The Poor Car Reviewer

2010-2011 Mazda3 GX

2011-07-10T17:00:00.006-04:00

Due to the lack of updates from before I'll post another review this time of a compact car.

Introduction: As I mentioned in my previous review of the Mazda3, it introduced in 2004 as the Mazda Protege's replacement. It uses Ford of Europe's C1 platform for the successful Euro Ford Focus. Since its introduction the Mazda 3 has become one of Mazda's all time best selling vehicles in certain markets belonged to the top 10 selling vehicles. As a global vehicle the Mazda 3 found in one location was stylistically the exact same in another car market. The Mazda 3 offered a sedan and hatchback body types, one could also buy a Mazdaspeed 3 which had a 4-cylinder turbo engine making it one of the quickest FWD hatchbacks sold in most markets. Mazda replace the current 3 in 2010 with a new redesign, due to the old 3's success Mazda rather than totally change the vehicle decided to fine tune what they believed made the 3 so successful. For the 2012 model year, Mazda will introduce its new SkyActiv powertrain which will put the Mazda3 as one of the most fuel efficient cars in its segment without resorting to a hybrid system.

The old Mazda3 was a great car to drive so naturally I was rather eager to try out this version. I know quite a few people don't like the way this car looks but I was willing to look past that and see if Mazda3 made any meaningful changes to see whether they made it better...or ruined it.

Performance: The only model of the Mazda3 I got to drive is the basic GX model and unlike the previous model I driven this one has the 2.0L engine. It produces 150 hp and 135 lb.ft of torque. This engine accelerates this car from 0-100 km/h in about 9 seconds with the automatic which isn't horrible but not all that quick. As the engine cruises along its actually a quiet motor, when accelerating that's when its a bit buzzy. The fuel economy from this engine was reasonable against the Corolla and Civic, but these days it looks thirsty compared to the new Cruze, Focus and Elantra. This will change though as the 2012 model is supposed to match the newer cars with the SkyActiv powertrain.

My Score: 7/10 - This engine is good at what it does, while not hugely powerful its pretty reasonable in all other respects but on fuel economy you may want to wait for the 2012 model.

Handling: This was where the old Mazda3 was at its utter best. I'm glad to say...the new one is just as good as the old one. Despite its slight weight gain it feels just as sharp and as nimble as it used to. The ride is as stiff as the older car but not to the degree of sport suspension ride choppiness. It seems as if Mazda went against going for a purely electrical power steering system and as a result this car feels a lot nicer to drive than many cars it competes against. I'm glad Mazda didn't actually change any aspect to the 3's handling. Yes there's some slight body roll and being FWD it will eventually understeer but for normal driving its still very very good.

My Score: 10/10 - No changes to report from last time...and none were needed.

Interior: This is one of the biggest change from the old car and the new one. I like the look of the newer gauges over the busy looking ones from the older car. I also liked the info display screen is in the center so you don't have to totally remove your eyes from the road. The controls are much better designed than before making it easy to make adjustments without looking often. The carpet is very much upgraded over the older car's rather easy to ruin carpets. The dash is sort of a soft touch one, not entirely soft but not the awful hard plastic you'd find in a Corolla or Civic. Its not all perfect though, there are still some cheap plastics to be found. The visibility in this car is reasonable, although the higher trunk line does reduce some of the rear visibility. The seats are pretty comfortable and reasonably supportive. The trunk size...still isn't very large though and the interior spacing is still not brilliant for rear seated passengers. Otherwise though, the interior has quite a few needed improvements over the old one. As for the build quality, its excellent not a single problem to report. The Mazda3 is assembled in Hofu, Japan.

My Score: 9/10 - Many many improvements over the old car, the spacing is really the only big item left to improve on.

Styling: This is the next biggest change on the Mazda3. What Mazda decided to do here was to put on the styling made by the Nagare concepts into its lineup. Many disliked the fact that looking at the car its always smiling and happy. I on the other hand, while not a fan of the look I do appreciate Mazda was trying to do something different and potentially risky. Not too many cars act the way they look, this is one of the few cars that can symbolize the feeling the driver is getting while they're driving this car. From the rear the car is a bit less interesting, an evolution of the older car's rear to match its front. Standing out from the crowd of otherwise boring cars, by trying something different it seems Mazda wanted to differentiate itself.

My Score: 8/10 - Provocative front, ho hum rear.

Value for money: The pricing in this segment is very competitive and the Mazda3 is very much one of those cars eying for more market share. In its base form the car is very cheap and is at least equipped with power doors and windows. In its ability to excite the driver, nothing in this class is as good. It only falters when it comes to fuel economy and available standard equipment. In its favour it offers a hatchback option meaning its competition on that level is only Ford, Toyota, Hyundai, Mitsubishi and Dodge. The main trouble comes from Ford and Hyundai who these days offer much nicer looking cars inside and out with better fuel economy, for much of the same money and in the case of the Ford even goes after the Mazda's strong point of driving dynamics. When this car first came out it was easily the best choice, with fierce competition its no longer the obvious choice but still a very good one.

My Score: 9/10 - Still a very good car but fierce competition has meant Mazda may need more in order to keep their sales going strong for this car. What keeps its score high is the fun level and being an all around very good car with few weaknesses to report.

Overall: 45/50 - A very good compact car, few offer as much fun for very little money as Mazda does.

2008-2011 Ford Escape XLT & Limited

2011-07-10T15:42:00.003-04:00

I apologize again for the very late update. Today's review is on a vehicle that has sold fairly well even to this day.

Introduction: The Ford Escape was designed in a joint effort with Mazda as a compact crossover in 2000. Ford decided to place this vehicle below the truck based Ford Explorer which has grown into a medium size SUV. Ford also realized that most of its SUV customers rarely go off-roading and therefore the Escape was designed much like a car using a monocoque design rather than the body-on-frame truck based design. The hybrid version of the Ford Escape was introduced in 2004. The Escape was redesigned in 2008 using the same platform as before. The hybrid version is continued from the previous generation, this is the family vehicle Barack Obama purchased before becoming US President. This version of the Escape will be discontinued in the fall of 2011 and a newly designed Escape to be available for the 2013 model year. During the US Cash for Clunkers program, the Ford Escape was the only crossover to make the top 10 models sold under the program, possibly due to the high amount of old Ford Explorers being sent for trade-in.

By the time I started driving the Escape, most of the Ford products have started slowly impressing me. Thus I wasn't expecting any of the disappointment I would from say a Chrysler product. In this review I will be looking at the low level trim XLT and the higher end Limited vehicles, technically there's few differences.

Performance: Due to the trim levels the only engine available is the 3.0L V6 Duratec engine. This is the final version of this engine and thus produces 240 hp and 223 lb.ft of torque. This engine is able to accelerate this vehicle from 0-100 km/h in about 8.1-8.7 seconds depending on whether it has AWD. As a result the Escape with this engine moves reasonably quick although not blisteringly quick as its size suggests. Its not the smoothest engine I've encountered but on the cruise its generally fine. The fuel economy numbers are actually rather decent considering it has a V6, you don't save a whole lot with the 4-cylinder. If you wish to have a fuel efficient Escape, you'd be better off with a Escape hybrid which does remarkably well in the city.

My Score: 8/10 - Decent engine, the only criticism being its not all that quick.

Handling: With the Escape's smaller size one would think it would handle decently compared to the traditional SUVs. In many ways yes, the Escape easily rides better than many SUVs. When taking the Escape into a corner it generally is capable of taking it, but do keep in mind it has body roll and it will understeer even with AWD. In all honesty the handling is only compromised by the higher center of gravity which plagues any taller vehicle except the Subaru Outback and Tribeca.

My Score: 8/10 - Good handling all around and rides well but of course its not perfect with roll and understeer.

Interior: This is the only category where the XLT and Limited have their differences. In the standard XLT you will be given most of the typical options you really need but you won't get certain things. The Limited comes in leather, sunroof, SYNC, rear parking sensors, etc. In general the Escape's interior is reasonably spacious considering its size, its only a 5 seater even in Limited trim. The rear visibility is actually pretty good for a car of this class and the seats even the cloth ones are comfortable. The center console is stacked full of buttons which may be a turn off for some. Some of the plastic in the XLT is noticeably on the cheap side as well. Nothing about this interior even in the Limited trim is spectacular but fortunately there's nothing wrong with it either. The build quality of the Escape is pretty decent, rarely did I find anything particularly bad about it. The Escape is assembled in Claycomo, Missouri in the United States.

My Score: 7/10 - Good interior, but nothing hugely impressive even in the top of the line Limited.

Styling: The Escape in its current form is a decent looking crossover, it doesn't diverge from the SUV styling. Ford didn't introduce its tri-bar grille on this vehicle either so it has a rather normal looking truck grille. It looks much like an evolution of the older Ford Escapes which may be what Ford was trying to get at. Unfortunately this won't excite anybody based on the styling.

My Score: 5/10 - Very conventional, no interesting styling details to note.

Value for money: This comes down to whether you want AWD, the tall ride height and are willing to spend midsize sedan money for a vehicle that's actually smaller than a new 2012 Focus. For its class its a rather good vehicle, however with Ford and the 2012 Focus hatchback...it begs the question of whether the small crossover is practical anymore. In practical terms the Focus hatch has more cargo space, costs less to maintain and costs less to buy. To make the Escape worthwhile you'll have to get the AWD and maybe even the V6 but that makes it a bit expensive basically adding $15K to the base $20K vehicle.

My Score: 6/10 - May not be worth the money on the practical side with newer hatchbacks being far more practical and sensible.

Overall: 34/50 - A good small crossover vehicle. I just question its usefulness in light of poor economic situations and higher fuel prices.

2007-2009 Volkswagen City Golf

2011-05-23T17:09:00.004-04:00

I wanted to do a review sooner than this but blogger.com went down. Anyways here's a Canadian exclusive model.

Introduction: The VW Golf is one of the company's most important vehicles. As a replacement of the famous VW Beetle it didn't technically succeed as the Beetle was still sold in a few markets well until 2003 while the Golf was available in 1974. The original Golf was known as the Rabbit and eventually used the Golf name for all models. As VW continued development on the Golf they released a high performance version called the GTI which would start the fierce hot hatchback wars. The standard Golf would eventually phase out the Beetle completely and become one of the best selling vehicles in Europe. The Volkswagen Golf is now in its 6th generation, this review focuses on the 4th generation model sold in Mexico and South America but also Canada. As part of Volkswagen's City line, they continued to sell these older models alongside their Mk V counterparts in a bit to compete at the lowest price bracket. The City line has been replaced by the new base Mk VI Jetta which has slashed its price to be one of the least expensive new VW models.

These were the first VWs I was exposed to, I knew they were supposed to be no frills old models. Yet somehow I couldn't help but wonder why they exist in a market like Canada when this is more commonly seen in 2nd or 3rd world markets. China for instance still sells the 2nd gen Passat, and South Africa continued making the Mk I Golf until 2009.

Performance: As a no frills model, this means the City Golf was given only one choice of engine. Its the 2.0L engine VW has used since 1993. To give you an idea how old this engine is, it only has 8 valves something that was last seen by Japanese 4-cylinders in the 1980s. As a result this engine produces 115 hp and 122 lb.ft of torque. Its able to accelerate from 0-100 km/h in about 10.5 seconds. This car is essentially as slow as the subcompacts which make due with less power and less displacement. It doesn't even make a nice noise when being pushed, just an annoying drone. This engine is paired to a 6-speed automatic which I'm afraid isn't necessary on an engine this slow. Worse its not that fuel efficient due to its ancient design remember it doesn't have valve timing so its at best capable of 28 mpg tops. I honestly don't like this engine and it confounds me that VW is still using it in a brand new 2011 Jetta.

My Score: 2/10 - I guess its technically cheap but you get what you paid for.

Handling: Being a no frills model I was hoping at the minimum the handling would be nice since there's a lot less weight. Unfortunately I didn't really find that with the City Golf. First things first, this car understeers rather early even before you feel you reached its possible limit. Secondly the steering is extremely vague making this a rather boring car to drive. The ride quality wasn't even that good, not appalling but its not that comfortable. Not the worst car I've taken around a corner but it was certainly the least amusing.

My Score: 4/10 - Very boring with lots of understeer.

Interior: The City Golf interior is a bit lacking in features because of the nature of this trim something I can't criticize here. You don't get power windows, you don't get power locks, no cruise control, nothing you'd consider luxury is found in this car. Its finished fully in grey, black plastic and fake chrome. The only item that has any colour is the ashtray which is red. Interior space is decent front and back but the tailgate is where the majority of the space is. Headroom is reasonable for any average size person. As for the build quality, its not very good. I've seen trim pieces just pop out and never return, others fall through the gaps in the center console. The City Golf is made in São José dos Pinhais, Brazil.

My Score: 5/10 - Lacking in colour, built to a price, but has a spacious tailgate area.

Styling: This is just a slightly modified Mk IV Golf, in all honestly nothing is truly different from the two models. The old Mk IV Golf was bland looking and this is very much the same. Just a typical hatchback, nothing enticing or exciting.

My Score: 2/10 - It wasn't interesting 11 years ago, hasn't changed since.

Value for money: This is where I can start to criticize its lack of features. What VW believes is people will buy a old stripped out VW model for the price of a new compact car being offered by everyone else. Now I'll make it clear the Corolla and Civic in their basest forms do lack some features but the Corolla is lacking power windows and the Civic only lacking power locks. The City Golf however lacks both. The Golf is competing against the hatchbacks thus the Matrix, the Mazda3, the Dodge Caliber, the Hyundai Elantra Touring and lately the Mitsubishi Lancer. The only car in this lot that's worse is the Dodge Caliber but in its defense it is bigger than the City Golf. You can buy a City Golf with some options but all the sudden the price advantage over its rivals is thrown out. I wouldn't buy this car at all, in fact a better solution is just to buy an used original Golf from this generation it'll be better made, has a better selection of engines including a diesel(far better for fuel economy) and cheaper to buy. The City Golf is just not worth it, you get an old car with no equipment for the price of a new one that has some standard equipment. It might be a different story if the car was much cheaper than any new car.

My Score: 1/10 - Logically this car makes no sense, if you wanted this model of Golf a used one is better and if you wanted a cheap car there are many new cars available that are cheaper and better equipped.

Overall: 14/50 - It feels its age, its not cheap enough and offers little anybody really wants.

2011 Ford Fiesta SE

2011-04-14T21:43:00.005-04:00

The reason for the lack of updates is the amount of things going on in my life. Anyways on to the review.

Introduction: The Ford Fiesta is an old model dating back to the 1976, the North American market did get the Fiesta until 1981 when it was replaced along with the Ford Pinto with the American Ford Escort. Ford would enter the subcompact segment again with the Mazda designed Festiva which in actuality is a Ford badged Mazda 121. This car was replaced by the Kia designed Ford Aspire. In Europe however, the Ford Fiesta didn't end in 1981 rather it got redesigned 4 times until North America would receive news the 6th generation Fiesta was coming to this market with CEO Alan Mulally's plan for a global lineup but also to boost Ford's average fuel economy.

I heard great things about the Ford Fiesta over in Europe. When I was watching earlier interviews with CEO Alan Mulally he seemed very excited about the prospect of bringing this particular car over to North America. You can't help but wonder how good is it when the CEO is extremely eager to show reporters the least expensive car in the company's entire global lineup. I expected good things from it so onto the review.

Performance: The Ford Fiesta in North America get only one choice of engine, the largest engine available being a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 120 hp and 112 lb.ft of torque. As expected of a car with this amount of power its not going to be blisteringly quick. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h if about 10 seconds on the automatic, its slightly faster with a manual transmission at 9.5. Still the Fiesta is the heaviest of the lot weighing at about 2600 lbs making it the heaviest of the bunch. In spite of its weight, engine size and standard equipment, this is easily the most fuel efficient subcompact currently on sale today by a long way even without the SFE package. When driving like all small 4-cylinders its a bit noisy when thrashed but with civilized driving its not all that noticeable and it gets its torque a bit earlier than most subcompacts as well. Its quite nice, sacrifice some acceleration for a lot of fuel savings.

My Score: 9/10 - Wish it was faster but its hard to argue when it does what its supposed to do very well.

Handling: This was where I was hoping for a car to drive like the ones the Europeans keep saying is so great. Its not quite as I was expecting, but its better than what some naysayers were also saying. The steering is very light, but its surprisingly easy to drive and you get some inkling of feel which is difficult to achieve with electric power steering. The car is also quite tossable and agile, so you don't exactly feel the 2600 lb weight. Ride comfort is much better than what you get in the Honda Fit.

My Score: 8/10 - Not quite what I was expecting given the European reviews but for once if there was any watering down, it wasn't drastic.

Interior: Many say this is the Fiesta's party piece among the subcompacts that it had the best interior amongst them all. Certainly in SE form the Fiesta is well equipped with things like power windows, power locks, a decent stereo and a dash computer. The materials as you'd expect is mainly plastic. Yet despite this, the center console is rather interesting to look at, you can tell the stylist had some say in its layout. The seats are quite comfortable with good adjustment. On the visibility its quite good, although the sedan's trunk line is quite high. This interior does have some colour to it making it not as boring as its Japanese rivals. I didn't notice build quality issues with the Fiesta at all, these come from Hermosillo, Mexico.

My Score: 8/10 - Yes its mainly plastic but if you go one step up in class, that's still the norm and therefore it actually has a better interior than some cars in the next class.

Styling: I will say it right now, the hatchback looks pretty good, I liked the one in Europe and the one for North America is nearly identical. In hatchback form its definitely a good looking car as its got personality. Ford even used a normally unappealing green on the Fiesta and it looks fine with it, most cars would look awful with that colour. The sedan is less interesting, the rear is pretty standard looking while the front has to have the not very good looking tri-bar Ford grille. If they given the sedan the hatchback's face...you easily have the best looking subcompact.

My Score: 9/10(hatch) - Best looking hatchback for sale today.
My Score: 6/10(sedan) - Ruined by the stupid tri bar grille, sort of bland rear end.

Value for money: The Fiesta SE is not the cheapest car in the segment in fact it can be quite expensive the moment you start adding options. Your best hope making sense for buying a Fiesta is that for the price you pay for a decently equipped car like the SE you can save a lot more at the pumps giving you an overall nice car that's saving you money as gas gets expensive and the hybrid is out of the question because of costs. I personally believe this is the best subcompact you can buy today, its just a question of how tight you want to be with your money. You can spend a whole lot less with no frills Accents, Versas and Yarises but if you don't mind the lack of equipment there is a Fiesta S which is quite a bit cheaper.

My Score: 8/10 - In its class its pretty good value but its a bit on the high side. Fortunately the fuel efficiency and the nicer interior do soften the blow of the higher price.

Overall: 42/50(hatch) - A really good car in hatchback form subcompact or not.
Overall: 39/50(sedan) - Still a good car, just a bit uglier.

2008-2011 Jeep Liberty & Dodge Nitro

2011-03-09T21:07:00.003-05:00

This is another review that takes on technically two models. Like before if they're pretty much identical I consider them the same car.

Introduction: The Jeep Liberty is the successor to the old Jeep Cherokee. However in much of the world it still retains the old Cherokee name. The Liberty features the uni body on ladder frame construction which stiffens its ride and handling. The Liberty is easily one of Jeep's trail rated vehicles meaning its been tested by Jeep for its ability to go off road. The Dodge Nitro was introduced in 2007 as Dodge's newest compact SUV since the 1990s when they had the Raider which was a Mitsubishi Pajero. The second generation Liberty in 2008 uses the same platform and borrowed the styling of the Nitro as well.

By the point I've driven the two, I was pretty unsatisfied with Chrysler I wasn't expecting these two to be any good.

Performance: There isn't a single change since the old Liberty, it still uses the same 3.7L PowerTech V6. There hasn't even been a performance upgrade from last time so its still 210 hp and 235 lb.ft of torque. It still sounds awful and its still slow, both cars take at least 10 seconds to reach 100 km/h from a standstill. Fuel economy is still rubbish. Keep in mind this engine much like it was in 2001 on a 2002 Liberty, a decade of no change.

My Score: 2/10 - The engine by this stage is very old, still extremely slow and has pathetic fuel economy that's the reason the score went down.

Handling: Not much has changed here either, both cars have pretty heavy steering but its not direct like a BMW. Its actually rather vague, making each turn feel meaningless. Ride comfort as expected is still bad, and due to their weight and height neither is very good on corners. Since these are supposed to be taken off road I can't deduct too many points but for sure these two aren't very good on the road.

My Score: 4/10 - Same as last time, steering is distant, the ride comfort is poor and it has no agility.

Interior: The interior of both vehicles have been designed when Daimler Chrysler still existed, as a result both are pretty poorly done. Interior room is surprisingly poor for the driver and passenger. I'm actually a short guy but I felt cramped every time I drove one of these. It seems as if Chrysler forgot where the driver's legs were supposed to go. Rear seating isn't very impressive for an SUV of this size. The previous Liberty had its spare tire on the back, this new Liberty puts it in the vehicle which takes up a bit of tailgate space, unfortunately you don't gain anything from this as the rear window is still too small. The rest of the interior is composed of very cheap plastic and the atmosphere is as dark and depressing as other Chrysler vehicles. The build quality on these vehicles is generally alright, sometimes there are squeaks and rattles though. The only major changes made to the 2011 vehicles is the steering wheel has been changed to the new Grand Cherokee style wheel, cruise control is now button operated instead of the very flimsy plastic lever from before. Both vehicles are assembled in Toledo, Ohio in the United States.

My Score: 2/10 - Cramped driver's space, terrible interior materials, less space than the previous Liberty.

Styling: There's not much to say about either vehicle, they're both extremely square. Both seemed to have been styled with cubes in mind. This unfortunately doesn't really make either that interesting. They're not exactly ugly, but they're both rather unimaginative. This is worse than before I find.

My Score: 2/10 - Square and dull.

Value for money: The old Liberty's saving grace was its a 4-door off roading SUV. I absolutely understood that it had some value back then. This is no longer the case anymore I'm afraid and even worse for Chrysler this competition is created by themselves. There's a Jeep Wrangler available in a 4-door configuration, if there was a Jeep to pick for off roading the Wrangler is so much better. It looks like a real Jeep, its made like a real Jeep and it has real Jeep features. The Liberty has none of those things. The Nitro honestly serves no purpose either for Dodge, as most Chrysler dealerships hold all three Chrysler brands. I honestly can't see a real reason to pick a Liberty over a Wrangler in the one area it was supposed to be good at. As a road SUV its absolutely horrible and there are several other choices guaranteed to be better. Its now horrible value for money.

My Score: 2/10 - The Jeep Wrangler took away its only saving grace last time, its utterly pointless now.

Overall: 12/50 - These SUVs are awful and with a 4-door Wrangler available serve no purpose.

2007-2010 Hyundai Accent

2011-03-02T21:35:00.003-05:00

Haven't done a very small car in a while, so here's one.

Introduction: The Hyundai Accent is Hyundai's replacement for the old Excel. It took the role of Hyundai's smallest car in 1994 and is now in its 4th generation. Its known as the Hyundai Verna in South Korea.

Yeah I'm sorry for the rubbish introduction, but I'm lost for words on what to say about this car. There's nothing special about it, nor is its history any interesting. As with older Hyundai models when I first saw this, I was not expecting much from it.

Performance: The Hyundai Accent is given a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces about 110 hp and 107 lb.ft of torque, all in all not very impressive numbers. Under acceleration the Accent goes from 0-100 km/h in about 11 seconds, so its rather slow. The engine is a bit noisy and sounds rather unrefined. Fuel economy is not as good as those of a Yaris nor a Fit but better than the greedy Aveo. Overall a pretty lackluster engine. The automatic transmission on this car is rather dimwitted, its very slow selecting from R to D and vice-versa, definitely get the manual.

My Score: 5/10 - Not quick and noisy with a bad automatic.

Handling: As a small car the Accent handles better than many larger cars. Although there's still quite a lot of body roll when taken into a fast corner. Steering feel...depends on the year, the earlier years were numb and inert while the later years were a bit more tighter in feel and allowed the car to be a bit easier to toss around. That said even the later updated cars are not all that exciting to take into a corner. Ride comfort is merely average in this car.

My Score: 6/10 - Average in every way.

Interior: Depending on what trim level you get depends on what features you have available. The least expensive 3-door hatch has no equipment at all, the moderately well equipped 4-door sedans got much of what you need. The radio is different on newer cars, its far better than the older Hyundai unit which was terrible. As one of the least expensive cars on the market, the interior is full of plastic, the newer cars aren't updated to the degree like the Sonata was. As a result the plastics are acceptable for the cost, I don't understand though why the rear cup holder if you remove the coaster there's a hole through the car. The assembly quality on the Accent is pretty decent, not the greatest but for such a cheap car surprising its not worse. The Accent is made in Ulsan, South Korea.

My Score: 5/10 - Standard equipment varies, material quality is what's expected of the price, build quality is acceptable.

Styling: This Accent is pretty generic for a car. Like most of the other Hyundai's of this era I think little of it.

My Score: 2/10 - Has the look of an anonymous car.

Value for Money: Ok, this is where the Accent makes up for its generally disappointing scores. The starting price for the 3-door bare bones Accent has actually been $9995, no joke. It was so inexpensive that during the 2008 crash Hyundai was willing to give this car away for free if you bought a fully loaded Sedona. As you spec up the Accent it gets less attractive, but as a way of basic transportation for the least amount of money its impossible to match Hyundai here. So if you really want the cheapest possible car, the Accent is a good buy. If you're curious about the 2011 Accent, buy that instead its certain to be better than this version.

My Score: 10/10 - Offers the cheapest car available and its not truly awful.

Overall: 28/50 - Its a very cheap car, hard to argue with that. Its not even a very bad car at that, although if you want more than just a average car there are better cars out there so long as you can spare the extra money.

2009 Lexus ES350

2011-03-02T20:01:00.003-05:00

I realize I haven't updated since January and its been only 1 review so here's a few more reviews.

Introduction: The Lexus ES has been in the Lexus lineup since the very beginning. The original LS400 got all the glory, many often forgot about the ES250 that was also available as an entry level car into the brand. Initially many saw the ES250 as just a Camry with a more expensive badge as it costs very close to Toyota's current flagship the Cressida, sales of the ES250 was disappointing far lower than the more expensive LS400. As a result the Cressida was discontinued while a new ES was introduced being the ES300. Steadily the ES sales have risen, its now currently the best selling product in the Lexus lineup.

I've never really understood the ES, its essentially a Camry but it costs more. This problem is compounded with the introduction of the Avalon which is also a Camry but much bigger yet costs pretty much the same as the ES. I've assumed its supposed to be a higher quality version of the Camry. I'm not sure whether its worth the extra money, the most expensive Camry costs $36,000 so I have to determine whether its worth the extra $6000.

Performance: The Lexus ES350 comes in only one engine, a 3.5L V6. The 350 corresponds to the size of the engine, which is why the previous ES which had a 3.3L was called the 330. Anyways this engine produces 268 hp and 254 lb.ft of torque with regular fuel, Lexus says 272 hp but this is if you put medium octane fuel where if you put premium its 280 hp. The reason I don't list octane rating is some viewers come from areas that use RON instead of AKI, it'll be confusing if I say 87 Octane when the RON number is 91. On acceleration this engine moves this car from 0-100 km/h in about 6.5 seconds. As a result this car moves pretty quickly. However when I take this on a acceleration run, I find the 6-speed automatic hesitates so the first few milliseconds don't feel that quick but all the sudden the power arrives abruptly. The brake pedal is very mushy in feel, it doesn't seem to react as quickly as you'd expect from frankly any other car. Otherwise its a very nice engine its very quiet and surprisingly fuel efficient for a rather large displacement engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Overall a very good engine...the transmission is a weak link though along with the brake pedal feel.

Handling: As a luxury Camry I'm not expecting the ES to be very good on the corners. I wasn't disappointed, it handled as I expected, not well. When taking the ES into the corner you'll feel the body roll early, the faster you go the understeer gets worse. The steering...is pretty awful. Its very light but absolutely lacking in any feel which provides no accuracy. Unlike some of the other cars that handle badly though the ES is very comfortable so the suspension is working hard to not let you feel the road imperfections. Overall though its not a car you'd want if you don't live in a grid system. Not a fun car.

My Score: 3/10 - Comfortable, but the steering is terrible and the handling is poor.

Interior: This is where I expect the ES to wow me...I'm afraid it doesn't. Its not the worst interior but its not an interior I expect for a car costing $42K. First problem, the lack of leather in the trim or metal. Yes it has leather seats which are comfortable, but the quality is a bit lacking they'll produce creases overtime. The rest of the interior however is mostly hard plastic and faux wood plastic. I'm surprised that I find more higher quality material in a Volkswagen and a Hyundai than this Lexus. Second problem its not full of luxury features you can't get on the Camry or anything in that class. There is more trunk space than the G37 and a bit more interior space as well, however its identical to those of the Camry and less than the Avalon which are both Toyota vehicles. Bad features...the seat warmer switch is something you'd find from a 1980s radio, there's no dome light its been replaced with two puny LEDs which unfortunately can't illuminate much in the rear. The good news, the interior has a lot of sound deadening which is bad for weight but great in reducing wind noise, engine noise and tire noise. The build quality is also very good, no problems whatsoever with assembly. The Lexus ES is made in Miyawaka, Fukouka, Japan.

My Score: 5/10 - Leather is so so quality and not readily available, too much plastic, poor illumination in the rear, average space but the build quality is excellent and sound engineering also good.

Styling: I must admit this is the best looking Lexus ES ever, it not only looks modern but it has a rather sleek shape. The rear is a bit average, the front is reasonably nice and the side profile is also decent. No real issue with the styling, not blown away by it but can't say Lexus didn't try.

My Score: 7/10 - Acceptable styling.

Value for money: I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed with the ES here. I didn't see anything in the car that was worth $6000 extra over the Camry. Its not even worth more than the Avalon which is $1000 less than the ES. The ES350 competes against primarily the Cadillac CTS and the Infiniti G37. There are a few things the Cadillac doesn't do extremely well on, but for the most part its nice to drive and nothing in GM's lineup is an exact equivalent. The Infiniti G37, frankly is superior to the ES in every way except for engine noise levels, rear seat height and less trunk space. Those were sacrificed for a faster, more agile, fun, comfortable, nicer looking, high tech and generally more luxurious car. The Infiniti is actually a nicer car to drive than the Maxima or Altima, its worth its badge. The Lexus ES is not, I feel people have been ripped off by buying this car. If you go with a Toyota option you get pretty much this car for less money, if you don't you get a nicer driving car.

My Score: 1/10 - $6000 extra for a Lexus badged Camry V6 XLE...no thanks.

Overall: 25/50 - Its not a bad car on the face of it, but its a bad car when you pay $42,000 for what's really a $36,000 car. This is a profit generator, nothing more...GM wished its badge engineering was this successful.

2010-2011 Ford Fusion SE, SEL V6

2011-01-27T21:45:00.008-05:00

First review of 2011, this one may be of some interest.

Introduction: The Ford Fusion was introduced in 2005 as Ford's newest vehicle for the important midsized car market. Ford used to use the Taurus for this important segment which originally sold very well to tie the Honda Accord for the #1 most sold car(not vehicle since the F-150 truck dominated this). Unfortunately Ford never continued with the success of the first Taurus and allowed the car to age eventually losing even the Taurus' iconic jellybean shape for conservative. Ford decided to use the Fusion name for this new midsized car even though a completely different car uses the same name in Europe. The Ford Fusion is the first of the cars introduced by Ford of America to use the 3-bar grille. The Fusion saw enough success to be redesigned for the year 2010. The new redesigned Fusion sports a newer look and while retaining much of the architecture of the older car has for the most part been completely changed. Sales of the Ford Fusion have managed to pass 200,000 a year during 2010, a feat last seen by a Ford car all the way back in 1986 in the Ford Taurus' debut year when it was tied with the Honda Accord for America's best selling car.

If you've read my old Ford Fusion review the lasting memories of that car for me was how bland and slow the car was. Although a somewhat competent effort by Ford to regain its position in this segment it long lost. This new one caught my eye with its new tri-bar styling and considering many Ford products have increasingly gotten better over the years I had similar expectations for this car.

Performance: In this review I've actually driven two of the three engines offered on the Ford Fusion. I've driven many Fusions with the standard 2.5L 4-cylinder engine, but I've also driven a few with the 3.0L V6 flex fuel engine. The third engine available is the Sport trim's 3.5L V6. Starting with the 2.5L engine, this engine produces about 175 hp and 172 lb.ft of torque which is a modest power increase over the older car's 2.3L but more noticeable torque increase. Acceleration numbers from 0-100 km/h is about 8.9 seconds, so its faster than the older car and it also doesn't feel that slow. Its a bit buzzy at the higher rpm range and thus better off for cruising. The 3.0L V6 produces 240 hp and 223 lb.ft of torque which should mean a better time, it accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 7.3 seconds which is quite a bit better than the 4-cylinder. To drive the V6 is much more quieter and smoother, its not as razor sharp quick as Nissan's 3.5L V6s but for ordinary driving its good and sounds nicer too. It may be the automatic transmission that's causing some of the delay in the engine. I personally liked the 3.0L quite a bit better than the 4-cylinder, you don't suffer much on fuel economy either for it since it uses the same fuel saving technology as the 2.5L does.

My Score(SE): 7/10 - A good engine, particularly good on fuel economy although lacking on performance.

My Score(SEL V6): 9/10 - A very very good refined engine, capable of running on flex fuel, good fuel economy for its size, obviously not as quick as competing 3.5L V6s.

Handling: The old Fusion's best item was how it took corners over the likes of some of its competitors apart from the Mazda6 its based on. This new Fusion doesn't really change this, although I must say the ride comfort is better on this model. This car is pretty confident on the corners for the most part. The steering is relatively heavy compared to its competition but this is one of the better drivers cars in its class as it actually has steering feel many of its competitors don't have. As expected from a modern front wheel drive car, understeer is present when pushed into corners hard. Not a whole lot of roll though, which is nice in a car like this sometimes. Personally I wish it felt more sharp than it does, perhaps this is solved on the Sport model.

My Score(both): 9/10 - Better ride quality from last time, still pretty good on the corners, just lacking some of the sharpness on nicer handling cars.

Interior: Here's a big change from before, gone are the bland buttons, also gone is the lack of colour since there's now a few and boring dials of the old car have disappeared. You're now greeted with a new digital dash(analog displays), the new SYNC system and Ford also didn't follow other automakers in keeping cheesy knobs. Many of the controls are now simple buttons. The touches are all nicer and styled with purpose. Having tried both leather and cloth seats, the leather seats are much nicer. The cloth seats are a bit on the stiff side. The biggest downside to this interior is mainly the interior materials could have been even better, there isn't a whole lot of soft touch plastic that you'll find in a 2011 Sonata for instance. The interior spacing is pretty average and the trunk is a reasonable size. This comes down to the fact the Fusion isn't actually very large in its segment. On the build quality, the Fusion is still built in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico like before, this is one of the best assembled vehicles I've seen from Mexico. Normally I'd find several build quality issues, but Ford must have very good quality control since I've never encountered one poorly made or falling apart.

My Score(SE): 7/10 - Well equipped, smarter console design, well built but material choices questionable, no SYNC and interior spacing is just average.

My Score(SEL V6): 8/10 - Same as the SE but with good leather seats and has SYNC.

Styling: I'll be honest I actually think this Fusion from the front actually looks pretty good. This is one of the first Fords I think the tri-bar grille actually flowed with the styling with that headlight design. While I quite like the front, the rear makes it hard to tell the difference from the old car and the new one since they're very very similar. The wheel covers on the SE do seem to look a bit weird in my opinion. Overall I think this is a pretty well styled car...I just wish they went beyond just half the car.

My Score(both): 7/10 - Nice unique front but same boring rear from before.

Value for money: I'm actually surprised about the cost of the basic Fusion S, it actually starts out rather low. The SE is about the starting price of cars like the Camry and Accord. To get the SEL V6 you do have to pay nearly 30K where its price advantage does go away. Surprisingly it appears its pricing was designed to target the Chevrolet Malibu trim by trim ensuring it was less expensive each time. The Fusion can be had in AWD, but you have to then buy the SEL V6. Still if you want AWD this is one of the few midsized sedans with it, you're only other options are the Subaru Legacy, Suzuki Kizashi, and the VW Passat. All things considered the Fusion is a rather good package, as it has good driving dynamics, a decent interior, some unique styling and a reasonable price all in one.

My Score(SE): 8/10 - A pretty good value considering its better equipped than some of its rivals which are base models at that price.

My Score(SEL V6): 7/10 - While better equipped a tad pricey since rivals at this price point are better equipped...fortunately AWD is available that isn't an option on several rival products.

Overall(SE): 38/50 - A pretty good value packaged car, one can understand why its one of the best selling vehicles today.

Overall(SEL V6): 40/50 - Despite the higher price, I feel this is an even better trim level particularly with the V6 which is a nicer engine overall.

2007-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo

2010-12-23T20:13:00.005-05:00

This is the final one. Have a Merry Christmas and have a happy new year!

Introduction: The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a model that many people all over the world are familiar with. It started out in 1993 as the replacement of the Jeep Grand Wagoneer from the AMC years. Primarily known for being able to travel off road but with the comfort and luxury that many SUVs back then didn't have. This would be Chrysler's first Jeep designed vehicle as all the previous Jeeps were of AMC design. Development of the Grand Cherokee was delayed due to Lee Iacocca pushing for the Chrysler minivan to be completed first. Over time the Grand Cherokee has grown from its original humble size to a rather large crossover SUV. The current Grand Cherokee is in its fourth generation, this review focuses on the third generation.

This has always been considered one of the important Jeep models so of course I was expecting it to be something Chrysler put more effort on. However by the time I got a chance to drive one, my expectations of a Chrysler product were pretty low as I haven't been at all pleased with many of them. Many of which I downright hated, I was hoping it wouldn't be the case for the Grand Cherokee as I thought the previous one was rather good.

Performance: Since my review is specifically on the basic Laredo it means the Grand Cherokee is powered by a 3.7L Power tech V6. It is also available with a 4.7L Power tech V8, a 5.7L Hemi V8 and even a 6.1L Hemi V8 for the SRT-8 version. The 3.7L V6 produces 210 hp and 235 lb.ft of torque its mated to a 5-speed automatic transmission. Considering this Grand Cherokee is bigger and much heavier than the previous two, this power number doesn't look very good. You would be correct to assume its slow. The Jeep Liberty with the same engine took 10 seconds to get from 0-100 km/h, the Cherokee is another 400 lbs heavier so its about 11 seconds. With this poor performance you get slightly better fuel economy than a Chevrolet Trailblazer with a bigger straight six engine. The engine sounds terrible, its rough and I'd suggest you don't get this engine if you want a Grand Cherokee.

My Score: 2/10 - Slow, noisy and not terribly efficient compared to the available V8s.

Handling: Being heavier than 2 tons will reduce its handling capabilities on the road. When taken around a corner you get quite a bit of understeer and quite a bit of body roll. This is added with steering which is rather vague. Its not exactly light or heavy, but its still not capable of proper communication. As a result you have no real faith in it. The ride quality is not that good either, bad roads are quite noticeable.

My Score: 3/10 - Doesn't like corners, dull steering and mediocre ride quality.

Interior: I was pretty disappointed when I first got into a Grand Cherokee. I was expecting something like the previous Grand Cherokee which was rather nice and comfortable. Instead this Grand Cherokee is a sea full of dark, cheap and ugly plastic. The cloth seat is not all that comfortable. The dash gauges are better than the standard Chrysler ones but not by much. The interior is rather roomy although its a 5-seater, so it will have proper tailgate space. Still you can't seem to avoid how dark and gloomy it is inside. Build quality is mediocre, there's an occasional squeak and rattle from this vehicle. The Grand Cherokee is assembled in Detroit, Michigan, USA.

My Score: 3/10 - Its roomy and spacious, but otherwise its depressing and unpleasant.

Styling: It does retain a lot of the Grand Cherokee styling from the previous versions. However I never did like those headlights as they look stupid. Overall its fine since its an evolutionary design. Its difficult to fault something that looked good several years ago and still does today.

My Score: 7/10 - Progressive styling, although the stupid headlamps are out of place.

Value for money: The Grand Cherokee is not cheap even with the basic Laredo. I'm not aware of its off road performance which could help it but on the road I'm not sure why anyone would choose this SUV over the likes of the Toyota 4Runner or the Nissan Pathfinder both are quicker, made of better materials, better assembled and less expensive. Both have also made a name for themselves off road and their durability. Given that most Grand Cherokees these days never see a dirt road, I don't really understand why one would buy these ones. Seems during this time Chrysler was milking the Jeep name.

My Score: 4/10 - Its got competition that's cheaper and mostly better in quite a few ways.

Overall: 19/50 - With a small engine and a terrible interior, the Grand Cherokee to me makes no sense. For $40,000 you would expect something decent instead of this which is mostly bad.

2007-2010 Ford Expedition XLT

2010-12-23T18:14:00.004-05:00

This time an SUV which I haven't done in a while.

Introduction: The Ford Expedition is Ford's full size SUV and currently the largest it makes. It replaced the original Ford Bronco in 1997 and it later also replaced the Ford Excursion in 2007 with the Expedition Max. The Expedition uses the T platform which is based off of the F-150 truck. For much of its time the Ford Expedition has been made in Wayne, Michigan and only in 2009 has been built in Louisville, Kentucky because of Ford's expansion of the Wayne plant for the upcoming 2012 Ford Focus.

In all honesty before I got to drive the Expedition I've actually never heard of it. I also never really saw that many on the roads which meant it never came to my mind. I guess it was poorly advertised since I do see a lot of F-150 commercials and Explorer ones but never seen a Expedition ad. So I had no expectations having never of heard of the vehicle in the first place.

Performance: Due to its truck nature and its size the Expedition is given the 5.4L Triton V8. This engine produces 300 hp and 365 lb.ft of torque during 2007-2008, in later years the power is increased to 310 hp with the same engine. The transmission is a 6-speed automatic. With this much power and torque the Expedition accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 8.1 seconds which is pretty quick considering its size and weight. Now there's no easy way to put this, the Expedition's fuel economy is pretty terrible. Its a very nice cruising motor and it doesn't make a whole lot of noise but unless you need a vehicle this size it will hurt at the fuel pumps quite badly. The low range gearbox works well even when the truck is sort of beached on ice.

My Score: 8/10 - Moves quickly, low range makes it capable of terrain issues, cruises very nicely...but awfully thirsty.

Handling: Like any full size SUV there are big drawbacks to having a tall vehicle with a massive amount of weight. While its turning circle is good for a vehicle its size, it still needs more room to turn compared to a car. You don't really want to take an Expedition into a corner very quickly as its weight can easily make it roll over. The steering is a slight bit heavy although its not all that exciting. Its what you would expect from a truck really, not good at cornering but driving sensibly it shouldn't be an issue. Ride comfort is average for a truck based SUV, not as soft as a CUV but not as bouncy on a real truck either.

My Score: 5/10 - Its not meant to be aggressive, its more happier on freeways.

Interior: Much like all Fords designed from this period of time, it was a better interior than what it used to be. Its not stylish but its functional and its pretty easy to use. There's a good amount of space for those in the front row and in the middle row. The rear seats are not as spacious as one would want despite its size. This may be different on the Expedition Max, but this review specifically focuses on the standard SUV. To fold the second row seats is straight forward, the third row folds with buttons which makes it really easy. Even with the third row up there's still trunk space unlike the Chevrolet Tahoe which doesn't. The leather material used is nothing significant its of pretty average quality. The build quality of these SUVs is pretty good from both plants 2007-2008 being made in Wayne, Michigan, USA and the 2009 to current cars made in Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonable interior, seating for 7, trunk space even with seats up, easy to use, a bit bland on styling.

Styling: The Expedition doesn't really have much to say on styling. It looks pretty generic as an SUV, removing the blue oval badge it could look like it might have come from General Motors. It may be two tone, but it doesn't really stand out in spite of that.

My Score: 3/10 - Generic.

Value for money: The Expedition's primary competition comes from the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon, the Dodge Durango and Jeep Commander and the Toyota Sequoia. Its really all down to the Tahoe being its serious competition since the Durango and Commander are rubbish while the Sequoia is quite expensive($61,000!). On fuel economy the Tahoe is better because of cylinder deactivation. On practicality technically the Tahoe seats 8 but it really depends on whether you want to use the front bench seat with no airbag. The Expedition however has actual trunk space and is easier to use. The Expedition seats also fold in, while the Tahoe requires removal of the 3rd row seats. The Expedition is more versatile, the Tahoe is more economical.

My Score: 8/10 - Its very versatile in its utility, its just not as cheap or as fuel efficient.

Overall: 33/50 - A pretty good SUV focusing on being versatile, so long as you really need its size the fuel bills can then be excusable.

2007-2011 Nissan Sentra 2.0S

2010-12-23T17:33:00.007-05:00

The next car is something I still drive a lot but its due for a replacement soon.

Introduction: The Nissan Sentra has been in Nissan's lineup for a very long time. Before the use of the Sentra name, the previous car was called a Datsun 210 which was RWD. Since the introduction of the Sentra in 1982, the car has since become FWD. Its main competitor was always the Toyota Corolla, eventually the Honda Civic would also become a target car. The Sentra does not appear to be as popular or sell as well as the Civic or Corolla. Nevertheless Nissan does have a performance version of the Sentra called the SE-R Spec V. The current Sentra is now in its sixth generation and is expected to be replaced by the 2012 model year.

The previous Sentra was a vehicle that was not very interesting to me. As a result I didn't really expect much out of this car although it seemed more promising than the older car.

Performance: The Nissan Sentra is available with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine that produces 140 hp and 142 lb.ft of torque. This engine is a nice upgrade over the previous 1.8L which wasn't very interesting. This Sentra is also equipped with a CVT and a 6-speed manual. The SE-R version gets a 2.5L 4-cylinder engine from the Altima. This review looks at the regular Sentra and the 2.0L accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 9 seconds which is acceptable for a sedan in this class although significantly less impressive than the Altima using CVT. The engine can be quiet when cruising, but when its accelerating it sounds a bit crude and noisy. The CVT does make the cruising nice as you won't feel the change in gear ratios, its just not as good as the CVT you get in the Altima or Maxima on the performance level. Fuel economy isn't as good as the Civic or the Corolla either despite the Corolla still using a 4-speed automatic.

My Score: 7/10 - Reasonable speed, average fuel economy, noisy acceleration, not a great case for CVTs.

Handling: The Sentra handles pretty decently while not as nice as a Mazda3 or Mitsubishi Lancer its not as dull as it used to be. It can take a corner with the usual understeer and a bit of roll yet it has more confidence than say a Toyota Corolla. That said the wheel weighting feels a bit odd, its initially a bit tough but lightens up rather quickly which unfortunately produces little feel. Its another electric power steering system which I find is just not as nice as a hydraulic system.

My Score: 6/10 - Much better than before but still average in the pack, steering however lacks feel and is oddly weighted.

Interior: The Sentra's interior from before was pretty boring and not very well made. The difference between the older and newer Sentras in this version is down to the displays. The older ones have a orange and black display which would seem familiar to you if you had a 1980s computer. Odd Nissan decided on this colour combination. The newer display is white, red with a black background and seems a lot more modern and full of colour. The interior materials are not that nice to be honest, a lot of hard plastic and a few bits of fake aluminum plastic. The amount of space is rather average as is the trunk space. C-pillars are rather large so visibility is not as good. The biggest problem with the Sentra however is the build quality. This interior is still not well made, I've seen a lot of items fall off or have growing gaps. Things like the brake pedal pad coming off, the dead pedal pad peeling off, a door hinge not aligned properly, the plastic trim around the seat railings coming off and so on. The Sentra is made in Aguascalientes, Mexico.

My Score: 4/10 - Bland, lots of hard plastic, reduced visibility and the build quality is rubbish.

Styling: It appears Nissan wanted to make a mini-Altima with the Sentra although it looks a lot more square than the Altima does. The refresh makes the grille more modern since the old one was full of plastic squares. It looks mediocre from most angles, over all its a so so design.

My Score: 4/10 - Its a Altima imitation where the design mostly had a ruler.

Value for money: The Sentra starts out very cheap. Unfortunately that's really where it can excel since its not a driver's car nor a quality product. Even worse is the Mazda3 is a nicer vehicle to drive, significantly better built and has a similar base price in GX form. The Sentra also doesn't get much for having CVT since the Mitsubishi Lancer has this and the Dodge Caliber. The Sentra just doesn't excel at very much to be worth considering. I'd rather Nissan spend a bit more on better build quality over having a better MSRP.

My Score: 3/10 - Its cheap and average with terrible build quality.

Overall: 24/50 - A pretty average car which happens to be cheap to buy in base form but suffers from awful build quality.

2007-2010 Ford Edge SEL and Limited AWD

2010-12-23T16:33:00.005-05:00

I'm sorry, my last update was back in November and now its nearing Christmas time. This last set of reviews will likely be the last for the year so hopefully I'll get a few through. Starting with this vehicle.

Introduction: The Ford Edge is a midsize crossover introduced in 2006. This is one of the first vehicles by Ford to implement the Ford tri-bar grille. This vehicle uses the CD3 platform shared by the early Mazda6. This is Ford's first attempt in the segment after seeing Toyota's success with the Toyota Highlander and the Nissan Murano. The Edge comes in 4 trim levels, the base SE, the SEL, the Limited and the Sport. This review will look at the SEL and the Limited. Sales of the Edge have been very good to the point where Ford has redesigned it for the 2011 model year and is currently a market leader.

Like all CUVs I didn't really have much expectations for them and because of what I require in a car wouldn't consider them. Although this vehicle I knew was one of Ford's better selling vehicles of the time so it did give me some insight into it being at least decent.

Performance: All Ford Edge models come with the same engine and transmission. A 3.5L V6 that's mated to a 6-speed automatic. This V6 engine is capable of producing 265 hp and 250 lb.ft of torque. This means the acceleration from 0-100 km/h is about 8.3-8.4 seconds which is reasonable. The engine is rather quiet and refined making it a rather smooth and comfortable vehicle. The fuel economy is acceptable, not particularly outstanding but its better than the Explorer. All in all its a nice engine although it won't excite a performance oriented driver its good for regular calm driving.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonably performance, alright fuel economy, quiet and smooth.

Handling: Being a tall, heavy vehicle the Edge is not an ideal vehicle to take corners too quickly. I was sort of hoping it acted close to how the Mazda CX-7 did but it seems Ford would rather focus on ride comfort over cornering ability. By taking the Edge in the corner while it will do it, you'll know the understeer is coming and the roll is very present. If you wanted a more agile vehicle its best to look at the Mazda. The steering is good for this sort of vehicle meaning it should communicate enough to allow confident driving.

My Score: 7/10 - Its good enough for most, ride comfort is good, noticeable understeer and roll.

Interior: Being a new key product for Ford this was where we would see whether they were capable of surviving. As a result Ford did spend a lot more resources on the interior where in the past they wouldn't. The interior in the Edge is rather simple and straight forward. It didn't have the cheap knobs we were used to seeing in less expensive cars although on the earlier Edges the stereo was mediocre. Interior materials are reasonable, nothing that looks out of the ordinary but crucially nothing that looks cheap and nasty. There's a lot of space for the 5 passengers in the vehicle while also having a big tailgate area. The interior is very easy to work with and if you have the limited the power options make things even easier. Some Ford Edges have a rubber mat for the tailgate area which means its easier to preserve the carpet if you know you'll put something that will make it messy. There's a leather parcel rack but not being solid it doesn't look that good and with the high tailgate ultimately useless. Knowing its visibility with the C and D pillars is not great, the mirrors provide two angles one for the blind spot and one to see the car's side. Its a well thought out interior despite it not being flash and interesting to look at. I've never seen a build quality issue on the Edge so it shouldn't fall apart. The Edge is assembled in Oakville, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 8/10 - Well made, well thought out, well designed but slightly lacking in aesthetics.

Styling: I must admit the Edge is a rather distinctive vehicle. Ford went with a rather egg shaped vehicle which is risky since the last time we saw an egg shaped vehicle was the Previa and it didn't succeed on styling. Its not my favourite tri-bar grille vehicle but its the interesting shape that draws your attention to it being a Ford and not some random CUV. The rear doesn't have much interesting details but the front does have unique headlights in an attempt to match the grille.

My Score: 8/10 - Pretty noticeable, unique shape, the rear however doesn't is rather ordinary.

Value for money: Pricing for the Edge is rather high considering its supposed place in the Ford lineup. For much of the same money you could have a Taurus X which is bigger. The Toyota Highlander actually starts out less expensive as well. Its not as practical as a minivan since it only seats 5 which is as good as the Escape. The Ford Flex offers more seating capacity again for the same money. With these things in mind, I don't see the Edge offering much to a consumer looking purely at statistics. What the Edge does offer is the unique styling. It appears many liked the way it looked because evaluating the Edge against even other Fords it seems overpriced mainly since it doesn't offer anything special.

My Score: 5/10 - If you like the looks it'll do well, if you're not as interested in that the Flex is better or you can save money with the Escape which is just as good.

Overall: 36/50 - Its a good CUV on its own merits, its done rather well. Value within the Ford lineup is the only part where I'm a bit confused at its success.

2011 BMW 323i

2010-11-17T21:57:00.005-05:00

Haven't updated in a while, here's something of real interest.

Introduction: The BMW 3 series has been around since 1975, it wasn't until the 1980s when it entered its second generation that it took off and has slowly been the luxury sports sedan of choice throughout the world. This might be due to the popularity of the M3 which was started after BMW noticed success in their quiet release of the original M5 which salvaged performance parts from the doomed M1, BMW's only supercar. BMW is the only automaker left who still hasn't technically produced a mainstream front wheel drive model(to be honest the MINI counts), nor has it adopted to change its 6 cylinders into V6s over the traditional inline-6. The 3 series despite being BMW's entry level model for a very long time still has a very large following thanks mainly due to its handling over many other comparable cars. Today the 3 series is in its 5th generation soon to enter its sixth for 2012.

I was rather excited to drive one of these cars. I was particularly curious about the engine as everybody but BMW has abandoned the straight six in favour of V6s. I wasn't expecting outright power since this is a 323i and not the 328i or the 335i which are both more powerful particularly the 335i which is the closest thing to an M3 without paying a whole lot. I was also interested to see whether the "Ultimate driving machine" slogan was really worth all that hype.

Performance: As I mentioned its just a 323i so the figures are not going to be impressive. In the 323i you're given the 2.5L straight six engine which produces 200 hp and 180 lb.ft of torque. Many cars have much more powerful engines than this which cost a whole lot less. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 8.2 seconds with an automatic, if you get a manual it will be 7.1 seconds. So its not that fast, is there anything else that makes it different? In my mind yes, this engine is much smoother in its power delivery than any V6s out there. When you step on the pedal you won't get an explosion of power, rather its progressively gets faster. Its also rather quiet too even at full throttle making me think that Toyota and Nissan were indeed foolish to toss the inline-six in the garbage. I like this engine, it may be slow but it shows that creamy smoothness is still the inline-6's strength and that V6s despite massive development haven't gotten there yet.

My Score: 9/10 - Its not that fast, but its very smooth and quiet.

Handling: This is where the 3 series makes its claim to fame. It doesn't disappoint, keep in mind the 323i is the base car and even in the wet the handling is superb. Steering feel is exactly the way it should be, heavy enough for precise driver input and light enough to turn easily. When taking the corners it takes normal corners without issues, little body roll and it corners rather flat. Ride comfort I dont' think took a hit either, its not the cushiest ride but much more comfortable than say a Acura RSX.

My Score: 10/10 - No complaints at all, outstanding.

Interior: If there's any real room for competitors to try to attack the 3 series on, this might be one of the areas. Inside the 3 series its a bit bland, with its layout. I didn't like the stalks they provided, I don't like the indicators for instance...self canceling doesn't seem possible which isn't a problem in a normal car with proper stalks. Some of the display text in the 3 series is also on the small side. Materials seem to be of average quality or higher which is a good thing. The cup holders come out rather neat and look solid. Visibility is actually pretty decent on a modern car. I can see some problems when it comes to legroom for passengers in the back, as the 3 series isn't that large of a car and with rear wheel drive this space is further reduced. Build quality is very good, this car being made in Leipzig, Germany. The 323i doesn't have the toys that other models will have so its lacking on that end. Overall its a decent interior, but it doesn't have as much personality compared to the way the car drives.

My Score: 7/10 - You get the sense that its an above average interior with problems being rear legroom, the silly stalks, small text display and overall bland styling.

Styling: This particular 3 series is not my favourite when it comes to BMW styling. Removing the BMW features, the car is indistinguishable meaning if your remove the Hofmeister kink and the BMW kidney grille its just a generic car. Styling-wise this is one of the least appealing cars in its segment. It just doesn't look interesting. The only good item is actually the wheels, they're nice.

My Score: 3/10 - Removing traditional BMW items it looks like some random generic car with nice wheels.

Value for money: This is very troubling, BMWs have always been rather terrible value for your money in the traditional sense. They do everything normal in driving exactly like every other car but cost more. However if you're concerned about things like balance, poise and delicacy then the BMW may be the only choice despite its price tag. Its very sad when nobody offers a competing straight-six since BMW automatically wins on smooth power delivery and the explosion of power from a V6 seems crude. The competition is pretty stiff as you have the choice of this, or the Mercedes C-class, the Audi A4 and the Lexus IS250. Technically you can even throw in the Infiniti G37 which is also rather competitive. If you put higher preference on driving feel over power and technology then its hard to argue against choosing the BMW. You can have more power in the BMW but that means getting the 328i, the 335i or at the apex of the 3 series...the M3 not to mention cabriolet options. The price of this is...the price you can spend anywhere from $35,000 to $81,900 on the 3 series.

My Score: 6/10 - This is the driver's car of the lot, at the lowest end with the 323i you get most of the driving thrills with a decent engine. If you feel there isn't enough power you'll have to spend more and you could spend a lot.

Overall: 35/50 - Not a perfect car in my mind, where its weak on styling, and not strong on interior or value its very good when it comes to driving dynamics where the engine and handling come in play.

2010 Volkswagen Passat

2010-10-29T21:09:00.004-04:00

This review is going to be done on a car I've recently driven. One reason I'm doing this one now is I'm not likely to drive it again and I've done a proper drive in one.

Introduction: The Volkswagen Passat has been in Volkswagen's lineup since 1973 as the large family sedan. For some time it has been VW's largest car until the arrival of the very expensive VW Phaeton. The Passat particularly the second generation is still in production even though the Passat will be entering its 7th generation. The older Passats are still available in large numbers specifically in China where it will remain in production until 2012 under the name Santana. The current Passat followed the Phaeton's design language and spawned a recent Passat CC model which has a shorter roofline in an attempt to have coupe styling but sedan practicality. This version of the Passat had a performance oriented R36 model which had VW's 4Motion four wheel drive system and a powerful 3.6L VR6 engine.

So yes this car has only come recently, I knew this would be my first real time in a true Volkswagen. The Jetta of instance is made primarily due to North America's preference for the Jetta over the Golf. Otherwise it wouldn't have existed and I know that driving old VW models under the "City" tag is also something much of the world including the US doesn't see. Only in Canada are we given old VWs sold to poor countries and branded as new.

Performance: The standard VW Passat has a 2.0L TSI engine. Essentially this means its a 2.0L turbo engine that has VW's version of gasoline direct injection. It produces 200 hp and 210 lb.ft of torque. Its acceleration numbers are quite good where it goes from 0-100 km/h in about 7.5 seconds. This is significantly better than standard 4-cylinder midsized sedans but a tad bit slower than the V6 midsize sedans. To drive this engine is a slight bit awkward, you notice the turbo lag particularly on first gear if you don't press the accelerator pedal with much force. In the first second it feels very slow, all the sudden it builds up lots more power. So this might take some adjustment to drive smoothly with a consistent speed. When nearing a stop for some reason the engine shudders it might have been my specific car. The engine doesn't make a particularly exciting sound, its actually rather muted even when pushed hard. Don't think it suffers on fuel economy either for its performance, its nearly as good as the Ford Fusion and only marginally worse than the Toyota Camry. This is a very good engine, the odd quirks really aren't enough to make me think otherwise.

My Score: 9/10 - A very good turbo engine but noticeable turbo lag.

Handling: The Passat sits in a segment where most of the cars aren't very confidence inspiring on corners. The Passat feels rather safe to drive, but this means it has understeer. Strangely enough despite the understeer it didn't roll very much. The steering is rather light but its a slight bit distant so it does lack some feel. The ride comfort however is rather good, you don't feel a lot of the bumps may not as soft as a Buick Lucerne or Toyota Avalon but pretty good for a car that has some ability to take a corner.

My Score: 7/10 - Its ok on the handling front, competent but not exciting.

Interior: When you get inside the Passat you'll notice its quite a bit different from the standard midsize car. A surprising amount of the car is build with a lot of soft plastic over hard plastic. There are some leather touches on the door trim and the seats are leather. The amount of hard plastic inside is a bit more difficult to find, mostly in areas you won't think of touching. The stereo buttons are surprisingly nice which makes me a bit disappointed seeing knobs for the climate controls instead of more buttons. Yes I know they're significantly better than pretty much every other car that has climate control knobs but its silly when the stereo buttons are nicer. Another disappointing item is the small rear window along with the small wing mirrors. Some may find the Passat a bit small when other midsize cars feel bigger inside, that said I didn't notice this. The build quality in this car is frankly excellent, you get the sense that a single even minute mistake would mean punishment. Even when I tried to find a fault I couldn't and normally I can easily find them. I must admit this interior is one that screams quality, when you find even the plastics are nice...there just isn't much to criticize.

My Score: 10/10 - Extremely well built, full of quality materials, best interior in the segment.

Styling: The Passat's styling is rather bland I find. The Phaeton wasn't all that great on styling and with the Passat it has even less details. The Passat just doesn't look all that exciting especially when put beside the Passat CC which in all honesty is better looking. In some ways its a bit strange to find the interior full of quality touches and details but having an exterior that tries its best to remain anonymous.

My Score: 4/10 - Rather bland and not all that great even when put beside other VWs.

Value for money: A base Passat, like the one I drove is surprisingly good value. Normally VWs are extremely uncompetitive but in this case its rather in line with all the other successful midsize sedans. At the moment its a little bit more expensive than the Camry, but given that its engine is much more powerful and its interior is far nicer I'm not sure why the Camry is as expensive as it is. Now if you add options into the Passat it then becomes a lot more expensive and due to the fact VW doesn't offer a VR6 in Canada means even at that price you'll still have the 2.0T but now up against mainly 3.5L V6s. The only flaw VW has always had was its dealer network, I've never heard any truly positive stories about servicing a VW. If you can find a mechanic who will work with them, then this is of less importance. Overall though if you can survive with a base midsize sedan, I'm hard pressed to think of a midsize sedan that has as much quality inside it as the Passat.

My Score: 8/10 - Scores well because of the quality and a shocking competitive price for the base model, on the downside the dealer network isn't good and additional options become very expensive for little gain.

Overall: 38/50 - A good midsize sedan, one that's focused on quality while being affordable a rare combination these days.

2008-2011 Ford Focus SE and SES

2010-10-20T18:17:00.007-04:00

I noticed that I've been doing a lot of crossovers, today I will post a car for a change. Unfortunately there are still quite a lot of crossovers still to do.

Introduction: As I stated in my old Ford Focus review, it had a bit of a bad start. When Ford brought it to North America dealing with 21 recalls in its first three years, most in its early two, gave a rather negative perception to the car. Alan Mulally the CEO of Ford, decided that in order to not only rid the company of excess waste but also to improve quality with more focused global vehicles. He was going to unite Ford of America, Ford of Europe and Ford of Australia by making sure that no matter where you went the Ford lineup is pretty much the same in each country. Ford of Europe doing very well would have the most surviving models, this left Ford of America to shed much of its excess like the Mercury brand. When it came to the North American Ford Focus, since Ford was redesigning the global vehicle for the 2012 model year, it appears they decided to not import the Mk II Focus design from Europe but rather redesign the current Mk I to keep it fresh without investing too much into it.

I wasn't sure about the changes, having driven cars on the C1 platform I knew it wouldn't be as good since its still on the aging C170.

Performance: Due to the way Ford has only intended this Focus to be a stopgap for the upcoming 2012 Focus this car doesn't get any interesting engines. It still makes do with the old 2.0L Duratec you get from the previous Ford Focus. Its not entirely the same it does gain 4 hp meaning in total 140 but with the same 136 lb.ft of torque. Still the old car wasn't very slow so the new car with its newer body accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 8.3 seconds. When it comes to noise, it can be a but buzzy but its more quiet than it used to be. Its pretty respectable even with an aging motor.

My Score: 8/10 - Very much the same engine as before, still reasonable.

Handling: Now I remembered the old Focus having a steering wheel that moved like an anvil, it never seemed like they had any power steeering. This car has changed this, while its still not the lightest wheel out there its a lot more manageable and therefore it was much easier to find out if it had any feel to it instead of getting tired and not really enjoying the drive. Taking this car around a corner it didn't seem to feel as good as I was hoping. Its competent so you shouldn't crash that easily but somehow it didn't excite me. It was a bit dull. In removing some of the crude feeling of the old system it didn't inject much life into it. The ride comfort is quite alright, its reasonable but not as cushy as you might get on softer riding cars. It also made no difference in the SES version, supposedly the sporty one which is a shame.

My Score: 7/10 - It cleans up the problems of the old system, but sadly its not very lively.

Interior: This is where I see the biggest improvement from the older car. I remembered how puny the seat levers were in the older car, this one has a proper lever. The cup holders are no longer ugly and come off with little effort. The door handles are much nicer. The stereo is better and the controls have much better touches than they used to. The seats depend on the trim level, on lower grades like the SE you get cloth and they're alright. The SES and SEL provide leather and its a bit nicer. The SYNC system is alright to use as well. While I haven't explored everything it could do, it handles most of what you need without too much complications. Nothing about the interior is luxurious but its functional and overall pretty simple. Trunk space is pretty good for its class and it was reasonable with interior space. There is something to note though, they left out the trunk release button in 2008 models, I thought I couldn't find it but when a 2009 model came out it was under the fuse box meaning they really did leave it out. Silly mistake by Ford to leave it out, at least it was rectified though. The build quality is alright, much better than before although I've found some of the plastic covers like to come out. The Focus is made in Wayne, Michigan in the United States.

My Score: 7/10 - While not luxurious it fixes the old interior's massive problems.

Styling: This is probably the most controversial thing about this Focus. I rather liked the previous Focus, this one attempts to marry the current tri-bar Ford grille with something a bit radical. In coupe form it looks terrible especially with the spoiler. In sedan form its a bit better but I don't think the tri-bar grille worked on this design. The rear I don't think worked out either it kept some of the triangles from the older design but left the trunk with a blank space full of badges. I don't find the car very appealing, this is the redesign's biggest problem.

My Score: 3/10 - Styling didn't work out too well.

Value for money: One of the things Ford left out this time unfortunately was a Focus wagon or hatch. This design thus won't appeal to the new growing hatchback segment and must wait until the 2012 model to see if they left that intact. This is also a very fiercely competitive segment meaning it has a lot of competition to deal with even if its not an entirely new design. That said, the satellite radio being equipped starts it off ahead of the older designs out there. The new SYNC system might also intrigue some people. The styling will keep others away. The handling while not bad, its much less exciting than a Mazda and considering the SES is the sport package but makes nearly no difference that might disappoint. Its not spectacular but against its Detroit rivals its significantly better. It could have been more convincing if it were based on the European Mk II Focus, but we'll have to wait for the 2012 Mk III for Ford's real Focus. In the end it could have been better, but for a vehicle coming from a Detroit automaker its not a bad buy.

My Score: 6/10 - Overall its not spectacular on many areas, but it doesn't exactly flounder either.

Overall: 31/50 - Its a decent car, but we'll have to wait for the 2012 to see what Ford's really capable of in this segment.

2009-2010 Ford Flex SEL & Limited AWD

2010-09-26T18:36:00.004-04:00

I'm still trying my best to get 2 reviews a week. Today is yet another crossover review.

Introduction: The Ford Flex was introduced in 2009 as Ford's replacement for the Freestar minivan. Unlike most crossovers, the Flex is Ford's attempt to combine the minivan and the SUV. Much of the whole design came from the 2005 Ford Fairlane concept, the differences between concept and production vehicle are minor. Initially Ford anticipated 100,000 units of sales for the Flex, unfortunately Ford hasn't come close to meeting this. Still Ford wants the Flex to live on despite its modest sales now offering incentives.

This is the first of the new Fords I've come across. I was glad it wasn't a minivan but I wasn't so sure about it as a crossover. I thought it looked interesting so at the minimum it seemed creative.

Performance: The Ford Flex is given 2 engines the standard 3.5L V6 which this review will be focusing on. The other engine is the Ecoboost 3.5L twin turbo V6, the same engine available in the Taurus SHO. The standard Duratech V6 produces 262 hp and 248 lb.ft of torque. On acceleration the Flex is capable of getting from 0-100 km/h in about 8.5 seconds. Considering how big and heavy it is, this is reasonable performance. The engine is particularly quiet on highway drives and overall is pretty smooth. Fuel economy isn't great but what did you expect from a vehicle this big. Despite being the base engine its a good one.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonable performance, quiet and smooth.

Handling: There are small differences when you choose SEL and Limited, the SELs get 18 inch wheels while the Limited gets 19 inch wheels. Despite having rims this large, ride quality doesn't actually suffer. Due to its weight, its not able to take corners as quickly as cars can. If you push it, you'll feel the understeer very early. It does well for a vehicle that's heavier than 4500 lbs much to my surprise which might have to do with how short it is compared to SUVs of the same size. Steering is weighted well making it a pretty easy vehicle to drive. Its certainly nicer to drive than any minivan.

My Score: 7/10 - On the whole its pretty good at handling but its weight means it also suffers from major understeer in a corner.

Interior: One of the things you'll notice inside the Flex is how spacious it is. First things first, a lower range model will have the 6 seater arrangement, while a higher one will have a 7 seater arrangement. Both are fine, the 6 seater is just the easier one for getting people into the back as its layout is much like a minivan's with space in between the 2nd row unless you decide to have the 2nd center console added. With 7 seaters to enter the back you need to fold a seat, fortunately Ford thought of this and decided this should be done with a single push of a button. To put return the seats in position is very easy and straight forward, no muscle required. To fold the 3rd row its not electrically done like a Explorer but its still pretty easy by pulling the straps as indicated on the seats. The 3rd row is spacious enough for medium sized adults and since the Flex can still carry cargo they don't sit so close to the tailgate. The tailgate itself is rather heavy, but Ford again thought about this and made opening and closing easy with the use of a button. I didn't really find much difference between the cloth and leather seats, of course the leather is softer and smoother but neither is a bad choice. Driver control layout is much as what you would expect from a Ford, everything is pretty much where you'd expect it to be. Visibility isn't great I'm afraid, the D-pillars are particularly large but most Ford Flexs come with rear parking sensors which will help. Interior materials are of modest quality, none look or feel particularly awful. Build quality is very good, the Ford Flex is assembled in Oakville, Ontario, Canada. The most impressive thing about this interior is just how user-friendly it is, Ford hired someone who has made a crossover very easy to live with, everything annoying on most crossover interiors seems to have been addressed in the Flex.

My Score: 10/10 - I've never come across an interior that should be complicated to work out, made so easy with little effort to understand how everything is done. The overall interior is good, this just stands out as excellent interior design, because its so well thought out.

Styling: This appears to be the Flex's biggest problem when it comes to its sales. It does look a bit like its been shaped from a tetris block. Much of the exterior tries to emphasize how square it is. Some people think it looks particularly ugly, I'm not one of those. I think it looks alright, it just looks even better if you bought the rather expensive Titanium package where it looks a bit like a Range Rover. It may be polarizing, but I'd rather have a vehicle that tries too look different than your typical minivan.

My Score: 7/10 - Its a bit square but its more interesting than the shapeless blobs that many cars are.

Value for money: Sales for the Flex aren't as hot as Ford wanted so when it comes to value its going to start off well with employee pricing discounts. The Flex's target is primarily minivan drivers who don't want a boring vehicle to drive but still want much of the capacity and flexibility of a minivan. On this front the Flex does well, the interior is much easier to work out than any minivan I've encountered. The problem with most minivans, they require muscle to get their full use either by removing heavy seats or operating a rickety contraption that's in the floor. Unlike many crossovers it has room for full passenger capacity and some room for luggage like a minivan. The only places where the Flex does scare off people is the price and the styling.

My Score: 8/10 - A bit pricey if no discounts are available and it depends on how it looks to you, otherwise its the best alternative to a minivan.

Overall: 40/50 - A very good crossover, with a clever interior. If all crossovers were done like this, perhaps the minivan might be extinct.

2007-2010 Mitsubishi Outlander

2010-09-22T14:17:00.004-04:00

I know updates have been lacking this whole year so I'm trying to make up for it. Today's car is the Mitsubishi Outlander.

Introduction: The Mitsubishi Outlander originated in 2001 as the Mitsubishi Airtrek. This vehicle was derived from Mitsubishi's ASX concept. The idea behind this was to make a crossover that had the off-road ability of the SUV but retain the standard car's emissions, size and fuel economy. The Airtrek name was eventually phased out in favour of Outlander which is the name most familiar with those outside of Japan. The Outlander was redesigned in 2005 being the first vehicle of the new GS platform which includes the Lancer and the rally racer Lancer Evolution. This second generation vehicle would only come to North America in 2007. The Outlander went for a redesign in 2010 taking the new Lancer and Lancer Evolution's front end.

This is the very first Mitsubishi that I got the chance to drive. I was sort of excited but I was also wasn't sure what to make out of it. Nobody I knew ever drove a Mitsubishi and I didn't hear the greatest praise for them either outside. Yet with Mitsubishi's history of excellent cars like the Lancer Evolutions, I wasn't expecting terrible things.

Performance: The North American Outlanders only are equipped with a 3.0L V6 MIVEC engine. This engine produces 220 hp and 204 lb.ft of torque for the earlier Outlanders. The 2010 updated engine is the very same engine but now producing 230 hp and 215 lb.ft of torque. Its acceleration from 0-100 km/h takes about 8.5 seconds on older Outlanders, the new one strangely is quite a bit faster in under 8 seconds. Having driven both I honestly didn't realize the newer ones were that much faster. In low speeds the engine has a slightly annoying whining sound, its a lot better when taken to highway speeds. Still it pulls rather well and is surprisingly quick despite not being turbocharged or having a high displacement making it a rather clever engine. Fuel economy for this crossover is rather average if you notice you need to fill up often, its not bad fuel economy but rather the Outlander has a rather small fuel tank(50-55L) for some strange reason.

My Score: 8/10 - A bit noisy at slow speeds but surprisingly quick

Handling: When you take the Outlander into a corner I was rather surprised at how much of a car it felt. You don't seem to feel the higher center of gravity as much as some of the taller small cars. Steering feel is actually very good, in the corners its rather crisp in its changes. This crossover isn't as happy in the corners as the Mazda CX-7 but feels very competent. Normally crossovers are nowhere near as good as their car counterparts, the Outlander despite its bulk doesn't feel that far from its Lancer roots. The ride comfort is a bit firm than most of the other crossovers but that's expected for performance like this.

My Score: 9/10 - A surprise, car-like feel in an area where most crossovers are not so good. Ride comfort suffers a slight bit.

Interior: Well, I haven't said as many nice things about the previous Mitsubishi interiors and this one isn't any different. Once again the materials appear to be the worst offender here. The plastic just don't have that quality feel you get on say a newer Hyundai. Its not the most inviting interior either as its full of dark plastic and black carpets. The stereo is alright but the knobs are very small which may be a problem for those with larger fingers. On the bright side, it actually feels a lot bigger inside than the vehicle seems on the outside. I don't know if Mitsubishi focused on space efficiency but it felt cavernous inside. It has a split folding tailgate which I think is very good. Higher trim levels feature the 7-seater arrangement, for small children I don't think they're too bad but a large adult won't like them. Having the second row fold is actually quite easy, holding the lever is all that has to be done. Higher trim levels also have key-less start which is neat at first but I find a bit gimmicky. I think this is the best interior Mitsubishi has designed mainly due to the engineering. The build quality is very good, its built in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan.

My Score: 7/10 - Very clever designed interior, feels spacious, built rather well but has cheap material and isn't very pleasant inside.

Styling: There are two styles the original and the refreshed style. I personally prefer the original as that style fit with the entire car without looking like everything else. I didn't find the Lancer Evolution X's front end fit with the car very well but some people like it. The rear remained the same regardless of which version and is a bit more original. Its the side profile where I find the newer front a bit awkward as it has a slight overbite while the older doesn't and flows smoothly. I can see some of the appeal of the newer front but I think it looks better on a car.

My Score: 7/10 - Nice styling particularly the older design which flows very nicely, newer is more aggressive if that's your thing.

Value for money: This is one of the better crossovers I've ever driven. The clever interior, the rather good driving dynamics and overall good styling. I found the Outlander drives a lot better than many of the alternatives. If you get the 7-seater arrangement its not as great at carrying passengers as a minivan and its a bit more expensive. For that extra expense however you are given the 4WD and a easier and nicer vehicle to drive so its a bit of a trade off. If you occasionally need the 7 seats, the Outlander is a better choice than the minivan. Another nice bonus, it has Mitsubishi's industry leading warranty. I can't think of a great reason for buying any other crossover unless you want a nicer interior.

My Score: 8/10 - If you need this sort of vehicle its one of the best, with a great warranty and presents great driving dynamics. It only falls short if you constantly need a 7-seater or want a nicer interior.

Overall: 39/50 - Some minor flaws cannot deny that this crossover is a very good vehicle.

2007-2009 Kia Rondo

2010-09-16T17:14:00.004-04:00

Second review of the day...another Kia.

Introduction: The Kia Rondo is what's considered a small MPV(multi-purpose vehicle). Essentially its a small minivan. The vehicle is called the Carens in South Korea, the original car was made in 1999. The Rondo is the 2nd generation of this car and was released for the 2007 model year. It initially sold well, but it was later discontinued for the US market in 2010 with Kia hoping Rondo buyers would instead go for the newly designed 2011 Sportage.

Like most Kias it doesn't have a big history, my opinion of Kia wasn't very good when I began to drive them.

Performance: The Kia Rondo comes with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine found in the Sonata and the Magentis, it also has the 2.7L V6 also found in the Magentis. For this review I'll only look at the 4-cylinder. Like the Magentis this engine produces 162 hp for earlier cars, 175 hp for later ones and 164 lbs.ft of torque for earlier cars and 168 lb.ft for later cars. Unlike the Magentis, due to the taller shape and its overall bigger heavier body with this engine the Rondo is not very quick. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 9.5 seconds. Its only marginally quicker with the V6. Considering the Rondo can be fully loaded with 7 passengers, I'd highly recommend the V6 mainly since its already slow without passengers and with significant weight added with a fully loaded car its ridiculous. Like the other cars that use this engine it can be a bit noisy with a annoying drone. Another downside to the 4-cylinder is if the Rondo gets stuck in snow its unable to rescue itself on its own power.

My Score: 3/10 - Underpowered considering its application, noisy and not all that refined.

Handling: With its intention being a MPV, driving dynamics also suffer. Its high center of gravity along with its soft suspension make it not a very good choice for cornering. Fortunately it does ride reasonably well. The lack of agility however makes it just as poor as a regular minivan. I just don't really see the point if it loses the car agility. The light wheel makes it easy to turn the wheel but it lacks feel. This car just doesn't like changing directions quickly.

My Score: 4/10 - Rides alright, unfortunately its handling is as bad as a bigger minivan

Interior: The Rondo is one of the nicer Kia interiors from this time. Not a great interior but at least one that doesn't look extremely dull and grey. Once again the interior is full of plastic but you can tell a few of the touches are at least better than a standard Kia of this time. The best thing about the Rondo is it has the optional 7-seater configuration. Getting to the 3rd row of seats is done by moving the 2nd row forward and then folding it. There is enough room for children in the 3rd row and if the 2nd row passengers aren't very tall there can be reasonable amount room for both 2nd and 3rd row passengers. I like how its not difficult or confusing to use and its operation is solid. As for problems, the D-pillar is rather thick so seeing out of it isn't that great from inside. When using the 3rd row, tailgate space is sacrificed meaning you can't carry many extra things. The build quality in these vehicles appear to be pretty good, these vehicles come from Hwasung, South Korea.

My Score: 6/10 - Build well, a mostly usable 3rd row, built with average materials

Styling: Kia didn't really try to make the Rondo look different. Its a rather generic MPV or crossover, its the same shape as everyone else and the front is pretty generic. I just don't see the effort. Its not ugly, but its totally forgettable.

My Score: 2/10 - Looks like any generic MPV, no real effort put into it.

Value for money: The idea of the Rondo is to save you money from buying a minivan. Unfortunately I just don't see the point in having a Rondo over say a Sedona. Its just too slow and weak, also when using the 7 seat configuration it loses a lot of trunk space. Its more difficult to park the Rondo due to its size than the Mazda5 which I think is even more clever and more agile than the Rondo. The Rondo is quite cheap even with the 7 seats but a minivan is not that much more but is more comfortable for 7 passengers. If you rarely carry 7, just get a normal sedan and rent a minivan when you need that capacity.

My Score: 4/10 - Yes its cheap and its not all that terrible, but the vehicle is sort of pointless. I just don't see the value in buying it.

Overall: 19/50 - Kia did some things right, but sadly its a rather pointless car. Its not as good as a minivan for capacity and driving position, yet its not as efficient or as good to drive as a regular car. It doesn't have the prestige of a SUV either(I admit I don't get it myself). If you somehow want a car that's not very good at anything that sits right in the middle between car and minivan I guess you could then want one.

2007-2009 Kia Magentis

2010-09-16T14:26:00.004-04:00

My first car review since August. For the first of the cars will be a Kia Magentis.

Introduction: The Kia Magentis was first introduced in 2000 as a replacement for the Mazda based Credos. The Kia Magentis is mostly a re-badge of the Hyundai Sonata with minor differences. Since 2009 Kia has decided to take a slightly different route by altering Kia's styling and interior styling from its Hyundai parent.

Yes, the Kia Magentis does not have a very interesting nor long enough history. Its no surprise that when I first encountered it I didn't have much interest in it.

Performance: The standard early Kia Magentis are equipped with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that develops 162 hp and 164 lb.ft of torque. In 2009 the Kia Magentis got an update in its 4-cylinder where the engine now produces 175 hp and 169 lb.ft of torque. The early Magentis was capable of acceleration from 0-100 km/h in a bit over 9 seconds while the newer 2009-2010 Magentis was able to accelerate from 0-100 in a bit under 9 seconds. The older Magentis engine was not very exciting nor felt very refined, the noisy drone was present. The newer Magentis engine felt a bit more refined although it overall didn't change perception of the car very much.

My Score(both): 5/10 - A mediocre engine, not very exciting in both versions.

Handling: Starting with the older Magentis, unfortunately the car handled a lot like how the engine felt...boring. The steering on the old Magentis feels particularly numb and feels disconnected. It doesn't inspire any confidence in the corners, you might even back off because of how very little information the wheel gives you. Ride comfort was surprisingly disappointing given how the car isn't able to carve out corners. Its a bit choppy when driving over rougher roads. When given the wheel of the new Magentis, things are a little big different. The wheel no longer has the same numb feeling and disconnected feel the older car had. The wheel is still as light as the old one but the turning feels more sharper and thus you're more confident to take the car into the corner. The ride comfort is also nicer than the older car surprisingly despite its improvement in performance. The newer Magentis feels much nicer to drive over the old one but it doesn't feel as sporty as other midsized sedans nor is the most comfortable.

My Score(2007-2008): 3/10 - Numb, inert, feels disconnected, not that comfortable thus makes driving very boring

My Score(2009): 7/10 - Decent steering feel, better cornering, better ride comfort but still a bit lacking though.

Interior: Once again starting with the old Magentis. The interior is unfortunately very boring and not a particularly nice place to be. Its a sea full of dull grey and black plastics, none of which looks very nice and none of which looks like material of quality. The seats don't feel all that comfortable. The stereo like all older Kia and Hyundai vehicles is awful to use and listen to. Fortunately interior space is decent so is trunk space. With the newer Magentis a few changes have been made. Most of the dull grey plastic was removed. The stereo was also replaced with a newer unit with red display to fit with the newer white and red dash gauges. The plastic quality has also been stepped up a notch. The seat is still a bit firm but not as stiff as the older seat. I didn't find the Magentis interior to be as good as the Sonata's interior redesign, a sense Hyundai gave Kia little money. Still, its a bigger improvement over the older boring one. The build quality in both cars are pretty good, both cars are built in Hwasung, South Korea.

My Score(2007-2008): 3/10 - Depressing, low quality plastics, a rubbish stereo, not very comfortable seats and overall very boring but its at least reasonably spacious.

My Score(2009): 6/10 - Decent level of plastic, a nicer environment, better stereo but compared to other vehicles just a average interior.

Styling: With the old Magentis, much like everything else I've said about it this car looks so dull. This particular styling is so anonymous that I'm sure people can point out each part that looks similar to some other cars. It appears Kia spent no money to style this car probably due to the problems from the old Magentis which was styled but not very well. The newer one again changes things up. The headlights are much more aggressive and sharper than the dull round ones from the older car. The grille is now Kia's signature grille and it actually goes quite well with the newer front styling. The rear is a little bit more conventional and looks a lot like a Honda Accord, while it goes well with the front considering how different it looks there...I was hoping Kia would also do the same to the rear. Still, its good that Kia wants to change its image.

My Score(2007-2008): 1/10 - So boring, you can tell nobody bothered to style it.

My Score(2009): 7/10 - Front end looks nice and different, rear is still on the boring side.

Value for money: The Kia lineup in general has never been bad value for your money. Whatever Kia is often always the cheapest in its class and if that's all that matters to you then they're usually worth it. The older Magentis is so anonymous that as a used car its a bit of a bargain often lower than 13K for one that has a bit above 60,000 kms. The newer one because its better doesn't suffer the same bargain. The problem the newer car has to deal with is its sibling the Sonata. The 2009 Sonata is just as inexpensive but overall a much better car and a nicer car to be in. Unless Kia offers a nice deal on a Optima, it'll be overshadowed unless one likes its looks over the generic looking Sonata.

My Score(2007-2008): 8/10 - Very cheap to buy, even cheaper to buy used.

My Score(2009): 6/10 - Its Hyundai sibling the Sonata is nearly as cheap but overall better in every way, its best hope is on its looks.

Overall(2007-2008): 20/50 - A below average car, its just too bland and boring.

Overall(2009): 32/50 - Much better than the older one, sadly it suffers from not being as good as the 2009 Sonata.

Hypermiling, can it be done?

2010-09-08T17:33:00.003-04:00

This will be my first entry that isn't based on a specific car, but rather reviewing a type of driving. These days hypermiling seems to be one of the things that's in to save your fuel costs with the car you already have. There are variations of this technique, a few of them can be useful for your regular driving providing you with savings benefits by just altering your driving behaviour. The reason why fuel economy ratings have to say they can vary is primarily due to the way people drive, if you drive with a lead foot you'll never reach those numbers you might get a significantly worse fuel mileage than less efficient vehicles not being driven so hard.

I did probably my best hypermiling run on a 2010 Chevrolet Impala LT, its the base model but it comes with a 3.5L V6. Its also a rather large car which isn't ideal for a hypermiling run. The good news however was I was running it on essentially an empty tank on reserve fuel(needle under E) and had to drive this car another 10 miles or 16 kms. The reason why the nearly empty tank was a good thing was, due to the lower weight. Filling up your car to full will make the car heavier and forces it to consume more fuel just to push this weight around. Now the most efficient way of actually hypermiling is to actually select neutral, get out of the car, push the car so that it starts rolling, while rolling start the car. The reason for this is it requires more energy, thus more fuel to move an stationary object basically inertia. However practically this can be dangerous, should your car not start, you essentially have a car moving with no power. A powerless car means, no power brakes and no power steering which is terrible news if your about to hit an object. As a precaution and for everybody's safety...don't do this.

I take a less extreme way of hypermiling. Another instance where I don't follow the extreme rule of hypermiling is not stopping. If you encounter a stop sign, you legally must stop but assume you don't look at the law, to get the most out of each drop of gas stopping is bad. I urge anybody every trying hypermiling to follow the stop sign rules. Now one of the worst ways you waste fuel is acceleration, to hypermile you must actually accelerate rather slowly. The most important gauge to you will have to be tachometer, the best you can keep the tachometer reading below 2000 rpm, the less harder your engine works and the more fuel you save. Reading the speedometer won't help, you just won't be accelerating quickly enough to net a speeding ticket, you are trying to save fuel after all. If you accelerate this way, I guarantee you'll be passed very quickly I even got passed by a bus. Please keep to the curb lane(the right lane on any country where the steering wheel is on the left, vice-versa for the other countries), this way you're respecting other motorists by staying in the appropriate lane. By the time you need to make lane changes you'll be traveling at speed limit making the change easy.

When you approach an intersection with a red light, lightly brake early and try your absolute best to at least be moving before you must stop. By doing so you not only save fuel by not dealing with less interial mass, and you also don't have to work the car as hard to return to the speed you need to travel at. When traveling downhill, let go of the accelerator pedal as your car will stop sending fuel yet you'll still travel at speed(possibly faster depending on the hill) thanks to gravity. When going up the hill you may want to increase speed early as you have to fight gravity and also if your driving a manual prevent stalling, keeping watch of your tachometer is most necessary. Ideal efficient speeds may vary, 60-70 km/h(35-40 mph) is typically the ideal speed to travel at. For most people highway mileage is better, although 100 km/h(60 mph) isn't when the engine runs at its most efficient level. The good news about highway driving is under normal circumstances you shouldn't have to stop. Keeping to the outer lane while maintaining speed limit is your best bet of achieving very good fuel economy numbers.

Having done this, there are only a few things that affected my run. There was an occasional person who cuts you off, this is bad as your forced to brake harder and it'll take longer to retain speed. If you can read the traffic, you may be able to avoid these drivers by anticipating them either by cutting off their path or brake early preventing harsh braking if you're unable to. Traffic is the worst thing to encounter on a hypermiling journey, if you know a way around the traffic that doesn't increase the distance of your driving by a lot then take the longer route. Sometimes you can be unlucky where traffic lights are against you, like they were in my case constantly stopping and taking a long time to regain speed. In my case my car wasn't in great shape, thus it overheated for an unknown reason forcing me to pull over. Despite these problems I still managed according to the car's computer got 5L/100 km this translates to roughly 47 mpg US or 56 mpg imperial. This was mostly city driving, with a stretch of highway driving. This is definitely double the fuel consumption of what the Chevrolet Impala is rated to do.

Would I change my habit of driving having achieved a pretty good number for a first timer? I'd only change a few things. The reason being, I found accelerating very slowly to be rather stressful. I found that constantly worrying about the tachometer, worrying about stopping and worrying about how traffic felt about my driving to be distracting as well. If someone behind you isn't too happy about your slow acceleration they'll definitely cut you off, adding danger to himself and yourself. Here's what I would change in my driving that doesn't affect safety or stress.

1) When approaching a red light, ease off the accelerator and brake gently. If you still approach the intersection and its still red, that's fine you at least reduced brake wear if nothing else. If it goes green, you deal with less inertia and its actually faster in the long run. It makes you think that driving quickly to the light is idiotic, bad for brakes, bad for your fuel consumption and its hard on the engine lowering your car's lifespan and you'll be passed that instance since a car driving at some speed can reach higher speeds easier than doing it from a stop.

2) Keeping an eye on your tachometer once in a while will help judge whether you drive too hard or not. I find anything below 3000 rpm to be the best balance between adequate speed and isn't that much worse for your consumption. If your driving on the highway this can help you increase your car's range from filler station to the next.

3) Good route planning can eliminate the fuel killing traffic stops. The best route gets you to your destination quicker and will be more fuel efficient. The less lights to stop at, the less 0 mpg moments you'll have in your drive.

4) Toss out anything you don't need in your car. If there's a big heavy box in your trunk that isn't useful to bring along then don't bring it. All you really need is emergency equipment should you need to pull over because there's a problem with the car or in the event of an accident. Not treating the car like a garbage bin would also help as litter isn't useful in any way.

Something that isn't mentioned as often as a good way to hypermile, maintain your vehicle to as good condition as possible. A healthy car can produce better fuel economy numbers than a poorly maintained car. Cleaning the air filter is one area where a poorly maintained vehicle will consume more fuel for instance. Fighting off rust will eliminate the possibility of your fuel lines or the fuel tank from corroding which produces leaks. Timely oil changes will allow the engine to work more smoothly, failing oil changes results in the engine working harder and heating up as the oil is a lubricant. Making sure your O2 sensor is working can mean the difference in good fuel economy and bad fuel economy. If you're noticing worse fuel economy, you may need to change your spark plugs as they're supposed to ignite the fuel in your engine. Keeping your tires at the correct tire pressure is useful, most newer cars have them listed on one of the labels on the driver's door, this piece of maintainence is good for the tire life and your fuel consumption and shouldn't cost a penny. Doing all these things not only help your fuel efficiency, but extend the life of your vehicle.

Hopefully some of these tips have been helpful. I speficially chose the items I felt you didn't need to truly alter your driving style. Yes it would be nice to double your fuel economy every single run, but I'd rather spend a little bit more fuel knowing my driving in the long run is less stressful and crucially safer. Any gain in fuel economy is beneficial to pretty much everybody except the oil company, if they're going to get your money anyways why not try your best to give as little as you can.

2009-2010 Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe

2010-08-11T14:27:00.004-04:00

In this review I'll be taking on a car that carries two very different badges but in essence are exactly the same.

Introduction: The Toyota Matrix was born as a result of Toyota wanting to return to the hatchback market in North America since the Corolla wagon was discontinued in the mid 90s. The Pontiac Vibe was the result of the partnership between GM and Toyota at the NUMMI plant. Both models are based off the current 10th generation Toyota Corolla platform. Both were introduced in 2003 and the two were made in different factories. Aside from the body styling the two vehicles were essentially identical. Today the Matrix continues to be sold in North America while the Vibe was discontinued after General Motors announced Pontiac would be defunct.

I wasn't expecting a whole lot of difference between the Vibe/Matrix over its Corolla base. I just more surprised GM didn't actually try to make the Vibe seem different.

Performance: Due to most of the development work being done by Toyota, the engine is the same 1.8L engine found in the 10th gen Corolla. One could have a more expensive Matrix/Vibe to get the 2.4L engine found in the Camry but for this review I'll only be looking at the 1.8L. The engine produces the same 132 hp and 128 lb.ft of torque. The acceleration time takes roughly 10.2 seconds to reach 0-100 km/h, not very good as its slower than the Corolla but it could be worse. Given AWD these cars would be even slower as the added weight will further decrease performance. The only nice thing about this engine is its refined and its pretty good on the fuel economy level.

My Score: 6/10 - Slower than the Corolla, overall not all that exciting and not very different from older Matrix and Vibes.

Handling: It would be wishful thinking if Toyota would do something different with the Vibe or Matrix when it comes to handling but neither differ from the Corolla in any way. You still get the extremely light steering wheel. You still get the total lack of feel and have very little confidence in the corners. Due to how uninvolved the driver will feel, to drive these cars is probably more effective than sleeping pills at putting you to sleep. Despite being a bit heavier than the Corolla, its still a dog when it comes to winter driving. Remaining in a straight line is still a task in this car when it shouldn't be, you should be notified by the wheel when you're not exactly straight. I absolutely hated this system in the Corolla, its no different with these cars.

My Score: 0/10 - Same problem as the Corolla, no score changes to report.

Interior: The Matrix/Vibe don't really differ a lot with interior with the Corolla as much I wished either. What the heck was wrong with Toyota in making a proper looking interior not full of cheap plastic? I normally blast Mitsubishi with interiors, but even they have provided with a carpet tailgate area over the nasty plastic tailgate found in the Matrix/Vibe. To make things worse is the center console, it looks nasty before you even touch it where you feel that it wasn't even made of good material. Lots of low quality materials are to be found which is absolutely disappointing in a vehicle that isn't the cheapest. Visibility is not very good with the small rear windscreen and bigger C-pillars. Build quality however seems to be good where it really didn't matter which factory it came from. If you got the Vibe it comes from the now closed NUMMI plant at Fremont, California in the United States. The Matrix comes from Toyota's factory in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 2/10 - Once again terrible materials, terrible center console, worse visibility than before all in despite if pretty good build quality.

Styling: The Matrix was styled a lot more differently than the predecessor. While the Vibe was more conservatively styled over its predecessor. A very different picture from the first generation of both cars where the Toyota was the conservative one while the Vibe was rather different. I can see Toyota tried to make the Matrix a bit different, although the very car that comes into mind that it resembles is the early Honda Insight. The Vibe because it barely changed from last time doesn't really look that different when put beside a bunch of Pontiacs.

My Score: 6/10 - A bit more effort went into the styling, neither however look at that fantastic.

Value for money: Competition is getting fierce in the hatchback market, as these two are newer cars they have to compete against the likes of the Mazda3 hatch, the VW Golf, the Dodge Caliber, the Hyundai Elantra Touring, and the Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback. There is something to like in all those cars over the Matrix/Vibe apart from the terrible Caliber. The Matrix does not position itself well as it doesn't offer very much other than badge, Mazda takes driving dynamics, the Golf especially in GTI form is considered the best hot hatch, Mitsubishi has the best warranty, and the Elantra Touring is a great value for money. Between the two badges, the Pontiac badge has the better warranty and that would be the best one to buy between the two. The giant recall of early 2010 has hurt the resale value for both, add injury to insult as Pontiac is a defunct brand and GM has to deal with bailout backlash.

My Score: 2/10 - Too much competition and doesn't stand out strongly in any area.

Overall: 16/50 - A poor effort by Toyota, I really didn't even take into account the recall that has tarnished the company's reputation. As one who's driven the cars before the recall the quality issues were present and the cost cutting for me was difficult to stomach.

This said I've never experienced sudden acceleration in these cars and in worst case scenario would have put the vehicle in neutral to prevent the car from continuing to accelerate. Proper education on something as expensive and something that can be lethal like driving a car would have saved some lives. Possibly this could advocate the return of a manual transmission, as a driver of a manual car has to understand the importance of neutral gear to even operate their vehicles. Also in vehicles with manuals should a rare case of sudden acceleration just depressing the clutch effectively disconnects the engine from the transmission meaning it wont' transmit any power to the drive wheels thus ending acceleration.

2009 Honda Fit

2010-08-05T18:35:00.003-04:00

I'm trying to make up for the lack of a single review last month. This time a Honda.

Introduction: The Honda Fit has been around in the North American market since 2006. The first generation despite being outdated when it was first introduced ended up being one of the most popular subcompact cars. Doing well against its competition the Nissan Versa, the Toyota Yaris, the Hyundai Accent, and Kia Rio. In 2009 a brand new version was introduced, being larger than the outgoing model. Honda hopes to continue its success with this new Fit that the old one managed to accomplish.

I was eager to try this car out as I quite liked the older Fit. The older one was easily my favourite among the subcompact cars so I was holding this car up to that standard.

Performance: The Fit gets a newer 1.5L engine that comes with i-VTEC which boosts its power now to 117 hp and 106 lb.ft of torque. Since the car gained a bit of weight due to its increased size this power increase does not translate into a quicker car. It takes about 10.7 seconds to accelerate from 0-100 km/h which is about a second slower than the older car. Fuel economy is still very good and due to how few changes were made to the engine overall over the old one not all that different.

My Score: 7/10 - Has the same good points as the old engine...unfortunately its a bit slower this time.

Handling: I absolutely enjoyed how sharp the old Fit handled in corners despite its so so ride comfort. In this car, I believe the weight has changed the way this car handles. The steering feel is somehow not as capable of producing feel like the old one. Both are electric power steering systems, but somehow this new Fit doesn't seemed tuned to the level of sharpness the old one had. Taking this into corners, because of the larger size I started to feel the high center of gravity and the added bulk. It corners somewhat flat, but definitely not to the standards of the older one. This one had the same feeling of driving a minivan I'm afraid. This car does ride a bit better than the older car, but I feel in this case it doesn't justify losing what I felt made the Fit a good car.

My Score: 6/10 - Disappointing, the Fit lost its nimbleness in favour of becoming a tiny van.

Interior: I had no qualms about the older car's interior despite being mostly plastic. All cars in this segment will have mostly plastic interiors. In the case of the new Fit, unfortunately its a bit easy to see that Honda cut items. The carpet for instance is very thin, the door pouches are made of thin plastic and the wheel is much like the cheap Civic wheel where if you don't buy the options you get very thin plastic with enough holes to be a cheese grater. Honda advertises this car has 8 cup holders...but I don't care, plus how many drinks do you need for a car that carries only 5 passengers? A few of them were cheaply thrown in making them unpleasant. Honda placed the climate controls in a fashion closer to the steering wheel...but filled the center of the console with a ugly stereo. As it is with Honda, this stereo doesn't redeem itself being a low quality sounding system. The good news is due to the Fit's larger size, head room isn't much of an issue for a smaller car and the seats fold flat better allowing a decent amount of cargo room. Fortunately it doesn't have any build quality issues, the Honda Fit is built in Suzuka, Mie, Japan.

My Score: 6/10 - Lots of room considering its size, but it shows a lot more cheapness than before and has a ugly stereo.

Styling: I always thought the old Fit was a rather conservative looking car for Honda. This new one doesn't really change this, the rear is a tad bit different but overall it doesn't look all that different from the old one. Its more round and bigger for certain but no other noticeable changes. It still looks like a pretty decent hatchback.

My Score: 7/10 - Much like the old one not much has changed.

Value for money: This issue was the biggest failing of the older car. I scored the older car a 4 due to its price. This new one sadly does not change this at all. I consider this car to be worse than the older one and due to the changes particularly to the interior is not even justified. Worse yet, it no longer has an outdated Toyota Yaris to push around now with the new Ford Fiesta and Mazda2 arriving. I'm interested in seeing how the Mazda2 fares, it may take the mantle of most fun subcompact that I believed was true of the old Fit. Already the Mazda2 is cheaper, but this Fit at a disadvantage. The cheap interior is not going to help against a re-energized Ford, Hyundai is coming with a new Accent which is certain to have a better interior.

My Score: 2/10 - Even worse value than the old car as its still expensive but feels much cheaper, its competition is better too.

Overall: 28/50 - A disappointment, one of my favourite Hondas has become soft and driver unfriendly vehicle full of nasty cheapness.

2007-2009 Pontiac G6

2010-08-05T09:00:00.004-04:00

I didn't intend to skip July...with a busy schedule it wasn't possible to update until today. Hopefully I can make up for that.

Introduction: The Pontiac G6 is the replacement for Pontiac's Grand Am. Its often considered the 6th Grand Am due to it following a similar path as the later Grand Ams being platform mates particularly with the Malibu. The G6 is no different being built on the Epsilon platform which the previous generation Malibu used. Due to GM discontinuing the Pontiac brand and the Saturn brand, both the G6 and Saturn Aura were discontinued by the 2010 model year while the newer seventh Malibu would continue.

The G6 is one of those cars that hid under the radar for the common driver. GM didn't advertise it nearly to the extent that the 2008 Malibu got. The Saturn Aura was also often not even considered because nobody knew about it. The G6 and Aura showed the problem of splitting budget money on 3 cars which are very similar but forced to compete against one another. By splitting the money evenly GM might have ended up with 3 weak cars in the same segment, in this case they spent most of the money on the Malibu leaving the G6 and Aura to fend for themselves. As a result I didn't know what to think about the G6 as I've never thought about them before.

Performance: The standard Pontiac G6 is equipped with a 2.4L 4-cylinder Ecotec engine that produces 169 hp and 162 lb.ft of torque. This engine isn't all that different in character to the 2.2L that comes from the Cobalt/G5. Due to how much bigger and heavier the G6 is, its not as quick as the G5. Despite this, the G6 isn't exactly a slow car. Acceleration from 0-100 km/h takes about 9 seconds which isn't bad considering the ho hum numbers. Fuel economy on this car is also decent. Its not the most refined engine but it does its job well enough that its not a drawback.

My Score: 7/10 - A decent engine, nothing special but crucially nothing nasty

Handling: Taking the G6 in the corners isn't nearly as exciting as certain cars. Its not that the suspension is terrible in the case of the Grand Prix nor is it that the steering feel is totally wrong. Somehow the car doesn't seem to inspire confidence. In this sense the car feels so average that it becomes rather boring. Ride quality from the G6 is also average, its not as plushy as a Buick but certainly not as hard as some Hondas.

My Score: 5/10 - Its not terrible, but its rather joyless.

Interior: Once again there's nothing very special about the interior of the G6. Its a rather dark interior being mostly black. Nothing in this interior grabs your eye, everything is extremely conventional with absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. The plastic is of mediocre quality, most feel rather hard and some are pretty cheap. The rear seats do fold down, I guess that's the most interesting thing to describe about this interior. As for the build quality its medicore, some are properly made others aren't. The G6 is assembled in the United States at the Lake Orion in Michigan.

My Score: 5/10 - Rather uninspired and as a result bland.

Styling: Aside from the Pontiac grille, the G6 is not all that extraordinary on the outside either. The rear is very bland and uninteresting and if it weren't for the Pontiac grille likely wouldn't look any different from any generic car. Due to how uninspired and the lack of passion that went into styling this car I can't give it a good mark.

My Score: 2/10 - You can tell nobody really cared to style this car.

Value for money: Due to how little money was spent in advertising this car and giving it recognition the G6 often is sold at a rather low price. While its very difficult to find a brand new unsold 2010 G6, a used one is very inexpensive to acquire. Many G6s were used as rental cars and as a result resale value is pretty low for a car in this segment. The G6 is also one of the few cars in this segment to offer a convertible rooftop, its competition being the Chrysler Sebring which is truly awful and the not very interesting Toyota Solara. Its not a particularly unreliable car but be aware of minor electrical issues. So long as you don't pay very much for this car it can be of good value.

My Score: 6/10 - Offers a convertible option, resale is very low meaning its great to buy used but terrible to sell from new.

Overall: 26/50 - Its not a terrible car, but you can tell GM put little effort into making it beyond a 4-door sedan. This car still features the old GM mentality of "good enough".

2011 Ford Mustang GT Convertible

2010-06-16T21:31:00.003-04:00

Well I'm doing slightly better with updating now that I've been given more time, obviously at the expense of pay...but that's the way things are in this wretched economy. I changed the template a bit and thought this was a bit more suitable and less plain. Anyways my first review of a convertible and considering how few convertibles are left at all possibly my last.

Introduction: The Ford Mustang is one of Ford's most iconic models from its glorious past. The Mustang was an 18 month project under Donald N. Fey who was Lee Iacocca's assistant and chief engineer. It was originally supposed to be a 2-seater, mid-engined roaster but due to the 2-seater Thunderbird's sales failure thus the Mustang was changed into a 4-seater front engined coupe. To lower costs the Mustang shared various components with the Fairlane and Falcon. It was released in 1964 and to Ford's surprise and an even bigger surprise to an unsuspecting GM in its first 2 years the Mustang sold nearly 1.5 million vehicles. It was then the Ford Mustang created what's called the Pony car. The 1973 OPEC oil embargo meant the original Mustang's days had to end with stricter pollution laws this had Ford create the Mustang II. While Mustang II's sales were good, it was not well received with much more competitive cars in the market. One of the most popular trim levels from the original the Mustang GT was discontinued since the Mustang II. The original Mustang is still much loved, the Mustang II didn't bring such attachment. In 1979 the Mustang was once again changed this time to be applied on the Fox platform. As the Mustang reached the mid 1980s Ford believed the Mustang was falling out in favour as sales was becoming more dismal and wanted to replace the rear wheel drive Mustang for a front wheel drive derived from Mazda. Ford received plenty of angry letters from Ford enthusiasts and decided to leave the Mustang alone while still initiating the Mazda MX-6 derived vehicle now known as the Ford Probe. The Mustang underwent another redesign in 1994, using the SN platform which was a updated Fox platform. This version revived the Mustang GT thought to be have been gone. In 2005 the Mustang received a complete update on its own platform known as the D2C. Styling has also takes on a retro theme as its styling has been greatly influenced by the original Mustang. This version of the Mustang also brought the return of the Shelby Mustangs back from the original version's days, now known as the Shelby GT500. This Mustang was updated in 2010 with a updated look and adding a few more retro items, the next set of updates occurred in 2011 with both the V6 and V8 engines receiving a much needed power upgrade with increased competition from the new Chevrolet Camaro.

Yeah the Mustang has an incredibly rich history. The car has always embodied the greatness of the old American muscle cars. Its actually a good thing Ford didn't succumb to pressure to kill off the Mustang during its dark days as its returned to some of the glory it once had. Its very difficult for Ford to sell 1.5 million in 2 years with fuel economy and practicality taking priority for most families but for simple cheap fun the Mustang has usually been there. I heard great things about the V6 Mustang, but was pretty surprised about receiving the GT which comes with a new 5.0L V8.

Performance: This is really what the Mustang GT is all about. With its massive 5.0L V8 by using premium fuel this engine can produce 418 hp and 390 lb.ft of torque. Much of the excitement starts just by starting the engine and hearing the snarl. Normally I would comment about how good the engine is being quiet...this car isn't quiet and you don't want it to be because this snarling V8 sounds so good. Due to its massive power increase, Ford needed a heavier duty transmission to deal with the power and thus you get either a 6-speed manual or automatic, dealing with fleet cars I only got to use the automatic. The hardtop Mustang GT can blitz through from 0-100 km/h in 4.3 seconds, my convertible is likely an extra .2 or .3 seconds more. This car is so quick that 100 km/h feels rather slow because its over with so soon. This is easily the most corrupting car I've ever driven. Fuel economy is actually not terrible either, its horrid in the city but its capable of mid 20 mpg if your doing highway driving.

My Score: 10/10 - Brilliant, love the noise, seriously quick, not terrible fuel economy numbers as one would expect, most corrupting engines ever.

Handling: The Mustang has never really done the greatest job when it came down to handling in much of its career. Many blame it all on the live rear axle, it was indeed a problem for many of the older Mustangs compared to modern independent rear suspensions. Yet it can be argued the live rear axle lowered weight and is far more suitable for drag racing which is what the Mustang does very well at. Taking this revised 2011 Mustang around a corner, I actually didn't really notice the live axle hindering my ability to take corners. Where live axles cause problems is when the road is uneven causing it to bounce around instead of cornering flat. Depending on how well paved your roads are may determine how good or bad the live axle is for you. The Mustang GT easily has a tendency to oversteer thanks to brutal power going straight to only the rear wheels. While I believe the Infiniti G37 is a more solid and capable handling, the Mustang is pretty competent but more capable of providing fun(also danger) making it a more exciting car to take around corners.

My Score: 10/10 - Not the best car I've taken around corners but definitely the most fun

Interior: This has been the biggest drawback of the original Mustang the woeful interior. Well the seat was pretty comfortable, not as supportive as the Maxima's I'm afraid which I would prefer on a car that loves to oversteer. The interior materials are definitely better than the last Mustang but I can't say they're great. The plastic is of mediocre quality and it overall doesn't look all that appealing unlike a few of the newer Fords. There's very poor amount of legroom for those who're thinking of using the backseats for people. A tall driver pretty much negates the use of one of the back seats its still not good even with the seat up and I'm quite small. The convertible has a very small amount of trunk space, though space is better than no trunk. The build quality...I'm not that impressed there are a few trim pieces I thought were a bit flimsy. In the end there is a price to pay, the Mustang is not very expensive for what it is but the interior took much of the sacrifice.

My Score: 4/10 - Mediocre plastic, woeful legroom for rear seats, puny trunk and disappointing build quality.

Styling: This is the revised version of the previous 2005-2009 Mustang. I must say I rather like the revisions over the older one a lot. Your rear turn signal lights up in an arrangement very much like it once was done by cars in the 1960s specifically Mustangs and Cougars, a great nostalgic item. It retains much of the looks of the 1960s Mustang which has a timeless look to it. The curving of some of the sharper touches makes this version seem very modern in contrast to the previous version which tried to look 1960s. This way it doesn't look old but keeps much of what's great of old car styling.

My Score: 10/10 - Great mix of old and new car styling to create a beautiful car.

Value for money: The Mustang has some fierce competition as of late with the Chevrolet Camaro's return. It used to be down to the Mazda MX-5 which has a completely different philosophy to the Mustang's. The Dodge Challenger's return has also complicated things too. However in the case of the Challenger its appeal is directly to those who miss the 1960s. The Camaro and the revised Mustang embrace the future. The Camaro offers a rather unique challenge since its down to how much you prefer GM over Ford, the differences between the two are statistics. We'll be certain a revised Camaro will be capable of beating this revised Mustang. However as it stands the Mustang is a great value for money when it comes to brute power, but for total sports car handling you'll still have to look at the Mazda MX-5.

My Score: 8/10 - Its very good value for its money, it mainly comes down to your tastes and wants for sports cars.

Overall: 42/50 - A handsome brute of a car, truly an experience...shame about that interior.

2010 Infiniti G37X

2010-06-02T16:14:00.003-04:00

Well its been a very long time since I took a long break in May, back with a new review of a car that's a bit more different than what I normally review.

Introduction: The Infiniti G cars began in 1991 starting with the original Infiniti G20, these were essentially rebadged Nissan Primeras. The Primera was a midsized car that was sold mostly to Europe but also sold within Japan. As an Infiniti the original G20 never did very well, it never sold very well and not a whole lot of G20s are still on the road these days. In 2003 Infiniti decided to use a different model for the G series, the much more famous Skyline which did well inside Japan. The Skyline is a rear wheel drive sedan unlike the front wheel drive Primera. It sold under the name the G35 as an Infiniti and its been Infiniti's best seller since. In 2006 the Skyline was being replaced with a new model however retained its original 3.5L VQ engine thus it was still called the G35. In 2007 for the 2008 model year a new 3.7L was equipped changing the name to G37 to correspond to the new engine size.

I was surprised to see this car in our fleet. I never expected to see a car of this level actually being bought my company. I truly wanted to try this car out after driving the Maxima, I wanted to see was it worth paying more for this Infiniti badge.

Performance: Well the engine like I mentioned in the introduction is a 3.7L V6. Its differences to the original VQ engine are minor other than the increased displacement. While the Maxima is still under 300 hp, the G37 is allowed to produce 328 hp and 269 lb.ft of torque. The acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 5.1 seconds, this is easily the quickest car I've ever experienced. Some people complain a bit about the noise from this engine, but I didn't really find it to be very intrusive, its only loud when your giving it full throttle.

My Score: 10/10 - Slightly noisy but near perfect delivery

Handling: I wanted to see how Nissan managed to make the G37 corner considering the Maxima was given the 4-door sports car(4DSC) designation. Unlike the Maxima the Infiniti is not as wide and doesn't appear to sport wider tires but it also doesn't have the burdens of being front wheel drive. Since I only drove the AWD X version it probably isn't as exciting in corners as a stand alone rear wheel drive one but its extremely flat cornering despite being a luxury sedan. The steering feel I believe is actually better than the Maxima's and due to the electronics you can tweak these to your liking. I actually preferred the standard set up to provide the best balance of comfort and performance. I hate to admit it, this is the closest car I've ever driven that has the spirit of my Cressida. It doesn't feel as light, but not nearly as front heavy as the Maxima.

My Score: 10/10 - No question, its a joy to drive

Interior: The layout of the G37 may seem familiar to your if you've been exposed to the Maxima's interior. In all honestly the layout is pretty much identical, the differences come in the added buttons and the different gauges. I actually prefer the softer white/blue look of the Infiniti over the orange/white of the Maxima which is sharper. The material in the G37 is actually a few notches better than those used in the Maxima. A lot more metal and aluminum trim is used over what would have been plastic and faux wood. If there is anything to fault the G37 from the inside, its not the roomiest car as its not as wide as the Maxima nor is it as long as an Altima. There's a lot of buttons to play with in a G37X unfortunately there's too many and not all are great positions. One of the things the G37X is equipped with is a rear view camera to compensate for the high trunk line, however it is wise to not rely on this over your driving skill. Its best to treat the camera as another mirror, its very useful but if you rely on it...get into a vehicle not equipped with it and you'll feel blind. Build quality in the G37 is excellent, no gaps that I've seen and everything is extremely solid. G37s are built in Tochigi, Japan.

My Score: 9/10 - Good materials, good build quality, very well equipped, but a bit too many buttons and not as roomy as one might want.

Styling: The Infiniti is a pretty handsome vehicle, I actually like this version a lot more than the older V35 design(the old G35). I actually prefer the sedan styling over the coupe version, the design flow much nicer. There isn't an angle I think the G37 looks bad in, but its not beautiful enough to totally grab your attention.

My Score: 9/10 - Great but just not quite enough to be the best.

Value for money: The Infinti G37 competes directly against the Lexus ES350 and Cadillac CTS. It indirectly competes against the very top of the mainstream brands and the midsize offerings of the luxury brands. Against the CTS and ES350, the ES deep down is a Camry and against a high level car like this its definitely worse. The Cadillac, I believe the G37 offers more quality in several aspects for pretty much the same money, its not that the Caddie is bad...just the G37 is better. Its actually very competitive against the Lexus GS, in a value contest the GS is a poor value in my mind and far too expensive. None of the top mainstream cars offer nearly as many features for the money. In this class, I'd say the Infiniti is one of the best bargains you get the medium size, for entry level luxury money, but all the toys and options of cars for 10K more without losing...anything.

My Score: 10/10 - Best bargain in its class.

Overall: 48/50 - Highest scoring car I've reviewed, it truly is one of the best cars today.

2010 Ford F-150

2010-04-22T15:57:00.003-04:00

I think this will be the final one today, but perhaps I'll change my mind.

Introduction: The Ford F-150 is easily Ford's best selling vehicle of all time. This truck has managed to break sales records and often dominate sales charts for the world despite selling a enormous amount mostly for North America. The F-150 spans from 12 generations with the earliest truck produced from 1948. The only time the F-150 fell in sales was during the high oil prices during 2007-2008 where the Toyota Camry finally managed to beat the F-150 on a few monthly sales numbers when it normally dominated. Lately the GMC Sierra and the Chevrolet Silverado combined has also taken the #1 spot for pickup trucks, on their own the F-150 still leads in sales. With oil prices down from record highs, its unknown whether the F-series can still dominate sales like it once did now that Ford has redesigned it.

By the time I got to drive the F-150 I've driven the two Rams and the Sierra meaning it was down to Ford to show whether it was still capable of competing in this lucrative segment. Seeing as how both the new Ram and the Sierra are good, I wanted to see if the F-150 was even better.

Performance: The F-150 has 4 engine choices to choose from. Between two 4.7L V8s or two 5.4L V8s. The truck I drove had the 5.4L V8 capable not capable of taking the E85. This engine produces 310 hp and 365 lb.ft of torque. Acceleration numbers for the F-150 are about 8 seconds for a 0-100 km/h run. The V8 powers the F-150 pretty well but definitely not as well as the 2009 Ram with the Hemi V8. Still the engine is a rather pleasant one and at first it doesn't seem apparent its a powerful V8 as it cruises rather quietly. A pretty relaxing engine.

My Score: 8/10 - Good power, very quiet, reasonable fuel economy its just not as excellent as the Ram's Hemi V8.

Handling: The big trucks are often a surprise as I have a hard time believing they drive so easy. The F-150 isn't much different from this aspect as I found it pretty easy to drive despite its massive size compared to many cars and even SUVs. I was even more surprised at how calm it handled bumps while not really sacrificing cornering ability. Steering is rather precise, just the way I like it and just for that reason I think its one of the better trucks when it comes to agility.

My Score: 9/10 - Really easy to drive, handles good for a truck and rides pretty comfortably.

Interior: This is normally an area where pickup trucks often put very little effort into however with GM taking the initiative to produce a good pickup truck interior this forced both Ford and Dodge to come up with better interiors. The Ford interior is in my mind...pretty good. It doesn't have the same problems as Dodge did when it came to the plastics. The interior is very user friendly and the materials are of good quality. The dash is simple and visibility is as good as any truck. The build quality on the F-150 is probably the best of the American trucks which is better than what it used to be. The F-150 is assembled in Dearborn, Michigan in the United States where Ford's HQ is located.

My Score: 10/10 - A good pickup truck interior, can't actually find anything wrong with it.

Styling: The F-150 once had a simple look, rather generic for a truck. With Ford embracing its tri-bar grille, the F-150 now uses it as well. It turns out it wasn't as bad as I was thinking although it does now look a bit too similar to the GMC Sierra. The headlights are of a unique shape and if the grille is chrome it does stand out, the black plastic grille in my mind doesn't look good.

My Score: 7/10 - Still prefer both the GM and the Dodge trucks in style but the F-150 isn't bad.

Value for money: Much of the F-150 is very good and its in a very competitive, lucrative market. In all honesty due to how good all the trucks are it all comes down to style and preference and the F-150 in my mind is the best all rounder. Its not the very best in most areas but its probably the best when you take several things into account. Still its very difficult to go wrong with any of the American trucks.

My Score: 8/10 - Very competitive, plainly down to what's the right truck for you?

Overall: 44/50 - Ford has proven its not ready to give up on pickup trucks

2007 Jeep Liberty

2010-04-22T14:42:00.004-04:00

Here's another review today, a vehicle that I haven't driven in a while.

Introduction: The Jeep Liberty is the successor to the old Jeep Cherokee. However in much of the world it still retains the old Cherokee name. The Liberty features the unibody on ladder frame construction which stiffens its ride and handling. The Liberty is easily one of Jeep's trail rated vehicles meaning its been tested by Jeep for its ability to go off road. The KJ Liberty which this review is based on has been replaced by the KK Liberty in 2008.

The Liberty was not the first Jeep I drove, rather it was the Compass which isn't a Jeep. The Liberty however was the first real Jeep I actually drove as I noticed a few items that weren't present on many SUVs like the low range 4WD. I wasn't sure how it was going to be.

Performance: The original Cherokee made a big name for itself by using the through its 4.0L straight six engine considered to be still one of the best engines used by the Jeep brand. The KJ Liberty uses two Powertech engines the 2.4L 4-cylinder(straight 4) which produces 150 hp and 165 lb.ft of torque, it was dropped in 2006 however. The larger engine which this review covers is the 3.7L V6 engine that produces 210 hp and 235 lb.ft of torque. Unlike passenger cars, the more important number here is the torque and unfortunately this V6 is not able to replace the old 4.0L I6 in getting its torque early where that engine produces 230 lb.ft of torque...but its at 3000 rpm versus 4000 for the V6 despite its slightly higher number. This means its acceleration numbers are not good its 0-100 km/h time is 10 seconds. It sounds tired most of the time so its not a pleasant engine to listen to.

My Score: 3/10 - It failed to replace the outgoing engine, its not quick, powerful at the right time or very good sounding.

Handling: Well with its stiffened construction it does affect its handling ability. The ride comfort is pretty poor but it does not appear to make the Liberty very agile. The Liberty just feels a bit like a heavy pig, less agile than in my mind much larger trucks like say the the Sierra or even Dodge's Ram. Steering is rather heavy but I just don't find it feels very connected to the actual steering. I can sort of forgive its hard ride in favour of stronger durability but its not very agile to compensate for the ride.

My Score: 4/10 - Poor agility, steering is distant and not a comfortable ride.

Interior: The Jeep Liberty has a rather simple interior however its a very cheaply made one as well. Cheap handles that are present on Daewoos, ugly tin foil plastic, cheap vents, and so on. Its just not a pleasant place to be inside. Its got good storage space if you fold the back seats. The tailgate opens like the Wrangler does and unlike the Wrangler the spare tire does not intrude much on rear vision. As for the build quality, its not that good with trim easily being loose and the panel gaps. The Liberty is made in Toledo, Ohio in the United States.

My Score: 3/10 - Very cheap inside, not that well made but good cargo space.

Styling: Unlike the old Cherokee which was a rather unique looking vehicle the Liberty decided to take on the Wrangler's styling instead. While its reasonable enough to look at, the cheap bumper and wheel arches make it look very cheap. If I had one I'd definitely have the bumper and wheel arches painted the same colour as the rest of the car because it looks so awful without it being done.

My Score: 4/10 - Not creative and kind of dumb leaving the bumper and wheel arches unpainted.

Value for money: The Jeep Liberty in 2007 has a slight problem as the Wrangler gained a 4-door option. For the 2002-2006 years it was the smallest 4-door Jeep you could buy that was capable of going off road. During its early years it didn't have much competition on this low end of the scale as the Toyota RAV4 lost much of its off roading ability and the CR-V was never really meant to do it. As an off roading SUV due to its capabilities its very good. As a vehicle to go to a shopping mall its a bad idea, its heavy, slow, not comfortable and has equipment you'll never use for that purpose. If you buy a Liberty it best be for the dirty, slimy trips.

My Score: 7/10 - Great for off roading when its competition is very small, terrible for on road use.

Overall: 21/50 - As a off roading vehicle the Liberty should be good, but seeing as I don't do off roading and I'm looking at it from a on road perspective the Liberty is a silly vehicle to spend money on.

2009-2010 Suzuki SX4

2010-04-22T13:37:00.002-04:00

Oh dear...its been a very long time since I've updated. Its not going to get better as I'll be away for much of May. So...I'll try to get out a lot of reviews when I can. Starting with the Suzuki SX4.

Introduction: The Suzuki SX4 is a rare type of car in that it was co-developed by two companies that don't have a internal relationship like say Mazda and Ford working together on a car or Renault and Nissan or even GM and Toyota(The Geos, the Pontiac Vibe). The SX4 is developed by both Suzuki and Fiat, two companies that don't own shares of each other and never had a prior relationship. The SX4 was initially developed for Europe to be mostly sold by Suzuki and a few from Fiat. Eventually it was sold in several places including North America.

I didn't have very high expectations for the SX4 but this was mostly due to the disappointing GM Daewoo products Suzuki offered with their own badge. I did have higher hopes realizing the SX4 had nothing to do with GM Daewoo and thus is one of Suzuki's more authentic product. The fact it also offered AWD is another item that got my interest.

Performance: The Suzuki SX4 sold in North America comes with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 143 hp and 137 lb.ft of torque or the earlier engine while the 2010 engine products 150 hp and 150 lb.ft of torque. This engine is mated to a 5-speed manual or a 4-speed automatic if you purchased the earlier 2007-2009 cars. In the 2010 and newer models this is mated to a 6-speed manual or a CVT transmission. Depending on the transmission your acceleration will be affected. With the manuals the SX4 goes from 0-100 km/h in about 8.5 seconds, the automatic and CVTs do it in roughly 10-10.5 seconds. Its slower if you go with the AWD pushing its acceleration to 11 seconds with the CVT. If you don't drive the manual then the SX4 is slow. The engine is a bit buzzy at the higher rpm range so its not that quiet either. Yet somehow I still kind of like the engine. It seems to feel adequate...despite being the contrary. With fuel economy the SX4 isn't the best but its only thirsty if you have the AWD.

My Score: 5/10 - Its not quick unless you have a manual, a bit buzzy yet still seems alright.

Handling: The SX4 is one of the more different cars in the segment where it places height as a priority for interior space. This gives it a strange feeling that you get on cars with higher centers of gravity like minivans, crossovers and SUVs. When you take a corner aggressively you start to feel that the SX4 might tip over. Yet despite this top heaviness the cornering ability is actually quite good. Steering feel is actually very good, its light enough yet it produces enough feel to allow yourself to enjoy tackling corners. Its actually a fun car to drive and ride comfort actually seems pretty good.

My Score: 9/10 - Very good aside from the higher center of gravity making it feel like it will roll over.

Interior: The older interior of the Suzuki SX4 is rather conventional and a bit simple. The automatic transmission is a gated one while the CVT seems like the conventional linear automatic. Yet it doesn't quite have the aura of cheapness you get from Chrysler or lately Toyota. It even has some aluminum around the center console, its not much but its better than ugly tin foil plastic. The original gauges are rather simple and conventional. The 2010 model has a brighter and slightly more high tech dash with a small square clearer displays than the older model. As I mentioned in the handling the head room of the SX4 is extremely generous, its definitely the best car when headroom is a primary concern. The sedan version is larger than the hatch and one of the few times where in most cases the sedan is more practical. The hatch SX4 is rather small and would easily fit in the subcompact segment. The build quality of the SX4 is mostly pretty good, its rare that loose trim is an issue. The SX4 for the North American market are made in Kosai, Japan.

My Score: 7/10 - Excellent headroom, reasonable materials, good build quality but some space issues.

Styling: The SX4 is styled by Italdesign Guigiaro studio and in the hatchback form I think it actually looks quite good. A bit quirky yet it seems to work all around. The sedan I don't think works nearly as well due to the high roof line. From the side profile it looks a bit odd due to how tall it is proportionally. Its sort of memorable but for an Italdesign car...its not that impressive and a bit bland in their portfolio.

My Score: 7/10 - Hatch looks good, sedan is a bit too tall, overall its a bit too bland considering its Italian design credentials.

Value for money: The SX4 is a car that sits between the subcompact and the compact segment. If you have a major concern about headroom but want a small car, the SX4 is easily the best in both segments. The availability of AWD makes it a good choice between the terrible Caliber and the more expensive Matrix and Impreza. In the fun to drive part, it has much tougher competition against Mazda and Mitsubishi, fortunately its very competent here. As an overall package it depends what you prioritize, as a Suzuki its resale value is not nearly as good as other Japanese makes. With AWD its not a fuel saving vehicle compared to others but if you like the other parts its good at, then its a great car.

My Score: 7/10 - Depends what you prioritize, its a good car in most levels but has its flaws.

Overall: 35/50 - A pretty good Suzuki, not perfect but here's hoping the Kizashi is even better.

2007-2009 Chevrolet Cobalt LT/Pontiac G5

2010-03-16T20:19:00.004-04:00

Time for another review, I still drive this particular car in a near daily basis but with all of them nearing their retirement age they'll all be gone soon.

Introduction: The Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 are the smallest cars that General Motors actually makes. The Daewoo Kalos with GM badges like the Chevrolet Aveo, Pontiac G3 Wave and the Suzuki Swift+ is the smallest car GM sells but doesn't make. Technically the Opel/Vauxhall Corsa is the smallest. The Chevrolet Cobalt was introduced in 2004 as a replacement for the Chevrolet Cavalier. The Pontiac G5 was initially introduced in 2004 as the Pontiac Pursuit only to be renamed as the G5 to fit with Pontiac's naming scheme. GM gave the Cobalt to their SS team providing the Cobalt with much needed performance upgrades. GM managed to score the best time on the Nürburgring for a front wheel drive car with the Cobalt SS turbo. The Cobalt has been discontinued with the Chevrolet Cruze replacing it entirely, the G5 due to Pontiac being closed will not have a successor.

These are easily the most common vehicle I drive. This is the first American vehicle I got to drive as well. Due to the low bar the Cavalier set for GM, I wasn't expecting very much from this car. Due to the Cobalt being a more common nameplate I'll refer to both cars using the Cobalt name unless its a G5 specific item.

Performance: The standard Cobalt is powered by a 2.2L 4-cylinder engine from the Ecotec series. There are differences in the 2007-2008 cars and the 2009 cars, the older 2005-2006 cars use the same engine as the 2007-2008 ones but with lower power ratings. Starting with the 2007-2008s, they produce about 148 hp and 150 lb.ft of torque. The 2009 produces 155 hp and 150 lb.ft of torque, while it seems like an updated engine the 2009 uses a different engine. Neither engine really feels that different especially in acceleration where the torque number comes into play. Its a reasonable engine its only noisy at the top end of its power band but that's where the engine puts out its hp. It accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 8.5 seconds, which is frankly pretty good. The fuel economy numbers are mediocre when it comes to city driving, its highway mileage however is better than the Aveo.

My Score: 8/10 - In a very basic car the engine powers the car pretty quickly and with a reasonable fuel economy rating.

Handling: You may be aware with all the recall news that the Chevrolet Cobalt had some power steering issues, the system used in the Cobalt is an electric power steering system meaning there's no pump to help you steer rather its done electrically. My biggest problem with these systems mainly comes from how little feel they have the worst case so far is the 2009 Toyota Corolla. The Cobalt while not as distant as the Corolla, its not that much better. The steering is not entirely light, but its doesn't feel very natural when taking it in a corner. The Cobalt's cornering ability is however surprising, it does reasonably well. The Cobalt is pretty composed even in a corner yet the ride quality doesn't suffer. The roll however is somewhat noticeable. I have no doubt the SS version improves the steering feel and the body roll but those are what prevents the car from getting an excellent score.

My Score: 8/10 - Good handling ability, ride comfort still good, steering feel is weak, suffers from some body roll.

Interior: The Cobalt interior is a big weakness in the car. The moment you enter the Cobalt you'll be greeted by an interior full of hard plastics. The standard 4-door car has a beige interior the 2-door has a black interior. While the interior is not depressing like the Aveo, there's a feeling of cheapness that you can't escape. Its not very interesting either, its a rather generic looking interior. There's only one poorly thought out item in the interior the trunk release button. You have to open a cubby hole to open it. I just remembered another one...the battery is part of your interior since its actually in the trunk. In the case of the 2-door the seat belt holder is very poorly designed that the belt often finds its way out of the holder. The Cobalt is one of the few cars out there that can be completely basic. You can have one with roll up windows and manual locks. Now for the build quality...its very inconsistent, there are some Cobalts that manage to hold up very well but others hold up very poorly. The bad ones have your standard squeaks and rattles, the cubby that keeps the trunk release button often comes loose, the dome light might fall out, on Saturday I encountered a car where the hazard light button fell out, etc. The Cobalt was assembled at Lordstown, Ohio.

My Score: 3/10 - Cheap plastic, not built very well, may not be very well equipped.

Styling: The Cobalt is probably one of the least offensive cars every styled. I can't really say much other than it looks very generic in essentially all angles. The Cobalt coupe is marginally better with nicer tail lights but the G5 coupe doesn't really look that different from the sedan. One might not like the G5's Pontiac nostrils, that's probably all I can find that one may not like.

My Score: 3/10 - Technically it has no styling whatsoever, only given a slight bump for the coupe rear.

Value for money: This is a very difficult one to say for certain. If you ended up with a bad one, its a very bad value for money. The Cobalt due to its enormous presence as a rental car hurts its resale rate. Depreciation is extremely damaging to the Cobalt much like the Cavalier it succeeded. If you got a good one, it doesn't look that bad as the Cobalt does not cost a lot of money and due to its size can be a bargain. There are a lot of forms of Cobalts with a large variety of options you could possibly have. As a regular A to B car, it does its job reasonably well but the segment is full of competitors meaning you'll have to be convinced of its low price and reasonable performance accepting the low rent interior and bad depreciation.

My Score: 5/10 - Largely dependent on whether you get a good one and whether you're willing to overlook the depreciation and bad interior since the price is good.

Overall: 27/50 - I can't think of a better definition of regular car than a Cobalt.

2007-2009 Kia Spectra

2010-03-07T18:53:00.004-05:00

Well it took longer than I expected but I'm finally putting up another review.

Introduction: The Kia Spectra was introduced in 2000 as Kia's replacement for the Kia Sephia. The Spectra was redesigned once in 2004. This version of the Spectra shares the same platform as the 2002-2006 Hyundai Elantra. It sold reasonably well as it was Kia's best selling vehicle.

Sorry I got nothing else, the Kia Spectra's history is pretty thin and has nothing groundbreaking or exciting about it. It summed up my thoughts of Kia as a company back when I first got the opportunity to drive one of these cars. Keep in mind this was when I had a very low opinion of the company along with Hyundai.

Performance: To begin with the engine the Kia Spectras I've driven all had the 2.0L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 138 hp and 136 lb.ft of torque. When it comes to accelerating the 0-100 km/h time I've managed to find with the automatic is 9.7 seconds which is pretty low. Getting a manual transmission for the Spectra provides a better 8.5 seconds. The engine isn't very quick, unfortunately its not very refined either. When the car revs past 3000 rpm it makes a terrible droning noise which can get on your nerves for highway driving. Most disappointing is the fuel economy numbers are not that good either, lower than its outgoing Japanese rivals. To sum up, not a very good engine.

My Score: 2/10 - Produces a horrible noise, not that efficient and not quick.

Handling: The Spectra was never designed to take corners quickly and unlike an equivalent sized Mazda3 this shows. The Spectra rolls pretty badly when taken to a corner reasonably quick. All that's left is to put enough power to understeer it. Steering response is extremely vague, while its not very light it still doesn't provide you with enough information. This can be forgiven if the ride comfort was very good but its surprisingly stiff. It feels like Kia corners when designing the suspension.

My Score: 3/10 - It rolls, steering is vague and the ride isn't comfortable.

Interior: From a visual perspective, the Kia spectra is not all that exciting inside. Much of the interior is very bland and very plastic. The materials do not feel they're of high quality and the seat material has a horrible habit of leaving stain marks from even water. The stereo is the same Kia/Hyundai unit used during the mid 2000s which is very low quality. The biggest upside to the interior however is how well equipped most Kia Spectras are. Controls do not interfere with your driving or confuse you with layout as they're set up like a Japanese car. The build quality of the car is mediocre, overall most pieces are put together properly but some smaller less important pieces don't stay in place. The Kia Spectra is built in South Korea.

My Score: 4/10 - A very bland interior with not very good materials, but its very equipped and easy to use.

Styling: The Kia Spectra was given a facelift in 2007 removing the 2 strange spaces between the grille. Unfortunately what Kia replaced it with was a very generic grille. The rest of the car is extremely generic in its styling as it looks like any typical car. Very little effort was put into styling the Spectra.

My Score: 2/10 - Its just a car with no unique features, its just so generic.

Value for money: The Kia Spectra starts out very well equipped for a car of its size. Its original MSRP is also very low all things considered. While the engine is terrible when put up against its outgoing Japanese competition its more competitive with less fuel efficient cars in the segment. I'm sure that during 2009 it was very inexpensive to buy a Spectra due to the arrival of the much more interesting Kia Forte. Kia also offered a 5-door hatchback which meant it only had to compete against the previous Ford Focus, Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe and the Mazda3 meaning the Spectra was the least expensive to buy. If you only want a cheap car well equipped and don't care about the overall weak package the Spectra is then a good buy.

My Score: 10/10 - Offers a lot and provides a lot of what would be options as standard equipment, all very a lower price than much of its competition.

Overall: 21/50 - A pretty weak car but sold at an attractive price.

*Note while I don't like the Spectra very much, I believe its successor the Forte is a much better car. Its done pretty much everything the Spectra did well except retaining the 5-door hatch but vastly improved everything the Spectra did bad.

Canadian International Auto Show Update

2010-02-15T22:56:00.010-05:00

I got back from the 2010 Toronto auto show after going daily since 2008. I can't really review any of the cars other than the ones I've driven at work but I can give a review about how the cars are inside in general. There would be too many cars to cover so I'll make a general statement about the state of each.

Acura: The entire lineup was so ugly I didn't bother. With cars this ugly I don't care if they're any good.

Audi: The Audi section was one of the busiest and for good reason. From the inside of even the base A4 you can tell the materials are of higher quality than a regular car. The built quality of Audis is extremely well done. There isn't anything to complain about the styling, most sport a very aggressive look. Price is really what may hurt Audi's sales, nothing they offer is worthwhile without spending more than 30K. That said they have lots of interest which is always good.

BMW: Of the three big German high tier companies it was BMW that was the least busy. Their cars are not the most stylish, in fact I found a lot to be either boring or ugly. BMW was hoping the 5-series GT would attract attention...it was rather lonely. The best looking car BMW offers for 2010 is actually the Z4. Inside a BMW its of pretty reasonably quality however there are some poorly designed switches and very cheap stalks on the wheels.

Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep: The Chrysler section was not very busy. I've driven most of the cars that this company has to offer and frankly none have been very good, some are just worse than others. Very poor interior quality and very poor ergonomics is what one can easily see in any of their cars at an auto show. I will say the Fiat 500 and the Fiat 500 Arbarth attracted more attention than anything else this company offered. It was the only reason I visited this section.

Ford: I can easily say Ford spent the most money at this auto show because they have the largest lot. They also strategically positioned their most important cars and had several examples of all of them for people to see. There were a lot of Ford Fiestas and from what I can see its looking like it will be a good car. Ford also had the most upcoming models to display with the 2012 Focus and the Edge both very important cars which will determine Ford's right to return to become one of the most important auto makers. I expect great things from Ford with how eager they seem to be.

GM: Due to how many models GM still has it had the second largest space for its cars. Its really clear GM wants to make a big effort to separate its current cars from its previous one. Their most important car was the Cruze and compared to the Cobalt it replaces its much much better styled inside but its still very plastic. The new LaCrosse has better seats than the old one and seems to be styled well inside, but there are still annoying touches of cost cutting in the materials they were willing to use. The Cadillacs were much better done and had less of the interior woes as the others. Overall it looks like GM is on the right track, its just not looking like it will be as quick as Ford.

Honda: The newest introduction to the Honda section is the Accord Crosstour...and its horribly ugly. Its almost as bad as the Acuras and once again I don't care if its any good its too ugly to be seen driving in. Honda also showed its CR-Z, I'm not sure if its the concept or whether its exactly what the production version will be. The rest of Honda's line wasn't interesting and many showed weak interior trim bits. This is also the final year of the S2000, its your last chance before Honda ruin its lineup with boring cars.

Hyundai: The Hyundai section was ridiculously busy, the key cars they wanted to show were the newly redesigned Sonata and the Tuscon. I can easily say they surpass their predecessors in interior quality. Hyundai has done probably the best job at making plastic not seem cheap and has styled them to work with the interior. If there's anything that might trouble someone, the price is slowly going up. There's a price to pay if you want a higher quality product.

Infiniti: The biggest change to the Infiniti lineup is the new M series. The M is actually a pretty handsome looking car, very nicely trimmed and appears to be priced within reason. The very popular G series of cars are also very nicely done, if you've been inside the Maxima then much of the interior of that car is present in the G cars. Infiniti will do well so long as they stick with what they currently have and continually improve them.

Jaguar: The Jaguar section is very small mostly because Jaguar doesn't offer nearly as many models as they used to. The new XJ is very similarly styled like their current XF. I guess my problem with this is the XJ has always looked the same for nearly 40 years, why not retire the name and call it the XL or whatever new notation they want to give it?

Kia: The situation with Kia is rather similar to Hyundai. Most of the current Kias are much more improved over the previous ones. The new ones are the Forte, Sorento and Sportage. All these cars are much better than the cars they replaced, the Forte particularly is superior to the Spectra it replaces. The prices with Kia are still pretty reasonable so its not yet ready to jack up the prices probably to built its name.

Land Rover: Much like Jaguar the Land Rover section is pretty small. Not a whole lot has changed for Land Rover other than interior improvements to the Discovery. They appear more luxurious inside than the boxy exteriors seem to imply. Tata ownership seems to not have affected Land Rover in any way.

Lexus: The car Lexus wanted to promote for this year was the HS hybrid, unfortunately its part of the brake recall that affected the Prius. As a result nobody was interested in that car, but rather the IS and the GS. Lexus quality is actually still quite high but the interiors are not styled as nicely. Another annoying thing is the prices they're very high, sometimes I'd rather toss out the luxuries in favour of a good driving experience in a high quality car.

Mazda: This is the company I keep scoring very high in my reviews, its a rather busy section in Toronto. The most important car Mazda is launching is the new Mazda2 and very similar to the Ford Fiesta. Several Mazda3s were available including the Mazdaspeed3. The only old vehicles left is the Mazda5 and the CX-9. The Mazda5 you can tell is old as its interior quality is not on par with the newer better design of the 3, the 5 will be replaced next year. The CX-9's future seems to be unknown due to the it being based off the old Edge, Mazda is no longer under Ford's rule meaning its free to use either the new Edge or build off the CX-7.

Mercedes-Benz: Despite their recent failings in quality, the tri pointed star seems to have done a great job at attracting attention. The new E-class is extremely good looking and the release of the new SLS halo car helps the image that Mercedes is serious again. While the C-class is a disappointment with its interior, the E and S are still very good. Its hard to say whether Mercedes produces the same level of durability and reliability they once did in the 80s and early 90s but this batch of cars is certainly better than nearly every car they offered in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Mitsubishi: The newest design at the Mitsubishi section was the 2010 Outlander. The styling of the Mitsubishis are actually pretty good considering their small lineup. Performance also seems to be something their very good at since they're willing to show off their Evo X. Interiors however is something that hurts all Mitsubishis even the 2010 Outlander. With better interior styling and higher quality materials Mitsubishi can rise to the levels of at least Mazda instead of relying on its warranties.

Nissan: Other than the Nissan Cube, very little is different with the Nissan lineup other than having the Quest minivan go missing. Most Nissans have decent interiors, it just depends on where it was built to determine whether it will fall apart or stay intact. The Cube itself is quite a surprise, I was expecting Nissan Versa level of quality due to their shared platform. I was wrong it was of higher quality material and its styled the way one would expect if one bought a car like that. Nissan is on the path to success.

Scion: The newest badge in the Toronto auto show, its a very old thing in the United States but its arrived in Canada this year. Looking at all its models I know all of them are outdated. Starting with the xD, its very difficult to say its nothing more than a different Yaris. The xB had some of the worst plastic I've seen in a long time. The tC is clearly too old and slow to be worth considering as a sports coupe. Its clear Scion is very late, bringing an outdated lineup is not going to be a good start.

Subaru: Their newest addition is the new Legacy and the Outback. I'm not as thrilled about the styling of the new Legacy as I liked the old one much better. Ever since Toyota bought shares into Subaru's parent company it seems as if the cars started to look duller. Nevertheless the Legacy actually had aluminum interior trim, I wasn't expecting to see that. It makes me wonder why nobody did this and instead went with faux wood plastic. So much nicer and easier to say you bought a quality product.

Suzuki: The newest addition to Suzuki is the Kizashi building on the same principles as the SX4 that was released not too long ago. The interior is of average quality, its not exactly bad but there are some touches not as nice as Hyundai's. The good news is the Kizashi comes fully loaded. One of the key items the Kizashi has is it comes with AWD in a class that only the Legacy offers this choice. If the SX4 is any indication it seems Suzuki is more concerned about the driving experience and offering a reasonably interior and a fully equipped car at a reasonably price. It now makes me wonder why they're keeping the Swift+, its absolutely terrible to the SX4 and Kizashi.

Toyota: The Japanese giant has been hit very hard with a huge string of recalls. Still Toyota is hoping its 2011 Sienna is a sign that change is about to come. Its too bad Toyota doesn't have its FT-86 concept car to wow people who wouldn't normally have been interested in Toyota. Now as for their other cars, you don't have to look too far to see quality is down a whole lot. I've already mentioned the Corolla's interior being terrible, the Tundra is even worse and the build quality isn't up to code. The new Prius still has the flimsy gear lever which I thought was awful on the old one. Toyota has a lot of work to do to fix its image problem, but I personally believe they have to revamp their whole lineup. Its sad to say but Toyota deserves to be in the state its in, they sacrificed its core principles for sales. Its paying the price for that betrayal of its values.

Volkswagen: The current largest auto maker in the world does not do too well in North America at first it doesn't seem apparent as to why. Of all the auto makers VW offers the most amount of diesel options clearly preferring diesel over hybrid. Their newest vehicle is the redesigned Golf and I must say its much better looking. Interiors are of reasonable quality, however in most cases they are rather bland and in some cases boring. Also VW should drop the Routan, nobody will be fooled with a low quality minivan hiding behind German trim. A big problem VW needs to overcome is their awful MSRP, one has to spend at least 20K for their new models. The City Jetta and Golf are outdated models.

Volvo: Finally the Sweedish car maker known for safety. Not a whole lot of changes have occured for Volvo this year but one can tell that despite this Volvo is still relevant. The styling is still pretty good on most of their models and they also are slowly adding more features to each car. Inside you can tell Volvo uses better materials than mainstream auto makers through their plastic quality if they have a weak point in their interiors its the Ford style switches. We'll have to see next year if Chinese ownership will affect what Volvo does.

Anyways that's all I got this week. Hopefully I'll be able to review another car next week.

2007-2008, 2009 Hyundai Sonata

2010-02-04T13:22:00.005-05:00

In an attempt to make up for the lack of reviews I am posting a second review today. The Hyundai Sonata, I split up the 2007 and 2008 from the 2009 because they're surprisingly different despite not looking very different.

Introduction: The Hyundai Sonata is Hyundai's mid-sized car. Originally introduced in 1985 to replace the disappointing Hyundai Stellar and ending Hyundai's rear wheel drive lineup. The Sonata is now in its 5th generation, the new 6th generation Sonata is ready to take over for the 2011 model year.

I wasn't really all that thrilled about the Sonata much like other Korean cars when I first started out. It was the 2009 models where I was surprised about how different Hyundai has become.

Performance: I haven't driven any of the V6 Hyundai Sonatas so my review will stick with the standard 2.4L 4-cylinder engine included in the base Sonata models. The 2009 has an updated version of the engine meaning it produces more power than the original 2007-2008 models. The original engine produced 162 hp and 164 lbs.ft of torque. The updated engine has 175 hp and 168 lb.ft of torque. The differences between the two is rather minimal although I will say the 2009 feels a slight bit smoother and less strained. The acceleration time is roughly 9.5-9.8 seconds from 0-100 km/h. Not a very quick car but its reasonably smooth and modest.

My Score(both): 6/10 - Not a very quick engine but reasonable for its power.

Handling: I've noticed some differences between the two version here. Starting with the earlier Sonata, when you take one of these cars into a corner the body roll and lack of steering feel is very apparent. The wheel isn't exactly light but it doesn't translate into an enjoyable experience. I found the earlier Sonata a rather boring vehicle to take into a corner. Now the 2009 Sonata is a much different experience. The steering is more sharper and a far more willing car to be pushed to its limits and giving a better sense of steering feel that the older Sonata wouldn't give. The roll is also less pronounced and dynamically a better experience overall. I can easily say the 2009 Sonata was my first taste of Hyundai turning its image into a better car company.

My Score(2007-2008): 5/10 - Very boring, quite a bit of body roll and not willing to play.

My Score(2009): 8/10 - Better steering than the previous version, less body roll and far more enjoyable to drive in comparison.

Interior: This is easily the biggest difference between the two versions. The earlier Sonata has a very plain interior design, there is very little styling input into the interior. The plastics look functional but overall not very nice and the stereo is very bad. While the old interior isn't a great place to sit inside it was well equipped and functional. The newer 2009s seemed to completely change and fix what was wrong with the previous interior. The plastics were of higher quality and were much nicer to feel and look at. The entire center console was changed to a higher level which really impressed me. The gauges had a nicer clean modern look with the white and blue touches while the older one was pretty dated. The stereo unit is a far nicer one although its still a troublesome item and likely the only thing in the car that needs repair early. The atmosphere of the newer interior really shows Hyundai's commitment to higher quality. The build quality on the Sonata is very well done either version. Most Sonatas in North America are built in Montgomery, Alabama.

My Score(2007, 2008): 5/10 - Very boring and unattractive, but built well

My Score(2009): 9/10 - One of the best economical interiors I've seen especially at this price range, its plastic but its very nice plastic. The stereo is the only small weak link.

Styling: This is always my problem with Korean cars in the past, they rarely put enough time and effort to style their cars. This 5th generation Sonata doesn't solve this problem but the coming 6th gen shows Hyundai has changed this. From much of its styling its clear the 5th generation Honda Accord was its major inspiration both rear and front are similar. The earlier Sonata does have a nicer grille than the 2009 and 2010s but neither really substantially differentiate themselves from the old Accord.

My Score(both): 2/10 - A nice copy job, but still a copy job and is not good styling by any means.

Value for money: The Hyundai Sonata relies solely on its low price range to take market share away from the bigger automakers. The Sonata does not disappoint here, both versions are very well equipped even in rather base specification. Hyundai's pricing is rather aggressive and trying to take away from Honda and Toyota. The deal looks a bit less impressive when one adds options for the Sonata but ideally the base Sonata will work for most buyers. The older Sonata was not all that refined and is less appealing especially with the updated 2009s which is better in almost every way. The newer Sonata is a very good deal for an inexpensive relatively large car.

My Score(2007, 2008): 7/10 - A pretty good deal but overshadowed by the 2009's improvements.

My Score(2009): 10/10 - Very well priced and far more refined than before, very hard to argue against recommending it.

Overall(2007, 2008): 25/50 - A so-so boring car with reasonable value

Overall(2009): 35/50 - A pretty good budget value mid sized sedan with one of the nicest interiors in a while, easily the most well updated car I've ever encountered.

2007-2009 Chrysler PT Cruiser

2010-02-04T10:39:00.005-05:00

I apologize for the lack of updates, this January has been particularly tiring and has only recently slowed down. Finally another review and this time of a Chrysler product.

Introduction: The Chrysler PT Cruiser was developed from the early Plymouth Pronto concept. Originally slated to be a Plymouth model, but with the merger with Mercedes-Benz the Plymouth line of cars would discontinue. As a result the PT Cruiser was given a Chrysler badge and was first released in late 1999 as a model year 2000 vehicle. Most PT Crusiers were 5-door hatchbacks however for 2005 Chrysler developed a 2-door convertible version of the PT Cruiser. The convertible PT Cruisers stopped production in late 2007 and the final vehicles being sold as 2008 models. 2009 was supposed to mark the final year for the PT Cruiser, however Chrysler has changed plans with 2010 now being the supposed final year for the PT Cruiser.

When the PT Cruiser came out, I couldn't believe how terrible looking the car was. I couldn't believe anybody would buy such a car. That was some time ago and boy was that a wrong assumption, particularly during the early 2000s there were loads of the things. Presented with the opportunity to drive one, I wanted to see for myself whether it was as bad as I believed it to be.

Performance: The standard PT Cruiser gets by with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that produces 150 hp and 162 lbs.ft of torque. This engine was developed during the days of the Neon while the standard Neons didn't use this engine, the SRT-4 Neons used a turbocharged version. What surprises me most is why Chrysler decided to use the GEMA engine when that engine is less powerful than the engine the PT uses. Due to the PT Cruiser's weight its acceleration numbers are not so good with a manual its 8.9 seconds but the automatics are 10.8 seconds to get from 0-100 km/h. That said, the engine makes an interesting whining noise when you gun the throttle. Overall though its not a quick car if you settle for an automatic.

My Score: 4/10 - The engine is old and today quite slow, but it does make an interesting noise and if the engine was placed in a lighter car or coupled with a proper transmission its quite competent.

Handling: I mentioned the PT Cruiser is a bit heavy the base PT Cruiser weighs about 3100-3200 lbs. The rear suspension for the PT is a twist beam design, essentially a torsion bar much like the Corolla. Things don't look good so far, they're not helped by the PT's truly poor turning radius. To turn a PT sharply at low speeds sometimes requires a three point turn. However when I drove it at regular speeds it wasn't nearly as bad as it seemed. I did manage to tripod a PT Cruiser meaning it can actually take some aggressive cornering. Steering feel is actually quite appropriate, far better than today's Chryslers. One does have to be mindful of the height where if you really went too far pushing a PT you'll roll it.

My Score: 7/10 - A surprising handler despite the less than ideal components and body, but the turning radius is poor.

Interior: Inside a PT Cruiser its how one would expect an interior from Chrysler. The plastics are not of very high quality and the switchgear is not in an ideal place clustered in the center console. Unlike other Chrysler products though it does have a bright interior instead of the usual darkness. The plastics are also better quality than those used on newer Chryslers too, the newer cars are rough. Due to the unusual shape the rear hatch space is very good, far better than the Caliber's. Another bonus over new Chryslers is the rear visibility, the rear wiper can clear most of the big rear windscreen and the C-pillars are rather small unlike again newer Chryslers. The build quality is actually not too bad, however watch out for factory defects where sometimes an entire batch have the same problem. The PT Cruisers for most markets are assembled in Toluca, Mexico.

My Score: 7/10 - Very practical, excellent visibility but silly switch gear location and not very good plastics.

Styling: This car was a very controversial one, I myself hated the way the car looked. Yet there are people who loved the way the PT looked. This was easily the most polarizing car of 2000, one where people really loved it or hated it. These days in terms of ugliness there are much uglier cars now than the PT. I still don't like the unusual shape nor the way the front looked. That said I'm willing to say Chrysler took a risk and it paid off.

My Score: 5/10 - Very polarizing, for that reason it was interesting and will always be a subject of discussion.

Value for money: A very big reason for buying a PT Cruiser in the early days was down to the way the car looked. It was a great buy in the early days if you wanted the styling and the practicality. Today the car is approaching 10 years old as a design and it hasn't changed almost at all since the early 1999 cars. Normally this would devalue the car instantly, yet among all the Chrysler cars you can buy...I have to say the PT is still the better car. Its design was easily more common sense compared to a newer Chrysler product like a Dodge Journey where ergonomics was thrown out in favour of stupid design. One has to keep in mind you are buying a 10 year old vehicle though and most other manufacturers have a competing product now. A Nissan Cube, a Scion xB or GM's Chevrolet HHR all newer designs. A PT is a reasonable Chrysler buy, just not a reasonable unique hatch buy. I will say the PT has an unusual charm to it, I wanted to hate it but I came out believing different after driving it. I know its not a good car, but its become very difficult to hate it now. I've encountered some former PT owners who miss their PT and likely will buy the final ones.

My Score: 6/10 - The car is outdated but for a Chrysler product its better value than the car intended to replace it, the Caliber. The car has a lot of charm which is difficult to do as well.

Overall: 29/50 - The PT Cruiser is an aging vehicle, sadly its actually still one of Chrysler's better vehicles. What a shame to see a once innovative company make inferior cars.

2010 Nissan Maxima S

2010-01-11T21:05:00.005-05:00

Yet another Nissan, this time the flagship.

Introduction: The first Nissan Maxima was introduced initially as the Datsun 810 in 1976 and was called the Nissan Bluebird Maxima in Japan. It eventually was renamed the Nissan Maxima when Nissan decided to retire the Datsun brand in 1982. The early Nissan Maximas had a lot in common with the Nissan Bluebird and thus in 1985 the 2nd generation Maxima switched from rear wheel drive to become front wheel drive like the U11 Bluebird and also switched usage of straight six engines in favour of the V6 engine. By the third generation the Maxima no longer shared much in common with the Bluebird and grew in size as Nissan's flagship vehicle. As the Altima grew in size, Nissan changed the Maxima's mostly unique platform only shared by the Infiniti I cars to the common Altima platform in 2004. This change also meant the Maxima was no longer built in Oppama Japan but rather the Smyrna plant in Tennessee. In its current version Nissan has further changed the Maxima possibly tapping into its roots from the past and brought back the "4 door sports car" from the 3rd generation Maxima.

Ever since I heard we were getting a select few of these cars I was very eager to drive one. After being disappointed with mostly US flagship cars and some Japanese ones, I was hoping Nissan would do the role of a flagship car well. For flagship cars I look at mainly the quality and essentially whether the car is a jack of all trades vehicle, if it isn't...it fails in my mind. A big reason I didn't score the Avalon well.

Performance: Under the Nissan Maxima's hood is a big 3.5L V6 engine, the famous VQ engine to be specific. This engine has been tweaked from the last Maxima now producing 290 hp and 261 lb.ft of torque. The only possible disappointing item for an enthusiast would be that Nissan mates this engine to a CVT instead of offering a manual. That said if you read my Altima review, you would have seen that Nissan's CVT is shockingly brilliant even when given an engine not all that spectacular. The Maxima's 0-100 time is...6 seconds dead. This is easily the quickest car I've ever driven, the feeling of power from this engine makes lots of cars feel slow. The responsiveness from the CVT means this power comes instantaneous and has no lag while changing gear ratios. So performance-wise, this powertrain combo is brilliant. Yet when you want to relax, the engine is extremely smooth and quiet. The noise is also very nice to hear. I can't think of an actual flaw to this combination, that's how good it is.

My Score: 10/10 - Fantastic engine and transmission combo, its extremely hard to beat

Handling: The Altima was not nearly as solid with the handling as I was hoping due to the lack of a sway bar of some sort. I always felt it had potential but could never reach it. The Maxima may share the Altima's platform but boy did they actually focus a lot of attention to the suspension. The Maxima has incredible amounts of grip and even when you're putting more speed into the corners it can maintain flat cornering which I've never experienced in a large 4-door sedan. Not even my car is this flat. The steering is very precise, you can feel how the car will behave just at your fingertips I have no issue with the steering. Yet despite this frankly excellent performing suspension's handling ability, it didn't at all sacrifice a whole lot of the comfort. Going over rough roads the Maxima while it felt the bumps, never really made me question ride comfort.

My Score: 10/10 - Excellent flat cornering, despite excellent handling ability ride comfort doesn't suffer all that much.

Interior: As Nissan's flagship vehicle, this car is fitted with a lot of buttons. You'll find buttons all over the place, its easily better equipped than most Altimas. There is a LCD screen fitted above the audio controls, I never really explored the usage but assuming you purchased it this is likely where your navigation package enhances. As for the general interior itself, I really like the seats since they're a combination of luxury leather seats with a racing seat. It provides not only excellent comfort but can hold you in place when you're cornering aggressively. There's quite a bit of room in the rear and the trunk space is pretty good as well. I also like the general atmosphere of the interior, its a lot less fake than many other flagship car interiors. Trim surrounding the buttons look and feel solid and its very simple away from the dash. All the nice items you got from the Altima are all here as well including the nice push button start. Considering how well the Altimas hold up, the Maximas now built in Smyrna shouldn't show any build quality defects.

My Score: 10/10 - Excellent seats, nice trim, very well equipped, has very little fake items, built well...rather hard to fault.

Styling: I wasn't a big fan of the Maxima's styling, I rather liked the previous generation's styling. However the Altima shares a similar look to that and I often confuse the two initially. Nissan wanted the Maxima to be different and when it was unveiled...mostly shock. The car's been here a while and I'm starting to see that Nissan was right. I still don't like the tears on the head lights but overall it looks very aggressive and sleek. The Maxima is very wide but the styling actually doesn't say to me the car looks fat.

My Score: 8/10 - The styling is growing on me, still don't like the tears though.

Value for money: The Maxima is a very expensive car, the starting price is at $39450. This makes it the most expensive of its rivals. In terms of price its rather close to the Toyota Avalon's starting price. Its not the largest at all, in fact the Maxima is shorter in length than the Honda Accord and actually most of the mid sized cars including the Altima. If the Chrysler and the Ford are given their strongest engines its not the quickest that said the Chrysler needs a very large Hemi V8 to reach a time under 6 seconds and the Taurus uses a twin turbo V6. Its kind of a shame, the Maxima could use a ultimate performance trim level. Only the Avalon is as well equipped at base spec and as an all rounder the base Maxima is more than enough. Just the driving experience is enough for me to toss out the Toyota, the Buick and the Chrysler. I haven't driven the new Taurus to compare the driving experience but the Maxima will be difficult to top.

My Score: 8/10 - Its very expensive initially, it also lacks a hyper performance package.

Overall: 46/50 - An absolutely fantastic flagship car from Nissan, easily one of the best cars on sale today.

2007-2009 Nissan Altima 2.5

2010-01-03T19:07:00.003-05:00

The first review of 2010 and the 50th review I've submitted. This is a car that I still drive and there are still quite a lot of cars to get through many of which are Korean and American. Still I wanted to finish off the 50th review and the first of 2010 with a rather common sight on today's roads.

Introduction: The original Nissan Altima was a replacement of the old Stanza, it didn't look all that different from the current Nissan Bluebird being sold worldwide. The second generation of Altima become a North American market only vehicle and designed by Nissan's design center in America but it did lose the original's unique head up display. The third generation Altima was significantly different as it was grown into a mid-size car with the Sentra taking over its original role as a compact. Today my review will focus on the 4th generation Altima its done yet a bit more to push Nissan's standards for equipment much like Altimas from the past with exception to the second gen.

When I was shown the Altima I was first amazed at the size of it, next was the key as it looked like no other key I've ever seen. Interestingly enough it was also the first Nissan I ever driven which is why I looked down on that 2006 Sentra.

Performance: The vehicle I have driven only has the 2.5L 4-cylinder engine. This particular engine produces 175 hp and 180 lb.ft of torque. The closest thing I've reviewed is the Chevrolet Malibu which had less power but accelerated in 9.6 seconds, but the Malibu is smaller than the Altima. The Altima comes in with a CVT and the last cars I reviewed that had this transmission are the slow Caliber and the Caliber related Jeeps. Sounds like this Altima will be just as slow around the 10 second region maybe 9. If you thought that...you'd be wrong. The Altima with its CVT accelerates from 0-100 km/h with its 4-cylinder in 7.2 seconds. This is the quickest 4-cylinder car I've driven that doesn't have a turbo. When its pushed very hard the noise the engine makes isn't all that pleasant. Yet despite its ferocious acceleration when driven smoothly its actually a very quiet car. The only time you will notice the 175 hp is when you try to approach the car's max speed, eventually it will slow down a lot. I have to say, this CVT if it can push a big car like this that quickly with that small engine and still make them fuel efficient...an automatic gearbox is obsolete.

My Score: 10/10 - Proof of a CVT done properly, the engine drones when pushed but a small price to pay for excellent performance from a small unimpressive engine.

Handling: Normally when you drive a car this big and family oriented the handling isn't as exciting as one would find on a sports car. With the Altima...its actually not bad on this front. When you push an Altima in a corner you will feel the weight of the car but you will also notice that it can corner well despite being front wheel drive. That said its very difficult to find the limits in the Altima because it rolls rather badly and without a anti-roll bar you're more likely to roll the car or roll out of your seat. It lacks the anti-roll bar because Nissan wanted the Altima to provide a good ride and adding one would spoil that. The steering on the Altima is very light and normally this produces a lack of feel I find, in the Altima's case its somewhat true. In very short turns you will get the feel of precision you get from heavier wheels, its when you make bigger turns that the wheel feels correct and accurate to your brain. All in all, the Altima does a reasonable job at cornering but it needs to be modified to get to its limits.

My Score: 7/10 - Good ability to corner but suffers from bad body roll and the wheel is a bit too light for precise feel, you feel that it could have been better.

Interior: While CVT provided changes for how the car moved, the interior got some changes of its own. Nissan proudly advertise that this car has a push button start, and they're right its standard for all Altimas. There are ups and downs to this arrangement, the good thing is Nissan has designed a slot for the key fob meaning you won't misplace it while driving. The novelty of this however does wear off. The rest of the interior is mostly plastic, the dash made out of decent quality plastic while items like the cup holders...weren't made out of good plastic. I found the seats to be comfortable...but not everyone did. I've only seen two colours for the interior the common one being black and the other is beige. The beige interior doesn't look very good at all. The Altima is very spacious with lots of interior room and trunk space. Also despite being a base model its extremely well equipped with conventional standard features like air conditioning, power windows/locks, etc. Lastly the build quality, now on the Mexican made Sentra I blasted that car for its awful build quality with trim pieces loose or falling off. I'm glad to say the Altima which is made in the United States has none of this. I've driven some aged Altimas and none have actually had issues due to normal usage, I've only seen once case where one cubbyhole won't close...because the last person in the car purposely damaged it. These are built in both Smyrna Tennessee and Canton Mississippi.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonably well equipped, very spacious, very well built, and a start button, however the seats may not be comfortable for some and interior colour is very lacking.

Styling: The Altima went with a more rounded shape than the previous version. Much of the front styling is a downscaled Infiniti G and with a rather different rear lighting arrangement. As a result I found it worked quite well, the Altima is clearly different from the typical Accords and Camrys, and at the same time looks great. I actually prefer the sedan form over the coupe, the profile flows more nicer in the sedan than the coupe. Yet it isn't on the level of extremely beautiful which is its only flaw.

My Score: 8/10 - Overall a good looking car with a very rounded shape

Value for money: This segment is incredibly competitive and the cars here need to stand out. The Galant and Mazda6 did their best in driving dynamics. I do not believe the Altima stood out there on that level. Performance however and mildly neat features like CVT and the push button start do make it stand out. None of the 4-cylinder cars in this segment match the Altima's acceleration, there are powerful V6 cars that size which couldn't match that. The Altima is as a result a good choice for one who wants an all around good car but needs to satisfy their lead foot. It would be great if it could satisfy all levels of driving dynamics since its well equipped and had the lowest price.

My Score: 8/10 - The CVT and the engine really make the Altima stand out when one experiences the power a transmission can do to a run of the mill engine.

Overall: 41/50 - A very fast family car that overall is pretty good, just some small touches would have made it truly outstanding.

2006-2009 Honda Civic

2009-12-27T20:42:00.004-05:00

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

2009-12-20T15:09:00.006-05:00

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

2009-12-15T20:29:00.005-05:00

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+

2009-12-06T15:51:00.004-05:00

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

2009-12-03T21:06:00.003-05:00

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

2009-11-18T20:37:00.006-05:00

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

2009-11-12T14:25:00.005-05:00

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

2009-11-12T13:54:00.003-05:00

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

2009-11-12T12:56:00.005-05:00

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

2009-11-08T20:46:00.003-05:00

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.