After taking out a 2011 Malibu with 36K yesterday it got me thinking. I have heard alot of bad about new Chevy vehicles but I thought the new Malibu was a step in the right direction for them. So, are the new GM cars pretty good or are they having problems? TIA!
Really, how reliable is a Chevy (2009 and up)?
- Thread starter renegade_987
- Start date
- Status
Well, since Consumer Reports is anti-domestic and anti-GM, I hate to mention what they do say.
Hint: the Malibu is rated well for reliability, and they predict that new Malibus will be 18% better than average for reliability.
Go for it!
Hint: the Malibu is rated well for reliability, and they predict that new Malibus will be 18% better than average for reliability.
Go for it!
I am in the same boat with you. I am shopping somthing around used 25K$, i also listed a 2008 Tahoe 2WD on my list (originally 2011 Durango & 2011 Grand Cherokee). Looks like only Corvette or Tahoe worth to consider on the late GM lines. I could be wrong, and i am not trying to start a fight. Any 2007 and up Tahoe owners can share some experience, please?
The cruze seems to be a well built and reliable vehicle aswell. Worth considering unless your set on the larger car
I heard of some people not liking the Mid-2000s trucks, but build quality should be ok/better now?
This is more speculation based on things read than anything else.
Or 2003 GMC does not have ANY of the squeaks/rattles our Canadian-built Chevy SUV of 1993 did, which had a few but was a fun vehicle.
This is more speculation based on things read than anything else.
Or 2003 GMC does not have ANY of the squeaks/rattles our Canadian-built Chevy SUV of 1993 did, which had a few but was a fun vehicle.
The 2008+ Malibus are probably one of the most reliable vehicles GMs ever made. The usually score excellently on reliability surveys. I say go for it.
Back in 2003, my wife insisted that we buy a Pontiac Montana. I was against it, because I knew how unreliable Amercian cars are. Turns out I was wrong. After 9 years and 120K miles, it has been very reliable.
The only weak spot has been front lower control arm bushings - they were shot at 70K, and are starting to tear again. Not a big deal, complete LCA assemblies are cheap and easy to replace. And the left rear power window motor is dead.
Other than that, it has only needed normal maintenance (fluids, filters, etc) and wear items like light bulbs, tires, brakes, shocks/struts and serpentine belt.
The only weak spot has been front lower control arm bushings - they were shot at 70K, and are starting to tear again. Not a big deal, complete LCA assemblies are cheap and easy to replace. And the left rear power window motor is dead.
Other than that, it has only needed normal maintenance (fluids, filters, etc) and wear items like light bulbs, tires, brakes, shocks/struts and serpentine belt.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Joseph_S37
The cruze seems to be a well built and reliable vehicle aswell. Worth considering unless your set on the larger car
Mine's had some very annoying squeaks and rattles the dealer never could fix. I fixed them myself in short order. Those are the major issues I've had with mine. It's averaged 43 mpg (hand-calculated) since new in rural 2-lane highway driving, and is a very pleasant car to spend lots of time in now that the interior shut up.
I can't say enough good about the 1.4T/manual transmission combination in my car for MPG's, performance, and drivability. It's quick when I want it, and frugal the rest of the time. I've had no issues with the powertrain. I don't care about the shifter feel, but that got better as the car got past 10k miles.
The car drives like a tight Euro sedan, not like a floaty American land yacht. The handling, at least on my Eco, is excellent. It'll take corners at sphincter-puckering speeds and feels composed throughout. It's not upset by sudden dips/bumps in the road. The highway ride is very nice, too. It's a "low-tech" suspension setup with MacPherson struts up front and a twist beam (no Panhard rods on mine) out back. For what it is, it's tuned very well.
The cruze seems to be a well built and reliable vehicle aswell. Worth considering unless your set on the larger car
Mine's had some very annoying squeaks and rattles the dealer never could fix. I fixed them myself in short order. Those are the major issues I've had with mine. It's averaged 43 mpg (hand-calculated) since new in rural 2-lane highway driving, and is a very pleasant car to spend lots of time in now that the interior shut up.
I can't say enough good about the 1.4T/manual transmission combination in my car for MPG's, performance, and drivability. It's quick when I want it, and frugal the rest of the time. I've had no issues with the powertrain. I don't care about the shifter feel, but that got better as the car got past 10k miles.
The car drives like a tight Euro sedan, not like a floaty American land yacht. The handling, at least on my Eco, is excellent. It'll take corners at sphincter-puckering speeds and feels composed throughout. It's not upset by sudden dips/bumps in the road. The highway ride is very nice, too. It's a "low-tech" suspension setup with MacPherson struts up front and a twist beam (no Panhard rods on mine) out back. For what it is, it's tuned very well.
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
I have no idea how you avoided the intake manifold fiasco...^
From what I understand, improved lower intake manifold gaskets were installed starting late in the 2003 model year. Our Montana was built in June, 2003 - maybe it got the improved LIMGs?. I know it might be a problem. I keep a close eye on the coolant level and watch for signs of coolant in the oil. I also change out the Dexcool every 50K miles.
I have no idea how you avoided the intake manifold fiasco...^
From what I understand, improved lower intake manifold gaskets were installed starting late in the 2003 model year. Our Montana was built in June, 2003 - maybe it got the improved LIMGs?. I know it might be a problem. I keep a close eye on the coolant level and watch for signs of coolant in the oil. I also change out the Dexcool every 50K miles.
Originally Posted By: ron917
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
I have no idea how you avoided the intake manifold fiasco...^
From what I understand, improved lower intake manifold gaskets were installed starting late in the 2003 model year. Our Montana was built in June, 2003 - maybe it got the improved LIMGs?. I know it might be a problem. I keep a close eye on the coolant level and watch for signs of coolant in the oil. I also change out the Dexcool every 50K miles.
Changing the Dex-Cool before it became an issue is how you avoided it. Nothing wrong with Dex-Cool when it's maintained.
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
I have no idea how you avoided the intake manifold fiasco...^
From what I understand, improved lower intake manifold gaskets were installed starting late in the 2003 model year. Our Montana was built in June, 2003 - maybe it got the improved LIMGs?. I know it might be a problem. I keep a close eye on the coolant level and watch for signs of coolant in the oil. I also change out the Dexcool every 50K miles.
Changing the Dex-Cool before it became an issue is how you avoided it. Nothing wrong with Dex-Cool when it's maintained.
Originally Posted By: dwcopple
I have no idea how you avoided the intake manifold fiasco...^
With regular coolant flushes and a little luck the LIM gaskets sometimes can go 150,000 miles before they eventually start to leak.
I have no idea how you avoided the intake manifold fiasco...^
With regular coolant flushes and a little luck the LIM gaskets sometimes can go 150,000 miles before they eventually start to leak.
In all my years in the car biz, I have always found GM vehicles to be very basic transportation. As much as they try to be upscale or innovative, they always seem 5 steps behind. If you are looking for basic and inexpensive transportation, then go for it.
I have no idea how reliable they are, I don't own one. But they look simple and basic enough to fix with all that old technology they use.
Maybe if the put some of that UAW money to R&D use they'd actually come up with something good.
OK.....not going to go off on that rant......sorry.
I have no idea how reliable they are, I don't own one. But they look simple and basic enough to fix with all that old technology they use.
Maybe if the put some of that UAW money to R&D use they'd actually come up with something good.
OK.....not going to go off on that rant......sorry.
There's no old technology on a late model Malibu. It's as modern and advanced or more as any other car in its class and certainly no more basic. There was really no old technology and a whole bunch of new on even the '97 Malibu except for the pushrod V6. But that's proven technology. GM spends a lot on R&D and hasn't been even a step behind and just as often has been ahead. The bean counters in the past are a different argument.
I completely disagree about the ordinary GM. Actually they were extraordinary but [censored] mgmt blew the whole deal up in their face.
But they make some very interesting cars, as well as some more pedestrian offerings. But their tech is right there with almost anyone, and they have tons of features people don't even know about.
And one final rant about pushrods. Everyone thinks if it doesn't have a cam in the head it's old tech. Yet the LS series with and w/o supercharging is amazingly small, lightweight, and fuel efficient. Even our resident Ford freaks will acknowledge the LS as a terrific motor.
Never saw an active thermostat in a Mazda, either...
But they make some very interesting cars, as well as some more pedestrian offerings. But their tech is right there with almost anyone, and they have tons of features people don't even know about.
And one final rant about pushrods. Everyone thinks if it doesn't have a cam in the head it's old tech. Yet the LS series with and w/o supercharging is amazingly small, lightweight, and fuel efficient. Even our resident Ford freaks will acknowledge the LS as a terrific motor.
Never saw an active thermostat in a Mazda, either...
Originally Posted By: bustednutz
OK.....not going to go off on that rant......sorry.
Sounds like you already did go off on that rant.
You've also lost me. Inane ramblings of a loony.
OK.....not going to go off on that rant......sorry.
Sounds like you already did go off on that rant.
You've also lost me. Inane ramblings of a loony.
My 2009 Malibu has 52,000 100% trouble free miles bought it brand new and plan to keep it till the wheels fall off.
I guess the reason I got another GM car after my Buick is that they finally had a class-beating car. I'd get another Cruze Eco MT in half a heartbeat, even knowing the warts and all. The car manages to be a darned fun car to drive while beating EPA highway handily. The car has a personality, and I like that. Every other compact car I drove seemed to have its personality engineered out of it.
Originally Posted By: sciphi
The car has a personality, and I like that. Every other compact car I drove seemed to have its personality engineered out of it.
That is one of my major criticisms of many newer cars. Over engineered? It may be possible...
The car has a personality, and I like that. Every other compact car I drove seemed to have its personality engineered out of it.
That is one of my major criticisms of many newer cars. Over engineered? It may be possible...
- Status
