Last post on Mar 07, 2011 at 4:52 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Camry, Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, Car Comparisons, Sedan
#582 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [wayne52]
Jul 05, 2009 (9:12 pm)
To sum up your post (I think), GM = making great strides, Honyota = marking time at best. I agree completely. I don't personally feel that the Accord got any better with the current generation over the previous one. The problem for GM there is/was that the Malibu was easily a couple of generations behind quality-wise, so even though it improved drastically from 2007 to 2008 and Honda did not, Honda still holds the edge simply because of how far ahead they had stayed over the years, and really didn't trail-off (each gen had a couple of issues, but never had that "falling apart" feeling that the last G6 I drove had). Now, Chevy's overcoming that, and I'm glad. Competition is great for customers. I drive a 2006 Accord, but feel confident if my car was totaled tomorrow, it wouldn't be replaced with a 2009 Accord.
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...
#583 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [thegraduate]
Jul 06, 2009 (5:05 am)
Nice post. Other company's are catching up.
I see myself getting an EX-L V6 Accord, or a VW product.
#584 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [bvdj84]
Jul 10, 2009 (7:18 pm)
Here's a perspective from a long-time BMW driver (I'm now driving my 14th BMW and have owned every model that they've produced since the early 1990s.)
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.
#585 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [bvdj84]
Jul 10, 2009 (9:56 pm)
I've driven he Accord 4 cyl and found it "boring" as well, let's face it a 4 banger w/auto is not gonna generate "excitement" no matter who makes it. that's why they offer a V6 as well, get it?. And I doubt the honda 4 will "blow the doors" off a GM 4, they are within 5 HP of one another and the Malibu is a lighter car. Lemme guess, Honda HP is less "moody" and more "exciting" than GM HP??.
#586 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [anon3]
Jul 10, 2009 (10:14 pm)
Tell me you are still satisfied with your Malibu after 5 years and 65k miles, then maybe I'll believe the Malibu is really different from it's ancestors. When a Malibu hits the 5 year mark, it will feel, sound, and act older than a 10 year old Accord, from my experience, and the resale value will be so low you may as well just give it away. That's the short quality life-span of a GM car.
#587 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [butch100]
Jul 11, 2009 (6:12 am)
I never said the 4cyl in the Accord was completely exciting, but it certainly has more power or it seems like it does more so than the 4cyl found in the Malibu, G6, Aura.
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!
#588 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [elroy5]
Jul 11, 2009 (6:53 am)
Resale value after five years? It's funny how the picture changes if you actually check your facts, do a little math, and apply some financial analysis. You are the perfect example of my previous statement about how too many car buyers let market perception do their thinking for them instead of doing their homework to make an informed decision.
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.
#589 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [anon3]
Jul 11, 2009 (8:27 am)
> Elroy5, you don't have a the slightest clue how the current Malibu will "feel, sound, act"
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..
#590 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [anon3]
Jul 11, 2009 (8:36 am)
I am sure the H & P costs the people at least $2K more to start too plus I also bet if there is problems out of warranty it will be a whole lot cheaper to fix the Malibu than the others.
#591 of 804 Re: bvdj84 [imidazol97]
Jul 11, 2009 (9:09 am)
Every time a new Malibu model comes out, GM claims "this one is truely competitive with the Accord/Camry". That has not been the case. So we are supposed to believe them this time? If we can't use past quality, to determine future quality, what are we left with? A test drive? My father's Malibu was great for a couple of years, but aged quickly. My 10 year old Accord with 3 times the mileage, had less moans, groans, and squeaks than my father's 5 year old Malibu, with no more maintenance required, and much less repairs needed. I just don't buy into the idea that GM has suddenly found the fountain of youth for their cars.