2012-2013 VW Jetta Base and 2.5L

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

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

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

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

My Score(Base): 0/10 - This engine was outdated 15 years ago, VW doesn't seem to care, inferior in all aspects.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall(Base): 7/50 - Utter rubbish

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

2012 Buick LaCrosse

I'm still attempting to do my best at reviewing at least a single vehicle a month. I apologize if you wait for them as I have no clear schedule when to make a new post.

Introduction: The Buick LaCrosse was the replacement of the then Buick Regal and Buick Century, GM's midsize entry level luxury car in 2005. This first car used the same W-body platform as the Pontiac Grand Prix and for the most part was very similar to that car. That car even offered a V8 which few expect from a Buick these days. The Buick brand in recent decades has been characterized as the brand that only the elderly chooses to drive. Alarming to GM as the Buick buyer's average age keep getting higher and higher. GM needed to reduce this age average before its Buick customers retired from driving. The result was a apparent overhaul in Buick's styling and trying to bring some of the more successful Buick designs from China over to the United States. The new LaCrosse is one of those very cars initially designed for the Chinese market and lightly modified for North American use.

I keep hearing about how successful Buicks are in China. I may be Hong Kong Chinese but you would think that if its successful there I should find these new Buicks to be at least good enough. Also this is a new GM product, this should be a major improvement over the old Allure/LaCrosse which was a Grand Prix with none of the savagery(which I liked). So we'll see how GM does.

Performance: The LaCrosse that is sold here is equipped with GM's newer 3.6L V6 with direct injection. This engine gives the LaCrosse a healthy 306 hp and 264 lb.ft of torque. This is a lot of power from a V6 and this means this car should be fast. The LaCrosse accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 6.6 seconds which is not too bad for something this large and heavy. However my gripe with this car is this car's terrible automatic transmission. If you drive this car like a geriatric, or just plain normal driving this transmission is so dim-witted that it fails to change gear until at least 3500 rpm. You just can't drive this car without it being noisy after a stop which you'll need to do in the city. This continues on even in 2nd gear and finally gets better after 3rd. Because of this idiotic transmission programming, this car has a rubbish 17 mpg for city driving, my 25 year old Toyota Cressida does better than that. What a bummer, this is supposed to be comfortable not noisy.

My Score: 5/10 - Great highway engine, lots of power, but what a horrible transmission which ruins quiet comfortable driving and critically ruins city fuel economy.

Handling: As you'd expect from a big pig like this car and FWD this car isn't that good with the corners. While its competent for most normal driving maneuvers when you actually need to push this car, its great weight, nearly 4000 lbs of it, scrubs a lot of cornering ability the performance is trying to attempt. This is also one of the less comfortable Buicks to drive over hard roads. As expected of a car this heavy with FWD, understeer is the primary thing you'll encounter under harder cornering. I found the handling to be a weird mishmash with it not coming out that good for the handling nor the comfort. Worse is the steering, its mostly numb but GM for whatever reason put a very big dead center in it, as a result you have a surprisingly big amount of play in the wheel. I hated that especially for tight maneuvers.

My Score: 5/10 - Not that comfortable and it doesn't corner that well, steering is numb with a terrible dead center.

Interior: Being a car initially designed for Chinese consumption, one of the big items they look for is interior space and the LaCrosse certainly delivers on that end. The rear passengers will not be cramped even with a bigger driver and passenger up front. The center console seems to be somewhat nicely styled although its a little bit too button infested making it initially difficult to figure out what's what. The seat for me was way too big again, the lower cushion is too long while not as horrible as the last LaCrosse I was still forced to push the seat down with my legs and worse of all my driving position was not comfortable as the seat will not go forward enough. The rear visibility is also pretty woeful, as was the case from the older Buicks. Strangely for a car of this price range, leather is optional as is seat warmers. This interior also feels like a mishmash attempting to be all new and modern but trying so hard to also make it seem attractive to its loyal elderly customers. As a result I don't like it. The LaCrosse is built in Kansas City, Kansas, in the United States.

My Score: 6/10 - Lots of interior room, nicer styling but an oversized seat, overuse of buttons, terrible visibility and surprising option omissions for this class.

Styling: Buick is certainly trying to no longer quite seem like its for your grandparents. The car looks more elegant than the Buicks of yesterday. However there are still elements of old Buick, namely the way the grille looks. It just seems too oversized for the overall design and yet it seems like a forced Buick styling item. Had this been a normal car it would've had a more normal grille and this would make it look better.

My Score: 6/10 - They're trying, although they still kept too much of old Buick in the design with that grille.

Value for money: In this base form, this particular car costs $34K. If what you wanted was a car that has a slightly more upscale badge and lots of interior room then this is a good choice. However I tend to look for a lot more when looking at the luxury class and for $34K what was GM thinking by omitting seat warmers? For essentially half the price you can buy a Toyota Corolla that's nearly as well equipped as this Buick. The omission of leather is also a poor choice, when a Ford Taurus can come with leather for less than this car's base price...it begs the question of why and who was stupid enough to approve that? Once you add up at least some of the minor options we'd expect from a car of this level, you put it right up against the Volvo S60 T5 which I'm afraid is a way better car in several respects. This car might come in this segment with the lowest price but when the things it omits makes it less luxurious than mildly upgraded base models of things like a Corolla you feel like you wasted your money.

My Score: 3/10 - Expensive for what it is, the number of feature omission on this base model and you're not getting much in the level of luxury.

Overall: 25/50 - This car is a big disappointment. It only excels in size and power. This is sadly better handled by the much cheaper Impala.

2013 Scion FR-S

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012 Honda Civic LX

I'm still attempting to update this blog as often as I can. I think I'm doing a better job than I did last year where I went months without an update. Here's a common car that's been updated.

Introduction: The Honda Civic was introduced in 1973 as Honda's first true attempt at making cars. Before the Civic, Honda was only known for making motorcycles and little did anyone know that the Civic would become one of the most important car names several years later. The timing of the Civic couldn't have been better due to the 1973 oil crisis where demand for small and light cars were in higher demand in North America. For its entire history the Honda Civic has popularized front wheel drive back during a time when the Corolla was rear wheel drive. It also popularized the use of multi-link suspension and eventually double wishbone suspension. Honda removed the double wishbone suspension from the 7th generation Civic due to its cost. The Civic now in its 9th generation has still retained its lead as top selling compact car in North America

Normally this car isn't very interesting to review but lately this car has been getting a lot of criticism starting with Consumer Reports. The majority of them criticized the cost cutting and the rather tepid improvements made to this car. This has provoked a response from Honda saying that a new refresh will be on the way sooner than normal and will address some of the criticisms. Now, I'm part of no publication nor do I get any form of sponsorship, I want to get to the bottom of this to see whether this car is actually bad or not.

Performance: The new Honda Civic is given a new 1.8L engine to replace the old 1.8L engine. When it comes to the raw numbers, the performance figures don't really change. You get the same 140 hp and 128 lb.ft of torque you got from the old car. The acceleration figure is still exactly the same at 9.2 seconds to get to 100 km/h from a dead stop. The car is no heavier and no lighter still being roughly 1200 kg. You're still given a choice between a 5-speed manual or automatic, not the 6-speeds other new cars are given. The only benefit you're given for going with this model over the old one is the fuel economy is a bit better on the highway. However judging from what most people have managed, its only marginally better. Frankly at the end of the day this is pretty much the exact same 2006 you're given with no real reason to switch. Its 6 years later and frankly its too slow now and there are more fuel efficient vehicles out there.

My Score: 4/10 - 2006 performance from a vehicle in 2012, I scored the car 6/10 3 years ago its no better today.

Handling: This new car also doesn't bring back the double wishbone suspension Honda fans absolutely love. You still have multi-link rear suspension fortunately, which means no terrible torsion bar to deal with but I can't see any real changes to the car either. The steering is even lighter than last time which annoyed me already. Honda has tweaked this suspension further in the range of comfort rather than performance, as a result this is the least bone jarring Civic I've been in...but the limit to when this car understeers is much easier to reach than it used to be. Driving a car that is capable of understeer at 40 km/h is disappointing to say the least. This car has gotten more boring.

My Score: 5/10 - Understeer limit is easier to reach, boring to drive, however comfortable for a Civic.

Interior: One of the things I loved about the previous Civic was the rather advanced looking dials and gauges you were given. This car didn't really chance much of that, however they added something which I annoyed me to no end. The speedometer is no longer separate and now part of a large dash readout. Most of the information is easy to read. What I hated however was the bar lights that surround the dash. Its the most distracting thing I've found in a car dash readout, it turns blue and green with what seems to be no real reason and because its in your line of sight your eye starts to become curious at why its changing colours. Sadly I haven't found way to turn off this frankly stupid feature. I turned off eco-mode which doesn't seem to do anything with that and remained annoyed as I drove this car. The interior quality of the car remains much the same as last time...lots of very cheap plastic which isn't very nice. They still angled the dash which damages my knee in the old car, this new car does it the same way, you won't notice if your tall, but if you're short this is a problem. The stereo is a better unit this time around, much easier to use than the somewhat messy one from the old car. This being the LX model it will have A/C, power locks and other features you'd expect a car of this level to have the cheapo DX model doesn't. The visibility remains much the same, the C-pillars are still fairly large on a car this size. The build quality on this car is much the same as last time as well. This car is built in two plants in North America, its either going to be made in Greensburg, Indiana, United States or Alliston, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 4/10 - Not a whole lot different from last time, however the utterly annoying bar lighting is terrible and its still lacking standard features like power locks even 6 years later.

Exterior: From the front, this car is exactly the same as the old one. Apart from the slightly different grille there's just no difference from the old car. The rear has changed a bit, but this look is the same boring look people criticized Toyota for the 5th gen Camry and the 1st gen Prius. There's not much to say, they didn't bother styling this car.

My Score: 1/10 - No effort into styling this into a "new" car. All styling changes have actually made the car more dull than before.

Value for money: Now starting with the base car its under 15K. However this is the model most people will buy and this car is about 18K. Why? Its simple if you want A/C, power locks, split folding rear seats, the base DX is no good. The cheapo Corolla has split folding rears as standard, the Mazda3 goes further by having power windows and locks and standard rear disc brakes. This car is also only offered in sedan or coupe form, no hatchback or wagon is available, if you wanted a hatch the Civic has been no good since 2002. The driving impressions on this new Civic is just downright dull, you're just better off with a Kia Forte, Mazda3, Mitsubishi Lancer and the VW Golf. The interior appointments are of low quality, you'll find the Ford Focus, VW Golf, any maybe the Chevrolet Cruze to be better appointed. Want the more fuel efficient car? Mazda3, Hyundai Elantra, Ford Focus and Chevrolet Cruze are your best choices. So you're just essentially riding on the Honda Civic badging, overall this car would be great as a 2006 model...but its 2012 and the Civic from 2006 is pretty much the same...I mean it can't even beat competition from itself from 6 years ago. All new is totally wrong, this is still that same 2006 car now competing against cars that feel post-2010. As a result its terrible value, and if you like this car here's my suggestion, buy a used Civic from 2006-2011, they're exactly the same and you save money in the process.

My Score: 3/10 - Against actual new cars, this car is outdated simply by the fact its really no better than it was 6 years ago. Its not even good value or reduced in price like most other outdated cars. You could get worse cars but this is simply unacceptable for a 18K car.

Overall: 17/50 - For a "all-new" car, this has one of the laziest efforts ever made by an automaker. I can't think of a worse reason for giving money to a company that just doesn't try. It'd get less criticism if they called this car the 8.5th generation Civic, its definitely not a real 9th gen but that's Honda's own fault.

2012 Volvo C30 T5

Once again I've been trying my best to update when I have the time, sorry about the wait. I've reviewed this car already but there are some differences with this new trim level.

Introduction: The Volvo C30 is Volvo's return to the coupe market. There was the Volvo 300 series which in all honesty were terrible, and the Volvo 400 series which most of the world was never given. The design of the C30 particularly of the rear was inspired from an Volvo from the past, the P1800ES. Now to build this C30, Volvo uses the exact same platform as the S40 and much of the interior is what you'll find from the S40. The whole point of this car is to allow Volvo to escape their safety obsessed past which essentially pointed Volvos as square and boring, nothing you'd actually want. Volvo released the C30 with a series of engines, for the Canadian market we were given the 24i and T5, in America only the T5 was available. Due to its price bracket and the sort of customers buying the C30, the 24i was eventually dropped leaving only the T5.

Anyways, I didn't think I'd be writing about this car again but it seems I have and there's good reason to take another look again. This one is the powerful T5 version. So, can an engine actually change my opinion on a car enough to make me say its better or worse than before?

Performance: The C30 T5 is given a turbocharged 5-cylinder engine, hence the T5. This engine produces 227 hp and 236 lb.ft of torque. This engine is coupled to a 5-speed automatic, or 6-speed manual but for this review it'll be the automatic. Now, compared to a lot of the other cars I've driven this doesn't sound like much. The difference is the C30 weighs less than 3000 lbs whereas most of the other cars with this sort of power these days are generally 3500 lbs. As a result this gives the car an acceleration time of 7.1 seconds from 0-100 km/h, according to Volvo the manual is capable of 6.7 seconds. This is a lot better than the 323i or a C250 and way quicker than most other cars of this size. I like this engine quite a lot, there isn't much sense of turbo lag nor is there a lot of torque steer to ruin the experience. The only flaw I can think of is when pushed, the fuel economy is not impressive.

My Score: 10/10 - A very good engine, well specified for this car.

Handling: The old car handled very well and sure enough even though this one has turbocharging equipment it feels much the same. The only difference this time is the extra power from the engine. As a result the excellent handling from the Ford C1 platform is amplified with the excitement coming from the engine. The steering weight is very well done, you don't get a whole lot of understeer and zig-zagging by traffic is a breeze for a car of this size with this amount of power. Even with the good handling, the ride isn't spoiled either with a tough suspension. As far as excellent handling FWD cars, this is one of the best.

My Score: 10/10 - No complaints at all.

Interior: Not much has changed about the interior if anything. The read outs are much the same, the interior styling is exactly the same, the buttons and everything seem very much the same. However I will go a bit more in-depth than I did in the old review especially seeing that I should've separated the S40 and C30. Due to this car's pricing point the interior is a bit more upscale than a regular hatchback. You're given a leather wheel, leather seats, sun roof and all those sorts of nice things. The dash is mostly plastic, while there are some bits where some attention to detail was given like the center console, its not a whole lot different than most other cars as far as materials are concerned. The seat belt holders despite having coupe-like doors are actually well placed unlike say a Civic coupe or held on cheaply like a Cobalt coupe. This means using the seat belt isn't a difficult stretch if you're not tall. The rear seats are modest as far as passenger space but not ideal. The space in the tailgate area is actually quite generous considering the size of this car, 2 full size suit cases could easily fit. Lastly the visibility is actually quite good despite the tiny rear windscreen. Due to this car's small size, the blindspots are no larger than a normal car's. As for the build quality, again this car is made in Ghant, Belgium and it seems they do a very good job putting the car together.

My Score: 6/10 - Same as last time, kind of expensive for what you get.

Styling: Not a lot has changed here either but if I'm honest I've always felt the C30 looked a lot better than the S40 and since it was one of my earlier reviews I failed to separate it thinking they're sort of the same. The new styling changes primarily deal with the front where the headlamps are larger and look more aggressive, the grille is no longer a simple rectangle, and the fog lamp housing looks way better. This makes the front look quite a lot better. The rear has always been my favourite part of the car and I'm glad Volvo didn't change that. Its so unique and yet it also looks very good.

My Score: 10/10 - This was the score I should've given the C30 years ago. It looks great even today.

Value for money: Things have changed since 2 years ago. Now, the Volvo is in competition against the Audi A3 and the Lexus CT. First things first, the Volvo badge still isn't the best badge to have as far as luxury is concerned. However with a T5 its priced at 30K which is 7K less than the Audi and nearly the same as the Lexus. Performance-wise the Volvo is easily better than the Lexus which has no chance as its very slow, the Audi has less power with its 4-cylinder turbo but ends up faster by a small margin unless you get the C30 manual. Practicality, the Audi is better being offered in 5-door option and same deal with the Lexus. Features, the Audi is no different than the C30. Worse for the Audi, at the end of the day its just an expensive Golf. The C30 now with actual competition, starts to actually look better. I think it does well, and weirdly its easily the oldest.

My Score: 7/10 - The Audi is faster, slightly nicer trimmed and a bit more practical, but the C30 is better looking and all in all better value.

Overall: 43/50 - The C30 in with this engine is a great car. If you want a small, fast and mildly luxurious car the C30 is the best choice.