MT: 'BU vs Acc vs Cam vs Alt

[jrockb4]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans...ison/index.html

Here you go. No teaser :AH-HA_wink:

[Drew Dowdell]

Interesting, no swipes at the Malibu, no mentions of Citations or Celebrities, over all sounds to be a pretty fair review.

I don't get this one though:

when shifting into manual mode, the transmission doesn't automatically drop down to a lower gear.

It's supposed to? I don't think that is something I'd want to happen.

edit: MT got 16.3 mpg? Sounds like they were enjoying that HF3.6 a bit too much. I never get below 18 in my CTS even when driving it like I stole it and it weighs the same, has more power, and "only" a 5-speed.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Oldsmoboi

[ponchoman49]

Now lets pretend that C&D did the test. The pecking order would be as follows:

First place: Accord

Second Place: Malibu

Third place: Altima

Fourth place: Camry

This just shows how Motor trend is protecting there COTY choice and not alienating there beloved Toyota.

[Drew Dowdell]

They placed the Camry 1st, but look at what they said about it:

The Camry demonstrates a busier ride than Accord and Malibu

They also said the Malibu<!!> is better with road and wind noise.

Camry's steering feels too light and anesthetized.

interior, although roomy, comfortable, and straightforward, is arguably the blandest of the group with its "acres of sickly gray plastic" that come across "awfully industrial next to the stylish Malibu,"

but they can't make up their mind... first it's roomy... then it's

At 189.2 inches long, the Camry is the stubbiest of the lot and definitely feels more petite than the group's yachts, the Accord and Malibu.

Still, I'm happy at least that they managed to print their bias without incoherent bashing of the Malibu. They had for more negative to say about the Camry even though it took first. The brake pedal feel and rear seat comfort are really subjective. I doubt anyone will get MT like fuel efficiency out of the Malibu.

[Intrepidation]

So what made it come on top? It certainly doesn't seem like it's the most refined.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Dodgefan

[Drew Dowdell]

So what made it come on top?

It was 2007 COTY and they are not in the mood for Filet Min-Crow tonight.

[siegen]

Was this a sports car comparison or a family sedan comparison?

[Drew Dowdell]

Was this a sports car comparison or a family sedan comparison?

This was a "How the new comers stack up to our previous choice." comparison.

[BatmanGTO]

Truth is, each of these family sedans is intimidating, at least when looking back 20 years at our "Top-Speed 10" test from September 1988, in which we pushed 10 of the day's fastest sports cars to the limit. Turns out every one of these household heroes is quicker to 60 and the quarter mile than seven of those sports cars, including the Nissan 300ZX Turbo, BMW M6, and Chevy Camaro IROC-Z. Want more? The Altima and Camry outpace the Porsche 928 S4 and the Ferrari Testarossa, respectively, to 60.

You have got to be kidding me.... anyone have those times?

[balthazar]

>>"Chevelle Malibu SS, powered by a 220-horse {283} V-8, achieved 0 to 60 in 9.7 seconds and the quarter mile in 17.4 at 80 mph. "<<

Why bother mentioning that there was also a 250 HP and 300 HP 327, and in the identical year of '65, a 375 HP (actual output: 400) 396 in the SS Z-16? Z-16 did 0-60 in 6.0 sec & the 1/4 mile in 14.6 sec @ 100 MPH on utter &#036;h&#33; for tires. Give it modern radials and watch another second fall off the 1/4. How nice to cherry-pick the lowest HP V-8 in an SS reference and then quote it's accel times.

>>"No dragstrip diva, "<<

No- not that one, but the 396?- yes, yes it was.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

[Camino LS6]

>>"Chevelle Malibu SS, powered by a 220-horse {283} V-8, achieved 0 to 60 in 9.7 seconds and the quarter mile in 17.4 at 80 mph. "<<

Why bother mentioning that there was also a 250 HP and 300 HP 327, and in the identical year of '65, a 375 HP (actual output: 400) 396 in the SS Z-16? Z-16 did 0-60 in 6.0 sec & the 1/4 mile in 14.6 sec @ 100 MPH on utter &#036;h&#33; for tires. Give it modern radials and watch another second fall off the 1/4. How nice to cherry-pick the lowest HP V-8 in an SS reference and then quote it's accel times.

>>"No dragstrip diva, "<<

No- not that one, but the 396?- yes, yes it was.

For that matter, why pick 1965? Or neglect to mention the increased power and performance each of the successive five years leading to the 1970 LS6 454 with an underrated 450HP. That car tested at a 13.8 1/4 in a much heavier car also running on crap bias ply tires.

Come to think of it, why mention Chevelle at all? It has absolutely nothing to do with any recent Malibu.

[K.C.]

This is a surprise, not that the Malibu finished second, but that the Accord finished 3rd, the Altima 4th, and especially the Camry 1st. I expected it to be Camry 4th, Altima 3rd, Malibu 2nd, and the Accord 1st.

[VenSeattle]

I expected it to be Camry 4th, Altima 3rd, Malibu 2nd, and the Accord 1st.

I expected it to be Altima 4th, Camry 3rd, Malibu 2nd, and the Accord 1st.

I don't care for the new Accord, but I'll easily admit the Accord is a better car than the Camry.

The Camry being 1st is

[loki]

I looked at the engine pictures.... the toyota and nissan look quite similar, as far as components go.

and the honda looks more like the 'Bu from the plastic shrouding around the perimeter

and the 'Bu doesn't even have a GM or Chevy on the engine cover....?

just some observations

[Z-06]

The Camry being 1st is

MT still has the balance of Toy's funding remaining.

[gm4life]

Okay this is great news for Chevrolet and GM, but what the hell is the Camry doing ahead of the Malibu or Accord. I agree it should have went Accord or Camry, Altima and then LAST Camry. Has the smallest interior, lack luster styling and it has a under-done interior. But oh wait MT is bank rolling Toyota.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm just happy they didn't bash the Malibu for no reason. They really couldn't find anything major to complain about. Coming in second in this crowd isn't a bad thing. In the past, would the Malibu even have been invited?

[pow]

This is a surprise, not that the Malibu finished second, but that the Accord finished 3rd, the Altima 4th, and especially the Camry 1st. I expected it to be Camry 4th, Altima 3rd, Malibu 2nd, and the Accord 1st.

That's how I would have predicted, too.

I do agree with some of M/T's complaints -- rear seat comfort and brake feel. The LT model I drove had a clunky initial "loose" feeling before they engage. But I don't find the interior as luxurious as they describe.

I wonder when the 4-cylinder reviews/comparisons come out, since they're predicted to make up 70% of Malibu sales.

[z28luvr01]

I'm just happy they didn't bash the Malibu for no reason. They really couldn't find anything major to complain about. Coming in second in this crowd isn't a bad thing. In the past, would the Malibu even have been invited?

Agreed. Take away the obvious Camry humping, and the Malibu really cleaned house here. To hear them say that the Malibu was a more engaging and fun to drive car than the Accord (the standard bearer in fun-to-drive athletic midsized sedans) is quite a compliment, and as far as performance stats go the two were pretty much neck and neck despite the 'Bu having nearly 20 fewer horses.

[pow]

As far as observed fuel economy, it's within four percent of its EPA rating of 17 MPG city, so it's plausible. The observed fuel economy for the other cars were also close to their EPA city rating - 19 MPG.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm sure it's plausible, but they had to be really beating the snot out of it to get that. I'm just comparing it to the same engine in a similarly heavy car with a 5-speed auto that I drive like a felon in.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Oldsmoboi

[gm4life]

Oldsmobi what do you drive now the Avalanche or CTS... Err what exactly do you have?

[Drew Dowdell]

Oldsmobi what do you drive now the Avalanche or CTS... Err what exactly do you have?

both

it's snowing here now, so the CTS is in storage, but I still have both.

[regfootball]

funny their malibu got 16.3 when the half ton heavier acadias that have been tested have rubbed 20 mpg before. i suppose since chevy has a manumatic now, they just left it in 3rd gear all day at redline.

MT as a publication is not even worthy for use as toilet paper in an Idaho outhouse these days. Whatever money toyota is saving by not paying Jim Press and that Debra chick and mr. Farley must be going back to Petersen publishing. hookers for Angus. I suppose the Japanese govt. owns Petersen publishing now.

truth is, they only compared 4 cars and they should have compared about 12 and it all would have been very close.

Maybe these 4 are the top contenders but it really is an insult to all the other good cars like the Fusion and Aura and Passat 2.0. And Legacy, Mazda6 etc. and so on.

Car #1 is not at all much better than car #12. Its like being trapped in a snowstorm in a hotel room with VS models. Not a bad one of the bunch, unfair to compare. Even Tom Brady couldn't stop at one.

MT is about as useless as it gets. Note that this comparo the camry magically gains a sport suspension that you likely won't find easy in the showroom and the other cars don't really have either.

Edited December 6, 2007 by regfootball

[siegen]

as far as performance stats go the two were pretty much neck and neck despite the 'Bu having nearly 20 fewer horses.

The variable cylinder management in the Accord really hurts it performance wise. The Coupe doesn't have VCM, and is rated to the same horsepower, but all indications show that it is completely underrated (dyno plots show it getting 268hp at the hub). If they were to put the non-VCM engine into the Accord sedan, a 6-sp automatic and get rid of the Michelin stock tires, it would be the racehorse of this pack by far. Of course for a family sedan having VCM is more important than a bit more acceleration. But to win mag comparo's..... well that's a different story. The Accord coupe beat the Altima coupe in a recent comparo, and would likely slaughter the Solara as well. Now if only there was a Malibu coupe. :AH-HA_wink:

[Drew Dowdell]

why does VCM hurt it? Shouldn't it be all hands on deck when the throttle is mashed?

[turbo200]

A Malibu coupe might be very cool, depending on how it's done. they might not choose to spend the money on this gen, and release the next one as a coupe, since it will certainly be very upgraded over the current model.

The 4 cyl comparo will definitely be a true test of Malibu's strength, and the core for sales. But a nice 6 cyl LTZ Malibu really is a compelling classy ride to see and be seen in. At ~25k, if I were shopping for a sedan [which I won't be again], I would have a tough time thinking of a better ride, unless I go into used car shopping. And that's a huge accomplishment. The LTZ with the lux package really is quite a luxurious looking car. The details aren't all perfect, but there are enough great details to make up for that.

As for Camry, it really is a great car. It's actually one of the best styled cars in its class, along with Malibu [which is the best, imo], and the design inside and out will have longevity, along with the rest of the car, and that is how Toyota seems to design thier cars. The car is pretty much very well engineered. I can't speak for the drive of the 6 cyl having only driven the 4, the 4 was good, the steering was too light but offered some feedback and was direct, just way too light, the suspension was okay, it wasn't a bad drive, nothing that stood out about it either. the sport suspensioned SE will be different obiously though

Edited December 6, 2007 by turbo200

[A Horse With No Name]

Now lets pretend that C&D did the test. The pecking order would be as follows:

First place: Accord

Second Place: Malibu

Third place: Altima

Fourth place: Camry

This just shows how Motor trend is protecting there COTY choice and not alienating there beloved Toyota.

Actually this is much more reasonable and one reason I like C@D Better than MT. That being said, the Nissan may really be the one that belongs in last place...

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

The variable cylinder management in the Accord really hurts it performance wise. The Coupe doesn't have VCM, and is rated to the same horsepower, but all indications show that it is completely underrated (dyno plots show it getting 268hp at the hub). If they were to put the non-VCM engine into the Accord sedan, a 6-sp automatic and get rid of the Michelin stock tires, it would be the racehorse of this pack by far. Of course for a family sedan having VCM is more important than a bit more acceleration. But to win mag comparo's..... well that's a different story. The Accord coupe beat the Altima coupe in a recent comparo, and would likely slaughter the Solara as well. Now if only there was a Malibu coupe. :AH-HA_wink:

Beating the Solera is like fishing with dynamite....

Chris

[siegen]

why does VCM hurt it? Shouldn't it be all hands on deck when the throttle is mashed?

Reports by the guys at TOV (who have driven every Accord trim/model and done performance testing as well as manual/automatic dynographs) say that the VCM-equipped 3.5L lacks midrange power compared to the one available in the coupe. It's been a while since I viewed the dyno's but I am pretty sure they coincide with that judgment. That has been the report of many owners as well. The 6MT not being available in the Sedan is also a boon. But it wasn't available in the sedan last gen the first year either.

[regfootball]

A Malibu coupe might be very cool, depending on how it's done. they might not choose to spend the money on this gen, and release the next one as a coupe, since it will certainly be very upgraded over the current model.

The 4 cyl comparo will definitely be a true test of Malibu's strength, and the core for sales. But a nice 6 cyl LTZ Malibu really is a compelling classy ride to see and be seen in. At ~25k, if I were shopping for a sedan [which I won't be again], I would have a tough time thinking of a better ride, unless I go into used car shopping. And that's a huge accomplishment. The LTZ with the lux package really is quite a luxurious looking car. The details aren't all perfect, but there are enough great details to make up for that.

As for Camry, it really is a great car. It's actually one of the best styled cars in its class, along with Malibu [which is the best, imo], and the design inside and out will have longevity, along with the rest of the car, and that is how Toyota seems to design thier cars. The car is pretty much very well engineered. I can't speak for the drive of the 6 cyl having only driven the 4, the 4 was good, the steering was too light but offered some feedback and was direct, just way too light, the suspension was okay, it wasn't a bad drive, nothing that stood out about it either. the sport suspensioned SE will be different obiously though

I'd like to see the 4 cylinder comparison delayed until chevy gets that 6 speed hooked up to it.

How bitchin would a turbo four be in this malibu?

[K.C.]

It would be really bitchin if the turbo 4 was the DI 2.0 Turbo from the HHR SS and upcoming Cobalt SS.

[turbo200]

a turbo 2.0 DI with around 220 hp that would keep the weight down and focus on mileage would be pretty cool

something with a sports suspension and this engine with weight saving techniques and light alluminum forged wheels would make for a very interesting SS..... keep it without leather but a nice material on the inside, introduce a new color combo and you could have a very hyped up edition that could be priced just above the LTZ V6.

Edited December 9, 2007 by turbo200

[gm4life]

both

it's snowing here now, so the CTS is in storage, but I still have both.

Awww I see, still I'd rather drive the CTS lol.

[frogger]

I wonder when the Accord Turbo Diesel will arrive here.

[CaddyXLR-V]

why does VCM hurt it? Shouldn't it be all hands on deck when the throttle is mashed?

I believe the additional hardware necessary for VCM increases the valvetrain weight, even when all cylinders are firing. This causes it to not rev up as quickly, which means the car will be slower. I believe that is also the reason GM does not use it on every car that has a V8, like the CTS-V, Corvette, GTO. It is used on the G8, though you can see the power figures are down on that car as well, but I'm not sure if it has the same tuning as the 6.0L in my GTO or not.

[gm4life]

I think Caddy is right.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I'm willing to bet the G8 GXP will not have AFM as well.

[Robert Hall]

>>"Chevelle Malibu SS, powered by a 220-horse {283} V-8, achieved 0 to 60 in 9.7 seconds and the quarter mile in 17.4 at 80 mph. "<<

Why bother mentioning that there was also a 250 HP and 300 HP 327, and in the identical year of '65, a 375 HP (actual output: 400) 396 in the SS Z-16? Z-16 did 0-60 in 6.0 sec & the 1/4 mile in 14.6 sec @ 100 MPH on utter &#036;h&#33; for tires. Give it modern radials and watch another second fall off the 1/4. How nice to cherry-pick the lowest HP V-8 in an SS reference and then quote it's accel times.

>>"No dragstrip diva, "<<

No- not that one, but the 396?- yes, yes it was.

Yes, but the 396 wasn't available in '64. So it's pointless, after all, since how many people in the target market for the new car were around in '64 and remember such trivia?

Edited December 18, 2007 by moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

More turbo 4s please.

[The O.C.]

So what made it come on top? It certainly doesn't seem like it's the most refined.

Well, I have noticed that Camrys that are compared in "SE" spec tend to garner way more favorable reviews. The suspension tuning and overall handling seem to be much crisper than the LE and XLE models. Also, the woodgrain-less interior looks better in my opinion.

I had the same feeling over driving an SE 4cyl of the previous generation.....a nicely turned-out car actually compared to the boring-beyond-boring LEs and stuff in common rental fleets.

[The O.C.]

I'm sure it's plausible, but they had to be really beating the snot out of it to get that. I'm just comparing it to the same engine in a similarly heavy car with a 5-speed auto that I drive like a felon in.

Yeah...but like we've discussed before, I don't drive like a felon and have never gotten better than 17-19mpg in my manual 6-speed CTS...even with more highway cruising worked into the mix....the flip side being it still doesn't drop below 17mpg even in 100% city driving, flogging it from stoplight to stoplight.

You'd think that my manual CTS should be quite a bit better than your auto CTS. But that's not the case.

I'm convinced the 3.6L HF V6 is very fuel mileage sensative depending upon vehicle application, transmission, and gearing.

[balthazar]

>>"Yes, but the 396 wasn't available in '64."<<

...in the identical year of '65, a 375 HP (actual output: 400) 396...

>>"So it's pointless, after all, since how many people in the target market for the new car were around in '64 and remember such trivia? "<<

The guys who write for the magazine seemed to think 1964 was pertinent in an article on the 2008- maybe they have your answer.

I wasn't around in '64 either; I learned it because history, esp of -ahem- General Motors, interests me. Ignoring history allows bias to pave over fact with wild abandon, in too many cases further sullying GM's reputation for the future. If everyone held past history in such light regard, I guess the upside could be that... for example; Chevelles would be worth all of $400 for basic transportation instead of trading hands in the 100s of thousands of dollars upon occasion. I can't imagine you think the '08 Malibu will ever reach even a notable fraction of that interest in the same timespan.

[Drew Dowdell]

Yeah...but like we've discussed before, I don't drive like a felon and have never gotten better than 17-19mpg in my manual 6-speed CTS...even with more highway cruising worked into the mix....the flip side being it still doesn't drop below 17mpg even in 100% city driving, flogging it from stoplight to stoplight.

You'd think that my manual CTS should be quite a bit better than your auto CTS. But that's not the case.

I'm convinced the 3.6L HF V6 is very fuel mileage sensative depending upon vehicle application, transmission, and gearing.

Have you taken it on a long distance trip yet? I wonder what pure highway mileage for you would be.....