regfootball

nothing here to make one moist. at the same time, nothing changes enough to shock the customer base. The dash is dumpy looking. They could have done better there. agree, on the exterior, we've seen that look before. The CD is impressive.

Well, the younger crowd is not into cars the same way we are.....this offers rides to those who do not want to deal with ownership of a car. Can't blame them with the rising costs of everything..... what will happen is the cost of periodically having access to a car will evolve into costing as much then as it does not to make the car payment etc. and having your own car. They will figure out how to profit more by leasing the service instead of selling the car and take just as much of your money in the process. between EPA mandates NHTSA mandates and the movement afloat to kill car ownership and driving yourself, now you know why there is not much resources put into fun cars anymore. All the R&D is going for other things,

Blu, perhaps you'd prefer a Karl, instead of a spark. I will refrain from saying this is a hot car. http://www.km77.com/fotos/Opel/KARL_2015/Interior.html?photoType=2&limit=99 http://www.km77.com/fotos/Opel/KARL_2015/Exterior.html?division=color&photoType=1&limit=99

no, please.

looks alright. definitely has Volvo character.

NOTES / EDIT: 2.0 and hybrid test drives further down Driven: 2016 Chevrolet Malibu 1LT 1.5, MSRP= 26,790? HIGHS: -RIGHT SIZE interior for the class.....consider the interior space / leg room issues fixed, six footers fit in the back even. Head, leg, hip, shoulders, all the room you need. -Greatly changed center stack no longer is a leg intruder. Room to SPLAY. -NOT A BUNKER. Airy cabin with good views out the front, side, and back -Quiet cabin. Muffles the engine din reasonably well and keeps road and tire noise out, more than you'd expect in this class. -As an example, bumps of any kind do not transmit large 'thunks' into the cabin, even on railroad tracks. -Despite the loss of a bunch of mass, things like the doors still feel hefty and open and close with a nice 'thunk'. -To expand on that, for such little mass, car feels nicely secure, stable, and weighted on the road. -Good weight to the steering, even if its not quick. -There is a complete change in the seating / driving position and ergonomics, and it's a success....dash is not so intrusive either. -For example, the gauges are 'low and away' but the presentation is 100% better, attractive, colorful, crisp, and bright instrumentation -Likewise the radio display. So clear, crisp, colorful and easy to read. And only a few buttons you need. -The climate control too, is all you need for controls, so simple and well done. -Luscious and perfectly placed armrest. A great station to perform your wrist curls for your 44 ounce big gulps in the nicely placed cupholders -The area where the old center stack was, is a part of the console that extends further forward and actually will function well for gloves and devices, etc. -Shifter falls deftly to hand and its perfectly sized. The steering wheel is a revelation as well, including the clever controls on the backside for gauges and things. -Backseat amenities like USB and charger ports are a nice plus. -Even the key fob is a whole lot better than all the recent GM cars -Controls on the door panels are well placed as well, and the mirrors even seem to have a little larger size than some other GM models -Seat cloth is not the natty burlap stuff of late. Its an in-between of the rough burlap and the mouse fur you might find on an Altima. It feels nice to the boot and not cheap. -Interior dash and door top plastics are not incredibly detailed or lush, but I think they stop short of coming off as cheap. Maybe in bright sun they would look cheaper. -I liked the way the trunk was simply trimmed, and it used all its space well. Hardly any usual GM inefficient intrusions at the wheel well or otherwise. -I had thought the cloth dash inserts would look cheap based upon photos, but they do not, they look and feel good, and they soften the dash up a bit where it helps most. -The little engine that can, can if you don't ask a lot of it, and stays muffled in that scenario. -Much less rpm at 70+ mph (t's less than 2,500 rpm) than the current Cruze (which is a bit of a buzzbomb at higher speeds). -This car has a look and feel and drive that is more in line with the buyers of an Altima, Accord, or Camry. -A quiet, comfortable, and highly usable transportation device. LOWS -Not a canyon carver, I don't think anyone expected that, but there isn't any sporting pretense here. -Some engine drone when you lean on it and ask you to move, and then you find out the engine isn't smooth as velvet either. Vibrations...... -The power and torque output really straddles a line between just barely enough and you really got to have more. A 1.8t would have been perfect. -Front seats feel a little insubstantial in materials and structure. Wonder if durability is a concern here for cutting cost and weight. -Lowers of the door (as has been commented on in on line reviews) feel a bit too insubstantial and not very durable. -For some reason, to me, the 'iPod on the dash' is shaped and presented in a such a way as to imagine an iPod coming out of the vjj between legs during child birth. -Car has a nice new shape, but the front end lacks presence, and there is no 'trunk'. Whole car is a little too egg like, and dare i say, dull. -As a matter of discussion, the shape may be a bit too 'un GM like', not enough creases and definition (let's chat about that) SUMMARY I think we've all heard the endless stories about why the 13-15 Malibu was the way it was. And it didn't sell greatly. Still, there are the likes of my good friend who has a '15 Malibu as a company car (and he likes it a lot). At a minimum, you could say the car was 'GM like', even despite its oddities. But also included in that traditional feel was poor interior space (especially the back seat), performance/ ride and drive that wasn't class competitive by many's standards, and style was an issue..it just looked odd to many. Overall, it appeared to be a car that many dismissed without even a second thought, as just not having its stuff together or being 'complete'. We'd been told the 13-15 was a remnant of 'old GM' and its bankruptcy difficulties. Whatever the excuse, it's absolutely clear this new car had attention put to it in every way that far exceeded whatever effort was put into the previous. Little details make a big differences, but it's not just the little things......the complete overhaul with new platform, powertrain, and body allowed Chevy to remake the car into something that can actually compete against the likes of the big sellers......the Altima, Camry, Accord. It's acquired the traits and personalities of some of each of those sorts of competitors, and it's now in position to impress those sorts of buyers. Its interesting what adequate resources and new ideas can do. There aren't any major faults to this vehicle now. No big deal killers, like the 'no back seat'. So too, there is nothing that jumps out as a class leader in anything, my example here is that you won't prefer how this drives or feels compared to a Mazda6. The big deal is that it's at the poker table, and now the car itself won't kill the sale. It should now be up to the marketing staff at Chevy, and its incentives, and the dealer sales experience to prove that they can take this capable car and make sales out of it. The challenge will be to get butts in the seats and DRIVE IT. I sort of see this car wanting to approach the feel of the Altima the most. Well, this car feels better in the ride and drive than the Altima. I think those who debate interiors may go back and forth on that one. But if I were to overall try to put my finger on which car it emulates the most, I would say that one (not knowing how well the improvement on the 16 Altima is). There is still some of that GM feel in the steering and ergonomics and controls so this feels still like a GM car. So it hasn't gone full Asian or anything. One other comment. This car feels about 5 years newer than the new Impala. Certainly feels much more nimble while feeling pretty much as solid. A job well done, I would like to see more power and a smoother powertrain in the LT. I would give the car a solid A if it did not have that issue. A- is still not bad. GM dun good.

22.5 is good mpg for a 4wd v6 in the winter. Ride on, sir.

Ford still has the best three row solution. Look into the Flex, Explorer, and Taurus X. The Rendayvue was such that there really wasnt any cargo room with the third row up, but it did have a good third row. If you get the RDV without the third row, the cargo area was positively cavernous. XL7's (Equinox XL's) without the third row had huge cargo areas also.

Both of our CUVs are AWD, but we live at the very top of a ridge that is the tallest for miles. Out on the open road, I can do fine in a RWD car with snow tires (My Lincoln Continental, my Cadillac CTS, and my Caprice Classic all got snow tires each winter), but getting into and out of my driveway or even up my street on unplowed snow has proven to be too much for a RWD car. That said, I am one of the minority that puts snow tires on my AWD cars also, because as much as I like to go is snow, I also like to stop and steer. I haven't put snow tires on the Encore this year, and it is making me nervous. I'm really close to needing a set of all season tires in about 7k... so if we really get snowed on this winter, the Encore will probably be staying home while the Honda gets to play snowy mountain goat. I'm a snow tire advocate no matter what. I don't quite get to it due to the money factor (and yes you wear out the same amount of tire no matter what). I think most folks don't want to buy extra tires to store in the garage or whatever, i would like separate snows with separate wheels and such, extra ups, that's where some of the expense comes in. Snow tires are a plus but not mandatory with some of the better All Season tires in most areas anymore. Even here in the snow belt with most of the tire companies in town few people use em. The main reason. Simple the cost of tires. Buying tires today is a major expense just for the tires. All these larger sizes and speed ratings most pass on them. Yes some winter tires do wear out faster as you are not going to get 60,000 out of most of them like you will for a well cared for set of All Seasons. Even for me I get tires at cost and it is a major expense. I take off my Aluminum wheels and put on a set of Goodyear Triple Treads. They work great in all weather conditions. But these tires are not even cheap at my cost. Then the additional set of wheels and then the 4 TPM sensors that you now need. There are several annoyances but the bottom line generally is cost as most people do not want to shell out big buck on tires even when they are worn out but to have a second set when generally a good set of all season will also serve their needs they are not going to spend the money. You don't believe that people hate buying tires just look at all the worn out ones on the road. Most people in trouble in the snow are often down to the wear bars and know it. yes, people put off tire purchases, even for the regular all seasons so that's why the mass of the population will never get on snows. part of the tire cost being so much these days, the expensive 19, 20 inch types. SUV tires too, get spendy. It's tough to get out of discount tire for less than 600 bucks on my Cobalt even. I imagine most folks spend at least 800 bucks when putting new tires on. For people that can barely make rent each month, no wonder tires get neglected. I always thought a great plan for maintenance and repair would be to offer an escrow service when you buy a car. Let's say your car payment was 300 bucks (which is a low number these days). You could either create your own savings account for M&R or the dealer could offer an escrow, say 100 bucks a month. Then it banks up. When you get service done, you just tap the escrow. You could buy tires out of your escrow. Of course, that's like anything that it subsidized, it would raise the price of things. Then you would lose pressure to keep tire prices down.

No third row. RDZ did have a third row, and a surprisingly decent one......

two (or three) Vegas, two MT RWD Chevettes and one automatic, one full size RWD pickup, my buick century coupe, two buick electras (one tank like diesel 4 door and a 2 door with NO weight on the back end), and then my Thunderbird (which i had to get snows for and even with that and 200 pounds in the trunk would not get up moderate-heavy inclines in the winter) that was when i decided i had it with RWD and got my first FWD car my 89 SHO. My wife and i were just talking about that last night. That car was great in snow. We got snowed in at a NYE party (can't recall what year, 97 maybe) and got out of the neighborhood we were in before they did significant plowing and the car was a snowmobile. Had one of the first GoodYear performance aqua treads on it. We've only had one AWD vehicle......and it was great from the standpoint of taking off from slippery intersections and keeping straight on crappy roads. I ditched one of the Electras once in winter. Total skate, always fishtailing just like the thunderbird. My Century had the 3.8 motor and wasn't so heavy in front so it did about the best of all the rwd's i had. One of the two Diamantes i had had horrible yokohama tires on it. Did some flat spins in a flat parking lot with it once. Proof how much tires impact the situation too. Whichever of the automakers decides to give the AWD option to their midsize sedans and compete with Subaru will be a winner and gain sales. Some of us appreciate that CUV's are available but still like sedans. I like a CUV for family use but for my day to day driving i like sedans. Just want a large enough and nice enough sedan to be useful. All the automakers chase the hybrid niches in this segment which is a terribly small number of units. It won't be long until the others jump in offer it too. An AWD sedan has better FE than the equivalent CUV. That would help cafe also.

Both of our CUVs are AWD, but we live at the very top of a ridge that is the tallest for miles. Out on the open road, I can do fine in a RWD car with snow tires (My Lincoln Continental, my Cadillac CTS, and my Caprice Classic all got snow tires each winter), but getting into and out of my driveway or even up my street on unplowed snow has proven to be too much for a RWD car. That said, I am one of the minority that puts snow tires on my AWD cars also, because as much as I like to go is snow, I also like to stop and steer. I haven't put snow tires on the Encore this year, and it is making me nervous. I'm really close to needing a set of all season tires in about 7k... so if we really get snowed on this winter, the Encore will probably be staying home while the Honda gets to play snowy mountain goat. I'm a snow tire advocate no matter what. I don't quite get to it due to the money factor (and yes you wear out the same amount of tire no matter what). I think most folks don't want to buy extra tires to store in the garage or whatever, i would like separate snows with separate wheels and such, extra ups, that's where some of the expense comes in.

wait, don't you both have AWD suv's? Just about everyone i know ditched rwd for fwd or awd. so 'learning to drive' would apply right back in the mirror, ? or to anyone who wants AWD? I did my learning in 20 below in one of the most blizzard laden parts of the country. I had driven or had as my vehicle probably at least 10 rear wheel drive vehicles by the time i got my thunderbird at age 25. I know exactly why they suck, so does the market. Humanity evolves, and ditching the rwd is evolving.

Envision does hit the size target. The whole Denali phenomenon is bizarre to me. But they can pull it off so that's ok. I think part of the Denali thing is serving a market that is going under served by cadillac.

but they probably wanted 'more car for their money'.....Fiat prob won't develop a new platform to replace the LX, Chrysler will prob milk it. They prob see it as a dying market, i disagree, but Fiat is too Euro focused to understand the US. Sergio only cares about Jeep obviously. a 300 v6 AWD would be a great buy right now....an excoworker got one and loves it. Cars a bit physically large for my tastes though.

Regal needs to be the sporting Buick. The new LaCrosse gives no vibe other than a big fluffy cruiser. Which is fine, a lot of people like that. My hope is the Regal / Insignia is full Euro flavor. I hope the Verano goes full Astra too.

You will find the Regal will not enjoy the same weight loss in AWD from but it too will have a Turbo 4. You can not like it but your argument holds no water. Losing 300 pounds in a mid size fwd car is not easy to do and run up the cost and lowering the profits. If it were they all would be doing it. If you want AWD just that bad just buy a Subaru. GM will not really miss you. run up the costs and lower the profits....cry me a river. What GM does is merely to jack up the price. For example, look at the insane MSRP's of the new Malibu if you want leather. Or if you want the optional 2.0 motor. Let's compare, a 1.5 turbo has 2 cams, 4 pistons, 16 valves, all the fuel line equipment, and a turbo. In its simplest form, the 2.0 is the same as the 1.5 but the pistons themselves are larger. Aside from the tranny, and larger combustion chambers, the license to charge a ridiculous amount more to have access to the 2.0 vs. the 1.5, that is classic GM. The only reason the 1.5 exists in the normal world is CAFE pressures. God forbid if you want a moonroof. GM's tactic with AWD has always been to jack up the access cost of it until you break and get into their larger SUV's and pickups. That's the way they guarantee a continual stream of pickup buyers and such. It's also why the Lambdas sell like they do. You didn't have an Envision to pick from, so you automatically need an Enclave. Chevy i can bet never wanted the Trax here.....but the moment wind is out on the HRV, CX3, Renegades, etc......then we mysteriously all of a sudden get a Trax. GM management should be on board doing what everyone else is doing. Platform sharing, etc. Current Passats and Altimas are the weight that Chevy will be getting down to, so basically GM is merely playing catch up.

currently. add Envision, and then whatever other near future models will come in from overseas. At least we don't have any Mexican Buicks yet

I remember the debates on this very forum board about whether luxury sedans needed AWD. I remember specifically myself posting data about Infiniti and what happened when they added AWD. I remember specifically those that said Cadillac did not need AWD. Now everyone has them. I remember in my sales gig, the reasons why people came in to look at the Kizashis and why they generated their interest. It was specifically due to all wheel drive, in the sedan segment, at the same prices as Subaru. The AWD + price + sedan combo is what brought the traffic. The customer still had the choice to back down to FWD and less price / better mpg but AWD sales were more than FWD sales. The base S model AWD was the most popular trim level next to the fully loaded SLS AWD. It was evident to me from people's request and purchases that the segment desired more options to compare with the Subaru. The failure of the brand was marketing based, not product based. Mitsubishi sells a basic Lancer AWD for crying out loud; a buddy has one. AWD does not need to be reserved for the highest priced brands and for crossovers only. I bet the Chrysler 200 has a pretty large AWD take rate. I believe Hyundai and Kia may seek to fill that competition soon as well. Crossovers share platforms with cars now, so the offering should be seamless. In the Malibu's case, they will claim their new Malibu platform is engineered to cut mass and only be compatible with fwd and four cylinder engines. It will be interesting to see if the bull$h! is exposed when the new Regal (which is likely the exact same platform) offers the AWD option. Then we'll know the stench of the BS. It will just be that the AWD is reserved for Buick so they can extract thousands more from the customer.

Mazda just doesn't seek to make their vehicles tomb like, other Japanese manuf.'s also lack noise reduction (Honda that is you). It would be nice to see Mazda drop that turbo 2.5 into the CX-5 as a high level option. As nice as the CX-5 is, the available 2.0 in the Escape to me makes all the difference in the world. And the Escape prices right now are insane with the rebates. You can get a 2.0 as a great deal and the real world mpg vs. the smaller Ecoboost is not much of a difference. Ford will be fixing some of the cabin issues in 2017 with the Escape and a new again 2.0 and that at that point I wonder if the CX-5 has any remaining advantages over an Escape. I can see where Jeep fans would like the Cherokee but i can't get on board with it, I do give it credit for being a solid offering. The 9th gear in the tranny has to be vaporware!!!!

To achieve the advertised horsepower figures, 93 octane is required per the Ford website. No doubt high test is needed to achieve something close to the advertised fuel mileage as well. And no alloy wheels with the Ecoboost? Way to kill the party. It is an urban pod for those who don't like to drive. In markets where it is a family car it does what a family car does anywhere: delivers people and their stuff from point to point in a competent fashion. I'd like to see an RS but it doesn't appear to have been a priority. I'm an adherent to that old-skool philosophy... it is fun to drive a slow car fast. You clearly have never driven an '81 Chevette lol! I HAVE!!!!! we had an 81 chevette. 4 speed manual, rear drive! Had an earlier Scooter model as well, 2 seat, rear drive, MT!

I don't really think the cruze needs it but the impala and Malibu really would benefit from it. If the platforms are leveraged properly it should be easy as punch Also consider as you are striving for MPG what is more important to buyers AWD or MPG? When 2025 comes around what is more important AWD or MPG. If given a choice would more people pick AWD or 2 more MPG in a car that cost less? If you look at the volume of AWD models across all the MFG I think you will find your answer. 2016 Subaru Legacy AWD EPA 26 city / 36 highway / 30 combined 175hp/174 tq starts at $21,745* made in USA, corporate sales growth from 200k units a year to 600k and no end in sight 2016 Chevrolet Malibu FWD only EPA 27 city / 37 highway / 31 combined 160/184 starts at 22,500* still hopefully made in USA unlike Buick, GM market share declines 10 years running *verify if destination charge is included in each about 3% difference in mpg which only matters due to tyrannical fuel economy mandates by legislative bodies. The Legacy exceeded the 2015 Malibu figures. Automakers leave AWD off the option sheet where they can because of those tyrannical mandates, all to the spite of the customer. It's absolutely clear to me in a cold weather state that AWD is considered a need by a large number of buyers and to chastise their perception of need is to ignore the customer and inevitably concede a sale. Especially in states where the demographic has been traditionally more sympathetic to GM products. Places where they now lose all sorts of sales due to limited options on their core / mainstream / accessibly priced lineups. (Buick is not an accessibly priced brand for most buyers yet). Imagine if that 400,000 unit a year sales growth was for GM and not Subaru. In Malibu's case, their pathetic sales numbers are because of huge miscues in the product. To put it bluntly, the Malibu has been a continual GM fu--up. The 2004-2007 was ugly and undersized. The 2008-2012 had a miserably cheap interior and seriously challenged cabin width. The 2013-2016(Limited) had NO rear seat room despite having 9 or 10 inches of open air under the hood, was deemed ugly by a lot of buyers, and had confusing and unpolished powertrain options. Their 2014 model year sales were 188,519. The Ford Fusion was 306,860 in 2015. It is very possible the Fusion's numbers exceeded the Malibu's in part due to having AWD on the option sheet and in spite of the fact that Ford's showroom is blasted with several other AWD offerings, including the Taurus (which has a high AWD take rate). Fifteen percent of the Fusions sales is 46,000+ cars. That is nothing at all to sneeze at and in no way looks like those were cannibalizations of Ford's other products. That's almost equivalent to Mazda6 sales of the year. Apart from the size and ugliness issues for the Malibu, consider if the Malibu could sell 250,000 units in NA with no other change in its other product sales. Fifteen percent of 250,000 units is 37,500 units. This is the how many Malibu sales could possibly cannibalize other manufacturer's. This could add to market share, instead of GM declining for 10 years in a row. Don't give me the BS about GM only cares about profitability, that's hog wash. To remain a relevant world player in the years ahead, they have to continue to be in the top 3-5 automakers in volume or the whole thing falls apart. Market share is equally as crucial as average transaction price or profit per unit. GM won't tap that customer base in a big way by pushing AWD off on Buick only, because the transaction prices are too high. It will remain a niche to GM that way. And the likes of Subaru will continue to grow. Then Hyundai and Kia will tap that and further eat away at GM's market share. A 'tour cross' wagon of all things by Buick is not going to make a huge dent in the issue. It's nice to round out the Buick line and make it worldly. But it still completely ignores where the real marketplace assault is. We can cheer with glee that something like the Tourcross will take attention away from the fact that the Envision is late to the game, won't be sold in large numbers, and has a dated styling and is made in China. (and that the new LaCrosse looks super Chinese too) The Camaro was so important to GM that they put it out of production for 7 years. They've been fortunate now with the styling of the newest versions to rekindle interest in those models. They did that because they saw what a phenomenon it was for Ford when they listened to their customers. You saw in 2015 what happened with Camaro once the styling became old and the fat Zeta became criticized. The sales tanked in epic fashion. Customers consider the Subaru systems of AWD to be among the best on the market. Despite the technical accomplishments of the GM Haldex system and other innovations, no one really considers GM as the leader here. Competent now, yes, leader, no. I don't think it will be a huge identifier for Buick as much as their overall brand qualities of comfort, solidity, ride, size etc.

Love love love the pentastar in my town and country. Better than the v6 was in my ford, and it's better than the gm 3.6 up till this year. Could use some bottom end torque, and the 8 speed, but the engine blows away my old notions of chrysler. Love the new interiors in the lx cars. Not fond of the charger body but the overall package i like. Good write up btw. Hope Sergio doesn't fu-- it all. Up ......

I don't really think the cruze needs it but the impala and Malibu really would benefit from it. If the platforms are leveraged properly it should be easy as punch

I'm going to reserve full opinion till the test drive but the 16 I saw and touched had all the appeal of a 2002 bad Camry or 2004 Altima . Totally cheapen the interior look in the basic trim. GM might have have tried to outthink itself yet againAt least it leaves room for the Impala to sell well because the impala will feel much more substantial and comfortable.