2006-2009 Honda Civic

Despite being Christmas holiday I seemed to have found not nearly enough time to write a review and do all the things I wanted to do on this holiday. Here goes a common car...


Introduction: The Honda Civic was introduced in 1973 as Honda's first true attempt at making cars. Before the Civic, Honda was only known for making motorcycles and little did anyone know that the Civic would become one of the most important car names several years later. The timing of the Civic couldn't have been better due to the 1973 oil crisis where demand for small and light cars were in higher demand in North America. The Civic now in its 8th generation is often a sales leader in its segment in many markets.

The Civic is one of the most well known cars on the planet along with the Toyota Corolla. There isn't a continent that doesn't have a modest presence of Honda Civics, more often than not there is a pretty large presence of this car. When I got the chance to drive these cars I always wondered what the hype was about, since at least around here this car is the choice of many young drivers.


Performance: The standard Civic has a 1.8L engine that produces 140 hp and 128 lb.ft of torque, this is actually quite impressive for an engine this size and despite being close to 4 years old is still more powerful than the 2009 Toyota Corolla. However this engine despite the power has disappointing acceleration partly down to the lower torque number. To accelerate from 0-100 km/h it takes about 9.2 seconds meaning this is not the quickest car in the segment, it actually loses to the old Mazda3 and the Mitsubishi Lancer. You notice the lack of torque the moment you need to go to highway speeds, it goes slower...eerily similar to how a Toyota Prius starts to slows down, the exception however is the Civic makes a lot more noise and its not very pleasant. The good news though is the fuel economy is quite good.

My Score: 6/10 - Lacking torque causing disappointing acceleration , noisy at the top end, however its still a decent engine with good fuel economy...its just not very exciting.

Handling: This is where I usually hear of the Civic's party piece over the likes of the Toyota Corolla and pretty much everything else. My impressions of this car...is not the same, I actually disagree with most auto reviewers about this car. I found this car when it came to corners to be pretty...boring. The steering is quite light and unfortunately it really lacks the feel that I get from a Mitsubishi or a Mazda. The cornering itself is actually quite alright, you will notice some of the roll when you push it but its not nearly up to that level. This is one of the more comfortable Hondas I had a ride in which is a plus, I remember my ride in a RSX and my bottom was very sore. If Honda actually made this car feel like the old Fit, I'd have a much more different feeling about its handling but I actually feel pleased to say Honda has sacrificed fun in favour of comfort.

My Score: 6/10 - Its got alright handling, but its not an exciting car to take to a corner if this is what you want in a car...buy a Mitsubishi or a Mazda.


Interior: Features with the interior will depend entirely on which of the trim levels you bought the Civic in. The base DX for instance will have no power locks, in all honesty Honda intended you to buy power locks because the Civic is one of the least manual lock friendly vehicles out there. The LX is fitted with a few more options while the EX has all the interior toys. The interior itself has been styled...quite well, Honda clearly went with a more futuristic theme with the way all the plastics are styled to look. I really like the addition of the digital dash, most of the important information from the dash is located above the wheel where its most effective to be viewed. The stereo despite its size is disappointing, its not as intuitive as the rest of the interior. The most worrying thing for me however is the plastic quality most noticeable with the doors, its very thin and flimsy. The Civic is not the cheapest car and seeing such flimsy plastic is not something I like when cheaper and frankly worse cars use thicker materials. Build quality however is very good, I haven't seen one issue with trim from any Civic. Canadian Civics are all made in Alliston, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 7/10 - Kudos to Honda for the digital dash for trying something Toyota and Nissan used to do but chickened out, good styling theme, well built, but disappointing materials.

Styling: Honda went through a bit of a compromise with the styling. Its clear Honda wanted to go with the futuristic theme, but for all markets except Europe they held back and decided to go with a mix of future styling and conventional styling. Europe on the other hand truly went beyond to make the Civic like no other car. The Civic those of us who aren't from Europe is not a bad looking car...but if really fails to distinguish itself from newer cars. Its sad they held back because if this was the Euro Civic I'd easily give it a 10. Everything is different on the Euro Civic, from the door handles to the exhausts(triangle shaped), nothing is all that different with the one we have. Add that the LX gets some terrible rims.

My Score: 6/10 - Honda held back, compared to the Euro Civic we got the less interesting and therefore less attractive version.

Value for money: The Civic has some very fierce competition, this segment is by far the largest and has the most competitors. In terms of pricing its defeated by the American and Korean entrees. In performance and fun its defeated by the Suzuki, Mitsubishi and Mazda. Its extremely conventional unlike the Sentra which opted for CVT. Its not as fuel efficient as Toyota's Corolla, and its quality and reputation are very closely equaled by the Toyota. Considering the Civic started at $17,000 initially it was the second most expensive vehicle in the segment. If it had the Euro styling I can see why one would pay more, but it doesn't. As a result its not a particularly great value down to the fact it just doesn't do anything better than anyone, someone has beaten it somewhere.

My Score: 5/10 - Fair value overall due to being average or good in most fields, not a great value however as it doesn't push far enough in any category to be great at something.

Overall: 30/50 - Its an average car, its a pity it doesn't do anything particularly well in its own segment. I wonder if I scored the Civic the worst on the internet who isn't a anti-Honda lunatic? That said I feel the Lancer and Mazda3 are much better cars overall, I may love the digital dash but that just isn't enough to make it a good car.

2008, 2009 Buick Allure/LaCrosse CX

This week I can manage to do another review this week, amazing considering how I sometimes forgotten or was too tired to make an entry a week.


Introduction: The Buick Allure(since I'm Canadian) was introduced in late 2004 as GM's replacement for both the Buick Century and the Buick Regal. Strangely both the Century and the Regal are W-body vehicles with fairly minor differences, the Allure doesn't change this at all only eliminate a redundant model. In essence the Regal was succeeded while the Century was dropped.

Due to Buick's reliance on elderly customers I actually never knew the Century or the Regal were eliminated. This car was so poorly marketed to anybody other than senior citizens that I actually never knew it ever existed until I saw the name on the key tag. I didn't really know what to expect other than an old person's cruiser thanks to them being Buick's primary demo market.


Performance: The Allure uses the Series III 3800 V6 engine used on most of GM's large cars. The same engine used on the bigger Lucerne and the same one used on the Grand Prix. The Allure is also given the choice of a 3.6L V6 for the CXL model and for the "super" trim a 5.3L V8. For this review I only drove the CX meaning its the 3.8L Series III V8 that produces 200 hp and 230 lb.ft of torque. As a result the acceleration is 8.5 seconds from 0-100 km/h. The feel of this engine is extremely similar to the Buick Lucerne, it doesn't have the savagery of the Grand Prix but it does manage to seem quiet and relaxing.

My Score: 9/10 - The same score as the Lucerne because the engine acts exactly the same.

Handling: I totally criticize the Grand Prix's handling and thought it did a pretty poor job. The Allure uses the same platform as the Grand Prix which sounds like it should be pretty much the same. Yet I actually think the Allure has a better suspension, somehow when they made the Allure softer it responded better with the steering input. By no means does this car corner very well but due to how much more focused it was it actually felt like it handled rather normally despite the cushy comfy ride. As a result I actually found these to be easy to drive.

My Score: 6/10 - A more focused suspension than the Grand Prix, marginally better cornering ability than the Lucerne.


Interior: Much like the Lucerne CX, the Allure really doesn't offer a whole lot. The seats have comfortable back rests...but I was actually uncomfortable due to Buick making the seat cushion very long. My legs were not long enough so I always felt a bit uncomfortable in these seats. The layout of the Allure is extremely similar to the Lucerne with only a few Grand Prix switches. Not exactly a cabin of luxury due to the huge amount of faux wood but certainly an economical and one most people can ride with comfort. Its a pretty spacious car which makes me wonder about whether the Lucerne is even necessary since its not all that different inside.

My Score: 6/10 - Very simple but the seat cushions are too long for shorter passengers and too much faux wood.

Styling: From the rear the Allure is pretty discrete, rather modern and simple. The front is a bit different with the quad headlights and Velite concept grille for the 2008 and 2009 models. Despite its slightly different front, the grille is still very much like old Buicks and due to the rather generic profile and rear end the car isn't all that interesting to look at. Other than the quad headlights its not a whole lot different styling-wise to the Lucerne.

My Score: 5/10 - Pretty conservative styling, the quad headlights didn't add much to change the car's appeal.

Value for money: Unlike the Lucerne, the Allure is a less expensive vehicle and one that's slightly easier to justify the price since it actually competes against more mainstream brands. Sadly the lack of luxuries in a CX version and its lack of appeal means its not likely to be taken seriously. Once again the Chevrolet Impala is a bit problem since that is an inexpensive large car, while the Allure is an inexpensive very large midsized car. GM's confusing often redundant lineup does mean a lot of cars have to compete against themselves and I just don't really see a big reason to go for the Allure...when the Impala does practically everything the same. The only good news for the Allure is due to how people bought one, its actually fantastic value on the used market...which is a horrible sign for any car wanting to do well in the future.

My Score: 4/10 - Better value than the Lucerne, but GM infighting means its still not a good value but due to poor sales its used price is very good.

Overall: 30/50 - The Allure isn't a bad car, but its lack of appeal and charm along with redundant GM siblings which it help start eliminating has hurt the car.

2008-2009 Chevrolet HHR LS

This is an attempt to update more often, I just realized there are some cars I haven't driven in a while.


Introduction: The Chevrolet HHR was designed by GM as one of its retro vehicles. While the Chrysler PT Cruiser is a more familiar vehicle using the same idea, GM decided to hire the PT's lead stylist Bryan Nesbitt to design the HHR. The styling is apparently a modern interpretation of Chevrolet's Suburban from the 1940s. GM developed the HHR using the Delta platform used for the Cobalt and G5.

I never was a fan of the PT Cruiser, in fact I rather hated the way it looked. When I saw the HHR come into the spotlight, I actually thought it was even worse because of the idea of copying something I thought looked dreadful was worse than the original idea.


Performance: The HHR LS uses the Chevrolet Cobalt's Ecotec engines both the 2.2 and the 2.4L. If you have the SS version you get the same turbocharged engine found in the Cobalt SS. The engines I've driven the HHR with is the 2.2L which produce 149 hp and 152 lb.ft of torque. The engine's mannerism is pretty much identical to the Cobalt's which isn't all that refined but it does produce power at the very high end of the power band, the noise at higher rpm is also much nicer. Due to the extra weight the HHR carries its not that quick, its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h if roughly 9.4 seconds. Still the engine is willing to react if not a bit late and the fuel economy is not that bad.

My Score: 5/10 - A reasonable engine with a very willing attitude but not very quick.

Handling: There are a bit more differences in the handling of the HHR over the Cobalt. The first thing I noticed was how boosted the power steering is on the HHR. Its boosted to the extent that there is very little effort required to turn the wheel even at very low speeds, its one of the least engaging steering system I've felt which is a contrast to the engine which is. While it corners alright the big body the car has to haul does produce roll and the ride is just mediocre. The HHR is not a particularly good car to take to the track and its also where its Cobalt/G5 siblings are better suited.

My Score: 3/10 - Steering too boosted, lacking in feel and a disappointing ride quality.


Interior: This is where the HHR's concept focused much of its effort on. The main area of concern is the hatch where its very spacious particularly when the rear seats are folded. The interior materials are less impressive, the plastic isn't very much different from the plastic used in the Cobalt but as they age...for some reason they start to smell. Much like the PT Cruiser, the HHR has decided to make some buttons placed on the dash instead of the door trim like everybody else. Unfortunately not all of the locations they placed the buttons are that conveniently located. Visibility in the HHR compared to the PT Cruiser however is pretty poor. Due to the small windows and the very small rear windscreen the C and D pillars are quite large creating bigger blindspots. The build quality...interestingly enough its better assembled than any Cobalt or G5, these cars are assembled in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico.

My Score: 6/10 - Good hatch space, pretty well built but poor visibility and the plastics eventually start to smell.

Styling: The idea of the car is clearly ripped off from the PT Cruiser, GM even went to the extent of hiring the same man responsible for the PT Cruiser's styling to style this car. While there are some differences mainly the windows and the overall shape, there are some unattractive items. The grille for instance uses painted plastic which is disturbingly unattractive when you discover what should have been chrome...was something really cheap. It has the same ability to offend some people like the PT Cruiser and it as a result does make it a tad bit unique.

My Score: 4/10 - A PT Cruiser copy with a bad grille, as a result its a love or hate look.

Value for money: The HHR does have something rather interesting, it can be built like a panel van. Instead of spending money on a cargo van, GM would use a solid panel that would have been the rear doors and essentially create a panel car. This makes an HHR an inexpensive alternative to a panel van for businesses that want a more economical vehicle to run and are unable to fill the space used for a panel van. As a regular car its a little bit less ideal, while the cargo space is good the PT Cruiser does much of the same but is easier to drive aside from the turning radius. These days there are more hatchback cars out there including the Mazda3, the Toyota Matrix, the Elantra Touring, etc. For regular drivers, it really comes down to whether you want to buy to the car for its looks much like the Hummer H3 I reviewed.

My Score: 8/10 - Excellent for small businesses due to a panel van variant, not as great value for those who do not want the panel van version due to lots of competition.

Overall: 26/50 - Some clever ideas but in the end its a niche vehicle for most, but a great idea for small business owners.

2007-2008 Suzuki Swift+

Sometimes you can tell how good or bad a car is just from the way it looks. Here's one that shouldn't be that difficult to guess.


Introduction: This car started out in 2004 and is known in South Korea as the Daewoo Kalos. GM decided it wanted this car and placed a Chevrolet badge for the international market and a Pontiac badge for the American market. For the Canadian market, GM still had control over Suzuki and decided to bring this along and put a Suzuki badge as well while bringing the other two rebadges. This resulted in the Chevrolet Aveo, the Pontaic G3 Wave and the Suzuki Swift+. All three of these cars are practically identical, only the grille had the biggest change aside from the badges. This would be GM's answer to the Toyota Echo, the Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio.

Now when I first got news that I was going to have to drive this car, I didn't really know what it was. I never knew Suzuki actually had this car as a rebadge or even knew of its existence. I knew about the Aveo, but not the G3 Wave or this. I do remember the old Suzuki Swift that had the 3-cylinder, this seemed nothing like that. Most of these are sold as hatchbacks and this is what this review will focus on.


Performance: The Swift+ featured a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine for the North American market. This engine produced 103 hp and 107 lb.ft of torque making it the lowest hp producing engine since the demise of the Golf Mk IV with its 1.6L. The acceleration this engine can manage for this car is going from 0-100 km/h in 10.8 seconds. Not the worst accelerating car I've driven. As for the engine its not a very good one, its very noisy and irritating. You can tell Daewoo was new to making cars due to how rough this engine puts out power with the noise and the fact you can feel the vibrations in the interior. The worst thing about this engine however is its not even efficient, the Chevrolet Cobalt with its bigger 2.2L engine manages slightly less fuel economy in the city but beats this Daewoo on the highway. What is GM thinking? What was Suzuki thinking? The old Swift at least was very fuel efficient, this Daewoo is inefficient yet still nowhere near exciting.

My Score: 2/10 - Unrefined, noisy and not fuel efficient...what good is it?

Handling: This is usually where small cars manage to get back some points if they failed on performance. This Daewoo...doesn't really get there sadly. The steering wheel is not as light as it is on a Toyota or Chrysler but crucially it doesn't produce a natural feel to the steering...it feels artificial and doesn't produce confidence when you try and corner for a small thrill. The body roll is very poor and with its very small wheels its less agile than its competitors.

My Score: 3/10 - They tried but failed, puny tires and the articificially inserted feel do not make this car any fun


Interior: This is where you start seeing why Daewoo failed in North America in the first place. Inside its just all black aside from some tin foil plastic which is as always pretty nasty to look at. The cup holder is very flimsy and very cheaply made, the door handles are also made of this flimsy cheap plastic, the seats use budget proportioned cloth and so on. I mentioned in the performance section that the engine's vibrations can be felt inside, the steering wheel is often the piece that shakes as the car idles, showing how cheaply designed the engine is and how cheaply trimmed this interior is. Due to how black and unattractive the plastic is...its actually a pretty depressing place to be inside. While Daewoo managed to have interior space for moderate sized passengers they sacrificed the tailgate space. Last thing to mention, Daewoo mostly fit these with no power locks...there is no way for the driver to manual lock their door since the inside lock itself refuses to move and must use the key from outside the car. This may not seem like a problem at all but I've seen these cars where the key hole actually collapsed and getting inside this car required entering from the passenger side and exiting the same way. I mentioned a key hole failing and this is another problem in this Daewoo because its not built very well. All these cars come shipped from GM's Daewoo factory in South Korea, so if you're not too knowledgeable about cars the salesman might con you into thinking this is American or Japanese.

My Score: 1/10 - Unattractive, very poor quality materials, flawed engineering, poor cargo room and not built very well.

Styling: This is normally where Chrysler regains some points...this Daewoo just doesn't. When you look at this car with its strange side profile, its dinky wheels and its not very attractive front end you can tell this car isn't going to be any good to begin with. With the surprisingly poor fuel economy I looked around to see how much drag it creates...well it produces a drag coefficient of 0.35 which is what luxury Japanese SUVs can manage. So basically you have this weird shape for no good reason.

My Score: 1/10 - Its bad when you can tell just from looking at the car that it will be bad, add for most people this will be a clown car.

Value for money: This is normally where Korean cars start to look good due to being very well equipped and fantastic value for your money. This Daewoo...doesn't, it may have the lowest MSRP of its time but when running costs are added its more expensive than its Korean rivals and clearly more expensive than the Toyota. Its more expensive due to how fuel inefficient it is but also due to the parts being sourced purely from South Korea it takes a long time for them to arrive. Accident damage or an out of stock part puts this car out of commission longer than cars made in Japan or Germany. Its not very well equipped either, unlike the Kia or Hyundai it has nothing as a standard feature. More importantly, its not very safe either it did spectacularly badly during its earlier crash tests, today its just scores just average which for a small car is worrisome.

My Score: 2/10 - Its got a low MSRP, unfortunately its burdened with no standard equipment, expensive running costs due to bad fuel economy, difficult to source parts and worst of all disappointing safety scores.

Overall: 9/50 - Its a very bad car, I'm still perplexed at why GM even bothered when they clearly could do much better with a smaller Cobalt. This is part of the reason why GM had to declare bankruptcy, stupid decisions like selling this car outside of its home country.

2008 Hummer H3

Sometimes some vehicles are forgettable which is why I tried to push out that 2006 Sentra review as soon as possible. There are others I have no idea why I forgotten other than I haven't driven them for a while like this one.


Introduction: The Hummer H3 was introduced in 2005 as GM's smaller Hummer model. While the news media tried to portray this as Hummer attempting to address the ever growing fuel prices, that was not the true purpose of the H3. GM actually wanted the H3 to be a better off-roading vehicle than the clumsy and larger H2 thus they decided to use the Chevrolet Colorado as a base to achieve this goal. The fate of the Hummer H3 is unknown due to the sale of the Hummer division to the Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd.

I've heard about this vehicle when the idea surfaced and didn't really believe the media when they attempted to portray this SUV as Hummer's more environmentally friendly alternative to the H2. Hummer knows it'll fail attempting to fit that image and to do so would mean to take away much of its off-roading capabilities and become a crossover, yet with something as mean looking as a Hummer it looks awful if it couldn't do anything close to what the military Humvees are capable of.


Performance: The H3 comes with 2 engine choices, a 5-cylinder and a V8. The original H3 had a 3.5L 5-cylinder engine, the H3 I drove had the newer 3.7L 5-cylinder Vortec engine. This 3.7L produces about 242 hp and 242 lb.ft of torque which seems pretty good for a normal car. The H3 despite being smaller than the very heavy H2 is at least 4700 lbs. This weight greatly influences the acceleration, 0-100 km/h takes nearly 11 seconds. I also didn't find the engine to be very refined and thus can't say I enjoyed the performance. If you're thinking of buying a Hummer, the I5 H3 is not quick oh and if you're thinking about fuel economy...assume the worst because the H3 is rather thirsty.

My Score: 3/10 - Not a refined engine, consumes lots of fuel and underpowered for the vehicle

Handling: I mentioned the ridiculously heavy body the H3 has to lug around, as a result cornering is not very good either. While I don't expect SUVs this large to be agile, the H3 is just so heavy that its clear you shouldn't take any corners quickly at all. The suspension is somewhat balanced in stiffness and comfort, too much compromise for comfort would ruin its off-roading ability. There is some steering feel from the chunky wheel so its not totally lacking character and also makes it easier to drive than one would think.

My Score: 3/10 - Its very heavy and as a result corners pretty poorly, suspension is reasonable in its tolerances though and not that difficult to drive.


Interior: The very first thing you will notice about the Hummer's interior is how chunky GM has made some items. Much of the interior for most H3s only comes in black, there are two tones like beige and black but I don't believe anything else. I mentioned the steering wheel first because its rather fat and not made for small hands like mine. The next one is the gear lever for the automatic is very chunky and while I normally rest my hand there on most cars...this one I refrain due to how gigantic it feels. The remaining features are very plain and quite a lot of the gauges came straight from the Colorado which wasn't sophisticated. The seats are decently comfortable although this truck doesn't feel all that large inside despite its exterior. The blind spots...in the H3 are very bad, the windows are very small while each pillar is very large with the A pillar being the least intrusive, the B, C and D pillars on the other hand are very intrusive. The tire mounted on the back also intrudes on the already small rear windscreen. Not driver friendly for those who want to see without looking at the front windscreen. As for build quality...I haven't seen many issues so far. H3s sold in North America are built in Shreveport Louisiana, in the United States.

My Score: 3/10 - very plain, not very interesting but surprisingly small inside and rather annoying with poor visibility.

Styling: This is the main reason to buy any Hummer. You basically accept the higher gas bills, the difficulty of parking, the anger of environmentalists and some luxuries in order to have a vehicle that looks like this. Its very mean and menacing, while giving an image if it being very tough and strong. People will put up with the big faults of the H3 just to have these looks. I must admit I do think the military influenced design has worked to this SUV's favour.

My Score: 10/10 - Deep down, everyone would love to have a vehicle that can terrorize other puny vehicles on the road.

Value for money: Unfortunately the H3 is not a very good value for money since there are much cheaper off-roading vehicles that aren't burdened by a very heavy body and as much daily expense as is to run a H3. Even the actual price tag is not going to please since another GM SUV going by the name of the Chevrolet Tahoe is only a few more thousand dollars is much larger has more seating capacity, its much quicker and has very similar fuel bills to boot. You really do have to spend much of your money just to have the style and nothing more.

My Score: 2/10 - The only vehicle out there with these looks, yet a horrible choice when looks are taken out of the equation.

Overall: 21/50 - Not a brilliant SUV, GM is solely relying on mere looks to grab the attention of would-be buyers.

2008 Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tuscon

Normally I consider a Kia and Hyundai to be different from each other. This is one of the few examples where I almost couldn't find a single difference, as a result I will review both since they're almost identical.



Introduction: The Kia Sportage is the older name of the two, it was originally a rugged off-roader built in 1993 and actually managed to stay in production until 2002. The original Sportage was one of the models to receive Mazda and Ford parts due to the Ford-Mazda-Kia partnership. When the Sportage was discontinued in 2002 it had no direct replacement. In 2004, Kia now under the direction of Hyundai due to South Korean government interference revived the Sportage name, however Hyundai also released the Tucson. Both use the same Elantra platform particularly the 3rd generation Elantra, the earliest car I reviewed. The result for the Sportage was that it no longer was capable of going off-road. As with other similar Kia and Hyundai vehicles, they're both manufactured from different South Korean factories. Hyundai has scheduled a redesign of the Tucson for 2010 due to be on sale soon, its unknown if the Sportage will receive similar treatment outside of Europe.

By the time I drove the Tucson and Sportage I've come to distingush Korean cars with the old being the bad ones and the newer being the good ones. The Sportage and Tuscon belong on the old column.


Performance: The Sportage and Tucson both share the exact same engines from the 2.0L 4-cylinder to the 2.7L V6. For this review I've only driven the 2.7L V6 which produces 173 hp and 178 lb.ft of torque. Unlike the Santa Fe, I don't feel this V6 moves this SUV very well. Its just too low powered even for a 2.7...I mean Chrysler's V6 of this size is very old and does 190 in both stats. The acceleration is pretty poor for both going from 0-100 km/h in 10.2 seconds. Its not a particularly nice sounding engine either, sort of coarse for a V6.

My Score: 3/10 - Disappointingly slow for a high end engine.

Handling: Both of these SUVs use the old Elantra's platform as a result these SUVs are not very rewarding to drive but rather feel like tools. Neither is particularly terrible taking the corners but it always seems like a chore to do so driving these. The steering feel is somewhat lacking especially compared to the Santa Fe.

My Score: 4/10 - Not particularly horrible...but then again it could be so much better.



Interior: Normally this is what sets Kia and Hyundai apart, but for these SUVs they're extremely similar. Usually Hyundai build quality is slightly better, but due to the similar parts its just not noticeable. The seats are pretty decent and there's adequate room for passengers of average size. The stereo is the old Hyundai/Kia unit and its still as bad as I've said. The plastics however are not adequate, they age particularly badly when shown beside Hyundai's current plastic trim. There's nothing clever or anything interesting to note aside from this.

My Score: 4/10 - A regular SUV interior with some low quality materials and a bad stereo.

Styling: The Kia has a slightly more agricultural look but the plastic bumper sort of ruins that image. The Tucson is more like a normal crossover but not particularly interesting. The Tucson also shows its plastic front bumper which I don't find very appealing.

My Score: 4/10 - Pretty generic with a cheap looking bumper.

Value for money: As inexpensive SUVs both the Sportage and Tucson seem like a good deal. The weak engine is not very appealing to people who do research their cars. Those who want a practical vehicle won't find these SUVs to be appealing either due to their small size but pretty conventional layout. A Legacy Wagon or Outback is more practical and in my opinion better at everything. The only people who will want these vehicles are those who want the high driving position but don't want to pay a lot.

My Score: 4/10 - Few of these vehicles seem like good value compared to a wagon, most appealing to those who like a high driving position.

Overall: 19/50 - A result of being outdated, the 2010s and Hyundai's rise seem more promising...best to wait for those.

2008, 2009 Hyundai Santa Fe 3.3 GL

There aren't too many Korean cars I've posted so far so I'll probably start adding more...starting now.


Introduction: The Hyundai Santa Fe is a fairly new name in the Hyundai lineup. The original Santa Fe was a more rugged vehicle with several vehicles having a bull bar. It was mostly panned for its agricultural styling yet nonetheless it was one of Hyundai's better selling vehicles. For the model year 2007 Hyundai redesigned the Santa Fe ditching the unique but outdated styling in favour of a more modern and contemporary look.

By the time I drove the Santa Fe I actually have driven some decent Korean vehicles and I wasn't unhappy to see this vehicle on our lots unlike how I used to be.


Performance: For this review I have only driven the 3.3L V6 engine for the Santa Fe. Hyundai also offers a 2.7L V6 which is used on the Kia Sportage and Hyundai Tucson. The 3.3L V6 produces 242 hp and 226 lb.ft of torque. I found this engine moves the Santa Fe at a pretty reasonably speed however despite being much more powerful than the older 3.5L Hyundai used on the older Tuscon this engine isn't terribly quick to move this CUV. This V6 manages to move the Santa Fe even with AWD from 0-100 km/h in about 8.3 seconds. Not bad, but with many Japanese SUVs being equipped with 3.5L V6s those manage to move in under 7 seconds. Still this engine is pretty smooth and reasonably quiet which is a big improvement over the older unrefined Hyundai engines.

My Score: 8/10 - A pretty good engine, its just not as quick as one wished

Handling: Taking a Santa Fe into the corners makes me wonder whether it lost some of its agricultural roots. This is a pretty refined vehicle, when making turns it actually seems pretty decent without feeling like it will tip over, the biggest worry taking a CUV in a corner too fast. The steering feel is actually there unlike earlier Hyundais giving you more confidence in the car's ability. Now its not to the level like the Mazda CX-7 but with stability and confidence this feels like a Hyundai from a different generation, a better generation. I didn't even feel road comfort got sacrificed for its relatively good cornering.

My Score: 8/10 - Not as fun as the Mazda but far more willing and far more capable than older Hyundais.


Interior: This is the Santa Fe's biggest upgrade over older Hyundais. When I got inside the interior not only was more attractive but even the plastics were of higher grade than what I was used to even from better known automakers. I was absolutely shocked at how much better the interior in this CUV was, a big reason why I was upset over the Corolla's fall in interior quality. I get the sense that Hyundai knew this interior was something worthwhile since after the Santa Fe, nearly every Hyundai from 2009 and beyond used similar lighting and plastic materials from this CUV. Even the stereo is better than older Hyundai units, normally this is where I can easily point out fault. Build quality is also strong with many North American Santa Fes being built in Montgomery, Alabama in the United States.

My Score: 10/10 - Good materials, attractive design, good build quality...a major turn around for Hyundai.

Styling: I didn't like the old Santa Fe's agricultural look, so this newer Santa Fe was a major improvement in my mind. Unlike many other Hyundai designs...I couldn't pinpoint a car that the Santa Fe copied directly, its probably the first Hyundai to actually sport a somewhat unique style of its own and it actually looks good. I actually think this is one of the better looking CUVs on the market, its too bad the 2010 grille worsens the image.

My Score: 10/10 - Very good looking design without direct copying, maybe Hyundai can style something after all.

Value for the money: The Santa Fe is a very good cross-over however I don't think the base vehicle is all that great of a deal mostly due to the aging engine it has to use. The 3.3L I drove is not as cheap and starts at $30,000. Its actually priced similar to that of the Toyota RAV4 while less expensive SUVs offer more. This is a different path for Hyundai since the Santa Fe is not the cheapest and is the one sporting higher quality materials.

My Score: 7/10 - Hyundai sacrifices low price in favour of quality, while I prefer this path I'm not sure if budget-conscious buyers will accept.

Overall: 43/50 - A very good mid-sized crossover, Hyundai has put quality over price.

2008 GMC Envoy

This review will be quickly done, we don't have too many Envoys and I forgot its practically the same as the Trailblazer so I'll admit this one will have quite a bit of copy and pasting.


Introduction: The GMC Envoy is GM's mid sized SUV marketed as an upscale version of the GMC Jimmy. Like the Jimmy the Envoy is a truck based SUV and thus is more rugged for off roading than a crossover. The XL trim version of the Envoy had a 3rd row of seats, it was also longer than the standard Envoy. The Envoy would remain in production until 2008 and continued to sell model year 2009s while the Jimmy would retire in 2005.

Much like I found with the Trailblazer, I didn't really find much interest in the Envoys due to how they're practically the same aside from interior and exterior design.


Performance: The Envoy has a 4.2L straight-6 engine which outputs 275 hp and 275 lb.ft of torque. It seems like a lot, but I can't help but think GM could have gotten more out of such a large I6. Anyways this engine moves the Envoy rather well, its a smooth unit as expected and accelerates the SUV from 0-100 km/h in 7.7 seconds. I don't really have much issues with this engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Its a good engine, not the most memorable one but it does do its job well.

Handling: The Envoy's handling is mediocre at best, for an SUV. With the very large wheel and its heavy weight it doesn't handle all that well. Steering doesn't feel all that attached possibly just by how large the steering wheel is. I may be rugged, but its not agile on the streets.

My Score: 5/10 - I know its an SUV, but there are SUVs that do a better job.


Interior: This is the biggest difference between the Trailblazer and the Envoy. The interior of the Envoy is a bit better than the Trailblazer's. Small details being the major thing between the two. The Envoy isn't colour limited like the Trailblazer meaning you don't have to have a depressing interior. The vents are a step up from the Trailblazer's bottom of the barrel ones, there's more chrome in the interior over the dark plastic of the Trailblazer. All in all these small changes manage to change the atmosphere inside from being disappointingly cheap to become disappointingly average. The build quality however is still atrocious.

My Score: 3/10 - Using better material can make more of a difference in interiors...too bad this car is still built badly and still shows some of its truck interior blandness.

Styling: The Envoy has more of a truck image than the Trailblazer does with its much larger grille. It doesn't have the same plastic bits slapped over the SUV like the Trailblazer does making it already less cheap looking. In Denali form it actually can look somewhat nice with an even better grille, however there isn't much worth noting on the style since the rest is pretty inoffensive and kind of uninteresting.

My Score: 7/10 - Pretty good SUV styling without attempting to leave behind its truck roots.

Value for the money: The Envoy is not a cheap SUV, like the Endeavor its also in the $30,000 range. Unlike that SUV, this does not act like a car and has some serious flaws. Considering how much money is spent, the build quality is unacceptable and other off road SUVs are better equipped for off roading making the Envoy not necessarily good at the road or off road. It should be much cheaper than GMC is asking for due to some of these flaws.

My Score: 3/10 - Not the worst SUV, but the awful interior quality and the lack of some off road equipment should have slashed the price.

Overall: 27/50 - Still a ho hum SUV but certainly a tad bit better than the Trailblazer.

2008, 2009 Buick Lucerne CX

I have a bit more time today so, some more reviews...I noticed I haven't put out that many GMs so here they are.


Introduction: The Buick Lucerne was introduced in 2006 as a replacement for Buick's previous large cars like the LeSabre and the Park Avenue. Buick made the Lucerne less expensive than the relatively inexpensive LeSabre but particularly with the V8 option it also ranged more expensive than the Park Avenue. The Lucerne is the last remaining vehicle on the H-body platform which was first introduced in 1986 from the LeSabre from that time.

I'm not particularly a fan of Buicks...to me they're always associated with the elderly. Other than some of the stranger Buicks like the Reatta and the classic Buicks...they've never appealed to me. As a result I really didn't care whether I drove one or not, in this job I drove quite a few so I'll review them.


Performance: The Buick Lucerne was given 3 engines, 2 of them are V6s and the other is a Northstar V8. I've driven both V6 engines since the earlier Lucernes had the 3.8L 3800 Series III engine(197 hp and 233 lb.ft of torque) while the 2009 and newer Lucernes uses the 3.9L High Value V6(227 hp and 237 lb.ft of torque). Now I know I mentioned how savage the Grand Prix's 3800(the exact same engine) was, its far more reserved in the Buicks. Pushing the Buick and the Grand Prix the exact same way...despite the exact same engine you get a different result...the Pontiac gives a rough jolt of power as you press the pedal...the Buick is quiet and the power is very spread out. It might be the ECU or transmission programming that affects this. The 3.9L V6 is really not all that different...it some ways it doesn't even attempt to distinguish itself. That said the Lucerne is no slouch, its acceleration goes from 0-100 km/h in 7.2 seconds with the 3800 engine, due to how little torque was increased in the 3.9L I assume its practically the same with no official numbers out for this engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Fantastic for the Buick's traditional customers, very quiet, very smooth and very refined...not as lovable as the Grand Prix reacts using the same engine though.

Handling: One thing Buicks are not known for is taking corners with agility. The primary focus of the Buicks seem to be road comfort and making the wheel easy to turn. The Lucerne does not walk away from that meaning this big car is very poor at taking corners at speed. You also don't get very good steering feedback from the very light wheel. In essence for the driving enthusiast they'll be very bored driving these cars, the elderly who need the soft ride to not destroy their bones and extremely light wheel to deal with arthritis will absolutely love this.

My Score: 3/10 - Totally set up for comfort, totally discourages turning at speed unless done slowly.


Interior: The interior of the Lucerne is extremely large inside. There is a lot of room for passengers in both front and back, the trunk space has not been sacrificed at all making it very good for carrying luggage and people at the same time. On a CX trim level, the Buick however is very unsophisticated other than power options and a stereo...there really isn't much to it despite being a car this large and having a higher price than Chevrolets. The seats are comfortable and the atmosphere is catered to Buick's base. The build quality isn't really a problem in this car, its built in Hamtramck Michigan, in the United States.

My Score: 6/10 - A very roomy and comfortable interior, but lacks anything that might interest someone younger.

Styling: The Lucerne does not attempt to change Buick's image in any way. This design looks like a natural progression of the old LeSabre being really inoffensive and extremely conservative. There are no sharp angles in the design anywhere and it even has something retro in the styling featuring the long gone ventiports from much older Buicks having a vent on the fender corresponding to the number of cylinders in the car. 3 on each side for the V6 and 4 for the V8. Its a design catering to Buick's loyal customers, sadly not very inviting to anybody else who may feel they'll be seen as an old person in a design like this.

My Score: 5/10 - An extremely conservative design, appealing to the loyalty crown unappealing to others who dislike the conservative design.

Value for money: As I mentioned in the introduction the Lucerne is less expensive than what Buick used to charge for the LeSabre or the Park Avenue. The cars that the Lucerne competes against are however much better suited for a larger target audience. Even within GM the Pontiac G8 and the Cadillac CTS are much more attractive to a bigger audience. The Impala may cannibalize the Lucerne's sales due to that car having similar mannerisms but at a much lower cost. The competition from outside means its up against the Toyota Avalon, Ford Taurus, Nissan Maxima and Chrysler 300. The Avalon and Taurus are better executed and offer higher quality for the audience Buick wanted to attract for this car while the Maxima and 300 go after the bigger market of younger drivers.

My Score: 2/10 - Aside from loyal customers, even within GM there isn't a truly compelling reason to buy a Lucerne over a G8, CTS or Impala. Older customers I doubt will find the Impala to be much different and for very conservative drivers who distrust front wheel drive, the Crown Victoria is far more appealing.

Overall: 25/50 - Its a perfect car for your grandparents, but a terrible choice for just about anybody else.

2007 Cadillac CTS

This Saturday hasn't been too bad in terms of work so I'm not nearly as tired as I was last weekend.


Introduction: Before the Cadillac CTS, GM has tried twice to get a suitable entry level Cadillac in order to compete against BMW, Lexus, Mercedes and Audi. Their first attempt was the Cimarron which damaged GM's reputation far more than anticipated. The reason was due to the fact the Cimarron was truly a Cavalier with slightly different styling and a different badge. Fundamentally the car was still like the very low budget Chevrolet, many buyers believed this to be a rip off and as such the car ended up as a total failure. Cadillac's next effort was the Catera which hailed from GM's Opel division known as the Opel Omega. This time while a truly foreign car(it was made in Germany) there was very little inside the Catera that made it worthy of being mentioned alongside the brands it was supposed to compete against. Opel designed it as a regular mainstream car, not a luxury entry level car and thus the Catera failed too. The CTS is the result of GM returning to the RWD platform which the previous Cimarron and Catera were not. The new GM Sigma platform would be the launching pad for the CTS and future Cadillacs in an effort to shatter the old people's car image most had of Cadillac at the time. The results meant a 2nd generation CTS, the crossover SRX and the Seville replacement the STS.

When I started, I knew this was the car to take a good look at whether GM could really turn itself around. This car received a lot of praise even from those normally critical of GM, add the fact it was RWD I was actually excited about this GM product.


Performance: I had the run of the mill Cadillac CTS, not the more exciting powerful CTS-V. So the engine I did try out was the 3.6L which produced 255 hp and 252 lb.ft of torque. The 3.6 was available to the CTS since 2005. Well this engine was how you would expect from a car this high priced, its very smooth and power delivery feels just right. I never got the chance to take the CTS for a test run at acceleration but its acceleration from 0-100 km/h is about 6.6 seconds which is by far the quickest car in all of these reviews. Clearly GM updated the powertrain to the degree they wanted a true winner.

My Score: 10/10 - Smooth, quiet and bloody fast.

Handling: This part I could test a lot better than powertrain due to the confines of the area I could drive this car. First thing I noticed was how much easier the CTS was to drive over every other GM I was exposed to at this time. I truly noticed the balance from the rear wheel drive unlike the Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300, the degree of confidence the steering wheel feeds to your hands is what makes cars of this level better than a front wheel drive econobox. You can feel the chassis is very capable taking a turn slightly fast, while it rolled a tad bit it was by far the best GM product I've ever driven when it came to handling.

My Score: 10/10 - GM has done almost the impossible, made Caddillac truly for a car enthusiast with a family.


Interior: This is the only early 21st century GM product that I felt had a proper interior while most of the others had disappointingly bad interiors in comparison. There are features I felt showed a small sign of GM's struggle to get a proper interior down like the alarmingly silly looking vents, the tin-foil plastic in the center console and the low grade stereo the rest of the interior was not half bad. The leather provided is actually of decent quality and the cabin is quite comfortable. There's a lot of space for your passengers both from and back. I drove an older unit and even despite this, I didn't notice the disappointing build quality I was used to seeing from GM products. These cars are made in Lansing, Michigan in the United States.

My Score: 7/10 - Mostly a reasonable interior, just a few silly tacky and unattractive items.

Styling: In hindsight I'm starting to like the styling of this car as it ages. I initially didn't like it too much, I originally thought it tried to keep too much of the old Cadillac while mixing it with radical shapes to scare the old people. Now I actually prefer this version over the 2nd generation CTS, its mild mannered by at the same time you can see its not the same Cadillac your grandparents drove...its in fact tailored for the youth.

My Score: 8/10 - An interesting blend of old and new, takes some time to settle but in the end it ages pretty well.

Value for Money: When GM introduced the CTS, I wasn't sure whether it would pose a serious challenge since back then most assumed GM was going to fail again like the last two times. After driving the car, it really looks like a true bargain. The CTS despite being entry-level is actually the size of a 5-series but has a 3-series price, its not a sluggish pig like old Cadillacs suggested and they're quite well equipped. The most the foreign brands could offer over Cadillac was brand appeal and reputation which Cadillac lacked. Still, when looking at value the Cadillac was a serious deal you just had to overcome the negative image of General Motors which was really difficult to overcome back then.

My Score: 8/10 - An absolutely fantastic deal, the biggest thing that might have hurt its sales was that it came from General Motors and its disturbingly bad image.

Overall: 43/50 - An absolutely excellent product from General Motors, it makes you wonder what took them 30 years to get something like this right.

2008 Mazda CX-7

I originally planned to do a few more reviews but this week has been very tiring. So I'll do a review on a car fresh in my mind.


Introduction: The Mazda CX-7 is Mazda's second entry into the crossover market and their first mid-sized vehicle in the utility vehicle segment after their Navago(an explorer re-badge) failed. Unlike many other recent Mazdas the CX-7 does not share a platform with any Fords and is a uniquely designed Mazda. It uses a combination of suspension parts from other Mazda vehicles depending on the drive configuration, if only front wheel drive its composed of MPV and Mazda5 suspension parts front and rear in that order. The all-wheel drive models however use the system developed for the Mazdaspeed6. In some sense this is probably the most sport oriented crossover especially if bought in AWD form.

I've always wanted to drive one of these cars, but we never got these for our fleet. Its one of Mazda's most interesting vehicles when it comes to what sort of parts its composed of, to think a good portion is actually composed of Mazdapseed parts is quite incredible. Well we finally got one last week...only to get a message its been sold...so I used it as a shuttle.


Performance: The CX-7 uses the engine straight from the Mazdaspeed division. A 2.3L turbocharged 4-cylinder engine, the very engine used in the Mazdaspeed3 and Mazdaspeed6. The biggest difference however is the transmission is a 6-speed automatic instead of the 6-speed manuals found on those cars. As a result the power is 244 hp and 258 lb.ft of torque. When driving this vehicle you will notice the turbo kick in pretty early sometimes coming on during turns. Most crossovers have smooth V6s totally set up for comfort cruising, the CX-7 on the other hand with its slightly more coarse 4-cylinder prefers a thrashing thanks to its Mazdaspeed roots. I know the noise is not pleasant especially before the turbo kicks in, yet I just don't care considering the turbo is coming soon giving you more power than you asked for. To tell you how quick these CX-7s are they accelerate from 0-100 in 7.5 seconds. If the future meant small displacement turbo engines replacing bigger displacement ones...I'm all for it. I just loved this engine. Do note its a bit more thirsty even though its a 4-cylinder, its up to you whether to trade fun for fuel economy.

My Score: 10/10 - A fantastic engine, feeling that surge of power is such a great feeling you stop caring about the noisy rev early on and the less impressive fuel economy.

Handling: I've driven the AWD version and I thought the handling was pretty planted and much easier to push than other crossovers and SUVs its size. Its not often I find a vehicle like this that encourages much more aggressive behaviour, perhaps I should try a BMW X-series SUV. Cornering is mostly flat which is very good since most vehicles in this category roll. I didn't even notice much discomfort on the road.

My Score: 9/10 - Great AWD system that encourages spirited driving, just don't get a ticket for reckless driving.


Interior: When I got into the Mazda CX-7, this was probably the least enjoyable part about the vehicle since the more practical stuff comes into question. If you know Mazda's lineup during this time then the interior is extremely similar to that of the Mazda6 and set the standard for Mazda digital displays to be found on the 2010 Mazda3. As a 5-seater the CX-7 is quite comfortable being large enough to not make the passengers cramped. The tailgate space for your things is moderate in size. The problem with the interior here is it does nothing clever with the space given. The build quality however is fantastic, these vehicles being built from Hiroshima, Japan.

My Score: 6/10 - If your sole intention is to carry passengers and modest amounts of cargo the CX-7 does the job but if you wanted more you'll be disappointed, good build quality however.

Styling: The CX-7 is actually somewhat handsomely styled, while it retains much of the round profile of the Edge and CX-9 the rear tail lights for instance are slightly transparent like that of the old Lexus IS. Unlike the IS, it doesn't make a big deal out of those. In the front the grille and head lights naturally fit the shape and profile of the car making it look pretty good.

My Score: 8/10 - A pretty good looking CUV, everything flows pretty naturally to the design.

Value for the money: Its a mixed bag here, if you clearly need the family practical utility vehicle features you will not want the CX-7, its too small and doesn't fit those needs. If you however wanted the most driver oriented vehicle of the segment, this is clearly the best. This is the only CUV that encourages your driver urges, all other CUVs are far less driver oriented with smoother V6s and comfortable rides. Its a slight bit of a compromise but the big body didn't manage to spoil the fun.

My Score: 8/10 - So long as your goal is driver fun and you need something the size of a SUV this is a fantastic vehicle for that goal.

Overall: 42/50 - Until Mazda designs a new CX-7 just as sport oriented, there isn't another crossover that is as much fun as this is.