Chevrolet Debuts the New Malibu

[vonVeezelsnider]

Considering that the Malibu is on the upper half of the Chevy spectrum, I feel 6 elements would be more appropriate, anyway. And distinctive.

I would argue that only the Impala got six and therefore only the Impala should get six in the future.

[balthazar]

^ I would agree... but add that nothing (short of a full-size truck) has the overall width to pull off 6 taillights anymore.

[Satty]

Yes, everything must be exactly the same as it was 40 years ago.....

[SAmadei]

Considering that the Malibu is on the upper half of the Chevy spectrum, I feel 6 elements would be more appropriate, anyway. And distinctive.

I would argue that only the Impala got six and therefore only the Impala should get six in the future.

Caprice got 6 as well. So did the Biscayne and BelAir in '59 and '72. Celebrity and Lumina... the precursors to the Malibu also had 6 at times.

Of course, Chevy screwed it all up by putting 4 lights on the 1997-2003 Impalas.

^ I would agree... but add that nothing (short of a full-size truck) has the overall width to pull off 6 taillights anymore.

Chevrolet Celebrity

1st gen Lumina

2005-2011 Mustang.

It can be done, assuming the individual elements were not huge.

I think it would look VERY distinctive to put 6 lights across the back... 2 on the body, 4 on the trunk.

[vonVeezelsnider]

Considering that the Malibu is on the upper half of the Chevy spectrum, I feel 6 elements would be more appropriate, anyway. And distinctive.

I would argue that only the Impala got six and therefore only the Impala should get six in the future.

Caprice got 6 as well. So did the Biscayne and BelAir in '59 and '72. Celebrity and Lumina... the precursors to the Malibu also had 6 at times.

For some reason I always forget the Caprice, I don't really think of the pathetic Lumina and Celebrity at all really lol...

Edited April 17, 2011 by vonVeezelsnider

[ZL-1]

Yes, everything must be exactly the same as it was 40 years ago.....

Sure it is! I my self will be travelling to the Soviet Union soon; as soon as the Communist Party lets me in

[ocnblu]

SAmadei, please post a link to a photo of a '72 Biscayne and Bel Air showing 6 taillight elements. I think they had 4. The '59 I am not as sure about... we need an historian to locate rear end photos of '59 Impala and Bel Air for comparison.

[CanadianBacon94]

C&D

[SAmadei]

SAmadei, please post a link to a photo of a '72 Biscayne and Bel Air showing 6 taillight elements. I think they had 4. The '59 I am not as sure about... we need an historian to locate rear end photos of '59 Impala and Bel Air for comparison.

Sorry, the '59 was a typo. I meant '58. I got that tidbit from Wikipedia, and a quick Google search quickly turned up a couple of these...

I gotta tell ya, I have NEVER seen a '58 Chevy with 4 lights, so that was a real shocker for me.

1959 was a bizarre year for the lights... as they all seem to have 5 segments... so that doesn't count.

As for the '72... I have never seen anything but the 6 element...

[SAmadei]

C&D

You know, this picture is not helping me see the coke bottle... it looks like instead of a coke bottle, the rear of the roofline is slightly boattailed, allowing the trunk lid to wrap around slightly.

[Northstar]

I don't think I care too much for the greenhouse, based on the picture of the blue one. Still need to see more pictures, however.

[Croc]

Yea this car has clearly been redesigned.

[hyperv6]

The trunk will have a little clam shell effect to it.

As for the latest picture it is a little misleading as it is not a great photo. The greenhouse and other proportions are a little out of wack. Used some of the spy photo's to put this in better into persepective.

This is a car that right now may not sit well with some and they will change their mind once they see it in person. Designs like this show much better in person as they need the 3D effect. Note the CTS coupe is ok in photo's but is a real WOW! in person.

As for the tail lights they will come off very well. If 6 could be done I would save it for the Impala but only if they look right. Todays cars are so narrow that 6 if not done right would look silly. The cars in the past were so wide they looked good on a full size but I still would not want them on a Vette or 72 Chevelle. Too often less is more.

Edited April 17, 2011 by hyperv6

[balthazar]

...nothing (short of a full-size truck) has the overall width to pull off 6 taillights anymore.

Todays cars are so narrow that 6 if not done right would look silly. The cars in the past were so wide they looked good on a full size but I still would not want them on a Vette or 72 Chevelle.

[ocnblu]

SAmadei, I think the term "coke bottle", when it is applied to car design, refers to a pinch at the rocker panel area, accompanied by a pinch and a kick-up at the rear 1/4 of the belt area. I don't think it applies to anything above the belt... if someone could confirm or deny my understanding, I'd appreciate it.

Yup, on the '58, every model had 4 lights, except for the Impala, which was only a coupe in its first year, and which I understand has a different body altogether than the lesser models of that year... you have to see them side by side to see many of the differences.

On the 1971-74 ('75? I forget the last year of the Bel Air) Bel Air, it had a different rear bumper/rear body finish panel and only 4 taillamp elements. Your photo is of an Impala I think.

Edited April 17, 2011 by ocnblu

[balthazar]

Caprice got 6 as well. So did the Biscayne and BelAir in '59 and '72. Celebrity and Lumina... the precursors to the Malibu also had 6 at times. Of course, Chevy screwed it all up by putting 4 lights on the 1997-2003 Impalas.

^ I would agree... but add that nothing (short of a full-size truck) has the overall width to pull off 6 taillights anymore.

Chevrolet Celebrity

1st gen Lumina

2005-2011 Mustang.

It can be done, assuming the individual elements were not huge. I think it would look VERY distinctive to put 6 lights across the back... 2 on the body, 4 on the trunk.

I see there are different terms of definitions here. One could call this 4 taillights, another could call it 10. I call it 2:

You say "6 tails" and I picture something like this; distinct & separate :

Edited April 18, 2011 by balthazar

[vonVeezelsnider]

Yup, on the '58, every model had 4 lights, except for the Impala, which was only a coupe in its first year, and which I understand has a different body altogether than the lesser models of that year... you have to see them side by side to see many of the differences.

I believe they offered a ragtop too (IIRC?)

[balthazar]

Ya- Impala was a 2-dr hardtop or a convert in '58.

>>"...which I understand has a different body altogether than the lesser models of that year..."<<

Nooo- same body shell, only sheet metal difference was the 'air extractor' on the roof and the rest was trim, but the shell was the same as the other C-58s.

[Intrepidation]

You say "6 tails" and I picture something like this; distinct & separate :

Anyway, I like it less after seeing the blue one, but will wait until we see more, better photos.

[Paolino]

Well, after seeing the blue one I like it a little less... I'm hoping it's a photo prob and not the car. It looks a little pudgier and less athletic than the red one. Time will tell.

[regfootball]

I think refinement and fuel economy are more important than horsepower gains. I've driven a Sonata and found the engine to be more refined and quiet than the 4-bangers I've driven from Audi or Saab.

That's impressive because I've read reviews stating the new 2.4L DI in the Sonata is a bit coarse. I haven't experienced one myself.

This too is the one major complaint I have seen on the Sonata. They feel the engine while powerful is very unrefined.

I did laugh the other day a co worker drve a new Turbo Regal. He told me since GM is building them in Germany they must be buying engines from BMW. He never drove a 4 cylinder with that much power and as quiet in a GM car.

I broke the news to him it was a Ecotech similar to what was in my HHR he was shocked. I told him it was a good engine and the quiet tuning really makes the Buick special. I hope the new Bu get much of the same quiet tuning that the Buick receives.

I think the Sonata's issue is more that they have not put hardly any sound attenuation in the car, and the chassis is not heavy enough to give it a bank vault feel. So you are hearing volume and sounds that you would hear from any other engine if it were in the Sonata with not a lot of sound attenuation.

Turbo Regal is a super nice ride with the engine the way it is now. The whole car is a step up and over the Sonata. Not sure why the buff books bitch about it.

[regfootball]

You're proving Satty's point. The front end looks barely looks like a MCE... and the rear of the car looks like it trying to be something different from the front... just like the current 'Bu.

Do I like the new 'Bu better? Well, yeah... but only because I REALLY hated the taillight treatment on the old one... but the new taillight treatment I feel is gimmicky. "Looks like the Camaro"... maybe to the blind. The only Camaro with lights like that was the convertible mule that had LED taillights and everybody panned it as awful. Glue 'em on the 'Bu and everyone swoons.

I don't like the beltline on the bumper thatskirts the bottom of the headlights and dives below the lower grill. The fog lights and surrounds look like they are from the GM parts bin. I don't like the way the hood appears to bump up higher than the old hood... like the hood is trying to compete with the RAM pickup. I'm not really feeling the coke-bottle styling here... sure there is some rear haunches, the the lower belt between the two wheels is straight as the old Malibu.

Sorry, I think in a short time this it going to be dated. This would have been a good 2010... not a 2012.

Interesting...when I look at the two I see completely different proportions, completely different design aesthetics, and completely different details. See, the outgoing Malibu is very slab-sided, formal and flat on the sides and rear. Trying to ape the Passat, maybe? But the new one is a lot more expressive, muscular, and less "reserved"-looking.

The only thing I am not sure about on the new design is the fog light surrounds and the lower air intake: seems to look a little more "expensive" on the outgoing model, especially if the horizontal bar is body colored and not chromed.

Current Bu was a well done Phaeton rip off with a chevy grille and scrunched to fit the Eps platform it was given.

[regfootball]

The current Malibu is still one of the most handsome mid-size family cars out there. Keeping the new one familiar to that is a good thing. GM could have gotten away with an interior MCE and a slight freshening on the outside, but we're getting a fully redesigned car instead.

the Impala is the one that gets tweaked again. !!!!!!

I think its wise they try to keep the Malibu fresh. The Impala gets the king of the hill v6 now to keep it on the top of the pecking order. The Malibu with its new bod will still garner PR press more than an MCE of the current one, even though the current one is a looker.

The big thing chevy accomplishes with the new design is it fixes an puts away the fatal flaws of the current car. Cheap interior, small trunk, low seating, tight back seat, closed in feel. The new car will improve on a lot of that stuff.

By bringing the new car, Chevy gets in the habit of coming out with a new version of its most important cars on regular product cycles, not milking them for 10 year lifespans.

Edited April 18, 2011 by regfootball

[Robert Hall]

Ya- Impala was a 2-dr hardtop or a convert in '58.

>>"...which I understand has a different body altogether than the lesser models of that year..."<<

Nooo- same body shell, only sheet metal difference was the 'air extractor' on the roof and the rest was trim, but the shell was the same as the other C-58s.

Weren't the Impala rear quarters different, esp. around the taillights? Different decklids also, looks like. And the C-pillar and roofline on 2dr hts?

Edited April 18, 2011 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[SAmadei]

SAmadei, I think the term "coke bottle", when it is applied to car design, refers to a pinch at the rocker panel area, accompanied by a pinch and a kick-up at the rear 1/4 of the belt area. I don't think it applies to anything above the belt... if someone could confirm or deny my understanding, I'd appreciate it.

I forget who it was, but first time I hear the term coke bottle used to describe auto body design, it was an interview with one of the big '60s designers, perhaps John Z, but I can't remember. Their definition of "coke bottle" was that looking down on the car, it would appear to obviously bulge out at the wheels... like a coke bottle laid on its side... so that can happen above or below the beltline.

Now, almost any car might bulge slightly at the wheels, but the idea here is that its not a subtle curvature.

On the 1971-74 ('75? I forget the last year of the Bel Air) Bel Air, it had a different rear bumper/rear body finish panel and only 4 taillamp elements. Your photo is of an Impala I think.

Bel Air ended in 1975. Biscayne in 1972.

According to the owner its a '72 Bel Air. Perhaps its a bumper swap... but on that particular year, I can't recall seeing a different bumper treatment. Wiki and Standard Catalog claim/show no 4 element lights. At this point the Bel Air and Biscayne were clearly on the way out... something like 6% of total production, it hardly seems worth eliminating the 2 elements.

In '71, '73, '74, '75 I have seen the 4 light alternative... some are REALLY hard to find photos of... they are not common cars anymore.

If we can find a photo of one, I'd be a believer... but I have 40 years of photographic memory recall on taillights (the '58 is a bit before my time).

Caprice got 6 as well. So did the Biscayne and BelAir in '59 and '72. Celebrity and Lumina... the precursors to the Malibu also had 6 at times. Of course, Chevy screwed it all up by putting 4 lights on the 1997-2003 Impalas.

^ I would agree... but add that nothing (short of a full-size truck) has the overall width to pull off 6 taillights anymore.

Chevrolet Celebrity

1st gen Lumina

2005-2011 Mustang.

It can be done, assuming the individual elements were not huge. I think it would look VERY distinctive to put 6 lights across the back... 2 on the body, 4 on the trunk.

I see there are different terms of definitions here. One could call this 4 taillights, another could call it 10. I call it 2:

You say "6 tails" and I picture something like this; distinct & separate :

I agree and disagree.

In general , I would consider the '59 to be 2 lights... but I consider the Mustang, Celebrity, Lumina to be 6 because the divisions in the lens match up with 6 individual light bulbs and reflective buckets, whereas the '59s are just ribs... for example, I consider my '81 Bonneville to have 2 lights, because the 12 individual boxes per side are just an overlaid design... even though some might argue it also have 6 elements... since 4 boxes of the grid matches up with the buckets... but I wouldn't.

The thing is the later Impalas/Caprices had similar molded together "elements" to the Mustang, Celebrity, Lumina... and people consider them to be 6 elements... then other lighting, such as the '74 Nova, appear to have separate elements, but actually are one lens/bucket molding per side... so its all splitting hairs.

With 72" of car, I think 3" lights, 1" separation... takes up 12" per side... plenty of room and a license plate could still fit inside... it would be a distinctive setup Chevy could tweak for years.

[ocnblu]

Balthy, I think the '58 Impala had a good bit of exclusive sheetmetal.

SAmadei, there is a website dedicated to old car brochures, I will check over there and see about the '70s Bel Airs.

[Croc]

Can we get back to talking about the MALIBU and not how taillights were 50 years ago?? Nobody cares today.

[z28luvr01]

That blue photo is very, VERY over-processed. It doesn't really reveal much. I think the car will look a lot better in person. I'll find out soon enough

[Turbojett]

Not altogether sold on the bumper strike face surfacing. I thing it should flow more smoothly into a slightly, more gently protruding nose. Looks--dare I say--somewhat trucklike here.

I also think the rear fender line should rise up another 1 - 2in on the shoulder, and it should flow farther into the door and underline the rear quarter window. I realize they did that for panel alignment/fitment issues, but really it just looks like it ends too abruptly--

Like: "OH! Door cutline!" *comes to a screeching halt*

Those are minor little nitpicks though. Nothing I couldn't deal with or get used to and come to accept in time. The rest of it is money, though.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Turbojett

[Mike The Canadian]

Isn't this thing supposed to be unveiled today? I've been craving more photos!

[vonVeezelsnider]

Live reveal on Facebook page, 8.30pm Eastern.

[Paolino]

Isn't this thing supposed to be unveiled today? I've been craving more photos!

8:30PM, EDT.

[Mike The Canadian]

Ahh okay, thanks guys

[Drew Dowdell]

For those of you not on Facebook, you can watch the 2013 Malibu reveal here. 8:30pm eastern time

[Paolino]

EDIT: Didn't like how I came off and need to keep my mood to myself and talk about the car:

Like the car, really do. Love the interior and wood elements. It's a shame that the trim they showed was probably around $30,000.

The presentation however I felt the teaser was more exciting... I'm not sure why, maybe all the lights sounds and CG got to me and got me ramped up--maybe it's my mood. Anyway, think it'll do well. Let's hope GM markets this well.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Paolino

[Mike The Canadian]

I heard something about the 2.5 (I got in late)

Have they mentioned the output?

[deftonesfan867]

I heard something about the 2.5 (I got in late)

Have they mentioned the output?

AB is saying 190bhp.

[CanadianBacon94]

[CanadianBacon94]

i really like it, although i always thought the old interior was one of the best looking interior in it's class

[Drew Dowdell]

Wow @ the interior!

[Northstar]

I think it looks great, and that C-pillar has really grown on me... reminds me of the Audi A5.

[Robert Hall]

Bryan Nesbitt (I think that's his name) resembles Charlie Sheen. Winning!

[Northstar]

They only released 3 pictures? Pretty lame.

[Nick]

They only released 3 pictures? Pretty lame.

Check autoblog. There are a few more.

[smk4565]

I like the exterior, it looks quite good from the front and front 3/4 angle. The trunk looks better than the current car, but it has a bit too much Bangle-butt for my liking.

I also like the interior overall, it has more style and finally a Nav screen. I do have a couple complaints about the interior. The wood trim is terrible, it looks worse than the fake stuff Buick has, GM needs to find a new fake-wood shop or else buy real or use something else. My other complaint is the overuse of blue lighting and the blue stitching on the brown seats. The color scheme of that interior clashes, but that is perhaps fixed by alternate interior color combinations.

The engine seems like nothing special, there are more powerful currently for sale, and 35 mpg is the standard, so we'll have to see if the Malibu can hit better than 35 mpg. Otherwise the powertrain is just class average, although a lot of buyers in this class won't really care or notice the difference between 10-15 hp or 2-3 mpg.

At least with the new Malibu, it looks like GM is willing to put up a fight to the Sonata and Optima.

[Cory Wolfe]

The exterior is better than I was expecting, but those taillights are tacky. Speaking of tacky.. That interior is just as bad as the spy shots suggested and the myriad textures and colors are seemingly thrown in without regard to taste. That atrocious wood trim is the worst offender here. Surprisingly, the best aspect is the new center stack, making a complete 180 from the current iteration's interior.

Final test will be seeing it in person.

[smk4565]

We need to know what it will cost.

[Paolino]

Okay, maybe nitpicking, but can GM do something about Chevy's 5-spoke wheels? It just seems like same in, same out. At least the current gen has nicer (and different), LTZ wheels.

[GMTruckGuy74]

I'm surprised no one here is talking about the atroicious e-brake handle sticking out of the console

It looks like it is a electric emergency brake, with the button to the right of the transmission shifter.

Also, 8 airbags standard, 2 optional (10 overall), rearview camera (camera is in the 3^rd brake light on the trunk lid), 2.5L 4 cyl, a 35-mpg model (Eco?) to be announced soon (NYIAS), dark metallic blue is offered (referenced picture on Internet).

[Croc]

EDIT: Didn't like how I came off and need to keep my mood to myself and talk about the car:

Like the car, really do. Love the interior and wood elements. It's a shame that the trim they showed was probably around $30,000.

The presentation however I felt the teaser was more exciting... I'm not sure why, maybe all the lights sounds and CG got to me and got me ramped up--maybe it's my mood. Anyway, think it'll do well. Let's hope GM markets this well.

They just didn't focus on what would be RELEVANT for the vast majority of their buyers--how does this car meet/exceed a family's daily needs? The typical family doesn't care how much this car shares inspiration with the Camaro, they care about safety, how much family gear it can hold, how the infotainment system can make their life easier, cupholders, rear seat comfort, etc...as it was the unveiling was more geared toward geeky/gee-whiz features that appeal to enthusiasts and those who have already been sold on Chevrolet and the Malibu...not the Camry, Accord, Sonata and Fusion crowd.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Croc