Last post on May 28, 2013 at 6:32 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu
What is this discussion about?
Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet Malibu Maxx, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Hatchback, Sedan
#434 of 471 Re: 2011 malibu ltz 2.4l, 6sp auto [oldtimerim]
Nov 04, 2011 (4:57 am)
As to your first point, it should not shift into first manually until you're almost stopped. Then it should. Mine does. That's just a safety measure to keep you from ruining your drivetrain.
As far as mileage is concerned, don't hold your breath. I heard that same story. I've never gotten the advertised mileage (22/33) - or even close. The only time I saw 30 mpg on the highway was after the car had 60K miles and I had a tailwind with solid Interstate driving. Other than that, 28 mpg has been my absolute best. In mixed suburban/freeway driving, I get 20 to 22 mpg. If I stayed in town all the time, it would be down in the teens.
This is the first GM car I've owned, that I can recall, where I did not get the mileage advertised on the Monroney sticker. I get the same mileage on my Corvette as I get with the Malibu (if I don't hot rod it too much). It's got a 5.7L V8 and a 6M.
I don't know what my next car is going to be, but it certainly won't be a Malibu. And, if my wife holds firm on wanting a 4 door, it probably won't be a Chevy - unless they come up with something to compete with the 300, Taurus or Genesis real soon. Too bad, because I've got 3 bow ties right now and I have a good relationship with my dealer.
[P.S. Christina posted her contact info earlier in this thread. You just have to go back a few pages.]
#435 of 471 Re: 2011 malibu ltz 2.4l, 6sp auto [oldtimerim]
Nov 04, 2011 (5:49 am)
>I'm new at this and not sure how to contact Chrstina with the information requested.
To find the email address, everyone's name at the beginning of their posts is a linked text. If you CLICK on their name, a page will come up with some information. One of those info pieces is an email address--if the person chose to add it. The GM people have added theirs.
You must click on the name. If you just roll over it with the mouse a flyout window will appear with a small amount of information.
#436 of 471 Re: 2011 malibu ltz 2.4l, 6sp auto [oldtimerim]
Nov 04, 2011 (6:46 am)
Iím sorry for any confusion, oldtimerim. To contact us, please click on our username and use the email address provided there.
Looking forward to working with you,
GM Customer Service
#437 of 471 "A better MPG with more miles on a car" -- the old urban legend
Nov 04, 2011 (8:40 am)
"The dealer... [said] the mileage should improve as it gets more miles on it"
Of course, what else would he say to get rid of you easier?
I am more than happy with my 2005 and 2006 Malibus, including the MPG for my Base Sedans (Maxx MPG is not great, but I love the car anyway.)
Telling everybody who wants to listen: MPG does not improve with more miles on the car. (Maybe after 100K -- did they tell you to wait that long? )
#438 of 471 Re: 2011 malibu ltz 2.4l, 6sp auto [phil53]
Nov 04, 2011 (9:08 am)
"I don't know what my next car is going to be, but it certainly won't be a Malibu... It probably won't be a Chevy"
Thank you phil53.
I've been seriously thinking about buying a Malibu of this generation before it gets shortened for 2013.
But with stories like this... and look at the posts at the Equinox forums on the I4 and V6 engine (shared with the Malibu) problems -- scary...
I think I'll stick with my Opel/Malibus of the sixth generation, thank you.
GM reps (Christina, Sarah):
I realize you have limited if any meaningful roles here (haven't seen a single case where your "offer of help" would help any car owner, but perhaps it did happen, somewhere, sometime). I'll still say this: if not for the over 3000 GM Card points I have, I would not buy another GM car (have had four so far). Not because I don't like mine (I love them) but because I've had my share of troubles with a 1999 Pontiac and don't want to live through that again (while the car was great when not in need of a repair.)
The possibility that, by some reviews, the current GM cars are not less reliable than Hondas or Toyotas doesn't mean a thing to me: you don't have the Japanese firms' reputation. You are starting from ground zero where you have put yourself more than once. Can't read owners' messages on Cadillac, Impala, Equinox and Malibu boards without shuddering. If the GM leadership still does not get it that for this company, pretty much every customer/owner loss is a much harder blow than for believed-to-be-reliable brands... well, what do I say? I say, "Goodbye GM", as others will do.
Read somewhere that there are no more American car manufacturers' dealerships in some areas of CA. Not surprised. That's your future, GM, for the whole country, with the reliability and attitude you keep showing.
Have a good day.
Nov 04, 2011 (8:01 pm)
Two potential problems with listening to people who say that don't get the advertised highway MPG on any car is that they may not know how to drive efficiently and/or they cannot do the math. While some might actually have a vehicle malfunction, I suspect that there are many who just don't know the basics.
To me, highway driving means "no city driving." I don't expect to get the advertised MPG unless on a limited access highway, do not exceed 60 mph, do not drop out of 6th gear very often, do not have a headwind, am not overloaded with people/cargo, is not frigid weather and am not traversing very hilly terrain.
I have a 2008 Saturn Aura with a 3.6 and 6 spd. It is rated as 26 HWY, I can easily get 28 to 30 most of the time and once got 36.5 with a 10 mph tailwind on the turnpike through Ohio (flat). On many occasions where I have been driving at 60 mph, I have been passed by a 4 cly Malibu (one tail pipe) that went flying by me at 75 or more. I even remarked to my wife "I bet he isn't getting 32 mpg."
Before I bought the Aura with the 3.6, I drove a new 2.4 and liked it, but my wife insisted on the 3.6 because she wanted dual exhausts (hence the comment every time a 4 cyl passes me). I took the 2.4 on a 5 mile highway loop and got 34 mpg driving 55 mph, then zero'd the computer in city traffic and drove uphill 1.5 miles and got 22 mpg in traffic.
Yes, I know that I did not gas up to verify the computer. But If you like the car and are skeptical, take the car on a test drive under both city and highway conditions, and see the MPG prior to a decision.
It is more creditible to see posts where someone writes that they checked their computer average and found it overstated MPG by 2% for example, and that they then drove X miles on level interstate in both directions at a steady 55 mph and got 25 MPG before correcting by 2%. You can also correct for the affect on the odometer due to tire circumference as well.
But, you rarely see posts like that, and it leaves you wondering about the accuracy of the poster's statements. If they do not drive efficiently or can't do the math, their posts are worthless to those who read these forumns. And it is hard to tell who has reported accurately unless they lay sufficient groundwork in their post.
#440 of 471 Re: Mileage comment [ohc6sprint]
Nov 04, 2011 (8:40 pm)
This is all very true, on posters' accuracy and attention to the detail. Some posts don't even describe the car well. Reporting MPG per DIC is plain ridiculous. Etc.
But on this I don't agree: " have been passed by a 4 cly Malibu (one tail pipe) that went flying by me at 75 or more. I even remarked to my wife "I bet he isn't getting 32 mpg."
You can find several posts I made on this forum a few years ago where I documented the MPG of my 4-cyl 2005 Bus. I was reporting getting up to 36 MPG, the car loaded, with A/C mostly on -- on several round-trips MA to TN, a 2200 miles loop. By the fuel purchased, everything measured meticulously.
So: those 36 MPG were at the speeds over 75 MPH (as you can imagine).
I have never observed the dramatic effect of exceeding 55 MPG. The MPG loss mostly happens at braking, accelerating and climbing. At a steady speed, 55 or 75 MPH, doesn't make a big difference with a well shaped modern sedan. Well, I'll admit the possibility of getting 37 MPG instead of 36 MPG, traveling over 1000 miles at 55 MPH instead of 75 MPH. Go use that if you want... not me, on the roads with the posted speed of 75 MPH: I was quite content with 3675+
#441 of 471 Re: "A better MPG with more miles on a car" -- the old urban legend [malexbu]
Nov 05, 2011 (12:20 pm)
I have to disagree. My Malibu started out getting 25.4 on first few tanks. Then 26, then 27, then 28, then 29, and now breaking 30 at 9500 miles. It was a steady progression as the first 9500 miles have been put on the car. It now gets 33 mpg even on a slight uphill on a windless day with nobody else near me on the interstate, whether I'm doing 60, 65, or 70 mph. This is according to the DIC which has matched tanks of gas mpg within .1 mpg when I compare.
I don't expect much further improvement as 30 combined is way over the Malibu combined rating of 26. My '84 Camaro peaked at 60,000 miles and my '01 Silverado mpg is still improving at 28,900 miles and 10 years old.
My top off today showed 28.2 and includes 50% interstate and 50% city. The split would be 60/40 if I hadn't gone out to lunch each day. halfway home from the gas station the DIC showed a remaining range of 505 miles.
#442 of 471 Re: 2011 malibu ltz 2.4l, 6sp auto [malexbu]
Nov 05, 2011 (6:41 pm)
Boy, Malexbu, I sure didn't mean to push you towards Honda or Toyota. I'd definitely buy another GM car over a Honda or Toyota. I find those cars a bit too boring and I do think their reputation for reliability is over-blown. The reliability of my GM vehicles has been pretty good. I've just been a bit disappointed with the fuel mileage and the operation of that specific engine and transmission combination. But I've not had problem with the reliability.
Plus, I really like the idea of 'buying American', as cliche as that may be. Yes, I know that Honda and Toyota make cars in the US, BUT - they take money out of the economy more than they put in. All their profits go back to Japan; they build in areas where they get tax abatements so they're not putting any money directly back in our economy and they pay less than the US manufacturers, so they drive down the wages of car builders everywhere and lower the standard of living. Just my humble opinion.
Furthermore, your assertion that GM does not have the reputation of Honda or Toyota shows that you are fairly young and are looking only at recent history. I would remind you that Chevrolet has been around twice as long as either of those brands and that Chevrolet was the top selling and most admired brand in the US for 52 years. I remember well when "Made in Japan" meant it was junk. Chevrolet is a cultural icon. You don't hear songs about Hondas or Toyotas. ("See the USA in your Chevrolet"; "Drove my Chevy to the levy"; ".. in the backseat of my '60 Chevy"; etc, etc.) I think GM is making a major come-back and deserves to be considered side-by-side with their Japanese competitors.
I'll get off my soap-box now....
#443 of 471 Re: "A better MPG with more miles on a car" -- the old urban legend [dave8697]
Nov 05, 2011 (6:28 pm)
On your first tanks' MPG improvement: any chance that the weather was getting warmer? When did you buy your car, and what Malibu is it? (Perhaps you've posted it before, but it's probably easier for you to repeat than for me to search over the old posts...) Also, any chance you've been changing your way of driving, adjusting to the car as you drove it more?
And I have to add that I wouldn't claim that the MPG doesn't improve over the break-in period, which is 600 miles for Malibu. It may or may not, but I am not saying anything about it. But I wouldn't expect that a Malibu with 3K miles will be getting a consistently better MPG when it is at 6 or 20K, all things being equal, which includes the weather and driving conditions and patterns.