"TWW" <twaugh5@***.net> wrote in news:2c4qd.7150$T02.3644@lakeread06:

>
> "Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:J5WdnQHInbhRUjrcRVn-og@rogers.com...
>> My dad actually test drove one of those Malibus, because he wanted to
>> get a second car to drive to work and back, about 100mi/day (he wants
>> to keep the 04 EX-V6 as a family car without a lot of mileage). The
>> Malibu handles so badly on the highway, he literally got scared of
>> it. Above 75mph it will become so unstable that it will try and
>> change lanes by itself, and it feels like it's going to flip in every
>> turn.
>>
>> And if you're thinking my dad does not know how to drive, you're
>> wrong. He drove for a living in Europe, and he has about 2 million
>> miles experience.
>>
>> Go ahead, you'll really enjoy the Malibu.
>>
>> Cosmin
>>
>> hunkman wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for the advice and I think I will follow it. GM's quality
>> > is supposedly much better now. What am I supposed to do? Ask for
>> > an EX transmission to be put into my LX? I'm putting a Malibu LT
>> > instead of the crap LX in my garage.
>> > I will not buy Honda again!
>> >
>> > "zonie" <sjemoomaw@nospam> wrote in message
> news:<a530b44460751f4b58fe12c3894dafc3@localhost.t alkaboutautos.com>...
>> >
>> >>How dare you mention Accord and Malibu in the same breath, please
>> >>trade your Accord for the Malibu. And stay away from Honda forever
>> >>You block head.
>
> Our local paper advertised the 2004 Malibu's as starting at under 10k
> a local Chevy dealer. Pretty cheap -- looks like a "throw away" car.
>
>
>

IMO,you get what you pay for.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

Cosmin N. is correct about the Malibu wandering all over the road and
requiring constant (and tiring) steering input to keep it going straight
down the road. I know because my wife and I have had a 1997 and currently
own a 1998 Malibu. The main reason why I bought a 2004 Accord is because of
the poor quality of the Chevy. I've own lots of Chevy's in the past but the
'98 was my last. Damn Mickey Mouse brake design, failure of the lower
intake gasket, leaking water pump, transmission leak, wheel bearing
failures, fan control problems, premature corrosion on window trim, etc.,
etc. Expensive JUNK.

"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:JfedndBrhfAb0DXcRVn-iw@rogers.com...
> Well, that's what my dad told me after he test drove it. He may have
> exagerated a bit, but here's my experience with the Malibu. I drove the
> previous model for 750mi straight (Toronto-Montreal and back in one day)
> and I had pretty much the same feeling. This was a brand new Malibu (at
> the time) with only 3000mi on board.
>
>

 

Cosmin N. is correct about the Malibu wandering all over the road and
requiring constant (and tiring) steering input to keep it going straight
down the road. I know because my wife and I have had a 1997 and currently
own a 1998 Malibu. The main reason why I bought a 2004 Accord is because of
the poor quality of the Chevy. I've own lots of Chevy's in the past but the
'98 was my last. Damn Mickey Mouse brake design, failure of the lower
intake gasket, leaking water pump, transmission leak, wheel bearing
failures, fan control problems, premature corrosion on window trim, etc.,
etc. Expensive JUNK.

"Cosmin N." <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:JfedndBrhfAb0DXcRVn-iw@rogers.com...
> Well, that's what my dad told me after he test drove it. He may have
> exagerated a bit, but here's my experience with the Malibu. I drove the
> previous model for 750mi straight (Toronto-Montreal and back in one day)
> and I had pretty much the same feeling. This was a brand new Malibu (at
> the time) with only 3000mi on board.
>
>

 

"TWW" wrote in message
> "Burt Squareman"

> > An EX transmissions are a lot better.

> Let's not confuse matters any more than they are. Same
> transmission in both cars. I'll stick with my 5 spd Prelude.

They're the same, mechanically. No good to put an
EX tranny into an LX. An EX (referring to the overall car) is
design with better performance in mind. The Engine is a lot
stronger which helps. The transmission computer may also
play a part in shift schedule.

 

"TWW" wrote in message
> "Burt Squareman"

> > An EX transmissions are a lot better.

> Let's not confuse matters any more than they are. Same
> transmission in both cars. I'll stick with my 5 spd Prelude.

They're the same, mechanically. No good to put an
EX tranny into an LX. An EX (referring to the overall car) is
design with better performance in mind. The Engine is a lot
stronger which helps. The transmission computer may also
play a part in shift schedule.

 

>
> The car definitely does not like driving in a straight line, even
> without any wind. Without constant adjustment from the steering wheel
> it will wander around the lane or change lanes by itself. To make
> matters worse, it gets easily blown around by the wind.
>

in europe all the us cars are known for 4 things:
- they are big
- they handle like a ship at sea
- their badly fuel economy
- they are badly put together (rattles)

marcel
the netherlands
driving a '99 honda civic 1.5 vtec-e

(last E stands for economic which means 17 km/litre or aprox 40 mls/gallon)

 

>
> The car definitely does not like driving in a straight line, even
> without any wind. Without constant adjustment from the steering wheel
> it will wander around the lane or change lanes by itself. To make
> matters worse, it gets easily blown around by the wind.
>

in europe all the us cars are known for 4 things:
- they are big
- they handle like a ship at sea
- their badly fuel economy
- they are badly put together (rattles)

marcel
the netherlands
driving a '99 honda civic 1.5 vtec-e

(last E stands for economic which means 17 km/litre or aprox 40 mls/gallon)

 

"LBJGH" <bite_mee@hotsnail.back> wrote in
news:HJednSO4i5dLqDTcRVn-qA@rogers.com:

> Cosmin N. is correct about the Malibu wandering all over the road and
> requiring constant (and tiring) steering input to keep it going
> straight down the road. I know because my wife and I have had a 1997
> and currently own a 1998 Malibu. The main reason why I bought a 2004
> Accord is because of the poor quality of the Chevy. I've own lots of
> Chevy's in the past but the '98 was my last. Damn Mickey Mouse brake
> design, failure of the lower intake gasket, leaking water pump,
> transmission leak, wheel bearing failures, fan control problems,
> premature corrosion on window trim, etc., etc. Expensive JUNK.
> libu (at the time) with only 3000mi on board.
>>
that kind of built quality is killing gm europe too
a lot of european customers buy the much cheaper and more reliable korean
junk

marcel

 

"LBJGH" <bite_mee@hotsnail.back> wrote in
news:HJednSO4i5dLqDTcRVn-qA@rogers.com:

> Cosmin N. is correct about the Malibu wandering all over the road and
> requiring constant (and tiring) steering input to keep it going
> straight down the road. I know because my wife and I have had a 1997
> and currently own a 1998 Malibu. The main reason why I bought a 2004
> Accord is because of the poor quality of the Chevy. I've own lots of
> Chevy's in the past but the '98 was my last. Damn Mickey Mouse brake
> design, failure of the lower intake gasket, leaking water pump,
> transmission leak, wheel bearing failures, fan control problems,
> premature corrosion on window trim, etc., etc. Expensive JUNK.
> libu (at the time) with only 3000mi on board.
>>
that kind of built quality is killing gm europe too
a lot of european customers buy the much cheaper and more reliable korean
junk

marcel

 

"marcel" <no_mail@xxs.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns95B182E824B6marceltje@212.83.64.216...
>>
>> The car definitely does not like driving in a straight line, even
>> without any wind. Without constant adjustment from the steering wheel
>> it will wander around the lane or change lanes by itself. To make
>> matters worse, it gets easily blown around by the wind.
>>
>
> in europe all the us cars are known for 4 things:
> - they are big
> - they handle like a ship at sea
> - their badly fuel economy
> - they are badly put together (rattles)
>
> marcel
> the netherlands
> driving a '99 honda civic 1.5 vtec-e
>
> (last E stands for economic which means 17 km/litre or aprox 40
> mls/gallon)

My biggest complaint (I don't argue with your points) is that many of them
are built to hold up for 3 years - after that, it isn't a warranty issue. I
personally have known 2 people who bought mid-90s Ford Escorts in which the
engine was destroyed by water pump failure (caused the timing belt to fail)
after the warranty expired and before the car was paid for. Aargh!

Mike

 

"marcel" <no_mail@xxs.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns95B182E824B6marceltje@212.83.64.216...
>>
>> The car definitely does not like driving in a straight line, even
>> without any wind. Without constant adjustment from the steering wheel
>> it will wander around the lane or change lanes by itself. To make
>> matters worse, it gets easily blown around by the wind.
>>
>
> in europe all the us cars are known for 4 things:
> - they are big
> - they handle like a ship at sea
> - their badly fuel economy
> - they are badly put together (rattles)
>
> marcel
> the netherlands
> driving a '99 honda civic 1.5 vtec-e
>
> (last E stands for economic which means 17 km/litre or aprox 40
> mls/gallon)

My biggest complaint (I don't argue with your points) is that many of them
are built to hold up for 3 years - after that, it isn't a warranty issue. I
personally have known 2 people who bought mid-90s Ford Escorts in which the
engine was destroyed by water pump failure (caused the timing belt to fail)
after the warranty expired and before the car was paid for. Aargh!

Mike

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "marcel" <no_mail@xxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns95B182E824B6marceltje@212.83.64.216...
>
>>>The car definitely does not like driving in a straight line, even
>>>without any wind. Without constant adjustment from the steering wheel
>>>it will wander around the lane or change lanes by itself. To make
>>>matters worse, it gets easily blown around by the wind.
>>>
>>
>>in europe all the us cars are known for 4 things:
>>- they are big
>>- they handle like a ship at sea
>>- their badly fuel economy
>>- they are badly put together (rattles)
>>
>>marcel
>>the netherlands
>>driving a '99 honda civic 1.5 vtec-e
>>
>>(last E stands for economic which means 17 km/litre or aprox 40
>>mls/gallon)
>
>
> My biggest complaint (I don't argue with your points) is that many of them
> are built to hold up for 3 years - after that, it isn't a warranty issue. I
> personally have known 2 people who bought mid-90s Ford Escorts in which the
> engine was destroyed by water pump failure (caused the timing belt to fail)
> after the warranty expired and before the car was paid for. Aargh!
>
> Mike
>

glad you brought that up! in fact, a significant proportion of euro r&d
budgets goes into life limitation. the technology to make components
almost infinitely reliable is well known. what's a really hard
technical challenge is getting something to work long enough, but no more.

can't say who, but a certain high end european car manufacturer came to
one of my old metallurgy department back in the 80's with a technical
challenge they could not solve themselves. their objective was to have
transmissions fail at about 100k - no sooner. transmissions were chosen
because it was expensive to replace, but gave no bad rap like rust or
dead engines. solving the problem required designing a fatigue life
into the tooth root of every ratio in the transmission based on usage.
these can be under 10 hours for reverse & several thousand for top - all
radically different environments from a fatigue perspective. when these
hours of operation are reached, the gears fail, and the fact that they
/all/ will fail means it's uneconomic for aftermarket repairers to come
out with a fix kit for a known problem. the irony is, it costs about
20%-30% /more/ to make these transmissions because their quality control
needs to be very much more rigorous. all i can say is don't buy a
certain brand of european luxury vehicle that advertises their
transmissions as being "maintenance free". because they really mean it!

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "marcel" <no_mail@xxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns95B182E824B6marceltje@212.83.64.216...
>
>>>The car definitely does not like driving in a straight line, even
>>>without any wind. Without constant adjustment from the steering wheel
>>>it will wander around the lane or change lanes by itself. To make
>>>matters worse, it gets easily blown around by the wind.
>>>
>>
>>in europe all the us cars are known for 4 things:
>>- they are big
>>- they handle like a ship at sea
>>- their badly fuel economy
>>- they are badly put together (rattles)
>>
>>marcel
>>the netherlands
>>driving a '99 honda civic 1.5 vtec-e
>>
>>(last E stands for economic which means 17 km/litre or aprox 40
>>mls/gallon)
>
>
> My biggest complaint (I don't argue with your points) is that many of them
> are built to hold up for 3 years - after that, it isn't a warranty issue. I
> personally have known 2 people who bought mid-90s Ford Escorts in which the
> engine was destroyed by water pump failure (caused the timing belt to fail)
> after the warranty expired and before the car was paid for. Aargh!
>
> Mike
>

glad you brought that up! in fact, a significant proportion of euro r&d
budgets goes into life limitation. the technology to make components
almost infinitely reliable is well known. what's a really hard
technical challenge is getting something to work long enough, but no more.

can't say who, but a certain high end european car manufacturer came to
one of my old metallurgy department back in the 80's with a technical
challenge they could not solve themselves. their objective was to have
transmissions fail at about 100k - no sooner. transmissions were chosen
because it was expensive to replace, but gave no bad rap like rust or
dead engines. solving the problem required designing a fatigue life
into the tooth root of every ratio in the transmission based on usage.
these can be under 10 hours for reverse & several thousand for top - all
radically different environments from a fatigue perspective. when these
hours of operation are reached, the gears fail, and the fact that they
/all/ will fail means it's uneconomic for aftermarket repairers to come
out with a fix kit for a known problem. the irony is, it costs about
20%-30% /more/ to make these transmissions because their quality control
needs to be very much more rigorous. all i can say is don't buy a
certain brand of european luxury vehicle that advertises their
transmissions as being "maintenance free". because they really mean it!

 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:kc-dnbaQsNJFXDbcRVn-uA@sedona.net:

> "marcel" <no_mail@xxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns95B182E824B6marceltje@212.83.64.216...
>>>
>>> The car definitely does not like driving in a straight line, even
>>> without any wind. Without constant adjustment from the steering
>>> wheel it will wander around the lane or change lanes by itself. To
>>> make matters worse, it gets easily blown around by the wind.
>>>
>>
>> in europe all the us cars are known for 4 things:
>> - they are big
>> - they handle like a ship at sea
>> - their badly fuel economy
>> - they are badly put together (rattles)
>>
>> marcel
>> the netherlands
>> driving a '99 honda civic 1.5 vtec-e
>>
>> (last E stands for economic which means 17 km/litre or aprox 40
>> mls/gallon)
>
> My biggest complaint (I don't argue with your points) is that many of
> them are built to hold up for 3 years - after that, it isn't a
> warranty issue. I personally have known 2 people who bought mid-90s
> Ford Escorts in which the engine was destroyed by water pump failure
> (caused the timing belt to fail) after the warranty expired and before
> the car was paid for. Aargh!
>
> Mike
>
>

euro cars are louzy too nowadays
the big three in europe: ford, vw en opel are just expensive crap.
weak electronics and other cheap parts are killing the cars lifetime en
reliability.
especially opel and vw are suffering from that kind of management.
therefore an increasing number of people buy japanese or korean cars
(kia and hyundai)
some people buy mercedes benz w124 series from mid 80s because they are
better build and more reliable then the current models.

marcel

 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:kc-dnbaQsNJFXDbcRVn-uA@sedona.net:

> "marcel" <no_mail@xxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:Xns95B182E824B6marceltje@212.83.64.216...
>>>
>>> The car definitely does not like driving in a straight line, even
>>> without any wind. Without constant adjustment from the steering
>>> wheel it will wander around the lane or change lanes by itself. To
>>> make matters worse, it gets easily blown around by the wind.
>>>
>>
>> in europe all the us cars are known for 4 things:
>> - they are big
>> - they handle like a ship at sea
>> - their badly fuel economy
>> - they are badly put together (rattles)
>>
>> marcel
>> the netherlands
>> driving a '99 honda civic 1.5 vtec-e
>>
>> (last E stands for economic which means 17 km/litre or aprox 40
>> mls/gallon)
>
> My biggest complaint (I don't argue with your points) is that many of
> them are built to hold up for 3 years - after that, it isn't a
> warranty issue. I personally have known 2 people who bought mid-90s
> Ford Escorts in which the engine was destroyed by water pump failure
> (caused the timing belt to fail) after the warranty expired and before
> the car was paid for. Aargh!
>
> Mike
>
>

euro cars are louzy too nowadays
the big three in europe: ford, vw en opel are just expensive crap.
weak electronics and other cheap parts are killing the cars lifetime en
reliability.
especially opel and vw are suffering from that kind of management.
therefore an increasing number of people buy japanese or korean cars
(kia and hyundai)
some people buy mercedes benz w124 series from mid 80s because they are
better build and more reliable then the current models.

marcel