Only its steering remains sluggish and it prevents good contact with the road. The car is quieter, slightly more comfortable and features superior braking thanks mainly to factory-standard ABS brakes. Obviously, the versions with 17-inch rims are even better, but there is a marked improvement over the previous models. These two cars earn points for offering top-notch vehicle handling for the first time. Expect about 9.5 litres per 100 kilometres. With this equipment, your ride will offer even better performances, but with fuel consumption that is more akin to that of a Suzuki SX4. But in this case, you must opt for the five-speed automatic transmission. GM and Toyota also offer a Toyota-made 2.4-litre, 158-horsepower four-cylinder engine in their more lavish versions, which can be paired with all-wheel drive. However, the best part is that the Vibe and the Matrix still consume between 7.5 and 8 litres per 100 kilometres, a result that is quite frankly exceptional. Granted, the engine, which is also used in the Corolla, growls somewhat at high gear, but the calm that follows that storm will make you think you’re in a library. It goes from 0-100 km/h in 10 seconds and accelerates from 80 to 120 km/h in about 9 seconds. Surprisingly, this configuration helps get completely respectable performances that are far superior to those of their predecessors. The versions that we tested were equipped with the what will undoubtedly be the most popular powertrain, the four-cylinder 1.8-litre multivalve with 132 hp coupled with a four-speed automatic transmission. The rear passengers will be pampered with all of the space back there and with the comfort of the bench. Fortunately, the ergonomics of the dashboard are flawless and the presentation is meticulous. The seats are comfortable and supportive, but the telescopic steering wheel does not have a wide enough adjustment to be truly efficient, much like the armrest, which is too low. It seems less roomy behind the wheel, and the driver feels more closed in than before. They have more loading capacity than a Mazda3 Sport or an Impreza, they are very well manufactured and they come in a wide array of models at a reasonable price. As for the dashboard, you would really have to put the new one next to the old one to notice the differences.īe that as it may, these two cars are both compact and practical and remain excellent little wagons. And the design has certainly not been improved, neither with the Toyota nor the Pontiac. The car’s interior is no more spacious than before, and its features are no more versatile. Now, with the introduction of significant changes, I wouldn't say that I am awed by what the engineers have done. Fuel-efficient, practical and very well made, these vehicles quickly forged a good reputation for themselves, even at Pontiac. Launched for the first time in 2003, they each helped their respective brands regain clientele that had previously been lost. GM invites you to do the same on their website, which puts Toyota at an obvious disadvantage! So this is a chance to answer buyers’ countless questions.īefore stating the differences between these two cars, first let me give you my impressions. And if this exercise seems unnecessary to you, you should know that we receive a tremendous amount of questions about these two cars. With this in mind, I decided to put these vehicles head-to-head so as to find out which of the two really offers the buyer more. You want the most features for the money spent, you don't want to end up with astronomical maintenance bills, and you want your car to maintain good market value. Personally, I think that in this market segment, cost is always the primary concern. Some buyers dislike Japanese brands, while others would never dare be seen behind the wheel of an “American” car.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |