Commentary From An Unlicensed Author: Issue #2, C/D Small Car Comparison

[YSSMAN]

If you have not received your newest issue of Car and Driver (the one with the Ford FR500 on the cover), you may want to turn away from this posting now. It will contain spoilers and commentary on their comparison test, "Sensible Shoes."

---

First of all, I want to give congrats to Car and Driver on their new format. It comes off clean, easy to use, and overall more refined than that of before. I will miss the rather lengthy explanations of why this and why that, but the look is pleasing, and overall it is a good cross between that of a European magazine and that of traditional Car and Driver. Heres to hoping that future issues are just as good!

---

I have to say that I was both surprised and not surprised when reading the comparison test, "Simple Shoes." In this test, Car and Driver chose to search out the best $18,000 small car sold here in the US, competitors coming in the form of:

- Toyota Corolla LE
- Honda Civic LX
- Nissan Sentra 2.0S
- Mazda 3s Touring
- Hyundai Elantra SE
- Volkswagen Rabbit 2.5 5-door

Of all the cars there, I have to say I was expecting so much of the new Sentra based on what I had seen at car shows and at the dealer. Simply put, the car fell flat on it's face, and quite frankly, it is all Nissan's fault. Taking the notorious "spunk" out of the small Sentra by making it larger, more soft, and more apt to "regular" people killed it the minute it set foot on dealer lots. Sure, the car looks great and pricing isn't too bad. But with the big-thrust engine and heavy weight, performance is disappointing, downright dismal for a car this new. To be completely honest, if you want a Sentra, buy a Versa. There isn't any way around it. The best thing going for the Sentra in this round is the overall look of the car. It isn't crazy-stupid like the Civic, and it isn't overly dull like the Corolla. It is Nissan through and through, and you certainly aren't going to mistake it for anything else.

What more can I say about the Corolla that I haven't allready said about it? Simply put, it is out-of date and in need of replacement. Good news is, that is in the works. But, we will still have to deal with the current model for another two years or so. Toyota will still sell plenty of them as no-nonsense practicality machines that are devoid of soul and presence in any way. Stare at your optional wood trim all you want, it isn't going to turn it into a Camry any time soon. I've been suggesting for years that Toyota drag the car out behind the chemical shed and get it over with, but year after year they bring it back... I'd still recommend it for "regular" folks looking for a "regular" car, but I wouldn't touch one with a 10-foot pole. They are kinda like that Leech character from X3, sucking the power out of anyone who enters the car. Good for some, but not for those of us looking to actually have some fun.

I have to say that the Hyundai Elantra was a bit of a surprise. Of all the cars that are in the competition, it is the one I have the least experience with. I've seen them at the dealer, but I haven't actually stopped to touch one or done any solid research. The review is positive, and thats good news for Hyundai. I'll look into the car, maybe report back later, but if I were Honda or Toyota, I'd be getting very worried right about now...

The Honda Civic finish was a bit of a surprise as well. Given how often that Honda plays into Car and Driver's favor, a third place finish almost seems like a sign of the apocalypse in some circles of hell. But even then, this wouldn't be the first time that C/D has been disappointed in a recent Civic. Oh wait, they have been for the current and previous generations. I view the loss in a very passive way; you either love or hate the car. I myself would be in the hate-it category with both exterior and interior styling, but I simply cannot argue against the engineering of the car. Honda does what Honda does best, strike a balance between sport and civility, package it in an attractive model at a somewhat reasonable price, and sell it in droves. This current Civic for me is a huge letdown, and I believe I have made that known before. The interior seems to have taken a step backward in quality, I can't stand the new gauges, and the exterior styling really bugs me on the American model (strangely, not so much for the Europeans). But alike the Toyota, if someone was going to as me what car I'd recommend, the Honda would sit pretty high on the list for most "regular" people. Myself? There are better choices out there.

The Mazda 3s was again not too much of a surprise in its spot. I fell in love with the car the first time I saw one, rode in one, and drove one. Mazda somehow just knows how to do small cars unlike anyone else out there, and the 3s is case-in-point. I think they deserve an award just for chassis tuning alone, and the sweet buzz of the 2.3L I4 is just wonderful when driving fast. My biggest gripe with the model in question is price, and although you can certainly pick them up on a discount on many occasions (at least around here that is true), I often feel like Mazda over-charges for a car that is neither overly-refined nor particularly high in quality. What you are paying for is arguably the cost of the C1 chassis and the development by which Mazda takes so much pride in. It is the connection to cars like the MX-5 and the RX-7/8 that make the 3s a success in my mind, hell even the 3i, and such a great alternative to the Toyota/Honda standard for the young at heart.

Of course that would mean that the Rabbit took top honors, and given my history of a bit of Deutschland fever when it comes to Volkswagens, this further proves the idea that the Rabbit is indeed one of the best cars you can buy for less than $20,000. Sure, it isn't the fastest, it isn't the sportiest, nor is it the cheapest. But when it comes down to it, it is the overall "balance" of everything that makes the car a winner. Volkswagen simply has it "right" with the car. The build quality is outstanding in a price range such as this (unquestionably an outrageous value with the $14,990 coupe), and overall refinement exceeds any standard set by Honda and Toyota. Of course reliability is always a question with the Vee-Dub symbol on the hood, although it's track-record is unproven here in the US, it is solid enough in Europe to keep most Volkswagen fans happy, and should indeed drawn in a few more. If there is any drawback to the Volkswagen it is the high weight and the choice of the 2.5L I5 (the only engine offered). A lighter body and a stronger, smaller displacement engine could arguably make the car exceedingly more fun than it already is, a worthy successor to the original Rabbit/Golf, and a return to that "spunky" nature that was lost with the MKIV model.

...So what if the Americans showed up to the party? How would they have done?

Well it is a hard guestimate to make, but I wouldn't have placed them all too high overall. Simply put, the Focus is too old, and the Cobalt (although a solid option) just isn't quite "there" on every level to compete with the Rabbit and the 3s. I probably would have put the Focus in dead-last, probably having the Cobalt beat out the Sentra and the Corolla simply because they are fun to drive and actually make use of the power they have. It is unfortunate really, as a Cobalt SS Sedan (sans supercharger) could have been an interesting model in an interesting field to begin with. Maybe if Dodge still produced a real Neon, that could have had some success too...

 

[toyomatt84]

So, let's see, a page long rant based on a HIGHLY biased opinion of a review in a mediocre magazine. I especially liked the part about where you mentioned a possible inclusion of the Cobalt and Neon (regardless of model type). Nothing about those two cars, says economical or reliable. Both have severe drivetrain issues, and neither really pack the same amount of quality and features for the same price range. The Ford Focus would be the only true competitor for the given series of cars, but even that is a bit of a stretch.

I don't particularly like your brash commentary about some of the certain models mentioned, and I definitely disagree with the majority of your "opinions" on available automobiles. The arguments you provide are almost completely devoid of factual data and reality, and frankly, I find most of it misleading for anyone trying to seek actual information about automobiles. I'd say that you need to bone up on your factual data before you start ranting about vehicles, and why (only) you seem to think they're not fit for ownership.

 

[skip0110]

In my experience Neons and Cavaliers (can't speak for the Cobalt) and Civics are more reliable than Golfs/Jettas (and cheaper to maintain, to boot).

Of course the driving enjoyment is nowhere near the Germans in the case of the Americans, but if you just want to get to work every morning cheaply and economically...

The new Civic is a spaceship, I test drove one and the placement of things in the interior is very weird.

Also the exclusion of the Subaru Impreza 2.5i sedan is glaring, it's MSRP is $18K exactly and you get a stiff and willing chassis, an engaging if not very powerful engine, and some of the best steering feel in the class.

Oh yes and also class-leading safety.

 

[YSSMAN]

@toyomatt84: Here is the great thing about posting an opinion as an exercise in writing, you can choose to agree with it or you can choose not to, it clearly is up to you. Why I share my opinions is generally up to me, I thought the article was interesting, and I chose to further expand upon what the reviewers have said based upon my own experiences and draw further conclusions for more average readers.

The part about the inclusion of American automobiles was done to reason further with Car and Driver's lack of inclusion of models. Their official stance was that a test car simply was not available, and I believe that is a completely rational argument to make on behalf of GM and Ford. But generally speaking their cars probably would have had a slight shot at winning, the Cobalt more so than the Focus, but there isn't any doubt in my mind that they would have beat out the Civic, 3s, or Rabbit.

...Lack of factual data or not, this is a thread with a big glaring title, "Commentary From An Unlicensed Author," not Edmunds.com or Consumer Reports. I completely acknowledge that models like the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic are arguably the best "normal" models available on the market, but given the readers on this website, I chose to talk more about the others based on our preferences towards value and performance. Your preferences towards Toyota and Honda may have been disagreed with by myself, and to be completely honest, I don't care.

---

That was fun, wasn't it? Thats why I love my commentary, it sometimes gets controversial.

---

@Skip: I didn't really think about the lack of an Impreza to be honest with you. It certainly would have made an interesting addition to the lineup, but my guess is that the lower fuel economy (overall) and slightly higher price point would have seemingly put it out of competition. Of course without one there it would be hard to know for sure, but given the car's performance in the last few tests (be it Car and Driver or not), I wouldn't have expected it to beat the top three, but even then, a middle-finish wouldn't have been so bad.

 

[Tornado]

The part about the inclusion of American automobiles was done to reason further with Car and Driver's lack of inclusion of models. Their official stance was that a test car simply was not available, and I believe that is a completely rational argument to make on behalf of GM and Ford. But generally speaking their cars probably would have had a slight shot at winning, the Cobalt more so than the Focus, but there isn't any doubt in my mind that they would have beat out the Civic, 3s, or Rabbit.

Niether the Cobalt nor the Focus would have had any chance at besting any of the cars represented in any way. The Cobalt in particular suffers from being a brand new car designed to beat cars made 10 years ago. The Focus is just old.
About the assertion of the Sentra being crap because they made it heavier and such: lest you forget the Golf suffered from the same thing and still does. The Sentra just has poor prententions at being sporty, and it has really suffered from that for years now. The Golf has suffered from that for more than a decade. The Golf is somewhat more sorted, but it mostly was rated higher because it is put together better. It has nothing to do with sportiness, really, because the Golf suffers from the same problems as the Sentra dynamics wise.

 

[skip0110]

Well, Car and Driver placed the WRX above the Cobalt SS, Ion Red Line, and Neon SRT4 so I think they'd like the 2.5i when compared to the low-power versions of these Americans. Also there was a test where the non-turbo came in 2nd or third against some semi-sporty Japanese small cars, although I can't recall/locate that issue.

When I was shopping I found that similarly equipped Civics and Imprezas were priced within about $800-$1000 of each other, not accounting for the AWD of course. If that is a desirable feature for the buyer, then the Impreza is a pretty attractive small car.

You are right about the fuel economy, I see a real-life 21-23 mpg with a pretty heavy foot and a 5 speed. If I was more prudent I could probably milk 23-25 mpg. With an automatic (as my parents have) that drops to about 18-19 mpg which is really very bad for such a small car. Thats probably about 5 mpg worse than the FWD competition. Also the AWD means more service stops to keep it maintained.

The upside is a car that I think feels more solid than Hondas or Toyotas I have driven, and a power band that actually has a useful middle range.

 

[Tornado]

Also there was a test where the non-turbo came in 2nd or third against some semi-sporty Japanese small cars, although I can't recall/locate that issue.

That would be "Budget Bandito's," from the November 2001 issue.

 

[skip0110]

That would be "Budget Bandito's," from the November 2001 issue.

Thanks, thats a good read. 👍 I'd give you rep for finding that, but it says I need to spread some around first

EDIT:

And the only "what were they thinking?" note to show up in the logbook concerned the fog-lamp covers. Although these hard plastic lids certainly did their job of protecting the big lenses, and also looked good, they were held in place by screws, rather than merely snapping into place.

Silly C/D editors. The covers are screwed on because the RS did not have fog lights.

 

[YSSMAN]

@Tornado: Certainly I concede to the idea that what has made the Sentra "worse" has been plaguing the Volkswagen lineup for the better part of 15 years, but I think part of what has been baked-in to their cars has arguably made them better on the whole; Less prone to rattle, shake, and otherwise disintegrate due to rust, etc. Performance has been on the gain despite the weight gains, and that is a good thing, but we can thank clever engineering for that.

The new Sentra is a nice car in the same way that the Corolla is. It is a well-built, well-sorted car that is good at transporting safely and reliably, and maybe on a few occasions, be driven with a bit of sport in mind. I personally can't wait to see what the SE-R offers up, as I'm crossing my fingers for nearly 200 BHP and a tied-down suspension. If the Altima 3.5SE is any showcase for what could be coming down the line in the future, a Sentra SE-R could be a lot of fun.