2005 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx

[BMWDave]

Link



July 26, 2005

Test Drive:
2005 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx
Review and photos by Haney Louka


Whether this car interests or bores you is a reflection of how pragmatic your approach to car shopping is. Does your heart-rate beat a little faster when you hit the gas, or are you more concerned about the increased fuel consumption during acceleration?

The Maxx version of Chevy's bread-and-butter Malibu sedan undoubtedly earned its moniker in reference to the added utility that it affords its driver and passengers. Rather than the standard three-box shadow that its more pedestrian sedan sibling casts, the Maxx is a part-wagon, part-hatchback affair. While it's not the most aesthetically pleasing shape to be sure, it answers in a unique way the question of how to maximize utility and versatility in a car-sized package.


$26,495 gets buyers in the door of the Malibu Maxx LS. Standard equipment includes a 200-hp V-6, air conditioning, anti-lock brakes, traction control, a unique rear skylight, six-speaker CD audio, 16-inch alloy wheels, tilt and telescoping wheel, and power locks and windows.

Step up to the Maxx LT and 31,805 loonies will leave your wallet. The list of standard goodies grows to include a rear spoiler, fog lights, a body kit, automatic climate control, remote starter, side and head curtain airbags, OnStar, and leather trim on the otherwise suede-like seats.

Despite being badged an LS, our tester was an LT and had a couple of extras: the $1,445 DVD entertainment system and $1,065 power glass sunroof for a total price of $35,315 including A/C tax and destination.

Now that may seem like a lot of dough for a Malibu, but since the General has a penchant for offering hefty incentives, one could be reasonably confident that the price on the sticker isn't representative of what buyers dish out before they drive off the lot.

While the base Malibu sedan can be ordered with a 2.2-litre Ecotec four-banger, all Maxx models come with the General's 3.5-litre pushrod V-6 with two valves per cylinder. It's the same engine found under the hood of the G6 sedan and GM's new family of "sport crossover vehicles" - the Chevy Uplander et al.

The six-pot produces 200 hp at 5,400 rpm and 220 lb-ft of torque at 3,200 rpm. Power hits the pavement at the front wheels and is managed by a four-speed automatic transmission - a familiar recipe for anybody that's seen a GM sedan in the past two decades.

And that's where the surprise is - despite the dated technology that comprises the Malibu's running gear, it does its job quite well. Where the same engine in a van is overwhelmed by the weight it's lugging around, the torquey unit moves the Malibu with considerable ease. And because it has a broad torque curve, four gears are enough for the transmission even though that's one less than most competitors offer with their overhead cam engines.

Another perk of this powertrain: the Maxx consumed only 7.6 litres per 100 km on the highway and 10.5 in the city during its time with me. That's pretty close to the published figures of 6.7 and 10.5, considering that the highway loop used in official testing carries an average speed of only 77 km/h, with a top speed of 97 km/h.

The Maxx also had fine manners on the road. It covered the kilometres in a refined (although somewhat noisy) manner, thanks to its solid Epsilon platform which it shares with the Saab 9-3 and Pontiac G6.


It should be known, though, that while the Malibu does its job well, it is still an appliance for use by those for whom driving is one of life's necessities and not an enjoyable pastime. The sounds coming from under the hood don't exactly encourage spirited driving, and the steering is over-boosted and lacks feel.

The utility-sans-emotion motif inherent in the Malibu's driving manners is carried through to its interior. While functional, it does little to get its owners excited about being behind the wheel. It's a comfortable highway cruiser, to be sure, with decent seats and a roomy interior.

But visually, the interior is awash in acres of grey and black plastic with only a few examples of metallic brightwork that seem like an afterthought.


Nonetheless, controls are well placed, including the cruise and redundant stereo controls mounted on the wheel. The automatic climate control does its job effectively and the stereo and DVD system provide crisp sound that kept the family entertained. My only quibble about the DVD player? It folds up from the rear of the centre console, which is a great idea. It would be nice, though, to be able to swivel that screen in case a single passenger on one side wanted a clearer view.

Passengers are what the Malibu is all about. The rear bench slides fore and aft to allow people to vary the proportion of passenger space to cargo space. Riding on a wheelbase that's 152 mm longer than the Malibu sedan's, the Maxx affords its rear passengers a cavernous 1,042 mm of legroom.

Ahead of the Maxx's large liftgate resides 646 litres of cargo space, more than 200 better than in the trunk of the sedan. Once the split rear bench is folded, there are 1161 litres of stuff space. The cargo hold incorporates an odd removable parcel shelf that can sit on one or two levels on ledges that are moulded into the interior panels.

It's appealing in concept, but the shelf often got in the way since it stayed horizontal when the liftgate was opened rather than going up with the door.

The Malibu impressed me with how well it goes about its business. Is the Malibu Maxx for you? It's a solid, refined ride that's high on versatility and low on drama - the perfect choice for the pragmatic car shopper.

[ifcar]

Individual reviews.

Is the MAXX a nice car? Yes. Is it practical? Yes, compared to a sedan. Is it the "perfect choice for the pragmatic car shopper"? Of course not, if I'm reading them right that means that they consider it the best practicality for the money. But the MAXX is significantly down on cargo space compared to other wagons, and several offer far more space for similar money.

Had they looked at more than one car at once, they would have discovered this very easily.  

[bobwill]

I like the Malibu Maxx.  I would take it over any Chevy, Honda, or Toyota.  Well, except for the Accord EX V-6 Coupe with 6-speed. :)

Running through the list of wagons on Edmunds, including 2005 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx LT 4dr Hatchback (3.5L 6cyl 4A), 2005 Mazda MAZDA6s Grand Touring 4dr Sport Wagon (3.0L 6cyl 6A), 2005 Volkswagen Jetta GLS 4dr Wagon (2.0L 4cyl 4A), and 2005 Subaru Legacy 2.5i Limited AWD 4dr Wagon (2.5L 4cyl 4A), I made the following observations:

• The Maxx is one of the cheapest that I could think of, with a True Market Value for the Maxx LT going at roughly $22,000 it's about $3500 cheaper than a Mazda6, only $1500 more expensive than a Jetta, and about $2000 cheaper than a Legacy.
• Of the cars listed the Maxx has the best gas mileage, except for the Jetta which manages slightly better city mileage, but slightly worse for highway mileage.  They didn't have mileage listed for the subaru.
• The Maxx has the best head room, shoulder room, second best front leg room, and absoulute best rear leg room.  The Maxx's hip room wasn't listed
• Compared to these wagons it has the absolute worst cargo room.

My question, the rear legroom was obviously taken with the seats pushed all the way to the back.  What is the cargo room with that set up?  The say that it's max cargo room, so I doubt that they had the rear seats pushed back for that measurement, but who knows, they might have, but that would seem to be mislabled as it isn't the maxx. Yeah, horrible pun, wasn't it.  I can't seem to find a source that wants to give both figures.  Hey Ifcar, you like visiting dealerships, you wanna take a tape measure with you next time? :)

[ifcar]

Maximum cargo room is with the rear seats folded flat, it doesn't matter which position they'd be in.

A hatchback simply cannot provide the same amount of cargo space as a wagon-style vehicle. Nothing can.

[bobwill]

Maximum cargo room is with the rear seats folded flat, it doesn't matter which position they'd be in.

A hatchback simply cannot provide the same amount of cargo space as a wagon-style vehicle. Nothing can.

I kind of suspected as much, but didn't want to believe it.  The Maxx is only listed as having 22 cubic feet of cargo space.  The Jetta's the largest with 34 cubic feet.  That seems small to me, for having the seats folded flat.  I mean, my Saturn has a 14.7 cubic foot trunk with the seats up.

[ifcar]

Maximum cargo room is with the rear seats folded flat, it doesn't matter which position they'd be in.

A hatchback simply cannot provide the same amount of cargo space as a wagon-style vehicle. Nothing can.

I kind of suspected as much, but didn't want to believe it.  The Maxx is only listed as having 22 cubic feet of cargo space.  The Jetta's the largest with 34 cubic feet.  That seems small to me, for having the seats folded flat.  I mean, my Saturn has a 14.7 cubic foot trunk with the seats up.

A lot of that 22 cubic feet is in the right place, at least (floor space). It's much more useful than the 22 cubic feet that a Scion xB or Ford Five Hundred have behind their rear seats. The hatch's angle just cuts into the total volume.