|
CD_Editor
|
 |
« on: September 16, 2008, 10:47:17 pm » |
|
 Test Drive:   The Matrix XR's new 2.4-litre engine "is a refreshing change: smooth, powerful, and with a decent soundtrack to make the Matrix a car with great get-up-and-go," says contributor Haney Louka. It's thirstier, yes, but frugal nonetheless, he says. More:Read the article | View the photos | All the Test Drives
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rupert
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2008, 11:39:15 pm » |
|
Is this vehicle in fact lower than it's predecessor? In the specs on here it is given as 61" whereas the old one is given as 60.6". Seems to be about the same. I would have thought that the smaller engine would have benefited from the 5 speed auto box making it a more attractive package for some maybe. The high format makes for a really nice flat fold down deck. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 12:30:57 am by Rupert »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The Mighty Duck
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2008, 12:32:58 am » |
|
The new Matrix is a gorgeous looking car... just love the styling. $27 000 for a loaded one, though... that's a lot of change for a Matrix, imo. Especially when it starts at $16k. How many cars add nearly 75% again their price in options (Porsche excepted)? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Demosthenes [noun], dem-aws-thene-s
1) (384 BC – 322 BC) the greatest of the Ancient Greek orators
2) pseudonym used by Valentine Wiggin in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game to alter the events of world history
|
|
|
|
Honda Owner
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2008, 02:05:58 am » |
|
In my opinion, the 2.4 litre is not worth the extra money and fuel. A Matrix B automatic runs $19,460, quite reasonable in my books and a manual, for gear heads like me, is $18,450. Very reasonable. In a year or two, the low interest rate loans and leasing will start.
I have seen a surprising number of the loaded XR model on the road. Today, I saw a lady her in late 60s park in front of my house in one. Pretty good upsell. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sailor723
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2008, 05:43:50 am » |
|
It's a pet peeve of mine but I can't stand having the shifter mounted on a bulge sticking out of the dash. It's just too "minivan-like" for me. It seems like more and more manufacturers are doing it lately (is it cheaper?). The whole "no centre console" thing is one of the reasons I decided against the Highlander when I bought a Pathfinder back in '02 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
My first ever GM ownership experience can best be described as "Fool me once...."
|
|
|
|
sailor723
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2008, 05:56:13 am » |
|
The new Matrix is a gorgeous looking car... just love the styling. $27 000 for a loaded one, though... that's a lot of change for a Matrix, imo. Especially when it starts at $16k. How many cars add nearly 75% again their price in options (Porsche excepted)?
On the other hand....compared with a Mercedes B class this thing looks like a steal. (AND it can be had with AWD!) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
My first ever GM ownership experience can best be described as "Fool me once...."
|
|
|
|
Rupert
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2008, 08:05:17 am » |
|
What does a centre console do for you? You need an extra elbow joint in your right arm to be able to do much with it as you drive. It merely takes up space in my opinion. The latest Dodge/Chrysler 'minivan' has a dash mounted changer; a fact that I disliked when we bought one. However I find the mini van one to be a boon with it's autostick capability and being closer to the steering wheel. You can change gear without taking your hand off the stearing wheel which is very advantageous in hilly country...being able to anticipate the terain and make an early change down to keep revs up. Great for towing. If anything maybe the shifter should follow more closely the mini van layout. Oh, the removable central console is in the basement. It just sat there in between the seats doing nothing in particular. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stodge
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2008, 08:58:15 am » |
|
27k for a Matrix? Unfortunately that extra cost doesn't give you better quality materials! What is it competing against at 27k? And at what point do you say "I'll buy a slightly bigger vehicle for the same money"? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
carcrazy
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2008, 11:52:16 am » |
|
Unless one really likes the car or is an exclusive Toyota buyer or is looking for the best fuel economy and gets the 1.8L Matrix, I don't see the reason to get one of these.
If you give up the stability/traction control you could have a much nicer Mazda3 Sport GS 5A/T for $1,300 less and no fuel economy penalty.
If you need an AWD hatchback, you could have a nicer (by comparison) Subaru Impreza with a proper AWD for about the same money or less depending on the package.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johngenx
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2008, 01:18:43 pm » |
|
I think the <$20K Matrix is the way to go. While I think the 2.4L is a nice engine, I agree that were I going to accept the fuel economy penalty, I'd go for an Impreza. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No place I'd rather be...  |
|
|
|
sailor723
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2008, 01:42:37 pm » |
|
I have to agree. If you're going up to the high 20's the Impreza seems like better bang for the buck |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
My first ever GM ownership experience can best be described as "Fool me once...."
|
|
|
|
safristi
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2008, 02:07:49 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
THERE IS NO CURE FOR "LOTUS"......ONLY TREATMENT.....
|
|
|
|
