Did you guys see this?

i liked how they mention that sitting in the back seems restrictive....um yeha and...its a friggin sport coupe....i thinnk the moonroof fooled them imto thinking it was a limo or something, and with the apparent frankensteins drving how do they expect to be comfortable with the seat all the way back....i have sat in the back of my dads 2002 civic, and within about 15 minutes im pleading for a release date....u would think the editor of edmonds would have said....sport coupe, big dude drives.....dont rate the back seat space at the same time as you rate the front seat....unless this is the new fleet car for the Los Angeles Lakers,a nd in that case im the idiot...
common application, bunch of kids in car or dad/mom drives nad kids in back, not a bunch of grown men...come on now, but in the end i think it actually was a pretty good review, but they just had to find something that they didnt like to give te article a realitsic claim

Well, the review was not really that bad. I think the tone of the article was at times bad, but really the content was not anything that said it was a awful car. I mean, one piece of plastic trim that misbehaved. That water in the hatch area thing...I assume that to mean that water runs in in rivers on rainy days when you open the hatch. True, a little does...not anymore than any other hatchback I owned and far less than my Dodge Stealth did. As to the cramped driver issue...who did they have driving? Herman Munster? What about the 3 free free oil changes? Maybe that $45 cost was just for the tire rotation and brake inspection specified in the manual at 5000 miles. If this is the case, the article implied it was for an oil change "little more than an oil change". My entire 5000 service was covered by my dealer and that will be the case on all recommended service for the first 2 years/24000 miles. I don't ever pay much attention to Edmund's or Consumer Reports reviews...good or bad.

Y'know. Although I don't really care what they say, I guess, I was surprised by the way it was written. It's like if someone bought an MR2/S200/Miata/Z4 and said, "it's too cramped, there's no back seat, it's too low to the ground", it's like um, HELLO!!!! Have you LOOKED AT THE CAR IT IS????

Also, it was pouring rain outside, I had to put my umbrella down, open up the hatch, slide something in, move stuff around, and all the time, the only thing that got wet was me. Nuts.

Like I said, I guess, I didn't expect to see an article, from Edmunds, which was basically a b!*%h session, instead of a review. To be honest, it sounds more like the FORUM BOARDS, versus a REAL review of any sort that's meant to be taken seriously.

As we all said, it's a sporty coupe hatchback. Not a 4-door luxury car. Of course the ppl in the back are going to feel cramped. Who wouldn't?

Oh well, to each their own. I just couldn't believe what a crap article it was.