How could you?! :bio::
BTW, I'm not dissapointed in the Malibu in the least, I love it.
I know questioning the superiority of the OMG 300C is sacrilege here, but I'm going to press on nonetheless.
I was let down by the 300. I tried out the 300C recently, and well, it seemed subpar. Sure, the exterior is nice to look at, the interior has *a* style to it (especially the instrument cluster), the engine is powerful, the car is somewhat quiet inside, the rear wheel drive is a nice touch, and the suspension handles well nothing but its fast in a straight line...but that's where it ended for me.
The interior was the same garbage Chrysler has been pushing out for years, but it just looks pretty in certain spots. The fake wood had a completely non-convincing grain to it, the glove compartment door is of sub-Soviet grade plastics and the interior of it is completely unfinished, the door panels were terrible--flat and plain, the seats are surrounded by thick, nasty plastic just like in the Charger and Magnum, the trunk is alright but unacceptable for this size vehicle, the center console is lacking in design and quality, the sunroof is the same cheap unit that was in my 1998 Intrepid (the kind where the glass goes out over the roof instead of into the headliner), the rear seat had no center armrest or headrests, and it was stickered at over $28,000! From the looks around the interior, I have no idea where that money was going.
Beyond that, the transmission was sort of jerky during gear changes, which is something I didn't experience when I drove the Aura XR last year. So maybe this example was flawed. If that's the case, than it shouldn't be on the lot.
We also drove a similarly priced Pontiac G8 (which also had $2,500 in incentives) and Cadillac CTS, and the 300C was just flat-out outclassed at every turn save for engine power. Has anyone at Chrysler sat in a Cadillac? Ever??
The accolades the 300C is receiving, I fear, are just journalistic group-think fueled by Chrysler PR-honed hype. This car isn't the bees knees, it's just an attractive, run-of-the mill Chrysler sedan.
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:I know questioning the superiority of the OMG Malibu is sacrilege here, but I'm going to press on nonetheless.
I was let down by the Malibu.
I didn't mention Chrysler at all, so that was a pointless exercise for you.No I'm not disappointed, its an amazing car that reeks of style and design for a car designed to sell for 20-25k. Thats its intended price bracket. If you expected a CTS or a 550i, go drive one of those. It is unfair to compare luxury and mainstream vehicles and have thesame expectations. For the money, you cannot beat malibu.
Talk about just 'picking on' GM just to pick on them.
Let the discussion begin...
CobaltSS
I don't buy into that "outside the competition" nonesense. Its competition is similarly priced 4-door sedans. The Aura competes against the Malibu, so they both compete against the Passat.You're comparing the Malibu to cars it isn't intended to compete with. The Passat is more of the Aura's target.
Frankly, this is good. If you have to pull in vehicles outside of the Malibu's competition to knock it...I'd say it's pretty good.
I do agree with your faults on the Malibu, however, I believe that all the brands have their drawbacks. Using the cars you mention, the Passat is terrible when it comes to reliability, the Saab 9.3, which I am assuming is the 2.0T model to get into the proper price range, is underpowered, takes premium, and gets less than stellar mileage.I didn't mention Chrysler at all, so that was a pointless exercise for you.
For the money you can't beat the Malibu? I'm telling you that, yes, you can. It's called the Saab 9-3. It's called the Passat. For roughly the same money, a person could get a clearly superior car to the Malibu. Someone spending $27-$30K on a car can get a loaded Malibu, Camry, Altima, or Accord, or they can get a nicely equipped premium car. While the Japanese cars can still compete in that bracket, the Malibu just doesn't cut it. It felt like a $24,000 car, max.
So it's not about holding the car up to the standards of a CTS or a 5-series for crying out loud (I never said that I was doing that, so you were being absurd to make that leap), it's about competing with Volkswagen, Honda, and yes, Saab.
I know you didn't mention chrysler, that was the point! Your demerits against the Malibu are borderline baseless and your review could EASILY be applied to your own 300C. It has almost the exact same problems based on your review of the Malibu.I didn't mention Chrysler at all, so that was a pointless exercise for you.
For the money you can't beat the Malibu? I'm telling you that, yes, you can. It's called the Saab 9-3. It's called the Passat. For roughly the same money, a person could get a clearly superior car to the Malibu. Someone spending $27-$30K on a car can get a loaded Malibu, Camry, Altima, or Accord, or they can get a nicely equipped premium car. While the Japanese cars can still compete in that bracket, the Malibu just doesn't cut it. It felt like a $24,000 car, max.
So it's not about holding the car up to the standards of a CTS or a 5-series for crying out loud (I never said that I was doing that, so you were being absurd to make that leap), it's about competing with Volkswagen, Honda, and yes, Saab.