What have we done? 2016 Malibu 1LT 1.5t

[regfootball]

rocking a loaner 2016 Malibu hybrid same color with about 70 miles on it for the day while they are fixing an 'oil pan leak' on my 1.5.

i'm not convinced this is a defect, i truly believe they got the oil quantity wrong on the last oil change and it blew out something.

 

Should be interesting to see if they screw up the oil fill again.

Edited February 15, 2017 by regfootball

[cp-the-nerd]

13 minutes ago, regfootball said:

rocking a loaner 2016 Malibu hybrid same color with about 70 miles on it for the day while they are fixing an 'oil pan leak' on my 1.5.

i'm not convinced this is a defect, i truly believe they got the oil quantity wrong on the last oil change and it blew out something.

 

Should be interesting to see if they screw up the oil fill again.

Small world, the link you posted from the Chevy Malibu Forum has some of my posts in it. I'm a mod over there. I would recommend ANY car owner check their dipstick after an oil change, but especially the new Malibu, because GM's policy of selling "Classic" models side by side with new cars for a year seems to be f@#king with mechanics trying to research fluid capacity and maintenance.

You would THINK that even idiot mechanics are capable of following a dipstick, but you'd be wrong. Some dealerships are even lying on behalf of their shop.

[ccap41]

29 minutes ago, cp-the-nerd said:

Small world, the link you posted from the Chevy Malibu Forum has some of my posts in it. I'm a mod over there. I would recommend ANY car owner check their dipstick after an oil change, but especially the new Malibu, because GM's policy of selling "Classic" models side by side with new cars for a year seems to be f@#king with mechanics trying to research fluid capacity and maintenance.

You would THINK that even idiot mechanics are capable of following a dipstick, but you'd be wrong. Some dealerships are even lying on behalf of their shop.

What would you follow, a book that you're told has all of the correct quantities and capacities or a dipstick? Which one is wrong? Because I've had it where I've looked up the model and engine, drained, filled, and been off according to the dip stick.. and vise versa.

[cp-the-nerd]

15 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

What would you follow, a book that you're told has all of the correct quantities and capacities or a dipstick? Which one is wrong? Because I've had it where I've looked up the model and engine, drained, filled, and been off according to the dip stick.. and vise versa.

The dipstick, no question. If the dipstick is incorrect, then there's an underlying problem with the car. That's your primary source of oil level, fundamentally engineered to be fairly precise.

At the very least, you should be questioning a significantly overfilled dipstick reading before driving the car or letting a customer take it.

[ccap41]

18 minutes ago, cp-the-nerd said:

The dipstick, no question. If the dipstick is incorrect, then there's an underlying problem with the car. That's your primary source of oil level, fundamentally engineered to be fairly precise.

At the very least, you should be questioning a significantly overfilled dipstick reading before driving the car or letting a customer take it.

Oh I agree that it should be questioned. Without a doubt. But it isn't unheard of that a company uses the wrong length dipstick and there is a recall/tsb on it.

Also, I should mention that the manual also states the same as the book. I've come across it before and I go back to the dipstick because customers are stupid but I was just bringing up another point of view on it.

[regfootball]

4 hours ago, cp-the-nerd said:

Small world, the link you posted from the Chevy Malibu Forum has some of my posts in it. I'm a mod over there. I would recommend ANY car owner check their dipstick after an oil change, but especially the new Malibu, because GM's policy of selling "Classic" models side by side with new cars for a year seems to be f@#king with mechanics trying to research fluid capacity and maintenance.

You would THINK that even idiot mechanics are capable of following a dipstick, but you'd be wrong. Some dealerships are even lying on behalf of their shop.

i made them check the dipstick before i went out the door.  The receipt says 5 units of oil again.  I mentioned several times to be sure to put the right amount in it and that the 1.5 takes less oil than the other malibu engines.

got 44.5 mpg in my short stint in the hybrid.  I will elobarate on that in a little while.

So they replaced the oil pan, etc.  But if the engine is overfilled and it blows out the engine seal i would hope that Chevy is getting on the horn with all these service departments and telling people to friggin check which motor!!!!  I'm gonna look up the filter no. when i get home and see if they got that right too.

[cp-the-nerd]

5 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Oh I agree that it should be questioned. Without a doubt. But it isn't unheard of that a company uses the wrong length dipstick and there is a recall/tsb on it.

Also, I should mention that the manual also states the same as the book. I've come across it before and I go back to the dipstick because customers are stupid but I was just bringing up another point of view on it.

Oh see I'm talking under the assumption that the dipstick is the correct size, like it's been checked after factory to be correct at some point. Besides, if there's a question at the dealership about the dipstick itself, then check it with one from another Malibu on the lot. There are so many reasons a car shouldn't get off a dealership lot with the oil reading incorrectly.

2 hours ago, regfootball said:

i made them check the dipstick before i went out the door.  The receipt says 5 units of oil again.  I mentioned several times to be sure to put the right amount in it and that the 1.5 takes less oil than the other malibu engines.

got 44.5 mpg in my short stint in the hybrid.  I will elobarate on that in a little while.

So they replaced the oil pan, etc.  But if the engine is overfilled and it blows out the engine seal i would hope that Chevy is getting on the horn with all these service departments and telling people to friggin check which motor!!!!  I'm gonna look up the filter no. when i get home and see if they got that right too.

Check the oil quantity and filter number against the 2016 Malibu Classic 2.5L (or any 2013-15 Malibu 2.5L). That's what we found to be the issue in one case on the forum.

[regfootball]

yeah, the 'fix' didn't fix the problem.

PLUS, now this

The following recalls have been found for your 2016 Chevrolet Malibu E2

Program Title:

Stochastic Pre-Ignition (SPI) Causing Cracked Piston

Program Description:

Certain 2016 and 2017 model year Chevrolet Malibu vehicles equipped with a 1.5L LFV engine may have a pre-ignition condition that could cause piston damage. If this condition occurs, the vehicle may perform poorly and oil consumption could increase. In addition, a service engine light may illuminate indicating an engine misfire. If the condition is present, and the repair below is not completed before multiple pre-ignition events occur, a piston may be damaged and the engine may need to be repaired or replaced.

 

Repair Description:

Reprogram the Engine Control Module (ECM) and change the engine oil with ACDelco dexos 1 Full-Synthetic motor oil of the part number as indicated in the parts section. (In Canada use the exact Mobil 1 part number specified in the parts section). It is very important that only oil with the correct part number is used in this repair.

 

 

 

What was a love affair with the new ride has me quickly losing enthusiasm and confidence

 

this crap is borderline unacceptable.

Edited February 27, 2017 by regfootball

[regfootball]

first long trip in awhile.  I had hoped for two things,

one- to be sure the 2x oil leak fix was going to stick

two- now that weather has improved, and we're out of the stupid winter gas phase, i wanted to see what mpg we can get since the ECM fix and blow some carbon out of the motor.

I have to go back and tab my fill notes, as i have kept track of each fuel fill for the last 10 months and the car surpassed 10,000 on the way home today.  Overall average on DIC is about 30.6 or 30.7, not bad considering the EPA estimated combined is 31.  So Chevy's claims are consistent.

Some follies on the way up too see mom,

I had filled with a mix of non-oxy 91 and mid grade 89 (which would have enthanol) and BOY the car DID NOT like it.  I have repeatedly demonstrated that this little 1.5 really REALLY prefers 87 octane gas.  And is programmed to behave mostly well on the ethanol laced E10 garbage.  I had a check engine light come on after about 60 miles? and I pulled off at a station to top off with plain E10 87 after when i saw the check engine light i also got an OnStar email.  After the top off it took awhile (couple hundred more miles) but then the check engine finally came off.  Coolant temp gauge was rock solid same place the whole time.  The OnStar email said the vehicle dianostic was something about emissions.

In my 10,000 mile history with the car I can tell you that strangely enough this engine really really prefers run of the mill 87 octane whatever the crap they make em sell kind of gas.  Do not waste your time or bother with premium.  

I had been pulling about 38 mpg on the juiced blend until the CEL and then after the top off the mpg dropped to around 34.  Driving through plains stiff head winds did not help.

On the way back, the headwinds were even more brutal and temps were freezing as i filled the tank this am with regular 87 octane non ethanol. I couldn't get much more than 33.5 or 34 until halfway through my trip home and then magically the instant mpg's kept jumping.  The outside temp was warming and even though the wind was dying some it was still fairly strong.  I made great use of drafting trucks and others, and GM's amazing precise tap up and tap down cruise control allowed me to benefit from others taking the brunt.  I would imagine my whole trip average speed was high sixties.  In the last 100 miles of the trip I really say a big jump and the last 40 miles or so were more at 60-65 mph rather than 70-75 mph. 

I ended up with a 36.1 average on the tank but the big achievement was i managed to coax it to an all new high on the '50 mile best'.  I was able to get it to pull 46.7 mpg for a 50 mile stretch right before getting home, and i surpassed my previous best of 46.5.  I was happy about that, and there was quite a bit of traffic - even if it wasn't stop and go.  Thing is imagine if the whole tank could have pulled 42-43 mpg?  I think it could of.  Now, my A/C was not on so that is a caveat.  But the fact that I could improve from 33-34 and be pulling over 46 mpg by the end of the tank shows you the big jekyll and hyde nature of these motors.  In winter it was tough getting 25 mpg sometimes.  

Edited April 24, 2017 by regfootball

[A Horse With No Name]

This thing really needs at least a 2.0 Turbo. That would be the minimum GM would even have to do to get me in the door for a test drive.

Edited April 25, 2017 by A Horse With No Name

[Drew Dowdell]

41 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

This thing really needs at least a 2.0 Turbo. That would be the minimum GM would even ahve to do to get me in the door for a test drive.

Wish granted.

The 2.0T is available with an 8-speed auto and is quite good.

[A Horse With No Name]

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Wish granted.

The 2.0T is available with an 8-speed auto and is quite good.

But my local Chevrolet dealer said it was only available in the top trim level, which is quite expensive for a Malibu.

[Drew Dowdell]

5 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

But my local Chevrolet dealer said it was only available in the top trim level, which is quite expensive for a Malibu.

Yes... Premier trim only.... but it's a lot of car for that price. Standard leather, Nav, Bose, 18" wheels... all the goodies you'd expect at that level of car.

The only real options to consider are sunroof (yes/no) and active cruise control (yes/no)

Edit: and I was wrong... not an 8-speed, a 9-speed.....this must have been an upgrade from the prior year because I swore it released with an 8.

[A Horse With No Name]

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

Yes... Premier trim only.... but it's a lot of car for that price. Standard leather, Nav, Bose, 19" wheels... all the goodies you'd expect at that level of car.

The only real options to consider are sunroof (yes/no) and active cruise control (yes/no)

Edit: and I was wrong... not an 8-speed, a 9-speed.....this must have been an upgrade from the prior year because I swore it released with an 8.

It is a lot of car for the money...but if I am going to spend a larger amount of coin I would personally prefer to get the new Regal...which like the Malibu is also a fantastic car.

[Drew Dowdell]

1 minute ago, A Horse With No Name said:

It is a lot of car for the money...but if I am going to spend a larger amount of coin I would personally prefer to get the new Regal...which like the Malibu is also a fantastic car.

I expect the new Riggle to go up in price and not with the same level of options at the price the Malibu is at. 

[A Horse With No Name]

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

I expect the new Riggle to go up in price and not with the same level of options at the price the Malibu is at. 

Could very well be...and this will give me some serious thinking to do, as I will be in the market...TDI is in VW's hands now...

[regfootball]

On 4/25/2017 at 1:55 PM, A Horse With No Name said:

But my local Chevrolet dealer said it was only available in the top trim level, which is quite expensive for a Malibu.

right.  the big problem.

the 2.0 is a good car, but its not amazing good.  overall Chevy still has work to do on the chassis and suspension either way, and the powertrain is not totally smooth like glass either.

the chassis is screaming for a performance version, or even a quality suspension, or both.  

no one should kid themselves into thinking this car has a big car ride either.  They nailed it on the size of the vehicle....but it is still midsize and it lacks the plush ride of larger or more expensive rigs.  it is commuter comfortable but that's about it.

The value equation for this car does not mate at higher msrp's.  If chevy had their stuff together they would start building more 2.0's and get them in the lower priced ones.

And perhaps if i didn't keep getting check engine lights now all the time that would help too.

I'd encourage people if they are buying vs leasing to take a hard look at the Impala or some of the used Cadillacs hitting the market for dirt cheap now.

Edited May 1, 2017 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Past 15,000.  Chevy is not far off on combined mpg. New 25 mile best!  47.4 mpg

[regfootball]

Finally had a chance to rinse the winter crud (last winter's) out of the floor mats and liners, and had to get rid of all the bugs plastered all over the front end.  Ran the car through two separate washes, so i decided it was worth it to spray wax it and tire foam the tires just so it would look spruced up.  Butte red was a great color for this car, which is not available any more.

[regfootball]

I'm gonna go back through this thread and now that i am closing in on half way (18 months) through my 3 years lease, I am going to do a half way report and see what sticks and what doesn't....

https://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/topic/86223-2016-chevrolet-malibu-1lt-15-update-2-hybrid-20-2lt/

[regfootball]

"Halfway Report" (18/36 months) odometer will hit 20,000 this week.

PROS:

-Stylish design, inside and out.

-Mostly a friendly interior with "just enough" size.

-Quiet cabin, on most roads.

-‘Commuter comfortable’ ride for short daily drives.  Actually hauls four on not to long trips pretty well as well.

-Good mpg overall, and real jaw dropping mpg (47+ over distance) when conditions are right.  31+ mpg lifetime combined average (right per the sticker!) as per my logging each and every tank since new.  Likes plain 87 octane (ethanol blended too) just fine.

-1.5t powertrain is unexpectedly good  and smooth for cruising at higher speeds and interstate driving, when not being asked for power.

-Excellent brakes.

-LOVE the 4g LTE hotspot.  A few glitches at times, but otherwise it works great and is easy.

CONS:

-Not much in the way of sportiness, when it could easily have the makings to do so.

-Disappointed in the power output in the daily stoplight to stoplight driving.  Really really would love more power and torque, and smoother delivery when pressed.  I would give up some of the mpg for a more usable powertrain.  How much?  Not sure.  To be honest, some days, the powertrain is unlivable.  Tiny turbo works too hard and doesn’t have the spunk (or its been gradually losing spunk).  A 1.6, 1.7. 1.8 as a base engine should be considered.  At a minimum, Chevy needs to be held to the fire to make an inexpensive 2.0 plain fuel upgrade available for lesser trim versions.  I think sales would pick up if they gave a better engine offering.

-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…… same as  before but it seems to have increased or just annoys me more.

-Powertrain reliability questions: Had oil leaks fixed twice.  Seemed like it was done but had some new seeping recently after an oil change again.  Very sensitive to oil issues and it honestly makes me concerned how this will hold up.  Or do they just not do well with even a little bit too much oil.  Engine management and computer reprogrammed already too.  Car does not like anything apart from plain grade 87 octane…which is itself either a plus or minus depending on how you see it.  If the manufacturer says you need to get the computer reprogrammed so the car won’t have issues, that is a concern.

-Small turbo takes huge hit on gas mileage in the winter months.  Between the reformulated gas and the engine thirst, you will see 15-30% drop from late November till end of March.

-Autostop can really get on your nerves at times, and quite honestly it incenses me that GM does not have a switch that allows you to turn it off.  Reprehensible actually.  The Pacifica has one and it is a godsend!  It seemed unobtrusive mostly at first, but on days when it is say 80+ degrees out and you want the A/C to keep going and you are drving across town and hit 12 stoplights red; and you get sick of the jerk on jerk off, you will understand why the consumer should be given the switch to turn it off.

-Front seats quite honestly are uncomfortable and cheap feeling.  It is my biggest complaint about the car.  A GM car used to give you decent seats for the driver and passenger and these are just flat out crap in my opinion.  Minimal padding if any.  Not substantial.  Not wide for wide butts.  Not much for lateral support although i would gladly love butt support first.  Power activation seems week and slow.  This is your main connection with the car, and if it hurts your back due to bad cushioning and terrible shape of the backrest, how am I supposed to enjoy the rest of the car?

-Some other cheap bits inside.  The seat leather is very thin and door plastics honestly could be a bit better.

-Piss poor coloring choices inside.  I understand the ease of the all black interior, but this need some more help with textures and patterns and quite honestly some lightening up the place wherever they can.  Why not a simple light tan choice?  They FINALLY put a light color choice in the Impala.  Chevy needs to make light tan much more available and stop pushing the caramel color crap so much.  And the light gray is fine at times, but again, you don't find hardly any on the lot with that color?  Add in some nice contrasts between the darks and lights...or is only Buick entitled to have decent interiors?

-Gauges, Touchscreen and center stack / shifter have opportunities to improve.  Using CarPlay on the screen blocks out chance for screen to display other useful info.  Screen itself looks small and a bit cheap.  All this will be elaborated on separately.

-Love me a firm brake pedal but a lot of the time, it is quite simply too hard.

-Ride is not plush, as in, its not a substitute for a larger or more expensive sedan.  They have to leave that for Buicks now apparently.

-Honda Accord, the competition now is even larger in size, sets a new benchmark.  Chevy ought to consider upsizing the interior to match.

-At the end of the day, crossovers are starting to look pretty good for the next ride.

VERDICT:

Likable but not completely endearing, mostly due to things GM could fix if they were committed to listening and not being cheap, and spent more time creating reliable designs.  At a minimum they need to make continuous changes and upgrades to address stuff like i have listed above.  Probably cannot do a 1.5 next time.  Will at a minimum next time look at the Regal as a first gesture…. Also will really look at the Accord.

More detail to be provided on these comments above soon.....

Edited December 27, 2017 by regfootball

[ccap41]

Good 18 month review! 

I think the 1.5 displacement is 100% of China as that is their breaking point for taxes. That is why Ford dropped from 1.6 to 1.5 for their small turbo engines as well. Above 1.5 is a higher tax bracket. That's why we get them. It only makes sense for them to make one engine for multiple markets rather than multiples. 

I totally feel you on the winter driving consumption. My Escape did the same thing. It plummeted once it got real cold and it was winter blend fuel. 

It would grind my gears not having the option to turn off auto start-stop. I understand their reasoning.. but I don't like that it's forced upon us. Easy fix..different vehicle who gives the option. I totally understand the hot summer days where it's 90-100+ degrees outside and I wouldn't want the AC off for more than like 15 seconds. 

[frogger]

I like that VW gives a 1.8 as standard on the Golf variations here vs the 1.4 on the cheaper Jettas,  I wonder if they do that in many markets.

 

 

 

[Robert Hall]

14 minutes ago, frogger said:

I like that VW gives a 1.8 as standard on the Golf variations here vs the 1.4 on the cheaper Jettas,  I wonder if they do that in many markets.

 

I think that is a North America thing..the current gen of Golf has 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6 petrol engines in other markets. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[regfootball]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Good 18 month review! 

I think the 1.5 displacement is 100% of China as that is their breaking point for taxes. That is why Ford dropped from 1.6 to 1.5 for their small turbo engines as well. Above 1.5 is a higher tax bracket. That's why we get them. It only makes sense for them to make one engine for multiple markets rather than multiples. 

I totally feel you on the winter driving consumption. My Escape did the same thing. It plummeted once it got real cold and it was winter blend fuel. 

It would grind my gears not having the option to turn off auto start-stop. I understand their reasoning.. but I don't like that it's forced upon us. Easy fix..different vehicle who gives the option. I totally understand the hot summer days where it's 90-100+ degrees outside and I wouldn't want the AC off for more than like 15 seconds. 

they sell enough cars in the US to not have to make so many 1.5's here.  they do it here for CAFE.  i.e. overreach.  i do like the FE at times, but overall it should be something inbetween the 1.5 and 2.0

[ccap41]

7 minutes ago, regfootball said:

they sell enough cars in the US to not have to make so many 1.5's here.  they do it here for CAFE.  i.e. overreach.  i do like the FE at times, but overall it should be something inbetween the 1.5 and 2.0

But why would they spend more money for 100cc's of displacement when it isn't necessary? They do it here because it makes financial sense to not make multiple engines with very similar displacement with only a few hp/tq differences.

Looking at similar gains as they got from the 1.4T to the 1.5T they got 10hp and 7tq. Assuming a similar gain from 1.5T to 1.6T and there's no good reason for them to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars engineering, calibrating, and manufacturing a separate block or crank or cylinder(assuming only one variable would actually change) and then re-certifying it. 

If they made the 1.5 the same specs as Ford's 1.5 you'd have 179hp/177tq compared to 163hp/184tq. Depends what you're looking for more tq or more hp. Honda makes one as well but it's down to both of those on torque

[regfootball]

Well then at least provide a base engine with sufficient go juice for in town driving, or like i said, provide the 2.0 as an option on the lesser trim and lesser priced models.  The numbers don't imply very well how undrivable it is at times in daily errand hopping driving.  And sorry, but that 8.0 seconds can't be correct, they had to really rail the piss out of the thing to get it to do that.

2018 Accord 1.5

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.3 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 19.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 24.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.0 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.0 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 121 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 163 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g

Malibu 1.5

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 24.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.4 sec @ 85 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 130 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 171 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

But why would they spend more money for 100cc's of displacement when it isn't necessary? They do it here because it makes financial sense to not make multiple engines with very similar displacement with only a few hp/tq differences.

Looking at similar gains as they got from the 1.4T to the 1.5T they got 10hp and 7tq. Assuming a similar gain from 1.5T to 1.6T and there's no good reason for them to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars engineering, calibrating, and manufacturing a separate block or crank or cylinder(assuming only one variable would actually change) and then re-certifying it. 

If they made the 1.5 the same specs as Ford's 1.5 you'd have 179hp/177tq compared to 163hp/184tq. Depends what you're looking for more tq or more hp. Honda makes one as well but it's down to both of those on torque

either make something inbetween the 1.5 and 2.0 or detune one trim of the 2.0 for fuel mileage.  

it likely doesn't cost any more $$$ to put a 2.0 engine in vs a 1.5.  4 cylinders, 16 valves, 2 cams, one turbo, etc. etc.

Edited December 27, 2017 by regfootball

[ccap41]

44 minutes ago, regfootball said:

And sorry, but that 8.0 seconds can't be correct, they had to really rail the piss out of the thing to get it to do that.

Well, their foot would be on the floor for a 0-60 run. 

45 minutes ago, regfootball said:

it likely doesn't cost any more $$$ to put a 2.0 engine in vs a 1.5.  4 cylinders, 16 valves, 2 cams, one turbo, etc. etc.

They already have a 2.0T. 

You made it seem like you wanted something in between the two engines. 

2017 Malibu 2.0T

 

16.4... That's as slow as my car..lol 

[regfootball]

You can't get the 2.0 unless you get a Premier, which is far too pricey.  2.0 should be an option on 1LT and up.

 

the only way to get a real life 8 second run with the 1.5 would be to abuse it and possibly ruin it.  

Edited December 27, 2017 by regfootball

[ccap41]

Oh, I see what you mean. Sounds like the Malibu just isn't your jam then.

That's how every single 0-XXXmph run is you read from a review. I don't think flooring it through 1st and 2nd gear will ruin a vehicle every so often. They should be designed to take some abuse.

[regfootball]

based on my experience with having to have the critical engine reprogram and the oil leaks, i am glad i am not owning this vehicle.  If it's that sensitive then i cannot imagine how it would withstand beating on it, because i surely don't beat on it.

 

The Malibu is my jam, if they improved the base powertrain or offered the 2.0 on the lower trims.  

Edited December 27, 2017 by regfootball

[oldshurst442]

Guys. Guys. Guys.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/1999-oldsmobile-alero-2/

 

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
	Honda	Nissan	Oldsmobile
	Accord LX	Altima GXE	Alero GLS
Acceleration, sec
0-30 mph	3.0	3.2	2.6
0-40 mph	4.2	4.8	3.8
0-50 mph	5.9	7.2	5.6
0-60 mph	7.8	9.8	7.8
0-70 mph	10.1	13.1	10.2
0-80 mph	13.7	18.7	13.4
Standing quarter mile, sec/mph	16.1/86.7	17.4/78.0	16.0/85.1
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft	135	135	137
Lateral acceleration, g	0.79	0.76	0.75
Speed through 600-ft
slalom, mph	63.7	62.6	63.8
EPA mpg, city/hwy.	21/28	22/30	20/29

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-ford-fusion-se-15l-ecoboost-automatic-test-review

Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $27,890 (base price: $25,555)

ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection

DISPLACEMENT: 91 cu in, 1499 cc
POWER: 181 hp @ 6000 rpm
TORQUE: 185 lb-ft @ 2700 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

DIMENSIONS:
WHEELBASE: 112.2 in
LENGTH: 191.7 in
WIDTH: 75.2 in HEIGHT: 58.0 in
CURB WEIGHT: 3481 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 23.1 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 33.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 6.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 85 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 122 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.

 

I owned a 1999 Oldsmobile Alero coupe GLS (3.4 liter V6) and my wife owns a 1.6 liter ecoboost Fusion. I chose the 1.5 ecoboost here just because the Malibu in question also is a 1.5T...

As you could see...in 1999 and in  2017...REGULAR family oriented mid-sized sedans have MORE OR LESS been the SAME for performance....with more or less 200 horsepower and 200 ft.lbs of torque...give or take...

0-60 times ranging from low 7 seconds to low 8 seconds.

1/4 mile times in the 16 second range...

I personally DO prefer a naturally aspired V6...even if pushrodded (Alero) over a small turbo 4...but man....performance for these types of cars has been stagnant and the same for 20 years...I dont get the negatives for the Malibu 1.5T?

I drive my wife's Fusion OFTEN and I would assume the Malibu is the same as my wife's Fusion...

I dont seem to yearn for more power when driving her Fusion....and keep in mind my own ride is a 2012 Acura TL SH-AWD...

Now...I dont wanna piss on your parade and tell you that your concerns are bupkiss...but Im just trying to reassure you that you aint missing anything....

Buy a V6 if you want the performance...keep a small turbo 4 and live with the consequences...

PS: The Honda 1.5T has to be floored like a bastard too to get those times...and if you think that repeated runs with the Honda wont phoque up the Honda motor....you are sadly mistaken...The Accord is a big heavy car...

Not liking a turbo small 4 cylinder is cool...and I get that...but a Malibu with that engine was not meant for high performance.  Nor is that Honda Accord...

The Civic....the Civic is meant for that.

Or if you wanna mid-sizer...the V6 TLX is it...or like you said, the Buick Regal.

Or the Fusion 2.7 liter Ecoboosted Sport. But that Fusion might disappoint in the "sport sedan" handling part...It aint an Audi "S" trim car... 

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

OK...I see you would want the 2.0T in a cheaper trim...

Fair enough.

The 2.0T in the Fusion NOW is a lot cheaper than it was when we first bought the Fusion in 2013. Maybe GM will do exactly that next year. You bought the Malibu in the first year it came out, right? 

Well, that usually happens...early adopters ALWAYS fit the tooling costs and bills...

[regfootball]

CAFE is the only reason we have the 1.5 and an inbetween between the 1.5 and 2.0 would have been a better base engine if it wasnt all about making CAFE.  Would have been a better all around compromise for power and mpg.  Nothing against turbo or 4 cylinder otherwise.  We need to get the feds out of the overhanded ness and Gm, needs to grow some balls.

[balthazar]

How many people beat on an Accord daily with multiple 0-60 runs?? How is it we're hung up on family shuttle pods 0-60 times? Reviewers shouldn't even bother to test that. It makes about as much sense as giving the Malibu a 130 MPH top end- it'll never get utilized. And "undrivable" - is that even remotely applicable here?

[regfootball]

4 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

OK...I see you would want the 2.0T in a cheaper trim...

Fair enough.

The 2.0T in the Fusion NOW is a lot cheaper than it was when we first bought the Fusion in 2013. Maybe GM will do exactly that next year. You bought the Malibu in the first year it came out, right? 

Well, that usually happens...early adopters ALWAYS fit the tooling costs and bills...

Fusion can be had CHEAP real world price in either the 2.0 or a sport.

 

http://www.appleautos.com/new/Ford/2017-Ford-Fusion-8ef05ec10a0e0adf47fda79c140a7870.htm

 

Admittedly I would probably still prefer a Malibu 2.0 to the Fusion but even with GM's discounting to get a Malibu with the 2.0 choice is ridiculously expensive.

 

GM is doing their typical shit on the Regal now too.  New Regal you can get the car with heated steering wheel but still not heated seats.  You have to upgrade to third trim level to get heated seats and top trim to get any safety equipment.  Yet Honda has pacing cruise control available on their cheapest trims or standard.

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by regfootball

[oldshurst442]

16 minutes ago, regfootball said:

CAFE is the only reason we have the 1.5 and an inbetween between the 1.5 and 2.0 would have been a better base engine if it wasnt all about making CAFE.  Would have been a better all around compromise for power and mpg.  Nothing against turbo or 4 cylinder otherwise.  We need to get the feds out of the overhanded ness and Gm, needs to grow some balls.

Yes...the guvment needs to be a lot less out of our lives...this I agree with...but...

It aint GM not having balls on the Chevy side of things...see 2018 Corvette ZR-1 or 2017 Camaro ZL-1. 

Long gone are the days when Malibu (Chevelle) SS roamed the planet. And even then, muscle cars were never THE bread and butter cars either... 

The MAJORITY of the population ALWAYS bought cars as appliances. But there was a bigger subset of enthusiasts that lead manufactures to offer some spicy choices in the past. Hence the existence of our lovable muscle cars.  Not so much today though.  Add to that CAFE rules and the enthusiast machine for the average joe is teetering to extinction. Not much GM could do about that. They could offer a more spicy Malibu, but how many takers will that option have? In reality...not many. 

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

Remember these are  mid size transportation appliances...just a means from point a to point b..they aren't supposed to be fun or performance cars, just reliable, efficient transportation...0-60 doesn't matter in this class. 

[frogger]

You gotta pay if you want some performance in your family hauler.. $30K+ for cars that don't need incentives to sell.  Honda doesn't offer an LX trim 2.0T, Nissan doesn't offer a cheap 3.5S Altima, no Camry 3.5 LE etc...
These days the third powertrain option for mainstream sedans is a hybrid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[regfootball]

14 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

Yes...the guvment needs to be a lot less out of our lives...this I agree with...but...

It aint GM not having balls on the Chevy side of things...see 2018 Corvette ZR-1 or 2017 Camaro ZL-1. 

Long gone are the days when Malibu (Chevelle) SS roamed the planet. And even then, muscle cars were never THE bread and butter cars either... 

The MAJORITY of the population ALWAYS bought cars as appliances. But there was a bigger subset of enthusiasts that lead manufactures to offer some spicy choices in the past. Hence the existence of our lovable muscle cars.  Not so much today though.  Add to that CAFE rules and the enthusiast machine for the average joe is teetering to extinction. Not much GM could do about that. They could offer a more spicy Malibu, but how many takers will that option have? In reality...not many. 

 

so unless you buy a camaro v8 you can go pound sand.

1 minute ago, frogger said:

You gotta pay if you want some performance in your family hauler.. $30K+ for cars that don't need incentives to sell.  Honda doesn't offer an LX trim 2.0T, Nissan doesn't offer a cheap 3.5S Altima, no Camry 3.5 LE etc...
These days the third powertrain option for mainstream sedans is a hybrid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

right because of CAFE

[oldshurst442]

33 minutes ago, balthazar said:

How many people beat on an Accord daily with multiple 0-60 runs?? How is it we're hung up on family shuttle pods 0-60 times? Reviewers shouldn't even bother to test that. It makes about as much sense as giving the Malibu a 130 MPH top end- it'll never get utilized. And "undrivable" - is that even remotely applicable here?

I agree 100% with this.

Yet...regular run of the mill muscle cars (NOT the high spec, limited edition models, but the regular small block versions)  had the same performance stats back in the golden age as that Accord or Malibu or Fusion 1.5 liter turbo.  

Wha? 

Yessiree Bob!

So this is akin to be bitchin' about how your neighbours 1969 Yenko 427 Chevelle is faster than your 327 Cubic Inch Chevelle...or worse...your inline 6 Chevelle...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by oldshurst442

[regfootball]

2 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I agree 100% with this.

Yet...regular run of the mill muscle cars (NOT the high spec, limited edition models, but the regular small block versions)  had the same performance stats back in the golden age as that Accord or Malibu or Fusion 1.5 liter turbo.  

Wha? 

Yessiree Bob!

So this is akin to be bitchin' about how your neighbours 1969 Yenko 427 Chevelle is faster than your 327 Cubic Inch Chevelle...or worse...your inline 6 Chevelle...

 

 

 

 

 

so if the car is a dog getting around to the point of being annoying and makes the buyers unhappy that sort of settling for mediocrity benefits GM how

[oldshurst442]

3 minutes ago, regfootball said:

so unless you buy a camaro v8 you can go pound sand.

Read what Frogger and Cubical  and Balthy wrote...

15 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Remember these are  mid size transportation appliances...just a means from point a to point b..they aren't supposed to be fun or performance cars, just reliable, efficient transportation...0-60 doesn't matter in this class. 

Cubical's being what I want to point out as well...

And Frogger's post is reality to the 'n'th degree. 

A Civic Si or a Golf GTI may actually be faster than a regular V8 Mustang or Camaro...so there is that too if you wanna go down that route. 

 

[frogger]

Also, these days auto transmissions tuned for fuel economy in these mainstream cars, quick to upshift, slow to downshift... Yummy.

 

 

 

[oldshurst442]

2 minutes ago, regfootball said:

so if the car is a dog getting around to the point of being annoying and makes the buyers unhappy that sort of settling for mediocrity benefits GM how

It aint a dog....though. 

Its average performance for an average grocery getter. CUVs maybe a tad slower still...and those are actually the average grocery getter nowadays... Remember....the BASE engined CUVs is what Im talking about...

 

1.5T Equinox

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2018-chevrolet-equinox-awd-test-review

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 26.8 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 36.6 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 9.6 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 4.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 6.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.9 sec @ 83 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 124 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 161 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.86 g

 

 

And while a small block V8 muscle car did the same numbers...much joy was had with V8 noise...and I do realize the shytness of the tires back in the day...everything IS relative. 

Point being...YOU dont like the performance of your 1.5T Malibu. ITS A LEGIT concern....it is YOUR purchase after all....

We all dont want to take that away from you...we all just want you to realize that the grass is NOT greener on the other side!  

[frogger]

Well the Equinox and Malibu 1.5.t powetrain is just not up to muster then with the benchmark Accord and CRV then.. CRV 1.5t does it in ~7.5 seconds.

 

 

[ccap41]

42 minutes ago, regfootball said:

so if the car is a dog getting around to the point of being annoying and makes the buyers unhappy that sort of settling for mediocrity benefits GM how

If you are that displeased with the acceleration why did you lease it in the first place? There are like 10 other options in that class alone. 

Also, being a dog means it is likely top or near the top in fuel economy so they advertise the hell out of that stuff. That's how it benefits GM. They have another engine for those who crave speed and power. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by ccap41

[oldshurst442]

22 minutes ago, frogger said:

Well the Equinox and Malibu 1.5.t powetrain is just not up to muster then with the benchmark Accord and CRV then.. CRV 1.5t does it in ~7.5 seconds.

 

 

Could very well be...but Ill just let Balthy's and Cubical's posts do the rebuttalling...

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

How many people beat on an Accord daily with multiple 0-60 runs?? How is it we're hung up on family shuttle pods 0-60 times? Reviewers shouldn't even bother to test that. It makes about as much sense as giving the Malibu a 130 MPH top end- it'll never get utilized. And "undrivable" - is that even remotely applicable here?

 

54 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Remember these are  mid size transportation appliances...just a means from point a to point b..they aren't supposed to be fun or performance cars, just reliable, efficient transportation...0-60 doesn't matter in this class. 

 

[Robert Hall]

I had one as a rental earlier this year..it was fine in all conditions--freeway, big city, small town, country road driving. You have to look at it for what it is...seems perfectly adequate for a basic midsize family sedan.   Compared to the other mid sizers I've rented over the last couple years (previous Malibu, Altima, Passat, Sonata, Fusion, Camry) it didn't seem noticeably worse to drive than any them.   

Edited December 27, 2017 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[balthazar]

Now I'm confused - same car is either "Perfectly adequate" or an "undriveable unhappy dog".

Gosh- which is it?? ( )