2013-2014 Nissan Versa SV and Versa Note SV

In this review I will be combining both Nissan Versa sedan and Versa Note as they're actually pretty similar. As always I will be providing two individual scores when necessary as there are some differences.

Introduction: The original Nissan Versa also known as the Nissan Tiida was introduced in 2004 in Japan. It only arrived to North America by 2006 as a model year 2007 vehicle. This was the first time Nissan attempted to compete in the subcompact market that was once dominated by Toyota and the Korean automakers. Unlike other automakers Nissan didn't attempt to compete on features but instead it directly went after the price tag and space inside. Nissan believed that offering North Americans the option of a inexpensive car with a sizable interior was the key to success. It turns out this was indeed what the market wanted and the Versa was easily the strongest seller in its segment. For the second generation of Nissan Versas, things have changed. The Nissan Versa sedan was released first in 2012 and was based off the Nissan Latio and no longer using the Tiida's design. The Versa hatchback was released in 2013 now following the direction of the Japanese Nissan Note. For the North American version its now called the Nissan Versa Note. Both vehicles are using Nissan's new V platform which decreases weight and increases rear legroom. Nissan is planning on once again dominating the subcompact sector with its previous strategy of low cost and lots of space which worked well last time.

With regards to the previous Nissan Versa it was not a car I actually liked in the same way I like the new Hyundai Accent or enjoyed like the Mazda 2. However there wasn't a whole lot to hate about it either because of its low price and overall it seemed you were getting what you paid for. So while I was not expecting much, I was certainly expecting to see improvement from the older design.

Performance: Unlike the previous Nissan Versa the 1.8L 4-cylinder engine is no longer available. This did give the original Versa the distinction of being one of the more powerful cars in the segment. This time around they only provide a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine which produces 109 hp and 107 lb.ft of torque. This engine is coupled to either a 5-speed manual transmission or the Nissan CVT. Both cars given the CVT accelerate from 0-100 km/h in about 11 seconds. This is in contrast to the older car which was capable of accelerating to that speed in 9.5 seconds. Fuel economy has apparently improved and this is likely the scenario if driven under the same conditions as government regulated tests. However due to how slow the new car is, I highly doubt you'll notice the mild increase as you'll be working that engine harder than the old unit. Highway overtaking? Forget it, even the CVT is no help here due to how little power you have to work with. I never liked the noise of the old 1.8L but with the CVT and how slow the 1.6L engine is, the drone is very long and incredibly annoying.

My Score(both): 3/10 - The engine does as you expect it to its a tad bit better on fuel, its slow and given the CVT its really noisy.

Handling: The old car handled rather decently but it was always lacking in steering feel. The new cars have indeed been given a new platform and it kind of shows...they're worse. The new cars when taking corners roll more than the older cars despite the sedan actually being shorter. The steering feel is even more lacking in feel than before, they give you very little feedback in regards to how much turn you've made. I don't know how Nissan has managed to make this small car feel like a large car with regards to agility but they have and these cars are worse for it. The ride comfort is the only area where I don't feel any worse, but its also no better. Both cars feel mostly the same, although the Note feels a tad bit better than the Versa sedan.

My Score(sedan): 3/10 - Lousy steering feel, lousy handling with so so ride comfort.
My Score(Note): 4/10 - A notch better in handling over the sedan, otherwise the same problems.

Interior: The previous Versa was never a looker with regards to the interior but it was at least usable and the corners cut were not always as obvious. The interior of both sedan and Note are pretty much the same and without a doubt show that Nissan went out of its own way to cut yet more corners. First to the only positive points, the interior headroom is once again better than its competitors. Rear legroom is definitely improved over the old car's already generous amount. The new stereo is better than the ancient unit of the old car. After that, things start to go a bit wrong. The HVAC controls however are extremely lousy with regards to quality, they're noisy and have a 33 cent store feel. Most of the other interior fixtures are either nasty looking or feel nasty including the gear lever. A pillar visibility is actually reduced in both sedan and Note. Rear visibility however hasn't changed, the Note does offer a backup camera as optional equipment not that its needed. The build quality is not reassuring either, previous Versas were poorly made and these current cars have already been recalled for bolts not tightened properly. Both Versa Note and Versa sedan are made in Aguascalientes, Mexico.

My Score(both): 3/10 - Roomy and spacious, but very low rent and not well made.

Styling: Normally I give cars a 5/10 on styling if I feel they've made a effort to try and be different despite me thinking they're really ugly. However with regards to the Nissan Versa sedan, its a hideous car where I see absolutely no effort to style it correctly. I find there are no noticeable lines and get a sense each piece was picked simply because it cost less. I couldn't find a single angle where the sedan looked good, and if it was given the rear lip spoiler it further increases its ugliness factor. The design is a total mess. Now the Note is a far far superior effort over the sedan. It has a MPV shape which isn't exactly ugly nor pretty. Nissan seems to be attempting a new styling language with the oddly shaped headlights integrating with the grille. The rear is standard hatchback with oddly shaped tail lights. I'll give it some credit for trying out different shapes, I don't think it worked but its alright.

My Score(sedan): 1/10 - Hideous, its styling by accountants.
My Score(Note): 6/10 - Modest looking hatchback, minor attempts to change styling but not enough.

Value for money: Both cars are very cheap. However when you buy the cheapest versions of both cars you will be missing some features. The base Versa sedan S is a manual only vehicle with no A/C, no power anything, pretty much a bare car with no actual notable features. If you want anything from the sedan you must buy the SV which adds $3000 extra to the price. The Note has almost the same problem except you can a few other items the sedan omits like choosing the CVT. The models I'm reviewing are the SV models which are both near $15K, suddenly these two cars are not that cheap. They're competing against the Hyundai Accent which is an all around better car unless you care for headroom. The Mazda 2 is a superior car to drive. Even the Toyota Yaris with its ancient equipment I feel is a better buy. When you remove the price tag advantage of the Versa it shows the real weakness in aiming for a very low base MSRP, the overall cars are simply below standard. Between the two versions, the Note is a better value than the sedan not only in its more flexible options but the sedan is just too ugly.

My Score(sedan): 3/10 - Not good value, inflexible options and in SV form too expensive.
My Score(Note): 5/10 - Acceptable at best, some decent options, and it does offer good headroom over competitors.

Overall(sedan): 13/50 - Its ugly and rubbish.
Overall(Note): 21/50 - Not very good.

Conclusion: I feel these cars are a sign of the horrible state of the world economy and even world thinking. Unlike how things once were where people value a product's quality and all around value, a lot of people are simply looking at the cheapest price. I as any consumer would love to see lower prices for everything, however I'm not willing to accept a huge loss in quality if that's what a lower price entails. These cars specifically target the car driver who wants the absolute cheapest car that doesn't feel small. I briefly touched on this in the value section, when you build a car based on the notion of a low MSRP you have to make sacrifices throughout the whole car to achieve that reality. The terrible drive, the bad engine, the ugly interior are all things that were sacrificed for that low, low price. Worse still I doubt many drivers want to accept the omissions on the cheap S versions, that means the price is no longer $11K or $13K but more like $15K. If you were going to pay that much...why not buy the Hyundai Accent or Mazda 2 which were built to be cars of that price rather than the lowest of the low? I liked the Mazda because of how much it did with that tiny budget, it didn't make you feel awful for paying so little for a car because so much of it was so nice, you do see some elements of cheapness but after a nice drive you forget about it. These Versas are the opposite, I feel terrible every time I drive them as it always reminds you that you're on a horrible budget with no sense of positivity. How do you feel good about yourself when your car is so miserable and just spreads that misery to you?

2013 Audi A4 Quattro

Once again I have failed to update on a frequent basis, I'm sorry. I will keep trying, like I am today hopefully I won't leave the gap as long as I did last year.

Introduction: In 1994 Audi has decided to redo their name nomenclature starting with the A6 and shortly after the A4. The Audi A4 is the successor to the entry level Audi 80 also known as the Audi 4000. The original A4 was developed using the Passat platform of the time. Unlike most of its competitors the A4 starts out as a front wheel drive car with an optional AWD system dubbed Quattro after the original Audi Quattro known for its WRC wins. The current A4 was in production in 2008 known as the B8, it also happens to the be largest A4 Audi has ever made. Some of this was due to Audi further adding entry level cars like the Audi A3 and the A1. This current generation of Audi is most known for its LED headlights and with Audi seeing major success in China, the current Audi A4 and A6 are enjoying record sales.

As with any new model of car I get to try, I am always eager. Some can end up as a pleasant surprise like the Mazda 2, others can end up a major disappointment like the Buick LaCrosse. With Audi, you often hear everyone saying they're good and they look nice. Good unfortunately is a pretty vague statement to the point where a car with suffer frequent minor and secondary failures but no major failures by some people is still enough to warrant it being good. As I do in these reviews, my intention is to break it all down and to see whether its truly a lovely car to drive or whether its competently good.

Performance: The standard A4 is given what Audi badges as the 2.0T. This is basically a 2.0L turbocharged 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 211 hp and 258 lb.ft of torque. Now if you're wondering what TSFI means, T is for the turbo, while the FSI is Audi's way of saying direct injection. The performance claim by Audi is that this engine gets from 0-100 km/h in about 6.5 seconds with the Quattro system and the automatic known as Multitronic. The automatic is a 8-speed unit and this did put them ahead of all its German and Japanese rivals on fuel economy, only lately being challenged by BMW. The engine itself is reasonably powerful and reasonably smooth, the automatic doesn't typically get in the way most of the time, however despite Audi claiming its 6.5 seconds...it never feels that fast. I'm often thinking its acceleration feels like its in the 7 second range, its possible that its not brutal in feel...but sometimes you do want that sensation of feeling like you made progress. This may be an issue of where the engine is really refined...that it doesn't even seem like its even there.

My Score: 8/10 - All in all its a modern power plant, I'm still doubtful about how fast it is, however its also not very memorable.

Handling: Given the Quattro system, not only does the Quattro move a bit quicker but its also shouldn't exhibit any of the FWD nastiness you get when pushing it through a corner. Well, after doing a decent drive in the A4...I actually wasn't impressed. The steering in the Audi is pretty quick, move the wheel quickly and the car will interestingly enough respond nearly as quickly. Having the AWD makes the car actually less dramatic than it probably should. Steering feel however is not something I felt, its pretty bland on this end as if they borrowed this from Camrys and Sonatas. The ride comfort...its a bit more harsh compared to the BMW E90 3-series or the Mercedes C-class. For an Audi I was hoping to get some sort of premium feel from the driving experience...instead I got a mostly uninteresting one. Its not bad...but for its price tag its also hugely disappointing.

My Score: 6/10 - Not terrible but also nothing special.

Interior: Now, when it comes to interior quality usually the Germans should do better than their Japanese or American counterparts. In the A4 there are some elements of quality that indeed show there are indeed differences. However its also a German car interior and they're usually devoid of any colours. The A4 is no exception, its a mostly black interior. What isn't black is some silver plastic accents...which I'm afraid should never be seen in cars costing this much. Its very strange when I feel an previous generation Passat had higher quality materials than this Audi. Then there's the control interface, its pretty frustrating to use the radio or the climate controls. The BMW wasn't easy to get used to, this Audi is even worse. You'll need some time getting used to this interface if you're used to normal cars because they're less intuitive. Lastly there's the build quality and here's an area the Audi should do well, and it does. I found no noticeable gaps, no squeaks or rattles, no missing pieces and no oddities that would suggest the assembly workers were sleeping. All North America Audi A4s are assembled in Inglostadt, Germany.

My Score: 6/10 - Well made, but frustrating interface, cheap looking accents and mediocre material choice make it average at best.

Styling: While the A4 has a corporate look to it, one has to be honest and it definitely has more presence than the Mercedes, BMW or the Lexus. I'm sure most people are sick of seeing black Audis but regardless of how common they're becoming they still look rather nice. The only minus for me is the LED day time running lights, they're definitely flash rather than functional. Overall despite its mostly standard sedan shape, standard looking rear, the front does kind of say its an Audi.

My Score: 7/10 - Mostly a standard design, but the front was mostly done well apart from its DRLs.

Value for money: When it comes to a A4 Quattro, it starts at $41K and that's a pretty high price. There are quite a few cars that can directly challenge it. A Hyundai Genesis, Volvo S60, Infiniti G37X, Cadillac CTS are among the few that fit that price point that aren't its usual German competition. Until the new BMW 3-series, the A4 was the only one offering a turbo 4-cylinder, the rest of the cars start out with a V6. When it comes to speed, the standard Quattro isn't fast enough. Interior quality is also challenged where Audi in my mind hasn't put out a particularly strong interior that will wow anybody, as a matter of fact this is actually a more frustrating interior. As a luxury experience, I'm afraid it doesn't do that well either. I can't say the Audi A4 is a car with good value. Its has areas of weaknesses but no true areas of strength.

My Score: 3/10 - Its competition is fierce and competitive, and the Audi doesn't offer much to justify its price.

Overall: 30/50 - This car is simply average and nothing special.

Conclusion: I wanted to like the Audi, I truly did. I wanted this car to feel at least like a German version of a Subaru with some notion of luxury. Instead it actually feels like a mainstream car that simply tacked on some moderately expensive items to justify its higher price tag and badge. I simply don't see much reason why this car should be considered when its just too average. If this had a price tag equivalent to a typical midsize sedan then my score would be changed to reflect that, but its going up against some seriously capable cars without offering anything unique or interesting. In the end after driving this car I'm left with disappointment that it feels as if Audi's simply cashing in on its badge prestige recently gained in China. I want to reiterate that its not a bad car, but why settle for average when for nearly the same amount of money you could simply get a much better car?

2013 Dodge Dart SXT

Well, I only managed 2 entries yesterday I'll try for some more today.

Introduction: The Dodge Dart was introduced in 2012 as the new replacement for the outgoing Dodge Caliber. This is the first vehicle sold by Dodge to share some underpinnings from their new parent Fiat. The Dart itself shares the same platform as the Alfa Romeo Giulietta modified to fit US standards. The choice of the Dart name was a surprise in that the previous Dodge concept paid homage to the Hornet name from the Hudson brand which Chrysler acquired after taking over AMC. The use of Dart instead is paying homage to some earlier Chrysler vehicles that initially started as a fullsize car and quickly was turned into one of Chrysler's earliest compact car only preceded by the Lancer. Chrysler is hoping the new Dart will bring Dodge back as at least a recognized competitor unlike the Caliber which was largely despised and ignored.

Chrysler products...I tend to not be kind to them for many reasons. The low quality standards, the awful ergonomics, the horrible drive they provide and particularly during the Daimler Chrysler days the woeful reliability. I have set the bar pretty low for Chrysler and when this car arrived I was hoping this car would at least do better and show improvement over the Caliber which I hated. If Hyundais and Kias have changed my mind, what's to say Chrysler can't, so I always do leave an open mind.

Performance: The base Dodge Dart uses Chrysler's new 2.0L Tigershark engine. This engine produces 160 hp and 148 lb. ft of torque. Chrysler abandoned the CVT from the Caliber and has went with a more conventional 6-speed with both manual and automatic options available. The earliest Darts were released with manuals due to delays on the automatic. The 0-100 km/h acceleration time on this car is about 9.2 seconds on the automatic. Its not the slowest car, but it does have slightly tall gearing at the start. The engine isn't all that remarkable, the power numbers seem nice but due to the weight of the car its one of the heaviest in the class weighing at 3185 lbs or 1445 kg which stunts its acceleration. The fuel economy is actually disappointing considering its one of the less efficient cars nearly as low as the 2.5L 5-cylinder VW Jetta. I'm not a fan of Chrysler Canada citing imperial mpg numbers making it seem like it does 50 mpg when in reality even the Dart Aero when given a manual can only do 41 mpg. So don't buy into that lie.

My Score: 5/10 - The engine is alright but not remarkable in any way.

Handling: Due to the Dart being given the Alfa Romeo Giulietta platform I was hoping that perhaps some of the Alfa Romeo magic was to be found in the Dart. When taken around corners the Dart unlike most Chryslers performed decently and rather competently. The steering is yet another electric power steering unit and being a Chrysler its lacking more feel than most of the others, so I didn't get much fun out of it. When pushed the usual FWD characteristic of understeer is evident. Body roll this time around is on par with the average cars in the segment. Ride comfort is a tad bit harsh which seems to be something Chrysler doesn't put much effort into. All in all, this isn't a Caliber which I'm thankful for, but if this is what an Alfa platform is like...I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

My Score: 5/10 - Its ok, again not remarkable but fortunately not terrible either.

Interior: This is normally one of the more dreadful aspects of previous Chrysler vehicles. With regards to the Dart things have gotten better, no longer are there really stupid ergonomically unfriendly parts sticking out waiting to destroy your knee. Some of the really ugly plastics have been toss out making the interior a more decent place. As for the majority of the materials, there's pretty much no soft touch plastics in the base Darts. The Limited as pictured will have fake leather for the dash but this is hard plastic on base cars. The seat is acceptable, although not what I'd consider comfortable. The controls are fairly straight forward and UConnect is actually not terrible. For visibility the C-pillar is a bit big and the usual problem of modern sedans these days where the rear windscreen is increasingly getting smaller. Build quality this time around seems to be ok, but with Chrysler vehicles you have to be a bit more diligent I have encountered vehicles they've sent that should have failed an initial QC inspection for instance last month I got a brand new Jeep Patriot and it was missing seat levers. The Dart is built out of Belvidere, Illinois, United States.

My Score: 5/10 - A kind of cheap interior but functional and no longer suffering horrible ergonomics problems as previous Chryslers have.

Styling: I must admit, I actually do like the styling of the Dart. The moment I saw what it truly was going to look like, I was pretty certain it was going to be better than the Caliber. The front has a very aggressive look to it, its more restrained on the baser cars but given the black trim for the grille on the GT it looks really good. The taillights are from the current Dodge Charger and to be honest it looks great, as it definitely allows the Dart to stick out from a sea of blob shaped cars looking mostly the same. The side profile also looks pretty decent considering its supposed to be a boring sedan. I do approve the styling, I just wish they applied the more aggressive grille to all the models rather than the faster GT version.

My Score: 9/10 - A lovely design.

Value for money: Considering the competition the Dart has stacked up against it, I don't think its looking too good on value particularly for a more base model. One of the problems these days is that the competition is actually rather competitive and average no longer does it. On features the baser Dart comes out a bit short, it doesn't have a lot of equipment for $20K for the automatic. It lacks stuff that a $18K Toyota Corolla would have. Going with the full base model at $16K its missing a lot of stuff including power windows, mirrors, A/C, etc. On top of that, you're not exactly getting the best car for your $20K because in the vast majority of areas its only mediocre. The only area I actually liked the car was for its exterior styling. Chrysler had to rebuild from the disaster created from the Caliber, but pricing like this will keep people away when they see a mostly mediocre car.

My Score: 2/10 - The competition offers more for less and for the Dart being average isn't good enough.

Conclusion: The Dart isn't a car worthy of dreading anymore when it comes to rental car roulette. Its actually a average car, but in a competitive market being average doesn't cut it. The only car I think it even has a chance of beating in the segment is the Corolla, unfortunately due to the pricing the Corolla has the name advantage and the price advantage. How do you convince a Corolla buyer to take a Dart when its more expensive and from a company that has a history of low quality cars? If Dodge survives this segment, the next gen Dart will have to be a game changer to erase the horrible memory of the Caliber but this particular one doesn't do that. It looks nice on the outside, but that's all there is to it.

Overall: 26/50 - A car with style, but not much substance.

2012-2013 VW Jetta Base and 2.5L

Once again, I apologize for a ridiculously slow update. Its been nearly half a year since I updated this blog and fortunately I have more entries. New to my reviews is my personal conclusion. Anyways here's some new cars to enter.

Introduction: The Volkswagen Jetta was introduced shortly after the introduction of the Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit. The Jetta became the compact car in VW's lineup, bigger than the Golf but smaller than the Passat. One of the few things that has differentiated the Jetta over other vehicles is the always available option of having a diesel even though many North American vehicles dropped or never introduced diesel as an option. After seeing disappointing sales for the 5th generation Jetta, VW has decided to build its 6th generation with a new direction. Seeing modest success from the City Jetta line from both Canada and 2nd/3rd world countries, VW has opted to go the route of lowering the base price of the car.

Now, whenever I hear of an automaker going the route of cheaper cars I worry greatly. The problem being is something good might actually be cut and reduced to mediocrity or worse something mediocre becomes bad. I do not have many positive things to say about VW's City line so I was not entirely eager about this car in this form.

Performance: Apart from the TDI Jetta which is a diesel, the other two petrol options are the 2.0L and the 2.5L. I'm going to pretty blunt here, the engine to choose is the 2.5L. The reason being is the 2.0L is an awful engine, this is a now 22 year old engine design which has not seen many updates and is still lacking things like multi-valve heads which was standard in a Kia Rio 10 years ago. The result is you get 22 year old power and fuel economy, and the 2.0L only produces 115 hp. By choosing the 2.0L you're driving the slowest car for 2013. The Smart fortwo in perspective is 11.3 seconds to 100 km/h, this Jetta is capable of 12+ seconds. Now as for the 2.5L, you're now dealing with a 5-cylinder so expect worse fuel economy over the competition but sadly this is still better than the 2.0L base engine. It outputs 170 hp and 177 lb.ft of torque which is better than previous versions. Acceleration, expect the 2.5L to take the Jetta up to 9 seconds with the automatic, the manual is faster. Case in point, if you're buying a Jetta totally skip the 2.0L and go straight for the 2.5L.

My Score(Base): 0/10 - This engine was outdated 15 years ago, VW doesn't seem to care, inferior in all aspects. It shouldn't exist.

My Score(2.5L): 6/10 - A mild improvement over the previous iteration but still not outright impressive.

Handling: When you take the Jetta around a corner you can expect the Jetta to actually handle most corners with some confidence. Any difficult corners will of course be meet with understeer as is usual with VWs. On the fun factor, I'm not inclined to say its all that fun, while the steering has enough weight to it...it doesn't have much feel either. Every time I took either versions of the Jetta while cornering it performed like any other car which doesn't make it special in any way. In some ways, this car is actually kind of boring where its alright but its neither good nor bad. VW definitely intended you treat this as an appliance as simply an item to be used and disposed of.

My Score(Both): 5/10 - Nothing impressive, nothing horrible, pretty boring.

Interior: This is one of the areas where you'd expect to see some cuts on a downgraded version of a car and the Jetta is no different. I didn't find the previous Jetta to be all that nice inside, unfortunately that interior was actually more colourful than this one is. This interior is very bland and uninteresting, no special features and on base models the wing mirrors are actually still manually operated. If you come into this car from any previous Jetta you can definitely see this interior is more barren and less substantial than before. In this case newer is definitely not better. Visibility wise the only issue is the rear windscreen being small, which is a problem on modern sedans as of late. Build quality is not great, you're not getting German build quality meaning seeing misaligned panels or loose trim is something to expect. The Jetta is built in Puebla, Mexico.

My Score(Both): 2/10 - Less colourful, less content, same disappointing build quality and lesser materials compared to a mediocre interior from before.

Styling: As always this is subjective, however in the case of the VWs my score is pretty easy. I consider these designs as a fail, not because they're hideous but because they're so blatantly lazy. Confusing a Jetta for a Passat is so freaking easy, the moment the car loses its visual identity is the moment in my mind it ceases to exist.

My Score(Both): 0/10 - Blends in so much that its unidentifiable.

Value for money: The base Jetta does bring out an attractive price of $15K, but when you find out what 16K gets you...you'll be sorely disappointed. Truthfully the base Jetta is only worth its price if you can find it for 10K new, compared to even base model subcompacts its awful. Now as for the 2.5L you have bring the price up to $23K...again not a good price considering you have to buy this one to not get shafted with the worst engine of 2013. When a Hyundai Elantra gets a decent engine and decent equipment at base spec for $16K why would you spend $7K more on a lesser car for a VW badge?

My Score(Base): 0/10 - Worthless.

My Score(2.5L): 3/10 - Ok handling and so-so power for a lot of money is a rip off.

Conclusion: Taking into account the price and how in general the car is mostly awful I can't in good faith recommend this car to anyone. I particularly hate when a company decides to stick it to their consumers with a relic of an engine just because they bought the base car. To me its assuming the consumer is too stupid to research and find out the 2.0L was a brand new design in 1991, if you had a 1994 Jetta for instance this was the engine you had and it was slow back then. The fewer people blindly buy a car for its badge, the less likely companies like VW can screw you over with an inferior car.

Overall(Base): 7/50 - Utter rubbish

Overall(2.5L): 16/60 - An overpriced, boring car.

2013 Scion FR-S

Today I review one of the most highly anticipated cars of the year. I was lucky to have been given a proper drive in one of these to get a full sense of what it can do.

Introduction: The Scion FR-S also known as the Toyota GT-86, has a twin sister car called the Subaru BRZ. The reason being is that this is a joint project between Toyota and Subaru(which Toyota owns 16.7%). The project was initially proposed by now current Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda as a way for Toyota to rejuvenate its brand amongst younger drivers. While Toyota is successful selling cars to mainly middle aged to elderly drivers it has struggled significantly with younger drivers. Mr. Toyoda with a team of engineers led by Tatsuya Tada tasked them to build and make production ready an affordable sports car that emphasizes fun but is practical enough to use everyday. What Tada's team found was that in order to build the best car for this goal they needed the propulsion to be rear wheel drive and the best engine configuration was a flat engine. Since the flat engine was considered the best choice, Mr. Toyoda tasked Subaru to do much of the engineering of the car since Subaru specializes in building production flat engines.

Subaru was initially skeptical, and they knew that by having this car in their lineup they will no longer have AWD in every model they make. After Toyota convinced Subaru to engineer and build the car, Toyota was still able to contribute to engine design by adding their D4-S direct injection system. Toyota's marketing of the car showed they were very confident in the car's ability to sell after a hugely successful unveiling of their FT-86 concept. As the production car was nearly ready, Toyota invited as many auto journalists as it could to see if they could make any more improvements, asking specifically if there was anything they didn't like. The car was finally released to the general public to buy, first in Japan where it was so successful that all future orders were backlogged to next year to prevent any further delay in launching the cars in other markets.

Anyways, the introduction is long, but this car does have a special history. There is a lot of hype generated for this very car. Many car reviewers have claimed many things about this car and thus far the vast majority of them have been positive. Even though the car is available for sale here, finding one to test has been very difficult as even the demos have been sold rather easily. Thus I was lucky to have been given a chance at a Toyota dealer I know very well. For me this is also my most anticipated car to drive for quite some time. So I was really eager to see if it lives up to its hype.

Performance: The engine that was designed for this car is a 2.0L flat four engine, this design is also known as a boxer engine. The purpose for this engine over a traditional inline-four was quite simply how much lower this engine can be mounted, this lowers the center of gravity and as a result this reduces how much the car rolls in a corner. The power numbers for this engine are 200 hp and 151 lb.ft of torque, this doesn't sound like much but this car only weighs about 2700 lbs. You have a choice between a 6-speed manual and a 6-speed automatic. For this test I only had access to the automatic, you're given paddle shifters to compensate for the lack of a manual. The acceleration time varies between manual and automatic as well, the manual is capable of 0-100 km/h in about 6.5 seconds, some managed 7 though. The automatic also seems to vary with 7.5-8.2 seconds. For driving on regular roads this car is more than quick enough, its got a lot of its torque early in the power band, but for full power you do need to hit the high end. The paddle shifters on the automatic are very good, very quick at shifting but for a car like this I highly recommend going with the manual unless you're unable to use your left leg. As an engine it may say 2.0L but it actually feels like a 2.5L, a word of caution though this engine does require premium fuel. The good news though is the fuel economy on this car is also surprisingly excellent, 30 mpg is possible with the manual.

My Score: 10/10 - It may not be outright powerful, but this engine is very good for what it sets out to do. Those who say its slow...they're lying.

Handling: This car comes with electric power steering and my first thoughts were "Uh, no its not going to be as good" but I was wrong. The steering tuning is so good that I couldn't tell it was an electric system over a hydraulic one. Even more brilliantly is the weight, not so heavy like a BMW but not too light to make it boring. This is one of the best steering system set ups I've ever come across. The actual handling is just superb. Given a limited slip differential your ability to take corners makes this car way easier to control a slide, and even if sliding isn't your thing the car has a lot of grip despite its stock tires being very regular tires. Body roll...seems non existent, honestly you can't feel it at all if there is any. Even the ride comfort is more than acceptable for a sports car of this type. With such comfortable seats and a surprising ride quality, its firm enough to handle well but not too firm that you get a headache over every little bump. This is one of the most communicative cars designed, in an era of cars which seems to have forgotten how to communicate to the driver. In such a light weight car like this, the rear wheel drive makes a huge difference in how balanced the car feels. This car doesn't boast a 50/50 weight distribution instead being apparently 55/45, don't let that fool you all this means is the car is easier to control in a slide.

My Score: 10/10 - I'd give it 11 or 12 but that's the limit of my scoring, absolutely zero flaws in how this car handles.

Interior: As an affordable sports car, luxuries are just not something you're going to find in these things. So instead of showering it with nice touches all over the place, Toyota seems to have focused on all the areas the driver will interact. The seats are amazingly comfortable and supportive. The driving position is one of the best I've encountered in a car. The steering wheel is very nicely done. The controls are in easy to reach places, not one button was placed in a weird difficult to reach area. The hand brake is in probably one of the best locations with the intention you're actually going to use it. Driving visibility is very good, the blind spots for instance are no larger than they are in an ordinary family car. The rear window is pretty large for a coupe. As for the downsides, most of the areas that aren't focused on the driver take the hit, the plastics are on the cheap side, the climate control knobs are very cheap, the trunk is small and the rear leg room is only suitable for people if everybody in the car is under 5'4. To compensate for the small trunk the rear seats fold flat and were purposely made to accommodate carrying all 4 tires or two big golf clubs. The build quality is the usual what you'd expect from Japan, very well done. This car is made in Subaru's Ota, Gunma factory in Japan.

My Score: 9/10 - Very driver focused to the degree you can ignore most of its faults. Although for most people this isn't a 2+2 coupe, rather a 2 seater with a roof and decent luggage space.

Styling: Many people think this car looks rather plain. I'm not one of them, yes its not as striking as the original concept's but for a modern car I think its well proportioned. Its aggressive at the front and its much the same story with the whole car. Much of the design was using previous Toyota sports cars as inspiration with the Toyota 2000GT as one of the big inspirations in the shape. While not the most beautiful cars, its still to me a very good looking one no matter where you look at it from.

My Score: 9/10 - For me, very good just not brilliant to match the way it drives, oh well.

Value for money: At $25,000 this car is affordable in the realm of sports cars, the realm of all cars this is slightly more expensive than most midsize cars. As far as RWD sports cars go this is a tad bit expensive than a regular V6 Mustang. If you wanted power, you know this isn't the car for you. If you wanted a lot of fun in a car but found the Mazda MX-5 either too expensive or too unpractical then this is the car for you. The amount of effort Toyota and Subaru focused on the driver with this car is beyond what every car in much of the segment does. The stats mean nothing for this car, all that matters is that smile on your face and this one definitely delivers that for very little. As I noted earlier if power was what you wanted, then this car will disappoint you but to be honest you were already better served with the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger and updated Hyundai Genesis coupe. Those of you like me who were waiting for that affordable, nimble, fun, RWD coupe then this is the very car you've been waiting for. The way I see it, cars like this you can enjoy even if you're making your way on the track slowly and because you can have so much fun driving so slow then it'll always be a blast even on busy streets. Powerful cars on the other hand are best when the roads are clear and there's a long enough straight to experience the power long enough. Do it in the wrong place and you either crash or make your local police department happy for filling their speeding quotas. Considering the equipment you get in this $25K package and how much fun this car is...each cent in that $25K is well worth the money. Don't get it into your head though that this is a competitor to a Porsche Cayman, its an excellent car but if Toyota/Subaru were allowed to increase the price there are improvements they would've made.

My Score: 10/10 - Almost nothing competes against it and its superb in every area that matters.

Overall: 48/50 - This is the best car I've driven. If you love driving, you'll love this car.