Pros: Utility, comfort, power, many thoughtful features, interior much better than GM norm, distinctive styling
Cons: Styling a bit awkward, mixed handling, some interior bits still a bit cheap
The Bottom Line: The Maxx has its faults. But the package's functionality many innovative features more than compensate for these. For all but driving enthusiasts an excellent choice.
A few years ago General Motors recognized that innovative “segment busting” products offered much greater potential for profits and sales growth than redesigned version of existing, conventional products. In response, it pledged that a large portion of its future products would be highly innovative. This strategy has so far brought us the Pontiac Aztek, Buick Rendezvous, Chevrolet Avalanche, GMC Envoy XUV, and Cadillac SRX. While all of these products have not been hits (especially not the Aztek), overall they have done well.
The latest boundary-breaking product from GM is the Chevrolet Malibu Maxx. Although based on the conventional Malibu sedan, the Maxx has a half-foot longer wheelbase (within a similar overall length), a rear seat that slides fore-and-aft seven inches, a couple of skylights over the rear seat—and a hatch.
That last bit is especially tricky. Large hatchbacks have never fared well in the American market, while station wagons have a stodgy image. Eager to avoid both labels, Chevrolet calls the Maxx a ׃-door extended sedan.” But it’s a hatch.
It’s interesting that the bread-and-butter Malibu gets a hatch version while its quirky Saab cousin after years as a five-door is now only available as a sedan. Not that the Maxx is entirely without precedent. The previous Malibu replaced the Chevrolet Corsica, and that car was available with a hatch (as was the Citation the Corsica replaced).
Will the Maxx fare better than the five-door Corsica? Do its innovative package and features work, or are they just gimmicks? Is the Maxx a credible alternative to an SUV? I examined a leather-trimmed Maxx LT in the showroom and then test drove a cloth-trimmed Maxx LS to find out.
(I drove the sedan last fall. For that review, which contains additional material that in many cases also applies to the Maxx, click here.)
Chevrolet Malibu Maxx Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Malibu Maxx rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. To gain access to such 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 a half-inch less length than the sedan but a six-inch-longer wheelbase, the Maxx has a fashionably short rear overhang—much like the Mazda Protegé5 I personally drive. Actually, the rear wheel has been pushed a bit too far rearward as far as my pair of eyes are concerned. Between this and bodysides every bit as flat as the sedan’s, the Maxx isn’t nearly as pretty or stylish as my artfully formed Mazda.
And yet I find myself liking it. The resulting proportions lend the Maxx’s appearance a dynamic, “ready to pounce” character absent in the staid sedan. It is without a doubt distinctive. If I had to sum the look up, I’d say it’s “functionality with attitude” (to paraphrase a Pontiac Bonneville tagline from a few years back).
With the sedan I recommended the top-of-the-line LT in part to get the 16-inch alloys. A vehicle with such tall bodysides needs the largest wheels available; LS sedan with its 15-inch alloys is considerably less attractive than the LT. Oddly, when I drove a Maxx LS I did not mind the look of its wheels. Initially I chalked this up to the Maxx’s unique styling. Then I noticed that the Maxx LS comes standard with 16-inch wheels and the same tires as the LT. The only difference is the style of the wheels. And frankly the Maxx LS wheels might be the best looking of the bunch. The Maxx LS also has rear discs standard; on the sedan only the LT has rear discs. Unusually for GM the difference in wheels and brakes is not reflected in the price. In both LS and LT forms the difference in price between the sedan and hatch is $1,230.
The Malibu’s interior is a bit more stylish than its exterior. 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. With both the sedan and the Maxx 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 Maxx’s front seats are very roomy, especially for heads, and the car’s tall, upright greenhouse affords very good visibility. Finding a good driving position is easy, thanks to a tilt-and-telecoping steering wheel and power adjustable pedals (both are standard even on the LS). The seat’s lumbar support is also adjustable, and unlike many 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 very wide pillars. Adjust your mirrors way out and use them.
All is not perfect with the front seats. 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.
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 I visited 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 is fairly roomy but its cushion is too low to provide good thigh support for adults. For excellent rear seat comfort you want the Maxx. The cushion is no higher off the floor, but it can be adjusted fore-and-aft about half a foot. With the seat all the way back, rear passengers receive 41 inches of legroom, a couple more than in the sedan and an amount typical of a full-size car. When you can stretch your legs out this much, you get thigh support from a lower cushion. On top of this legroom, the seatback reclines. As in the sedan, the cushion 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. I would have no problem spending many hours in the back seat of this car. Especially with the optional console-mounted flat panel DVD player.
Scratch that. I just picked up a conventional portable player, also with a seven-inch screen, for a couple hundred bucks and a special case to support it between the front seats set me back only fifty more. It worked like a champ during a recent 2,500-mile trip. Why spend four times as much for a factory-installed unit?
The Malibu, especially in Maxx form, abounds with thoughtful touches. This is the first car to offer remote start as a factory-installed feature. (It’s standard on the LT, $150 in the LS.) Push a button on the key fob, and the engine starts—so you can remain inside the house while the car’s interior adjusts to a comfortable temperature. There are two pairs of vents in the center of the instrument panel; the top ones direct air over the front seats to the rear seat. I haven’t noticed this in another car before. A rubber bumper below the dash-mounted ignition keeps keys from rattling against and scratching the dash. Twin skylights (with retractable shades) are standard over the rear seats of every Maxx. (A conventional sunroof for the front seat is available in both Malibus.) A second power outlet is located in the roomy center console for a cell phone. The Maxx has a third such outlet in the cargo area. The rear seat has an armrest that contains a storage compartment and a pair of cupholders. Not only does the Maxx’s hatch contain a pair of handholds on its bottom edge so you can close it without getting your hands dirty, but these are trimmed with a sandpaper-like material so you can get a good grip. My Protege5 has one such handhold, but without the sandpaper, and as a result it’s hard to use.
Finally, the Maxx has a cargo panel that can be positioned at three different heights to conceal cargo, create a table for tailgating, create two-tier storage, or get it out of the way. It’s reversible and carpeted on one side but not on the other, for extra versatility. And it includes hooks to hold grocery bags in place. All in all, more thought appears to have gone into this panel (which will also be offered in the upcoming Equinox SUV) than GM used to put into an entire car.
The Maxx is about as practical as a car gets. Although the flat interior side panels required by the multifunctional cargo panel reduce the available width, cargo room is pretty good even with the rear seat up and all the way back. Especially compared to my Mazda. Folding the rear seat and front passenger seat (yes, it also folds) opens up a ton of space.
Consumer Guide lists 68 cubic feet as the maximum cargo volume. I do not know where they obtained this figure, as I can find it nowhere else, and it is unclear if it assumes a folded front passenger seat. If this figure does not include folding the front seat, the Maxx provides nearly as much cargo volume as a conventional midsize wagon. For example, the figures for the Ford Taurus, Saturn L300, Subaru Legacy, and VW Passat wagons are 81, 79, 69, and 79, respectively.
Chevrolet only provides the seats-up figure: 23 cubic feet. Those for the wagons are 39, 34, 34, and 39, respectively. The Maxx’s lower figure is doubtless due to its sloping rear window and intrusive side panels in the cargo area. If you don’t plan to often pack your car to the roof, the Maxx is more comparable to the others, especially if you don’t slide its rear seat all the way back.
The Maxx is billed as an SUV alternative, in large part because that’s where the market currently is. How does its cargo volume compare to compact car-based SUVs? With the rear seat folded, the Chevrolet Equinox, Ford Escape, Honda CR-V, and Hyundai Santa Fe offer 69, 65, 72, and 78 cubic feet, respectively. With seats up they offer 35, 33, 34, and 31 cubic feet, respectively. Once again the Maxx is competitive, especially if you consider only the volume below the rear window.
A note on cargo volume specs: there are a number of acceptable ways to calculate cargo volume. It is likely that different manufacturers use slightly different methods, and so the above figures are not entirely apples to apples. Methods can also change from year to year. Last year VW’s figure for the Passat was 79 cubic feet, but this year it’s only 57. The car did not change. Generally, though, manufacturers use whichever method gives the largest figure, so they are roughly comparable. I’ve used last year’s figure for the Passat for this reason.
When the Maxx’s rear seatback is folded the rear seat cushion remains in place. While this simplifies the task of folding the seat, it prevents a flat load floor. When folded the rear seatbacks lock in place, a nice touch. The right one actually locks into two different positions. Why I’m not sure. One might be to provide a more continuous surface with the front passenger seat.
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 because the Malibu shares a platform with the Saab 9-3, 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 sedan , 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.
All Maxxes 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 new 3.5 produces 200 horsepower at 5400 RPM, a significant improvement over the 3.4. 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. With the required four-speed automatic, the Maxx earns EPA ratings of 22/30. These are just a bit lower than the sedan’s
23/32, and are still 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 the new sedan. 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 noted excessive torque steer in the LS sedan, but only a minor amount in the Maxx. The reason for the difference is unclear. I drove the Maxx less aggressively (there was some ice about), but different tuning for the Maxx, something wrong with the particular sedan I drove, or the different tires might also have contributed. Based on this second test drive, I would not expect torque steer to be a problem for the typical driver.
An issue with the transmission remained. More than a few times when accelerating at a moderate pace in both cars 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. Another part of the problem is that this isn't a pleasant sounding engine at high RPM. With a better-sounding, quieter engine the downshifts would have been less objectionable.
But the real problem is that the transmission downshifted when I did not expect it to, or even want it to. Many economy-minded transmissions these days seem reluctant to downshift. Not this one. I'm not sure why. 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.
I might need a third test drive to fully evaluate 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. Perhaps it’s calibrated differently in the Maxx, perhaps GM made a running change, perhaps the 16-inch tires make more difference than I would expect, or perhaps something was just not right with the early production sedan I drove (its rotors were warped with just a few hundred miles on the odometer). 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.
Aside from the steering, the new Malibu handles fairly well. Understeer is overly heavy, producing excessive front tire scrub too early, but other than that the chassis does what it’s directed to without fuss or surprises. 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 more Japanese than European or American. 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. The Maxx handled better than the sedan. To get a better idea as to why, I might test drive another, hopefully an LT this time.
Even with this issue, the Maxx performs well enough for the typical driver. After all, its handling is far superior to that of the most popular alternative, a compact car-based SUV. It’s driving enthusiasts like myself who will find the car a bit wanting. For us, I suspect Chevrolet is readying an SS version for introduction in a year or two. Such a car might feature the 240-horsepower 3.9-liter V6 that will be optional in the 2005 Grand Am replacement, the Pontiac G6. Hopefully it will also feature more communicative steering, tighter handling, and more heavily bolstered seats. Throw all of this in with a six-speed manual (one will be available with the 3.9 in the G6), and I’d personally be interested.
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.
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. Not to mention that GM expended the money and effort to add a half-foot to the wheelbase of the car—a sign that they did what was necessary to do the car right. All in all, the Maxx offers nearly as much cargo volume as a conventional wagon with more functionality and sportier proportions. (I can’t quite say “more style.”)
Is this a “segment buster?” No, not really. Not that it’s a wagon in disguise. It’s not; the car’s unique proportions and sloped rear window enable it to successfully evade that dreaded label. What it is is a five-door hatch. Since this is a segment which had a number of members in the 1970s and 1980s, only to nearly go extinct in the 1990s, it’s not as if the Maxx is creating an all-new market segment. But its particular size—larger than most five-door hatches—and innovative features position it as a more credible SUV alternative than just about any other car.
As with the Malibu sedan, my rating comes with a caveat. For a driving enthusiast the Maxx is a three-, maybe a four-star car. But for the typical driver it easily rates a four-and-a-half, which I'll round up to five.
It helps the Maxx's case that it faces little direct competition. The primary direct competitor will be a five-door version of the Mazda6, which will be introduced this spring. The 6 is more stylish, offers a manual transmission, and handles better. But it lacks the Maxx’s thoughtful features and versatility. It will also cost about $3,000 more. Enthusiasts will likely be happier in the Mazda, even at the higher price. The typical driver will be happiest in the Chevy.
The Maxx's strongest competition might come from elsewhere in the Chevrolet showroom. The Equinox offers even more functionality and attractive styling for not much more money. It's major weakness: it will be powered by the 3.4 from last year's Malibu. With less power and more mass it does not perform as well as the Malibu. Hopefully a more powerful engine is on the way.
Finally, I must wonder why Saab does not market a similar car. The Maxx has the functionality for which Saabs used to be known. With the styling and chassis tuning befitting a Saab this could be one sweet package.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, 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.