????今年五月份，美國在線的汽車博客Autoblog也批評了這款轎車，因為在研究了它的價格、油耗和競爭情況后，對比結果實在是不樂觀。評測師杰夫?薩巴蒂尼寫道：“記住，我們喜歡Malibu。我們也在說服自己推薦它。即便如此，我們要推薦的也不是Malibu Eco。因為哪怕我們喜歡Malibu Eco，我們也實在看不出這款轎車的賣點在哪里，比競爭對手強在哪里——甚至比其它雪佛蘭的車型強在哪里。”

????資深汽車評測師伊斯拉?代爾上周日在《紐約時報》（New York Times）上耐心地解釋了Malibu Eco的設計缺陷。他指出，Malibu Eco的軸距縮短“可能與國際樣式的全球化因素有關”。他還談到了通用研發輕度混合動力系統背后的企業戰略思想。他表示，通用是想既具備完全混合動力轎車的所有優點，又不過分增加車子的成本和復雜性。代爾還安慰了讀者一番，表示盡管通用將于今年年底推出改款Malibu，但“我不認為我會喜歡其它的Malibu車型。”

????最后，代爾總結道，通用犯了一個常見的錯誤，它想通過一種解決方案搞定兩個不同的問題。這不禁讓人想起通用之前也曾搞過這么一出。為了把多功能乘用車MPV的便利性和SUV的吸引力結合在一起，通用推出了一款非常失敗的名叫龐蒂克-阿茲特克（Pontiac Aztek）的車型。這一次通用想把完全混合動力和傳統汽油引擎的優點結合在一起，結果卻是哪一樣都沒有做好。Malibu Eco既缺乏前者的燃油經濟性，又缺乏后者的效率和價值。

????與其它轎車相比——甚至是與雪佛蘭旗下的其它車型相比，Malibu Eco的缺點都很明顯。它的城市油耗為每加侖25英里，高速公路油耗為每加侖37英里，遠遠比不上價格相近的凱美瑞混動版。后者的城市油耗為每加侖40英里，高速公路油耗為每加侖38英里。它也比不上雪佛蘭的渦輪增壓版科魯茲（Cruze）。科魯茲車身更小，售價也更便宜（底價19,680美元），而且它的后備箱體積更大，油耗也更加經濟（城市每加侖28英里，高速公路每加侖42英里）。通用給Malibu Eco打上了“更聰明、更智能”的標簽。雪佛蘭的一位發言人對我表示：“像最近推出的其它雪佛蘭車型一樣，Malibu在中型車市場很有競爭力，而且隨著2.5L發動機和渦輪增壓發動機即將在今年晚些時候加入，它還會變得更有競爭力。”

????獨立觀察人士顯然不同意他的看法。豐田早在20多年前就開始探索充分混合動力的普銳斯（Prius），20多年來從沒有搖擺過。相比之下，通用的態度常常搖擺不定，先是大搞電動汽車，然后又搞起了混合動力，然后又開始搞電動汽車。而通用的最新成果Malibu Eco從主要的量化標準上來看得分都很低，因此通用已經在無意間把Eco打造成了2012年上半年最不受歡迎的汽車。

????譯者：樸成奎

????In May, AOL's Autoblog reluctantly panned the car, because after looking at its price, mileage, and the competition, it just couldn't make the numbers work. "Remember, we like the Malibu," reviewer Jeff Sabatini wrote. "We're trying to talk ourselves into recommending one. And we just might -- but it won't be the Eco. Because even though we enjoyed the Malibu Eco, we still can't see how the car makes sense, vis-à-vis the competition -- or even compared to other Chevys."

????The topper came in the featured review in Sunday's New York Times July 8th. Veteran reviewer Ezra Dyer took pains to explain away the Eco's design shortcomings: The shorter wheelbase -- "may be related to international-type globalization factors" -- as well as more cosmic questions about the corporate thinking behind the mild hybrid, attributing to a effort to provide all the benefits of a full hybrid without the cost and complexity. Dyer even offered a note of consolation, writing that "I suspect that I'll enjoy the other Malibus" when they are launched later in the year.

????In the end, Dyer concluded that GM has committed a familiar mistake: trying to find one solution to two different problems. It brings back memories of the merger of minivan convenience with sport utility appeal that resulted in -- dare I say it -- the Pontiac Aztek. In trying to combine the benefits of a full hybrid and a conventional gasoline-powered engine, the automaker came up with neither. The car lacks the fuel economy of the former and the efficiency and value of the latter.

????When compared with other cars -- even other Chevys -- Eco's shortcomings are stark. With a fuel economy rating of just 25 miles per gallon city/37 highway, the Eco can't lay a glove on the similarly-priced Camry hybrid, which is rated at 40 mpg city/38 highway. It also comes up short compared with Chevy's turbocharged Cruze. The smaller, less expensive (base price: $19,680) Cruze has a larger trunk and also gets better mileage: 28 mpg city/42 highway. "A smarter, more intelligent drive" is how GM bills the Eco. "Like other recent Chevrolets, the Malibu is competitive in its segment and will become increasingly competitive with the addition of the 2.5 liter engine and turbo engine later this year," a Chevrolet spokesman told me.

????Independent observers clearly disagree. Unlike Toyota, which pioneered the full hybrid Prius more than 20 years ago and never wavered, GM has vacillated -- swerving from EVs to hybrids and back again. With its latest effort coming up short by key quantitative standards, the automaker has inadvertently created in the Eco the most disliked car from the first half of 2012.