Malibu replacement

[kevm14]

I had an interesting revelation recently. I always perceived that people wrongly got rid of cars as a result of failure events. My argument was always "well you can fix it much cheaper than replacing it." Yup. And that applies to the Malibu, too. But here's what I realized:

1) We were already considering replacing the car anyway
2) It is developing rust on parts of the body (mainly in front of the rear wheel wells at the bottom but also under the door frames)
3) I don't much care for the car, so I never really considered it anything more than an appliance. I have no attachment to it and there's nothing at all interesting or redeeming about it. It doesn't totally suck in objective measures (mpg is ok, performance is ok, it has enough room, etc.) at least. But that's the best I can say.
4) So I never invested the kind of maintenance dollars that I have in, say, my Caprice (and thus feel less compelled to hang onto it). On the other hand, it hasn't needed a lot. But unlike my Caprice, I never had any interest in improving the performance above the stock baseline. Which is another reason I feel less compelled to hang onto it (see #3).
5) As the wife's car, I have less interest in tinkering with it, though maybe I would feel differently if it were an interesting car.

So there's my rationale. I think the Maxima is a pretty good example of a car I am willing to spend some time on (with nearly twice the miles and a lot more rust, even). I liked working on my Fleetwood, my Caprice. The CTS-V is less rewarding as everything takes longer and is more expensive (plus the stakes are higher since it's actually worth money).

With that out of the way, I was thinking the 06-07 Malibu Maxx would be good for her. Maybe not this particular car but something like this:

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale ... 9319&Log=0

For $10k I can get an LTZ with well under 100k, so that means all the options (leather seats/wheel, heated seats, heated mirrors, climate control, DVD entertainment, power pedals, remote start, homelink, dual moonroof, auto dimming rearview, telescoping steering wheel, etc.). These are very practical with good rear storage (easily accessible via the hatch) and the sliding rear seat means Fleetwood levels of rear seat legroom is available if necessary - the Maxx was built on the long wheel base Epsilon, unlike the sedan. These are homely (the 06-07 refresh, as this one is, isn't too bad, IMO) but exceedingly practical. And other redeeming features include the trusty 60° 3.5L V6 (good for about 200hp in 04-06 and 211 hp with VVT in 2007) which has great response and overall performance, and gets very impressive MPG (well into the 30s is possible on the highway). The SS variant had the 3900 which had 240hp (with a fuel economy penalty). Plus the chassis actually doesn't suck, since this is first gen Epsilon. It was the beginning of GM's non-sucky FWD platforms. I'd like to drive one.

Here's an 07 which has higher miles but seems nicer:

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale ... 9314&Log=0

[kevm14]

It looks like the sliding seats are really more for reclining.

[Bob]

When I drove up to northern Virginia to pick up the Elise almost 8 years ago, I rented what must have been an 06 Malibu with the 3.5L. I remember the mileage was in the mid-30s on the highway ( not going slow either).

[kevm14]

I guess in what is typical for GM, the 04-05 had only two trim levels, LS and LT. LT had many goodies and other stuff optional. For 06, LT became the base trim and they added both SS and LTZ. LTZ took over where the old LT played.

http://www.cars.com/chevrolet/malibu-ma ... equipment/

For my purposes, the LTZ includes everything with the following things still optional (but some may be typical):

- Moonroof (not sure if the dual roof is included or something else)
- Rear seat DVD system

I would say both are desirable. The first link has it, the 2nd one doesn't seem to.

[kevm14]

Apparently the safety ratings on these was very good also.

[kevm14]

EPA ratings (native):

04: 22/30/24
05: 22/30/25
06: 22/30/25
07: 20/30/24

This reminds me a bit of the CTS-V ratings (incidentally also 04-07). The difference with the 04 seems like the result of a slight rounding difference (certainly it couldn't amount to an entire mpg). What's also strange is that the 07 with VVT has worse city mpg. Academically the 06 is the best year, as it looks the best and has the best ratings. In the real world, it doesn't matter (and the cars probably get about identical mpg in similar conditions).

Of course, let's look at the Fueleconomy.gov consumer ratings:

2004
Average based on 12 vehicles
27.2 MPG

19 Lo
35 Hi

2005
Average based on 21 vehicles
25.7 MPG

16 Lo
37 Hi

2006
Average based on 4 vehicles
24.5 MPG

23 Lo
29 Hi

2007
Average based on 6 vehicles
22.5 MPG

19 Lo
26 Hi

Uh oh, the 07 is worse!

Let's check fuelly.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/malibu/hatchback

04: 24.2 mpg
05: 24.9 mpg
06: 21.8 mpg
07: 25.6 mpg

So much for crowd sourcing data.

[kevm14]

Fun fact for the VVT model:

These engines (aside from the LX9) are the first cam in block engines to implement Variable Valve Timing, and won the 2006 Breakthrough Award from Popular Mechanics for this innovation

I wonder if that's a reason to skip the 07.....

[kevm14]

3900 stuff (that would be Malibu SS only):

The new LZ9 3900 features Variable Cam Timing, a new feature on a pushrod engine, roller rocker arms and has a variable length intake manifold. The dual intake runners (One short, one longer) improves intake efficiency across a broader RPM range.

It produces 240 hp (179 kW) and 240 lb·ft (325 N·m) torque, with a wide torque curve. 90% of the torque is available from 1500 rpm to 5500 rpm.

Ooh, variable length intake manifold.

O rly??

The LZ8 3900 has the same Variable Cam Timing technology as the LZ9. The 2007 model year introduces the Active Fuel Management system (formerly known as Displacement on Demand), which can turn off a bank of cylinders under a light load for increased fuel economy. Output is slightly lower than the LZ9 at 233 hp (174 kW) and 240 lb·ft (325 N·m).

This engine is used in the following vehicles:
2007–2008 Chevrolet Impala

Of course Wiki says Impala only. That's kind of interesting though. I didn't know they did that on any of the V6s, and back in 07, too.

[Bob]

How about this?

http://jerseyshore.craigslist.org/cto/4418371463.html

[Bob]

Or one in Maine: http://maine.craigslist.org/cto/4365356291.html