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 Originally made in 1996, the Mazda 2(known as the 121) started out as a small wagon-like vehicle in the segment.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.

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.

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.

2012 Fiat 500 Sport

I got a chance to drive something I wasn't expecting. I think this is a most curious car that many are wondering whether they should bother with.

Introduction: The Fiat 500 was originally introduced in 1957 as a sort of people's car in the same vein as the Volkswagen Beetle. A very inexpensive and small city car that's affordable to most people regardless of income. Back then it was equipped with a various selection of 2-cylinder engines all smaller than 600cc but weighing less than 500 kg. Ever since this car, Italy's mobility increased significantly and to this day focus heavily on making good small cars while also making today's fastest supercars. Today's car is a essentially a look back at the historical significance of the original 500. This new car was first introduced in 2007. Major changes have been made, first its based off the platform of the Fiat Panda making it front engined and front wheel drive, not like the original car's rear engine and rear wheel drive. The size differences are noticeable as well, while nobody will call the new 500 big, compared to its namesake its actually massive. Lastly, the original car was meant to be the least expensive choice for the Italian driver today's 500 isn't really the least expensive car out there. Fiat decided to bring over this 500 as a symbol of their return to the North American market after leaving in the 1980s. Over here, the Fiat 500's main competitor is BMW's MINI, hoping to replicate that success for the 500.

I wasn't expecting this car to show up at all. I know a few places that used them as fleet cars but I wasn't expecting this car, let along the Sport model. This is the very first Italian designed car I've been given the chance to drive, leaving only British and French cars are the only major automotive nations I haven't driven a car from. Anyways, when seeing this new 500, it definitely is a lot smaller than majority of cars sold here. So, this test was really to determine whether this car is all about style with no substance or whether there really is something to this car that justifies its price.

 

Performance: The Fiat 500 for North America is given a different engine compared to those in Europe. We are given the 1.4L Multiair engine. This engine produces 101 hp and 98 lb.ft of torque, which seems like a very small number considering most cars available today produce more power than that. However the Fiat does weigh less, this is one of the few cars available in North America that is less than 1000 kg or 2200 lbs. Its acceleration times as a result from 0-100 km/h is 9.7 seconds. Not blisteringly quick but if you've seen some of my reviews particularly of Dodges, I've driven slower before. So if you're worried about highway merging, you could do worse. This engine is equipped with either a 5-speed manual or 6-speed automatic, I was given the auto and its fuel economy was acceptable. Being the sport model, it does matter if you use the sport button it as the engine revs higher in sport mode. When driven hard, this engine is a bit noisy, that said its not as annoying as other engines are...so you might like it.

My Score: 7/10 - It does its job reasonably well. A bit noisy but overall not too bad.

Handling: Once again here's another car where the focus is on how it handles. Its given a big advantage due to its light weight and small size. There are also differences if you have sport mode on or off. When you have the car running in normal mode, the steering is very light and very easy. My guess is this is what the regular user is going to use and in this mode the mundane tasks of parking are made much easier with this car's good maneuverability. However in this mode its not all that fun. When you turn on the sport mode, this changes. The steering is suddenly stiffened and the car all the sudden feels more alive, its difficult to explain. The car starts to feel sharper and more eager to tackle the corners compared to normal mode. This button really seems to make a big difference. As an enjoyable small car, I can't fault its handling since during normal mode all the stuff you need to do while driving is made very easy, with sport mode you get to enjoy driving which is nice after a hard day. I could go into depth about the rest of the handling characteristics but I find its easier to say that the car's handling faults don't matter because this car is fun.

My Score: 10/10 - Easy to drive, and with a touch of a button fun too.

 

Interior: This is another area where Italian car design tends to be different from other automotive nations. From a normal person's perspective this seems like any other small car, kind of cheap and the interior is very small. However, when you look at the details more carefully there are some things that were done rather well. First off, one of the large dash trim pieces will be coloured the same as the exterior of your car. If you picked a bright colour, your interior's atmosphere improves greatly over the typical dull grey boredom we're used to seeing in most cheap cars. Next is the gauges, it looks like it has one dial but a careful look shows both speedo and tach are in the same place. As a result, as you drive along your revs attempt to catch up to the speedo, lovely touch. Lastly the controls, no they're not metal but Fiat has deliberately avoided to use of too many ugly knobs to avoid spoiling the look of the dash. As for the practical stuff, the seats are fine for someone of my size. I get the feeling an obese person will not like it at all as you're likely to bother the passenger because of how close the seats are to one another. There are two seats in the back, but  realistically unless your as short as I am, nobody else will fit in the back. This may be a hatchback but because of its small size, you're not going to be taking a lot of shopping back with you. Rear visibility in this car is pretty good. The build quality so far is difficult to determine, this is after all made in the same factory as the PT Cruiser in Toluca, Mexico but that car wasn't made well. My example seemed to be fine so far, I may update this entry later.

My Score: 7/10 - Neat styling touches and nice atmosphere, but significantly reduced practicality due to its size.

Styling: This car takes most of its inspiration from the original 1957 Fiat 500. However its given that rather ordinary small car and turned it into a cute one. You're given rather nice rims for the Sport model. It also manages to integrate all of today's automotive exterior necessities like fog lights and so on, rather well. This is the sort of car a child would like as a anthropomorphic character like Herbie the Beetle. I see this car appealing particularly to female drivers and children. Men might not want this sort of image.

My Score: 10/10 - An excellent modern take on a ordinary city car. 

Value for money: This is the area of scoring that troubles me. This sport model I've been driving costs $18,500 and that's for the manual, the automatic is another $1000. The fuel economy is not great to justify this cost. Its got very little practicality as a daily driver, unless you drive alone. Now, compared to the Mini it competes against, its still cheaper. However it also has to compete with rather ordinary cars and its hard to justify the value. This sport model puts this Fiat's price where the Subaru Impreza starts. On most tangible levels the Fiat doesn't do well. If you care a lot about styling and cheap fun, then you'll like the Fiat. If however you need more out of a car than that, look elsewhere because that's all the Fiat focuses on.

My Score: 2/10 - Style with a bit of substance, but that's it really.

Overall: 36/50 - A very likable car, does certain things brilliantly but its as limited in practicality as many sports cars and its a bit pricey.

2012 Ford Focus SE, SEL, Titanium

I'll try to keep updating far more frequently than I did last year. Any way, onto this review.

Introduction: The Ford Focus has been Ford's compact car since the end of the 20th century. The original Focus was developed for the European market. Ford of America once again decided to use another Ford of Europe design despite the failure of the older Contour/Mondeo, as Ford had no successor to the domestic market Escort. The Focus was altered mechanically for US factories and regulations, however it appears this is the prime reason for the Focus to earn its reputation as the most recalled vehicle of the year. By 2004 the amount of recalls issued were severely reduced, few were sure of whether the Focus' reputation would recover. By 2007, the Focus was redesigned, however this version did not follow the European Focus which was based on a new platform. As a result this was merely an extension of the original Focus without the option of a wagon and an unsuccessful coupe. Ford CEO Alan Mulally signaled that the whole Ford lineup regardless of where it competed would use World models meaning there will no longer be regional or national differences on Ford models. The goal was to significantly reduce the amount of models Ford has in its global lineup. As a result the 2012 Ford Focus will no longer sport any real differences from its European counterpart, often seen as the better car. For the first time in North America, Ford will be offering its performance version of the Focus called the Focus ST.

I was pretty excited to get a chance to drive this new Focus. I've always been hearing that the European Focus drove better than any of the North American Focus models. Part of the reason has been the NA Focus never had a sport tuned version in the same way as Europe got the Focus ST, Focus RS and Focus RS500. The day this lot arrived I was eager to see whether Ford deserved to be taken seriously for the first time in this segment.

Performance: Regular Ford Focus models use a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine regardless of which trim level. The only changes to be made in 2012 will be the addition of the ST model which will feature a turbocharger. This 2.0L engine produces about 160 hp and 146 lb.ft of torque. This is one of the first few direct injection engines made available by Ford and it seems to show in its fuel economy numbers. You're given a choice in transmissions, a 5-speed manual or a 6-speed dual clutch automatic. Now there have been some issues surrounding the dual clutch automatic Ford uses, the most notable is that its rather jerky in low gears like 1st and 2nd. Due to its dual clutches it does have minor amounts of roll back on hills as well before the 2nd clutch engages. Ford has issued a software update, this still does not seem to satisfy some users. If you're worried about these issues, then go for the 5-speed manual which has no issue but it has a higher highway fuel consumption due to lacking that extra gear. The car itself, despite its somewhat high hp numbers isn't all that quick, this is where torque matters. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 8.7 seconds. Still good for the class but not what one expects from a direct injection engine.

My Score: 8/10 - Acceptable performance, good fuel economy but the dual clutch transmission is not for everyone.

Handling: As is the case with modern cars, the Ford Focus is also equipped with electric power steering. To be brutally honest, even Ford hasn't got the tuning correct on this. At low speeds the steering is very light but a bit numb, its only when the car is moving faster that the steering feel is more noticeable. That said when taking the Focus on corners, it handles very well for a family vehicle. To me it makes no difference if you have the Titanium package wheels or the regular wheels with hubcaps. Both vehicles have decent ride comfort, its a tad more firm than a few of its competitors but not bone shaking as say the terrible Dodge Caliber. For true handling feel though, I'd have to pick the Mazda3 over the Focus because that car still uses a hydraulic assist system, and that just feels way better.

My Score: 8/10 - Good handling, good ride comfort, steering is a bit lacking in feel however.

Interior: This is where the differences start to show in the trim levels. The SE will be equipped with a pretty standard interior, nothing totally unusual. Controls are relatively simple to use and despite not being a MyFordTouch model it still has a two small LCD screens, it has voice activated controls, cruise control, etc. The SEL and Titanium models however replace the small center LCD screen and replace it with a much larger touch screen in the center known as MyFordTouch. You still have HVAC controls available should you not like using the touch screen, which are button based instead of knobs like the cheaper versions. The stereo controls however are mostly gone and will have be operated using MyFordTouch. The MyFordTouch system is something you either love or hate, once in a while its also prone to glitching. Should your unit glitch, unplug the battery for 5 minutes tends to reset the whole system. A software recall has also been issued, due to complaints. The higher trim levels come with seat warmers. Another difference between the two is the hand brake, on the lower trim levels its relatively small, the higher trim level models have a very large one. Not available in base spec of any trim level however are rear parking sensors, self parking(for parallel parking), electric seats and leather, those are optional extras even in Titanium spec. There are lot of pockets in the rear to put things in. When it comes to hatchback versus sedan, I definitely would go with the hatchback, it has a lot more useable space in the tailgate. The atmosphere of the interior is mostly dark, and even in the SEL/Titanium version way too much hard plastic. The build quality on these cars is average, generally acceptable but lemons do occur. The Focus is built in Wayne, Michigan, USA.

My Score: 7/10 - A somewhat high tech interior of the bunch, MyFordTouch is hit or miss, many items are still an optional extra and the materials definitely could be better.

Styling: Gone is the Gillete grille that Ford was using for the past few years, which I'm happy to say. It looked terrible on the previous Focus. This car is a lot closer to the European styled cars, the front may seem a bit busy near the bottom. The side profile of the car easily makes the hatchback look very good, the sedan is not nearly as nice. The wheels you get depend on which trim level you bought, the hubcap wheels are obviously cheap looking, the Titanium's wheels do look good. Its a bit more generic however considering Hyundai's new styling. So I'll just say its good but not great.

My Score: 7/10 - A nicer looking car than before, looks quite good as a hatchback but at the same time is a bit generic.

Value for money: With this new entry, this segment is extremely competitive. On the one hand you have the Ford Focus, Chevrolet Cruze and Hyundai Elantra all being the newest and hitting the 40 mpg highway numbers or 5.88L/100 km for metric. On the other hand some of the older stuff like the Mazda3 and Civic are getting upgraded to match these newer cars or in the case of the Dodge Caliber is already dropped with a new model ready to come out. Where the Ford sits is probably being one of the better all rounder, its offered as a hatch or sedan, its got loads of options, its reasonably well equipped at the start, and its priced pretty competitively. If this is what you require, a car that's pretty good at most or not all levels, then the Focus is probably your best choice. If you have more specialized tastes where you want your car to excel at certain areas, you'll have to look elsewhere. As for which options to pick, I find the Titanium not really worth the cost unless you like those wheels, you get much of the toys in the SEL. If you hate MyFordTouch the SE will do fine. Still, a good car at a good value.

My Score: 8/10 - Good all rounder choice, however the market is very competitive and the car doesn't excel in any specific area.

Overall: 38/50 - Its a good car, for me though it just wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be.

2012 Toyota Camry LE

I'm so sorry I haven't updated in several months. Not to worry I have driven many cars since those posts, just make this up to date I'll post some new ones.

Introduction: The Toyota Camry has been one of the most successful cars ever made. Over the years it sold so many examples all over the world, being the most successful in North America. It has had stumbles and wasn't a particularly good seller in Europe where it was replaced by the Avensis. The Camry had its humble beginnings in 1982 where it replaced the old Toyota Corona. This was one of Toyota's earliest front wheel drive models and was used to highlight how much interior space there is available in a compact car, its grown much larger since. The Camry actually started taking off in 1987 in the second generation model where it was a bit larger, had larger 4-cylinder engines and a V6 available. In 1992 the Camry was again reworked and once again was larger and this time due to Toyota discontinuing the Cressida, this Camry was now the flagship model until the introduction of the Avalon in 1995. Toyota has made a name for itself with the Camry by essentially prioritizing quality and reliability, as a result many Camrys from the past are still widely seen and in some cases still running as well as much younger cars. Toyota however has had a slip in their later models, the 2007 generation Camry was criticized for its lower quality and much higher number of recalls than before.

Here's the question, has Toyota made serious improvements so that the Camry is a serious contender once again? Before I drove this car, the most modern Toyota I drove before was the Corolla which was awful. The outgoing Camry which I've been in had a very cheap and awful interior. My hope with this new Camry is that Toyota finally understand that today's competition is not going to let them take this segment for granted. In order for the Camry to retain its #1 spot it has got to be deserved, it must feel like a proper Toyota. The sort of car where it does everything well, avoiding real criticism.

Performance: I only have access to the standard 4-cylinder models so I won't be commenting on how this car does with the V6. The 4-cylinder you're given in this Camry is a 2.5L that produces 179 hp and 171 lb.ft of torque, despite being the same engine as the outgoing car its up 10 hp and 4 lbs in torque. Naturally being a Toyota it was already fuel efficient in the old car, more surprisingly however this new car is even more efficient than the old car and actually beats the Sonata despite lacking direct injection. On the road this engine is actually very quiet and very refined. Its 0-100 km/h time is roughly 7.8 seconds, that's...actually pretty good consider its not even the strongest of the field. Toyota definitely shed some weight and its paying off in acceleration and fuel economy. The bad news, no more manual transmission Camry.

My Score: 8/10 - Good engine, does everything you'd expect for an economy minded engine. I always wish it were faster but hey, they did leave the option open for direct injection.

Handling: This category was where I was most worried, that the car would feel like an appliance. I hated the Corolla's handling so much that I wasn't looking forward to what this car offered. Well, whatever Toyota did surprised me. It still has electric power steering but this unit was way better tuned than the one found in the Corolla. Its still somewhat light but it was heavier than I was expecting, thus this car is pretty easy to maneuver. Even better was there was some inkling of feel when taking the turn so this wasn't actually boring. Where the car however did best was the ride comfort, the hard road surfaces of Ontario roads after winter still don't bother this car. Now as you'd expect from this class of car and with front wheel drive, when taking corners hard you'll understeer and you'll feel body roll. Its not hugely athletic but again its more than acceptable.

My Score: 7/10 - Rides well, suffers a bit dynamically but overall still pretty good.

 

Interior: A few changes have been made over the old car. First thing is the dash board, the dials all have a modern blue look and no longer have the green that even the outgoing Toyota had which felt 90s. The only silly thing is there's a gauge for average fuel economy...there are more important dials to have than this like oil pressure, voltage regulator and so on. The next thing is Toyota has attempted to place leather to soften much of the dash and avoid too many hard plastics. The leather is placed at the top of the dash, around the lower portion of the center console and a few other but less important places. The newest item however is Toyota's Entune system, this replaces the stereo in favor of a touch screen. Toyota has left a few knobs for the radio tuning, volume and HVAC controls. What Entune however does is allow you to connect you're phone if it has bluetooth to become hands free but also able to use your phone's music library. Connection is easy, have your phone's bluetooth on, tell Entune to connect and that's it, surprisingly user friendly. Entune is not as high tech as Ford MyTouch nor are the visuals as pleasant but consider the customer base of the Camry, this isn't important. The car's C-pillars are not too difficult to look out of, there's a lot of head room and its still very spacious inside including the trunk. Due to the price point its hard to complain about this new interior aside from the fact it could use even better materials.The car is even pretty well made, Camrys sold in North America are built in Georgetown, Kentucky, USA.

My Score: 9/10 - Way better than the outgoing car, Entune is easy to use, very spacious and the materials are way better than before, all I can say is they probably could go just that bit further.

Styling: Much of my initial worries of this car came down to the styling. It just hasn't changed all that much from the gone 6th gen, the shape is generally the same and a lot of the exterior features still had some the old car's cues. The good news is the fat butt look of the old one is gone. The bad news is at the rear, the tail lamp styling is awkward at best, it just doesn't fit the car that much. On the front, that grille isn't all that attractive either, the fog lamp covers are a bit gaudy. The only solution to that front is getting the SE version of this car which looks much better with its paint coloured grille, due to SE's being the best selling trim level it seems many Camry buyers agree. Not much can be done to the rear though.

My Score: 5/10 - Mostly boring, Toyota tried to liven the back but this didn't really work.

Value for money: After all is said and done, the Camry has definitely returned to the car that deserves its spot as one of the best selling cars out there. For a practical family sedan, there's not much against it. The handling is acceptable, there's enough power even in the 4-cylinder, its more fuel efficient than its competition and unlike before you're getting much more for your money this time. The only real reason not to consider the Camry is going to be down to this, if you're American the Hyundai warranty is better, you may hate the way it looks and want the new 2013 Ford Fusion, your local Toyota dealers are awful or you just want something that stands out.

My Score: 10/10 - If you're in the market for a midsize sedan, its really hard to argue against at least considering the Camry.

Overall: 39/50 - A very good choice of car, it may be a bit conservative and common but this one is attempt to cement its reputation in spite of setbacks.