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.

2008-2011 Jeep Liberty & Dodge Nitro

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




Introduction: The Jeep Liberty is the successor to the old Jeep Cherokee. However in much of the world it still retains the old Cherokee name. The Liberty features the uni body on ladder frame construction which stiffens its ride and handling. The Liberty is easily one of Jeep's trail rated vehicles meaning its been tested by Jeep for its ability to go off road. The Dodge Nitro was introduced in 2007 as Dodge's newest compact SUV since the 1990s when they had the Raider which was a Mitsubishi Pajero. The second generation Liberty in 2008 uses the same platform and borrowed the styling of the Nitro as well.

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


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

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

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

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




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

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

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

My Score: 2/10 - Square and dull.

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

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

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

2009, 2010 Dodge Charger SE/Chrsyler 300 Touring

Another Chrysler product...I seriously have driven too many of these things.



Introduction: The Chrysler 300 and the Dodge Charger belong to the same LX platform as the Dodge Magnum does. The only difference is the Magnum was the only vehicle to stop being produced while the Charger and 300 continue to live on. Both 300 and Charger are practically the same the big difference being mostly down to badge and exterior styling. Both cars changed the full size car market in that they returned to using rear wheel drive which in turn spawned the short lived Pontiac G8 as competition. The use of rear wheel drive allowed Dodge to attempt to sell Chargers to police fleets many of which are very used to the out of production Ford Crown Victoria compared to General Motors using the front wheel drive Chevrolet Impala.

Most people who know me attempted to convince me that Chrysler hasn't totally screwed up their car lineup by using these two cars as an example. Given my first drive in the Magnum I set my expectations much lower than normal.



Performance: For this review due to the fact both cars use several engines I'll note the Charger as the 2.7L V6 and the 300 using the 3.5L V6. The scores will reflect the trim level given. Well the Charger SE uses the same 2.7L V6 I've mentioned was a huge problem for the Magnum and the Sebring...its no different this time. This is such a pathetic engine that its pretty embarrassing. Its the same 190 hp and 190 lb.ft of torque engine. The Magnum is about 100 lbs heavier, so the Charger likely does 0-100 km/h in 11 seconds, there are no real tested times...its probably too embarrassing. Keep in mind the engine sounds terrible so revving this thing is no joy. The 300 Touring has the 3.5L and this engine is far more adequate for the job but is still not great doing 0-100 km/h in roughly 9 seconds. That engine produces 250 hp and 250 lb.ft of torque. This engine is much smoother and felt a bit faster than the 9 seconds suggest. However its no Honda or Toyota so it will consume fuel at a higher rate. In cars this big and this heavy...the 2.7L is a stupid idea. Another note, I thought the brakes on both cars were pretty weak.

My Score(Charger SE): 1/10 - A horrible engine, far too slow and far too weak and sounds awful.

My Score(300 Touring): 5/10 - A nicer smoother engine, but still slow and also not that efficient.

Handling: This is where I hope the RWD comes into play alas it was not what I was expecting. Taking most RWD cars into a corner is where the fun from the layout comes out, taking the Charger or the 300 into the corners show how poorly engineered they are. Both vehicles are just too soft and the suspension is too slow to react during faster cornering. The 300 has a decent ride, the Charger doesn't seem to provide that softness. Much of the misery of the Magnum returns to my mind, they do corner better than the Magnum but that's mainly because they're both lighter. RWD seems to have prevented a poor handling car from being the worst handling car.

My Score(Charger SE): 2/10 - Very poor cornering ability, poor suspension setup

My Score(Chrysler 300): 3/10 - Same as the Charger but more comfortable



Interior: This area I was hoping for something better, as I believe it to be it seems the Ram stole all of Chrysler's interior budget so both cars suffer as a result. The Charger SE is the base vehicle and the interior is nothing but disgusting, cheap, black plastic. The 300 Touring is given leather which is actually comfortable but the major additions over the charger is the stupid analog clock. As a car supposed to be their top of the line...it uses a lot of material you expect to be too cheap for even the bottom of the line vehicle. A huge problem in these cars is the poor visibility, not only are the windows small...the C-pillar is a gigantic blind spot. The interior of both vehicles appear to be an afterthought as a result they get a very poor score. The build quality on these cars are mediocre, better than some US assembled Chryslers but not near US assembled Japanese vehicles. Both cars are built in Brampton, Ontario.

My Score(both): 2/10 - Same cheap Chrysler material found in their cheapest vehicles

Styling: Finally something good to talk about these disappointing vehicles. Both vehicles have been styled extremely well as far as the exterior is concerned. The 300 is very much like the sort of car you expect the mafia to drive, its very big and menacing but appears to have some sort of a status along with that. The Charger is more aggressive looking and looks like the sort of vehicle that is a hunter...pity its too slow to match its looks. It appears Chrysler spent some money somewhere so as a result the scores are good.

My Score(both): 9/10 - Both vehicles look very good and have no need for a restyle.

Value for money: Both these cars do have something that most full size cars in this age don't have...rear wheel drive. This does give these cars a mild advantage over the competition with the only car offering RWD is the Pontiac G8. The problem is the rest of the car leaves a lot to be desired, the V6 engines Chrysler offers don't move these cars all that quickly meaning if you want this car to be faster than say...a Mazda 3 you have to buy the Hemi V8. The interior is extremely low rent regardless of which trim level, something none of its competition suffers. If you want a car with good looks...and has RWD regardless of its awful suspension...these cars are for you then.

My Score(both): 4/10 - Neither are good value especially in lower trim form...yet high trim vehicles are expensive but still retain the cheapness of the lower trim cars. Having RWD however is a plus.

Overall(Charger SE): 18/50 - For a base vehicle at this price its terrible, high marks only for good looks.

Overall(300 Touring): 23/50 - Better than a base Charger...but not that much better

2007-2009 Dodge Caliber SXT

After reviewing two of the Caliber's Jeep relatives I thought I might as well finally throw the Caliber in the mix despite it being one of the cars I still drive. As you can probably see from the Compass and Patriot reviews you can expect a similar score for the Caliber.


Introduction: The Caliber was introduced in 2006 as Dodge's replacement for the Dodge Neon in the 2007 model year. Unlike the Neon the Caliber is only available as a hatchback and its the first Chrysler to use the GEMA engines where Chrysler, Mitsubishi and Hyundai cooperated to design. The Caliber also is one of the earliest Chryslers to use a CVT transmission.

Like all Chrysler models I was not very interested in the Caliber and at this point I expected the worst. What I didn't expect were the colours the Caliber came in...there's an bottle tan orange which is pretty hideous.


Performance: The Caliber SXT comes with the 2.0L GEMA 4-cylinder engine which produces 158 hp and 141 lb.ft of torque. All SXTs come with a CVT transmission to be paired with this engine. There is also a selection of the 1.8L GEMA engine which is only paired with the manual transmission and the bigger 2.4 GEMA engine which was mentioned in the Patriot and Compass reviews. Bottom line, this 2.0L GEMA engine is just as terrible and is certainly worse than the 2.4L due to how lethargic the car accelerates. This is also the worst CVT I've encountered, its not a fuel efficient power train and its unable to get the best gear ratios when you want to go faster. Nissan is superior it seems when it comes to making a proper CVT than Chrysler is. There is no exact acceleration times the 1.8L with the manual was clocked at 9.7 seconds for its 0-100 km/h time. The 2.0L with its stupid transmission feels more than 10 seconds despite the extra torque. The most annoying thing about accelerating the Caliber with the CVT is...from 0-5000 rpm you get lots of noise but no real movement its the 5000-6000 range where the car actually wakes up.

My Score: 1/10 - Terrible engine, very noisy, very slow

Handling: Here's another area of expected failure and the Caliber doesn't disappoint. The base Calibers are roughly 3000 lbs which is very heavy for a car of this size, as a result it has a more difficult time taking corners. The suspension Dodge fitted to this car is neither comfortable nor very good at taking corners. Dodge has done a poor job with the steering feel, while its hydraulic its way too over boosted and as such always feels numb. For a car that's designed for the city since its too slow and noisy for highway driving, the Caliber is a bit of a disaster.

My Score: 1/10 - A heavy car, with numb steering and an awful suspension...there's no way such a combination is good.


Interior: The interior plastics in the Caliber are identical to the Compass and the Patriot. Very cheap plastic material, absolutely unattractive in every way possible. Most Calibers use black plastic and it doesn't seem to hide how hideous the vehicle is to be inside. The seat is decent but is still not comfortable. If you got a base Caliber its even worse, you get roll up windows and because Dodge intended you to buy the power options Dodge didn't make it easy to get at the door locks for the rear doors. The Caliber is however spacious for its size and as a hatch the rear can hold quite a few items. Keep in mind the plastic board covering your spare wheel is so cheap in quality it'll scratch instantly you put something solid there. The Caliber is built in the US and unfortunately is not built very well, panel gaps and loose trim are common issues.

My Score: 2/10 - Low quality materials, not comfortable, not built very well but spacious

Styling: Dodge wanted to make a car that appeared somewhat like an SUV but wasn't. This just makes the proportions of the Caliber look very odd. The vehicle is very chunky in portions that make it ungainly and the truck-like grille again gives you the impression its big...until you see the roof where the car looks flattened. The cheap plastic roof spoiler contains your 3rd brake light meaning its not an option to lose it sadly.

My Score: 2/10 - Doesn't look very good, ugly proportions particularly

Value for the money: If space is really what you want from a car, the Caliber might actually not be a horrible buy. Then again why not just pay that bit extra for a then Mazda 6 wagon which is superior to this car. Everything else the Caliber does is horrible, its less fuel efficient than its ancestors from the K-car(the Aries and Reliant) and the predecessor Neon. The Neon was also faster due to not having the blocky body. Calibers are not reliable either ensuring a loss here to the Japanese cars. They're not great to drive also ensuring a loss to VW. Lastly while its built in America...it still confuses me why you would buy this vehicle when there are better American choices like the Focus and the Cobalt.

My Score: 2/10 - If you need a cheap spacious hatch, maybe but on all other levels this car is pretty awful.

Overall: 8/50 - Another hopeless car from Chrysler.

2008 Dodge Durango

I just realized I reviewed two good American cars...here's a Dodge product, ha ha.


Introduction: The Dodge Durango was started in 1998 when Dodge decided to use its Durango as a base to make an SUV. Back then SUVs were selling very well and Dodge had no answer to the wildly popular Ford Explorer and didn't want to lose out. The original Durango got old by 2003 and was replaced with a bigger full sized Durango in 2004. The Durango was still based on the Dakota but was much wider. The Durango is also the first Dodge models to become a hybrid. The Durango however had its production run end in 2008, the last models being the 2009 hybrids.

You probably know I don't have very good things to say about Dodge products so you can expect my intial thoughts about seeing this vehicle.


Performance: The Dodge Durango had 3 options to choose from engines a 3.7L V6, a 4.7L V8(flex fuel) and a 5.7L Hemi V8. I only got the chance to drive the Durango with the regular 4.7 flex fuel V8 so it only produced 235 hp and 300 lb.ft of torque which is clearly isn't enough. It could only accelerate from 0-100 km/h in 10.7 seconds...pretty bad. Considering how large this SUV is I thought Chrysler would give it an adequate design to make it not seem so slow...but they failed. I can't imagine how slow the V6 is.

*Note: Sorry about the pic but apparently nobody but our fleet has this engine in their Durango...they all seem to be Hemi V8s. I would take a picture of one of our own...but we retired them all.

My Score: 3/10 - A 4.7 L V8 that moves a SUV this slowly is not a worthwhile engine.

Handling: The Dodge Durango as you can see from the performance section did pretty badly. Its clearly not a light vehicle if 300 lb.ft of torque doesn't move it quickly enough and as a result the handling is pretty poor. Even worse, the steering wheel is very vague...which is a horrible thing in an SUV like this. I'll be honest, I had an accident in this truck with its massive size and vague wheel I scratched the fat rear wheel arch. This thing is terrible to drive, enough said.

My Score: 2/10 - Bad handling and a very vague steering feel, bad enough that its easy to crash it.


Interior: Here we go again, another bad interior design brought to you from Chrysler. First things first, one of the more important items that is more critical to SUVs is how much more blind are you. This is a blind vehicle(another factor to my accident), the seating position is horrible for someone short which I am. Next item, the interior materials are very cheap and ugly as expected from Chrysler. Its not build very well either, a vehicle built in the USA...I just found loose bits and misaligned pieces in a few places on this SUV. Its not all that comfortable either, you do feel its truck roots. The truck is spacious, I'll give it that allowing it to be an 8 seater.

My Score: 1/10 - Big blind spots, ugly and cheap materials, bad seating position and not very good build quality, you just can't expect a good score.

Styling: Normally a Dodge scores much better with styling, I just didn't find that to be the case here. The shape is pretty uninspiring and its doesn't even have a nice looking grille to go with it. The Rams look good, this just doesn't. You can't even confuse it as a possible Ram variant which would be something in its favour. The fat wheel arches unnecessarily increase its width...for no reason.

My Score: 4/10 - Not very attractive, dumbly designed wheel arches...the only thing in its favour is its not really ugly.

Value for Money: This is a budget priced SUV...unfortunately it also looks that way. Its slow, the interior is horrible, it drives pretty badly, its a gas guzzler, nothing really comes into mind about why this SUV is good other than being cheap and spacious and an 8 seater.

My Score: 4/10 - Its the cheapest 8-seater out there...a shame its a horrible car.

Overall: 14/ 50 - What a big pile of rubbish this truck is.

2009 Dodge Ram

Last one for today since its late...since I already did two trucks...here's another one.


Introduction: As I mentioned last time about the history of this truck this is the current generation of Dodge trucks and was redesigned in 2009 in hopes to revive itself. Timing of this truck did not look so good with the price of fuel being very high when this truck was announced. Fortunately for Dodge the high fuel prices would eventually be much lower and thus not hurt this truck's launch so badly.

At this point I've driven so many Chryslers and Dodge vehicles that when I heard of the new Ram I wasn't really interested. By this point most of the vehicles that came from this company I either thought was poorly done or was truly awful. I didn't think much of the last Ram meaning this one had to do much better.


Performance: Like before the Dodge Ram had a big list of engines to choose from. This time only 1 Cummins diesel, a V6 and 2 V8s. Like last time its the 5.7L Hemi V8 that was given to the truck I drove. This time however somehow the truck is much faster than the last one. 7.6 seconds to get from 0-100 km/h. A reason for this is the engine is more powerful this time at 390 hp and 407 lb.ft of torque which is incredible amounts of power. The sound is still very nice like the previous truck. Maybe things are looking up for Dodge.

My Score: 9/10 - A very powerful truck with an engine that matches.

Handling: I remember the last Ram did a pretty poor job in this category. Well I can gladly say that this Ram has done a much better job. The steering feel is back and as a result you can drive this truck with less worry about turning the wheel aimlessly. The cornering is also a bit better but the ride quality has improved. All in all this truck did much much better than the last one.

My Score: 7/10 - Handling isn't fantastic but good enough with better ride quality and its brought back steering feel.


Interior: This is normally the biggest weakness in all of the Chryslers I've driven so far. Is this new Ram going to be any different? Yes...yes it has. Honestly I'm starting to understand why the rest of the cars have such awful interiors...Dodge hoarded the entire interior budget for this truck only. There are still bits of Chrysler cheapness like the aerosol plastic on the console but significantly less than any modern Chrysler. The best touches is really the screen on the dash, I didn't expect such a nice looking screen from a company like Chrysler. On their most luxurious car...its display screen was less impressive than a Cobalt's. This truck has the nicest interior of the full size trucks right now. That said entry into this beast is still not easy. These are built in the United States, only the Mega cabs are built in Mexico.

My Score: 8/10 - A very good interior, well equipped but there's still some cheapness left in it.

Value for money: Unlike the last truck where I didn't really see a reason to buy one, this one has quite a few reasons going for it. The engine is much better than last time, the interior quality is clearly the best...which is a rarity for Chrysler these days and it actually drives very nicely. This one has a lot more going for it and has probably forced the competition to design much better trucks.

My Score: 8/10 - This is the newest of the trucks and clearly Dodge put much more development money into this truck than anything else.

Styling: Another mild change over the last Ram. The biggest difference is...this Ram is even larger than the old already massive enough Ram. This truck is pretty much monster like with its dimensions and the way it looks. I'm certain just the styling is enough to convince someone to buy these beasts.

My Score: 8/10 - A mild update of an already good looking vehicle.

Overall: 40/50 - A good product from Chrysler? Yes its true...but as you can see this is where all of the company's money went to.

2008 Dodge Ram

As I mentioned in the Canyon review I did drive the Dodge trucks and here's the big one first.


Introduction: The Dodge Ram is the youngest of the full sized pickup trucks but it started back in 1981. While pretty similar to both GM and Ford's trucks in size and power, Dodge had a very clever deal with Cummins. Cummins makes diesel engines for mostly heavy duty vehicles like buses and trucks and somehow allowed Dodge to use their diesel engines. Unlike petroleum powered vehicles, diesels have smaller power bands thus while not being particularly great at acceleration when they get going they produce very high amount of torque despite the engine not running nearly as fast as an equivalent petroleum engine producing such power. This also gives it a fuel economy advantage since diesel fuel does not burn as quickly.

When I saw the Dodge Ram, the vehicle was so massive in size I really wondered how I could get up into the thing. I couldn't tell what's wrong in the engine bay since all I see is a radiator with my height. Still I was excited since this thing is a massive beast and I was hoping it would be better than the Dakota.


Performance: This version of the Dodge Ram has a staggering amount of engines to choose from, 8 to be exact. Two of these are the Cummins diesels, 1 V6 and the remaining are all V8s including the Hemi V8 which is the engine I had in this Ram. This Hemi is the 5.7L V8 producing 345 hp and 375 lb.ft of torque. Considering all of the cars I've so far reviewed this is clearly the most powerful. It doesn't accelerate the quickest however since it posts a 0-60 time of about 9.5 seconds since the one I drove had the 4WD. It sounds great though.

My Score: 7/10 - For so much power, its been defeated by weight and 4WD. Still it does sound nice.

Handling: Like the Canyon I do treat the trucks a bit differently, they don't quite have the same advantages that cars get since trucks are supposed to be very long, wide and strong. As a result they're heavy and as a consequence do not handle very well despite being RWD based. As for the Ram the handling is more sluggish than I expected even for a pick up truck. First thing is despite the giant sized wheel the power steering overpowers it and the feel you'd expect is missing making it seemed detached. Secondly I do understand its a full size truck but its ability to corner is pretty disappointing. So this truck doesn't do too well.

My Score: 3/10 - Sluggish and feels very detached from what your doing


Interior: Like before I don't expect much from the interior it should be pretty basic after all. The Ram's interior is pretty basic as well. That said the materials are the same very cheap materials used in all Chryslers at this time and this does not make it look very good. With an uninviting interior to go along with the basic nature of pick up trucks it doesn't look very good. Entry into this truck is very bad, I literally need to jump in this one since there's no step into it, you have to hope you can reach the handle near the door to get in. These trucks are built in either the United States or Mexico, minor build quality issues so far from the US vehicles.

My Score: 4/10 - Poor entry, cheap materials but otherwise basic interior.

Value for Money: The Ram competes against 3 true rivals, the Silverado, the F-series and the Toyota Tundra. Unless you want your pickup truck have a Hemi engine or you want it to have a Cummins diesel...I really don't see why the Ram will be on the top of your list. I guess it does look better than the rest as well.

My Score: 5/10 - Not a great value all things considered unless you want a good diesel.

Styling: The Dodge Ram in this version didn't change all that much from the previous generation. What it did change was the perception of how big it is. In the pictures it does look big enough already, the thing is...its even more enormous once you've seen it. It does look pretty handsome for a truck and with its size looks very strong too.

My Score: 8/10 - A good looking truck.

Overall: 27/50 - Not a particularly great truck all things considered.

2008-2009 Chrysler Sebring Touring/Dodge Avenger SE

Since I'm off today I'll review...the worst car I've ever driven. The current Chrysler Sebring and the current Dodge Avenger, this is not really a twofer because these cars are almost exactly the same.



Introduction: The Chrysler Sebring originally started as a convertible back in 1995, the sedan version would come out in 2001 on the JR platform. The current Sebring began in 2007 using the JS platform, the Dodge Avenger would be released in 2008. Since the sale of Chrysler's assets to Fiat, the Sterling Heights Michigan plant was not part of the deal and thus the plant will close along with the production of the current Sebring and Avenger ending in 2010.

Yeah...this car is pretty uninspired...does nothing significant and has a pretty uninteresting history. I knew this car was going to be bad...I just didn't think it would blow my mind about how awful a car can really be.



Performance: The Dodge Avengers I drive have the weak 2.4L 4-cylinder GEMA engine shared with Hyundai and Mitsubishi. This engine produces 173 hp and 165 lb.ft of torque. The Sebring is a Touring version using the same 2.7L V6 mentioned in the Dodge Magnum review I did. It honestly didn't matter which engine you used in these cars, they're both horrible. The GEMA engine was noisier and the V6 as mentioned before not all that quiet either. The Sebring gets from 0-100km/h in 8.9 seconds...that's pretty bad, the Avenger does it on 9.5 seconds. What's most shocking is neither engine is particularly fuel efficient...so you get a weak, noisy and thirsty engine with no upsides. These cars have a 3.5L V6 option, a much better engine...but because the engine is old...its 0-100 time is 7.3 seconds...most cars in this segment are under 7 seconds.

My Score(both): 2/10 - Neither engine is good, neither engine is practical, flat out they're terrible.

Handling: Once again the Sebring and Avenger are no different here. You got a hard suspension in both cars, the trouble with hard suspensions are they're no fun driving on roads with potholes. Now generally the good things about hard suspensions are they offer great cornering ability...not the Sebring or the Avenger...you get massive body roll and rubbish cornering ability. Once again...you get two wrongs...there is no right here. The steering wheel on both cars is very dull and light and like the 2007 Hyundai Elantra review...the car had no feel whatsoever.

My Score(both): 1/10 - Poor cornering, no feel, uncomfortable suspension...this is terrible.



Interior: There are differences between the Sebring and the Avenger. The Chrysler is supposed to be more upscale with the Dodge is...er...well...cheap. As a result the Dodge has the more depressing interior full of the usual Chrysler stuff like depressing cheap black plastic, fake chrome, ugly tin-foil painted plastic, ugly dials, etc. The seats...while not very comfortable...I could sit in them without huge issues. The Sebring...its not as black as the Avenger but it still had all the horrid plastic, the fake chrome and so on but...the seats are absolutely unusable for a 5'4 guy. The ergonomics on these seats are so bad, I actually got back pain from these things. Every time I drive a Sebring...I have the adjust the seat so that its lying on the passenger floor, I might as well be sitting on a stone stool that would be more comfortable. The blind spots on both cars are pretty bad with the C-pillar being very large. As usual with bad interiors they're not build very well, these cars coming from the United States. I guess they're reasonably spacious considering the price of these cars...but other than that...absolutely horrible.

My Score(Avenger): 2/10 - Ugly, cheap and not built very well

My Score(Sebring): 0/10 - The same above except absolutely unusable seats

Styling: Once again there are differences...this time big differences. I actually like the way the Avenger looks, it actually does look handsome. The Sebring...just doesn't. The Sebring has the look of someone who always looks angry trying to smile...it looks wrong and unnatural. The Sebring borrowed the wrong bits from the Crossfire, keeping the profile of the Crossfire sedan but not having the serious but aggressive front styling. In the rear both cars are not that interesting but the Dodge's actually fits the car...the Sebring's rear doesn't match the front at all.

My Score(Avenger): 8/10 - Pretty decent styling all things considered

My Score(Sebring): 1/10 - Ugly and yet boring

Value for Money: Honestly...they're both terrible value. They're not quality products(they break all the time), they depreciate very badly and worst of all...they're not even the cheapest cars available. The Hyundai Sonata is not expensive and far surpasses these awful cars at every category. The only person who would buy this over anything is someone who looks at the 82% parts sourced for America...and this person would be an idiot for using this reason to buy these two. If your an American and want to be patriotic here...wouldn't it make sense to buy a good American car rather than support a bad one? The Fusion and Malibu are far better, if the Mexican made Fusion discourages you then get the Malibu, that car also far surpasses these horrid cars.

My Score: 0/10 - You either have to use a stupid reason or failed to test drive anything in order to buy these cars.

Overall(Avenger): 13/50 - This car survived being slaughtered in the scoring by having good looks.

Overall(Sebring): 4/50 - An absolute failure of a car. I hope nothing in the future surpasses this car in terms of how truly awful a car can really be.

The engineers who ok'd this car should be ashamed of themselves, this car is woefully inadequate in everything they attempted to do. The executives who thought this was good enough should be fired for not understanding a good car is not just a 4 wheeled vehicle, if its not good there's plenty of other cars to choose from. If this same vehicle came from Daewoo I would criticize this car a little less harshly because it would come from a company that had no idea what it was doing. This is Chrysler, one of the oldest names and clearly nobody cared enough about these cars leaving it under engineered, poorly conceived and lags far behind from even its domestic competitors and thus deserve a harsh review.

2007 Dodge Caravan SXT

I've only driven 3 Minivans so far, the 2 Dodge Caravans and the Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac Montana. So I'll be doing the oldest and the one out of fleet, the older egg-shaped Caravan.


Introduction: The Dodge Caravan is one of Chrysler's most successful vehicles since its introduction in 1984 as the first minivan in the world. It was produced earlier than the next closest vehicle the Renault Espace. The Caravan used a modified K-car platform called the S platform meaning this vehicle also belonged to the K-car generation that would help Chrysler exit for financial ruin. While the iconic K-cars the Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant would retire, the Caravan continued to be a great hit even to this day.

The vehicle featured in this review is the fourth generation of Caravan. The unique feature of this one over the previous older Caravans is in 2005 it used a unique seating storage arrangement called stow n' go which allowed you to stow the middle row seats into the floor without the need to remove them. This allowed you to have a cargo van arrangement without the need for heavy lifting to remove the trouble some middle row seats.


Performance: The Caravans that were in our fleet used the 3.3L V6 which produced 180 hp and 210 lb.ft of torque. This never moved the Caravan particularly quickly and despite its torque it never seemed to accelerate very quickly either. The 0-100 speed is about 9.1 seconds meaning this one was not particularly quick. I cannot imagine using the 2.4 4-cylinder in this thing because clearly this V6 wasn't enough to seem adequate. The V6 is reasonably smooth but not nearly as refined as many other V6 units out there including GM's 3.8L V6s on their minivans.

My Score: 6/10 - Not a horribly slow engine, but not an impressive engine at all.

Handling: I understand the Caravan is a minivan and that I shouldn't expect all that much out of its handling ability. Much to my surprise this Caravan was not as horrible as I expected. Its not as good as an small SUV or any car but it does feel like a big car. The steering wheel has some feel to it and thus making this van a mild surprise considering I was expecting something very numb and boring. The short wheelbase also makes this vehicle easier to park than I thought.

My Score: 6/10 - Its not good at it, but for something this heavy it did surprisingly well.


Interior: The Caravan does not have a pleasant interior to sit inside, the plastic are easily classified as cheap. The seats are not that particularly comfortable either, a little bit on the hard side to be honest. Yet, the clearly innovative stow n' go has made this interior at the very least cleverly designed. Getting the seats out and putting them in was not the most user friendly experience but I expect the newer one to iron these problems out(sadly they never did). This interior is pretty much saved for the fact it has this innovative interior layout item. The Caravans in Canada are all made in Windsor, Ontario. I didn't notice any real build quality issues with them.

My Score: 6/10 - Very innovative stow n' go, making a normally ugly interior into a decent one

Styling: The Dodge Caravan didn't really change very much from the last generation. The overall shape of the vehicle remained practically the same and much of the key identifiable exterior features also remained largely the same. The major difference is mild styling difference in the front making the van certainly more modern than the previous generations. They didn't change the style because the van still looked distinct from all the other vans back then in 2001.

My Score: 7/10 - Yeah they were lazy but it still was unique, you can easily tell a Caravan from the rest of the minivans.

Value for the money: This is a little bit harder to score. Clearly the stow n' go system gives this Caravan a big advantage over the other ones especially if you need both a cargo van and a passenger van. This van is also not very expensive to buy, it is actually one of the least expensive ones available. The only problem is reliability, these vans and their predecessors suffered transmission failures, they also depreciate very badly since so many are in the used market. These issues are why the more expensive Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey manage to sell rather well despite being on the high end of minivan pricing.

My Score: 7/10 - Its mostly good except for that annoying transmission and you need to run it down to the ground yourself to get the most out of it.

Overall: 32/50 - Not a bad minivan at all in hindsight, the innovation is really why this minivan scored well. What hurt the van was the low quality items in an attempt to keep costs down.

2007 Dodge Magnum SE

Ah my first review of a car that has been discontinued for good, the Dodge Magnum.


Introduction: The Dodge Magnum was introduced in 2005 as part of Chrysler's LX platform the only one of Chrysler's platforms using Mercedes Benz components and pieces. The original Dodge Magnum was a replacement of the old Charger essentially a short lived 2-door car on Chrysler's B-platform. The current version however is a station wagon version of Chrysler's flagship 300. Dodge has given the Magnum 4 different engines ranging from 2 V6 units to 2 V8 units including Chrysler's famed HEMI V8. Unfortunately for Chrysler the Magnum has not sold well and eventually was discontinued in 2008.

When I first saw this gigantic beast, I was rather eager to drive it due to it being from the LX platform and how cool it looked. I was slightly skeptical as well since I also drove the Sebring that day and that was an unhappy memory(I will around to this one and explain why, trust me). During this time I loved everything about RWD and believed that whatever Chrysler did to this car that my faith in RWD would not be shaken.


Performance: Oh boy...I only driven the SE version meaning I got the car with the 2.7L V6 that produces 190 hp and 190 lb.ft of torque. Let me put it this way...I've never driven such a slow car, unlike the Fusion which felt slow...this car was slow. Most people could at best do 0-100 km/h in 11.7 seconds...that's pathetic. The engine sounded awful for a V6 unit...and guess what...its used on quite a few Chryslers. A big reason why this car accelerates so poorly is its about 4000 lbs...the engine is nowhere near adequate and should have not been an option. The man in a Toyota Prius can accelerate much quicker than this heavy beast with a weak heart. If you must buy one of these, it better be a V8.

My Score: 1/10 - The engine sucked, this is the slowest accelerating car I've driven, I hated it.

Handling: The Magnum is a RWD car so it must handle well...right? I'm afraid not, due to the fact the car is 4000 lbs this its unable to handle very well with the suspension Chrysler fitted to it along with the Mercedes bits. It just didn't have any agility and you could really feel the weight, its just miserable at attempting a corner. Being a Chrysler, the wheel isn't weighted properly and was rather light meaning it gave little feedback as your miserably going around the corner.

My Score: 1/10 - None of the cornering advantages of RWD apply here, this whale has a hard time going from corner to corner.


Interior: Things still don't look good here, the interior of the Magnum is pretty appalling. All of the plastics are of very low quality, you can just see they didn't even bother to use smooth plastic and notice how they look exactly like recycled budget school chairs due to their texture. The ergonomics of the car are also pretty poor, due to my height I need to sit up close...problem is the turn signal stalk is so low my knee prevents it from signaling left. You can see from the picture how the stalk is angled down 45 degrees. Who in earth thought this was a good idea? They're mostly all black too with cheap aerosol painted plastic pretending to be aluminum which always looks disgusting. The stereo is a standard Chrysler unit which is not very sophisticated but nonetheless doesn't look good or sound good enough to warrant keeping. The car is pretty spacious but you don't have good seats to sit in.

My Score: 2/10 - Cheap plastic, ugly aerosol paint job, so-so stereo, dumb ergonomics...you can clearly tell they had no stylist do this interior.

Styling: Finally something the car can be happy about. The styling of this Dodge is pretty aggressive and was clearly inspiration for the Charger. This looks like the car that would be suitable for a cool bad guy's getaway car. This would also be a pretty scary looking cop car should the car ever need a station wagon. I do like the styling, the rear kind of gives it a hearse image but other than that its actually something done well.

My Score: 8/10 - Aggressive, intimidating and yet still pretty cool looking despite the side profile making it seem like a hearse.

Value for money: The Dodge Magnum is not a good value for your money unless you really need a very large station wagon. The awful interior, the awful performance and the awful handling should have driven you nuts and forcing you to forget this car. There are a few wagons out there while not as big, are certainly much better cars than a Magnum like the Mazda6 or Subaru Legacy/Outback.

My Score: 2/10 - The only good value you get for your money is if you happen to need a gigantic station wagon.

Overall: 14/50 - If it weren't for the styling, this car would be a total miserable failure. It was discontinued for a reason, unlike what I've said about Ford and Hyundai...Chrysler hasn't learned.