syj1 5pts As far as the Fusion, styling aside (which is subjective) and baffled as to why so many are ready to pronounce it wholly superior to Malibu. The Malibu has a better base engine, a more powerful turbo engine, a nicer interior and almost the same options. The Fusion does offer a full hybrid (likely to be pricey) and a few lux car options like adaptive cruise. I think its safe to say both will handle decently and get top safety scores. I don't see a huge gap between the two. As for the Malibu being "late"- the Accord came out in 2007 and is being replaced for 2013- just like Malibu. Altima actually came out in 2006 and is being replaced by the 2013. I don't see how the Malibu is "late".
syj1 5pts The love affair with the Optima continues. IS there are single journalists that doesn't worship that car? I do not find it to be that attractive and I fail to see how its much better looking than the 4 year old Mazda6 or even its cousin, the Sonata. As for instantaneous mpgs- the Malibu has that in the DIC. The ECO gauge is supposed to help dictate driving style- the farther away from center it moves the less efficiently you are driving. Also, cars with standard screens but optional navigation are becoming quite common. Ford offers LCD screens with MFT but you pay extra for navigation. Why is this a demerit on the Malibu? Toyota does the same thing on the new Camry- except Entune isn't even standard. Ironic that so much is said about the presumed superiority of the Fusion when the Fusion shares the high beltline/small window styling of the Malibu. I do wonder if everyone will be as critical. I'm glad that someone noted that the Fusion's interior does not look as rich as what's in the chevy.