Home » The 2004 Chevrolet Malibu Is The Worst Of 2000s GM Distilled Into One Car: GM Hit Or Miss

The 2004 Chevrolet Malibu Is The Worst Of 2000s GM Distilled Into One Car: GM Hit Or Miss

2004 Chevrolet Malibu Topshot 2
ADVERTISEMENT

Misjudging a segment can have funny results. Sometimes, the result is a complete overachiever with disappointing sales like the Volkswagen Phaeton. Sometimes, the result is something with swimming pools full of character even if it isn’t as dialed-in as its competitors, like the Jaguar F-Type. Sometimes, a car’s just ahead of its time and history vindicates it, like the original Acura NSX. Oh, and sometimes you end up with the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu. I bet you wish that you didn’t have to think of this car today. Welcome back to GM Hit Or Miss, where we peel back the layers of GM’s pre-bankruptcy product planning in an attempt to understand the ultimate question: Why?

2003 Midsize Sedan Composite

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

In 2003, the midsize sedan market was in the middle of an arms race. Nissan was cranking out as many 245-horsepower Altimas as it possibly could, Mazda was showing off gadgetry and handling prowess, the Honda Accord was objectively better than ever before, and the Volkswagen Passat was a full-fat German family sedan with four-, six-, or eight-cylinder power. For the first time since the revolutionary 1992 Toyota Camry, the most popular passenger car segment in America was in the midst of a shakeup, and any determined manufacturer could make huge strides.

2000 Chevrolet Malibu 1

It just so happens that in 2003, the Chevrolet Malibu was ready to be replaced. Based on the N-body platform, it was perfectly in-tune with the needs of the late 1990s, but the new millennium demanded more, and GM recognized this yearning. So, the automotive giant hatched a cunning plan: What would happen if they were to take a Vectra and make it worse?

ADVERTISEMENT

2004 Chevrolet Malibu 2

Yes, the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu was the first U.S. marque-branded vehicle on GM’s Epsilon platform, but certainly far from the only car on it. The sixth-generation Malibu has a litany of global relatives including the Opel and Vauxhall Vectra, the Saab 9-3, the Cadillac BLS, the Pontiac G6, the Saturn Aura, and surprisingly enough, the Fiat Chroma. That’s quite impressive when you consider that all of those vehicles are more appealing than the Malibu, a true feat of disgusting mediocrity made possible by pre-bankruptcy GM’s dysfunction.

2004 Chevrolet Malibu 1

The Vauxhall Vectra is a deeply anonymous car, but the Malibu was downright ugly at launch. From the plastichrome schnoz to weird sweeping character lines over the arches that go absolutely nowhere, the sixth-generation Malibu is awkward at every angle. Sure, the car it replaced was almost featureless aside from peanut-shaped headlamps, but I’ll take boring over unsightly any day of the week. However, the Malibu’s exterior styling is nothing compared to its cabin.

2004 Chevrolet Malibu Interior

ADVERTISEMENT

This mass of hard, unpleasant, woefully chintzy brain matter grey plastic was what GM decided mid-aughts customers deserved. Look at it: The panel gaps visible from the International Space Station, the pitiful askewness of everything on the door cards, the central air vents looking like a cheap humidifier. Sure, the seats were comfy, but how much does that help when every other interior component is an advertisement for better life choices? Adding insult to injury, the 2004 Malibu has a less-attractive, cheaper-feeling interior than the car it replaced. Seriously, just look at the old fifth-generation N-body Malibu’s cabin.

2000 Chevrolet Malibu Interior

Admittedly, that’s not a phenomenal cabin, but the pillar-mounted air vents are neat, and there’s a nice enough mix of colors, vinyl-clad panels, and acceptable fake wood here that it doesn’t seem terrible. I wouldn’t balk if a fifth-generation Chevrolet Malibu was my rental car in 2002. Plus, it also had reasonably comfy seats.

2004 Chevrolet Malibu V6 Engine

With the horsepower war in the midsize segment raging on, you might expect Chevrolet to have put a particularly strong optional engine in the 2004 Malibu. Although stronger than the standard 145-horsepower 2.2-liter four-cylinder engine, the day-one upgrade was a 3.5-liter 60-degree pushrod V6 making 200 horsepower and 220 lb.-ft. of torque. Good going, GM. You really showed the competition how it’s done. Oh, and I hope you like four-speed automatic gearboxes because that’s all you’re getting.

ADVERTISEMENT

2004 Chevrolet Malibu On The Road 1a

Alright, so the powertrain lineup was a disappointment ranked somewhere between dropping your ice cream and the finale of “Game of Thrones,” but that Epsilon platform is a promising set of bones. After all, the Saab 9-3 drives pretty well and newer Epsilon-platform cars are alright, so maybe the 2004 Chevrolet Malibu redeemed itself on the open road? Well, not quite. Upon the Malibu’s introduction, Car And Driver noted some ride quality concerns.

Although the rigidity is supposedly improved, we didn’t get the sense that our Malibu was as tight and solid as a 9-3, or an Accord, for that matter. After any significant bump, we felt aftershocks reverberating through the car, resulting in a “gut jiggle” sensation from the driver’s seat. Maybe this isn’t the structure flexing but rather some suspension component whose frequency is poorly matched to the body’s and is therefore exciting the structure like a plucked guitar string.

Guess what? Every clapped-out Malibu today rides exactly the same as it did when new. Who’d have thought? Oh, and don’t think a jiggly ride resulted in good handling because it didn’t. The electric power steering is vague, and body roll is sufficient enough to classify the Malibu as a single-use ocean-going vessel.

2004 Chevrolet Malibu 3

So far, it seems like the sixth-generation Chevrolet Malibu was a way for company bosses to punish middle management, rental car companies to punish customers, and brand loyalists to punish themselves, mostly because it was. However, not all sixth-generation Malibus were created equally. Sometimes, you just need to take it to the Maxx. You didn’t think I forgot about the Malibu Maxx, did you?

ADVERTISEMENT

Chevrolet Malibu Maxx 1a

This was essentially the last mass-market midsized station wagon from a mainstream American automaker, although there’s some debate over that wagon moniker due to the weird stepped hatch. Still, this was a practical family car with 22.5 cu.-ft. of trunk space and some neat available features.

Chevrolet Malibu Maxx Cargo Area

On the more practical side of things, the rear seat could fold, recline, and slide, the front passenger seat could fold flat, and the cargo cover could be used as a table. As far as more lavish amenities go, the rear seat occupants were treated to their own sunroof, and you could even get rear seat entertainment in the Malibu Maxx. All in all, it was an exceedingly practical family car that was unfortunate enough to inherit questionable styling, a low-rent dashboard, and a subpar driving experience from the regular Malibu sedan.

Chevrolet Malibu Ss

ADVERTISEMENT

Oh, and then there was the Malibu SS, because this was the era of Maximum Bob and GM Performance, so everything needed a sporty version. Granted, the Malibu SS was more flash than substance as its 240-horsepower pushrod V6 was outgunned by segment leaders, and its four-speed automatic out-geared. Car And Driver managed a zero-to-60 mph run in 6.9 seconds, which doesn’t look brilliant next to, say, the sub-six-second dash afforded by Nissan’s medium-spicy Altima 3.5 SE. Still, at least it got hydraulic power steering over the regular model’s electrically-assisted rack.

Handling and ride? There’s still some learning to do. For such a modern suspension, the Maxx SS’s supplies a leaden ride in the style of Big Three performance packages of yore. Over bumps the floor shivers with impact clunks and resonant vibrations. There’s always an acute sense of the metal in motion down below.

Oh dear, that’s not good. On the plus side, the handling of the SS was much improved over the standard model. On the minus side, fit-and-finish was still atrocious. From one-grit mold lines unsuitable on even the cheapest patio furniture to an inherent feeling of flimsiness, the cabin of the Malibu SS was a pretty terrible place to be. Perhaps Car And Driver summed it up best when it said, “There’s this sense that if you turned the car over and shook it vigorously the entire interior might fall out.”

2006 Chevrolet Malibu 1

Coinciding with the 2006 launch of the Malibu SS, the standard car got a facelift that deleted the chrome nose and made Chevy’s midsizer substantially less offensive to look at from the front. The shit character lines down the profile remained, but at least this revised rental special wouldn’t make you want to do a technicolor yawn if you saw one coming up in your rearview mirror. After the 2007 model year, the sixth-generation Malibu was semi-retired for the 2008 model year as the Malibu Classic before mercifully being taken behind the woodshed and put out of its misery.

2004 Chevrolet Malibu Rear

ADVERTISEMENT

Car And Driver reported that Bob Lutz confidently stated “The importance of this car is the demonstration that General Motors will do world-class automobiles.” Sorry Bob, this ain’t it. The sixth-generation Chevrolet Malibu is a deeply flawed car, an indisputable miss, and perhaps the most prominent symbol of GM’s pre-bankruptcy race to the bottom. I don’t hate many vehicles, but I despise what the standard four-door sixth-generation Malibu stands for. It was a miss of colossal proportions, as evidenced by the vastly-improved seventh-generation Malibu that won hearts across America. Pre-bankruptcy GM was capable of so much better, so long as it actually tried. Cheap shit is still both cheap and shit. With a high enough price tag and stiff enough competition, everyone will eventually get fed up and splash more cash on something better.

(Photo credits: Chevrolet, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Volkswagen)

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

Relatedbar

Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.

ADVERTISEMENT
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Boxing Pistons
Boxing Pistons
11 months ago

I HATED these when they first came out. That original mug is f*ing atrocious. They always looked more like an approximation of a car rather than a real car – like something from Little Tikes. My roommate picked up an 06 Max as a beater for cheap back in 2014ish just to keep miles off of his pickup. It was around the same time I finally hunted down a low-mileage manual TSX. They were both ‘06s, but what a difference! I know that they were in different classes, but come on! My TSX still looked new minus the cracked leather on the driver seat, but the ‘Bu was falling apart with sun damage galore and pieces falling off left and right. All that said, he ran the piss out if that cockroach and sold it a few years later for what he paid. Great deal, but he had to drive a Malibu for 4 years.

Black Peter
Black Peter
11 months ago

I had the unfortunate experience of going on a service call in Yorktown NY, that lead to one in Burlington VT, that lead to one in Portland ME… all in a 6th Maxx rental.

Thanks a lot for reminding me..

sentinelTk
sentinelTk
11 months ago

Always amazes me that for every good auto industry insight that comes out of Lutz’s pen/keyboard/mouth there exists one of these or an Envoy XUV abomination.

Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
11 months ago

IDC because they offered a wagon with 290 hp. IMO if we break down what a car should be it should be useful first. Wagons are useful. 290hp can move you quickly. That’s fun. This obsession with modern cars needing to drive as good as and have an interior as good their peers (that cost many dollars more) is asinine while we drool over truly bad driving vehicles that happen to be vintage. This would mop the floor with the piece of shit 1966 Corvette I just drove. So, so what, it was eclipsed by other vehicles. It’s still a decent car, in wagon form, with 290 hp. We’ve become way too picky in what is “good.” The mere idea that an unreliable piece of shit german car is “luxurious” and the “standard” is hilarious when you can take a step back.

Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
11 months ago

Now, was the 1966 Corvette I just drove, fun to drive? YES. Just like this weird thing would be fun to drive in it’s own right. But the vette was still a bad driving vehicle that we give a pass to because ‘Murica.

Salaryman
Salaryman
11 months ago

I spent some time in the factory that made this vehicle (Kansas City I believe) and they had boards up all around the factory touting the results of their market surveys and how this car hit all of the highlights. The one I remember is that people liked oversized sideview mirrors and they oversized them on the ‘bu.

We did end-up owning one for a few years until my son ran over a rock and took out the oil pan. He didn’t realize the engine needed oil to operate. 🙁

Boxing Pistons
Boxing Pistons
11 months ago
Reply to  Salaryman

I remember reading about the extensive market research they did to develop this. It is the definition of a camel – a horse designed by committee.

OldDrunkenSailor
OldDrunkenSailor
11 months ago

My favorite thing about the Maxx was that when the automotive magazines were doing tests, the horrible suspension in the slalom ended up setting off rollover sensors and the tests had to be stopped because OnStar kept calling to make sure the driver was okay ????

PaysOutAllNight
PaysOutAllNight
11 months ago

The Malibu was great for what it was actually designed to be:

An inexpensive driving appliance that was efficient and durable.

But GM had an additional goal that this Malibu did a great job meeting:

The car had be be comfortable in daily use, and drive enough like the huge floaty GM barges of prior years so that prior GM customers would feel at home in it.

To do all of this, they had to cut corners, and actually did a pretty good job at choosing what parts would be cheaply built, too.

It was actually an excellent car when you remember that most of its buyers were former GM owners. And yes, the seats in these were very comfortable, indeed.

Last edited 11 months ago by PaysOutAllNight
ADDvanced
ADDvanced
11 months ago

lol I remember the maxx, and I remember some wannabe yuppies who couldn’t afford VW jetta/passat wagons, getting the maxx and thinking they were cool smart customers. That car was utter trash.

Trecoolx
Trecoolx
11 months ago

This was such a bad time — in decades of bad times — in GM’s history, and the Malibu in particular seemed like they didn’t care. I remember being dumbfounded when it, the Maxx, and lots of other Chevys got the SS moniker, as it seemed to render the trim level useless. As useless as the Malibu aside from being basic transportation.

But at least Chevy wasn’t alone in mediocrity. The other two of the Big 3 were churning out Fisher Price plastic monstrosities with questionable dynamics. But the Malibu was a special piece of plop.

Pneumatic Tool
Pneumatic Tool
11 months ago

I never realized how much these Malibus resembled the Focus of the era from the side (those dumb arches) however it should be noted that Focus was admittedly at the bottom rung of Ford – Malibu was supposed to be a step above that. Furthermore, I’d say that this Malibu gives the Galant of the same era a serious run for being the biggest disappointment available at the time

Boxing Pistons
Boxing Pistons
11 months ago
Reply to  Pneumatic Tool

That Galant along with the Eclipse and Endeavor were crap and all built in that same PS AKA “Project America” platform.

IRegertNothing, Esq.
IRegertNothing, Esq.
11 months ago

My family rented a 5th gen Malibu while on vacation. The backseat was so uncomfortable that we had to rotate who sat back there. The engine produced more noise than power. God, what a pile of shit that thing was. Our family sedan back home was a 2003 Camry, and the difference between these two cars built in the same year was jarring. The Camry felt like a Rolls Royce by comparison to the rental fleet special GM pinched off. We were all happy to get back to the airport and drive home in a car that didn’t punish its occupants.

So the 6th gen wasn’t much of an improvement over the worst rental car I’ve ever been in? No wonder GM went bankrupt.

Last edited 11 months ago by IRegertNothing, Esq.
Unclesam
Unclesam
11 months ago

I can’t disagree with anything you say here, except for the unfavorable comparison to earlier generations. GM cars of the preceeding two decades were awful, ugly, chintzy junk. The couple of times I drove one of these in ~2005 I was astounded at how much better it was than the chevys and Pontiacs of my youth.

That Guy with the Sunbird
That Guy with the Sunbird
11 months ago

I loathe these cars.

My wife and I planned to depart for college 85-ish miles away from home in late 2010. We weren’t married then, but were dating. In mid-2009, her grandmother bought her a “new car” because she believed my wife’s then-current car, a 1992 Pontiac Grand Am with a scant 50,000-ish miles, wouldn’t handle the hour-or-so occasional drives to visit family back home.

Grandma bought a white on gray 2006 Chevrolet Malibu LT with 44,000 miles. We were grateful for the free car, but damn. It was horrid from day one. Nothing but problems. We kept it until December 2012 (we graduated college and were married in June 2012) and traded it in on a then-new 2013 Mazda CX-5 Sport.

In the series of 44,000 to 86,000 miles, we had the following problems:

– door switches failing intermittently, leading to dome light coming on when driving and alarm activating when parked
– electric power steering cutting out under 3/4 or more acceleration
– door chime weakening to where you could hardly hear it
– headlights fogging up so badly that they had to be replaced (cleaning/clearing them didn’t work)
– windshield delaminating at the edges and separating from the weatherstripping
– all door lock indicators on the doors subsequently breaking
– all dash air vents breaking (cheap plastic)
– weatherstripping around the interior door jambs fading to orange (?)
– water staining the seat cloth (yes, water)
– low coolant but no leaks on the ground or anywhere else (just a “low coolant” message in the information center in the radio and me having to add some)
– transmission slipping
– CD player jamming and eating CDs (radio was replaced under warranty 3 times)

I’m sure there are other problems I am forgetting. It was truly a hateful car. Its only redeeming quality was that the 3.5 V6 was pretty punchy and had some power. But, if you used that power at all, you’d get a mysterious warning chime and would lose the electric power steering.

When she first got the Malibu, I drove a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am GT1 coupe and it was funny to compare the two and see that the Grand Am was actually the better built car. It was like GM was going backwards.

GreatFallsGreen
GreatFallsGreen
11 months ago

A few of those definitely were common across ‘new GM’ products of the time. My dad had an Aura that was a reliable car but liable to nickel and dime for sure. We avoided the water-unresistant seat fabrics that afflicted most other GMs, and I think they squared away the electric power steering by then, but did have door lock actuators go out, key fob breaking (think battery contacts would snap off, maybe could be soldered), clunky intermediate steering shaft, an electrical quirk that would cause the radio to cut out or pop and never could be replicated by the dealer, and maybe most odd to me – the wheel covers didn’t delaminate but pitted, almost like they were rotting away or growing moss or something. I’ve seen wheel covers on other GMs of the time do the same thing. I bought some knockoff 7th gen Malibu ones to replace them. The Aura was a big improvement dynamically, but quality wise still had a ways to go.

InWayOverMyHead
InWayOverMyHead
11 months ago

I had a teal over grey ’92 Grand Am. That was actually a really good car. Maybe I was just lucky, but I got 140,000 really easy miles out of it.

That Guy with the Sunbird
That Guy with the Sunbird
11 months ago

My wife (then girlfriend) inherited her great-grandmother’s 1992 Grand Am SE sedan in late 2006 when she got her driver’s license. It was white over dark red cloth and had 32,000 miles. Was basically brand new. It was nice but needed a few things as she began to drive it regularly since it had basically just sat in a garage for 15 years.

Trust Doesn't Rust
Trust Doesn't Rust
11 months ago

I remember reading some positive insight on this car before it was introduced. Then, I saw it on the turntable at the Chicago auto show and thought:
“Huh. Really? I mean, I guess…?”
That’s how bad this car was. 20 years later, I still vividly remember my disappointed reaction upon seeing it.

That said, the Maxx intrigued me in that it was different. It looked kinda cool in an awkward sort of way. I feel like in another 15 years, we’re going to see a well-kept Malibu Maxx at the early-2000’s equivalent of RadWood (iWood?) and have the same appreciation for it that we would give a well-preserved Buick Skyhawk.

ADDvanced
ADDvanced
11 months ago

You mean none? Because yes, then it would be the same appreciation for it as a buick skyhawk.

Trust Doesn't Rust
Trust Doesn't Rust
11 months ago
Reply to  ADDvanced

I dunno, man. Yes, they’re miserable cars but I have an appreciation for anyone who chooses to keep a car well-maintained, no matter how terrible it is.

Maymar
Maymar
11 months ago

I’m not going to say these are misunderstood and secretly great, but if it were any more frugal and generic, it’d be painted bright yellow and Galen Weston would be gently overcharging us for it, and I find that kind of charming.

Plus, the seats in the SS were sort of cool (and, hard to fault it for being a bit slower than an Altima SE-R when it was also like $6 grand cheaper).

https://platform.cstatic-images.com/xlarge/in/v2/stock_photos/2ad9da1f-fc41-4bb2-8ef5-1fb39760a1f3/515866e9-db18-46ab-905f-43ddb0e55086.png

Shinynugget
Shinynugget
11 months ago

I remember when the Maxx was released and thinking(from afar) that it looked like an interesting car. A few months later I drove one as what else, a rental car. That rental Malibu Maxx single-handedly convinced me to never, ever buy a GM product that wasn’t a truck. It was bad in every way outlined in this article, and more.

That guy
That guy
11 months ago

From a mechanical view, the 3.5 engine was an EXTREEM upgrade from the 3.1. Our shop was replacing intake manifold gaskets to complete head jobs on the older engine. We had issues with the 2.2 ecotec timing chain, but no issues from the v6. We found the transmissions to be reliable also. The collision side of the shop preferred working on the 2004 -2008 models a lot better then the older ones also. You can’t compare them to a lot of the imports of that era. I disagree with Gm killing themselves with this car. Our shop saw them as a HUGE improvement to the older versions.

Brandon Forbes
Brandon Forbes
11 months ago
Reply to  That guy

While I agree the intake gaskets on both the 3.1 and 3.4 are straight trash, they really don’t matter. This is one of those engines that will run poorly longer than your average Honda will run at all. They will always leak oil, and they will always be annoying to listen to, but keep them full of oil and the darn thing is nearly unkillable. Growing up I had two 3.1s, and a 3.4. My sister and I both learned to drive on them, and beat the crap out of them, and they never even flinched. The first 3.1 was in an Olds Cutlass, and that thing made it to 250k before my mom sold it because she just had no use for it anymore having upgraded and the kids moving out. It leaked, left spots on the driveway, we had to top it up monthly, but it never had any real issue and I would not hesitate to recommend the engine to anyone looking for cheap transportation

GreatFallsGreen
GreatFallsGreen
11 months ago

A couple peeple mentioned reviews of the time seemed very positive – I mostly recall C/D’s reviews which seemed to damn with faint praise at best, even in this preview drive, as well as reviews like the Maxx (didn’t see it linked above; the Congress line has stuck in my mind even all these years later). Maybe they were backing off a bit after eviscerating recent Saturns like the ION and L, or just giving Lutz the benefit of the doubt since it was still just a couple years in to his stint at GM.

I want to say that seemed to be the case for the Opel variants too, a bookstore I frequented carried some UK car mags. Especially for the Signum, a Maxx-like hatch-wagon – although that was a weird time at attempts at non-wagon executive cars, like the Renault Vel Satis.

GreatFallsGreen
GreatFallsGreen
11 months ago

Wow, just realized how I spelled “people”…maybe I should wait to finish my first cup of coffee before posting…

Ted Fort
Ted Fort
11 months ago

I’m apparently in an extreme minority here, but I’ve always thought the MAXX was incredibly good-looking from the back. The blend of BMW 2002 Touring meets 80s Escort GT really works for me. The front is still goofy as hell but the rear 3/4 is tight, sporty, and funky.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
11 months ago

One of my friend’s parents had a Maxx. While it was full of hard plastics that easily scratched, they loved the car. It was a perfect appliance for people that give zero shits about things like material options, handling dynamics, or NVH. They just wanted a car they could literally throw luggage into that would get them there. And it did it.

Andrew Bugenis
Andrew Bugenis
11 months ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

Yeah, my aunt and uncle had a Maxx, I remember them hauling kayaks and stuff around on the roof and generally it seeming to work very well for them.

Not a car for people who care about cars, but – shocker – a lot of people don’t care about cars and just followed the deals, or the bow tie, or whatever.

Anders
Anders
11 months ago

Having never seen the Maxx before, I’d swear this was just a terrible photochop. It’s just all wrong and the details… the details are incredibly badly resolved. Of course it doesn’t help that the track width on this platform was just way too narrow, the Fiat Chroma looked comically squeezed and ill proportioned, and the 9-3 (and especially the generation before), was always in need of a better and wider platform than the humdrum GM origins.

MEK
MEK
11 months ago

Had one for a rental years ago. It was the most relentlessly vanilla vehicle I think I’ve ever driven.

But I have to say, I still think those wheels on the SS are still, IMHO, one of the best wheel designs to ever come out of GM. But then again, I’ve always been a sucker for that big, monoblock style (read: old AMG looking)

Erik Hancock
Erik Hancock
11 months ago
Reply to  MEK

Don’t trash vanilla like that. Vanilla is so much better than that shitty car. Wars have been fought over that skinny bean. A few years ago, it was more expensive than silver per ounce. We need to come up with a more fitting descriptor for things that are bland and common – for example: “it was the most relentlessly crabgrass vehicle I think I’ve ever driven.”

AceRimmer
AceRimmer
11 months ago
Reply to  Erik Hancock

Vanilla is wonderful!

Jakob K's Garage
Jakob K's Garage
11 months ago

The stupid wheel arches and the vertical split through the face reminds me of the Pontic Aztec.

But besides from that it looks like something generic built for India, China or South America.

Der Foo
Der Foo
11 months ago

If you look at some of the south american GM products produced over the past 10 years, you might think that it’s now 2003 down there.

Jesus Helicoptering Christ
Jesus Helicoptering Christ
11 months ago

a true feat of disgusting mediocrity made possible by pre-bankruptcy GM’s dysfunction.

I just came here to say this line got a properly dirty cackle out of me. Great writing!

Paint-Drinking Thundercock Harvey Park
Paint-Drinking Thundercock Harvey Park
11 months ago

That face is a disgrace.

99
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x