Comments by "Stephen Hendricks" (@stephenhendricks103) on "Car Confections"
channel.
-
267
-
Sales of the Ascent have been disappointing for Subaru. When it was first introduced it was Subaru's hope to make a major splash in the midsize 3 row SUV market category. The only worry was that it would cannibalize sales of Subaru's best selling Outback. In fact that hasn't occurred. Sales of the Ascent have been mediocre and while Outback sales are down substantially in 2020 it still outsells the Ascent two to one. (62,305 vs 31,397 in the US.)
There appear to be several reasons. First, of course, is the competition. Sales of the Palisade and Telluride since the start of 2019 have seriously impacted the Ascent (along with other rivals.) In the first half of 2020 the combined sales of the Palisade and the Telluride, essentially the same vehicle, are twice those of the Ascent (36,000 and 25,000 respectively) and each, especially the Telluride, have been limited by production shortages as a result of COVID-19, not by demand.
Furthermore, the Ascent along with the Mazda CX-9 are currently the only midsize three row crossovers not to offer a standard or optional V6 engine. It's less an issue of performance, not a high priority among most consumers in this segment, than of long term durability in a vehicle that weighs over two and a half tons. Furthermore, the Ascent offers only a CVT transmission. Again, it's likely to be a deal breaker for only a minority of consumers but Subaru has recalled 77,000 2019 Ascents for a variety of transmission problems. It's one thing to have scattered, unconfirmed reports of reliability issues; it's quite another for an automaker to issue a significant recall based on issues in a major component.
Finally, it's noteworthy that Subaru's own Outback XT offers the same turbo4 engine in a vehicle that weighs at least 666 lbs (!) less than the Ascent. What it comes down to is why would a Subaru fan choose an Ascent rather than an Outback XT that has better performance, a less stressed engine, and a price thousands of dollars less unless three row SUV is a very, very high priority. And why would consumers not already committed to owning a Subaru choose an Ascent rather than a competitor.
26
-
Took a serious look at the CX-9 along with several competitors earlier this year. Ultimately, we chose the Kia Sorento SX-L rather than the top trim (Signature) of the CX-9. Each is a good vehicle. At the top trim levels they're comparable in terms of fit, finish, and gadgetry. And some of the minor differences between the two in 2018 have been eliminated in the 2019 versions. A panoramic moon roof and a better infotainment system are the remaining Sorento advantages. Slightly better handling remains a Mazda trademark but considering the mission of these vehicles that handling advantage, to the extent it exists, is minimal. You're not going to be carving canyon roads in one of these crossovers.
Let's be honest, vehicles like this are meant for several primary purposes; most importantly hauling people and cargo around in the suburban jungle and long slogs on the freeway for trips with five or fewer passengers. (Though each has a nominal 7 person capacity, neither can accommodate 7 people plus luggage. That's minivan or large SUV territory.) And for us, at least, the Sorento was a clearly superior choice.
Most important was efficient use of space. The CX-9 is nearly a FOOT longer than the Sorento. It's nearly the size of the (relatively) gigantic VW Atlas. That's a real disadvantage in traffic and parking lots that good handling doesn't make up for. What does that extra length provide? The space behind the third row is slightly larger (14 cuft vs 11 cuft.) But passenger room in the third row of the CX-9 is actually smaller than the Sorento (and lacks the third row climate controls that the Sorento provides.) Likewise there's less head and legroom in the second row. And amazingly, the cargo capacity behind the first row is actually less than that of the Sorento. (73 cuft vs 71 cuft).
I was honestly puzzled by the comparative specs. I finally came to the conclusion that the extra length of the CX-9 came mainly from its longer hood. That contributes to its attractive exterior looks but it does nothing for the vehicles utility.
For trips we found the KIA also outpointed the Mazda. The turbo 4 banger of the CX-9 is impressive. But the V6 in the Sorento has more HP with regular fuel than the CX-9 with premium. The gap is even greater using regular fuel in the Mazda. The Mazda's torque is very impressive but the Sorento's tow rating (where torque is important) is 5000 lbs versus the CX-9's 3500 lbs. Even more important for freeway slogs, the Sorento's V6 is quieter, smoother, and arguably more durable. And while the Mazda's fuel efficiency rating is slightly better, it's a very small difference.
Add to all of this the much, much better bumper-to-bumper and drivetrain warranties the KIA provides and it was no contest for my family. I really wanted to like the CX-9; I've owned four Mazda vehicles over the years so I didn't have a bias against the brand. But on a point by point basis the Kia was just a better choice.
22
-
20
-
20
-
Excellent video, guys. I would quarrel with a couple of points, however. You didn't award points to either vehicle in terms of cargo space behind the third row. I'd argue that the 21 cubic feet of the Telluride compared to the 18 cubic feet of Palisade deserved a half point advantage on your rating scale. It's not a huge difference, of course, but the Telluride's space is exceeded only by the humungous Chevy Traverse (23 cf) while the Palisade's space is essentially equal to the Subaru Ascent and Ford Explorer and barely more than several other rivals. The difference can mean a lot when a three row SUV is packed with passengers and gear.
More important, though, is the 2 points you awarded the Palisade for its alleged price advantage. There are many different ways to compare MSRP's of two vehicles. I find the most useful comparisons result from the top trim, fully loaded versions of each vehicle. That approach reduces or eliminates the impact of features available/not available at various other trim/option levels and take into account the entire set of features each vehicle has to offer.
Using the "build and price" tools for each vehicle in their respective AWD, top trim, fully optioned versions, the Telluride (SX) has an MSRP of $47,330 vs the Palisades (Limited) at $47,445, negligible difference of $115 in favor of the KIA. Had the 2 points given to the Hyundai not been included, the KIA would have "won" the overall comparison on your rating scale by a significant margin.
Of course, the entire video is an entertaining and detailed perspective about two very impressive vehicles rather than a than a definitive comparison. MSRP comparisons don't take into account "real world" prices that result from serious negotiations with a dealer. The huge demand for the Telluride may mean its availability is more restricted than the Palisade. And had the Palisade's Limited trim been compared to the Telluride's SX trim, the appeal of the Hyundai's interior might have been greater. All in all, either vehicle is a very strong contender in the midsize three row mainstream crossover market.
19
-
14
-
13
-
Our family has owned two Sorentos in the last decade, a 2013 model and currently a 2018 version. Each a top trim SX-L with the (then) optional V6 engine. The car is my wife's daily driver, our big dog's 2nd home, and the family's "trip-mobile" for extended journeys. We've been very happy with each of vehicle having put about 80K miles on the first and now nearly 60K miles on our current Sorento. No significant issues with either one and I might have to pry my wife's cold dead fingers from the steering wheel to convince her to replace her beloved Sorento.
That's not an issue, however, since unfortunately, despite some significant upgrades and the replacement of the V6 with a more fuel efficient turbo 4 engine as well as hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, we won't be considering the new Sorento. The reason? The only way to get a 2nd row bench in the Sorento is to opt for the lowest trim of the non-hybrid version without the turbo engine along with a host of other features.
To be clear, as a family of only three humans plus a large dog, we, like most Sorento owners, keep the third row folded beneath the cargo floor about 90% of the time. Nevertheless, the third row is a major convenience when we need to transport 6 or 7 passengers on a local outing that doesn't require more than minimal cargo space in the rear and the alternative is to use two vehicles.
By eliminating a 2nd row bench in all but the cheapest, least powerful version of the Sorento KIA has limited accommodations to four or fewer humans. And to make matters worse, "Fido" is simply not "designed" to use a captain chair. Therefore, accommodating him would involve nearly always deploying the third row bench or having him share space behind the second row with cargo such as groceries. (Not a good idea.)
When the 2022 Sorento was introduced, I had hoped that the hybrid versions would include a 2nd row bench at least as an option. No such luck. So if we opt to replace our 2018 model, we will likely have to sacrifice a third row, altogether, by choosing the closely related Hyundai Santa Fe.
13
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
A much appreciated comparative review. Too often reviews of either KIAs or Hyundais the closely related cousin is never even mentioned. Almost as if each manufacturer requests that reviewers avoid mentioning what is obviously a cross shopped vehicle. In the case of the Santa Fe and Sorento the two vehicles have shared numerous components and features for several years. For 2021 they're arguably even more closely related with virtually identical engine and drivetrain lineups . The two are almost identical in size (The Sorento now has 2" longer wheelbase than the Santa Fe and is about half an inch greater in overall length) Identical AWD and infotainment systems (with slightly different screens), and almost identical interior space.(The KIA has about 75.5 cubic ft of total cargo space compared to the Santa Fe's 72.1 cf. Cargo space behind the second row is 36.4 cf in the Santa Fe vs 38.4 cf in the Sorento.)
The biggest difference, of course, is the Sorento standard 3 rows of seats compared to the Santa Fe's two rows (in North America). It's a difference that began in the 2018 model year when KIA dropped its two row option and Hyundai dropped its optional 3rd row. That difference has another impact. Captain chairs are standard on upper level trims in the Sorento with a second row bench seat available only in lower trims . In the Santa Fe, on the other hand, the absence of a third row means all trims by necessity have a 2nd row bench seat. So for those who complain they cannot get a bench seat with a top trim Sorento the Santa Fe offers an attractive alternative.
Perhaps the most revealing comparison is between the (US) top trim X-Line Sorento and the new Calligraphy version of the Santa Fe. MSRP's are nearly identical (circa $44,000). AWD and 20" wheels are standard in each as are 20" wheels. But the image each projects is somewhat different. Different, in fact, in a way that mirrors that of the Telluride and the Palisade. The top trim fully loaded Calligraphy Santa Fe projects a "near luxury" image similar to the Palisade while the X-Line Sorento presents a more rugged vibe with greater ground clearance, superior roof rails, a lever gear selector and more external cladding compared to the Santa Fe's additional bells and whistles that include true "nappa" leather upholstery compared to the Sorento's somewhat less premium leather and a dial gear selector rather than a lever.
In short, if you're more attracted to the Telluride than the Palisade, you may well prefer the Sorento. If your taste runs toward the Palisade the Santa Fe may well be your choice.
9
-
8
-
While it's easy to see the new Taos as another subcompact SUV and a smaller version of the Tiguan, from another perspective it's a somewhat different vehicle. Now that VW has withdrawn the basic Golf from the North American market, the Taos is designed to take its place in the VW portfolio. It's a small car versatile enough to meet a variety of needs from urban/suburban daily driver duties to a long range highway cruiser for a couple or a a family with one or two kids. The Taos makes no pretense of being an off-road vehicle like the Jeep Compass or the Subaru CrossTrek. No plastic cladding. Less ground clearance than those models. But those attributes weren't found in the Golf and the Taos follows suit. The Golf achieved its iconic status as a result of its generous passenger and cargo space wrapped in a small package. The Taos is about 6" longer than the Golf but it's designed to provide that same combination of attributes as far as Americans are concerned. Notably, the MK8 version of the basic Golf lives on in Europe. And the Taos, like several other models such as the Jetta and Atlas, isn't offered there.
In other words, say hello to the new Golf for Americans. A bit larger inside and out, dressed in an SUV costume, and with a new 4 letter name.
P.S. Although the MK8 version of the basic Golf won't be offered in the US, the GTI and Golf R will continue. But if sales of the Taos are strong, it's not unthinkable that VW will decide it makes sense to replace those models with the Taos fitted with the engines and drivetrains of the 2.0L models.
7
-
7
-
The Mazda6 is a beautiful vehicle. IMO it's the best looking entry in the mainstream midsize sedan category. And the Signature trim interior is impressive. But the competition in a shrinking market category is stiff, especially from the Honda Accord 2.0L (Touring) and the Camry NA V6 (XSE and TRD). Those looking for scalding performance from the "6" are likely to be disappointed even with the 2.5L turbo 4 banger. It's just not there in terms of straight line acceleration where the Mazda6 is almost a full second slower to 60 mph than the Accord with its detuned Civic Type R engine and the Camry's NA V6.
The deficit stems from several factors. First, Mazda's aging 6 speed AT is quite adequate for daily driving but it trails the Honda's 10 speed and the Camry's 8 speed units both in terms of performance and fuel economy. Second, the turbo 4 in the Mazda offers a huge dose of torque but taking advantage of it in a FWD sedan is challenging. To prevent torque steer and wheel hop Mazda has tuned the "6" to limit power under hard acceleration. Finally, the "6" is heavy, especially compared to the Accord (3582 lbs curb weight vs 3428.) It's even 10 lbs heavier than the Camry with its V6 engine.
The weight disadvantage has other effects. Mazda, of course, is known for the handling of its vehicles. But neither Honda nor Toyota have been standing still with their current generation models. The Accord's lighter weight and excellent suspension coupled with its remarkable Type R derived engine makes its handling near or equal to the Mazda. And the Camry, especially with the suspension options of the TRD model, is much the same.
The bottom line is that the Mazda6 is in serious need of a generational update. Its infotainment system is dated, even compared to the system in the Mazda3. The sunroof is small and the interior and cargo space are cramped compared to the competition. As the smallest mainstream independent auto manufacturer on the planet Mazda faced major challenges in terms of keeping up with the opposition. Hopefully, they will find a way to do more than giving the Mazda6 an appealing shape and an upscale interior.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
The CX-5 is Mazda's best selling model in the US. In fact, it is nearly the only model in which sales are not in the toilet. The CX-9 ranks dead last among mainstream 3 row midsize crossovers by a huge amount. The 13,000 sales in the first half of 2020 are about half those of the VW Atlas. The Mazda6, an appealing midsize sedan, has never sold well but in 2020 sales have sunk to almost non-existent (8100 units sold in the first half of 2020.) Sales of the Mazda3 are so disappointing (down 43% in 2020 and less than half those of the Jetta and KIA Forte) that Mazda has announced (but not yet delivered) a turbo model that they hope will boost sales significantly. (It won't be nearly enough if at all. ) The sales of the newly introduced CX-30 are relatively (underline "relatively") encouraging but mainly at the expense of the CX-3 whose sales have sunk to almost nothing. Happily, Miata sales are up 10% in 2020 but selling 4300 vehicles in the first half of the year is hardly a cause for celebration unless they're compared the FCA's "Fiata" 124.
Balanced against all this carnage the 65,000 sales of the CX-5 in 2020 are down only 13% compared to 2019 and are far better than other models with the same engine and drive train (i.e Mazda6, CX-9). And the CX-5, especially in its higher trims such as the Signature version, it's undeniably appealing in terms of looks, handling, and performance compared to rivals.
But where it falls short of rivals like the RAV4 (with almost 3 times as many sales) and the CRV (with over twice as many) is in terms of cargo space, a factor that's far more important to consumers than to reviewers, especially reviewers who never focus on an aspect that's important to those who use a crossover for duties that involve longer trips for a couple or a family of three with luggage and gear. The CX-5 offers 59.6 cubic ft of total cargo space. The CRV offers up to 75.8 cubic ft and the RAV4 up to 69.7 cubic ft. In fact, it's worth noting that the KIA Seltos, a subcompact crossover nearly a foot shorter than the CX-5 provides 62.8 cubic ft of total cargo space.
Automotive reviewers tend to value and emphasize driving dynamics and performance. Factors that are important in the kinds of vehicles reviewers own (or want to own.) But they tend to ignore the fact that the categories of CUVs/SUVs have a "U"(tility) mission. And on that score, the CX-5 falls short.
5
-
One advantage of being late to the party is that you get to see what everyone else is wearing. The Pilot is a VERY good vehicle. Honda does an excellent job of designing and packaging their offerings but KIA (and its sibling Hyundai) have been knocking it out of the park for several years and according to this (EXCELLENT) detailed comparison that continues with the Telluride.
Full disclosure. I own a 2018 KIA Sorento, my second, and I love it for its overall size (189"), its extremely efficient allocation of interior space, and its upscale features in the SX-L trim. I chose it over the Pilot last year and I'd still select it over either the Pilot or the Telluride this year based on my family's priorities. (But that's a different comparison.) Having said that, I'd add a few quibbles and kudos for points raised in the review.
() Price. I realize that reviewers have to stick to MSRP comparisons but in my experience there's more than a small advantage for KIA's in real world price negotiations. I purchased my KIA Sorento last year for $8000 under MSRP, making it several thousand dollars less than the best offer I received for comparable models/trims from Honda, Toyota, and Mazda. I wouldn't expect anything approaching that discount on the new Telluride but I'm fairly confident that the small advantage the Pilot (Touring) enjoys in MSRP would be more than erased in serious negotiations. (Edit: Subsequent events have somewhat altered the situation. The demand for the Telluride is so great that unless one has already purchased or ordered one, it may be a wait until the 2020 model is introduced. And if a model, especially in SX trim, can be found, it's likely to be available only at several thousand dollars (or more) over MSRP.)
() Performance/Power Train/Handling In this category traditional performance measures (e.g. 0-60, quater mile, etc) are pretty silly unless there are huge differences. The KIA has a slightly larger engine but it runs the Atkinson cycle that sacrifices performance in favor of fuel economy and the Honda's 10 speed transmission might have a slight advantage over the KIA's eight speed box. I'd expect to see a slight advantage for the Pilot in terms of performance but it's unlikely to be important or consistent from one reviewer to another. If you're into stop light drag racing with your 3 row crossover, look at a Durango with a V8 mill.
Although KIA claims to have "torque vectoring," the Pilot's version of SH-AWD is a superior system. KIA's version is essentially a "brake-based" system that doesn't offer the same level of sophistication or capabilities of Honda's mechanical system. I doubt that most drivers will be in situations where the differences are obvious but it's worth noting.
() Size. It's a very small point but I believe the length of the Pilot is incorrect in the review. The specs I've seen indicate it's 196.5" in length rather than 194.5." That makes the two vehicles virtually the same length. This is a nit to most folks. But for me it's important to being able to fit a vehicle in my garage and believe it or not two inches can make a difference, especially if you hang a large bike rack off the rear end.
() Interior amenities/quality/size. Honda excels in family friendly interior design. But if you want near luxury, the KIA's nappa leather upholstery, larger infotainment screen and features and other amenities are obviously superior to the Touring trimmed Pilot. You really have to step up to the Elite trim of the Pilot and even then it trails the Telluride. Kia is king of the legroom competition in all their vehicles. If you're tall with long legs, look at a KIA model and the extending thigh support in the Telluride only adds to that advantage. Overall cargo and passenger space is almost identical. But if you want to transport six or more people AND their gear on a trip, the Telluride is significantly superior in terms of space.
() Potential Resale. I don't buy a depreciating asset as an investment but if replacing a vehicle every three years or so is your (very expensive) hobby, the Pilot is probably a better choice. Nevertheless, the notion that KIA's crater in terms of resale value is an outdated notion. Last year I traded my 2012 Sorento for an identical 2018 model. The dealer gave me within $800 of the Kelly Blue Book estimate of the trade-in value of a comparable Toyota Highlander (the resale champ.) Considering that I originally paid about $8000 less than the best offer I received for a 2012 Highlander purchased new, I made out like a bandit.
() Bottom Line. Given my experience with two Sorentos, I'd go for the Telluride in a heartbeat. No contest. And since the Pilot is a very good vehicle, superior to most others in the category, that's a strong endorsement. The review strikes me as truly excellent and not just because I agree with the conclusion. :)
5
-
The Santa Fe is an excellent vehicle, especially for those for whom a compact SUV is a bit too small and most three row midsize crossovers are too large and have a third row of seats that are neither needed nor wanted. I'm repeatedly surprised, though, that so few reviewers seem to recognize how similar the Santa Fe and the KIA Sorento are. In fact, if the Palisade and Telluride are at least fraternal twins the Santa Fe and Sorento are step-siblings.
The shared list of shared components, features, and dimensions is a long one. Almost identical lengths, the Sorento is 189" and the Santa Fe is 187.8" and Nearly identical wheelbases (108.9" for the Santa Fe; 109.4" for the Sorento.) Each falls in the "tweener" class (188"-192") in length between compact and larger midsize SUV's along with the Ford Edge, Nissan Murano, Honda Pathfinder, Subaru Outback, and others. Same AWD systems. Same eight speed transmissions. Very similar switchgear from the same parts bins in the same locations. Same infotainment systems though the screen placements differ. Exactly the same interior cargo space. Exactly the same passenger space in the first two rows. In short, anyone familiar with either vehicle will feel at home in the other.
At the same time, though, the list of differences are short but significant. The base engines are identical but the "performance" engines differ. The Santa Fe uses the same turbocharged 4 cylinder mill that was dropped from the KIA in 2018 and is the base engine in the KIA Stinger. The KIA offers a naturally aspirated 3.3L V6. (The same engine used in the KIA Stinger GT in a twin scroll turbo configuration.) Personally, I prefer the KIA's V6 especially considering that the weight difference in the top trim vehicles is only 64 lbs (4101 vs 4063.) In a vehicle with a curb weight over two tons (and even more when loaded with fuel, a maximum number of passengers, and luggage/gear) physics is physics and I'm inclined to believe a NA V6 is more durable than a turbo 4.
The other biggest difference, of course, is that the Sorento offers a third row of seats. The two row version of the Sorento was dropped in 2018 shortly before the current Santa Fe replaced the Santa Fe Sport (and the older Santa Fe became the Santa Fe XL). The underfloor cargo space in the Santa Fe is occupied by the third seat row when it's stowed. If one doesn't need the additional seating the Santa Fe's extra storage is convenient but it's worth noting that it can be accessed only if the cargo space above it is empty thus limiting its utility. Whether the Sorento's third row is worthwhile depends on one's needs. It's actually surprisingly accommodating even for a couple of adults for local trips and is VERY convenient when there's a need for more than five passengers and the option is taking two vehicles.
The Santa Fe received a major update more recently than the Sortento so there are several smaller differences. The Santa Fe has a digital cockpit in the top trims lacking in the Sorento though for the most part the information provided is the same in both vehicles. The 2020 Santa Fe has the lane change camera views found in the Telluride and Palisade. It will be interesting to see if they're available in the 2020 Sorento. The Santa Fe introduced an excellent notification system if a child or pet is left in a closed car. That system is in the Telluride and the Palisade and I strongly suspect it will be added to the Sorento in 2020. If it saves a single infant's life it will be worth it. Not to mention the hundreds (or thousands) of pets who die each year locked in overheated vehicles. The Santa Fe also has a lockout feature for driver side doors if a camera detects oncoming traffic. Another valuable feature that may show up in the next Sorento.
Overall, the Santa Fe and Sorento are aimed at somewhat different market segments despite their similarities. The Santa Fe is priced and marketed as a larger alternative to compact crossovers like the CR-V and Rav4. The Sorento is a smaller more convenient size three row crossover. One might think the Sorento's sales would be impacted by the Telluride and there seems to be some evidence of that in the last three months but sales continue to be relatively strong. Whether the Santa Fe will suffer in sales with the availability of the Palisade seems less likely but time will tell.
Personally I prefer the Sorento for its V6 and occasional use third row seating. And in the top trim SX-L the materials (e.g. Nappa leather) are somewhat more premium than in the comparable "Ultimate" Santa Fe. But others will differ and I can understand that. In any event, they're each an excellent choice among the "Goldilocks" crossover size.
5
-
5
-
5
-
For those looking for a crossover that offers a bit more interior space than typical compact SUVs the Tiguan is an appealing choice. In effect, its a tweener. At 185" in length it's about 5" longer than an average compact SUV (CR-V, Rav4) and 3"-4" less than the shortest midsize crossovers. (e.g. Ford Edge, Hyundai Santa Fe, KIA Sorento.) Its most unique feature, of course, is a (now standard) 3rd row of seating. Not surprisingly, it's hardly roomy back there with about 28" of legroom. On the other hand, that's 0.2" more default legroom than a Toyota Highlander. Obviously most suitable for small children but adequate for normal size adults for a local outing.
The EA888 engine 2.0L turbo engine is a lower tuned version of the great turbo engine in the VW GTI and Golf R with 184 HP at 4400 RPM and 221 ft lbs of torque at 1400 RPM. That's less than a RAV4 with 203 HP but that HP isn't available until 6600 RPM. Even more striking is that the Toyota offers only 184 ft lbs of torque and that not until 5000 RPM. All that suggests the Tiguan is considerably peppier in normal driving.
Finally, if the Tiguan's power isn't sufficient, a Stage I ECU tune from APR adds approximately 45-56HP and 59-79 ft-lbs of torque depending on fuel grade used without major impacts of mileage and (contrary to what one might think) without affecting the VW factory warranty. All at a price of $500 and about 30 minutes in the shop. For the record I've had an APR Stage 1 tune on two GTI's. The performance gain is significant (to say the least) and would likely be more manageable in a vehicle with VW 4Motion AWD. And considering that the EA888 engine in the Golf R is rated at near and over 300 HP from the factory, concern about durability should be minimal.
All in all, the Tiguan deserves a closer look than it usually gets.
5
-
5
-
Good review but you buried the lead. The big news isn't the slight changes in the GT2 Stinger but the huge improvement in the base GT-Line version with the new 2.5L turbo 4 that's now found in at least 7(!) KIA, Hyundai, and Genesis models. That change reduces the difference in 0-60 times between the GT-Line and GT models from almost 2 seconds to about half a second (5.2 vs 4.7). Comparably equipped with RWD the GT-Line has an MSRP of $38,390 vs the GT2 MSRP of $51,290, a difference of nearly $13,000! Adding AWD is an MSRP upcharge of $2200 on either model, raising the GT-Line MSRP to a still screaming bargain price of $40,590.
Furthermore, the GT-Line Stinger compares favorably vs the K5 GT. Same engine but the RWD Stinger doesn't suffer from the handling issues associated with putting 300 HP/311 lb ft of torque to the pavement in a FWD vehicle with neither AWD nor an LSD. For slightly more than a price bump of $3,000 between a loaded K5 GT and an RWD GT-Line Stinger you get a far more upscale interior, sound system, and other amenities. And for another $2200, the Stinger GT-Line has AWD that isn't offered at any price on the K5 GT.
Reviewers are often seduced by focusing solely on the highest performance versions of a vehicle. And KIA, of course, would prefer to extract thousands more $$$ from their customers. But in the case of the Stinger, the GT-line represents a huge savings in both price and weight compared to the GT2.
5
-
Nearly every mainstream automaker (except Mazda) with SUVs in what Americans call the "midsize" category offers two vehicles. The larger group are 3 row vehicles that range in length from 195" (Highlander) to 204" (Traverse). A group of smaller SUVs most ranging from 187" to 192" in length are nearly all two row vehicles. (The KIA Sorento is the exception, 189" long with three rows.)
On average each manufacturer's larger entry is from 6" to11" longer than its smaller counterpart in an effort to provide more cargo space and more passenger capacity. Examples include the Explorer (199" long vs Edge (188"), Hyundai Palisade (196") vs Santa Fe (188"), Honda Pilot (197") vs Passport (191") etc. In VW's case, however, the automaker has learned that Americans prefer their Volkswagens to be considerably larger than Europeans. Thus, the US spec Tiguan is the largest of compact SUVs. The Taos tops the list in terms of size among sub-compact SUVs. And the Atlas as one of the largest 3 row SUVs in the marketplace. It's designed for the American market, built in the US, and isn't even sold in Europe.
So when VW saw the opportunity to add the Cross Sport to their US portfolio they followed the same pattern. At 195.5" in length it's the largest two row SUV in the midsize category and less than 3" shorter than the Atlas. From that one might expect that the Cross Sport offers an especially roomy interior for passengers and cargo. In some ways that's true. The 40.4" of legroom in the 2nd row is not only especially generous, it's more than the the big brother Atlas.(37.6")
Unfortunately, though, the "coupe-like" styling of the Cross Sport with it sloping roof, especially from the 2nd row to the rear bumper, sacrifices both passenger and cargo space compared to only slightly larger Atlas and its box-like design. The Cross Sport provides 37.8" of 2nd row headroom compared to the Atlas' 40.4". But that difference pales in comparison to the cargo space of the Cross Sport vs the Atlas. The CS provides 40.3 cubic ft of cargo space behind the 2nd row. The Atlas offers 55.5 cf in a vehicle that's less than 3" greater in length. Total cargo space amounts to an even greater deficit for the Cross Sport, 77.8 cubic ft vs 96.8 cf in the Atlas. Just to drive the point home, the Honda Passport, nearly half a foot shorter than the Cross Sport, offers 50.5 cubic ft of cargo space behind the second row compared to the VW's 40.3 cf and up to100.7 cf in total depending on the legroom allocated to the first row.
The Cross Sport may have appeared especially roomy to the reviewers but the admittedly attractive sloping roof coup-ish stying sacrifices a significant amount of interior space considering the vehicle's overall size.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Good review. The new generation Highlander is an overdue upgrade for its best selling 3 row midsize crossover. And like most Toyotas it's a good, even a very good, vehicle especially in its top Platinum trim. But no vehicle is flawless and the Highlander is no exception.
Its biggest weakness compared to its 3 row rivals is a relatively cramped interior. For example, according to Car and Driver the total passenger space in the Highlander is 136.1 cubic ft. The Telluride, only 2" longer than the Highlander (196.9" vs 194.9"), provides 157.1 cf. The difference is most obvious in terms of legroom. The Telluride has a total of 115.2" in its three rows while the Highlander offers 110.7". (An important metric since both the 1st and 2nd rows can be adjusted to allocate legroom as needed. The Telluride (and the Palisade) offer considerably more adjustability.)
The difference is especially obvious in the 3rd row where the Telluride provides 31.4" of default legroom compared to the Highlander's 27.7". Why is that important? Presumably because 3rd row seating is likely to be a priority among those buying a midsize SUV. Otherwise, why not opt for one of the many 2 row midsize SUVs in the market.(e.g. Honda Passport, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford Edge, Chevy Blazer, Hyundai Santa Fe, etc.) And if a 3rd row is needed only occasionally, the KIA Sorento, half a foot less in length than the Highlander(189" vs 194.9") offers nearly 2" more 3rd row default legroom (29.6").
Finally, cargo space in the Highlander is relatively limited compared to the Telluride, especially behind the third row. With all three rows in place the Telluride offers 21 cubic ft of cargo space. The Highlander's spec is 16 cubic ft, slightly less than average for a midsize 3 row crossover. The bottom line is that when Toyota stretched the current generation Highlander's length from compared to the previous model (194.9" vs 192.5") they did nothing to improve space in the third row. Legroom is exactly the same at 27.7". And even more striking is that overall passenger space has actually shrunk slightly from 140 cubic ft to 136.1 cf. Virtually all of the additional length went to cargo space behind the third row where it improved from 13.6 cf to 16 cf.
The newest generation of the Highlander has much going for it. Especially the hybrid version where it stands nearly alone. (The KIA Sorento hybrid is just coming online and will provide a rival on that score. Likewise for the closely related 2 row Hyundai Santa Fe.) But for those looking for a roomy three row midsize SUV, the Highlander is challenged at best.
4
-
I find it remarkable how the separate design teams at Hyundai and KIA come up with such different vehicles from a common set of parts bins. (e.g. Telluride vs Palisade; Sorento vs Santa Fe; K5 vs Sonata; Forte vs Elantra; Seltos vs Kona, etc.) In some cases the differences are only "skin deep" with different "vibes." (e.g. Telluride vs Palisade) In others it's difficult to imagine two competing vehicles share so many attributes (e.g. Sorento vs Santa Fe; Seltos vs Kona.) Adding to the differences is the fact that the schedules for new generations and face lifts are typically offset by a year, or so. Thus, the comparison here is between a 2020 Sonata vs a 2021 K5. All in all, the two brands have a remarkable capacity to slice standard market categories into sub-categories with appeals to slightly different sets of consumers.
Hyundai appeals to a slightly higher income demographic than KIA though the difference has been shrinking for years and in the midsize sedan category KIA slightly outsells Hyundai in the US. (Hyundai counters that disadvantage with wider appeal in international markets.) It may well be that KIA's traditional appeal to budget constrained customers and the overall weakness of the midsize sedan market led KIA to limit some of the bells and whistles in the K5 compared both to the version available in Korea and to the Sonata. If there's anything that dealers hate it's having higher priced (and profit) vehicles sit unsold on their lots until they're finally sold at steeper discounts. Whether KIA will add some of those features to the forthcoming performance version of the K5 or to a face lift in following model years will be interesting to watch.
Personally, I'm inclined to prefer the K5 over the Sonata. I find Hyundai's designs typically somewhat overstyled and "fussy." (Looking at you, Palisade.) Others will disagree, of course, and claim the Sonata is more "upscale" inside and out. But to me, the K5 design is simpler and more elegant. Furthermore, living in climate where winters are messy, the AWD option in the K5 is significant and compensates for some of the features the Sonata has and the K5 lacks.
I'm not currently in the market for a midsize sedan but if I were I'd wait to compare the performance versions of K5 and the Sonata with the 2.5L turbo engine and DCT before making a decision. Time will tell.
4
-
A couple of comments about the Telluride vs Palisade. Like all automakers KIA and Hyundai design and price their vehicles to meet the competition in the markets where they're sold. The Telluride is built in West Point, Georgia and sold almost exclusively in North America. In those markets the KIA competes against what Americans consider mainstream "midsize" 3 row crossovers such as the Ford Explorer, the Toyota Highlander, the Honda Pilot, the Chevy Traverse, the VW Atlas, etc. On the other hand, the Palisade is built in South Korea and aimed primarily at international markets outside North America. In those markets the best selling mainstream 3 row SUVs in America are either not available, at all, or have minuscule sales. The Palisade's primary competitors in Asia and Europe are European luxury SUVs from brands like Mercedes Benz, Audi, BMW, etc.
The result of such different competitive environments is a Telluride design that leans somewhat toward the sort of "rugged" vibe Americans prefer while the Palisade projects a sort of "budget luxury" image and features aimed at sales to consumers for whom luxury trumps ruggedness. That's not to say, of course, that the top trims of the Telluride aren't premium. But features such as motor driven folding 3rd row seats and digital eye candy displays don't have the same priorities for Tellurides they do for Palisades.
4
-
4
-
4
-
I live in the Pacific Northwest. Around here even a mild criticism of a Subaru can cost your friends, make your neighbors stop speaking to you, and eliminate invitations to Thanksgiving dinner with the extended family. So let me begin by saying that the initial reviews of the 2020 Outback suggest it's an impressive vehicle. The CVT it shares with the Ascent is relatively inoffensive (though the "simulated" gears and paddle shifters are rather silly, at best.) And the Outlook XT shares the same turbo 4 engine with the Ascent. In the Outback that engine performs impressively with a 0-60 time of about 6 seconds. It appears to be a worthy successor to the old six cylinder boxer engine in the Outback.
Having said that, however, a top trim 2020 Outback XT has a curb weight a bit over 3900 lbs while the Ascent (top trim) weighs in at 4603 lbs. That's a difference approaching 700 lbs! Add fuel, passengers, and gear/luggage (and noting that the Outback is a five passenger vehicle) and the difference in weight is 900 lbs or more! That same turbo4 in the Ascent is being asked to move MUCH more weight, about the equivalent of 3 NFL lineman.
There's a reason that almost every manufacturer other than Subaru and Mazda offer a standard or optional V6 in their 3 row midsize crossovers that weigh over two tons. No doubt the Ascent's initial acceleration is adequate (though hardly impressive) but physics is physics and a small displacement turbocharged four cylinder engine compared to a larger displacement V6, especially a naturally aspirated version, is far more stressed in a large, heavy vehicle even in normal operation. Simply put, long term durability has to be a question, especially for a newly designed engine without a track record. Add to that the fact that only the Subaru restricts a buyer's choice to a CVT among 3 row midsize crossovers and some skepticism about the Ascent is obviously warranted.
Unless having the most cup holders in the category is a high priority I think there are better choices among the midsize 3 row SUV's than the Ascent. On the other hand, the new Outback deserves a serious look among the "tweener" size two row crossovers. Perhaps that comment will assure me an invitation to Thanksgiving dinner.
4
-
4
-
Want some straight facts? Here are some. The Sorento is 11 inches shorter, three inches more narrow, and 2.5 inches shorter than the CX-9. And yet, the Sorento has significantly more overall passenger room (154 cf vs 135 cf). That includes significantly greater legroom in the first and, surprisingly, in the third row. It also has more overall cargo room (73 cf vs 71 cf) despite having slightly less cargo space behind the third row (11 cf vs 14 cf) (Source: US News and World Report.) I'm not sure how you conclude the "second row feels more spacious on (the) CX-9..." It isn't. The differences in space are minuscule or non-existent.
I'm perfectly willing to grant that if canyon carving is your preferred driving environment the Mazda may have an advantage. But for the vast majority of owners of these vehicles the environment is the jungle of suburban traffic and parking lots where the smaller exterior and larger interior dimensions make a much bigger difference than a marginal advantage on mountain roads. And for trips, the quieter Sorento interior adds to the its advantages. You might prefer a louder engine; most consumers in this space do not.
Yes, the 4 cylinder CX-9 has more peak torque than the KIA. Oddly, then that the acceleration of the two is virtually identical and the tow rating for the Sorento is 5000 lbs versus the CX-9's 3500. Neither is appropriate for serious towing but the KIA can tow camping trailers and boats the CX-9 cannot. Bottom line, if you're into canyon carving, I'd suggest another vehicle, altogether. And for long slogs on a freeway, the Sorento is a better, more relaxing choice with (remember) more interior room.
As for the common claim that low resale value offsets the greater discounts typically available for the Sorento versus its competitors, that's another fallacy. I negotiated an $8000 discount off MSRP on a 2018 top trim (SX-L) Sorento. That was considerably more than I was offered on a Signature trim of a CX-9 ($2000 off MSRP) or a Toyota Highlander with no discount. At the same time, the KBB trade-in estimate for a six year old Sorento is virtually identical to a comparable CX-9. Even comparing resale of a six year old Highlander to the KIA, the KBB estimate of average resale (about $3000) doesn't come close to eliminating the savings in initial purchase prices. (And for the record, my local KIA difference gave more than $1000 more than the KBB estimate for my six year old Sorento combined with the discount on a new Sorento, making the overall savings even greater.
Finally the question of reliability. Rather than relying on anonymous "independent mechanics" and anecdotal stories of friends or friends, the most reliable data about reliability comes from the hundreds of thousands of consumers who respond to Consumer Reports annual survey of vehicle owners. On that metric Toyota, not surprisingly, holds first place. As of 2018, KIA ranks fifth, having risen steadily over the last decade. Mazda ranks 14th. Ever wonder why KIA (and Hyundai which also outranks Mazda) offer much better bumper-to-bumper and power train warranties than others? It's not because they lose money on those warranties.
It's only my experience but over 75,000 miles my 2012 Sorento never had a check engine light, never had a single component fail, and never required anything more than fuel, oil changes, tires, and regular maintenance. It's not an apples to apples comparison but my Mazda RX-8 made several trips to the dealer to (believe it or not) replace the spark plug in the rotary engine (not a DIY job) when the engine flooded, couldn't be restarted and eventually required an upgraded battery to be crammed in the engine bay to resolve the problem. I say "crammed" because the larger battery prevented the engine cover from being replaced. I loved the car anyway but it hardly gave me a feeling of security about Mazda's reliability, at least for that model.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Obviously, the Hyundai Palisade and KIA Telluride are more than corporate cousins; they're more like fraternal twins. The Korean conglomerate does a masterful job of building vehicles that share parts, components, and entire platforms while differing enough to appeal to somewhat different market segments. The KIA Sorento and the Hyundai Santa Fe are two examples. The Stinger and the Genesis G70 are another. The Palisade and Telluride are the latest and perhaps the best examples. They share engines, drive trains, dimensions, AWD systems, and a wealth of other components from a common parts bin. Although it's possible to configure each as slightly more or less expensive than the other, fully loaded top trims are almost identical in MSRP. (The Palisade is $115 more than the Telluride.)
Despite those similarities, the overall styling of the two vehicles is distinct. Each was initially designed by KIA's and Hyundai's design studios in California but the overall look and feel of each is aimed at different markets. The Telluride's overall "rugged" vibe is clearly aimed at the North American market. It's built in the US and currently sold exclusively in North America. It's not even offered in the Korean home market. The top trim SX Telluride is decidedly upscale with lots of "luxury" touches. But it's no coincidence that it most closely resembles a Range Rover, the luxury SUV with a "rugged" reputation.
The Palisade, on the other hand, while designed to appeal to the near luxury market segment in the US, is aimed at a much broader international market, especially in Asia. Unlike the Telluride it's built in Korea and meant to appeal to the growing middle class there and in other Asian markets, especially in China. Those markets aren't focused on "ruggedness." The appeal is to the recently affluent consumer who cannot afford a Mercedes or a BMW but find a near "luxury" vehicle priced significantly less than those brands to be a way to demonstrate their success to their neighbors and family.
3