2008-2009 Chrysler Sebring Touring/Dodge Avenger SE

Since I'm off today I'll review...the worst car I've ever driven. The current Chrysler Sebring and the current Dodge Avenger, this is not really a twofer because these cars are almost exactly the same.



Introduction: The Chrysler Sebring originally started as a convertible back in 1995, the sedan version would come out in 2001 on the JR platform. The current Sebring began in 2007 using the JS platform, the Dodge Avenger would be released in 2008. Since the sale of Chrysler's assets to Fiat, the Sterling Heights Michigan plant was not part of the deal and thus the plant will close along with the production of the current Sebring and Avenger ending in 2010.

Yeah...this car is pretty uninspired...does nothing significant and has a pretty uninteresting history. I knew this car was going to be bad...I just didn't think it would blow my mind about how awful a car can really be.



Performance: The Dodge Avengers I drive have the weak 2.4L 4-cylinder GEMA engine shared with Hyundai and Mitsubishi. This engine produces 173 hp and 165 lb.ft of torque. The Sebring is a Touring version using the same 2.7L V6 mentioned in the Dodge Magnum review I did. It honestly didn't matter which engine you used in these cars, they're both horrible. The GEMA engine was noisier and the V6 as mentioned before not all that quiet either. The Sebring gets from 0-100km/h in 8.9 seconds...that's pretty bad, the Avenger does it on 9.5 seconds. What's most shocking is neither engine is particularly fuel efficient...so you get a weak, noisy and thirsty engine with no upsides. These cars have a 3.5L V6 option, a much better engine...but because the engine is old...its 0-100 time is 7.3 seconds...most cars in this segment are under 7 seconds.

My Score(both): 2/10 - Neither engine is good, neither engine is practical, flat out they're terrible.

Handling: Once again the Sebring and Avenger are no different here. You got a hard suspension in both cars, the trouble with hard suspensions are they're no fun driving on roads with potholes. Now generally the good things about hard suspensions are they offer great cornering ability...not the Sebring or the Avenger...you get massive body roll and rubbish cornering ability. Once again...you get two wrongs...there is no right here. The steering wheel on both cars is very dull and light and like the 2007 Hyundai Elantra review...the car had no feel whatsoever.

My Score(both): 1/10 - Poor cornering, no feel, uncomfortable suspension...this is terrible.



Interior: There are differences between the Sebring and the Avenger. The Chrysler is supposed to be more upscale with the Dodge is...er...well...cheap. As a result the Dodge has the more depressing interior full of the usual Chrysler stuff like depressing cheap black plastic, fake chrome, ugly tin-foil painted plastic, ugly dials, etc. The seats...while not very comfortable...I could sit in them without huge issues. The Sebring...its not as black as the Avenger but it still had all the horrid plastic, the fake chrome and so on but...the seats are absolutely unusable for a 5'4 guy. The ergonomics on these seats are so bad, I actually got back pain from these things. Every time I drive a Sebring...I have the adjust the seat so that its lying on the passenger floor, I might as well be sitting on a stone stool that would be more comfortable. The blind spots on both cars are pretty bad with the C-pillar being very large. As usual with bad interiors they're not build very well, these cars coming from the United States. I guess they're reasonably spacious considering the price of these cars...but other than that...absolutely horrible.

My Score(Avenger): 2/10 - Ugly, cheap and not built very well

My Score(Sebring): 0/10 - The same above except absolutely unusable seats

Styling: Once again there are differences...this time big differences. I actually like the way the Avenger looks, it actually does look handsome. The Sebring...just doesn't. The Sebring has the look of someone who always looks angry trying to smile...it looks wrong and unnatural. The Sebring borrowed the wrong bits from the Crossfire, keeping the profile of the Crossfire sedan but not having the serious but aggressive front styling. In the rear both cars are not that interesting but the Dodge's actually fits the car...the Sebring's rear doesn't match the front at all.

My Score(Avenger): 8/10 - Pretty decent styling all things considered

My Score(Sebring): 1/10 - Ugly and yet boring

Value for Money: Honestly...they're both terrible value. They're not quality products(they break all the time), they depreciate very badly and worst of all...they're not even the cheapest cars available. The Hyundai Sonata is not expensive and far surpasses these awful cars at every category. The only person who would buy this over anything is someone who looks at the 82% parts sourced for America...and this person would be an idiot for using this reason to buy these two. If your an American and want to be patriotic here...wouldn't it make sense to buy a good American car rather than support a bad one? The Fusion and Malibu are far better, if the Mexican made Fusion discourages you then get the Malibu, that car also far surpasses these horrid cars.

My Score: 0/10 - You either have to use a stupid reason or failed to test drive anything in order to buy these cars.

Overall(Avenger): 13/50 - This car survived being slaughtered in the scoring by having good looks.

Overall(Sebring): 4/50 - An absolute failure of a car. I hope nothing in the future surpasses this car in terms of how truly awful a car can really be.

The engineers who ok'd this car should be ashamed of themselves, this car is woefully inadequate in everything they attempted to do. The executives who thought this was good enough should be fired for not understanding a good car is not just a 4 wheeled vehicle, if its not good there's plenty of other cars to choose from. If this same vehicle came from Daewoo I would criticize this car a little less harshly because it would come from a company that had no idea what it was doing. This is Chrysler, one of the oldest names and clearly nobody cared enough about these cars leaving it under engineered, poorly conceived and lags far behind from even its domestic competitors and thus deserve a harsh review.

2008 Chevrolet Trailblazer

The last review of this week.


Introduction: The Chevrolet Trailblazer is GM's mid sized SUV marketed as an upscale version of the S-10 Blazer. Like the S-10 Blazer the Trailblazer is a truck based SUV and thus is more rugged for off roading than a crossover. The EXT trim version of the Trailblazer had a 3rd row of seats, it was also longer than the standard Trailblazer. The Trailblazer would remain in production until 2008 and continued to sell model year 2009s while the S-10 Blazer would retire in 2005.

The Trailblazer was never a noteworthy vehicle in my mind. I didn't see these nearly as often as the S-10 Blazers or Ford Explorers. I didn't really know what to expect from this vehicle...oh boy did I find something unique.


Performance: The Trailblazer 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 Trailblazer 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 Trailblazer'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: The Trailblazer has an interior that is completely composed of plastic. Much of the items are actually used in the Colorado pickup truck, so you don't get much in the sense of luxuries. Its not a depressing interior by any means but being so full of plastic its not very attractive. Spacing in the Trailblazer is pretty good in my mind. The biggest let down of the Trailblazer however is the build quality. I've never come across a vehicle where every single one I encountered had several build quality problems. These are the worst built vehicles I've encountered. A lot of the plastic covers are loose, lots of interior gaps and even the exterior wasn't put together properly. These are built in the United States, I do understand why there's anger at the UAW since a vehicle built like this should be deemed unacceptable by all companies. There are only two possible culprits, the parts people building parts that don't fit or the worker who didn't put them on properly.

My Score: 1/10 - Not a good looking interior to begin with, ruined by the worst build quality in the world.

Styling: The Trailblazer is a pretty standard looking SUV all things granted. In some colours it does look somewhat better than normal. Aside from the panels being put on wrong, the plastic on the bumpers does look very cheap and does not look good for its image.

My Score: 6/10 - Decent SUV style, cheap plastic bits however cheapen its image

Value for the money: The Trailblazer 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 Trailblazer not necessarily good at the road or off road. It should be much cheaper than Chevrolet 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: 24/50 - A ho hum SUV that was killed for a few reasons, the interior is horrible and specialized SUVs are more versatile.

2007-2008 Mazda 6

There is one more review coming up today.


Introduction: The Mazda 6 began in 2003 replacing the old 626 with a new direction. The old 626 was not a noteworthy vehicle and was often considered bland and boring. In an effort to fit with Mazda's new slogan zoom zoom, the Mazda 6 was designed to be more sporty in order to give it a characteristic over its competitors. Mazda also gave the 6 the option for a wagon when many other similar vehicles do not offer it. Lastly Mazda produced a high performance version of the 6 called the Mazdaspeed 6 in 2006-2007 where it was given a turbo engine, all-wheel drive and a Mazdaspeed tuned suspension.

By the time I got the drive the Mazda 6 I've already driven the Protege knowing that Mazda does make pretty good driver's cars. When I got the chance to drive one, I took it with high expectations.


Performance: The Mazda 6 I drove had the 2.3L 4-cylinder producing 156 hp and 154 lb.ft of torque. Due to the design of the car, the 4-cylinder is capable of reaching 0-100 km/h in a matter of 8 seconds which is very good with so little power. The engine is noisy on 1st gear, afterwords its very quiet and refined. Knowing the data now, its certainly faster than the old Fusion.

My Score: 8/10 - A good 4-cylinder engine, surprisingly well powered

Handling: This is where the Mazda 6 takes its place as one of the more fun mid-sized cars. Most other cars in this segment go after the Accord and Camry which have lately gotten heavier and are less concerned about fun. The Mazda 6 has very good handling for a FWD mid sized sedan, it takes the corners quite well without a lot of the expected items like understeer and body roll. The steering wheel is actually on the light side, yet due to how sharp the car handles this light wheel actually doesn't lose feel like what I've experienced with Honda and Toyota.

My Score: 9/10 - An excellent FWD platform which makes this normal sedan more fun than others.


Interior: The Mazda 6 does not have the greatest interior, in order to keep with its sport image the vast majority are black interiors. Mazda was mindful not to make the atmosphere depressing making the pillars and roof white. Beige cars however had beige interiors with some of the black remaining. The radio is a good unit but lacks a auxiliary plug which it should have by now. The lighting in the Mazda 6 might annoy some since it uses only red LED lighting. The Mazda seats are also reasonably comfortable but more importantly rather supportive. Build quality in general is quite good but I noticed some small problems with some panels, all Mazda 6s sold in North America are built in the United States. Many don't like that the Mazda 6 is very mid sized, the interior room is not as big as a Camry or Accord. I'm not fat so I didn't notice.

My Score: 7/10 - A decent interior, not brilliant but one that doesn't embarrass.

Styling: The Mazda 6 does not change all too much from the previous 626, yet despite this the modest styling I think works very well. The 6 is rather sleek yet muscular in its appearance with its rather round body. There's not much I can criticize about the styling, it looks good but not still remains pretty inoffensive.

My Score: 8/10 - Not horribly exciting, but regardless it has a modern look that will age well.

Value for the money: The Mazda 6 is truly a bargain compared to the Accord and Camry. You get the option of a wagon along with a mid sized car that acts like its a sports car. Both the Accord and Camry do not offer this, the Camry particularly is not sporty. If you're not a fat person the size should be more than adequate and better for fuel economy too. While it doesn't have the reputation like the Accord or Camry, the fact it offers a different experience sets it apart from the others. The most versatile of all the mid sized cars without breaking the budget.

My Score: 10/10 - Offers many options its competition doesn't and doesn't overcharge due to the badge.

Overall: 42/50 - A very good car, if you don't need luxuries its more than enough to satisfy the family man who initially wanted a sports car.

2008 Mitsubishi Endeavor

My first SUV review also my first Mitsubishi one too.


Introduction: The Mitsubishi Endeavor was introduced as a brand new model in 2004. It is Mitsubishi's first medium sized cross-over SUV. The Endeavor is built on the PS platform consisting of the Mitsubishi Galant and Eclipse. This vehicle was designed to target a then growing market in the United States of SUVs. Over the years sales of this vehicle has been rather slow but Mitsubishi did give the Endeavor a face lift for the 2010 model year meaning they still intend to continue making this vehicle.

The Mitsubishi Endeavor is one of the vehicles I didn't know what to think about. I barely seen any by that point and while I was curious to drive a Mitsubishi I wondered whether this vehicle fit my idea that the SUV is a rather wasteful idea.


Performance: The Mitsubishi Endeavor is equipped with a large 3.8L V6 that produces 215 hp and 250 lb.ft of torque. The version I drove had a mild improvement to the engine making it produce 225hp. The engine was a smooth unit and powered this big vehicle rather comfortably. It in fact accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 7.8 seconds, which is a good number for such a vehicle. Fuel economy is really the only item that this engine might suffer with.

My Score: 8/10 - The engine is pretty good, smooth and moved the vehicle pretty well. Not much to say other than it may consume more fuel than expected.

Handling: The Endeavor is a pretty decent handling vehicle all things considered. You will realize the weight of this SUV when you push the vehicle hard into the corner but you can corner without the sense you're going to under steer. The wheel is weighted very well for this vehicle and as a result its easy to drive. So long as you understand its nowhere near as light as a car, the Endeavor handles pretty good.

My Score: 7/10 - As a larger SUV it corners pretty well, it will only fail if you attempt to corner like you would on a smaller car.


Interior: This is the big weak spot with frankly every Mitsubishi today. What I thought was neat about sitting inside the Endeavor it seemed bigger and wider inside than it looks from the outside. My biggest problem with the interior is the cheap ugly plastic in the Endeavor. The best items in the interior however is the amount of space, the screen for the radio and the seats are rather comfortable. The build quality of these vehicles are pretty good, these are built in the United States. What a shame with the interior since its not a bad one, its just not easy to present it.

My Score: 6/10 - A good interior...it just uses some ugly cheap materials making it unattractive.

Styling: While I never noticed many of these SUVs after actually seeing one, they're quite distinct. Its not a particularly daring styling effort but there was effort in making it look like no other SUV from all angles. I liked the way it looked.

My Score: 8/10 - Not a daring look but styled so its distinct from any other SUV.

Value for the money: This is a bit of trouble, the Endeavor is a very expensive SUV for the money. A 2009 Endeavor costs about $36,000 which puts it over the Toyota Highlander and almost equal in price to the real SUV Toyota 4-Runner. You don't even get 4WD with that $36,000 either its still FWD. The unattractive interior does not show its price tag, the only way you could tell the money was spent elsewhere you had to have test driven the Endeavor. Had Mitsubishi spent more money on the interior they would have a good case for why this SUV costs so much.

My Score: 3/10 - A good SUV but its way too expensive with its low rent interior to present itself as a good alternative to Toyota.

Overall: 32/50 - A very nice medium sized SUV, would have been so much better with a better quality interior

2007 Dodge Caravan SXT

I've only driven 3 Minivans so far, the 2 Dodge Caravans and the Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac Montana. So I'll be doing the oldest and the one out of fleet, the older egg-shaped Caravan.


Introduction: The Dodge Caravan is one of Chrysler's most successful vehicles since its introduction in 1984 as the first minivan in the world. It was produced earlier than the next closest vehicle the Renault Espace. The Caravan used a modified K-car platform called the S platform meaning this vehicle also belonged to the K-car generation that would help Chrysler exit for financial ruin. While the iconic K-cars the Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant would retire, the Caravan continued to be a great hit even to this day.

The vehicle featured in this review is the fourth generation of Caravan. The unique feature of this one over the previous older Caravans is in 2005 it used a unique seating storage arrangement called stow n' go which allowed you to stow the middle row seats into the floor without the need to remove them. This allowed you to have a cargo van arrangement without the need for heavy lifting to remove the trouble some middle row seats.


Performance: The Caravans that were in our fleet used the 3.3L V6 which produced 180 hp and 210 lb.ft of torque. This never moved the Caravan particularly quickly and despite its torque it never seemed to accelerate very quickly either. The 0-100 speed is about 9.1 seconds meaning this one was not particularly quick. I cannot imagine using the 2.4 4-cylinder in this thing because clearly this V6 wasn't enough to seem adequate. The V6 is reasonably smooth but not nearly as refined as many other V6 units out there including GM's 3.8L V6s on their minivans.

My Score: 6/10 - Not a horribly slow engine, but not an impressive engine at all.

Handling: I understand the Caravan is a minivan and that I shouldn't expect all that much out of its handling ability. Much to my surprise this Caravan was not as horrible as I expected. Its not as good as an small SUV or any car but it does feel like a big car. The steering wheel has some feel to it and thus making this van a mild surprise considering I was expecting something very numb and boring. The short wheelbase also makes this vehicle easier to park than I thought.

My Score: 6/10 - Its not good at it, but for something this heavy it did surprisingly well.


Interior: The Caravan does not have a pleasant interior to sit inside, the plastic are easily classified as cheap. The seats are not that particularly comfortable either, a little bit on the hard side to be honest. Yet, the clearly innovative stow n' go has made this interior at the very least cleverly designed. Getting the seats out and putting them in was not the most user friendly experience but I expect the newer one to iron these problems out(sadly they never did). This interior is pretty much saved for the fact it has this innovative interior layout item. The Caravans in Canada are all made in Windsor, Ontario. I didn't notice any real build quality issues with them.

My Score: 6/10 - Very innovative stow n' go, making a normally ugly interior into a decent one

Styling: The Dodge Caravan didn't really change very much from the last generation. The overall shape of the vehicle remained practically the same and much of the key identifiable exterior features also remained largely the same. The major difference is mild styling difference in the front making the van certainly more modern than the previous generations. They didn't change the style because the van still looked distinct from all the other vans back then in 2001.

My Score: 7/10 - Yeah they were lazy but it still was unique, you can easily tell a Caravan from the rest of the minivans.

Value for the money: This is a little bit harder to score. Clearly the stow n' go system gives this Caravan a big advantage over the other ones especially if you need both a cargo van and a passenger van. This van is also not very expensive to buy, it is actually one of the least expensive ones available. The only problem is reliability, these vans and their predecessors suffered transmission failures, they also depreciate very badly since so many are in the used market. These issues are why the more expensive Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey manage to sell rather well despite being on the high end of minivan pricing.

My Score: 7/10 - Its mostly good except for that annoying transmission and you need to run it down to the ground yourself to get the most out of it.

Overall: 32/50 - Not a bad minivan at all in hindsight, the innovation is really why this minivan scored well. What hurt the van was the low quality items in an attempt to keep costs down.

2007 Hyundai Elantra

Oh boy, I'm behind. The last two weeks have been very busy due to the holidays and I mostly just went to bed for much of the week. I don't think I'll be able to make daily updates with the way things are going, I'll try for weekly instead.


Introduction: The Elantra went for a redesign for the 2007 model year into its fourth generation. The car's primary target once again was the Corolla and Civic. Hyundai attempted to increase the size of the car, but left out the hatchback option in North America until recently with the new 2009 Elantra Touring.

If you remembered my last review of the old Elantra I didn't really like it. I drove this version shortly after that one with low expectations. To start, I didn't like the way it looks.


Performance: The fourth generation Elantra uses Hyundai's Beta II engine which was no change from the last generation this engine produces 138 hp and 136 lb.ft of torque. Once again the manual transmission is the best option to go for to get the most of its power being at least 2 seconds quicker than the auto which does 0-100 km/h in about 10 seconds. The changes in performance are basically nil from the last generation. The drone is not as bad this time around due to a marginally better interior.

My Score: 5/10 - Like last time, a decent engine but nothing special.

Handling: I don't know what Hyundai was doing here, while the changes to the handling have been very minimal the steering feel of the Elantra has changed for the worse. Last time the wheel was light but I never got the sense that it was over boosted but rather somewhat numb. This time around the wheel is very light and the feel is completely missing. During the winter the lack of any feel meant this car was very easy to slide without warning. Hyundai wanted to outdo Toyota with the lack of steering feel...too bad for Hyundai, Toyota was able to do much worse.

My Score: 2/10 - Worse than last time, the steering feel is absent this time around


Interior: The last Elantra interior was very generic, that didn't change so much this time around either. The difference however is the materials are a bit better than last time and unlike last time there is a little bit more styling involved as well. The stereo still remained the same bad pre-2009 unit which was rubbish. The interior is bigger this time around however and is more spacious than before. The build quality on this version is better, despite coming from the same factory as before. On a whole this Elantra does have an improvement when it comes to the interior.

My Score: 6/10 - Still generic, but with better materials, better build quality and more space

Styling: No no no no no. This is a very bad attempt at styling, copying an already generic car to further dilute the market with cars that look nearly identical. Its clear that the person styling this Elantra took a Corolla and traced it. They didn't even really bother to make this car look unique.

My Score: 0/10 - There just isn't any styling here and thus a zero, the Elantra Touring is a significantly better example of what this car should have looked like.

Value for money: Once again the Elantra comes very well equipped compared to the likes of the Corolla and Civic. The power is comparable, the space is a smidgen larger and the price is much lower than those two vehicles. This is a generic car and for this sort of money, you couldn't blame someone for buying it.

My Score: 8/10 - Despite me not liking a lot of this car, the amount of value this car has still is impressive for its price.

Overall: 21/50 - The score is worse this time around just for the plain fact that Hyundai did nothing about the styling thinking tracing is a better idea and made the steering feel go away. The better interior just wasn't enough to bump its score to average.