balthazar

yet perceptions persist... http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2011/01/18/nothing-new-7-modern-car-technologies-actually-100-years-old/?refer=news

cherry pale green early '50s IH pick-up 1st gen Corvair, sitting & forgotten cherry red '70 Catalina convertible sweet dark blue '70-71 Corvette

I'd have to scan them, my scanner is down, they are not the best quality and they'd moire' like mad. You'll have to use your imagination...

^ Interesting WRT 'Travco'. I have a few copies of a '63 Dodge trucks ad with that bread-loaf Dodge motorhome and I've seen a few- so it was certainly branded as & marketed via Dodge. Never had any interest in motorhomes, so the Travco/Dodge deal is a new one on me.

In my files I have the same sort of thing for '63 Pontiac. Rarely seen 'inside' pics : http://www.huffreport.com/archives/literature/59chevies.htm

^ Reminds me of that vintage NY stickers- 718 area code is NY, too.

No disrespect - but you don't "know"; you have the word a "someone" you brother 'used to work with's say-so.

'40s have some really great lines, a buddy had one of these sitting in his backyard for a bit.

How many times have you "pointed out a couple of flaws" with the sweeping generalization "cheap interior" ?? Oooo, the door panels are 'less than stellar' so the entire interior is "Cheap" These are your words, not ones I am attributing to you. Again, if the goal of commentary is one of improvement, we should be accurate, not generalizing. Otherwise, how to progress? Something will bug a few reviewers (isn't it their job to find things to harp on, unless it's German??) on the next Malibu interior, which seemingly may only need nicer door panels over the current car, and yet again someone will dub it a "cheap interior". I object to the hyperbole & the generalizations - they need to stop. We're still stuck on the same degree of terminology as back when -for EX- some japanese interiors were measurably nicer than some American interiors. Then, "cheap interior" and 'crappy' and 'horrible' and such terms had weight. Now the gap is usually imperceptible, and the terms are overwrought. But address specifics and we can all agree more readily. I agreed to what you pointed out where I found it to be legitimate, so I am hardly "totally dismissing" all comments. Larger trunk, more interior space, nicer interior (not much room for improvement there IMO) are all good moves forward. It doesn't take a few rag reviews for manufacturers to know this- look at the accord or 3-series bloating over the years. Unfortunately, taller roof & rear deck aren't moves forward- they are compromises. And I said 'dislike', not 'hate'. But that impression is a result of the hyperbole, which distorts your impressions.

Because VW makes an excellent impression for the first 2-3 years. Unless they all get scrapped after 3 years- reliability woes are hardly secret information. In my observations, VW is unable to escape the bad reliability albatross.

hyperv6 ~ >>"You are correct on the trunk size as I own the last gen GTP and 08 Bu and 90% is a fair estimate. It only lacks a little in width. The length is nea{rly} the same as the GTP."<< And I am comparing it directly with an '03 GP- length is guaranteed to be right around 1" less. Just checked: '03 GP length on floor: 45", '09 Malibu: 44.25" >>"The tunk lid is shorter on the Bu by a hair but even the GTP is too short to let large square items enter the trunk space that is large enough to hold them. All the Bu needs is a longer trunk lid to give better acsess to the space provided. Nothing more or less is needed as the new car will give the width neat the same as the W gives."<< More just measured trunk numbers :: Shortest opening dimension, front to back, centerline of car: '03 GP : 18.5", Malibu: 15.5". Shortest opening, side to side : '03 GP : 43.25", Malibu: 37.25". You notice the front-to-rear opening dimension right off, but the width difference (which is considerable), has not yet come into play as far as my family stuffing bulky items in. Guess we haven't tried items in that width range. I'm a contractor with a 'professional' eye and I didn't catch the difference here. I don't feel this is a factor- but coming from a full-size car background everything could be wider. Trunk height, center of car : '03 GP : 18.75" Malibu : 17"* *Problem here is, near the trunk opening it is 17", but farther in, 'stuff' in the rear package tray area protrudes into the Malibu's trunk where it does NOT in the '03 GP. While this is not welcome IMO, the fact that you are primarily limited with bulky/rigid items by the trunk opening, the Malibu necks down to around 14" toward the back seat. Again, son's 22"x27"x11" guitar amp (which weighs 53 lbs) is the largest item I believe we've put in there, and it goes in fine. >>"As for anything cheap on a Malibu. Well I think this impression is give by the may LS models out there that have solid colors and the lower standard interiros. The LT2 and LTZ have very nice interiors and were very nice when intro's. The problem is like the Cruze that other new models came out right after the GM cars did and raised the bar. FOr the money the Malibu is a very nice car. I was able to get a new LT2 dirt Cheap and could not have been happier. The car was bought intended for my mom who drives it the most. She loves it. I for the most really did not care one way or the other about this car when we bought it. I figured it would suit her needs and it would make her happy. Well as it turns out the more I drove it the more I loves it. For the most I would take this car over my Comp G."<< Wife also has the 2LT w/ the solid black interior. This is a very nice space to be in, and even tho there's no comparison, I do not feel the burning necessity to be in the Malibu over the GP- I don't get that wrapped up in car interiors (at least in this case). Give me real space (not the lame 'space efficiency' claim) and that means a lot more to me that the softness of surfaces I never touch. Wife has NO desire to drive the GP tho. I wonder if it's structurally possible to manufacture a clamshell trunklid. You could then stuff maximum-sized rigid items in there no problem. Panel seams cannot be an issue- cars today are loaded with those.

How anyone would vote VW as a "best" brand with the reliability/quality issues VW has long been known for, is beyond me. Then again, these voters probably had land rover right near the top 10 too...

Going to disagree here also. Trunk volume is quite good- certainly appropriate for family use. It's 90% of the larger W-body's trunk in volume (guesstimate) and the height is absolutely fine. More trunk height automatically means a higher decklid- and decreased rearward visibility. More height is an invalid call. Trunk opening is not, but it's no deal breaker, either. Malibu is no lower than the W-body. Cars are getting way too tall as it is- you want height buy an Equinox. Car should NOT try and replicate a 'CUV Lite' formula- that's why we call them cars and not CUVs. Some people like cars to remain lower, just like some demand AWD in everything on the road. Comfort is very good, but personally I like more flexibility in movement- IE; more space. This is not a byproduct of 'space efficiency', but one of exterior size. Interior is also, in no way "cheap". Reg- it's been made abundantly clear you dislike this car, or at the very least have a ready laundry list of items to criticize. You might consider your point made, and drop the harping.

Market is SO overcrowded as it is- I see no downside to not getting yet another player...

Torsion rods never need replacement.

If the American makes are to 'ever match the Germans' in so many subjectives, the American consumer had better get used to incremental, subtle stylistic change from generation to generation, ALA BMW, for EX. That, and future styling progression is very very very very finite. In football parlance: it's going to be a low-scoring game with a LOT of lateral passes.

I don't know why they don't go back to torsion rods & compact hinges- the 2 current common trunk opening situations either impede into the cavity too much or force the opening smaller. Torsion rods answer both those issues.

nice to see it doesn't have the umbrella nylon upholstery the Forester has.

I actually did think you were, but discounted it as 'not your style'. Good to see consistency (the hat thing)...

I disagree that -for EX- Cadillac improving handling & other aspects of on-road performance is "chasing" anyone, no more than mercedees & BMW "chased" Cadillac in the '60s and '70s and '80s by adding better performance & amenities/technology. Every make tries to improve themselves over time. Fact of the matter is, the VAST BULK of Cadillac haters have CONTINUALLY bashed Cadillac for not MORE CLOSELY matching BMW & mercedees by having each & ever model in each & every segment, measuring within an inch of the other 2 & matching every option... meanwhile hating on the upcoming XTS for being different in a few specs almost no one in that segment cares about (FWD). Can't have it both ways.

If we're going to address specifics with a goal of improvement, we need to get the details right. • The trunk is NOT disproportionately small nor shallow. The trunk cavity is sized very appropriately for the size of the car. What IS an issue for some owners is the trunk opening, which due to the tapered roofline, is relatively small. This only affects large, rigid items, tho I note that my son's 2x12 combo amp (22"x27"x11") slides right in (along with 2 hard-cased guitars and other gear). If you are trying to put something larger in, perhaps you need a larger car. But trunk volume is quite respectable. • Headroom is fine for me & we're the same height. • wife is 5'3"- she has no complaints about the beltline whatsoever. "Catastrophically" is without question an overstatement... unless perhaps you were talking about people 5'0" and shorter. The trunk opening is a valid complaint (again- depends on what you're normally packing), and another is the rearward / 3/4-rear visibility. Sailing C-pillars are the culprit there- price paid for style. I personally would like the car to be AT LEAST 3" wider, but that's also not a 'catastrophic' situation.

Pull the motor, the GTO Endura and scrap the rest.

From my recollection, the '04 & up GP RR seat is very flat (bottom & back), very hard & very uncomfortable. Rising beltline & "4-dr coupe" roofline contribute to sense of entombment. '03 GP RR has plenty of room & comfortable seating. Visibility there is also fine.

What- not enough hat room in a '38 ??

'04 GP rear seat is awful- but the prior gen GP is good.