FIRST LOOK: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Let me start by saying that I think the car is amazing and I certainly think this is the first SERIOUS shot at gaining big share in this segment GM has had in 10-15 years.

The interior is as close to perfection as anything I've seen, lets just hope the materials are decent so we don't have to hear the media bitch (I'm sure they'll find something anyway though)

As for the exterior... I think it exudes a very confident 1960s-1970s Chevrolet vibe. It has a lot of retro ques while not being retro at all. But here are a few minor complaints: The nose is a little too busy for me, especially with the driving lights. GM would've been better to just leave the lower grille opening out. The profile is awesome and I especially love the detail in the rear quarters. Now to the back; the tailights would be excellent had the integrated the reverse light better. As it is, they look like an afterthought that has been tacked on to an aggressive and heritage-esque brake light design. The curve of the trunk annoys me, HOWEVER the lower bumper looks sweet and the tag encircled in chrome is an awesome subtle detail! I agree that they should've stuck more with the SS concept rear. One major complaint is the tepid wheel design... A design this bold needs big, bold wheels with thick spoke or multiple thin spokes. These wheels remind me of GMs recent (and bad) attempts on vehicles such as the Trailblazer and base Tahoe... They look a little weak, trucky and cheap.

I think GM definitely has a hit on it's hands. Would I buy one? ABSOLUTELY! Would I buy it over the Fusion or Milan? PROBABLY, because of the interior. Would I buy it over an Aura? NOT SO SURE about that one.

It sure beats the hell out of the Alima, Accord and Camry.

P.S. It's supposed to be attractive, but also MAINSTREAM... And that it is.

[Variance]

On my list-o-attractiveness (top being most):

Altima

Legacy

Mazda6

Passat

Aura

Fusion

Camry

Sonata

Malibu

G6

Milan

Accord

Lacrosse

Forenza

Optima

Galant

Avenger

Disease-infected crack whore

Sebring

[ehaase]

The new Malibu is my favorite entry in the FWD mid size market, even though I am more interested in the upcoming Zeta Impala. I like the Malibu more than the Fusion, Camry, Accord, or Sonata.

[CreativeVision]

I was gonna tell you all to let them slide on the tailights until I just looked at NOS2006's chop...how could Chevy miss the chance to put such an obvious styling cue on this car? That chop would have taken the home run that the car is to a Grand Slam. I cannot believe how much that chop changed the car. Good job NOS!

On a whole - I love the car - it has personality which I cannot say for either the Accord or Camry...nice job GM - now throw us all a curve and put NOS's tailights on the cars in production!

Both designs look very good. NOS's chop could easily be achieved by the dealerships or the resourceful owner. Simply mask off the area you want to remain red lenses and paint the rest with a spray can of PaintScratch brand paint. Or if you have the means you can shoot it more professionally with a paint gun. Either way it could come out looking nice. Hey they did it to the last gen Impalas...

I actually painted the top portion of my taillights on my Galant to match them up with the body line of the trunk handle, as well as to make them look more aggressive and match my headlight eyebrows. After 5 years they still look excellent and no light comes thru them. Easy to do also!

Edited January 1, 2007 by CreativeVision

[sciguy_0504]

The bad: No blue tooth, no nav, no keyless start already make this car uncompetitive...

I agree though it will only affect those seeking upper range Malibus. GM does not have one mainstream midsize car while almost the rest of the competition offers at least one of those features.

[Croc]

Wait...no nav? Boo...

Keyless start is unnecessary, but I'm sure it will have remote start which is competitive.

[CSpec]

Hmmm...

[turbo200]

I don't if we know if nav will be an option or not. But if it isn't, it just makes no sense, it makes no sense at all... NAV is a necessity, really spruces up the look of interiors, and could easily fit in this interior in the place of the radio.

[BlkHhr104]

They might just put in turn-by-turn navigation like they did for 07 in the current Malibu, but you have a point it adds some style to an interior.

[Northstar]

I'm not too confident it will have NAV. We've seen 8 interior pics and none have NAV, and when GM releases a car with NAV, they usually release more pics with NAV than without.

[Drew Dowdell]

Why just be "fair?"

Why not give consumers a base car with a fully-competitive and up-to-date powertrain combo of 2.4L L4 WITH a 6-speed automatic?

Once again......we are asked to accept the current L4 powertrain offerings as "good enough."

yes... why not.

how about they also include the 3.6VVT in there too without charging more, add magnetic ride control, 18 inch wheels, remote start, keyless start, blue tooth, NAV, leather, heated seats, heated steering wheel, heated washer fluid. all in the base price of $18k.... because Toyota doesn't give you a 5-speed on the base Camry and a 6-speed on the higher model.

people always want all the goods, but never want more than a $300 a month finance payment with nothing but their trade as down payment. further more, people won't pay Camry money for a non-Camry regardless of the transmission.

[MyerShift]

This car has to be one of the most hideous, repulsive things I've ever seen. What an eyesore. This is no threat to the upcoming Accord. Really, this is no threat to the current Accord, either. GM will never learn.

Lol. How'd I miss that, and how'd they sneak past us?

Although it's not the best looking Epsilon in any regard to my eyes, it's certainly better than the offensive blandness of the current Accord.

The main thing that GM will need to fear from the next Honda Accord is if Honda adapts the radical cab-forward styling of the Civic, but gives it a much better and more cohesive interior. If it's anything as good looking as much of Chrysler's cab-forward products were, then even I would be interested. I am not blinded by my love of a badge, if someone else other than an American company offers a great looking midsize sedan (or preferably) a coupe, then I will take the better looking one everytime.

Not to mention availability of a manual transmission.

Edited January 1, 2007 by MyerShift

[Robert Hall]

Wait...no nav? Boo...

Keyless start is unnecessary, but I'm sure it will have remote start which is competitive.

I don't see the point of remote start, unless you don't have a garage...and it's illegal in some areas (like here--you can get a ticket for having an empty car running).

[K.C.]

Looks great! I especially like the different interior treatments. The car looks long, much larger than an Accord/Camry. I will have to wait for final judgement until I get my hands on the interior. I'm also looking forward to seeing a full list of standard/optional equipment.

[ocnblu]

I think the nav screen lovers here have told on themselves by saying the screen "jazzes up the look of the interior". They don't mention a functionality benefit, because they know the screen actually detracts from the functionality of the car by being a distraction to the business of driving. A useless, unsafe $2000 gadget to impress onlookers is all a nav screen is. For those who are lost, OnStar turn-by-turn is a much friendlier, safer, useful system.

[CreativeVision]

I don't see the point of remote start, unless you don't have a garage...and it's illegal in some areas (like here--you can get a ticket for having an empty car running).

You don't have kids do you? If it were just me in the mornings or after a long period of time having the car sit, I don't care. But it isn't fair for my 16 month old to have to endure such extreme cold/hot temps. I have a garage, but that doesn't stop old man winter from making it cold in there. Likewise for a HOT summer afternoon, a little A/C pumping thru the car before I step in would be nice.

[Croc]

I don't see the point of remote start, unless you don't have a garage...and it's illegal in some areas (like here--you can get a ticket for having an empty car running).

They won't ticket you in your own driveway. Even in a public parking lot, you can turn it on as you're walking toward it. I doubt that would violate the law. It' nice to have as you can get it warmed up before you get in it (if in a driveway) or get things started as you're walking up to it. You get in, radio is already on, seat heaters starting up, etc.

[Croc]

They don't mention a functionality benefit, because they know the screen actually detracts from the functionality of the car by being a distraction to the business of driving. A useless, unsafe $2000 gadget to impress onlookers is all a nav screen is. For those who are lost, OnStar turn-by-turn is a much friendlier, safer, useful system.

You're being facetious, right? Because the other option is woefully uninformed. It isn't unsafe, it isn't a distraction, and it is very, very useful. If you just glance at it every now and then you can find your bearing in an unfamiliar area. Say you are in a suburb with a maze of winding streets, 90% of which end in a cul-de-sac. Having a map displayed on a nav screen will help you find your way. What about going on a road trip? You're going to another town you're not at all familiar with...but you're going solo. What do you do? Well, print off driving directions on Google...but stopping to look at them or, worse, looking at them while driving is far more unsafe and distracting than a navigation system. Not only do you take your eyes off the road, but you have to look at the tiny little maps to find your bearing instead of having the "YOU ARE HERE" moving arrow on the navigation screen. You should only look at the screen briefly, like you would a side mirror. Are side mirrors dangerous because they can reflect random light and distract you, prompting you to stare at them too long and rear end someone? NO!

How is turn-by-turn more useful? It has no map! How are fewer features more useful? That makes no sense...

Finally, I see one person failing to mention a benefit of a nav system, only saying it jazzes up an interior...not every poster on here who likes nav systems. If you personally dislike nav, think it's overpriced or find it too distracting, that's fine. Don't order it for yourself or just get a prescription for Adderall XR. The rest of us who want one should be able to pay for one, especially if it's just a matter of swapping out one radio for another. GM has no excuse for offering it as an option.

[C.H.U.D.]

Hmmm...

Haha you posted the exact same pic as me!

[pow]

You're being facetious, right? Because the other option is woefully uninformed. It isn't unsafe, it isn't a distraction, and it is very, very useful. If you just glance at it every now and then you can find your bearing in an unfamiliar area. Say you are in a suburb with a maze of winding streets, 90% of which end in a cul-de-sac. Having a map displayed on a nav screen will help you find your way. What about going on a road trip? You're going to another town you're not at all familiar with...but you're going solo. What do you do? Well, print off driving directions on Google...but stopping to look at them or, worse, looking at them while driving is far more unsafe and distracting than a navigation system. Not only do you take your eyes off the road, but you have to look at the tiny little maps to find your bearing instead of having the "YOU ARE HERE" moving arrow on the navigation screen. You should only look at the screen briefly, like you would a side mirror. Are side mirrors dangerous because they can reflect random light and distract you, prompting you to stare at them too long and rear end someone? NO!

How is turn-by-turn more useful? It has no map! How are fewer features more useful? That makes no sense...

Finally, I see one person failing to mention a benefit of a nav system, only saying it jazzes up an interior...not every poster on here who likes nav systems. If you personally dislike nav, think it's overpriced or find it too distracting, that's fine. Don't order it for yourself or just get a prescription for Adderall XR. The rest of us who want one should be able to pay for one, especially if it's just a matter of swapping out one radio for another. GM has no excuse for offering it as an option.

And they're incredibly useful at night, especially in unlit residential areas. I could have used one trying to find a friend who lives in Rolling Hills, CA. No street lamps + tiny unlit street signs + twisty roads = Stevie Wonder driving

[Croc]

And they're incredibly useful at night, especially in unlit residential areas. I could have used one trying to find a friend who lives in Rolling Hills, CA. No street lamps + tiny unlit street signs + twisty roads = Stevie Wonder driving

Or if you're as directionally retarded as my sister is...

[aaaantoine]

The rear looks excellent head-on, but weird and flat from other angles.

Overall it's a good looking car. I'd rate it excellent in appearance if not for the strange tail bringing it down a couple notches.

[Flybrian]

**UPDATED**

Be sure to check out GM's full press release, including numerous feature details. Again, many of you will be pleased, especially whoever likes the lighting in the S-Class.

2008 Malibu - Press Release & Specs

[Drew Dowdell]

Lol. How'd I miss that, and how'd they sneak past us?

Although it's not the best looking Epsilon in any regard to my eyes, it's certainly better than the offensive blandness of the current Accord.

The main thing that GM will need to fear from the next Honda Accord is if Honda adapts the radical cab-forward styling of the Civic, but gives it a much better and more cohesive interior. If it's anything as good looking as much of Chrysler's cab-forward products were, then even I would be interested. I am not blinded by my love of a badge, if someone else other than an American company offers a great looking midsize sedan (or preferably) a coupe, then I will take the better looking one everytime.

Not to mention availability of a manual transmission.

Cab forward was so 3 years ago.....

[Drew Dowdell]

For those who are lost, OnStar turn-by-turn is a much friendlier, safer, useful system.

wut he said

[jbartley]

You don't have kids do you? If it were just me in the mornings or after a long period of time having the car sit, I don't care. But it isn't fair for my 16 month old to have to endure such extreme cold/hot temps. I have a garage, but that doesn't stop old man winter from making it cold in there. Likewise for a HOT summer afternoon, a little A/C pumping thru the car before I step in would be nice.

Um yeah, i guess if you park outside it's handy. But for the avg car buyer, who's looking for the 18k sedan, and is cross shoping the accord and camry, remote start might not be a big sale maker. as an option? yes, standard? no.

[Northstar]

Um yeah, i guess if you park outside it's handy. But for the avg car buyer, who's looking for the 18k sedan, and is cross shoping the accord and camry, remote start might not be a big sale maker. as an option? yes, standard? no.

I don't know... my aunt won't buy a car without it (or if adding it through an aftermarket place voids the electrical warranty).

[z28luvr01]

I don't know... my aunt won't buy a car without it (or if adding it through an aftermarket place voids the electrical warranty).

If you install it yourself, you'll only have to pay if they find that the problem you're bringing the car in for was directly caused by the installation. For peace of mine let the dealer install it, and it definitely won't void anything. The only bad thing is that the people who install those things usually are outsourced, and if something goes wrong turnaround time isn't as fast because you have to wait for someone from that company to show up. If she ends up getting a GM, see if you can talk her into that new deluxe remote starter.

For all the NAV nuts - I have a PDA-based navigation system, and the map is as close to useless as can be. I'd never look at it if I didn't hear the voice telling me a turn was imminent. So I'd agree with those who say that OnStar turn by turn is more than sufficient, and that a NAV screen offers little in the way of substance.

back on topic - I'm becoming more and more impressed by the new Bu with every new bit of info from Fly. I can't wait to see it in person at NYIAS.

[Sixty8panther]

All things considered, I give it a solid "B" only for the fact that it is not very

greoundbreaking in styling or antthing else... it's bold & i like that but it's also

a bit too tall and the CHiMSL is lame for 2007. I think in 2007 every car should

a LED 3rd brake light (this does not look it...?) and it should be at least about

12" wide... I HATE cheap lights, good lighting is about the most important

safety feature and yet it's seemingly just an afterthought on many 2007 cars.

Now as far as my own personal (today's car market non-withstanding) this car

is FWD, has a transverse mounted motor and it has big, chunky B-pillars so

right there it already is a D+ at best...

THIS IS A MALIBU 4 door that gets a A+

And for that matter why do we not have a 2dr l;ike bakc in the day... Honda

Accord & toyota Camrys both sell in decent #s w/ the rear-door-delete option.

[CreativeVision]

I have a request from someone with photoshopping ability...I was staring at the picture of the front end head on(from the Press release post on the home page) and had a thought. Rather than eliminate the lower air dam on the front bumper, can someone just paint it to match the exterior color of the car? The design element itself is not bad, but perhaps having so much black in the front is what is throwing people off.

As a second photoshop, I'd like to see what this same picture could look like with the upper and middle honeycomb grilles paint matched to the color of the car, and leave the lowest air dam black (kinda mimicing the rear end with lower black valance).

Thanks in advance.

Edited January 4, 2007 by CreativeVision

[X2222]

I like it. Its a pretty nice, modern design. I just hope the lutz-bland treatment doesn't give it the same fate as the quickly forgotten cobalt. I'd still prefer the aura to this just because it hink its sharper.

[96impalass]

I LOVE IT!!! GM has got its mojo back for sure. This mother is gonna sell like hot cakes. I have looked these pics all over and the only thing at all i can say that is kinda negative that the front bucket seats look just like the same design from the late 80's early 90's cavalier. Chevrolet better have a refresh Cobalt coming soon to keep up, especially the interior!!

[pow]

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2008-chevy-malibu-1/

I hate, hate, hate the interior. It looks like the AURA's but with an even heavier Fisher Price touch.

This car may look like $40K from the outside, but the interior looks economy car grade.

[Northstar]

Autoblog said the interior was great.

In person, the pre-production interior is excellent, and we're quite anxious to see the production hardware.

[regfootball]

looks cheeseball in those pics.

if GM simply replaced the steering wheel, radio and climate controls with something that looks EXPENSIVE then maybe it would look ok.

[RJB]

The 'colored' vents look horrible. They should have left them black like the others.

[CSpec]

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2008-chevy-malibu-1/

I hate, hate, hate the interior. It looks like the AURA's but with an even heavier Fisher Price touch.

This car may look like $40K from the outside, but the interior looks economy car grade.

Yeah I don't like the umm "striking" colors myself, but I think it will look good with wood trim and that cool suede stuff we saw in the Photoshopped interiors.

[prototype66]

All things considered, I give it a solid "B" only for the fact that it is not very

greoundbreaking in styling or antthing else... it's bold & i like that but it's also

a bit too tall and the CHiMSL is lame for 2007. I think in 2007 every car should

a LED 3rd brake light (this does not look it...?) and it should be at least about

12" wide... I HATE cheap lights, good lighting is about the most important

safety feature and yet it's seemingly just an afterthought on many 2007 cars.

Now as far as my own personal (today's car market non-withstanding) this car

is FWD, has a transverse mounted motor and it has big, chunky B-pillars so

right there it already is a D+ at best...

THIS IS A MALIBU 4 door that gets a A+

And for that matter why do we not have a 2dr l;ike bakc in the day... Honda

Accord & toyota Camrys both sell in decent #s w/ the rear-door-delete option.

I'm already half way there!

Here's what I have so far.

Edited January 11, 2007 by prototype66

[red]

A little off topic, but I kinda withheld my initial theory about the "afterthought" taillights.

I think Chevy designers had to change them at the last minute (ie a year and a half ago) because of nearly identical lights from VW's Jetta et al. If you do a quick photoshop or just put your fingers on the triangular tops of the outermost rear lights, you can see that this design makes much more sense - and looks ten times better. I have a strong feeling that this must have been the initial design...and they had to weigh good looks over "copycatting."

Still should go for a Chevy SS concept rear in the MCE, though.

[Northstar]

Here is a pic of the Malibu's rear seat. I'm not quite sure how it has less room than the old one, because it looks almost as big as the Maxx:

[vince]

The more I look at the new Malibu the more I like it! If someone here wants to put the survey back up and start it from scratch again I bet there would be more top votes. I voted great overall but...Now it takes top score easily.

[turbo200]

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2008-chevy-malibu-1/

I hate, hate, hate the interior. It looks like the AURA's but with an even heavier Fisher Price touch.

This car may look like $40K from the outside, but the interior looks economy car grade.

I can see what you're saying as far as the look. Which sucks, but in different trims, not the red and black trim, it will look less cheesy, less Fischer Pricey. As far as the color choices, I give them credit for trying, and some of them are remarkable, the classic Chevy red/black was probably best left untouched as this isn't a Corvette. Aura may have more of a grown-up sedan feel, but that wood is awful, and the quality here appears to be pretty consistent, I especially like the way the upper dash materials look in the Malibu. I hate that they couldn't make the materials covering the radio, HVAC, and surround all one piece, that looks so dumb and really really ruins the look of the center stack in one foul $10 sweep. GM may have missed the mark, but overall I give the interior a 7, pretty good for me.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I LOVE the new Malibu so far and the real world pictures only continue to make me love it more! I think GM did an EXCELLENT job!

As for those of you that seem to hate the interior, I don't understand why. It looks excellent and it's FAR more attractive and innovative than anything else in this class. If you don't like the color, then order a different color, it's not that hard.

It's the PERFECT throwback to older Chevrolets while still being very modern and cool. But I guess GM will never be able to make some people happy.

[Cory Wolfe]

The only part of the interior I can say I truly hate is the center stack. It looked decent in original photos, but it's just the same old horribly integrated, cheap looking stack that I'm used to seeing in GM vehicles.

Edited January 13, 2007 by blackviper8891

[ToniCipriani]

Why is the radio red, or is this the Aura one that lights up yellow? Wonder if the production one will be replaced with the Chevrolet greenish-white.

[Robert Hall]

I like how the key is on the dash.

[maxximus1]

I think the rear tail lights look fantastic. Its a good departure from the other Chevy's and maybe thats the point.

[Paolino]

Why is the radio red, or is this the Aura one that lights up yellow? Wonder if the production one will be replaced with the Chevrolet greenish-white.

I'm not sure why it's showing up like that... if you look in the pictures with it on, the display gives off a white-light-bluish color.

[ToniCipriani]

Maybe it's just a preproduction unit then... They probably just plugged one in from the Aura stock.

[LosAngeles]

Anyone else feel the VW Phaeton overtones?

It's definitely a clean looker....but how long will it be? What kind of interior volume will it have? Will it have stick available across the range (the auto-auto-auto crap is what kills me about the intermediate market these days)?