Chevrolet Debuts the New Malibu

[regfootball]

love the taillights.

overall there is nothing that is disagreeable on the exterior and it is very nice. Like it a lot.

I do think i would have taken advantage of a few opportunities.....i would have actually done some sculpting on the headlight covers to give a bit of angry to the face but i am sure that would make them more succesiptible to damage and be more expensive and less aero. the hood is a bit too tall and oversculpted, but that does not mean what is there isn't handsome either. I would maybe like to see the grille not so high and hint maybe at a bottom breather look perhaps.

Nesbitt sure likes that cirrus version 4 trunklid.

i think they could have given the car even bigger hips in the rear actually.

inside has lots going on and doesn't look bad but it does look like its riddled with typical GM interior finishes. I was really hoping for something more European in direction. I'll wait til i see the finished look. I doubt it would keep me being interested in the car.

Great to see GM embrace tech.

200hp 4 with 35+ mpg. They got the message.

This car is looking like it has the goods to bust the floodgates open for chevy. I see this car doing bangup business, taking from all competitors.....accord, camry, altima, sonata, fusion..........

key points, nice style, larger interior, larger trunk, more tech, more comfy, better mpg, better perf, more refined. Chevy is addressing it all.

Even though this car is not outlandish or even bold the shape of it will not hold it back. Love the car, I really do. Now i know another option for my GM card when I see the heavenly day I can unload my crappy cobalt.

Edited April 19, 2011 by regfootball

[balthazar]

Can't decide on that interior- first impression is : busy. Not sure I get the stylistic point of the horizontal grillework in the interior, either. I would have liked to see a stylistic evolution of the current interior rather than another from scratch job. Interior pic looks CG.

Exterior looks a lot better than I was expecting, but certain elements conspire to make the entire car look notably smaller IMO. And while the pseudo-sporty cues have amped up, it's lost the classiness the current car wears so well.

More pics needed.

[Drew Dowdell]

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).

In fact, that looks like the identical setup to the Regal for the center console

[GMTruckGuy74]

Tap-shift button on top of the transmission shifter?

Seeing some of the new Chevy Colorado in the frontend...

Don't like the bedazzled taillights...

Camaro influences - taillights, gauge cluster (anything else?)

Overall, I'm impressed by this car and it is enough for me to not want to look at a Kia Optima or Hyundai Elantra anymore.

[dwightlooi]

Wow @ the interior!

Looks like a good mix of materials and generally good looking color combo. I like the Leather/Fabric (or simulant) wrapped upper dash and instrument cluster sun-shade. Seats look good... very deep and supportive.

Not so sure about the vents and the center stack... just too many lines, too much clutter. I hate clutter. Besides, a multitude of lateral slates look so 80s. The use of wood (like) trim in the window control panel also makes the wood look fake.

[GMTruckGuy74]

I like the added wood trim on the steering wheel.

[Paolino]

Tap-shift button on top of the transmission shifter? Noticed that too, but it's something I'm guessing 99% will never use after they try it once.

Don't like the bedazzled taillights... me either... if you're going to do LED, fill it up. Make a nice smooth light.

Camaro influences - taillights, gauge cluster (anything else?) four wheels, car has mirrors, gas tank, TONS of elements.

Overall, I'm impressed by this car and it is enough for me to not want to look at a Kia Optima or Hyundai Elantra anymore. Impressed as well, but praying pricing doesn't destroy it.

[regfootball]

Overall, I'm impressed by this car and it is enough for me to not want to look at a Kia Optima or Hyundai Elantra anymore.

Bingo! the Malibu will become relevant.

this is classier than the Optimata.

[Lamar]

Rear reminds me of the current/outgoing Passat as much as it does the Camaro. Good evolution/change in direction though.

The interior appeals to me more than I thought it would based on the spy shots. Need to see it in person at some point... or at least in some live shots. And they FINALLY caught up with everyone else by offering a nav screen!

Overall, I like where the car's design has gone.

[Drew Dowdell]

Updated the gallery

[ocnblu]

Whoa, I love that interior. Very warm, stylish and upscale. The wood trim looks great. Looking at it from the rear 3/4 view, I see a good bit of Camaro in it... the hips, even the stationary rear door glass reminds me of the Camaro's quarter glass. Nice tie-in... will make the family man feel better about putting off his dream of owning a Camaro v. something more practical. Let us not roll our eyes at Chevrolet, as Ford has put some definite Mustang elements into the new Taurus (square shoulders, concave middle bodyline).

I am not sure the taillights are shown in the most flattering light (so to speak) though, lit on a red car under unnatural studio lighting conditions. Should settle down in real life in other colors... like the dark blue or a dark gray.

[hyperv6]

Well from here and other sites I have read the response has been love hate. That is about the best any car can do. Even the Vette has about a intitial 50/50 love hate first response.

GM has done what they needed here. They have carried over what was good on the last car put it on a better platform and made changes that should appeal to most in this class. This is not a car for all here on this site and if it did appeal to all here it would have missed the target market it was aimed at.

It will be interesting to hear more on the 2.5 engine. This is the first of the new Eco engines and I assume the 2.5 is only replacing the 2.4. The Turbo engines may have more to offer.

The Styling is doing it's job. The car will not be mistaken for a Honda or Toyota as it says Chevy in the details. The tail lights will grow fast on people in person as then you see the real car the rear will smack of the Camaro much more than the photo's show. Note too the C pillar was retained from the last car and was the stongest thing styling element on the last car. The side cut is similar to the new Colorado and I expect it will find it's way onto the other new Chevys. It kind of started on the Camaro.

Interiro is a little busy but not too busy. I think in person more will like what they see. It is much better for a little busy vs a large expanse of plastic infront of the passenger that looks really cheap like in the Camaro.

There will be some things missing on theis car that some here will lament like the lack of a V6 and trunk space. But then again if it had all these items would there be a need for the Impala. All of these I am sure will be addressed in the new Impala and make it so people can choose what they want.

If anything the build quality will be at the lead of the class if it is like the Regal. The new Kia Optima I was in left me cold when I slammed the rear door. The door left a cheap metalic ting that could be heard all the way from Cleveland to Soul. A well built car needs to sound as well as it looks or is made. I think based on what I have seen and what I know about this platform I will be good with the Malibu once I see it in person. Will I want a few things different? Yes as there is seldom a car anyone here would not make a change or two.

Over all I think this car will do well in class I just hope it is enough to keep the car current and get the needed updates to remain current with the others. I know the last gen got pinched in the money crunch and I expect GM will not let that happen again. I expect them to keep this car fresh.

[Z-06]

I do not like the pictures - seem to be too overdone. But based on those, I will give the car a solid 7.8/10.0 design wise. It is easily the most handsome car in its segment. Kia comes a close second, however the grille just gives it out.

[regfootball]

Whoa, I love that interior. Very warm, stylish and upscale. The wood trim looks great. Looking at it from the rear 3/4 view, I see a good bit of Camaro in it... the hips, even the stationary rear door glass reminds me of the Camaro's quarter glass. Nice tie-in... will make the family man feel better about putting off his dream of owning a Camaro v. something more practical. Let us not roll our eyes at Chevrolet, as Ford has put some definite Mustang elements into the new Taurus (square shoulders, concave middle bodyline).

I am not sure the taillights are shown in the most flattering light (so to speak) though, lit on a red car under unnatural studio lighting conditions. Should settle down in real life in other colors... like the dark blue or a dark gray.

new taurus is so large and heavy. i hope the malibu is more responsive and lean.

someone mentioned passat. that 2012 passat looks ridiculous compared to this new malibu.

[regfootball]

Well from here and other sites I have read the response has been love hate. That is about the best any car can do. Even the Vette has about a intitial 50/50 love hate first response.

GM has done what they needed here. They have carried over what was good on the last car put it on a better platform and made changes that should appeal to most in this class. This is not a car for all here on this site and if it did appeal to all here it would have missed the target market it was aimed at.

It will be interesting to hear more on the 2.5 engine. This is the first of the new Eco engines and I assume the 2.5 is only replacing the 2.4. The Turbo engines may have more to offer.

The Styling is doing it's job. The car will not be mistaken for a Honda or Toyota as it says Chevy in the details. The tail lights will grow fast on people in person as then you see the real car the rear will smack of the Camaro much more than the photo's show. Note too the C pillar was retained from the last car and was the stongest thing styling element on the last car. The side cut is similar to the new Colorado and I expect it will find it's way onto the other new Chevys. It kind of started on the Camaro.

Interiro is a little busy but not too busy. I think in person more will like what they see. It is much better for a little busy vs a large expanse of plastic infront of the passenger that looks really cheap like in the Camaro.

There will be some things missing on theis car that some here will lament like the lack of a V6 and trunk space. But then again if it had all these items would there be a need for the Impala. All of these I am sure will be addressed in the new Impala and make it so people can choose what they want.

If anything the build quality will be at the lead of the class if it is like the Regal. The new Kia Optima I was in left me cold when I slammed the rear door. The door left a cheap metalic ting that could be heard all the way from Cleveland to Soul. A well built car needs to sound as well as it looks or is made. I think based on what I have seen and what I know about this platform I will be good with the Malibu once I see it in person. Will I want a few things different? Yes as there is seldom a car anyone here would not make a change or two.

Over all I think this car will do well in class I just hope it is enough to keep the car current and get the needed updates to remain current with the others. I know the last gen got pinched in the money crunch and I expect GM will not let that happen again. I expect them to keep this car fresh.

glad you mentioned the Kia. those doors do sound a bit hollow and hints as corners cut on the rest of the vehicle. regal, every detail suggests solid build.

[Lamar]

new taurus is so large and heavy. i hope the malibu is more responsive and lean.

someone mentioned passat. that 2012 passat looks ridiculous compared to this new malibu.

I'm "someone." This new 'Bu reminds me of the outgoing Passat, which isn't a bad thing. I completely agree that stylewise, the new 'Bu owns the new Passat (aka the previous Kia Optima).

[Intrepidation]

Like the interior, looks very upscale, don't even mind the horizontal stakes now. Like the front, like the back. But in between I'm not sure. From some angles it looks fine, but angles were we can see more of the profile it looks a bit awkward. I want to see an actual side view.

[Turbojett]

I kind of expected the taillights to be a bit slimmer, based on the teaser pic, but they're not bad. I still say the rear shoulder needs to be hiked up a little bit. Boattail looks good though. Interior is phenomenal.

[Justin Bimmer]

Is it just me or when the Chevelle Project drawings were up, didn't the rear end of that car kind of look like this car? Does anybody have that drawing anymore?

[01Malibu]

I see a red car and I want to paint it black. This is the nicest looking small Chevy since the mid 1970s Nova. Classic. Clean. Mainstream. In black, it could really excite people. Nicest small Chevy since I was a child. GM needs to gain market share in this segment now that Saturn and Pontiac aren't stealing sales from Chevrolet. I see elements of 1960s cars especially in the back.

[hyperv6]

Well from here and other sites I have read the response has been love hate. That is about the best any car can do. Even the Vette has about a intitial 50/50 love hate first response.

GM has done what they needed here. They have carried over what was good on the last car put it on a better platform and made changes that should appeal to most in this class. This is not a car for all here on this site and if it did appeal to all here it would have missed the target market it was aimed at.

It will be interesting to hear more on the 2.5 engine. This is the first of the new Eco engines and I assume the 2.5 is only replacing the 2.4. The Turbo engines may have more to offer.

The Styling is doing it's job. The car will not be mistaken for a Honda or Toyota as it says Chevy in the details. The tail lights will grow fast on people in person as then you see the real car the rear will smack of the Camaro much more than the photo's show. Note too the C pillar was retained from the last car and was the stongest thing styling element on the last car. The side cut is similar to the new Colorado and I expect it will find it's way onto the other new Chevys. It kind of started on the Camaro.

Interiro is a little busy but not too busy. I think in person more will like what they see. It is much better for a little busy vs a large expanse of plastic infront of the passenger that looks really cheap like in the Camaro.

There will be some things missing on theis car that some here will lament like the lack of a V6 and trunk space. But then again if it had all these items would there be a need for the Impala. All of these I am sure will be addressed in the new Impala and make it so people can choose what they want.

If anything the build quality will be at the lead of the class if it is like the Regal. The new Kia Optima I was in left me cold when I slammed the rear door. The door left a cheap metalic ting that could be heard all the way from Cleveland to Soul. A well built car needs to sound as well as it looks or is made. I think based on what I have seen and what I know about this platform I will be good with the Malibu once I see it in person. Will I want a few things different? Yes as there is seldom a car anyone here would not make a change or two.

Over all I think this car will do well in class I just hope it is enough to keep the car current and get the needed updates to remain current with the others. I know the last gen got pinched in the money crunch and I expect GM will not let that happen again. I expect them to keep this car fresh.

glad you mentioned the Kia. those doors do sound a bit hollow and hints as corners cut on the rest of the vehicle. regal, every detail suggests solid build.

For the most you get what you pay for. With many of the Korean cars they look like a Million but It is all makeup and lip stick on many of them. They are going for the kill with the price point and feel if they make them look good they can cut the corners to save on price. Well that works for so long till cars start coming appart in areas the warranty did not cover.

I have a few co workers who bought Korean thinking they bought smart till they got some miles on the car and found them needed work their old GM and Ford cars never needed.

If GM can keep the price close they should do well with BU. People in this class only want good value and reliability. That is what sold so many Accords and Camrys over the years. GM has added some good looks to a car that is a good value and it should bring them in.

My only worry is MPG. I know it will be a little better but will it be enough? The weight will be down a little but this care will not be a feather weight.

[hyperv6]

I am not a fan of the LED in the tail lights but today many precieve this as higher quality. I expect the Camaro will get them next like the spy photo we saw.

[Intrepidation]

I am not a fan of the LED in the tail lights but today many precieve this as higher quality. I expect the Camaro will get them next like the spy photo we saw.

In a sense it is higher quality. Less energy, brighter, and last far longer.

[balthazar]

I don't believe I ever replaced a conventional taillight bulb in my 146K F-150- I don't think I'd ever own a vehicle long enough to worry about bulb longevity.

Tails are already far bright enough as it is- at some point someone will come up with something brighter than an LED and then it'll be 'moar tech'. Moar is not always better.

My issue with LEDs is 2-fold. I used to see them advertised in catalogs/ backs of magazines, available in strips or blocks of LEDs, and that's primarily how we're getting them: in obvious strips or blocks. Was behind a honduh insight today- big triangular tails with LEDs just plopped in there with no geometrical rhyme or reason; inconsistantly spaced. 'Who cares' is all it said.

The other reason is our introduction to LED tails: school buses, tractor trailers and garbage trucks- not a particularly aspirational association.

Whatever- some are just going to LLUUVV them to death because that's the way they're buttered up & served as.

I don't mind the Malibu's tails overall but really need to see them in person. But I'd prefer to have them 'screened' ALA the way the circa '01 DTS's tails were; where the naked strips of 'off-shelf' LEDs weren't so blatantly visible.

[vonVeezelsnider]

I am not a fan of the LED in the tail lights but today many precieve this as higher quality. I expect the Camaro will get them next like the spy photo we saw.

In a sense it is higher quality. Less energy, brighter, and last far longer.

They also come on quicker which alerts you to a stopping vehicle in front of you quicker.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Color me impressed.... VERY impressed.

GM still hasn't completely abandoned it's love of 'Opel bland proportions and details' SEE: Regal, LaCrosse, Verano, Cruze, etc.

But this new Malibu is hella attractive! I'd buy it!

It's very nice to be proven wrong by GM for once.... Now let's just hope they follow through with pricing an powertrains.

Edited April 20, 2011 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I don't believe I ever replaced a conventional taillight bulb in my 146K F-150- I don't think I'd ever own a vehicle long enough to worry about bulb longevity.

Tails are already far bright enough as it is- at some point someone will come up with something brighter than an LED and then it'll be 'moar tech'. Moar is not always better.

My issue with LEDs is 2-fold. I used to see them advertised in catalogs/ backs of magazines, available in strips or blocks of LEDs, and that's primarily how we're getting them: in obvious strips or blocks. Was behind a honduh insight today- big triangular tails with LEDs just plopped in there with no geometrical rhyme or reason; inconsistantly spaced. 'Who cares' is all it said.

The other reason is our introduction to LED tails: school buses, tractor trailers and garbage trucks- not a particularly aspirational association.

Whatever- some are just going to LLUUVV them to death because that's the way they're buttered up & served as.

I don't mind the Malibu's tails overall but really need to see them in person. But I'd prefer to have them 'screened' ALA the way the circa '01 DTS's tails were; where the naked strips of 'off-shelf' LEDs weren't so blatantly visible.

Agreed...

While I love the LEDs on the Malibu tail, because they work, I find the trend of putting them on the front of the cars disturbing. (SEE: Holden Zetas, New Jeep GC SRT-8, Ford Taurus & Fiesta, etc.) It's essentially a Pep Boys add on both in thought an execution.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

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.

It was a Facebook reveal....

So, essentially you're saying it hit the mark.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

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

Obviously if people have hijacked the thread and are talking about it, they care.

I'm jus' sayin'....

(Oxymoron much?)

[Intrepidation]

I don't believe I ever replaced a conventional taillight bulb in my 146K F-150- I don't think I'd ever own a vehicle long enough to worry about bulb longevity.

Tails are already far bright enough as it is- at some point someone will come up with something brighter than an LED and then it'll be 'moar tech'. Moar is not always better.

My issue with LEDs is 2-fold. I used to see them advertised in catalogs/ backs of magazines, available in strips or blocks of LEDs, and that's primarily how we're getting them: in obvious strips or blocks. Was behind a honduh insight today- big triangular tails with LEDs just plopped in there with no geometrical rhyme or reason; inconsistantly spaced. 'Who cares' is all it said.

The other reason is our introduction to LED tails: school buses, tractor trailers and garbage trucks- not a particularly aspirational association.

Whatever- some are just going to LLUUVV them to death because that's the way they're buttered up & served as.

I don't mind the Malibu's tails overall but really need to see them in person. But I'd prefer to have them 'screened' ALA the way the circa '01 DTS's tails were; where the naked strips of 'off-shelf' LEDs weren't so blatantly visible.

Maybe you haven't, but I've replaced 4 bulbs on 3 different cars this year. I know its new (even though it really isn't, the first LED was created in 1927) and therefore inferior to the old school, but fact is that LEDs are more efficient, put off less heat, and last long.

Solid state devices such as LEDs are subject to very limited wear and tear if operated at low currents and at low temperatures. Many of the LEDs made in the 1970s and 1980s are still in service today. Typical lifetimes quoted are 25,000 to 100,000 hours but heat and current settings can extend or shorten this time significantly.

You can do a lot with them from a design standpoint, much more so than with plain old bulbs. Sure some tail light designs are just sort of there (but then so are most incandescent bulb tail lights anyway), but you do neat things with them.

[SAmadei]

You can do a lot with them from a design standpoint, much more so than with plain old bulbs. Sure some tail light designs are just sort of there (but then so are most incandescent bulb tail lights anyway), but you do neat things with them.

Those effects can be duplicated with fiber optics-style plastics and side lit plastics... the source of the light can be centralized and the source of the light LED or incandescent. Brightness is not really an issue, as I feel taillights are already WAY too bright.

I'm fine with LEDs... but I agree with Balthy in that blatant LEDs as points of light dropped willy-nilly as a tailight are ugly and overused. Everything seems to have JC Whitney lighting glued on it from the factory.

I don't think Balthy would have any problem with those examples... as the LEDs aren't just piles of little dots. Well, maybe the Volvo.

Personally, I'll be putting LEDs behind the lenses of anything I restore because they FINALLY have LED's that trump the 1157s, they do last longer and they light faster. Behind the lenses, though, they look like old school incandescents... the best of both worlds, IMHO.

[hyperv6]

I too can not say it has been 25 years and many cars that I had to replace a light of any kind in any of my past cars.

As for light weight a tail light and a couple bulbs are no more heavier. Now on the head light I could see a little more there.

As for speed coming on? Like it is going to effect the speed of the guy tailgating you into getting his foot to move any faster.

The fact is LED is cheaper now to the point they can use it for styling more than anything. Also it is cheaper to do the odd tail lights. Now if you damage it or do have a LED failure it is still not as cheap to replace the assmebly.

The truth is on some cars it is sone well but on the Audi and some others it looks like a JC Whitney add on. It reminds me of those damned lights under a car that few people ever mounted correctly. You know the ones they bolted in the grill and you could see them when they were intended to be under the car out of sight. Cars started to look the like the strip in South Beach at night.

They are not a deal breaker and I will get used to them but on some cars they just rub me the wrong way.

An example of well done LED is on the rear of a Cadillac. THe high brake lights have been LED for a while and few people ever notice. IF they are spaced together better they look so much better.

Edited April 20, 2011 by hyperv6

[Intrepidation]

You can do a lot with them from a design standpoint, much more so than with plain old bulbs. Sure some tail light designs are just sort of there (but then so are most incandescent bulb tail lights anyway), but you do neat things with them.

Those effects can be duplicated with fiber optics-style plastics and side lit plastics... the source of the light can be centralized and the source of the light LED or incandescent. Brightness is not really an issue, as I feel taillights are already WAY too bright.

I'm fine with LEDs... but I agree with Balthy in that blatant LEDs as points of light dropped willy-nilly as a tailight are ugly and overused. Everything seems to have JC Whitney lighting glued on it from the factory.

I don't think Balthy would have any problem with those examples... as the LEDs aren't just piles of little dots. Well, maybe the Volvo.

Personally, I'll be putting LEDs behind the lenses of anything I restore because they FINALLY have LED's that trump the 1157s, they do last longer and they light faster. Behind the lenses, though, they look like old school incandescents... the best of both worlds, IMHO.

I agree that LEDs can be haphazardly used, but then the same goes for traditional lights.

Be still my heart.

I like it when LEDs are an intrigue part of an element's design (as shown in my previous post), however I'm in agreement that I don't like it when they're put on for the sake of having them, as an afterthought.

[Paolino]

You can do a lot with them from a design standpoint, much more so than with plain old bulbs. Sure some tail light designs are just sort of there (but then so are most incandescent bulb tail lights anyway), but you do neat things with them.

Those effects can be duplicated with fiber optics-style plastics and side lit plastics... the source of the light can be centralized and the source of the light LED or incandescent. Brightness is not really an issue, as I feel taillights are already WAY too bright.

I'm fine with LEDs... but I agree with Balthy in that blatant LEDs as points of light dropped willy-nilly as a tailight are ugly and overused. Everything seems to have JC Whitney lighting glued on it from the factory.

I don't think Balthy would have any problem with those examples... as the LEDs aren't just piles of little dots. Well, maybe the Volvo.

Personally, I'll be putting LEDs behind the lenses of anything I restore because they FINALLY have LED's that trump the 1157s, they do last longer and they light faster. Behind the lenses, though, they look like old school incandescents... the best of both worlds, IMHO.

I agree entirely. I preferred the last DTS' taillamps... they were LED, but you couldn't see the dots. It was just a solid wall of light.

[Drew Dowdell]

Back to the Malibu.

I think any fears you guys have of the Malibu tails will fade away once you see the car in person. They did a superb job on this car.

[dwightlooi]

I like LEDs, but I don't like using them the way a lot of car makers currently do -- as a dozen little point sources of light. LEDs can and should be placed behind a diffuser just like light bulbs are. The BMW light pipes are an example, as are the Caddy style complex refractors.

[pow]

Really not a fan of this new version. Overhangs look ginormous, not just in length but in overall visual mass, too. Don't like the upward sloping line alongside the car. The Camaro-esque details look unfinished and contrived. Interior looks inspired by the Corvette's -- not exactly my cup of tea.

The current car is very well proportioned, if a bit narrow.

[ocnblu]

I really like the new design, exterior and interior. I am happy with the promise of the 2.5L engine, although the hinted lack of a V6 option is a bit disappointing. The ECO model is ridiculous, and the e-assist system is needless, gimmicky complication that I do not care for at all. For Chevrolet to put it out there first shows a clear, unfortunate agenda to try to sell this to the public, in my opinion. The normal powertrain options had better be up very shortly.

[hyperv6]

I am shocked a the lack of comments on the interior lighting. Look close at the interior note the wide use of lighting on the inside. It will look very nice and up scale inside.

I only fear most of it will only come on the LTZ.

As for the Eco model GM needs more people to buy these and less people buying V6 cars. It will come down to selling more even gimick like cars for a extra couple MPG's or making cars smaller yet.

I see no issue with the Eco as long as you can choose it and it is not forced on us. The lack of V6 while sad is not really a big deal since V6 sales account for a small total of Malibu's. Save it for the Impala and let them have the V6. Give people a reason to buy one or the other and not sell neat identical cars.

[Paolino]

I am shocked a the lack of comments on the interior lighting. Look close at the interior note the wide use of lighting on the inside. It will look very nice and up scale inside.

Haha, I figured I was the only nut who obsessed on interior light schemes. I am a HUGE fan of the direction GM is going with illuminating the interior at night. Hey--the Lucerne doesn't even have ambient lighting but I took a friend in one a couple of years ago and the first thing she commented on was how much she loved how everything "glowed a cool blue, and was so neatly and brightly lit up." These little things are eye catchers, and garner "oohs" and "ahhs".

Hopefully the illumination will be on all trims, or at least 1LT and above. I can't imagine it costs them much too much to do.

[dwightlooi]

I am shocked a the lack of comments on the interior lighting. Look close at the interior note the wide use of lighting on the inside. It will look very nice and up scale inside.

Haha, I figured I was the only nut who obsessed on interior light schemes. I am a HUGE fan of the direction GM is going with illuminating the interior at night. Hey--the Lucerne doesn't even have ambient lighting but I took a friend in one a couple of years ago and the first thing she commented on was how much she loved how everything "glowed a cool blue, and was so neatly and brightly lit up." These little things are eye catchers, and garner "oohs" and "ahhs".

Hopefully the illumination will be on all trims, or at least 1LT and above. I can't imagine it costs them much too much to do.

I like some of it, but not others. The indirect lighting in the doors and footwell... love that. The light blue lighting color in the cluster and elsewhere... hate that. I'll much rather they used red or deep orange.