2007-2009 Chevrolet Cobalt LT/Pontiac G5

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



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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-2009 Chevrolet HHR LS

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-2009 Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana

I almost forgot this one, I don't drive too many different types of minivans so it sometimes is easy to forget them.



Introduction: The Chevrolet Uplander and Pontiac Montana are both part of GM's minivans. The earliest GM minivans were introduced for 1990 as the Chevrolet Lumina, Pontiac Trans Sport and the Oldsmobile Silhouette. GM's minivans have only gone through 3 generations with the early Luminas lasting nearly 10 years in production. These minivans were GM's attempt to take on Chrysler and its Caravan which sells in very high volume. Ford was the first to quit the minivan business after the Freestar's disappointing sales, now GM also put its minivans on the chopping block and have so far not mentioned a succeeding minivan beyond the 2009 model year.

Like I mentioned in the last review, I wasn't too thrilled about the GM minivans either. I don't even get much in terms of choices of minivans its either GM or Dodge, now its all Dodge.


Performance: The GM minivans are all powered by a 3.9L V6 making this the biggest V6 available for a minivan outside of the highest spec Dodge Caravan. The Canadian spec V6 is flex fuel compatible allowing you to put in E85. These engines produce 240 hp and 240 lb.ft of torque making these the least expensive but most powerful minivans. Unfortunately they do not produce the best acceleration numbers since they can only do 0-100 km/h in 8.1 seconds. Better than the least powerful minivans but not close to Toyota or Honda who both have smaller V6s and are still quicker. You do not really notice the size of the V6 in the Uplander/Montana since it doesn't move the van that quickly, its better than the Caravan but it doesn't feel fast nor acts like the engine is that quick.

My Score: 8/10 - Engine is adequate in performance but not efficient versus Toyota or Honda

Handling: The Uplander as a minivan is not designed to tackle corners. Taking these minivans to a corner quickly, you'll notice huge amounts of roll and at the same time not feel all that excited until you probably get the sense the van will roll over. They're much easier to park than the Caravans mostly with their better turning radius. They're not fun however, the wheel is very lightly weighted and thus produces little feel. I guess its suited for moms but as a driver who likes driving these were a bore to drive.

My Score: 3/10 - Not good at corners, bad body roll, lacking steering feel.


Interior: With minivans, you have to look at the clever ways they use space or innovative features that make them worth buying over the competition. The short wheel base GM vans do not provide very good trunk space and do not have Chrysler's clever stow n' go. Even worse as base vehicles they only provide 6 seats making it a somewhat pointless minivan until you go further with options to get 7 seats. Most minivans offer 7 or 8 seating, its the Crossover SUVs that offer mostly 6 or 7 seats. As for cargo space, you can fold the seats but they take up extra room versus the Caravan which folds the seats to floor level. The van's materials are pretty cheap and mostly unattractive. The wheel like I mentioned about the Grand Prix is also gigantic, not sure why. Last but not least the build quality...the GM minivans have horrid build quality. I've seen some vans where the plastic tag for the carpets that were not removed meaning sometimes you see a tiny plastic spike in your carpet. They rattle very often due to loose pieces all over, the cup holder often fails and I've once had door trim come out. Worse however is sometimes the trim surrounding the door rails fail and prevent the sliding door from opening. They're almost as bad as Trailblazers in this sense. They are built in Doraville, Georgia, USA.

My Score: 2/10 - 7 passenger seating is an option, no interior innovation and very badly built

Styling: The Montana is a pretty standard looking minivan, the Uplander however has a horrible looking grille. Some automobile articles think the Uplander is one of the worst vehicles in terms of style...I'll only agree if they specifically focus only on grilles. Taking out the grille, the rest of the van is generic. The Edsel looked very good if it weren't for that grille it had. There are uglier vehicles out there.

My Score: 5/10 - Generic minivan styling but the Uplander has a terrible grille.

Value for money: These minivans can only compete well if they are at their base MSRP unfortunately the fact that the 7 seating capacity is an option puts it in trouble. There's nothing special about the interior versus the Caravan. Its not very luxurious either compared to the Japanese. This current generation is also horribly unreliable, the traction control always believes it has a problem. Other than being heavily discounted these are not worthwhile vans.

My Score: 2/10 - 7 passenger capacity being an option, poor reliability, offers very little compared to the competition.

Overall: 20/50 - These are not good minivans, they're cheap for a reason and it seems GM realized it was no good and killed it for good reason.

2007-2009 Chevrolet Equinox, Pontiac Torrent, Suzuki XL-7

Just thought of one car that's pretty much gone from our fleet. The Chevrolet Equinox, Pontiac Torrent, Suzuki XL-7, these are all pretty much the same SUV.




Introduction: The Chevrolet Equinox was introduced as a replacement of the old Blazer. The larger Trailblazer was introduced while the Equinox remained GM's smaller SUV in order to compete against the Ford Explorer and increasing Japanese entries. The Pontiac Torrent would fill the gap left by the very controversial Aztek. Suzuki decided on joining with GM to make an addition to their SUV entry with the XL-7. The fate of the Torrent went with Pontiac and would go no further than the 2009 model year while the XL-7 due to very poor sales would also be discontinued as a 2009 model. The Equinox however had better success and has just entered its second generation.

As usual from the beginning I'm not too thrilled about SUVs so I really didn't care about these three. I actually initially thought the Suzuki was a bit different mostly due to the styling until I got inside and saw the exact same dials from the Equinox and Torrent.


Performance: The Equinox and Torrent had two choices of engines the 3.4L V6 and the 3.6L V6 while the Suzuki only got access to the 3.6L V6. All the vehicles I drove had the 3.6L V6, judging from the numbers the 3.4L V6 is definitely not the engine you want to power an SUV. The 3.6L produces about 252-264 hp and 243-250 lb.ft of torque, it differs with each brand. All three SUVs accelerate from 0-100 km/h in about 7.8 seconds. This SUV is pretty well powered and the V6 is reasonably smooth. Oddly enough while this is one of the quickest vehicles I've driven they didn't seem all that fast.

My Score: 9/10 - Very well powered with the 3.6, its not very exciting however despite its performance.

Handling: The three SUVs handle pretty reasonably and offer no real surprises. You cannot push them as hard as good handling cars but they don't feel as heavy as some bigger cars or SUVs. The steering feel is pretty reasonably for a GM vehicle. All in all they corner like you'd expect a regular SUV to, the moment you attempt to try anything rash you'll notice it really is just a regular SUV.

My Score: 6/10 - Not bad, but nothing outstanding.


Interior: All three use very similar interiors, there are minor differences but they're pretty negligible and do not affect the operation of anything in the SUV. As SUVs they offer quite a lot of space as 5-seaters and also offer pretty good trunk space. The materials used to construct the interior are of mediocre quality, you can't really say they're good because they look quite average but they're pretty solid. The colours inside also vary, the Suzuki offers a lightly coloured interior while the Pontiac is pretty dark inside. The A/C unit is pretty powerful so in the heat, this vehicle is quite comfortable. Build quality in these SUVs seem to be pretty good making it much better than the Trailblazer/Envoy. All of these SUVs are built in Ingersoll, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 9/10 - Spacious interior, good A/C unit and pretty good build quality

Styling: The Torrent and Equinox are basically the same aside from the grille. They're pretty generic looking SUVs. The XL-7 is actually the different one but I thought it looked pretty odd from the rear and I didn't think the grille looked very good.

My Score: 5/10 - The Torrent and Equinox look generic, the XL-7 looks weird.

Value for money: Both Torrent and XL-7 have ended up being terrible value for the money due to Pontiac being cut as a brand and the Suzuki selling so poorly. The Equinox is the best deal of the three however, despite the power I didn't really notice anything particularly outstanding. I didn't even drive the base vehicles making me wonder what exactly is the selling point. They're just a bit too generic in my mind.

My Score: 5/10 - Generic Crossover SUVs, the Torrent and XL-7 only have worse resale rates.

My Score: 34/50 - In the end there's nothing particularly bad about these SUVs, they have a good engine although I'm struggling to think of what makes them different.

2008-2009 Chevrolet Malibu LS

Still a lot of cars to post up, I'll see how many I can do today.


Introduction: The Chevrolet Malibu is one of GM's older names the first Malibu was introduced in 1964 until GM canceled it in 1983. The Malibu name was later revived after the demise of the Corsica/Beretta in 1997. I'm not sure why GM had to retire the Corsica name since I've never heard of this one being a horrible car like its predecessor the Citation was. Anyways GM brought back the Malibu and unfortunately for GM it was a pretty weak effort to combat the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, I remember seeing the return of the Malibu...and the car was pretty dull and the interior was very disappointingly cheap...like you'd expect from the Cavalier. Turns out that it ended up doing only well as a fleet car which is a failure unless the car was designed for fleet sales only ie. Ford Crown Victoria, Toyota Crown Comfort, etc. Finally someone at GM seemed to realize the Malibu had absolutely nothing to convince you to switch from Honda or Toyota and decided the whole car needed...a reasonably budget the result is the newly designed 2008 Malibu.

When I was given the opportunity to drive this GM car...I knew that GM had to do much more than a mild improvement to even think of challenging the other mid-sized sedans. Up until I drove the Malibu, all the GM sedans I've driven were pretty disappointing and generic. With all the US media hype over this car I had to look at this car more critically to see whether GM finally understood what its been doing wrong for nearly 30 years.


Performance: Well I've only driven the LS model which is the base model and has the not nearly as strong 2.4L 4-cylinder. Its nothing like the first Ford Fusion which had a horribly matched engine but this is not a very powerful car with an engine like this. It only produces 169 hp and 162 lb.ft of torque which is not all that great for acceleration making from 0 to 100 km/h in 9.6 seconds. The engine is refined enough to be quiet enough unlike a Dodge product so in some sense its not all that bad.

My Score: 6/10 - The engine isn't all that powerful, the V6 in terms of power is much better.

Handling: One of the annoying things about American cars has always been the fact they are made purely for the highway, the old Taurus was like this and as a result the handling was often terrible. The new Malibu fortunately avoids this problem, the handling on the Malibu while not being that great is not terrible as one would expect. The big problem here for the car however is its weight, at 3500 lbs its heavy and you start to feel this once you make the corner. Unlike what Toyota has done, the steering for the Malibu isn't vague it actually does feel connected which is a massive improvement over other older GM products.

My Score: 7/10 - Decent handling, good steering feel but the car is noticeably heavy


Interior: This used to be GM's anchilles heel...in the 1990s you jump into a GM car and can see the awful sea of grey, dull plastic. It was so uninspired and very cheap at the same time that you hoped it was a rental or one of the cheapest cars you've bought. The VP of GM by the name of Bob Lutz noticed this and was willing to basically say the GM interiors back then...were crap. The new Malibu made it a goal that the interior had to look like someone actually spent time and money styling it instead of before just throwing cheap parts from a Cavalier and hope the buyer was too dumb to notice. Mission accomplished, there are some noticeable neat looking styling items like the gear shifter with its neat lights, the much much nicer dashboard(a fake digital by the way) and a general inviting atmosphere of the interior. I liked the implementation of this interior. Its not the most beautiful interior because of the plastic but these days, nearly all the interiors of cars are plastic. As for the build quality its made in the USA and so far...I haven't seen a major defect, only a minor misalignment which Toyota these days has.

My Score: 9/10 - Very very good effort, if it didn't have to use plastic it would have been perfect.

Styling: The exterior styling of the Malibu is not something I particularly liked. The good news is its not nearly as dull as the last two generations. The front has a nice headlight set up...but I think it was sort of ruined by how large the grille became, kind of like seeing a person with a massive nose. The rear just didn't really match with the front, they're definitely unique but don't quite have pronouncement that makes certain unique styling good.

My Score: 6/10 - They tried something different, I just don't think it worked out as well

Value for Money: This is really where GM has to fight its hardest, the midsized sedan segment is getting much harder to take on. Accord and Camry are extremely well established and haven't made the major screw ups compared to Ford and its ill fated midsized Taurus. GM has never been considered a major player here and thus needs to prove its better than the establishment. I'm not quite sure it does, the Malibu is several times better than before but I'm not sure it has done enough to prove GM will no longer resort to the old bad days of accountant designed rubbish. If your a American patriot, then yeah this is your best choice and unlike before you'd actually support a good product unlike the Chrysler Sebring.

My Score: 6/10 - In a very competitive market, there isn't anything truly outstanding to make it the new standard for midsized cars. I gave the Mazda 6 a great score because it did quite a few things other midsized cars wouldn't do at those that did, the price was much lower for a still high quality product.

Overall: 34/50 - A pretty fair score, its definitely far from being bad like the last Malibu but its still not quite that brilliant either.

2008 Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon

Time for a few new additions to the growing amount of reviews on cars. This update will include pick up trucks, keep in mind I have absolutely no idea what's necessary from a pickup truck on a farm, I assume power is very important and durability(which I can't test without being fired) all I can test are their road manners and whether its a decent idea(they get incredible rebates) or a stupid idea to get one as a road car. First one up, the Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon. I'll just refer to it as the Canyon since there's less typing...I didn't notice a single difference apart from badges.


Introduction: The GMC Canyon was introduced in 2004 to replace the old GMC Sonoma/Chevrolet S10 which was introduced since 1982 but unlike cars was only updated once in 1995. Facing increased competition particularly from Toyota and Nissan, the Canyon will likely be updated much more often than the old Sonoma. Something that didn't get transferred from the older truck was the SS edition for the S10s, neither Colorado or Canyon have any special performance editions.

When I saw this truck, I've driven the Dodges by that point and don't quite have a high opinion of them. So when I was going to drive the Canyon I sort of had a slightly biased opinion against it, despite knowing that GM cars are better than Chryslers...I still wasn't sure about pickup trucks and that driving one of these will clear this up.


Performance: The Canyon gets a selection of 5 engines...I've only had exposure to one engine being the 3.7L I5, yes I typed that right its a 5-cylinder. The other selections are 2 I4 engines, another I5(a 3.5) and the 5.3L V8. As a rule of thumb, the more powerful the truck the more useful and I'm guessing the I4s are best used as inexpensive farm transportation. For carrying and pulling things you'll need at least the I5s. I'm not sure why they didn't go for an I6 since the Trailblazer already uses that. The I5 is reasonably powerful moving a pretty small truck, although its not the smoothest unit due to the odd number of cylinders, so its not balanced. That said I've driven accelerates to 100 km/h in about 8.2 seconds. That's not great but its a truck so its heavier than a typical car.

My Score: 6/10 - The engine is reasonably powerful, but isn't smooth nor that quick.

Handling: I understand this is a truck and that handling isn't their strong suit. Driving one of these things was pretty stable and the ride quality actually doesn't suffer all that much. Its no luxury sedan but its better than what Dodge could manage. The wheel has very good feedback and turns feel pretty natural. Its ability to corner is pretty similar to trying to corner a big heavy car so you do know that is a good idea to slow down.

My Score: 7/10 - For a truck, the ride was decent and didn't seem as awful as I was used to


Interior: The biggest thing about pick up truck interiors is you shouldn't expect luxuries. The best you can hope for is something functional and not totally depressing. I guess the Colorado does this, the seats are decent and...umm it has power options. I can't really describe any more since its just so basic and what you'd expect. This truck is made in the United States, I haven't seen any faults in the build quality yet although there's little in it for the interior to go wrong. Since this is a smaller pick up truck its easier to get in it.

My Score: 5/10 - A basic interior, nothing more nothing less.

Value for Money: This one is a bit more tricky for me, the Canyon is about the same price as a Camry. If you wanted a basic rugged road vehicle and intend to go off-roading then you'll definitely want a pick up truck more than a 4-door sedan. Against the other trucks its got the best engine selection choice from I4, I5 to V8 so it is the more versatile.

My Score: 6/10 - Its good good engine choices and isn't too expensive to buy

Styling: I do like the way the Canyon looks in both badge forms, but somehow the GMC badge makes it a tad bit better. Maybe it goes better with the grille, I don't know. The headlight setup is actually quite interesting but the rear is pretty standard.

My Score: 7/10 - Nice headlight set up, on an otherwise standard looking pickup truck.

Overall: 31/50 - A decent pickup truck on the road, nothing particularly outstanding though other than having a V8 option.

2008 Chevrolet Trailblazer

The last review of this week.


Introduction: The Chevrolet Trailblazer is GM's mid sized SUV marketed as an upscale version of the S-10 Blazer. Like the S-10 Blazer the Trailblazer is a truck based SUV and thus is more rugged for off roading than a crossover. The EXT trim version of the Trailblazer had a 3rd row of seats, it was also longer than the standard Trailblazer. The Trailblazer would remain in production until 2008 and continued to sell model year 2009s while the S-10 Blazer would retire in 2005.

The Trailblazer was never a noteworthy vehicle in my mind. I didn't see these nearly as often as the S-10 Blazers or Ford Explorers. I didn't really know what to expect from this vehicle...oh boy did I find something unique.


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

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

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

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


Interior: The Trailblazer has an interior that is completely composed of plastic. Much of the items are actually used in the Colorado pickup truck, so you don't get much in the sense of luxuries. Its not a depressing interior by any means but being so full of plastic its not very attractive. Spacing in the Trailblazer is pretty good in my mind. The biggest let down of the Trailblazer however is the build quality. I've never come across a vehicle where every single one I encountered had several build quality problems. These are the worst built vehicles I've encountered. A lot of the plastic covers are loose, lots of interior gaps and even the exterior wasn't put together properly. These are built in the United States, I do understand why there's anger at the UAW since a vehicle built like this should be deemed unacceptable by all companies. There are only two possible culprits, the parts people building parts that don't fit or the worker who didn't put them on properly.

My Score: 1/10 - Not a good looking interior to begin with, ruined by the worst build quality in the world.

Styling: The Trailblazer is a pretty standard looking SUV all things granted. In some colours it does look somewhat better than normal. Aside from the panels being put on wrong, the plastic on the bumpers does look very cheap and does not look good for its image.

My Score: 6/10 - Decent SUV style, cheap plastic bits however cheapen its image

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

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

Overall: 24/50 - A ho hum SUV that was killed for a few reasons, the interior is horrible and specialized SUVs are more versatile.