2007-2008 Suzuki Swift+

Sometimes you can tell how good or bad a car is just from the way it looks. Here's one that shouldn't be that difficult to guess.


Introduction: This car started out in 2004 and is known in South Korea as the Daewoo Kalos. GM decided it wanted this car and placed a Chevrolet badge for the international market and a Pontiac badge for the American market. For the Canadian market, GM still had control over Suzuki and decided to bring this along and put a Suzuki badge as well while bringing the other two rebadges. This resulted in the Chevrolet Aveo, the Pontaic G3 Wave and the Suzuki Swift+. All three of these cars are practically identical, only the grille had the biggest change aside from the badges. This would be GM's answer to the Toyota Echo, the Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio.

Now when I first got news that I was going to have to drive this car, I didn't really know what it was. I never knew Suzuki actually had this car as a rebadge or even knew of its existence. I knew about the Aveo, but not the G3 Wave or this. I do remember the old Suzuki Swift that had the 3-cylinder, this seemed nothing like that. Most of these are sold as hatchbacks and this is what this review will focus on.


Performance: The Swift+ featured a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine for the North American market. This engine produced 103 hp and 107 lb.ft of torque making it the lowest hp producing engine since the demise of the Golf Mk IV with its 1.6L. The acceleration this engine can manage for this car is going from 0-100 km/h in 10.8 seconds. Not the worst accelerating car I've driven. As for the engine its not a very good one, its very noisy and irritating. You can tell Daewoo was new to making cars due to how rough this engine puts out power with the noise and the fact you can feel the vibrations in the interior. The worst thing about this engine however is its not even efficient, the Chevrolet Cobalt with its bigger 2.2L engine manages slightly less fuel economy in the city but beats this Daewoo on the highway. What is GM thinking? What was Suzuki thinking? The old Swift at least was very fuel efficient, this Daewoo is inefficient yet still nowhere near exciting.

My Score: 2/10 - Unrefined, noisy and not fuel efficient...what good is it?

Handling: This is usually where small cars manage to get back some points if they failed on performance. This Daewoo...doesn't really get there sadly. The steering wheel is not as light as it is on a Toyota or Chrysler but crucially it doesn't produce a natural feel to the steering...it feels artificial and doesn't produce confidence when you try and corner for a small thrill. The body roll is very poor and with its very small wheels its less agile than its competitors.

My Score: 3/10 - They tried but failed, puny tires and the articificially inserted feel do not make this car any fun


Interior: This is where you start seeing why Daewoo failed in North America in the first place. Inside its just all black aside from some tin foil plastic which is as always pretty nasty to look at. The cup holder is very flimsy and very cheaply made, the door handles are also made of this flimsy cheap plastic, the seats use budget proportioned cloth and so on. I mentioned in the performance section that the engine's vibrations can be felt inside, the steering wheel is often the piece that shakes as the car idles, showing how cheaply designed the engine is and how cheaply trimmed this interior is. Due to how black and unattractive the plastic is...its actually a pretty depressing place to be inside. While Daewoo managed to have interior space for moderate sized passengers they sacrificed the tailgate space. Last thing to mention, Daewoo mostly fit these with no power locks...there is no way for the driver to manual lock their door since the inside lock itself refuses to move and must use the key from outside the car. This may not seem like a problem at all but I've seen these cars where the key hole actually collapsed and getting inside this car required entering from the passenger side and exiting the same way. I mentioned a key hole failing and this is another problem in this Daewoo because its not built very well. All these cars come shipped from GM's Daewoo factory in South Korea, so if you're not too knowledgeable about cars the salesman might con you into thinking this is American or Japanese.

My Score: 1/10 - Unattractive, very poor quality materials, flawed engineering, poor cargo room and not built very well.

Styling: This is normally where Chrysler regains some points...this Daewoo just doesn't. When you look at this car with its strange side profile, its dinky wheels and its not very attractive front end you can tell this car isn't going to be any good to begin with. With the surprisingly poor fuel economy I looked around to see how much drag it creates...well it produces a drag coefficient of 0.35 which is what luxury Japanese SUVs can manage. So basically you have this weird shape for no good reason.

My Score: 1/10 - Its bad when you can tell just from looking at the car that it will be bad, add for most people this will be a clown car.

Value for money: This is normally where Korean cars start to look good due to being very well equipped and fantastic value for your money. This Daewoo...doesn't, it may have the lowest MSRP of its time but when running costs are added its more expensive than its Korean rivals and clearly more expensive than the Toyota. Its more expensive due to how fuel inefficient it is but also due to the parts being sourced purely from South Korea it takes a long time for them to arrive. Accident damage or an out of stock part puts this car out of commission longer than cars made in Japan or Germany. Its not very well equipped either, unlike the Kia or Hyundai it has nothing as a standard feature. More importantly, its not very safe either it did spectacularly badly during its earlier crash tests, today its just scores just average which for a small car is worrisome.

My Score: 2/10 - Its got a low MSRP, unfortunately its burdened with no standard equipment, expensive running costs due to bad fuel economy, difficult to source parts and worst of all disappointing safety scores.

Overall: 9/50 - Its a very bad car, I'm still perplexed at why GM even bothered when they clearly could do much better with a smaller Cobalt. This is part of the reason why GM had to declare bankruptcy, stupid decisions like selling this car outside of its home country.

2008 Hummer H3

Sometimes some vehicles are forgettable which is why I tried to push out that 2006 Sentra review as soon as possible. There are others I have no idea why I forgotten other than I haven't driven them for a while like this one.


Introduction: The Hummer H3 was introduced in 2005 as GM's smaller Hummer model. While the news media tried to portray this as Hummer attempting to address the ever growing fuel prices, that was not the true purpose of the H3. GM actually wanted the H3 to be a better off-roading vehicle than the clumsy and larger H2 thus they decided to use the Chevrolet Colorado as a base to achieve this goal. The fate of the Hummer H3 is unknown due to the sale of the Hummer division to the Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company Ltd.

I've heard about this vehicle when the idea surfaced and didn't really believe the media when they attempted to portray this SUV as Hummer's more environmentally friendly alternative to the H2. Hummer knows it'll fail attempting to fit that image and to do so would mean to take away much of its off-roading capabilities and become a crossover, yet with something as mean looking as a Hummer it looks awful if it couldn't do anything close to what the military Humvees are capable of.


Performance: The H3 comes with 2 engine choices, a 5-cylinder and a V8. The original H3 had a 3.5L 5-cylinder engine, the H3 I drove had the newer 3.7L 5-cylinder Vortec engine. This 3.7L produces about 242 hp and 242 lb.ft of torque which seems pretty good for a normal car. The H3 despite being smaller than the very heavy H2 is at least 4700 lbs. This weight greatly influences the acceleration, 0-100 km/h takes nearly 11 seconds. I also didn't find the engine to be very refined and thus can't say I enjoyed the performance. If you're thinking of buying a Hummer, the I5 H3 is not quick oh and if you're thinking about fuel economy...assume the worst because the H3 is rather thirsty.

My Score: 3/10 - Not a refined engine, consumes lots of fuel and underpowered for the vehicle

Handling: I mentioned the ridiculously heavy body the H3 has to lug around, as a result cornering is not very good either. While I don't expect SUVs this large to be agile, the H3 is just so heavy that its clear you shouldn't take any corners quickly at all. The suspension is somewhat balanced in stiffness and comfort, too much compromise for comfort would ruin its off-roading ability. There is some steering feel from the chunky wheel so its not totally lacking character and also makes it easier to drive than one would think.

My Score: 3/10 - Its very heavy and as a result corners pretty poorly, suspension is reasonable in its tolerances though and not that difficult to drive.


Interior: The very first thing you will notice about the Hummer's interior is how chunky GM has made some items. Much of the interior for most H3s only comes in black, there are two tones like beige and black but I don't believe anything else. I mentioned the steering wheel first because its rather fat and not made for small hands like mine. The next one is the gear lever for the automatic is very chunky and while I normally rest my hand there on most cars...this one I refrain due to how gigantic it feels. The remaining features are very plain and quite a lot of the gauges came straight from the Colorado which wasn't sophisticated. The seats are decently comfortable although this truck doesn't feel all that large inside despite its exterior. The blind spots...in the H3 are very bad, the windows are very small while each pillar is very large with the A pillar being the least intrusive, the B, C and D pillars on the other hand are very intrusive. The tire mounted on the back also intrudes on the already small rear windscreen. Not driver friendly for those who want to see without looking at the front windscreen. As for build quality...I haven't seen many issues so far. H3s sold in North America are built in Shreveport Louisiana, in the United States.

My Score: 3/10 - very plain, not very interesting but surprisingly small inside and rather annoying with poor visibility.

Styling: This is the main reason to buy any Hummer. You basically accept the higher gas bills, the difficulty of parking, the anger of environmentalists and some luxuries in order to have a vehicle that looks like this. Its very mean and menacing, while giving an image if it being very tough and strong. People will put up with the big faults of the H3 just to have these looks. I must admit I do think the military influenced design has worked to this SUV's favour.

My Score: 10/10 - Deep down, everyone would love to have a vehicle that can terrorize other puny vehicles on the road.

Value for money: Unfortunately the H3 is not a very good value for money since there are much cheaper off-roading vehicles that aren't burdened by a very heavy body and as much daily expense as is to run a H3. Even the actual price tag is not going to please since another GM SUV going by the name of the Chevrolet Tahoe is only a few more thousand dollars is much larger has more seating capacity, its much quicker and has very similar fuel bills to boot. You really do have to spend much of your money just to have the style and nothing more.

My Score: 2/10 - The only vehicle out there with these looks, yet a horrible choice when looks are taken out of the equation.

Overall: 21/50 - Not a brilliant SUV, GM is solely relying on mere looks to grab the attention of would-be buyers.

2008 Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tuscon

Normally I consider a Kia and Hyundai to be different from each other. This is one of the few examples where I almost couldn't find a single difference, as a result I will review both since they're almost identical.



Introduction: The Kia Sportage is the older name of the two, it was originally a rugged off-roader built in 1993 and actually managed to stay in production until 2002. The original Sportage was one of the models to receive Mazda and Ford parts due to the Ford-Mazda-Kia partnership. When the Sportage was discontinued in 2002 it had no direct replacement. In 2004, Kia now under the direction of Hyundai due to South Korean government interference revived the Sportage name, however Hyundai also released the Tucson. Both use the same Elantra platform particularly the 3rd generation Elantra, the earliest car I reviewed. The result for the Sportage was that it no longer was capable of going off-road. As with other similar Kia and Hyundai vehicles, they're both manufactured from different South Korean factories. Hyundai has scheduled a redesign of the Tucson for 2010 due to be on sale soon, its unknown if the Sportage will receive similar treatment outside of Europe.

By the time I drove the Tucson and Sportage I've come to distingush Korean cars with the old being the bad ones and the newer being the good ones. The Sportage and Tuscon belong on the old column.


Performance: The Sportage and Tucson both share the exact same engines from the 2.0L 4-cylinder to the 2.7L V6. For this review I've only driven the 2.7L V6 which produces 173 hp and 178 lb.ft of torque. Unlike the Santa Fe, I don't feel this V6 moves this SUV very well. Its just too low powered even for a 2.7...I mean Chrysler's V6 of this size is very old and does 190 in both stats. The acceleration is pretty poor for both going from 0-100 km/h in 10.2 seconds. Its not a particularly nice sounding engine either, sort of coarse for a V6.

My Score: 3/10 - Disappointingly slow for a high end engine.

Handling: Both of these SUVs use the old Elantra's platform as a result these SUVs are not very rewarding to drive but rather feel like tools. Neither is particularly terrible taking the corners but it always seems like a chore to do so driving these. The steering feel is somewhat lacking especially compared to the Santa Fe.

My Score: 4/10 - Not particularly horrible...but then again it could be so much better.



Interior: Normally this is what sets Kia and Hyundai apart, but for these SUVs they're extremely similar. Usually Hyundai build quality is slightly better, but due to the similar parts its just not noticeable. The seats are pretty decent and there's adequate room for passengers of average size. The stereo is the old Hyundai/Kia unit and its still as bad as I've said. The plastics however are not adequate, they age particularly badly when shown beside Hyundai's current plastic trim. There's nothing clever or anything interesting to note aside from this.

My Score: 4/10 - A regular SUV interior with some low quality materials and a bad stereo.

Styling: The Kia has a slightly more agricultural look but the plastic bumper sort of ruins that image. The Tucson is more like a normal crossover but not particularly interesting. The Tucson also shows its plastic front bumper which I don't find very appealing.

My Score: 4/10 - Pretty generic with a cheap looking bumper.

Value for money: As inexpensive SUVs both the Sportage and Tucson seem like a good deal. The weak engine is not very appealing to people who do research their cars. Those who want a practical vehicle won't find these SUVs to be appealing either due to their small size but pretty conventional layout. A Legacy Wagon or Outback is more practical and in my opinion better at everything. The only people who will want these vehicles are those who want the high driving position but don't want to pay a lot.

My Score: 4/10 - Few of these vehicles seem like good value compared to a wagon, most appealing to those who like a high driving position.

Overall: 19/50 - A result of being outdated, the 2010s and Hyundai's rise seem more promising...best to wait for those.

2008, 2009 Hyundai Santa Fe 3.3 GL

There aren't too many Korean cars I've posted so far so I'll probably start adding more...starting now.


Introduction: The Hyundai Santa Fe is a fairly new name in the Hyundai lineup. The original Santa Fe was a more rugged vehicle with several vehicles having a bull bar. It was mostly panned for its agricultural styling yet nonetheless it was one of Hyundai's better selling vehicles. For the model year 2007 Hyundai redesigned the Santa Fe ditching the unique but outdated styling in favour of a more modern and contemporary look.

By the time I drove the Santa Fe I actually have driven some decent Korean vehicles and I wasn't unhappy to see this vehicle on our lots unlike how I used to be.


Performance: For this review I have only driven the 3.3L V6 engine for the Santa Fe. Hyundai also offers a 2.7L V6 which is used on the Kia Sportage and Hyundai Tucson. The 3.3L V6 produces 242 hp and 226 lb.ft of torque. I found this engine moves the Santa Fe at a pretty reasonably speed however despite being much more powerful than the older 3.5L Hyundai used on the older Tuscon this engine isn't terribly quick to move this CUV. This V6 manages to move the Santa Fe even with AWD from 0-100 km/h in about 8.3 seconds. Not bad, but with many Japanese SUVs being equipped with 3.5L V6s those manage to move in under 7 seconds. Still this engine is pretty smooth and reasonably quiet which is a big improvement over the older unrefined Hyundai engines.

My Score: 8/10 - A pretty good engine, its just not as quick as one wished

Handling: Taking a Santa Fe into the corners makes me wonder whether it lost some of its agricultural roots. This is a pretty refined vehicle, when making turns it actually seems pretty decent without feeling like it will tip over, the biggest worry taking a CUV in a corner too fast. The steering feel is actually there unlike earlier Hyundais giving you more confidence in the car's ability. Now its not to the level like the Mazda CX-7 but with stability and confidence this feels like a Hyundai from a different generation, a better generation. I didn't even feel road comfort got sacrificed for its relatively good cornering.

My Score: 8/10 - Not as fun as the Mazda but far more willing and far more capable than older Hyundais.


Interior: This is the Santa Fe's biggest upgrade over older Hyundais. When I got inside the interior not only was more attractive but even the plastics were of higher grade than what I was used to even from better known automakers. I was absolutely shocked at how much better the interior in this CUV was, a big reason why I was upset over the Corolla's fall in interior quality. I get the sense that Hyundai knew this interior was something worthwhile since after the Santa Fe, nearly every Hyundai from 2009 and beyond used similar lighting and plastic materials from this CUV. Even the stereo is better than older Hyundai units, normally this is where I can easily point out fault. Build quality is also strong with many North American Santa Fes being built in Montgomery, Alabama in the United States.

My Score: 10/10 - Good materials, attractive design, good build quality...a major turn around for Hyundai.

Styling: I didn't like the old Santa Fe's agricultural look, so this newer Santa Fe was a major improvement in my mind. Unlike many other Hyundai designs...I couldn't pinpoint a car that the Santa Fe copied directly, its probably the first Hyundai to actually sport a somewhat unique style of its own and it actually looks good. I actually think this is one of the better looking CUVs on the market, its too bad the 2010 grille worsens the image.

My Score: 10/10 - Very good looking design without direct copying, maybe Hyundai can style something after all.

Value for the money: The Santa Fe is a very good cross-over however I don't think the base vehicle is all that great of a deal mostly due to the aging engine it has to use. The 3.3L I drove is not as cheap and starts at $30,000. Its actually priced similar to that of the Toyota RAV4 while less expensive SUVs offer more. This is a different path for Hyundai since the Santa Fe is not the cheapest and is the one sporting higher quality materials.

My Score: 7/10 - Hyundai sacrifices low price in favour of quality, while I prefer this path I'm not sure if budget-conscious buyers will accept.

Overall: 43/50 - A very good mid-sized crossover, Hyundai has put quality over price.

2008 GMC Envoy

This review will be quickly done, we don't have too many Envoys and I forgot its practically the same as the Trailblazer so I'll admit this one will have quite a bit of copy and pasting.


Introduction: The GMC Envoy is GM's mid sized SUV marketed as an upscale version of the GMC Jimmy. Like the Jimmy the Envoy is a truck based SUV and thus is more rugged for off roading than a crossover. The XL trim version of the Envoy had a 3rd row of seats, it was also longer than the standard Envoy. The Envoy would remain in production until 2008 and continued to sell model year 2009s while the Jimmy would retire in 2005.

Much like I found with the Trailblazer, I didn't really find much interest in the Envoys due to how they're practically the same aside from interior and exterior design.


Performance: The Envoy has a 4.2L straight-6 engine which outputs 275 hp and 275 lb.ft of torque. It seems like a lot, but I can't help but think GM could have gotten more out of such a large I6. Anyways this engine moves the Envoy rather well, its a smooth unit as expected and accelerates the SUV from 0-100 km/h in 7.7 seconds. I don't really have much issues with this engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Its a good engine, not the most memorable one but it does do its job well.

Handling: The Envoy's handling is mediocre at best, for an SUV. With the very large wheel and its heavy weight it doesn't handle all that well. Steering doesn't feel all that attached possibly just by how large the steering wheel is. I may be rugged, but its not agile on the streets.

My Score: 5/10 - I know its an SUV, but there are SUVs that do a better job.


Interior: This is the biggest difference between the Trailblazer and the Envoy. The interior of the Envoy is a bit better than the Trailblazer's. Small details being the major thing between the two. The Envoy isn't colour limited like the Trailblazer meaning you don't have to have a depressing interior. The vents are a step up from the Trailblazer's bottom of the barrel ones, there's more chrome in the interior over the dark plastic of the Trailblazer. All in all these small changes manage to change the atmosphere inside from being disappointingly cheap to become disappointingly average. The build quality however is still atrocious.

My Score: 3/10 - Using better material can make more of a difference in interiors...too bad this car is still built badly and still shows some of its truck interior blandness.

Styling: The Envoy has more of a truck image than the Trailblazer does with its much larger grille. It doesn't have the same plastic bits slapped over the SUV like the Trailblazer does making it already less cheap looking. In Denali form it actually can look somewhat nice with an even better grille, however there isn't much worth noting on the style since the rest is pretty inoffensive and kind of uninteresting.

My Score: 7/10 - Pretty good SUV styling without attempting to leave behind its truck roots.

Value for the money: The Envoy is not a cheap SUV, like the Endeavor its also in the $30,000 range. Unlike that SUV, this does not act like a car and has some serious flaws. Considering how much money is spent, the build quality is unacceptable and other off road SUVs are better equipped for off roading making the Envoy not necessarily good at the road or off road. It should be much cheaper than GMC is asking for due to some of these flaws.

My Score: 3/10 - Not the worst SUV, but the awful interior quality and the lack of some off road equipment should have slashed the price.

Overall: 27/50 - Still a ho hum SUV but certainly a tad bit better than the Trailblazer.