While we await GM's next Next Big Thing, one of The General's generals is touting one of its last next big things: the new Chevrolet Malibu. Speaking to the Detroit Free Press, Chevy Chief Ed Peper revealed that "38% of Malibu buyers are trading in a non-GM vehicle, another key goal, and that the Camry is the car most frequently traded in." So, what time period are we talking about? Since the new 'Bu debuted? Last month? Quarter? Not specified. If Ed's talking about March, 38 percent of 15,082 total sales equals 5731 Camry defectors. During that same month, Toyota sold 40,487 Camrys. Oh, are those stats for ALL Malibu sales– including fleets– or just retail? Not specified. But hey! The International Tribune reports that GM's new six-speed gearbox has finally made it to the four-cylinder Malibu. What's more, it bumps highway mpgs by two, beating Camry and Accord by one (and equaling the Malibu Hybrid's highway rating). Unfortunately, the new 'Bu's new box is restricted (until next year) to the $27,745 LTZ trim level– $7500 more than the four-speed base 'Bu. Or $7975 more than the base, five-speed Camry. We now return you to your regular cheerleading.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I don’t understand. If they have the six-speed/four-pot combo ready to go, then why limit it by putting it on the highest trim? If this was the base powertrain, I think they’d catch more eyes.
“38% of Malibu buyers are trading in a non-GM vehicle, another key goal, and that the Camry is the car most frequently traded in.”
Hmmm, and during that same time period how many GM products were traded in, or scrapped out for, non-GM vehicles?
It would also be interesting to know these two numbers:
A) 1st Quarter 2007 total retail Malibu + Impala + LaCrosse + G6 + Aura sales
vs.
B) 1st Quarter 2008 total for the same vehicles.
I highly doubt that B is greater than A.
Speaking of the Aura, what happened to that game changer?
“I don’t understand. If they have the six-speed/four-pot combo ready to go, then why limit it by putting it on the highest trim?”
They probably have limited supply and high costs as the new design is ramped up.
With the high demand and low supply of these cars, selling any to fleets would be a horrible decision. (Unless, of course, you’re making them pay MSRP)
I’m not seeing many new Malibus on the road so I’d venture to guess that they aren’t doing much in the way of fleet sales. I’d agree that it’s more likely a supply issue. The new one does look better than the old model by an order of magnitude (at least from pics as I’ve yet to get a look at one of these up close in person).
I’m actually pretty happy to see them make improvements to the car like this (4-cyl with improved transmission). If the mileage figures pan out then I could imagine highway mileage easily creeping into the mid 30’s if driven judiciously.
I guess there’s only 2 drawbacks here:
1. The 4-cyl/6-speed combo is fairly expensive relative to the Toyota and Honda 4-cyl/5-speed offerings that provide comparable mileage(a bit less on the highway).
2. The Malibu hybrid looks even more pointless than it did originally. They should execute that model immediately.
I’m guessing that by “6-speed transmission” you actually mean “6-speed automatic transmission?”
If I can’t have 3 pedals, I won’t be shopping that car.
Not to be a prick but 38 percent of 15,082 totals sales equals 5731 Camry defectors. During that same month, Toyota sold 40,487 Camrys
I read the quote from Sergeant Peper to mean 38% of BuBus (Bu Buyers) were non-GM and that some majority subset of that 38% was Camry defectors.
So not quite 5731 in Camri.
As for the tranny – well good for them about the 6 speed, but it would seem embarrassing that the 4cyl gets the same mileage as the Hybrid.
foolish:
It’s my understanding that the Malibu will not be offered with any kind of manual transmission. I agree with you, it’s a deal-breaker for some of us, when there’s all too comparable competition that gives you the option.
Meanwhile, I’m still wondering how this car would fare with an SS-type drivetrain and 3 pedals…..
jthorner
“38% of Malibu buyers are trading in a non-GM vehicle, another key goal, and that the Camry is the car most frequently traded in.”
Hmmm, and during that same time period how many GM products were traded in, or scrapped out for, non-GM vehicles?
It would also be interesting to know these two numbers:
A) 1st Quarter 2007 total retail Malibu + Impala + LaCrosse + G6 + Aura sales
vs.
B) 1st Quarter 2008 total for the same vehicles.
I highly doubt that B is greater than A.
You ask and we obey.
2007 2008 LaCrosse 6.0% 6.1% Impala 45.7% 38.2% Malibu 20.4% 22.4% G6 20.2% 24.5% Aura 7.6% 8.7%
These numbers include fleet sales, as I don’t have the pure retail numbers.
$6,000 Extra to get good fuel economy? This is the same marketing genius that led to the $55K SUV that “saves on gas” with a $10,000(*) addition to the drivetrain and costs too much to make and sell at that price(*).
In the mid-late ’80’s, we considered a Chevy Celebrity-sized car and bought a Volvo instead. One of the key reasons was the GM three-speed transmission coupled to the four cylinder engine and resulting mediocre fuel economy in the GM products. You could only get a four-speed transmission if you bought a six-cylinder engine. I didn’t want a six. We got a four-cylinder Volvo with a four-speed overdrive transmission. Yes, it was more. It was worth it.
Anyway, it’s good to know that GM’s steady on course and sticks to their mid-80’s marketing plans.
(*) – I can’t prove these two things but I’m fairly certain of them. The $55K price, however, is firmly grounded in reality, as that’s list on the two-mode tank at the nearby Chevy dealer.
mxfive4: “BuBu’s…” LoL.
maybe its because I like CTS and its been out slighty longer but but I see many more of them than Nu’Bus. Maybe the bu is not quite as distinctive as GM thought.
I am wondering if it is just hard to get a brand to take off.
A few years ago when we bought our VW Cabrio a number of people around here didn’t even know VW was still in business in the USA, didn’t know that VW was now putting their engines in the front, and so.
Once they rode or drove the car they were impressed at how much car we got for $6K (used obviously).
I wonder if that is Saturn’s problem. The ones “in the know” know there are some interesting products there and everyone else just knows Saturn is that Chevy divison that used to make the funky little cars in the early 90s. The average buying might not know that Saturn has grown up a little in product.
I STILL maintain GM needs to dump their current dealer program and just make all dealers GM dealers or make all dealers capable of supplying all GM products.
Imagine walking onto a dealer lot with all of the unique GM products presented to you. You’ve got big trucks, little cars, vans, convertibles, etc all right there. Would be like the Super-big box retailer advantage – one stop shopping and one stop service.
Want a GMC truck instead of the Chevy truck? Well let me go to the service department and get a fresh set of GMC badges for you…
Typical TTAC extremes and double standards. Extremes being comparing ones best case scenario to ones worst case scenario. Double standards being it’s ok for one but not ok for the other to do the exact same.
Here’s a great example of TTAC extremes. How can you compare a base level fleet trim Camry/Malibu 4 cylinder’s price tag to the highest trim level Malibu 4 cylinder’s price tag. Maybe it would have been fair to compare the highest trim Camry 4 cylinder to the highest trim Malibu 4 cylinder? What am I talking about, this is TTAC.
For what it’s worth, the highest trim level Camry XLE with the 4 cylinder has a MSRP of $25,000. The high trim level Malibu LTZ with the 4 cylinder has a MSRP of $26,245.
So where did your $27,745 figure come from? Oh, thats right, that’s the MSRP for the 3.6L/6-Speed Malibu LTZ. Can we use facts?
So when it all boils down, there’s a $1,245 difference between comparable up level Camry and Malibu. Fair a balanced?
AlmostFamous :
I think it’s fair in this case because people are forced to buy the uplevel ‘bu to get the nicer tranny. You simply don’t have to do that with the Honda or Toyota. It should be different in 2009 as I’ve heard the 6-speed auto will be available in the lower trim level ‘bus as well.
KixStart :
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
We got a four-cylinder Volvo with a four-speed overdrive transmission. Yes, it was more. It was worth it.
So… it was worth it to pay more to get more gears in a Volvo vs. Chevy debate, but the same philosophy is stupid when applied to a Chevy vs. Toyota debate?
I’m not sure I follow that logic. If paying for more gears and better MPG’s makes sense in one setting, why wouldn’t it make sense in another?
If you think the Malibu is overpriced, or you refuse to buy an american sedan, say so.
Don’t engage in contradictory “reasoning” to justify your purchase or camouflage your prejudices.
good God, that interior is horrendous. looks like a limited halloween edition. *gag*
Mjolnir, The VOLVO was worth it, not just the extra gear. We were driving it long after all the Chevy Celebrities in the neighborhood had been scrapped. Even today, my wife would buy another ’86 Volvo 240.
The missing gear was just a factor in the decision. In fact, the way it went, it was a bigger factor than you might think. Had we been able to get an inexpensive Chevy with good fuel economy, we would have; that’s what I was looking at and that’s what I expected to buy. That would have been our third NEW Chevy in a row, in spite of a failed Iron Duke camshaft and pretty crappy treatment by the dealer for other service issues. When I found that the 4-banger had the 3-speed transmission, I held off. More or less by chance, I considered some other cars and found we could get a Volvo – a nicer car – for more but not as much more as I had thought. It drove better, it felt better, it got better fuel economy, we liked it better.
Chevy history repeats itself. With the base Malibu, you get a 4-speed, or you can spend the same money on a Camry and get more gears… and a nicer car. Chevy decontents the base cars in ways that don’t appeal to the thrifty. Toyota puts most of their state-of-the-art efforts into the base vehicles (for example, by 2001, I believe, ALL of their cars had variable valve timing, base 4’s and all).
In fact, for about the same money as a 4-speed, 4-banger Malibu, you can get a Prius. Which is what I’d do.
Based on my usual unscientific survey of what I see on the local highways and byways, I’ve seen a grand total of ONE nuBu so far. Meanhile, I see new Camrys on the insides of my eyelids. Hell, two people on my immeidate team at work have new Camrys – one is a hybrid.
I see the new Malibu’s popping up where I live.
The 6-speed automatic will be standard on all Saturn Auras if you’re looking for it in a more affordable car.
i’m confused about the article and some of the comments. The ‘BU LTZ trim has 3.6l and 6 cylinders. The MSRP on that is in fact $27745. There is no 4 cyl. LTZ trim. All 4 cylinders trims get a 4 cogs transmision. the 6 gears is only available, as of now, in te 6 cylinder LTZ trim.
’08 Chevy Malibu
I’m starting to see new malibus here in Tampa. I think that in this case GM has done well by producing an attractive, competitive product that appears to be selling and actually getting import buyers to compare and even to purchase one after they try one.
I think that there’s a dealer “order code” that “decontents” the V6 LTZ to the 4-cyl model with the 6-Speed autobox; there’s no separate “4cyl LTZ” model right now.
As to fleets, I believe that the fleet models only come with the 3.5l pushrod V6; you can’t even rent a 4cyl to see “how she goes”.
Just read somewhere that GM is claiming that dealers are actually selling the Malibu for more than the Camry, on average. Not the SRP is higher, but Customers are willing to pay more for a Malibu. No one who reads this webs site though, I am sure. But that is only a few hundred folk, wouldn’t put a dent in anyone’s sales figures.
davey49 : The 6-speed automatic will be standard on all Saturn Auras if you’re looking for it in a more affordable car.
But, will it be any good or just something new with problems? I wish I had more faith in GM’s quality.
Meanwhile the in-law’s Saturn Vue with 80K miles is going to need a new CVT tranny soon. They are denial but the noises coming from the tranny are real.
I’ll prob buy a Saturn next time and hope that GM’s real problems are careless customers who ruin cars in 100K miles. We get 200K out of our VWs and our Hondas. Are the cars better or is how we drive them better?
KixStart :
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Mjolnir, The VOLVO was worth it, not just the extra gear. We were driving it long after all the Chevy Celebrities in the neighborhood had been scrapped.
But you didn’t say that. You said that you bought the Volvo because it provided extra gears and better mileage and you were willing to pay more to get that.
It’s not until you respond to me that you bring up reliability and driving “feel”.
After you add in information not present in your first post you procede to torpedo your “more money for a better car is okay” argument by claiming that you’d rather have fewer gears and lower mileage and pay less for a Camry.
Based on what you’ve posted, it seems that you should be willing to buy a vehicle that is generally rated as the better driving car and that also comes with more gears and better mileage, particularly when the firms producing the two vehicles in question are undergoing reliability and brand image shifts.
Either what you valued about the Volvo is no longer important to you, or you made that decision based on something other than cost and fuel economy because you just claimed that you would rather spend less money to get fewer gears, worse economy, and less driving “feel”.
Like I said- I’m fine with you making a purchasing decision based on prejudice, perceived value, or brand image, but don’t try and justify it by using contradictory and faulty logic.
the 4 cyl with 6 spd auto is an option on the LTZ on the Chevy website. It is called the 4 cyl spring package.For no cost ( should be a cost reduction) Also the V-6 is a DOHC with VVT.(just for the record) I am seeing quite a few new Malibus in the Chicago area
# CarShark :
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I don’t understand. If they have the six-speed/four-pot combo ready to go, then why limit it by putting it on the highest trim? If this was the base powertrain, I think they’d catch more eyes.
I’d guess it’s a matter of availability for the transmission. Manufacturing can’t just be turned on overnight.
Or GM is trying to extract a few extra $ out of the 4-speed transmission.
Mj0lnir: “It’s not until you respod to me that you bring up reliability and driving ‘feel\'”.
Am I under some sort of obligation to you to describe every little factor that added up to, “I am willing to spend more on this ’86 Volvo than that ’86 Chevy?” No. “A nicer car” and “it was worth it,” covers it all. Quite a few things added up to, “this is damned nice, we can afford it, we’re buying it.” It was gravy that the car lasted for a long time with little trouble.
Mj0lnir: “Based on what you’ve posted, it seems that you should be willing to buy a vehicle that is generally rated as the better driving car and that also comes with more gears and better mileage, particularly when the firms producing the two vehicles in question are undergoing reliability and brand image shifts.”
What reliability and brand image shifts are those? It sure as heck isn’t one that I’ve seen. I have 4 Toyotas that are 100% trouble-free at mileages where I used to throw cars away.
And “better rated” by who and for what? My personal rating of my Toyotas is “perfectly satisfactory in every way and saves me money.” Do you have a better rating than that? No. I switched from GM to Volvo because GM didn’t offer what I wanted. It also was an opportunity to learn what I should have learned from CR, that cars can be very reliable.
I switched from Volvo because they didn’t offer what I wanted. And then I learned that Volvo wasn’t the last word in reliability, either.
From here on, I get a lot of my decision help from CR.
Now, you can quibble about my decisions and whether or not they’re personal predudices or whatever you like but the fact is, Chevy’s penny-pinching ways cost them a sale in 1986 when they didn’t put the fuel-saving transmission into the 4-cylinder car.
Today, Chevy history repeats itself when they force you into an upscale trim to get the fuel-saving transmission.
If I were in the market for a Malibu, I certainly wouldn’t be in the market for a loaded Malibu, I would be in the market for a base Malibu with good fuel economy. 22 Years later, Chevy still disappoints.
History also repeats with the Cobalt. They will soon release an upgraded Cobalt that gets 36mpg on the highway. Bravo! However, it’s not improving the LS/Special Value Edition (or whatever they call it now). To get good fuel economy, you have to buy up. Screw that.
And, by the way, for the kind of money they want for a Malibu, I can get a Prius and I probably would. Times change. Getting good fuel economy was always a factor for me, even in 1986 when gas was $0.95/gallon or whatever. Nowadays, at $3.42 and probably going up, It’s more important. The Prius might not have the same characteristics as my Volvos but 45mpg is a powerful argument in favor of it that GM isn’t prepared to make on ANY of their cars.
KixStart :
April 24th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Am I under some sort of obligation to you to describe every little factor that added up to, “I am willing to spend more on this ‘86 Volvo than that ‘86 Chevy?” No. “A nicer car” and “it was worth it,” covers it all.
When you make assertions about a manufacturer and product, and then go on to make statements that appear to contradict your assertions, you do need to describe other factors that influenced the decision.
As far as “better rated”, go read any comparison of the Camry and Malibu. Most journalists/bloggers, including the ones here, rate the Malibu as a better driving car with a nicer interior than the Camry, particularly in the higher trims.
I keep saying this- I have no problem with you buying any other car based on any number of reasons. Styling, absolute fuel economy, cost.. whatever.
My problem is that both your original post and your second post make claims about why you purchase cars and then go on to contradict themselves with regards to the Malibu.
You like Toyotas, they’ve treated you well, you don’t trust GM, you don’t like the styling, you don’t want to pay that much… all good reasons to buy a base Camry over an LTZ Malibu.
Claiming that you want better economy, a nicer interior, and better driving dynamics and that you’re willing to pay for it and then refusing to buy the Malibu isn’t supported by most reviews of the Malibu vs. Camry, and it directly contradicts your statement that you’re willing to pay for “better”.
You’re only willing to pay for “better” if the amount isn’t too large and the product meets your pre-conceived biases.
That’s fair. Everybody buys like that. Just don’t try to make the square logic fit in the round review holes.
Mj0lnir: “When you make assertions about a manufacturer and product, and then go on to make statements that appear to contradict your assertions, you do need to describe other factors that influenced the decision.”
No. What I wrote covered it. I could list quite a few things, which are covered by “Was it worth it?” and “Yes.” The fact that I bothered to cite two specifics does not imply a comprehensive list, even if you choose to interpret it that way.
Mj0lnir: “As far as “better rated”, go read any comparison of the Camry and Malibu. Most journalists/bloggers, including the ones here, rate the Malibu as a better driving car with a nicer interior than the Camry, particularly in the higher trims.”
And how are any of those reviews of more value to me than, “switching to Toyotas saved me money?”
You might recall that the automotive landscape is littered with cars that initially reviewed very well and, ultimately, sucked.
I like a car that drives well. I want good fuel economy. I do insist on a certain feeling of solidity. Most features are negotiable because the car is, day in and day out, a transportation device and expense.
“Saves me money” wins over a lot of factors that begin with “I like.” At the moment, there’s one manufacturer that has given me a very good track record in that regard. People that expect me to discount this are nuts.
And the Malibu might be arguably better (I note you mention better fuel economy but we know I can’t have the gas-saving transmission with the 4 for a reasonable price) in some ways but it’s doubtful in the extreme that it’s “better enough” to make a bit of difference.
Frank Williams,
I know it has been a few days but would you mind explaining what the numbers you posted on 23-April-2008 at 2:42pm in response to jthorner’s question actually are? From the context, it’s not clear to me what they represent.
Thanks.