[gmwsag]

Yes,it is weird. The 300C is larger than the Malibu, but, both automakers have the same goals for each car: they want it to be a 'revitalization'. So I decided to take a look at the V-6 Chevrolet Malibu and the standard V-6 300C.

At Chrysler's website, I built a 300C with these features....

It featured the E Package (which comes with the standard 190 hp V-6, and a 4-speed automatic transmission, air conditioning, everything you need), plus the AM/FM Stereo with the 6-CD Changer and MP3 Player, Sirius Satellite Radio, 17" wheels, The Protection Group, and Electronic Stability Program.
It came out to $25,705,000 (excluding destination charge, tax, etc.)

At Chevrolet's website, I built a Malibu with these features....

It featured the LT 1SA package which comes standard with the UltraLux appointments, a six-way power driver seat, heated front seats, remote vehicle starter system, and cruise controls, foglamps, and a spoiler.
I added a power sunroof, Sound system, ETR AM/FM stereo with 6-disc CD changer, in-dash, includes Radio Data System, seek-and-scan, digital clock, auto-tone control, automatic volume, TheftLock, outside temperature display, trip odometer, Driver Information Center, warning messages, programmable menu functions and 6 speakers [from Chevrolet Website], XM Satellite Radio, and the 200 hp V-6 engine.
It came out to $25,280,000 (excluding destination charge, tax, etc.)

Of course, the Malibu has the advantage here, but will it with styling and interior styling....

from the Auto Channel website

from the Consumer Guide Report

The interior of the Malibu has greatly improved from the 1997-2003 model. So has the exterior. Many will think the front is controversial, but I like the fact that Chevrolet took a different direction with the new Malibu this year. The interior has a clean, rich finish. The only con of the interior is all the plastic. Chevrolet poured on plastic in this vehicle. Besides that, tons of innovative features make this Malibu fun!

From the TideWater Mopar Club

The exterior of the 300C is too controversial, as I don't like the too-retro egg-cratle styling. The rest of the exterior is fine. Everything looks luxurious on the outside, and that compliments the interior too. The interior is surronded with cloth (unfortunately), but that doesn't make you unhappy. The dashboard is very easy to use. You click a button, and it will respond.

Wow, this is a hard one. But I do have to give props to the...
Chevrolet Malibu.
Chevy has really looked ahead into the future with this vehicle. The exterior styling might be controversial but it sure makes the cut. I really had fun looking up this vehicle. RCTennis, I would greatly appreciate it if you told us how your 300C drives (even though the one I built didn't have the HEMI and Navi system), and any Malibu owners here at GMI: please tell us how you think it drives
This would help my review be complete.
The 300 is a nice vehicle, too, but I don't like the egg-cratle, and that made me veer off into Chevrolet's world.

 

[gerardo_zg]

Just for the record... the 300C is the one with the HEMI, 300 is the name of the car.

 

[Rex Raider]

Sorry, but I've seen both cars, inside and out, and I've driven both cars, and there's no way in the world I would buy the Malibu.

I happen to love the look of the 300, and really don't like the look at all of the Malibu.

But in terms of size, and general value for the money, I think the 300 takes the cake when compared at the same price level.

To me, the 300 looks much more expensive than it is. The Malibu actually looks cheaper than it is.

 

[SilverZ]

How about first comparing the wheelbase, mass, and track width and then you will understand you just wasted a lot of time typing that up.

 

[silverado_13]

I agree with gmwsag on this. First of all the look of a car is a matter of opinion and shouldn't be used to determine which car is better(personally I like the look of the malibu better). The Malibu offers many different things that you can't get on the chrysler for the same price. Also the malibu has a better engine and is lighter so it is probably faster. I have also driven the new malibu and I think the handling is way above it's competitors like the Taurs and Camery. I haven't drivin a 300 but a friend told me it's feels clumsy and has alot of body role. I think the Malibu is the smarter choice here.

 

[gmwsag]

Who gave me an interior shot???
I never had any interior pics.......

---
Rex: you said you like the 300 better. You'd better start packing your bags for the gas station, because with a 300C, you're going to be there a lot. With a Malibu, the MPG is even better than Accord and Camry. Ha!

silverado_13: I guess you're right. I was just telling my opinion (like I always do). But, I think some of you have to agree with me: the egg cratle thing isn't the best choice of retro-designs for Chrysler. :lol:

silverz: Most of America doesn't know that much about cars. Practically nobody cares about wheelbase, or mass, or track width. When I bought my CTS-V, no one told me about the wheelbase, and I didn't care.

gerado_zg: Sorry about that! So anything that I said 300C (excluding when I was talking about RCtennis) meant 300.

Thanks for all the opinions!

 

[Rex Raider]

I added the interior pick. I have that capability.

Gas mileage isn't a big deal to me. I don't do drive all that much, as I work from home. So a big honking V8 would not cost me all that much more each week.

And with gas mileage, are you talking about the 300 (V6) or 300C (V8)?

 

[gmwsag]

300C.

 

[johnd89]

at first glance I don't really dig any of those car's exteriors. problem is that the 300 looks way more expensive, and I see rwd as a bonus personally. in fact I was VERY suprised to see that the "cheapo" malibu costs the same with the "expensive" 300.
of course, if I would have 25k to waste on a new car I would test them both.

problem is that before you would have the curiosity of even opening the door and take a seat (let alone test drive), you evaluate lots of things, so even if a weird/ugly car may prove better in the end, you never go that far.
somehow, we only have the interest/curiosity of finding out more if at the first glance we liked it.

 

[jro4566]

Well, I told gmwsag that I wouldn't be able to reply to this right away because I'm in California and I won't be back until Thursday (17th), but I do have some free tiem right now so here...

My 300C is DEAD FAST. lol From a full stop, the engine is really quiet, though my G35 was quieter probably due to the fact that the 300C has a "growling" exhaust system. Acceleration is really good and it's faster than my G35 but you can feel the weight of the car as it lunges you back into the seat. Anyways, cornering also isn't as light as the G but it's fairly sporty and yet secure. Well, just if you all need anything just PM me!

 

[gmwsag]

Thanks for the comment, RC.
While I haven't driven the 300 or Malibu before, I see that each vehicle has its pros and cons. While we at GMI might be bias, the 300 is a nice vehicle, and seems like a turn-around for Chrysler. So I congratulate Chrysler for being different, and offering a vehicle that starts at a cheap price and is so much bigger than competitors sub 30K. And even when loaded up (with the Hemi) the 300 (now 300C) still comes with an elegant appearence and a fast engine, and still a cheap price. The only reason I compared the 300 and Malibu is because they came at around the same price, and meant the same to each automaker: a revitalization.

somehow, we only have the interest/curiosity of finding out more if at the first glance we liked it.

For us, it is that way. I choose my opinions over cars, not because of what GMI says, or what AutoWeek says, but what I think about the car. For people who aren't car fanatics and just own them to be a people-mover, they listen to the dealers, who describe the vehicles as being the best. That is how many gets lured into the salesman-strategy trap.

 

[jro4566]

I did notice a lot of 300s here in SF, but no 300Cs yet. Gas is too expensive here!

cheers

 

[doh]

Originally posted by Rex Raider@Jun 5 2004, 06:46 PM
Sorry, but I've seen both cars, inside and out, and I've driven both cars, and there's no way in the world I would buy the Malibu.

I happen to love the look of the 300, and really don't like the look at all of the Malibu.

But in terms of size, and general value for the money, I think the 300 takes the cake when compared at the same price level.

To me, the 300 looks much more expensive than it is. The Malibu actually looks cheaper than it is.

"Rex" you hit the nail right on the head. Although I would probaly drive any one of the Big Three's products, DCX would be on the bottom of the list. Having said that thought the 300 is so much more car for the buck I would have to go for it.

 

[T-Type]

The Hemi option in the rwd Chrysler just blows this comparison out of the water. But for arguments sake, if you want to stick to V6s only, I would have to choose the 300. As Rex already said, the 300 has a much more upscale appeal than the Malibu.

 

[MelvinJ]

Originally posted by Rex Raider@Jun 5 2004, 06:46 PM
Sorry, but I've seen both cars, inside and out, and I've driven both cars, and there's no way in the world I would buy the Malibu.

I happen to love the look of the 300, and really don't like the look at all of the Malibu.

But in terms of size, and general value for the money, I think the 300 takes the cake when compared at the same price level.

To me, the 300 looks much more expensive than it is.  The Malibu actually looks cheaper than it is.

The 300 that gmwsag has spec'd out here is pretty basic, and the 200 hp V6 with only 190 lb/ft. of torque way up at 4850 rpms is going to really struggle against the 3700 lb. curb weight. Was the 300 you drove the 2.7V6? I find it hard to imagine very little driving enjoyment here, even if the base suspension works well.

Also, you posted the upscale leather interior of the 300, but that's not what you get in this $25K comparo. It's basic cloth at that price. I happen to love the Malibu LT's Ultralux interior, and when I sat in even the upscale 300C, I thought it was pretty plain.

You get 4 more cu.ft. of interior space with the 300, but virtually the same trunk space.

Without options like the Hemi that push the price to $30K plus, I don't find all that much to recommend the 300. At $25K (in this admittedly bizarre comparison), make mine the Malibu.

 

[big swede]

Since the 300C is way out of the price range I think the 300 Touring, for a small amount more is a much better choice. At $26,770 ($1000 more) it uses an upgraded 3.5-liter SOHC V6 making 250 horsepower and 250 pound-feet of torque, 19/27 miles per gallon on recommended 89 octane (87 acceptable), a four-speed automatic transmission, leather interior, aluminum 5-spoke wheels, fog lamps, and antilock brakes with emergency brake assist, electronic stability program and traction control. A car outfitted like the one above would make this comparo a no contest for all but the GM loyalists.

Let's be real the Malibu is a decent daily driver meant to compete in the ultra competitive class that has two very bland big sellers in the Camry and Accord. This class has proven to require very bland cars since the majority of the buyers are ultra conservative people who tend to view their car as more of an appliance. The problem then is that we are comparing two cars that are at oposite ends of the emotion spectrum. One blends in with traffic whith 90% of the people not even noticing it or knowing what it is. On the other hand the 300 is at the polar opposite with in your face styling that says get the [email protected]@k out of the way.

 

[slvrlkdude]

I guess some loyalists will buy a Malibu no matter what. I had an opportunity to drive a 2004 Malibu. I've seen booths at Taco Bell equipped with better materials than what GM chose to upholster their bread-and-butter vehicle with. However, the fit and finish and handling (and overall feel) of the Malibu was MUCH better than the hunk of junk they sold in 2003 and STILL crank out as a "classic." I had the displeasure of being stuck with a 2003 V6 (maybe technically) Malibu once -- never again. I've pedalled better vehicles than that.

The 300 just LOOKS better than the Malibu, but I haven't had the pleasure of driving one yet, but the interior alone CAN'T be any worse than the either Malibu. I guess GM wants EVERYONE to upgrade to leather otherwise, they would provide decent cloth.

 

[gmwsag]

Just a note: the 300C might be smooth, and fast: but the 300 may not be. I'm talking about the standard, rough, and tough, cheap 190 hp V-6 standard 300.

 

[big swede]

Originally posted by gmwsag@Jun 22 2004, 01:32 PM
Just a note: the 300C might be smooth, and fast: but the 300 may not be. I'm talking about the standard, rough, and tough, cheap 190 hp V-6 standard 300.

Re read my last post there are 3 engines available and the middle engine in the Touring model is extremely smooth. It is a 3.5-liter SOHC V6 making 250 horsepower and 250 pound-feet of torque. Someone would have to be uninformed to buy the base engine when the upgraded V-6 is only $1000 more that you would probably recoup at trade in time.

 

[gmwsag]

Correct: I understand, but to make it more fair I compared the bottom-of-the-group 300 with the standard 190 hp V-6. I do know that it has an optional 250 hp V-6.