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 For the model year 2007 Hyundai redesigned the Santa Fe ditching the unique but outdated styling in favour of a more modern and contemporary look.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.

2008, 2009 Buick Lucerne CX

I have a bit more time today so, some more reviews...I noticed I haven't put out that many GMs so here they are.


Introduction: The Buick Lucerne was introduced in 2006 as a replacement for Buick's previous large cars like the LeSabre and the Park Avenue. Buick made the Lucerne less expensive than the relatively inexpensive LeSabre but particularly with the V8 option it also ranged more expensive than the Park Avenue. The Lucerne is the last remaining vehicle on the H-body platform which was first introduced in 1986 from the LeSabre from that time.

I'm not particularly a fan of Buicks...to me they're always associated with the elderly. Other than some of the stranger Buicks like the Reatta and the classic Buicks...they've never appealed to me. As a result I really didn't care whether I drove one or not, in this job I drove quite a few so I'll review them.


Performance: The Buick Lucerne was given 3 engines, 2 of them are V6s and the other is a Northstar V8. I've driven both V6 engines since the earlier Lucernes had the 3.8L 3800 Series III engine(197 hp and 233 lb.ft of torque) while the 2009 and newer Lucernes uses the 3.9L High Value V6(227 hp and 237 lb.ft of torque). Now I know I mentioned how savage the Grand Prix's 3800(the exact same engine) was, its far more reserved in the Buicks. Pushing the Buick and the Grand Prix the exact same way...despite the exact same engine you get a different result...the Pontiac gives a rough jolt of power as you press the pedal...the Buick is quiet and the power is very spread out. It might be the ECU or transmission programming that affects this. The 3.9L V6 is really not all that different...it some ways it doesn't even attempt to distinguish itself. That said the Lucerne is no slouch, its acceleration goes from 0-100 km/h in 7.2 seconds with the 3800 engine, due to how little torque was increased in the 3.9L I assume its practically the same with no official numbers out for this engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Fantastic for the Buick's traditional customers, very quiet, very smooth and very refined...not as lovable as the Grand Prix reacts using the same engine though.

Handling: One thing Buicks are not known for is taking corners with agility. The primary focus of the Buicks seem to be road comfort and making the wheel easy to turn. The Lucerne does not walk away from that meaning this big car is very poor at taking corners at speed. You also don't get very good steering feedback from the very light wheel. In essence for the driving enthusiast they'll be very bored driving these cars, the elderly who need the soft ride to not destroy their bones and extremely light wheel to deal with arthritis will absolutely love this.

My Score: 3/10 - Totally set up for comfort, totally discourages turning at speed unless done slowly.


Interior: The interior of the Lucerne is extremely large inside. There is a lot of room for passengers in both front and back, the trunk space has not been sacrificed at all making it very good for carrying luggage and people at the same time. On a CX trim level, the Buick however is very unsophisticated other than power options and a stereo...there really isn't much to it despite being a car this large and having a higher price than Chevrolets. The seats are comfortable and the atmosphere is catered to Buick's base. The build quality isn't really a problem in this car, its built in Hamtramck Michigan, in the United States.

My Score: 6/10 - A very roomy and comfortable interior, but lacks anything that might interest someone younger.

Styling: The Lucerne does not attempt to change Buick's image in any way. This design looks like a natural progression of the old LeSabre being really inoffensive and extremely conservative. There are no sharp angles in the design anywhere and it even has something retro in the styling featuring the long gone ventiports from much older Buicks having a vent on the fender corresponding to the number of cylinders in the car. 3 on each side for the V6 and 4 for the V8. Its a design catering to Buick's loyal customers, sadly not very inviting to anybody else who may feel they'll be seen as an old person in a design like this.

My Score: 5/10 - An extremely conservative design, appealing to the loyalty crown unappealing to others who dislike the conservative design.

Value for money: As I mentioned in the introduction the Lucerne is less expensive than what Buick used to charge for the LeSabre or the Park Avenue. The cars that the Lucerne competes against are however much better suited for a larger target audience. Even within GM the Pontiac G8 and the Cadillac CTS are much more attractive to a bigger audience. The Impala may cannibalize the Lucerne's sales due to that car having similar mannerisms but at a much lower cost. The competition from outside means its up against the Toyota Avalon, Ford Taurus, Nissan Maxima and Chrysler 300. The Avalon and Taurus are better executed and offer higher quality for the audience Buick wanted to attract for this car while the Maxima and 300 go after the bigger market of younger drivers.

My Score: 2/10 - Aside from loyal customers, even within GM there isn't a truly compelling reason to buy a Lucerne over a G8, CTS or Impala. Older customers I doubt will find the Impala to be much different and for very conservative drivers who distrust front wheel drive, the Crown Victoria is far more appealing.

Overall: 25/50 - Its a perfect car for your grandparents, but a terrible choice for just about anybody else.

2007 Cadillac CTS

This Saturday hasn't been too bad in terms of work so I'm not nearly as tired as I was last weekend.


Introduction: Before the Cadillac CTS, GM has tried twice to get a suitable entry level Cadillac in order to compete against BMW, Lexus, Mercedes and Audi. Their first attempt was the Cimarron which damaged GM's reputation far more than anticipated. The reason was due to the fact the Cimarron was truly a Cavalier with slightly different styling and a different badge. Fundamentally the car was still like the very low budget Chevrolet, many buyers believed this to be a rip off and as such the car ended up as a total failure. Cadillac's next effort was the Catera which hailed from GM's Opel division known as the Opel Omega. This time while a truly foreign car(it was made in Germany) there was very little inside the Catera that made it worthy of being mentioned alongside the brands it was supposed to compete against. Opel designed it as a regular mainstream car, not a luxury entry level car and thus the Catera failed too. The CTS is the result of GM returning to the RWD platform which the previous Cimarron and Catera were not. The new GM Sigma platform would be the launching pad for the CTS and future Cadillacs in an effort to shatter the old people's car image most had of Cadillac at the time. The results meant a 2nd generation CTS, the crossover SRX and the Seville replacement the STS.

When I started, I knew this was the car to take a good look at whether GM could really turn itself around. This car received a lot of praise even from those normally critical of GM, add the fact it was RWD I was actually excited about this GM product.


Performance: I had the run of the mill Cadillac CTS, not the more exciting powerful CTS-V. So the engine I did try out was the 3.6L which produced 255 hp and 252 lb.ft of torque. The 3.6 was available to the CTS since 2005. Well this engine was how you would expect from a car this high priced, its very smooth and power delivery feels just right. I never got the chance to take the CTS for a test run at acceleration but its acceleration from 0-100 km/h is about 6.6 seconds which is by far the quickest car in all of these reviews. Clearly GM updated the powertrain to the degree they wanted a true winner.

My Score: 10/10 - Smooth, quiet and bloody fast.

Handling: This part I could test a lot better than powertrain due to the confines of the area I could drive this car. First thing I noticed was how much easier the CTS was to drive over every other GM I was exposed to at this time. I truly noticed the balance from the rear wheel drive unlike the Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300, the degree of confidence the steering wheel feeds to your hands is what makes cars of this level better than a front wheel drive econobox. You can feel the chassis is very capable taking a turn slightly fast, while it rolled a tad bit it was by far the best GM product I've ever driven when it came to handling.

My Score: 10/10 - GM has done almost the impossible, made Caddillac truly for a car enthusiast with a family.


Interior: This is the only early 21st century GM product that I felt had a proper interior while most of the others had disappointingly bad interiors in comparison. There are features I felt showed a small sign of GM's struggle to get a proper interior down like the alarmingly silly looking vents, the tin-foil plastic in the center console and the low grade stereo the rest of the interior was not half bad. The leather provided is actually of decent quality and the cabin is quite comfortable. There's a lot of space for your passengers both from and back. I drove an older unit and even despite this, I didn't notice the disappointing build quality I was used to seeing from GM products. These cars are made in Lansing, Michigan in the United States.

My Score: 7/10 - Mostly a reasonable interior, just a few silly tacky and unattractive items.

Styling: In hindsight I'm starting to like the styling of this car as it ages. I initially didn't like it too much, I originally thought it tried to keep too much of the old Cadillac while mixing it with radical shapes to scare the old people. Now I actually prefer this version over the 2nd generation CTS, its mild mannered by at the same time you can see its not the same Cadillac your grandparents drove...its in fact tailored for the youth.

My Score: 8/10 - An interesting blend of old and new, takes some time to settle but in the end it ages pretty well.

Value for Money: When GM introduced the CTS, I wasn't sure whether it would pose a serious challenge since back then most assumed GM was going to fail again like the last two times. After driving the car, it really looks like a true bargain. The CTS despite being entry-level is actually the size of a 5-series but has a 3-series price, its not a sluggish pig like old Cadillacs suggested and they're quite well equipped. The most the foreign brands could offer over Cadillac was brand appeal and reputation which Cadillac lacked. Still, when looking at value the Cadillac was a serious deal you just had to overcome the negative image of General Motors which was really difficult to overcome back then.

My Score: 8/10 - An absolutely fantastic deal, the biggest thing that might have hurt its sales was that it came from General Motors and its disturbingly bad image.

Overall: 43/50 - An absolutely excellent product from General Motors, it makes you wonder what took them 30 years to get something like this right.