regfootball

Fusion can be had CHEAP real world price in either the 2.0 or a sport. http://www.appleautos.com/new/Ford/2017-Ford-Fusion-8ef05ec10a0e0adf47fda79c140a7870.htm Admittedly I would probably still prefer a Malibu 2.0 to the Fusion but even with GM's discounting to get a Malibu with the 2.0 choice is ridiculously expensive. GM is doing their typical shit on the Regal now too. New Regal you can get the car with heated steering wheel but still not heated seats. You have to upgrade to third trim level to get heated seats and top trim to get any safety equipment. Yet Honda has pacing cruise control available on their cheapest trims or standard.

CAFE is the only reason we have the 1.5 and an inbetween between the 1.5 and 2.0 would have been a better base engine if it wasnt all about making CAFE. Would have been a better all around compromise for power and mpg. Nothing against turbo or 4 cylinder otherwise. We need to get the feds out of the overhanded ness and Gm, needs to grow some balls.

based on my experience with having to have the critical engine reprogram and the oil leaks, i am glad i am not owning this vehicle. If it's that sensitive then i cannot imagine how it would withstand beating on it, because i surely don't beat on it. The Malibu is my jam, if they improved the base powertrain or offered the 2.0 on the lower trims.

You can't get the 2.0 unless you get a Premier, which is far too pricey. 2.0 should be an option on 1LT and up. the only way to get a real life 8 second run with the 1.5 would be to abuse it and possibly ruin it.

Well then at least provide a base engine with sufficient go juice for in town driving, or like i said, provide the 2.0 as an option on the lesser trim and lesser priced models. The numbers don't imply very well how undrivable it is at times in daily errand hopping driving. And sorry, but that 8.0 seconds can't be correct, they had to really rail the piss out of the thing to get it to do that. 2018 Accord 1.5 C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 7.3 secZero to 100 mph: 19.1 secZero to 110 mph: 24.7 secRolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.0 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 4.0 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 5.2 secStanding ¼-mile: 15.7 sec @ 91 mphTop speed (governor limited): 121 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 163 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g Malibu 1.5 C/D TEST RESULTS:Zero to 60 mph: 8.0 secZero to 100 mph: 24.7 secRolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.9 secTop gear, 30-50 mph: 4.9 secTop gear, 50-70 mph: 4.0 secStanding ¼-mile: 16.4 sec @ 85 mphTop speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 130 mphBraking, 70-0 mph: 171 ftRoadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g either make something inbetween the 1.5 and 2.0 or detune one trim of the 2.0 for fuel mileage. it likely doesn't cost any more $$$ to put a 2.0 engine in vs a 1.5. 4 cylinders, 16 valves, 2 cams, one turbo, etc. etc.

they sell enough cars in the US to not have to make so many 1.5's here. they do it here for CAFE. i.e. overreach. i do like the FE at times, but overall it should be something inbetween the 1.5 and 2.0

"Halfway Report" (18/36 months) odometer will hit 20,000 this week. PROS: -Stylish design, inside and out. -Mostly a friendly interior with "just enough" size. -Quiet cabin, on most roads. -‘Commuter comfortable’ ride for short daily drives. Actually hauls four on not to long trips pretty well as well. -Good mpg overall, and real jaw dropping mpg (47+ over distance) when conditions are right. 31+ mpg lifetime combined average (right per the sticker!) as per my logging each and every tank since new. Likes plain 87 octane (ethanol blended too) just fine. -1.5t powertrain is unexpectedly good and smooth for cruising at higher speeds and interstate driving, when not being asked for power. -Excellent brakes. -LOVE the 4g LTE hotspot. A few glitches at times, but otherwise it works great and is easy. CONS: -Not much in the way of sportiness, when it could easily have the makings to do so. -Disappointed in the power output in the daily stoplight to stoplight driving. Really really would love more power and torque, and smoother delivery when pressed. I would give up some of the mpg for a more usable powertrain. How much? Not sure. To be honest, some days, the powertrain is unlivable. Tiny turbo works too hard and doesn’t have the spunk (or its been gradually losing spunk). A 1.6, 1.7. 1.8 as a base engine should be considered. At a minimum, Chevy needs to be held to the fire to make an inexpensive 2.0 plain fuel upgrade available for lesser trim versions. I think sales would pick up if they gave a better engine offering. -Engine drone when you lean on it and ask you to move, and then you find out the engine isn't smooth as velvet either. Vibrations…… same as before but it seems to have increased or just annoys me more. -Powertrain reliability questions: Had oil leaks fixed twice. Seemed like it was done but had some new seeping recently after an oil change again. Very sensitive to oil issues and it honestly makes me concerned how this will hold up. Or do they just not do well with even a little bit too much oil. Engine management and computer reprogrammed already too. Car does not like anything apart from plain grade 87 octane…which is itself either a plus or minus depending on how you see it. If the manufacturer says you need to get the computer reprogrammed so the car won’t have issues, that is a concern. -Small turbo takes huge hit on gas mileage in the winter months. Between the reformulated gas and the engine thirst, you will see 15-30% drop from late November till end of March. -Autostop can really get on your nerves at times, and quite honestly it incenses me that GM does not have a switch that allows you to turn it off. Reprehensible actually. The Pacifica has one and it is a godsend! It seemed unobtrusive mostly at first, but on days when it is say 80+ degrees out and you want the A/C to keep going and you are drving across town and hit 12 stoplights red; and you get sick of the jerk on jerk off, you will understand why the consumer should be given the switch to turn it off. -Front seats quite honestly are uncomfortable and cheap feeling. It is my biggest complaint about the car. A GM car used to give you decent seats for the driver and passenger and these are just flat out crap in my opinion. Minimal padding if any. Not substantial. Not wide for wide butts. Not much for lateral support although i would gladly love butt support first. Power activation seems week and slow. This is your main connection with the car, and if it hurts your back due to bad cushioning and terrible shape of the backrest, how am I supposed to enjoy the rest of the car? -Some other cheap bits inside. The seat leather is very thin and door plastics honestly could be a bit better. -Piss poor coloring choices inside. I understand the ease of the all black interior, but this need some more help with textures and patterns and quite honestly some lightening up the place wherever they can. Why not a simple light tan choice? They FINALLY put a light color choice in the Impala. Chevy needs to make light tan much more available and stop pushing the caramel color crap so much. And the light gray is fine at times, but again, you don't find hardly any on the lot with that color? Add in some nice contrasts between the darks and lights...or is only Buick entitled to have decent interiors? -Gauges, Touchscreen and center stack / shifter have opportunities to improve. Using CarPlay on the screen blocks out chance for screen to display other useful info. Screen itself looks small and a bit cheap. All this will be elaborated on separately. -Love me a firm brake pedal but a lot of the time, it is quite simply too hard. -Ride is not plush, as in, its not a substitute for a larger or more expensive sedan. They have to leave that for Buicks now apparently. -Honda Accord, the competition now is even larger in size, sets a new benchmark. Chevy ought to consider upsizing the interior to match. -At the end of the day, crossovers are starting to look pretty good for the next ride. VERDICT: Likable but not completely endearing, mostly due to things GM could fix if they were committed to listening and not being cheap, and spent more time creating reliable designs. At a minimum they need to make continuous changes and upgrades to address stuff like i have listed above. Probably cannot do a 1.5 next time. Will at a minimum next time look at the Regal as a first gesture…. Also will really look at the Accord. More detail to be provided on these comments above soon.....

I'm gonna go back through this thread and now that i am closing in on half way (18 months) through my 3 years lease, I am going to do a half way report and see what sticks and what doesn't.... https://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/topic/86223-2016-chevrolet-malibu-1lt-15-update-2-hybrid-20-2lt/

pretty frickin sad they never sold that here.

CLA meant Merc could sell the C class at higher prices. Same car, higher profits. I like the CLA actually but its worthless for space inside. I don't see why they just couldnt ride out the CLA. i.e. i see no point to this ugly A class.

this is a nice size vehicle, sort of a tweener, the interior is a little nicer than a lot of the competition.

stahp

AKA civic hybrid

ugh. x2 is a turd

it's funny you say that. i was looking on autotrader for used cars this wkd and it is scary, there have been some of the new version Cruze hitting the used listings and they are being posted with prices cheaper than the previous Cruze. 2016's with new body style, 30k miles and such for 12-13 grand. scary. The older ones there is a glut but they still hold higher prices a lot of the time.

very nice i might even be intersted in a pickup finally. really love the badass front end and fenderlines on the front.

i can say due to driving this same car everyday you are pretty accurate. I'm really in a love / not love relationship with mine, i plan to do an 18 month review soon. As much as this car improved over the last one, there is still room for lots more improvement. I'm really REALLY hoping to check out the new Regal as soon as it arrives. The hatchback, lighter interior choice, and 2.0 would improve my opinion of the very similar car a lot. A moonroof would help with the claustrophobia. I think if GM hasn't done well with the new Regal then I may be done with sedans for good (apart from the lure of a used CTS). I might even look at Accords next time. I know what you mean about the GM mid size void. And i too, would still get this over a Fusion but GM really just wants to sell SUV's and trucks nowadays so i don't see lots of real choice from GM in these types of cars any time soon.

I like the styling but I haven't checked one out to know how cramped it is inside. If it's sold as an SUV, if it doesn't have AWD then the price needs to be more in line with a fwd sedan because people will only see it as a hatchback alternative not an SUV. People will shell out extra for an "SUV". Trax can sell because it provides a mini SUV feel. Upright seats and cabin. Actually aside from super tight width accommodates people really well for it's size. Flexible for cargo as well. The Jukes and CH-R's of the world maybe need to think of the utility aspect more.

not seeing what would amount to stunning design here.

This is SOOOOOO much nicer than the town and country......

Love the ATS and coupes are rare!

we pick up our gas pacifica later today. Would love a hybrid absolutely. But too many early teething issues, no good hybrid incentives, and loss of sto n go. We'll stick with the gas for now. Would love the plug in though some day. This may sound odd, but i have been fortunate to have a lot of nice vehicles in my lifetime, but i am really pumped to actually be getting this particular MINIVAN. I'm not sulking about not getting a Camaro or a German sports sedan here. I love the swiss army knife aspect of these things and love all the room and passenger accommodations.

picking up later today

and so it will end......

Lincoln and greek gods, not such i get the tie in.