2010-2011 Mazda3 GX

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

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.

2011 Ford Fiesta SE

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

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.

2010-2011 Ford Fusion SE, SEL V6

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.

2007-2011 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.

2011 BMW 323i

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.

2008-2011 Ford Focus SE and SES

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.

2011 Ford Mustang GT Convertible

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.