2007-2008 Mazda 3 GS

After quite a few Chryslers which are all bad, I think it calls for a change of mood.


Introduction: The Mazda 3 was introduced in 2004 as the Mazda Protege's replacement. The Protege was still called the 323 in a few markets and proved to be a reasonably successful car but not something that scared the leaders of the segment. Using Ford of Europe's C1 platform for the successful Euro Ford Focus, Mazda decided to use this platform for the Mazda 3. By this point Mazda dropped the original numbering scheme 323 and 626 in favour of just the 3 and the 6 while the 929 would not return with a successor. Since its introduction the Mazda 3 has become one of Mazda's all time best selling vehicles in certain markets belonged to the top 10 selling vehicles. As a global vehicle the Mazda 3 found in one location was stylistically the exact same in another car market. The Mazda 3 offered a sedan and hatchback body types, one could also buy a Mazdaspeed 3 which had a 4-cylinder turbo engine making it one of the quickest FWD hatchbacks sold in most markets. Mazda would replace the current 3 in 2010 with a new redesign, due to the old 3's success Mazda rather than totally change the vehicle decided to fine tune what they believed made the 3 so successful.

The Mazda 3 was one of the later vehicles I got to drive, I was very curious about how this one would drive. I have driven the Protege and while I liked it, the Protege suffered from not having the performance I thought would make it great. I really wanted to see whether the Mazda 3 was different for better or for worse.


Performance: The Mazda 3 we have in fleet only have the 2.0L which produces 148 hp and 135 lb.ft of torque. Much to my surprise this engine actually was more than adequate to move the Mazda 3 despite its slightly lower torque rating. Its actually less noisier than the Mazda 6's 4-cylinder engine making it a good engine even for highway usage. Acceleration numbers for the Mazda 3's bigger 2.3L engine is an impressive 7.4 seconds for the 2.0L I drive the estimate is somewhere between 8.5-9 seconds to reach 100 km/h from 0. Not bad. If I had to pick out a flaw, its not as fuel efficient as a Civic or Corolla.

My Score: 8/10 - Despite being the base engine its reasonably smooth, decent power and is a non-issue for a regular motorist.

Handling: I mentioned the C1 platform's capabilities in the Focus review. The Mazda 3 was the car that showed me how great this platform is and confused me why the 2008+ Ford Focus didn't use it. The Mazda's ability to take corners is one of the best among the compacts and subcompact cars. I've never had an issue with ride comfort either making it better than a Honda. Lastly steering feel...incredible, I instantly fell in love with how the car felt when making even a simple turn. The Celica GT I reviewed a while back is the best handling FWD I've driven, the Mazda 3 felt it had about 95% of the Celica's cornering ability. I actually think the steering feel in the 3 is better than the Celica's, the Celica had a tougher wheel which I do like but the 3 has a lighter one that still gave the same great feeling. Fantastic.

My Score: 10/10 - Want a very fun, conventional car? The Mazda 3 is so far ahead of the competition here.


Interior: Like I mentioned in the Mazda 6 review, Mazda seems to enjoy having black sporty interiors. I guess its to go with the image of their cars being more sporty than others. The Mazda 3 doesn't try to hide the fact most of the interior is plastic, fortunately its decent plastic. Interior room is also pretty decent although the rear isn't as spacious as other vehicles and the trunk is a bit small. The problem with the Mazda 3's interior...its very difficult to clean. The carpets are the biggest obstacle making it frustrating if you want the interior clean when the vacuum is not cleaning the way it should. The Mazda 3 is built in Japan, I've not seen a build quality flaw in the Mazda 3 and thus I considered them well built.

My Score: 7/10 - Mostly plastic, few colour choices and difficult to clean but functional and styled alright, built very well.

Styling: The Mazda 3 does have a bit of a generic look to it but like I would say for a Subaru Legacy not in a bad way. Its a regular car but it just looks its part, its not very boring and its different than your typical Toyota or Honda. The headlights show a tad bit of aggression while the tail lights flow with the round body very well. I just can't complain, while not the most beautiful car certainly a pretty good looking one.

My Score: 8/10 - Good looks, it just doesn't go far enough to reach absolute beauty

Value for money: Having a sedan and hatchback option really do put the Mazda in a good position. For a car this well built and this good to drive and its also not expensive to run...its hard to argue against its value. A Mazda badge also helps since Mazda is still trying to make a name for itself and doesn't overcharge like Toyota or Honda do. If the regular 3 is not sporty enough, Mazda offers the Mazdaspeed 3 which is much better than anything Honda or Toyota offer. A reasonably priced family car that's rewarding to drive and due to popularity won't depreciate quickly...its one of the best deals out there.

My Score: 10/10 - Worthy every single penny regardless of what options you choose, its the new industry standard

Overall: 43/50 - One of the best family vehicles I've ever come across.

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.

2009 Toyota Corolla update

Well I mentioned about how dangerous driving the Corolla was in the winter. Guess what I've been proven entirely correct by Toyota USA and that it wasn't just the vehicles I was driving. Read the handling section to see what I wrote about the Corolla's scary winter handling. This is why I rave on about how the car feels, without it means you lost that connection between the car and the road. You'll have less information as a driver about what's going on with your car and what your next actions should be. I'm still disappointed that Toyota has even got to this point.

The sad thing is, Toyota in 2008 was a company flush with cash and they make such a weak product. I know Chrysler makes some horrible cars but they're bleeding cash on a daily basis unlike Toyota who back then was raking in the dough. It seems being the #1 automaker does bad things to the company that reaches it, GM will never be the same again and I doubt will return to that position again. Toyota the current leader on the sales board has lost the quality that was instrumental from making it a small car company into a auto giant.

2008-2009 Jeep Patriot

Here's another Jeep...this one isn't that much different from the Compass.


Introduction: The Jeep Patriot is another cross-over built by Chrysler like the Compass used the same Caliber platform. Introduced in 2007 at the same time as the Caliber and its sibling the Compass. Unlike the Compass the Patriot does have the Trail rated badge meaning its supposed to satisfy Chrysler's testing criteria for off-roading.

Yeah the Jeep Patriot isn't really much different from the Compass other than supposedly being able to go off-road and if it fails...that's Chrysler's problem.


Performance: The Patriot uses the exact same engine and exact same transmission as the Compass. The same 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that produces 173 hp and 165 lb.ft of torque. Its still gutless and unpleasant. The Patriot's 0-100 km/h time is about 9.5 seconds marginally slower than the Compass.

My Score: 2/10 - Engine is slow, noisy and not very fuel efficient.

Handling: The Patriot drives so similar to the Compass despite its supposed ability to go off-road. It still handles pretty badly and the steering is just as numb. However as a vehicle that can go off-road the suspension is more understandably not all that comfortable.

My Score: 3/10 - Same pathetic handling ability, the good news...the suspension is justifiably harder for off-roading.


Interior: The 2009s were given an interior update...you know the interior of the previous 2007 models were very bad when Chrysler had to update them so soon. That said its still a horrible interior. Much of the disgusting plastic that's in every Chrysler is still present. It really didn't improve all that much frankly. Unlike Hyundai, Chrysler even when they know their mistake can't seem to correct it...probably because they spent all the money on the 2009 Ram.

My Score: 2/10 - Its still terrible, they clearly didn't try hard enough.

Styling: The Patriot is a little bit better than the Compass with styling but they ruin it with the cheap looking plastic bits on the bumpers. While it does look more like an SUV compared to the Compass which is a blob with a Jeep grille, its still not pretty and doesn't look like its an off-roader. Once again it takes the Wrangler's styling in an attempt to pretend its something its not.

My Score: 3/10 - Better than the Compass thanks to it looking like an SUV, not very creative though.

Value for Money: Well the Patriot...is cheaper than the Compass. It makes no sense, I couldn't believe the Compass goes for more than the Patriot when the Patriot does a little bit more and had an ounce more effort put into it. Its the least expensive 4WD vehicle out there which does count for something when its supposed to have some off-roading capabilities so its not a complete waste like the Compass.

My Score: 4/10 - It does more than a Compass, and its the cheapest 4WD SUV designed to go off-road.

Overall: 14/50 - Its still a horrible SUV but unlike the Compass its not a total crock it at least does a slight bit more for frankly less money. The name however is pretty stupid, you'd probably be a better American patriot if you bought a good American product.

2007-2008 Jeep Compass

I technically haven't driven a Jeep Compass in a year but its so similar to a certain car that I technically have always driven the thing.


Introduction: The Jeep Compass was introduced in 2007 as one of Jeep's most affordable models. Its based off the Dodge Caliber introduced in the same year. This is the very first Jeep to not have the "Trail rated" badge indicating its not designed to go off-road as every other Jeep had before.

Yeah my intro for this car is pretty pathetic...but that's as much as I can say about a re-badged Caliber. This is I believe the 2nd car I've driven from work. Judging from how little I have to say in the introduction...you know what to expect.


Performance: The Jeep Compass comes with a 2.4L 4-cylinder engine that produces 173 hp and 165 lb.ft of torque. The same engine used in the base Sebring and Avenger. In a heavy vehicle like this you know what my grade is going to be. The only difference is the Compass uses a CVT. Its 0-100 km/h time is 9.2 seconds, far from impressive.

My Score: 2/10 - Engine is slow, noisy and not very fuel efficient.

Handling: The Compass uses Caliber suspension and as a result its not very good. The handling is pretty poor with lots of roll thanks to the bigger body. The steering is as usual numb with little feel or feedback. Its a bad combination to have a big heavy vehicle with poor handling and numb steering. Its not even comfortable riding over bumps which makes it all the more worse.

My Score: 2/10 - Poor cornering ability, numb steering and not comfortable.


Interior: The interior is virtually identical to the Caliber. Very very cheap materials, an unattractive dashboard, not built very well and worst of all not all that much roomier than a Caliber despite a bigger body. As a crossover SUV its a very poor job.

My Score: 1/10 - No more room than the awful car it was based off of.

Styling: This is where the Compass is different from the Caliber but just by looking at the Compass you know they didn't even bother. A round plasticky looking Wrangler is really what the styling says and unfortunately its a lesser vehicle than the Wrangler.

My Score: 2/10 - It shows its cheap looking while attempting to look like something it clearly isn't.

Value for the Money: The Compass is an awful value for the money especially when you compare it to the other Dodges and its Jeep sibling the Patriot. For the extra thousand you spend on a Compass all you get is a slightly bigger engine which isn't all that great. This is a big crock and ruins the Jeep name, Jeep enthusiasts must be furious about this awful re-badge.

My Score: 0/10 - A re-badge that costs more for no extra value, a pointless vehicle

Overall: 7/50 - What was Chrysler thinking, surely people weren't dumb enough to buy this were they?