Pretty odd. It sure isn't the best looking thing on 4 wheels, but it isn't "ugly" either, and as you said, the styling is pretty much what you'd expect a car in that class to be styled like (conservative and bland to appeal to masses). Where some expecting the rackish aggresive lines of the camaro?

Even BMW who's styling most love for the most part is pretty damn bland and conservative except for their coupes (E46 M3, M coupe and roadster, Z3/Z4, and z8) which actually have a little flare.

R377, what's so great about the CVT tranny? I've noticed manufacturers starting to offer them more. Looking at the 6spd auto in the 500, the CVT doesn't seem to offer better fuel economy so why are companies moving towards them in family cars?

 

First I should point out that I was saying buyers will avoid the CVT, not flock to. So I'm not exactly saying they're great.

But since you asked, it's one of those things that looks good in theory, but hasn't yet realized its full potential in practice. Meanwhile the old technology (planetary automatics) keeps improving to the point where any benefits of a CVT are almost negligible. (In a similar vein, this is why no other engine configuration has managed to dethrone the poppet valve, 4-stroke, IC engine for the last 80 years, even when others look better in theory. Highly advanced old technology almost always beats under-developed new technology, at least in the short term.)

The appeal of the CVT is an infinite number of ratios between the highest and lowest ratios. This means that under hard acceleration the tranny can spool the engine up to its horsepower peak and keep it right there until the car reaches its maximum speed. Thus the engine is putting out 100% of its available HP for the entire duration of the acceleration run. This contrasts to a normal transmission which forces the engine to visit many different parts of its rev band and be in places where it's making somewhat less than its full power potential. The solution for planetary automatics, of course, is to add more gears so there is less spread among them.

This infinite number of ratios works for fuel economy too. A gasoline engine is most efficient under high load and low rpm with the throttle wide open. Ideally a CVT is paired with an electronic throttle. When cruising down the interstate the computer can dial in an insanely tall gear that requires almost full throttle to keep the car going at the desired speed, thus putting the engine into its most efficient mode. With electronic throttle control, the driver would never even know, which is good since they'd probably object to actually having to put their foot to the floor to cruise at 60 mph. I'm not sure if the Five Hundred uses this strategy or not, but I know the Saturns did.

Another plus is a CVT's much smaller parts count compared to a planetary automatic. Basically you need two moveable pullies, a steel belt, and the controlling mechanisms.

The main downside is that CVTs are still not well equipped to handle a lot of torque, even though Ford and Audi are putting them behind V6s. The pressure required by the two pullies to clamp a steel belt is phenomenal. Advances in metals and lubricants is helping, but it will likely be a challenge for the foreseeable future if you're thinking of using it with an LS2.

Another decision for the automaker is what kind of coupling to use. They've mostly been loathe to use a fluid coupling for fear of losing precious point of efficiency, even though modern torque converters are quite efficient. Powdered metal couplers that engage through magnetism have been tried, but tended to be jerky. Most likely some form of computer controlled dry-plate clutch will the solution of choice, but those add cost and complexity compared to a simple torque converter.

 

Actually, there is a difference between the Malibu and 500, styling wise. While the 500 may be bland, I don't think too many people will find it ugly. The last Malibu was bland........... but the current one is just plain ugly. It has very odd lines, and that hideous chrome strip on the front. Now, I realize that some may find it attractive........... but alot find it ugly.

Bland is expected in this market segment, with the 300 being an exception. The important things in this segment are space, efficiency, utility, and reliability, at a reasonable price. The 500 addresses all of these except reliability, which is unknown at this time.

 

I'll agree on the Malibu. Bland is fine....the Impala is bland. But the new Malibu is ugly. Awkward shape and the stupid stupid stupid CHEVY TRUCKS TOUGH chrome bar in the front. Blech.

 

I have a tendency to look at the Malibu as I do the Nissan Titan. There is no cohesion of shape or line. In the end, it just looks............. odd, and unfinished. The shape of the wheelwells doesn't help......... nor do the strange fender flair but not fender flair things on the side. Is it necessary to try to give a fender flair look to a car that runs narrow, cheap, pedestrian tires???

I used to think that the awful chrome strip was the worst........... but I have changed my mind. It is the side view that I dislike the most. Its square....... with rounded details (the flairs), and angles with slab sides.

Yuck.

I would take yawn (Camry) over yuck (Malibu) anyday.

In person, the 500, short of the side profile, does not look like an Audi to me at all. It is a very large car. I find it attractive, in a boring sort of way. LOL

 

In the end, it seems liek Malibu is selling just fine.

To look at the bright sides of it, I think it has one of the most handsome rear ends in the class... fairly sophisticated without being over-the-top. The interior seems pretty decent for the class too... my only complaint here is the vent grille look in the center of the dash is a bit odd looking to me, but it certainly wouldn't be a deal breaker.

I'm not a fan of the "Chevy Spear" either, but I think it was done in a pretty decent way if it had to be there.

I think the if Chevy changed the headlights... not even the shape so much, but just got rid of the "bug eyes" behind the lens, a lot of critics about it's shape would go away.

But, like I said, it's selling very well... so everything is going just fine...

 

I'd take the Malibu, I don't like the look of the Camry at all. 500 is very boring looking.

Pontiac G6 and the Mazda 6 are by far the best looking FWD sedan on the market.

 

I was out driving a Mazda3 "S" this last weekend. What a fine car that was. I enjoyed every minute of it. I can only imagine how much better the 6 is. If I had to choose between the Malibu, 500 or the Mazda6, the 6 would win no problem in just about every category.

 

in this category of cars, i don't think looks are the important part, though they do not hurt. For that reason, i think the mazda 6 is head and tails ahead of everything else. as for the 500, it looks a LOT like VW. Not that it is a bad thing (i think the vw look is ok...on a vw), it is just very unoriginal and rather lame.

i can see where the malibu can be considered ugly. I like it because it does look different from everything else out there. If that is a bad thing, then i guess everyone should drive bland cars like the 500 and camry.

 

On the subject of Malibu... I was looking forward to it at first, but after a few minutes of experience with the real model I changed my mind very quickly. In a nutshell, it's just an upgraded Cavalier. Sure the quality of materials is better than Malibu Classic, and the gaps are smaller... But this car still screams 1990's GM. They are a long way off from having a Camry-like quality or Accord. Iam not even sure if they will get there, seeing as the thing is selling. And as long as it's selling, there is no need to change anything.

I would also like to see how well the interior pieces integrate together, say, after 6 or 8 years.

I have not seen the 500 yet, so I'll reserve my judgment about it. Malibu was ripped to shreds because it did not live up to the hype that surrounded it. So many here were saying what a great product it will be, how the quality will be on par with Honda/Toyota, yada yada yada. It's a good attempt by GM, but let's not kid ourselves. When you raise the expectations and they're not met, be prepared for some serious disappointments.

 

I realize that looks are very subjective. Thus, there can never be a consensus about it. I mean, there are some people who think the Ford GT is ugly.

That said, I do think that the Mazda 6 is by far the most attractive midsize. If it had AWD as an option, it would be even better. Thus, at this point, whether I could go for the 6 or the 500 would be based on if I kept the Tribute, as I need at least 1 vehicle with AWD.

If able to keep my Tribute, I would easily buy the 6. I love fun to drive vehicles.

 

The 500 is a decent piece. It's not aimed at enthusiasts though.

Comparing the Malibu to the 500....they both give a comparable driving experience. The 500 is a maybe just alittle bit more refined, with a much better interior. I think it looks better than Malibu also....which isn't saying much...since I find the Malibu to be one of the homeliest cars available for sale today.

The 500 is a transportation appliance with just alittle flair and polish. The Malibu is just a transportation appliance...no flair whatsoever.

 

Whoops! I thought that was the new Taurus until I saw the commercial.

I love how they build it up to be something that'll be worth more than 10grand in 2 years. It won't be. It's still a Ford car.

 

Is AWD really necessary considering the Mazdas power numbers (or lack of)?

 

AWD will arrive with MazdaSpeed 6 which will have 280+ HP turbo engine.

Having said that, AWD is mostly for snow. With V6 being as potent as it is, it should be more than adequate for those interested in AWD other than performance (which will opt out for the 280 HP version).

Look at Audi. They had been selling AWD A4 with a puny 1.8L engine. Sure it's turbo, yet it still has to power a 3400 lbs car. In mid to late 90's, those 1.8L packed a whopping 150 horsepower. The current gen A4 gets 170 HP. Soon they'll upgrade the base engine to a 2.0L with about 200 HP, so that should be neat. I always felt they were behind the competition in powerplant.