Click here for the Ride&Drive Index!

Posted April, 2007

Road Test: 2007 Chevrolet Aveo vs. Suzuki Reno

By Thomas E. Bonsall

Whenever I road test econobox sedans such as the two that are the subject of this review, I am amazed all over again at how much value the manufacturers can build into a cheap car these days. The base prices were $13,450 for the Chevy and $13,499 for the Suzuki, and for that you get air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, power windows, and a really decent sound system that includes a CD player.

Both cars are built by General Motors at a Daewoo facility in South Korea. So, although the exterior and interior styling is quite different, the cars are, never the less, very much the same in many ways. The sound systems, for example, are identical and even use the same console and buttons.

Still, the differences are telling. The Aveo uses a 1.6-liter, in-line, four-cylinder engine. The Reno uses a larger, 2.0-liter version of the same engine. Our Aveo test car came with a four-speed automatic transmission, while the Reno sported a five-speed manual, which was a little bit rubbery (nearly always the case with econoboxes). After you got used to it, though, you found you could really have fun flogging the larger 2.0-liter engine, and the Reno became quite a fun car to drive in a way that the Aveo simply was not.

Another striking difference between the two was the way the suspensions were set up. Recently, we tested a Mercedes-Benz S550 that bore a sticker price of $105,000. For that, among other things, you got an incredibly sophisticated and complex computer-controlled air suspension system that probably cost more to manufacture than an entire Aveo or Reno. The handling was great, as was the ride.

When, on the other hand, you are engineering a suspension system for a car that is going to retail for barely thirteen grand, you have to make some hard choices. You can either have a decent ride with not-so-great handling, or you can have decent handling with a not-so-great ride.

The Reno had the decent ride with the not-so-great handling, while the Aveo was the reverse. Curiously, this proved to be a winning combination in the case of the Reno. Since handling isn't all that important in urban driving, the combination of a cushy ride and a sporty engine and transmission turned the Reno into a terrific urban hot rod.

The Aveo, on the other hand, had the worst of both worlds. Half-a-century ago when the original two-seater Ford Thunderbird was created, one Ford inider dismissed it as combining the tepid performance of a family sedan with the bone-crushing ride of a sports car. So it was with the Aveo: tepid performance and a harsh ride. The Aveo also had much more road noise coming up into the passenger cabin than did the Reno.

Styling is always subjective. We much preferred the Aveo's, both inside and out. It is actually a very stylish little car. The Reno's styling is not nearly so deftly executed.

A major complaint we had with the Aveo was the lack of cupholders. There is exactly one — one! — and it is located at the back of the console where those in front can barely reach it. C'mon guys! Get with the program!

We had no objective complaints at all with the Reno.

The EPA ratings were 26 city/34 highway for the Aveo and 23 city/30 highway for the Reno. So the Aveo makes up for its tepid performance with significantly better fuel economy.

In the end, the Aveo proved to be a perfectly respectable economy sedan. But we fell in love with the Reno. R&D