NeonLX

{SHRUG} So what am I missing? The Accord comes out on top in the test from the first link (though the Camry got ditched to 4th). And to me, they sounded pretty lukewarm in the Malibu Maxx write up, kind of a "damning with faint praise" sort of deal. Or maybe I'm just being too hard on them--I unsubscribed from both Honda & Driver and Murder Trend many years back. I'm such an old crumudgeon.

I may be off my rocker here, but isn't a 60-degree V6 "balanced"? One thing I gotta give Mopar credit for--the latest versions of their 3.3L/3.8L minivan engines (60-degree) are darned smooth. And Honda's 3.5L V6 (as used in the Vue) is silky as well.* Last 3800 I drove was circa 2003 (LeSabre). It was so smooth and quiet that it was almost undetectable (is that a word?). ---------------- *I don't usually like to use the "H" word in a positive way; I'll go suck on a bar of soap now.

One other consideration here: the Malibu (and other domestic offerings) have a real uphill battle on their hands when it comes to the automotive press. I've always said that a person could dredge up an old outhouse, affix a chrome "H" to the door and the automotive presstitutes would come running from all directions for the chance to test the new, latest hip offering from Honda. They'd gush about its "rustic styling" and any wind getting through the cracks between the boards would be attributed to the outhouse's "efficient HVAC system". The two-hole seating would be described as "ergonomically correct" and the overwhelming odor from "the basement" would be characterized as a "lovely refreshing aroma that permeates the interior". However, if said outhouse wore a Chevy bowtie or a Phord oval, it would be dissed for being exactly what it is--a stinky old sh*tbox.

I don't know what this says about us but both my wife and I like the looks of the Malibu. OK, I have to admit that I prefer the looks of a G6, but styling aside, the Malibu seems like a better package for the money. But then again, I'm one of those old timers who places value high on the list of things to look for in a car.

Didn't some British company get the 215 in the 1960s? I'm thinking it was Rover. I also remember seeing one of these in a Triumph Stag (I think).

I'm glad somebody else said it. The last generation or two of the 3800 WAS smooth--as well as being very torquey, reliable and fuel efficient. But Honda & Driver magazine kept making fun of it so GM tossed it into the can.

Don't know if this is an aside or not, but I'd love to see a nice TDI diesel version of the Cobalt. And VW makes good TDI diesel engines.

We absolutely loved New Mexico. Yeah, it was hot--but the dewpoint temperatures were 25 - 35 degrees F so the humidity was very low. Where we live (WI) the dewpoints are generally in the 60-75 F range during the summer so it's ugly humid. The sky in NM is incredible--right up there with the sky in Alaska (last year's trip). My favorite face-stuffing place in Santa Fe was the Blue Corn Cafe & brewpub (near the corner of San Francisco & Water). The food is great (& inexpensive) and the homegrown beer is fabulous. We also ate at the Plaza Cafe where I had the best enchiladas ever. Also, Santa Fe brewing makes some incredible bottled beer. I really liked the Pale Ale and the Chicken Killer Barleywine--but watch out for the latter; it will rob your head in record time. We drove up to the Santa Fe ski basin one day and really loved it up there. The temp when we left Santa Fe was 85 and when we got to the top of the mountain (elevation about 10,500 ft) it was 66 degrees. It felt great. And the Malibu's "electric" steering did a fine job on the twisty mountain road too!

Chrysler's "cab forward" design provided for some mighty cavernous interiors & trunks. Personally, I liked that era of styling better than the current chopped down shoebox look (300, Magnum, etc.).

Keep in mind as you read this that I've been driving Chrysler products for decades now, though I had quite a few GM vehicles "back in the day"... You guys probably remember my gushing over the Cobalt we rented last summer while on vacation. Well, this summer we rented the Cobalt's bigger brother, a 2006 Malibu LT, while our daughter attended a figure skating camp in Santa Fe, NM. We had the thing for a week and put on 1200 miles in all kinds of driving, from stop & go city stuff to mountain climbing. The Malibu was equipped rather well with power everything, remote keyless, killer sound system, sun roof, electric driver's seat, 3500 V6 and a host of other goodies. Here's what I thought of the thing: 1. Smooth & strong powertrain. The 3500 V6 develops great whacking gobs of power, especially once the revs climb. It didn't have spectacular tip-in like the old 3800s used to, but it would really deliver once you stuck your foot into it. Under full throttle, the thing felt as strong as some of the big-block V8s I used to drive. And just like the Cobalt, the tranny shifted smoothly and responsively. One thing I noticed is that it seemed to hold the gears longer than you might expect--it would rarely upshift before 2500 RPM, even under light throttle. 2. Effortless high speed cruising. This car has some mighty tall gearing. We traveled from Santa Fe to Roswell and back again on one day of our trip, using Hwy 285. The speed limit is 75 MPH along most of the 200 mile stretch--so many people were driving 85 MPH or more. I set the cruise at 85 MPH where the tach registered a lazy 2300 RPM. Wish I had checked the gas mileage during this trip; the EPA says the Malibu is rated at 22/32 MPG with the 3500 V6 (wow!). Even at 85-90 MPH, the interior was very quiet with minimal road and wind noise (didn't hear even a light rustle from the sun roof). 3. Good ride & handling. The suspension is compliant but all the motions are well-controlled. Taking curves at high speeds causes little drama and I never once got the front tires to squeal. Front dive is almost non-existent, even under hard braking. I liked the "electric steering"--very easy turning in parking lots but plenty of feedback for the high speed stuff. 4. Comfortable interior. The seating is more upright than many contemporary sedans--something I like. The visibility is good too. Rear seat room is surprising, especially legroom. I like the fact that the rear seat bottom cushion is high off of the floor. This makes it feel more like sitting in a chair, rather than having to plop your arse down close to the floor with your legs jutting out in front of you. 5. Great sound system. I don't know how many watts get pushed through those speakers but they can be turned up LOUD. And everything sounds very clear. 6. BIG rear view mirrors on the outside of the car--bigger than either the Neon's or the Caravan's. Great visibility with no blind spots. I only had one minor quibble with the car: I couldn't get quite enough of an angle with the bottom cushion of the driver's seat to support my thighs. I noticed this with the Cobalt we drove last year too. Both my cheap Neon and the Caravan have more comfortable driver's seats for my prefered driving position (pushed way back with the front of the bottom cushion tilted up). Even so, I was reasonably comfortable. As you can tell, I was mighty impressed with this Malibu--and liked it even better than the Cobalt I gushed about last year. Depending on how these things price out, I wouldn't mind picking up a year or two old model with low miles next time I'm looking for a "second" car (a role currently filled by the Neon).

The 1969 RS version. I love those headlight doors.

I hope the 4.0L & 6-speed ATX find their way under the hood of the new minivans as well. And wouldn't it be nice to have this powertrain available in the new Sebring/Avenger models?

I think the biggest problem here is that the 2.4L engine is having to twirl its power through Chrysler's mashed-potato 41TE transaxle. It's much improved over earlier versions but I still don't think it's well suited to the less powerful 4-cyl. models. My '00 Neon with the old-tech 3-speed ATX felt snappier than does my '04 with the 4-speed ATX, in spite of the "better" ratios in the 4-speed. Our '06 Caravan w/ 3.3L V6 with the same tranny feels very peppy however. The extra torque of the larger engine must overcome the mashed potatoes in the tranny somehow.

I'm a Chrysler fan and I'm not nuts about the new Sebring at all. But to be fair, I'll reserve final judgement until I see the thing in person. I'm also a GM fan by the way. If I had to choose a sedan right now, you can bet it would be a GM--probably a Malibu or G6, or maybe an Impala.

So then get the low-end 160 HP four banger for fuel economy. DC needs to leap over the competition and offer the 4.0L V6 that will be in the '07 Pacifica and minivans as an option on this car.

I'll keep buying minivans as long as they keep making them. They offer the most interior room for a given exterior size. They are major-league comfortable, get far better fuel economy than SUVs with similar interior room, and they are easy to configure for hauling either people, or stuff, or any combo of each. To top it off, they are usually priced well. I don't give a rat's @ss what other people think of me for driving a minivan--I love the thing. It's probably the best all-around vehicle out there (and that goes for any brand of minivan, though I don't personally like the Odyssey or the Quest).

Keep in mind I'm a Chrysler fan here and I want to reserve judgement until I see the thing in person...but: I like the interior, at least the Limited level shown in the pictures. I see wood trim on the doors and dash--WOOHOO!! The ass of the car looks like...well, ass. Dig those Corolla taillights on steroids. Yuck. And c'mon, even the Hyundai Sonata's optional 3.3L V6 offers 235 HP! Accord is at 244 HP and the Altima is 260 HP. Chrysler needed to leapfrog right over these cars and should have used the new 4.0L V6 bound for the Pacifica and minivans. But maybe this is CAFE standards rearing their ugly heads?

I agree about GM's OHV V6 fuel economy. The 3800's figures of 20/29 MPG in the big cars always impressed me, especially considering the good power that engine generates. And the 3.5L in the Malibu was rated at something like 23/32 MPG for the first year or two; haven't checked into what it's doing now. Edit: by the way, I'm happy to see the E85 compatibility too. Chrysler offered E85 versions of their 3.3L V6 in the minivans starting in '98. Both our '99 and '02 vans had this E85 engine (it was standard equipment in all but two or three states). But they discontinued it for a couple of years (2003 - early '06?) and it's just now coming back on the market. Go figure.

Could be. But I think the 3800 was rated at 20/29 even in the big boat LeSabre & Park Avenue. Don't get me wrong, the 3900 is a good mill. But so is (was?) the 3800, in spite of its "low tech" image.

Ummm...not to be negative or anything, but didn't the old-tech 3800 achieve the same fuel economy numbers in the big GM cars without the gee-whiz AFM system?

WOW!! That's a sweet ride. I absolutely love the sound of Rocket V8s. Don't tell anybody but Olds has always been my favorite GM division. Wish I still had my '72 Regency (or any other big Olds from the 1950s-1970s, for that matter). P.S. I love the story about the Marvell Mystery Oil "valve job"! Congratulations!

FWIW, I like the interior of the GM minis, especially the Buick & the upper crust Saturn model. Very classy. But that long schnozz is a big turn off for me. The current gen GM minis are also a lot heavier than the previous models, which means that they don't feel as zippy and they don't achieve the fuel economy of the old ones (EPA for the 3.5L engines is 18/25, compared to the 19/26 MPG of the previous gen with the 3.4L engine). One other word before I duck: Chrysler has drastically improved their 4-speed ATX over the years. I've had six different Mopar minivans, five of which had the 4-speed ATX. The first two ('89 & '94) were real POSs, though they never failed on me (Just rough shifting). Our '02 and our current '06 are complete different animals--smooth, responsive and apparently reliable. It's a rotten shame that they rushed this tranny to market back in late '88; their reputation was severely tarnished and it haunts them to this day.

I've related this before but we rented an early production Cobalt LT sedan last summer when we visited Alaska. We drove the thing all over the state and across all kinds of road surfaces, putting 2000 miles on it in the process. We were hugely impressed. The car performed well, provided good performance with excellent fuel economy, and maybe best of all, it was comfortable for three people. I thought the interior quality was first rate (our rental had leather + wood trim interior). If something happened to my Neon, I'd definitely look at a slightly used Cobalt to replace it.

I don't mind the GM minivans but they have two strikes against them: 1. That long schnozz sticking way out front serves no useful purpose and makes the vehicle that much harder to park. The big appeal of the minivan concept for me is maximum interior room for the smallest possible exterior footprint. The extended front on the current gen minivans works against that concept. 2. Pricing. You can trash Caravans & T&Cs all you want, but they are really aggressively priced and offer a lot of bang for the buck. You can get a well equipped SWB model w/ V6 for $17.5K, and the longer stow & go models for $19K. Unfortunately, we couldn't get a Chevy or Pontiac minivan anywhere close to that price when we were looking at new vehicles earlier this year.

Another fan of the '59 Buick here('59 Olds and Pontiac as well!). Say, what kinda car is that in your sig pic, Sixty8? For some reason, I'm not connecting with the door panel trim or the upholstery pattern on the seat. Izzit a mid-60s Olds F85 or sumpn'?