Motor Trend's mountain of praise for the 1997 Malibu

[Jesda]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/one ... ewall.html

...a generous interior surrounded by a svelte exterior, confidence-inspiring ride and handling, taut steering feel, firm seats, well-placed controls with rewarding switchgear feel, a plethora of thoughtful features, potent acceleration, and a fun-to-drive attitude.

Last time I was near one of those cars I was able to shove my index finger in between the trunklid and body. The panel gaps were big enough to drop a meteor in. Then there was the dumpy interior and mushy ride and steering. At least the transmissions were good, as GM automatics typically are. Overall, they weren't terribly unreliable but they certainly weren't anything I would name "Car of the Year" with a straight face.

The Accord was a much better car.

[raremotive]

Psst.. GM to jesda... I pay you off like those motortrend guys to say good things about our cars, your wallet and you will both be happy.

[alms24sebring]

^ lol

97 Malibu is the definition of a mediocre car.

[mmkeller]

uuugh! looked at these before I bought the CR-V back then. Cheap, right down to the bone.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I still liked that generation better than its chisel-faced successor. At least that generation managed to convince ITSELF that it had charm. The followup was spectacularly cheap, drab and bland even in hotted-up SS guise.

I would never own either, and may prefer to walk rather than rent either.

I have two friends who own 2005 Malibus and LOVE them. Both of them have bodywork that's threatening to fall off and interiors that look like they've endured 20 years of wear. I don't understand where the love for these cars stems from.

As to Motor Trend:
I've never had ANYTHING positive to say about that spine-bound wad of toilet paper. It's a gigantic advertisement, far more worried about glossy photos than journalism. Their "[x product] Of the Year" is universally and reliably the newest entry in any given segment. You can predict it like clockwork, because that's all it is.
I have a free subscription to MT from attending one of their Auto Expo events, and every time I open an issue I find my urge to smash things rising dramatically until I set it aside...in the garbage can.

[Bubba1]

Their "[x product] Of the Year" is universally and reliably the newest entry in any given segment. You can predict it like clockwork, because that's all it is.

This^. MT has given Car of the Year honors to such awful cars as the Chevy Vega, Chevy Citation, and Ford mustang II. Gotta take that into consideration.

[Jesda]

MT's grammar and spelling are horrid. My MT subscription was a bonus for signing up for Automobile Magazine.


I miss David E Davis Jr articles in Automobile but Jamie Kitman, the pretentious a-hole he is, is an absolute joy to read. Jennings and Dyer are great too.


Automobile's design expert Robert Cumberford had the guts to ask Cadillac's lead designer why the XTS is so fugly:
http://rumors.automobilemag.com/detroit ... 00975.html

Cumberford: The XTS has unfortunate proportions. It looks like a front-wheel-drive car.
Boniface: Well, front-wheel drive is sometimes hard to disguise, the front overhang…
Cumberford: The best thing is not to do it.

IN YOUR FACE, CADILLAC!

[raremotive]

Link: http://rumors.automobilemag.com/detroit ... 00975.html

[hannibal]

Those things may be true for the first 100 miles. After that, body panel gaps open up like the Grand Canyon and the chassis moans more than a p0rn star.

However, I actually like the styling of the 2008+ Malibu...

[Jesda]

The current Malibu is a pretty damn good car. I'm reserving judgement for the 2013 model coming this spring.

[raremotive]

Current Malibu is a looker alright, always manages to get me to steal looks at it when I drive by one.

2013 Model rear is...out-of place a bit. I actually like the flat look on the current one.

[300ZXttZMAN]

^ lol

97 Malibu is the definition of a mediocre car.

This is what I was thinking uhh why is motor trend even talking about the Malibu they are just plain economy cars... We have crushed tons of them they always get parted out hard because anything you can imagine breaks on them.

[numbnuts240]

the article is from 1998.

[300ZXttZMAN]

the article is from 1998.

Well duh why on earth would they be talking about that heap of crap at this day and age haha.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Minus the confused tail lights, I am VERY fond of the current Malibu's styling. The next gen is nice, but not as attractive. It got taller and blobbier and, despite more numerous creases, looks less tight overall. I like the new tail lights but miss the C-pillar from the current-gen.

What really matters, though, is what's under the hood.
GM needs to give us an LLT-powered SS Malibu. 315hp please. And no effing AWD to add pounds to counter the added foot-pounds.

Automobile's design expert Robert Cumberford had the guts to ask Cadillac's lead designer why the XTS is so fugly:
http://rumors.automobilemag.com/detroit ... 00975.html

Cumberford: The XTS has unfortunate proportions. It looks like a front-wheel-drive car.
Boniface: Well, front-wheel drive is sometimes hard to disguise, the front overhang…
Cumberford: The best thing is not to do it.

IN YOUR FACE, CADILLAC!

I owe Mr. Cumberford a beer.
I'd have been more blunt though.

MoD: The XTS has unfortunate proportions. It looks like a FWD car.
Boniface: Well, Front-wheel drive is sometimes hard to disguise, the front overhang...
MoD: *Whips out pictures of the last 20 years of gorgeous, masterfully proportioned FWD Cadillacs.*
Boniface: *sputters awkwardly*
MoD: Also this. *whips out this picture.
Boniface: *shifts in his seat nervously*
MoD: Your excuses mean nothing to me. Cadillac set the bar for FWD luxury sedans. Falling behind now is pathetic. Call me when you design a car that doesn't look like a bloated corpse. And tell your daughter I said "hi."

[numbnuts240]

the article is from 1998.

Well duh why on earth would they be talking about that heap of crap at this day and age haha.

i was answering your question as to why they were talking about it. it was still new and hadn't yet proved itself to be a pos. yes it was just an economy car at that time, but it's motor trend, it's what they do, review new cars. in the short time they had it as a "long-term vehicle" it met/exceeded their expectations at that time.

[MinisterofDOOM]

in the short time they had it as a "long-term vehicle" it met/exceeded their expectations at that time.

it met/exceeded their expectations at that time.

their expectations at that time.

Problem: found.

[numbnuts240]

first two words of the thread title should have explained everything. that being said, i actually have a subscription to MT (my niece was selling them, don't judge me). i enjoy it as toilet reading material only to find out what's coming out and see stats. i take everything they write about how the cars actually behave with a grain assault (sorry, i had to).

[skydragoness]

in the short time they had it as a "long-term vehicle" it met/exceeded their expectations at that time.

it met/exceeded their expectations at that time.

their expectations at that time.

Problem: found.

[audtatious]

Should make comments on the linked article about how MT should be ashamed of themselves. Musta been paid off by UAW

[srphoenix]

great cupholders on that thing though right?

[Jesda]

great cupholders on that thing though right?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=praFGD51ih8[/youtube]