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
643 messages, Last post on Nov 29, 2009 at 6:32 AM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: wayne52 (Jul 05, 2009 7:57 pm) There's a blue-oval and a slanted H making some big strides too that I'm not sure Honda or Toyota see coming as well...
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Jul 05, 2009 8:12 pm) I see myself getting an EX-L V6 Accord, or a VW product.
|
|
|
Replying to: bvdj84 (Jul 06, 2009 4:05 am) I purchased a 2009 Malibu LT2 V-6 in May as a commuter car. I am extremely impressed with the vehicle and I genuinely enjoy driving it. After incentives, the Malibu sold for just over $21k plus tax and tags. I comparison shopped the Accord and Passat. For the price of a base model, stripped down 176 hp 4-cyl accord, this Malibu has: - Very smooth and quick V-6 and 6-spd automatic - 18" wheels - 2 yrs free Satellite radio - 2 yrs free OnStar - Bluetooth connection and an outstanding stereo - 100,000 mile power train warranty - 2 years free maintenance along with a list of other features and benefits. The Malibu is very quiet, comfortable, has optimal suspension tuning, and handles very well. It's also built on the European Opel designed Epsilon platform designed to appeal to drivers in europe and be competitive in North America. The Accord is NOT competitive in this price range (ignoring the fact that the accord is a full-size vehicle and the Malibu is mid-size.) The 4 cylinder's passing power is laughable. The engine is noisy. Honda's brakes vibrate during hard stopping as a rule. I would have to pay 8 grand more to get satellite, V-6, sport wheels, and 6 speed transmission in an Accord. The Passat also is much more expensive and doesn't come close to being as quick, smooth, quiet, or feature packed as the Malibu. Too many people are willing to let marketing tell them what to think because they're too lazy to do their homework. The perception is that Honda and Toyota can't make a dud and GM can't make a winner. So no one believes it when Honda and Toyota produce an over-priced, mediocre vehicle. And people who don't do their homework don't believe GM can produce a reliable, competitive, feature packed vehicle. The other thing that most people ignore is the fact that GM has a legitimate halo brand in Cadillac (BMW's M division has the same "halo" effect for the BMW brand.) GM invested heavily in technology and engineering that allows the CTS to outperform a BMW M5 and Jaguar XFR for $30,000 less. Cadillac technology, suspension performance tuning, engine designs, and vehicle engineering are trickling down into its other brands. (That's how OnStar ended up in a Chevy, for example.) Since I stroked a check and paid cash for that Malibu, I'm glad I did my homework instead of letting market perception do my thinking for me. Otherwise, I would have paid several thousand dollars too much for an Accord that just is not a better vehicle. An endorsement like this from hard-core BMW enthusiast (extensive track time, road rallies, visits to factories on 2 continents, etc) should count for something.
|
|
|
Replying to: bvdj84 (Jul 05, 2009 3:59 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: anon3 (Jul 10, 2009 6:18 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: butch100 (Jul 10, 2009 8:56 pm) I came from an 06 Accord, it seemed like it had more power than the car I have now!. Differences in horsepower are minimal. So, it might be the better transmission, more torque.. I am not sure. But, I know my Accord didn't sound rough or questionable either when passing. Or have a horrible transmission. I had to watch my speed more in the Accord. Oops! I am doing 80! I haven't had that issue in my car now. I would still rather have an Accord or Passat way before a Malibu, but that is just me though. I am not taking that kind of risk, and I wouldn't even be driving a GM.. long story. Not something I would pick. That doesn't make it wrong for anyone else though. So drive what you like and want. Why is it when I tell people my GM car has already had problems, such as a new catylic converter...etc. they are not surprised. They tell me, Get out! Now! |
|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Jul 10, 2009 9:14 pm) For example, I checked the values on 5 year old Malibu, Passat, and Accord models with 60,000 miles that would have sold for the same prices new. The Passat and Accord trade in values are about $2,000 higher than the Malibu (the old crappy Malibu model). If your criterion for selecting a car is future value, then you'd better get a new calculator and take Accounting 101. It is NOT a good investment to pay several thousand dollars more today for a comparably equipped vehicle in order to gain $2k additional value five years in the future. That $2k future value is worth about $1,600 today when discounted at the rate of inflation. So if the Malibu is priced at least $1,601 less than the Accord, it's the better value (under equal assumptions.) The single most significant variable in how a vehicle will "feel, sound, act" in 5 years is maintenance, driving style, and care of the vehicle. Those depend entirely on the owner. It's more likely that a vehicle will be well maintained in the long term when repairs are free under the Malibu's 100,000 mile warranty compared to the 36,000 mile warranty on the Accord. So financial analysis tips further away from the Accord when the vehicle costs thousands less at purchase and you factor in the reduced costs associated with the Malibu's free maintenance for two years, 100k warranty, trade-in value guarantees, and an entire package of extended services. This is called Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), which ultimately measures the cost of one vehicle against another. Also, Elroy5, you don't have a the slightest clue how the current Malibu will "feel, sound, act" in five or ten years. No one does. It's a completely new vehicle. The belief that GM's investments in vehicle engineering can't produce improvements and that only Japanese companies can follow quality engineering practices is just stupid. You're basically saying that American companies are inherently inferior and can only decline. I challenge you to support that claim. Directly to the right of this posting are owner surveys that rate the 2009 Malibu higher than the Accord. So, apparently, the Malibu is less expensive and better rated according to people who own them.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: anon3 (Jul 11, 2009 5:53 am) Exactly right. Nice post. And right on about real cost of ownership. Why do so many Honda owners end up with an extended warranty if the cars don't need it? I won't even talk about the attitude of the nearest Toyota dealership and their salesmen. I recall years ago stopping at the Acura dealership in scuff clothes and being treated like I was a car buyer (I did mention that my neighbor owned three), a total contrast to the Toyota Attitude. The fantasy evaluations of futures on cars are a result of people's past biases. That's understandable. But to imply that the Malibu won't be as good as a this or a that auto in 5 years is impossible to determine. With all the troubles with VCM and Honda's transmissions of the past and current, making that kind of prediction is clearly a personal opinion. In the previous Malibu line, the cars were not directly competing against most Accords for buyers. I felt that Chev had done, with the cost problems of UAW and legacy cots, was to build a car in between the Civic and Accord--same for Corolla/Camry. The comparisons can go on and on, but they are meaningless. I possibly will buy another car in a few months and will drive used versions of the previous Malibu and the current new Malibu, along with other cars. I could follow the lead of others and base my opinion of Accords on the last ones I test drove in 2003, brutal suspension and noisy ride that would please only a high school/college student, road wander, popping when twisted in driveway to dealer, and other negatives, but I'll be open minded and drive an Accord. I'll also look at the LaCrosse, a midsizer. One thing that has to change is judging cars based on the past a whole decade or two ago. GM is a new company, although not rid of high cost UAW labor due to political powers in DC, maybe they'll be able to use part time labor as do other companies..
|
|
|
Replying to: anon3 (Jul 11, 2009 5:53 am) |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 11, 2009 7:27 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
