2009 Toyota Corolla CE

What a ridiculously busy few weeks this has been. 6 straight days of working including today, no doubt I haven't updated for such a long time as a result. Today is a new car for once, a 2009 Toyota Corolla.


Introduction: This is the 10th generation of Toyota Corolla which has 5 trim levels. The CE being the least expensive, the LE being modestly equipped, the S having sport oriented seats and pedals, the XLE being fully loaded with good grain trim and lastly the XRS equipped with a Camry 4-cylinder and a body kit.


Performance: The new Corolla uses a newer 1.8L engine, however the difference in power is rather minimal over the previous one since this newer car is a bit heavier. With 132 hp and 128 lb.ft of torque its not nearly enough to be that different. The only thing this engine really does differently is save fuel a bit better. As a performance engine, this engine is not what you really want.

My Score: 7/10 - No real changes from last time despite the different engine. Slightly better fuel economy however.

Handling: This is the biggest change in the Corolla over the previous 9 generations. This car uses an electronic power steering system partially helping reduce fuel consumption. This is the biggest gripe I have with this new Corolla, there is a complete absence of feel. Steering straight is more difficult because you really have no feedback of how the car is moving. This is by far the dullest and worst feeling steering in the world. The Corolla doesn't change in the handling department other than being a bit worse than before, it still rolls and with the dull steering you'll have no confidence in the corners. This is absolutely terrible that Toyota has done this, removing items that make driving involving. Driving this car in the winter is surprisingly dangerous, it has a tendency to slide from the front, with the weak feedback you feel you have no control while the useless ABS light flashes.

My Score: 0/10 - I have no confidence in its ability with no feedback.


Interior: The last Corolla had a pretty generic interior but the materials were pretty decent along with good build quality. This one didn't follow that idea, instead you get a nicely presentable interior but once you actually see beneath the surface its pretty awful. The materials this time are very very cheap, I expect this from Chrysler but apparently Toyota wanted to make extra dough and used low quality plastic so they scratch ridiculously easy. The gauges are so generic with no imagination put into it, even Kia has better looking gauges. The days of roll up windows I thought would be gone...but surely Toyota felt these relics are still needed, even Nissan dropped this from its Sentra. These Corollas are built in Cambridge Ontario, the build quality is still pretty good. That said build quality doesn't really sustain an unacceptable interior especially with a badge like Toyota's.

My Score: 2/10 - Very poor materials, more generic than before, still has roll up windows and the Corolla isn't the cheapest car in the segment. Preventing a 0 score is due to the good build quality.

Styling: The Corolla has attempted to change its styling away from the admittedly generic 2003-2008 version. The problem however is the styling just doesn't match the way the car actually drives. The new style while borrowed from the Camry shows its more dynamic and seems more exciting...it couldn't be further from the truth of how this Corolla is. The rear end was not really changed so it still retains some generic styling. Not a great effort, actually this car's styling should have been applied to the previous generation while the previous car's body should be used for this one. The last car at least had some excitement in it, this one didn't.

My Score: 5/10 - Attempting to fool people into thinking the car something it isn't. Mostly generic styling borrowed from the Camry.

Value for money: The Corolla usually does well with value for money due to its name and reputation. This one I'm afraid doesn't offer the best value especially considering this car is outdated compared to many of its rivals. The Honda Civic is much more advanced and uses better materials, just pay a bit more and you'll have a better car. The Mazda 3 is superior to this Corolla when it comes down to the driving, significantly better handling and amazing steering feel. Even the generic Cobalt has something against this car...that car uses less cheap material and costs less.

My Score: 3/10 - Its down to that badge and whether you still trust it.

Overall: 17/50 - An extremely dull and horribly boring car, hurt badly by the low quality materials and not so cheap price.

This will be my harshest review of a Toyota. This car is so disappointing in several ways that it in my mind is an embarassment to what the Toyota badge means. Quality is certainly missing with the shockingly cheap plastic used. Toyota used to have "feel" in their "oh what a feeling" slogan, this car just has none of that. What's left is reliability, if it fails here then the car will be the worst car the company's ever made, no joke. Clearly in this segment there are far better choices out there, I would never pay Toyota money for this clearly rubbish product. If you want the reliability go with either the Mazda 3 or Honda Civic, the 3 for the excellent driving experience and the Civic for its fuel economy. This car has shaken my faith in the company, its been that bad.

What happened Toyota? This is the sort of car I expect from a soul less, greedy company. You're not like this...are you?

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.

2008 Chevrolet Trailblazer

The last review of this week.


Introduction: The Chevrolet Trailblazer is GM's mid sized SUV marketed as an upscale version of the S-10 Blazer. Like the S-10 Blazer the Trailblazer is a truck based SUV and thus is more rugged for off roading than a crossover. The EXT trim version of the Trailblazer had a 3rd row of seats, it was also longer than the standard Trailblazer. The Trailblazer would remain in production until 2008 and continued to sell model year 2009s while the S-10 Blazer would retire in 2005.

The Trailblazer was never a noteworthy vehicle in my mind. I didn't see these nearly as often as the S-10 Blazers or Ford Explorers. I didn't really know what to expect from this vehicle...oh boy did I find something unique.


Performance: The Trailblazer has a 4.2L straight-6 engine which outputs 275 hp and 275 lb.ft of torque. It seems like a lot, but I can't help but think GM could have gotten more out of such a large I6. Anyways this engine moves the Trailblazer rather well, its a smooth unit as expected and accelerates the SUV from 0-100 km/h in 7.7 seconds. I don't really have much issues with this engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Its a good engine, not the most memorable one but it does do its job well.

Handling: The Trailblazer's handling is mediocre at best, for an SUV. With the very large wheel and its heavy weight it doesn't handle all that well. Steering doesn't feel all that attached possibly just by how large the steering wheel is. I may be rugged, but its not agile on the streets.

My Score: 5/10 - I know its an SUV, but there are SUVs that do a better job.


Interior: The Trailblazer has an interior that is completely composed of plastic. Much of the items are actually used in the Colorado pickup truck, so you don't get much in the sense of luxuries. Its not a depressing interior by any means but being so full of plastic its not very attractive. Spacing in the Trailblazer is pretty good in my mind. The biggest let down of the Trailblazer however is the build quality. I've never come across a vehicle where every single one I encountered had several build quality problems. These are the worst built vehicles I've encountered. A lot of the plastic covers are loose, lots of interior gaps and even the exterior wasn't put together properly. These are built in the United States, I do understand why there's anger at the UAW since a vehicle built like this should be deemed unacceptable by all companies. There are only two possible culprits, the parts people building parts that don't fit or the worker who didn't put them on properly.

My Score: 1/10 - Not a good looking interior to begin with, ruined by the worst build quality in the world.

Styling: The Trailblazer is a pretty standard looking SUV all things granted. In some colours it does look somewhat better than normal. Aside from the panels being put on wrong, the plastic on the bumpers does look very cheap and does not look good for its image.

My Score: 6/10 - Decent SUV style, cheap plastic bits however cheapen its image

Value for the money: The Trailblazer is not a cheap SUV, like the Endeavor its also in the $30,000 range. Unlike that SUV, this does not act like a car and has some serious flaws. Considering how much money is spent, the build quality is unacceptable and other off road SUVs are better equipped for off roading making the Trailblazer not necessarily good at the road or off road. It should be much cheaper than Chevrolet is asking for due to some of these flaws.

My Score: 3/10 - Not the worst SUV, but the awful interior quality and the lack of some off road equipment should have slashed the price.

Overall: 24/50 - A ho hum SUV that was killed for a few reasons, the interior is horrible and specialized SUVs are more versatile.

2007-2008 Mazda 6

There is one more review coming up today.


Introduction: The Mazda 6 began in 2003 replacing the old 626 with a new direction. The old 626 was not a noteworthy vehicle and was often considered bland and boring. In an effort to fit with Mazda's new slogan zoom zoom, the Mazda 6 was designed to be more sporty in order to give it a characteristic over its competitors. Mazda also gave the 6 the option for a wagon when many other similar vehicles do not offer it. Lastly Mazda produced a high performance version of the 6 called the Mazdaspeed 6 in 2006-2007 where it was given a turbo engine, all-wheel drive and a Mazdaspeed tuned suspension.

By the time I got the drive the Mazda 6 I've already driven the Protege knowing that Mazda does make pretty good driver's cars. When I got the chance to drive one, I took it with high expectations.


Performance: The Mazda 6 I drove had the 2.3L 4-cylinder producing 156 hp and 154 lb.ft of torque. Due to the design of the car, the 4-cylinder is capable of reaching 0-100 km/h in a matter of 8 seconds which is very good with so little power. The engine is noisy on 1st gear, afterwords its very quiet and refined. Knowing the data now, its certainly faster than the old Fusion.

My Score: 8/10 - A good 4-cylinder engine, surprisingly well powered

Handling: This is where the Mazda 6 takes its place as one of the more fun mid-sized cars. Most other cars in this segment go after the Accord and Camry which have lately gotten heavier and are less concerned about fun. The Mazda 6 has very good handling for a FWD mid sized sedan, it takes the corners quite well without a lot of the expected items like understeer and body roll. The steering wheel is actually on the light side, yet due to how sharp the car handles this light wheel actually doesn't lose feel like what I've experienced with Honda and Toyota.

My Score: 9/10 - An excellent FWD platform which makes this normal sedan more fun than others.


Interior: The Mazda 6 does not have the greatest interior, in order to keep with its sport image the vast majority are black interiors. Mazda was mindful not to make the atmosphere depressing making the pillars and roof white. Beige cars however had beige interiors with some of the black remaining. The radio is a good unit but lacks a auxiliary plug which it should have by now. The lighting in the Mazda 6 might annoy some since it uses only red LED lighting. The Mazda seats are also reasonably comfortable but more importantly rather supportive. Build quality in general is quite good but I noticed some small problems with some panels, all Mazda 6s sold in North America are built in the United States. Many don't like that the Mazda 6 is very mid sized, the interior room is not as big as a Camry or Accord. I'm not fat so I didn't notice.

My Score: 7/10 - A decent interior, not brilliant but one that doesn't embarrass.

Styling: The Mazda 6 does not change all too much from the previous 626, yet despite this the modest styling I think works very well. The 6 is rather sleek yet muscular in its appearance with its rather round body. There's not much I can criticize about the styling, it looks good but not still remains pretty inoffensive.

My Score: 8/10 - Not horribly exciting, but regardless it has a modern look that will age well.

Value for the money: The Mazda 6 is truly a bargain compared to the Accord and Camry. You get the option of a wagon along with a mid sized car that acts like its a sports car. Both the Accord and Camry do not offer this, the Camry particularly is not sporty. If you're not a fat person the size should be more than adequate and better for fuel economy too. While it doesn't have the reputation like the Accord or Camry, the fact it offers a different experience sets it apart from the others. The most versatile of all the mid sized cars without breaking the budget.

My Score: 10/10 - Offers many options its competition doesn't and doesn't overcharge due to the badge.

Overall: 42/50 - A very good car, if you don't need luxuries its more than enough to satisfy the family man who initially wanted a sports car.

2008 Mitsubishi Endeavor

My first SUV review also my first Mitsubishi one too.


Introduction: The Mitsubishi Endeavor was introduced as a brand new model in 2004. It is Mitsubishi's first medium sized cross-over SUV. The Endeavor is built on the PS platform consisting of the Mitsubishi Galant and Eclipse. This vehicle was designed to target a then growing market in the United States of SUVs. Over the years sales of this vehicle has been rather slow but Mitsubishi did give the Endeavor a face lift for the 2010 model year meaning they still intend to continue making this vehicle.

The Mitsubishi Endeavor is one of the vehicles I didn't know what to think about. I barely seen any by that point and while I was curious to drive a Mitsubishi I wondered whether this vehicle fit my idea that the SUV is a rather wasteful idea.


Performance: The Mitsubishi Endeavor is equipped with a large 3.8L V6 that produces 215 hp and 250 lb.ft of torque. The version I drove had a mild improvement to the engine making it produce 225hp. The engine was a smooth unit and powered this big vehicle rather comfortably. It in fact accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 7.8 seconds, which is a good number for such a vehicle. Fuel economy is really the only item that this engine might suffer with.

My Score: 8/10 - The engine is pretty good, smooth and moved the vehicle pretty well. Not much to say other than it may consume more fuel than expected.

Handling: The Endeavor is a pretty decent handling vehicle all things considered. You will realize the weight of this SUV when you push the vehicle hard into the corner but you can corner without the sense you're going to under steer. The wheel is weighted very well for this vehicle and as a result its easy to drive. So long as you understand its nowhere near as light as a car, the Endeavor handles pretty good.

My Score: 7/10 - As a larger SUV it corners pretty well, it will only fail if you attempt to corner like you would on a smaller car.


Interior: This is the big weak spot with frankly every Mitsubishi today. What I thought was neat about sitting inside the Endeavor it seemed bigger and wider inside than it looks from the outside. My biggest problem with the interior is the cheap ugly plastic in the Endeavor. The best items in the interior however is the amount of space, the screen for the radio and the seats are rather comfortable. The build quality of these vehicles are pretty good, these are built in the United States. What a shame with the interior since its not a bad one, its just not easy to present it.

My Score: 6/10 - A good interior...it just uses some ugly cheap materials making it unattractive.

Styling: While I never noticed many of these SUVs after actually seeing one, they're quite distinct. Its not a particularly daring styling effort but there was effort in making it look like no other SUV from all angles. I liked the way it looked.

My Score: 8/10 - Not a daring look but styled so its distinct from any other SUV.

Value for the money: This is a bit of trouble, the Endeavor is a very expensive SUV for the money. A 2009 Endeavor costs about $36,000 which puts it over the Toyota Highlander and almost equal in price to the real SUV Toyota 4-Runner. You don't even get 4WD with that $36,000 either its still FWD. The unattractive interior does not show its price tag, the only way you could tell the money was spent elsewhere you had to have test driven the Endeavor. Had Mitsubishi spent more money on the interior they would have a good case for why this SUV costs so much.

My Score: 3/10 - A good SUV but its way too expensive with its low rent interior to present itself as a good alternative to Toyota.

Overall: 32/50 - A very nice medium sized SUV, would have been so much better with a better quality interior