Alero Vs. Malibu

[jwth2005]

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]

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]

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]

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]

the 3.5 lt 'bu is pretty quick...

[shockz]

I'd rather have a cutlass than a malibu.

[Vtolds]

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]

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

[shockz]

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.

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]

http://photos2.ebizautos.com/923/609608_18.jpg

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

[Vtolds]

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

[FormulaNERD]

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

[Youngblood77]

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]

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]

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

[gxryan]

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.

[3.4Alero]

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:

[anthony547]

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.

[anthony547]

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]

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.

[-Alero-]

Originally posted by mike2002@Mar 6 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
just wondering, whats so bad about the 3.4 twin cam. cause my girlfriends parents just bought my g/f a 95 monte carlo and it has that engien in it. and her whole family will not stop saying, "oh thats the fastest car ive ever been in" "that car will go, its ready to race" "boy i hate to tell you kyle, but that car is way faster than your car will ever be" and im always like "i hate to tell you guys but i dont drive a sportscar so quit acting like i do" and its just tons of BS i dont wanna hear from them.

but anyways! what are all the problems with that engine, and whats all hjunky about it.

also, is the 3.4 HO and the 3.4 Twin Cam diferrent engines?

[Oldsman]

3.4 twin cam is known for timing belt breaking and mong a lot of other issues the motor had.

[-Alero-]

Originally posted by Oldsman@Mar 7 2005, 09:39 PM
3.4 twin cam is known for timing belt breaking and mong a lot of other issues the motor had.
you dont think i could get some exact problem definitions on it do you. cause i wanna tell my g/f's dad about it and kinda rub it in his face cause he thinks the car is so great and he knows everything. like an ass..... <_<

[mike2002]

Originally posted by Alero-+Mar 7 2005, 08:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (-Alero- @ Mar 7 2005, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mike2002@Mar 6 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
just wondering, whats so bad about the 3.4 twin cam. cause my girlfriends parents just bought my g/f a 95 monte carlo and it has that engien in it. and her whole family will not stop saying, "oh thats the fastest car ive ever been in" "that car will go, its ready to race" "boy i hate to tell you kyle, but that car is way faster than your car will ever be" and im always like "i hate to tell you guys but i dont drive a sportscar so quit acting like i do" and its just tons of BS i dont wanna hear from them.

but anyways! what are all the problems with that engine, and whats all hjunky about it.

also, is the 3.4 HO and the 3.4 Twin Cam diferrent engines? [/b][/quote]
there high 15 second cars, they must not have diven any fast cars. 95's are also the slowest, somthing to do with the intake manifold being redesigned giving them more power in the 96-97's.

like he said, the timming belt, has a habit of breaking. the 3.4dohc engine IS a interference engine, despite what some people say. so what that means, is if the belt snaps while its running (when else would it break!) there's a very good chance that the valves will come in contact with the pistons, and bend them, making the engine more expensive to repair than it would be to just get a used one from the junkyard. since then, gm has used a timming chain in there H.O. dohc engines, like the northstar.

then you have the alternator issue. not only is it a junk alternator, you cant even see the thing when you pop the hood...which is bad for 2 reasons. 1, it overheats and burns out. sooooooo when you do want to change it, since its all nice and tucked away, its like a 6 hour job to change it.

since its dohc its heads are enormous, making it a HUGE PIA to work on it, or even change the plugs

the 3.4 dohc is a extremely high maintance engine. its not uncommon for a 3.4dohc to run in the low to mid 16's because there very tempermental about being in tip top shape. a faster 3.4 would be mid 15's at best when stock, and thats faster than the norm.

2 of my friends have owned 3.4's, a cutlass and a monte. i test drove a 95 cutlass with the lq1 which didn't seem to be running at its hardest. it pulled pretty good up top, but nothing to right home about. but like i said, they range from mid 15's to mid 16's, most in the high 15's....about what a 3400 runs. infact, without your boat anchor rims (im kidding) and a cai/exhaust, id bet $$$ you could take it, throw a dhp in and its all over for him, stock for stock, there pretty close. but the 3.4 focus's on top end, 3400 on bottom end torque.

[mike2002]

btw, im not dissing w-body's...i like the lumina z34's, monte's and cutlass's....and would like one some day, when i can afford a l67 swap.

[BLK03GXS]

The 3.4 DOHC or "HO" engine is a fairly powerfull motor... but yes is harder to work on, but has HUGE potential... i think reading articles when GM first had it made it dynoed like well over 300 hp, but detuned it because they couldnt make trannys that would keep up with it.
Regardless it is a engine that i would be leary of over about 150000 KMs or w.e that converts too, they do eventually start to burn oil, smoke and become BAD engines... but with deacent K they are awsome... IMO
If maintained right... lol

[mike2002]

i thought they were originally up to like 276hp, before they reliezed they couldn't make a auto tranny for it. we'll probably never know the exact number SHO was the same story, 3.0 dohc v6 made about 300hp, but you cant have a taurus faster than a mustang....

[Cliff8928]

The 3.4 DOHC's main issue was that it was not designed from scratch, the block was a modified pushrod block. They don't have many "issues" that are that big of a deal. The timing belts most often break because of people not following the maintenance schedule, that's how it happens on most cars. They run mid 15s stock with a 5-speed if i remember that one right.

At least the 3.4 DOHC is a good 60° naturally balanced design, just like the 3400 in the alero. And it doesn't need a balance shaft or MASSIVE harmonic balancer like that antiquated 3800 (which will be gone within a year or so).

For more info on the 3.4 DOHC or any of the other GM 60° V6s go to http://www.60degreev6.com

[Final-Reality]

There's a reason GM is replacing the 90° 3800 with a new 3.9L 60° V6, which is essentially a bored and stroked 3400, which is a bored 3100, which is a bored and stroked 2.8L... you get the picture. Anyways the point is the 3800 is a big iron pig for the power that it makes, and the 3.9L makes more power from a more compact, naturally balanced engine that can consequently be put in more vehicles. than the wider 3800.

The 3800 is a very solid motor, one of the most durable GM has ever made... but it's an antiquated design that won't meet emissions standards for many more years, and GM thought it would be better to work on development of the 60° V6 since it fits in their "midsize" vehicles unlike the 3800 and still makes more horsepower than the 3800 (non S/C of course) does.

Now if they could only get the damn thing to stop eating intake gaskets...

[jackal]

My dad drives a 97 boneville with a S/C and that thing can hall balls! For being big and heavy I really didn't think that it would do much but it can woop my ass for sure and the Taurus Sho were s**t IMO.

[99ALERO]

I lost to a 2003 Malibu with the 3100, the 170Hp one. Sad...... I think the new malibu is ugly. I WANT MY 92 CUTLASS BACK. The 3.1 Multi-Port was like a rock and I never stuck any money in that damn car! Rode very nice too.

[alero440]

I think its funny how you guys complain about the motors being a pain in the butt to work on. First off any new model car is going to have an engine CRAMMED into it because of all the technical stuff and electrical stuff involved. If you want a "simple motor" to work on get a carborated motor and call it a day. Oh, my the way I have an 01 3400 with absolutely no problems what so ever. My 2.4 litre had more issues with it then the 3400. I have also been told that the 3400 is better then the 2.4. My moms 92 Lumina Z-34's motor had more issues then any car I have seen in my life. They are a cool car, but if you get one expect to replace the tranny like 10 times.

[Oldsman]

bottom line Malibu sucks and Alero rules. nothing more to say.

[alero440]

Nicely put Oldsman.

[Oldsman]

why thank you ;)

[alero_ecotec]

Tarus SHO's were descent when they were running good. My friend owns one that he's going to use for winter driving. It can haul, but has had a countless number of repairs and recalls on it. And i know a tarus SHO for winter driving seems a little stupid. But that's just so he can garage his new 2005 Mustang GT with about every option available. :grin: