MM Full-Review: 2014 Chevrolet Malibu
03-28-14, 12:36 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
MM Full-Review: 2014 Chevrolet Malibu
A Review of the 2014 Chevrolet Malibu
http://www.chevrolet.com/malibu-mid-size-sedan.html
IN A NUTSHELL: Like the previous version, worthy of more than just the rental-car buisness.
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: Ford Fusion, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Mazda 626, Subaru Legacy, Nissan Altima, Kia Optima, Hyundai Sonata, VW Passat, Buick Regal, Chrysler 200.
(2.0L Turbo shown)
OVERVIEW:
The Malibu has long been a GM staple, tracing its original heritage to the Chevy Chevelle of the early-to-mid 1960s. The Malibu name was originally an upmarket trim level of the Chevelle, and later became especially popular in the high-performance "SS" line with its large-displacement V8s. When I was in high school in the late 1960s, the Malibu SS was a well-respected GM alternative to not only the classic Pontiac GTO (the original mid-sized American muscle-car) and its Olds 442/Buick GS cousins. Not only that, of course, but it also competed very well against the Plymouth/Dodge Road Runner/Super Bee, Dodge Charger R/T, and Ford Torino GT/Mercury Cyclone. Back them, with the exception of the ill-fated Corvair and the limited-production Corvette Sting Ray, merely having the Chevy bow-tie on the grille virtually guaranteed annual six-figure (if not seven) sales numbers. In other words, GM ruled the world. The Malibu, in both standard and SS format, was no exception. Although the Malibu SS had several different large V8s (including some huge 454s), the most popular one was, far and away, the SS396.
Well, we all know what the emissions laws, safety-requirements, stiffening insurance premiums, and the 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo did to American cars (and especially muscle-cars) in the 1970s. I'm not going to rehash all those unpleasant details again....except to describe how it affected the Malibu. In 1973, the 3rd-Generation model debuted, which was (IMO) ugly, underpowered, had poor cold-start engine drivability, was sloppily-built, and prone to squeaks and rattles. The 4th generation model and its corporate cousins, from 1978 to 1983, were the first of the downsized GM intermediates (the full-size GM cars were downsized for 1977). The new Malibu and its cousins, IMO, weren't much of an improvement over the previous 3rd Generation models. In 1983, all of the RWD GM intermediates, including the Malibu, were dropped in favor of the then-new FWD intermediates (including the Chevy Celebrity), which had been built off of stretched versions of the X-Body FWD compact frames.
IMO, the FWD GM cars of the 1980s (and the mid-engined RWD Pontiac Fiero), represented GM at its absolute worst. They ripped off millions of formerly loyal buyers with cars of extremely poor quality that only had a one-year warranty....though a 1/12,000 warranty was considered the norm then. Fortunately, the formerly-respected Malibu nameplate did not have to endure the shame of GM quality control in those days (Chrysler's wasn't worth a darn either)...it simply sat most of those days out. And did GM pay a price? You bet....those poorly-built cars of the 1980s started the company down its long road to ruin and bankrupcy.
By the 1990s, with the exception of the new customer-friendly Saturn division, GM was still building cars of questionable quality/reliability, but some improvement was being made from from the 1980s. The Chevy Celebrity, though, had acquired such a poor reputation that GM, in 1997, did essentially the opposite of what it had done in 1983. This time, they replaced the ill-fated Celebrity with an all-new, 5th-Generation Malibu, this time with FWD.
Although GM still continued to lose customers to other manufacturers (especially Japanese manufacturers and their well-built cars), the 5th Generation Malibu was reasonably successful, especially as a rental car. An all-new sister FWD Oldsmobile Cutlass twin was also introduced alongside of it....which replaced the previous Celebrity-based FWD Cutlass. This Malibu, of course, did not re-claim the iconic glamorous status of the 1960s models 30 years before. But they were quite popular with people who wanted to buy (or rent) a rather plain-Jane mid-sized sedan with decent interior trim, a relatively smooth quiet ride, and a nice enough car to get from Point A to Point B without much fuss. The subsequent 6th-Generation model, from 2004-2008, pretty much retained the car's ho-hum reputation, iffy but not terrible quality, and popularity in the rental-car buisness. A five-door hatchback Malibu Maxx version was added, and, as with many other hatchbacks in the U.S., did not sell anywhere near the comparable sedan numbers.
The 7th-Generation model, IMO, marked a clear break from the past three decades, and, along with its sister Saturn Aura sedan, was a huge improvement. This model did, IMO, bring back some of the magic of the 1960s Malibus, though without the big SS engines. Fit/finish and attention to detail reminded me once again of the old GM "Mark of Excellence" and sound-insulation from decades ago, when I was in school, before it started its long slide downward. I was so impressed with both the new Malibu and Aura (and did some reviews of them) that I seriously considered buying one of the two I slightly preferred the Malibu's interior and its light-blue instrument-panel lights to the garish yellow-orange ones on the Aura. I decided, though, that the AWD security of my Subaru Outback was more important. A mild/partial-hybrid version of the Malibu was added during the 7th-Generation model run.
So, IMO, does the all-new 8th-Generation model (2013) stack up to the excellent previous version? For that, of course, read on.
For 2014, the Malibu is offered in six trim lines.....LS, 1LT, 2LT, 3LT, 1LTZ, and 2LTZ. Base prices run from $22,340 on the LS to $29,950 (essentially 30K) for the 2LTZ. Only one transmission is offered....a standard GM 6-speed FWD automatic. Two different in-line four-cylinder engines are offered. LS, 1LT, 2LT, and 1LTZ models get an Ecotec GM 2.5L in-line four of 196 HP and 191 ft-lbs. of torque with stop/start technology. 3LT and 2LTZ models get a turbocharged 2.0L of 259 HP and 295 ft-lbs. of torque. No V6 is offered....a bummer, IMO, although it's no secret that the new CAFE gas-mileage laws are gradually eliminating larger-displacement powerplants. I'd like to see automakers, however, make smaller V6s that would both have the required gas-mileage AND the added refinement that six cylinders bring...a good example is the 2.5L Lexus V6 I reviewed recently in the IS250.
For the review, since I'm not a fan of engine start/stop systems in general, I chose a 3LT model with the turbo 2.0L engine. I knew that the turbo models had more sport-oriented wheels and tires (and probably a firmer, less-comfortable ride) than the 2.5L non-turbo models, and I've noticed that some other reviewers have also criticized the start/stop system on the base engine for being jerky and unrefined. I also figured, of course, that the 3LT models would, in general, be less-expensive than the top-of-the-line LTZ turbo models. So, I bit the bullet, went inside the big Chevy/Buick/GMC showroom, found the salesman at his desk who had previously sold me my Buick Verano at that same shop, and asked for the keys. He trusted me, and didn't even come out on the lot with me......just went up to the lock-box, handed me the key, a dealer-plate, and said "Have fun, Mike". He knew, of course, that I would be careful, like I always am. So, I checked the tire pressures (some cars have specific dash-readouts for that now, some just rotation-sensors), adjusted seats/mirrors, fired it up, and took off.......
........to the local Sunoco station, that is, right around the corner. Apparantly, no one at the dealership had bothered to check the gas tank. It was almost dry, with the yellow warning lights on....I verified the low range-to-empty on the trip-computer. So, I put a couple of gallons in it (enough for an adequate suburban test-drive and then some), and, once again, took off.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2014 Chevrolet Malibu 3LT
BASE PRICE: $26,850
OPTIONS:
Leather Package/Heated Seats: $1000
Electronics/Entertainment Package: $1175
Advanced Safety Package: $890
Black Granite Metallic Paint: $225
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $825 (about average today for a car this size)
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $30,965
DRIVETRAIN: FWD, transversely-mounted 2.0L turbocharged in-line four, 259 HP @ 5300 RPM, Torque 295 Ft-lbs. @ 3000 RPM, 6-speed automatic transmission with manual sport-shift.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 24 City, 30 Highway, 21 Combined
EXTERIOR COLOR: Black Granite Metallic
INTERIOR: Jet Black Leather
PLUSSES:
Reasonably torquey turbocharged four....but it has to move a fair amount of weight.
Refined, silky-smooth 6-speed transmission (but the FWD GM 6-speed automatics sometimes lose some refinement as they age)
Butter-smooth electric power steering....but not much feel to it.
Very quick steering response for a mainstream family sedan.
Road and wind noise reasonably well controlled.
Relatively firm, responsive brakes.
Generally good ride comfort (but the lower-line tires/wheels probably would have been smoother)
Nice gas strut to support the hood....no manual prop-rod.
Well-done paint jobs.
Nice exterior trim and hardware......except for the mirror housings.
Nice factory body side moldings for paint-protection...but part of optional package.
Specially-treated lower body rocker-panel paint-coating for MORE protection.
Reasonably nice cargo-area/trunk trim.
Generally good outward visibility except for wide C-pillars.
Excellent stereo sound quality.
Relatively nice interior leather.
Reasonably well-done interior *****/switches/hardware, except for the manual-mode transmission shifter.
Extremely wide dealer network for service and repairs.
MINUSES:
Turbo four not as refined as a V6
No V6 engine option available...a real bummer, in my book, for refinement.
Extra-cost paint on my test car.
Underhood top-engine and battery access not good.
Rigid, non-folding side mirror housings.
Interior wood-tone plastic trim (IMO) not very impressive-looking.
Marginal lower front seat cushions for wide rumps.
Awkward (IMO) manual-shifting rocker switch.
Awful brake-pedal location for my size shoe.
Temporary spare tire.
Chevrolet's 3/36 bumper-to-bumper warranty not as good as Buick's 4/50.
EXTERIOR:
The 2014 Malibu carries forward few changes from last year's major redesign. One significant one, though, is the new oval-shaped grille that adds just a touch of a more aggressive look from last year. The horizontal mid-height bar with the gold Chevy bow-tie remains, however, and instantly identifies the Malibu as a Chevrolet product. Some people don't care for the way that Chevy does the gold bow-tie and horzontal bar front end (they think it looks gaudy). I myself like it, and feel it is one of the most handsome logos in the auto industry. In fact, I wish Buick, in the U.S., would go back to its traditional red/white/blue triple-shield instead of the current chrome-outline one. They still use the traditional one in China, where the Chinese just love Buicks.
The new Malibu's exterior sheet metal is fairly solid and well-assembled with minimal panel-gaps. The four doors, though, don't feel quite as solid as they do on the Buick Verano or Regal. Perhaps (?) this is because the Verano and Regal, unlike the (mostly) American-designed Malibu, use what are esentially rebadged German Opel platforms, chassis, and sheet metal. The Malibu's doors, though, do close smoothly and precisely. Almost perfectly-placed to ward off parking-lot dings were a NICE set of fairly thick, factory-installed, body-color side moldings. Too many vehicles omit those mouldings nowadays....though GM seems to be getting the message from customer complaints now. The only problem is.....according to the price-sticker, the moldings are (oddly) part of the optional ($1175) Electronics/Entertainment Package, which, of course, my test-car had. I can't quite understand that one...go figure.
The bean-counters, though, DID strike with the rigid, non-swiveling side-mirror housings. Most new cars these days have full-swivel or spring-loaded housings. Normally, that's not a big deal for me. But, occasionally I bump into the housing with my arms, legs, or torso when I'm washing a car, and it's nice for the housing to have some give. Most of the Malibu paint jobs, as with today's GM products in general, are quite well-done, including the Black Granite Metallic color on my test car, But I don't see where GM has to charge $225 for it over some other colors, especially since some other metallic colors do not cary that extra charge. Not only that, but Chevy's Malibu website shows a $195 charge for that color, not the $225 on the car's price-sticker. Chevy, according tothe website, also charges extra ($395) for the Crystal Red Tintcoat (the same color on my Buick Verano, wich also was extra). Overall, I didn't think the nine exterior color choices offered (including the Atlantis Blue) were bad, but I saw little need for two silvers. All of the exterior trim and hardware was well-done and slickly-applied. GM has made light-year advancements in the overall fit/finish of their exteriors even from as recently as just before the 2009 buyout...though the last-generation Malibu and Saturn Aura were also a major improvement as well.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the fairly solid-feeling hood, and a large single gas strut (a nice touch), on the right, holds it up for you instead of fumbling with a manual prop-rod. There is the usual insulation pad on the underside of the hood to help keep the engine quiet. Underneath, the transversely-mounted 2.0L turbo four fits in fairly well, but the big black plastic engine cover blocks almost all of the top access. There is some room to reach side-block components, but not much. The battery is up front, close on the right, but underneath a cover that blocks easy access. As usual, filler-caps, dipsticks, and fluid reservoirs can generally be reached easily, with minimal problems.
INTERIOR:
Overall, I wasn't quite as impressed with the interior on the new Malibu as I was with the last-generation interior (much of which was shared with the Saturn Aura). Not that there were any serious problems in the new one (there weren't), but it just didn't seem to look as slick or nicely-integrated. It had more of a hapazardly-designed appearance, IMO.
Overhead, the ceiling headliner and sun visors had decent-feeling material covering them, though not particularly soft. Headroom was fine in the front seat for taller people. The front seats had relatively nice-feeling leather. They were generally comfortable unless, like me, you had a big rump trying to fit into a marginal lower-cushion width. Still, even then, the discomfort was minimal. The side-bolsters weren't sharp and high- raised like on sport-oriented cars, which makes the discomfort for wide rumps even more. Power-adustments took care of most motions of the front seats...there was little you had to do by hand. The two main primary gauges (and the smaller secondaries) were clear and easy to read. But I didn't think they looked quite as well-set in the dash as with the last-generation Malibu. The leather-covered steering wheel is pretty much the same standard shape (and spokes) that is used on most GM products today, though the trim itself varies by make and model. The stereo sound quality is very good...as good, IMO, as in some lower-line Lexus products, though not quite to Mark Levinson levels. The glovebox door lid felt a little thin, but its lock/latch was solid. The basic controls/***** weren't bad, generally well-attached and generally easy to operate. But the center-dash buttons felt thin and like they would fail with with repeated use. The video-screen, though complex (what screen isn't these days?) seemed more user-friendly and easier to adjust than many systems I've seen from Ford/Lincoln, Cadillac, BMW, and Audi. The transmission shift lever, on the console, had a nice convienient fore/aft motion (no zig-zags). But the plastic +/- rocker switch on top of the shift lever for manual-mode shifting had, IMO, an awkward feel/motion to it.
Some Malibu reviewers in the auto press have panned the rear seat as too cramped. I partly but don't entirely agree. Even with my 6' 2" and 280-lb. size, I didn't find it bad at all in the legroom department, partly due to the scooped-out front seat-backs that makes some extra room for knees. But the rear headroom was marginal for tall persons my size. And, like with most sedans these days, tall people have to duck their heads getting in and out of the rear seat. The locks that anchored/released the rear seatbacks felt and sounded like something off of a tank....more on that below in the CARGO COMPARTMENT section.
Like with the exterior, though not bad overall, I didn't think that the new Malibu's interior had materials quite as solid inside as in the Buick Verano or Regal...again, perhaps because of those interior's German origins and the Malibu's being more domestic.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
Open the solid-feeling trunk (it closes with a nice precise solid thunk), and you (and the luggage) are treated to a fairly nice level of cargo-area trim. It's not quite a carpet of luxury-car grade, but the fairly thick, soft gray fabric does have a nice touch and feel to it. The cargo area and trunk lid are fairly well-shaped, so you can fit items in and out of reasonable size. Cargo room is pretty good by mid-size sedan standards. The split rear seats fold down 40/60 to increase the room. For some reason, Chevy used lock-latch hardware for the rear seatbacks that feels and sounds like something off of an Abrams battle-tank.......it's THAT solid. Just extra security, I guess, for the seatback in an accident. Under the floor is (yep) another temporary spare tire.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 2.0L turbo four with an old-fashioned ignition key and side-column switch (START/STOP buttons are reserved for top-line LTZ models). The small four fires up and idles reasonably smooth and quiet, but GM has never been known for truly refined fours (one more reason why a small V6 should be available). Under throttle, the turbo four is reasonably quick. But, with a sedan this size, even without AWD, it drags around some weight (3600-3700 lbs., and I myself am not light). Still, if needed, it can deliver. I did not push it over 4000 RPM, of course, because it was a brand-new engine, unbroken-in. But Car & Driver magazine, in their not-so-gentle testing, got a 14.8 second quarter-mile, which is in the league of some of the 60s-era muscle-cars I grew up with.
The 6-speed transmission was butter-smooth in its shifting/operation, even in manual mode, though I've already commented on the awkward-feeling rocker-switch for manual shifts. Some versions of GM FWD 6-speed automatics also have a tendency to develop slight bumps and erratic operation in their operaton as they age, though I didn't notice much of that in the admittedly brand-new Malibu.
The chassis, IMO, was suprisingly competent, though not quite as much as the superb chassis on the new big-brother Chevy Impala. Steering response was very quick for a family-sedan of this class. The steering action itself felt butter-smooth, though the road-feel was minimal (typical of many electric power steering units). Body lean in cornering was minimal and well-controlled. Wind noise, as in most GM products, was well-controlled. There was some road noise on rough/porous surfaces, but it was not loud or objectionable. Ride comfort, by my tastes, was not bad, with only minimal impact/harshness on bumps. But, with the smaller wheels and higher-profile tires on the non-turbo 2.5L Malibu versions, the ride would probably would have been even smoother. I'd like to see Chevy offer the smoother-riding wheels/tires as a no-cost option on the turbo models like Kia did on the Optima EX Turbo until this year. But I don't think that is going to happen, as most auto manufacturers seem to think that more power has to mean more supension stiffness. The brakes were a mixed bag. They actually performed quite well, with firm responsiveness and almost very little mush in the pedal. But the location of the brake pedal, in relation to the gas pedal, was atrocious. I had to be very careful lifting my big size-15 Clod-Hopper shoe off the gas and going to the brake. Otherwise, it would find a way to hang up under the brake pedal as sure as a wino finds a bottle.
THE VERDICT:
So, to sum up, I was generally pleased with this car, but not quite to the extent of either its own predecessor or to its superb big-brother Impala V6. Some people (including a well-known CL member) have called the car lifeless and boring, too Camry-like. Yes, on an interstate, it CAN be boring, but that is probably more of a function of the road than the car. On a twisty road, the chassis, though not world-class, can give a reasonable account of itself, while at the same time retaining at least a reasonably smooth ride....even smoother on the base wheels/tires. GM's well-known sound insulation pays off in good wind-noise control, though some road rumble comes through from the tires. Overall, though, I think this car competes quite well with most of its domestic, European, Japanese, and Korean competition. It is reasonably priced, probably won't break your bank account except in top versions, and drives with generally good road manners. For those who can't afford the more expensive Impala, the Malibu is a good alternative...though not quite as impressive in the comfort department. The only major changes to the new Malibu I'd make, if it were me, is to offer a conventional non-turbo V6 option and make the base-level wheel/tires available on the turbo verson for a smoother ride. However, the ride even with the more sport-oriented wheels/tires is not bad. So, for those of you who like this car or are interested in it, I think that there are lots worse ways to spend one's automotive dollars. And, of course, with the Chevy name, in the U.S., you can get it repaired or serviced at one of the most widespread dealer-networks in the industry.
As always......Happy car-shopping.
MM
http://www.chevrolet.com/malibu-mid-size-sedan.html
IN A NUTSHELL: Like the previous version, worthy of more than just the rental-car buisness.
CLOSEST AMERICAN-MARKET COMPETITORS: Ford Fusion, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Mazda 626, Subaru Legacy, Nissan Altima, Kia Optima, Hyundai Sonata, VW Passat, Buick Regal, Chrysler 200.
(2.0L Turbo shown)
OVERVIEW:
The Malibu has long been a GM staple, tracing its original heritage to the Chevy Chevelle of the early-to-mid 1960s. The Malibu name was originally an upmarket trim level of the Chevelle, and later became especially popular in the high-performance "SS" line with its large-displacement V8s. When I was in high school in the late 1960s, the Malibu SS was a well-respected GM alternative to not only the classic Pontiac GTO (the original mid-sized American muscle-car) and its Olds 442/Buick GS cousins. Not only that, of course, but it also competed very well against the Plymouth/Dodge Road Runner/Super Bee, Dodge Charger R/T, and Ford Torino GT/Mercury Cyclone. Back them, with the exception of the ill-fated Corvair and the limited-production Corvette Sting Ray, merely having the Chevy bow-tie on the grille virtually guaranteed annual six-figure (if not seven) sales numbers. In other words, GM ruled the world. The Malibu, in both standard and SS format, was no exception. Although the Malibu SS had several different large V8s (including some huge 454s), the most popular one was, far and away, the SS396.
Well, we all know what the emissions laws, safety-requirements, stiffening insurance premiums, and the 1973-74 Arab Oil Embargo did to American cars (and especially muscle-cars) in the 1970s. I'm not going to rehash all those unpleasant details again....except to describe how it affected the Malibu. In 1973, the 3rd-Generation model debuted, which was (IMO) ugly, underpowered, had poor cold-start engine drivability, was sloppily-built, and prone to squeaks and rattles. The 4th generation model and its corporate cousins, from 1978 to 1983, were the first of the downsized GM intermediates (the full-size GM cars were downsized for 1977). The new Malibu and its cousins, IMO, weren't much of an improvement over the previous 3rd Generation models. In 1983, all of the RWD GM intermediates, including the Malibu, were dropped in favor of the then-new FWD intermediates (including the Chevy Celebrity), which had been built off of stretched versions of the X-Body FWD compact frames.
IMO, the FWD GM cars of the 1980s (and the mid-engined RWD Pontiac Fiero), represented GM at its absolute worst. They ripped off millions of formerly loyal buyers with cars of extremely poor quality that only had a one-year warranty....though a 1/12,000 warranty was considered the norm then. Fortunately, the formerly-respected Malibu nameplate did not have to endure the shame of GM quality control in those days (Chrysler's wasn't worth a darn either)...it simply sat most of those days out. And did GM pay a price? You bet....those poorly-built cars of the 1980s started the company down its long road to ruin and bankrupcy.
By the 1990s, with the exception of the new customer-friendly Saturn division, GM was still building cars of questionable quality/reliability, but some improvement was being made from from the 1980s. The Chevy Celebrity, though, had acquired such a poor reputation that GM, in 1997, did essentially the opposite of what it had done in 1983. This time, they replaced the ill-fated Celebrity with an all-new, 5th-Generation Malibu, this time with FWD.
Although GM still continued to lose customers to other manufacturers (especially Japanese manufacturers and their well-built cars), the 5th Generation Malibu was reasonably successful, especially as a rental car. An all-new sister FWD Oldsmobile Cutlass twin was also introduced alongside of it....which replaced the previous Celebrity-based FWD Cutlass. This Malibu, of course, did not re-claim the iconic glamorous status of the 1960s models 30 years before. But they were quite popular with people who wanted to buy (or rent) a rather plain-Jane mid-sized sedan with decent interior trim, a relatively smooth quiet ride, and a nice enough car to get from Point A to Point B without much fuss. The subsequent 6th-Generation model, from 2004-2008, pretty much retained the car's ho-hum reputation, iffy but not terrible quality, and popularity in the rental-car buisness. A five-door hatchback Malibu Maxx version was added, and, as with many other hatchbacks in the U.S., did not sell anywhere near the comparable sedan numbers.
The 7th-Generation model, IMO, marked a clear break from the past three decades, and, along with its sister Saturn Aura sedan, was a huge improvement. This model did, IMO, bring back some of the magic of the 1960s Malibus, though without the big SS engines. Fit/finish and attention to detail reminded me once again of the old GM "Mark of Excellence" and sound-insulation from decades ago, when I was in school, before it started its long slide downward. I was so impressed with both the new Malibu and Aura (and did some reviews of them) that I seriously considered buying one of the two I slightly preferred the Malibu's interior and its light-blue instrument-panel lights to the garish yellow-orange ones on the Aura. I decided, though, that the AWD security of my Subaru Outback was more important. A mild/partial-hybrid version of the Malibu was added during the 7th-Generation model run.
So, IMO, does the all-new 8th-Generation model (2013) stack up to the excellent previous version? For that, of course, read on.
For 2014, the Malibu is offered in six trim lines.....LS, 1LT, 2LT, 3LT, 1LTZ, and 2LTZ. Base prices run from $22,340 on the LS to $29,950 (essentially 30K) for the 2LTZ. Only one transmission is offered....a standard GM 6-speed FWD automatic. Two different in-line four-cylinder engines are offered. LS, 1LT, 2LT, and 1LTZ models get an Ecotec GM 2.5L in-line four of 196 HP and 191 ft-lbs. of torque with stop/start technology. 3LT and 2LTZ models get a turbocharged 2.0L of 259 HP and 295 ft-lbs. of torque. No V6 is offered....a bummer, IMO, although it's no secret that the new CAFE gas-mileage laws are gradually eliminating larger-displacement powerplants. I'd like to see automakers, however, make smaller V6s that would both have the required gas-mileage AND the added refinement that six cylinders bring...a good example is the 2.5L Lexus V6 I reviewed recently in the IS250.
For the review, since I'm not a fan of engine start/stop systems in general, I chose a 3LT model with the turbo 2.0L engine. I knew that the turbo models had more sport-oriented wheels and tires (and probably a firmer, less-comfortable ride) than the 2.5L non-turbo models, and I've noticed that some other reviewers have also criticized the start/stop system on the base engine for being jerky and unrefined. I also figured, of course, that the 3LT models would, in general, be less-expensive than the top-of-the-line LTZ turbo models. So, I bit the bullet, went inside the big Chevy/Buick/GMC showroom, found the salesman at his desk who had previously sold me my Buick Verano at that same shop, and asked for the keys. He trusted me, and didn't even come out on the lot with me......just went up to the lock-box, handed me the key, a dealer-plate, and said "Have fun, Mike". He knew, of course, that I would be careful, like I always am. So, I checked the tire pressures (some cars have specific dash-readouts for that now, some just rotation-sensors), adjusted seats/mirrors, fired it up, and took off.......
........to the local Sunoco station, that is, right around the corner. Apparantly, no one at the dealership had bothered to check the gas tank. It was almost dry, with the yellow warning lights on....I verified the low range-to-empty on the trip-computer. So, I put a couple of gallons in it (enough for an adequate suburban test-drive and then some), and, once again, took off.
MODEL REVIEWED: 2014 Chevrolet Malibu 3LT
BASE PRICE: $26,850
OPTIONS:
Leather Package/Heated Seats: $1000
Electronics/Entertainment Package: $1175
Advanced Safety Package: $890
Black Granite Metallic Paint: $225
DESTINATION/FREIGHT: $825 (about average today for a car this size)
LIST PRICE AS REVIEWED: $30,965
DRIVETRAIN: FWD, transversely-mounted 2.0L turbocharged in-line four, 259 HP @ 5300 RPM, Torque 295 Ft-lbs. @ 3000 RPM, 6-speed automatic transmission with manual sport-shift.
EPA MILEAGE RATING: 24 City, 30 Highway, 21 Combined
EXTERIOR COLOR: Black Granite Metallic
INTERIOR: Jet Black Leather
PLUSSES:
Reasonably torquey turbocharged four....but it has to move a fair amount of weight.
Refined, silky-smooth 6-speed transmission (but the FWD GM 6-speed automatics sometimes lose some refinement as they age)
Butter-smooth electric power steering....but not much feel to it.
Very quick steering response for a mainstream family sedan.
Road and wind noise reasonably well controlled.
Relatively firm, responsive brakes.
Generally good ride comfort (but the lower-line tires/wheels probably would have been smoother)
Nice gas strut to support the hood....no manual prop-rod.
Well-done paint jobs.
Nice exterior trim and hardware......except for the mirror housings.
Nice factory body side moldings for paint-protection...but part of optional package.
Specially-treated lower body rocker-panel paint-coating for MORE protection.
Reasonably nice cargo-area/trunk trim.
Generally good outward visibility except for wide C-pillars.
Excellent stereo sound quality.
Relatively nice interior leather.
Reasonably well-done interior *****/switches/hardware, except for the manual-mode transmission shifter.
Extremely wide dealer network for service and repairs.
MINUSES:
Turbo four not as refined as a V6
No V6 engine option available...a real bummer, in my book, for refinement.
Extra-cost paint on my test car.
Underhood top-engine and battery access not good.
Rigid, non-folding side mirror housings.
Interior wood-tone plastic trim (IMO) not very impressive-looking.
Marginal lower front seat cushions for wide rumps.
Awkward (IMO) manual-shifting rocker switch.
Awful brake-pedal location for my size shoe.
Temporary spare tire.
Chevrolet's 3/36 bumper-to-bumper warranty not as good as Buick's 4/50.
EXTERIOR:
The 2014 Malibu carries forward few changes from last year's major redesign. One significant one, though, is the new oval-shaped grille that adds just a touch of a more aggressive look from last year. The horizontal mid-height bar with the gold Chevy bow-tie remains, however, and instantly identifies the Malibu as a Chevrolet product. Some people don't care for the way that Chevy does the gold bow-tie and horzontal bar front end (they think it looks gaudy). I myself like it, and feel it is one of the most handsome logos in the auto industry. In fact, I wish Buick, in the U.S., would go back to its traditional red/white/blue triple-shield instead of the current chrome-outline one. They still use the traditional one in China, where the Chinese just love Buicks.
The new Malibu's exterior sheet metal is fairly solid and well-assembled with minimal panel-gaps. The four doors, though, don't feel quite as solid as they do on the Buick Verano or Regal. Perhaps (?) this is because the Verano and Regal, unlike the (mostly) American-designed Malibu, use what are esentially rebadged German Opel platforms, chassis, and sheet metal. The Malibu's doors, though, do close smoothly and precisely. Almost perfectly-placed to ward off parking-lot dings were a NICE set of fairly thick, factory-installed, body-color side moldings. Too many vehicles omit those mouldings nowadays....though GM seems to be getting the message from customer complaints now. The only problem is.....according to the price-sticker, the moldings are (oddly) part of the optional ($1175) Electronics/Entertainment Package, which, of course, my test-car had. I can't quite understand that one...go figure.
The bean-counters, though, DID strike with the rigid, non-swiveling side-mirror housings. Most new cars these days have full-swivel or spring-loaded housings. Normally, that's not a big deal for me. But, occasionally I bump into the housing with my arms, legs, or torso when I'm washing a car, and it's nice for the housing to have some give. Most of the Malibu paint jobs, as with today's GM products in general, are quite well-done, including the Black Granite Metallic color on my test car, But I don't see where GM has to charge $225 for it over some other colors, especially since some other metallic colors do not cary that extra charge. Not only that, but Chevy's Malibu website shows a $195 charge for that color, not the $225 on the car's price-sticker. Chevy, according tothe website, also charges extra ($395) for the Crystal Red Tintcoat (the same color on my Buick Verano, wich also was extra). Overall, I didn't think the nine exterior color choices offered (including the Atlantis Blue) were bad, but I saw little need for two silvers. All of the exterior trim and hardware was well-done and slickly-applied. GM has made light-year advancements in the overall fit/finish of their exteriors even from as recently as just before the 2009 buyout...though the last-generation Malibu and Saturn Aura were also a major improvement as well.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the fairly solid-feeling hood, and a large single gas strut (a nice touch), on the right, holds it up for you instead of fumbling with a manual prop-rod. There is the usual insulation pad on the underside of the hood to help keep the engine quiet. Underneath, the transversely-mounted 2.0L turbo four fits in fairly well, but the big black plastic engine cover blocks almost all of the top access. There is some room to reach side-block components, but not much. The battery is up front, close on the right, but underneath a cover that blocks easy access. As usual, filler-caps, dipsticks, and fluid reservoirs can generally be reached easily, with minimal problems.
INTERIOR:
Overall, I wasn't quite as impressed with the interior on the new Malibu as I was with the last-generation interior (much of which was shared with the Saturn Aura). Not that there were any serious problems in the new one (there weren't), but it just didn't seem to look as slick or nicely-integrated. It had more of a hapazardly-designed appearance, IMO.
Overhead, the ceiling headliner and sun visors had decent-feeling material covering them, though not particularly soft. Headroom was fine in the front seat for taller people. The front seats had relatively nice-feeling leather. They were generally comfortable unless, like me, you had a big rump trying to fit into a marginal lower-cushion width. Still, even then, the discomfort was minimal. The side-bolsters weren't sharp and high- raised like on sport-oriented cars, which makes the discomfort for wide rumps even more. Power-adustments took care of most motions of the front seats...there was little you had to do by hand. The two main primary gauges (and the smaller secondaries) were clear and easy to read. But I didn't think they looked quite as well-set in the dash as with the last-generation Malibu. The leather-covered steering wheel is pretty much the same standard shape (and spokes) that is used on most GM products today, though the trim itself varies by make and model. The stereo sound quality is very good...as good, IMO, as in some lower-line Lexus products, though not quite to Mark Levinson levels. The glovebox door lid felt a little thin, but its lock/latch was solid. The basic controls/***** weren't bad, generally well-attached and generally easy to operate. But the center-dash buttons felt thin and like they would fail with with repeated use. The video-screen, though complex (what screen isn't these days?) seemed more user-friendly and easier to adjust than many systems I've seen from Ford/Lincoln, Cadillac, BMW, and Audi. The transmission shift lever, on the console, had a nice convienient fore/aft motion (no zig-zags). But the plastic +/- rocker switch on top of the shift lever for manual-mode shifting had, IMO, an awkward feel/motion to it.
Some Malibu reviewers in the auto press have panned the rear seat as too cramped. I partly but don't entirely agree. Even with my 6' 2" and 280-lb. size, I didn't find it bad at all in the legroom department, partly due to the scooped-out front seat-backs that makes some extra room for knees. But the rear headroom was marginal for tall persons my size. And, like with most sedans these days, tall people have to duck their heads getting in and out of the rear seat. The locks that anchored/released the rear seatbacks felt and sounded like something off of a tank....more on that below in the CARGO COMPARTMENT section.
Like with the exterior, though not bad overall, I didn't think that the new Malibu's interior had materials quite as solid inside as in the Buick Verano or Regal...again, perhaps because of those interior's German origins and the Malibu's being more domestic.
CARGO COMPARTMENT/TRUNK:
Open the solid-feeling trunk (it closes with a nice precise solid thunk), and you (and the luggage) are treated to a fairly nice level of cargo-area trim. It's not quite a carpet of luxury-car grade, but the fairly thick, soft gray fabric does have a nice touch and feel to it. The cargo area and trunk lid are fairly well-shaped, so you can fit items in and out of reasonable size. Cargo room is pretty good by mid-size sedan standards. The split rear seats fold down 40/60 to increase the room. For some reason, Chevy used lock-latch hardware for the rear seatbacks that feels and sounds like something off of an Abrams battle-tank.......it's THAT solid. Just extra security, I guess, for the seatback in an accident. Under the floor is (yep) another temporary spare tire.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 2.0L turbo four with an old-fashioned ignition key and side-column switch (START/STOP buttons are reserved for top-line LTZ models). The small four fires up and idles reasonably smooth and quiet, but GM has never been known for truly refined fours (one more reason why a small V6 should be available). Under throttle, the turbo four is reasonably quick. But, with a sedan this size, even without AWD, it drags around some weight (3600-3700 lbs., and I myself am not light). Still, if needed, it can deliver. I did not push it over 4000 RPM, of course, because it was a brand-new engine, unbroken-in. But Car & Driver magazine, in their not-so-gentle testing, got a 14.8 second quarter-mile, which is in the league of some of the 60s-era muscle-cars I grew up with.
The 6-speed transmission was butter-smooth in its shifting/operation, even in manual mode, though I've already commented on the awkward-feeling rocker-switch for manual shifts. Some versions of GM FWD 6-speed automatics also have a tendency to develop slight bumps and erratic operation in their operaton as they age, though I didn't notice much of that in the admittedly brand-new Malibu.
The chassis, IMO, was suprisingly competent, though not quite as much as the superb chassis on the new big-brother Chevy Impala. Steering response was very quick for a family-sedan of this class. The steering action itself felt butter-smooth, though the road-feel was minimal (typical of many electric power steering units). Body lean in cornering was minimal and well-controlled. Wind noise, as in most GM products, was well-controlled. There was some road noise on rough/porous surfaces, but it was not loud or objectionable. Ride comfort, by my tastes, was not bad, with only minimal impact/harshness on bumps. But, with the smaller wheels and higher-profile tires on the non-turbo 2.5L Malibu versions, the ride would probably would have been even smoother. I'd like to see Chevy offer the smoother-riding wheels/tires as a no-cost option on the turbo models like Kia did on the Optima EX Turbo until this year. But I don't think that is going to happen, as most auto manufacturers seem to think that more power has to mean more supension stiffness. The brakes were a mixed bag. They actually performed quite well, with firm responsiveness and almost very little mush in the pedal. But the location of the brake pedal, in relation to the gas pedal, was atrocious. I had to be very careful lifting my big size-15 Clod-Hopper shoe off the gas and going to the brake. Otherwise, it would find a way to hang up under the brake pedal as sure as a wino finds a bottle.
THE VERDICT:
So, to sum up, I was generally pleased with this car, but not quite to the extent of either its own predecessor or to its superb big-brother Impala V6. Some people (including a well-known CL member) have called the car lifeless and boring, too Camry-like. Yes, on an interstate, it CAN be boring, but that is probably more of a function of the road than the car. On a twisty road, the chassis, though not world-class, can give a reasonable account of itself, while at the same time retaining at least a reasonably smooth ride....even smoother on the base wheels/tires. GM's well-known sound insulation pays off in good wind-noise control, though some road rumble comes through from the tires. Overall, though, I think this car competes quite well with most of its domestic, European, Japanese, and Korean competition. It is reasonably priced, probably won't break your bank account except in top versions, and drives with generally good road manners. For those who can't afford the more expensive Impala, the Malibu is a good alternative...though not quite as impressive in the comfort department. The only major changes to the new Malibu I'd make, if it were me, is to offer a conventional non-turbo V6 option and make the base-level wheel/tires available on the turbo verson for a smoother ride. However, the ride even with the more sport-oriented wheels/tires is not bad. So, for those of you who like this car or are interested in it, I think that there are lots worse ways to spend one's automotive dollars. And, of course, with the Chevy name, in the U.S., you can get it repaired or serviced at one of the most widespread dealer-networks in the industry.
As always......Happy car-shopping.
MM
Last edited by mmarshall; 03-28-14 at 01:11 PM.
03-28-14, 01:08 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
The only problem is that they are part of an expensive $1175 Electronics/Entertainment package. Whoever in the Chevy marketing department managed to dream THAT one up, I have no idea. 
03-28-14, 01:15 PM
#4
Lexus Champion
Thanks, but did you read the EXTERIOR part of the review? The 2014 Malibu (including my test car) HAS moldings....and very good ones at that. The only problem is that they are part of an expensive $1175 Electronics/Entertainment package. Whoever in the Chevy marketing department managed to dream THAT one up, I have no idea.
The only problem is that they are part of an expensive $1175 Electronics/Entertainment package. Whoever in the Chevy marketing department managed to dream THAT one up, I have no idea. ahh I missed that....I just scanned the pics and didn't see them on any.
03-28-14, 01:19 PM
#5
Wow you've been busy Mike. The IS250 AWD not just a few days ago and now this, nice work 
I liked the 2008 exterior a little moreso than this current 2014, but the interior seems better on the latter.
Does the Navi/Infotainment screen pop open for storage like the Impala I think is the other Chevy that does that?
Yeah I'm not the fan of the +/- on the actual shifters. I'd prefer actual paddles or a forward/backward motion with the shifter.
I liked the 2008 exterior a little moreso than this current 2014, but the interior seems better on the latter.
Does the Navi/Infotainment screen pop open for storage like the Impala I think is the other Chevy that does that?
Yeah I'm not the fan of the +/- on the actual shifters. I'd prefer actual paddles or a forward/backward motion with the shifter.
03-28-14, 01:35 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
By CL-member request, I plan to review a new Audi A3 sedan (no more hatchback in the U.S.), but it's not released yet here in the D.C. area. You might (?) get it out there in CA before we do.
I liked the 2008 exterior a little more so than this current 2014, but the interior seems better on the latter.
Does the Navi/Infotainment screen pop open for storage like the Impala I think is the other Chevy that does that?
Yeah I'm not the fan of the +/- on the actual shifters. I'd prefer actual paddles or a forward/backward motion with the shifter.
The rocker-switch wouldn't be so bad if it were about halfway up on the left side of the lever, and you could +/- it back and forth with your right thumb. But to have it on top, where your thumb doesn't naturally rest, is awkward.
Last edited by mmarshall; 03-28-14 at 01:54 PM.
03-28-14, 01:59 PM
#7
On my particular car, the NAV screen seemed to be an integral part of the center-dash. I don't remember it having any other functions...but I could (?) have missed one.
The new Impala also has that awkward rocker-switch on the lever...one if its FEW shortcomings, IMO.
The rocker-switch wouldn't be so bad if it were on the left side of the lever, and you could +/- it back and forth with your right thumb. But to have it on top, where your thumb doesn't naturally rest, is awkward.
The new Impala also has that awkward rocker-switch on the lever...one if its FEW shortcomings, IMO.
The rocker-switch wouldn't be so bad if it were on the left side of the lever, and you could +/- it back and forth with your right thumb. But to have it on top, where your thumb doesn't naturally rest, is awkward.
Yeah not a fan of those little switches. Some newer Fords including the 2011-14 Mustang use this toggle instead of proper paddles on the Auto models
Trending Topics
03-28-14, 02:06 PM
#8
Lexus Champion
03-28-14, 02:08 PM
#9
Lexus Test Driver
Ok, I only ask because of this Impala commercial, wasn't sure if they implemented it into the Malibu 0:46
Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mstSE1weBk
Yeah not a fan of those little switches. Some newer Fords including the 2011-14 Mustang use this toggle instead of proper paddles on the Auto models
Sent from my Nexus 4 using IB AutoGroup
03-28-14, 02:14 PM
#11
I think the Acura TSX's 2.4L Inline 4, naturally aspirated and without direct injection, is nearly as smooth, and achieves similar numbers to the Lexus 2.5L V6.
03-28-14, 02:34 PM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I think the Acura TSX's 2.4L Inline 4, naturally aspirated and without direct injection, is nearly as smooth, and achieves similar numbers to the Lexus 2.5L V6.
03-28-14, 02:47 PM
#13
2.5L V6 21/30/24 3,461lbs IS250 RWD Auto 204hp 185lbft (DI)
2.4L I4 22/31/26 3,479lbs TSX FWD Auto 201hp 170lbft
Those are extremely close stats, but those two cylinders do make a difference in refinement, pitting the IS and TSX on two different levels
And for s***s and giggles:
2.5L I4 25/36/xx 3532lbs Malibu 2LT FWD Auto 196hp 191lbft (DI)
2.4L I4 22/31/26 3,479lbs TSX FWD Auto 201hp 170lbft
Those are extremely close stats, but those two cylinders do make a difference in refinement, pitting the IS and TSX on two different levels
And for s***s and giggles:
2.5L I4 25/36/xx 3532lbs Malibu 2LT FWD Auto 196hp 191lbft (DI)
03-28-14, 08:24 PM
#15
Lexus Test Driver
So I'm surprised no one has mentioned how dated the center stack is. This alone would be a deal-breaker for me. It is straight out of the 90's, with zero style, creativity, originality, or progression. Basically a tall rectangle anyone could have sketched on a piece of paper in two seconds. 