2016 Chevrolet Malibu 1LT 1.5 (update 2) HYBRID, 2.0 2LT

[regfootball]

NOTES / EDIT:  2.0 and hybrid test drives further down

 

 

Driven: 2016 Chevrolet Malibu 1LT 1.5, MSRP= 26,790?

 

HIGHS:

-RIGHT SIZE interior for the class.....consider the interior space / leg room issues fixed, six footers fit in the back even.  Head, leg, hip, shoulders, all the room you need.

-Greatly changed center stack no longer is a leg intruder.  Room to SPLAY.

-NOT A BUNKER.  Airy cabin with good views out the front, side, and back

-Quiet cabin.  Muffles the engine din reasonably well and keeps road and tire noise out, more than you'd expect in this class.

-As an example, bumps of any kind do not transmit large 'thunks' into the cabin, even on railroad tracks.

-Despite the loss of a bunch of mass, things like the doors still feel hefty and open and close with a nice 'thunk'.

-To expand on that, for such little mass, car feels nicely secure, stable, and weighted on the road.

-Good weight to the steering, even if its not quick.

-There is a complete change in the seating / driving position and ergonomics, and it's a success....dash is not so intrusive either.

-For example, the gauges are 'low and away' but the presentation is 100% better, attractive, colorful, crisp, and bright instrumentation

-Likewise the radio display.  So clear, crisp, colorful and easy to read. And only a few buttons you need.

-The climate control too, is all you need for controls, so simple and well done.

-Luscious and perfectly placed armrest. A great station to perform your wrist curls for your 44 ounce big gulps in the nicely placed cupholders

-The area where the old center stack was, is a part of the console that extends further forward and actually will function well for gloves and devices, etc.

-Shifter falls deftly to hand and its perfectly sized.  The steering wheel is a revelation as well, including the clever controls on the backside for gauges and things.

-Backseat amenities like USB and charger ports are a nice plus.

-Even the key fob is a whole lot better than all the recent GM cars

-Controls on the door panels are well placed as well, and the mirrors even seem to have a little larger size than some other GM models

-Seat cloth is not the natty burlap stuff of late.  Its an in-between of the rough burlap and the mouse fur you might find on an Altima.  It feels nice to the boot and not cheap.

-Interior dash and door top plastics are not incredibly detailed or lush, but I think they stop short of coming off as cheap.  Maybe in bright sun they would look cheaper.

-I liked the way the trunk was simply trimmed, and it used all its space well. Hardly any usual GM inefficient intrusions at the wheel well or otherwise.

-I had thought the cloth dash inserts would look cheap based upon photos, but they do not, they look and feel good, and they soften the dash up a bit where it helps most.

-The little engine that can, can if you don't ask a lot of it, and stays muffled in that scenario.

-Much less rpm at 70+ mph (t's less than 2,500 rpm) than the current Cruze (which is a bit of a buzzbomb at higher speeds).

-This car has a look and feel and drive that is more in line with the buyers of an Altima, Accord, or Camry.

-A quiet, comfortable, and highly usable transportation device.

 

LOWS

-Not a canyon carver, I don't think anyone expected that, but there isn't any sporting pretense here.  

-Some engine drone when you lean on it and ask you to move, and then you find out the engine isn't smooth as velvet either.  Vibrations......

-The power and torque output really straddles a line between just barely enough and you really got to have more.  A 1.8t would have been perfect.

-Front seats feel a little insubstantial in materials and structure.  Wonder if durability is a concern here for cutting cost and weight.

-Lowers of the door (as has been commented on in on line reviews) feel a bit too insubstantial and not very durable.

-For some reason, to me, the 'iPod on the dash' is shaped and presented in a such a way as to imagine an iPod coming out of the vjj between legs during child birth.

-Car has a nice new shape, but the front end lacks presence, and there is no 'trunk'.  Whole car is a little too egg like, and dare i say, dull.

-As a matter of discussion, the shape may be a bit too 'un GM like', not enough creases and definition (let's chat about that)

 

SUMMARY

 

I think we've all heard the endless stories about why the 13-15 Malibu was the way it was.  And it didn't sell greatly.  Still, there are the likes of my good friend who has a '15 Malibu as a company car (and he likes it a lot).  At a minimum, you could say the car was 'GM like', even despite its oddities.  But also included in that traditional feel was poor interior space (especially the back seat), performance/ ride and drive that wasn't class competitive by many's standards, and style was an issue..it just looked odd to many.  Overall, it appeared to be a car that many dismissed without even a second thought, as just not having its stuff together or being 'complete'.

 

We'd been told the 13-15 was a remnant of 'old GM' and its bankruptcy difficulties.  Whatever the excuse, it's absolutely clear this new car had attention put to it in every way that far exceeded whatever effort was put into the previous.  Little details make a big differences, but it's not just the little things......the complete overhaul with new platform, powertrain, and body allowed Chevy to remake the car into something that can actually compete against the likes of the big sellers......the Altima, Camry, Accord.  It's acquired the traits and personalities of some of each of those sorts of competitors, and it's now in position to impress those sorts of buyers.  Its interesting what adequate resources and new ideas can do.

 

There aren't any major faults to this vehicle now.  No big deal killers, like the 'no back seat'.  So too, there is nothing that jumps out as a class leader in anything, my example here is that you won't prefer how this drives or feels compared to a Mazda6.  The big deal is that it's at the poker table, and now the car itself won't kill the sale.  It should now be up to the marketing staff at Chevy, and its incentives, and the dealer sales experience to prove that they can take this capable car and make sales out of it.  The challenge will be to get butts in the seats and DRIVE IT.

 

I sort of see this car wanting to approach the feel of the Altima the most.  Well, this car feels better in the ride and drive than the Altima.  I think those who debate interiors may go back and forth on that one.  But if I were to overall try to put my finger on which car it emulates the most, I would say that one (not knowing how well the improvement on the 16 Altima is).  There is still some of that GM feel in the steering and ergonomics and controls so this feels still like a GM car.  So it hasn't gone full Asian or anything.  

 

One other comment.  This car feels about 5 years newer than the new Impala.  Certainly feels much more nimble while feeling pretty much as solid.

 

A job well done, I would like to see more power and a smoother powertrain in the LT.  I would give the car a solid A if it did not have that issue.  A- is still not bad.  GM dun good.

Edited June 5, 2016 by regfootball

[Stew]

We have a 16 LT with a basic white rapper here at work now.  I like the new look a lot!

[cp-the-nerd]

I'd like to see your take on the new Premier 2.0T trim. I think you'll find the bigger turbo engine and 8-speed are just what the doctor ordered. That model even impressed Motor Trend a bit with its powertrain and handling, it embarrassed their brand new long-term Maxima SR around their figure eight track.

[regfootball]

coincidence, i just read the Motor Trend and C/D tests.  I agree, the 2.0 would be great in the car.  I think for everyday folks, something like a 1.75 litre turbo, and about 215hp/240tq making 28 mpg combined would be a nice blend.

 

GM though, they really bend you over if you want the desirable stuff.  The 1.5 and 2.0 all have 4 pistons, 16 valves, a turbo, 4 cylinders, but look at the price difference.

 

The EPA forces the mpg issue and forces the whole why we even have a 1.5 to begin with.  

 

It's like I said, it really walks the line quite well between just enough power and 'i need more'.  Same thing with the current gen Cruze.  These little tiny turbos are not relaxed.

[Drew Dowdell]

The 2.0t also gets you the 8-speed instead of 6-speed.

[cp-the-nerd]

coincidence, i just read the Motor Trend and C/D tests.  I agree, the 2.0 would be great in the car.  I think for everyday folks, something like a 1.75 litre turbo, and about 215hp/240tq making 28 mpg combined would be a nice blend.

 

GM though, they really bend you over if you want the desirable stuff.  The 1.5 and 2.0 all have 4 pistons, 16 valves, a turbo, 4 cylinders, but look at the price difference.

 

The EPA forces the mpg issue and forces the whole why we even have a 1.5 to begin with.  

 

It's like I said, it really walks the line quite well between just enough power and 'i need more'.  Same thing with the current gen Cruze.  These little tiny turbos are not relaxed.

 

According to testing, the 1.5T hits 60 in well under 9 seconds and runs the 1/4 mile in mid 16s. I think we're all being jaded if we start calling that borderline insufficient acceleration. From the 60s-80s that required a V8 or hi-po V6. Most of us have owned cars significantly slower. Maybe it's not brisk or fun, but you're never in danger unless you do something unreasonable to begin with.

 

As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow, though I will say that 1.5T can easily be tuned aftermarket for an extra 10-20% power. The previous gen 1.4T (port injected) from the Cruze and Sonic can make 160 hp/180 tq like it's nothing, the 2.0T can make 300 hp/330 tq, so I'm sure this engine is capable of 190 hp/210 tq safely. That's a decent benefit of a turbocharged engine and a company that doesn't take counter measures on the ECU like Hyundai/Kia.

[Drew Dowdell]

"under 9 seconds" could very well be a lot like the 8.7 seconds the old Malibu 2.4 would do.  Which is fine for drivers in this class.   If you want a bit faster, the Hybrid is actually faster than the base model by about a second.

[Suaviloquent]

Well the Malibu seems to be hitting the value quotient nicely in the lower trims.

 

It's a mid-size sedan that hits home its performance of intended function well, and intends to perform its function with purpose.

[regfootball]

As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow.

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark......

8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates.

[bobo]

When I was at the L.A. auto show, I was surprised at the lack of attention that Chevrolet was giving the Malibu.  It was just kind of there.  The car itself seemed nice enough, with much better packaging than the outgoing model.  However, if I were getting a new sedan now, I'd get an Accord, even though it's in its fourth year of this generation.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow.

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark......

8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates.

 

 

Am I talking to a wall here?  The engine upgrades at other manufacturers are priced about the same or higher and the Malibu comes with some nice features standard that you need to pay more for at Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota.  Malibu 2.0T = $28k, Sonata 2.0T = $28k, Accord V6 = $30k, Camry V6 = $32k, Mazda 6 = Not Available, Passat V6 = $36k, Ford SE 2.0T = $27k...    The Malibu 2.0T is one of the least expensive engine upgrade options among its peers, so your continued ranting about the cost of the Malibu 2.0T just makes you look silly. And you want GM to price the 2.0T for the same price as the 1.5T just because they're both 4-cylinders? Do you not know how value added pricing works?

 

Another thing you keep forgetting is that Car Play and Android Auto are both standard even in the most base model Malibu which means you effectively can have NAV without having to move up to much more expensive trims.  That's a $700 to $2000 "give" from Chevy right there across the lineup.  I've used Car Play, and it is superior to a built in NAV in just about every way possible.  The maps are always up to date, it uses Siri's voice recognition engine, it gets traffic updates faster, it responds faster... there isn't a built in NAV system out there that can beat it.  I assume that once I try Android Auto, which is compatible with Waze, that my feelings on that will be the same. 

 

So, yeah, I'd have no problem taking a Malibu 2.0T for $28k when the $28k options at nearly every other manufacturer come with less powerful engines and no NAV systems. 

[Stew]

 

 

As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow.

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark......

8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates.

 

 

Am I talking to a wall here?  The engine upgrades at other manufacturers are priced about the same or higher and the Malibu comes with some nice features standard that you need to pay more for at Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota.  Malibu 2.0T = $28k, Sonata 2.0T = $28k, Accord V6 = $30k, Camry V6 = $32k, Mazda 6 = Not Available, Passat V6 = $36k, Ford SE 2.0T = $27k...    The Malibu 2.0T is one of the least expensive engine upgrade options among its peers, so your continued ranting about the cost of the Malibu 2.0T just makes you look silly. And you want GM to price the 2.0T for the same price as the 1.5T just because they're both 4-cylinders? Do you not know how value added pricing works?

 

Another thing you keep forgetting is that Car Play and Android Auto are both standard even in the most base model Malibu which means you effectively can have NAV without having to move up to much more expensive trims.  That's a $700 to $2000 "give" from Chevy right there across the lineup.  I've used Car Play, and it is superior to a built in NAV in just about every way possible.  The maps are always up to date, it uses Siri's voice recognition engine, it gets traffic updates faster, it responds faster... there isn't a built in NAV system out there that can beat it.  I assume that once I try Android Auto, which is compatible with Waze, that my feelings on that will be the same. 

 

So, yeah, I'd have no problem taking a Malibu 2.0T for $28k when the $28k options at nearly every other manufacturer come with less powerful engines and no NAV systems. 

 

I stopped at the Chevy dealership last night and they had a 2L 2.0, not sure if it had options but the price was around 28,800.  I was impressed with what i could see compared to the base 1.5.  Just on the outside, a MUCh better looking front fascia with fog lamps, bigger wheels in a very nice design in black/silver, from what i can see the interior also looked better than the base model by a fair amount.  Nevermind the 2.0/8 speed auto.  I agree Drew, it is a good deal IMHO. 

[ccap41]

 

coincidence, i just read the Motor Trend and C/D tests.  I agree, the 2.0 would be great in the car.  I think for everyday folks, something like a 1.75 litre turbo, and about 215hp/240tq making 28 mpg combined would be a nice blend.

 

GM though, they really bend you over if you want the desirable stuff.  The 1.5 and 2.0 all have 4 pistons, 16 valves, a turbo, 4 cylinders, but look at the price difference.

 

The EPA forces the mpg issue and forces the whole why we even have a 1.5 to begin with.  

 

It's like I said, it really walks the line quite well between just enough power and 'i need more'.  Same thing with the current gen Cruze.  These little tiny turbos are not relaxed.

 

According to testing, the 1.5T hits 60 in well under 9 seconds and runs the 1/4 mile in mid 16s. I think we're all being jaded if we start calling that borderline insufficient acceleration. From the 60s-80s that required a V8 or hi-po V6. Most of us have owned cars significantly slower. Maybe it's not brisk or fun, but you're never in danger unless you do something unreasonable to begin with.

 

As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow, though I will say that 1.5T can easily be tuned aftermarket for an extra 10-20% power. The previous gen 1.4T (port injected) from the Cruze and Sonic can make 160 hp/180 tq like it's nothing, the 2.0T can make 300 hp/330 tq, so I'm sure this engine is capable of 190 hp/210 tq safely. That's a decent benefit of a turbocharged engine and a company that doesn't take counter measures on the ECU like Hyundai/Kia.

 

Yeah Ford's ECU in their Escapes pretty much needs a tune for any atermarket parts because it will still try and default to the factory settings whether you add an intake or exhaust. I just assumed most OEM ECUs were like that on these smaller and more fuel economy-minded cars. 

 

The 1.5T already has aftermarket goodies???? I guess I didn't realize this wasn't its first application. Or are you talking about a custom tune for the 10-20% gains? 

[regfootball]

 

 

As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow.

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark......

8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates.

 

 

Am I talking to a wall here?  The engine upgrades at other manufacturers are priced about the same or higher and the Malibu comes with some nice features standard that you need to pay more for at Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota.  Malibu 2.0T = $28k, Sonata 2.0T = $28k, Accord V6 = $30k, Camry V6 = $32k, Mazda 6 = Not Available, Passat V6 = $36k, Ford SE 2.0T = $27k...    The Malibu 2.0T is one of the least expensive engine upgrade options among its peers, so your continued ranting about the cost of the Malibu 2.0T just makes you look silly. And you want GM to price the 2.0T for the same price as the 1.5T just because they're both 4-cylinders? Do you not know how value added pricing works?

 

Another thing you keep forgetting is that Car Play and Android Auto are both standard even in the most base model Malibu which means you effectively can have NAV without having to move up to much more expensive trims.  That's a $700 to $2000 "give" from Chevy right there across the lineup.  I've used Car Play, and it is superior to a built in NAV in just about every way possible.  The maps are always up to date, it uses Siri's voice recognition engine, it gets traffic updates faster, it responds faster... there isn't a built in NAV system out there that can beat it.  I assume that once I try Android Auto, which is compatible with Waze, that my feelings on that will be the same. 

 

So, yeah, I'd have no problem taking a Malibu 2.0T for $28k when the $28k options at nearly every other manufacturer come with less powerful engines and no NAV systems. 

 

 

Then Chevy should add another 20-30 hp to the base engine or get its accel times up to match others in the class.  It doesn't have an mpg advantage, its just in the thick of the pack in that regard.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

The 1.5T already has aftermarket goodies???? I guess I didn't realize this wasn't its first application. Or are you talking about a custom tune for the 10-20% gains? 

 

 

No it does not yet have aftermarket goodies, but it's inevitable. Every other GM turbo has brand name tunes available and an unlocked ECU for private tuners.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow.

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark......

8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates.

 

 

Not making the point about class performance, just about what is "adequate" for merging and driving comfortably. IMO, they should have stuck to their guns with the 2.5L in the Malibu and put the 1.5T in the new Cruze Premier trim as an upgrade.

 

But for argument sake, 8.5 sec 0-60 and 16.5 1/4 mile would have been as fast or faster than almost all base-engine midsize or compact cars in 2010. Average was 8.7-9.5 sec.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

As far as personal preference, I fully admit I won't own a car that slow.

Bet they had to ride it hard to hit a mid eight 0-60, Plus some of the competition is a full sec faster to the same mark......

8 speed in the 2.0 accounts for some manuf cost difference but it's still a bunch more even setting that aside. By early fall there should be a lot of leftover 2.0's on lots with healthy rebates.

 

 

Not making the point about class performance, just about what is "adequate" for merging and driving comfortably. IMO, they should have stuck to their guns with the 2.5L in the Malibu and put the 1.5T in the new Cruze Premier trim as an upgrade.

 

But for argument sake, 8.5 sec 0-60 and 16.5 1/4 mile would have been as fast or faster than almost all base-engine midsize or compact cars in 2010. Average was 8.7-9.5 sec.

 

 

For argument sake, my Encore's 0-60 is 10.5 seconds and Buick can barely build enough of them.  It also doesn't tell the whole story.  In the Encore, they geared the lower gears with really short ratios, so scooting around the city is spirited, it's only on a long highway on-ramp where you notice any power deficiency.

 

Even though the Buick is slower to 60 than our Honda buy a full second, if you ask Albert which car feels faster, he'll tell you the Buick.   I have to admit, I had to go look up the 0-60 times because I thought they were pretty much equal. 

 

0-60 isn't a really useful metric because that's not how you drive. I haven't driven the 1.5T Malibu yet, but if the gearing is set up like the Encore, I'm sure it will feel fine to most drivers.   For those who want more, there's the 2.0T. 

[ccap41]

Yeah like you said Drew... The low end of these small turbo cars gives the illusion of being a quicker car than they are. They have the low end tq that is actually used unlike a n/a inline 4 that needs revs to make the car move. I like the small turbo cars with low end because that's how I drive my vehicles, under 3k 99% of the time and when it's warmed up its usually under 2500rpm. It's all about that low end(the usable power).

[regfootball]

motor trend has one on line review where they say they like the 1.5 but i swear in the printed magazine in the COTY testing, they said something opposite.

 

C/D hasn't tested the 1.5 yet, and that is what i would compare all the performance test data to. 

[ccap41]

The 1.5T already has aftermarket goodies???? I guess I didn't realize this wasn't its first application. Or are you talking about a custom tune for the 10-20% gains?

 

No it does not yet have aftermarket goodies, but it's inevitable. Every other GM turbo has brand name tunes available and an unlocked ECU for private tuners.

I bet the performance goodies will blow up once it's in the Cruze and other vehicles. Just one regular family sedan won't have too many aftermarket complained with knocks on their door asking for exhaust or intakes.. But it's inevitable that they will use the 1.5 in a handful of vehicles. If people get lucky it could be the performance SS option in the Sonic. That's help the aftermarket option!

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

The 1.5T already has aftermarket goodies???? I guess I didn't realize this wasn't its first application. Or are you talking about a custom tune for the 10-20% gains?

 

No it does not yet have aftermarket goodies, but it's inevitable. Every other GM turbo has brand name tunes available and an unlocked ECU for private tuners.

I bet the performance goodies will blow up once it's in the Cruze and other vehicles. Just one regular family sedan won't have too many aftermarket complained with knocks on their door asking for exhaust or intakes.. But it's inevitable that they will use the 1.5 in a handful of vehicles. If people get lucky it could be the performance SS option in the Sonic. That's help the aftermarket option!

 

 

A tuner called Trifecta has tunes for every engine of the Malibu from 2008 through 2015 (except for the hybrids). I'm sure they're already trying to get their hands on a new Malibu to be first on the market. They also tune the Sonic and Cruze.

Edited January 8, 2016 by cp-the-nerd

[Frisky Dingo]

I was shocked at how well the 1.5 drives. It has more than sufficient power, and feels stronger than the outgoing car, no question. A tune WOULD really wake it up, though.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

 

The 1.5T already has aftermarket goodies???? I guess I didn't realize this wasn't its first application. Or are you talking about a custom tune for the 10-20% gains?

 

No it does not yet have aftermarket goodies, but it's inevitable. Every other GM turbo has brand name tunes available and an unlocked ECU for private tuners.

I bet the performance goodies will blow up once it's in the Cruze and other vehicles. Just one regular family sedan won't have too many aftermarket complained with knocks on their door asking for exhaust or intakes.. But it's inevitable that they will use the 1.5 in a handful of vehicles. If people get lucky it could be the performance SS option in the Sonic. That's help the aftermarket option!

 

 

A tuner called Trifecta has tunes for every engine of the Malibu from 2008 through 2015 (except for the hybrids). I'm sure they're already trying to get their hands on a new Malibu to be first on the market. They also tune the Sonic and Cruze.

 

 

Do you have a link to that?  The ones I'm finding in google only support the Cadillacs.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

 

 

The 1.5T already has aftermarket goodies???? I guess I didn't realize this wasn't its first application. Or are you talking about a custom tune for the 10-20% gains?

 

No it does not yet have aftermarket goodies, but it's inevitable. Every other GM turbo has brand name tunes available and an unlocked ECU for private tuners.

I bet the performance goodies will blow up once it's in the Cruze and other vehicles. Just one regular family sedan won't have too many aftermarket complained with knocks on their door asking for exhaust or intakes.. But it's inevitable that they will use the 1.5 in a handful of vehicles. If people get lucky it could be the performance SS option in the Sonic. That's help the aftermarket option!

 

 

A tuner called Trifecta has tunes for every engine of the Malibu from 2008 through 2015 (except for the hybrids). I'm sure they're already trying to get their hands on a new Malibu to be first on the market. They also tune the Sonic and Cruze.

 

 

Do you have a link to that?  The ones I'm finding in google only support the Cadillacs.

 

 

 

 

That's an off-site. Trifecta is http://www.wot-tuning.com/forums/page/index.html

 

 

TRIFECTA: +44 WHP and +51 ft-lbs on Chevrolet Cruze 1.4T MY2011-2015

 

 

Considered them for my Impala and then decided that I had enough power on tap to get me into trouble.

 

Specifications of the TRIFECTA Performance Chevrolet Impala MY2014+ 3.6 LFX ECM software reprogramming:

 

-Gains of +14 ft-lbs and +20 WHP under the curve (and +14 ft-lbs and +16 WHP peak on 91 octane)

-Powertrain calibration has been tested and validated for various environments, such as cold/heat, elevation, and variations in fuel quality

-Power feels linear and immediately responsive (improved drivability and throttle attentiveness)

-Retains all GM OE diagnostics and ECM functionality

-Retains all OE error code reporting and functionality

-Emissions readiness checks are present; emissions compliant

-Maintains functionality of ABS and TC systems

-Knock detection mechanisms and OE engine knock detection sensitivity is retained

-The TRIFECTA flash loader and Transparency featureset does not increment the ECM write counter or increment entries in the flash history

-Return to stock functionality included with flash loader

[Drew Dowdell]

Thanks, I'm looking for a mild tune for the Encore now that I bought it out.  I just need one that won't get fried if my partner puts 87 in instead of 91.

[Cmicasa the Great]

They have the CTS-VSport with +74Whp and 81lbs of torque

[Cmicasa the Great]

Thanks, I'm looking for a mild tune for the Encore now that I bought it out.  I just need one that won't get fried if my partner puts 87 in instead of 91.

 

 

LOL.. gotta wonder if one would see the same gains as they did in the Cruze with the same engine. +44whp  in the Encore.. damn nice. Wonder when is the 1.6L supposed to show up in the Buick? 153HP/177lbs moves it along very nice.... but 197HP would be even better

[G. David Felt]

Thanks, I'm looking for a mild tune for the Encore now that I bought it out.  I just need one that won't get fried if my partner puts 87 in instead of 91.

Get a Jet chip, They work well on all grades of gas even when the chip is tuned for performance. Been very impressed with the Jet chips.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

Thanks, I'm looking for a mild tune for the Encore now that I bought it out.  I just need one that won't get fried if my partner puts 87 in instead of 91.

 

 

LOL.. gotta wonder if one would see the same gains as they did in the Cruze with the same engine. +44whp  in the Encore.. damn nice. Wonder when is the 1.6L supposed to show up in the Buick? 153HP/177lbs moves it along very nice.... but 197HP would be even better

 

 

I've already been told "don't hold your breath" on the 1.6T in the Encore.  The new 1.4T is it for now.

 

I don't need huge gains, but every little bit would help.

 

Edit: Unless you got the Encore ST (which you didn't), you have 138hp, not 153. 

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Thanks, I'm looking for a mild tune for the Encore now that I bought it out.  I just need one that won't get fried if my partner puts 87 in instead of 91.

Get a Jet chip, They work well on all grades of gas even when the chip is tuned for performance. Been very impressed with the Jet chips.

 

 

 

You are the only person I've seen back the jet chip. Everyone says they're total bunk, and that's what I'd assume reading their ridiculous ads.

 

Regardless, an actual tune made by a human is vastly superior to a one-size-fits-all chip. Trifecta offers a tune at any level of power you want, including low octane safe.

[ccap41]

 

 

 

 

I bet the performance goodies will blow up once it's in the Cruze and other vehicles. Just one regular family sedan won't have too many aftermarket complained with knocks on their door asking for exhaust or intakes.. But it's inevitable that they will use the 1.5 in a handful of vehicles. If people get lucky it could be the performance SS option in the Sonic. That's help the aftermarket option!

 

 

A tuner called Trifecta has tunes for every engine of the Malibu from 2008 through 2015 (except for the hybrids). I'm sure they're already trying to get their hands on a new Malibu to be first on the market. They also tune the Sonic and Cruze.

 

 

Do you have a link to that?  The ones I'm finding in google only support the Cadillacs.

 

 

 

 

That's an off-site. Trifecta is http://www.wot-tuning.com/forums/page/index.html

 

 

TRIFECTA: +44 WHP and +51 ft-lbs on Chevrolet Cruze 1.4T MY2011-2015

 

 

Considered them for my Impala and then decided that I had enough power on tap to get me into trouble.

 

Specifications of the TRIFECTA Performance Chevrolet Impala MY2014+ 3.6 LFX ECM software reprogramming:

 

-Gains of +14 ft-lbs and +20 WHP under the curve (and +14 ft-lbs and +16 WHP peak on 91 octane)

-Powertrain calibration has been tested and validated for various environments, such as cold/heat, elevation, and variations in fuel quality

-Power feels linear and immediately responsive (improved drivability and throttle attentiveness)

-Retains all GM OE diagnostics and ECM functionality

-Retains all OE error code reporting and functionality

-Emissions readiness checks are present; emissions compliant

-Maintains functionality of ABS and TC systems

-Knock detection mechanisms and OE engine knock detection sensitivity is retained

-The TRIFECTA flash loader and Transparency featureset does not increment the ECM write counter or increment entries in the flash history

-Return to stock functionality included with flash loader

 

Can the gains for the Regal 2.0 be expected on the Verano 2.0 as well? I couldn't find any numbers for the Verano but if that were the case the Verano Turbo would be one dang quick car. 

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

 

 

 

I bet the performance goodies will blow up once it's in the Cruze and other vehicles. Just one regular family sedan won't have too many aftermarket complained with knocks on their door asking for exhaust or intakes.. But it's inevitable that they will use the 1.5 in a handful of vehicles. If people get lucky it could be the performance SS option in the Sonic. That's help the aftermarket option!

 

 

A tuner called Trifecta has tunes for every engine of the Malibu from 2008 through 2015 (except for the hybrids). I'm sure they're already trying to get their hands on a new Malibu to be first on the market. They also tune the Sonic and Cruze.

 

 

Do you have a link to that?  The ones I'm finding in google only support the Cadillacs.

 

 

 

 

That's an off-site. Trifecta is http://www.wot-tuning.com/forums/page/index.html

 

 

TRIFECTA: +44 WHP and +51 ft-lbs on Chevrolet Cruze 1.4T MY2011-2015

 

 

Considered them for my Impala and then decided that I had enough power on tap to get me into trouble.

 

Specifications of the TRIFECTA Performance Chevrolet Impala MY2014+ 3.6 LFX ECM software reprogramming:

 

-Gains of +14 ft-lbs and +20 WHP under the curve (and +14 ft-lbs and +16 WHP peak on 91 octane)

-Powertrain calibration has been tested and validated for various environments, such as cold/heat, elevation, and variations in fuel quality

-Power feels linear and immediately responsive (improved drivability and throttle attentiveness)

-Retains all GM OE diagnostics and ECM functionality

-Retains all OE error code reporting and functionality

-Emissions readiness checks are present; emissions compliant

-Maintains functionality of ABS and TC systems

-Knock detection mechanisms and OE engine knock detection sensitivity is retained

-The TRIFECTA flash loader and Transparency featureset does not increment the ECM write counter or increment entries in the flash history

-Return to stock functionality included with flash loader

 

Can the gains for the Regal 2.0 be expected on the Verano 2.0 as well? I couldn't find any numbers for the Verano but if that were the case the Verano Turbo would be one dang quick car. 

 

 

The Verano uses the first gen 2.0T, so it's a different tune, but yes, the Verano can make 300+ hp and torque.

[Cmicasa the Great]

 

 

Thanks, I'm looking for a mild tune for the Encore now that I bought it out.  I just need one that won't get fried if my partner puts 87 in instead of 91.

 

 

LOL.. gotta wonder if one would see the same gains as they did in the Cruze with the same engine. +44whp  in the Encore.. damn nice. Wonder when is the 1.6L supposed to show up in the Buick? 153HP/177lbs moves it along very nice.... but 197HP would be even better

 

 

I've already been told "don't hold your breath" on the 1.6T in the Encore.  The new 1.4T is it for now.

 

I don't need huge gains, but every little bit would help.

 

Edit: Unless you got the Encore ST (which you didn't), you have 138hp, not 153. 

 

 

 

Window sticker confirms what U said.. looked up stats on line to my own detriment... 

[ccap41]

 

 

 

 

Do you have a link to that?  The ones I'm finding in google only support the Cadillacs.

 

 

 

 

That's an off-site. Trifecta is http://www.wot-tuning.com/forums/page/index.html

 

 

TRIFECTA: +44 WHP and +51 ft-lbs on Chevrolet Cruze 1.4T MY2011-2015

 

 

Considered them for my Impala and then decided that I had enough power on tap to get me into trouble.

 

Specifications of the TRIFECTA Performance Chevrolet Impala MY2014+ 3.6 LFX ECM software reprogramming:

 

-Gains of +14 ft-lbs and +20 WHP under the curve (and +14 ft-lbs and +16 WHP peak on 91 octane)

-Powertrain calibration has been tested and validated for various environments, such as cold/heat, elevation, and variations in fuel quality

-Power feels linear and immediately responsive (improved drivability and throttle attentiveness)

-Retains all GM OE diagnostics and ECM functionality

-Retains all OE error code reporting and functionality

-Emissions readiness checks are present; emissions compliant

-Maintains functionality of ABS and TC systems

-Knock detection mechanisms and OE engine knock detection sensitivity is retained

-The TRIFECTA flash loader and Transparency featureset does not increment the ECM write counter or increment entries in the flash history

-Return to stock functionality included with flash loader

 

Can the gains for the Regal 2.0 be expected on the Verano 2.0 as well? I couldn't find any numbers for the Verano but if that were the case the Verano Turbo would be one dang quick car. 

 

 

The Verano uses the first gen 2.0T, so it's a different tune, but yes, the Verano can make 300+ hp and torque.

 

There's something about that car that I really like. I'd need to see one in person to actually grasp the size. I'm afraid it would be a little too small for my liking. But, I dig the classy yet sporty-ness of it. 

 

So that has the same engine my friend's HHR SS has then, right? 

[cp-the-nerd]

 

Can the gains for the Regal 2.0 be expected on the Verano 2.0 as well? I couldn't find any numbers for the Verano but if that were the case the Verano Turbo would be one dang quick car.

 

 

The Verano uses the first gen 2.0T, so it's a different tune, but yes, the Verano can make 300+ hp and torque.

 

There's something about that car that I really like. I'd need to see one in person to actually grasp the size. I'm afraid it would be a little too small for my liking. But, I dig the classy yet sporty-ness of it. 

 

So that has the same engine my friend's HHR SS has then, right? 

 

 

Yep, same engine. When the Buick Regal GS used the first gen 2.0T, they offered a modified stage kit with an intake for it making like 295 hp/320 tq with factory warranty intact. When they switched to the new 2.0T (259 hp/295 lb-ft) and GM-sourced 6-speed auto, they stopped offering any power adders because the trans was at its factory claimed torque limit.

[Drew Dowdell]

If you're a lover of the Verano 2.0T, I may have some bad news for you for 2017.....  waiting on verification.

[G. David Felt]

 

 

Thanks, I'm looking for a mild tune for the Encore now that I bought it out.  I just need one that won't get fried if my partner puts 87 in instead of 91.

Get a Jet chip, They work well on all grades of gas even when the chip is tuned for performance. Been very impressed with the Jet chips.

 

 

 

You are the only person I've seen back the jet chip. Everyone says they're total bunk, and that's what I'd assume reading their ridiculous ads.

 

Regardless, an actual tune made by a human is vastly superior to a one-size-fits-all chip. Trifecta offers a tune at any level of power you want, including low octane safe.

 

Having built many V8s myself, I usually supply all the engine specs and they then plug it into their computer and write a chip. Once I get it it has always been amazing how well the engines run with the Jet Chips. 

 

So my experiance is with custom chips that have worked very well, I can only assume if the engineers are doing their job at fine tuning the engine you should be able to get a chip that does improve the over all performance of the engine with a slight bump in HP and Torque.

[regfootball]

did some lot trolling today, new 16's are still tough to come by, and in particular, 2.0's.  Most dealers have probably 5 or less of all, some have 1 or 2.

 

place i looked today, the new Malibu was side by side with current get Impalas.  Its interesting how the two cars are physically close to the same size but the Impala does assume the role of looking larger, more stylish, and more badass.  The Malibu looks lean and trim and uncluttered.  They coexist nicely in their own space together.  There's not really any confusing of the two.

 

It's probably why the new Malibu has such a sparse dash and center stack, and the Impala's is quite bombastic by comparison.  The impala has tons more buttons and stuff, and lots of busy-ness going on.  The dash on the Impala is a dashgasm in comparison to the Malibu.  The Impala has the huge honking steering wheel and the new Malibus is quite tiny actually.  The seats in the Impala have extra shaping and cushioning and the Malibus are pretty basic.  

 

The Malibu is more of a mono form shape, with the upper greenhouse being fairly wide still above the shoulders.  The Impala is a bit more rakish and has more 'hips'.  The Malibu is fairly devoid of solidly defined character lines that the Impala has.  The ones on the Malibu are quite subtle.  Many have said the Malibu looks better in dark colors but I saw one in Summit white today and I really like the simplicity of the white color and simple shape.

 

The Malibu / GM is really pushing the styling limits of sedan with the new Malibu (and Insignia by the spy shots).  The tiny bit of trunk lid left brings them dangerously close to hatchbacks in look.  At least they are packaging the car to benefit the interior, which is a great thing.  The Impala and Malibu each have good interior space, and yet the cars have different and distinct interiors and feel.

 

Some of the wheel choices on the new Impala are flat out sexy.  The wheel choices on the upper trim of the new Malibu are interesting but overall the Impala has some great choices if you like stylish wheels.

Edited February 1, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

I had a chance today to take a spin in a 2LT 2.0 Malibu (which I have been wanting to do for awhile) and so it was a great day to do that.  This one had cloth seats.

 

I went back and read everything of my original post in this topic and really pretty much all of it sticks.  What I like about this car, nothing off putting.  No glaring faults.  Nothing weird.  Nothing ill conceived.

 

That's pretty big for GM.

 

What's even more evident to me about this is how much different it is than the outgoing model, and just how much more in touch with today it is.  It feels contemporary, and all of a theme.  In the original post I suggested the look is maybe a bit dull and un GM like, but I think I may be taking that back. Now that these have been on the road for a few weeks, and seeing them by the dozens at the dealership, I think it really is a nice new shape.  It's clean and crisp and very likable.  It sort of goes against the current trend of lots of other cars that have tons of bulges, and strakes, and flame surfacing.  The design is very balanced overall and really looks great on the lot.  Between my trip today and the last two weekends at the auto show I can tell you this car is going to be a hit.

 

So what did I gather out of my drive of the 2.0 versus the 1.5?  

 

So here is the thing, the 2.0 has lots more power.  More reserves, more than most will use every day.  Its a great option on this car and is for the most part a pretty polished powertrain here.  The car itself is still pretty quiet.

 

There is some turbo lag though, and the tranny doesn't downshift -immediately-.  You gotta work the throttle for it to tap into its power bank.

 

It's possible they tried to ease the engine response so it wouldn't be a case of a light front wheel drive car and torque steer and spinning fronts.  From that aspect, however this car is tuned, the power delivery is not really abrupt.

 

It's really better suited as a cruiser, one with very good passing power.

 

Probably the main takeaway I had was that you definitely notice the extra weight on the front end.  It does feel a bit too front heavy with the 2.0.  The 1.5 felt light and balanced, and even though i felt the 1.5 just barely crossed the line on adequate amount of power (for me perhaps), I think anyone who claims they like the car with the 1.5 better due to lighter feel and whatever powertrain feel, I can understand that at their word.

 

If you crave power, you gotta get the 2.0 but if you really aren't a complete power fiend I think the 1.5 is probably fine for most people.  Myself, between the nose heaviness and less mpg of the 2.0, it really would not be an automatic for me to want the 2.0 outright.  I do think I could like the 1.5 as part of the overall car.  The 2.0 is probably the better choice for those who do a lot of interstate driving I would imagine.

 

This second test drive reaffirmed a lot of what i mentioned about the interior, the packaging, and the car being easy to use and functional.  Nice displays, plenty of room. etc.  The lighter colored interior with cloth, the ash gray or whatever, that looks good also.

 

Really like this car.  It really is just about right for what I need.  I still like some of its competitors, the Mazda6, the Legacy due to its value and AWD, and the Fusion.........but this new Malibu really is a well balanced, contemporary feeling car.

 

Wish the hybrid was out already.  Would like to try that on too.

Edited March 27, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Took another spin in a 1.5 LT today.......really really sticking to the notion of the base engine being very borderline in this car.  I think I would be leaning hard to the 2.0....really really a better engine for the car (aside from mpg and price).

[regfootball]

DRIVEN:  2016 Malibu HYBRID, 32K? price

 

HIGHS and LOWS from before, most are all still the same

 

HYBRID HIGHS:

-the hybrid powertrain really steals the show in the Malibu.  This is really the powertrain most would find to their liking if they drove the car with all 3 powertrain options....smoothest of all 3....

-GM really elevates hybrids here, and does it off the back of Voltec components, brilliant.  Feels totally different than a new Volt (see other new review) and yet its mode of operation is generally undistinguishable from a normal gas car.

-switches between gas and electric with little to no discernible traits

-much more launch and cruising power than the 1.5 powertrain.....in fact, feels classic AMURCHAN with good old fashion launch feel, and KICK DOWN

-cruises well on the highway at speed too, surprisingly.  Nice enough passing power.  Cornfield states cruiser!

-brake by wire regenerative brakes, nothing weird about them.  Brakes feel fine and great.

-Like the other Malibus, does a great job of hushing road and engine noise in the cabin....

-despite the hundreds of pounds of added weight, doesn't really feel much heavier and the vehicle balance and weight distribution is just fine (unlike the 2.0t with its heavy nose)

-doesn't feel like the oozing drive characteristics of the Toyota hybrid synergy drive

-it's just a normal car that happens to be a hybrid, the best compliment i can give it....feels like a traditional car and not a science project.  Really makes hybrid 'mainstream'.  This is where the masses are headed, give us more.

-the best Malibu available.

 

HYBRID LOWS:

-yep, you lose some trunk space.  It's not THAT bad, and plenty of room for the grocery haul, but still is noticeable and cuts access through trunk.

-as faint as the 4 cylinder engine noise really is, it does give a drone that suggests its not a liquid smooth 4 cylinder.

-I actually think the interior can look cheap with the leather....this might be a car where you save the $$$$ and stick with cloth if you can

-interesting how cheap you can buy a new Ford Fusion hybrid right now......

 

SUMMARY:

 

Call me a homer for GM but i think this is a bellwether in hybrids.  Maybe the new Honda is good too, I don't know, but this ushers hybrids to a place where it really blurs the line......it feels so little different than a pure gas car, and when in Electric its a lot smoother.  The back and forth between gas and electric couldn't be done any better and as a result, you don't even notice that is different.....it's just better.  More power, more mpg.  It costs a little more, but who doesn't lose here?  Over time they will get the battery packaging figured out.

 

Between my 17 Volt drive and this today, I am convinced GM needs to put full resources into implementing the Voltec and hybrid into as many of their core products as they can.  They need to do this NOW to stake a leadership claim.  GM can't afford to wait and do this slowly and let some other manufacturer take this from them.  They really could put this in every car besides the Camaro and Spark.  This would work great in the Equinox and other crossovers too.

 

I hope consumers notice and create demand for this.  The hybrid is the best Malibu and tells me it's a dire need that GM get this in as many of their cars as possible right away.

 

A

Edited June 5, 2016 by regfootball

[cp-the-nerd]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that Trifecta would release a tune for the 1.5T, well it arrived even sooner than I thought! Gains are presented in WHP and WTQ. My guess was 190 bhp and 210 tq, and that's almost dead on! See below:

 

TRIFECTA presents: Chevy Malibu (1.5L, 2.0L) MY2016+ Powertrain Calibration Reprogramming (flash tune)

TRIFECTA is pleased to announce the immediate availability of the 2016+ Chevrolet Malibu vehicle software recalibration (reflash) for vehicles utilizing either the 1.5L Turbo (RPO: LFV) or the 2.0L Turbo (RPO: LTG) with either the 8 speed automatic transmission (Aisin AF40-8 / RPO:MRC) or the 6 speed automatic transmission (Delphi 6T40 / RPO:MNH). Specific gains over factory calibration are up to (uncorrected) 48lb-ft of torque and 49 horsepower with no vehicle modifications beyond the updated software calibration.

Detailed power gains (measured at the wheels, dynojet chassis dyno)

1.5L gains: up to +22 ft-lbs torque, +20 horsepower (peak gains of up to 18 ft-lbs torque, +19 horsepower)
2.0L gains: up to +48 ft-lbs torque, +49 horsepower (peak gains of up to 43 ft-lbs torque, +42 horsepower)