In a Nutshell: Lots of chromey flash, wonderful dealerships, and good noise isolation, but otherwise not very impressive.

After almost 8 years of production of the Opel-derived mid-sized L-models, Saturn has decided to replace them with another Opel-derived mid-sized product.....the Aura XE and XR 4-door sedans. Unfortunately, with the new design also comes the demise of the superb dent-proof and corrosion-proof plastic body panels that Saturn is famous for....the previous L-models had them only on the two side doors and front fender while the rear fenders were steel. The new Aura is all-metal on the outside. As of now, only the Ion, an otherwise inept small car, ( I never had a high opinion of it ) and the VUE, Saturn's compact SUV, still retain the plastic panels....and when they are redesigned, it's good-bye plastic panels for good, and IMO one of the smartest ideas in modern automotive design will be gone.

Well, no use crying over spilled milk... that's water over the dam, and we can't, at least you or I at this level, control what GM's silly marketers decide to do, and of course, the purpose of this review is to deal with the car as it IS rather than what it is NOT, so, on with it.

The Aura, along with its corporate brother, the Pontiac G6, is based quite closely on the new Euro-German Opel Vectra platform, although Saturn offers neither a wagon version like on the former L-models or a 2-door folding-hardtop version like the Pontiac G6. ( Saturn customers who want fun in the sun are courteously shown the literature for the hard-to-get Sky roadster...and the car itself if the dealership is lucky enough to have them if not pre-sold). Neither is an Aura 4-cylinder powerplant nor a manual transmission offered....you want an Aura, you take a V6, automatic and FWD. Strange, considering that the Aura, like most family-oriented mid-size sedans, is marketed directly at the king and queen of the mid-size marketplace...the Camry and Accord. More Camrys and Accords are sold with 4's than V6's, for reasons of both price and fuel economy, so time will tell if this was a smart marketing move on Saturn's part or not.

Yet the Saturn organization itself seems to be the same customer-friendly institution it always was. The salesman I met today was an absolute gem.....courteous, friendly, no B.S., knew what he was talking about, knew that I knew what I was talking about too, and treated me accordingly. He was a pleasure to deal with, and he will surely get some referrals from anybody I know who is interested in a Saturn product. I like salespeople who don't B.S. .....they are hard to find in the B.S.-saturated auto business. And Saturn's famous no-haggle list pricing ( since copied by Scion ) and 30-day full money-back guarantee with clear title and no vehicle damage, carry on, fortunately, as before.

Two models of the Aura are presently offered....a lower-trim XE version and a higher-trim XR. The XE comes with a 3.5 L, 224 HP V6 with a four-speed automatic; the XR comes with a 3.6 L, 252 HP six and a six-speed automatic. Several different interior trim packages are offered, and one leather package is offered in an unusual medium Morocco brown color ( unusual because most interiors today are either beige, gray, or black ). XE and XR versons are both offered in cloth or leather and with more than one color... one of the car's better features ( see the website or brochure for more details ). There is lots of well-applied chrome trim on the outside and and, its rather boring paint colors notwithstanding, the car is quite flashy to look at both outside and inside, but overall, I did not find it a very pleasant car either to sit in or to drive. Even apart from the aforementioned marketing limitations, the car itself has some basic design flaws and goofs. So, let's take a look at the car in detail and see what those strong points and goofs are.

Model Reviewed: 2007 Saturn Aura XR

Base Price: $23,945

Major Options:

Premium Trim $800

Enhanced Convienence Package $425

Sunroof $800

XM Radio $199

Freight $650


Price as reviewed: ( No-Haggle ) $26,919


Drivetrain: FWD, transverse-mouned 3.6L DOHC 24-valve, VVT V6, 252 HP @ 6300 RPM, Torque 251 ft.lbs. @ 3200 RPM, 6-speed automatic transmission
with manual paddle-shift control.


Exterior Color: Black Onyx

Interior: Black Leather with gray / chrome metal trim


PLUSSES:

Traditional Saturn customer-friendliness.

No-haggle sticker price ( but you WILL bargain on your trade-in and financing, if applicable ).

Good noise isolation......on some road surfaces.

Handsome body lines.

Good fit-and-finish outside and inside with classy looks.

Good interior color choices.

Leather interior trim available in unusual Moroccan Brown color.

Right-now steering response with minimal body roll.

Smooth-shifting 6-speed automatic transmission with manual steering-wheel paddle-shifters.

High-quality exterior hardware and trim.

Better-than-average paint for a GM product.

Front fender-mounted turn-signal indicators for safety.

Well-designed gauges.

Firm brake pedal with good response.

Nice stereo.

On-Star and 911-dial feature available.

Trunk-lid hinges allow full-up position for loading.

No cheap prop-rod...a real strut to hold the hood up.


MINUSES:

Transmission noticeably robs the V6 of power.

Huge plastic engine cover hides access to almost everything except dipsticks.

50-series tires ride too stiffly and are too aggressive for a family sedan.

Hulk Hogan steering effort at low speeds.

Classy interior looks only skin-deep; dime-store plastic trim.

Munchkin-size headroom front and rear.

Difficult entry and exit.

Awkward rear door locks.

Awkward step-on parking brake under the dash.

Cheaply-designed seats with poor quality hardware and, on cloth models, cheap fabric.

Unique Saturn features and plastic body panels gone.

Standard warranty only 3/36 even for the drivetrain.

Exterior paint colors too dull and me-too-ish for my tastes.


I'll start the review, as always, with a description of the exterior. It's definitely mid-sized, and has what in my opinion are rather handsome body lines, without the space-ship-like extremes found on some of today's cars. Both the front and rear ends are well-done style-wise, but the roof is MUCH too low ( more on this later ).

GM really put a lot of chrome on this car by today's standards... somewhat reminiscent of its designs of 40 and 50 years ago. Grille, window frames, door handles, trunk moldings, headlight and tailight surrounds, all of this and more sparkles with chrome and polished metal trim .....and contrary to previous GM " chrome " finishes that were an insult to your intelligence, this chrome is done RIGHT... classy, even, and with a high-quality look. Ditto for the paint... although the paint itself is not quite up to the superb Lexus, Audi, or Acura standards, and the color choices are about as interesting as a Bingo game at a retirement home. Still, the base paint and clearcoat are evenly applied, reasonably free from orange peel, and have a good luster. The outside mirrors and their swivel mounts, in complete contrast to most GM cars, actually feel like they are built out of something more solid than chewing gum....and share the same good finish on them the body itself does. A nice little turn-signal indicator on each front fender, just behind each wheel well, gives a little added measure of visibility to other drivers. The trunk was about average-size for this class of car, but the hinges were well-designed and allowed the trunk to open straight up for easy loading.

Open the hood and the lack of a four-cylinder in the rather small ( for a mid-size car ) engine compartment makes itself known. The 3.6 L V6, mounted transversely, itself eats up most of the underhood space, and the BIG idiotic plastic engine cover that so many manufacturers stick on top of the engine hides almost everything that the engine itself doesn't. Fortunately, you can at least reach the basic dipsticks and filler caps without much trouble. Fortunately the hood had a strut to hold it up instead of a cheaper prop rod.

Get inside ( while you duck your head under the LOW roof ) and more chrome flash greets your eyes.....around the instrument bezels, radio / climate control knobs, shift lever housing, vent knobs, and brushed-metal on the console and steering wheel spokes. As with the exterior, the interior fit-and-finish is quite good, and the chrome and brushed metal do not look or feel chintzy. A shiny-painted light gray strip runs the whole width of the dash and console-surround in some cars; wood-panel trim in others ( as usual, as with most cars, I much preferred the wood trim ).
The gauges themselves are quite well-designed, with clear, round faces, easy-to-read figures, Lexus-style backlit illumination, and white markings with orange trim rings. The steering wheel has standard manual tilt and telescope features, and power-adjustable pedals are included with some interior option packages. The stereo has the typical GM round knobs with chrome rings and sounds quite nice. A microphone built into the molding around the inside mirror allows one to press the optional red and white cross-marked button and call 911 in an emergency without dragging out a cell phone ( That's one LESS excuse now for cell-phone yakking while driving ). OnSTAR is also offered, as with many other GM products. In the back seat, separate controls and jacks on the back of the console allow rear-seat passengers with headphones to provide their own entertainment independent of the stereo. The stereo itself has the by-now-common IPod and MP3 capabilities ( my particular car also had the optional XM ).

There are three major problems with the interior....one of them quite serious. The first of them is the WalMart clearance-sale plastics used for the trim and hardware. While the chrome, wood-trim, and painted-metal surface finishes are well-done, the plastics under them, in typical GM fashion, are NOT. GM has done a lot of advertising touting improved quality interiors, but the ONLY vehicles in their lineup that I've seen any real evidence of this on are the new full-size SUV's....Tahoe, Suburban, Denali, Escalade, etc....( see my review of the new Tahoe last spring )......and even then it was mostly on the dash. only on those vehicles there does seem to be real improvement in the dash quality itself, and not just flashy trim put on to mask cheap parts underneath. Which brings us to the second major interior flaw.....CHEAP seats. I've seen better seats in Accents and Rios for $10,000. Saturn ( and possibly Opel, the main source for this car ), obviously did some cost-cutting in the design of the seats. The seat frame, hardware, adjusters, and especially the fabric, had a cheap, poorly-designed feel to it. The leather was not quite so cheap-feeling, but like many smooth leather seats, was slippery and the flat cushions ( fortunately wide enough for my big you-know-what ) allowed you to slide all over the place. These seats need a major upgrade in material quality ASAP.

The third major interior problem is quite serious, especially for big and tall people like me. The roofline is much, and I mean MUCH, too low, and I'm not exaggerating. Even without the sunroof, which naturally makes the headroom even worse, it's clear that the designers simply did not take anyone over about 5'8" or so into consideration....in fact, I had less trouble with headroom ( with the top up ) in the notoriously cramped Mazda Miata. Getting in and out of the front seat under the Munchkin-level roof is like doing the Limbo down in Jamaica...the rear seat, even worse. Even taking off my traditional baseball cap did not help matters any....the roofline over the rear seat came down to about my shoulders...I absolutely could NOT sit in back, period, without jamming my chin forward on my neck. Front-sat headroom was only marginally better, even without the sunroof and with the seat cushion lowered all the way down. I just wonder if GM President Bob Lutz himself ever bothered to sit in this car during its design stages.....he's a big boy like me, over 6 feet.

Fortunately, legroom up front was much better than headroom. While not vast, it was at least adequate.......rear-seat legroom less so. This is obviously not a car for large adults, nor is really a family car per se, in my opinion, despite its advertising and marketing to the contrary. I would say two medium-size adults and two children at most. Two other minor complaints inside.....First, the inside door lock buttons for both rear seats are located on the BACK of the doors, just forward of the panel behind the seats, instead of on the front of the doors like most cars. This, of course, combined with the low rear roofline and the rear shoulder-belt holders, makes them awkward to reach sitting in the rear seat. The car's automatic door locks, though, which go on and off with the car's startup from rest, help this to some degree. Second, the parking brake handle, instead of a convienent pull-up type on the console, is an awkward step-on type under the dash...again a problem for tall people and big legs.

On the road, the V6 was smooth and quiet, but the ultra-smooth-shifting transmission's silky characteristics sapped a noticeable amount of its power, particularly with the A/C on. Shifts were extremely smooth, in typical GM fashion, even bordering on the unnoticeable, but the delay caused by that smooth slippage is not conducive to performance. Manual shifts with the steering-wheel-mounted paddles were usually smooth, but were sometimes noticeable downshifting in the lower gears.

Brakes were well-designed, with good stopping power and a nice FIRM pedal ( no spongy feel here ). Handling, due to the fairly aggressive tires and firm suspension, gave a RIGHT-NOW steering response that was more like a sports car than a family sedan and almost completely devoid of body roll. In fact, that was, in my opinion, a negative. The 50-series tires, again in my opinion, are simply too low-profile and aggressive for a family sedan... this car is not meant to corner-carve with BMW's, yet does so very well. While the engineers have done a good job controlling road and wind noise even with the firm-riding tires ( the car is quiet as a tomb at low speeds on asphalt surfaces... less so on concrete) the suspension and tires are clearly not set up for comfort. My advice to the factory....keep this present version as an Aura Sport model and put out a regular model with 60 or 65-series tires and slightly softer suspension.

Most cars that I test-drive have what I consider to be too-soft over-boosted power steering, but this car takes it to the opposite extreme.....the power steering pump, at low speeds, takes a WWF Pro Wrestler to turn it. Even with my good-sized arms, working the wheel was a chore.....driving it felt like somewhere between no power assist at all and driving a Winston Cup machine. Again, this could be partly the design of the tires....that sometimes contributes to road feel and steering effort. Put the effort into turning the wheel, though, and as mentioned before, the car responds almost like a Mazda RX-8.

The verdict?

By now, most of you have guessed, correctly, that I was not exactly thrilled with this car, despite its classy good looks, good fit-and-finish, low noise level, sharp steering and brakes, well-done exterior, nice gauges, and smooth, quiet drivetrain. It has major problems with the too-low roof, cheap seats, flimsy interior plastic, awkward inside rear door locks, overly stiff ride for a family sedan, and stuffed-sardine engine compartment. It is NOT a car for those under about 5' 8" or so, want a boulevard ride, have arthritis or other problems with hands, arms, and shoulders, need well-designed seats, or want to bargain for the lowest possible purchase price. But for those who can live with its shortcomings, it offers the well-known benefits of being a Saturn customer and its excellent dealer service.

In a Nutshell: An astounding value for the money...
Ladies and gentleman, meet the new King of the affordable, entry-level All-Wheel-Drive bargains.

When I recently read about the upcoming Suzuki SX4 in CAR and DRIVER ( I also did a CL non-review thread on it ), I was quite impressed just from what I saw and read in the magazine even without seeing and driving the car in person. It was obvious, even on paper, that the long dominance of the Subaru Impreza ( and even Suzuki's own AWD Aerio, for that matter ) as the 2 reigning U.S. market AWD bargain best-values was going to get a serious challenge. I made immediate plans to review this car as quickly as possible... and fortunately, I did not have to wait for a month like I did with the hard-to-get FWD Honda Fit.

Fortunately, SX4's ( mostly base models ) are arrving at dealerships regularly now, and finding one is no problem at all, except for the relative scarcity of Suzuki dealerships...you don't find one on every street corner. With the recent folding of the nearest Buick-Suzuki dealer just a few miles from my house, I had to drive a bit out into VA...some 25 miles....to find the next-closest Suzuki shop ( this one dealing in Suzukis only ), and was it worth the trip ? You bet it was. It was a real pleasure not just to see this car, review it, and write it up, but a nice side perk was that regular gas was only $2.13 at most of the stations there, even for major-brands, so I naturally filled up there and had lunch.

However, no car is perfect, and there were some things I didn't care for on it...as always, I have objectively listed them below in my PLUS/ MINUS column.
The car, as a daily driver, was also a little too small for my tastes ( I like a little larger, heavier feel to a car myself ), and I suspect that some others besides me will find it too small for them in spite of its incredible value as a new car, particularly for an AWD machine, but it was no tinbox, being well-designed and constructed with durable materials.

But... for you Moms and Dads who want to send Junior off to college with an affordable, well-equipped AWD car for rough climates and slippery roads, or just want good, cheap, well-equipped, new-car snow transportation, HERE is your car, hands-down. No other vehicle that I know of currently in the American market offers so much at so low a price.

Of course, that is not to say that you should not seriously consider a Subaru Impreza. The Impreza still has a lot going for it...a well-proved, simple, durable AWD system, good reliability overall with a proven track record, a more extensive dealer network, a low price for an AWD car ( not as low as the SX4's, of course ), and good resale value... ( the SX4's resale value, at this point is of course only a guess ). And the SX4 is new to the American market, although the engine's design is similar, though smaller, to the 2.3L one in its brother Suzuki Aerio, and the AWD system is also similar, though more versatile, to the one that has been in production in the Aerio for several years. So it's not like the major components are completely new and untested either. I at first had some concerns about quality when I heard it was built in Europe, but those concerns seem to be unfounded...a quick check of the price stickers and VIN's of the three SX4's the dealership today showed all three to be Japanese-built with 100% Japanese parts content....and Suzuki's warranty is quite generous....even better than the excellent Hyundai / Kia warranty in some ways. Suzuki gives you 3/36 on the whole car and 7/100 on the drivetrain ( important on a complex AWD system ) while Hyundai and Kia give you 5/60 on the whole car and 10/100 on the drivetrain. But the Hyundai / Kia warranty is not transferable to another person outside of an immediate family member, while the Suzuki warranty is...and the Suzuki warranty carries no deductible either. So if the AWD system turns out to be not quite as reliable as Subaru's, you've got peace of mind with it for quite some time. ( Subaru, BTW, gives you 3/36 on the whole car and 5/60 on the drive train ). The AWD Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe ( a twin design that used to compete with Subaru and Suzuki in the entry-level AWD market, although with a slightly higher price ) has been dropped for 2007 and will no longer be a factor.

So... WHY am I so impressed with the value of this car even though it is a little small for my tastes and has, for me, too much of a light-car feel on the road? Simple.....though I won't go down the whole laundry list ( I provided the Suzuki web site for that ), look at all the major standard features this car DOES give you for the $16,554 sticker price...

...3-mode 2WD/AWD/AWD Lock, which no other car-based AWD system has, ( not even Subaru ), power windows and door locks, body-colored power mirrors, cargo cover, roof rack, manual air conditioning, 5-spoke aluminum alloy wheels, multi-reflector headlights, rear wiper / defroster, 4-wheel disc brakes with Anti-Lock with Electronic Brake force Distribution, Remote Keyless Entry, tilt steering, AM/FM/CD stereo with MP3/WMA and XM capability, 60/40 fold-down rear seats, front side-impact AND side-curtain airbags both, and a tire-pressure monitoring system.

And If you are willing to row your own gears the price comes down another $1000... to $15,554. Spend a little more and get the SX4 Sport....again starting out just a little more, between $16,000 and $17,000...and Suzuki tosses in traction control, a vehicle stability system, auto A/C, cruise control, an 8-speaker stereo with all of the features of the base model plus a 6-disc CD changer and subwoofer, leather-covered steering wheel, fog lights, and heated outside mirrors.

Pretty damn impressive for less than $17,000, I'd say... and I have been looking at and reviewing new cars for years....I'm used to seeing bargains. Even with tax and tags you probably would go out the door for less than $18,000, except maybe in a few high-tax states.

OK... I won't drag on and on about the car's value...that pretty much speaks for itself. So... now, as always, let's take a look at the car in detail:

Model Reviewed: 2007 Suzuki SX4 4-Door Hatchback Base Model

Base Price: $15,554 ( including freight )

Major Options: 4-Speed Automatic transmission, $1000

Price as Reviewed: $16,554 ( and that is without incentives ).



Drivetrain: 2.0L Transverse-mount in-line, DOHC 16-valve 4,
143 HP @ 5800 RPM, 136 ft.-lbs. of torque @ 3500 RPM, 4-speed
automatic transmission, 3-mode AWD system with 2WD / AWD / AWD Lock.

Exterior Color: Black Onyx Pearl
Interior: Black Fabric with metallic trim.


PLUSSES:

Enormous value for the money.

Versatile choice of 2WD economy or AWD traction with a flick of the switch.

Well-done paint job.

Relatively smooth ride ( by small-car AWD standards ) combined with good handling.

Seamless AWD system.

LONG list of standard convienence and safety features, even in base model.

Nice paint colors, including Sunlight Copper Pearl and Techno Blue Metallic.

Room inside for tall people.

Well-done inside and outside trim.

Clear, extremely well-designed, PRECISE gauges.

Nice stereo with a lot of standard features.

SOLID-feeling doors and handles.

Engine easy to service.

4-wheel disc brakes with ABS / EFD give good stopping power.

Godzilla-strength seat hardware.

Black-painted lower rocker panels and wheel arches keep dirt and road grime off body.

Low levels of road noise.

Outstanding, fully transferable drivetrain warranty with no deductible.


MINUSES:

Slow acceleration with automatic transmission, AWD mode, and A/C on.

Brake pedal placement for big feet/shoes not the best.

Small cargo area behind rear seat.

Front fenders, for parking, impossible to see from inside the car.

Turn-signal-lever return spring not strong enough for simple lane-change signals.

Relatively low ground clearance, by AWD standards, may impede progress in deep snow.

Interior a little too much all-black and dark gray, but with nice metallic trim.

Flimsy plastic gas-flap and snaps.


The car, at first glance, as you walk up to it, at first somewhat reminds you of other very small 4-door hatchbacks such as the Chevrolet Aveo, Honda Fit, and the former Daewoo Lanos. ( SX4's are available now only as hatchbacks but a sedan version is coming later ).

The general body shape is not the most appealing that I've seen... like many other small cars today, it has a somewhat tall roofline, and sloped-down hood, swept-back headlights, rounded-off D-pillars, and small, triangular windows built into the front A-pillars. Not the kind of general body shape you would expect to see in the classic Big-Sur, CA sports-car promo ads, but not what I would call ugly either. This car won't turn heads, but of course turning heads is not this car's forte... its chief role is keeping your wallet as thick as possible.

The exterior is well-constructed of high-quality sheet metal and painted quite nicely, especially given the car's price. Several paint colors of the Pearl variety are standard, and the Bright Red, Sunlight Copper, and Techno Blue are the ones I'd consider first. The paint is well-done, though not quite up to Lexus / Acura / Audi standards... even, smooth, and with a noticeable lack of orange peel. All of the panel gaps are quite close except for the gap between the front door and front fender. The exterior hardware is well-done, durable, and attractive... all except for the way-too-flimsy thin plastic gas cap and the PLASTIC lock for it. On the white SX4 in the showroom the plastic snap lock wouldn't work at all and you couldn't shut the cap all the way... it kept popping open. ( on the blue and black SX4's on the lot they worked properly ). The front and rear bumpers both have attractive black and silver rub-strips / protectors on them, and the lower body / fender and wheel arch moldings have shiny black paint so that even without the accessory spash guards ( no, believe it or not, they are NOT standard ) the body-colored paint will be protected. Body-color mirrors, as stated before, are standard. The SOLID door handles, even though they are plastic instead of metal, have a heavy-duty feeling to them... and the doors shut with a solid thunk.

The hood is generally short and slanted, like on many small cars today, but the 2.0L four fits in nicely in a transverse-mount configuration. There is room to access some engine components despite the engine cover, and the cover smartly has a round cutout in it right in the middle of the front valve cover ( it is DOHC design with two covers ) out of which pops the oil dipstick right in front of you where it is easy to see and reach. Right next to it is the equally easy-to-access oil filler cap. Over on the right, on the other side of the battery between the battery and the right wall of the hood compartment, is the tall, thin engine computer. This is a smart attempt by Suzuki engineers to shield the computer from engine heat by placing the battery between it and the hot engine block.

Press the button, open the doors ( a key fob is standard ) and get in. The car has rather low ground clearance for an AWD vehicle, but the seats are comfortably high, and the tall roofline gives plenty of headroom for tall people.....only very slightly less in the back. Legroom, while not vast, is adequate front and rear. Overhead, the sun visors both have nice fold-out mirrors built into them.

The interior, for my tastes, has a little too much expanse of black and dark-gray starkness ( the only interior available on the base model ), but the silver metallic trim on the sides of the console and on the door handles is very well-done....better than on some much more expensive cars I have seen. I myself prefer wood or imitation wood trim, but the metallic silver trim is about as tastefully well-done as you could expect from a car like this. The seats are a little on the flat side ( no Recaros here ) but constructed of quite durable-feeling materials, fabric, and hardware. ( the 60/40 fold-down rear seats have hold-down locks on them that feel like something out of an Army tank ). The front seats also have durable-feeling manual hardware and adjusters.

The circular primary gauges are not only clear and well-designed, but have something very few speedometers do today have but was popular on some cars in the 1960's....1-MPH tick markers between the numbers so you can see your speed to the exact MPH...no excuses for any speeding tickets. The steering wheel is the now-common three-spoke design with the spokes at three, six, and nine o'clock.
A weak point of the interior, due mostly to the car's short length and roomy seating space, is a rather small cargo area behind the rear seats. Fold the rear seats down and, of course, you can take a little more, but don't expect to load this car up like you would a Suburban. The rear seat has three rather large built-in headrests, but do NOT expect to carry three adults back there... three small kids or two medium-to-large size adults is the practical max. The low power level would further limit the load you could carry ( more on this in a moment ). And speaking of the rear headrests, if you are tall, they tilt forward and dig into the back of your neck unless you keep them in the full-up position.

On the road, the car has a little bit too much of the lightweight small-car feeling for my tastes, despite the well-done construction with durable parts. It felt basically like an AWD Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, or Kia Rio would...those are all good small cars but they have a similiar lightweight feeling on the road. ( The SX4, BTW, thanks to AWD and its high level of equipment, is not particularly light for its size, at around 2800 lbs., but actually feels lighter than that ). The car has just adequate power at best, even with a heavy foot... the 136 ft.-lbs. of torque is borderline underpowered with the 2800 lbs., automatic transmission, and AWD mode. Fortunately, a rocker switch on the console allows you to switch to 2WD mode when you don't need or want the extra traction, and that helps acceleration a little.... just a little.... by of course eliminating the extra AWD drag on the engine. 2WD mode, of course, will also help save gas as well, although the EPA mileage figures of 23/28 manual and 24/30 automatic are not bad to start with for an AWD vehicle. ( Strange that the automatic does better than the manual... must be in the gearing ). Suzuki does not say in its specs whether the mileage ratings are for 2WD or AWD mode... my guess is AWD, because that is what the cars are primarily designed for.

Although this car is not a Jeep or an off-roader by any means, if the going gets rough or if you are in very mild off-road conditions, the same switch for 2WD / AWD will also allow you to select AWD/Lock.This locks the two axles together for maximum pull in soft-surface conditions, but like all such lockup systems, should NOT be used on dry pavement because it over stresses the tires and drivetrain on a dry surface with traction. A green dash light comes on and indicates which of the three modes you are in... 2WD, AutoAWD, or AWD Lock. As I mentioned before, no other car-based AWD system in the American market has that 3-mode feature, and is a big selling point for this car.

The transmission is quite smooth, though it lacks the manual sport-shift common on a lot of today's cars. It is almost impossible to actually feel the shift... just a drop in RPM on the tach and a reduction in engine noise.

Former Suzuki-designed vehicles, especially their small SUV's, were anything BUT sophisticated in their overall suspension designs... ( those of you who have driven Sidekick/Trackers, Samurais, X-90's, and Vitaras know exactly what I mean )... but the SX4 has a pretty good ride-handling combination. This is helped by the 60-series 16-inch tires, standard alloy wheels, and having the wheels at the corners of the car for a relatively long wheelbase for its short length, though having the wheels at the corners does reduce the stabilizing effect of long body overhangs a little. The handling is quite car like, with very little body roll especially for a tall-roofed vehicle like that with a relatively high center of gravity. Steering response was good, as was steering feel with the well-designed power steering. No, it's not BMW-feel and precision, but again for a small AWD vehicle, quite good.

Ride was relatively smooth... MUCH better than with previous Suzuki AWD vehicles.... and even smoother than its brother, the car-like AWD Aerio. Braking from the all-disc setup with ABS/EFD was fine except for the brake pedal placement that causes big size 15 clown-shoes like mine to hang up under the brake pedal a moment unless you are careful. Tire and road noise, despite the car's small size and lack of room for a lot of sound insulation, was again much better with than previous Suzuki attempts at small AWD products. About the only other complaint I had on the road was a small but annoying one... the turn-signal lever's return spring was weak and constantly locked on when I just wanted to press it down for a lane change and have it spring back... that would be a very easy fix at the factory with just a slightly different spring.


The verdict: I've already talked enough about the car's value.....no need re-hashing it any more here. Suzuki traditionally has a hard time getting people into its showrooms...it is not one of the more successful nameplates in the American market, and to be honest, I have not been impressed all with most of their former U.S.-market Suzuki-designed products and their lousy engineering. The Samurai, especially, was a total and complete piece of junk....its followers a little better but not much. Lately Suzuki has turned to Korean automaker Daewoo for most of its U.S-market passenger cars.....and those cars are, in some ways, also better than past Suzuki regular passenger-car designs. But with this car, Suzuki clearly has something, though it could use a little more power and a couple of minor redesigns on the hardware. Suzuki, in my opinion, should consider using the slightly larger 2.3L four from the Aerio on this car..its slightly higher HP and torque would take a little of the sluggishness out of the automatic version of the SX4, particularly with the A/C and AWD on, and it would no doubt fit the SX4's drivetrain.

Other than that, with the SX4, Suzuki has given Subaru its first real credible AWD competition in the under-$20,000 range that I have seen in a long time ( though the Suzuki AWD system is more complex than Subaru's due to the transverse-mount engine ). Suzuki's biggest problem is going to be just getting the public to come in and look at and drive this car.....hey, I myself didn't really know much about it till just last week. Those who DO drop by a Suzuki shop and want a good entry-level AWD car for chump change will probably not be disappointed.

In a nutshell: Dynamite looks, but crude, raw, unrefined, and lacking in build quality... a 60's nostalgia machine and little else.

Ah, yes, the Mustang... perhaps the ultimate automotive symbol of the 1960's and the heyday of the American car industry. After some 35 years, Ford has decided to finally build a Mustang again that LOOKS like a Mustang. Dodge will soon follow with an even more retro Challenger...one of the reasons why I wanted to drive and review the current Mustang. When I review the Challenger, I wanted to have a clear idea of what the Mustang was like so I could compare the two cars fairly. Later, a new retro Camaro will arrive from Chevy...GM has given the green light to that project, spurred no doubt by the great success of the new Mustang ( just like 40 years ago ).
I won't bore you guys with the Mustang's history... most of you know it as well or better than I do (even though I grew up with the original car ) and you know how Ford really screwed up the nameplate with 4-bangers, redone Pintos and Fairmonts. But now, we have a Mustang with superb looks once again, but, unfortunately, not-so-superb build quality. And, let's be honest... though there are some good and safe Mustang V8 drivers, many of the ones I see around here are immature, aggressive, doing some really stupid things and taking dangerous chances. Here in the D.C. area, (I have written in CL several times about this), no other car kills or injures so many teen-agers and young people, not even the classic ricer-cars like the hopped-up and slammed Civics and Eclipses.

When I first saw the new Mustang in auto shows, I must confess that I was a real sucker for its looks ( still am ). It's hard not to like a car that, in so many ways, takes you back to your high school days ( really enjoyed my senior year especially ). But, unfortunately, Ford chose to put so much into style with this car that it almost completely forgot about substance. The exterior and interior trim, especially in the base V6 model, IMO was almost insultingly cheap, poorly finished, sloppily assembled, and in some ways reminded me of 15-20 year-old Hyundais and Yugos. Though I was struck by its looks (it needs only chrome bumpers to look almost exactly like the originals), the poor-quality sheet metal, trim, and interior turned me off so much that I did not even bother to formally review and test-drive it. Well, as I've said, I've had second thoughts on that now... there is no denying the popularity of this car and the fact that many people are interested in it, shoddiness or not.....not only the ubiquitous Mustang street-racing crowd but especially aging Baby Boomers like me who have such fond memories of the original ones. Unfortunately, looking AT this car is a lot easier than looking OUT of it... as we will shortly see.

But despite its shoddiness, there are some things to like about this car, too. One does not have to put up with funeral-home paint colors on this car like with many others nowadays....Bright Vista Blue, Grabber Orange, Chrome Yellow, Torch Red, Redfire Metallic, and Lime Green ( 2006 ) are all on the color list, although my test car was black... ( it was the only one that had the California Custom package ). With the classic Mustang V8 burble, you will call attention to yourself driving even light-footed down the street... perhaps with cops as well. A full set of gauges is provided rather than just idiot lights. The brakes are well-done, like the superb brakes of the late-60's models. The gas mileage and steering response are markedly better than the original cars. There is ( obviously ) enough power to get out of your own way. You won't hear any contemptuous remarks from your uneducated redneck friends or relatives about driving a Kraut-mobile or Rice-Burner. And if you are so inclined to turn off the traction control, pop the clutch at 4000 RPM, and do a nice burnout, and don't mind paying the gas, clutch, and tire bills for it, this car will be happy to oblige, though I had enough respect for this brand-new car and the dealership and enough maturity not to engage in such nonsense. The simple and durable live axle, despite being ancient in design, will take a lot of punishment... something Ford takes into consideration knowing that a lot of V8 Mustang buyers will do burnouts. ( The upcoming Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500, however, will have an independent rear suspension just like the last Cobra did ).

I chose a 5-speed model to review rather than the more popular automatic because, despite the awful traffic here and the fact that I am not a car "image" person per se, a stick is generally more in tune with the character of this car than an automatic, and Mustang purists will probably insist on having one regardless of traffic.

OK... now let's have a closer look at this American classic:

Model reviewed: 2007 Ford Mustang GT Coupe Premium

Base price: $27,175

Major Options: California GT Special Package $1895

Leather Interior Upgrade: $460


Price as Reviewed: $30,030


Exterior color: Black

Interior: Black/Gray leather


Drivetrain: Front-engine /RWD, 4.6L SOHC 3-valve V8, 300 HP @ 5750 RPM, 320 ft.-lbs. torque @ 4500 RPM,
5-speed Tremec manual transmission, 3:55 rear-end ratio.


PLUSSES:

Stunning, late 60's looks

Plenty of torque.

Much better handling than the original cars.

Well-done brakes.

Better gas mileage than the originals.

Nice array of paint colors ( though Ford has dropped the lime green for 2007 )

Multi-adjustable instrument panel lighting colors.

Attractive, 60's style primary gauges.

Oil pressure and voltmeter gauges instead of idiot lights.

Room inside for tall people ( in the front seat )

Acceptable if not ultra-roomy trunk space.

Tremendous number of aftermarket parts and tuning companies,


MINUSES:

Poor-quality materials inside and out.

Loud, Nasal-sounding engine and ultra-noisy exhaust ( though this is one of the car's trademarks )

Stiff-shifting, notchy, fairly high-effort 5-speed transmission.

Front-end heaviness from the big engine.

Not suited for slippery roads.

Poor visibility out the rear and sides.

Rear seat almost worthless.

Stiff ride.

Temporary spare tire.

Awkward and poorly-made parking-brake handle.

Open your wallets nice and wide for insurance.


Well, I can't really add a whole lot to what I've already said about the first impression you get of this car as you walk up to it. There was my high school days all over again, right in front of me. All of the new Mustangs, V6 or V8, of course, look strikingly like the originals, but this particular car had the California GT Custom package, ($1895) which added, among other things, a center-hood scoop and twin side-scoops just behind both side doors, and was strongly reminiscent of the 1969-1970 Mustang Mach 1. Paint quality was about average for a Ford-designed product... reasonably well-applied, with a small amount of orange peel and even coverage... but was nowhere near Lexus or Acura standards.

Closer examination of he car, though, starts to dull the initial nostalgic euphoria. Open the hood to look at the 4.6L, 300 HP v8 ( which, incidentally, unlike the big V8's of the late 60's, fits in the underhood space quite well ) and the hood feels and shuts like it is made out of cardboard. Ditto the outside mirrors, retro-original emblems, spoiler, trim.... almost everything on the outside except the California-package scoops, which felt reasonably solid ( they better, for almost $1900 extra ). Ford designers, obviously, must have felt that those who buy this car do not care much about these things.

Nor was a lot of attention paid to the quality of materials inside either, though, once again, it is hard to argue with the interior's looks, which was every bit as good as on the outside. Open the long, low, wide doors, sit down in the low seats, look at the dash and wheel ahead, and suddenly I was 18 again. The twin primary gauges are throughly retro in design but are relatively easy to read despite the slanted, spooky, 1960's Halloween-style numbers. Real oil-pressure and voltmeter gauges are provided instead of idiot lights (one little burned-out bulb can ruin an engine). The three-spoke steering wheel, with chrome spoke inserts, is very much like the original. Round, swivel, chrome-covered A/C vents and a thick, wide, cross-dash strip of brushed-metal help complete the retro look ( V6 models, unfortunately, don't get the nice brushed-metal dash, and IMO they look awful...the whole interior is almost pure stone-cold black ).

But there are a number of problems inside that IMO need attention. Almost all of the door panels, trim, and hardware have a cheap and poor-quality FEEL to them even when, as in the dash brushed-metal strip, they don't necessarily LOOK cheap. The parking brake lever, between the seats instead of the more common American step-on design, is long, awkwardly designed, and has a flimsy feel... it is long, hard to pull up and actually bends up and down a little each time you use it. Shut the doors and they sound and feel flimsy and you hear distinct small rattles inside of them. The rear seat, of course, is almost worthless, as in any Pony car or small sports coupe. No one but small children, especially with the front seats adjusted for tall people, can fit back there. Legroom is almost zero. Consider this basically a two-seater.

Up front, though, there is plenty of room.... no complaints at all. You sit so low in this car that the low roof does not impact on front headroom, and with the power-adjustable bucket seats you can set them still lower, Pony-car-style (although, that, of course, can make it difficult to get in and out). The seats are covered with an OK but less-than-Jaguar-quality leather, but here is one of the car's better interior points... the seats are plenty wide for big, portly Americans like me. Ford, figuring that this car doesn't really handle like a sports car despite the stiff suspension and high-performance tires, wisely resisted the temptation to put in small, VW GTI-like seats with sharp, narrow side bolsters... a car that doesn't handle like a Miata doesn't need those kind of seats, and all they do is make life difficult for those who have big.... well never mind. Adjustable seat bolsters, of course, help solve the problem on both sides but are expensive to produce and sometimes the mechanisms break.

One NICE feature inside... and I will give Ford a lot of credit for this; to my knowledge no other production car in the U.S. market has it......is the color-adjustable instrument-panel lights, which can be made to glow at night in any one of some 125 different colors. This is something that many more vehicles should consider offering.

The stereo, despite the cheap look and feel of the buttons, is a KILLER. My car had a Shaker 500-Amp MP3 system that would literally blow you out of the car with noise. It was unbelievable. It didn't quite have the refined stereo sound of, say, the Lexus Mark Levinson system, but it was obvious that Ford designers put it in for primarily young people who want to be heard literally blocks away. I didn't have my AC/DC, Quiet Riot, Judas Priest, and other Heavy Metal CD's with me, but I can just imagine how they would sound on a unit like this.

Visibility looking out of the car is hampered by the small, triangular windows in the C-Pillars, the downsweep of the rear roofline, and the flimsily-built and flimsily-attached rear spoiler. Some aftermarket companies have solid, body-colored panels that fit over the rear C-Pillar windows that make the car look like the 1965-1966 fastbacks, but that option decreases visibility even more.

Start her up with the key ( no starter buttons here ) and at once the long, time-honored, unmistakable, nasal-like burble of the 4.6L V8 springs to life. There is NO mistaking a Mustang V8 sound... I can recognize one blindfolded. Punch in the slightly heavy clutch (surprisingly, a little heavier than the more powerful Corvette's, but not too bad) slide the notchy, stiff shift lever into first, a little gas, let out the clutch, and go. The clutch engages firmly and with a slight lurch but smooths out as you upshift.

Check for full oil pressure, bring the lever straight back into second, hammer the gas, and you are pushed back into the seat. 4000 RPM ( no more on a new engine ) and up into 3rd. Third, for some reason, on this particular gearbox, was harder to find than the other gears... you had to be careful not to hit 1st or 5th. After a few miles it got easier. This was not a particularly pleasant manual gearbox to use, however......worlds apart from the snick-snick gearshift of, say, the Honda civic. I though the Corvette's 6-speed gearbox had better engineering overall than the 5-speed Tremec unit on this car.

This car will definitely get out of its own way, but don't drag-race any new Corvettes...you will probably lose. Though I admittedly did not push this car to its limits for several reasons, it is apparent that it does not have the power-to-weight ratio of a 'Vette. It felt pretty close, in performance, to that of the Dodge Magnum 340 HP Hemi with automatic that I reviewed last year... like about the same power-to-weight ratio despite the Magnum being hampered by the automatic. This is a fast car, but it is NOT the fastest muscle car on the road by any means... I myself have driven faster ones, but I still don't know why so many young people drive these Mustang V8's so recklessly and aggressively and do such crazy things and end up killing themselves and others. Even when I was young, I still had common sense.

As expected with a relatively large, heavy V8 up front (though smaller and lighter than past V8's) this car did not quite steer and handle with Miata-like precision despite its fairly stiff suspension and high=performance tires. The live rear axle, of course, takes some of the sophistication out of both ride and handling, but as I mentioned earlier, it is probably a good idea, with its durability, with the tendency of many owners of this car to do rear-end-punishing burnouts. Yet Ford is fitting the MUCH more powerful (500 HP) Shelby Cobra Mustang GT500 with an independent rear end, like the last Cobra had... that is interesting. However, the new Mustang GT DOES steer and handle noticeably better than the late 60's models I grew up with... obviously today's model has much better tires, rack-and-pinion steering, and a more sophisticated suspension despite the simple live rear axle. Compared to this car, the cars I grew up with handle like boats.

Ride quality, however, was not too bad considering the high-performance underpinnings, but you definitely know you are not in a luxury car. Bumps are felt but not heard... mainly because of the loud, Mustang nasal-like exhaust ( a traditional feature of these cars that, while not my cup of tea, is popular with its many owners ). Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Ford puts in that super-blast stereo... so you can hear the music over the engine. Road noise is similarly covered up by the loud engine and exhaust. This is not a car I would recommend for either long distance driving.....too much noise for too long... or for wet / slippery roads. Cars of this type ( front-engine, rear-drive, lots of power, dry-weather high-performance low-profile tires) generally don't do well on slippery roads, even sometimes with traction and stability control. Either park this car in the winter, get some snow tires and take it REAL easy, or do the sensible thing and take the Subaru. ( OK, bit... your Explorer will also do fine. )

Brakes? Well the late 60's Mustangs ( and most disc-brake-eqippped Ford products of that era ) were known for excellent brakes, and 35 years later this Mustang caries on the tradition...and the upcoming Shelby Cobra Mustang will have huge, even better Brembos. Firm pedal, plenty of stopping power, and smooth, linear response. The only problem in the whole braking system.... and is is a significant one... is the awful parking brake lever I described earlier. It feels like you are pulling a long rubber band up through pure molasses.

The verdict. Here is the car to get if you want to go back to the 1960's and don't care a lot about chassis sophistication, precision assembly, fit-and-finish, or quality of materials... although Dodge will shortly introduce a new Challenger that is even MORE retro. Yours truly here will review it when it becomes available. Before plunking down 28-30K for this car, it might be worth waiting to look at the Challenger... I got a look at the prototype at the D.C Auto show in January but could not examine it in detail.

The Mustang, particularly the GT, also has an enormous number of aftermarket companies supplying an almost endless number of custom parts, suspension pieces, engine modifications, trim options, etc... Companies like Roush and Saleen turn out expensive aftermarket Mustang conversions that almost double the power and greatly improve the handling (at the cost of ride comfort). But, depending on your driving record and age, you may have to do some searching and open your wallets pretty wide to get insurance.....and not without reason. These cars, like it or not, are often driven very recklessly and have proven to be very dangerous in the hands of immature, impulsive, and unskilled drivers.......and I, personally, even independent of the statistics, have seen, with my own two eyes, more totaled Mustangs and snuffed-out or damaged young lives than I care to remember .

In a Nutshell: One of the cheapest AWD vehicles available (if you can live without options) but crudely finished and unimpressive inside.


The new-for-2007 Jeep Compass and the upcoming Patriot ( due early next year ) represent a new marketing direction for Jeep this year, which up till now has offered only true off-road vehicles at more or less competitive prices. All Jeep-nameplate products, up till now, have been Trail-Rated, with low-range transfer cases and high approach, breakover, and departure angles for rock-crawling and creek-bed-crossing. No more. Although Jeep, of course, still sells that type of vehicle ( I recently did a CL review of the impressive new Commander ), Jeep marketers have clearly recognized that most SUV's nowadays, outside of Jeep's own Wrangler,
rarely, if ever, venture off of paved surfaces or light-duty off-road conditions into the truly wild stuff. And those same Jeep marketers have no doubt watched many of their potential customers run off to other dealerships to buy car-based, unibody SUV's and crossover vehicles instead.

So, as the old saying goes... if you can't beat them, join them. And Jeep has decided to now join that crowd by offering what is essentially a redone Dodge Caliber AWD compact with Nissan-style triangular D-Pillars and the long-familiar Jeep 2 round headlights and 7-vertical-slot grille... this, of course, to try and help make the Compass owner feel a little more at home even though he or
she is not driving a REAL Jeep.

The upcoming Jeep Patriot, due next spring, will keep the car-based, Caliber-dervied chassis and drivetrain, but will add a much more familiar 2-box Jeep upright, square, boxy design much like today's Commander for those who want the economy, drivability and low price Compass but cannot live with the car-like body.

I decided to review this vehicle today, in damp, drizzly conditions in the aftermath of tropical storm Ernesto here in the D.C. area....the wet pavement and leaves, twigs, and debris all over the roads would give the car-based AWD and steering a good test. I found the vehicle to be basically competent, with plenty of room inside, civilized road manners, nice, well-weighted power steering, and a fairly good exterior finish. The interior, however, had several things that needed more attention.

However, it is hard to argue with the base price of the Compass AWD.....$17,585, including freight. ( Base-model Compasses with only front-wheel-Drive are even lower-priced, starting at ($15,985). This makes it, without question, ( along with the AWD Suzuki Aerio ) one of the least expensive AWD vehicles on the market, even more so than its brother, the AWD Dodge Caliber R/T ( Dodge will not sell AWD in the cheaper, base-model Calibers ). So, while I feel the interior was poorly finished, it
appears that is one of the ways Jeep kept the cost down. Yet Subaru, Toyota, Pontiac, and Suzuki sell competing AWD vehicles that are almost as low-priced....and those vehicles are not as stripped as the base Compass. The base Compass is truly low-priced for an AWD vehicle....but you have to be willing to live without some of the things we take for granted on modern vehicles, like A/C, power windows,
doors, etc.... ( I, for example, can roll my own windows up and down and unlock my own doors, but a vehicle without A/C in an East Coast summer?.....no thanks, never again ). Ditto for a stick-shift car in D.C.-area traffic. And a truly base, stripped model is not likely to be easily found on a dealer lot.....chances are it would have to be special-ordered, which would, of course, be a several-week-wait.
Paint colors, of course, are a matter of personal taste, but I noticed also, perhaps not surprisingly, that the Compass does not offer some of the brighter colors that its sportier brother Caliber R/T does; colors like bright yellow, orange, and Inferno Red... the Compass exterior colors are noticeably moredull.

So much for the vehicle's marketing and general overview. Let's take a look now at it in detail:

Model Reviewed: 2007 Jeep Compass Sport 4X4

Base Price: $17,585

Major Options:

CVT transmission, $1000

Air Conditioning, $850

Full-size Spare Tire, $120

Sirius Radio, $195

Power Equipment Group, $995


List Price: $20,745

Exterior Color: Stone White Clearcoat

Interior: Pastel Slate Gray fabric

Drivetrain: Transverse-mount, in-line 2.4L four-cylinder, 173 HP, 165 ft.lbs. torque, CVT ( Continuously
Variable transmission ), AWD with driver-controlled differential lock.


PLUSSES:

Very low price for a basic, no-frills AWD vehicle....still not bad even with options.

Roomy and space-efficient inside.

Firm-feeling, well-weighted power steering that is not overboosted.

Like many AWD vehicles these days, seamless and unobtrusive AWD system

Driver-actuated differential lock for semi-rough conditions.

Fairly good exterior fit-and-finish / hardware.

Economical and fuel-stingy by Jeep standards ( but of course this is not a real Jeep ).

Lots of small built-in compartments and cup holders to carry things.

Solid-feeling rear hatch ( a weak area in some hatchbacks )

High-quality trunk liner and spare tire cover.

Real spare tire, not a temporary one ( but you pay for it...it is an option )

Solid-feeling and solid-operating power window / door-lock switches.

Front-end Jeep styling makes Jeep purists feel a little more at home.

Simple, legible, well-designed primary gauges.

Fold-down, 60-40 rear seats with a pull-shade cargo cover ( an option )

Sirius radio option unusual in this vehicle class.


MINUSES:

Many taken-for-granted features missing in base model unless option boxes are checked.

Sluggish drivetrain typical of non-turbo small 4 cylinder AWD vehicles.

Typically stingy domestic-car 3/36 total-car warranty with no extention for drive train.

Poor interior finish, with some cheap-quality parts.

Rotary climate controls well-designed but small buttons inside of them very hard to
see and push.

Stereo-sound quality acceptable but not terribly impressive, even for a low-priced car.

Unusual and awkward seat-height adjuster.

As always, I begin the detail review with the first impression of the car as you walk up to it. This is a very unusual-looking vehicle with a number of different styling cues all bound together in one package. It is rather compact and low on the outside....especially for a " Jeep "product, but one can immediately tell from the exterior size and roofline that it springs from its corporate brother, the Dodge Caliber. It has the Caliber's roof, windows, and hatchback, except that the rear-most D-pillar is done in a strong, upside-down triangular style like the Pontiac Vibe, Mazda3, and several Nissan-designed SUV's. Fortunately, up front there is NO mistaking it from anything else but a Jeep... the 2 big round headlights and traditional seven-slot vertical grille are unmistakable.

After all, traditional Jeep buyers are giving up a lot with this design... Jeep had to keep SOMETHING to keep the fond memories with. The exterior hardware was better-than-average for a Jeep and for Daimler-Chrysler products in general. And while, like I said earlier, it was a damp, drizzly day and I could not judge the paint job in its entirety, I could tell just from wiping some sections off and looking closely that it was also not a bad paint job by the usual low Daimler-Chrysler
standards either... there was little orange peel and the color ( white ) appeared to be evenly applied and had fairly good sheen. Of course, it was not a Toyota / Lexus paint job......but to be honest, what else is? It seemed to have slightly higher ground clearance than even the AWD Caliber... perhaps because of the slightly higher probability of Jeep owners than Dodge to use their vehicles in deep snow or mud.

However, as I stated earlier, this is NOT a true off-roader intended for rock-climbing or stream-fording. It is simply not designed for it, unlike previous Jeeps. Try that stuff with a vehicle like this and you will get into a LOT of trouble, real quick.

Under the hood rests the 2.4L transversely-mounted normally-asirated in-line 4 and the CVT. It is not a particularly large or roomy hood despite the familiar square Jeep styling up front, and the annoying and unnecessary plastic engine cover doesn't help things either, so there is very little room to work on anything. Why are automakers turning more and more to those above-engine plastic covers? Yes they look
nice but they make it difficult or impossible to reach things or work on them. Perhaps it is based on the fact that more and more things are being done in the dealership service bays nowadays (This particular Jeep dealership throws in free oil changes for the life of the vehicle as part of the deal).

Open the door and get in and two things strike you. One is plenty of head and leg room in front and rear, partly as a result of the high roofline, even though the roofline is low by traditional Jeep standards. The roofline curves slightly down in back (just like the Caliber's....no surprise) but not enough to cut significantly into rear headroom either (I'm 6' 2", 280 lb. with a baseball cap and had no problem). Legroom was more than adequate front and adequate rear... even with the seat back. One of the benefits of these high-roofed compact vehicles of today....and this seems to be a pattern... is to give better seating room than in yesterday's small cars. The hatchback-trunk area in back is quite well-done, with a
high-quality trunk liner / spare tire cover ( I've already mentioned that this vehicle had the optional real spare tire ), a nice big cubby-compartment built into the right-rear wall, and a solid-shutting and solid- feeling rear hatch. At the release of a lever and a pull of built-in straps, the optional 60-40 rear seats folded down with good hardware and a solid feel. There was plenty of room for its size to carry things, but of course, don't try and compare it in cargo room to a Jeep Commander.

The rest of the features inside, with the exception of the well-done and easily-read but cheap-looking gauges, leaves a lot to be desired. Part of it, as I mentioned earlier, of course, is the low price... this vehicle was obviously built to a strict budget. But, even considering that, IMO the interior is rather poorly finished, cheap-looking, and uncomfortable despite the excellent seating room. The seats are done in a cheap-feeling fabric and are hard, flat, uncomfortable, and hard ridges in the front seatback press into both sides of your back. ( Granted, I am a heavyweight and quite wide....a more normally-sided person might not have that problem ). An awkward lever on the left side of the driver's seat must be pumped up and down
to raise and lower the seat height....and you cannot raise or lower the seat height keeping the seat in place. The whole seat moves forward and backward as you raise or lower it. However, you can do the reverse....move the seat forward or back without raising or lowering it... if you use the conventional pull-bar under the front seat edge. And the rake adjustment is also conventional... a lever on the seatback.

The rest of the interior, while attractively done in several different shades of black, gray, and silver, has a distinctly cheap look and feel to it, except for the solid door and window switches. The general finish level inside is very low, and much of the trim looks and feels bargain-basement... again, probably because of the low price. The round climate-controls are well-designed, but have very small buttons for the A/C compressor and recirculate-fresh-air modes....they are hard to see and operate without taking yur eyes off the road. The stereo is OK and adequate ( This car has the Sirius radio option ), but its just-adequate sound quality will have you wanting to get back into your Lexus with its Mark Levinson system.

On the road, the AWD system was quite seamless ( Jeep, of course, has been an 4WD / AWD master for many years ) but, like most AWD vehicles with small, normally-aspirated 4-cylinder powerplants, acceleration was quite sluggish despite the efficient and equaly seamless CVT ( Continuously variable transmission ). AWD is a jewel for foul-weather traction, but you can't overcome the laws of physics... its weight and drag does impact on engine performance and gas mileage. Still, EPA-rated gas mileage is good by traditional Jeep standards.

( A word of note here... I'm not just picking on Jeep and Dodge either. Most of you know I am a Subaru fan, and the same AWD weight and drag penalties on engine performance are also evident in Subarus as well... although Subaru, unlike the transverse-engine mount AWD system in the Compass, uses simpler AWD layouts made possible by the Subaru flat-4 and flat-6 engines ).

The rest of the Compass's road manners are quite acceptable, considering that this is neither a luxury or a high-performance vehicle. Acceleration, as I said earlier, was somewhat sluggish but adequate. The brakes performed adequately as well, with a fairly solid-feeling pedal, but the pedal was too close to the gas pedal and too high for my big size 15 clown-shoes. The ride was noticeably better than that of the bumpy Jeep Wrangler and Liberty, but nowhere near the smoothness and quietness of the big Commander (see my review of the Commander).

Road noise was fairly well-muted, and there ware no noticeable squeaks or rattles despite the cheaply-done interior. I especially liked the vehicle's steering... well-weighted, firm-feeling, and just the right amount of responsiveness for a vehicle of this type. Body roll was not particularly noticeable despite the fairly high center- of-gravity ( still low by Jeep standards ) but opf course the roads were wt so I didn't push cornering too hard despite the AWD. (A traction and stability-control system is available if desired).


The verdict? You can tell by now I have mixed opinions. If you want a car-based AWD vehicle at a super-low price it is hard to beat the starting price of the base Compass. But that model requires you to give up a lot of things that most of us have come to take for granted nowadays, and many people today just won't (or can't) give those things up. So... equip a Compass like a competitive AWD Subaru Impreza, AWD Toyota Matrix / Pontiac Vibe, or Suzuki Aerio....and you are talking more or less the same price range ( 20-22K). And those vehicles, unlike the Compass, have a history of solid reliability and build quality, with noticeably higher-quality materials inside. They beat the Jeep's standard warranty as well... and if you REALLY want warranty coverage in this class, of course, the 10 / 100 AWD Hyundai Tuscon or Kia Sportage is clearly the way to go.

But....there are also reasons for buying the Compass as well. Many Jeep buyers in the past have been fanatically loyal and have built up good relationships with their dealerships and service departments as well. If they, as many people nowadays do, feel that now is the time to give up that gas-guzzling or rough-riding off-roader, now an acceptable, more-civilized, car-based alternative is available from their own Jeep dealerships that they have such a good relationship with. And those Jeep salespeople don't care... they will just as happily sell you a new Compass as a Wrangler or Liberty as long as they have satisfied customers, they get their commissions, and it puts food on their tables. And, while of course, this is primarily a cosmetic thing, there is that ever-present Jeep styling up front that goes back to the days when Jeeps helped to win World War II all over the planet... a big issue with many buyers.

But... for those buyers who like the idea of the Compass's car-based, more economical AWD design, lower weight, and civilized road manners, but STILL don't like the Compass styling despite the Jeep-oriented grille, there is the new Jeep Patriot that will debut in the spring. It will have the Caliber / Compass drivetrain and mechanicals but with the boxy, Jeep styling all over... NOT just on the front end. Perhaps those Jeep buyers might want to wait and take a look at that vehicle.
I will review it in the spring if there is some interest in it.