trinacriabob

Yes, with respect to the Charger. At first, I thought the revised grille put it in the same league as their more intermediate car, whatever it's now called, and sort of sold out on the trademark Dodge front end that wasn't as cavernous as the one on the trucks. However, I've gotten to like the new grille. For one thing, the front bumper area looks like it is a better design to absorb smaller impacts. 2015 Dodge Charger - front But when they bowed the rear light bar and put the Dodge inscription on it, that made it stand out for the better. And it's also really nice to view from the side because of the curvature. 2015 Dodge Charger - rear Also, I prefer white for this car as well. And, while I definitely like some of the geometries in the 300's dash, this isn't a bad place to live for a long interstate haul ... 2015 Dodge Charger - interior ... and certainly not if you're pulling in 30 mpg!

Interesting (and good) that a base 300 could come with a cloth interior, if I interpreted your post correctly. As for the bold type, I'm mixed. I'll go with yay for the 300 and nay for the Charger. Before 2015, it would have meant a front grille that looked like this and this is exactly the one I like. 2014 Chrysler 300 And, in white, it looks great, is more visible, is better for both a super hot climate and even matches the snow! I think the current grille for the 300 is a slight step backwards.

So I got my Chevy Cruze (which I reviewed) for under $20 a day from Friday through Monday over a holiday weekend because I booked the rental, and the category of car, months in advance. The rate within a week or two of the rental was around twice as much. However, I didn't plan for how I would get around on Tuesday. It's seldom that I don't plan. I was looking at the rental agency sites as that Tuesday approached and was even slightly nervous. I saw some crazy one day rates for that Tuesday, including at neighborhood locations where they don't load you up with airport fees and taxes. Then, about 2 days prior to that, one of the majors was running a prepaid price of about $50, out the door, for a luxury car, which was about the same as they were charging for a Nissan Versa. I called them up and asked what this type of car might me and was told "most likely a Chrysler 300" ... or 'even a Cadillac.' Sold. I prepaid the day in a rental car, a first for me, to lock in that low rate occurring during the week and for that type of car. Wow. Everything went smoothly, quickly, and I even indicated I had seen a dark silver Chrysler 300 in a particular stall that I thought would be nice to have. It was assigned to me. At an airport location, they even pulled it around and put it under the canopy. I hadn't been in a Chrysler product for a long time, so I pulled it back into a stall, adjusted everything, and familiarized myself with the controls. As for this process, it was harder than it is in a GM car yet a little easier than it might be in a Ford, such as the Fusion. Everything about this ride was sort of surreal and a modernized time warp ... especially the whole Gotham City feeling of the car. The dashboard is nicely clustered in the IP zone, with its own lid, as Cadillac is doing, and even nicer in the center stack. The bezels for the speedometer and tachometer are sort of strange, with their different depths and they are blue in color. The center stack, however, is really nice because it's crowned by an old school "chronometer," as Chrysler has historically called it. The silver accents on many of the bezels are a nice touch. Also, hooray for a logically placed trunk release while the release for the fuel door isn't as obvious, which could be a good thing. The car had a push button ignition, which was to be expected. It also had a dial as the gear selector for its 8 speed step gear automatic transmission. While I really like this feature, and the Ford Fusion now has this as well, I found that if I was maneuvering quickly, such as from reverse and back into drive if making a three point turn, I sometimes found myself in neutral. Haste makes waste as they say. The seats are broad, comfortable, and in perforated leather and, for this price point, they are nicely finished. It also had the sliding moonroof with the doubled up effect, meaning it even covered a good part of the rear seating area. It took a while to figure out how to operate the shade, the tilt feature, and the panels, so I just chalked it up to "o.k., cool," kept it closed, turned on the air conditioning, and didn't fuss with it. The sound system was fine but then I don't have a trained ear when it comes to what constitutes a good sound system in a car. I'll listen to anything without static. With approximately 100 miles spent behind the wheel of the Chrysler 300, I got into it only a time or two while getting onto interstate ramps to see what it could do. It packed a lot of punch and didn't need much pedal pushing to work its magic. I didn't have to open the hood to see that this base model featured the 3.5 Pentastar V6 that it also the base engine in the Dodge Charger. This means that 292 horses were at one's disposition. That's about 50% more horsepower than my current vehicle, and I am satisfied with how my own car handles and accelerates. The 8 speed automatic transmission shifts quietly and confidently, though the first, second, and possibly third shift points could be felt, even in ordinary driving. I will say that, on the interstate at about 65 mph, that 8th gear practically makes the engine dormant. I believe it was only turning about 1,400 or 1,500 rpm. This car had less than 10,000 miles on the clock. I can say that the Chrysler 300 feels more steady than it does smooth. It's definitely smooth, but what you feel, first and foremost, is that you're at the helm of a land yacht. I put the power seat adjuster as high as it could go and it still felt weird sensing where the outer edges of the fenders were, even though there are old school fender creases at the tops of them. The C pillar is sort of thick but, because the backlite is more upright than in so many cars, visibility was not a problem. The rear camera in the center stack came in useful when parking and backing up. However, I believe that lane departure warnings were silenced because they would illuminate yet not make any sounds. I didn't bother to pull out the manual because I'd be in it for less than 24 hours. I'm not so sure I liked the steering wheel. It was leather wrapped, with an exposed hard surface at its top edge that would have been the surface material for the entire steering wheel on a Cadillac from the 80s. The few times my hands transitioned from the leather to this surface felt weird and I would have preferred a leather steering wheel all the way around. For its size, it is agile enough but not really nimble. Still, its handling is way better than that of 4,000 pound cars from some 25 years ago. I returned the car, filling it up prior to doing so. The driving was mostly in the city along with some in-city freeway driving. I didn't calculate the fuel economy, but those 100 miles took about $8 of regular fuel. That wasn't bad and I attribute that to some of the interstate segments. In conclusion, I'm glad I got to drive this car. For those who want a retro boulevardier with a commanding presence, an unmistakable sense of holding the road, many bells and whistles, and a rich legacy, I think they'd enjoy owning a 300. I tend to like entry level models and, in that guise, it comes in at a MSRP of $31,000 or $32,000 before discounts. However, even if I was in the market and I had the funds, I would not opt for this car and I sort of can't put my finger on what it is ... and sort of can. I have had a couple of Dodge Charger rentals and prefer those, coming in at an MSRP that is about $3,000 less. Noise suppression and general tightness between the 300 and the Charger, in base form, is hardly noticeable and, over some bumps and pavement gaps, I heard a few minor arthritic creaks from the 300 whereas that Chevy Traverse I reviewed, for example, was tomb quiet under the same conditions. However, back to the 300 and its sibling the Charger, I found that the Charger has a more user friendly dash, even though the shapes on the 300's are more inspiring and the Charger's orange illumination is not to my liking. Not only that, the Charger can be had with cloth seating, has a more rakish roofline, a front grille that I've grown to like, and is easier on the eyes from every vantage point, especially with the more recent thinning and curvature of the horizontal rear light light bar. Make no mistake about it that the Chrysler 300 is a handsome and stately car. It's just that, if I was buying a traditional full size RWD car, I'd buy the Charger and keep that $3,000 difference in my wallet. Also, from having clocked the mileage on a Dodge Charger with the same Pentastar V6, and babying it, I was able to get 31 mpg on the best tank. One had to be overly diligent to do that. I'm thinking that typical highway mileage might be more like 28 or 29 mpg. Front three quarter view - I prefer the front grille from about 3 years ago with the really thin horizontal slats more so than this one with the hexagonal / egg crate pattern I tend not to like high belt lines but, on this car, it is fitting and looks great The rear tail lamps keep getting nicer with their subtle creases and the backlite helps visibility at a time when every large car seems to be going fastback ... also, can you sort of feel the humidity? Really nice clustering and sculpting on the dashboard and a rotating dial for the automatic transmission; the finishes and many features are high grade and make for a nice space to occupy There are the unusual bezels in the dashboard and the blue illumination ... and there is the steering wheel with the transition in its coverings. I love that analog clock at the top of the center stack. This car successfully blends retro and modern. There are the bucket seats with perforated leather, sporty enough patterning, and offering plenty of support ... if only they were in cloth, but you'd never see than in Chrysler's flagship passenger car. As far as color choices go, I think that the basic white with the very pale beige leather seats is the best color combination for this car. End of review

I had to take a look. Yes, I've seen it on the showroom floors. However, because it was so new then, I was more taken by the first-gen Acadia. Looking at it, I think the new version is a little too sculpted. I liked the cleaner look of the last one, especially the light assemblies and grille up front. I remember that the first-gen was nice to sit in and nicely finished. Back then, it came in at around the low $30s. I recall that it featured a 3.6 VVT V6 and a 6 speed. Is that what the current ones run with? Cool name in Acadia. What a stunning place. Seems like GMC has a thing with national parks and territories of the north ... Denali, Yukon, Acadia.

This is definitely funny. I got one of these about a year or two ago. It was for a day. It was at a Budget in the suburbs. I actually had a compact reserved and I was given the keys to a Passat. I've never liked Volkswagen. This car changed my mind. Sort of. First, I could not believe how long it was, or appeared to be. Jettas and Passats have been much shorter in the past. This new Passat was bland, but in a good way. Everything was so logical (German car) in how it is placed and the simple round clock at the top of the center stack was a refreshing thing to see (I was thinking Chrysler 300). About its deportment, what I remember is how flatly and surefootedly it handled. In short, I liked it much more than I disliked it. It was dark metallic blue Passat with a black cloth interior. The gas mileage was good but not great. I also can't believe how reasonably priced they are. I priced out a base model on the VW site in the metallic light tan color with a beige cloth interior (alloy wheels were included) and it came up to about $23 K MSRP. If these are indeed reliable, that's a good value.

And, so is the gas mileage. I looked at a spreadsheet I keep that tabulates how much I spend on a particular trip. And, next to fuel purchases, I record the fuel mileage, since it's so easy to do. On 4 fill ups, the Cruze got: (1) 35.21 mpg, (2) 38.56 mpg, (3) 33.19 mpg, and (4) 45.02 mpg (exclusively highway, cruise on, a/c off). It sips fuel. Also, on that last tank, I passed right by the very plant where the Cruze is assembled in Lordstown along I-80 where it's a turnpike. Going west, the plant was on the same side of the highway. I debated whether to pull over and take a photo of it, but that damn road is filled with highway trooper types. Had I done that, I would have posted it!

Bagged another one without much of a fuss. One got to select from the line. There was a silver one there. It was a Premier, so it had the nice steering wheel, stitching, and finishes. It also had a leather interior. I didn't like that. However, overall, I loved this car. Side view 1 Side view 2 The rear lamps and rear styling in general trumps that of the previous first iteration of the Cruze. These look svelte. Ford has a commendable dash in its Focus and Fiesta, but I like this a little more. Its really simple and, if you need more info, you can "drill down" to get it. I also like how easy the speedometer is to read. I also set the speed alert so I wouldn't ever exceed 70 mph. Grommets at left side of steering wheel for cruise control ... easy to use. This makes for only one stalk and its only function is to work the lights and signals ... the steering wheel feels great and this stitched one should be standard on the LT, but it isn't. Grommets at right side of steering wheel for displaying the info on the dash ... easy to get used to for "drilling down" through the information you want (battery, tire pressure, etc.) Wow ... what's wrong with this picture? Everything makes too much sense. I like how everything is close together, but also separate. And I also like where they placed the button to open the trunk. On my M.Y. LaCrosse, it's the exact same switch as the door locks ... you just keep pushing it longer ... I don't like that design. I love this center stack. It's easy on the eyes. Not as nice as that in a Buick Verano, but close. You can see to the left that the Premier had the push button ignition switch. Also, look at the stitching on the passenger seat. Nicely finished front part of the cabin perfectly suited for longer jaunts. The same is true of the rear part of the car. I'm guessing it would be better to be less than 6'-0" tall, though. Chevrolet has a winner in this new Cruze. It's impressive all the way around. I'm hoping it will grab some buyers who might be looking at the foreign equivalents. This car kicks ass on any Corolla or Sentra if my memory serves me correctly.

And here are some photos of another jaunt in this type of car ... a different color, a totally different place ... Side view 1 Side view 2 Not a bad color, overall ... better than silver. It had a black cloth interior. It would have been nicer with a gray or light beige cloth interior. It gets hot here. As for the seats, I was noticing they have a thin profile. It's analogous to how airlines are slimming down the seats in the economy section of the plane.

The gas mileage in the Cruze is bound to be impressive (I recently had a sedan for a few days) and its road manners are way up there for being as small as it is. I've sat in the Buick you were considering and, while it's cool that Buick has these, along with its typical build quality, I'm a stickler for good visibility. I think you made a good choice. Had it been a Verano, had they carried over the Verano, I probably would have been voting for the Verano.

Haha ... different cameras put different file numbers on jpgs, so my photos of the Traverse weren't in chronological order. I found some. Front quarter view - underwhelming grille Rear quarter view - the upward cant of the rearmost window might be a bit much and does intrude on the amount of greenhouse The instrument cluster as seen from the driver's door - standard issue GM/Chevy and easy to get used to The instrument cluster as seen from the passenger door - some curves are better than none and these are o.k. Maybe I didn't remember but these look like (partly) fabric seats to me The seats are comfortable and I like a headrest that can be brought down low like that ... in some cars, they impede visibility, especially over the rear seats What are these? The pillars of Hercules? Not my cup of tea. It was fun to drive for a few days, but it confirmed I'm a car person.

I like the dash. It has the swoops and curves, much like the Focus, that give it personality, which is sorely lacking in so many European and Japanese dashboards these days. I think the entertainment zone in the center stack might take some getting used to. I don't like it when I get into a rental vehicle and the commands aren't that intuitive, and taking too much time to learn them. Ditto for the Focus ... there's a cubby hole down at the base of the center stack, but it doesn't accommodate a phone that well. I recently had a Fusion. I've already reviewed a rented one once before. It, too, has the center meeting wipers. They had gone away from that and now they're coming back to it. The new Cruze has them as well. I remember that my '92 Regal coupe had them. I liked them because I had never seen them before. What sort of mileage did you get? I don't remember what powers these vehicles. Cool street view there! Will you look at that ... an entire street dominated by hip roofed homes. Nice. The norm in so many CLE neighborhoods seems to be gable roofed homes. I believe that Ford has an engine plant near CLE and that GM has a metal fabrication plant further to the east of there. That would make for some loyal customers of Detroit iron. You certainly see more of it in that area than you do out West. I'm hoping those plants are operative and humming along at a good clip.

More info: L 99 - displaced 263 c.i. - born of the Chevy 5.0 L / 305 c.i. - no change in bore but change in stroke - 200 h.p., even, and very good torque - over 25 mpg on highway EPA rating - only produced for 3 years and for the sedan (not the wagon), so not an omnipresent engine in the Chevrolet stable. Very interesting, at least to me.

It's funny that this thread recently woke up again. A B-O-P service adviser told me about this engine. It was in a Chevy they sold on their used car lot and they then had to service it. He couldn't believe it either. At any rate, I then became interested in these 4.3 units, seeing how much I liked the Olds spin on their V8 (theirs was a debored Rocket 350 back in the day). That one was known for its quiet operation and longevity. So, I found a few on used Caprices of '94 to '96 vintage on used car lots with this engine. Upon turning the key, this engine has a beautiful purr (nicer than any 5.0 or 5.7 I can remember) but I didn't want to drive it because I knew I wouldn't be buying it. With a serpentine belt and electric fan(s), this thing set up as RWD is a mechanic's dream. I've even talked to a few owners. They love their Caprices of these years. One was a Kentuckian who had taken it down to Florida for vacation. It had about 300,000 original miles on it and he told me he can break past 25 mpg on the open road. I don't think I'll ever do the second car thing again. However, if I did, this would be it. I've looked at EBay and other sites. It's hard to find one in a nice color, in good shape, with cloth seats (leather has all these cracks after all this time), and reasonable mileage. I know that their 80's 4.4 displaced 267 cubes. I think cubic inches had fallen out of favor by the time this engine rolled around. It would be interesting to know how many c.i.s it displaced.

O.k., so I reviewed the Chevy Traverse which I could have kept for the extent of the rental but didn't want to. I'm not used to that size of vehicle. And so I decided to go to Enterprise at the airport to try my luck at getting a regular ole car. Surprisingly, there wasn't much to pick from. I did see a new Chevy Cruze up by the rental station and thought it might be up there for a peculiar reason or some kind of issue. I was really looking forward to driving one of those. I went into this small office on the lot and told them that the Traverse obtained from a suburban location was just too big and hard to see out of - both true - and to see if I could get a car, and that the little Cruze parked there, actually below the standard category I rented, would work just fine. They hemmed and hawed and then gave it to me. Luck was on my side. I had seen the new model around and found it attractive. The styling and proportions are nice all the way around. In fact, this is the only Chevy refresh that I like among its larger 3 sedans. I checked and saw that the last Cruze I rented and reviewed here was a 2015 model carried over into 2016. If that Cruze was a big step up from the Cavalier and the Cobalt, this new Cruze (probably an LT) is yet another respectable step up from the first-gen Cruze. If you've driven the last Cruze, or any smaller to medium-sized GM car, getting used to this car and its controls is almost immediate. The coolest thing is that the annoying pushing on the stalk to get engine and car functions is gone. It is now on rubberized grommets on both sides of the steering wheel. It's much easier to toggle through battery levels, tire pressure, fuel economy, and the like this way. I remember when turbochargers dominated an engine compartment. I'm thinking of the first turbocharger heaped onto an even firing 3.8 liter (231 c.i.) V6 engine and which was a big deal back in the day. What a monstrosity! In the Cruze, it's an unobtrusive cylindrical contraption that isn't too big and sits behind the radiator but in front of the transversely laid Ecotec 1.4 L engine. The engine and the turbocharger work together in harmony. There's no kick, whoosh, graininess, or anything that tells you it's kicking into action. At least, I couldn't detect anything. Similarly, the 6 speed transaxle works seamlessly, with clean lower shift points. It works like the transmission in a much larger and more expensive car. Thus far, I was impressed by the powertrain. Other great things about the Cruze are the seats suitable for long distance jaunts, an appealing instrument panel, good build quality, a silent enough cabin, and its being planted on the road nicely. The latter is noticeably better than in the outgoing Cruze. I had the opportunity to take the car into mildly hilly terrain with curves and it handled flatly, predictably, and with the engine and transmission working quietly at almost all times unless getting into the gas to pass someone or pick up some speed, at which point a muted but pleasing engine note came through. From what I've seen of the reviews of the 2017 Cruze, they are largely favorable. I agree with what I read, for the most part. Here, you have a car that looks good, feels good, drives well, and doesn't consume much fuel. I believe that on a tank with mostly highway driving and some city driving, I was able to pull in about 37 or 38 mpg. This sounds like the makings of a winner to me.

I was going somewhere and needed a rental car. Since it fell out of the Thurs.-Mon. time frame, the rates were a little high at the airport. I looked at neighborhood locations. I found a good rate at Enterprise, albeit in the suburbs. As it turns out, I could take rapid transit train service and then walk, yes walk, some 15 minutes from a rail station through an established neighborhood to get to Enterprise. Wheeled luggage is great! So I got up to Enterprise and saw nothing like the intermediate I selected. I saw few cars to begin with ... either much larger or much smaller. When I got up to the counter, they were super nice and the agent told me he would be putting me in a Chevy Traverse. I looked out the windows and though, "Gulp." I asked if I could have it switched at the airport location. He said I could try once I was on my way, but that they can't guarantee what they'll have. So I got on my way after making all the necessary adjustments to the mirrors and whatnot. As I pulled out of the lot in this unit, the first thing that was apparent was the build quality. This Chevy Traverse was solid, with no squeaks and rattles at about 21,000 miles, and was more surefooted than I was expecting. Rarely have I driven vehicles of this genre, unless you're talking U-Haul trucks. Just kidding. It had a 3.6 V6 mated to a 6 speed transaxle. It was a recent model and I don't believe there are 8 gears in those. The shifts were imperceptible. I like imperceptible shift points during normal throttle driving. It was very quiet and nothing on the road, be they pot holes or pavement gaps, caused this thing to become unsettled. It also cornered very flatly. It took a little while to warm up to its size and height, but I began to enjoy driving it. The interior also exhibits very good build quality. The dashboard is classic in its styling in that it's not particularly memorable. This isn't like the days of the 2004-2007 Grand Prix which has a dash that was uniquely its own and like no other. Auto makers have gone more flat than anything else and there isn't much sculpting on dashboards. What you do notice is that the bits on the dash such as stalks, radio knobs, and the like are now GM standard issue ... from Cruze to Cadillac. That's obviously to control costs. But, aside from this, the build quality in the cabin, with its stitching and aligned pieces befit a vehicle costing in excess of $40,000. Well, that's just it. I didn't like driving around a rented vehicle costing in excess of $40,000, so I decided that I'd enjoy it for a day or two and then try to exchange it at the airport location. Obviously, the Traverse had leather seats. I will choose cloth seats over leather any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I like them much better but then, I grew up on them, including the loose cushion look ones. Also, the thick last pillar makes it slightly difficult to see outside when making lane changes. The rear camera, however, helps when maneuvering to park. As far as the styling goes, it looks o.k. from some vantage points. For as big as the vehicle is, the front grille is sort of underwhelming. The rear of the car has some extra character with the backlite in the hatch door canting away from the center on both sides. This sort of works, since the belt line from the side windows then cants upward to meet it. Overall, it's a decent looking vehicle, but not one that grabbed me in any way. Lastly, I tanked up twice in two days to see how much fuel it used. Because I tanked up twice, I didn't have to put in much fuel in terms of gallons. However, the gas mileage in combined driving came in at around 20 or 21 m.p.g. That did and doesn't work for me. So, it was literally a cheap thrill to driver this Chevy Traverse for two days and discover how competent and surefooted it is. However, I was looking forward to getting into a regular car and one that consumed less fuel. That will be the "part deux" review that I will write under separate cover. - - - - - - - - - - Note: I was looking for photos of this vehicle. I took some. When I find them, I will upload them.

@dfelt - I'd change it to look more like the variant that only police departments get. I don't even know its name. Would it be a Caprice or just the fleet police unit? The grilles on those are sportier and more defined, along with the tail lamps. I'd also "dechunk" it a little bit, with that rear pillar being way too thick and ungainly. The rake of the rear windows is fine. I'm not liking the trend to fastback anything and everything to the point that there's almost no trunk lid. I like how the cowl of the dash feels wide and the top of it is not overpowering relative to where you sit, though I don't think that spread out bucket seats like that would be in demand today. They'd need to be more cupped. I still prefer the flatter look. @ocnblu - yes, it's weird to see the jump to 300 hp in the 3.6 from 211 hp in the 3.5. I'm guessing that, independent of other major components, 3.5s have held up fairly well. GM service advisors seem to say these engines have gone the long haul.

There are only 4 econoboxes that I know of that you can get with manual windows. They are the Chevy Sonic, the Chevy Spark, the Ford Fiesta, and the Nissan Versa. When it's icy outside and hitting the power window button does NOTHING, you sort of think back to manual windows. I had them in my last car ... by design! It's not surprising they are in the Nissan Versa. It's supposedly the least expensive car you can buy in America. At least, that's the case in base form with manual transmission and no options. It costs something like $12,000 outfitted that way. Professional reviewers all say that the Versa sedan is bread and butter transportation and nothing more. Except for doing its job, they don't like much about it in terms of how it runs, handles, and how it's assembled. I had a chance to rent one for one day. It's a throwback to when cars didn't handle that well and were a little noisier. It doesn't take any time to learn what's in the instrument panel because there's not much to learn. Car reviewers comment on how noisy the engine is and that coupling this small engine (1.6) with a CVT brings out the worst in it, meaning that it can drone and drone when pushed, passing, or going up a hill. I never really did that with it, but I will say that noise suppression is not one of its best qualities. The CVT works fine in the larger Nissans such as the Altima and even the Sentra. The Versa's ride stays settled enough but can become more unsettled than most cars if the asphalt is broken, there are normal pavement gaps, and whatnot. Then, it jerks around. The model they put in rental fleets is the one right above the base model, so it has power windows and cruise control. The build quality is very downmarket with nothing in the instrument panel being appealing. It doesn't cost anything to at least make the panel attractive instead of planting this squarish blob there as the center stack. The seat comfort was also subpar. This would be a difficult car to live with if driving long distances. Also, in base form but with a 4 speed automatic, there is no cruise control. There are very few 4 speed automatics on the lots since a $500 uptick base model with CVT does include the cruise control. Living without cruise control these days would be problematic .... and it would add to driver fatigue. I'm sure that, like other econoboxes made by the Japanese, this car is probably good for 10 to 15 years if driven 10,000 to 12,000 miles a year and taken care of. You see a lot of cars in this category still on the road, just like you see quite a few GM W-bodies from the 90s still on the road. There isn't much to go sideways in these little runts. The funniest thing about the Versa is its shape, particularly without the spoiler giving it some upward kick. It looks like it's making a sad face or it looks like a dog that you've kicked in the ass (NOT something I'd do) and that is running away from you with its hind quarters sort of scrunched down. I know that, in the U.S. News subcompact category, the Versa came in at 17 while the Sonic came in at 2 and the Fiesta came in at 3. The little Sonic sedan, even though it costs $2 K more, is a much more attractive little car in my opinion, especially considering that you'll be looking at whatever you buy for a long time. However, for someone short on funds and who prefers a new bread and butter ride, I'm sure they can't complain about the inherent value that comes in the basic Versa sedan.

Nice photo of the Malibu in the original post. I like the character lines. The kink in the metal trim on the upper side of the rear "opera window" in the C pillar drives me nuts. That could so easily be designed out. I'm betting that the ride is indeed smooth. I've only driven as late as the last gen, so 2016, I believe. For it to get the rave reviews, the ride, insulation, and handling had to have been dialed in on quite well. And 33 mpg is GREAT if you were going down the highway at 80 mph. Destin, FL, huh? I'm envious. I love the FL Panhandle. In terms of styling, I currently think the Cruze is Chevy's best work in terms of pulling off a good silhouette within its length and width. I had the chance to drive the new Cruze and loved it. I will have to write it up. So it looks like they haven't fixed the start-stop eco mode when at a light. I, too, wish it could be disabled. I flat out don't like it. If it's not seamless, then forget it.

I've already reviewed the last-gen (2014 or 2015) Chevy Malibu. The reason I got the car is because I returned the new, heavily pillared and raked Chevy Impala to the rental car agency because I couldn't see out the back and over the headrests. I wrote a fairly good review about that Chevy Malibu. Some of you agreed and some of you disagreed. While this review is about an Impala, I had another of those last-gen Malibus in the recent past. The base 2.5 was indeed coarse when hammered and, not only that, the gas mileage on 2 tanks wasn't what I got the first time I had one as a rental. However, the biggest demerit was the start-stop feature at a light. It was far from seamless. The engine came back to life with a shudder most of the time. Over Thanksgiving, I had a full-size car reserved from E.A.N. You could select from the line at this airport. I saw not one, but two, last-gen classic Chevy Impalas to choose from! I forgot how I selected the one I did. It could have been license plates congruent with the state of rental or the fact that it had those plump cloth bucket seats. This was the last W-body that carried on for fleets and that was finished out at GM in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada - where my current and last car were assembled! After the car I had rented prior to that, I feel that this Impala might be getting one helluva "halo effect." It had the ubiquitous 3.6 high feature V6 mated to the now very familiar 6 speed automatic transmission. God, this car made so much sense. Everything about it was easy. The instrument panel cluster and pods were simple and intuitive. The blue lighting was refreshing. The rig felt solid, both in its build quality in the cabin and via its weight. The switches and toggles were familiar, being that they were mostly unchanged. And, last but not least, one can be an average sized individual and appreciate those wide and not overly contoured bucket seats finished in cloth. These were the same ones found 9 and 10 years ago in both the Chevrolet Impala and the Monte Carlo as it was being phased out. And I commented on them favorably back then. The drivability of the 2016 fleet Impala was quite good. This 300 hp V6 was very capable of handling this sedan weighing somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 pounds. It worked well off the line, to pass, and all the way around. The transmission shifted smoothly and hinted at the shift points. Lately, I've decided I prefer a geared transmission to a CVT but I just don't need all the various speeds. From an auto show, I learned that this engine is, or has been, on Ward's Top Ten Engines list. For being that powerful, highway trips returned high 20s in terms of mpgs. Mixed driving came back in the low 20s. Traffic clogged streets and expressways in South Florida can do that. Moving to and from Fort Lauderdale and Miami during rush hour was absurd and an incident off on the shoulder or in the HOV lanes was the order of the day. The quietness of the cabin and the suppleness of the suspension weren't what they are in my old school LaCrosse, but they were close enough and good enough. There were two things I didn't like about the car. First, it felt cheap to have a car with a nice, commodious interior with alloys on the exterior and be holding onto a urethane wheel. Second, the Impala has always been among the W-bodies with the least amount of steering assist at low speeds. They all have that issue, including my LaCrosse. However, when maneuvering to get into and out of parking spaces, the hydraulic power steering unit on this car felt cumbersome. Still, for all that was good about this car, the negatives were negligible. And one could always figure out how to get a leather wrapped wheel onto what I believe was an LT model. I remember the good old days of the 3.5 high value V6 engine and the 4-speed automatic transmission. And I remember how easily that combination could have an Impala or Monte Carlo deliver 33 mpg on a highway trip. I was perfectly o.k. with 211 horses and 4 gears still allows you to feel the shift points, despite their being almost seamless. With 6 or 8 gears, I lose interest in the shift points. I prefer to feel every step shift. After all, it's not a CVT. The other thing is that the full size Chevy they put on police fleets is a tad better looking than this vehicle. The rear end is nicer with smaller taillamps, the roof line flows better, and the front end is far and away more appealing. I did not bother to check out the dashboards and interiors of these since it's probably not a good idea to be peering into police cars. At any rate, this Impala was only offered to fleets. I believe that a year or two prior to that, solo customers could get it on this car fresh from the factory. Since it's no longer being produced and the individual buyer option is no longer workable, I didn't bother to look into the logistics. However, I will recant on what I said in another review. If I had been in the market for a car a year or two ago, this would have been my "go to" car. For about $26,000 to $28,000 MSRP, one gets a stalwart of a W-body, plenty of room, plenty of history for mechanics and owners, a Ward's Top Ten engine, many other tried and true GM components, and a lot of common sense in a car. The Verano would have come next, but a Cruze-based Verano is not going to happen. Going, going, gone for the long-lived Impala body style dating back to 2005. For those looking for and needing an heirloom GM car through about 2014, this would have been a good way to go, but then hindsight is 20:20. Car exterior (side) Car exterior (it has always looked bigger than the Grand Prix and the LaCrosse) Car exterior (the diamond hatch in the grille seemingly says high feature 3.6 V6 and 6 speed trans. - I preferred the earlier grille with horizontal slats) : Engine bay (300 ponies reside in here) Car exterior (rear view - it was an LT) Roomy trunk An unchanged and highly functional front cabin (no push button start - everything is "old school" and it felt solid to the touch) I sort of like the dual hump look on the cowl of the dashboard Good rear seat, not that it was needed (this is where you can tell this vehicle is a little longer than the Grand Prix and the LaCrosse of W-body vintage) and the fabric is far from high rent, but it felt durable Super easy to work with - simple, all you need, nice graphics, blue back lighting, and some D.I.C. buttons at the right ... I miss dashboards that are this sensible. Bleh to the urethane steering wheel. It was an LT, so it should have been leather wrapped. That would have felt much better. The difference is light years. Lastly, these bucket seats felt great ... to me, the proportions are ideal and it's doubtful we'll see car seats this plump and this wide in cars at lower price points

So, the Smart came ... and stayed. It's not something that came and went. I will say something right off the bat - with their small size and automatics, they are a dream to park or squeeze through narrow spaces if in Europe. The Smart car has seen its sheet metal change in a few areas, and for the better. I remember how the front and rear styling in the original versions was underwhelming . Current versions feature grilles that look like grilles, and improvements in character lines and rear tail lamps as well. However, the biggest change is the slight elongation of the front of the car over the engine compartment. With there actually being a small amount of horizontal hood, it looks more like a real car and not like a golf course vehicle. In terms of mechanics, the biggest improvement has been in its much criticized automatic transmission. It is not seamless or only slightly perceptible, as is the case with a lot of mid-market and upmarket American cars. However, these gearboxes more recently seem to work much better. The shift point feel is acceptable for an econobox under light throttle or during rapid acceleration to merge or pass. In versions from over 5 years ago, their automatics were downright unsettling and critics jumped on this. The weirdest sensation came from pulling away from a stop in a town or a city ... and immediately facing a hill. What were probably the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts at low speeds felt as if the car paused and was going to stall. After a few times, you knew it wouldn't stall, but it was definitely weird. As to how they drive and handle, not much has changed. They might be a tad bit quieter. The shift lever for the automatic now resembles one seen in an economy car stateside. The dashboard is a little bit more fleshed out. For being so small, gas mileage is not stellar. Checking it on 85% highway treks brought in mileage of 38 mpg to 45 mpg, converted to measures we Americans use. I had 2 of them - a Smart for Two in Portugal and a Smart for Four in northern Italy. The 2-seater is just great for putting around. As with any prior reviews I might have done on this car, it's amazing that it feels like a bigger car when you take it out on the road. This is especially the case since the cabin is sort of sheared off right behind where you sit! The main hassle with this car is the abysmal trunk room and that, even behind the front seats, there isn't much room for anything. The 4-seater is a little longer and the ride is steadier, almost decent. In this one, items you might need during the day and won't have exposed should you park the car can be thrown in the floor of the rear seat area. Neither of these cars would be good for long trips. They do bring on some driver fatigue, even compared to something like a Ford Focus. Just as a sidebar, on another occasion, they had run out of automatic econobox rentals and I was put into a larger Opel wagon with an automatic. For one, it was harder to drive around where streets are smaller, roads are marginal, and parking is tighter. However, it was both strange and comforting to drive something that shares so many components with the current Buick Regal on our turf. The steering feel, ride, and serene shifting automatic were great. And, there was a leather steering wheel as well! I am beginning to think that Europeans are becoming more receptive to automatic transmissions. So, if you plan on renting in the EU and want an entry level car with an automatic, it might very well be a Smart. Others that come with automatics could be Fiat 500s and even some Citroens, among others. Larger cars with an automatic cost an arm and a leg over there to rent. As for the Smart, who wouldn't be happy to have one in the EU? Instead of focusing on changing gears in an unfamiliar place, you can focus on what's outside your windshield, different traffic signs, and doing some quick math your head to convert kmh to mph should you want to know how fast you'd be going in America. One photo of Smart for Two (partial view at rental check-out) and two photos of Smart for Four in northern Italy, fairly close to Austria.

I agree. But this could turn around and bite them if they released a swath of years with some marginal automatic transmissions. For one, those Focus and Fiesta buyers may not come back. It's like those people who had Cadillac V8-6-4 engines in the early 80s who said sayonara to GM as a result of always having them in the shop. If I recall, bigger Cadillac-Olds-Buick products of that era had "credit" options of Buick's 4.1 liter (252 cu. in. 4 bbl.) V6 which worked fine and was probably a better choice. It was funny to walk up to a standard sized Cadillac sedan with the entry level cloth seats, wheel covers, white walls, and a 4.1 Buick V6 under the hood!

It's really too bad because these transmission issues are not ones that develop years down the line but are readily apparent. How they can ignore them is beyond me. I recently noticed that, within Chevy, Sonic runs with a geared 6 speed automatic, which is now a familiar unit, but Spark runs with a CVT. Both Focus and Fiesta run with this Ford dual clutch 6 speed automatic we are talking about. If they can't fix them or don't want to, maybe they need to switch to CVT. I am so used to a step-gear transmission, but was amazed at what a CVT can fetch in terms of mpg on a bigger Nissan Altima, for one.

Right, but there shouldn't be many, or any, when that new. If pulling away from a light brings some jerking actions along with it, I won't be considering that car. Six speed automatics have been with us for a while and they perform seamlessly in even the smallest of cars across so many brands. I arbitrarily picked the 2014 MY. I liked that grille much better for this car since it leans back. The owners' reviews are harsh. 2014 Ford Focus owner reviews on Edmunds If you then go to the lead review, you can see that Edmunds was much kinder to this vehicle in its review. However, note the pros and cons that they state. When I wrote this up, I couldn't upload photos that easily for some reason, so here are some: 1) Picking up the vehicle. It was the hatchback. I prefer the sedan. Either way, I was happy to get to try a Focus. 2) Here is the car at Stanley Park, looking back at Vancouver, B.C., Canada, with a tree unfortunately casting a shadow on it 3) I don't like the hatchback because of the side profile and even the visibility to some extent. The trunk is decent. It has tonneau cover to hide what one has in there. 4) The whole layout here certainly has a fair amount of personality compared to some cars in this segment where many dashboards are plain and boring. 5) The seats were comfortable enough, ergonomically proportioned for an average sized adult male, and nicely finished. They were probably a little harder than I like. 6) Even thought it's a little busy, I like this center stack. The outside temperature readout and the clock are here and always on, and not interrupted when doing other tasks with the digital settings. There's a small rear camera. If it's damp outside, the image isn't as clear. My only complaint is that a phone, even a smaller phone, won't easily fit in the cubby hole at the bottom of it. I have never understood what those thin, long slats to the left of the shift lever are for. Maybe someone can tell me.

What makes you shudder? The cold? Seeing something gory? Well, a Ford Focus can make me shudder. Read on and find out how. I happened onto an exceptional opportunity to rent a compact car for about $11 a day around Labor Day. One rents a category and not a car. When I arrived to the agency, I didn't see anything among the compacts that I liked. Focuses were something I was curious about and they had been evading me in rental situations, despite seeing bar codes anywhere and everywhere as I went about my daily existence. As luck would have it, a Focus was being returned as I walked out to survey the inventory one last time. "Can I have it?" "Yes, if you're willing to wait 10 or 20 minutes until we can clean it up for you?" Affirmative. I had been seeing the Ford Focus around quite a bit and thought of how much the styling has improved over the years. I'm referring to the basic sedan, which flows nicely because of the presence of a trunk lid. I will admit that I prefer the last body style, with the canted back front fascia, instead of the current one with the wannabe Aston Martin grille. Not only that, sitting in them in showrooms revealed a cabin that, for a smaller car, is pleasing. I liked the dashboard, the console, and even the seats. As some reviews mention, the materials are actually respectable for this price point. I was happy to finally have a chance to drive one ... and for a paltry sum that made it senseless to drive my own sled instead. The reviews, by both experts and consumers, were mostly on point. The Focus is agile and somewhat fun to drive. It's a car you get accustomed to right away. The only exception might be the settings in the instrument panel. Once you fuss with them, you can get them to cough up a digital speed readout in addition to the analog speedometer. I prefer that setting. It's easier to stay out of trouble. With a seemingly unchanged 2.0 liter 4 banger, the Focus has been a constant. As for its 6 speed automatic, it has not been. If one reads the reviews on-line and on various car sites, possibly Edmunds, KBB, and Microsoft Autos, one can see many folks complaining about the automatic transmission between the years 2012 and 2014, more or less. Those reviews were written by angry customers. They talked about lurches and shudders, and visits to the dealership. In the car that I had, there were no lurches, but there was a shudder and it seemed to be confined to shift point 1 to 2, at about 18 to 20 mph. In city driving, that can be annoying. Not only that, if this unit had about 20,000 miles on it, it might be indicative of a transmission that won't be long lived. That's my guess. The issue is that this is a different sort of automatic, called a "dual clutch" or something to that effect. It's probably so the transmission could also be marketed to Europeans and others, and Focus is a known model in Europe. I'm just surprised that, upon earlier complaints about this unit, Ford engineers didn't immediately jump on this issue to make sure it was debugged to the tune of 100%. My rental car, presumably a 2016, did some chattering and shuddering at low speeds. Not that I would buy a Ford Focus, but renting a car one might buy is a great idea. The 2007 rental of a Buick LaCrosse (it was actually an Allure in Canada) in Montreal, and taking it around Quebec and upstate N.Y. for a week, told me I was good to go in terms of springing for that car. It's probably a good idea to compare the Focus to the Cruze, the last-gen model in my situation. The Focus may be tad more agile, but it's definitely not as isolated as the Cruze. The Cruze was quieter and smoother, with not too much tire thum. The Focus has some tire droning sounds which quiet down at about 60 mph and above. Fuel economy was surprisingly excellent. Every single tank that consisted of at least 85% highway driving returned right around 40 mpg. The Focus is a work in progress, in my opinion. It has an attractive silhouette, comfortable enough seats, a sensible and pleasing dash, is fun to drive, and is an easy car to live with. However, had the kink in the dual clutch 6 speed automatic been worked out (or had it been a CVT) and if the car isolated both the noise and bumps as well as the Cruze, it would be a more plausible head to head match for the GM car that is sort of its direct competitor.

When I first looked at the photos released of the new LaCrosse, I loved the front end. It makes one helluva statement and fuses the New World with "old school Buick" very nicely. Then, when I saw the Hyundai Azera jelly bean shape along the sides and the rear in 3/4 view, I thought, "fail." I wish they'd stop making sedans look like fastback coupes. The other thing that's weird is the use of this rust/brick colored interior that sits between a reddish color and an earth tone. I don't think it mixes well with a lot of the exterior color choices, or maybe it's just me that doesn't care for it.