2004 Toyota Matrix Reviews - Page 3 of 3

Delete this review

2004 Toyota Matrix Standard 1.8 from North America

Year of manufacture	2004
First year of ownership	2004
Most recent year of ownership	2004
Engine and transmission	1.8 Manual
Performance marks	9 / 10
Reliability marks	10 / 10
Comfort marks	7 / 10
Dealer Service marks	9 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper)	10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	9.0 / 10
Distance when acquired	0 miles
Most recent distance	5000 miles
Previous car	Toyota 4Runner

Faults:

No issues, except the OEM Goodyear Eagle RAS tires provide ok dry traction, horrible wet traction, and noisy on irregular pavement. Will wait to 10K, then will replace them with a good set of all season tires for safety and comfort.

General Comments:

Wanted something reliable with good gas mileage, good cargo volume, comfortable, fun to drive, and safe. Looked/test drove vehicles matched to above needs and drove home a Matrix.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st May, 2004

Comment on this review

Delete this review

2004 Toyota Matrix from North America

Year of manufacture	2004
First year of ownership	2003
Most recent year of ownership	2004
Engine and transmission	Automatic
Performance marks	5 / 10
Reliability marks	4 / 10
Comfort marks	6 / 10
Dealer Service marks	5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)	5.0 / 10
Distance when acquired	43 miles
Most recent distance	2400 miles
Previous car	Toyota Corolla

Summary:

A worthless piece of gunk!

Faults:

Rattling in the doors.

Compartments will not stay shut.

General Comments:

The Matrix was a total disappointment compared to the other Toyota's I have owned.

You have to rely totally on your mirrors to switch lanes or go in reverse, unless you want to seriously hurt someone. Blind spots... The whole car is a blind spot.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 18th February, 2004

Comment on this review

Delete this review

19th Feb 2004, 05:58

You didn't notice this when you test drove the car? Or did you even test drive it?

18th Jul 2004, 22:53

I might suggest a minivan with large trailering mirrors. If the interior fit for compartments need tuning, you might see the dealer. I would think these factors alone merit rating the car a "piece of gunk". A Ferrari 465 offers plenty of blind spots, little interior storage and cup holders - it mus be a "piece of gunk" as well.

27th Aug 2004, 09:31

I agree that there are too many blind spots. For a sub- compact wagon, I would expect great visibility. I went with a Volkswagen Golf and find the design far more superior and only a little more pricey. Also,I dont think Toyota have figured out how to design a car for people over 6'.

2nd Jan 2005, 14:31

I agree that Matrix is built for short people. To me it's one of the most comfortable cars (save for 1997-2001 Camry) that I've ever driven. If you are taller then 6' get a Honda, they are built for taller people (maybe current Civic is an exception). I'm 5'8" and with properly adjusted mirrors I've never had a problem with blind spots. I agree that interior trim is not put together very well, but maybe you should check out Chevys, Fords and Nissans before puting down Matrix. The Matrix can do everything a $25,000 SUV can for nearly half the price. It's not perfect, but for most of us it handles everyday commute + chores better than anything else available on the market.

20th May 2007, 01:35

I test drove the Matrix and found the visibility just fine for a wagon. Try driving a cube van or a 5 ton if you really want to experience blind spots. Careful adjustment of mirrors in any vehicle can reduce most blind spots; you should not be able to see any part of your own vehicle when your L / R mirrors are properly adjusted.