I finally saw a minor thing I really like about the Malibu.

I got the latest issue of Car and Driver, which has a pretty high resolution photo of the Malibu in an ad. Looking closely, you can see that the little metal headlight reflector cups have a little, tiny Chevy bowtie in each one.

Is this something new on the 2010s? Has anyone else noticed these?

I finally saw a minor thing I really like about the Malibu.

I got the latest issue of Car and Driver, which has a pretty high resolution photo of the Malibu in an ad. Looking closely, you can see that the little metal headlight reflector cups have a little, tiny Chevy bowtie in each one.

Is this something new on the 2010s? Has anyone else noticed these?

When FlyBrian and I were at the Miami Autoshow in 2007, Brian Nesbitt had personally shown it to us and talked about it. I think one of us even snapped a photo. Gotta check and see.

The side rear reflectors have chevy logos too.

Yep...still think it's cool though....

Very cool, and yes I knew they were there. A few weeks ago my dealer had a 1LT and noticed it again.

Not to steal thunder away from the Malibu, but the 2010 GMC Terrain has the "GMC" letters inside of the rear taillights (well, actually on the side of the taillights). I took a picture of this at the NYIAS, and the spokesmodel didn't even know about it before I showed her. I think this is a new styling element GM is trying with some o their newer designs. I'm curious what other logos are used on other vehicles?

Most of the Cadillacs have the wreath & crest in their headlamps and tail lamps

I'm pretty sure the Lacrosse and Enclave have Tri-Shields as well.

It isn't a new thing, really. I can't remember what car did this before now, but I'm sure it was a GM product ...

Early Corsica did it.

It prevents the manufacture of aftermarket direct-replacement lamps, typically used in crash repair. If the trademark is there, it cannot legally be duplicated by an aftermarket company. And I applaud it.

It prevents the manufacture of aftermarket direct-replacement lamps, typically used in crash repair. If the trademark is there, it cannot legally be duplicated by an aftermarket company. And I applaud it.

+1

Will make the part a bit more pricey, ans better chance for a good part....

I'm about read to toss the cheap headlight they put on her Cav back at the dealership it came from.....

It isn't a new thing, really. I can't remember what car did this before now, but I'm sure it was a GM product ...

Oh, of course... My favorites will always be the 1968 rear side markers shaped like arrowheads, firebirds, shields and rockets. One year and gone...

I just hadn't seen GM do anything as cool as the bowties on the headlights in a while. I had forgotten about the GMC markers on the Terrain.

It prevents the manufacture of aftermarket direct-replacement lamps, typically used in crash repair. If the trademark is there, it cannot legally be duplicated by an aftermarket company. And I applaud it.

I hadn't thought of that... Very interesting. Of course, more people won't notice that they were there or not after getting their car back from Super Budget Auto Body.

Hmmm....I very badly want to like the Malibu and give it an "A," but the best I can do is "B" or "B+." It has some awkward proportions here or there that could have been designed out.

Because I'm not that overly crazy about it, I haven't studied it to the point that I would have noticed this.

Regardless, I like properly dosed and placed branding insignias in both a car's exterior and interior. In fact, many cars are lacking in this regard, including my new LaX.

Hmmm....I very badly want to like the Malibu and give it an "A," but the best I can do is "B" or "B+." It has some awkward proportions here or there that could have been designed out.

I like the side profile the best...one thing I've noticed is that directly from behind, they look kind of narrow...I don't get that same impression looking at them head-on.

I like the side profile the best...one thing I've noticed is that directly from behind, they look kind of narrow...I don't get that same impression looking at them head-on.

Why is it these days SO MANY new GM cars look too narrow? I see this even in the new LaCrosse!!! (Malibu is pretty bad too....)

Why is it these days SO MANY new GM cars look too narrow? I see this even in the new LaCrosse!!! (Malibu is pretty bad too....)

I assume some of it is tapering for aerodynamics...and they look narrow because the bodies of most sedans today are relatively tall relative to their width.

Why is it these days SO MANY new GM cars look too narrow? I see this even in the new LaCrosse!!! (Malibu is pretty bad too....)

Because they ARE narrow. This is the other reason I don't like Epsilon (other than it being FWD by default)... everyone praises the interior space... but they are still narrow cars, as they are tuned into what Europeans want, not us. The disappearance of the bench seat and the ever widening center consoles make this narrowness even more apparent.

And as has been said before, Americans aren't getting any narrower. Sure, I need to lose some weight, but my widest point has nothing to do with that... its my shoulders... banging into the B-piller and hanging OVER the passenger seat... and my shoulders aren't THAT big.

I assume some of it is tapering for aerodynamics...and they look narrow because the bodies of most sedans today are relatively tall relative to their width.

But I don't get that vibe with just about any other car out there on the market......they all look much better proportioned.....

About the tall bodies, it's amazing how high the top edge of the decklid of many of today's cars are...the top of the trunk of a typical current sedan (like the CTS) looks to be about 2 feet higher than a sedan from 30-40 years ago.. I know part of it is the larger diameter tires of today, but the bodies seem to have gotten narrower and taller in general in the last decade or so..

About the tall bodies, it's amazing how high the top edge of the decklid of many of today's cars are...the top of the trunk of a typical current sedan (like the CTS) looks to be about 2 feet higher than a sedan from 30-40 years ago.. I know part of it is the larger diameter tires of today, but the bodies seem to have gotten narrower and taller in general in the last decade or so..

30-40 years... try 10. The '99 Bonne parked near anything newer looks like a dovetail.

I think this is being done to make the rooflines look less tall and to bolster the EPA trunk space rating. Of course, I still prefer horizontal cargo area to vertical, because you can't stack everything and because sorting through a tall trunk full of crap turns into a game of "Towers of Hanoi".

I am still a fan of longer,lower,wider.

I am still a fan of longer,lower,wider.

So am I... can't wait for the styling pendulum to swing back that way... Hopefully Harley Earl is reincarnating somewhere (besides Buick commercials).

Modern stuff is definately narrow in general.

High decklids are byproducts of aerodynamics - don't expect a return to a -say- '65 Corvair 3-box profile anytime soon....

I would agree with the assessment of the Malibu; looks 'normal' from the front but somehow narrower from the rear. Doesn't really bother me. Rear fascia is rather tall & flat & the plate is in the bumper - must be some of it.

BTW- Malibus are at this point all over the place by me....

High decklids are byproducts of aerodynamics - don't expect a return to a -say- '65 Corvair 3-box profile anytime soon....

One of the most aerodynamic cars of all time is the 3rd gen Firebirds... granted, they aren't a 3-box, but they don't have a high decklid. Imagine what they could have done with the 3rd gen's aerodynamics with today's technologies...

Anyway, if high decklids improve aerodynamics, wouldn't stawags be good for aerodynamics? Though that doesn't seem to be the case, unless its a Kammback.

Speaking of aerodynamics... Mythbusters had a great episode recently in which they put golfball divots on a Taurus and increased fuel consumption by 11%.

I am heartily tired of the high rear, stubby tail, high beltline, giant head/tail lamp look.

EDIT: Let me add slab-sided to the list.

Edited November 6, 200916 yr by Camino LS6

all the epsilons are about 2 inches too narrow.

SAmadei - >>"One of the most aerodynamic cars of all time is the 3rd gen Firebirds... granted, they aren't a 3-box, but they don't have a high decklid."<<

But they're 'fastbacks' via the backlight... I believe the wind tunnel 'sees' them very much the same as a high trunklid with a more vertical backlight.

When the T/A came out in '82, Pontiac advertised it as having a cd of .29 (or was it .32??) ... and those awful 'bowling ball' wheelcovers were part of that. A few years later, with deep cast rims & more aggressive details and that number was no longer met.

>>"Anyway, if high decklids improve aerodynamics, wouldn't stawags be good for aerodynamics? Though that doesn't seem to be the case, unless its a Kammback."<<

No, because the typical 'abrupt' ends of them creates too much turbulence. Teardrop / fastbacks are the best general shape- the longer the better. Kammbacks tend to be smaller and have more angled rear fascias than traditional wagons. But it's hard to look at a given car and judge it's number.... but anyone can see the trends since wind tunel testing became SOP.

See now I'd call that a Kammback-style wagon.

^ I guess it's not, but it's close. It's also not a typical wagon rear end.

Not my cup of moonshine, but smo-ooooooth.

Smooth, except for the huge bumper!

No, because the typical 'abrupt' ends of them creates too much turbulence. Teardrop / fastbacks are the best general shape- the longer the better. Kammbacks tend to be smaller and have more angled rear fascias than traditional wagons. But it's hard to look at a given car and judge it's number.... but anyone can see the trends since wind tunel testing became SOP.

Its hard to judge any car, because even the idea of turbulance being bad is challenged by new tactics, like the golfball divot Taurus... which intentionally makes turbulance.

Also, I have to question the importance of aerodynamics versus style when they are putting SUV cues on small cars (Neon turned into hideous Caliber), and I feel the high trunks are still a product of styling and functionality, and then aerodynamics... I'm not saying the high trunks aren't aerodynamic, but are definitely not on par with a perfect teardrop.

>>"...I feel the high trunks are still a product of styling and functionality, and then aerodynamics... I'm not saying the high trunks aren't aerodynamic, but are definitely not on par with a perfect teardrop."<<

I don't disagree with this... but I would also believe that the on-paper start for modern cars assums certain things, like cowl height, windshield angle... and quite possibly 'rear cowl' / trunk height WRT the substructure/platform. 'Givens', if you will. How those points you mention above rank... IF they rank, I don't know.

But I'm with Camino; want to get me to sit up out of my chair ? Debut something with the 3-box proportions of a '64 Catalina : all 4 corners visible to the driver, hood & decklid on the same plane. We haven't seen that since (for the most part) the 1970s.

In fact, when I first noticed the break away from the 'same plane' 3-box car was on Cadillacs starting in '77- the rear fender peak rose noticably to the backlight, there was a lower, horizontal character line that ran thru the beltline, then carried thru to the hood bow, while the front fender peak was lower still. You can see it here well enough :

Eldos did the same technical thing '71-78, but there was a lot more going on with the peaked fenders, etc.

Is there an earlier example of this ?

That's a clean '77. Their first 3 rounds of downsizing (B/C/D bodies in '77, A bodies in '78 and Es in '79) were very well-done, but then everything went to s h i t, starting with the '80 X-bodies.

Edited November 7, 200916 yr by ocnblu

bout the same rear angle as a CTS wagon?

bout the same rear angle as a CTS wagon?

I would say no.

In fact, I can't think of another wagon like this at all.

I would say no.

In fact, I can't think of another wagon like this at all.

The downsized '78 A-body wagons had the lights in the bumper also, but with squared body lines compared to the rounded '73-77s.

That's a clean '77. Their first 3 rounds of downsizing (B/C/D bodies in '77, A bodies in '78 and Es in '79) were very well-done, but then everything went to s h i t, starting with the '80 X-bodies.

Ya...I also liked the updates to the B/C/Ds in '80 and the A/G coupes in '81, made them more aerodynamic and smoother..higher decklids and lower noses in general, more upright rear windows.

The downsized '78 A-body wagons had the lights in the bumper also, but with squared body lines compared to the rounded '73-77s.

Very upright and a standard liftglass with drop-down tailgate - different animal altogether.

Very upright and a standard liftglass with drop-down tailgate - different animal altogether.

I've never seen a '73-77 A-body wagon open, looks like a one-piece hatchback?

Edited November 9, 200916 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

I've never seen a '73-77 wagon open, looks like a one-piece hatchback?

Exactly right.