PeterJ

This car, at least in the higher trim, looks more than acceptable in person. I was very pleasantly surprised seeing it at the local auto show compared to what I was expecting. It seems to come across quite a bit more awkwardly in photos. The debut photos last September, showing the Versa in its most base trim with wheel covers and ultra-bland beige interior, were perplexing to say the least. What was Nissan thinking there? I see The Car Connection is still using those pictures in today's review. As a commuter car that could double for occasional freeway duty with a weekend full of gear, the Versa passes the eyeball test.

I'm a little underwhelmed by the EPA ratings, since initially Nissan was saying 38MPG combined for the CVT based on their testing. Perhaps in real world driving it will in fact be closer to 38MPG...I tend to get 2-4 MPG better than sticker in most every car I've owned.

This one is still on my radar screen...good balance of features, performance and price.

When VW trains their Diesels to not soil themselves, I'll consider one...

LMAO!

Yeah, you'd expect a German car to hold it's liqour a little better than that wouldn't you?

As has was pointed out, nothing there ULSD and advanced emissions technology can't take care of.

peter, there is a VW dealer in St. Peter i think.  check there?

Just a little further down 169 actually...Clements. They also carry Chevrolet and Nissan as well. I work with their internet/fleet managers (Ralph and Jan) who are superb and very down-to-earth. I've sent several family members and friends there. Most recently my 'bro bought a loaded, manual Jetta TDI which he used to replace a pick-up for a 100/mile round trip commute. Not a week goes by where he doesn't tell me how much he loves that car...he saves something like $170-190/month in fuel costs and has a lifetime average of 49MPG. It's his main ride so he was perfectly fine with spending ~$25.5K for something that has luxury amenities with the fuel efficiency of a motorcycle. If you drive it that distance, the fuel savings essentially subsidize the car payment . Running up the miles (especially 90% interstate) is really inconsequential for a diesel engine.

Most of the VW sales people I've come in contact with in the Twin Cities embody what everyone loves-to-hate about VW in general...the whole "yuppier-than-thou-and-you'll-pay-a-premium-for-it" attitude.

Actually I spoke out of turn about the Schmelz price...22K is about right for a completely loaded TDI with tiptronic. I forget that transmission is about a $1300 option. But the guy I spoke with yesterday (Schmelz was his last name actually) still had the 'tude thoughout our whole conversation that really turned me off.

Still not going to pay retail for a seven year old platform with a soft-serve suspension and the wrong transmission. I love diesels regardless and the prospect of energy independence even more...but to overpay for these things is the equivalent of trading multiple day-one picts to draft a QB that probably would have been there in round 5, if you get my meaning.

x3!

VW will be back in the diesel game eventually after a little hiatus. We'll probably see a common-rail diesel Rabbit in the 2008 or 2009 model year. By that time, I'm pretty sure VW will have some company in the compact diesel market from D/C (with the Caliber) if not a couple others.

There is some scuttlebutt about the EPA regulations being relaxed to the extent they may be able to offer the existing PD TDI a little longer than expected but I'm not counting on it.

I'm currently looking into finding one of the last '06 Golf TDIs but so far it looks like the only ones left are automatic and the dealer I've talked to (Schmeltz in the Twin Cities) is quoting me at $22K. Well, they can kiss my rosy red a$$ with that attitude. Fortunately I have an outstate dealer that I've purchased from (and sent four other people to) so we'll see what we can do....$19K is my ceiling for an old model with the wrong kind of transmission.

If they were driving the five speed manual, you'd almost have to drive it like a complete idiot (which I have no doubt C&D editors are capable of) to get only 36 mpg combined. I think they now offer either a six-speed tiptronic or DSG as the automatic option now which keeps the numbers even closer to a manual. I know at least a dozen TDI owners and lurk around a lot at TDIclub.com...I don't know a single person who has done that poorly in combined real-world mileage. 36MPG is more like the efficiency floor with this engine.

W/ a diesel (manual at least) you short shift and let the immediate and prodigious torque do its thing. You do not wind them out like a V-tech. For what they lack in 0-60 acceleration they MORE than make-up in mid-range pick-up, overall flexibility and a V8 like demeanor at interstate speeds. 0-60 as a key measure is highly overrated if you look at how you use your vehicle in about 98% of real-world situations.

On top of all this, the 1.9PD TDI is about as close to the pinnacle of modern diesel technology an early 90's Vulcan V6 from Ford is to the pinnacle of modern V6's today.

if the rabbit did come in equipped/priced like you say that's killer, but i am guessing equipped like you say it will be a HARE (get it? LOL!!!             :AH-HA_wink: ) under 20,000

can you say MAZDA3 killer?

CIVIC killer?

Whah, whah, whah, whahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

See all the possibilities you get with the change over to Rabbit?

Final pricing will be interesting, for sure. I'm basing presumptions on the version that was badged as a Golf on the autoshow circuit...Reg (and CMattson if you're out there) I'm sure you saw the blue Golf in Mpls next to the new GTI. It appeared from the sticker on that one that it essentially had everything the Jetta VE has with some additional flexibility in options (esp. for someone like me who considers a sunroof necessary equipment!) Maybe $16500 out the door is a little optimistic but I'm thinking (hoping?) it will be within a grand of that. I'd be surprised if they decontented in any significant way from the Jetta and/or the Golf on the autoshow circuit...but I could be wrong. I think the awesome pricing comes down to the fact VW isn't currently ready with a Polo-sized vehicle yet along with the perception that hatchbacks = cheap. When they are ready with a B-segment car, they can bump the Rabbit, GTI and Jetta up in price and eventually size as the Passat has now become a $30K+ vehicle for all intents and purposes. It also would present some interesting possibilities for the Rabbit down the line, such as GT or GT Diesel versions when VW is ready with their common rail engines in another couple of years.

The Rabbit is actually quite a bit larger than the outgoing Golf. That 2.5 won't challenge the efficiency of a Fit, Yaris or Versa and it won't rev like Mazda's 2.3. But it seems now that a lot of people have broken their new Jettas in I'm seeing "real life" mileage reports of 25ish in the city and up to 34-35 on the highway with the 2.5 which is perfectly acceptable for what is practically a small mid-size car now.

As far as I can tell, there are going to be no essential equipment downgrades on the Rabbit versus the Jetta. Same compliment of standard features you'd find on the Jetta Value Edition which starts at nearly $3000 higher. Plus with the Golf, you can get heated seats and a sunroof as options, which I don't believe you can with the Jetta VE.

I have not been a really big fan of the new Jetta...not because there's anything essentially wrong with it but rather because it seemed very overpriced...continuing VW's trend of making every car significantly more expensive with each generation. That issue was somewhat mitigated by bringing the VE on the scene, but not enough IMO.

A $15K Rabbit, on the other hand, is an ABSURD bargain. Keep in mind that with VW you get all the essentials...including top-notch safety equipment/crashworthiness...as standard features. So because Americans supposedly still hate hatchbacks (despite about a 5 year running trend that demonstrates the opposite), we get an arguably better looking and more useful version of the Jetta in the Rabbit at a $3000 discount. Sounds like a hell of a deal to me! Loaded with standard features plus sunroof, heated seats, stability control and satellite radio, a manual transmission Rabbit should come in around $17K retail (so probably more like $16-16.5K in the real world). Again, an absurd bargain. Despite the more somber look the new Jetta is a vastly improved car over the previous version so I'd fully expect the Rabbit to be the same...they're mechanically twins.

It's sort of the alter-ego of the Mazda3 but I have to say these two cars are at the top of my shopping list for this summer.

The Rabbit name seems to be getting very mixed reactions out there. Whether this car bears much resemblance to the original "MK1" is beside the point...I think it gives VW a platform from which to actually market the car a little. They sold something like 15,000 Golfs last year vs. over 100K Jettas. When's the last time you saw a Golf commercial on TV, billboard or print? I also think they did a superb job with the badge...no name to be found, just a Rabbit badge on the tail end next to the badge for engine displacement. Nice.

they had a second fit on the floor that was open and i sat in that one.  Didn't like it.  Versa looked cool, but what's the point, get a new Sentra.

well, as far as power, my Prizm was under 2500 pounds and had 125hp and that wasn't enough.  Under 50mph or so it was ok, but not even fervent shifting of the manual could make it safe transport in 65+ long distance traffic.  JMO.

I don't know what it was about that power plant in your Prism and Corollas of that generation, but I agree. I had a Corolla as a rental on a couple occasions and that engine was breathless on the highway. My wife used to have a '92 Corolla...I think that had all of 105 HP...and somehow it felt a lot stronger. No hemi mind you but plenty adequate w/ a stick.

Goes to show you how thoroughly I looked at the Honda display...missed the Fit on the floor. That was really the only Honda I was interested in looking at so I didn't gravitate too far from the turntable.

I'd probably be more interested in the Versa than the Sentra for the same price range...for me, that fifth door is what makes any B or C sized car work But the plus for the Versa is that it should come in anywhere from $2-4000 less than a Sentra comparably equipped and from what you hear it may be as large or larger than the Sentra inside. Everything I've read says about $15,500 loaded. I was surprised with that one...comes across a lot better in person than pictures.

hey cmattson, i checked the Fit out at the autoshow here yesterday.

WHAT A PILE OF DUNG!!!!!!!

Seriously!  its complete and total crap compared to what else you can buy.

-ugly

-tinny

-uncomfortable

-dash equally as ugly and cheap looking as the new civic's

you want this car?  Go buy an AERIO wagon and you'll get a more useful, more comfortable and better looking microcar with 50 more hp!  And a warranty, all for about the same price.

Seriously, the whole thing about this car being space efficient is hogwash.  It was way too small and the cargo hold was not that spacious.  Any of the competition hatchbacks are a better buy.

I'm gonna have to eat a little crow on this next one...I REALLY liked the Yaris and aside from the DUMB AS HELL center gauges and childish looking climate controls (and useless motor), I would have to say the Yaris to me is a highly desirable runabout in either form, assuming the price is cheap.  I still would pass on it unless it had exceptional safety scores.  The Yaris had a nicer interior it seemed than many other cars in the show at prices up to 3 times as much.  And its extremely roomy.  If the Yaris were available with a 180hp engine, or even 150hp, I would be checking it out.  The Yaris is much cooler than the old fart's Corolla.  The new Accent / Rio combo looks third world in comparison and the Yaris absolutley blows away the LAME ASS fit in comparison.  IMO.  I would have ot say anyone who is remotely interested in a Fit simply is not a very good shopper, because I just don't think its got the attributes for the American market.  No looks, no power, no comfort, tinny, not as much space as they suggest in their hype.

Get a Yaris, or a base Caliber, or a Vibe, or an Aerio or Reno, or a base outlander

BTW, the new Aveo's interior is REALLY nice.  That car is gonna SELL!

Hey Reg,

I went to the Minneapolis Autoshow...twice. The only Fit at the show was up on a rotating platform with all the doors closed. So I'm curious how you were able to form such a STRONG impression about it without being able to actually sit in it or touch anything.

My $.02 about the cars in this segment...I was actually pleasantly surprised at how the Fit came across in person. Didn't care at all for the color they showed it in, but other than that, it looked far better than I expected it to based on pictures. It is definitely narrow, but other than that the height and hatch area make it look like something you could carry four people and a decent amount of luggage in. I'm not a Honda-guy by any stretch but the Fit went from something I had zero interest in to a car I'll probably test-drive, based on a 15 foot away view of it.

Since we're also talking about competitors in this segment, I was likewise pleasantly surprised by how the Nissan Versa looked. Like the Fit, this was also up on a platform but at least they had the driver and passenger door open. Compared to the Fit, it looks more like a C segment car and is definitely playing to a more mature audience. It looks to be the size of a Golf III from the outside but looked very roomy in the interior.

They had two Yaris' on the floor, the hatch and the sedan. I'd agree with Reg that these are very well-executed, like the Scions...but they just aren't my thing. Center instruments are a deal-killer for me on anything but a Mini. Stupid deal-killer maybe, but it is what it is. Also, I'm looking for a five-door hatch and the Yaris offers nothing there. Personally, I thought the Yaris and new Hyundai Accent felt very comparable...in fact I'd get the Accent between the two based on styling and a normal instrument panel, alone.

Agreed on the exterior and interior (especially) of the new Aveo. Very well done. Can't wait to see the 5-door and wish it were available for me to check out this summer. No thanks to the current one.

As for C-segment cars that you might cross-shop w/ the Fit and others...the Caliber fell off my list based on the auto show experience. In many ways its a great piece and has a lot of nice touches. I think it will do very, very well for Dodge. But for me, the styling doesn't do it (totally subjective) and I also thought the interior was very cramped. The fastback styling takes away a lot of headroom and cargo space...even the leg room was really tight in the back. I thought they did a pretty mediocre job of packaging for a brand new design. I'd bet $100 the Fit will feel more comfortable just sitting in it on a much smaller footprint. I really liked the Golf V and was already sold on the Mazda 3. It's gonna be fun shopping in June!

Final thought...ya all have to remember that these C-segment cars run about 2500 lbs. or less. 110 or so HP is going to be plenty to motivate these cars for their purpose, which is to serve as a commuter car for one or two adults or an an adult/child...in the city about 90% of the time. As another poster said, all those people in the 90's (and the 80's) survived just fine in cars with far less safety equipment and in many cases about 20-30 ft lbs less of HP and torque. Not every 4 cylinder engine is as lifeless as the Toyota unit in Reg's old Prism. Plus, there's more to driving fun than straight-line acceleration. My family had an Omni GLH back in the 80s w/ about 100 hp...never found that to be anything other than fun.

I saw one at a local dealer last night and was overall impressed. Surprisingly, I was quite a bit more impressed with the interior than I expected to be and somewhat less impressed with the exterior. First of all on the outside, I thought the Caliber had sort of a retro PT Cruiser/HHR feel to it, where in photos I thought it looked modern. As for the interior, which a lot of people have voiced problems with, I thought it was actually very good. If you have no problems with the Magnum/Charger and 300 (like I do) you're going to like the Caliber just fine...the feel is very, very similar to the larger Dodges. The example I saw was an SXT with the color inserts on the interior...not perfectly executed IMO, but a nice upgrade none the less. For the time I got to sit in it, the interior seemed a little more tight than I expected. I'd definitely echo Reg's comments that the cargo space isn't outstanding for a hatch but that's the price you pay for the fastback look as with the Magnum.

Fortunately for me, this is exactly in the class of vehicles I'll be looking at when shopping this spring/summer. Not sure if it will be at the top of the list when it's said & done, but regardless this is bound to be a very big hit for Dodge and will help to solidify the resurgence of hatchbacks.

I have yet to read a review of this car that isn't either positive or glowingly positive.

The tone of article? All the article said was the Outlook had been put on hold for a retooling. And how is Josh responsible for how other people interpreted the article? You think he's here every moment to clarify every single thing? Give me a break.

A sensationlist tone would be if Josh knew the Outlook was't being cancelled and put forth the notion that it was. If you had read the article, you could see that was plainly not the case. You think he intentionally wanted to work people up and getting people pissed off at GM? Please.

Well the article and thread are gone now so there's no way to refute your take objectively, whether the interest is there or not. But I stand 100% by everything I've said in this thread. And there are many ways to be sensationalist. Again, if you can't see that then you're simply more interested in being right than in being accurate.

I don't know what's more lame. The red herring of an article or the people lining up to make excuses for it. Clearly the whole tone and tenor of both the article and the discussion which ensued for four pages created the impression that the Outlook was in serious jeapordy. And Josh took absolutely zero responsibility for putting that conversation back on track until he was told to by GM...or perhaps he just realized what an embarassment this had become for him, since we're all about speculation here. If you can't see that for cheap sensationalism then you have no sense of judgement.

I did as I was asked by GM as I always do and will continue to do so. You can call it whatever you'd like on my end, we've removed posts that were absolutely legitimate and true, yet removed because the information GM did not want out at that certain moment.

I stand by my decisions and actions.

Josh, I'd think long and hard about standing by your decisions and actions today if I were you. Because frankly this has been a very bad day for this web-site and you've got a serious credibility/maturity gap to make up. Even your retraction is lacking.

Just like its absurd to presume hybrids will save the world, it's going too far to say the concept is useless. I'm very interested to see what the new Camry hybrid and VUE greenline do in the real world. In both cases, you're taking an already efficient (but powerful enough for a real car) 4-cylinder engine and augmenting it to be more efficient in city/suburban rush hour situations that a lot of vehicles spend the majority time operating in. In the case of the BAS system GM is using, I'm especially hopeful, b/c this is far less expensive and complex.

So called performance hybrids like this Accord (and the Lexus RX, Toyota Highlander, etc...) are a complete ruse. I'm worried the hybrid system in the upcoming GM trucks is going to fall in this category too. This type of application should immediately be disqualified for any tax incentives too. In fact, I think this is an area where they ought to just let the market do its thing entirely.

The most frustrating thing to me is that the discussion seems to be all or nothing with any of these approaches, whether it's hybrids, E85, diesel or some combination. If you live in Minnesota, E85 is viable b/c it's relatively cheap and available. If you need to tow or drive a lot of highway miles, nothing makes more sense than a modern diesel engine. If you're 80% or more in city traffic, an effective hybrid set-up would be perfect. Here's hoping govt., consumers and the manufacturers aren't so myopic that the right mix of approaches fails to evolve.

Yeah but a lot changes in person when you open and close a door and feel like you locked yourself in a sardine can in the versa. The Fit felt solid like a civic and in a small car that is a big deal. also the versa felt cramped in the drivers seat. While the Yaris felt best and the fit was OK. I thought the fit came off 100 times better in person, as does the new civic. yes yaris had Scion xA like interior but I'd take that over the Versa. but yes the Versa looks better than the new sentra.

Thanks for the overview! Without a doubt, you just can't totally embrace or dismiss any vehicle until you see it and touch it in person.

"Nissan I think is doing the worst job of all the Japanese. The interiors aren't being updated to nicer materials even if the layout is better.

It's weird. the versa was so cheap in comparison to the fit and Yaris. And everything feels light. I'm really unimpressed and they fall way down the list for me."

That's an interesting take since you've seen all three in person. From pictures, the Versa is the only one of these B segment cars that looks like 'real' car or something I'd consider. The Yaris and Fit look like freaking clown cars....the Fit moreso because of it's exterior styling and the Yaris for it's interior, particularly the horrible and CHEAP looking instrument pod. On top of that, for looking like clown-mobiles, the Toyhonda pair join the Aveo in failing to deliver excellent fuel economy as a trade off for what you give up in styling and size. There's nothing ground breaking regarding the Versa in terms of styling but it has outstanding interior size and fuel economy approaching a diesel. The Aveo would be right at the top of the list too with the redesign if they'd just drop one of the smaller Ecotech engines in it.

I fall in the camp of those who like the new Sentra more than disliking it. I'm not a big fan of the Altima and I think the Maxima is flat-out bad. But the Nissan corporate styling seems to work 'better' with the Sentra. It seems to make a difference what photos you look at. The first set of photos posted here I thought "meh"...then seeing the car in a dark blue on Nissan's site, I thought it looked a lot better. Like everything, you have to see it person to really get a good sense.

Now to everyone ripping this for being an ION knockoff...I swear that on this very board, I it was widely agreed that the ION resembled a Nissan when it first came out. If memory serves, the current gen Altima came out shortly before the ION. So a little historical context is in order it seems. This Sentra is right in line with Nissan's design face for sedans, for better or worse. Just like the Quest, Murano and Versa all share a common family theme. It's definitely open for debate as to whether such uniformity is a good thing and/or whether Nissan's 'face' is nice to look at or not.

i think its clumsy, but remember, the designers are still trying everything to figure out the magic formula for proportioning vehicles like this.  it will take time.  much better to allow them to figure out how to make a successful functional vehicle design language than suffer through the old paradigm of low riding uncomfortable useless hardly functional vehicles.

[post="68053"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's an outstanding observation Reg. I'm the only one on this thread so far that doesn't dislike the styling to a greater or lesser degree. But I'm so biased towards the utility of five doors when it comes to anything in this size class or below that I might be giving it some style points it doesn't deserve. Personally, I think it looks less awkward than the Maxx, since people have brought it up in comparison. I'm at least interested enough that I'm looking forward to seeing it in person at the Minneapolis Auto Show in March.

I'm hoping for at least some degree of success with all of these new, functional 5-doors that are coming our way. The more the better. It's a solution to being compelled to upsize when what you really need is an efficient second vehicle for commuting, that can also carry the family and/or some gear in a pinch. I don't want small sedans/coupes to become extinct either, but once you move out of single life in an apartment, they start to become more and more useless.

I don't know, Peter.  This segment is really hot right now and will be for some time because of gas prices, etc.  I would take a Yaris and Aveo over the Nissan.  I think it looks somewhat dated in comparison.

[post="60827"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think you're right about it looking a little dated...or at least very conservative compared to the competitors. That might be one of the reasons I like it actually. A lot of hatchbacks that look lame to most people look semi-sporty to my eyes, so I'm probably an outlier when it comes to taste in these types of cars. To me, a basic, boxy five-door design is pretty timeless. When I see a well-maintained early 90's Golf driving around, I still think those look pretty good and that's what I think of when I see the Versa in decent colors and a set of alloys.

With these B-segment "tall-boy" cars though, I think it's even more important than in other classes to see them in person before you can judge if the proportions look right. And with Nissan, I've been extremely unimpressed with their interiors across the board over the past 4-5 years, so I've got to see/feel premium in person before I believe it.

If you came of age driving in the mid-80's like me, you are probably finding it fun to see this segment starting to pick up again.

Of the cars coming into this segment for the upcoming model year, the one I'm most intriguted with is the Nissan Versa hatchback. This impression is based on what I've seen of the overseas Tiida and a few recent SEMA pics...the initial press photos of the Versa (silver base model with the plastic wheel covers) were comparatively underwhelming. Five door hatchback, huge interior, 38 MPG combined city/hwy, availability of six speed manual, premium options and premium interior (so they promise, at least)...all for the same price point as the Yaris, Fit, Aveo and Accent, give or take a grand. To me a Versa with alloys and the more uplevel interior is the only one of these that starts to look like a 'real' car. And the fuel efficiency is almost as impressive as a diesel, which I wish we had more of in the USA.

http://www.netcarshow.com/nissan/2004-tiida/03.htm

I'll admit, you do have to be predisposed to hatchbacks to like it...but if you find the current Golf attractive it seems the Versa is at least in the ballpark.

I flat out cannot get beyond the Yaris interior. I don't care what the materials are like, that center guage cluster is a total non-starter for me.

I recall the humble beginnings of Acura; where the Acura legend was little more than a Honda with leather seats and different tail-light trim (1988).  Here we are less than 2 decades later and Acura has been an established, credible luxury brand for at least the last 5-10 years.  I wouldn't say that the Hyundai doesn't stand a chance -- it does.  It's window of opportunity is far smaller than the one afforded Lexus and Acura.  Luxury makes were either ungodly expensive (Mercedes, BMW), or were lack-luster in design and/or quality (Caddy, Lincoln).  Still, given time, I'm sure Hyundai will make some in-roads.

[post="34046"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think you've kind of hit upon one of the main points here...I made it in another thread with regards to the new Sonata. The leaps Hyundai seems to be making from generation to generation in it's cars is really astounding. Granted, they had a hell of alot of improving to do from the 1995 to 2005, but look at where they've come in 10 years. No guarantees obviously, but I sure wouldn't bet against them. That's not just a warning for GM but for Honda and Toyota as well.

Of course styling is subjective, but I think a lot of you are going way overboard in dissing the interior. Like almost everyone (pro and con) has added, the proof is actually sitting in it. Based on my time with a Sonata last Saturday, I'd say it has a pretty good shot at feeling as good as it looks (or better than it looks depending on your perspective). I was pretty underwhelmed by the Edmunds shots in beige but I think the dark interior is at the top of the list for what you can get in the high $20's.

And the comment about ripping off the Avalon interior...give me a break. Reminds me of a dealer that had the audacity to say Ford "ripped off" the Titan's styling and got it to market before the Titan was able to debut. It's an absurd statement when you think about the overlapping design timelines for Avalon and Azera, don't you think?

The Caliber makes a lot more sense as a 5-dr hatchback than a 4dr sedan...I've always thought small cars like this are better as hatchbacks--a hatchback is more useful and practical than a small sedan with a tiny trunk..

[post="37581"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I could not agree with this more. I'd venture to say every player in this segment, if you had to choose one body style to go with, make a 5-door and forget about a sedan...whether it be a small wagon, a more upright hatch (Focus, 3, Golf) or more of a fastback (Elantra GT). Not only does it make a small car practical enough to serve more than just commuting duty, it usually works better asthetically with the proportions of a compact or sub-compact. Taste is subjective, but I think you could easily argue that the Golf, 3, Focus and Aveo are all much better looking than their sedan relatives.

This B.S. that "Americans don't like hatchbacks" is just that...crap. It's myth kept alive by 50-something baby boomers in auto journalism that can't see beyond their own life experience with cars.

The Sonata is still one of those '...for a Korean car' products, i.e. "Nice interior. For a Korean car." or "Looks nice. For a Korean car."

Speaking of the interior, its still one of those examples of what not to do when designing a car. Typical dead-panel plates over options you couldn't afford, unergonomic layout, hillarious radio stack and surround. Designwise, its unoffensive because it borrows many-a-cue from the Accord. Peep the taillamps, for one. Derivative, bland styling.

Also, what SUV's? The Santa Fe? Decent, yes, but still second-fiddle to the CR-V, RAV4, Escape, and Equinox, all breakout products in their own right. Tuscon is also an oddly-placed also-ran.

I do realize Hyundai has progressed, but it still sells on price and warranty and frankly, I could sell Russian or Slovakian cars like that.

You mentioned Altima. The '02 Altima had a crappy interior - both layout and materials - decent quality, wasn't the economical, and wasn't super-reliabile. But it sold because it had power and was desireable.

I'll wait to see a Hyundai (or Kia) that sells solely on desire before I consider them 'turned-around'. In that regard, Tiburon was the closest.

[post="32651"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Brian,

I don't know if you're basing your opinion on internet/autorag articles or if you've had a chance to sit in or drive the new Sonata. I just began new car shopping last weekend. I'm more in the market for a compact five-door, but I checked out the Sonata anyhow...an absolute base GL with a 5 speed manual and a top of the line LX. Anyone, particularly in the industry, who is underestimating the Sonata is whistling past the graveyard IMHO. It's fully competitive with anything currently in it's class without qualification and embarasses many of those competitors on it's own merits....BEFORE considering price. Once price is factored in, the deal is practically closed if you're in the market for a mid-size car. I was quoted around $15.5 for the GL and $21K for a fully loaded LX. I see no compelling reason to buy an Accord or Camry over the Sonata...unless you want a fully optioned manual transmission which the Accord offers. And it frankly embarrasses the current Malibu (actually, I'd say it embarasses the current Camry also).

Hyundai is making astounding leaps from generation to generation in their cars...I'd say their biggest shortcoming is a lack of exterior design talent or at least a tendency to be too derivative. The new Sonata interior goes toe-to-toe with the Accord's. But at their current pace, they're as good a bet as anyone to be class leaders in another generation or two if they aren't already in some respects.

I haven't been a Hyundai fan by any means, but unless there's a fly in the ointment somewhere (like the thing turns out to be riddled with recalls/reliability issues), I was seriously impressed with the progress they're making.

I own an '04 Malibu (base) right now.  The car is great for what it is: value transportation.  I purchased mine primarily because I put about 18k-19k of mileage on my car a year.  It simply doesn't make sense for me to over-purchase when it comes to cars.  Yes, the Malibu is ridiculous when it comes to gas mileage.  While it's currently rated at 35mpg, if you check out any of the automotive forums, it's not unusual to read about people hitting 38 or 39mpg.  My personal best is 36mpg -- which I've hit twice now -- and that's a 75% highway/25%city mix, with about 50% of those highway miles in stop-and-go rush hour traffic -- so 36mpg for that is pretty damn good.  As for interior appointments:  the Malibu cloth fabric flat-out sucks.  It desperately needs an upgrade.  The radio/hvac controls for the Impala are much nicer, but I take it for what it's worth: GM is improving it's interiors incrementally.  Plus, I don't discount the idea that a more expensive car will get nicer appointments -> you pay for what you get.    The light steering is weird at first -- but if you drive it for a week, you'll find that it actually grows on you and you come to expect that "easy-steering feeling" from every car you drive & that other cars are a bit laborious at low speeds in comparison.

All in all, if you are looking for a commuter-sedan, the Ecotec-powered Malibu doesn't disappoint.  With it's phenominal showings in initial quality and vehicle dependability, you just can't go wrong with this car.  I've got 32,xxx miles on my '04 (purchased in Apr'04) and besides the well-known steering-column recall, this car has been rock-solid: not a squeek, not a rattle, not a repair.

[post="28141"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Thanks for the feedback cmattson. I'm still curious why the same engine/transmission combo is rated for 32 HWY this year...but it seems like the 2.2L easily meets and usually exceeds its EPA ratings. Doesn't it seem this is the case with with almost every GM engine across the board?

From what I've seen of the 2006s, the cloth fabric and interior appear to be significantly upgraded BTW. Even with the changes, the Malibu doesn't have the appeal of the new Fusion, but I'd bet there will be a huge difference in real world fuel economy between Ford's 2.0 and the 2.2 Ecotec, even comparing a manual to an automatic. Ford seems to have the opposite situation...real world is often less than what the EPA states. Reading the various boards, the 2.0 as applied in the Focus is pretty underwhelming in that respect.

Does anyone know why the EPA rating on the 4 cyl Malibu fell from 35 to 32 for 2006? Did the front-end freshening mess up the aero dynamics or something? Reg, I could not agree with you more...a 4 cylinder Malibu or better yet Malibu Maxx with a stick shift would be just an outstanding commuter car and a fantastic value too. I'm sure you could push 36 or 37 on the highway with a 2.2L ecotec and a stick...cheap fun too. Doesn't Cmattson have a 4 cyl Malibu? If you're looking at this thread Cmattson, what is your real world mileage under different conditions on the 2.2?