Chevrolet has been losing market share fairly steadily for four decades—longer than most Americans have been alive. Through the mid-1980s it regularly contested Ford for the most sales. In recent years it has lagged by hundreds of thousands. Worse, Toyota now sells more cars than either domestic brand, and is getting stronger and stronger in trucks.
Aware that this slide cannot continue indefinitely without threatening the viability of the entire corporation, the powers-that-be at GM vow to increase Chevrolet’s market share. But they have made similar vows many times before, and failed. A potentially significant difference this time: they are sending much fresh product in Chevrolet’s direction. In the 2004 and 2005 model years the division will be receiving a totally new Malibu, a totally new replacement for the S-10 (renamed Colorado), its first car-based SUV (the long overdue Equinox), and a totally new replacement for the Cavalier (to be renamed Cobalt). This is in addition to the new SSR (a retro convertible pickup—you heard me right) and a redesigned Corvette, lower volume products that should nevertheless help bring people into the showrooms.
The Malibu was the first out the door. The sedan arrived in the fall of 2002, the “Maxx” five-door hatch the following January. This review covers the sedan. My review of the Maxx can be found here.
I had high hopes for the Malibu. It is based on GM’s Epsilon platform, which was developed with heavy input from GM’s European units and which also underpins the redesigned-for-2003 Saab 9-3. A chassis fit for a European sports sedan should be overkill for a bread-and-butter Chevrolet. What’s more, Bob Lutz, GM’s vice-chair and the industry’s most renowned “car guy”, specifically directed that the Malibu’s suspension not be softened up too much to suit the tastes of Chevrolet’s traditional constituency. This promised to bring true European chassis dynamics to Chevrolet.
Okay, Ford tried this strategy before with the Contour (my personal car from 1997 until late last year), and although the magazines loved the result Middle America didn’t buy it. But it has been another eight years. Maybe Middle America’s tastes have become more sophisticated…
At any rate, even after six years I still greatly enjoyed driving my Contour (until the engine suffered a major failure at 66,000 miles, which I did not enjoy). Very much interested in checking out GM’s journey down the same route, I drove both the sedan and the Maxx the month they arrived (the latter after failing to win the “Hot Button” contest). So, how goes Chevrolet’s “revolution”?
Chevrolet Malibu Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Chevrolet Malibu rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
With the demise of Oldsmobile and the disastrous flop of the midsize Saturn L-Series, Chevrolet finds itself with three primary targets: Ford, Toyota, and Honda. In midsize sedans, Chevrolet (like Dodge) throws a very American full-size car Ford’s way: the Impala. The tougher task of taking on Toyota’s Camry and Honda’s Accord falls to the relatively compact Malibu.
The Camry for a long time puzzled GM. How could a car with so little style sell so well? With the 1997 Malibu GM took the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” approach by intentionally “styling” the car to resemble the appliance-like Camry. I have always found that Malibu ugly, yet as with the Camry many Americans thought it looked sharp, even sporty. It helped that Consumer Reports, always a fan of the Camry, initially also found much to like in the Malibu.
And so for the first few years the 1997-2003 Malibu sold tolerably well to individual consumers. In recent years an increasing proportion have been sold to rental car companies. The old Malibu will remain in production as the “Classic” to cater to these customers so that the new one won’t be tarnished through this association. At least not right out the door.
The 2004 car takes a further step towards distribution through Best Buy. Its sides are very flat, with remarkably little tumblehome (inward curvature) in the side glass, especially for a GM product. In this it resembles Toyota’s Avalon, which I soundly criticized for just this reason. Going even beyond Toyota, the fender tops are very sharply defined. There is no smooth progression from the fenders to the hood and trunk. As a result, the new Malibu’s shape is so brick-like that die-hard Volvo fans turned off by that brand’s recent conversion to curves might be lured into the Chevrolet fold. Take a Volvo 850, reduce the wedge, and there you are.
Yet part of me has been warming to the look of the car. It’s so much a brick that, like an old Volvo 240, it’s distinctive. (Unlike the previous Malibu, which was fatally bland.) There’s an honest strength to the look of this sedan.
Well, except for a few bits. Each of the tall fenders is broken up by a sweeping crease, much like those on the Impala and Subaru Forester. (GM owns 20 percent of Subaru now. Between the square contours and these sweeping creases this car could be added to Subaru’s line with very few modifications.) I don’t care for these creases on those car’s, and I’m no fan of them here. But it’s possible that without them the car would go from bland through distinctive to just plain bland. Undoubtedly they reduce the perceived height of those tall bodysides.
Not finding bricks very attractive, I’m having a hard time warming to the new Malibu’s styling. With the 15-inch alloys standard on the LS sedan I drove the sides look awkwardly tall, eye-fooling creases notwithstanding. The car looks much better with the 16-inch alloys that attend the LT. If you care at all about aesthetics, you’ll want that one. (Chevrolet thinks so, too. Only the LT is pictured in the brochure.)
The '97 Malibu’s styling made the car appear at least half a foot less lengthy than it was. A tape measure would find that the car was over 190 inches long, making it a fraction of an inch longer than the larger-looking Camry and Accord. Why make a car look smaller than it is? Most likely to further separate it from the pricier Impala. The 2004 Malibu is a couple of inches shorter in length but otherwise continues this tradition.
A final note on the sedan’s exterior styling: the Malibu is the first Chevrolet car to fully adopt the front-end motif that has graced the brand’s trucks for the past few years. A thick chrome bar bisecting the front end has worked well for the latter. On a car it similarly contributes to a distinctive, strong “face.” Whether this is a good thing depends on whether or not looking massive is a higher priority than looking pretty or sleek. The latter the new Malibu is not.
Inside the Malibu is a bit more stylish. Well, at least in the leather-and-suede-upholstered LT (quite chic for a Chevy). The cloth in the LS (barely) escapes looking cheap, but suggests a future in the rental car fleets. It looks and feels much, much more durable than rich. The door panels and instrument panel have a few stylishly curvy lines and a tasteful amount of metallic trim in the gray interior (fake wood in the tan interior) but, owing to materials that appear hard to the touch, also suggest durability and practicality, not comfort (much less luxury).
At least nothing looks cheap or tacky. The minor controls are very well laid out and look and feel high in quality. GM seems to have learned that cheap switches do not pay. The window buttons and stereo controls deserve special note for an unexpectedly premium character. This interior is definitely a major step in the right direction compared to previous Chevrolet interiors. If you don’t believe me, go back and forth between this car and an Impala.
Generally the new Malibu appears solidly put together. Both times I drove an LS and sat in an LT. With the sedan, the doors of the former closed with a much more solid-sounding thunk. With the Maxx, the LT in the showroom had a very distorted window seal on one door. This suggests that build quality varies from car to car. If you buy one, inspect it very closely.
Accommodations
The new Malibu’s interior dimensions for the new Malibu are very similar to the old car’s. The front seats are very roomy, especially for heads, and the Malibu’s tall, upright greenhouse affords very good visibility. If anything the amount of room in the front seat reinforces the car’s distant character—the door panel is a bit of a stretch for my left elbow.
My initial impression was that the driving position and front seat comfort could be much better. I had to adjust the telescoping wheel all the way out, when in most cars I do the opposite, and the seats so lacked lumbar support that my lower back felt sore within minutes. Then I discovered the standard adjustable pedals and lumbar support. (I especially did not expect the latter as even the Cadillac CTS did not offer it in 2003 as part of GM’s effort to keep costs down.) Someone had adjusted the former all the way out and the latter all the way down. Rectifying both made a tremendous difference. Then I could put the wheel all the way in and easily reach all of the minor controls. The lumbar support when properly adjusted has a very good shape to it, properly supporting the entire lower back region rather than forming an uncomfortably hard localized bulge. The seats themselves are wide and supportive. They are firmer than the American family sedan norm, not quite German car firm but still a bit firmer than those in a Camry or Accord. A little more give might have made the interior feel more welcoming.
I usually like my seat in the lowest possible position. Though I could see out well enough with the seat so adjusted, I found my optimal driving position with the seat raised an inch or so. I prefer a lower instrument panel and larger windshield, but the Malibu’s in close to the class average in this area. The view to the rear is obstructed by moderately wide pillars in the sedan, and very wide pillars in the Maxx. Especially in the latter adjust your mirrors way out and use them.
All is not perfect with the front seats. Like those in the base 9-3 they provide only a bit of lateral support, such that I had to use my arms to brace myself in hard turns. This is admittedly typical of this class of car. The amount of side bolster that is present presses gently against the sides, providing at least the comforting sense of being contained within the seat and not simply sitting on top of it. To its credit, Chevrolet (unlike Nissan with the Altima) forewent prominent but mushy side bolsters. Here you see what you get.
A couple of possible issues: The ratchet that adjusts the degree of recline could feel more substantial. And I felt the accelerator under my heel while braking with my right foot. This didn’t affect my ability to use the brakes, but it took some getting used to. Performance-oriented drivers might well appreciate this layout—though I imagine few will be interested in this car.
Likely the largest issue, especially for those with casual driving styles: the headrest juts too far forward, such that it pushed my head a touch further forward than I would like. The sedan LT in the first showroom intentionally or unintentionally demonstrated a solution: someone had installed its front seat headrests backwards. This solves the comfort issue, but might reduce whiplash protection.
The sedan’s rear seat affords at least average room and comfort. Once I properly adjusted the pedals and moved the front seat forward and up a touch I discovered a generous amount of leg and knee room, more than the Accord and about equal to the Camry. The seat cushion falls between the two in height, such that it provides better thigh support than the typical GM rear seat, but not quite as much as the Camry’s does. It is high enough off the floor that rear passengers have a good view over the front seats and out the sides, avoiding the claustrophobia many more artfully styled sedans can induce.
The glove compartment and center console compartment are both fairly large. The sedan’s trunk, though a bit smaller than the old car’s, is still a good size and well-shaped. The hinges are conventional, though. For more cargo room the rear seat folds in two sections, and the resulting passthrough is larger than most these days. For yet more cargo room the front passenger seat folds forward. A very practical package.
On the Road
Now we get to the part I was most interested in: What is the new Malibu like to drive? Well, anyone hoping for a European feel, as I was, will be disappointed. The car does not feel at all European. But it doesn’t feel American either. I drove an Impala immediately after driving the Malibu, and the two cars feel not at all alike. With the partial exception of the engine, what the Malibu feels like is a Japanese car. Most likely the effect of the car’s target.
The base Malibu is powered by the same 145-horsepower DOHC 2.2-liter found in many of GM’s cars. With this engine the Malibu probably feels even more Japanese. The LS and LT (and thus every Maxx) are fitted with a 3.5-liter V6 based on the same 60-degree V6 engine family that has been powering GM’s midsize cars since the 1979 Chevrolet Citation. This engine has grown over the years from 2.8 liters to 3.1 (as seen in the previous Malibu) to 3.4 (as seen in the Pontiac Grand Am, Impala, and GM’s minivans). For 2004 this six has been thoroughly revised for additional refinement and has grown yet again, to 3.5 liters.
The old Malibu’s 3.1 produced 170 horsepower at 5200 RPM, while the Impala’s 3.4 kicks out ten more at the same RPM. The new 3.5 produces 200 horsepower at 5400 RPM, a significant improvement. In torque as well the new six approximates the power output of GM’s venerable 3.8. Better, this power increase has not been achieved at the expense of fuel economy. Still offering only a four-speed automatic, the new Malibu earns EPA ratings of 23/32, each three miles per gallon better than the old car’s ratings and significantly better than the Camry V6’s 20/27 and the Accord V6’s 21/30. The leading consumer magazine (the one that does not like to be cited) achieved the best fuel economy they’ve ever experienced with a six. Give the car a fifth ratio and fuel economy should get even better.
Although the Malibu’s six produces 45 fewer horsepower than the Nissan Altima’s, it still furnishes all the acceleration most shoppers in this class will ever want. From idle on up the engine feels very energetic. It is quieter and more refined than its ancestors—it’s barely audible at idle—but with at higher engine speeds with a heavy foot it speaks up, and no will mistake its song for that of a high-tech DOHC unit.
I remain unsure what to think of the Malibu’s handling, as my experiences when test driving the sedan and Maxx differed considerably. Hard acceleration in the sedan resulted in much more torque steer than I expected in a new-for-2004 automobile, especially since I noted little torque steer in the 9-3. Put the pedal down and the front end got light and squirrelly. The effect was even worse when the wheel is turned a little. Many current Nissan’s similarly suffer. I’m confused, because it’s been about a decade since many manufacturers, including GM, seemed to have learned how to largely eradicate such behavior.
I noted less torque steer in the Maxx. Why I am not sure, and might take a third test drive to sort it out. I can think of a number of possible reasons. I drove the Maxx less aggressively because the salesman came along for the ride and the roads were potentially icy. Something might have been wrong with the suspension on the sedan I drove; its brake rotors were already warped after just a couple hundred miles. GM might have made some running changes. Finally—and this is something I learned only after driving the Maxx—unlike the LS sedan, the Maxx LS comes equipped with the same 16-inch tires as the LT. The LS sedan should as well. The larger wheels greatly improve the appearance of the car, and the Bridgestone Insignia’s with which they are shod seem to perform much better than the Bridgestone B450s on the LS sedan.
A bit more about the B450s. Like Toyota with its non-SE Camry, Chevrolet appears to have fit the Malibu LS with overly slick tires. Hit the gas hard and they scream. Enter a turn hard and they scrub. Enter a turn moderately hard and hit the gas for a good exit and the transmission is likely to downshift, sending far more torque to the inside front tire than it can handle, producing much unwanted burning of rubber. Twice I attracted far more attention in turns than I desired. And I wasn’t even pushing the car that hard. Solution: stickier tires.
And now a bit more on the tranny, which was an issue in both the sedan and hatch. More than a few times when accelerating at a moderate pace the transmission downshifted when I did not expect it to, giving me far more grunt (and engine noise) than I sought. Part of the problem is that the transmission has only four ratios, and these are widely spaced to boost fuel economy. So when the transmission downshifts engine revolutions shoot up quite a bit. But the real problem is that the transmission downshifted when I did not expect it to, or even want it to. This is not necessary. My wife’s Intrigue has a similar transmission, and operating that powertrain is about as intuitive as it gets. It always seem to provide exactly what I’m seeking. The Malibu needs a similar level of powertrain refinement.
A final contributor to less-than-Euro handling was the steering. Like the Saturn ION, the Malibu uses Delphi’s electrically-assist power steering. This eliminates the hydraulic pump, contributing to the exceptional fuel economy noted above. However, it also eliminated virtually all steering feel in the Malibu sedan. At least in the ION assist disappeared almost entirely at highway speeds, producing good feel then. In the Malibu the steering is devoid of feel all the way up. It’s not so much numb as nada, like a video game steering wheel. The effect is especially unsettling at very low speeds. Then, as in the ION, the system makes a strange faint whirring sound that had me initially thinking some vinyl trim was rubbing together. Once underway other noises drown out this one.
Some cars with electrically-assisted systems nevertheless provide very good steering feel. The Mazda RX-8 and Honda S2000 leap to mind. So the problem is not with the basic concept but its execution. (In GM’s defense, the system in BMW’s Z4 is not up to that marque’s norm.)
I was more satisfied with the steering in the Maxx. Feedback could still have been better, but the steering felt firm enough that I was comfortable driving the car. Hardly sporty, but acceptable for a family car. Again, I cannot fully explain the difference between the two cars. The same possibilities apply, especially the tires.
Aside from the steering and LS sedan tires (two big chunks) the new Malibu handles fairly well. Understeer sets in early and excessively, as it often does in mainstream family sedans, but other than that the chassis does what it’s directed to without fuss or surprises. I did not care to investigate the level of irresponsibility necessary to break the rear end free. No matter what I threw at the sedan it hung right in there, making the car’s handling extremely predictable. Lean is typical for this class of car, which is to say a bit much. I suspect that better tires and more aggressive suspension tuning could make a very fine handler out of this car.
Ride quality is good, with nearly all road imperfections absorbed well, but hardly luxurious. Similarly, the level of road noise is competitive but not outstanding. A Camry is significantly quieter.
In sum, the new Malibu despite the input of GM’s European engineers feels far more Japanese than anything else. It’s handling is soft and safe (even in the firmer-feeling Maxx). My major issue with it was the lack of composure under acceleration, especially when said acceleration was requested while turning. At the very least something should be done about this.
My Favorite Bit (with the sedan, anyway)
I have neglected to discuss what might be my favorite part of the car. The Malibu’s automatic can be manually shifted by putting the shifter in L and then toggling a rocker switch mounted on the left side of the shift knob. Chevrolet calls this a “range selector,” so perhaps it’s not intended to serve as a true manumatic. I found that the transmission’s responsiveness to rocker inputs varied a great deal, sometimes nearly immediate and other times significantly delayed. So not predictable. Functionality aside, I really liked the use of a knob-mounted rocker for this function. I’ve driven many manumatics, most of which require that the shifter be tipped side to side or back and forth. While I can see the desire to mimic a manual shifter by requiring that the whole shifter be moved, they do not even approximate the satisfying feel of shifting real gears. At any rate, the Malibu’s rocker was much more intuitive and very easy to use. After all, a thumb moves with less effort and more precision than one’s entire arm. Think of the “fire” buttons on jet fighters. They are thumb-actuated for a reason. I suspect they might have served as the inspiration for the Malibu’s shift button. I know I felt a bit like a fighter pilot while using the thing…
Would wheel-mounted paddles, like those on the Grand Prix, be better still? For some, yes. I suppose they are the ideal solution, as they permit both hands to remain on the wheel. However, for manual drivers like me used to keeping one hand on the shifter the Malibu’s solution is very appealing and definitely far superior to other shifter-actuated systems. I hope to see this sort of control in more cars in the future. Sadly, it appears that Cadillac with its manumatic has taken the Audi et al. route. This sort of rocker in the XLR would have been too cool. The C6 Vette could also have benefited; but it will have no manumatic functionality whatsoever. Why the Malibu but not the Vette?
Safety
Anti-lock brakes with traction control are standard on the LS and LT and side curtain airbags are standard on the LT. All three features are at least optional on all Malibus.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The rest of this section is from when the review was originally written.
A base Malibu lists for $18,995 and costs about $17,000 after a $1,000 rebate and the typical discount (discounts according to Edmunds). The car has its faults, but for a well-equipped midsize sedan that’s a very attractive price.
Another two grand gets you the LS. It’s worth it, as this includes the larger engine, alloy wheels, anti-lock brakes, cruise control, remote keyless entry, adjustable pedals, folding front seat, and a number of lesser amenities like adjustable lumbar support. The car I drove additionally included an $800 package (curtain airbags, power driver’s seat, floormats, and remote start).
But my recommendation is the top-of-the-line LT. It’s another $2,500, but this includes the chic heated leather/suede seats, rear disc brakes, curtain airbags, automatic climate control, the larger alloys necessary to make the car look decent, power driver’s seat, fog lamps, rear spoiler, and remote start.
The remote start bears additional mention. For years remote start has been a popular add-on, at least in Michigan where people like to be able to start their car a few minutes before getting in in the winter. The Malibu is the first car to offer this feature factory-installed. On the base and LS it is a $150 option. I imagine all GM cars will soon offer it.
Overall the Malibu appears very reasonably priced given its size, power, and level of equipment. The Camry presents the most serious competition—Toyota has lately become more price competitive.
Last Words
I hoped for a Euro-style sports sedan given the new Malibu’s roots, and instead in the sedan found a wanna-be Camry. As with the Camry, the styling is beyond bland and the base tires need more grip. Until Chevrolet comes out with a performance-oriented SS version, this car is best suited for the Camry and Accord buyers of the world. They should find it tuned to their tastes and a good value. Those in search of sharp handling better hope that an SS version is developed and that the steering, suspension tuning, tires, and seats receive serious attention.
I was more impressed with the Maxx. It drove better, is more distinctive, and is incredibly versatile for a car. I was also impressed by the number of well-executed thoughtful details.
My second test drive leaves me a bit unsure of what rating to give the car. Earlier I gave the LS sedan three stars and did not recommend the car. My second test drive suggests that rating was a bit low, but I waver on whether to give this car a fourth star. Maybe in LT form, and with the caveat that it’s a four-star car for typical drivers, but a three at best for the driving enthusiast.
Then again, the Malibu was not created with driving enthusiasts in mind. For them, next fall Pontiac will introduce a Grand Am replacement based on the Epsilon platform. This car, to be called the G6, will have the Malibu’s 3.5 as its base engine and a 240-horsepower 3.9-liter V6 as an option. In the Grand Am—as in the Accord and Camry—a manual was only available with the base four-cylinder. For the primary manual transmission market, driving enthusiasts, this makes no sense. Someone at Pontiac came to their senses. With the G6, a manual—with six speeds—will be available only with the larger engine. Could be sweet.
The G6 concept car was stunning. The production car looks like a cross between the swoopy concept and the Malibu. Like the Malibu it has tall bodysides with fairly hard transitions into the hood. How tall are the bodysides? The car I saw was fitted with 18-inch wheels, but they looked like 16s. Still, a very attractive sedan, much more attractive than the Malibu, and it should have a better rear seat than the concept car. (I had been wondering how they fit a decent rear seat under the concept’s roofline; now I know—they didn’t.)
For sedan buyers with any interest in style and performance I’d advise waiting for the G6 if possible. Unfortunately, there will be no five-door version. That would have been ideal.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.