What have we done? 2016 Malibu 1LT 1.5t

[regfootball]

What have we gone and dun?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by regfootball

[ocnblu]

WHAAAAT?  Cool.  Congratulations on it!  Moar pics, prease!

[Cmicasa the Great]

U did an awesome thing from what I've seen of this car. 

[G. David Felt]

Lovely color, agree with Ocnblu, MORE PICS PLEASE!

[regfootball]

I'm such an INCENTIVE WHORE

 

My email to the store manager was "i am hoping for a kick ass deal"

 

His reply

 

"You're coming in at a great time!  Last couple days of the month and the quarter!"

 

it's a lease BTW.  apparently 2/3 of the customers (there at least) lease these days.

 

Plenty of pics, may need some more time to get them up.....how do i use the gallery

Edited June 30, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

https://www.cheersandgears.com/gallery/album/1247-2016-malibu-1lt-15t/

 

let me know if the link works.  some of the best ones are not up there yet due to file size.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Seriously congrads.. Car looks awesome. I really think that Chevy did a fantastic job one this iteration.. taking ques from the Impala and the 2015 Malibu and making it nicer than any other mid-size I can think of save maybe the Mazda6. This has Start/Stop I believe. I wonder if, like the Cadillac XT5 I tested a few days back.. if it has an override feature within the climate control to damn near disable S/S all together. 

 

EDIT: OK.. this was also a feature in the last gen Malibu 2.5L with S/S. 

 

From Chevy:

System details

 

When the engine shuts down, the vehicle’s electrical system remains “on,” including the lights, power accessories such as windows, locks, etc., the audio system and climate system. A small, auxiliary 12-volt battery mounted in the rear of the vehicle powers these electrical accessories to reduce the draw on the primary vehicle battery during restarting. An “auto stop” position on the tachometer indicates when the engine shuts down.

 

The engine automatically restarts after approximately two minutes if the driver hasn’t removed his or her foot from the brake pedal. Additionally, a driver-selectable mode for the climate system allows the driver to choose between maximum stop/start efficiency and maximum air conditioning performance.

 

When maximum air conditioning is chosen, the engine will shut down less frequently or not at all, to keep the air conditioning active. The system’s default is Eco mode for maximum efficiency, meaning air conditioning performance is slightly diminished when the engine is in auto stop mode. 

 

 

 

[regfootball]

Start stop hasn't come on much so far. If you are soft on the brake pedal, it won't shut off.

It's no CTS but it'll do.

Mazda is way overrated. The car gets good test numbers because of the way they ring it out but in normal driving it doesn't shift or wind up fast enough to feel quick. And it's not quiet sounding like the Mali. I'm surprised at how Sprite the 1.5 and real tranny is when you learn the torque band. When off the gas it just cruises well and is really quiet.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Start stop hasn't come on much so far. If you are soft on the brake pedal, it won't shut off.

It's no CTS but it'll do.

Mazda is way overrated. The car gets good test numbers because of the way they ring it out but in normal driving it doesn't shift or wind up fast enough to feel quick. And it's not quiet sounding like the Mali. I'm surprised at how Sprite the 1.5 and real tranny is when you learn the torque band. When off the gas it just cruises well and is really quiet.

 

 

NO.. I meant on looks. The Malibu and the Mazda6 , IMO, are the two best looking midsizers hands down. The Malibu carries more weight with me for obvious reasons.. and not to mention the new tech.

[G. David Felt]

Very nice pics, thanks for sharing.

[ccap41]

Congrats, Reg! 

 

The new Malibu has definitely grown on me. When it was first shown I couldn't have disliked it much more but the more I see it the better it looks. 

 

[oldshurst442]

Nice purchase, Reg!

 

The only thing I dont like about the 2017 Malibu is the front end styling. But it is growing on me every time I see one in the wild.

And I see plenty...but then again, a GM store is a mere 5 minutes away from where I live....but then again, so is a Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota and Ford store. The VW and Chrysler/Dodge is 5-8 short miles further.  So...the excuse that there is only a GM dealership in my town is a non-point.

 

NICE COLOUR YOU CHOSE!!!!

VERY NICE COLOUR YOU CHOSE INDEED!

[Frisky Dingo]

I don't get all the hype on the Mazda 6. The Malibu is easily a better car. Much nicer, offers greater power, and Mazda fanboys may not want to hear it, but it drives better, too. Nice pick, enjoy.

[regfootball]

Car and Driver just posted the review of the hybrid Malibu...

 

we looked hard at the hybrid (it was the first choice) and that was what i was going to go with until i discovered the payment quote was misunderstood / misquoted....  when we saw how much cost difference for us it was, it was too much, and we backed down to the 1.5.  Really badly wanted the hybrid but the 1.5 is pretty good as well.  Plus we get the full trunk volume as well.

 

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-malibu-hybrid-test-review

Edited July 1, 2016 by regfootball

[El Kabong]

Well-bought, man. Congratulations.

[Suaviloquent]

That light that shines on the tray below the screen...is a damn nice touch.

[daves87rs]

Congrats Reg!

 

 

Love the color.....

[G. David Felt]

That light that shines on the tray below the screen...is a damn nice touch.

I agree that light is a nice touch. Buick Envision also had LED lighting in all the foot wells and in the cup holders, pretty much any tray or place you might want to store stuff in. 

 

My 1994 GMC SLE Suburban had this also but light bulbs and then by the late 90's GM pulled stuff like that out to save money in just about all of their auto's. Now we see these nice touches coming back in.

 

So glad there is engineers who care about small touches like this.

[regfootball]

been loving the new rig, have been keeping it parked in the garage mostly while i get things in order to sell the cobalt.

 

was in the town today where i had been dealing on the other leading candidate, the hybrid.  it was white and had the light / gray interior.  Now that i saw that combo in the flesh it makes me like the black interior so much more.  I think the color combo choice was a good one.

 

So glad we moved up to midsize and the Malibu.  This new one is so roomy and comfy for the four of us.  The kids love it in the back and plenty of room to spread your arms out wide in the front.  Super comfy arm rest and just overall the space and packaging was done well for the midsize class.

Edited July 11, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

two weeks in, first fill.

 

low fuel warning goes off EARLY.  Probably at about the 10.5 gallon mark.  Tank is 13.0 gallons.  You can fill this up CHEAP.

 

336 miles, 11.2 gallons.  Exactly 30.00 mpg.

 

I'd say 40% of the tank was 65 mph cruising with little stop.  The rest was a lot of stoplights and stopped / slow traffic and stop and frustrating stop and go.  I got pretty p'oed the last couple days with all the traffic clusterfs and such.  It's becoming unbearable at times.  The autostop which does work fine went off about a dozen times today just on a short 7 mile jaunt.

 

The combined EPA is 31, so the 30 looks to be just spot on.  And the 30 was exactly what i am expecting over the life of the vehicle.  We'll see how it goes moving ahead.

 

I filled the tank with half non oxygenated / non ethanol 91 octane and the other half with 91 octane premium.  I hope to see what that does with the mpg.

 

The flat footedness at times of the engine power is not too frustrating, it really is a thing that becomes an issue in traffic more than anything.  I do still think the engine power is on the border of not enough, however as a commuter rig it does the job.  And its smooth.   Not at all unsatisfied, I really have some second thoughts about missing out on and not getting a hybrid or a 2.0 though.

 

I love the ride and the chassis and really believe this would be the ideal car for say a 1.8t with about 240hp and a six speed manual.  I don't think the market wants it, but just driving this car the chassis would be brilliant for it.

Edited July 15, 2016 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

Nice pick.  I like these, particularly in black.. (but I like all of my cars in black)

[Frisky Dingo]

Pearl white with the two-tone grey/brown interior is money.

[regfootball]

just a quick posting of some interesting FE numbers from Monday night.

 

a 254.4 mile stretch with about 90 percent highway and 87 octane non ethanol, near optimal conditions...

 

254.4 miles, 40.5 mpg (DIC indicated)

Best 50 mile stretch   46.3 mpg  (60-70 mph)

 

If i get this on trips all the time, I will be giddy.

 

want to be clear too, not calculated.  I am sensing the DIC may be slightly off...either shows too many miles traveled or doesn't show enough gas used.  Over time i will find that out. 

 

The other thing is one leg the day before in 90+ heat into a strong prairie head wind with 91 octane ethanol free only got me about 32 and change, even if the DIC said 35.  And the oil life meter took a hit.  I think extreme conditions of wind and heat really affect the small motor.  And, I think this car does not like 91 octane / premium.  I seem to get a happier motor and best FE on 87 octane.  The car when it settles into a zone and a nice long run purrs like a kitty and sips fuel.  There is a huge drop in FE between 65mph and 70mph ........and 75mph.  

 

The 1.5 is challenged at times in extreme conditions but most of the regualr time works well on the highway.  I think, just like whiskey, a 1.75 would be a nice deal.  It would be nice to have those deeper reserves for interstate driving......so i guess if you really drive a lot of long distance and FE is not the big concern, definitely go for the 2.0.

 

The fuel stop is sensitive in fueling.  If you try to get another tenth in to top it off, you will spill over on your new rig.  

Edited July 27, 2016 by regfootball

[Suaviloquent]

We need some more Malibooobs.

[ccap41]

Great numbers! 

 

I completely feel you on the 70+mph with a strong mpg drop off. From 50-60mph I can get 30-35mpg but once I get to 65-75mph that drops to barely the highway rating of 28mpg and if there's any wind it will definitely be below the 28mpg rating. Winter is even worse.. 

 

I am surprised it didn't seem as happy on 91.. I wouldn't think it would take a tank to adjust but maybe it does. Did it at least feel like there was a little extra pep(maybe just mental)? 

[regfootball]

i am guessing it will break in.  I didn't notice any extra juice with 91.  If anything it felt a bit different.  

 

The Cobalt was horrible after 60-65 mph.

 

What speed is the EPA highway test at?  That is probably the speed they tune the powertrains to.

 

A still 60 degree day or light tailwind with the sun mostly gone down, with non ethanol fuel, and following behind a semi, on flat grades at 65-70 mph and no braking or slowdowns I am sure this will get between 45-50 mpg.

Edited July 28, 2016 by regfootball

[regfootball]

http://ask.cars.com/2011/05/at-what-speed-is-highway-mileage-calculated.html

 

The EPA derives its estimates from driving simulations done in a laboratory. The highway simulation covers 10.3 miles at an average speed of 48.3 mph, with about half the time spent at 55-60 mph. Not exactly real-world. Since 2008 the EPA has included an 8-mile trip that adds more aggressive acceleration, spurts up to 80 mph and more than half the time over 60 mph — somewhat closer to reality. Neither test runs at a steady speed, the kind of driving you will likely do and an approach that should improve your mileage.

[Drew Dowdell]

I've noticed a big difference in FE in the Encore over 65 mph. Above that and the engine is just working too hard just to maintain speed.

[regfootball]

it just demonstrates, I think, that the powertrains being designed and put in all our cars globally are done so to excel on tests more than anything.

 

Our pentastar v6 van can just flat out kill it with mpg even at 70-75 mph. It has the lungs for that. But maybe that's a displacement argument.  We all know how well cars like the Corvette can do when untaxed.

 

I think Toyota brought hybrids to prominence with the Prius, but they haven't advanced it much beyond what they originally did.  The Malibu hybrid is based on Volt bits and by accounts (and my own account) an advancement of the hybrid system. I think now with that and other companies we will see more effort put into hybrids to solve the fuel economy / CAFE problems.

 

The Mali hybrid really is good but i didn't get enough time in it to know if it can do well on real world highway driving.

 

Hate to bring it up, but something competing with Ford Fusion Sports new 2.7v6 turbo would be super balls up in this car.

Edited July 30, 2016 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

You're right that it is an argument for displacement. These small displacement turbo engines are turning 3,000 rpm or more to maintain 70mph and at that speed the turbos are really spooled up....any time you're into the turbo, the fuel economy will suffer.

GM seems to have tuned the Encore to get every last drop of fuel economy at 55 - 65 mph. At those speeds I will generally beat EPA highway. Set the cruise at 75 mph though and I see a significant drop in fuel economy. I can see a swing from 33mpg to 27mpg with just a 10 mph change in speed.

[Suaviloquent]

The new 9 speed will have like 4 overdrive gears.

 

Overkeer, and will prolly allow for much less rev's at 75 or like 120 kph, right?

 

(I did a wild guess, and then googl'd and found it was 120.71 kph. YEAH!!! I'mma turbonerd & delirious because yes, yes I am!)

[regfootball]

hope to post my mpg log soon.  been getting really nice mpg out of this thing.  33 average overall, nudging 40 on trips.

would like a few more ponies though

[A Horse With No Name]

On 7/30/2016 at 9:57 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

You're right that it is an argument for displacement. These small displacement turbo engines are turning 3,000 rpm or more to maintain 70mph and at that speed the turbos are really spooled up....any time you're into the turbo, the fuel economy will suffer.

GM seems to have tuned the Encore to get every last drop of fuel economy at 55 - 65 mph. At those speeds I will generally beat EPA highway. Set the cruise at 75 mph though and I see a significant drop in fuel economy. I can see a swing from 33mpg to 27mpg with just a 10 mph change in speed.

Turbocharging a Miata usually dropped the fuel economy significantly because the gearing of the car meant you were in the turbo a good bit.

I really dislike the idea of a small turbo mill in a car like the Malibu to the point where it is off of my shopping list.

6 hours ago, regfootball said:

hope to post my mpg log soon.  been getting really nice mpg out of this thing.  33 average overall, nudging 40 on trips.

would like a few more ponies though

Ponies are always good...

[regfootball]

it's interesting that the Regal will have the v6 option by the sound of it.  A way to differentiate between siblings.

I wish it were a turbo 6 though.  Love the added boost the turbo gives.

Edited November 6, 2016 by regfootball

[A Horse With No Name]

16 hours ago, regfootball said:

it's interesting that the Regal will have the v6 option by the sound of it.  A way to differentiate between siblings.

I wish it were a turbo 6 though.  Love the added boost the turbo gives.

It will be interesting to see what Buick does with the Regal.  Current car is outclassed in some ways by its competitors.

[regfootball]

current car is dated by at least 3 years

[A Horse With No Name]

10 hours ago, regfootball said:

current car is dated by at least 3 years

One advantage Ford has I think in killing Mercury  I understand why Buick was saved, but having more car lines to dump developmental $ into is not necessarily doing GM any favors at the moment.

[regfootball]

pulled in for the first oil change today with exactly 5000 miles on the odometer which chevy pays for.  35% oil life.

the B tripmeter registering all the miles i have driven since taking possession show a DIC lifetime 33.2 mpg. (probably real calc maybe mid - high 32's. still need to work on my fuel log).

love the car, but i might join the crossover fray next time.  And, go bigger on the engine.  But i got the 1.5 for mpg and it hasn't let me down there.  The mill is quiet for what it is, but if i had bought the car i think a better decision would be more power.  And i do think a v6 would be nice, the small four has a well muted buzz and drone that you only hear because the cabin is so quiet...it's still a buzz and a drone though.  A small turbo 6 would be manna for me.

the driver's seat is not cushy and doesn't rise up high enough.  Small beans when its not a Buick or Cadillac price.  Everyone who's seen the car likes it.

tpms can be about 10% low at times when checked vs a gauge.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by regfootball

[A Horse With No Name]

On 7/27/2016 at 7:07 PM, Suaviloquent said:

We need some more Malibooobs.

Agreed!

10 hours ago, regfootball said:

pulled in for the first oil change today with exactly 5000 miles on the odometer which chevy pays for.  35% oil life.

the B tripmeter registering all the miles i have driven since taking possession show a DIC lifetime 33.2 mpg. (probably real calc maybe mid - high 32's. still need to work on my fuel log).

love the car, but i might join the crossover fray next time.  And, go bigger on the engine.  But i got the 1.5 for mpg and it hasn't let me down there.  The mill is quiet for what it is, but if i had bought the car i think a better decision would be more power.  And i do think a v6 would be nice, the small four has a well muted buzz and drone that you only hear because the cabin is so quiet...it's still a buzz and a drone though.  A small turbo 6 would be manna for me.

the driver's seat is not cushy and doesn't rise up high enough.  Small beans when its not a Buick or Cadillac price.  Everyone who's seen the car likes it.

tpms can be about 10% low at times when checked vs a gauge.

 

The Four kills this as a proposition for me. Mazda makes the nicest affordable crossovers I think. Highly jealous your mileage is so low.

We are at 47-48K on our 2015 TDI, planning a cross country road trip for the spring, should put another 5K on it....

[regfootball]

The Regal should be the "v6 Malibu" and hopefully better seats and more plush all around.  I would definitely endorse something like a 2.5 turbo six on this chassis.  Hoy grail, IMO.

 

The 1.5 is really good for what it is, a powertrain that is forced on us by overbearing regulations and global markets.  For a 1.5 4 popper its pretty amazing and its all about the mpg.  But i think I would like a real car motor next time. Question is how much mpg do you lose in the process.

Edited November 25, 2016 by regfootball

[A Horse With No Name]

4 hours ago, regfootball said:

The Regal should be the "v6 Malibu" and hopefully better seats and more plush all around.  I would definitely endorse something like a 2.5 turbo six on this chassis.  Hoy grail, IMO.

 

The 1.5 is really good for what it is, a powertrain that is forced on us by overbearing regulations and global markets.  For a 1.5 4 popper its pretty amazing and its all about the mpg.  But i think I would like a real car motor next time. Question is how much mpg do you lose in the process.

I can agree, mailing stupid high MPG in the TDI and will hate to sell it back in some ways. 57.9 MPG on mostly highway recently.

Would not buy the Malibu based on 1.5 T.

[cp-the-nerd]

If you ever want a bit more pep, there's a reputable performance tune for the 1.5T Malibu from Trifecta. Peak gains of 38 horsepower and 14 lb-ft of torque. Even better gains under the curve. They've been tuning GM's turbocharged engines since the 1st gen Cruze. Over on the Malibu forum, the 2.0T trifecta tune for the '13-15 models was really well received. No complaints or damage reported.

http://www.trifectaperformance.com/forums/store/product/2236-2016-chevrolet-malibu-15l-turbo-advantage/

Edited November 26, 2016 by cp-the-nerd

[regfootball]

very interesting,

but mine's a lease,....?

[hyperv6]

7 hours ago, cp-the-nerd said:

If you ever want a bit more pep, there's a reputable performance tune for the 1.5T Malibu from Trifecta. Peak gains of 38 horsepower and 14 lb-ft of torque. Even better gains under the curve. They've been tuning GM's turbocharged engines since the 1st gen Cruze. Over on the Malibu forum, the 2.0T trifecta tune for the '13-15 models was really well received. No complaints or damage reported.

http://www.trifectaperformance.com/forums/store/product/2236-2016-chevrolet-malibu-15l-turbo-advantage/

I know many Trifecta tunes and they do a good job. I am just surprised GM has not put one out for the Camaro yet. 

The GM tune in the HHR not only gave more power but 2 more MPG. 

The secret is not the HP but the torque. The key to a DI engine is to get up to speed and off the gas sooner. More Torque does this. DI engines cut off the fuel when off the throttle unlike other FI system and no fuel goes in. 

At least that is what the GM performance power-train engineer explained to me. 

Tunes are easy to do and generally an additional 30-50 HP is no problem. 

Just make sure the engine management is not disabled at the shift points as some of the  new transmission can be damaged there as most are designed to pull back power at the shifts. Most can take it some can't. 

 

[hyperv6]

On 7/30/2016 at 9:57 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

You're right that it is an argument for displacement. These small displacement turbo engines are turning 3,000 rpm or more to maintain 70mph and at that speed the turbos are really spooled up....any time you're into the turbo, the fuel economy will suffer.

GM seems to have tuned the Encore to get every last drop of fuel economy at 55 - 65 mph. At those speeds I will generally beat EPA highway. Set the cruise at 75 mph though and I see a significant drop in fuel economy. I can see a swing from 33mpg to 27mpg with just a 10 mph change in speed.

 

Have you got any boost readings at that speed? 

Most Tubo's have driven only produce significant boost under a load and RPM is not really a factor. In fact it is difficult to gain much boost at cruising speed generally.  

Todays turbo engines do not work like how many imagine them to work. Most boost is only under load and acceleration but driving down the road maintaining speed little if any is used. The HP needed to maintain speed is low so there is no need to keep the boost up. 

It is not like an Indy car where the boost is needed the entire time for max power. 

Odds are the drop in MPG is the fact the engine is just turning 3000 rpm VS. 1800-2200.  This is why we are seeing more 8 Speed and 10 speed cars as the smaller engines need to turn lower RPM to  be efficient but need the gearing to be able to perform. 

I have two gauges in my car the factory Autometer and a Aeroforce Scan meter. It also does boost, HP and about 32 other readings from the OBDII. It really tells the tail of the car as it even gives me Converter slip to how fast the right front wheel and left front wheel is spinning. 

I had a second Aeroforce for a while that I could just plug in any car and have found the same things going on on the smaller Turbo engines as with my 2.0.

The trick I learned at speed is if you want boot at 60 MPH you need to slow a little and load up the engine and then it will react with much more boost.  I can see 18-20+ PSI with the load. If I just kick it down at 60 mph it will just spool up to 8-12 PSI at best. Sure it takes off but not like it does under a load. 

 

One other observation is driving with the boost gauge. We all tend to leave out foot on the gas a little and it tends to add a couple pounds of boost. Now I have found you can zero or even hit a light vacuum and still maintain the same speed on level ground. I can even climb hills maintaining speed with zero boost.  It can add 1-2 MPG depending on the vehicle and driver. 

I have not tested an Encore but I would not be shocked if it performance the same as the other GM engines like I have observed. 

GM like many MFG skip boost, oil pressure and other gauges because people just do not understand what they are reading. If they do it is like my SSEI where it did not have numbers. 

I do recommend the Aeroforce to anyone as it is such a great tool. Check out their web site as even in non performance applications it is a trick tool. If I sell the SS the gauge is going to my next vehicle. It will work on any GM OBDII.

Edited November 27, 2016 by hyperv6

[Drew Dowdell]

On the Encore, I think the engine is just overworked at 75mph. Remember it's not a DI engine either, so it's not going to have the same performance characteristics of the Turbo-DI engines. 

[hyperv6]

Still you are not going to produce much boost with no real load on the engine. Why would it since keeping a car at speed or maintaining a constant speed takes so little HP. 

All the work is done at the initial take off and getting up to speed. This is how Ford does commercials with trucks pulling ships and Toyota towing a Space shuttle on level ground. 

DI just makes it so you can run more boost and be more efficient with distribution. 

Turbos do not work like a supercharger all the time. They are regulated at speed as you do not need the boost all the time. If they were loaded with boost all the time your mileage would really suck as the fuel would need to keep up with the air even when you don't need the power. 

Turbo charging when you really look at it is a variable displacement. That is why one mfg has been working on variable displacement engines as they could conceivably eliminate the turbo if they can make them work and make them reliable.  

Edited November 27, 2016 by hyperv6

[regfootball]

well, turbo and power is well and good, but the super cold temps and snowy week have my current tank of fuel at TWENTY TWO miles per gallon

I'm sure my liberal use of the on star remote link ap has something to do with this (love me a warm car) but i have a tendency to think these tiny turbos and super cold don't mix for good mpg.  Why have tough mpg all winter that offsets whatever good mpg you get in the other 8-9 months of the year?

I'm on board with turbo.  I am having second thoughts, maybe the 2.0 was the way to go.  Actually, i still go back to small v6 turbo like Fusion Sport.  I know, not as good of mpg,

The brakes on this car, the pedal, definitely has feel and feedback.  In fact, its way too much.  VERY firm brake pedal and no slush at the beginning of travel.  It's too far in the other direction compared with what a GM owner may be used to.  They need to soften it a bit while still maintaining the nice tactility of the pedal.

Can't wait for the Buick Regal / Insignia to show itself.  Like my Malibu but the slightly nicer interior of the Insignia, the wagon version, and the powertrain options have me thinking.

Even with my sedan love and the love of my ride, its possible I will gravitate to a crossover next time around.  Or who knows, maybe we will get the wagon here.  Maybe i am graying so much that my dream would be the GM version of a Ford Edge clone......(What i would like to see the impala nameplate move to eventually).

[regfootball]

HMMMMMMMMM

CHECK THE OIL I PERHAPS SHOULD DO

and that occasional burning smell, thought it was heated seats too warm

http://gm.oemdtc.com/6987/pip5417-diagnostic-tip-oil-leak-from-crankshaft-rear-oil-seal-2016-2017-buick-chevrolet

http://www.chevymalibuforum.com/forums/113-general-discussion-generation-9/86810-oil-leak.html

 

http://www.chevymalibuforum.com/forums/686906-post7.html

Edited February 12, 2017 by regfootball

[ocnblu]