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
647 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 6:04 PM
You are in the Chevrolet Malibu Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
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)
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 11, 2009 7:27 am) Good post. I totally agree with everything that you wrote. If you talk to GMC and Chevy dealers, they will tell you that one of the most frustrating problems that they face is legacy market perception about GM cars being inherently less reliable and a poor value. Like you said, too many people cling to market perceptions from the 80s and 90's, even when Consumer Reports, J.D. Powers, and a host of rating services give many GM vehicles very high marks and recommendations. It's tragic how people fixate on a GM mechanical problem and punish GM, but ignore numerous problems in Hondas... like the transmission problems that you mentioned. It isn't rational. What does it say about the quality and intelligence of a person who goes through life relying on decades old information and not learning anything new? Intelligent people grow and improve. So do companies. The engineering science of building cars has become so automated, repeatable, and studied that the quality difference between a top rated car and an average rated car is measured by .8 defects per vehicle vs 1.4 defects per vehicle. Either way, you're likely to have 1 problem. The difference is not significant. I completely understand why someone would buy an Accord, especially given that the Accord is roomier and has excellent ride quality, comfort etc. I like the Accord also and could easily drive it. But I decided to research vehicles and buy the one that was the best value. It was an easy decision when the Malibu cost thousands less, is faster, has better braking, is quieter, has a better warranty, and has more luxury options (like satellite radio, bluetooth, OnStar navigation) for the price. Even if the Malibu's Total Cost of Ownership ends up being higher over five years, I will have five years of driving pleasure from a car that is quieter, smoother, faster, and has lots of luxury features that make endless Washington DC traffic jams (second worst in the entire nation) more bearable. I've been generally dismissive of American cars for a long time. But, if GM makes a quality vehicle, I will reward them by buying their vehicles and I won't make my decision based on something that happened in 1994. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: anon3 (Jul 11, 2009 8:24 am) It's always odd that Toyota's sludge and engine/transmission hesitations along with Honda's VCM and transmission failures along with road noise don't get played up like the past GM's problems that some found. Cars need to be judged on what they offer in the current and forth-coming models.
|
|
|
Replying to: anon3 (Jul 11, 2009 8:24 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 11, 2009 8:46 am) I feel sorry for the Chevy salesman, but who created this "perception"? The "perception" I think is based on facts (cars that simply didn't measure up to the competition). Market perception has nothing to do with my opinion. The reality of owning and driving Accords and Malibus myself, has created my "perception" of them. As far as Consumer Reports and JD Powers in concerned, they had the 2001 Malibu as a "Recommended" car. I would not recommend that car to anyone. It seems "average" reliability, poor quality, and cheap materials, is good enough for CR. Not good enough for me.
|
|
|
Replying to: elroy5 (Jul 11, 2009 10:54 am) So, considering the new Malibu is night and day different in terms of build and quality compared to the previous model would be too quick to say. It could go both ways. I am not sure. Time will only tell. It is a very sharp looking car with a great offering for the money. I can see why people like them. I am certainly not going to bash anyone for driving one either. I will most definitely be impressed by the car if you drive by. I like a lot of cars, but which ones I would drive is my opinion. Heck, I think this Saturn Aura that drives locally here is one sharp looking car. Would I ever get one? No. That is just me.  So, I guess at this point it could go both ways. Perhaps GM will prove to do some great things! But, ask yourself this.....would GM be trying to change or doing the improvements now if they weren't forced to do so? Will they uphold these goals when no one is looking? |
|
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
