Comparison review: Six subcompact hatchbacks (Sixth place)

June 8, 4:10 PMDC Car ExaminerBrady Holt

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the DC Car Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Though it's in last place, the Pontiac G3 is not a bad car; rather, it's just too expensive for what it is. 
See more photos of the G3 below the article in today's slideshow.

To anyone following the subcompact car market, the last-place finish of the Pontiac G3 is probably not a surprise. Pontiac is a lame duck brand; General Motors has already announced it will die. The new G3 is nearly identical to the Chevrolet Aveo5, which dates to 2004 without a full redesign. And the Aveo has been criticized since it was new for mediocre interior quality, relatively little cargo space, and unexceptional gas mileage. 

With all that going against it, how could the G3 possibly beat more modern competitors? 

It actually comes surprisingly close. GM had quietly updated the Daewoo-sourced Aveo over the years, and the G3 is the recipient of those advances. 

With its standard 5-speed manual transmission, the G3 or Aveo5 would have beaten the other five cars in this comparison for fuel efficiency, returning an EPA estimate of 30 miles per gallon in mixed driving. (The car driven for this review had the optional automatic, which is rated for a still-respectable 28 miles per gallon.) Ride and refinement have advanced little in this class over the years, and the G3 remains on par with the competition. A redesigned interior is also acceptable by the class standards.

So if that's all true, why last place? 

One area where the best competition has taken off is interior space. The G3 does fit adults into its rear seat without much fuss, but it’s not as spacious as the others in this comparison. There’s little cargo room behind the rear seat and the seat doesn’t fold flush with the floor. 

Another G3 shortcoming is safety. Its performance in crash tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety was mediocre. Furthermore, while an increasing number of even the cheapest cars include standard antilock brakes, side-curtain airbags, and electronic stability control, the G3 has ABS optional only on cars with the automatic transmission and offers no stability control or curtain airbags. The Aveo’s safety features and ratings were par for the subcompact course in 2004 – no more. 

But those issues could have been excused somewhat had the G3 been a strong value for the money. But instead of costing less than comparably-equipped competitors, it costs more. That’s what pushes it to last place. 

Inside, the front seats are suitably spacious, but rather hard, flat, and narrow. They’re mounted high, which allows for good thigh support and a good forward view. The rear seat is also high off the floor, and there’s plenty of foot space under the front seats, but there isn’t as much legroom as in some other subcompacts. The G3 isn’t wide enough for three adults to ride in the back. 

However, there isn’t much space behind the rear seat for cargo. The official specification is 15 cubic feet, but it feels like even less. The rear seat folds down but is several inches away from being level with the cargo floor. With the seat folded, the G3’s 37.2 cubic feet of volume is less than all but the Scion xD in this comparison. (Chevrolet Aveo5 pictured)  

The overall feel of the interior, despite the lack of cargo space and versatility, is of a car that’s basic but isn’t trying to be more. Some reviewers have suggested the G3 and Aveo are trying to be basic but aren’t even that good – that’s an exaggeration. Most interior materials feel as nice as in the other cars in this comparison, though a few trim pieces don’t line up quite right and a few panels seem hollow. The G3 doesn’t impress on its own, but its interior quality is on par with other subcompacts. 

The same is true of the driving dynamics. The G3 isn’t all that quiet, isn’t all that powerful, and isn’t all that smooth-riding, but it’s smoother and more stable on the highway than several of its competitors in this comparison. Also, the engine can get noisy, but the note is lower than the buzzy whine of some others. 

Unlike some other subcompacts – and despite Pontiac’s positioning as a sporty brand – there was no effort made to make the G3 fun to drive. It’s very maneuverable – in this comparison, its turning circle of under 33 feet beats the next-best Nissan Cube by half a foot and the Scion xD by more than four feet – but the steering is a bit numb and not especially responsive. You don’t get a tippy feel or a sense of disconnection, but you wouldn’t be encouraged to push the G3 to see what it can do. 

Also, while a manual transmission makes some cars more fun, that’s not true with the G3. The car driven for this review had the optional automatic, but this is the impression from the identical Chevrolet Aveo5 reviewed earlier this year:

The shifter is rubbery and vague with long throws. Bringing it into second gear forces you to bring your arm into your body. Keep holding the shifter after you’ve engaged the clutch, and you’ll feel it shudder for a few seconds…the Aveo practically urges customers to buy the automatic.

But overall, it’s not a bad car by the fairly low standards of the subcompact class, with competitive refinement levels and comparison-leading gas mileage. But without power windows or locks at the $16,000 sticker price as tested and without antilock brakes offered on any manual transmission model, it loses out as a possible value-priced alternative to a car with more space or sharper handling. 

If GM offered the G3 or Aveo5 nicely equipped with antilock brakes not far north of $14,000, it would place third in this comparison. But when they cost nearly $16,000 without ABS, GM is encouraging you to save some money and buy a competitor. 

Overall grade: C

Coming up tomorrow: FIFTH PLACE

*Note on pricing: when possible, the vehicles tested for this review were comparably equipped. It wasn't always possible. Every vehicle in this comparison is offered with about the same comfort and convenience features and with a manual transmission, but the specific cars available to drive for this comparison ranged from base-price stripped-down models to overequipped ones, and several had their optional automatic transmissions. These discrepancies will be noted in each review and corrected for as much as possible.