2008-2011 Ford Focus SE and SES

I noticed that I've been doing a lot of crossovers, today I will post a car for a change. Unfortunately there are still quite a lot of crossovers still to do.


Introduction: As I stated in my old Ford Focus review, it had a bit of a bad start. When Ford brought it to North America dealing with 21 recalls in its first three years, most in its early two, gave a rather negative perception to the car. Alan Mulally the CEO of Ford, decided that in order to not only rid the company of excess waste but also to improve quality with more focused global vehicles. He was going to unite Ford of America, Ford of Europe and Ford of Australia by making sure that no matter where you went the Ford lineup is pretty much the same in each country. Ford of Europe doing very well would have the most surviving models, this left Ford of America to shed much of its excess like the Mercury brand. When it came to the North American Ford Focus, since Ford was redesigning the global vehicle for the 2012 model year, it appears they decided to not import the Mk II Focus design from Europe but rather redesign the current Mk I to keep it fresh without investing too much into it.

I wasn't sure about the changes, having driven cars on the C1 platform I knew it wouldn't be as good since its still on the aging C170.


Performance: Due to the way Ford has only intended this Focus to be a stopgap for the upcoming 2012 Focus this car doesn't get any interesting engines. It still makes do with the old 2.0L Duratec you get from the previous Ford Focus. Its not entirely the same it does gain 4 hp meaning in total 140 but with the same 136 lb.ft of torque. Still the old car wasn't very slow so the new car with its newer body accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 8.3 seconds. When it comes to noise, it can be a but buzzy but its more quiet than it used to be. Its pretty respectable even with an aging motor.

My Score: 8/10 - Very much the same engine as before, still reasonable.

Handling: Now I remembered the old Focus having a steering wheel that moved like an anvil, it never seemed like they had any power steeering. This car has changed this, while its still not the lightest wheel out there its a lot more manageable and therefore it was much easier to find out if it had any feel to it instead of getting tired and not really enjoying the drive. Taking this car around a corner it didn't seem to feel as good as I was hoping. Its competent so you shouldn't crash that easily but somehow it didn't excite me. It was a bit dull. In removing some of the crude feeling of the old system it didn't inject much life into it. The ride comfort is quite alright, its reasonable but not as cushy as you might get on softer riding cars. It also made no difference in the SES version, supposedly the sporty one which is a shame.

My Score: 7/10 - It cleans up the problems of the old system, but sadly its not very lively.


Interior: This is where I see the biggest improvement from the older car. I remembered how puny the seat levers were in the older car, this one has a proper lever. The cup holders are no longer ugly and come off with little effort. The door handles are much nicer. The stereo is better and the controls have much better touches than they used to. The seats depend on the trim level, on lower grades like the SE you get cloth and they're alright. The SES and SEL provide leather and its a bit nicer. The SYNC system is alright to use as well. While I haven't explored everything it could do, it handles most of what you need without too much complications. Nothing about the interior is luxurious but its functional and overall pretty simple. Trunk space is pretty good for its class and it was reasonable with interior space. There is something to note though, they left out the trunk release button in 2008 models, I thought I couldn't find it but when a 2009 model came out it was under the fuse box meaning they really did leave it out. Silly mistake by Ford to leave it out, at least it was rectified though. The build quality is alright, much better than before although I've found some of the plastic covers like to come out. The Focus is made in Wayne, Michigan in the United States.

My Score: 7/10 - While not luxurious it fixes the old interior's massive problems.

Styling: This is probably the most controversial thing about this Focus. I rather liked the previous Focus, this one attempts to marry the current tri-bar Ford grille with something a bit radical. In coupe form it looks terrible especially with the spoiler. In sedan form its a bit better but I don't think the tri-bar grille worked on this design. The rear I don't think worked out either it kept some of the triangles from the older design but left the trunk with a blank space full of badges. I don't find the car very appealing, this is the redesign's biggest problem.

My Score: 3/10 - Styling didn't work out too well.

Value for money: One of the things Ford left out this time unfortunately was a Focus wagon or hatch. This design thus won't appeal to the new growing hatchback segment and must wait until the 2012 model to see if they left that intact. This is also a very fiercely competitive segment meaning it has a lot of competition to deal with even if its not an entirely new design. That said, the satellite radio being equipped starts it off ahead of the older designs out there. The new SYNC system might also intrigue some people. The styling will keep others away. The handling while not bad, its much less exciting than a Mazda and considering the SES is the sport package but makes nearly no difference that might disappoint. Its not spectacular but against its Detroit rivals its significantly better. It could have been more convincing if it were based on the European Mk II Focus, but we'll have to wait for the 2012 Mk III for Ford's real Focus. In the end it could have been better, but for a vehicle coming from a Detroit automaker its not a bad buy.

My Score: 6/10 - Overall its not spectacular on many areas, but it doesn't exactly flounder either.

Overall: 31/50 - Its a decent car, but we'll have to wait for the 2012 to see what Ford's really capable of in this segment.

2009-2010 Ford Flex SEL & Limited AWD

I'm still trying my best to get 2 reviews a week. Today is yet another crossover review.


Introduction: The Ford Flex was introduced in 2009 as Ford's replacement for the Freestar minivan. Unlike most crossovers, the Flex is Ford's attempt to combine the minivan and the SUV. Much of the whole design came from the 2005 Ford Fairlane concept, the differences between concept and production vehicle are minor. Initially Ford anticipated 100,000 units of sales for the Flex, unfortunately Ford hasn't come close to meeting this. Still Ford wants the Flex to live on despite its modest sales now offering incentives.

This is the first of the new Fords I've come across. I was glad it wasn't a minivan but I wasn't so sure about it as a crossover. I thought it looked interesting so at the minimum it seemed creative.


Performance: The Ford Flex is given 2 engines the standard 3.5L V6 which this review will be focusing on. The other engine is the Ecoboost 3.5L twin turbo V6, the same engine available in the Taurus SHO. The standard Duratech V6 produces 262 hp and 248 lb.ft of torque. On acceleration the Flex is capable of getting from 0-100 km/h in about 8.5 seconds. Considering how big and heavy it is, this is reasonable performance. The engine is particularly quiet on highway drives and overall is pretty smooth. Fuel economy isn't great but what did you expect from a vehicle this big. Despite being the base engine its a good one.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonable performance, quiet and smooth.

Handling: There are small differences when you choose SEL and Limited, the SELs get 18 inch wheels while the Limited gets 19 inch wheels. Despite having rims this large, ride quality doesn't actually suffer. Due to its weight, its not able to take corners as quickly as cars can. If you push it, you'll feel the understeer very early. It does well for a vehicle that's heavier than 4500 lbs much to my surprise which might have to do with how short it is compared to SUVs of the same size. Steering is weighted well making it a pretty easy vehicle to drive. Its certainly nicer to drive than any minivan.

My Score: 7/10 - On the whole its pretty good at handling but its weight means it also suffers from major understeer in a corner.


Interior: One of the things you'll notice inside the Flex is how spacious it is. First things first, a lower range model will have the 6 seater arrangement, while a higher one will have a 7 seater arrangement. Both are fine, the 6 seater is just the easier one for getting people into the back as its layout is much like a minivan's with space in between the 2nd row unless you decide to have the 2nd center console added. With 7 seaters to enter the back you need to fold a seat, fortunately Ford thought of this and decided this should be done with a single push of a button. To put return the seats in position is very easy and straight forward, no muscle required. To fold the 3rd row its not electrically done like a Explorer but its still pretty easy by pulling the straps as indicated on the seats. The 3rd row is spacious enough for medium sized adults and since the Flex can still carry cargo they don't sit so close to the tailgate. The tailgate itself is rather heavy, but Ford again thought about this and made opening and closing easy with the use of a button. I didn't really find much difference between the cloth and leather seats, of course the leather is softer and smoother but neither is a bad choice. Driver control layout is much as what you would expect from a Ford, everything is pretty much where you'd expect it to be. Visibility isn't great I'm afraid, the D-pillars are particularly large but most Ford Flexs come with rear parking sensors which will help. Interior materials are of modest quality, none look or feel particularly awful. Build quality is very good, the Ford Flex is assembled in Oakville, Ontario, Canada. The most impressive thing about this interior is just how user-friendly it is, Ford hired someone who has made a crossover very easy to live with, everything annoying on most crossover interiors seems to have been addressed in the Flex.

My Score: 10/10 - I've never come across an interior that should be complicated to work out, made so easy with little effort to understand how everything is done. The overall interior is good, this just stands out as excellent interior design, because its so well thought out.

Styling: This appears to be the Flex's biggest problem when it comes to its sales. It does look a bit like its been shaped from a tetris block. Much of the exterior tries to emphasize how square it is. Some people think it looks particularly ugly, I'm not one of those. I think it looks alright, it just looks even better if you bought the rather expensive Titanium package where it looks a bit like a Range Rover. It may be polarizing, but I'd rather have a vehicle that tries too look different than your typical minivan.

My Score: 7/10 - Its a bit square but its more interesting than the shapeless blobs that many cars are.

Value for money: Sales for the Flex aren't as hot as Ford wanted so when it comes to value its going to start off well with employee pricing discounts. The Flex's target is primarily minivan drivers who don't want a boring vehicle to drive but still want much of the capacity and flexibility of a minivan. On this front the Flex does well, the interior is much easier to work out than any minivan I've encountered. The problem with most minivans, they require muscle to get their full use either by removing heavy seats or operating a rickety contraption that's in the floor. Unlike many crossovers it has room for full passenger capacity and some room for luggage like a minivan. The only places where the Flex does scare off people is the price and the styling.

My Score: 8/10 - A bit pricey if no discounts are available and it depends on how it looks to you, otherwise its the best alternative to a minivan.

Overall: 40/50 - A very good crossover, with a clever interior. If all crossovers were done like this, perhaps the minivan might be extinct.

2007-2010 Mitsubishi Outlander

I know updates have been lacking this whole year so I'm trying to make up for it. Today's car is the Mitsubishi Outlander.



Introduction: The Mitsubishi Outlander originated in 2001 as the Mitsubishi Airtrek. This vehicle was derived from Mitsubishi's ASX concept. The idea behind this was to make a crossover that had the off-road ability of the SUV but retain the standard car's emissions, size and fuel economy. The Airtrek name was eventually phased out in favour of Outlander which is the name most familiar with those outside of Japan. The Outlander was redesigned in 2005 being the first vehicle of the new GS platform which includes the Lancer and the rally racer Lancer Evolution. This second generation vehicle would only come to North America in 2007. The Outlander went for a redesign in 2010 taking the new Lancer and Lancer Evolution's front end.

This is the very first Mitsubishi that I got the chance to drive. I was sort of excited but I was also wasn't sure what to make out of it. Nobody I knew ever drove a Mitsubishi and I didn't hear the greatest praise for them either outside. Yet with Mitsubishi's history of excellent cars like the Lancer Evolutions, I wasn't expecting terrible things.


Performance: The North American Outlanders only are equipped with a 3.0L V6 MIVEC engine. This engine produces 220 hp and 204 lb.ft of torque for the earlier Outlanders. The 2010 updated engine is the very same engine but now producing 230 hp and 215 lb.ft of torque. Its acceleration from 0-100 km/h takes about 8.5 seconds on older Outlanders, the new one strangely is quite a bit faster in under 8 seconds. Having driven both I honestly didn't realize the newer ones were that much faster. In low speeds the engine has a slightly annoying whining sound, its a lot better when taken to highway speeds. Still it pulls rather well and is surprisingly quick despite not being turbocharged or having a high displacement making it a rather clever engine. Fuel economy for this crossover is rather average if you notice you need to fill up often, its not bad fuel economy but rather the Outlander has a rather small fuel tank(50-55L) for some strange reason.

My Score: 8/10 - A bit noisy at slow speeds but surprisingly quick

Handling: When you take the Outlander into a corner I was rather surprised at how much of a car it felt. You don't seem to feel the higher center of gravity as much as some of the taller small cars. Steering feel is actually very good, in the corners its rather crisp in its changes. This crossover isn't as happy in the corners as the Mazda CX-7 but feels very competent. Normally crossovers are nowhere near as good as their car counterparts, the Outlander despite its bulk doesn't feel that far from its Lancer roots. The ride comfort is a bit firm than most of the other crossovers but that's expected for performance like this.

My Score: 9/10 - A surprise, car-like feel in an area where most crossovers are not so good. Ride comfort suffers a slight bit.


Interior: Well, I haven't said as many nice things about the previous Mitsubishi interiors and this one isn't any different. Once again the materials appear to be the worst offender here. The plastic just don't have that quality feel you get on say a newer Hyundai. Its not the most inviting interior either as its full of dark plastic and black carpets. The stereo is alright but the knobs are very small which may be a problem for those with larger fingers. On the bright side, it actually feels a lot bigger inside than the vehicle seems on the outside. I don't know if Mitsubishi focused on space efficiency but it felt cavernous inside. It has a split folding tailgate which I think is very good. Higher trim levels feature the 7-seater arrangement, for small children I don't think they're too bad but a large adult won't like them. Having the second row fold is actually quite easy, holding the lever is all that has to be done. Higher trim levels also have key-less start which is neat at first but I find a bit gimmicky. I think this is the best interior Mitsubishi has designed mainly due to the engineering. The build quality is very good, its built in Okazaki, Aichi, Japan.

My Score: 7/10 - Very clever designed interior, feels spacious, built rather well but has cheap material and isn't very pleasant inside.

Styling: There are two styles the original and the refreshed style. I personally prefer the original as that style fit with the entire car without looking like everything else. I didn't find the Lancer Evolution X's front end fit with the car very well but some people like it. The rear remained the same regardless of which version and is a bit more original. Its the side profile where I find the newer front a bit awkward as it has a slight overbite while the older doesn't and flows smoothly. I can see some of the appeal of the newer front but I think it looks better on a car.

My Score: 7/10 - Nice styling particularly the older design which flows very nicely, newer is more aggressive if that's your thing.

Value for money: This is one of the better crossovers I've ever driven. The clever interior, the rather good driving dynamics and overall good styling. I found the Outlander drives a lot better than many of the alternatives. If you get the 7-seater arrangement its not as great at carrying passengers as a minivan and its a bit more expensive. For that extra expense however you are given the 4WD and a easier and nicer vehicle to drive so its a bit of a trade off. If you occasionally need the 7 seats, the Outlander is a better choice than the minivan. Another nice bonus, it has Mitsubishi's industry leading warranty. I can't think of a great reason for buying any other crossover unless you want a nicer interior.

My Score: 8/10 - If you need this sort of vehicle its one of the best, with a great warranty and presents great driving dynamics. It only falls short if you constantly need a 7-seater or want a nicer interior.

Overall: 39/50 - Some minor flaws cannot deny that this crossover is a very good vehicle.

2007-2009 Kia Rondo

Second review of the day...another Kia.


Introduction: The Kia Rondo is what's considered a small MPV(multi-purpose vehicle). Essentially its a small minivan. The vehicle is called the Carens in South Korea, the original car was made in 1999. The Rondo is the 2nd generation of this car and was released for the 2007 model year. It initially sold well, but it was later discontinued for the US market in 2010 with Kia hoping Rondo buyers would instead go for the newly designed 2011 Sportage.

Like most Kias it doesn't have a big history, my opinion of Kia wasn't very good when I began to drive them.


Performance: The Kia Rondo comes with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine found in the Sonata and the Magentis, it also has the 2.7L V6 also found in the Magentis. For this review I'll only look at the 4-cylinder. Like the Magentis this engine produces 162 hp for earlier cars, 175 hp for later ones and 164 lbs.ft of torque for earlier cars and 168 lb.ft for later cars. Unlike the Magentis, due to the taller shape and its overall bigger heavier body with this engine the Rondo is not very quick. Its acceleration time from 0-100 km/h is about 9.5 seconds. Its only marginally quicker with the V6. Considering the Rondo can be fully loaded with 7 passengers, I'd highly recommend the V6 mainly since its already slow without passengers and with significant weight added with a fully loaded car its ridiculous. Like the other cars that use this engine it can be a bit noisy with a annoying drone. Another downside to the 4-cylinder is if the Rondo gets stuck in snow its unable to rescue itself on its own power.

My Score: 3/10 - Underpowered considering its application, noisy and not all that refined.

Handling: With its intention being a MPV, driving dynamics also suffer. Its high center of gravity along with its soft suspension make it not a very good choice for cornering. Fortunately it does ride reasonably well. The lack of agility however makes it just as poor as a regular minivan. I just don't really see the point if it loses the car agility. The light wheel makes it easy to turn the wheel but it lacks feel. This car just doesn't like changing directions quickly.

My Score: 4/10 - Rides alright, unfortunately its handling is as bad as a bigger minivan


Interior: The Rondo is one of the nicer Kia interiors from this time. Not a great interior but at least one that doesn't look extremely dull and grey. Once again the interior is full of plastic but you can tell a few of the touches are at least better than a standard Kia of this time. The best thing about the Rondo is it has the optional 7-seater configuration. Getting to the 3rd row of seats is done by moving the 2nd row forward and then folding it. There is enough room for children in the 3rd row and if the 2nd row passengers aren't very tall there can be reasonable amount room for both 2nd and 3rd row passengers. I like how its not difficult or confusing to use and its operation is solid. As for problems, the D-pillar is rather thick so seeing out of it isn't that great from inside. When using the 3rd row, tailgate space is sacrificed meaning you can't carry many extra things. The build quality in these vehicles appear to be pretty good, these vehicles come from Hwasung, South Korea.

My Score: 6/10 - Build well, a mostly usable 3rd row, built with average materials

Styling: Kia didn't really try to make the Rondo look different. Its a rather generic MPV or crossover, its the same shape as everyone else and the front is pretty generic. I just don't see the effort. Its not ugly, but its totally forgettable.

My Score: 2/10 - Looks like any generic MPV, no real effort put into it.

Value for money: The idea of the Rondo is to save you money from buying a minivan. Unfortunately I just don't see the point in having a Rondo over say a Sedona. Its just too slow and weak, also when using the 7 seat configuration it loses a lot of trunk space. Its more difficult to park the Rondo due to its size than the Mazda5 which I think is even more clever and more agile than the Rondo. The Rondo is quite cheap even with the 7 seats but a minivan is not that much more but is more comfortable for 7 passengers. If you rarely carry 7, just get a normal sedan and rent a minivan when you need that capacity.

My Score: 4/10 - Yes its cheap and its not all that terrible, but the vehicle is sort of pointless. I just don't see the value in buying it.

Overall: 19/50 - Kia did some things right, but sadly its a rather pointless car. Its not as good as a minivan for capacity and driving position, yet its not as efficient or as good to drive as a regular car. It doesn't have the prestige of a SUV either(I admit I don't get it myself). If you somehow want a car that's not very good at anything that sits right in the middle between car and minivan I guess you could then want one.

2007-2009 Kia Magentis

My first car review since August. For the first of the cars will be a Kia Magentis.



Introduction: The Kia Magentis was first introduced in 2000 as a replacement for the Mazda based Credos. The Kia Magentis is mostly a re-badge of the Hyundai Sonata with minor differences. Since 2009 Kia has decided to take a slightly different route by altering Kia's styling and interior styling from its Hyundai parent.

Yes, the Kia Magentis does not have a very interesting nor long enough history. Its no surprise that when I first encountered it I didn't have much interest in it.



Performance: The standard early Kia Magentis are equipped with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that develops 162 hp and 164 lb.ft of torque. In 2009 the Kia Magentis got an update in its 4-cylinder where the engine now produces 175 hp and 169 lb.ft of torque. The early Magentis was capable of acceleration from 0-100 km/h in a bit over 9 seconds while the newer 2009-2010 Magentis was able to accelerate from 0-100 in a bit under 9 seconds. The older Magentis engine was not very exciting nor felt very refined, the noisy drone was present. The newer Magentis engine felt a bit more refined although it overall didn't change perception of the car very much.

My Score(both): 5/10 - A mediocre engine, not very exciting in both versions.

Handling: Starting with the older Magentis, unfortunately the car handled a lot like how the engine felt...boring. The steering on the old Magentis feels particularly numb and feels disconnected. It doesn't inspire any confidence in the corners, you might even back off because of how very little information the wheel gives you. Ride comfort was surprisingly disappointing given how the car isn't able to carve out corners. Its a bit choppy when driving over rougher roads. When given the wheel of the new Magentis, things are a little big different. The wheel no longer has the same numb feeling and disconnected feel the older car had. The wheel is still as light as the old one but the turning feels more sharper and thus you're more confident to take the car into the corner. The ride comfort is also nicer than the older car surprisingly despite its improvement in performance. The newer Magentis feels much nicer to drive over the old one but it doesn't feel as sporty as other midsized sedans nor is the most comfortable.

My Score(2007-2008): 3/10 - Numb, inert, feels disconnected, not that comfortable thus makes driving very boring

My Score(2009): 7/10 - Decent steering feel, better cornering, better ride comfort but still a bit lacking though.



Interior: Once again starting with the old Magentis. The interior is unfortunately very boring and not a particularly nice place to be. Its a sea full of dull grey and black plastics, none of which looks very nice and none of which looks like material of quality. The seats don't feel all that comfortable. The stereo like all older Kia and Hyundai vehicles is awful to use and listen to. Fortunately interior space is decent so is trunk space. With the newer Magentis a few changes have been made. Most of the dull grey plastic was removed. The stereo was also replaced with a newer unit with red display to fit with the newer white and red dash gauges. The plastic quality has also been stepped up a notch. The seat is still a bit firm but not as stiff as the older seat. I didn't find the Magentis interior to be as good as the Sonata's interior redesign, a sense Hyundai gave Kia little money. Still, its a bigger improvement over the older boring one. The build quality in both cars are pretty good, both cars are built in Hwasung, South Korea.

My Score(2007-2008): 3/10 - Depressing, low quality plastics, a rubbish stereo, not very comfortable seats and overall very boring but its at least reasonably spacious.

My Score(2009): 6/10 - Decent level of plastic, a nicer environment, better stereo but compared to other vehicles just a average interior.

Styling: With the old Magentis, much like everything else I've said about it this car looks so dull. This particular styling is so anonymous that I'm sure people can point out each part that looks similar to some other cars. It appears Kia spent no money to style this car probably due to the problems from the old Magentis which was styled but not very well. The newer one again changes things up. The headlights are much more aggressive and sharper than the dull round ones from the older car. The grille is now Kia's signature grille and it actually goes quite well with the newer front styling. The rear is a little bit more conventional and looks a lot like a Honda Accord, while it goes well with the front considering how different it looks there...I was hoping Kia would also do the same to the rear. Still, its good that Kia wants to change its image.

My Score(2007-2008): 1/10 - So boring, you can tell nobody bothered to style it.

My Score(2009): 7/10 - Front end looks nice and different, rear is still on the boring side.

Value for money: The Kia lineup in general has never been bad value for your money. Whatever Kia is often always the cheapest in its class and if that's all that matters to you then they're usually worth it. The older Magentis is so anonymous that as a used car its a bit of a bargain often lower than 13K for one that has a bit above 60,000 kms. The newer one because its better doesn't suffer the same bargain. The problem the newer car has to deal with is its sibling the Sonata. The 2009 Sonata is just as inexpensive but overall a much better car and a nicer car to be in. Unless Kia offers a nice deal on a Optima, it'll be overshadowed unless one likes its looks over the generic looking Sonata.

My Score(2007-2008): 8/10 - Very cheap to buy, even cheaper to buy used.

My Score(2009): 6/10 - Its Hyundai sibling the Sonata is nearly as cheap but overall better in every way, its best hope is on its looks.

Overall(2007-2008): 20/50 - A below average car, its just too bland and boring.

Overall(2009): 32/50 - Much better than the older one, sadly it suffers from not being as good as the 2009 Sonata.