2003 CHEVROLET MALIBU. CONSUMER STATES VEHICLE STALLS. *TGW THE CONSUMER STATED THE FUEL PUMP, BATTERY AND REMOTE CONTROL WERE ALL REPLACED. HOWEVER, THE STALLING CONTINUED. THE IGNITION SWITCH WAS EVENTUALLY REPLACED. ALSO, T HE BRAKES AND STRUTS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. *JB
2003 Chevrolet Malibu
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2003 Chevrolet Malibu do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 310.5.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Malibu years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
429 reports with mileage · 140 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Electrical System. Review the 289 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 85 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine. Review the 47 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
45 reportsTHE BRAKES DEVELOPED POOR BRAKING AT SPEEDS OVER 35 MPH THE FRONT END WOULD SHIMMY WHEN APPLIED. TWICE REPLACING THE BRAKE PADS AND RESURFACING OF THE ROTORS FAILED TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. REPLACEMENT OF THE FRONT DISK ROTORS THAT WOULD NOT WRAP WITH USE CORRECTED THE PROBLEM GM FAILED TO COVER THE REPAIRS UNDER WARRANTY. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 CHEVROLET MALIBU. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE BRAKES; HOWEVER, HE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE. THE BRAKES WOULD MAKE A SQUISHING NOISE WHEN PRESSURE WAS APPLIED, AS IF AIR WAS ESCAPING. THE MANUFACTURER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THEY WOULD REVIEW HI…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 CHEVROLET MALIBU. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 10 MPH, THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE APPLIED PRESSURE TO THE BRAKES; HOWEVER, HE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE. THE BRAKES WOULD MAKE A SQUISHING NOISE WHEN PRESSURE WAS APPLIED, AS IF AIR WAS ESCAPING. THE MANUFACTURER INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THEY WOULD REVIEW HIS COMPLAINT AND HE WAS WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 69,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 CHEVROLET MALIBU. ON MAY 25, 2008, WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN ACCELERATING FASTER THAN NORMAL. THE CONTACT HAD TO MERGE OUT OF TRAFFIC. SHE COULD NOT FEEL THE BRAKES WORKING AND SPED THROUGH A STOP SIGN. SHE DROVE INTO A PARKING LOT TO AVOID CRASHING INTO OTHER VEHICLES. THE VEHICLE F…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2003 CHEVROLET MALIBU. ON MAY 25, 2008, WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE VEHICLE BEGAN ACCELERATING FASTER THAN NORMAL. THE CONTACT HAD TO MERGE OUT OF TRAFFIC. SHE COULD NOT FEEL THE BRAKES WORKING AND SPED THROUGH A STOP SIGN. SHE DROVE INTO A PARKING LOT TO AVOID CRASHING INTO OTHER VEHICLES. THE VEHICLE FINALLY STOPPED WHEN IT CRASHED INTO AN EMBANKMENT. THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE AIR BAG FAILED TO DEPLOY. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE BODY SHOP TO REPLACE THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR AND HEADLAMP. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT AN INVESTIGATOR WOULD INVESTIGATE THE FAILURE. THEY ARE CURRENTLY STATING THAT DUE TO THE BODY WORK THAT WAS PERFORMED ON THE VEHICLE, THEY WILL NOT INVESTIGATE THE ACCELERATION FAILURE, ONLY THE AIR BAG FAILURE. THE CONTACT HAS A BACK INJURY THAT WAS AGGRAVATED DUE TO THE CRASH. A POLICE REPORT WAS FILED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 24,000.
I BOUGHT MY MALIBU NEW IN SEPTEMBER 2003. IN JANUARY 2005, I BEGAN TO NOTICE THE CAR SHUDDERING WHILE BRAKING, I TOOK THE CAR IN AND THEY MACHINED BOTH ROTORS, I TOOK IT IN AGAIN ON FEBRUARY 8TH BECAUSE THE BRAKES WERE MAKING A CHATTER AND CLANK SOUND, THEY TOLD ME THE CALIPERS NEEDED TO BE LUBRICATED, I BROUGHT IT BACK ON FEBR…
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT MY MALIBU NEW IN SEPTEMBER 2003. IN JANUARY 2005, I BEGAN TO NOTICE THE CAR SHUDDERING WHILE BRAKING, I TOOK THE CAR IN AND THEY MACHINED BOTH ROTORS, I TOOK IT IN AGAIN ON FEBRUARY 8TH BECAUSE THE BRAKES WERE MAKING A CHATTER AND CLANK SOUND, THEY TOLD ME THE CALIPERS NEEDED TO BE LUBRICATED, I BROUGHT IT BACK ON FEBRUARY 18 FOR THE LUBRICATION. NEXT I TOOK THE CAR IN FOR A OIL CHANGE ON MARCH 29TH AND ASKED THE TECHNICIAN TO CHECK THE BRAKES AND WAS TOLD THEY WERE FINE. ON JULY 1ST 05 I TOOK THE CAR IN AGAIN BECAUSE OF A BRAKE SQUEAL AND FOUND THE RETAINING BOLT /PIN ON THE LEFT FRONT CALIPER WAS MISSING. IT WAS REPLACED AS WELL AS THE BOLT/PIN ON THE UPPER BOLT/PIN DUE TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE ORIGINAL BOLT/PIN. ON SEPTEMBER 30TH 05 I TOOK THE CAR IN AGAIN FOR BRAKE NOISE, AND WAS TOLD THAT BOTH ROTORS WERE RUSTED, BOTH ROTORS WERE TURNED AND CLEANED AT THAT TIME. ON OCTOBER 12TH 05 WHICH WAS ONLY 8 DAYS LATER I TOOK THE CAR BACK AGAIN BECAUSE THE CAR WAS STILL MAKING A GRINDING NOISE. WHEN INSPECTED THE FRONT ROTORS WERE AGAIN FOUND TO BE RUSTY, PITTED AND WORN, THIS TIME THEY REPLACED BOTH THE ROTORS AND THE BRAKE PADS. I TOOK THE CAR IN ON NOVEMBER 23RD 05 FOR RECOMMENDED 15 MAX SERVICE WHICH INCLUDED A REAR BRAKE ADJUSTMENT, I ASKED THEM TO CHECK THE FRONT BRAKES AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL SQUEAKING AND THEY SAID THEY WERE FINE. MAY 25TH,06 I TOOK THE CAR IN AGAIN FOR BRAKE NOISE, THEY FIRST TOLD ME THE CALIPERS AGAIN NEEDED TO BE LUBRICATED , BUT THEN CAME BACK AND SAID THEY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. NOW IT IS JULY OF 06 AND I AM STILL HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKES. ALSO ON JULY 5TH, 06 I HAD TO TAKE THE CAR IN BECAUSE THE A/C AND THE RECIRCULATION MODE STOPPED WORKING, THEY REPLACED A BAD HVAC CONTROL MODULE. *NM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE ABS WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE DRIVER SIDE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR. SIX MONTHS LATER, THE ABS WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AGAIN, THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THE PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. UPDATE 2/24/2006 - THE CONSUMER PREVIOUS VEHICLE, A 2000 C…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE ABS WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE DEALERSHIP REPLACED THE DRIVER SIDE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR. SIX MONTHS LATER, THE ABS WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED AGAIN, THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THE PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. UPDATE 2/24/2006 - THE CONSUMER PREVIOUS VEHICLE, A 2000 CHEVROLET MALIBU, ALSO HAD THE SAME BRAKE WHEEL SPEED SENSOR FAILURE. *NM
2003 CHEVY MALIBU HAS HAD RECURRING BRAKE PROBLEMS FOR THE LAST 10,000 MILES IT HAS 33,000 MILES . BRAKES WOULD GRAB AND VIBRATE THE FRONT END. FINALLY WAS TOLD THAT IT NEEDED NEW ROTORS AND PADS, IT IS DRIVEN ON A REGULAR BASIS AND FROM ALL THE OTHER BRAKE COMPLAINTS I READ ABOUT THIS NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED. *JB
ANTI -LOCK BRAKE LIGHT (ABS) IS ON AND THE ABS SOMETIMES ACTIVATES WHEN THE USING THE BRAKES AT A SLOW SPEED. *JB
FRONT BRAKE/ROTOR/CALIPER FAILURE. I HAVE HAD MY ROTORS, FRONT PADS AND CALIPERS REPLACED NUMEROUS TIMES ROTORS 4 TIMES, CALIPERS 4 TIMES AND FRONT PADS 16 TIMES DUE TO FAULTY DESIGN, THE CALIPERS HANG UP AND DO NOT RELEASE ALL THE WAY CAUSING THE INNER PADS TO WEAR ABNORMALLY. *NM
BRAKES (ROTORS AND FRONT PADS) KEEP NEEDING TO BE REPLACE. FIRST AT 14,000 MILES AND THEN AGAIN AT 28,000 MILES. THE FIRST TIME THEY WERE REPLACED UNDER THE 36,000 MILE WARRANTY, BUT THE SECOND TIME THE DEALER REFUSED TO DO IT UNDER THE WARRANTY AND WANTED $500 FOR JOB. DEALER FIRST SAID THE REAR BRAKES WERE NOT ADJUSTED BUT …
Read full complaint
BRAKES (ROTORS AND FRONT PADS) KEEP NEEDING TO BE REPLACE. FIRST AT 14,000 MILES AND THEN AGAIN AT 28,000 MILES. THE FIRST TIME THEY WERE REPLACED UNDER THE 36,000 MILE WARRANTY, BUT THE SECOND TIME THE DEALER REFUSED TO DO IT UNDER THE WARRANTY AND WANTED $500 FOR JOB. DEALER FIRST SAID THE REAR BRAKES WERE NOT ADJUSTED BUT WOULDN'T BLAME THE SELF ADJUSTERS THAT SHOULD KEEP THEM ADJUSTED. THEN THEY SAID THAT IT WAS MY DRIVING HABITS, REFUSING TO REFER TO ALL THE OTHER COMPLAINTS ABOUT MALIBU'S BRAKES AND THE FACT THAT NONE OF MY OTHER CARS HAVE EVER HAD BRAKES WERE OUT SO SOON. NOW THEY SAY IT IS "NORMAL" FOR MALIBU BRAKES TO WEAR OUT AFTER 14,000 MILES AND AGAIN THEY WON'T COVER THEM UNDER WARRANTY. BRAKES DO NOT WEAR OUT AFTER 14,000 MILES. *JB
Official recalls
214V400000 · Electrical System:ignition
Jul 3, 2014
This defect can affect the safe operation of the airbag system. Until this recall is performed, customers should remove all items from their key rings, leaving only the ignition key. The key fob (if applicable), should also be removed from the key ring. General Motors LLC (GM) notified the agency on July 3, 2014, that they are recalling 5,877,718 model year 2000-2005 Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo, 1997-2003 Chevrolet Malibu, 2004-2005 Malibu Classic, 1999-2004 Oldsmobile Alero, 1998-2002 Oldsmobile Intrigue, 1999-2005 Pontiac Grand Am and 2004-2008 Pontiac Grand Prix vehicles. In these models, the weight on the key ring and/or road conditions or some other jarring event may cause the ignition switch to move out of the run position, turning off the engine.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the key is not in the run position, the air bags may not deploy if the vehicle is involved in a crash, increasing the risk of injury.
Remedy: GM will notify owners, and dealers will install two key rings and an insert in the key slot or a cover over the key head on all ignition keys, free of charge. The recall began on September 9, 2014. GM's number for this recall is 14350.
04V528000 · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
Nov 1, 2004
CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 124, 'ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS.' IN HOT AMBIENT CONDITIONS, THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM MAY STICK AT THE ATTACHMENT TO THE BRACKET AND NOT RETURN TO THE ENGINE IDLE POSITION WHEN THE OPERATOR LIFTS HIS FOOT FROM THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: FAILURE TO RETURN TO IDLE COULD RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL ARM AND REPLACE THE ACCELERATOR AND BRAKE PEDAL ASSEMBLY WITH A NEW ASSEMBLY, IF NECESSARY. THE RECALL BEGAN ON DECEMBER 20, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438, PONTIAC AT 1-800-620-7668, OR OLDSMOBILE AT 1-800-630-6537.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
0No exact-year investigations in this snapshot.
Illustration