Sounds like the 3.5 is the way to go!
V6 Impala or 4 cylinder Malibu???
- Thread starter 06RANGER
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Saturn_Fan
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.
I wouldn't take 2 Grand Prix's for one Impala. The GP is a pain in the butt to get in and out of, plus there's less usable space inside (versus the Impala). Rear visability is restricted. No wonder it's a darling of the rental fleet. GM didn't kill it off fast enough, in my opinion.
All those Grand Prix's are former rental cars. My local Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealer has 30 of them.
Strangly enough, they offer a CarFax online for everything in their inventory, except these cars... they're acting as if they can hide the history of these cars.
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.
I wouldn't take 2 Grand Prix's for one Impala. The GP is a pain in the butt to get in and out of, plus there's less usable space inside (versus the Impala). Rear visability is restricted. No wonder it's a darling of the rental fleet. GM didn't kill it off fast enough, in my opinion.
All those Grand Prix's are former rental cars. My local Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealer has 30 of them.
Strangly enough, they offer a CarFax online for everything in their inventory, except these cars... they're acting as if they can hide the history of these cars.
Carfax will almost always show clean on rental agency cars, simply because they don't report body damage unless it's a total loss.
Treat each car individually, and have it checked out, both mechanically and structurally.
Seeing these cars in bulk and daily, I'd estimate about 1/3 of them have had some kind of body work. Quality of body repair ranges from very good to not safe to drive.
The dealer is not notified of these repairs when he/she buys them at the auction. The only ones they are notified of are total rebuilds or known water cars. So he's in the dark until the car makes it to his business from the auction.
Treat each car individually, and have it checked out, both mechanically and structurally.
Seeing these cars in bulk and daily, I'd estimate about 1/3 of them have had some kind of body work. Quality of body repair ranges from very good to not safe to drive.
The dealer is not notified of these repairs when he/she buys them at the auction. The only ones they are notified of are total rebuilds or known water cars. So he's in the dark until the car makes it to his business from the auction.
Originally Posted By: 06RANGER
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.
I recently got 25.2 MPG in my Malibu with the 2.2L. I drive 6 miles (in 10 minutes) back and forth to school on curving, twisting, and hilly (I live in north Georgia) suburban streets. I would love to see what kind of mileage I would get doing 55 mph on the highway.
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.
I recently got 25.2 MPG in my Malibu with the 2.2L. I drive 6 miles (in 10 minutes) back and forth to school on curving, twisting, and hilly (I live in north Georgia) suburban streets. I would love to see what kind of mileage I would get doing 55 mph on the highway.
Impala here. Our '03 is close to 50 thousand on the clock and I'm considering getting it tuned up come fall.
[/quote]
I would love to see what kind of mileage I would get doing 55 mph on the highway. [/quote]
On my 95 Nissan pickup 3.0 V-6, I was bummed out because I was only getting 19ish on the highway going 65. Throughout the next tank I did not go over 55 mph and I got 25 mpg (100% highway). That is quite an increase. On hills I would really feather the throttle and coast when I could. I'll take a 5-6 mpg gain for just slowing down a bit!
I would love to see what kind of mileage I would get doing 55 mph on the highway. [/quote]
On my 95 Nissan pickup 3.0 V-6, I was bummed out because I was only getting 19ish on the highway going 65. Throughout the next tank I did not go over 55 mph and I got 25 mpg (100% highway). That is quite an increase. On hills I would really feather the throttle and coast when I could. I'll take a 5-6 mpg gain for just slowing down a bit!
You and my wife would get along great. She listed exactly the things you did as reasons why she didn't like it and why we got rid of it after 6 months of ownership.
Originally Posted By: Saturn_Fan
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.
People aren't going to move on from the bashing until they quit getting repair bills to fix them. If GM had just fixed them properly once the problem was discoverd (and wasn't still denying it) people could move on. I just paid to have mine fixed 2 weeks ago so it is kind of hard to forget. At least it didn't cost much more than a timing belt change on an import.
I'd happily buy the newer 3.5L VVT motor. It seems to be pretty good so far and still delivers good fuel economy and even more power than the older models.
I see the new Malibu with the 2.4L 4cyl and the 6-speed auto is rated for 22 city and 32 hwy. Pretty good.
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.
People aren't going to move on from the bashing until they quit getting repair bills to fix them. If GM had just fixed them properly once the problem was discoverd (and wasn't still denying it) people could move on. I just paid to have mine fixed 2 weeks ago so it is kind of hard to forget. At least it didn't cost much more than a timing belt change on an import.
I'd happily buy the newer 3.5L VVT motor. It seems to be pretty good so far and still delivers good fuel economy and even more power than the older models.
I see the new Malibu with the 2.4L 4cyl and the 6-speed auto is rated for 22 city and 32 hwy. Pretty good.
Last edited:
It is interesting to think that the complex, poorly designed 3.4 DOHC engine from 15 years ago cranked out 215hp and barely fit in the cars they put it in, but the new 3.5 comfortably fits in all of the vehicles it's sold in, is far more reliable, makes more power (220 and change in the latest version), and gets better economy to boot.
I'm highly impressed by some of the mileage figures I've seen quoted here for certain GM V6 engines, not just in this thread but over many years. It seems to me that GM is really onto something with these designs and also, I think, is taking a serious engineering interest in efficiency, which I greatly admire. It gives me some additional hope for the company's future. I wish my wife and I could come close to matching these numbers in our VQ30-powered I-30.
I wonder why there doesn't seem to be similar interest in lower-revving, high-efficiency four cylinders. Probably the main issue would be that the press would hate it, and buyers of those cars tend to be highly influenced by such opinions.
BMW tried something like that with the eta engines in the '80's. They weren't push-rod motors, and they were straight sixes, but they were designed to produce good torque at low rpm for high efficiency, and had lower power than their non-eta equivalents. Sure enough the press hated it. BMW forced it on their customers for a few years and consequently sold quite a few, but the idea then died and gas got cheap again. Owners did report excellent mileage, though, and I wonder what something like that could do with today's technology.
I wonder why there doesn't seem to be similar interest in lower-revving, high-efficiency four cylinders. Probably the main issue would be that the press would hate it, and buyers of those cars tend to be highly influenced by such opinions.
BMW tried something like that with the eta engines in the '80's. They weren't push-rod motors, and they were straight sixes, but they were designed to produce good torque at low rpm for high efficiency, and had lower power than their non-eta equivalents. Sure enough the press hated it. BMW forced it on their customers for a few years and consequently sold quite a few, but the idea then died and gas got cheap again. Owners did report excellent mileage, though, and I wonder what something like that could do with today's technology.
I don't see that significant of a difference in real world reporting between the 4 cylinder Malibu and the 3.5l Impala.
As a matter of fact I regular read reports of 3.5 owners beating the EPA estimates.
As a matter of fact I regular read reports of 3.5 owners beating the EPA estimates.
Sounds like my Volvo 960. Lots of torque down low and still makes decent power 2.92L (178ci) 181 hp. The Euro versions came with 204 hp and a wider torque range. They changed the cams to suit American driving tastes. The difference is the U.S. version is hitting 245 nm (181ft lbs) at 2250 rpms. Where the Euro version isn't hitting 245 nm (181 ft lbs) until close to 3200 rpms. The max torque U.S. (260 nm) 192 ft lbs is close in both versions at around 4200 RPMs.
The Euro version makes (267 nm)5 ft lbs more torque and 23 more HP. Hp in the euro max is at 6100 rps where the U.S. version the max is at 5200 rpms.
The Euro version makes (267 nm)5 ft lbs more torque and 23 more HP. Hp in the euro max is at 6100 rps where the U.S. version the max is at 5200 rpms.
Yeah, the difference per the fueleconomy.gov site is 1 or 2 mpg either way.
- Status
Similar threads
