Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm looking at two 2012 Chevrolet models, the Malibu (specifically the LTZ model with the 3.6L V6 engine) and the Impala (which has the same 3.6L V6 engine). I specifically want a car with a powerful V6 engine, not a turbo 4 cylinder. And yes, I know that both are already out of date-- the all new 2013 Malibu has already been released and the 2014 Impala redesign will be coming next year. And yes, I know that both of these are known as rentalmobiles. I'm probably not buying anything, but I'm curious about something:
According to fueleconomy.gov, the 2012 V6 Malibu gets 17 city, 26 highway. The 2012 Impala gets 22 city, 30 highway. Same engine (prior to 2012 model, the Impala had a different motor). Isn't the Impala a larger car? Then why is the fuel economy drastically better? And from preliminary dealer quotes I've obtained online for both new and used vehicles, the Impala seems to be selling for $$$$'s less than the Malibu. Has anybody driven these two cars extensively and can compare? Thanks.
I think you misread the Impala's gas mileage, it's 18/30 not 22/30 so it's marginally better than the Malibu. I've only driven the Impala as a rental and I was impressed about its speed/power but not much else.
There's a huge manufacturer-to-dealer incentive on the Impalas so that's why you're finding that they're slightly cheaper than the Malibus.
I think you misread the Impala's gas mileage, it's 18/30 not 22/30 so it's marginally better than the Malibu. I've only driven the Impala as a rental and I was impressed about its speed/power but not much else.
There's a huge manufacturer-to-dealer incentive on the Impalas so that's why you're finding that they're slightly cheaper than the Malibus.
You're right, I did misread it-- it is 18 city, 30 highway. 22 is the combined number. Still, the highway MPG is 4mpg more than the Malibu w/ v6.
They aren't the same engine. The Malibu uses the regular 3.6L V6 that puts out 252hp. It's the same 3.6L that used to be used in the last generation Cadillac CTS. The Impala uses the DI 3.6L that puts out 300hp that is shared with the current Cadillac CTS and Camaro, among others. The Impala also has less aggressive gearing. That gearing combined with the effeciency gain from the DI engine is what gives the Impala the MPG edge. In terms of performance though, the two cars are very similar. The Impala weighs about 200 pounds more, but it has an extra 50hp, but that is going through less aggressive gearing. Overall, the accelerative performance of the two cars is pretty much equal.
I currently own a Malibu (2010 LT w/ 2.4L) and have driven plenty of Malibu V6's and Impala's including the 2012's. Overall, the Malibu is a better car then the Impala. It has a better platform, it handles better, has better materials and fit and finish. It is a little smaller overall, particularly in the trunk, but I think the Malibu actually holds the comfort and space edge for actual seating. Despite its size, the Impala comes off as a little cramped, especially if you are tall. On the road the Malibu is more planted and "sporty" whereas the Impala is more prone to float and body roll. If you like the way traditional GM fullsize cars from the 1990's ride, you will like the Impala, if not, you will prefer the Malibu.
The cost difference is what it is because the Impala has basically been reduced to nothing but a fleet car. Malibu's still sell somewhat well at retail and they have a decent reputation as being a valid consideration for a midsize sedan. While they are offering relatively equal cash back upfront on both 2012 Malibu's and Impala's there is a much larger manufacturer to dealer rebate on the Impala's. The Impala's also have a much larger margin of profitability, so can be sold cheaper. An aggressive dealer can price an Impala well below what a comparable Malibu would go for.
They aren't the same engine. The Malibu uses the regular 3.6L V6 that puts out 252hp. It's the same 3.6L that used to be used in the last generation Cadillac CTS. The Impala uses the DI 3.6L that puts out 300hp that is shared with the current Cadillac CTS and Camaro, among others. The Impala also has less aggressive gearing. That gearing combined with the effeciency gain from the DI engine is what gives the Impala the MPG edge. In terms of performance though, the two cars are very similar. The Impala weighs about 200 pounds more, but it has an extra 50hp, but that is going through less aggressive gearing. Overall, the accelerative performance of the two cars is pretty much equal.
I currently own a Malibu (2010 LT w/ 2.4L) and have driven plenty of Malibu V6's and Impala's including the 2012's. Overall, the Malibu is a better car then the Impala. It has a better platform, it handles better, has better materials and fit and finish. It is a little smaller overall, particularly in the trunk, but I think the Malibu actually holds the comfort and space edge for actual seating. Despite its size, the Impala comes off as a little cramped, especially if you are tall. On the road the Malibu is more planted and "sporty" whereas the Impala is more prone to float and body roll. If you like the way traditional GM fullsize cars from the 1990's ride, you will like the Impala, if not, you will prefer the Malibu.
The cost difference is what it is because the Impala has basically been reduced to nothing but a fleet car. Malibu's still sell somewhat well at retail and they have a decent reputation as being a valid consideration for a midsize sedan. While they are offering relatively equal cash back upfront on both 2012 Malibu's and Impala's there is a much larger manufacturer to dealer rebate on the Impala's. The Impala's also have a much larger margin of profitability, so can be sold cheaper. An aggressive dealer can price an Impala well below what a comparable Malibu would go for.
Thanks for the information-- I didn't realize that they are on two different engines. I agree with you that the Impala feels smaller than it is. We rented one in one of my recent company group business trips (I didn't drive it at all, just rode along) and I noticed the back seat doesn't have all that much room considering how big the car is. I think my '07 Accord has a roomier back seat. But I thought the Impala seats were very comfortable, as least as a passenger. I recall in another of your recent posts that you said you aren't happy with your 2010 Malibu, interior wear issues... Would you not recommend either of these two cars?
For what its worth, Impalas are built in Canada and GM cars built in Canada get a plus on reliability and finish. But I do agree with the previous posters comparison of Impalas and Malibus.
Thanks for the information-- I didn't realize that they are on two different engines. I agree with you that the Impala feels smaller than it is. We rented one in one of my recent company group business trips (I didn't drive it at all, just rode along) and I noticed the back seat doesn't have all that much room considering how big the car is. I think my '07 Accord has a roomier back seat. But I thought the Impala seats were very comfortable, as least as a passenger. I recall in another of your recent posts that you said you aren't happy with your 2010 Malibu, interior wear issues... Would you not recommend either of these two cars?
When I was car shopping on the trip that ended with me getting the Malibu, I looked at the Impala as well. At the time they were offering $3k cash back on the Malibu, but $4k cash back on the Impala, plus another $2,500 in dealer cash, so $6,500 total back on the Impala. It made the Impala overall a slightly better deal when you compared LT to LT, etc. Hwoever, the Malibu at the time got much better MPG, had more standard equipment and the backseat, which was critical to me, actually offered more space as you seem to have found out.
Personally, at this point I would not recommend either the Impala or Malibu if you are looking at the 2012 and earlier cars. If you were considering a 2013 Malibu then maybe. I've only driven one 2013 Malibu and the material quality seems to have improved, it is also an extremely quiet and composed car on the highway. The chassis didn't feel as responsive as the current model and handling was more numb. The other slight knock is that the new chassis is a little smaller and you lose almost an inch of rear seat leg room. You gain shoulder and head space, which was a complaint on the current Malibu, but giving up that leg room hurts, IMO. My only real complaint on my current Malibu is that the interior is showing what I consider to be excessive wear for a 2.5 year old car with 40k miles on it. That and it is not as effecient as I want it to be unless I am very conservative in my driving. Basically the effeciency isn't enough to justify driving such a 'regular' car.
A 2014 Impala is going to be an entirely different beast then the current car. The current Impala is just basically a throwback car. It's chassis dates back to the mid 1980's. It is a very reliable car overall and decent highway cruiser, but there are much better choices at the price point. Even if you do get one on the cheap, they depreciate like rocks so any purchase is something you will have for a longtime. The 2014 is looking to be much improved, but will basically be a cheaper version of the current Buick LaCrosse.
What I would recommend in place of either of those would really come down to budget and needs. Personally I would look at the Buick Verano, Regal and LaCrosse before considering the current Malibu (including the 2013) or Impala. Sticking on the domestic side, the Ford Fusion is all around a better car then either the Malibu or Impala, but not better then the Buicks. On the import side, the Accord is always a solid choice and the Camry while not being anything special, IMO, is still a better pick then the Impala. The outside choice is the current Passat, which is a large car relative to the others in the segment and actually returns that size in terms of interior room. Fit, finish and features are also top-notch. Basically, just about any 2012 or 2013 model in those classes is probably a better choice.
IMO, the Impala isn't a bad car, especially with the 3.6 V6, just a bit outdated. It's actually an OK value for the money, if you are going to own it for a long time and don't care about resale value. I just hate those damn gigantic rear headrests that block rear visibility substantially. I think at one point they were removeable, but now they are molded into the seatback. I generally avoid the Impala at the rental counter due to this issue.
Also, the Impala (and the Malibu, actually) has probably the worst-sounding factory stereo available in a 2012 vehicle.
When I was car shopping on the trip that ended with me getting the Malibu, I looked at the Impala as well. At the time they were offering $3k cash back on the Malibu, but $4k cash back on the Impala, plus another $2,500 in dealer cash, so $6,500 total back on the Impala. It made the Impala overall a slightly better deal when you compared LT to LT, etc. Hwoever, the Malibu at the time got much better MPG, had more standard equipment and the backseat, which was critical to me, actually offered more space as you seem to have found out.
Personally, at this point I would not recommend either the Impala or Malibu if you are looking at the 2012 and earlier cars. If you were considering a 2013 Malibu then maybe. I've only driven one 2013 Malibu and the material quality seems to have improved, it is also an extremely quiet and composed car on the highway. The chassis didn't feel as responsive as the current model and handling was more numb. The other slight knock is that the new chassis is a little smaller and you lose almost an inch of rear seat leg room. You gain shoulder and head space, which was a complaint on the current Malibu, but giving up that leg room hurts, IMO. My only real complaint on my current Malibu is that the interior is showing what I consider to be excessive wear for a 2.5 year old car with 40k miles on it. That and it is not as effecient as I want it to be unless I am very conservative in my driving. Basically the effeciency isn't enough to justify driving such a 'regular' car.
A 2014 Impala is going to be an entirely different beast then the current car. The current Impala is just basically a throwback car. It's chassis dates back to the mid 1980's. It is a very reliable car overall and decent highway cruiser, but there are much better choices at the price point. Even if you do get one on the cheap, they depreciate like rocks so any purchase is something you will have for a longtime. The 2014 is looking to be much improved, but will basically be a cheaper version of the current Buick LaCrosse.
What I would recommend in place of either of those would really come down to budget and needs. Personally I would look at the Buick Verano, Regal and LaCrosse before considering the current Malibu (including the 2013) or Impala. Sticking on the domestic side, the Ford Fusion is all around a better car then either the Malibu or Impala, but not better then the Buicks. On the import side, the Accord is always a solid choice and the Camry while not being anything special, IMO, is still a better pick then the Impala. The outside choice is the current Passat, which is a large car relative to the others in the segment and actually returns that size in terms of interior room. Fit, finish and features are also top-notch. Basically, just about any 2012 or 2013 model in those classes is probably a better choice.
Thank you very much for the info, I really appreciate it. Wish I could rep you twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZ963
IMO, the Impala isn't a bad car, especially with the 3.6 V6, just a bit outdated. It's actually an OK value for the money, if you are going to own it for a long time and don't care about resale value. I just hate those damn gigantic rear headrests that block rear visibility substantially. I think at one point they were removeable, but now they are molded into the seatback. I generally avoid the Impala at the rental counter due to this issue.
Also, the Impala (and the Malibu, actually) has probably the worst-sounding factory stereo available in a 2012 vehicle.
I noticed the headrest thing too. I don't think I've seen any other cars with headrests so giant. I rented a 2011 Impala last summer and it felt like the headrest was pushing my head forward-- very uncomfortable. I also felt like it was hard to check blind spots, especially on the driver's side. I noticed that the 2012 model no longer has a middle back seat head rest which gives a lot more visibility out the rear view window.
Truthfully, there's really only 3 things I like about the Impala-- 1. the idea of having a meaty 300hp V6 engine (and yet one that's still pretty fuel efficient), as opposed to an underpowered, boring 4 cyl that makes a horrible sounding noise seems very tantalizing, 2. the comfortable ride (seems like most cars on the market today have harsh rides where you feel every bump in the road), and 3. the price (for both new and used)-- although that also means rapid depreciation too. But is this a case where the idea of the car is better than what the car actually is?
Stereo is important to me. I'm not an audiophile by any means, but I definitely enjoy listening to my music whenever I drive. I consider the stock stereo in my 07 Honda Accord EX to be pretty good, actually, whereas cars like the 2012 Camry have a pretty crappy, cheap sounding stereo (unless if you get an optioned out SE or XLE with the JBL). Sounds like I'd have to get the LTZ trim level in order to get the Bose stereo in a Chevy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
