ponchoman49

I like the interior and power trains better but think the exterior took a step down the ladder. The grille looks blander. The side of the car is too plain and every model now looks like the 2005-2010 base stripper but with different wheels as the only difference. i laos wouldn't mind a slightly lower belt line.

My buddy had a 318 150 Hp V8 in his 1975 Dart. It was reasonably quick but it was the bulletproof nature of the engine that always amazed me. He ran it out of oil, overheated it to the point it stalled out, beat the tar out of it and still that damn thing ran as smooth and quiet as could be and fired up every day. I couldn't say that about various Ford 351's, Pontiac 301's or Chevy 305's from the 70's.

With less weight and the new 8 speed transmissions this will be a have your cake and eat it too car. Hopefully they don't screw up the styling.

I really wish Chrysler would put the 8 speed in the Challenger. It truly is a win win combo. The current Challenger with the 3.06 axle and 3.6 305 Hp engine does 0-60 in 6.4 seconds and gets 27 highway MPG. Add in the 8 speed and watch the 0-60 go down under 6 seconds and the MPG go up to 31 highway as in the Charger. The only thing I'm not fond of with the 8 speed cars is the dorky video game shifter.

That idea has gone into the trash- along with Lincoln's sales

Silly! The letter name crap is about as memorable as Lincoln's current lineup of re-badged and bodied FWD Fords. Somebody high up is trying to justify mediocrity with success.

Interesting the loss of 5 Hp and 10 torque over the Fusion/Edge 2.0 Ecoboost. And judging from several owners with FWD Explorers and Edges with this motor 28 highway will rarely ever be obtainable in a vehicle in the 4400 LB range.

At least GM is still smart enough to include a side molding that not only spruces up the look but also protects from other jerks banging there doors into you. Try finding one on a Tundra or F-150. Many used examples of those have dings, scratches and missing paint right where that molding is placed on the GM duo. I wouldn't want a car or truck without out that in today's cruel world!

I think there will be more 2.5L Impalas on the lots than people think. Gas just stubbornly refuses to come down much and more than often surges right back up and over it's record prices set in 2008 with some areas like California seeing over 5 bucks a gallon. The 2013 2LT Malibu rental I had for a week was a pleasant surprise and really gave a good feel on how this new engine is. It provided more than adequate power in the near 3600 LB Bu, was liquid smooth at idle, never sounded boomy or vibratory and wound out quickly and smoothly to 6800 RPM. The Impala is set to weight about 100-150 LBS more than the BU but should have better gearing to compensate so power should be more than enough for shoppers looking for better MPG. Then there is the eAssist version which some have claimed up to 40 highway in the 2013 Malibu.

I remember getting a ride in a 1977 Olds 442 which was white and red every morning to school powered by a 403. Man did that thing move!

Bull! The 2013 rental 2LT Malibu I drove for a week was considerably more refined than any Honda Civic or Accord I have every driven including the new one.

Glad someone agrees with me on this. I'm tired of looking at charcoal and silver paint in these new cars. It reminds me of a cell phone not a car interior.

Found your write up of the 2013 Malibu interesting after just turning in my week long stint with a 2013 2LT rental with the 18" alloy wheels and the base new 2.5 L4 with 197 HP. Thankfully my car didn't suffer the interior lapses your tester had with panel alignment and fit finish. The carpet was installed perfectly, the dash aligned just right and there was not a rattle or squeak in sight. The new 2.5 is a gem and I much prefer it to the noisier eAssist 2.4. My car had 16K miles on the clock and the engine ran very smooth and idled like butter. It laso provided better than expected scoot, easily breaking the front tires loose and winding it'self to nearly 6800 RPM's never sounding thrashy or boomy like the Cruze 1.4T that I rented a few weeks ago. Fuel economy was all over the map due to weather and temperature changes throughout the week. My best highway run was a tad over 34 going a steady 72 MPH on the open road on a 40 degree day. The worst was 22.9 in mainly city driving with 4 other people aboard and temps in the 30's. The overall average worked out to roughly 26.1 which I find reasonable considering the weight and solidity of the car and the excellent performance of this new mill. I also found the overall ride quality/handling/steering to be spot on for the every day consumer. This is a terrific road car and very quiet! The 8-way power driver seat seemed reasonably comfortable and better than the Cruze's 6 way setup that lacked lumbar and a power recliner. I also found the back seat better able to hold 3 adults than the tighter Cruze even if the outright space for knees was similar. Negatives included the silly cup holder setup which finds them in a fore-aft position that effectively cuts off the rear one if you adjust the center console to mate up to your right arm. If you put the console armrest back you gain the cup holder but lose the place to put your arm without reaching back. In front there is only one power outlet where there should be two at least. I also dis-like not having a power trunk release button in the car. If you want to pop the trunk you either have to have the key fob with you or exit the vehicle and hit the sometimes hard to find tiny black button. I also think that for 26 grand list Chevy could have thrown in the rear view camera, push button start and automatic driver/passenger up power windows. The windows only auto power down.

I sure hope the new 4.3 V6 delivers. If it doesn't get at least 24-25 highway MPG in the RWD trucks then it will be a fail compared to the 18/25 Ram 3.6/8 speed!

I sure hope the Cruze loses the 1.8 or at the very least it's improved along with the peaky noisy 1.4T. The 1.6T should be available in a Cruze Sport model or at least the RS trim level.

Looks like the same ol same ol styling with a bizarre grille thrown in. it's funny how companies like Lexus and Toyota an keep 85-90% of there styling the same for 10 years and barely any complaints but when GM comes out with a new Malibu or Silverado that are different the critics pan them for being too similar to the outgoing models.

My point is that you can get a far larger car that IMO is plenty nimble in 2013 Sport trim with more V6 power and better mileage than GM is doing with there smaller turbo 4's. This small of a car should be quicker and easily be able to hit 35 highway MPG. The Fusion and Optima are two more examples of why it would be hard to settle for the cramped Verano.

I would take a CMax if I had to have a hybrid. The Prius is just not good looking, the performance just isn't there, interior materials seem and feel cheap and the rear visibility just plain sucks. And my 2008 Detroit product Impala's interior is holding up far better than many 2008 used Prius interiors I have sat in including mis-aligned glove box doors, worn off silver trim, loose center consoles and trim pieces and cheap carpet. Not one thing is worn or loose in my 100K Chevy!

It's not only the lack of fog lamps that gives this car a cheap vibe. How about the fact that heated seats are an option across the board and not even standard on the most expensive model. Meanwhile the 2012 Cruze 2LT mid level model with the leather seats includes seat heaters and it's std on the LTZ trim. Also the silly single oddly placed rear exhaust on 2.5L models. How can a Kia Optima have dual chrome exhausts std on a 21k car but not a 45k Cadillac? The last issue I have with this car is the horrendous rear seat floor pan which literally steals what little foot space left if the front seat is pushed back even part way. How can they keep screwing things like this up with new clean sheet designs?

It's okay I guess. The new Impala IMO looks much better though. I doubt it will attract many younger buyers and the plood that is often griped about in today's cars in well placed here.

It probably will drive great but go virtually unnoticed in traffic.

I really don't understand the interior is over styled statement other than the wood not looking convincing enough maybe. It is a refreshing change from the dull drab over used gray in the Camry's and the excessive black lung of the Fusion/Mazda6 etc. Replacing the turd 2.4 eAssist with the 1.6 turbo would not only save costs and complexity but would also make the car lighter and open up the trunk so it;s like the other non Eco models. It would be a win win. The rear seat issue should not be all that difficult to deal with. Just scallop out the rear seat backs a little and mount the seat up an inch or so higher for toe space.

Nice to see a stick available. The two issues I have with this car are the turbo engine it'self and the lack of interior storage, which seems to be common to all the new Buicks. For this small of a car I expect better than V6 mileage and performance. In fact the much larger Accord is quicker and gets a full 4 better highway MPG for about the same coin with world better interior space and similar sport. Still this car is a good start for Buick shoppers and does offer a nice dose of luxury.

Glad they aren't putting the 4 banger in for the US market. What this car needs is a more powerful engine option above the Impala spec 300 Hp 3.6. The twin turbo can't get here soon enough.

Wow so the LS model is 2.5 4 cylinder only. That sucks. Now your forced into paying about 8-9K more for that 3.6/6 speed combo in the new car which is right smack into the entry level eAssist and V6 LaCrosse pricing. I wonder if the fleet LS base models will be available with the V6 like they did with the 04-08 base Malibus? I'm really curious to see how this car fares for interior room, rear seat legroom which does look good on paper and how it drives and handles.