- #482 of 643
-
Re: First American car in 21 years [jakeinswitz]
by bvdj84
-
Aug 18, 2008 (6:56 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: jakeinswitz (Aug 18, 2008 12:13 am)
Yes, I went to the dealer yesterday, while no one was there, I closely looked at the Malibu, and I am really impressed with it! The overall design is very classy, and makes you wonder why they are just now taking design seriously. I truly love the interior as well, the leather with the suede inserts are very nice. I am not sure it looks any more upscale than the Accord, rather the malibu just really worked more on interior details that pertain to the look of it. The Accord has a very nice interior, its just they didn't go crazy on the colors, suede inserts. The cost of the Malibu is quite good as well. You seem to get a lot for the money. But, would I buy one? If I did not love Honda and VW so much, I would. GM is going in the right direction with the Malibu, now if they can downsize some of its lower quality units, they could, perhaps have a set of really nice cars.
|
- #483 of 643
-
Re: First American car in 21 years
by malmouza
-
Aug 20, 2008 (9:33 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bvdj84 (Aug 18, 2008 6:56 am)
I agree with the lot of comments that have been said about the Malibu and the Accord. But there is one place that people they need to understand, manufacturer will never please all people by the exterior design they choose for a specific model, I read a lot of comments about the 08 accord exterior design, some of it good some of it bad. I am one of those people that like the new design, the back of the car is like the BMW 525i, the front there is no similarity with the Sonata like heard before. My only negative comment about the 08 Accord is the manufacturer made the car so big that it did kill the gas mileage and diminishes some of the crisp handling it use to have, I am not saying it does not handle well now, but there is a little over steering and under steering and some body roll in turns compare to the previous generation. Honda should have shortened the car by 1” compare to the 2007 Accord instead of enlarging it. That would have lead to an amazing handling and good fuel economy in the range of 34 MPG. Whoever wants more space than a regular sedan he need to go check out a minivan or CUV. But as far as the design is concern, at first I did not warm up to it, but after couple days I can see the aggressive front fascia, and the smooth rounded rear deck of improve aerodynamic, that is why the Accord has 0.31 cd. This is the lowest in the industry for a large sedan. Again, Honda approach is trying to please its old customers (baby boomers) that they are over 50 of age now; but in the process lost younger people that they are looking for sport/spacious/practical/economic transportation. Honda always considered US market as filled with fat people that likes big cars more powerful engines to race on street. They were wrong this time and that is why they are not meeting the sells numbers they predicted for the Accord. Now, they cannot change the size of the Accord after one year in the market, what they are trying to do, is to put diesel engine in the Accord, and since they already selling the accord in Europe (TSX) with the same engine, it won’t cost them a lot to just slap the newly developed by Honda catalytic converter in the new Accord and it will pass the emission in the 50 states. Very smart thing to do, isn’t it? The diesel get a good gas mileage but here in USA the diesel is $1 more than the gasoline, and by crunching the numbers I do not think the diesel will help that much….
|
- #484 of 643
-
Re: First American car in 21 years [malmouza]
by ctl
-
Aug 29, 2008 (3:29 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: malmouza (Aug 20, 2008 9:33 am)
Not a big deal, but that CD is nowhere close to the lowest. e.g., Accord 0.31, Altima 0.31, Camry 0.28, Camry Hybrid 0.27.
CD basically has nothing to do with how large (length) the car is too. 2008 Benz S-class has it at 0.26 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients
I can see the aggressive front fascia, and the smooth rounded rear deck of improve aerodynamic, that is why the Accord has 0.31 cd. This is the lowest in the industry for a large sedan
|
- #485 of 643
-
Re: My take. [personatech]
by ctl
-
Aug 29, 2008 (3:40 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: personatech (Jul 29, 2008 11:48 am)
Another funny thing. I agree with the comment below. But if you read consumer report, that great 2008 Accord I-4 engine drives slower (0-60) than both Altima and Camry (yes, that slow camry) and has worse average MPG (-3, -2) too. I guess a sporty handling together with louder road/engine noise make it feel faster? I was just surprised when I read that, from other sources too.
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
|
- #486 of 643
-
Accord vs. Malibu
by csr67
-
Aug 29, 2008 (6:47 pm)
-
|
Being a frequent business traveler, I've had multiple opportunities to drive the new Malibu from rental fleets. All the Malibu's I've driven are the v6 LTZ trim. At first I was quite impressed on the overall car, being that it is made by GM. After driving a few, I started seeing the same old GM pattern, especially on rentals that had over 10k miles... Worn interior plastics, squeeks, rattles emerged on several of them. Overall, the Malibu did not hold up well and quickly lost its' luster in my eyes.
I took delivery of a new 2008 Accord v6 EXL Sedan last week. Loaded with everything but Nav., it was actually a little cheaper than I could have bought a Malibu LTZ using my GM vendor pricing and incentives. Hands down, the Accord beats the Malibu at everything. Much better interior quality, ride, and power delivery.
|
- #487 of 643
-
Re: Accord vs. Malibu [csr67]
by bvdj84
-
Aug 30, 2008 (6:49 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: csr67 (Aug 29, 2008 6:47 pm)
Yes, though the new Malibu is a good step in the right direction, I really like it! But, the Accord takes all of that a step further. The engine in the Accord is much better as well. Though you see they have recycled many parts from other models in there line up. Just look and you will see them, but that is not saying that is bad, it is just showing nothing new. Just look at the interior of the Malibu and you will see it took many parts from the Pontiac G6, like seating, switches. That is okay, but I feel when I look at GM across the board, you have all these cars that are all basically the same, but with a different name. Its almost getting way out of hand with their duplicate cars. GM is making a better, quality products now, but when compared head to head with Accord, the Accord seems to offer a well rounded product, that simply takes it much further than the Malibu. And, the Accord cannot be found on some rental lot.
IF GM downsizes to smaller line up, and ditch the duplicate named cars, than perhaps money could be used to create a better product. Creating a better 4cyl engine!! Using better parts within the car.
With this said, the Malibu is nice, I really like it! The Accord Wins with its overall value and attention to detail.
|
- #488 of 643
-
Re: None of the above [jerrywimer]
by butch100
-
Aug 30, 2008 (8:30 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: jerrywimer (Feb 11, 2008 7:03 am)
I own an '05 'Bu w/3.5 and it gets awesome gas mileage but you can't realistically expect the newer 3.6 to come close to the older 3.5's. The reason is the newer 3.6 is a multi-valve dual OHC design, so it breathes better and generates more HP. Chevy did this to make the new 'Bu competitive with the Accord/Altima/Camry and succeeded as the new 'Bu is more than a match for all, but you can't get extra power without burning more fuel so there is somewhat of a trade off involved. The 3.5 pushrod is not offered in the newer (08 and up) 'Bu's..
|
- #489 of 643
-
malibu vs accord 4cyl engines.
by bvdj84
-
Sep 08, 2008 (12:31 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: butch100 (Aug 30, 2008 8:30 am)
I would like anyone to share, the differences in the new malibu 4cyl engine, and the Accord 4cyl engine. For those that have driven both. I would like to hear what people feel the differences are, including power, refinement, quality.
Thanks.
|
- #490 of 643
-
After 3 months of shopping..
by vanman1
-
Sep 25, 2008 (6:28 pm)
-
|
I ended up with a 2008 Malibu 2LT with performance package that includes the 3.6L and 6-speed auto. I never had any intention of buying a Malibu but I was shocked after 2 tests as to how much I liked it. The interior is beautiful and unique features like XM Radio, OnStar and remote start made it stand out even more. I also couldn't believe how fast it was and how smooth the transmission shifts, smoother than any other car I drove.
There are a lot of good midsize sedans out there but no one shopping should skip over the new Malibu. The other great thing at least around my area, there aren't many around yet so I actually get some stares. Nice!
|
- #491 of 643
-
Re: malibu vs accord 4cyl engines. [bvdj84]
by vanman1
-
Sep 25, 2008 (6:33 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bvdj84 (Sep 08, 2008 12:31 pm)
I have only tried an 09 Malibu with a 6-speed auto. The Malibu is very quiet and the engine is quite isolated so I am not sure if it's worse than a Honda like some people have mentioned. I found it to be comparable and the transmission to be smooth.
Try them yourself back to back if you can. I don't think you will go wrong with either.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
