Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Malibu Chevrolet Malibu MPG-Real World Numbers
288 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 5:37 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: bwia (Mar 14, 2009 9:44 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: donniel (Mar 14, 2009 9:56 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: malexbu (Aug 30, 2008 4:34 pm) one way) trip recently: +-------+-------+------+ | When | Where | MPG | --------+-------+------+ | 08/05 | MA-TN | 36.6 | | .......... | TN-MA | 36.8 | +-------+-------+------+ | 08/08 | MA-TN | 36.6 | | .......... | TN-MA | 37.4 | +-------+-------+------+ | 09/05 | MA-TN | 38.2 | | .......... | TN-MA | 37.8 | +-------+-------+------+ The bottom line: 38.2 MPG, the highest so far; 37.8 MPG with the car fully loaded, going over mountains easily. A great, great car (Base Sedan 2005). |
|
I will use it on same commute that gets me 23 mpg in a 4.3 L, 4 spd auto, Sonoma ext cab (3850 lbs). Car is lighter by couple hundred lbs, has a little more than half the displacement, 107k less miles on it, and much better aerodynamics, tires, and electric steering. 9 of my 15 mile commute is interstate 55 zone with daily speed traps but no congestion. Will I be able to get over 27mpg? The Sonoma is rated 20 hwy, so by direct comparison, I would get 33 combined in the Malibu.
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jun 22, 2009 7:35 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: pao (Jun 24, 2009 5:16 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: phil53 (Sep 02, 2008 8:53 pm) I suspect I will need a few thousand miles before it shows best mileage. Wife bought a KIA and was only in the low 20's until it had over 10K miles. Now it seems to get 25.4 local or highway. I'm sure it would be better if it was a steady 65 or 70 MPH, but these days, if you don't stick with the pack on the interstate, you get run over. More when it at least gets first oil change.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: e_net_rider (Sep 08, 2009 4:00 am) Also I've seen a number of posts claiming the best car owned except for mileage. I've had a bit of experience. 62 Buick Skylark w/ 215 V8. Lousy engine. One of GM's early adventures into aluminum block. Damn things lasted about the same as Chevy Vega's first engines. Lucky to be good past 60K. 68 Mustang fastback 302 4bbl from factory. Hitting it, you could hear the front end fully extend with a pronounced clunk. Driving it decently it could get 19MPG, but required premium fuel and at prices of 4 gal for a $1, who cared? It responded well except on ice and snow and had a lot of interior squeaks and rattles. My brothers drove it while I was in Nam and ruined the engine because they were too cheap to buy premium fuel, leaded and 100+ octane. Burned the valves. 72 Mazda RX2 It served me well, except the mileage was a big disappointment, especially that this was the time of shortages and spiraling prices. That rotary made the car fast and powerful compared to I-4 model. And it seemed that there was something peculiar about that car. Maybe it was the color or quiet of the engine, but people kept running into me, as if they did not see me. 65 Chevelle 283. Was wifes car when we got married. Ragged to death. Totally worn out. Terrible on gas, too. 73 Buick LeSabre mid size V8. Did not keep long. First lengthy drive, radiator sprung leak, over-heated, and cracked head. Started to fix, but after pulling intake manifold and saw that mess of gunk, looked like a bunch of dinosaurs died in there, and got rid of it. (In those days, 9 of 10 mechanics would have said Quaker State oil.) 74 Town Car with big V8. Think I got burned on that one too, Pretty certain the odometer was rolled over, maybe more than once. Second winter, transmission was slow to engage. Best of about 18 MPG highway. 78 Mercury Gran Marquis with 400M Dealer did not stand up to used car warranty. Fixed 2 of the 3 major gripes myself after repeated trips to dealer. No one could fix the third. A hard braking or panic braking would through the car sideways. I sold it to someone on crutches who said he only needed to get 3 blocks to and from grocery store. I later realized the problem from a picture that showed the factory tool on the brake diverter valve, used during bleeding of brakes only. Damn thing had been left on at factory. But was glad it was gone anyway since it was poor mileage and 400M were known to blow around 90K. 81 Pontiac Bonneville with Olds 307. Not a bad car, especially the engine. I'd wished they had kept Olds and killed off Buick or Pontiac. 84 Mercury Topaz D This car was the mileage king. 38MPG everyday locally and just shy of 50 on highway. Might still have it except idiots at dealer replace timing belt and had it one tooth, 10 degrees, late and it was about 50K miles later I discovered it. So I was somewhat leary of it after that and wife wanted it gone, just before this last round of high gas prices. I really wished I'd kept. It road good and was reasonably quiet. No get up and go though. 86 Sable top model 3.0, fully loaded including electric defrost on front window. Was daughters car. I had to rebuild transmission because the AXOD had a frequent problem. Low gear clutch bands would break. Otherwise a really solid car with about 17.5 local and 22 highway. 86 Pontiac Parisienne 307 Olds w/ overdrive and TCC. Car was dogged to death when I got it. Well not quite, but terrible brakes, tires, A/C pump, water pump, carbueration, and ignition. I fixed all that and was excellent car. Body not as heavy as Bonneville though. 17.5 locally and 22 highway. It got rear ended and totalled, sigh. 92 Ford Taurus 3.0 They definitely lightened up the vehicle with redesign from the 86. Not near as solid or quiet, but better mileage because of different injection system, electronic transmission controll making the AXOD a AXOD-E. Those 3.0 12 valve were very dependable. Most common problem I know of with them is at around 100K, oil pan gasket needs replacing. At about 160K, woman cut in front of daughter with a new Suburban. Totalled the Taurus and daughters injuries were limited to air bag deployment and seat belt. Although the Suburban only showed sheet metal and bent rear wheel, I'm sure that rear axle was damaged and frame bent too. The above car was passed to another daughter, before it was killed, and purchased a 95 Buick Regal 3.1 for wife. It was rather basic, but great on gas. About 20 locally and 28+ on highway. But this engine was famous for the Dex-Cool/blown gaskets issue. Blew upper intake shortly after we got it and it blew some gasket it seemed about 120K. Car was transferred to daughter by then, after the Taurus total. Another sad story. After Taurus settlement, wife and daughter picked up a 96 Olds Aurora from someone they called friend. BS! The car was a refugee from a junk yard. Brakes were shot. Tires, no two alike, 3 undersize one size and the 4th two sizes. Car had obvious body damage and paint job that looked like brush job in someones back yard. Interior was in terrible condition. Car was obviously not safe to drive and gave daughter the Regal and I ended up with Aurora. First time in it, the steering column broke and fell into my lap. I got it drivable in a safe condition and did a lot of work to it. Still looked terrible, but that 32V 4.0 was very peppy and not terrible on gas if you drove respectably, especially for a very heavy car! 18MPG locally, 28 highway if you kept to 60MPH. Up to about 77MPH, it was 25+MPG, but anything over that the DIC would show rapid decreases. This car is easily the best overall car I ever owned. Supreme handling, ride, roominess, comfort, braking, quiet, etc. Bose Sound too. At 100MPH, the only sound was like the air rushing around the cabin of a jet when he is throttled back. Autobahn version had minor change, required V rated tire, so you could really cruise. Since Olds went under, you had to go to Cadillac for service. Premium fuel was needed in the Aurora engine until about 2 years ago and it was famous for nit picky problems. Many caused by using non-GM parts. If I could find a clean one, I'd buy if price was right, just to have around for occasional use. 97 Sable 3.0 Wifes car and another dependable vehicle, although noisy and still lighter than earlier models. About 23MPG highway. Another weak point in this line of cars was the stabilizer bar links, not a major repair, but often going bad around 80K because the grease boots would fail past 50K. Jiffy L_be tried to sell wife a transmission fluid change, she declined. A few weeks later she had problem on highway, like it was jumping out of gear. She went to service station and sold her transmission fluid, wrong type. By time I found out she had problem, she had shlepped it to dealer and they said transmission. I assumed she sprung a leak, where else would 4 quarts go? I went to dealer, no puddle |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone been getting the advertised mileage with this combo? I noticed some wild swings on the DIC and it seems to be slow to calculate the instantaneous. I can not help but wonder if GM pulled a fast one on us. Several years back, the EPA allowed that to happen in trucks with V8. I don't remember what size engine. Of course the EPA was pushing cleaner air and one way to do that was use some alcohol. GM had not yet approved this engine for any alcohol claiming it would be corrosive to a few of the fuel related parts. These were very minor parts that might have needed plating for corrosion and would only cost a couple of dollars per vehicle. To encourage GM to get off their ass and do it, the EPA allowed them an incentive of rating the MPG something like 3MPG higher than real world figures. That was so the vehicle would be approved for 10% ethanol. And everyone knows that you get less mileage with ethanol. And that might answer the discussion of why the rating decreased around 2007. I had wondered about those changes myself, thinking maybe it was cleaner air restrictions or that they revised the test methods. But it could also be that was about the time of national roll out of all service stations moving to the 10% blend and the vehicles might have been tested with that instead of pure gas in 2007. |
|
|
I have been meaning to come back on and post my real-world mileage figures, but haven't gotten to it. To answer e net rider's question, though, I have not seen the advertised mileage with this car. I have an '09 LTZ with the 4 cyl, 6A. Currently there are approximately 15,600 miles on the odometer. The absolute best I have seen is a little over 28 mpg. My wife drove it from KC to DesMoines a while back and got about 29.5 mpg. But neither of us have broken 30. I have seen mileage around town as low as 19 mpg. In mixed driving (in-town and freeway), I usually get 22 - 23 mpg. My barber, on the other hand, has an LT2 with the same powertrain and he regularly gets 30 - 33 mpg on the road. He gets mid-twenties in mixed driving. He drives about 5 mph slower than I do, but so does my wife. One other anomaly I have noticed is that the DIC, on average, shows poorer fuel mileage than does the calculator. Sometimes it's only a fraction and sometimes its a full mpg. But the calculator shows better fuel mileage than the DIC indicates. It's a bit off-subject, but the other disappointment I have with this car is the 6A. It's always 'hunting' and the downshifts (even in manual mode) are quite slow. It's like really bad turbo-lag. Lift in mid-corner, then get back in the throttle and it hesitates. Need quick response in traffic? Forget about it. Plan ahead. I hate it. I wish I had a manual in this car. Very disappointing when you consider that GM's 4As are among the best. For those of you who would council me to consult the dealer on these issues - I have. Everything is 'normal'. (I trust my service dept., by the way.) These two issues seem to be ruining what might otherwise be a good ownership experience. On the whole, I like the car. But, when people ask what I think about it, what they usually hear is, "It's OK, but...." Now, as for my 'Vette with the 6M or any of the GM trucks I have owned (currently an '04 Avalanche) - I have nothing but good things to say about them. They do everything I've asked of them. And they generally get the mileage advertised on the Monroney - even under the old EPA testing methods. I'd like to replace the truck, as it is 5 years old, but it looks like I'll be replacing the Malibu before that happens. That's how unhappy I am with it.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Malibu Chevrolet Malibu MPG-Real World Numbers
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Chevrolet Malibu
2007 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
