2009-2010 Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe

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



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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-2009 Pontiac G6

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-2009 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.

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.

2007-2008 Pontiac Grand Prix

Oi, it looks like work hasn't slowed down very much and this month is no different. Here's another big batch of reviews hopefully I finally covered all the retired cars or soon to be retiring vehicles from my workplace fleet. Here's one that will certainly retire very soon.


Introduction: The Pontiac Grand Prix is a very old nameplate for the Pontiac brand. Its also one of the last surviving actually named vehicles before Pontiac started using the G names like G5, G6 and G8. The original Pontiac Grand Prix didn't change very much in terms of its size since every single Grand Prix is a full sized vehicle. However the earlier RWD Grand Prix were merely just large 2-door coupes, which were pretty common back then. It wasn't until 1988 that the Grand Prix switched from RWD to FWD, it also no longer remained just a 2-door coupe it also was a 4-door sedan. Since its entry as a FWD vehicle it also was given forced induction for power mostly in the GTP trim levels. The last Grand Prix dropped the 2-door coupe body style and had two additional trim levels from the GXP supercharged V6 and the GTP was given a V8. However due to poor consumer sales GM decided to replace the Grand Prix with the Australian RWD Holdon Commodore called the G8 as a Pontiac.

I wasn't expecting all too much from the Grand Prix, I never knew anybody who wanted or considered this car. It however is a pretty big car and seemed pretty cheap compared to everything else non-GM.


Performance: The base Grand Prix is given the Series III 3.8L V6. This particular engine produces about 200 hp and 230 lb.ft of torque, from these numbers this engine looks kind of pathetic considering its a big V6 and that many 3.0L V6s produce these numbers. Well...oddly enough these numbers seem to lie to my senses when I drive this car. This is the most savage V6 I've encountered in the company...its this savagery that makes me actually like this engine. The very first time the light throttle made me spin the car out, kind of embarrassing but fun at the same time. It roars, its rough and it due to its large displacement it manages to move the heavy Grand Prix pretty decently about 8 seconds to go from 0-100 km/h. The engine's savagery and its decent acceleration does make it feel faster than it is, so despite its bad numbers I don't consider it bad.

My Score: 10/10 - Its not efficient by any means, but the surge of power you seem to sense when push it feels fantastic.

Handling: Oh dear...you definitely feel the Grand Prix's weight and you also start to realize that big powerful FWD cars are more flawed than their RWD counterparts or smaller FWD cars. The Grand Prix is not exactly a soft rider like its Buick cousin but due to its not so great suspension and extremely front heaviness its handling is pretty poor. The only good news is the Grand Prix doesn't really roll as much as other cars but it doesn't matter your, turning ability worse than regular family cars. Steering feel is also pretty decent for GMs of this time, but it accurately tells you the handling ability of this car is poor. The Grand Prix still seems to fit the stereotype of American cars doing well in a straight line.

My Score: 3/10 - Doesn't roll much but its cornering ability shows the suspension is deeply flawed.


Interior: The Grand Prix mostly have black interiors, I was not impressed with this interior very much. The very first thing is the inadequate seat, I just cannot find a comfortable enough position with this seat and I don't seem to be the only one. The materials in the car are easily noticeably cheap, the door handles inside for instance are plastic and just merely painted in a tin foil colour. I didn't like the steering wheel, its just way too big for any car. I didn't find the Grand Prix to be made all that well, these cars are manufactured in Oshawa, Canada. The good news is the car is very spacious and has a very generous trunk.

My Score: 3/10 - Cheap materials, uncomfortable seats, disappointing build quality but is very spacious.

Styling: The Grand Prix has a pretty aggressive appearance from the front. Much of the styling actually does fit the nature of the car, looks pretty savage and with its engine its acts that way. The rear is kind of bland however, generic American car styling. Despite its aggressive appearance it doesn't look all that great in darker colours, Pontiac also offered an awful orange colour. Overall its a pretty nicely styled car.

My Score: 8/10 - Aggressive front end, a forgettable rear end unfortunately in the end does fit the nature of the car pretty well.

Value for money: The Grand Prix particularly the base car is not a good value for money. Few people bought the car brand new and due to annoying problems they're not known for reliability. Its not rare for these cars to lose 50% of their value within a year of purchase. Chevrolet also has a car that does everything the Grand Prix does well at but with less of the problems, the Impala. The Grand Prix with its rough edges has to convince young buyers since older buyers will go with the Impala or Buick, unfortunately for Pontiac a big, heavy, spacious sedan is not the dream, attainable vehicle in most young buyer's minds.

My Score: 2/10 - The value of the Grand Prix is cannibalized by its GM siblings. As a used buy its fantastic value but as a new car its a money drain.

Overall: 26/10 - The Grand Prix has a fantastic engine and pretty good looks, but is lacking everywhere else. GM unfortunately realized this way too late.