2007-2010 Hyundai Accent

Haven't done a very small car in a while, so here's one.


Introduction: The Hyundai Accent is Hyundai's replacement for the old Excel. It took the role of Hyundai's smallest car in 1994 and is now in its 4th generation. Its known as the Hyundai Verna in South Korea.

Yeah I'm sorry for the rubbish introduction, but I'm lost for words on what to say about this car. There's nothing special about it, nor is its history any interesting. As with older Hyundai models when I first saw this, I was not expecting much from it.


Performance: The Hyundai Accent is given a 1.6L 4-cylinder engine. This engine produces about 110 hp and 107 lb.ft of torque, all in all not very impressive numbers. Under acceleration the Accent goes from 0-100 km/h in about 11 seconds, so its rather slow. The engine is a bit noisy and sounds rather unrefined. Fuel economy is not as good as those of a Yaris nor a Fit but better than the greedy Aveo. Overall a pretty lackluster engine. The automatic transmission on this car is rather dimwitted, its very slow selecting from R to D and vice-versa, definitely get the manual.

My Score: 5/10 - Not quick and noisy with a bad automatic.

Handling: As a small car the Accent handles better than many larger cars. Although there's still quite a lot of body roll when taken into a fast corner. Steering feel...depends on the year, the earlier years were numb and inert while the later years were a bit more tighter in feel and allowed the car to be a bit easier to toss around. That said even the later updated cars are not all that exciting to take into a corner. Ride comfort is merely average in this car.

My Score: 6/10 - Average in every way.


Interior: Depending on what trim level you get depends on what features you have available. The least expensive 3-door hatch has no equipment at all, the moderately well equipped 4-door sedans got much of what you need. The radio is different on newer cars, its far better than the older Hyundai unit which was terrible. As one of the least expensive cars on the market, the interior is full of plastic, the newer cars aren't updated to the degree like the Sonata was. As a result the plastics are acceptable for the cost, I don't understand though why the rear cup holder if you remove the coaster there's a hole through the car. The assembly quality on the Accent is pretty decent, not the greatest but for such a cheap car surprising its not worse. The Accent is made in Ulsan, South Korea.

My Score: 5/10 - Standard equipment varies, material quality is what's expected of the price, build quality is acceptable.

Styling: This Accent is pretty generic for a car. Like most of the other Hyundai's of this era I think little of it.

My Score: 2/10 - Has the look of an anonymous car.

Value for Money: Ok, this is where the Accent makes up for its generally disappointing scores. The starting price for the 3-door bare bones Accent has actually been $9995, no joke. It was so inexpensive that during the 2008 crash Hyundai was willing to give this car away for free if you bought a fully loaded Sedona. As you spec up the Accent it gets less attractive, but as a way of basic transportation for the least amount of money its impossible to match Hyundai here. So if you really want the cheapest possible car, the Accent is a good buy. If you're curious about the 2011 Accent, buy that instead its certain to be better than this version.

My Score: 10/10 - Offers the cheapest car available and its not truly awful.

Overall: 28/50 - Its a very cheap car, hard to argue with that. Its not even a very bad car at that, although if you want more than just a average car there are better cars out there so long as you can spare the extra money.

2009 Lexus ES350

I realize I haven't updated since January and its been only 1 review so here's a few more reviews.


Introduction: The Lexus ES has been in the Lexus lineup since the very beginning. The original LS400 got all the glory, many often forgot about the ES250 that was also available as an entry level car into the brand. Initially many saw the ES250 as just a Camry with a more expensive badge as it costs very close to Toyota's current flagship the Cressida, sales of the ES250 was disappointing far lower than the more expensive LS400. As a result the Cressida was discontinued while a new ES was introduced being the ES300. Steadily the ES sales have risen, its now currently the best selling product in the Lexus lineup.

I've never really understood the ES, its essentially a Camry but it costs more. This problem is compounded with the introduction of the Avalon which is also a Camry but much bigger yet costs pretty much the same as the ES. I've assumed its supposed to be a higher quality version of the Camry. I'm not sure whether its worth the extra money, the most expensive Camry costs $36,000 so I have to determine whether its worth the extra $6000.


Performance: The Lexus ES350 comes in only one engine, a 3.5L V6. The 350 corresponds to the size of the engine, which is why the previous ES which had a 3.3L was called the 330. Anyways this engine produces 268 hp and 254 lb.ft of torque with regular fuel, Lexus says 272 hp but this is if you put medium octane fuel where if you put premium its 280 hp. The reason I don't list octane rating is some viewers come from areas that use RON instead of AKI, it'll be confusing if I say 87 Octane when the RON number is 91. On acceleration this engine moves this car from 0-100 km/h in about 6.5 seconds. As a result this car moves pretty quickly. However when I take this on a acceleration run, I find the 6-speed automatic hesitates so the first few milliseconds don't feel that quick but all the sudden the power arrives abruptly. The brake pedal is very mushy in feel, it doesn't seem to react as quickly as you'd expect from frankly any other car. Otherwise its a very nice engine its very quiet and surprisingly fuel efficient for a rather large displacement engine.

My Score: 9/10 - Overall a very good engine...the transmission is a weak link though along with the brake pedal feel.

Handling: As a luxury Camry I'm not expecting the ES to be very good on the corners. I wasn't disappointed, it handled as I expected, not well. When taking the ES into the corner you'll feel the body roll early, the faster you go the understeer gets worse. The steering...is pretty awful. Its very light but absolutely lacking in any feel which provides no accuracy. Unlike some of the other cars that handle badly though the ES is very comfortable so the suspension is working hard to not let you feel the road imperfections. Overall though its not a car you'd want if you don't live in a grid system. Not a fun car.

My Score: 3/10 - Comfortable, but the steering is terrible and the handling is poor.


Interior: This is where I expect the ES to wow me...I'm afraid it doesn't. Its not the worst interior but its not an interior I expect for a car costing $42K. First problem, the lack of leather in the trim or metal. Yes it has leather seats which are comfortable, but the quality is a bit lacking they'll produce creases overtime. The rest of the interior however is mostly hard plastic and faux wood plastic. I'm surprised that I find more higher quality material in a Volkswagen and a Hyundai than this Lexus. Second problem its not full of luxury features you can't get on the Camry or anything in that class. There is more trunk space than the G37 and a bit more interior space as well, however its identical to those of the Camry and less than the Avalon which are both Toyota vehicles. Bad features...the seat warmer switch is something you'd find from a 1980s radio, there's no dome light its been replaced with two puny LEDs which unfortunately can't illuminate much in the rear. The good news, the interior has a lot of sound deadening which is bad for weight but great in reducing wind noise, engine noise and tire noise. The build quality is also very good, no problems whatsoever with assembly. The Lexus ES is made in Miyawaka, Fukouka, Japan.

My Score: 5/10 - Leather is so so quality and not readily available, too much plastic, poor illumination in the rear, average space but the build quality is excellent and sound engineering also good.

Styling: I must admit this is the best looking Lexus ES ever, it not only looks modern but it has a rather sleek shape. The rear is a bit average, the front is reasonably nice and the side profile is also decent. No real issue with the styling, not blown away by it but can't say Lexus didn't try.

My Score: 7/10 - Acceptable styling.

Value for money: I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed with the ES here. I didn't see anything in the car that was worth $6000 extra over the Camry. Its not even worth more than the Avalon which is $1000 less than the ES. The ES350 competes against primarily the Cadillac CTS and the Infiniti G37. There are a few things the Cadillac doesn't do extremely well on, but for the most part its nice to drive and nothing in GM's lineup is an exact equivalent. The Infiniti G37, frankly is superior to the ES in every way except for engine noise levels, rear seat height and less trunk space. Those were sacrificed for a faster, more agile, fun, comfortable, nicer looking, high tech and generally more luxurious car. The Infiniti is actually a nicer car to drive than the Maxima or Altima, its worth its badge. The Lexus ES is not, I feel people have been ripped off by buying this car. If you go with a Toyota option you get pretty much this car for less money, if you don't you get a nicer driving car.

My Score: 1/10 - $6000 extra for a Lexus badged Camry V6 XLE...no thanks.

Overall: 25/50 - Its not a bad car on the face of it, but its a bad car when you pay $42,000 for what's really a $36,000 car. This is a profit generator, nothing more...GM wished its badge engineering was this successful.

2010-2011 Ford Fusion SE, SEL V6

First review of 2011, this one may be of some interest.


Introduction: The Ford Fusion was introduced in 2005 as Ford's newest vehicle for the important midsized car market. Ford used to use the Taurus for this important segment which originally sold very well to tie the Honda Accord for the #1 most sold car(not vehicle since the F-150 truck dominated this). Unfortunately Ford never continued with the success of the first Taurus and allowed the car to age eventually losing even the Taurus' iconic jellybean shape for conservative. Ford decided to use the Fusion name for this new midsized car even though a completely different car uses the same name in Europe. The Ford Fusion is the first of the cars introduced by Ford of America to use the 3-bar grille. The Fusion saw enough success to be redesigned for the year 2010. The new redesigned Fusion sports a newer look and while retaining much of the architecture of the older car has for the most part been completely changed. Sales of the Ford Fusion have managed to pass 200,000 a year during 2010, a feat last seen by a Ford car all the way back in 1986 in the Ford Taurus' debut year when it was tied with the Honda Accord for America's best selling car.

If you've read my old Ford Fusion review the lasting memories of that car for me was how bland and slow the car was. Although a somewhat competent effort by Ford to regain its position in this segment it long lost. This new one caught my eye with its new tri-bar styling and considering many Ford products have increasingly gotten better over the years I had similar expectations for this car.



Performance: In this review I've actually driven two of the three engines offered on the Ford Fusion. I've driven many Fusions with the standard 2.5L 4-cylinder engine, but I've also driven a few with the 3.0L V6 flex fuel engine. The third engine available is the Sport trim's 3.5L V6. Starting with the 2.5L engine, this engine produces about 175 hp and 172 lb.ft of torque which is a modest power increase over the older car's 2.3L but more noticeable torque increase. Acceleration numbers from 0-100 km/h is about 8.9 seconds, so its faster than the older car and it also doesn't feel that slow. Its a bit buzzy at the higher rpm range and thus better off for cruising. The 3.0L V6 produces 240 hp and 223 lb.ft of torque which should mean a better time, it accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 7.3 seconds which is quite a bit better than the 4-cylinder. To drive the V6 is much more quieter and smoother, its not as razor sharp quick as Nissan's 3.5L V6s but for ordinary driving its good and sounds nicer too. It may be the automatic transmission that's causing some of the delay in the engine. I personally liked the 3.0L quite a bit better than the 4-cylinder, you don't suffer much on fuel economy either for it since it uses the same fuel saving technology as the 2.5L does.

My Score(SE): 7/10 - A good engine, particularly good on fuel economy although lacking on performance.

My Score(SEL V6): 9/10 - A very very good refined engine, capable of running on flex fuel, good fuel economy for its size, obviously not as quick as competing 3.5L V6s.

Handling: The old Fusion's best item was how it took corners over the likes of some of its competitors apart from the Mazda6 its based on. This new Fusion doesn't really change this, although I must say the ride comfort is better on this model. This car is pretty confident on the corners for the most part. The steering is relatively heavy compared to its competition but this is one of the better drivers cars in its class as it actually has steering feel many of its competitors don't have. As expected from a modern front wheel drive car, understeer is present when pushed into corners hard. Not a whole lot of roll though, which is nice in a car like this sometimes. Personally I wish it felt more sharp than it does, perhaps this is solved on the Sport model.

My Score(both): 9/10 - Better ride quality from last time, still pretty good on the corners, just lacking some of the sharpness on nicer handling cars.


Interior: Here's a big change from before, gone are the bland buttons, also gone is the lack of colour since there's now a few and boring dials of the old car have disappeared. You're now greeted with a new digital dash(analog displays), the new SYNC system and Ford also didn't follow other automakers in keeping cheesy knobs. Many of the controls are now simple buttons. The touches are all nicer and styled with purpose. Having tried both leather and cloth seats, the leather seats are much nicer. The cloth seats are a bit on the stiff side. The biggest downside to this interior is mainly the interior materials could have been even better, there isn't a whole lot of soft touch plastic that you'll find in a 2011 Sonata for instance. The interior spacing is pretty average and the trunk is a reasonable size. This comes down to the fact the Fusion isn't actually very large in its segment. On the build quality, the Fusion is still built in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico like before, this is one of the best assembled vehicles I've seen from Mexico. Normally I'd find several build quality issues, but Ford must have very good quality control since I've never encountered one poorly made or falling apart.

My Score(SE): 7/10 - Well equipped, smarter console design, well built but material choices questionable, no SYNC and interior spacing is just average.

My Score(SEL V6): 8/10 - Same as the SE but with good leather seats and has SYNC.

Styling: I'll be honest I actually think this Fusion from the front actually looks pretty good. This is one of the first Fords I think the tri-bar grille actually flowed with the styling with that headlight design. While I quite like the front, the rear makes it hard to tell the difference from the old car and the new one since they're very very similar. The wheel covers on the SE do seem to look a bit weird in my opinion. Overall I think this is a pretty well styled car...I just wish they went beyond just half the car.

My Score(both): 7/10 - Nice unique front but same boring rear from before.

Value for money: I'm actually surprised about the cost of the basic Fusion S, it actually starts out rather low. The SE is about the starting price of cars like the Camry and Accord. To get the SEL V6 you do have to pay nearly 30K where its price advantage does go away. Surprisingly it appears its pricing was designed to target the Chevrolet Malibu trim by trim ensuring it was less expensive each time. The Fusion can be had in AWD, but you have to then buy the SEL V6. Still if you want AWD this is one of the few midsized sedans with it, you're only other options are the Subaru Legacy, Suzuki Kizashi, and the VW Passat. All things considered the Fusion is a rather good package, as it has good driving dynamics, a decent interior, some unique styling and a reasonable price all in one.

My Score(SE): 8/10 - A pretty good value considering its better equipped than some of its rivals which are base models at that price.

My Score(SEL V6): 7/10 - While better equipped a tad pricey since rivals at this price point are better equipped...fortunately AWD is available that isn't an option on several rival products.

Overall(SE): 38/50 - A pretty good value packaged car, one can understand why its one of the best selling vehicles today.

Overall(SEL V6): 40/50 - Despite the higher price, I feel this is an even better trim level particularly with the V6 which is a nicer engine overall.

2007-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo

This is the final one. Have a Merry Christmas and have a happy new year!


Introduction: The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a model that many people all over the world are familiar with. It started out in 1993 as the replacement of the Jeep Grand Wagoneer from the AMC years. Primarily known for being able to travel off road but with the comfort and luxury that many SUVs back then didn't have. This would be Chrysler's first Jeep designed vehicle as all the previous Jeeps were of AMC design. Development of the Grand Cherokee was delayed due to Lee Iacocca pushing for the Chrysler minivan to be completed first. Over time the Grand Cherokee has grown from its original humble size to a rather large crossover SUV. The current Grand Cherokee is in its fourth generation, this review focuses on the third generation.

This has always been considered one of the important Jeep models so of course I was expecting it to be something Chrysler put more effort on. However by the time I got a chance to drive one, my expectations of a Chrysler product were pretty low as I haven't been at all pleased with many of them. Many of which I downright hated, I was hoping it wouldn't be the case for the Grand Cherokee as I thought the previous one was rather good.


Performance: Since my review is specifically on the basic Laredo it means the Grand Cherokee is powered by a 3.7L Power tech V6. It is also available with a 4.7L Power tech V8, a 5.7L Hemi V8 and even a 6.1L Hemi V8 for the SRT-8 version. The 3.7L V6 produces 210 hp and 235 lb.ft of torque its mated to a 5-speed automatic transmission. Considering this Grand Cherokee is bigger and much heavier than the previous two, this power number doesn't look very good. You would be correct to assume its slow. The Jeep Liberty with the same engine took 10 seconds to get from 0-100 km/h, the Cherokee is another 400 lbs heavier so its about 11 seconds. With this poor performance you get slightly better fuel economy than a Chevrolet Trailblazer with a bigger straight six engine. The engine sounds terrible, its rough and I'd suggest you don't get this engine if you want a Grand Cherokee.

My Score: 2/10 - Slow, noisy and not terribly efficient compared to the available V8s.

Handling: Being heavier than 2 tons will reduce its handling capabilities on the road. When taken around a corner you get quite a bit of understeer and quite a bit of body roll. This is added with steering which is rather vague. Its not exactly light or heavy, but its still not capable of proper communication. As a result you have no real faith in it. The ride quality is not that good either, bad roads are quite noticeable.

My Score: 3/10 - Doesn't like corners, dull steering and mediocre ride quality.


Interior: I was pretty disappointed when I first got into a Grand Cherokee. I was expecting something like the previous Grand Cherokee which was rather nice and comfortable. Instead this Grand Cherokee is a sea full of dark, cheap and ugly plastic. The cloth seat is not all that comfortable. The dash gauges are better than the standard Chrysler ones but not by much. The interior is rather roomy although its a 5-seater, so it will have proper tailgate space. Still you can't seem to avoid how dark and gloomy it is inside. Build quality is mediocre, there's an occasional squeak and rattle from this vehicle. The Grand Cherokee is assembled in Detroit, Michigan, USA.

My Score: 3/10 - Its roomy and spacious, but otherwise its depressing and unpleasant.

Styling: It does retain a lot of the Grand Cherokee styling from the previous versions. However I never did like those headlights as they look stupid. Overall its fine since its an evolutionary design. Its difficult to fault something that looked good several years ago and still does today.

My Score: 7/10 - Progressive styling, although the stupid headlamps are out of place.

Value for money: The Grand Cherokee is not cheap even with the basic Laredo. I'm not aware of its off road performance which could help it but on the road I'm not sure why anyone would choose this SUV over the likes of the Toyota 4Runner or the Nissan Pathfinder both are quicker, made of better materials, better assembled and less expensive. Both have also made a name for themselves off road and their durability. Given that most Grand Cherokees these days never see a dirt road, I don't really understand why one would buy these ones. Seems during this time Chrysler was milking the Jeep name.

My Score: 4/10 - Its got competition that's cheaper and mostly better in quite a few ways.

Overall: 19/50 - With a small engine and a terrible interior, the Grand Cherokee to me makes no sense. For $40,000 you would expect something decent instead of this which is mostly bad.

2007-2010 Ford Expedition XLT

This time an SUV which I haven't done in a while.


Introduction: The Ford Expedition is Ford's full size SUV and currently the largest it makes. It replaced the original Ford Bronco in 1997 and it later also replaced the Ford Excursion in 2007 with the Expedition Max. The Expedition uses the T platform which is based off of the F-150 truck. For much of its time the Ford Expedition has been made in Wayne, Michigan and only in 2009 has been built in Louisville, Kentucky because of Ford's expansion of the Wayne plant for the upcoming 2012 Ford Focus.

In all honesty before I got to drive the Expedition I've actually never heard of it. I also never really saw that many on the roads which meant it never came to my mind. I guess it was poorly advertised since I do see a lot of F-150 commercials and Explorer ones but never seen a Expedition ad. So I had no expectations having never of heard of the vehicle in the first place.


Performance: Due to its truck nature and its size the Expedition is given the 5.4L Triton V8. This engine produces 300 hp and 365 lb.ft of torque during 2007-2008, in later years the power is increased to 310 hp with the same engine. The transmission is a 6-speed automatic. With this much power and torque the Expedition accelerates from 0-100 km/h in about 8.1 seconds which is pretty quick considering its size and weight. Now there's no easy way to put this, the Expedition's fuel economy is pretty terrible. Its a very nice cruising motor and it doesn't make a whole lot of noise but unless you need a vehicle this size it will hurt at the fuel pumps quite badly. The low range gearbox works well even when the truck is sort of beached on ice.

My Score: 8/10 - Moves quickly, low range makes it capable of terrain issues, cruises very nicely...but awfully thirsty.

Handling: Like any full size SUV there are big drawbacks to having a tall vehicle with a massive amount of weight. While its turning circle is good for a vehicle its size, it still needs more room to turn compared to a car. You don't really want to take an Expedition into a corner very quickly as its weight can easily make it roll over. The steering is a slight bit heavy although its not all that exciting. Its what you would expect from a truck really, not good at cornering but driving sensibly it shouldn't be an issue. Ride comfort is average for a truck based SUV, not as soft as a CUV but not as bouncy on a real truck either.

My Score: 5/10 - Its not meant to be aggressive, its more happier on freeways.


Interior: Much like all Fords designed from this period of time, it was a better interior than what it used to be. Its not stylish but its functional and its pretty easy to use. There's a good amount of space for those in the front row and in the middle row. The rear seats are not as spacious as one would want despite its size. This may be different on the Expedition Max, but this review specifically focuses on the standard SUV. To fold the second row seats is straight forward, the third row folds with buttons which makes it really easy. Even with the third row up there's still trunk space unlike the Chevrolet Tahoe which doesn't. The leather material used is nothing significant its of pretty average quality. The build quality of these SUVs is pretty good from both plants 2007-2008 being made in Wayne, Michigan, USA and the 2009 to current cars made in Louisville, Kentucky, USA.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonable interior, seating for 7, trunk space even with seats up, easy to use, a bit bland on styling.

Styling: The Expedition doesn't really have much to say on styling. It looks pretty generic as an SUV, removing the blue oval badge it could look like it might have come from General Motors. It may be two tone, but it doesn't really stand out in spite of that.

My Score: 3/10 - Generic.

Value for money: The Expedition's primary competition comes from the Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon, the Dodge Durango and Jeep Commander and the Toyota Sequoia. Its really all down to the Tahoe being its serious competition since the Durango and Commander are rubbish while the Sequoia is quite expensive($61,000!). On fuel economy the Tahoe is better because of cylinder deactivation. On practicality technically the Tahoe seats 8 but it really depends on whether you want to use the front bench seat with no airbag. The Expedition however has actual trunk space and is easier to use. The Expedition seats also fold in, while the Tahoe requires removal of the 3rd row seats. The Expedition is more versatile, the Tahoe is more economical.

My Score: 8/10 - Its very versatile in its utility, its just not as cheap or as fuel efficient.

Overall: 33/50 - A pretty good SUV focusing on being versatile, so long as you really need its size the fuel bills can then be excusable.