« SRNL Hits Milestone in Nuclear Hydrogen Production | Main | Ford and Southern California Edison to Announce PHEV Collaboration »
Malibu Hybrid Makes its Debut
6 July 2007
 |
| The Malibu Hybrid in the MLB Fan Zone. |
GM gave the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid (earlier post) its world debut at Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game.
Powered by the GM Hybrid System (Belt-Alternator-Starter, or BAS), the first Malibu hybrid delivers an EPA rating of 24 mpg city and 32 mpg highway, for a combined 27 mpg (8.7 l/100km). The hybrid offers a two-mpg improvement on the highway cycle compared to the conventional 4-cylinder 2008 Malibu.
Production of the Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid is scheduled to begin in October, with vehicles arriving in dealerships shortly thereafter. The system will be available as a powertrain option on the base LS model, which also features Electric Power Steering, Automatic Climate Control and the StabiliTrak electronic stability control system.
The GM Hybrid System features a 36-volt electric motor/generator mated to GM Powertrain’s 2.4L Ecotec VVT four-cylinder engine and Hydra-Matic 4T45 four-speed transmission. A 36V Cobasys NiMH battery pack provides energy storage for regenerative braking. (Earlier post.)
The Malibu hybrid and both Saturn Green Line hybrids—which use the same GM Hybrid System—provide: an electric power assist during acceleration; increased fuel economy through engine shut-off at idle; fuel cut-off during deceleration; and the capability to capture electrical energy through regenerative braking.
The GM Hybrid System provides additional power, when required, during launch from the electric motor/generator. At wide-open throttle, such as during a passing maneuver, the system enhances acceleration by using the motor/generator to bolster the gasoline engine and achieve maximum power.
The GM Hybrid System also is designed to automatically maintain full accessory functionality—including climate control—when the vehicle is stopped. The Malibu Hybrid offer two selectable climate control modes. The Hybrid A/C mode favors more fuel-efficient performance by limiting the draw on the hybrid powertrain, while the normal mode provides maximum passenger comfort in hot climates and enhances defogging performance.
The 2008 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid is covered by GM’s five-year / 100,000-mile powertrain warranty. In addition, the Malibu Hybrid’s nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery pack is covered by an eight-year / 100,000-mile warranty.
July 6, 2007 in Hybrids | Permalink | Comments (75) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/19854416
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Malibu Hybrid Makes its Debut:
Comments
This is a Hybrid ???
(In name only).
Posted by: Lucas | Jul 6, 2007 5:02:16 PM
A major breakthrough! Win the solar races in the 1980's, build the EV-1 in the 90's and now this flash of genius. GM is on a roll!
Posted by: joe padula | Jul 6, 2007 5:25:55 PM
They've been talking this mild-hybrid game for years. They wimped out and assumed batteries would never be cheap enough, and that people would pay an extra $1200/car for an extra 2 mpg. I could understand if they did a through-the-ground hybrid that only had a 10-mile battery as a way to cut costs, but this isn't nearly that good.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | Jul 6, 2007 5:41:12 PM
This car is a perfect example of a failing auto company. Why bother?
Posted by: ROC | Jul 6, 2007 5:45:09 PM
This car is a perfect example of a failing auto company. Why bother?
Posted by: ROC | Jul 6, 2007 5:46:53 PM
hello sillies. This is an example of a large scale use of a limited commodity... They simply cant get enough batteries to outfit every car with them so they have to make do.
Its better then just waiting for more vatteries to ship.
Posted by: wintermane | Jul 6, 2007 5:53:13 PM
I believe that the beauty of GM's BAS system is that the entire system fits into the same vehicle as the non-hybrid model, thus streamlining manufacturing and allowing for an easier overall conversion.
If that is true, then why offer the non-BAS model at all? The advantages, albeit slight in this case, are there - so why give consumers the choice and why not just come out swinging and convert the line over? Doesn't that show vision and demonstrate that they mean business vs. having 10 to 15% of the line go towards the BAS models? They have already proved that the BAS model is fully functional (Aura, Vue).
Or - if they are concerned about losing out on acceleration and top speed, offer the V6 (non-BAS) and the I4 (BAS) only.
That would be a bold move, in my opinion.
Posted by: Mike L | Jul 6, 2007 6:13:11 PM
Why is this called a Hybrid??? GM must be trying to sell this to the mentally challenged......
Posted by: Bud Johns | Jul 6, 2007 7:09:11 PM
Why did the article give the improvement for the hwy mpg and not the city mpg? Doesn't a mild hybrid help the city mpg more than the hwy mpg?
A fact that is seldom pointed out is that improving a gas hogs mileage by a limited amount does as much or more good than improving a fuel sippers mileage immensely. Most people drive about 15000 miles a year. If they get 15 mpg they use 1000 gallons and emit a corresponding amount of pollution. If they get 25 mpg they use 600 gallons and if they get 50 mpg they use 300 gallons. Improving a Crown Victoria's mileage from 15 to 25 mpg saves 400 gallons of gas every year per vehicle. Improving a Corolla size car from approx 32 mpg (Corolla city mpg) to 53 mpg (Prius city mpg) saves just 186 gallons. I know the two cars aren't identical, but they show that improving gas hogs mileage can be even more productive than improving the mileage of already efficient cars. Do both, but start with the dogs first.
One other thing I am curious about, how do the new standards regarding how the EPA mpg figures are calculated figure in this article?
Posted by: Ziv | Jul 6, 2007 7:13:14 PM
Well said Mike L
They can convert that entire lineup to Mild Hybrid atleast.
But some people will try to calculate the ROI for the extra $ 1,200 they pay upfront.
Also the midsize non-hybrid sedans like Camry, Accord, Altima also gives 32 MPG highway and even the bigger Impala give 30 MPG.
They could have made Malibu / Aura Hybrid lighter to give 35 MPG atleast.
Posted by: Max Reid | Jul 6, 2007 7:14:23 PM
Pathetic.
Posted by: BlackSun | Jul 6, 2007 7:23:11 PM
You GM bashers need to get your own website.
Let me get this straight. For a measly $1200, GM is offering better fuel economy, more power, and brakes that will last significantly longer, and this is a bad thing?
The Camry hybrid, using the same 2008 EPA figures, gets only 2 mpg more on the highway for a LOT more money. So, for people who might drive 80% on the highway, this is likely to be a far better deal.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 6, 2007 7:51:24 PM
I agree with Angelo. While the Camry is a much better car the jump from non hybrid to hybrid huge. The $1200 spent on the hybrid Malibu might even be covered by tax incentives. The 32mpg highway for a car this size is not bad. The city mpg on the other hand is bad for a hybrid but again for a vehicle this size is better then average.
If its $1200, its $1200 well spent.
How could GM be a winner in my eyes? Make this standard on the 4 cyl models. I don't think they will.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jul 6, 2007 8:31:31 PM
Meh, the amount of cash paid per percentage increase in city fuel economy for both cars is about the same. With the Camry hybrid, you can pay more for a larger increase in city economy. Not bad or good, just bleh, like the Camry Hybrid. ;)
Posted by: yesplease | Jul 6, 2007 9:08:21 PM
One word: Pathetic.
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Jul 6, 2007 9:37:59 PM
Make mine Prius!
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Jul 6, 2007 9:40:14 PM
The city milage is lousy for a hybrid, ok for an econobox, and very good for everything else. For a sports car, 25mpg is quite good, and at a $1200 premium, it pays for it's self within 400 gallons, or the 10,000 mile mark. ie within a year or so.
Posted by: Michael McMillan | Jul 7, 2007 12:17:21 AM
It's really simple: Any hybrid that give you less than 40MPG isn't a hybrid. Does GM really think that this is going to sell at a car lot when gas costs over $3.00 a gallon?!
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Jul 7, 2007 3:49:03 AM
2 miles per gallon? Couldn't you get that with higher pressure tires, synthetic oil, and keeping your windows rolled up?
Hardly seems worth the effort. On the other hand, I believe the Prius has some serious safety problems stemming from poor visibility towards the rear (left right and center), a restricted view through the windshield, distracting light shows on the forward console, dependency on fancy an expensive to replace electronics (rearward video display) to compensate for poor engineering. Thanks but I'll stick with my Volkswagen golf that only needs a $.50 piece of glass to show me what it's like in back of the car.
Posted by: country mouse | Jul 7, 2007 5:53:07 AM
So now we've gone from a shouting match about horsepower to one about battery size? Toyota marketing really has successfully brainwashed US consumers into equating 'hybrid' with its Prius product.
Fact is, even a cheap 12V idle stop system a.k.a. microhybrid will improve combined fuel consumption ~5%. A mild hybrid, such as this one, will save ~10%, but the incremental cost is ~3x that of a microhybrid. A full hybrid will save ~15% but cost ~2x as much as the mild version. These are ballpark numbers, my point is that you quickly get into the law of diminishing returns.
Far better then to ship tens of millions of cars as micro- or mild hybrids than to sell just a few as full hybrids. We're not quite there yet, obviously, but GM is actually barking up the right tree with their BAS technology. The environment and energy security are assets held in common, so no-one should get a free ride.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jul 7, 2007 6:07:45 AM
GM's mild hybrids are part hype and part immediate improvement across product line. While over-use of the term dampens full hybrid, at least consumers get exposed to electric drive concepts.
These stop gaps are transitions to the real serial hybrid products which will show up in prototype for the first time at Madison, WI HybridFest July 21.
"The other is the “G-Volt” PHEV. The G-Volt features a series plug-in hybrid drivetrain mapping to the specs of the Chevrolet Volt but applied to a Geo research platform. The G-Volt is V2G-capable."
The A-Team to show a large automotive Li pack to set the direction for first gen BEV function.
Posted by: gr | Jul 7, 2007 6:58:53 AM
"Far better then to ship tens of millions of cars as micro- or mild hybrids than to sell just a few as full hybrids"
Exactly. Give GM a chance. Within a few years, the BAS could be offered on every one of their front-drive vehicles. Bottom line, a car with BAS is better than one without it.
"It's really simple: Any hybrid that give you less than 40MPG isn't a hybrid".
That is your opinion, and not the accepted definition in the automobile industry or within the US Tax Code.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 7, 2007 7:09:28 AM
I think the 2007 mileage, using the new method would have been 21 city/31 highway with an overall of 25. So the improved mileage of the 2008 BAS 24 city, 32 highway with an overall of 27 is a pretty significant improvement. Good job GM! Now my 1986 Buick 4 banger got 36 MPG highway, probably because it was lighter and smaller, so further improvements seems possible. Until then, I guess we are stuck driving the hybrid Camry with gets better than 30 MPG overall.
Posted by: Van | Jul 7, 2007 7:13:01 AM
One other thing I cannot understand is the ever so casual dismissal of the laws of supply and demand. Not every consumer wants the same type of car. Many people are still skeptical of hybrid technologies, and desire a simpler approach like this. This isn't going to take anything away from their continued development of their 2-mode systems or their plug-in, series hybrid systems.
This helps to give people more choice. Something that has always been important in the automobile industry.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 7, 2007 7:17:19 AM
I think GM is making a mistake with the Malibu Hybrid similar to the one Honda made with the Accord hybrid - trying to having it both ways and thus pleasing no-one. The hybrid version of the Malibu should come with a 2.0L or 2.2L engine instead of the 2.4L. If a smaller engine raises the 0-60 time to 10 seconds, so be it.
Posted by: PeakVT | Jul 7, 2007 7:51:50 AM
Peak, I don't agree. This is a mid-sized family car that will compete with the Camry and Altima hybrids. Each of which have over 190 combined HP. Perhaps if they offer the 2-mode system down the line, they could downsize the ICE. Until then, I don't think it would sell.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 7, 2007 7:56:57 AM
Also, the Accord hybrid is an unfair comparison. It was over a $3k premium for the hybrid, which was a big part of it's problem. I think GM actually learned from that.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 7, 2007 8:00:30 AM
"a combined 27 mpg (8.7 l/100km)."
Bwahaha. That's like your average muscle Volvo or diesel Mercedes.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Starvid | Jul 7, 2007 9:00:44 AM
"Far better then to ship tens of millions of cars as micro- or mild hybrids than to sell just a few as full hybrids."
Toyota has sold over 1 million full hybrids in 10 years (and they had a slow start - they sold over 300,000 just last year) how many Malibu has GM sold during the same period?
Posted by: AI_VIN | Jul 7, 2007 9:06:27 AM
"Bwahaha. That's like your average muscle Volvo or diesel Mercedes"
Great. Please direct me to a $22k version from either brand.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 7, 2007 9:34:21 AM
Both the Honda Civic and the Toyota Corolla, both smaller and less powerful than the Malibu Hybrid, only offer 29mpg combined (using 2008 figures).
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 7, 2007 9:40:30 AM
@Ai Vin -
Toyota has indeed sold a million full hybrids by now, which is quite an achievement. I don't offhand hoy many Malibus GM has sold in the same timeframe, perhaps more - but until now, none of them were hybrids. For that reason alone, it's a moot point.
However, you should bear in mind that even for Toyota, hybrids represent just a small fraction of overall sales volume. My comments were forward-looking, because I suspect that once the initial hybrid hype dies down, consumers will warm to the cheaper bus less sophisticated systems as well.
For example, BMW is forging ahead with upgrades to its entire product line, adding their EfficientDynamics package which is in fact a micro-hybrid system. They just don't advertise it as such. Other manufacturers, e.g. VW and Citroen PSA also offer micro-hybrids on a few models in Europe already. It's a cheap way to help bring down fleet average CO2 emissions, as they will have to by 2012, so expect more of the same. If CAFE is substantially tightened in the US, the same dynamic will apply there.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jul 7, 2007 11:35:28 AM
There is more here than you might think for an evolutionary car model; starting with the 36 volt electrical system. In some areas of the country red light to red light driving is the norm. For example, the yellow cabs in NYC and the people stuck on driving city streets. A BAS could result in considerable fuel savings in these conditions.
A "VOLT" this isn't and the word "Hybrid" is misused; a retrofitted Chevy is what it is and a marketing trial to see if BAS will sell and perhaps a test to prove some of the systems needed for future BEVs and PHEVs, i.e., electric steering.
Posted by: Lad | Jul 7, 2007 12:26:57 PM
We can disagree about the technical aspects of this in terms of percentage cost vs efficiency, but the real story will be "Will it sell". a 2 MPG increase is laughable regardless of cost, to the general consumer. they still worry about GM's falling apart and how much worse it will be with disatisfied overpaid union workers putting together new technology. I just see GM's production of this car as the warning shot that they will be seeking government financing to make them competitive with Toyota in the hybrid world since they are too cheap to bite the bullet.
Posted by: george | Jul 7, 2007 12:58:14 PM
Even micro hybrid can greatly help exhaust emission and improve fuel economy in heavily congested areas, where cars spend a great deal of time idling and wasting fuel while polluting the air for nothing! GM offering thus is quite encouraging, considering the modest increase in cost in proportion to the modest increase in mpg. One must learn to walk first before one can run. Experience in mass manufacturing of hybrid components will greatly help a mfg. in planning for a full hybrid later on.
However, I have some issues with the Belt drive in this BAS. First, the belt drive is not the best in reliability and adds unnecessary friction. Honda's IMA scheme with the thin but wide motor in-line between the engine and the transmission is more efficient and far more reliable than belt drive, which can get loose or break.
But, even Honda's IMA can even be further improved upon, by providing a synchromesh clutch between the motor and the engine, and between the motor and the transmission. This will eliminate engine's friction while the car is in pure electric mode and during regenerative braking. The ICE has huge amount of internal friction that must be avoided during low car speed and low engine load in order to further increase efficiency. Then, the engine will need its regular starter (~$150 USD at OEM price) to bring it to speed in order to mesh smoothly with the motor-transmission if more torque will be needed to supplement the electric-only mode.
And then, to get a full hybrid without violating Toyota's HSD patents, provide a larger starter-generator mated to the engine, and a larger motor mated to a small CVT (continously-variable transmission), with a clutch between the engine and the CVT. Why a small CVT? Since belt or chain CVT cannot handle a lot of torque anyway, and to reduce friction during cruise! CVT has higher internal friction than geared transmission. If higher torque is needed, the larger motor will supply it, using the currents provided by the battery and the starter-generator when the engine is reved up!
But first, one must learn to walk before one can run.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 7, 2007 1:19:14 PM
come guys the bashers have to get their snob on. They are not smart enough to be rich so they can buy a Prius and be snooty for much less. Funny how most of them drive way more than average miles and wind up spewing more than average co2.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 7, 2007 1:32:24 PM
Hey don't get me wrong, I think this is the kind of tech every car should have. However, calling this a hybrid when it doesn't have enough battery power to go just 1km (even when *assisted* by the ICE) sounds like GM is riding the coattails of the company that's leading the way.
I think it would have been smarter marketing to cut their own path. Maybe they should call the system "augmented drive" or "intelligent starter" or "flexible something-or-other."
Posted by: ai_vin | Jul 7, 2007 1:50:04 PM
BMW has recently introduced mild hybrids in Europe that get 36- 40 MPG and they do not even need 36 volt NiMH battery, they just use 12 volt AGM lead. They are also changing their entire linw of products to mild hybrid.
Either GM engineers are idiots, or GM thinks their customers are.
And Richard, if you are not rich enough to buy the Prius, consider a Corolla - that will get you 25% more mileage than this "hybrid Impala".
Posted by: SM | Jul 7, 2007 2:04:39 PM
"consider a Corolla - that will get you 25% more mileage than this "hybrid Impala""
Check your figures, that is incorrect. Using 2008 EPA estimates, it's 27mpg for the MALIBU Hybrid and 29 mpg for a Corolla (or Civic). Yes, the same Corolla that is smaller with less power.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 7, 2007 2:16:10 PM
Once again the anti-American snobs leap out of the warrens to bash... this time GM.
One gentle man even dared to build up the BMW 30-40K mini-compacts, that are not street legal in the USA because their pollution controls are decades behind and obsolete; never mind the absent safety equipment that would rule them off the road here in the USA, as Naderite deathtraps, as well.
And all for only $40K too. What a bargain!
[sarcasm off]
Seriously, any hybrid components built for these mild hybrids such as regenerative braking or electric brakes, HVAC,steering etc. can only help drive down the cost of genuine hybrids. Closing that cost differential is essential as it the only thing that can stop the coming Electrification of Ground Transport.
Still waiting for the dual-mode hybrid, that obsoletes Toyota's Hybrid Drive.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jul 7, 2007 7:07:08 PM
Stan Peterson my man: Is it Anti-American to point out that American cars are fuel-inefficient than our foreign competitors? No. Angelo ; how it is that foreign competitors can come up with fuel efficient cars Americans crave when gas is $3.00 a gallon and higher while American automakers with the exception of the Ford Escape Hybrid SUV, the other American offerings can't seem to manage to 30MPG Hybrid or not? That's not offereing choices. That's wimping out. My guess is some foreigners are influencing The Big Three to NOT make fuel efficient vehicles and to fight any hike in the CAFE standards. Until Big Oil sells off Big Three stock and until the American automakers sell us what we need, we should "Buy Toyota and Honda".
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Jul 7, 2007 8:38:21 PM
GM is doing what they can with what they have. They are late coming to the party and the BAS is what they could come with quick. This is "cost effective" is what they would say and if it is reliable, they would be right. I think it makes sense. Should they call it a hybrid?...maybe not.
Posted by: sjc | Jul 7, 2007 8:46:12 PM
Wow Stan, Dr spin, what this has to do with being an American? Can't you even handle some criticism? you scared of being compared with other world leaders?
Man! I tell you, guys like you didn't make the America what it is today.
Oh wait, you probably do not believe in evolution either - waiting for someone intelligent to design your future car?
Posted by: SM | Jul 7, 2007 9:52:00 PM
This is not the only thing in the pipeline at GM. This is just one modest thing they are doing to make a mainstream vehicle more environmentally friendly.
This is a mid-sized sedan (not a compact) with almost 170 HP that averages 27mpg. How is this a bad thing? This will be priced much closer to the NON-HYBRID Camry, which only averages 24mpg (using the same 2008 combined cycle number). If you are a consumer who wants to spend $22-23k, which one would you endorse from an environmental standpoint?
There are still many people who will not readily clunk down the extra $3k for a Camry hybrid. Do I think it's a good decision on their part? No. But should we just ignore those consumers and offer them no other options until they become wiser?
As I said before, this BAS application does not detract from their further development of their 2-mode and series hybrid systems.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 7, 2007 10:19:46 PM
Now, if GM would put a system like this in an Aveo it might break 40mpg, and I might be willing to buy one.
It's just irresponsible to buy a car that gets less than 40mpg these days.
Posted by: Icelander | Jul 8, 2007 6:31:40 AM
"Now, if GM would put a system like this in an Aveo it might break 40mpg, and I might be willing to buy one."
That doesn't make sense to me. The BAS system will have it's greatest benefit on the vehicle that will be sold in the highest volumes. GM's market research has likely concluded that the Malibu will sell at much higher volumes than the Aveo.
"It's just irresponsible to buy a car that gets less than 40mpg these days."
It's always all or nothing with too many of you. Well, I guess people like you will still have to buy a Prius for now. This does not get in the way of that.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 8, 2007 7:13:14 AM
One micro-step (or is it nano-step) from a very large company is not much of an achievement. This sounds more like a low cost PR job to try to stop GM's decreasing sales.
Two or three more mpg will not boast GM's sales that much.
Anything below 40 or even 50 mpg is not what most people want from our Big Three.
The slightly bigger Prius III (5 cm wider and almost 10 cm longer) is rumoured to offer as much as 70 to 75 mpg. That will be a worthwhile achievement.
How can we honestly compare 25 mpg with 75 mpg?
Come on GM. You can do much better than that...
Posted by: | Jul 8, 2007 8:45:59 AM
GM scrapped its PNGV hybrid program in 2001, and fired the engineering team (someone rumored that Toyota hired them). Now GM is trying to recover from this monumental screwup. What's pathetic is that this is the best they can do this late in the game.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jul 8, 2007 8:48:02 AM
"The slightly bigger Prius III (5 cm wider and almost 10 cm longer) is rumoured to offer as much as 70 to 75 mpg."
Yet, Toyota is still going to sell this on the same lots as their 15mpg Sequoia.
There will continue to be all sizes and shapes of vehicles. This is not the vehicle intended to compete with the Prius. Apples and oranges....
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 8, 2007 9:09:05 AM
Lots of GM bashing here.
For large vehicles GM is actually more fuel efficient then Toyota. The problem is for smaller vehicles either GM does not sell them or they are not as good as Toyota models. Each company has its good points.
http://autos.msn.com/research/compare/default.aspx?c=0&n=3&i=0&tb=0&ph1=t0&ph2=t0&dt=0&v=t102449&v=t103750&v=m12574
The link is to a comparo of the Sequoia to the Tahoe and Armada.
On larger vehicles GM as done quite well with mpg. With the Two Mode hybrid comming out the large Tahoe will get 25mpg highway. I don't want one, its too big for me but its a good thing for OTHER PEOPLE.
This is another product that fits in a new slot and does deliver GOOD MPG for its size and usually a very good price too.
Please don't compare this car to a Prius, its not in the same class. Not even when the new Prius comes out will they be, this is bigger car.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jul 8, 2007 11:27:42 AM
How does everyone magically know the next-gen Prius will still be smaller than this car? For all we know the next Prius by interior volume could be larger than the Malibu.
Posted by: toyo | Jul 8, 2007 3:03:52 PM
To compare this Malibu to the Prius makes little sense.
Posted by: Angelo | Jul 8, 2007 4:57:51 PM
looking at this model, is it that big of a surprise that the BIG 3 is going out of business?
this model only increases fuel economy slightly, but if they changed the slushbox to a 5 or a 6 speed auto instead of the archaic 4, it would probably have the same gains.
this model is only hybrid in name...
Posted by: danny | Jul 8, 2007 8:45:29 PM
The Chevy Malibu BAS seems to be about the same size as the Toyota Camry Hybrid but with less power and worse fuel economy for about $5000 less. When you throw in quality, and resale value, the Camry Hybrid wins hands down now, and when Toyota cuts the hybrid premium in half (2010??) it will be a no brainer.
Posted by: Van | Jul 8, 2007 9:20:22 PM
Van, the Malibu hybrid does not compete with the Camry hybrid because the Camry hybrid is (you say $5000 more) at least $7000 more. I did a comparo here, you need to add $1200 to the Malibu of course.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/toyota/camry/100699450/VehicleComparison?basestyleid=100699450&styleid=100727011&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=specs
As you can see the Malibu hybrid is CHEAPER then the BASE Camry non hybrid 4cyl. So for the same price you get better mpg with the hybrid Malibu.
THE BASE NON HYBRID MALIBU GETS BETTER MPG THEN THE CAMRY. Its also $2000 cheaper. Its obviously an option for many.
Yes, I admit the Camry is a better car but its a good deal more money and you will find bigger discounts on the Malibu as well.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jul 8, 2007 9:50:26 PM
I can never understand the negativity towards GM from many here. ANY increase in fuel efficiency should be applauded. Instead, many just complain about the efforts that are made in that direction. The above is a good example. GM is trying very hard, and people are still riding their high horses blasting them every time an article comes on this site. I think it can be agreed that it is not a huge step towards super efficiency, but it is a step none the less--and on a high volume vehicle also. So what is so wrong about that???
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jul 9, 2007 5:25:55 AM
Toyota pollutes the environment with their gas-thirsty Toyota Tundra and Toyota Sequoia. Could someone bother to calculate how much gas would be saved if everyone who purchased a Toyota Tundra or Sequoia instead bought a GM-built Silverado/Sierra or Tahoe/Yukon?
I would be willing to bet it would be far more gas saved than in purchasing the Toyota Prius vs. similar cars.
When are the Japanese going to stop killing the environment?
After doing that calculation, why don't you re-do it this fall when the 2-mode hybrid is available in GM's full-size SUVs. GM is ALREADY more fuel efficient in their full-size SUVs than is Toyota. Soon, they'll be 25% more fuel-efficient than they are now.
Posted by: Ryan | Jul 9, 2007 5:36:09 AM
Hi Hampden, my price difference was based on the estimate base price of the Malibu Hybrid being $22,000 and the known base price of the Camry Hybrid of $27,000.
If GM brings it in for less, then the price difference will be more than $5000. Time will tell.
Posted by: Van | Jul 9, 2007 7:17:44 AM
Van:
We've paid about +$5K for our (actual) Camry over (future?) Chevy's Malibu. With recent government subsidies, the difference is reduced to about +$2K. This is a real bargain because the Camry is a much better vehicule with much better resale value. Secondly, Toyota maintains that by 2010, the extra cost for Hybrid versions will be reduce to almost zero.
Why buy micro-hybrids while you can buy much better quality full hybrids for about the same (net) price?
Posted by: | Jul 9, 2007 9:12:37 AM
I believe that GM is only setting itself up for bashing by promoting this as a hybrid vehicle. They would be smart to call it an 'efficiency package' that could be added to the car and they could advertise it as such.
Part of the problem is that those looking for a hybrid are going to laugh right past this one. BUT if you are in the market for a mid-sized American car, and gas mileage is secondary to buying American - or whatever - then this could be a nice little way of getting those fence sitters over.
At worst, it could be really negative if those people don't see the fuel economy gains due to driving habits.. and complain about the product.
Good luck GM - you need it.
Posted by: Jon | Jul 9, 2007 9:35:31 AM
Re: Van
Wouldn't the Malibu also be subject to the tax credits as well? I know the Aura has been certified to receive them.
Posted by: Ryan | Jul 9, 2007 4:00:49 PM
You wrote:
Hi Hampden, my price difference was based on the estimate base price of the Malibu Hybrid being $22,000 and the known base price of the Camry Hybrid of $27,000.
If GM brings it in for less, then the price difference will be more than $5000. Time will tell.
----------------
The price is rumored to be $1200- $1800 more then the base making it more like a max of $19,000 which again is cheaper then the NON HYBRID 4cyl Camry. Time will tell.
If I only had $20,000 and I needed a new car that size I would pick the Malibu hybrid over the Camry non hybrid.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jul 9, 2007 5:39:28 PM
I can applaud efforts on any of the following improvements:
Lowering dependence on foreign fuel sources (ultimately: plug it in, plug it in)
Lowering use of fluids (replacing hydraulic with electric, using engines without oil sumps)
Replacing steel with composites (lighter, stronger in some applications, doesn’t rust or dent)
Replacing glass with plastic (lighter, harder to break, can be made as scratch resistant as glass))
Lower cost of operation (better mileage, more durability, less maintenance)
The new Malibu appears to be evolutionary and not revolutionary but it still represents progress. I was getting the same gas mileage in my 2000 Taurus but with more fluid systems so I have to say there is laudable progress here even if it is only incremental. More good things will follow, I’m sure.
BTW, driving from Denver, CO, to Moab, UT, (that’s over the Rocky Mountains) I got 32 to 33 MPG from my Taurus with the AC on. This has amazed some people but it is really very simple to drive efficiently in the mountains: have enough horsepower to stay in OD, anticipate hills by adding throttle toward them and slowly backing off the throttle as you climb up them (again, stay in OD), keep the tires hard, keep the oil fresh, keep the windows up, run the AC on internal recirculation, finesse the speed limit enough to stay in the powerband that will keep it in OD without “feeding the bears” (1970’s slang for “getting speeding tickets”).
My wife always gets 20% less gas mileage than I do because she lacks the capacity to finesse her driving habits (just a fact, not a condemnation or a criticism). In my experience, the biggest gain in fuel efficiency is in disciplined driving habits. Easy for some; impossible for some; improvable for many.
Posted by: Arthur | Jul 10, 2007 9:27:44 AM
Just to get it out of the way, I think GM stinks. They are one of the worst auto companies environmentally and quality-wise, but still probably better in quality than Ford and Chrysler.
You cannot compare similar sized GM cars to Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. The Japanese cars cost a premium for QUALITY. That thing that GM is still trailing with and will probably trail for the foreseeable future. The decline of US car makers was evident many years ago when the Japanese moved to 3 year development cycles for new models with the US car makers still around 5-6. US car makers are getting better, just not fast enough. Toyota has even started biting into the US truck market.
The big problem with +2 MPG on a "fake" hybrid Malibu is that it seems barely justifiable, since other technologies that have nothing to do with electric can give you equivalent MPG boost without needing the weak improvements GM has made (see Nissan Altima with CVT).
The other question is why can't GM come out with a full hybrid? The apologists will say: "it's in the pipeline" or "they don't need it yet" or "they sell too many cars to make it cost-effective and their suppliers can't give them enough parts". It's all BS. GM doesn't sell a full hybrid because IT CAN'T.
When American car makers start leading by example, I will start to appreciate their cars. I bought a Saturn SL2 and still regret it. It wasn't a terrible car, but it was much worse than the Japanese equivalent it was trying to emulate after about 3 years.
Detroit needs to get its head out of you-know-where.
- James
Posted by: James | Jul 13, 2007 4:46:00 PM
"Why buy micro-hybrids while you can buy much better quality full hybrids for about the same (net) price?"
Because I absolutely refuse to send any money to the racist, sexist, whale killing society that is Japan whenever there is any opportunity to deny them my money. I avoid supporting any society as hypocritical and innately evil as Japan at every opportunity.
Posted by: Yukaburbahoe | Jul 15, 2007 11:41:17 AM
Quote from James:
"The decline of US car makers was evident many years ago when the Japanese moved to 3 year development cycles for new models with the US car makers still around 5-6. US car makers are getting better, just not fast enough. Toyota has even started biting into the US truck market."
James, like many (maybe most?) posters on this board knows very little about autos or the auto industry. Please name one car from any car company on a 3-year development cycle? Not even the Whale Killers from that rapidly dieing island in the Pacific do that.
The quality gap between US and Asian automakers is virtually gone. The problem is that people like James are stuck in the past and buy the Toyota marketing hype and the bald-faced anti-American Auto bias of the mass media.
My favorite is when people on this board hold out the Europeans as quality leaders. They are about where the big 3 were 5 years ago on quality; look at any of the flawed, but still useful major quality rating systems, the Euros Suck!
Posted by: Yukaburbahoe | Jul 15, 2007 11:54:03 AM
Leave GM alone!
Posted by: Whiner McGee | Jul 15, 2007 1:03:12 PM
I have a 2000 v6 malibu, mostly highway driven, and I get just under 27 mpg. Usually its about 26.6-26.7 mpg. Why such a small increase in fuel economy over an 8 year period with competition that provides better figures with much better reliability??
I am better off getting a 07 v6 mailbu and get 30mpg and not have to worry about GM's new hybrid system. They have had problems with the front brakes and the intake mainifold leaking on this car for years 99-04 (brakes still no good). Now I am suppose to trust their engineers to make a reliable hybrid system, No thanks. Not a GM basher, I have had my malibu for 7 years and really enjoy it except for the 2 items I listed above. With as many customers that have had problems with these 2 items, the support from GM to rectify them has been very dissapointing.
Posted by: james | Oct 7, 2007 5:55:43 AM
A lot of you miss the point. Whether we call the Malibu a semi hybrid and not a full hybrid, is mute.
The idea people is to reduce our dependency on carbon based fuels, reduce emissions, and leave our children some air to breathe. Personally, I am proud of GM for making the effort, its a step in the right direction.
I can't get my wife, and my grandchildren in a SMART, nor would I want to !!
Posted by: Richard | Oct 17, 2007 8:23:51 AM
The Malibu Hybrid is the most affordable midsize hybrid sedan in the industry and comes with a standard ECOTEC 2.4L DOHC four-cylinder Hybrid engine with Variable Valve Timing (VVT) and four-speed automatic Hybrid transmission that has an EPA estimated MPG 24 city, 32 highway
Posted by: Ron | Nov 12, 2007 11:40:17 PM
Check out the 2008 Malibu Hybrid ... www.Hybrid-Malibu.blogspot.com
Posted by: Ron | Nov 12, 2007 11:42:24 PM
Toyota hybrids have EPA estimates of 50 mpg. Chevy is 32? I get 29 mpg in my 99 Malibu - which has over 100,000 miles. Jon Goodwin can retrofit a Hummer with batteries and a 60,000 rpm engine to get about 60 miles per gallon. http://popularlogistics.com/?s=hummer
If this is the best they can do it is no wonder GM is going down the tubes.
Posted by: XB Cold Fingers | Nov 28, 2007 9:24:42 AM
Cars are like religion and politics. If you people are such toyota homers why not go to a camry website for god's sake. And for the record, if you look at most of the reviews, which typically bias against detroit, it stacks up pretty well.
Posted by: jim | Dec 11, 2007 9:18:36 PM
and please don't compare the prius bubble car to a nice normal looking car like the malibu. The camry and accord are a fair comparison.
Posted by: jim | Dec 11, 2007 9:20:10 PM
What a peice of SHYT!!! only 2 mpg better than the 4-cyl. why bother? What a waste of resources for only 2 mpg better than the 4-cyl version. Toyota has got to be laughing at GM... even the saturn Aura hybrid was bad. 24 mpg! hahahaha doesn't the ford escape hybrid get better MPG than this? And it is an SUV. GM, this is why you guys are hurting. Good idea on paper but something went seriously wrong when you put your "ideas" in motion. Time to go back to the drawing board before it is too late for you GM. Opps... it seems it is already too late for you GM.
Posted by: Tom | Jul 25, 2008 7:28:31 AM
