Re: Chevy Malibu

From: Johnny Torch (smokin_300b@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue 18 Apr 2000 - 03:03:55 UTC

  • Next message: Douglas C Gruesbeck: "Chevy"

    Dear Boz,
    Reliable or not, even the American auto press has not been at all kind to
    the Malibu. In front of me now rests my September 1999 copy of Car & Driver.
    On page 90, they do an 8 car comparison of $20,000 sedans. The cars in the
    test were:
    1) Toyota Camry LE with the base 2.2 litre engine
    2) Honda Accord LX
    3) Mitsubishi Galant ES
    4) Nissan Altima GXE
    5) Hyundai Sonata GLS
    6) Dodge Stratus ES
    7) Oldsmobile Alero GL
    8) Chevrolet Malibu LS

    The testers were far from kind to your car, with comments criticizing the
    coarseness of the drivetrain, the lousy tires supplied by GM (do you have
    the Firestone Affinity's?), the styling (which I admit is none of their
    business, and I personally think the car looks far better than several
    others in this test) & the handling characteristics. The car finished dead
    last in their emergency lane change maneuver test, and one tester
    commented:"You can drive this car at 10/10ths with just one hand". Other
    snide remarks include:
    "...it is a perfect 10 on the Bland-O-Meter."
    and "A little like your slow-witted but congenial cousin."
    Their overall verdict:"The car for folks who'd prefer not to think about
    cars."
    Ouch.
    They do praise the apparent build quality, the "great visibility", the depth
    of "amenities" & "solid structure".
    And it didn't quite finish last overall, only second to last. Seems they
    thought it was at least better than the Hyundai Sonata. Surprisingly, since
    readers of C&D know how much the testers tend to prefer the Japanese
    cars(and usually for very good reason), it was perhaps gratifying to GM fans
    to note that the V-6 equipped Alero GL finished third, ahead of the
    underpowered Toyota Camry. The Alero comes with the 3.4 litre six, and C&D
    said of the car that it generated the highest skidpad numbers in the test
    (the Malibu had the second lowest), the fastest 0-60 times, the most
    powerful engine of the eight cars(also the largest in displacement) and
    actually called it a "10" in the handling department. Somehow the handling
    virtues seem to have bypassed the poor Malibu, at least according to these
    testers.
    I personally value handling above almost any other characteristic in my
    cars, it is pretty much the reason why I will continue to soldier on trying
    to restore & maintain my 505's. Cameron's definition of "horrible" probably
    refers to the chassis dynamics more than anything else, maybe you should
    investigate that Alero to see if you yourself notice much difference. At the
    very least, you might want to invest in a better set of tires when time &
    money permit.
    But the bottom line here is that according to C&D, Cameron is not the only
    one who doesn't think much of the Malibu, like it or not.
    I'm sure that at least the one thing we can all agree on is that we would
    all rather be in 406 or a 607 if Peugeot ever gives us the chance.
    Joe R.

    >From: boz <boz@t-three.com>
    >Reply-To: boz@t-three.com
    >To: Peugeot List <peugeot-l@eGroups.com>
    >Subject: [Peugeot] Chevy Malibu
    >Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:25:57 -0400
    >
    >Cameron Mac Millan wrote:
    >"...the (Chevy) Malibu is just plain horrible...."
    >
    >Sir, what planet do you live on? I've been driving Peugeot 505s for 13
    >years (still do), and after 2 years of life with the Malibu.......I feel
    >it's indeed a very decent automobile. To put it down so soundly is
    >ridiculous (especially since I bet you don't own one!), and I bet it'll
    >prove much more reliable than any Peugeot I've ever owned. Basically,
    >I'm just writing this to vent some steam at some of the
    >over-generalizations I've seen about the Malibu recently on this list.
    >Maybe it's 'hip' to constantly put GM down, but I have given them a try,
    >and I can say with all honesty it's a very good car. Someone else said
    >the Malibu has horrible reliability. What a load of shit! The only
    >problems I've ever heard about it were front bushings creaking (replaced
    >under warranty if you wish--I haven't had the problem), and warp-prone
    >front brake rotors (have had this and they were replaced under
    >warranty); apparently, the steel used in the making of the originals was
    >not quite up to par, and has since been corrected. Basically, those are
    >the main two faults about the Malibu that have come to light in about 3
    >yrs. The 3.1 pushrod V-6 is rock-solid, as everyone knows. The platform
    >is an entirely new one that GM created just for the Malibu (and
    >now-defunct Olds Cutlass), and perhaps even a Pontiac (i.e., GrandAm?
    >not sure). Anyway...this is NOT an unreliable car. Anyone that thinks it
    >is probably is still using a mind-set from too many years back regarding
    >GM products.
    >There.....had my say!
    >Brian O.
    >

    ______________________________________________________
    Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue 18 Apr 2000 - 03:04:30 UTC