Note: What follows are my thoughts on cars that I have driven in my search for a new vehicle. I'm hoping to focus on how cars would react in real, Houston conditions. Not whether they have "tech" or how sporty they are or what their 0-60 time may be (although I will discuss those things). I hope that you come away from this with a better idea how a car would be in everyday conditions, not around a test track. What follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. I have not received any compensation or influence in writing this other than my own impressions on each vehicle. Your mileage may (and will) vary. Finally, the following should not be considered either an offer, or advice, on whether YOU should buy a particular car or not. Go out and make your own decisions.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Part 2: The Dodge Dart
Part 3: The Toyota Camry
Part 4: The Mercedes CLA 250
Part 5: Cars that didn't make the grade.
When starting this series I meant to offer up two more installments, one on the Ford Fusion and one on the Volkswagen Jetta. Unfortunately, time and real life had interfered so I'm going to briefly mention them here, and then tell you what I ultimately ended up buying.
Ford Fusion
I liked this car, a lot. I liked the styling, the ride, the handling as well as the comfort of the cabin. Finding a comfortable driving position in this car was very easy. I didn't like the gas mileage for the model I test drove (The SE which clocked in at a paltry 22 MPG estimated in the City) nor did I like the price if I tried to equip it as I wanted. ($26,000 with better wheels, dual-zone climate control, a rear-view camera and heated seats [a biggie for my wife, who gets cold anytime the temperature drops below 70 degrees]) As usual, I skipped the electronic nanny and, as a dog owner, I tend to shy away from leather seats.
I did opt for the technology package and, although Sirius XM radio is a thing now, I would skip that because I've had it for a while and never find myself listening to it. I also didn't like the fact that AWD was prohibitively expensive in this car. Given Houston's rather uncertain driving conditions, I feel like AWD with traction control is a big positive.
Volkswagen Jetta S w/Technology
I selected the Jetta S not because of price but because I found the two-tone leather seats on the higher trim models to be distractingly ugly. I also didn't like the limited choice of color options that they were providing. The SE (highest model) only had a leather seat option that I could find, for example, and, as you know, I tend to shy away from "sport" suspension which is typically a code-word for "rough ride" in automotive circles.
First off, this car felt German. Everything was precise and made sense. When you opened and closed the doors there was a satisfying "thunk" that implied sturdiness. This was a sound that was noticeably lacking on the KIA Optima, as an example. The gas mileage was projected to be good (25 MPG in the city estimated) and the ride was fine. Handling was a little bit off-putting but the car overall went where I expected it to go.
Downsides? For one, no option for AWD (something that Volkswagen seems content to only provide on their Audi's) and a lack of customizable options. Of all the cars I drove this one was certainly the cheapest (the MSRP for the one I drove was $22,500 and I got a "real price" quote [more on that in a future post] of $21,500 which the dealer suggested was non-negotiable) although it was quite a bit smaller than the other cars I navigated to the Jetta because the Passat felt uncomfortably large when I drove it. That is odd because the other cars that I drove didn't feel as unwieldy as did the Passat, I'm not sure why.
What I bought.
Subaru Legacy 2.5i Premium
In the end, the newly redesigned Legacy checked most of the boxes that I was looking for in a new car. It had a comfortable ride, good handling, AWD, dual-zone climate control, cloth seats that were heated, Bluetooth and other technology.
It was also very inexpensive considering all of the technology and accessories that are included as standard. The car that I ultimately purchased had an MRSP of $24,960. That's AWD, dual-zone climate control, cruise, automatic lights, automatic dimming rear-view mirror, hands-free telephone use with voice activation (which also works for climate control, radio changes and a host of other features) for less than $25K. Considering what else is out there that's a heck of a bargain.
The Subaru Legacy is also the highest rated family sedan by Consumer Reports. One of the biggest selling points, to me, was the 4 Cyl "Boxter" engine that comes standard. My wife drives a Subaru Legacy with the same engine and I consider it to be among the best engines on the road today. It's reliable, has plenty of power (although it is not, as many reviews will mention, going to win you any drag races) and it's quiet and economical. (the Legacy is rated at 26 MPG estimated in the City, I've been averaging a MPG or two above that, even in Houston rush-hour traffic.)
Going over one of Houston's many pot-holes is now no big deal. The ride is very smooth and the cabin is a very nice place to be. It's not fancy by any means, but well thought out and the power driver's seat has many different adjustments that allows the driver to customize his/her position. The road noise is OK as well. You hardly hear any engine noise although you do hear a little tire noise and some wind whipping past. One bonus, my car had the windows tinted by the dealer, which gave me more negotiation room since add-ons of that type are almost pure profit.
Annoyances? Well, there's a gauge right behind the wheel that tells you whether your are driving economically or not. It's bothering because it cannot be turned off. In Houston rush-hour it's a little ridiculous to tell me that I'm not getting the most out of the car when I'm sitting still on a freeway. Also, while Car & Driver panned it, I've found the CVT suspension to be pretty good. Yes, it's a little jerky when moving along in slow speeds, I've found that you can circumvent this by switching over to "manual" mode and compensating with the paddle gear shifters. However, most times I just let the computer do it's job and I'm not bothered by the slight jerk.
All in all I've been happy with my choice. I think I'll be even happier when I bring the car in for the first free oil change. (Subaru provides free maintenance for two years) and I'm going to break down and put some of the free ownership badges on the back since this is our 2nd Subaru, and camping, rallying and cooking badges are pretty cool.
OK, that's it for car blogging. I hope you found something interesting in all of these posts. I know that I've enjoyed writing them. Good luck in your own car hunt if you find yourself needing one.
Showing posts with label Automobiles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Automobiles. Show all posts
Saturday, May 09, 2015
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Nothing close to this car is ever going to see production.
 |
| Photo courtesy of GM |
And....You'll never, ever, see anything like it anywhere on the road. Which is too bad because it is a pretty thing, the clear side panels and the angular, sweeping lines. The problem is that concept cars such as this skew the average motorists idea regarding what is possible.
First, there appears to be no storage, so this would not be a practical car then. It also appears that the car will only have wheel engines only so it will move slower than you currently move in rush hour traffic. Yes, the car will drive itself, but possibly not much faster than you can make the walk.
Oh, and the ride. With those paint on tires it's a given that by the time you reach the office you will be shaken so much as to be homogenized.
My last problem with this is that it's got the power source all wrong. All electric cars just aren't working in the real world. Neither are hybrids despite their sales success. The future of automotive fuel is hydrogen gas. Yes, as nay-sayers continually point out, hydrogen production is currently very thirsty in terms of fuel. I predict this will get better. As will hydrogen fuel-cell technology.
It's not fair for me to say that electric-drive technology won't improve at the same time, but the floor for hydrogen cells are much higher and it appears that the ceiling is as well.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that GM shouldn't have built the thing, I'm just suggesting that it's wise to temper our expectations based on a concept that's clearly not designed to be be brought to the mass market.
These futuristic car designs don't excite me, as pretty as they may be. What excites me are concept cars that are fairly close to being ready to hit the mass market. That's more of a future vision than a pipe dream and what we should focus on to begin with. Treat these as what they are......
Sci-Fi.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
I need a car: Capsules of Cars that Didn't make the grade. (Part 5 in a series)
Note: What follows are my thoughts on cars that I have driven in my search for a new vehicle. I'm hoping to focus on how cars would react in real, Houston conditions. Not whether they have "tech" or how sporty they are or what their 0-60 time may be (although I will discuss those things). I hope that you come away from this with a better idea how a car would be in everyday conditions, not around a test track. What follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. I have not received any compensation or influence in writing this other than my own impressions on each vehicle. Your mileage may (and will) vary. Finally, the following should not be considered either an offer, or advice, on whether YOU should buy a particular car or not. Go out and make your own decisions.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Part 2: The Dodge Dart
Part 3: The Toyota Camry
Part 4: The Mercedes CLA 250
When searching for a car there are always quite a few that don't make the grade. After all, despite the fact that your intention is to take everything out for a test drive you do eventually get tired of the constant high-pressure and (at times) downright rude treatment by car dealers. Since it's impossible to write full reviews of all the cars, I've decided to do a summary post of some cars there that I felt didn't warrant further consideration after my first look-see. Since I didn't spend any time driving these cars (although I did at least sit in most of them to get a feel for the interior) I don't think it's fair to rate them or say too much about how they drive.
Acura ILX: When Toyota created Lexus they designed the cars under that badge to be among the best engineered and built cars they could possibly make. Acura's have never quite reached that level and feel more like Hondas with just enough baubles to allow them to charge extra. I took a peek at the ILX but didn't feel it was a serious contender for many of the reasons I didn't go with the Mercedes Benz CLA 250. It seems a little pricey for what you get and, if you want the standard options, it becomes fairly expensive. I also worried about build quality and have a latent distrust of any 4-door sedan marketed as "sporty". Although Edmunds.com states the ride is pretty good it also knocked the ILX for a dodgy transmission and cheap feeling interior. If I'm paying a premium price, I don't want to think that the company has designed something on a budget.
Chevrolet Malibu: The car that always has the non-automotive press buzzing but fails to awe the automotive community. The Malibu reminds me of the American Camry, a car that's just kind of there. Add to the fact that I'm not a fan of GM and you have a car that I'm just inclined to ignore. It's also bone ugly. When I buy a car I plan on owning it for a while, I just couldn't see myself happy in a Malibu.
Audi A3 - Starting at $30,000 it's really just a Jetta with 4WD and nicer 'stuff' tacked onto the chassis. When you start to add amenities the price of this can really start to climb. The question for Audi's is always the same (to me): How much more than a similarly equipped Volkswagen are you willing to pay for what is basically badge prestige?
Mercedes C-Class - With the introduction of the CLA it appears that Mercedes has upped the price about $8K but made no improvements to the product. Yes, they put in a bigger base model engine (the C 250 has gone the way of the dodo and the C is now the bottom of the range) but properly equipped this car is going to cost nearly double any non-luxury badged car with similar equipment. There was a time, in the past, that Mercedes purchase made sense because they were head and shoulders above everyone in terms of reliability. That's not so much the case today on the C & CLA.
Nissan Altima - Actually, I was intending to test drive an Altima but when I went to AutoNation Nissan in Katy we walked around the lot for 45 minutes without a dealer in sight. I'd driven one a few years back however and wasn't impressed with the value for money, or the CVT transmission they use.
Mitsubishi Lancer - The only Mitsubishi that I like is the EVO, which they no longer make. That said, if you wanted to get into budget rally racing I would recommend finding a second-hand Outlander to strip down and retrofit allowing you to have a lot of fun for the money.
Infiniti Q40 - First off, it's not an attractive looking car. Secondly, I have difficulty paying this price for what is basically an Altima with nicer stuff added to it. Again, properly equipped this car is going to get pricey.
Lexus IS - Except for the front grill it's a pretty thing. I would also feel constantly like I overpaid for a sporty Toyota Avalon.
BMW 3 Series - Price wise, the base model 3 Series is actually OK. The problem is that when you start trying to equip it in a similar manner as the non-luxury badges it gets very pricey. Behind Mercedes, I've always had a soft spot for Bavarian Motor Works and when I drove a 528i as a rental on a business trip (No, I didn't pay that rate, it was given to me because they were out of intermediate cars) I thought it might be the best road car I've ever driven. The problem with the 3-series is that it won't be near as good as the 5-series that I drove but I'll still be paying a premium.
If you're noticing a trend from me on luxury badged cars you would be correct, especially at the lower end of the range. I said at the beginning of this that I'm not a believer in badge prestige. I also am shopping for what amounts to a commuter car so paying a premium to keep up with the Joneses doesn't make sense to me. This doesn't mean that these are bad cars. In fact, I think the Mercedes C-300, the BMW 3-series and the Audi A3 are very good cars. I think the Lexus IS and the Infiniti Q 40 are good cars as well. I just can't justify the extra expense that would be required to purchase one.
You might feel differently about this and, I should note, I think that is wonderful. If everyone had the same taste in cars as I we would all drive the same thing and that would be boring. I didn't want to purchase any of these cars, but I'm not advocating that you shouldn't have the choice to do so.
After this I'm down to basically 3 cars:
1. Ford Fusion
2. Subaru Legacy
3. Volkswagen Jetta
I did purchase one of these three and you won't be surprised to find out it was the highest rated on my list.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Part 2: The Dodge Dart
Part 3: The Toyota Camry
Part 4: The Mercedes CLA 250
When searching for a car there are always quite a few that don't make the grade. After all, despite the fact that your intention is to take everything out for a test drive you do eventually get tired of the constant high-pressure and (at times) downright rude treatment by car dealers. Since it's impossible to write full reviews of all the cars, I've decided to do a summary post of some cars there that I felt didn't warrant further consideration after my first look-see. Since I didn't spend any time driving these cars (although I did at least sit in most of them to get a feel for the interior) I don't think it's fair to rate them or say too much about how they drive.
Acura ILX: When Toyota created Lexus they designed the cars under that badge to be among the best engineered and built cars they could possibly make. Acura's have never quite reached that level and feel more like Hondas with just enough baubles to allow them to charge extra. I took a peek at the ILX but didn't feel it was a serious contender for many of the reasons I didn't go with the Mercedes Benz CLA 250. It seems a little pricey for what you get and, if you want the standard options, it becomes fairly expensive. I also worried about build quality and have a latent distrust of any 4-door sedan marketed as "sporty". Although Edmunds.com states the ride is pretty good it also knocked the ILX for a dodgy transmission and cheap feeling interior. If I'm paying a premium price, I don't want to think that the company has designed something on a budget.
Chevrolet Malibu: The car that always has the non-automotive press buzzing but fails to awe the automotive community. The Malibu reminds me of the American Camry, a car that's just kind of there. Add to the fact that I'm not a fan of GM and you have a car that I'm just inclined to ignore. It's also bone ugly. When I buy a car I plan on owning it for a while, I just couldn't see myself happy in a Malibu.
Audi A3 - Starting at $30,000 it's really just a Jetta with 4WD and nicer 'stuff' tacked onto the chassis. When you start to add amenities the price of this can really start to climb. The question for Audi's is always the same (to me): How much more than a similarly equipped Volkswagen are you willing to pay for what is basically badge prestige?
Mercedes C-Class - With the introduction of the CLA it appears that Mercedes has upped the price about $8K but made no improvements to the product. Yes, they put in a bigger base model engine (the C 250 has gone the way of the dodo and the C is now the bottom of the range) but properly equipped this car is going to cost nearly double any non-luxury badged car with similar equipment. There was a time, in the past, that Mercedes purchase made sense because they were head and shoulders above everyone in terms of reliability. That's not so much the case today on the C & CLA.
Nissan Altima - Actually, I was intending to test drive an Altima but when I went to AutoNation Nissan in Katy we walked around the lot for 45 minutes without a dealer in sight. I'd driven one a few years back however and wasn't impressed with the value for money, or the CVT transmission they use.
Mitsubishi Lancer - The only Mitsubishi that I like is the EVO, which they no longer make. That said, if you wanted to get into budget rally racing I would recommend finding a second-hand Outlander to strip down and retrofit allowing you to have a lot of fun for the money.
Infiniti Q40 - First off, it's not an attractive looking car. Secondly, I have difficulty paying this price for what is basically an Altima with nicer stuff added to it. Again, properly equipped this car is going to get pricey.
Lexus IS - Except for the front grill it's a pretty thing. I would also feel constantly like I overpaid for a sporty Toyota Avalon.
BMW 3 Series - Price wise, the base model 3 Series is actually OK. The problem is that when you start trying to equip it in a similar manner as the non-luxury badges it gets very pricey. Behind Mercedes, I've always had a soft spot for Bavarian Motor Works and when I drove a 528i as a rental on a business trip (No, I didn't pay that rate, it was given to me because they were out of intermediate cars) I thought it might be the best road car I've ever driven. The problem with the 3-series is that it won't be near as good as the 5-series that I drove but I'll still be paying a premium.
If you're noticing a trend from me on luxury badged cars you would be correct, especially at the lower end of the range. I said at the beginning of this that I'm not a believer in badge prestige. I also am shopping for what amounts to a commuter car so paying a premium to keep up with the Joneses doesn't make sense to me. This doesn't mean that these are bad cars. In fact, I think the Mercedes C-300, the BMW 3-series and the Audi A3 are very good cars. I think the Lexus IS and the Infiniti Q 40 are good cars as well. I just can't justify the extra expense that would be required to purchase one.
You might feel differently about this and, I should note, I think that is wonderful. If everyone had the same taste in cars as I we would all drive the same thing and that would be boring. I didn't want to purchase any of these cars, but I'm not advocating that you shouldn't have the choice to do so.
After this I'm down to basically 3 cars:
1. Ford Fusion
2. Subaru Legacy
3. Volkswagen Jetta
I did purchase one of these three and you won't be surprised to find out it was the highest rated on my list.
Monday, April 06, 2015
I need a car: The Mercedes CLA 250 (Part 4 in a series)
Note: What follows are my thoughts on cars that I have driven in my search for a new vehicle. I'm hoping to focus on how cars would react in real, Houston conditions. Not whether they have "tech" or how sporty they are or what their 0-60 time may be (although I will discuss those things). I hope that you come away from this with a better idea how a car would be in everyday conditions, not around a test track. What follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. I have not received any compensation or influence in writing this other than my own impressions on each vehicle. Your mileage may (and will) vary. Finally, the following should not be considered either an offer, or advice, on whether YOU should buy a particular car or not. Go out and make your own decisions.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Part 2: The Dodge Dart
Part 3: The Toyota Camry
For those of you who know me you also know that I consider Mercedes Benz to be the best car-maker on the planet not named Ferrari. Some of the best cars I have ever driven have been rear-drive Mercs including my current favorite car on the road, the AMG CLS 63.
Of course, with a starting price of right around $106,000 (But you're going to spend much more than that to get it well equipped) it is more of a "dream car" and not one that I would seriously consider buying. I could never, in good conscience, pay more for a car than a large portion of the country pays for their house. So, while it's a beautiful thing to look at and admire, I would never seriously consider it even if I could afford to purchase one.
That led me to take a peek at the Mercedes Benz CLA 250, the front-drive little nephew to the CLS.
First off, it's a pretty thing. Styled to mimic the CLS, but at a much cheaper price point, Car and Driver Magazine described it as looking like an arrow that has just left the bowstring. This is not a bad thing. While some people like the interior I found it to be a bit "blah".
Performance-wise it has an inline 4 cyl engine that generates 208 horsepower. This provides what I consider to be class leading acceleration but it also hampers the car with poor gas mileage. They say the car will average 30 MPG but any test that I've seen has not come close to those numbers.
The car that I drove retailed for $34,750 and came fairly nicely equipped with leather seats, an electronic nanny (drive assist), power driver and passenger seats with a memory feature, comfort suspension, dual-zone climate control, rain-sensing intermittent wipers (which never work) Bluetooth and a keyless start system.
The first problem here? You can get all of that technology, and then some, on either a Kia Optima or a Hyundai Sonata for around $5- $7 thousand dollars less. In short, to purchase this car you would have to be enamored with the Mercedes Benz badge.
If you've ever driven either a Mercedes E or S class then you understand that the appeal of Mercedes cars are their refinement. They are like driving a cloud that will go wherever you want it to without much effort on your part. The biggest problem that I found with the CLA is that it was (to quote Douglas Addams) almost entirely unlike any other Mercedes that I've ever driven. How can I put this? The ride of the CLA was what is only known as "hard". Especially when traveling over Houston's moonscape roads. I hit one bump and honestly thought that the car left the road for a minute. The steering is also disconnected, not as bad as the KIA Optima, where I felt you needed to give the car some advance warning before making a turn, but oddly sluggish, nothing like I've experienced in previous Mercedes that I've driven.
It also had a cheap feel to it. Most Mercedes feel like they've been constructed to the limit of our current technical knowledge of auto-building. The CLA feels like the folks in the factory just said "well, that's good enough" and went out to watch their favorite soccer team.
To me, this is the biggest problem with the CLA, it's a good 4-door sedan but you don't get the sense that it's much better in construction or handling as are other, much cheaper, cars in the class. This is not to insinuate that the CLA is a bad car. In fact, it's a very good car. The engineers have done a good job taming the torque steer that plagues most FWD cars, especially ones with this amount of horse power, and the inside, while dreary, was clearly well thought out. The 7-speed automatic transmission is smooth, and seemed to work very well, even at slower speeds which is something other carmakers need to figure out.
To my way of thinking the biggest problem with the CLA is one of price. And I just cannot justify paying a premium for this car over several other in the class, not with the inherent flaws which include the ride and my suspicions about the build quality.
In Summary: I've said it before and it bears repeating. The CLA 250 is a nice car. It has touches that remind you that you're driving a Mercedes, including a very well thought-out (if a little bland) interior and some intriguing options. That said, the price of the car is just too high. It has a ride that is too harsh for a family sedan, especially one that carries a luxury badge. I can't see living with this car on Houston's roads. It does have a great transmission and good power, but I worry that you're not going to see anywhere near the fuel efficiency Mercedes is advertising. There is a 4WD version of this car available, but the prices come in at around $45K. There is no way you're going to find a version of this car that's under $33K in America, due to the lack of options it would possess. Also, I've said this before, I have dogs, and leather seats, while important to some, are not something I'm all that interested in having. It's not a big thing but it is a thing.
Why you might want to buy one: You want a good family sedan and are willing to pay the upcharge for the Mercedes badge. I think you have to make several trade-offs to have that badge with this car however, and I just don't see the value in buying one like I did in the old C-Class. To me the CLA requires you to make too many concessions to get the price point down, and I still have a sneaking suspicion that the reliability is not going to compare with the other trim models. That said, if badge prestige is your thing, then this is an option for you.
Rating: 7.1 out of 10. The car gets points for styling and the transmission, but loses points for price, build quality, fuel economy and (most importantly) the hard ride.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Part 2: The Dodge Dart
Part 3: The Toyota Camry
For those of you who know me you also know that I consider Mercedes Benz to be the best car-maker on the planet not named Ferrari. Some of the best cars I have ever driven have been rear-drive Mercs including my current favorite car on the road, the AMG CLS 63.
Of course, with a starting price of right around $106,000 (But you're going to spend much more than that to get it well equipped) it is more of a "dream car" and not one that I would seriously consider buying. I could never, in good conscience, pay more for a car than a large portion of the country pays for their house. So, while it's a beautiful thing to look at and admire, I would never seriously consider it even if I could afford to purchase one.
That led me to take a peek at the Mercedes Benz CLA 250, the front-drive little nephew to the CLS.
 |
| Picture courtesy of Mercedes Benz |
 |
| Picture again courtesy of Mercedes Benz |
The car that I drove retailed for $34,750 and came fairly nicely equipped with leather seats, an electronic nanny (drive assist), power driver and passenger seats with a memory feature, comfort suspension, dual-zone climate control, rain-sensing intermittent wipers (which never work) Bluetooth and a keyless start system.
The first problem here? You can get all of that technology, and then some, on either a Kia Optima or a Hyundai Sonata for around $5- $7 thousand dollars less. In short, to purchase this car you would have to be enamored with the Mercedes Benz badge.
If you've ever driven either a Mercedes E or S class then you understand that the appeal of Mercedes cars are their refinement. They are like driving a cloud that will go wherever you want it to without much effort on your part. The biggest problem that I found with the CLA is that it was (to quote Douglas Addams) almost entirely unlike any other Mercedes that I've ever driven. How can I put this? The ride of the CLA was what is only known as "hard". Especially when traveling over Houston's moonscape roads. I hit one bump and honestly thought that the car left the road for a minute. The steering is also disconnected, not as bad as the KIA Optima, where I felt you needed to give the car some advance warning before making a turn, but oddly sluggish, nothing like I've experienced in previous Mercedes that I've driven.
It also had a cheap feel to it. Most Mercedes feel like they've been constructed to the limit of our current technical knowledge of auto-building. The CLA feels like the folks in the factory just said "well, that's good enough" and went out to watch their favorite soccer team.
To me, this is the biggest problem with the CLA, it's a good 4-door sedan but you don't get the sense that it's much better in construction or handling as are other, much cheaper, cars in the class. This is not to insinuate that the CLA is a bad car. In fact, it's a very good car. The engineers have done a good job taming the torque steer that plagues most FWD cars, especially ones with this amount of horse power, and the inside, while dreary, was clearly well thought out. The 7-speed automatic transmission is smooth, and seemed to work very well, even at slower speeds which is something other carmakers need to figure out.
To my way of thinking the biggest problem with the CLA is one of price. And I just cannot justify paying a premium for this car over several other in the class, not with the inherent flaws which include the ride and my suspicions about the build quality.
In Summary: I've said it before and it bears repeating. The CLA 250 is a nice car. It has touches that remind you that you're driving a Mercedes, including a very well thought-out (if a little bland) interior and some intriguing options. That said, the price of the car is just too high. It has a ride that is too harsh for a family sedan, especially one that carries a luxury badge. I can't see living with this car on Houston's roads. It does have a great transmission and good power, but I worry that you're not going to see anywhere near the fuel efficiency Mercedes is advertising. There is a 4WD version of this car available, but the prices come in at around $45K. There is no way you're going to find a version of this car that's under $33K in America, due to the lack of options it would possess. Also, I've said this before, I have dogs, and leather seats, while important to some, are not something I'm all that interested in having. It's not a big thing but it is a thing.
Why you might want to buy one: You want a good family sedan and are willing to pay the upcharge for the Mercedes badge. I think you have to make several trade-offs to have that badge with this car however, and I just don't see the value in buying one like I did in the old C-Class. To me the CLA requires you to make too many concessions to get the price point down, and I still have a sneaking suspicion that the reliability is not going to compare with the other trim models. That said, if badge prestige is your thing, then this is an option for you.
Rating: 7.1 out of 10. The car gets points for styling and the transmission, but loses points for price, build quality, fuel economy and (most importantly) the hard ride.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
I Need a Car: The Toyota Camry (Part 3 in a series)
Note: What follows are my thoughts on cars that I have driven in my search for a new vehicle. I'm hoping to focus on how cars would react in real, Houston conditions. Not whether they have "tech" or how sporty they are or what their 0-60 time may be (although I will discuss those things). I hope that you come away from this with a better idea how a car would be in everyday conditions, not around a test track. What follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. I have not received any compensation or influence in writing this other than my own impressions on each vehicle. Your mileage may (and will) vary. Finally, the following should not be considered either an offer, or advice, on whether YOU should buy a particular car or not. Go out and make your own decisions.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Part 2: The Dodge Dart
The car you about to see is a cure for insomnia.
No seriously, try and look at this car and not fall asleep.
It's not that it's a bad car. In fact, it's a very good car, likely to be very reliable and one that possess good handling, a comfortable ride and a very well designed 4 cylinder engine that's supposed to get 25/35 mpg depending on driving conditions.
To drive, the Camry is nice. Everything about the Camry is nice actually. And that's part of the problem. It's just nice. There is nothing either spectacular, or especially memorable, about the Camry at all. I can't tell you that the ride was outstanding, or that the steering was crisp, or anything really. The Camry I drove might as well have been any other car, except that the seats were horribly uncomfortable for a person my size and the "sporty" part-time paddle gear box seemed out of place in a family sedan.
The Camry also suffers from a malady that affects all front-wheel drive cars, torque steer. Engineers try to get rid of it but they frequently fail. The problem is nothing wrong with the car, but just a problem with trying to force the front wheels to handle both the drive and the steering. The Camry also is plagued by the tendency of almost every auto manufacturer to assume that what the customer wants is a sports-like feel. In reality, most of us don't want that at all. What we want is a car that handles pot-holes well and which doesn't jar our spines every time we drive over one of Houston's pot-holes.
Besides random boredom, What ails the Camry is the problem with most sedans in this class. They're all trying to be something that they're not.
In Summary: Overall I liked the Camry. I think it's a little more expensive than other cars in the class but it's going to be backed by Toyota's reliability. It's a very nice car at a fair price that's going to get you from A to B. All that said, I didn't fall in love with the Camry because, while there was nothing about it that was bad, there was nothing about it that was really great either. That said, I wouldn't buy one because I kept feeling that, if I purchased one, I would ultimately end up looking at other cars in the class and thinking "I should have bought that." As with most cars, the Camry comes with a bunch of available options, including an electronic nanny, which can drive the price of the car way, way up. I drove an SE model that comes with plenty of standard features and a ton of available technology. Bluetooth is standard but, in that model, dual zone climate control is not an available option. To include that you have to move way up in price.
Why you might buy one: You want a nice car that doesn't stand out in a crowd, that is reliable, and honestly is something you don't have to think about all that often. If that's what you want in a car, if you view it as nothing more than a tool, there is no better car for you. Toyota's are endlessly reliable and their engineers do a good job of dampening, but not eliminating under steer. While the dealer did his level best to ensure I didn't hit many potholes on my test drive I was able to drive over a water grate, the Camry felt fine going over it. The ride though borders on hard because, as I've mentioned, Toyota is determined to add an element of sporty into it's cruising sedans.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10: The Camry gets points full points for engineering, handling and predicted reliability but only partial points for ride and style.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Part 2: The Dodge Dart
The car you about to see is a cure for insomnia.
No seriously, try and look at this car and not fall asleep.
It's not that it's a bad car. In fact, it's a very good car, likely to be very reliable and one that possess good handling, a comfortable ride and a very well designed 4 cylinder engine that's supposed to get 25/35 mpg depending on driving conditions.
To drive, the Camry is nice. Everything about the Camry is nice actually. And that's part of the problem. It's just nice. There is nothing either spectacular, or especially memorable, about the Camry at all. I can't tell you that the ride was outstanding, or that the steering was crisp, or anything really. The Camry I drove might as well have been any other car, except that the seats were horribly uncomfortable for a person my size and the "sporty" part-time paddle gear box seemed out of place in a family sedan.
The Camry also suffers from a malady that affects all front-wheel drive cars, torque steer. Engineers try to get rid of it but they frequently fail. The problem is nothing wrong with the car, but just a problem with trying to force the front wheels to handle both the drive and the steering. The Camry also is plagued by the tendency of almost every auto manufacturer to assume that what the customer wants is a sports-like feel. In reality, most of us don't want that at all. What we want is a car that handles pot-holes well and which doesn't jar our spines every time we drive over one of Houston's pot-holes.
Besides random boredom, What ails the Camry is the problem with most sedans in this class. They're all trying to be something that they're not.
In Summary: Overall I liked the Camry. I think it's a little more expensive than other cars in the class but it's going to be backed by Toyota's reliability. It's a very nice car at a fair price that's going to get you from A to B. All that said, I didn't fall in love with the Camry because, while there was nothing about it that was bad, there was nothing about it that was really great either. That said, I wouldn't buy one because I kept feeling that, if I purchased one, I would ultimately end up looking at other cars in the class and thinking "I should have bought that." As with most cars, the Camry comes with a bunch of available options, including an electronic nanny, which can drive the price of the car way, way up. I drove an SE model that comes with plenty of standard features and a ton of available technology. Bluetooth is standard but, in that model, dual zone climate control is not an available option. To include that you have to move way up in price.
Why you might buy one: You want a nice car that doesn't stand out in a crowd, that is reliable, and honestly is something you don't have to think about all that often. If that's what you want in a car, if you view it as nothing more than a tool, there is no better car for you. Toyota's are endlessly reliable and their engineers do a good job of dampening, but not eliminating under steer. While the dealer did his level best to ensure I didn't hit many potholes on my test drive I was able to drive over a water grate, the Camry felt fine going over it. The ride though borders on hard because, as I've mentioned, Toyota is determined to add an element of sporty into it's cruising sedans.
Rating: 7.5 out of 10: The Camry gets points full points for engineering, handling and predicted reliability but only partial points for ride and style.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
I Need a Car: The Dodge Dart (Part 2 in a series)
Note: What follows are my thoughts on cars that I have driven in my search for a new vehicle. I'm hoping to focus on how cars would react in real, Houston conditions. Not whether they have "tech" or how sporty they are or what their 0-60 time may be (although I will discuss those things). I hope that you come away from this with a better idea how a car would be in everyday conditions, not around a test track. What follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. I have not received any compensation or influence in writing this other than my own impressions on each vehicle. Your mileage may (and will) vary. Finally, the following should not be considered either an offer, or advice, on whether YOU should buy a particular car or not. Go out and make your own decisions.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Have you ever played the game "Would your rather?"
It's somewhat of a truth or dare game where you're given two rather awful choices to choose between and you have to decide which one is the least worst option. Say, would you rather slide down an incline covered razor blades into a vat of rubbing alcohol or be forced to watch Gigli for 72 straight hours?
Tough choice.
I faced somewhat of a similar choice (although not to that extent obviously) when I decided to go out and look at the sedan options offered by Dodge. The marketing group from Dodge will tell you that Detroit is back, never mind that they're now owned by Fiat. Don't get me wrong, I love Italy. I lover the food, the people, the climate, the wine. I also love Alfa Romeos despite the fact that they have an unfortunate tendency to break down all the time. And, while it is ugly, I'm a fan of the Fiat 500 as well.
However, I'm in the market for a four door sedan and Dodge only offered me two options.
The Charger:
And the Dart:
Would you rather?
First, the Charger. I mean just look at it. It's really not an attractive thing and it's priced much higher than other sedans in the class. Add to this the fact that you're not going to see 20MPG in the City and I didn't even want to test drive it. So I didn't.
The Dodge Dart:
At least it's a prettier thing than the Charger, missing the Cyrano De Bergerac nose for one. And while it's still thirsty (rated at only 22 MPG in the city for the model I test drove) the 2.4 L inline 4 engine generates 184 horsepower. I didn't ask what the "top speed" is, because I'll probably never hit it and I really don't care. It comes with four disc brakes (which is almost mandatory now) and front independent suspension which is not as good on the Dart as I've found on other cars in the class. If you're into this sort of thing Dodge does name some of their engines "Tigershark" giving the impression that you're an alpha predator. This image holds one guesses until you tell everyone it's in a Dart.
To drive, the Dart is a challenge. I'm a hefty guy and I found the seats to be uncomfortable, and I had trouble finding a driving position that would come anywhere close to what humans call "comfortable". Add to that road noise, bad torque steer on take-off and a very, very rough ride and the Dart and I were not off to a good start. I'm trying to think of something nice to say about driving this car but I just can't. Given the pedigree of the Dart I really did want to like it. I wouldn't buy it because of the infamous reliability of Dodge cars but I was rooting for it at the outset. Back when people were throwing gasoline in the garbage because it was so cheap the wife and I owned a Dodge Ram 2500 with a V8 Hemi that we called "Big Thirsty". Yes, it sucked down gas but it was a great big ol' truck to drive. So to drive then, the Dart is not good.
It got worse after I stopped driving and took a look at the cabin.
I'm not sure why car companies think that racing cars look like this on the interior, or why red trim lends an air of class to the joint, but I wish they'd stop. The model I tested was the SXT (Starting MRSP is a cheap $18,895 but you get into the 20's fairly quickly if you want more than four wheels and an engine, the one I drove was somewhere around $22,500) which does not have the option for a back-up camera, nor does it have the option for an electronic nanny. On the bright side you can get a "Rallye" badge on the back and 17 inch wheels. No one could provide me with any evidence of the current Dart's 'rallye' pedigree.
If you're really feeling saucy you can go for the GT (Does Dodge even know what Grand Tourismo means?) edition but you'll be starting out at over $21K before many options and I'm sorry, but that's just too much money for this car. Especially when you consider the Toyota Corolla can be had for the same with plenty more features.
Then there's the predicted reliability. In it's recent history Dodge has not had much luck with designing cars that run consistently. Their trucks have been good and are consistently rated at or near the top of their class, but their cars are hovering somewhere down at the bottom. Hey Dodge, take a couple of engineers from your truck division and get them working on your cars. Warranty-wise the Dart checks in at 3 years/36K for the basic warranty and 5 years/100K on the powertrain.
Yesterday, when I wrote about the Kia Optima I mentioned reliability concerns but also noted that they offer a good warranty in an effort to address that. Dodge's warranties seem to be designed on the "well that's how it's always been done" motto which is not a selling point if the cars aren't rock-solid.
In Summary: The Dart rolled out with a huge marketing campaign, a short-haired, clean shaven Tom Brady and a ton of things that distracted from the car. After driving it, I have to say this was a smart move. Unfortunately, Dodge still can't get automobiles that don't have a bed right.
Why you might buy one: To be fair here, I'm decidedly NOT the target market for this car. I'm 42 years old, fat and work a 9-5. It's very clear that Dodge is marketing this to a more youthful market. That said, I can see someone in their late teens - early twenties really liking this car. It's not bad looking although I don't think the front grill design that works so well on trucks works out half as well smushed down on cars. It also can be had relatively cheap, since domestic dealers on cars in this class seem more willing to offer deep discounts than do some of the foreign manufacturers. That said, if you want a cheap car with a lot of features the Toyota Corolla or most others would be better. It's also really your only choice if you HAVE to drive a MOPAR. It's probably number two if you want American, ahead of the abysmal Chevy Cruze (a mistake of a car just like the the name itself) but falls well behind the new Ford Focus.
Rating: 2.5 out of 10: Most of the points come from the looks and what appears to be a fairly solid inline 4 engine. Everything else on this car falls way, way behind the current sedan competition.
Part 1: The KIA Optima
Have you ever played the game "Would your rather?"
It's somewhat of a truth or dare game where you're given two rather awful choices to choose between and you have to decide which one is the least worst option. Say, would you rather slide down an incline covered razor blades into a vat of rubbing alcohol or be forced to watch Gigli for 72 straight hours?
Tough choice.
I faced somewhat of a similar choice (although not to that extent obviously) when I decided to go out and look at the sedan options offered by Dodge. The marketing group from Dodge will tell you that Detroit is back, never mind that they're now owned by Fiat. Don't get me wrong, I love Italy. I lover the food, the people, the climate, the wine. I also love Alfa Romeos despite the fact that they have an unfortunate tendency to break down all the time. And, while it is ugly, I'm a fan of the Fiat 500 as well.
However, I'm in the market for a four door sedan and Dodge only offered me two options.
The Charger:
 |
| Photo courtesy of Dodge |
 |
| Photo courtesy of Dodge |
Would you rather?
First, the Charger. I mean just look at it. It's really not an attractive thing and it's priced much higher than other sedans in the class. Add to this the fact that you're not going to see 20MPG in the City and I didn't even want to test drive it. So I didn't.
The Dodge Dart:
At least it's a prettier thing than the Charger, missing the Cyrano De Bergerac nose for one. And while it's still thirsty (rated at only 22 MPG in the city for the model I test drove) the 2.4 L inline 4 engine generates 184 horsepower. I didn't ask what the "top speed" is, because I'll probably never hit it and I really don't care. It comes with four disc brakes (which is almost mandatory now) and front independent suspension which is not as good on the Dart as I've found on other cars in the class. If you're into this sort of thing Dodge does name some of their engines "Tigershark" giving the impression that you're an alpha predator. This image holds one guesses until you tell everyone it's in a Dart.
To drive, the Dart is a challenge. I'm a hefty guy and I found the seats to be uncomfortable, and I had trouble finding a driving position that would come anywhere close to what humans call "comfortable". Add to that road noise, bad torque steer on take-off and a very, very rough ride and the Dart and I were not off to a good start. I'm trying to think of something nice to say about driving this car but I just can't. Given the pedigree of the Dart I really did want to like it. I wouldn't buy it because of the infamous reliability of Dodge cars but I was rooting for it at the outset. Back when people were throwing gasoline in the garbage because it was so cheap the wife and I owned a Dodge Ram 2500 with a V8 Hemi that we called "Big Thirsty". Yes, it sucked down gas but it was a great big ol' truck to drive. So to drive then, the Dart is not good.
It got worse after I stopped driving and took a look at the cabin.
I'm not sure why car companies think that racing cars look like this on the interior, or why red trim lends an air of class to the joint, but I wish they'd stop. The model I tested was the SXT (Starting MRSP is a cheap $18,895 but you get into the 20's fairly quickly if you want more than four wheels and an engine, the one I drove was somewhere around $22,500) which does not have the option for a back-up camera, nor does it have the option for an electronic nanny. On the bright side you can get a "Rallye" badge on the back and 17 inch wheels. No one could provide me with any evidence of the current Dart's 'rallye' pedigree.
If you're really feeling saucy you can go for the GT (Does Dodge even know what Grand Tourismo means?) edition but you'll be starting out at over $21K before many options and I'm sorry, but that's just too much money for this car. Especially when you consider the Toyota Corolla can be had for the same with plenty more features.
Then there's the predicted reliability. In it's recent history Dodge has not had much luck with designing cars that run consistently. Their trucks have been good and are consistently rated at or near the top of their class, but their cars are hovering somewhere down at the bottom. Hey Dodge, take a couple of engineers from your truck division and get them working on your cars. Warranty-wise the Dart checks in at 3 years/36K for the basic warranty and 5 years/100K on the powertrain.
Yesterday, when I wrote about the Kia Optima I mentioned reliability concerns but also noted that they offer a good warranty in an effort to address that. Dodge's warranties seem to be designed on the "well that's how it's always been done" motto which is not a selling point if the cars aren't rock-solid.
In Summary: The Dart rolled out with a huge marketing campaign, a short-haired, clean shaven Tom Brady and a ton of things that distracted from the car. After driving it, I have to say this was a smart move. Unfortunately, Dodge still can't get automobiles that don't have a bed right.
Why you might buy one: To be fair here, I'm decidedly NOT the target market for this car. I'm 42 years old, fat and work a 9-5. It's very clear that Dodge is marketing this to a more youthful market. That said, I can see someone in their late teens - early twenties really liking this car. It's not bad looking although I don't think the front grill design that works so well on trucks works out half as well smushed down on cars. It also can be had relatively cheap, since domestic dealers on cars in this class seem more willing to offer deep discounts than do some of the foreign manufacturers. That said, if you want a cheap car with a lot of features the Toyota Corolla or most others would be better. It's also really your only choice if you HAVE to drive a MOPAR. It's probably number two if you want American, ahead of the abysmal Chevy Cruze (a mistake of a car just like the the name itself) but falls well behind the new Ford Focus.
Rating: 2.5 out of 10: Most of the points come from the looks and what appears to be a fairly solid inline 4 engine. Everything else on this car falls way, way behind the current sedan competition.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
I Need a Car: The Kia Optima (1 In a Series)
Note: What follows are my thoughts on cars that I have driven in my search for a new vehicle. I'm hoping to focus on how cars would react in real, Houston conditions. Not whether they have "tech" or how sporty they are or what their 0-60 time may be (although I will discuss those things). I hope that you come away from this with a better idea how a car would be in everyday conditions, not around a test track. What follows is my opinion, and my opinion only. I have not received any compensation or influence in writing this other than my own impressions on each vehicle. Your mileage may (and will) vary. Finally, the following should not be considered either an offer, or advice, on whether YOU should buy a particular car or not. Go out and make your own decisions.
There is a book that is currently being advertised on the splash page of my Kindle. It's authoritatively titled "Climate Change: The Facts" which is odd considering that the debate over climate change is devoid of them. Even the so-called "scientific consensus" is based almost wholly on computer models programmed to assume that so-called "greenhouse gases" are changing the Earth's climate drastically.
I've found that it's much the same in automobile journalism. Between junkets and pre-conceived notions about what a car "should" be, we're given an endless litany of test drives performed on a baby-smooth racing circuit where 0-60 times are paramount and where, in the curious case of Car and Driver no car can be rated as excellent if it doesn't come with an option for a manual transmission.
For most of us, in Houston traffic, manual transmissions are hateful things. I know, the car I've been driving for the last 11 years is equipped with one. On the Devil's Backbone in Texas Hill Country this is outstanding. My 2004 Mazda3 is a joy to drive on the open road. During rush hour, on my commute, I arrive at either work or home with a noticeable limp that takes about 10 minutes to walk out from my left leg being at constant tension depressing the clutch.
Of all the car testing sites I think that Consumer Reports, especially in their long-term tests, get closest to the mark, but they seem to get too distracted at times by baubles, hence they gave the Tesla S their highest car rating ever.
The Kia Optima then....
First off, it's not an ugly car. At least, not from certain angles. When I first started looking at the car I was impressed. The model that I test drove was the EX version with a 2.4 liter 4 cylinder engine. This gives the car 192 horsepower which provided plenty of acceleration on a feeder road and I got up to speed just fine without having to worry about oncoming traffic running up my tailpipe.
Unfortunately, that's about where the good stopped.
Upon first acceleration I was startled by the amount of torque steer that I was fighting. It was as if the engineers forgot that, in addition to powering the car, the front wheels would also have to do the job of steering. Honestly I thought that the car might handle just a bit better, and get more gas mileage than the rather week 23mpg rated in the city, with around 40 less horses under the hood.
It was also surprisingly loud. I'm not sure if it was the tires or the lack of noise dampening but the road noise was noticeable. The air-noise from the windows was quiet, but I had to talk in full voice so my wife could hear me. At highway speed the engine whine was noticeable.
The interior was decidedly not my cup of tea. The car I drove had 'quilted' seats. Which I find to be a bad selling point since the depressions in the quilts are almost impossible to get clean should something spill on them. I also didn't like the look of light-gray seats in a charcoal gray car. It felt like they were trying to go for a sporty, racing look in a family sedan. Back to the drawing board on this one.
Most importantly, the suspension on this car trends toward hard. When changing lanes and running over cats-eyes I could count them and really feel it every time we hit one. I intentionally drove over a small pot-hole and it felt as if the car jumped. All-in-all sitting in the driver's seat was not a comfortable place to be.
The main selling point of the Optima is the price (MRSP for the EX starts at $24,190 but you can purchase one for much less if you negotiate smartly) and the abundance of features that KIA has decided to pour into the car. The car I was in had an easy to read LED screen interface for the audio, back-up camera, MP3 dock, and host of features that are standard for this car. The car that I drove had the optional fold-in mirrors (which initially did not deploy when I started the car), back-up camera (which worked well, had a clear picture and was easy to use) and the back-up warning system installed. The car also is equipped with Bluetooth for your phone, and a jack for your MP3 player. It has push-button start which is handy if you don't like fishing your keys out of your pocket (or have to dig around in your purse) to find the fob while dropping change everywhere. I like this feature very much.
Unfortunately, it also had a flat bottomed steering wheel, which I'm not a fan of. While it may make it slightly easier to get into the car I find that the two kinks at the bottom make it feel odd when you're turning a corner. The steering itself was OK, but nothing great. I thought the turn radius was a little below average compared to other cars that I drove and I didn't get the feeling that the car was always ready to go where I wanted it to go. It almost felt as if I need to give it a little advanced warning. "In 200 feet Optima, we're going to be making a hard right."
Now for the big problem. Every car, no matter the brand, is at least good today when it's brand new. The real test of a car is how it's going to look two-to-three years after purchase when miles and vibrations start to accumulate and Houston's weather starts to have it's way with the paint. Consumer Reports says that the Optima's reliability is below average, and you see a lot of fairly new KIA's on the road that certainly don't look showroom new. To counter this KIA offers an excellent warranty (5 years/60,000 basic and 10 years/100,000 miles on the power train) That's a good thing because, I think, there's a very solid chance you'll have to take them up on it. I have serious doubts that the Optima will feel anything close to what it feels like new after 20K miles.
I've gotten this far into the review without mentioning the very large elephant in the room. In all areas that really matter, the Optima is basically a year-old Sonata. It's almost as if Hyundai gave Kia all the spare parts from the old Sonata and said "Have fun". Sure, the Optima is a little bit cheaper but you can't help feeling that you're driving old technology when you're inside it.
Bottom Line: You might be interested in buying an Optima if you would like to have a ton of features at a price. Kia has loaded the car with baubles and has managed to keep the price-point low. If you don't mind doors that feel flimsy and a car that might vibrate loose over time and like the idea of a car that has things only previously seen in luxury sedans then the Optima is right for you. However, you will have to live with a firm, borderline hard, ride and a rather loud driving environment. There's also the fact that the sight-lines on the Optima, especially looking out the rear half of the car, are challenging at best. Make sure you get the back-up camera as an option. Avoid the electronic nanny.
Rating: 4.6 out of 10 - The Optima gets points for it's options but loses big points for ride quality, dodgy steering, a loud driving environment and reliability concerns.
(My rating scale is based on a ten point system with 5.0 being what I consider to be an average car in it's class)
There is a book that is currently being advertised on the splash page of my Kindle. It's authoritatively titled "Climate Change: The Facts" which is odd considering that the debate over climate change is devoid of them. Even the so-called "scientific consensus" is based almost wholly on computer models programmed to assume that so-called "greenhouse gases" are changing the Earth's climate drastically.
I've found that it's much the same in automobile journalism. Between junkets and pre-conceived notions about what a car "should" be, we're given an endless litany of test drives performed on a baby-smooth racing circuit where 0-60 times are paramount and where, in the curious case of Car and Driver no car can be rated as excellent if it doesn't come with an option for a manual transmission.
For most of us, in Houston traffic, manual transmissions are hateful things. I know, the car I've been driving for the last 11 years is equipped with one. On the Devil's Backbone in Texas Hill Country this is outstanding. My 2004 Mazda3 is a joy to drive on the open road. During rush hour, on my commute, I arrive at either work or home with a noticeable limp that takes about 10 minutes to walk out from my left leg being at constant tension depressing the clutch.
Of all the car testing sites I think that Consumer Reports, especially in their long-term tests, get closest to the mark, but they seem to get too distracted at times by baubles, hence they gave the Tesla S their highest car rating ever.
The Kia Optima then....
 |
| Picture courtesy of The Car Connection |
Unfortunately, that's about where the good stopped.
Upon first acceleration I was startled by the amount of torque steer that I was fighting. It was as if the engineers forgot that, in addition to powering the car, the front wheels would also have to do the job of steering. Honestly I thought that the car might handle just a bit better, and get more gas mileage than the rather week 23mpg rated in the city, with around 40 less horses under the hood.
It was also surprisingly loud. I'm not sure if it was the tires or the lack of noise dampening but the road noise was noticeable. The air-noise from the windows was quiet, but I had to talk in full voice so my wife could hear me. At highway speed the engine whine was noticeable.
The interior was decidedly not my cup of tea. The car I drove had 'quilted' seats. Which I find to be a bad selling point since the depressions in the quilts are almost impossible to get clean should something spill on them. I also didn't like the look of light-gray seats in a charcoal gray car. It felt like they were trying to go for a sporty, racing look in a family sedan. Back to the drawing board on this one.
Most importantly, the suspension on this car trends toward hard. When changing lanes and running over cats-eyes I could count them and really feel it every time we hit one. I intentionally drove over a small pot-hole and it felt as if the car jumped. All-in-all sitting in the driver's seat was not a comfortable place to be.
The main selling point of the Optima is the price (MRSP for the EX starts at $24,190 but you can purchase one for much less if you negotiate smartly) and the abundance of features that KIA has decided to pour into the car. The car I was in had an easy to read LED screen interface for the audio, back-up camera, MP3 dock, and host of features that are standard for this car. The car that I drove had the optional fold-in mirrors (which initially did not deploy when I started the car), back-up camera (which worked well, had a clear picture and was easy to use) and the back-up warning system installed. The car also is equipped with Bluetooth for your phone, and a jack for your MP3 player. It has push-button start which is handy if you don't like fishing your keys out of your pocket (or have to dig around in your purse) to find the fob while dropping change everywhere. I like this feature very much.
Unfortunately, it also had a flat bottomed steering wheel, which I'm not a fan of. While it may make it slightly easier to get into the car I find that the two kinks at the bottom make it feel odd when you're turning a corner. The steering itself was OK, but nothing great. I thought the turn radius was a little below average compared to other cars that I drove and I didn't get the feeling that the car was always ready to go where I wanted it to go. It almost felt as if I need to give it a little advanced warning. "In 200 feet Optima, we're going to be making a hard right."
Now for the big problem. Every car, no matter the brand, is at least good today when it's brand new. The real test of a car is how it's going to look two-to-three years after purchase when miles and vibrations start to accumulate and Houston's weather starts to have it's way with the paint. Consumer Reports says that the Optima's reliability is below average, and you see a lot of fairly new KIA's on the road that certainly don't look showroom new. To counter this KIA offers an excellent warranty (5 years/60,000 basic and 10 years/100,000 miles on the power train) That's a good thing because, I think, there's a very solid chance you'll have to take them up on it. I have serious doubts that the Optima will feel anything close to what it feels like new after 20K miles.
I've gotten this far into the review without mentioning the very large elephant in the room. In all areas that really matter, the Optima is basically a year-old Sonata. It's almost as if Hyundai gave Kia all the spare parts from the old Sonata and said "Have fun". Sure, the Optima is a little bit cheaper but you can't help feeling that you're driving old technology when you're inside it.
Bottom Line: You might be interested in buying an Optima if you would like to have a ton of features at a price. Kia has loaded the car with baubles and has managed to keep the price-point low. If you don't mind doors that feel flimsy and a car that might vibrate loose over time and like the idea of a car that has things only previously seen in luxury sedans then the Optima is right for you. However, you will have to live with a firm, borderline hard, ride and a rather loud driving environment. There's also the fact that the sight-lines on the Optima, especially looking out the rear half of the car, are challenging at best. Make sure you get the back-up camera as an option. Avoid the electronic nanny.
Rating: 4.6 out of 10 - The Optima gets points for it's options but loses big points for ride quality, dodgy steering, a loud driving environment and reliability concerns.
(My rating scale is based on a ten point system with 5.0 being what I consider to be an average car in it's class)
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Do you drive any of these?
Consumer Reports says you shouldn't.
For comparison's sake here is the The Top 10 vehicles are here
Granted, the selection of the combustible Tesla Model S raises questions regarding the validity of the rankings, overall it's still not a great picture for the US Auto industry who dominate the bad list and weren't seen (except for the Tesla and the Dodge Ram) on the best car list.
If you want to know why Detroit is struggling? For a large part their cars lack refinement and, the trickery of the Tesla S excluded, lack technological sophistication.
As for me, hang Consumer Reports my next vehicle is a Mercedes.
Consumer Reports' annual auto report doesn't just recommend the best new cars to buy, based on its data. It also tells you the new cars it thinks you should avoid — no matter the deal or the bit of styling that appeals to you.
And it's perhaps a more interesting list than the menu of good cars. At least it can be a good place to start an argument.
For comparison's sake here is the The Top 10 vehicles are here
Granted, the selection of the combustible Tesla Model S raises questions regarding the validity of the rankings, overall it's still not a great picture for the US Auto industry who dominate the bad list and weren't seen (except for the Tesla and the Dodge Ram) on the best car list.
If you want to know why Detroit is struggling? For a large part their cars lack refinement and, the trickery of the Tesla S excluded, lack technological sophistication.
As for me, hang Consumer Reports my next vehicle is a Mercedes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)