As far as I'm concerned, the sorest point of the Matrix resides in the rear. I still cannot believe that someone at Toyota thought it a good idea to not automatically carpet the load floor or the seatbacks for that matter. What the heck were they thinking? On two occasions, I almost lost my mind. Like most consumers and in Toyota's infinite wisdom, they equip their cars with a container of windshield washer fluid and drop it into a bottle holder. I'll spare the details but picture the holder and its contents sliding from side to side every time the steering wheel would move a degree. Same for the luggage I carried which considerably scratched the floor.
The real difference
Along with the significant overhaul that took place for the 2009 model year, the Matrix received some much needed extra oomph. The previous 1.8L 4-cylinder engine was adequate at best when the car was laden with two passengers and some gear. The AWD and XRS versions fared no better. This was especially true with AWD as output numbers were reduced due to supplemental exhaust restrictions.
This same motor still resides under the bonnet of the Matrix but this time around, only for the base car. All others, XR, XRS and AWD, depend on a 2.4L 4-cylinder that served the Camry and RAV4. Putting out 158 hp and 162 lb-ft of torque, it is by far better suited to the Matrix's potential. Although 5-speed manual and automatic boxes are available with this engine, the AWD trim must make do with the old-school 4-speed autobox.
Zippy is the word
The tested Matrix XR AWD was very sprightly. Throttle response was immediate, getting the portly 1,485 kg (3,274 lb) car swiftly up to speed. As road conditions were ideal, it was tough to say whether or not the AWD system (lifted from the RAV4) had anything to do with the vehicle's brisk accelerations.
Where the 4-speed may have done some harm is in fuel consumption. I averaged just over 10L of fuel per 100 km, which is far from stellar. A 5-speed or like a number of its competitors, a 6-speed transmission, would have made a considerable difference.
 |
| The XR, XRS and AWD, depend on a 2.4L 4-cylinder that served the Camry and RAV4. |
The real difference
Along with the significant overhaul that took place for the 2009 model year, the Matrix received some much needed extra oomph. The previous 1.8L 4-cylinder engine was adequate at best when the car was laden with two passengers and some gear. The AWD and XRS versions fared no better. This was especially true with AWD as output numbers were reduced due to supplemental exhaust restrictions.
This same motor still resides under the bonnet of the Matrix but this time around, only for the base car. All others, XR, XRS and AWD, depend on a 2.4L 4-cylinder that served the Camry and RAV4. Putting out 158 hp and 162 lb-ft of torque, it is by far better suited to the Matrix's potential. Although 5-speed manual and automatic boxes are available with this engine, the AWD trim must make do with the old-school 4-speed autobox.
Zippy is the word
The tested Matrix XR AWD was very sprightly. Throttle response was immediate, getting the portly 1,485 kg (3,274 lb) car swiftly up to speed. As road conditions were ideal, it was tough to say whether or not the AWD system (lifted from the RAV4) had anything to do with the vehicle's brisk accelerations.
Where the 4-speed may have done some harm is in fuel consumption. I averaged just over 10L of fuel per 100 km, which is far from stellar. A 5-speed or like a number of its competitors, a 6-speed transmission, would have made a considerable difference.
 |
| Surprisingly, the fully independent suspension does a wonderful job of keeping comfort and sportiness on an equal priority level. |