Thanks for your input.
I'm leaning towards the Impala.
I'm leaning towards the Impala.
V6 Impala or 4 cylinder Malibu???
- Thread starter 06RANGER
- Start date
- Status
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
All good points. In the long-run, I think the difference in fuel economy, resale and maintenance costs would be negligible between the two. The new Mali is a good looking car, but the Imp would probably be more practical and all-purpose.
Joel
Joel
I'm surpised at the real world gas mileage numbers I've read on the Impala.
The 3.5 V6 competes favorably with many 4 cylinders including Camry/Accord/Altima.
The 3.5 V6 competes favorably with many 4 cylinders including Camry/Accord/Altima.
Quote:
I'm surpised at the real world gas mileage numbers I've read on the Impala.
The 3.5 V6 competes favorably with many 4 cylinders including Camry/Accord/Altima
I never understood why GM never got due credit for this; years ago small Accords were not even breaking 30mpg and my 92 LeSabre would pull an easy 30mpg with the 3.8L
I'm surpised at the real world gas mileage numbers I've read on the Impala.
The 3.5 V6 competes favorably with many 4 cylinders including Camry/Accord/Altima
I never understood why GM never got due credit for this; years ago small Accords were not even breaking 30mpg and my 92 LeSabre would pull an easy 30mpg with the 3.8L
There is nothing better than a well designed ohv engine.
The 2.2 Ecotec available in the Malibu is turning out to be one of GM's better engines and maintenance on it is much simpler I have heard. Better yet, what about some leftover 07 Grand Prix's with the venerable 3.8L. My local Pontiac dealers have tons of these with 12-25K on them and they are certified with the 100K warranty. You can find them from 13-15K all day long and with some haggling, you can practically steal one from them right now as the 3.8 gets phased out. Given the choice from a reliability standpoint, I would give the nod to the 3.8, but I do grant that the 3.5 is a solid engine as well.
Last edited:
The new Malibu has the 2.4l ecotec in the base model LS.
It doesn't get near the fuel economy of the 2.2l from the last generation.
It doesn't get near the fuel economy of the 2.2l from the last generation.
I didn't know they went to the 2.4 instead of the 2.2 Bummer.
It's a shame the 3.8 is going away. It will be replaced with the 3.6, with a lot more horsepower, and a lot less gas mileage.
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
The simplicity and reliabilty is great with the 2.2/2.4L. They are pretty fun to drive. Good power. I average ~30mpg per tank with my Cobalt w/ mixed driving, so you can probably meet that with a 3.5 or 3.9L. My only gripe with my 2007 2.2L is, on ANY start up with a more than a few minutes down time, the engine sounds like it's coming un-glued on startup. A dry start type noise. It's done this on OEM and A/M filters, 5w30 and 5w20 oil, dealer can't hear it. I just ignore it now.
Joel
Joel
Last edited:
The used 3.8l GP seems like a good deal.
I like the 3.8, it's the rest of the platform of the Grand Prix that I'm not so crazy about.
I like the 3.8, it's the rest of the platform of the Grand Prix that I'm not so crazy about.
I didn't mention that the wife and I had an 07' GP that I loved. I had no complaints at all. The wife however listed:
1. Poor visibility, especially from the rear.
2. She hated the instrument cluster and thought it was cheesy
3. Getting in and out of the car was a pain in the butt she said
4. Felt claustrophobic due to the cockpit type driver clusters.
Because she is the boss, or so she thinks, the 07' GP went away.
1. Poor visibility, especially from the rear.
2. She hated the instrument cluster and thought it was cheesy
3. Getting in and out of the car was a pain in the butt she said
4. Felt claustrophobic due to the cockpit type driver clusters.
Because she is the boss, or so she thinks, the 07' GP went away.
Yeah, that is the knock on the new VUE. Heavier by 400 lbs if I recall, and worse mileage than the Honda provided 3.5L from the previous one.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
I never understood why GM never got due credit for this; years ago small Accords were not even breaking 30mpg and my 92 LeSabre would pull an easy 30mpg with the 3.8L
It's the brainwashed world we live in. GM is the company many people love to hate, for seemingly no reason at all. Throughout all of the 90's GM produced cars that were not only more comfortable than those offered by all but the highest end import makes, they were also more powerful and got better gas mileage to boot.
Few can see past the intake gasket debacle of the 3100/3400 to realize how efficient, quiet, and powerful for the 60*V6 engines are for their size and cost.
I never understood why GM never got due credit for this; years ago small Accords were not even breaking 30mpg and my 92 LeSabre would pull an easy 30mpg with the 3.8L
It's the brainwashed world we live in. GM is the company many people love to hate, for seemingly no reason at all. Throughout all of the 90's GM produced cars that were not only more comfortable than those offered by all but the highest end import makes, they were also more powerful and got better gas mileage to boot.
Few can see past the intake gasket debacle of the 3100/3400 to realize how efficient, quiet, and powerful for the 60*V6 engines are for their size and cost.
I really cannot disagree with anything you say here. The gasket/Dexcool debacle definitely left a stain on GM. They should have handled it better, but I think people should move on from the bashing.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
What's the city-highway mileage numbers for both vehicles?
How much driving (in miles) will this vehicle see per year?
How often will more than four adults need to be in this vehicle?
How much driving (in miles) will this vehicle see per year?
How often will more than four adults need to be in this vehicle?
Malibu 2.4L =22/30 Malibu 2.2L from 2007=21/31
Impala 3.5L =18/29
Impala 3.5L =18/29
There is guy over on GasSavers.org that swears by his 3.5L Malibu Maxx. He says his Maxx pulls consistently over 35 mpg on the highway.
Quote:
Here are the highlights:
Best trip mileage at high speed - 38.5 MPG at 83 MPH across Nebraska - warm weather. Actually reset the car's computer (accurate to within 1/10 of a gallon - I lucked out on this one) for that trip for average speed.
Best MPG on a tank - 42 MPG hwy at 56 MPH average speed, 513 mile trip.
Routine commute: 125 mile round-trip commute - 35.6 MPG in rainy weather at about 40 degrees, 38.2-38.6 MPG every time if it's 50-77 degrees and clear. Have repeated this commute twice in a day three times in a week before - within .1 gallon every time, so I know it's accurate. Computer readout actually matches fill-up numbers, again, within .1 gallon.
Quote:
Here are the highlights:
Best trip mileage at high speed - 38.5 MPG at 83 MPH across Nebraska - warm weather. Actually reset the car's computer (accurate to within 1/10 of a gallon - I lucked out on this one) for that trip for average speed.
Best MPG on a tank - 42 MPG hwy at 56 MPH average speed, 513 mile trip.
Routine commute: 125 mile round-trip commute - 35.6 MPG in rainy weather at about 40 degrees, 38.2-38.6 MPG every time if it's 50-77 degrees and clear. Have repeated this commute twice in a day three times in a week before - within .1 gallon every time, so I know it's accurate. Computer readout actually matches fill-up numbers, again, within .1 gallon.
- Status
Similar threads
