Northstar

It may make a difference, but not so much that one should pick one car over the other because of exterior color. It's not the reviewers' faults that Chevy gave them a color they liked and Honda did not. The lady also said that red is not her favorite color. Another reader said the Chevy's paint was the deep and luscious. Again, not Chevy's fault Honda and Toyota didn't give them as nice of a paint job. The Malibu in tan looks quite good, and I usually despise tan cars. The Malibu looks good in gray too. Looks good in every color I've seen it in, which is why I say it shouldn't matter what color the car is in. If the design is very good, a color can only detract from that so much. The color should not make the car look good, the design should.

No orange? No green? Mocha? No sporty-blue? (ie the blue on the ZR1) No white? (I see lots of white Mustangs) Average color pallete at best. Seriously, Mocha? I like it on the Enclave, but on a sports car? Mocha?

I don't think Edmunds picked the color... Honda most likely gave them what they had available. Regardless, a change in color shouldn't make one's opinion of a vehicle differ much, nor should the exterior of a vehicle look drastically different in one color or another. I think it's pretty safe to say the Malibu and Accord are pretty much neck and neck at the top of the class in terms of being a good family sedan with the Malibu holding the edge in the looks department.

You also should make sure that the two wheels have similar offset. Usually this says somewhere on the inside of the wheel (for instance for an offset of 40mm it would say something like "ET40." I know some GTO owners have done 5 x 120.65 for the bolt pattern instead of 5 x 120, but I think 2mm might be pushing it. Tirerack's wheels for the 9-5 are anywhere from 35-42mm offset, but the rims are not all the 6.5" width, so I'm not sure if your 6.5" wheels would have the same offset.

The H3 "Pickup" is the SUT we've been waiting for forever, is it not? I guess this is confirmation that the name is indeed Traverse. Not a terrible name, but not great either.

So are you saying Chevy should make a car that is sold exclusively to the police, rental, and taxi agencies?

I'm going to assume the Impala is not going to have a 4cyl. The cheapest you can get a V6 Malibu for is $25.2k. The Impala would have to start at least a couple thousand more than the Malibu, I would think. Otherwise, why would someone buy the Malibu will the same engine, same features, but smaller size? You're probably looking at $27.5k for an Impala without much on it. Add leather, heated and ventilated seats, moon roof, NAV, 8-way power passenger seat with power lumbar, electromagnetic rearview mirror, a premium 12 speaker sound system, bluetooth, laser cruise control, and a power rear sunshade (all of these are available on the Avalon) and I'm pretty sure you're looking at $40k+. Even without NAV, for a pretty loaded model you're in the mid-to-upper $30k range, which would make me ask the question: Why does Buick exist? A loaded Malibu is $28.5k currently. If a comparable Impala were to be only $2k more, you're looking at $30.5k without NAV, bluetooth, laser cruise control, premium sound, or ventilated seats. I think the job is better done with the LaCrosse in this price range. One could argue that I'm making some sort of claim that no one will buy a basic Impala, but I see the basic LaCrosse starting at around $28-29k, the same as what a basic Impala would have to start at (assuming it has similar equipment levels to the cheapest V6 Malibu). I think most people would rather have the Buick at that price. The Malibu can establish itself in the same way. Altima used to have a terrible image as well, now it sells very well. I don't understand why everyone thinks the NG Malibu will be so big. It has been stated many times that EPII is not necessarily much, if any, longer than Epsilon, but is for the most part likely just wider.

So putting it on EPII or G-Body would allow a price of up to $40k? I think it has more to do with being a Chevy than the platform underneath, personally.

Congrats. I think this is a good example of why the Impala sells so well and why above $30k is not Chevy's target market.

Of those, only the Taurus would compete with a FWD Impala. The Avalon and Maxima are decidedly more upscale. The current Impala doesn't even reach $30k if you don't get the SS (and a loaded SS is only a tad over $32k), in addition, we know no one pays even close to MSRP for an Impala. Someone here bought a $29k LTZ for $20k, (HERE). Perfect example of why Chevy shouldn't be competing in the $30k+ range. A loaded Avalon goes over $40k (starts at $28k), the Maxima starts at $28k and goes to $35k. Currently, those cars are out of the non-SS price range. The bulk of Impalas are sold well below $28k, as well. This is why I still say its better for Buick to target those cars. Buick has the image to sell cars at this price range, and the LaCrosse is going to be of a similar size, anyways. Nissan and Toyota also don't have a Buick-like brand to give a car like this to. You're right, the NG Malibu will be cross-shopped with all of those vehicles potentially, except for the Civic. The LaCrosse will also be cross-shopped with some of them (Sable, Passat, Azera, Amanti, upper-level Accords, Avalons, Maximas). The Malibu could be cross-shopped with all those vehicles whether there's an Impala above it or not. Why would it have to go from $17k-37k? The current one goes from $19k-27k, though it lacks navigation, which would bump it up to around $30k. Where is Buick coming in here? Above $37k? Buick's range is upper 20s to $40k in such a market. Yes, it would be too big for compact buyers, that's why there's the Cobalt. For midsize buyers, I disagree. The NG Malibu is only going to be wider, not much longer, than the current car. I fail to see why extra width makes it "too big." Epsilon is narrower than most midsize car platforms, anyways, so EPII is really just bringing GM's midsize cars up to speed. It better not be too heavy, the Accord is only 3400lbs and its much wider. If it is much heavier, that's GM's fault, not because the Malibu is wider. Clearly it can be made plenty light. Why would a Zeta Impala be mid-size? The LWB version of Zeta that one would assume the Impala would go on is 120" long. That's huge. First you say the Malibu would have to cover $17k-37k if it was the only EPII sedan for Chevy. Now you say 2 Chevy sedans would only cover $19k-33k. If you look at Toyota, the Camry covers $19k-32k, and the Avalon covers $28k-40k. The Malibu should mirror the Camry, and the LaCrosse should mirror the Avalon. Chevy doesn't have the image to sell cars over $30k or so. If you look at Honda, the Accord covers $20k to 31k and the TL covers $33k to 40k. Accord = Malibu, TL = LaCrosse. The only competition I see for the Impala is the Taurus, and that isn't exactly selling too well. I'm under the impression that Alpha is much, much smaller than the current Malibu. The 3er competitor is on Alpha, which leads me to believe that Alpha-based vehicles will be significantly smaller than the current Malibu. Also, I think that if it's supposed to be sporty, it should go to Pontiac. If Buick got a 2-door coupe based on its Zeta sedan, I think the cost investment would be quite minimal. The original projection for the Buick Zeta was 60k units a year. The Lucerne sold 90k through 12 months this year. I'm guessing probably around 75k of those are retail, so the Buick Zeta wouldn't have that big of a loss. In addition, the LaCrosse should take some of the old Lucerne sales, I would think. Couldn't the same volume come from a stretched Malibu? The Impala only sells so well now because its a big car that sells for around $20k with almost every option on it. If you sell it at the price point of the current Lucerne ($28k-37k) and don't give it away, you will see a huge decline in sales. In order to justify Chevy getting a car that competes with the Avalon, I feel this question must first be answered: Why must Chevy sell fully-loaded Impalas for $20k ($9k off sticker) with leather, heated seats, power everything, moon roof, remote start, alloys, and 240HP V6s when Honda can sell Accords with 177HP I4s, cloth, no heated seats, hup caps, power windows and locks, and nothing else all day long without a problem for $23k?

I never said that the interior volume of the Malibu and Impala were the same, I said headroom and legroom in both the front and rear were quite comparable, and they are; I also said that if the Malibu were wider (as EPII will be), that it would be the same size as the current Impala. The Accord offers similar front hip and shoulder room a the Impala, though the Impala beats it in rear hip/shoulder room. Headroom (front/rear) Malibu: 39.4/37.2 Impala: 39.4/37.8 Legroom (front/rear) Malibu: 42.2/37.6 Impala: 42.3/37.6 Shoulder room (front/rear) Malibu: 55.9/53.9 Impala: 58.7/58.6 Hip room (front/rear) Malibu: 53.0/52.1 Impala: 56.4/57.2 EPII is only going to get so wide, so I don't see two EPII sedans differing much in hip and shoulder room offered. That difference in the two cars will be gone, unless there are to be multiple track widths that vary by a good amount. Putting the Malibu back on a shorter wheelbase a la the original Epsilon Malibu will likely hurt its legroom and make it uncompetitive with the Accord and Camry in that respect. Like the Impala, the Accord is only significantly bigger than the Malibu in terms of interior volume because of the Malibu's lack of width. Legroom is actually slightly in favor of the Malibu, but the Accord wins by a large margin in hip and shoulder room, and by an inch or two in headroom both front and rear. If the Malibu were as wide as the Accord, the Accord would not have much more interior volume. I proposed a stretched NG Malibu without unique styling because I think it's pretty clear that the NG Malibu will be big enough for current Impala buyers, and the market is rather small for those people who want something bigger than that. Not giving it unique styling would save a lot of money that could be better used elsewhere. I see the LaCrosse being cross-shopped with the Avalon. The Avalon is actually shorter than the current LaCrosse, though bigger inside because of W-Body's inefficient hard points. I also expect pricing to be similar between the two models. Avalon and the ES are the main targets for an entry-level Buick luxury sedan, IMO, along with the TL. I think thats too many Alpha vehicles. Not all three brands need one. Alpha is also way too small for the Impala. You want Aveo, Cobalt, Malibu, Impala, and Caprice with Aveo<Cobalt~=~Impala<Malibu<Caprice? (going by size of the platforms). I think it makes more sense to make a Riveria off of Zeta than Alpha. Just make it a 2-door Park Ave. What platform is the Caprice riding on? G-Body? The Buicks I agree with, and I expect that's what's going to happen. The volume lost by the Lucerne and DTS should be made up by their Zeta replacements, no? Also, I'm fairly confident GM has gotten more than their money's worth out of G-Body. As I said above, I think it spreads Alpha around too much. I don't see how I can make my argument without comparing the current cars. As I have said several times, the Malibu is really the same size as the Impala except for being significantly narrower. EPII will be wider and thus the NG Malibu will likely be very similar in size to the current Impala. That is my argument. I'm not arguing anything about the current Malibu and Impala, I'm just stating facts about the two to make my argument. There isn't anything needed between the Cobalt and NG Malibu. You seem to keep forgetting the fact that the current Malibu and current Impala only differ in terms of width. I don't see how adding width to the Malibu would disqualify it for anyone shopping for a family sedan. If anything, it would make it an option for the wider people out there who really need the extra width afforded by the Impala. I don't see anyone who doesn't need the extra width disqualifying the car because it has more width than they need. If you look at the two main targeted competitors, Honda and Toyota, you see that they have a Cobalt sized car and a Malibu sized car. Toyota also offers a car similar in size to what a stretched Malibu would be, but it doesn't sell that well. GM isn't rolling in cash like Toyota, so it makes more sense from a business standpoint to just stretch the NG Malibu. ----------------------------------------------- Another thing to consider is this: As turbo pointed out, the Impala is extremely cheap for its size. Unless pricing is going to stay the same and continue to almost directly overlap with the Malibu, the car will appeal to less people. How many people are going to buy an Impala that starts at $27k and moves into the mid $30k range like the Avalon? I don't think too many. This is why this market is better covered by the LaCrosse.

Here's an ebay find: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/06-LACROSSE...1QQcmdZViewItem 2006 LaCrosse CXL, 35k miles, dual zone climate, leather, alloy wheels, $12,495.

I don't know how many times I need to say this for it to set in with most people, but Chevy doesn't have a car as big as the NG Impala would be, at least on the inside. The NG Malibu will likely be as big or at least almost as big in every interior dimension as the current Impala. Does Chevy really need a sedan bigger than that? The NG Impala would be in a market that Chevy currently is not in, because it would be quite a cavernous vehicle. I think it makes most business sense for it to be a stretched Malibu. That's the cheapest route for a vehicle that probably won't give Chevy many more sales over the EPII Malibu anyways. If it was Zeta-based, at least it would appeal to a whole different set of buyers.

Still, the NG Malibu is going to be as big inside than the current Malibu it would seem. Why can't Oshawa produce the Malibu too? Why can't the NG Malibu sell as well as the Camry? Make a normal wheelbase and long wheelbase versions and make them at multiple factories. The problem is that resale value will be crap if they fleet a lot of them, so that is the problem that must be figured out. Perhaps the new Malibu can be a fleet queen in 5 years.

But rental sales give very little profit. Again, it makes a lot more business sense to just make a stretched Malibu if the need for a very big FWD car is there. It would be extremely cheap to do and the rental companies wouldn't care.

Define "large sedan." Is the current Impala a "large sedan"? If so, the NG Malibu figures to be just as large on the inside. I still say make a longer wheel base version to accommodate the few that want even more legroom. The NG Malibu should be large enough for 90-95% of car buyers. The Accord is not much larger than the current Malibu, and the Avalon not much larger than the Accord. A stretched NG Malibu would be just as big as the Accord. I also think the NG LaCrosse will compete nicely with the Avalon. The CTS starts at $32k, so I expect the LaCrosse to be sub-$30k. The Avalon starts at $27k with the Touring (probably the volume model) at $29k. Right in line with where the LaCrosse should be.

The emergency overhauls should have begun the day after the current interiors were improved, not 4 years after.

Don't be surprised when it does come with the HV3.5 standard (see here). I don't know where you put it, which again is why I'm not sure if it's needed at all now. The NG Malibu will be as big inside as the current Impala most likely, so the Impala would have to be HUGE and would offer more space than most people are even looking for.

What incentive does GM have to make a model just so it can be a fleet queen?

Perhaps, but an Alpha vehicle is smaller than a Malibu, much less an Impala. I'm not sure that's the same clientèle. The other thing about that is that there isn't much of a market for a Chevy Alpha coupe when you have the Camaro. Pontiac would have more of a market for the coupe (less cannibalization). The Camaro may well move to Alpha, however, as you said. Does it need it's own sheet metal and interior, or can it be on a longer wheelbase than the normal Malibu and be called "Malibu Maxx" (or whatever)? EPII will add width, though. I expect EPII to be as wide as the current Impala. In addition, the Malibu's wheelbase is already longer than the Impala's. Both have the same rear legroom, hip and shoulder room are better in the Impala, but again, EPII will be wider, which will address those issues. Headroom is the same in the front and only .4 inch less for the Malibu in the rear. The Impala does have a bigger trunk. The Impala suffers a lot from being on W-Body. HUGE overhangs and not much legroom for its length because of a shorter-than-Epsilon wheelbase. Therefore, I am now convinced there is no need for a FWD Impala, and perhaps any sort of Impala. The current Malibu is already as good in legroom and only lacks shoulder and hip room because of its lack of width. If EPII is wider and keeps the same wheelbase, it will have the same interior room as the current Impala. Is there really a need for something bigger than that? It is probably possible to make EPII even longer and stretch the Malibu if there really is a need, but the EPII Malibu should be spacious enough for 95% of buyers, I would think. The Avalon does offer more legroom than either of them, but again I think that is more of a Toyota Buick.

Agreed. It's no wonder things take so long to get done at GM... Lutz has to tell in the people that are supposed to know what they're doing what to do.

Thinking about this, I'm not sure if there's even a need for an Impala anymore. Honda has nothing above the Accord, the Avalon is really just a Toyota version of a Buick (hence it competes with the LaCrosse and Lucerne), Nissan has the Maxima but it 1) doesn't sell that well, and 2) is really more of a Pontiac competitor, IMO. Perhaps for those wanting more room in the rear, they could make a new Malibu Maxx, but this time just make it on a longer wheelbase and keep a real trunk. A la the stretched 300. It would be more cost-efficient, the only question is whether or not it would sell well. Is there really a need for a Chevy bigger than the Malibu, and if so, does it make sense to give it its own unique sheet metal and interior, or would that money be better spent elsewhere? I do think the G8 and Zeta Buick can cover the RWD market, but I don't think it makes much of a difference if the Impala is also RWD.

I fail to see how a 3800lb, 260HP 6-speed automatic RWD car will achieve worse MPG than a 3800lb, 260HP 6-speed automatic FWD car. If all drivetrain choices are going to be based on what sort of fuel mileage they get, GM might as well eliminate all AWD cars, because AWD makes MPGs go down the tubes.

Because the Hondas they like so much are totally impractical and ride hard as a rock. Get real.

I'm sure they just dumped all the coins in a machine and had it count them. Anyways, this is quite interesting. In the days of credit cards though, I don't think this will happen much anymore. I do use cash a good amount of the time, but its so much easier to use a credit card and not have to worry about going to the bank to get cash.