New York Auto Show: 2016 Chevrolet Malibu

A 1.5 turbo? No 2.5?

4 extra inches of wheelbase but only 1.3 inches of added legroom?

Wtf chevy ?

Looks good though. I will give it that. That alone goes a long way. Exterior looks good, interior looks really good.

Lame output from the 2.0. Is this on purpose as for example might the higher output 2.0 be headed for Impala?

The 2.5 had good EPA numbers. Why didn't they keep it?

It seems like Chevy is differentiating between the Malibu and Impala at least power train wise. Keeping a gap of ~40 hp. While power may not be the main differentiator in this segment, the low power of the base engine compared to its competitors is perplexing.

Design wise, I like it. It is not overtly trying and yet simple. It does mimic Impala from the rear panels.

To GM's typical hypocrisy: the car is made "Sporty" yet no manual transmission! In a world where Mazda6 and Honda Accord Sport are getting high teens to low twenties manual transmission take rate, something from GM would be refreshing. Other than Mercedes Benz, GM is the worst when it comes aversion to offer stick cars.

The design is a huge leap forward and seems influenced by the Fusion, with a dash of Avalon and Impala.  The front end seems unnecessarily busy.  I'm with Reg on the puzzling small increase in rear legroom.  I'm not really a fan of small turbocharged engines, but the hybrid model sounds promising.

Wow! I'm impressed!

Whoa that is a fine looking car there.  I love it all over and wish it banging success in the market.

they did well and we will see more things yet to come. This is only the intro of a new platform and we have more things yet that will be added.

The key here is this car is made to look better and improve many details which it has. As for the engines it will be lightest in class but will still perform with the others easily but it will get better MPG for it. Note the Turbo engine like most will beat the EPA numbers in the real world. Each one I have driven did a little better city.

Many wanted a little Impala do you got it. Other that are sniping are just going to snipe no matter what.

The market will prove this car.

Also a darker color really makes it look great. White is hard to do on most cars. They all look like they are from the Gas Company if they are mid size. .

 

It's a baby Impy..which is not a bad thing. And it's lighter, which had me worried about the 160/1.5 T engine there.

Wonder how roomy in there....

  On 4/1/2015 at 11:22 AM, hyperv6 said:

This is only the intro of a new platform and we have more things yet that will be added.

 

So this is no longer Epsilon 2 but the E2XX that will replace Epsilon2 and I believe the Lambdas (IIRC the Thetas will be replaced by a crossover version of the new D2XX)?

I dunno, people are praising the look, but i think that front looks terrible the rest of it looks pretty nice, but i can't get over how bad that front end is

  On 4/1/2015 at 4:37 AM, regfootball said:

A 1.5 turbo? No 2.5?

4 extra inches of wheelbase but only 1.3 inches of added legroom?

Wtf chevy ?

Looks good though. I will give it that. That alone goes a long way. Exterior looks good, interior looks really good.

Lame output from the 2.0. Is this on purpose as for example might the higher output 2.0 be headed for Impala?

The 2.5 had good EPA numbers. Why didn't they keep it?

300 lbs lighter + new 8 speed fwd transmission. They are saying that performance of the new powertrain will be equal or better than the 2.5 and with better fuel economy. That's why.

The 2.0 is a torque machine not a horsepower machine. It will likely feel faster than V6es that have to wind up first.

Nice improvement over the past car. This should do well for them.

The front end ruins it for me too, rest looks pretty good and hopefully the rear leg room is much better.

  On 4/1/2015 at 3:03 PM, frogger said:

The front end ruins it for me too, rest looks pretty good and hopefully the rear leg room is much better.

To address Reg's concern, this is an area where there is more to it than the numbers. There may be an issue with the way rear seat room is measures skewing the number in an unfavorable way. The rear seat feels much much roomier than the current model.   Part of that is because the front seat feels roomier too.  I can sit in the front seat and move it further forward than I would in the current car and that in turn gives more room to the rear seat passenger. 

I like the front, it has an Impala look and looks like a Chevy. The rear looks almost like a hatchback I prefer 3 box sedan styling, and the rear looks like a Hyundai. Exterior overall is decent, but not great.

The interior is great, that might be the best mid size car interior, I would probably still take the Mazda 6 interior, but the Malibu is a close 2nd.

Engines other than the 2.0T seem gutless, but a lot of people buy gutless engine cars so that might not matter.

I honestly don't like Chevy's dual port grille thingy. That said it at least looks better-integrated and not quite as ugly here than it does awkwardly grafted on the front of a Cruze or an Equinox. I'm hoping it'll show better in person.

The slightly disappointing nose aside, this seems like a promising step forward. The rest of the car looks quite good.  I do hope Chevy's given more attention to making it at least somewhat fun to drive than they did the current model, but that's not a requirement to be a popular model in this segment. For that matter, neither is an attractive front-end...

-RBB

  On 4/1/2015 at 3:52 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

  On 4/1/2015 at 3:03 PM, frogger said:

The front end ruins it for me too, rest looks pretty good and hopefully the rear leg room is much better.

To address Reg's concern, this is an area where there is more to it than the numbers. There may be an issue with the way rear seat room is measures skewing the number in an unfavorable way. The rear seat feels much much roomier than the current model. Part of that is because the front seat feels roomier too. I can sit in the front seat and move it further forward than I would in the current car and that in turn gives more room to the rear seat passenger.

But if this car still has the 9 inches of nothing under the hood between the front clip and the power train, as this bs about new platform is BS. The added rear seat room could come equally from making the underwood space efficient instead of tacking on more length and still not using that real well either.

It's a cross between an SS and an Impala with its styling. I'll take one.

  On 4/1/2015 at 3:52 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

 

  On 4/1/2015 at 3:03 PM, frogger said:

The front end ruins it for me too, rest looks pretty good and hopefully the rear leg room is much better.

To address Reg's concern, this is an area where there is more to it than the numbers. There may be an issue with the way rear seat room is measures skewing the number in an unfavorable way. The rear seat feels much much roomier than the current model. Part of that is because the front seat feels roomier too. I can sit in the front seat and move it further forward than I would in the current car and that in turn gives more room to the rear seat passenger.

Re-reading your quote again I think there is another important point you touched on. Malibu/regal/ cruze the current versions, the lower part of the dash sticks out way too far and are big time knee knockers compared to other makes. If they managed to fix that with better dash and airbag design, I can see where that would help with front seat comfort and rear seat space. Lots of GM cars though have that congested front part of the cabin at the knees.

I just went and sat in the Malibu and Optima back to back to compare.  I'd say that these two are basically the same in headroom and legroom in the back.  Still can't put your feet under the front seat in the Malibu, but it is much further forward, so there is little need to. 

Passat is the benchmark for rear cabin utility.  Altima is another car with a good back seat.  So is Legacy.  Fusion is adequately good.  If the Malibu = Fusion in the backseat now, that should be ok.  Just a shame with a tiny 1.5 litre motor not needing a v6 engine bay that they can't reapportion space back to where it matters.  Saw an early 2000's cab forward Intrepid today.  Made me think how ahead of their time those Chrysler cab forward designs were.  That Intrepid still looks good today.

If GM would pick the base of the front seat up high enough to get your foot under, that is like adding 4-6 inches of legroom because your feet can reside their in a natural position, and your legs can be forward and untwisted.  Cruze has it FCOL........I imagine they can't still give this more room inside than the Impala in back.

I was thinking about one of the comments of no MT.  I would only want to see an MT on this car with the 2.0.  With the 1.5 it would be fairly gutless.  I've driven the Fusion 1.6 MT and while it does ok once you get it up to 6th gear at highway speed, the rest of the time, its a lot of shifting and doesn't burst the dam with torque otherwise.  The Passat TSi is a different story, it has great torque but its a 1.8.  I would recommend to Chevy to not bother with a stick unless its a 1.8t or the 2.0t.

Regarding the mpg, and going only to the 1.5t.  Its epa is only like 1 more mpg than the 2.5.  There is a lot of Chevy's buyer base that is turbo averse and i think to keep the NA engine in the lineup for those folks would be a good idea..........regarding the Turbo, it's mpg doesn't go up much vs. the Regal but loses all that power.  The Ecoboost 2.0 Taurus has practically the same mpg and is wayyyyyy heavier......for losing the hp and weight and having the 8 speed, the 2.0 should get 24/34 not 22/32.....

Maybe Volt II should have been this size and with this body.  The hybrid is a great choice, but I would imagine having a plug in opportunity would be even nicer.

Make no mistake though, if the pricing and option packaging work out right, this car is a home run.  It's perfect for those who want good style like a Fusion but don't want the Fusion or are tired of it.  This jumps to the top of my list for sedan midsizers.  Maybe I can get into one.  How can a new Regal top this?

Those who critique the chevy sedan structure too, note, the difference between this and the next Cruze are quite wide.  The size is far enough apart, as is the stylizing and power etc.  And this still doesn't impede much on Impala.

Anyone see, the LTZ trim is no more........why get rid of the LTZ moniker?

(edit) something about this car reminds me of the Oldsmobile Auroras.....in character, which is cool.

You know... This isn't quite what I was expecting. Having chased the prototypes in person, I was thinking it would look differently. First impressions are, mixed, to say the least. That was what I thought last night, though. Today, things are different, and in a fairly good way.

To elaborate, we have the age old problem of press photography and GM's horrible addiction of doctoring the photos. After the live shots began to show up across the internet, this Malibu started to look more attractive. Having let those sit and digest for a bit, I've come to conclusion that this is a proper follow-up to the 2008-2012 model. If fact, I feel much the same way I do now as I did back then. When that model was first shown there were a lot of mixed feelings about it. It was radically different, with some odd choices here and there. With time, though, it became one of the more timeless designs of the segment. Whether this one will follow in that model's footsteps directly or not remains to be seen. But, most notably, it has promise.

It still looks a little awkward from certain angles, and I do wish Chevrolet would pick a grill and stick with it (Seriously, I though we were moving away from the horizontal bar), yet it still has presence. It's sleek, with flowing lines, great details, and a swept back tail reminiscent of the Audi A7 (The one thing I was expecting and was delivered). The interior, by all means, is a massive improvement. While it doesn't differ much from the Volt's new innards, its fairly pleasing to look at unlike the last one (and all Malibus since the nameplates reincarnation) and seems to have fixed the rear seat issues. Power-train-wise, the biggest announcement is the class-leading hybrid (atleast per GM's lofty specs). If it lives up to expectations and doesn't fall flat on its face like the Fusion, this will surely help the Malibu regain some of its losses over the years. The other two combinations are rather lackluster, but should be fine with the assured weight loss regimen it's been placed on.  

  On 4/1/2015 at 2:26 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

 

  On 4/1/2015 at 4:37 AM, regfootball said:

A 1.5 turbo? No 2.5?

4 extra inches of wheelbase but only 1.3 inches of added legroom?

Wtf chevy ?

Looks good though. I will give it that. That alone goes a long way. Exterior looks good, interior looks really good.

Lame output from the 2.0. Is this on purpose as for example might the higher output 2.0 be headed for Impala?

The 2.5 had good EPA numbers. Why didn't they keep it?

300 lbs lighter + new 8 speed fwd transmission. They are saying that performance of the new powertrain will be equal or better than the 2.5 and with better fuel economy. That's why.

The 2.0 is a torque machine not a horsepower machine. It will likely feel faster than V6es that have to wind up first.

 

As a owner of a 3.6 V6 Bu and a owner of a 2.0 turbo I can tell you the Turbo is a much more satisfying car to drive. With the 8 speed even more so.

The torque curve is flat and long. Torque feels like a old Pontiac like torque just the torque curve is wider.

I will say this the car in person will look much different than in photo's. This is a very dimensional car as the body lines need to be seen in 3D to get the full effect.

The way I see it this car if priced right and marketed right it will be at the top of the sales in this segment. I see It easily in the top three and could even go to the top if they do all things right.

Price will be key to compete with the Korean cars.

Really no matter what it does it won't unseat Altima, Accord, Camry, and Fusion.  But it can move a lot closer.  Chevy will have to whore this thing out on 199 leases if it wants to crack the top 4 in the segment.  Not a reflection of the car, its a reflection of the typical buyers and their prejudices.

Camry, Fusion, Sonata, and Optima whore themselves out with $199 leases too, so Chevy will be in fine company.

that's the point, they do that as 'business as usual'. GM seldom pony's up to compete for the cutthroat lease and buy business.

Where did GM, get an 8 speed automatic from. I know they have a 6 speed and there working on a 9 speed automatic with ford, so is this 8 speed a replacement for the 6 speed and the joint Gm/Ford 9 speed be reserved for larger sedans and front wheel/all wheel drive SUVs.

The more I look at it, the more I see the shape of a Chrysler 200.  So many of these cars copy each other, someone needs to make a unique looking car.  The Fusion stands out as different, and the Mazda 6 also.  But the Sonata looks more like a Subaru now, the Optima looks like a Camry, etc.

I like what they did with the interior though, this is my favorite interior of any Chevy.

  On 4/2/2015 at 3:40 AM, john90803 said:

Where did GM, get an 8 speed automatic from. I know they have a 6 speed and there working on a 9 speed automatic with ford, so is this 8 speed a replacement for the 6 speed and the joint Gm/Ford 9 speed be reserved for larger sedans and front wheel/all wheel drive SUVs.

i've been under the impression that it's been in the works for years. 

With all the hype that was stirred up about this car I have to admit i'm underwhelmed, especially with the power trains. Where are the paddle shifters? Why is the base engine down a full 36 HP and 7 torque? With 300 LBS chopped off the curb, continuation of stop/start and a much smaller engine you would think they could have got closer to 38-40 highway MPG. And how/why did the 2.0 liter turbo lose 37 LBS .FT of torque and 9 horses for such a small MPG gain. As for the styling I'm seeing lots of Fusion/Altima/Avalon/Dart and 200 in the side profile if you take those lines out but the rear does look pretty good. Not too sure about the three tier grille though. It's just soooo fussy. With that said it does look like an improvement on the current car and the interior is nice.

  On 4/1/2015 at 2:26 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

 

  On 4/1/2015 at 4:37 AM, regfootball said:

A 1.5 turbo? No 2.5?

4 extra inches of wheelbase but only 1.3 inches of added legroom?

Wtf chevy ?

Looks good though. I will give it that. That alone goes a long way. Exterior looks good, interior looks really good.

Lame output from the 2.0. Is this on purpose as for example might the higher output 2.0 be headed for Impala?

The 2.5 had good EPA numbers. Why didn't they keep it?

300 lbs lighter + new 8 speed fwd transmission. They are saying that performance of the new powertrain will be equal or better than the 2.5 and with better fuel economy. That's why.

The 2.0 is a torque machine not a horsepower machine. It will likely feel faster than V6es that have to wind up first.

 

Actually the 8 speed is restricted to the 2.0T. The new 1.5T only comes with the 6 speed trans.

The 8 speed is there's. GM will not farm out what they do best In automatics.  

The real key to this car is the loss of 300 pounds. I think people really do not understand how much weight in a car like this that is. Hell even in the Camaro that would be  a lot of weight loss in one year.

The 2015  Malibu LS is 3393 and the LT is 3439 The LTZ is 3660 So at worst case we are looking at just over 3300 pounds for the premier model and the base car will be 3000-3100. Just to put that into perspective the my HHR Turbo is 3200 loaded. That is some killer weights.

What many fail to understand is losing this much mass helps a car in so many ways. Not just MPG but handling, acceleration and  stopping are improved much. 300 Pounds in this class is a major crazy reduction. We should see some decent numbers in all areas on this car.

To me the weight reduction here is the most amazing news and should really be something the other MFG really check out.

 

I love it.  It's sporty, gorgeous interior, great lineup of powertrains... very competitive.  I'd replace the LaCrosse with this when the lease is up.

  On 4/2/2015 at 6:49 PM, ponchoman49 said:

With all the hype that was stirred up about this car I have to admit i'm underwhelmed, especially with the power trains. Where are the paddle shifters? Why is the base engine down a full 36 HP and 7 torque? With 300 LBS chopped off the curb, continuation of stop/start and a much smaller engine you would think they could have got closer to 38-40 highway MPG. And how/why did the 2.0 liter turbo lose 37 LBS .FT of torque and 9 horses for such a small MPG gain. As for the styling I'm seeing lots of Fusion/Altima/Avalon/Dart and 200 in the side profile if you take those lines out but the rear does look pretty good. Not too sure about the three tier grille though. It's just soooo fussy. With that said it does look like an improvement on the current car and the interior is nice.

that's why I say, why did they get rid of the 2.5?  It made 25/36 in the fat 2015, it would have made likely 26/37 or better in the new one, and many of GM's long time customers are turbo averse.....

  On 4/3/2015 at 12:57 PM, regfootball said:

 

  On 4/2/2015 at 6:49 PM, ponchoman49 said:

With all the hype that was stirred up about this car I have to admit i'm underwhelmed, especially with the power trains. Where are the paddle shifters? Why is the base engine down a full 36 HP and 7 torque? With 300 LBS chopped off the curb, continuation of stop/start and a much smaller engine you would think they could have got closer to 38-40 highway MPG. And how/why did the 2.0 liter turbo lose 37 LBS .FT of torque and 9 horses for such a small MPG gain. As for the styling I'm seeing lots of Fusion/Altima/Avalon/Dart and 200 in the side profile if you take those lines out but the rear does look pretty good. Not too sure about the three tier grille though. It's just soooo fussy. With that said it does look like an improvement on the current car and the interior is nice.

that's why I say, why did they get rid of the 2.5?  It made 25/36 in the fat 2015, it would have made likely 26/37 or better in the new one, and many of GM's long time customers are turbo averse.....

 

Motor trend found the 2015 Malibu 2.5 got 6 mpg less than the combined EPA MPG. The worst difference between real world and EPA mileage of the 6 mid-size 2015 cars tested. Hopefully, the 2016 EPA numbers are closer to real world numbers. That would explain the small difference in MPG from 2015 to 2016. I own a 2015 Malibu 1LT with the 2.5 engine. In winter, my real world city mileage was 19 MPG, not 25. Start stop doesn't work as much when it is cold. 

My friend hAs a 14 as a fleet car and he says it gets good mpg like high 20's

  On 4/3/2015 at 5:58 PM, Guest said:

 

  On 4/3/2015 at 12:57 PM, regfootball said:

 

  On 4/2/2015 at 6:49 PM, ponchoman49 said:

With all the hype that was stirred up about this car I have to admit i'm underwhelmed, especially with the power trains. Where are the paddle shifters? Why is the base engine down a full 36 HP and 7 torque? With 300 LBS chopped off the curb, continuation of stop/start and a much smaller engine you would think they could have got closer to 38-40 highway MPG. And how/why did the 2.0 liter turbo lose 37 LBS .FT of torque and 9 horses for such a small MPG gain. As for the styling I'm seeing lots of Fusion/Altima/Avalon/Dart and 200 in the side profile if you take those lines out but the rear does look pretty good. Not too sure about the three tier grille though. It's just soooo fussy. With that said it does look like an improvement on the current car and the interior is nice.

that's why I say, why did they get rid of the 2.5?  It made 25/36 in the fat 2015, it would have made likely 26/37 or better in the new one, and many of GM's long time customers are turbo averse.....

 

Motor trend found the 2015 Malibu 2.5 got 6 mpg less than the combined EPA MPG. The worst difference between real world and EPA mileage of the 6 mid-size 2015 cars tested. Hopefully, the 2016 EPA numbers are closer to real world numbers. That would explain the small difference in MPG from 2015 to 2016. I own a 2015 Malibu 1LT with the 2.5 engine. In winter, my real world city mileage was 19 MPG, not 25. Start stop doesn't work as much when it is cold. 

 

I never ever go by what Motor Trend gets for real world MPG. If you go and look at all there long term test cars you will notice that most of them are getting city ratings as MPG averages. These guys are not only driving very low mileage pre-production green cars but also beat the tar out of them while performing tests. I have rented several 2014 Malibu 2.5 stop/start cars in LS and Lt form. Each had in the range of 10-15K miles. They consistently averaged very close to the 29 MPG combined rating on the stickers and the LS actually saw up to 37 on one long stretch going 73 MPH!