With 3.9 liters of pushrod power going through the front tires, it seems to owner really took the philosophy behind the Malibu SS to heart. Odd that Chevy–and not Saab–got a 5-door version of this chassis. I believe that the front seats of this generation of Malibu were given special attention during development, and were either made in France or designed by a French company (which is strange because they were quite firm in the German idiom). The Epsilon was also a nice, rigid basis for the Malibu and was well-isolated with the hydroformed aluminum subframe. With the huge rear seat with fixed T-top-esque glass on top (cooler, in my book than a panoramic room), I always had a soft spot for these.
There were obviously some cheap touches, but GM put in an honest effort. Glad to see someone enjoying it.
I really liked these and looked a several used examples in the past couple years but they only made them for four model years. I guess the reason being they would rather sell you a small SUV instead . Of course I would prefer a 5 speed manual but none was ever available in any of the FWD Malibu. It would be the perfect car to throw my bicycle in the hatch back and pulling my twelve foot aluminum boat .
I also like these when they came out 10 years ago, but the timing was bad for me, I wasn’t looking for a car at the time, and by 2008 they were no longer selling new ones…and they appear to be pretty scarce as used cars. I’m not an SUV kind of person, if the Maxx didn’t get great fuel economy, since it was not offered with anything other than a 6 with automatic, I would think an SUV wouldn’t even get equivalent fuel milage.
The funny thing to me is the hatchback/wagon haziness…this car seems to be classified by some people as a hatchback, others as a wagon…I know it is semantics, but it is confusing. The Vibe had a similar vagueness….I think that if there is even a very small side window behind the rear door, people tend to classify it as a wagon, despite the window becoming smaller as time goes on (compared to original full sized wagons which have a large side window behind the rear door). Also, there are seemingly very few mid-sized hatchbacks, and as I like spacious cars, this one was pretty attactive, especially with the large rear seat. How long has it been since we had an Accord hatchback (well, other than the Crosstour?), Camry hatchback, or 626? (Though I think they are offered in other markets, we don’t tend to get them in the US…that’s what originally drew me to the Maxx). The only wagon I’ve ever owned was a ’72 Fiat 128 (2 door), but I’ve had lots of hatchbacks (the only body style I’ve owned since 1981).
I didn’t much care about the SS model, seems like Chevrolet had an SS trim for just about every model car it sold during this time (about 8 years ago). I just hope he’s careful with taking the car into the carwash, especially with that rear antenna, it looks to me like it is already bent at an odd angle…not too many Maxx’s left, don’t want to damage the remaining ones.
This was a really sharp looking car that caught my attention before I noticed the “badge-on performance.” I rented a MAXX on a business trip once, and other than hating the IP layout (I felt this way about pretty much every GM product from this era), the rest of the car was pretty nice.
Maybe that is what I should have bought instead of a Pontiac Vibe?
There are two things that kept me from looking into it: somehow the proportions were not looking right to me. The front overhang is quite normal which made the rear overhang appear to short.
The other thing was fuel consumption. I suppose I missed to appreciate the inner values of this car.
I wonder if I am the only one who judged this book by the cover.
Though the front end did nothing for me, overall I liked the MAXX… sort of a big Impreza. If all wheel drive had been available it might have been a contender in it’s day.
The Maxx was better looking than the ‘normal’ Malibu. I do have a thing for 5 door hatches though. However, a v6 fwd coupled to a slushbox isn’t exactly ‘SS’ material. Id prefer it was a V8 rwd, but even the turbocharged Cobalt and HHR SS models have a place. They have the style and the upgraded performance to wear the badge.
I thought these were the ugliest boxes on wheels when they came out, but I have to admit it’s aged well and does indeed look much better than the sedan. I still don’t care for the dilution of the SS badge though, what a joke.
Didn’t the marketing campaign for these throw the N body Malibu under the bus as being a dull car? It was very true of course but it certainly reeked of the “not your father’s Oldsmobile” ads.
That was actually the 2008 Malibu… “The Car You Can’t Ignore” They never actually mentioned that it was an older Malibu body… but I remember thinking “Really? Couldn’t they have used a Camry/Accord/Sebring/etc?”
(although they technically used a 1997-1999 Cutlass in the ad… same thing, though):
Looks like a mini-hearse, but doesn’t have a Lincoln or Caddy hood ornament. I personally don’t know why folks like hatchbacks, I think they are they fugliest of cars especially the Malibu.
For some folks, practicality trumps looks. And honestly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I’m sure there are those who prefer the look of a hatchback. Then again, some such as the Mazda 6 were indistinguishable from their sedan counterparts.
Sure, I totally agree with you in regards to car style. There is no “objective” true car look. I just think hatchbacks/wagons look lame as all get out, and I don’t see any out to it. I can kinda see why a Roadmaster is cool, sorta, but not much else. I’m a Brougham fan, I love the baroque gingerbread stuff, I know some folks think it looks chintzy. I think the spartan Germanic stuff looks “meh” but I can appreciate where folks who like that are coming from.
Wagons/hatchbacks? They’re not terribly practical, they make luxury cars and whatever else look stupidly pedestrian/trying too hard hipsterish.
For example, I recently perused the Mercedes Benz website and they make an AMG wagon. Now, who in the hell is going to spend over $100K on a freakin’ WAGON. A WAGON?!
If I have enough scratch to buy a Benz, let alone an AMG Benz, I’m sure as hell not going to be hauling random sh!t in it. I can buy a couple fleets of old beater trucks or SUVs to haul crap for the price of an AMG wagon. No, if I have the scratch but I want a sleeper, I’m getting an S class. Five hundred some HP is going to easily smoke any punk in a tricked out econobox no matter how big the spoiler is. If I want to carry people or subs, big sedan or SUV all the way. Wagon? Really?!
If I want a Chevy with the SS tag on it, again, why the hell am I getting a hatchback? Holy crap, do I really want to race soccer moms in their Town and Country vans? If I just want a bike rack mounted on my two hitch to be a player in the granola crowd, I’d be much better served with a Subaru.
wagons and hatchbacks rule
Posted May 8, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Malibu Maxx is awesome. It looks SO much better than the versions with trunks.
Sedans these days are mostly useless. Big old sedans are great. But styling of current sedans are basically hatchbacks with trunks. The trunk lids are ridiculously short due to the roofline and rear window extending almost all the way back to the rear edge of the car. If the trunk lid and rear window were simply fused as a single opening and hinged at the top of the rear window, styling would be identical, yet the opening would be big enough to actually put stuff into it.
Sean Cornelis
Posted May 9, 2014 at 12:21 AM
Wagons/hatchbacks? They’re not terribly practical, they make luxury cars and whatever else look stupidly pedestrian/trying too hard hipsterish.
Huh? How is there anything more practical than a car with a massive cargo area at the rear, a large additional door to access it and the ability to fold down the rear seats? The SUVs that you would prefer are nothing but tall wagons with a lot of ground clearance.
But don’t get me wrong, I toooootally get why enormous SUVs and pickups are practical daily drivers. How else are you going to get your 6 homeschooled children to Wal-Mart if you live in a jungle or atop a mountain without paved roads? Gotta buy more ammo for when they try forcin’ everyone to live in the FEMA camps! Since this is such a common scenario for most Americans, a nation full of sensible and pragmatic regular folk, it makes perfect sense that ladder frame, 5,000lb.+ SUVs and pickups are the best selling vehicles in the country.
Jim Klein
Posted May 9, 2014 at 5:18 AM
If there is a wagon available I will always choose it over the sedan version, ESPECIALLY if it’s an AMG, M, or S. it has nothing to do with being concerned about what others think, I stopped worrying about that sometime in high school. Practicality, speed, handling, what is there not to love?
nlpnt
Posted May 9, 2014 at 6:03 AM
The AMG wagon is indeed the ultimate niche car – the car to have if you can only have one car for everything but can afford to spend $100k plus on it. Upper East Side of Manhattan dwellers come to mind (can Triborough or another NYCer confirm?) It is, nonetheless, awesome for that reason.
The further down the price scale you get, the more a hot 5-door makes rational sense, but *no* car with a six-figure price tag makes rational sense so the AMG wagon loses no points for that.
And “Go Comets!!!” should be on a Mercury.
dominic1955
Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:13 AM
“Huh? How is there anything more practical than a car with a massive cargo area at the rear, a large additional door to access it and the ability to fold down the rear seats? The SUVs that you would prefer are nothing but tall wagons with a lot of ground clearance.”
Outside of something as big as a Roadmaster Estate (or other brand equivalent), which isn’t made anymore, nothing has the capacity for hauling that a truck or SUV has. My old Explorer(s), especially the 2002, could swallow a loveseat whole and still have room for more. When I was in school, I could pack up all my belongings I had in my cell and go for the summer. None of the wagons currently offered can touch that.
Smart-assery aside, no road conditions commonly experienced (sorry, didn’t have a mountain or jungle handy for tests) could stop my Explorers either. That ground clearance/4WD makes a difference and made crappy conditions that would stop many cars seem almost downright enjoyable.
So a wide range of practical hauling space for people and things and getting around in crappy weather isn’t new wagon territory. OK…comes around back to what I said about not being terribly practical (because that extra door sure as hell doesn’t make it go any faster or carve corners any better) enough to justify its wonky looks, even less so if its a luxury marque.
Continuing with my little soapbox rant on subjective tastes, I guess I see luxury as needing a fairly healthy dose of impractibility otherwise it looses luxury points. Any big luxury flagship has plenty of space to haul around the only sorts of things luxury people should be hauling around, i.e. a case of fine scotch or bespoke suits. Such things should also be shielded from worldling view by a proper trunk, preferrably one that can be closed automatically.
One doesn’t buy a luxury car because they see cars as merely a device to get you from point A to point B. Its a visible declaration of your well-to-do-ness or attempt to claim such. I mean, at the low end of the spectrum ghetto folks don’t buy that beat up Caddy or former taxi Town Car for its practically, they buy it for the image they think it exudes. If a person isn’t looking for an “image”, a similar condition Accord or Corolla is probably a much better choice for gas mileage, cost to fix and maintain, etc. If you want a practical hauler, why pay the extra $$$ to have a three pointed star on the front end? If you want to project an image, you’re not succeeding at it with that soccermom ass-end behind the three pointed star.
Thus endeth the rant.
Sean Cornelis
Posted May 9, 2014 at 8:18 AM
nlpnt – Upper East Side is indeed Benz wagon heaven. Even though M-B only imports them at a rate in the double digits per year, I’ve seen a whole bunch of E63 wagons – including a brand new one in the village on Wednesday. The old Mercedes-Benz of Manhattan showroom on Park Avenue often had them on display, too. Wagons in general are much more popular in NYC than they are in most of the U.S.
If I could afford it, I would absolutely have one of these!!
Sean Cornelis
Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:02 AM
dominic1955 – You’re right, I forgot that most people have a frequent need to haul loveseats and other large pieces of furniture in their cars. How silly of me. I’m constantly left scratching my head wondering how I’ll fit that dang armoire or grandfather clock inside the tiny hatch of my Saab.
As for the rest, I hate this kind of “these people drive this car, those people drive that car” logic and image obsession. Like Jim Klein said up above, some of us got over that crap when we were in 10th grade.
Phil
Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM
Sean, if you are “over that crap”, why do you keep posting condescending remarks about trucks?
I’ll buy whatever vehicle I want, for whatever reasons I want, and I couldn’t care less what people think of it. Be it an econobox, wagon, sports hatch, minivan, SUV or pickup. All of which I’ve owned.
dominic1955
Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:42 AM
Oh, don’t act all snarky butt-hurt, I think I wrote “subjective tastes” somewhere up there…
Anyway, then if you don’t want to have the option of having something that can help you or others move and the sort but you still want more cargo space, what do you use that extra car space for? I wouldn’t think a person would buy enough groceries to make that matter. Any decent sized sedan trunk/back seat will swallow what your average suburbanite will throw at it, even more so if you can fold down seats or even if you can just open a little trap door.
About the only “wagon” I really get is a hearse. Totally makes sense why you’d want a classy car specifically altered to haul something. Maybe certain wagons fit larger doggie/kitty cages the best, maybe that’s its niche?
Image doesn’t matter-except to those it does matter to. It also might not matter, but its built in regardless and no one is naive enough to be able to ignore that. I might not give a damn what other people think, but a person doesn’t drive around in something that they despise unless out of sheer necessity nor do they buy something like a Benz and think of it as merely a transportation device…
Chris M
Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:56 AM
Practicality is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I’m almost certain my next car will be a wagon. My wife and I will hope to have a child sometime in the next few years, so I’ll need something that can carry a stroller without having to be folded up, plus all the assocaited flotsam and jetsam that seem to come with children these days. However, we don’t currently plan to have more than one, so I’m not going to force myself into a minivan for just one. And I personally strongly dislike SUVs…needlessly tall, can’t carry as much as a pickup or a van, too-upright seating position, poor gas mileage for the performance, don’t take well to spirited driving…I could go on.
So for me a wagon fits the bill perfectly. At the top of the current wishlist would be a Cadillac CTS Sportwagon (a few years old as I’m not made of money) or an Acura TSX wagon (might be able to swing CPO there.) And I don’t think the wagon tail end negates the appeal of the front end…in the Caddy’s case it could be argued that, with its steeply raked C-pillar, it’s equally attractive.
Sean Cornelis
Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:31 AM
Phil – Because if I’m using dominic’s logic of “wagons must be driven by people who are hipsters or granola hippies, luxury cars must be driven by people who have a need to transport ‘bespoke suits’ (LOL), minivans must be driven by soccermoms, beat up Town Cars must be driven by hood rats, etc.” that’s where fullsize SUVs fit in. I like SUVs and I’ve owned a bunch, too – I’m just trying to make my subjective tastes sound as narrow-minded and stereotypical as this.
Plus, I mean as much as I’d love to have a Suburban or any number of pickups, it does bum me out that these are continually the best selling “cars” in America. On a personal level, I totally agree – buy whatever you want for whatever reasons you want… but the numbers are staggering, and given the massive impracticality of these vehicles in relation to the manner in which they’re actually used, there’s no denying that what’s primarily selling them is the AMERICA FUCK YAR image they’ve got. Like I said, I like these vehicles and I’d also like to have something in common with the majority of my fellow Americans, but – subjectively speaking – I hate that shit. It doesn’t prevent me from disliking the cars, it only prevents me from disliking the people that buy them.
Likewise, I’m soooooo very disappointed that the Cadillac ELR is turning out to be a huge bust and the Volt hasn’t done anywhere near the volume it should have. The only real explanation for this is that the same people who have bought Prii as fast as Toyota could build them are turning up their nose at the badge and place of final assembly. These are incredible cars and it’s really shitty that they’re getting virtually no love from the people who you’d expect to appreciate them the most.
Sean Cornelis
Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:55 AM
dominic1955 – I think you’re wrong on this last point:
I might not give a damn what other people think, but a person doesn’t drive around in something that they despise unless out of sheer necessity nor do they buy something like a Benz and think of it as merely a transportation device…
Maybe not as just a transportation device, but I’m pretty sure most people buying the AMG Benz wagons, which they only sell a handful of, are probably much more impressed by what the car actually does rather than the cachet that goes along with owning one. Why would you spend all that extra money when you can get a regular E-Class wagon for half the price that will come off looking just as exotic/confusing to the unwashed masses?
Chris M – the CTS Sportwagon is the shit. That’s definitely on my list for a few years down the road/winning the lottery tomorrow as well. I love the TSX wagon, too!
Phil
Posted May 9, 2014 at 10:56 AM
But the thing is Sean, trucks are not “massively impractical”, at least not in the US with cheap gas and comfortably large roads. They are like swiss army knives for families, doing anything and everything asked of them. They can get expensive, but they also have excellent resale value. Their biggest downside is of course gas mileage, but that’s just one of many factors that go into determining practicality and they continue to make steady improvement on that front.
When people start complaining about trucks and how inefficient they are, I usually just ask them to evaluate why they drive a car to begin with. After all, even a Prius is less efficient than a bus. But then we wouldn’t have websites like this. What a boring world that would be.
XR7Matt
Posted May 9, 2014 at 1:00 PM
Practicality is in the eye of the beholder.
Amen!
Sean Cornelis
Posted May 9, 2014 at 1:34 PM
Phil – They’re massively impractical compared to, say, a station wagon that does all of those same things except being able to tow or haul several tons – something that we both know most trucks aren’t doing on any sort of regular basis. Gas mileage is hardly the only con to owning one. Relative to a regular car, you also get an ill-handling, high center of gravity having, long stopping distance vehicle that may fare better in an accident with a smaller car, but will be much better at getting you in that accident in the first place. I anticipate much anecdotal evidence being presented as a counterpoint to these claims, but the reality is that most of these vehicles are only being driven back and forth to the office and they turn and stop like shit in comparison to even the worst cars on the road.
But remember, I’m not complaining about them. If that’s what people want they’ve got every right to buy them. Like I said, if I had the money and space I’d love to have a Navigator from the generation that just ended or one of those Suburbans with the monster 8.1l engine – or even better yet, a Range Rover Sport. I wouldn’t want any of them as my primary vehicle, I’d miss driving an actual car too much… but since I take the bus and train to work 90% of the time anyway it wouldn’t be such a big deal.
What I am complaining about is the philistine cowboy romance Wal-Mart Piggly Wiggly Get ‘Er Done 9/11nevr4get image associated with trucks, but I’m trying to go to great lengths here to point out how that doesn’t prevent me from enjoying them whatsoever. And if I bought one, nobody is going to think I suddenly became a Born Again Christian nor would I care if they did. The only reason I even bring it up is because these are my subjective tastes, clearly an important part of this discussion, but not something that really influences how I feel about the vehicles themselves.
dominic1955
Posted May 9, 2014 at 5:40 PM
Sean,
Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Your dislike of the ‘Murican “image” that SUVs supposedly have is no different than my (for sake of argument) disliike of pinko Eurotrash wannabes who drive wagons to look down their nose at all the ‘Murica philistine cowboys who bought an enclosed pickup instead.
I don’t like the fact that Escalades and Navigators basically replaced the Fleetwoods and Town Cars, I think the glitzed out SUVs are beyond gauche but its an economic thing. With all the government regulations on cars, SUVs/pickups get a bit of a pass and thus they are cheaper to produce with increased profits. For how many people I’d ever care to haul or how much stuff I’d ever bother to put into a car or how much stuff I’d ever tow I’d be plenty satisfied with a Brougham. However, that style went out and was basically replaced by the glitzed out SUVs. Most people just follow the production trend, just as they did in the Brougham Era. The next thing that gets put out there will have a similar fate and then all the beastly Jersey Shore mobiles will end up in the junkyard. Such is life.
Anyone can buy whatever the hell they want. Hell, tool around in an old hearse or get one of those souped up “weathered” wagons I’ve seen for sale. Whatever floats your boat. But do not for a minute think your little upturned nose is any more righteous or reasonable than my, at least more honest, upturned nose.
Sean Cornelis
Posted May 9, 2014 at 9:38 PM
dominic – Yes, this is exactly what I’m saying:
Your dislike of the ‘Murican “image” that SUVs supposedly have is no different than my (for sake of argument) disliike of pinko Eurotrash wannabes who drive wagons to look down their nose at all the ‘Murica philistine cowboys who bought an enclosed pickup instead.
The difference is, while I do think that image is totally gross, I don’t feel the need to mention it constantly (or ever) and I don’t automatically see a SUV or pickup and think “there goes a shitty guy”, unless it has the right kind of bumper stickers and “Truck Nutz” of course. I’m intentionally trying to be a dick by writing it here, but that’s it; and doesn’t that shit get tiring to read? Doesn’t it get tiring to write?!
I’m not trying to pick on you, because you seem like quite an OK dude and everything, but there’s a few of you guys where as soon as I see the name I know if I scroll down I’m gonna see the “well I’m a broughm fan so fuck this car” type of qualifier. I do think it’s funny to make fun of stereotypes and everything, but there’s a point where it gets tedious and mean. I can only read the same old hipster/hippie/bleeding heart/Eurotrash/etc. crap so many times before I start thinking that it’s probably not a joke at all. If you’ve got incredibly narrow interests, that cool and all – but I can’t really relate, so this whole schtick seems way more like posturing alone rather than actual commentary to me. There’s usually something about most of these cars featured here that I can find to like.
dominic1955
Posted May 10, 2014 at 5:43 AM
Sounds good, truce. No hard feelings. 🙂
Sean Cornelis
Posted May 10, 2014 at 7:24 PM
Truce accepted, no hard feelings at all!
BTW, totally agree – it sucks that there aren’t more traditional, big, RWD American cars available.
Phil
Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:04 AM
Sorry this response is late Sean, but I can’t let your claim that modern trucks handle and stop like shit go uncontested. That’s baloney and I can prove it.
A 2014 F-150 EcoBoost Super Crew Limited stops from 70-0 in 169 ft and pulls .78 G on the skidpad. Compare that to a Yaris which does it in 183 ft and pulls .79 G. And the F-150 will handily outrun it while offering better visibility and loads more comfort, space, and safety. Not to mention hauling capability. Sure the Yaris is not a great car, but I used it to illustrate that lighter weight and size does not automatically equate to superior performance as you have implied. So why not do a more common car? OK, the Camry SE V6 does 70-0 in 173 ft and .85 G. These numbers are from Car&Driver road tests.
An F-150 is no Mustang, but it is also not the wallowing marshmellow people who have never driven one like to claim.
It’s fine to disagree, but let’s keep things honest here. Sure not every truck is out there towing 10,000 pounds, but you also can’t ignore the fact that most modern wagons and hatches can’t tow hardly anything. Look at Paul’s new Acura wagon…it’s quite nice but he’s not going to tow a boat with it and the cargo area sacrifices a lot of space for style. For better and worse, it’s nothing like the wagons my family had when I was growing up.
20 years ago I would have agreed with your thinking Sean, but not today. Too much has changed.
Dual exhaust and,, wider tires? The starboard lean to the antenna, looks like trouble for the carwash. Seems hatches on mid size American cars, are never popular. I think it’s as good looking as a 1st Gen Fusion.
These cars may be fugly but the packaging and rear seat room are phenomenal. I had a Maxx as a rental once and other than typical for the time poor GM steering, it was quite pleasant. Saab may not have gotten one, but I was surprised to see Opel-badged versions on a trip to Europe in ’04.
I find the Malibu of this generation to be a hideous beast, with or without the hatchback roof. No doubt a practical machine, and I bet the SS model can really scoot. But like nearly all American GM cars of that era it’s an assault on my senses, whether I’m behind the wheel or looking on as an innocent bystander.
The Maxx had a huge interior and a very versatile one, too, with 60/40 seats that were on rails to move fore aft. The load floor was completely flat and all the panels industrial grade plastics, so tough and easy to clean. The car was mean for the outdoor set but for the money GM wanted for them, a loaded Forester could be had. Guess what most people bought? These cars also suffered from all the GM maladies of the era such as crappy brakes, electrics, failing steering racks, leaks, the lot. The 3.9 engine was quite peppy in these cars as it had lots of low end torque.
I’ve rather liked the Malibu MAXX. It is something of a sportwagon, as opposed to just a regular wagon. And, especially in a rare SS edition. I wouldn’t mind owning one.
The only way it could have been better was if they’d offered one with a diesel and a 5-speed stick. Or, maybe with the Cobalt SS turbo 2.0L.
There’s nothing else they can do because it’s an inherent design flaw. The noise will always come back and all you can do is re-lube it. It’s the same on the G6 and Aura and every Epsilon car. I just ignored it on my old ’07 Aura because it didn’t actually affect anything mechanical, but when you buy a GM product with 200,000+ miles… you end up ignoring a lot of things. That car definitely soured me on this platform, which is sad, because if I had bought one with more reasonable mileage it probably would’ve been a very enjoyable car.
As a Saab driver, I like the notion that my 9-3 sedan could have been in this format. It would be great for the incessant runs to Lowe’s… although it might have been too close to the market segment already filled by the 9-3 SportCombi wagon.
These cars are ridiculously common in NY’s Hudson Valley, I see one every time I leave the house. The extended roof and crisp rear makes it a really cool looking car, although the front fender is too thick in profile and the headlights are clumsy. I blanch when I see the regular sedan, which is horribly putzy looking.
The modern day Citation, and personally, I hold them in about the same esteem. Exterior styling rubs me the wrong way (wide chrome bar up front looks way too trucklike), especially on the MAXX, which has about the worst integrated hatchback design ever. The interior is typical GM of the early 2000s, which is to say abysmal. Acres of cheap, rock-hard plastics. Add a 60 degree V6 that may or may not eat head and intake gaskets, and a transmission with no dipstick and dubious reliability, and this is one of the very few cars I really have nothing good to say about. The bent antenna and the poorly aligned tacked on badge say to me that the owner would probably rather drive something else as well.
I am conflicted about this car. I rented one once and had it for several days. I could not remember the last time Mrs. JPC took such a visceral dislike to a car. I can’t say I really liked driving it either. Probably the same issues I have driving my Mom’s Lacrosse – odd seating position in relationship to the B pillar, and the huge steering wheel with the slow steering. I also recall the car having a really cheap-o interior.
As a rule, I love wagons and wagon-ish cars. Perhaps I would like one better in the SS trim, or maybe time has softened me a bit. I like the looks of this now more than I did when they were new.
They should’ve broken the “6” off of the “396” badge. That would’ve made a lot more sense…
I always thought Chevy’s “put an SS badge on everything” period was pretty dorky, but that the Malibu MAXX version was cool regardless. The sedan was hopelessly boring and we look back now at these being somewhat cheap and chintzy, but at the time the level of interior quality was a noticeable step up from previous GM efforts in this class. I do remember them getting not-so-great reviews, which is kinda surprising considering this car was largely a re-styled Opel Signum and it’s platform mate the Saturn Aura was getting pretty good marks in the U.S. at the time.
That “396” engine in this SS was a short-lived development of the old Chevrolet 60-degree V6. The Opel-derived twin-cam V6 that has survived to the present day is no doubt a “better” powerplant, but 240HP is plenty for this vehicle and I kinda like that it’s a pushrod engine with Chevy origins – in fact it was originally designed for the Citation, so it’s very fitting that one of it’s last gigs was powering another Chevy 5-door hatchback.
The Aura was the platform twin to the next generation of Malibu, though, wasn’t it? Going from memory here but I think this generation ran from something like 2003 to 2007…
The wide crossbar grille was on the earlier ones and then they went to a much more conventional nose In 2005, I think. The later grille was more attractive but I found the earlier design much more distinctive, truck-like though it may have been.
The Aura was closer in DNA to the 2008-’11 Malibu, which looked very different, but was really just an updated version of the ’04-’07 and mechanically a lot of parts were shared between both generations of Malibu and the G6/Aura. Hell, as far as I can tell the current Malibu is the same basic Epsilon chassis as the 2004, albeit updated heavily. A lot like the Camry which is on the same (gradually updated) chassis as the 2002 model.
The “battering ram” 2004-2005 models are ugly as sin and despite being only 9 or 10 years old, are already becoming prime beaters on the streets thanks to the cliff-like domestic sedan depreciation. They are still much better cars than the ancient and horrible N-body Malibus, though.
No doubt. My wife owned an ’00 Alero (another N-body) for 9 years and while it had its virtues (it did make it to 175K on original engine/transmission, handled okay and had some pep, and looked good until the clearcoat started disintegrating) most everything else about it was pretty lousy. The N-body cars were not one of GM’s better efforts at any point, but especially not in the late 90’s/early 00’s.
THe N-body Malibu shouldn’t have the car on which the venerable name reappeared–better to leave those as the 2nd-gen Corsica and revive the Malibu name on the ’04 or, better yet, ’08 model.
My bad, didn’t see this before I left my comment below… this clears a bunch of stuff up, thanks!
I really dislike that crossbar-bowtie grille on the ’04-’05 Malibus, but I think the later one might even be worse just because it’s so ridiculously generic and bulky looking. I could never pick – both suck! What a shame, because the MAXX shape is really distinctive. They should’ve just given this body to Saturn. The Aura didn’t look all that different from it’s Opel cousin and I thought it was the best looking car GM was selling in the US at the time.
The N-Body Malibu was one of those “way too little, way too late” cars that GM got so good at churning out from the late 90s through their bankruptcy. It was a dramatic improvement over the earlier Corsica that it replaced and not truly a “bad” car in any way, but it was also woefully uncompetitive and unappealing compared with anything else in its class. I have a friend who is the antithesis of a “car guy” and owns a pretty decked out example (V6, sunroof, factory alloys, etc.) I’ve driven it a bunch of times and always come away thinking that it would’ve been a great car… in 1989.
Ahh you know, you’re probably right. I’m just assuming this Malibu and the Aura shared bones because they overlapped for a few model years. Wikipedia actually says that the Malibu MAXX, Saturn Aura and 2008-2012 Malibu were all on the Epsilon I Extended platform, but I think they might be leaving out info on a mid-generation update or something. The Aura seemed to have way more in common with the ’08-’12 Malibu than it did this one.
I’ve liked these, but never priced one out or been inside one. It seems like today as we get more and more models to choose from those models get more and more alike and unique options like this are disappearing.
I had one of these when I was in college in 2006. It was a GM company car tag, so it had 6,000 miles on it when I got it. It was a great little car, had tons of space, good power and extremely handy for a college kid. Every once in a while I see one and usually they are either very clean or in some horrendous state of disrepair.
Ugly and spendy seemed to be the two words that chased this poor car through its life. I was always fine with the looks and liked the practicality, so I’m surprised and pleased to see the number of positive comments here.
I don’t know if Chevy was justified in the price premium for the MAXX hatch. If it was just greed, too bad, they may have sunk this car themselves. I do know that the contemporary Malibu sedan was also looked down upon, a lot like the current Chrysler Sebring (opps, 200) and Dodge Avenger – two favorite whipping boys of the journalist class.
3.96L in this case? Wikipedia says that there was an SS version with a 3.9L V6.
Presumably the owner added the “396” badging themselves, though it’s an interesting coincidence that the SS of yore had a 396cid V8.
The engine in this Malibu SS is accurately 3880cc (which GM rounded-up to 3900), not 3960cc.
With 3.9 liters of pushrod power going through the front tires, it seems to owner really took the philosophy behind the Malibu SS to heart. Odd that Chevy–and not Saab–got a 5-door version of this chassis. I believe that the front seats of this generation of Malibu were given special attention during development, and were either made in France or designed by a French company (which is strange because they were quite firm in the German idiom). The Epsilon was also a nice, rigid basis for the Malibu and was well-isolated with the hydroformed aluminum subframe. With the huge rear seat with fixed T-top-esque glass on top (cooler, in my book than a panoramic room), I always had a soft spot for these.
There were obviously some cheap touches, but GM put in an honest effort. Glad to see someone enjoying it.
I really liked these and looked a several used examples in the past couple years but they only made them for four model years. I guess the reason being they would rather sell you a small SUV instead . Of course I would prefer a 5 speed manual but none was ever available in any of the FWD Malibu. It would be the perfect car to throw my bicycle in the hatch back and pulling my twelve foot aluminum boat .
I also like these when they came out 10 years ago, but the timing was bad for me, I wasn’t looking for a car at the time, and by 2008 they were no longer selling new ones…and they appear to be pretty scarce as used cars. I’m not an SUV kind of person, if the Maxx didn’t get great fuel economy, since it was not offered with anything other than a 6 with automatic, I would think an SUV wouldn’t even get equivalent fuel milage.
The funny thing to me is the hatchback/wagon haziness…this car seems to be classified by some people as a hatchback, others as a wagon…I know it is semantics, but it is confusing. The Vibe had a similar vagueness….I think that if there is even a very small side window behind the rear door, people tend to classify it as a wagon, despite the window becoming smaller as time goes on (compared to original full sized wagons which have a large side window behind the rear door). Also, there are seemingly very few mid-sized hatchbacks, and as I like spacious cars, this one was pretty attactive, especially with the large rear seat. How long has it been since we had an Accord hatchback (well, other than the Crosstour?), Camry hatchback, or 626? (Though I think they are offered in other markets, we don’t tend to get them in the US…that’s what originally drew me to the Maxx). The only wagon I’ve ever owned was a ’72 Fiat 128 (2 door), but I’ve had lots of hatchbacks (the only body style I’ve owned since 1981).
I didn’t much care about the SS model, seems like Chevrolet had an SS trim for just about every model car it sold during this time (about 8 years ago). I just hope he’s careful with taking the car into the carwash, especially with that rear antenna, it looks to me like it is already bent at an odd angle…not too many Maxx’s left, don’t want to damage the remaining ones.
This was a really sharp looking car that caught my attention before I noticed the “badge-on performance.” I rented a MAXX on a business trip once, and other than hating the IP layout (I felt this way about pretty much every GM product from this era), the rest of the car was pretty nice.
Maybe that is what I should have bought instead of a Pontiac Vibe?
There are two things that kept me from looking into it: somehow the proportions were not looking right to me. The front overhang is quite normal which made the rear overhang appear to short.
The other thing was fuel consumption. I suppose I missed to appreciate the inner values of this car.
I wonder if I am the only one who judged this book by the cover.
Though the front end did nothing for me, overall I liked the MAXX… sort of a big Impreza. If all wheel drive had been available it might have been a contender in it’s day.
The Maxx was better looking than the ‘normal’ Malibu. I do have a thing for 5 door hatches though. However, a v6 fwd coupled to a slushbox isn’t exactly ‘SS’ material. Id prefer it was a V8 rwd, but even the turbocharged Cobalt and HHR SS models have a place. They have the style and the upgraded performance to wear the badge.
though not perfect its was a cool car. The back seat is like a limo. Traded it in for a Volt. Would buy another one today.
3.9 liter 6= 396 ?
I thought these were the ugliest boxes on wheels when they came out, but I have to admit it’s aged well and does indeed look much better than the sedan. I still don’t care for the dilution of the SS badge though, what a joke.
Didn’t the marketing campaign for these throw the N body Malibu under the bus as being a dull car? It was very true of course but it certainly reeked of the “not your father’s Oldsmobile” ads.
That was actually the 2008 Malibu… “The Car You Can’t Ignore” They never actually mentioned that it was an older Malibu body… but I remember thinking “Really? Couldn’t they have used a Camry/Accord/Sebring/etc?”
(although they technically used a 1997-1999 Cutlass in the ad… same thing, though):
That’s it! Seemed longer ago and thought for sure it was this bodystyle, weird.
Funny that ad featuring a Cutlass badged Malibu. GM sure liked throwing Oldsmobile under the bus didn’t they.
I looked (briefly) at one of these a few years back. Very spendy for what you got.
Looks like a mini-hearse, but doesn’t have a Lincoln or Caddy hood ornament. I personally don’t know why folks like hatchbacks, I think they are they fugliest of cars especially the Malibu.
For some folks, practicality trumps looks. And honestly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; I’m sure there are those who prefer the look of a hatchback. Then again, some such as the Mazda 6 were indistinguishable from their sedan counterparts.
Sure, I totally agree with you in regards to car style. There is no “objective” true car look. I just think hatchbacks/wagons look lame as all get out, and I don’t see any out to it. I can kinda see why a Roadmaster is cool, sorta, but not much else. I’m a Brougham fan, I love the baroque gingerbread stuff, I know some folks think it looks chintzy. I think the spartan Germanic stuff looks “meh” but I can appreciate where folks who like that are coming from.
Wagons/hatchbacks? They’re not terribly practical, they make luxury cars and whatever else look stupidly pedestrian/trying too hard hipsterish.
More power to whomever, but dayum…
For example, I recently perused the Mercedes Benz website and they make an AMG wagon. Now, who in the hell is going to spend over $100K on a freakin’ WAGON. A WAGON?!
If I have enough scratch to buy a Benz, let alone an AMG Benz, I’m sure as hell not going to be hauling random sh!t in it. I can buy a couple fleets of old beater trucks or SUVs to haul crap for the price of an AMG wagon. No, if I have the scratch but I want a sleeper, I’m getting an S class. Five hundred some HP is going to easily smoke any punk in a tricked out econobox no matter how big the spoiler is. If I want to carry people or subs, big sedan or SUV all the way. Wagon? Really?!
If I want a Chevy with the SS tag on it, again, why the hell am I getting a hatchback? Holy crap, do I really want to race soccer moms in their Town and Country vans? If I just want a bike rack mounted on my two hitch to be a player in the granola crowd, I’d be much better served with a Subaru.
Malibu Maxx is awesome. It looks SO much better than the versions with trunks.
Sedans these days are mostly useless. Big old sedans are great. But styling of current sedans are basically hatchbacks with trunks. The trunk lids are ridiculously short due to the roofline and rear window extending almost all the way back to the rear edge of the car. If the trunk lid and rear window were simply fused as a single opening and hinged at the top of the rear window, styling would be identical, yet the opening would be big enough to actually put stuff into it.
Wagons/hatchbacks? They’re not terribly practical, they make luxury cars and whatever else look stupidly pedestrian/trying too hard hipsterish.
Huh? How is there anything more practical than a car with a massive cargo area at the rear, a large additional door to access it and the ability to fold down the rear seats? The SUVs that you would prefer are nothing but tall wagons with a lot of ground clearance.
But don’t get me wrong, I toooootally get why enormous SUVs and pickups are practical daily drivers. How else are you going to get your 6 homeschooled children to Wal-Mart if you live in a jungle or atop a mountain without paved roads? Gotta buy more ammo for when they try forcin’ everyone to live in the FEMA camps! Since this is such a common scenario for most Americans, a nation full of sensible and pragmatic regular folk, it makes perfect sense that ladder frame, 5,000lb.+ SUVs and pickups are the best selling vehicles in the country.
If there is a wagon available I will always choose it over the sedan version, ESPECIALLY if it’s an AMG, M, or S. it has nothing to do with being concerned about what others think, I stopped worrying about that sometime in high school. Practicality, speed, handling, what is there not to love?
The AMG wagon is indeed the ultimate niche car – the car to have if you can only have one car for everything but can afford to spend $100k plus on it. Upper East Side of Manhattan dwellers come to mind (can Triborough or another NYCer confirm?) It is, nonetheless, awesome for that reason.
The further down the price scale you get, the more a hot 5-door makes rational sense, but *no* car with a six-figure price tag makes rational sense so the AMG wagon loses no points for that.
And “Go Comets!!!” should be on a Mercury.
“Huh? How is there anything more practical than a car with a massive cargo area at the rear, a large additional door to access it and the ability to fold down the rear seats? The SUVs that you would prefer are nothing but tall wagons with a lot of ground clearance.”
Outside of something as big as a Roadmaster Estate (or other brand equivalent), which isn’t made anymore, nothing has the capacity for hauling that a truck or SUV has. My old Explorer(s), especially the 2002, could swallow a loveseat whole and still have room for more. When I was in school, I could pack up all my belongings I had in my cell and go for the summer. None of the wagons currently offered can touch that.
Smart-assery aside, no road conditions commonly experienced (sorry, didn’t have a mountain or jungle handy for tests) could stop my Explorers either. That ground clearance/4WD makes a difference and made crappy conditions that would stop many cars seem almost downright enjoyable.
So a wide range of practical hauling space for people and things and getting around in crappy weather isn’t new wagon territory. OK…comes around back to what I said about not being terribly practical (because that extra door sure as hell doesn’t make it go any faster or carve corners any better) enough to justify its wonky looks, even less so if its a luxury marque.
Continuing with my little soapbox rant on subjective tastes, I guess I see luxury as needing a fairly healthy dose of impractibility otherwise it looses luxury points. Any big luxury flagship has plenty of space to haul around the only sorts of things luxury people should be hauling around, i.e. a case of fine scotch or bespoke suits. Such things should also be shielded from worldling view by a proper trunk, preferrably one that can be closed automatically.
One doesn’t buy a luxury car because they see cars as merely a device to get you from point A to point B. Its a visible declaration of your well-to-do-ness or attempt to claim such. I mean, at the low end of the spectrum ghetto folks don’t buy that beat up Caddy or former taxi Town Car for its practically, they buy it for the image they think it exudes. If a person isn’t looking for an “image”, a similar condition Accord or Corolla is probably a much better choice for gas mileage, cost to fix and maintain, etc. If you want a practical hauler, why pay the extra $$$ to have a three pointed star on the front end? If you want to project an image, you’re not succeeding at it with that soccermom ass-end behind the three pointed star.
Thus endeth the rant.
nlpnt – Upper East Side is indeed Benz wagon heaven. Even though M-B only imports them at a rate in the double digits per year, I’ve seen a whole bunch of E63 wagons – including a brand new one in the village on Wednesday. The old Mercedes-Benz of Manhattan showroom on Park Avenue often had them on display, too. Wagons in general are much more popular in NYC than they are in most of the U.S.
If I could afford it, I would absolutely have one of these!!
dominic1955 – You’re right, I forgot that most people have a frequent need to haul loveseats and other large pieces of furniture in their cars. How silly of me. I’m constantly left scratching my head wondering how I’ll fit that dang armoire or grandfather clock inside the tiny hatch of my Saab.
As for the rest, I hate this kind of “these people drive this car, those people drive that car” logic and image obsession. Like Jim Klein said up above, some of us got over that crap when we were in 10th grade.
Sean, if you are “over that crap”, why do you keep posting condescending remarks about trucks?
I’ll buy whatever vehicle I want, for whatever reasons I want, and I couldn’t care less what people think of it. Be it an econobox, wagon, sports hatch, minivan, SUV or pickup. All of which I’ve owned.
Oh, don’t act all snarky butt-hurt, I think I wrote “subjective tastes” somewhere up there…
Anyway, then if you don’t want to have the option of having something that can help you or others move and the sort but you still want more cargo space, what do you use that extra car space for? I wouldn’t think a person would buy enough groceries to make that matter. Any decent sized sedan trunk/back seat will swallow what your average suburbanite will throw at it, even more so if you can fold down seats or even if you can just open a little trap door.
About the only “wagon” I really get is a hearse. Totally makes sense why you’d want a classy car specifically altered to haul something. Maybe certain wagons fit larger doggie/kitty cages the best, maybe that’s its niche?
Image doesn’t matter-except to those it does matter to. It also might not matter, but its built in regardless and no one is naive enough to be able to ignore that. I might not give a damn what other people think, but a person doesn’t drive around in something that they despise unless out of sheer necessity nor do they buy something like a Benz and think of it as merely a transportation device…
Practicality is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I’m almost certain my next car will be a wagon. My wife and I will hope to have a child sometime in the next few years, so I’ll need something that can carry a stroller without having to be folded up, plus all the assocaited flotsam and jetsam that seem to come with children these days. However, we don’t currently plan to have more than one, so I’m not going to force myself into a minivan for just one. And I personally strongly dislike SUVs…needlessly tall, can’t carry as much as a pickup or a van, too-upright seating position, poor gas mileage for the performance, don’t take well to spirited driving…I could go on.
So for me a wagon fits the bill perfectly. At the top of the current wishlist would be a Cadillac CTS Sportwagon (a few years old as I’m not made of money) or an Acura TSX wagon (might be able to swing CPO there.) And I don’t think the wagon tail end negates the appeal of the front end…in the Caddy’s case it could be argued that, with its steeply raked C-pillar, it’s equally attractive.
Phil – Because if I’m using dominic’s logic of “wagons must be driven by people who are hipsters or granola hippies, luxury cars must be driven by people who have a need to transport ‘bespoke suits’ (LOL), minivans must be driven by soccermoms, beat up Town Cars must be driven by hood rats, etc.” that’s where fullsize SUVs fit in. I like SUVs and I’ve owned a bunch, too – I’m just trying to make my subjective tastes sound as narrow-minded and stereotypical as this.
Plus, I mean as much as I’d love to have a Suburban or any number of pickups, it does bum me out that these are continually the best selling “cars” in America. On a personal level, I totally agree – buy whatever you want for whatever reasons you want… but the numbers are staggering, and given the massive impracticality of these vehicles in relation to the manner in which they’re actually used, there’s no denying that what’s primarily selling them is the AMERICA FUCK YAR image they’ve got. Like I said, I like these vehicles and I’d also like to have something in common with the majority of my fellow Americans, but – subjectively speaking – I hate that shit. It doesn’t prevent me from disliking the cars, it only prevents me from disliking the people that buy them.
Likewise, I’m soooooo very disappointed that the Cadillac ELR is turning out to be a huge bust and the Volt hasn’t done anywhere near the volume it should have. The only real explanation for this is that the same people who have bought Prii as fast as Toyota could build them are turning up their nose at the badge and place of final assembly. These are incredible cars and it’s really shitty that they’re getting virtually no love from the people who you’d expect to appreciate them the most.
dominic1955 – I think you’re wrong on this last point:
I might not give a damn what other people think, but a person doesn’t drive around in something that they despise unless out of sheer necessity nor do they buy something like a Benz and think of it as merely a transportation device…
Maybe not as just a transportation device, but I’m pretty sure most people buying the AMG Benz wagons, which they only sell a handful of, are probably much more impressed by what the car actually does rather than the cachet that goes along with owning one. Why would you spend all that extra money when you can get a regular E-Class wagon for half the price that will come off looking just as exotic/confusing to the unwashed masses?
Chris M – the CTS Sportwagon is the shit. That’s definitely on my list for a few years down the road/winning the lottery tomorrow as well. I love the TSX wagon, too!
But the thing is Sean, trucks are not “massively impractical”, at least not in the US with cheap gas and comfortably large roads. They are like swiss army knives for families, doing anything and everything asked of them. They can get expensive, but they also have excellent resale value. Their biggest downside is of course gas mileage, but that’s just one of many factors that go into determining practicality and they continue to make steady improvement on that front.
When people start complaining about trucks and how inefficient they are, I usually just ask them to evaluate why they drive a car to begin with. After all, even a Prius is less efficient than a bus. But then we wouldn’t have websites like this. What a boring world that would be.
Practicality is in the eye of the beholder.
Amen!
Phil – They’re massively impractical compared to, say, a station wagon that does all of those same things except being able to tow or haul several tons – something that we both know most trucks aren’t doing on any sort of regular basis. Gas mileage is hardly the only con to owning one. Relative to a regular car, you also get an ill-handling, high center of gravity having, long stopping distance vehicle that may fare better in an accident with a smaller car, but will be much better at getting you in that accident in the first place. I anticipate much anecdotal evidence being presented as a counterpoint to these claims, but the reality is that most of these vehicles are only being driven back and forth to the office and they turn and stop like shit in comparison to even the worst cars on the road.
But remember, I’m not complaining about them. If that’s what people want they’ve got every right to buy them. Like I said, if I had the money and space I’d love to have a Navigator from the generation that just ended or one of those Suburbans with the monster 8.1l engine – or even better yet, a Range Rover Sport. I wouldn’t want any of them as my primary vehicle, I’d miss driving an actual car too much… but since I take the bus and train to work 90% of the time anyway it wouldn’t be such a big deal.
What I am complaining about is the philistine cowboy romance Wal-Mart Piggly Wiggly Get ‘Er Done 9/11nevr4get image associated with trucks, but I’m trying to go to great lengths here to point out how that doesn’t prevent me from enjoying them whatsoever. And if I bought one, nobody is going to think I suddenly became a Born Again Christian nor would I care if they did. The only reason I even bring it up is because these are my subjective tastes, clearly an important part of this discussion, but not something that really influences how I feel about the vehicles themselves.
Sean,
Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Your dislike of the ‘Murican “image” that SUVs supposedly have is no different than my (for sake of argument) disliike of pinko Eurotrash wannabes who drive wagons to look down their nose at all the ‘Murica philistine cowboys who bought an enclosed pickup instead.
I don’t like the fact that Escalades and Navigators basically replaced the Fleetwoods and Town Cars, I think the glitzed out SUVs are beyond gauche but its an economic thing. With all the government regulations on cars, SUVs/pickups get a bit of a pass and thus they are cheaper to produce with increased profits. For how many people I’d ever care to haul or how much stuff I’d ever bother to put into a car or how much stuff I’d ever tow I’d be plenty satisfied with a Brougham. However, that style went out and was basically replaced by the glitzed out SUVs. Most people just follow the production trend, just as they did in the Brougham Era. The next thing that gets put out there will have a similar fate and then all the beastly Jersey Shore mobiles will end up in the junkyard. Such is life.
Anyone can buy whatever the hell they want. Hell, tool around in an old hearse or get one of those souped up “weathered” wagons I’ve seen for sale. Whatever floats your boat. But do not for a minute think your little upturned nose is any more righteous or reasonable than my, at least more honest, upturned nose.
dominic – Yes, this is exactly what I’m saying:
Your dislike of the ‘Murican “image” that SUVs supposedly have is no different than my (for sake of argument) disliike of pinko Eurotrash wannabes who drive wagons to look down their nose at all the ‘Murica philistine cowboys who bought an enclosed pickup instead.
The difference is, while I do think that image is totally gross, I don’t feel the need to mention it constantly (or ever) and I don’t automatically see a SUV or pickup and think “there goes a shitty guy”, unless it has the right kind of bumper stickers and “Truck Nutz” of course. I’m intentionally trying to be a dick by writing it here, but that’s it; and doesn’t that shit get tiring to read? Doesn’t it get tiring to write?!
I’m not trying to pick on you, because you seem like quite an OK dude and everything, but there’s a few of you guys where as soon as I see the name I know if I scroll down I’m gonna see the “well I’m a broughm fan so fuck this car” type of qualifier. I do think it’s funny to make fun of stereotypes and everything, but there’s a point where it gets tedious and mean. I can only read the same old hipster/hippie/bleeding heart/Eurotrash/etc. crap so many times before I start thinking that it’s probably not a joke at all. If you’ve got incredibly narrow interests, that cool and all – but I can’t really relate, so this whole schtick seems way more like posturing alone rather than actual commentary to me. There’s usually something about most of these cars featured here that I can find to like.
Sounds good, truce. No hard feelings. 🙂
Truce accepted, no hard feelings at all!
BTW, totally agree – it sucks that there aren’t more traditional, big, RWD American cars available.
Sorry this response is late Sean, but I can’t let your claim that modern trucks handle and stop like shit go uncontested. That’s baloney and I can prove it.
A 2014 F-150 EcoBoost Super Crew Limited stops from 70-0 in 169 ft and pulls .78 G on the skidpad. Compare that to a Yaris which does it in 183 ft and pulls .79 G. And the F-150 will handily outrun it while offering better visibility and loads more comfort, space, and safety. Not to mention hauling capability. Sure the Yaris is not a great car, but I used it to illustrate that lighter weight and size does not automatically equate to superior performance as you have implied. So why not do a more common car? OK, the Camry SE V6 does 70-0 in 173 ft and .85 G. These numbers are from Car&Driver road tests.
An F-150 is no Mustang, but it is also not the wallowing marshmellow people who have never driven one like to claim.
It’s fine to disagree, but let’s keep things honest here. Sure not every truck is out there towing 10,000 pounds, but you also can’t ignore the fact that most modern wagons and hatches can’t tow hardly anything. Look at Paul’s new Acura wagon…it’s quite nice but he’s not going to tow a boat with it and the cargo area sacrifices a lot of space for style. For better and worse, it’s nothing like the wagons my family had when I was growing up.
20 years ago I would have agreed with your thinking Sean, but not today. Too much has changed.
Dual exhaust and,, wider tires? The starboard lean to the antenna, looks like trouble for the carwash. Seems hatches on mid size American cars, are never popular. I think it’s as good looking as a 1st Gen Fusion.
These cars may be fugly but the packaging and rear seat room are phenomenal. I had a Maxx as a rental once and other than typical for the time poor GM steering, it was quite pleasant. Saab may not have gotten one, but I was surprised to see Opel-badged versions on a trip to Europe in ’04.
I’ve seen owners of 5.3L-powered Chevy trucks put ‘327’ crossed flag emblems on the fenders, but at least that’s kinda sorta the truth!.
I find the Malibu of this generation to be a hideous beast, with or without the hatchback roof. No doubt a practical machine, and I bet the SS model can really scoot. But like nearly all American GM cars of that era it’s an assault on my senses, whether I’m behind the wheel or looking on as an innocent bystander.
The Maxx had a huge interior and a very versatile one, too, with 60/40 seats that were on rails to move fore aft. The load floor was completely flat and all the panels industrial grade plastics, so tough and easy to clean. The car was mean for the outdoor set but for the money GM wanted for them, a loaded Forester could be had. Guess what most people bought? These cars also suffered from all the GM maladies of the era such as crappy brakes, electrics, failing steering racks, leaks, the lot. The 3.9 engine was quite peppy in these cars as it had lots of low end torque.
I’ve rather liked the Malibu MAXX. It is something of a sportwagon, as opposed to just a regular wagon. And, especially in a rare SS edition. I wouldn’t mind owning one.
The only way it could have been better was if they’d offered one with a diesel and a 5-speed stick. Or, maybe with the Cobalt SS turbo 2.0L.
Everyone of these that I drive has the clunky steering shaft noise, you’d think after building cars for 100 years they’d at least get that right.
You mean like the one on my mother’s 2006 Buick Lacrosse that has all of 22,000 miles on it?
When you take it back for warranty, all they do is grease the joint in the steering column. They ALL do it.
There’s nothing else they can do because it’s an inherent design flaw. The noise will always come back and all you can do is re-lube it. It’s the same on the G6 and Aura and every Epsilon car. I just ignored it on my old ’07 Aura because it didn’t actually affect anything mechanical, but when you buy a GM product with 200,000+ miles… you end up ignoring a lot of things. That car definitely soured me on this platform, which is sad, because if I had bought one with more reasonable mileage it probably would’ve been a very enjoyable car.
As a Saab driver, I like the notion that my 9-3 sedan could have been in this format. It would be great for the incessant runs to Lowe’s… although it might have been too close to the market segment already filled by the 9-3 SportCombi wagon.
These cars are ridiculously common in NY’s Hudson Valley, I see one every time I leave the house. The extended roof and crisp rear makes it a really cool looking car, although the front fender is too thick in profile and the headlights are clumsy. I blanch when I see the regular sedan, which is horribly putzy looking.
The modern day Citation, and personally, I hold them in about the same esteem. Exterior styling rubs me the wrong way (wide chrome bar up front looks way too trucklike), especially on the MAXX, which has about the worst integrated hatchback design ever. The interior is typical GM of the early 2000s, which is to say abysmal. Acres of cheap, rock-hard plastics. Add a 60 degree V6 that may or may not eat head and intake gaskets, and a transmission with no dipstick and dubious reliability, and this is one of the very few cars I really have nothing good to say about. The bent antenna and the poorly aligned tacked on badge say to me that the owner would probably rather drive something else as well.
I am conflicted about this car. I rented one once and had it for several days. I could not remember the last time Mrs. JPC took such a visceral dislike to a car. I can’t say I really liked driving it either. Probably the same issues I have driving my Mom’s Lacrosse – odd seating position in relationship to the B pillar, and the huge steering wheel with the slow steering. I also recall the car having a really cheap-o interior.
As a rule, I love wagons and wagon-ish cars. Perhaps I would like one better in the SS trim, or maybe time has softened me a bit. I like the looks of this now more than I did when they were new.
They should’ve broken the “6” off of the “396” badge. That would’ve made a lot more sense…
I always thought Chevy’s “put an SS badge on everything” period was pretty dorky, but that the Malibu MAXX version was cool regardless. The sedan was hopelessly boring and we look back now at these being somewhat cheap and chintzy, but at the time the level of interior quality was a noticeable step up from previous GM efforts in this class. I do remember them getting not-so-great reviews, which is kinda surprising considering this car was largely a re-styled Opel Signum and it’s platform mate the Saturn Aura was getting pretty good marks in the U.S. at the time.
That “396” engine in this SS was a short-lived development of the old Chevrolet 60-degree V6. The Opel-derived twin-cam V6 that has survived to the present day is no doubt a “better” powerplant, but 240HP is plenty for this vehicle and I kinda like that it’s a pushrod engine with Chevy origins – in fact it was originally designed for the Citation, so it’s very fitting that one of it’s last gigs was powering another Chevy 5-door hatchback.
The Aura was the platform twin to the next generation of Malibu, though, wasn’t it? Going from memory here but I think this generation ran from something like 2003 to 2007…
The wide crossbar grille was on the earlier ones and then they went to a much more conventional nose In 2005, I think. The later grille was more attractive but I found the earlier design much more distinctive, truck-like though it may have been.
The Aura was closer in DNA to the 2008-’11 Malibu, which looked very different, but was really just an updated version of the ’04-’07 and mechanically a lot of parts were shared between both generations of Malibu and the G6/Aura. Hell, as far as I can tell the current Malibu is the same basic Epsilon chassis as the 2004, albeit updated heavily. A lot like the Camry which is on the same (gradually updated) chassis as the 2002 model.
The “battering ram” 2004-2005 models are ugly as sin and despite being only 9 or 10 years old, are already becoming prime beaters on the streets thanks to the cliff-like domestic sedan depreciation. They are still much better cars than the ancient and horrible N-body Malibus, though.
No doubt. My wife owned an ’00 Alero (another N-body) for 9 years and while it had its virtues (it did make it to 175K on original engine/transmission, handled okay and had some pep, and looked good until the clearcoat started disintegrating) most everything else about it was pretty lousy. The N-body cars were not one of GM’s better efforts at any point, but especially not in the late 90’s/early 00’s.
THe N-body Malibu shouldn’t have the car on which the venerable name reappeared–better to leave those as the 2nd-gen Corsica and revive the Malibu name on the ’04 or, better yet, ’08 model.
My bad, didn’t see this before I left my comment below… this clears a bunch of stuff up, thanks!
I really dislike that crossbar-bowtie grille on the ’04-’05 Malibus, but I think the later one might even be worse just because it’s so ridiculously generic and bulky looking. I could never pick – both suck! What a shame, because the MAXX shape is really distinctive. They should’ve just given this body to Saturn. The Aura didn’t look all that different from it’s Opel cousin and I thought it was the best looking car GM was selling in the US at the time.
The N-Body Malibu was one of those “way too little, way too late” cars that GM got so good at churning out from the late 90s through their bankruptcy. It was a dramatic improvement over the earlier Corsica that it replaced and not truly a “bad” car in any way, but it was also woefully uncompetitive and unappealing compared with anything else in its class. I have a friend who is the antithesis of a “car guy” and owns a pretty decked out example (V6, sunroof, factory alloys, etc.) I’ve driven it a bunch of times and always come away thinking that it would’ve been a great car… in 1989.
Ahh you know, you’re probably right. I’m just assuming this Malibu and the Aura shared bones because they overlapped for a few model years. Wikipedia actually says that the Malibu MAXX, Saturn Aura and 2008-2012 Malibu were all on the Epsilon I Extended platform, but I think they might be leaving out info on a mid-generation update or something. The Aura seemed to have way more in common with the ’08-’12 Malibu than it did this one.
I’ve liked these, but never priced one out or been inside one. It seems like today as we get more and more models to choose from those models get more and more alike and unique options like this are disappearing.
I had one of these when I was in college in 2006. It was a GM company car tag, so it had 6,000 miles on it when I got it. It was a great little car, had tons of space, good power and extremely handy for a college kid. Every once in a while I see one and usually they are either very clean or in some horrendous state of disrepair.
Ugly and spendy seemed to be the two words that chased this poor car through its life. I was always fine with the looks and liked the practicality, so I’m surprised and pleased to see the number of positive comments here.
I don’t know if Chevy was justified in the price premium for the MAXX hatch. If it was just greed, too bad, they may have sunk this car themselves. I do know that the contemporary Malibu sedan was also looked down upon, a lot like the current Chrysler Sebring (opps, 200) and Dodge Avenger – two favorite whipping boys of the journalist class.