2008, 2009 Buick Lucerne CX

I have a bit more time today so, some more reviews...I noticed I haven't put out that many GMs so here they are.


Introduction: The Buick Lucerne was introduced in 2006 as a replacement for Buick's previous large cars like the LeSabre and the Park Avenue. Buick made the Lucerne less expensive than the relatively inexpensive LeSabre but particularly with the V8 option it also ranged more expensive than the Park Avenue. The Lucerne is the last remaining vehicle on the H-body platform which was first introduced in 1986 from the LeSabre from that time.

I'm not particularly a fan of Buicks...to me they're always associated with the elderly. Other than some of the stranger Buicks like the Reatta and the classic Buicks...they've never appealed to me. As a result I really didn't care whether I drove one or not, in this job I drove quite a few so I'll review them.


Performance: The Buick Lucerne was given 3 engines, 2 of them are V6s and the other is a Northstar V8. I've driven both V6 engines since the earlier Lucernes had the 3.8L 3800 Series III engine(197 hp and 233 lb.ft of torque) while the 2009 and newer Lucernes uses the 3.9L High Value V6(227 hp and 237 lb.ft of torque). Now I know I mentioned how savage the Grand Prix's 3800(the exact same engine) was, its far more reserved in the Buicks. Pushing the Buick and the Grand Prix the exact same way...despite the exact same engine you get a different result...the Pontiac gives a rough jolt of power as you press the pedal...the Buick is quiet and the power is very spread out. It might be the ECU or transmission programming that affects this. The 3.9L V6 is really not all that different...it some ways it doesn't even attempt to distinguish itself. That said the Lucerne is no slouch, its acceleration goes from 0-100 km/h in 7.2 seconds with the 3800 engine, due to how little torque was increased in the 3.9L I assume its practically the same with no official numbers out for this engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Fantastic for the Buick's traditional customers, very quiet, very smooth and very refined...not as lovable as the Grand Prix reacts using the same engine though.

Handling: One thing Buicks are not known for is taking corners with agility. The primary focus of the Buicks seem to be road comfort and making the wheel easy to turn. The Lucerne does not walk away from that meaning this big car is very poor at taking corners at speed. You also don't get very good steering feedback from the very light wheel. In essence for the driving enthusiast they'll be very bored driving these cars, the elderly who need the soft ride to not destroy their bones and extremely light wheel to deal with arthritis will absolutely love this.

My Score: 3/10 - Totally set up for comfort, totally discourages turning at speed unless done slowly.


Interior: The interior of the Lucerne is extremely large inside. There is a lot of room for passengers in both front and back, the trunk space has not been sacrificed at all making it very good for carrying luggage and people at the same time. On a CX trim level, the Buick however is very unsophisticated other than power options and a stereo...there really isn't much to it despite being a car this large and having a higher price than Chevrolets. The seats are comfortable and the atmosphere is catered to Buick's base. The build quality isn't really a problem in this car, its built in Hamtramck Michigan, in the United States.

My Score: 6/10 - A very roomy and comfortable interior, but lacks anything that might interest someone younger.

Styling: The Lucerne does not attempt to change Buick's image in any way. This design looks like a natural progression of the old LeSabre being really inoffensive and extremely conservative. There are no sharp angles in the design anywhere and it even has something retro in the styling featuring the long gone ventiports from much older Buicks having a vent on the fender corresponding to the number of cylinders in the car. 3 on each side for the V6 and 4 for the V8. Its a design catering to Buick's loyal customers, sadly not very inviting to anybody else who may feel they'll be seen as an old person in a design like this.

My Score: 5/10 - An extremely conservative design, appealing to the loyalty crown unappealing to others who dislike the conservative design.

Value for money: As I mentioned in the introduction the Lucerne is less expensive than what Buick used to charge for the LeSabre or the Park Avenue. The cars that the Lucerne competes against are however much better suited for a larger target audience. Even within GM the Pontiac G8 and the Cadillac CTS are much more attractive to a bigger audience. The Impala may cannibalize the Lucerne's sales due to that car having similar mannerisms but at a much lower cost. The competition from outside means its up against the Toyota Avalon, Ford Taurus, Nissan Maxima and Chrysler 300. The Avalon and Taurus are better executed and offer higher quality for the audience Buick wanted to attract for this car while the Maxima and 300 go after the bigger market of younger drivers.

My Score: 2/10 - Aside from loyal customers, even within GM there isn't a truly compelling reason to buy a Lucerne over a G8, CTS or Impala. Older customers I doubt will find the Impala to be much different and for very conservative drivers who distrust front wheel drive, the Crown Victoria is far more appealing.

Overall: 25/50 - Its a perfect car for your grandparents, but a terrible choice for just about anybody else.

2007 Cadillac CTS

This Saturday hasn't been too bad in terms of work so I'm not nearly as tired as I was last weekend.


Introduction: Before the Cadillac CTS, GM has tried twice to get a suitable entry level Cadillac in order to compete against BMW, Lexus, Mercedes and Audi. Their first attempt was the Cimarron which damaged GM's reputation far more than anticipated. The reason was due to the fact the Cimarron was truly a Cavalier with slightly different styling and a different badge. Fundamentally the car was still like the very low budget Chevrolet, many buyers believed this to be a rip off and as such the car ended up as a total failure. Cadillac's next effort was the Catera which hailed from GM's Opel division known as the Opel Omega. This time while a truly foreign car(it was made in Germany) there was very little inside the Catera that made it worthy of being mentioned alongside the brands it was supposed to compete against. Opel designed it as a regular mainstream car, not a luxury entry level car and thus the Catera failed too. The CTS is the result of GM returning to the RWD platform which the previous Cimarron and Catera were not. The new GM Sigma platform would be the launching pad for the CTS and future Cadillacs in an effort to shatter the old people's car image most had of Cadillac at the time. The results meant a 2nd generation CTS, the crossover SRX and the Seville replacement the STS.

When I started, I knew this was the car to take a good look at whether GM could really turn itself around. This car received a lot of praise even from those normally critical of GM, add the fact it was RWD I was actually excited about this GM product.


Performance: I had the run of the mill Cadillac CTS, not the more exciting powerful CTS-V. So the engine I did try out was the 3.6L which produced 255 hp and 252 lb.ft of torque. The 3.6 was available to the CTS since 2005. Well this engine was how you would expect from a car this high priced, its very smooth and power delivery feels just right. I never got the chance to take the CTS for a test run at acceleration but its acceleration from 0-100 km/h is about 6.6 seconds which is by far the quickest car in all of these reviews. Clearly GM updated the powertrain to the degree they wanted a true winner.

My Score: 10/10 - Smooth, quiet and bloody fast.

Handling: This part I could test a lot better than powertrain due to the confines of the area I could drive this car. First thing I noticed was how much easier the CTS was to drive over every other GM I was exposed to at this time. I truly noticed the balance from the rear wheel drive unlike the Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300, the degree of confidence the steering wheel feeds to your hands is what makes cars of this level better than a front wheel drive econobox. You can feel the chassis is very capable taking a turn slightly fast, while it rolled a tad bit it was by far the best GM product I've ever driven when it came to handling.

My Score: 10/10 - GM has done almost the impossible, made Caddillac truly for a car enthusiast with a family.


Interior: This is the only early 21st century GM product that I felt had a proper interior while most of the others had disappointingly bad interiors in comparison. There are features I felt showed a small sign of GM's struggle to get a proper interior down like the alarmingly silly looking vents, the tin-foil plastic in the center console and the low grade stereo the rest of the interior was not half bad. The leather provided is actually of decent quality and the cabin is quite comfortable. There's a lot of space for your passengers both from and back. I drove an older unit and even despite this, I didn't notice the disappointing build quality I was used to seeing from GM products. These cars are made in Lansing, Michigan in the United States.

My Score: 7/10 - Mostly a reasonable interior, just a few silly tacky and unattractive items.

Styling: In hindsight I'm starting to like the styling of this car as it ages. I initially didn't like it too much, I originally thought it tried to keep too much of the old Cadillac while mixing it with radical shapes to scare the old people. Now I actually prefer this version over the 2nd generation CTS, its mild mannered by at the same time you can see its not the same Cadillac your grandparents drove...its in fact tailored for the youth.

My Score: 8/10 - An interesting blend of old and new, takes some time to settle but in the end it ages pretty well.

Value for Money: When GM introduced the CTS, I wasn't sure whether it would pose a serious challenge since back then most assumed GM was going to fail again like the last two times. After driving the car, it really looks like a true bargain. The CTS despite being entry-level is actually the size of a 5-series but has a 3-series price, its not a sluggish pig like old Cadillacs suggested and they're quite well equipped. The most the foreign brands could offer over Cadillac was brand appeal and reputation which Cadillac lacked. Still, when looking at value the Cadillac was a serious deal you just had to overcome the negative image of General Motors which was really difficult to overcome back then.

My Score: 8/10 - An absolutely fantastic deal, the biggest thing that might have hurt its sales was that it came from General Motors and its disturbingly bad image.

Overall: 43/50 - An absolutely excellent product from General Motors, it makes you wonder what took them 30 years to get something like this right.

2008 Mazda CX-7

I originally planned to do a few more reviews but this week has been very tiring. So I'll do a review on a car fresh in my mind.


Introduction: The Mazda CX-7 is Mazda's second entry into the crossover market and their first mid-sized vehicle in the utility vehicle segment after their Navago(an explorer re-badge) failed. Unlike many other recent Mazdas the CX-7 does not share a platform with any Fords and is a uniquely designed Mazda. It uses a combination of suspension parts from other Mazda vehicles depending on the drive configuration, if only front wheel drive its composed of MPV and Mazda5 suspension parts front and rear in that order. The all-wheel drive models however use the system developed for the Mazdaspeed6. In some sense this is probably the most sport oriented crossover especially if bought in AWD form.

I've always wanted to drive one of these cars, but we never got these for our fleet. Its one of Mazda's most interesting vehicles when it comes to what sort of parts its composed of, to think a good portion is actually composed of Mazdapseed parts is quite incredible. Well we finally got one last week...only to get a message its been sold...so I used it as a shuttle.


Performance: The CX-7 uses the engine straight from the Mazdaspeed division. A 2.3L turbocharged 4-cylinder engine, the very engine used in the Mazdaspeed3 and Mazdaspeed6. The biggest difference however is the transmission is a 6-speed automatic instead of the 6-speed manuals found on those cars. As a result the power is 244 hp and 258 lb.ft of torque. When driving this vehicle you will notice the turbo kick in pretty early sometimes coming on during turns. Most crossovers have smooth V6s totally set up for comfort cruising, the CX-7 on the other hand with its slightly more coarse 4-cylinder prefers a thrashing thanks to its Mazdaspeed roots. I know the noise is not pleasant especially before the turbo kicks in, yet I just don't care considering the turbo is coming soon giving you more power than you asked for. To tell you how quick these CX-7s are they accelerate from 0-100 in 7.5 seconds. If the future meant small displacement turbo engines replacing bigger displacement ones...I'm all for it. I just loved this engine. Do note its a bit more thirsty even though its a 4-cylinder, its up to you whether to trade fun for fuel economy.

My Score: 10/10 - A fantastic engine, feeling that surge of power is such a great feeling you stop caring about the noisy rev early on and the less impressive fuel economy.

Handling: I've driven the AWD version and I thought the handling was pretty planted and much easier to push than other crossovers and SUVs its size. Its not often I find a vehicle like this that encourages much more aggressive behaviour, perhaps I should try a BMW X-series SUV. Cornering is mostly flat which is very good since most vehicles in this category roll. I didn't even notice much discomfort on the road.

My Score: 9/10 - Great AWD system that encourages spirited driving, just don't get a ticket for reckless driving.


Interior: When I got into the Mazda CX-7, this was probably the least enjoyable part about the vehicle since the more practical stuff comes into question. If you know Mazda's lineup during this time then the interior is extremely similar to that of the Mazda6 and set the standard for Mazda digital displays to be found on the 2010 Mazda3. As a 5-seater the CX-7 is quite comfortable being large enough to not make the passengers cramped. The tailgate space for your things is moderate in size. The problem with the interior here is it does nothing clever with the space given. The build quality however is fantastic, these vehicles being built from Hiroshima, Japan.

My Score: 6/10 - If your sole intention is to carry passengers and modest amounts of cargo the CX-7 does the job but if you wanted more you'll be disappointed, good build quality however.

Styling: The CX-7 is actually somewhat handsomely styled, while it retains much of the round profile of the Edge and CX-9 the rear tail lights for instance are slightly transparent like that of the old Lexus IS. Unlike the IS, it doesn't make a big deal out of those. In the front the grille and head lights naturally fit the shape and profile of the car making it look pretty good.

My Score: 8/10 - A pretty good looking CUV, everything flows pretty naturally to the design.

Value for the money: Its a mixed bag here, if you clearly need the family practical utility vehicle features you will not want the CX-7, its too small and doesn't fit those needs. If you however wanted the most driver oriented vehicle of the segment, this is clearly the best. This is the only CUV that encourages your driver urges, all other CUVs are far less driver oriented with smoother V6s and comfortable rides. Its a slight bit of a compromise but the big body didn't manage to spoil the fun.

My Score: 8/10 - So long as your goal is driver fun and you need something the size of a SUV this is a fantastic vehicle for that goal.

Overall: 42/50 - Until Mazda designs a new CX-7 just as sport oriented, there isn't another crossover that is as much fun as this is.

2002 Mazda Protege

I don't know why I keep forgetting to put this car on. This car was what I used for driver's ed and therefore one of the earliest cars I've ever driven.


Introduction: The Mazda Protégé is a new name given to one of Mazda's oldest line of small cars. In Japan these cars have always been called the Familia and the Protégé being reviewed is the 9th generation of this vehicle. The Familia dates all the way back to 1964 making it technically an older name than the commonly known Toyota Corolla. For North America Mazda introduced the Familia as the 1200(2nd generation), the 3rd gen was called the Mizer and the 4th gen was called the GLC. It was from the 4th gen that the 323 name was given and most Mazda Familia's would use the 323 name others changing to Protégé name like the US did. The early cars were RWD, while the 5th generation cars from 1980 and beyond were FWD. The name Protégé was used mostly in advertising to promote the car's more sporty driving experience to Mazda's more famous MX-5/Miata. Eventually Mazda replaced the Familia line with the new Mazda 3/Axela in 2004 which had significantly better success finally putting the Mazda name as a top seller in some countries.

Now as I mentioned this was my driver's ed car. I really didn't know a whole lot about cars back then and therefore didn't really take much notice of the Protégé. I did know about Mazda's aggressive zoom zoom advertisements though. So in my mind, was this car really worth saying zoom zoom?


Performance: When driving this car I was thinking zoom zoom was about power, I was kind of disappointed with the Protégé in that respect. In hindsight its actually not so bad now that I've driven much slower cars. That said, the engine in question is a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine that produces 130 hp and 135 lb.ft of torque, this is actually good numbers back then. The acceleration numbers from 0-100 km/h is about 9.4 seconds, as a result it doesn't seem nearly that quick and part of why I thought it was slow. If that's a bit of a downer, on the positive side I heard the manual was much quicker than the automatic.

My Score: 6/10 - Not very zoom zoom with an automatic, getting a manual is much preferred.

Handling: This was the surprise of this car, clearly billing the Protégé as the Miata's student was not false advertising after all. This car was always pretty sharp and took corners pretty well, due to not having access to a Protégé anymore...I'm not sure how to compare it with 2 generations of Mazda3 which I have driven recently and have very favourable views of. Despite that, I still remember that there was that charm which made me enjoy both versions of the 3 and that without this car they might not have that feel that makes these seemingly normal cars that bit more special.

My Score: 10/10 - Its clear Mazda recognized their future to winning small car buyers was in handling, this is the Protégé's best point.


Interior: The Protégé had a pretty generic interior not only for its time but even now. The interior definitely took a bit of a back seat compared to the development of how the car would drive meaning its got everything you expect a normal car would have and everything a normal car wouldn't have. There wasn't much styling put into the interior. Build quality did not suffer fortunately and these cars were made in both Hiroshima and Hofu plants in Japan.

My Score: 6/10 - Generic interior, built well though

Styling: Much of Mazda's lineup back in the 90s were really generic looking. Their most interesting looking vehicles were only from the MX line like the MX-3, the MX-5 and the MX-6. The Japanese got the treat of having the 323F body style which had pop-up headlights. The rest of the cars however were pretty dull and typical of Japanese cars back then. The early Protégé started out this way, since I'm reviewing the face-lifted version they struck a chord. With cleaver mild changes the later Protégés actually looked very good while still retaining a pretty generic demeanor. This clearly set Mazda to its styling objectives after the Protégé with the new 3 and the 6 using styling cues from earlier models but modernizing them.

My Score: 8/10 - Very modern touches turns a boring looking car into something nice without putting a lot of attention towards it.

Value for money: The Protégé was never a tremendous sales success but it showed Mazda that it was on the right track. The inclusion of the Protégé5 meant it was the only car in the class back then offering a hatchback model. The Corolla Wagon no longer existed and the Civic hatchbacks were offered only for Europe. The poor name recognition also meant you could get a good deal on these cars for much less than other Japanese cars. The Protégé also existed in a time when Korean cars were terrible meaning it was a great choice. Even today, not too many Protégés experience much issues except some rust problems.

My Score: 10/10 - It was better than what Korea offered, cheaper than what anybody else offered and it was the only choice if you wanted a good hatchback.

Overall: 40/50 - A very good car that paved the way for Mazda's success.

2009, 2010 Dodge Charger SE/Chrsyler 300 Touring

Another Chrysler product...I seriously have driven too many of these things.



Introduction: The Chrysler 300 and the Dodge Charger belong to the same LX platform as the Dodge Magnum does. The only difference is the Magnum was the only vehicle to stop being produced while the Charger and 300 continue to live on. Both 300 and Charger are practically the same the big difference being mostly down to badge and exterior styling. Both cars changed the full size car market in that they returned to using rear wheel drive which in turn spawned the short lived Pontiac G8 as competition. The use of rear wheel drive allowed Dodge to attempt to sell Chargers to police fleets many of which are very used to the out of production Ford Crown Victoria compared to General Motors using the front wheel drive Chevrolet Impala.

Most people who know me attempted to convince me that Chrysler hasn't totally screwed up their car lineup by using these two cars as an example. Given my first drive in the Magnum I set my expectations much lower than normal.



Performance: For this review due to the fact both cars use several engines I'll note the Charger as the 2.7L V6 and the 300 using the 3.5L V6. The scores will reflect the trim level given. Well the Charger SE uses the same 2.7L V6 I've mentioned was a huge problem for the Magnum and the Sebring...its no different this time. This is such a pathetic engine that its pretty embarrassing. Its the same 190 hp and 190 lb.ft of torque engine. The Magnum is about 100 lbs heavier, so the Charger likely does 0-100 km/h in 11 seconds, there are no real tested times...its probably too embarrassing. Keep in mind the engine sounds terrible so revving this thing is no joy. The 300 Touring has the 3.5L and this engine is far more adequate for the job but is still not great doing 0-100 km/h in roughly 9 seconds. That engine produces 250 hp and 250 lb.ft of torque. This engine is much smoother and felt a bit faster than the 9 seconds suggest. However its no Honda or Toyota so it will consume fuel at a higher rate. In cars this big and this heavy...the 2.7L is a stupid idea. Another note, I thought the brakes on both cars were pretty weak.

My Score(Charger SE): 1/10 - A horrible engine, far too slow and far too weak and sounds awful.

My Score(300 Touring): 5/10 - A nicer smoother engine, but still slow and also not that efficient.

Handling: This is where I hope the RWD comes into play alas it was not what I was expecting. Taking most RWD cars into a corner is where the fun from the layout comes out, taking the Charger or the 300 into the corners show how poorly engineered they are. Both vehicles are just too soft and the suspension is too slow to react during faster cornering. The 300 has a decent ride, the Charger doesn't seem to provide that softness. Much of the misery of the Magnum returns to my mind, they do corner better than the Magnum but that's mainly because they're both lighter. RWD seems to have prevented a poor handling car from being the worst handling car.

My Score(Charger SE): 2/10 - Very poor cornering ability, poor suspension setup

My Score(Chrysler 300): 3/10 - Same as the Charger but more comfortable



Interior: This area I was hoping for something better, as I believe it to be it seems the Ram stole all of Chrysler's interior budget so both cars suffer as a result. The Charger SE is the base vehicle and the interior is nothing but disgusting, cheap, black plastic. The 300 Touring is given leather which is actually comfortable but the major additions over the charger is the stupid analog clock. As a car supposed to be their top of the line...it uses a lot of material you expect to be too cheap for even the bottom of the line vehicle. A huge problem in these cars is the poor visibility, not only are the windows small...the C-pillar is a gigantic blind spot. The interior of both vehicles appear to be an afterthought as a result they get a very poor score. The build quality on these cars are mediocre, better than some US assembled Chryslers but not near US assembled Japanese vehicles. Both cars are built in Brampton, Ontario.

My Score(both): 2/10 - Same cheap Chrysler material found in their cheapest vehicles

Styling: Finally something good to talk about these disappointing vehicles. Both vehicles have been styled extremely well as far as the exterior is concerned. The 300 is very much like the sort of car you expect the mafia to drive, its very big and menacing but appears to have some sort of a status along with that. The Charger is more aggressive looking and looks like the sort of vehicle that is a hunter...pity its too slow to match its looks. It appears Chrysler spent some money somewhere so as a result the scores are good.

My Score(both): 9/10 - Both vehicles look very good and have no need for a restyle.

Value for money: Both these cars do have something that most full size cars in this age don't have...rear wheel drive. This does give these cars a mild advantage over the competition with the only car offering RWD is the Pontiac G8. The problem is the rest of the car leaves a lot to be desired, the V6 engines Chrysler offers don't move these cars all that quickly meaning if you want this car to be faster than say...a Mazda 3 you have to buy the Hemi V8. The interior is extremely low rent regardless of which trim level, something none of its competition suffers. If you want a car with good looks...and has RWD regardless of its awful suspension...these cars are for you then.

My Score(both): 4/10 - Neither are good value especially in lower trim form...yet high trim vehicles are expensive but still retain the cheapness of the lower trim cars. Having RWD however is a plus.

Overall(Charger SE): 18/50 - For a base vehicle at this price its terrible, high marks only for good looks.

Overall(300 Touring): 23/50 - Better than a base Charger...but not that much better