Initial perceptions can cloud your judgments. Trying to analyze something like a car can often be distorted by how you think it’s going to drive versus the reality of how it actually behaves behind the wheel. What are some cars you’ve been surprised by (for better or for worse) after taking a spin around the block?
Way back in the nineties, my former college roommate was constantly going to any of those manufacturer-sponsored driving events he would get invites to in the mail or, later, online. One that he inexplicably got notified about was for Cadillac cars; he didn’t seem to fit the demographic other than being a serial test-track-event visitor, but it was too tempting not to go. Ostensibly, the idea of the event was to show GM’s “standard of the world” was now trying to be more of an enthusiast brand and not just for those with an average age approaching deceased.
Naturally, he drove all of the cars there and claimed that the hosts had no problem with attendees driving the living crap out of the vehicles. One of the 1996 or so cars he sampled was that latest STS Seville, supposedly Cadillac’s true “Euro fighter” sedan:
Also, he took a spin in the almost comical soon-to-be-discontinued Fleetwood Brougham, the D-Body full-frame sedan that under the skin dated back to the “downsized” 1977 GM cars:
My ex-roommate’s response was that the big Brougham drove better than the modern STS; this had me checking to see if my phone was broken or if the connection was somehow compromised. However, after later driving used examples of similar cars, I know exactly what he meant.
You see, the STS looked the part of a BMW beater, all clean and crisp and almost German in styling. You expected the driving experience to mirror the exterior. It didn’t. Oh, it didn’t drive that badly, but it was as if someone had taken a front-drive Bonneville or even a Grand Am and tried to improve it in any way they could. They succeeded in making it better than those cars, but in terms of things like steering feel, ride, seats, and interior finishes, it was still a far, far cry from the refinement of a BMW E34 or later E39. Don’t even ask about the bank-vault feel of a Benz W124. You couldn’t help but be disappointed at what you thought was going to be a legitimate autobahn cruiser.
On the other hand, the “whale” Caprice-based Fleetwood Brougham seemed to be a bit of a joke; it looked more like a McMansion or even a gaudy banquet hall on wheels than it did a motor vehicle. The fact that it could move at all and go around corners would be shocking to you; it did. Here’s our man John Davis with an early model (a 1993) of this final rear drive bodystyle.
Equipped with FE2 Ride Handling Suspension, I was taken aback by its roadholding ability. It was like running a cop car in a Liberace suit, which is essentially what it was. Your expectations were so low that it was surprising how far you could push this delightful traditional Cadillac barge and have it come back for more. No, it was not even remotely a “sport sedan,” but it drove way better than you would have imagined.
Any other examples? Let’s see … I remember the Ford Transit van I rented was surprisingly nice to drive; it was bigger than the Chevy Express vans I’d been given the keys to before but felt far smaller.
Mitsubishi 3000GT? If I knew it was going to feel like the big touring coupe that it is, I might not have been let down. Instead, I assumed it would drive like an RX-7 or Z32 300ZX, and it does not.
How about you? What cars have you driven that were either far better or far worse than you ever imagined?
Top graphic image: Motorweek screenshot
The biggest positive surprise for me has been the Jeep Wrangler, specifically the JK and JL generations. Most reviews I have seen concluded these come with a lot of sacrifices that make them poor daily drivers.
After driving a JKU for a decade and a JL for the last few months, I disagree. They aren’t sports cars, but handling is fine. They aren’t luxury cars, but ride quality, room, and comfort are decent. Noise is a problem with the soft top, but they aren’t particularly loud with a hard top. Fuel economy has, at least in my experience, been shockingly good (I averaged 22 mpg in the JKU and, so far, am averaging 23.5 in the JL).
The way these drive is better described as “adequate” than good, but they have far exceeded the expectations I had from reading reviews. I expected a oxcart and got a ’90s SUV instead.
This is a problem with reviewers of lots of things. They often do not have a point of reference in common with users because the have access to the nicest stuff. That’s why all the reviewers I trust regularly spend time with old crap, just to keep them grounded.
Are they modified at all? That seems to be what really starts causing the mpg to drop from what I’ve seen through my friends experiance with them
No, both of mine are completely stock.
It seems like 90% of Wrangler problems can be cured by not modifying them.
You aren’t wrong. It still blows my mind how much some people spend to modify them and yet still have it turn out mostly the same as everyone else’s because they are all ordering the stuff from the same vendors
Does your JL have the 3.6 or the 2.0 turbo?
Both have the 3.6 and the manual transmission.
I think mine actually stands out by being bone stock, since every makes basically the same modifications.
I had a Wrangler as a rental for a week a couple months ago (JL naturally), and I agree. The one I rented had the 2.0 turbo, and was a higher trim Rubicon. And I really liked it. Expected much worse based on reviews online, but it seemed pretty civilized for BOF, and significantly better than F-150’s and 4Runners I’ve driven recently.
Handling mountain roads in Alberta, and it was right at home. More than enough torque to climb, handled the twisties just fine for something with huge wheels.
Late to the party here but I used to travel for work, rented a few JL Wranglers with the 2.0L turbo. Those things were properly quick, and with 3 adults, a baby & half the trunk full we still managed 26 mpg on the highway (75mph or under speed wise). Pretty impressed!
Better than expected:
– 4th gen Honda Odyssey minivan: I owned one for a decade and was always surprised by how well it handled for what it was. It was no sports car, but it had a much more dynamic chassis than its competitors.
– Kia Niro: My previous commuter through my long, twisty commute on rural mountain highways. For being a little hatchback pseudo-CUV (the classification Kia gives it), it handled way better than one would expect looking at it.
– Ford Contour: A friend owned one back in the 90s and it was impressive in how it handled, and it wasn’t even an SVT. Sadly, the build quality didn’t match the handling.
Worse than expected:
– Z31 Nissan 300ZX: I bought one thinking it would be a handling champ, but it wasn’t anything amazing.
– R60 / F60 Mini Countryman: Avis seemed to love giving me these as rentals, and each time I would momentarily get excited and then be reminded they handle nothing like their Cooper brethren.
– 3000GT: Already captured above. Not nimble or as sporty as one would hope.
– 9th gen Chevy Malibu: The other car Avis loves to give me. Every single one of them, regardless of trim level, ride and handle like crap, including the one time I was the first renter on a brand new LTZ one. Just awful.
My wife bought a 1999 Toyota Solara SE new with a 4 cylinder. That was one of the worst handling cars I have ever driven. It kind of felt like the front tires had 10 pounds of air in them.It just wanted to keep going straight and it was floaty. It reminded me of an old Ski-Doo Olympique I had when I was a kid.The motor was too far back and had no weight over the skis.It just wanted to plow straight whenever I wanted to turn.
We rented a coupe once. The handling was so awful it popped a hubcap at moderate speed.
It was a Cadillac Fleetwood that surprised me. A 1966 Brougham I agreed to drive from Maine to South Carolina for a friend who was moving. My father always drove Buicks, so I expected a fancy Buick.
Instead I had a car that cornered without a lot of lean, yet did not have the harsh ride associated with some “sports” sedans. None of the wallow I was expecting. And the torque? I wonder if the guy in Albany who thought racing stripes would make his front drive “Monte Carlo” faster is still wondering what the large white iceberg that sucked his doors off was.
The interior had all the comfort features you need, including set it and forget it HVAC. The car will be for sale soon, and I wish I could afford to buy it and run it. Yes, if you’re careful you can get double-digit MPG.
A vocational semi truck with no weight on the back. Had to drive one on a durability track and yeah I couldn’t keep my foot on either the brake or the throttle because of how damn bouncy it was didn’t expect it to be that bad haha.
Also my 92 cummins actually rides pretty nice on the road for what it is.
My dad’s 57 is very smooth on the road I expected to ride and handle terrible but it is pretty smooth to drive for a stock set up car.
My 89 firebird rides very meh after a ton of suspension and handling upgrades compared to a 79 firebird we got which is pretty much stock besides an engine swap to a 468 vs the 301 it originally had.
When first test driving an FJ didn’t not expect them to drive and handle like they did I felt like I was driving a nimble tank haha
Late edit before the FJ test drive I test drove a final year Xterra (2015 if not mistaken) and it was just boring vs the FJ which I fell in love with the first test drive.
So yeah TLDR most vehicles I have driven I expected them to be different then they were.
I drove a friend’s Beretta GT once and was surprised by how bad, or, at least, bland it was for something that was marketed as a sort of sporty coupe. Poor seating position, no steering feel, soft suspension, might as well have been a Hertz Corsica, once inside, you didn’t really feel a difference
Better than expected was maybe the Volvo 940 Turbo I used to own. Volvos were not really sold as sports sedans at the time, most people didn’t buy them for handling, and I’d bet there wasn’t much cross shopping between them and BMW, but it was shockingly competent and turned out to be a lot more fun on windy back roads than you’d expect. Like, really not bad at all for a stolid, suburban mom car stereotype
Yeh agreed on the Beretta, I drove (admittedly not a GT) one while helping my college girlfriend shop for a car circa 2002 and was surprised at how un-sporty it was.
And GM knew how to make mundane cars fun when they wanted to, the 6000 STE was pretty decent, which means they just didn’t care
Right, and not long after I bought a ’89 Grand Am with the 5mt and the Quad Four and it was kind of a pile but pretty fun in its buzzy way, not sure how much of that is the stick plus motor vs better suspension tuning. The problem is once you’ve driven and ’80s BMW or Mercedes anything GM from that era just seems so incredibly lackluster.
True, but the price gap was usually enough to stop people from comparing them back to back. Few people test drove a Celebrity Eurosport and then bought an Audi 5000 instead
Oh yeh of course! This is all through the flattening lens of my looking at these as used cars in the early ’00s
By then, the main advantage was GM’s tendency to design new cars the same way Taco Bell creates new menu items, the shared bin of corporate parts at least made them cheap to keep going.
That was more of a desperate solution, and not an advantage at all.
GM’s giant infrastructure, widespread dealer networks, huge workforce, and duplicated market segments were great when it owned fully 50% of the market, Ford and Chrysler owned substantially less than that, and everyone else (including Studebaker, AMC, etc) was fighting for scraps. But by the 80s and 90s, all that bloat had become an albatross around its neck. Not only were GM’s expenses off the charts, cars had become more expensive than ever to make. You had safety concerns. You had emissions concerns. You had greater demands for ride comfort and handling. You had pricey computerized components like fuel injection and anti-lock brakes. Each of these had to be considered for each car, and then–to make matters worse–each of GM’s sales networks wanted a full line of cars, which meant they needed multiple versions of whatever they were making.
Consolidating engineering and design was the solution to keep the company going. And it often resulted in GM spending far more money than everyone else to make an underwhelming or worst-in-class set of products that weren’t substantially differentiated from one another in the first place…and often enabled by some pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic corporate goal. Case in point, the W-body platform, which cost a purported $7B in 1980s/1990s dollars. And somehow, GM had convinced itself it could take 21% of the total US/CA passenger car market with these cars. As if!
I imagine that by 2000, most of the actual people within GM were pretty embarrassed by what the company was putting out, even if they couldn’t pull a Sergio Marchionne and say so openly. They were just plodding along doing what they could to survive. The bankruptcy and restructuring gave them the excuse and freedom they needed to begin shedding brands and obligations.
Rick Wagoner said he ran a healthcare company that built cars. They knew it. Common platforms made ABS and FI less costly. Healthcare and pensions killed them.
Ditto on the Corsica. Just awful road control.
Way better: 1999 Rover 25 1.6i. My employer at the time had one on appraisal within a few days of a then-new and very highly-regarded first-gen Ford Focus 1.6i, and almost everyone who tried both thought the Rover was the better drive. At the time I owned a 1997 Rover 220SDi – essentially a pre-facelift 25 – and the difference between my car and the 25 was considerable (although a lot of the difference might have been down the reduced mass of the 1.6 K-series petrol engine compared to my 2.0 L-series turbodiesel).
Way worse: 1996 Peugeot 306. The UK motoring press raved about the 306, in all versions, and claimed it drove even better than its well-regarded platform-mate, the Citroën ZX. My mum had a 1993 ZX 1.9TD, so I knew how good it was to drive. My employer had a base-spec 1.4i 306 without power steering, and it was a hideous drive. I suspected the lack of power steering was a big part of teh issue, so when shopping for a new car I still considered a 306 1.9TD with power steering. The example I found to test drive still failed to impress, being a lot less fun to drive than the ZX, with steering that still seemed to lack the ZX’s responsiveness.
I always thought trucks would ride like garbage until the end of time until I drove a mid-2010’s Ram 1500 for the first time. Far better experience then I thought I’d have.
On the other hand, I’ve been indifferent about Wranglers since I’ve driven dozens of them. They were fine, nothing to write home about. But when I got to drive a brand new 2020 Gladiator? Holy crap. It wasn’t even a Rubicon, but aerodynamics really decided that with all the bricks on these roads that the Gladiator must be the worst vehicle to drive. After 30mph, that thing became sketchy and didn’t like a single bump on the road.
I’m getting roasted for both my lists, I’m sure. Way worse is almost more fun:
Way better:
No one asked, but here are a couple cars that were exactly what I expected, to such a degree it was impressive:
My then girlfriend now wife had a 1st gen Pontiac Vibe (which afaik is identical inside to the Matrix) and I assumed it was me being tall but I never found it comfortable and while competent I never found it even remotely fun to drive, was kind of a let down because at one point I’d been trying to find a GT with the 6mt and 1ZZ.
Disagree on the Mazda though which is what I wound up buying, a 2004 hatchback, not quite a hot hatch, but a very warm hatch lol. Peppy, good handling, good steering for a fwd, reasonably good looking and quite reliable, admittedly all the hatches came standard with the S performance package which included 17″ alloys and the larger 2.3 engine maybe the sedan you drove was base spec?
I’m sure the sedan I drove was base spec. The friend who owns it is a notorious cheapskate. Not that there’s anything wrong with that and he’s a great guy, but I probably should try the performance package.
I guess it also depends on what gen your friend has. The first two generations were great for what they were (though I also drove sport package S hatchbacks in both). The current gen Mazda stuff has definitely lost some of that, at least based on my experience driving a CX5 and CX30, but most reviews seem to point to the 3 having been watered down quite a bit too.
Mazda, IMO, made a mistake with the current gen 3 by switching from an IRS to a torsion beam rear. I have the previous generation 3 (Grand Touring 2.5 stick hatch), and it’s a very good blend of compliance and handling. I’m going to drive it until the wheels fall off.
Nice! I’ve never had a chance to drive a 3rd gen.
I was actually just thinking about my list, and I have to say that a first-gen Yaris hatchback (three door) is actually a much, much better car than I would have given it credit for…it handles nicely, is fast enough for every-day traffic, is comfortable for my 6ft + frame, and gives a tremendous amount of credence to the “Toyota indestructibility” legend…
That’s fair. By the time I drove one, I owned a Scion xD. My perception was tainted because the two cars are similar but the xD is sportier and has a bit more power. It is a very similar chassis with a similar weight, but has the larger engine from a Corolla, firmer suspension, and bigger wheels.
The Yaris was great. But the steering wheel felt plastered on the dashboard.
“It’s a car” is/was a very apt description.
Better: Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth Neon.
The Neon punched way way way above its weight for handling (other issues, yes).
Worse: 5th gen Subaru Ouback / 4th gen Subaru Forester / 1st/2nd gen Subaru XV/Crosstrek
They all wallow, jiggle, bounce, and roll. They’re all over the place and made both myself and my kids seasick. When I pushed it, I could feel the flex. They were worse than old 80’s American boats, and I cannot fathom how they were popular considering how awful the dynamics were on them.
I found the 3.6R in the 5th generation Outback to have unacceptable handling characteristics. The front was so heavy that steering inputs felt like suggestions and it didn’t handle cornering over hill crests well. The 2.5L was a better suited to the vehicle in terms of handling. However, it needed the power of the 3.6. It’s a good thing they replaced the 3.6 with the 2.4 turbo in later generations.
The Neon 2.0 engine was powerful for the time, but “agricultural” in refinement. It’s a car that gets a lot of jokes, but I had a ’97 Stratus, with a manual and the 2.0. The all-independent suspension was copied from Honda, and it predated the huge-wheel trend, so the thing managed to handle great and not have a punishing ride. Excellent ergonomics. Roomy trunk and rear seat, the only car I ever had a flat tire in while on a trip, so the full-size spare was very handy. 10 minutes and I was back on the road.
Saddled to a 3-speed automatic was literal punishment for the 2.0. It made it feel awful, and tragically slow.
The 5MT manual OTOH was great, let it reveal its charm, and show that it had some power. The automatic was just awful all around. Agricultural or not, at least you could have fun.
I drove a 2.4 with a 4AT and it wasn’t bad at all. Typical for the era I’d say. Way more refined.
Not just all independent, but double wishbone front – like a Honda as you mentioned.
Plus one for the Neon. So much fun.
Better: LS400. That car can hustle, and the driver inputs are exceptionally predictable.
Worse: MB E320. Vague on center steering that loves to drift around, a DBW throttle that tries to learn your driving style but not as smart as it thinks it is (so it’s never predictable), and a suspension that never settles. Very nice interior lighting though, will give it that.
Better and Worse: Lada. It was a beast to learn how to drive on, since it stalled if you looked at it funny. But it’s also got a nice simplicity to its operation. It was quite sensitive to weather and the horoscope, but somehow predictable in its unpredictability. It’s got an A+ at being a C student.
Which era of E 320 are we talking? I assume you mean the W211?
Spot on — first MY W211. I did like the fit and finish and the interior quite a lot. NVH was also still old school MB. The exterior brought the E class into the 21st century and I think it still looks quite contemporary. But man it was not enjoyable to drive.
I was tremendously let down by my MGB GT. I grew up hearing how well the old British sports cars drove, and I was expecting something at least as good as the NA Miata it was replacing. But the Miata was a better car to drive in every conceivable way. Sharper handling, better ride, and far more confidence-inspiring. I spent nine years trying to convince myself that I liked driving the MG, and failed miserably. It’s still one of the most beautiful coupes ever built in my opinion, but I did not like driving it and I do not miss it.
At the other end of the spectrum, I wasn’t expecting much more than basic transportation from the Peugeot 208 that we rented in Tahiti, but it was an absolute delight. It would be terribly slow and tiny here, but it turned out to be the perfect tool for circumnavigating the island of Moorea. I kept trying to make excuses to drive to the other side of the island, just to drive it more.
A little sad to read this, I’ve always loved the looks of the MGB GT and have even eyed them on Marketplace pretty hard, though never actually driven one. Maybe a hero it’s best not to meet.
It was weird – if I pushed it really hard, it sort of woke up and came alive, but in normal 7/10ths “fun” driving, it was like a tractor. And invariably, every time I pushed it too hard, something broke.
Interesting, I I may get flamed for this but to some extent I’ve felt like that is a little bit my experience in ’80s BMWs and a buddy’s 924S. They were kind of stiff and a even a bit clunky until you started pushing them a little at which point they quickly come alive and just keep getting better, granted that’s probably at like 4/10 and in those cars you can already tell you’re in something special.
I was doing some digging into what people said these were like to drive because an older gent had a clean one for sale at a good price near me and it does seem like the motor those came with is not especially well liked by anyone.
I think you’d have to compare a MG GT to something equivalent of the same era, where it was probably leagues ahead…instead of comparing it to someone of a much different generation.
Worse: Ford Taunus TC2
Better: Citroën BX! Still dream about getting another one every week (owned 3)
Weird that Ford would have a Taurus and a Taunus. I assume because neither were sold in countries across from one another
Must be that 🙂
Never tried a Taurus, but I saw in RoboCop they drive quite well 😀
Which is funny because the ones in the film looked much better than the dopey car it was in real life
The best was the base model Honda N-One rental car I had for an afternoon to drive to Fuji Speedway. I’ve been driving Civics and Fits my entire adult life but the little kei car was so much more fun. I went out of my way to take twisty roads all the way back to the rental office.
The most underwhelming was a 993 C4S. It wasn’t a bad car, but nothing about it felt special in any way, especially compared to its contemporary rival- the 1st gen NSX. It boggles my mind that they’re 6-figure cars now.
Say more about the NSX/993 comparison. I have still yet to drive either, but they’ve been nearly equal in my pantheon of cars I might get someday but probably won’t.
Bear in mind this may be entirely down to personal preference and your results may vary. When I was working at CCC Manhattan a decade ago, we had a ’96 C4S and a ’91 NSX.
The 993 felt outdated even for a car from the mid-90s. We also had a ’69 911T and they didn’t really feel all that different despite the 30 year age gap. I’ve never been a Porsche guy so maybe I just don’t get the hype, but it didn’t feel any quicker or sharper than the NSX, and at least to me had a lot less character. The fact it went for double the price didn’t help either.
The NSX is still my favorite car I’ve ever driven. Everything about it felt special but in an unintimidating way, like you could use 100% of what it had to offer and feel comfortable and natural doing so from the second you got in it. Ours had an exhaust and sounded leagues better than the Porsche.
To prove I’m not just a Porsche hater, the second best car I’ve driven, just one half step below the NSX, was a Cayman GT4.
Better – MR2 Spyder. It’s lighter and better to drive than a Miata.
Better – 6th gen Camaro. Maybe it’s just being used to driving a Viper, but the oft-bemoaned visibility stuff just didn’t affect me at all. It’s a sports car after all.
Better – LC200 Land Cruiser. Actually possessed the bank vault feel and stability that is so often advertised but that I felt was lacking from….
Worse – G Wagen (first gen). This was not a comfortable or easy vehicle to drive, and I drive an HD truck all the time. Add the omnipresent glare from the windshield and the aura of this thing dried up quickly.
Worse – Mazda 3 (2013?). Personal preference thing I’m sure, but I hated the clutch feel in this car.
Worse – Hummer EV. Not sure what my expectations actually were for this goofy thing, but it’s simply not something I would ever buy, and it has nothing to do with the size or the electric nature of the beast. Materials felt cheap, the (base trim) was surprisingly slow, and the price was obscene.
So the G-Wagen drives exactly how I would expect it to drive. Every time I see one of these I’m like “you know you could’ve had an S class, right?”
I’d like to drive a newer one because by all accounts they are much better, but even to someone who is used to solid axles and trucks, the older ones are pretty rough.
I knew one wealthy retiree in Maine who needed the G-Wagon’s capabilities to negotiate his road in bad weather. Every other one I’ve seen obviously never came within a mile of a bad road, never mind a trail.
I drive a lot of rentals and I’ve often surprised at how well your basic crossover drives today.
A Mercedes R-Class could do some crazy things on the Mercedes test track. By far the best of the SUVs sold in the 00’s but buyers in the USA never connected with it.
I’m routinely surprised how well my Express 4500 with an ambulance body drives. Smaller than expected turning circle and good ride from the independent front suspensions. Far better riding that the step vans, medium duty, and RVs with a solid front axle.
Back in 2015 or so, we had an Escape Titanium as a rental car on a trip, and I loved the thing. Comfy for a big guy like me, handled great, decent acceleration. I only really disliked the fact that to get all 240hp, it drank premium, and it was NOT fuel efficient.
Crazy to think of how bad “normal” crossover fuel economy was even a decade ago. Now the RAV4 will crank out 45 mpg burning 87 octane. (That was what my last rental RAV4 averaged over the week)
Yeah, but The RAV4 is likely a hybrid. The Escape was an Eco (HAH!) Boost 2.0T.
I always laughed how the Fusion with that engine was both slower to 60 and way less fuel efficient than the Honda Accord Sport of the day.
Hybrid tech is more than 25 years old and nothing special.
Even 15 years ago Ford was selling a 32 mpg hybrid Escape and Chevy had a 21 mpg Silverado hybrid.
Never said it was new. I was commenting on the gas mileage.
Yes, and the gas mileage for your rental Escape was poor even 15 years ago. The tech was there but most people didn’t take advantage.
Agree that most crossovers drive well even compared to 10 years ago.
That said, we got saddled with a rental Malibu last year which had the same 1.5 turbo powertrain as my work Equinox. My wife pointed out how it was noticeably more comfortable (not needing stiffer springs to prevent body roll), noticeably quicker, and got about 20% better fuel economy. So….yeah.
The Malibu is a sleeper for sure. It is a lot of car for not much money now that they are out of production. I never minded getting one as a rental.
Now that hybrids put crossover fuel economy into the 40’s and EVs put it into the 100’s I can’t say the sedan body style offers much in the way of fuel savings as a tradeoff for the form over function compromise of a trunk vs a hatch.
The disappointment of getting a Malibu stemmed from not getting a Camry – I knew we were going to put over 1000 miles on the car and was excited to try out the new hybrid-only Camry since I booked a bigger car. But the Malibu was comfortable and tool us around Yellowstone’s sometimes steep hills with zero complaints. Agreed, lot of car for the money – super cheap on the used market.
It can be a disappointment if you are looking to drive something new. That is something I try to do when renting cars for work. I’ll even go down a couple classes from what I could get to try an entry level car. Driving a Trax and Trailblazer showed me just how much more bang for the buck a new car buyer is getting on the low end today. (Trax cost the same as a 3 cylinder Geo Metro 30 years ago)
Personally I’m not a fan of the hybrid system in the new Camry or Prius. Still too much droning under acceleration. They managed to mostly fix that in the 2026 RAV4 I recently rented. Much different experience than the 2024 hybrid my parents own.
Ok, this is gonna get weird, but I’ve owned a lot of cars and been surprised by many. Let’s start with one I didn’t own:
I had a ’88 Trans Am with the 5.7 and auto that I bought a little after high school, my brother had a ’85 Firebird with the 3.1 and 5 speed combo he got cheap and we were trying to fix up. Neither of our cars had T tops fortunately, you could see the doors move in their frame going over railroad crossings even with the hardtop. But I agree the v6 car was a surprisingly fun little thing, if you gave up the image of the firebird as a muscle car it was quite a decent sporty coupe, maybe being the lightest version of a chassis designed to take a v8? Even then I think the handling (though maybe not the “feel”) was a highlight of these cars as imo they were never as fast in a straight line as the styling would make you think but they were pretty fun in the twisties. All of this is through the lens of my getting into them circa 2002 so that may have colored my perceptions some.
So I’m not crazy, then. I really, really enjoyed that V6 Camaro. It was red with red insets in the wheels that had faded pink. It was also loud, so it promised way more than it delivered, but it was just a good solid car and pretty easy to work on – especially with all the space the 3.1 left in the engine bay. I recently saw another one like it for sale and had to stop myself because the fleet is too big. Only complaint I had (aside from never getting the AC working) was the clutch felt like the kind of clutch you’d find in a small pickup truck.
RE: the clutch wouldnt’ even shock me if it was an S10 parts bin part, I remember a buddy who also had an ’89 firebird around the same time and had previously owned and wrenched on an early ’90s Blazer and he was always comparing how similar a lot of the suspension parts seemed.
Bad: early-mid 2010s Passat. I was thinking “yeah, this should be good!” when I first tried one, and it was not. The automatic made it feel like sadness, and the manual wasn’t much better. I even tried one again, thinking the first two had to be a couple of bad ones. I know the manual had a bunch of shiny crap on the leather seat that made it slippery. Nope, same issues.
Good: Our new Kia Carnival Hybrid. The V6 was fine — definitely better than our somewhat clapped out 2013 Sienna. But the hybrid puts less weight out front, and moves some of it to where the spare tire would normally be under the car. Add in the super thick steering wheel, and it’s way better to drive than it has any right to be. Plus, it’s fun to drive it trying to max out the fuel economy.
3rd gen Dodge Caravan with the lightweight I4/3A drivetrain. Surprisingly fun to drive. I imagine it’d have been even better with the 5MT
In high school, I delivered office supplies part time, and drove the 1971 Ford Maxivan they had. I got to “borrow” it a few weekends, and it handled really well with new radial tires on it! It even felt sporty on the rural back roads.
When I would travel and rent a car (about every 3 weeks) I had any choice in the Emerald Isle from National. My first choice would always be any Mazda they had (the 6 was my go-to), but lacking any Mazdas, I’d always try some brand or model I’ve never driven. usually avoiding the main stream cars, but sometimes that’s all that’s left.
If you just want to concentrate on ride quality, the worse surprise was a Toyota Rav-4. I was expecting something first class, comfortable and smooth, but this relatively new rental was awful to drive. Throttle and braking felt off, and the noise from the 4-banger was very notable. Maybe it was all really just okay, but seeing how popular the vehicle is, my expectations were higher. Wound up hating it.
Maybe not a great surprise, but a pleasent one, I wound up with a ’25 Altima company car for a while. All in all, it was perfectly fine. Nothing great, but my expectations were so low and it wound up being okay.
I’ve had many other gripes about rentals, but ride/driving those are the 2 that stand out for me.
P.S. National Car Rental remains my favorite rental company. Tried the others, some were nightmares.
Agree mostly on National. Some luminaries from the Emerald Isle include a Stinger GT (!) and a MK8 GTI both in the LA area. Las Vegas has been consistently boring with the Emerald Isle selection in comparison. My last visit I think I figured out why…the good stuff looks to be all over on the Enterprise side unrented. Lined up with a Land Rover and Corvettes by the “Exotic” collection wall was a MK8 GTI. Holding out for those upcharges at Vegas rather than mixing good ones in at midsize prices…
It’s kinda funny maybe it’s just what a person’s comparison points are, I got a RAV4 rental for a road trip to rural Montana summer of 2019 which would’ve been around when that generation first came out. At the time I was pretty impressed by it, and even thought the handling was pretty decent for what it was. Fast forward to this past spring and that’s what I got assigned while on a week trip to Florida and got to say I was a lot less impressed. Kind of loud and just very average feeling, with the interior coming off a bit cheaper feeling than I remembered. And agreed that the motor is no gem, feels like a throwback to the ’90s in terms of noise and roughness.
I had a rental Malibu for 2 weeks while my Volt was in the shop for the BECM replacement and I quite liked it, which I didn’t expect. The 1.5 turbo was surprisingly quick and it got about the same highway economy as my Volt in a much bigger car. I did not like the CVT though, which never seemed to be in the power band I wanted it to be and tended to shudder at stops.
I drove a Fusion that was surprisingly loaded for a rental and it was really nice. It felt much livelier than I expected, a little bit Euro in the handling. Also, the Ford air conditioned seats (not just ventilated) are baller.
A rental Fusion is how I almost bought a used Fusion as a daily driver. But then prices shot up and suddenly it was discontinued.
I was also surprised by the final gen Fusion. I’d just come out of test driving a mildly beat Audi A3 and it felt and handled at least as tight.
The American sedan game was really coming up when they all decided to throw in the towel and focus on trucks and SUV’s.
Great ride/handling balance on those Fusions. Felt far more “European” than the Passats of that generation.
The Passat rental was my other comparison. I wouldn’t say it drove worse than I expected, but certainly different. It was very soft. Smooth, solid, quiet, but not at all sporty. Kind of like my Mk4 Jetta. It was a great highway cruiser. That was a really nice rental too.
100%. Company Fusions x3 and one personal Passat TDI.
I had a few Fusions as rentals over the years and enjoyed them all. If I’d been in the market for a new car at the time they would have been high on my list if the price was right.
My work (local government) still has 2nd Gen Fusion Hybrids in the pool. I enjoy driving them. Good underrated car.
A Subaru Forester in snow is as good as some cars on dry ground. I knew the hype but hadn’t experienced it and then suddenly when I did my loudest, clearest thought was, “Oh, I get it now.”
A Chevy Aveo is shockingly fun. Don’t get me wrong – it’s dreadful. The tinny little box is loud, unburdened by sound dampening and not especially fast. But the willing little engine is perfectly happy to wind out to 5k at every shift – and with little torque to speak of, kind of demands it – and the car itself clings to the road like a coat of paint. Rev-matching on the downshifts so you can keep it on the boil is easy and the clutch takeup is super smooth so you don’t disturb your line even when shifting gears in a tight turn. From inside the car I feel like Speed Racer crossed with Pilot from Farscape – multiple limbs doing different, unknowable things – hustling this wretched little econobox with gleeful abandon. From outside the car, however, I’m just a little car going from A to B, keeping up with traffic.
I worked many years in the Development Department for a big OEM. Big part of my job was to evaluate Benchmark vehicles, regarding interior features and quality, but also big focus on Ride and Handling.
Drove man rather disappointing, but on the other hand also really good cars. Too many to list them all here.
But there are a lot of cars that did not impress me much. On of the worst was the Range Rover Velar. Quite dangerous handling on curvy roads, at least for untrained drivers. Car went into oversteering, ADAS did not intervene. Same day and same conditions with Porsche Cayenne and at least 20kph higher speed…no issues at all.
New car, good tires…yet bad behaviour.
Regarding cars I have owned myself: My Volvo XC70 P3 from 2016 drove way worse than I thought it would…was not too happy with it. But after driving BMW for many many years on a daily basis, you get spoiled regarding Ride and Handling performance.