2010-2011 Mazda3 GX

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-2011 Ford Escape XLT & Limited

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-2009 Volkswagen City Golf

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011 Ford Fiesta SE

The reason for the lack of updates is the amount of things going on in my life. Anyways on to the review.



Introduction: The Ford Fiesta is an old model dating back to the 1976, the North American market did get the Fiesta until 1981 when it was replaced along with the Ford Pinto with the American Ford Escort. Ford would enter the subcompact segment again with the Mazda designed Festiva which in actuality is a Ford badged Mazda 121. This car was replaced by the Kia designed Ford Aspire. In Europe however, the Ford Fiesta didn't end in 1981 rather it got redesigned 4 times until North America would receive news the 6th generation Fiesta was coming to this market with CEO Alan Mulally's plan for a global lineup but also to boost Ford's average fuel economy.

I heard great things about the Ford Fiesta over in Europe. When I was watching earlier interviews with CEO Alan Mulally he seemed very excited about the prospect of bringing this particular car over to North America. You can't help but wonder how good is it when the CEO is extremely eager to show reporters the least expensive car in the company's entire global lineup. I expected good things from it so onto the review.


Performance: The Ford Fiesta in North America get only one choice of engine, the largest engine available being a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 120 hp and 112 lb.ft of torque. As expected of a car with this amount of power its not going to be blisteringly quick. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h if about 10 seconds on the automatic, its slightly faster with a manual transmission at 9.5. Still the Fiesta is the heaviest of the lot weighing at about 2600 lbs making it the heaviest of the bunch. In spite of its weight, engine size and standard equipment, this is easily the most fuel efficient subcompact currently on sale today by a long way even without the SFE package. When driving like all small 4-cylinders its a bit noisy when thrashed but with civilized driving its not all that noticeable and it gets its torque a bit earlier than most subcompacts as well. Its quite nice, sacrifice some acceleration for a lot of fuel savings.

My Score: 9/10 - Wish it was faster but its hard to argue when it does what its supposed to do very well.

Handling: This was where I was hoping for a car to drive like the ones the Europeans keep saying is so great. Its not quite as I was expecting, but its better than what some naysayers were also saying. The steering is very light, but its surprisingly easy to drive and you get some inkling of feel which is difficult to achieve with electric power steering. The car is also quite tossable and agile, so you don't exactly feel the 2600 lb weight. Ride comfort is much better than what you get in the Honda Fit.

My Score: 8/10 - Not quite what I was expecting given the European reviews but for once if there was any watering down, it wasn't drastic.


Interior: Many say this is the Fiesta's party piece among the subcompacts that it had the best interior amongst them all. Certainly in SE form the Fiesta is well equipped with things like power windows, power locks, a decent stereo and a dash computer. The materials as you'd expect is mainly plastic. Yet despite this, the center console is rather interesting to look at, you can tell the stylist had some say in its layout. The seats are quite comfortable with good adjustment. On the visibility its quite good, although the sedan's trunk line is quite high. This interior does have some colour to it making it not as boring as its Japanese rivals. I didn't notice build quality issues with the Fiesta at all, these come from Hermosillo, Mexico.

My Score: 8/10 - Yes its mainly plastic but if you go one step up in class, that's still the norm and therefore it actually has a better interior than some cars in the next class.

Styling: I will say it right now, the hatchback looks pretty good, I liked the one in Europe and the one for North America is nearly identical. In hatchback form its definitely a good looking car as its got personality. Ford even used a normally unappealing green on the Fiesta and it looks fine with it, most cars would look awful with that colour. The sedan is less interesting, the rear is pretty standard looking while the front has to have the not very good looking tri-bar Ford grille. If they given the sedan the hatchback's face...you easily have the best looking subcompact.

My Score: 9/10(hatch) - Best looking hatchback for sale today.
My Score: 6/10(sedan) - Ruined by the stupid tri bar grille, sort of bland rear end.

Value for money: The Fiesta SE is not the cheapest car in the segment in fact it can be quite expensive the moment you start adding options. Your best hope making sense for buying a Fiesta is that for the price you pay for a decently equipped car like the SE you can save a lot more at the pumps giving you an overall nice car that's saving you money as gas gets expensive and the hybrid is out of the question because of costs. I personally believe this is the best subcompact you can buy today, its just a question of how tight you want to be with your money. You can spend a whole lot less with no frills Accents, Versas and Yarises but if you don't mind the lack of equipment there is a Fiesta S which is quite a bit cheaper.

My Score: 8/10 - In its class its pretty good value but its a bit on the high side. Fortunately the fuel efficiency and the nicer interior do soften the blow of the higher price.

Overall: 42/50(hatch) - A really good car in hatchback form subcompact or not.
Overall: 39/50(sedan) - Still a good car, just a bit uglier.

2008-2011 Jeep Liberty & Dodge Nitro

This is another review that takes on technically two models. Like before if they're pretty much identical I consider them the same car.




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 uni body 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 Dodge Nitro was introduced in 2007 as Dodge's newest compact SUV since the 1990s when they had the Raider which was a Mitsubishi Pajero. The second generation Liberty in 2008 uses the same platform and borrowed the styling of the Nitro as well.

By the point I've driven the two, I was pretty unsatisfied with Chrysler I wasn't expecting these two to be any good.


Performance: There isn't a single change since the old Liberty, it still uses the same 3.7L PowerTech V6. There hasn't even been a performance upgrade from last time so its still 210 hp and 235 lb.ft of torque. It still sounds awful and its still slow, both cars take at least 10 seconds to reach 100 km/h from a standstill. Fuel economy is still rubbish. Keep in mind this engine much like it was in 2001 on a 2002 Liberty, a decade of no change.

My Score: 2/10 - The engine by this stage is very old, still extremely slow and has pathetic fuel economy that's the reason the score went down.

Handling: Not much has changed here either, both cars have pretty heavy steering but its not direct like a BMW. Its actually rather vague, making each turn feel meaningless. Ride comfort as expected is still bad, and due to their weight and height neither is very good on corners. Since these are supposed to be taken off road I can't deduct too many points but for sure these two aren't very good on the road.

My Score: 4/10 - Same as last time, steering is distant, the ride comfort is poor and it has no agility.




Interior: The interior of both vehicles have been designed when Daimler Chrysler still existed, as a result both are pretty poorly done. Interior room is surprisingly poor for the driver and passenger. I'm actually a short guy but I felt cramped every time I drove one of these. It seems as if Chrysler forgot where the driver's legs were supposed to go. Rear seating isn't very impressive for an SUV of this size. The previous Liberty had its spare tire on the back, this new Liberty puts it in the vehicle which takes up a bit of tailgate space, unfortunately you don't gain anything from this as the rear window is still too small. The rest of the interior is composed of very cheap plastic and the atmosphere is as dark and depressing as other Chrysler vehicles. The build quality on these vehicles is generally alright, sometimes there are squeaks and rattles though. The only major changes made to the 2011 vehicles is the steering wheel has been changed to the new Grand Cherokee style wheel, cruise control is now button operated instead of the very flimsy plastic lever from before. Both vehicles are assembled in Toledo, Ohio in the United States.

My Score: 2/10 - Cramped driver's space, terrible interior materials, less space than the previous Liberty.

Styling: There's not much to say about either vehicle, they're both extremely square. Both seemed to have been styled with cubes in mind. This unfortunately doesn't really make either that interesting. They're not exactly ugly, but they're both rather unimaginative. This is worse than before I find.

My Score: 2/10 - Square and dull.

Value for money: The old Liberty's saving grace was its a 4-door off roading SUV. I absolutely understood that it had some value back then. This is no longer the case anymore I'm afraid and even worse for Chrysler this competition is created by themselves. There's a Jeep Wrangler available in a 4-door configuration, if there was a Jeep to pick for off roading the Wrangler is so much better. It looks like a real Jeep, its made like a real Jeep and it has real Jeep features. The Liberty has none of those things. The Nitro honestly serves no purpose either for Dodge, as most Chrysler dealerships hold all three Chrysler brands. I honestly can't see a real reason to pick a Liberty over a Wrangler in the one area it was supposed to be good at. As a road SUV its absolutely horrible and there are several other choices guaranteed to be better. Its now horrible value for money.

My Score: 2/10 - The Jeep Wrangler took away its only saving grace last time, its utterly pointless now.

Overall: 12/50 - These SUVs are awful and with a 4-door Wrangler available serve no purpose.

2007-2010 Hyundai Accent

Haven't done a very small car in a while, so here's one.


Introduction: The Hyundai Accent is Hyundai's replacement for the old Excel. It took the role of Hyundai's smallest car in 1994 and is now in its 4th generation. Its known as the Hyundai Verna in South Korea.

Yeah I'm sorry for the rubbish introduction, but I'm lost for words on what to say about this car. There's nothing special about it, nor is its history any interesting. As with older Hyundai models when I first saw this, I was not expecting much from it.


Performance: The Hyundai Accent is given a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces about 110 hp and 107 lb.ft of torque, all in all not very impressive numbers. Under acceleration the Accent goes from 0-100 km/h in about 11 seconds, so its rather slow. The engine is a bit noisy and sounds rather unrefined. Fuel economy is not as good as those of a Yaris nor a Fit but better than the greedy Aveo. Overall a pretty lackluster engine. The automatic transmission on this car is rather dimwitted, its very slow selecting from R to D and vice-versa, definitely get the manual.

My Score: 5/10 - Not quick and noisy with a bad automatic.

Handling: As a small car the Accent handles better than many larger cars. Although there's still quite a lot of body roll when taken into a fast corner. Steering feel...depends on the year, the earlier years were numb and inert while the later years were a bit more tighter in feel and allowed the car to be a bit easier to toss around. That said even the later updated cars are not all that exciting to take into a corner. Ride comfort is merely average in this car.

My Score: 6/10 - Average in every way.


Interior: Depending on what trim level you get depends on what features you have available. The least expensive 3-door hatch has no equipment at all, the moderately well equipped 4-door sedans got much of what you need. The radio is different on newer cars, its far better than the older Hyundai unit which was terrible. As one of the least expensive cars on the market, the interior is full of plastic, the newer cars aren't updated to the degree like the Sonata was. As a result the plastics are acceptable for the cost, I don't understand though why the rear cup holder if you remove the coaster there's a hole through the car. The assembly quality on the Accent is pretty decent, not the greatest but for such a cheap car surprising its not worse. The Accent is made in Ulsan, South Korea.

My Score: 5/10 - Standard equipment varies, material quality is what's expected of the price, build quality is acceptable.

Styling: This Accent is pretty generic for a car. Like most of the other Hyundai's of this era I think little of it.

My Score: 2/10 - Has the look of an anonymous car.

Value for Money: Ok, this is where the Accent makes up for its generally disappointing scores. The starting price for the 3-door bare bones Accent has actually been $9995, no joke. It was so inexpensive that during the 2008 crash Hyundai was willing to give this car away for free if you bought a fully loaded Sedona. As you spec up the Accent it gets less attractive, but as a way of basic transportation for the least amount of money its impossible to match Hyundai here. So if you really want the cheapest possible car, the Accent is a good buy. If you're curious about the 2011 Accent, buy that instead its certain to be better than this version.

My Score: 10/10 - Offers the cheapest car available and its not truly awful.

Overall: 28/50 - Its a very cheap car, hard to argue with that. Its not even a very bad car at that, although if you want more than just a average car there are better cars out there so long as you can spare the extra money.

2009 Lexus ES350

I realize I haven't updated since January and its been only 1 review so here's a few more reviews.


Introduction: The Lexus ES has been in the Lexus lineup since the very beginning. The original LS400 got all the glory, many often forgot about the ES250 that was also available as an entry level car into the brand. Initially many saw the ES250 as just a Camry with a more expensive badge as it costs very close to Toyota's current flagship the Cressida, sales of the ES250 was disappointing far lower than the more expensive LS400. As a result the Cressida was discontinued while a new ES was introduced being the ES300. Steadily the ES sales have risen, its now currently the best selling product in the Lexus lineup.

I've never really understood the ES, its essentially a Camry but it costs more. This problem is compounded with the introduction of the Avalon which is also a Camry but much bigger yet costs pretty much the same as the ES. I've assumed its supposed to be a higher quality version of the Camry. I'm not sure whether its worth the extra money, the most expensive Camry costs $36,000 so I have to determine whether its worth the extra $6000.


Performance: The Lexus ES350 comes in only one engine, a 3.5L V6. The 350 corresponds to the size of the engine, which is why the previous ES which had a 3.3L was called the 330. Anyways this engine produces 268 hp and 254 lb.ft of torque with regular fuel, Lexus says 272 hp but this is if you put medium octane fuel where if you put premium its 280 hp. The reason I don't list octane rating is some viewers come from areas that use RON instead of AKI, it'll be confusing if I say 87 Octane when the RON number is 91. On acceleration this engine moves this car from 0-100 km/h in about 6.5 seconds. As a result this car moves pretty quickly. However when I take this on a acceleration run, I find the 6-speed automatic hesitates so the first few milliseconds don't feel that quick but all the sudden the power arrives abruptly. The brake pedal is very mushy in feel, it doesn't seem to react as quickly as you'd expect from frankly any other car. Otherwise its a very nice engine its very quiet and surprisingly fuel efficient for a rather large displacement engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Overall a very good engine...the transmission is a weak link though along with the brake pedal feel.

Handling: As a luxury Camry I'm not expecting the ES to be very good on the corners. I wasn't disappointed, it handled as I expected, not well. When taking the ES into the corner you'll feel the body roll early, the faster you go the understeer gets worse. The steering...is pretty awful. Its very light but absolutely lacking in any feel which provides no accuracy. Unlike some of the other cars that handle badly though the ES is very comfortable so the suspension is working hard to not let you feel the road imperfections. Overall though its not a car you'd want if you don't live in a grid system. Not a fun car.

My Score: 3/10 - Comfortable, but the steering is terrible and the handling is poor.


Interior: This is where I expect the ES to wow me...I'm afraid it doesn't. Its not the worst interior but its not an interior I expect for a car costing $42K. First problem, the lack of leather in the trim or metal. Yes it has leather seats which are comfortable, but the quality is a bit lacking they'll produce creases overtime. The rest of the interior however is mostly hard plastic and faux wood plastic. I'm surprised that I find more higher quality material in a Volkswagen and a Hyundai than this Lexus. Second problem its not full of luxury features you can't get on the Camry or anything in that class. There is more trunk space than the G37 and a bit more interior space as well, however its identical to those of the Camry and less than the Avalon which are both Toyota vehicles. Bad features...the seat warmer switch is something you'd find from a 1980s radio, there's no dome light its been replaced with two puny LEDs which unfortunately can't illuminate much in the rear. The good news, the interior has a lot of sound deadening which is bad for weight but great in reducing wind noise, engine noise and tire noise. The build quality is also very good, no problems whatsoever with assembly. The Lexus ES is made in Miyawaka, Fukouka, Japan.

My Score: 5/10 - Leather is so so quality and not readily available, too much plastic, poor illumination in the rear, average space but the build quality is excellent and sound engineering also good.

Styling: I must admit this is the best looking Lexus ES ever, it not only looks modern but it has a rather sleek shape. The rear is a bit average, the front is reasonably nice and the side profile is also decent. No real issue with the styling, not blown away by it but can't say Lexus didn't try.

My Score: 7/10 - Acceptable styling.

Value for money: I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed with the ES here. I didn't see anything in the car that was worth $6000 extra over the Camry. Its not even worth more than the Avalon which is $1000 less than the ES. The ES350 competes against primarily the Cadillac CTS and the Infiniti G37. There are a few things the Cadillac doesn't do extremely well on, but for the most part its nice to drive and nothing in GM's lineup is an exact equivalent. The Infiniti G37, frankly is superior to the ES in every way except for engine noise levels, rear seat height and less trunk space. Those were sacrificed for a faster, more agile, fun, comfortable, nicer looking, high tech and generally more luxurious car. The Infiniti is actually a nicer car to drive than the Maxima or Altima, its worth its badge. The Lexus ES is not, I feel people have been ripped off by buying this car. If you go with a Toyota option you get pretty much this car for less money, if you don't you get a nicer driving car.

My Score: 1/10 - $6000 extra for a Lexus badged Camry V6 XLE...no thanks.

Overall: 25/50 - Its not a bad car on the face of it, but its a bad car when you pay $42,000 for what's really a $36,000 car. This is a profit generator, nothing more...GM wished its badge engineering was this successful.

2010-2011 Ford Fusion SE, SEL V6

First review of 2011, this one may be of some interest.


Introduction: The Ford Fusion was introduced in 2005 as Ford's newest vehicle for the important midsized car market. Ford used to use the Taurus for this important segment which originally sold very well to tie the Honda Accord for the #1 most sold car(not vehicle since the F-150 truck dominated this). Unfortunately Ford never continued with the success of the first Taurus and allowed the car to age eventually losing even the Taurus' iconic jellybean shape for conservative. Ford decided to use the Fusion name for this new midsized car even though a completely different car uses the same name in Europe. The Ford Fusion is the first of the cars introduced by Ford of America to use the 3-bar grille. The Fusion saw enough success to be redesigned for the year 2010. The new redesigned Fusion sports a newer look and while retaining much of the architecture of the older car has for the most part been completely changed. Sales of the Ford Fusion have managed to pass 200,000 a year during 2010, a feat last seen by a Ford car all the way back in 1986 in the Ford Taurus' debut year when it was tied with the Honda Accord for America's best selling car.

If you've read my old Ford Fusion review the lasting memories of that car for me was how bland and slow the car was. Although a somewhat competent effort by Ford to regain its position in this segment it long lost. This new one caught my eye with its new tri-bar styling and considering many Ford products have increasingly gotten better over the years I had similar expectations for this car.



Performance: In this review I've actually driven two of the three engines offered on the Ford Fusion. I've driven many Fusions with the standard 2.5L 4-cylinder engine, but I've also driven a few with the 3.0L V6 flex fuel engine. The third engine available is the Sport trim's 3.5L V6. Starting with the 2.5L engine, this engine produces about 175 hp and 172 lb.ft of torque which is a modest power increase over the older car's 2.3L but more noticeable torque increase. Acceleration numbers from 0-100 km/h is about 8.9 seconds, so its faster than the older car and it also doesn't feel that slow. Its a bit buzzy at the higher rpm range and thus better off for cruising. The 3.0L V6 produces 240 hp and 223 lb.ft of torque which should mean a better time, it accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 7.3 seconds which is quite a bit better than the 4-cylinder. To drive the V6 is much more quieter and smoother, its not as razor sharp quick as Nissan's 3.5L V6s but for ordinary driving its good and sounds nicer too. It may be the automatic transmission that's causing some of the delay in the engine. I personally liked the 3.0L quite a bit better than the 4-cylinder, you don't suffer much on fuel economy either for it since it uses the same fuel saving technology as the 2.5L does.

My Score(SE): 7/10 - A good engine, particularly good on fuel economy although lacking on performance.

My Score(SEL V6): 9/10 - A very very good refined engine, capable of running on flex fuel, good fuel economy for its size, obviously not as quick as competing 3.5L V6s.

Handling: The old Fusion's best item was how it took corners over the likes of some of its competitors apart from the Mazda6 its based on. This new Fusion doesn't really change this, although I must say the ride comfort is better on this model. This car is pretty confident on the corners for the most part. The steering is relatively heavy compared to its competition but this is one of the better drivers cars in its class as it actually has steering feel many of its competitors don't have. As expected from a modern front wheel drive car, understeer is present when pushed into corners hard. Not a whole lot of roll though, which is nice in a car like this sometimes. Personally I wish it felt more sharp than it does, perhaps this is solved on the Sport model.

My Score(both): 9/10 - Better ride quality from last time, still pretty good on the corners, just lacking some of the sharpness on nicer handling cars.


Interior: Here's a big change from before, gone are the bland buttons, also gone is the lack of colour since there's now a few and boring dials of the old car have disappeared. You're now greeted with a new digital dash(analog displays), the new SYNC system and Ford also didn't follow other automakers in keeping cheesy knobs. Many of the controls are now simple buttons. The touches are all nicer and styled with purpose. Having tried both leather and cloth seats, the leather seats are much nicer. The cloth seats are a bit on the stiff side. The biggest downside to this interior is mainly the interior materials could have been even better, there isn't a whole lot of soft touch plastic that you'll find in a 2011 Sonata for instance. The interior spacing is pretty average and the trunk is a reasonable size. This comes down to the fact the Fusion isn't actually very large in its segment. On the build quality, the Fusion is still built in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico like before, this is one of the best assembled vehicles I've seen from Mexico. Normally I'd find several build quality issues, but Ford must have very good quality control since I've never encountered one poorly made or falling apart.

My Score(SE): 7/10 - Well equipped, smarter console design, well built but material choices questionable, no SYNC and interior spacing is just average.

My Score(SEL V6): 8/10 - Same as the SE but with good leather seats and has SYNC.

Styling: I'll be honest I actually think this Fusion from the front actually looks pretty good. This is one of the first Fords I think the tri-bar grille actually flowed with the styling with that headlight design. While I quite like the front, the rear makes it hard to tell the difference from the old car and the new one since they're very very similar. The wheel covers on the SE do seem to look a bit weird in my opinion. Overall I think this is a pretty well styled car...I just wish they went beyond just half the car.

My Score(both): 7/10 - Nice unique front but same boring rear from before.

Value for money: I'm actually surprised about the cost of the basic Fusion S, it actually starts out rather low. The SE is about the starting price of cars like the Camry and Accord. To get the SEL V6 you do have to pay nearly 30K where its price advantage does go away. Surprisingly it appears its pricing was designed to target the Chevrolet Malibu trim by trim ensuring it was less expensive each time. The Fusion can be had in AWD, but you have to then buy the SEL V6. Still if you want AWD this is one of the few midsized sedans with it, you're only other options are the Subaru Legacy, Suzuki Kizashi, and the VW Passat. All things considered the Fusion is a rather good package, as it has good driving dynamics, a decent interior, some unique styling and a reasonable price all in one.

My Score(SE): 8/10 - A pretty good value considering its better equipped than some of its rivals which are base models at that price.

My Score(SEL V6): 7/10 - While better equipped a tad pricey since rivals at this price point are better equipped...fortunately AWD is available that isn't an option on several rival products.

Overall(SE): 38/50 - A pretty good value packaged car, one can understand why its one of the best selling vehicles today.

Overall(SEL V6): 40/50 - Despite the higher price, I feel this is an even better trim level particularly with the V6 which is a nicer engine overall.