Cars I'm thankful to be able to hate

On Thursday, I brought you the first batch of cars I don't like very much, and listed the reasons I didn't quite care for them. My line of "hatred" continues, this time spread to vehicles that aren't necessarily being discontinued. Thursday's post was directed at Chrysler, and some of this post will be as well. Despite rapidly improving since Fiat took helm, there is still some much-needed work to do in revamping the lineup. By now, readers should be familiar with my loathing of newer Dodges, and even though I ridiculed the biggest offenders, there's one particular Dodge product that I haven't forgotten about.


From the side profile, this SUV certainly looks cheesy. Slab sides, exaggerated fender flares, chunky door handles, cliched fender "vents", and nondescript taillights. What more could an SUV buyer want? Oh yeah. It has to have some sense of sport right? Of course it does! On base models, the unpainted plastic trim is supposed to give off "tough" vibe, but in reality all it does is make it look like it wasn't fully painted before it was whisked onto a delivery truck for transport to the nearest dealer. Want a Nitro that doesn't look cheap?Fear not, Dodge has laden the upper-most model with a set of blingin' 20" wheels that wouldn't look out of place on a candy painted Caprice. And with those big wheels comes a sporty ride. Not in the sense of darty steering and precise handling. Here, sporty is a terrible excuse for the term buckboard. I did ride in a Nitro R/T (like the one pictured here) once courtesy of a family member's rental vehicle. Gah. Remember that Tahoe I rode in last winter? Yeah, the Nitro made that seem like a Town Car. Granted, it had the biggest wheels this truck was available with, but still. Add that to a plethora of body roll and brakes that seemed to act as a sponge rather than stop the vehicle. Awesome engineering, if I do say so.




As with Chrysler Corp, Mitsubishi is supposedly re-inventing itself, too. With slow sales, drab cars, and quite possibly one of the worst dealer networks in the US, they need at least something to entice people to even stop in. The Outlander could use some polish, the Outlander Sport is.. well... there's nothing sporty about it, and.. honestly I forgot what other vehicles they make. Oh yeah, the Lancer. How could I forget? Oh wait. Probably because for every Lancer I see, I see 12 or 13 Subaru Imprezas. And then, there's the Eclipse "sports car"....


Back in 1989, when the Eclipse made its debut, it was on the cutting edge of a new trend; import performance. In addition to the base model GS, there was a hoot-to-drive AWD GSX model. In 1990, it had 195 horses via a turbo 4. Other models made due with a 92 horse 1.8 (in the base model and GS), while upper level cars got a 135 horse 4G63A. Top-spec GST (FWD) and GSX (AWD) got the much-loved 4G63. Over the years, the Eclipse strayed away from its roots a relatively cheap performance bargain. The biggest change from this came in 2000, when the demise of AWD was announced. The new for 2000 car was only available in FWD, and had a 3.0L V6 instead of a turbo four cylinder. The styling, too, left something to be desired it catered to the "rib" styling that was ever so prevalent at the time (nee Pontiac Grand Am). In 2006, at the Eclipses' last major redesign, it was rendered (by me and the auto industry alike) a total flop. It was bigger, much heavier, but still packed roughly the same power. This time, the V6 grow to 3.8L, which is seen by many as generic displacement for a V6. While it was quick in a straight line, the car suffered from immense torque steer, and many magazines called it "the worst FWD 'performance' car they've ever driven. As seen above, you can get the "performance goodies" on a four cylinder car now, too, rendering the Eclipse as a car with "way more look than cook" as Car and Driver's buyer's guide said. Oh yeah, and gone is the relatively good gas mileage of the first and second gen cars. This newest incarnation struggles to break 17 MPG mixed driving. Progress? Not quite.


The final car in this installment of the series is Mitsubishi' bread and butter Galant. While it isn't really a bad car per se, it's not really a very relevant car. Like the much loathed Chevy Impala, the Galant hasn't had a major redo for at least six years now, and it shows. It's not really a very strong seller, and with hardly any dealer network, it doesn't need to be. But unlike the Chevy Impala, Mitsubishi for some reason or another decided this car needs a four cylinder as well as a six. That's a decent move, I suppose, but its direct competition doesn't offer a four. Mitsubishi says this car competes with Toyota Camry,Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima, but I beg to differ. All three of this cars have been recently redesigned, or least heavily updated since the Galant was last so. Think twice about which large car your next $30k goes to.

Cars I'm thankful for going out of production soon

Starting in 2009, I did a Thanksgiving post. I totally forgot to do one last year, and to be honest, I kinda wasn't into blogging for whatever reason, but now I'm back. 2011 marks the return of happy blogging, and I can't forget about holidays. In 2009, my post was commemorating the five modern (since I was born) cars I was most thankful for. These cars shaped the auto industry for better, or at least had a positive impact on me, and made me a better enthusiast.
Unlike that post, this schpiel, if you want to call it that, rips a couple companies a new arsehole, which I think is greatly deserved. This five cars have made me hate what the auto industry is now becoming, largely in part to stupid American consumers. While there are absolutely loads upon loads of crossovers I can rip apart here, I chose to limit it strictly to cars. And so the countdown of my most abhorred cars of 2008/2009 to present begins, where I will be posting reviews of some of my least favorite vehicles, not only on principle, but on execution or lack thereof.

Coming in at number five on the list, is the Jeep Compass. Ever since its conception, Jeep has always been about providing low-cost offroad thrills to the masses. But as of late, prices on Jeeps have skyrocketed to the point where the cliche Jeep, a Wrangler, can now be turned into a $40,000 vehicle with the right options. And that's even the high quality one. The Grand Cherokee, which is a bit nicer, albeit more geared toward luxury, can push the $50,000 mark. Since Jeep needed a vehicle to lure new buyers into the fold, it had to be cheap, price-wise.
Enter the Compass, one of a wide variety of new vehicles introduced by Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and even Mitsubishi for the 2008 model year. From the outside, it just looks incredibly ghastly. The front end reminds me of a frog that got punched between the eyes, and that isn't the worst. The rear end reminds me of a last generation Kia Sportage-- the last of the cheap-looking ones, I might add, and the side profile has this godawful "character line", and the door handles. Jesus. The idea of rear handles mounted in the pillar was a Nissan tradition with the Pathfinder. Now, the trend is synonymous with (you guessed it) "hip vehicles", like the Nissan Juke.
Inside this rattletrap, materials are so poor, you could swear the interior was assembled using leftover plastic scrap from the last deceased Rover factory. Panel fit inside is incredibly uneven. At the 2008 auto show (where I took this picture), I found a gap in the dash between the glovebox and foot rest wide enough to fit my whole hand into. On a production ready vehicle, no less.
Power comes from an unmotivated 2.4L four cylinder making 172 horses. That might not sound too horrible, but remember, there are other hatchbacks that make better use of their engines. While it does get semi-decent gas mileage for a vehicle of this Caliber (more on that later), the ride one suffers is incredibly loud, with lots of tire noise, and wind buffeting because of the godawful front end treatment. If you desire an even less potent version of this tincan, there is a 2.0L four cylinder available as well, but that engine leaves the whole vehicle shaking at idle. Not quite the experience one expects from a new car.



So, you like the Jeep Compass, but for some reason have less than $20,000 to spend on your very own Compass? No fear, Dodge has the answer, in form of the ungainly Caliber hatchback. Like its Compass cousin, the materials on this example of a slipshod, subpar uneconomy car are incredibly poor, even for the class of vehicle it is. I noticed that every single example at this past auto show had at one minor cosmetic blemish. Not content with dull colors occupying the range, Dodge has festooned their latest small car with a wide array of garish, bright colors, in hopes that people shopping for a Fiesta of other "upscale" compact car will take a look at their product. Nope, no happening. While the Ford Focus costs more than a Caliber, it is much more premium car. The Caliber just says "hey, I bought an ex-rental car. It was cheap, and it least it's new." So? It has the dynamics of a 10 year old Hyundai Accent. Noisy on the highway, rattling/shaking at idle, and quite possibly the most cumbersome interior I've seen in quite a while. Seriously, who needs heated and cooled cupholders when you can worry about whether of not you're going to slice your hand open trying to open the glovebox?
Fitted with the same geriatric engines as the Compass, the Caliber is quite slow off the line. While the 2.0 and 2.4 (as mentioned above) make okay power, Dodge did offer an SRT version which made 300 horsepower. Great, but at what cost? Well, monstrous torque steer, and periods of *lag*lag*lag*BOOOOOOOOOOOOST*lag*lag*lag. Almost like when the turbo decided to kick in, the torque steer was bad enough to send the little shitbox swerving from lane to lane. Apparently, not many people cared for the idea of a turd with 300 horses. The SRT was canned after only three years on the market.



So, a little subpar hatchback not quite your thing? This platform is also available in a sedan form, too. Since I couldn't find a picture of the grotesquely styled Chrysler Sebring, this Dodge Avenger will have to do. It's not ugly per se, it's just.. nondescript. Nothing wrong with that, but when this car came out, it was promoted as being filled with "attitude" and "style". Where? Surely they don't mean the spoiler on the back, do they? Because you can affix a spoiler to damn near anything and label it "sporty". A spoiler, four doors, a CVT and a 170 horse engine do not an exciting drive make. I've had the displeasure of riding in a rental one, presumably equipped with the 2.4; it was very loud, engine drones made the vehicle feel as it was going 100 miles an hour constantly, and my lord, the tire noise. Pitching it into corners along highway 1 was probably the single scariest moment in a car I've had. Very excessive body roll, and tire howl that would give an autocross Mustang being driven in anger a for its money. Honestly, for competing against cars like the Ford Fusion and Chevy Malibu, this Dodge should be Avenged. Like its other stablemates, the interior plastics are hard to the touch, often hurting whatever part of your body comes in contact with the dash, and door panels. I can attest. I knocked the dash at the auto show to see how the plastic felt. My knuckled turned bright red. Not exactly what I would comfortable. With the subpar interior materials out of the way, we can focus on build quality. What? You were expecting VW quality? Well, given VW's little scandal regarding poor fit and finish lately, I guess one cane say that the Avenger matches the Jetta for quality. And that's not exactly a good thing.