Alero Vs. Malibu

03-05-2005, 04:54 AM

Ok i have some questions about these cars... Number one.... Arent they on the same platform?? i know theya re different motors but arent they roughly the same amount of powere and torque? And last but not least handling... Which handles the best??? Reason why i ask is cuz i love both cars. One of my friends has one and says his is extrememly responsive as far as handling goes... so how does it fare to the alero???

Vtolds · 03-05-2005, 07:45 AM

They are both biult on the same platform, I know that. They both use the same engines but there may be slight HP differences. As far as suspension goes I would think that they use the same exact springs, struts and brakes.

Youngblood77 · 03-05-2005, 09:30 AM

I believe you're right, Danny....same suspension components. ( the STB's available for malibus may be a tad different. ) But I think performance wise it would be fairly close, mainly determined by the individual car's weight. ( provided you match up 2 6's against each other, or 2 4's...you know )

I can totally see why your friend likes Malibus so much, I wouldn't mind having one with some Springtechs and 18's installed. Not a new one mind you, but the older body style...something about that big chrome strip across the back of the new ones isn't appealing to me.

mike2002 · 03-05-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jwth2005@Mar 5 2005, 04:54 AM
Ok i have some questions about these cars... Number one.... Arent they on the same platform?? i know theya re different motors but arent they roughly the same amount of powere and torque? And last but not least handling... Which handles the best??? Reason why i ask is cuz i love both cars. One of my friends has one and says his is extrememly responsive as far as handling goes... so how does it fare to the alero???

which malibu are you talking about? the brand new style, or the style thats a few years old?

FormulaNERD · 03-05-2005, 12:04 PM

the 3.5 lt 'bu is pretty quick...

03-05-2005, 01:41 PM

I'd rather have a cutlass than a malibu.

Vtolds · 03-05-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by shockz@Mar 5 2005, 01:41 PM
I'd rather have a cutlass than a malibu.

Wasnt the Cutlass the Exact Same car as the Malibu but they just changed the badging?

FormulaNERD · 03-05-2005, 01:43 PM

true that.... i'm currently looking for a 94-96 supreme sl with low miles.

03-05-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VTOLDS+Mar 5 2005, 06:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (VTOLDS @ Mar 5 2005, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shockz@Mar 5 2005, 01:41 PM
I'd rather have a cutlass than a malibu.

Wasnt the Cutlass the Exact Same car as the Malibu but they just changed the badging? [/b][/quote]
97-99 have more standard features than the malibu and interior is better imo.

Quote:

true that.... i'm currently looking for a 94-96 supreme sl with low miles.

Thats what we were looking into before we bought our G6.

FormulaNERD · 03-05-2005, 02:12 PM

slap some 20's and air/hydro and you're set...

Vtolds · 03-05-2005, 02:14 PM

Would be a big + if it had the 3.4 DOHC engine.

FormulaNERD · 03-05-2005, 02:26 PM

yea.... the 3.4 HO is pretty sweet.

Youngblood77 · 03-05-2005, 04:28 PM

Dude, that's one of my favorite rides...I always wanted one of those Cutty's in red with the white rims, white int. and the white convertable top......I'm a sucker for that color combo on a 'vert. ( It looks sweet on a 72' cutlass, an early 90's 'stang, and those mid 90's Cutty's ) The only Cutlas I drove of that "vintage" was a 96, and it handled much like the alero....dare I say better. They're a heavy car, but the width is a huge advantage to hiding it's weight, handling wise. :thumbsup:

FormulaNERD · 03-05-2005, 04:32 PM

yea, and the suspension is different in the rear too, i think it's a leaf type, not the springs over struts... and i'm sure the width helps.

mike2002 · 03-06-2005, 12:01 PM

id never buy a car with the 3.4 dohc in my life, and if i did it would getting swapped out for a l67

that engine is pure junk

i wanted a red 96 cutlass 3.4, but i couldn't get over how crappy that engine is. and i didn't have the $$$ to swap in a l67, but there's a lot of people that will do the swap for you if you have the money

03-06-2005, 01:12 PM

Yeah my friend had a Monte with that 3.4 DOHC,

It was quick i'll give you thats. TONS of power.

Just a pitty that at 170,000km's it was on it's 3 engine.

and even on it's third engine it would blow smoke once in a while.
he couldent even run synthetic oil it would just burn it.

03-06-2005, 08:28 PM

The PREVIOUS Malibu's were n-bodies. Same as the Alero and GA. They came with the 3100 (at least my wife's '98 did). The car handled for poop compared to my Alero. Everything about it was soft. Suspension, steering, seats, chassis. It was a fine car to take on a long trip, but as far as performance.... :rolleyes:

03-07-2005, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FormulaNERD@Mar 5 2005, 01:43 PM
true that.... i'm currently looking for a 94-96 supreme sl with low miles.

I had a 1997 Cutlass Supreme SL two door. All black with charcol interior. Had it all except Leather and a Moonroof. Exactily what I wanted.

I liked the unique spiler with the flow through tail lights.

I loved that car I sold it with like 78,000 miles on it.

The only thing I diddnt like was the T-handle shifter. So I swapped that out with the Pistol grip shifter from a 1996 Cavalier like I did on my Alero. I also did not like the mini quad lights.. not the lights themselves but the limit on what kind of bulbs you could get ready to plug in. If you wanted persay cool blues or silverstars, you had to money with the light assembly itself. You would figure they would be availble in silverstars and cool blue being Grand Prix/Cutlass are fairly popular cars...

It's a shame that GM doesnt make that anymore or any Two door W-bodies except for the Monte Carlo.

This Alero will be my last car for a few years and my LAST car from GM.

If I had the money I would have a Dodge Magnum or something 50's-70's this new stuff fails to impress me.

03-07-2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 3.4Alero@Mar 6 2005, 08:28 PM
The PREVIOUS Malibu's were n-bodies. Same as the Alero and GA. They came with the 3100 (at least my wife's '98 did). The car handled for poop compared to my Alero. Everything about it was soft. Suspension, steering, seats, chassis. It was a fine car to take on a long trip, but as far as performance.... :rolleyes:

I think the whole modern Malibu (80's-present) is a mockery of the ORIGINAL Malibu. like 1968. They just reserected the name for a lack of imagination and to spark sales.

Besides the Malibu was the replacement for the Corsica if that explains anything.

Well that what most cars are now a days.. just a piss int he face of the real car's from the 50's-70's.. at least I think so.

brsexton · 03-07-2005, 04:16 PM

The older w-body cutlass cars were great. My grandma had a 94 which I loved. As far as the N-body Malibu goes, the basics of the car are the same. On the 97-99's they offered the 2.4 and the 3100. Starting in 2000 all you could get was the 3100. Then in 2004 they started using the same N-body malibu calling it the "Classic". It only comes with the 2.2 Ecotec. It is used for fleets and rentals. But yeah, the malibu's compared to alero still have the same exact sucky brakes\rotors, wheel bearings, ect.