I’ve rented the Chevrolet Malibu before and I was treated to a normal weekly rate that didn’t have a drop charge in the Florida Panhandle, most likely because their tourist season is beginning and that area could use the cars. It didn’t really drive in from Malibu, but from elsewhere within Florida!
It’s last call because the Malibu is bowing out this year. Chevy and its General Motors stablemates are overhauling their product lines in a big way.
Nonetheless, whether as daily drivers or company cars and fleet cars, there are quite a few of these on the road, first arriving in 2017. With newer powertrains, first a smaller turbocharged 4 cylinder engine and then the arrival of the CVT (continuously variable transmission), the Malibu appears to have been reliable enough. I don’t know what Consumer Reports has to say, but most of the automotive press seems to give the nod to Toyota and Honda products. The only issue I’ve had with rented Malibus having over 30,000 miles was a road drone in the rear that could have been a failing hub bearing. (This last rental vehicle had less than 10,000 miles.) However, if a person wants an American “Camcord,” this is it.
Basically, the car saw few changes during this last generation. One would distinguish model years through changes in the front grille and colors.
Mostly, I like the Malibu and it would make a good daily driver. There are a few things about it I don’t like and have never liked. The Malibu doesn’t look good from every vantage point. Its “best side” is its rear fascia, which was refined with new patterns in the taillamps in the last few years. The front end is a little clunky, and the layered latticed grille didn’t help all that much. Inside, I’ve come to appreciate its very sensible dashboard and seating, especially after being in other mid-size and full-size rental cars where the dashboard and cockpit are a “fail.”
The Malibu is economical in its use of fuel. What is worth nothing is that, at highway speeds, an extra 5 to 10 mph can have quite an impact on fuel economy. With cruise set at 70 mph, the legal speed limit on some treks, the mileage was coming in at under 35 mpg. When I went to 65 mph on cruise, the engine was laboring less, at about 2,000 rpms or slightly lower, and fuel consumption (with minimal city driving thrown in) came up to about 37 mpg. Considering that early Malibus with V8s couldn’t even get 20 mpg on the highway, that’s quite a leap! Driving on a road with a 55 or 60 mph speed limit would make for less consumption - at or even slightly exceeding the 40 mpg mark at constant speed.
The ride is pleasant, but not refined. The handling is easy, as it seems to be with so many electric power steering units, but not agile. The controls and instruments are easy to use or, at least, quickly become acclimated to. The seating is comfortable and supportive enough. The Malibu does what it needs to do without much fuss, but without impressing.
Power from the 1.5 liter 4 cylinder engine and its turbocharger is enough for most situations, such as smartly moving away from stop lights and picking up speed on an on-ramp to merge. I don’t know how I’d feel about a high speed pass with its less than 200 horses. As with other cars, the CVT seems to be getting more predictable … or not as erratic. The important thing is that its service life is long. CVTs also need periodic servicing.
The engine bay is very neatly organized. However, it uses a prop rod. When Malibus were ‘80s RWD GM mid-sizes, struts automatically keep the hood up. The trunk is roomy. Fuel tank capacity is generous and makes for respectable range with the car’s highway mileage numbers, but it won’t get you from one side of Texas to the other on I-10! Maybe close, though.
In my mind, the Malibu could have been more, especially after the Impala was discontinued. It looks like GM does not want to keep a single sedan in their stable, so they didn’t invest in it and let it wither. First, a 1.8 or 2.0 L 4 cylinder engine without a turbocharger could have been tuned to get the same fuel mileage. While an 8 speed automatic would have been preferable, I’d take the CVT if paired with a larger non-turbo engine. The CVT is mechanically simpler (and also sits inside one casing) while an engine with a turbocharger is a more complicated set up.
Once it made its initial splash, the Malibu wore on and may have become ho hum to consumers. The greenhouse looks elongated and has some strange quirks, making the rear deck lid look too short. A more upright domed shape to make the greenhouse look more proportionate would have been preferable. This is all about fractions of an inch, or centimeters, but they make a big difference when it comes to styling. (One example of a vehicle that accomplished this is the Mazda 6 sedan from about the same time this last Malibu was introduced.) In short, it’s wishful thinking that General Motors - via Chevrolet – would be keeping a bread and butter sedan they’d work a little magic on to make it more refined, more compelling, and more reputable such that a buyer’s choice between a domestic and a foreign sedan would be moot: the Malibu would be just as good as a “Camcord.”
However, it won’t be happening. The curtain is falling and the Malibu’s chapter is closing.
- - - - -
Photos forthcoming