Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jrockb4

MT: 'BU vs Acc vs Cam vs Alt

45 posts in this topic

Interesting, no swipes at the Malibu, no mentions of Citations or Celebrities, over all sounds to be a pretty fair review.

I don't get this one though:

when shifting into manual mode, the transmission doesn't automatically drop down to a lower gear.

It's supposed to? I don't think that is something I'd want to happen.

edit: MT got 16.3 mpg? Sounds like they were enjoying that HF3.6 a bit too much. I never get below 18 in my CTS even when driving it like I stole it and it weighs the same, has more power, and "only" a 5-speed.

Edited by Oldsmoboi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now lets pretend that C&D did the test. The pecking order would be as follows:

First place: Accord

Second Place: Malibu

Third place: Altima

Fourth place: Camry

This just shows how Motor trend is protecting there COTY choice and not alienating there beloved Toyota.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They placed the Camry 1st, but look at what they said about it:

The Camry demonstrates a busier ride than Accord and Malibu
They also said the Malibu<!!> is better with road and wind noise.

Camry's steering feels too light and anesthetized.

interior, although roomy, comfortable, and straightforward, is arguably the blandest of the group with its "acres of sickly gray plastic" that come across "awfully industrial next to the stylish Malibu,"
but they can't make up their mind... first it's roomy... then it's

At 189.2 inches long, the Camry is the stubbiest of the lot and definitely feels more petite than the group's yachts, the Accord and Malibu.

Still, I'm happy at least that they managed to print their bias without incoherent bashing of the Malibu. They had for more negative to say about the Camry even though it took first. The brake pedal feel and rear seat comfort are really subjective. I doubt anyone will get MT like fuel efficiency out of the Malibu.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what made it come on top? It certainly doesn't seem like it's the most refined.

Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what made it come on top?

It was 2007 COTY and they are not in the mood for Filet Min-Crow tonight.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this a sports car comparison or a family sedan comparison?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was this a sports car comparison or a family sedan comparison?

This was a "How the new comers stack up to our previous choice." comparison.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth is, each of these family sedans is intimidating, at least when looking back 20 years at our "Top-Speed 10" test from September 1988, in which we pushed 10 of the day's fastest sports cars to the limit. Turns out every one of these household heroes is quicker to 60 and the quarter mile than seven of those sports cars, including the Nissan 300ZX Turbo, BMW M6, and Chevy Camaro IROC-Z. Want more? The Altima and Camry outpace the Porsche 928 S4 and the Ferrari Testarossa, respectively, to 60.

You have got to be kidding me.... anyone have those times? :blink:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"Chevelle Malibu SS, powered by a 220-horse {283} V-8, achieved 0 to 60 in 9.7 seconds and the quarter mile in 17.4 at 80 mph. "<<

Why bother mentioning that there was also a 250 HP and 300 HP 327, and in the identical year of '65, a 375 HP (actual output: 400) 396 in the SS Z-16? Z-16 did 0-60 in 6.0 sec & the 1/4 mile in 14.6 sec @ 100 MPH on utter &#036;h&#33; for tires. Give it modern radials and watch another second fall off the 1/4. How nice to cherry-pick the lowest HP V-8 in an SS reference and then quote it's accel times.

>>"No dragstrip diva, "<<

No- not that one, but the 396?- yes, yes it was.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"Chevelle Malibu SS, powered by a 220-horse {283} V-8, achieved 0 to 60 in 9.7 seconds and the quarter mile in 17.4 at 80 mph. "<<

Why bother mentioning that there was also a 250 HP and 300 HP 327, and in the identical year of '65, a 375 HP (actual output: 400) 396 in the SS Z-16? Z-16 did 0-60 in 6.0 sec & the 1/4 mile in 14.6 sec @ 100 MPH on utter &#036;h&#33; for tires. Give it modern radials and watch another second fall off the 1/4. How nice to cherry-pick the lowest HP V-8 in an SS reference and then quote it's accel times.

>>"No dragstrip diva, "<<

No- not that one, but the 396?- yes, yes it was.

For that matter, why pick 1965? Or neglect to mention the increased power and performance each of the successive five years leading to the 1970 LS6 454 with an underrated 450HP. That car tested at a 13.8 1/4 in a much heavier car also running on crap bias ply tires.

Come to think of it, why mention Chevelle at all? It has absolutely nothing to do with any recent Malibu.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a surprise, not that the Malibu finished second, but that the Accord finished 3rd, the Altima 4th, and especially the Camry 1st. I expected it to be Camry 4th, Altima 3rd, Malibu 2nd, and the Accord 1st.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I expected it to be Camry 4th, Altima 3rd, Malibu 2nd, and the Accord 1st.

I expected it to be Altima 4th, Camry 3rd, Malibu 2nd, and the Accord 1st.

I don't care for the new Accord, but I'll easily admit the Accord is a better car than the Camry.

The Camry being 1st is :rolleyes:<_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the engine pictures.... the toyota and nissan look quite similar, as far as components go.

112_0802_24z%202007_toyota_camry%20engin

112_0802_14z%202008_nissan_altima%20engi

and the honda looks more like the 'Bu from the plastic shrouding around the perimeter

112_0802_18z%202008_honda_accord%20engin

112_0802_17z%202008_chevrolet_malibu%20e

and the 'Bu doesn't even have a GM or Chevy on the engine cover....?

just some observations

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Camry being 1st is :rolleyes:<_<

MT still has the balance of Toy's funding remaining.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay this is great news for Chevrolet and GM, but what the hell is the Camry doing ahead of the Malibu or Accord. I agree it should have went Accord or Camry, Altima and then LAST Camry. Has the smallest interior, lack luster styling and it has a under-done interior. But oh wait MT is bank rolling Toyota.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just happy they didn't bash the Malibu for no reason. They really couldn't find anything major to complain about. Coming in second in this crowd isn't a bad thing. In the past, would the Malibu even have been invited?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a surprise, not that the Malibu finished second, but that the Accord finished 3rd, the Altima 4th, and especially the Camry 1st. I expected it to be Camry 4th, Altima 3rd, Malibu 2nd, and the Accord 1st.

That's how I would have predicted, too.

I do agree with some of M/T's complaints -- rear seat comfort and brake feel. The LT model I drove had a clunky initial "loose" feeling before they engage. But I don't find the interior as luxurious as they describe.

I wonder when the 4-cylinder reviews/comparisons come out, since they're predicted to make up 70% of Malibu sales.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just happy they didn't bash the Malibu for no reason. They really couldn't find anything major to complain about. Coming in second in this crowd isn't a bad thing. In the past, would the Malibu even have been invited?

Agreed. Take away the obvious Camry humping, and the Malibu really cleaned house here. To hear them say that the Malibu was a more engaging and fun to drive car than the Accord (the standard bearer in fun-to-drive athletic midsized sedans) is quite a compliment, and as far as performance stats go the two were pretty much neck and neck despite the 'Bu having nearly 20 fewer horses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as observed fuel economy, it's within four percent of its EPA rating of 17 MPG city, so it's plausible. The observed fuel economy for the other cars were also close to their EPA city rating - 19 MPG.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's plausible, but they had to be really beating the snot out of it to get that. I'm just comparing it to the same engine in a similarly heavy car with a 5-speed auto that I drive like a felon in.

Edited by Oldsmoboi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldsmobi what do you drive now the Avalanche or CTS... Err what exactly do you have?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oldsmobi what do you drive now the Avalanche or CTS... Err what exactly do you have?

both

it's snowing here now, so the CTS is in storage, but I still have both.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny their malibu got 16.3 when the half ton heavier acadias that have been tested have rubbed 20 mpg before. i suppose since chevy has a manumatic now, they just left it in 3rd gear all day at redline.

MT as a publication is not even worthy for use as toilet paper in an Idaho outhouse these days. Whatever money toyota is saving by not paying Jim Press and that Debra chick and mr. Farley must be going back to Petersen publishing. hookers for Angus. I suppose the Japanese govt. owns Petersen publishing now.

truth is, they only compared 4 cars and they should have compared about 12 and it all would have been very close.

Maybe these 4 are the top contenders but it really is an insult to all the other good cars like the Fusion and Aura and Passat 2.0. And Legacy, Mazda6 etc. and so on.

Car #1 is not at all much better than car #12. Its like being trapped in a snowstorm in a hotel room with VS models. Not a bad one of the bunch, unfair to compare. Even Tom Brady couldn't stop at one.

MT is about as useless as it gets. Note that this comparo the camry magically gains a sport suspension that you likely won't find easy in the showroom and the other cars don't really have either.

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0