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
641 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 7:41 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Feb 03, 2008 1:32 pm) The strategies concerning trade between America & Japan and US economy are responsibilities of the US President and the Congress. They get pays to do their jobs. They & GM have to perform. |
|
|
As the current owner of an '03 Maxima, I think the Malibu is a much more desireable car than the Accord or Camry. Interior: The Camry's interior is horrendously cheap. I can't believe what Toyota did to this car. Mouse fur crap everywhere, it reminded me of my 1989 Ford Escort Pony. The Accord's interior seemed solid, but the setup was bizarre to say the least. I had a visceral reaction when I sat down in the driver's seat, and it wasn't positive. The Malibu's interior was very nice. Some of the materials weren't as nice as those used in the Accord, but the presentation overall was the best of the three cars. I loved the controls and center stack in this car, everything was logically laid out and easy to reach. Exterior: I've always kind of liked the way the new Camry looks, if only they'd flatten the nose a bit it would be perfect. It doesn't really do anything for me, but at least it isn't offensive like... The new Accord is just butt ugly. The front end looks like a Sonata mated with a Volvo, and the rear end is just nasty. Ugly, ugly car. It's not boring like the older Accords, but Honda went in the wrong direction. The Japanese manufacturers seem to like ripping each other off, well, they need to look at what Nissan did with the Altima and what they're doing with the new Maxima. The Malibu's side profile is very, very good. It perpetuates the overall opinion I have of the car, which is that it looks and feels like a much more expensive vehicle. The nose is good IF the fascia is chromed-out and not black plastic, and the rear end is nice if not just a bit boring. I could easily see myself replacing my Maxima with a Malibu. The Camry is a four wheeled symptom of a company that has cut costs just a bit too much, and the Accord is made for people who are more into resale value than the cars themselves. |
|
|
Replying to: perna (Feb 18, 2008 11:41 am) Although we were impressed with the Acura TSX’s interior styling, the exterior just cannot compare to the Malibu. Furthermore, the price differential over the Malibu cannot be justified. In the car biz the name of the game is product and finally GM has the product in the Malibu to kick the butt of the Accord/Camry/Fusion, et al. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bwia (Feb 18, 2008 12:19 pm) I sat in an Aura Hybrid at the auto-show and was thoroughly disappointed with the cheap feel of everything, including the steering wheel. If the Malibu is no better than the Aura, then I'll be passing on it next time.
|
|
|
Replying to: bwia (Feb 18, 2008 12:19 pm) Even the NY Times agrees: NYT Likes Malibu |
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Feb 18, 2008 12:23 pm) Honestly, I can't comment on Malibu LS. I only drove the LTZ. I've only seen the base model Aura's interior (I wonder if we went to the same auto show, lol), and I agree it wasn't very good. I *hate* grey interiors, even on luxury cars. It makes the whole thing seem cheap. If I do buy an LTZ, I'll go with the brick and black, it looks pretty sharp, and would be a nice changeup from the all-black interior Maxima I've been driving for the past 5 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: perna (Feb 18, 2008 12:48 pm) I'm a 4-cylinder guy for the most part (sure 250+ hp is fun, but unnecessary), and wouldn't look at a Malibu with the 3.6L because of the higher cost of fuel as well as the cost of entry. I currently am very happy with my 2006 Accord EX (cloth) 4-cyl, and don't plan to change soon, but I like to keep abreast of the market should something happen to my car, that way I know right where to go test drive and what to look for. Plus, this stuff is sorta fun to me!  Take care. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: perna (Feb 18, 2008 11:41 am) Most everyone's comments on the Camry are spot-on: looks a bit like a manatee, drives like a sofa, its 4-cylinder engine was anemic compared to the Accord, and it had less interior space than the Accord. I was particularly interested in the Hybrid but got in the game too late - had I purchased my vehicle two months prior I could have gotten a decent discounted price. Gas hit $4 per gallon about the time I started shopping seriously and the hybrid feeding frenzy was on! - I was quoted $32,000 for a TCH comparable to an Accord EX-L that most dealers were selling at $24000. $8K will buy a LOT of gasoline! I also found the hybrid "light show" distracting - why can't they design hybrid cars that don't scream the fact to you? I really wanted to like the Malibu LTZ: great interior design, a new take on exterior styling, great fit and finish. However, the 4-cyl engine was also anemic compared to the Accord (even with the 6-speed tranny) and its cockpit was the tightest of the three - I had to lower my seat all the way just to have enough headroom clearance and I felt like I was sitting ON the seat bolsters rather than having them hold me in my seat. Lastly, the trunk is cavernous BUT the trunk hatch is so small that only smallish items can go in the trunk. I play bass and fashioned a cardboard box the size of my 2x10 cab - it fit easily in both the Camry and Accord but wouldn't in the Malibu, either from the back or from the front after folding down the rear seat. Since the topic didn't include the Altima, I'll just say that the 2.5SL seemed cheap compared to the other three we test-drove and the CVT's whine was a bit annoying. Nice car, but not as nice as the Malibu or Accord. As you might have guessed by now, I went with the Accord EX-L. Some don't like its looks but I personally think it's a very handsome automobile (the front end straight on in particular) and many have complimented me on its looks. Add the ivory (tan) leather interior with wood trim and it compares favorably with the Malibu's interior. The seats are more comfortable than the Malibu's and I have plenty of headroom and shoulder room. The center stack is a bit more intimidating than the Malibu's but is easy enough to understand once you get used to it. The trunk is very spacious; I can fit my entire bass rig in it with room to spare. Lastly, I have no doubts of the Honda's reliability and resale value, while GM still needs to prove themselves to me. The Honda does lack some amenities I liked in the Malibu: the rear power package, 60/40 split rear seats, and the trip computer come to mind, but these were minor items in the great scheme of things. Had you suggested two years ago that I would even consider a Malibu, I'd have laughed in your face. Today, I am impressed - if GM can keep this up AND prove to consumers that their products are of a consistently high quality, then they'll do well. In fact, in six or seven years when it's time for something new, I'll give GM another opportunity; it was very close this time - maybe the 2015 Malibu will be a winner!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: personatech (Jul 29, 2008 11:48 am) |
|
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
2010 Toyota Camry
2010 Chevrolet Malibu
2010 Honda Accord
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
