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 vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord
488 messages, Last post on Aug 30, 2008 at 9:30 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: malexbu (Mar 07, 2007 5:11 pm) You seemed to argue that the post-2004 Malibu has had few or no issues. In my opinion, your argument is misleading. Since we're now in 2007, most of the post-2004 Malibu's have not passed the 3-year bumper-to-bumper warranty yet. When there is an issue, the owner usually can get it fixed for free, and so the owner tends to be quiet about it. Besides, one's ego is also at play here. Americans tend to be or try to be confident, and sometimes they don't want their friends to think that they made a wrong choice and bought a wrong vehicle. Based on my experience, the Malibu is like a timed bomb. As soon as the bumper-to-bumper warranty expires, the health of the car will deteriorate drastically. That was exactly the case with my 2001 Malibu. When I complained to a Chevy dealership about having to make frequent repair visits, a service rep at the dealership joked that they loved to see me come in for service (because my repair visits generated a lot of revenue for the dealership). Ironically, a dealership can earn a lot more money simply by selling you a crappy vehicle, because later you will have to pay thousands of dollars to the dealership for repairing the vehicle. For those daring people who are going to buy a Chevy Malibu, I highly recommend that you consider buying an extended warranty which will surely be a good investment. You may or may not need an extended warranty for a Toyota, but you definitely need one for a Chevy Malibu based on my experience.
|
|
|
Replying to: bateejeff (Mar 07, 2007 8:53 pm) | | You seemed to argue that the post-2004 Malibu has had few or no | issues. Yup, I am ready to say I am arguing the former: few issues. | In my opinion, your argument is misleading. In what sense? I am not saying the Malibu-2005 will not have many issues in the year 2010. I don't know. Do you? I am saying it has few issues now. (Actually, I don't know what issues it has, class-wise.) Is this not true? Are you ready to say that you are claiming the opposite: that Malibu 2004+ has many issues now? If so, what would they be? If so, what would be your source of information? | Since we're now in 2007, most of the post-2004 Malibu's have not | passed the 3-year bumper-to-bumper warranty yet. I don't know about "most" but many did: the warranty expires at 3-years or 36,000 miles. It seems to me that more people cross 36K miles before they cross 3 years. (Mark this as my speculation.) | When there is an issue, the owner usually can get it fixed for free, | and so the owner tends to be quiet about it. Oh, come on, nobody enjoys going even for warranty repairs. People are not quiet about their bad experience -- look at the Maxx boards, e.g. | Besides, one's ego is also at play here. Americans tend to be or try | to be confident, and sometimes they don't want their friends to | think that they made a wrong choice and bought a wrong vehicle. True. And this applies to other cars, too. | Based on my experience, the Malibu You don't have experience with this car, do you? *The* Malibu, *this* Malibu, not *that* Malibu? | is like a timed bomb. As soon as the bumper-to-bumper warranty | expires, the health of the car will deteriorate drastically. That | was exactly the case with my 2001 Malibu. Well, I don't have experience with that Malibu -- I can't comment on it.
|
|
|
Replying to: bateejeff (Mar 07, 2007 8:53 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: malexbu (Mar 07, 2007 5:11 pm) Don't get me wrong. the current Malibu is a nice car. If you are looking for basic transportation, you'll be happy. After that experience with the 2001 malibu and my current 2000 Olds Intrigue, I need to stay away from GM for a while. |
|
| I was surprised to see "Malibu vs. Camry." To me, there shouldn't even be a comparisson. But thats just my pinion. | |
|
Replying to: malexbu (Mar 07, 2007 10:00 pm) the malibu is NOT $7,000 less than a comparable Camcord. more like $2,000. Now, referring to malexbu's circular, annoying post. Clearly, no one has experienced massive troubles with a 2004+ malibu. it's been three years. THAT IS WHY we look at 2001 malibu's. Because the same company is making it, and even if the underpinnings and 80% of the engineering changes, the best you can do is judge the new car's future maintenance based on the previous generation's maintenance. so comments like "Well, I don't have experience with that Malibu -- I can't comment on it." are asinine and pointless. It's like 99% of malibu's breaking down, and you saying "well i know one guy who's malibu didn't break down, so I think the malibu is A-OK". Look, here's what it comes down to. If you want to "Buy American" (despite Honda/Toyota factories in the US, etc) then fine, buy a Malibu. But if you're looking for the best car for the money, you'd be MUCH MUCH MUCH better off buying an accord/camry in terms of quality, Quality, QUALITY, consistency, resale value, performance, engineering THOUGHT, and basically everything. Spend the extra $2,000, and you'll recoup $4,000 in 6 years.
|
|
|
Replying to: saleem (Mar 09, 2007 8:52 pm) could have just skipped it, it's not that anybody forced you to read on. But anyway, sorry for annoying you (and anybody else). I actually said what I had to say and hope that somebody finds it useful. With this said, I can switch back to lurking -- enjoy the quiet, buddy!
|
|
|
Replying to: malexbu (Mar 09, 2007 9:43 pm) I just find it unfair that you say we cant judge the current Malibu's based on previous Malibus made by the same company. How else to predict future maintenance issues, than the previous track record? The repeated opinion in C&D and other magazines has lauded accords/camrys in different ways (reliability, initial quality and finish, etc for both-- praise for accord's sportier nature, camry's softer ride), while the malibu hasn't done as well. so the only way i can see it being logical to buy the malibu is if you're saving at least like $6,000 under a comparable camcord. otherwise, you'll end up paying (if you sell in the short term) in depreciation difference, or (in the long term) depreciation and maintenance. plus, the INITIAL quality doesn't seem to match the camcords. IDK, just my opinion. Clearly, each option's merits sways if you start saying 'i want an american car'. that's a different debate where the camcords are at an inherent disadvantage. |
|
I don't really see why most people would buy the Malibu over the Impala... the Impala is actually selling better than the current Malibu, and for only a bit more you get a nicer car with more room. I don't think the currently Malibu is anything much more than a ho hum car in just about every way ie. boring... at least the Impala is a much better looker.
|
|
|
Replying to: neteng101 (Mar 10, 2007 4:40 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Chevrolet Malibu Chevrolet Malibu vs. Toyota Camry vs. Honda Accord
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Toyota Camry
2009 Chevrolet Malibu
2009 Honda Accord
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
