Choosing the Tremor means choosing the turbocharged 2.0-liter engine, since Ford doesn’t offer a hybrid version here. In return, you get specialized suspension and traction hardware for rougher terrain, but you also trade off towing capability, road noise, handling, and fuel economy. I wanted to see whether those additions are worth it compared with a less expensive, more economical Maverick, and whether the Tremor’s steep price tag justifies itself over a larger, more capable Ranger. Ultimately, by the end of my week with this rugged little truck, my overall opinion of the Maverick remained favorable, but I’m not totally convinced the Tremor is the best way to have one.

2026 Ford Maverick Tremor Specifications

U.S. specifications. Power and torque are rated on premium fuel. Payload varies with configuration.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Powertrain & Driving Dynamics: 7.5/10 — How Much Truck Do You Really Need?

Like the adrenaline-injected Maverick Lobo, the Tremor’s standard 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder delivers plenty of exciting turbocharged whooshes and responsive low-end torque; both variants also share that trick twin-clutch rear-drive unit and torque-vectoring capabilities. Whereas the Lobo gets a quick-shifting seven-speed gearbox, the Tremor keeps the eight-speed automatic transmission found throughout the rest of the non-electrified Maverick lineup, offering smoother, more robust shifts. In the higher end of the rev range, that little four-cylinder can produce a coarser note, but since it favors low-end power delivery and heavy boost, you’ll rarely find yourself using the latter half of the available RPMs anyway.

Unlike the Lobo, which handles surprisingly well for something with a pickup bed, the Tremor sacrifices much of its lateral control for greater off-road capability, thanks to its chunky Goodyear all-terrain rubber, raised ride height, and uniquely calibrated suspension. Handling on curvy roads and highways is noticeably worse than on other Maverick trims, and those hefty tires also produce much more road noise. These trade-offs are to be expected in a vehicle that prioritizes off-road use, but keep them in mind if you prefer the Tremor’s rugged looks more than you’ll actually make use of its enhanced all-terrain capability. It’s also thirstier than the typical Maverick, and I averaged just 19 mpg across city, highway, and off-road use.

During my brief encounter with a muddy forest access road, the Tremor showed why someone might gladly sacrifice road handling for added trail readiness. Dedicated off-road modes help manage throttle calibration and ease steering sensitivity, while its chunky tires and clever all-wheel-drive system let you trudge through mud, sand, snow, or whatever else nature throws at you, without hesitation. There’s no denying that the Tremor package adds real capability to Ford’s bite-sized pickup truck, but this all still raised one big question in my mind: for even less money, one could just as easily purchase a larger, more capable, body-on-frame Ford Ranger, and if off-road use is the overriding priority, why would anyone opt for the Maverick over one of those? More on that later.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

Technology: 8.0/10 — A New Data Plan, But Bring Your Own Charging Cable

Ford’s biggest tech addition for 2026 is a data plan. The Ford Connectivity Package includes a year of Wi-Fi hotspot data and connected navigation, with a seven-year option available. The 13.2-inch SYNC 4 touchscreen, eight-inch instrument display, and wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto arrived with the 2025 refresh. I found the system generally straightforward, and wireless CarPlay worked effectively throughout the week. The B&O sound system was decent, too, making for a reasonably agreeable technology package overall. The drive modes also made palpable differences to the truck’s behavior, giving me useful ways to adjust its responses as conditions changed. Oddly, though, Ford has taken something away: wireless phone charging disappears for 2026. You can connect your phone to the system wirelessly, but you still need a cable to charge it. The Tremor keeps its 360-degree camera and Trail Control with Trail 1-Pedal Drive, though neither is new this year.

Exterior Design: 9.0/10 — The Maverick Has Been Raiding Its Big Brother’s Closet

Although I personally prefer the shiny gloss-black, dinner-plate wheels and lowered stance of the Maverick Lobo, the Tremor might be the meanest-looking pick of the litter. The truck’s recent facelift adds newly shaped headlights that freshen the overall look, and the Tremor-specific orange graphics pair well with those meaty all-terrain tires for a convincingly rugged aesthetic. Parked next to a Ranger or an F-150, the Maverick looks no less aggressive, only more compact. This Maverick is certainly no city slicker, even if its proportions might suggest otherwise.

Compared with the Hyundai Santa Cruz, the Maverick’s only real rival, the Ford looks unmistakably truckish. While the Santa Cruz looks more like a Hyundai Tucson with part of the rear lobbed off, the Maverick has the boxy, upright shape American buyers tend to associate more fondly with pickup-truck authenticity; myself included. Its design makes no compromises because it shares a CUV platform, whereas the Santa Cruz seems to. Even beyond looks, the Maverick seems to be one of the few domestic models that outweigh its Korean competition, most evident in sales: Ford moves roughly 8.35 Mavericks for every Hyundai Santa Cruz sold in the U.S. Clearly, buyers prefer the boxier shape here.

Interior Design & Quality: 7.0 — Does the Cabin Know What This Truck Costs?

I will gladly accept a simple interior in an affordable pickup, but the Tremor’s price makes the inexpensive materials harder to overlook. The truck’s tall stature delivers impressive headroom, but the cabin still feels cramped, and the upright seating position can become uncomfortable on longer drives. Rear legroom is particularly tight, but the bench is still more accommodating than the sideways jump seats found in some older compact pickups, and proper rear doors make access much easier than backward-opening half-doors.

Ford has, at least, been clever with storage. The rear-seat cushion flips up to reveal useful bins and create extra room for belongings inside the cabin. That flexibility is welcome when transporting items that must be sheltered from the weather. The passenger-space compromise also leaves room for a surprisingly useful bed. Its floor measures 54.4 inches against the Hyundai Santa Cruz’s 52.1—a 2.3-inch advantage. Bed volume is 33.3 cubic feet versus 27.0 in the Hyundai, giving the Ford another 6.3 cubic feet edge. So there’s obviously a worthwhile utility advantage here, even if rear passengers might wish Ford had allocated the space differently.

Pricing & Value: 6.5/10 — This Little Truck Has Expensive Hobbies

Although the Maverick lineup generally offers solid value, that’s not necessarily true of the trim-topping Tremor. The Santa Cruz XRT costs just $610 more than the Tremor and can tow up to 5,000 pounds when properly equipped, whereas the Tremor is limited to 2,000 pounds and up to 1,140 pounds of payload. Even a Maverick Hybrid AWD can tow 4,000 pounds with the optional 4K Tow Package, so buying the rugged Maverick involves some decidedly practical sacrifices.

All figures are in U.S. dollars, excluding taxes and additional options.

That brings me back to the Ranger. The mid-range XLT 4×4 starts $1,070 below the Tremor before destination, or $870 below it with delivery included. Add the $1,195 FX4 package and $535 Trailer Tow Package, and it reaches $43,200—only $860 above the Tremor. That buys a body-on-frame truck with low-range gearing, an electronic rear locker, additional underbody protection, a longer 59.6-inch bed, and up to 7,500 pounds of towing capability.

The Tremor does include heated seats, B&O audio, and a 360-degree camera, while that Ranger has cloth seats and fewer comfort features. The Maverick’s compact size also has value in tight parking spaces and on narrow access roads. For regular trail use, though, I would probably start shopping Rangers instead. For mostly road driving, the XLT Hybrid AWD saves $7,780 before further options and makes a more economical daily driver with friendlier road manners. That leaves the Tremor serving a narrow demographic: someone who needs the extra traction hardware, specifically wants the compact footprint, and accepts its reduced work capacity. I get the appeal, but it isn’t where I’d put my own money.

The Real Verdict: 7.3/10 — I Still Want a Maverick, but I’d Spend My Money Differently

After a week with the Tremor, I remembered why I fell for the Maverick in the first place. This little pickup has plenty of character, and its useful bed, clever storage, and manageable dimensions make a convincing case for keeping your truck purchase small. The Tremor adds worthwhile traction hardware, an entertaining turbocharged engine, and enough cosmetic toughness to make me glance back after parking it. But choosing this particular Maverick requires accepting several substantial compromises. Noisier tires, less composed handling, and disappointing fuel consumption affect everyday driving, while the cabin’s inexpensive materials are harder to excuse at this price. Its reduced towing capacity also makes the toughest-looking Maverick a less useful truck for some buyers.

For my money, an all-wheel-drive Maverick Hybrid still seems like the most appealing daily companion. If regular trail use were a priority, I’d give a Ranger XLT 4×4 with the FX4 package a serious look before signing up for the Tremor. So there’s really only one reason to choose this truck: you insist upon the Maverick’s compact dimensions and will actually use its added off-road capability often. For that buyer, the Tremor has a real purpose, but otherwise, it feels a bit superficial. I’d happily recommend the Maverick to almost anyone; I’d just need to know more about their weekends before I’d recommend the Tremor.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

2027 Jeep Compass Gets Safer and More Convenient

The 2027 Jeep Compass now gets adaptive cruise control as standard on all trims, while the mid-range Limited, Limited Altitude, and Trailhawk add a wireless charging pad and second-row USB ports. Optionally, the Premium Lighting Group gives these trims LED headlights, taillights, and fog lights, while the Driver Assist Package adds a 360-degree camera and a garage door opener. Stellantis adds that the 2027 Compass has a smaller price variance between the Limited trim and the slightly better-equipped Limited Altitude, now down to $995. The Altitude adds blacked-out exterior and interior elements, painted wheels, and contrast stitching. Unfortunately, the automaker has not provided a full breakdown of pricing for each trim, but besides the 85th Anniversary Edition, all 2026 trims carry over, including the Limited (~$33,500), the Trailhawk (~$34,000), and the Limited Altitude (~$36,000).

2027 Jeep Compass Colors and Availability

The color palette is unusually large for this segment, with Joose, Diamond Black, Bright White, Sting Gray, Red Hot, Hydro Blue, and Fathom Blue already available. But for 2027, Jeep is adding four new hues: Ghost, Copper Shino, ’41, and Goldilocks (availability TBC). As before, the Mexico-made Compass is powered by one engine across all trims, a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-pot making 200 horsepower and 221 lb-ft of torque, capable of a 2,000-pound towing capacity as standard. Orders are currently open, but Stellantis has yet to announce when deliveries will begin. Late in 2027 (the 20th anniversary of the now-aging Compass), a new model will begin production in Belvidere, Illinois, arriving for the 2028 model year. We’re probably dreaming, but perhaps domestic production will bring the price down again.

The Manual Makes The Difference

The Integra A-Spec represents one of the last examples of a dying breed of automobile in North America: the affordable, manual hot hatch. An important detail behind that A-Spec badge, though: in the U.S., the six-speed requires the Technology Package. The less expensive A-Spec uses a CVT. Choose the manual, and Acura also supplies a helical limited-slip differential and automatic rev matching. The 1.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder produces 200 horsepower and 192 lb-ft of torque. Peak torque spans 1,800 to 5,000 rpm, giving the engine a useful working range before its 6,500-rpm redline. Those numbers suit a car weighing just over 3,000 pounds, though shoppers expecting dramatic acceleration should temper their expectations.

I found the engine responsive and the performance ample for an entertaining on-ramp or cloverleaf, but not especially dramatic. The gearbox was the real attraction, with clearly defined gates, tidy throws, and an accommodating clutch. It made operating an otherwise sensible car something to look forward to—an element of otherwise dull daily driving that manual transmission enthusiasts perhaps miss most. The pleasure of engaging with a machine needs to survive those otherwise boring journeys, especially when an automatic would be easier. Acura gives you a good reason to keep reaching for the lever.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Comfortable Enough To Enjoy Every Day

The steering’s accuracy carried through the rest of the drive, and the suspension allowed some body movement without spoiling the fun. More importantly, the A-Spec rode beautifully, and Comfort mode calmed the ride tremendously when I just wanted to cruise. Adaptive dampers come with the Technology Package, alongside Comfort, Normal, Sport, and customizable Individual drive modes. Having that adjustment makes particular sense in a car whose job description includes both the commute and the occasional weekend jaunt.

I can see the appeal for someone who enjoys driving but also needs to cover the school run, a wet commute, and a weekend away. The car has to earn its place on all of those trips. For 2026, Acura has freshened the A-Spec with new wheel designs, additional aero detailing, and extended ambient lighting. Performance Red Pearl cars like the one I drove also receive a color-matched grille.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

The Hatchback Is A Major Part Of The Attraction

The liftback body deserves as much attention as the manual transmission. Acura lists 24.3 cubic feet of cargo room, and the rear seatbacks split and fold. A larger opening makes it easier to fit awkward luggage than feeding it through a conventional trunk, which is especially appealing if this will be your only car. Before signing up for a crossover, consider whether a hatchback already covers the bags, shopping, and weekend gear you actually carry. The Integra gives enthusiasts a useful answer to a familiar question: how much fun can you retain when the car also has to be sensible?

The Technology Package also includes heated microsuede-trimmed front seats, a head-up display, and a 16-speaker ELS Studio 3D audio system. A moonroof comes standard, too—something you lose when you upgrade to the Type S. Every 2026 Integra now gets a nine-inch touchscreen, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, and wireless charging. When you choose this version, you’re paying for better audio, seat trim, a head-up display, and adjustable suspension.

The Real Verdict

The manual A-Spec with Technology Package starts at $39,200 in the U.S., or $40,595 with Acura’s current $1,395 destination charge, before premium paint. That puts it $14,700 below the Type S on the same basis. The EPA rates it at 26 mpg city, 36 highway, and 30 combined. The Civic Si deserves a place on the shopping list for anyone who wants an engaging manual for even less, but the Acura’s hatchback and extra equipment help justify the added cost.

I’d still stretch for the Type S if driving excitement were the overriding priority. I explored that choice in my A-Spec versus Type S comparison, but I am admittedly a fool with my money. For someone who wants a comfortable daily driver with a rewarding manual and useful cargo space, the A-Spec deserves serious consideration. Its blend of comfort and involvement earned my vote after just half an hour, and it’s worth commending that a vehicle like this even exists in 2026, when seemingly every alternative has swapped engaging driving dynamics for huge screens and automated assists. It’s one of the last examples of a dying breed, and it’s a damned good one.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

While the Mk3 represented a major step forward on paper, its real-world reliability proved far more controversial. To evaluate its dependability as a pre-owned purchase, this overview analyzes consumer data from J.D. Power and Kelley Blue Book across both generations, alongside active recalls, technical service bulletins, and official NHTSA safety investigations.

America’s Most Sophisticated Focus Yet

The third-generation Ford Focus debuted for the 2012 model year and remained on sale in the United States through 2018. A mid-cycle refresh for 2015 brought updated exterior styling, revised equipment packaging, and an upgraded interior. It’s worth noting that the Focus received a fourth-generation model that, until recently, was sold in other markets.

Available in both sedan and hatchback body styles, the lineup offered a wide variety of powertrains to suit everything from daily commuting to high-performance driving.

Inside, technology was a key focus, evolving from the original SYNC and MyFord Touch systems to the more intuitive SYNC 3 interface in later models. Dynamic handling also remained a strong point, with the independent rear suspension giving the Mk3 a level of composure that set it apart from key competitors.

The performance range expanded significantly over its production run. The Focus ST arrived first with a turbocharged engine and a six-speed manual transmission, followed later by the all-wheel-drive Focus RS, which delivered 350 horsepower.

2018 Ford Focus Powertrains

Specifications and EPA figures are for the 2018 US-market lineup; fuel economy varies by configuration. The 1.0-liter automatic used Ford’s conventional 6F15 automatic and not the DPS6 PowerShift fitted to the naturally aspirated 2.0-liter automatic.

While the lineup offered broad appeal, the added sophistication came at a cost. Regrettably, some of the advanced technology that defined this generation also brought vulnerabilities that its simpler predecessors managed to avoid.

J.D. Power Reliability Scores Reveal A Significant Decline

Comparing J.D. Power ratings across the last two generations highlights how its reputation has shifted over time. These scores paint a clear picture of Ford Focus reliability by year, and how it declined from one generation to the next. The scores below include Ford Focus ST reliability and Focus RS reliability scores.

J.D. Power scores are out of 100. Overall scores and Quality & Reliability scores measure different aspects of vehicle ownership and should not be treated as interchangeable. The 2015 Quality & Reliability figure is unavailable in this dataset.

While the styling of the second-generation Focus left a lot to be desired, it proved to be a dependable compact car. Owners confirmed as much, with J.D. Power scores peaking at 85/100 in 2010 and closing at 83/100 for 2011. But when the redesigned 2012 model arrived, its Quality & Reliability rating tanked by 25 points to just 58/100.

By the end of the Mk3’s run, the rating had recovered to 76/100. Still, it never quite matched the dependable reputation of its predecessor. Most of the frustration stemmed from one major flaw: the troublesome PowerShift transmission.

The PowerShift Transmission Became The Focus’s Achilles’ Heel

The six-speed DPS6 PowerShift automatic in the 2.0-litre Focus wasn’t a conventional automatic transmission. Instead, it used a dry dual-clutch setup, comprising two electronically controlled clutches to combine the efficiency of a manual transmission with the convenience of an automatic. On paper, it was a great idea, promising quick shifts and superb gas mileage without sucking power like older automatics. But in reality, driving one was often a frustrating affair.

Drivers frequently reported:

• Jerky, unrefined low-speed behavior.
• Severe shuddering and shaking while accelerating.
• Hesitation when stepping on the gas.
• Slipping clutches and unpredictable gear shifts.
• Total loss of drive power.
• Transmission Control Module (TCM) failures and no-start issues.

While dual-clutch units are naturally a bit clunky at low speeds, the PowerShift went far beyond these quirks, with clutch and electronic failures often resulting in huge repair bills.

And this wasn’t just drivers nitpicking their humble hatchbacks, either. Ford itself issued technical service bulletins for clutch shudder on 2012-2016 models and extended the TCM warranty to 10 years or 150,000 miles on eligible cars.

Did Ford Ever Fix The Issue?

Ford updated software, revised hardware components, improved seals, and tweaked diagnostic steps over the years to fix recurring PowerShift problems. The aforementioned reliability ratings reflect these efforts and, while later cars were undoubtedly better, the underlying issue remains.

The dry dual-clutch architecture remained in place through 2018, so the risk of clutch shudder or control module failure never went away. Those considering a used Mk3 Focus PowerShift should take the vehicle on an extended test drive, being sure to test the car in stop-and-go traffic and during low-speed acceleration, reversing, and hill starts. Any shuddering, slipping, or sluggish engagement is a red flag.

The 1.0 EcoBoost Avoids PowerShift, But Has Problems Of Its Own

Back in 2015, Ford introduced the 123-horsepower 1.0-liter EcoBoost three-cylinder engine to the US Focus lineup. This tiny turbocharged motor was built to squeeze plenty of low-end torque and impressive fuel economy out of a small package. At first, you could only get it with a six-speed manual, but Ford later added a conventional six-speed automatic to the options list.

On paper, this seemed like a great workaround for anyone who wanted an automatic Focus without dealing with the notoriously problematic DPS6 PowerShift transmission; the 1.0-litre models make use of the traditional 6F15 torque-converter automatic. Unfortunately, the lack of a PowerShift gearbox didn’t leave the Focus completely free of reliability headaches.

The 1.0 EcoBoost relies on a belt-in-oil design, often referred to as a “wet belt.” Unlike standard timing belts that run dry outside the engine block, this belt runs directly inside the engine’s oil supply. While the setup helps save space and boost efficiency, belt durability is critical. If the rubber starts to degrade over time, debris breaks off and can quickly clog the engine’s oiling system. As Ford’s recall history and safety investigations have shown for several 1.0-liter models, this oil-starvation issue is far more than just a theoretical risk.

The 1.0 EcoBoost Wet-Belt Problem

A major issue involved US recall 23V-905, affecting certain 2016-2018 Ford Focus models with the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine and automatic transmission. The issue stemmed from the oil-pump drive belt or its tensioner. If either component failed, the oil pump could stop working, leading to a loss of oil pressure and potential stalling.

Ford’s repair documents note that belt damage could be severe enough to require both the long block and the turbocharger. In fact, Ford logged 2,099 related warranty claims between June 2016 and October 2023. And it doesn’t end there, either.

NHTSA Is Also Investigating The 1.0 EcoBoost’s Timing Belt

Concerns around the 1.0-liter engine grew in late 2025 when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened an investigation into 2015-2018 manual Focus models, following reports of timing-belt degradation. In response, Ford reduced the engine’s timing-belt service interval from 150,000 miles to 100,000 miles or six years. Some owners may also be eligible for reimbursement through specific customer satisfaction programs.

The 2.0-Liter Manual Is The One To Purchase

It’s easy to paint the entire Focus lineup with the same brush, yet the naturally aspirated 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine (mated to a manual transmission) could be a sensible buy. With 160 hp and 146 lb-ft of torque, this direct fuel injection motor provides adequate performance for everyday driving without the complexity of a turbocharger.

Of course, the manual Focus 2.0 isn’t immune to faults, but it is arguably the most straightforward configuration offered in the Mk3 Focus. Kelley Blue Book owner reviews include examples of owners reporting years of trouble-free operation beyond routine maintenance.

Ford Focus Vs Rivals

How does the final US-market Focus compare with other compact cars from the same period? MY2018 offers a useful comparison to popular rivals because it was the Focus’s final year on sale.

Figures reflect the supplied model-year comparison. J.D. Power scores and KBB owner ratings use different methodologies, so the two scales should be interpreted separately.

Final Verdict

The third-generation Ford Focus isn’t inherently a bad car, but its overall legacy is bogged down by troublesome powertrains. If you’re considering one on the used market, target a well-maintained 2.0-liter manual model to enjoy the chassis and crisp handling without the mechanic headaches that come with a PowerShift transmission or 1.0 EcoBoost engine.

Prices exclude options, taxes, and destination. My Ford tester had the Bronze + Black Diamond Off-Road equipment; a standard Big Bend does not include all that hardware.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Powertrain And Driving: Ford Makes The Ordinary More Enjoyable, GMC Makes It More Comfortable

On paper, the numbers suggest something a draw. Just five horsepower separates these engines’ outputs, and GMC counters with only three extra pound-feet of torque. Both also use conventional eight-speed automatics, an appealing distinction for buyers who dislike a CVT’s rubber-band delivery. When it came down to actual driving character out on the road, I personally favored the Ford, at least from the driver’s seat. Its three-cylinder has a raspy voice and an audible turbocharger whoosh, while its drive modes make a noticeable difference. Sport suits winding coastal roads; Eco feels far more relaxed around town.

The GMC felt responsive enough when accelerating from a standstill, but less enthusiastic on the highway. Occasional abrupt shifts also interrupted its otherwise agreeable manners. Its strength was settling into the journey smoothly, rather than encouraging me to make more of it. So simply matching engine displacement and similar output figures doesn’t guarantee a similar driving experience here. Anyone expecting the GMC’s higher price to buy stronger performance should think twice.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

Comfort And Practicality: Passengers And Cargo Want Different Things

The Terrain’s smoother ride and quieter cabin make for a stronger overall experience than these two SUVs. Its cabin also impressed me with its assembly quality in ways the Bronco Sport didn’t quite match. The Ford’s firmer ride and tighter rear seating are also more obvious compromises. For someone regularly transporting adults, that matters far more in a vehicle like this than how entertaining the turbo sounds. A vehicle can justify its added cost through the experience it gives passengers, even when it offers little advantage to the driver.

Cargo space tells a different story. The Bronco Sport provides 2.7 cubic feet more behind its rear seats and 1.7 more with them folded. Its upright body uses vertical space well, though volume alone can’t tell you whether a particular stroller or suitcase will fit. Ford’s rear glass can also be opened separately from the rest of the tailgate, adding another useful dimension. You can reach smaller items without opening the entire liftgate, and the available cargo-management shelf provides another way to organize the space. The GMC counters with underfloor storage and a console pass-through. Your choice should depend on what you carry most often: comfortable passenger space and cargo volume are separate advantages, and these SUVs prioritize them differently.

Adventure Hardware: Compare The Equipment You’re Actually Buying

The AT4 includes all-terrain tires, off-road-tuned suspension, a front skid plate, underbody protection, and recovery hooks. Its Terrain mode assists with low-speed crawling, while the factory hitch supports a 1,500-pound towing rating. Whereas GMC loads the AT4 up with off-road goodies right off the bat, Ford makes the equipment decision more configurable with the Big Bend. A standard Big Bend wears all-season tires; the available Black Diamond Off-Road package adds all-terrain rubber and steel skid plates. My tester’s additional Bronze treatment supplied visual character, but buyers should distinguish appearance spending from equipment they will use. Neither test established a winner on an identical obstacle course. My drives support their suitability for ordinary backroad outings, rather than a claim that either can follow a full-size Bronco anywhere. The Ford’s superior 2,200-pound maximum towing rating is useful, provided you order the required package.

Technology: Both Work Well And Stay Out Of Your Way, GMC Has A Larger Touchscreen

Ford supplies a 13.2-inch SYNC 4 touchscreen. GMC uses a 15-inch display, an 11-inch instrument screen, and Google built-in compatibility, with additional camera views available. Both handled wireless Apple CarPlay well during my tests. Ford’s system mostly stayed out of my way; GMC’s camera presentation was particularly welcome. Check which cameras and convenience features come with the specific vehicle, especially when comparing an optioned Big Bend against a standard AT4.

Value: The Price Gap Needs A Purpose

Before destination, the Terrain AT4 costs $7,555 more than the Big Bend. That is substantial money in this segment, although comparing the cheapest Ford with an equipped adventure trim overstates how closely those configurations match. My Canadian-market Bronco Sport reached C$50,665, including delivery, after it had been equipped with packages that bring its overall feature list much closer to the GMC’s. A U.S.-market Big Bend with a similar configuration costs roughly $39,000, including destination charges and acquisition fees, quickly narrowing the value proposition.

Fuel economy offers Ford another modest advantage: 27 mpg combined against 25. At 15,000 miles annually and an assumed $4 per gallon, those ratings imply roughly $180 in yearly savings. My average with the Ford was only 21.4 mpg, however, so real-world fuel economy will ultimately depend more on your driving habits. GMC’s premium therefore needs to earn its keep through comfort, equipment, and cabin appeal; it doesn’t buy stronger performance or extra cargo volume.

Overall Verdict: The Bronco Sport Earns My Vote

Out of these two SUVs, I’d personally opt for a carefully configured Bronco Sport Big Bend. Its character makes routine driving more enjoyable, its boxy retro-modern design is far more enticing, and its cargo flexibility and lower entry price give that preference practical substance. The Terrain AT4 remains a more persuasive choice for someone who values a more comfortable commute and regularly carries adult passengers in the rear seats. Its appeal becomes strongest when you decide that refinement deserves more of your budget than quicker acceleration or nostalgic styling.

The Ford leaves me wanting hybrid power and a gentler ride, while the GMC leaves me wanting a more competitive price. Of those wishes, the latter is harder to overlook when the less expensive competitor is also the one I enjoyed driving more. An adventure SUV still has to make the grocery run worthwhile. For me, the Bronco Sport does just that.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Their muscular bodywork suggests an overdose of testosterone, and neither is shy about its intentions. Yet these are very different interpretations of the affordable performance car. The WRX has matured into a surprisingly accommodating sports sedan. The GR Corolla behaves like an angry little hatchback that has been told recess is canceled.

Both approaches have merit. Your preference may depend on how much excitement you want during the drive home and how much your back is willing to tolerate.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Powertrains and performance

The WRX uses a 2.4-liter direct-injected, turbocharged flat-four engine producing 271 horsepower and 258 pound-feet of torque. Subaru’s familiar boxer layout places the cylinders horizontally opposite one another, and standard Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive supplies the traction. It’s a generous amount of performance for a sedan that starts at $32,495 before destination and fees. That price makes it the clear entry-level value leader in this comparison.

A six-speed manual is standard on most trims, while Subaru’s Performance Transmission is available on the Limited and standard on the GT. Despite the sporty name and simulated shifts, it remains a CVT. I’m not generally a fan of those transmissions, but this one does a convincing job of responding to enthusiastic driving. The manual provides more involvement, although its shift action can feel a little ropey.

Acceleration lands around the mid-five-second range to 60 mph, depending on configuration and testing conditions. Fuel economy is rated at up to 19 mpg city and 26 highway with the manual, versus 18 city and 25 highway with the CVT. Neither is a fuel-sipping economy car anymore, but those figures are manageable for an AWD performance machine.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

The GR Corolla takes a different route. Its 1.6-liter turbocharged inline-three produces 300 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque. That’s 29 more horsepower and 37 additional pound-feet from an engine with one fewer cylinder. It sounds slightly ridiculous on paper. In person, the angry little engine makes a persuasive argument for the arrangement.

Toyota offers a six-speed manual with automatic rev matching or an eight-speed conventional automatic. Both work with the GR-FOUR AWD system and standard front and rear Torsen limited-slip differentials. That hardware is a major part of the Toyota’s appeal, giving it more than a power advantage to justify its higher price.

Normal mode uses a 60:40 front-to-rear torque distribution, Gravel selects 50:50, and Track mode can vary distribution from 60:40 to 30:70 according to driver inputs and conditions. You aren’t simply locking it into rear-wheel drive by turning a dial, but the system provides useful flexibility when deploying the power.

The GR Corolla’s acceleration falls around the five-second neighborhood, with transmission and testing conditions affecting the result. Fuel economy favors the Toyota, with published estimates of 21 mpg city and 28 highway for the manual, or 19 city and 27 highway for the automatic.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Driving both

I have friends who own modern manual-transmission WRXs and a cousin who had a CVT-equipped example. Both setups work well for commuting. Older WRXs could feel rough around the edges, but the current car is considerably more civilized. At an ordinary pace, it’s mild-mannered enough that you could almost forget what the hood scoop is suggesting.

Start accelerating harder, and the personality changes. The engine becomes more insistent, the chassis responds, and the car reminds you that Subaru hasn’t completely misplaced its rally interests. What impresses me is how well it balances that enthusiasm with everyday comfort. It feels more adult than earlier examples without becoming dull.

Related: Aston Martin Vantage S Roadster vs. Mercedes-Maybach SL 680: Posh, Potent and Worlds Apart

I would like more steering feedback. It’s accurate enough, but the communication could be better. Still, the overall ride-and-handling combination is excellent. In terms of its more polished demeanor, I can understand comparing it with a Volkswagen Golf R, even though the body styles differ.

The Toyota is a different experience entirely. It’s loud, brash and constantly reminds you that it would rather be doing something interesting. You can’t fully dial out its sporting intentions, and that’s true with either transmission. It’s always tugging at the leash.

For this audience, that roughness is part of the attraction. The GR Corolla recalls what made hot hatches special: a practical shape wrapped around a car that rewards involvement. It changes direction eagerly and makes an ordinary corner feel like an opportunity. The WRX is entertaining; the Toyota seems personally offended when you aren’t entertaining yourself.

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

Interior, technology and practicality

The Subaru gives passengers more room and provides the more comfortable overall environment. If you regularly carry adults in the back seat, that matters. If you have a stiff back or a bladder that has become unusually interested in road surfaces, the WRX is probably the friendlier companion.

The Toyota counters with a hatchback opening that makes loading bulky items easier. That flexibility doesn’t automatically mean more passenger comfort, though. I appreciate its utility, but I wouldn’t confuse the GR Corolla with the more relaxed commuter in this pairing.

Subaru’s 2026 lineup includes an 11.6-inch touchscreen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Toyota pairs an 8-inch multimedia touchscreen with a 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster and wireless smartphone connectivity. Both offer modern driver assistance, so choosing a manual doesn’t mean abandoning the conveniences buyers now expect.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Final thoughts

The WRX’s $32,495 base MSRP is compelling, although destination takes the delivered starting price above $33,000. The performance-focused tS starts at $44,995 before destination and adds STI-tuned electronically adjustable dampers, Brembo brakes and Recaro seats. It’s a serious upgrade in chassis equipment, rather than an excuse to add another badge.

Toyota currently lists the manual GR Corolla from $40,520 before delivery, with the automatic starting at $42,520. The specialized GRMN Corolla reaches $64,360 before delivery, putting it in a very different financial conversation. That limited-production model deserves its own evaluation rather than being treated as a typical GR Corolla purchase.

Related: 3 Cars That Were Too Good For Their Own Good

For value, comfort and everyday versatility, I would steer most buyers toward the WRX. For the person who prioritizes driving entertainment and wants something that feels special every time it starts, the GR Corolla makes a stronger emotional argument.

They are road cars with rally-inspired character, and both can turn a mundane commute into something worth anticipating. We’re lucky they’re still being built.

I’d take the little animal. My back may wish for my (much) younger self.

Related: BMW X5 Vs. Audi Q7 Sales: It’s Not Even Close

That very same year, Ford debuted the Bronco Sport. Advertised as but a bite-sized taste of the real-deal Bronco, keener eyes may have noticed that, despite the clever branding, Ford was effectively selling the original-recipe Escape alongside the new-and-improved, European-inspired variant under the “Bronco Sport” guise, only with modernized equipment and powertrains. Shortly thereafter, Bronco Sport sales began to outpace Escape sales, leading Ford to eventually discontinue the longstanding nameplate altogether in late 2025. Whether it comes down to the automaker’s clever marketing strategy that piggybacks plenty of hype from the actual Bronco, or to buyers’ tastes for crossovers increasingly shifting toward older-school rugged authenticity, there was no denying Ford hit the nail on the head here from a product planning perspective before I had even stepped into the driver’s seat.

When Ford handed me the keys to the 2026 Bronco Sport Big Bend for a week, my task, then, seemed pretty simple: determine how well the Bronco Sport lives up to its old-school Ford Escape spirituality, how much “Bronco” disappears with the added “Sport” qualifier, how well it still stacks up as a contemporary, well-rounded crossover for the modern audience despite all of its retro appeal, and, plainly, how much I enjoyed driving and spending time with it. In the end, the Bronco Sport checked a lot of boxes and genuinely impressed me, but it still had a few drawbacks worth considering.

I tested the Canadian-market 2026 Ford Bronco Sport Big Bend for a week in western British Columbia, covering under 1,000 kilometers in fair weather with some occasional light rain, across city driving, highway jaunts, winding coastal roads, and light trail driving.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Powertrain And Driving: Zippy On The Highway, Grippy On The Trail — 8.5/10

The 2026 Bronco Sport offers two powertrains: a 1.5-liter EcoBoost inline-three, or a 2.0-liter EcoBoost inline-four. This one had the former, and despite seeming like the relatively gutless base engine option on paper—not to mention comically low on cylinder count—it was surprisingly fun to drive. Because almost everything else in its segment packs a four-cylinder punch, the Sport’s boosted three-cylinder has its own distinctive character, with a raspy engine note further aided by audible, whooshy turbo noises. Pair that with the fact that the Bronco Sport skips the segment-standard CVT for a more conventional 8-speed automatic, and stepping on the throttle becomes quite an enjoyable experience for a vehicle that plays in the same sandbox as the Nissan Rogue and the Subaru Forester.

With up to 180 horsepower and 200 lb-ft of torque on tap, the Bronco Sport not only makes many of its other non-hybrid rivals feel slouchy by comparison, but it can also trade that zippiness for calm, quiet smoothness at the turn of a dial. Sifting through the various G.O.A.T. (Goes Over Any Terrain) modes can be a hassle, but choosing the right setting for the conditions can make a palpable difference. Whereas Sport mode makes it feel tighter and more responsive on coastal highways and mountain roads, Eco mode can just as easily take the wind out of its proverbial sails in the city, offering a soft, relaxed experience that favors higher gears and leans more on the turbocharger for thrust. Slippery and Off-Road modes are also included, letting drivers change the SUV’s personality on the fly to suit the many types of driving the Bronco Sport is built to handle. During the week I had it, I averaged 11.0 L/100 km after a pretty even mix of city and highway driving, with a brief bit of light trail driving. That’s roughly 21.4 mpg in U.S. fuel economy terms, which, in my opinion, is merely adequate for something this size, this rugged, and this fun to drive.

My only real concern regarding the powertrain is its long-term durability, or potential lack thereof. Although the 1.5-liter EcoBoost engine’s main camshaft timing is chain-driven, Ford drives the oil pump with an oil-bathed wet belt, treating it as a component designed to last the vehicle’s “lifetime” rather than be routinely maintained. My concern is that if anything goes wrong with the oil pump down the line, repairing it would be incredibly time- and labor-intensive. That said, after more research and digging through forum posts, owners generally report solid durability from these motors, though its 1.0-liter ancestor was not as well regarded. So while the wet belt is worth keeping in mind if you plan to own one long term, it doesn’t seem worth breaking a deal over. As for driving dynamics, the Bronco Sport impressed in most ways, except for ride quality, which is quite firm and can be a bit rough on the spine over harsh pavement, but it’s a predictable trade-off for its more-capable-than-most adventure-readiness.

Technology: All You Need, No Added Fluff — 9.0/10

Although the Bronco Sport falls into the modern trap of cramming too many controls into one giant screen, I still appreciated how easy the software was to navigate. Everything loads quickly, common commands sit permanently at the bottom of the screen, and some physical buttons still exist on the center console and steering wheel. Despite the large screen, the Bronco Sport’s tech experience still feels as though it fades into the background—in the best way possible. Most of it disappears around the experience, so you can stay present as you trudge through muddy trails, meander through picturesque mountain passes, or navigate dreadful city traffic on a rainy autumn evening. There’s not much more to say about the Bronco Sport’s tech than that it does its job properly: wireless Apple CarPlay is seamless, adjustable drive modes are well calibrated and tangibly shape the SUV’s dynamic personality, and its active safety systems aren’t overly sensitive, yet are still dependable when needed.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

Exterior Styling: Hitting The Right Note — 9.5/10

The Bronco Sport’s styling isn’t for everyone. Some find it a bit too stubby and old-school, and others can’t get past the fact that it tries too hard to look like the “real Bronco,” despite not actually being one by virtue of its unibody underpinnings and transversely mounted powertrain. Me, though? I think Ford nailed it, and its sales figures prove I’m not alone. Perhaps I’m a bit biased—after all, I own a Series 1 Land Rover Discovery, so I couldn’t help but appreciate all the subtle details the Bronco Sport borrows from the iconic British marque. Beyond the squared proportions, the Bronco Sport adds a raised rear roof for stadium-style rear seating without sacrificing headroom, a raised window behind the C-pillar for added stylistic emphasis, and roof rails that visually connect both sections. Add a frame-mounted bull bar, as my tester did, and although it doesn’t protect the headlights like the one on my own Disco, it underlines the SUV’s rugged intentions in dramatic fashion.

Meaty metal tow hooks sell the adventure-ready look from the rear, and my tester’s “Bronze+Black Diamond Package” adds even more depth to the design. The Sport does an excellent job of toeing the line between Land Rover-inspired styling and staying true to its own Escape and Bronco heritage, and so I don’t really have any complaints about its exterior design other than that it doesn’t look nearly as striking as the actual Bronco, so although it’s entirely by design, the Bronco Sport can’t help but live in the full-fat Bronco’s shadow, both spiritually and visually.

Interior And Practicality: Short But Tall — 8.5/10

The Bronco Sport’s Land Rover-inspired exterior styling is even more impactful inside, where its raised rear roof allows for stadium-style rear seating, which, in my case, means less motion-sickness suffering as a rear occupant. Although its tall body offers plenty of headroom, the Bronco Sport still feels a bit cramped inside. That’s largely because many rivals, including the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Chevrolet Equinox, have longer wheelbases, so the Ford’s rear legroom feels pretty tight by comparison. Even the Subaru Forester, which actually has a shorter wheelbase than the Bronco Sport, still offers better rear legroom.

The same goes for cargo capacity: height over length. The Bronco Sport’s trunk is tall, but its horizontal depth falls short of key rivals like the RAV4 and Equinox, making it more difficult to fit longer items like golf clubs and skis. What sets the Bronco Sport apart from almost all of its rivals, though, is its openable rear window hatch—a feature previously found on first- and second-generation Escapes, but disappeared when the model went full Euro—which not only allows for easier tailgate access in tight spaces, but also a layered and partially hidden storage stacking solution with the help of a foldable shelf in the trunk. In some cases, this glass hatch might actually make up for the Bronco Sport’s lack of horizontal depth and then some. Depending on your climate tolerance, you can easily load surfboards, skis, and snowboards diagonally into the trunk, with their tips hanging out of the open glass for transport.

Value: Good Value, Provided You Choose Carefully — 8.5/10

The Bronco Sport Big Bend starts at $31,845 in the U.S., before destination, and includes four-wheel drive. That gives it a head start against the $35,600 Equinox Activ AWD, $36,995 Forester Wilderness, and $39,900 RAV4 Woodland Hybrid, all quoted on the same basis. However, the value competition tightens quickly as you tick more boxes on the options list. My Canadian-market tester reached C$50,665 including delivery, with Black Diamond and the additional Bronze treatment accounting for C$4,610 after the package credit. That’s roughly $35,600 American dollars, placing it in immediate Equinox Activ territory.

The spatial comparison is a bit more nuanced than the Ford’s stubby body suggests. Both the Subaru and Chevrolet provide more rear legroom, but the Bronco Sport actually offers more overall cargo volume than the Equinox with the rear seats upright or folded. The Forester has less cargo volume behind its rear seats, yet more with them lowered. Its 9.3 inches of ground clearance and 3,500-pound towing rating also give buyers tangible reasons to spend more than the appropriately equipped Big Bend, which has 7.8 inches of ground clearance and a 2,200-pound tow limit.

The Toyota poses the strongest challenge on running costs. Its hybrid powertrain delivers 236 horsepower and an EPA-rated 38 mpg combined, against the Ford’s 27 mpg. At 15,000 miles annually and an assumed $4 per gallon, that difference works out to roughly $640 in yearly fuel savings. The Woodland also provides more rear legroom and cargo capacity. My own 21.4-mpg average makes the Bronco Sport’s missing hybrid option harder to overlook, especially since the original Escape offered one more than 20 years ago, and its platform mate, the Maverick, now offers one paired with all-wheel-drive. Nevertheless, the Big Bend makes a convincing case with a carefully chosen specification. Its character, useful equipment, and enjoyable driving experience recover much of what made the original Escape appealing. Just make sure the optional equipment earns its cost through actual use.

Overall Verdict: A Return To Form Under A New Name — 8.8/10

After a week with the Bronco Sport, I’m convinced Ford remembered what made the original Escape so appealing and brought it back, albeit with updated nomenclature. The Big Bend trim combines rugged personality, useful everyday practicality, and an unexpectedly entertaining powertrain in a compact SUV that I actually looked forward to driving. Its appeal runs deeper than some nostalgic styling and a familiar badge on its nose, but it isn’t flawless. The ride can be harsh, rear passengers don’t have much room to stretch out, and my fuel consumption was hardly something to celebrate. Still, its distinctive styling, uncomplicated technology, and clever details make those shortcomings easier to forgive than they would be in something more generic-feeling.

What I’d like most is the Maverick’s hybrid AWD powertrain as an option. A hybrid could lower fuel bills and make city driving more relaxed while keeping the all-weather traction buyers expect, and the Maverick’s powertrain avoids wet belts. Considering the original Escape offered hybrid power more than two decades ago, that feels like the obvious next step toward perfecting the recipe. For me, this is about the closest thing to a modern Honda Element, what the Land Rover Discovery Sport should have been, and a masterful return to form for the Escape. Ford has made a compact SUV that feels like it knows what it wants to be. Apparently, it just wants a different name.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

The year 2026 is big for the Toyota Corolla. That’s because it turns 60 and is one of the few nameplates that have lasted for decades. In the Toyota lineup, only the Land Cruiser and Crown have been around longer, having been released in 1951 and 1955, respectively. The Corolla arrived in 1966, and it was the right car at the right time for both Toyota and the Japanese car industry.

The thing is, it could’ve all ended even before its 40th birthday. There was a time when the Corolla’s relevance was put into question, which seems unimaginable now or, well, ever. A world without the Corolla just sounds rather strange.

The Background

So what led Toyota to nearly ax one of its most beloved nameplates? It’s not that the company was struggling, but rather, Japan was reeling from the effects of the economic bubble burst. It was catastrophic for the Japanese economy, and the automotive industry wasn’t spared. At the same time, the Asian Economic Crisis compounded one challenge after another.

While the Corolla name was doing well abroad, things were a little different in Japan. More consumers were starting to favor minivans and MPVs, and SUVs were already picking up pace. Perhaps ironically, Toyota’s extensive range of family haulers in the late ’90s threatened the car’s existence and relevance. The company was just about ready to retire the name, and it was a tough time in Toyota Corolla history. However, one chief engineer fought for the nameplate’s survival, and is the very reason the ninth-generation Corolla (2000 to 2007) existed to continue its legacy.

Enter, Takeshi Yoshida

We can best describe Takeshi Yoshida as the Corolla’s savior. He started his career at Toyota in 1974, worked his way up, and eventually became product planner for the model in 1984. He then became chief engineer for the Soluna in 1992, a sedan based on the Tercel and sold in select Southeast Asian markets. He then returned to Japan in 1997 and was appointed chief engineer of the ninth-gen Corolla.

During the Corolla’s 50th anniversary celebrations a decade ago, he shared insights into Toyota’s mood at the time. “I was in charge of developing the ninth-generation Corolla after Japan’s asset-inflated bubble burst in the 1990s. It was a time when our notions about accessible cars and luxury were getting turned on their head. We even questioned the Corolla’s staying power, and debated the possibility of changing the car’s name. Meanwhile, Toyota was ramping up overseas production, and it was time for the Corolla team, which had been focused on the Japan market until then, to turn our focus abroad as well.”

For Yoshida, the same old formula that Toyota had stuck with for the Corolla wasn’t going to cut it anymore. It needed a new approach, while keeping the values that made a Corolla a Corolla. In an interview with Toyota UK Magazine, he said, “I constantly heard about how the Corolla was a can’t fail vehicle for Toyota. However, I believed that if a manufacturer is overly concerned about failure and ultimately places priority on cost and ease of production, it will end up making a product that is convenient for themselves.” That meant the ninth-gen model wasn’t just going to be a clean-sheet design; it was to be a totally new approach in developing the Toyota Corolla for the 2000s.

From Scratch

The Corolla has always been a world car, but it was primarily catered to the home market. Yoshida said the ninth-gen model needed an even more worldwide approach, which is why it incorporated more input from abroad. “We vowed to set aside any foolish pride or vanity and to do everything we could to carry out that mission,” said the chief engineer.

To do that, Yoshida tore down the walls that kept departments working in isolation and promoted more open cooperation among teams. They then held weekly meetings to discuss challenges and hurdles that needed to be addressed, followed by a plan for what needed to be done to reach the next goal. Mind you, this was quite literally a worldwide effort, long before the days of video conferencing as we know them today.

Also, the car had to be developed while keeping costs down. Remember, the late ’90s weren’t such a good time for the Japanese economy, so every yen, dollar, and other currencies needed to be spent wisely. Thankfully, a new platform had just launched to help curb those costs. It was the MC platform, and the car that first used it was an unsung hero. The Toyota Vista is a model that’s not very well known outside Japan, but the sedan that slotted between compact and midsize was key to building the car’s foundations.

The Final Product

Years of hard work and development culminated in the year 2000 with the launch of the ninth-gen Corolla in Japan. Available as a sedan, hatchback, or wagon, it was a leap compared to its predecessor. Bigger, more space-efficient, and richer-feeling, it felt more like a baby Camry than an enlarged Corolla. Reception towards it was positive, and it was a refreshing take on the nameplate at the time. For those who came from an eighth-gen, it was a whole new world.

Two versions of this car were made, but the basic underpinnings were the same. One was for Europe and Japan, with the latter being ever so slightly smaller, and another for the rest of the world that was a little longer and wider, with a different front and rear end. The latter became available in 2001 and was also known as the Corolla Altis. As a side note, Brad Pitt appeared in commercials for it, and he also appeared on ad materials and even brochures.

America had to wait until 2002 for it to reach showrooms, but that didn’t hamper the car’s success. The bold redesign paid off for Toyota, as it would frequently sell over 300,000 of these throughout its production run. For comparison, the previous model didn’t break 300,000 annual unit sales in America. It did well in Europe, too, although the minivan and hatchback market in Japan gained even more momentum, so the ninth-gen didn’t exactly surpass its predecessor in its home market. Still, cumulative global sales were much higher than before, and they more than justified the Corolla’s existence and relevance worldwide. It also shows the amount of effort it takes to build a true world car – a very reliable world car, at that.

Crossroads, Again

It’s been over 25 years since the generation that saved the nameplate first came out, and the Corolla finds itself at a crossroads yet again. Crossovers and SUVs have become the new normal vehicles, while sedans and hatchbacks have been relegated to the sidelines. Of course, the Corolla is still doing well, but it’s fighting for relevance once more.

This time around, Toyota has adapted by adding the Corolla Cross. While it’s not outselling the regular model as a whole, it does show the brand’s willingness to evolve the model and an awareness that the name has to move with the times. The next-gen Corolla is just around the corner, and it’s expected to have a radical redesign. If anything, we’re probably witnessing the 2000s Toyota Corolla being recreated.

View the 19 images of this gallery on the original article

Ford Fathom’s Affordable Price Could Be At Stake

While Ford has committed to sub-$30k pricing, Farley says the automaker is still exploring ways to reduce the electric pickup’s production costs. The Blue Oval has previously confirmed that it is working with new suppliers it hasn’t engaged with before in getting the UEV’s supply chain in order, and striking the right balance between cost and quality is surely a challenge. Similarly, getting that balance right will matter to buyers, and with Ford confirming that every Fathom will have the necessary hardware to take advantage of BlueCruise hands-free driving technology – along with Apple Maps, standard CarPlay and Android Auto, bi-directional charging, and a digital key – opportunities to save money are surely scarce. It’s also worth mentioning that Ford is targeting 0-60 mph in around 4.5 seconds, which means the Fathom will need decent brakes and rubber. Of course, the Fathom isn’t the only vehicle Ford plans to produce on the UEV architecture. Bigger, potentially more profitable offerings may help balance the ledger, but they’re years away, and investors in a publicly listed company like Ford don’t tend to have much patience when it comes to throwing billions at the immensely competitive EV space. In other words, Ford can’t afford to overengineer the Fathom for fear of incurring the wrath of the accountants, and it also can’t underdeliver and disappoint buyers, or interest in future electric Fords will be weak.

Autoblog’s Take

We have no doubt that Jim Farley is deadly serious when he talks about the financial challenges associated with launching a mass-produced, low-cost electric pickup. And with even cheaper offerings coming from Slate Auto and REO, the latter of which is developing a $21,500 gas pickup, the Fathom will have its work cut out proving that it’s worth the higher sticker price. But after President Trump decided to slash fuel economy requirements, Ford will have much more leeway to meet average emissions standards, freeing up resources that would have been allocated towards increasing gas engine efficiency. On the other hand, the reclassification of crossovers and small SUVs as passenger vehicles instead of light trucks (a handy and profitable loophole for automakers) means Ford will have to work harder to meet some targets, including safety benchmarks, and that’s not cheap either.

UAW Reveals Bolt’s Production Timeline

News of the Bolt winding down production comes from local United Auto Workers union president Dontay Wilson, who revealed that the production facility in Kansas where the Bolt is assembled is on course to complete approximately 35,000 examples before the EV’s story is brought to a close in the first quarter of 2027. Wilson learned of the change through a memo to union workers, which also revealed that almost 1,000 employees are being put on indefinite layoff, and says the plant was formerly projected to produce in the region of 150,000 units before moving on to next year’s gas Equinox (currently built in Mexico), but GM, though still very much in the EV game, is reallocating some resources toward building more profitable gas engines.

Related: GM Emerges as Biggest Winner From U.S. Fuel Economy Rollback

The automaker didn’t provide much explanation for the change, only saying that it “continuously evaluate[s] market dynamics and customer demand,” but it appears that GM was using the Bolt as a way to get more EVs out the door to take advantage of tax credits, and now that those tax credits are gone, the juice is no longer worth the squeeze. That leaves buyers with one fewer affordable option on the market, and given how high gas prices are, that’s a pity. To be fair, GM only sold 4,224 Bolts through August, so we can understand why the automaker wants to optimize for stronger sellers.

Autoblog’s Take

If it turns out that this report is numerically accurate and just 35,000 examples of the improved-for-2027 Chevy Bolt are made ($27,600, excluding $1,395 for destination), it will become a relatively rare car. When the Bolt abdicates, the crown of the cheapest EV in the U.S. will be worn by the Nissan Leaf, which currently sells for $29,990 (plus $1,495 for destination). Meanwhile, the next cheapest EV GM makes will be the Equinox EV ($34,995 before a $1,800 destination charge). If EV momentum gains steam again, and if affordable EVs, like those from Slate and REO, for example, prove popular, GM may well decide to reenter the space.

The new Bolt isn’t revolutionary, but it is markedly better than the model that ended its life after the 2023 model year. It’s been tweaked inside and out, and its 262-mile range is quite impressive given the sub-$30k price tag. I drove the pricier top trim RS for a week, and it brought a smile to my face in most aspects. There were, however, a handful of things that annoyed me.

The Lack of Regen Braking Paddles

Regenerative braking is a great feature on EVs and hybrids. It’s an energy-recovery system that captures some of the energy normally lost as heat when the brakes are applied. The electric motor acts as a generator driven by the vehicle’s forward momentum. The system produces electricity, which is sent back to the battery to use later. It improves efficiency and reduces wear. Some cars have paddle controls to adjust the aggressiveness of the system. The Bolt used to have them but no more.

The system can improve overall efficiency and, because it reduces reliance on conventional friction brakes in many situations, may also help limit brake-pad wear. The original Bolt used a steering-wheel paddle to provide stronger regen braking because its earlier brake system wasn’t able to fully prioritize regen through the brake pedal alone. The 2027 Bolt has a more advanced blended-braking system that can maximize energy recovery through the pedal before applying the conventional friction brakes, eliminating the need for a separate regen on demand paddle. Now, adjustments have to be made on-screen, making the level change harder to access. I realize the new system is more efficient, but I appreciated the paddles to make quick adjustments.

The Hard Plastics

There’s no avoiding some material cheapness in a sub-$30k vehicle. It’s expected that when prices need to be kept down, some areas of the cabin will invariably suffer. In the Bolt, it’s primarily the door panels, center console, and the dashboard. They’re not just hard to the touch but also visually cheap. The contrast between them and the high quality seats, technology screens, and the great switchgear is stark. I wouldn’t complain so much, but other automakers like Hyundai and Kia do lesser plastics better.

The black plastic on the door panels are some of the cheapest I’ve come across. It’s thin, hollow-sounding when tapped on, and grainy. That continues on the center console sides, which sport the same stuff. It’s prevalent on the sides of the lower binnacle and on the armrest sides. The top of the dashboard is also cheap but not quite as bad as the doors and dash.

The Overstyled Rear Quarters

I would characterize the Bolt’s styling as tidy. It’s a compact package that’s generally well-executed. Its front end styling is attractive and especially sporty in RS trim. The black wheels and details all over the Bolt RS’s exterior make it look pricier than it is. That said, I’m not a big fan of the rear quarter, especially the top half. The Bolt has a floating roof that joins with the C-pillar. There’s a big uptick just below the back half of the rear window, and the window frame continues to the roof spoiler.

It’s not the floating roof effect I don’t like. It’s the use of so many creases in one place. I count at least half a dozen in a very small area. Most of them converge to a single point and contribute to a rear section that’s overly busy. On a larger vehicle, this might not look as strange, but the subcompact Bolt doesn’t wear it very well. Pair that with a complex taillight shape, and things look overdone.

The Steering Column-Mounted Shift Lever

The Bolt isn’t the only car that has this type of shifter. Mercedes does it, and so does Hyundai. That said, this is one of the worst versions I’ve used. The stalk is small, plasticky, and isn’t worthy to be one of the most important controls in a vehicle. It’s not even a special color to set it apart from the wiper stalk/turn signal stalk on the left side.

Functionally, it works fine once you get used to it. It just doesn’t look or feel substantial. Hyundai’s version is large, rectangular and uses a twist motion to operate. The Bolt’s has to be pulled forward and down to shift into drive or forward and up for reverse. It’s not a great shifter, and I found myself lamenting its existence.

Final Thoughts

The 2027 Chevy Bolt RS is a truly worthy entry-level EV. It’s got the range, the comfort, and tech to please most drivers. There are, however, some low points that can be annoyances rather than deal breakers. Some of these shortcomings are expected at this price, while others are design issues. Nevertheless, the Bolt is worth more than its very affordable sticker price.

And yet, as the highway opened up, the A-Spec mostly made me miss the Integra Type S—a feeling I found rather curious, since driving the Dodge Charger Scat Pack at the very same event made me feel as though its less expensive and less potent sibling, the R/T, was a perfectly adequate, money-saving substitute. The A-Spec with Technology Package is a friendlier, more economical, and arguably more complete daily driver than the Type S, which is substantially more expensive, thirstier, and less accommodating. But the Type S is still the one I would buy in a heartbeat.

Same Family, Different Priorities

I drove the A-Spec for roughly 30 minutes during the same speed-dating-style event rotation as the other cars at Drive Revolution. By then, however, I had recently spent a full week and about 500 kilometers with the Type S around Vancouver, British Columbia, on the Sea-to-Sky Highway, and along Squamish Valley Road—a particular local favorite of mine. The Type S was still fresh in my memory—which might have made the contrast unusually apparent, but the same can also be said of the Dodge Charger duo. Both cars preserve the fundamentals that make the Integra special. They are front-wheel-drive liftbacks with six-speed manual transmissions, limited-slip differentials, adaptive dampers, and plenty of space for daily transportation. Both feel light on their feet, communicate clearly, and remind you that an engaging car doesn’t require rear-wheel drive or absurd power to be excellent.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

The scale of the mechanical difference is quite substantial, though, especially given the car’s relatively low weight. The A-Spec’s turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder produces 200 horsepower and 192 pound-feet of torque. The Type S gets a 2.0-liter turbo four with 320 hp and 310 lb-ft, plus a dual-axis front suspension, larger brakes, a wider track, much more tire, and a louder active exhaust. The A-Spec with Technology Package starts at $39,200. My Performance Red Pearl test car carried an $800 paint charge and a $1,195 destination fee for a $41,195 total. The Type S starts at $53,900 before destination. However you normalize the additional charges, this is a five-figure decision—no small upgrade.

The A-Spec Earned Its Award

Two hundred horsepower sounds modest in 2026, but the A-Spec is still plenty quick. Its 1.5-liter engine is responsive enough to make on-ramps enjoyable and yet flexible enough to suit commuting, errands, and long highway drives. More importantly, it feels multidimensional—more so than the Type S. You can work the engine and gearbox in Sport mode when the road gets interesting, and Comfort mode quiets things down immensely for calmer daily cruising. The six-speed also retains the fundamental precision I loved in the Type S. Its throws are clean, its gates well defined, and its clutch easy to use. Still, the gearbox feels more naturally matched to the Type S’s powertrain. In that car, every shift becomes part of a symbiotic rhythm shared among the engine, exhaust, front axle, and driver. In the A-Spec, shifting is an enjoyable way to operate a very good daily powertrain. Its chassis follows a similar pattern—the steering carries the same underlying accuracy, but the A-Spec is not as tight or immediate. There is more body roll, and its responses are less intense, but that extra movement is a large part of what makes it ride so well.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

The Type S rides superbly for something so sporty, but the A-Spec simply rides superbly. It blends body control and compliance without requiring that added qualifier, absorbing imperfect pavement while still retaining enough composure to make more spirited drives worthwhile. Its narrower body is easier to place, the cabin is quieter, and it keeps the moonroof that Acura deletes from the Type S in the name of rigidity and weight savings. Fuel economy strengthens the A-Spec’s more sensible appeal: the manual A-Spec is rated at 26 mpg in the city, 36 on the highway, and 30 combined, whereas the Type S manages just 21/28/24 mpg. Add the A-Spec’s lower tire, brake, and likely insurance costs, and the fiscal separation extends well beyond the showroom floor.

The Type S Creates A Sense Of Occasion

None of that changes what happened when I accelerated away from the cloverleaf. The A-Spec was doing everything well, but I remembered how the Type S pulled itself toward an apex under power, how its 2.0-liter engine charged toward 7,000 rpm and how the triple exhaust erupted in pops and crackles when I lifted in Sport+. The A-Spec is one of the most engaging new cars you can buy, but the Type S may be the single most engaging one of all. Its upgrades don’t feel like a collection of impressive numbers and parts merely pasted onto the same car. The extra power suits the chassis, the tighter body control suits the steering, and the wider front end, large Brembo brakes, and serious tires give the six-speed a powertrain worthy of its exceptional shift action. The entire package feels naturally calibrated around one purpose, while remaining comfortable and useful enough to drive every day.

The distinction continues inside. The A-Spec with Technology Package is hardly sparse: it includes heated microsuede-trimmed seats, a head-up display, wireless phone integration, and that excellent 16-speaker ELS Studio 3D audio system. As a consumer product, it gives up remarkably little. As a driving tool and, admittedly, something of a toy, it gives up more, and the red upholstery in my Type S and its more focused environment made it feel special before I even pressed the start button. The Type S doesn’t merely perform better; its cabin, widened bodywork, and triple exhaust continually remind you why you paid more for it.

Is The Integra Type S Worth The Upgrade?

For most buyers, the A-Spec with Technology Package is the smarter Integra. It preserves the manual transmission, precise controls, practical liftback, and fundamental playfulness while riding better, consuming less fuel, and costing substantially less. It was an entirely deserving award winner, and I stand by both of my votes. But “smarter” and “more desirable” aren’t synonyms.

The A-Spec feels like a purposeful, appropriate compromise. Ordinarily, that would be the end of the story, but after living with the Type S, I knew exactly what had been compromised: the engine’s urgency, the front axle’s astonishing focus, the exhaust’s character, and the sense that you’re driving something truly special. So, yes, the Type S is worth the upgrade—if those qualities are what made you want an Integra in the first place. It’s not five figures better as fun, premium transportation, but it is a markedly better experience for those who are addicted to the act of driving, and that’s often what matters most to an enthusiast. The A-Spec may have won the logical argument and earned my vote, but the Type S captured my heart.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

A three-year absence from the market might make some buyers forget a model even existed, unless it was just that good. Well, the 2027 Chevrolet Bolt has some important duties to fulfill before its 18-month limited production period ends. It has to remind buyers that it was a revolutionary EV given its price, range, and competence while informing them that the Bolt has been improved to make it even more compelling.

My test vehicle was a 2027 Chevy Bolt RS. The base price was $31,600 and included standard feature highlights such as 17″ gloss black aluminum wheels, LED headlights and taillights, gloss black roof rails, an 11.3″ infotainment touchscreen with Google built-in, an 11″ instrument display, remote start, single zone automatic climate control, heated and ventilated front seats, heated steering wheel, and ambient lighting.

Options included the Super Cruise package, a dual panel panoramic sunroof, and the Technology Package with HD Surround Vision, wireless phone charger, rear pedestrian alert, traffic sign recognition, and rain sensing wipers. The total, including the $1,395 destination charge, came to $38,940.

Exterior and Interior Styling

The Bolt’s sheetmetal isn’t much different from the Bolt EUV from which it’s sourced. I always thought the original Bolt looked far better than the much pricier but dimensionally similar BMW i3. In RS trim, the revised Bolt looks adds a sportier edge through darker exterior detailing, darker wheels, and a different black mesh pattern on the lower front fascia. The closed-off EV fascia manages to look more conventional thanks to the dark trim pieces.

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

Its proportions are compact, but the Bolt gets some stylized DRLs, headlights, and taillights. Other details include fender creases, contours in the lower half of the doors, and a racy twin-bubble roof spoiler. Darkened RS trim prevents it from looking like a rental the way the base LT does. From the profile view, the RS’s black wheels mate nicely with the body trim and floating roof. The short overhangs and tidy footprint make it look ready to scramble into tight urban parking spaces and thread traffic needles.

Inside, the RS treatment sport-ifies things nicely. The cabin uses darker trim, contrast stitching, and visual elements to make the dashboard feel more tailored than a typical econobox. Textured plastics in key storage areas, as well as ambient lighting, add personaltiy. The synthetic leather is patterened and perforated, topped off with contrast stitching and RS embossing on the headrests. These details keep the Bolt RS’s interior from descending into Dollar General territory.

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

Material quality is mixed, as expected in an affordable EV, but Chevrolet has placed the better-looking surfaces where occupants will notice them most. The dashboard, steering wheel, storage binnacles, and armrest touchpoints feel soft on contact. The door panels, the top of the dashboard, and the sides of the center console are slathered in hard black plastics, but that’s expected when most of the money is in the battery technology.

Technology and Infotainment

Technology is one of the areas where the Bolt glows up compared to most vehicles at this price. The 11.3″ central infotainment display is crisp, quick to respond, and placed high enough in the dashboard to be easy to glance at while driving. The digital driver display is equally useful, presenting speed, battery information, range estimates, navigation prompts, and energy-use data in a clean, easy to read layout. Sadly, there’s no Apple CarPlay or Android Auto, and the model will stick with Google built-in for its short life.

The system also brings the expected modern conveniences, including smartphone connectivity, voice controls, multiple USB charging points, and the optional wireless device charging deck, conveniently located just below the center stack. This pairing reminds me of a similar setup in the gas-only Chevy Trax, a vehicle that offers more than you’d think it would. The screens in the Bolt are easily some of the better ones I’ve come across.

Chevrolet’s driver-assistance suite is solid. Features such as adaptive cruise control, enhanced automatic emergency braking, forward collision alert, front pedestrian and bicyclist braking, automatic high beams, side bicyclist alert, intersection collision mitigation, rear automatic braking, and rear cross traffic alert with braking come as standard equipment on the RS. My tester also had the optional SuperCruise autonomous driving tech on mapped highways, and it works just like on Chevy’s much pricier models.

Comfort, Space, and Usability

The Bolt RS may be compact on the outside, but it uses its footprint well. The battery packaging allows for a relatively open interior layout, and the upright roofline gives it solid headroom for both front and rear passengers. The driving position feels more crossover-like, and visibility is excellent. The Bolt’s tall glass area and compact dimensions make it easy to place in traffic, an advantage for the model. I’m 6’0″ and have room to spare. The seats are on the firm side but still provide good comfort. Bolstering is also well done.

View the 1 images of this gallery on the original article

Rear occupants get 36.5 inches of legroom, which is very generous for this subcompact. Of course, the flat floor EVs are known for makes it a true five-passenger vehicle. The Bolt has more legroom than the Nissan Leaf and is on par with the Hyundai Kona. The Bolt provides 16.9 cubic feet behind row two and 56.6 cubic feet with the rear seats folded down. Storage space in the cabin is smart. It carves out shelves in the dash, and the phone charging tray has a rubber pad to keep smaller items in place.

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

There’s are also two large bins, one in the center console and on on the floor between the front seats. They have adjustable curved partitions, so it can accommodate large travel tumblers and coffee mugs. Physical controls are pretty good. I quite like the easy climate control knobs and buttons, although the audio knob in the upper right corner of the touchscreen frame isn’t ideally located. There’s no dual climate control in the Bolt, but the system works well. The RS also comes with heated and ventilated front seats, a big plus.

Finally, the addition of the optional sunroof is a pleasant surprise. I can’t think of another subcompact car (EV or gas) with a dual-pane panoramic sunroof. It makes the Bolt RS feel airier and more premium. It’s worth the $1,495.

Driving Experience and Efficiency

On the road, the Bolt RS feels lively and capable. It’s not rocket quick, but it’ll best most hatchbacks in a sprint, getting to 60 mph in under seven seconds. More important is the nstant electric torque that gives it quick responses from a stop. The compact body makes it easy to dart into gaps in traffic or merge confidently onto faster roads, and one pedal driving is an absolute reality. Of course, you can adjust it on screen if you want it more, or less, aggressive.

Steering is light but devoid of feedback, unsurprising for an EV. There is some torque steer due to the 210 horses and 169 lb-ft of torque The low-mounted battery helps keep its center of gravity in check, but the accuracy of the steering could be improved. It sometimes feels a little displaced in the corners. Regenerative braking is one of the Bolt’s best driving tools, and even in Normal mode, one pedal driving is a reality. We lament the loss of the regen braking paddle shifters on the last Bolt. Here, you have to make on-screen adjustments.

The Bolt uses a 65-kWh lithium iron phosphate battery and now gets a native NACS charge port. At a peak rate of up to 150 kW, it can charge from 10% to 80% in about 25 to 30 minutes. That’s about 180 miles of range —while a 240-volt Level 2 home charger can replenish a depleted battery in roughly seven to eight hours and a standard 120-volt outlet requires more than 50 hours, making it best reserved for occasional emergency top-ups.

Ride quality is generally good, but it errs on the side of firm. The larger wheels and more aggressive tires on the RS trim contribute to this. Over bumps and gaps, the cabin remains creak-free and solid. In daily commuting, the Bolt RS is more than capable and comfortable, and buyers should be impressed with the quality feel and composure that belies its affordability. That said, I would avoid the Super Cruise Package if you’re not planning on doing a lot of highway driving. Its $3,2500 price is the equivalent of about 10 percent of the base price of the RS. .

Final Verdict

The 2027 Bolt RS is one of the most impressive small EVs because of everything it packs into a sub-$32k EV with 262 miles of range. It’s smooth, nimble, spacious, and tech-forward. You should expect some interior cheapness, but that’s balanced by a generally well-appointed cabin and more rear legroom than some compact sedans. If you’re an urban dweller and have access to charging, the Bolt EV should be on your short list. Just remember that it’s not long for this world, so get on it.

As countries and governing bodies tighten emissions rules worldwide, the U.S. auto industry finds itself in a weird spot. The federal government passed a bill on Monday, September 28, 2026, reversing the previous administration’s push for more efficient gas-powered vehicles and more EVs.

The new rules are expected to take effect in early December. As a result, automakers will no longer be required to fit expensive fuel-saving technologies or bet their R&D dollars on EVs. With the new fuel economy rules in place, GM stands to save as much as $20.4 billion through 2031.

Less Costs

Under the previous rules, automakers had to add extra tech to make cars more efficient, which resulted in more efficient cars but more expensive ones. The once-stringent requirements will no longer be a concern, so many brands can save billions.

According to Reuters, the U.S. government estimates that automakers’ costs will decline by about $1,289 per vehicle, and the rest of the industry is estimated to save about $60.6 billion through 2031. The biggest saver is GM, projected to save about $20.4 billion.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also said that Stellantis’ costs will decline by $6.6 billion, Ford’s by $5.8 billion, Toyota’s by $4.5 billion, and Honda’s by $4.1 billion. By comparison, General Motors will save much more.

“Align fuel economy standards with market realities”

GM went on record stating that it supports the goals of the rule and its “intention to better align fuel economy standards with market realities.” With the government easing up on fuel economy regulations, brands won’t be stuck in a box anymore; instead, they can upgrade fuel economy only when budgets allow, and the market demands it.

In addition to un-rationing internal combustion engines’ fuel supply, the new rules could also potentially lead to more affordable cars in the future. As stated, brands can save around $1,289 per vehicle through 2031, which is more than a previous estimate of $930. It could also mean a resurgence in gas-powered cars, more jobs for brands that have the facilities to make ICEs, and more breathing room for automakers to launch new products the market may or may not want.

However, even with the extra breathing room these new rules afford, high fuel prices still matter, and some consumers may still turn to hybrids, range-extenders, or electric vehicles as a hedge against price fluctuations.

President Trump has also posted that EV adoption has “forced Americans into cars they never wanted,” while wasting “billions on chargers that were never built.” What his administration’s new ruling could also mean is a big resurgence in profitability for automakers in the United States, a problem that has been weighing heavily on established brands in the country for quite a while now.

2026 Hyundai Venue vs. Chevrolet Trax Specifications

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

The Venue Might Be Slow, But It’s Exceptionally Well Calibrated

With only 121 horsepower and 113 lb-ft of torque, the Venue requires some patience when merging onto an interstate. You have to plan the maneuver, build speed early in anticipation, and keep your foot planted when necessary. It can complete the task perfectly well, but effortless acceleration isn’t quite how I’d describe it. That didn’t mean it was unpleasant, though; you just have to be patient and alert. The Venue’s low weight and linear, naturally aspirated power delivery help it feel more energetic than its specifications suggest. Its IVT—or Intelligent Variable Transmission, Hyundai’s clever name for what is essentially a CVT—also operated pretty seamlessly during my drive. I would still rather have the six-speed manual or conventional six-speed automatic offered in certain foreign markets, but Hyundai has calibrated the North American powertrain remarkably well for the kind of driving we do.

The way the Venue handles was another pleasant surprise. It felt tight, properly weighted, and actually more communicative than the systems in either the Kia Seltos or K4 I drove at the same event. The Venue was nimble, easy to place, stable at highway speed, and far less strained or noisy than I expected. Although it was the least powerful—and probably least sporty—vehicle at Drive Revolution, it was nowhere near my least favorite to drive. Its simplicity and lightness gave it a mechanical honesty missing from several larger, more complicated crossovers.

The Trax, on the other hand, is appreciably stronger in terms of performance. Its 137-hp turbocharged three-cylinder produces 162 lb-ft of torque, giving it a substantial advantage when merging, overtaking, or climbing through hilly terrain. Once the turbo wakes up, it feels legitimately punchy, but its delivery is less polished. The Trax I tested exhibited a noticeable lull before boost arrived, followed by an abrupt swell of power once it did. Its six-speed automatic could also become indecisive at lower speeds, so compared with Hyundai’s uncomplicated response, the Chevrolet occasionally felt as if its engine and transmission were on slightly different wavelengths. For urban driving, I prefer the Venue, but for interstate travel or hilly and mountainous regions, I would gladly accept the Trax’s rougher manners in exchange for its additional muscle.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana: no-haggle pricing, 100% online.

Cheap Doesn’t Have To Mean Degrading

Although the Venue’s exterior is beginning to show its age, the SEL’s two-tone specification helps a great deal, and it’s that added sense of creative charm that underscores the Hyundai’s entire philosophy. For example, my Denim-colored tester wore a white roof and contained a visually striking blue-grey interior with textured white trim. Its design, both inside and out, appears inexpensive to some degree, sure, but it never assumes that inexpensive things must also be lifeless, nor does it assume that they should ever lack the same sense of refinement you’d expect from other models in the same lineup.

Its eight-inch infotainment system and 4.2-inch driver display look admittedly dated beside the Trax’s available 11-inch touchscreen and eight-inch digital cluster. Yet the Venue’s technology worked just as well; its physical controls were easy to understand, and the cabin felt finely assembled. The SEL also includes heated front seats, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, and a wireless phone charger, all of which make the cabin feel far more current than it actually is.

The Trax appears more contemporary inside and out. Its long, wagon-like proportions give it a mature appearance, while the 2RS’s 19-inch wheels, dark trim, and red interior accents disguise its entry-level origins remarkably well. It offers more visual theatre than the Venue and occasionally feels more premium. The Hyundai counters with better perceived material quality, a more natural driving position, better outward visibility, and seats I found more accommodating. Its interior feels refreshingly simple rather than conspicuously basic, and that was ultimately the Venue’s greatest accomplishment: driving it never felt like you were sacrificing a standard of refinement for a lower price tag. The Trax, though, counters by ensuring you don’t feel like you’re sacrificing ease of use—in terms of both power and spaciousness—which can’t be said as earnestly of the Venue.

The Trax Wins The Measuring Tape Battle By A Long Way

There’s simply no argument for creative design or marginally better materials in a budget subcompact SUV that can effectively outweigh the Trax’s enormous packaging advantage. Chevrolet provides 25.6 cubic feet of cargo room behind the rear seats and 54.1 with them folded. The Venue manages just 18.7 and 31.9 cubic feet, respectively. The Trax’s rear seat is substantially roomier, too, making it the de facto recommendation for adults carrying other adults, sports equipment, strollers, or anything else that accumulates in suburban life.

The Venue feels more vertically oriented and remains comfortable for taller occupants, but its narrower cabin and shorter body impose unavoidable limits. Its compact dimensions are wonderful in crowded cities and parking garages, but they become harder to defend when the Trax delivers so much additional room for comparatively little money. Neither offers all-wheel drive, so that limitation effectively cancels itself out. Buyers who need AWD will have to look toward something like the Chevrolet Trailblazer or Hyundai Kona instead.

Two Separate Ideas Of Value

My Venue’s sticker totaled $24,440, including its $1,600 freight charge and $240 in accessories. A Trax LT starts at $23,200, plus a $1,795 destination charge, for $24,995 before options. For roughly $555 more than this particular Venue, the Trax LT provides considerably more space and torque while returning nearly identical EPA fuel economy. That is an enormous blow to Hyundai’s objective value proposition.

At Drive Revolution, though, the Kia K4 GT-Line Turbo Hatchback ultimately won the Best Value award, while the Venue and substantially more expensive Seltos tied for second. The Venue received my vote. It earned that vote because Hyundai hasn’t responded to a price constraint by letting assembly quality, ergonomics, or driving calibration slip. The Venue isn’t trying to cram the largest possible automobile into the smallest possible monthly payment. It simply gives you less automobile, assembled with nearly as much care as Hyundai’s costlier products. Its lengthy 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty further strengthens that argument.

Verdict: The Venue For Me, The Trax For Thee

For the broadest cross-section of North American subcompact-SUV buyers, the Trax is easier to recommend. Its additional space, stronger highway performance, more contemporary technology, and nearly identical official fuel economy make it the more versatile choice for comparatively little extra money. But that recommendation comes with several qualifications. The Trax’s ride can feel clunky; its turbocharged engine and six-speed automatic transmission lack the Venue’s low-speed polish, and neither vehicle offers all-wheel drive. Urban buyers who value compact dimensions, predictable responses, and a satisfying sense of mechanical simplicity may find the Hyundai more appealing.

That’s ultimately where I land: the Trax makes more sense, but the Venue makes a greater impression. The Chevrolet serves the segment better, but the Hyundai suits me better. If your affordable crossover must do a little of everything, choose the Trax. If you want a small, honest, unusually polished city car, choose the Venue.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

The Crosstrek and Forester does a lot of heavy lifting for Subaru sales in the U.S, but let’s not forget about the car that those two best-sellers are based upon, the Impreza. It’s been around for a couple of years already, and while it doesn’t sell in high numbers, it still has its place in the lineup.

For those looking for a reasonably-priced all-wheel-drive compact car, there’s good news here. The hatchback has been updated, along with a lower price tag that might tempt you away from that Corolla or Civic.

Made More Affordable

As average new car prices continue to swell, Subaru bucked that trend with the 2027 Impreza. Instead of raising prices, Subaru has made it more affordable by lowering base prices by $2,000. With that, the Impreza remains one of the least expensive all-wheel drive-equipped cars on the market, and the most affordable compact car with standard all-wheel drive.

So, how did Subaru do it? The company has ditched the Sport trim and replaced it with the new Base model. The Impreza Base starts at just $24,595, making it about the same price as an all-wheel-drive Nissan Kicks and over $3,000 less than a Corolla Hybrid LE AWD. We wouldn’t call the car bare, either, as it comes with advanced driver assists, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (wired), dual-zone climate control, and even steering responsive headlights.

That said, two dead giveaways mark it as a base model. The first would be a smaller set of wheels, from 18 inches down to 17 inches. The second would be a smaller split touchscreen.

Other Highlights

For those who want a little more equipment, they will have to go straight for the 2027 RS model, since the Sport is being discontinued. While more expensive than the Base, its MSRP of $29,495 keeps it at the same price as the 2026 version. Over the entry-level model, it adds black 18-inch alloys, along with a larger 11.6-inch screen, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, satellite radio, connected services, and an all-weather package.

Subaru also added a new wireless charger to the 2027 Impreza RS. The company also improved the cabin’s interior materials. Powertrain is still the same as before, although, even the base model is now powered by the 2.5-liter four-cylinder boxer engine that’s that’s good for 180 hp and 178 lb-ft. As for availability, the 2027 models will be in showrooms later this year.

The Bolt returns after a three-year hiatus. It skipped 2024-2026 before returning for the 2027 model year using the larger Bolt EUV body and charging and range modifications. The Bolt will have a limited run and will be short-lived (18 months), so the timeframe in which you can get your hands on one is pretty brief. The Leaf is the 3rd generation model, taking the economical EV into fresh crossover design territory and far better range than the first two. The question remains, which one is the better choice?

The Price

The 2027 Chevrolet Bolt is, literally, the cheapest EV you can buy in America right now. The Base Bolt LT opens at $28,995 including destination, while the 2026 Nissan Leaf S+ starts at $31,485 including freight. That roughly $2,500 gap matters when buyers are trying to save money while transitioning from gas to electric. Considering the upwards of $1,800 cost of charging annually on a DC fast charger (driving an average of 12,000 miles per year), that difference could weigh heavily in the Bolt’s favor.

Another factor to consider is that much of the argument for transitioning fuel types has to do with overall cost, not just cost to charge. When issuing a down payment and considering the monthly cost, the Bolt looks attractive. That said, as more affordable models reach the market, the financial case for cheaper EVs becomes stronger—especially for drivers with predictable daily mileage and access to home charging. Both cars win in this regard because they’re both very approachable in terms of price.

Electric Range on a Full Charge

The Bolt offers 210 horsepower, a 65-kWh lithium-iron-phosphate battery, and up to 262 miles of EPA-estimated range. The LFP battery chemistry is important to note because it is generally well-suited to frequent charging to 100 percent, a useful trait for owners who want to maximize day-to-day usable range.

On the flipside, the 2027 Nissan Leaf costs more than the Bolt, but Nissan puts more battery capacity and potential range on the table. The extended-range version uses a 75-kWh pack and is rated for up to 303 miles, a substantial advantage over the Bolt. Even the Leaf’s lower-range all-wheel-drive configuration is rated at 259 miles, essentially matching the Chevy. That 41-mile advantage in the Leaf’s best configuration makes it very attractive for those who don’t want to charge as much. That could be nearly two days of commuting range.

The Leaf also creates more of a range cushion in winter, at highway speeds, or when carrying passengers and cargo. A single digit difference isn’t much to get excited about but 41 miles is real. In real world testing, both the Leaf and the Bolt exceeded their EPA estimates, but the Leaf still finishes ahead.

The Bolt is still solid when it comes to range. 262-miles in the Bolt is not short-range. It’s actually more than the much pricier Volvo XC40 Recharge’s 240 miles. For a household with home charging and a normal commute, it supplies more than enough distance between charges. Buyers should not pay extra for the Leaf’s range if they will rarely use it because their home charger juices up the battery every night.

Electric Charging Speeds

Both EVs accept DC fast charging at up to 150 kW, and both use NACS hardware for access to Tesla-style fast-charging infrastructure. That is a huge improvement over the old Leaf, whose CHAdeMO connector became a disadvantage as the public charging market shifted toward newer standards. The previous Leaf could take as much as 45 minutes to charge on a DC fast charger, depending on battery size. That time has dropped to 35 minutes for the 2027 model.

The Bolt nevertheless claims the quicker juice-up time. Chevrolet says it can charge from 10 to 80 percent in about 26 minutes, versus Nissan’s 35 minutes. While 9 minutes doesn’t seem like much, in the real world, it feels like a substantial amount of time. The difference will be palpable on longer trips. A roughly 25-minute stop is much easier to manage, particularly when multiple charging sessions are needed in one day.

Space and Usability

The Leaf is the stronger cargo hauler with the rear seats occupied. It offers 20 cubic feet of cargo room behind its second row, compared with 16.2 cubic feet in the Bolt. The 3.8 cubic-foot difference is noticeable when you have rear passengers. You won’t be fighting to cram your gear in since that’s about the equivalent of two carry-on pieces of luggage. Fold the seats down, though, and the difference isn’t as drastic: 55.5 cubic feet in the Nissan versus 56.3 in the Chevy.

When it comes to interior passenger space, the Bolt offers 44.3 inches of front legroom and 39.1 inches of second-row legroom. Front headroom (without sunroof) measures 40.0 inches and the back gets 37.8 inches. The Leaf’s legroom gets eclipsed by the Bolt with 42.4 inches of front row legroom, while the rear second-row legroom measures just 31.8 inches. Headroom in the Leaf is a smidge less than the Bolt at 39.9 inches in front (without sunroof) and 37.3 inches in back. If your focus is on occupant space, the Bolt wins. If it’s cargo, then go with the Leaf.

Verdict: Chevy Bolt Works Best For Most Buyers

The Chevy Bolt wins this bargain-EV matchup because it costs less, charges faster, offers more passenger space, and delivers nearly identical maximum cargo capacity. Its range isn’t as good as the Leaf’s, but it still delivers more than 260 miles of rated range. It is the more compelling choice for buyers who charge at home, want the lowest possible payment, and need an EV that works as an everyday commuter and occasional-trip vehicle.

Choose the Nissan Leaf instead if maximum range and seats-up cargo space are priorities. Its maximum 303-mile rating reduces range anxiety, and its extra rear cargo volume will appeal to drivers carrying strollers, camera gear, grocery runs, or family luggage. long-range small EV, but the Bolt is the more attractive bargain.

2027 Kia K5 Gets Minor Changes

The Kia K5 arrived in 2019 to replace the Optima, and it’s already had one facelift in 2023, so either another facelift or a full redesign are expected at some point in 2027. In the meantime, the top-tier EX trim has been dropped, but there’s now a convenience package available for the GT-Line, adding ventilated seats, a memory seat for the driver, and power-folding wing mirrors. The GT-Line sits in the middle of the range, as seen in the MY2027 pricing table below.

As standard, most trims of the 2027 Kia K5 feature a naturally aspirated 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine sending 191 horsepower and 181 lb-ft of torque to the front axle via an eight-speed automatic, with the GT-Line also offering an all-wheel-drive powertrain. The exception is the performance-biased K5 GT, which adds a turbo and uses a dual-clutch instead of a torque converter automatic to handle its 290 hp and 311 lb-ft of torque, enough to drop the 0-60 mph time from 8.5 seconds to a respectable 5.4.

Autoblog’s Take

With the 2026 Honda Accord starting at $28,395 before destination and the 2027 Toyota Camry at $29,700 before destination, the 2027 Kia K5 continues to undercut some of its competition, and Kia’s excellent warranty coverage is hard to ignore. It’s also worth noting that the Accord’s price will probably see similar bumps for 2027. Finally, we should point out that if getting the absolute cheapest midsize sedan is your goal, the 2026 Nissan Altima starts at just $27,580 before destination for 2026, and the 2026 Hyundai Sonata starts at $25,650 before destination, so there are even more affordable options on the market, especially if you don’t need the latest model.

Related: Destination Fees on New Cars Have Jumped 67% — Some Now Top $3,000

My previous experience with the outgoing Rogue left considerable room for improvement. When I reviewed the 2026 Rogue Rock Creek, I enjoyed its comfortable ride, eager turbocharged engine, and strong value, but its dated cabin and aging underlying architecture were much harder to overlook. The new Rogue Hybrid, however, feels as if Nissan took those criticisms to heart. It looks modern, feels substantially more upscale, and introduces a powertrain unlike anything else in its class. After driving a pre-production example back-to-back with a 2026 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Limited, I came away thinking Nissan may finally have something capable of unsettling the segment benchmark. I only drove each vehicle for about 10 minutes, so stay tuned for a proper, in-depth verdict, but it was enough time to reveal what I was most curious to discover.

How Nissan’s e-POWER hybrid works

The Rogue’s official name is the 2027 Nissan Rogue Hybrid, while e-POWER refers to the underlying technology that makes it so unique. Unlike a conventional hybrid, the Rogue’s gasoline engine never actually drives the wheels. Its new turbocharged 1.5-liter three-cylinder operates exclusively as a generator, producing electricity for a small lithium-ion battery. Two electric motors—one at each axle—handle all propulsion. That makes the Rogue a series hybrid rather than a conventional power-split hybrid. You fill it with regular gasoline and never plug it in, but from the driver’s seat, it behaves remarkably like a fully electric vehicle.

The battery’s relatively small capacity raises an obvious question: What happens when its charge gets low? Nissan engineer Christian Spencer, who accompanied me during the drive, explained that the generator can still provide enough electricity to maintain full system output even with a depleted battery. Power should not suddenly fall away as it can in certain plug-in hybrids once their larger batteries are exhausted. Unless the Rogue runs out of gasoline entirely, all 225 horsepower should remain available.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

It drives more like an EV than a hybrid

The difference between the Rogue Hybrid and the segment’s longstanding gold standard became apparent as soon as I pressed the accelerator. Power arrived immediately, yet it was still followed by smooth progression, without having to wait for the engine to build boost, the transmission to select a ratio, or the revs to rise. The Rogue pulled away more smoothly and quietly than the RAV4, with a distinctly electric sense of responsiveness.

Its gas engine still activates when more electricity is required, but it ran less frequently during my drive than the Toyota’s engine did. Importantly, it remained much less intrusive even when it did run. Going uphill, the RAV4’s engine revved noticeably as it helped propel the vehicle. The Rogue’s engine only needed to generate electricity, allowing it to operate more discreetly in the background as if it were merely idling. The RAV4 felt lighter from behind the wheel, which some drivers may prefer, but the Nissan nevertheless felt more substantial and refined. Its steering carried greater weight, returned more information, and exhibited more accurate on-center response. Even the leather around the wheel felt richer.

The roads were mostly smooth, so I can’t say much about either vehicle’s ability to absorb more severe impacts and unpaved surfaces. On the limited route available, though, the Rogue remained composed, and its regenerative and friction brakes blended naturally. The Toyota did nothing seriously wrong; the Nissan just felt as if it didn’t need to work as hard.

The “Smooth Stop” feature is more interesting than it sounds

One of the Rogue’s most intriguing technologies has one of its least glamorous names. Smooth Stop automatically modulates brake pressure during the final moment of an ordinary stop. Instead of coming to rest and allowing the suspension to pitch forward before settling backward, the Rogue manages that weight transfer so the body rests more gracefully. I experienced the feature repeatedly, and it worked remarkably well. It doesn’t eliminate weight transfer or create an unnatural floating sensation—it simply removes the small head toss that drivers and passengers often accept as an unavoidable part of stopping.

The system doesn’t interfere with emergency braking. During a harder stop, Smooth Stop stayed out of the way and allowed the Rogue to halt as abruptly as the situation demanded. Nissan’s e-Pedal also provides genuine one-pedal driving and can bring the Rogue to a complete stop through regenerative braking. In that mode, deceleration was already sufficiently gradual that Smooth Stop was largely unnecessary. I noticed the feature most clearly when using the brake pedal conventionally. It sounds minor, but that is precisely why it works. Rather than demanding attention, it makes an everyday action feel more seamless.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

A Rogue interior that finally feels current

Some of the prototype’s interior panels were covered, but Nissan also displayed production-ready vehicles with uncovered interiors. What I could see represented an enormous improvement over the outgoing Rogue. The new cabin feels modern, airy, and surprisingly upscale. A 12.3-inch touchscreen comes standard, while SR Technology Package and Platinum models receive a 14.3-inch display with Google built-in and Google Gemini. Nissan also retained physical climate controls, an increasingly welcome decision. Available features include ventilated front seats, heated rear seats, 64-color ambient lighting, dual Qi2 wireless charging pads, and a 10-speaker Bose system. An available 3D around-view monitor can render the Rogue translucent, helping drivers see curbs and other obstacles around or beneath it, though I did not personally test that system.

Outside, the redesign adds genuine distinction without abandoning the Rogue’s identity. The blue paint photographed in Park City features a subtle gold flake that comes alive under the Utah sun, while the geometric grille and lighting signatures make the crossover look more expensive than before. Pricing begins at $35,490 for the SV AWD. The first version to reach dealers will be the $41,490 SR AWD with Technology Package in fall 2026. The complete SV, SR, and Platinum range follows in early 2027, topping out at $43,490 before destination and options. Nissan says a gasoline-powered version will eventually join the lineup, although timing remains unknown.

A promising first impression—not yet a final verdict

Ten minutes can’t quite answer the sort of questions that matter most to prospective owners. Nissan’s targeted 38-mpg combined rating still requires EPA confirmation, and only an extended test can reveal how often the engine runs during sustained highway driving or how the system behaves in severe weather. Long-term reliability is another unknown. Nissan has sold nearly two million e-POWER vehicles globally since 2016, but this is the technology’s first application in a U.S.-market Nissan, and the first to power all four wheels.

The RAV4 also has an enormous advantage in terms of reputation and familiarity. It would be premature to declare the Rogue the better hybrid after one short drive through a gated neighborhood. What I can say is that the Rogue felt more refined, more responsive, and more convincing than I expected. Its cabin finally feels worthy of Nissan’s most important crossover, and its unusual powertrain produces a genuinely EV-like experience without requiring owners to change how or where they refuel. Nissan will need to explain e-POWER carefully. Better yet, it needs to get potential buyers behind the wheel, because the benefits become much easier to understand once they’re felt firsthand. The new Rogue Hybrid doesn’t just add electrification to an existing formula—based on this promising first encounter, it might fundamentally improve how an everyday hybrid feels.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Then there is the 2026 Fiat 500e.

The little Italian EV looks like it is having fun. That alone makes it unusual.

The 2026 Fiat 500e is a tiny, two-door electric hatchback that seems almost deliberately uninterested in following the current EV playbook. It isn’t trying to be a crossover. It doesn’t pretend to be a family vehicle. It isn’t chasing 300 miles of range or trying to embarrass a sports car at a stoplight. It is basically a modern Italian city car with a battery, a cute face and enough personality to make you smile before you’ve even turned it on. Fiat itself describes the 500e as an expression of Italian design, efficiency and “joy,” which is about as Fiat as it gets.

And honestly, I like that.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Small is the whole point

The 500e is tiny by American standards. It measures roughly 143 inches long, 66.3 inches wide without mirrors and rides on a 91.4-inch wheelbase. That makes it remarkably easy to maneuver through tight streets and parking lots, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

This is not one of those vehicles where the manufacturer tells you it is “city friendly” because it has a parking camera. The 500e actually is city friendly.

You can put it into spaces that would make a midsize crossover driver start looking for a different neighborhood. Its small footprint, light controls and tight dimensions make it particularly well suited to urban driving. The rounded body, short overhangs and friendly face also give it something that many EVs have somehow lost along the way: personality.

The 500e looks happy.

That shouldn’t be a technical specification, but I think it matters.

The power is modest, but that’s okay

Underneath that adorable exterior is a 42-kWh battery and a single electric motor driving the front wheels. Output is 117 horsepower and 162 lb-ft of torque.

No, those numbers aren’t going to scare a Tesla Model 3.

The 500e is light enough and compact enough that 162 lb-ft of instant electric torque makes it feel lively around town. It isn’t a performance car, but it doesn’t need to be. This is an EV that is happiest darting through traffic, squeezing into parking spaces, and making quick trips across town.

And because it is an EV, there is no waiting for the engine to build power. Push the accelerator, and it simply goes. Steering is quick, and the steering wheel has a nice weight and feel to it. You feel a bit of its personality as you drive. Simply put: it’s fun to drive, and that is a huge part of its appeal.

The Fiat also offers regenerative braking and one-pedal driving, which make stop-and-go traffic considerably easier.

The steering and overall driving experience focus more on maneuverability than outright performance. That’s an important distinction. If you climb into the 500e expecting a tiny electric hot hatch, you’re probably going to be disappointed. If you understand that it is essentially an electric city runabout with Italian shoes on, it makes considerably more sense. Once again, it’s a fun car, not a performance car.

Range is the elephant in the tiny room

There’s no sugar-coating it: the range sucks. The 500e’s range is short by modern EV standards. Fiat lists up to 153 miles of city range with standard all-season tires and up to 162 miles with the available summer tires.

That’s not impressive if you’re comparing it with a Tesla, Hyundai, Chevrolet, or any number of modern EV crossovers. This is where style wins out over substance. But I don’t think the range tells the entire story.

Related: Honda Fast-Tracks Next CR-V Hybrid After Canceling 3 EV Projects

If your daily driving consists of commuting around Los Angeles, running errands, going to lunch, picking up groceries and doing the usual urban stuff, 150-ish miles can actually be plenty. Plug it in at home and you’re unlikely to care much about public charging.

The problem comes when you want the 500e to become your only vehicle.

That’s where the little Fiat starts looking like a second car rather than an all-purpose automobile. And that isn’t necessarily a criticism. In Europe, tiny city cars are normal. In America, we have somehow convinced ourselves that every vehicle needs to be capable of hauling six people, three bicycles and a kayak 400 miles into the wilderness.

The 500e simply isn’t interested in that nonsense.

Charging might be better than you might expect

When you do need to charge away from home, the 500e supports DC fast charging at up to 85 kW. Fiat says an 80-percent charge can take about 35 minutes, and five minutes on a fast charger can add roughly 31 miles of range. Yes, many cars charge at 150 kW, but this small battery takes less time given its small capacity.

For 2026, the 500e also gains NACS compatibility through an available adapter, giving owners access to Tesla Supercharger locations. Fiat says the adapter also applies to 2024 and 2025 500e models. That’s a big deal, especially for those who need to stretch out the range a bit.

At home, an 11.5-kW Level 2 connection can fully charge the car in about six hours, according to Fiat. That’s really where this car makes the most sense. Come home, plug it in, wake up with a full battery and go about your day.

Simple.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Inside, it’s surprisingly sophisticated

The cabin is kind of small, but Fiat did a good job making it feel special. A 10.25-inch touchscreen, 7-inch digital gauge display, and wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto give the 500e plenty of modern technology.

The 2026 Pop also gets a body-color dashboard, while the higher Icona adds premium eco-leather seats and additional exterior trim. The seats are very comfortable up front, but the rear seating is best for non-tall folk.

With only two doors, the rear seats are best considered occasional seating. Cargo capacity is similarly limited. The 500e has about 7.5 cubic feet behind the rear seats, according to current published specifications.

But again, that’s not really the point. The 500e isn’t supposed to replace a Honda CR-V. It’s supposed to be a little Italian capsule for getting around town. And it is remarkably good at that job.

The price is a harder argument

The 2026 Fiat 500e starts at $35,700 before destination, while the Icona starts at $37,700. Ouch. That is a lot of money for a vehicle with roughly 150 miles of range and very limited utility.

Fiat is at least offering incentives. The company’s current site advertises $2,000 in bonus cash on the 2026 500e Pop and $3,000 on the Icona, although availability and eligibility can vary. Some juicy lease programs pop up from time to time, but few are available in California, becasue… California.

Still, the 500e is not a value proposition in the traditional sense. It’s a lifestyle purchase. And that’s actually where I think Fiat has done something interesting.

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Final thoughts

The 2026 Fiat 500e isn’t the EV you buy because a spreadsheet told you it was the logical choice. You buy it because you want something different. Something that makes you smile, and something electric that has a sense of whimsy.

It is small. It is colorful. It is easy to drive. It is easy to park. It has enough electric punch for urban driving and enough range for many people’s daily routines. Most importantly, it has personality.

That last part is becoming increasingly rare. It’s nearly nonexistant in EVs.

The automotive industry has become obsessed with making EVs faster, larger, more aerodynamic and more technologically complicated. Fiat went in another direction. It made a little electric car that looks like it wants to have a good time.

Related: Porsche Has Found A Way To Turn Dead EV Batteries Into New Battery Cells

And sometimes, that’s exactly what you want from a car.

The 500e isn’t practical in the traditional American sense, and its price and limited range make it difficult to recommend as someone’s only vehicle. But as a second car, city commuter or simply an automotive palate cleanser from the endless parade of gray electric crossovers, the Fiat makes a surprisingly strong case for itself.

It’s a cheeky little EV.

One that might make you smile.

Related: Mercedes-Maybach SL 680: Dancing the L.A. Nocturne in Style

The Real Reason Isn’t Politics — It’s $6 Diesel

Gas prices have surged largely because of the ongoing war with Iran, and the numbers are brutal: one analysis puts the extra annual fuel cost for a gas-vehicle owner at over $700, based on a roughly 50 percent jump in prices since the conflict began, with diesel now running past $6 a gallon in parts of the country. That’s the actual mechanism behind this Here Technologies and SBD Automotive survey number — not a shift in climate politics, not a new ad campaign, just drivers watching their fuel bill and doing the arithmetic on what an EV would save them.

The Old Excuses Are Disappearing Too

Charging anxiety, long the go-to reason to avoid an EV, is fading fast in this same survey: 47 percent of respondents now say there’s a reasonable number of public chargers available, nearly double the 28 percent who said so in 2025. Among people who already own an EV, 85 percent say the infrastructure is adequate — which tracks with how the used EV market has been setting sales records even as new EV sales cratered more than 20 percent this year without the tax credit propping up sticker prices.

There’s Still One Wall Buyers Keep Hitting

Price remains the real holdout, with two in five surveyed drivers still calling EVs too expensive — the exact gap Ford and Slate are racing to close with sub-$30,000 electric trucks aimed at buyers who’d otherwise never consider going electric. It’s also why Toyota’s EV sales jumped 136 percent this year on the strength of models priced under $30,000, even while the rest of the new EV market struggled. Once people actually buy in, the loyalty numbers are striking too: 77 percent of current EV owners say they’d likely replace their EV with another one.

Whether this survey number turns into actual sales is the real test. Sentiment and purchasing behavior have diverged before, and a big chunk of the interest driving this figure is tied directly to how long gas prices stay this painful. But for an industry that’s spent all year absorbing bad news, a majority of American drivers saying “actually, maybe” is not nothing.

Chrysler’s Range Is About to Become More Appealing

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Chrysler has been hanging on as a minivan-only brand since 2023, when the 300 sedan was discontinued, and its only product, the Pacifica/Voyager, hasn’t exactly kept up with the times, though a recent 2027 refresh was a big step in the right direction. The updated van has a much more modern look, and the incoming Arrow crossovers and mid-size Airflow will likely share certain front-end details, but the minivan itself may yet evolve further, with a performance-minded VANkulture concept shown at Roadkill Nights last month. While this is unlikely to make production, it could indicate an interest in providing factory-supported upgrades. Whatever the brand’s ultimate intentions, Chrysler clearly wants to drum up hype and appeal to a broader demographic. Speaking of broadened horizons, the 300 may be gone with its like never to be seen again, but that doesn’t mean we won’t see a sedan with a Chrysler badge again, or at least a sedan-like vehicle. According to Scott Krugger, Stellantis Head of North America Design, vehicles will start to blend segments as buyers seek unique vehicles that offer the space and security of a crossover-like vehicle with the low aerodynamic drag and other efficiency benefits of lower, more sedan-like shapes. While he stopped short of confirming a new sedan, it seems that Chrysler is open to exploring all options, and if the cheap Ford Mustang sedan proves popular, perhaps Stellantis will green-light something similar.

Autoblog’s Take

Neither the Arrow nor the Airflow have been given an official launch date, but the latter is expected to enter production in late 2027, while the former is predicted to arrive in 2028 or 2029 as part of the Stellantis Future 2030 plan, which will see the conglomerate invest $70 billion to launch 60 new vehicles with new tech. That’s a big investment in the future of all the Stellantis brands, and platform-sharing will certainly help keep costs in check, but even so, the Arrow being built in Morocco could mean unexpected tariff-related price adjustments, and pricing is clearly the most important factor in getting Chrysler back to meaningful growth. Nevertheless, the larger Airflow is expected to be built in Illinois, so Chrysler can expand globally if the new products resonate with buyers.

There isn’t a single mainstream automaker that doesn’t have at least a couple of crossovers in its lineup. In some cases, like Buick and Mitsubishi, it’s all that they sell. Crossovers, SUVs, and pickups have dominated the market, and you can’t throw a stick without hitting one. Sedans now take a back seat in terms of overall sales figures and presence on American roads. The list of dead read like a hit list: Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu and Impala, Buick Regal and LaCrosse, Volkswagen Passat and Arteon, Kia Stinger, Mazda6, Toyota Avalon, and the Acura TLX have all disappeared.

But some market indications and manufaturer plans indicate that sedans are getting hot again. Sedans are not reclaiming their former position as America’s default family vehicle anytime soon, and crossovers/SUVs remain overwhelmingly dominant in terms of market share. But the data does suggest that the sedan market may be stabilizing after years of painful contraction, with a few well-positioned models proving there is still demand for lower, better driving, more efficient, and often less expensive passenger cars.

The Market Has Changed Permanently

In the early 2000s, sedans and other traditional passenger cars accounted for a huge share of U.S. new-vehicle sales. In 2000, conventional passenger cars—mainly sedans and wagons—represented about half of all U.S. light-vehicle sales, while SUVs made up roughly 19% to 20% of the market.

The landscape has changed over the past two decades, but there are sedans that continue to thrive in the crossover melee: Toyota Camry, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Hyundai Elantra, and the Kia K4. The survivors that continue to thrive are rounding out the top 20 best-selling vehicle in 2026. That’s no small feat, especially considering that three of the top ten sellers are sedans.

These contenders have their work cut out for them against the likes of the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Hyundai Tucson, Ford Explorer, and the Subaru Forester. The dominance of crossovers isn’t temporary. American car buyers love their higher riding crossovers and SUVs. Automakers reshaped their North American lineups around this fact, closing sedan programs and directing investment toward crossovers, pickups, hybrids, and electric vehicles. A sedan revival large enough to reverse those decisions is unlikely, although sedans still do well.

A Smaller Segment Can Still Be Healthy

It’s not purely a numbers game, although that’s crucial. There’s been some shifting around, which has helped the best-selling sedans thrive. Sedans that have been canceled have forced buyers to migrate to the best-sellers, further boosting their sales figures. Those who want sedans are now left with a handful of really good choices. Buyers who still want sedans are concentrating around the strongest products rather than spreading their purchases across dozens of choices.

The Toyota Camry remains the best example, as well as being the best-selling sedan in America. It benefits from a reputation for reliability, strong resale value, a broad dealer network, and—especially in its current generation—an all-hybrid powertrain strategy that speaks directly to shoppers looking for better fuel economy without the cost, charging considerations, or commitments associated with a full-on EV.

Honda’s Accord occupies a similar role. It has remained relevant by emphasizing interior room, ride quality, efficiency, and hybrid availability. Meanwhile, the Civic and Corolla demonstrate that compact sedans still work for buyers seeking affordable transportation, low operating costs, and a smaller physical footprint than a crossover.

Affordability is becoming more important again. Average new-vehicle prices remain at the $50k mark, and many crossover buyers are discovering that the segment generally costs more than sedans. A comparably equipped sedan can offer a lower purchase price, better fuel economy, sharper road manners, and easier urban parking. For a buyer who doesn’t need extra ground clearance or a tall cargo area, a sedan is the perfect choice.

A lower roofline and center of gravity can improve handling, stability, and highway efficiency. Sedans also tend to weigh less than similarly sized SUVs, which can help both fuel economy and performance. Their trunks may be less versatile than a crossover’s cargo hold, but they are often large enough for normal commuting, grocery runs, luggage, and family errands. Even a compact sedan like the Honda Civic has ample space for daily usage.

Things are also changing because the generations of younger drivers have different tastes than their parents. Younger buyers who grew up surrounded by crossovers may not see an SUV as aspirational. For some, a compact sedan is simply the more affordable and efficient way into new-car ownership. Others are discovering that a sportier sedan—whether it is a Honda Civic Si, Hyundai Elantra N, Acura Integra, BMW 3 Series, or Cadillac CT4—delivers a more engaging driving experience than a similarly priced SUV.

Final Thoughts

The sedan category’s future will likely belong to cars that do at least one thing exceptionally well: hybridization, affordability, performance, reliability, or manageable size. Any one of these aspects will draw customers. Sedans are showing strength in new ways rather than overtaking SUVs or restoring the market to its once-assured domiance. But the segment’s decline may be slowing, and demand for the right sedans is growing stronger. We may soon see automakers who once abadoned them bring new models back.

It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when peak Honda was, but it’s safe to say it’s anything it built from the late ’80s right until the dawn of the new millennium. Some will also argue that we can include the mid-2000s and right before the 2010s. Regardless, Honda made a lot of bangers in the ’90s.

Up top, you had the NSX that wasn’t just a flagship for the brand, but also a showcase of its capabilities. But even the everyday models were wonderful ownership experiences, and when it came to economy cars, the 6th-generation Honda Civic was as close to perfection as it got.

The Run Up

But before sending lots of love for the 6th-gen, we have to acknowledge that the 4th- and 5th-gen Civics were also some of the best economy cars the world had produced. You didn’t need to get the sporty versions to appreciate the engineering that went behind it.

The suspension alone was worth talking about, as those cars had double-wishbones, which is something reserved for sports cars. Why? It’s obviously for handling and chassis dynamics, but putting it in an affordable runabout was admittedly overkill. But that’s how engineering-led Honda was in those days. The 4th-gen was the start, the 5th-gen was a great follow-up, but the 6th-gen was the culmination of everything Honda had learned.

September 5, 1995

That’s a date that every 6th-gen Honda Civic should know, as that was the day it became available to Japanese customers. September 4, 1995 was its official debut and announcement, and there was no concept car that previewed it, either. It was a simple, straightforward affair for a car that would later become one of Honda’s most-loved models.

Internally known as the EK or EJ, the car was developed with the concept of “Value Revolution.” But instead of cheapening out on it to sell it cheap, Honda went all out by pouring a whole lot of smart engineering into this model. Value Revolution for the brand meant offering the best possible car for not a lot of money, even if it meant it was overbuilt. And, notice we said overbuilt and not overengineered, as Honda also wanted to keep the car simple.

Four Guiding Principles

Under that concept, there were four goals that Honda had in mind for this model. What follows next is lifted straight from the Civic’s FactBook from 1995, translated straight from Japanese. The first target was “High performance close to home,” followed by “Functional and high-quality styling.” Goal number three was “High level of completion,” while the fourth was a “global perspective on safety, environment, and resources.”

But what caught our attention were the first and third targets. What Honda meant by ‘High performance close to home” was optimizing the powertrain arrangements and options, all while delivering a high level of handling competence. Of course, there was VTEC, but Honda wanted to make sure that benefitted everyone, so not only did it make a good amount of power for its available engine size (1.3, 1.5, and 1.6-liters), these were great of gas mileage, too. As for the handling part, those double wishbones were for comfort and stability, as Honda believed that great chassis dynamics was a safety feature in itself.

As for “High level of completion,” Honda’s brief explanation of that partially answers why the 6th-gen Civic felt a cut above the typical subcompact sedan of its era, and yes, these were classified by the EPA as such. The automaker wanted it to achieve “A level of perfection that surpasses its class, achieved through meticulous refinement.” If it sounds like OCD engineering, then we can’t blame you. After all, the results speak for themselves.

The Hot Models

We can’t talk about this era of Civic without mentioning the performance models. In Japan, there was the SiR hatchback and sedan, the latter being called the Civic Ferio SiR. Those came with a B16A engine that made 170 hp and 116 lb-ft that revved up to 8,200 rpm. There’s also the Si Coupe for the U.S. and SiR Coupe for Canada, and those used a B16A2 with 160 hp and 111 lb-ft. The B16A2 was also used in the VTI-R in Australia and New Zealand, as well as the SiR sedan in the Philippines, to name a few.

Then we get to the pinnacle of performance Civics, the EK9, better known as the first Type R. Okay, it wasn’t the very first Honda Type R model, but Honda gave the same hardcore treatment from the NSX to the hatchback. Lightened and stiffened, it came with a B16B engine that produced 182 hp and 118 lb-ft, with its rev limit raised to 8,600 rpm. The standard Civic chassis was good as it was, but the Type R took it to the next level. The result was a Japanese hot hatch like nothing else before it at the time.

How it Drove

As someone who spent his formative years behind the wheel of various Hondas, this writer can attest just how well-sorted this era of Civic was. Even a bog-standard model with an automatic and a single-cam 1.6-liter that made 125 horses still showed signs of brilliance. The little sedan rode well, and drove with an eagerness absent in most of its rivals. It was also easy to drive and enjoyable behind the wheel, regardless of whether you were an enthusiast or not.

Of course, it wasn’t God’s gift to mankind, as there are some minor nitpickings, but overall, it was a hard car to fault. For something that’s supposedly basic transport, it drove and rode with verve. No other car felt like it before, and if we’re being honest, no Civic has felt that way since. Sure, the current 11th-gen Civic is a great compact, especially in hybrid form, but the Honda Civic 6th gen is a great reminder of how Honda spoiled our expectations for affordable transport over 30 years ago, telling us that we should always expect more from a car, even for less money.

View the 22 images of this gallery on the original article

Well, my wife and will have a new driver in the family in about a year, and the thought of my daughter driving has us a little nervous. We have to entertain the idea of what she would drive. Of course, the primary concerns are vehicle safety, price, insurance costs, minimal technological distractions and reliability. It also can’t be embarrassing to drive, an important criteria for my daughter. Here are the five I keep coming back to, all findable under $20,000 with patience.

2020 Toyota Camry — IIHS Top Safety Pick+

The Camry is the boring answer, but it’s just so damned good at everything else but actual driving excitement. It doesn’t draw attention, nor does it look racy in any way. It’s more about space and reliability than anything else. The 203 hp I4 isn’t weak sauce, but it also won’t get the driver in any trouble.

The 2020 Camry earned the IIHS’s highest honor, Top Safety Pick+, with no related headlight or option-package caveats. Every 2020 Camry also came with Toyota Safety Sense P as standard equipment, so automatic emergency braking, lane departure alert with steering assist, and adaptive cruise are guaranteed. KBB pegs base L and LE trims starting around $17,000 to $17,600, though national listing averages run closer to $20,000, so shop LE and SE for the best deals and the highest reliability.

2022 Honda Civic — IIHS Top Safety Pick+

Okay, so maybe this one is for me. I just love the 11th-gen Civic for its great driving dynamics, steering, and that analog interior. The first year of the current-gen Civic is the car I would actually enjoy borrowing because it’s low rent fun and still looks remarkably good. It swept the 2022 awards: both the sedan and hatchback took Top Safety Pick+ with no qualifiers. The 2.0-liter naturally aspirated engine in the LX and Sport makes a sensible 158horsepower, visibility is excellent for a new driver, and Honda Sensing is standard.

You can also opt for the upgraded engine in higher trims, but that pushes the cost well above the $20k mark. Actually, you’ll need to budget carefully and aim for a higher-mileage LX to get under the budget threshhold. But the reliability ratings are strong, and the naturally-aspirated version tends to be more dependable. I’d love for my daughter to learn how to drive a manual, which you can get in the Civic hatch for 2022. Finally and importantly, you still get some of the best cabin ergonomics, a great driving position, and more legroom than a compact sedan/hatchback deserves.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

2022 Mazda CX-30 — IIHS Top Safety Pick+

If she wants an SUV, this is the one. I don’t want to give my daughter a crossover that’s big and squared off. The CX-30 is a stilted Mazda3, so it provides better, higher-up visibility and also benefits from swoopy Kodo styling like the 3’s svelte body. Okay, so it’s not huge inside, but that should keep other teens from wanting to pile into the back. Along the lines of safety, the CX-30 took the IIHS Top Safety Pick+ for 2022 with no qualifiers, then slipped to standard Top Safety Pick for 2023 as the IIHS tightened its side-impact and rear-passenger criteria.

I will also want to borrow this crossover because it drives like a sporty, albeit low powered, car instead of a wobbly crossover, and standard all-wheel drive matters in Chicago winters. Base 2.5 S trims start around $19,250, and I would deliberately avoid the 227-horsepower turbo for the sake of reliability. It’s quick enough to be spritely, has great analog controls, and there infotainment system is user-friendly and highly resistant to distraction.

2023 Subaru Impreza — IIHS Top Safety Pick

The Impreza is almost as boring as a Camry, but the more compact footprint makes it easier to drive, especially in hatchback form. Remember that it also has standard all-wheel drive, the only one in this set. The reliable Impreza gives up horsepower (152 from the boxer-four) and refinement to almost everything here, but everything works pretty well. The 6.5-inch screen on base trims isn’t distractingly huge, and there are solid physical controls for climate and audio.

The 2022-23 Impreza wagon earned Top Safety Pick with optional front crash prevention and specific headlights; the sedan was not on that list, so I would steer toward the five-door hatchback. It’s shorter, more capacious with the hatchback, and comes with standard EyeSight safety tech. KBB starts sedans around $17,000, with cleaner examples near $20,000.

2020 Mazda6 — IIHS Top Safety Pick+

My own 2016 Mazda6 has been solid, but I’d like my daughter to benefit from improved safety tech and an improved cabin and infotainment. The 2020 Mazda6 received a refresh inside and out. It’s the value play, and it went out on a high note with a 2020-21 Top Safety Pick+. It also comes standard with automatic emergency braking, front collision warning with brake assist, blind spot monitoring, rear cross-traffic alert, lane departure warning & lane-keep assist.

The 6 is almost as roomy as the Camry, and it also drives better. The naturally-aspirated 2.5-liter engine is the way to go for reliability. Mazda killed the beloved 6 after 2021, which suppresses resale prices, so a genuinely upscale midsize sedan with a great interior can be had cheaply. KBB lists the Sport trim near $15,150 and even the top Signature under $20,000.

Final Thoughts

It takes some digging to find good used car that’s safe, decently attractive, easy to drive, affordable, and with good driver-assist tech while not being overly tech-heavy. Remember that IIHS safety awards often hinge on headlights or optional crash-prevention systems, so check the exact year and trim level rather than just looking up the model name. There isn’t a single car here that can’t be had in good condition under that $20k mark, and they’re all very reliable and well-reviewed. It’s hard to go wrong.

Over the past year, I have driven four of the newest and most significant contenders: the redesigned 2027 Kia Seltos, the refreshed 2026 Toyota Corolla Cross, the newly hybridized 2026 Subaru Crosstrek, and the second-generation 2026 Nissan Kicks. Together, they demonstrate four very different interpretations of what an affordable small SUV should be.

The Kia aims to feel like a shrunken family SUV. Toyota excels in efficiency and ease. Subaru prioritizes all-weather capability. Nissan attempts to provide the most comfort, style, and personality for the least money. Depending on your priorities, my last-place finisher could easily be your first choice, but this is how I rank them.

How I Tested And Ranked Them

The testing circumstances weren’t identical, which is important to disclose. I lived with the Nissan Kicks SV AWD and Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid XSE AWD for a full week each around Vancouver, British Columbia. I drove the Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid on paved and unpaved roads at its launch in Oregon, while my time in the 2027 Kia Seltos X-Line SX consisted of approximately five hours around Southern California.

I drove only the hybrid versions of the Corolla Cross and Crosstrek, so my comments about their ride, power delivery, refinement, and driving character apply specifically to those hybrids. However, when it comes to pricing, features, space, and value, I am considering the full gas and hybrid lineups. My ranking combines two questions: Which vehicle would I personally want, and which could I most confidently recommend? Character matters, but so do price, practicality, fuel economy, comfort, and the likelihood that the novelty actually survives a congested commute.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Pricing And Powertrains

U.S. MSRPs exclude destination fees. Hybrid Seltos pricing has not been announced at the time of writing.

Efficiency And Capability

Passenger And Cargo Space

Figures can vary slightly by trim, drivetrain, moonroof, and measurement method. Cargo figures below represent the configurations most relevant to the vehicles tested.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

4. 2026 Subaru Crosstrek

Finishing last doesn’t make the Subaru Crosstrek a bad small SUV. In fact, the Crosstrek Hybrid was actually one of the most enjoyable of these four to drive, and would be my first choice if the road ahead weren’t a road at all. Its 194-horsepower hybrid system gives the Crosstrek the smoothness and immediacy it has always desperately needed. More surprisingly, it can be genuinely entertaining through corners. It rolls, but that movement communicates its weight transfer rather than merely feeling clumsy. Once I learned its rhythm, it felt more eager and talkative than anything else here.

Subaru also refuses to treat AWD as a simple checkbox. Unlike the Corolla Cross Hybrid, every Crosstrek sends power mechanically to all four wheels, and the hybrid retains 8.7 inches of ground clearance. The Wilderness goes even farther with 9.3 inches of ground clearance and a 3,500-pound tow rating, giving the lineup genuine capability none of the others can quite match, though the hybrid powertrain remains unavailable on the adventure-ready trim.

Unfortunately, the Crosstrek lineup requires buyers to pay a hefty premium for its more specialized focus, whether they need it or not. The standard model is the most expensive entry point here, while the Sport Hybrid starts at $33,995 before destination—$4,200 more than the cheapest Corolla Cross Hybrid. Its 36-mpg combined rating is respectable, but the Corolla Cross Hybrid returns 42 mpg while starting for thousands less.

The hybrid Crosstrek also has the smallest cargo hold in this comparison, and its portrait-oriented infotainment system feels dated compared to the widescreen setups in the Kicks and Seltos. If you regularly encounter deep snow or rough forestry roads, put it at the top of your list. For everyone else, its extra capability comes at the cost of price, efficiency, technology, and space.

3. 2027 Kia Seltos

The Kia Seltos finishes ahead of the Crosstrek because it feels like the newer, more complete product. Redesigned from the ground up for 2027, it no longer resembles a global-market crossover squeezed into the North American lineup to fill a conveniently sized hole. It looks confident, substantial, and expensive enough to make its “baby Telluride” positioning believable.

That impression also continues inside. The horizontal dashboard, available panoramic roof, upscale materials, and nearly 30 inches of available combined display area give the Seltos a richer first impression than anything else here. Even base models receive a 12.3-inch touchscreen. It’s also the packaging champion in this comparison, with 103.5 cubic feet of passenger volume and up to 64.2 cubic feet of cargo space.

The X-Line SX I drove paired a 190-horsepower turbocharged engine with an eight-speed automatic and multi-mode AWD. It was effortless in ordinary traffic, stable on the freeway, and more composed through canyon bends than its upright shape suggested. Yet it was never especially exciting. The steering was vague, and the transmission occasionally waited far too long to downshift before begrudgingly agreeing with an abrupt jolt.

Still, “easy” is no insult in this class, and the Seltos does make life feel easy. Its broader lineup also helps it beat the Crosstrek: buyers can choose an inexpensive front-drive 2.0-liter model, add AWD, step into the turbocharged X-Line SX, or wait for the forthcoming hybrid. The Seltos is simply fresher, roomier, and more tech-forward than the Subaru.

The Kia finishes third only because its gasoline engines can’t quite match the Toyota’s hybrid efficiency or refinement, while its value and personality don’t land quite as emphatically as the Nissan’s. It might be the most conventionally complete SUV of the four, but the two vehicles ahead of it make stronger cases in the areas their buyers will notice every day.

2. 2026 Toyota Corolla Cross

The Toyota Corolla Cross didn’t win me over with theatrical styling, dazzling technology, or an unexpectedly playful chassis. It earned its place here by making ordinary life remarkably easy. That became clearest during a Saturday afternoon when collecting my brother from a ferry terminal turned into almost two hours of congestion and detours around Metro Vancouver. The Corolla Cross Hybrid crawled smoothly through traffic; its brake pedal was easy to modulate, Auto Hold reduced the tedium, and its compact dimensions made it easy to exploit gaps. When we finally arrived, my brother noted that the trip had taken longer than his ferry crossing—but had not felt that long. That felt like the entire Corolla Cross experience distilled into one miserable commute. It doesn’t transform driving into entertainment; it removes friction from the parts of driving most people dislike.

The hybrid is easily the powertrain to get. Its three-motor system produces 196 horsepower, feels punchier and smoother than the 169-horsepower gas engine, and includes AWD. Over roughly 500 kilometers, I averaged 6.1 L/100 km, equivalent to about 39 mpg U.S., without hypermiling. Toyota rates it at 42 mpg combined. If not for the available hybrid powertrain, the Corolla Cross would not be where it is on this list.

Its electronic rear axle can’t match Subaru’s mechanically connected AWD system in difficult terrain, and the Toyota offers just 8.1 inches of ground clearance. But for wet highways, snowy commutes, ski-hill parking lots, gravel campsite roads, and the other conditions most owners will actually encounter, it should be entirely sufficient with appropriate tires. The steering is nicely weighted if not especially talkative, while the suspension is slightly firm but never punishing. The cabin lacks the visual drama of the Seltos or Kicks, yet it feels durable, intuitive, and solidly assembled.

It isn’t flawless. Rear-seat space is merely adequate; the 21.5-cubic-foot hybrid cargo hold trails the Kia and front-drive Nissan, and the styling already looks older than the freshly redesigned competition. Toyota also strangely omits passenger-seat height adjustment. But the Corolla Cross combines the strengths that matter most: hybrid efficiency, responsive performance, affordability, solid construction, sensible controls, and the reassuring sense that it will continue doing its job without complication for years to come. The Seltos is prettier and roomier; the Crosstrek is more capable and engaging, but the Toyota is simply easier to recommend.

1. 2026 Nissan Kicks

The least expensive vehicle here is also my winner, and that result honestly surprised me. My Yuzu Yellow Kicks SV AWD looked so much like a Minion that I initially wondered if it had its own pair of overalls in the trunk. Its bright paint and upright, cheerful face drew attention everywhere, which is not always what someone wants from an inexpensive crossover. Then I drove it for a week and began to realize the joke was really on me.

For very little money, the Nissan Kicks is zippy, easy to maneuver, comfortable, and genuinely fresh. Its 141-horsepower four-cylinder is the weakest engine here on paper, but around town it responds eagerly enough to avoid feeling as if it’s been defeated by its own specifications. Light controls, good visibility, tidy dimensions, and newly available AWD suit dense cities with less-than-perfect weather.

The cabin is the greater achievement. Its clean dashboard, available pair of 12.3-inch displays, distinctive textures, supportive Zero Gravity seats, and clever packaging feel contemporary rather than apologetic. It’s quiet and comfortable enough on the highway to feel like a real small SUV rather than an economy hatchback on platform shoes. On the outside, its blocky wheel-arch detailing, playful proportions, and available two-tone colors are distinctive without looking overly desperate for attention. It looks youthful because someone took an actual design risk, not because the accounting department approved some tacky red accent strips.

Value ultimately seals the result for me. The Kicks starts at $22,730 before destination charges. AWD can be added without forcing buyers into the most expensive trim, and even the well-equipped SR AWD costs less than the Crosstrek Hybrid’s starting price. It also offers strong fuel economy, 8.4 inches of clearance, and a surprisingly generous suite of technology.

Passing power is limited, its CVT does little to stir the soul, AWD models lose some cargo space, and long-term CVT durability may concern some Nissan shoppers. But its limitations feel proportionate to its price, while its comfort, design, personality, and technology feel unexpectedly generous for the money. It’s not merely acceptable; it’s legitimately charming because of how intelligently its development budget was spent. If I were ordering one myself, I would choose an SR AWD in Canyon Bronze Metallic. I only wish Nissan would allow that color to be paired with the black contrast roof.

Verdict: Four Different Answers, One Surprising Winner

I must admit that, before having driven any of these four subcompact SUVs, I would never have guessed that the Kicks would be my pick of the bunch. I’d have assumed the Seltos would have won me over for its pairing of turbocharged power with a conventional eight-speed gearbox, or even the Crosstrek for its coveted Symmetrical All-Wheel-Drive System, but certainly not the mind-numbingly-boring-on-paper Corolla Cross. But ultimately, if for some reason I were in the market for a new compact crossover (God forbid this ever happens to me), the 2026 Nissan Kicks is the one I’d most happily take home.

The Subaru Crosstrek is the more obvious choice for drivers who value genuine all-weather capability, ground clearance, and driving character enough to accept a higher price and an older-feeling interface. The Kia Seltos is the spacious, polished, tech-heavy all-rounder, with a diverse lineup and distinctive styling that makes most rivals look a generation behind. The Toyota Corolla Cross is perhaps the most sensible recommendation: efficient, solid, smooth, and stubbornly easy to live with.

The Nissan Kicks wins because I feel it does the best job of combining a perfectly rational value proposition with something this segment too often forgets—character. It proves that an inexpensive vehicle need not make its owner feel as though every drive is a reminder of what they couldn’t afford. The order in which these SUVs have been ranked, however, may not remain settled for long. Kia plans to add a Seltos Hybrid to its lineup, and if it combines the gas model’s space, technology, and design with competitive efficiency and available AWD, it could easily become the most complete vehicle here. Pricing will determine whether it lands as a value leader or an expensive flagship.

For now, the Kicks is the one I would buy. The Corolla Cross is the efficiency-first recommendation, the Seltos will impress most in the showroom, and the Crosstrek will keep going when that showroom is several muddy miles behind you. Spending the most does not necessarily buy the small SUV you will enjoy owning the most.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Before spending a week with one, I expected something a little bit closer to plain white bread: flavorless transportation for people who consider choosing a car an irritating necessity of life. Instead, though, the Corolla Cross Hybrid turned out to be more like ham and Swiss on multigrain, with even a light dab of mayo. Still simple and sensible, but more substantial, better balanced, and considerably more satisfying than I first expected it to be. The Corolla Cross isn’t especially exciting to look at or to sit inside, and despite a 2026 refresh, parts of it still feel dated compared to newer competitors, but Toyota appears to understand that most buyers in this segment aren’t looking for culinary theater. More often, people just need hearty sustenance to get them through their day, and the Corolla Cross Hybrid is exceptionally good at that.

The 2026 Corolla Cross Hybrid Isn’t Cheap, But It Packs A Lot In

My Canadian tester was a top-spec 2026 Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid XSE AWD finished in terrific Cavalry Blue with a contrasting black roof. The XSE starts at $38,985 CAD, while the $540 black-roof option, $1,930 destination charge, and associated fees brought my tester to $41,598.92 CAD before tax and registration. American buyers have three hybrid grades to choose from. The 2026 Hybrid S starts at $29,795 USD, while the equivalent Hybrid XSE starts at $33,830 USD, before destination charges. Every U.S. hybrid gets AWD and 196 combined horsepower.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Toyota rates the Canadian Hybrid at 5.6 L/100 km combined, while U.S. models are estimated at 42 mpg combined. The Canadian XSE also carries 609 liters of cargo, eight inches of ground clearance, and approximately 1,500 pounds of towing capacity. For a loaded AWD hybrid crossover, roughly $41,600 CAD doesn’t sound outrageous anymore. It isn’t fine dining, but it is a pretty well-made sandwich.

Powertrain: 9.3/10

Without question, the hybrid system is the Corolla Cross’s ace in the hole. Honestly, without it, I’d probably buy something else. Toyota’s fifth-generation hybrid setup combines a 2.0-liter four-cylinder with electric assistance for 196 total horsepower, routed through an eCVT, and it’s excellent around town. Electric assistance gives it considerably more punch when accelerating from a standstill than I’d expect from something this sensible. During dense traffic, that immediate response made it easy to dart into openings or maneuver around slower traffic without waiting for the engine and transmission to synchronize or for any gears to change.

It’s smooth, too. After a few days, I could predict almost exactly how much accelerator pressure would wake up the gas engine, and its starts and stops rarely introduced noticeable vibration. You hear the engine much more than you feel it, and that’s particularly true on the highway. Accelerate hard, and the eCVT can produce the familiar Toyota hybrid drone. At faster cruising speeds, the engine sometimes sounds like it’s working harder than you’d expect merely to maintain momentum, and more than one passenger commented on the noise. Passing power is adequate rather than abundant—plan the maneuver, squeeze the accelerator, and it’ll get the job done. Sport mode helps. I’d occasionally flick it on for a highway merge or an overtake, then immediately return to Normal, which feels like this car’s happy place. Eco softens things more than I’d like, while Normal gives you enough response without feeling overly sensitive. Toyota also provides paddle shifters, and I used them about twice before forgetting about them completely. An eCVT doesn’t have conventional gears, and I prefer it when a CVT proudly embraces what it is rather than mimicking shift points just to feel more conventional.

Perhaps the most important takeaway here is that the hybrid’s appeal isn’t limited to its fuel economy. Even if gasoline suddenly became free, I’d still choose it over the regular Corolla Cross powertrain. It’s simply much smoother, punchier, and better suited to this vehicle.

The Hybrid Prefers Life In The City

After about 500 kilometers of deliberately natural driving, I averaged 6.1 L/100 km, equivalent to roughly 39 mpg U.S. That’s somewhat worse than Toyota’s official 5.6 L/100 km (42 mpg) combined rating, but I wasn’t hypermiling—I just drove it normally and let the computers worry about everything else. Interestingly, highway driving tended to hurt my average more than city driving, though that’s in line with Toyota’s own figures. At normal Vancouver-area freeway speeds, I frequently saw consumption around 7.5 to 8.0 L/100 km, whereas urban driving gave the electric motors more opportunities to shoulder the workload.

That truth became all too relevant during one disastrous Saturday afternoon. A straightforward trip home after collecting my brother from the ferry terminal turned into almost two hours of congestion and detours. Vancouver, B.C., was jammed with weekend traffic and events, and we ended up making an enormous loop around Metro Vancouver before finally getting home. By the end of it all, I was irritated and in need of a stiff drink, but the Corolla Cross wasn’t.

Its hybrid system crawled smoothly through traffic; the brake pedal made it easy to avoid jolts; Auto Hold removed some of the tedium; and its compact dimensions made it remarkably easy to slip through gaps, while the electric boost gave me enough immediate acceleration to swoop around slower drivers. We spent most of the drive talking and listening to music, and when we finally arrived, my brother observed that getting home had taken longer than his ferry ride. But then he added something far more complimentary: It hadn’t felt that way. And I think that’s what makes the Corolla Cross Hybrid so compelling.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

AWD: Enough For Most People

Most people don’t realize, or perhaps just don’t care, but the Corolla Cross Hybrid actually uses an electric motor to drive the rear axle rather than being mechanically connected to the gasoline engine. That seemingly minor distinction sets it apart from something like the Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid, whose mechanical Symmetrical AWD system has a legitimate advantage when the conditions get seriously rough. And if I were regularly crossing snowy mountain passes, navigating rough forest roads, or deliberately seeking loose surfaces, I’d probably prefer Subaru’s solution. But that’s not how most people use small crossovers.

I experienced some rain without any traction problems. Admittedly, the weather during my test period was generally quite summery and nice, but with proper winter tires, I’d happily drive the Corolla Cross to local ski hills and along flatter forest service roads. For the gravel campsite access road, wet highway conditions, and occasional snowy commutes that will represent the limits of “off-roading” for most owners, Toyota’s system should be more than capable of the job. The Subaru’s advantage is undeniably real, but for the average Corolla Cross buyer, it’s also probably somewhat unnecessary.

Driving: 8.6/10

The Corolla Cross doesn’t quite meet the typical definition of “fun” in terms of its driving dynamics. Push it through a corner, and it responds with indifference, but there is something satisfying about driving it smoothly. Its steering is surprisingly nicely weighted, even if meaningful feedback remains somewhat limited. Sport mode adds some welcome heft and sharper powertrain response, though nobody will ever mistake it for something from Toyota’s GR department.

The suspension is similarly well judged. It’s slightly stiff, but not in a way that I’d categorize as harsh. Rather than bobbing over bumps, the Corolla Cross feels controlled and settled, and the Hybrid’s independent double-wishbone rear suspension deserves at least some of the credit here. Come down from a speed bump too abruptly, and the rear will occasionally remind you that this is still an inexpensive crossover, but broken pavement rarely causes much fuss. Strong crosswinds can also require a little extra steering correction at highway speed, but otherwise the Corolla Cross is stable and relatively quiet. But ultimately, the fun of driving the Corolla Cross Hybrid isn’t in attacking corners—it’s in the satisfaction of driving smoothly. The steering, brake calibration, hybrid system, and compact dimensions all work together to make maintaining momentum around town unusually tangible. I never took the long way home just to get another ten minutes behind the wheel, but I also never resented having to drive something that seems so boring in theory.

Technology: 8.4/10

Toyota has updated the Corolla Cross’s technology enough to keep pace in 2026, but you might have a hard time convincing your eyes. The XSE gets a 10.5-inch multimedia touchscreen and a 12.3-inch digital instrument display, while wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are included. Everything worked, and that’s perhaps the entire review in a nutshell. CarPlay connected reliably, the wireless charging pad charged my phone without issue, the infotainment menus were easy to navigate, the graphics were clear, and Toyota hasn’t buried basic controls on the screen. My only complaint, aside from the generally dated appearance of it all, seemed like a bizarrely simple fix: Where is the volume knob?

Toyota gives you two little volume buttons beneath the screen instead. You can hold them down, but they’re still substantially less intuitive than grabbing a dial, and so I mostly relied on the steering-wheel controls for adjustments during the week. Passengers, however, don’t have that luxury, and more than one commented on the annoyance independently. The nine-speaker JBL audio system is good, though not necessarily spectacular. It has a decent subwoofer and, importantly, didn’t transform surrounding interior panels into percussion instruments.

Toyota Safety Sense 3.0 also mostly stays out of your way, which, as you may know, is the highest praise I can offer most modern active safety systems. I generally don’t trust adaptive cruise in chaotic stop-and-go traffic because other drivers can make sudden, unpredictable, and outright dangerous moves, but the Corolla Cross’s collision warnings appeared only when appropriate and without constantly screaming or unnecessarily slamming on the brakes. Useful technology is often the technology you don’t even notice on the surface, and that’s precisely the case here.

Interior: 8.4/10

Even more so than on the outside, the cabin is where Toyota’s age gives itself a way most obviously to the trained—and even untrained—eye. The Corolla Cross’s cabin is considerably less visually impressive than newer competitors like the Nissan Kicks and Kia Seltos, and that might prove to be a dealbreaker for some buyers, but cheap-looking and cheaply built are two very different things. Although Toyota’s materials aren’t exactly luxurious, they feel impressively durable. Buttons operate smoothly, nothing creaks or rattles, and the layout is so conventional that after a few minutes you basically stop noticing the dashboard altogether. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a strength.

The XSE trim adds SofTex upholstery, an eight-way power driver’s seat with lumbar adjustment, heated seats, a heated steering wheel, dual-zone climate control, a power moonroof, and a power liftgate. Front-seat comfort remained satisfactory even after our two-hour traffic ordeal, though my passenger did discover one irritation: his seat couldn’t be raised. Toyota provides height adjustment for the power driver’s seat but not for the passenger seat, meaning shotgun passengers are forced into a pretty low seating position.

Rear space is tighter, though perfectly reasonable for the segment. Adults can manage a couple of hours without too much trouble, while the 609-liter/21.5-cu-ft cargo area offers substantially more usefulness than a Corolla sedan or hatchback. Visibility is good, all of the controls are easy to locate, and the entire cabin feels solidly assembled, and that last part is the key distinction here. A Seltos or Kicks might make a stronger first impression when you open the door, but the Corolla Cross still makes its case after you’ve spent hours inside and realize nothing has annoyed you except a couple of volume buttons. It feels like a baby RAV4 in the best way possible, and that, frankly, is probably exactly what most buyers want.

Exterior: 8.0/10

Cavalry Blue deserves a raise. Toyota added it as a new color for 2026, along with a new color-matched grille for Hybrid models, and both changes do an admirable job of modernizing an otherwise aging design. With a jet-black roof, black wheels, and dark trim, the bright blue bodywork looks fantastic. Unfortunately, though, the rest of the Corolla Cross doesn’t look equally fresh.

The rear, in particular, is showing its age. Updated taillight graphics alone could have made a meaningful difference, and now that many of Toyota’s newer products have moved forward stylistically, the Corolla Cross’s basic proportions and lighting increasingly reveal when this generation was conceived. The Nissan Kicks and Kia Seltos both look considerably newer, and while the Crosstrek is less dramatically newer-looking, it still feels somewhat fresher by comparison. Toyota has done the bare minimum for 2026 to keep the Corolla Cross current, and perhaps it’s just enough to push this generation’s production cycle forward for another year or two. It’s not that it’s unappealing; it’s that it’s surrounded by increasingly prettier and bolder competition.

Value: 9.0/10

At nearly $40k (all things considered) on either side of the border, the Corolla Cross Hybrid might sound expensive at first, but it’s important to remember that this is the fully equipped AWD hybrid version. In the U.S., the base Corolla Cross Hybrid’s $29,795 MSRP puts it notably above the cheapest small crossovers, though buyers looking specifically for a hybrid all-wheel-drive model have only the Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid to compare it against, which starts at an even higher $33,995 in its most basic form. A hybrid variant of the all-new Kia Seltos is expected to arrive in early 2027; however, its pricing is yet to be confirmed. So for now, the Corolla Cross Hybrid represents one of the most affordable ways to get into a hybrid-powered, all-wheel-drive SUV—and that’s a lot of buzzwords for a pretty reasonable amount of dough.

The interior doesn’t necessarily scream those prices, but the engineering underneath it all makes a much stronger argument. Efficiency matters, but the hybrid’s refinement, responsiveness, and overall polish are equally important. This isn’t just a Corolla Cross that saves fuel—it’s the version that makes the whole model make sense. A Nissan Kicks offers far more visual flair, and the Kia Seltos looks and feels considerably newer, but for now, though, Toyota’s hybrid system remains the ingredient that holds the whole sandwich together.

That advantage won’t last forever. Future hybrid competition could pose a serious problem if rivals can deliver Toyota-like smoothness and efficiency while retaining their advantages in styling and interior presentation. And then there’s Toyota’s own RAV4, which, if you need additional space, makes moving up quickly make sense. But if you don’t? The Corolla Cross occupies a genuine sweet spot. It’s meaningfully more practical for more people than a Corolla, yet easier to maneuver around crowded cities than a larger compact SUV, and its 1,500-ish-pound towing capacity is enough for something like a small utility or garden trailer. The Corolla Cross isn’t inexpensive, but it makes a remarkably convincing argument for where that money goes.

Verdict: 8.8/10—Sensible Doesn’t Have To Mean Soulless

As I stated earlier, the 2026 Toyota Corolla Cross Hybrid is like the automotive equivalent of ham and Swiss on multigrain with a dab of mayo. It’s a pretty simple recommendation, but a dependable one nonetheless. The ingredients aren’t exotic, the presentation isn’t especially memorable, and there are far more exciting options on the menu, but everything works together harmoniously. The hybrid system is a solid blanket of multigrain bread: efficient, substantial, and the main reason why the whole thing feels healthier and more satisfying than expected. The aging interior and exterior are the ham and Swiss: familiar, straightforward, and unlikely to surprise anyone, yet always easy to stomach. And the little dollop of mayo is the refinement Toyota has worked into the experience—the smooth brake calibration, easy controls, comfortable ride, useful AWD and enough low-speed electric punch to make daily driving feel easier than it has any right to.

That’s what surprised me most of all. Despite being one of the most appliance-like vehicles I can imagine off the top of my head, the Corolla Cross doesn’t actually feel like an appliance—at least not in the ways that would otherwise make the description seem slanderous. Instead of trying to do everything for you, it simply disappears around you. The powertrain is always predictable, feeling out the brake pedal becomes a matter of intuition, the controls quickly become muscle memory, and the dimensions cease to require much thought. It’s simple not because it’s basic, but because Toyota has engineered it so thoroughly that it feels that way, and there is something surprisingly human-centric about that.

Would I buy one? Probably not, but this is the wrong question. I tend to prefer cars willing to trade some (or all) convenience and rationality for personality and rawness. I am not the average car buyer, and I own that. But if a relative or a friend told me they simply needed something comfortable, practical, efficient, and unlikely to make their life more difficult? I’d recommend a Corolla Cross Hybrid without hesitation, but Toyota shouldn’t assume people will order the same sandwich forever. The design is aging, rivals are improving, and serious hybrid competition is on the horizon. For now, though, the Corolla Cross Hybrid remains one of the easiest small SUVs to recommend because it understands exactly what most buyers actually need. Sometimes lunch doesn’t need to change your life; it just needs to be satisfying, dependable, and flavourful enough to order it again tomorrow.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

You Can’t Beat Cheap

Even the Bolt’s top-tier RS trim comes in under $35k. The starting price? $28,995. This is by far the Bolt’s best selling point and its biggest attribute. At this end of the market, you can’t beat cheap, and the Bolt is among the cheapest. While the Slate truck is cheaper, the Bolt packs a lot of features Slate owners will have to add later, like screens, powered windows, and more.

The next priciest EV in the American market is the Nissan Leaf, and though it’s a worthy step up, it still isn’t as cheap as the Bolt, starting at $29,990. The one you want will run you more than $30k easily. Even the tiny Fiat 500e costs more, starting at $35,700. When comes to value, the Bolt is nearly impossible to beat.

It’s Zippy, Not Fast

The Bolt feels really nice to drive. It’s zippy, with around 200 horsepower. It feels like my old VW GTI, which was plenty quick enough. Chevy says the Bolt will get to 60 in about 7 seconds, which is quick enough. While it’s a bummer the EV doesn’t have all-wheel drive, its dimensions do make it a great city car. The Bolt is easy to park, and a few handy cameras only add to that. The new braking system feels better than the old Bolt, too, and the driver aids are top-notch.

The Bolt Feels Small Without Compromise

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Despite its small size, the updated Chevrolet Bolt feels big on the inside. The rear floor is flat, and so are the rear seats, creating a wide, spacious place for occupants to hang out in. This feeling of airiness is carried over to the front of the EV, where the low dash and doors help you feel like you’ve got a commanding view of your surroundings.

New Powertrain Updates Make The Bolt Better

The Bolt’s drivetrain updates make it significantly more appetizing. The new powertrain is ripped from the Equinox EV, making 210 horsepower. The updated charging system features a Tesla-style NACS port for better compatibility and higher speeds of up to 150 kilowatts. Regen now has three levels of adjustment, too, which allows drivers to dial in how their car feels. The Bolt’s range also grows to around 262 miles, per the EPA.

No Carplay Is A Screw-Up

The Bolt’s Google-based UI works pretty alright. During my week with the car, I never had a problem getting from A to B with it. The Bluetooth worked flawlessly, and Google Maps did too. But I missed phone projection. There’s a level of intergration there that automakers still struggle to replicate, and the Bolt, try though it might, didn’t quite nail the system well enough to make me forget about Carplay and Android Auto. Chevy’s stubborn insistence on this matter expands beyond just the Bolt, but it has to be noted here too.

This time, it reads as cost-cutting. Automakers don’t want to pay for this feature, and Chevrolet is blatantly cutting costs in skipping this. Lots of the car’s other controls are also in the screen, including a simple headlight switch; functionality I expect to be able to quickly manipulate.

Uncomfortable Front Seats Let Down A Great EV

The Bolt is, at its core, an economy car. Compromises have to be made to hit a price point. But one of those places shouldn’t be in the front seats. These here are too flat and lack a lot of the support I want to see that’ll keep a car comfy over long trips. The back seats also pose the same problem, and are over-flat and lack any real support.

All-Wheel Drive Should Be A No-Brainer

The Bolt is fun. It’s a zippy little car, and with 210 horsepower and 169 lb-ft of torque, it feels like a gas-powered hot hatch. The instant torque from the electric motors is great, too. However, the Bolt is only available with front-wheel drive, which I consider to be something of an oversight. While it’s clear a larger battery would be needed to deliver on range figures, the car could certainly benefit from the added zip and four-season capability. As it sits now, the Bolt feels quick, taking 7.1 seconds to hit 60, but it’s not quite as rapid as all-wheel drive options in the segment.

RS Doesn’t Mean Much Here

This RS model, which is supposed to be a sportier option, is really only that in name. In fact, the only differntiating items are some sportier styling elements like the black wheels and grille. The rest adds optional features from lower down in the lineup as standard, like the Comfort package. Not so sporty.

Range Doesn’t Quite Stack Up

The Bolt’s updated powertrain is just that, but it doesn’t quite keep pace with range figures from competitors. The EPA says the BOlt can hit 262 miles on a charge, but real-world range is often less. For reference, the only slightly more expensive Nissan Leaf will do around 310 miles on a charge.

It’s not the kind of unassuming EV that will pin you against the seat with ridiculous acceleration. It doesn’t have a drift mode, nor does it look like Kia asked an aerospace designer to reinvent the commuter crossover. What it is, though, is comfortable, spacious, attractive, impressively long-legged, and surprisingly premium for the money. In other words, it’s exactly the sort of normal electric family SUV that should make EV adoption easier. But if you’re American, you can’t have it.

The EV5’s absence from the American market initially caused some confusion. At Kia’s 2023 EV Day, company executives initially indicated the EV5 would reach America, but Kia quickly walked back those comments. Now, the production reality is pretty unambiguous: Kia calls the EV5 exclusive to Canada within North America, with no plans to introduce the model in the United States. Kia hasn’t publicly blamed one specific policy or tariff for that decision, so neither will I, but I will say this: after spending a week driving one around Vancouver, it’s pretty unfortunate that American buyers won’t be able to make the choice for themselves.

My EV5 Land FWD costs $52,495 CAD

The Canadian EV5 lineup will start at $43,495 CAD for the eventually arriving Light FWD, while my Land FWD occupies an interesting middle ground at $49,995 before fees. It uses the larger 81.4-kWh battery, along with synthetic leather, a heat pump, panoramic sunroof, smart power liftgate, 19-inch wheels, wireless charging, and Vehicle-to-Load capability. My Dark Ocean Blue tester had no conventional options. Add $250 for paint, $2,150 for freight, and $100 in A/C tax, and the total reached $52,495 CAD. It comes equipped with dual 12.3-inch displays, heated front seats, driver-seat memory, and a heat pump.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Kia’s current Canadian guide targets 460 kilometers, or about 286 miles, of range for long-range FWD versions. Going AWD drops that figure to around 415 km in Land form. Given where and how I drive, front-wheel drive is surprisingly tempting.

Powertrain: 7.5/10

Don’t expect the EV5 Land FWD to perform the usual electric-car launch-control party trick. Acceleration builds more gradually than in the dual-motor EVs that rearrange your internal organs every time the light turns green. That’s totally fine by me—the EV5 doesn’t need to feel like a sports car. Around Vancouver, the single-motor setup had enough power to make merging painless, overtaking achievable, and stoplight acceleration entirely adequate. More importantly, accelerator calibration felt natural and easy to modulate.

My favorite setup was simple: crank up the regenerative braking and leave it there. Strong regen suited Vancouver’s stop-and-go traffic perfectly. Rather than constantly moving between pedals, I could mostly ease into and out of the accelerator and let the car smoothly scrub away speed. Unfortunately, the front axle occasionally likes to remind you how many jobs it’s being asked to do. Apply enough throttle and some torque steer creeps through the steering wheel. The steering itself is already very light and numb, so asking the EV5 to hustle reveals a fairly messy dynamic picture: body roll, limited feedback, and a front end that doesn’t always feel entirely settled while simultaneously steering and deploying electric torque. Sport mode mostly sharpens the accelerator rather than transforming the chassis, but driven calmly, none of that matters much, and that’s precisely how the EV5 wants to be driven.

Its suspension soaks up even the ugliest pavement quite well, the cabin feels impressively isolated, and even the 19-inch wheels don’t noticeably compromise comfort. Highway stability is good, wind and tire noise are minimal, and there’s a general sense of refinement I’d normally expect from something more expensive. I’d happily drive the FWD version around Vancouver all year with the right winter tires, but for regular winter ski trips through snowy mountain passes or up the Coquihalla, I understand the appeal of paying a bit more for all-wheel drive. Extra traction is reassuring when conditions get ugly, particularly if multiple people will be driving the car. But for day-to-day use, front-wheel drive works perfectly fine here.

Range And Charging: The FWD Model Makes A Strong Case For Itself

This is where the less exciting drivetrain pays you back. I picked up the EV5 fully charged and, at one point, saw the dashboard estimate just under 500 kilometers—roughly 310 miles—of available range. That is emphatically not a measured real-world range result. Kia targets 460 km for the configuration, and my week consisted mostly of efficiency-friendly summer driving around Vancouver, but the number was still an encouraging demonstration of how favorably the EV5 interpreted my usage. Range anxiety was not something I suffered from this week. I drove it into the nearby mountains for a hike, used it daily around Vancouver, and mixed in some highway driving without ever becoming preoccupied with the battery gauge.

I charged only once meaningfully, overnight on a Level 2 charger in my underground parking garage. During my hike, I also left the Kia connected to a public Level 2 charger for a few hours, which added roughly 12 km of indicated range. The charging port sits on the front passenger-side fender, and I liked the placement because I could simply nose into most charging spaces. The Canadian EV5 also comes with NACS compatibility from the factory, while Kia says DC fast charging can charge the battery from roughly 10% to 80% in around 30 minutes under appropriate conditions. It lacks the Kia EV6-level 800-volt charging wizardry, but for this vehicle’s mission, it still feels like enough. I’d happily take one up to Whistler, local ski mountains, or even the Okanagan, but for frequent cross-country or U.S. road trips, I’d probably want something with a more aggressive fast-charging architecture, or more simply, something with combustion power as a backup at the very least.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

Technology: 8.0/10

Kia has become quite skilled at making complicated-looking dashboards surprisingly easy to use. The EV5’s broad display arrangement incorporates two 12.3-inch screens, and the graphics are crisp, modern, and easy to understand. Wireless Apple CarPlay gave me no trouble, and the infotainment system felt suitably current without requiring a computer-science degree to adjust basic settings. The standard sound system was better than I expected, too, and, thank goodness, the EV5 still has physical buttons for climate controls.

I didn’t miss the head-up display that’s available farther up the lineup. I’ve occasionally found HUDs distracting or even mildly nauseating, so their absence didn’t bother me. There are, however, two omissions I noticed: At $52,495 CAD as tested, my Land didn’t have ventilated front seats or a 360-degree camera. Neither feature is by any means mandatory, and the conventional cameras were perfectly clear, but both would be welcome at this price. Kia reserves ventilated seats for GT-Line and the surround-view system for GT-Line Limited. The wireless charger also worked more slowly than I’d like.

Driver-assistance systems mostly stayed out of my way, which is praise. I briefly used adaptive cruise control but eventually preferred managing Vancouver’s chaotic stop-and-go traffic myself using regenerative braking. Sometimes intelligence means knowing when not to interfere.

Exterior: 8.0/10

I like the EV5’s design more than I love it, and its biggest advantage is proportion. Where the current Sportage can look slightly swollen and generic from certain angles, the EV5’s upright roofline and squared-off body give it a much stronger visual identity. The resemblance to the larger EV9 is obvious without making it feel like Kia simply shrunk one and called it a day. Kia itself admits the EV5 borrows cues from the EV9, including its structured body and Star Map lighting. Dark Ocean Blue also suited it particularly well, and I felt it was worth the added $250 surcharge. The overall effect is modern without being weird for weirdness’ sake—a useful quality for a vehicle designed to replace someone’s CR-V or Sportage. Will everyone like it? Probably not. But I’d take slightly polarizing and distinctive over anonymous any day.

Interior: 8.7/10

The cabin was perhaps the EV5’s nicest surprise, and it feels much more spacious inside than its compact-SUV positioning suggests. The upright body pays dividends in headroom, passenger space, and general airiness, while the panoramic roof makes the cabin feel even larger. Materials also present surprisingly well for a Kia starting below $50,000 CAD in this specification. My Land’s synthetic leather didn’t feel like an obvious downgrade from genuine hide, and the overall presentation was polished enough that the EV5 never gave off bargain-bin energy.

A badge shouldn’t determine whether a vehicle feels appropriate in an expensive place, but perceived quality certainly can. Pulling up to a Michelin Guide dinner in this Kia didn’t feel like arriving in something built down to a price—it actually felt quite modern and respectable. Practicality is even more impressive: Kia designed the EV5 with a column-mounted shifter to free up center console space, a small 44-liter front trunk, and rear seats that fold completely flat. Kia itself emphasizes interior flexibility as a core part of the EV5’s mission. Cargo volume is around 965 liters behind the second row and more than 2,000 liters with the second row folded down, which is tremendous for something only around 181 inches long. It is, fundamentally, a box, and as the automotive industry has come to relearn in recent years, boxes are incredibly useful.

Value: 9.0/10

For $49,995 before freight, the Land FWD brings the long-range battery, heat pump, panoramic roof, synthetic leather, smart liftgate, and modern infotainment, and importantly, it doesn’t feel like a stripped-out compliance EV. Had it reached the U.S., I suspect the EV5 would have naturally occupied the same market sandbox as the Chevrolet Equinox EV and lower Ioniq 5 trims—an attainable compact electric SUV rather than an expensive technology showcase—and that’s why its absence south of the border bothers me.

The United States isn’t missing some exotic piece of electric forbidden fruit that enthusiasts will import in 25 years. It’s missing a normal family car. Whatever combination of manufacturing economics, incentives, and subsequent trade-policy uncertainty helped make that decision stick, American shoppers ultimately have one fewer affordable EV to consider, and that’s unfortunate because affordability is precisely where the EV5 makes its strongest case.

Verdict: 8.3/10—Sensible Is A Compliment

The 2027 Kia EV5 Land FWD is not an exciting electric SUV, and yet I mean that with absolute affection. Its steering is numb; torque steer occasionally reminds you why high-output front-drive EVs require careful calibration; body roll discourages heroics; the wireless charger could be faster, and I’d appreciate ventilated seats and a surround-view camera in a vehicle costing more than $50,000 CAD, but none of those things would stop me from recommending it, because the EV5 gets the important stuff right.

It’s exceptionally comfortable, remarkably spacious, pleasantly upscale, easy to operate, and capable of traveling far enough between charges that I barely thought about range during my week. I took it hiking in the mountains, I commuted around Vancouver, I used it for a birthday dinner somewhere sufficiently nice that showing up in a Kia never crossed my mind until afterward, and that’s what I believe an affordable EV should accomplish. It shouldn’t require compromises large enough that you congratulate yourself for tolerating them. It should simply function as a good car that only happens to be electric. The EV5 does just that, and that’s precisely why it’s frustrating that American buyers won’t get one.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Hyundai hasn’t attempted to turn the Elantra N into something it isn’t here—not like the 2026 Toyota GR Corolla GRMN, which ditches its rear seats entirely for the sake of track performance. Instead, the TCR Edition feels like an Elantra N with several of the modifications an enthusiast might make before getting serious about track days already installed from the factory, but without sacrificing much, if anything, about what makes it such a great daily driver. And after spending an afternoon driving one on Canadian Tire Motorsports Park’s Driver Development Track—better known as Mosport—located just outside of Toronto, Ontario, I came away thinking that says just as much about the regular Elantra N as it does about this special edition.

The Elantra N Was Already Most Of The Way There

The TCR Edition began life as a Canada-focused special before Hyundai subsequently confirmed a limited U.S. production run for 2026. American buyers can choose either the six-speed manual or eight-speed dual-clutch transmission, just as Canadians can. And mechanically, the basic recipe remains wonderfully familiar: it has the same 276-hp turbo-four, electronically controlled limited-slip differential, adaptive suspension, and front-wheel-drive layout as the regular N. Hyundai Canada prices the manual TCR Edition at $47,599 CAD, compared with $40,949 for a regular manual Elantra N. In the U.S., the manual TCR Edition starts at $39,250, with the regular manual Elantra N starting at $35,300.

That ordinary Elantra N has always struck me as one of the market’s more compelling performance underdogs. Philosophically, it sits opposite something like the Subaru WRX: where Subaru’s heritage comes from loose surfaces and rally stages, the Hyundai has been shaped around circuit driving and Hyundai’s increasingly successful touring-car program. Its pricing also puts it closer to a WRX than a Honda Civic Type R or Toyota GR Corolla: A 2026 WRX starts at $33,995 in the U.S., while a GR Corolla now starts above $40,000.

On Mosport’s tight, technical Driver Development Track, the Hyundai never needed so much as even one more horsepower. I spent most of my time in third gear, dipping into second for tighter sections and briefly grabbing fourth on the longer straight. The turbo-four’s broad torque range made short-shifting viable when necessary, while its willingness to rev meant I could stretch the gears when the track opened up. More importantly, that 276 horsepower never overwhelmed the front tires, and the electronic limited-slip differential deserves much of the credit for that. Even when accelerating aggressively out of corners, torque steer was essentially a non-issue. The car simply went where I pointed it, and if I ever needed the rear to participate, it would do so compliantly.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

The TCR Edition Doesn’t Fight Its Front-Wheel-Drive Layout

One of my favorite things about the Elantra N TCR Edition was how little I thought about the fact that it was front-wheel drive. Its chassis felt adjustable in a way that encouraged me to think less about which axle was powered and more about how weight was moving around underneath me. Depending on how I entered or exited a corner, the rear could be persuaded to rotate without the car suddenly becoming nervous or unpredictable.

On one particular lap, I got a little bit greedy. I’d just completed what felt like an exceptionally smooth run and decided that obviously meant the next one needed to be faster. In a long sweeping corner, I stayed committed for slightly too long and the rear stepped out, but nothing dramatic followed. The chassis communicated what was happening clearly, the tires remained progressive, and the moment became a useful reminder that the quickest-feeling lap isn’t necessarily the one where you’re trying hardest, and that idea became one of the day’s recurring themes. The more comfortable I became, the less the experience was about chasing outright speed—smoothness mattered more. You’d think I’d have learned Cole Trickle’s lesson sooner, seeing as we share a first name.

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 Tires Changed Everything

There’s an important asterisk attached to everything I’ve just said about grip. The TCR Edition does not normally leave the showroom on the tires I had equipped. For this event, which Michelin sponsored, Hyundai fitted the cars with 245/35 ZR19 Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2s. The regular Elantra N uses Michelin Pilot Sport 4S summer tires in the same basic 245/35R19 sizing. Cup 2s are substantially more track-focused—they’re still street-legal, which was part of the point: any Elantra N owner could theoretically fit a set for an event, spend the day at the circuit, and drive the very same car home without performing a tire swap in the paddock. But on track, they were probably the single most consequential change I experienced.

Turn-in was exceptionally precise. Front-end bite inspired immediate confidence, and the car tolerated much more lateral load than I initially expected, yet when grip finally began running out, the tires didn’t suddenly turn from adhesive to banana peel. Even during my brief moment of unintentional oversteer, the breakaway remained communicative enough that the situation never felt frightening. Critically, the Cup 2s didn’t make the Elantra N feel like it had been transformed into a different car entirely—they simply made it feel like the same car could be uncorked just a little bit further in a track setting.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

The TCR Edition Adds The Stuff Track Drivers Actually Need

The production TCR Edition adds precisely what Hyundai’s own touring car drivers feel optimizes it best for track driving without going overboard. Hyundai installs four-piston monobloc front calipers with two-piece front rotors, lightweight 19-inch forged wheels, and that impossible-to-ignore adjustable carbon-fiber swan-neck rear wing. Inside, there are additional Alcantara touchpoints, Performance Blue seatbelts, and TCR-specific details. My event car’s forged wheels were painted white rather than the production car’s standard gloss-black finish, and they looked spectacular against Performance Blue. Event staff told me Hyundai is considering broader use of white wheels on future N Performance applications, and I strongly encouraged them to move ahead with that decision.

Perhaps most importantly, the brakes justified themselves almost immediately. The pedal was easy to understand, initial response was solid, and repeated laps never produced meaningful fade that I could detect. As the afternoon progressed, I found myself braking later the more I built confidence in the system. For somebody taking a regular Elantra N to occasional track days, the stock brakes may be perfectly adequate, but for repeated circuit abuse, the TCR system feels like valuable additional insurance. Hyundai personnel also told me the event cars had received some minor additional cooling preparation for their near-continuous running in warm summer conditions, though no specific hardware changes were detailed.

Put everything together, and the philosophy makes plenty of sense. If I were broadly prioritizing an Elantra N for track use, the areas that matter most to me are undoubtedly tires, braking durability, thermal management, and aero, and that’s precisely the kind of motorsport-led optimization this car showcased so effectively.

The Manual Makes You Work For It—Mostly In A Good Way

My Performance Blue TCR Edition had the six-speed manual, and I wouldn’t have wanted it any other way for this event. The actual shift action felt excellent in my hand. Its throws are precise, the gearing suited the circuit nicely, and Hyundai’s automatic rev matching was especially useful during a fast-paced technical lap. I still found myself heel-toe downshifting out of habit, but the electronics complemented rather than fought what I was doing.

More importantly, and since lap times weren’t being recorded, selecting gears became a valuable reference point for learning the circuit. Knowing which gear I expected through a particular section gave the lap structure. For outright lap times, the eight-speed DCT would unquestionably remove work from the driver’s plate and shift faster, but for enjoyment sake, give me the manual.

My only complaint, since I must find at least one thing to criticize, is the clutch pedal feel. Engagement happens quite quickly off the floor and doesn’t communicate nearly as naturally as the excellent setups in, for example, the Civic Type R and Acura Integra Type S. Occasionally, that made an otherwise smooth shift more abrupt than I wanted. Still, it’s easy enough to learn, and I’ve lived with worse—I drove a Subaru WRX every day for two years. The Elantra’s manual isn’t perfect, but I’m so happy it exists.

Morrisport’s Knowledgeable Instructors Helped Me Understand What The Car Could Actually Do

The other major component of this experience worth mentioning wasn’t attached to the Hyundai at all. Morrisport handled the circuit logistics and driver instruction, with a team spearheaded by Tony Morris Jr. and Lawrence Howlett. Its professional instructors conducted our briefing, introduced us to the circuit, managed track release and rode alongside us to help refine our driving throughout the day. Their contribution to the program was invaluable.

I worked primarily with instructors Javier and Anthony, and the biggest progression in my driving came not from blind bravery but from understanding rhythm. I had some previous track experience, but I’ve never raced competitively. Early in the day, I was hungry for feedback, and whenever an instructor suggested something, I tried to incorporate it immediately. The biggest improvement was in how I approached braking and corner entry. As my familiarity increased, I stopped consciously processing every individual action and began experiencing the circuit as one continuous sequence. That’s the sensation I chase whenever I drive on track—or, really, whenever I go for a drive at all.

For a little while, outside thoughts disappear. You’re not thinking about emails, deadlines, or whatever else is waiting when you get back to reality. The car, the next corner, and the piece of asphalt connecting them take up all available bandwidth. The TCR Edition was an exceptionally agreeable partner for getting there because it communicated enough to teach rather than intimidate.

It Even Made Me Look Like I Knew What I Was Doing

At the end of the day, Morrisport’s instructors voted me Driver of the Day. I was genuinely surprised—there were plenty of other journalists there, some with previous experience on this very track, so I assumed somebody else would inevitably receive it. Apparently my years playing Gran Turismo finally generated a measurable return on investment. Tony Morris Jr. presented the award after the sessions ended, and although I was never given an exact scoring rubric, I’d like to think consistency and willingness to listen had something to do with it.

My instructor had also given me one final challenge on the cool-down lap: complete the circuit without using the brake pedal, relying instead on the car’s natural deceleration and gearing. I managed it perfectly fine, and more than any imaginary lap-time heroics, that felt consistent with what I’d learned throughout the day: once I stopped forcing the pace, everything became smoother and easier to communicate with.

Verdict: The TCR Edition Shows How Little The Elantra N Needs To Be Dialled In On The Track

The Elantra N TCR Edition isn’t a radically different Elantra N, and that’s precisely why I like it as much as I do. Unlike the no-compromise GR Corolla GRMN, the TCR Edition is an Elantra N with several of the most important track-focused optimizations installed from the factory, influenced by a motorsport program that has genuine credibility behind it, that doesn’t take away from its capabilities as a functional daily driver (aside, of course, from its relative understatement, thanks to its massive carbon fibre rear wing). Hyundai’s Elantra N TCR has helped deliver six consecutive IMSA Michelin Pilot Challenge manufacturers’ championships, and current Hyundai TCR driver Mark Wilkins was even at Mosport helping demonstrate what the cars are capable of when pushed to 10/10ths.

But almost everything that made my road-going TCR Edition so effective could theoretically be applied to a regular Elantra N. Don’t take that as a criticism of the special edition, because it isn’t. But it’s probably the greatest compliment I can give the standard car. If you already own an Elantra N, I wouldn’t necessarily trade it in simply to get a TCR badge. A thoughtful set of track-focused tires and braking upgrades would take an ordinary car remarkably far. But if you’re ordering a new Elantra N specifically because you intend to use it on a circuit, though, the TCR Edition makes much more sense. The forged wheels, stronger brakes, functional aero, and exclusivity factor help justify its premium without spoiling the basic balance that made the normal car so appealing in the first place.

Crucially, Hyundai didn’t add power merely because special editions are expected to produce a larger number on a spec sheet in order to appear more desirable. It didn’t need to. I previously owned an Elantra GT N-Line, a car I’ve long argued deserved more enthusiast recognition than it received, and spending a day at Mosport in the TCR Edition only strengthened my appreciation for what Hyundai’s N engineers have built since. The Elantra N isn’t a cheap sedan desperately pretending to be a track car—it’s a remarkably capable track car that still happens to be an affordable four-door sedan. The TCR Edition simply shows what happens when Hyundai turns that dial a few clicks further.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Toyota’s least-expensive plug-in RAV4 starts thousands of dollars below the Nissan, makes 76 more horsepower, travels considerably farther on electricity, and earns a dramatically better EPA efficiency rating. Toyota will even sell you rugged Woodland and sporty GR Sport variants, while Nissan offers only two trim levels and a few different paint colors. So, in theory, this shouldn’t be all that much of a comparison whatsoever.

But I’ve driven both SUVs—including multiple versions of the redesigned RAV4 and roughly 500 kilometers of everyday commuting in the Rogue around Vancouver—and the Nissan does still have an argument to make, even despite its nature as a rebadged, previous-generation Mitsubishi Outlander that only exists to fill the gap between the actual Rogue’s model years. It’s extraordinarily quiet, comfortable and easy to drive, and unlike the five-passenger Toyota, it squeezes a tiny third row into its compact footprint. So, is Toyota’s class benchmark really as dominant as the numbers suggest, or does Nissan’s unusually refined family crossover have enough personality beneath its borrowed Mitsubishi skin to fight back? Let’s find out.

Rogue Plug-In Hybrid Vs. RAV4 Plug-In Hybrid: The Numbers

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Nissan officially rates the Rogue at 248 horsepower, 38 miles of electric range, 64 M,PGe and 26 mpg once its battery is depleted. It starts at $45,990 before destination. Toyota’s current EPA figures are considerably stronger. The base RAV4 PHEV SE starts at $41,500, produces 324 horsepower, offers an EPA-estimated 54 miles of electric range, and is rated at 101 MPGe. Even Toyota’s least-efficient, performance-oriented GR Sport is rated at 86 MPGe—still substantially higher than the Nissan. Still, numbers only tell part of the story.

Powertrain: The Toyota Is Faster, But The Nissan Is Exceptionally Refined

The Rogue’s 248 horsepower didn’t bother me nearly as much in practice as it does in that table. Electric torque makes it responsive immediately off the line, and around Vancouver, I found highway merging, quick lane changes,s and overtaking slower traffic completely stress-free. Only when I kept my foot buried did the Nissan’s relatively modest output become apparent. What impressed me more was how polished everything felt.

The 2.4-liter gasoline engine joins the party quietly enough that I often don’t notice when it switches on. Power delivery is smooth, predictable and completely undramatic—which is exactly what I want from a family PHEV. During my week, I averaged an indicated 4.5 L/100 km, or roughly 52 mpg U.S., despite experimenting with its battery Charge mode.

Toyota’s system, though, has considerably more muscle. Its 324-hp 2.5-liter plug-in hybrid powertrain delivers genuinely enthusiastic acceleration—so much so that the GR Sport uses the same powertrain without modification—and Toyota claims the RAV4 PHEV can hit 60 mph in as little as 5.4 seconds. When I drove the system in the regular RAV4 lineup, its acceleration felt substantially more energetic than you’d expect from America’s most sensible family crossover. And I’ve experienced its more extreme personalities, too.

The RAV4 Woodland PHEV uses the same 324-hp system while adding all-terrain tires and off-road hardware, yet still delivers plenty of on- and off-road power when I drove it. The GR Sport then pairs that drivetrain with GR-specific steering, suspension, cross-bracing, and summer tires. I found that version genuinely entertaining through the corners—not quite GR Corolla-entertaining, but enough to make me forget I was hustling a RAV4. That’s a breadth of capability Nissan simply doesn’t offer here.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

Range, MPGe, and Charging: Toyota Runs Away With It

Here, the comparison gets much more difficult for Nissan. The Rogue provides an EPA-estimated electric range of 38 miles, whereas Toyota’s base RAV4 SE gets 54 miles. Sixteen extra miles might not sound transformational until you consider how PHEVs are actually used. That’s roughly a 42% increase in EV range, potentially turning a commute that regularly wakes the Nissan’s gasoline engine into one the Toyota can complete entirely on electric power. Efficiency widens the gulf even further.

While the Rogue is rated at 64 MPGe, the RAV4 SE manages 101 MPGe, the XSE 96 MPGe, the Woodland 94 MPGe, and even the wide-tired GR Sport 86 MPGe. Toyota’s SE is also rated at 40 mpg combined after its usable EV charge is depleted, versus just 26 mpg for the Nissan. Then there’s the charging factor: The one time I connected the Rogue to a Level 2 charger, I left it there for several hours and returned to find it still wasn’t full. Nissan officially quotes 7.5 hours at 240 volts, and that experience discouraged me enough that I didn’t plug it in again during my week, instead using the integrated “Charge” drive mode, which still didn’t charge very quickly.

Toyota offers quicker AC charging hardware on the RAV4, while XSE and Woodland PHEVs also gain CCS1 DC fast-charging capability. Toyota says those two trims can use an 11-kW onboard AC charger, while DC charging adds flexibilithat ty the Rogue simply doesn’t possess. A plug-in hybrid lives or dies by whether owners actually bother to plug it in, and Toyota makes it infinitely easier.

Driving: Comfort Or Character?

This is perhaps where the two SUVs come closest to each other. The Rogue’s steering is feather-light and vague, even after switching into Tarmac mode, but its chassis is better than that description implies. Body control is excellent, and the suspension is pillowy without becoming sloppy. More importantly, the cabin is exceptionally isolated. Around town and on highways, the Nissan has the sort of effortless refinement that encourages you to stop thinking about driving entirely. For someone spending hours commuting every day, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

The regular RAV4 is still comfortable, but it feels a little more alert. Toyota’s new PHEV powertrain responds more energetically, while the chassis gives the driver a stronger sense of what’s happening beneath the tires. More importantly, Toyota actually lets buyers choose how far they want to push that character. The Woodland sacrifices a small amount of ride softness and road-noise suppression for its all-terrain tires and 8.5 inches of ground clearance. The GR Sport moves in the opposite direction with heavier steering, lowered suspension, and performance-oriented tuning. If serenity is your priority, I actually prefer the Rogue, but if you’re asking which SUV offers the better overall driving experience, Toyota’s stronger powertrain and broader dynamic range undeniably win out.

Interior And Technology: One Feels A Generation Newer

I like sitting in the Rogue much more than I like looking at its dashboard. The seats are excellent, and outward visibility is fantastic. My Platinum tester had heated rear seats, window shades, a panoramic moonroof, and diamond-stitched leather. The cabin is also impressively quiet. But the Rogue’s Mitsubishi-derived interior shows its age. Its 9-inch touchscreen would have been perfectly respectable a few years ago; at nearly $50,000 in 2026, it looks far too small, and the software it runs is far too dated. Some buttons and plastic parts feel similarly aged, and the overwhelmingly black cabin of my Platinum never looked quite as expensive as it does.

The RAV4, on the other hand, is legitimately all-new for its 2026 model year. Even the base PHEV gets a 10.5-inch touchscreen and 12.3-inch digital gauge cluster, while XSE moves to Toyota’s excellent 12.9-inch interface. I’ve found Toyota’s new multimedia software quick, reliable, and refreshingly uncomplicated. The redesigned Toyota interior also looks more contemporary, with a pleasantly utilitarian quality and more trim-specific personality. Woodland models add colorful accents, while the GR Sport gets suede-like materials, red stitching, and sportier detailing. The Nissan is still a wonderfully comfortable place to spend time, but the Toyota’s cabin feels like a fresher, more cohesive environment.

Practicality: Nissan Finally Lands A Punch

The RAV4’s rear seats fold down to provide roughly 63.6 cubic feet of maximum PHEV cargo volume, with about 33.6 cubic feet behind the second row. That’s a useful, conventional compact-SUV cargo hold. The Rogue provides 30.8 cubic feet behind its second row and 64.7 cubic feet with that row folded down, so the maximum capacity is remarkably similar, with the Rogue just slightly edging out the RAV4. But then Nissan asks a question the RAV4 can’t respond to: What if you suddenly need two more seats?

The Rogue’s third row is tiny. With just 19.1 inches of legroom, I wouldn’t sentence an adult to it for anything beyond a short drive, but that’s missing its purpose. If your kid wants to bring a friend home from school, or you suddenly have several children to deliver to soccer practice, those seats can save you from taking another vehicle. Most of the time, though, you can simply fold them down and forget they’re there.

Toyota counters with substantially greater towing capability: SE, XSE and Woodland PHEVs can tow up to 3,500 pounds, versus 1,500 for Nissan. So, if occasional passenger flexibility and maximum cargo capacity are more important to you, the Nissan has the upper hand, but for seats-up cargo and towing versatility, Toyota does.

Value: This Is Hard To Explain Away

$41,500. That’s what Toyota charges for a RAV4 PHEV SE before destination. Nissan, on the other hand, wants $45,990 for the least expensive Rogue Plug-In Hybrid SL. And the problem continues through the trim ladders:

Think about the middle of that table. For $690 less than a base Rogue SL, Toyota will sell you a Woodland PHEV with 324 horsepower, all-terrain tires, raised roof rails, Rigid Industries fog lights, 8.5 inches of ground clearance, and available DC fast charging. Or spend $1,210 more than the Rogue SL and get an XSE with a 12.9-inch touchscreen, heated and ventilated front seats, and the same 324-hp powertrain. Even the $48,500 GR Sport costs $1,490 less than a Rogue Platinum before destination.

Toyota’s standard warranty isn’t dramatically stronger—both offer conventional 3-year/36,000-mile basic and 5-year/60,000-mile powertrain coverage—but Toyota covers its hybrid battery for 10 years/150,000 miles and includes two years/25,000 miles of ToyotaCare maintenance. Nissan covers the Rogue PHEV battery for eight years/100,000 miles. Nissan has one genuine value argument: seven seats, and for a very particular family that occasionally needs those extra perches, that may matter more than horsepower or MPGe. For everyone else, though, it’s pretty obvious where the best value proposition lies.

Verdict: The Rogue Is Good—The RAV4 Is Just A Way Better Deal

This comparison became more frustrating the longer I worked through it, because I actually still like the Rogue Plug-In Hybrid. It’s one of those vehicles whose spec sheet undersells how pleasant it is to live with. It’s serene in traffic, comfortable over bad pavement, effortless to drive, and just practical enough to solve family problems that most compact PHEVs can’t. If the Rogue were substantially cheaper than the Toyota, I’d have an easy argument for it: sacrifice some range, power, and technology, pocket several thousand dollars, and enjoy the extra seats. Instead, Nissan’s packaging and pricing raise more questions than they answer.

Toyota asks for less for more horsepower, substantially more EV range, dramatically higher MPGe, better gas-only economy, and newer technology. It offers faster-charging hardware, up to 3,500 pounds of towing capacity, and four distinct personalities, ranging from the sensible SE to the rugged Woodland and the genuinely entertaining GR Sport. The Rogue’s third row and cushier demeanor perhaps prevent this from being a total knockout, but they aren’t enough to change my decision. Having driven both, I’d buy the 2026 Toyota RAV4 Plug-In Hybrid without question. The Rogue is still a solid family SUV, but the RAV4 simply makes you wonder why you’d pay more to settle for less.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Mitsubishi literally builds Nissan’s Rogue PHEV alongside the Outlander at its Okazaki plant in Japan. They share the same basic body, interior architecture, twin-motor plug-in-hybrid layout, occasional-use third row, and enough switchgear that during my week with the Rogue, several non-car-enthusiast friends and I accidentally referred to it as a Mitsubishi on numerous occasions. The strange part, though, is that Mitsubishi didn’t simply hand Nissan a 2026 Outlander and swap the badges, despite how things may look on the surface.

Instead, the Rogue gets essentially the same powertrain and interior as the previous Outlander PHEV, while Mitsubishi significantly updated its own SUV for 2026. The result is one of the automotive industry’s strangest sibling rivalries: the Nissan is effectively what the Outlander PHEV was, while Mitsubishi’s own version has moved forward with substantial updates. I’ve now spent a week each with both around Vancouver, British Columbia, and having finally driven the twins separately, there’s enough of a difference between them that choosing one is actually much easier than their shared DNA might otherwise suggest.

2026 Nissan Rogue Plug-In Hybrid Vs. 2026 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV Specs

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

The Nissan Rogue gets 248 horsepower, 38 miles of EV range, and 64 MPGe from its 20-kWh battery. Mitsubishi has enlarged the Outlander’s battery to 22.7 kWh for 2026, increasing output to 297 horsepower, EV range to 45 miles, and efficiency to 73 MPGe. It also revised the battery’s cooling system, steering, suspension, and interior. So there’s more than a mere facelift-level difference—even if it doesn’t look like much on the surface—it’s a generational advantage hidden inside two SUVs that otherwise look essentially identical.

Powertrain: Mitsubishi’s Updates Actually Matter

I liked driving the Rogue PHEV. That needs to be said first and foremost, because glaring at the comparison table makes it easy to assume the Nissan feels hopelessly outdated. From behind the wheel, at least, it doesn’t. Its immediate electric torque makes city driving wonderfully stress-free, and 248 horsepower is plenty for an SUV like this, especially since it’s still backed by the same 332 lb-ft torque figure as the updated Outlander. Changing lanes or passing slower traffic takes very little effort, and the gasoline engine slips into and out of the equation so subtly that I rarely notice when it’s running. Over roughly 500 kilometers of mostly urban driving, my Rogue tester averaged an indicated 4.5 L/100 km, or around 52 mpg U.S., with its e-Step regenerative mode engaged almost constantly.

All that said, the Mitsubishi still ticks all those same boxes as the Rogue, and then it ticks a few more, and it does so with an added sense of sharpness. Its 49 extra horsepower doesn’t suddenly transform the Outlander into a Lancer Evo with seven seats, but the 297-hp system feels noticeably stronger at low speeds. There’s more urgency when you first touch the throttle, and its larger battery allows the electric side of the powertrain to contribute more assertively.

Mitsubishi’s 2026 update also stretches EPA electric range from 38 to 45 miles. That’s only seven miles, but we’re talking about an 18% improvement in the metric that arguably matters most to a PHEV owner. Charging widened the gap further during my tests. I connected the Rogue to a Level 2 charger for several hours, and it still didn’t reach a full charge. Nissan quotes 7.5 hours at 240 volts, while the Outlander takes approximately 6.5 hours to charge, and SEL and higher trims also retain CHAdeMO DC fast-charging capability. The Nissan, however, is entirely incompatible with DC fast chargers, leaving you at the mercy of its lengthy charging time, with no alternative aside from its “Charge” drive mode, which uses the combustion engine as a sort of mobile power plant.

Interestingly, I found the “Charge” drive mode setting to be dramatically more useful in the Mitsubishi. In the Outlander, I watched it bring the battery from roughly one-quarter to nearly full over about 90 minutes of driving. The Rogue replenished its battery much more slowly and could still lose charge unless I drove particularly gently. So while both are exceptionally refined PHEVs, the Outlander outdoes the Rogue without possessing any real drawbacks.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

Driving: Same Bones, Different Polish

Neither of these SUVs should ever be confused with a more focused sports crossover, but the Outlander still surprised me more. The Rogue rides softly and isolates passengers extremely well. Its body control is excellent, but the steering is feather-light and vague. Tarmac mode adds some synthetic weight without adding much information, but the Mitsubishi ultimately feels more tied together.

When I drove the Outlander along British Columbia’s picturesque, meandering Sea-to-Sky Highway, the updated steering and suspension tuning gave it a sense of confidence I didn’t expect from a three-row plug-in family crossover. Mitsubishi has specifically recalibrated the springs, dampers, stabilizer bars, and bushings for 2026, and the difference is palpable. The Rogue might be a somewhat softer, more anonymous commuter, for better or worse, but the Outlander is just as comfortable and actually gives something back to the driver when the road’s twists and turns get enticing; something the Rogue simply does not do.

Interior And Technology: This Is Where The Gap Gets Big

The difference inside the cabin was obvious before I even started either SUV. My Rogue Platinum tester wore black leather-appointed upholstery with familiar diamond stitching, but the rest of the cabin was overwhelmingly dark. Some plastics felt cheap, several buttons looked dated, and the 9-inch center touchscreen seemed conspicuously small in a vehicle priced at nearly $50,000 in the U.S. Still, the seats are exceptionally comfortable, visibility is superb, the cabin is extremely quiet, and the second row offers plenty of space. Heated rear seats, pull-up sunshades, and a panoramic roof make the Platinum an easy place for a family to spend time. But the Outlander shows how much better this same cabin architecture can become with just a bit more effort.

My Mitsubishi tester had beautiful Brick Brown semi-aniline leather, brighter metallic accents, and the available 12-speaker Yamaha Ultimate audio system. Its updated 12.3-inch central infotainment screen looked considerably newer than Nissan’s 9-inch unit, and Mitsubishi’s revised center console and trim made everything feel more cohesively ergonomic. Mitsubishi offers an eight-speaker Yamaha system even on the base Outlander PHEV, while the SE Tech and SEL Premium configurations get the 12-speaker version—a notably superior system compared to the Platinum Rogue’s Bose-branded unit. Upper trims can also add massaging front seats and semi-aniline leather. The Rogue’s interior meets expectations for a well-equipped mainstream crossover, but the Outlander exceeds them, punching well above its price point.

Practicality: Finally, A Tie

Changing badges doesn’t change the laws of physics. Both SUVs squeeze seven seats into a footprint around 185 inches long, and both should really advertise themselves as 5+2 rather than proper three-row family haulers. For a quick journey, the third row is a bit better than being shoved into the back of a Subaru BRZ, but not by much.

But I think criticizing these SUVs because adults wouldn’t want to spend three hours back there misses the point. If your child wants to bring a friend or two home from school, or you’re dropping several kids and their gear off at soccer practice, those two little seats could be enormously useful. Fold them away, and you get 30.8 cubic feet behind the second row and up to 64.7 cubic feet with the rear rows folded. Mitsubishi itself calls the third row an “occasional” seat, which is exactly how I’d approach using it. Most compact PHEV SUVs don’t give you that option at all.

Pricing: This Is Where The Rogue Gets Seriously Difficult To Defend

Had Nissan made the Rogue considerably cheaper, this entire comparison might have gone differently. Selling a slightly older version of a good product for less money is hardly unprecedented. You sacrifice some power, range, and equipment; Nissan gives you a discount. Everyone understands the trade-off. Except that’s not the case here…

Nissan also charges $1,545 for destination, versus $1,745 for Mitsubishi. The Rogue SL therefore starts $2,745 above the Outlander ES. Even if you consider the better-equipped Outlander SE a more appropriate comparison, the Mitsubishi still costs $545 less while retaining the larger battery, 297-hp powertrain, and 12.3-inch infotainment screen. Move upward, and the Rogue Platinum’s $49,990 MSRP is $1,045 higher than an Outlander SEL at $48,945.

Yes, Mitsubishi’s SEL Premium and Black Edition eventually become more expensive. But now you’re paying extra for equipment Nissan doesn’t offer: semi-aniline leather, the 12-speaker Yamaha system, massaging seats, and other upgrades. Then, when you consider warranty on top of everything, Mitsubishi pulls ahead even further.

Nissan provides 3-year/36,000-mile basic and 5-year/60,000-mile powertrain warranties, with its battery covered for 8 years/100,000 miles, whereas Mitsubishi provides the original owner with 5 years/60,000 miles of basic coverage and 10 years/100,000 miles of powertrain coverage, along with 10 years/100,000 miles of PHEV-component coverage, 5 years of unlimited-mile roadside assistance, and 2 years/30,000 miles of scheduled maintenance. Nissan’s larger U.S. dealer network is a legitimate convenience advantage, especially for loyal customers with an established relationship, but I’m struggling to identify another one. Clearly, the Outlander stamps out the Rogue here.

Verdict: These Twins Aren’t As Identical As They Look

The strangest takeaway from driving these two SUVs is the fact that the Nissan Rogue PHEV exists at all. It exists solely to fill a short-term gap in Nissan’s lineup until the hybridized 2027 model arrives, and it has already been officially discontinued. You’d think that such a temporary, half-baked model would at least offer some sort of unique value proposition, yet it’s nearly impossible to defend it against its own sibling, the Outlander, which costs roughly the same, if not slightly less, depending on trim packaging, while offering more.

If somebody absolutely insisted upon the Nissan badge, found a substantial dealer discount, or had a particularly advantageous lease deal, I wouldn’t necessarily warn them away—I still liked the Rogue PHEV. Underneath all the awkward product planning is a quiet, comfortable, practical, and extraordinarily easy-to-live-with family SUV. That’s because the previous Outlander PHEV was never a bad vehicle, but the 2026 Outlander demonstrates just how much better that recipe has become with a few small but meaningful upgrades.

Mitsubishi took essentially every complaint I have about the Rogue and addressed them with its 2026 Outlander updates: more battery capacity, more electric range, more power, faster Level 2 charging, available DC fast charging, sharper responses, a richer interior, better infotainment, and dramatically stronger warranty coverage. Then it neglected to charge substantially more money for the privilege. So Nissan’s biggest problem here, ultimately, isn’t that it executed anything especially poorly while converting the Outlander into a Rogue—it’s what Mitsubishi did to its own model after the fact, without really charging any more money for the favor.

If these SUVs were separated by several thousand dollars in the opposite direction, the Rogue could represent a clever value play: last year’s excellent recipe sold cheaply while Mitsubishi moves slightly further upmarket. But instead, the Rogue asks you to pay as much or more for less. So, after spending a week with each, I’d undoubtedly choose the 2026 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV out of the pair. The Rogue isn’t a bad SUV; it just isn’t quite as good as the Outlander, which is, frankly, excellent.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Mitsubishi builds the Rogue Plug-In Hybrid for Nissan at its Okazaki plant in Japan as part of the companies’ alliance, and the similarities go far beyond a shared platform. The body, interior architecture, and plug-in hybrid system are derived from the Outlander PHEV. That’s not inherently a problem—I’ve spent plenty of time in the Outlander PHEV, and I’ve consistently liked it. It’s comfortable, exceptionally refined, surprisingly efficient, and unusually practical for a compact plug-in hybrid thanks to a tiny third row. Most of those virtues survive the badge swap, but the complication is timing.

The Nissan is more than just a Mitsubishi with different badges—or, perhaps more accurately, it’s lesser. For 2026, it’s effectively a snapshot of what the Outlander PHEV was, while Mitsubishi’s own version has moved forward with a larger battery, better range, and faster charging, which makes Nissan’s new plug-in Rogue one of the most confusing new SUVs I’ve driven this year.

The Rogue PHEV Is A Bridge To Nissan’s Actual Next Rogue

Calling the Rogue PHEV a mere stopgap offering sounds a bit harsh, but that’s essentially its role. Nissan has already revealed an all-new 2027 Rogue Hybrid powered by its third-generation e-POWER system, with U.S. sales scheduled to begin later in 2026. Rather than waiting for that vehicle, Nissan sourced this plug-in model from Mitsubishi to put an electrified Rogue in showrooms sooner. Nissan itself now promotes the 2026 PHEV directly beneath information about the coming 2027 Rogue Hybrid. That explains why this Rogue doesn’t really look like a Rogue, but the bigger issue is that Mitsubishi simultaneously gave the Outlander PHEV a fairly extensive 2026 refresh. Here’s where the two now stand:

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

The Nissan Rogue comes with a 20-kWh battery, 248 hp, 332 lb-ft, 38 miles of electric range and 64-MPGe rating. Mitsubishi’s refreshed model moves to a 22.7-kWh pack, 297 hp, 45 miles, and 73 MPGe. Mitsubishi also quotes roughly 6.5 hours for a Level 2 charge, while equipped Outlanders can use CHAdeMO DC fast charging. Those are important differences. I’ll save the subjective verdict on which twin is actually better for a separate comparison, but anyone shopping for the Nissan deserves to know what has changed.

Powertrain: 7.5/10

Spend a few days driving the Rogue PHEV without looking at a comparison chart, and it’s difficult not to like it. I covered roughly 500 kilometers—about 310 miles—during my week with it, mostly commuting around Vancouver with some highway driving mixed in. The weather was warm, sunny, and dry, which is about as friendly as conditions get for a plug-in hybrid. The powertrain’s greatest strength isn’t outright power—it’s how refined and well-calibrated it all feels.

Electric torque arrives immediately, making quick lane changes and overtaking slower traffic effortless. Ask for everything the 248-hp system has, and you might notice it isn’t especially powerful, but I never found myself wishing for substantially more in normal, everyday driving. The gasoline engine also knows how to enter a room without kicking the door down. You can hear the 2.4-liter four-cylinder when it fires, but the transition is subtle enough that it usually fades into the background almost immediately. Under hard acceleration, its soundtrack is forgettable, but in a family PHEV, that’s practically a compliment.

The Outlander’s newer 297-hp system feels sharper off the bottom and more responsive to the first touch of the accelerator, but I’ll save a deeper analysis of that difference for the dedicated comparison. The Rogue’s steering is very light and fairly vague, and while “tarmac” mode adds a little more heft, it’s never enough to really transform the experience. Body control, conversely, is excellent, and the soft ride makes the Rogue wonderfully easy to live with around town. Harder impacts can occasionally announce themselves with a thump, but overall isolation is impressive.

What I enjoyed most was Nissan’s e-Step function. It provides strong regenerative deceleration when you lift off the accelerator, and I left it engaged almost constantly. I only wish it could bring the Rogue to a complete stop.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

The Charging Situation Is Hard To Ignore

The Rogue arrived nearly fully charged, and the one time I did need to charge it, I left it connected to a Level 2 charger for several hours, and it still wasn’t quite full when I returned. Nissan officially quotes 7.5 hours for a 240-volt charge, which is a very long time to replenish a battery that provides just 38 miles of EPA-rated range. I also experimented with Charge mode, which uses the gasoline engine as a generator to replenish the battery while driving. It works, but slowly, and I noticed that under some driving conditions, the state of charge could still fall unless I was particularly gentle.

At roughly three-quarters charge, the dashboard estimated 66 kilometers—about 41 miles—of EV range with the climate control switched off. Turning on the air conditioning immediately knocked roughly 10 kilometers, or six miles, off that estimate. That’s an indicated figure rather than a measured real-world range test, but it’s a useful reminder of how dramatically climate loads can affect the computer’s predictions.

At the end of my week, the trip computer showed 4.5 L/100 km, roughly 52 mpg U.S. That was achieved over fairly normal driving conditions, with air conditioning mostly on, drive mode in its default setting, and e-pedal engaged, but it demonstrates why the underlying PHEV formula remains appealing nonetheless. The Rogue PHEV is extremely easy to drive efficiently without really ever having to adjust your driving style.

Technology: 6.5/10

The technology experience is where the Rogue’s age becomes considerably more obvious, and the same is true of the Outlander. The 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster is actually quite good—its graphics are clear, the PHEV information is easy to understand, and it somehow feels substantially newer than what’s sitting six inches to its right. What really dates it is the 9-inch center touchscreen.

Nine inches doesn’t often seem inadequate in my experience, but in a vehicle with a price tag approaching $50,000 in America, it looks decidedly behind the curve. Wireless Apple CarPlay worked reliably throughout my week, which meant it generally did everything I asked of it quite well, but the interface and some of the surrounding physical controls feel like they belong to the previous generation of infotainment technology.

The head-up display is useful, camera quality is generally decent, and the driver-assistance systems I encountered behaved themselves. They warned me when appropriate and, perhaps more importantly, resisted the increasingly common urge to scold me for crimes I hadn’t committed. My Platinum tester also included a nine-speaker Bose audio system, which sounds perfectly adequate, though it never produced the sort of “above and beyond” impression I associated with the Outlander’s available Yamaha system. Elsewhere, I appreciated thoughtful everyday features including Auto Hold, power-folding mirrors, a panoramic moonroof, and e-Step.

Exterior Design: 6.5/10

Whichever designer at Nissan was tasked with transforming the Outlander into a Rogue must have been on sabbatical when they received the call. The Rogue PHEV shares virtually its entire visual identity with the Mitsubishi. Even the basic front-end architecture remains immediately recognizable, with Nissan’s emblems doing all of the heavy lifting.

I still don’t necessarily dislike it. The shape might be a bit generic and derivative, but it’s inoffensive and suitably handsome for a pragmatic family crossover. Importantly, it never made me feel embarrassed to walk toward it in a parking lot—which might sound like a half-hearted compliment until you’ve seen some of the segment’s more experimental styling exercises.

Royal Red did a lot to elevate the visual appeal of my tester. It’s arguably quite shouty for such a sensible vehicle, but it added some emotion to a shape that might otherwise disappear into urban traffic. One passerby actually stopped to tell me how beautiful the color was, but a family friend saw the same SUV and immediately hated the red, though he didn’t mind the design itself. Automotive criticism, distilled into two parking-lot conversations. Without the paint, the Rogue PHEV probably fades into the scenery, but for many buyers, that might be one of its most compelling features.

Interior: 7/10

Open the door, and the Mitsubishi connection is just as impossible to miss. The dashboard layout, center console, switchgear, and even the diamond-pattern upholstery felt immediately familiar. What surprised me was how differently the same architecture could present itself. My Rogue Platinum’s cabin was overwhelmingly black. The quilted leather added some visual interest, but there were enough inexpensive plastics, dated buttons, and dark surfaces that the whole thing felt colder and cheaper than I expected from the Platinum badge.

That’s particularly noticeable because Mitsubishi spent 2026 moving in the other direction. The refreshed Outlander receives a larger 12.3-inch center display, revised console, additional sound insulation, and Yamaha audio across the lineup. Upper versions can add Brick Brown semi-aniline leather, massage seats, and richer trim treatments. The Rogue’s nine-speaker Bose system and black cabin aren’t objectively unpleasant; they simply lack that extra layer of occasion and miss out on the ergonomic benefits of the Outlander’s redesigned console and central display.

Still, the Outlander’s superb comfort remains in the Rogue. The front seats are excellent, outward visibility is fantastic, and the cabin remains impressively quiet at highway speeds. The second row offers plenty of room, while my Platinum included heated rear seats and pull-up window shades. And then there’s the third row. If your kid wants to bring a friend home after school, or you’re dropping a few children and their soccer gear off at practice, having two emergency seats is legitimately useful, but if you need three rows every day, buy something larger. If you need five seats almost every day and seven twice a month, this arrangement can make life much easier.

Value: 4.5/10

And now we arrive at the difficult part. Before seeing the price, I would have guessed this Rogue belonged somewhere around $40,000 to $45,000. It doesn’t. The 2026 Rogue PHEV starts at $45,990 for the SL AWD and $49,990 for the Platinum AWD, before a $1,545 destination charge. My Canadian Platinum tester carried a base MSRP of $58,698 CAD. Royal Red added $500, taking MSRP to $59,198, while $2,095 in freight and PDE brought the sticker to $61,293 CAD before taxes. That’s expensive, but expense alone isn’t what creates the value problem. In this case, the Mitsubishi does.

Rogue PHEV Vs. Outlander PHEV U.S. Pricing

There are two important ways to read that table. At the bottom of the range, Nissan charges $2,745 more in MSRP than Mitsubishi’s base ES. Compare the Rogue SL more closely with the Outlander SE, and the difference shrinks dramatically to $545—or $345 after destination—but the Mitsubishi still gives you the newer 22.7-kWh/297-hp system. Higher up, the Rogue Platinum has an MSRP that is $1,045 higher than the Outlander SEL, while the Mitsubishi again retains its newer powertrain, 12.3-inch infotainment system, Yamaha audio, and longer warranty.

Mitsubishi’s SEL Premium and Black Edition eventually become more expensive than the Nissan, so saying every Outlander is cheaper would be misleading. But those trims also begin to add equipment the Rogue cannot match, including the 12-speaker Yamaha Ultimate system, semi-aniline Brick Brown upholstery, and, on SEL Premium, massaging front seats. That ultimately poses a pretty fundamental problem.

Selling an older version of a good product isn’t inherently a bad strategy: Chrysler has spent years selling older versions of the Pacifica alongside newer ones at lower prices, and the proposition made sense: you accepted a little less because you paid a little less. Had Nissan brought over the previous Outlander PHEV recipe and undercut Mitsubishi by several thousand dollars, I’d understand it immediately. Instead, you’re being asked to spend similar—or sometimes greater—money for the version with the smaller battery, less horsepower, shorter EV range, lower MPGe, slower Level 2 charging, and an older interior specification.

Then there’s the warranty. Nissan USA provides the Rogue PHEV with a 3-year/36,000-mile basic warranty, a 5-year/60,000-mile powertrain warranty, and an 8-year/100,000-mile battery warranty. Mitsubishi, on the other hand, provides 5 years/60,000 miles of basic coverage, 10 years/100,000 miles of powertrain coverage for the original owner, 10 years/100,000 miles for the main drive battery and PHEV components, plus five years of unlimited-mile roadside assistance and two years/30,000 miles of included maintenance. Nissan’s larger dealer network might matter to some buyers, particularly those who already have a long-standing relationship with a Nissan dealership. But that’s a difficult advantage to put a dollar figure on when the vehicles are so closely related. If somebody absolutely insists on having a Nissan badge, I’m not going to tell them they’re buying a bad SUV, because they aren’t—they’re just getting an inferior deal on last year’s model.

Verdict: 6.5/10—A Good SUV With A Confusing Reason To Exist, And An Even More Confusing Value Proposition

The 2026 Nissan Rogue PHEV is a mixed bag, but not because it drives like one—I still genuinely enjoyed my week with it. It’s quiet, comfortable, easy to operate, and impressively refined. Electric torque makes city driving stress-free. The ride is cushy, body control is surprisingly good, and the tiny third row offers occasional flexibility that most compact plug-in hybrids simply don’t have.

If Mitsubishi had never built the Outlander PHEV, I’d still think the Rogue was expensive, but I’d have a much easier time recommending it. Unfortunately for Nissan, the Outlander does exist. Worse, Mitsubishi has already addressed nearly everything I wished Nissan would improve. The current Outlander offers more power, more range, quicker charging, a more modern infotainment system, a richer available cabin, and a more luxurious U.S. warranty, all while occupying essentially the same part of the market. And it’s frustrating because the Rogue itself remains so likable.

I can imagine this making considerably more sense a year from now, when the all-new 2027 Rogue is filling Nissan showrooms and a dealer has one of these PHEVs left with a substantial discount advertised on the windshield. Or perhaps you’re a longtime Nissan lessee with equity to use and simply want an efficient, refined plug-in replacement for your old Rogue. At the right price, there’s a very good SUV hiding here, but at MSRP, I admire the Rogue PHEV considerably more than I understand it.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

One 2026 Toyota Prius has provided a pretty compelling answer. Used as a medical supply transporter, Shane Somers’ Prius LE covered 100,000 miles in just eight months, shuttling supplies to hospitals and nursing homes. Despite the brutal mileage, Somers told The Drive that his car remains in excellent condition and has needed nothing beyond routine maintenance.

100,000 Problem-Free Miles

The Prius’ maintenance record is remarkably ordinary considering how much driving it has seen. In those eight months, it received 10 oil changes, 13 tire rotations, 3 engine air filters, 3 cabin air filters, an engine coolant and inverter service, one alignment, and a set of front wipers. The only real hiccup involved its factory tires, which suffered five flats before being replaced with Goodyear Assurance tires, which reportedly haven’t suffered the same fate.

More importantly, there have been no reported major mechanical failures. Somers says the Prius is still running well, while even its heavily used driver’s seat remains in surprisingly good condition. That is quite a feat for a car averaging more than 12,000 miles every month.

The Hybrid Powertrain Has Taken It All in Stride

The entry-level 2026 Prius LE uses a 2.0-liter four-cylinder hybrid powertrain producing 194 hp. It’s paired to an electronically controlled CVT and achieves an EPA-estimated 57 mpg combined (Somers averaged 48.3 MPG). Hybrid powertrains have historically made some buyers nervous because they mix conventional mechanical components with batteries and electric motors, creating complex powertrain combinations.

A heavily used example like this Prius provides an interesting real-world test of how all that hardware holds up under extreme use. It’s worth noting that the Prius has built a strong reliability reputation over the years, earning a 4 out of 5 RepairPal Reliability Rating. This particular example takes that reputation to an extreme, covering 100,000 miles in less than a year while basically just doing scheduled maintenance.

Another Strong Case for Toyota Reliability

The Prius is hardly the only Toyota known for going the distance. Models like the Corolla and Camry have long been associated with dependable daily transportation, while the new RAV4 has earned itself a reliable reputation. Of course, one Prius can’t prove that every Toyota hybrid will sail through 100,000 miles without a problem. Yet, you can’t ignore this Prius’ achievement.

Somers’ Prius has covered more than seven times the distance the average U.S. driver would cover in eight months. Aside from its immaterial tire troubles and routine servicing, it has done so without the need for any repairs. For anyone concerned that a hybrid is inherently a risky choice, 100,000 miles of exceptionally hard use without a major failure is a pretty persuasive counterargument.

The standard car already gives Hyundai plenty to work with. The eighth-generation Elantra trades some of its predecessor’s complicated origami-like surfacing for a cleaner, boxier shape, with pronounced shoulders, razor-thin lighting, and a particularly interesting rear end. Hyundai design boss SangYup Lee has also effectively confirmed that something considerably spicier is coming, saying the company is working on its “sportiest Elantra yet,” with even wider fenders. That sounds an awful lot like an Elantra N to me.

The New Elantra Looks Like It Was Designed For An N Version

My renders don’t attempt to reinvent the new Elantra so much as turn it up to eleven. Up front, the narrow lighting remains, but it sits above a much more aggressive lower fascia with larger openings, an N badge tucked into the grille, and Hyundai N’s familiar red accent running around the lower edge. Wider arches give the car a considerably more planted stance, while large wheels and red brake calipers fill some of the visual space they create.

The rear might suit the N treatment even better. The production Avante already has a relatively upright, squared-off tail with a full-width lighting signature. Add the current Elantra N’s wing—which somehow feels even more at home here—a more serious diffuser, and the N division’s signature red accents, and suddenly it starts looking the boy-racer part.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

A 2.5-Liter Turbo Could Change The Elantra N Formula

What we still don’t know is what’s going to happen under the hood. Today’s Elantra N uses a 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder that produces 276 horsepower and 289 lb-ft of torque, paired with either a six-speed manual or an eight-speed wet dual-clutch transmission. It remains front-wheel drive, assisted by Hyundai’s electronically controlled limited-slip differential. Perhaps the most interesting proposition for the next car is Hyundai’s larger 2.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder.

According to CarScoops, former Hyundai N boss Albert Biermann previously indicated that the next-generation Elantra platform had been engineered with the 2.5T in mind. Versions of that engine already produce around 300 horsepower and 311 lb-ft of torque in other Hyundai Motor Group applications, meaning an N-specific version could comfortably move the Elantra beyond its current output without altering the boost-happy, analog fundamentals of the Elantra N we’ve come to know and love.

Three hundred horsepower doesn’t sound so revolutionary anymore, but that’s beside the point. The current Elantra N’s appeal has never been that it wins on paper—it’s that it genuinely surprises in practice, all for an even more surprising price tag. A stronger 2.5T with a broader torque range, improved cooling and braking tricks learned from the current TCR Edition, and another generation of N’s chassis tuning could make a much more meaningful difference. The bigger question is whether Hyundai will integrate electricity.

Hyundai’s performance division has confirmed that it is developing both combustion and hybrid N products, so some form of electrification shouldn’t be dismissed. A performance-oriented 1.6-liter turbo hybrid could theoretically reduce displacement while using an electric motor for torque fill, or Hyundai could even pair electrification with the 2.5T for considerably more output. Either approach comes with a problem, though: weight.

Part of the current Elantra N’s brilliance is that it still feels relatively simple and lightweight. Adding a battery and motor would have to produce enough performance—and enough character—to justify the additional mass and complexity. If Hyundai can keep a six-speed manual alive alongside whatever high-tech version it develops, even better.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

The Next Elantra N Has Some Big Racing Shoes To Fill

Then there’s the motorsport question. The Elantra N TCR has, over the years, built a résumé that would make even the most prestigious performance badges jealous. Hyundai secured its sixth consecutive IMSA Michelin Pilot Challenge manufacturers’ championship in 2025, while the Elantra N TCR has won its class at the Nürburgring 24 Hours five consecutive times from 2021 through 2025. Hyundai also took back-to-back TCR World Tour drivers’ titles in 2023 and 2024.

The current TCR car itself uses a regulation-friendly 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder producing roughly 360 horsepower and driving the front wheels through a six-speed racing transmission. So even if the street-going Elantra N eventually moves to a 2.5-liter engine or hybrid assistance, its racing sibling doesn’t necessarily have to follow. Instead, a next-generation Elantra could give Hyundai an opportunity to evolve the TCR program around the new body’s wider stance and aero while strengthening the connection between the showroom car and the race car.

Hyundai already leaned heavily into that relationship with the Canadian-market-exclusive 2026 Elantra N TCR Edition, complete with forged wheels, upgraded brakes, and an adjustable carbon-fiber swan-neck wing inspired by the race car. Maybe the next Elantra N doesn’t need to wait for a special edition to look that serious.

If Hyundai really is preparing its “sportiest Elantra yet,” the company has an unusually high bar to clear. But between a potentially larger turbo engine, the possibility of hybridization, and one of the strongest touring-car programs attached to any affordable performance sedan, the next Elantra N has plenty of material to work with. For now, this is what I’d like it to look like.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Sedans aren’t as prevalent now as they were even a decade ago, but the market is showing promise. There’s more good news in the affordable sedan segment in that manufacturers have loaded their base trims with equipment that would have been optional on a midsize car five years ago. Judged on what you get before a single option box gets checked, these four compact sedans deliver the most content under $30,000 — most of them well under it.

2026 Kia K4 ($22,290 – $28,390)

The K4 is the clearest value argument in the class. Kia puts a 12.3-inch touchscreen with wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in the entry LX trim, along with Smart Cruise Control with stop-and-go, lane keeping and lane following assist, automatic emergency braking with pedestrian, cyclist, and junction-turning detection, high-beam assist, rear occupant alert, four USB-C ports, LED headlights and taillights, heated power mirrors, and a push-button start smart key — for a starting MSRP of $22,290 before destination.

Junction-turning AEB and full-speed adaptive cruise are features that Honda and Hyundai still reserve for higher trims or bundle into packages. Move up to the $24,490 EX and you add heated front seats, dual-zone automatic climate control, wireless charging, and 17-inch alloys. The GT-Line Turbo at $23,890 brings sport trim, and the top turbocharged version makes 190 horsepower through an eight-speed automatic. Even fully specced, the K4 never gets close to $35,000, and it carries Kia’s 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty.

2026 Nissan Sentra ($22,890 – $27,990)

The redesigned Sentra is the sedan we didn’t think would happen. Nissan redid it for 2026, and it’s a bold statement inside and out. Even the most expensive trim level is pretty cheap. Every trim, including the $23,645 base S, gets a 12.3-inch center touchscreen and a 7.0-inch digital gauge cluster, plus full LED headlights and rear disc brakes. Nissan Safety Shield 360 — automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, blind-spot warning, rear cross-traffic alert — is standard across the board, along with intelligent cruise control. Don’t call it a bargain-basement sedan because it’s anything but.

The step to the $24,415 SV is the sweet spot: a second 12.3-inch display for the instrument cluster, wireless phone mirroring, selectable drive modes including Sport, automatic climate control, and 16-inch alloys. That dual-screen setup is class-leading at the price. The top trim SL’s base price is $27,990 with 17-inch wheels and no options list at all — everything is included. That means you get a power sliding glass moonroof, quilted TailorFit seats, a Bose Premium Audio System, ProPILOT semi-autonomous driver assist technology, heated front seats, and a heated steering wheel, all standard.

2027 Toyota Corolla ($23,325 – $29,540)

The Corolla sedan is the no-brainer choice in this set. Legendary for its practicality and reliability, the Corolla isn’t sexy, but it’s bulletproof. The base LE costs just $23,325, and the top trim Hybrid XLE still comes in well under $35k at $29,540. You can even upgrade to all-wheel drive, the only model here that offers it. The Hybrid XLE comes standard with LED headlights and DRLS, LED taillights, a power moonroof, heated front seats, SofTex upholstery, wireless charging, a 10.5″ infotainment screen, a 12.3″ digital instrument cluster,

Its strongest suit is in the safety department. Blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert are now standard on every trim, joining the Toyota Safety Sense 3.0 suite that already includes pre-collision braking with pedestrian detection, full-speed-range adaptive cruise, lane departure alert with steering assist, lane tracing assist, automatic high beams, road sign recognition, and Proactive Driving Assist.

The $23,920 LE also gained a 7.0-inch digital gauge cluster for 2026, replacing a 4.2-inch monochrome display, and keeps the 8.0-inch touchscreen with wireless CarPlay and Android Auto plus four USB-C ports. The tradeoff is 16-inch steel wheels and six speakers. If you want the hybrid, the LE opens at $25,770 and returns roughly 50 mpg combined — arguably the best standard-content-per-dollar figure in the segment once you price fuel.

2026 Hyundai Elantra ($22,825 – $29,600)

Yes, a redesigned Elantra is coming next year, but that doesn’t detract from how feature-packed the current one is. Even in base SE trim, the Elantra provides automatic LED projector headlights, remote keyless entry with alarm, and Wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto.

Every Elantra also includes forward collision-avoidance assist with pedestrian detection, lane keeping assist, lane following assist, blind-spot collision warning, rear cross-traffic collision-avoidance assist, driver attention warning, safe exit warning, rear occupant alert, and high-beam assist. The base 2.0-liter makes 147 horsepower and returns an EPA-estimated 35 mpg combined.

The compromise is the 8-inch touchscreen at the entry point, and adaptive cruise with stop-and-go requires stepping up the range. Upgrade to the top-performing N-Line, and you get a 1.6-liter turbo four good for 201 horsepower and a bit more thrill off the line. It also gets a quick-shifting dual clutch instead of the CVT. It still comes in at just at $29,600.

Final Thoughts

The compact sedan segment has thinned out, but the survivors are fighting harder than they ever did when the field was crowded. What used to be a $30,000 midsize feature set now shows up in a $23,000 economy car, and the four sedans here prove it. None of them require you to climb the trim ladder to get a solid set of standard features. Shop the base trims. In this class, they check the important boxes. If you want it all, however, the price is still very reasonable.

2027 Nissan Sentra SR Gets New Midnight Edition

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

Nissan’s 2027 Sentra range comprises the base Sentra S, the Sentra SV, the Sentra SR, and the Sentra SL, and for 2027, the SR gets access to Midnight Edition treatment, adding black window trims, gloss black 18-inch wheels, a Super Black two-tone roof, and special badging for an extra $650. Best of all, Super Black and Gun Metallic are the only free paint finishes on the Sentra SR, so the dark treatment can be made particularly sinister with ease (other paint options cost between $450 and $950). While we’re on the subject of money, let’s run through pricing. The figures below exclude the obligatory destination and handling charge, which Nissan has set at $1,245 (no change from last year).

• 2027 Nissan Sentra S: $22,890
• 2027 Nissan Sentra SV: $23,590
• 2027 Nissan Sentra SR: $24,990
• 2027 Nissan Sentra SL: $27,990

The other significant change is the option of Qi2 wireless charging, which is not available on the base S trim but can be had with the SV’s Convenience Package. This costs $990 and also adds heated front seats, a heated leatherette-wrapped steering wheel, heated wing mirrors with LED turn signals, proximity entry and locking, and an auto-dimming rearview mirror. Higher up, similar features, including wireless charging, come standard on the SR and SL grades.

Autoblog’s Take

View the 3 images of this gallery on the original article

The 2027 Sentra is still powered by a 2.0-liter naturally aspirated four-cylinder engine producing 149 horsepower and 146 lb-ft of torque, so despite the improved powertrain tuning, the Sentra is still no Nissan Z, and given how comfortably it rides, that’s not what we want or expect, especially not at this price point. But these incremental gains will undoubtedly make a good car better, especially since they’re based on customer feedback. We also like the idea of combining the Sentra’s manga-esque styling with an all-black treatment, resulting in an affordable car with presence (hiding the SR’s huge black front fascia doesn’t hurt either). And given current gas prices, the fact that it can do up to 38 mpg on the freeway doesn’t go amiss either. Overall, this looks worth the extra $290 over a 2026 (unless you look on the used market, of course, where bigger savings will be easily possible).

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

If you’re looking for a brand-new car for under $20,000 today, your options are down to zero, and you have no choice but to look at the second-hand market. These days, the average new car price is over $50,000, and there are no signs of that ever going down.

The Nissan Versa was the last stand of the subcompact sedan class and was the last car to have a base price below $20,000. You can pin a lot of reasons on why it was axed in the U.S. The market’s preference towards crossovers is one, and because it was made in Mexico, tariffs are another factor.

Profit margins on the Versa were already razor-thin before the additional tariffs came into force. Rather than stocking up on a car that barely makes money, Nissan dropped it altogether.

Still Alive Elsewhere

Outside of the U.S, however, the Versa is still very much present. It also goes by Almera, Sunny, and V-Drive, and remains available in Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. The car even got a facelift for 2026 for the Latin American markets, although that version is not going to the U.S or Canada any time soon.

Still, we reckon the Versa does deserve some recognition for its efforts. After all, over a million had been sold in the span of three generations. To further appreciate it, we took one for a drive, and we have to say that it’s a fine example of simple, affordable, and unpretentious motoring.

Not a Penalty Box

The third-generation Nissan Versa uses the Renault-Nissan B platform. That means it’s the same car underneath as the Renault Clio IV, as well as the fifth-gen Nissan Micra, and the previous-generation Kicks, to name a few. If there’s one thing to note here, it’s that the cabin materials aren’t actually that bad. Sure, there are hard plastics here and there, but the common touch points aren’t half bad, especially for its asking price.

You might have noticed that the car is wearing a different name. What we have is a Southeast Asian-spec Almera, and it has a different engine under the hood. Instead of a 1.6-liter, it uses a turbocharged 1.0-liter three-cylinder, mustering 99 hp and 112 lb-ft. It’s no hot rod, but given road and traffic conditions where this writer is based, it’s adequate for most users in its target market.

The VL model seen here is the top-spec trim, and for $19,600, it gets a CVT, six airbags, autonomous emergency braking, a surround-view camera, tire pressure monitoring, remote start, and even connected services, to name a few. It’s far from bare, although it’s missing conveniences such as adaptive cruise, which, for that price, is asking too much. Still, not bad considering you get a decent interior, just enough space, a fairly large trunk (for its size), and heaps of standard equipment.

How it Drives

Obviously, it’s not quick with that three-pot turbo, and 0 to 100 km/h (0-62 mph) takes about 11 seconds. That said, there’s willingness in this compact turbo arrangement, though the throttle does feel a touch too eager at times. The segment it serves will find it adequate. The lack of a fourth cylinder does mean great fuel economy, registering 28 MPG despite averaging just 12 mph in dense traffic. Mixed driving yielded 40 MPG, and that number went as high as 45 MPG on the highway. We do wish for a bigger fuel tank, though.

But what’s surprising here is the chassis. For what it is, it has well-sorted underpinnings. It’s reasonably refined and rides well for a subcompact, and there’s a hint of sportiness in its handling even with those small 16-inch wheels. Steering feel won’t impress enthusiasts, but for a commuter car, it’s perfectly fine. The overall impression behind the wheel is pleasant, and you get the impression that this car was engineered for the world and not just specific markets. No wonder the profit margins were so slim with this car, and honestly, Nissan didn’t have to make it this good for its class. We’re not complaining, though.

As Good as it Gets

And that’s why the Versa deserves more credit than it actually gets. It faced off against the Kia Rio and Mitsubishi Mirage G4, and the Versa was easily the best subcompact sedan among that trio. It feels more expensive than it actually costs, and it’s not too bad on the practicality scale, either. Admittedly, the price gap between subcompact sedan vs compact sedan wasn’t that far off in the Nissan lineup, so one could say that the Versa made more sense with the base or mid-level trims.

We know that it won’t be missed as much as, say, the Honda Fit, which has been venerated over the last couple of years. The final generation of the Versa didn’t really hit its stride as it was launched right before the world went into lockdown, while supply issues in its early years stunted its sales potential. But towards the end, sales shot up, and given gas prices now, we reckon more people would buy one now had it been given the chance to grow. Nissan showed that economy cars don’t have to feel like penalty boxes, and its retirement from the U.S market at least ended the sub-$20k class on a high note.

View the 9 images of this gallery on the original article

What Is The GAC AION UT

While American drivers might not see the Aion UT at local dealerships anytime soon due to heavy import tariffs, its global rollout is a massive storyline for EV enthusiasts. Produced by the Guangzhou Automobile Group (GAC), which recently extended its partnership with Honda, the Aion UT is a sleek, five-door compact hatchback equipped with a 60-kWh lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery. It delivers an impressive 268 miles of WLTP range—comfortably beating out competitors like the new Renault 5 in the electric supermini segment.

Under the hood, a 204-horsepower (150 kW) electric motor pushes the Aion UT from 0 to 62 mph in a respectable 7.3 seconds. However, where this Chinese EV truly takes aim at Volkswagen’s European EVs is in its progressive design and upscale interior. The Aion UT was penned at GAC’s design studio in Milan, Italy, giving it a distinctively European flair characterized by a playful front fascia and owl-inspired headlights.

Inside, GAC has packed the UT with high-end technology that undercuts legacy automakers. The cabin features a massive 14.6-inch central touchscreen, soft-touch materials, and standard Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) capabilities, allowing drivers to power external electronics. Thanks to an extended 108.3-inch (2,750 mm) wheelbase, the interior space rivals larger midsize sedans, making it highly practical for families and urban commuters alike.

Should The Europeans Worry?

For legacy giants like Volkswagen, the arrival of the Aion UT spells trouble. European brands have historically struggled to bring affordable, long-range electric hatchbacks to market without cutting corners on interior quality. By offering premium amenities, fast DC charging speeds, and a spacious layout at an aggressive price point, GAC is setting a new benchmark for value.

As the Aion UT accelerates its expansion across global markets, it serves as a stark reminder: the days of European dominance in the compact car segment are officially being challenged.

Why Chinese Cars Could Enter America

Speaking with the South China Morning Post, Zhang said, “[U.S. automakers] would face complaints from consumers who are supposed to enjoy affordable smart EVs [produced by Chinese companies].” In other words, Zhang believes that American buyers will take more note of what is available elsewhere and ultimately become frustrated with the pricing and capabilities of domestically sold vehicles. They’ll see a new Chinese EV selling within their budget abroad, and they’ll be disappointed that local offerings in the same price bracket are not as advanced, whether in performance, technology, or comfort. This phenomenon is expected to grow as Canada and Mexico allow more Chinese vehicles to cross their borders, which Americans will see. Case in point: For roughly the same money as a top-tier Toyota Camry or Subaru WRX, the Luxeed RX crossover made by Chery and Huawei offers 585 horsepower and 529 miles of range. The Chevrolet Equinox EV would be a direct competitor, but it only manages peaks of 300 hp and 319 miles of range, and we haven’t even discussed technology differences or size. See the problem? Ford CEO Jim Farley has rung the alarm bells several times, recently telling employees that he expects Chinese cars to enter the U.S. within the next decade.

Several Stumbling Blocks To China’s Entry

At present, Chinese-built EVs are effectively barred from entry to the U.S. because a 100 percent (or higher) tariff makes them too expensive, and even cars that use Chinese software are currently shunned. These restrictions aim to reduce economic risk and national security concerns, but they’re still political policies, and if enough Americans demand a change, the rules can be relaxed or dropped entirely. As gas prices and other effects on the cost of living continue to create affordability concerns for many Americans, there may come a time when the U.S. lets Chinese cars in. The only antidote to that would be an all-American EV or two that can compete directly, but China’s immense variety could nullify even a few standout offerings. Zhang’s comments suggest that if America takes too long to create affordable but good cars, China will continue to innovate until prices drop so much that even a 100 percent tariff would be shrugged off by American buyers, and they’ll demand access. Would you buy a Chinese car if it had everything you desired in a vehicle and cost two-thirds or even half of your budget? Let us know below.

Related: China Ends EV Price Wars — Why Electric Cars May Cost More in the US

Stepping onto a dealership lot with around $20,000 cash presents a critical financial divergence. Buyers can get themselves into a Venue and immediately absorb the steepest part of its depreciation curve, or they can leverage that same capital on the used market. The automotive landscape in 2026 is one that requires a little understanding to make sure you buy right.

Understanding Your Options

Buying a slightly used vehicle means the first owner already paid for the initial depreciation hit. You are purchasing an asset whose value has stabilized, and more importantly, you are buying a fundamentally superior machine. Here is how the bare-bones Venue stacks up against the used market’s most reputable stalwarts:

The Baseline: The New Hyundai Venue

To understand the 2026 Hyundai Venue, we must acknowledge its primary selling point: peace of mind. Buying new means zero miles, a pristine interior, and Hyundai’s 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

Beyond the peace of mind, the spec sheet reveals the compromises required to hit that $20,550 base price. The Hyundai Venue is powered by a naturally aspirated 1.6L four-cylinder engine producing 121 horsepower and 113 lb-ft of torque, this means that it takes nearly nine seconds to reach 60 mph. Front-wheel drive is mandatory, all-wheel drive is not available at any trim level. The interior relies heavily on hard plastics, and highway noise is intrusive. The positive is that considering how simply engineered the Hyundai Venue is, it is going to be predictable and reliable to own, especially when combined with Hyundai’s impressive warranty, which takes us to our most practical used alternative.

The Pragmatic Favorite: Toyota RAV4

If a crossover body style is non-negotiable, a $20,000 budget easily secures a previous-generation Toyota RAV4. Unlike the Venue, the RAV4 offers true AWD capability, vastly superior cargo capacity, and a 203 horsepower powerplant that easily outpaces the Hyundai.

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

From a financial perspective, a used RAV4 operates as you would expect. Toyota crossovers hold their value extremely well. While the Venue will shed thousands in equity the moment its tires hit public asphalt, a $20k RAV4 will likely retain the vast majority of its value over the next four years.

The Midsize Kings: Honda Accord & Toyota Camry

Buyers willing to forego the elevated seating position of a crossover can tap into the midsize sedan market. A $20,000 budget buys a heavily optioned, 5-7 year old Honda Accord or Toyota Camry.

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

The gap in build quality, ride comfort, and driving dynamics between these sedans and the Venue is staggering. The Accord’s turbocharged powertrains and mature chassis provide actual driver engagement, while the Camry delivers class-leading highway isolation. Both offer rear-seat legroom that dwarfs the subcompact Hyundai. A used Accord or Camry has already absorbed its 20-30% initial depreciation hit, leaving you with a comfortable, depreciated asset that will easily clear 200,000 miles with basic maintenance.

The Premium Option: Mazda3

For those who prioritize cabin quality and refinement over sheer space, a lightly used Mazda3 exposes the Venue’s economy-car roots. Mazda’s interior materials and noise insulation rival entry-level luxury marques.

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

A 2020 or 2021 model fits perfectly into the $20,000 bracket, bringing available all-wheel drive, a sharply tuned suspension, and a traditional automatic transmission that feels vastly superior to the Venue’s continuously variable unit. It is the driver’s choice, proving that a strict budget does not require punishing driving dynamics.

To Summarize

The appeal of a brand-new car is undeniable. For buyers who cannot stomach the idea of unexpected repair bills, the Hyundai Venue serves its purpose as a reliable appliance under warranty. To contrast that, automotive value encompasses more than just the purchase price; it is defined by the cost of ownership, equity retention, and product quality. The Venue forces owners to swallow the heaviest years of depreciation in exchange for a compromised, albeit reliable subcompact crossover. Deploying that same $20,000 on a used RAV4, Camry, Accord, or Mazda3 means letting someone else pay the depreciation tax. In return, you secure a vehicle with better materials, superior driving dynamics, more power, and proven longevity.

That isn’t to say the Prelude and MX-5 are obviously rivals. In many ways, they aren’t. The Honda is a front-wheel-drive, four-seat hybrid coupe with simulated gear shifts, 200 horsepower, and enough efficiency and daily functionality to make commutes feel almost painless. The Mazda is a two-seat, rear-wheel-drive roadster with a naturally aspirated engine, a six-speed manual transmission, and a retractable roof that still feels like a party trick every time it folds itself away. But in 2026, where compact coupes feel like rare contraband, they both seem as though they attempt to answer the awkward question: what should a small sports car be now?

Honda’s answer is efficiency, usability, and technology wrapped in a dramatic two-door shape. Mazda’s answer is the same as it has always been: make it light, make it manual, make it talk to its driver. I drove around Vancouver, B.C., for a week each, and on the same winding Sea-to-Sky Highway along British Columbia’s Pacific Coast. The Honda was better in traffic, better on fuel, better for cargo, and easier to live with. The Mazda, on the other hand, was better at almost everything that makes a person wake up early on a Sunday simply because the road will have less traffic.

Specs And Pricing

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

The Prelude Wins The Weekday. The MX-5 Wins The Weekend.

The Prelude’s best argument comes in the least romantic environment possible: traffic. In the city, where every other lane seems to contain either a landscaping truck, a distracted rideshare driver, or a cyclist dressed for the Tour de France, the Honda is excellent. Its hybrid system is quiet and smooth, making driving easy and painless. The only downside was its poor outward visibility—shoulder checking is a tiresome task in the Prelude. But it runs on regular gas, and averaged 5.5 L/100 km (~43 mpg) in my hands. It does stop-and-go driving better than almost anything else that looks this sporty.

The MX-5 isn’t better at any of that stuff. It’s smaller, louder, less practical, and thirstier. It also has hard-to-see blindspots in RF-top form. It has two seats, a tiny trunk, and a fascinating roof mechanism that adds charm but not cargo space. It doesn’t try to make your commute painless, but the MX-5 was never designed with commuting at the forefront of its mission—which is why we love it as much as we do.

Honda S+ Shift Vs. Mazda’s Six-Speed Manual

Honda S+ Shift is clever—too clever. The system really does create the sensation of shifting gears, despite the Prelude’s hybrid drivetrain not using a conventional multi-gear transmission, or really any sort of gearbox at all. It gives the car more character than a normal hybrid, and under hard acceleration, it adds enough sound and stepped motion to make the experience feel more mechanical than expected. But truth be told, it’s not much different from using paddle shifters to play with the simulated shift points in a CVT-equipped Subaru, aside from the sharpness of the actual shifts.

You can ask for a shift, and the Prelude will briefly indulge you, but then the system takes back control like a parent letting a toddler hold the steering wheel in a parked car. It isn’t entirely useless, but it doesn’t quite count as real involvement either. It’s an impressive simulation of a thing enthusiasts would rather just have. The MX-5 gives enthusiasts just that. In my MX-5 RF review, I called its six-speed one of the most intuitive and engaging manual gearboxes I have ever experienced. The lever, clutch, and gearing all work together so naturally that the car feels like something tapped directly into your nervous system. The Prelude considers driver inputs, but the MX-5 becomes a natural dancing partner.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

The Same Road Told Two Different Stories

British Columbia’s Sea-to-Sky Highway is one of the best roads out there for sports-car testing because it has absolutely zero tolerance for excuses. Its meandering high-speed twists along the coast and up into the mountains don’t care about spec sheets, nostalgia, press releases, or whether a car has a famous badge glued to its trunk in cursive. It gives you sweepers, climbs, rough surfaces, breathtaking views of the Pacific, and enough rhythm to reveal whether a car converses with you or simply provides you with on-screen fuel consumption data.

For the Prelude, that road became a problem. On tighter sections, the Honda felt quick enough; it was planted, direct, and tidy, if a bit numb. But on longer, more meandering crests, it felt thoroughly underwhelming. The chassis was competent, but the experience lacked any sort of theatre or visceral engagement. After one proper Sea-to-Sky drive, my urge to keep finding excuses to drive it faded. That never happens in the MX-5.

On the same road, the Mazda turns the scenery into a meaningful part of the driving experience. In my RF review, I wrote that the Miata made the Sea-to-Sky less about itself and more about the turns, surface, and surroundings; with the top down, ocean on one side, and mountains on the other, it felt like playing in a park with a favourite toy. The Prelude drives the road, but the MX-5 makes the road feel like it belongs to you.

Handling: Honda Has The Hardware, Mazda Has The Handshake

The Prelude’s chassis is one of its greatest attributes. Honda didn’t phone this in—the Prelude gets dual-axis front suspension, adaptive dampers, Brembo front brake callipers, 19-inch wheels, and a properly sorted front-drive setup. It feels planted and secure, and the steering is direct, though a bit numb and too light outside Sport mode. The brakes are strong, and the car doesn’t feel especially heavy, though there is some front-end weight to its character. It’s a good chassis underused by a car that never quite decides how badly it wants to make you smile.

The MX-5 is less serious on paper, but more alive in practice. It rolls in corners, and that roll is one of its most definitive features. The Miata’s communicative body movement serves as a gauge for judging lateral momentum, letting you feel where the weight is moving, where the rear end is hanging, and when grip is beginning to run out. Though the Prelude might feel more planted on those long, sweeping bends, the MX-5 actually feels like it has a pulse.

Exterior Design: The Prelude Wins The Parking Lot Battle

The Honda is the better-looking of the two at first glance, and, to be fair, it was designed long after the ND MX-5—which has been around now for an entire decade. The Prelude is genuinely striking in person. It’s low-slung, wide, clean, and futuristic without leaning too hard into retro cosplay. In white, as tested, especially with the blue accents and brake callipers, it has proper concept-car street presence. It looks expensive, modern, and special enough to make people ask questions. Unfortunately, one of those questions was: “What new Tesla is that?”

That would bother me more than it probably should. Still, it reveals something important. The Prelude’s shape is dramatic, but not immediately familiar. It looks new before it looks Honda, and, if anything, it looks a bit too much like the Toyota Prius. That might help it with casual buyers, but it also makes the nameplate feel slightly detached from the old Prelude lineage.

The MX-5 RF does not have that problem. It’s tiny, cheerful and unmistakably Miata. The RF roof lends it an added targa-like elegance, and it opens or closes in just 13 seconds. Recent updates give the ND3 MX-5 refreshed LED headlights and taillights, but not much else changes on the outside, and even those details are incredibly small. The MX-5 hasn’t changed much because it simply doesn’t need to—it still looks modern, it still looks fun, and it still looks like a Miata. On the inside, though, the new MX-5’s updates go a lot further.

Interior: Honda Usability Vs. Mazda Intimacy

The Prelude undoubtedly has the easier cabin to live with. Its dashboard looks a bit older than the exterior would suggest, but that is, for the most part, actually a compliment. It’s straightforward, clear, and blessedly filled with physical controls. In a world where too many interiors now operate like someone mounted a smart TV sideways and called it luxury, the Prelude’s simplicity feels refreshing. The front seats look great too, combining blue and white elements that add visual drama to the cabin, but the rear seats are cheaper-looking black cloth, breaking the blue-stitching theme, and making the second row feel like it was transplanted from an entirely different car.

The MX-5’s cabin isn’t roomy, but it is cohesive. With supportive Recaros, palpable Alcantara upgrades, an updated infotainment system, a frameless rearview mirror, and a richer sense of touch than before, the MX-5’s interior is a nicer environment than ever. The Honda’s cabin is by far the easier one to live with, but the MX-5’s is the easier one to bond with.

Cabin And Cargo Dimensions

Practicality: The Prelude Wins. Duh…

The Prelude is obviously more practical than the MX-5. It has rear seats, a hatch, more cargo space, better fuel economy, and a calmer personality in daily use. Its rear seats are more usable than the BRZ’s, though headroom is still limited, and its hatchback cargo area gives it real usefulness. Against the Mazda, the Honda wins the practicality battle because, well, of course it does. But the Prelude’s real problem isn’t the MX-5 here—it’s the Civic Hybrid.

If efficiency, comfort and Honda reliability are the main priorities, the Civic Hybrid hatchback makes far more sense. It is substantially less expensive, much roomier, more practical, and still nearly as enjoyable to drive. The Prelude asks buyers to pay more money to lose two doors and compromise rear-seat space in exchange for sharper handling, S+ Shift, and a prettier shape. That might be worth it for someone who loves the look, but it doesn’t make the Prelude the better enthusiast car.

The MX-5 makes fewer practical promises, but nobody buys an RF expecting it to replace a CR-V. It has a small trunk, two seats, and limited space, but the entire car is so honest about its mission that those limitations feel intentional rather than frustrating. The MX-5 is clearly better as a secondary vehicle unless you are young, single, or unusually committed to the bit.

Value: Similar Money, Different Promises

This is where things get awkward for Honda. The Prelude starts at $42,000 before destination in the U.S., and the MX-5 RF Club starts at $41,900 before destination, making them nearly identical in price. But what they sell is completely different.

The Honda sells fuel economy, four seats, a useful hatch, daily calm, and a dramatic shape. The Mazda offers rear-wheel drive, a manual gearbox, a retractable roof, Brembo brakes, BBS wheels, Recaro seats, and a kind of intimacy that no screen, hybrid system, or simulated-shift algorithm can manufacture. So where Honda sells you what is essentially a dynamically sharpened, practically compromised Civic Hybrid Coupe replacement, Mazda sells you true enthusiast ingredients worth drooling over, all for the same money. If compact sports coupe value means miles per gallon to you, then the Prelude obviously wins. But if it’s smiles per gallon you’re after, which, if you’re cross-shopping these two cars, it probably is, the MX-5 is almost untouchable. Almost… (see the notably less expensive Subaru BRZ/Toyota GR86, for example).

Final Verdict: The Prelude Is Easier To Live With, But The MX-5 Is Easier To Love

The 2026 Honda Prelude is certainly not a bad car. It’s attractive, efficient, smooth, technically advanced, and far easier to live with than the Mazda MX-5 RF. It’s better in traffic, better on gas, better for cargo, and better for passengers. For someone who wants a stylish hybrid coupe with minimal inconvenience, it makes some sense. But this is a comparison between small sports cars, and small sports cars aren’t normally judged purely by how painlessly they run errands.

The Prelude’s issue isn’t that it lacks competence—it lacks emotional escalation. It doesn’t get better the harder you look for the fun. It begins as an intriguing shape, settles into being a very good commuter, and then runs out of conversation just as the road gets interesting. The MX-5 does the opposite. It keeps talking, as if it’s been practicing its stand-up act for decades. Through the gearbox, body roll, steering, RF roof, and the absurd smallness of the whole thing, it keeps reminding you why cars even became hobbies in the first place. In my standalone reviews, the Prelude scored 7.8/10 while the MX-5 RF scored 9.6/10, and that gap still feels accurate. The Mazda’s biggest strength is its lovability, and I wrote that almost no modern vehicle better understands human connection in an automobile than this one, especially at this price point.

The Prelude is the better commuter coupe, but the MX-5 RF is the better sports car. And if you’re buying one of these because you still believe driving should feel like more than transportation, the “Miata Is Always The Answer” rule still applies.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

But the bigger problem with the new Prelude isn’t that one person mistook it for something electric and generic. The bigger problem is that after a week living with it in Vancouver, I started to understand why they did. The Prelude is smooth, efficient, quiet, easy to drive, and technically interesting, but it’s also strangely short on emotional definition. The more time I spent with it, the more it felt like an enthusiast car for people who aren’t car enthusiasts. Someone who wants something cool and sporty-looking to show off in, but still insists on a comfortable, efficient, pain-free experience of living with it. That’s not necessarily a bad idea, and, in fact, it’s a uniquely Honda idea, if past attempts such as the CR-Z are anything to go by. It just isn’t a very thrilling one.

Specs And Pricing

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Honda prices the 2026 Prelude at $42,000 in the U.S., before a $1,195 destination charge. The car uses Honda’s two-motor hybrid system, makes 200 total system horsepower, runs on regular unleaded, and is EPA-rated at 46 mpg city, 41 mpg highway, and 44 mpg combined. In Canada, published pricing lists the Prelude at $49,990 CAD MSRP, with delivery and other non-negotiable charges bringing it to $52,987 CAD.

Powertrain: 7.7/10

Honda still makes one of the best hybrid systems in the business. That’s the Prelude’s greatest defence, but it’s also part of its problem. Around Vancouver, especially in moderate-to-heavy traffic, the hybrid system is excellent. It’s quiet, smooth, efficient, and easy to drive. If most of your life behind the wheel exists in stop-and-go traffic, the Prelude does that better than anything else it rivals simply by virtue of being a calm, reliable-feeling Honda hybrid.

It also takes regular gas, which my wallet appreciated. Over my week with it, I averaged 5.5 L/100 km, which is excellent for something that looks so aggressively sporty. To some buyers, that number will be a huge part of the appeal. To me, though, a car like this was never really about efficiency. Efficiency was supposed to be a byproduct of lightweight, low-displacement, and clever engineering. It was never supposed to feel like the main mission.

The Prelude is quick enough around town, and on tighter roads, it certainly doesn’t feel slow. The electric motor helps it respond quickly, and the hybrid system feels refined, as modern Hondas often do. But on longer, faster, more meandering stretches of road, the car began to feel underwhelming in ways a Subaru BRZ or Mazda MX-5 simply does not. The engine note is a bit sterile, even though the power delivery is competent. The whole thing works beautifully as a means of transportation, but it rarely feels like something you would take the long way home to experience again.

Honda S+ Shift: 6.8/10

Honda S+ Shift is the Prelude’s strangest trick. Technically, it is interesting. The system really does create the sensation of shifting gears, even though the Prelude’s hybrid system doesn’t have a conventional multi-gear transmission. Honda says S+ Shift lets the driver “feel, hear, and see” performance shifts, and in practice, it does make the car feel more mechanical than a normal hybrid under hard acceleration. The problem is how much—or, rather, how little—control the system actually gives you.

You can pull a paddle and ask for a shift, and it will shift, but the system is hesitant to fully hand authority over to the driver. It almost immediately starts managing things by itself again, as if to say, “Thanks for the suggestion, but I’ll take it from here.” That might get a pass in a Civic Hybrid, but in a revived Prelude, it feels like Honda built a clever solution to a problem it created for itself by not giving the car a transmission enthusiasts actually wanted. S+ Shift isn’t completely useless—it does some theatre, and makes the car more interesting than it would otherwise be. But it also highlights the gap between simulated engagement and real involvement, and for anyone who truly wants to shift gears, this system simply can’t match the authenticity of even a conventional automatic gearbox, let alone a proper manual transmission.

Shopping for a new car? Click here to get a great deal on your next vehicle. Powered by Carvana, no haggle pricing, 100% online.

Driving Dynamics: 7.8/10

Underneath all the augmented-shift gimmickry and the Prius-like powertrain character is a chassis that, in true Honda sport-coupe fashion, is properly sorted. Honda even gave it some hardware sourced directly from the Civic Type R: dual-axis MacPherson strut front suspension, a multi-link rear suspension, adaptive dampers, variable-ratio steering, Agile Handling Assist, and Brembo four-piston aluminum front brake callipers. It even rides on 19-inch wheels with 235/40R19 tires. Those are the right ingredients for the underpinnings of a seriously thrilling front-driven sports coupe—especially one from Honda, of all brands.

And on the right road, you can feel the seriousness underneath everything. The Prelude is planted, direct, and tidy. It doesn’t feel especially heavy, though there is, naturally, some front-end weight to its character. The brakes are strong and confidence-inspiring, the adaptive dampers make a difference, and Sport mode tightens everything up a notch—most notably its steering. But despite all that, the driving experience never quite comes alive. There are no fireworks or moments of existential ecstasy, just easy mobility and good fuel economy.

The steering is direct, but it’s a bit numb and too light in every mode other than Sport, in which it becomes just tight enough. The chassis feels seriously capable, but somehow underutilized. The car grips and goes, but it lacks the rear-drive fluency of a BRZ, the bionic-arm intimacy of an MX-5, and the row-your-own-gears involvement of a Civic Si.

The Sea-to-Sky Highway exposed the Prelude’s shortcomings most clearly. On a favourite scenic road, the best enthusiast cars make the drive feel like a reward—a brief few minutes of being fully present in time as the sun sets over the coastal horizon in the background while you aim your nose at the next corner’s apex, all after a long and tiresome work week. The best compact sports cars should be engaging and intuitive enough to clear your mind after only a few minutes behind the wheel, giving your frontal cortex a tactile task so the rest of your brain can relax. Driving them should feel like transcendental meditation. The new Prelude makes those kinds of drives feel just like any other commute, whereas old Preludes made them feel like memories worth holding onto.

Exterior Design: 9.1/10

Aside from its dynamic emotional shortcomings, the Prelude’s styling sure knows how to get the heart racing. It’s low-slung, sleek and visually striking in a way modern Hondas rarely are. In white, especially with the added contrast of bright blue accents and brake callipers, it has real concept-car presence on the road. The design isn’t retro cosplay, and yet it still looks the part of the Prelude. Honda managed to create something modern, clean, and futuristic enough that, rather unfortunately, someone genuinely mistook it for a Tesla.

Still, the design is easily one of the car’s strongest qualities. It turns heads and looks special in photos. It returns the two-door coupe form factor to the Honda lineup, which feels refreshing in a market drowning in small crossovers with fake off-road disguises. Like a swimsuit model with a dull personality, the issue here is that the driving experience never quite lives up to the provocative looks. Most passengers reacted the same way I did: impressed at first, then slightly confused after a while on the road.

Interior And Tech: 7.6/10

The Prelude’s cabin is a mix of smart Honda restraint and strange cost-cutting measures. The front seats are the undoubted highlight, combining blue and white elements beautifully and giving the cabin a sense of occasion that’s missing from a normal Civic Hybrid. Then you look at the rear seats. The back seats are a cheap-feeling black cloth, which breaks the blue contrast-stitching theme running through the cabin and makes the second row feel like it came from another car. Rear space is more usable than in a BRZ, but headroom remains pretty limited. I just can’t get over how much more the Prelude costs compared to the Civic Hybrid, only to give up so much cabin space.

The dashboard looks like it could have been designed 10 years ago, but I mostly mean that as a compliment. It’s simple, clear, and easy to use, unlike many of today’s screen-drunk interiors. There are enough physical buttons and controls to keep you from being distracted, so the Prelude feels refreshingly usable. Some parts feel premium enough for the price, but others do not, which gives the Prelude’s cabin an oddly disjointed vibe.

Cabin And Cargo Dimensions

Honda lists 15.1 cu-ft of cargo volume, 84.6 cu-ft of passenger volume, 42.3 inches of front legroom, 32.0 inches of rear legroom and a 3,261-lb curb weight for the U.S.-market Prelude Hybrid.

Practicality: 8.1/10

This is where the Prelude starts to make more sense over its most obvious rivals. The hatch area is genuinely useful, its rear seats are less “emergency-use-only” than the BRZ’s, and the hybrid efficiency gives the Prelude a daily-driving advantage over most sporty coupes. In traffic, it’s easily the most relaxing car in this general set. It’s also easier to live with than an MX-5, and more efficient than a BRZ. But leaning in that direction also creates the obvious question: why not just buy a Civic Hybrid hatchback, or even a Civic Si, and save money either way? One will be even more practical, and the other will be even more fun, and you’ll still walk out of the dealership a richer person for having done so.

If someone simply wants a stylish, efficient, practical Honda, I would try to convince them to buy the Civic Hybrid instead, or perhaps an Integra if the look is too generic for them (why is there no hybrid Integra yet?). It offers better value, more usable space, and the same basic hybrid smoothness paired with precise driving dynamics. I wouldn’t push too hard if they were totally sold on the Prelude’s looks, but they would need to be very sold on it. The Prelude is useful for a coupe, but it’s not necessarily useful enough to make the coupe compromises disappear.

Value: 6.9/10

There’s no denying the Prelude is expensive, especially when compared not only to its most obvious rivals but also to Honda’s own alternatives. At $43,195 in the U.S. including destination, it costs serious money for a 200-hp front-drive hybrid coupe. In Canada, the problem becomes even clearer. The Prelude’s $52,987 CAD price including delivery and other fees makes it nearly $16,000 more than the cheapest Civic Hybrid sedan.

A Subaru BRZ also costs thousands less and, as an enthusiast car, offers a fundamentally more rewarding rear-drive experience. The Civic Hybrid is the better value for the average buyer. The BRZ, GR86, and MX-5 are better emotional buys for enthusiasts. For nearly $3,000 less than the Prelude, you could even buy yourself an Acura Integra A-Spec. So who is the Prelude for?

If I had to guess, I’d say it’s for someone who wants an efficient, comfortable, stylish Honda coupe and doesn’t mind that the driving experience is more pain-free than exciting. Someone who wants the look of an enthusiast car without the inconvenience or intensity. Someone who likes the idea of a hybrid sports coupe but doesn’t necessarily drive like a sports-car enthusiast. I guess it’ll sell quite well.

Final Verdict: 7.8/10

The 2026 Honda Prelude isn’t even remotely a “bad car.” It’s smooth, efficient, stylish, easy to drive, technically interesting, and endlessly refined. It does stop-and-go traffic better than anything else it rivals, averaged 43 mpg in my carelessly inefficient hands, runs on regular gas, and looks good enough to make people notice it. It’s something that Honda can be legitimately proud of. But it also lacks emotion, theatre, and engagement—all beloved pillars of the sport compact car experience. It transmogrifies a favourite scenic road into something too close to a commute, gives you simulated shifting without real control, and somewhat blasphemously wears a treasured Honda coupe name while making its strongest argument as a comfortable hybrid daily driver. It left me confused more than charmed.

I liked the Prelude more at the beginning of the week than at the end, which is rarely a good sign. After one long drive up the Sea-to-Sky Highway, my urge to keep finding excuses to drive it faded. When I swapped into an Acura Integra Type S afterward, the difference was immediate. The Integra made me salivate at the thought of driving it, more so even after every minute spent in the driver’s seat. The Prelude just made me appreciate how little gas I had used on my way to the shops—a feeling quickly outweighed by the upfront cost of ownership. How can the same company get one thing so brilliantly right, and another so confusingly awkward?

Ultimately, it’s difficult to categorize how I feel about the Prelude into a “like it or hate it” box. It’s either a car I entirely misunderstand, or one I understand perfectly and secretly hope I’m only misunderstanding. All I know is that after my week with the Prelude, I had an unshakeable sense that this car wasn’t for me—and that it was never meant to be for people like me. Unlike the BRZ and MX-5 with which it undoubtedly competes, the Prelude isn’t meant for people who love cars; it’s better suited to people who just kind of like them, and I guess there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, Honda’s probably been quite intelligent to chase that sort of demographic. But the cynic in me just doesn’t see the point in spending more money to choose one over something more practical or something more emotional.

Autoblog aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.

Mazda currently has a pretty solid lineup of affordable vehicles. There’s the Mazda3 sedan and hatchback, as well as the CX-30 for those in the market for a sub-$30,000 crossover with standard all-wheel drive. Those three cars have been serving the automaker well so far this year, and another model will join them soon.

That model is the CX-3, and it’s set to be returning soon. Mazda previously announced its comeback, but for the first time ever, the company has given a sneak peek of the subcompact crossover.

More Like a Baby CX-5

You won’t see much of the car for now, although we can make out some details from the shadowy silhouette. By the looks of it, it won’t be like the Vision X-Concept that was shown during last year’s Japan Mobility Show. With that in mind, the concept’s look could likely be reserved for a jacked-up version of the Mazda2.

Looking at the outline of the blacked-out car, it appears different from other Mazda crossovers in the lineup. Based on the sneaky teaser, the next-generation CX-3 could look more like a shrunken-down CX-5. It looks bigger than its predecessor, and there’s a strong likelihood it’s more than a chopped-down CX-30.

When Is It Coming?

The previous-generation CX-3 was introduced way back in 2014 and actually lasted until this year in select markets. It had a few facelifts during its time, but the car itself never really had anything major going on with it for over a decade. But as Mazda is now trying to chase a little bit more volume, the all-new model couldn’t come any sooner.

It’s expected that the redesigned CX-3 will make its world premiere soon. In Mazda’s own words, it’ll have a phased introduction to ASEAN, Japan, and other markets from 2027. It’ll be made in Thailand, and there may be some degree of electrification in the powertrain options, as the facility there will be the manufacturing hub for hybrids in Asian markets – and possibly the world.

In the meantime, we wait for the full reveal. Judging by Mazda’s statement, we might see the final product by later this year at the earliest, or during the first half of 2027. If so, the redesigned CX-3 could be for the 2028 model year, but given that it’ll be made in Thailand, the odds of it coming to the U.S appear somewhat slim for now.

That’s today, and it will go down as the first time in the automaker’s history that a battery-electric vehicle is assembled in Mexico. Pre-orders there have already opened, while the plant will export the EV3 to the U.S. later this year.

EV3 U.S. Pricing TBC As EV4 Is Delayed

The EV3 has not yet been priced, and it may be some time before it and the larger EV4 reach the U.S., as Kia delayed the former and temporarily paused the latter due to weak EV demand. But Kia told Autoblog that the EV3 will make its way here before the end of 2026, and while pricing will depend heavily on the outcome of a revised North American trade agreement, offering an entry-level practical crossover with the right proportions for a city, where charging infrastructure is reasonable, may encourage growth. It’s expected to start around $35,000, making it competitive with the limited-time Chevy Bolt and the base Tesla Model 3, but any higher, and the $30k Nissan Leaf will be even harder to argue against.

Kia’s Mexico Investment Is About More Than The EV3

The upgrades to Kia’s Pesquería plant may someday benefit the EV2, which is too small for U.S. tastes but is ideal for Europe. As noted by Reuters, Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said that, amid growing protectionism policies from its largest trading partner, the U.S., Mexico is looking for other markets to support its export economy. Meanwhile, the locally made EV3 will also provide a relatively affordable offering to the local market, reducing imports. The EV3 will reportedly launch with approximately 27 percent local content, but that figure will increase as more regional suppliers are brought onboard. Battery packs will come from Asia to begin with, and as the supply chain is built, those and other high-value components will gradually be sourced closer to the factory.

Part of the $649 million investment will go to public and semi-public charging infrastructure aligned with Kia’s dealer network, while some will go to renewable energy and water recycling projects at the assembly plant, lowering the EV3’s overall environmental impact and the plant’s running costs.

Related: Hyundai Ioniq 5 Vs. Kia EV6 Sales: It’s Not Even Close

Tesla has spent years setting the benchmark for EV efficiency. But a new global ranking has produced an unexpected winner: India. According to the International Council on Clean Transportation’s 2025 assessment, India’s Tata Motors and Mahindra have the most energy-efficient battery-electric vehicle lineups among 22 major automakers. Meanwhile, Tesla and BYD follow in third and fourth. 

EVs from Indian manufacturers are generally designed around smaller, lighter crossovers that suit India’s crowded cities, shorter daily journeys, and price-sensitive market. That matters because efficiency can be used in two very different ways. Tesla has often used it to extract more range from a battery. Tata and Mahindra may be using it to deliver enough range with less battery in the first place, helping keep EVs lighter and potentially more affordable.

Smaller EVs Have An Advantage

The ICCT converts official test-cycle data into comparable energy-consumption figures and averages those results across each manufacturer’s EV lineup. Tata’s EV lineup averaged around 106 Wh/km, while Mahindra came in at approximately 113 Wh/km. But that does not necessarily mean Tata and Mahindra have more advanced EV technology than Tesla. The ranking measures the efficiency of each company’s overall vehicle portfolio, which reflects lineup size and strategy as much as the efficiency of the hardware. 

A company focused on smaller vehicles can have an inherent advantage over one selling large SUVs and high-performance models. Tata and Mahindra primarily sell compact electric SUVs, while Tesla and BYD offer a broader mix that includes larger, heavier, and more powerful vehicles. That said, smaller vehicles are not automatically efficient. Weight, aerodynamics, power electronics, battery management, and drivetrain calibration still determine how much energy an EV wastes. The results suggest that their smaller vehicles are not merely benefiting from their dimensions. They are also reasonably well optimized for the markets they serve.

Final Thoughts

View the 2 images of this gallery on the original article

The ranking does not mean Tata and Mahindra have surpassed Tesla or BYD in every aspect of EV development. It does, however, suggest that the global industry’s biggest names do not have a monopoly on efficiency, and that designing EVs around smaller batteries can be a competitive advantage rather than a compromise. Battery packs remain one of the most expensive components in an EV, so every kilowatt-hour a manufacturer can eliminate has the potential to reduce both vehicle weight and cost.

For years, the industry has focused on bigger batteries, longer range, and faster acceleration. India’s EV makers are showing that using less energy may be just as important. The next major EV breakthrough may not come from adding another 100 miles of range. It could come from building lighter, more efficient vehicles that need less battery in the first place.

There’s always a certain appeal to the cheapest new car on sale. You can’t find anything less than $20 grand anymore, now that the Nissan Versa is gone. That mantle has been taken up by the Hyundai Venue at $20,550. At that price, the Hyundai Venue seems like a smart, budget-conscious decision. It’s affordable, efficient, and easy to drive. It also has a strong feature set.

Beneath the surface and behind the wheel, though, it turns into a bit of a compromise. Here’s where things change its value quotient, and the savings start to seem less significant. There’s another crossover we’d choose, and it does just about everything better.

Where the Venue Falls Short

The diminutive Venue is down on power and driving dynamics. Its meager 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine delivers 121 horsepower, which is fine for urban jaunts. When you need more speed and some semblance of quiet, the Venue starts to fall apart. Road and wind noise are noticeable at highway speeds, and the driving experience is underwhelming.

The Venue feels cheap when you’re driving it, and it lacks the power and confidence to manage dicey situations in daily driving. You also feel utterly dominated by even compact crossovers that are taller and have a bigger footprint. Its styling isn’t especially attractive. It’s a car that looks as cheap as it is. The dated front fascia, small greenhouse, and tiny wheels give it that “its all I could afford” look.

The cabin is easily the brand’s most dated. Rental fleet vibes run rampant, and the tiny infotainment screen looks glued on the dash. Space is another drawback. The Venue’s compact footprint translates into a tight rear seat and limited cargo capacity. It works for urban commuting, but 31.9 cubic feet of total cargo space is pretty scant.

The Right Alternative: 2026 Chevy Trax

By contrast, the Chevrolet Trax looks and feels like it belongs in a class above, even if its $21,700 base price is a mere $1,200 more than the Venue. Chevy nailed the design and feature set of the Trax for its 3rd generation. It delivers a more mature and cohesive package. Even in its lowest LS trim, the Trax looks more cohesive with a dramatic grille, slim DRLs, prominent wheel arches, and well-placed body creases.

Its turbocharged 1.2-liter engine produces 137 horsepower, offering noticeably stronger acceleration and better real-world drivability. 0-60 mph happens in about 8.4 seconds, a full second quicker than the Venue. But the Trax also feels more engaging and playful than the Venue. It’s not a performance vehicle, but it feels more confident and less strained in everyday situations. We marvel at how well it steers and handles every time we get behind the wheel.

Where the Trax really separates itself is in design and interior execution. The cabin is modern and thoughtfully laid out, with a better infotainment setup and a more upscale aesthetic. Material quality is a clear step up from the Venue, and the overall impression is closer to what you’d expect from a compact crossover rather than a budget subcompact. Physical controls are better, and it’s ergonomically superior to the Venue.

Passenger and cargo space are also significantly improved. The Trax offers a roomier rear seat with a whopping 38.7 inches (over four inches more than the Venue) and more usable cargo area (54.1 cubic feet) making it far more capacious. It’s the kind of vehicle that can handle both weekday commuting and weekend shopping duties without worrying about a a lack of space.

Final Thoughts

The Hyundai Venue isn’t a bad car—it simply feels like a product built to hit its low price target. The Chevrolet Trax, on the other hand, feels like a crossover that’s worth way more than the asking price. It’s a car that surprises, even in its lowest trim. If you’re shopping at the lower end of the market, it’s worth stretching your budget but only slightly. The result is a vehicle that doesn’t just meet your needs, but exceeds them in ways you’ll appreciate every time you drive it. Yes, the Trax is just that good.

For nearly five decades, the Toyota Corolla has been automotive comfort food: reliable, sensible, and thoroughly unexciting. That’s about to change. A new teaser image, released through a Japanese NHK documentary series, confirms that the next-generation Corolla will closely follow the wedge-shaped, angular concept Toyota showed at the 2025 Tokyo Mobility Show, complete with a sharply raked windshield and futuristic lighting.

Although the details have been blurred out, the general outline and window shape seems daring and unlike any Corolla you’ve ever seen. It seems as though Toyota is done making another vanilla compact sedan. The question isn’t whether Toyota can build it — it’s whether the Corolla’s famously conservative buyer base is ready for it.

Reason For: Rivals Have Already Won With Boldness

Toyota is walking into a compact-sedan segment that has been reshaped by competitors willing to take styling risks. Hyundai and Kia have found real commercial success by pairing affordable pricing with an aggressive, angular design language, and it’s this very kind of style pressure that’s pushing Toyota toward a bolder Corolla. But is it too bold compared to current models from other automakers?

The current Kia K4 and Nissan Sentra prove that budget-conscious buyers don’t have to settle for anonymous styling, and Toyota risks losing younger, design-conscious shoppers if the Corolla continues to look like a rental-fleet default. Don’t get us wrong, the Corolla is conservative but not ugly. Nevertheless, it has disappeared into the background, style-wise. A production Corolla that channels the concept’s wedge profile, recessed door skins, and narrow taillights would finally give Toyota a fighting chance in a category where “boring but dependable” is no longer enough to win over first-time buyers.

Reason For: It Signals Toyota’s Design Language Is Maturing Fleet-Wide

The new Corolla isn’t an isolated design efford without precedent. Its lineup is growing bolder with each model, kicked off by the likes of the current Prius, the bZ, and the upcoming electric Highlander. But then there could be some misfires like the Crown and the last-generation C-HR, with recent changes to improve their looks. The point is, Toyota is trying to do things differently, meaning not boring.

If the production Corolla genuinely inherits the concept’s short front overhang, tapering roofline, and glasshouse treatment, it would mark the brand’s most significant styling departure since the current generation launched in 2018. For a nameplate that has sold on rational virtues for generations, arriving at showrooms with genuine visual drama could reset public perception of what a practical car is allowed to look like.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Reason Against: Corolla Buyers Prize Predictability, Not Drama

Who buys Corollas? It’s not anyone looking for thrills behind the wheel or head-turning style. Buyers are largely comprised of younger drivers for their first car, as well as older ones who want a reliable second set of wheels. The Corolla’s core customer base has never bought the car for its looks, and radical design carries real risk when applied to a nameplate built on trust and easy ownership. The Corolla’s value proposition has always centered on affordability and efficiency rather than style. Just take a look at past generations:

View the 4 images of this gallery on the original article

Fleet buyers, rental companies, and value-focused commuters — a huge share of Corolla volume — are far more sensitive to running costs, reliability reputation, and resale value than to pushing the design envelope. A sedan that looks too avant-garde risks alienating exactly the demographic that has kept Corolla near the top of global sales charts for decades, even as it courts a smaller pool of design-curious shoppers Hyundai and Kia have already claimed.

Final Thoughts

Toyota hasn’t confirmed final production styling, but it’s a safe bet that it will look more daring than any Corolla sedan that’s come before it. What is confirmed is the powertrain strategy: expect gasoline, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fully electric variants, with charge-door details on the concept hinting the EV version is furthest along, alongside a next-generation GR Corolla performance model. Whether the world is ready for a radical Corolla may ultimately be beside the point — Toyota appears to have decided that standing still in a segment now defined by other automakers’ design confidence is the bigger risk.

The small-car era is far from dead in enthusiasts’ hearts, even if the market has mostly moved on to crossovers and SUVs. Some of the best compact cars ever sold combined affordability, clever packaging, and real driving joy in a way that’s genuinely rare today. Here are four small cars no longer made today that we wish brands would reinterpret for a market that desperately needs more than just another SUV.

Honda Fit

The Honda Fit was one of the most brilliant everyday cars ever sold in the U.S. Its upright shape, compact footprint, and “Magic Seat” layout made it absurdly useful for its size, while its light controls and nimble chassis made it genuinely enjoyable to drive. It was the rare car that could handle commuting, errands, and weekend hauling without losing its driving verve. In a market obsessed with bigger vehicles, the Fit is exactly the kind of practical small car people still miss.

The third and final generation (2015–2020) was the most powerful version with 130 hp and a 6-speed manual transmission or 128 hp with the CVT (continuously variable automatic) transmission. It would be great for the brand to bring it back along with the beloved magic seat for maximum practicality and appeal.

Ford Focus ST

The Ford Focus ST brought real heat to the affordable performance hatch segment. With turbocharged power, a manual transmission, and a chassis tuned for enthusiastic driving, it delivered the sort of energy that made even routine trips feel special. It wasn’t perfect, and that was part of its charm; the car had a raw edge that gave it personality. Today, its absence leaves a noticeable gap for drivers who want speed without stepping into premium pricing.

The Focus ST may have left our shores, but it’s still hanging on overseas. The Focus ST is at the end of its run in the UK market, and what a great car it (still) is. It’s powered by a 2.3-liter turbocharged engine developing 276 bhp and 306 lb-ft, which is sent to the front wheels via a six-speed manual or a seven-speed automatic. Ford doesn’t have a single hot hatch in its lineup, much less any compact sedan or hatchback. A new Focus ST could show enthusiasts that it still cares about more than just EVs, trucks, and muscle cars.

Thinking about selling your car? Get an instant cash offer online now. Click here to get started.

Honda CRX

The Honda CRX is one of those cars that still inspires loyalty decades later. It was lightweight, efficient, and sharp-handling, with a simplicity that made it feel honest and mechanical in the best way. The best versions, especially the Si, balanced economy and fun so well that they became benchmark cars for a generation of enthusiasts. A modern CRX revival could resonate today as a lightweight, efficient coupe with real character.

Honda attempted to bring back the spirit of the CR-X with the hybrid CR-Z. The CR-Z was a quirky and ambitious attempt to blend hybrid efficiency with a sporty driving feel. It used a 1.5-liter inline-four hybrid setup, with combined output ranging from 122 to 130 horsepower depending on model year and transmission. It never really took off, despite the fact that its design was a direct nod to the smaller and more fun CR-X.

Fiat 500 Abarth

The Fiat 500 Abarth was the nuttiest version of the sensible Fiat 500. The pocket rocket was all about attitude, sound, and a sense of mischief that made it unforgettable. The 160-horsepower output wasn’t insane, but its ability to be tossed hard and fast was notorious. Sure, there was turbo lag and a lack of linear power delivery, but it was still a hoot. The compact size, stiff suspension, and rowdy exhaust note gave it an outsized personality that larger, quieter cars simply can’t replicate. For buyers who wanted a tiny car with big charisma, few modern machines delivered as much entertainment per mile.

The likelihood that the brand would bring back this tiny beast is pretty much zilch, since the brand only sells its electric 500e and soon the tiny electric Topolino in very limited quantities. It sold the Nuova Abarth 500e in Europe, but it never intended to bring the EV hot hatch to the states. It’s clear that Fiat has lost its foothold here, and the short life of the 500 Abarth was the best the brand had to offer.

Final Thoughts

These four cars stood out because they each had a clear identity. The Fit was clever, the Focus ST was energetic, the CRX was light and efficient, and the 500 Abarth was full of character. That kind of intentional design is harder to find in today’s market, where regulations, packaging demands, and consumer preference have pushed many small cars out of the spotlight.

What makes them worthy of a comeback is not just for the sake of nostalgia. Their small size, lower weight, and stronger connection between driver and machine made them appealing. In a world of ever-larger vehicles, these are the cars that remind us how much fun less can be, and what a world it would be if they returned in fresh form.