leaving a lot on the table for the next guy !
From that front three quarter angle, the back does nothing for me. It looks as though it slopes down too quickly; too short.
Well, I like the current design, but this new one beats everything else in its class and also has better looks than more expensive cars.
Amazing job GM!!
I have to see it in person first. I hated on the Mustang at first.
GM has been restyling the Malibu almost every 2 years trying to get a piece of the segments pie . But you cant do it with a cheap interior and bland styling and switches from their parts bin . At least this model has some styling . And looking a bit like its big brother the Impala isnt a bad thing . I like it , but the bagde on the middle of the door makes it look like it was an afterthought . It needs to be moved .
To be honest, I am going to miss the Pontiac G6 aura of the 2015 Malibu (see what I did there?) where the overall shape is upswept until a slightly awkward, yet gorgeous rear end. Moving onto the 2016, I don’t think that the CGI does a justice for it. I will reserve complete judgment until I get to see it in person, but I’m not very fond of the front end or c pillar from 3/4 angle views at this point.
My one big problem with this new Malibu is of course, the engines. The 1.5t I4 and 2.0t I4 engines both have awful power to efficiency ratios. A reduction in over 35HP for just 1mpg on the highway? Don’t forget that it’s still coming with a 6 Speed Automatic! I don’t understand why they didn’t retune the 2.5L I4 for better fuel economy, quieter operation, and greater responsiveness. The 2.5L I4 would have easily made 200HP and 190LB-FT in a Malibu! GM should have installed the new Cam Phasing “Intermediate Park” feature, updated VVT system, and an 8-Speed Automatic into it. It would have easily seen 28 City and 40 Highway! Then, there’s the 2.0t I4. 250HP and 258LB-FT is pathetically underpowered for the top of the line trim. Not to mention that it still only gets 32mpg on the highway. The new “Intermediate Park” feature, updated VVT system, and a new 9-Speed Automatic would benefit the 2.0t I4 greatly! I’d expect at least 24 City and 35 Highway. Heck, even the new LGX 3.6L V6 would have gotten better fuel economy with 85HP and 26LB-FT more. The Hybrid is a great addition though! I’m surprised that it’ll get 48mpg! That is simply amazing! I was questioning why the new Malibu didn’t get a Diesel, but now I know why!
To me, this new malibu has more in common with the g6 and aura than the 8th gen (2013-2015) did; long wheelbase like the g6 and aura, pano sunroof option like the g6, quick/coupe-like roofline like the g6.
perfect if it had a 3.6
I’m a huge fan of where the car went in styling wise. But for some odd reason I feel that they could have done more with the 2.5l. I mean the 300 pounds, and more aerodynamic exterior, should have pushed the fuel economy by at least 2 mpgs with the 2.5. That would have put it on par with the nissan altima and mazda 6, all the while having more power. I’m not saying the 1.5t is bad, but with the turbo on it, it couldn’t have saved that much weight compared to the 2.5l. Not to mention that the turbo adds more complexities than the 2.5l. But on the good side of things, unlike a lot of others, I do love how the front looks. It has its own design.
300lbs less, 36HP less, smaller displacement, and only 1mpg better on the highway. GM’s powertrain department confuses me quite a bit sometimes. The 2.5L I4 was a zippy engine that had Intake Variable Valve Lift for added efficiency and responsiveness. All it needed was a slight uptune (200HP / 190LB-FT), an 8-Speed Automatic (which would not only benefit fuel economy, but NVH as well), the updated VVT system, and the new “intermediate park” cam phasing feature, and it would have easily seen 28 City and 40 Highway. I suppose Chevrolet doesn’t want to do that because that would be the same fuel economy as the 98HP Spark which would force them to update to a 1.0t I3 with 115HP and 130LB-FT that gets 50 Highway….
With the engine numbers they are not finalized yet.
We will see the normal GM HP bump before intro. Also the Turbo engine Torque is where the real performance is. This engine will have more torque or the same torque with a wider flatter curve than the 2.5 ever had. It will be a much more pleasure to drive.
This engine should still have VVT and DI. It should like most of GM engine better the EPA numbers that are posted. I have yet to see one that was not better than the posted numbers by more than a few MPG.
Now that the Turbo engines with low end flat torque get the cars up to speed faster and once are off the gas the fuel cuts off in the DI engines. GM learned this and use it for added MPG as it was explained to me by a GM powertrain engineer.
The long and short of it I expect this car to better the number of the present car in performance and economy. But keep in mind the numbers we have now will change a little.
Keep in mind too this car is larger too by 4 inches.
I was really lucky my very first car I owned my senior year of high school & for a couple of years after then was a 1965 Chevelle Malibu equipped with the L79 327/350hp engine with a Muncie “Rock Crusher” transmission. Loved the car it was the fastest of many Chevelle’s & El Camino’s I owned during the late 60’s & 70’s. While the Malibu name has held its place in the Chevy line up over the years it is nothing close to the tire melting torque monsters of long ago. I was really hoping that for the 50th anniversary of the Malibu that Chevrolet would pump out something that in some way resembled the 65 Malibu or at least something that could compete with the HEMI powered 4 door Dodge Charger. Just let your imagination run wild for a moment, a high performance 5.3 v8 equipped with a turbo or supercharged engine tucked under the hood of the 2015 Malibu. With its light weight, and “state of the art” handling capability it would have owned the tracks, ie., dragstrip or oval tracks, borrowing tech. from the C8 Vette & the current Z28 Camaro. But it didn’t happen, what rolled out was a 4 door grocery getter that was just plain BORING!!! It looks like Chevy did not even think about offering an anniversary version. But FORD did and I know they sold a bunch of Mustangs in 1965 & then for the 50th anniversary they will sell a significant number of anniversary equipped “Stangs” …. I am a hardcore Chevy man, but I gotta tell ya, I was really disappointed with the 2015 Anniversary Chevy Malibu. Guess I could buy one at a salvage yard & make my own version of a street beast that would scare the pants off the Hemi & Pony car guys.