Cars Information

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 Mazdas 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 Ive already driven the Protege knowing that Mazda does make pretty good drivers 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 doesnt lose feel like what Ive 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 dont like that the Mazda 6 is very mid sized, the interior room is not as big as a Camry or Accord. Im not fat so I didnt notice.

My Score: 7/10 - A decent interior, not brilliant but one that doesnt 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. Theres 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 youre not a fat person the size should be more than adequate and better for fuel economy too. While it doesnt 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 doesnt and doesnt overcharge due to the badge.

Overall: 42/50 - A very good car, if you dont need luxuries its more than enough to satisfy the family man who initially wanted a sports car.

I almost forgot this one, I dont drive too many different types of minivans so it sometimes is easy to forget them.



Introduction: The Chevrolet Uplander and Pontiac Montana are both part of GMs minivans. The earliest GM minivans were introduced for 1990 as the Chevrolet Lumina, Pontiac Trans Sport and the Oldsmobile Silhouette. GMs minivans have only gone through 3 generations with the early Luminas lasting nearly 10 years in production. These minivans were GMs attempt to take on Chrysler and its Caravan which sells in very high volume. Ford was the first to quit the minivan business after the Freestars disappointing sales, now GM also put its minivans on the chopping block and have so far not mentioned a succeeding minivan beyond the 2009 model year.

Like I mentioned in the last review, I wasnt too thrilled about the GM minivans either. I dont even get much in terms of choices of minivans its either GM or Dodge, now its all Dodge.


Performance: The GM minivans are all powered by a 3.9L V6 making this the biggest V6 available for a minivan outside of the highest spec Dodge Caravan. The Canadian spec V6 is flex fuel compatible allowing you to put in E85. These engines produce 240 hp and 240 lb.ft of torque making these the least expensive but most powerful minivans. Unfortunately they do not produce the best acceleration numbers since they can only do 0-100 km/h in 8.1 seconds. Better than the least powerful minivans but not close to Toyota or Honda who both have smaller V6s and are still quicker. You do not really notice the size of the V6 in the Uplander/Montana since it doesnt move the van that quickly, its better than the Caravan but it doesnt feel fast nor acts like the engine is that quick.

My Score: 8/10 - Engine is adequate in performance but not efficient versus Toyota or Honda

Handling: The Uplander as a minivan is not designed to tackle corners. Taking these minivans to a corner quickly, youll notice huge amounts of roll and at the same time not feel all that excited until you probably get the sense the van will roll over. Theyre much easier to park than the Caravans mostly with their better turning radius. Theyre not fun however, the wheel is very lightly weighted and thus produces little feel. I guess its suited for moms but as a driver who likes driving these were a bore to drive.

My Score: 3/10 - Not good at corners, bad body roll, lacking steering feel.


Interior: With minivans, you have to look at the clever ways they use space or innovative features that make them worth buying over the competition. The short wheel base GM vans do not provide very good trunk space and do not have Chryslers clever stow n go. Even worse as base vehicles they only provide 6 seats making it a somewhat pointless minivan until you go further with options to get 7 seats. Most minivans offer 7 or 8 seating, its the Crossover SUVs that offer mostly 6 or 7 seats. As for cargo space, you can fold the seats but they take up extra room versus the Caravan which folds the seats to floor level. The vans materials are pretty cheap and mostly unattractive. The wheel like I mentioned about the Grand Prix is also gigantic, not sure why. Last but not least the build quality...the GM minivans have horrid build quality. Ive seen some vans where the plastic tag for the carpets that were not removed meaning sometimes you see a tiny plastic spike in your carpet. They rattle very often due to loose pieces all over, the cup holder often fails and Ive once had door trim come out. Worse however is sometimes the trim surrounding the door rails fail and prevent the sliding door from opening. Theyre almost as bad as Trailblazers in this sense. They are built in Doraville, Georgia, USA.

My Score: 2/10 - 7 passenger seating is an option, no interior innovation and very badly built

Styling: The Montana is a pretty standard looking minivan, the Uplander however has a horrible looking grille. Some automobile articles think the Uplander is one of the worst vehicles in terms of style...Ill only agree if they specifically focus only on grilles. Taking out the grille, the rest of the van is generic. The Edsel looked very good if it werent for that grille it had. There are uglier vehicles out there.

My Score: 5/10 - Generic minivan styling but the Uplander has a terrible grille.

Value for money: These minivans can only compete well if they are at their base MSRP unfortunately the fact that the 7 seating capacity is an option puts it in trouble. Theres nothing special about the interior versus the Caravan. Its not very luxurious either compared to the Japanese. This current generation is also horribly unreliable, the traction control always believes it has a problem. Other than being heavily discounted these are not worthwhile vans.

My Score: 2/10 - 7 passenger capacity being an option, poor reliability, offers very little compared to the competition.

Overall: 20/50 - These are not good minivans, theyre cheap for a reason and it seems GM realized it was no good and killed it for good reason.

Im sorry, my last update was back in November and now its nearing Christmas time. This last set of reviews will likely be the last for the year so hopefully Ill get a few through. Starting with this vehicle.


Introduction: The Ford Edge is a midsize crossover introduced in 2006. This is one of the first vehicles by Ford to implement the Ford tri-bar grille. This vehicle uses the CD3 platform shared by the early Mazda6. This is Fords first attempt in the segment after seeing Toyotas success with the Toyota Highlander and the Nissan Murano. The Edge comes in 4 trim levels, the base SE, the SEL, the Limited and the Sport. This review will look at the SEL and the Limited. Sales of the Edge have been very good to the point where Ford has redesigned it for the 2011 model year and is currently a market leader.

Like all CUVs I didnt really have much expectations for them and because of what I require in a car wouldnt consider them. Although this vehicle I knew was one of Fords better selling vehicles of the time so it did give me some insight into it being at least decent.


Performance: All Ford Edge models come with the same engine and transmission. A 3.5L V6 thats mated to a 6-speed automatic. This V6 engine is capable of producing 265 hp and 250 lb.ft of torque. This means the acceleration from 0-100 km/h is about 8.3-8.4 seconds which is reasonable. The engine is rather quiet and refined making it a rather smooth and comfortable vehicle. The fuel economy is acceptable, not particularly outstanding but its better than the Explorer. All in all its a nice engine although it wont excite a performance oriented driver its good for regular calm driving.

My Score: 8/10 - Reasonably performance, alright fuel economy, quiet and smooth.

Handling: Being a tall, heavy vehicle the Edge is not an ideal vehicle to take corners too quickly. I was sort of hoping it acted close to how the Mazda CX-7 did but it seems Ford would rather focus on ride comfort over cornering ability. By taking the Edge in the corner while it will do it, youll know the understeer is coming and the roll is very present. If you wanted a more agile vehicle its best to look at the Mazda. The steering is good for this sort of vehicle meaning it should communicate enough to allow confident driving.

My Score: 7/10 - Its good enough for most, ride comfort is good, noticeable understeer and roll.


Interior: Being a new key product for Ford this was where we would see whether they were capable of surviving. As a result Ford did spend a lot more resources on the interior where in the past they wouldnt. The interior in the Edge is rather simple and straight forward. It didnt have the cheap knobs we were used to seeing in less expensive cars although on the earlier Edges the stereo was mediocre. Interior materials are reasonable, nothing that looks out of the ordinary but crucially nothing that looks cheap and nasty. Theres a lot of space for the 5 passengers in the vehicle while also having a big tailgate area. The interior is very easy to work with and if you have the limited the power options make things even easier. Some Ford Edges have a rubber mat for the tailgate area which means its easier to preserve the carpet if you know youll put something that will make it messy. Theres a leather parcel rack but not being solid it doesnt look that good and with the high tailgate ultimately useless. Knowing its visibility with the C and D pillars is not great, the mirrors provide two angles one for the blind spot and one to see the cars side. Its a well thought out interior despite it not being flash and interesting to look at. Ive never seen a build quality issue on the Edge so it shouldnt fall apart. The Edge is assembled in Oakville, Ontario, Canada.

My Score: 8/10 - Well made, well thought out, well designed but slightly lacking in aesthetics.

Styling: I must admit the Edge is a rather distinctive vehicle. Ford went with a rather egg shaped vehicle which is risky since the last time we saw an egg shaped vehicle was the Previa and it didnt succeed on styling. Its not my favourite tri-bar grille vehicle but its the interesting shape that draws your attention to it being a Ford and not some random CUV. The rear doesnt have much interesting details but the front does have unique headlights in an attempt to match the grille.

My Score: 8/10 - Pretty noticeable, unique shape, the rear however doesnt is rather ordinary.

Value for money: Pricing for the Edge is rather high considering its supposed place in the Ford lineup. For much of the same money you could have a Taurus X which is bigger. The Toyota Highlander actually starts out less expensive as well. Its not as practical as a minivan since it only seats 5 which is as good as the Escape. The Ford Flex offers more seating capacity again for the same money. With these things in mind, I dont see the Edge offering much to a consumer looking purely at statistics. What the Edge does offer is the unique styling. It appears many liked the way it looked because evaluating the Edge against even other Fords it seems overpriced mainly since it doesnt offer anything special.

My Score: 5/10 - If you like the looks itll do well, if youre not as interested in that the Flex is better or you can save money with the Escape which is just as good.

Overall: 36/50 - Its a good CUV on its own merits, its done rather well. Value within the Ford lineup is the only part where Im a bit confused at its success.

Ah my first review of a car that has been discontinued for good, the Dodge Magnum.


Introduction: The Dodge Magnum was introduced in 2005 as part of Chryslers LX platform the only one of Chryslers platforms using Mercedes Benz components and pieces. The original Dodge Magnum was a replacement of the old Charger essentially a short lived 2-door car on Chryslers B-platform. The current version however is a station wagon version of Chryslers flagship 300. Dodge has given the Magnum 4 different engines ranging from 2 V6 units to 2 V8 units including Chryslers famed HEMI V8. Unfortunately for Chrysler the Magnum has not sold well and eventually was discontinued in 2008.

When I first saw this gigantic beast, I was rather eager to drive it due to it being from the LX platform and how cool it looked. I was slightly skeptical as well since I also drove the Sebring that day and that was an unhappy memory(I will around to this one and explain why, trust me). During this time I loved everything about RWD and believed that whatever Chrysler did to this car that my faith in RWD would not be shaken.


Performance: Oh boy...I only driven the SE version meaning I got the car with the 2.7L V6 that produces 190 hp and 190 lb.ft of torque. Let me put it this way...Ive never driven such a slow car, unlike the Fusion which felt slow...this car was slow. Most people could at best do 0-100 km/h in 11.7 seconds...thats pathetic. The engine sounded awful for a V6 unit...and guess what...its used on quite a few Chryslers. A big reason why this car accelerates so poorly is its about 4000 lbs...the engine is nowhere near adequate and should have not been an option. The man in a Toyota Prius can accelerate much quicker than this heavy beast with a weak heart. If you must buy one of these, it better be a V8.

My Score: 1/10 - The engine sucked, this is the slowest accelerating car Ive driven, I hated it.

Handling: The Magnum is a RWD car so it must handle well...right? Im afraid not, due to the fact the car is 4000 lbs this its unable to handle very well with the suspension Chrysler fitted to it along with the Mercedes bits. It just didnt have any agility and you could really feel the weight, its just miserable at attempting a corner. Being a Chrysler, the wheel isnt weighted properly and was rather light meaning it gave little feedback as your miserably going around the corner.

My Score: 1/10 - None of the cornering advantages of RWD apply here, this whale has a hard time going from corner to corner.


Interior: Things still dont look good here, the interior of the Magnum is pretty appalling. All of the plastics are of very low quality, you can just see they didnt even bother to use smooth plastic and notice how they look exactly like recycled budget school chairs due to their texture. The ergonomics of the car are also pretty poor, due to my height I need to sit up close...problem is the turn signal stalk is so low my knee prevents it from signaling left. You can see from the picture how the stalk is angled down 45 degrees. Who in earth thought this was a good idea? Theyre mostly all black too with cheap aerosol painted plastic pretending to be aluminum which always looks disgusting. The stereo is a standard Chrysler unit which is not very sophisticated but nonetheless doesnt look good or sound good enough to warrant keeping. The car is pretty spacious but you dont have good seats to sit in.

My Score: 2/10 - Cheap plastic, ugly aerosol paint job, so-so stereo, dumb ergonomics...you can clearly tell they had no stylist do this interior.

Styling: Finally something the car can be happy about. The styling of this Dodge is pretty aggressive and was clearly inspiration for the Charger. This looks like the car that would be suitable for a cool bad guys getaway car. This would also be a pretty scary looking cop car should the car ever need a station wagon. I do like the styling, the rear kind of gives it a hearse image but other than that its actually something done well.

My Score: 8/10 - Aggressive, intimidating and yet still pretty cool looking despite the side profile making it seem like a hearse.

Value for money: The Dodge Magnum is not a good value for your money unless you really need a very large station wagon. The awful interior, the awful performance and the awful handling should have driven you nuts and forcing you to forget this car. There are a few wagons out there while not as big, are certainly much better cars than a Magnum like the Mazda6 or Subaru Legacy/Outback.

My Score: 2/10 - The only good value you get for your money is if you happen to need a gigantic station wagon.

Overall: 14/50 - If it werent for the styling, this car would be a total miserable failure. It was discontinued for a reason, unlike what Ive said about Ford and Hyundai...Chrysler hasnt learned.