Motor Trend: new Malibu is worst/most disappointing new car...

[tradosaurus]

My wife and I test drove the 2013 Honda Accord and then test drove the 2013 Malibu Eco.

The Malibu Eco won hands down and was cheaper by a few thousand given the same amenities.

[cp-the-nerd]

Originally Posted by charts.1

Glad you like it.

Chevy installed new front suspension dampers for 2013 on the Equinox. It is suppose to give a more compliant, better ride than the 2010-2012's

Suspension changes only come with the newly available 302 hp 3.6L V6 (which turns the 'Nox into a total sleeper beast, by the way). It gets dual flow dampers that allow for more comfort as well as better handling performance and feel.

[charts.1]

Originally Posted by cp-the-nerd

Suspension changes only come with the newly available 302 hp 3.6L V6 (which turns the 'Nox into a total sleeper beast, by the way). It gets dual flow dampers that allow for more comfort as well as better handling performance and feel.

Thanks for that info.

[charts.1]

Originally Posted by tradosaurus

My wife and I test drove the 2013 Honda Accord and then test drove the 2013 Malibu Eco.

The Malibu Eco won hands down and was cheaper by a few thousand given the same amenities.

I would believe you could go to a couple chevy dealers that have their lots full of 13' Ecos, tell the salesperson that you are aware of the glut of unsold product in the pipeline, do comparison pricing, and make the deal of a lifetime.

A great opportunity for people who like the Malibu. Remember in about 5 months, the 2014s go into production with basically the same car, and with over 160 days of 13' Malibus sitting unsold, great deals can be made, over and above the deals they offer now.

[EnvoyBu]

Originally Posted by cp-the-nerd

Suspension changes only come with the newly available 302 hp 3.6L V6 (which turns the 'Nox into a total sleeper beast, by the way). It gets dual flow dampers that allow for more comfort as well as better handling performance and feel.

I don't know about "total sleeper beast", but it is pretty peppy. The 3.6L should have been there from day one though. The 3.0L sucked.

[cp-the-nerd]

Originally Posted by EnvoyBu

I don't know about "total sleeper beast", but it is pretty peppy. The 3.6L should have been there from day one though. The 3.0L sucked.

Engineers said they were able to crack off high 14s in the 1/4 mile. In a CUV, that's freakin crazy sleeper.

[EnvoyBu]

Originally Posted by cp-the-nerd

Engineers said they were able to crack off high 14s in the 1/4 mile. In a CUV, that's freakin crazy sleeper.

I drove one. No way it'll reach the 14's. Low 15's? Yes. 14's? Hell no. The only CUV I know that was ever that fast was the RAV4 V6. THAT was a sleeper...

[cp-the-nerd]

Maybe you drove an AWD model, in which case you'd be absolutely right. I read a performance test where the AWD hit the 1/4 in 15.2 sec, and that's when the engineers told them they broke into the 14s with the lighter FWD model. I think that's plausible given a ~200 lb weight advantage.

Entry level AWD systems are pretty much dead weight, in my opinion, because they only transfer minimal power to the rear wheels when the fronts lose traction.

[EnvoyBu]

Originally Posted by cp-the-nerd

Maybe you drove an AWD model, in which case you'd be absolutely right. I read a performance test where the AWD hit the 1/4 in 15.2 sec, and that's when the engineers told them they broke into the 14s with the lighter FWD model. I think that's plausible given a ~200 lb weight advantage.

Entry level AWD systems are pretty much dead weight, in my opinion, because they only transfer minimal power to the rear wheels when the fronts lose traction.

*shrugs*

It'd be funny to see someone lose to a CUV in their "Sports Sedan", like the Regal Turbo haha!