Last post on Mar 07, 2011 at 3:52 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Camry, Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#125 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [malexbu]
Mar 21, 2007 (6:40 pm)
If I'd have based my main need on handling and power I would've bought an Altima. Gotta love the feel of those cars! I'm not really into street racing anymore and didnt buy the Malibu for the 1/4 mile track. Words like "huffs and puffs", "all in the next county before a Malibu driver can even realize what's happening", "may 'feel' quick initially", "antiquated and slow (and noisy)", dont come to mind when I step on the throttle and I feel the solid pull of acceleration. The passing and taking off power of the Malibu is more than adequate for most driver's needs and downright scary for some I'd bet.
And now, some numbers!
These were the closest I could find on a quick search.
1st number is 0-60, 2nd is 1/4 mile time.
2005 Nissan Altima Se-R 6.1/14.8
2004 Honda Accord EX Sedan V-6 5-Speed 7.0/15.5
1998 Toyota Camry LE V-6 (auto) 7.8/15.9
2004 Chevrolet Malibu 7.8/15.9
2001 Honda Accord LX V-6 8.3/16.6
A good 0-60 and 1/4 mile time depends on many factors such as transmission type, tires, type of surface, driver skill, etc. so I take those with a grain of salt. The most accurate numbers come from owners making their own 1/4 mile run.
The Pontiac G6 is the twin of the Chevrolet Malibu and here's some actual 1/4 mile numbers posted by the G6Performance members who made them:
G6 - 3900 Engine
1 ) 14.679 95.65 - G6GTPV6HO
2 ) 14.900 94.39 - Doctor Kyle
3 ) 14.930 93.57 - ByGeSg6GTP
4 ) 14.993 94.62 - CoupeOfG6
5 ) 15.099 91.88 - Skotbb
G6 - 3500 (1st gen) Models
1) 15.951 85.10 - reubenk
I tried to find some current numbers on the 3 cars....
Honda Accord 2003-2006
ohc V6 3.0l/183cu 240HP/212ft-lb
MPG - 5-speed automatic: 21city/30highway
ohv V6 3.5l/213cu 200hp/220ft-lb
MPG - 4-speed automatic: 23city/32highway
dohc V6 3.0/183 192hp/209ft-lb
MPG - 4-speed automatic: 20city/27highway
dohc V6 3.3/202 225hp/222ft-lb
5-speed automatic: 20city/29highway
Some fun stuff:
#126 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [shadow5599]
Mar 21, 2007 (6:44 pm)
I'm confused why we're using numbers from old cars here? Is your Malibu the older one (200 hp)? That would explain that you are comparing the market from when you bought yours, I'm guessing?
The Malibu and Accord have had power bumps, and the Camry and Altima are both around 270 hp now.
#127 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [shadow5599]
Mar 21, 2007 (6:59 pm)
0-60 and 1/4 mile times are not really important to me at this point in life (44 years old). When I was 20 or so years old, I had a Chevelle Malibu (yes, a Malibu) with a souped up 327 engine swapped in it, that was a lot of fun racing with on weekends. The reason I wanted the V6 for my Accord was for quick passing, and merging into fast moving traffic (50mph - 80mph type acceleration). I have never had the need to go full throttle from a stop sign or red light. Even if I need to get ahead of the guy in the other lane, at a red light, full throttle is usually not necessary. Midsize family cars are not drag racing material.
#128 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [thegraduate]
Mar 21, 2007 (7:43 pm)
Yes mine is an older one, 2005. And the numbers were all I found on one particular site.
#129 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [shadow5599]
Mar 21, 2007 (8:39 pm)
Ok. I typically pull all of my numbers from either Motor Trend or Car and Driver since I know they test cars in the same way. They have had the Accord V6 Automatic at 6.6sec consistently since 2003. They also had quicker numbers for the Malibu as well (7.6 sounds right from a 2004 test? I'll have to doublecheck).
I was just trying to figure things out. That clears things up.
#130 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [thegraduate]
Mar 22, 2007 (10:16 am)
I dont take any of those numbers as iron clad. How can they be, there's way too many variables even if they say they're all tested the same way. In order for that to be true, it'd have to be the same driver, the same day, same weather, same time of day, same tank of fuel (and level)...etc..etc. All these numbers do is give a ballpark number for consumers to chew on. I think it's pretty safe to say, add "ish" after any of those numbers.
As far as a possible reason for using old numbers, I think comparisons should take place within the same generation of this class from the respective manufacturer. I believe the present Camry & Accord are into a new generation as compared to the Malibu current generation which is 2004-2007.
The 2008 model will bring in the new Malibu generation.
#131 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [shadow5599]
Mar 22, 2007 (10:42 am)
I'll make it easy for you............Resale!!!!!!!!!
#132 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [blufz1]
Mar 22, 2007 (12:17 pm)
Not sure what you are making easy but I'll gladly make the same easy for you: purchase price and insurance costs. (!!!!)
#133 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [shadow5599]
Mar 22, 2007 (1:09 pm)
The 2004 test I referenced had 6.5 or 6.6 sec for the Accord and 7.6 sec for the Malibu. Same day, same testers. It also tested the Mitsubishi Galant and the Camry I think.
shadow5599 said...:I dont take any of those numbers as iron clad. How can they be, there's way too many variables even if they say they're all tested the same way. In order for that to be true, it'd have to be the same driver, the same day, same weather, same time of day, same tank of fuel (and level)...etc
There are still variables, but the comparison tests are generally more reliable sources to get an idea of at least "relative" performance figures.
#134 of 804 Re: 0-60 and hp [shadow5599]
Mar 22, 2007 (1:11 pm)
I believe the present Camry & Accord are into a new generation as compared to the Malibu current generation which is 2004-2007.
If your debut time for the Malibu is correct (2004), then the Accord is older than the Malibu, making it more than a fair fight for Chevy.