2013-2014 Nissan Versa SV and Versa Note SV

In this review I will be combining both Nissan Versa sedan and Versa Note as they're actually pretty similar. As always I will be providing two individual scores when necessary as there are some differences.

Introduction: The original Nissan Versa also known as the Nissan Tiida was introduced in 2004 in Japan. It only arrived to North America by 2006 as a model year 2007 vehicle. This was the first time Nissan attempted to compete in the subcompact market that was once dominated by Toyota and the Korean automakers. Unlike other automakers Nissan didn't attempt to compete on features but instead it directly went after the price tag and space inside. Nissan believed that offering North Americans the option of a inexpensive car with a sizable interior was the key to success. It turns out this was indeed what the market wanted and the Versa was easily the strongest seller in its segment. For the second generation of Nissan Versas, things have changed. The Nissan Versa sedan was released first in 2012 and was based off the Nissan Latio and no longer using the Tiida's design. The Versa hatchback was released in 2013 now following the direction of the Japanese Nissan Note. For the North American version its now called the Nissan Versa Note. Both vehicles are using Nissan's new V platform which decreases weight and increases rear legroom. Nissan is planning on once again dominating the subcompact sector with its previous strategy of low cost and lots of space which worked well last time.

With regards to the previous Nissan Versa it was not a car I actually liked in the same way I like the new Hyundai Accent or enjoyed like the Mazda 2. However there wasn't a whole lot to hate about it either because of its low price and overall it seemed you were getting what you paid for. So while I was not expecting much, I was certainly expecting to see improvement from the older design.

Performance: Unlike the previous Nissan Versa the 1.8L 4-cylinder engine is no longer available. This did give the original Versa the distinction of being one of the more powerful cars in the segment. This time around they only provide a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine which produces 109 hp and 107 lb.ft of torque. This engine is coupled to either a 5-speed manual transmission or the Nissan CVT. Both cars given the CVT accelerate from 0-100 km/h in about 11 seconds. This is in contrast to the older car which was capable of accelerating to that speed in 9.5 seconds. Fuel economy has apparently improved and this is likely the scenario if driven under the same conditions as government regulated tests. However due to how slow the new car is, I highly doubt you'll notice the mild increase as you'll be working that engine harder than the old unit. Highway overtaking? Forget it, even the CVT is no help here due to how little power you have to work with. I never liked the noise of the old 1.8L but with the CVT and how slow the 1.6L engine is, the drone is very long and incredibly annoying.

My Score(both): 3/10 - The engine does as you expect it to its a tad bit better on fuel, its slow and given the CVT its really noisy.

Handling: The old car handled rather decently but it was always lacking in steering feel. The new cars have indeed been given a new platform and it kind of shows...they're worse. The new cars when taking corners roll more than the older cars despite the sedan actually being shorter. The steering feel is even more lacking in feel than before, they give you very little feedback in regards to how much turn you've made. I don't know how Nissan has managed to make this small car feel like a large car with regards to agility but they have and these cars are worse for it. The ride comfort is the only area where I don't feel any worse, but its also no better. Both cars feel mostly the same, although the Note feels a tad bit better than the Versa sedan.

My Score(sedan): 3/10 - Lousy steering feel, lousy handling with so so ride comfort.
My Score(Note): 4/10 - A notch better in handling over the sedan, otherwise the same problems.

Interior: The previous Versa was never a looker with regards to the interior but it was at least usable and the corners cut were not always as obvious. The interior of both sedan and Note are pretty much the same and without a doubt show that Nissan went out of its own way to cut yet more corners. First to the only positive points, the interior headroom is once again better than its competitors. Rear legroom is definitely improved over the old car's already generous amount. The new stereo is better than the ancient unit of the old car. After that, things start to go a bit wrong. The HVAC controls however are extremely lousy with regards to quality, they're noisy and have a 33 cent store feel. Most of the other interior fixtures are either nasty looking or feel nasty including the gear lever. A pillar visibility is actually reduced in both sedan and Note. Rear visibility however hasn't changed, the Note does offer a backup camera as optional equipment not that its needed. The build quality is not reassuring either, previous Versas were poorly made and these current cars have already been recalled for bolts not tightened properly. Both Versa Note and Versa sedan are made in Aguascalientes, Mexico.

My Score(both): 3/10 - Roomy and spacious, but very low rent and not well made.

Styling: Normally I give cars a 5/10 on styling if I feel they've made a effort to try and be different despite me thinking they're really ugly. However with regards to the Nissan Versa sedan, its a hideous car where I see absolutely no effort to style it correctly. I find there are no noticeable lines and get a sense each piece was picked simply because it cost less. I couldn't find a single angle where the sedan looked good, and if it was given the rear lip spoiler it further increases its ugliness factor. The design is a total mess. Now the Note is a far far superior effort over the sedan. It has a MPV shape which isn't exactly ugly nor pretty. Nissan seems to be attempting a new styling language with the oddly shaped headlights integrating with the grille. The rear is standard hatchback with oddly shaped tail lights. I'll give it some credit for trying out different shapes, I don't think it worked but its alright.

My Score(sedan): 1/10 - Hideous, its styling by accountants.
My Score(Note): 6/10 - Modest looking hatchback, minor attempts to change styling but not enough.

Value for money: Both cars are very cheap. However when you buy the cheapest versions of both cars you will be missing some features. The base Versa sedan S is a manual only vehicle with no A/C, no power anything, pretty much a bare car with no actual notable features. If you want anything from the sedan you must buy the SV which adds $3000 extra to the price. The Note has almost the same problem except you can a few other items the sedan omits like choosing the CVT. The models I'm reviewing are the SV models which are both near $15K, suddenly these two cars are not that cheap. They're competing against the Hyundai Accent which is an all around better car unless you care for headroom. The Mazda 2 is a superior car to drive. Even the Toyota Yaris with its ancient equipment I feel is a better buy. When you remove the price tag advantage of the Versa it shows the real weakness in aiming for a very low base MSRP, the overall cars are simply below standard. Between the two versions, the Note is a better value than the sedan not only in its more flexible options but the sedan is just too ugly.

My Score(sedan): 3/10 - Not good value, inflexible options and in SV form too expensive.
My Score(Note): 5/10 - Acceptable at best, some decent options, and it does offer good headroom over competitors.

Overall(sedan): 13/50 - Its ugly and rubbish.
Overall(Note): 21/50 - Not very good.

Conclusion: I feel these cars are a sign of the horrible state of the world economy and even world thinking. Unlike how things once were where people value a product's quality and all around value, a lot of people are simply looking at the cheapest price. I as any consumer would love to see lower prices for everything, however I'm not willing to accept a huge loss in quality if that's what a lower price entails. These cars specifically target the car driver who wants the absolute cheapest car that doesn't feel small. I briefly touched on this in the value section, when you build a car based on the notion of a low MSRP you have to make sacrifices throughout the whole car to achieve that reality. The terrible drive, the bad engine, the ugly interior are all things that were sacrificed for that low, low price. Worse still I doubt many drivers want to accept the omissions on the cheap S versions, that means the price is no longer $11K or $13K but more like $15K. If you were going to pay that much...why not buy the Hyundai Accent or Mazda 2 which were built to be cars of that price rather than the lowest of the low? I liked the Mazda because of how much it did with that tiny budget, it didn't make you feel awful for paying so little for a car because so much of it was so nice, you do see some elements of cheapness but after a nice drive you forget about it. These Versas are the opposite, I feel terrible every time I drive them as it always reminds you that you're on a horrible budget with no sense of positivity. How do you feel good about yourself when your car is so miserable and just spreads that misery to you?

2013 Audi A4 Quattro

Once again I have failed to update on a frequent basis, I'm sorry. I will keep trying, like I am today hopefully I won't leave the gap as long as I did last year.

Introduction: In 1994 Audi has decided to redo their name nomenclature starting with the A6 and shortly after the A4. The Audi A4 is the successor to the entry level Audi 80 also known as the Audi 4000. The original A4 was developed using the Passat platform of the time. Unlike most of its competitors the A4 starts out as a front wheel drive car with an optional AWD system dubbed Quattro after the original Audi Quattro known for its WRC wins. The current A4 was in production in 2008 known as the B8, it also happens to the be largest A4 Audi has ever made. Some of this was due to Audi further adding entry level cars like the Audi A3 and the A1. This current generation of Audi is most known for its LED headlights and with Audi seeing major success in China, the current Audi A4 and A6 are enjoying record sales.

As with any new model of car I get to try, I am always eager. Some can end up as a pleasant surprise like the Mazda 2, others can end up a major disappointment like the Buick LaCrosse. With Audi, you often hear everyone saying they're good and they look nice. Good unfortunately is a pretty vague statement to the point where a car with suffer frequent minor and secondary failures but no major failures by some people is still enough to warrant it being good. As I do in these reviews, my intention is to break it all down and to see whether its truly a lovely car to drive or whether its competently good.

Performance: The standard A4 is given what Audi badges as the 2.0T. This is basically a 2.0L turbocharged 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces 211 hp and 258 lb.ft of torque. Now if you're wondering what TSFI means, T is for the turbo, while the FSI is Audi's way of saying direct injection. The performance claim by Audi is that this engine gets from 0-100 km/h in about 6.5 seconds with the Quattro system and the automatic known as Multitronic. The automatic is a 8-speed unit and this did put them ahead of all its German and Japanese rivals on fuel economy, only lately being challenged by BMW. The engine itself is reasonably powerful and reasonably smooth, the automatic doesn't typically get in the way most of the time, however despite Audi claiming its 6.5 seconds...it never feels that fast. I'm often thinking its acceleration feels like its in the 7 second range, its possible that its not brutal in feel...but sometimes you do want that sensation of feeling like you made progress. This may be an issue of where the engine is really refined...that it doesn't even seem like its even there.

My Score: 8/10 - All in all its a modern power plant, I'm still doubtful about how fast it is, however its also not very memorable.

Handling: Given the Quattro system, not only does the Quattro move a bit quicker but its also shouldn't exhibit any of the FWD nastiness you get when pushing it through a corner. Well, after doing a decent drive in the A4...I actually wasn't impressed. The steering in the Audi is pretty quick, move the wheel quickly and the car will interestingly enough respond nearly as quickly. Having the AWD makes the car actually less dramatic than it probably should. Steering feel however is not something I felt, its pretty bland on this end as if they borrowed this from Camrys and Sonatas. The ride comfort...its a bit more harsh compared to the BMW E90 3-series or the Mercedes C-class. For an Audi I was hoping to get some sort of premium feel from the driving experience...instead I got a mostly uninteresting one. Its not bad...but for its price tag its also hugely disappointing.

My Score: 6/10 - Not terrible but also nothing special.

Interior: Now, when it comes to interior quality usually the Germans should do better than their Japanese or American counterparts. In the A4 there are some elements of quality that indeed show there are indeed differences. However its also a German car interior and they're usually devoid of any colours. The A4 is no exception, its a mostly black interior. What isn't black is some silver plastic accents...which I'm afraid should never be seen in cars costing this much. Its very strange when I feel an previous generation Passat had higher quality materials than this Audi. Then there's the control interface, its pretty frustrating to use the radio or the climate controls. The BMW wasn't easy to get used to, this Audi is even worse. You'll need some time getting used to this interface if you're used to normal cars because they're less intuitive. Lastly there's the build quality and here's an area the Audi should do well, and it does. I found no noticeable gaps, no squeaks or rattles, no missing pieces and no oddities that would suggest the assembly workers were sleeping. All North America Audi A4s are assembled in Inglostadt, Germany.

My Score: 6/10 - Well made, but frustrating interface, cheap looking accents and mediocre material choice make it average at best.

Styling: While the A4 has a corporate look to it, one has to be honest and it definitely has more presence than the Mercedes, BMW or the Lexus. I'm sure most people are sick of seeing black Audis but regardless of how common they're becoming they still look rather nice. The only minus for me is the LED day time running lights, they're definitely flash rather than functional. Overall despite its mostly standard sedan shape, standard looking rear, the front does kind of say its an Audi.

My Score: 7/10 - Mostly a standard design, but the front was mostly done well apart from its DRLs.

Value for money: When it comes to a A4 Quattro, it starts at $41K and that's a pretty high price. There are quite a few cars that can directly challenge it. A Hyundai Genesis, Volvo S60, Infiniti G37X, Cadillac CTS are among the few that fit that price point that aren't its usual German competition. Until the new BMW 3-series, the A4 was the only one offering a turbo 4-cylinder, the rest of the cars start out with a V6. When it comes to speed, the standard Quattro isn't fast enough. Interior quality is also challenged where Audi in my mind hasn't put out a particularly strong interior that will wow anybody, as a matter of fact this is actually a more frustrating interior. As a luxury experience, I'm afraid it doesn't do that well either. I can't say the Audi A4 is a car with good value. Its has areas of weaknesses but no true areas of strength.

My Score: 3/10 - Its competition is fierce and competitive, and the Audi doesn't offer much to justify its price.

Overall: 30/50 - This car is simply average and nothing special.

Conclusion: I wanted to like the Audi, I truly did. I wanted this car to feel at least like a German version of a Subaru with some notion of luxury. Instead it actually feels like a mainstream car that simply tacked on some moderately expensive items to justify its higher price tag and badge. I simply don't see much reason why this car should be considered when its just too average. If this had a price tag equivalent to a typical midsize sedan then my score would be changed to reflect that, but its going up against some seriously capable cars without offering anything unique or interesting. In the end after driving this car I'm left with disappointment that it feels as if Audi's simply cashing in on its badge prestige recently gained in China. I want to reiterate that its not a bad car, but why settle for average when for nearly the same amount of money you could simply get a much better car?

2012 Mazda 2 GX

Today I'm just going to be adding just one car. Work has ensured I don't get enough time to update this review blog on a frequent enough basis. Anyways onto another subcompact car.

Introduction: The Mazda 2 is the smallest car in Mazda's global lineup lineup, its known as the Demio in Japan. Originally made in 1996, the Mazda 2(known as the 121) started out as a small wagon-like vehicle in the segment. To Mazda's surprise it sold very well in Japan. By the 2nd generation in 2002 the 121 name was dropped for the simpler 2 and had mostly gained more modern styling. The car came with much available optional equipment ie. ABS, EBD, etc. now of which is mostly standard. By 2007 Mazda introduced the 3rd generation once again making modest improvements. This would be the first time this car would be available in North America in 2010. The current car is based on the same platform as the Ford Fiesta, the similarities however end from then on.

As with most economy cars, there isn't much interesting history about them. However this particular car I was surprised with how long it took for it to arrive. As I'm writing this post, the design is pretty much the same as what it was back in 2007 so its now a 6 year old design with no real notice of a new one on the horizon. Still as with any new Mazda I'm always eager to see how it drives.

Performance: The North American Mazda 2 only comes with a 1.5L 4-cylinder engine. It produces 100 hp and 98 lb.ft of torque available with either a 5-speed manual or a 4-speed automatic. With the automatic its acceleration from 0-100 km/h  is a bit more than 10 seconds, manuals are near 9 seconds. Despite being the weakest car in the segment it doesn't feel that slow although its not going to win a drag race anytime soon. Noise levels as the car is accelerating is acceptable. Fuel economy is really this engine's primary weakness in the segment, due to its aging design and being one of the lightest its still not all that great.

My Score: 6/10 - The engine is acceptable despite its low power, hurt primarily by fuel economy.

Handling: As with any Mazda, how it handles is one of the key items which has put Mazda on top. Well...I got to say Mazda did an excellent job at engineering this car's chassis. When put to some tough corners this Mazda 2 is rather stable and very competent. Due to its slightly tall hatchback body you will notice some body roll but not enough to outright scare you. Even during fast cornering I didn't notice much understeer. The steering feel among the segment is without a doubt the best, the rest all feel artificial and overboosted in feel, this car retains power assist which is a much more superior feel. I really enjoyed driving the Mazda 2 and even with rather capable and fun handling the ride comfort doesn't suffer. This is an agile subcompact that none of the others come close to for making the driver enjoy the task that is driving.

My Score: 10/10 - Handles well, rides well and is actually fun despite being in the economy section.

Interior: This segment of cars is known for being rather no frills until lately with the Fiesta and Sonic adding a lot of gimmicks. The Mazda 2 being an older design has stuck to the older ways and very much looks no frills. It actually comes with power locks and power windows but its lacking in modern feel and modern features like bluetooth connectivity. The digital gauges are indeed rather outdated in look. Much of the dash is made of hard plastic, you will find very little that seems luxurious. However the layout is very simple and is mostly intuitive, there's not much to get lost with. The seats are surprisingly comfortable. The visibility on this particular car is pretty good apart from its short hood where seeing the front is rather difficult. The build quality is rather good, all Mazda 2s for North America are built in Hofu, Japan.

My Score: 6/10 - No frills basically, while lacking in features its not missing critical features either, and its well made, apart from its outdated look nothing else seems wrong.

Styling: The Mazda 2's styling was done before Mazda introduced their standard Nagare smile that is currently seen on the 3 and 5. As a result its a cross between the two retaining a conventional looking grille but since its introduction the Nagare smile was added although its a lot smaller in this car meaning a front plate covers it up mostly. The rest of the car is rather simple and fits with the whole car's bubbly and friendly looks. This is the most conservatively styled of the Mazda cars but considering how some love or hate the 3's looks, the 2 is more likely to not cause such divisions.

My Score: 7/10 - Its mostly conservatively styled, it looks good for the segment while not divisive its also not ground breaking either.

Value for money: This is where things are a bit interesting. Yes the interior is outdated and rather cheap looking, but when the car starts under $15K yet comes with many features people expect as standard it doesn't seem so bad. My advice though is if you're thinking of a GX buy the convenience package, its just a slight bit more but includes A/C and a few interior features that the base GX lacks. Given the GX + Convenience package, its still an excellent value. The car simply put drives really well, and its rather likable. If one was going for the GS trim, that's not good value, but this particular level I'd say its the best priced. No stupid gimmicks in this car means nothing extra to go wrong.

My Score: 10/10 - A lot of the car looks cheap inside, but based on how it drives and what you get...it is cheap and then some.

Conclusion: With all that's said and done, I actually really liked this car. Its one of those cars that doesn't feel like a total downgrade as far as the driving experience goes. Its cheap, fun and rather practical. I'm not put off by its rather simple nature, yes I do wish it came with some new modern features. However, one of the hardest things to engineer into a car is charm and this car funny enough has it. It doesn't give a great first impression when you just sit inside of it, after a proper drive though its very very easy to like it. I enjoyed the 1st gen Honda Fit when it was available because it was so nice to drive I was upset that the current 2nd gen was much more boring. However after trying this car out this car, this is even better to drive than the first Fit. Truthfully all I want in a next Mazda 2 is the Shinari styling(seen in the new 2014 6), modern interior connectivity, preferably nicer materials, but keep everything else. This is one of those cars where I come off thinking a theoretical Mazdaspeed 2 would actually be amazing. The Fiesta sold better than the Mazda 2, but truthfully this is the better car.

Overall: 39/50 - Overall a rather nice subcompact vehicle, an updated interior is actually all it needs.

2013 Dodge Dart SXT

Well, I only managed 2 entries yesterday I'll try for some more today.

Introduction: The Dodge Dart was introduced in 2012 as the new replacement for the outgoing Dodge Caliber. This is the first vehicle sold by Dodge to share some underpinnings from their new parent Fiat. The Dart itself shares the same platform as the Alfa Romeo Giulietta modified to fit US standards. The choice of the Dart name was a surprise in that the previous Dodge concept paid homage to the Hornet name from the Hudson brand which Chrysler acquired after taking over AMC. The use of Dart instead is paying homage to some earlier Chrysler vehicles that initially started as a fullsize car and quickly was turned into one of Chrysler's earliest compact car only preceded by the Lancer. Chrysler is hoping the new Dart will bring Dodge back as at least a recognized competitor unlike the Caliber which was largely despised and ignored.

Chrysler products...I tend to not be kind to them for many reasons. The low quality standards, the awful ergonomics, the horrible drive they provide and particularly during the Daimler Chrysler days the woeful reliability. I have set the bar pretty low for Chrysler and when this car arrived I was hoping this car would at least do better and show improvement over the Caliber which I hated. If Hyundais and Kias have changed my mind, what's to say Chrysler can't, so I always do leave an open mind.

Performance: The base Dodge Dart uses Chrysler's new 2.0L Tigershark engine. This engine produces 160 hp and 148 lb. ft of torque. Chrysler abandoned the CVT from the Caliber and has went with a more conventional 6-speed with both manual and automatic options available. The earliest Darts were released with manuals due to delays on the automatic. The 0-100 km/h acceleration time on this car is about 9.2 seconds on the automatic. Its not the slowest car, but it does have slightly tall gearing at the start. The engine isn't all that remarkable, the power numbers seem nice but due to the weight of the car its one of the heaviest in the class weighing at 3185 lbs or 1445 kg which stunts its acceleration. The fuel economy is actually disappointing considering its one of the less efficient cars nearly as low as the 2.5L 5-cylinder VW Jetta. I'm not a fan of Chrysler Canada citing imperial mpg numbers making it seem like it does 50 mpg when in reality even the Dart Aero when given a manual can only do 41 mpg. So don't buy into that lie.

My Score: 5/10 - The engine is alright but not remarkable in any way.

Handling: Due to the Dart being given the Alfa Romeo Giulietta platform I was hoping that perhaps some of the Alfa Romeo magic was to be found in the Dart. When taken around corners the Dart unlike most Chryslers performed decently and rather competently. The steering is yet another electric power steering unit and being a Chrysler its lacking more feel than most of the others, so I didn't get much fun out of it. When pushed the usual FWD characteristic of understeer is evident. Body roll this time around is on par with the average cars in the segment. Ride comfort is a tad bit harsh which seems to be something Chrysler doesn't put much effort into. All in all, this isn't a Caliber which I'm thankful for, but if this is what an Alfa platform is like...I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

My Score: 5/10 - Its ok, again not remarkable but fortunately not terrible either.

Interior: This is normally one of the more dreadful aspects of previous Chrysler vehicles. With regards to the Dart things have gotten better, no longer are there really stupid ergonomically unfriendly parts sticking out waiting to destroy your knee. Some of the really ugly plastics have been toss out making the interior a more decent place. As for the majority of the materials, there's pretty much no soft touch plastics in the base Darts. The Limited as pictured will have fake leather for the dash but this is hard plastic on base cars. The seat is acceptable, although not what I'd consider comfortable. The controls are fairly straight forward and UConnect is actually not terrible. For visibility the C-pillar is a bit big and the usual problem of modern sedans these days where the rear windscreen is increasingly getting smaller. Build quality this time around seems to be ok, but with Chrysler vehicles you have to be a bit more diligent I have encountered vehicles they've sent that should have failed an initial QC inspection for instance last month I got a brand new Jeep Patriot and it was missing seat levers. The Dart is built out of Belvidere, Illinois, United States.

My Score: 5/10 - A kind of cheap interior but functional and no longer suffering horrible ergonomics problems as previous Chryslers have.

Styling: I must admit, I actually do like the styling of the Dart. The moment I saw what it truly was going to look like, I was pretty certain it was going to be better than the Caliber. The front has a very aggressive look to it, its more restrained on the baser cars but given the black trim for the grille on the GT it looks really good. The taillights are from the current Dodge Charger and to be honest it looks great, as it definitely allows the Dart to stick out from a sea of blob shaped cars looking mostly the same. The side profile also looks pretty decent considering its supposed to be a boring sedan. I do approve the styling, I just wish they applied the more aggressive grille to all the models rather than the faster GT version.

My Score: 9/10 - A lovely design.

Value for money: Considering the competition the Dart has stacked up against it, I don't think its looking too good on value particularly for a more base model. One of the problems these days is that the competition is actually rather competitive and average no longer does it. On features the baser Dart comes out a bit short, it doesn't have a lot of equipment for $20K for the automatic. It lacks stuff that a $18K Toyota Corolla would have. Going with the full base model at $16K its missing a lot of stuff including power windows, mirrors, A/C, etc. On top of that, you're not exactly getting the best car for your $20K because in the vast majority of areas its only mediocre. The only area I actually liked the car was for its exterior styling. Chrysler had to rebuild from the disaster created from the Caliber, but pricing like this will keep people away when they see a mostly mediocre car.

My Score: 2/10 - The competition offers more for less and for the Dart being average isn't good enough.

Conclusion: The Dart isn't a car worthy of dreading anymore when it comes to rental car roulette. Its actually a average car, but in a competitive market being average doesn't cut it. The only car I think it even has a chance of beating in the segment is the Corolla, unfortunately due to the pricing the Corolla has the name advantage and the price advantage. How do you convince a Corolla buyer to take a Dart when its more expensive and from a company that has a history of low quality cars? If Dodge survives this segment, the next gen Dart will have to be a game changer to erase the horrible memory of the Caliber but this particular one doesn't do that. It looks nice on the outside, but that's all there is to it.

Overall: 26/50 - A car with style, but not much substance.

2012 Hyundai Elantra GL

I'm going to try to get as many reviews done by today as I can.

Introduction: The Hyundai Elantra began in 1990 always as intended as a compact competitor to cars like the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic. For much of the beginning it had very little name recognition. It wasn't until the 3rd generation Elantra did it start becoming more known as a potential alternative to other compact cars pushing out cars in the segment falling out of favour. The Elantra is now in its 5th generation new for the 2011 model year.

Now these days when it comes to Korean cars, the newer the better. After driving the Sonata and other new Hyundais and Kias, I had high hopes that the Elantra will be a lot better than the old 4th generation. My conclusion will be based on of course the pricing and whether this car is capable of taking down my current favourite in the segment the Mazda 3.

Performance: The Hyundai Elantra is given only one engine for the North American market, their 1.8L engine. This engine unlike newer Hyundai engines is a standard multi-port injection engine so it doesn't have direction injection. It produces 148 hp and 131 lb ft of torque. Its acceleration takes it from 0-100 km/h in about 9.5 seconds which is faster than most in the class. This engine is a rather quiet and refined unit making it rather nice on any sort of drive. Even the power numbers don't accurately describe how the car always feels like it has some grunt even at highway speeds. The fuel economy numbers are also pretty good, so long as you didn't buy into their 40 mpg promotion ads which in essence they were lying. For this class, this is a rather nice engine because it does all the practical stuff very well while at the same time not entirely sacrificing things like acceleration and speed as they've done on the Corolla and Civic. This is a nice engine and with equally nice 6-speed automatic.

My Score: 10/10 - It does everything that's asked of it, its good all around. Just don't believe the 40 mpg lies.


Handling: This was one of my biggest criticisms of the old Elantra in that it didn't handle that well nor was it much fun. Hyundai has completely revamped how the Elantra handles now. The steering is still electric power steering but its been given more feel and is now much better at giving an accurate turn. However it still has the downside of EPS in that it still feels artificially boosted, so far only the Scion FR-S does best here. On the corners the Elantra was pretty composed and as usual when pushed you encounter understeer. Ride comfort is pretty spectacular for something this size, certainly one of the better cars in the class. Overall the car handles rather well, while its no driver's car its something even a driving enthusiast wouldn't be all upset about.

My Score: 9/10 - Apart from my gripe about steering feel, I can't find much fault in the handling.

Interior: This interior is a massive change over the old Elantra. Gone are the bland, boring and cheap looking knobs and in with some much nicer buttons, display and a rather interesting climate control knob. Hyundai has definitely taken styling into the equation which is something Japanese automakers haven't really done. The center console has been given curves and just sticks out whereas most German and Japanese interiors are far from interesting. The Elantra is on par with everyone else in most of the materials used, most of it however is better than average and only a few spots of hard plastic where I'd prefer soft. The seat is very comfortable even with manual adjustments. The car is relatively well equipped even for a lower trim model with Hyundai giving most of the options people want like power doors/locks, cruise and so on. Visibility is decent although the rear windscreen view is rather small. So far I've found the build quality on these new Elantras to be very good, not an issue of loose trim or misaligned panels. The current North American Elantras are built in Montgomery, Georgia, United States.

My Score: 9/10 - Near faultless interior given the price point.

Styling: The new Elantra has been given Hyundai's new swoop design languages giving it a more smooth aerodynamic look. All the other items like the headlights and tail lights are styled to flow with the car, and for the most part the car looks rather good. While it doesn't have the same aggressive look as say the Mitsubishi Lancer it also doesn't look as friendly as the Mazda 3, its kind of an odd mix of both. This is a much better design than the previous design which was sort of a Corolla copy, now the Elantra has been given a more unique look and while you can see a family resemblance its not a Sonata or Accent copy. I wouldn't go as far as to call it beautiful but its good looking.

My Score: 8/10 - The new design language works well, it doesn't go extreme enough to push for a higher score.

Value for money: Here's the interesting part of the Elantra, this is usually the best category for the Korean cars since the beginning, and even though Korean cars have increased in price this is still an area where they're strongest. The difference now is instead of considering them as the budget version of popular cars, they're now in essence the standard of what some of the other automakers should live up to. The base car isn't all that great because it lacks a few useful features like A/C. In this current trim level, Hyundai asks for roughly $19K but you're given nearly everything you would ask for in a car like this. In fact going up the next level gives you extras like sunroof and rear heated seats, nice but not necessary. Based on this, I'd have a hard time arguing against the value of this car. Many automakers leave a lot of stuff out of the mid trim level to in essence convince you to pay full price, but Hyundai decided this was the trim level they'd rather focus on and you benefit greatly by only paying a bit more.

My Score: 9/10 - I'd be superb if this was the base trim level but even so at $19K there's not much else to ask for without going overboard.

Conclusion: Now that I've gone through everything about this car I can easily say this is one of the best cars in the segment. If you're in the market for a car in the compact class this is an easy one to consider. Better yet, if you wanted a Corolla buy the Elantra instead because the Elantra is better in every single way, much the same can be said about the Civic where again the Elantra is better in nearly every way. Now, when it comes to choosing this over my favourite car the Mazda 3, interior wise the Elantra is better but driving I'd still give the edge to the Mazda and with the new SkyActiv engine the Mazda is still very competitive. As an all rounder the Elantra is very good, the Mazda however is that bit more driver focused. You can't go wrong with either but I think the Elantra offers more and therefore it'd be my choice for the segment's winner.

Overall: 45/50 - An excellent compact car, its not perfect but what is?

2012-2013 VW Jetta Base and 2.5L

Once again, I apologize for a ridiculously slow update. Its been nearly half a year since I updated this blog and fortunately I have more entries. New to my reviews is my personal conclusion. Anyways here's some new cars to enter.

Introduction: The Volkswagen Jetta was introduced shortly after the introduction of the Volkswagen Golf/Rabbit. The Jetta became the compact car in VW's lineup, bigger than the Golf but smaller than the Passat. One of the few things that has differentiated the Jetta over other vehicles is the always available option of having a diesel even though many North American vehicles dropped or never introduced diesel as an option. After seeing disappointing sales for the 5th generation Jetta, VW has decided to build its 6th generation with a new direction. Seeing modest success from the City Jetta line from both Canada and 2nd/3rd world countries, VW has opted to go the route of lowering the base price of the car.

Now, whenever I hear of an automaker going the route of cheaper cars I worry greatly. The problem being is something good might actually be cut and reduced to mediocrity or worse something mediocre becomes bad. I do not have many positive things to say about VW's City line so I was not entirely eager about this car in this form.

Performance: Apart from the TDI Jetta which is a diesel, the other two petrol options are the 2.0L and the 2.5L. I'm going to pretty blunt here, the engine to choose is the 2.5L. The reason being is the 2.0L is an awful engine, this is a now 22 year old engine design which has not seen many updates and is still lacking things like multi-valve heads which was standard in a Kia Rio 10 years ago. The result is you get 22 year old power and fuel economy, and the 2.0L only produces 115 hp. By choosing the 2.0L you're driving the slowest car for 2013. The Smart fortwo in perspective is 11.3 seconds to 100 km/h, this Jetta is capable of 12+ seconds. Now as for the 2.5L, you're now dealing with a 5-cylinder so expect worse fuel economy over the competition but sadly this is still better than the 2.0L base engine. It outputs 170 hp and 177 lb.ft of torque which is better than previous versions. Acceleration, expect the 2.5L to take the Jetta up to 9 seconds with the automatic, the manual is faster. Case in point, if you're buying a Jetta totally skip the 2.0L and go straight for the 2.5L.

My Score(Base): 0/10 - This engine was outdated 15 years ago, VW doesn't seem to care, inferior in all aspects. It shouldn't exist.

My Score(2.5L): 6/10 - A mild improvement over the previous iteration but still not outright impressive.

Handling: When you take the Jetta around a corner you can expect the Jetta to actually handle most corners with some confidence. Any difficult corners will of course be meet with understeer as is usual with VWs. On the fun factor, I'm not inclined to say its all that fun, while the steering has enough weight to it...it doesn't have much feel either. Every time I took either versions of the Jetta while cornering it performed like any other car which doesn't make it special in any way. In some ways, this car is actually kind of boring where its alright but its neither good nor bad. VW definitely intended you treat this as an appliance as simply an item to be used and disposed of.

My Score(Both): 5/10 - Nothing impressive, nothing horrible, pretty boring.

Interior: This is one of the areas where you'd expect to see some cuts on a downgraded version of a car and the Jetta is no different. I didn't find the previous Jetta to be all that nice inside, unfortunately that interior was actually more colourful than this one is. This interior is very bland and uninteresting, no special features and on base models the wing mirrors are actually still manually operated. If you come into this car from any previous Jetta you can definitely see this interior is more barren and less substantial than before. In this case newer is definitely not better. Visibility wise the only issue is the rear windscreen being small, which is a problem on modern sedans as of late. Build quality is not great, you're not getting German build quality meaning seeing misaligned panels or loose trim is something to expect. The Jetta is built in Puebla, Mexico.

My Score(Both): 2/10 - Less colourful, less content, same disappointing build quality and lesser materials compared to a mediocre interior from before.

Styling: As always this is subjective, however in the case of the VWs my score is pretty easy. I consider these designs as a fail, not because they're hideous but because they're so blatantly lazy. Confusing a Jetta for a Passat is so freaking easy, the moment the car loses its visual identity is the moment in my mind it ceases to exist.

My Score(Both): 0/10 - Blends in so much that its unidentifiable.

Value for money: The base Jetta does bring out an attractive price of $15K, but when you find out what 16K gets you...you'll be sorely disappointed. Truthfully the base Jetta is only worth its price if you can find it for 10K new, compared to even base model subcompacts its awful. Now as for the 2.5L you have bring the price up to $23K...again not a good price considering you have to buy this one to not get shafted with the worst engine of 2013. When a Hyundai Elantra gets a decent engine and decent equipment at base spec for $16K why would you spend $7K more on a lesser car for a VW badge?

My Score(Base): 0/10 - Worthless.

My Score(2.5L): 3/10 - Ok handling and so-so power for a lot of money is a rip off.

Conclusion: Taking into account the price and how in general the car is mostly awful I can't in good faith recommend this car to anyone. I particularly hate when a company decides to stick it to their consumers with a relic of an engine just because they bought the base car. To me its assuming the consumer is too stupid to research and find out the 2.0L was a brand new design in 1991, if you had a 1994 Jetta for instance this was the engine you had and it was slow back then. The fewer people blindly buy a car for its badge, the less likely companies like VW can screw you over with an inferior car.

Overall(Base): 7/50 - Utter rubbish

Overall(2.5L): 16/60 - An overpriced, boring car.

2012 Buick LaCrosse

I'm still attempting to do my best at reviewing at least a single vehicle a month. I apologize if you wait for them as I have no clear schedule when to make a new post.

Introduction: The Buick LaCrosse was the replacement of the then Buick Regal and Buick Century, GM's midsize entry level luxury car in 2005. This first car used the same W-body platform as the Pontiac Grand Prix and for the most part was very similar to that car. That car even offered a V8 which few expect from a Buick these days. The Buick brand in recent decades has been characterized as the brand that only the elderly chooses to drive. Alarming to GM as the Buick buyer's average age keep getting higher and higher. GM needed to reduce this age average before its Buick customers retired from driving. The result was a apparent overhaul in Buick's styling and trying to bring some of the more successful Buick designs from China over to the United States. The new LaCrosse is one of those very cars initially designed for the Chinese market and lightly modified for North American use.

I keep hearing about how successful Buicks are in China. I may be Hong Kong Chinese but you would think that if its successful there I should find these new Buicks to be at least good enough. Also this is a new GM product, this should be a major improvement over the old Allure/LaCrosse which was a Grand Prix with none of the savagery(which I liked). So we'll see how GM does.

Performance: The LaCrosse that is sold here is equipped with GM's newer 3.6L V6 with direct injection. This engine gives the LaCrosse a healthy 306 hp and 264 lb.ft of torque. This is a lot of power from a V6 and this means this car should be fast. The LaCrosse accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 6.6 seconds which is not too bad for something this large and heavy. However my gripe with this car is this car's terrible automatic transmission. If you drive this car like a geriatric, or just plain normal driving this transmission is so dim-witted that it fails to change gear until at least 3500 rpm. You just can't drive this car without it being noisy after a stop which you'll need to do in the city. This continues on even in 2nd gear and finally gets better after 3rd. Because of this idiotic transmission programming, this car has a rubbish 17 mpg for city driving, my 25 year old Toyota Cressida does better than that. What a bummer, this is supposed to be comfortable not noisy.

My Score: 5/10 - Great highway engine, lots of power, but what a horrible transmission which ruins quiet comfortable driving and critically ruins city fuel economy.

Handling: As you'd expect from a big pig like this car and FWD this car isn't that good with the corners. While its competent for most normal driving maneuvers when you actually need to push this car, its great weight, nearly 4000 lbs of it, scrubs a lot of cornering ability the performance is trying to attempt. This is also one of the less comfortable Buicks to drive over hard roads. As expected of a car this heavy with FWD, understeer is the primary thing you'll encounter under harder cornering. I found the handling to be a weird mishmash with it not coming out that good for the handling nor the comfort. Worse is the steering, its mostly numb but GM for whatever reason put a very big dead center in it, as a result you have a surprisingly big amount of play in the wheel. I hated that especially for tight maneuvers.

My Score: 5/10 - Not that comfortable and it doesn't corner that well, steering is numb with a terrible dead center.

Interior: Being a car initially designed for Chinese consumption, one of the big items they look for is interior space and the LaCrosse certainly delivers on that end. The rear passengers will not be cramped even with a bigger driver and passenger up front. The center console seems to be somewhat nicely styled although its a little bit too button infested making it initially difficult to figure out what's what. The seat for me was way too big again, the lower cushion is too long while not as horrible as the last LaCrosse I was still forced to push the seat down with my legs and worse of all my driving position was not comfortable as the seat will not go forward enough. The rear visibility is also pretty woeful, as was the case from the older Buicks. Strangely for a car of this price range, leather is optional as is seat warmers. This interior also feels like a mishmash attempting to be all new and modern but trying so hard to also make it seem attractive to its loyal elderly customers. As a result I don't like it. The LaCrosse is built in Kansas City, Kansas, in the United States.

My Score: 6/10 - Lots of interior room, nicer styling but an oversized seat, overuse of buttons, terrible visibility and surprising option omissions for this class.

Styling: Buick is certainly trying to no longer quite seem like its for your grandparents. The car looks more elegant than the Buicks of yesterday. However there are still elements of old Buick, namely the way the grille looks. It just seems too oversized for the overall design and yet it seems like a forced Buick styling item. Had this been a normal car it would've had a more normal grille and this would make it look better.

My Score: 6/10 - They're trying, although they still kept too much of old Buick in the design with that grille.

Value for money: In this base form, this particular car costs $34K. If what you wanted was a car that has a slightly more upscale badge and lots of interior room then this is a good choice. However I tend to look for a lot more when looking at the luxury class and for $34K what was GM thinking by omitting seat warmers? For essentially half the price you can buy a Toyota Corolla that's nearly as well equipped as this Buick. The omission of leather is also a poor choice, when a Ford Taurus can come with leather for less than this car's base price...it begs the question of why and who was stupid enough to approve that? Once you add up at least some of the minor options we'd expect from a car of this level, you put it right up against the Volvo S60 T5 which I'm afraid is a way better car in several respects. This car might come in this segment with the lowest price but when the things it omits makes it less luxurious than mildly upgraded base models of things like a Corolla you feel like you wasted your money.

My Score: 3/10 - Expensive for what it is, the number of feature omission on this base model and you're not getting much in the level of luxury.

Overall: 25/50 - This car is a big disappointment. It only excels in size and power. This is sadly better handled by the much cheaper Impala.

2013 Scion FR-S

Today I review one of the most highly anticipated cars of the year. I was lucky to have been given a proper drive in one of these to get a full sense of what it can do.

Introduction: The Scion FR-S also known as the Toyota GT-86, has a twin sister car called the Subaru BRZ. The reason being is that this is a joint project between Toyota and Subaru(which Toyota owns 16.7%). The project was initially proposed by now current Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda as a way for Toyota to rejuvenate its brand amongst younger drivers. While Toyota is successful selling cars to mainly middle aged to elderly drivers it has struggled significantly with younger drivers. Mr. Toyoda with a team of engineers led by Tatsuya Tada tasked them to build and make production ready an affordable sports car that emphasizes fun but is practical enough to use everyday. What Tada's team found was that in order to build the best car for this goal they needed the propulsion to be rear wheel drive and the best engine configuration was a flat engine. Since the flat engine was considered the best choice, Mr. Toyoda tasked Subaru to do much of the engineering of the car since Subaru specializes in building production flat engines.

Subaru was initially skeptical, and they knew that by having this car in their lineup they will no longer have AWD in every model they make. After Toyota convinced Subaru to engineer and build the car, Toyota was still able to contribute to engine design by adding their D4-S direct injection system. Toyota's marketing of the car showed they were very confident in the car's ability to sell after a hugely successful unveiling of their FT-86 concept. As the production car was nearly ready, Toyota invited as many auto journalists as it could to see if they could make any more improvements, asking specifically if there was anything they didn't like. The car was finally released to the general public to buy, first in Japan where it was so successful that all future orders were backlogged to next year to prevent any further delay in launching the cars in other markets.

Anyways, the introduction is long, but this car does have a special history. There is a lot of hype generated for this very car. Many car reviewers have claimed many things about this car and thus far the vast majority of them have been positive. Even though the car is available for sale here, finding one to test has been very difficult as even the demos have been sold rather easily. Thus I was lucky to have been given a chance at a Toyota dealer I know very well. For me this is also my most anticipated car to drive for quite some time. So I was really eager to see if it lives up to its hype.

Performance: The engine that was designed for this car is a 2.0L flat four engine, this design is also known as a boxer engine. The purpose for this engine over a traditional inline-four was quite simply how much lower this engine can be mounted, this lowers the center of gravity and as a result this reduces how much the car rolls in a corner. The power numbers for this engine are 200 hp and 151 lb.ft of torque, this doesn't sound like much but this car only weighs about 2700 lbs. You have a choice between a 6-speed manual and a 6-speed automatic. For this test I only had access to the automatic, you're given paddle shifters to compensate for the lack of a manual. The acceleration time varies between manual and automatic as well, the manual is capable of 0-100 km/h in about 6.5 seconds, some managed 7 though. The automatic also seems to vary with 7.5-8.2 seconds. For driving on regular roads this car is more than quick enough, its got a lot of its torque early in the power band, but for full power you do need to hit the high end. The paddle shifters on the automatic are very good, very quick at shifting but for a car like this I highly recommend going with the manual unless you're unable to use your left leg. As an engine it may say 2.0L but it actually feels like a 2.5L, a word of caution though this engine does require premium fuel. The good news though is the fuel economy on this car is also surprisingly excellent, 30 mpg is possible with the manual.

My Score: 10/10 - It may not be outright powerful, but this engine is very good for what it sets out to do. Those who say its slow...they're lying.

Handling: This car comes with electric power steering and my first thoughts were "Uh, no its not going to be as good" but I was wrong. The steering tuning is so good that I couldn't tell it was an electric system over a hydraulic one. Even more brilliantly is the weight, not so heavy like a BMW but not too light to make it boring. This is one of the best steering system set ups I've ever come across. The actual handling is just superb. Given a limited slip differential your ability to take corners makes this car way easier to control a slide, and even if sliding isn't your thing the car has a lot of grip despite its stock tires being very regular tires. Body roll...seems non existent, honestly you can't feel it at all if there is any. Even the ride comfort is more than acceptable for a sports car of this type. With such comfortable seats and a surprising ride quality, its firm enough to handle well but not too firm that you get a headache over every little bump. This is one of the most communicative cars designed, in an era of cars which seems to have forgotten how to communicate to the driver. In such a light weight car like this, the rear wheel drive makes a huge difference in how balanced the car feels. This car doesn't boast a 50/50 weight distribution instead being apparently 55/45, don't let that fool you all this means is the car is easier to control in a slide.

My Score: 10/10 - I'd give it 11 or 12 but that's the limit of my scoring, absolutely zero flaws in how this car handles.

Interior: As an affordable sports car, luxuries are just not something you're going to find in these things. So instead of showering it with nice touches all over the place, Toyota seems to have focused on all the areas the driver will interact. The seats are amazingly comfortable and supportive. The driving position is one of the best I've encountered in a car. The steering wheel is very nicely done. The controls are in easy to reach places, not one button was placed in a weird difficult to reach area. The hand brake is in probably one of the best locations with the intention you're actually going to use it. Driving visibility is very good, the blind spots for instance are no larger than they are in an ordinary family car. The rear window is pretty large for a coupe. As for the downsides, most of the areas that aren't focused on the driver take the hit, the plastics are on the cheap side, the climate control knobs are very cheap, the trunk is small and the rear leg room is only suitable for people if everybody in the car is under 5'4. To compensate for the small trunk the rear seats fold flat and were purposely made to accommodate carrying all 4 tires or two big golf clubs. The build quality is the usual what you'd expect from Japan, very well done. This car is made in Subaru's Ota, Gunma factory in Japan.

My Score: 9/10 - Very driver focused to the degree you can ignore most of its faults. Although for most people this isn't a 2+2 coupe, rather a 2 seater with a roof and decent luggage space.

Styling: Many people think this car looks rather plain. I'm not one of them, yes its not as striking as the original concept's but for a modern car I think its well proportioned. Its aggressive at the front and its much the same story with the whole car. Much of the design was using previous Toyota sports cars as inspiration with the Toyota 2000GT as one of the big inspirations in the shape. While not the most beautiful cars, its still to me a very good looking one no matter where you look at it from.

My Score: 9/10 - For me, very good just not brilliant to match the way it drives, oh well.

Value for money: At $25,000 this car is affordable in the realm of sports cars, the realm of all cars this is slightly more expensive than most midsize cars. As far as RWD sports cars go this is a tad bit expensive than a regular V6 Mustang. If you wanted power, you know this isn't the car for you. If you wanted a lot of fun in a car but found the Mazda MX-5 either too expensive or too unpractical then this is the car for you. The amount of effort Toyota and Subaru focused on the driver with this car is beyond what every car in much of the segment does. The stats mean nothing for this car, all that matters is that smile on your face and this one definitely delivers that for very little. As I noted earlier if power was what you wanted, then this car will disappoint you but to be honest you were already better served with the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger and updated Hyundai Genesis coupe. Those of you like me who were waiting for that affordable, nimble, fun, RWD coupe then this is the very car you've been waiting for. The way I see it, cars like this you can enjoy even if you're making your way on the track slowly and because you can have so much fun driving so slow then it'll always be a blast even on busy streets. Powerful cars on the other hand are best when the roads are clear and there's a long enough straight to experience the power long enough. Do it in the wrong place and you either crash or make your local police department happy for filling their speeding quotas. Considering the equipment you get in this $25K package and how much fun this car is...each cent in that $25K is well worth the money. Don't get it into your head though that this is a competitor to a Porsche Cayman, its an excellent car but if Toyota/Subaru were allowed to increase the price there are improvements they would've made.

My Score: 10/10 - Almost nothing competes against it and its superb in every area that matters.

Overall: 48/50 - This is the best car I've driven. If you love driving, you'll love this car.

2012 Honda Civic LX

I'm still attempting to update this blog as often as I can. I think I'm doing a better job than I did last year where I went months without an update. Here's a common car that's been updated.

Introduction: The Honda Civic was introduced in 1973 as Honda's first true attempt at making cars. Before the Civic, Honda was only known for making motorcycles and little did anyone know that the Civic would become one of the most important car names several years later. The timing of the Civic couldn't have been better due to the 1973 oil crisis where demand for small and light cars were in higher demand in North America. For its entire history the Honda Civic has popularized front wheel drive back during a time when the Corolla was rear wheel drive. It also popularized the use of multi-link suspension and eventually double wishbone suspension. Honda removed the double wishbone suspension from the 7th generation Civic due to its cost. The Civic now in its 9th generation has still retained its lead as top selling compact car in North America

Normally this car isn't very interesting to review but lately this car has been getting a lot of criticism starting with Consumer Reports. The majority of them criticized the cost cutting and the rather tepid improvements made to this car. This has provoked a response from Honda saying that a new refresh will be on the way sooner than normal and will address some of the criticisms. Now, I'm part of no publication nor do I get any form of sponsorship, I want to get to the bottom of this to see whether this car is actually bad or not.

Performance: The new Honda Civic is given a new 1.8L engine to replace the old 1.8L engine. When it comes to the raw numbers, the performance figures don't really change. You get the same 140 hp and 128 lb.ft of torque you got from the old car. The acceleration figure is still exactly the same at 9.2 seconds to get to 100 km/h from a dead stop. The car is no heavier and no lighter still being roughly 1200 kg. You're still given a choice between a 5-speed manual or automatic, not the 6-speeds other new cars are given. The only benefit you're given for going with this model over the old one is the fuel economy is a bit better on the highway. However judging from what most people have managed, its only marginally better. Frankly at the end of the day this is pretty much the exact same 2006 you're given with no real reason to switch. Its 6 years later and frankly its too slow now and there are more fuel efficient vehicles out there.

My Score: 4/10 - 2006 performance from a vehicle in 2012, I scored the car 6/10 3 years ago its no better today.

Handling: This new car also doesn't bring back the double wishbone suspension Honda fans absolutely love. You still have multi-link rear suspension fortunately, which means no terrible torsion bar to deal with but I can't see any real changes to the car either. The steering is even lighter than last time which annoyed me already. Honda has tweaked this suspension further in the range of comfort rather than performance, as a result this is the least bone jarring Civic I've been in...but the limit to when this car understeers is much easier to reach than it used to be. Driving a car that is capable of understeer at 40 km/h is disappointing to say the least. This car has gotten more boring.

My Score: 5/10 - Understeer limit is easier to reach, boring to drive, however comfortable for a Civic.

Interior: One of the things I loved about the previous Civic was the rather advanced looking dials and gauges you were given. This car didn't really chance much of that, however they added something which I annoyed me to no end. The speedometer is no longer separate and now part of a large dash readout. Most of the information is easy to read. What I hated however was the bar lights that surround the dash. Its the most distracting thing I've found in a car dash readout, it turns blue and green with what seems to be no real reason and because its in your line of sight your eye starts to become curious at why its changing colours. Sadly I haven't found way to turn off this frankly stupid feature. I turned off eco-mode which doesn't seem to do anything with that and remained annoyed as I drove this car. The interior quality of the car remains much the same as last time...lots of very cheap plastic which isn't very nice. They still angled the dash which damages my knee in the old car, this new car does it the same way, you won't notice if your tall, but if you're short this is a problem. The stereo is a better unit this time around, much easier to use than the somewhat messy one from the old car. This being the LX model it will have A/C, power locks and other features you'd expect a car of this level to have the cheapo DX model doesn't. The visibility remains much the same, the C-pillars are still fairly large on a car this size. The build quality on this car is much the same as last time as well. This car is built in two plants in North America, its either going to be made in Greensburg, Indiana, United States or Alliston, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 4/10 - Not a whole lot different from last time, however the utterly annoying bar lighting is terrible and its still lacking standard features like power locks even 6 years later.

Exterior: From the front, this car is exactly the same as the old one. Apart from the slightly different grille there's just no difference from the old car. The rear has changed a bit, but this look is the same boring look people criticized Toyota for the 5th gen Camry and the 1st gen Prius. There's not much to say, they didn't bother styling this car.

My Score: 1/10 - No effort into styling this into a "new" car. All styling changes have actually made the car more dull than before.

Value for money: Now starting with the base car its under 15K. However this is the model most people will buy and this car is about 18K. Why? Its simple if you want A/C, power locks, split folding rear seats, the base DX is no good. The cheapo Corolla has split folding rears as standard, the Mazda3 goes further by having power windows and locks and standard rear disc brakes. This car is also only offered in sedan or coupe form, no hatchback or wagon is available, if you wanted a hatch the Civic has been no good since 2002. The driving impressions on this new Civic is just downright dull, you're just better off with a Kia Forte, Mazda3, Mitsubishi Lancer and the VW Golf. The interior appointments are of low quality, you'll find the Ford Focus, VW Golf, any maybe the Chevrolet Cruze to be better appointed. Want the more fuel efficient car? Mazda3, Hyundai Elantra, Ford Focus and Chevrolet Cruze are your best choices. So you're just essentially riding on the Honda Civic badging, overall this car would be great as a 2006 model...but its 2012 and the Civic from 2006 is pretty much the same...I mean it can't even beat competition from itself from 6 years ago. All new is totally wrong, this is still that same 2006 car now competing against cars that feel post-2010. As a result its terrible value, and if you like this car here's my suggestion, buy a used Civic from 2006-2011, they're exactly the same and you save money in the process.

My Score: 3/10 - Against actual new cars, this car is outdated simply by the fact its really no better than it was 6 years ago. Its not even good value or reduced in price like most other outdated cars. You could get worse cars but this is simply unacceptable for a 18K car.

Overall: 17/50 - For a "all-new" car, this has one of the laziest efforts ever made by an automaker. I can't think of a worse reason for giving money to a company that just doesn't try. It'd get less criticism if they called this car the 8.5th generation Civic, its definitely not a real 9th gen but that's Honda's own fault.

2012 Volvo C30 T5

Once again I've been trying my best to update when I have the time, sorry about the wait. I've reviewed this car already but there are some differences with this new trim level.

Introduction: The Volvo C30 is Volvo's return to the coupe market. There was the Volvo 300 series which in all honesty were terrible, and the Volvo 400 series which most of the world was never given. The design of the C30 particularly of the rear was inspired from an Volvo from the past, the P1800ES. Now to build this C30, Volvo uses the exact same platform as the S40 and much of the interior is what you'll find from the S40. The whole point of this car is to allow Volvo to escape their safety obsessed past which essentially pointed Volvos as square and boring, nothing you'd actually want. Volvo released the C30 with a series of engines, for the Canadian market we were given the 24i and T5, in America only the T5 was available. Due to its price bracket and the sort of customers buying the C30, the 24i was eventually dropped leaving only the T5.

Anyways, I didn't think I'd be writing about this car again but it seems I have and there's good reason to take another look again. This one is the powerful T5 version. So, can an engine actually change my opinion on a car enough to make me say its better or worse than before?

Performance: The C30 T5 is given a turbocharged 5-cylinder engine, hence the T5. This engine produces 227 hp and 236 lb.ft of torque. This engine is coupled to a 5-speed automatic, or 6-speed manual but for this review it'll be the automatic. Now, compared to a lot of the other cars I've driven this doesn't sound like much. The difference is the C30 weighs less than 3000 lbs whereas most of the other cars with this sort of power these days are generally 3500 lbs. As a result this gives the car an acceleration time of 7.1 seconds from 0-100 km/h, according to Volvo the manual is capable of 6.7 seconds. This is a lot better than the 323i or a C250 and way quicker than most other cars of this size. I like this engine quite a lot, there isn't much sense of turbo lag nor is there a lot of torque steer to ruin the experience. The only flaw I can think of is when pushed, the fuel economy is not impressive.

My Score: 10/10 - A very good engine, well specified for this car.

Handling: The old car handled very well and sure enough even though this one has turbocharging equipment it feels much the same. The only difference this time is the extra power from the engine. As a result the excellent handling from the Ford C1 platform is amplified with the excitement coming from the engine. The steering weight is very well done, you don't get a whole lot of understeer and zig-zagging by traffic is a breeze for a car of this size with this amount of power. Even with the good handling, the ride isn't spoiled either with a tough suspension. As far as excellent handling FWD cars, this is one of the best.

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

Interior: Not much has changed about the interior if anything. The read outs are much the same, the interior styling is exactly the same, the buttons and everything seem very much the same. However I will go a bit more in-depth than I did in the old review especially seeing that I should've separated the S40 and C30. Due to this car's pricing point the interior is a bit more upscale than a regular hatchback. You're given a leather wheel, leather seats, sun roof and all those sorts of nice things. The dash is mostly plastic, while there are some bits where some attention to detail was given like the center console, its not a whole lot different than most other cars as far as materials are concerned. The seat belt holders despite having coupe-like doors are actually well placed unlike say a Civic coupe or held on cheaply like a Cobalt coupe. This means using the seat belt isn't a difficult stretch if you're not tall. The rear seats are modest as far as passenger space but not ideal. The space in the tailgate area is actually quite generous considering the size of this car, 2 full size suit cases could easily fit. Lastly the visibility is actually quite good despite the tiny rear windscreen. Due to this car's small size, the blindspots are no larger than a normal car's. As for the build quality, again this car is made in Ghant, Belgium and it seems they do a very good job putting the car together.

My Score: 6/10 - Same as last time, kind of expensive for what you get.

Styling: Not a lot has changed here either but if I'm honest I've always felt the C30 looked a lot better than the S40 and since it was one of my earlier reviews I failed to separate it thinking they're sort of the same. The new styling changes primarily deal with the front where the headlamps are larger and look more aggressive, the grille is no longer a simple rectangle, and the fog lamp housing looks way better. This makes the front look quite a lot better. The rear has always been my favourite part of the car and I'm glad Volvo didn't change that. Its so unique and yet it also looks very good.

My Score: 10/10 - This was the score I should've given the C30 years ago. It looks great even today.

Value for money: Things have changed since 2 years ago. Now, the Volvo is in competition against the Audi A3 and the Lexus CT. First things first, the Volvo badge still isn't the best badge to have as far as luxury is concerned. However with a T5 its priced at 30K which is 7K less than the Audi and nearly the same as the Lexus. Performance-wise the Volvo is easily better than the Lexus which has no chance as its very slow, the Audi has less power with its 4-cylinder turbo but ends up faster by a small margin unless you get the C30 manual. Practicality, the Audi is better being offered in 5-door option and same deal with the Lexus. Features, the Audi is no different than the C30. Worse for the Audi, at the end of the day its just an expensive Golf. The C30 now with actual competition, starts to actually look better. I think it does well, and weirdly its easily the oldest.

My Score: 7/10 - The Audi is faster, slightly nicer trimmed and a bit more practical, but the C30 is better looking and all in all better value.

Overall: 43/50 - The C30 in with this engine is a great car. If you want a small, fast and mildly luxurious car the C30 is the best choice.