Chevrolet Malibu Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

What I'd like to see on the Malibu

5K views 29 replies 10 participants last post by  perfectreign 
#1 ·
I remember when Malibu was a 'real' car. Here's what I'd like to see GM make available to make this latest model answer proudly to its heritage. Some things weren't available then, others were
- A V-8 (remember when the Malibu offered a 396ci V-8 (It morphed into the Chevelle SS396). At a minimum a beefy V-6 (if there's such a thing). The 2014- - 2016 Impala SS was a great evolution - even if a bit expensive
- A better sounding exhaust - it now sounds like a lawnmower with flatulence
Head-up display - good for safety - other less expensive brands have it and some GM Cars (my 99 Corvette had it and my 97 Pontiac had it)
-Way better handling
-HIDs - again a safety issue - the current headlights are no better than a D Cell battery flashlight.
 
#2 ·
Im with you with the stock HIDs (although I already upgraded to HID either way) and the better handling. This generation Malibu is a little too soft going around the corners. I also wish there was more interior storage.

As far as the other things... I don't think there is much interest in a V8 or even a 6 in the Malibu. If you're into V8's... there is the CTS-V. You get to pay the higher premium you said and you get the V8. Also, the SS Impala was a pretty big flop for Chevy (and the other options for Impala's in those years were SUPER slow, so it was clear buyers did not want a faster engine in that car), I think the same would show true for the Malibu (plus the Bu isn't even close to being set up for a bigger engine).

Despite its flaws, to me, the Malibu is more of a real car then an old 1970 Chevelle. Have you ever driven one? Old cars are terrible to drive, you feel like your doing 100 going 55 because of the shaking and how poorly they are planted to the road, they do not corner or turn well, they are almost all slow in comparison to even weak modern cars, and the lack of safety features makes me feel uncomfortable.

Chevy definitely could have upgraded the Malibu a bit, but I don't think it is in those ways... maybe the HUD... that would have been cool.
 
#3 ·
I agree with all you said about handling in the old muscle cars - but the handling was about the same as my malibu is now; I put about 40K a year on it and have experienced it on the turnpike, and avoiding crazy drivers (those who think they're driving in a car commercial) at that speed is hairy. I even agree with you, in principle, about the Impala SS. In an era where having a stick shift is the best anti theft device (most people can't drive them) and drivers think they have acceleration with a 4 banger, I don't expect a serious mailbu or SS to succeed. I've driven the old muscle cars and there's no replacing the feeling of being pushed into the seat on acceleration. It's a shame that someone needs to own an oil well to buy a car with serious acceleration. As to the Cadillac v-8, I'm taking donations to help me buy one.

As to whether I've ever driven the ss396 - yes I owned/drove one and a full-sized 1963 Ford with a 427 tri-pack as well as 4 generation C-4 and C-5 Corvettes and an 69 Olds 442. All of them had stick shifts and incredible straight-line acceleration and yes, I wouldn't take a sharp curve faster than 45, but knowing that, I would still take those cars. They were affordable. Once you feel that acceleration, it's tough going back.
 
#4 ·
Here's my wish list, in order of priority:
1. HID headlights
2. Adaptive Cruise Control
3. Overhead Storage Compartment for glasses/sunglasses
4. Inside Trunk Release
5. Heated Rear Seats (they are available on the Cruze)
6. AWD (available on Ford Fusion)
7. HUD
 
#6 ·
I agree these are very good points, but the Malibu does have adaptive cruise control from factory.

As far as the AWD goes, from my research there is an option available. But not sure how easy of a modification it would be.
But the 6T45 MHC seems like a direct replacement for the 6T40.
 
#5 · (Edited)
Have you guys been smoking something? There never was a 2014-2016 Impala SS. There was however a Chevrolet SS and it is even still being made in 2017 although I believe this is it's last year.
Also the 2014-2016 Impalas with the V6 were far from super slow, unless the Malibu Turbos are also super slow. Motor Trend lists the V6 2016 Impala as having the same 0-60 and 1/4 mile times as the 2015 2.0 turbo Malibu...
0-60-mph and quarter-mile times for the 3,793 lb 2016 Chevrolet Impala (6.3 seconds, 14.9 seconds at 95.9 mph)
0-60-mph and quarter-mile times for the 3,625 lb 2015 Chevrolet Malibu Turbo (6.3 seconds, 14.9-seconds at 94.3 mph)

The 2016 Malibu while slightly less hp and tq than the 2015, it lost weight and gained an 8 speed tranny so it had a slightly better time.

0-60-mph and quarter-mile times for the 3,301 lb 2016 Chevrolet Malibu Turbo (6.2 seconds, 14.7 seconds at 96.2 mph)

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/malibu/2016/2016-chevrolet-malibu-20t-first-test-review/
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/malibu/2015/2015-chevrolet-malibu-turbo-first-test/
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/impala/2016/2016-chevrolet-impala-ltz-v6-first-test-review/
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilverSport
#7 ·
Interesting thread, though the OP is a bit misguided in their claims.

1. You're never going to see GM put a V8 in a new FWD vehicle. Last time they did was in the 2006 Impala SS/Grand Prix GXP/Lacrosse Super, and even back then, it was borderline insane. In FWD vehicles, you have a transverse engine directly on top of a transaxle routing power to the front wheels. Packaging and power delivery are huge hurdles to overcome, and the ends don't justify the means both performance wise or development cost.

The Chevelle/Malibu SS396 models tested by Car & Driver and Motor Trend throughout the late 60s ran 1/4 mile times of high 14s to mid 15s. Guess what the Malibu 2.0T models run from factory? High 14s. You can always get an excellent new Impala V6 for the smooth power, or the 415 horsepower Chevy SS sedan for V8 sound and performance.

2. Exhaust - sure, I'll agree with you there, but 4-cylinders are hard to work with and tend to drone. They could certainly make some improvement though.

3. HUD - You're only going to find them in high-end Chevy models, or many Buicks. They're cool, but they don't make or break the Malibu.

4. Way better handling? A modern Malibu would crush a classic Malibu on a road course, it's not even a question. The gen 9 Malibu Premier actually out-lapped some performance cars on the figure 8 track at the 2015 Motor Trend Car of the Year competition. If you don't like how FWD dynamics feel, then you simply have to buy RWD.

5. HIDs - I don't know personally if the headlights are lacking, but they are probably superior to the Malibu of yore.
 
#10 ·
Back to the Chevelle ss, and what I'd like to see for the last time. It's more than 0-60 it's mid range - the malibu and Impala w/ 6 cylinders (remember the 4 is standard) can't get out of their own way in the mid range. Call it what you want, it's still an Impala (SS is really just an upgrade). Chevy finally did get it right by offering the stick shift - but most people can't even drive one. I realize they won't put a V-8 into the Malibu - I was hoping to stimulate some creative dreaming. And those cars were affordable. As to the HUD. more less expensive cars are now offering them - it's a great safety feature. Had them, appreciated them. And those quarter mile times 0 proves my point. They are only acceptable because we've settled for less.
 
#11 ·
Warning: Long post...

I'm not sure what you're referencing when you say the Malibu V6, since the V6 was last available in the Gen7, model years 2008-2012. In the early years of the Gen7 it was possible to get a choice of the 3.5L pushrod (mostly for fleet orders) or the 3.6L DOHC. In earlier generations, the 3.6L was not available but there were other sizes, such as 3100, 3400, etc.

The V6 engines prior to the 3.6L were pretty decent, but the older you go the less HP per CC there was. They were also less fuel-efficient but still better than many earlier offerings. As to power, I can't speak as I never drove any, so it would just be a paper race.

I have owned 3 different Malibus with the 3.6L engine. I still feel that my 2009 was noticeably more powerful and efficient than either of my 2011 models proved to be. In September 2015 I took my 2011 to a ¼-mile dragstrip in Maryland. Temps were above 80F and the humidity was fairly high as well, and it was my first time ever on a dragstrip, but with guidance from a buddy I was able to make 5 runs that turned out to be fairly similar. I turned in times at 14.9 or less and did so with a full-sized spare tire and a bunch of stuff in the car equal to another person's weight. With lower temps and humidity and being able to trim 200 pounds (or more) of contents from the car, I think it could knock another tenth or two off those times.

The affordable, mainstream "muscle cars" of the 60's were rarely able to do a similar job. It took special packages or modifications to do so, so I'm comparing an affordable mainstream grocery-getter (2011 Malibu 3.6L DOHC) to a more-or-less average car like it from the 60's.


So, now that we have set the stage to at least try to compare apples to apples, let's just agree to say that new vs. old ends up a pretty close match, regardless of which one actually comes out on top. But, if anyone wants to belabor the comparison further, that's fine, too.

Now let's compare fuel mileage. The old cars, even with the smallest engine possible (remember, mid-sized cars, not econo-boxes), you might be able to get 25-30 mpg on the highway and close to 16 mpg around town. These engines are either a straight 6 or a V6. My 2011 3.6L is rated 17 city and 23 highway by the EPA. I get around 20 city and 25-30 highway. So, does that mean that I have an economy car? No, it means that I can meet or exceed the fuel mileage figures achieved by the smallest engines while still turning in ¼-mile times on par with larger engines of the 60's.

Comparing fuel mileage of the larger engines of the 60's turns out to be what looks like an exercise in futility. Many of those "ground-pounders" could barely get 20 mpg highway and 10-12 in town. And we're not talking the huge engines that came in the fastest cars of the time, we're talking engines like the 283, 289, 302, 305, 327, or 350, maybe even the 383. (Not sure all of those were available in the 60's but you get where I'm going.)

What kinds of HP numbers were being advertised by manufacturers of the 60's with those medium to large engine displacements? Somewhere between 150 to 300, depending on engine size and options. Taking a look at that you'll notice that the technology of the 60's meant displacements were about double that of my 2011 V6 just to be on par with the HP, yet none of the engines that can be considered for comparison are within 50 cubic inches of my V6, and all of them are still V8 engines. Just so it's out there, the 3.6L V6 is rated 252 HP on paper. I don't know what it puts to the ground as measured on a dyno.

Last but not least, let's talk handling, as in emergency lane changes or just road-course slaloms and backroads in general. I had my '09 doing about 100 mph when I had to negotiate a bend (not a turn or curve, just a small bend) to the left that also had a small dip in it. It unnerved my passenger and me enough that I had to slow to 80 for the rest of the corners on that road. At lower speeds more akin to normal driving, this car does remarkably well even though it's not set up to be a race car. Harken back to the any domestic American car of the 60's, 70's, or even 80's and you'll admit that they earned their nickname - "Land Yacht". Take any corner, even at low speeds, and the body rolled enough that it was like a boat, but in the wrong direction.

So, let's put this in a chart that's easier to understand:

Time period . . . . '08-'12 . . . . . . 1960 through 1972-ish
Engine size . . . . . 3.6L V6 . . . . . Straight 6 . . . . . V8
Fuel mileage
. . . Highway . . . . 25-30 . . . . . . 25-30 . . . . . . . 16-20
. . . City. . . . . . . . 17-20 . . . . . . 14-18 . . . . . . . 8-13
Horsepower. . . . . . 252 . . . . . . . . 90-120 . . . . . 150-300
Cubic Inches . . . . . 217 . . . . . . . 170-230 . . . . . 262-383
¼-mile times . . . . . 14.9 . . . . . . very slow . . . mid 14's to over 17
Handling . . . . . . . . decent . . . . . . fair . . . . . . . . miserable

My opinion is that current technology makes more power on less fuel from a smaller engine, and the overall handling is much better. But when it comes to styling and just the overall Wow! factor, the 60's have it hands down. I like my 2011 but those older cars are highly desired, and the styling is a large part of it.

My final comment: If you'd like to compare apples to apples I agree, otherwise we're comparing Apples to Androids! ;)
 
#12 · (Edited)
The Chevrolet SS is not an Impala. You keep digging yourself deeper. Just admit you were wrong.
I don't know what newer Impala V6 you drove or even if you did but it can do a lot more than get out of it's own way.
People like to exaggerate way too much these days on the internet.

I had a 67 Mustang in high school. We dropped a 351C in it and yes it was fun as hell, very powerful and I do miss the throw you into the back seat feeling but I'd bet on the turbo 4 cyl Malibu or the newer V6 Impalas would blow it away in the 1/4 mile. I think you are letting your fond memories and feelings get in the way of facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cp-the-nerd
#15 ·
I had a 2016 Impala V6 rental when I got rear ended. It smokes the 1.5L and 2.0L Malibu. The thing will surely get out of its own way.

The pull from 60-80 is quite intense for a sedan. I had raced my buddy in his 2003 Mustang GT at a street light, it was a laughing stock.

I was thoroughly impressed. However the gas mileage was crap. Then again, i was having fun and had a steel foot the entire rental perior.
 
#13 ·
I'll throw in some items I would like to see in future Malibus:

1. Less badging (the back is fine, we don't need the name on both sides and rear)
2. Interior trunk release
3. Capless fuel tank (all trims)
4. Overhead storage - move the onstar stuff back to the RVM
5. Improved cargo net, go back to trunk length side anchors vs 1/3 hooks
6. two tier center console (shallow top, flip hinge, main lower)
7. Inverter for AC power (all trims)
8. hood struts
9. More plastic, smaller engine, maybe a pull start to eliminate the weight of the starter (heh)

Overall, I think the gen9 LT is reasonably equipped. The LS is also pretty well equipped; the only thing really missing from the LS is the LED DRL and remote start but I think most have it added as an option.
 
#18 ·
I remember when Malibu was a 'real' car.
Now in all fairness, this version Malibu is fairly quick. While I'd love to have it be RWD, most people seem to like FWD for snow. (Drove in snow once almost ten years ago, and I had RWD.)

I posted in this thread about how impressed with the horsepower I was. Given I have a 1.8L I4, the HP numbers are impressive.

As I stated in that thread, the old V8 Malibu cars had less HP and were far slower in their 0-60 times. Also I'm getting between 40-45 HP on the car.

It is also very quiet. I had a neighbor who (fortunately) moved away. On weekends, he'd fire up his 1975 El Camino with a 454 engine to go driving. For the five minutes he'd be warming it up, every house on the block was shaking from the reverberation.

Keep in mind, too, it isn't 0-60 times you really need. For the most part, you want 40-70 times, which seem to be fantastic in this car.
 
#20 ·
It's apparent from some of the commentator's remarks that they never have experienced the seat-of-the-pants acceleration in a muscle car. I understand, they were probably raised on 4 and 6 cylinder cars. But back to the purpose of this forum: To think about ways to improve the Malibu, unlimited by imagination. So, back to another feature, how about nigh vision cameras? With such poor headlights, this would be very helpful in seeing at night. Those of us who live in the country do not have the luxury of driving in well-lit city streets. And this is the last time.
 
#21 ·
I have to commute through a "well-lit" city on an elevated interstate highway. I enclosed that term in quotes because I can actually see better on the fairly long sections where the lights, for some unknown reason, are not lit.

I agree with the halogen opinions, too. My Gen7 had halogens and I thought they were pretty decent until I replaced them with LEDs. I won't go back unless forced to do so! I can only imagine what a projector lens would do to help shape the light, or what HIDs would do. That would probably be a better solution than night-vision cameras, but it would still be pretty interesting to have them.

I guess your comment about "raised on 4 and 6 cylinder cars" is supposed to sweep away any and all comments made about acceleration in a muscle car. I have been in plenty of old muscle cars: GTO, Mustang, and a few others. Maybe not as many as you or some other readers, but plenty enough. Just because a modern V6 doesn't have the displacement or number of cylinders doesn't mean it can't compete or even win against those old flame-throwers. But instead of comparing apples to androids, compare like to like. A number of mid-sized V8s of yesteryear claimed to have about the same amount of HP as my "tiny little 6" does. I have not personally raced it against one of the old cars but I have 5 time slips from mine in stock form, with the exception of having lowering springs. If you want to look them up, I posted them sometime in September 2015.

If you want to compare true muscle cars to a modern car with similar over-the-top power that is not gonna live in the driveway of the average Joe, go get a souped up Caddy. It'll wipe the floor and wax it before a sloppy old muscle car can even make it around the track. In a straight line it'll eat it up, too.

But those old cars have a flair for design and an appeal that these modern cars just can't, with all their plastic and padding and over-complicated controls. Cars from back then took real driving ability to make 'em do what you wanted. Nowadays there's ESC (electronic stability control) and TC (traction control) and ABS. There is even all the Tom-foolery stuff, like cameras looking out for collisions and telling the car to hit the brakes. It's not bad stuff, but it's not a simple vehicle anymore and never will be again. Maybe that's where the nostalgia comes from. No matter what, there is no way that killer style can ever be beat on a track, and if there are memories derived from good times in a car, especially a fast one, then it'll never die no matter what facts are presented.

I'll agree to saying that we have our own opinions and that they differ. I you find a track at least ¼ of a mile long and a reasonably stock car from the sixties that is about even (on paper) with my V6, let's put 'em side by side just to see how they actually do. I honestly don't care if I win or lose. The 5 time slips I got are the only time slips I have personally ever gotten in my life, so getting on a track again would just be another high for me! I'd like to be there just to say I was there. Let's part friends, or least friendly.

And I, too, will return this thread to its topic. :)
 
#23 ·
It's hard to take seriously anything said by someone that doesn't know a Chevy Impala from a Chevy SS...

Muscle cars are cool but their performance is not that eye popping anymore compared to cars nowadays. Sure my old 67 Mustang was sexier looking and sounding but other than those 2 things, it ain't got nothing on this newer Impala we bought.
 
#24 ·
It's hard to take seriously anything said by someone that doesn't know a Chevy Impala from a Chevy SS
Exactly. The cars are even based on different platforms if I am not mistaken. Though, a bit of buffoonery on chevy's part as this confusion or misunderstanding could derive from the fact there was indeed a Chevrolet Impala SS for many more years then the short lived Chevrolet SS. I will also vote down the inclusion of night vision, though that might just be my limited imagination at work. I still cast a very reasonable vote for trunk length cargo net and badge removal from the sides. Baby steps.
 
#25 ·
The Chevy SS sedan shares mechanicals with a 5th gen Camaro SS. They are both on the RWD Zeta platform, same engine, same transmission, and mostly the same suspension components with the addition of magnetic ride control from the gen 5 Camaro ZL1. The Impala has far more in common with the Malibu than Chevy's performance cars, and there's nothing wrong with that. The Impala is arguably the best family sedan under $40,000.

My contention to the thread was just underselling the new Malibu so hard because of silly things. Besides styling and V8 noises, the new Malibu is objectively superior to the classic car in every way. It's actually been quite a comeback success story for GM after the weak reception of the 8th gen, which was itself an underrated car IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilverSport
#28 ·
I need to go find time to test drive one before they're history. From what I read, the manual option will be gone. While I despised driving my manual TDI on the way to work (averaging 150 gear shifts per trip), I enjoyed it on the highway.
 
#29 ·
It's not the manual transmission on the SS that will be gone, it's still an option on the 2017. It's the whole car that will be gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top