(first posted 6/19/2014) “The car you knew America could build”, GM’s patriotic TV ads proudly proclaimed upon the Malibu’s release in 1997. Perhaps a more transparent slogan would have been “Does it look enough like a Camry that you’ll actually buy one?”
They say confidence is quiet while insecurities are loud, and few things scream “I wish I was imported from Japan” louder than the Malibu’s amber rear turn signals. Every aspect of the car, from the inside to the outside – right down to the generic-looking plastic wheel covers, reeks of Toyota envy.
It doesn’t take much more than a glance to figure out that GM engineers used the 1992-1996 Camry as heavy inspiration when penning the design. Note the word “inspiration” rather than “benchmark,” because, as GM would eventually realize, the Camry’s mass-market appeal went far deeper than its inoffensive skin.
It’s easy for automotive writers to simply call this Malibu bland. But it’s the underlying cynicism behind the blandness that makes this car so interesting. GM’s share of the family sedan market had been plummeting for well over a decade at this point, with almost all of their lost sales going to superior products from Honda, Toyota, and Ford. The W-body didn’t save the day like Roger Smith had planned, with two generations of cheap and lackluster Luminas hardly winning any customers back. What was the ailing manufacturer to do?
The General’s solution was nothing short of desperate and in one word, lazy. By 1996, the archaic L-body Corsica had long passed its sell-by date. With the resulting gap in the line-up between the Lumina and the Cavalier too large to ignore, GM saw an opportunity. Although touted in advertisements as an “all-new” Malibu, Chevrolet’s finest product planners plopped this nondescript, mid-size shell onto the nearly-identical N-body platform – a platform which underpinned such pinnacles of engineering excellence as the Pontiac Grand Am – shoehorned the ancient, parts-bin 3100 V6 into the engine bay, and left the office for a round of golf.
The resulting creation wasn’t a bad car in the same way that the Citation and Vega were “bad cars”. It was just so thoroughly mediocre and phoned-in that it became painfully clear how much the parent company didn’t care. When new, the car had no particular redeeming qualities compared to just about anything else. Ride and handling were average. The Camry was more comfortable, while the Accord was sportier; both were built better and had vastly nicer interiors. Ford’s Taurus and Contour, while not without flaws, had more sophisticated suspensions and at least offered more modern optional engines. The Malibu was just, well… there. It simply existed, innocuously, perpetually overlooked by just about everyone. About the only thing it had going for it was its price, and even that was offset by practically non-existent resale values.
Growing up in Lansing, Michigan, home to two GM assembly plants–one of which built this very Malibu–along with no fewer than six Chevrolet retailers (in contrast to just one Toyota store), people actually bought these, making them a local best-seller throughout their run. The city’s streets continue to be littered with their N-body-derived mediocrity to this day. Outside of their hometown, however, these cars had one and only one natural habitat: airport rental lots.
Does anyone else remember those Enterprise commercials from about 1999, featuring an anonymous, tarp-covered sedan navigating a winding road with the announcer softly proclaiming “Enterprise, We’ll Pick You Up?” I do, and I especially remember the beige Malibu below that logo-covered tarp, cementing in my young mind the proper place these cars occupied in the social hierarchy that is the automotive world. If you rented a sedan up until about 2006, it was hard not to get one these as a “free upgrade” from a Kia after disembarking an airplane anywhere in the United States.
Truthfully, the biggest problem with this generation of Malibu was not how cheap it was, not how mediocre it was, and not even how bland it was. GM simply let it wither on the vine for so long that it eventually became an all-purpose fleet car; the 21st century equivalent to the Cutlass Ciera, but somehow less endearing. The generic sedan was so ridiculously popular with corporate fleets that GM continued building it exclusively for them in 2004 and 2005, badged as “Chevrolet Classic,” two years after the much-improved Epsilon Malibu had replaced it in public showrooms.
Much like the lifecycle of its Corsica predecessor, what had been an average, cheap car in 1997 had become thoroughly horrible by 2005. The car was improved (marginally) in its final years, with the modern and efficient Ecotec 4-cylinder replacing the boat-anchor pushrod V6, but at that point, it didn’t matter. The Honda Accord alone had passed through no fewer than three generations during the same time period, and it had arguably been a better car to begin with.
The story of the Malibu isn’t all doom and gloom, though. The truly-new 2004 Epsilon platform vastly stepped up the model’s game in the market, and the sharply-styled, well-suspended 2008 model was the first Malibu in modern times to even come close to the word ‘desirable’. The current 2014 model is still based upon that Epsilon platform, albeit updated heavily, and while its sales and the overall reputation still fall short of the Camry, the car is at least a contender in the mid-size segment today.
Still, for car-crazy Millennials who came of age when the N-bodies were being churned out, disconnecting “cheap wannabe” from the name “Malibu” is an ongoing struggle. Hopefully someday those amber rear turn signals will be nothing more than a distant childhood memory.
Related reading:
Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais International Series: I’ll Let Barry Thiel Explain It To You
1996 Chevrolet Beretta: A Dash Of Sportiness
The base engine in this cars was the same 2.4, 4 cylinder found in Z24 Cavaliers and GT Sunfires of the same era. The Ecotec engine replaced the 2.4 not the V6 if I recall correctly.
The 2.4 was technically standard for the first three years, but it was so unpopular (even with fleets, apparently) that it was dropped after 2000. The 3100 become the sole engine until the Ecotec replaced it in 2004. Most remaining examples have the 3100 and all of the newer ‘Classic’ versions have the Ecotec
i didn’t knew this, thanks for the explanation. Regarding the car, I personally know three persons that owned one of this. Two of them had them from new. The experience of the three of them were mostly similar. Electrical and brake problems almost from new. I found this cars fairly roomy amd confortable even for my 6’2″ body but the seats are hard. The cars felt peppy with the 6 cylinder, at least when they were running and not in the dealer because of a problem.
As I remember it:
3.1L (replaced 2.8L) = Z24 & Sunbird GT
2.2L (replaced 2.0L & 1.8L) = Cavalier and Sunbird
Although that was around 1994ish
The 3.1 replaced the 2.8 in the Z24 and Sunbird GT for 1990, I believe, and lasted through I think 1994. In ’95, the Sunbird became the Sunfire and got the 2.3-liter four formerly known as Quad 4 (and thereafter known as, “Okay, okay, we gave it balance shafts — please stop whining”).
I wonder how many Europeans that booked an American car at Vegas airport did this disappoint.” Excuse me I ben given the wrong car? You given me a Toyota! “.
Nice writeup on a ubiquitous, yet largely forgotten, transportation appliance.
I own a gen 3 Camry, and like the styling of this Malibu, but never had to live with or drive one. Ironically, I often read comments about older Camrys like mine, calling them boring, bland appliances. To me, my Camry and this Malibu, are far better looking than today’s insect, reptile, and fish-styled automotive creations!
It’s like you read my mind when writing this. Everything you wrote pretty much sums up my sentiments about this car. In addition to fleet queens, these were popular with little old ladies who only drove to church and the grocery store.
Oddly enough, I never personally experienced the Malibu as a rental. My family was blessed enough to get a slightly more interesting (despite also riding on the N-body) Olds Alero the one time we rented a GM car between 1997 and 2005.
I completely forgot about those Enterprise commercials. Another distant childhood memory. “1-800-Rent-A-Car”
Thanks, I figured people who grew up in the ’90s would be able to relate especially well to this.
Out of all the various permutations of N-body, the Alero was far and away the nicest. I had a base 2002 model (with crank windows!) as my driver’s ed car – not a bad appliance. The coupe version looked great and with the rare manual transmission option, dare I say almost desirable?
The Grand Am GT coupe was pretty cool, a little over the top with its ginger bread, but kinda fun, especially in the last 1999 and up generation with 4 wheel disc brakes and the pseudo “ram air” V6.
Loved the idea, but I thought the finished product was awful. This car won “Car Most Likely To Be Driven To The Gathering of The Juggalos” in C&D:
I think the hood was fitting to the styling but the styling was already tacky and overwrought to begin with and it just made the whole car seem like it was targeted at 10 year olds(maybe whoever predicted the fuel apocolypse for GM in the early 80s also predicted a drop in the minimum driving age in the 00s).
I vaguely recall a concept car of the Grand Prix coupe from the same time period with a similar hood and I thought it looked 10x better on it than the production Grand Am.
I thought the Cavalier/Sunfires had a stronger representation in the Juggalo community, go figure.
Not all of them came with that hood, which was a extra tacky sauce on your tacky taco. I sold lots of these, they did have their purpose when new, they provided some of that 4th gen Trans Am flair in a cheaper more buyer friendly package, something that looks fast and sporty, but really isn’t that fast or sporty to someone who has driven a high performance car, but to Joe Average, it was sporty enough, and as I said, they did drive fairly well, the improvements made to the N-body for the redesign result in a pretty firm body structure.
Pontiac did show a couple of these Grand Am GT coupes with supercharged 3800 from a GTP Grand Prix stuffed in them and larger 18′ wheels from an SSEi, they were almost considered for production.
The Grand Am GT coupe was pretty cool
Seriously?? From the company that brought us the ’63 GP? ’66 GTO? The ultimate trailer trash-mobile. I shot one recently, and it’s going to appear in a ……..DS. Surprised?
“Pseudo Ram Air” for a pseudo car; perfect.
The ultimate trailer trash-mobile.
That kind of sounds more derisive towards Grand Am owners than the car itself.
Yes, yes……everything is a deadly sin, the X-cars, the small block, the Corvette..57 Chevys….etc etc.
I said, in the context of the N-car line up, that the Grand Am GT coupe was pretty cool, not in the realm of cars in general, just with the N-cars. I still stand by what I said, the car drove decently, had a nice torquey V6, good brakes and was interesting to look at, again, it was the 90’s.
What does the 66 GTO have to do with the 99 Grand Am? Was every other company still building the same cars in 1999 that they were making in 1966? Was Lincoln still making suicide door Continentals in 1999? Or were they selling a FWD Taurus based Continental? Is everything supposed to remain exactly the same as it was in 1964? Was this country the same country that it was in 1965? No.
Cars need to be looked at from the individual perspective of the time they came out, not in relation to cars made 30 years prior. The Grand Am wasn’t even in the same slot as either the GTO or Grand Prix. The Grand Prix from this same era was actually a really nice car, I had a supercharged GTP version of one.
People did buy these Grand Am in pretty big numbers, I sold them new and we sold lots of them, regardless of how tastless you might think it is, and it is a bit over the top, I agree, it was a pretty nice little sporty coupe, thats how it should be looked at, this wasn’t a 64 Grand Prix or a 66 GTO replacement, the Grand Am was like a Ventura Sport.
“The Grand Am GT coupe was pretty cool
Seriously?? From the company that brought us the ’63 GP? ’66 GTO? The ultimate trailer trash-mobile. I shot one recently, and it’s going to appear in a ……..DS. Surprised?
“Pseudo Ram Air” for a pseudo car; perfect.”
Carmine, I believe Paul’s response explains the DS status…that a company who once built the BEST VEHICLES ON EARTH fell to building crap like the X-body…the J-body…the N-body.
There’s no excuse. None. They’re GM. And GM, besides its rich history of great cars, had enough moments of greatness thru all the crap of the 70s, 80s and 90s to show they could have…should have done better.
“What does the 66 GTO have to do with the 99 Grand Am? Was every other company still building the same cars in 1999 that they were making in 1966? Was Lincoln still making suicide door Continentals in 1999? Or were they selling a FWD Taurus based Continental? Is everything supposed to remain exactly the same as it was in 1964? Was this country the same country that it was in 1965? No.”
I don’t think that’s what Paul was trying to say. And that’s certainly not where I’m coming from.
Respectfully…if that ’99 Grand Am had had the same foresight and passion Pontiac put into the ’66 GTO…it wouldn’t be a Deadly Sin. I’m not saying it needs to look or behave like a ’66 GTO…just design and build the thing to be the BEST AT WHAT’S IT SUPPOSED TO DO.
Like Ford did with the 1986 Taurus.
My ’88 Corsica had its engine apart twice in 60,000 miles and was in need of a THIRD rebuild when I threw in the towel at 88,000 miles.
On a THREE year old vehicle.
Please read Peter DeLorenzo’s “The United States Of Toyota”.
Read about what they did when the 1997 Malibu was developed, how they brought in the newest Honda Accord to benchmark. Not to surpass, but simply match.
WHICH MEANS THE CAR WAS OBSOLETE THE DAY IT FIRST HIT THE SHOWROOM FLOOR!!!!!!
My wife drove one of these on a rental, in 1999, and was thoroughly disappointed. From the cheap interior parts to the hard seats to the uninspiring performance.
IMO, that General Motors EVEN EXISTS today is a testament to the dynamic, awe-inspiring machines built throughout the first five decades of its existence.
And no one is happier than me to see the 2008-2011 Malibu receive the accolades it’s deserved. I have yet to find someone who ones one who is less than delighted with it.
I hope the company survives the current recall kerfuffle/debacle because GM is arguably building the BEST vehicles in its history. Certainly…and finally…worthy of the legacy left by the ’63 GP…’70 Camaro…the Tri-Fives…etc. etc.
I’m sorry, but I’m not giving my favorite car company a pass for acting like the four-wheeled equivalent of Bart Simpson for 30 years.
Desirable is a bit of an overstatement. It was by far the best-looking of the N-body cars though, and drove reasonably well. Before they started falling apart, seems like a good combination…
In 1999, we were car-shopping to trade our 1996 Intrepid – I was fearful of the 3.5L fuel rail problem – after getting it fixed with the recall, sometimes it was very hard to start, and holding my breath with the Ultradrive.
We looked at a Malibu, plus the new 2000 Impala at our local – now my Chevy dealer – no sale. We went to a Dodge dealer and bought our 1999 Dodge Stratus instead. Good choice at the time. I suppose they were as serviceable as a Dodge Avenger is now, but they weren’t the car for us.
Every time I see one of these Malibus, especially after we had a “Classic” as a rental in 2005, I always breath a sigh of relief and say: “Glad we didn’t buy a Malibu”!
The ONLY cool thing about these was the unique “wave” emblem – that was a real touch of class that the car didn’t live up to!
Funny, I’d like to own a new Malibu now, and it would be the first car I’d look at if I were replacing my 2012 Impala…
Zackman,
How do you like that Impala? My wife’s a GM gal, and I’d like to ditch her ’04 Impala before it starts breaking things incessantly (137,000 miles right now).
I’m down to the ’12 or ’13 with the 3600, or a 4-cylinder Malibu (’08-’12). What’s your gas mileage like?
Aaron65, mine is a 2012 LTZ, and so far, it’s been great and a vast improvement over my old 2004 base model 3.4L. My old ride is still around and I see it at work on occasion – still doing great.
I loved that old car, but I love my new-almost -2-years-old Impala more. Lately been averaging over 30 mpg on my long commute. It’s already got 46000 miles!
Thanks! That’s good mileage for a big car, although the 4 cylinder Malibu probably would do better in her mixed driving. Now we just have to find something with a moonroof that fits her frugality. Easier said than done! I think she’d like the extra power…she’s a bit of a leadfoot.
Remember that Oldsmobile sold this car too. They pretty much took a Malibu, slapped Cutlass badges on it, and called it a day. I found that even more desperate than the Malibu.
Yes, they sold it as a pseudo replacement for the Ciera, even thought it’s blobby looks and buckets seats were like garlic and holy water to most Ciera buyers, that was a bad move on Oldsmobiles, they probably would have been better off offering an “old folks” version of the Intrigue as the Cutlass Supreme or Ciera, with a bench seat and the 3100 V6 similar to what Buick did with the Century and Regal in 1997.
The other odd thing about the Cutlass was that it overlapped with the other Oldsmobile N-body car, the Acheiva, for a couple of years before they were both replaced by the Alero.
My memory is that the big feature of the Cutlabu was that Olds offered leather seats.
The N body Cutlass didn’t even sell very well in Lansing. As Max said, the Malibus are everywhere, but I can only think of 1 or 2 of the Cutlass version around.
You hit the nail on the head…I rented one of these vehicles several years ago; it was a totally generic automobile with absolutely no outstanding qualities. When I returned it to the rental agency at the Duluth airport and dropped of the keys there was absolutely nothing memorable about it I could remember.
So this, my Olds piece and the two REOs. Are we actually doing Lansing week at CC? 😉
Sounds good to me! 😀
I suppose it’s better than East Lansing Week, where interesting cars parked on the street are photographed prior to having their back seats removed and set on fire to commemorate an MSU championship (or loss) in any sport.
+1!
My mom had a tan 1997 ‘Bu, from new until October, 2001. She liked it (or so she says). I spent the first 2 years of my life riding in it. Sigh.
What else could she get? Her dad worked at Chevy In The Hole for 30 years as a skilled tradesman, and her husband was working as an electrical engineer in Troy, MI as an 8th level.
I have to ask, from a European/British perspective, whats the downer on amber turn signals? or ‘indicators’ as we call them here.
This seems to be the American equivilent to the 1995 Vauxhall Vectra. A car so mediocre and bland that to this day Vauxhall still struggles to shake off its image, despite its recent offerings being half-decent cars (Astra and Insignia).
Amber signals are required in Europe and Japan – they are not in US. Traditionally, American-brand cars have used all-red taillights, but beginning in the ’80s and ’90s it was popular for the Big 3 to add amber rear indicators to some of their cars as a cheap attempt to make a model seem more “international” or “European/Japanese”
There is nothing wrong with them functionally (I actually prefer them), it’s the ‘Wannabe Euro’ attitude behind them that makes me roll my eyes. The worst example is probably the American-market Ford Escort… the amber portion didn’t even light up – FAKE turn signals!
Thanks for the explanation Max – I was puzzled by this too.
So it’s sort of the inverse of putting a US style vinyl roof on a UK car in the 70s? Basically a credible enough styling trick if it’s on a Mk3 Cortina (a car with a genuinely american feel to it) but laughably “wannabe” on a Marina.
Sure it does – on the taillamps themselves. On that light bar, well, no.
Yes, it’s only the sedans that had the fake amber and only from 1994-96.
The 1976 Vega had 100 percent non op amber segments in its taillight lenses.
I remember when I first saw this new Chevrolet Malibu. I wasn’t the least bit impressed. The last time Chevrolet used the Malibu name was back in the early 80s, for its rear-wheel drive cars. It’s not a bad looking car. It’s just front wheel drive. There’s plenty of those around, there’s so few rear-wheel drive.
This generation Malibu was like a bowl of hours-old, cold oatmeal. The Epsilon-platform ‘Bu, on the other hand, was like a nice steak dinner at a fine restaurant, by comparison (I still like them).
My neighbor – and as of today, former neighbor – has that very car. I’m thinking you summed it up best, it’s bland. When a Taurus GL looks exciting next to something, that something is bland.
I dodged a bullet on one of these, to make a long story short, a relative wanted to give me a LS with the alloy wheels. I passed and took a much older Taurus GL instead.. and somehow was glad I did. The Taurus was more comfortable, bigger, less bland and even had a sunroof.
Something about these cars scream “I’VE GIVEN UP ON LIFE”.
When it came to business rentals, I never seemed to get the upgrade. Among the Daewoos, bottom feeder crank window Saturns and a base Stratus 4 banger, getting one of these in a V-6 would have been like being handed a limo / sports car hybrid.
I recall everyone piling on this car hard, likely deservedly. And, the 2008 proved that it is possible to put some style into this category. Although, interestingly, the 2008 combined a retro name along with some retro styling cues to get to its success. Funny how some of the principles of mid ’60s styling keep coming back as the true way.
Downsizing the 2008 in 2013 was a terrible decision. The current model looks okay, but is among the worst “mid-size” cars for interior space. Cramped to the point of being non-functional. In no way is it competitive with the Accord, Fusion, Passat, Camry or Altima.
Have you actually sat in one? Because I did,(several actually) I needed to see this “massive loss of space” and guess what? And at the risk of losing my legs from the knees down, I braved the interior of the 2013 Malibu, and you know what? there really isn’t any loss, its actually fine back there its probably the most blown out of proportion automotive related subject of the past 5 years, it really incredible whenever I read about these “fake” complaints about rear seat room in the Malibu, as if all of a sudden everyone needs to commute with Larry Bird in the back seat.
The new Malibu has more rear leg room than an Altima or a Sonata, yet you don’t get the same crying about leg room when those cars are reviewed? It has more shoulder room than either one of those cars either, and just slightly less leg room than a Camry and some of the cars that have the “most” rear about an 1 inch to an inch and half, really, not a huge difference, I don’t know many people that are commuting with 3 basketball players in the back seat all the time, so really, rear seat room, when you are talking about an 1 and half is really a non issue that being blow way out of proportion by all the buff books, as If all of a sudden back seat space was the most important thing in the world to Motor Trend, right, and if you do need more, get an Impala, which has more than any of the other cars mentioned.
Carmine, I have had the new Malibu as a rental many times. The car is much better than the car featured in the article and it drives well. The real problem is for a family, the rear seat just doesn’t cut it. My teenagers were not comfy at all. In real terms other brands are better, the Fusion especially.
But again, its the rear, at 6ft with the front seat adjusted to my taste, I felt fine, is it a 1976 Fleetwood? Can you host a summer cotillion between the front and rear seats? no. But its not the Russian Siberian salt mine that some of the critics make it out to be.
I have the feeling that if the Malibu would have come out with the largest rear seat, the reviewers would have been critiquing it with statements like “its not 1972 anymore GM, come on with the wasteful back seat space”, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I always had the feeling that the 08’s went over so well that the critics were just stunned. A Chevrolet that can’t be panned? So when the new ones turned out to be a bit tighter, the critics jumped in with a vengence. Life is good, back to normal, pillory the Malibu again.
Could be. The 08 is a trim looking car, I did like its looks, I find the current Malibu to be good looking as well, not massively exciting, but what is in this category? I do see lots of them in Miami traffic and not rentals, since they do have dealer stickers and lic plate frames. I’m glad that GM has stuck with the Malibu name too, through 4 generations of continued improvement.
In my opinion, the ’08 was a nicer car, with nicer materials and dynamics. The new one seems cheapend out to me.
The 08 still did have somethings that I found sort of cheap, like the “insert radio and HVAC controls here” style dash where the radio and hvac controls weren’t smoothy integrated into the dash, and the lack of a rear seat armrest always bugged me on them too. Never driven one though.
Carmine, you are so right about car magazine reviewers piling on about negligible or nonexistent problems. Every current Cadillac review has the same gratuitous slam about CUE, as if it’s just an accepted fact that it’s horrible. Nonsense. I’ve driven a 2013 SRX for the past year and I love CUE. In fact, when I get an earlier pre-CUE loaner SRX I’m baffled by the bank of buttons and nobs.
Carmin, absolutely yes! I’m sort of a back seat aficionado. As a cheap man I’m usually scoping my next car for about 5 years before I make the move. I do the auto shows every year. A large or mid-size sedan with a functional rear seat for 5 for short highway trips is on my list. I’ve sat in every car I’ve mentioned several times. I adjust the front seat to fit my 6’1″ frame (skinny though, about 185). Then, I’ll sit behind “myself.”
Camry wins the contest hands down. Accord and Altima are close seconds. Fusion is probably 3rd. Passat and Impala would rank better if they didn’t have tunnels that remind me of old school rear drive cars.
The current Avalon was a loss over the prior generation, and Camry beat it handily – at a better price of course.
One of the more hopeless cases: Taurus is ridiculously poor considering its size – and Fusion now shares the same wheelbase – but is much more efficient with what it does. The current Fusion is a marked improvement over the first gen. The Taurus Lincoln is as bad as Taurus.
GM. Where do I start? Not very good across the entire line. The current CTS is actually not bad for two, as is Impala. I had a tough time getting the XTS to work as well as the Impala.
Weirdly, Cruze might be okay. My wife rented one and I liked it, but I never saw it except for the front seat adjusted for my short wife.
Have not seriously considered anything from Buick, but my glances have not been positive. I believe Impala does a better job with the platform it shares with LaCrosse. Lacrosse is one car where I haven’t been in it for a year or two – mostly based on a recollection that it was fairly poor.
Sentra is a shocker for a roomy compact back seat.
Chrysler: 300 cramped for the mega wheelbase, 200, not very good, Dart okay for its size class.
E-Class is a wonderful car, but reality is it is a bit cramped for the price. S-Class has a lot of room, but you sit pretty low in those rear seats.
Malibu was handily one of the worst I’ve been in. Basically, I can’t get in or out if I were to sit behind myself.
I’m in complete agreement with the automotive writers that will compare 5 cars in a segment and tell you that common dimensions and actually utility don’t always add up based on actual human geometry.
Occasionally I go off half-cocked, but not on this one!
I like back seat space to, I dunno, to each their own, maybe your legs start under your armpits or you have size 60 EEE shoes, I’m 6ft and over 200lb and I had no trouble with the Malibu interior and to me the LaCrosse and XTS interiors are like limo seats, I can cross my legs with the seat set to my driving position.
I looked in the back of a Peugeot cabrio thing. The driver’s seat actually touched the rear seat squab. I don’t even know how they can get away with that.
The first one of these I noticed was bought by some friends of our family. I jumped to the conclusion that Chevy had a new vehicle out that appeared to be an improvement on the old Corsica, and actually competitive. I don’t ever remember reading anything about these at the time. Turns out, I was giving the car waaaaay too much credit.
These sold quite well at retail in Central Indiana as well, but then we have (had?) a lot of GM employees in the area, and there was still a lot of inertia from longtime GM customers. I still see these fairly routinely, mostly with big gaping rust holes under the fuel filler doors.
An excellent treatment of a very forgettable car.
Orange Turn Signals are a great idea because that is the color they should be and not red like brake lights. It can be hard to tell the two apart especially if a brake light or two is burned out.
Shame you did not heap praise on the Cloud Cars (he he) because those were the best of the Big Three. In all seriousness these are bland vehicles and if they were just bland that would be ok, but they are crappy too boot. Horseheads Pick-a-Part is still probably full of these (about 12) with rust, dents, dirty interiors and usually only 150-200K miles. In Portland I have seen one of these on the side of I-5 for days and even witnessed one stall a few times trying to get across an intersection. Perhaps when the last of these Bu’s become antiques they will be a bit more interesting. Good article and I am glad the Beastie Boys do not let their music be used in advertising.
My mother-in-law had one of these. The heater control knob stopped working properly, which apparently is a common problem with GM cars of this era. At just short of 100,000 miles it succumbed to another GM malady from this era – head gasket problems – and was traded for a used 2004 Malibu.
Her new Malibu is a big improvement, although it has vaguest steering “feel” of any car I’ve ever driven. Clunks and other assorted noises come from the front end when the wheel is turned, which I believe is related to the intermediate steering shaft. This is another problem common to GM cars of this era. Rust is evident on the exterior metal between the rear wheel opening and the rear passenger door, although western Pennsylvania winters are hard on vehicles.
Miserable rental car! I had to wrap my long, long legs painfully around the tilt-free steering column to drive it. This was after I flew the red-eye into Washington/Dulles. Yes, it was an Enterprise car!
Wasn’t this Motor Trend’s Car of the Year in 1997? And yes, I remember there was an Oldsmobile badged version as well – someone in my neck of the woods imported one some years ago and I think it’s still on the road.
Yes indeed. It wasn’t a great car, but it also wasn’t the market-deaf lemon it was made out to be in this post. It’s biggest problem, in my opinion anyway, is that it was dull and boring. That works for Toyota because they offer great quality and reliability.
Toyota style and performance with GM quality is about the worst combination you could have had back then.
Max was right in that it took way too long to update it as well.
The biggest problem was quality. The car simply didn’t have good components in it. GM did everything it could to cheapen these cars out. Plastics are hard, shiny and degrade quickly. Carpets and upholstery as cheap as possible, who cares of it gets dirty so fast? Want “Euro-style seats?” Make ’em had as rocks, it’s cheaper foam anyway….Competition has smooth, multi-cam V-6’s? Stick ’em with a pushrod contraption from 1980, they’ll never know the difference!
We had 2001/2002 Malibus at work. I found the interior of those cars was an immense improvement over the rubbish fitted to early ’90s Luminas and my 1995 Grand Am. I’m not trying to say these Malibus are on par with a Rolls Royce, just that they could have been infinitely worse. I never drove one but did occasionally ride in one in the back seat, these cars seemed OK from that vantage point.
I’ve only ever driven a Chevy because I know for sure that Chevy’s are the best!
The interior actually was lightyears better than earlier GM cars. The dash in particular – which has a slightly Audi-esque look to it, much like the ’92 Seville.
But the materials were still very cheap and prone to disintegrating. The plastics used in most late 90s GM cars look like they’re suffering from some kind of infection that’s causing a horrible inflammation. I have a theory that this was GM trying to emulate the look of European and Japanese “soft-touch” plastics without having to make them any less hard or brittle.
Malibu won MT COTY for 1997, since it was only for domestic cars then. So, it won by default. MT now puts all cars into one pile for its award.
To everyone mentioning the Motor Trend COTY Award in the comments, it’s worth nothing they publicly apologized for the 1997 Malibu in 2009….
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/dishonorable-mention-the-10-most-embarrassing-award-winners-in-automotive-history
But what does that mean, really? They obviously found some merit in all those cars at the time they reviewed them. The Malibu didn’t get any “blander” as time went on. It’s ride, handling, and build quality didn’t get worse than the car they felt deserved the award.
The only claim that could validate the “apologies” are if they are horribly unreliable. Just goes to show how popularity and hindsight can taint honest opinions.
Perhaps you should read what they wrote back then:
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/112_9602_1997_chevy_malibu/
“Malibu won MT COTY for 1997, since it was only for domestic cars then. So, it won by default.”
Well, I don’t know what all the competitors were back then, but this is what they wrote:
“In almost 50 years of Car of the Year evaluations, there rarely has been a field of better, more evenly matched competitors for MT’s Golden Caliper award.”
When this replaced the Corsica, I thought, “about damn time.” The Corsica had overstayed its welcome. The Corsica wasn’t horrible — I owned its two-door brother, the Beretta, and it was a fine experience. But it wasn’t big enough to compete with the growing Cam-cord class. The new Malibu had better dimensions and looked like it sort of belonged in the class.
I have never so much as ridden in one.
But I did rent a second-gen Malibu and hated it, mostly because of a fussy throttle. It was very hard to hold that car at any speed because the pedal had too much give. It was frustrating to drive because of that.
I was surprised to learn here that the Malibu that followed that was built on the same platform, as when I rented one of those I thought that Chevy finally got it right — in looks, in size, and in performance/handling. I enjoyed driving that Malibu. If I were in the market for a used midsized sedan, I’d consider buying one.
It strikes me that Chevy took the Kia/Hyundai path with these Malibus. The first iteration was better than nothing but not truly competitive. And then they improved things with each iteration until the car felt like it really belonged in its class. The Hyundai Sonata, for example, of 3-4 generations ago was passable, I guess, but probably sold mostly on price. Now it’s a pretty decent car.
“It was very hard to hold that car at any speed because the pedal had too much give. It was frustrating to drive because of that.”
Agreed! That is one of the things I hate about my Mother’s 06 Lacrosse. The gas pedal has what feels like a 10 inch travel that makes you really have to try hard to make the car move.
My wife had a 2001 Civic that was the opposite. The throttle pickup was so abrubt it was difficult to drive smoothly. The new 3.6 Chrysler vans are the same way.
As is my 93 Crown Victoria. I guess it comes down to personal preference. Maybe I like the short pedal travel because it gives the illusion of power – “boy, just touch the gas and she really flies!” The long pedal travel makes the car feel like a dog. In my mother’s Lacrosse, I quite often found myself looking at the speedo, going 5-10 mph slower than I wanted to be going because I wasn’t used to keeping my foot down so far on the pedal. Guess it’s just what you get used to.
I used to drive a friend’s Chevy Celebrity all the time and the gas pedal in it required an absurd amount of effort compared to any other car I’d driven. I borrowed it for a week once, and by the end of it the Celebrity felt normal and my car felt weird!
I like the pedal travel of my ex. 87 Caprice and 95 Voyager and of my current 03 Caravan. What I cannot stand (borderline hate) is the on/off switch that is the gas pedal in my mama’s 05 Sedona. A wee press can spin the tires and the pedal is so easy to move you cannot rest your foot on it to keep one speed like the Chrysler Minivans.
I drove a 7.5 tonne lorry across Europe one time, took about 2 weeks. When I got back, I got into my little 1.0 Vauxhall Nova and laughed out loud at how ridiculous everything felt. The tiny throw of the gear lever, the sharp bite point of the clutch, the amazingly responsive throttle – everything was wierd. And the best bit was it felt like I was sitting on the absolute floor of the car, instead of the big armchair I had got used to.
And 10 minutes later, it was all normal again.
I’m not seeing much resemblance to the Camry.
Boring and generic, yes. But Camry certainly didn’t have the market cornered on that. Everything from the front to the back is different including the hubcaps. An overall similar look, perhaps, but again, that can be said about a lot of cars with little to no style like the Camry.
And amber turn signals have come and gone repeatedly. Mustangs had that in the 70’s and 80’s, along with dozens of other cars. What about all the Japanese and European cars that have gone to red turn signals? I have never heard a disparaging remark about that, yet for some reason amber signals on domestics strike a nerve. Ridiculous. Styles come and go, simple as that.
There are a lot of valid observations about the Malibu. It was not a great car. But as is typical on this site, Max got a bit overzealous in his zeal to pile on GM and started to reach.
Criticism of GM for randomly throwing amber turn signals on these Malibus (and the Olds Delta 88, where they looked particularly inappropriate) is of course merited. But it invariably hits one of my hot buttons when people write off amber indicators as being merely a matter of style.
Amber turn indicators have been required in Europe since the 60s, if not before. But antiquated regulations in the U.S. allowed only emergency vehicles to have rear-facing lights that flashed amber, so we were stuck with the reds. (At the time, the rare VW or Volvo that might be seen with amber turn signals was marked as having been a personal import.) The law changed around the early 1970s, and notable early adopters of amber indicators were Volvos (of course), Peugeots, and VW with its huge round turn signals on later Beetles.
The logic behind amber indicators is impeccable, since they cannot be confused with brake lights (nor will a burned-out brake light make it look like someone is signaling for a turn). And a 2009 NHTSA study (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811115.PDF) compared a broad cross-section of car models that had switched from red to amber turn signals or vice versa, showing a 5.3% reduction in cars being rear-ended when their turn signals are amber. While that doesn’t sound huge, the same study cited only 4.3% effectiveness for the CHMSL that all vehicles are required to have (and which must be more expensive to engineer than just changing the color of a bulb or some plastic).
Despite this, nothing has been done legally. (The U.S. has also failed to require the mirror- or fender-mounted turn indicators that are another proven safety measure.)
Because of an apparent American view that all-red lighting “looks better,” some manufacturers — VW and Audi seem to be the worst offenders — delete the amber indicators on their US-market cars. And even Tesla doesn’t offer U.S. buyers of its cars a way to get the ambers it has to fit on its export vehicles.
Governmental sloth and inaction on this point is no surprise. But companies that make the change back to red are simply saying they think you’re an idiot, and that their styling is more important than your safety and the safety of the person behind you.
I meant to include this …
Some old Delta 88’s have the amber lights wired up as a tailights, so they are on the whole time driving! [Probably when rear end was repaired and set the wires incorrectly.]
Well remember that the not all of this vintage Delta 88 has the amber turn signals, I believe that the earlier ones in this series 1980-1982 or so had a solid red tail lamp instead of the amber and red ones of the later versions, I believe the wiring harness was changed when they went to the amber light, but the lamps them selves interchange, so if you put an amber and red tail light on a earlier non-amber tail light car, I think what you are describing would happen
In the US, it is a matter of style, and EVERY manufacturer is guilty of it. There may be safety ramifications, but that obviously is not a big factor when manufacturers design US-market cars.
You criticize GM for using amber signals on the Malibu and Delta88 because it looks “inappropriate” and in the next breath criticize red signals in general because they aren’t as safe. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.
I don’t see how I’m “having it both ways” — I’m saying GM treated the presence or absence of amber turn signals as being just a matter of style, and manufacturers are still doing that today (precisely as you state in your comment above). It *ought* to be considered a matter of safety instead.
What is your actual disagreement with me? Would you favor US-market cars being required to have amber turn signals as they are in most every other market? If not, why not?
I said the amber signals on the Malibu should not strike a nerve. You stated they merited criticism when “randomly” applied and that they were inappropriate on the Malibu and 88, not outright saying but strongly implying that they were ugly. You then went on to talk about the safety benefits of amber lights and railed against manufacturers for not using them. See why I’m confused?
I am saying that the amber lights are fine and not worthy of disdain, and given your rather strong feelings about the safety benefits of amber lights, I don’t understand why you would dispute that. Is it out of spite because they don’t use them on all their cars?
Perhaps it is just a misunderstanding. I don’t care what color my turn signals are and find those numbers you quoted questionable. But honestly I don’t care enough to look into it further, so I won’t dispute it.
So somebody’s going to rear end me because they think I’m stopping instead of turning? What?
I don’t get the flack people give for putting amber indicators on cars either but I also don’t want yet another irreversible regulation forced upon the industry either. I think consumer choice has been limited enough in the name of incidental safety.
Amber rear turn indicators have been required here in Australia since at least 1959. Here’s an Aussie ’59 Chevy – most factory conversions are better-integrated than this.
Poorly integrated, yes, but crazy awesome!
We used to call them wasp nests!
GM was offering something like 10 cars at the time that could have been considered Camry competitors.
If you wanted a car with too many camshafts that could match the legendary reliability of the V6 Contour then Saturn and Oldsmobile had you covered.
These cars were utter crap. I dealt with loads of them when I worked at GM and their problems were typical GM:
-Ignition lock. All failed right out of warranty and yes, we knew about it.
-Brakes. These cars had horribly undersized brakes, that had a hard time lasting 30,000 km. My stealership charged $700 for pads an rotor machining!
-Strut mounts: Another 60,0001 km fix.
-ABS sensors. Same part as the Cavilier. Same 60,001 km failure.
-Airbag clocks spring. Mopar recalled all theirs. GM never did.
-SRS computer failures and no, GM refused warranty them.
-Intake manifold gasket failure was common on the 3.1.
Added to these high quality materials were a totally outclassed V-6, cheap interior and mediocre at best handling.
Utter junk. No car maker should have released a product so bad in 1996. The Ciera was a much better car in every way. Way to go, GM, recall king of the industry.
You forgot the front wheel bearings that always went bad on these things, which meant you had to pony up for the whole hub assembly with ABS sensor.
Yeah, I forgot that, the part was $600 at my stealership and I think 2.5 labour, and the wheel alignment, which was always a big money maker. With shop supplies of 17% (yes, my GM store added 17% to pay for their mechanic’s mistakes) the bill could easily $1500 with an oil change and some snake oil.
My wife and I had a 2003 Malibu LS bought new in 2003 and driven till 2011 (117,000 miles including 7 trips from Florida to California and back.) I do not recall any of the problems that you listed but we never had it serviced at a dealer, always our trusted local garage in Naples, FL. Not to say it didn’t have its share of problems, but certainly not the worst car we ever owned. It replaced a Nissan Maxima that we had for 10 years. At the conclusion of our 7th trip from California to Florida, the engine did throw a rod as I parked at a restaurant in Naples. My mechanic was able to put it back together the next day, it was running fine and I traded it in on my present Volvo V70.
On the West Coast, these cars, along with most other GM passenger cars, just weren’t a factor in the retail market by this time. Trucks, Suburbans, Tahoes, Corvettes, yes; but not stuff like this. This started in earnest in the 80s, and by the early-mid 90s, was almost universally the case, at least in the larger metro areas and along the coast.
Our Chevy dealer in Los Gatos only stocked Suburbans, Corvettes, and some trucks. Period! He refused to stock any passenger cars whatsoever, and I’m not kidding/exaggerating. I’m somewhat surprised Chevy let him do that, but then he was like the biggest Corvette dealer on the West Coast. Probably the same with the Suburbans. I wish I had taken a picture: rows and rows of ‘Vettes and Suburbans….not a Malibu to be seen anywhere.
When another interior part failed in my Grand Am, I went to the local (East Bay) Chevy dealer for a replacement. I asked the parts manager if he saw many people replacing the part that broke in my car. He replied, “You know, so much of our business is trucks now, that I can’t give you an answer”. Leaving the dealership, I looked out at the new car inventory, and it was about 95% trucks. This was 10 years ago. GM has a very small slice of the car market here: I don’t think it’s improved much if at all since.
I actually owned a 1997 version of this car that we bought second hand from my in laws in 2001. When it came out, there were actually quite a few positive reviews claiming that GM had finally figured out how to compete with the Japanese midsized cars. I recall the original maroon colored car looking kind of snazzy when I first saw on my inlaws first trip ut to visit us in Michigan.
Ironically, it gave us 5 relatively trouble free years of service — after which I sold it for $2500 to a guy who wanted a “safe” car for his teenage daughter. The early versions of these cars had terrible problems all around — but we must have just been one of the lucky ones. It was always a second car so we really didn’t care too much about how it drove as long as it did. Overall, it was completely innocuous — not fast, not sporty and modestly comfortable. A CIA agent would be able to use it and not get noticed.
Still and all, it had a cheap interior and lots of bits that felt crummy. The overall mediocrity of the car is actually why I didn’t like it. It wasn’t a disaster — it was just non-stop meh every day. To this day, I can’t look at most GM cars from this era (mid-90’s to mid-00’s) and think, what a waste.
These won Motor Trends Coty award back in 1997 when these were introduced. The 2.4 Twin cam engine from the N-bodies was std with 150 horses and was the direct successor to the old Quad 4 but tamed with balance shafts and other changes to make it much more pleasant to live with. The 3100 V6 with only 155 horses but 185 torque was the optional engine. Early examples suffered head gasket failure with the 2.4 and the famous intake gasket failures on the 3100, various electric glitches starting with the dash mounted ignition and control arm bushings were a famous failure item.
These cars did offer reasonable interior room and a large trunk, rode and handled well and achieved reasonable fuel mileage with either engine. In 2000 the 3100 was made std and got the better breathing 3400 heads and was upped to 170 hp and 190 torque which gave these cars plenty of kick and 32 highway mpg. We still sell 2000-2005 examples of these cars and avoid the 97-99 cars which were more troublesome. They make reasonable second cars or first cars for college students.
Perry,
At the risk of sounding corny, I want to personally thank you for making my ‘visual’ of this article come to life in such a great way – I’m shocked at how perfectly you added additional photos in exactly the right spots considering that I only sent you six in my contribution! The Camry/Malibu juxtaposition, the engine pics, the Lansing Assembly plant photo (where did you find that?) – you knew exactly what angle I was going for with each part of the text – thank you!
This is definitely one of my favorite car sites and I’m happy to have made a contribution. I knew this post would be controversial, but what post about mid-size sedans isn’t controversial? I’m glad people have been generally civil so far, and I welcome a healthy debate – that’s what I love about CC: flame-free dissent (mostly)
As a disclaimer, I don’t have a blanket hate for GM: I owned a low-mileage 2003 Buick Park Avenue and LOVED it, among some others. A few of their products were just really phoned-in around that time…
You’re very welcome. We generally like to show and tell around here, but sometimes finding the right pic can be a slight challenge.
I wanted to find a good advertisement of the car from later in its life or a fleet-oriented ad but I couldn’t. The latest one I found was this one from 1998, which I didn’t actually feature.
“Going for the gold” on one of these Malibus most likely means an alternative to going for the forest green or for the burgundy or the white.
The buff books seemed to like this car new and raved about the left side cup holder!!
Don’t forget the dash-mounted ignition switch too – oooh, how innovative!
I always saw more of a resemblance to the 1993-1997 Nissan Altima, especially when comparing the face lifted Altima and the pre-facelift Malibu in the commercial (even the hubcaps looked similar).
+1 That’s what I always thought too
Though they are now getting scrapped more often, these Bu’s are BHPH queens. Soon to be replaced by old style Chrysler 200 and Dodge Avengers.
My dad owned a 2000 Malibu and it was such a lump of shit he replaced it with a Camry and hasn’t looked back since.
UPDATE: The Camry was a 2006, and dad drove it until his passing last fall. My brother now has it. A 4-speed automatic that has never broken down and is running strong at 120+K miles.
These Malibus might be one of the few cars that I bet the majority of the population has driven at least once and had a less than satisfying experience with. Those of driving age at the time these were new in rental form and for millennials, hand me downs owned by friends, cousins, siblings, ect. I never liked them, but in their defense I don’t think the Vulcan powered 4th gen Tauruses were any better, except MAYBE in interior quality.
I do remember the Enterprise ads vividly and I even remember thinking that was a Bu under the tarp too lol
Back in November 2000 my folks had a rental ‘Bu in Florida when I was 11 and that is the closest I have ever gotten to a running ‘Bu. Nobody close to me or the family had a ‘Bu oddly enough. There are a number of experiences other Millennials have had that I have “missed” out on and it is interesting to think about.
A coworker of mom’s gave me a lift in her 10+ year old 96-99 Taurus and I nearly tripped balls due to all the Ovals. I also rode in an 02-06 Taurus for about 30-40miles, but those are my only two close experiences with running Tauruses.
I test drove one once.
I think of it when I mediate and try to visualize absolute nothing.
Both are pretty miserable, but Ford at least TRIED, somewhat, with the Taurus. The suspension was much better done than in the Malibu, and the interiors were a bit less chintzy. Well, OK, the ’96-’99 interior was just gross and bizarre looking with all its melted lava ovals… but the 2000+ model was reasonably modern and pleasant.
Still, the 4th gen Taurus competed with beat-up 1st gen Focii for title of “most miserable sedan to pull in the service lane” during my brief stint as lot attendant at a Ford dealership. They both totally sucked in different ways – I cringed when I was handed the keys to either, which I was… often.
Selling the old Malibu as the “classic” was actually a really smart move – make money on already-amortized tooling, but more importantly keep the number of clean used, fleet-maintained new model used cars out of the car lots. That drives down the value of your used cars, and it means customers will cross-shop the used cars if they are looking at a new one – and dealers will encourage it because they often make more money on the used ones.
And yet another GM Deadly Sin rears its ugly head. These instant fleet specials are actually worse than the classic, in-your-face examples like the Vega, Citation, Olds diesel, Cadillac Cimarron and V8-6-4 because, although there was technically nothing tragically and enormously wrong with them, they exemplified the all too common phone-it-in-so-we-can-go-golfing, just-good-enough-to-make-a-profit, bean-counter attitude that permeated GM’s fourteenth floor for most of the last half century.
It was the American Toyota Camry, alright, in that while it might have looked like one on the outside, it sure didn’t do anything else like one, least of all last as long.
From a certain standpoint, these cars strike me as a step back from the late FWD A-body Cutlass Ciera/Buick Century. Not in terms of objective performance, but in terms of what they represented. Later in its life, with the bugs worked out, the FWD A-body seemed like a not unreasonable attempt to capture old-school American big car values in a dimensionally cumbersome package. Older family members had the Buick version for a number of years, with the 3.3 and four-speed automatic, and while it was an excitement-free zone, it wasn’t a bad car and left a general feeling of, “Y’know, if you like this sort of thing, you could do worse.”
The difference between those cars and these is that the A-bodies were clearly and unapologetically an old design that GM had elected to continue building for as long as it was selling enough to be justifiable (a decision I actually sort of respect after years of being repeatedly annoyed by other consumer products whose fad-driven latest versions are quantifiably worse or at least more obnoxious than their predecessors). These cars were new, prompting the reaction, “Er, that was the best you could do?”
I agree that these exemplified GM falling ever further down in terms of successive product generations. Growing up in a GM-centric family (who loved and was loyal to their cars for years and years), I looked at the most of GM’s 1980s products as OK (vaguely innovative in moving the traditional American sedan to FWD) though a lot was lost in the translation from the preceding RWD offerings. But the 1990s replacements for the 80s designs were frequently even worse/cheaper/more cynical and just truly depressing. There was no innovation at all, and they didn’t even have the familiar comfort of their out-of-date predecessors. Like so many GM cars, if they had been introduced 5+ years earlier they would have been more competitive, but they were past their “sell-by” date the day they came out the door. This Malibu is one of many poster children for the worst of GM.
Funny, I see Toyota beginning to creep into this same territory of gradual mediocrity and generational decline. New Camrys are arguably worse than the models they replace in terms of style, content and even quality (ask my father-in-law, he’s owned most every generation). The facelift for the 2015 Camry that was just unveiled, with the dreadful styling “enhancements” (worst black plastic fake greenhouse opening I’ve ever seen) is horrific and makes the current boring, nearly ugly 2014 car look like Miss America in comparison.
I only glanced at the 2015 Camry in a magazine so I didn’t know what you what you were talking about until I just googled it. Wow! I guess having a fake 6 window greenhouse (or really 8 window since it has the ubiquitous triangles ahead of the mirrors) matches the giant black faux grille opening(How has that fad not imploded yet???).
I’d say that’s a cynical move in the vein of old GM, “oh people are starting to bitch about high beltlines and lack of visibility? Fine we’ll style the cars to look like they have it, we’ll even use a glossy piece of plastic to simulate glass!”
I looked up the new camry as well, and I’m not a fan of this new faux windows trend. I’m reminded of the ugly black plasic panels behind the rear doors on the chrysler 200 and chevy cruze, and their not-so-elegant attempts at creating the illusion of an audi style curved greenhouse.
Say what you will….. I work for a large utility fleet, and we bought scads of these things, all white with tan fuzz interiors and the pushrod V-6. Without question, some of the most reliable vehicles we ever put into the fleet (and we bought Camry’s and Civic’s too). The interiors would get a bit tattered with use, and rarely the notorious intake manifold gaskets would leak, but the cars would not die. That V-6 could care less if it had 1/2 gallon of antifreeze sloshing around in the oil pan. Very easy to service, parts were cheap and readily available anywhere. Very low overall cost-of-ownership despite low resale value (somewhat offset by low purchase price).
Interesting perspective. People often talk about weak points of a car like they are 100% guaranteed to fail. That’s simply not the case, so it is very difficult to get a true picture of how reliable a given model really is. It’s almost all anecdotal. Many people will quote Consumer Reports, but there are many flaws in their methods and the data their ratings are based on is never released. I stopped listening to those jokers long ago. That’s not to say they are completely useless, just unreliable enough to not be taken very seriously.
Most everything is subject to a Bell curve. Any car manufactured in volume will have issues, and many of those issues will affect most of the cars. But not all. Even in the biggest pieces of crap (think late 70s Mopar) some will be quite good, some will be awful, but most will be hovering in a range on either side of average for that model.
Another factor is that individual usage patterns vary widely and dramatically, as do maintenance patterns (although I loathe the bullshit enthusiast-fanboy attitude that attributes known problems with their favorite cars to the ignorant “idiots” who don’t take care of their cars or, that favorite enthusiast cant, “know what they’re doing). That’s also a huge headache for automakers in doing development testing because they have to come up with a regimented testing methodology to replicate the abuse the cars will suffer in what may be a wildly unregimented existence.
I worked in the car repair business for far to long and I can without and reservations what I saw coming in my doors directly corresponded with what CR rate it. Ratings for mass market cars and usually bang on since the sample size is so large. When you get into the wrenching business, you’ll quickly lean what gets wrenched on on what car, and that all of them do it, so it’s not hard to rate them just in your shop.
The GM stuff from 1980 just got progressively worse. This era was by far the worst since GM really didn’t have any interest in cars and only did it to maintain the status quo. It was all trucks at the time. Hence these cars were made as cheaply as possible. The materials are poor. The aforementioned hub/bearing assembly is there because it’s cheaper to install. Things like gaskets are the absolute minimum thickness, or none at all. The electrical system in all GM stuff of this era was archaic. Even then, everything at Mopar had been digital for years. Not GM, you couldn’t diagnose off the computer, so electrical repairs were big money.
It was shocking to work at a GM dealer and see how awful the cars were. When I was at Chrysler, one tech and worked at GM. Chrysler’s were certainly not the best cars around and we commented on it all the time. One voice always said, “GM is worse!” He was right! You should see how pissed some guy is when his truck has rattles (intermediate shaft) that GM would only warranty if the customer screamed blue murder.
I sincerely hope GM’s stuff is better and the toxic working environment that permeated the place have improved since I have been gone, which is more than a decade now.
Gosh, we liked GM’s electrical systems, but we did have the proprietary GM Tech II diagnostic tools. I did get stumped pretty bad on one 3.1L Malibu with an intermittent overheat condition. Problem turned out to be the PCM, it just wasn’t turning on the fans on occasion. No question GM was paying closer attention to the trucks in those days though.
You know the saying, a GM car will run like shit longer than most cars will run at all.
Indeed true; today I saw an ancient Cavalier, a really early one, shuddering and shaking up a hill but it was still running 32 years later!
I saw a pretty beat early W-body Regal sedan chugging through an intersection yesterday in the rain.
That’s very true, Mayor DePasto. May I borrow an Oldsmobile?
Only if there is an honorarium from the Alumni Fund…..
Ain’t that the truth. I still wonder how we got 175K miles out of that Alero. When we finally did get rid of it, it still ran fine…as long as you topped up the badly leaking oil and antifreeze before every trip, that was.
“Desirable?” I think GM is the ONLY one who desires it back so it won’t kill anyone else. Please go away, GM.
That model Camry spent a long time being developed the first models came off the line in Japan in late 89 and were despatched to Toyotas favourite proving ground, New Zealand, They were sold through the regular dealer network and a close eye was kept on them faults noted, performance, reliability etc, nobody else got them in that form, What the world got was a different model different motor taller gearing for better fuel economy resulting in a lower top speed and slower acceleration but no more tyre smoke at 100mph when you floor it, you got a slower steering rack and softer suspension for your nice straight roads, we got em too in 94 or so my sister bought both models the difference was noticeable, neither gave any problems.
GM tried to build one by phoning it in via the parts bin, how;d that work for ya me I’d buy a Camry but only a Kiwi spec one the JDM versions arent very good on our twisty roads.
Is it a Lumina? Is it an Impala? Is it a Cutlass? Is it a Monte Carlo? Maybe it’s a Malibu. Whole grain generic, with a soupcon of the banal, on the side….
Whole Grain, ha! This is another variety of Wonder Bread!
My middle sister had one of these, since my BIL’s dad ran the local GM dealership. What a turd. The rotors kept warping on it, and I think it had some other electrical issue that kept cropping up. I think I rode in it once, it was a wretched little blob of mediocrity. But that said, its no worse than any other 4 door sedan. They ALL suck horribly, in terms of performance, driving experience and most of all, style. ‘The car you knew America could build’…. Well who COULDNT slap together a 4 door lump that will wheeze you from point A to point B without a pulse? Even the most bottom rung carmaker of a shithole 4th world nation can do that.
I agree totally that this is the most blatant cynical attempt to copycat Japanese appliance-ry. Ive been saying it forever, but for those who want faceless 4 doors with fwd, crappy 4 and 6 cyl engines and all the style of a light switch, Japan and Korea are more than happy to set you up. This is NOT what people who shop American cars want. The Charger and 300 get 30mpg in base v6 form, are reliable, roomy and at least have a pulse….as 4 doors go, anyway. The LX platform has been a monumental success for Mopar, since whether in coupe, wagon or sedan form, they aren’t ashamed to be cars that are genuinely AMERICAN…not just in origin, but in concept.
Using a storied moniker like ‘Malibu’ that has graced classics from the ’60s and even a decent little 2-door in the late 70s/early 80s on a crappy appliance like this is nothing short of cynical.
Have a look here:
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2014/03/usa-best-selling-cars-february-2014-sales-figures.html
In the first two months of 2014, Nissan sold FIFTY-THREE THOUSAND Alitmas. Every single car the top ten is a “boring appliance.”
And yes, this POS was totally cynical and killed the last shred of brand loyalty that anyone ever had for GM.
That said, I doubt the American car makers are doing a lot of profit on their car lines. They do it to show the flag but there can’t be a lot of money in it given the volumes we see. This is the reason for global platforms. The real money in America is trucks, which typically have higher transaction prices than cars anyway.
I don’t doubt for a second that boring appliances actually sell more cars. But that’s a myopic way of looking at things. If you take that way of thinking and run with it, then how about immediately stopping production of EVERY other type of vehicle besides boring appliances? In fact, why not only make Camrys since that’s probably at the top of that garbage pile?
Heres some food for thought:
Im willing to bet that Kotex sold more boxes of tampons than anyone sold cars….should GM ditch cars and get into that business?
Ill bet McDonalds sold a lot more hamburgers than GM did cars…should Chrysler start flipping burgers instead of building cars?
The fact is, the Japanese car makers have been making boring appliances since day one. Theyre damn good at that, and their whole selling point is to people who ONLY want boring appliances. But that’s just not what we do here in America. You cant expect the result to be as good, when we’re completely out of our element. I don’t see Honda or Toyota trying to compete against the Challenger or Mustang and for the same reasons. When they DO try to make sporty cars, they do it in a very Japanese kind of way.
The Big 3 are headed for extinction if they cant figure out how to make cars truly AMERICAN again. Just making something reliable doesn’t cut it when your customer base wants a ’65 Mustang kind of experience as opposed to a 1992 Accord experience.
I don’t buy this argument. A 1978 Malibu is just as much of an appliance as a 1998 Malibu or a 2008 Malibu. GM had 45% marketshare because they sold a lot of appliances, at least until others came along and did it better.
To some people (and I’m guilty of this sometimes) a big RWD vehicle with a V8 doesn’t qualify for appliance status. Looking at it in the paradigm of the late 70’s, I suppose it can be seen that way.
However (and I could be wrong) in 2032, I don’t think you’re going to find as many people who still enjoy and preserve/restore the N-body Malibu as you do people currently who still enjoy and preserve/restore their A-body Malibus.
*Disregard this if you wish, since I just may have a skewed viewpoint as the owner of a 1979 Malibu. But I’ve cared enough to keep it all these years.
Let me recycle my previous comment on these: would have been a great car, in 1989.
Back then, it would have been a real coup for GM – a better Japanese car than the Japanese could build? Hmm… that’d be something. But a decade later? Pathetic. Not because they were unreliable or particularly awful to drive, but because they weren’t even in the same league as the competition. The Japanese did build a better car. It was called the 1992 Camry, and in the wake of it and many others, this Malibu is bush league.
It might not be painfully obvious when looking at pictures online, because at this point they’re all just plain vanilla transportation devices from almost 20 years ago, but it would elicit a resigned “oh, you’re right” from even the most extremist of Chevy diehard if we were all able to somehow take a ride in a ’97 Malibu and basically any Japanese car from that year back-to-back. At one point, I thought they were total apathy towards car design. Now, I think the reality of them is much drearier: this was actually the best that GM could do at the time – an “if you can’t beat ’em…” Toyota rip-off that only managed to match the wrong half of Camry’s “comfortably numb” ethos.
I almost can’t believe I’m saying this, but I completely agree with MoparRocker74’s mini-rant above. If there’s nothing uniquely “American” about an American car, then what good is it? GM itself has demonstrated, in later efforts, that American cars can be thoroughly modern and competitive while still having a distinctly De-troit character. This Malibu is the worst of the worst in that respect, and while it’s perhaps not General Motors worst effort overall, I think it’s their most depressing. I’d take a horribly flawed car like the Vega or Citation, something that at least aspires to more than another “me too”, over one any day. Chevy even ripped their choice of theme music/tagline from Toyota. I’m everyday people, too, and I want something more than just a box on wheels to take me there. How are the words “Deadly” and “Sin” not in the title of this article?!
You’re so right in your last paragraph about millennials’ interpretations of these. I was about 15 when they came out, and was just getting into cars. So I actually didn’t know that Malibu was a legacy nameplate. To me, and many others my age, this sad model was the FIRST Malibu.
A couple friends had these in college. Both referred to them pejoratively, e.g., “I don’t need a car payment, I’ll just keep driving my 2001 Chevy Malibu!”
The only things I remember about these were the dash-mounted ignition (which was unique for GM at the time), and that the LS came standard with alloys and (cheap!) leather. Oh, and those commercials. They must have run the CRAP out of that spot you posted above. As soon as I heard the first chord of the song in the commercial, it all came coming back to me. Every single time I see one of these, I still think of “The car you knew American could build!”
At least things have improved since….
I remember when my wife and I rented one in Northern California in the late 1990’s. The car was basically brand new and was reasonably comfortable for the duration of our time with it. It was unremarkable in almost every way (not bad/Not great) and probably would be fine for fleet work. I also recall that my 1994 Honda accord felt much more composed and handled better despite being an “older” design and the Accord’s four cylinder felt much more peppy that the 3.1 V6 lump in the Malibu.
While not a success, it was at least a first salvo for GM to start improving their mid size models. The article accurately stated that the Epsilon based Malibu was even better and the current Malibu is quite nice.
I rented a 2011 Malibu back in 2012. Drove it from LA Int’l airport to Buffulo & back in 28 days. Did 11000 odd miles.
I thought it was a fine car. Easy on petrol, cruised nicely at 80MPH and plenty of leg room in the back. Didn’t like the colour- a pale gold but it was nice & bland to avoid
law enforcement ( bar one in Texas, & thanks Officer Mitchell for letting me off!)
Did a couple of 800 mile days and never a backache.
I would have brought it home, except the people at Dollar would bitch, and the steering wheel is on the wrong side.
That generation Malibu (2008-2012) was a great car, and the newer one seems to be, too. They were built on the same platform as the Opel Vectra and have nothing to do with the car seen here beyond the name. I got one as a rental around the same time as you and was cautiously optimistic about it – I liked the looks and had heard good things, but I was absolutely shocked at just how good it was from behind the wheel. This was, finally, the car I “Knew America Could Build” (with a little help from Germany). I don’t like the styling of the newer generation as much, but supposedly it’s an even better car than it’s predecessor, aside from the rear seat legroom deficit discussed above.
I own a 2012 model and think it is great. Expect to drive it 200,000 miles at least.
My only experience with the Chevrolet Malibu was a 2003 V6 model. Compared to the 1992 Camry V6 LE I had driven previously, the Malibu was a pig with far too much weight over the front wheels. It was okay in sedate driving as long as you didn’t try to make any emergency maneuvers. Taking a hard turn onto an on/off ramp was a horrible experience that felt like someone had dropped a couple hundred extra pounds of metal under the hood. Combined with tales of reliability problems from previous owners, the Malibu was enough to sour me on GM products long before every recall seemed to make the front page with triple-digit numbers.
The 1997-2005 Malibu was actually my rental car of choice in the late nineties. I remember the 3100 engine having adequate power and the ride being composed on road trips from Chicago to northern Wisconsin. The toggle style cruise control button mounted on the steering wheel was convenient to use and the audio system produced a rich sound at least compared to the Corolla I had at the time. The pull out cup holder to the left of the steering wheel was a handy feature but I remember being kind of annoyed by the shift lever being too tall.
As the author had pointed out, the rear light cluster with the amber turn signal lens stood out from other domestic cars at the time. Upon closer inspection I was rather surprised to find that they were made by Carello, an Italian OEM lighting manufacturer.
When these came out, I was somewhat intrigued by them, as they were a large compact/small midsize, which for me is the perfect size car. The LS model looked to be attractively trimmed inside and the features list was nice. The interior and trunk space was very good, and the up-level stereo had very good sound. The bad? Well, the seats looked far better than they sat, the engines sounded thrashy, and the worst…the handling! Back in 2000-2001 I worked for a small Chevy-Olds dealer in northern Michigan. My personal car was in the shop, and the boss would let me borrow used cars whenever I needed to. We had a 1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass in stock at the end of the year, and I needed a way to Ypsilanti for an extended weekend. I packed it up and took off. Along the way it started to snow, a lot. By the time I got to just above Ann Arbor, I was taking it very slow, as the car, despite it’s front wheel drive, just didn’t feel stable. There is a curve above Ann Arbor where 23 and 14 do a split. I was taking that curve at no more than 30 mph, and the car started fishtailing wildly for no reason! Thankfully, I was able to keep the car from skidding into the ditch. The rest of the trip went well, but I knew right then and there that I was not interested in this otherwise inoffensive little piece of mediocrity.
How GM managed to make the platform mates Alero and Grand Am ride and handle so much better is beyond me, but as many of you know, I went on to own two Aleros…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/my-curbside-classic/my-new-curbside-classic-2001-oldsmobile-alero-brougham-there-is-a-special-and-totally-irrational-feel-in-my-merry-new-oldsmobile/
How I hate that split at Michigan State Rtes. 23 & 14. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had close calls and near misses there. In all kinds of weather, too! That’s one bad stretch of road.
I was wondering about the handling of that Malibu you had at the time. I wonder if the tires were crap and only making the handling worse. It’s not like OEMs put really good tires on their cheap models…
Well, I can say that I had driven other similar Malibus around the tiny village of Roscommon where I was living at the time, and none of them handled well in the snow. The only thing I can come up with is that the car had poor weight distribution. Yes, front drive cars need lots of weight over the front wheels to get the traction, but there just needed to be a bit more in the rear, as it was just too squirrely for me…
Oh, and the reason the gear shift lever was so tall was because GM’s designers figured that when people rested their arms on the arm rest, they would want somewhere to place their wrist as well. When you think about it, it did work well for that…
A close late friend of mine used to have one of these. I believe he bought it from his Grandmother. We took a lot of road trips in that car and I became well familiar with it. I even borrowed it for my driving test to get my state licence, as my international permit was about to expire. It was as unremarkable, bland, and inoffensive as a car could be, but it wasn’t terrible.
Of course it’s Japanese rivals could pulverize it in every way measurable, particularly driving dynamics. The handling was alarmingly soft and wallowy, but in true American car tradition this translated into a very comfy ride. Perfect for long highway trips. The car was just the right size to accommodate 4 adults comfortably, and it felt substantial enough. Fuel economy was good. I really liked the fold away cup holder that would extend just to the left of the steering wheel. It’s the perfect place to put a drink, and I’ve wondered why I haven’t seen that in any other cars. I remember the gear selector was absurdly long, like an old man’s walking cane sticking out from the console.
These cars do their job as basic, soulless transport. The malibu name brings to mind images of A body beauties from the 60’s and early 70’s. I get the impression Chevy was feeling more than a little insecure in the wake of foreign competition when the 90’s malibu was designed. Besides fleet sales I’m guessing the majority of buyers were mature aged GM loyalists. Then there was the half-hearted badge engineered Olds Cutlass version. I never saw many of those. The 2008 malibu is a great looking car much improved over the previous platform. The ugly stick was brought out again for the 2012 restyle unfortunately. Holden recently felt the need to sell the malibu in Australia for some reason.
While I won’t argue that the car was a whole bucket of “meh”, for the right people it worked just fine. One of the (older) couples we went to church had one of the later examples of this car and drove it for 10+ years, no major issues other than rust. When the husband died, the wife traded it off for a really nice 2006 LT sedan. If she ever stops driving, I will be knocking on her door with cash in hand.
I rented (imagine that!) a 2003 or 04 ‘Bu with the 2.2 Eco (IIRC) under the hood for a long trip down to my in-laws who lived near Dollywood (Sevierville, TN) at the time. At first I had my misgivings about renting an almost mid sized car with a four cylinder engine going up and down the Appalachians. But, even with our family of four on board, all of our luggage for two weeks and my wife’s lead foot, the car did just fine. I became a fan of the Ecotec after that.
The L-body, not so much, but it was built to a target and a price. Not as bad as some make it out to be, not as great as some would like it to be. A great competitor for the contemporary Hyundai Sonata.
When this car came out the part of it that bothered me most was the Malibu name. One look at this car and you just knew it was going to be mediorcre…the problems would rear their heads later on, but it’s not an exciting looking car, not a good looking car, not even a bad looking car, it just sort of exists. That pretty much applied to the entire vehicle. A car like that was not the place to resurrect a historic name, one that still had lots of good memories attached to it. The final A/G-body Malibu of 14 years before may not have been a great car, being a product of the late 70’s GM, but it was a good car. Reliable, well-built (except for the interior trim, anyway), and upon debut, good-looking for the era. It lost some distinctiveness with the “junior Caprice” restyle for ’82 but it was still a Chevy and not trying to be anything else. To say nothing of the Malibu’s years as the highest model of Chevelle during the 60’s. To affix that storied name to this insipid, half-baked car was a travesty.
Granted, it got better. The 2004 version was a far superior car dynamically, and even though the debut “unibar” nose didn’t entirely work, you have to give them credit for trying for brand unity with the styling. And the 2008 edition? Now that was a genuinely good car, one worthy of the Malibu name. Probably the high point of the modern era, as the 2012 model seems to have lost some of the styling elegance of its immediate predecessor and is apparently smaller inside. But even the current one is good. But the nameplate was so sullied by the ’97 to ’03 cars that it’s taken all that work just to return to respectability. Typical GM.
I smart leased a new 2005 Malibu LS V6 with electric power
steering and found nothing satisfying about the “dynamics” of
that vehicle. There was zero feedback through that steering
column, and no build up when I went into a turn with it. Plus
it didn’t just ‘pull’ to the left – it SHOT to the left whenever I
let go of the wheel! And neither the dealer nor any alignment
shop could do anything; the car was already “in spec” according
to them.
The dealer allowed me to turn the car in two months early and
terminate my smart lease, and I discovered the 2008 Kia
Optima. It is roomy, has conventional power steering that
feels normal, and doesn’t pull as badly to the left!
Why the disdain, repeated through this article, for amber
rear turn lamps? Why do Americans insist on being different
from the rest of the world?
At least with an orange turn blinker I KNOW its a turn signal,
and not just someone tapping the brake repeatedly. There’s a
reason amber lamps exist. It’s called safety.
SoundMan-
No one objects to yellow rear turn signals, per se. The annoyance about them on this car is that they are a pretense to make the car seem European, and therefore somehow better. Sort of like the guy from the mailroom who shows up at the company picnic in a turtleneck hoping the girls will think he looks like an executive.
I did extensive air travel in the late ’90s which meant I rented plenty of these. I’ll say, by rental-car standards, these were at least a considerable improvement over the dreary Corsica they replaced in that they were at least unobtrusively pleasant. GM finally got basic stuff like the center armrest right; most cars from this time had a vestigial rounded lump there barely long enough to support your elbow. The controls were easy to grasp, the trim not quite as plasticy as a Cavalier, Corsica, Lumina, or Cirrus/Breeze; the woodgrain livened things up. I recall them being adequately comfortable and quiet. The 3.1L V6 was smoother than the Iron Dukes that haunted GM small rental cars from a few years prior. The excellent A/C was always nice. The only thing that really spooked me were those wartlike growths on the A-pillars that served as air ducts.
I never noticed the Camry resemblance – it actually looks more like an overgrown Corolla to my eyes. And regarding Toyota envy, wow that round Chevy badge trying to hide the bowtie….
If you look closely that round Chevy badge has a symbol of a wave going around and over the bowtie. Waves, Malibu, beach? That’s my impression of where they were going with it.
As for the classic bowtie itself, I do not recognize any Chevy bowtie that isn’t BLUE. The gold-tone ones in present use come off weak to me.
I actually like this generation of Malibu, especially after the grill revision. I had a beige 02 with the sporty Camaro-style wheels. It just had that Iconic classic Chevy look to me, even if it wasnt without it’s problems – the turn signal would short out and stop working when it rained, sometimes the door chime would go off in sync with the blinker and I never was able to figure out what was causing it, and the air conditioner had a leaky freon tank, but still, I miss it more than any other car I’ve ever owned and wish I hadn’t smashed it up. I’m very satisfied with my curren ’14 Altima though, once you discover Bluetooth and Pandora it’s hard to go back.
How different might life be for the General today if they had built these cars, or the GM-10/W-body, with ANY sense of pride for GM’s rich history of excellence?
I know you that today you need a telescope to see back that far but people weren’t laughing at them 55 years ago when they updated their logo and added “Mark of Excellence” below.
My oldest son has a 2010 LTZ…the Generation Of Malibu GM Finally Got Right. The young man who once had no interest on cars…well, now that he has one that’s fun to drive (with the 3.6 V6) and is so well-appointed and looks sharp, even at ten years old…
…all of a sudden he takes an interest. Hmmm…
Thru the 2010s and now as the 2020s begin, seems that that GM – OVERALL – is doing much better.
For some reason I’m getting a mental image of Cookie Monster saying:
“Look, like Camry
Smell, like Camry
Taste… like Camry?”
“OM NOM N-“
*spits*
“IT NOT CAMRY!!!”
Nothing screams “rental car” louder than a white Malibu.
IIRC Consumer Guide called these “GM’s answer to the 1992 Honda Accord”. In the early ’00s.
Although I rented cars fairly frequently in the early-2000s, I never got one of these. My preferred discount account was with Hertz, which was owned by Ford Motor Company until 2005 (so the teaser headline mentioning “Hertz is not strictly applicable). Taurus, Sable, Contour, Mazda yes. But no Malibu’s.
Having worked for Hertz many (43) years ago, that was my first impression of this post…back then they had non-Fords in our location (mention that since the mix did seem to vary by location), back then they were predominantly Fords. I was a lowly transporter back then (the person who returns one-way rentals to their home location), and to this day, that’s my most frequent exposure to a variety of cars, since in the 46 years I’ve had a license I’ve only owned 5 different cars, though of course I’ve been in family/friends cars, still not the variety I saw on that job. One GM car stood out where I had to return a stolen car to our location from Albany (I was in S. Burlington back then) and wondered if it would last the trip…It was a B-Body Chevrolet Impala.
As for the subject to this post,I think I remember seeing it in a car show way back when (used to go to them pretty regularly in the 90’s and early 00’s..) and it seemed like a pretty generic car, but this was around the time right after Geo disappeared, which seemed to me to be GM’s line to rebrand Asian models as their own, so I wasn’t suprised at all that they would make one that tried to copy them. But to be fair to GM, I don’t think they ever really “got” small cars, since their forte had alway been larger cars…if European small cars had been popular at the time and GM had to deal with CAFE, I think we’d likely be saying how much GM is similar to (VW, Renault, Fiat, take your pick). Like any other business they try to figure out what will sell (and still meet government regulations) and what they come up with is a clone of what is successful for other manufacturers.
When I was interviewing for jobs after college around 2004 one place I interviewed with did a college interview day where they flew in several recent college grads on the same day. They provided everyone with a hotel room and rental car while we were there. The car I got was an Olds Alero, but when I arrived for my interview the next morning I noticed everyone else interviewing that day was driving a white Chevy Malibu. I must have been the last to arrive, and all the Malibus were already rented by the time I got to the rental counter (I do recall the guy saying that the Olds was a slight upgrade).
I’m always, well, bemused by American family cars of this era.
It’s like the business had been chugging along for so long, with an occasional backfire (Vega! Citation!), and management just wanted to keep the production lines churning out stuff. Any old stuff. Of course people would buy it, they always had. Marketing could stir up a demand, Sales could make the product attractive, and the salesmen could always be relied upon to talk the customer into buying. Like they always had. Are you up for a round of golf?
But times changed. Oh how they changed! Japanese cars had showed that quality was not to be equated with how much stuff was heaped in, on or around the car, or how well it was optioned-up, but how well it was assembled. And while the American companies were still coming to grips with this, the Japanese cars also upped the ante on technology (smoothness, sixteen-valve fours, independent rear ends, etc…). Buyers might not have understood the fancy tech stuff, but they could feel the difference in how the car drove.
The target moved, and kept moving, and all too often it came across as though American manufacturers seemed merely content to have a product, any product to sell in a market segment, without regard for achieving any particular level of excellence. Or even competitiveness. Bubble and squeak may tide you over for a day or two, but you wouldn’t want to be eating it week in, week out. Not when you’re given a choice.
From what I read, all too often GM cars in particular come across as the automotive equivalent of bubble and squeak: warmed-up leftovers.
I agree on all counts. Examples abound: the 2013 Dart at last fulfilled most of the promise of the Neon…and it didn’t matter, because buyers’ expectations had moved onward and upward quite a lot and no longer wanted a well-executed Neon.
And I had a thoroughly disagreeable Chrysler 200 as a rental car for a week in 2016. It felt very much like a direct successor to the Spirit/Acclaim: competent, adequate, and not a bare shred more; nothing about it any better than it minimally had to be. Better than the Spirit/Acclaim only by dint of 25-years-newer technology.
And the Cobalt might have fixed some of the Cavalier’s faults, but it didn’t really matter; people bought the Cavalier and people bought the Cobalt—there’s clearly and definitely a market for mediocre cars. Some people shop purely on price, or purely out of brand loyalty. Enough of them to have inspired Bob Lutz to opine that quality is overrated, and someone (probably also Lutz) to criticize the first-generation Cruze for being too good and express something between hope and directives for a “correction back to center” in the subsequent Cruze.
This criticism could just as easily be levelled at Ford, and even at Honda (7th-generation Accord…).
…is as perennial as it is pathetic. Dodge used it in 1989 (2nd movie at the link). Ford used it in 1986. And that’s just two instances; I’m sure there are many more.
This was the Valiant/Dart of 2002. A car from the parts bin that had overstayed its welcome in the marketplace. Funny how many of us long for those old Dodges and Plymouths, yet feel disgusted at this Malibu. Were your parents dismissive of those cars back in 1972? Sure the Malibu is a bore – but so were most Darts and Valiants, Novas, Mavericks and Hornets. Not every market needs a home run, even if the market is over-saturated with imported Japanese cars.
And this Malibu was better than those rental queens back then.
GM is a big place with dozens of vehicles for dozens of markets. This is a market placeholder car. It is a filler. It wasn’t a disaster. It didn’t cost billions and flopped. It is just a usable vehicle that’ll outlast the payments.
You can’t tell me that a Duster is inspired. It was little more than an updated coupe sitting on a car designed years before. That back panel rusted within a year or two. It was a Valiant new from the front doors back. Then Chrysler reheated them with special editions until 1976. Be real. You love them now because you loved them fifty years ago. I had three of them and wish I could have one now – but I’m not going to lie.
Sometimes a blank mediocre car is seen as more than it was. This could have been one of those cars. It probably won’t be, but still – beating up on it for not being more than it was tells us more about you, than it does about the Malibu.
Final word – Toyota isn’t a bench mark. Neither is Honda. The Malibu’s failure is not because it wasn’t one of those cars. GM could have built an exact replica of either of those cars, but Toyota and Honda buyers would still have shunned it because it wasn’t a Toyota or Honda. It would have cost GM more to build an exact replica, and it would have lost them a fortune. In 2002 American auto buyers had no respect for the cars their neighbors made even when they were good cars. That’s the real truth that hertz here.
Was the Duster inspired? yes, obviously; take a look at Chrysler’s sales figures for 2-door compacts before and after the Duster was introduced; they clearly illustrate that the Duster had a fair good lot of inspiration going for it.
The Dart and Valiant were not “market placeholder” or “filler” cars; they were the go-to compacts in the North American market of their day, perennial favourites of pretty much everyone—car mags as well as Consumer Reports and similar outfits. They were widely considered sturdy, dependable, and a wise, prudent buy, more comparable to an ’02 Corolla than an ’02 Malibu.
No ’60s-’70s cars came close to measuring up to the build quality standards of an ’02 car, and it doesn’t matter; car buyers were comparing ’02 cars and ’02 cars, not ’02 cars and ’73 models.
Benchmarks are benchmarks no matter who might sit there and go “Is not!”. There was no vast conspiracy to fool buyers during this generation of Malibu’s run; a lot of people actually, really preferred the Japanese brands for the solid reason that they were better-built, less troublesome cars that held their value better than comparable-size GM cars. Baseless appeals to national pride just can’t compensate for mediocre engineering, shortsighted cost-slashing (for example, by twisting parts suppliers’ nipples til they bleed), thoughtless design, and careless build. And it’s a fairly safe bet that the Americans building Hondas in Marysville, TN; Subarus in Lafayette, IN, and Toyotas in Blue Springs, MS and Georgetown, KY and Fremont, CA probably had neighbors, many of whom bought, drove, and respected those cars.
Agree! Dad bought a ‘75 Dart; the room inside was nearly Coronet-size yet the overall package was tidier and more efficient. It was a great little car that lasted quite a few years…the only more desirable domestic compact might have been a Nova.
A family member had a puke green Olds Cutlass variant of the Malibu. Bought for too much money from a second chance car lot. It lasted 220,000 very hard miles. The last few with a blown head gasket. It had the 3100 V6 If I remember.
I rented loads of these years back along with the Chrysler cloud cars and plenty of Taurus’s with the Vulcan 3 liter and 4 speed AOD. Drivetrain wise I liked the Malibu’s best, especially the 00-05’s with the 170 HP version of the 3100 and the 140 HP 2.2 Ecotec engines. The cloud cars always had the 2.4 and 4 speed Ultra drive and were no fun at all to drive and the Vulcan Taurus’s were sluggish and the transmission was a weird shifting lump. The Malibu’s also gave me the best MPG out of those cars. I also liked how big the trunks were in these, how much back seat space there was, the center console design, the big glove box, the knuckle warmers and the sound systems were decent. The Taurus was the ride/handling champ of the bunch but in all fairness all 3 of these were far better than any of there 70’s or 80’s forbearers and would out handle any rental 97-02 Camry which felt like it had Novocain steering, the softest springs possible and the slightest attempt at pulling around a corner always brought about tire squealing. This generation Camry sold well to the elderly set for a good reason mainly because it reminded them of there soft mushy riding old Buick!