Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech'

**Ming** · 07-10-2005, 07:40 PM

Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech'
John Gilbert
Budgeteer News

A friend of mine owns a Chevrolet Malibu Maxx, and he insists it’s better than any of the so-called superior Japanese midsize sedans. He insists he has adequate power, adequate fuel-economy and features that cars such as the Accord and Camry can’t match.
This fellow fancies himself objective, but he is not open to debate if the conversation turns to the superiority of the latest technology in overhead-camshaft engines, for example. It turns out, the new Malibu Maxx is quite a good car, despite a refusal to offer GM’s highest-tech V6 engine. What we can call GMs “blue-collar tech” V6 is adequate for power, efficiency, price, although not up to the car’s impressive occupant conveniences. The question, in the current highly competitive automotive climate, is whether adequate is good enough. Obviously, GM in recent years believes it is, but recent drops in GM’s share of new-car sales indicates consumers have not shared that outlook.

Personally, I like the silhouette cast by the Malibu Maxx, and the fact that the test car was gleaming white, and I drove it during some very gray days, made it stand out all the more. From a styling standpoint, the front end has what has become Chevrolet’s “signature” horizontal bar across the middle of the grille, which looks OK on some vehicles, and accents others, but which I think clutters the clean lines of the Maxx.

Performance wise, the Malibu Maxx is no more than adequate, with the iron-block 3.5-liter V6 engine, an option choice above the Ecotec four. The V6 achieves 200 horsepower, which is adequate — that word again — for a 3,500-pound four-door, and its 220 foot-pounds of torque moves the Maxx away from stops with adequate zip.

Climbing into the Maxx, the interior is well laid out, especially the gauges and switchgear for the driver. I have grown to appreciate the firm support of stiffer seats for maintaining alertness and driving control, and I found the seats in the Maxx almost old-time soft compared to the firmness of the competitors.

The hatchback offers a worthy alternative between sedans and don’t-call-it-a-station-wagon, and the test car had a heavily tinted skylight over the rear portion, which doesn’t do a lot for occupants of the first or second row of seats, but would brighten up the rear a little, if you happened to haul your dog back there. Fido, and any groceries or objects you might want to haul, are easily loaded through the large, top-opening hatch.

Living with the Malibu has some surprise benefits. For example, as I drove through the I-94 tunnel leaving the west edge of Minneapolis, the headlights suddenly came on. I like that feature, because often, even if you think about switching the lights on in a tunnel, you rationalize that it’s only a short tunnel so you can get along without them, even though it’s obviously safer to have them on.

A bigger benefit, and a tremendous feature, is the remote start feature that was standard on the LT model of the Maxx. You have a remote key-fob switch to lock and unlock the doors and hatch, and if you click it in the proper sequence, you can start the vehicle from across the parking lot. That could be a good feature when it’s a humid, 90-degree day, because you could have the air-conditioner preset, and cool down the car before you get to it.

The audio system was quite good, and a separate set of rear audio headphones and controls should make the kids happy. Heated front seats should make you and your front passenger happy, and a six-way power driver seat with manual lumbar support, plus adjustable pedals, should make the driver happy. A fold-flat front backrest, plus “multi-flex” rear seats, make hauling long objects easier.

The most ironic circumstance is that General Motors has a fantastic and very competitive engine — the Cadillac “high feature” 3.6-liter V6, which also can be obtained in 2.8 or 3.2 liter displacement options. That engine delivers 255 horsepower in standard form, and General Motors engineers have extracted more in testing. But GM won’t let anyone outside Cadillac, except for the Buick LaCrosse, to use that engine, presumably because it costs more to build. Too bad, because that engine would push the Malibu Maxx, Grand Prix, G6, and countless other GM sedans and coupes — which are high tech everywhere except under the hood — to vault from adequate to world class.

Otherwise, it’s possible the Maxx’s versatility and flexibility can carry it to some competitive sales achievements beyond fleets, and it’s also possible that being solid and tight, and decidedly...adequate, might be good enough to offset the technologically advanced competition. Time will tell.

Full Review Here: http://www.duluth.com/placed/index.p...tory_id=203363

asim · 07-10-2005, 07:51 PM

the maxx is a highly versatile and a high value car. Too bad they are quitting production.

awalbert88 · 07-10-2005, 07:55 PM

That review could almost match those of the 500 - adequate power, but everything else is at the top of the class. It's unfortunate that GM won't make the HF V6 in larger quantities so that all GM sedans can benefit from it. I really question how it can be so much more expensive to build the HF when even Ford is offering a SOHC V6 making 221hp in the competitively priced Fusion.

vdoh182 · 07-10-2005, 08:17 PM

Maybe if cadillac get direct injection the regular caddy engines will transfer down to the other brands, fyi a 3.2l version of the 3.6 makes 260hp with direct injection and is coming out in alfa romeos 06 models (w/ 405 hp turbo rumored for GTA/maserati models), im guessing the 3.6 would have more w/ direct injection, making it more competitive than BMW and closer to Infiniti.

wpbharry · 07-10-2005, 08:44 PM

The "Japs" have NOTHING to compete with this excellent vehicle.

And I'm white collar, not blue, if that means anything, which it shouldn't.

mjd1001 · 07-10-2005, 09:08 PM

My problem with most GM cars like the malibu is not with the engine. I honestly can't tell much of a difference between an Accord's 2.4 or 3.0, a Camry's 3.3 or the GM 3.5.

For me the bigger issue GM has is still transmissions and the lack of technology there (no 5 or 6 speed automatics in mainstream cars).

I'd also complain that GM's vehicles are starting to get a little "hefty" in the curb weight department, but that is also happening with the imports.

goblue · 07-10-2005, 09:30 PM

I have to agree with the author. The competition does not offer High Value engines, really, no other automaker does.

The HF line is probably the best lineup of engines out there right now. To beat it - I really think you need to go to BMWs inline 6s. Nissan's VQ engines are close.

GM needs to put its HF engines, in every V6 vehicle. We'll have to see how the Aura experiment works out. 6 speed autos and world class engines. If they are priced equivalent to the Accord and Camry - we'll see it winning comparisons left and right.

I like the idea of adding features based on price. Say DOD for the Caddies, for instance. They are completely modular - so this makes a lot of sense.

Even Ford, and its below average powertrain department has it figured out - and is dumping its OHV engines. GM would be wise to do the same for all its 6s.

**paul8488** · 07-10-2005, 09:51 PM

Man, some days I like being a simpleton. I can't tell an OHV from an OHC engine from just driving it, and don't really care. I also don't really care about having a super quiet, refined engine. A bit of noise doesn't hurt. You really get to know a vehicle by its sound, and I find it endearing when a car has a few idiosyncracies. Maybe when I'm in my Buick years I will, but for now I'm pleased that just about any engine can make me happy, as long as it doesn't break down!

Cortazzo · 07-10-2005, 10:30 PM

There are definite benefits to ohv vs ohc. My 4.3 liter makes a ton of down low torque which gets my jimmy moving quick off the line. It is no less refined than the 4.6 in my mom's truck and doesn't take an extra two seconds to start moving like the japanese L6 in my dads car. How many people have purchased GM trucks and SUVs over the last 10 years since SUVs have been big? Millions and millions, and they all came with 'unrefined', 'low-tech', and 'blue-collar' ohv engines. Did they just start to care now? Most people don't even give their engines enough gas to reach the ohv's 'unrefined' upper rpm range. I think i'm just going to start ignoring the automotive press, they don't speak for 90% of consumers.

wiserocz · 07-10-2005, 10:33 PM

Okay here is my perception of the DOHC vs OHV. I have had the pleasure of driving both a 96 and a 98 Monte Carlo Z34. One has the venerable 3800 which makes around 200hp the other has the dohc 3.4 which is about 215. Now why would I pick the OHV motor over a cammer you ask? Press the gas petal and you will notice the cammer pulling above 4000RMP and the 3800 pulling from the word go. I simply use the lower powerband more. So even though the old 3800 may be a dog on paper in perception it feels way faster. Now lets get down "technology". Simpler is always better especially when it comes to the motor of the car. When it comes down to endurance you will hardly ever see a racer go pick a DOHC "high feature motor". I dont want to even get into the the absurd costs of repair for a DOHC motor. Ask the 96 owner to change his alternator and he will cry like a baby, and why is this you ask? Because another benifit is space, and in that particular car the alternator gets to be somewhere under the car (because the heads and intake take up so much room) forcing you to drop the engine cradle (FUN!). OHV motors take less space and weigh less. Isnt that really more advanced anyway. Since when was the harder to live with, less durable, more complex to operate computer more advanced? Take the specs off the paper and things start to look mighty good.

SonicAerio · 07-10-2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul8488

Man, some days I like being a simpleton. I can't tell an OHV from an OHC engine from just driving it, and don't really care. I also don't really care about having a super quiet, refined engine. A bit of noise doesn't hurt. You really get to know a vehicle by its sound, and I find it endearing when a car has a few idiosyncracies. Maybe when I'm in my Buick years I will, but for now I'm pleased that just about any engine can make me happy, as long as it doesn't break down!

Have to agree....if the engine makes you happy while driving it...what makes it inferior.

CountryME · 07-10-2005, 10:47 PM

An interesting article appeard in Car and Driver in May of 2004, written by Larry Webster. While the article focuses mainly on GM V-8 pushrod engines, it sheds alot of light on why a pushrod engine is better than the HF OHC engines. I am not a fan of the new more complex HF engines, but I do admit that if you want the additional tech to brag about, then the associated costs should be expected in the price tag.

Also, if memory serves me, isn't the Malibu SS getting the 3.9 HF V-6?

Here is a link to the article.

The pushrod engine finally gets its due.
By Larry Webster
May 2004

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

plane · 07-10-2005, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryME

An interesting article appeard in Car and Driver in May of 2004, written by Larry Webster. While the article focuses mainly on GM V-8 pushrod engines, it sheds alot of light on why a pushrod engine is better than the HF OHC engines. I am not a fan of the new more complex HF engines, but I do admit that if you want the additional tech to brag about, then the associated costs should be expected in the price tag.

Also, if memory serves me, isn't the Malibu SS getting the 3.9 HF V-6?

Here is a link to the article.

The pushrod engine finally gets its due.
By Larry Webster
May 2004

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

Great article. GM has its fair share of OHC engines too mostly at the lower end . Isn't the Caddy 2.8 OHC? The I 4.2 chopped for the Colorado/Canyon yields the 3.5 and 2.8. The Ecotec 2.0, 2.2, and soon 2.4 are all DOHC and are great engines. The Saturn SL series ran exclusively OHC for 10 years.

**paul8488** · 07-10-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonicAerio

Have to agree....if the engine makes you happy while driving it...what makes it inferior.

Lets make a 4-cyl, FWD, 5-door econobox fan club, and laugh at all those people that have to worry about things like OHV and OHC and RWD and horsepower and all that nonsense!

ChevyLaxMan · 07-10-2005, 11:26 PM

Here's a solution to the ohc/pushrod debate... PROVE THEM ALL WRONG!
If they complain about refinement rip they motor apart and cure the resonances and then make quiet tuning standard too. Make the six speed available to increase gas mileage and utilize the characteristic called torque out of the pushrods. Offer VVT and DoD to please the tech crowd. These are all very easy to do and could make GM's pushrods desirable as they would offer great power where u want it, are more efficiently packaged, and they retain their great mileage. Do it now!

07-10-2005, 07:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
Ming GMI Staff Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: SE Texas Posts: 13,430	Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' John Gilbert Budgeteer News A friend of mine owns a Chevrolet Malibu Maxx, and he insists it’s better than any of the so-called superior Japanese midsize sedans. He insists he has adequate power, adequate fuel-economy and features that cars such as the Accord and Camry can’t match. This fellow fancies himself objective, but he is not open to debate if the conversation turns to the superiority of the latest technology in overhead-camshaft engines, for example. It turns out, the new Malibu Maxx is quite a good car, despite a refusal to offer GM’s highest-tech V6 engine. What we can call GMs “blue-collar tech” V6 is adequate for power, efficiency, price, although not up to the car’s impressive occupant conveniences. The question, in the current highly competitive automotive climate, is whether adequate is good enough. Obviously, GM in recent years believes it is, but recent drops in GM’s share of new-car sales indicates consumers have not shared that outlook. Personally, I like the silhouette cast by the Malibu Maxx, and the fact that the test car was gleaming white, and I drove it during some very gray days, made it stand out all the more. From a styling standpoint, the front end has what has become Chevrolet’s “signature” horizontal bar across the middle of the grille, which looks OK on some vehicles, and accents others, but which I think clutters the clean lines of the Maxx. Performance wise, the Malibu Maxx is no more than adequate, with the iron-block 3.5-liter V6 engine, an option choice above the Ecotec four. The V6 achieves 200 horsepower, which is adequate — that word again — for a 3,500-pound four-door, and its 220 foot-pounds of torque moves the Maxx away from stops with adequate zip. Climbing into the Maxx, the interior is well laid out, especially the gauges and switchgear for the driver. I have grown to appreciate the firm support of stiffer seats for maintaining alertness and driving control, and I found the seats in the Maxx almost old-time soft compared to the firmness of the competitors. The hatchback offers a worthy alternative between sedans and don’t-call-it-a-station-wagon, and the test car had a heavily tinted skylight over the rear portion, which doesn’t do a lot for occupants of the first or second row of seats, but would brighten up the rear a little, if you happened to haul your dog back there. Fido, and any groceries or objects you might want to haul, are easily loaded through the large, top-opening hatch. Living with the Malibu has some surprise benefits. For example, as I drove through the I-94 tunnel leaving the west edge of Minneapolis, the headlights suddenly came on. I like that feature, because often, even if you think about switching the lights on in a tunnel, you rationalize that it’s only a short tunnel so you can get along without them, even though it’s obviously safer to have them on. A bigger benefit, and a tremendous feature, is the remote start feature that was standard on the LT model of the Maxx. You have a remote key-fob switch to lock and unlock the doors and hatch, and if you click it in the proper sequence, you can start the vehicle from across the parking lot. That could be a good feature when it’s a humid, 90-degree day, because you could have the air-conditioner preset, and cool down the car before you get to it. The audio system was quite good, and a separate set of rear audio headphones and controls should make the kids happy. Heated front seats should make you and your front passenger happy, and a six-way power driver seat with manual lumbar support, plus adjustable pedals, should make the driver happy. A fold-flat front backrest, plus “multi-flex” rear seats, make hauling long objects easier. The most ironic circumstance is that General Motors has a fantastic and very competitive engine — the Cadillac “high feature” 3.6-liter V6, which also can be obtained in 2.8 or 3.2 liter displacement options. That engine delivers 255 horsepower in standard form, and General Motors engineers have extracted more in testing. But GM won’t let anyone outside Cadillac, except for the Buick LaCrosse, to use that engine, presumably because it costs more to build. Too bad, because that engine would push the Malibu Maxx, Grand Prix, G6, and countless other GM sedans and coupes — which are high tech everywhere except under the hood — to vault from adequate to world class. Otherwise, it’s possible the Maxx’s versatility and flexibility can carry it to some competitive sales achievements beyond fleets, and it’s also possible that being solid and tight, and decidedly...adequate, might be good enough to offset the technologically advanced competition. Time will tell. Full Review Here: http://www.duluth.com/placed/index.p...tory_id=203363 __________________ The Latest: Step by Step - How to Play Commodore 64 Games on a PC

07-10-2005, 07:51 PM	#2 (permalink)
asim Firebird Concept (the turbine one) Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 11,271	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' the maxx is a highly versatile and a high value car. Too bad they are quitting production. __________________ I'll make a new sig. Later.

07-10-2005, 07:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
awalbert88 3.6 Liter V6 Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,193	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' That review could almost match those of the 500 - adequate power, but everything else is at the top of the class. It's unfortunate that GM won't make the HF V6 in larger quantities so that all GM sedans can benefit from it. I really question how it can be so much more expensive to build the HF when even Ford is offering a SOHC V6 making 221hp in the competitively priced Fusion.

07-10-2005, 08:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
vdoh182 3.8 Liter Supercharged V6 Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 548	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' Maybe if cadillac get direct injection the regular caddy engines will transfer down to the other brands, fyi a 3.2l version of the 3.6 makes 260hp with direct injection and is coming out in alfa romeos 06 models (w/ 405 hp turbo rumored for GTA/maserati models), im guessing the 3.6 would have more w/ direct injection, making it more competitive than BMW and closer to Infiniti.

07-10-2005, 08:44 PM	#5 (permalink)
wpbharry 6.0 Liter Vortec V8 Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Drives: '04 Malibu Maxx LS Posts: 1,765	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' The "Japs" have NOTHING to compete with this excellent vehicle. And I'm white collar, not blue, if that means anything, which it shouldn't. __________________ 2004 Chevy Malibu Maxx LS, Light Driftwood, All Options Except 6-Disc & Rear DVD

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
GM Inside News Forum Advertisement

07-10-2005, 09:08 PM	#6 (permalink)
mjd1001 6.2 Liter Vortec V8 Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Daytona Beach, FL and Upstate NY Drives: 2008 Saturn Vue Redline Posts: 2,629	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' My problem with most GM cars like the malibu is not with the engine. I honestly can't tell much of a difference between an Accord's 2.4 or 3.0, a Camry's 3.3 or the GM 3.5. For me the bigger issue GM has is still transmissions and the lack of technology there (no 5 or 6 speed automatics in mainstream cars). I'd also complain that GM's vehicles are starting to get a little "hefty" in the curb weight department, but that is also happening with the imports.

07-10-2005, 09:30 PM	#7 (permalink)
goblue 5.3 Liter LS4 V8 Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 3,497	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' I have to agree with the author. The competition does not offer High Value engines, really, no other automaker does. The HF line is probably the best lineup of engines out there right now. To beat it - I really think you need to go to BMWs inline 6s. Nissan's VQ engines are close. GM needs to put its HF engines, in every V6 vehicle. We'll have to see how the Aura experiment works out. 6 speed autos and world class engines. If they are priced equivalent to the Accord and Camry - we'll see it winning comparisons left and right. I like the idea of adding features based on price. Say DOD for the Caddies, for instance. They are completely modular - so this makes a lot of sense. Even Ford, and its below average powertrain department has it figured out - and is dumping its OHV engines. GM would be wise to do the same for all its 6s.

07-10-2005, 09:51 PM	#8 (permalink)
paul8488 GMI Staff Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: France Drives: 2007 MBK Flipper Scooter Posts: 13,397	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' Man, some days I like being a simpleton. I can't tell an OHV from an OHC engine from just driving it, and don't really care. I also don't really care about having a super quiet, refined engine. A bit of noise doesn't hurt. You really get to know a vehicle by its sound, and I find it endearing when a car has a few idiosyncracies. Maybe when I'm in my Buick years I will, but for now I'm pleased that just about any engine can make me happy, as long as it doesn't break down! __________________ *The department of redundancy department.*

07-10-2005, 10:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
Cortazzo 3.6 Liter V6 Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,078	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' There are definite benefits to ohv vs ohc. My 4.3 liter makes a ton of down low torque which gets my jimmy moving quick off the line. It is no less refined than the 4.6 in my mom's truck and doesn't take an extra two seconds to start moving like the japanese L6 in my dads car. How many people have purchased GM trucks and SUVs over the last 10 years since SUVs have been big? Millions and millions, and they all came with 'unrefined', 'low-tech', and 'blue-collar' ohv engines. Did they just start to care now? Most people don't even give their engines enough gas to reach the ohv's 'unrefined' upper rpm range. I think i'm just going to start ignoring the automotive press, they don't speak for 90% of consumers.

07-10-2005, 10:33 PM	#10 (permalink)
wiserocz 2.2 Liter ECOTEC Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 70	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' Okay here is my perception of the DOHC vs OHV. I have had the pleasure of driving both a 96 and a 98 Monte Carlo Z34. One has the venerable 3800 which makes around 200hp the other has the dohc 3.4 which is about 215. Now why would I pick the OHV motor over a cammer you ask? Press the gas petal and you will notice the cammer pulling above 4000RMP and the 3800 pulling from the word go. I simply use the lower powerband more. So even though the old 3800 may be a dog on paper in perception it feels way faster. Now lets get down "technology". Simpler is always better especially when it comes to the motor of the car. When it comes down to endurance you will hardly ever see a racer go pick a DOHC "high feature motor". I dont want to even get into the the absurd costs of repair for a DOHC motor. Ask the 96 owner to change his alternator and he will cry like a baby, and why is this you ask? Because another benifit is space, and in that particular car the alternator gets to be somewhere under the car (because the heads and intake take up so much room) forcing you to drop the engine cradle (FUN!). OHV motors take less space and weigh less. Isnt that really more advanced anyway. Since when was the harder to live with, less durable, more complex to operate computer more advanced? Take the specs off the paper and things start to look mighty good. __________________ WiserocZ Check out my new website CarSpyPics.com

07-10-2005, 10:47 PM	#12 (permalink)
CountryME 2.4 Liter ECOTEC Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Southern Maine Drives: 2001 Silverado Extended Cab Long Bed 327 cu. in ( Posts: 108	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' An interesting article appeard in Car and Driver in May of 2004, written by Larry Webster. While the article focuses mainly on GM V-8 pushrod engines, it sheds alot of light on why a pushrod engine is better than the HF OHC engines. I am not a fan of the new more complex HF engines, but I do admit that if you want the additional tech to brag about, then the associated costs should be expected in the price tag. Also, if memory serves me, isn't the Malibu SS getting the 3.9 HF V-6? Here is a link to the article. The pushrod engine finally gets its due. By Larry Webster May 2004 http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

07-10-2005, 11:26 PM	#15 (permalink)
ChevyLaxMan 3.8 Liter V6 Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Dirty South Posts: 467	Re: Review: Malibu Maxx offers Chevy concept of 'blue-collar tech' Here's a solution to the ohc/pushrod debate... PROVE THEM ALL WRONG! If they complain about refinement rip they motor apart and cure the resonances and then make quiet tuning standard too. Make the six speed available to increase gas mileage and utilize the characteristic called torque out of the pushrods. Offer VVT and DoD to please the tech crowd. These are all very easy to do and could make GM's pushrods desirable as they would offer great power where u want it, are more efficiently packaged, and they retain their great mileage. Do it now! __________________ Its like the 60's all over again, just without the hippies!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode