MxRacer
Hard-core CEG'er
not feeling the ass of that car at all. love the interior though.
-
Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.
You can register to join the community.
New Malibu not bad
- Thread starter todras
- Start date
PurpleMystique
Hard-core CEG'er
The back of the car is ugly. But it has a nice interior.
Last edited:
91HellCat
CEG'er
I agree that the back end looks bad. Seems like they spent 99% of the time designing the front end and 1% designing the rear. Overall it is a nice looking car inside and out. Now the Corvette isn't the only car Chevy makes that I would buy.
the more I look at this car, the more I like it.
I have been progressively reading more information on the new malibu, I used to tell people to buy a fusion because its 3 grand less... But really for the extra 3 grand you get 3 grand more of a car, GM really did see their mistake with the malibu, and instead of putting it out to pasture, like Ford did with the Contour, they really are trying to nurse it back to health.
I have been progressively reading more information on the new malibu, I used to tell people to buy a fusion because its 3 grand less... But really for the extra 3 grand you get 3 grand more of a car, GM really did see their mistake with the malibu, and instead of putting it out to pasture, like Ford did with the Contour, they really are trying to nurse it back to health.
Rara
Hard-core CEG'er
It still needs some help, but it is definately a HUGE step forward for GM, they have been improving steadily over the last couple of years.
Plus, I'm going to jump on the "don't bash pushrods" bandwagon. There is nothing at all wrong with a well designed pushrod valvetrain. Different applications call for different design considerations, and sometimes the very best choice is a pushrod design. And may I also remind people that the OHC valvetrain layout is OLDER than the pushrod valvetrain layout . . . So, calling pushrods in the generic sense ancient is pretty ironic.
btw, HTM, I know you were referring to those specific engines and not pushrods in general
Plus, I'm going to jump on the "don't bash pushrods" bandwagon. There is nothing at all wrong with a well designed pushrod valvetrain. Different applications call for different design considerations, and sometimes the very best choice is a pushrod design. And may I also remind people that the OHC valvetrain layout is OLDER than the pushrod valvetrain layout . . . So, calling pushrods in the generic sense ancient is pretty ironic.
btw, HTM, I know you were referring to those specific engines and not pushrods in general
svt4stv
Hard-core CEG'er
meh, less meh than before, but meh none-the-less.
the commerical is funny as hell however! :laugh:
the commerical is funny as hell however! :laugh:
It still needs some help, but it is definately a HUGE step forward for GM, they have been improving steadily over the last couple of years.
Plus, I'm going to jump on the "don't bash pushrods" bandwagon. There is nothing at all wrong with a well designed pushrod valvetrain. Different applications call for different design considerations, and sometimes the very best choice is a pushrod design. And may I also remind people that the OHC valvetrain layout is OLDER than the pushrod valvetrain layout . . . So, calling pushrods in the generic sense ancient is pretty ironic.
btw, HTM, I know you were referring to those specific engines and not pushrods in general
Over head cams have been around for a long time, I think Duesenburg used over head cams in the 1930's and pushrod motors TECHNICALLY aren't that old of technology, however.. GM has a nasty tendency to be extremely conservative in the powertrain department, which worked fine 20 years ago, and I will say they have a couple of good old engines that are perfectly proven, but there is different technology that is proven to be more efficent and more powerful and just as, if not more, reliable then the stuff they already use. The American car market has high demand for good fuel economy, but we wont sacrifice power for fuel economy, and wont go with the alternatives (diesel) because it failed so badly in the past. Gm's new v6 coming in 2009 is supposedly going to put down 300+ horsepower and still achieve a highway fuel economy of 30 MPG. SIGN ME UP! I would love to have that.
There is one thing I am now bothered by, GM has been slowly phasing out their 3800 motor because its "old" I dont know why they are doing this, what GM should have done is scraped their I5 motor they used in the Colorado and put the 3800 motor in there. More power, more torque, similar fuel economy.
Last edited:
Honkeytonk Monkey
CEG'er
btw, HTM, I know you were referring to those specific engines and not pushrods in general
In terms of packaging and weight alone a pushrod engine is a brilliant choice. More room in the engine bay means less wasted space and more room to move other components under the hood, meaning less wasted space elsewhere in the car. Packaging is a good thing. More head clearance means the engine an be moved further back in the car improving weight distribution even more. Win-win.
Silver Snake
CEG'er
The Direct Injection version of their new 3.6L in the new CTS is already delivering 300HP and 26mpg highway (under the new EPA test regime, which is more severe).
-Todd
teamSVTour
Hard-core CEG'er
Saw a Malibu today. I confirmed the rear is as hideous in person as it is in the pics.