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 Kia Spectra

Well it took longer than I expected but I'm finally putting up another review.


Introduction: The Kia Spectra was introduced in 2000 as Kia's replacement for the Kia Sephia. The Spectra was redesigned once in 2004. This version of the Spectra shares the same platform as the 2002-2006 Hyundai Elantra. It sold reasonably well as it was Kia's best selling vehicle.

Sorry I got nothing else, the Kia Spectra's history is pretty thin and has nothing groundbreaking or exciting about it. It summed up my thoughts of Kia as a company back when I first got the opportunity to drive one of these cars. Keep in mind this was when I had a very low opinion of the company along with Hyundai.


Performance: To begin with the engine the Kia Spectras I've driven all had the 2.0L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 138 hp and 136 lb.ft of torque. When it comes to accelerating the 0-100 km/h time I've managed to find with the automatic is 9.7 seconds which is pretty low. Getting a manual transmission for the Spectra provides a better 8.5 seconds. The engine isn't very quick, unfortunately its not very refined either. When the car revs past 3000 rpm it makes a terrible droning noise which can get on your nerves for highway driving. Most disappointing is the fuel economy numbers are not that good either, lower than its outgoing Japanese rivals. To sum up, not a very good engine.

My Score: 2/10 - Produces a horrible noise, not that efficient and not quick.

Handling: The Spectra was never designed to take corners quickly and unlike an equivalent sized Mazda3 this shows. The Spectra rolls pretty badly when taken to a corner reasonably quick. All that's left is to put enough power to understeer it. Steering response is extremely vague, while its not very light it still doesn't provide you with enough information. This can be forgiven if the ride comfort was very good but its surprisingly stiff. It feels like Kia corners when designing the suspension.

My Score: 3/10 - It rolls, steering is vague and the ride isn't comfortable.


Interior: From a visual perspective, the Kia spectra is not all that exciting inside. Much of the interior is very bland and very plastic. The materials do not feel they're of high quality and the seat material has a horrible habit of leaving stain marks from even water. The stereo is the same Kia/Hyundai unit used during the mid 2000s which is very low quality. The biggest upside to the interior however is how well equipped most Kia Spectras are. Controls do not interfere with your driving or confuse you with layout as they're set up like a Japanese car. The build quality of the car is mediocre, overall most pieces are put together properly but some smaller less important pieces don't stay in place. The Kia Spectra is built in South Korea.

My Score: 4/10 - A very bland interior with not very good materials, but its very equipped and easy to use.

Styling: The Kia Spectra was given a facelift in 2007 removing the 2 strange spaces between the grille. Unfortunately what Kia replaced it with was a very generic grille. The rest of the car is extremely generic in its styling as it looks like any typical car. Very little effort was put into styling the Spectra.

My Score: 2/10 - Its just a car with no unique features, its just so generic.

Value for money: The Kia Spectra starts out very well equipped for a car of its size. Its original MSRP is also very low all things considered. While the engine is terrible when put up against its outgoing Japanese competition its more competitive with less fuel efficient cars in the segment. I'm sure that during 2009 it was very inexpensive to buy a Spectra due to the arrival of the much more interesting Kia Forte. Kia also offered a 5-door hatchback which meant it only had to compete against the previous Ford Focus, Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe and the Mazda3 meaning the Spectra was the least expensive to buy. If you only want a cheap car well equipped and don't care about the overall weak package the Spectra is then a good buy.

My Score: 10/10 - Offers a lot and provides a lot of what would be options as standard equipment, all very a lower price than much of its competition.

Overall: 21/50 - A pretty weak car but sold at an attractive price.

*Note while I don't like the Spectra very much, I believe its successor the Forte is a much better car. Its done pretty much everything the Spectra did well except retaining the 5-door hatch but vastly improved everything the Spectra did bad.

Canadian International Auto Show Update

I got back from the 2010 Toronto auto show after going daily since 2008. I can't really review any of the cars other than the ones I've driven at work but I can give a review about how the cars are inside in general. There would be too many cars to cover so I'll make a general statement about the state of each.

Acura: The entire lineup was so ugly I didn't bother. With cars this ugly I don't care if they're any good.

Audi: The Audi section was one of the busiest and for good reason. From the inside of even the base A4 you can tell the materials are of higher quality than a regular car. The built quality of Audis is extremely well done. There isn't anything to complain about the styling, most sport a very aggressive look. Price is really what may hurt Audi's sales, nothing they offer is worthwhile without spending more than 30K. That said they have lots of interest which is always good.

BMW: Of the three big German high tier companies it was BMW that was the least busy. Their cars are not the most stylish, in fact I found a lot to be either boring or ugly. BMW was hoping the 5-series GT would attract attention...it was rather lonely. The best looking car BMW offers for 2010 is actually the Z4. Inside a BMW its of pretty reasonably quality however there are some poorly designed switches and very cheap stalks on the wheels.

Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep: The Chrysler section was not very busy. I've driven most of the cars that this company has to offer and frankly none have been very good, some are just worse than others. Very poor interior quality and very poor ergonomics is what one can easily see in any of their cars at an auto show. I will say the Fiat 500 and the Fiat 500 Arbarth attracted more attention than anything else this company offered. It was the only reason I visited this section.

Ford: I can easily say Ford spent the most money at this auto show because they have the largest lot. They also strategically positioned their most important cars and had several examples of all of them for people to see. There were a lot of Ford Fiestas and from what I can see its looking like it will be a good car. Ford also had the most upcoming models to display with the 2012 Focus and the Edge both very important cars which will determine Ford's right to return to become one of the most important auto makers. I expect great things from Ford with how eager they seem to be.

GM: Due to how many models GM still has it had the second largest space for its cars. Its really clear GM wants to make a big effort to separate its current cars from its previous one. Their most important car was the Cruze and compared to the Cobalt it replaces its much much better styled inside but its still very plastic. The new LaCrosse has better seats than the old one and seems to be styled well inside, but there are still annoying touches of cost cutting in the materials they were willing to use. The Cadillacs were much better done and had less of the interior woes as the others. Overall it looks like GM is on the right track, its just not looking like it will be as quick as Ford.

Honda: The newest introduction to the Honda section is the Accord Crosstour...and its horribly ugly. Its almost as bad as the Acuras and once again I don't care if its any good its too ugly to be seen driving in. Honda also showed its CR-Z, I'm not sure if its the concept or whether its exactly what the production version will be. The rest of Honda's line wasn't interesting and many showed weak interior trim bits. This is also the final year of the S2000, its your last chance before Honda ruin its lineup with boring cars.

Hyundai: The Hyundai section was ridiculously busy, the key cars they wanted to show were the newly redesigned Sonata and the Tuscon. I can easily say they surpass their predecessors in interior quality. Hyundai has done probably the best job at making plastic not seem cheap and has styled them to work with the interior. If there's anything that might trouble someone, the price is slowly going up. There's a price to pay if you want a higher quality product.

Infiniti: The biggest change to the Infiniti lineup is the new M series. The M is actually a pretty handsome looking car, very nicely trimmed and appears to be priced within reason. The very popular G series of cars are also very nicely done, if you've been inside the Maxima then much of the interior of that car is present in the G cars. Infiniti will do well so long as they stick with what they currently have and continually improve them.

Jaguar: The Jaguar section is very small mostly because Jaguar doesn't offer nearly as many models as they used to. The new XJ is very similarly styled like their current XF. I guess my problem with this is the XJ has always looked the same for nearly 40 years, why not retire the name and call it the XL or whatever new notation they want to give it?

Kia: The situation with Kia is rather similar to Hyundai. Most of the current Kias are much more improved over the previous ones. The new ones are the Forte, Sorento and Sportage. All these cars are much better than the cars they replaced, the Forte particularly is superior to the Spectra it replaces. The prices with Kia are still pretty reasonable so its not yet ready to jack up the prices probably to built its name.

Land Rover: Much like Jaguar the Land Rover section is pretty small. Not a whole lot has changed for Land Rover other than interior improvements to the Discovery. They appear more luxurious inside than the boxy exteriors seem to imply. Tata ownership seems to not have affected Land Rover in any way.

Lexus: The car Lexus wanted to promote for this year was the HS hybrid, unfortunately its part of the brake recall that affected the Prius. As a result nobody was interested in that car, but rather the IS and the GS. Lexus quality is actually still quite high but the interiors are not styled as nicely. Another annoying thing is the prices they're very high, sometimes I'd rather toss out the luxuries in favour of a good driving experience in a high quality car.

Mazda: This is the company I keep scoring very high in my reviews, its a rather busy section in Toronto. The most important car Mazda is launching is the new Mazda2 and very similar to the Ford Fiesta. Several Mazda3s were available including the Mazdaspeed3. The only old vehicles left is the Mazda5 and the CX-9. The Mazda5 you can tell is old as its interior quality is not on par with the newer better design of the 3, the 5 will be replaced next year. The CX-9's future seems to be unknown due to the it being based off the old Edge, Mazda is no longer under Ford's rule meaning its free to use either the new Edge or build off the CX-7.

Mercedes-Benz: Despite their recent failings in quality, the tri pointed star seems to have done a great job at attracting attention. The new E-class is extremely good looking and the release of the new SLS halo car helps the image that Mercedes is serious again. While the C-class is a disappointment with its interior, the E and S are still very good. Its hard to say whether Mercedes produces the same level of durability and reliability they once did in the 80s and early 90s but this batch of cars is certainly better than nearly every car they offered in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Mitsubishi: The newest design at the Mitsubishi section was the 2010 Outlander. The styling of the Mitsubishis are actually pretty good considering their small lineup. Performance also seems to be something their very good at since they're willing to show off their Evo X. Interiors however is something that hurts all Mitsubishis even the 2010 Outlander. With better interior styling and higher quality materials Mitsubishi can rise to the levels of at least Mazda instead of relying on its warranties.

Nissan: Other than the Nissan Cube, very little is different with the Nissan lineup other than having the Quest minivan go missing. Most Nissans have decent interiors, it just depends on where it was built to determine whether it will fall apart or stay intact. The Cube itself is quite a surprise, I was expecting Nissan Versa level of quality due to their shared platform. I was wrong it was of higher quality material and its styled the way one would expect if one bought a car like that. Nissan is on the path to success.

Scion: The newest badge in the Toronto auto show, its a very old thing in the United States but its arrived in Canada this year. Looking at all its models I know all of them are outdated. Starting with the xD, its very difficult to say its nothing more than a different Yaris. The xB had some of the worst plastic I've seen in a long time. The tC is clearly too old and slow to be worth considering as a sports coupe. Its clear Scion is very late, bringing an outdated lineup is not going to be a good start.

Subaru: Their newest addition is the new Legacy and the Outback. I'm not as thrilled about the styling of the new Legacy as I liked the old one much better. Ever since Toyota bought shares into Subaru's parent company it seems as if the cars started to look duller. Nevertheless the Legacy actually had aluminum interior trim, I wasn't expecting to see that. It makes me wonder why nobody did this and instead went with faux wood plastic. So much nicer and easier to say you bought a quality product.

Suzuki: The newest addition to Suzuki is the Kizashi building on the same principles as the SX4 that was released not too long ago. The interior is of average quality, its not exactly bad but there are some touches not as nice as Hyundai's. The good news is the Kizashi comes fully loaded. One of the key items the Kizashi has is it comes with AWD in a class that only the Legacy offers this choice. If the SX4 is any indication it seems Suzuki is more concerned about the driving experience and offering a reasonably interior and a fully equipped car at a reasonably price. It now makes me wonder why they're keeping the Swift+, its absolutely terrible to the SX4 and Kizashi.

Toyota: The Japanese giant has been hit very hard with a huge string of recalls. Still Toyota is hoping its 2011 Sienna is a sign that change is about to come. Its too bad Toyota doesn't have its FT-86 concept car to wow people who wouldn't normally have been interested in Toyota. Now as for their other cars, you don't have to look too far to see quality is down a whole lot. I've already mentioned the Corolla's interior being terrible, the Tundra is even worse and the build quality isn't up to code. The new Prius still has the flimsy gear lever which I thought was awful on the old one. Toyota has a lot of work to do to fix its image problem, but I personally believe they have to revamp their whole lineup. Its sad to say but Toyota deserves to be in the state its in, they sacrificed its core principles for sales. Its paying the price for that betrayal of its values.

Volkswagen: The current largest auto maker in the world does not do too well in North America at first it doesn't seem apparent as to why. Of all the auto makers VW offers the most amount of diesel options clearly preferring diesel over hybrid. Their newest vehicle is the redesigned Golf and I must say its much better looking. Interiors are of reasonable quality, however in most cases they are rather bland and in some cases boring. Also VW should drop the Routan, nobody will be fooled with a low quality minivan hiding behind German trim. A big problem VW needs to overcome is their awful MSRP, one has to spend at least 20K for their new models. The City Jetta and Golf are outdated models.

Volvo: Finally the Sweedish car maker known for safety. Not a whole lot of changes have occured for Volvo this year but one can tell that despite this Volvo is still relevant. The styling is still pretty good on most of their models and they also are slowly adding more features to each car. Inside you can tell Volvo uses better materials than mainstream auto makers through their plastic quality if they have a weak point in their interiors its the Ford style switches. We'll have to see next year if Chinese ownership will affect what Volvo does.

Anyways that's all I got this week. Hopefully I'll be able to review another car next week.

2007-2008, 2009 Hyundai Sonata

In an attempt to make up for the lack of reviews I am posting a second review today. The Hyundai Sonata, I split up the 2007 and 2008 from the 2009 because they're surprisingly different despite not looking very different.



Introduction: The Hyundai Sonata is Hyundai's mid-sized car. Originally introduced in 1985 to replace the disappointing Hyundai Stellar and ending Hyundai's rear wheel drive lineup. The Sonata is now in its 5th generation, the new 6th generation Sonata is ready to take over for the 2011 model year.

I wasn't really all that thrilled about the Sonata much like other Korean cars when I first started out. It was the 2009 models where I was surprised about how different Hyundai has become.



Performance: I haven't driven any of the V6 Hyundai Sonatas so my review will stick with the standard 2.4L 4-cylinder engine included in the base Sonata models. The 2009 has an updated version of the engine meaning it produces more power than the original 2007-2008 models. The original engine produced 162 hp and 164 lbs.ft of torque. The updated engine has 175 hp and 168 lb.ft of torque. The differences between the two is rather minimal although I will say the 2009 feels a slight bit smoother and less strained. The acceleration time is roughly 9.5-9.8 seconds from 0-100 km/h. Not a very quick car but its reasonably smooth and modest.

My Score(both): 6/10 - Not a very quick engine but reasonable for its power.

Handling: I've noticed some differences between the two version here. Starting with the earlier Sonata, when you take one of these cars into a corner the body roll and lack of steering feel is very apparent. The wheel isn't exactly light but it doesn't translate into an enjoyable experience. I found the earlier Sonata a rather boring vehicle to take into a corner. Now the 2009 Sonata is a much different experience. The steering is more sharper and a far more willing car to be pushed to its limits and giving a better sense of steering feel that the older Sonata wouldn't give. The roll is also less pronounced and dynamically a better experience overall. I can easily say the 2009 Sonata was my first taste of Hyundai turning its image into a better car company.

My Score(2007-2008): 5/10 - Very boring, quite a bit of body roll and not willing to play.

My Score(2009): 8/10 - Better steering than the previous version, less body roll and far more enjoyable to drive in comparison.



Interior: This is easily the biggest difference between the two versions. The earlier Sonata has a very plain interior design, there is very little styling input into the interior. The plastics look functional but overall not very nice and the stereo is very bad. While the old interior isn't a great place to sit inside it was well equipped and functional. The newer 2009s seemed to completely change and fix what was wrong with the previous interior. The plastics were of higher quality and were much nicer to feel and look at. The entire center console was changed to a higher level which really impressed me. The gauges had a nicer clean modern look with the white and blue touches while the older one was pretty dated. The stereo unit is a far nicer one although its still a troublesome item and likely the only thing in the car that needs repair early. The atmosphere of the newer interior really shows Hyundai's commitment to higher quality. The build quality on the Sonata is very well done either version. Most Sonatas in North America are built in Montgomery, Alabama.

My Score(2007, 2008): 5/10 - Very boring and unattractive, but built well

My Score(2009): 9/10 - One of the best economical interiors I've seen especially at this price range, its plastic but its very nice plastic. The stereo is the only small weak link.

Styling: This is always my problem with Korean cars in the past, they rarely put enough time and effort to style their cars. This 5th generation Sonata doesn't solve this problem but the coming 6th gen shows Hyundai has changed this. From much of its styling its clear the 5th generation Honda Accord was its major inspiration both rear and front are similar. The earlier Sonata does have a nicer grille than the 2009 and 2010s but neither really substantially differentiate themselves from the old Accord.

My Score(both): 2/10 - A nice copy job, but still a copy job and is not good styling by any means.

Value for money: The Hyundai Sonata relies solely on its low price range to take market share away from the bigger automakers. The Sonata does not disappoint here, both versions are very well equipped even in rather base specification. Hyundai's pricing is rather aggressive and trying to take away from Honda and Toyota. The deal looks a bit less impressive when one adds options for the Sonata but ideally the base Sonata will work for most buyers. The older Sonata was not all that refined and is less appealing especially with the updated 2009s which is better in almost every way. The newer Sonata is a very good deal for an inexpensive relatively large car.

My Score(2007, 2008): 7/10 - A pretty good deal but overshadowed by the 2009's improvements.

My Score(2009): 10/10 - Very well priced and far more refined than before, very hard to argue against recommending it.

Overall(2007, 2008): 25/50 - A so-so boring car with reasonable value

Overall(2009): 35/50 - A pretty good budget value mid sized sedan with one of the nicest interiors in a while, easily the most well updated car I've ever encountered.

2007-2009 Chrysler PT Cruiser

I apologize for the lack of updates, this January has been particularly tiring and has only recently slowed down. Finally another review and this time of a Chrysler product.


Introduction: The Chrysler PT Cruiser was developed from the early Plymouth Pronto concept. Originally slated to be a Plymouth model, but with the merger with Mercedes-Benz the Plymouth line of cars would discontinue. As a result the PT Cruiser was given a Chrysler badge and was first released in late 1999 as a model year 2000 vehicle. Most PT Crusiers were 5-door hatchbacks however for 2005 Chrysler developed a 2-door convertible version of the PT Cruiser. The convertible PT Cruisers stopped production in late 2007 and the final vehicles being sold as 2008 models. 2009 was supposed to mark the final year for the PT Cruiser, however Chrysler has changed plans with 2010 now being the supposed final year for the PT Cruiser.

When the PT Cruiser came out, I couldn't believe how terrible looking the car was. I couldn't believe anybody would buy such a car. That was some time ago and boy was that a wrong assumption, particularly during the early 2000s there were loads of the things. Presented with the opportunity to drive one, I wanted to see for myself whether it was as bad as I believed it to be.


Performance: The standard PT Cruiser gets by with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that produces 150 hp and 162 lbs.ft of torque. This engine was developed during the days of the Neon while the standard Neons didn't use this engine, the SRT-4 Neons used a turbocharged version. What surprises me most is why Chrysler decided to use the GEMA engine when that engine is less powerful than the engine the PT uses. Due to the PT Cruiser's weight its acceleration numbers are not so good with a manual its 8.9 seconds but the automatics are 10.8 seconds to get from 0-100 km/h. That said, the engine makes an interesting whining noise when you gun the throttle. Overall though its not a quick car if you settle for an automatic.

My Score: 4/10 - The engine is old and today quite slow, but it does make an interesting noise and if the engine was placed in a lighter car or coupled with a proper transmission its quite competent.

Handling: I mentioned the PT Cruiser is a bit heavy the base PT Cruiser weighs about 3100-3200 lbs. The rear suspension for the PT is a twist beam design, essentially a torsion bar much like the Corolla. Things don't look good so far, they're not helped by the PT's truly poor turning radius. To turn a PT sharply at low speeds sometimes requires a three point turn. However when I drove it at regular speeds it wasn't nearly as bad as it seemed. I did manage to tripod a PT Cruiser meaning it can actually take some aggressive cornering. Steering feel is actually quite appropriate, far better than today's Chryslers. One does have to be mindful of the height where if you really went too far pushing a PT you'll roll it.

My Score: 7/10 - A surprising handler despite the less than ideal components and body, but the turning radius is poor.


Interior: Inside a PT Cruiser its how one would expect an interior from Chrysler. The plastics are not of very high quality and the switchgear is not in an ideal place clustered in the center console. Unlike other Chrysler products though it does have a bright interior instead of the usual darkness. The plastics are also better quality than those used on newer Chryslers too, the newer cars are rough. Due to the unusual shape the rear hatch space is very good, far better than the Caliber's. Another bonus over new Chryslers is the rear visibility, the rear wiper can clear most of the big rear windscreen and the C-pillars are rather small unlike again newer Chryslers. The build quality is actually not too bad, however watch out for factory defects where sometimes an entire batch have the same problem. The PT Cruisers for most markets are assembled in Toluca, Mexico.

My Score: 7/10 - Very practical, excellent visibility but silly switch gear location and not very good plastics.

Styling: This car was a very controversial one, I myself hated the way the car looked. Yet there are people who loved the way the PT looked. This was easily the most polarizing car of 2000, one where people really loved it or hated it. These days in terms of ugliness there are much uglier cars now than the PT. I still don't like the unusual shape nor the way the front looked. That said I'm willing to say Chrysler took a risk and it paid off.

My Score: 5/10 - Very polarizing, for that reason it was interesting and will always be a subject of discussion.

Value for money: A very big reason for buying a PT Cruiser in the early days was down to the way the car looked. It was a great buy in the early days if you wanted the styling and the practicality. Today the car is approaching 10 years old as a design and it hasn't changed almost at all since the early 1999 cars. Normally this would devalue the car instantly, yet among all the Chrysler cars you can buy...I have to say the PT is still the better car. Its design was easily more common sense compared to a newer Chrysler product like a Dodge Journey where ergonomics was thrown out in favour of stupid design. One has to keep in mind you are buying a 10 year old vehicle though and most other manufacturers have a competing product now. A Nissan Cube, a Scion xB or GM's Chevrolet HHR all newer designs. A PT is a reasonable Chrysler buy, just not a reasonable unique hatch buy. I will say the PT has an unusual charm to it, I wanted to hate it but I came out believing different after driving it. I know its not a good car, but its become very difficult to hate it now. I've encountered some former PT owners who miss their PT and likely will buy the final ones.

My Score: 6/10 - The car is outdated but for a Chrysler product its better value than the car intended to replace it, the Caliber. The car has a lot of charm which is difficult to do as well.

Overall: 29/50 - The PT Cruiser is an aging vehicle, sadly its actually still one of Chrysler's better vehicles. What a shame to see a once innovative company make inferior cars.