01/10/2015 at 13:27 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
It's included in Best Car's "new cars for 2015".
Why do car magazines and websites do that ? Car people who read them already know what cars will get launched in the year that just begins. Or the best and worst cars of the year that ended. That's why we're car people.
![]() 01/10/2015 at 13:35 |
|
Very nice. It looks almost exactly like we thought it would, but still. If Honda keeps the price below $100,000, they've got a winner.
![]() 01/10/2015 at 13:40 |
|
Am I the only one here who's not too fond of the new Suzuki Alto? It looks really bland, and the fact that the rear hatch color on some models doesn't match the rest of the car really throws me off.
![]() 01/10/2015 at 13:45 |
|
If car magazines didn't include information that many car people already knew, they would just be big brochures for WeatherTech floor mats, and testosterone treatments of questionable provenance.
![]() 01/10/2015 at 13:47 |
|
I agree, let's hope that they stick with the 2015 release date.
![]() 01/10/2015 at 13:47 |
|
To me, it looks like a cheap Scion XB
01/10/2015 at 13:51 |
|
It think it looks funky. But we can't get any Suzukis around here, nowadays, so that's kind of irrelevant.
01/10/2015 at 13:56 |
|
Ugh, even the GT-R Nismo costs more, without a fancy hybrid system.
![]() 01/10/2015 at 13:58 |
|
True. It's just that I've been a fan of the Alto for some time, with my favorites being the Alto Works models from 1984 to 1999, but this one altogether is just...ehh.
The RS Turbo looks alright, though.
01/10/2015 at 14:06 |
|
I'm not talking about scoops, news or reviews. I'm talking about those annoying tops, rankings and lists.