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.

Hypermiling, can it be done?

This will be my first entry that isn't based on a specific car, but rather reviewing a type of driving. These days hypermiling seems to be one of the things that's in to save your fuel costs with the car you already have. There are variations of this technique, a few of them can be useful for your regular driving providing you with savings benefits by just altering your driving behaviour. The reason why fuel economy ratings have to say they can vary is primarily due to the way people drive, if you drive with a lead foot you'll never reach those numbers you might get a significantly worse fuel mileage than less efficient vehicles not being driven so hard.

I did probably my best hypermiling run on a 2010 Chevrolet Impala LT, its the base model but it comes with a 3.5L V6. Its also a rather large car which isn't ideal for a hypermiling run. The good news however was I was running it on essentially an empty tank on reserve fuel(needle under E) and had to drive this car another 10 miles or 16 kms. The reason why the nearly empty tank was a good thing was, due to the lower weight. Filling up your car to full will make the car heavier and forces it to consume more fuel just to push this weight around. Now the most efficient way of actually hypermiling is to actually select neutral, get out of the car, push the car so that it starts rolling, while rolling start the car. The reason for this is it requires more energy, thus more fuel to move an stationary object basically inertia. However practically this can be dangerous, should your car not start, you essentially have a car moving with no power. A powerless car means, no power brakes and no power steering which is terrible news if your about to hit an object. As a precaution and for everybody's safety...don't do this.

I take a less extreme way of hypermiling. Another instance where I don't follow the extreme rule of hypermiling is not stopping. If you encounter a stop sign, you legally must stop but assume you don't look at the law, to get the most out of each drop of gas stopping is bad. I urge anybody every trying hypermiling to follow the stop sign rules. Now one of the worst ways you waste fuel is acceleration, to hypermile you must actually accelerate rather slowly. The most important gauge to you will have to be tachometer, the best you can keep the tachometer reading below 2000 rpm, the less harder your engine works and the more fuel you save. Reading the speedometer won't help, you just won't be accelerating quickly enough to net a speeding ticket, you are trying to save fuel after all. If you accelerate this way, I guarantee you'll be passed very quickly I even got passed by a bus. Please keep to the curb lane(the right lane on any country where the steering wheel is on the left, vice-versa for the other countries), this way you're respecting other motorists by staying in the appropriate lane. By the time you need to make lane changes you'll be traveling at speed limit making the change easy.

When you approach an intersection with a red light, lightly brake early and try your absolute best to at least be moving before you must stop. By doing so you not only save fuel by not dealing with less interial mass, and you also don't have to work the car as hard to return to the speed you need to travel at. When traveling downhill, let go of the accelerator pedal as your car will stop sending fuel yet you'll still travel at speed(possibly faster depending on the hill) thanks to gravity. When going up the hill you may want to increase speed early as you have to fight gravity and also if your driving a manual prevent stalling, keeping watch of your tachometer is most necessary. Ideal efficient speeds may vary, 60-70 km/h(35-40 mph) is typically the ideal speed to travel at. For most people highway mileage is better, although 100 km/h(60 mph) isn't when the engine runs at its most efficient level. The good news about highway driving is under normal circumstances you shouldn't have to stop. Keeping to the outer lane while maintaining speed limit is your best bet of achieving very good fuel economy numbers.

Having done this, there are only a few things that affected my run. There was an occasional person who cuts you off, this is bad as your forced to brake harder and it'll take longer to retain speed. If you can read the traffic, you may be able to avoid these drivers by anticipating them either by cutting off their path or brake early preventing harsh braking if you're unable to. Traffic is the worst thing to encounter on a hypermiling journey, if you know a way around the traffic that doesn't increase the distance of your driving by a lot then take the longer route. Sometimes you can be unlucky where traffic lights are against you, like they were in my case constantly stopping and taking a long time to regain speed. In my case my car wasn't in great shape, thus it overheated for an unknown reason forcing me to pull over. Despite these problems I still managed according to the car's computer got 5L/100 km this translates to roughly 47 mpg US or 56 mpg imperial. This was mostly city driving, with a stretch of highway driving. This is definitely double the fuel consumption of what the Chevrolet Impala is rated to do.

Would I change my habit of driving having achieved a pretty good number for a first timer? I'd only change a few things. The reason being, I found accelerating very slowly to be rather stressful. I found that constantly worrying about the tachometer, worrying about stopping and worrying about how traffic felt about my driving to be distracting as well. If someone behind you isn't too happy about your slow acceleration they'll definitely cut you off, adding danger to himself and yourself. Here's what I would change in my driving that doesn't affect safety or stress.

1) When approaching a red light, ease off the accelerator and brake gently. If you still approach the intersection and its still red, that's fine you at least reduced brake wear if nothing else. If it goes green, you deal with less inertia and its actually faster in the long run. It makes you think that driving quickly to the light is idiotic, bad for brakes, bad for your fuel consumption and its hard on the engine lowering your car's lifespan and you'll be passed that instance since a car driving at some speed can reach higher speeds easier than doing it from a stop.

2) Keeping an eye on your tachometer once in a while will help judge whether you drive too hard or not. I find anything below 3000 rpm to be the best balance between adequate speed and isn't that much worse for your consumption. If your driving on the highway this can help you increase your car's range from filler station to the next.

3) Good route planning can eliminate the fuel killing traffic stops. The best route gets you to your destination quicker and will be more fuel efficient. The less lights to stop at, the less 0 mpg moments you'll have in your drive.

4) Toss out anything you don't need in your car. If there's a big heavy box in your trunk that isn't useful to bring along then don't bring it. All you really need is emergency equipment should you need to pull over because there's a problem with the car or in the event of an accident. Not treating the car like a garbage bin would also help as litter isn't useful in any way.

Something that isn't mentioned as often as a good way to hypermile, maintain your vehicle to as good condition as possible. A healthy car can produce better fuel economy numbers than a poorly maintained car. Cleaning the air filter is one area where a poorly maintained vehicle will consume more fuel for instance. Fighting off rust will eliminate the possibility of your fuel lines or the fuel tank from corroding which produces leaks. Timely oil changes will allow the engine to work more smoothly, failing oil changes results in the engine working harder and heating up as the oil is a lubricant. Making sure your O2 sensor is working can mean the difference in good fuel economy and bad fuel economy. If you're noticing worse fuel economy, you may need to change your spark plugs as they're supposed to ignite the fuel in your engine. Keeping your tires at the correct tire pressure is useful, most newer cars have them listed on one of the labels on the driver's door, this piece of maintainence is good for the tire life and your fuel consumption and shouldn't cost a penny. Doing all these things not only help your fuel efficiency, but extend the life of your vehicle.

Hopefully some of these tips have been helpful. I speficially chose the items I felt you didn't need to truly alter your driving style. Yes it would be nice to double your fuel economy every single run, but I'd rather spend a little bit more fuel knowing my driving in the long run is less stressful and crucially safer. Any gain in fuel economy is beneficial to pretty much everybody except the oil company, if they're going to get your money anyways why not try your best to give as little as you can.

2009-2010 Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe

In this review I'll be taking on a car that carries two very different badges but in essence are exactly the same.



Introduction: The Toyota Matrix was born as a result of Toyota wanting to return to the hatchback market in North America since the Corolla wagon was discontinued in the mid 90s. The Pontiac Vibe was the result of the partnership between GM and Toyota at the NUMMI plant. Both models are based off the current 10th generation Toyota Corolla platform. Both were introduced in 2003 and the two were made in different factories. Aside from the body styling the two vehicles were essentially identical. Today the Matrix continues to be sold in North America while the Vibe was discontinued after General Motors announced Pontiac would be defunct.

I wasn't expecting a whole lot of difference between the Vibe/Matrix over its Corolla base. I just more surprised GM didn't actually try to make the Vibe seem different.



Performance: Due to most of the development work being done by Toyota, the engine is the same 1.8L engine found in the 10th gen Corolla. One could have a more expensive Matrix/Vibe to get the 2.4L engine found in the Camry but for this review I'll only be looking at the 1.8L. The engine produces the same 132 hp and 128 lb.ft of torque. The acceleration time takes roughly 10.2 seconds to reach 0-100 km/h, not very good as its slower than the Corolla but it could be worse. Given AWD these cars would be even slower as the added weight will further decrease performance. The only nice thing about this engine is its refined and its pretty good on the fuel economy level.

My Score: 6/10 - Slower than the Corolla, overall not all that exciting and not very different from older Matrix and Vibes.

Handling: It would be wishful thinking if Toyota would do something different with the Vibe or Matrix when it comes to handling but neither differ from the Corolla in any way. You still get the extremely light steering wheel. You still get the total lack of feel and have very little confidence in the corners. Due to how uninvolved the driver will feel, to drive these cars is probably more effective than sleeping pills at putting you to sleep. Despite being a bit heavier than the Corolla, its still a dog when it comes to winter driving. Remaining in a straight line is still a task in this car when it shouldn't be, you should be notified by the wheel when you're not exactly straight. I absolutely hated this system in the Corolla, its no different with these cars.

My Score: 0/10 - Same problem as the Corolla, no score changes to report.



Interior: The Matrix/Vibe don't really differ a lot with interior with the Corolla as much I wished either. What the heck was wrong with Toyota in making a proper looking interior not full of cheap plastic? I normally blast Mitsubishi with interiors, but even they have provided with a carpet tailgate area over the nasty plastic tailgate found in the Matrix/Vibe. To make things worse is the center console, it looks nasty before you even touch it where you feel that it wasn't even made of good material. Lots of low quality materials are to be found which is absolutely disappointing in a vehicle that isn't the cheapest. Visibility is not very good with the small rear windscreen and bigger C-pillars. Build quality however seems to be good where it really didn't matter which factory it came from. If you got the Vibe it comes from the now closed NUMMI plant at Fremont, California in the United States. The Matrix comes from Toyota's factory in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 2/10 - Once again terrible materials, terrible center console, worse visibility than before all in despite if pretty good build quality.

Styling: The Matrix was styled a lot more differently than the predecessor. While the Vibe was more conservatively styled over its predecessor. A very different picture from the first generation of both cars where the Toyota was the conservative one while the Vibe was rather different. I can see Toyota tried to make the Matrix a bit different, although the very car that comes into mind that it resembles is the early Honda Insight. The Vibe because it barely changed from last time doesn't really look that different when put beside a bunch of Pontiacs.

My Score: 6/10 - A bit more effort went into the styling, neither however look at that fantastic.

Value for money: Competition is getting fierce in the hatchback market, as these two are newer cars they have to compete against the likes of the Mazda3 hatch, the VW Golf, the Dodge Caliber, the Hyundai Elantra Touring, and the Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback. There is something to like in all those cars over the Matrix/Vibe apart from the terrible Caliber. The Matrix does not position itself well as it doesn't offer very much other than badge, Mazda takes driving dynamics, the Golf especially in GTI form is considered the best hot hatch, Mitsubishi has the best warranty, and the Elantra Touring is a great value for money. Between the two badges, the Pontiac badge has the better warranty and that would be the best one to buy between the two. The giant recall of early 2010 has hurt the resale value for both, add injury to insult as Pontiac is a defunct brand and GM has to deal with bailout backlash.

My Score: 2/10 - Too much competition and doesn't stand out strongly in any area.

Overall: 16/50 - A poor effort by Toyota, I really didn't even take into account the recall that has tarnished the company's reputation. As one who's driven the cars before the recall the quality issues were present and the cost cutting for me was difficult to stomach.

This said I've never experienced sudden acceleration in these cars and in worst case scenario I would have put the vehicle in neutral to prevent the car from continuing to accelerate. Proper education on something as expensive and something that can be lethal like driving a car would have saved some lives. Possibly this could advocate the return of a manual transmission, as a driver of a manual car has to understand the importance of neutral gear to even operate their vehicles. Also in vehicles with manuals should a rare case of sudden acceleration just depressing the clutch effectively disconnects the engine from the transmission meaning it wont' transmit any power to the drive wheels thus ending acceleration.

2009 Honda Fit

I'm trying to make up for the lack of a single review last month. This time a Honda.


Introduction: The Honda Fit has been around in the North American market since 2006. The first generation despite being outdated when it was first introduced ended up being one of the most popular subcompact cars. Doing well against its competition the Nissan Versa, the Toyota Yaris, the Hyundai Accent, and Kia Rio. In 2009 a brand new version was introduced, being larger than the outgoing model. Honda hopes to continue its success with this new Fit that the old one managed to accomplish.

I was eager to try this car out as I quite liked the older Fit. The older one was easily my favourite among the subcompact cars so I was holding this car up to that standard.


Performance: The Fit gets a newer 1.5L engine that comes with i-VTEC which boosts its power now to 117 hp and 106 lb.ft of torque. Since the car gained a bit of weight due to its increased size this power increase does not translate into a quicker car. It takes about 10.7 seconds to accelerate from 0-100 km/h which is about a second slower than the older car. Fuel economy is still very good and due to how few changes were made to the engine overall over the old one not all that different.

My Score: 7/10 - Has the same good points as the old engine...unfortunately its a bit slower this time.

Handling: I absolutely enjoyed how sharp the old Fit handled in corners despite its so so ride comfort. In this car, I believe the weight has changed the way this car handles. The steering feel is somehow not as capable of producing feel like the old one. Both are electric power steering systems, but somehow this new Fit doesn't seemed tuned to the level of sharpness the old one had. Taking this into corners, because of the larger size I started to feel the high center of gravity and the added bulk. It corners somewhat flat, but definitely not to the standards of the older one. This one had the same feeling of driving a minivan I'm afraid. This car does ride a bit better than the older car, but I feel in this case it doesn't justify losing what I felt made the Fit a good car.

My Score: 6/10 - Disappointing, the Fit lost its nimbleness in favour of becoming a tiny van.


Interior: I had no qualms about the older car's interior despite being mostly plastic. All cars in this segment will have mostly plastic interiors. In the case of the new Fit, unfortunately its a bit easy to see that Honda cut items. The carpet for instance is very thin, the door pouches are made of thin plastic and the wheel is much like the cheap Civic wheel where if you don't buy the options you get very thin plastic with enough holes to be a cheese grater. Honda advertises this car has 8 cup holders...but I don't care, plus how many drinks do you need for a car that carries only 5 passengers? A few of them were cheaply thrown in making them unpleasant. Honda placed the climate controls in a fashion closer to the steering wheel...but filled the center of the console with a ugly stereo. As it is with Honda, this stereo doesn't redeem itself being a low quality sounding system. The good news is due to the Fit's larger size, head room isn't much of an issue for a smaller car and the seats fold flat better allowing a decent amount of cargo room. Fortunately it doesn't have any build quality issues, the Honda Fit is built in Suzuka, Mie, Japan.

My Score: 6/10 - Lots of room considering its size, but it shows a lot more cheapness than before and has a ugly stereo.

Styling: I always thought the old Fit was a rather conservative looking car for Honda. This new one doesn't really change this, the rear is a tad bit different but overall it doesn't look all that different from the old one. Its more round and bigger for certain but no other noticeable changes. It still looks like a pretty decent hatchback.

My Score: 7/10 - Much like the old one not much has changed.

Value for money: This issue was the biggest failing of the older car. I scored the older car a 4 due to its price. This new one sadly does not change this at all. I consider this car to be worse than the older one and due to the changes particularly to the interior is not even justified. Worse yet, it no longer has an outdated Toyota Yaris to push around now with the new Ford Fiesta and Mazda2 arriving. I'm interested in seeing how the Mazda2 fares, it may take the mantle of most fun subcompact that I believed was true of the old Fit. Already the Mazda2 is cheaper, but this Fit at a disadvantage. The cheap interior is not going to help against a re-energized Ford, Hyundai is coming with a new Accent which is certain to have a better interior.

My Score: 2/10 - Even worse value than the old car as its still expensive but feels much cheaper, its competition is better too.

Overall: 28/50 - A disappointment, one of my favourite Hondas has become soft and driver unfriendly vehicle full of nasty cheapness.

2007-2009 Pontiac G6

I didn't intend to skip July...with a busy schedule it wasn't possible to update until today. Hopefully I can make up for that.


Introduction: The Pontiac G6 is the replacement for Pontiac's Grand Am. Its often considered the 6th Grand Am due to it following a similar path as the later Grand Ams being platform mates particularly with the Malibu. The G6 is no different being built on the Epsilon platform which the previous generation Malibu used. Due to GM discontinuing the Pontiac brand and the Saturn brand, both the G6 and Saturn Aura were discontinued by the 2010 model year while the newer seventh Malibu would continue.

The G6 is one of those cars that hid under the radar for the common driver. GM didn't advertise it nearly to the extent that the 2008 Malibu got. The Saturn Aura was also often not even considered because nobody knew about it. The G6 and Aura showed the problem of splitting budget money on 3 cars which are very similar but forced to compete against one another. By splitting the money evenly GM might have ended up with 3 weak cars in the same segment, in this case they spent most of the money on the Malibu leaving the G6 and Aura to fend for themselves. As a result I didn't know what to think about the G6 as I've never thought about them before.


Performance: The standard Pontiac G6 is equipped with a 2.4L 4-cylinder Ecotec engine that produces 169 hp and 162 lb.ft of torque. This engine isn't all that different in character to the 2.2L that comes from the Cobalt/G5. Due to how much bigger and heavier the G6 is, its not as quick as the G5. Despite this, the G6 isn't exactly a slow car. Acceleration from 0-100 km/h takes about 9 seconds which isn't bad considering the ho hum numbers. Fuel economy on this car is also decent. Its not the most refined engine but it does its job well enough that its not a drawback.

My Score: 7/10 - A decent engine, nothing special but crucially nothing nasty

Handling: Taking the G6 in the corners isn't nearly as exciting as certain cars. Its not that the suspension is terrible in the case of the Grand Prix nor is it that the steering feel is totally wrong. Somehow the car doesn't seem to inspire confidence. In this sense the car feels so average that it becomes rather boring. Ride quality from the G6 is also average, its not as plushy as a Buick but certainly not as hard as some Hondas.

My Score: 5/10 - Its not terrible, but its rather joyless.


Interior: Once again there's nothing very special about the interior of the G6. Its a rather dark interior being mostly black. Nothing in this interior grabs your eye, everything is extremely conventional with absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. The plastic is of mediocre quality, most feel rather hard and some are pretty cheap. The rear seats do fold down, I guess that's the most interesting thing to describe about this interior. As for the build quality its medicore, some are properly made others aren't. The G6 is assembled in the United States at the Lake Orion in Michigan.

My Score: 5/10 - Rather uninspired and as a result bland.

Styling: Aside from the Pontiac grille, the G6 is not all that extraordinary on the outside either. The rear is very bland and uninteresting and if it weren't for the Pontiac grille likely wouldn't look any different from any generic car. Due to how uninspired and the lack of passion that went into styling this car I can't give it a good mark.

My Score: 2/10 - You can tell nobody really cared to style this car.

Value for money: Due to how little money was spent in advertising this car and giving it recognition the G6 often is sold at a rather low price. While its very difficult to find a brand new unsold 2010 G6, a used one is very inexpensive to acquire. Many G6s were used as rental cars and as a result resale value is pretty low for a car in this segment. The G6 is also one of the few cars in this segment to offer a convertible rooftop, its competition being the Chrysler Sebring which is truly awful and the not very interesting Toyota Solara. Its not a particularly unreliable car but be aware of minor electrical issues. So long as you don't pay very much for this car it can be of good value.

My Score: 6/10 - Offers a convertible option, resale is very low meaning its great to buy used but terrible to sell from new.

Overall: 26/50 - Its not a terrible car, but you can tell GM put little effort into making it beyond a 4-door sedan. This car still features the old GM mentality of "good enough".