Chrysler 300, Ford 500, and Toyota Avalon Compared

[BMWDave]

Reviews    
2005 Chrysler 300, Ford Five Hundred, and Toyota Avalon Compared
Link

By Rusty Blackwell
Photography: Stuart Fowle
 
     
The realities of teenagers and clients are getting in the way of your mid-life crisis plans. You need something roomy and safe. But you?re not dead yet, so you want a little driving excitement and flair in a car that?s not going to cost you your collection of Thriller-era Michael Jackson-worn gloves.

We examined three of the newest and best full-size family cars under $30,000 through our speed-obsessed lenses. We tested well-optioned cars: the Chrysler 300 Touring, the Ford Five Hundred Limited, and the Toyota Avalon Touring. The Chrysler and the Toyota Touring packages were mid-level offerings for the models, while the Limited was the top trim option currently offered on the Five Hundred. Despite that, the Ford sported the least expensive as-tested price at $27,390 as delivered, with only front-side and side-curtain air bags chosen as options. The Chrysler came in next at $28,865, which included a power moonroof and Sirius Satellite Radio. Our Avalon wore a $30,669 sticker price and was optioned with an anti-theft system, a power moonroof, a six-disc in-dash CD changer, and carpeted floor and trunk mats. Factor in the incentives currently offered on domestic cars, though, and the transaction prices of the Chrysler and Ford models undercut the Toyota even more. Overall, we found the Chrysler and Ford entrants much improved since their most recent marque predecessors (the LHS and the Crown Victoria, respectively), but they?re not yet on even ground with the Toyota from a quality standpoint.

     
From the Outside The exterior of the Chrysler is the most interesting of the bunch, and based on the sales success of the car, we?re not the only ones who think it looks cool. We chose the 300?s V-8-engined brother?the 300C?as our Automobile of the Year for 2005, and the extroverted looks and presence of the car influenced our choice. Styling-wise, the 300 makes the most confident and bold statement of this group, and we appreciate that.

The Five Hundred and the Avalon have inoffensive (read: boring) appearances that may make them popular with less-adventurous buyers. We find their conservative approaches largely uninspiring, however. The Avalon had a bit of coolness to its jagged rear-end lines and graphite-colored wheels, but our interest peaked there. Ford has begun offering meaner grille inserts for the Five Hundred to help add some flavor to the over-rounded shape, but it still falls short of distinction in our eyes.

     

Looking In All of these cars feature ample interior and cargo space for four adults and a good chunk of their gear. Each car seats five, but quarters might be a bit too tight for three full-size folks in the back seat during longer trips. All three sedans boast similarly roomy measurements for head and leg room in the front and rear seats; the back seats in each car could qualify as approved make-out territory for high schoolers, no doubt to the chagrin of their parents. The 300?s cool exterior styling unfortunately causes the inside to have some shortcomings. Even with the large sunroof and competitively sized cabin, the interior often feels dark and small as a result of its smallish windows and consequently limited visibility, especially through the short rear window. The darkness can?t hide the Chrysler?s poor-fitting trim pieces and mediocre materials less attractive than those in the other cars. A perfect example is the down-market center-stack trim piece, which is covered with a chintzy (compared with the Ford and the Toyota) interpretation of Cyclone fencing. The seats, however, are probably the weakest part of the Chrysler?s interior, as they are covered in an unattractive and slippery vinyl-like surface and felt a bit over-firm during lengthy drives.

The Five Hundred?s clean and attractive interior is well-executed overall, and a notably high seating position assists in presenting the driver with very good visibility. The high seats also help ease ingress and egress, even for people with chronic back pain. However, we found the front seats (the only heated pair in our test) to be almost too high, creating a feeling of exposure unusual in a four-door sedan. The Ford features a test-leading 21 cubic feet of trunk space, so climbing in and hiding when feelings of nakedness overwhelm is an option. (The 300 and Avalon have a comparatively meek 15.6 and 14.4 cubic feet, respectively.) A lack of soft-touch materials and an overabundance of fake wood trim didn?t score any points with us, though.

The Avalon feels like it?s the best put together of the three, with well-wrought action attached to all of its pleasant-to-touch controls, particularly the radio dials. We felt that the Toyota?s ergonomics were easily the best. The interior was, however, dominated by an overabundance of silver control covers (radio, tape player, cup holders) and trim, and some of our testers accordingly found the Ford more attractive. While the Toyota?s seats looked the nicest because of their attractive materials, on long trips they began to feel a bit too mushy and unsupportive, so the seats of the Five Hundred, though not perfect, were by default our favorite. The Avalon (built in Kentucky, incidentally) also kept out road and powertrain noise much better than the Detroit candidates. Moreover, the recline-adjustable rear seats of the Avalon made it our favorite space in which to be chauffeured.

Plausible Powertrains The sluggish Five Hundred was powered by the most disappointing engine in our test. Full-throttle starts are rewarded with lots of noise but little thrust from the overtaxed 203-hp, 3.0-liter V-6. The six-speed automatic transmission aids fuel economy, but it loudly and unnecessarily downshifts on the highway even under subtle throttle inputs. We would have preferred more gear-selection options, too; the shift map offered only ?D? (drive) and ?L? (low), and Low was too short for utilizing engine-braking techniques.

The Touring models of the 300 and the Avalon come with identically sized, 3.5-liter V-6s that make the Ford?s output seem puny. The Chrysler produces 250 hp, while the Toyota?s more refined engine wrings out 280 hp. The Toyota sported the only manu-matic on our test, which came in handy for holding engine revs through long, sweeping curves and engine braking. The five-speed transmission did its job commendably and without fuss, whether passing on country roads or cruising on the highway.

The Chrysler?s V-6 has acceptable power, but it pales in comparison to the available 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 that lurks between the fenders the 300C. Also, the four-speed transmission (which offers the fewest cogs in this test) clunks noticeably when you shift from Park to Reverse to Drive.

     

EPA fuel economy ratings are comparable, but mirror our rankings of the cars? interiors: Toyota leads with 22 city/31 highway miles per gallon; Ford is next best at 21/29; while the Chrysler slurps the most fuel, though yields a still-respectable 19/27 mpg.

Fun Factors The nimble Chrysler 300?s rear-wheel-drive layout easily made it our favorite to drive aggressively through twists and turns. In fact, its lighter front end?compared with the 300C, which weighs 300 pounds more than the Touring model?helps somewhat to make up for its power handicap. Against the two big front-wheel-drive competitors in this test, the 300?s superior traction and simpler steering mechanicals allowed it to be more composed and capable, especially near the limit.

     

The same suspension setup that made the 300 fun to drive, however, was a hindrance in processing road-surface imperfections, as it was the most likely to be tossed around by bumps instead of absorbing them. The trade-off is that the Toyota and (especially) the Ford tend to track lazily and float more on the highway.

For a large front-wheel-driver, the Five Hundred, was surprisingly fun to drive hard through the corners, as its steering, throttle, and brakes felt well connected and progressive. The underpowered V-6 and significant body roll hindered the driving dynamics somewhat, as did its overall feeling of heft.

The Avalon was not engineered for the sporting drives we prefer?even with the Touring model?s stiffer suspension. Steering was vague and control quickly switched to extreme body roll and understeer when the car was pressed.

Safety These cars? responsible, people-carrying intentions should make safety an especially important consideration for owners. All three score well, notching five-of-five stars in the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration?s front- and side-impact ratings?except for the Chrysler, which received four of five in front-seat side impacts. The Ford and Chrysler also earned solid four-star rollover ratings; the Toyota had yet to be tested.

     
Antilock brakes come to the 300 as part of the Touring package, while the Five Hundred and the Avalon offer this important feature as standard equipment. The Chrysler, the heaviest car of the three, is the only one with stability control offered on the tested trim level; Toyota offers it on some other Avalon models, but Ford doesn?t yet offer it on any Five Hundred. The Toyota boasts standard front-side and front and rear side-curtain air bags; curtain inflatables are optional on the other cars, although the Ford is the only machine that does not offer side air bags.

The Skinny Based on its sporty nature and superior fun-to-drive quotient, we would buy the Chrysler 300. Its interior is the weakest in the group, but its exterior styling is the most interesting and eye-catching.

     

The Ford Five Hundred is by no means a bad car, but it is outdone in nearly all areas by one of the two other competitors here. It does offer some enjoyable driving dynamics if you?re able to deal with its lack of power. Executive editor Mark Gillies called the Avalon, ?a perfect example of car-as-appliance.? We?d recommend the Toyota Avalon to most people based on this car?s refrigerator-esque likelihood for efficient, trouble-free?though perhaps largely unexciting?operation for many years and thousands of miles.

All three of these family sedans offer what most Americans desire: a good highway ride and lots of room inside. With these latest solid efforts from Chrysler and Ford, Detroit has made some significant headway on Japan in terms of the overall package, but they?ve still got a way to go before they can catch up from a quality-and-value standpoint.

Thoughts?

[Raghavan]

shrugs. typical review.

[93JC]

Had the Toyota been from any other make it would have been called a cheap, fat, ugly boat and placed a distant third.

[Raghavan]

Had the Toyota been from any other make it would have been called a cheap, fat, ugly boat and placed a distant third.

   

[93JC]

The sad part is that what I said is absolute positively 100% TRUE.

"Steering was vague and control quickly switched to extreme body roll and understeer when the car was pressed. " I mean, come on! Had this been a Buick it would have been dismissed as a land barge half-assed effort on the part of GM, who still cannot compete with the likes of Toyota.  

I don't envy GM, Ford or Chrysler one bit. As I've said a few times before on the C&D forums, they could produce the single greatest car ever, and the automotive media would still hate, as would Toyota and Honda's worshippers.

[Raghavan]

The sad part is that what I said is absolute positively 100% TRUE.

"Steering was vague and control quickly switched to extreme body roll and understeer when the car was pressed. " I mean, come on! Had this been a Buick it would have been dismissed as a land barge half-assed effort on the part of GM, who still cannot compete with the likes of Toyota.  

I don't envy GM, Ford or Chrysler one bit. As I've said a few times before on the C&D forums, they could produce the single greatest car ever, and the automotive media would still hate, as would Toyota and Honda's worshippers.

they gave the toyota 1st for best build quality.  

[93JC]

And that's a laugh too.

"The darkness can?t hide the Chrysler?s poor-fitting trim pieces and mediocre materials less attractive than those in the other cars."



Oh, yeah, that sure looks like crap. Poor-fitting my ass. You've got to be a Toyota fanboy to spew such garbage.

[Raghavan]

And that's a laugh too.

"The darkness can?t hide the Chrysler?s poor-fitting trim pieces and mediocre materials less attractive than those in the other cars."



Oh, yeah, that sure looks like crap. Poor-fitting my ass. You've got to be a Toyota fanboy to spew such garbage.

are the materials good? you can't tell that from the pic.

[TBR]

"Factor in the incentives currently offered on domestic cars, though, and the transaction prices of the Chrysler and Ford models undercut the Toyota even more."

Completely inaccurate statement, I have yet to hear of incentives on either car. In fact, you can probably get a better deal on an Avalon than you can on a 300, if not the Five Hundred.



"With these latest solid efforts from Chrysler and Ford, Detroit has made some significant headway on Japan in terms of the overall package, but they?ve still got a way to go before they can catch up from a quality-and-value standpoint."

I am not going to argue with the quality part (though the early production Avalons weren't perfect in that area), but why in the world would they say it beats the domestics in value when earlier they stated that the Chrysler and Ford were significantly cheaper?

[93JC]

In reality of course they're good.

In auto-reviewer fantasyland they're crap because of the logo on the steering wheel.

[Raghavan]

In reality of course they're good.

In auto-reviewer fantasyland they're crap because of the logo on the steering wheel.

so would you be happy if teh avalon lost?

[93JC]

I don't really care how these comparisons go, but to artificially cut the legs out from under the Ford and the Chrysler and put the Toyota on a pedestal is absolute crap and I'm disgusted at the fact that it's commonplace in the automotive media.

The Avalon may very well be the best of the three in question, but in this review, as is the case in most-if-not-all reviews, the author dedicated over half of it to lambasting the Chrysler and Ford with misnomers and bold-faced lies. This review was in no way implemented to point out how good the Toyota is, but rather to trash-talk about the other two so as to make his points seem legitimate.

That said, now that I've given it more thought: yes, I do think I'd like to see the Toyota lose. Just once I'd like to see a review shred a Toyota to pieces. Raza's review of the Scion tB came pretty close (I don't really have any faith that Raza's Toyota-related reviews are fair though, especially a review of a vehicle so close to the Echo in every which way).

[Raghavan]

I don't really care how these comparisons go, but to artificially cut the legs out from under the Ford and the Chrysler and put the Toyota on a pedestal is absolute crap and I'm disgusted at the fact that it's commonplace in the automotive media.

The Avalon may very well be the best of the three in question, but in this review, as is the case in most-if-not-all reviews, the author dedicated over half of it to lambasting the Chrysler and Ford with misnomers and bold-faced lies. This review was in no way implemented to point out how good the Toyota is, but rather to trash-talk about the other two so as to make his points seem legitimate.

That said, now that I've given it more thought: yes, I do think I'd like to see the Toyota lose. Just once I'd like to see a review shred a Toyota to pieces. Raza's review of the Scion tB came pretty close (I don't really have any faith that Raza's Toyota-related reviews are fair though, especially a review of a vehicle so close to the Echo in every which way).

raza's review wasn't too good...

[93JC]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

[Raghavan]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

[BMWDave]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

[ifcar]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.  

[BMWDave]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

[ifcar]

Anyway, back on topic, I'd have to completely disagree with putting the 300 ahead of the Five Hundred. In V6 form, it's a thoroughly adequate car that's won excessive praise because of its styling and RWD setup (and the latter doesn't appreciably help anything in the V6 vehicles). The Five Hundred is nimbler, has more interior and trunk space, and is far less expensive, ahead in all ways but acceleration and of course (according to most) the styling. The Avalon is a bit expensive (but no more so than the overpriced 300), and doesn't handle especially well, but it has the highest-quality interior, the most interior space, best seat comfort, and the most-comfortable and quiet ride. Seems to fit nicely into what large sedan buyers are looking for, and throws in impressive power to boot.

[BMWDave]

Anyway, back on topic, I'd have to completely disagree with putting the 300 ahead of the Five Hundred. In V6 form, it's a thoroughly adequate car that's won excessive praise because of its styling and RWD setup (and the latter doesn't appreciably help anything in the V6 vehicles). The Five Hundred is nimbler, has more interior and trunk space, and is far less expensive, ahead in all ways but acceleration and of course (according to most) the styling. The Avalon is a bit expensive (but no more so than the overpriced 300), and doesn't handle especially well, but it has the highest-quality interior, the most interior space, best seat comfort, and the most-comfortable and quiet ride. Seems to fit nicely into what large sedan buyers are looking for, and throws in impressive power to boot.

I totally agree with you.  And besides, even the 300 doesnt look too much better than the Avalon if it isnt the "C" version.

[ifcar]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

[BMWDave]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

I like how you summed it up  

[ifcar]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

I like how you summed it up

Much more concise than his version, but it is disturbingly similar.  

[Catman]

I have to agree regarding the 300.  I'm wondering when these reviewers are going to start getting board with its styling and realize it's just not that great.

[TBR]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

He never said that he expected it to handle like a sports car, he just expected it to be at least a bit fun to drive and apparantly it wasn't.  Also,  almost all reviewers donate at least sometime to the styling of cars.  

[ifcar]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

He never said that he expected it to handle like a sports car, he just expected it to be at least a bit fun to drive and apparantly it wasn't.  Also,  almost all reviewers donate at least sometime to the styling of cars.

It's no worse than many compact sedans, and he didn't go around calling them the worst vehicles he's ever driven. Also, most reviewers donate at least some time to a vehicle's strong points instead of just its faults and exaggerated faults.    

[BMWDave]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

He never said that he expected it to handle like a sports car, he just expected it to be at least a bit fun to drive and apparantly it wasn't.  Also,  almost all reviewers donate at least sometime to the styling of cars.

It's no worse than many compact sedans, and he didn't go around calling them the worst vehicles he's ever driven. Also, most reviewers donate at least some time to a vehicle's strong points instead of just its faults and exaggerated faults.  

All I saw on Automobear was a Scion and Toyota "review" where he bashed Toyota.  Did he also make a specific Avalon review?

[ifcar]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

He never said that he expected it to handle like a sports car, he just expected it to be at least a bit fun to drive and apparantly it wasn't.  Also,  almost all reviewers donate at least sometime to the styling of cars.

It's no worse than many compact sedans, and he didn't go around calling them the worst vehicles he's ever driven. Also, most reviewers donate at least some time to a vehicle's strong points instead of just its faults and exaggerated faults.  

All I saw on Automobear was a Scion and Toyota "review" where he bashed Toyota.  Did he also make a specific Avalon review?

There was never an Avalon review, I was only talking about the Scion "review" that included assertions that the Corolla, Camry, Echo, and xB were all the worst cars he'd ever driven.  

[BMWDave]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

He never said that he expected it to handle like a sports car, he just expected it to be at least a bit fun to drive and apparantly it wasn't.  Also,  almost all reviewers donate at least sometime to the styling of cars.

It's no worse than many compact sedans, and he didn't go around calling them the worst vehicles he's ever driven. Also, most reviewers donate at least some time to a vehicle's strong points instead of just its faults and exaggerated faults.  

All I saw on Automobear was a Scion and Toyota "review" where he bashed Toyota.  Did he also make a specific Avalon review?

There was never an Avalon review, I was only talking about the Scion "review" that included assertions that the Corolla, Camry, Echo, and xB were all the worst cars he'd ever driven.

Yea, I just read that.  Strange review, if you ask me B)  

[TBR]

I didn't think it was fair...

but deep down I loved it, for the simple fact the "mainstream" automotive media would print a review of a "domestic" on the same order of biasness (read C&D's first review of the Saturn ION, for example) , but would never question a Japanese product like that.

true. i didn't really like the article, but it was the first one that i've read that tears down a toyota product.

Where is this review of Raza's?  On automobear?

Right.

I'll check it out.

I wouldn't waste your time. It basically comes down to "I don't like Toyotas, I don't like anything that doesn't handle like a sports car, and I don't like odd-looking cars. Thus, I will think of some bad things to say about this odd-looking Toyota that doesn't handle like a sports car."

He never said that he expected it to handle like a sports car, he just expected it to be at least a bit fun to drive and apparantly it wasn't.  Also,  almost all reviewers donate at least sometime to the styling of cars.

It's no worse than many compact sedans, and he didn't go around calling them the worst vehicles he's ever driven. Also, most reviewers donate at least some time to a vehicle's strong points instead of just its faults and exaggerated faults.  

All I saw on Automobear was a Scion and Toyota "review" where he bashed Toyota.  Did he also make a specific Avalon review?

There was never an Avalon review, I was only talking about the Scion "review" that included assertions that the Corolla, Camry, Echo, and xB were all the worst cars he'd ever driven.

Maybe they were, I don't know if you are familar with his family's economic status, but they aren't exactly living from paycheck to paycheck.