8th - CBC Quest NX (@AKA_Nobuddy)
While many base trim models manage to be bland affairs, the Quest unfortunately also manages to look just a little bit off. In spite of short overhangs, it has an extremely long nose for a car with a tiny transverse-mounted engine, and the windshield looks too steeply raked. There are some other oddities, like a large, plastic faux lower grille, a miniature turn signal repeater buried deep into the side, and rear badging that looks a bit off kilter. Design: 4/10 (3/10 exterior, +1 partial interior).
The Quest struggles to keep up with the competition in ways beyond looks. In spite of a fully independent suspension that delivers a fairly smooth ride, the absolutely barebones interior makes the NX an unpleasant place to spend more than a short drive. It has a curious combination of ABS but otherwise limited safety features, so safety ratings are below average. And the 1.6 liter 4-cylinder engine is a bit of an oddity, combining an all-aluminum block and heads with a mish-mash of forged and cast internals, variable valve timing, variable valve lift, and tubular intakes and exhausts–all for 120 hp of output. All of this advanced technology in the engine makes it trouble-prone. Combined with CBC’s general neglect of build quality in this car, the Quest NX has the worst reliability record among the base models.
But the Quest NX ultimately presents a bit of the inverse of the last three cars we reviewed: it under-delivers in many desirable ways, but it delivers strongly on some of the key selling points for a budget buyer. Thanks to the long nose and tiny engine, there is plenty of room in the engine bay to make the (frequently needed) repairs, giving it a class-leading $590 in estimated service costs. It’s also one of the least expensive options at $16,800, and gas mileage is a fairly good 32 mpg. In other words, for a budget-conscious buyer, it’s relatively cheap to buy, cheap to gas, and very cheap to fix–even if repairs will often be needed.
7th - Hexe Tamara Estate (@Isabella)
The Tamara looks bland and somewhat outdated, with the taillights especially looking like they belong in the last decade. While we understand the use of unpainted plastic front and rear bumpers as a cost-saving measure for an economical trim, we didn’t find the look appealing. The bright pink paint of our tester was also quite polarizing among our staff. 4/10 (3/10 exterior, +1 partial interior)
The Tamara handles reasonably well, with good grip in the corners, and while the ride is slightly on the firm side, the overall experience inside is spacious and reasonably comfortable. In spite of the relatively large size of the car, the little 1.5 liter 3-cylinder engine returns an impressive 40 mpg paired with a continuously-variable transmission, while still delivering good enough performance for this class. Service costs are also expected to be relatively modest.
Budget buyers, however, will take issue with some traits of the Hexe. It’s tied for the most expensive in the category with a $20,000 sticker price, safety scores are mediocre (with an odd combination of a standard traction-control system but otherwise basic safety features), and projected reliability is poor. The Tamara ultimately presents a bit of a head-scratcher for a base model buyer, with an up-and-down mix of good and bad qualities in the most important traits in this class. The same buyers who might be attracted by its apparently low operating costs (gas and service) might be turned off by the purchase price and the weak reliability record, while there are other overall better cars that match or exceed the Tamara in the areas of its strengths.
6th - DCMW Faras Standard Four (@moroza)
The Faras is a handsome vehicle that just has that DCMW “look.” The chrome detailing of DCMW design language might not be for everybody, and we also found the taillight design to be a little too busy for our taste. But there’s no denying the overall visual appeal of the Faras, and we consider it one of the most attractive cars in the class. Design: 10/10 (8/10 exterior, +2 full interior).
DCMW’s entry in the base class is a good car, and our scoring between 4th and 6th place was very close, with a case to be made that the Faras should have been slotted a place or two higher. A sophisticated double wishbone/ multi-link suspension with progressive springs and monotube dampers delivers a comfortable ride, complemented by a surprisingly upscale interior. The 2.4 liter boxer 4 paired with a 5-speed manual produces reasonable straight-line performance and a solid 30 mpg. While not particularly important in this class, cornering grip is excellent. And good build quality–especially in essential systems in the engine–means that the Faras is no exception to the solid reliability you’d expect from a DCMW.
So where’s the catch? Well, the Faras is in many ways a sort of more reliable version of the Volantis–a very good car that doesn’t deliver in a few critical areas for the budget buyer. The $19,900 sticker price is just $100 shy of the most expensive offerings in the class. Expected service costs ($900) also trail only the Volantis. Ultimately, the Faras seems most likely to appeal to a buyer with a little extra cash who is looking for a good value. The true budget buyer, however, might be turned off by both the upfront and long-term ownership costs of the Faras.
5th - Flint Sentinel Endurance (oldmanbuick)
[Editor’s Note: Due to our editorial staff’s close connections with Flint Motors, independent reviewer supersaturn77 generously provided exterior design scores and reviews for all Sentinel trims. An edited version of supersaturn77’s design commentary is provided here.]
There’s not a ton of visual depth to the Sentinel. It’s just too generic — it looks ready for a stock photo vector graphic. It plays it safe, but too safe, to the point of being lined notebook paper instead of blank copy paper. An improvement, but there’s no writing on the wall here, and that’s part of the issue. As for the Endurance trim, it’s there. It’s a base model, and it’s not really trying to be much more, even if it maybe should. Design: 7/10 (5/10 exterior, +2 full interior).
The Sentinel delivers a lot of traits important to the base model buyer. It handles reasonably well, thanks to smooth torque delivery, variable-assist power steering, and traction control. The $14,300 sticker price is the second-lowest in our comparison ($1,700 less than the next least expensive car), service costs are reasonably low, and projected reliability is excellent. With advanced safety features and being generally overbuilt, safety scores are solid.
Comfort, however, is only mediocre–in large part due to a jerky 5-speed manual transmission. And while the Sentinel’s old-school 2.5 liter pushrod 4-cylinder engine–a rarity these days–is a reliable mill, it’s not a very efficient one. As a result, gas mileage is only about 25 mpg–third-worst in the class. The Sentinel ultimately falls into a sort of middle ground in the category–likely to appeal to a fair number of buyers, but also likely to lose both buyers looking for the absolute lowest costs of ownership and buyers willing to spend a bit more on something nicer.
4th - EMR EL3 2.5 ES (@abg7)
The EMR EL3 falls into the same trap as a lot of other base trims; it’s just overall rather bland and featureless. There’s some visual interest in the front fascia, but there’s not much to look at on the sides, and the rear is quite basic, with badging that looks just a bit too large. Especially in the white our tester came in, it’s a bar of soap in a field full of bars of soap. Design: 6/10 (4/10 exterior, +2 full interior)
Beyond its looks, however, the EL3 is a very well-rounded automobile with little in the way of true weaknesses. Its biggest–and arguably only–weakness is its $20,000 sticker price, which ties it for one of the most expensive cars in the field. But for that price, it checks essentially all the boxes a budget buyer would otherwise have in looking for a car. In spite of its rear wheel drive setup, it is one of the easiest cars to drive in its class thanks to a 5-speed electronically controlled automatic transmission, a standard traction control system, and a wide power band from its 2.5 liter 6-cylinder engine. Gas mileage is a respectable 30 mpg, Service costs are average for the class, and projected reliability is better than most. It’s also reasonably comfortable, reasonably safe, and is even surprisingly fun to drive for this class thanks to its responsive throttle and relative quickness off the line.
The EL3 ultimately delivers all around essentially what its looks promise: there’s not much to dislike, but there’s not much to love either. While the boxes are checked, many of them are just barely checked. Aside from being one of the easiest in the field to drive, in the areas that really count for a budget buyer–price, reliability, service costs, and gas mileage–the EL3 is essentially “just OK.” So while we think it’s certainly an appealing model for many budget buyers, just a tad more of standout qualities where it counts would push the EL3 higher in our ranking.
3rd - Avin 382 (@toxicnet)
The 382 is another car in this field that manages to look fine, but not great–although with the 382, it’s less about blandness and more about some unusual design choices. The proportions are a bit odd, with an extremely short rear overhang and tiny trunk lid that make it look like a liftback even though it is, in fact, a 4-door sedan. (Note to buyers: don’t even think about trying to fit a big screen TV or a barbecue grill through the trunk opening). The rear badging–an unusual black decal instead of an embossed trim piece–is a bit large for our taste, and the body color-matched areas inside the headlights and taillights strike us as a bit odd. Design: 7/10 (5/10 exterior, +2 full interior).
The 382 is similar to the EL3 in that it doesn’t have much in terms of weaknesses. It’s a bit slow off the line, with its 2.2 liter 4-cylinder only putting out 110 horsepower. But budget buyers aren’t likely to care much about a car’s 0-60 time or power to weight ratio as long as it can still merge onto the highway, and its 10.8 second 0-60 time is good enough for that purpose. And its drivability is just OK, with its variable-assist power steering, advanced electronic stability control system, and small footprint balancing out a driving experience that could otherwise be a chore with the 382’s 5-speed manual that delivers power to the rear wheels.
The 382’s engine might not be much for speed, but it is very good at one important thing in this class: economy. The Avin’s 40 mpg is only edged out by two competitors at 41 and 42 mpg, and it is far better than most of the field. Reliability is near the top of the heap, service costs are on the lower side, and the $17,800 sticker price isn’t rock bottom, but it’s a fair bit cheaper than many competitors. These virtues are likely to make the Avin 382 appealing to many budget buyers.
2nd - Nitari Tirana Classic (@vouge)
The Nitari Tirana Classic lacks some of the details in the front fascia that exist on some other trims, leaving the Classic looking overall just relatively inoffensive. We also were not fond of the somewhat busy headlights and taillights. Like many in this field, it’s not a bad-looking car, but it lacks a “wow” factor in our opinion. Design: 6/10 (5/10 exterior, +1 partial interior)
The Tirana delivers well on everything buyers in this segment are looking for. It’s the segment leader in fuel economy, returning nearly 42 mpg, and there are no gimmicks to how it achieves this: just an efficient 2.0 liter DOHC 4-cylinder, a 5-speed manual transmission with long gearing, and hard tires. It handles quite easily too, thanks in part to variable-assist power steering, front wheel drive, and a suspension that’s just stiff enough to remove any “floatiness” from the car without compromising the comfortable experience of riding in the Tirana’s surprisingly upmarket cabin. The $16,000 sticker price also makes it cheap to buy upfront, bested only by the Flint and the top-place finisher.
Some attributes of the Tirana are a bit underwhelming but are more than made up for by its virtues. Reliability is solid but trails a bit behind most of the field, and service costs are a bit on the high side. But with all of the money saved on the upfront purchase and from blowing past gas stations, many buyers will probably gladly accept the possibility of a few more, slightly more expensive visits to the shop. And when combined with the generally pleasant experience of driving and riding in a Tirana, it’s a hard option for a budget buyer to turn down.
1st - Mara Asteri 1.6 LK (@AndiD)
Well, you had to see this one coming, right? When it comes to producing cheap, tough-as-nails, basic A-to-B transportation, is there anything quite like a Mara?
Bland, boxy, and a bit dated, the Asteri is pretty much what you would expect from a Mara. But in a class that’s not exactly full of beauty queens, the Asteri’s milquetoast exterior isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There’s not much to really say about the design, which is a good thing in the sense that there’s nothing bad to say. It’s a car. It’s there. And that’s about it. Design: 6/10 (5/10 exterior, +1 partial interior).
So far, we’ve talked about good cars that just didn’t deliver on the needs of a budget buyer, or that had a fatal flaw or two. We’ve talked about cars that are appealing because of their well-rounded nature. And now, we have something totally different: the Mara.
Look, it’s really not a very good car. We’ll be upfront about that. Its anemic 69 horsepower engine–yes 69. As in six, then nine. Sixty-nine. Horsepower. Engine. Where were we? Oh yes, Its anemic 69 horsepower engine manages to get the petite Asteri to 60 mph in a leisurely 13.5 seconds. Want a fully independent suspension like so many cars these days? Nope. You’ll take a torsion beam and “semi-independently” jostle along the bumps on the road… (Hey, at least it’s not a solid axle, right?) You want power steering? Nope. You’ll develop your forearms twisting the manual steering rack–and rowing through the 5-speed manual transmission. At least the Asteri’s relatively small size makes it not terrible to drive on the whole. Safety features? Well, with the odd exception of standard ABS, if it’s not legally required, the Asteri doesn’t have it. If you get in an accident, don’t expect any pillowy cushion for your face. Now, you can distract yourself from the rather miserable driving experience by doing the best version of the Macarena you can do while having your hands fully occupied with the manual steering and transmission….as long as you don’t want to play your music on a CD. Because there is no new-fangled CD player here. Cassette tape only. The music from your cassette also will sound like it’s coming out of a tin can taped to a string. And yes, if you drive one of these, people will think you’re even less cool than someone driving a base-trim Flint. How that’s possible, we’re not quite sure. But it apparently is.
OK, so it’s a bad car. We’ve made that point. Then why in the world is it at the top of our ranking for the base trim models?
The first and biggest reason: this thing is absolutely dirt cheap. The sticker price is $9,500. No, we did not forget a 1 in front of that number. Write a check for nine thousand five hundred dollars and 00 cents, and it’s yours. You would have to shell out $4,800 more for the next cheapest car in our test. For as much or less than the price of one copy of six competing models, you could buy two Asteris. In fact, you could buy three Asteris for the price of two of the next cheapest car. And when we’re talking about buyers looking to purchase basic mobility on a budget, being so much cheaper than the competition goes a long way.
The second big reason: this thing is absolutely dirt cheap to keep running for a very long time. In part because there’s not much on the car to break in the first place, nothing comes close to being as reliable as the Asteri. Estimated service costs of $616.50 are bested only by the Quest–with its tiny engine in a V16-sized engine bay–and are about $75 less than the next-least expensive car to service. Gas mileage is a very good 34 mpg–fourth-best in the field.
And that’s about it. Look, we’re a car magazine. We love cool cars. But at the end of the day, cars are about mobility. The freedom to go where you want, when you want. To be able to find and keep a job because you can reliably get to it. To be able to get fresh groceries without having to heft your purchases on two different bus lines. To be able to skip town to see family or expand your horizons without having to worry if the man sitting next to you is just a little odd or…something worse.
With the Asteri, these are all things you can buy for just $9,500 and some spare change lying around for gas money. Yeah, you could buy a nicer used car for that money. But would it come with the same peace of mind? The same ability to go 200,000 miles or more on the original engine and transmission? Would it be as good of an investment? We think not. And because of that, we think the Asteri is the best budget car that (very little money) can buy.
So what do you think, dear readers? Would you go for an Asteri? Something else? Do you think we made a mistake? Want to know more about some of the cars? Please write to us! [a.k.a comment below on this new-fangled world-wide web version of our magazine]
Sports models will be up next
But seriously, thanks for the endorsement.
