I agree with you there Red. That's why I wish those comments weren't made in public.
The products will need to speak for themselves. I wouldn't want a GOOD report on a new or future GM product being tainted by any doubt of the motivation of the tester.

GM may need to be better than the rest...just to get a fair shake. That's what it's going to take.

Many car companies have come back from the abiss, with absolutely horrendous press bias. Look at Audi and "unintended acceleration". Can you imagine coming back from something like that? But they did it. They won them over with appealing new products, beautiful styling, gorgeous interiors and great performance.

GM products need to be the benchmarks in there individual classes. Get that done, and any journalist with a lack of objectivity will end up looking ridiculous. Trust me.

 

All very good points that summarize what GM has going against it.

I think the biggest draw back concerning a car like the Malibu is the bland and unimaginative styling. What good is excellent quality, reliability, and performance if it's unappealing to approach and experience these qualities? Even if the imports aren't head-turners themselves, they don't have all of the other obstalces to overcome. Someone made comparisons to Hyundai and even they have upped their vehicles' stylistic appeal (albeit, perhaps borrowing heavy cues from other manufacturers).

Fair or not, it's a lot easier to forgive a pretty face with a bad rep than a homely one.

 

Seems like whenever I tell this to anyone who buys imports, they blow it off with one reason or another... gets very frustrating.

I think GM really needs to get this information out in the public's ear somehow...

I have examples similar to your Honda/Chevy story... here is just one of many:

A friend of mine used to a Saturn SL2 and a Cavalier, both were 1999 models... the Cavalier had one problem, was fixed under warranty... every thing was good right? Nope. He sells not only the Cavalier, but the Saturn too, which he said was the best car he had owned... said he didn't want it falling apart on him too??? WTF?!?! The Cavalier was in for a serpentine belt replacement!!!

So he goes and buys a new Honda Civic and a Toyota RAV4. The Civic has been in for brake problems twice, the muffler RUSTED THROUGH and he had to PAY FOR IT... Not sure if anything has happened with the RAV4 or not... point is, he happily payed to have the Honda fixed and still praises it. I don't get it.

 

Perception, perception, perception....

First, automotive journalists are starting to take some serious lumps. The true experts in the industry are noticing that the gap between what they write and where the truth is has widened considerably. Bob's got every right to call them out on it. Especially considering the fact that the actual customer for the magazines IS NOT the end user - it's the company that pays for advertising.

Second, regarding quality... Customers in general do not really know waht quality is. In truth, few engineers, even quality engineers, know what quality truly is. There is a perception out there that the minimum amount of variation in a given feature means quality, but this is wrong. Quality is better defined as the MAXIUMUM variation allowable that still meets specifications/expectations.

The funny thing is, much of what the customer percieves as quality isn't really quality at all. Much of the time it is styling. I hear the "interior materials" comment all of the time. Fact of the matter is that the actual materials used in an interior don't change much from manufacturer to manufacturer. The FINISH or GRAINING may, but the base material is generally one of a handful of plastics.

 

Same here. However, I also got sick of seeing one short article about a cool car, and 25 about minivans and SUVs in every issue.

 

Ya, really...

At least some of the specialty magazines are mostly interesting or, at least deal with an interesting topic... Corvette Fever... Vette... etc...

 

aren't you the same guys that b1tch about there being a lack of reviews of "real world" cars when its time for you to decide on a new family car? can't please everyone all of the time...

 

I don't recall ever making that statement...

 

I agree with most of this. If GM builds a substandard car, great. Write a bad review. Thats what the rags are there for. But its things like what Lutz pointed out, minor changes in writing tone, about two products the magazine has had little contact with. (I dont believe the article he was talking about was a full review, but rather a preview, correct that if its wrong) That kind of thing keeps buyers out of Cadillac dealerships alltogether. I mean, if your article says, "The Mercedes' electronics function much the same as other Mercedes' - flawlessly." and "The Cadillac's navigation system works fine, we just dont like the buttons." People will still go at least LOOK at the Cadillac. A complete dismissal like Lutz quoted makes a consumer bypass to product in question completely.

The whole point here is that import-bias doesnt so much make people not buy domestic, but makes them not even CONSIDER domestic.

Side Note: The old Malibu is going to be continued for fleet sales only. Lutz went brick-wall and said that the new Malibu WILL NOT be sold as a fleet car. And I went and sat in one the other day. Feels like a damn Toyota. I guess thats good though, right?

 

I've bit my tounge reading most of this post. It seems there a few people even on this board that are average "I love imports and hate domestics because my 83 Cavalier ran like junk" type buyers. I give Mr. Lutz credit, hes calling out the writers on biased reviews, we all know they exist. Trash the car if its junk thats fine, the Aztek deserved most of the bad reviews it got but however the new Grand Prix doesnt deserve some of the bad reviews its getting from some mags. I think GM has every right to pull its advertising dollars from the mag if it does a biased review against one of their vehicles only because its "built in the USA" and not by some foreign manufacturer.

I think you're talking about styling here more than anything and that has nothing to do with quality. Styling is all on opinion and personally i dont really dig the "clear lenses" taillight look but hey some people do. The Altima wasnt really a bad car in the first place, it just recently got a major redesign.

I am also interested in how you came to this review. I'm sure you have thoroughly taken the BRAND NEW Malibu out and given it a good test run to come to these conclusions

 

The second generation of the Altima was a perfect example of product thinking gone adrift. The car was too cramped, too slow and too rough for its model segment. It wasn't an outstanding or even a relatively "good."

The current Altima is a firecracker, and finally lives up to its name. It wasn't a breakthrough product because of interior quality (the plastics look like they came from a GM car), or active safety (no stability control). The Altima was a breakthrough because it offered a new level of power - in both 4-banger and V6 models- tremendous value and stunning styling. This car isn't a Camry, but considering its driving attributes, it doesn't need to be.

On the other hand, the Malibu is a middling upgrade on a dull, but discounted predecessor. It might offer a reason to rent from Alamo instead of Dollar, but not much else. Sure, there's technical novelties live the electric power steering and the remote starter, but the basic product is dreary.

I don't care if the platform is shared with Saab, the body control is nothing special. Neither are the seats. I've driven every FWD Chevy sedan produced since the early 80s, and this car is just another in a long line. If the 1997 Malibu was better than the '87 Corsica, the 2004 Malibu is better yet. The same goes for the current Impy - a great heir to the legacy of the Celebrity.

GM hasn't found a breakthrough mainstream product yet, and a honest publication like Car and Driver will admit that fact. If Lutz doesn't like to hear the truth, he should consider a transfer to GMAC. Apparently, that's where the money is.

The 2004 Chevrolet Malibu: if you can find a better 1997 Camry....

 

So did you just not read anyone's replies to you or do you ignore them as to not look like a fool?

Lutz never said not to give bad reviews, just not to give biased reviews. I think the example he cited is a good one. Why can't you understand this? It's pretty simple. BIAS.

Let's look up bias for you since maybe you think it's just a typo for "bad":

You also tapdance around all of the questions of if you've even DRIVEN a new Malibu, your "I've driven every GM sedan made in the last 20 years!" is pretty broad and somehow I think you're just trying to cleverly word the comments.

You also didn't even reply to the post you quoted. It says you're basing your entire opinion off of styling, which you are, and then you turn around and talk about how dull the car is. You also seem to be picking and choosing what you reply to. Everyone who's made a serious good reply to your posts you ignore, and then you reply to the comment that you only care about the styling with some comments about the styling, and the seats. Congrats.

Every time I see redzed post, I wish more and more that he wouldn't.

 

Sounds like he may have been a former Consumer Reports Car-Test Editor. I haven't read the magazine in years, so I don't know about now. But in the 90s those guys were horrible when it came to testing V8 rear-wheel drive AMERICAN cars.

 

1. I've had the "Malibu experience?" Have you? Could you remember, even if you tried?

2. The Malibu sets a new standard for boredom. If you see this car as "revolutionary" or "performance oriented," I would like to congratulate you on recently waking up from your coma.

3. The Malibu is probably the best "FWD intermediate sedan" GM has ever offered. Consider that we're talking about a lineage that included the Citation, Corsica and current "Classic." None of those cars were especially bad - except for the overhyped X-body braking issue.

If anything, this Chevrolet is farther away from the Camry-class than the Corsica was back in 1987. Perhaps that's because the competition has 4-year product cycles and GM is still struggling with the "7-year itch."

4. While we're on the subject, the new Malibu illustrates how overpriced GM cars have become. A $25K Malibu LT is an unspeakable rip-off. You are in the same pricing league as a Mercury Grand Marquis - a vehicle that is three rental car "upgrades" away from the Malibu's category. Put another way, a leather equipped Malibu LT is less than $3k away from the BMW 325i and Infiniti G35. More worryingly, mainstream cars like the new Galant, not to mention the current Accord, are bigger and more powerful.

5. Unless you work for GM or a related supplier - or your company has an account with Alamo - the coming of the new Malibu is a car with little importance for most people. If this is the sort of car that gets you excited, I think you're way too easily amused.

 

correct me if i'm wrong but...
i thought nobody said the malibu was anything to get excited about except the fact that it is like a camry
meaning..it has better interior, better quality, and a boring design just like the camry or corolla or whatever (i'm not good with toyota products)
i mean, when's the last time you sat in a camry and said "wow, this is one slick car, inside and out"?
point being, people are glad the general is finally stepping up to the plate and making cars with better quality