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
#39 of 804 Re: I've had both [malexbu]
Mar 09, 2007 (7:52 pm)
this argument is ridiculous and pointless.
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.
#40 of 804 Re: I've had both [saleem]
Mar 09, 2007 (8:43 pm)
Not quite a civil reaction, saleem -- if my post was annoying you, you
could have just skipped it, it's not that anybody forced you to read
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
#41 of 804 Re: I've had both [malexbu]
Mar 10, 2007 (12:39 pm)
Nah, the point of these forums are discussion. Sorry my post was less than completely civil.
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.
#42 of 804 Malibu - Why Not Impala?
Mar 10, 2007 (3:40 pm)
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.
#43 of 804 Re: Malibu - Why Not Impala? [neteng101]
Mar 11, 2007 (1:06 pm)
The Impala may be better looking but imho it's a cruder car than the 'Bu. Less sophisticated suspension-- although maybe less troubleprone (having just paid $800+ for a steering column). I also think the 'Bu (at least the Maxx) is more comfortable. Then again, more people are buying the Impalas. Interesting to see what the new RWD Impala will be like. I like the looks of the G8 a lot, although I think the Malibu is the superior (but uglier) car compared with the G6.
#44 of 804 Re: Malibu - Why Not Impala? [csandste]
Mar 12, 2007 (7:50 am)
Wow, this has really taken off since I saw it last! I posted way back there, on page 1. I just want to restate that in 30 years of car buying I've bought only North American vehicles and my cost of ownership is very low. I'd put that up against anyone's.
A point was made that comparing a former generation to a current one is valid, I disagree. Shall we base Honda on those 1st Civics? Talk about junk, that thing was the ultimate. How about the Pony? Obviously both those companies have come a long way and GM, Ford and Chrysler have all had their exceptional vehicles, now and in the past.
I bought my current Malibu based on safety (in the top 6), cost ($16k Canadian $$ for a 1 yr old car with 16,000 kms). I take advantage of 1st yr depreciation and have always come out ahead. I couldnt even buy a 4 yr old Honda for that price. Yes, that will bring up the argument about low depreciation, which is true but the Hondas I tried for that price could not compare to the 05 Malibu in value, safety and features.
I tend to keep my vehicles a long time and still have my 82 GMC van with almost 300,000 kms on it and have never done anything major to it. That goes for all the vehicles I've owned, never anything major went wrong unless it was caused by abuse. If you buy a decent car to begin with, dont abuse it and take care of it, chances are you will do fine.
My 05 Malibu is a solid, safe, comfortable, fun car and nothing out there can compare when you factor in cost of ownership over period of several years. So far I've been given no reason to change my cost effective buying habits.
And I have the peace of mind knowing my money is staying on this continent. Yes, the imports "build" cars here but where do the big profits go? They dont stay here.
I know that car buying is a personal preference but it's not fair and very closed minded to think that anyone who buys North American is ill informed and stupid. It'd be interesting to hear some other cost of ownership numbers.
#45 of 804 Re: Malibu - Why Not Impala? [shadow5599]
Mar 12, 2007 (2:55 pm)
Ok, I bought my 92 EX Accord in Sep.91 for $17,000. Drove it for 12 years, and accumulated 140k miles. Sold it in Nov. 03 for $5,000. That's $1,000 per year. Spent less than $1,000 on repairs in that time. Yes, you can pay less per year, but not for the same quality.
#46 of 804 Re: Malibu - Why Not Impala? [elroy5]
Mar 12, 2007 (7:08 pm)
The van I mentioned above, which was great quality and served our traveling needs perfectly was purchased 13 years ago for $3000. We put 120,000 kms on it, and maybe $1000 in repairs and I sold it today for $600 to someone who is going to use it as a work vehicle around town. It had 280,000 kms when sold and the motor sounds smooth as silk.
As far as quality only belonging to imports, that statement is growing tiresome. It's not like my Malibu is uncomfortable, leaky, no heat, no a/c, rocks for seats, burns oil, smells, breaks down, etc. It is good quality and losing more $$ per year buying imports because of perceived quality isnt worth it to me. In my situation if I'd have bought Hondas all these years, I'd have lost alot more money on vehicles. I like spending money on far better things than cars.
How about a 72 Duster with a 225 slant 6. One of the most reliable engines ever built. Nobody in their right mind would trade for a Honda of that decade. It was bought in 1982 with 20,000 miles on it and looked like new. Paid $2500. I put 100,000 on it and sold it in 1994 for $500 since it had a case of the rusties quite bad. Otherwise it was running perfect, as usual. I dont recall doing anything to it except tires and a battery but I'll add $500 to be sure.
2003 Malibu bought in 2004 for $13,000
Was involved in a total loss accident 2 years later in 2006.
Insurance payout was $12,500
$0 repair costs.
So for the van that comes to $261/year
The Duster comes to $208/year
The Malibu comes to $250/year
Oh I've made mistakes as well, such as buying a brand new Tempo in 1985. Yikes! But in it's defense, it was very reliable in the 4 years I owned it. Not one thing went wrong with it. It's cost was over $1000 per year to own.
Mar 12, 2007 (9:17 pm)
We are comparing two different things here, guys. People that buy new cars will obviously have a higher cost of ownership (due to depreciation, especially with American's quicker drop) than those buying used. It is the reason Dave Ramsey buys used - it is money smart!
It proves very VERY little about the cars though.
Tempo, Duster, Van, American vs Japanese, Impala...None of these help further the conversation much for people clicking this thread expecting to see discussion about Accords, Camrys, and Malibus. Just a thought...
#48 of 804 Re: Apples/Oranges [thegraduate]
Mar 13, 2007 (5:25 am)
Very good point, it has got a bit off topic. I think that was due to the talk of value and quality. Perhaps some of this should be discussed in a different thread....smart car buying for the cheapo in all of us.
As far as the comparison goes, I was reading the customer reviews on the Camry and there is the usual whining. The same as you see for most vehicles. I think the Malibu is good competition for the Camry. Most of what people say is simply opinion anyway. You have to drive and compare prices and deals to really decide. If you keep cars long term, depreciation becomes less important and more comparable.
There is a definite lack of customer complaints on the new generation of Malibu. Being an owner of both generations, I have to say that the new generation is way ahead of the last.