From the June 1994 issue of Car and Driver.
So, you finally made it. Years of education, reams of unread résumés, new bathroom wallpaper made of rejection letters, a handful of awkward lunch interviews conducted with spinach stuck in your front teeth, and—woo hoo!—you got a job.
And how, pray tell, are you going to get to your McJob? You need new wheels, even if your debt load from school would make Bill Gates blink. Those wheels have to do everything—carry people and stuff without drinking fuel like grape Tang or looking like the Mod Squad's support vehicle—for not a lot of cash. A salary-impaired, environmentally aware Generation Xer such as yourself might consider these nine frugal sedanlets. Each has four doors, front-wheel drive, and room for four. And they all sip fuel via a four-cylinder straw.
Then the simple decision starts to get messy. Want to buy American? The Escort LX is an American car, but most (including our test car) are built in Mexico. The Honda Civic DX, Toyota Corolla DX, and Nissan Sentra XE are Japanese cars made in America. The Hyundai Elantra GLS and Kia Sephia GS are Korean. There's even a Japanese car made in Japan—the Mazda Protege—and two Americans built in the heartland, the Saturn SL1 and the Dodge Neon.
We put these nine sedanlets head-to-head to determine which was the most usable and enjoyable econosedan. Such a disparate group needed some rules, so each car had to meet one critical qualification—it had to cost less than $13,500. Air conditioning and a sound system were strongly suggested. Still, a few notable cars missed the cut. Subaru had yet to release 1994 prices for the Impreza and was unable to join this pint-sized kaffeklatsch. Mitsubishi could not provide us with a suitable Mirage. Chevrolet was busy readying a new Cavalier. And to our dismay, the Volkswagen Golf and Jetta both failed to make the $13,500 price cut. We drove, compared, and ranked the gang of nine on crumbling city streets, teasing country two-lanes, and mild-mannered stretches of Interstate. The also-rans quickly sank out of mind. A few sedanlets, and one in particular, hit the right buttons without imposing a death sentence on driving pleasure. Here they are, winners last.
After a week of exposure to Korea's latest expatriate, we can say for sure that the Kia Sephia will have a challenging time breaking into America's highly competitive cheap-eats market. The basics are all in place—adequate power from the four-cylinder engine, a reasonable price tag, and good interior space—but the levels of refinement in cars like the Civic, Neon, and Sentra set tough standards for a newcomer to match.
There isn't much fun in the Sephia's suspension, gearbox, or interior. The Kia finished next-to-last in the 0-to-60 trot and in the street start. Extracting even that speed from the 88-hp 1.6-liter four was a task, thanks to a mushy clutch and an imprecise gear linkage. And the Kia was the second-thirstiest car in the group, tied with the Mazda at 24 mpg.
A 197-foot braking distance and 0.75 g worth of grip are solidly average, and the Sephia posted a good 61.5-mph speed through the lane-change maneuver. But from behind the wheel, the handling feels less than what those figures suggest. Cruising around town, the Sephia felt tippy, and even low-speed cornering brought out pronounced body roll. Furthermore, the car was easily disturbed by wind and pavement irregularities on the highway.
The interior shapes are a reasonable blend of futurism and realism. Most dash surfaces are coated in shiny plastic, though, and the console is awash in tiny, hard-to-find buttons. The radio, in particular, tested our manual dexterity. "Doesn't anyone in Korea wear gloves?" asked Markus. The passsive-restraint system, with its slack lap belt and door-mounted overlapping shoulder belt, is unimpressive by current standards, but Kia promises dual airbags by Fall. The back seat is a place of honor, however, with lots of head and knee room for larger frames and a soft, supportive cushion.
HIGHS: A lot of features for the money. LOWS: Unsettled handling, unimpressive fit and finish, inconvenient passive restraints. VERDICT: Running hard to catch the pack.
For bargain hunters who ask, "How much car can I get for the least amount of money?" the Sephia GS offers excellent value. After all, a $12,065 Sephia GS comes with air conditioning; power windows, mirrors, and locks; and a decent-sounding cassette/radio (though no anti-lock brakes or airbags). For the discerning driver, however, such features can't offset the Sephia's dynamic shortcomings.
GM's upstart division opened its doors in 1990 with the promise of innovative, inexpensive products. Friendly dealers and first-rate service have emerged as reasons to buy a Saturn. The same cannot be said for the 1.9-liter four-cylinder engine. It has a basso-profundo growl at idle that becomes a racket at higher engine speeds. Moreover, the 85-hp SOHC engine is the least powerful in the group, resulting in the poorest performance (0 to 60 mph in 10.5 seconds), without offering any offsetting fuel-economy benefit.
The engine's shortcomings and a clunky manual transmission will put an early end to any sporting intentions. The clutch release is too high, and the lever throws are too widely spaced for speedy shifting. The brakes work better; with antilock control, the Saturn took 194 feet to stop from 70 mph, though the pedal fluttered rather harshly during full ABS. The car handled predictably, with decent steering feel and minimal body roll.
In four-door form, the Saturn isn't commodious enough for four full-sized adults. The front seats fit none of us well. Legroom for long-limbed pilots is preciously small, the dash juts out into knee territory, and the seatback is too narrow even for thinnish torsos. The back seats were a squeeze, too, despite a low seat cushion meant to increase headroom.
HIGHS: Good-sized trunk, anti-lock brakes. LOWS: Noisy, weak engine, irregular comfort. VERDICT: Five years old and showing its age.
Also disconcerting are the Saturn's motorized belts, still in place even though the driver has an airbag mounted in a large steering wheel lifted from a Pontiac Bonneville. Buyers flock to the down-home Saturn name because of the reputation for reliability, the gold-star service, and the trendy made-in-America label. In the face of the current competition, those attributes may no longer be enough.
The Hyundai Elantra GLS is a car that looks excellent on paper but delivers somewhat less than it promises.
Take the engine, for example. It's a sophistiscated DOHC 16-valve design with 124 horsepower—second highest in the group. Yet with a 0-to-60 time of 10.0 seconds, the Hyundai's acceleration was merely average. The engine did pull well in top gear, thanks to the transmission's short gearing, but only at the cost of the worst fuel economy in the group. Nor was the engine notably smooth or quiet.
The lack of speed can be attributed partly to the manual transmission. It had long throws and notchy engagements. The clutch itself seemed marginal, slipping during quick shifts.
Of course, the Hyundai also outweighed the next-heftiest Neon by 164 pounds. True to its girth, it felt larger and more ponderous than its trim appearance would indicate. Thanks to its excellent, low-profile Michelin tires, the Hyundai did manage 0.81 g on the skidpad and an excellent lane-change performance. But the shocks felt soggy, and the car corkscrewed through bumps in turns.
On the other hand, the Elantra's interior appointments and packaging were quite nice. It's roomy inside, with well-shaped, multiadjustable front seats and the largest and most comfortable back seat. The interior was outfitted in various pleasing plum-colored plastics and velours. Asymmetrically, the driver gets an airbag and a pillar-mounted seatbelt, while the passenger gets no airbag and a door-mounted belt.
HIGHS: Decent quality, good interior room, supportive seats, lots of features. LOWS: Ragged gearbox, unrefined handling. VERDICT: Good value that still needs some honing.
The Hyundai needs a more capable powertrain and more refined handling before it can compete for top econobox honors. Still, the Elantra is a plush bargain buggy that will meet the needs of the undemanding driver.
If you've only got $13,500, you can't afford a Corolla. Or, at least, not a Corolla equipped the way most cars are these days. Those of us who went into this test expecting a junior Lexus were rudely awakened when, for $13,498, our Corolla DX arrived sans radio and anti-lock brakes. It was by far the most stripped sedan in our test, one that is likely advertised more enthusiastically than it's sold.
The Corolla was no micro-Supra, either. Its performance was dead-average, but it gets very boomy at what must be about 4500 rpm. We say "must" because who knows without a tachometer? The ride was harsher than in the softly sprung Escort, with a lot of impact noise. The Corolla didn't excel in lane changes, but its 0.77 g on the skidpad was fine, and we generally liked the way it went down the road.
Despite its sparse specifications, the Corolla engendered plenty of goodwill with its careful assembly. We never felt slighted by the quality of the materials used in the Corolla, nor by its tight, flexfree platform. The silky switchgear was typically Toyota, and even the vinyl backing on the seats was of a high grade.
HIGHS: Quality materials and excellent fit and finish. LOWS: Boomy engine, meager trunk space, bare-bones specification. VERDICT: A good car, but not enough of it for the money.
It tied for tops both in fit-and-finish and in quality, but the Corolla took the back seat in value, features, and cargo utility—keen points of interest for most parsimonious four-door shoppers. For $13,500, there's no radio, no anti-lock brakes, no tach, no clock, and half-vinyl seats. You pay the premium for Toyota's reputation for quality. It's a good car—we'd just like more of it.
For substantially less than the $6 billion it cost GM to till Tennessee dirt and make Saturn a reality, Ford and Mazda came up with the Escort and Protegé. Both finished ahead of the Saturn, thanks to efficient interior space, swell rides, and good seats.
The Escort fell a spot behind the Protegé because of its weaker engine and wigglier handling. Its 88-hp 1.9-liter four has a rough idle that made its dash and mirrors tremble. For all its combustive effort, the Escort couldn't hit the test average in any performance test, and it took the longest time (53.2 seconds) to get to 100 mph. Rowing to speed is no problem with the Mazda-designed gearbox, though the shift lever itself is mounted low and far away.
The Escort rode better than the similar Protegé, but not without a sacrifice. The supersoft bushings that give it that good ride also made it wobbly through the lanechange maneuver; it posted a 55.3-mph speed in that test, the lowest by a good margin. The Escort's brakes lack anti-lock control, and it takes them an unfashionably long 204 feet to stop from 70 mph.
Most of us agreed that the Escort's interior was cheerful enough. The seats were singled out as very comfortable and attractively upholstered, flat in the right places and surrounded by enough empty space for even the tallest staffers. The cockpit coverings of vinyl and plastic were put together well, but there were parting lines and flash edges everywhere, especially around the motorized-belt housings.
HIGHS Supple ride, bright interior. Also low-priced. LOWS: Guttural engine, subpar handling, unexciting looks. VERDICT Good value, eminently practical, but a little dull.
At five years old, the Escort is starting to look and feel a little out of date. It's no bullet, nor is it loaded with the latest safety features. But it offers good value and remains a good choice if your priorities are room and ride comfort.
There are plenty of vanilla-flavored cars in this class. Mazda's Protegé is one of…
… Trimmed for readability. Visit the source for the full article.
Extracted and lightly reformatted for readability. · Source: pt