Chevrolet Malibu Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

New 2014 Malibu vs 2013

23K views 58 replies 22 participants last post by  01pewterz28 
#1 ·
Just back from local dealer. They had 2013 and 2014 Malibu's side by side. I personally like the front end on my 2013 better along with the interior with the hidden cup holders and power park brake vs the old hand brake and open cup holders. I also did not like choice of wood application on console. Price is identical. They are allowing a $2500.00 discount in the 2014 as well. I did not ask to drive one. No point. I did not notice the difference in rear seat room. Not important to me. Just the wife and I.
They did have a new shiny red C7 Corvette on display! Awesome is what came to mind. Only $64,859.00. Let's see, you could buy two LTZs and have spare gas money to boot. Course the Malibu is not a Corvette. I feel blessed to have owned two Corvettes in my life time.
 
#2 ·
Re: New 2014 Malibu vs 3013

They did have a new shiny red C7 Corvette on display! Awesome is what came to mind. Only $64,859.00. Let's see, you could buy two LTZs and have spare gas money to boot. Course the Malibu is not a Corvette. I feel blessed to have owned two Corvettes in my life time.
If I ever hit the lottery I'd drop coin on a nice sports car someday though. A LTZ with the turbo would be a nice compromise on my wallet though.

The front end on the 2014 lacks some of the character found on the 2013. It just looks too flat to me.
 
#5 ·
My one carpooler hit a deer and had a 2014 LT as a rental. Minus the color and the auto start/stop I liked it quite a bit. No issue with the entertainment system...though it was cool I still like my buttons. I did like the color DIC instead of it being blue like mine is.
 
#10 ·
I have the color DIC in both my 2LT and 3LT.
 
#15 ·
I prefer the updated front end it looks more sporty, and I love the new cup holders w/ phone holders and I prefer the new wood grain. I am not a fan of the sliding cup holder cover IMHO it just makes the car look cheap. I did however like the electronic parking brake.
 

Attachments

#17 ·
I like the 13 grille better as well. I definitely do not like the interior changes for the 14 except the rear seat gaining more room would have been nice.

I love the start/stop in our car and would definitely buy another start/stop in a GM vehicle and maybe other brands as long as it is as smooth as the GM version has been.
 
#18 · (Edited)
The stop/start I couldn't get used to. I drove it a total of about 5 miles when it was warmed up so it would function. I could feel it refire after a stop at a stoplight. Melanie said is that why it makes that noise? You could almost hear a muffled rev when it started...but she didn't say anything about feeling it. Maybe it's just because I'm used to the way my car runs that I felt it. I thought it was weird. At this point I would not like a car with stop/start.

I was at the dealer yesterday to see if they forgot to lock any new 2014 crew cabs...I want to see how much bigger the back seat is than the old trucks. They had them all locked...but conveniently didn't lock a 2014 Impala LTZ. Ooo...I want that car...white diamond tricoat with the jet black/mojave interior...I want...I originally thought that interior to be dorky...but it's grown on me. I like.
 
#19 ·
I test drove the '13 and '14 back to back. Drove similar. Probably me.....but it felt like the '14 had a longer seat bottom but probably my imagination.
I thoroughly tested the start/stop feature and found totally unobtrusive and hardly noticeable after 5 or 6 intentional shutoffs and starts. I love the fake wood whatever it is in the '14 as well.

I ended up with the '14 (1LT) for better mileage rating but really b/c I think the '14 front end looks WORLDS better than the '13 front end. Plus the '13 will have less resale and it's a first year model for the 2.5.

But to each his own.
I have nothing negative to say about either model year.
 
#20 ·
Not a fan of the new front end.Bottom grille looks way to big and outta place on these cars.As for the start/stop I can take it or leave it(most miles are highway that I put on).I had it on the eco and it didn't bother me after getting use to it so I think it is good for people that do alot of city driving.As for the int.back seat room not an issue(kids are grown)but I am not a fan of the new console I like the 13 better but that's just me and I don't know anything from what my wife sez.:)
 
#44 ·
Not a fan of the new front end.Bottom grille looks way to big and outta place on these cars.
That big bottom grille is not fully functional. I was cleaning ours and noticed only 1/5 to 1/4 of that grille is open for air to pass through. I guess the rest of all of that plastic honeycomb is supposed to be for styling. To me it looks like the rest of it is only good for catching bugs and going to be a pain to clean. :rolleyes:

Maybe GM is planning an "ECO" diesel Malibu and will add shutters behind that grille in the future?
 
#22 ·
Not trying to bash your car, but the '14 has 25/36 mpg fuel economy standard, there's no way your Eco matches the new one price-per-option when it added about $1500 to the price of a similarly equipped LT or 2LT.
 
#28 ·
Not true! Actually I order my 2SA with leather,other goodies and when compared with the 2LT + price of the Leather and other optional my car was only $115 more. That means I got E-Assist for $115.

I priced a new 2014 Eco (before Chevy drop the Eco) with all of the same optional s and standard features and the price came out to more then $34,000.

As for fuel economy, the 2.4/E-Assist has better real world fuel economy then the 2.5 with start/stop. The E-Assist system provides for an 25% increase in efficiency over a similar size engine without E-Assist. At best you may achieve an 15% increase in fuel economy with the Start/Stiop in city driving. So how did Chevy achieve a highway fuel economy increase of 2 mpg when comparing the 2014 to the 2013 when they did not make any changes to the engine?

And then there is the performance. I drove an 2.5 2013 and it does not perform as well as the 2.4 E-Assist. I now have just under 10,000 miles on my 2013 and the Malibu has been 100% trouble free. I am glad that I have the 2013.
Fuel economy - it's impossible to say the eAssist Malibu has better real-world fuel economy than the 2014 2.5L without testing both extensively back to back. The comparison you mention is using the outdated 2.4L with vs without the mild hybrid system, so obviously the difference would be more noticeable.

The EPA was about to reduce the Malibu Eco fuel economy to 25/36 before Chevy dropped the model, so it would have had identical fuel economy to the more modern 2.5L engine with start stop. Additionally, for 2014, the 2.5L has been upgraded with variable lift, which is responsible for 2 mpg highway and 1 mpg combined before taking start/stop into account.

Performance - early versions of the Malibu 2.5L had a programming issue that resulted in sub-par acceleration. A reflash fixed the issue and according to Car & Driver, the 2.5L Malibu is quite a bit faster from 0-60 (7.7 sec vs 8.1 sec) and also a bit faster in the 1/4 mile (16.1 sec vs 16.3 sec).

If you like your car, that's nothing to argue about. I love mine, and it's clearly outdated. Nothing can take away my pride of the only Chevy Malibu with a high-revving DOHC V6 designed for Cadillac performance.
 
#29 ·
Fuel economy - it's impossible to say the eAssist Malibu has better real-world fuel economy than the 2014 2.5L without testing both extensively back to back. The comparison you mention is using the outdated 2.4L with vs without the mild hybrid system, so obviously the difference would be more noticeable.

The EPA was about to reduce the Malibu Eco fuel economy to 25/36 before Chevy dropped the model, so it would have had identical fuel economy to the more modern 2.5L engine with start stop. Additionally, for 2014, the 2.5L has been upgraded with variable lift, which is responsible for 2 mpg highway and 1 mpg combined before taking start/stop into account.

Performance - early versions of the Malibu 2.5L had a programming issue that resulted in sub-par acceleration. A reflash fixed the issue and according to Car & Driver, the 2.5L Malibu is quite a bit faster from 0-60 (7.7 sec vs 8.1 sec) and also a bit faster in the 1/4 mile (16.1 sec vs 16.3 sec).

If you like your car, that's nothing to argue about. I love mine, and it's clearly outdated. Nothing can take away my pride of the only Chevy Malibu with a high-revving DOHC V6 designed for Cadillac performance.
I just love it how you guys continue to quote EPA numbers. They are numbers base on a standard drive cycle. The EPA numbers are not real and are a reference. Real MPG is going to be effected by driving style and # of passengers and amount of luggage. The Variable lift for the 2.5 started for the 2013 model.

As for performance and acceleration, it takes ~ 4000 to 5000 miles before these new Ecotec motors to achieve their maximum power(brake-in period).
I noticed a boost in power from when my car was new vs 1000, 3000 and finally 6000 miles. I also notice that the e-Assist system obtained more smoother operation as the mileage increased.

As for efficiency and economy, the 2.4 with e-Assist will beat the 2.5. And here how. Every time the car is slowed downed or stopped, the eAssist goes into Re-gen mode, store forward momentum by charging the battery. When accelerating the e-Assist system will add additional power to the engine in other words returning the power stored in the battery to assist in the forward motion of the car.

When cruising down the road, and you descend a hill, the e-Assist will turn off the gas to the engine and go into re gen. The e-Assist will modulate the re gen to maintain the current speed of the car as it descends a hill.

When ascending a hill the e-Assist will use the energy stored in the battery to provide the additional power required.

The 2.5 with stop/start does not use re-gen. All power that is used during stop/start operation for the 2.5 is generated by the cars alternator.
 
#23 ·
I'll disagree here now that I'm coming up on a year of Eco ownership. My pure highway mileage is (surprisingly) +1 or 2 of rated and my city driving is at worst 23. Often times my mixed city and stop and go is 24 and average of everything is 26.5 - 27.3.

I frankly was astounded at my first 3+ hour road trip returning 38-39MPG, I had to double check the window sticker.

I think for me the difference between now and six months ago is I've learned how to drive the car for economy... Kinda like the opposite of my 17 year old me learning how to power shift my 4-speed in my Camaro at midnight drags! In fact, mastering the latter made mastering the former more difficult.

I'd probably be happy with either model but must say I'm over happy with the mileage plus the things that were removed (particularly the electric parking break) give me what normally may have been buyers regret but nope.

I'd hope the 2014 with Autostop matches or exceeds the older (my model) but if it does I doubt it'll be by more than a nose.

I'd be interested in if I could go back and have the choice with the differences.

I can say one thing for sure, I was given a rental 2012 and while not a bad car, the steering, chassis, NVH, amenities, etc. without a doubt eclipse the Gen 7. It's not to say the 7 was a bad car (it's not, I almost bought one) but I think the question is more that than the incremental degrees of difference of 13s & 14s.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Just went to the Chevy site and looked at a 2014 2LT compared to the 2013 ECO with power and convenience package.
The ECO w/P&C is $870 more.
The 2LT has everything the ECO w P&C does (excluding the extra Eassist features of course, the rearview auto dimming mirror and the electric parking brake) plus it adds on the following...
18" wheels
spare
road emergency tool kit
fog lamps
mirrors with turn signals
leather shifter knob

I believe that covers all the differences option wise
Yes you can go cheaper and get the 2014 2LT. I'm perfectly happy with our 2013 ECO though.
 
#33 ·
This is an interesting discussion, especially with a 09 owner jumping in with technical facts about the 2014 2.5 engine.

I was demonstrating to my wife how to get over 40mpg with our 2013 Cruze. I was driving a steady 55mph in a 55mph zone when it was rear ended by a young girl who had to be going 75 or more. That Cruze was totaled. We then bought the turbo diesel Cruze that is capable of 50mpg, but we had to get rid of it. The Cruze was no longer comfortable enough for us with our injuries from the accident.

IMHO, Our 2014 Malibu LTZ with the 2.5 actually is hard to tell apart from a Cruze. The 2013 looks more like earlier generation Malibus, also IMO. I guess that's why it was updated for 2014... and now looks more like the other Chevys.

We will be monitoring the gas mileage on our new 2.5 LTZ like we always have been doing on our other vehicles. We live in a semi rural area with almost no level straight roads here in the Smoky Mountain foothills. If we get the EPA average of 29mpg I would consider that quite good under our conditions... and with my wife's heavy right foot! The 1LT Cruze with a gas turbo 1.4L has a 30mpg average rating, so the 29mpg average on the larger heavier Malibu with a larger engine is hard to believe. The new 2.5 has to have some significant tweaks. I'll be watching it closely as it breaks in. I'm retired. We don't drive a lot of miles, but hopefully my wife (a recent college grad) will get a job!! LOL

The start/stop rarely engages under our driving conditions and when it does it's smooth as can be. If you don't like it off then just lift your foot off the brake a tad and it will start and idle until you drive off. I just don't understand the need for the motorcycle/lawn mower battery in the trunk. If it needs a second battery there's plenty of room in there for a much larger battery.

I had a V6 Accord Hybrid about 10 years ago with start/stop technology and what Chevy calls e-assist. It gave the Accord V8 like power for acceleration. I think that model was only made for 1 model year. I forget the exact numbers, but an average MPG of around 30mpg comes to mind.

Chevy is playing catch up... as usual with American brand cars. I like the facts on the Malibu's window sticker:

US/Canadian content: 66%

Final Assembly Point: Kansas City, KS USA

Country of Origin:
-Engine: United States
-Transmission: United States

The Cruze turbo diesel had a German made engine and the 6A trans was from France.

Surely Americans can do better???
 
#34 ·
I just don't understand the need for the motorcycle/lawn mower battery in the trunk. If it needs a second battery there's plenty of room in there for a much larger battery.
The battery in the trunk comes into use when you are stopped and the engine shuts off due to the start stop technology. All the accessories in the car run off that battery. They tried to use the smallest battery possible to save trunk space.
The 2013 ECO uses a much larger battery in the trunk but it is doing more with the eassist functions. 1 cool thing about it is that it can even jump the battery under the hood if it dies, no need for jumper cables, just dial it up on the DIC screen and push the button.
That battery does use much more space in the trunk but it still allowed us to fit an extra large suitcase, large suitcase, 2 small suitcases and a bathroom supply bag in there with a little room left over for a week long trip.
 
#35 ·
If a person works at a GM plant and is able to share technical details for many different models does it matter what car he owns? Surely the fact that he owns a GM, more specifically a Chevy, and even more specifically a Malibu is just icing on the cake. Not wanting to start anything here, but being new you probably weren't aware that member cp-the-nerd has shared news about upcoming engine changes (when he was free to do so) and many interesting facts about other GM lines. I recall hearing about the Corvette not too long ago.

I have no issue with accepting input from any Gen7 owner about Gen8 cars. And considering his credentials I think he's more than qualified to post his comments.
 
#49 ·
I believe we have another gentleman as a member. Thanks!
 
#52 ·
I wonder if the higher one was mounted wrong...?
 
#54 ·
I believe that is the correct Chevy Front Bracket mount for the 2014. Car companies seldom design their vehicles for a front license plate. (some exceptions have occurred) The front plates are almost always an afterthought. Seldom see commercials with new cars sporting front license plates either. Not part of the "curb appeal" I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top