Topic: 2008 Chevy Malibu

[Timmins]

Last month I rented a 2008 Malibu LS with a 4 cyl.

This has to be the most unconfortable car I have ever driven.  Although the exterior and interior are really nice to look at the car itself isn't pleasant to drive.  I also didn't find the gas mileage that good.

I rented this car from Enterprise and I asked for a large car with a 6cyl. engine.  They gave me this Malibu and told me that it was a large car.

I like the idea of renting for out of town trips, that way I'm not putting extra wear and tear on my car.

I was expecting an Impala, Grand Prix, or a 300 etc.  but no, I get a Malibu for a large car.  I own a 2005 300 and from Timmins to Toronto I got just a good gas mileage then that 4cyl. Malibu.

As for enterprise rent a car.... after I told them about my unhapiness they tole me that they will guarentee me a (real) large car the next time.

Stay tuned.

Thank you

[RunsinLight]

I've never sat in a GM seat that was comfortable.

[Ex-airbalancer]

I've never sat in a GM seat that was comfortable.

Try a G8, seat in one today

[Serniter]

You seem to be more upset with Enterprise for not giving you a large car than the car itself.

Other than the gas mileage, was there anything specific you did not like about the Malibu?

[quadzilla]

So what was the gas mileage of the Malibu and what does your 300 get on that same trip?  These 'rants' are meaningless without actual numbers.

[tpl]

I disagree slightly.  A "review" of a rental may say a lot about how a car stands up to drivers who don't care about it.   Same as it would be interesting to see "reviews" of ex-leased cars compared to ones which had been used by an actual owner.

[tortoise]

I like the idea of renting for out of town trips, that way I'm not putting extra wear and tear on my car.

I was expecting an Impala, Grand Prix, or a 300 etc.  but no, I get a Malibu for a large car.  I own a 2005 300 and from Timmins to Toronto I got just a good gas mileage then that 4cyl. Malibu.

There's a couple of things I don't understand. 

1) Highway miles don't really add much wear and tear once everything is warmed up, so there's really no reason to rent in the first place.

2) The impala, Grand Prix & 300 are all roughly the same size as the Malibu.  Why then do you not think it is a large car?
Lengths:
Impala: 200 in
Grand Prix: 198in
300: 196 in.
Malibu: 191 in

Sure it's smaller than the rest, but it's not dramatically smaller.

[barrie1]

A Chrysler 300 is a lot larger then the Mailbu and you state that the gas milage was better on the 300. The 300 is at least a 6 cyl engine while the Mailbu was a 4cyl. I always have a hard time getting comfy in a Chrysler product myself due to the slope of the seats front and rear. I find they are too uprite for actual comfort to my lower back. I don't have any problems in the GM line in that respect at all and the seats in my Caddies are always very supportive in the right places as well. 

[sirAQUAMAN64]

I've never sat in a GM seat that was comfortable.

Try a G8, seat in one today

Agreed! Not that you'll find one as a rental.

[Greg B.]

2) The impala, Grand Prix & 300 are all roughly the same size as the Malibu.  Why then do you not think it is a large car?
Lengths:
Impala: 200 in
Grand Prix: 198in
300: 196 in.
Malibu: 191 in

Sure it's smaller than the rest, but it's not dramatically smaller.

I would suggest it is dramatically smaller in interior room than the 300. I can't speak to the GP. It is a little smaller inside than the Impala. The Malibu's interior is very tight in the rear whereas the 300 has limo-like rear seat room. And the Malibu is much narrower inside as well. I would not consider the Malibu a large car except perhaps in overall length, but that length does not translate into rear seat room.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

From the Enterprise site:

Full Size    Chevy Impala, Nissan Altima or similar    4 doors

Premium    Buick Allure, Dodge Magnum or similar    4 doors

Luxury   Chrysler 300, Buick Lucerne or similar    4 doors


You did get a "Full Size". If you wanted something more plush you'd have to go with "Luxury".

The GM's I generally get (Grand Prix, Impala, Allure) typically get better mileage than the 300/Magnum/Charger.

[dougjp]

With issues like this (and many others) I like to use the Kelley Blue Book site (kbb.com) to find the facts. Its a valuable resource for lots of other reasons too, for example when the typical road test ignores a car's weight in an age of bloated vehicles. At that site, pick 'compare cars' and input some US Zip code.

This shows in comparison that (a) the 2005 300 has nearly as good a mileage rating because the V6 is only 2.7L and 190 HP. 21/28 MPG US vs. 22/30 for the Malibu 4 cyl. 2.4L. The 300 externally is nearly 4" wider giving a front shoulder room advantage of nearly that much. However the Malibu has more headroom, more front leg room (but less in the rear) and almost the same trunk space (.5 cu. ft. less). Overall I'd call it a dead heat and that the Malibu qualifies as being in the large car 'class'.

[Wetson]

Last month I rented a 2008 Malibu LS with a 4 cyl.

This has to be the most unconfortable car I have ever driven.  Although the exterior and interior are really nice to look at the car itself isn't pleasant to drive. 

Agreed.  I sat in a malibu in the showroom and couldn't get comfortable.  The seat was horrendous.

On the other hand the Cadillac CTS has comfortable seats.

[Timmins]

Here are some real world figures.  On the highway I drive anywhere from 110 to 120km/h.

With the Malibu 4cyl.  It took 68 litres of gas to drive from Timmins to NewMarket which is 670kms I was alone with 1 suite case and golf clubs (which barely fit).

With my 2005 300 AWD 3.5L.  From Timmins to Kanata which is 700kms (on 2 lane highway I might add) myself my wife and 3 year old with way more stuff in the car, burnt 70 Litres.

I can tell you there is way more rear leg room in the 300 than the Malibu has (no comparison)

Didn't mind the head room in the Malibu it was fine.

The message centre in the dash was cool.

The engine was powerfull!  I was impressed.  The V6 must be insane.

The car was quite inside.

Malibu as a large car??  I disagree.  It's about the same size as my Accord was.  It was really tight inside, I couldn't raise the seatbelt pivot any higher, the pilar was at a really wierd place I always rubbed against it going in the car and coming out.

The impala, GP is much larger than the Malibu, Accord is.  I'm 6'1, 220lbs and I feel the difference.

Am I upset with enterprise....... BIG TIME!!!  They know how I feel.  To their credit though they will make it up to me the next time I use their services.

Is my anger with Enterprise the main reason I don't like the 2008 Malibu.  Yes...  However it was a learning experience for me, I know now that the Malibu IS NOT the right car for me.

Highway conditions such as bumps potholes etc. are wear and tear and are more significant at higher speeds.

This section of the website if comments on new cars, I rented a new car (only 5000kms on it) and I'm commenting on it!!!

[dougjp]

OK, we hear you. Thanks for the additional information, makes it much easier to understand.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

So you were pissed off at Enterprise and caned their Malibu because you didn't look up exactly what "full size" means in the rental world?

I've had enough RWD 300 rentals over the years to know that your fuel economy numbers don't make sense unless you whipped the Malibu like a rented mule.

If you really want a large car ie 300, Lucerne, Grand Marquis, Town Car etc you were looking at the wrong class. It wouldn't have mattered if it had been Hertz, National or Budget. They all have posters and their car lineups online.

[Timmins]

I don't have a 300C

Just a 300 AWD

The C is the Hemi 5.7L V8, I have the 3.5L V6. 

After rechecking my receipts for the gas I spent on my Timmins to Kanata trip, it was only 68 litres not 70.  Sorry about that.  But it still means 30 more kms per tank with the 300 AWD V6.

Please don't get mad at me for not liking the Malibu, this is my opinion.  If you like the Malibu and it fits just nice in your life style then more power to you.  Can't I have my opinion? 

Thank you very much for those of you who understand where I'm coming from.  To the rest of you.... Peace.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The EPA lists it as a 300C but those mileage figures are for the AWD 3.5L. I don't care whether you liked it or not, your mileage figures don't make sense.

[barrie1]

The 3.5 is a V6 engine that was also used in some models of the Chrysler vans and pickups as well. Actually a fairly decent engine. Much better then the 2.7 which had sludge issue's in a few years models. Not everyone can always agree on the same vehicle at all and probably never will either. 

[Seafoam]

The 3.5 is a V6 engine that was also used in some models of the Chrysler vans and pickups as well. Actually a fairly decent engine. Much better then the 2.7 which had sludge issue's in a few years models. Not everyone can aalways agre on the same vehicle at all and probably never will either. 

I  think you are wrong on this. The vans never used the 3.5.They had a 3.0 mitsu V6,3.3 and 3.8 V6,also started out with a variation of the K car 4 cylinder engines when they debuted in 1984. The ram pickup  used a 3.9 V6[ this was a 318 cid V8 with 2 cylinders missing] and now uses a newer V6 that it shares with the Jeep  liberty for the last couple of years.