2000 Economy Sedan Comparison Test

Ah yes, the Dodge (and, for a few more months, the Plymouth) Neon. This was the cute little car that put Chrysler on the economy sedan map when it replaced the Shadow/Sundance twins back in 1994 as a '95 model. From its friendly looks to its nimble handling, the Neon was an excellent combination of fun and function. The optional 150-horsepower, 2.0-liter DOHC engine (standard on early Sport and later R/T models) gave the Neon a distinct performance advantage over competitors from Ford, Honda, and Toyota, while racking up a long list of SCCA championship titles at the hands of professional and amateur racers.

This year the Neon went through its first major redesign. Dodge likes to refer to the 2000 model as the fun economy car that's grown up without growing old. After running the new Neon head-to-head against its competitors, we call it the car that's gained very little while losing a lot. In fact, the "top-of-the-line" ES model we drove had no ABS, CD player, cruise control, rear disc brakes, seat height adjustment or side airbags (those last two items aren't available on the new Neon-even as options).

Our Neon was missing another crucial element in today's competitive economy sedan market: a fourth gear for its automatic transmission. No other vehicle in this test, not even the Hyundai or Daewoo, could make that claim to shame. Like we said earlier, the key to a successful economy sedan is making it not seem like an economy sedan. Here the Neon failed miserably. When climbing hills the car would upshift to third, then lose speed because of a lack of torque, then abruptly drop into second and howl as it accelerated up to cruising speed again, then shift back into third and start the process over again...all without changing the throttle position! A three-speed automatic in a 2000 model-year vehicle, especially a vehicle that is completely redesigned for 2000, screams cost cutting on a level we haven't seen since our last viewing of The Towering Inferno.

Further cost-cutting measures were apparent whenever the Neon traveled above 50 mph. Wind and road noise was among the highest we observed during the comparison test and engine noise from the 132-horsepower 2.0-liter surpassed what we would describe as intrusive, bordering on obnoxious. We're certain the Neon's lack of a fourth-gear overdrive contributed to its excessive engine roar at highway speeds, further proof that this transmission is out of place in the 21st century. The engine itself seemed capable enough, but we'd likely prefer the 150-horsepower version (available in the new R/T model) mated to a five-speed manual.

Even with its fatal flaws the Neon still managed to score points with our editors in certain areas. For instance, steering and suspension ratings were universally high, confirming that some of the original Neon's charm has survived in the current version. During low-speed canyon runs the Dodge remained composed and confident until pushed hard, when body roll and tire squeal became an issue. As one tester noted, "Strikes a good balance between comfort and performance." The car's braking performance was adequate, but pedal feel and feedback was limited and, of course, there was no ABS (though it's available as a $600 option and includes rear wheel disc brakes and traction control).

Exterior and interior design was praised for its attractive and functional appearance, though some staffers commented that the thick C-pillars and high rear deck reduced outward visibility. The all-black interior appealed to editors who thought it looked clean and upscale, but others wished for a contrasting color to break up the monotony. Clear, easy-to-read white-faced gauges and user-friendly HVAC controls kept most drivers happy, but the short front seat bottoms had everyone wishing for more leg support. Audio controls were standard-issue Chrysler, meaning too many small, identical buttons that require too much attention to operate while driving, and nobody liked the "cheesy" carbon-fiber-wannabe dash inserts. We'd prefer to see this money spent elsewhere (like on a four-speed automatic). We were impressed by the three large cupholders located in the center console, but why does the steering wheel look like it's upside down when it isn't?

The Neon still has some bragging rights, including a roomy interior, a sleek exterior design and above average build quality. Our test unit exhibited no rattles or squeaks and had impressively tight tolerances between the exterior panels. If this car were cheaper than all of the others on this test, an argument could be made for the Neon as the choice for cash-strapped buyers. But the Daewoo and Hyundai are less expensive and the Nissan is only $400 more. All of these cars were better equipped than the Dodge and finished much further up the ladder in our final standings.

The only consolation we can give Dodge is to tell them that the Neon can easily be fixed. Up the content level, give us a four-speed automatic, and reduce the cabin noise at highway speeds. Do this while keeping the costs in check and the Neon would be a truly competitive entry in this class.

Editor Comments

The Neon is more mature now. It's bigger, more refined. I have full confidence saying it is now a better economy sedan. But I say that as a backhanded compliment. Crank windows in back? No map lights? Come on. I preferred the unpretentious nature of the previous Neon. I also miss the old Neon R/T and the DOHC 150-horsepower engine. -- Brent Romans

The strange duck of the test. Three-speed automatic transmission and power windows for front occupants only? Dodge. Different indeed! The recent facelift helped, but the interior is dated and the vehicle really needs a four-speed automatic to be competitive. The steering in this vehicle was phenomenal. This was the only vehicle that really communicated what was happening underfoot, without jolting the cabin to death. In the canyons the Neon is light, nimble and easy to throw around, yet on the highway the cabin noise is a bit harsh for the average consumer. -- Scott Mead

Rather Disney in its appeal - you know people will buy the Neon because of its big, deep buggy eyes and its loud (as Hell), unrefined engine. Perhaps refinement is irrelevant anyhow, since the Neon drives as though it aspires to be one of the large cars in the Dodge fleet (the Intrepid is also very loud). The Neon has wonderfully weighted steering feel and it's quite responsive to steering input. But take the Neon on the freeway and watch it attempt to hide its transmission's lethargy at middle speeds through a front of excessive engine, road and wind noise. -- Erin Riches

Neon is stylishly handsome, and has an upscale, "big car" interior design. It's comfortable for front seat passengers, and exhibits good build quality. The stereo will satisfy all but the most discerning owners. However, Chrysler opted to cut costs where people will find the evidence. Our ES model had no cruise control and no alloy wheels, but it did have rear magazine pockets. An auto-down driver's window is nonexistent, but there's a useless headliner grab handle for the driver. Plus, two of the door seals leaked water in a gas station car wash. Add the senseless choices regarding content to the fact that our Neon was saddled with a three-speed automatic, and you wonder if the person in charge of development dollars still has a job. The final nails in Neon's coffin are labeled noise, vibration, and harshness. Had we tested the manual transmission model, I might have liked the car more. As it stands, I'll pass, and recommend others do the same. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: Third

System Score: 6.5

Components. System consists of two 6x9 speakers on the back deck, plus a pair of 6-inch mid-bass drivers in the lower front doors. There are two wonderful upward-firing tweeters built into the top of the dashboard which produce a fantastic reflective treble sound. There are no speakers in the rear doors. Electronics include an AM/FM/cassette with a thunderous power amplifier hidden somewhere in the system. Unfortunately, this system does not have a CD player. But good God, does this thing have bass!

Performance. One nice thing Chrysler did here was get the radio high enough in the dash so that it's above the gearshift knob. Controls are a little lower than I like them, but unobstructed and easy to get to. Also, a huge, meaty, notched volume knob is exceptionally easy to find and use. Overall, the radio is laid out adequately.

The best part of this system is the power amp. It truly cranks. I had the volume knob pegged and heard virtually no harshness or clipping.

The upward-firing tweeters in the dash look odd at first (they're spaced at different distances from the windshield), but produce awesome results. The Chrysler engineers obviously knew what they were doing. The soundstage is startling and dramatic - what a fine presentation. This is an impressive system.

Conclusion. Man, this thing rocks! Although, as with most Chrysler stereos, there's more muscle here than refinement. Still, I feel it represents an excellent value to the consumer. Who wouldn't love this stereo in their car? Not as warm or refined as some systems, but a superb value.

A final thought: Don't buy this car without a CD player. It's too good a system not to have one.

Ranking: Eighth

Trunk Size: 11.8 cubic feet

With its larger brother, the Intrepid, doing such a good job of hauling people around, we expected the redesigned Neon to score high in terms of back seat room. We were wrong. Certain features, like commodious headroom, a single cupholder, adjustable headrests, and a comfortable seatback angle were actually quite appealing. But once underway we discovered multiple problems with the Neon's passenger accommodations.

The low seat bottom used uncomfortably hard cushions that provided almost no leg support. Foot room wasn't much better, requiring our testers to jam their feet under the front seats with considerable concern about getting them un-wedged. Beyond these comfort issues was the niggling problem of roll-down rear windows while the front passengers get power units. Think you'll just upgrade to a higher option so the kids won't have to crank their windows up and down? Dodge doesn't offer power rear windows on the Neon for any price. LAME!

Expanding the Neon's cargo capacity is as easy as pulling two straps in the rear seatbacks. Unfortunately the seatbacks don't fold flat and the Neon has a rather high liftover for getting objects into the trunk. The trunk opening itself is large enough, but the rear wheel wells greatly impinge upon total cargo space and those hinges holding up the trunk lid will crush anything that gets near them when it shuts. Best to keep fragile items up front where these "talons" can't destroy them.

Finishing a scant 3/10 of a percentage point ahead of the Dodge is Honda's venerable Civic. Except for the Chevrolet Cavalier, this is the oldest car in the test with its last major redesign coming way back in 1996. Despite its dated platform, the Civic performed admirably during the test and it wasn't until the final numbers crunch that we saw how poorly the old man stacked up against the younger competition. Normally, Honda cars' greatest strength comes from their lack of any serious weakness. So how is it that the Civic, by all accounts a benchmark in the economy car class, could finish second to last? Well, it's quite a tale.

First, we should reiterate that this was a LX trim sedan because the EX was too expensive to meet our comparison test's price cap. Also, this particular Civic LX came from Event Vehicles (www.eventvehicles.com) in Beverly Hills because Honda was unable to supply us with a car that fit our specific requirements for the test. Several key features, such as ABS and side airbags, are not available on LX trim Civics, even as extra-cost options. Other items, like remote keyless entry and a CD or cassette player, have to be dealer-installed (likely incurring the costly dealer mark-ups that go along with such installations). Despite this lack of feature content, our Civic priced out at over $16,000, making it the fourth most expensive vehicle in the test. It seems to us that Honda is asking buyers to overlook a lot in terms of price and feature content just because of that "H" symbol on the hood.

If that "H" symbol were coupled with a truly stellar car then maybe we could overlook the value issue, but when facing off against newer entries from Mazda, Ford and Nissan, the Civic simply can't compete. One look at the performance numbers shows where the Honda took a major hit. Garnering this group's lowest figure, 40 percent, after instrumented testing, it was nearly 20 percent down from the next lowest vehicle.

Of course, that number doesn't tell the whole story. Going through our editors' notes we found quite a few comments about the car's predictable and balanced nature, yet most compliments were tempered with remarks like "harsh suspension over bumps and expansion joints" and more than one driver complained of excessive body roll due to soft shocks. Steering was described as refined with good feel, yet the spindly steering wheel required lots of input to negotiate tight corners. The non-ABS brakes were rated as progressive and easy to modulate, but one editor found them fading during a canyon run and compared the associated pedal feel to a "wet noodle." Instrumented testing had the Civic stopping from 60 mph in a front-end crunching, airbag deploying 155 feet!

Drivetrain characteristics, normally a strong suit with Honda products, did little to impress our staff. The 1.6-liter, non-VTEC engine makes a very usable 106-peak horsepower and 103-maximum foot-pounds of torque, but the engine itself is a bit loud, especially at higher rpm. While the torque band is flat and broad to make the most of those 103 foot-pounds, peak power is down compared to others in the class, as the car's lackluster acceleration figures confirm. Transmission problems also appeared as seven of our nine testers used the word "sluggish" or "clunky" in their tranny comments.

But economy sedans aren't all about performance, right? What about interior comfort, ergonomics and build quality? Here's where the Civic should have posted its highest marks and, not surprisingly, it did. Driver comfort, for instance, was consistently rated high by our team (except for our one rebel editor who never fails to complain about Honda's "too-reclined seatback angle"). Seats were universally praised for being soft yet supportive and neither legroom, headroom or hip room was an issue. Ergonomics, too, were nearly flawless with easy to reach/use climate controls and clearly visible gauges. Slots for two different-sized drinks are located in front of the shifter, but the holes are on the shallow side.

Considering how old the design is, it's amazing that the Civic still matches the competition in terms of interior design. There's no doubt that many of the newer cars in this test used the Civic as their benchmark for control placement. There's also no doubt that a Civic EX, which exceeded our $17,000 price cap by $300, would have fared much better. This vehicle has standard ABS, remote keyless entry and a CD player. It also has Honda's sweet 1.6-liter VTEC engine that makes 127 horsepower. These items certainly would have helped the Civic in both the feature content and performance categories, but it's troubling that Honda demands over 17 grand to get them.

Hondas are known for their uninspiring yet inoffensive body lines. Most editors agreed that the Civic had more character than the Corolla or Cavalier, with specific negative comments being directed toward the "old, black plastic door handles that stand out" and an overall shape that is getting tired. Other editors felt the clean design would wear well over time.

The good news for Honda (and Honda fans) is that a completely redesigned Civic is right around the corner. The 2001 Civic will be in dealer showrooms before the end of the year and we suspect it will address many of the issues brought to light during our comparison test. The 2000 Civic, like most Honda products, can't accurately be described as a bad car, even with an eighth-place finish, but the bar has been dramatically raised since 1996 and the cost of owning a five-year old Civic design just isn't worth it.

Editor Comments

I think the design is really starting to show its age. The interior was plain and rather sparse, and the steering wheel was far too thin for my tastes. I found driving the car was boring and not very smooth in terms of its suspension damping. Acceleration was also weak, but the biggest problem I had with the car was its transmission. It didn't shift up fast enough when accelerating and when slowing down it would lurch while going from third to second or second to first. Of course, the car has a proven track record and the resale value will be relatively high. -- Scott Jacobs

I was so surprised that I didn't like this car more. The engine was incredibly loud and obnoxious and the tires lacked adequate grip when cornering. I still liked all the interior storage bins throughout the car, and the suspension seemed well sorted for the most part. However, I preferred the previous generation Civic compared to this bland sedan in terms of exterior design. I'm glad the car is due for a redesign. -- Liz Kim

If the Civic were an Aries, its horoscope would read, "Beware of Y2K." This is the year the Civic is most vulnerable. The chassis is five years old, and the redesign doesn't come out until 2001. What surprises me is how well the "old" Civic still competes with most of its newer competition. If the new Civic is considerably better, the industry will once again have to readjust their sights. -- Brent Romans.

Despite our claims otherwise, all automotive journalists enter tests with certain expectations and prejudices. I had some for the Civic. Thinking it was the veteran of the group (only younger than the Cavalier by a year), and a mid-grade LX model with a weak engine and automatic transmission to boot, I was expecting the Civic to get pummeled by newer, more recent designs. The benchmark in the class for five years, Civic is a still a player thanks to its roomy, comfortable cabin, fine driving position, docile demeanor when shuttling around town, and high-quality feel to the interior and underbody hardware. Yes, the engine's loud when revved, and there's excessive wind noise at extra-legal speeds on the freeway, but most people don't drive these cars this way most of the time. Still classy-looking outside (Accord Jr.), all our test car needs to transform its personality from dowdy librarian's car to phat-ass ride is a nice set of rims and tires, a thumping stereo and some tinted glass. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: Ninth (Last)

System Score: 1.0

Components. When was the last time you saw a new car without a CD player or a cassette deck in it? Welcome to the 2000 Honda Civic LX.

The audio system consists of six-by-nine speakers on the rear deck and six-inch full range drivers in the front doors. There are no speakers in the rear doors, and there are no tweeters in the system. The radio is an AM/FM receiver with 12 FM/six AM presets. The faceplate has a fairly flat appearance, with small, rounded buttons and an LCD display. One nice touch: the radio is elevated in the dash, allowing for easy viewing and accessibility. Unfortunately, there's little to access, since this is a real "bare bones" audio system.

Performance. Honda is usually known for pretty decent stereos, and the Honda Civic is a good car. But with neither a CD player nor a cassette to recommend it, this system has little going for it. Highs are flat and indistinguishable, bass frequencies lack definition or even much in terms of dynamics. It is difficult to evaluate effectively without good source material. The speakers, while not exceptional, show some signs of life on certain tracks. The amplifier also is of sufficient quality to produce a good sound pressure level. The FM receiver pulls in most stations with little noise or flup-flup. My guess is that this system would sound pretty decent with a better source unit. As it stands, we must file it under not recommended.

Conclusion. Unless you're really strapped for cash, buy a Civic with at least a cassette player. You'll get a lot more enjoyment out of it. This system, as currently configured, doesn't have a lot going for it and finished last out of nine vehicles.

Ranking: Fifth

Trunk Size: 11.9 cubic feet

"Adequate" was the Honda catch phrase when it came to rear seat design. Our passengers found adequate leg-, knee-, and foot room. Lumbar support was...adequate and the overall seat cushion rating was neither too hard nor too soft, just...well, you know. The flexible front seatbacks meant that rear passenger knees could contact them without getting crunched. Comfortable and well-placed armrests gave outboard passengers additional support.

A lack of rear seat headrests and a seatback angle that was too reclined kept us from scoring the Honda higher. We were dismayed when our tall-torso-ed rider made contact with the roof during a speedbump test (ouch!), and both riders wanted a higher seat bottom elevation for improved leg support. Passengers are left to create ways to secure their drinks because no cupholders are available.

One of the few Civic-exclusive features was a valet lock on the rear shelf to lower the rear seatback. Once dropped, the 60/40-split seatback sections folded nearly flat and a large trunk opening, with a low liftover, made loading items easy.

"Wait a minute! Is Edmunds.com suggesting that the Neon, Civic, and Corolla are the worst three economy sedans currently available? You're claiming that these three giants of the economy car world are that bad?"

To put it simply: YES! But if it's any consolation to our Dodge, Honda and Toyota fans out there, less than half a percentage point separated these vehicles in their final score. So what we're really saying is that all of these cars are equally disappointing, but each had its own unique reasons for placing so low in the final standings. Where the Dodge got hammered for its blatant cost-cutting efforts and the Honda was hurt primarily by poor performance numbers and a boring shape, the Corolla managed to do nothing very well while being the second most expensive car in the test.

At over $18,000, we half expected this "economy" car to have automatic climate control and a GPS-based navigation system. Instead we found no remote keyless entry, no seat height adjustment, and no rear disc brakes (the latter two unavailable for any price on a Corolla and the keyless entry available only as a dealer-installed option). Again, this car cost over $18,000 - and no keyless entry?! OK, well how about a glovebox light, map lights or seatback map pockets? How about illuminated vanity mirrors or a cargo net or 15-inch alloy wheels? How about fog lights or dual power points (even the Dodge had both of those)? Nope, nope, and definitely not.

In Toyota's defense, we should mention that our Corolla did have some pretty impressive (and expensive) options, including a six-disc in-dash CD player, antilock brakes, side airbags, cruise control and a power moonroof. In fact, with the exception of burlwood dash accents, a rear spoiler, and the dreaded gold package, our Corolla was about as loaded as they come.

Still, this is an economy car and we feel most buyers with 18 large to drop on an automobile might want to consider a Camry CE or, even better, a Taurus SE (both with more power and interior room than a Corolla) for about the same cost. If you have to buy a Corolla, even a standard LE trim model with antilock brakes, side airbags and a single CD player will set you back approximately $16,700 (and you still won't have rear disc brakes, remote keyless entry or a driver's seat height adjustment). As with the Civic, Toyota is expecting its brand and reputation to support a somewhat bloated MSRP.

Also hurting the Corolla was its performance ranking after instrumented testing. Acceleration from the 120-horsepower, 1.8-liter four cylinder engine was brisk at 8.9 seconds in zero-to-60 times. But braking from 60 mph, even with the optional antilock brakes, took 147 feet. Only the non-ABS-equipped Honda needed more space and several other non-ABS cars, like the Nissan Sentra, Hyundai Elantra, and Dodge Neon, stopped shorter. The only thing worse than an expensive option is an expensive option that doesn't work.

Handling was another touchy aspect in the Corolla, with our test driver scoring only a 57.7 mph through the 600-foot slalom. The Toyota's light rear end was constantly trying to step out and send it into a spin (succeeding more than once). Of course, few economy car buyers will drive their cars in this fashion, but that doesn't change the fact that the car is twitchy at the limit. The car's lack of composure in the slalom did play out on our standard driving loop were every editor complained about sloppy, numb steering, excessive body roll and squishy/squealy tires that lacked grip.

Thankfully, not all aspects of the Corolla were as poorly received by the editorial staff. The shifter was given high marks for its short throws, positive engagement and easily-modulated clutch. The engine was repeatedly described as smooth, powerful, and refined, and the Toyota's highway ride was silky smooth with nary a hint of wind or road noise. However, a strange, high-pitched buzzing, located just above the gauge cluster near the windshield, was reported by several staffers.

Our drivers also reported that front seat comfort was among the worst of the gathered cars. Lack of side bolstering and lumbar support were common complaints, and two of our taller drivers felt legroom and headroom was inadequate. Contributing to our comfort woes was an exceedingly difficult entry and exit process created by the Corolla's low seating position and tight quarters. This situation was exacerbated by generally poor impressions of the sedan's interior design. Most drivers questioned the gray colors used for the gauge cluster, even though their orange glow at night impressed one editor.

Radio placement was described as too low and difficult to see due to protruding center stack trim that separated the stereo controls from the climate controls, but the large HVAC dials were considered conveniently located and easy to use. Two large cupholders each accommodated a 1-liter water bottle, and interior materials and construction received top marks as did overall build quality which, as one editor stated, "put the Chevy and Ford to shame."

Certainly the Corolla had its strong points, but value, comfort and overall performance weren't included among them. This led our editors to downgrade the car in both their personal picks and recommended categories, further eroding the Toyota's final score.

Editor Comments

Quick game of word association. What do you think of when I say "Toyota Corolla?" I think of yams, but you don't need to know why. Most people would come up with "safe," "reliable," and "dependable." True to the nameplate, the 2000 Corolla continues the trend. It's a security blanket. I don't think I'd buy one, though. For $18,000 I need more design and style. -- Brent Romans

I was looking forward to testing this car because my first car was a Corolla, but I must say that I was disappointed. There's something floaty and insubstantial about it, as if it'll go blowing away if a mighty gust wills it to do so. The styling is tepid and boring. It feels like Toyota went for 70-percent effort with this car. I think that having a winner (at least in terms of sales) for all of these years has made Toyota complacent, and they've gotten lazy with the details. -- Liz Kim

This thing was worse on the "blah" scale than the Honda. It was just plain all over. Nothing really to gripe about, just damn boring. The car drove like it looked, too. The engine was a tad sluggish so you couldn't accelerate quickly or find the power to make a highway pass easily. The steering was excessively loose and sloppy in my opinion. I lost quite a bit of confidence in the car on downhill corners. Even when I wasn't pushing it all that much the tires squealed like frightened pigs. The suspension had plenty of roll to it and compared to other cars in this test it didn't inspire anything in me except a yawn. About the only thing this car has going for it is Toyota's reputation of reliability. Buy this car, be an automaton and don't worry about anything automotive. You may want to get a personality check though... -- Scott Jacobs Corolla offers a great ride, a refined and zippy powertrain, excellent build quality, top-notch interior materials and a bulletproof reputation for reliability. Resale value is good, and though uninspired, Corolla isn't ugly. Call it nondescript. Its main downfall, aside from a ridiculously difficult to operate stereo, lies with passenger accommodations-or the distinct lack thereof. The seats are uncomfortable, but beyond that, they don't offer enough range of adjustability for larger people. There's no way I'd pick this for a daily commute, much less a cross-country road trip. Not when there's a more comfortable Honda, Mazda, Ford or Nissan available. If you've got to have a Corolla and don't care about resale because you drive your cars until the wheels fall off, grab the identical but less expensive Chevy Prizm twin, for which rebates are usually available. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: Eighth

System Score: 2.0

Components. System consists of two four-inch full range speakers on the back deck, two six-inch full range in the front doors, and no speakers in the rear doors. There are no tweeters in this system. Electronically, there is an AM/FM radio in the lower dash (if it were any lower, it'd be on the street) and a nice six-disc CD changer built into the upper portion of the dash. Ergonomics are the worst I've seen, with radio placement that is not only inconvenient, but downright dangerous (even worse with a stickshift -- what were these people thinking?). My notes say, "Horrible radio placement! Can't get to the presets easily because of the gearshift knob. Have to curve my wrist very uncomfortably to access radio presets."

Performance. Before we even get to performance, I must point out Toyota's dishonesty in design. Looking along the back deck, with those beautiful, huge speaker grills staring you in the face, you would think the system has a nice pair of six-inch full-range speakers back there. And you'd be wrong. Through a direct act of subterfuge, Toyota has slipped a cozy little pair of cheesy, cheap four-inch drivers there. Yuck! And dishonest! I was really fuming when I saw this. My notes say, "How much more would it have cost Toyota to put some decent six-inch full range drivers back there?" C'mon Toyota, don't pull a Siegfried & Roy on us. Consumers respond to value these days, not acts of illusion. This is a very dishonest design by a credible company. Why? The system itself didn't sound horrible, considering its lack of componentry, but I downgraded it considerably for the lack of honesty in design.

Conclusion. As if the speaker debacle weren't bad enough, the radio and CD player placement are almost worse. I have two suggestions for Toyota:

1. Switch the position of the radio and the CD changer. Amazing that a company this experienced and reputable would make such an obviously glaring mistake.

2. Better yet, get rid of the CD changer altogether, or convert it to a single play, and use the saved money to give the system some desperately needed amplification, tweets in the doors., etc.

A very poorly thought-out system that deserves low scores no matter how good it sounds.

Ranking: Seventh

Trunk Size: 12.1 cubic feet

Because much of what hurt the Toyota was its passenger space (or lack thereof), the car didn't score well in this area, either. Positive points are few and far between, but they include firm seat cushions, one cupholder, supportive headrests, and usable, though very tight, foot room.

Making even the Sentra feel big, the Corolla had minimal legroom and required rear passengers to get creative when figuring out where to put their limbs. Some tried the splay-legged approach, others sat bolt upright with their legs wedged into the front seatbacks, still others simply collapsed in horror, letting body parts fall where they may. Entry to the Corolla's rear seat was challenging, but extricating yourself truly required Yoga-like talent...or help from a sympathetic friend. This car should not be used as a people-mover.

Instead, fold the rear seatbacks forward and revel in the large trunk opening with low liftover. You have to open the trunk to get to the seatback releases, but once they are down (which requires removing the rear headrests because-you guessed it-they hit the front seatbacks if left in place) you can easily pile things into the large trunk. Hey, it's not a five passenger sedan. It's a two-seat truck with a covered bed!

You say you want an economy sedan with performance? You're looking for a cross between a 1969 Hemi Roadrunner and a 2001 Toyota Prius, something that offers an unbeatable combination of power, utility and fuel economy at a cheap price? Plus you're a sucker for that old Dinah Shore song about seeing the U.S.A. in a Chevrolet?

Then the 2000 Cavalier LS sedan is your baby. No, it doesn't make 425 horsepower while getting 40-plus mpg like a true Roadrunner/Prius combination would, but among these nine econo cars the Cavalier was the clear performance king. It's zero-to-60 time was a neck-straining 7.9 seconds, more than ½ second ahead of the next closest competitor. That same advantage held through the quarter-mile with the Chevy posting a 16.2-second quarter mile time at 85 mph. Just to put things into perspective, we'll tell you that those numbers are better than a V8-powered Lincoln LS or Audi A6 2.8. Oh, and did we mention that our car was equipped with an automatic transmission? This thing rocked at the track.

The Cavalier also received a passing score in the features department with items like antilock brakes, air conditioning and cruise control standard on all LS models (ABS is standard even on base model Cavaliers). Unfortunately, you can't get rear disc brakes, a driver's seat height adjustment, or side airbags on a Cavalier at any price. But $880 will score you the LS' Preferred Equipment Group that includes power mirrors, power windows with a one-touch-down driver's window, power locks, remote keyless entry, a security system and an AM/FM stereo with CD player.

Our car was also equipped with the optional 2.4-liter engine that makes a healthy 150 horsepower and 155 foot-pounds of torque, no doubt contributing to the Chevy's accelerative powers. All this, plus 15-inch aluminum wheels and a $510 destination charge, for a grand total of $16,845 gave the Cavalier a mid-pack value rating and proved that going fast and having some extra-cost options doesn't have to cost a bundle.

A combination like this could have placed much better than sixth in our test, so what gives? Well, although the Chevy placed first in performance and finished mid-pack in features and value, it scored dead last in the 25-point evaluation category and, not surprisingly, this led to last-place finishes in both personal and recommended picks by the editorial team.

Going through the evaluation sheets we noticed consistent mid- to high scoring in areas like engine, transmission, braking, and even tire performance. Many drivers wished for more steering feedback and all of them felt the suspension allowed for too much body roll and wallow through corners. Still, the Cavalier had no glaring deficiencies when it came to its driving characteristics, so what kept it from placing higher in the evaluation process?

Digging deeper we discovered that front seat comfort was a sore spot (literally) with our testers, who complained about everything from a lack of thigh and lower back support to minimal side bolstering to tight legroom. A mismatched height between the brake and gas pedals made rapid transitions between them clumsy and several editors noted a clicking sounding from the instrument panel when traversing bumps. Wind and road noise at highway speeds was noticeable, though not irritating.

Analyzing the Chevy's build quality had us sarcastically humming the "great GM feeling" song. Making our list were misaligned interior and exterior panels, a crooked front fascia, exposed screw heads in the door handle pockets, and a power window switch pod in the center console (goofy location) that was far too easy to remove. One editor pulled the B-pillar molding off without even trying while another noticed a sagging rear headliner that seemed to be taunting us with a "come on, you know you want to yank on me and watch the roof collapse" attitude.

Adding to our dissatisfaction with the Cavalier's overall construction were questionable interior materials and a blocky, '80s-inspired design theme. Even for an economy sedan there was way too much cheap-looking plastic in and around the dash area. The steering wheel, gauge cluster and dash vents had the ambiance of a prison camp and the console shifter was an aberration in terms of form and function. Climate and radio controls were large and easy to use but they lacked any sort of style and grace. Two tiny pods mounted ahead of the center console tried to pass for cupholders, and a third, larger beverage receptacle could be found inside the center console...but using it would mean no center armrest.

As the oldest design in this test, we expected the Cavalier to lack the polish of the newer cars. But the Civic is only a year younger and, in terms of ergonomics (not to mention build quality), the two cars seem to be from different millennia.

In today's fast-paced world it's tough for automakers to get more than five years out of vehicle without a complete redesign. Sure enough, the Cavalier is in serious need of an update and will continue to fall behind the competition until it gets one. However, even a redesign won't address the ever-present question of GM build quality. That will take a redesign of GM itself. Until then we'll keep praising the company's drivetrains and panning its build quality standards.

Editor Comments

This thing was confused. It had some great points to it and some god-awful points to it. The good points were the responsive transmission and the powerful engine that gave it the ability to get moving quickly. The bad points were the terrible build quality in areas like the window switch pod, headliner and various misaligned panels made from cheap plastic. Finally, exterior styling was less than inspired. -- Scott Jacobs

Torque. That's the best part of the Cavalier, and there's a ton of it. If there's anything great about the Cavalier, it's the powertrain. From idle to redline, there's an incessant rush of power and growl from the exhaust that's anything but the sound of a four-banger. Coupled to a stellar four-speed automatic, the Cavalier has a lot of performance potential but, unfortunately, the rest of the vehicle is aching to catch up. For instance, the steering gives no feedback or road feel, the suspension is overly compliant with a fair amount of undulation due to weak rebound valving in the struts. Throw in the wind noise and ratty shifter, plus less than average fit-and-finish, and you have a true love/hate relationship. -- Scott Mead

Ugh -- what a chore it is to drive this thing. Literally it was a pain in the ass -- my butt and back started hurting 20 minutes into driving the car. The seat is malformed and leaves your back doing an acrobatic arch the whole time you're sitting. And with no lumbar support, it's not a pretty sight. Add to that the mismatched pedal heights, as well as the soft suspension, and you have a recipe for detest. The only thing that this car has going for it is the powerful engine. -- Liz Kim

Not bad for a six-year-old GM product. It still looks fresh on the outside, and the interior is reasonably well executed in many respects. In fact, there are signs of brilliance here and there. But then there are equal parts crappy materials, passenger discomfort, lousy build quality, and sloppy design detail to offset much of the positive commentary regarding the interior. You'd think they'd spend the money on the parts of the vehicle that the driver and passengers always see, but GM never seems to do that. Interiors get the short end of the budgetary stick. The powertrain is strong and entertaining, lacking only refinement in terms of NVH. Handling and ride are pretty good, but brake and steering feel leave plenty to be desired. Fortunately, Cavalier's 2003 replacement will be engineered in Europe. This car's Achilles' heel is its rental car persona. Nobody wants to own the same ride that thousands of business travelers and sales reps are driving every day. Hard to believe this rapidly aging Cavalier still has a shelf life dated 2002. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: Fifth

System Score: 5.5

Components. Speakers on the back deck are full range six-by-nines. Six-inch full range speakers occupy the front doors. There are no speakers in the rear doors. Also, no tweeters in the system. Radio consists of AM/FM with single-play CD and no cassette player, with 12 FM and six AM presets.

Performance. Surprisingly, I found a lot of things I liked about this system. It begins with a very nice layout on the radio. Buttons are large and widely spread apart, making them very easy to use and find. Especially nice are the large, notched volume and tuner knobs on the left side of the radio. Also, the radio is positioned properly in the dash, not too high, not too low, just right (perfect position to rest your arm on the gearshift knob while playing with the controls, presets, etc. -- I tried, and it worked well). My notes say, "clean, well-spaced instrumentation with large buttons and knobs." Also, a big, easy-to-read digital readout.

Things are not as rosy on the sonic side. Because the system lacks tweeters or sufficient amplification, the sound quality is poor. My notes say, "Muddled female voices overall. Muted. Dull." Also, "Nancy Griffith's voice sounds boxy, constrained, muted. Not very good reproduction," "Iris Dement sounds strained and grainy." Lacking tweeters or even very good speakers in the bottoms of the front doors makes for pretty lackluster sound. Surprisingly, the soundstage held together okay, presenting a definite right, center, left feel, but the system just doesn't have enough componentry to get up and dance.

Conclusion. I rated this system fifth on the strength of its ergonomics and layout. It really doesn't sound very good at all, and would almost be rated dead last, if not for its usability features. Specifically, it needs tweeters and a larger power amplifier (rather anemic compared to the competition). Because it is underpowered, the amp clips sooner than most in the test, and the voices get grainy and harsh. A final note: what's with the speaker perfs in the bottom of the front door, GM? These are the God-ugliest speaker facings I've seen in over twenty years. It looks like someone cut them out with a hacksaw. Did you go to ugly school to design these? Geesh! Not only are they ugly; they're sonically inferior too.

I just don't understand this company sometimes.

Ranking: Ninth

Trunk Size: 13.6 cubic feet

When you're the oldest hen in the roost it's tough to keep up with the spring chickens. Too bad a Cavalier redesign is three years away because a cargo net, two cupholders and mediocre foot room are the only nice things we can say about the Cavalier's rear passenger and cargo accommodations.

The main problem here is a low seat bottom height that forces adult-sized legs up and into the dreaded "eat your knees" position. Adding injury to insult is tight foot room that has ankles rubbing against hard metal bars on the front seat bottoms. One editor described the seatback shape as a "C-clamp" after our test loop and another said "it was the only vehicle that actually caused me pain." The low seating position means the door-mounted armrests are too high to be of any use; and don't look for any headrests or grab handles.

It's somewhat amazing that the car with the largest trunk landed in last place, but Chevrolet committed a major "no-no" when they failed to give the Cavalier a split-folding rear seat back. At least you can fold the seat forward without opening the trunk due to a convenient pull-strap. The Cavalier's protruding rear bumper and deep trunk floor make loading heavy items a tricky affair. However, the trunk opening, like the trunk itself, is quite large.

NEWSFLASH: Dateline Los Angeles: Edmunds.com rates Daewoo Nubira a better economy sedan than the Chevy Cavalier, Dodge Neon, Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla.

OK, now that we've restated the obvious, we have only three words for all of those more established economy-car fans who are undoubtedly putting finger to keyboard in a fit of rage: Get Over It! If you don't like where "your" car finished, don't write to us, write to the car companies. They actually have the ability to do something about their vehicles' poor showing. As for Daewoo, we have to give them a nod of recognition for a job that, if not exactly "well done" at least earns them a grade of "not bad."

How did the youngest car company in this test manage to leapfrog four industry heavies? By scoring above 90 percent in two of our five categories. First comes price at a couch change-like $13,955 as-tested. Producing and selling an economy sedan, of any caliber, in today's world for under $14,000 is no simple task. It's an even more impressive feat when the car is loaded with features. To score high in the content area, as the Protege did, is easy when the car costs over $18,000. And producing a low-buck car that lacks any real content, like the Neon, is also a no-brainer. But scoring a 98.3 percent on price and 91.7 percent on features, as the Daewoo does, says a great deal about this company's ability to deliver the most for the least.

In terms of content, the Nubira possessed 11 of our 12 most desired features, missing only side airbags which, unfortunately, are not an option. Standard features on the Nubira in CDX trim include air conditioning, antilock brakes, a CD player, cruise control, power door locks, power mirrors, power windows, rear disc brakes, remote keyless entry, driver's seat height adjustment and a tilt steering wheel. In fact, the only option our test car had was carpeted floor mats for $105.

In addition to our 12 "featured" features, the Nubira possessed several items that none of the other cars in this test had. These included a fold-down rear seat armrest, heated exterior mirrors, a stereo mute button, and articulating front seat headrests. It was also one of only three cars in the test to have rear disc brakes (Sentra and Elantra also had them) and A-pillar-mounted tweeters (Neon and Elantra had these as well).

Does this fifth-place finish mean that Daewoo will soon rule the economy car class? Not exactly. Its score was still 20 percentage points behind our first-place finisher and some serious issues still need to be addressed. Premier among them is the lackluster performance provided by the Nubira's engine and transmission combination. With a peaky 129 horsepower available up at 5,400 rpm, the Nubira engine has to be revved to make any real forward progress. Problem is, the engine doesn't liked to be revved and gets quite buzzy and loud when the tach swings past 3,000. Throw in the Daewoo's rubbery 5-speed transmission with long throws, excessive driveline lash, and high gearing, and you're left with a very difficult car to drive smoothly.

We wouldn't suggest you drive this car at accelerated speeds. Neither the suspension nor the steering is prepared for anything beyond rudimentary roadway travel. Extended highway cruising was annoying due to a droning exhaust note that could induce migraine headache symptoms after about 15 minutes. So you exit the freeway and power the Nubira through a canyon or two to quell your throbbing head, right? Wrong. You'll experience undue amounts of body roll, heavy steering with minimal feel, and ear-splitting tire squeal. Even its braking characteristics, despite the presence of rear discs, had several staffers complaining about a lack of feedback and occasional fade. This is not a performance car and it lets you know that at the first turn of the wheel.

The Nubira compensates for its performance failings with a roomy and well-thought-out interior. Driver accommodations were rated as excellent with firm cushions and plenty of adjustments, including seat height and a rotary knob allowing for infinite seat back angle settings. Leg-, head-, and hip room was never an issue, even for our tallest drivers.

It wasn't until we closely inspected the Nubira's interior design that we began to see how Daewoo has kept the MSRP so low. Specific mention was made of the harsh foam headliner, flimsy cupholders, exposed screw heads and mismatched interior textures. Climate and cruise controls were described as clunky by more than one staffer, and the location of items like the rear window defrost and hazard buttons seemed out of place to one editor. Use those small, flimsy, slide-out cupholders and the radio is completely blocked.

Exterior design cost the Nubira a few more points with drivers in near-universal agreement about its dumpy back end, funky profile and "Cuisinart" style wheels that not only looked cheesy but would be a real pain to keep clean. This was also the only car with prominent, exposed screw heads appearing in the front turn signal/side marker lights. Yet despite these design faux paus, and the spotty interior materials, the Daewoo's build quality received above-average scoring.

Of the three Daewoo models currently offered in this country, we've always felt the Nubira represented the best compromise between low price and high quality. Having the opportunity to compare this car back-to-back with its competitors has confirmed our position and given us new respect for this Korean carmaker. If money is truly your number-one concern, and if you value feature content over driving performance, the Nubira makes a viable choice.

Editor Comments

I like saying "Daewoo Nubira" as if it was a prizefighter and I was the announcer at a scheduled bout. "And in this corner, weighing in at 2,800 pounds from Korea, Daywooooo Nuuuuubeeeerrrrraaaaaaaa!" Too bad when going up against the Focus or Sentra, the Nubira gets its toothy grille punched in. With a better suspension and engine, perhaps this car would be a contender. -- Brent Romans

The clunky, clumsy shift action leaves you with the feeling that this car is built like a toy from the bargain bin and will be headed to the trash bin soon. The car doesn't have enough get-up-and-go either, but it had adequate fit and finish. I know I have my detractors, but I still like the looks of the Nubira, with its clean lines and sleek lights. -- Liz Kim

Provided one can pay an appreciably lower price for the Nubira than the top four cars in this test, the value that can be had might make it a worthwhile transaction. Sure the car starts to convulse lightly once you get it to 85 mph or so (not a big deal for many consumers), but Daewoo has packed the car with a lot of standard features, like heated mirrors and articulating headrests, that are not usually available in the economy car class. The design is politely edgy with a generous use of angles and flattened conical shapes, and the Nubira handles and brakes adequately. -- Erin Riches

Nubira would be for the thrifty shopper who simply doesn't give a damn about anything, including resale value and image, were it not for the alleged "one-price" shopping. Supposedly, you pay sticker for a Daewoo, and it's not worth sticker. Nubira gives the impression of a car designed and manufactured by a company unfamiliar with the design and manufacture of cars. Directly compared, Nubira makes the Hyundai Elantra seem sophisticated. The Daewoo has an ungainly profile, alloy wheels that look like Cuisinart blades, and cheap interior materials. The car, however, is pleasing in terms of comfort and ergonomics, but so are others in this test. Factor in the lack of refinement and sloppy suspension, compounded by unknowns like long-term reliability and resale value, and you have a recipe for a car to avoid. Sure, you get free scheduled maintenance. Yes, the Nubira has some neat features not available on others in this test. And surprisingly, it exhibited great build quality. But these things are not enough to garner a recommendation from this editor. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: Seventh

System Score: 4.5

Components. The system consists of two six-inch full range speakers along the back deck, with two six-inch mid bass drivers in the front doors, rolled off to a pair of very nice soft dome tweeters very high in the door (in their own enclosure). The tweeters are exceptionally well aimed and positioned. There are no speakers in the rear doors. Electronics include an AM/FM/cassette/CD combo that is located too low in the dash. Why don't these manufacturers get it? The radio should go above the A/C controls! In heavy commuter traffic, which is what most Americans face on a daily basis, what do we play with more, the radio or the A/C? C'mon guys, give us a break! One other thing: the front door speakers are aimed wrong. As my notes say, "Lower front door panels aim away from the driver (towards the front of the car), which may look cool and all, but it's not good for sound performance. Audio gets lost in the ankles and kneecaps. Bad design!"

Performance. AM radio performance was horrible -- worst in the class! The tweeters are too bright, producing a slightly irritating honk and hiss. On David Benoit track, I wrote, "Tweeter is brassy and reedy, thin and tinny. It bites the ear." The bass, however, is crisp and taut, surprisingly tight for a car in this class.

Conclusion. This system sounded surprisingly good. It was actually one of the better-sounding systems in the test. The tweeters were especially impressive for the car's class, even though a little harsh. I marked off heavily for the careless radio placement. Sound is one thing, usability another. If I were grading this system only on sound, it would've placed much higher.

Ranking: Fourth

Trunk Size: 13.1 cubic feet

The one and only car in this test to offer rear passengers a fold-down armrest, the Daewoo often flaunted that extra something to try and hide its origins. In this case, the center armrest was accompanied by plenty of leg-, foot- and knee room, as well as adequate lumbar support. Throw in those adjustable headrests and the center shoulder belt and Daewoo appeared to have the best back seat of the bunch, right?

Nope. The seat cushions were quite hard and the seatback angle was too reclined. This combination, along with the low seat bottom that lacked leg support, would no doubt lead to sore muscles and aching backs after just a short drive. We also couldn't find any cupholders. But the Nubira's rear seat was a potential winner and with a few tweaks it could set a new standard in the economy class.

Two small buttons release the folding 60/40-split seatback without opening the trunk, but both sections are on the heavy side and they don't fold quite far enough to create a flat load floor. The trunk opening size was about average for this group, as was liftover height. Hidden gas struts that keep the trunklid from slamming shut were a nice touch.

So how do the least and most expensive cars in this comparison test land within one-tenth of a percentage point of each other? Easy - the Hyundai was cheap and good, the Mazda was expensive and excellent; effectively arriving at the same final score. Think of these two cars as equally appealing, but appealing to completely different customers. The cash-strapped buyer should look to the Elantra when plugging car payments into his or her monthly budget, while the economy sedan shopper with some change to burn will want to check out the exciting Protege ES.

Obviously you don't have to spend $18,505 to buy a Protege. The base DX trim starts at $12,595 and the mid-level LX begins at only $13,895 (both including destination charge). But you'll have to pop at least $15,695 to get the ES model if you want the more powerful 1.8-liter engine. This DOHC four-cylinder makes 122 peak horsepower and 120 foot-pounds of torque. The lower trim level cars come with a 1.6-liter engine generating a mere 105 horsepower and 107 foot-pounds of torque.

The engine, along with the optional four-speed automatic transmission that came on our test car, received high marks from our team of drivers. Comments ranged from "good mid-range torque" to "very little vibration, even at higher rpm." When approaching redline the engine tended to whine in a not-so-pleasant manner, and the normally responsive automatic would occasionally hold a gear too long or hunt for lower gears when ascending mountain roads. On average, however, the Mazda's drivetrain was given a solid thumbs-up by drivers who felt that, especially for an automatic-equipped vehicle, the Protege felt quick. It's mid-pack finish in acceleration testing confirmed this, with the Mazda beating two other automatic-equipped vehicles (Civic and Neon) in zero-to-60 and quarter-mile times (as well as the painfully slow, manually-shifted Daewoo).

It wasn't acceleration that gave the Protege a third-place overall finish in the performance tests. That came from its well balanced suspension, eye-popping brakes and super-sticky tires. Traveling through the slalom at 62.5 mph, only the Nissan Sentra beat the Protege in this test (by less than one mph). Mazda also took second on the skidpad after generating an impressive .83 gs with its suction-like Bridgestone Potenzas, losing first-place bragging rights once again to the Sentra, but by a mere .01 g. Braking characteristics were some of the best in this test with superb pedal feel and feedback that made modulating them easy. A 60-to-zero stopping distance of 132 feet was just two feet off the class-leading Cavalier, though the Protege's ABS, when invoked for maximum braking, was quite buzzy and sent a harsh vibration through the pedal.

But the Cavalier is proof that a strong performance score isn't enough to win in this class of vehicles. And at $18,300 we knew the Protege wasn't going to be the value leader. So where did this third place finish come from? Check the editors' personal and recommended picks and you'll see that the Mazda rated an 86.4% and 88.9%, respectively. That averages out to an 87.7% when it comes to whether our editors would either buy a Protege for themselves or recommend one to a friend. The car is just that good.

What makes it so good, aside from the previously mentioned performance numbers, is a stunning combination of driving pleasure, interior room and comfort, exceptional build quality, and handsome design. This car was easily the most enjoyable ride when canyon slicing-even with an automatic transmission! Credit goes to the first-rate steering system with gobs of feedback, perfect weighting and no on-center dead spot. Enhanced by a taut and well-damped suspension, Protege was the "driver's car" of the group, winning the hearts of our editorial team with its unmatched fun-to-drive factor.

Sitting in or looking at this car is pretty fun, too. Garnering first place, by a wide margin, for its exterior design, the Mazda received comments that ranged from "best looking car in the test" to "chiseled, upscale appearance with tasteful chrome accents." Interior design was also a Protege strong suit with quality materials throughout and logical gauge/control placement. Cupholders (two) received high marks for being large enough to secure a 1-liter bottle while only blocking access to the lower storage bin. One editor noted that the radio, storage bin and climate controls could be rearranged in the center stack to make things easier to reach and some drivers didn't like the various "pebbled" surfaces, though others did. Driver's seat comfort scored well above average because of its firm cushions and prodigious side bolstering, but a few testers wished for more thigh and lumbar support.

Perhaps the Protege's greatest downfall (other than its price) was the amount of wind and road noise that intruded upon the driving experience at highway speeds. Rivaled only by the Neon and Daewoo in terms of decibel drone, the Mazda was a seriously loud vehicle once it crested 50 mph. Another noteworthy Protege trait involved the sometimes harsh ride when traversing bumpy pavement. The flipside of this car's exciting road manners is its tendency to let surface imperfections disrupt an otherwise serene drive. For the enthusiasts among us, the trade-off was well worth it, but buyers living in pock-marked parts of the country may want to look elsewhere.

When Mazda redesigned the Protege in 1999 their goal was to take on the major players in this class (Honda and Toyota) and beat them. Obviously, in our opinion, they've succeeded. The Protege is a fun, stylish, well-constructed economy sedan that, if carefully equipped, presents a bargain for the performance-minded buyer.

Editor Comments

Being shallow seems to be a character prerequisite for living in Los Angeles. So I'm surprised more people aren't driving Proteges around here. From my perspective, the Mazda is by far the most attractive car of this group. I love the flared fenders and tight styling. It possesses an element of visual class beyond economy car standards. As a bonus, there's also a spirited engine and taut chassis underneath. -- Brent Romans

This was my number one choice. Its exterior design was fun-looking, sort of like a scrunched Audi A4. The interior was light and airy with a feeling of space not normally found in a small car. The simple dash layout was Honda-like with no oversized or wacky-looking buttons. The drive was fun, too. It didn't have much off-the-line-power, but the overdrive switch on the shifter acted like a manual turbo boost when it came time to pass someone. The steering felt nimble for an economy car and the brakes were easy to modulate. There may have been qualities I liked better in other cars, but none of them pulled it all together like the Mazda did. Its combination of functionality, design, reliability and performance make it a winner in my book. -- Scott Jacobs

I really had a good time driving this car for the weekend. It's fast and fun, and loaded with features that others don't have, like a one-touch open sunroof. I like the suspension, it kind of reminds me of our long term Lincoln LS, smooth and stable. However, it takes some getting used to and one of my passengers commented that it's not a cushy ride. Although I'm not crazy about the way it looks, I would definitely recommend this car for someone seeking the path less traveled. -- Liz Kim

Protege caters to the driving enthusiast. Low-profile performance tires, a stout suspension, razor sharp steering, and a willing engine mean you can have a great time behind the wheel of the Mazda when the babies aren't on board. But the compromise is that point-A-to-point-B types will be put off by the stiff ride. That's OK with me. Lower sales equate to more exclusivity, the better to separate the driving enthusiasts from the hordes of commuters in Civics and Corollas. With a high fun-to-drive quotient, traditionally trusty reliability, a roomy and comfortable cabin, dealers willing to slash sticker prices, and dashing good looks, it's hard to beat this Mazda. This is the one I'd buy for personal use. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: Sixth

System Score: 5.0

Components. The system consists of two 6x9 full range drivers on the back deck and two six-inch full range in the front doors. There are no tweeters in the system, and the rear doors have no speakers. Electronics include an AM/FM/CD in-dash (no cassette) and 12 FM/six AM presets. Ergonomically, the radio is "up" in the dash, maybe a little too high up. Overall, a good position though, especially compared with some of the stinkers in this class. Easy to use, easy to get to and see. The usability of the radio is less impressive. The preset buttons are too small, too close together, and indistinguishable from one another (no difference in feel). The Tune/Seek button is a toggle button/switch instead of a round knob, making it harder to use, and even, with this very "flat" faceplate, hard to locate while in transit. Overall, the features on this faceplate are just too small and crowded together.

Performance. The listening test revealed weaknesses in the system. My notes say the following, "Acoustic piano on David Benoit track a little grainy and harsh," "Sounds just slightly 'crunchy' in the upper midrange area," "Saxophone on Jennifer Warnes' 'Famous Blue Raincoat' sounds hollow and muffled, while her voice sounds 'hissy and snaky' in the upper register," "Classical guitar slightly artificial and plastic sounding - not deep and rich, as it should be." I noted, however, that the system sounds pretty good overall. It produces a very lifelike soundstage, which is unusual without separate tweeters in the system.

Conclusion. This system reminded me a lot of the system in the Cavalier. It's underpowered and needs tweeters up in the doors. The amp clips at about two-thirds gain, becoming grainy and harsh at that point. Definitely needs more power. I also marked off heavily for poor ergonomics. The radio is not easy to use or see.

Ranking: Second

Trunk Size: 12.9 cubic feet

Assuming the Protege's driver isn't inducing nausea in his rear passengers by drifting the car through corners, the car makes for a capable people hauler. Rear seat bottom height could be elevated to increase leg support, but overall legroom is satisfactory. Usable, if somewhat tight, foot room can be found underneath the front seats and two small, non-adjustable headrests grace the top of the rear seatback. Comfortable armrests can be found on each door panel, and a third shoulder belt is there for middle passengers.

An increase in headroom, along with slightly softer seat cushions, would improve the Protege's passenger-toting ability. We'd also like to see real rear seat headrests, instead of these sewed-on cushions, to support the head and neck. Hey Mazda, how about a cupholder for our friends back there?

A quick pull of seatback mounted knobs will fold the 60/40-split seatback down to create an almost flat load floor (even though the seat bottoms don't flip forward). Protege had one of the largest trunk openings and lowest liftover heights in the test. But be careful how you pack it-those hinges could crunch tender cargo.

And you thought a Daewoo in fifth place was out of line. Finishing within one percentage point of our second place contestant is the Hyundai Elantra. Hyundai has a checkered past in America. The company started out making inexpensive cars with competitive performance and feature content. But prices slowly crept up while quality and reliability remained questionable at best. We found it difficult to recommend a Hyundai product when competitive models with superior service records, like the Ford Escort, could be had for less money.

It seems Hyundai got the message and has transformed itself in recent years. Last year they upped horsepower in the Elantra, improved the exterior styling, and gave it a 10-year/100,000-mile warranty (all Hyundais sold in America now come with this warranty). Feature content has also been addressed in recent years and the Elantra, despite being the least expensive vehicle in this test, still scored a respectable 83.3 percent in the feature category. For $13,724 our car was equipped with air conditioning, a CD player, cruise control, power door locks, power mirrors, power windows, rear disc brakes, a seat height adjustment, a tilt steering wheel and even a rear spoiler. We would have appreciated remote keyless entry, antilock brakes and side airbags, but at this price we're not going to complain.

Even more surprising was where this car placed in terms of performance. With its 140-horsepower, 2.0-liter engine and 5-speed manual transmission, the Elantra scored second place in our zero-to-60 acceleration tests. The engine can get noisy at higher rpm, but cabin isolation is sufficient and little, if any, drivetrain vibration gets through to the driver. Low gearing helped the Hyundai with off-the-line performance but left drivers searching for an additional gear at highway speeds to keep the engine from revving so high. Shifter throws were a bit long, yet a positive feel when going into each gear kept testers happy. A couple of drivers felt that the clutch was worn out, as it came too far off of the floor before engaging.

Unlike the Cavalier, Hyundai's Elantra offers more than just straight-line thrills. Throw the car into a corner, allow it to take a set, and it will remain planted and confident so long as no mid-corner bumps upset the chassis. Reduced body roll, improved suspension tuning, and better tires would further improve the car's fun-to-drive quotient, but as equipped it still managed the third fastest time in our slalom test. Braking from 60 mph took 145 feet without the aid of ABS (though it is an option). Like the suspension and steering systems, the Elantra's brakes were rated high by drivers who felt they were easy to modulate and showed no signs of fading.

Stepping inside the Elantra we found the seats, door panels and headliner swathed in a rather detestable and cheap-feeling purple cloth with a bizarre "raindrop" pattern. Aside from this questionable styling issue, the interior scored high points in terms of ergonomics and comfort. Thigh and back support was sufficient with plenty of room for legs, shoulders and elbows. One of only two cars in the test with an adjustable driver's lumbar support (Civic also had this), the Hyundai was full of surprises.

A large tach and speedometer, logical switchgear locations and easy to use climate controls boosted the Hyundai's overall evaluation score. Minor gripes about door-mounted tweeters that looked tacked-on and a flimsy cupholder shelf that took forever to deploy couldn't mar an otherwise excellent interior design. Several staffers did complain about an unpleasant odor and warning chimes that were highly annoying, but everyone agreed that the Elantra offered a pleasant, if somewhat off-color, place to spend the day.

Exterior design and overall build quality also met or exceeded our editors' expectations. The Hyundai was easily the most "swoopy" car in the test, but its curves, rear spoiler, "Mystic Teal" paint and five-spoke wheels worked together to give the car a sporty look that didn't offend most staff members. A few body panel gap variances, a misaligned rear bumper fascia and a broken gas gauge conspired to keep the car from a perfect score in the "fit and finish" department.

Are we impressed by what Hyundai has to offer the economy sedan buyer? Definitely. Remember, less than one percentage point separated our second, third, and fourth place finishers, meaning it could statistically be called a three-way tie for second place. Just for fun, we crunched the numbers for the Elantra without the $395 spoiler. Result? It would have officially taken second place. In a market as competitive as economy sedans, that's not a bad place to be. We'd like to see some tweaks in the areas of suspension tuning, tire quality and steering feel. And a reduction in wind, road and engine noise, especially at highway speeds, would also improve the Elantra's overall score.

Still, this was the cheapest car in the test and thus had an automatic advantage in our value category. Thankfully, price isn't the only thing this Hyundai has going for it. All the key ingredients are here: performance, feature content, ergonomics, a top-notch warranty...with some minor improvements this could be the best economy sedan in America. As it stands, it's just a damn good one.

Editor Comments

Naw, this is a Hyundai? Wow. Elantra has a spunky powertrain, good brakes and responsive steering. This sure isn't the Hyundai I remember. I liked the clean interior look and feel with bucket seats that provided great lumbar and thigh support. After a spin through the test loop, I didn't feel like I had been put on a torture rack, but rather through a therapeutic massage. Hyundai still has to address some build quality issues, like a misaligned hood and deck lid and a rattly driver's door panel. But, for the first time, I'd have no regrets recommending a Hyundai to a friend. -- Scott Mead

Surprise! This car is actually good! The crappy Hyundais of yore tarnished my preconceived notions, but here's a car with a lot to offer. The engine's healthy, the interior is generally functional, and it comes with a 100,000-mile powertrain warranty. With more attention paid to detail, the Elantra would be a true contender for first place. -- Brent Romans

This was actually a fun car to drive. It was really zippy with great acceleration and a suspension system that made it feel pretty sporty. My biggest gripe is with the ergonomics, specifically the shifter placement that makes you have to throw your arm around to swap gears. It tries too hard to look good, kind of like those guys you see at the clubs with too much cologne and tight shirts. But I must admit that I kind of like the purple interior, even though it appalls everyone else. -- Liz Kim

It would be easy to write that by adding content and refinement without raising the price, Hyundai would likely land in the winner's circle in this test. But, you don't get something for nothing, and added features and improved sound deadening would ultimately lessen the Elantra's value. This is not a class-leading car, as our broken fuel gauge attests, but in my opinion, if offers the most for the least, despite NVH poster-child status. Roomy, attractive, fun to drive and backed by one of the best warranties available in the world, Elantra is surprisingly satisfying. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: Fourth

System Score: 6.0

Components. System consists of two 6x9 speakers on the back deck and two 6-inch mid bass drivers in the front doors. There are two very nicely placed tweeters in the front doors also. There are no speakers in the rear doors. Electronics include an AM/FM/CD in-dash with 12 FM and six AM presets. Placement-wise, the radio is too low in the dash. It's a long reach.

Performance. First off, the slope on the volume control is way too fast - needs to be more gradual. The thing goes from 0-60 in, like, four seconds! And I did my testing at a standstill. I can't imagine using it while driving. So that needs to be fixed. Also, I found the radio in general to be under-featured. Example: no separate bass and treble controls, almost a must to compete in this class. Overall, the controls on the radio are too small and hard to manipulate.

Listening-wise, it sounds damn good. The amplification is very clean and pure - almost no clipping at full gain. The tweeters are also very good for a system in this price class - well aimed, good dispersion, surprisingly smooth in the upper frequencies. Highs on piano and tweeter very clear and crisp w/o being harsh. Nice job on the tweets, Hyundai! The system begins to exhibit a little thinness on classical music. The gap seems to be in the upper mid-bass region, maybe where the crossover point is. It just sounds thin. Still, there are moments of deep, rich bass reproduction on Mozart choral pieces. Finally: great AM reception, an area often overlooked in these cars.

Conclusion. There was a sonic warmth in this system that caught me totally by surprise. My notes say, "The bass has a nice 'round' quality w/o sounding flabby or imprecise." And the tweets are even better. The Hyundai Elantra GLS has a fine sound system.

I marked off heavily for ergonomics. The radio has a horrible placement in the dash compared to the leaders in this test.

Ranking: Third

Trunk Size: 11 cubic feet

The swoopy shape that made the Hyundai stand out in this test also made rear seat entry tricky. Care had to be taken by our rear seat riders to avoid banging their noggins into the sloping C-pillar. Once inside, the Hyundai greeted passengers with a high seat bottom and firm cushions, ensuring substantial thigh and lumbar support and plenty of legroom. Feet could slide under the front seats and the seatback angle was rather upright.

Rear passengers did notice the Elantra's hard armrests that would get uncomfortable during a long drive. The sloping roof once again came into play as the tallest of staffers had to lean slightly forward to avoid contact with the rear window. The Hyundai's low price unfortunately didn't allow for any rear cupholders. Also, the inside door handles were perfectly placed to grind into our head editor's wrist and there was no center shoulder strap.

Putting the Elantra into cargo mode involved pushing two buttons on the top of the rear seat back. These buttons were stiff and almost painful to use and the seatbacks didn't fold down enough to create a flat load floor. Trunk liftover was high and the opening, especially on the lower side between the taillights, was narrow. The trunk lid was not lined, and its hinges cut into total cargo space.

They say that successful people know how to focus. We think successful economy sedan shoppers should buy a Focus. Ford's all-new economy car slots in above the Escort and below the Contour, though it is supposed to effectively replace them both. Can the single Focus line-up really serve the needs of both Escort and Contour buyers all by itself? Probably, but you'll note that Ford hasn't stopped selling those other two models yet...just in case.

We feel confident in telling the Blue Oval folks (and all of their customers) not to worry. Go ahead and kill off the Escort and Contour and save yourself some production costs, Ford. The Focus is a winner.

OK...well, technically it's not the winner of this test. But it came in a strong second and is far superior to those older Ford model lines. Like any vehicle that places well in a truly unbiased comparison test, the Focus' greatest strength was its lack of any real weakness and an overall solid balance of attributes (much like Honda's Civic, except the Focus isn't a five-year-old platform). Going from value to feature content to editorial picks, the little Ford with the big interior never scored below 82.7 percent. Only its performance and evaluation scores were less than stellar, though they still came in at 67.8 percent and 74.3 percent, respectively.

High on our editors' list of reasons to own a Focus is the truly non-economy car feel it imparts. After opening its large doors and gracefully slipping into the roomy interior, it becomes instantly apparent that Ford has packaged a lot of space and value into this vehicle. Interior design and materials received some of the highest marks in the test. With massive amounts of head-, hip-, and legroom, even adults over 6-feet tall will find plenty of space to get comfortable. Much of the legroom comes from the high-mounted seats that give passengers an almost mini-SUV viewpoint; not a bad thing in today's world.

Soft-touch material is everywhere, including the dash, seat covers, headliner and door panels. Gauges are large and clear, radio and climate controls are easy to reach, and everything is properly labeled. Two large cupholders in the center console will swallow 1-liter bottles while not blocking a thing. Ford went so far as to add soft-touch textures to items like the audio control knobs and to place rubberized material in the Focus' many storage bins to reduce rattles when driving. It's this sort of attention to detail that won points with our editors. While ergonomically sound, the Focus' interior, like its exterior, displays much of Ford's "New Edge" philosophy that had editors split on loving or hating it.

Agreement was reached on how much fun the Focus was to drive. Though not quite as sporty as the Protege, Ford engineered a fantastic combination of steering response, suspension tuning and solid brake feel. Riding on 60-series Firestone Firehawks that provided superb grip and a quiet ride over most surfaces, the Focus was hard to fault from a driver's perspective. Unlike the Protege, Ford dialed in a fair amount of suspension movement to keep the Focus from jarring passengers. This, in turn, allows for more body roll than the Protege had which, combined with the high seating position, left some drivers feeling a little intimidated by the Focus' "tippy" nature. But those who abandoned their sense of self preservation and flogged the car during canyon runs found it to be stable and predictable at the limit.

Drivetrain characteristics, much like the suspension tuning, were not overtly performance-oriented. At 130 horsepower and 130 foot-pounds of torque, the optional 2.0-liter Zetec engine had its hands full getting the 2,600 pound SE sedan moving from a dead stop, mostly because max torque didn't come until 4,250 rpm and peak horsepower needed a rather high 5,500 rpm. Once underway, the ultra-smooth engine would happily fling the car into extra-legal speeds and the precise, if somewhat notchy, five-speed manual tranny was a joy to shift. The Focus neither ruled nor cowed in the performance arena, finishing mid-pack in every test (there's that "balance" thing again).

Massive interior space wasn't all we found inside the Focus. Our test model had air conditioning, power door locks, power mirrors, remote keyless entry, and a driver's seat height adjustment all as standard equipment. It also had some much-appreciated options like a tilt and telescoping steering wheel, side airbags, power windows, cruise control, a CD player, a removable stereo faceplate and antilock brakes, along with the more powerful Zetec engine. We'd like to see Ford put rear disc brakes on this car, but at just over $16,000, we feel confident in calling the Focus SE sedan a bona fide bargain. How did it beat the similarly capable Protege? By achieving its blend of performance and comfort for over $2,000 less than the Mazda.

So what kept the Focus out of the winner's circle? Those of you who said "build quality issues" are correct. The Focus was one of the favored cars going into this test, and the editors were fully prepared to crown it "King Economy Sedan." Then we got our test unit and gave it a good going-over...D'OH! The final tally nearly broke our hearts: loose driver's door window trim, misaligned hood and trunk, loose and misaligned interior driver's door panel, crooked rear fascia, misaligned headlight seals, and a driver's side interior A-pillar cover/power mirror pod that basically fell off. (Sigh) So where are the Civic's keys?

This was an unfortunate aspect of our test unit because the build quality issue basically torpedoed an otherwise stellar vehicle. Had it not been for the many misaligned and dangling parts the car would have had a shot at the title. Earlier Focus test cars we've been around have not displayed this abhorrent level of build quality, so we're not ready to call it a definite problem...yet. But we'd suggest that potential customers give their cars a close inspection when picking them up at the dealership. As long as you get one that is properly screwed together, you'll end up with a great economy sedan.

Editor Comments

The Focus earned my number-two pick for its edgy styling, buttery-smooth powertrain and comfy interior. The Focus is the 2000 version of what the Civic was five years ago, only much better. Out of all the cars tested, the Focus impressed me with its quiet cabin, communicative steering and roomy interior. While the performance was lackluster compared to the Nissan and Chevrolet, the Focus still pulled strongly out of the box, thanks in part to the manual transmission that was perfectly geared to match the powerplant. Unlike some of our editors, I found the driving position well suited to my frame...once I had positioned the telescoping steering wheel to a position that was comfortable. -- Scott Mead

No, I never thought I could desire a Ford, but now I do-at least I've picked one of daring design, inside and out (conveniently launched while Honda is appealing to the Puritan crowd). It feels so fast and handles so confidently on the freeway. I love the ergonomics and the aesthetics, especially the thick, substantial steering wheel, meaty shifter and well-cushioned center armrest; a perfectly matched triad that makes even backed-up freeways a pleasurable driving condition. Although the pedals feel a little awkward, I know that I could adjust, because only the Ford allows me to sit high without the fuel expense or stigma of driving a SUV. Build quality ought not to make Ford's Focus hazy. -- Erin Riches

I should be an NFL talent scout. I attended Ford's first media preview event for the Focus in 1999, and I could see this gangly youngster from Detroit had the ability to make it in the pros. Pitted against the stars in our comparison test, the Focus didn't shirk. Yes, the build quality was disappointing on our car, but the Focus still represents an excellent value. -- Brent Romans

It's too bad our test car has such poor build quality, because otherwise we likely would have ranked the Focus closer to the top of the scoring, if not in the winner's circle. Still, this is a solid effort from the boys at the Blue Oval. With decent performance, excellent interior ergonomics, responsive handling and a distinctive design, Focus is going to be a huge hit for the company. Roomy, functional, comfortable and fun to drive, Focus' primary strength is that it doesn't feel like an economy car from behind the wheel. Now, when can we take delivery of an SVT Contour replacement? -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: First

System Score: 8.5 (I don't believe in 10's!)

Components. No speakers on the back deck. Five-inch full range in the rear doors. Six-inch full range in the front doors, with a likely separate tweeter. AM/FM/single-play CD, with no cassette. Six AM/12 FM presets. A wonderful job on radio ergonomics. Among the best I've seen -- in any class. Check out these bullet points:

• Large, well-spaced preset buttons produce great user-friendliness and ease of locating; superb!
  
• Lots of nice little touches, such as the seek button which is indented on one side while the other side is raised.
  
• Anti-theft removable keypad renders system unusable when removed.
  
• Very, very cool rubberized volume knob: huge and easy to find/use, with fabulous tactile feel.
  
• Raised buttons all the way around allow for fantastically easy use and location, particularly welcome during night driving and heavy traffic conditions.
  
• Great, unique fade and balance controls -- again, among the best I've seen anywhere.
  
• AVC (Automatic Volume Control) -- once set, the system produces a consistent relative sound pressure level, varying with such factors as road noise, engine noise, wind, etc.
  
• Gobs of gain and volume, with almost no distortion at full amplification.

Performance. What a kick-ass value! This thing really rocks! Placement of speaker components in the upper portion of the front doors is unique in the class. This makes the speakers much more accessible to the ear. The result? Great sound. The higher frequencies were just a little too crisp for my taste, but excellent overall. Strings (violins, violas, cellos) were clear and unsullied, lower strings full and rich without sloppiness or inaccuracy. My notes say: "A warmth in this system. Very full and rich. You can really hear the 'wood' in the woodwinds and strings. Very alive and pleasant." I also note, "Vivaldi's Four Seasons is awesome on this system, as is Bach's Fugue in D Minor." The kind of sound system that makes you glad to be alive.

Conclusion. Just goes to show, as with the Volkwagen Passat in the previous test, you don't need speakers in the rear deck to produce good sound. I found myself wishing I had this car for the whole weekend just so I could listen to the sound system. With OEM like this, who needs aftermarket?

Ranking: First

Trunk Size: 12.9 cubic feet

Ford designed the Focus to get maximum interior space from a small shell...and they've succeeded. Just the ease of getting into the rear (and front) seats makes it apparent that Focus is all about passenger room. Like that crying airline passenger in the commercial, our 6-foot-tall rear passengers could cross their legs in the Focus (however, they didn't cry). They also had adequate headroom, usable foot space under the front seats, a three-point safety belt for the center passenger, one place for a drink, and a comfortable seat back angle.

Despite its first place ranking, Ford could improve rear seat accommodations by adding headrests and repositioning the metal bar in the lower front seat backs that dug into our taller editor's shins when the front seats were reclined. Staffers with long torsos also noticed that headroom was tight due to the slope of the roofline. We wouldn't recommend the Focus' rear seat for three full-sized adults simply because it is too narrow. But as a four-passenger vehicle this sedan delivers the goods.

For cargo-hauling purposes, the Focus uses a folding 60/40-split seatback with releases that require opening the trunk to access. The seat bottom, which flips forward to increase cargo capacity, is a one-piece design. What this means is that you can't get maximum cargo space with part of the rear seat bottom flipped up and still hold a passenger back there. It's either the max cargo arrangement or the passenger-friendly set up. We also felt the trunk liftover was somewhat high and the trunk opening rather small. The gas strut hinges that didn't impact cargo space were rather ingenious.

We got our first glimpse of the new Nissan Sentra during the 2000 North American International Auto Show in Detroit. The press conference, hosted by now famous Nissan Design/International Stylist, Jerry Hirschberg, talked about a car that was created to break the compact, economy car stereotype of small cabin space, minimal options, ho-hum styling and "rental car-like" driving traits. Mr. Hirschberg went on to call the Sentra a "destination car" rather than a beginner's car.

Since then the airwaves have been flooded with Nissan-esque commercials displaying a Sentra with quick cut scenes amid blaring rock music and punctuated by Jerry Hirschberg spraying red paint over the word "compact" in the final shot. Automotive ads normally have nothing to do with the actual vehicle they display but instead try to create a "you should buy this car" message, even when the car is a piece of crap. But in this instance, both the initial press release and the current ad campaign message for the 2000 Nissan Sentra are right on: This car rocks in a most un-economy sedan-like way!

Let's talk price first. The Sentra was the fourth cheapest car in this test, with only the Hyundai, Daewoo, and Dodge costing less (the Neon was a mere $400 cheaper). So right there the Nissan scores an 86.9 percent in the value equation. We should note that during the initial part of the comparison test our editors were not sure of the Nissan's exact price and while many of them found the car to be exceptional, they all prefaced their statements with phrases like, "Of course, I haven't seen the sticker yet." When we finally did see the sticker, $15,797, we were a bit stunned.

For less than $16,000 the SE trim Sentra comes with air conditioning, a CD player, cruise control, power door locks, power mirrors, power windows, rear disc brakes, remote keyless entry, a driver's seat height adjustment, and a tilt steering wheel-all standard. Antilock brakes and side airbags are optional and come packaged together for $700 (a bargain in our opinion), but our test model was equipped with neither. Our test car did have a couple of features not found on any of the other contestants: illuminated vanity mirrors and sunglass storage.

But the Daewoo had an even lower price, plus feature content galore, and it finished fifth. What made the Nissan so much better? Its drivetrain, for starters. SE trim Sentras come standard with a 145-horsepower 2.0-liter engine that also makes 136 foot-pounds of torque. Only the Cavalier's 2.4-liter engine, at 150 horsepower, offered more go power than the Sentra and, not surprisingly, only the Chevy was faster in quarter-mile acceleration. But numbers only tell part of the story. Every editor rated the Sentra's engine a 9 or better (on a scale of 10) and comments about its "rev-happy nature" and smooth power delivery across the powerband were prevalent.

These same feelings carried over to the Sentra's five-speed manual transmission, with one exception. While the throws were somewhat long and slightly rubbery, the one real problem with the car's drivetrain (possibly the most serious problem with the entire car) was a buzz that traveled through the shifter and right up the driver's arm. It was hard to tell where this vibration was coming from because the engine was extremely smooth and well isolated from the cabin. This one NVH issue wasn't horrible, but in an otherwise refined car like the Sentra, the buzzing shifter was akin to a Yugo in a Mercedes showroom.

Otherwise, the Sentra was a joy to drive on mountain roads. Suspension tuning kept the Nissan well sorted through quick transitions and fast sweepers, but a few testers noticed a tendency for the rear end to step out when driving at the limit. Scoring .84 g's on the skidpad and 63 mph through the slalom gave the Nissan first place in these two categories. However, much like the Protege, the Sentra's sporty nature made it somewhat harsh over pavement irregularities, a tradeoff most of our editors were willing to make, but something to consider when shopping this car against the Focus.

Something else to consider when deciding between our first and second place finishers is the importance of interior room and design. Nissan made the new Sentra larger this year, increasing cabin volume by three cubic feet. While that gives the Sentra an advantage over the Focus in front and rear hip room (plus a slight advantage in front headroom) the Focus still wins in front and rear legroom, front and rear shoulder room, as well as in rear headroom. These measurements were reflected in our interior evaluations, where the Sentra scored worse than the Focus in both front and rear seat comfort. Drivers appreciated the plentiful side bolstering and seat height adjustments, but wished for improved lumbar support and more rearward seat travel.

The interior's design included a two-tone color scheme and large, white-faced gauges that enhanced the Sentra's upscale feel. However, some of the materials used weren't quite up to Focus or Protege standards. Hard plastic around the lower dash, lower door panels and center console plus a "barely soft-touch" material on the upper door panels were offset by high-quality cloth on the seats and headliner, along with attractive interior door handles done in chrome.

The word "quality" was also used to describe interior switchgear, with a solid feel to everything from the steering column stalks to the climate control dials to the steering wheel-mounted cruise control buttons. Two cupholders, each with a removable insert, could handle 1-liter bottles, but their position might interfere with shifting, access to the lower dash bin, or even the climate controls if the drinks are tall enough. We'd like to see slightly larger radio buttons and the power mirror controls repositioned so they aren't hidden behind the steering wheel, but overall, Sentra's interior represents a classy and fully functional design.

With a solid 88 percent in the performance category, a 91.7 percent for features and 86.9 percent for price, the Sentra needed only to impress our editors in the 25-point evaluation and personal/recommended picks tests to score first place. Its combination of first-rate interior design, quiet and capable driving traits, plus an attractive outer shell with "mini-Maxima" design cues had our editors swooning, especially after we confirmed its price. A final overall score of 85.7 percent put it well ahead of the tight three-way race for second place.

Was the Sentra perfect? Unfortunately, no. We noticed a few exterior panels slightly out of alignment and, worst of all, a bizarre fuel tank problem that kept us from easily putting gas in the car. A kinked filler hose was the likely culprit, but the result was a frustrating 15-minute process of repeatedly squeezing tiny amounts of fuel into the car's tank to get it filled up. Once again, a goofy and unnecessary build quality issue marred an otherwise near-perfect car. This wasn't enough keep the Sentra out of first place, but we'd love to see Nissan follow-up the Sentra's excellent redesign with Honda/Toyota-like build quality.

If they could accomplish that, Nissan would not only have the best economy sedan available in America, but a car capable of knocking those other two entry-level models off of their "segment leading" sales pedestals.

Editor Comments

Another rewarding small car that makes its larger siblings seem like wasteful expenditures. In every respect the Sentra looks and behaves like a scaled-down Maxima. Torque and horsepower were extremely impressive - possibly the best package of power and amenities in the group. -- Erin Riches

The most notable thing is the power and I really liked the shifting action (once I got over the vibration that emits from the shifter). The car had the best paint quality and looked sharp in charcoal. It's derivative of its older brother, the Maxima, though better-looking (except for the ugly front grille). This car's a winner. -- Liz Kim

"And I will call it...Mini Maxima!" Nissan's little pocket rocket is just that - a four-banger, miniaturized Maxima rocket ship. Punchy, powerful and free revving - all traits befitting the Sentra's powerplant. Contrary to a few of our other editors, I liked the high mounted shifter in the Sentra, which made me feel like I was driving a FIA World Rally car. The Sentra's steering was precise, responsive and communicative, but not as refined as the Protege. The Sentra wasn't as comfortable as the Mazda, Dodge, Hyundai or Ford, as the driver's seat had too much upper back support and virtually no lumbar support-something that became apparent on canyon roads. The Sentra was also knocked down on my list for its excessively light rear end, which tended to swing out far too easily. If Nissan upped the rear shock rates and installed larger sway bars all around, the Sentra would be the perfect economy car for my taste. -- Scott Mead

The premium paid for the Sentra SE is only worthwhile to the dedicated driving enthusiast who wants a high-horsepower engine, stiff suspension, manual transmission and bolstered sport seats. Sentra SE's charms will be lost on workaday commuters, who would complain that the ride is too harsh. There are roomier, more comfortable, and better-styled vehicles in this class. But if you want a relatively cheap, speedy, reliable set of wheels with visceral handling for a functional daily driver, and the styling pleases you, this is the way to go. -- Christian Wardlaw

Ranking in Class: Second

System Score: 7.0

Components. The system contains two six-inch full range drivers on the back deck and a pair of five-inch full range in the front doors. There are no speakers in the rear doors and no tweeters in the system. Electronics consist of an AM/FM/single-play CD in-dash with 12 FM and six AM presets. The separate bass, treble, fade and balance controls are exceptionally well executed.

Performance. Immediate impression: the radio is placed in the absolutely perfect position in the dash. Hooray, Nissan! Finally, someone did it right! The radio is positioned above the A/C controls, very accessible, in just the right spot so that you can rest your arm on the gearshift knob while playing with the controls. I know - I tried. Perfect! As my notes say, "The rest of the cars in this class should go to school on Nissan and learn how to place a radio in the dash." Especially Toyota! I took exception to some of the radio buttons, which I found too small and difficult to use, except for the large volume button, but I forgive Nissan everything because of the wonderful sound this system produces.

So let's get to it. This thing kicks butt. Awesome! And warm, too! There is an absolutely amazing little power amp hidden somewhere in this system. It's got great juice. My notes say, "Nice, tight bass response from front door speakers," "This is one of the loudest systems in this test - really cranks!" "Blows the Toyota (for one) away in ergonomics and sound," "Produces surprisingly great highs from the rear deck-mounted speakers, although the rear passengers will get blasted," "Jennifer Warnes' voice sounds so warm -- wonderful speakers on the back deck."

Conclusion. I can't say enough about this system. Kudos to Nissan for delivering a great stereo value. This system and the one in the Ford Focus were the only ones I could listen to all day without getting tired. Fabulous! Considering there are no separate tweeters in this system, its warmth and soundstage are staggering. It almost seems to defy engineering. There are a lot of nice little touches here too, such as the recessed LCD display on the radio to prevent it from being washed out in full daylight, and the CD scan function, so easy to use and find. As my notes say, "A very well thought-out system from Nissan." I still thought the Ford Focus system was better overall, but this one was a strong second place.

Ranking: Sixth

Trunk Size: 11.6 cubic feet

The Sentra's First Place finish came in spite of, not because of, its rear seat and cargo design. Thigh and lumbar support got high marks, and the seat bottom height was rated acceptable by our tall passengers. Foot room could be found under the front seats and the seatback angle pleased everyone by not being too reclined or too upright. A center shoulder belt was there to protect passengers "stuck in the middle" and two cupholders stood at the ready to secure smaller drinks.

Where the Sentra flopped was in legroom and knee room. This was the only car in our test that forced long-legged passengers to splay their leg out to either side of the front seatbacks. Our official headroom tester found his hair plastered against the Sentra's roof, and, try as we might, we couldn't find hide nor hair of a headrest. Misshapen, hard plastic armrests sealed the Sentra's fate and left us with a pretty good idea of how Nissan managed the car's pricepoint.

Folding the seatbacks down requires opening the trunk to access the release levers. Once released, the opening between the trunk and cabin area is quite small, greatly compromising total storage space. A large trunk opening and low liftover helped recoup some of the Sentra's lost points, but there's plenty of room for improvement in both of these areas.

While far from stating that "each of these cars is great in their own way," the fact is that today's economy-sedan shopper can choose from several strong models. An argument could easily be made for any of our top finishers, depending on what specific requirements a buyer has. Cost is your number one concern? Grab the Elantra and make sure you delete that $395 spoiler to get maximum value. An entertaining drive is all you care about? The Protege ES scores big with a suspension and steering combo that rivals many European sport sedans. Interior room, ergonomically friendly design and lots of features for a bargain price describe your ideal economy sedan? Focus on your nearest Ford dealership.

But if your definition of the ultimate economy sedan is one that doesn't scream "Economy!" in design, comfort, performance, ride quality and features, while still landing well within the economy sedan price range, the Sentra rules. Get it in SE trim and pop the extra $700 for antilock brakes and side airbags. All this car screams is, "What a great deal!"

After driving all nine cars, each editor was asked to rank the vehicles in two categories. The first category was the order in which an editor would personally rank the vehicles in terms of "would I buy it." The second category was a ranking of "would I recommend it to an economy sedan shopper." Then all personal and recommended rankings were put together to come up with an overall ranking for each category.

As you can see, little variation exists between how our editors feel about economy sedans personally, and how they feel about them as a recommended buy. In fact, 4th to 9th place on the lists were identical. Only the top three positions changed, and only by a small percentage. It appears that, as far as Edmunds.com's editorial team is concerned, you simply can't go wrong with the Nissan Sentra, Mazda Protege, or Ford Focus.