Repair-It

Fun facts:

2004 Malibu Maxx LT does the 1/4 in 16.1 @ 86 mph.
2006 Malibu Maxx SS does the 1/4 in 15.3 @ 91 mph.

I wonder what Jamie's Malibu can do. Probably not much worse than the Maxx LT...

The SS is in the vicinity of the Matrix XRS, probably a hair faster and I am sure it drives 100x better.

The SS is also where the 4th gen Maxima was....10 years later.

Not exactly a glowing endorsement: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/one ... ewall.html

Clearly this engine is not well-suited for this type of car, but it did run 15.7 @ 91.5

The 0-60 is identical to the 2004 Malibu Maxx LT. The thing cannot get out of the hole. And the Maxx LT 5-60 is 8.2, illustrating the good response/torque of the 3.5L.

From the Matrix link, this is great:

Problem areas: Interior rattles and vibrations, steering-column squeak

I've heard the same complaint about the Malibu. That must have been the part GM contributed to the NUMMI venture.

For the Maxx, I think the LTZ is still the trim to get. The extra performance of the SS is less important than the features the LTZ brings that aren't even available on the SS. Plus the LTZ gets better fuel economy. C&D obserbed 24mpg out of a 2004 LT which is acceptable.

Why do you think people with powerbands like this like to race "from a roll"?

I was going to make the same comment about NUMMI!

Is this worth pursuing?

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale ... 5707&Log=0

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/maz ... -road-test

Ad says 6 speed auto but I don't know if that's right. The C/D tester had a manual. And how do I feel about the Ford Duratec V6?

Malibu Maxx vs Mazda6 wagon.

http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimComp ... 60CHC141D0

Same weight.

The Mazda6 wagon compares favorably in interior room overall. It's got less front headroom, rear headroom, rear shoulder room and overall passenger volume, and WAY less rear seat legroom (goes with the considerably less wheelbase). But, it has a lot more luggage volume with and without the rear seats folded, because it's a conventional wagon where the Maxx is awkwardly truncated.

C/D interior cargo specs for Mazda6 wagon: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/maz ... -specs.pdf
52 cu ft front volume
45 cu ft rear volume
34 cu ft cargo, seats up
60 cu ft cargo, seats down
125" length of pipe will fit
71" x 42" plywood will fit
will fit 19 10x10x16 boxes, seats up
will fit 43 10x10x16 boxes, seats down

C/D interior cargo specs for Malibu Maxx: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/che ... -specs.pdf
54 cu ft front volume (a little more)
52 cu ft rear volume (clearly bigger back seat)
23 cu ft cargo, seats up (much less)
41 cu ft cargo, seats down (much less)
129" length of pipe will fit (a little more)
73" x 37.5" plywood will fit (much narrower but a bit longer)
will fit 12 10x10x16 boxes, seats up (much less)
will fit 31 10x10x16 boxes, seats down (much less)

So the Maxx is car-biased with some wagon utility. The Mazda6 I guess is a traditional blend of car plus utility. It think the car-ness is much more necessary. We already have a Ranger with a 7 foot bed.

Aside from the rear seat legroom, it seems promising. I guess I'd have to go check one out.

The EPA ratings are definitely worse in the Mazda6, with 17/25 (new system) compared to the Maxx at 20/28. But a quick check at fueleconomy.gov shows a 2005 Mazda6 wagon w/ 6 speed auto is about the same owner reported fuel economy as a 2006 Malibu Maxx.

Fuelly shows a median average fuel economy of 22 mpg across 34 Mazda6 wagons with the V6 (any trans, unfortunately).
Median average fuel economy across 26 Malibu "hatchbacks" with the V6 (should be Maxx's) is 25 mpg.

That difference reflects the EPA ratings. In fact, if you go by the original EPA ratings, the Mazda6 average is 22 and the Malibu Maxx average is 25. How about that.

My thoughts are the Maxx provides the extra rear seat legroom that is handy, with enough storage. And better fuel economy. More choices in the used market as well. I wonder about reliability. I feel comfortable with the Malibu. I am not familiar with the Mazda at all.

I think the Mazda would probably be better to drive if you care about that sort of thing.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/maz ... -road-test

Lob the 6 wagon into a corner, and you know Big Spender and his cohorts are on the job. There's just 0.80 g of grip in the well by our skidpad count, but the steering is fast and direct, and the rear end is impressively responsive to throttle inputs. Dial the wheel for your desired path, anything from a gentle sweep to a Gilles Villeneuve impersonation. If your fingertips detect tire scrub, lift a little, and the back end rotates gently around to help out.

Saddled with the extra weight of its baggy tush (113 more pounds than the V-6 sedan we tested in June 2004), the wagon still seesaws through lane changes and other fast transitions with restrained motion and four planted paws. Easy fun? An orangutan fresh from shock therapy can pin the 6 to its limit.

Naturally, the ride refinement suffers from Mazda's suspension and tire choices. Bumps are felt more acutely through the seat and floor. Road textures create more white noise than in some of the 6's more sedate mid-size competitors. Some upscale performance sedans have fancy sandwich-insulated steel panels to help hush the cabin. The Mazda makes do without.

We don't need an Arthur Miller play under the hood, but a little more drama from the 3.0-liter V-6 wouldn't offend the critics. A high-desert clutch drop delivered 60 mph in 7.2 seconds, a quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds at 93 mph, and the electronically governed 120-mph top speed in 26.9 seconds. The wagon is slower than the sedan by fractions, but that's not important. What is important is the gasoline tanker filling the mirrors as you merge onto the interstate.

I think the worse fuel economy may be worth better dynamics, if the primary driver was actually a car enthusiast. She's not.

The Mazda6 is significantly faster, though. 93mph trap vs 86. But the Mazda6 is a manual. The 6-speed automatic might be more like 91? Still, 86 is fine for Jamie. And again, it's slower but better fuel economy.

By the way, C/D observed 19 mpg with the Mazda6 wagon manual, and 24 mpg with the Malibu Maxx. That 3.5L is pretty efficient.

BTW #2: the cars are exactly the same length. To the tenth of an inch.

The Maxx has an additional 1" of ground clearance (snow).

All in all, it's pretty clear the Mazda would be the enthusiast's choice (well, we'd have to compare to the SS to be fair I think). The Maxx seems like a pretty solid choice for us, at least on paper.