2012 Ford Focus SE, SEL, Titanium

I'll try to keep updating far more frequently than I did last year. Any way, onto this review.

Introduction: The Ford Focus has been Ford's compact car since the end of the 20th century. The original Focus was developed for the European market. Ford of America once again decided to use another Ford of Europe design despite the failure of the older Contour/Mondeo, as Ford had no successor to the domestic market Escort. The Focus was altered mechanically for US factories and regulations, however it appears this is the prime reason for the Focus to earn its reputation as the most recalled vehicle of the year. By 2004 the amount of recalls issued were severely reduced, few were sure of whether the Focus' reputation would recover. By 2007, the Focus was redesigned, however this version did not follow the European Focus which was based on a new platform. As a result this was merely an extension of the original Focus without the option of a wagon and an unsuccessful coupe. Ford CEO Alan Mulally signaled that the whole Ford lineup regardless of where it competed would use World models meaning there will no longer be regional or national differences on Ford models. The goal was to significantly reduce the amount of models Ford has in its global lineup. As a result the 2012 Ford Focus will no longer sport any real differences from its European counterpart, often seen as the better car. For the first time in North America, Ford will be offering its performance version of the Focus called the Focus ST.

I was pretty excited to get a chance to drive this new Focus. I've always been hearing that the European Focus drove better than any of the North American Focus models. Part of the reason has been the NA Focus never had a sport tuned version in the same way as Europe got the Focus ST, Focus RS and Focus RS500. The day this lot arrived I was eager to see whether Ford deserved to be taken seriously for the first time in this segment.

Performance: Regular Ford Focus models use a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine regardless of which trim level. The only changes to be made in 2012 will be the addition of the ST model which will feature a turbocharger. This 2.0L engine produces about 160 hp and 146 lb.ft of torque. This is one of the first few direct injection engines made available by Ford and it seems to show in its fuel economy numbers. You're given a choice in transmissions, a 5-speed manual or a 6-speed dual clutch automatic. Now there have been some issues surrounding the dual clutch automatic Ford uses, the most notable is that its rather jerky in low gears like 1st and 2nd. Due to its dual clutches it does have minor amounts of roll back on hills as well before the 2nd clutch engages. Ford has issued a software update, this still does not seem to satisfy some users. If you're worried about these issues, then go for the 5-speed manual which has no issue but it has a higher highway fuel consumption due to lacking that extra gear. The car itself, despite its somewhat high hp numbers isn't all that quick, this is where torque matters. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 8.7 seconds. Still good for the class but not what one expects from a direct injection engine.

My Score: 8/10 - Acceptable performance, good fuel economy but the dual clutch transmission is not for everyone.

Handling: As is the case with modern cars, the Ford Focus is also equipped with electric power steering. To be brutally honest, even Ford hasn't got the tuning correct on this. At low speeds the steering is very light but a bit numb, its only when the car is moving faster that the steering feel is more noticeable. That said when taking the Focus on corners, it handles very well for a family vehicle. To me it makes no difference if you have the Titanium package wheels or the regular wheels with hubcaps. Both vehicles have decent ride comfort, its a tad more firm than a few of its competitors but not bone shaking as say the terrible Dodge Caliber. For true handling feel though, I'd have to pick the Mazda3 over the Focus because that car still uses a hydraulic assist system, and that just feels way better.

My Score: 8/10 - Good handling, good ride comfort, steering is a bit lacking in feel however.

Interior: This is where the differences start to show in the trim levels. The SE will be equipped with a pretty standard interior, nothing totally unusual. Controls are relatively simple to use and despite not being a MyFordTouch model it still has a two small LCD screens, it has voice activated controls, cruise control, etc. The SEL and Titanium models however replace the small center LCD screen and replace it with a much larger touch screen in the center known as MyFordTouch. You still have HVAC controls available should you not like using the touch screen, which are button based instead of knobs like the cheaper versions. The stereo controls however are mostly gone and will have be operated using MyFordTouch. The MyFordTouch system is something you either love or hate, once in a while its also prone to glitching. Should your unit glitch, unplug the battery for 5 minutes tends to reset the whole system. A software recall has also been issued, due to complaints. The higher trim levels come with seat warmers. Another difference between the two is the hand brake, on the lower trim levels its relatively small, the higher trim level models have a very large one. Not available in base spec of any trim level however are rear parking sensors, self parking(for parallel parking), electric seats and leather, those are optional extras even in Titanium spec. There are lot of pockets in the rear to put things in. When it comes to hatchback versus sedan, I definitely would go with the hatchback, it has a lot more useable space in the tailgate. The atmosphere of the interior is mostly dark, and even in the SEL/Titanium version way too much hard plastic. The build quality on these cars is average, generally acceptable but lemons do occur. The Focus is built in Wayne, Michigan, USA.

My Score: 7/10 - A somewhat high tech interior of the bunch, MyFordTouch is hit or miss, many items are still an optional extra and the materials definitely could be better.

Styling: Gone is the Gillete grille that Ford was using for the past few years, which I'm happy to say. It looked terrible on the previous Focus. This car is a lot closer to the European styled cars, the front may seem a bit busy near the bottom. The side profile of the car easily makes the hatchback look very good, the sedan is not nearly as nice. The wheels you get depend on which trim level you bought, the hubcap wheels are obviously cheap looking, the Titanium's wheels do look good. Its a bit more generic however considering Hyundai's new styling. So I'll just say its good but not great.

My Score: 7/10 - A nicer looking car than before, looks quite good as a hatchback but at the same time is a bit generic.

Value for money: With this new entry, this segment is extremely competitive. On the one hand you have the Ford Focus, Chevrolet Cruze and Hyundai Elantra all being the newest and hitting the 40 mpg highway numbers or 5.88L/100 km for metric. On the other hand some of the older stuff like the Mazda3 and Civic are getting upgraded to match these newer cars or in the case of the Dodge Caliber is already dropped with a new model ready to come out. Where the Ford sits is probably being one of the better all rounder, its offered as a hatch or sedan, its got loads of options, its reasonably well equipped at the start, and its priced pretty competitively. If this is what you require, a car that's pretty good at most or not all levels, then the Focus is probably your best choice. If you have more specialized tastes where you want your car to excel at certain areas, you'll have to look elsewhere. As for which options to pick, I find the Titanium not really worth the cost unless you like those wheels, you get much of the toys in the SEL. If you hate MyFordTouch the SE will do fine. Still, a good car at a good value.

My Score: 8/10 - Good all rounder choice, however the market is very competitive and the car doesn't excel in any specific area.

Overall: 38/50 - Its a good car, for me though it just wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be.

2012 Toyota Camry LE

I'm so sorry I haven't updated in several months. Not to worry I have driven many cars since those posts, just make this up to date I'll post some new ones.

Introduction: The Toyota Camry has been one of the most successful cars ever made. Over the years it sold so many examples all over the world, being the most successful in North America. It has had stumbles and wasn't a particularly good seller in Europe where it was replaced by the Avensis. The Camry had its humble beginnings in 1982 where it replaced the old Toyota Corona. This was one of Toyota's earliest front wheel drive models and was used to highlight how much interior space there is available in a compact car, its grown much larger since. The Camry actually started taking off in 1987 in the second generation model where it was a bit larger, had larger 4-cylinder engines and a V6 available. In 1992 the Camry was again reworked and once again was larger and this time due to Toyota discontinuing the Cressida, this Camry was now the flagship model until the introduction of the Avalon in 1995. Toyota has made a name for itself with the Camry by essentially prioritizing quality and reliability, as a result many Camrys from the past are still widely seen and in some cases still running as well as much younger cars. Toyota however has had a slip in their later models, the 2007 generation Camry was criticized for its lower quality and much higher number of recalls than before.

Here's the question, has Toyota made serious improvements so that the Camry is a serious contender once again? Before I drove this car, the most modern Toyota I drove before was the Corolla which was awful. The outgoing Camry which I've been in had a very cheap and awful interior. My hope with this new Camry is that Toyota finally understand that today's competition is not going to let them take this segment for granted. In order for the Camry to retain its #1 spot it has got to be deserved, it must feel like a proper Toyota. The sort of car where it does everything well, avoiding real criticism.

Performance: I only have access to the standard 4-cylinder models so I won't be commenting on how this car does with the V6. The 4-cylinder you're given in this Camry is a 2.5L that produces 179 hp and 171 lb.ft of torque, despite being the same engine as the outgoing car its up 10 hp and 4 lbs in torque. Naturally being a Toyota it was already fuel efficient in the old car, more surprisingly however this new car is even more efficient than the old car and actually beats the Sonata despite lacking direct injection. On the road this engine is actually very quiet and very refined. Its 0-100 km/h time is roughly 7.8 seconds, that's...actually pretty good consider its not even the strongest of the field. Toyota definitely shed some weight and its paying off in acceleration and fuel economy. The bad news, no more manual transmission Camry.

My Score: 8/10 - Good engine, does everything you'd expect for an economy minded engine. I always wish it were faster but hey, they did leave the option open for direct injection.

Handling: This category was where I was most worried, that the car would feel like an appliance. I hated the Corolla's handling so much that I wasn't looking forward to what this car offered. Well, whatever Toyota did surprised me. It still has electric power steering but this unit was way better tuned than the one found in the Corolla. Its still somewhat light but it was heavier than I was expecting, thus this car is pretty easy to maneuver. Even better was there was some inkling of feel when taking the turn so this wasn't actually boring. Where the car however did best was the ride comfort, the hard road surfaces of Ontario roads after winter still don't bother this car. Now as you'd expect from this class of car and with front wheel drive, when taking corners hard you'll understeer and you'll feel body roll. Its not hugely athletic but again its more than acceptable.

My Score: 7/10 - Rides well, suffers a bit dynamically but overall still pretty good.

 

Interior: A few changes have been made over the old car. First thing is the dash board, the dials all have a modern blue look and no longer have the green that even the outgoing Toyota had which felt 90s. The only silly thing is there's a gauge for average fuel economy...there are more important dials to have than this like oil pressure, voltage regulator and so on. The next thing is Toyota has attempted to place leather to soften much of the dash and avoid too many hard plastics. The leather is placed at the top of the dash, around the lower portion of the center console and a few other but less important places. The newest item however is Toyota's Entune system, this replaces the stereo in favor of a touch screen. Toyota has left a few knobs for the radio tuning, volume and HVAC controls. What Entune however does is allow you to connect you're phone if it has bluetooth to become hands free but also able to use your phone's music library. Connection is easy, have your phone's bluetooth on, tell Entune to connect and that's it, surprisingly user friendly. Entune is not as high tech as Ford MyTouch nor are the visuals as pleasant but consider the customer base of the Camry, this isn't important. The car's C-pillars are not too difficult to look out of, there's a lot of head room and its still very spacious inside including the trunk. Due to the price point its hard to complain about this new interior aside from the fact it could use even better materials.The car is even pretty well made, Camrys sold in North America are built in Georgetown, Kentucky, USA.

My Score: 9/10 - Way better than the outgoing car, Entune is easy to use, very spacious and the materials are way better than before, all I can say is they probably could go just that bit further.

Styling: Much of my initial worries of this car came down to the styling. It just hasn't changed all that much from the gone 6th gen, the shape is generally the same and a lot of the exterior features still had some the old car's cues. The good news is the fat butt look of the old one is gone. The bad news is at the rear, the tail lamp styling is awkward at best, it just doesn't fit the car that much. On the front, that grille isn't all that attractive either, the fog lamp covers are a bit gaudy. The only solution to that front is getting the SE version of this car which looks much better with its paint coloured grille, due to SE's being the best selling trim level it seems many Camry buyers agree. Not much can be done to the rear though.

My Score: 5/10 - Mostly boring, Toyota tried to liven the back but this didn't really work.

Value for money: After all is said and done, the Camry has definitely returned to the car that deserves its spot as one of the best selling cars out there. For a practical family sedan, there's not much against it. The handling is acceptable, there's enough power even in the 4-cylinder, its more fuel efficient than its competition and unlike before you're getting much more for your money this time. The only real reason not to consider the Camry is going to be down to this, if you're American the Hyundai warranty is better, you may hate the way it looks and want the new 2013 Ford Fusion, your local Toyota dealers are awful or you just want something that stands out.

My Score: 10/10 - If you're in the market for a midsize sedan, its really hard to argue against at least considering the Camry.

Overall: 39/50 - A very good choice of car, it may be a bit conservative and common but this one is attempt to cement its reputation in spite of setbacks.

2010-2011 Mazda3 GX

Due to the lack of updates from before I'll post another review this time of a compact car.


Introduction: As I mentioned in my previous review of the Mazda3, it introduced in 2004 as the Mazda Protege's replacement. It uses Ford of Europe's C1 platform for the successful Euro Ford Focus. Since its introduction the Mazda 3 has become one of Mazda's all time best selling vehicles in certain markets belonged to the top 10 selling vehicles. As a global vehicle the Mazda 3 found in one location was stylistically the exact same in another car market. The Mazda 3 offered a sedan and hatchback body types, one could also buy a Mazdaspeed 3 which had a 4-cylinder turbo engine making it one of the quickest FWD hatchbacks sold in most markets. Mazda replace the current 3 in 2010 with a new redesign, due to the old 3's success Mazda rather than totally change the vehicle decided to fine tune what they believed made the 3 so successful. For the 2012 model year, Mazda will introduce its new SkyActiv powertrain which will put the Mazda3 as one of the most fuel efficient cars in its segment without resorting to a hybrid system.

The old Mazda3 was a great car to drive so naturally I was rather eager to try out this version. I know quite a few people don't like the way this car looks but I was willing to look past that and see if Mazda3 made any meaningful changes to see whether they made it better...or ruined it.


Performance: The only model of the Mazda3 I got to drive is the basic GX model and unlike the previous model I driven this one has the 2.0L engine. It produces 150 hp and 135 lb.ft of torque. This engine accelerates this car from 0-100 km/h in about 9 seconds with the automatic which isn't horrible but not all that quick. As the engine cruises along its actually a quiet motor, when accelerating that's when its a bit buzzy. The fuel economy from this engine was reasonable against the Corolla and Civic, but these days it looks thirsty compared to the new Cruze, Focus and Elantra. This will change though as the 2012 model is supposed to match the newer cars with the SkyActiv powertrain.

My Score: 7/10 - This engine is good at what it does, while not hugely powerful its pretty reasonable in all other respects but on fuel economy you may want to wait for the 2012 model.

Handling: This was where the old Mazda3 was at its utter best. I'm glad to say...the new one is just as good as the old one. Despite its slight weight gain it feels just as sharp and as nimble as it used to. The ride is as stiff as the older car but not to the degree of sport suspension ride choppiness. It seems as if Mazda went against going for a purely electrical power steering system and as a result this car feels a lot nicer to drive than many cars it competes against. I'm glad Mazda didn't actually change any aspect to the 3's handling. Yes there's some slight body roll and being FWD it will eventually understeer but for normal driving its still very very good.

My Score: 10/10 - No changes to report from last time...and none were needed.


Interior: This is one of the biggest change from the old car and the new one. I like the look of the newer gauges over the busy looking ones from the older car. I also liked the info display screen is in the center so you don't have to totally remove your eyes from the road. The controls are much better designed than before making it easy to make adjustments without looking often. The carpet is very much upgraded over the older car's rather easy to ruin carpets. The dash is sort of a soft touch one, not entirely soft but not the awful hard plastic you'd find in a Corolla or Civic. Its not all perfect though, there are still some cheap plastics to be found. The visibility in this car is reasonable, although the higher trunk line does reduce some of the rear visibility. The seats are pretty comfortable and reasonably supportive. The trunk size...still isn't very large though and the interior spacing is still not brilliant for rear seated passengers. Otherwise though, the interior has quite a few needed improvements over the old one. As for the build quality, its excellent not a single problem to report. The Mazda3 is assembled in Hofu, Japan.

My Score: 9/10 - Many many improvements over the old car, the spacing is really the only big item left to improve on.

Styling: This is the next biggest change on the Mazda3. What Mazda decided to do here was to put on the styling made by the Nagare concepts into its lineup. Many disliked the fact that looking at the car its always smiling and happy. I on the other hand, while not a fan of the look I do appreciate Mazda was trying to do something different and potentially risky. Not too many cars act the way they look, this is one of the few cars that can symbolize the feeling the driver is getting while they're driving this car. From the rear the car is a bit less interesting, an evolution of the older car's rear to match its front. Standing out from the crowd of otherwise boring cars, by trying something different it seems Mazda wanted to differentiate itself.

My Score: 8/10 - Provocative front, ho hum rear.

Value for money: The pricing in this segment is very competitive and the Mazda3 is very much one of those cars eying for more market share. In its base form the car is very cheap and is at least equipped with power doors and windows. In its ability to excite the driver, nothing in this class is as good. It only falters when it comes to fuel economy and available standard equipment. In its favour it offers a hatchback option meaning its competition on that level is only Ford, Toyota, Hyundai, Mitsubishi and Dodge. The main trouble comes from Ford and Hyundai who these days offer much nicer looking cars inside and out with better fuel economy, for much of the same money and in the case of the Ford even goes after the Mazda's strong point of driving dynamics. When this car first came out it was easily the best choice, with fierce competition its no longer the obvious choice but still a very good one.

My Score: 9/10 - Still a very good car but fierce competition has meant Mazda may need more in order to keep their sales going strong for this car. What keeps its score high is the fun level and being an all around very good car with few weaknesses to report.

Overall: 45/50 - A very good compact car, few offer as much fun for very little money as Mazda does.

2008-2011 Ford Escape XLT & Limited

I apologize again for the very late update. Today's review is on a vehicle that has sold fairly well even to this day.


Introduction: The Ford Escape was designed in a joint effort with Mazda as a compact crossover in 2000. Ford decided to place this vehicle below the truck based Ford Explorer which has grown into a medium size SUV. Ford also realized that most of its SUV customers rarely go off-roading and therefore the Escape was designed much like a car using a monocoque design rather than the body-on-frame truck based design. The hybrid version of the Ford Escape was introduced in 2004. The Escape was redesigned in 2008 using the same platform as before. The hybrid version is continued from the previous generation, this is the family vehicle Barack Obama purchased before becoming US President. This version of the Escape will be discontinued in the fall of 2011 and a newly designed Escape to be available for the 2013 model year. During the US Cash for Clunkers program, the Ford Escape was the only crossover to make the top 10 models sold under the program, possibly due to the high amount of old Ford Explorers being sent for trade-in.

By the time I started driving the Escape, most of the Ford products have started slowly impressing me. Thus I wasn't expecting any of the disappointment I would from say a Chrysler product. In this review I will be looking at the low level trim XLT and the higher end Limited vehicles, technically there's few differences.


Performance: Due to the trim levels the only engine available is the 3.0L V6 Duratec engine. This is the final version of this engine and thus produces 240 hp and 223 lb.ft of torque. This engine is able to accelerate this vehicle from 0-100 km/h in about 8.1-8.7 seconds depending on whether it has AWD. As a result the Escape with this engine moves reasonably quick although not blisteringly quick as its size suggests. Its not the smoothest engine I've encountered but on the cruise its generally fine. The fuel economy numbers are actually rather decent considering it has a V6, you don't save a whole lot with the 4-cylinder. If you wish to have a fuel efficient Escape, you'd be better off with a Escape hybrid which does remarkably well in the city.

My Score: 8/10 - Decent engine, the only criticism being its not all that quick.

Handling: With the Escape's smaller size one would think it would handle decently compared to the traditional SUVs. In many ways yes, the Escape easily rides better than many SUVs. When taking the Escape into a corner it generally is capable of taking it, but do keep in mind it has body roll and it will understeer even with AWD. In all honesty the handling is only compromised by the higher center of gravity which plagues any taller vehicle except the Subaru Outback and Tribeca.

My Score: 8/10 - Good handling all around and rides well but of course its not perfect with roll and understeer.


Interior: This is the only category where the XLT and Limited have their differences. In the standard XLT you will be given most of the typical options you really need but you won't get certain things. The Limited comes in leather, sunroof, SYNC, rear parking sensors, etc. In general the Escape's interior is reasonably spacious considering its size, its only a 5 seater even in Limited trim. The rear visibility is actually pretty good for a car of this class and the seats even the cloth ones are comfortable. The center console is stacked full of buttons which may be a turn off for some. Some of the plastic in the XLT is noticeably on the cheap side as well. Nothing about this interior even in the Limited trim is spectacular but fortunately there's nothing wrong with it either. The build quality of the Escape is pretty decent, rarely did I find anything particularly bad about it. The Escape is assembled in Claycomo, Missouri in the United States.

My Score: 7/10 - Good interior, but nothing hugely impressive even in the top of the line Limited.

Styling: The Escape in its current form is a decent looking crossover, it doesn't diverge from the SUV styling. Ford didn't introduce its tri-bar grille on this vehicle either so it has a rather normal looking truck grille. It looks much like an evolution of the older Ford Escapes which may be what Ford was trying to get at. Unfortunately this won't excite anybody based on the styling.

My Score: 5/10 - Very conventional, no interesting styling details to note.

Value for money: This comes down to whether you want AWD, the tall ride height and are willing to spend midsize sedan money for a vehicle that's actually smaller than a new 2012 Focus. For its class its a rather good vehicle, however with Ford and the 2012 Focus hatchback...it begs the question of whether the small crossover is practical anymore. In practical terms the Focus hatch has more cargo space, costs less to maintain and costs less to buy. To make the Escape worthwhile you'll have to get the AWD and maybe even the V6 but that makes it a bit expensive basically adding $15K to the base $20K vehicle.

My Score: 6/10 - May not be worth the money on the practical side with newer hatchbacks being far more practical and sensible.

Overall: 34/50 - A good small crossover vehicle. I just question its usefulness in light of poor economic situations and higher fuel prices.

2007-2009 Volkswagen City Golf

I wanted to do a review sooner than this but blogger.com went down. Anyways here's a Canadian exclusive model.


Introduction: The VW Golf is one of the company's most important vehicles. As a replacement of the famous VW Beetle it didn't technically succeed as the Beetle was still sold in a few markets well until 2003 while the Golf was available in 1974. The original Golf was known as the Rabbit and eventually used the Golf name for all models. As VW continued development on the Golf they released a high performance version called the GTI which would start the fierce hot hatchback wars. The standard Golf would eventually phase out the Beetle completely and become one of the best selling vehicles in Europe. The Volkswagen Golf is now in its 6th generation, this review focuses on the 4th generation model sold in Mexico and South America but also Canada. As part of Volkswagen's City line, they continued to sell these older models alongside their Mk V counterparts in a bit to compete at the lowest price bracket. The City line has been replaced by the new base Mk VI Jetta which has slashed its price to be one of the least expensive new VW models.

These were the first VWs I was exposed to, I knew they were supposed to be no frills old models. Yet somehow I couldn't help but wonder why they exist in a market like Canada when this is more commonly seen in 2nd or 3rd world markets. China for instance still sells the 2nd gen Passat, and South Africa continued making the Mk I Golf until 2009.


Performance: As a no frills model, this means the City Golf was given only one choice of engine. Its the 2.0L engine VW has used since 1993. To give you an idea how old this engine is, it only has 8 valves something that was last seen by Japanese 4-cylinders in the 1980s. As a result this engine produces 115 hp and 122 lb.ft of torque. Its able to accelerate from 0-100 km/h in about 10.5 seconds. This car is essentially as slow as the subcompacts which make due with less power and less displacement. It doesn't even make a nice noise when being pushed, just an annoying drone. This engine is paired to a 6-speed automatic which I'm afraid isn't necessary on an engine this slow. Worse its not that fuel efficient due to its ancient design remember it doesn't have valve timing so its at best capable of 28 mpg tops. I honestly don't like this engine and it confounds me that VW is still using it in a brand new 2011 Jetta.

My Score: 2/10 - I guess its technically cheap but you get what you paid for.

Handling: Being a no frills model I was hoping at the minimum the handling would be nice since there's a lot less weight. Unfortunately I didn't really find that with the City Golf. First things first, this car understeers rather early even before you feel you reached its possible limit. Secondly the steering is extremely vague making this a rather boring car to drive. The ride quality wasn't even that good, not appalling but its not that comfortable. Not the worst car I've taken around a corner but it was certainly the least amusing.

My Score: 4/10 - Very boring with lots of understeer.


Interior: The City Golf interior is a bit lacking in features because of the nature of this trim something I can't criticize here. You don't get power windows, you don't get power locks, no cruise control, nothing you'd consider luxury is found in this car. Its finished fully in grey, black plastic and fake chrome. The only item that has any colour is the ashtray which is red. Interior space is decent front and back but the tailgate is where the majority of the space is. Headroom is reasonable for any average size person. As for the build quality, its not very good. I've seen trim pieces just pop out and never return, others fall through the gaps in the center console. The City Golf is made in São José dos Pinhais, Brazil.

My Score: 5/10 - Lacking in colour, built to a price, but has a spacious tailgate area.

Styling: This is just a slightly modified Mk IV Golf, in all honestly nothing is truly different from the two models. The old Mk IV Golf was bland looking and this is very much the same. Just a typical hatchback, nothing enticing or exciting.

My Score: 2/10 - It wasn't interesting 11 years ago, hasn't changed since.

Value for money: This is where I can start to criticize its lack of features. What VW believes is people will buy a old stripped out VW model for the price of a new compact car being offered by everyone else. Now I'll make it clear the Corolla and Civic in their basest forms do lack some features but the Corolla is lacking power windows and the Civic only lacking power locks. The City Golf however lacks both. The Golf is competing against the hatchbacks thus the Matrix, the Mazda3, the Dodge Caliber, the Hyundai Elantra Touring and lately the Mitsubishi Lancer. The only car in this lot that's worse is the Dodge Caliber but in its defense it is bigger than the City Golf. You can buy a City Golf with some options but all the sudden the price advantage over its rivals is thrown out. I wouldn't buy this car at all, in fact a better solution is just to buy an used original Golf from this generation it'll be better made, has a better selection of engines including a diesel(far better for fuel economy) and cheaper to buy. The City Golf is just not worth it, you get an old car with no equipment for the price of a new one that has some standard equipment. It might be a different story if the car was much cheaper than any new car.

My Score: 1/10 - Logically this car makes no sense, if you wanted this model of Golf a used one is better and if you wanted a cheap car there are many new cars available that are cheaper and better equipped.

Overall: 14/50 - It feels its age, its not cheap enough and offers little anybody really wants.