Article Comments - 2008 Chevrolet Malibu First Look, First Drive, and Full Test

106 messages, Last post on Mar 30, 2008 at 3:11 PM

You are in the Chevrolet Malibu Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet Malibu, Sedan

First Look: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu - There's more to the new Mailbu than just the sheet metal and the low-sheen plastic. Even the proportions look significantly better thanks to a wheelbase that's a whopping 6 inches longer than the outgoing Malibu (now the longest in the class). From nose to tail, the Malibu measures 3 inches longer than before, and this visually pushes the wheels to the corners of the car and gives it a stable look. These dimensions should also provide GM with the means to make tangible improvements in ride quality and handling compared to previous efforts. (more)

First Drive: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu - he new Malibu shares the same basic chassis as the well-received Saturn Aura, and this means the expected MacPherson strut front suspension and multilink independent rear. It differs from the Aura only in tuning, really. Chevrolet says it used a new tuning philosophy for the Malibu, and as far as we can tell, this means the car now slots between the mushy Camry and the sporty Accord. (here)

Full Test: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ - The new Malibu jumps smack in the middle of most consideration lists. It might even sell well to the lost generation in California. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 11 of 11: 1; ...; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; Prev; Next; Last

#97 of 106 Performance Junkie - Anyone Else? by ejdavid Dec 24, 2007 (7:32 am)
Guys and Gals, The only thing I want to do right now is stiffen up all the steering bushings. First and formost are the top front struts, and next would be steering rack bushings, if there are any? Anyone have experience smartening up this numb steering? It was easy to do with little more then harder bushing in my Mark 7. BACKROUND I recently rolled my sport package equiped 2007 2.8 CTS when the spare tire failed. I decided the heck with fancy cars with big first year depreciations. The settlement was enough to buy a Like New 2005 Malibu with $10k left to further lavish on my restored 1991 supercharded Lincoln Mark 7. SURPRISE The Malibu is a much more powerful and capable car then I expected. First, the pushrod 3.5 is Way better then the dual overhead cam continuous variable valve timing aluminum everything "High Content" GM unit. Where the caddy hit 70 mph, the Malibu does 75. Further, the Malibu 4 spd tranny is WAY more responsive then the Caddy 5 speed. And don't even mention fuel economy! Hot rodding around the mountains here in N. Georgia I never get less then 25 mpg with the Malibu, v 18 with the Caddy. However, the Malibu steering sucks. The HANDLING is way above most Front Drivers - running at the limit it pushes wide but does not unsettle the chasis or chunk the granny 205 tires. It is something easily upgraded, but I can live with the current set up. It is much harder to live with the numb steering. Anyone worked on this issue? PS: I have heard rumors the new Malibu now gets the High Content 3.6 with the same tranny but one more gear. I hope things have improved in the last year. First, I did not get the 3.6 Caddy because if felt and sounded like it should be powering a large wood chipper rather then a Cadillac. The 2.8 was refined but, as I found out, real wimpy. Fuel economy? Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to spin all those cams, chains, 12 extra valves? I AM on the list to drive the new Malibu, but am not holding my breath. In the mean time, there is not a naturally aspirated BMW six cylindar auto ever made that will outrun this Mallibu. With stiff and sticky 215 tires up front and 205 in the back, they will not get away from me in the corners either!
#98 of 106 Malibu tops Accord- again by albook Dec 30, 2007 (4:48 pm)
In feb issue of Mototrend, Malibu is tested against Camry, Accord, and Altima. It loses only to the Camry. This proves how far GM has come. Malibu beats out brand new Accord- again- which beat out Camry in another test, so the three must be interchangeble. Replies to this message: tir (Jan 01, 2008 6:22 pm) albook (Jan 01, 2008 10:06 pm)
#99 of 106 Re: Malibu tops Accord- again [albook] by tir Jan 01, 2008 (6:22 pm)
Replying to: albook (Dec 30, 2007 4:48 pm) what you have is 3 very competative designs we just had our choices expanded by the fact that GM has decided to compete in the sedan market, judging from some of the comments some folks are having a hard time adjusting to that. Replies to this message: albook (Jan 01, 2008 10:06 pm)
#100 of 106 Re: Malibu tops Accord- again [tir] by albook Jan 01, 2008 (10:06 pm)
Replying to: tir (Jan 01, 2008 6:22 pm) It takes a while to adjust a stereotype, and stigmas take a long time to erase. People will come around over time, but the Malibu is a big step towardputting GM back on the world class level.
#101 of 106 It is a shock for sure by tir Jan 02, 2008 (6:04 pm)
The funny thing is that I sell Toyotas and our autogroup owns the Chevy dealership across the street and I worked at the Honda dealership 2 lots up from us for 2.5 years. So the to say that I am familier with all 3 products is a vast understatement. In my opinion none of them has an outstanding advantage and Honda pulled a major stunt with bad transmissions and got clean away with it. While Toyota is getting clobbered for being less than perfect and Chevrolet suffers for its past sins. There are no perfect product but these three sure bring something to look at. I'll tell you in all honestly that I walked away from the Malibu and though my job just got tougher.
#102 of 106 gas mileage from 1979 by mazes Mar 24, 2008 (4:11 pm)
1979 malibu classic station wagon with a 267 v-8 26hwy 17 city so why is the 2008 mabliu getting same fuel mileage. In eruope they get 45mpg on most vehicles.I'd rather have the 1979 model Replies to this message: pao (Mar 25, 2008 8:28 am) lostwrench (Mar 27, 2008 3:17 pm) tir (Mar 27, 2008 10:16 pm) csandste (Mar 30, 2008 3:11 pm)
#103 of 106 Re: gas mileage from 1979 [mazes] by pao Mar 25, 2008 (8:28 am)
Replying to: mazes (Mar 24, 2008 4:11 pm) beleive you would be hard fought to say most vehicles in Europe get 45 MPG......spent too many years there with the big BMRs and MBs running around.....small fiats maybe........
#104 of 106 Re: gas mileage from 1979 [mazes] by lostwrench Mar 27, 2008 (3:17 pm)
Replying to: mazes (Mar 24, 2008 4:11 pm) The 267 cube V-8 is a stronger and more powerful engine so the gears in the transmission are higher. Replies to this message: tir (Mar 27, 2008 10:16 pm)
#105 of 106 Re: gas mileage from 1979 [lostwrench] by tir Mar 27, 2008 (10:16 pm)
Replying to: lostwrench (Mar 27, 2008 3:17 pm) Well not likely, I think you will find that the 3.6 V6 and the 289 V8 might be a closer match than you would think. The HP measurements have changed at least twice that I know of since then and for that matter the MPG measurement has also been changed. The new Bu carries a few hundred pounds of extra safety equipment as well as emissions equipment. Lots of folks talk about the old glory deys an it sure sounds good... except when you start really measuring and find out that it isn't true, and many of the muscel cars couldn't turn much and even less on the horrid bias ply tires they gave us back in the glory days.
#106 of 106 Re: gas mileage from 1979 [mazes] by csandste Mar 30, 2008 (3:11 pm)
Replying to: mazes (Mar 24, 2008 4:11 pm) Wikipedia didn't list 267 hp numbers but the 305 packed an entire 125 or 130 hp, depending. Not good. Don't think the late 70's were much of a glory age for American cars. That's why they're still working at getting their reputation back.