2007-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo

This is the final one. Have a Merry Christmas and have a happy new year!


Introduction: The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a model that many people all over the world are familiar with. It started out in 1993 as the replacement of the Jeep Grand Wagoneer from the AMC years. Primarily known for being able to travel off road but with the comfort and luxury that many SUVs back then didn't have. This would be Chrysler's first Jeep designed vehicle as all the previous Jeeps were of AMC design. Development of the Grand Cherokee was delayed due to Lee Iacocca pushing for the Chrysler minivan to be completed first. Over time the Grand Cherokee has grown from its original humble size to a rather large crossover SUV. The current Grand Cherokee is in its fourth generation, this review focuses on the third generation.

This has always been considered one of the important Jeep models so of course I was expecting it to be something Chrysler put more effort on. However by the time I got a chance to drive one, my expectations of a Chrysler product were pretty low as I haven't been at all pleased with many of them. Many of which I downright hated, I was hoping it wouldn't be the case for the Grand Cherokee as I thought the previous one was rather good.


Performance: Since my review is specifically on the basic Laredo it means the Grand Cherokee is powered by a 3.7L Power tech V6. It is also available with a 4.7L Power tech V8, a 5.7L Hemi V8 and even a 6.1L Hemi V8 for the SRT-8 version. The 3.7L V6 produces 210 hp and 235 lb.ft of torque its mated to a 5-speed automatic transmission. Considering this Grand Cherokee is bigger and much heavier than the previous two, this power number doesn't look very good. You would be correct to assume its slow. The Jeep Liberty with the same engine took 10 seconds to get from 0-100 km/h, the Cherokee is another 400 lbs heavier so its about 11 seconds. With this poor performance you get slightly better fuel economy than a Chevrolet Trailblazer with a bigger straight six engine. The engine sounds terrible, its rough and I'd suggest you don't get this engine if you want a Grand Cherokee.

My Score: 2/10 - Slow, noisy and not terribly efficient compared to the available V8s.

Handling: Being heavier than 2 tons will reduce its handling capabilities on the road. When taken around a corner you get quite a bit of understeer and quite a bit of body roll. This is added with steering which is rather vague. Its not exactly light or heavy, but its still not capable of proper communication. As a result you have no real faith in it. The ride quality is not that good either, bad roads are quite noticeable.

My Score: 3/10 - Doesn't like corners, dull steering and mediocre ride quality.


Interior: I was pretty disappointed when I first got into a Grand Cherokee. I was expecting something like the previous Grand Cherokee which was rather nice and comfortable. Instead this Grand Cherokee is a sea full of dark, cheap and ugly plastic. The cloth seat is not all that comfortable. The dash gauges are better than the standard Chrysler ones but not by much. The interior is rather roomy although its a 5-seater, so it will have proper tailgate space. Still you can't seem to avoid how dark and gloomy it is inside. Build quality is mediocre, there's an occasional squeak and rattle from this vehicle. The Grand Cherokee is assembled in Detroit, Michigan, USA.

My Score: 3/10 - Its roomy and spacious, but otherwise its depressing and unpleasant.

Styling: It does retain a lot of the Grand Cherokee styling from the previous versions. However I never did like those headlights as they look stupid. Overall its fine since its an evolutionary design. Its difficult to fault something that looked good several years ago and still does today.

My Score: 7/10 - Progressive styling, although the stupid headlamps are out of place.

Value for money: The Grand Cherokee is not cheap even with the basic Laredo. I'm not aware of its off road performance which could help it but on the road I'm not sure why anyone would choose this SUV over the likes of the Toyota 4Runner or the Nissan Pathfinder both are quicker, made of better materials, better assembled and less expensive. Both have also made a name for themselves off road and their durability. Given that most Grand Cherokees these days never see a dirt road, I don't really understand why one would buy these ones. Seems during this time Chrysler was milking the Jeep name.

My Score: 4/10 - Its got competition that's cheaper and mostly better in quite a few ways.

Overall: 19/50 - With a small engine and a terrible interior, the Grand Cherokee to me makes no sense. For $40,000 you would expect something decent instead of this which is mostly bad.

2007-2010 Ford Expedition XLT

This time an SUV which I haven't done in a while.


Introduction: The Ford Expedition is Ford's full size SUV and currently the largest it makes. It replaced the original Ford Bronco in 1997 and it later also replaced the Ford Excursion in 2007 with the Expedition Max. The Expedition uses the T platform which is based off of the F-150 truck. For much of its time the Ford Expedition has been made in Wayne, Michigan and only in 2009 has been built in Louisville, Kentucky because of Ford's expansion of the Wayne plant for the upcoming 2012 Ford Focus.

In all honesty before I got to drive the Expedition I've actually never heard of it. I also never really saw that many on the roads which meant it never came to my mind. I guess it was poorly advertised since I do see a lot of F-150 commercials and Explorer ones but never seen a Expedition ad. So I had no expectations having never of heard of the vehicle in the first place.


Performance: Due to its truck nature and its size the Expedition is given the 5.4L Triton V8. This engine produces 300 hp and 365 lb.ft of torque during 2007-2008, in later years the power is increased to 310 hp with the same engine. The transmission is a 6-speed automatic. With this much power and torque the Expedition accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 8.1 seconds which is pretty quick considering its size and weight. Now there's no easy way to put this, the Expedition's fuel economy is pretty terrible. Its a very nice cruising motor and it doesn't make a whole lot of noise but unless you need a vehicle this size it will hurt at the fuel pumps quite badly. The low range gearbox works well even when the truck is sort of beached on ice.

My Score: 8/10 - Moves quickly, low range makes it capable of terrain issues, cruises very nicely...but awfully thirsty.

Handling: Like any full size SUV there are big drawbacks to having a tall vehicle with a massive amount of weight. While its turning circle is good for a vehicle its size, it still needs more room to turn compared to a car. You don't really want to take an Expedition into a corner very quickly as its weight can easily make it roll over. The steering is a slight bit heavy although its not all that exciting. Its what you would expect from a truck really, not good at cornering but driving sensibly it shouldn't be an issue. Ride comfort is average for a truck based SUV, not as soft as a CUV but not as bouncy on a real truck either.

My Score: 5/10 - Its not meant to be aggressive, its more happier on freeways.


Interior: Much like all Fords designed from this period of time, it was a better interior than what it used to be. Its not stylish but its functional and its pretty easy to use. There's a good amount of space for those in the front row and in the middle row. The rear seats are not as spacious as one would want despite its size. This may be different on the Expedition Max, but this review specifically focuses on the standard SUV. To fold the second row seats is straight forward, the third row folds with buttons which makes it really easy. Even with the third row up there's still trunk space unlike the Chevrolet Tahoe which doesn't. The leather material used is nothing significant its of pretty average quality. The build quality of these SUVs is pretty good from both plants 2007-2008 being made in Wayne, Michigan, USA and the 2009 to current cars made in Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonable interior, seating for 7, trunk space even with seats up, easy to use, a bit bland on styling.

Styling: The Expedition doesn't really have much to say on styling. It looks pretty generic as an SUV, removing the blue oval badge it could look like it might have come from General Motors. It may be two tone, but it doesn't really stand out in spite of that.

My Score: 3/10 - Generic.

Value for money: The Expedition's primary competition comes from the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon, the Dodge Durango and Jeep Commander and the Toyota Sequoia. Its really all down to the Tahoe being its serious competition since the Durango and Commander are rubbish while the Sequoia is quite expensive($61,000!). On fuel economy the Tahoe is better because of cylinder deactivation. On practicality technically the Tahoe seats 8 but it really depends on whether you want to use the front bench seat with no airbag. The Expedition however has actual trunk space and is easier to use. The Expedition seats also fold in, while the Tahoe requires removal of the 3rd row seats. The Expedition is more versatile, the Tahoe is more economical.

My Score: 8/10 - Its very versatile in its utility, its just not as cheap or as fuel efficient.

Overall: 33/50 - A pretty good SUV focusing on being versatile, so long as you really need its size the fuel bills can then be excusable.

2007-2011 Nissan Sentra 2.0S

The next car is something I still drive a lot but its due for a replacement soon.


Introduction: The Nissan Sentra has been in Nissan's lineup for a very long time. Before the use of the Sentra name, the previous car was called a Datsun 210 which was RWD. Since the introduction of the Sentra in 1982, the car has since become FWD. Its main competitor was always the Toyota Corolla, eventually the Honda Civic would also become a target car. The Sentra does not appear to be as popular or sell as well as the Civic or Corolla. Nevertheless Nissan does have a performance version of the Sentra called the SE-R Spec V. The current Sentra is now in its sixth generation and is expected to be replaced by the 2012 model year.

The previous Sentra was a vehicle that was not very interesting to me. As a result I didn't really expect much out of this car although it seemed more promising than the older car.


Performance: The Nissan Sentra is available with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine that produces 140 hp and 142 lb.ft of torque. This engine is a nice upgrade over the previous 1.8L which wasn't very interesting. This Sentra is also equipped with a CVT and a 6-speed manual. The SE-R version gets a 2.5L 4-cylinder engine from the Altima. This review looks at the regular Sentra and the 2.0L accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 9 seconds which is acceptable for a sedan in this class although significantly less impressive than the Altima using CVT. The engine can be quiet when cruising, but when its accelerating it sounds a bit crude and noisy. The CVT does make the cruising nice as you won't feel the change in gear ratios, its just not as good as the CVT you get in the Altima or Maxima on the performance level. Fuel economy isn't as good as the Civic or the Corolla either despite the Corolla still using a 4-speed automatic.

My Score: 7/10 - Reasonable speed, average fuel economy, noisy acceleration, not a great case for CVTs.

Handling: The Sentra handles pretty decently while not as nice as a Mazda3 or Mitsubishi Lancer its not as dull as it used to be. It can take a corner with the usual understeer and a bit of roll yet it has more confidence than say a Toyota Corolla. That said the wheel weighting feels a bit odd, its initially a bit tough but lightens up rather quickly which unfortunately produces little feel. Its another electric power steering system which I find is just not as nice as a hydraulic system.

My Score: 6/10 - Much better than before but still average in the pack, steering however lacks feel and is oddly weighted.


Interior: The Sentra's interior from before was pretty boring and not very well made. The difference between the older and newer Sentras in this version is down to the displays. The older ones have a orange and black display which would seem familiar to you if you had a 1980s computer. Odd Nissan decided on this colour combination. The newer display is white, red with a black background and seems a lot more modern and full of colour. The interior materials are not that nice to be honest, a lot of hard plastic and a few bits of fake aluminum plastic. The amount of space is rather average as is the trunk space. C-pillars are rather large so visibility is not as good. The biggest problem with the Sentra however is the build quality. This interior is still not well made, I've seen a lot of items fall off or have growing gaps. Things like the brake pedal pad coming off, the dead pedal pad peeling off, a door hinge not aligned properly, the plastic trim around the seat railings coming off and so on. The Sentra is made in Aguascalientes, Mexico.

My Score: 4/10 - Bland, lots of hard plastic, reduced visibility and the build quality is rubbish.

Styling: It appears Nissan wanted to make a mini-Altima with the Sentra although it looks a lot more square than the Altima does. The refresh makes the grille more modern since the old one was full of plastic squares. It looks mediocre from most angles, over all its a so so design.

My Score: 4/10 - Its a Altima imitation where the design mostly had a ruler.

Value for money: The Sentra starts out very cheap. Unfortunately that's really where it can excel since its not a driver's car nor a quality product. Even worse is the Mazda3 is a nicer vehicle to drive, significantly better built and has a similar base price in GX form. The Sentra also doesn't get much for having CVT since the Mitsubishi Lancer has this and the Dodge Caliber. The Sentra just doesn't excel at very much to be worth considering. I'd rather Nissan spend a bit more on better build quality over having a better MSRP.

My Score: 3/10 - Its cheap and average with terrible build quality.

Overall: 24/50 - A pretty average car which happens to be cheap to buy in base form but suffers from awful build quality.

2007-2010 Ford Edge SEL and Limited AWD

I'm sorry, my last update was back in November and now its nearing Christmas time. This last set of reviews will likely be the last for the year so hopefully I'll get a few through. Starting with this vehicle.


Introduction: The Ford Edge is a midsize crossover introduced in 2006. This is one of the first vehicles by Ford to implement the Ford tri-bar grille. This vehicle uses the CD3 platform shared by the early Mazda6. This is Ford's first attempt in the segment after seeing Toyota's success with the Toyota Highlander and the Nissan Murano. The Edge comes in 4 trim levels, the base SE, the SEL, the Limited and the Sport. This review will look at the SEL and the Limited. Sales of the Edge have been very good to the point where Ford has redesigned it for the 2011 model year and is currently a market leader.

Like all CUVs I didn't really have much expectations for them and because of what I require in a car wouldn't consider them. Although this vehicle I knew was one of Ford's better selling vehicles of the time so it did give me some insight into it being at least decent.


Performance: All Ford Edge models come with the same engine and transmission. A 3.5L V6 that's mated to a 6-speed automatic. This V6 engine is capable of producing 265 hp and 250 lb.ft of torque. This means the acceleration from 0-100 km/h is about 8.3-8.4 seconds which is reasonable. The engine is rather quiet and refined making it a rather smooth and comfortable vehicle. The fuel economy is acceptable, not particularly outstanding but its better than the Explorer. All in all its a nice engine although it won't excite a performance oriented driver its good for regular calm driving.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonably performance, alright fuel economy, quiet and smooth.

Handling: Being a tall, heavy vehicle the Edge is not an ideal vehicle to take corners too quickly. I was sort of hoping it acted close to how the Mazda CX-7 did but it seems Ford would rather focus on ride comfort over cornering ability. By taking the Edge in the corner while it will do it, you'll know the understeer is coming and the roll is very present. If you wanted a more agile vehicle its best to look at the Mazda. The steering is good for this sort of vehicle meaning it should communicate enough to allow confident driving.

My Score: 7/10 - Its good enough for most, ride comfort is good, noticeable understeer and roll.


Interior: Being a new key product for Ford this was where we would see whether they were capable of surviving. As a result Ford did spend a lot more resources on the interior where in the past they wouldn't. The interior in the Edge is rather simple and straight forward. It didn't have the cheap knobs we were used to seeing in less expensive cars although on the earlier Edges the stereo was mediocre. Interior materials are reasonable, nothing that looks out of the ordinary but crucially nothing that looks cheap and nasty. There's a lot of space for the 5 passengers in the vehicle while also having a big tailgate area. The interior is very easy to work with and if you have the limited the power options make things even easier. Some Ford Edges have a rubber mat for the tailgate area which means its easier to preserve the carpet if you know you'll put something that will make it messy. There's a leather parcel rack but not being solid it doesn't look that good and with the high tailgate ultimately useless. Knowing its visibility with the C and D pillars is not great, the mirrors provide two angles one for the blind spot and one to see the car's side. Its a well thought out interior despite it not being flash and interesting to look at. I've never seen a build quality issue on the Edge so it shouldn't fall apart. The Edge is assembled in Oakville, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 8/10 - Well made, well thought out, well designed but slightly lacking in aesthetics.

Styling: I must admit the Edge is a rather distinctive vehicle. Ford went with a rather egg shaped vehicle which is risky since the last time we saw an egg shaped vehicle was the Previa and it didn't succeed on styling. Its not my favourite tri-bar grille vehicle but its the interesting shape that draws your attention to it being a Ford and not some random CUV. The rear doesn't have much interesting details but the front does have unique headlights in an attempt to match the grille.

My Score: 8/10 - Pretty noticeable, unique shape, the rear however doesn't is rather ordinary.

Value for money: Pricing for the Edge is rather high considering its supposed place in the Ford lineup. For much of the same money you could have a Taurus X which is bigger. The Toyota Highlander actually starts out less expensive as well. Its not as practical as a minivan since it only seats 5 which is as good as the Escape. The Ford Flex offers more seating capacity again for the same money. With these things in mind, I don't see the Edge offering much to a consumer looking purely at statistics. What the Edge does offer is the unique styling. It appears many liked the way it looked because evaluating the Edge against even other Fords it seems overpriced mainly since it doesn't offer anything special.

My Score: 5/10 - If you like the looks it'll do well, if you're not as interested in that the Flex is better or you can save money with the Escape which is just as good.

Overall: 36/50 - Its a good CUV on its own merits, its done rather well. Value within the Ford lineup is the only part where I'm a bit confused at its success.

2011 BMW 323i

Haven't updated in a while, here's something of real interest.


Introduction: The BMW 3 series has been around since 1975, it wasn't until the 1980s when it entered its second generation that it took off and has slowly been the luxury sports sedan of choice throughout the world. This might be due to the popularity of the M3 which was started after BMW noticed success in their quiet release of the original M5 which salvaged performance parts from the doomed M1, BMW's only supercar. BMW is the only automaker left who still hasn't technically produced a mainstream front wheel drive model(to be honest the MINI counts), nor has it adopted to change its 6 cylinders into V6s over the traditional inline-6. The 3 series despite being BMW's entry level model for a very long time still has a very large following thanks mainly due to its handling over many other comparable cars. Today the 3 series is in its 5th generation soon to enter its sixth for 2012.

I was rather excited to drive one of these cars. I was particularly curious about the engine as everybody but BMW has abandoned the straight six in favour of V6s. I wasn't expecting outright power since this is a 323i and not the 328i or the 335i which are both more powerful particularly the 335i which is the closest thing to an M3 without paying a whole lot. I was also interested to see whether the "Ultimate driving machine" slogan was really worth all that hype.


Performance: As I mentioned its just a 323i so the figures are not going to be impressive. In the 323i you're given the 2.5L straight six engine which produces 200 hp and 180 lb.ft of torque. Many cars have much more powerful engines than this which cost a whole lot less. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 8.2 seconds with an automatic, if you get a manual it will be 7.1 seconds. So its not that fast, is there anything else that makes it different? In my mind yes, this engine is much smoother in its power delivery than any V6s out there. When you step on the pedal you won't get an explosion of power, rather its progressively gets faster. Its also rather quiet too even at full throttle making me think that Toyota and Nissan were indeed foolish to toss the inline-six in the garbage. I like this engine, it may be slow but it shows that creamy smoothness is still the inline-6's strength and that V6s despite massive development haven't gotten there yet.

My Score: 9/10 - Its not that fast, but its very smooth and quiet.

Handling: This is where the 3 series makes its claim to fame. It doesn't disappoint, keep in mind the 323i is the base car and even in the wet the handling is superb. Steering feel is exactly the way it should be, heavy enough for precise driver input and light enough to turn easily. When taking the corners it takes normal corners without issues, little body roll and it corners rather flat. Ride comfort I dont' think took a hit either, its not the cushiest ride but much more comfortable than say a Acura RSX.

My Score: 10/10 - No complaints at all, outstanding.


Interior: If there's any real room for competitors to try to attack the 3 series on, this might be one of the areas. Inside the 3 series its a bit bland, with its layout. I didn't like the stalks they provided, I don't like the indicators for instance...self canceling doesn't seem possible which isn't a problem in a normal car with proper stalks. Some of the display text in the 3 series is also on the small side. Materials seem to be of average quality or higher which is a good thing. The cup holders come out rather neat and look solid. Visibility is actually pretty decent on a modern car. I can see some problems when it comes to legroom for passengers in the back, as the 3 series isn't that large of a car and with rear wheel drive this space is further reduced. Build quality is very good, this car being made in Leipzig, Germany. The 323i doesn't have the toys that other models will have so its lacking on that end. Overall its a decent interior, but it doesn't have as much personality compared to the way the car drives.

My Score: 7/10 - You get the sense that its an above average interior with problems being rear legroom, the silly stalks, small text display and overall bland styling.

Styling: This particular 3 series is not my favourite when it comes to BMW styling. Removing the BMW features, the car is indistinguishable meaning if your remove the Hofmeister kink and the BMW kidney grille its just a generic car. Styling-wise this is one of the least appealing cars in its segment. It just doesn't look interesting. The only good item is actually the wheels, they're nice.

My Score: 3/10 - Removing traditional BMW items it looks like some random generic car with nice wheels.

Value for money: This is very troubling, BMWs have always been rather terrible value for your money in the traditional sense. They do everything normal in driving exactly like every other car but cost more. However if you're concerned about things like balance, poise and delicacy then the BMW may be the only choice despite its price tag. Its very sad when nobody offers a competing straight-six since BMW automatically wins on smooth power delivery and the explosion of power from a V6 seems crude. The competition is pretty stiff as you have the choice of this, or the Mercedes C-class, the Audi A4 and the Lexus IS250. Technically you can even throw in the Infiniti G37 which is also rather competitive. If you put higher preference on driving feel over power and technology then its hard to argue against choosing the BMW. You can have more power in the BMW but that means getting the 328i, the 335i or at the apex of the 3 series...the M3 not to mention cabriolet options. The price of this is...the price you can spend anywhere from $35,000 to $81,900 on the 3 series.

My Score: 6/10 - This is the driver's car of the lot, at the lowest end with the 323i you get most of the driving thrills with a decent engine. If you feel there isn't enough power you'll have to spend more and you could spend a lot.

Overall: 35/50 - Not a perfect car in my mind, where its weak on styling, and not strong on interior or value its very good when it comes to driving dynamics where the engine and handling come in play.

2010 Volkswagen Passat

This review is going to be done on a car I've recently driven. One reason I'm doing this one now is I'm not likely to drive it again and I've done a proper drive in one.


Introduction: The Volkswagen Passat has been in Volkswagen's lineup since 1973 as the large family sedan. For some time it has been VW's largest car until the arrival of the very expensive VW Phaeton. The Passat particularly the second generation is still in production even though the Passat will be entering its 7th generation. The older Passats are still available in large numbers specifically in China where it will remain in production until 2012 under the name Santana. The current Passat followed the Phaeton's design language and spawned a recent Passat CC model which has a shorter roofline in an attempt to have coupe styling but sedan practicality. This version of the Passat had a performance oriented R36 model which had VW's 4Motion four wheel drive system and a powerful 3.6L VR6 engine.

So yes this car has only come recently, I knew this would be my first real time in a true Volkswagen. The Jetta of instance is made primarily due to North America's preference for the Jetta over the Golf. Otherwise it wouldn't have existed and I know that driving old VW models under the "City" tag is also something much of the world including the US doesn't see. Only in Canada are we given old VWs sold to poor countries and branded as new.


Performance: The standard VW Passat has a 2.0L TSI engine. Essentially this means its a 2.0L turbo engine that has VW's version of gasoline direct injection. It produces 200 hp and 210 lb.ft of torque. Its acceleration numbers are quite good where it goes from 0-100 km/h in about 7.5 seconds. This is significantly better than standard 4-cylinder midsized sedans but a tad bit slower than the V6 midsize sedans. To drive this engine is a slight bit awkward, you notice the turbo lag particularly on first gear if you don't press the accelerator pedal with much force. In the first second it feels very slow, all the sudden it builds up lots more power. So this might take some adjustment to drive smoothly with a consistent speed. When nearing a stop for some reason the engine shudders it might have been my specific car. The engine doesn't make a particularly exciting sound, its actually rather muted even when pushed hard. Don't think it suffers on fuel economy either for its performance, its nearly as good as the Ford Fusion and only marginally worse than the Toyota Camry. This is a very good engine, the odd quirks really aren't enough to make me think otherwise.

My Score: 9/10 - A very good turbo engine but noticeable turbo lag.

Handling: The Passat sits in a segment where most of the cars aren't very confidence inspiring on corners. The Passat feels rather safe to drive, but this means it has understeer. Strangely enough despite the understeer it didn't roll very much. The steering is rather light but its a slight bit distant so it does lack some feel. The ride comfort however is rather good, you don't feel a lot of the bumps may not as soft as a Buick Lucerne or Toyota Avalon but pretty good for a car that has some ability to take a corner.

My Score: 7/10 - Its ok on the handling front, competent but not exciting.


Interior: When you get inside the Passat you'll notice its quite a bit different from the standard midsize car. A surprising amount of the car is build with a lot of soft plastic over hard plastic. There are some leather touches on the door trim and the seats are leather. The amount of hard plastic inside is a bit more difficult to find, mostly in areas you won't think of touching. The stereo buttons are surprisingly nice which makes me a bit disappointed seeing knobs for the climate controls instead of more buttons. Yes I know they're significantly better than pretty much every other car that has climate control knobs but its silly when the stereo buttons are nicer. Another disappointing item is the small rear window along with the small wing mirrors. Some may find the Passat a bit small when other midsize cars feel bigger inside, that said I didn't notice this. The build quality in this car is frankly excellent, you get the sense that a single even minute mistake would mean punishment. Even when I tried to find a fault I couldn't and normally I can easily find them. I must admit this interior is one that screams quality, when you find even the plastics are nice...there just isn't much to criticize.

My Score: 10/10 - Extremely well built, full of quality materials, best interior in the segment.

Styling: The Passat's styling is rather bland I find. The Phaeton wasn't all that great on styling and with the Passat it has even less details. The Passat just doesn't look all that exciting especially when put beside the Passat CC which in all honesty is better looking. In some ways its a bit strange to find the interior full of quality touches and details but having an exterior that tries its best to remain anonymous.

My Score: 4/10 - Rather bland and not all that great even when put beside other VWs.

Value for money: A base Passat, like the one I drove is surprisingly good value. Normally VWs are extremely uncompetitive but in this case its rather in line with all the other successful midsize sedans. At the moment its a little bit more expensive than the Camry, but given that its engine is much more powerful and its interior is far nicer I'm not sure why the Camry is as expensive as it is. Now if you add options into the Passat it then becomes a lot more expensive and due to the fact VW doesn't offer a VR6 in Canada means even at that price you'll still have the 2.0T but now up against mainly 3.5L V6s. The only flaw VW has always had was its dealer network, I've never heard any truly positive stories about servicing a VW. If you can find a mechanic who will work with them, then this is of less importance. Overall though if you can survive with a base midsize sedan, I'm hard pressed to think of a midsize sedan that has as much quality inside it as the Passat.

My Score: 8/10 - Scores well because of the quality and a shocking competitive price for the base model, on the downside the dealer network isn't good and additional options become very expensive for little gain.

Overall: 38/50 - A good midsize sedan, one that's focused on quality while being affordable a rare combination these days.

2008-2011 Ford Focus SE and SES

I noticed that I've been doing a lot of crossovers, today I will post a car for a change. Unfortunately there are still quite a lot of crossovers still to do.


Introduction: As I stated in my old Ford Focus review, it had a bit of a bad start. When Ford brought it to North America dealing with 21 recalls in its first three years, most in its early two, gave a rather negative perception to the car. Alan Mulally the CEO of Ford, decided that in order to not only rid the company of excess waste but also to improve quality with more focused global vehicles. He was going to unite Ford of America, Ford of Europe and Ford of Australia by making sure that no matter where you went the Ford lineup is pretty much the same in each country. Ford of Europe doing very well would have the most surviving models, this left Ford of America to shed much of its excess like the Mercury brand. When it came to the North American Ford Focus, since Ford was redesigning the global vehicle for the 2012 model year, it appears they decided to not import the Mk II Focus design from Europe but rather redesign the current Mk I to keep it fresh without investing too much into it.

I wasn't sure about the changes, having driven cars on the C1 platform I knew it wouldn't be as good since its still on the aging C170.


Performance: Due to the way Ford has only intended this Focus to be a stopgap for the upcoming 2012 Focus this car doesn't get any interesting engines. It still makes do with the old 2.0L Duratec you get from the previous Ford Focus. Its not entirely the same it does gain 4 hp meaning in total 140 but with the same 136 lb.ft of torque. Still the old car wasn't very slow so the new car with its newer body accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 8.3 seconds. When it comes to noise, it can be a but buzzy but its more quiet than it used to be. Its pretty respectable even with an aging motor.

My Score: 8/10 - Very much the same engine as before, still reasonable.

Handling: Now I remembered the old Focus having a steering wheel that moved like an anvil, it never seemed like they had any power steeering. This car has changed this, while its still not the lightest wheel out there its a lot more manageable and therefore it was much easier to find out if it had any feel to it instead of getting tired and not really enjoying the drive. Taking this car around a corner it didn't seem to feel as good as I was hoping. Its competent so you shouldn't crash that easily but somehow it didn't excite me. It was a bit dull. In removing some of the crude feeling of the old system it didn't inject much life into it. The ride comfort is quite alright, its reasonable but not as cushy as you might get on softer riding cars. It also made no difference in the SES version, supposedly the sporty one which is a shame.

My Score: 7/10 - It cleans up the problems of the old system, but sadly its not very lively.


Interior: This is where I see the biggest improvement from the older car. I remembered how puny the seat levers were in the older car, this one has a proper lever. The cup holders are no longer ugly and come off with little effort. The door handles are much nicer. The stereo is better and the controls have much better touches than they used to. The seats depend on the trim level, on lower grades like the SE you get cloth and they're alright. The SES and SEL provide leather and its a bit nicer. The SYNC system is alright to use as well. While I haven't explored everything it could do, it handles most of what you need without too much complications. Nothing about the interior is luxurious but its functional and overall pretty simple. Trunk space is pretty good for its class and it was reasonable with interior space. There is something to note though, they left out the trunk release button in 2008 models, I thought I couldn't find it but when a 2009 model came out it was under the fuse box meaning they really did leave it out. Silly mistake by Ford to leave it out, at least it was rectified though. The build quality is alright, much better than before although I've found some of the plastic covers like to come out. The Focus is made in Wayne, Michigan in the United States.

My Score: 7/10 - While not luxurious it fixes the old interior's massive problems.

Styling: This is probably the most controversial thing about this Focus. I rather liked the previous Focus, this one attempts to marry the current tri-bar Ford grille with something a bit radical. In coupe form it looks terrible especially with the spoiler. In sedan form its a bit better but I don't think the tri-bar grille worked on this design. The rear I don't think worked out either it kept some of the triangles from the older design but left the trunk with a blank space full of badges. I don't find the car very appealing, this is the redesign's biggest problem.

My Score: 3/10 - Styling didn't work out too well.

Value for money: One of the things Ford left out this time unfortunately was a Focus wagon or hatch. This design thus won't appeal to the new growing hatchback segment and must wait until the 2012 model to see if they left that intact. This is also a very fiercely competitive segment meaning it has a lot of competition to deal with even if its not an entirely new design. That said, the satellite radio being equipped starts it off ahead of the older designs out there. The new SYNC system might also intrigue some people. The styling will keep others away. The handling while not bad, its much less exciting than a Mazda and considering the SES is the sport package but makes nearly no difference that might disappoint. Its not spectacular but against its Detroit rivals its significantly better. It could have been more convincing if it were based on the European Mk II Focus, but we'll have to wait for the 2012 Mk III for Ford's real Focus. In the end it could have been better, but for a vehicle coming from a Detroit automaker its not a bad buy.

My Score: 6/10 - Overall its not spectacular on many areas, but it doesn't exactly flounder either.

Overall: 31/50 - Its a decent car, but we'll have to wait for the 2012 to see what Ford's really capable of in this segment.

2009-2010 Ford Flex SEL & Limited AWD

I'm still trying my best to get 2 reviews a week. Today is yet another crossover review.


Introduction: The Ford Flex was introduced in 2009 as Ford's replacement for the Freestar minivan. Unlike most crossovers, the Flex is Ford's attempt to combine the minivan and the SUV. Much of the whole design came from the 2005 Ford Fairlane concept, the differences between concept and production vehicle are minor. Initially Ford anticipated 100,000 units of sales for the Flex, unfortunately Ford hasn't come close to meeting this. Still Ford wants the Flex to live on despite its modest sales now offering incentives.

This is the first of the new Fords I've come across. I was glad it wasn't a minivan but I wasn't so sure about it as a crossover. I thought it looked interesting so at the minimum it seemed creative.


Performance: The Ford Flex is given 2 engines the standard 3.5L V6 which this review will be focusing on. The other engine is the Ecoboost 3.5L twin turbo V6, the same engine available in the Taurus SHO. The standard Duratech V6 produces 262 hp and 248 lb.ft of torque. On acceleration the Flex is capable of getting from 0-100 km/h in about 8.5 seconds. Considering how big and heavy it is, this is reasonable performance. The engine is particularly quiet on highway drives and overall is pretty smooth. Fuel economy isn't great but what did you expect from a vehicle this big. Despite being the base engine its a good one.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonable performance, quiet and smooth.

Handling: There are small differences when you choose SEL and Limited, the SELs get 18 inch wheels while the Limited gets 19 inch wheels. Despite having rims this large, ride quality doesn't actually suffer. Due to its weight, its not able to take corners as quickly as cars can. If you push it, you'll feel the understeer very early. It does well for a vehicle that's heavier than 4500 lbs much to my surprise which might have to do with how short it is compared to SUVs of the same size. Steering is weighted well making it a pretty easy vehicle to drive. Its certainly nicer to drive than any minivan.

My Score: 7/10 - On the whole its pretty good at handling but its weight means it also suffers from major understeer in a corner.


Interior: One of the things you'll notice inside the Flex is how spacious it is. First things first, a lower range model will have the 6 seater arrangement, while a higher one will have a 7 seater arrangement. Both are fine, the 6 seater is just the easier one for getting people into the back as its layout is much like a minivan's with space in between the 2nd row unless you decide to have the 2nd center console added. With 7 seaters to enter the back you need to fold a seat, fortunately Ford thought of this and decided this should be done with a single push of a button. To put return the seats in position is very easy and straight forward, no muscle required. To fold the 3rd row its not electrically done like a Explorer but its still pretty easy by pulling the straps as indicated on the seats. The 3rd row is spacious enough for medium sized adults and since the Flex can still carry cargo they don't sit so close to the tailgate. The tailgate itself is rather heavy, but Ford again thought about this and made opening and closing easy with the use of a button. I didn't really find much difference between the cloth and leather seats, of course the leather is softer and smoother but neither is a bad choice. Driver control layout is much as what you would expect from a Ford, everything is pretty much where you'd expect it to be. Visibility isn't great I'm afraid, the D-pillars are particularly large but most Ford Flexs come with rear parking sensors which will help. Interior materials are of modest quality, none look or feel particularly awful. Build quality is very good, the Ford Flex is assembled in Oakville, Ontario, Canada. The most impressive thing about this interior is just how user-friendly it is, Ford hired someone who has made a crossover very easy to live with, everything annoying on most crossover interiors seems to have been addressed in the Flex.

My Score: 10/10 - I've never come across an interior that should be complicated to work out, made so easy with little effort to understand how everything is done. The overall interior is good, this just stands out as excellent interior design, because its so well thought out.

Styling: This appears to be the Flex's biggest problem when it comes to its sales. It does look a bit like its been shaped from a tetris block. Much of the exterior tries to emphasize how square it is. Some people think it looks particularly ugly, I'm not one of those. I think it looks alright, it just looks even better if you bought the rather expensive Titanium package where it looks a bit like a Range Rover. It may be polarizing, but I'd rather have a vehicle that tries too look different than your typical minivan.

My Score: 7/10 - Its a bit square but its more interesting than the shapeless blobs that many cars are.

Value for money: Sales for the Flex aren't as hot as Ford wanted so when it comes to value its going to start off well with employee pricing discounts. The Flex's target is primarily minivan drivers who don't want a boring vehicle to drive but still want much of the capacity and flexibility of a minivan. On this front the Flex does well, the interior is much easier to work out than any minivan I've encountered. The problem with most minivans, they require muscle to get their full use either by removing heavy seats or operating a rickety contraption that's in the floor. Unlike many crossovers it has room for full passenger capacity and some room for luggage like a minivan. The only places where the Flex does scare off people is the price and the styling.

My Score: 8/10 - A bit pricey if no discounts are available and it depends on how it looks to you, otherwise its the best alternative to a minivan.

Overall: 40/50 - A very good crossover, with a clever interior. If all crossovers were done like this, perhaps the minivan might be extinct.

2007-2010 Mitsubishi Outlander

I know updates have been lacking this whole year so I'm trying to make up for it. Today's car is the Mitsubishi Outlander.



Introduction: The Mitsubishi Outlander originated in 2001 as the Mitsubishi Airtrek. This vehicle was derived from Mitsubishi's ASX concept. The idea behind this was to make a crossover that had the off-road ability of the SUV but retain the standard car's emissions, size and fuel economy. The Airtrek name was eventually phased out in favour of Outlander which is the name most familiar with those outside of Japan. The Outlander was redesigned in 2005 being the first vehicle of the new GS platform which includes the Lancer and the rally racer Lancer Evolution. This second generation vehicle would only come to North America in 2007. The Outlander went for a redesign in 2010 taking the new Lancer and Lancer Evolution's front end.

This is the very first Mitsubishi that I got the chance to drive. I was sort of excited but I was also wasn't sure what to make out of it. Nobody I knew ever drove a Mitsubishi and I didn't hear the greatest praise for them either outside. Yet with Mitsubishi's history of excellent cars like the Lancer Evolutions, I wasn't expecting terrible things.


Performance: The North American Outlanders only are equipped with a 3.0L V6 MIVEC engine. This engine produces 220 hp and 204 lb.ft of torque for the earlier Outlanders. The 2010 updated engine is the very same engine but now producing 230 hp and 215 lb.ft of torque. Its acceleration from 0-100 km/h takes about 8.5 seconds on older Outlanders, the new one strangely is quite a bit faster in under 8 seconds. Having driven both I honestly didn't realize the newer ones were that much faster. In low speeds the engine has a slightly annoying whining sound, its a lot better when taken to highway speeds. Still it pulls rather well and is surprisingly quick despite not being turbocharged or having a high displacement making it a rather clever engine. Fuel economy for this crossover is rather average if you notice you need to fill up often, its not bad fuel economy but rather the Outlander has a rather small fuel tank(50-55L) for some strange reason.

My Score: 8/10 - A bit noisy at slow speeds but surprisingly quick

Handling: When you take the Outlander into a corner I was rather surprised at how much of a car it felt. You don't seem to feel the higher center of gravity as much as some of the taller small cars. Steering feel is actually very good, in the corners its rather crisp in its changes. This crossover isn't as happy in the corners as the Mazda CX-7 but feels very competent. Normally crossovers are nowhere near as good as their car counterparts, the Outlander despite its bulk doesn't feel that far from its Lancer roots. The ride comfort is a bit firm than most of the other crossovers but that's expected for performance like this.

My Score: 9/10 - A surprise, car-like feel in an area where most crossovers are not so good. Ride comfort suffers a slight bit.


Interior: Well, I haven't said as many nice things about the previous Mitsubishi interiors and this one isn't any different. Once again the materials appear to be the worst offender here. The plastic just don't have that quality feel you get on say a newer Hyundai. Its not the most inviting interior either as its full of dark plastic and black carpets. The stereo is alright but the knobs are very small which may be a problem for those with larger fingers. On the bright side, it actually feels a lot bigger inside than the vehicle seems on the outside. I don't know if Mitsubishi focused on space efficiency but it felt cavernous inside. It has a split folding tailgate which I think is very good. Higher trim levels feature the 7-seater arrangement, for small children I don't think they're too bad but a large adult won't like them. Having the second row fold is actually quite easy, holding the lever is all that has to be done. Higher trim levels also have key-less start which is neat at first but I find a bit gimmicky. I think this is the best interior Mitsubishi has designed mainly due to the engineering. The build quality is very good, its built in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan.

My Score: 7/10 - Very clever designed interior, feels spacious, built rather well but has cheap material and isn't very pleasant inside.

Styling: There are two styles the original and the refreshed style. I personally prefer the original as that style fit with the entire car without looking like everything else. I didn't find the Lancer Evolution X's front end fit with the car very well but some people like it. The rear remained the same regardless of which version and is a bit more original. Its the side profile where I find the newer front a bit awkward as it has a slight overbite while the older doesn't and flows smoothly. I can see some of the appeal of the newer front but I think it looks better on a car.

My Score: 7/10 - Nice styling particularly the older design which flows very nicely, newer is more aggressive if that's your thing.

Value for money: This is one of the better crossovers I've ever driven. The clever interior, the rather good driving dynamics and overall good styling. I found the Outlander drives a lot better than many of the alternatives. If you get the 7-seater arrangement its not as great at carrying passengers as a minivan and its a bit more expensive. For that extra expense however you are given the 4WD and a easier and nicer vehicle to drive so its a bit of a trade off. If you occasionally need the 7 seats, the Outlander is a better choice than the minivan. Another nice bonus, it has Mitsubishi's industry leading warranty. I can't think of a great reason for buying any other crossover unless you want a nicer interior.

My Score: 8/10 - If you need this sort of vehicle its one of the best, with a great warranty and presents great driving dynamics. It only falls short if you constantly need a 7-seater or want a nicer interior.

Overall: 39/50 - Some minor flaws cannot deny that this crossover is a very good vehicle.

2007-2009 Kia Rondo

Second review of the day...another Kia.


Introduction: The Kia Rondo is what's considered a small MPV(multi-purpose vehicle). Essentially its a small minivan. The vehicle is called the Carens in South Korea, the original car was made in 1999. The Rondo is the 2nd generation of this car and was released for the 2007 model year. It initially sold well, but it was later discontinued for the US market in 2010 with Kia hoping Rondo buyers would instead go for the newly designed 2011 Sportage.

Like most Kias it doesn't have a big history, my opinion of Kia wasn't very good when I began to drive them.


Performance: The Kia Rondo comes with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine found in the Sonata and the Magentis, it also has the 2.7L V6 also found in the Magentis. For this review I'll only look at the 4-cylinder. Like the Magentis this engine produces 162 hp for earlier cars, 175 hp for later ones and 164 lbs.ft of torque for earlier cars and 168 lb.ft for later cars. Unlike the Magentis, due to the taller shape and its overall bigger heavier body with this engine the Rondo is not very quick. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 9.5 seconds. Its only marginally quicker with the V6. Considering the Rondo can be fully loaded with 7 passengers, I'd highly recommend the V6 mainly since its already slow without passengers and with significant weight added with a fully loaded car its ridiculous. Like the other cars that use this engine it can be a bit noisy with a annoying drone. Another downside to the 4-cylinder is if the Rondo gets stuck in snow its unable to rescue itself on its own power.

My Score: 3/10 - Underpowered considering its application, noisy and not all that refined.

Handling: With its intention being a MPV, driving dynamics also suffer. Its high center of gravity along with its soft suspension make it not a very good choice for cornering. Fortunately it does ride reasonably well. The lack of agility however makes it just as poor as a regular minivan. I just don't really see the point if it loses the car agility. The light wheel makes it easy to turn the wheel but it lacks feel. This car just doesn't like changing directions quickly.

My Score: 4/10 - Rides alright, unfortunately its handling is as bad as a bigger minivan


Interior: The Rondo is one of the nicer Kia interiors from this time. Not a great interior but at least one that doesn't look extremely dull and grey. Once again the interior is full of plastic but you can tell a few of the touches are at least better than a standard Kia of this time. The best thing about the Rondo is it has the optional 7-seater configuration. Getting to the 3rd row of seats is done by moving the 2nd row forward and then folding it. There is enough room for children in the 3rd row and if the 2nd row passengers aren't very tall there can be reasonable amount room for both 2nd and 3rd row passengers. I like how its not difficult or confusing to use and its operation is solid. As for problems, the D-pillar is rather thick so seeing out of it isn't that great from inside. When using the 3rd row, tailgate space is sacrificed meaning you can't carry many extra things. The build quality in these vehicles appear to be pretty good, these vehicles come from Hwasung, South Korea.

My Score: 6/10 - Build well, a mostly usable 3rd row, built with average materials

Styling: Kia didn't really try to make the Rondo look different. Its a rather generic MPV or crossover, its the same shape as everyone else and the front is pretty generic. I just don't see the effort. Its not ugly, but its totally forgettable.

My Score: 2/10 - Looks like any generic MPV, no real effort put into it.

Value for money: The idea of the Rondo is to save you money from buying a minivan. Unfortunately I just don't see the point in having a Rondo over say a Sedona. Its just too slow and weak, also when using the 7 seat configuration it loses a lot of trunk space. Its more difficult to park the Rondo due to its size than the Mazda5 which I think is even more clever and more agile than the Rondo. The Rondo is quite cheap even with the 7 seats but a minivan is not that much more but is more comfortable for 7 passengers. If you rarely carry 7, just get a normal sedan and rent a minivan when you need that capacity.

My Score: 4/10 - Yes its cheap and its not all that terrible, but the vehicle is sort of pointless. I just don't see the value in buying it.

Overall: 19/50 - Kia did some things right, but sadly its a rather pointless car. Its not as good as a minivan for capacity and driving position, yet its not as efficient or as good to drive as a regular car. It doesn't have the prestige of a SUV either(I admit I don't get it myself). If you somehow want a car that's not very good at anything that sits right in the middle between car and minivan I guess you could then want one.

2007-2009 Kia Magentis

My first car review since August. For the first of the cars will be a Kia Magentis.



Introduction: The Kia Magentis was first introduced in 2000 as a replacement for the Mazda based Credos. The Kia Magentis is mostly a re-badge of the Hyundai Sonata with minor differences. Since 2009 Kia has decided to take a slightly different route by altering Kia's styling and interior styling from its Hyundai parent.

Yes, the Kia Magentis does not have a very interesting nor long enough history. Its no surprise that when I first encountered it I didn't have much interest in it.



Performance: The standard early Kia Magentis are equipped with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that develops 162 hp and 164 lb.ft of torque. In 2009 the Kia Magentis got an update in its 4-cylinder where the engine now produces 175 hp and 169 lb.ft of torque. The early Magentis was capable of acceleration from 0-100 km/h in a bit over 9 seconds while the newer 2009-2010 Magentis was able to accelerate from 0-100 in a bit under 9 seconds. The older Magentis engine was not very exciting nor felt very refined, the noisy drone was present. The newer Magentis engine felt a bit more refined although it overall didn't change perception of the car very much.

My Score(both): 5/10 - A mediocre engine, not very exciting in both versions.

Handling: Starting with the older Magentis, unfortunately the car handled a lot like how the engine felt...boring. The steering on the old Magentis feels particularly numb and feels disconnected. It doesn't inspire any confidence in the corners, you might even back off because of how very little information the wheel gives you. Ride comfort was surprisingly disappointing given how the car isn't able to carve out corners. Its a bit choppy when driving over rougher roads. When given the wheel of the new Magentis, things are a little big different. The wheel no longer has the same numb feeling and disconnected feel the older car had. The wheel is still as light as the old one but the turning feels more sharper and thus you're more confident to take the car into the corner. The ride comfort is also nicer than the older car surprisingly despite its improvement in performance. The newer Magentis feels much nicer to drive over the old one but it doesn't feel as sporty as other midsized sedans nor is the most comfortable.

My Score(2007-2008): 3/10 - Numb, inert, feels disconnected, not that comfortable thus makes driving very boring

My Score(2009): 7/10 - Decent steering feel, better cornering, better ride comfort but still a bit lacking though.



Interior: Once again starting with the old Magentis. The interior is unfortunately very boring and not a particularly nice place to be. Its a sea full of dull grey and black plastics, none of which looks very nice and none of which looks like material of quality. The seats don't feel all that comfortable. The stereo like all older Kia and Hyundai vehicles is awful to use and listen to. Fortunately interior space is decent so is trunk space. With the newer Magentis a few changes have been made. Most of the dull grey plastic was removed. The stereo was also replaced with a newer unit with red display to fit with the newer white and red dash gauges. The plastic quality has also been stepped up a notch. The seat is still a bit firm but not as stiff as the older seat. I didn't find the Magentis interior to be as good as the Sonata's interior redesign, a sense Hyundai gave Kia little money. Still, its a bigger improvement over the older boring one. The build quality in both cars are pretty good, both cars are built in Hwasung, South Korea.

My Score(2007-2008): 3/10 - Depressing, low quality plastics, a rubbish stereo, not very comfortable seats and overall very boring but its at least reasonably spacious.

My Score(2009): 6/10 - Decent level of plastic, a nicer environment, better stereo but compared to other vehicles just a average interior.

Styling: With the old Magentis, much like everything else I've said about it this car looks so dull. This particular styling is so anonymous that I'm sure people can point out each part that looks similar to some other cars. It appears Kia spent no money to style this car probably due to the problems from the old Magentis which was styled but not very well. The newer one again changes things up. The headlights are much more aggressive and sharper than the dull round ones from the older car. The grille is now Kia's signature grille and it actually goes quite well with the newer front styling. The rear is a little bit more conventional and looks a lot like a Honda Accord, while it goes well with the front considering how different it looks there...I was hoping Kia would also do the same to the rear. Still, its good that Kia wants to change its image.

My Score(2007-2008): 1/10 - So boring, you can tell nobody bothered to style it.

My Score(2009): 7/10 - Front end looks nice and different, rear is still on the boring side.

Value for money: The Kia lineup in general has never been bad value for your money. Whatever Kia is often always the cheapest in its class and if that's all that matters to you then they're usually worth it. The older Magentis is so anonymous that as a used car its a bit of a bargain often lower than 13K for one that has a bit above 60,000 kms. The newer one because its better doesn't suffer the same bargain. The problem the newer car has to deal with is its sibling the Sonata. The 2009 Sonata is just as inexpensive but overall a much better car and a nicer car to be in. Unless Kia offers a nice deal on a Optima, it'll be overshadowed unless one likes its looks over the generic looking Sonata.

My Score(2007-2008): 8/10 - Very cheap to buy, even cheaper to buy used.

My Score(2009): 6/10 - Its Hyundai sibling the Sonata is nearly as cheap but overall better in every way, its best hope is on its looks.

Overall(2007-2008): 20/50 - A below average car, its just too bland and boring.

Overall(2009): 32/50 - Much better than the older one, sadly it suffers from not being as good as the 2009 Sonata.