|
The Reno meets the
criteria for admittance into this comparison because the cargo area is
accessed through a hatch instead of a trunk, but it is little more than a
sedan with that extra bit of practicality (the Suzuki Forenza, to be exact).
While that is certainly not a bad thing compared to a sedan, it leaves the
Reno with much less cargo space than most of the others here without a
benefit. And with its mediocre gas mileage, sluggish handling, and lousy
acceleration, the Forenza wasn’t a good enough starting point for the Reno’s
practicality boost to push it past last place.
The Reno drives like the Suzuki Forenza on
which it is based, which is to say poorly. It rides comfortably enough over
smooth pavement, but anything else will reveal its overly stiff nature and
poorly controlled ride motions (two negative traits that ought not to go
together). Worse yet, the suspension’s firmness seems to have done nothing
with the car’s handling ability. The car feels ungainly, with excessive body
roll and numb, slow steering, particularly disappointing considering how much
lower the Reno is than many of the others here. The 2.0-liter 4-cylinder
returns a disappointing combination of the poorest acceleration and in this
group and rather poor gas mileage, and it is rough and noisy while doing this.
Road noise is noticeable as well.
The Reno shares its interior with the Forenza
as well. The front seats are too low, but comfortable and supportive overall,
and there is decent space. The rear seat could also be higher, the cushion is
flat, and legroom is deficient for larger occupants, but the seat is
adequately comfortable for a small car overall. The interior is surprisingly
well-constructed, one of the car’s few strong points. The dash design is
tasteful, and it makes use of
high quality materials that fit together quite well. The instruments are
conveniently placed, and the gauges are large and clear. Drivers sit
comfortably, though a bit too low. The Reno’s thick roof pillars obstruct
rearward visibility. There is very little cargo
space behind the rear seats, less even than in the Forenza sedan’s trunk, but
folding the rear seats opens up more space.
The Reno has not been crash-tested, but the
Forenza did not excel in crash testing. It earned a rather disappointing score
for a small car in the IIHS offset crash test, Acceptable (the third highest
of five possible ratings) in a class where over half of the cars earned the
highest overall rating. Like most of its competitors, the Forenza earned the
lowest rating of Poor in the demanding IIHS side crash test despite its
standard side airbags. Its head restraints were rated Poor as well. NHTSA
awarded the car four out of five stars for both the driver and for the front
passenger, but did not subject the Forenza yet to its side crash test.
The Reno reviewed here was one of the least
expensive vehicles in this group at $15,472, and was one of the best-equipped
at that price. (To select antilock brakes, you must opt for a fully-loaded
Reno, but even fully-loaded it was cheaper than most of the others here.)
Curtain-style side airbags aren’t offered, but the Reno does include a
CD/cassette/MP3 combo stereo, a sunroof, and alloy wheels at that price.
Overall, the Reno has a
low price, decent passenger space, and a high-quality interior. But consider
its impracticality compared to the others here, its poor acceleration and fuel
economy, its iffy safety record, and its mediocre ride comfort and sloppy
handling, and those strong points (which certainly aren’t unique in this
class, either) don’t seem so strong. Don’t let a good first impression fool
you. Like the Forenza sedan in the IFCAR economy sedan comparison, the Reno is
the least-appealing overall vehicle in this group.
NEXT PAGE
|
