2007-2009 Volkswagen City Golf

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 The City line has been replaced by the new base Mk VI Jetta which has slashed its price to be one of the least expensive new VW models.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.

2007-2010 Hyundai Accent

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.

2007-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo

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

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

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

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.

2007-2010 Mitsubishi Outlander

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

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

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.

2007-2009 Pontiac G6

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".

2007 Jeep Liberty

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.

2007-2009 Chevrolet Cobalt LT/Pontiac G5

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.