What have we done? 2016 Malibu 1LT 1.5t

[regfootball]

57 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

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!  

real world, its a dog in city driving.  does well on the highway which is strange, but it flat out fails in launch feel.

thing is, another 15-20 hp and 25-30 torque would be all that is needed to cross the bridge into pleasingville, and wouldn't hit the fuel economy that much.  But that is where the overlords of the governments become the issue.  1.5 litre size due to chinese taxes.  this ain't china.  CAFE because CAFE.  

 

I can bet you part of the reason the Malibu sales are eroding apart from that its a sedan is the engine won't wow on the test drive.

Edited December 27, 2017 by regfootball

[Robert Hall]

4 minutes ago, regfootball said:

 But that is where the overlords of the governments become the issue.  1.5 litre size due to chinese taxes.  this ain't china.  CAFE because CAFE.   

News flash---it's not 1960.  There are lots of regulations world wide that automakers have to work with.

[balthazar]

39 minutes ago, regfootball said:

real world, its a dog in city driving....

...another 15-20 hp and 25-30 torque would be all that is needed to cross the bridge into pleasingville...

I 'chipped' a truck I owned once. A bit heavier than the 3200 lb Malibu at 3900, but it gave the truck 30 lb-ft more and you just could never be sure it was any different (other than the premium fuel it required). You're not going to notice any difference in 0-60 with 15 more HP, especially from the outfield you're coming at this from. But again- this is not a criteria for this class of car, it just isn't. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by balthazar

[regfootball]

19 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I 'chipped' a truck I owned once. A bit heavier than the 3200 lb Malibu at 3900, but it gave the truck 30 lb-ft more and you just could never be sure it was any different (other than the premium fuel it required). You're not going to notice any difference in 0-60 with 15 more HP, especially from the outfield you're coming at this from. But again- this is not a criteria for this class of car, it just isn't. 

Chipping a 3200 pound car is quite different than a 5000 pound truck. 30 ftpd of torque on a 3200 pound car at 2,000 rpm would make all the difference in the world.  

[balthazar]

I said a 3900 lb truck, not 5000.

 

And Malibu 1.5 TRQ is rated at 2500-3000, not 2000.

Edited December 28, 2017 by balthazar

[regfootball]

that could be part of the problem.  if the torque isn't hitting low enough its probably why its a dog off the line.

[oldshurst442]

4 hours ago, regfootball said:

real world, its a dog in city driving.  does well on the highway which is strange, but it flat out fails in launch feel.

No its not...

The Malibu that you happen to own is just an average car doing average things in a sea of average performance in this market.

If the Malibu is a dog, so is the Accord or the Fusion of the same calibre. 

THAT is my point! 

YOU are not necessarily disappointed in the 1.5T Malibu, but very well be disappointed in the way we all have been duped that minuscule 4 cylinder engines with turbos could replace naturally aspirated  bigger V6 and V8 engines on cars that weigh 3300 lbs. 

Reg...your Malibu is a 1.5 liter 4 cylinder car...

Honestly...what performance did you think you were gonna get with that engine powering a 3300 lbs Malibu?  

On paper...the Accord says it goes faster than the Malibu...

Did you actually drive an Accord to get the real sense of it? 

Ive driven the 1.5 liter Malibu like yours...honestly...it feels a lot like my wife's 1.6liter Fusion...which to me....aint that bad...

But...going in buying the Fusion...I KNEW from BEFORE owning it that the Fusion 1.6 ecoboost was NOT going to be some sort of rocket ship...

Now...again...Im not here dissing you and trying to take away your legit concerns with the Malibu you own...but...you bought a car with a 1.5 liter 4 cylinder engine under the hood...YOU should have known BEFORE hand what the consequences were gonna be...

But...the lesson that I wanna talk about is that Honda and Ford do EXACTLY what GM did...you bitchin' about Chevy and CAFE will fall on deaf ears with me...you bought an appliance car...actually...in this market...since like forever...all these cars are ALL appliance cars...

In fact...this Chevelle

is/was as mundane as what you are driving...

It aint this one...

But then again...that Yenko Chevelle was a very very rare bird...

 

 

3 minutes ago, regfootball said:

that could be part of the problem.  if the torque isn't hitting low enough its probably why its a dog off the line.

Sure...

But why do you think that its TUNED this way...

It aint a performance oriented car...

Its an appliance car meant to go from point A to point B...bought by average people who dont really WANT to punch the throttle of the gate to win a street light to street light race against other appliance cars to the left and right of them...they just want to go home...safely and securely with the least amount of gasoline wasted on such shenanigans...

No 1.5 liter Accord or Fusion or Malibu driven by an average mom or dad will EVER challenge that car's performance...

 

[regfootball]

5 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

No its not...

The Malibu that you happen to own is just an average car doing average things in a sea of average performance in this market.

If the Malibu is a dog, so is the Accord or the Fusion of the same calibre. 

THAT is my point! 

YOU are not necessarily disappointed in the 1.5T Malibu, but very well be disappointed in the way we all have been duped that minuscule 4 cylinder engines with turbos could replace naturally aspirated  bigger V6 and V8 engines on cars that weigh 3300 lbs. 

Reg...your Malibu is a 1.5 liter 4 cylinder car...

Honestly...what performance did you think you were gonna get with that engine powering a 3300 lbs Malibu?  

On paper...the Accord says it goes faster than the Malibu...

Did you actually drive an Accord to get the real sense of it? 

Ive driven the 1.5 liter Malibu like yours...honestly...it feels a lot like my wife's 1.6liter Fusion...which to me....aint that bad...

But...going in buying the Fusion...I KNEW from BEFORE owning it that the Fusion 1.6 ecoboost was NOT going to be some sort of rocket ship...

Now...again...Im not here dissing you and trying to take away your legit concerns with the Malibu you own...but...you bought a car with a 1.5 liter 4 cylinder engine under the hood...YOU should have known BEFORE hand what the consequences were gonna be...

But...the lesson that I wanna talk about is that Honda and Ford do EXACTLY what GM did...you bitchin' about Chevy and CAFE will fall on deaf ears with me...you bought an appliance car...actually...in this market...since like forever...all these cars are ALL appliance cars...

In fact...this Chevelle

is/was as mundane as what you are driving...

It aint this one...

But then again...that Yenko Chevelle was a very very rare bird...

 

 

Sure...

But why do you think that its TUNED this way...

It aint a performance oriented car...

Its an appliance car meant to go from point A to point B...bought by average people who dont really WANT to punch the throttle of the gate to win a street light to street light race against other appliance cars to the left and right of them...they just want to go home...safely and securely with the least amount of gasoline wasted on such shenanigans...

No 1.5 liter Accord or Fusion or Malibu driven by an average mom or dad will EVER challenge that car's performance...

 

and you think its ok we are being forced and shoved down our throats that these are mainstream engines......

that's my point, its not market forces its regulatory forces, the engineers do what they can but they can't work miracles.

sad thing is really truly, about 15 percent more power down low would make it totally livable.  i don't believe it meets  a basic threshold that i was willing to be open minded about when i opted in but like i said there was no reasonable option presented as a choice.

[oldshurst442]

1 minute ago, regfootball said:

and you think its ok we are being forced and shoved down our throats that these are mainstream engines......

that's my point, its not market forces its regulatory forces, the engineers do what they can but they can't work miracles.

sad thing is really truly, about 15 percent more power down low would make it totally livable.  i don't believe it meets  a basic threshold that i was willing to be open minded about when i opted in but like i said there was no reasonable option presented as a choice.

You are not being forced to do anything you dont wanna do...

You could have bought a V6 Accord when you bought your Malibu.

Now you cant. I believe Honda nixed the V6 Accord for the new one.

But then there is the V6 Altima...or the V6 Camry. Or the V6 Fusion...

But...there arent many takers on those trims either...

CAFE or not...that is for another discussion on other day.

The merits or delusions of CAFE goes both ways...

Alls I know is that California air is a lot cleaner than it was during the 1970s...

THAT is a HUGE winning point for CAFE...

Back to the 1.5T Malibu...

 

 

[Robert Hall]

^agreed.  I call BS on the 'being forced and shoved down our throats' line.  You made the conscious decision to get a midsize with a 1.5 4cyl.   There are plenty of vehicles on the market with larger engines.  Do your research beforehand next time and don't whine about your choice afterward.  

[regfootball]

i was willing to try it and i knew it was borderline when i got it. i like GM stuff and had a strong preference to get a GM car and not a Nissan, etc. .......and was excited about the new design so i was willing to be a guinea pig and give it a whirl.  And it IS a good highway car but it also happens to be really compromised in town.  that said, it still is a forced offering that is rammed to the 80% for CAFE reasons and i am not going to say its awesome if its not. 

 

25 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

You are not being forced to do anything you dont wanna do...

You could have bought a V6 Accord when you bought your Malibu.

Now you cant. I believe Honda nixed the V6 Accord for the new one.

But then there is the V6 Altima...or the V6 Camry. Or the V6 Fusion...

But...there arent many takers on those trims either...

CAFE or not...that is for another discussion on other day.

The merits or delusions of CAFE goes both ways...

Alls I know is that California air is a lot cleaner than it was during the 1970s...

THAT is a HUGE winning point for CAFE...

Back to the 1.5T Malibu...

 

 

Californians can always choose to leave California.......

Edited December 28, 2017 by regfootball

[balthazar]

There's a (tired) '09 Malibu 2.4L in the driveway here. 169 HP / 160 TRQ vs. the 1.5T's 160/184, but the '09 is about 300 lbs heavier.

I have a serious lead foot and I can tell you the '09 is in no way a "dog" but nor is it a racy perf sedan... but it's not supposed to be. I've given it the pedal hard on occasion, because I sometimes still drive like an idiot, and it goes fine FOR WHAT IT IS/ the segment. "Unliveable" is a ludicrous, out-of-place assessment.

I think most people understand what these cars are built for.

- - - - -

What I fail to grasp here / above is "willing to give it a try". You test drove it, right? Unless something is mechanically amiss, what changed?? My observation here is of a long history in Reg's reviews where the tide of opinion on the same product always sours over time. This seems to be yet another example of such. Not trying to pile on, just my observation.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by balthazar

[Robert Hall]

The thing is, it's probably faster at 0-60 than 90% of the non-SS mid size Chevys built over the last 53 years.  Compare it to a 60s 6 cyl Malibu.  A 78 Malibu with a 305.  An 80s Celebrity.  A 90s Lumina.  Etc.

 So for an average car, it's above average.  Though 0-60 is just one simplistic measure of performance.  

Edited December 28, 2017 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[regfootball]

"Compare it to a 60s 6 cyl Malibu"

wait, i thought it wasn't the 60's anymore

touche

7 minutes ago, balthazar said:

There's a (tired) '09 Malibu 2.4L in the driveway here. 169 HP / 160 TRQ vs. the 1.5T's 160/184, but the '09 is about 300 lbs heavier.

I have a serious lead foot and I can tell you the '09 is in no way a "dog" but nor is it a racy perf sedan... but it's not supposed to be. I've given it the pedal hard on occasion, because I sometimes still drive like an idiot, and it goes fine FOR WHAT IT IS/ the segment. "Unliveable" is a ludicrous, out-of-place assessment.

I think most people understand what these cars are built for.

- - - - -

What I fail to grasp here / above is "willing to give it a try". You test drove it, right? Unless something is mechanically amiss, what changed?? My observation here is of a long history in Reg's reviews where the tide of opinion on the same product always sours over time. This seems to be yet another example of such. Not trying to pile on, just my observation.

 

i can't make claims on your 2.4 but drive the 1.5 for 18 months in stop and go and then judge if the unlivable (borderline) is something you can speak to.... how 'buzzy' it can or how just flat out dead it can be moving away from a stop sign.

Edited December 28, 2017 by regfootball

[balthazar]

Point being, the 1.5T, with 24 more TRQ and 300 less lbs, must scoot away from a same-spec '09 as mine, yet mine moves perfectly fine away from a stop sign. I can out-accel 3 other lanes of cars if I want to, with regularity.

[Robert Hall]

Maybe it's the start-stop feature that increases the perception of lag? 

[regfootball]

stop start could be part of it...but GM won't let you turn it off.

or maybe the engine is f-cked and damaged and isn't putting out full steam,

reading some Malibu forum threads, opinions split on whether its a dud or not.  One guy said 0-30 is 'mediocre' and i can identify with that.

I'll add, i've never driven a Gm vehicle with the 2.4 that I have liked in the slightest.  the 1.5 is a smoother engine on the highway and is partially why i was so excited to get into the car when i did.  It truly is a great highway car.  Tested many GM 2.4 cars and have never really liked any of them, save maybe the Verano.

Another thing is maybe the power specs have been bumped since 16 model i should check into that.

Just glad Buick passed on making the 1.5 any part of the Regal lineup.

Hyundai can't even get decent performance out of its 2.0 so we should be glad GM gets what it does out if it.  The only reason for me the engine is a let down is because the chassis has so much potential and is nice and light.

Edited December 28, 2017 by regfootball

[oldshurst442]

1 hour ago, regfootball said:

 

 

Californians can always choose to leave California.......

 

1 hour ago, regfootball said:

"Compare it to a 60s 6 cyl Malibu"

wait, i thought it wasn't the 60's anymore

touche

 

Grow the phoque up, guy...

 

Although I dont know about your character on how you sour on new purchases over time...

Your whining is asinine.

1.   CAFE is there for the greater good. Like it or not.  

CAFE has NOTHING to do about performance...

 

2.   Dude...a 1.5 liter turbo 4 cylinder engine powering a 3300 LBS car gets about the same performance numbers as base small block V8 powering a 1960s vehicle weighing possibly a tad more than 3300 lbs but getting considerable better gas mileage...

TECHNOLOGY...does improve over time...CAFE may have something to do with that....maybe not...does not change the fact that in 2017...diminutive 4 cylinder engines ARE OUR reality...and performance numbers HAVE improved...

 

3.  |The good old days of performance IS today...NOT the 1960s...

YOU just have to buy the right PHOQUING vehicle..just like how you had to do it IN THE 1960s...

A  2018 V6 PHOQUING CAMRY will outperform 85% of ALL muscle cars of the 1960s and 1970s...

A car guy such as yourself SHOULD KNOW THAT!!!

 

4.  A 1.5T Malibu performs the same bloody way any other car in its class performs with equivalent engines...

 

Dude...when you bought your 1.5T Malibu...a very affordable HEMI powered BASE 350 cubic inch Charger could have been yours to own for about the same price of your 1.5liter Malibu...Ive heard that FCA discounts the shyte out of them...

Phoque Off about YOU being a GM guy...

YOU willingly bought a 1.5 liter 4 cylinder car...

YOU dont get to bitch about ANYTHING the way you do and blame CAFE when THIS was at your fingertips...

THIS gives a middle finger salute to the tree huggers and CAFE people

YOU had a choice to buy the V8 Charger rather than a 1.5T Malibu

Anything else you wanna bitch about...phoque off with it!!! Its just an excuse you give that holds no water.

Yes, I turned to the dark side in being mean to you....I usually do that when I get childish remarks...

Talk to me like an adult, and you will get respect. Troll me...and THAT is what you get! 

 

If your car is broken...because that is your latest "what if"...

Then CAFE or a diminutive  1.5T engine is NOT the problem...

Its just a defect...fix the phoquing defect...your car is still on warranty! 

Other than that...I wont be crying for you Argentina anymore...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

To be fair, there is probably a 10k difference in price between a rental spec Malibu and a V8 Charger..and is the Charger still available in V8/AWD spec?  I don't think so (reg can't drive RWD). 

[Drew Dowdell]

I have an issue with you saying that GM forced the 1.5t on you when there were 2.0ts on the lot. You chose the 2.0t because you didn't want to pay more. You also could have gotten a V6 Impala. 

You have multiple choices for better performance without leaving the Chevy lot.

[oldshurst442]

4 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

To be fair, there is probably a 10k difference in price between a rental spec Malibu and a V8 Charger..and is the Charger still available in V8/AWD spec?  I don't think so (reg can't drive RWD). 

So...

He does NOT have the money to go fast...nor does he possess the skills required to go fast, yet he wantys to bitch about NOT being able to go fast...

Even in the 1960s...he wouldnt of been able to afford a fast muscle car...he would be owning an inline 6 Chevelle or Biscayne. 

In the 1980s...he would be owning an Iron Duke 2.5 liter 4 cylinder Celebrity or 2.0 liter Cavalier. 

Shyte...even the 2.8 liter V6 Eurosport Celebrity was a dog...the Malibu HE currently owns runs circles around the Celebrity 2.8. 

Double Shyte...the Cavalier Z24 with the same 2.8liter V6 is ALSO a dog...the MAlibu 1.5T also runs circles around that car! And yet he wouldnt of been able to AFFORD the 2.8 liter V6 variants

So...What the phoque is he kevechting about then? 

 

 

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. I picked the 1.4t Encore that has a lot less power. It's still fine in city. We've been fine with it for 70,000 miles.

[oldshurst442]

19 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. I picked the 1.4t Encore that has a lot less power. It's still fine in city. We've been fine with it for 70,000 miles.

I drive very often...my wife's fire proned 1.6 liter ecoboosted Fusion that has seen at least 5 or 6 recalls since the day we bought it...there was at least that many recalls on a 1.6 liter ecoboost BEFORE we bought it... and I enjoy driving it from time to time...and my car is a 3.7 liter, 300 horse, naturally aspirated V6...

1. I dont think the 1.5T Malibu is any more broken than a 1.6 liter ecoboosted Fusion

2. On paper, his Malibu is actually faster than my Fusion. And when I rented a 1.5T MAlibu last year, it actually did feel that it had more oomph than my Fusion proving the theory part correct in my eyes at least. 

3. In reality...a 1.5T Malibu or 1.5T/1.6T Fusion are not hot rods. They were not created to be such machines and are NOT bought by people that crave hot rod acceleration runs. 

So yeah...my empathy for him died too when he decided to troll instead of looking at the bigger picture. 

I gave him MULTIPLE logical approaches to soothe his anxieties and HE responded in kind...denying my attempts...which was OK...until HE trolled me! 

So...

 

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

38 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I have an issue with you saying that GM forced the 1.5t on you when there were 2.0ts on the lot. You chose the 2.0t because you didn't want to pay more. You also could have gotten a V6 Impala. 

 

My sister has been happy over all w/ the 1.4 Trax...had it a little over 2 years, over 10k miles now.  Though I think she wants something bigger now with commuting back and forth to Columbus every week.    I've driven it around town some and on a couple trips to the mountains in AZ, it's fine for a subcompact. 

[Drew Dowdell]

14 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

My sister has been happy over all w/ the 1.4 Trax...had it a little over 2 years, over 10k miles now.  Though I think she wants something bigger now with commuting back and forth to Columbus every week.    I've driven it around town some and on a couple trips to the mountains in AZ, it's fine for a subcompact. 

Exactly.  My only issue with the Encore these days is the size, but it's not the vehicle's fault that our needs have changed since we bought it.  For us, it is a fine commuter, we both work in the downtown Pittsburgh now, so on days that I go into the office instead of working from home, we often drive.   It's also still pleasant for long haul drives when it is just the two of us.  We'll be taking it to DC on Saturday. 

The issue we're running into is that as his parents get older, they are less willing to drive on their own for the long trip to DC to visit his sister, so they're riding along with us.  It's a bit snug for 4 adults plus luggage.  That's where the comfort cruiser SUV comes in. 

[ccap41]

10 hours ago, regfootball said:

and you think its ok we are being forced and shoved down our throats that these are mainstream engines......

Nobody forced you to lease this vehicle. There are plenty of other vehicles to choose from. 

 

8 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

Dude...when you bought your 1.5T Malibu...a very affordable HEMI powered BASE 350 cubic inch Charger could have been yours to own for about the same price of your 1.5liter Malibu...Ive heard that FCA discounts the shyte out of them...

Heck, even a V6 would have suited him, most likely. For sure, those could be had with plenty of discounts and it would have been a little better in the fuel economy field while still being able to smoke the 1.5T with its 300hp 3.6L. 

[Drew Dowdell]

An AWD V6 Charger isn't a bad place to spend the time.  I lean more towards the 300 and Chrysler practically gives them away on leases. 

[Drew Dowdell]

@regfootball what are the $$ details on this. How much down, how much a month?

[regfootball]

12 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

To be fair, there is probably a 10k difference in price between a rental spec Malibu and a V8 Charger..and is the Charger still available in V8/AWD spec?  I don't think so (reg can't drive RWD). 

RWD is not an option in the winter here.  Especially since they don't treat the roads anymore.

And to your point, yes, a v8 charger does cost a bit more.

[regfootball]

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

@regfootball what are the $$ details on this. How much down, how much a month?

Admittedly this is a second car in a 2 car house.  235/mo on the lease can't remember how much down, i had several things available to me that acted as real cash which i could have applied to another vehicle, to bring the cap cost down nicely to the point where it made an enthusiastic deal.  To buy the car would have been 500-550 a month, which is not chump change.

You flip that around and realize GM put a 30k sticker on the car and even that is an average MSRP these days, the low end performance of the powertrain for competitive purposes could stand to be improved at that MSRP.  And i can bet it may be part of the reason Malibu's are not flying off shelves.  30 grand is a lot of money and at that price class there shouldn't be big downsides about any vehicle.  My friend who has a 15 fleet Malibu for example when he travels he has rented the new 16 a few times and he didn't like the changes.

the point is that despite all the required engine downsizing and CAFE that GM (and any manufacturer) is forced into, and i noted this when i test drove it, its borderline acceptable from a overall power standpoint (my beef is low end, stoplight to stoplight driving...you will note i said its a fine highway car).  We all know you get a few minutes on the test drive and i know this as well as anyone, you're not going to learn everything about that ride in 5 minutes.  Because i love GM stuff and i liked the new design i was more than willing to give it a go.  I was being optimistic and enthusiastic and being a homer.  And now I don't have a right to point out legitimate things I don't like about the car?  HMMMMM

Charger is of course an interesting option, but if you don't like the style then it is what it is.  But in these parts you are only looking at AWD and since I had more interest in the style of the Malibu i had a lot of faith that I would be able to endorse the whole car.  Instead there are parts I think would definitely stand to be improved.  One of those is a base engine with a bit more pop or the ability to buy the uplevel engine without having to get into a Premier.  I know there are other GM fans that agree that not providing the 2.0 option on the LT trim sucks too.  So for me to state that is not whining and I know others agree.  GM's old 2.4 used to take a lot of shit in the press on car reviews, and it also has a lot of rap as problems when it comes to reliability.  So to use the 2.4 as a benchmark to compare to in 2016/17/18 is pretty misguided too.  It's not 2008 or 2009.

The terrible seats are actually the biggest problem with the vehicle.  That's the part that needs fixing the most.

Many other choices are out there and have plus and minus too, so you can make the case for any vehicle over many others.  Overall I like the car, but the seats and the low end engine performance are highly suggested improvements for GM.  Enough such that if another person asked me about it, I would probably say look at some other rides.

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by regfootball

[regfootball]

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

An AWD V6 Charger isn't a bad place to spend the time.  I lean more towards the 300 and Chrysler practically gives them away on leases. 

they didn't really start giving them away until the last 12 months or so but i do think they are good choices available to people who maybe would like their style.  I have a coworker that just leased a Charger.  If it keeps people out of Toyotas and Nissans that is fine with me.

13 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

To be fair, there is probably a 10k difference in price between a rental spec Malibu and a V8 Charger..and is the Charger still available in V8/AWD spec?  I don't think so (reg can't drive RWD). 

I've had several RWD vehicles in my life time, its not correct to say can't drive them.  it's that they are of no use in snow environments.  And to anyone who naysays that, explain why AWD and FWD took over the market.  I've chosen not to buy RWD anymore is more accurate.  Unless that is specifically what you were speaking to here.

Edited December 29, 2017 by regfootball

[Robert Hall]

54 minutes ago, regfootball said:

they didn't really start giving them away until the last 12 months or so but i do think they are good choices available to people who maybe would like their style.  I have a coworker that just leased a Charger.  If it keeps people out of Toyotas and Nissans that is fine with me.

I've had several RWD vehicles in my life time, its not correct to say can't drive them.  it's that they are of no use in snow environments.  And to anyone who naysays that, explain why AWD and FWD took over the market.  

FWD took over the market because the number of mainstream RWD models dwindled as the automakers moved en masse to FWD over the last 30+ years. Also, many people today are too lazy to buy winter tires and don't know how to drive properly in the winter.

 The police drove RWD only in snowy climates for decades, for example. I drove 5 winters in NE Ohio with RWD and winter tires, before switching to SUVs. Proper winter tires and knowing how to drive make all the difference.  

Edited December 29, 2017 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[balthazar]

32 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

FWD took over the market because that's what the majority of mainstream cars have been since the mid 80s as the number of RWD models dwindled. 

Exactly. Japanese imports pushed FWD first, and it took decades for a mass switch toward FWD vs. RWD- it wasn't traction in snow (which FWD doesn't provide any better ability in).

[Drew Dowdell]

FWD, once it was no longer a luxury and hit the mainstream, was for package efficiency and making cars cheaper. 

It had nothing to do with traction. Marketing departments came up with that one. 

The first vehicles I see in the ditch when the snow starts are the 4x4 SUVs.

[regfootball]

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

FWD, once it was no longer a luxury and hit the mainstream, was for package efficiency and making cars cheaper. 

It had nothing to do with traction. Marketing departments came up with that one. 

The first vehicles I see in the ditch when the snow starts are the 4x4 SUVs.

Yes, they did a great job of selling the cheaper FWD engineering as a traction benefit.  But to be honest, I like the way FWD cars drive and handle, so FWD vs RWD is not a thing for me.  No doubt a car like a Camaro i would of course prefer RWD.

Agree.  People believe AWD is automatic safety but dedicated snows help a lot more.  No matter if you are FWD, RWD, AWD.  I would love to get snows for any vehicle I have.

[regfootball]

Taking into consideration all the ideas and advice you've all shared, good things to consider.  So i decided i would try being an aggressive driver for the next couple weeks.  I realize i am not juicing the car enough to see the full nuts of how it really moves out.  So let's see how that goes.  The extra throttle really amplifies the lawn mower engine qualities down low; but it does make sense for me to give more consideration of what its real capability might be.  I pussyfoot the throttle a lot because i like to avoid the blender noises.  Lots of threads in the past about the character of motors.  Selling the cars gig i got exposed to a lot of different makes and models and a lot of them were recent, similar cars ...stuff like Camry's with 4 cylinders, etc.  

 

[regfootball]

30,000 mile report

Passed the 30,000 mile mark recently.  MPG particulars.  The first 15,000 miles i averaged 31.4 mpg total.  The second 15,000 was 30.9.  That's combined.  Keep in mind there are heavy doses of winter in there.  Recently in the last month or so, the mpg has dropped a fair amount....  like by 2 or so.  Back a couple months ago, I achieved a 25 mile best of 52.0 mpg.  This is repeatable when conditions are right...that was about a 60mph average with few to no stops and a flat windless gradual downhill, with mild weather and later in the day.  I consider the fuel economy of this vehicle to be among the economy car ranks.....amazing considering the size of the vehicle IMO.  This fuel economy will be what keeps the midsize sedan class on the market despite crossover popularity.

I really could go back to my test drive reviews and other previous observations in this very thread and repeat a lot of my same impressions.  So I will try to hit the major themes.  And after two years, the newless is worn off and I have had a lot of time to consider what i like and what i don't, and what will happen when my lease is up.

-still love the styling, except the front grill is getting tired to me.  good thing they are refreshing the front for 2019.  This is one of Chevy's best styling jobs in the last decade or more.

-good fuel economy performance, as mentioned above

-jekyll / hyde powertrain.  super smooth and quiet on the highway and at higher speeds.  GM 4 cylinders are not supposed to run this smoothly.  Times when it is surprisingly sprite and peppy in everyday driving, in that 40+ mph range.  Very good interstate car!.......Heavy stop and go, or needing a lot of thrust shows the weakness of the small engine more often than you may want.  Slow off the line, lag at times, transmission will wait too long to kick down when you really need it to the most.  Can strain and moan alot.  Sometimes the lack of low to mid power is dangerous.  Weather conditions affect how peppy the engine and turbo are at times.  If you don't ask or need a lot of the powertrain, it does well enough.  Plenty of upside, plenty of disappointment.  I think its borderline and does come down to whether you think the cost of more power and reduced fuel economy, how much it matters to you.  More power would always be welcome in a similarly compact and smooth engine with more displacement.  1.5 runs fine on plain 87 garbage gas....in fact, it prefers it.  Strange for a turbo... but it really doesn't like higher octane or more expensive premium gas.

-room and space, i've come to appreciate the size of the malibu cabin, its about right.  A larger car would be fine for when i have passengers more, and for more long trips, but as a family car with one primary driver, I like it.  If the other class competitors keep growing in size, however, you would want to keep up with the Jones.

-driving position and ergonomics... i think the control layout and other things like that, seating position.  I really like.  I don't like the claustrophobia from the low roof so much, but i may need to get the big moonroof next time.  maybe the gauges could be bigger (if not electronic) and the dash ipod could look less fruity.... and they could improve the touchscreen a bunch.  The seating is lower and as i get old keeps getting less convenient to get in and out of, but i like being about this position above the road so i still like it for now.  Really love the simple climate controls.  I would like to be able to still have part of the screen dedicated to other vehicle functions (like a climate control readout, outside temp etc.) when Apple carplay is in use.

-driver's seats, i have to put these in a separate category.  I don't like the seats in front.  They feel weak and insubstantial.  They are narrow for the butt.  They seem to flex and move around on their mounts a bit.  The power recline doesn't work smooth, it makes bumps along the way.  The seat digs into your lower back, and you seem to feel where the lumbar device is even when you have not inflated it.  The leather is not awesome and is too grippy sometimes.  I may be ok with cloth next time.  The seat heaters work good.  But you can't get cloth heated seats, which is bullshit.

-speaking of carplay, that could warrant a separate post.  It's been buggy a lot.  For a lot of different things.  A lot of stuff works fine and considering it was the first year on the market for that, it's been ok.  The system is very sensitive to the quality of the USB cable believe or not.  You better be using a genuine Apple cable plugged snugly into the USB port (which is in a highly inconvenient, difficult to reach spot below the dash bulge).  I see in the future a better system where your mobile profile is pushed to your car platform in addition to your cell phone, or your phone is accessed wirelessly.  Things like streaming apple music for example would work so much better that way.

-interior and trim.  GM has gotten good at building interiors with good assembly quality.  gaps are small and things fit together well.  switches and buttons feel good.  Some plastics are cheap, but this is a low priced car and so they are not too far off the average for that.  The all black interior is a huge downer.  Seems to be the only choice most of the time in GM cars these days.  And the leather is average at best.  The vinyl on the dash inserts could be more interesting and better quality and make me wonder if I wouldn't like the cloth inserts more.  GM has to start to get a mix of grays in with the back more in their car insides.  Yes other interior colors are available but when you check inventories those are so rare its like they don't exist.  And they only offer those on higher trims.  Why does Chevy have a hard time offering a mostly tan interior on any of their cars?  GM seriously needs to figure out how to get away from death interiors.

-trunkspace, is good and very efficient.  I like the fuzzy material finish, it's minimal but is not that cheap fuzzy stuff.  

-ride and drive, i think for a midsize family type car, the ride and drive is very good.  The car itself feels light and nimble; very balanced.  But yet it is solid and planted on the road.  I think that is the best quality about this car.  It has a chassis that is tuned pretty good but they have so much potential to do more with this!  The steering feels good....you feel the road some, and the steering has good feel and is direct.  I could enjoy it even more if it were a bit quicker steer and a small percent less effort but that is real nit picky.  It is good.  The ride on plain pavement is good and a nice compromise on firm and comfortable.  The car corners very well I believe for a car meant to sell cheap and many.  When the bumps get more harsh it doesn't tackle those nearly as well however, and the suspension has more trouble.  I think that's not too big a deal, just try to avoid the bad pavement, right?  Road noise is either really quiet, or on certain pavement types can be very loud.  Overall i think its fine for quietness, certainly quieter than the tinny Mazda6.  It is very quiet at interstate speeds on the right pavement, so that is good for me.  It is more lively a car than its platform mate the Regal.  For a light large car that is not meant to be a sport sedan, its pretty good.  Which makes me think this platform would really be nice to see GM have a suspension and handling package as a reasonably priced option.  I'd like to see a small turbo six in this thing, or a better newer 2.0, paddle shifters, performance suspension on the cheap.  The 2019 RS package could be that, rather than just an appearance package (I hope the spoiler can be deleted, this car doesn't deserve a tack on like that). 

I'm interested to test the 2019 when it comes out to see how the CVT is.  I don't know why they don't mate the 9 speed and higher horespower version of the 1.5 from the Terrain / Equinox and put it in the Malibu.  I doubt the CVT will give big mpg improvements.  It may...or may not make for needed improvement in bottom end response.

Overall, its been a great car, apart from the crappy seats, tough engine performance (at times), will consider it again when the time is due..... but will also look at others.  Will be ok with a 1.5 again if i decide i still like the mpg.  Or may look hard at a 2.0 (why can't i get a simple LT 2.0 with cloth), or a Regal.  Unless i go dark side and look at a crossover again.  (Blazer)

***

edit

Love the brakes, like the reviews say, they are awesome brakes.  Decisive pedal feel.  great stopping power.  Only sometimes the brake pedal is too firm.  Hard to knock that considering how terrible of brake feel GM cars had in the past.

The parking brake needs to be electronic.  The old, kick lever below the dash is just not as easy to use as a little finger pull on the console.

Would really love a switch to turn off the auto stop when i want to.

Edited August 12, 2018 by regfootball

[regfootball]

got rear ended  but i was given a rental while the car is getting fixed.  But. Its another Malibu.........

 

 

not at all a fan of silver, usually, but this is sort of growing on me.

The cloth and the smaller touch screen I am trying to decide what i think.

Edited October 18, 2018 by regfootball

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually a really nice looking car.

[regfootball]

yeah, i really have grown to like the lines on the car.  The front end of course old or new version will have friends and foes.  wouldn't it be nice with just cloth heated seats and a moonroof, and a 2.0?

 

configging a 2019 right now just for fun.  The RS package has very limited options and looks cool, but the LT has more value features now, and you can actually on some exterior colors get an interior color besides black.

Edited October 18, 2018 by regfootball

[balthazar]

• I cannot imagine anyone having a dislike for the front end, it's head & shoulders above it's segment competition, namely toyoyo, honda, nissan. The rest is nice, clean, mildly dynamic, but the rear isn't as striking as the front. Sort of generic. Whole car really doesn't say 'Chevy' anymore, but it's still well-designed.

• I greatly prefer the parking brake on the floor (or as a button if an OEM offers); console-mounted levers take up room and are ungainly to look at. Old school at this point.

• I'm interested to see how fabric on the dash lasts long-term- it's going to be harder to clean if soiled than any other material.

• Our '16 does not have the heated seats or paddle shifters the '09 did. The paddles are wildly out of place in this class- we never used them outside of the first few 'playing around' times. Still getting used to Start/Stop- it's less obtrusive than I had expected. Question- this feature must be having a measurable effect on 0-60 times, right?

• I have not driven this car much yet, but it's 2 thumbs up from Mrs Balthy so far.

[A Horse With No Name]

4 minutes ago, balthazar said:

• I cannot imagine anyone having a dislike for the front end, it's head & shoulders above it's segment competition, namely toyoyo, honda, nissan. The rest is nice, clean, mildly dynamic, but the rear isn't as striking as the front. Sort of generic. Whole car really doesn't say 'Chevy' anymore, but it's still well-designed.

• I greatly prefer the parking brake on the floor (or as a button if an OEM offers); console-mounted levers take up room and are ungainly to look at. Old school at this point.

• I'm interested to see how fabric on the dash lasts long-term- it's going to be harder to clean if soiled than any other material.

• Our '16 does not have the heated seats or paddle shifters the '09 did. The paddles are wildly out of place in this class- we never used them outside of the first few 'playing around' times. Still getting used to Start/Stop- it's less obtrusive than I had expected. Question- this feature must be having a measurable effect on 0-60 times, right?

• I have not driven this car much yet, but it's 2 thumbs up from Mrs Balthy so far.

Agree on all of the above...but absolutely love heated seats.

[regfootball]

21 minutes ago, balthazar said:

• I cannot imagine anyone having a dislike for the front end, it's head & shoulders above it's segment competition, namely toyoyo, honda, nissan. The rest is nice, clean, mildly dynamic, but the rear isn't as striking as the front. Sort of generic. Whole car really doesn't say 'Chevy' anymore, but it's still well-designed.

• I greatly prefer the parking brake on the floor (or as a button if an OEM offers); console-mounted levers take up room and are ungainly to look at. Old school at this point.

• I'm interested to see how fabric on the dash lasts long-term- it's going to be harder to clean if soiled than any other material.

• Our '16 does not have the heated seats or paddle shifters the '09 did. The paddles are wildly out of place in this class- we never used them outside of the first few 'playing around' times. Still getting used to Start/Stop- it's less obtrusive than I had expected. Question- this feature must be having a measurable effect on 0-60 times, right?

• I have not driven this car much yet, but it's 2 thumbs up from Mrs Balthy so far.

The option the malibu does not give which is standard now in so many vehicles, is to put the electronic parking brake switch on the console.  No big levers anymore.  The Regal has the eBrake switch, doesn't take any space.

People would like the Malibu if they spent good time in it.  Not perfect, but moreso than many other GM vehicles in affordable price class, it gets a lot of the basics right.  I would dig more grunt in the 1.5 engine but realize the tradeoff is fuel efficiency.  Can't wait to see how the CVT fares with it.

Cheap 18 Regals will hit the market in a few months; GM hasn't gone full bore on the incentives for it yet.  The Regal will have the 2.0 in it and apart from that and the hatchback its more or less the same car.  The screen in the Regal is angled more to the driver and it helps some with reach.  I don't like the shifter and one aft cupholder.  The Malibu shifter and cupholder layout it perfect.

 

I haven't minded the fabric on the dash so far in the rental.

As far as the start stop, the 1.5 is so slow off the line, and it shifts slowly....I think those two things impact the 0-60 more for the 1.5.  

Edited October 18, 2018 by regfootball

[balthazar]

No; so far the fabric is fine. But it seems a surprising/questionable choice.
I'd be fine with an eBrake switch. Never use the PB anyway.

[regfootball]

looks like at least on the Premier. for 2019 now E brake an option too.

[Drew Dowdell]

e-brake is a requirement for the automatic braking safety feature, so that's why you're probably seeing it on the upper models at GM. 

[regfootball]

Yes it’s tied into part of that safety package. 

[regfootball]

Well, winter broke me.  Despite not having that much left on the lease, in order to get around, and safely, I had to break down and get some tires.  So I chose to get some winter tires.  I may have preferred to get Nokians, but the Michelin X-Ice was available and in stock (which is tough in February), so I got those.  With the weather assault the last couple weeks, it's been really nice to be able to get around and turn and brake with stability.  Now, ice is still ice, and other stupid drivers are still out there to compete with.  In fact, even with these new winter tires, I couldn't make it up an ice glazed inclined road the other day and in fact had I not bit some of the snow still left on the side of the road, I would have slid backwards (even with brand new winters on).  The Malibu has been decent in winter to this point, no real complaints till the last couple weeks.  The car is super light for its size.  Coincidentally the internet sales gal at the dealership called the other day with enticements to get out lease early.  She shared with me that she has a Malibu also and she says the same thing.  The lightness of the car, and its obvious fuel economy benefit,  can be a limitation in the winter.  The Cruze she had previously, she said was better in winter (no problems).  This winter may the winter that has finally broken me to saying I would prefer AWD and a heavier vehicle again next time possibly.  A light car is nice for fuel economy, which I like good fuel economy also.  It's just a good example of the tradeoffs in these big CAFE pushes.  Lighter vehicles and their improved fuel economy is in competition with something larger and heavier and possibly AWD, which is what more drivers are finding more useful all the time.  Since even middle and bottom feeders like the Altima are offering AWD on the newest version, maybe even the Malibu line in addition to the Regal needs to look at offering an AWD option.

Edited February 10, 2019 by regfootball

[frogger]

Light engine in the front end, probably relatively wide tires don't make for a good combination.  A light car with 185s winter tires on it wouldnt be bad.

 

[regfootball]

These are 225’s. I can’t recall if the LS has 205’s or 215’s on 16 inch instead of 17. Your point is quite right. Narrower tires allow more weight per square inch that grabs onto the road.