2013 Dodge Dart SXT

Well, I only managed 2 entries yesterday I'll try for some more today.

Introduction: The Dodge Dart was introduced in 2012 as the new replacement for the outgoing Dodge Caliber. This is the first vehicle sold by Dodge to share some underpinnings from their new parent Fiat. The Dart itself shares the same platform as the Alfa Romeo Giulietta modified to fit US standards. The choice of the Dart name was a surprise in that the previous Dodge concept paid homage to the Hornet name from the Hudson brand which Chrysler acquired after taking over AMC. The use of Dart instead is paying homage to some earlier Chrysler vehicles that initially started as a fullsize car and quickly was turned into one of Chrysler's earliest compact car only preceded by the Lancer. Chrysler is hoping the new Dart will bring Dodge back as at least a recognized competitor unlike the Caliber which was largely despised and ignored.

Chrysler products...I tend to not be kind to them for many reasons. The low quality standards, the awful ergonomics, the horrible drive they provide and particularly during the Daimler Chrysler days the woeful reliability. I have set the bar pretty low for Chrysler and when this car arrived I was hoping this car would at least do better and show improvement over the Caliber which I hated. If Hyundais and Kias have changed my mind, what's to say Chrysler can't, so I always do leave an open mind.

Performance: The base Dodge Dart uses Chrysler's new 2.0L Tigershark engine. This engine produces 160 hp and 148 lb. ft of torque. Chrysler abandoned the CVT from the Caliber and has went with a more conventional 6-speed with both manual and automatic options available. The earliest Darts were released with manuals due to delays on the automatic. The 0-100 km/h acceleration time on this car is about 9.2 seconds on the automatic. Its not the slowest car, but it does have slightly tall gearing at the start. The engine isn't all that remarkable, the power numbers seem nice but due to the weight of the car its one of the heaviest in the class weighing at 3185 lbs or 1445 kg which stunts its acceleration. The fuel economy is actually disappointing considering its one of the less efficient cars nearly as low as the 2.5L 5-cylinder VW Jetta. I'm not a fan of Chrysler Canada citing imperial mpg numbers making it seem like it does 50 mpg when in reality even the Dart Aero when given a manual can only do 41 mpg. So don't buy into that lie.

My Score: 5/10 - The engine is alright but not remarkable in any way.

Handling: Due to the Dart being given the Alfa Romeo Giulietta platform I was hoping that perhaps some of the Alfa Romeo magic was to be found in the Dart. When taken around corners the Dart unlike most Chryslers performed decently and rather competently. The steering is yet another electric power steering unit and being a Chrysler its lacking more feel than most of the others, so I didn't get much fun out of it. When pushed the usual FWD characteristic of understeer is evident. Body roll this time around is on par with the average cars in the segment. Ride comfort is a tad bit harsh which seems to be something Chrysler doesn't put much effort into. All in all, this isn't a Caliber which I'm thankful for, but if this is what an Alfa platform is like...I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

My Score: 5/10 - Its ok, again not remarkable but fortunately not terrible either.

Interior: This is normally one of the more dreadful aspects of previous Chrysler vehicles. With regards to the Dart things have gotten better, no longer are there really stupid ergonomically unfriendly parts sticking out waiting to destroy your knee. Some of the really ugly plastics have been toss out making the interior a more decent place. As for the majority of the materials, there's pretty much no soft touch plastics in the base Darts. The Limited as pictured will have fake leather for the dash but this is hard plastic on base cars. The seat is acceptable, although not what I'd consider comfortable. The controls are fairly straight forward and UConnect is actually not terrible. For visibility the C-pillar is a bit big and the usual problem of modern sedans these days where the rear windscreen is increasingly getting smaller. Build quality this time around seems to be ok, but with Chrysler vehicles you have to be a bit more diligent I have encountered vehicles they've sent that should have failed an initial QC inspection for instance last month I got a brand new Jeep Patriot and it was missing seat levers. The Dart is built out of Belvidere, Illinois, United States.

My Score: 5/10 - A kind of cheap interior but functional and no longer suffering horrible ergonomics problems as previous Chryslers have.

Styling: I must admit, I actually do like the styling of the Dart. The moment I saw what it truly was going to look like, I was pretty certain it was going to be better than the Caliber. The front has a very aggressive look to it, its more restrained on the baser cars but given the black trim for the grille on the GT it looks really good. The taillights are from the current Dodge Charger and to be honest it looks great, as it definitely allows the Dart to stick out from a sea of blob shaped cars looking mostly the same. The side profile also looks pretty decent considering its supposed to be a boring sedan. I do approve the styling, I just wish they applied the more aggressive grille to all the models rather than the faster GT version.

My Score: 9/10 - A lovely design.

Value for money: Considering the competition the Dart has stacked up against it, I don't think its looking too good on value particularly for a more base model. One of the problems these days is that the competition is actually rather competitive and average no longer does it. On features the baser Dart comes out a bit short, it doesn't have a lot of equipment for $20K for the automatic. It lacks stuff that a $18K Toyota Corolla would have. Going with the full base model at $16K its missing a lot of stuff including power windows, mirrors, A/C, etc. On top of that, you're not exactly getting the best car for your $20K because in the vast majority of areas its only mediocre. The only area I actually liked the car was for its exterior styling. Chrysler had to rebuild from the disaster created from the Caliber, but pricing like this will keep people away when they see a mostly mediocre car.

My Score: 2/10 - The competition offers more for less and for the Dart being average isn't good enough.

Conclusion: The Dart isn't a car worthy of dreading anymore when it comes to rental car roulette. Its actually a average car, but in a competitive market being average doesn't cut it. The only car I think it even has a chance of beating in the segment is the Corolla, unfortunately due to the pricing the Corolla has the name advantage and the price advantage. How do you convince a Corolla buyer to take a Dart when its more expensive and from a company that has a history of low quality cars? If Dodge survives this segment, the next gen Dart will have to be a game changer to erase the horrible memory of the Caliber but this particular one doesn't do that. It looks nice on the outside, but that's all there is to it.

Overall: 26/50 - A car with style, but not much substance.

2012 Hyundai Elantra GL

I'm going to try to get as many reviews done by today as I can.

Introduction: The Hyundai Elantra began in 1990 always as intended as a compact competitor to cars like the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic. For much of the beginning it had very little name recognition. It wasn't until the 3rd generation Elantra did it start becoming more known as a potential alternative to other compact cars pushing out cars in the segment falling out of favour. The Elantra is now in its 5th generation new for the 2011 model year.

Now these days when it comes to Korean cars, the newer the better. After driving the Sonata and other new Hyundais and Kias, I had high hopes that the Elantra will be a lot better than the old 4th generation. My conclusion will be based on of course the pricing and whether this car is capable of taking down my current favourite in the segment the Mazda 3.

Performance: The Hyundai Elantra is given only one engine for the North American market, their 1.8L engine. This engine unlike newer Hyundai engines is a standard multi-port injection engine so it doesn't have direction injection. It produces 148 hp and 131 lb ft of torque. Its acceleration takes it from 0-100 km/h in about 9.5 seconds which is faster than most in the class. This engine is a rather quiet and refined unit making it rather nice on any sort of drive. Even the power numbers don't accurately describe how the car always feels like it has some grunt even at highway speeds. The fuel economy numbers are also pretty good, so long as you didn't buy into their 40 mpg promotion ads which in essence they were lying. For this class, this is a rather nice engine because it does all the practical stuff very well while at the same time not entirely sacrificing things like acceleration and speed as they've done on the Corolla and Civic. This is a nice engine and with equally nice 6-speed automatic.

My Score: 10/10 - It does everything that's asked of it, its good all around. Just don't believe the 40 mpg lies.


Handling: This was one of my biggest criticisms of the old Elantra in that it didn't handle that well nor was it much fun. Hyundai has completely revamped how the Elantra handles now. The steering is still electric power steering but its been given more feel and is now much better at giving an accurate turn. However it still has the downside of EPS in that it still feels artificially boosted, so far only the Scion FR-S does best here. On the corners the Elantra was pretty composed and as usual when pushed you encounter understeer. Ride comfort is pretty spectacular for something this size, certainly one of the better cars in the class. Overall the car handles rather well, while its no driver's car its something even a driving enthusiast wouldn't be all upset about.

My Score: 9/10 - Apart from my gripe about steering feel, I can't find much fault in the handling.

Interior: This interior is a massive change over the old Elantra. Gone are the bland, boring and cheap looking knobs and in with some much nicer buttons, display and a rather interesting climate control knob. Hyundai has definitely taken styling into the equation which is something Japanese automakers haven't really done. The center console has been given curves and just sticks out whereas most German and Japanese interiors are far from interesting. The Elantra is on par with everyone else in most of the materials used, most of it however is better than average and only a few spots of hard plastic where I'd prefer soft. The seat is very comfortable even with manual adjustments. The car is relatively well equipped even for a lower trim model with Hyundai giving most of the options people want like power doors/locks, cruise and so on. Visibility is decent although the rear windscreen view is rather small. So far I've found the build quality on these new Elantras to be very good, not an issue of loose trim or misaligned panels. The current North American Elantras are built in Montgomery, Georgia, United States.

My Score: 9/10 - Near faultless interior given the price point.

Styling: The new Elantra has been given Hyundai's new swoop design languages giving it a more smooth aerodynamic look. All the other items like the headlights and tail lights are styled to flow with the car, and for the most part the car looks rather good. While it doesn't have the same aggressive look as say the Mitsubishi Lancer it also doesn't look as friendly as the Mazda 3, its kind of an odd mix of both. This is a much better design than the previous design which was sort of a Corolla copy, now the Elantra has been given a more unique look and while you can see a family resemblance its not a Sonata or Accent copy. I wouldn't go as far as to call it beautiful but its good looking.

My Score: 8/10 - The new design language works well, it doesn't go extreme enough to push for a higher score.

Value for money: Here's the interesting part of the Elantra, this is usually the best category for the Korean cars since the beginning, and even though Korean cars have increased in price this is still an area where they're strongest. The difference now is instead of considering them as the budget version of popular cars, they're now in essence the standard of what some of the other automakers should live up to. The base car isn't all that great because it lacks a few useful features like A/C. In this current trim level, Hyundai asks for roughly $19K but you're given nearly everything you would ask for in a car like this. In fact going up the next level gives you extras like sunroof and rear heated seats, nice but not necessary. Based on this, I'd have a hard time arguing against the value of this car. Many automakers leave a lot of stuff out of the mid trim level to in essence convince you to pay full price, but Hyundai decided this was the trim level they'd rather focus on and you benefit greatly by only paying a bit more.

My Score: 9/10 - I'd be superb if this was the base trim level but even so at $19K there's not much else to ask for without going overboard.

Conclusion: Now that I've gone through everything about this car I can easily say this is one of the best cars in the segment. If you're in the market for a car in the compact class this is an easy one to consider. Better yet, if you wanted a Corolla buy the Elantra instead because the Elantra is better in every single way, much the same can be said about the Civic where again the Elantra is better in nearly every way. Now, when it comes to choosing this over my favourite car the Mazda 3, interior wise the Elantra is better but driving I'd still give the edge to the Mazda and with the new SkyActiv engine the Mazda is still very competitive. As an all rounder the Elantra is very good, the Mazda however is that bit more driver focused. You can't go wrong with either but I think the Elantra offers more and therefore it'd be my choice for the segment's winner.

Overall: 45/50 - An excellent compact car, its not perfect but what is?

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.