Brian Harper: Were banging our heads against the wall, kid. Tilting at windmills. Spitting into the wind. Trying to objectively analyze two legendary muscle cars (actually, pony cars back in my youth) when their respective fan bases have long ago made up their collective minds is just going to get us in trouble. But we gotta try, dont we? Ford Mustang versus Dodge Challenger. Off and on rivals going back 50 years. Not the ultimate versions of each, maybe not even the most livable for the street, but traditional V8 power and six-speed manual transmissions, the cars augmented by optional performance upgrades that give them superior handling and grip. Stripping it down to the basics, its a fight between tradition and evolution. Whats it going to be?Nick Tragianis: Well, the Mustang GT certainly makes a compelling case for evolution. Starting with a 5.0-litre V8 under the hood making 460 horsepower and 420 lb-ft of torque, and of course, hooked up to a six-speed manual and riding on independent suspension at all four corners, its without a doubt the closest the Mustangs ever been to sports car territory, Shelby GT350 (and GT350R) notwithstanding. It pulls hard, sounds incredible and, most importantly, it can boogie around corners.The key ingredient to this formula is what Ford calls the Performance Package Level Two, or as its known to enthusiasts, the PP2. It adds a laundry list of track-spec trinkets, such as beefier springs and sway bars, more chassis bracing, magnetic dampers, a Torsen limited-slip differential, super-sticky (and wide) Pirelli summer tires, and more. Much more. Too much to list, in fact. All you need to know is, the PP2 is magical. The grip is absolutely unreal, though it makes the Mustang somewhat twitchy near the limit and ride quality suffers. I think this package is a requirement, but something tells me youre not one to agree, old dude. BH: Its a qualified agreement, kid. I love almost everything about PP2, except those meaty P305/30ZR19 Michelin Pilot Sport tires. Ungodly grip in the dry, yes, but with next to no tread, and thus a very limited lifespan. I had to wait to pick up the tester because new tires were being installed, and the car had just 6,000 kilometres on the odo! And unless youve found a perfect stretch of unsullied tarmac, the GT tramlines over every uneven surface. Both hands on the steering wheel here.Interestingly, the Challenger Scat Pack fitted with the Widebody had similar 305-width rubber P305/35ZR20 Pirellis and was nowhere near as frenetic on real roads, though that is clearly not its forte. The big Dodge is definitely Old School muscle car, with blistering straight-line acceleration courtesy of its 485-horsepower, 6.4L V8. Its perfect for the quarter-mile, equipped with line lock, launch assist and an improved launch control setup (hold time is increased to 10 seconds from five for optimal launch and consistent straight-line acceleration). Oh yeah, larger six-piston Brembo front brakes and a stiffer suspension. Still, you feel the difference in the two cars weights the Mustang is 220 kilograms lighter especially on a serious set of twisties (or a track). I have to say, though, the Mustang is no slouch over 1,320 feet, either, not with its own line lock and Drag Strip mode. NT: And therein lies the biggest difference between the two. The Mustang is definitely the better car, if you will the steering, clutch, and shifter action are more precise and nowhere near as heavy as the Challenger. You can pretty much tailor the Mustang to however youre feeling on any particular day with its adjustable drive modes and optional active exhaust system which, by the way, should be standard. And inside, the Mustang may as well be in a completely different league: Your butts positioned far lower to the ground, and the eight-inch touchscreen infotainment system and fully digital instrument cluster add a sense of modernity. There are a few quibbles, though: The optional Recaro seats, particularly on the passenger side, arent friendly to shorter passengers, and forking over the extra $1,800 for these means you lose out on power adjustability, and heating and ventilation. Overall fit-and-finish, too, while reasonably good overall, feels a bit cheap in some areas.But its almost as though the Mustang feels too complicated, too modern for its own good. This is where the Challenger truly comes into its own, indulging the old-school crowd these days far better than the Mustang or Camaro. It seems to be working the design might be more than a decade old, but the Challenger still turns heads and it even outsells the Camaro. But its very much a one-trick pony; the Challenger takes a corner just fine, but whether youre peeling off with the go-fast pedal pinned and slamming through the gears, or just eating up the highway at 120 km/h, the Challenger is happiest going in a straight line. <img
Origin: Car Comparison: 2019 Dodge Challenger Scat Pack 392 vs. 2019 Ford Mustang GT
Comparison:
SUV Comparison: 2019 Honda CR-V vs 2019 Toyota RAV4
Jonathan: While these two little rigs might not set blistering lap times, raise the bar for torque or towing, travel hundreds of kilometres on free electrons, or even get hearts racing, they are the true giants of the Canadian auto industry. Coming from the incredibly popular compact crossover segment that they created, we are here to pit the Toyota RAV4 against its archival and longtime nemesis, the Honda CR-V. The RAV4 is fresh from a complete redesign for the 2019 model year, so the CR-V, a couple of years into its generational cycle, has its work cut out for it to claim superiority over a rival with all the latest tech and gadgets. And as these things go, both are indeed loaded to the roof rails with every gadget and feature available to each model line, the CR-V showing up in Touring trim at $39,090 plus a $1,795 freight and PDI charge. The Toyota RAV4 is a Limited AWD model, ringing in at $40,690 with $1,815 for freight PDI, and while it is fully loaded, there is a more expensive RAV4 out there if you opt for the same trim with a hybrid powertrain ($42,090 + PDI). Those prices are practically a dead heat, so each will prove its value through merit, showing its practicality, feature content and engineering excellence.Peter: Indeed, these two Ontario-built sales champs have a lot in common near identical exterior and interior dimensions and power ratings but they sure feel different on the road. By the numbers, the Toyotas 2.5L naturally aspirated four cylinder outmuscles the Hondas 1.5L turbo four 203 horsepower and 184 lb-ft of torque vs 190 horsepower and 179 lb-ft of torque. So the Toyota RAV4 is more fleet of foot, right? Uh, no.The Toyotas engine doesnt find that torque peak until a rather thrashy 5,000 rpm, whereas the Hondas shove comes on board at a more usable 2,000 rpm. In the cut and thrust of day-to-day driving, the Honda is the more relaxed and quiet crossover, moving forward on a nice easy shove of mid-range torque. The Toyota always feels and sounds like its working hard, and youre going to want to plan your highway merging. I got caught flat-footed, with my foot flat to the floor.That said, the RAV4 settles down into a quiet, stable and comfortable cruiser, and the eight-speed auto works well when not pushing hard, shifting smoothly and making the most to the engines power. The Honda CR-V is fitted with CVT (continuously variable transmission), but under most circumstances youd never know it. Again, its the little 1.5L turbo-fours low-end torque that keeps things moving along with little drama.JY: Actually, after spending a bit more time behind the wheel of the RAV4 after filming, there were occasions when that lack of low-end torque and the efficiency goals of the transmission led to some rough downshifts under hard acceleration. The 8-speed went looking for a lower gear to deliver the kind of urgency my foot was calling for, but it couldnt get out of its own way. Despite the Sport button on the console, the RAV4 simply does not like being driven quickly. Eventually I learned to accept its limitations, but it required resetting my more sporting style of driving to something far more patient, and I equally doubt that the extra AWD settings (Rock and Mud Sand) will get any use at all from the typical RAV4 owners. Save it for the 4Runner, Toyota. Once I started driving the RAV4 within its comfort zone, it shone. It is plenty comfortable around town and settles in nicely at highway speeds, and has excellent visibility and good steering response making it easy to maneuver around town. You could say the same of the CR-V, which might have a touch better steering response and comfort, but both are respectable and dialled in nicely for a compact crossover. Both cruise quietly and with great stability on the highway, with adaptive cruise and other driver aids to help alert you to dangers around you and take action if necessary.It should be noted for value shoppers that adaptive cruise, lane departure alert, lane keep assist, forward emergency braking, plus blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert are standard equipment on the base $27,990 RAV4, but those features dont come into play until the $31,686 LX AWD model on the CR-V. At the top of the lineup, the one big edge I gave to the RAV4 is the 360-degree parking camera (the CR-V has just a multi-view rear camera) that makes parking a breeze in any situation, especially crowded mall parking lots or tight underground garages. <img
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 Honda CR-V vs 2019 Toyota RAV4
SUV Comparison: 2019 Cadillac XT4 vs. 2020 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque P300 HSE
Nick Tragianis: Dont you just hate it whenever you step out of the shopping mall, look to the parking lot, and your car is lost in a seemingly endless sea of crossovers? Well, like it or not, this new breed of people-movers are here to stay, the segment absolutely exploding in popularity over the last few years, particularly among the luxury subset.Land Rover mustve seen this coming. The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, now in its second generation, has been a consistently hot seller since its introduction in 2011. Oh, its still relatively small potatoes compared with the likes of the Audi Q3, BMW X1 and Mercedes-Benz GLA, but the Evoque has proven itself as an established contender in the small luxury crossover segment. Weve also seen countless newcomers over the years vying for a delicious slice of that market share, particularly the Cadillac XT4: This is entirely new ground for the storied Detroit automaker, and its about time it certainly took GM long enough to offer up a small, luxury crossover. But the question remains, does the XT4 have the goods to go toe to toe against the established players in the segment?Brian Harper: Well that, my young friend, would depend on your definition of goods. Sales? Absolutely. For a brand-new model, the XT4 is doing quite well, handily outselling the Evoque for the first six months of 2019, although that could be partially attributed to the Land Rover factory ramping up production and getting the junior Range Rover to market. Price? That would also be a yes. Cadillac is being very aggressive with the XT4s MSRP, not just against the Evoque, but versus much of the competition in the compact luxury segment. And the loaded XT4 Sport testers $59,365 price is significantly more affordable when compared with the equally loaded Evoque P300 HSE $71,200 sticker. How about size? Again, the Cadillac enjoys an advantage; the XT4 is a slightly larger, more passenger-friendly crossover when compared with the truly compact-sized Range Rover. Yet, when it comes to luxury not just the features and content but also the sensation, the feeling of being something special? Quantitatively and qualitatively, the Cadillac is not in the same league. Agree?NT: Youre on the mark. On paper, the XT4 has the goods. A 2.0-litre turbo-four is standard, putting out 237 horsepower and 258 lb.-ft. of torque. Thats hooked up to an eight-speed automatic and, in the case of this particular tester, all-wheel drive is standard. Take note, though: The XT4 defaults to FWD and stays that way unless youve toggled the appropriate drive mode. And if you want the base, $34,400 XT4, youre stuck with FWD. In practice, though, the XT4 isnt exceptionally impressive, but it isnt egregiously offensive, either. Its simply adequate it wont leave you wanting for more power when, say, youre merging onto the highway, but overall acceleration just feels tepid. It rides well enough, too, but the XT4 is a bit firm over the roughest of pavement, expansion joints and potholes.Its a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison to the Evoque, though, isnt it? Our particular tester was the fully loaded P300 HSE flavour: Although it technically uses the same 2.0-litre turbo-four as the base Evoque P250, you get a big bump in output (and price). The nearly $10,000 price difference is almost worth it, though the Evoque makes excellent use out of its 296 horsepower and 295 lb.-ft. of torque. <img
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 Cadillac XT4 vs. 2020 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque P300 HSE
Car Comparison: 2019 Honda Accord vs. 2019 Nissan Altima
David Booth: Who hasnt cribbed a note? Glanced at someone elses test answers? Or copied a little of their math homework when the intricacies of Laplace transforms werent quite gelling in time for that 9:00 a.m. Monday assignment deadline? Maybe even a little plagiarism really, it was only one line from a 20-year-old Jeremy Clarkson review when words didnt appear magically on your screen. The point I am making is that pretty much all of us have cheated just a tad. Indeed, when it comes to a little, uhh, appropriation let he without sin cast the first stone.Nonetheless, youve got to give the designers at Honda and Nissan props for their chutzpah, the companies Accord and (the new) Altima seemingly separated at birth. Silhouettes are similar, the rear taillights almost identical and if you just ignore the various chrome garnishes seriously, you thought that wed be put off by one twin wearing a bowtie and the other a cravat? the front fascias are remarkably similar. Hell, their versions of burgundy Radiant Red metallic in Honda-speak, and Scarlet Ember for Nissan are all but cloned. If imitation be the sincerest form of flattery, then these two are positively fawning over each other. Clayton Seams: Indeed, it seems we have two identical sedans in front of us, the differences looming only once you peer under their (oddly similar) sheet metal. The Accord uses a downsized 1.5L turbo-four to send 192 horsepower and 192 pound-feet to the front wheels. The Altima, meanwhile, uses a larger naturally-aspirated 2.0L unit making 182 horsepower and 178 lb.-ft. of torque. But unlike the Accord, the Nissan has all-wheel-drive. But beyond the oily bits, both are very, very close. The Accord costs a hair more at $37,976 as-tested versus the Altimas $35,298 sticker.DB: Though there numbers be fairly similar, theres a world of difference OK, at least compared with their visual similarities in how these engines perform. Though it is the smaller unit, the Honda fairly leaps off the line, all that turbocharged torque rendering fairly instant throttle response. The Nissan, in contrast, is just a tad sluggish at the outset, but gathers steam as speeds increase, eventually proving more satisfying on the highway than the Honda. The numerical differences in performance measurement arent vast, but the motors do feel significantly different. Ditto for the transmissions; though theyre both CVTs, they prove markedly dissimilar on the road. CS: Ill be honest I had to double check the Altima was actually a CVT. It was that good, fooling me into thinking there was a conventional torque converter behind the engine. The revs shift up and down through imaginary gears and the operation is seamless. Nissan seems to have found a way to make CVT shift and feel like a regular automatic but with the fuel economy benefits of the continuously variable ratios.Honda has not been nearly so crafty. The Accord surges and drones as only a CVT can. Not only does it feel odd, it also feels sluggish. Every stab of the gas pedal is followed by a sizeable wait for the transmission to gear down and do its thing. The Nissan has a clear advantage in this area. Ditto the fact that said CVT is connected to an all-wheel-drive system, a rarity in the segment.DB: Thats the real differentiator in this compare. We can talk about similarities in body styles and differences in throttle response all we like, but the big news is that the Altimas 2.5L four drives all four wheels and the Honda only powers the fronts. Now, most consumers think AWD is only a benefit in the snow, but I can tell you I could feel the difference between the two cars even in summer. A quick thundershower drenched suburban Toronto, rendering roads wet and less than grippy during our time with the Altima; it barely noticed, but goose the Honda away from a stop and all that torque remember how we were bragging that the little 1.5T makes 192 lb.-ft.? spins the tires for a second or two before being reigned in by the traction control system. Thats not a big deal, but anyone thinking AWD is of winter only benefit isnt paying attention.On the other hand, when we start looking around the cabins, those similarities pop up again, dont they, my little wannabe rapper? CS: Youre right oh, fossilized one. Their cabins are about the same size and their ergonomics eerily similar. That said, there are a few more differentiators inside than outside. The Nissan, for instance, has seats so soft they remind me of a Oldsmobile Brougham. And thats a good thing! I blame BMW for convincing people that every single sedan needed to be firm and angry. The Accords seats are hard like a German sports sedan, and have serious side bolsters. This is a bit out of place on a car that doesnt even have paddle shifters. But Nissan takes a more honest approach. They know youre not taking their CVT sedan to a track day and the seats are closer to couches than race buckets. For back comfort alone, I would prefer the
Origin: Car Comparison: 2019 Honda Accord vs. 2019 Nissan Altima
SUV Comparison: 2019 Maserati Levante GTS vs. 2020 Range Rover Sport SVR
Brian Harper: Theyre big, brutish, and politically incorrect, not to mention overpowered, overpriced, and thirsty as hell. And if theyre not quite at the top rung of the SUV ladder, theyre still in rarefied air. Naturally, Im referring to that segment of the sport-ute market occupied by premium European automakers that, responding to the shift away from high-priced sports cars, coupes, and sedans to SUVs, have stuffed mega-horsepower engines into these products to give these all-weather haulers performance dynamics that amaze and confound.Porsches Cayenne Turbo, the Mercedes AMG G 63, BMWs X6 M and the subjects of this comparison, the Land Rover Range Rover Sport SVR and relative newcomer Maserati Levante GTS, all greatly surpass $100,000 and have powerplants pumping out well in excess of 500 horsepower. I suspect anyone driving one of these ber-utes would automatically receive invitations to join the Friends of OPEC.Land Rover is an old hand at this, pushing its Range Rover Sport SVR to increasing levels of horsepower excess. Maserati, however, has only been in the SUV game for a few years with the GTS edition new for 2019. Im surprised at its competency.Nick Tragianis: I wouldnt quite call these two subtle, but the Levante definitely seems like the, er, smarter choice here. I know, I know its difficult to rationalize a $150,000 sport-ute, but hear me out: Despite the price tag, the Levante is actually somewhat subtle. You wouldnt really expect that from an Italian SUV with a 3.8-litre, Ferrari-built, twin-turbocharged V8 pumping out 550 horsepower and 538 lb.-ft. of torque, not to mention the ability to hit 100 km/h from a standstill in about four seconds before topping out at just over 290 km/h, yet the Levante doesnt make a big deal about it. Dont get me wrong, the Levante is bloody fast, but it builds that power smoothly and confidently. The exhaust note is certainly gnarly, but even in Sport mode it doesnt assault your ears. The eight-speed automatic delivers quick shifts when you drive the Levante with gusto, but settle down and it operates nearly invisibly. The steering is tight and provides stellar feedback, but you dont need to muscle the wheel. Its remarkably flat when you take a tight highway on-ramp quickly, but it soaks up bumps and rough pavement incredibly well. Dare I say, its almost like an Italian Cayenne certainly more powerful than the Cayenne S we recently pitted against the BMW X5, but there are similarities.The Range Rover Sport SVR, on the other hand, is the polar opposite. Perhaps its the matte orange paint job in which our tester was finished thats a $9,000 option, by the way but the Range is brash and outlandish. Its certainly entertaining; the 575 horsepower and 516 lb.-ft. of torque from its supercharged 5.0L V8, working in concert with an eight-speed automatic, tends to keep a big, dumb smile on your face, especially when the exhaust snaps, crackle, and pops. Like the F-Type SVR, the Range Rover Sport SVR has a flair for the dramatic. Subtlety is far from its forte. Something tells me its mannerisms will wear on you quickly, particularly if you live with the Range on a daily basis.BH: Gee, kid, the Range Rover is clearly superior in the fuel economy department, its 14.1 L/100-kilometre average in the city (and 10.7 on the highway) is almost miserly against the big Masers respective 17.9 and 12.9 results. Wouldnt that make it our winner? Kidding! Nobody motoring around in these rigs gives a wet rats rear end about being green. Look, these are high-powered, high-priced nameplates were driving. Theyre for extroverts who want to be noticed. And yes, Im in agreement; the Sport SVR is especially polarizing. Its as in your face as these vehicles come noisy, brash and obnoxious.Yet, considering that neither will see anything bumpier than a cottage road, the Range Rovers off-road bona fides are completely legit, though the testers choice of rubber is more suited to the track rather than mud, loose rock, and germane to our four-season climate snow. To be fair, though, I have taken a Levante out on a respectable off-road course and it acquitted itself quite well. But its normal driving mode is rear-wheel drive, shifting up to 50 per cent of its power to the front as necessary. <img src="/uploads/img/comparison/28-suv-comparison-2019-maserati-levante-gts-vs-2020-range-rover-sport-svr.jpg" alt="SUV Comparison: 2019 Maserati Levante GTS
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 Maserati Levante GTS vs. 2020 Range Rover Sport SVR
SUV Comparison: 2020 Hyundai Palisade vs. 2019 Buick Enclave
Brian Harper: Its not as though the Palisade is Hyundais first kick at the three-row SUV can. No, there was the Veracruz, an ill-fated attempt at breaking into the market that ended poorly back in 2012. More successful was the Santa Fe XL, though stuffing three rows of seats into a mid-sized SUV was still a compromise.The XL has now been replaced by the flagship Palisade, the largest SUV the Korean automaker has ever built.Its longer, wider and capable of accommodating eight passengers. The Palisade is a more complete vehicle by all accounts, yet it still has a number of established rivals Nissan Pathfinder, Toyota Highlander, Dodge Durango, Ford Explorer, etc. plus a few recent arrivals, including the Volkswagen Atlas, Subaru Ascent, and the Palisades own corporate cousin, the Kia Telluride.However, were going to dial it up a notch and pit the Hyundai against a more premium-priced three-row sport-ute Buicks Enclave Avenir. Why? Well, the most obvious reason was that one was available. Beyond that, however, its been a while since weve gotten behind the wheel of the big Buick. Its a model thats been around for a dozen years, the second-generation version coming out for the 2018 model year. It sells reasonably well in both Canada and the U.S., and the Avenir sub-brand supposedly represents the highest expression of Buick luxury, with unique styling cues and an extensive set of standard features and premium materials throughout the vehicle. Hyundai has proven in the past its not afraid of moving its products upscale, though it has been accused of exceeding its place in the past. So, is the Palisade capable of mixing it up with a senior, albeit conservative, member of the family hauler class? Whaddaya say, kid? Nick Tragianis: Lets start with the fundamentals, shall we? Under the skin, the Palisade is identical to the Telluride. That means power comes from a normally aspirated 3.8-litre V6 rated at 291 horsepower and 262 pound-feet of torque, hooked up to an eight-speed automatic transmission. All-wheel drive is standard on all but the base Palisade.Its a similar story with the Enclave. Its a bit more powerful than the Palisade, putting out 310 horsepower and 266 lb-ft of torque from its 3.6L V6. Its paired to a nine-speed automatic, and like the Palisade, all-wheel drive is standard on all but the base Enclave. These two make absolutely zero pretense to sportiness and thats OK. Both are drama-free that never once felt underpowered or overworked, both have light and fairly numb steering, but that just makes them easy to live with day to day. And both are museum-quiet and La-Z-Boy comfortable. If you need to tow, both can haul up to 5,000 pounds. Really, at this point, youre splitting hairs both the Palisade and Enclave are smart, no-nonsense family haulers.But the Palisade punches well above its weight on the inside, especially for the price. Like you said, old dude, Hyundai isnt afraid to push the upscale envelope. Thats abundantly clear in the Palisade materials and fit and finish are top-notch, the seats are comfortable and overall ergonomics are on point, and the available tech is nothing to sneeze at. Our particular tester, the almost-fully loaded Limited at a hair above $50,000, comes with a sharp 10.25-inch touchscreen controlling the infotainment system, plus power-folding third-row seats, heated and cooled front seats (the second row is also heated), and all the active safety features youd expect in 2019, including a crisp 360-degree camera system. Spec the right upholstery option and the interior feels bright and airy, and the faux wood and metal accents add a lovely touch, despite them being plastic. Seems as though the Enclave Avenir has its work cut out for it. BH: Im sensing you like the Palisade, kid. So do I. Still, the Enclave deserves some respect. Buick has been fine-tuning this full-sized rig for years, and has managed to make it fairly drama-free. It handles its family-hauling duties with a certain amount of panache, being far more distinctly styled than many of its rivals, including the more mainstream Palisade. And, as you mentioned, its particularly silent around town; Buick has this Quiet Tuning technology its been touting for some time, not to mention active noise cancellation.In a straight line, the Enclave will accelerate a bit quicker. When cornering, however, the Buicks extra 180 kilograms are noticeable; theres a certain ponderousness to it that works against it.Now the cabin: The best part is that the Buick offers a fair amount of cargo flexibility, with significantly more capacity than the Palisade 688 litres behind the third row versus 509 litres for the Hyundai; 1,643 litres behind the second row folded versus the Palisades 1,296 litres. Also, with the pull of a handle, the SmartSlide second-row seats glide back to enable easy third-row access. And with the push of a button, the power-folding split
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2020 Hyundai Palisade vs. 2019 Buick Enclave
Car Comparison: 2019 Volkswagen Jetta vs 2020 Toyota Corolla sedan
Clayton Seams: The Volkswagen Jetta and the Toyota Corolla have been fighting with each other for a long time. These nameplates are both so old that they were each designed to replace air-cooled predecessors. Toyotas Corolla replaced the Publica, and Volkswagen Jetta, the Beetle. The Corolla is on its 12th generation, which debuted in 2018 and the Jetta is in its 7th iteration which debuted this year in 2019. Both are compact FWD sedans, powered by four-cylinder engines. Both have shown up to the party in mid-level trim and both retail for $28,000 and change as tested. Representing team Jetta was this Tornado Red Comfortline tester with the R-Line appearance package. Alex, what did you bring to the party?Alex Reid: In the blue corner is a 2020 Toyota Corolla XSE, and its stuffed full of tech. Its come along way from its humble beginnings, and beyond its revolutionary water-cooled engine, the Toyota Corolla is truly a grown up vehicle for the 2020 model year. These two vehicles have evolved to become more than just small-engined runabouts designed to pinch sales away from yank tanks, theyre now at the top of their reasonably-priced game. These two brothers from another mother have grown up at the same time, but which one of them can claim to be the more mature sibling? I would argue that the Toyota is wise beyond its years, even if hesitant to react to changes around it. First of all, the amount of technology that you get in the Corolla greatly surpasses the Jetta, having navigation, satellite radio, heated seats and steering wheel, and a host of safety features for almost the same cash means that the Corolla is a seriously strong contender for some of the best value on the market. CS: Its true, the Corolla packs an impressive list of equipment that you dont get in the Jetta for the same money. A heated steering wheel, SatNav, Satellite radio, and a digital dash are all found in the Corolla but not in the Jetta. But you could have those in a Jetta if you choose a more loaded model its worth noting. Also worth noting is the styling of the Corolla, yikes. I dont know why it has a Super Duty-sized grill or why its so angry at me. The Jetta, meanwhile, looks rather dashing in that aforementioned red paint and 17 alloys. That clean look continues to the interior where the Jetta wears a smart white/black two-tone interior. The touch screen display is neatly integrated into the dashboard and the sporty D-shaped steering wheel looks great but feels out of place in a car that lacks a sport mode or paddle shifters. Unfortunately it seems that the nice-looking seats were designed for the hard, square butts of Lego people and human butts may not find it very comfy. The seats seem unnecessarily hard and just oddly shaped if their purpose is indeed to support a human body. AR: I guess you pay a price premium for the VW to have all those features because I agree, the Corolla has a face only a mother could love, although I dont have to see it when Im driving it, so its a moot point, really. Another thing that I cant see but I can definitely feel on the Corolla, is the 18 wheels and low profile tires, which translates to more sporty handling, if thats something you care about in your daily commuter. While youve got a sporty steering wheel, the Jetta doesnt actually have the handling prowess to back it up, and its the Corolla that has a sport mode, and paddle shifters, even if its connected to a CVT. The Jettas good looks inside also dont translate to comfort, those seats are flat, square, and almost downright uncomfortable, theyre also manually operated, which is pretty lame considering the almost $30k price tag.However, I think the money is really well spent in the Corollas interior, which has electrically operated seats with lumbar support, and a super cool blue-stitched pattern, the digital dash is also miles above the dials you get in the Jetta, which looks like Volkswagen raided Ataris arcade game warehouse, Asteroids anyone? I think the Corolla also has the Jetta licked when it comes to size, it feels compact, like the segment should suggest, the turning radius is small and its extremely easy to park. The Jetta, even though VW claims its a compact, feels more like a mid-size. While the size should mean that the Jetta has more space, it really struggles to offer more than a few millimetres more rear headroom than the Corolla, and a negligible legroom advantage. CS: While its true the Corolla is the more sporty of the two, (CVT and all!) the Jetta is a little more quiet when driving along at highway speeds. The Corollas 2.0L naturally-aspirated I4 feels more sprightly than the Jettas 1.4L turbo I4. The Jetta makes more torque at 184 vs 151 but the Toyota makes more power at 169 vs 147. On paper, the smaller turbo engine of the VW has a clear fuel economy lead over the larger-engined Corolla. Also worth mentioning in the interior is that the VW has a more modern-looking infotainment system and
Origin: Car Comparison: 2019 Volkswagen Jetta vs 2020 Toyota Corolla sedan
SUV Comparison: 2019 Chevrolet Blazer vs. 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe
Welcome to Dude Said, Punk Said — a special series devoted to skewering the automotive ramblings of young punk Nick Tragianis with the infinite wisdom of old dude Brian Harper. This week, the duo see if Hyundai’s all-new Santa Fe can defend its title as the superior two-row family SUV against the reborn Chevrolet Blazer.Brian Harper: Ive said it before and Ill say it again: mid-sized sport-utes are the workhorses of the entire SUV market the high riding, trailer towing, wagon-shaped family haulers. They usually arent sexy; theyre not (with some exceptions) overpowered or overpriced. They just quietly go about their business.And it is one crowded segment, with about 20 nameplates Ford Edge, Hyundai Santa Fe, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Kia Sorento currently the most popular all fighting for market share. This field has been substantially increased in the past year or so with additions such as the Volkswagen Atlas, Honda Passport and Subaru Ascent, plus the Chevrolet Blazer, which we going to put up against one of the established players, the aforementioned Santa Fe. Initial thoughts, kid? Nick Tragianis: Its a crowded segment for sure, but while three-row family haulers are a dime a dozen, lets focus on a pair of two-row trucksters, specifically the Santa Fe and Blazer. Both are all-new for 2019 and both have the same mission statement to haul your family in relative ease and comfort but they go about doing so in very different ways. Were no strangers to the Hyundai; we recently pitched it against the Honda Passport and the Santa Fe came out on top, because its just a no-frills sport-ute that does what its supposed to very well, even if its a little uninspiring in the powertrain department.Depending on the trim, the Santa Fe comes with either a normally aspirated 2.4-litre four-cylinder with 185 horsepower, or a 2.0L turbo-four pumping out 235 horsepower and 260 lb.-ft. of torque. Our fully loaded Ultimate tester was equipped with the latter; its smooth and easy to live with on city streets, but when you need a burst of power to merge onto or pass someone on the highway, throttle response is dull. Switching the Santa Fes drive mode into Sport sharpens it a touch, but otherwise it feels a bit lackluster on the highway and thats too bad, because the Santa Fe is otherwise a fantastic cruiser. The eight-speed automatic operates smoothly and invisibly, the soft suspension soaks up bumps and rough pavement well, and wind noise barely filters into the cabin. As a family road-tripper, the Hyundai excels. Pun intended. So, whats so special about the Blazer, old dude?BH: Its not as though Chevrolet is lacking in SUVs and crossovers. God knows every niche of the entire segment has been filled, from the diminutive Trax to the large-and-in-charge Suburban. And if it doesnt wear a Chevy badge, one of GMs other divisions Buick, Cadillac, or GMC can pick up the slack. Yet, Chevrolet has seen fit to slot in a new, mid-sized sport-ute with an old name, splitting the difference in size between the Equinox and Traverse.This newest Blazer is nothing like the old Blazers neither the full-size K5 Blazer, based on the C/K pickup chassis and built from 1969 to 1999, nor the compact S-10 Blazer, based on the S-10 pickup and built from 1983 to 2005. No, this one is built on the same platform as the GMC Acadia and the Cadillac XT5. Power comes from either a 193-horsepower, 2.5-litre four-cylinder or an optional (and plenty punchy) 3.6L V6 with 308 horsepower, which was the engine we tested here. A nine-speed automatic transmission is standard; a twin-clutch AWD system is available. <img
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 Chevrolet Blazer vs. 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe
Pickup Comparison: 2019 Ford F-150 Limited vs. GMC Sierra Denali
Eighty grand is a lot of dough. Enough to buy three Honda Civics, a cottage lot in Northern Ontario, a down payment on a triplex in Calgary. Or the money could go toward one of the most luxurious pickups on the market today the 2019 GMC Sierra Denali or 2019 Ford F-150 Limited. Ram, too, has an expensive truck, of course, one with a better interior than either the Ford or GM; but this test is between the two top guns of the Big Three, the Denali and the Limited.Ford steps into the ring at a disadvantage right from the start: Its F-150 is starting to show age after a complete refresh of the truck in 2015 when it went to an all-aluminum body, followed by a mild update for 2018, while GMCs top-line truck presents with an all-new design and parts. The Sierra Denali is definitely the shiny new toy here, and it looks the part with a Great Chrome Shark mouth grille, more blingy chrome bits all around, 22-inch wheels and a trick, MultiPro tailgate that expands on what a tailgate can do. The Ford suffers a little because it looks similar to so many other F-150s, the dandelion of the pickup truck world, demarcated only by equally big wheels, subtle metallic grille and only some Limited badging here and there.Under the hoods, these pickups could not have more different approaches to power: Ford has diverted a bunch of 3.5-litre high-output Raptor engines from the assembly line to enhance the appeal of the top-line Limited. As such, the Limiteds turbo V6 trumps the Sierra for pure grunt, delivering 450 horsepower and 510 lb.-ft. of torque funnelled through the same 10-speed automatic used in the Sierra. The Denali, on the other hand, uses a good ol fashioned V8. Its 6.2-litre returns 420 horsepower and 460 lb.-ft. But heres the surprising part: Despite the Ford having more power and being about four-tenths of a second quicker to 96 km/h than the GM, according to Car and Driver, the Denali simply feels and sounds better overall. Oh sure, the Raptor V6 is quick, and it sounds throaty and meaty, but its just not as juicy as the V8. While both engines are smooth, even at wide-open-throttle, the Denalis 6.2 is chocolate cheesecake to Fords apple pie, delivering a richer experience. Thanks to the direct injection and Dynamic Fuel Management, which can shut down any number of cylinders to optimize power delivery and efficiency, the Denalis fuel economy was impressive, too, though it did fall short of the Ford overall. While a low of 10 L/100 km was registered on the highway in the Denali, our overall average was 13.1, while the Ford registers 12.6 overall but 11.2 highway close enough that neither of these trucks is more efficient than the other at the end of the day. That might not matter much anyway considering the cost of entry here. Both have automatic 4WD systems in addition to 2H, 4H and 4L.Where the Ford pulls ahead is in towing prowess, the F-150 able to haul up to 13,000 pounds with the proper package and set up, compared to the Sierras 9,300. Earning back some practicality in the face of outright muscle, the Sierra Denalis ProGrade trailering system and its comprehensive suite of trailering aides edges out those on the Ford, predictable given that the Sierra has newer technology.Both trucks have similar payloads close to 2,300 pounds and both ride very well, the quietness in each truck a testament to the amount of sound deadening and noise cancelling. Rough roads are, perhaps, somewhat better absorbed in the Denali, and its body exhibited less shake and shudder. The box of the Sierra is superior, too, having been widened roughly seven inches for a volume of 62.9 cubic feet on its 5-foot, 8-inch bed, compared to the 5-foot, 5-inch bed in Ford. The Denali bed can even be optioned in carbon fibre. But Ford has better LED cargo lighting because the bed lights are activated with a button inside the bed instead of a switch in the cab. As for tailgates, Fords fold-out step is okay, but the MultiPro twin gate is simply superior. The only hitch (pardon the pun) is the need to remove any ball hitch for the MultiPro before using it as a step, which would be a pain for those of us who leave hitches in regularly (and, no, its not against the law in most provinces to leave them in.) To prevent damage, the electronic tailgate will not drop the upper half if it detects a hitch in the receiver. GMs bumper steps are equally brilliant and can be used instead.GMs seat-mounted storage cubbies in the Denali are also useful, as are the storage bins under the rear seats, but Fords rear seats lift up to create a wide open area inside the cab, which can be useful for carrying big objects or, for contractors, lots of tools. Neither of these trucks is better, per se, in the back seat area, although the front seats in the Ford Limited clearly win for comfort and a massage function. One sit and youll be sold on these seats. Fords Limited also gets a massive, panoramic sunroof as opposed to a traditional sunroof in the
Origin: Pickup Comparison: 2019 Ford F-150 Limited vs. GMC Sierra Denali
SUV Comparison: 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vs. 2019 Honda Passport
JY: In order to make these midsize crossovers appealing to the most possible customers, it seems like designers have all arrived at an incredibly generic form, car companies sticking close to much the same design.For example, take a look at this new-for-2019 Honda Passport, which revives an old nameplate in a five-seat midsize crossover that slots between the CR-V and Pilot in Honda’s lineup. It’s handsome enough, but so incredibly bland. Then again, compared to some of Honda’s other questionable designs of late, maybe bland is a compliment. The 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe is a bit more distinctive with its slim headlights and odd grille shape, but still follows the same template for a five-seat midsize crossover, tall and upright, making sure that practicality is not sacrificed for some styling misadventure. Clayton: While they both look pretty generic, they’ve gone down different paths in the powertrain department. The Santa Fe uses the most common engine configuration of our time: a 2.0L turbocharged four. Taking a page out of the traditionalist playbook for the segment, the Honda uses a large-displacement naturally-aspirated 3.5L V6. The Santa Fe makes less power at 235 versus the Passport’s 280, but on the torque front it’s practically a dead heat with the Passport making 262 and Santa Fe twisting out 260 lb.-ft.What the numbers can’t convey is the different nature of the two engines. The Passport is high-winding and makes power up top while the Santa Fe makes plenty of down-low turbo torque. The Honda’s throttle is also very slow to react in its Econ mode, while the Santa Fe always seems to have enough pep just off the line with that peak torque available from below 1,500 rpm. It just makes it feel more effortless in acceleration.JY: I hear you. I thought the Santa Fe’s engine was a bit rough around the edges with some coarse sounds coming through, but its performance made easy work of acceleration, and the eight-speed auto was as smooth as I would hope for. The Passport’s transmission was equally smooth, so there’s little to pick apart there, and both have variable all-wheel drive systems that prioritize efficiency, but offer extra traction getting through crappy weather or roads.The Passport, however, goes a step further in the SUV direction, with more ground clearance, accepting the tradeoff in handling. Both vehicles ride well enough in a straight line, and both get a little unsettled over really rough, bumpy roads, but the Santa Fe has better composure in your typical city driving, with steering and handling that feel sharper and inspire more confidence in corners and tight parking lots. The Santa Fe also wins with an excellent 360-degree parking monitor with guide lines and well-measured proximity alerts. CS: I would say that the chief difference between the two of them on the road is that the Honda drives like a truck and the Hyundai drives like a car. The Hyundai feels smaller from the driver’s seat and is easier to drive around town than the bulky Honda. Inside, the Hyundai also has a very nice interior, the materials all top notch, loaded with features, anchored by a well laid-out console and info screen. One party trick of the Hyundai’s info screen is the handy “home” page that displays an active corner of the map screen, your music, and has ready-access buttons for most recently used function, like phone controls. It’s a very well thought out feature and one we both used often while driving. The Honda meanwhile is black, shiny black, and more black inside. Rather cave-like if you ask me and it could use some lighter coloured accents to break it up. The Honda is commendable, however, for its multitude of cup holders and storage cubbies. Your phones, sunglasses, and drinks will never want for a place to stay in the Passport. JY: Definitely, and before I get into the Passport’s practicality, I feel like we need to give Honda its due credit — their new infotainment is very slick, with big ‘app’ icons that you can drag from screen to screen just like you rearrange apps on your smartphone, and it has all the cool gizmos just like the Hyundai. That being said, the Hyundai still wins in that department with just a few inconspicuous buttons that still work better as shortcuts to the most common functions. In terms of practicality, there is no denying the Passports edge, and a big part of why it seems to drive bigger is because it is bigger. Its bigger in every exterior dimension, about 7 centimetres longer, 5 cm more wheelbase, and over 12 cm wider, resulting in 1,430 litres of cargo space even with all five seats available, compared to 1,016 L for the Santa Fe. With the rear seats stowed (both split 60/40 for flexibility) the Pilots 2,852 L again dwarfs the Santa Fes 2,019. Despite the superior cargo capacity, passengers are not overlooked, and both feature roomy back seats with substantial head and legroom, but the Passports width gives it a clear edge in that category,
Origin: SUV Comparison: 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe vs. 2019 Honda Passport
All about car 