do not like. better then the current one though.

 

Interior looks a lot better than what I'd expect from GM.

 

Up to now I always liked the Malibu for a sedan.... except for those tail lights. Good to see that they cleaned that up.

 

If 2.0 turbo at 250hp is the best you can do in this car, then it really is not for me. If you could fit in at least a 300hp 3.7liter N/A v6, then I would start thinking about it.

 

Front doesn't look like the Cruze at all.

 

Bless their hearts, GM is trying...

 

not great but definitely better than the current. i kinda dig it, and that interior is pretty cool lookin too

 

I consider myself to be in possession of a decent eye for detail, but I got a full-on "what did they change?" vibe the first time I saw that front end.

 

I like it.. Really like it.... Id buy one..

 

eh.
not bad, but not amazing.
me thinks the cruze's front end look is going to be the face of chevrolet

 

Same here, I really like the look

For an every day beater 250hp is good ---> dropped my GT500 off to finally get the clutch taken care of and even as bad as it was slipping (had the slowest GT500 with the best gas mileage in the history of GT500's was getting almost 17mpg around town! ) I was able to keep up and even pass some people (no exaggeration). How bad was it, up until about 3000 rpm, anything more than 1/4 throttle and the clutch would slip like crazy and even then, depressing the pedal more than half to maintain speed would cause it to slip.

Now from a speed junky standpoint, this malibu is missing about 165hp

 

No V6s anymore. Just 4-cyl.

How many mid-size family sedans have 300 hp these days? Unless we're talking luxury cars, I don't think any of them do.

 

that interior looks pretty swank!

 

I like it!

 

Sorry. Had a turbo... been there, done that.. I will never get one again on a car that needs to be reliable, especially on an everyday family car. And sub 200 hp 4 cyl is not anything different from everything else out there. If Chevy were famous for its quality, then that would be different. V6 is not dead yet. There are family cars that still have them. The only reason for me to consider a car from a company with less than stellar reliability is for bag for the buck. A 2.0 turbo might sound nice in europe, but here the reliability of a larger N/A engine still has its appeal.

I do have a Toyota Sienna with a V6 that makes somewhere around 250 hp. It really is not bad at all. It is so far the best car I have ever owned (still have not taken delivery of the mustang). If Chevy had 250 hp coming from a N/A engine, I would maybe start considering it. Turbo, no way. If they could get 300 hp into something that small, it would be amazing. As it sounds now, it is a decent car that still will likely lose out to many other worthy competitors that have better reliability.

 

You can still get a 2011 or 2012 Malibu with a 3.6L V6 engine (252 hp).

 

A 3.6 liter going to a 2.0L turbo is not what I call progress. If the 2012 has a 252 hp N/A engine, a better exciting car would have even more without a turbo. A lot of companies can make a car look nice, but if Chevy ever wants my business they will have to make a car that beats others. This is okay, but certainly not what I would expect from a new and improved model. Sports styling with bad engines? That does not sound like a good combo.

 

A 3.6 liter going to a 2.0L turbo is not what I call progress. If the 2012 has a 252 hp N/A engine, a better exciting car would have even more without a turbo. A lot of companies can make a car look nice, but if Chevy ever wants my business they will have to make a car that beats others. This is okay, but certainly not what I would expect from a new and improved model. Sports styling with bad engines? That does not sound like a good combo.

 

More power & better fuel economy. Where is bad? Reliability? Impossible to tell anything about reliability ... yet.
Should we all stay away from Ford's EcoBoost engines then?