J-SMITH69

2008 Chevrolet Malibu Classic LT2 - $19,117 to $20,230
cheapest model
3.5L V6 219HP 22/32 mpg


2008 Toyota Camry $18,570 - $28,120
cheapest model
2.4L I4 158HP 21/31 mpg

most expensive camry
2008 Toyota Camry XLE V6 $28,120
3.5L V6 268HP 19/28 mpg

ooo better mileage, damn near twice the horsepower and torque

J-SMITH69

here comes the ownage part

hey stylezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz what car do you dd/drive when you project car is broken down? hmmmmmm

lets see, your project car is slower than mine. is always broken down, and pretty much everyone agrees is homosexual

your dd is unknown, and we all can guess is pretty gay and slow and was probably handed down to you from your grandma.

AWDstylez

Stock GTOs that run .5 second and more importantly, 7mph faster than your "fast" car.


Twice the horsepower? Who taught you math? 2 x 268 = 536 536hp is a far cry from 219hp. Let me know when you see a 536hp Malibu. Even if you were talking about the 4 cylinder, 2 x 158 = 316hp. Twice the horsepower? Nice try, you're 97hp short. Top of the line (and I use that phrase loosely) Malibu is also $26,995, not the $20,230 you claimed, so you might want to check those numbers too.
The really funny thing here is that the 3.5L Malibu makes as much power as the new 2.5L Sentra SE-R and gets worse gas mileage. Compared to the Toyota, of course it gets better mileage, its down 49hp from the V6 Camry with the same size motor. Much like your own car, no power = good mileage. Toyota's same 3.5L makes 289hp in the Avalon, 303hp in the GS350, and 306hp in the IS350 which is enough to propel that heavy *** luxury sedan into the *gasp* mid 13's, just like your "fast" ---- box. Meanwhile the Malibu sits at the very back of the pack as the laughing stock of 3.5L motor bearing cars, down nearly 100hp from its import equivalants (again, being used loosely, there's hardly a comparison, let alone any equivalancy).
Dare I even mention the 3.6L Malibu motor (I don't even see your mythical 3.5L listed) with all sorts of GM's amazing valve timing crap etc etc etc that makes an underwhelming 252hp, making it one of the lowest output family sedan V6's currently produced, but that's the not the best part. How about that wonderfully amazingish and astonishing gas mileage that all the GM nut swings love to lay claim to... well, it's not so spectacular. In fact it gets a laughable 26mpg highway and 17mpg city... worse than the Camry that makes more power.

All of that is irrelivant anyway. Only a magazine race like yourself would sit here and compare RATED power numbers and EPA MILEAGE. Go drive both cars and the difference is laughable. Test drive them again after 20,000 miles and the difference is downright embarassing for GM.

J-SMITH69

ooo you got me. i meant to say 50% more horsepower. nice work...

top of the line camry is the only one you can get w/o a weak 4 banger. you have to spend about 26k to get a v6 camry, and the v6 malibu is 19k

that is partly why the malibu is worth less 10 years down the road it was worth less to begin with...

the malibu is nothing more than a grandma car, its not supposed to be "fast" like the SE-R vpsec peice of ----

you're a clown if you think the is350 will run mid 13s. that 350z won't even do that consistantly... if at all...

all those "mid 13" cars with the 3.5l you are so in love with, are about 10k+ more than the malibu.

if you want to spend that... get the impala SS. v8. 303hp 300+ftlbs better gas mileage, not gay, etc...

the quotes i posted were direct, from MSN autos. you're making up gas mileage numbers with no proof.

pure ownage for much less $.

according to your ricer logic if the is350 runs mid 13s, the impala ss must run 12s... which we all know can barely touch low 14s

2007 Chevrolet Impala SS Technical Spec - ~28k
Standard Engine
5.3L V8
Standard Transmission
4 Speed Automatic
Cylinders
8
Horsepower @ RPM
303@5600
Torque @ RPM
323@4400 (foot-lbs)

2008 Toyota Avalon Limited Technical Specs - ~34k
Standard Engine
3.5L V6
Standard Transmission
6 Speed Automatic
Cylinders
6
Horsepower @ RPM
268@6200
Torque @ RPM
248@4700 (foot-lbs)

2007 Lexus IS 350 6-Speed Sequential Technical Specs - ~35k
Standard Engine
3.5L V6
Standard Transmission
6 Speed Automatic
Cylinders
6
Horsepower @ RPM
306@6400
Torque @ RPM
277@4800 (foot-lbs)

2007 Lexus GS 350 AWD Technical Spec - ~46k
Standard Engine
3.5L V6
Standard Transmission
6 Speed Automatic
Cylinders
6
Horsepower @ RPM
303@6200
Torque @ RPM
274@3600 (foot-lbs)
277@4800 (foot-lbs)

J-SMITH69

ricer logic,

the import car are sooo much better than the imports (when you compare 19k cars to 35k cars)

compare them by price, and imports don't stand a chance.

J-SMITH69

pontiac grand prix GXP > is350 for 10k less

charger SRT8 is the same price as a IS350... 6.1L hemi, 425hp 420tq.... must run 11s because that is350 runs mid 13s!!! woo

hemi 300c, big ***** on is350s costs less same gas mileage. ownage

but hey, that sweet supra will come out with a sweet v10 600hp in 2015

QikEnuF

Shame the Viper is officially there now. Comes in a couple really loud metallic colors now too. Now GM must bring out the S/C'd Corvette Blue Devil. Oh by the way, rumored motor on the new Skyline GTR is a 3.8L V6 with twin snails that will make ~450hp and cost $70,000. Z06 makes that right now for $5k less to the wheels, and the GT500 makes 500chp for ~45k now that they can't sell them

QikEnuF

Oh, and GM just outsold Toyota by about 150,000 cars this last monthly report. And Toyota barely outsold Ford... So much for your sales arguement

AWDstylez

You still don't get it. Depreciation is a percentage, it has nothing to do with what the car was worth orginally. In 3 years the Malibu will be worth 30% of its initial value while the Camry will be worth 60% of its original value. That has absolutely nothing to do with what the cars' original prices were and has everything to do with the fact that the GM dumbestic car is a piece of ---- and the Camry is not. You really need a lesson in 2nd grade math.


An ironic statement from someone that just quoted a bunch of manufacturer rated power numbers and EPA mileage estimates for a bunch of cars he's never driven and then drew conclusions on which cars are better based solely on those two numbers. Magazine racer describes you to a tee.

Maybe if you actually had some personal experiece with the cars you're talking about, or better yet some seat time, you're opinions would have a shread of validity. Until then, you're just boy magazine racer whipping around in his slow Z28 that he thinks is fast, while spouting off random and unfounded opinion on a bunch of cars he's never seen in person, much less driven. And I'll just sit back and laugh, being the guy that works at the GM/Toyota/Lexus dealer, the guy that sees one year old CTS's come in for new long blocks at 25k and new trannies at 30k, the guy that the GM service manager (who previously worked for Nissan) told "Wow these cars are pieces of ----", the guy that sees at least one lemon buy back of a GM vehicle per week, and let's not forget, the guy that's actually put a few hundred, if not a few thousand, miles on every one of the cars being debated.


Forgive me. I forgot that when you buy a car, the only thing you buy is the rated power.

A gutted EG with a turbo B-series will make 900hp. That'd be a really sweet car. I bet you get all the ladies in one of those. And I'm pretty sure an Abrams tank makes like 10,000hp. Now that's the ----!

Again, read the annual reports. GM is already finished. Everyone in the industry knows this. There's not much debate about it.

QikEnuF

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/04/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes