Chevrolet Malibu Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
2 weeks ago the transmission started shifting very delayed and hard. I eventually got to a stop light and when I tried to accelerate, the engine just revved and didn't go into 1st gear. I could smell the fluid was burnt. Got it towed to a transmission shop and the quote to repair it or replace it with a reman was not worth it. I'm getting the car towed home tomorrow and I'm going to attempt to sell it as it. Anyways, 2010 Malibu with 137k on it = RIP. I purchased a bunch of replacement parts I was going to swap (motor mounts, suspension components,etc) so I'm going to list those for sale soon. I purchased a 2016 Malibu Premier as it's replacement, so I'll still frequent the forum.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,898 Posts
Sorry to hear of your loss, but I think you did the right thing in replacing it. The cost of the trans is so much, and on a car that old (miles, not years), you're probably ahead by getting a whole car if you're gonna have payments.

Selling the 2010 can also help defray some of the cost of the 2016.

Does the 2010 have the 2.4L or the 3.6L?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
To repair the trans, it would of been roughly $3,000. To replace it with a reman it would of been roughly $3,800. It has the LE5 2.4L (which needs another exhaust manifold)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
721 Posts
Yikes! That hurts! I'm sorry about your loss but I certainly hope you enjoy your new ride! Hopefully someone with knowledge with rebuilds can buy the car and love it like you did. I'm also having a transmission issue that I have an appointment at the dealership for. It's throwing a checksum error so I'm guessing it's probably the computer but I hope the lifetime powertrain warranty through the dealer will cover it. It wouldn't be so bad but it throws it into limp mode everytime this error happens. I don't want to sell mine considering I still have a bit to go on payments but I cannot afford a huge bill either.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
721 Posts
To repair the trans, it would of been roughly $3,000. To replace it with a reman it would of been roughly $3,800. It has the LE5 2.4L (which needs another exhaust manifold)
Well, I'm unfortunately in the same position as you. Mine is still running but I can no longer depend on it for medium to long trips. Got a quote to fix mine. Not as much as yours but still about $1700 to fix along with some of the other things that are starting to go. I'm seriously considering trading it in as is, get the money to pay off the loan, and get something else. I have my eye on a 2014 Chevy Impala Limited right now. I'm seeing if I can work out a deal. Either way, I'm still going to be active in the community as well. I still have enough knowledge to help those out who have other ailments. I haven't made any final decisions yet but we'll see this week what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Sorry to hear about that Tommy. Unfortunately when a repair of that cost occurs, they aren't worth repairing. I purchased a 2016 Malibu Premier and selling the 2010 parts.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
721 Posts
Sorry to hear about that Tommy. Unfortunately when a repair of that cost occurs, they aren't worth repairing. I purchased a 2016 Malibu Premier and selling the 2010 parts.
Thanks. It's heartbreaking, for sure. But it couldn't even make it back from a 17 mile trip without the check engine light coming on and going into limp mode. If I can't even depend on it to take it that far...I just can't depend on it. Now, if it had the V6 in it, then more than likely, I'd probably invest in it. But with just an Ecotec, I'd just be going back to being adequate, not truly happy. So that's the other aspect I have to look at as well. I'd probably get another Malibu if it weren't for them ousting the V6. I definitely hope that you're happy with your new 'Bu though! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Thanks. It's heartbreaking, for sure. But it couldn't even make it back from a 17 mile trip without the check engine light coming on and going into limp mode. If I can't even depend on it to take it that far...I just can't depend on it. Now, if it had the V6 in it, then more than likely, I'd probably invest in it. But with just an Ecotec, I'd just be going back to being adequate, not truly happy. So that's the other aspect I have to look at as well. I'd probably get another Malibu if it weren't for them ousting the V6. I definitely hope that you're happy with your new 'Bu though! :D
sorry to hear about your ride that is certainly disappointing. But anyway what's wrong with the turbo 4 cylinders? I notice a lot of people on here with the 7th gen malibus say they would prefer the v6 over the turbo 4 cylinders in the later models but why? I have the 3.6 in my Malibu and have a newer equinox with the turbo 2.0t and honestly I see no advantage to having the v6. The turbo 2.0 makes torque much earlier in the powerband so my equinox is actually a little quicker then my v6 Malibu is and it actually gets better gas mileage as well. Its also far easier to work on when it comes to things like changing spark plugs and other little things. For some reason people just fear a turbo even though it doesn't really add much complexity to a vehicle.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,898 Posts
I'm one of those who prefer NA over turbo.

My reasons:
  • Fewer parts needing maintenance or repair
  • Less heat under the hood
  • Less load on the engine's internals that I believe will extend its life
I'm not against turbos, I just don't wanna be in a position where the only choices open to me are all turbos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I'm typically a NA guy as well but for what I wanted to spend, there are no modern mid size NA GMs. I searched Buick Regal GS, Lacrosse, Chevy Malibu, and Impala
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I'm one of those who prefer NA over turbo.

My reasons:
  • Fewer parts needing maintenance or repair
  • Less heat under the hood
  • Less load on the engine's internals that I believe will extend its life
I'm not against turbos, I just don't wanna be in a position where the only choices open to me are all turbos.
I understand im typically an NA person as well after all I do have a decently built v8 Camaro however when it comes to a v6 vs a turbo 4 cylinder I will take the turbo 4 all day. There aren't really any extra items that need maintenance, the turbo doesn't require any extra maintenance and honestly with todays technology the turbo sometimes will outlast everything else on the vehicle. Also an O.E. turbo is cheap and easy to replace if for some reason it goes out. The heat under the hood isn't much of a difference in my experience, now if you are throwing a larger then stock turbo on it or throwing a turbo on a car that didn't originally come with it then I could see heat being an issue. And as far as the load on the engine honestly the power kicks in so much sooner then the v6's do that if anything I think the engine would have less of a load on it in regular driving situations. My equinox at 2500 rpm feels like it has more torque then my v6 Malibu at 4000 rpm. I notice when I drive the two of them back to back im barely even getting on the equinox and it accelerates decently but to get the same feeling out of the Malibu I gotta be quite a bit higher up in the rpm range. Did I also mention that my equinox with the 2.0t gets over 30mpg on the highway? In the same conditions my v6 Malibu might get 26 or 27mpg which isn't great considering my built up v8 Camaro gets like 25mpg. So overall in my opinion the benefits of the turbo engine outweigh the negatives but I do agree it would be nice to have the option of having a turbo or a bigger v6.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,898 Posts
I understand im typically an NA person as well after all I do have a decently built v8 Camaro however when it comes to a v6 vs a turbo 4 cylinder I will take the turbo 4 all day. There aren't really any extra items that need maintenance, the turbo doesn't require any extra maintenance and honestly with todays technology the turbo sometimes will outlast everything else on the vehicle. Also an O.E. turbo is cheap and easy to replace if for some reason it goes out. The heat under the hood isn't much of a difference in my experience, now if you are throwing a larger then stock turbo on it or throwing a turbo on a car that didn't originally come with it then I could see heat being an issue. And as far as the load on the engine honestly the power kicks in so much sooner then the v6's do that if anything I think the engine would have less of a load on it in regular driving situations. My equinox at 2500 rpm feels like it has more torque then my v6 Malibu at 4000 rpm. I notice when I drive the two of them back to back im barely even getting on the equinox and it accelerates decently but to get the same feeling out of the Malibu I gotta be quite a bit higher up in the rpm range. Did I also mention that my equinox with the 2.0t gets over 30mpg on the highway? In the same conditions my v6 Malibu might get 26 or 27mpg which isn't great considering my built up v8 Camaro gets like 25mpg. So overall in my opinion the benefits of the turbo engine outweigh the negatives but I do agree it would be nice to have the option of having a turbo or a bigger v6.
I think you make a good point about there not being as much heat as I might be concerned with as well as the probability that these turbos really are good pieces of engineering.

I concede, too, that the 2.0T would likely beat my 3.6NA to the finish line every time. It has about the same HP, but as you mention, its power comes on a bit earlier. Top that off with a body that has been lightened considerably and you have a winning combination.

And then the fact that the 2.0T gets better mileage in a larger vehicle than my 3.6NA does and it's the winner in so many ways. As you mention, I struggle to get to 30 MPG and yet your 'Nox does it without batting an eyelash.

With your comments I see that I had forgotten something that the mfrs may or may not have under control: LSPI or SPI.

LSPI reared its ugly head and it seemed as though consumers were caught off-guard about as much as the manufacturers were. It has caused a great deal of concern for those folks who suffered from it, and even now there are programs in place to help prevent possible issues.

My comment on the life expectancy of the engine had to do with how much stronger it has to be built and how much power is being extracted from such a small displacement. Compare the output of just the tiny 1.5L (92 CID) to a smallish V8 from the 1960's, such as the 265, 283, or 289. Those "small" engines were able to develop 150 HP or more and they did so by spreading the forces across twice as many cylinders as the 1.5L, which means that the little engine has to produce as much power from one cylinder that has about one-third the surface area and displacement as two cylinders did in those older engines. That means that not only do the pistons themselves have to be stronger, but so do the wrist pins, con rods, crankshaft, and block.

I'm not saying that there isn't a benefit to having a stronger block and internals. In fact, I think it's great to over-build things.

What I am saying is that we haven't seen the long-term effects of pressurizing those little engines and then pulling so much power out of them. Will they last? Will they start to burn oil earlier than NA? Will there be mechanical issues? Honestly, I hope that the consumers are the winners, but when dealing with Big Business, history tends to show otherwise. Their decisions tend to be along the lines of making their shareholders happy, not taking care of the hands that feed them — the consumers.

About the only thing that stands on its own merit, then, is the fact that there is more plumbing on a turbo. Whether it's "bad" or not is up to the individual to decide.

Maybe I'm just not ready for a turbo, but it certainly does seem to be the wave of the future.

Unless hybrid and pure electric cars are just around the corner. . . . . (My salvation just might be in development! ;))
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I think you make a good point about there not being as much heat as I might be concerned with as well as the probability that these turbos really are good pieces of engineering.

I concede, too, that the 2.0T would likely beat my 3.6NA to the finish line every time. It has about the same HP, but as you mention, its power comes on a bit earlier. Top that off with a body that has been lightened considerably and you have a winning combination.

And then the fact that the 2.0T gets better mileage in a larger vehicle than my 3.6NA does and it's the winner in so many ways. As you mention, I struggle to get to 30 MPG and yet your 'Nox does it without batting an eyelash.

With your comments I see that I had forgotten something that the mfrs may or may not have under control: LSPI or SPI.

LSPI reared its ugly head and it seemed as though consumers were caught off-guard about as much as the manufacturers were. It has caused a great deal of concern for those folks who suffered from it, and even now there are programs in place to help prevent possible issues.

My comment on the life expectancy of the engine had to do with how much stronger it has to be built and how much power is being extracted from such a small displacement. Compare the output of just the tiny 1.5L (92 CID) to a smallish V8 from the 1960's, such as the 265, 283, or 289. Those "small" engines were able to develop 150 HP or more and they did so by spreading the forces across twice as many cylinders as the 1.5L, which means that the little engine has to produce as much power from one cylinder that has about one-third the surface area and displacement as two cylinders did in those older engines. That means that not only do the pistons themselves have to be stronger, but so do the wrist pins, con rods, crankshaft, and block.

I'm not saying that there isn't a benefit to having a stronger block and internals. In fact, I think it's great to over-build things.

What I am saying is that we haven't seen the long-term effects of pressurizing those little engines and then pulling so much power out of them. Will they last? Will they start to burn oil earlier than NA? Will there be mechanical issues? Honestly, I hope that the consumers are the winners, but when dealing with Big Business, history tends to show otherwise. Their decisions tend to be along the lines of making their shareholders happy, not taking care of the hands that feed them — the consumers.

About the only thing that stands on its own merit, then, is the fact that there is more plumbing on a turbo. Whether it's "bad" or not is up to the individual to decide.

Maybe I'm just not ready for a turbo, but it certainly does seem to be the wave of the future.

Unless hybrid and pure electric cars are just around the corner. . . . . (My salvation just might be in development! ;))
I can definitely see your concerns as being valid especially to most people who have never owned a turbocharged vehicle. I personally wasn't quite as concerned because I previously owned a 97 eclipse GS-T which was turbo and honestly most of the issues I had with it were caused by my own doing and had nothing to do with the factory turbo or the engine. Unfortunately it is kinda hard to gauge how reliable some of these turbo engines are sometimes because a lot of people don't leave them stock especially if it's a sport compact car like the eclipse I had. Its super easy to gain a lot of power out of them with something as simple as a tune, even the trifecta tune for my equinox is supposed to gain over 30 horsepower to the wheels. But from the majority of factory turbo cars I've seen that have been left stock or relatively stock they seem to be pretty reliable. Like you said they are the wave of the future which as being more of an NA guy sucks because they are even starting to replace some v8's with turbo v6's.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
881 Posts
Chevy dealer that services the Co. I work for vans changes a turbo a month on the 1.5 & 2.0's.
My new to me '15 'bu is a 2.5 for that reason. I expect 200k out a car without major repairs.
Wife's 3.6 'nox blows away 2.0T 'nox's easily BTW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Chevy dealer that services the Co. I work for vans changes a turbo a month on the 1.5 & 2.0's.
My new to me '15 'bu is a 2.5 for that reason. I expect 200k out a car without major repairs.
Wife's 3.6 'nox blows away 2.0T 'nox's easily BTW
Thats interesting but most people that have these ecotec turbo motors including a few people i know don't seem to have many issues. Also as far as the 3.6 nox my mom has a 3.6 cadillac srx and it definitely doesn't easily beat my 2.0t nox. Honestly they are pretty even, even if you look at most vehicle tests they are pretty much dead even. I have noticed though that in the 2.0's if its in fwd and you don't turn off the traction control it absolutely kills any power off the line.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
Chevy dealer that services the Co. I work for vans changes a turbo a month on the 1.5 & 2.0's.
Thats interesting. Odd we haven't seen a single gen8 or gen9 turbo replacement report or complaint come through this forum. At least I haven't read of one and can't find one by searching. Perhaps someday.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
881 Posts
Yeah I was surprised myself not seeing anything on the board but we don't see as much as a large dealer and most issues are probably warranty covered so if folks are paying they aren't complaining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
To repair the trans, it would of been roughly $3,000. To replace it with a reman it would of been roughly $3,800. It has the LE5 2.4L (which needs another exhaust manifold)
that's an insane cost, I bought a used transmission for $500 and put it in myself for maybe another $100 of parts I wanted to replace along the way, even at $100/hr I have no idea how they're justifying that cost to you. Oh well I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
that's an insane cost, I bought a used transmission for $500 and put it in myself for maybe another $100 of parts I wanted to replace along the way, even at $100/hr I have no idea how they're justifying that cost to you. Oh well I guess.
you would be surprised how much parts cost for transmissions. I recently bought a transmission for my other car (a 6 speed manual for my Camaro) and it was actually cheaper for me to buy one that was totally rebuilt with upgraded performance parts from a company that regularly builds them then it was for a local shop to just rebuild the transmission that was already in the car. Granted I also had to send my old transmission in to get a core charge back but still its crazy it was cheaper to go that route then to have the local shop replace a few parts inside the transmission.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top