Test Drive: 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid

[mjd1001]

Originally Posted by GMforME

I've complained about this in house for months. Also the fact that when you use remote start it also effects the calculation. It calculates the fuel consumption when the vehicle is remote started against the fuel mileage number. While its true the vehicle used the fuel it is not a reflection of fuel mileage going down the road. This is an issue with all GM vehicles with remote start.
I made a proposal that we don't calculate fuel mileage during remote start (ie anytime the vehicle is not in key in run position but it hasn't gone anywhere)
In the winter 2 remote starts a day will crucify the fuel mileage average when its not a real indicator. You cannot believe how many vehicles come back for service for poor fuel mileage and its directly tied to remote start not an issue with the vehicle.

Actually, I would hope they do not make a change. When I use the trip computer for mileage, I don't want to know only what I am getting when I am driving. I want to know TOTAL fuel consumption versus the miles I drive. If I want to know it only when I am driving, I'll look at the instant economy or reset it once I start moving.

[ronald mcretard]

great paragraph here:

Simplicity can sometimes be an advantage. While both the Camry and Altima have a noticeable transition from electric to electric-plus-gas to gas-all-alone, the Malibu Hybrid goes about its business a lot more unobtrusively. The shifts from its four-speed automatic transmission are smooth (no fancy CVT here), the electric motor kicks in with a swell of torque but no juddering and the whole works shuts down with a sigh when you come to a stop. An intelligent "green" setting on the climate control keeps cool air pumping through the cabin without keeping the engine running, while the Malibu's cabin is already quiet enough that the sudden silence isn't a total shock.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by GMforME

We've had alot of magazines beat us up for poor fuel mileage because of this to. They don't do an actual calculation they use the average trip calculation which can be way way off especially if they are using the remote start.

So...... ....has this been going on since BAS has been available on other vehicles ????

( ......red mist rising .............. either way......................... count to te - )

And ..................... where the hello is the 'awareness' campaign never mind the fix ?

This plays out another way when you realize the Honda and Toyota hybrids can be reading as much as 20.00% + off the other way ie optimistic.

I'm really pulling for GM in more ways than one but GD , WHO IS THE PUTZ OR THE PUTZ COMMITTEE THAT HAS ALLOWED THIS TO ;

1.) BE THIS WAY,

and,

2.) GO ON THIS WAY ??????

If it can't be fixed easily and since we now obviously find an information campaign beyond our abilities for both the automotive press and the public at large - could we just rip the SOB out of the hybrids???

How about some non removable tape covering up THE DISPLAY ????

Maybe cut a wire somewhere ??????

Honest to Good, WTF ???????????????????

This is like shooting yourself in the foot, ass, and head - with one round.

[GMC-70]

So does this BAS Hybrid actually get better mileage then the EPA and most reviews claim? If so this can change some things.

[GMforME]

Well the discussion about remote start is for non BAS vehicles because its not offered on BAS.
It is possible that the writer was looking at the fuel mileage in english numbers as you have the ability to swap it. Like I said I have someone checking another possibility.


Sorry if theres confusion here on remote and BAS however we suspect that this has occured on some standard vehicles that have remote.
The information is out there as there is discussion in the owners manual. Trust me we've worked on getting the message out other ways.

And no I know for fact that the domestic calculation is correct and has been verified. I have heard of no other issues until this review but you can bet I'm on it. Like white on rice.

GMC you need to ask a real owner. All I could give is the certified numbers but I hear some are doing better.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by GMforME

Well the discussion about remote start is for non BAS vehicles because its not offered on BAS.
It is possible that the writer was looking at the fuel mileage in english numbers as you have the ability to swap it. Like I said I have someone checking another possibility.


Sorry if theres confusion here on remote and BAS however we suspect that this has occured on some standard vehicles that have remote.
The information is out there as there is discussion in the owners manual. Trust me we've worked on getting the message out other ways.

And no I know for fact that the domestic calculation is correct and has been verified. I have heard of no other issues until this review but you can bet I'm on it. Like white on rice.

GMC you need to ask a real owner. All I could give is the certified numbers but I hear some are doing better.

Atta' boy - good to hear.

I've reread this thread and the article - the following explanation -?????????

Turns out that the Malibu Hybrid's trip computer is the same one that's used in the regular Malibu and the way it calculates the car's average fuel economy is throwing off the reading a bit.

The number displayed on the instrument cluster is actually only calculated when the engine is running - and much of the hybrid version's fuel savings come from when the engine is shut off when sitting in traffic or at a stop.

After resetting the trip computer, you can actually watch the average consumption get worse and worse when stopped with the engine off.

< So....... where would be the problem - is it that it is resetting everytime the ICE shuts off ????>

Over time, with more kilometres between resets, the numbers stabilize a bit, but the meter always seems to read on the high side. All of which is to say that the Malibu Hybrid is much more efficient than the trip computer might lead you to believe.

[GMforME]

America
Rest assured someone is following up to make sure everything is on the up and up

[377Z]

Best quote of the thread:

Originally Posted by AMERICA 123

This is like shooting yourself in the foot, ass, and head - with one round.

If indeed the DIC is pessimistic, and is known to be so, and is allowed to remain that way, then it truely is like shooting yourself in the foot+ass+head with one round.

[GMforME]

Well
apparently this article was brought to our attention a bit back. We verified the cal for canada and could not reproduce the issue. There were some holes in his explanation that don't add up. We could not re acquire the car.
Right now as far as we are concerned there is no issue and we have not had a complaint of it on the service side.
SO I marked it off as due diligence done.
several folks on the calibration side have looked into it and have not been able to reproduce it.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by GMforME

Well
apparently this article was brought to our attention a bit back. We verified the cal for canada and could not reproduce the issue. There were some holes in his explanation that don't add up. We could not re acquire the car.
Right now as far as we are concerned there is no issue and we have not had a complaint of it on the service side.
SO I marked it off as due diligence done.
several folks on the calibration side have looked into it and have not been able to reproduce it.

Thats good news ......maybe, maybe not.

Seems to have been three aspects in terms of what was reported ;

Substantially better fuel economy when measured by hand versuses the on board calculation. Sure, thats subject to possible error but normally not that large.

The 'explanation' offered - which I for one could not make sense of or perhaps did not understand.

Supporting observation - of something that the writer felt fit with both the above. I did not make sense of this either or again, perhaps didn't understand. ( The gradual decline of the on board calculation as described. )

Well, regardless of how #2 and #3 play out, there is still #1 - again subject to error, but the mpgs at least, are 'consistent' with other reported mpgs - and a few I've observed .- briefly . Then, you have other reported press FE observations - self described as off the on board system - consistent with the reported on board numbers here.

The point is, somehow there 'seems' to a larger variation in press reported mpg than you would expect and that largely seems to break down along the lines of those that use the onboard number are lower as group than those that calculate by hand .

It makes you wonder at least a bit........

Somewhat strange ??? - this can't be resolved with more access to the car and discussion with the reporter.

[Tone]

While the DIC may or may not be very accurate, the author's explaination doesn't really make any sense. Average FE is a pretty simple calculation -- distance travelled divided by fuel used. If the engine is off as stop lights or in traffic, both figures are zero and have no bearing on the average (either way).

The DIC should see, for example, the car has travelled 100 kms and used 7 litres of fuel ... therefore the average FE is 7 litres per 100 km. What the engine did in that 100 km is irreleveant to the calculation.

Not sure if there was something specifically wrong with the DIC or not, but good to see such a large car get such good fuel economy using very simple technology.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by Tone

While the DIC may or may not be very accurate, the author's explaination doesn't really make any sense. Average FE is a pretty simple calculation -- distance travelled divided by fuel used. If the engine is off as stop lights or in traffic, both figures are zero and have no bearing on the average (either way).

The DIC should see, for example, the car has travelled 100 kms and used 7 litres of fuel ... therefore the average FE is 7 litres per 100 km. What the engine did in that 100 km is irreleveant to the calculation.

Not sure if there was something specifically wrong with the DIC or not, but good to see such a large car get such good fuel economy using very simple technology.

Sure, and even if you add temp compensation or whatever - it is pretty simple ( in an Internet Automotive Engineer kinda' way ) - notice though we can't say that an OEM is making any kind of high accuracy claim.

The following observations by the reporter don't seem to fit and does suggest something works a little differently on the hybrid.

What gives?

Turns out that the Malibu Hybrid's trip computer is the same one that's used in the regular Malibu and the way it calculates the car's average fuel economy is throwing off the reading a bit.

The number displayed on the instrument cluster is actually only calculated when the engine is running - and much of the hybrid version's fuel savings come from when the engine is shut off when sitting in traffic or at a stop.

This appears to be missing a word or two or something like that.

***** After resetting the trip computer, you can actually watch the average consumption get worse and worse when stopped with the engine off.

Intuitively, one would not expect this to be happening and either way I'm guessing it should not be happening.

Over time, with more kilometres between resets, the numbers stabilize a bit, but the meter always seems to read on the high side. < of fuel consumed >

It almost sounds as if the computer still sees the engine as 'on' and maybe ??? somehow ??? is using some kind of default volume number for fuel flow - thats just pure, uninformed speculation on my part.

Anyway, great driveability marks are in this article as well and also seem to be something GM has been improving with BAS.

[TRWRacing]

Before I am convinced of the new malibu (I have own 2 previous models including the 1998 Car of the Year and a current 2002 model) that the front end problems are fixed: ball joints that wear out, strut noise, lower control arm bushing that rip out of the control arm. They did this on the Corisca which the Malibu replaced. Intake gaskets that fail. I will wait 3 more years and look up the TSBs and reliability info before my next purchase. I am GM guy but currently having my doubts about GM quality.

[stk]

Originally Posted by TRWRacing

Before I am convinced of the new malibu (I have own 2 previous models including the 1998 Car of the Year and a current 2002 model) that the front end problems are fixed: ball joints that wear out, strut noise, lower control arm bushing that rip out of the control arm. They did this on the Corisca which the Malibu replaced. Intake gaskets that fail. I will wait 3 more years and look up the TSBs and reliability info before my next purchase. I am GM guy but currently having my doubts about GM quality.

Oh please!! It's not like gm quality didn't go up since those last 6 years! And beside if you would really be a GM guy, you would realise that every car has it's problem and you would probably have some problem wether you had baught a toyota, honda or whatever brand! And the front end problem... you do realise it's a brand new model? It won't have the same weakness the other model did, but could have some new ones... the 1998 - 2002 model was in a lot of way's pretty similar!

[DMD]

To LUTZ- This car needs 4 things
1) A New Trip computer
2) A Six Speed Transmission
3) Lose some weight.
4) recommend full synthetic oil. That will make the engine run cooler therefore extending its life some and you'll get 2-3 miles per gallon better on top of the 34 mpg stated in one of the postings.