Cars.com Reviews the 2009 Toyota Matrix
It’s not all about the Honda Pilot this week. In fact, another all-new-for-2009 model recently graced our test fleet — the 2009 Toyota Matrix. Kelsey Mays spent some significant seat time in the hatchback. We won’t ruin the plot, but the key seems to be all about “bang for the buck.” See if the Matrix passes that test.
Previous
Subscribe to our feed
Email us your tips!
I like the cargo room comparsion. It's interesting how Toyota can create a large amount of interior space out of a small package (both the Matrix and xB with the xB having the most for the lowest price!).
How can they call this "all-new"? It's a minor facelift at best, a slight improvement to an ugly car.
I like this car. Price+utility+comfort+probable quality+mpg=nice package.
I like the freshened look, but it still looks dated.
Plus, the Mazda3 is still the better deal. Sure, the Matrix has more space and the two cars have similar engines, but the Mazda3 handles much better than the Matrix and costs quite a bit less. The 158-bhp Matrix XRS starts at $20,660 while the Mazda3 S (hatchback) with 156-bhp starts at $17,925.
Using Cars.com side-by-side comparison for the Mazda3s Grand Touring hatchback versus the Matrix XRS, the Mazda3 has TONS more stuff. The only major thing on the list that was in the Matrix's favor is traction control is for both the ABS and driveline compared to the Mazda's which is only for the driveline.
So, there you have it. Go by a Mazda3.
bucley, you think that is bad. the clone (pontiac vibe) had a facelift just last year and now its 2009 version is different again.
We compared the previous generation Matrix to the HHR and decided on the HHR for several reasons. The merging and passing power on the automatic Matrix was the worst of any car I had ever driven when we took it for a test drive. Flooring the accelerator just made the engine angry but did not make the car go much faster. Even the Prius we drove seemed more responsive to highway merging. With better incentives on the HHR we spent thousands less and got it better equipped with a much more power 4 cyl and only a couple mpgs less. The most annoying thing I had found on the Matrix was it wanted to launch off the traffic light but by 10 mph it was running out of steam, felt like I was going to smash in to most cars off the line but then could not keep up with them very well after that. The interior space on the HHR was more boxy making it more usable. Reading over the review here in many respects sounds similar to what we found on the previous generation.
Save money now and spend more later.
Ziggy, I don't think its a problem that the guy wanted to drive a car that's actually drivable. Geez man, not everyone wants to drive an appliance that handles like a drunken shopping cart. Money isn't always the point, my friend. That's why people still buy Suzuki Renos.
I bought a Mazda 3 thinking it was superior only to realize it was 10x less reliable than the focus it replaced. Things happen. Get over it.
I have to agree with J, I replaced my 96 Cavalier with a 2004 Mazda3 S Hatchback. I can't say the 3 was much improvement over the realibility of the Cavalier. Don't get me wrong, I love the Mazda3 and--as I have said in my previous post--would recommend it.
Let me put it another way Ziggy. Would you rather a couple thousand now, ignore the extra features & power, or maybe see it again in 8 to 10 years which is when we on average dump our cars. This may be scary to some but keeping our GM cars on the road for that time frame has been very cheap with relatively nothing in repairs and maintenance.
what do you do to your Mazda3 to make it unreliable?
My niece has 3 years old Mazda3 and has no problems. I have Protege, 10 yo and put 140K on it and no problems.
I think that many problems are operator-related.
Tony, I realized I did not phrase my last post very well. My 96 Cavalier was a very reliable car. My 2004 Mazda3 is likewise, a very reliable car. But, I have had problems with the driver's window motor and I found the front passenger door panel was divorced from the clips (nothing a little push back onto the clips couldn't fix, but I don't know how it came off the clips in the first place).
Sure, the fit and finish wasn't the best on the Cavalier, but that is minor. Nothing broke on the car until it was 8 years old with 120K on it. Twice the age of my Mazda3.
All I am saying, is the so-called Japanese quality is evident, but not as much as I would have assumed based on all the talk. And the Mazda3 is rated as one of the best built and reliable cars.
Bottom line: I am very happy with my 3 and I would buy another. I can't speak for J and what he might be doing to make his "10x less reliable."
I sound like I am contradicting myself, don't I?