2016 Malibu 2.0T

[ccap41]

The three-box Chevy sedan arrived with the new-for-1949 Chevrolets, which grew proper trunks that were flattened and pulled out from the old bustle-back Fleetlines and Master Deluxes of the streamliner era. How many of us saw Dad off to work in a Biscayne or a Bel Air, or remember the mall lots clogged with Novas and Caprices? The Chevy sedan was everyman’s car, the car you drove if you cared more about value than flash.

 

Malibus were once everywhere, even in Malibu, but the Japanese long ago moved the bull’s-eye for high-value ­conformity, and Chevrolet has struggled to hit it. Too big, too small, too boring, too unreliable; the mid-size Chevy sedan devolved into a car you would rent but never buy. Well, here is GM’s latest attempt to reverse the Malibu’s typecasting.

 

As with the new Chrysler 200, the 2016 Malibu attempts to strum the heartstrings with modern, swept styling. Look at its new shoulders and those tendon lines on the body sides. Muscle and sinew emerge as the light plays in interesting ways. The headlights squint menacingly, like a thug, or like a Camaro. Also like a Camaro (and all the new Cadillacs and Buicks), the Malibu’s beltline is hiked way up to make the roof seem low, leaving narrow daggers for side glass. GM never tires of that bunker-top styling, no matter what it costs in visibility. ...

 

The rest of the review @http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-chevrolet-malibu-20t-test-review

[ccap41]

When I initially saw this thing months ago my first instinct was that it was hideous and I had no clue why they did what they did with it. The more I look at it the more I like it. I actually don't think it looks too bad anymore. The long sloped almost "coupe-like" looks pretty dang good, albeit at a price of visibility. Not sure if that is a great sacrifice in this segment or not but it does looks sharp.

 

It appears that it has a case of the "EcoBoosts". lol 20mpg tested, 22/32 rated. "Our test average of 20 mpg proves the rule that a small turbo in a big car burns gas fast."

 

The weight is, yet again, another high point for another new GM. Very light for being one of the longest/largest in the segment. 3300lbs and this was a 2.0T " absolutely loaded Premier"

[Drew Dowdell]

Again, they had to be tromping on it constantly to get it to 20mpg.  I hate when magazines do this... run a car through high(er) end performance tests and then report the fuel economy on it.  No one will drive it like that day-in and day-out. It is a disservice to their readers to report it that way.   Even the heavier 2014 Malibu 2.0T with two fewer gears got 23mpg when they were tromping on it.....

 

When I drive a Regal or Malibu 2.0T, I get anywhere from upper 20s to just over 30.

 

So take their fuel economy estimates with a Malibu trunk full of salt. 

[cp-the-nerd]

I though their "2.0T offers no advantage" claim was heavily exaggerated. The Malibu is the fastest 2.0T model on the market by leaps and bounds, while being just a few ticks behind the Camry and Altima V6 models and trumping both their fuel economy ratings. 6.1 seconds 0-60 and a 14.7 @ 97 mph is nothing to scoff at, neither is .87g on the skidpad.

 

It's clear GM retuned the engine (minus 9 hp and 36 lb-ft) in a bid for fuel economy, and they achieved an EPA estimate of 22/33 mpg (not 22/32 as they stated in the article). The only car truly making the Malibu 2.0T look bad is the Honda Accord V6 with 34 mpg highway while running low 14s. There are no 22/33 mpg V6 engines besides that.

Edited December 8, 2015 by cp-the-nerd

[ccap41]

Again, they had to be tromping on it constantly to get it to 20mpg.  I hate when magazines do this... run a car through high(er) end performance tests and then report the fuel economy on it.  No one will drive it like that day-in and day-out. It is a disservice to their readers to report it that way.   Even the heavier 2014 Malibu 2.0T with two fewer gears got 23mpg when they were tromping on it.....

 

When I drive a Regal or Malibu 2.0T, I get anywhere from upper 20s to just over 30.

 

So take their fuel economy estimates with a Malibu trunk full of salt. 

 I completely agree!

 

That's actually why I don't like any comparison to test review mpg because there is no way all vehicles just get junk mileage. The only one I trust is MT's Real MPG because that is an actual test itself of combined driving conditions and a set test loop so at least they are comparable to eachother.

 

But it is still a good point that a boosted engine under load will use more fuel than a n/a engine.. at least from your observations.

 

Regardless, It got poor test mileage like EcoBoosts get poor test mileage... That was all my joke was about. I drive an EcoBoost and if I drive agressively..I get junk economy. If I drive conservatively..I get exceptional economy. And anywhere in the middle.

[Drew Dowdell]

It doesn't matter if it is boosted or not.... or V6 or not.... if you pound on it, you get crap fuel economy. 

 

C&D managed to get 22 mpg out of the 2008 Malibu with the 2.4 Ecotec!  I can't imagine what they did to that car to get it to that! 

[ccap41]

It doesn't matter if it is boosted or not.... or V6 or not.... if you pound on it, you get crap fuel economy. 

 

C&D managed to get 22 mpg out of the 2008 Malibu with the 2.4 Ecotec!  I can't imagine what they did to that car to get it to that! 

Hahaha hooooooly buckets! They much have hooned like none other! It was probably fun as hell just tearing up an economy car like that lol. 

[David]

I understand some rag on others more than everyone, but I will say that I think Motor Trend and most auto magazines rag on them all equally. Ford and GM engines when hit hard and put away wet give crap fuel economy. Especially for turbo engines.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Drew Dowdell
Removed a quoted post that was previously removed.

[regfootball]

Again, they had to be tromping on it constantly to get it to 20mpg.  I hate when magazines do this... run a car through high(er) end performance tests and then report the fuel economy on it.  No one will drive it like that day-in and day-out. It is a disservice to their readers to report it that way.   Even the heavier 2014 Malibu 2.0T with two fewer gears got 23mpg when they were tromping on it.....

 

When I drive a Regal or Malibu 2.0T, I get anywhere from upper 20s to just over 30.

 

So take their fuel economy estimates with a Malibu trunk full of salt. 

That's good to hear.  No fw it can only get 20 in normal driving.

 

Although I will say, on fuelly, the real world mpgs reported there for the current regal 2.0t and for that matter the non turbo 2.4 aren't that great.

 

That said, the new Malibu is like 400 or more pounds lighter than the current Regal.

[Suaviloquent]

I like it a lot more now too.

 

It's another great pick in a pretty solid segment.

[cp-the-nerd]

I got the sense that the review was written with a carry-over chip on the shoulder. It just felt negative for the sake of being negative.

[El Kabong]

Sounds like a great car. Thank goodness they didn't call it an "Eco" something-or-other.

The plug-in hybrid is probably the version I'd be most interested in. But the 2.0T sounds like a nice "does-it-all" compromise at a decent price.