Last post on May 09, 2013 at 9:13 AM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Future Vehicle, Coupe, Convertible, Sedan
Jan 26, 2009 (3:32 pm)
Depends where you shop I guess.
#557 of 608 Re: Shifty: [texases]
by kyfdx@Edmunds HOST
Jan 26, 2009 (7:17 pm)
Wow.... this really takes me back..
My first new car was a '77 Mustang Cobra II with a 302-V8.. For '77, it was very quick.. But.. .probably the worst piece of crap ever produced.. By the time I sold it in 1982, with still under 50K, it was totally worn out..
On another note, my girlfriend had one of the Mustang II Ghias with the landau roof.. White over red.. She sure was cute..
The girl.. not the car..
#558 of 608 Defending the Malibu ?
Jan 27, 2009 (6:02 am)
I can't believe I am sticking up fot the '97 Malibu, but it was not a bad car.
Back in '97 I had a choice for a company car . It was between a Taurus, Intrepid and a Contour. I went with the Malibu because it was totally new and seemed closest to being a Accord beater than anything Detroit ever made.
Well, it was boring. It did not do anything great, but it did not do anything badly either. The v-6 was adequate, for 5 hp more than the 4 though it made a huge difference .
It did like to eat lower control arms. I think I had them replaced 4 times in 60k miles.
But as far as worst cars ever, no it does not belong on that list.
#559 of 608 Re: Defending the Malibu ? [guss]
Jan 27, 2009 (7:00 am)
The V6 had a good bit more torque than the four, which didn't hurt either. And, it was quieter. The four-cylinder was GM's Quad Four, which was regularly pilloried for its lack of refinement. Doubt it will be a future classic, though.
#560 of 608 Re: Defending the Malibu ? [guss]
Jan 27, 2009 (7:02 am)
I agree, Malibu wasn't a bad car. The article was about how it shouldn't have gotten a 'car of the year' type of award.
#561 of 608 Re: Defending the Malibu ? [guss]
Jan 27, 2009 (7:29 am)
I had a 2001 Malibu for a rental once. I didn't really like it, but it seemed okay for a rental car. The 3.1 V-6, which was up to around 170 hp by that time, was good for, say, a 0-60 launch, but didn't like higher-speed passing on the interstate. It was too plasticky inside for my tastes, and I think there was a squeak and rattle here and there. I also remember that when I closed the trunk lid, I could see the rear seatback jiggle.
When I bought my 2000 Intrepid in November 1999, I looked at a few Malibus they had on the lot (it was a Chevy/Dodge/Isuzu dealer). They also had a 2000 Dodge Stratus that I looked at, and a couple 2000 Impalas. I liked the Stratus. It was about the same price as the Intrepid, but better equipped (sunroof, alloy wheels, a few extra things inside, etc). But I preferred the Intrepid's size, plus it had an engine that was both more powerful (200 hp versus around 165) and more economical (20/29 versus something like 19/27). I also didn't like the fact that the Stratus used a Mitsubishi 2.5 V-6, although in retrospect, I hear that turned out to be a pretty decent engine. I remember the Malibu just seemed cheap in comparison to either of those two, although the ones on the lot were a couple thousand $ less. The only Impalas were loaded LS models stickering around $25-26K, and they just didn't seem worth it to me. Plus I didn't like the Impala's cramped back seat (I don't care what the published specs say, it's CRAMPED!), high beltline, or interior design. I know a guy who drives a Dodge shouldn't rag on GM's interiors, but I swear the Intrepid, and Stratus, had much nicer interiors than the Malibu or Impala! Funny how these days it's just the opposite. GM has really gotten their act together with interior quality, while Mopar started slipping.
I think for 1997 standards the car was a giant leap forward, especially compared to cars like the Chevy Lumina and the Corsica. And by 1997 standards, it probably stacked up well to the foreign competition. The Camry, which was new for 1997, seemed cheapened compared to the 1992-96 model. I think the 1994-97 Accord was a bit nicer than the Malibu...but it's not like it blew it out of the water or anything.
But suddenly, it was 1998 and a new, improved Accord came out. Then we got a new Camry and Altima for 2002 and yet another Accord for 2003.
GM has a habit of doing that...coming out with a car that seems as good as what the competition is offering, maybe even better in some respects, but then suddenly the competition redesigns and improves, and GM is left with a has-been. It happened with the first Saturn S-series. Happened with the 1997 Malibu. The 2008 Malibu seems like a nice change, but I hope it's not just a repeat of this cycle.
#562 of 608 Re: Defending the Malibu ? [andre1969]
Jan 27, 2009 (8:34 am)
I always thought the Malibu was benchmarked on the 1994 Accord and to a lesser extent the Camry of the same period. The bad part about that is that the Camry was renewed in 1997, and a very new Accord was introduced for 1998. Simply benchmarking the current models of the competition is never a good idea - by the time the Malibu hit the street, it was indeed a has-been. And then GM made the thing for way too long, in a fit of arrogance and shortsightedness.
I remember a Malibu rental from that time too...the "hot" light was on the whole time, the radio didn't work, and the materials seemed pretty cheesy.
#563 of 608 Re: Defending the Malibu ? [andre1969]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Jan 27, 2009 (8:45 am)
You hit it right on the head. Detroit is always designing against the competitors LAST model, and no sooner do they do so successfully, then the competition rolls out the next generation, vastly improved. A good older example of this was the Cadillac Allante, which was designed against the already totally obsolete Mercedes 560SL.
#564 of 608 but.....
Jan 27, 2009 (12:37 pm)
at the time I think Motor Trend broke their Car into Import Car of the Year and Domestic Car of the Year. I agree the Malibu did not deserve an award, but in the context of 1997 it was one of the best new domestic offerings.
What else was substantially new that could of beat the Malibu? The Chrysler triplets Cirrus,Stratus,Breeze were not better,and Fords Contour/Mystique would probably be tied with the Malibu.
Would the C-5 Corvette have been out by then ? If so, then mistakes were made.
#565 of 608 Re: but..... [guss]
by kyfdx@Edmunds HOST
Jan 27, 2009 (12:44 pm)
1997 was first year for C5