Ongoing Rental Car Review - 2012 Malibu LT

[The Critic]

My Prius is in the shop getting the failed bumper repair re-done, so I was placed into a 2012 Malibu LT.

This particular Malibu is from Hertz and has 32k on it. There are no squeaks and rattles, it even has the original tires!

Here are my observations so far:

- It is very, very quiet inside.
- The steering feel is light, but with passable accuracy.
- The 2.4L Ecotec has decent pick-up, but the six-speed auto has some very strange shiftpoints.
- The driving position is acceptable, but the steering wheel is too large. While I would consider the interior design to be a bit tacky, the quality is above average for the segment.
- The ride is a bit bouncy and there is a too much body lean.
- My fuel economy has been about 18 mpg with mostly in-town driving. In comparison, I get about 40 on my Prius. Note: one should not expect to reach the EPA city estimate in my neighborhood.
- GM calls for 30 psi front and rear, so I filled all of the tires to 32 psi. Hertz gave me the car with 24 psi in all of the tires.

Overall, I think it is a very average (but acceptable) car for the mid-size segment.

 

[gregk24]

They seem like decent cars, but 18 mpg city is pretty lousy for a 2012 2.4. I know they are different cars but my 2.4 Honda sees 95% city driving, and 90% of that city driving are trips of less than 1 mile and it manages to pull out at least 21 mpg, usually more.

 

[daves87rs]

They seem to be very popular around here...

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: daves87rs
They seem to be very popular around here...


Considering your location, I'm not surprised.

 

[mclasser]

I rented a V6 one of these back in 07. Since this was a product of GM Take 1, the interior had more plastic than the Real Housewives of NJ and the exterior was hideous. But the ride and overall comfort surprised me. The V6 was plenty powerful and hauled [censored]. I also found the steering to by very light and numb, though.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
- The 2.4L Ecotec has decent pick-up, but the six-speed auto has some very strange shiftpoints.


I used to drive one often at work. And my impressions of it line up with yours. Especially the bit about the transmission. What a horrible job of programming in my opinion. When I drove it, I used the manual shift mode exclusively, because I found it very frustrating to drive when left in automatic mode. Unfortunately, and probably a nod to this car's price point, the manual mode puts the "Mx" on the DIC display, where x is the selected gear, and you can no longer use the INFO button to see fuel economy, outside temperature, tire pressures, etc. A bit cheap, but I guess how much can you really complain, given the price at which these cars are typically purchased?

The transmission is of particular disappointment to me, because the engine is so good. The transmission is a complete let-down to the driving experience of this car. Even when shifted manually, it takes it about two seconds to actually execute a gear change. A different transmission, or at least a much hastened response programmed into this one, would improve the car by 100%.

 

[kam327]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
They seem like decent cars, but 18 mpg city is pretty lousy for a 2012 2.4. I know they are different cars but my 2.4 Honda sees 95% city driving, and 90% of that city driving are trips of less than 1 mile and it manages to pull out at least 21 mpg, usually more.


"City" can mean vastly different things. I wouldn't try to make a direct comparison.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: kam327
Originally Posted By: gregk24
They seem like decent cars, but 18 mpg city is pretty lousy for a 2012 2.4. I know they are different cars but my 2.4 Honda sees 95% city driving, and 90% of that city driving are trips of less than 1 mile and it manages to pull out at least 21 mpg, usually more.


"City" can mean vastly different things. I wouldn't try to make a direct comparison.


Good point. A '12 Malibu is rated 22/26/33 and an '06 Accord is estimated (using the same 2008+ rating system) at 21/25/31. So all else being equal, and on average, a new Malibu should squeak out slightly better mileage than an older Accord.

Variables include terrain (the hills of the SF Bay area are a far cry from the mostly flat-as-a-board Florida geography), climate (Florida is likely much warmer, especially at this time of year), style of driving, etc.

In other words, Greg, you are achieving exactly what your Accord should get; if you drive the very same Malibu that Critic is driving instead of your Accord, you'd probably get about what a Malibu should get in the city (22 mpg). Or, looking at it from the other way, let Critic drive your Accord where he lives, and he might get no better than 17-18 mpg with it.

I found a dramatic difference in fuel economy with my own vehicles when I moved from the foothills in southwest Virginia to the piedmont of North Carolina. In Virginia, most roads were two-lane, and around town, speed limits with 35 mph or less. Down here, most roads are 4-lane and speed limits are 45 mph or more. It's a much more efficient driving environment here. Both of our vehicles at the time picked up a solid 20% in fuel economy just from moving to a different location.

 

[SteveSRT8]

The aforementioned points about mileage are very true. It simply varies so widely that it may be a stretch to imagine yours should line up with anyone else's even in the exact same car.

And the trans issues are becoming the norm in smaller cars these days. Very few exhibit the responsiveness that they can easily have if it weren't for the focus on fuel usage.

 

[NateDN10]

I'm surprised the TPMS didn't complain about the 24 PSI. Ours goes on at around 28!

 

[SwampSurvivor]

They are nice looking cars ... but the back does not match the front!

I really like the previous generation. I think they had a real hit with the styling on that!

Definitely better than the Malibus of the early 00s!

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
They are nice looking cars ... but the back does not match the front!

I really like the previous generation. I think they had a real hit with the styling on that!

Definitely better than the Malibus of the early 00s!

I like those ones too, you can tell the rear end is designed to be aerodynamic and I like the size of them. Too bad there was no eco manual version available, as I think it could've got some excellent mileage for a mid-size car.

 

[stranger706]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: The Critic
- The 2.4L Ecotec has decent pick-up, but the six-speed auto has some very strange shiftpoints.


I used to drive one often at work. And my impressions of it line up with yours. Especially the bit about the transmission. What a horrible job of programming in my opinion. When I drove it, I used the manual shift mode exclusively, because I found it very frustrating to drive when left in automatic mode.

The transmission is of particular disappointment to me, because the engine is so good. The transmission is a complete let-down to the driving experience of this car. Even when shifted manually, it takes it about two seconds to actually execute a gear change. A different transmission, or at least a much hastened response programmed into this one, would improve the car by 100%.


Isn't this transmission the joint Ford/GM 6 speed auto? If so, that would explain the shifting behavior. I've driven several models of the Ford version and agree with the odd behavior.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: stranger706
Isn't this transmission the joint Ford/GM 6 speed auto? If so, that would explain the shifting behavior. I've driven several models of the Ford version and agree with the odd behavior.


Wikipedia says that the Malibu has either the 6T40 or the 6T70. The page for the 6T70 says that it's the joint GM-Ford transmission. The page for the 6T40 says that it's based on the 6T70. So I suppose that in either case, it uses either THE jointly-developed transmission, or one BASED ON the jointly-developed transmission.

 

[Tzu]

My dad has the exact same car and although it rides nice, the transmission does shift oddly. I have a 2000 Impala LS 3800 V6 4 speed and in the summer I get 2 mpgs less than he does with a 4 cylinder 6 speed (28 vs 30) but have a larger interior car in which to commute. Overall he likes his car, but the cooler he carries for freezer items has to ride in the back seat because the trunk opening is too small. He always mentions that to me. My beater '91 Camry could hold a push mower in the trunk with no problem

The visibility inside our Impala is better too than his car, but his is very quiet inside on the roads. The Impala not so much.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: The Critic

- My fuel economy has been about 18 mpg with mostly in-town driving. In comparison,


Finally, somebody who confirms my MPG results. I rent these cars all the time. I cannot get EPA rated MPG, no matter what speed I drive.

On the highway, AC off, windows up, 65MPH, Cruise Control ON, I got something like an "instant" mpg of 30. And overall of 26MPG, mostly highway, driving as smoothly and carefully as possible. Not good at all with today's technology.

 

[hattaresguy]

I don't know how you guys get such poor mileage out of these cars, maybe you drive like the Car & DRiver road testers?

V6 powered GM's from the 90's always got low 20's around town and just about 30 on the highway.

You must be stomping on them, where are you letting that motor shift?

Its like my aunt with her Fusion who gets about 17 around town because almost every shift is at redline! I drove that car for a day and the instant mileage went up to like 23!

18 is about what I would expect out of that car in a real city, like NYC or LA. Not wide open midwest no real traffic cities.

 

[spasm3]

Odd, my 93 ciera, with no overdrive gets 23 in town and 29 hwy. with a 3.3 v-6

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
I don't know how you guys get such poor mileage out of these cars, maybe you drive like the Car & DRiver road testers?


It depends on the terrain and local conditions. I can easily get EPA estimates and higher when driving in my parents' town.

 

[Spazdog]

18mpg is pretty bad.

My wife is getting better than that in her 2.4 Turbo with a 4 speed. She has a 2 mile stretch of freeway on her commute but it is more often than not stop and go. Otherwise it is all city. (with Cowboy Stadium traffic thrown in) Averaged 20 on the last tank.

Disappointed in that number. I expected better and have long defended that generation of the Malibu vs a Camry.