Find Reviews by Make:
Well, it’s, uh…different.
The new ‘Bu loses 300 lbs, gains a 1.5L turbocharged 4-cylinder engine making 160 hp and 184 lb-ft of torque. The 2.0T sticks around, with 250 hp, 258 torques and an 8-speed gearbox. Apparently, the new hybrid will be both quicker than the 1.5L engine while getting 45 mpg combined on the EPA test. And yes, there’s more rear legroom.
101 Comments on “New York 2015: Chevrolet Malibu Revealed...”
Read all comments
I like it. The split grille seems to be controversial but I think it’s fine, and the proportions look great. I’m still not 100% sure about the side surfacing, but it’s growing on me. The interior looks good; Impala-esque with some parts from the new Volt.
On the spec front the weight loss sounds promising. If it’s really lost 300lbs that would put the base version at around 3200lbs, at the lighter end of its class and not much heavier than the admittedly porky Cruze. Even so, 160hp seems a bit low, since most of the other midsizers are in the 180hp range for the base engine. The hybrid or 2.0 sound like the ones to go for.
Of course, because it’s GM what I SHOULD be saying is that it looks awful and anyone who buys one is an idiot, and maybe something about how terrible Cadillac is too.
I too am optimistic, this seems more “buttoned up” than the last one. If they got the details correct they may be back in the game. It will take a while to get back the good will they squandered though.
The lower half of the front end is a bit off, but for the most part I like it. I don’t see it so much as a split grill anymore but rather two grills, and it’s an improvement. I do worry about rear seat headroom with that rofline, but that’s the trend these days. 250 HP should really make this move.
“the weight loss sounds promising”
I don’t agree with that at all. The one place that the current Bu excels is its solid, quiet feel. The Fusion is the same way – by virtue of weighing 3500 pounds in base trim too. Rip out 300 pounds of refinement and you’re left with a Hyundai without the warranty or a Camry without the badge equity.
Only someone on an internet forum would complain about weight loss on a car. What would ya’all say if it gained 200 pounds? “I don’t agree with cars getting fatter during every redesign” ?
-vomiting noises-
(on another note, that 1.5 making it into the Cruze and Sonic would be nice. I don’t see a downside to a more powerful car that will still get good MPGs.)
I must be totally out of touch with what people think looks good these days… My first reaction was the same as above… I can’t stand the avalon-clone grill Chevy is using now and the headlights and oral shape look a lot like the CC to me. I know everything looks like something else these days, but I’d prefer designers steal the more attractive aspects of their competitors, not the ugly ones.
Judging by everyone else’s responses below, I’m the exception here though…
It’s all about heritage—as in “we’re going to whore out the Camaro’s design as much as possible.
That said, I do agree that the Aggression Grilles are getting kind of played out. I’m getting rather tired of every new car looking either angry, and/or like it wants to eat people.
It makes me pine for the Toyota Yaris.
I don’t see anything in this that says Camaro.
Well, nobody except me liked Mazda’s Happyface grilles, so this is what we get.
The answer is a Miata, smiley-faced edition.
Ha, oral shape… Overall shape…Good old Swype-autocorrect.
Aside from the exterior styling, the rest sounds alright. With the weight savings, the lower power should still be acceptable for the general population.
From this one photo, it looks like a Chrysler 200 with Accord headlights and the grille from a low-volume Toyota.
Hard to judge from a single angle but it hardly looks distinctive.
+1 That was my first thought as well
Don’t forget some poorly copied side styling from the Mazda 5.
I was thinking it’s all Kia. Maybe the boys at Daewoo got an early preview and took out their cameras.
Um
Not bad
I just wish it can still do 155 mph like the present 2.0T.
Nice. Looks modern, a bit challenging. It is what the Malibu needs. I worry though if the windshield is too raked and the headroom in back is compromised (though as noted it has more leg room). Sure hope arched roofs pass soon. You can square it off and still look nice. As like on the Caddy, overall and considering what the Malibu is and has been, nice job.
Arched roofs are fine. On a hatchback.
My Saab NG900 9-3 had more decklid than this.
2.0T and Honda Accord weight? I like it.
Looks good, too. Looks like GM is doing their penance for ever having introduced the current version.
It looks great from the side, rear and interior. The front end is cool, not bad, not awesome. Overall it looks like a vast improvement and has seems like it should hold is own fine in the midsize market. It doesn’t look like it just…there. I’m optimistic.
The roofline is rather generic, but the surfacing on the sides is a nice touch. How it performs in the real world remains to be seen. I would’ve liked more than 250hp, necesary or not.
If you want more photos and info click here:
http://www.netcarshow.com/chevrolet/2016-malibu/
Funny how these things are. I like the front very much, highlight of the car. The interior looks so very good, though of course I’d like a smaller tablet like screen (I know it’s just me!). Due to the roof (bad) the back looks pinched, and I really don’t see a point in this car’s side flame surfacing (though if one buys the car, it’ll just recede into your sub conscious). Overall, nice job.
Thanks for the link!
AnotherMillenial: thanks for the link!
IMHO, I wish they hadn’t followed Ford down the “Eco Boost” rabbit-hole for the base powertrain – expect similar (somewhat disappointing) “real-world” MPG’s; the 200 (Edit – closer to 300) lb weight loss should put it right in base Fusion territory.
The interior looks weird at first, but the cantilevered center console allows knee-room for taller drivers – maybe Shaq will even find it comfy.
The TTAC photo makes the front end look “two tiered”, but your link shows that’s not the case – it blends well enough.
For me, the Hybrid would offer the best drivetrain (non-turbo, enough “battery grunt” for real-world acceleration), but it looks like the trunk room is reduced, and the pass-through (assuming the rear seat folds at all) would be very high, which is unfortunate. Edit: The Hybrid Powertrain diagram hints at the Exhaust Gas Heat Recovery system – looks like the manifold runs through the radiator somehow.
It will be nice to see one of these “bad boys” in a Crystal Red Tintcoat – it would tone down some of the features that seem garish in lighter colors.
All-in-all, I think this will compete, or, be the best car in the rental fleets – who knows.
Attention Nissan, Toyota .. this is what looks GOOD. And your cars ain’t made out of unbreakium.
Excellent! Another nail in the sedan’s coffin.
Were I a dealer I’d use Malibus to sell Equinox.
Looks good. Getting away from the appliance look of Toyota, Nissan, and Honda sedans.
What about the “appliance look” of the worst “offender,” the Passat?
I personally think the Accord is the most cohesive design among the midsizers, and I find the Passat to be a very handsome and well laid out automobile as well.
It’s this disappearing decklid phenomenon like on this Malibu that worries me, heck the 2016 Maxima is probably the worst offender.
The anti anything-Japanese trolls are as bad as the anti-GM ones on this site.
Well, he couldn’t lump Mazda in with that group. Nothing appliance-looking about the 6.
VW Passat definitely has the appliance look, business feel. But, it is actually designed to have that look. The camry is designed to have that ” BOLD” look. Which is freakin hilarious. Yet still comes across as a rental or low credit score buyers car. This new Malibu at least in pictures has more expensive look.
I really like the new design. It’s eye-catching and unique…definitely more interesting than other midsizers.
I’m sure people were saying the same thing about the 200.
I surely didn’t think “Avalon” at first look. But I did. Which is so much better than thinking, “Camry”. It looks fine. Nearly anything is an improvement over the last style, which, I tried to like, but didn’t. So many of them to see too. I still find the 2008-12 body beautiful, and can’t recall despising, because of disappointment and GM’s foolishness, any new model update as much as the last Malibu. Never about the owners or drivers, one part of me wanted to flip off each one I met as if the car would go home and tell its GM parents. I’m neutral about this one, which is positive.
Now we know what happened to the swoopy Sonata. There is a lot of new-Impala in the shape, though.
Not a bad thing- Impala is a great looking car, especially in the right colors and higher big wheel trims. I think this thing looks pretty good.
I find the new Imapala (and XTS) to be especially ungainly. They somehow manage to be swoopy and stumpy at the same time.
I agree. Too narrow which makes them seem too tall (the stumpy) and the short wheelbase makes for excessive overhangs (the swoopy).
I agree, and I think the Impala took a lot from the Azera in the rear 1/4. So yeah, there’s a Korean influence all over this car (especially that Kia rear end).
Did they take the additional leg room from head room? Or is the beltline somewhere near the Adam’s Apple of the average male?
That said, it looks ok. The profile looks Hyundai-ish.
Someone on another forum added up the legroom stretch and concluded that the new Malibu will have the same wheelbase as the Impala.
The good: styling is greatly improved, rear leg room should be better, weight loss is always appreciated, the 8spd should help FE and performance, and the hybrid should be a serious competitor.
The bad: the 1.5L might not be enough motor for this segment, put four adults in one of these and 160hp just won’t cut it.
Very nice! Definitely have to check one out when they hit the showroom. Chevy added he “Malibu” sidescript, too, just like the Impala and as god intended.
Yes, but did God also intend for a itsy-bitsy 1.5L turbo engine to herniate itself hauling around a ~3400 lb midsize sedan? :)
“I’m pushing an elephant up the stairs…”
The 1.5T is the same at the ecoboost 1.5 in the Ford Fusion. It will be just fine.
“It will be just fine”
Meaning it will underperform in both acceleration and real world fuel economy relative to the better 2.5 liter four cylinders in competing models with the benefits of added complexity?
VW did the sub-2.0 liter turbo in a midsize sedan thing correctly. Ford not as much.
Except that the 1.5 Ecoboost puts out some 24 more horses.
I have a Cruze, which is close to this curb weight, with the 1.4T 132 horse motor and tall gearing in the eco manual and it does fine – beats EPA mileage rating without trying hard. The 160 HP here should be adequate if the car comes in on target weight and once up to highway speed should produce exceptional fuel mileage.
OTOH, turbo motors are much more sensitive to heavy feet.
Looks like a Chevy Dart
I was thinking Chevy Sonata Turbo. Either way, I’m OK with it.
This is sharp. It’s modern and I feel like consumers of these tend to favor cars that intimate tech forward fashion.
Another big car goes all tiny-turbo on us.
A few more photos are available at other websites. In those, the interior styling looks far more contemporary and appealing. But the exterior is so similar to a Chrysler 200 that it’s probably fortunate for GM that car companies cannot sue over copyright infringement for styling language.
Looks nice. They brought the sytling more in line with the Impala, and that’s a good thing. I don’t care for the powertrain options, but I suppose the 2.0T could be made to be acceptable with boost mods.
Not a bad looking car. I just dropped of my rental at MCI and was walking in and saw a last generation Impala in the line and was thinking to myself I don’t see to many of these anymore and found myself a little wispy eyed that GM is trying to get away from the bland appliance maker of the past in the auto segment. A lot have much to say about the product they are brining to market but one kind of has to tip their hat to the efforts they are putting forth.
Like the product or not, they are at least from my vantage point. Putting their best efforts out there. I look forward to driving a new Bu’ when one is available in the National lot
Looks great (for a GM product) except the token led strips on the front. There are strong elements of Avalon, CC and Lincoln but compared to the Chrysler 200, this looks positively original. I can’t even comprehend the Chrysler 200, the only recent vehicles on sale in North american markets I can think of that look more like they were designed for third-world markets are the Mirage (which was) and the Scion iA. I guess you can throw the “sedan” versions of every subcompact into that category also. But yeah, this Malibu looks pretty good. The first Malibu I wouldn’t be ashamed to drive since the Malibu Maxx SS.
Not at all.
And this makes me sad. I was really hoping for better days.
To me…it looks like there would be a real paternity suite going on with who really fathered this child with the Camaro woman??!!! Was it the Big Boring Avalon boy from the poorer side of town…or the Caddy from the rich side of the tracks.
Hard to tell. It has her upper lip, but the lower lip could be the Caddy or the Avalon’s jaw and dimples.
I like the way it looks in the photos. I especially like the way they tied its appearance to the Impala to give it a bit of a family resemblance. Wonder how much it will cost?
All turbos and hybrids? I’d rather scrape up the extra cash for an Impala.
Yeah, I’m not sure that’s the best idea on this level of (largely rental) sedan.
Probably be better off with a Buick, but I too would prefer the Buick’s features and the Ep II Impala’s styling. The issue is you have to find an LTZ and traditionally the top trims are maybe 20% of all models sold making them a tall order.
Don’t Take this the wrong way, but it kind of looks like An Impala’s Down Syndrome Little Brother…With that being said, I do believe it’s a huge improvement of the old one. This may have the potential to get people to notice it besides when choosing a fullsize at the rental counter
I’m getting a lot of Regal from the side view. The front I don’t care a lot for. It’s certainly an improvement over the old one, but it looks sad, and like it’s casting eyes down in shame. Bit too much heavy brow over the headlamps.
GM still knows how to do a nice pearl white.
Definitely and improvement, but I still and perhaps forever, will consider this rental fleet cars. Just hard to get much energy behind that.
wow, looks great, and with the powertrain options it seems GM is really throwing everything they’ve got at this segment, which is how it has to be. They’re taking a risk and it will likely pay off with a much better reputation. FYI I’m an owner of a 2010 Malibu LTZ, which in 2010 was a sharp looking car vs. the competition. I wouldn’t consider a 2015, but I would consider the hybrid version of this car–it looks aspirational. However…I would demand a 100k powertrain warranty!
Yawn.
So making your car look even more like the competition constitutes daring styling these days? Another sedan with a tiny trunk opening. And painting the show car in refrigerator white, what a stroke of genius.
-Is not a show car, this is a publicity photo. The car is clearly not at an auto show.
-Is not refrigerator white, is pearl white, and metallic. If one cannot see the difference in these colors, one may need an eye appointment.
I’ve never particularly cared for the Malibu, but cut the crap.
Well now, hold on a minute.
Lets be nice…and fair.
The Headline states NY. Now what else is implied except it was reveled at the show.
Perhaps this particular photo is a stock pub shot, but the car is being revealed at the show.
And perhaps Whatnext sees all whites as refridge white, just like my wife. Whatever the fancy name on my MKS…she still calls it just plain boring white. Think the official name is diamond white.
White belongs on fridges or toilets. It’s not a colour.
I think this is worth highlighting, the small trunk openings on modern sedans are a real problem IMO, it impedes utility quite a bit. With shorter decklids, which is all driven by aerodynamics and the pursuit of every last shred of fuel efficiency, we’ve ended up with these mail-slot trunk lids. Perhaps this is another underlying factor in the popularity of CUVs with their much larger hatch openings?
We could have our cake and eat it too if sedans just went ahead and adopted hatchbacks ala Saab, the old Elantra GTs, and the short loved Mazda 6 ‘5 door’ variant. BMW’s already doing it with their ghastly looking ‘GT’ variants. This would truly be excellent, 5 door hatchbacks are fantastically versatile.
Nice post, but I still maintain its all by intended design. I stare at these vehicles in traffic with raised trunklids which look like they have been smashed in and think, yes that’s what I needed a trunk five inches higher but less wide and long. Idiot designers.
Part of it may be the stretching of the passenger cabin back towards what’s traditionally been the trunk area, so to still have an adequate amount of cu.ft. of trunk space, the trunk got taller. But I maintain that a large driving factor here is aerodynamics, air flow transitioning from the roof to the trunk does not have as dramatic of a path to take if there is less of a drop in height. The Prius is the ultimate embodiment of this, at least its engineers and project leaders took the plunge and made it a practical hatchback.
But this isn’t usable trunk space, its just as bad as TURBO POWER gaming the EPA test and then getting V6/V8 fuel economy in real conditions. I’m all for aerodynamics but is the amount of less drag worth the tradeoff?
This was a terrible error on my 09 MKS as well. 19 or 20 CuFt of trunk…but you cannot get anything in due to the opening.
Everything needs to be taken apart to fit in.
Now they fixed this once they introed the Taurus the following year, as well as the update of the MKS in 12 or 13.
But the first design is stupid small at the mouth.
No. This is approaching Chrysler Sebring/200 levels of wrong. What is up with those A pillars? Tie a yellow ribbon round them, cause they are like old oak trees. And why do they flow into raised gunwales on the hood? For extra blind-spottiness? And the greenhouse from a Hyundai Azera. It’s not just bland, it’s ugly. Burn it at the stake.
Regardless of your opinion of the styling, you can’t tell me it’s not a huge improvement over the current model. The horsepower and torque numbers of the 1.5T are almost exactly the same as my 1996 Cutlass Supreme with the 3.1 V6. Well, if it was good enough for people then…
The most burning question on my mind is if it will be available in that beautiful Rainforest Green Metallic color that is offered on the Impala and Cruze.
Now with respect, this Malibu will most certainly be at least 1000lbs heavier than that Cutlass.
EDIT!:
Per KBB:
96 Cutlass Sedan: 3388 lbs.
15 Malibu: 3439 lbs.
Well, color me surprised.
The Cutlass is about 3300 lbs., so it should be a bit lighter if it’s lost 300 lbs.
At just under 3500 lbs, losing 300lb is somewhat of a feat as they actually beat a weight target from twenty years ago. I do wonder if using composite material for the door panels a la Saturn of old would do for the weight? This was really one of the best (if not the best) feature of Saturn.
The downside of those plastic panels was panel gap was horrific – they are apparently much harder to align. The gaps on a plastic panel GM Saturn or otherwise (dustbuster U-bodies, Fiero) were laughable when they were built – they would result in the burning of Ren Cen today.
I thought the plastic panel gap was so large b/c the plastic panels expanded more than steel. More room to grow.
I suspect the weight loss with be a combo of aluminum components in place of steel and stiffer but thinner steel body and chassis components. Stiffer and thinner than 1996 anyhow.
I have to admit, I was surprised too. I completely expected the Malibu to be much heavier.
People here constantly repeat the “NEW CARS HEAVY NEW CARS HEAVY” mantra, but very few seem to have ever looked at curb weights of similarly-sized cars from 20, 30, and 40 years ago. Cars are only that much heavier now if you compare them to early eighties imports that were physically tiny in comparison and would blow away in a stiff breeze.
All things considered, the engineering in modern vehicles is nothing short of extraordinary.
So minus 300 pounds from the 3439 to 3149 (see story above).
So it will be lighter than your Cutlass.
Color me VERY surprised.
I’d be interested to see the interior shots before passing judgement.
C/D has them.
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-chevrolet-malibu-photos-and-info-news
Thanks. I really liked until until I saw the second to last picture where the trunk lid/hinges inexplicably creep what looks to be six inches into the rear window despite the fact the top of the trunk itself isn’t so high. Check it out.
They’re telling me they couldn’t mount the trunk hinges 4 inches lower on the back and give that space back to the greenhouse? I see it as a deliberate middle finger from the design team.
Put the bloody bow tie back on the bloody radiator grille, dammit!!!
Looks like a mash up of Ford Fusion (Roof & trunk), Chrysler 200 (front) and Chevy Impala (body Sides)
I like the look of the new style. I need to see it in person to see if I can live with the driving position and trunk openings.
(Over 65 crowd member).
I am worried about the 1.5 liter coupled to the start-stop system. Tim Cain’s recent review of the 2015 was that the start
stop system was among the worst. This plus an engine that needs to rev up a bit to hit the torque curve, makes for terror in turning left across traffic. Hope those 10 air bags work!
Damn. The character lines flowing off of the a-pillar are really nice. Reverse tail fins. Three air in the center of the front fascia is a little strange, but for a midsize family sedan, the styling can’t be much better than this.
Looking forward to examining the DRG when this thing is released. Hopefully, they won’t offer any hideous trim levels. The car is too stylish to have ugly variants rolling around.
I dig it, particularly the scalloped sides.
I never thought the current Bu was hideous, but I think this is a big improvement in looks. My first reaction to the side profile was to like it to a larger Chrysler 200. I am surprised that so many people are hating on the design. It looks very modern, sleek. The all turbo or hybrid engine lineup is sort of a head scratcher. I think they could guarantee more than a few sales with a NA engine option. Have to wait to see the hybrid premium, but that sounds like a fairly interesting option.
I will go out on a limb and declare this the second best looking volume midsized sedan behind the Mazda6.
I definitely have to agree. I can’t for the life of me figure out why they took everything good about the ’08-’12 model and tossed it out the window for the current one, but it’s refreshing to see this one at least in theory pick up where it left off.
So they put in a tiny turbo with 36 less Hp than the outgoing 2.5, lost 300 LBS, kept the stop/start system and even included active grille shutters on most models and can only get one more highway MPG at 37. That sounds like a lot of work for basically nothing. And why did the 2.0T need to have it’s power reduced for a mere 2 highway MPG improvement which funny enough still trails a V6 Accord by 2 MPG. Somehow I’m just not very impressed with the new Bu’s powertrain lineup except maybe for the hybrid if it can indeed pull off 48/45 or 47 combined in the real world.
It has way nicer gauges than the ATS – calling deadweight, calling deadweight!
Looks like Chevrolet committed industrial spying against Hyundai. That is clearly a Sonata wearing a bow tie.
Looks non-offensive and mildly elegant. Right off the bat, that’s two things Lexus and Nissan *didn’t* get right in NYC……
Depending on the angle I’m ranging from meh to blech.
I also don’t think the base engine is powerful enough to compete, despite its diet.
Not bad at all. The side-surfacing is quite succesful and will look great on a dark-metallic colour. I love the blended-in duck-tail spoiler, really distinctive in this category. Yes, it’s too much like the 200, but I really think this one is going to build sales for Malibu. It actually looks a little aspirational!
“Fifty Shades of Grey” was a good book, but it doesn’t work so well as inspiration for a car interior.
Thank you very much, federal government.
Just as with the Fusion, the Hybrid will be the one to get: loads of torque at all speeds, quiet operation, MPG that’s excellent even if it falls 10 MPG short of EPA.
No love for tiny turbos in big cars here. I briefly drove a 170 hp turbo Passat, and it’s lack of off-idle torque made for some terrifying moments – almost got flattened by an oncoming semi when making a left turn onto the freeway in Texas. (It was later replaced by a V6 Passat, a much better choice.) And those VW turbos are 1.8 or 2.0 liters – imagine what a disaster a low-compression 1.5 liter 4 cylinder would be in a car this size until the turbo spools up.
Every time I look at this car, I like it better. I was highly skeptical at first. But I keep noticing a new shape or line on it every time I see it. I’m getting to be a big fan.
And the 300 lbs difference: that takes it down to lightest in class in a flash. Along with what appears will be top in class rear legroom. And it will be highly praised for its nimble, excellent handling by reviewers.
Consumers oughta like it too.