I think this will be the final one today, but perhaps I'll change my mind.
Introduction: The Ford F-150 is easily Ford's best selling vehicle of all time. This truck has managed to break sales records and often dominate sales charts for the world despite selling a enormous amount mostly for North America. The F-150 spans from 12 generations with the earliest truck produced from 1948. The only time the F-150 fell in sales was during the high oil prices during 2007-2008 where the Toyota Camry finally managed to beat the F-150 on a few monthly sales numbers when it normally dominated. Lately the GMC Sierra and the Chevrolet Silverado combined has also taken the #1 spot for pickup trucks, on their own the F-150 still leads in sales. With oil prices down from record highs, its unknown whether the F-series can still dominate sales like it once did now that Ford has redesigned it.
By the time I got to drive the F-150 I've driven the two Rams and the Sierra meaning it was down to Ford to show whether it was still capable of competing in this lucrative segment. Seeing as how both the new Ram and the Sierra are good, I wanted to see if the F-150 was even better.
Performance: The F-150 has 4 engine choices to choose from. Between two 4.7L V8s or two 5.4L V8s. The truck I drove had the 5.4L V8 capable not capable of taking the E85. This engine produces 310 hp and 365 lb.ft of torque. Acceleration numbers for the F-150 are about 8 seconds for a 0-100 km/h run. The V8 powers the F-150 pretty well but definitely not as well as the 2009 Ram with the Hemi V8. Still the engine is a rather pleasant one and at first it doesn't seem apparent its a powerful V8 as it cruises rather quietly. A pretty relaxing engine.
My Score: 8/10 - Good power, very quiet, reasonable fuel economy its just not as excellent as the Ram's Hemi V8.
Handling: The big trucks are often a surprise as I have a hard time believing they drive so easy. The F-150 isn't much different from this aspect as I found it pretty easy to drive despite its massive size compared to many cars and even SUVs. I was even more surprised at how calm it handled bumps while not really sacrificing cornering ability. Steering is rather precise, just the way I like it and just for that reason I think its one of the better trucks when it comes to agility.
My Score: 9/10 - Really easy to drive, handles good for a truck and rides pretty comfortably.
Interior: This is normally an area where pickup trucks often put very little effort into however with GM taking the initiative to produce a good pickup truck interior this forced both Ford and Dodge to come up with better interiors. The Ford interior is in my mind...pretty good. It doesn't have the same problems as Dodge did when it came to the plastics. The interior is very user friendly and the materials are of good quality. The dash is simple and visibility is as good as any truck. The build quality on the F-150 is probably the best of the American trucks which is better than what it used to be. The F-150 is assembled in Dearborn, Michigan in the United States where Ford's HQ is located.
My Score: 10/10 - A good pickup truck interior, can't actually find anything wrong with it.
Styling: The F-150 once had a simple look, rather generic for a truck. With Ford embracing its tri-bar grille, the F-150 now uses it as well. It turns out it wasn't as bad as I was thinking although it does now look a bit too similar to the GMC Sierra. The headlights are of a unique shape and if the grille is chrome it does stand out, the black plastic grille in my mind doesn't look good.
My Score: 7/10 - Still prefer both the GM and the Dodge trucks in style but the F-150 isn't bad.
Value for money: Much of the F-150 is very good and its in a very competitive, lucrative market. In all honesty due to how good all the trucks are it all comes down to style and preference and the F-150 in my mind is the best all rounder. Its not the very best in most areas but its probably the best when you take several things into account. Still its very difficult to go wrong with any of the American trucks.
My Score: 8/10 - Very competitive, plainly down to what's the right truck for you?
Overall: 44/50 - Ford has proven its not ready to give up on pickup trucks
This blog is about me reviewing what seems to be several modern cars. Cars which I have driven, not just merely test driven. I go over things like performance, handling, value for money, styling and the interior and give each one scores of how well they either suited my tastes or how much better/worse they are to their competition.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
2007 Jeep Liberty
Here's another review today, a vehicle that I haven't driven in a while.
Introduction: The Jeep Liberty is the successor to the old Jeep Cherokee. However in much of the world it still retains the old Cherokee name. The Liberty features the unibody on ladder frame construction which stiffens its ride and handling. The Liberty is easily one of Jeep's trail rated vehicles meaning its been tested by Jeep for its ability to go off road. The KJ Liberty which this review is based on has been replaced by the KK Liberty in 2008.
The Liberty was not the first Jeep I drove, rather it was the Compass which isn't a Jeep. The Liberty however was the first real Jeep I actually drove as I noticed a few items that weren't present on many SUVs like the low range 4WD. I wasn't sure how it was going to be.
Performance: The original Cherokee made a big name for itself by using the through its 4.0L straight six engine considered to be still one of the best engines used by the Jeep brand. The KJ Liberty uses two Powertech engines the 2.4L 4-cylinder(straight 4) which produces 150 hp and 165 lb.ft of torque, it was dropped in 2006 however. The larger engine which this review covers is the 3.7L V6 engine that produces 210 hp and 235 lb.ft of torque. Unlike passenger cars, the more important number here is the torque and unfortunately this V6 is not able to replace the old 4.0L I6 in getting its torque early where that engine produces 230 lb.ft of torque...but its at 3000 rpm versus 4000 for the V6 despite its slightly higher number. This means its acceleration numbers are not good its 0-100 km/h time is 10 seconds. It sounds tired most of the time so its not a pleasant engine to listen to.
My Score: 3/10 - It failed to replace the outgoing engine, its not quick, powerful at the right time or very good sounding.
Handling: Well with its stiffened construction it does affect its handling ability. The ride comfort is pretty poor but it does not appear to make the Liberty very agile. The Liberty just feels a bit like a heavy pig, less agile than in my mind much larger trucks like say the the Sierra or even Dodge's Ram. Steering is rather heavy but I just don't find it feels very connected to the actual steering. I can sort of forgive its hard ride in favour of stronger durability but its not very agile to compensate for the ride.
My Score: 4/10 - Poor agility, steering is distant and not a comfortable ride.
Interior: The Jeep Liberty has a rather simple interior however its a very cheaply made one as well. Cheap handles that are present on Daewoos, ugly tin foil plastic, cheap vents, and so on. Its just not a pleasant place to be inside. Its got good storage space if you fold the back seats. The tailgate opens like the Wrangler does and unlike the Wrangler the spare tire does not intrude much on rear vision. As for the build quality, its not that good with trim easily being loose and the panel gaps. The Liberty is made in Toledo, Ohio in the United States.
My Score: 3/10 - Very cheap inside, not that well made but good cargo space.
Styling: Unlike the old Cherokee which was a rather unique looking vehicle the Liberty decided to take on the Wrangler's styling instead. While its reasonable enough to look at, the cheap bumper and wheel arches make it look very cheap. If I had one I'd definitely have the bumper and wheel arches painted the same colour as the rest of the car because it looks so awful without it being done.
My Score: 4/10 - Not creative and kind of dumb leaving the bumper and wheel arches unpainted.
Value for money: The Jeep Liberty in 2007 has a slight problem as the Wrangler gained a 4-door option. For the 2002-2006 years it was the smallest 4-door Jeep you could buy that was capable of going off road. During its early years it didn't have much competition on this low end of the scale as the Toyota RAV4 lost much of its off roading ability and the CR-V was never really meant to do it. As an off roading SUV due to its capabilities its very good. As a vehicle to go to a shopping mall its a bad idea, its heavy, slow, not comfortable and has equipment you'll never use for that purpose. If you buy a Liberty it best be for the dirty, slimy trips.
My Score: 7/10 - Great for off roading when its competition is very small, terrible for on road use.
Overall: 21/50 - As a off roading vehicle the Liberty should be good, but seeing as I don't do off roading and I'm looking at it from a on road perspective the Liberty is a silly vehicle to spend money on.
Introduction: The Jeep Liberty is the successor to the old Jeep Cherokee. However in much of the world it still retains the old Cherokee name. The Liberty features the unibody on ladder frame construction which stiffens its ride and handling. The Liberty is easily one of Jeep's trail rated vehicles meaning its been tested by Jeep for its ability to go off road. The KJ Liberty which this review is based on has been replaced by the KK Liberty in 2008.
The Liberty was not the first Jeep I drove, rather it was the Compass which isn't a Jeep. The Liberty however was the first real Jeep I actually drove as I noticed a few items that weren't present on many SUVs like the low range 4WD. I wasn't sure how it was going to be.
Performance: The original Cherokee made a big name for itself by using the through its 4.0L straight six engine considered to be still one of the best engines used by the Jeep brand. The KJ Liberty uses two Powertech engines the 2.4L 4-cylinder(straight 4) which produces 150 hp and 165 lb.ft of torque, it was dropped in 2006 however. The larger engine which this review covers is the 3.7L V6 engine that produces 210 hp and 235 lb.ft of torque. Unlike passenger cars, the more important number here is the torque and unfortunately this V6 is not able to replace the old 4.0L I6 in getting its torque early where that engine produces 230 lb.ft of torque...but its at 3000 rpm versus 4000 for the V6 despite its slightly higher number. This means its acceleration numbers are not good its 0-100 km/h time is 10 seconds. It sounds tired most of the time so its not a pleasant engine to listen to.
My Score: 3/10 - It failed to replace the outgoing engine, its not quick, powerful at the right time or very good sounding.
Handling: Well with its stiffened construction it does affect its handling ability. The ride comfort is pretty poor but it does not appear to make the Liberty very agile. The Liberty just feels a bit like a heavy pig, less agile than in my mind much larger trucks like say the the Sierra or even Dodge's Ram. Steering is rather heavy but I just don't find it feels very connected to the actual steering. I can sort of forgive its hard ride in favour of stronger durability but its not very agile to compensate for the ride.
My Score: 4/10 - Poor agility, steering is distant and not a comfortable ride.
Interior: The Jeep Liberty has a rather simple interior however its a very cheaply made one as well. Cheap handles that are present on Daewoos, ugly tin foil plastic, cheap vents, and so on. Its just not a pleasant place to be inside. Its got good storage space if you fold the back seats. The tailgate opens like the Wrangler does and unlike the Wrangler the spare tire does not intrude much on rear vision. As for the build quality, its not that good with trim easily being loose and the panel gaps. The Liberty is made in Toledo, Ohio in the United States.
My Score: 3/10 - Very cheap inside, not that well made but good cargo space.
Styling: Unlike the old Cherokee which was a rather unique looking vehicle the Liberty decided to take on the Wrangler's styling instead. While its reasonable enough to look at, the cheap bumper and wheel arches make it look very cheap. If I had one I'd definitely have the bumper and wheel arches painted the same colour as the rest of the car because it looks so awful without it being done.
My Score: 4/10 - Not creative and kind of dumb leaving the bumper and wheel arches unpainted.
Value for money: The Jeep Liberty in 2007 has a slight problem as the Wrangler gained a 4-door option. For the 2002-2006 years it was the smallest 4-door Jeep you could buy that was capable of going off road. During its early years it didn't have much competition on this low end of the scale as the Toyota RAV4 lost much of its off roading ability and the CR-V was never really meant to do it. As an off roading SUV due to its capabilities its very good. As a vehicle to go to a shopping mall its a bad idea, its heavy, slow, not comfortable and has equipment you'll never use for that purpose. If you buy a Liberty it best be for the dirty, slimy trips.
My Score: 7/10 - Great for off roading when its competition is very small, terrible for on road use.
Overall: 21/50 - As a off roading vehicle the Liberty should be good, but seeing as I don't do off roading and I'm looking at it from a on road perspective the Liberty is a silly vehicle to spend money on.
2009-2010 Suzuki SX4
Oh dear...its been a very long time since I've updated. Its not going to get better as I'll be away for much of May. So...I'll try to get out a lot of reviews when I can. Starting with the Suzuki SX4.
Introduction: The Suzuki SX4 is a rare type of car in that it was co-developed by two companies that don't have a internal relationship like say Mazda and Ford working together on a car or Renault and Nissan or even GM and Toyota(The Geos, the Pontiac Vibe). The SX4 is developed by both Suzuki and Fiat, two companies that don't own shares of each other and never had a prior relationship. The SX4 was initially developed for Europe to be mostly sold by Suzuki and a few from Fiat. Eventually it was sold in several places including North America.
I didn't have very high expectations for the SX4 but this was mostly due to the disappointing GM Daewoo products Suzuki offered with their own badge. I did have higher hopes realizing the SX4 had nothing to do with GM Daewoo and thus is one of Suzuki's more authentic product. The fact it also offered AWD is another item that got my interest.
Performance: The Suzuki SX4 sold in North America comes with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 143 hp and 137 lb.ft of torque or the earlier engine while the 2010 engine products 150 hp and 150 lb.ft of torque. This engine is mated to a 5-speed manual or a 4-speed automatic if you purchased the earlier 2007-2009 cars. In the 2010 and newer models this is mated to a 6-speed manual or a CVT transmission. Depending on the transmission your acceleration will be affected. With the manuals the SX4 goes from 0-100 km/h in about 8.5 seconds, the automatic and CVTs do it in roughly 10-10.5 seconds. Its slower if you go with the AWD pushing its acceleration to 11 seconds with the CVT. If you don't drive the manual then the SX4 is slow. The engine is a bit buzzy at the higher rpm range so its not that quiet either. Yet somehow I still kind of like the engine. It seems to feel adequate...despite being the contrary. With fuel economy the SX4 isn't the best but its only thirsty if you have the AWD.
My Score: 5/10 - Its not quick unless you have a manual, a bit buzzy yet still seems alright.
Handling: The SX4 is one of the more different cars in the segment where it places height as a priority for interior space. This gives it a strange feeling that you get on cars with higher centers of gravity like minivans, crossovers and SUVs. When you take a corner aggressively you start to feel that the SX4 might tip over. Yet despite this top heaviness the cornering ability is actually quite good. Steering feel is actually very good, its light enough yet it produces enough feel to allow yourself to enjoy tackling corners. Its actually a fun car to drive and ride comfort actually seems pretty good.
My Score: 9/10 - Very good aside from the higher center of gravity making it feel like it will roll over.
Interior: The older interior of the Suzuki SX4 is rather conventional and a bit simple. The automatic transmission is a gated one while the CVT seems like the conventional linear automatic. Yet it doesn't quite have the aura of cheapness you get from Chrysler or lately Toyota. It even has some aluminum around the center console, its not much but its better than ugly tin foil plastic. The original gauges are rather simple and conventional. The 2010 model has a brighter and slightly more high tech dash with a small square clearer displays than the older model. As I mentioned in the handling the head room of the SX4 is extremely generous, its definitely the best car when headroom is a primary concern. The sedan version is larger than the hatch and one of the few times where in most cases the sedan is more practical. The hatch SX4 is rather small and would easily fit in the subcompact segment. The build quality of the SX4 is mostly pretty good, its rare that loose trim is an issue. The SX4 for the North American market are made in Kosai, Japan.
My Score: 7/10 - Excellent headroom, reasonable materials, good build quality but some space issues.
Styling: The SX4 is styled by Italdesign Guigiaro studio and in the hatchback form I think it actually looks quite good. A bit quirky yet it seems to work all around. The sedan I don't think works nearly as well due to the high roof line. From the side profile it looks a bit odd due to how tall it is proportionally. Its sort of memorable but for an Italdesign car...its not that impressive and a bit bland in their portfolio.
My Score: 7/10 - Hatch looks good, sedan is a bit too tall, overall its a bit too bland considering its Italian design credentials.
Value for money: The SX4 is a car that sits between the subcompact and the compact segment. If you have a major concern about headroom but want a small car, the SX4 is easily the best in both segments. The availability of AWD makes it a good choice between the terrible Caliber and the more expensive Matrix and Impreza. In the fun to drive part, it has much tougher competition against Mazda and Mitsubishi, fortunately its very competent here. As an overall package it depends what you prioritize, as a Suzuki its resale value is not nearly as good as other Japanese makes. With AWD its not a fuel saving vehicle compared to others but if you like the other parts its good at, then its a great car.
My Score: 7/10 - Depends what you prioritize, its a good car in most levels but has its flaws.
Overall: 35/50 - A pretty good Suzuki, not perfect but here's hoping the Kizashi is even better.
Introduction: The Suzuki SX4 is a rare type of car in that it was co-developed by two companies that don't have a internal relationship like say Mazda and Ford working together on a car or Renault and Nissan or even GM and Toyota(The Geos, the Pontiac Vibe). The SX4 is developed by both Suzuki and Fiat, two companies that don't own shares of each other and never had a prior relationship. The SX4 was initially developed for Europe to be mostly sold by Suzuki and a few from Fiat. Eventually it was sold in several places including North America.
I didn't have very high expectations for the SX4 but this was mostly due to the disappointing GM Daewoo products Suzuki offered with their own badge. I did have higher hopes realizing the SX4 had nothing to do with GM Daewoo and thus is one of Suzuki's more authentic product. The fact it also offered AWD is another item that got my interest.
Performance: The Suzuki SX4 sold in North America comes with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 143 hp and 137 lb.ft of torque or the earlier engine while the 2010 engine products 150 hp and 150 lb.ft of torque. This engine is mated to a 5-speed manual or a 4-speed automatic if you purchased the earlier 2007-2009 cars. In the 2010 and newer models this is mated to a 6-speed manual or a CVT transmission. Depending on the transmission your acceleration will be affected. With the manuals the SX4 goes from 0-100 km/h in about 8.5 seconds, the automatic and CVTs do it in roughly 10-10.5 seconds. Its slower if you go with the AWD pushing its acceleration to 11 seconds with the CVT. If you don't drive the manual then the SX4 is slow. The engine is a bit buzzy at the higher rpm range so its not that quiet either. Yet somehow I still kind of like the engine. It seems to feel adequate...despite being the contrary. With fuel economy the SX4 isn't the best but its only thirsty if you have the AWD.
My Score: 5/10 - Its not quick unless you have a manual, a bit buzzy yet still seems alright.
Handling: The SX4 is one of the more different cars in the segment where it places height as a priority for interior space. This gives it a strange feeling that you get on cars with higher centers of gravity like minivans, crossovers and SUVs. When you take a corner aggressively you start to feel that the SX4 might tip over. Yet despite this top heaviness the cornering ability is actually quite good. Steering feel is actually very good, its light enough yet it produces enough feel to allow yourself to enjoy tackling corners. Its actually a fun car to drive and ride comfort actually seems pretty good.
My Score: 9/10 - Very good aside from the higher center of gravity making it feel like it will roll over.
Interior: The older interior of the Suzuki SX4 is rather conventional and a bit simple. The automatic transmission is a gated one while the CVT seems like the conventional linear automatic. Yet it doesn't quite have the aura of cheapness you get from Chrysler or lately Toyota. It even has some aluminum around the center console, its not much but its better than ugly tin foil plastic. The original gauges are rather simple and conventional. The 2010 model has a brighter and slightly more high tech dash with a small square clearer displays than the older model. As I mentioned in the handling the head room of the SX4 is extremely generous, its definitely the best car when headroom is a primary concern. The sedan version is larger than the hatch and one of the few times where in most cases the sedan is more practical. The hatch SX4 is rather small and would easily fit in the subcompact segment. The build quality of the SX4 is mostly pretty good, its rare that loose trim is an issue. The SX4 for the North American market are made in Kosai, Japan.
My Score: 7/10 - Excellent headroom, reasonable materials, good build quality but some space issues.
Styling: The SX4 is styled by Italdesign Guigiaro studio and in the hatchback form I think it actually looks quite good. A bit quirky yet it seems to work all around. The sedan I don't think works nearly as well due to the high roof line. From the side profile it looks a bit odd due to how tall it is proportionally. Its sort of memorable but for an Italdesign car...its not that impressive and a bit bland in their portfolio.
My Score: 7/10 - Hatch looks good, sedan is a bit too tall, overall its a bit too bland considering its Italian design credentials.
Value for money: The SX4 is a car that sits between the subcompact and the compact segment. If you have a major concern about headroom but want a small car, the SX4 is easily the best in both segments. The availability of AWD makes it a good choice between the terrible Caliber and the more expensive Matrix and Impreza. In the fun to drive part, it has much tougher competition against Mazda and Mitsubishi, fortunately its very competent here. As an overall package it depends what you prioritize, as a Suzuki its resale value is not nearly as good as other Japanese makes. With AWD its not a fuel saving vehicle compared to others but if you like the other parts its good at, then its a great car.
My Score: 7/10 - Depends what you prioritize, its a good car in most levels but has its flaws.
Overall: 35/50 - A pretty good Suzuki, not perfect but here's hoping the Kizashi is even better.