2019 Malibu 1.5t w/CVT brief review
- Thread starter Cujet
- Start date
- Status
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by dishdude
I haven't driven the Malibu, but have driven the Equinox with the 1.5T. It wasn't fast, but I wouldn't call it underpowered or slow.
I had the same experience and thought. The Equinox was rather nice, I might add.
I haven't driven the Malibu, but have driven the Equinox with the 1.5T. It wasn't fast, but I wouldn't call it underpowered or slow.
I had the same experience and thought. The Equinox was rather nice, I might add.
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by Cujet
Altima 2.5 gets a full 6 real-world highway MPG more than the Malibu,
People say "real-world MPG" without knowing what they are talking about
I do the same trips over and over. From Savannah GA to West Palm Beach Florida and back (400 miles each way) Also from NYC to Milford PA, Burlington VT and Montreal Canada.
I even use the same gas stations. By the way the Malibu got 32 highway on 93 octane. A loss of 1 mpg (I could only guess as to why)
But I'll bet you my hat the Altima gets 6-7 MPG more on my trips. I've been doing this for 30 years. I kind of know what does what.
Originally Posted by Cujet
Altima 2.5 gets a full 6 real-world highway MPG more than the Malibu,
People say "real-world MPG" without knowing what they are talking about
I do the same trips over and over. From Savannah GA to West Palm Beach Florida and back (400 miles each way) Also from NYC to Milford PA, Burlington VT and Montreal Canada.
I even use the same gas stations. By the way the Malibu got 32 highway on 93 octane. A loss of 1 mpg (I could only guess as to why)
But I'll bet you my hat the Altima gets 6-7 MPG more on my trips. I've been doing this for 30 years. I kind of know what does what.
Originally Posted by Cujet
But I'll bet you my hat the Altima gets 6-7 MPG more on my trips. I've been doing this for 30 years. I kind of know what does what.
Think in terms of air drag. Wind reduces MPG. Its not even linear, as dynamic pressure rises as the square of the speed. That could be what is throwing off your estimations.
But I'll bet you my hat the Altima gets 6-7 MPG more on my trips. I've been doing this for 30 years. I kind of know what does what.
Think in terms of air drag. Wind reduces MPG. Its not even linear, as dynamic pressure rises as the square of the speed. That could be what is throwing off your estimations.
I'm almost tempted to rent one, just to see if it really is that slow.
It seems that GM and Ford can't figure out their small turbocharged engines, or maybe they are catering too much to the Chinese market. They are not fuel efficient, not powerful, and more complex than their previous NA offerings, the worst combination one can have.
With Honda's 1.5 turbo you get the fuel dilution, but at least it makes very good power and is extremely good on fuel.
From the small turbocharged engines, I think VW's 1.8 and now 1.4 TSI series is the best of the bunch so far.
With Honda's 1.5 turbo you get the fuel dilution, but at least it makes very good power and is extremely good on fuel.
From the small turbocharged engines, I think VW's 1.8 and now 1.4 TSI series is the best of the bunch so far.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
It seems that GM and Ford can't figure out their small turbocharged engines, or maybe they are catering too much to the Chinese market. They are not fuel efficient, not powerful, and more complex than their previous NA offerings, the worst combination one can have.
With Honda's 1.5 turbo you get the fuel dilution, but at least it makes very good power and is extremely good on fuel.
The concept of a small turbo seems good. Smaller lighter engine that gets 2 HP per cubic inch. Once you dip into boost territory mpg seems to go down quickly. My 2.0 Subaru can get 30 ish mpg using no turbo but even moderate turbo exacts at least a 10+% toll with hardly any change in the driving experience.
It seems that GM and Ford can't figure out their small turbocharged engines, or maybe they are catering too much to the Chinese market. They are not fuel efficient, not powerful, and more complex than their previous NA offerings, the worst combination one can have.
With Honda's 1.5 turbo you get the fuel dilution, but at least it makes very good power and is extremely good on fuel.
The concept of a small turbo seems good. Smaller lighter engine that gets 2 HP per cubic inch. Once you dip into boost territory mpg seems to go down quickly. My 2.0 Subaru can get 30 ish mpg using no turbo but even moderate turbo exacts at least a 10+% toll with hardly any change in the driving experience.
Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by dishdude
I haven't driven the Malibu, but have driven the Equinox with the 1.5T. It wasn't fast, but I wouldn't call it underpowered or slow.
I had the same experience and thought. The Equinox was rather nice, I might add.
Equinox's 1.5T is a different engine than the one in the Malibu, as it turns out. The 1.5T in the Equinox makes more HP & more torque (10% more) too. Mailibu is lighter by about 10% though.
Equinox 0-60 time: 8.9 seconds, Malibu is 8.2 seconds.
My '18 Equinox is slow off the line (turbo spool-up) yet once the turbo is in full whirl, its good, just lost some time with that annoying lag at the start.
Originally Posted by dishdude
I haven't driven the Malibu, but have driven the Equinox with the 1.5T. It wasn't fast, but I wouldn't call it underpowered or slow.
I had the same experience and thought. The Equinox was rather nice, I might add.
Equinox's 1.5T is a different engine than the one in the Malibu, as it turns out. The 1.5T in the Equinox makes more HP & more torque (10% more) too. Mailibu is lighter by about 10% though.
Equinox 0-60 time: 8.9 seconds, Malibu is 8.2 seconds.
My '18 Equinox is slow off the line (turbo spool-up) yet once the turbo is in full whirl, its good, just lost some time with that annoying lag at the start.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by zorobabel
I'm almost tempted to rent one, just to see if it really is that slow.
It's adequate once moving. Just slow at the instant you leave the light.
More importantly, it's noisy and harsh. Loud 4 cylinder sound and feel. Not in a Miata kind of way either. Just a groaning unpleasant sound.
I'm almost tempted to rent one, just to see if it really is that slow.
It's adequate once moving. Just slow at the instant you leave the light.
More importantly, it's noisy and harsh. Loud 4 cylinder sound and feel. Not in a Miata kind of way either. Just a groaning unpleasant sound.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
It seems that GM and Ford can't figure out their small turbocharged engines, or maybe they are catering too much to the Chinese market. They are not fuel efficient, not powerful, and more complex than their previous NA offerings, the worst combination one can have.
With Honda's 1.5 turbo you get the fuel dilution, but at least it makes very good power and is extremely good on fuel.
From the small turbocharged engines, I think VW's 1.8 and now 1.4 TSI series is the best of the bunch so far.
GM and Ford's smaller efforts are/were designed in Europe. While GM is out of Europe officially(Opel is now part of PSA), this engine still has some Opel in it. Maybe some Daewoo as GM still has R&D in Korea and they will use that more since Holden isn't building cars. I think GM is still building legacy engines for China.
I haven't driven a new Ford or GM recently(well OK, I think I drove a turbo Malibu from Maven and I was in an Escape recently). The Honda 1.5T ain't bad, it doesn't have the lack of torque like their older engines except for the V6s.
It seems that GM and Ford can't figure out their small turbocharged engines, or maybe they are catering too much to the Chinese market. They are not fuel efficient, not powerful, and more complex than their previous NA offerings, the worst combination one can have.
With Honda's 1.5 turbo you get the fuel dilution, but at least it makes very good power and is extremely good on fuel.
From the small turbocharged engines, I think VW's 1.8 and now 1.4 TSI series is the best of the bunch so far.
GM and Ford's smaller efforts are/were designed in Europe. While GM is out of Europe officially(Opel is now part of PSA), this engine still has some Opel in it. Maybe some Daewoo as GM still has R&D in Korea and they will use that more since Holden isn't building cars. I think GM is still building legacy engines for China.
I haven't driven a new Ford or GM recently(well OK, I think I drove a turbo Malibu from Maven and I was in an Escape recently). The Honda 1.5T ain't bad, it doesn't have the lack of torque like their older engines except for the V6s.
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by zorobabel
I'm almost tempted to rent one, just to see if it really is that slow.
It's adequate once moving. Just slow at the instant you leave the light.
More importantly, it's noisy and harsh. Loud 4 cylinder sound and feel. Not in a Miata kind of way either. Just a groaning unpleasant sound.
I enjoy reading your rental car reviews so please keep them coming if you can.
The Malibu comes in last place of all mid-size cars in CR's review. And is the only car in that crowded segment that didn't get the "Recommended" approval. I test drove one and it had the stop/start feature which I found annoying.
Originally Posted by zorobabel
I'm almost tempted to rent one, just to see if it really is that slow.
It's adequate once moving. Just slow at the instant you leave the light.
More importantly, it's noisy and harsh. Loud 4 cylinder sound and feel. Not in a Miata kind of way either. Just a groaning unpleasant sound.
I enjoy reading your rental car reviews so please keep them coming if you can.
The Malibu comes in last place of all mid-size cars in CR's review. And is the only car in that crowded segment that didn't get the "Recommended" approval. I test drove one and it had the stop/start feature which I found annoying.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
It seems that GM and Ford can't figure out their small turbocharged engines, or maybe they are catering too much to the Chinese market. They are not fuel efficient, not powerful, and more complex than their previous NA offerings, the worst combination one can have.
With Honda's 1.5 turbo you get the fuel dilution, but at least it makes very good power and is extremely good on fuel.
From the small turbocharged engines, I think VW's 1.8 and now 1.4 TSI series is the best of the bunch so far.
I agree with your statement about VW's 1.8T and 1.4T. They seem to be very well rounded engines. The 1.8 TSI in the Jetta is very torquey and returned excellent MPG.
It seems that GM and Ford can't figure out their small turbocharged engines, or maybe they are catering too much to the Chinese market. They are not fuel efficient, not powerful, and more complex than their previous NA offerings, the worst combination one can have.
With Honda's 1.5 turbo you get the fuel dilution, but at least it makes very good power and is extremely good on fuel.
From the small turbocharged engines, I think VW's 1.8 and now 1.4 TSI series is the best of the bunch so far.
I agree with your statement about VW's 1.8T and 1.4T. They seem to be very well rounded engines. The 1.8 TSI in the Jetta is very torquey and returned excellent MPG.
Originally Posted by Cujet
By the way the Malibu got 32 highway on 93 octane. A loss of 1 mpg (I could only guess as to why)
Why are you wasting money on 93 octane?
By the way the Malibu got 32 highway on 93 octane. A loss of 1 mpg (I could only guess as to why)
Why are you wasting money on 93 octane?
Originally Posted by SatinSilver
The Malibu comes in last place of all mid-size cars in CR's review.
U.S. News & World Report has the Malibu listed near the worst. Only worse ones are the Passat & Regal in their segment. They have the Accord & Camry first, no surprise.
The Malibu comes in last place of all mid-size cars in CR's review.
U.S. News & World Report has the Malibu listed near the worst. Only worse ones are the Passat & Regal in their segment. They have the Accord & Camry first, no surprise.
Originally Posted by atikovi
Why are you wasting money on 93 octane?
Not a valid question.
Many, probably most, turbocharged engines exhibit significantly better performance on higher octane fuels. Some also gain enough additional MPG to offset the additional cost. Imagine my surprise when I lost a MPG with 93. Even though it's a rental, it's often worth a try.
I've had some rentals that went from utterly miserable (Mustang 2.3L ecoboost comes to mind) to a real pleasure with the switch to 93.
I do believe the 1.5L turbo Malibu accelerates better with 93.
Why are you wasting money on 93 octane?
Not a valid question.
Many, probably most, turbocharged engines exhibit significantly better performance on higher octane fuels. Some also gain enough additional MPG to offset the additional cost. Imagine my surprise when I lost a MPG with 93. Even though it's a rental, it's often worth a try.
I've had some rentals that went from utterly miserable (Mustang 2.3L ecoboost comes to mind) to a real pleasure with the switch to 93.
I do believe the 1.5L turbo Malibu accelerates better with 93.
Last edited:
The 1.5L is designed to run on 87 octane. You're just wasting money using 93 in that engine. The main reason to get the 1.5L is the economy, and feeding it premium pretty much defeats that premise. If you want a quick Malibu you get the 2.0L.
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
You hate to see these auto manufacturers put all their eggs into one basket, but it really shows that GM isn't bothering to put time and resources into a vehicle of this segment; Mid to large sized sedan. Stick a fork in it at this point and leave this segment up to everyone other than GM, Ford or FCA.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by JTK
You hate to see these auto manufacturers put all their eggs into one basket, but it really shows that GM isn't bothering to put time and resources into a vehicle of this segment; Mid to large sized sedan. Stick a fork in it at this point and leave this segment up to everyone other than GM, Ford or FCA.
GM's strategy is split between electrification, mobility as a service(Cruise and Lyft) and very profitable trucks and SUVs. The former two will pay off when gas is above $5/gallon(which will happen eventually) and the growth of urban areas. The latter is how they are getting by now. Ford isn't selling cars in the US, and FCA is seemingly focused on Ram and Jeep while letting Dodge and Chrysler languish.
It's like the Great Recession all over again.
You hate to see these auto manufacturers put all their eggs into one basket, but it really shows that GM isn't bothering to put time and resources into a vehicle of this segment; Mid to large sized sedan. Stick a fork in it at this point and leave this segment up to everyone other than GM, Ford or FCA.
GM's strategy is split between electrification, mobility as a service(Cruise and Lyft) and very profitable trucks and SUVs. The former two will pay off when gas is above $5/gallon(which will happen eventually) and the growth of urban areas. The latter is how they are getting by now. Ford isn't selling cars in the US, and FCA is seemingly focused on Ram and Jeep while letting Dodge and Chrysler languish.
It's like the Great Recession all over again.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Cujet
Many, probably most, turbocharged engines exhibit significantly better performance on higher octane fuels.
Probably true but I can't prove it.
Many, probably most, turbocharged engines exhibit significantly better performance on higher octane fuels.
Probably true but I can't prove it.
- Status
