Revealed! 2014 Chevrolet Malibu

... you couldn't have just put the Impala face on the Malibu GM.... was that going to be too hard?

Though... these "smart phone" holders are a sharp touch...

  On 5/31/2013 at 4:37 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

... you couldn't have just put the Impala face on the Malibu GM.... was that going to be too hard?

I like the new face of the Malibu a lot. I'm glad they differentiated it from the Impala. Now the Cruze, Malibu and Impala are clearly separated yet have that familiar "family" look to them.

So far... I'm not a fan of this new face... that's why I said that.

I actually really like the new face of the car. Way better than what it was. Way to go GM!

Not digging the new face. Upset they left the TGIFridays/Outbacks "your-table-is-ready" buzzer LED taillamps. Very upset they left the interior the way they did. Smartphone holders, good. The ridges in the dual cockpit look... no. The plood, no. Power improvements, good. Fuel economy, good... although I'm surprised with start/stop tech, they still didn't get higher from the city. And now the Malibu turbo has more torque than the 2014 Regal GS? Bad.

EDIT: ... unless the numbers they gave for the 2014 Regal Turbo/GS were premature and it'll be like the Malibu, 259/295 instead of what they said originally for the Regal, 259/260.

Well they could not do the mini me face on the BU from the Impala. The car is much more narrow and I do not think it would have translated as well. Keep in mind I am a Impala fan so if I think they could have done it. Nuff said.

The back seat may not look like a lot of room but every little bit helps. Better packaging was an issue on this car. Since the Chapter 11 GM has been doing some better packaging. Keep in mind this car was done long ago and till they change platforms they have hard point limits. I expect this car to be replace in the not too distant future as this segment is too important to leave hanging or getting stale if you can afford to compete.

The added torque is as much for more MPG. In my tune where GM added more torque GM found more MPG with the DI Turbo engines. Getting the car up to speed faster and getting off the gas gave them added MPG. The Di does not put out fuel coasting in gear per the GM Engineer from the performance division that did the Turbo Tune kits for GM. I expected to see it pop up in production cars at some point for the added MPG. I saw 1-2 MPG added with a gain of 65 FT LBS. They may have been limited with their Premium Recommended status.
Note I saw where GM is working on tune kits for the 2.0. I fully expect them to show up for the Bu, Regal and ATS. Two Maps and a flash and you can easily add over 300 HP and at least in the case of the Solstice 5 speed they gave it 340 FT LBS.

Other things like no lift shift and Launch control can be added with the flash.

The nose is much better than it was as it has taken the tall hood and made flow much better into the rest of the car. It was not radical surgery but it should be enough to help re launch this car with the better engines and suspensions as they should have done the first time. Notice no mention of the Eco or at least I have not seen anything state yet.

This is not a home run but it will work till the next car is ready. GM is not going to lead this segment but they will not be left behind either. It is a good car just in a segment with some very good cars. Once the Cruze and Camaro are done I expect this segment to be revisited.

I expect the Regal GS to get rerated or if they keep it down the AWD may be to blame. I suspect it may not be the same one on the Opel OPC since it did not jack the price much. I have a feeling they may have put in a more cost effective system as the OPC has a very expensive AWD system.

If anything the AWD will launch the car better as the Bu will not be able to put it down so well unless they add launch control. The front wheels with that much torque unload so easy and the weigh transfers to the rear wheel. I have had the SS spin it's tires at over 50 MPH when I have kicked it down. The first time it scared me as I saw a light on the dash and the engine felt like it cut out. I saw the light and the message of the loss of traction in the DIC. I note too I had crummy OR Pilots that had traction issues. My new Goodyears hook up much better but I have picked up a little more torque steer. It is a trade off I will gladly take.

GM just now needs to market the hell out of this car.

I hope someone makes a tuner that will by pass this start stop crap. I am not a big fan of it. It may be because I am older but I just have not had any great love for the ones I have driven over the years.

I don't mind the new face on the car. Every Chevy car getting the Impala face or Traverse face would be boring. The stacked grille look still has some life to it. I don't think the changes will be make the car competitive enough, though.

I like the new face better than the old one, doesn't solve the car's profile issues though, but nothing short of a longer wheelbase would fix that. Interesting that they redesigned the center console, I wonder if the original design got a lot of complaints? I like the inclusion of a handbrake and he smartphone holders, although it looks like it lost those storage cubbies either side of the console.

I like the new front end more than the old one, I still dislike the back end since nothing changed there. The new front is better to me, but the Impala looks way better, but more importantly, the Fusion, Sonata and Optima still look better and that is the real competition because the Camry and Accord will sell no matter what.

They made good improvements, but they did so to a car that was in the back of the class. The Malibu is probably still average at best, but the Mazda 6 is getting a lot of awards and good press, the Passat is loved by auto journalists, the new Accord has been well received, the Camry sells no matter what and is back to it's 400,000 a year pace, the new Altima is strong, the Fusion really stepped up and sells nearly 30,000 a month, and the Sonata/Optima are still strong sellers. I still don't think the Malibu is better than any of those cars.

I am really impressed though how far this class of cars has come in the past 10-15 years. Look back at a 2002 Malibu and how terrible it was compared to the interior in this car. Or the Altima, Sonata, or Taurus of the late 90s, to early 2000s and how terrible they were. Most of this class was cloth seats and plastic wheel covers and power locks and windows were your luxury features. Now they all have 17"-18" alloys, sat-nav, touch screens, leather seats with stitching, voice control, lane keep assist, etc. Cars have come a long way.

Will need to see the nose in person....

Agree with the others though...many cars are still ahead of it. But the start/stop part might help if it gives numbers better than it shows ( which GM tends to do)

So we shall see..

  On 5/31/2013 at 4:37 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

... you couldn't have just put the Impala face on the Malibu GM.... was that going to be too hard?

I'm assuming it's because the Malibu is a world model (and the Impala isn't), so it gets a face w/ the Chevy world model styling cues like the Sonic, etc...

  On 5/31/2013 at 4:40 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Though... these "smart phone" holders are a sharp touch...

I like those cubbies.... looking at how narrow the center console area is, I can see how most cars in this class would benefit from a column shift and dash handbrake release, free up center console space...

  On 6/1/2013 at 5:13 AM, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

  On 5/31/2013 at 4:40 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Though... these "smart phone" holders are a sharp touch...

I like those cubbies.... looking at how narrow the center console area is, I can see how most cars in this class would benefit from a column shift and dash handbrake release, free up center console space...

The 2013 had an electronic parking brake and a wider center console. I actually prefer this new arrangement; the old one seemed odd.

Those slots would be perfect for inductive phone charging. And if they fly out during a crash, no worries--there's OnStar.

New face looks better, still not a fan of the taillights. The hints being bandied made me think this would be something more. Honda did the same thing with their Civic "emergency redesign".

The hints were mostly speculation by the public so I am not too surprised. I expected more till I saw some of the prototypes in Camo and you could not see it all but you could tell it was not a Impala nose.

I really do not have an issue on the tail lights other the large area of red. Some bezels around them in black or some other color would help off set the large area of cheap looking red plastic.

The only car in this segment that looks any better is the Ford. The rest while not hideous are nothing I wish had a GM plate on it.

Toyota is plain, Honda boring, Nissan generic, The Kia and Hyundai to me are ugly and in many ways very cheap feeling. Slam the rear door of a Optima and listen to it ting unless they have finally addressed it but they are stull ugly.

This was a quick fix for a car that will not be like this in 4 years. The key is for GM to hold on. I expect they will offer packages that will make this car a great value to move product. That is the reason people buy the Kia/Hyundai twins as they are cheap and offer a lot for the money.

The only non-ugly Hyundais are the Genesis (sedan) and Equus.

It is true that Hyundai/Kia are pushing out the metal for cheap in order to gain market share. Honda/Toyota/Nissan did that back in the 70s and 80s, and look where they are now. I am glad that GM are out of the move the metal for a loss business. While the new(er) Malibu fixes many of the 12/13s shortcomings, one thing does need to change . . . . the price. Trim prices by $750-1000 on all models and sell them like there is no tomorrow. The Malibu (NOT the Impala, a rather '14 impressive car) should be the midsizer that makes Chevy a true force in the marketplace again and should be by far the biggest seller (trucks aside).

The Malibu is the mid size car not the Impala. The market has shifted what once was Mid Size is now full size like the Impala. The SS is just a novelty RWD car anymore.

The Malibu will never be cheap but if they can under cut the others prices and not lose any quality that is what will work. Hyundai and Kia are doing it now but they show the lack of refinement in areas and other issues that come up in required long term maintenance like timing belts vs. chains etc.

The console E-brake lever is fine in a sports car, but in a mid-size sedan it's just a fashion (??) trapping. Space is a premium here, and an electronic or under-dash e-brake makes imminently more sense. That space could've been a small lidded compartment. A console lever certainly doesn't add functionality or ease of use or any other positive. And frankly, that leather boot is just a difficult-to-keep-clean debris catcher. The rest of the console does add function & looks pretty good- just eliminate the brake handle.

  On 6/1/2013 at 4:16 PM, balthazar said:

The console E-brake lever is fine in a sports car, but in a mid-size sedan it's just a fashion (??) trapping.

I assume they use a console parking brake lever because it's cheap...nothing 'fashionable' about it..and a console pull lever is what the standard control is world wide in cheap midsizers.., since this is a world car, they standardize such controls.

An under-dash pedal is going to be cheaper than any console lever with it's leather boot, nicer handle etc., so the console lever has to be costlier. Why spend more for the exact same function AND less space- I can only conclude it's the fashion-ality of being more "sporty". If it's standardization for the rest of the markets, boo I say.

As to standardizartion; the more you make yourself like everything else, the less compelling your pitch to buy your widgit is. However, show a real advantage to your approach (more room/storage in the console area) and you've earned yourself notice.

Well then I guess by Honda's got everyone beat.

I find a console lever much better than a floor mounted one. Firstly, most floor mounted ones have a pedal and a separate release = more parts whereas the console lever is one unit. Secondly, its much more convenient having it at right at hand level near the shifter than having to reach down for the release every time you use it. If you live on a hilly area and use it a lot, that would be inconvenient. I know, I used to live in such an area. Its not as big of a deal in an automatic since it gets used less, but I think it looks nice and is more functional regardless. Couldn't imagine having a floor mounted parking brake on anything with a manual.

This particular lever is nicely trimmed too. And sure, if you use it at the construction site like a truck or never bathe, or are a slob and spill things all the time or insist n eating that Triple Whopper with extra sauce in the car, then yes it'll get dirty, but then so will anything else in the interior, including the floor pedal and hand release for a floor mounted parking brake. They making interior care products for a reason.

RE the manual, I can see that. However, since only like 5% of the vehicles sold are manuals, not sure that should be a guiding principal.
The floor brakes I'm used to, like in the prior gen Malibu- have no separate release; it's push on, push off. I believe a lot of recent cars are this way, I could be wrong. Easy fix tho.
AFA debris, people don't ususally shed french fries & general detritus under their dash NEARLY as much as over the console. Besides, that pedal is... under the dash- with the ubiquitous console, only the right rear passenger has a chance to see such.

My bottom line is it's not used that much on average, it performs the exact same function in either location at identical speed & ease, yet one is tucked into an area where it's out of sight & by the (95% of the time) idle left foot, and other other is under the elbow of both front occupants. I guess it's just me.

It is nicely trimmed, tho.

The 2014 Malibu underwhelms me because I dislike the front styling. However, Chevrolet is stuck with this until probably at least the 2017 model year. GM probably put the car on a shorter wheelbase to protect the Impala, but I expect higher prices will cause sales of the new Impala to drop. The next generation Malibu must be lighter and significantly more fuel efficient because of CAFE.

  On 6/1/2013 at 8:00 PM, ehaase said:

The 2014 Malibu underwhelms me because I dislike the front styling. However, Chevrolet is stuck with this until probably at least the 2017 model year. GM probably put the car on a shorter wheelbase to protect the Impala, but I expect higher prices will cause sales of the new Impala to drop. The next generation Malibu must be lighter and significantly more fuel efficient because of CAFE.

GM made it clear that the Impala will only sell half of what they did but with a much higher exchange price. This will make each unit more profitable.

There are times where lower volume and higher price works better than high volume and little profit.

I think the E brake issue is simple. Most people like them in the console and with much of the feed back they have gotten they may have gotten enough to make the move.

Also GM is looking to capture import owners and most imports have them there.

Add to this that it may be cheaper than an electric one too so they can move cost down with some other changes. The mid price market does not have a lot of demand for electric E brakes. In fact I know a few people like the mechanical as they know it will always work no matter what. It is a back up brake you know.

  On 6/1/2013 at 4:16 PM, balthazar said:

The console E-brake lever is fine in a sports car, but in a mid-size sedan it's just a fashion (??) trapping. Space is a premium here, and an electronic or under-dash e-brake makes imminently more sense. That space could've been a small lidded compartment. A console lever certainly doesn't add functionality or ease of use or any other positive. And frankly, that leather boot is just a difficult-to-keep-clean debris catcher. The rest of the console does add function & looks pretty good- just eliminate the brake handle.

  On 6/1/2013 at 4:28 PM, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

  On 6/1/2013 at 4:16 PM, balthazar said:

The console E-brake lever is fine in a sports car, but in a mid-size sedan it's just a fashion (??) trapping.

I assume they use a console parking brake lever because it's cheap...nothing 'fashionable' about it..and a console pull lever is what the standard control is world wide in cheap midsizers.., since this is a world car, they standardize such controls.

  On 6/1/2013 at 5:00 PM, balthazar said:

An under-dash pedal is going to be cheaper than any console lever with it's leather boot, nicer handle etc., so the console lever has to be costlier. Why spend more for the exact same function AND less space- I can only conclude it's the fashion-ality of being more "sporty". If it's standardization for the rest of the markets, boo I say.

As to standardizartion; the more you make yourself like everything else, the less compelling your pitch to buy your widgit is. However, show a real advantage to your approach (more room/storage in the console area) and you've earned yourself notice.

Now they have one console for the whole world rather than a US-Spec and an Everyone-else-spec. One design is cheaper than two. Remember, they sell this with a manual transmission in other countries.

New front end looks more SS than Impala... Curious, maybe because the Impala (and Traverse too) are NA specific models, so they can make them a little different from the Chevrolet global 'face' all other wear...

  On 6/1/2013 at 10:15 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Now they have one console for the whole world rather than a US-Spec and an Everyone-else-spec. One design is cheaper than two. Remember, they sell this with a manual transmission in other countries.

I wonder if the RHD models have a different console w/ the parking brake and shifter positions reversed.

  On 6/1/2013 at 3:19 AM, smk4565 said:

I am really impressed though how far this class of cars has come in the past 10-15 years. Look back at a 2002 Malibu and how terrible it was compared to the interior in this car. Or the Altima, Sonata, or Taurus of the late 90s, to early 2000s and how terrible they were. Most of this class was cloth seats and plastic wheel covers and power locks and windows were your luxury features. Now they all have 17"-18" alloys, sat-nav, touch screens, leather seats with stitching, voice control, lane keep assist, etc. Cars have come a long way.

the reason this class has come so far, because people are lucky enough to even get a 'new' car these days, where in the past many could get luxury cars. To some degree this class has absorbed some of the luxury aspect, and at prices that people can actually get into these days.

Plus, in terms of real innovation aside from leather, safety stuff, sunroof, and stability control, stuff that has become common the last several years, aside from in cabin electronics, there hasn't been much new technology accessible to the masses. So the now typical technology is getting less expensive to incorporate.

Price is part of it but all MFG's are doing all they can to get people to accept down sized vehicles no matter if it is a sedan or SUV. To meet MFG standards they need the majority of people in smaller cars and try to still offer a few big ones at a higher price.

The thing this approach does, tho, is erode the price tag difference 'legitimacy' between models. IOW, once the vast majority of equipment/features is found on entry-level-esque models, why would anyone buy the mid-market or top-end models? IMO, it's a bit of auto-cannibalism. The only way I see this working long-term is lessen the number of lines within a brand and increase the degree of 'tailoring' one can do within the fewer lines.

  On 6/2/2013 at 12:27 AM, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

  On 6/1/2013 at 10:15 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Now they have one console for the whole world rather than a US-Spec and an Everyone-else-spec. One design is cheaper than two. Remember, they sell this with a manual transmission in other countries.

I wonder if the RHD models have a different console w/ the parking brake and shifter positions reversed.

here's a 2013 with stick

  On 6/2/2013 at 2:20 AM, hyperv6 said:

Price is part of it but all MFG's are doing all they can to get people to accept down sized vehicles no matter if it is a sedan or SUV. To meet MFG standards they need the majority of people in smaller cars and try to still offer a few big ones at a higher price.

that too. being forced into doing it

I do like the updates mostly, but there is a few things that GM was simply blowing smoke up people's asses on.

The interior redo did nothing to fix the stupid ugly POS strakes and that crap on the dashboard. It still has a $h! looking steering wheel that is on most GM stuff. It still has two pod gauges that look marginal in a Camaro but look like crap compared to the Impala.

They did nothing to add rear seat space except reshape the seat and take away a little front seat padding. The big problem in the malibu is ingress / egress and the position of the seat mounts and lack of footspace due to the base of the seat. Some knee room is welcome and it will help but they did nothing to really fix the problem, and of course with like 9 inches of space under the hood that is not used and no desire to reconfig the rear structure or the position of the airbags, that is all they could do. They really should not even mention it its close to worthless.

The turbo upgrades are great, this car SHOULD win comparos in this class for performance.

Pluses, the center stack is among the best, that was left, thankfully. I hated the old cupholder layout, it rendered the armrest useless. That they fixed that and in an attractive way is cool. The cell phone slots are a trendsetter, why not raise em up and have the base of them see thru and put the charge ports in them?

Going away from the e brake was completely stupid. Why not keep it?

Love the new front end considering all they could do with not wanting to redo the headlights.. I see many new BUS on the road and coming at you, the grille looks too high and too big, this reshape will help nicely. And the Impala and Malibu will be distinctive in many ways.

Stop start standard, will it be reliable, and do people want the ability to shut it off? Will the motor die when you need to make a left turn across traffic? For my driving it would save some mpg. I just hope it has no bugs.

A poster on another board succinctly described a problem with GM's lineup

"Cruze's additional interior size over Focus makes it a lot close to the Malibu

which in turn cannot be increased in size without compromising Impala's postion.

Look at Buick's line up Verano-Regal-LaCrosse and the compression/overlap is worse

as the Regal and LaCrosse are both slightly smaller than Malibu and Impala."

  On 6/2/2013 at 7:07 PM, ehaase said:

A poster on another board succinctly described a problem with GM's lineup

"Cruze's additional interior size over Focus makes it a lot close to the Malibu

which in turn cannot be increased in size without compromising Impala's postion.

Look at Buick's line up Verano-Regal-LaCrosse and the compression/overlap is worse

as the Regal and LaCrosse are both slightly smaller than Malibu and Impala."

We have covered this ground here already in the past.

GM needed new cars and platforms but they needed new cars worse. We got the cars on older platforms. Now that GM has done the quick fix for the models they are now working on new platforms and we will see GM resize their line up from there. Also now that we are getting the more expensive Cadillac's it will make more room for Buick.

Next up is the new Cruze and Verano on the new resized platform. After that I expect we will see a new platform for the Regal and Malibu at some point hence no great redo for the Malibu here.

In the end I expect to see a smaller Cruze, a Malibu that is similar in size but better packages and the Impala to remain on the highly refined platform it is on for a while. The SS will move to the Alpha in 2-3 years and will be a 4 door Camaro for all intents. It will share drive line and suspensions but will sport a sedan body and be its own model.

GM worked on models with what money they had left and shelved them till the government money came in. This is why models like the Malibu are out dated but they are better than just rehashing the 08 model. GM needed to buy time and money to get things done as they can not revamp all the lines at once.

Chrysler did not have enough money to even pay attention. They Revamped the Sebring as a 200 with a better interior and some minor tweaks but it is still an old Sebring that impresses few. Chrysler really has no real player in this segment so GM could be a lot worse off.

There is nothing here that can not be fix with the things GM already has in motion. The real thing is to keep the cash flow up with models like the trucks, Cruze and Nox. This will pay for the new products and models we have yet to see and in many cases hear about.

I think sometimes we tend to forget GM has a lot more going on than we hear about anymore after years of programs announced 5 years before their release. There is a heck of a lot more going on than most people realize and will be surprised as time goes on. The GM turn around was no less than a 10 year deal at best if everything goes right. Economy and revamping issues like the Bu may slow things a bit but things should all fall together in time.

the impala is the only GM car with real space in the back now.

Nearly all of GM's sedans are packaged like crap.

Cruze has no room in the back. Malibu hurts for it also. Sonic is decent for class but with upright dorkmobile shaping. Spark maximizes space. Regal and Verano are not commodious. Current CTS is tight. ATS is super tight. XTS for size and weight is lacking space.

GM somehow has always been huge losers at packaging in most of its cars when compared with the best. Think cab forward Chryslers, man those had room.

  On 6/2/2013 at 6:11 PM, regfootball said:

Stop start standard, will it be reliable, and do people want the ability to shut it off? Will the motor die when you need to make a left turn across traffic? For my driving it would save some mpg. I just hope it has no bugs.

Stop-start is old news, been available in some models for years.

  On 6/2/2013 at 11:57 PM, regfootball said:

the impala is the only GM car with real space in the back now.

Nearly all of GM's sedans are packaged like crap.

Cruze has no room in the back. Malibu hurts for it also. Sonic is decent for class but with upright dorkmobile shaping. Spark maximizes space. Regal and Verano are not commodious. Current CTS is tight. ATS is super tight. XTS for size and weight is lacking space.

GM somehow has always been huge losers at packaging in most of its cars when compared with the best. Think cab forward Chryslers, man those had room.

My Terrain has enough rear room to seat Shaq comfortably with room to spare.

  On 6/3/2013 at 12:31 AM, hyperv6 said:

  On 6/2/2013 at 11:57 PM, regfootball said:

the impala is the only GM car with real space in the back now.

Nearly all of GM's sedans are packaged like crap.

Cruze has no room in the back. Malibu hurts for it also. Sonic is decent for class but with upright dorkmobile shaping. Spark maximizes space. Regal and Verano are not commodious. Current CTS is tight. ATS is super tight. XTS for size and weight is lacking space.

GM somehow has always been huge losers at packaging in most of its cars when compared with the best. Think cab forward Chryslers, man those had room.

My Terrain has enough rear room to seat Shaq comfortably with room to spare.

That's not a car... that's a CUV.

  On 6/3/2013 at 12:31 AM, hyperv6 said:

  On 6/2/2013 at 11:57 PM, regfootball said:

the impala is the only GM car with real space in the back now.

Nearly all of GM's sedans are packaged like crap.

Cruze has no room in the back. Malibu hurts for it also. Sonic is decent for class but with upright dorkmobile shaping. Spark maximizes space. Regal and Verano are not commodious. Current CTS is tight. ATS is super tight. XTS for size and weight is lacking space.

GM somehow has always been huge losers at packaging in most of its cars when compared with the best. Think cab forward Chryslers, man those had room.

My Terrain has enough rear room to seat Shaq comfortably with room to spare.

i said sedans

nox / terrain lack trunk space between the wheelwells for their size and weight

The CUV has become more a car as it has supplanted the wagon and Minivan.. Most have little Off Road ability.

Most are bases on car platforms and have more usable space. They are the direct result of people missing larger cars and not wanting to pay for the 14 MPG or price of the full size SUV. . Trunks may be large but try to get a big square box in one.

Back seat room is not as important as it once was since the market has shifted since there are alternatives.

Just saying.

  On 6/3/2013 at 1:42 AM, regfootball said:

  On 6/3/2013 at 12:31 AM, hyperv6 said:

  On 6/2/2013 at 11:57 PM, regfootball said:

the impala is the only GM car with real space in the back now.

Nearly all of GM's sedans are packaged like crap.

Cruze has no room in the back. Malibu hurts for it also. Sonic is decent for class but with upright dorkmobile shaping. Spark maximizes space. Regal and Verano are not commodious. Current CTS is tight. ATS is super tight. XTS for size and weight is lacking space.

GM somehow has always been huge losers at packaging in most of its cars when compared with the best. Think cab forward Chryslers, man those had room.

My Terrain has enough rear room to seat Shaq comfortably with room to spare.

i said sedans

nox / terrain lack trunk space between the wheelwells for their size and weight

Lack Trunk Space??????

For their size as a 5 passenger CUV/Car, they have considerable space to hold many suit cases, multiple sets of golf clubs, shopping bags and groceries.

Yes it is not a traditional truck, but then what a truck lacks in ease of getting in various size products, these little CUV's make up in alternative space capacities.

^{Today many cars have large trunk areas but just try to get something like a tall square box into them. Not gonna happen.}

^{I could carry a 6 foot ladder in my GTP but I can tell you how many times I had to unbox items in the parking lot if they were over 2.5 feet tall.}

^{People today as much into usability and utility as they are anything else. It may be because over half the new buyers are women? Either way the small CUV has hit a mark to many as they are cheaper to buy and run than a Tahoe and much easier to drive for many.}

^{Someone just complained they did not get the grid on their back up camera. God forbid they not use the mirrors and sense of space that has gotten us by for 100 years.}

^{I see the Malibu and Nox being very important into the future. The Nox and Terrain are one of the few GM vehicles that has increased sales each year since into and were selling good to start with. It proves it you hit the sweet spot with what people want they will come. The Malibu is good but just not on that sweet spot with the public.}

The 1 MPG improvement is welcome but still not enough. GM didn't go far enough with the MPG improvements. This car needed a weight loss of about 100-150 LBS across the board and maybe the aero tweaks and grille shutter treatment like the Cruze Eco uses. A little sanity with the tire sizes would sure help here too. 19" wheels are heavier and also affect your final drive which requires the engine to spin higher thus reducing mileage. They also suck horribly in the snow! Notice that most competitors use 16, 17 and 18's on the highest end models. That is plenty large enough for a car this size. The parking brake is in response to consumer feed back. I'm not sure about the new center console. Where is the armrest? I don't even see it in the picture unless it's mounted way back in which case only your elbow is going to contact it. The loss of HP and torque sucks even though it is nominal. The taillights should have been what was changed, not the front end. They took the wood grain trim off the steering wheel which is good.

Hopefully GM gets a clue about packaging and trim levels with this car. It is really silly that they have no less than 8 different trim levels of this car. Is that really necessary? Just offer a basic Malibu with 2.5, push button start, 16' alloys, 6 way power seat and the current std equipment for $21595. Then offer an LT with the same engine, dual chrome exhaust, 17" alloys and leather wheel with steering controls, leather shifter, 8 way power seat, remote start, backup camera, Mylink and upgraded interior materials and color choices for 23595. Then they can have the Eco for 24595 and a top LTZ trim level with leather, 18' alloys, dual power heated seats, Zenon headlights for 26595. The turbo motor can be a 995 option on both LT and LTZ and a few option packages can gives buyers options on those models. I would also offer a Sport package for both the LT and LTZ that includes the turbo engine, 18" alloys for the LT, monotone exterior trim, specific wheels, carbon fiber interior trim and a sport steering wheel with paddle shifters, sport suspension and a unique grille a rear spoiler.

  On 6/12/2013 at 4:02 PM, ponchoman49 said:

The 1 MPG improvement is welcome but still not enough. GM didn't go far enough with the MPG improvements. This car needed a weight loss of about 100-150 LBS across the board and maybe the aero tweaks and grille shutter treatment like the Cruze Eco uses. A little sanity with the tire sizes would sure help here too. 19" wheels are heavier and also affect your final drive which requires the engine to spin higher thus reducing mileage. They also suck horribly in the snow! Notice that most competitors use 16, 17 and 18's on the highest end models. That is plenty large enough for a car this size. The parking brake is in response to consumer feed back. I'm not sure about the new center console. Where is the armrest? I don't even see it in the picture unless it's mounted way back in which case only your elbow is going to contact it. The loss of HP and torque sucks even though it is nominal. The taillights should have been what was changed, not the front end. They took the wood grain trim off the steering wheel which is good.

Hopefully GM gets a clue about packaging and trim levels with this car. It is really silly that they have no less than 8 different trim levels of this car. Is that really necessary? Just offer a basic Malibu with 2.5, push button start, 16' alloys, 6 way power seat and the current std equipment for $21595. Then offer an LT with the same engine, dual chrome exhaust, 17" alloys and leather wheel with steering controls, leather shifter, 8 way power seat, remote start, backup camera, Mylink and upgraded interior materials and color choices for 23595. Then they can have the Eco for 24595 and a top LTZ trim level with leather, 18' alloys, dual power heated seats, Zenon headlights for 26595. The turbo motor can be a 995 option on both LT and LTZ and a few option packages can gives buyers options on those models. I would also offer a Sport package for both the LT and LTZ that includes the turbo engine, 18" alloys for the LT, monotone exterior trim, specific wheels, carbon fiber interior trim and a sport steering wheel with paddle shifters, sport suspension and a unique grille a rear spoiler.

They have this already and it is called the Cruze.

The Malibu is going to be a more expensive car and many of the things that need fixed will come but not till the next gen arrives. The issue is the last Malibu was a better Fusion and the new Fusion became a better Malibu. The Bu is not a bad car just a good car in a tough segment.

The bottom line is you are not going to get much of a Malibu for less than $25,000 and most will cost you over $30K as this is the price range this segment is in.

Tell that to all the 21-22

  On 6/12/2013 at 4:29 PM, hyperv6 said:

  On 6/12/2013 at 4:02 PM, ponchoman49 said:

The 1 MPG improvement is welcome but still not enough. GM didn't go far enough with the MPG improvements. This car needed a weight loss of about 100-150 LBS across the board and maybe the aero tweaks and grille shutter treatment like the Cruze Eco uses. A little sanity with the tire sizes would sure help here too. 19" wheels are heavier and also affect your final drive which requires the engine to spin higher thus reducing mileage. They also suck horribly in the snow! Notice that most competitors use 16, 17 and 18's on the highest end models. That is plenty large enough for a car this size. The parking brake is in response to consumer feed back. I'm not sure about the new center console. Where is the armrest? I don't even see it in the picture unless it's mounted way back in which case only your elbow is going to contact it. The loss of HP and torque sucks even though it is nominal. The taillights should have been what was changed, not the front end. They took the wood grain trim off the steering wheel which is good.

Hopefully GM gets a clue about packaging and trim levels with this car. It is really silly that they have no less than 8 different trim levels of this car. Is that really necessary? Just offer a basic Malibu with 2.5, push button start, 16' alloys, 6 way power seat and the current std equipment for $21595. Then offer an LT with the same engine, dual chrome exhaust, 17" alloys and leather wheel with steering controls, leather shifter, 8 way power seat, remote start, backup camera, Mylink and upgraded interior materials and color choices for 23595. Then they can have the Eco for 24595 and a top LTZ trim level with leather, 18' alloys, dual power heated seats, Zenon headlights for 26595. The turbo motor can be a 995 option on both LT and LTZ and a few option packages can gives buyers options on those models. I would also offer a Sport package for both the LT and LTZ that includes the turbo engine, 18" alloys for the LT, monotone exterior trim, specific wheels, carbon fiber interior trim and a sport steering wheel with paddle shifters, sport suspension and a unique grille a rear spoiler.

They have this already and it is called the Cruze.

The Malibu is going to be a more expensive car and many of the things that need fixed will come but not till the next gen arrives. The issue is the last Malibu was a better Fusion and the new Fusion became a better Malibu. The Bu is not a bad car just a good car in a tough segment.

The bottom line is you are not going to get much of a Malibu for less than $25,000 and most will cost you over $30K as this is the price range this segment is in.

Tell that to all the Altimas, Camry's, Accords, Sonatas and Optimas I see being sold out the door for 20-22K. Also the Cruze is not big enough for many buyers including myself, especially in the horribly cramped rear seat. Nor does it offer a 16.3 cu.ft. trunk, a std 196 HP engine with a 259 Hp engine optional.

With the 1.25 increase in rear seat knee room the 2014 Malibu will be spacious out back compared to the cramped Cruze. I had both a 2012 Cruze 2LT with leather and a 2014 Malibu 2LT for rentals while my Impala was having collision work done. The Cruze sounded, drove and felt like an economy car with the one surprise being fairly quiet road noise. The Malibu felt wider and more spacious to me, was more comfortable, quieter and larger car feeling and the 2.5 flat out was a superior drive train compared to the Cruze's buzzy always revvy but not very powerful 1.4T. Even with all the griping about rear seat legroom my folks could sit comfortably in the Malibu's back seat but felt cramped in the Cruze. Even the combined average fuel mileage wasn't all that different between the two vehicles. 26 overall for the Bu and 27.2 for the Cruze. The Malibu also had a roomier wider center storage console, overhead sun glasses holder which the Cruze lacked, fog lamps which the Cruze lacked and the headlights worked better on the Bu.

It always amazes me how so many complain and gripe that the Cruze is the same size as the Malibu and that the Malibu shouldn't even exist yet here we have 3 Nissan products with very similar interior and trunk volumes selling along side each other with not a word said. The new Vera sedan, the new Sentra and the new Altima are all very close in size inside and trunk space with the only real distinction being engine sizes and power output. The Versa in fact actually seems to have more back seat leg room compared to the Sentra and Altima. There interior volumes are 90.2 for the Versa, 95 for the Versa and 100.5 for the Altima. The Cruze is 94 and the Malibu is 101.3. I didn't bring up the noticeably smaller Sonic because it is very obviously not mistaken for a mid size like the Cruze often is and Malibu and is not brought up in that argument.

sentra has more leg room than the malibu and cruze, that is what is sad.

GM needs new platforms with simple wheelbase increments. similar track increments.

98 (spark), 102 (sonic), 106 (cruze), 110 (regal / malibu), 114 (lacrosse impala)

then they could get down to putting real efficient packaging in these vehicles.

even though once you drive the cruze and malibu to understand the value difference between them, the issue is that from a front side (sales and marketing standpoint) the evidence that the consumer can digest is this.

CRUZE = cramped in back but good mpg and less expensive than malibu

MALIBU = WTF it is still cramped in back and why the hell is the MSRP so high when I see altimas and camrys advertised at 21k with all sorts of stuff on them.

Wonder if a Malibu diesel could be offered in the US... Do you guys get the 2.0L Passat diesel over there, or just the Jetta?

  On 6/13/2013 at 4:27 PM, ponchoman49 said:

Tell that to all the 21-22

  On 6/12/2013 at 4:29 PM, hyperv6 said:

  On 6/12/2013 at 4:02 PM, ponchoman49 said:

The 1 MPG improvement is welcome but still not enough. GM didn't go far enough with the MPG improvements. This car needed a weight loss of about 100-150 LBS across the board and maybe the aero tweaks and grille shutter treatment like the Cruze Eco uses. A little sanity with the tire sizes would sure help here too. 19" wheels are heavier and also affect your final drive which requires the engine to spin higher thus reducing mileage. They also suck horribly in the snow! Notice that most competitors use 16, 17 and 18's on the highest end models. That is plenty large enough for a car this size. The parking brake is in response to consumer feed back. I'm not sure about the new center console. Where is the armrest? I don't even see it in the picture unless it's mounted way back in which case only your elbow is going to contact it. The loss of HP and torque sucks even though it is nominal. The taillights should have been what was changed, not the front end. They took the wood grain trim off the steering wheel which is good.

Hopefully GM gets a clue about packaging and trim levels with this car. It is really silly that they have no less than 8 different trim levels of this car. Is that really necessary? Just offer a basic Malibu with 2.5, push button start, 16' alloys, 6 way power seat and the current std equipment for $21595. Then offer an LT with the same engine, dual chrome exhaust, 17" alloys and leather wheel with steering controls, leather shifter, 8 way power seat, remote start, backup camera, Mylink and upgraded interior materials and color choices for 23595. Then they can have the Eco for 24595 and a top LTZ trim level with leather, 18' alloys, dual power heated seats, Zenon headlights for 26595. The turbo motor can be a 995 option on both LT and LTZ and a few option packages can gives buyers options on those models. I would also offer a Sport package for both the LT and LTZ that includes the turbo engine, 18" alloys for the LT, monotone exterior trim, specific wheels, carbon fiber interior trim and a sport steering wheel with paddle shifters, sport suspension and a unique grille a rear spoiler.

They have this already and it is called the Cruze.

The Malibu is going to be a more expensive car and many of the things that need fixed will come but not till the next gen arrives. The issue is the last Malibu was a better Fusion and the new Fusion became a better Malibu. The Bu is not a bad car just a good car in a tough segment.

The bottom line is you are not going to get much of a Malibu for less than $25,000 and most will cost you over $30K as this is the price range this segment is in.

Tell that to all the Altimas, Camry's, Accords, Sonatas and Optimas I see being sold out the door for 20-22K. Also the Cruze is not big enough for many buyers including myself, especially in the horribly cramped rear seat. Nor does it offer a 16.3 cu.ft. trunk, a std 196 HP engine with a 259 Hp engine optional.

With the 1.25 increase in rear seat knee room the 2014 Malibu will be spacious out back compared to the cramped Cruze. I had both a 2012 Cruze 2LT with leather and a 2014 Malibu 2LT for rentals while my Impala was having collision work done. The Cruze sounded, drove and felt like an economy car with the one surprise being fairly quiet road noise. The Malibu felt wider and more spacious to me, was more comfortable, quieter and larger car feeling and the 2.5 flat out was a superior drive train compared to the Cruze's buzzy always revvy but not very powerful 1.4T. Even with all the griping about rear seat legroom my folks could sit comfortably in the Malibu's back seat but felt cramped in the Cruze. Even the combined average fuel mileage wasn't all that different between the two vehicles. 26 overall for the Bu and 27.2 for the Cruze. The Malibu also had a roomier wider center storage console, overhead sun glasses holder which the Cruze lacked, fog lamps which the Cruze lacked and the headlights worked better on the Bu.

It always amazes me how so many complain and gripe that the Cruze is the same size as the Malibu and that the Malibu shouldn't even exist yet here we have 3 Nissan products with very similar interior and trunk volumes selling along side each other with not a word said. The new Vera sedan, the new Sentra and the new Altima are all very close in size inside and trunk space with the only real distinction being engine sizes and power output. The Versa in fact actually seems to have more back seat leg room compared to the Sentra and Altima. There interior volumes are 90.2 for the Versa, 95 for the Versa and 100.5 for the Altima. The Cruze is 94 and the Malibu is 101.3. I didn't bring up the noticeably smaller Sonic because it is very obviously not mistaken for a mid size like the Cruze often is and Malibu and is not brought up in that argument.

I Don't know were you shop but I see stickers at the same as the BU with comparible modes. The low ball prices are generally on models with less features and options then even the cheapest Malibu. In othert words even the lowest gutted Bu has more in it than the lowest priced $20K Accord.

The next Cruze will shrink in size but have similar interior while I expect the next BU to grow a little since GM needs adjust the sizes to the other in segment.

As cars shrink automakers really are stepping all over their own models anymore as there is becoming smaller differences between them anymore in size and engines.