The Malibu did well, though maybe not as well as one might hope.... 2nd place... Camry came in 1st. Though MT loves the Camry - some other mags don't so it'll be interesting to see who they see as the current pack leader. Will they dislike the new Malibu for the same reasons they dislike the Camry or will it shine on its own merits?

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/index.html

The Malibu needs a few things to become just a tad more competitive in this segment IMO:
Available xenon or LED low beam headlamps. I know only the Altima offers right now them but that's how you lead the pack!
Available nav: this is a serious 'WTF were they thinking?' one... no excuse for this to be missing when even cars like the civic and corolla offer nav these days. This class has been offering it for at least the last 5 years in most of the competition.
Better fuel economy. Rated and observed fuel economy seems to be 15-20% behind the pack. Might not sound like much but it sure doesn't help GM's perception as the gas guzzling car manufacturer of the bunch.


Thoughts?

I personally would be too tempted to just jump on up to the CTS at this price point. 28k vs 35k... the CTS just offers way too much extra for 7k more.

 

the performance and size are close and for some the 7k isn't worth it.

 

$28k is for the LTZ though. You can get into a nicely equipped LT for around $25k, which is $10k less than the CTS.

I agree on the fuel mileage. The 4 cylinder/A6 combination should be more competitive. (Personally I can't wait to see what those numbers end up being.)

 

Oh I understand the CTS isn't for everyone. I was just stating my personal uneducated (haven't driven the Malibu yet but have driven the new CTS) preference.

Do you think it'll exceed the competition or just match it? I thought the 4-cyl wasn't getting the A6 for at least quite a few months if not a full model year later?

 

I happened to notice this 'related link' when looking at the article and thought it was interesting to see the results:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...malibu_lt.html

For the 2004 MY comparison they put the Camry in last place, Malibu 3rd, Gallant 2nd (WTF?), and Accord 1st.

Minus the Gallant and plus the Altima it appears to be an inversion of rankings going from 2004 to 2008!

 

What I've read (or been told) is the LTZ gets a 4-cyl /A6 base combination in the spring.

The Malibu gets 22/30 currently with the 2.4L-4/A4 combination. This comares to 21/31 for the Camry with the 2.4L-4/A5 (or M5); or 22/31 for the Accord with the 2.4L-4/M5. (Nissan Versa rates as the top midsize at 26/31 with the smallish 1.8L-4/M6.) So I'd have to say the Malibu performs on par with the competition today and is more attractive IMO. I'd expect ~2 mpg better with the A6, so the Malibu could get 24/32 or better.

 

How is the Versa midsize? I could see Altima but not Versa.

 

Nav should be an option on all those cars by now.

We checked out a Camry back in January and instead went with the Aura. You got more car for the money and it seemed nicer in 80-90% the aspects we compared.

 

It doesn't have NAV or BlueTooth. Why it doesn't is of course OnStar, but I hope GM make that an option and not a requirement. I don't want another phone number, I want my phone from any network to work in my car.

 

Ask the EPA. They have it listed as a midsize in their 2008 Fuel Economy Guide; which is where I got those numbers.

 

Imagine that; the Chevy is the one that needs a little power bump

But really, I can see why the Malibu needs Nav now because the objectives are so close together that something more subjective like looks or brand loyalty or repeat ownership experience are whats left to separate the 4. We all know Toyota and Honda probably have the previous ownership experience in favor locked up tight!

 

I agree that the car needs Nav and Xenons available. It's got everything else, why not those?

I really like the New 'Bu. I don't necessarily agree with MT's rating. I think it should have taken first.

 

Yep , me too . I think if the Malibu was as fast or quicker than the Camry it would have . In the case of a family car though , Id take the Bu's superior weight adding soundeadening materials over the Camary's mid 14 second ET ....with the cool side effect of worlds better looking car , better handling ect .

 

I didn't see dB readings - I wonder how much quieter it is than the Camry? Also I wonder how much weight the deadening materials created?

I know the typical difference between Toyota/Lexus brother models is between 20 and 40 pounds in sound deadening - the difference in noise is extremely obvious too - though weight probably doesn't represent all of the differences in noise suppression as higher cost lighter weight materials might be used on the Lexus models.

The Accord EX models use a noise inversion system with the stereo to the weight of sound deadening materials required in the car and I think it shows in the fairly light weight per the large size of the car, though when I drove the new Accord I didn't find it all that impressively quiet. It wasn't bad but wasn't great.

 

HID's and NAV are both great to have but options like AWD and 6spd manual would be nicer imo. The AWD would especially give it an advantage vs the Camry/Accord/Altima in northern markets. Not only would it give it better all-weather traction, it would aid in performance as well. We've had 8-10" of snow over the last 4 or so days and i was grateful for the AWD in my Fusion and WRX. As for the manual, some of the competitors like the Altima and Accord v6's already offer a manual 6spd option and this would bump up the fun-factor on the upper/sporty trims.

Is there an SS version in the works? Malibu SS with the Cadillac 305hp 3.6L DI, AWD, and 6spd manual would be fairly attractive and sporty if they can find a way to keep the base price in the 28-30k range.