Comments by "Stephen Hendricks" (@stephenhendricks103) on "CarGurus" channel.

  1. I own a 2018 Autobahn GTI. It's the most versatile "do it (nearly) all" vehicle I've ever owned. Mine is the DSG (automated manual, not automatic) transmission. After many, many years of having at least one MT vehicle in my garage I chose the DSG in part so my soon-to-be-driving daughter could share it. (And it's not because she can't learn to drive an MT. Nuff said.) But even if that weren't a consideration, I've come to LOVE the dual clutch transmission. It gives me every bit as much control and "engagement" (in "manual" mode) as an MT with better performance and the option of turning over shifting duties to the transmission when I'm stuck in stop-n-go 5-25 mph freeway traffic. No apologies or excuses for the choice. Until one has owned or driven a GTI for an extended period, it may be difficult to understand its strong appeal to its fans. When I was shopping last year I looked seriously at the EcoSport Mustang and at the 2.0L Accord and the Mazda6 . Each had its strong points. But when I sat in the GTI, I felt at home. Controls exactly where they should be. Easily accessible and usable power. A perfect size. Near small SUV cargo capacity when I need it. Room for me, my wife, daughter, and big dog in comfort. Here in Washington it qualifies for a ferry discount for vehicles 14 ft and less in length. :) Driven sanely I average around 27 mpg and up to 34 on long freeway slogs. The challenge is remaining "sane" on mountain roads in the Cascades. For those who feel the American version of the GTI is underpowered, drive it before you reach that conclusion. But if more power is required, thirty minutes and about $800 will give you another 60+ HP, and substantial torque improvement via an ECU tune. Believe me, you'll feel it. And with a DSG you don't have to budget for periodic clutch replacement. By the way, contrary to rumor, it won't cancel your warranty. My "tuner friendly" VW dealer even recommends a local tuning shop. Other VW dealers even offer tuning services, themselves. And if that's not enough reassurance APR offers a third party warranty that matches the excellent six year, 72K VW warranty. Americans sometimes complain about the GTI features and individual options available to European buyers (e.g. digital cockpit, numerous color choices) that aren't available here. That can be a bit disappointing but it's balanced by the price we pay for a GTI. I purchased a fully loaded DSG Autobahn model last spring for $32,043 plus TTL. The MSRP for a (largely) comparably equipped model in Europe amounted to about $54,000 in then current exchange rates. VW apparently (and correctly) believes Americans wouldn't pay what Europeans pay for a GTI so they limit the features and package individual options into a few trim levels to contain costs. When one considers purchasing a GTI, it's tempting to think about the "R" for "only a few thousand dollars more." But MSRP's don't necessarily equate to real world prices. When I purchased a GTI I found the actual price difference here in the Pacific Northwest was at least $10,000. (The best price I found for an R was MSRP; several other examples had "market adjustment" stickers of several thousand dollars. The R is a magnificent vehicle imo. But it's a lot to pay for AWD, especially considering there's no sunroof available for the R. Around Seattle we need all the light we can get in a dark cabin. Furthermore, the R is about 300 lbs.heavier than a GTI; it's like having an NFL lineman in the back seat. The R's a great car but it simply wasn't worth the price premium for me.
    54
  2. Very nice car. Unfortunately in most areas of the US consumers don't yet have the opportunity to test drive, much less purchase, a G70 as a result of Hyundai's incredible mishandling of opening Genesis dealerships coupled with the decision to cease making the brand available from existing Hyundai dealerships. In fact, as of today (1/9/2019) according to CarGurus, there are a total of 13 3.3L G70's available in the entire US. Hopefully that will change in 2019 but it's a black mark that will take some time to correct.
    20
  3. KIA is unlikely to sell many K900's in the US but that's not the point. It's a very popular alternative to German luxury brands in Asia. For example, the Korean version of the K900 cut the sales of upper level models of Mercedes and BMW in the Korean home market by about a third last year. In the US the K900 is a halo model designed to draw customers to KIA showrooms where it can be admired by customers who purchase less expensive KIA models. They'll sell a few to luxury buyers who care more about value than prestige but the more important mission is to further bury KIA's earlier reputation as a "cheap" brand and to add to the image of models like the Stinger and the forthcoming Telluride.
    19
  4. Kudos for reviewing the GT-Line Stinger. At an MSRP of slightly over $40K with AWD, upgraded HK sound with 15 speakers, and a sunroof, it's a screaming bargain. That's especially the case with the addition of the 2.L turbo that replaces the previous 2.0L engine. (That 2.0L version, by the way, is inexplicably retained in the base Genesis G70 model, at least for the present.) With the new engine and AWD 0-60 mph in ideal conditions is 5.1 seconds. That's about 1.5 seconds quicker than the model with the previous engine and only about 0.5 seconds slower than the comparable GT1 and GT2 V6 twin turbo models. Willing to sacrifice half a second in 0-60 time for a savings of up to $14,000? I would. Furthermore, the GT-Line comes with the same engine as the KIA K5 GT and Sonata N-Line. But each is available only in FWD that without any form of LSD makes putting the full power to the road very difficult. The Stinger's available AWD largely solves that problem. With a significantly more upscale interior and amenities that include greater passenger and cargo space than the K5 or Sonata the MSRP difference of around $4000 for the Stinger seems well worth it. And compared to a top trim Touring model Accord or an XSE Camry V6 with MSRPs around $38K and no AWD, the Stinger is even more appealing. Finally, it's worth understanding just what kind of vehicle the Stinger is. Unlike its G70 cousin, the Stinger isn't a "sports sedan" in the BMW 3 series mold. Rather, it is a true "GT" (Grand Touring) vehicle designed to transport four or five passengers and their gear at high speeds (100 mph+) over meticulously maintained European highways and over winding backroads many of which were originally laid down by the Romans. Comparable GT vehicles are the far more expensive Audi A7 Sportback and the VW Arteon. The VW is comparably priced to the GT-Line Stinger with slightly less power. That deficit, however, can be eliminated with a relatively inexpensive ECU tune in about half an hour. And for 2022, the US will be getting the Eurospec Version of the Arteon with power and performance comparable to the GT-Line Stinger. I've driven both the current GT-Line Stinger and the R-Line Arteon. For me, the VW wins but only by a nose. Despite earlier reports that KIA would drop the Stinger after mid-2022, KIA now says that the Stinger will continue at least until the 2023 model. Whether there will be a new generation Stinger, however, is questionable. KIA is putting their performance eggs in the fully electric basket with the EV6, a vehicle with considerably better straight line performance in its top trim than the V6 Stinger. Some speculate that if the Stinger survives it will be an EV, not an ICE vehicle. Time will tell. What is certain, however, that anyone tempted to purchase a top trim Accord or Camry or the KIA K5 GT or Hyundai Sonata N-Line would be well advised to take a close look at the GT-Line Stinger.
    18
  5. Here in the Pacific Northwest the Soul is everywhere and the demographic appeal is amazing. Everyone from 20 something hipsters in Seattle to senior citizens around the Puget Sound tool around in them. It's no wonder that KIA has expanded the trim range in the new generation. There will be the predictable complaints about the lack of AWD but KIA found in their research that gas mileage was a much higher priority among owners and potential buyers than AWD. In fact KIA says about a quarter of current Soul owners believed their Souls already had AWD! And given that KIA/Hyudai vehicles have historically faced challenges in fuel efficiency adding the weight equivalent to an NFL cornerback to the rear of a FWD biased AWD system is no way to improve mileage or handling. AWD is a trendy feature but in a small light vehicle like the Soul putting the engine weight over the drive wheels and adding a good set of winter tires will accomplish about 95% of the mission of AWD in challenging driving conditions. And in climates where snow is seldom if ever encountered, AWD is simply a waste.
    18
  6. The rationale for the Venza? It's pretty simple. By 2020 every mainstream automaker other than Toyota and Mazda offered two midsize crossovers in the US -- one a smaller vehicle about 188" to 193" in length and a larger vehicle between 195" and 204" long. With the exception of KIA Sorento (with a standard 3rd row) every vehicle in the smaller midsize group was a two row CUV and every offering in the larger group was a three row vehicle. Toyota had only the 4Runner that even remotely filled the hole in its lineup. And as a body-on-frame SUV it had a very different mission than the crossovers other automakers offered. To fill the hole in their lineup they could have followed Honda's and VW's example (the Passport and the Cross Sport) i.e. chop a few inches off the rear end of their larger three row vehicle and offer a two row version of a Highlander. Or they could have designed a two row midsize CUV from scratch built on a different platform than their three row midsize vehicle. No one doubts that Toyota builds good vehicles. But if they do anything better than offering good, reliable automobiles it's making highly profitable vehicles. A two row version of the Highlander would involve new a new design and potentially risk cannibalizing sales of their larger three row CUV. Furthermore, as Honda and VW found, two row versions of their larger CUVs were nearly as expensive to build as their 3 row siblings. What to do? Here's an idea. Look around among Toyota's stable of existing two row CUVs sold internationally and rebadge it for the US. Aha! The Toyota Harrier was a perfect candidate. Call it a Venza and Voila! An inexpensive way to fill the hole in the CUV lineup. Furthermore, sales of hybrid RAV4s and Highlanders were already very strong. Why not make AWD and a hybrid drivetrain standard on the Venza. Production complexity and costs could be further constrained. Problem solved with a low risk of impacting the profitability of the RAV4, the Highlander and the Venza. A perfect solution from Toyota's perspective. Of course, the Venza's cargo capacity is less than the RAV4. But looks like a larger vehicle. And it's hardly suitable for any environment other than an occasional unpaved road. But for seriously adventurous consumers Toyota is happy to point them toward the 4Runner, still a strong seller despite its age and due for a new generation in 2022 or 2023. For the "jungle" of suburban driving the Venza is more than adequate.
    16
  7. In 2012 my wife and I drove just about every SUV/CUV on the market to replace our much loved Saab wagon. The final two candidates were a Subaru Outback and a KIA Sorento. We ended up going with the Sorento based largely on my wife's preference for the seat and seating position. (She's the primary driver.) This year we went back and did the same dance. We found the Outback almost unchanged while the 2018 Sorento was improved/enhanced in dozens of ways. In fact, virtually every complaint (and more) about our 2012 Sorento had been addressed while the Outback was basically the 2012 vehicle dressed up in slightly different clothes. The choice was not even close. Six years is a dog's life in terms of automobile design. And while I understand Subaru owners' loyalty to the brand, the Outback is woefully outdated today.
    14
  8. Perhaps you're right about the KIA badge but the long waiting lists for the Telluride, especially the top SX trim, don't seem to support the need for a new badge. But as long as we're on the subject, what's with that old fashioned bow tie on Chevy's. Who the hell wears a bow tie these days. And then there's the outdated blue oval on Fords. Is Ford trying to remind us of the Pinto? The Telluride's biggest downside? Actually purchasing one. I was told a couple of weeks ago by my local KIA dealer here in the Seattle metro area that if I put down a deposit to get on the waiting list I could expect to take delivery on an SX model in January, 2020. Out of curiosity I checked Autotrader and Cars.com to see what was available within a thousand miles of Seattle. A few dealers appeared but when I checked with those dealers it turned out that virtually all had already sold the particular vehicle listed or already had multiple deposits on the single SX model expected on their lots in case anyone ahead of those customers changed their minds. The problem appears to be that KIA dealers seriously "under-ordered" the top trims of the Telluride and KIA responded to those orders in setting their entire 2019 production run to 41,000 vehicles, only a fraction of which were the top trims. Obviously, the public is somewhat ahead of KIA dealers in terms of its willingness to consider KIA as something other than a "budget" brand.
    14
  9. Sorry to see the SportWagon discontinued but the 1.4L FWD version doesn't sell well in North America and the 1.8T AWD is so close to the AllTrack in terms of features that I'm sure VW feels it simply serves to cannibalize the latter's sales. For those who feel the 1.8T engine is underpowered, a couple of points. First, drive either a SportWagon or an AllTrack before coming to that conclusion. It's a very appealing engine that combines good fuel economy with peppy performance. Second, for those who want more power the VW four bangers are eminently tunable for more HP and torque. And contrary to widespread opinion a Stage I tune of a VW does not invalidate the vehicle's warranty unless the tuning mods can be shown to have resulted in a warranty claim. All in all, if you find the AllTrack appealing but you'd like to save some bucks, take a close look at the Golf SportWagon before it disappears from the North American market.
    13
  10. Good review. Concise and full of details. And special kudos for noting the six year/72K bumper-to-bumper warranty on all VW vehicles. The 5yr/50K BtoB warranty from Hyundai and KIA is reassuring but the VW BtoB warranty is the best in the industry. And there's a reason that Hyundai/KIA offers a 100K power train warranty. Very, very few power trains fail within the first 100K miles. No offense to the Korean brands. I own a KIA Sorento but VW's transferable BtoB warranty is more impressive. As a GTI owner I'd endorse much of what you had to say. VW deserves a lot of praise for offering so many of the most important features of the GTI on the GLI. Especially the same engine and transmission options, the excellent VAQ electronic differential and the GTI's brakes (identical to those in the Golf R) . I would, however, quibble with a few points you made. (By the way, the VAQ wasn't "developed for the GLI" (2:21). It's been available on the GTI for at least two years. It's obviously true that the GLI is a larger vehicle, at least in length (185" vs 168"). But the comment that the GLI offers more space than the GTI is misleading. (1:10). In fact, the interior passenger space of the two vehicles is nearly identical. (GLI: 94.7 cubic ft; GTI: 93.5 cubic ft). Front seat accommodations are identical in terms of headroom, legroom, and shoulder room. The GLI has more rear seat legroom (37.2" vs 35.6") but the GTI has more headroom (38.1" vs 37.2") and shoulder room is identical in the two vehicles. If cargo space is taken into account, the much shorter GTI wins hands down with 17.4 cubic ft behind the second row versus 14.1 cf in the GLI's trunk. And in terms of overall cargo space, the GTI provides over 53 cubic ft, rivaling some compact crosssovers. That, of course, is the nature of a hatchback's advantage in versatility compared to a sedan. Some may prefer the style of a sedan and the isolation of the trunk may well result in somewhat less cabin noise but in terms of interior space the GLI simply doesn't offer more than the GTI. On the other hand, VW has made its excellent digital cockpit available in the GLI while it's missing in the US version of the GTI. It was originally promised for the 2019 GTI but VW traditionally deletes features in the US that are available in Europe. That's not surprising when one realizes that a fully loaded Autobahn trim GTI sells for the equivalent of over $50,000 in Europe at current exchange rates. Obviously, VW decided to make a splash with that feature in the GLI and to imply it's a budget version of an Audi A3. It was a smart marketing move, I think. The US spec GTI will have to wait for the next generation of the vehicle next year. As far as features offered on the GTI that aren't available on the GLI, I'd mention adaptive cruise control. Frankly, I always considered it an unnecessary gimmick compared to the non-adaptive CC that I've had on vehicles for years. Once I had it, though, I changed my mind. On long slogs on the freeway with moderate to heavy traffic at highway speeds it's a godsend in terms of reducing driver fatigue. I don't have to continuously monitor the space between my GTI and the vehicle ahead of me, a task that's inevitably error prone and I don't have to brake and reset the cruise control repeatedly. I'd estimate it lengthens the space/time between rest stops by about 25%. That makes for a more relaxing and ultimately a shorter trip when the object is to reach a destination rather than to enjoy the drive. Lane keeping assist? Meh. I leave it engaged in part because it's easy to defeat its slight tug on the wheel. But I find it's not perfect in its judgment, especially when I'm exiting a freeway and haven't activated my turn signal. (That's not unique to the GTI; the same is true of my KIA Sorento.) If I were prone to driving when I should pull over and rest it might be more valuable. Sometimes what seems to be a minor difference can be a deal breaker for an individual. In my case it's the rear AC vents in the center console of the GTI that aren't available in the GLI. My big dog's second home is the back seat of my GTI. And after a strenuous romp he depends on the cool air coming from those vents. Technically, the GLI does have rear A/C but the air is piped under the front seats and doesn't have the same effect. My dog wouldn't complain but he'd be miserable. And my teenage daughter would have no hesitation in whining about it when she's banished to the back seat. Finally, I'd have to differ with your comments about the automated manual DSG transmission. Over nearly 40 years of driving I always had at least one MT vehicle in my garage until I purchased my 2013 MK6 GTI with a DSG. When I traded it for the MK7.5 last year, I didn't hesitate to choose the DSG again. My 2018 GTI has the last generation six speed DSG rather than the current seven speed version so perhaps there's a difference but I've simply never encountered the "lurching" or "jerkiness" you note. (3:13). Instead, it's an ideal transmission that I can drive as an MT (which I do over half the time) with quicker shifts and better performance than an equivalent MT vehicle. On the other hand, when I'm creeping along in crowded traffic, I can simply let the DSG do its thing and shift appropriately. The only "engagement" I miss is that in manual mode the DSG downshifts automatically to first gear when I come to a stop. Otherwise, it holds any gear I select all the way from idle to red line. It took me about a week to adjust to letting the DSG take the place of my left foot. I've never missed it. And as a bonus when I added a Stage I APR tune to my GTI I didn't have to upgrade my clutch or plan to replace it periodically. The DSG handles the additional power without skipping a beat.
    13
  11. Excellent and fair review of the Optima, I think. The complaint that KIA restricts color choice combinations and bundles a large set of individual options into trims and a few relatively expensive option packages is a common one in most of their vehicles. It's very different from the practice of European manufacturers and to a slightly lesser extent American and Japanese brands that offer individual feature options and a vast choice of color combinations on various trim levels. Even more puzzling to some is that the range of color combinations actually shrinks as one moves up the trim ladder. But there's are reasons for KIA's (and Hyundai's) approach. First and foremost it constrains production costs. A simplified assembly process combined with the advantage of purchasing a greater volume of components from suppliers means the overall cost of producing a vehicle is significantly lower than an approach that enables a consumer to select literally hundreds of combinations of color combinations and individual options. Bundling options into a few packages and restricting color combinations are key to KIA's pricing strategy. And it doesn't end there. Restricting the combinations of options and color combinations on upper level trims means that dealers are less likely to have less popular combinations sitting unsold on their lots for longer periods of time until they are ultimately sold at greater discounts. Those upper trim levels are the most profitable to dealers and the manufacturer. Avoiding flooring charges by selling top trims as rapidly as possible is the goal of every dealer. Does KIA lose some sales because they don't offer as many color combinations as competitors, especially in their most expensive trims? Undoubtedly. But would a KIA dealer be willing to sacrifice a potential customer who wants a vehicle in a rare color or option combination if they can sell the next customer who's happy with a more limited and conventional combination loaded with options at a significant savings compared to another brand? The answer is obvious. And that's why the top trim Optima has as many options including bells and whistles, but likely with fewer color combinations, as comparably equipped Honda Accords, Toyota Camry's and Mazda6's at an MSRP about $5000 less.
    9
  12. "Getting smoked" won't be an issue for the overwhelming majority of Subar-ites.
    9
  13. Sorry, but the claim that "At $50K (the Telluride) begins to compete with the Tahoe..." is simply not true. Comparably equipping a Tahoe versus a top trim SX/PP Telluride amounts to a difference in MSRP of at least $17,000. (Based on Chey's "Build and Price" website.) Even if one assumes that an actual transaction price of a Tahoe is significantly below MSRP and the Telluride may command a "market adjustment" second sticker, there's very likely to be at least a $10,000 difference in transaction prices. And unless one opts for a version of the Tahoe with few if any options AND a substantial dealer discount getting a Tahoe for $50K is a pipe dream. That same $50K will get a top trim fully loaded Telluride at my local KIA dealer.
    9
  14. Personally I'm not a great fan of the GTI's plaid seats but it's a virtually iconic design signature of the GTI. Many GTI owners willingly sacrifice other features just to get them.
    9
  15. Coincidentally, my colleague has a Jag that was struck from behind by an elderly lady in a Mercedes "tank" last week. His Jag was totaled while her MB emerged relatively unfazed. (I suspect the MB also had at least $3000 worth of damage. It doesn't take much of a collision to total $3K in repair bills.) Both my friend and the lady emerged unhurt. But that's not really the point. Of course the "weight helps the Grand Cherokee in accidents." That's why IIHS and NHTSA evaluate vehicles of the same type and weight relative to one another, not across categories. The average curb weight of a Jaguar XE is about 3500 lbs. A JGC weighs an average about 1200 lbs more. Depending on the type collision it's not surprising that a JGC will sustain less overall damage than a Jag, especially in low speed accidents. But the relative damage to vehicles is not the purpose of crash tests, either. It's the damage to occupants of vehicles. A vehicle that is totaled in a "small overlap" test can still get a positive rating in a crash test if the passenger compartment is not breached . The JGC apparently does not do as good a job of protecting occupants as other comparable SUV's regardless of damage to the vehicle, itself. In the case of the JGC its problems were in the small overlap tests (driver and passenger) and especially pronounced in passenger side small overlap tests where the JGC received a poor rating According to IIHS... "The dummy’s head loaded the frontal airbag, which stayed in front of the dummy until rebound. However, the side curtain airbag did not deploy and the front passenger door opened during the crash, which shouldn't happen because the passenger could be partly or completely ejected from the vehicle. In fact during rebound, the dummy's head moved outside the vehicle, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with side structure and outside objects."
    9
  16. No question about that but I'd argue that the Santa Fe is in a larger size category. At 188" long, it's in a "tweener" category between "compact" and "midsize" SUV's. As an owner of the near identical KIA Sorento I'm a fan of that "Goldilocks" size that includes the Santa Fe, the Ford Edge, the Subaru Outback, and the Sorento, among others.
    8
  17. Like the Mazda3? Do Mazda a favor and buy one. In 2018 US sales of the Mazda3 amounted to 64,638 vehicles. In 2019 sales dropped 21% to 50,741. But the worst was yet to come. In the first half of 2020 Mazda3 sales (sedan and hatch) amounted to 16, 228 vehicles, down 43% (!) compared to the first half of 2019. Granted it's a tough environment for auto sales with soft non-SUV markets, the ongoing inept response to the pandemic and unemployment that makes the "great recession" of 2008-9 look like a walk in the park. But Mazda has been impacted to a far greater extent than any other manufacturer. If sales of the Mazda3 reach 30,000 for 2020, it will be a stretch. So make your local Mazda dealer's day and go buy a vehicle. If you're feeling especially generous, buy two and consider making a Mazda6 one of them. Despite its excellent reviews the current generation of the Mazda6 has never sold well. In 2018 sales were about 31,000 in the US. In 2019, sales dropped to 21,500, a decline of 30%. Sales in the first half of 2020 were a meager 8000 vehicles, down 38% vs the first half of 2019. No one expects the Mazda6 to compete with the Accord or Camry (despite arguably being at least as appealing) but Mazda6 sales trailed the VW Passat by over 2,000 vehicles. And that is a very ominous sign. Overall, the only semi-bright spot in Mazda's entire lineup is the CX-5, with 65,000 sold in the first half of 2020, down 13% vs the first half of 2019. But for the entire 2019 calendar year CX-5 sales amounted to slightly less than 155,000 and if total 2020 sales reach 130,000 they'll be drinking champagne at Mazda dealers on New Year's Eve. Reviewers and internet fans love Mazda vehicles. The brand has a well earned reputation for engineering and innovation. But they are also the smallest independent mainstream automaker on the planet and sales in North America are dismal. If things don't turn around in a big way Mazda is likely to go the way of Saab, another brand known for building excellent vehicles that was absorbed by GM before going out of business, altogether.
    8
  18. Typical nonsense from a troll.
    8
  19. The rear turn signals are not only ridiculous; I'm surprised they don't violate safety regulations. I usually assume that every vehicle has fans of some kind and it's their business how they spend their money. In this case, I struggle to imagine who would buy it.
    8
  20. Sometimes little things make a big difference in one's evaluation of a vehicle. In this case the fact that the CR-V offers rear seat AC vents while the RAV4 does not is mine. With a 14 y/o daughter who can take complaining to the level of high art and a big dog who insists on being comfortable in his second home I simply wouldn't do without rear seat vents. It prevented my purchase of a RAV4 in 2012 and it would be the same today. That doesn't mean, however, that I'd choose a CR-V for my family. I prefer one of the vehicles in the next larger category, a "tweener" larger than the typical compact SUV ( 188" to 191" long vs 180" or so in length). Most of those vehicles have standard or optional V6 engines and conventional geared transmissions.Most are two row vehicles but the KIA Sorento has a surprisingly accommodating third row that's very convenient for occasional use.
    8
  21. Thanks, Grandpa. You might consider a hearing aid.
    7
  22. Looked carefully at the 2018 CX-9 (Signature trim.) last spring. The 2019 version differs little. Left out of the review is my primary objection to the CX-9. It provides the most inefficient allocation of space of any crossover of any size. On the outside, it's absolutely HUGE. At 199" long it's among the largest in the midsize class. Only the GM twins (Traverse and Enclave) and the Dodge Durango are larger. It's even larger than the humungous VW Atlas by an inch. Yet the CX-9 has less overall passenger space (135 cf) than the KIA Sorento (154 cf), the smallest 3 row midsize crossover (189"), and less total cargo capacity (71.2 cf vs 73.6 cf) as well. The CX-9 even has less room in the third row seat than the KIA. The Sorento's 10" shorter length makes a big difference in maneuverability in traffic and parking in a garage or on the street. If one is going to give up that maneuverability it seems reasonable to expect some functionality in return. The CX-9 offers none. The CX-9 is very stylish, the result of its long hood and the ratio of the length of the hood to the rest of the vehicle. That's a design trick that's been used by automotive designers for an eternity to suggest potency and performance. Check out the design of sports cars since the 1920's to confirm it. Unfortunately, a more effective and much less expensive route to satisfying the same need is a Viagra prescription.
    7
  23. Toyota has needed a generational update for the Highlander for a number of model years. They ignored that issue as rivals met and passed the Highlander in features, utility, and styling. A new generation comes along shortly for 2020. Unfortunately, it only moves the Highlander from a clear "also ran" to a marginally competitive entry. A couple of inches greater in length compared to the 2019 version but no significant improvements in interior space. Toyota has traditionally classified the Toyota as an "eight passenger" vehicle. But that claim is based solely on the fact that the third row includes three seat belts, not that three human beings of almost any size can actually be crammed into it without being bound and gagged. The 2020 version still offers less third row legroom than the back seat of a Mustang. Ever tried to sit in a Mustang's back seat? The most significant improvements? The interior no longer looks like it was designed for a 2012 vehicle. In the recent past the Highlander has been distinctive in two ways. It has been the sole mainstream midsize crossover with a hybrid power train. Whether that remains an advantage with competition from the Ford Explorer is a question. Otherwise, Toyota sells all of their vehicles based on the brand's reputation for reliability. But while Toyota retains its RANKING year after year its actual advantage over other brands has been shrinking for about two decades. Today, the actual advantage for top brands is minuscule. A new car buyer who purchases a vehicle today ranked anywhere among the top 10 brands can be almost certain that the vehicle will be highly reliable for the length of the buyer's ownership. No doubt Toyota will sell a lot of 2020 Highlanders based on the brand's reputation for reliability and the fact that it no longer appears at first glance to be an also ran in the category. As for the 2019 model, its biggest plus is the likelihood that dealers will offer uncharacteristically generous discounts in a desperate effort to get them off the lot before the 2020 models show up.
    7
  24. You and very, very few others. Mazda6 sales are especially dismal.
    7
  25. Very, very few consumers agree. The CX9 is the WORST selling midsize mainstream SUV in the US by a WIDE margin. At 199.4" long its size is exceeded only by the Dodge Durango and the Chevy Traverse and nearly 3" longer than the Telluride. Yet its 135.1 cubic ft of passenger space is at the bottom of the category. (The Telluride ranks near the top with 157.1 cf) Even worse, the CX-9's 71.2 cubic ft of total cargo space is not only the least in the category, it's less than a Honda CR-V! The current generation CX-9 was introduced in 2017 with very few updates since. The marketplace has moved on.
    7
  26. Excellent review, I'd say. I own a VW GTI and a KIA Sorento, each an excellent vehicle. So if I were in the market for an affordable compact sport sedan I'd be comparing the Forte GT and the GLI. Comparing top trims of each (similarly equipped) the MSRP's differ by about $3000 with the advantage going to the KIA. Whether that difference actually plays out in the real world is always uncertain and never more so than these days but I suspect the Forte would retain a significant advantage. I have a lot of experience with VW's EA888 engine in the GTI, the same engine tuned identically in the GLI. All reports are that the 1.6L turbo from Hyundai in the KIA is an excellent power plant but I know the GTI's engine. Greater displacement, excellent durability, and superb performance. Furthermore, the remarkable "tune-ability" of the VW engine gives the option of an even greater advantage to the GLI. A Stage I ECU tune of the EA888 engine adds tremendous HP and torque to the VW for about $800 without sacrificing durability (in the DSG version) and (if you can control your right foot) with relatively little impact on fuel economy. (BTW, that ECU tune does NOT invalidate the VW's warranty but that's another discussion.) While I've driven MT vehicles for many years I'd be looking at a dual clutch transmission in each case. I'm happy to hear Chris' view that the dual clutch in the KIA is a significant upgrade over other KIA/Hyundai versions but my experience with my GTI's DSG suggests it's at or near the top of such transmissions. So I'd give the GLI the edge in that department. As far as handling is concerned the specs indicate other advantages for the GLI. As a daily driver or even for "sporty" driving on back roads, though, I suspect the Mr. Biermann and his colleagues have tuned the Forte to come close to matching the GLI. It's on a track that differences are more likely to emerge. So if you're not looking for a track toy the GLI's handling advantages may not be important. In terms of conveniences the KIA probably wins the prize. The Forte has the same infotainment system as my Sorento and the GLI has the same as my GTI. (Minus embedded navigation in each.) The GTI's system is perfectly adequate but the KIA/Hyundai system is significantly better. Difficult to say which vehicle has higher quality materials, overall design, and a better ambiance in their top trims. My guess is that the GLI wins but it may well be a matter of taste. In the end it comes down to whether the price premium of the GLI reflected in the relative MSRP's is worth it. For me, it would be but a $3K (or more) difference in real world prices might well be a deal breaker for many consumers. If that's the case, the Forte is a very appealing option.
    7
  27.  @braetonwilson4296  It's certainly the case that the Tahoe has a significant advantage when it comes to serious towing. (Over 8000 lbs rated vs 5000 lbs.) But that advantage is a major priority among a tiny percentage of 3 row SUV purchasers who plan to tow VERY large loads. And yes, the Tahoe is a fullsize SUV compared to the Telluride in the midsize category. But there's a reason that midsize SUVs far outsell fullsize SUVs. When 90% or more of the miles one puts on a vehicle is in suburban traffic and as a daily driver, a midsize vehicle is far more likely to meet most buyers' needs. Finally, I seriously doubt that you can find a Chevy dealer discount a Tahoe to such an extent that you can purchase a vehicle comparable in features to a Telluride for a price difference of only $5000. I may be wrong, of course. Tahoe sales for 2020 are down 26% compared to 2019 so perhaps you can find a desperate dealer.
    7
  28. Recently replaced a loaded 2012 Sorento with the 2018 SXL. Have to say that I tried to find an alternative to what was my first KIA but only the Ford Edge Sport came close. The turbo V6 in the Ford was tempting, especially for me, and we very seldom need a third row of seats. Nevertheless, on those rare occasions when more than five passengers is required that emergency third row is a blessing. And since my wife is the primary driver, her affection for the 2012 Sorento carried a lot of weight in the decision. And when her list of complaints about the 2012 model were literally all eliminated in the 2018 version, it was an easy choice. We also considered the Mazda CX9, having owned four Mazda's over the years. But from a utility standpoint the only clear advantage was the slightly better gas mileage of the Turbo4. The CX9 is much, much larger on the outside with virtually no greater interior space. Not an advantage from our point of view. Mazdas do handle well, but having a vehicle almost a foot longer than the Sorento with 250 lbs more weight and a less powerful engine just doesn't make sense, at least to me. The VW Atlas was another contender. (I drive a GTI.) But again, in addition to being larger than we need or want, the Atlas was at least $8,000 more than we paid for the Sorento and did not include navigation on any but the most expensive trim level. Adding insult to injury, that trim level was not available within 500 miles of our home. The new Tiguan might have been a contender but the only available engine is utterly gutless and in a 7 passenger version suitable only for Black Forest gnomes. So there it is. Taking into account the almost universal praise for the current generation of the Sorento and our own excellent experience over nearly 80K miles on our 2012 (virtually NO problems. Period), we went back to the KIA. And frankly, we love it.
    6
  29. Obviously a huge upgrade from the last generation Sedona. Unfortunately, I think the absence of an AWD and a hybrid option will prevent the Carnival from moving out of also ran status in sales among the tiny category of minivans remaining in the marketplace. But for those prepared to forego either of those options (e.g. potential Odyssey buyers) the Carnival should be especially appealing, especially among those prepared to shell out more than $40K for a top trim version.
    6
  30. Pretty devastating review, Chris. I find the SUV "tweener" size (188"-191") of the Grand Cherokee very appealing. It's not often recognized as a separate segment but it includes a number of popular vehicles (Hyundai Santa Fe, Ford Edge, Kia Sorento, Honda Passport, Nissan Murano, and Subaru Outback, among others.) I've never focused much on crash worthiness in assessing those vehicles because I've assumed that once SUV manufacturers largely resolved the rollover issues that afflicted an earlier generation such vehicles they were more or less equal in crash safety. Obviously, I was wrong. It's a shame considering that the Grand Cherokee stands near the top of the category in terms of off-road capabilities. Of course, none of the "tweener" SUV's is likely to be used for more than getting to a campsite on a well maintained trail but for serious off-roading the JGC stands out. But those benefits are seriously eroded if getting to a campsite involves a significantly greater risk of injury or death.
    6
  31. I've commented on the fact that the 2019 Santa Fe is nearly identical to the KIA Sorento in a number of youtube reviews. At the risk of boring those who've seen it before, I'll summarize those comments. The Santa Fe is a very nice vehicle but virtually no reviewer mentions that it is essentially an updated 2017 Sorento with its turbo4 motor and two row seating. (Both features discontinued in the 2018 Sorento.) Same length. The same passenger dimensions in the first two rows and identical overall cargo space. Same switchgear in the same locations on the steering wheel and dash. Same HVAC sytem and controls. The same infotainment system. Same AWD system including center locking differential. Even the same 120 volt outlet in the rear of the center console, a rare feature. And the underfloor storage in the Santa Fe's cargo space is identical to that in the 2017 two-row Sorento. The 2019 Santa Fe has an updated 8 speed transmission compared to the 2017 Sorento but that's identical to transmission in the 2019 Sorento. The 2019 Santa Fe does differ from the 2019 Sorento in a few areas. Its infotainment screen is perched on the dash rather than integrated into the top of the center stack but the screens and controls are virtually identical. It has a fully digital cockpit display compared to the Sorento's combination digital and analog display. But again the features and displays are nearly identical, even down to the fonts used. As noted in this review, the Santa Fe has the rear door lockout feature linked to the blind spot monitor that's not available on the Sorento. And it has a unique alert feature when children or pets are left unattended in the car. Very worthwhile features that should be available in every vehicle, I think. (I believe each is available in the forthcoming Hyundai Palisade and the KIA Telluride. I wouldn't be surprised to see each available in the 2020 Sorento, as well.) None of this detracts from the value of the Santa Fe. If a buyer neither needs nor wants third row seating and prefers a turbo4 to a naturally aspirated V6, it's an excellent choice. But if an occasional use third row of seats and the smoother, more linear, and (probably) better reliability and durability of a naturally aspirated V6 with virtually identical fuel economy is preferable, the Sorento is probably the better choice. As far as whether the Santa Fe is a "compact" or a "midsize" crossover, it's neither. Like the Sorento it fits into a growing category of "Goldilocks" or "Tweener" size crossovers. But in terms of price points, the Santa Fe is clearly aimed at shoppers considering a compact crossover but who want more interior space with somewat larger exterior dimensions. The Sorento, on the other hand, is aimed at those who look at midsize, three row crossovers but don't need or want as much space as most of the rivals (other than the Mazda CX-9) offer and prefer a more maneuverable (and park-able) smaller vehicle with a V6 engine.
    6
  32. The Santa Fe is an appealing crossover in a number of ways. At 188" in length it anchors the smaller end of the midsize SUV category with a length virtually the same as the Ford Edge. And while many consumers don't seem to recognize the fact and reviewers seldom mention it, the Santa Fe is closely related to the 189" long KIA Sorento with many of the features and components from the same parts bin (e.g. same transmissions, infotainment systems, AWD systems, etc) and nearly identical cargo and passenger room (in the first and second rows.) Overall the Sorento's cargo space is about 2 cubic ft larger. The differences in the 2020 models are primarily that the Sorento provides a surprisingly accommodating third row of seats when needed versus the two rows in the Santa Fe that has underfloor cargo space that's taken up by the Sorento's (stowed) third row and the Sorento's optional 3.3L NA V6 engine vs the Santa Fe's 2.0L turbo 4. In terms of MSRP's, the top trim Sorento is about $1K more than the comparable Santa Fe but in real world transactions that difference may not hold up. Hyundai and KIA typically stagger the introduction of new generations of their similar products by a year, or so, with Hyundai typically including new features that show up a year later in corresponding KIA models. That pattern seems to be reversed in this case. The 2021 Sorento is heavily redesigned with a 2.5L 4 cylinder turbo engine option that replaces the V6. It's the same engine (in different tune states) found in the performance versions of the forthcoming Sonata, the K5 and in the base version of the Genesis GV80 and G80. In addition the Sorento will offer a new hybrid version. The 2021 Santa Fe, on the other hand, is a mild re-do of the 2020 model with its engine options and other features largely unchanged. Almost certainly those changes will be incorporated in the 2022 Santa Fe. As an owner of (my second) KIA Sorento my preference is obvious but both the Sorento and the Santa Fe are excellent, versatile, feature packed and Goldilocks size alternatives. Neither stands out as starkly versus its rivals as much as the Telluride and Palisade but each is an excellent choice.
    6
  33. Does that apply to Audis, Porsches, and Bentleys, as well. How long should it deter purchase of non-diesel VW vehicles? Should consumers refuse to buy Ford products because Pintos exploded? Should they hold GM responsible for "unsafe at any speed" Corvairs? Just when does the statute of limitations run out? This isn't "whataboutism." I just want to know how long consumers should punish VW. VW has been heavily penalized for dieselgate. And they've deserved it. Apart from their financial losses and the virtual destruction of diesels from virtually all brands in the US and elsewhere, about 20 VW executives are in jail for diselgate. Another 60 or so are still under criminal investigation. And hundreds of others have lost their jobs and had their careers impacted. The total cost to VW for dieselgate is well over $1 billion. If that's not enough, how much more should they pay?
    6
  34. I'd agree that a small displacement turbo engine in a heavy vehicle is a potential trouble spot but I'd consider it more a question of durability than reliability. A new car buyer who keeps a vehicle for seven years or less (the majority of consumers) have less to be concerned about. And I'd also agree that newly developed engines can have teething problems but Subaru has a strong reputation in terms of reliability and that should add some reassurance. Further, there's always a trade-off between choosing a vehicle with older, time tested technology and one that offers innovations that may well be significant improvements. Early adopters of vehicles like Tesla's have to be prepared for issues. But Subaru has been building boxer engines for eons. The new engines aren't exactly a new ballgame for them. Finally, the 2.4L turbo engine isn't brand new. Subaru has sold about 75,000 Ascents with the same engine in the last year. As far as I know no widespread engine problems have been reported in a vehicle where the engine is considerably more heavily stressed than in the Outback. I don't think the turbo four in the much heavier Ascent is the best engine choice but the fact that it hasn't prompted a significant number of issues is worth noting. Perhaps the problems will begin to show up later on (i.e. durability) but that raises the question of how many years one waits before deciding a vehicle is worth an investment. As far as "DI" problems, that has to be the most over-hyped internet meme of any automotive issue. Literally millions of direct injection engines are on the road from various manufacturers and the number with problems is minuscule. Even for VW where the reported problems have been most common. Although research into the issue continues it appears that problems are not necessarily related to DI, itself, but to the design of the intake track to the valves. That would account for the fact that problems are more common in VW's than in KIA and Hyundai vehicles where DI has been in use years and has never resulted in widespread problems. Not even the hysterical rumors and friend-of-friend claims that are so common on the internet. Finally, I'm not a fan of CVT transmissions, either. Especially not in large, heavy vehicles. But the behavior of some CVT's has improved tremendously in the last decade. And from all reports Subaru builds one of the best. I think the faux gears and paddle shifters in the Outback are kinda silly but even the typical automotive reviewer who make a fetish of slamming CVT's usually admits the Subaru's isn't objectionable.
    6
  35.  @normt5463  The key to your comment is "If you never see dirt..." In fact, many (if not most) Outback buyers will never see dirt but they delight in their fantasies about covering their beloved Subaru's in mud and grime. Much like the legion of Mustang GT owners who seldom if ever use a third of their vehicle's HP but dream of track days they never experience. :)
    6
  36.  @braetonwilson4296  Ah, yes....the old "reliability" issue. It's considerably more complicated than it looks. There are several problems with citing BRAND RANKINGS as a measure of "reliability." In the first place consumers don't purchase a "brand"; they purchase a particular vehicle and there's no guarantee that a particular vehicle matches the overall reliability of the brand to which it belongs. Second, newly designed and new generations of existing vehicles nearly always suffer from "teething problems" that take at least a year or more to iron out. Like it or not, even the best automakers count on their customers as "beta testers" of new models. That's why Consumer Reports recommends that those who want to avoid reliability issues to avoid vehicles with new technology and components such as infotainment systems and transmission designs. The current generation CX-9 was introduced in 2017 and has had very few updates since. Most of its major components were already carryovers from the previous generation and by no are seriously long-in-the-tooth. Or as Consumer Reports puts it, "One factor boosting Mazda's scores: It hasn't invested heavily in modern infotainment systems, which tend to generate complaints about flaws." They could have said the same about the CX-9's elderly engine and transmission. Furthermore, "rankings" say nothing about the relative incidence of problems or their severity. A horse that comes in second by 17 lengths is just as much a second place finisher as one that loses by a nose and vice versa. And the fact is that well over 90 to 95 percent of purchasers of new vehicles in 2021 will drive them five to seven years (the average life of a vehicle owned by a new buyer) without experiencing a single significant reliability issue regardless of the brand. That says a lot about the improved reliability of almost every brand over the last few decades and the shuffling of most brands up and down from year to year suggests just how close the actual incidence of issues is. Toyota/Lexus traditionally occupy the top spots of reliability rankings. That's because maintaining the reputation of reliability is a higher priority than virtually every other design and engineering factor. Thus, they avoid turbocharged engines in their vehicles sacrificing the advantages of more power from smaller displacement engines but avoiding even a slight risk of placing more stress on their engines. There is nothing wrong with Toyota's business strategy. It amounts to a significant marketing advantage but it sacrifices innovations in design and engineering while obscuring the actual incidence of reliability issues by focusing exclusively on "rankings." Finally, the most cited and largest publicly available ratings of automotive reliability come from Consumer Reports. It's a huge sample but it is not a scientifically drawn random sample of owners. Rather, it comes from volunteered responses of CR readers (like me). As such, it is only as accurate as the readers of CR are an accurate sample of owners. And that is certainly NOT the case. Alternatively, JD Power bases their ratings on random samples drawn from complete lists of owners supplied by manufacturers. Contrary to what one might expect, automakers have no incentive to bias those lists because they purchase detailed results from JD Power to get an accurate independent picture of owner experiences for their own vehicles and those of other automakers. That's where JD Power derives their revenue so they have no incentive to fake the results, either. And as any statistician will tell you, a much smaller RANDOM sample can reliably be generalized to a universe while a non-random sample, no matter how large, cannot. With that in mind, it's worth looking at JD Powers "Reliability and Quality" results for 2020. For midsize SUVs, the KIA Sorento earns a score of 86, tied with the Dodge Durango in first place. The Telluride ranks 6th with a score of 82 and the CX-9 comes in 11th place with a score of 77. As the scores suggest, the true differences from one to another vehicle are often small. But there's no denying that the vehicles from KIA earn significantly higher scores than the CX-9 https://www.jdpower.com/Cars/Ratings/Quality/2020/Upper-Midsize-SUV
    6
  37. Congrats on the new gig, Forrest. The excellent work on your own channel appears to have paid off. Keep it up. As far as the new Sorento is concerned KIA seems to have taken a lesson from Subaru. When the Ascent was introduced I wondered about the future of the Outback. Subaru responded by significantly updating the Outback with new engine options and improved improved interiors and sales have remained relatively strong. KIA faced a similar challenge with the Sorento. To remain relevant KIA needed to update the Sorento in a way that gave it a distinct personality and updated components and features without cannibalizing sales of the Telluride or elevate its MSRP to such a degree that customers opted for a Telluride (or another smaller but still midsize mainstream SUV.) At 189" long the Sorento retains its place among the large set of smaller midsize SUVs that range from 188" to 192" in length. No change there. It competes directly with the Ford Edge, the VERY closely related Hyundai Santa Fe, the Honda Passport, the recently introduced Toyota Venza, the Chevy Blazer, the Nissan Murano, the Jeep Grand Cherokee, and the Outback among others. In fact, virtually every automaker except Mazda offers a smaller midsize SUV along with their larger midsize SUVs that range from about 195" to 203" long. The Sorento's unique feature is the standard third row of seats. That's not new. KIA hasn't offered a two row Sorento in the US since the 2017 model year. In 2018 KIA made the third row standard just as the nearly identical Santa Fe dropped its third row option. So what's really new for the new generation Sorento? Quite a bit. () New engines and transmission options. The 2.5 liter four cylinder engines are new. The naturally aspirated version replaces the 2.4L base engine with some slight improvements in HP and torque. But the more important change is the optional turbo version of the new engine. It replaces the long-in-the-tooth NA V6 and comes with a dual clutch automated manual rather than a traditional torque converter AT. That's almost certainly good news. It's the same engine offered in the Genesis GV70, the GV80, the G80, as well as the Hyundai Sonata N-Line and the KIA K5 GT. The 8 speed DCT is a new unit, too. Hyundai/KIA's earlier DCT didn't get great reviews but the new version appears to be a significantly better wet clutch unit. It's usually good advice to be skeptical about new engines and transmissions until possible kinks are worked out. But the fact that Genesis/Hyundai/KIA have the confidence to offer their well known 10 yr/100K drivetrain warranty with so many vehicles offers considerable reassurance. All in all, better performance combined with improved fuel economy (a traditional weakness of KIA and Hyundai ICE engines) means dropping the V6 were big reasons to replace it with the turbo 4 banger. Then there are the forthcoming hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions of the Sorento. I'll wait to see some independent assessments of those versions but I suspect that Toyota and other automakers are looking over their shoulders nervously. () New interior designs. For those accustomed to the last generation Sorento, the 2021 version will be largely familiar. Nevertheless, lots of new shapes and materials along with some new features. It's not surprising to see KIA eliminate some features from the revamped Sorento in order to contain costs and avoid intruding on the MSRP's of the Telluride. And for the most part the deletions from the previous generation (and from the versions of the Sorento in international markets including Korea where the Telluride isn't offered) are relatively minor. Have to say, though, that the elimination driver's seat memory is a significant loss (imo.) We own a 2018 Sorento and have 3 drivers in the family. My wife and teenage daughter are close enough in size to share settings (or adjust them slightly) when each drives. But the two person memory settings are a huge convenience when I drive the Sorento. Perhaps not a deal breaker but close to it. Further, a less critical but sill annoying loss is the elimination of the driver's extended thigh support. I'd miss it on long drives. All in all, though, I find the looks and the bells and whistles of the new Sorento top trim is an upgrade compared to my 2018 version. One of the strengths of KIA's internal layout is its intuitive character. My wife says when she doesn't know how to accomplish some task she asks herself where it would logically be. More than 90% of the time she never has to consult the driver's manual even for unfamiliar tasks. () Re-jiggering interior space for more efficient packaging. KIA claims that the new generation Sorento offers more passenger and cargo space than the last generation. Technically that's true but the increases are small compared to the already extremely efficient packaging of the vehicle and some dimensions have actually shrunk. For example... The first row legroom measured 44.1" in the last generation. For those who moonlight as giants in a circus sideshow it was a real benefit. But for the vast majority of consumers it was overkill. I'm 5'10" tall and with the driver seat of my 2018 Sorento slid all the way to the rear I can barely reach the pedals. The 2021 Sorento reduces the legroom to 41.4". That's still generous. Equal to the Telluride and up to an inch or so more than other, mostly larger midsize SUVs. On the other hand, default legroom in the second row in the last generation was 39.4" compared to 41.7" in the 2021 version. A noticeable increase. Further, since both rows' legroom can be adjusted independently to allocate space as needed the important spec is the combined first and second row legroom. The last generation comes out at 83.5" versus 83.1" for 2021. A very small overall loss and in effect a case of sacrificing unused legroom in the first row for more default legroom in the second row. Third row default legroom in the previous generation Sorento was actually quite generous (31.7") especially considering the vehicle's overall length. For 2021, it's been reduced to 29.7". That appears to be the result of the roomier second row and an increase in cargo space behind the third row. But because the second row legroom can be adjusted, the total combined legroom in the second and third rows of the Sorento has actually increased a tiny bit from 71.1" to 71.4". Furthermore, the 2021 model offers a reclining third row that was missing on the previous generation. That's a benefit for passengers consigned to the "back of the bus." As far as cargo space is concerned the tiny 11.3 cubic ft of room behind the third row has been increased 12.6 cf. (For reference, that's about the volume of an additional carry-on bag.) Not generous, of course, but neither the last nor the new generation Sorento is meant to provide sufficient room for more than 4-5 passengers PLUS their luggage/gear for an extended road trip. It's a compromise or a "Goldilocks" vehicle depending on one's perspective. My family of four (2 adults, a teenage daughter, and a big dog) deploys the third row seats less than 10% of the time. With the third row folded into the cargo floor of our 2018 Sorento the 38 cubic feet of cargo space (vs 38.4 cf for 2021) is more than adequate for extended family road trips. Alternatively, when we need to transport six or seven passengers on a local outing the third row is a huge convenience when the alternative is taking two vehicles. () Sorento versus Santa Fe. Though the Sorento is often compared to other smaller midsize crossovers (e.g. Ford Edge, Honda Passport, Outback) , the Hyundai Santa Fe is almost NEVER even mentioned. The same blind spot exists when the Santa Fe is reviewed. No mention of the Sorento. Yet the two vehicles are almost as closely related as the Telluride and Palisade. Same size inside and out, same platform, same infotainment systems, same AWD system, and a host of minor features. For 2021 the similarities are even greater with the Santa Fe now sharing the same engines and transmissions as the Sorento. Other than external styling differences and some interior design features (e.g. gear selectors), the two vehicles differ only in the fact that the Santa Fe doesn't offer third row seating. With that in mind it's puzzling that KIA considers the 2021 version a new "generation" while Hyundai characterizes the 2021 Santa Fe as an "update." As noted above, I see the third row of the Sorento as an important (if seldom needed) benefit. But for those who disagree the 2021 Santa Fe shares nearly all the rest of the Sorento's strengths.
    6
  38. You obviously haven't met my wife or tens of millions of other consumers who care a great deal about safety in an accident. In fact the most significant factor in the dominance of SUV's and the near extinction of minivans in the marketplace has been the shift toward SUV's among female consumers whose single highest priority in a vehicle is perceived "safety." Furthermore, I'd dispute your claim that "auto journalists make a big deal of it..." I keep up with a wide range of "auto journalists" and few bother to mention safety ratings except occasionally in passing. It's certainly true that vehicles are safer than they once were. But that doesn't mean that manufacturers (and consumers) should be satisfied with safety systems that passed muster a decade or more ago.
    6
  39. Trunk capacity is 16 cubic ft as stated in the video.
    6
  40. Good job, Mazda. Haven't driven the new CX-5 but I've driven both the Mazda6 and the CX-9 with the same engine. I suspect its best application may be in the CX-5. The CX-9 is simply huge with a terribly inefficient allocation of interior space. (Less than the Kia Sorento that's over 10 inches shorter.) Furthermore, most of its competition (other than the Subaru Ascent) offer naturally aspirated V6's, engines that are better suited to the larger midsize CUV category. In the Mazda6 the 2.5L turbo does a good job but there the competition from the Honda Accord 2.0L turbo, a version of the engine in the Civic Type R, and naturally aspirated V6 Toyota Camry is stiff. The Mazda is undoubtedly superior to the earlier versions of the Accord and Camry but in terms of performance it trails both the new Honda and the Toyota. As nice as the Signature trim of the CX-5 is, I suspect it's a pipe dream to think it will steal many sales from the Acura RDX. Customers seriously shopping for an RDX won't be deterred by the price premium, especially in view of the more upscale interior, more room, and better dealer experience with the Acura. More likely it will make a dent in Honda CR-V and Toyota Rav4 upper trim sales where the price points are roughly equivalent and the Mazda's engine is arguably superior. The most credible rival is likely to be the Hyundai Santa Fe. Its "tweener" size offers more utility than the smaller CX-5 and in its "Ultimate" trim, it comes close to the Signature trim of the Mazda with better infotainment, a panoramic sunroof, a center locking differential, and a variety of other innovative features. On the other hand, the Mazda is likely to handle better especially considering that its several hundred pounds lighter than the Hyundai. And while styling is obviously subjective, most, I think, would agree the Mazda is more attractive.
    6
  41.  @braetonwilson4296  Dealer markups "suck for Telluride buyers" only if customers choose to purchase from dealers who add them to the transaction price. As for "industry insiders" saying KIA limits production to "elevate the whole KIA brand," that's simply ridiculous. I can just imagine the meeting. "Hey guys, here's an idea. Let's cut revenue so we'll improve our brand's 'reputation.' Imagine how much more respect we'll get in the industry." Anyone who'd make such a suggestion would no doubt be clearing out his/her desk by the end of the day. As for KIA's "unsavory reputation," I assume you need to put on sunglasses when you emerge from that rock where you've been living for the last decade. KIA no doubt retains its reputation as "value" brand that offers significantly more and better features than its rivals for a price somewhat less than the competition but it's been years since its sales reflected a reputation as building "cheap, low quality cars." At least that's true among those who have any actual knowledge of the automotive industry. And no, I'm neither a KIA salesman nor do I work for KIA corporate. I'm a software designer and business executive who has a fair idea of how corporate business operates.
    5
  42.  @swanblake  The Veloster N appears to be a fine effort. Hyundai/KIA continue to knock it out of the park with their recent (and forthcoming) models. And if one is looking for a "track ready" vehicle it appears to be a serious contender. But the original comment focused on "day to day livability." For example, I often share my GTI with my wife, daughter, and big dog. For me, that's an important part of "day to day livability" and the 3 door Veloster with a cramped rear seat doesn't measure up. As far as price is concerned, the Veloster N is likely be priced near or even above the real world price of a comparably equipped GTI. Reliability, while likely good from Hyundai, is unknown at this point. And like any first year model, some skepticism is warranted. Finally, the GTI's 6 year, 72K mile bumper-to-bumper transferable warranty is better than Hyundai's 5 year warranty. All in all, the Veloster N and the GTI are different kinds of vehicles that appeal to buyers with different priorities. Claiming one is "just better" ignores that fact.
    5
  43. All true. But the Achilles Heel of the CX-5 is that its interior room is not only less than the Equinox; it's less than virtually every other vehicle in the compact SUV category. The CR-V and the Subaru Forester, for example, provide at least 25% more overall cargo space than the CX-5, vehicles that are barely larger than the Mazda. The 59.6 cubic feet of total cargo space is only about 6 cubic feet more than a VW Golf, a vehicle that's 15"(!) shorter than the Mazda.
    5
  44. You prefer robots located in Germany?
    5
  45. Perceptive comment about the Escape as a Fusion replacement. Now that Ford has determined that the midsize sedan market in the US is simply not worth the effort it's not surprising to see the Escape morph into a kind of replacement for buyers who have abandoned that market segment for crossovers. Given the size and price of the Explorer the Escape is the most appropriate candidate for that role. Whether it can realistically compete with the Rav4, CR-V, and Mazda CX-5 remains to be seen but that's obviously where potential sales opportunities have gone.
    4
  46. Edward Auerbach: You might also note that those Ferraris, Lamborghinis, and Aston Martins are all automatic transmissions.
    4
  47.  @BenKurth  Some valid points, Ben. But please, paragraphs exist for a reason.
    4
  48. Perhaps the designers of the Equinox were transferred from their previous projects designing the Camaro.
    4
  49.  @RicardoMNogueira  Maybe $30 Billion is very little to you. Most folks would find it more than pocket change. And that, of course, is only the price in lawsuits and fines not counting the impact on its worldwide sales as well as the very real effect it has had on the criminal records of quite a few VW executives and the ruination of the careers of many more.
    4
  50. Mazda says fuel is cheap in America compared to almost everywhere else and Mazda's limited manufacturing capacity is aimed at markets where fuel efficiency is a higher priority.
    4