Youtube hearted comments of Stephen Hendricks (@stephenhendricks103).

  1. I think self-styled automotive "enthusiasts" sometimes underestimate the challenge of designing and producing of a vehicle that appeal to broad categories of consumers. The Civic Type R is an awesome vehicle but to build it on the same platform as a compact family sedan is a triumph of design and engineering. Likewise, the Civic Hatchback meets many of the requirements of a small SUV in terms of interior space while offering a superior driving experience. And while the option of a manual transmission won't attract many buyers, it's to Honda's credit that they continue to offer it in a compact "family" sedan.
    462
  2. It's videos like this that are the reason I subscribe to this channel. Like most self-styled "enthusiasts" I didn't like the start/stop system on my new GTI and thought mistakenly that any fuel efficiency advantages were probably cancelled by the fuel needed to restart the engine. But as an old professor of mine once said, "The thing about data is that it sure does cut the bulls**t." In the meantime, I discovered another benefit of the system. Each day I make a trip to the local Starbucks and wait in line in an enclosed "tunnel" outside the store. Typically, my engine shuts down when I pull into the tunnel and when I reach the window. The baristas at the window have thanked me on multiple occasions for shutting off my engine, noting that they have to breathe exhaust fumes all day long. It's not a big thing but it's worth noting that in addition to reducing fuel consumption to some degree, start/stop technology makes the air a bit more breathable for everyone, some more than others.
    338
  3. Hyundai is in the process of establishing Genesis as a standalone luxury brand. To succeed they need to create buzz and showroom traffic in their new dealerships. The G70 is obviously part of that strategy. What better way to create interest among auto journalists (like Thomas) than to offer a classic European sport sedan in their lineup, especially as the Europeans have all but abandoned that small but still prestigious market. They won't sell many of the 2.0L, RWD, MT versions but offering it will draw some feet into the dealerships that wouldn't necessarily come to see the G80 or G90. If you like it, you better buy it because as another poster noted, it's not likely to be around in four or five years as the Genesis brand becomes established and demand for production of better selling V6 and AWD models increases. As for a comparison between the G70 and the Stinger, that's an "apples to pineapples" comparison. Neither is the "better" car. Despite sharing engines, interior features, and important drive train components, they're aimed at different market segments. The Stinger is a true Grand Touring automobile, designed for more than a weekend away with a significant other. For those who want to take a long vacation and don't want an SUV, the size and liftback design make it a great choice. (Try putting luggage for a two week trip for four or a mountain bike in a G70.) The Stinger will carve back roads, but the G70 is far better for that duty. And for the rising young mid-level executive the G70 says, "I'm hip but still conservative and value conscious. Promote me."
    91
  4. I think self-styled automotive "enthusiasts" often underestimate the challenge of designing a vehicle like the Civic. An automobile that isn't necessarily the best on any one checkbox but is above average on almost every checkbox. Honda consistently meets that challenge better than any manufacturer.
    47
  5. Wait for a redesign? More likely buy one now and put it away as a collector's item. I suspect we've seen the last of this vehicle.
    44
  6. Amusing to see the comments about the price of the Range Rover. This is a vehicle for residents of upscale suburbs like the Hamptons, or Rye, New York, and Marin County, California. It's meant to be parked on Rodeo Drive and filled with purchases from the boutiques that adorn that LA neighborhood. If you have to prioritize your purchases between a vehicle and remodeling your kitchen, the Range Rover (along with other luxury SUV's) isn't meant for you. If you, like 99+% of consumers, didn't get a significant benefit from the 2017 Trump tax cuts, you're not in the target market. If you're not a surgeon or a hedge fund manager, look elsewhere. In fact, if you even glance at the window sticker when you're shopping for a car, you're not a potential customer for the Range Rover HST. And if you think Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax fortunes over $50 million with a 2% wealth tax wouldn't affect you, you should probably consider a KIA Telluride.
    31
  7. Great review, Thomas! On this side of the Atlantic (US Washington state in my case) the Areton is tremendously underappreciated though not by me. Sadly, as is the case with almost all VWs we Americans don't have the options provided to Europeans. The basic Golf has been dropped in the US as a result of slow sales. Our Passat is larger, less expensive, and less well equipped than the European version. The US version of the Jetta is larger than its predecessor and not sold in Europe as far as I know. The same is true of our "midsize" VW SUVs, the Atlas and the Cross Sport. The Touareg disappeared when the Atlas was introduced. Our only Tiguan is what Europeans know as the "AllSpace" version. Even the fabulous EA888 2.0L engine lacks the dual injection found in Europe. Of all the vehicles VW offers in the US the GTI, the Golf R, and the Arteon are the closest to their European counterparts. As far as the Arteon is concerned, there are a few noteworthy differences. We have no "Shooting Brake" version available here. Like other automakers VW has given up trying to interest Americans in what we once called "station wagons." A few versions from European luxury brands survive but even those are difficult to find on dealer lots and their prices are firmly in the "luxury" category. Among mainstream brands only the Subaru Outback survives and Subaru goes to great lengths to disguise it by calling it an SUV. Other differences include the aforementioned lack of dual injection on the EA888 engine in the US Arteon. It's not a major issue (except as a weakness widely cited on the internet) and it's easily remedied with head cleaning mostly in high mileage engines. Still, it's an annoyance. In addition, the US version has a conventional 8 speed AT rather than the European 7 speed DCT. As a GTI owner I think that's a shame but VW has undoubtedly discovered that Americans are suspicious regarding the behavior of an automated manual transmission compared to a conventional automatic. Finally, the US won't be getting a full-on "R" version of the Arteon. Rather, we have the "R-Line" in the mid and top trims of the Arteon with HP and torque figures of 268/258 from the 2.0L petrol engine (our only choice). That, too, is a shame but companies including APR offer a Stage I ECU tune that adds significantly to the Arteon's (as well as other VW's) engine performance . And for those who fear risking the loss of VW's factory warranty APR offers a backup warranty that matches VW's version for less than $1000. The HP and torque improvements come close to the European "R's" specs but lacking a brake upgrade it doesn't quite match the factory European specs. Still, it's a time tested ECU upgrade that improves performance tremendously with no discernible loss in reliability and surprisingly little loss in fuel economy. (My last GTI had the APR Stage I tune for 40,000 miles without a single issue.) On the bright side for North American consumers, the price of an Arteon on this side of the Atlantic is tremendously appealing. The top two "R-Line" trims of the Arteon with AWD can be purchased for $40K to $43K here in the Seattle area. (Discounts of $6000 to $7000 from MSRP are common.) Even adding $1000 for a Stage I ECU tune and backup warranty puts the transaction price as low as $41,000 plus tax, title, and license (typically amounting to less than 10% of the purchase price.) Current conversion rates put $43,000 equivalent to less than 36,000 Euros. According to sources on the internet, the Arteon R has a starting MSRP of 63,000 Euros plus considerably higher charges for tax, title, and licensing. To be fair, however, Europeans pay in a number of ways including taxes to have excellent well maintained highways where the Arteon can be driven safely and legally at over 100 mph. Our crumbling infrastructure and speed limits allow for no such adventures. :) All in all, even with the cost cutting and restricted choices for the Arteon in America, it's a fantastic automobile (imo). For the price the most obvious rival is the KIA Stinger with KIA's new 2.5L turbo 4 cylinder engine that's found in at least 7 KIA, Hyundai, and Genesis vehicles. As the owner of both a VW and a KIA (Sorento) I'm torn as I consider giving my teenager unfettered access to my beloved GTI and I get a new daily driver. The KIA has an advantage in terms of its RWD architecture but with AWD in each, that advantage is mitigated. The Stinger has a superior infotainment and embedded navigation system but in terms of other features and interior quality, the Arteon has numerous advantages. All in all, each is an excellent example of a relatively affordable GT (Grand Touring) sedan in the European tradition with the Stinger leaning more to the sport sedan side and the Arteon projecting a near luxury ambiance. A difficult choice.
    27
  8. Nolan, excellent review. Or at least it matches my own evaluation of the Mazda6. Several months ago I looked seriously at several midsize sedans, all with top level trims: the Accord 2.0L Turbo Touring, the Camry v6 XSE, the Mazda6 Signature, and the Ford Fusion 2.7L V6 Turbo with AWD. For me, as for you, the Honda came out in first place with the Mazda6 slightly behind, the Camry in third place and the Fusion trailing the field. In terms of exterior styling the Mazda6 was, imo, the best. The Accord and especially the Camry seemed to take their design inspiration from a 1930's Flash Gordon spaceship. I could get used to the Accord but the Camry was (again imo) simply awful. The Ford, unfortunately, looked somewhat tired, no doubt because it is. On the interior it was a "pick 'em" between the Mazda and the Accord. Each had its strengths. The Mazda is clearly designed to look and feel near-luxury. The Mazda scored in terms of materials (though I had some doubts about their durability) while the Accord has better interior space. The "6" has standard rear seat usb ports (a big deal with the teenager in the family) that are extra cost options on the Accord. On the other hand, the Accord has a significantly superior infotainment system including cameras, screen, and navigation. The Camry's panoramic sunroof didn't make up for the fact that it carried the "Flash Gordon" design scheme to the interior and compared to the Ford and Mazda was simply cheap looking and feeling in the back seat. The Ford's interior was functional but the 50 shades of gray theme was just too boring. As far as handling and driveability the Mazda continues to shine. But both the Accord and the Camry have seriously upped the ante in the new models. Even if the Mazda was the best, it was by a very small margin. The Fusion, despite AWD, couldn't mask its weight. It was easily the quickest in a straight line but relatively ponderous when the road turned curvy. It was in the engine/drivetrain department where the Honda was the clear winner for me. I had high hopes for the 2.5L Turbo in the Mazda but I was surprised to find it felt more like the naturally aspirated V6 Camry than the turbo 4 in the Honda. Anyone expecting that 300+ ft lbs of torque to yield the "kick" of a turbo is going to be disappointed. Power is more than adequate but while the Honda approaches the feel of a sport sedan, the "6" seems to be tuned to deliver smooth rather than exciting performance. It's not necessarily a bad choice considering the market Mazda hopes to capture but it fades compared to the marvelous Honda engine. Likewise, the six speed automatic in the Mazda is a step behind Honda's ten speed AT. On the other hand, those who prefer to drive in a manual mode may find the Mazda more convenient than trying to manage 10 separate gear ratios, themselves. The Camry's eight speed AT splits the difference. With the larger V6 and eight speeds it's as quick as the Honda (and perhaps more durable in the long run) but it's just not as much fun. As for the Fusion, if you're looking for a hot rod masquerading as a family sedan, it comes the closest but I found the 2.7L V6 twin scroll turbo better suited to the Ford Edge Sport than to the Fusion. Finally, it's worth mentioning that a sleeper in this category worth considering is the VW Passat GT. It wasn't available when I was in the market but at a real world price of $25K-$27K, with a 290HP V6, class leading interior room, classic styling, and handling that more closely approximates a European GT than any of the options mentioned here, it's worth a look.
    21
  9. Obviously Hyundai is going for a "near luxury" vibe with the Palisade while Kia is aiming for an "adventure" vibe with the Telluride. The Hyundai/KIA conglomerate is doing an extraordinary job of designing vehicles that share major (and often minor) components while appealing to somewhat different market sub-segments. (Consider the Kia Stinger vs Genesis G70 and the Kia Sorento vs Hyundai Santa Fe.) Personally, I've always found Hyundai's exterior designs to be kinda "fussy." (Not as true for the Genesis brand.) So I'm drawn more to Kia's simpler and (imo) more elegant designs. And that carries over (for me) to the interiors of the Telluride and Palisade. And despite the undeniable appeal of each vehicle, I'm more drawn to the "tweener" size of the KIA Sorento. But each of these models will appeal to those looking at larger crossovers. Ford looks to have done a credible job with the new generation of the Explorer so I expect these three to be strong contenders in the "larger midsize" category. (I'm not sure how many slices of the midsize category there can be but there appears to be more and more every year.)
    20
  10. Minis are great fun, closer to a jet powered skateboard than just about any other vehicle. Just about any version is a hoot to drive. In addition one buys into a cult-like ownership experience in which Mini drivers still wave to one another on the highway and drive long distances for annual events. The Mini offers far more configuration options than any vehicle in its class with literally thousands of variations possible in each version. But that configurability comes at a significant cost. It's possible to layer on options that take the MSRP to well over $50,000 for a loaded JCW Countryman. The $40K MSRP of the model Joe is driving suggests Mini is hoping models with a limited number of popular options will improve sales. And his ad for the local Florida dealer suggesting a $4000 discount from that price illustrates just how dismal the sales figures are for Minis in 2019. In the first four months of 2018 Mini reported sales of all their models to be 14,264. A terrible number that reflects the lowest total yearly sales in 10 years! And 2019 is even worse. This year first 4 month sales are down to 11,532, a 19% drop compared to 2018. (http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/mini/) At $36K, or so the Countryman is not a bad deal versus comparable rivals like the Golf R, the Civic Type R, and what's likely to be the real world price of the Veloster N. That assumes, however, that it's not a loss leader price designed to draw customers into a showroom where they find that the last $36K model was "sold yesterday" but some other more expensive models are still available. I think MINIs are great cars. But unless the sales declines are reversed I suspect BMW may decide that tradition, funky design, and distinctiveness aren't worth the effort.
    20
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Joe, I agree with your dislike of the front row armrests on the Pilot and Passport, reminding me of sitting in coach on an airliner. But I think you've ignored the rationale for the design. In most vehicles the front seat armrests double as the lid of a vehicle's center console. That means the console storage can be accessed by the front seat passenger only by disturbing/distracting the driver if the driver's elbow is resting on the armrest. Some vehicles employ a split opening on the console allowing the passenger to open one side but that's a compromise, at best. The Honda design enables a front seat passenger to open the console completely without affecting the driver. Personally, I'd prefer the armrests to be a bit wider but the design itself is reasonable and would avoid my wife repeatedly saying, "Honey, please move your arm so I can open the lid."
    18
  14. For those looking for a RWD or RWD-biased AWD crossover the Durango is worth serious consideration. And compared to the 2020 Explorer it's a huge bargain. The GT version Joe tests in this video is significantly under-optioned compared to what is available in the GT trim level. But even with a significant set of options, the GT is less expensive than an Explorer and comes with a higher tow rating and a V6 engine.
    16
  15. 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
  16. Nissan salesperson to potential customer..."Hey, take a look at the new Altima. It has a new, powerful four cylinder turbo that will take you from 0 to 60 in about six seconds. Pretty impressive, eh. Quite competitive with the Accord 2.0L turbo and the Camry V6. And that's not all. Other than the Subaru Legacy our new Altima is the only midsize mainstream sedan with AWD! Like that, too, eh? Uh...I should mention you can't have both in the same car. Could I interest you in purchasing two?" And then there's the CVT. I get it. If you're going to buy a Nissan you're going to get a CVT. But it has eight (!) "simulated" gears and paddle shifters. HUGE paddle shifters! But why not a dozen "simulated" gears? How about two dozen? Bottom line is that "simulated" gears on a CVT, even with gigantic paddle shifters only adds insult to injury. If you're going to stick with a CVT, own it!
    15
  17. Interesting comparison. At 179" long the CX-5 is the smallest vehicle in the compact SUV class while at 185" in length the Tiguan (along with the Nissan Rogue) is the largest. All the others from the CR-V to the RAV4, the Tucson, Escape, etc. are between them. I think you've largely nailed the critical differences between the two. From a performance standpoint the CX-5 is an obvious choice. In fact, in its turbo guise it's at or near the top among virtually all compact SUV's. And considering that the CX-5 has the same engine and drive train as the bloated CX-9 in a package that's 20" (!) shorter and 600 lbs (!) or more lighter, it appears to be a superior choice from a performance standpoint among Mazda's crossovers. On the other hand, the typical use case for a compact crossover doesn't prioritize performance for most buyers. And if a customer is looking for a vehicle that seats five and has cargo space both behind the second and first rows, the Tiguan offers considerably more than the Mazda. The Tiguan provides cubic ft of cargo space behind the second row compared to 30.9 cf for the CX-5. Total cargo space in the Tiguan is 73.5 cf compared to 59.6 in the CX-5. In terms of seating, two vehicles are very close but the rear seat is about 2" wider in the Tiguan and that makes a difference in fitting three passengers there. In terms of back seat features the Tiguan has a single USB port compared to the CX-5's two ports. But it's worth noting that the Mazda's rear seat USB ports are in the fold down center console. With three passengers in the back seat, there are no accessible USB ports. For a family of five the Tiguan is arguably a better choice, especially if road trips for the family with luggage is a priority. For a single driver, a couple or a family of three or four, the Mazda has much to recommend it.
    15
  18. I'm a fan of the 2.3L Ecoboost Mustang. For those who don't live in "flyover" country and other places where turns and curves are only occasional and mountains are non-existent, the smaller displacement 4 banger with its turbocharged power delivery, lighter weight, and better weight distribution makes a great deal of sense.(The curb weight of the Ecoboost is almost 200 lbs lighter than the GT, with all that weight in the front end. It's like having an NFL corner back sitting on the hood.) I'm skeptical about the durability of the 2.3L Ecoboost engine in a loaded 5000 lb Explorer but in a 3500 lb Mustang it's a different ballgame. In fact, for those attracted to the design/engineering philosophy of European vehicles, the high performance ecoboost Mustang demonstrates that Ford can build a worthwhile competitor at a bargain price. My favorite mountain roads include a 50-100 mile loop in the Cascades around Mt Rainier in Washington. And while the Ecoboost High Performance won't keep up with the Mustang GT in a straight line to 60 mph or on a flat quarter mile, a skilled driver in the 2.3L Mustang can be drinking a second latte while waiting for a Mustang GT to finish that loop. And on a tight, technical track, I'd expect it to keep up with the heavier Mustang GT. With an up to a $9000 difference in price between a fully loaded high performance Ecoboost Mustang and a comparably equipped GT Premium fastback, I'd take the High Performance Ecoboost and laugh all the way to the bank.
    13
  19. I usually wouldn't spend an hour and a half on an automotive review of a vehicle I cannot even drive, much less purchase. So kudos for this review, Thomas. It was excellent.
    12
  20. Spent some time earlier this year testing and researching several top trim mainstream midsize sedans. (Honda Accord 2.0L Touring, Toyota Camry V6 XSE, and Mazda6 Signature among others.) It was a close finish but on my scorecard the Accord finished in first place followed by the Mazda and the Toyota. If I'd been handing out a "most improved" award it would have gone to the Camry. It no longer deserves to be called an "appliance" but the Accord and the Mazda6 with its 2.5L turbo four banger were improved, as well. In terms of looks, the Mazda took the prize with the Honda in second place even though it looked, to me, like its front end and rear end were designed by different committees. The Camry finished last in looks, at least for me. Outside and inside it looked like its design was based on a spaceship from a 1930's Flash Gordon serial. And the materials in the rear seat bore all the earmarks of "value engineering." Infotainment was definitely second rate, especially compared to the Honda. I was pulling for the Mazda, having owned several over the years. But while the Signature trim interior was impressive, it didn't make up for the dated infotainment system and comparatively cramped interior compared to the Honda. Finally, the Honda's turbo four was much more impressive than the Mazda mill and equaled the performance of the Camry's V6. All three are good cars, I think. But the Honda definitely stands out in this crowd.
    12
  21. Very interesting review, Russ. Personally, I think the most appropriate application of Mazda's ubiquitous 2.5L turbo is the CX-5. The Mazda6 is also an appealing choice but the competition from the Accord's punchy 2.0L turbo and the Camry's naturally aspirated V6 is tougher in that category. As for the two-ton plus CX-9 where the competition is mainly V6's (except for the Subaru Ascent) and vehicles with MUCH more passenger and cargo space in tidier (i.e. shorter) packages it's up against some really tough competition. Want a vehicle that prioritizes performance over utility in the compact category and the CX-5 is very appealing. Want to reverse those priorities and the CR-V is an obvious choice with virtually all of the others ahead of the CX-5. More broadly, I like your categorical division among crossovers. I'd add another distinction based on size with several more categories. At the small end are the well recognized "sub-compact" crossovers. But lets save these "hatchbacks on stilts" for another time. At the other end of the scale are the "full size" SUV's or what the rest of the world refers to as Godzilla-mobiles. Let's ignore those, too. That leaves the conventional categories of "compacts" (average 180"-182" with a couple of outliers (Tiguan, Rogue) coming in about at 185" in length and the large hodgepodge of different vehicles typically called "midsize" SUV's that range from about 188" to 203 in length. That midsize category is too numerous and too varied. So lets define a "tweener" category of vehicles larger than the compact group and smaller than the larger 3 row midsize vehicles. If one takes your categories of "soft crossers" and "car crossers" and combines it with "compact" and "tweener" categories, the result is a 2x2 matrix with some interesting similarities and contrasts. Almost without exception the "compacts" are four banger mills, some turbocharged and others NA. The "tweeners" typically have standard or optional V6's, almost all naturally aspirated. Exceptions are the Edge ST turbo V6, a V8 option in the Grand Cherokee, and the Santa Fe's single option four banger turbo. The compacts and tweeners are almost all two row SUV's with the exception of the Kia Sorento in the tweener category and the Tiguan's optional third row suitable for stowing a bound and gagged hostage at the lengthy end of the compact category. As you note, both the CX-5 and the Ford Edge are "car crossers." But the CX-5 is clearly a "compact and the Edge (188") is a tweener. Similarly, with the CX-5 and the Hyundai Santa Fe. The Forester and CX-5 are near the same size but the Forester arguably falls in the "soft crosser" group and the Outback is more suitably termed a "tweener car crosser." Likewise for the Jeep Grand Cherokee while some configurations of the compact Cherokee (e.g. Trailhawk) are in the more rugged group of "soft crosser" compacts and other configurations in the "car crosser" group. I'll stop there. At least some of those who've made it this far think I've gone on far too long anyway. But I do find that Russ' categorization of crossovers' character combined with a recognition that there's a definable category of SUV's between compact and midsize to yield a useful set of comparisons and contrasts.
    11
  22. Nolan, it's true that the more compact external dimensions of the Sorento (for a midsize crossover) limits the overall cargo capacity of the Sorento. It's worth noting, however, that the total of 74 cubic feet behind the first row is greater than that of the much larger Mazda CX-9. Amusingly, the cargo capacity is the same as the Ford Edge two row crossover, a capacity that some reviewers have characterized as "cavernous." Seems the standards on cargo capacity shift depending upon what the vehicles are being compared to. ;) As you imply, KIA designers have opted to provide a bit more room for third row passengers compared to its rivals. (Third row legroom is greater than the CX-9, the Toyota Highlander, and the Honda Pilot, for example.) It's only in cargo space behind the third row that the Sorento trails the competition. But let's be honest; none of the midsize crossovers is really suitable for accommodating six or more passengers and their gear for an extended road trip. That's the mission of minivans and large crossovers. All in all, we chose the Sorento over its competitors in part because its relatively compact size offers solid advantages in terms of maneuverability in suburban traffic and parking lots. We also wanted a usable third row for occasional short trips hauling our daughter and her friends or with another family without paying the penalty of a more massive vehicle in day to day use. The Sorento checks the "Goldilocks" box almost perfectly.
    11
  23. Very attractive vehicle. And probably the best application of Mazda's ubiquitous 2.5L Turbo. The CX-9 is in a competitive space with vehicles almost all of which offer standard or optional V6 engines. The Mazda6 is also an attractive offering but it has much tougher competition in the form of the Accord with 2.0L turbo engine and the Camry V6. In all three vehicles the attractive looks stem in large part from a comparatively long distance from the firewall to the front bumper and resulting reduced distance from the base of the windshield to the rear bumper. In the Mazdas it's necessitated by a massive exhaust manifold located behind the turbo engine but it has the additional benefit in a profile that automotive designers have used for about a century in sports cars and sedans to imply potency and performance. Unfortunately, that stylish profile comes with significant design challenges, especially in a compact SUV category with "utility" in the name. At 179" in length the CX-5 is about an inch or two shorter than the its main competitors, the CR-V and the RAV4. But the CR-V has up to 39.2 cubic feet of cargo space behind the second row and a whopping 75.8 cf of total cargo space. In comparison the CX-5 has only 30.9 cf behind the second row and 59.6 cf overall. That's a whopping deficit in total cargo space of over 27% (!). In fact, the CX-5 has only about six cubic feet more overall cargo space than a VW Golf. The only consolation is that the massive CX-9, twenty inches longer than the CX-5 also trails the CR-V (and the Subaru Forester) with only 71 cubic feet of total cargo space. The bottom line is that the CX-5 has a great looking profile and a seriously upscale interior in the Signature trim. The 2.5L turbo engine is tuned to provide massive torque at a low rpm giving it an almost diesel-like character that's appealing in off the line acceleration even if it falls off a cliff at high rpm's. MPG's aren't the best, especially if one takes advantage of the turbo but they're not awful. The infotainment system is dated but for 2019 the CX-5 finally offers both Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. And it will probably be updated to keep up with the Mazda3 next year. So for those who neither need nor want the actual utility and versatility offered by several other compact SUV's but feel the need to join the SUV crowd, it's an appealing choice.
    11
  24. Seriously considered the Tiguan last year when my wife and I were considering a new crossover as her daily driver and the family's trip vehicle. My impressions... () As a GTI owner I found the performance sluggish. However, putting the Tiguan in "sport" mode made a significant difference. Still not a GTI but no longer sluggish. If I owned one I'd add a Stage I APR tune to the engine for about $800 and increase the HP and torque by about 40%. (Unless a warranty issue can be shown to result directly from the tune, it doesn't invalidate the warranty by the way.) Remember this IS the same engine as the GTI; the difference lies in the tuning. () The third row is a cruel joke. Suitable only for the S&M crowd for holding a small bound and gagged hostage. Fortunately, it's a low cost option rather than a standard feature. Save the $500 and put it toward a Stage I tune. () Handling and drive-ability. Best in class. No contest. Unfortunately, though, the American version of the Tiguan uses a conventional automatic rather than the DSG available in Europe (where it is known as the Allspace rather than the Tiguan and the smaller previous version of the Tiguan is still sold.) Nevertheless, if you're partial to the handling of European vehicles, the Tiguan is far and away the best in its class. () Utility. Although the Tiguan (along with the Nissan Rogue) is typically considered a "compact" crossover, at 185" in length it's up to six inches longer than the competition (e.g. Mazda CX-5) in the class and has extremely generous cargo space. It has up to 73.5 cubic ft of cargo space behind the front row (versus 59.6 in the Mazda CX-5) Furthermore, the cargo space is especially well designed as a box with relatively wide space, low liftover, and minimal intrusion into the space. () Bottom line. Ultimately we purchased a KIA Sorento, slightly larger than the Tiguan (189" in length), a close cousin of the Hyundai Santa Fe but with a V6 engine and an occasional third row that's actually usable. Had the priorities been solely mine I might have opted for the Tiguan and invested in a Stage I tune. But since the family truckster is my wife's daily driver and the vehicle we use for f trips, the Sorento better met our overall needs.
    11
  25. Just what I've always wanted in a vehicle; the ability to remove the doors, fold the windshield onto the hood, and get rid of the roof. Many are the times I've wanted to ditch the doors on my car. I've tried it on several vehicles without success. Just kidding. I fully support the availability of the Wrangler for the Jeep cult. Otherwise, I suspect they might consider armed revolution. :)
    9
  26. THe MX-5. The golden retriever of cars. The last and in many ways the best British sports car even if it's built in Japan. The only car I know that DEMANDS a manual transmission. Full of flaws (not even a glove compartment) yet perfectly suited to its mission. If Mazda built no other vehicle worth owning the Miata would justify the automaker's existence. Few automobiles deserve to occupy a spot in an automotive Hall of Fame. The MX-5 is one that does.
    9
  27. For those complaining about the absence of an MT in the Stinger, it's important to understand KIA's overall corporate marketing strategy. They design their vehicles to hit a market "sweet spot" rather than attempt to meet each and every customer's desires by offering numerous options, some of which will sit un-purchased on dealer lots until they're finally sold at deep discounts. When KIA does offer options, they're typically combined into larger "packages" or (more often) defined by trim levels. Options likely to be chosen by, say, fewer than 10% of customers simply don't make the cut. It might not be understood that this approach contains costs not just in terms of the expense of offering relatively unpopular options. It also contains the cost of other vehicles, as well. That's because complicating designs and/or adding separate production lines are sunk costs that must be factored into the cost of every vehicle. Many components in modern vehicles are manufactured by third parties. Reducing the number of components from a third party may well impact the per component price of each. Other manufacturers, especially European premium brands, offer literally pages of individual options ranging from a vast array of colors to features such as satellite radio choices. That approach enables a customer to tailor a vehicle to their specific requirements. But it also adds significantly to the price of vehicles, both those produced with particular options and those without them.
    9
  28. I own a 2018 GTI DSG Autobahn trim that I purchased last year when I replaced a much loved 2013 MK6 version with a Stage I APR tune. Had 70K miles on the MK6, the last GTI on the old platform and the last version built in Germany. My MK6 was trouble free including 30K miles with the Stage I (APR) tune. The 2018 model built in Mexico on the MQB platform has likewise been trouble free while being tighter, quieter, and somewhat quicker than my (untuned) MK6 version. I could go on and on about my impressions but I'll try to restrain myself to a few comments. () The difference between the 2018 and 2019 models comes down to a seventh gear in the DSG and the addition of Golf R brakes to lower trim levels. (They were already a feature of the 2018 Autobahn trim.) The additional gear does nothing for performance; it was added primarily to make the automatic shifts slightly less noticeable and to improve highway fuel efficiency by an mpg, or so. The eight HP bump is mainly marketing-speak, possibly resulting from a difference in the calculation of HP. In any case it's virtually invisible even on a dyno. And of course with even the mildest ECU tune, it disappears completely. No criticism intended. VW needed some bells and whistles for 2019 while waiting for the 2020 MK8 generation but an 8 HP bump, even if it exists, is simply not an issue. () Trim levels for the GTI in North America are often confusing. Never more so than in 2019. The Rabbit is a limited edition in the US slotted between the S and SE trim levels. It's apparently just a separate trim level in Canada with no limit set and there are no "S" or "SE" trim levels. The plain GTI appears to correspond to the US "S" trim. The Rabbit comes with Dynamic Chassis Control (DCC) which is apparently not available (or not mentioned) for the upper Autobahn trim. (It was standard on the Autobahn in 2018.) My guess is that this all has to do with some parts availability issues and will disappear once those are resolved and the supply of the supposed "limited" edition Rabbit is exhausted. The fact that the Rabbit sticker is now sent to a US purchaser rather than placed on the car at the factory suggests a buyer should check the exact specifications of the model to see just what is included in the "Rabbit" they're considering. () GTI vs Golf R. It's often noted that a Golf R is only "a few thousand dollars" more than the top trim GTI. In my experience that's very misleading. In the first place finding a Golf R in the US can be difficult. (That's apparently not true in Canada.) And when I was shopping dealers routinely applied "market adjustment" stickers to the few Golf R's available that made the real world difference in price $10,000 or more. Second, while the R is far more powerful than the GTI, it's also about 200 lbs heavier. That's like putting an NFL cornerback in the back seat. The GTI is considerably more nimble as a result and the performance difference can be significantly reduced by adding a Stage I tune to the GTI. (That's especially true for the DSG equipped GTI's that don't require a periodic clutch replacement to handle the additional power.) Both the GTI and the Golf R are magnificent machines imo but in my case I decided that a $10,000 price difference was a bridge too far. () All in all, I'm a long time VW fan. I drove a '61 Beetle in high school, two Rabbits (when all Golfs in the US were called Rabbits) in the '70's and more recently two GTI's. When I was shopping last year I also considered the larger Accord 2.0L turbo and the Mazda6 2.5L turbo. Each is an impressive vehicle. But when I drove the MK7.5 GTI, I was at home. There are quicker and less expensive "hot hatches." But for all round driving enjoyment combined with versatility, I don't think the GTI can be beat.
    8
  29. You take the Alpha away for a week in Cancun. You take the Acura home to meet your parents.
    8
  30. The same driving experience offered by the Camaro can be matched by a number of other vehicles simply by wearing a blindfold while driving. Only slightly less visibility.
    7
  31. I'm very attracted to the size of the Passport. At 190" long it falls into a "tweener" category (188"-192") between compact SUV's (an average of 181" or so) and larger midsize SUV's (197"- 204"). The category includes the Hyundai Santa Fe, Ford Edge, Kia Sorento, Subaru Outback, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Nissan Murano in addition to the Passport and some others. Most offer V6 engines as standard or optional and all but the Sorento are five passenger vehicles with total cargo space of 65 to 78 cubic feet. And if you want to hang a bike rack on the back extending the length by up to two feet, the shorter length compared to the larger midsize alternatives is an advantage in terms of fitting the rig into a crowded garage and closing the door. All in all it's an attractive alternatives for many SUV shoppers. As far as losing a third row of seats compared to the Pilot and other larger SUV's, that wasn't a big deal for our family (2 adults, a teenage daughter, and a big dog) when we purchased a new SUV last year. The Passport wasn't yet available but we looked seriously at several two and three row SUV's. Eventually it came down to the KIA Sorento and the Ford Edge. The KIA had several advantages over the Edge for us and one was the surprisingly accommodating third row for an extra passenger or two. We keep it stowed about 90% of the time (giving us up to 73 cubic feet of total cargo space, identical to the Edge) but it's very convenient when we're chauffeuring a gaggle of teenage girls around town or need to accommodate more than five passengers and the alternative is taking two vehicles. If one never needs a third row, the Passport is a strong contender in the segment. The engine is durable and offers good performance and Honda's version of SH-AWD is probably the best of the lot. In trying to distinguish the Passport from the Pilot I think Honda could have tried a bit harder to give it a more "rugged" vibe. I wouldn't be surprised to see an "adventure" version come along next year. But few consumers in this segment are serious off-roaders and for its intended mission, the Passport is appealing.
    7
  32. It's a very impressive vehicle. Not as versatile but somewhat more upscale than the Stinger. Have to say, though, that Hyundai/Genesis seems to believe that diamond quilted leather spells "L-U-X-U-R-Y." Both in the Genesis brand and in the new Hyundai Palisade. For me, though, it recalls the sofa in my grandmother's living room half a century ago. :)
    7
  33. There's much to like about the new GLI, chief among the features is the fact that it shares the platform, engine, and drive train with the GTI. Unfortunately, the GLI's trim levels in the US look like they were designed by throwing darts blindfolded at a target. Most bizarre is restricting"dynamic chassis control" to the limited edition "35" trim and not including it on the higher Autobahn level. It's especially puzzling given the fact that in Canada DCC is on the top trim "35" level rather than on the only other trim level, the "GLI." It makes no sense but I suspect the reason lies in supply chain issues in which components required for DCC are in short supply in Europe. Sufficient to cover the smaller Canadian market but insufficient for more than the limited 35th Anniversary edition in the US. I suspect that once the supply of the "35" vehicles is exhausted VW will straighten out the trim options and at least offer it as standard equipment on the highest Autobahn trim level.
    7
  34. Kudos for including the oft-ignored GLI in the list. A great engine combined with a first class manual transmission. Drives like a true European sport sedan. And the cherry on top is a back seat where adults can ride for extended periods.
    7
  35. A beautiful midsize sedan. Possibly the best looking in the category. Upscale interior in the top trim levels. Again, among the best in the segment. A strong performing turbo4 on paper. So why are Mazda6 sales so dismal, far worse than competitors even taking into account the soft sales of midsize sedans? In 2018 when the current engine lineup was introduced Mazda sold about 31,000 "6s" in the US. In 2019 sales dropped by a third to 21,000. In 2020 sales tanked again, down 25% to a total of 16,000 units. No one expects the Mazda6 to outsell the Accord or the Camry but KIA the KIA K5 was available only in the fourth quarter of 2020 and it outsold the entire year's sales of the Mazda by a factor of 2 to 1. Of course, there's no necessary correlation between a vehicle's quality and its sales but the Mazda6 is a dying model in the Mazda lineup at least in North America. And while owners may not care that the vast majority of midsize sedans, presumably Mazda does care. There are rumors and vague promises that a new Mazda6 is on the way with an inline 6 and possibly AWD. Unfortunately, Mazda has a well earned reputation for over-promising and under-delivering on their production plans. And considering that the company is the smallest independent mainstream automaker on the planet with major sales problems (with the exception of the CX-5) throughout their lineup, one has to question whether Mazda has the resources to pour into a vehicle in a shrinking market category. The picture for the turbo version of the Mazda6 is even bleaker. Performance oriented models of mainstream midsize sedans traditionally constitute a tiny percentage of total sales. Toyota says, for example, that only about 5% of all Camrys are fitted with their V6 engine. That amounted to about 15,000 sales in 2020. Assuming that Mazda could improve sales of the "6" by 10% (a VERY optimistic guess), it would do little to reverse the model's dismal sales prospects. The Mazda6 remains an appealing vehicle but it's unlikely to reverse Mazda's fortunes and prevent it from becoming a division of Toyota. And that's a shame.
    7
  36. Important to keep in mind that US consumers aren't the primary focus of the G90. It's aimed at Asian and European executives who occupy the rear seat with a chauffeur up front.
    7
  37. Impressive car. Like many of the Hyundai and KIA models these days. I'll stick with my GTI for a variety of reasons including performance, handling, and interior passenger room. And a feature that won't matter for most folks. The Washington State ferry system provides a discount for vehicles 14 ft long or less. At 168" the GTI just makes it. The extra few inches of the Elantra hatchback disqualifies it. :)
    7
  38. I'll restrain myself and let my numerous comments about the CX-9 in other reviews speak for themselves. Just a brief comparison with the KIA Telluride. The KIA is over 2" shorter than the CX-9 and offers about 1/3 more passenger and cargo space! It has a standard V6 engine in a vehicle weighing over two tons compared to the CX-9's 2.5L turbo 4. The top level Signature trim in the CX-9 is impressive; the Telluride's is at least as impressive if not more so. Feature for feature from the infotainment system to numerous other amenities including the dual sunroofs, third seat features and cargo capacity behind the third row the Telluride ranks higher. All that at an MSRP more or less equal to the CX-9. Of course, the CX-9 can probably be purchased at a discount sitting on a dealer lot while the Telluride has waiting lists and "market adjustment" stickers at most KIA dealers. But that tells you something about the comparative value, as well.
    6
  39. 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
  40. Also worth mentioning that the Santa Fe (as well as the KIA Sorento) has a 110V household power outlet located at the back of the center console. It's a relatively rare feature and extremely useful for powering a laptop computer or other small appliances.
    6
  41. The triumph of wretched excess and conspicuous consumption.
    6
  42. 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
  43. Looked seriously at the Ecoboost Mustang last year. For someone like me who prefers the driving experience of a European sports car or sedan to an American muscle car, it's an excellent choice, especially with the performance package and enhanced suspension. I ended up purchasing another vehicle for a variety of reasons but the Mustang was a strong contender. The GT appeals to many but a Viagra prescription would be a better (and less expensive) solution aimed at the same objective.
    6
  44. Sorry to hear the news about Paul. As a US resident I appreciate the Canadian perspective and as someone with a family consisting of a spouse, a teenage daughter, and a big dog, I appreciate the channel's unique focus. Good luck, Scotty. Big shoes. ;)
    5
  45. The previous generation of the Highlander was definitely long-in-the-tooth. Even Toyota, a conservative brand that typically resists updating their vehicles, had to do something to compete with the newer designs from competitors such as the Telluride, Palisade, Atlas, Ascent, Explorer, etc. So what did they do? Apart from offering a hybrid version, a significant feature, and freshening the interior, not much. Though the length of the 2020 model has been increased from 192.5" to 195", it hasn't made much difference in terms of interior space. And that's especially the case in terms of third row accommodations. With 27.7" of legroom in the back row, the Highlander ranks at the very bottom of ALL midsize crossovers. That's 2" less than the infamously cramped Mazda CX-9. Of course, few if any midsize crossovers offer truly generous third row room. But the KIA Sorento (a full 6" shorter than the Highlander) has 31.7" of legroom, a full 4" more than the Toyota. Of course third row accommodations may not be a high priority for many customers. But if passenger capacity is important, it's worth keeping in mind that the Highlander is essentially a 4-5 passenger vehicle.
    5
  46. Big advantage that's seldom noted about the placement of the headlights in the Soul GT-Line. I live in the Pacific Northwest where the spring thaw in the mountains brings tons of rocks and gravel down from the mountains. That means every vehicle on a highway is vulnerable to projectiles from vehicles ahead, especially large trucks. It's bad enough to replace a windshield every couple of years. Putting the headlights just above the front bumper as they are on several versions of the Soul makes the problem even worse. The GT-Line Soul (as well as the Telluride and several other KIA models) places the headlights high on the front fender. A much better design. One negative for some on the GT-Line is the center placement of the dual tailpipes. Look cool but they interfere with the addition of a typical trailer hitch. A trailer hitch? Yeah, nobody's going to be seriously towing with a Soul but a hitch mounted bike rack is a definite possibility.
    5
  47. Good review, I think, Ryan. As an owner of a Sorento I'd quibble about a few things and agree wholeheartedly with some others. () Size. Is the Sorento a "midsize" crossover? Well, it has a naturally aspirated V6 and three rows of seats. But at 189" long it's actually in a size class that one might call a "tweener" between compact and larger midsize rivals such as the closely related Hyundai Santa Fe (188"), the Subaru Outback (190"), the Honda Passport (190"), the Ford Edge (188"), the Jeep Grand Cherokee (circa 190"), and the Nissan Murano (192"). Other than the Santa Fe that uses a turbo4 lifted from the 2017 Sorento, they all have V6 standard or optional power plants. (The Edge offers a twin scroll turbo V6.) But the Sorento alone provides a third row of seats. For our family of two adults, a teenage daughter, and a big dog the size of the Sorento was one of its best features. It has an amazingly efficient allocation of space for passengers and cargo in a package that's easy to maneuver in the jungle of suburban traffic and parking lots. It doesn't match the cargo space (though it does match the actual passenger space) of several larger rivals but it's easily enough for us even on extended trips with lots of gear. In fact it has more passenger and cargo space than the humungous Mazda CX-9 (199") a vehicle that wins the award for the most inefficient allocation of space of practically any vehicle on the road. (It's a "bit on the small side," Ryan only on the inside. On the outside its among the largest in the midsize class, even bigger than the VW Atlas!) () Third Row Seating. Other than the VW Atlas, the Durango, and the GM twins (Traverse and Enclave), none of the midsize crossovers offer three rows of seats AND cargo capacity sufficient for six or more passengers. In most cases it's a choice between passenger and cargo space. The Sorento is no different in that respect. But if you check the specs, you'll the third row of the Sorento offers comparable or better room in the third row than its much larger rivals. Overall passenger space is better than either the Honda Pilot or the Toyota Highlander and much greater than the CX-9. We don't use the third row very often. But it's great for transporting a gaggle of teenage girls on a local outing or taking six or seven people to dinner when we'd otherwise have to use two vehicles. And in the SX-L trim we own and you tested, the third row isn't an afterthought in terms of HVAC and napa leather. All of this is in a vehicle that's up to 11 inches shorter than the competition. () Engine. I'm a fan of turbo 4 engines. Been driving vehicles with them since Saab's in the 1980's and my daily driver is a GTI. But in a vehicle weighing over two tons, I'd argue a V6 is more durable and offers smoother and more linear power delivery. The KIA's naturally aspirated V6 isn't the most impressive power plant on the planet but it's tried and true and in turbo form it's the V6 used in the KIA Stinger and the Genesis G70. All in all, it's pretty bulletproof. I had the same engine in my previous KIA and over 80,000 miles absolutely nothing went wrong. That great KIA warranty is provides a lot of peace of mind but I've never had to rely on it. () Driver Seating Position. You didn't like the elevated seating position. The Sorento is my wife's daily driver and she LOVES it. In fact the seating position combined with the relatively short distance to the front end is one of her favorite features. (She felt like she was piloting a long boat from the stern in the Ford Edge and had trouble determining the position of the front corners of the CX-9 located far, far away.) My wife (and other women I know) moved from a minivan to an SUV specifically to raise the seat to a point that visibility in the vehicle was significantly improved. Different strokes for different folks. () Torque Vectoring/ AWD Handling. Yeah, you're right. In a Sorento "torque vectoring" ain't what it is in a Honda Pilot. But the Sorento handles quite well in its mission of maneuvering in suburban traffic and long slogs on the freeway. As far as the low-speed 50/50 differential lock that turns off automatically above 15 mph, I think you'll find that's preferable to a manual lock that doesn't turn off at highway speeds and destroys a transmission. () Price. Every reviewer of the top trim SX-L Sorento swallows hard when they mention the price. The real world price of a vehicle may differ greatly from the MSRP. In our case, we purchased the our Sorento for $40,000 (nearly $8000 under MSRP) plus TTL. That was thousands less than the offers I received for the Toyota Highlander, Honda Pilot, and Mazda CX-9. And before anyone says, "OK, but what about resale?" I'd point out that my local KIA dealer gave me within $800 of the Blue Book for my 2012 Sorento versus a comparable Toyota Highlander. Considering I purchased that car for about $8000 less than the Toyota I made out like a bandit.
    5
  48. The problem faced by the Sonata N-Line as well as the KIA K5 GT is the absence of either AWD or any form of Limited Slip Differential (electronic or mechanical) in a FWD sedan with nearly 300 HP and over 300 ft lbs of torque. In effect the customer is paying for power that cannot be used without wheel hop, torque steer, and tire abuse. Though the N-Line offers far more power than the versions of the Sonata with the 1.6L turbo it's hardly useful if it cannot be accessed. Hyundai doesn't offer AWD in any Sonata while KIA offers it as an option on lower trims. But the elephant in the room isn't the N-Line Sonata. It's the existence of the Stinger GT-Line with the same engine as the Sonata N-Line and KIA5 GT, RWD or RWD-biased AWD and an MSRP for a fully loaded version ranging from less than $38K (RWD) to slightly over $40K (AWD) plus destination, tax, title, and license.
    5
  49. Sorry, Joe. Like most Mazdas the CX-3 offers attractive styling. But I simply don't understand the appeal of these mainstream "hatchbacks on stilts," especially when they offer so little actual UTILITY. With a maximum of 44.3 cubic feet, the CX-3 has less overall cargo space than a VW Golf (53.7 cubic ft). Want to use the cargo space behind the second row? The CX-3 provides a maximum of 12.4 cubic feet of cargo space versus the Golf's 17.4 cubic feet. Looking for the best gas mileage? The Golf is rated at 29-37 vs the Mazda's 29-34.
    5
  50. Easy answer. Latitude. AWD vehicles have a MUCH higher "take rate" in Canada than in the US. You might also have noted that the test car was fitted with "winter tires," hardly the optimal choice for a performance sedan especially in the relatively mild winter climate of Vancouver, BC. That's because winter tires are required on cars during the winter months in Canada. There's an analogous situation for GTI's and Golf R's. The latter are far more easily obtained in Canada than in the US. I've heard from Canadians that Golf R's are sometimes discounted below MSRP. That is VERY rare in the US. Conversely, GTI's are typically in tight supply in Canada while they're readily available, frequently with significant discounts off MSRP in the US.
    5
  51. Toyota needed the Venza in their lineup. Without it Toyota had no 2 row midsize unibody crossover. (The 4Runner is a body-on-frame vehicle built on a truck frame.) Consumers looking for a Toyota CUV had to choose between the Rav4 compact and the Highlander 3 row midsize. Nothing to compete with vehicles like the Ford Edge, the Hyundai Santa Fe, the Chevy Blazer, the Honda Passport, or the Subaru Outback. With the Venza in the lineup only Mazda with the midsize three row CX-9 and compact 2 row CX-5 remains without a two row midsize crossover. Interestingly, Toyota has apparently looked at the strong sales of the Highlander and the RAV4 hybrids and concluded that they can carve out a niche by offering ONLY a hybrid version of the Venza.
    4
  52. Own a 2018 version of the Sorento SX-L. Very similar to the 2019 version with the major difference being the eight speed transmission versus the six speed in the 2018 version. Some comments. () Exterior Size and Interior Space. The "Goldilocks" size of the Sorento combined with highly efficient allocation of interior space was one of the main reasons my wife and I chose the Sorento. It's my wife's daily driver and at over 10 inches shorter than a Mazda CX-9, it's ideal for navigating urban/suburban traffic and slipping into parking spaces. At the same time, it offers more overall cargo space and more passenger space in each of the three rows of seats than the Mazda. For our family of 2 adults, a teenage daughter, and a big dog it's an ideal size for extended trips, as well. () Third row seating. Let's be frank. Other than perhaps the VW Atlas none of the "midsize" CUV's have third row seating suitable for extended trips with more than five passengers AND their gear. Nevertheless, the Sorento has more legroom in the third row than most of the competition including the much larger CX-9 and the Toyota Highlander. For chauffeuring a gaggle of teenagers or local trips with another family, it's very, very convenient. Especially when the alternative is taking two vehicles. We don't use the third row on a regular basis. But when we need it, it's a lifesaver. (If you NEVER need and don't want a third row, look at the nearly identical 2 row Hyundai Santa Fe.) () Naturally aspirated V6. The 3.3L naturally aspirated engine (290 HP/252 FtLbs torque) is smooth, quiet, and reliable. I like small displacement turbos in some applications. (I have a GTI.) But for a family SUV, I think a naturally aspirated V6 is a better choice. If I have any complaint I'd like to see peak torque at a somewhat lower RPM. But it's not a major issue. () Interior Quality and Features. The nearest competitor to the Sorento's SX-L's interior is the Signature trim of the CX-9. The top trim of the Mazda is very appealing. But the CX-9 lacks a panoramic sunroof and has a significantly inferior infotainment system. The Sorento's napa leather extending thigh cushion for the driver and features like a 110 volt power outlet in the second row and center differential lock are all in place and not matched by most of the competition. Finally, the Sorento's sound deadening is like driving from inside a vault. It's very, very quiet compared to the mainstream competition. () Warranty. Kia and Hyundai 10 year/100,000 mile warranties simply aren't matched by the competition. And having put about 80K miles on a 2012 Sorento without a single issue, I'm fairly assured about the new Sorento's reliability. () Price and Resale. I negotiated a price for our 2018 Sorento of $40,000 early this year before the 2019 models arrived. That amounted to a discount of nearly $8000 under MSRP. At the same time, I received a trade in value for my 2012 Sorento within $800 of the KBB estimate of the average for a Toyota Highlander, traditionally the vehicle with the highest resale value. Considering that discounts on Toyota vehicles are rare, that makes the KIA a far better value than I could negotiate for a Highlander.
    4
  53. Looked seriously at the Tiguan last year. As a GTI owner I had high hopes for it. Unfortunately, I think the GTI experience led me to expect too much from the Tiguan. It felt anemic unless it had been put into "sport" mode. And though it uniquely offers a third row in its category, it's really only appropriate for bound and gagged hostages, small ones at that. Otherwise, though, I was impressed.
    4
  54. Kudos for VW putting the GTI engine and drive train in the GLI. Unfortunately, the current trim level/option package choices are wacky, at best. In the US only the "35" and the Autobahn are currently available. The differences? On the Autobahn you get a sunroof, leather upholstery, and the digital cockpit. On the "35" you lose all that but get DCC (Dynamic Chassis Control) and some red and black accents here and there. It's at least as confusing in Canada. Several weeks ago the Canadian VW listed the "35th Anniversary Edition" as an option package that could be added to an upper trim SE or Autobahn trim level. Now that's no longer the case. There are only two trim levels, the GLI and the "35." The GLI appears to correspond roughly to the US Autobahn trim (but with DCC) and the "35" differs only in some trim colors and badges. And each trim includes satellite navigation that's completely unavailable in the US and the digital cockpit. I've long suspected that someone at VW Canada has embarrassing photos of VW Germany executives at a convention. That would explain the tendency of Canada to get options and configurations that are significantly superior to GTI models in the US. That may well be the case here but I suspect that some of the differences stem from parts availability issues that enable VW to offer features (DCC) throughout the GLI range in Canada while restricting it in the US. Hopefully, VW will get their act together and adopt a more logical and comprehensive set of trim levels and options in both the US and Canada.
    4
  55. The current Highlander is so long in the tooth that it should be called the "Dracula." A major update was called for in the new generation. But true to its usual practice (with some exceptions) Toyota is sticking to evolution, playing catch up with other brands and relying on its reputation for reliability to hold onto its strong sales. The current (2019) Highlander is among the smallest midsize SUV's in length. At 192.5" it's about 4 inches shorter than the KIA Telluride, Honda Pilot and Subaru Ascent and a full 6.5" shorter than the Mazda CX-9. In fact, it's closer to the "tweener" KIA Sorento (189") than to the larger midsize vehicles. Toyota claims the current model is an eight passenger vehicle but that claim is based on the number of seatbelts in the third row, not its actual accommodations. Three average size adults or teenagers can be crammed into the third row of a Highlander only if they're bound and gagged in a fetal position. (Perhaps not a bad idea for teenagers but that's another discussion.) Overall, the current Highlander offers 140 cubic feet of passenger space compared to 153 in the smaller KIA Sorento (by 3.5" in length) and 178 cubic feet in the Telluride, an SUV that's only four inches longer than the 2019 Highlander. So for 2020 Toyota increased the overall length of the Highlander by 2.4 inches. At 194.9" it's still among the smallest true midsize SUV's but it gave Toyota a bit more to work with in terms of interior space. Unfortunately, it appears to have made little difference. Despite vague claims to have increased passenger space, there's little evidence to back them up. And three seatbelts in the third row still doesn't make the Toyota an eight passenger vehicle. Actually, it's not clear if the Highlander will offer a bench second row. I assume it will but if it doesn't the Highlander is a six passenger, not a seven passenger vehicle. To be fair, cargo space behind the third row has increased slightly (13.8 cf to 16.1 cf). But it still trails virtually every other three row crossover other than the Kia Sorento and the unbelievably space inefficient CX-9. It might hold a set of golf clubs but it won't accommodate the luggage/gear for six or more passengers on a road trip. Otherwise, the 2020 version offers the same engine and transmission (in gasoline versions) as before. Apple CarPlay and AndroidAuto are finally available so purchasers can have a nav system that doesn't require a $2000 option package for a factory version. Nice upgrades to the interior appointments, most obviously in the infotainment screen. I do wonder about the white accented trim in a family truckster. I'm sure other options will be available and for those who like it maybe they have a teenager they can task with cleaning it. Otherwise, clean it yourself or be ready for dingy gray interior accents. Finally, the overall styling is an improvement (imo) with the family resemblance among the RAV4 and 4Runner carried to some extent in the Highlander. To be fair, the big news for the Highlander is what Toyota is claiming are significant improvements in the hybrid version. Less overall power than before but better mileage. If there is one area where Toyota should know what they're doing it's in hybrid technology. So for those who want to go that route it's a safe choice. But there is an alternative in the new Ford Explorer worth a look, as well. Toyota will sell a lot of Highlanders based on the brand's reputation for reliability even though it no longer stands head and shoulders above several rivals on that score. But for those looking for innovation and leading edge features, the Highlander doesn't cut it.
    4
  56. Depends on the size of the family. My wife and I, our teenage daughter and our big dog fit nicely in our GTI.
    4
  57. I hope you give it the tender care it deserves. :)
    4
  58. The EV6 continues a trend evident in other closely related KIA vs Hyundai vehicles. While Hyundai designs tend toward an abundance of bulges and creases, KIA designs of the same basic vehicles are smoother, simpler, and (to my eye) more elegant. In the case of the Ioniq 5 vs the EV6, the differences are not quite as striking as in other pairs (e.g. Santa Fe vs Sorento, Palisade vs Telluride, Sonata vs K5, etc.) but the differences remain. Over the long term I think the EV6 design will age better than the (admittedly interesting) Ioniq 5.
    4
  59. () A hatchback on stilts? Have to admit that as a GTI owner I find sub-compact SUV's (where the Kona belongs) to be a bit puzzling. With rare exceptions they make no pretense of being designed for off-road duty either in terms of ground clearance or suspension bits. In the case of the Kona even with AWD it's designed at best for very mild off-road chores. It's about 4 inches shorter than a VW Golf and offers less overall cargo space and space behind the rear seats. Less versatile, inferior handling and performance than my GTI. I don't get it. But since SUV's of all sizes are "the new black," I suppose that accounts for it. () Overall styling. I agree the styling is appealing. In general I find Hyundai styling to be somewhat "fussy," especially compared to similar models from KIA, but the Kona is attractive (imo). And surprisingly, I think the "lime twist" is attractive and kinda appropriate for the Kona's Pacific Island vibe. Have to wonder, though, whether it might get old after a year or two. ()Headlight placement. Living in the Puget Sound region I don't have to deal regularly with snow unless I'm going skiing in the Cascades. On the other hand, spring rains combined with gravel runoff from the mountains and large trucks means that even windshields are an endangered species with gravel hitting the front of a vehicle at the velocity of a bullet. And putting the headlights near the front bumper makes them even more vulnerable. Wipers on the headlights would be a welcome option for dealing with snow but for gravel at least flexible covers over the headlights would seem to be a worthwhile add-on. () Bottom Line. I'm a fan of the Korean brands. (I own a KIA Sorento in addition to my GTI). The Kona is packed with features, has a great warranty and a reputation for somewhat better than average reliability. The Hyundai/KIA conglomerate do an excellent job of designing vehicles with components and parts shared among vehicles styled and trimmed in ways that make similar models appeal to somewhat different market segments. Add to all that their commitment to extended range EV's and they're clearly not resting on their laurels. Personally, I'll stick with my beloved GTI but I can understand the Kona's appeal.
    4
  60. Preferences in styling is subjective, of course. But it's worth noting that the Palisade is built in Korea and aimed squarely at international markets where it's a budget alternative to luxury SUV's from brands like Audi, BMW, and MB and what Americans term "mainstream" midsize 3 row SUV's are rare. The Telluride, on the other hand, is built in the US (Georgia) and sold almost exclusively in North America. (Not even available in Korea, the rest of Asia or most of Europe.) It has a more "rugged" vibe than the Palisade and is aimed to compete in the very hot "mainstream" 3 row crossovers so popular in the US. Pay your money and take your choice. In terms of exterior styling, one major differences is the placement of the headlights and the more complex curves and creases in the Palisade. Personally, I'm partial to the Telluride's placement of headlights just below the top of the fenders where they're much less vulnerable to rocks and gravel thrown by vehicles ahead. And again, though it's a purely personal choice, I find KIA's overall design language more elegant and less "fussy" than Hyundai's. Otherwise, though the two vehicles are almost identical in terms of overall length and interior space, the Telluride does offer somewhat more rear cargo space with all three rows of seats deployed (21 cubic ft vs 18 cf.) The difference comes about from the space required for motorized rear seats in the Palisade's top trims even though they're not available at the lower trims. It's not a huge difference but it is the difference between near best in class and middle of the pack. There are also differences in terms of interior "look and feel." The Palisade offers more eye candy in terms of the digital cockpit in some trims and a dial selector versus a traditional level for gear choice. Again, a choose your poison difference. Finally, there's a question of price and the quality of individual differences. There are ways to configure either the Telluride or the Palisade as a better choice in terms of MSRP but equip each comparably and the MSRP differences disappear. Some will prefer their local Hyundai dealer experience. Others will prefer the local KIA dealer. Neither ranks near the top for the average dealership experience but there are differences. My KIA dealer is a better choice but others will find the opposite to be the case. One point is clear. Among midsize 3 row mainstream crossovers, both the Telluride and Palisade set a high bar in terms of a value proposition compared to rivals.
    3
  61. The addition of the seventh gear to the DSG transmission results in slightly different behavior with more narrow spacing of gear ratios. If you don't care for it, it's easy to reprogram the shift points via a 30 minute "tune."
    3
  62. Different strokes for different folks and the GLI is a tempting choice compared to the mid-level GTI trims. But the GTI is a far more versatile vehicle with cargo space approaching that of a compact crossover.
    3
  63. Looked closely at the Fusion when I was shopping for a midsize sedan about a year ago. Unfortunately, it came out in fourth place on my scorecard behind the Accord 2.0L, the Camry V6, and the Mazda 6. And sadly, the version I was interested in, the Fusion Sport AWD with a 2.7L V6 has been discontinued for the last year of the Fusion. Combine that with a rental car interior and few will mourn its demise.
    3
  64. As noted in another comment the differences between US and Canadian GTI's can be very confusing. I've long believed that someone in VW Canada has embarrassing photos of German VW execs that are used to negotiate special features on the vehicles imported to Canada. It's also the case that Golf R's are readily available in Canada and very difficult to find in much of the US.
    3
  65. Difficult to find much wrong with the Civic SI. Haven't owned a Honda (car) in years but a 1994 Prelude was one of the best, most reliable vehicles I've ever owned. Other than some glitches with the radio I drove it for 125K miles and did absolutely nothing but put fuel, oil, and tires on it. An extraordinary vehicle for its time and a great platform for the VTEC engine. Over the last decade I thought Honda lost some of its edge but vehicles like the current generation Accord, the Civic Type R, and the Civic SI suggest they've recovered it. As for my "zonks," I'd note only the location of the exhaust in the center below the bumper. Makes it difficult (or impossible) to fit a hitch. Why on earth would you want a hitch? In order to fit a hitch mounted bike carrier. Not an issue for many but considering the target market for the SI, it may be a deal breaker for some.
    3
  66. Except at 179" in length it isn't a mid-size SUV. In fact, it's the smallest compact SUV on the market.
    3
  67. The US spec Passat is in a difficult spot. Mainstream sedan sales are plummeting but dealers need SOMETHING they can sell in the midsize category. That was the basis for last year's Passat GT, a mild revision of the standard Passat that US dealers literally demanded and largely designed on their own. VW did little but make the existing parts bin available for that model and killed it after one year. VW is hoping the Arteon, a premium model based on the Euro spec Passat, will make a splash in the US but it's going to be at a premium price. So what is VW to do? Re-introduce the Euro spec Passat in the US and risk cannibalizing sales of the Arteon? Pour effort and investment into a new generation sedan that will sell at an under $40K price point in a declining market and still risk taking sales from the Arteon? A tough spot to be in.
    3
  68. The Juke was absolutely NOT the "ugliest car...ever seen." That trophy is permanently held by the Pontiac Aztek. The Juke might rank in the top five, though. As far as the Kicks is concerned, an "urban" utility vehicle is probably an apt designation. There are more flexible and utilitarian vehicles but few better choices at the Kicks price point.
    3
  69. Puzzled as to why the G70 refresh didn't shift to the new 2.5L turbo 4 as the base engine as its cousin the KIA Stinger has done. The change in the Stinger is a potential game changer for the Stinger's less than satisfactory sales in the US. It seems odd that Genesis chose to stick with the arguably underpowered 2.0L engine it had shared with the Stinger.
    3
  70. In the comments there appears to be a misunderstanding of what this car is. It's not meant to be a serious offering by Subaru. It's not even a "halo" model in the usual sense of that term. It's a potential collector's vehicle for about 200 purchasers, meant to be driven sparingly and maintained as an investment for the future. Whether it's a safe or very risky investment is another issue, altogether. But its purchase price should not be compared to that of other similarly priced vehicles in terms of power or performance.
    3
  71. Obviously, Toyota is striving to lower the average age of Avalon buyers. I'm skeptical it will work but at the very least they may capture those who believe that sixty is the new forty. :) As for "souping up" (That's the term we seniors once used) the Avalon TRD, Toyota didn't become the largest automotive brand in the world by appealing to self-proclaimed automotive "enthusiasts." They won't do ANYTHING that might risk their reputation for reliability and durability even if it's a minor risk. Adding a turbocharger, for example. No way, Jose. As far as the TRD is concerned, it appears this is an "engineering" exercise done by the marketing department. Other than some trim pieces and TRD badging on various accessories (almost all of which can be added to the non-TRD XSE) and larger brakes, there is apparently no difference, whatsoever, between the XSE and the TRD. In fact, one puzzling feature of the XSE not available on the TRD is "sports tuned suspension." I suspect that's because the TRD has the same suspension as the XSE but they simply fail to mention it. Oh, yeah...There is one other difference and it's a big one. The MSRP including delivery for the TRD is $45,336. The XSE (with available TRD labeled accessories) is $41,015. Let's be frank. The TRD is a sucker deal meant to appeal to those with late onset mid-life crisis issues.
    3
  72. VW limits the range of GTI's in the US in a number of ways compared to Europe. The easy answer to your question is that neither dealers nor VW want to see 2 door GTI's sitting unsold on dealer lots.
    3
  73. Looked seriously at several mainstream midsize sedans last spring. The Camry came in third place behind the Accord Touring 2.0L turbo (first place) and the Mazda6 with its 2.5L turbo engine. Have to admit, though, that if I had been giving out a trophy for most improved over the previous model, the Camry would have taken it. Styling is obviously subjective but the Camry looked to me like its design (exterior and interior) was derived from a spaceship in a 1930's Buck Rogers serial. "Futuristic" only in that sense. The Mazda was at the top. The Honda looked like it was designed by a committee but it was still better looking than the Toyota. Interior space and features. The Accord in first place, especially in the back seat accommodations. The Camry in second and the Mazda in third. It's cramped compared to either of the others. The Mazda's top trim (Signature) was impressive with the Honda in second place. Even the top trim XSE Camry cheapens out second row features. Furthermore, at the time I was shopping the Camry offered neither Apple Carplay nor Android Auto. And the only integrated nav system was part of a $2000 option package and even then it wasn't a great system. Not acceptable. The 2019 model offers Apple CarPlay but still has only limited support for Android Auto. Again, not acceptable. Performance. I wanted more performance that the four cylinder Camry offered so I looked seriously at the NA V6. It was as quick as the Honda with its turbo4 derived from the Civic TypeR motor. The Camry's engine is a good one but putting the power down in the FWD was a challenge. I ranked it behind the Accord and ahead of the Mazda. The 2018 (and now the 2019) Camry is a significantly better vehicle than in previous years. It doesn't deserve to be called an "appliance." But at least in my estimation it trailed both the top trim Accord and the Mazda6.
    3
  74. I have to admit that I find this entire class of "hatchbacks on stilts" to be puzzling. Unless one prefers the "styling" of SUV's, (There's no accounting for taste), I don't get the attraction. The cargo space of the Encore GX amounts to 23.5 cubic ft behind the second row and 50.2 cf overall. My GTI provides 22.8/53.7 cf in a vehicle that's almost 4" less in length than the Buick. Want a vehicle that's easy to park in the city? My Golf is even easier than the Encore GX (and almost every other subcompact crossover) to park and maneuver in traffic. Arguably, the most appealing features of SUVs/CUVs are the elevated driver's "command" (i.e. elevated) seating and their "off road" chops. But in a subcompact crossover the driver isn't going to get a much better view than any vehicle other than a Miata. As for "off-roading" only the Jeep Renegade makes any pretense, whatsoever, of versions that offer that capability. And as everyone realizes, very few Encore GXs are ever going to see any surface more challenging than an occasional gravel road. A challenge my GTI easily meets. If I were shopping in this category, I'd be looking at the KIA Seltos with far more interior space and much better engine and drive train options than the Encore GX or virtually any other subcompact crossover. But in the real world I'll stick with my GTI with a much, much better engine, the choice of an MT or dual clutch transmission and performance and handling that no subcompact crossover including the Encore GX can match.
    3
  75. If that's your fantasy a Stage I APR ECU tune can easily accomplish it for about $700 and 30 minutes in the shop. And contrary to claims that such tuning will void your warranty, that's not the case. Nor will it impact reliability if you have a DSG transmission that can handle the additional power.
    3
  76. Undeniably attractive both inside and out. So why has it consistently been by far the worst selling mainstream 3 row crossover in the North America since it was introduced. (To be fair, so far in 2021 the CX-9 has lost that distinction to the Subaru Ascent by a whisker. Now the CX-9 is only the second worst selling vehicle out of 16 or so rivals.) For an answer look first at the CX-9's 199" length. It's longer than all competitors except the Dodge Durango, Chevy Traverse, and the recently introduced Grand Cherokee L. But what about its interior space. Overall passenger space is less than a KIA Sorento, a vehicle that's almost a foot (10") shorter. And it has less overall cargo space than any other midsize SUV. Less total cargo space than a Honda CR-V (71.2 cubic ft vs 75.8 cf) ! How is this possible? The answer is the extreme version of Mazda's "Koda" design language with an extremely long distance from the front bumper to the A pillar (about a foot great distance than competitors) that entails sacrificing interior space. It's a design that sports car designers have used for nearly a century to suggest potency and performance and is obviously attractive. (Freud can explain why.) But in a vehicle where the "U" in SUV supposedly stands for "Utility," it's a major competitive weakness. Other Mazdas that employ the Koda design language suffer from the same issue but none so severely as the CX-9. Some Mazda fans claim the massive engine compartment is ideal for a rumored forthcoming inline 6. (Hell, it's sufficient for an inline 12 cylinder engine.) But as the smallest independent mass market automaker on the planet, Mazda is forced to make do with a single engine/drivetrain for almost all of their models. And Mazda isn't exactly known for delivering their rumored new engines and technology on anything resembling a promised schedule (if at all). The long-in-the-tooth four cylinder turbo engine mated to a similarly aging 6 speed transmission may be adequate to the mission of the CX-9 but it is hardly a strong selling point, especially compared to rivals with more modern engines and transmissions and hybrid options.
    3
  77. Very interesting, informative video, guys. As someone who has purchased many vehicles over the years, always via a sit down negotiation with a dealer or owner with the car I'm buying a few feet away, the idea of buying a car like ordering kitchen supplies from Amazon is unsettling, at best. (Carvana commercials with a car delivered from a huge vending machine strike me as absurd.) But since Tesla is apparently eliminating their "stores" in favor of on-line orders only, it looks like the only way to get a Tesla is the route you took. As someone who lives in Washington State with California compliant regs I have a wider range of potential choices in the EV marketplace (e.g. KIA and Hyundai models) but the Tesla has some allure the others lack. And living in an upscale suburb of Seattle, I see at least four or more Teslas on the road every day. (Relatively few Model 3's, of course.) I'll be very interested following your progress in purchasing and owning one. P.S. With my range anxiety I'd plunk down the $$$ for a 325 mile range, similar to my GTI, but that's just my risk averse mentality showing. :)
    3
  78. At first (or even at third or fourth) glance, it appears that the Passport is a Pilot with 6.5" chopped off the rear end and some trim pieces that suggest a (very) slightly more "rugged" image. But that misses an important, if subtle, distinction. At 190" long, the Passport fits in the "tweener" sub-category of midsize crossovers competing against rivals such as the Ford Edge, the Hyundai Santa Fe, the Kia Sorento, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chevy Blazer and the Subaru Outback, among others. The Pilot (196.5"), on the other hand, is virtually identical in length to the Subaru Ascent and the KIA Telluride, putting it right in the middle of larger midsize SUV's. That 6.5" shorter length in the Passport may not seem like a lot but if you fit a bike rack to the rear end, it can add 18"-24" additional length and make the difference between fitting into a garage with the door closed and leaving the garage door open. (I know.) With the exception of the Sorento all of the vehicles in the "tweener" class offer only two row seating and all but the Outback and Santa Fe offer standard or optional naturally aspirated V6 engines. The Passport fits neatly into the "tweener" category. And in the tweener group, the Passport is an appealing entry offering both strong performance and great cargo and passenger space. It isn't "class leading" in several respects. Some configurations of the Grand Cherokee are better choices for true "off roading," for example. The 2020 Outback, too, may outpoint the Pilot as an "off-roader." The Ford Edge ST is a bit quicker and the KIA Sorento's third row of seats is surprisingly useful on an occasional basis. But overall, the Passport is a strong contender especially with Honda's version of SH-AWD. On the other hand the Pilot, while a very good vehicle, faces some very tough competition, especially from the KIA Telluride. Same length (The KIA is 0.4" longer) but with considerably more passenger and cargo room in the KIA. The Pilot is a strong performer but its 0-60 time is mid-pack in in the larger midsize category. Lots of family friendly and clever storage features but the Pilot is not the new kid on the block and the Telluride has some significant advantages, especially in upper trim configurations. The Pilot's main advantage versus the Telluride is that you can actually purchase a Pilot without waiting in line. Honda needs to refresh the Pilot in the next model year to compete more effectively. All in all, for those who neither need nor want third row seating in a tidier size than larger midsize SUV's, the Passport is a strong all round choice. Its major shortcomings center on the absence of features that "walk the walk" of being a more rugged choice than the Pilot. I suspect, however, that Honda will correct that weakness soon, possibly with a package of features that might be labeled the "Passport Sport" in the next model year.
    3
  79. It's reviews like this that justify my subscription to this channel.
    3
  80. Don't worry you won't get "huge cargo space" with either choice. The CX-9 has less cargo space than a Honda CR-V or a Subaru Forester and the CX-5 has only six more cubic feet of cargo space than a VW Golf.
    3
  81. That's something of an oversimplified version of history. It's certainly true that the original beetle was the "People's Car" (i.e. Volks Wagen) designed by Porsche. However, very few of that vehicle were ever produced before production shifted to support vehicles for WWII. After the war the VW corporation was created under the supervision of the British and located in Wolfsburg. The vehicles that were produced first in Germany and then exported in the late 1940's were based on Porsche's design but neither the company nor the Beetle can trace their direct lineage to the pre-war period.
    3
  82. Great video, Ryan. I've lived in the Pacific Northwest for years and make at least a couple of trips to the Oregon coast every year. But while I've heard of the dunes on the coast I've never seen them. Thanks for that. And kudos for giving it a try without a properly prepared stock vehicle much less a dune buggy. Subaru owners in the PNW constitute a cult second only to those in Vermont. (A very polite and largely friendly cult but a cult, nonetheless.) This video is a demonstration of why. :)
    3
  83. A prime example of the triumph of form over function. None of the vehicles in this luxury midsize category prioritize the "U" in a sport utility vehicle but the RX350L takes it to an extreme. Few of the three row midsize SUV's, either mainstream or luxury, accommodate BOTH six or more passengers AND their gear for a road trip. For most it's a choice between passengers OR gear. But the RX350L is that rare case that offers little of either. With the captain chairs in the second row the RX350L is essentially a four passenger vehicle with an afterthought third row. Add space for another (uncomfortable) passenger with bench seating in the second row and you're up to five. But to call the third row of seats an afterthought is an insult to afterthoughts. Sufficient to accommodate small children as long as they don't need car seats since putting one in is an exercise in origami folding. Most useful for stowing small hostages by the S&M crowd. Ah, but how about cargo capacity? Isn't that big plus for the 350L? Put down both the second and third rows and the total cargo space is less than a Subaru Forester or a CR-V, vehicles that are about a foot and a half shorter than the Lexus. All in all, the RX350L is a stylish vehicle with a badge appealing to the moderately affluent (or those who want to appear to be.) An attractive silhouette that offers almost nothing in terms of "utility." A strong reputation for reliability and a mediocre level of luxury touches that lacks Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Acura isn't quaking in its boots.
    3
  84. It's not a MK8. That will come along in North American in early 2021.
    3
  85. Joe, it's "white in there" so you can see what's in the console storage bin without a flashlight.
    3
  86. A "better hot hatch than the Civic Type R?" Depends on what you prioritize. As a FWD track tool the Civic is unsurpassed. But the extraordinary versatility of the GTI makes it a more well-rounded choice. For example, overall cargo space in the MK7.5 GTI measures 53.7 cubic ft compared to 46.2 cubic ft in the Civic Type R. And that's in a VW that's about a foot shorter than the Honda. Personally, there's another unique advantage for the GTI. Washington State ferries offer a significant fare discount for vehicles 14 ft or less in length. My GTI just qualifies at 168" long. The Civic Type R obviously does not. I have no quarrel with those who would choose the Civic Type R. It's a magnificent vehicle. But my GTI is a member of the family and I'd as soon replace the family dog as trade my GTI.
    3
  87. Toyota will sell boatloads of Corollas, just as they always do. But that doesn't necessarily make it the "best" compact sedan, especially with vehicles like the Honda Civic, Kia Forte, and Mazda3 in the mix. And sometimes seemingly minor features can play a major role in making a purchase decision. Things can get very complicated comparing lower trim levels but looking at fully loaded top trims presents the following picture. () The Corolla's naturally aspirated 4 banger is certainly adequate for its mission and Toyota's version of a CVT with a true first gear appears to have nullified most of the objectionable behaviors of such transmissions, at least for most drivers. But both the Civic and the Mazda3 offer more power and performance. The Forte offers better MPG's. And for those who don't like CVT's at all, the Mazda has a traditional six speed transmission. () Safety and convenience features are more or less equal among the top trim compact sedans but the Forte stands out among its rivals, loaded with features at an MSRP that's about $2000-$3000 less than the competition. () VIrtually all of the Corolla's rivals offer both integrated navigation AND both Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. It's true that the Mazda3 includes integrated navigation only as an optional extra at about $450. But the only way to get an integrated navigation system and Apple CarPlay in the Corolla is to opt for one of two optional packages priced from $1700 to over $2100. And even then there's no Android Auto. () It's undoubtedly a small issue for many but the Corolla's lack of any rear seat a/c vents whatsoever is a dealbreaker for me. My kid may whine and I'll ignore it but more importantly the back seat is my big dog's second home. After his daily summer romp at the dog park, he needs to cool off. And he can't complain; he can only suffer. Each of the Corolla's rivals make at least some provision for rear seat A/C. () Comparing MSRP's can be very misleading compared to real world prices. But it's worth noting that at an MSRP of about $28,500 the Corolla is more expensive than each of its rivals other than than a fully loaded Mazda3. The KIA Forte is better equipped with an MSRP over $2000 less. () There are many factors involved in a purchase decision. Consumers weigh them differently. And for some a particular brand, an especially attractive deal, or what one's friends and family think of a vehicle may weigh heavily. Corollas wouldn't be among the best selling sedans in the world if it were a bad car. But I think an unbiased assessment wouldn't call it the "best compact car."
    3
  88.  @r.d.9399  Not likely that many will sit on the lot. My local VW dealer is receiving two Arteons for the 2019 calendar year. As already noted, VW sees the market for the Arteon as a niche.
    2
  89. A fine compact sedan. Personally, I prefer my GTI for a number of reasons including its greater versatility, resulting from a more compact profile coupled with greater overall cargo space, and features like rear seat HVAC vents where my big dog makes his second home. But those whose priorities lead them to consider a compact sport sedan rather than an iconic hatchback, the fact that the Jetta shares its engine and drive train with the GTI makes it a strong contender in the category. The Civic SI is also a fine compact sedan. But the smaller 1.5L engine and the availability of only a manual transmission versus the marvelous 2.0L EA888 motor and the option of VW dual clutch automated manual transmission are advantages, I think. And for those who value the feel of a European sports sedan, the Honda comes up short. I have only one major concern about the GLI and it has nothing to do with the vehicle, itself. VW has found repeatedly that American consumers prefer larger, less expensive VW's compared to Europeans. The European Passat was replaced by a larger, cheaper version in the US. The superb Touareg was dropped in the US and replaced by the Atlas, a vehicle designed for and built in the US. The first generation Tiguan was discontinued in the US (though it remains in Europe) and replaced by a larger, less expensive vehicle with the same name. (The American version of the Tiguan is known as the "All Space" in Europe where it's considered to be a "midsize" SUV.) The current generation Jetta is larger than its predecessor and isn't even available in Europe where consumers prefer hatchbacks to sedans. With VW's decision to drop the basic Golf in the US market, the only vehicles with specs close to their European counterparts are the GTI, the Golf R, and the Arteon. VW has promised the eighth generation GTI to be introduced in late 2021 in the US. But VW attempted to discontinue the Golf R in the US in 2018 until US dealers managed to reverse the decision and VW agreed to send only as many "R's" to the US as dealers had pre-order deposits on the model. VW later relented and exported more Golf R's to North America but it's still very much a "niche" model that VW may decide isn't worth the effort in the US. The Jetta lineup that includes the GLI drew over 100,000 customers in the US in 2019 compared to 37,000 Golf sales, two-thirds of which were GTI's. The pattern continues in 2020 with 22,000 Jettas sold in the first quarter compared to 7700 Golfs including GTI's. Thus, it's possible that VW may decide that the GLI is an acceptable (larger and less expensive) American replacement for the GTI. The fact that VW has shifted their attention to SUV's in the US market only reinforces the suspicion that a "streamlined" car lineup would make sense from a corporate standpoint.
    2
  90. 5000 lb tow rating? Is that because of the hybrid drive train or some other aspect of the Interceptor? Most 2020 Explorers are rated at 5600 lbs. Not a big difference, of course, but even the 5600 lb tow rating is a bit disappointing in the new RWD and rear-biased AWD "civilian" Explorer, especially compared to vehicles like the Dodge Durango and some versions of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, not to mention the larger body-on-frame SUV's.
    2
  91. Sorry. It would be a Toyota with a Subaru badge. Otherwise, the vehicles are very, very different.
    2
  92. The Mazda3 hatchback is undeniably attractive. Mazda employs an approach in several of their models (MX-5, CX-3, CX-5, Mazda6, CX-9) employed by automotive designers for nearly a century to suggest potency and performance via a long bonnet and a short boot. (Freud can explain why it's appealing, especially to males.) Inevitably, though, it means sacrificing passenger and cargo room for styling. Whether it's a sacrifice worth making depends on the intended market of each model. For the Miata it's hardly worth mentioning. A two seat sports car isn't supposed to be "practical." For the Mazda3 hatchback it may be only a minor negative for a VERY small family, especially if it's viewed more as a 2+2 vehicle than a practical choice with comfortable seating for 4 or 5 passengers.The impact on Mazda's line-up of crossovers is another story where practicality has considerably greater importance. Mazda's decision to offer AWD in the Mazda3 is an interesting one. In most of the US it's more a trendy marketing tool than a critical feature. In Canada, on the other hand it has much greater appeal. A result, of course, of the different climates that most consumers confront in the two countries. In fact, AWD vehicles are relatively MUCH more popular in Canada than in the US. For example, VW sells a much higher proportion of Golf R's vs GTI's in Canada compared to the US. R's are more readily available and priced considerably less north of the border. A fully loaded top trim Miata in Canada has an MSRP approximately equal to a Golf R. In the the US, the price difference is at least $6000 (if you can find a Golf R selling at MSRP.) KIA's new Telluride offers both FWD at all trim levels in the US. In Canada the Telluride is available only as an AWD vehicle. And Mazda's CX-9 can be had with FWD only in the lowest trim level in Canada while in the US FWD is offered at every trim level except the highest, most expensive "Signature" trim. It's debatable whether AWD offers major advantages in a small car even in a challenging winter climate compared to a FWD vehicle with a good set of winter tires and the weight of the engine over the front wheels. But there's no question that Canadians prefer AWD vehicles and that's good news for the Mazda3 north of the border (as well as in the northern tier of the US.)
    2
  93. Seriously considered the Mazda6 (Signature) with the 2.5L turbo along with the Honda Accord 2.0L turbo and the Camry V6 (XSE) last year. As far as the highly subjective category of looks is concerned the Mazda topped the others for me, primarily as a result of its simpler, more elegant styling and relatively long distance from the A pillar to the front bumper. It's a design trick used for about a century to suggest potency and performance. And on that score Mazda does a better job than either Honda or Toyota. But the overall profile has its costs, as well. Specifically in terms of a more cramped cabin and less trunk space than either the Honda or the Toyota. And in a "family" sedan that's an issue. Further, if one requires a back seat for three passengers, especially kids who'll each demand access for their phones, Mazda's placement of two usb ports in the center armrest is a problem since the ports cannot be accessed with three passengers in the back seat. Be prepared for much whining or leaving someone at home. Overall, the interior features and materials in the Signature trim are impressive. But the sunroof is smaller than that in either the Accord or the Camry. The infotainment system is dated and the screen is smaller than the competition. And while the dial selector for command of the infotainment system reduces fingerprints, it's neither as intuitive nor as quick and accurate as a touch screen. Having owned 4 Mazdas over the years and having driven relatively large 4 cylinder turbos since the 1980's (both Saabs and Mazdas) I was expecting the kind of turbo "punch" that the Honda 2.0L turbo provides in acceleration and equal or better overall performance than the Camry NA V6. It's not there. The Mazda6 simply not as quick in terms of straight line acceleration as either of its main rivals. That's not to say it's unacceptable but the driving dynamics of the "6" reminded me of a diesel engine with a six speed transmission. Honda's de-tuned version of the Civic type R engine and its 10 speed transmission and the Camry V6 simply outperform the Mazda. That, of course, may not be the highest priority in a "family" sedan but it's noteworthy. Finally, the video references to price are somewhat misleading. It's complicated to compare mid-level trims of different vehicles when the features and options each manufacturer includes vary considerably. But top trims of the Accord and Mazda6 are virtually identical when comparably equipped. And the Camry is within a thousand dollars of each. MSRP's, of course, aren't necessarily reliable guides to real world prices reached via serious negotiations with a dealer but maintaining that either the Accord or the Camry is considerably more expensive when comparable trims are compared is likely untrue. All in all, I liked the Mazda6 very much. But on my personal scorecard it finished second to the Accord and ahead of the Camry. Having owned and having considerable affection for the Mazda brand I found that disappointing but both in terms of priorities for a "family" sedan and in terms of driving dynamics, I found the Honda to be just a little bit better. YMMV.
    2
  94. The vehicle obviously needs a soundtrack. How about "Magical Mystery Tour?"
    2
  95. Yeah, but in the rain the plywood will get wet.
    2
  96. Thanks for clarifying the Mattel designed the Hot Wheels version AFTER the full size model. Otherwise, I would have thought the Hot Wheels version came first. :)
    2
  97. Spent quite a bit of time evaluating the new generations of the Accord, Camry, and Mazda6 last year. I was considering replacing my 2013 GTI with a "family sedan" that I'd share with my soon-to-be driving teenage daughter and I wanted all the safety and driver assistance features that came with them. After totaling up the points on my spreadsheets the Accord 2.0L Touring came in first; the Mazda6 Signature in second; and the Camry V6 XSE in third. There's no question that the current generation Camry is a VAST improvement over the last generation but at least for me, it wasn't quite as impressive as its rivals. () Styling. Frankly, I think Toyota designers have spent too many hours watching 1930's movie serials. The Camry doesn't resemble Flash Gordon's space ship as much as the (hideous) Prius but the DNA is there, especially in the interior. Too many swooping lines and angles in place of simple, elegant design. In terms of looks, the Accord doesn't take any awards either but at least it doesn't look as seriously over-styled. In terms of styling I thought the Mazda6 was clearly the best. () Features. When I was shopping the Camry offered neither Apple CarPlay nor Android Auto. Apple CarPlay is finally there but Android Auto (my preference) is still missing. Even worse, Toyota offers integrated navigation ONLY in a $2600 optional package even in top trim XSE model. It's standard in the Accord. The Camry has an excellent set of safety and driver assistance features but no more and no better than its rivals. And comparing the quality of materials in the interior of the Camry versus the Accord and the Mazda6, especially in the rear seat, the Camry trails its rivals. () Engine/Drive Train. Toyota jealously guards its reputation for reliability. And for that reason they resist innovative engineering that might threaten it. In the case of the Camry (and other Toyota vehicles) that means 4 cylinder turbo engines are simply not available. I can understand that choice in larger, heavier vehicles such as crossovers but in the Camry it means the "performance" version of the vehicle is a naturally aspirated V6 rather than a smaller displacement turbo 4. It's a good engine and well tuned for fuel efficiency. And the difference in performance between the Camry V6 and the Accord 2.0L turbo derived from the Civic Type R is negligible or non-existent. But it also adds a lot of weight to the front end of the Camry. In fact, the Camry V6 XSE is up to 200 lbs heavier than the Accord with a 2.0L turbo 4 and that weight is sitting over the front wheels. The extra weight up front is bound to affect handling and it does. In fact, I'm not surprised to see that the Camry doesn't offer the adaptive suspension of the Accord. It's not simply a cost cutting measure. I suspect it stems from the fact that Toyota found it difficult to disguise the additional weight of the V6 over the drive wheels in a variety of driving situations. Better to look for the best compromise and leave it there. () Bottom line. When I considered the three family sedans I couldn't get over the over-styled Camry compared to the Mazda and the more satisfying "punch" of the Honda's 2.0L turbo engine. (It's VERY impressive.) Ultimately, though, I found I couldn't give up the performance and handling of my GTI so I replaced my MK6 version with a 7.5 version with all the safety and driver assistance features I was looking for. P.S. Joe, I realize you're in Florida and the curvy roads, especially those with elevation changes, are largely limited to rides at Disney World but your examples of how vehicles take curves on suburban streets says very little about handling.
    2
  98. Love the MX-5. If Mazda built no other vehicle worth owning the company would justify its existence with the Miata. I've considered purchasing one several times. But I have a wife, daughter, and a big dog. When I go on even a short trip I like to take at least two of them along. That eliminates the MX-5 for me. Facing that dilemma some years ago I purchased an RX-8, in many ways a superb sports car that looked like a two seater but actually accommodated four passengers relatively well and with hidden suicide rear doors that enabled those passengers to enter and exit. A perfect compromise I thought. Sadly, the RX-8 wasn't without major faults. Its rotary engine had a 9000 RPM redline, much like a 650cc Japanese bike or an affordable Lotus Elise. Unfortunately its torque curve was also like a 650cc motorcycle. On deserted mountain roads on a Sunday morning it was delightful. Getting to and maintaining 7000 or so RPM's on a daily commute or anywhere with stop 'n go traffic, much less so. And then there was the mileage. Living with less than 18 mpg's (if that) in a vehicle with a V8 and a 20+ gallon tank isn't a problem. Doing so in a small car with a tank capacity less than 17 gallons meant a range of 250 miles was an absolute limit and probably coasting into a service station on fumes. But you had to be careful. As the owner's manual warned you, don't run out of gas. Restarting could be a challenge. And that brings up the most severe challenge of owning an RX-8. Once started it was mandatory to keep the engine running until it reached full operating temperature. In its last year or so of production Mazda even added a message linked to the temp gauge in the cockpit warning the driver to do so. Turning it off too soon was likely to result in flooding the engine. And once flooded an RX-8 could sit until the next century unable to be restarted. Dealing with the condition meant transporting the RX-8 to a dealer (or another facility equipped with a lift and a technician who knew what he/she was doing) to have the single spark plug replaced. Eventually I learned to deal with the issue with a time consuming starting procedure and adding a more powerful battery to reduce the likelihood of stalling the engine when starting. (That required removing the engine cover to fit the battery under the hood.) But on one occasion my wife accidentally turned off the engine to retrieve a forgotten article from the house and triggered the problem. She refused to drive the RX-8 ever again. So to those hoping that Mazda will resurrect the vehicle in the form of an RX-9, don't hold your breath. Perhaps an MX-9 with a conventional ICE but the terrible mileage of a rotary mill alone will probably prevent Mazda from impacting its overall fleet CAFE scores with an RX-9. Bottom line. Be grateful that Mazda continues to offer and refine the MX-5. It was only with the help of FCA in developing the FIAT 124 that it was saved from extinction. Now if Mazda would simply add a proper glove box it would be perfect.
    2
  99. Overall, a very impressive new generation Explorer. Ford depends on fleet vehicles, especially to public agencies, to maintain their significant domination of the midsize SUV market. Even the long-in-the-tooth previous generation outsold all other midsize SUV's, largely as a result of those fleet sales. And while fleet pricing doesn't provide the same profit margin per vehicle for Ford that "civilian" versions of the Explorer promises, the fact that public agencies replace their vehicles much more frequently and the cost of doing business in fleet sales is much less than in the retail marketplace makes the Explorer a huge profit center for Ford. The combination of fleet and retail "civilian" sales of the Explorer will no doubt maintain Ford's first place in sales in the midsize SUV market. Ford received a lot of criticism for their decision to discontinue almost all sedans in the US market. But the new generation Ford Escape and the civilian versions of the Explorer as well as their stalwart F-150 suggests Ford dealers won't have a difficult time drawing customers to their showrooms.
    2
  100. Again, the i30N Hyundai is not available in North America. I suspect the same will be the case for a two door model.
    2
  101. As noted in another comment the Sorento is one of two vehicles KIA in the HUGE mainstream midsize category ranging from about 188" to 203" in length. In fact, virtually every automaker with the exception of Mazda offers two models in the midsize category. One in a shorter group typically with two rows of seats that ranges from 188" to 192" in length and another in the longer, mainly 3 row group, that range from 195" to 203". The Sorento is unique in offering three rows of seats in the shorter sub-category while the VW Cross Sport is an outlier that offers only two rows of seats while its length puts it in the larger crossover category. Thus, like almost every other automaker the Sorento isn't meant to compete with the Telluride or other larger 3 row SUVs. The Sorento and the Telluride are complementary in a manner similar to the Edge vs the Explorer, the Blazer vs the Traverse, the Venza vs the Highlander, the Passport vs the Pilot, the Outback vs the Ascent, the Santa Fe vs the Palisade, the Grand Cherokee vs the Durango, etc., etc. The Sorento is unique in that it offers better than average 3rd row seating in a significantly smaller overall package than other 3 row rivals. Of course, physics is physics and other than Dr. Who's Tardis an object can't be smaller on the outside than it is on the inside. The Sorento achieves its especially generous interior passenger space, an amount that KIA claims is even larger in the 2021 model, is at the expense of cargo space behind the third row compared to the three row competition.
    2
  102. With the CX-50 Mazda will be the only mainstream automaker with TWO compact SUVs and only ONE midsize SUV. Recall what happened to the CX-3 when the CX-30 was introduced in the US? The CX-5 is by far the best selling model in Mazda's North American portfolio and perhaps Mazda believes there's room for a closely related model but I'm somewhat skeptical.
    2
  103.  @PrimeAutotainment  Thanks for the comment, my friend. As you know I have a lot of respect for your thorough reviews.
    2
  104. As noted in my comment on the Motoman review I've owned two Sorentos, a 2012 and a 2018 model, each an AWD V6 model. I have to admit I was somewhat skeptical when I heard the V6 was dropped in 2021 and replaced by the 2.5L turbo 4 banger. Although I've owned a number of small displacement turbos dating back to Saabs more than 20 years ago and I currently own a GTI, I'd always felt that a larger displacement V6 was more appropriate for a vehicle that can weigh more than 2.5 tons when loaded with passengers, gear, and fuel. It wasn't a question of performance but rather long term durability in a larger, less stressed engine. Have to admit, though, that I'm inclined to change my mind in the case of the Sorento. Considering that the same engine is available in the Sonata N-Line, the KIA K5 GT, the Hyundai Santa Fe, and especially in the Genesis GV70, GV80, and G80 I'm reassured that Hyundai and KIA wouldn't be offering their 5yr/60K mile bumper to bumper and 10yr/100K mile warranties in so many models if they weren't confident about its durability. (Automakers don't offer long warranties if they believe they'll have to redeem many.) Add to that the superior performance and especially the better fuel economy of the new 2.5L turbo, I'm reassured. At the same time, I suspect that combining the turbo4 with FWD is a less than optimal choice. Canadians won't have to deal with that choice where all Sorentos will come with AWD but here in the US it may be a popular option among customers in warm and dry climates who feel that they don't need AWD. TIme will tell but I suspect KIA may revamp their US trim levels to eliminate the turbo 4 cylinder with FWD.
    2
  105. Wonder why AR decided to discontinue the 4C in the US? Only Italians have any chance of fitting into it. :)
    2
  106. @Forced Induction All true. To be fair, one advantage of being late to the party is that you get to see what everyone else is wearing and dress accordingly. KIA (and Hyundai) not only do a noteworthy job of packing their new models with almost all of the features of the competition and more, KIA has an excellent record of listening to their customers and updating their models between major refreshes much less between model generations. When we replaced our 2012 Sorento my wife made a list of the things that annoyed her about it. None was a major issue but she wanted a vehicle that corrected those annoyances. Literally every single issue (and more) had been addressed in the 2018 version.
    2
  107. It's difficult to get beyond the shift to RWD and RWD-biased AWD in terms of the benefits of the 2020 Explorer compared to the last generation. On the other hand, that shift should have improved the towing capacity of the Explorer significantly. At 5300 lbs it's a measly 300 lbs more several of its rivals and more than a ton less than the Dodge Durango. Zonk! And while the 2.3L Ecosport engine is fine for a non-GT Mustang, that vehicle has a curb weight of 3500 lbs or so. The new Explorer weighs in at more than 1000 lbs more! There's a reason that almost every other rival in the segment offers a standard or optional V6. Each and every one available with a V6 at a lower MSRP than the four cylinder Explorer. In fact, the XLT is the Explorer's lowest trim level and even moderately optioned it has a higher MSRP than the top trims of virtually every other rival! Physics is physics and propelling a two and a half ton vehicle with a 2.3L turbo motor has to raise questions about durability especially if its tuned to compete with V6 engines in terms of performance. As Raini implies, every Ford dealer in the country is desperate to move each and every 2019 model off their lot before the 2020's arrive and the sticker shock for the Explorer becomes even more glaring. The MSRP for the lowest trim moderately optioned 2020 Explorer quickly tops $50,000. Want a naturally aspirated V6? That's only available on the hybrid model and the price climbs several thousand more. Want a non-hybrid V6? That's only available on the ST and the Platinum trim levels and the MSRP of the former (moderately optioned) nears $56,000 or more and the fully loaded Platinum version starts at $58,000. Ford will sell lots and lots of new Explorers. That's a guarantee based on the fact that about third of all Explorer sales are to fleets, especially to thousands of police and other public agencies. But without HUGE discounts on the 2020 model the average consumer is better off looking elsewhere for much more vehicle at a much lower price.
    2
  108. Scott, all "start/stop" systems are not the same. For example, some automatically shut down most or all systems (other than headlights and the radio, I presume) that draw battery power when the system is engaged. Thus, the common complaint that the HVAC is turned off when the start/stop system turns off the engine. My VW GTI (and I suspect the Jaguar) doesn't do that. Instead, the ECU monitors the battery drain and restarts the engine automatically when it senses the draw exceeds a particular threshold. The HVAC and fan continue to operate normally even when the engine is turned off. I was puzzled by that behavior at first, especially when I noticed it occurred more frequently in cold weather and less frequently when I turned off the AC. But I soon became accustomed to it when I realized what was going on. In fact, I found that one of the screens in the instrument cluster reports that the start/stop system has been restarted due to the power requirements. If you check the equivalent of my GTI's "vehicle status" screen in the Jaguar you may find the same notification. Start/Stop systems draw a lot of criticism but I like the one in my GTI. It has a very minor impact on overall mileage. (Though it apparently has a greater impact on CAFE scores which probably account for manufacturers' rush to include them.) But apart from the fuel efficiency effect I appreciate the fact that when I sitting in line at Starbuck's I've reduced my carbon footprint a tiny bit. And my barista has even commented that she appreciates the fact that I've turned off my engine as I wait for my drink so she doesn't have to breathe exhaust fumes. (She's cute and I rather enjoy pleasing her even though I'm old enough to be her grandfather.... :) ) And since I don't have to bear much if any penalty when the system is engaged and the engine restarts virtually instantaneously and smoothly when I move my foot off the brake and before I touch the accelerator, there's no penalty in that case, either.
    2
  109. Ain't happenin'. See above.
    2
  110. Just like my daily driver at home. I think all the stickers are tacky, though. I leave them off. ;)
    2
  111. The so-called "midsize" crossover market seems to be fracturing between mostly smaller and larger "midsize" vehicles. If most "compact" crossovers are around 180" (give or take an inch or two) in length, the "tweener" category (184" to 189") in which the QX50 falls is expanding rapidly. With the exceptions of the Kia Sorento and (optionally) the VW Tiguan, each is a two row configuration and (again with the exception of the Sorento) powered by a turbo4 engine. It's a Goldilocks category for those who want something larger than a compact SUV and smaller and more maneuverable than what North Americans (especially those in the US) call a "midsize" crossover. In the rest of the world vehicles the size of our "midsize" crossovers are typically called humungous. While CVT's are coming to dominate the "compact" segment, the "tweener" category has a greater mix of transmission options. But if you're going to buy a Nissan product you are going to get a CVT, like it or not. Many of us don't like it but most buyers probably don't care. Personally, I find the complicated transmission control on the center console combined with paddle shifters and simulated "gears" in the QX50 ridiculous but I suppose one gets use to it. The "VC" (variable compression) system is an interesting engineering choice designed to maximize both power and fuel economy in different conditions. I'm inclined to think its prudent to wait a year or two to see if there are kinks to be worked out in such a complicated system that's both unique and largely outside a driver's control. But I'm not much of an "early adopter" when it comes to automotive engineering.
    2
  112. A more or less expected review of a vehicle that comes as close to meeting its design objectives as one is likely to find. There are many good cars available these days and there are some that deserve to be called "excellent." But very, very few that deserve to be labelled "iconic." For those of us who loved (and still love) post-WWII British sports cars, who believe the Austin Healey 3000 and the E-Type Jaguar were among the most beautiful examples of automotive art ever built, the "Miata" is a descendant that shares almost everything but Lucas Electrics (Thank God) and production in Japan rather than small towns in England. The MX-5 is iconic and near perfect. Here's my problem. I'm a "Family Guy." Thankfully not resembling Peter Griffin but with a wife, a teenage daughter, and a big dog who, like "Monty", loves to ride in the car. I love 'em all and like to have a place for them in my version of a "recreational" vehicle. My GTI is ideal. It accommodates everyone and even has room for some luggage and gear on extended journeys. I'd be willing to leave one at home on occasion but having to select only one passenger is an automotive version of Sophie's Choice. (Well, not quite but you get the point.) That brings me to a dilemma if I want to add a $30K sports car to the family garage. As much as I find the MX-5 appealing, I have to weigh its charms against that of the 2022 Toyota GR86 or the Subaru BRZ. The new 2.4L engine has apparently eliminated the 86/BRZ's infamous mid-range torque dip. And though a roadster option isn't available, I might well be willing to forego topless motoring for the benefit of "plus 2" rear seating. (It would be ideal for "Fido" and my flexible teenage daughter could fold herself into the back seat.) So as much as I lust after an MX-5, my attention is increasingly drawn to the new generation 86/BRZ twins.
    2
  113. Comparing the Corair to a top trim Escape versus an Aviator to a top trim Explorer, it appears the latter is a considerably better value proposition. Using the "Build and Price" websites for each vehicle, a top trim, fully loaded Escape runs about $40K (MSRP). A moderately optioned Corsair comes in at more than $56K. In contrast, a fully loaded top trim Explorer (e.g. ST plus options, Titanium trim) pushes or exceeds $60K compared to about $65K for a moderately optioned (Reserve trim) Aviator. The price premiums amount to about $16,000 (Escape vs Corsair) versus $5k (Explorer versus Aviator.) Of course, these difference are based on MSRP figures rather than real world pricing negotiated with a dealer. And the "value" proposition depends on what a consumer is willing or able to pay as well as a consumer's priorities. But the bottom line appear to be that an Aviator is a much better buy than a loaded Explorer while it's difficult to make the same argument for the Corsair versus the Escape. And considering the far better specs of the Aviator versus the Escape, a price premium of $9-$10K for the Aviator versus the Corsair looks worth the extra money.
    2
  114. Get a photo. They're discontinued.
    2
  115. What's missing in the K5? Primarily several thousand dollars in MSRP compared to rivals like the Accord. A fully loaded GT (not the GT-Line) with the GT1 option package has an MSRP less than $35,000. A comparably equipped 2.0L turbo Touring model of the Accord has an MSRP over $39,000. But what about resale? In the first place, resale values of KIA have risen about 15% per year for the last decade. Comparable models from Honda and Toyota still have significantly higher resale values, of course, but the marginal advantage shrinks each year an owner holds onto a vehicle. For example, a year and a half ago I traded a 2012 KIA Sorento for a new model I had owned for six years. The dealer gave me within $800 of the KBB estimate for a comparably equipped 2012 Toyota Highlander, the champ of resale in the category. But I had purchased the KIA for $6000 less than the best offer I received from a Toyota dealer in 2012. A little arithmetic reveals that I saved more than $5000 over the course of the two transactions. The key to minimizing depreciation is to strike a deal well under MSRP for a new car and hold onto it for five or more years. If you trade a vehicle, any vehicle, every one to three years, you'll take a bath in depreciation. But if that's your preference just be aware you have a very expensive hobby.
    2
  116. Hey, Ryan. I believe we both live in the Puget Sound area so you probably know that even the mildest criticism of a Subaru is likely to cost you friends, your neighbors no longer speak to you, and invitations to Thanksgiving dinner with the extended family dry up. The only route to greater social isolation is to wear a MAGA hat in Seattle. (Not that I'd do that.) I've never owned a Subaru but I've always respected the brand and many of my friends and acquaintances are members of the cult. So as I've watched the Forester add middle age spread year after year and with the introduction of the Ascent last year I was concerned about the Outback being squeezed from below and above. I wondered what Subaru would do to keep it relevant. Happily, I don't think I had to worry. The 2020 model seems to be a significant upgrade compared to the previous generation. For example, Outback owners no longer have to make excuses for a less than premium interior necessitated by the cost of the Subie's standard AWD. The upgraded infotainment system alone eliminates a significant negative from the past. And for those who prefer a "crossover" that looks and drives like a wagon, the Outback still stands almost alone. Kudos. Among the "tweener" size two row crossovers (188"-192" in length) the Outback and the Murano are alone in limiting transmission choice to a CVT. (Not a plus for me.) But most reports suggest its behavior is relatively inoffensive. The faux gears and paddle shifters are kinda silly but most customers won't care as long as it imitates a traditional AT in most environments. All CVT's aren't equally annoying and Subaru has apparently done a good job with theirs. (Nissan? Not so much.) More positive news is the optional inclusion of the new turbo4 boxer engine that was introduced in the Ascent last year. I wasn't impressed in that application. Only Mazda and Subaru fail to offer a standard or optional V6 in their midsize three row crossovers. And there are good reasons for that. But the Outback is close to 700 lbs lighter in curb weight than the Ascent. Add fuel, passengers, and gear/luggage and the difference is 900 lbs or more. That's like adding 3 NFL lineman to the burden of propelling the vehicle. The turbo 4 in the Ascent provides adequate but hardly impressive performance. In the Outback it puts it near the head of the pack among "tweener" (188'-192" in length) 2 row crossovers. It's still a new engine without an extensive track record and physics is physics so in a two ton vehicle the comparative durability of a smaller displacement turbo 4 vs a V6, especially a naturally aspirated version, is still a question. But skepticism about the engine's long term durability in the Outback has to be less than in the Ascent. All in all, I"m reassured that I can say nice things about the new Outback to my friends and neighbors. And I can still count on an invitation to my extended family's Thanksgiving dinner. As long as Uncle Fred doesn't show up in his MAGA hat, I'll be there. :)
    2
  117. I'm highly impressed by Hyundai's Genesis brand.Hopefully, Hyundai has finally overcome the legal disaster that they precipitated with their dealership network so that there can actually be Genesis dealers throughout the US. They're making progress but it's still a challenge to find a dealer with inventory here in the Pacific Northwest. Unfortunately, if I brought home a G80 (much less a G90), my wife would quickly move to make me her ex-husband while she begins a search for my hidden assets. I might get away with a G70. ("But honey, it's like a BMW 3 Series, not a 5 or 7 series and look how small it is. Not pretentious, at all.") Meanwhile, I'll stick with trying to convince her that a KIA Stinger, pretty much identical under the skin, is really just a hatchback, like my GTI. BTW, buddy. I know it's difficult to obtain test vehicles directly from manufacturers and to have a vehicle for extended testing for a week, or so. Getting into the big league where those privileges are readily available is, I'm sure, a challenge. But your repeated references to a specific dealer accompanied by a phone number and the name of salesperson give your videos the flavor of an infomercial and undermines your credibility. Sharing the ride with a salesperson only makes it worse. It's a shame because your content is actually quite good. Good luck. I'll keep watching.
    2
  118.  @RaitisRides  Believe me, buddy. I'm not accusing you of being a shill for a particular dealer and a brief acknowledgment of the source of the vehicle at the beginning or end of a video is both acceptable and honest. But repeated references to the dealer, riding along with a salesperson, and recommending a particular salesperson to your audience sends signals that your review may have been inappropriately influenced. All in all, it makes your reviews resemble those produced by local dealers featuring a salesperson touting the cars on their lots. Those videos are a dime a dozen and I think most viewers avoid them almost as much as they dread being accosted by a salesperson when they enter a dealership to get a first hand look at a new model.
    2
  119.  @RaitisRides  All good, my friend. Good luck with your channel. :)
    2
  120. Good instinct.
    2
  121.  @nettejean5912  Of course.
    2
  122. A "perfect" family hauler? Not with the KIA Telluride out there now. Comparing MSRP's of models comparably equipped that Infiniti badge will run about $12,000. (USD) That's the cost of sending a kid to college for a year or two.
    2
  123. Obviously you don't live in the Seattle area where sunny days are a cause for celebration.
    2
  124.  @Victic005  Not surprised. :)
    2
  125. Good advice, Kirk. Especially to scour private party sources rather than dealers. Here's my story. A couple of months ago I needed to find a used car. Primarily for my 17 y/o daughter as a daily driver. We're a family of three drivers with two cars and though it was far from a desperate situation I'd found that the miles were piling up on our 2018 KIA Sorento (her mom's daily driver) and my beloved Mk 7.5 GTI, a car I used 3-4 days a week and treat like a first born. I hadn't purchased a used car in years and I knew it was a terrible time to be shopping but I figured (naively) that I could find a reliable, relatively low mileage (less than 100K miles on the clock) car she could drive for a couple of years as she went off to college for, say, $5K-$6K. And being a parent I wanted it to have as many modern safety and driver assistance features as possible. She would have been happy with anything with four wheels but she expressed a hope that it would be a "stick." (I suspect that was an effort to impress her boyfriend but having owned many MT vehicles over the years, I agreed that would be a great idea for a first car of her own.) I agreed to look for a car that came close to both her and my expectations. So off I went to dealers around the Seattle metro area and scoured Facebook, Autotrader, and other internet sites for candidates. It didn't take long to discover that my original budget and expectations were stuck back in the 20th century. Not only were MT vehicles few and far between but any hope of finding a car with fewer than 100K miles, service records, and a clean title for less than $10K was a pipe dream. What I did find weren't vehicles I'd want my daughter to drive. (I'm a dad, after all.) Still, I stuck with the search and after a month or so I happened across a 2012 VW CC from a private party about 90 miles away with 44K miles and (amazingly) a manual transmission. Asking price was $11K. That was about $3000 less (or even more) than comparable versions of the CC I found within a 500 mile radius, each of which had over 100K miles on the clock. When I drove to see it I found it was owned by an engineer who purchased it new, never drove it in the winter and kept it garaged year round. The only external blemish was a quarter inch curb rash on one wheel. The interior was like new. And he had every service record including oil changes in a fat folder he provided. I paid his asking price and drove it home on the condition that my mechanic could give it a thorough inspection. An oil and filter change and a new set of tires to replace the 9 year old originals were the result. (The tires had good tread but rubber gets old.) My daughter learned to drive a "stick" in a couple of weeks. Her reputation among her peers, especially the males, mushroomed. Now, rather than being pestered repeatedly to borrow my GTI, I have the great pleasure of pestering my daughter to borrow "her" car. And as a result of the low mileage I'm confident my daughter will be able to put 50K miles or more on the car over the next several years or replace it with only a moderate depreciation penalty. Lessons learned? Persistence pays off. If possible, keep looking for that rare well treated vehicle. Dealers have to make a profit on the cars they sell. Better deals are likely from private parties. If possible know the seller or get an impression of how they have treated the car they're selling. (Engineers are often a picky lot with a passion for details. Twenty-something Mustang GT owners rate at least a caution flag.) Nearly all modern cars will provide well over 100K miles of service without major issues but proof of regular maintenance from a seller, especially if they're the original owner, is a good sign. An immaculate interior is another sign of an owner's commitment to a vehicle. Yeah, it's a lousy time to be shopping for a vehicle. If you can hold off for a year or more, do so. But if you cannot, my experience suggests there are reasonable (if not fantastic) deals out there.
    2
  126.  @Sijray21  OMG....A poster who admits an error! I'm impressed. :)
    2
  127. Wouldn't want to lose my GTI sunroof. (Doesn't creak.) Around Seattle we need all the light we can get in a dark cabin with black leather upholstery.
    2
  128. Not available in the US, unfortunately.
    2
  129. Undeniably a huge improvement over the last generation Sedona. Unfortunately, the minivan segment in the US has shrunk to only four competitors: the Odyssey the Pacifica, the Sienna, and the Carnival. The Pacifica leads the pack in terms of sales with the Odyssey in second place with shrinking sales. The Sienna came in third in 2020 with a huge drop in sales but the new generation 2021 model is just out. The Sedona trailed the pack in 2020 with only 13,000 sales. (Chrysler sold 94,000 Pacifcas.) Will the improvements in the Carnival make a major difference in sales? It may help on the margins but the KIA lacks two features that both the Pacifica and Sienna now offer: AWD and hybrid powertrains. I suspect that the Carnival is destined neither to win, place, or show in terms of sales.
    2
  130. Not exactly "tons of towing" , Joe." The Explorer is rated at 5600 lbs. And technically that is "tons". But it's only 600 lbs more than a KIA Sorento. If you want to tow, there are much better alternatives from GM and FCA. In fact, the Dodge Durango in some configurations (tow rating of 8700 lbs) exceeds the tow rating of the Explorer by more than another ton and a half! It is, of course, very quick for a large midsize SUV. But at around 5.7 seconds from 0-60 it's no quicker than its little brother the Edge ST even with a slightly larger twin scroll turbo V6 due to about 300 lbs heavier curb weight. And neither is as quick as the 2018 Edge Sport that was lighter than the 2019 Edge ST. That model turned 0-60 in the low five second range. No doubt that the Edge ST handles and stops better than its predecessor but in terms of straight line acceleration it's a bit less quick than the Edge Sport. And if the Explorer ST's 0-60 estimated acceleration is correct, it, too, is slower than the Edge Sport. Nevertheless, it is important for Ford to offer a high performance Explorer. A large proportion of its sales are to public agency fleets such as police and highway patrols where 0-60 acceleration and top speed are viewed as important and agencies replace their vehicles far more frequently than consumers. (Whether acceleration and top speed are valid priorities even for police is another discussion.) For consumers, however, other priorities outweigh picking up groceries or hauling the family in a vehicle that reaches 60 mph in less than six seconds. The Explorer ST is relatively affordable for a "halo" model but I suspect the take rate among civilians will be relatively low.
    2
  131. Excellent first impression but it's a desperate move on Mazda's part that's unlikely to help the company's dismal sales picture. In the first 3 quarters of 2020 Mazda sold a total of 25,000 Mazda3s. That's down 38% compared to the same period in 2019 with over 40,000 sales. And the decline in sales isn't simply a function of COVID. In the full 2019 calendar year Mazda sold almost 51,000 "3s" compared to 2018 sales of over 64,000 vehicles. Those are appalling numbers. And since performance versions of sedans and hatchbacks seldom account for more than 10% of total sales and a fully loaded Mazda3 Turbo (sedan or hatchback) has an MSRP around $35,000, it will excite internet fanboys (many of whom can't afford it) but is unlikely to improve sales by even as much as 5000 vehicles a year.
    2
  132. I'm usually not a fan of Hyundai's exterior designs. They often strike me as over-styled with a few too many creases and bulges. (Lookin' at you, Palisade.) In the case of the new Sonata, though, I think Hyundai has gotten it right. Rivals or beats the Mazda6 and that's a strong endorsement. The forthcoming N-Line Sonata with (I'm guessing) a turbo version of the 2.5L four banger is an interesting option. Without AWD, though, it may be challenged to put the power down to the front wheels without shredding the tires. As far as the "solar powered :)" hybrid, that's another interesting choice. Living in the perpetually overcast Pacific Northwest, I'm skeptical that it's more than a marketing gimmick but it may well be more than that. The Sonata won't, of course, displace either the Accord or the Camry in terms of sales but popularity isn't necessarily the gauge of quality.
    2
  133. A beautiful car that has aged (and will continue to age) very, very well. But in answer to the question in the header, the best performance BARGAIN EXOTIC sports car is the C08 Corvette. (Assuming, of course, that you can get one.)
    2
  134. I seriously cross-shoppped the Mazda6 (Signature trim) against the Honda Accord 2.0L turbo (Touring) and the Camry XSE V6 last year when I considered replacing my MK6 GTI to allow me to share a vehicle with my soon to be driving teenage daughter and I wanted all the driver assistance and convenience features that newer vehicles offered. I've owned 4 Mazdas over the years and despite a 626 whose engine exploded at 8000 miles (Replaced under warrant and ran flawlessly for the next 100K miles) and an RX-8 that had some significant flaws along with fantastic handling, I like the brand. On my checklist, the "6" came in second place, slightly behind the Accord. On looks alone it took first place. Despite the somewhat older design than its rivals, it's a gorgeous vehicle (imo.) The Signature trim interior is very appealing but falls down in terms of features such as the dated infotainment system and comparatively cramped back seat compared to both Accord and the Camry. I ranked it second to the top trim Accord in terms of the quality of materials and expected durability despite the eye candy in the "6". The Mazda has a unique placement of two USB ports in the rear center console but it's worth noting that with three passengers in the back seat, those USB ports are inaccessible. In terms of handling, it upholds Mazda's reputation but its advantage over the Honda and even the Camry is minor at best given the significant improvements of the current generations of its rivals. Somewhat surprisingly, the area the "6" was behind both rivals was its performance from the 2.5L turbo 4 and its six speed transmission. On paper the same engine from the CX-9 and over 300 ft lbs of torque might be expected to be the best performer. It isn't. In fact, it's significantly behind both the Accord with its detuned 2.0L turbo from the Civic Type R and the Camry with its 3.5L NA V6 in terms of 0-60 time. My guess is that Mazda has programmed their older 6 speed transmission to cut power to the front wheels from a standstill to avoid shredding the tires and to reduce torque steer. And the six speed transmission, while perfectly adequate, simply doesn't measure up to either the Honda or the Camry with newer designs and more gears. Zero to sixty time isn't the only measure of performance but the Mazda lack both the turbo "punch" of the Accord and the linear power delivery of the naturally aspirated Camry. In the end, like many consumers, I couldn't pull the trigger on any of the three midsize sedans. I ended up with a new GTI to replace my MK6 version. Quicker and better handling than all three with all the bells and whistles I wanted at a better price. Once you've owned a GTI, it's difficult to give it up. :)
    2
  135. Nice car. But labeling it an "Elantra" with the same moniker as the Elantra sedan, a completely different vehicle, is confusing, at best. And trying to configure and compare trim levels can be a nightmare, especially if you're undecided between a sedan and a hatchback. Sticking to the hatchback, the Elantra GT comes in two trim levels, the "GT," the base version, and the "N Line" reviewed by Joe. Unless you're severely pressed for cash the base version is hardly worth considering. It's obviously not a competitor to the VW GTI. And adding a $3000 option package does little to help it. Adding the package eliminates the MSRP advantage and the GT model is still inferior to the "N Line" except for a sunroof that can't be had at any price on the N Line. At best the "GT GT" is a Golf competitor, not a rival of the GTI. And besides the Golf there are several other better choices than the base "GT" model, imo. As a GTI owner I'm obviously biased but trying to be as objective as possible I still think even the N Line falls short of a GTI. Hyundai builds good engines but the 1.6L turbo at 201 HP/195 lbft of torque, is considerably short of the GTI's 2.0L turbo with 228/258, especially in terms of torque. And given VW's well known tendency to underrate the HP and torque of their engines, the gap is probably considerably greater. I'd give the GTI a significant advantage on that score. In terms of transmissions the N Line matches the options available in the GTI. Each can be had with an MT and each offers a 7 speed DCT. But all DCT's are not created equal and the VW DSG (VW's designation of their DCT) is (imo) the gold standard short of a tiptronic in a Porsche. If I were shopping, I'd give the N Line the benefit of the doubt until I drove it but I'm skeptical it will match the performance of the VW's DSG. As far as other features are concerned, Hyundai has apparently dropped any integrated nav system from the Elantra GT, relying instead on touting its support for AppleCarPlay and Android Auto. That's not surprising and probably represents the wave of the future for other brands. But my GTI has both integrated nav and support for cell phone based navigation. I can compare them simultaneously in my car. Doing that, I've found each has advantages, each has its own errors now and then. But one advantage of VW's integrated system is that in areas where cell phone coverage is spotty or non-existent (and a nav system is especially useful) the VW nav system continues to operate while AndroidAuto and AppleCarplay sometimes freeze or fail completely. All in all, I find the VW's full-featured, integrated nav system to be a significant advantage. One area in which the GTI shines is its relatively huge interior space. Overall, the N Line matches the cargo space of the GTI but in doing so it sacrifices rear seat passenger space to some extent. Not disastrously, but noticeably. And overall, the quality of materials and design of the interior in the GTI is significantly better. In terms of infotainment, I haven't driven the Hyundai but my KIA Sorento has the same system and it's great! But so is the GTI's. I'd call it a draw. Each is better, imo, than most competitors. The one area where the N Line has a significant advantage over the GTI is price. Depending on trim level, the N Line is as much as $3K to $6K less expensive in terms of real world prices. (Not necessarily MSRP's). That's not enough for me to choose the Elantra GT N Line over the GTI but it might well be a critical factor for others. One thing is certain, I think, at its price point the N Line is a serious competitor for the Civic SI.
    2
  136. Sarah, it's been great watching you mature from a novelty voice on others' channels to a truly excellent reviewer with a unique perspective. Your review of the Forester sealed it. It should be required viewing for anyone considering a purchase of the vehicle. Oh, hell, it should be required viewing for just about anyone interested in automobiles.
    2
  137. Toyota has done a credible job of updating the long-in-the-tooth Highlander for 2020. And for those for whom fuel economy is a paramount priority the hybrid version is a singular choice. A complete evaluation will have to await reviewers having more than a short drive in the Texas Hill Country but the 2020 version no longer appears to be outclassed by much of the competition. A couple of "zonks," though. First, Toyota continues to claim the Highlander seats up to eight passengers (with the second row bench seat.) Sorry, but putting three seat belts and head restraints in the third row doesn't make it a three person third row. In fact, there's less room in the third row for two passengers than several competitors. In the past the Highlander was one of the smaller midsize three row crossovers. For 2020 the length has been extended by about 2.5 inches. Unfortunately, that hasn't improved passenger or cargo room significantly. It's still a five or six passenger vehicle. Second, the placement of the wireless charging pad in the center console is an odd choice. Try placing a phone on the wireless charger and then try to access the console storage without first removing the phone. Otherwise, raising the raising charging pad means dumping the phone sitting on it.
    2
  138. Perfect vehicle for flyover country where curves are rare and mountains are non-existent. I might find it more appealing if I lived in Kansas or Nebraska.
    2
  139. No question that the current generation Camry no longer deserves to be derided as a mere "appliance." Like its major rival, the Honda Accord, it handles well, has a four cylinder engine that combines more than adequate power for the vast majority of drivers with economical operation, and boasts first rate fit/finish. Though midsize sedan sales continue to be soft, Toyota will have sold over 270,000 Camrys in 2020, a figure that dwarfs that of every other midsize competitor. When total sales for 2020 are available for the Accord they'll total about 190,000 units. Obviously, Toyota is doing something right in terms of the Camry's configurations. Want more power? The 300+ HP of the V6 Camry is available in several trims. But only about 5% of Camrys are sold with the V6. Why doesn't Toyota offer the V6 with AWD as it does for the 4 banger? Do the math. Sales don't justify it and Toyota hates to build a car that doesn't generate a profit. Sales of the Accord's "Touring" trim on the other constitute a considerably larger portion of the vehicle's overall sales. (About 20% according to my local dealer.) That's likely due to the fact that the Touring trim boasts a somewhat detuned version of the Civic Type R engine and substitutes a conventional geared transmission for the lower trims' CVT. Nevertheless, Honda resists offering AWD on any Accord. Of course sales are not a direct measure of quality. So what about the question Joe raises in the title of the review. "Is the Camry XSE a BETTER sedan than the new Accord?" In terms of quantifiable measures, the Camry routinely ranks at or near the top of reliability rankings. However, "rankings" don't necessarily reflect the actual incidence of reliability issues. (A horse that comes in first a race by a nose is just as much a winner as one that wins by 17 lengths.) Suffice to say that a buyer of either vehicle has a 95% or better chance of never experiencing a major reliability issue over five to seven years. (That, by the way, is true of many current vehicles where reliability has improved vastly over the last couple of decades.) Performance? Americans tend to measure performance in terms of 0-60 mph and quarter mile times. Those are extremely narrow (and often misleading) metrics but for what they're worth, the Honda 1.5L turbo tops the Camry NA 2.5L four banger significantly according to published reports. The Accord's figures are 6.6/15.1 seconds compared to 7.3/15.7 seconds for the Camry. Moving up to the more powerful engine options, it's a wash: 5.6/14.2 for the Honda 2.0L turbo4 vs 5.7/14.3 for the NA V6 Camry. (Figures from zerotosixty.com) Power delivery is another matter. The Camry's naturally aspirated engines offer more linear power delivery while the Accord's turbo 4s deliver a more noticeable punch when the accelerator is floored. Neither is necessarily "better." Different strokes for different folks. Fuel Economy? Again, the two vehicles are nearly identical. For the lower performance engines the Accord has a combined EPA rating of 33 mpg compared to 32 mpg for the Camry. For the high performance versions the Camry averages 25 MPG vs 26 mpg for the Accord. (Figures from www.fueleconomy.gov) Of course, as anyone who has driven turbocharged vehicles knows the temptation to use the accelerator to experience the turbo "punch" may negate the Honda's tiny advantage. Interior Room? The Accord comes out on top. The biggest difference is in legroom. The Accord's first and second rows amounts to 82.7" compared to 80.1" in the Camry. The advantage is almost wholly in the back seat where the Honda enjoys 2.4" more legroom. The Accord's advantage carries over in the trunk's cargo space. The Camry's 15.1 cubic ft is significantly less than the especially generous Accord's 16.7 cubic feet. Of course there are other possible comparisons but the bottom line is more a matter of taste than objective metrics. I've driven both Accords and Camrys and if I were in the market I'd opt for the Honda but each is an excellent midsize sedan and anyone considering one should take a close look at the other.
    2
  140. Very good review, Kirk. I've spent many hours on those roads and if you can find a time when the RVs and looky-loos aren't clogging them, they offer a great driving experience. (Try just after sunrise on a Sunday.) Some comments... () As far as backseat legroom is concerned you might want to consider the fact that only about 1 out of 7 adult males in the US is 6' tall or more. The figure for females is 1 out of 100. That means that only about 4% of all adults are six feet tall or more (i.e. 1 out of 25). I realize you might well feel cramped in the backseat of the Santa Cruz but it's unlikely to be a problem for the vast majority of "normal" adults even if the tall folks find it so. Those figures may seem especially low but that's probably because the freakishly tall six footers stand out in crowds. 😁 () The concept of an offspring resulting from a one night stand between a sedan and a pickup may seem avant-garde but it's not. Ford introduced the Ranchero in 1957 and Chevy followed suit with the El Camino in 1959. Each took a station wagon's front end ahead of the rear seat and grafted it onto a pickup bed. Neither was a strong seller but the Ranchero remained in production until 1979 and the El Camino struggled on until 1987. A major weakness of the Ranchero and El Camino was the absence of a rear seat and 4 doors. That matched the design of pickups in the early years but by the time the Ranchero and El Camino went to vehicle heaven 4 door pickups with bucket seats up front and a backseat were already becoming a thing . In 2002 Subaru tried its hand with the Baja with a backseat and 4 doors. Didn't help much. The Baja disappeared in 2006. Even today, though a four door combination of a sedan and a short bed pickup exists in some international markets. For some reason Australians find the VW Amarok appealing. It strongly resembles the Santa Cruz with a slightly longer bed (5 ft) and more off-road chops than the Santa Cruz. In view of the fact that Australia is a major market for Hyundai the Korean brand may have thought that the Santa Cruz was worth trying in America. They put their design studio in California on the case and the Santa Cruz is the result. That may have been a good choice but Hyundai should remember that surfers looking for a way to transport their boards is a tiny niche market. () All in all, combining vehicles from significantly different product categories is risky. Designed to appeal to those who want a single vehicle that meets multiple mission requirements and are willing to compromise each. Unfortunately, such vehicles often fail to satisfy those who lean heavily one way or the other. Time will tell if Hyundai has found the formula that predecessors failed to perfect. () the option of the 2.5L Turbo engine for the Santa Cruz looks like a good choice. By my count it is now standard or optional in at least 8(!) Hyundai, KIA, and Genesis models (from the Kona N to the Genesis G80) and combines strong performance and good fuel economy. In the Santa Cruz it's combined with an 8 speed DCT, a transmission that has received strong reviews, as well. The tow rating of up to 5000 lbs is impressive. Though I remain somewhat skeptical given that the Santa Fe and the Sorento with the same drivetrains top out at 3500 lbs. Probably a minor point since I doubt many Santa Cruz owners will be towing anything more challenging than a couple of motorcycles or jet skis.
    1
  141. A great SUV for those who don't need the "utility" of an SUV but just like the looks of the class. With less than 60 cubic ft of total cargo capacity and a cramped interior, it ranks at the bottom of the class.
    1
  142. The size classifications for SUV's is subjective at best. But the Telluride isn't a "full size" SUV. It's smack dab in the middle of the so-called "midsize" category, almost exactly the length as the Honda Pilot and Subaru Ascent and smaller than the VW Atlas, the Mazda CX-9, the Dodge Durango, and the Chevy Traverse. It looks big and "brawny" and it lives up to that in terms of interior space where it's extremely roomy. That makes it the most efficiently packaged entry in the entire three row midsize category. Want to check out that claim? Divide the amount of passenger space in the Telluride (178 cubic feet) by its length (196.9 inches) to derive a "cubic feet of passenger space per length in inches" stat. You'll find it's better than any other midsize crossover. Interestingly, the KIA Sorento comes in second with others trailing behind. The CX-9, not surprisingly, is at the bottom of the list. Of course, the Sorento doesn't offer nearly the room of the Telluride (153 cf vs 178 cf) but surprisingly, it offers the same legroom in the third row. (The Telluride is both taller and wider so it's truly a three passenger rear row while the Sorento can accommodate only two comfortably.) But to be fair, the Sorento at 189" long is actually a "Tweener" size (comparable to the Ford Edge, the Subaru Outback, and the Hyundai Santa Fe) rather than a full fledged "midsize" three row SUV. Of course, almost any of 3 row SUV's has room for six or more passengers for a short trip. The real test is whether a vehicle can accommodate six or more passengers AND their luggage/gear on an extended journey. And on that score the Telluride comes out very well for a so-called "midsize" vehicle. With 21 cubic feet of cargo space behind the third row, only the Traverse has more (23 cubic ft) and the Chevy is seven inches longer (204.3") than the Telluride. To get significant better accommodations for six or more on a trip you have to move up to a "full size" SUV or a minivan. Bottom line is that the Telluride has lots of appealing features. One advantage of being late to the party is that you get to see what everyone else is wearing. And one of the Telluride's most important features, often overlooked in reviews, is the highly efficient "packaging" for passengers and cargo. It's the largest vehicle KIA makes but it's not the largest midsize SUV. More importantly it prioritizes passenger room compared to the competition in the midsize category.
    1
  143. "What does TRD really mean?" That's easy. In the case of the Avalon it means that Totyota recognizes that 60 is the new 40. :)
    1
  144. Excellent explanation of a confusing topic (to non EV owners), Tommy.
    1
  145.  @CarConfections  The short supply is likely the result of the chip shortage. A number of manufacturers have limited or ceased production of their models with low "take rates" in favor of building vehicles that move off of dealer lots more quickly. The same problem afflicts the Jetta GLI. In fact, my VW dealer told me recently that he expects to see no more Jettas at all for the rest of the calendar year as VW shifts production more heavily to SUVs to deal with the chip shortage.
    1
  146. The CX-9 is very, very large. Only the Dodge Durango and the bus-like Chevy Traverse are longer among all midsize SUVs. Larger than a Telluride or Palisade. Larger than a VW Atlas. At nearly 200" in length the CX-9 is huge. So how is that it has the LEAST interior passenger and cargo space among ALL 3 row SUVs available in the US? The answer is simple. That long, long hood that automotive designers have used for nearly a century to imply potency and performance consumers so much of the CX-9's length that the interior packaging is woefully inefficient. It not only has less passenger and cargo space than a KIA Sorento, the smallest midsize SUV at 189", the CX-9 has less total cargo space than a Honda CR-V or a VW Tiguan and barely more than a RAV4. Add to that an aging four cylinder engine and an equally long-in-the-tooth six speed transmission, each of which is better suited to the CX-5 or CX-30, and it's not surprising that the CX-9 ranks dead last among all mainstream midsize SUVs in terms of sales and is even outsold by several luxury brand competitors. The CX-9 has some strengths. It looks good. Considering its massive size it handles well. Mazda has clearly done what they can to freshen its interior bells and whistles. But the fact remains that if it is ever to climb out of last place in sales among mainstream SUVs a radical remodel is called for.
    1
  147. If Mazda made nothing but terrible vehicles in the rest of their lineup (and they don't), the MX-5 alone would justify the company's existence. The roadster is the obvious classic choice but living near Seattle where warm sunny days are so rare that they tempt drivers to take a sick day, the RF is a tempting choice. The only "zonk"? The lack of a glove compartment. Come on, Mazda. I could deal with the Mickey Mouse cupholders but what on earth is the excuse for not simply cutting a hole in the passenger side under the dash and installing a small glove compartment? Unfortunately, I have a wife, a daughter, and a big dog and I like to take at least two of them on many trips. Perhaps when the kid is off to college and the dog dies, I can consider a car I've been tempted by for years. Until then, I'll stick with my GTI.
    1
  148. Want a Mazda6? Get one now. Mazda has announced model (along with the CX-3) is dead after 2021. Hopes for a successor model for 2023 continue but with the soft sales of midsize sedans and Mazda's track record of overpromising and underdelivering new models, that remains a question mark. In any event if you can't get at least $5000 off the MSRP of the top trim Signature model, you should have someone else negotiate your purchase.
    1
  149. Really, really excellent review, Brian! I couldn't agree more that the major weakness of the K5 GT is trying to utilize the power of the 2.5L turbo with prodigious power in a FWD vehicle with neither any form of LSD or AWD. Using its power without wheel hop, understeer, torque steer, and tire shredding in essence means not using that power. Those who think those attributes spell performance may be satisfied with the K5 GT. Others know better. I'm not surprised to see KIA fail to offer AWD in the K5 GT. Neither Toyota nor Nissan offer AWD in their "performance" version midsize sedans simply because they don't sell well enough to justify the investment. Honda and Hyundai don't even offer it in any version. On the other hand, there is no excuse for failing to offer some form of LSD (electronic or mechanical) in a FWD sedan with almost 300 HP and over 300 ft lbs of torque. Hell, my GTI with far less HP and torque has a standard (electronic) LSD. Arguably, a consumer might be better off with the less powerful GT-Line K5 with AWD. At least one can use the power one pays for. Fortunately, at least for US consumers, there's an alternative, the GT-Line Stinger with the same turbo engine as the K5 GT, RWD and the option of RWD-biased AWD. For an MSRP premium of $3000 to $5000 the Stinger offers a more premium sedan and a liftback design with a massive cargo space behind the seats. (The GT-Line does not appear to be available in Canada as far as I can tell.) Sadly, that option won't last indefinitely. It appears that the 2022 model year is the end of the line for the Stinger. KIA has apparently decided to put their high end performance "eggs" in the top trim K6 EV with over 450 HP and instant torque and discontinue even the twin turbo V6 Stingers. Disappointing but not necessarily an isolated case if one considers the demise of the Camaro and the fact that the Mach-E Mustang is outselling all other Mustang models. Disappointing but not surprising.
    1
  150. I'd agree with you, Philip. But considering the supply/demand situation of the Telluride, the price difference between an Explorer and a Telluride is likely to be far less than their respective MSRP's suggest. And that doesn't even take into account that in the real world you're very likely to be waiting for the 2020 Telluride unless you're already on the delivery list.
    1
  151. The Calligraphy trim of the Santa Fe is undeniably impressive. But it's worth comparing it to its closely related sibling, the X-Line trim of the KIA Sorento. Doing so illustrates that despite the numerous shared features and components and almost identical MSRPs the two Korean brands lean in different directions with the Santa Fe and the Sorento. The Santa Fe, like the Pallisade, projects a "budget luxury" vibe. The X-Line Sorento, like the Telluride, projects a more "rugged" impression with off-road cues (if not major aspirations in that direction) . Though the Santa Fe and Sorento share nearly all major features and components there are some differences. The new Sorento lacks driver seat memory and an extending thigh cushion that the top trim Santa Fe provides. (A plus for the Santa Fe and an inexplicable deletion from the last version of the Sorento.) The KIA retains a traditional transmission lever in place of the pushbutton in the Santa Fe. (A plus for the KIA imo.) And the Santa Fe's "smart park" party trick isn't offered on the Sorento. (Not something I'd miss.) Overall, however, the most obvious difference between the top trim Santa Fe and Sorento is the latter's standard third row seats. It's not generous, of course, and in a rare example of marketing speak honesty KIA describes it as "Plus 2" seating. But it is roomier than, for example, the third row of the Toyota Highlander. And even if it's not often used it's a huge convenience on occasions when the need arises to transport 5 or more passengers on a local trip and the alternative is using two vehicles. On the other hand, the X-Line KIA (as well as other trims except the lowest) provides only captain chairs in the second row while the Santa Fe out of necessity provides a second row bench even in the Calligraphy edition. (Without a third row, captain chairs in the Santa Fe's second row would leave the passenger capacity limited to four.) This leaves someone like me, an owner of the last generation top trim Sorento, with a dilemma. Our family of four (two adults, a teenager, and a big dog) need a third row of seats only very occasionally. But the bench second row is a near necessity. Our dog doesn't have a body suitable for a captain chair and the cargo hold is his space only when he returns dirty and muddy from the beach or a romp in the woods. If we replace our Sorento do we give up a third row of seats or consign the dog permanently to the cargo hold?
    1
  152. VW fan here. (I own a GTI.) Looked seriously at the Atlas last year when my wife and I were shopping but found it far too large for our needs. We went for a KIA Sorento instead. VW has reconfigured their options and trim levels this year to be somewhat more rational but getting a loaded Atlas still tops $50k. That's not unreasonable unless you compare it to its most threatening competitor, the KIA Telluride. (The CX-9, even longer than the Atlas with less overall cargo room than a Honda CR-V is simply NOT as strong a rival as the fact that its sales have dropped year on year ever since June, 2018 demonstrates.) As much as I love VW's turbo 4 cylinder engines, though, I'm skeptical about it in the Atlas even if it's not packed with passengers and cargo on a regular basis. At up to 4500 lbs curb weight plus passengers and cargo I think a v6 is a much more appropriate and durable choice. All in all, though, the Telluride is the elephant in the room as far as the Atlas is concerned. It's a couple of inches less in length but has comparable interior room for passengers and cargo and a somewhat more potent V6 under the hood. I wish the Atlas well but I think the challenge from the Telluride is more than formidable.
    1
  153. Sorry, Joe. You're going to have to leave Florida to find some real twisties. Occasional curves aren't "twisties."
    1
  154. Congrats from south of the border in Washington State. Looking forward to seeing all that beautiful Vancouver and surrounding BC scenery.
    1
  155. If you'd like to donate millions of dollars to Mazda I'm sure they'd be happy to follow your suggestions. They're the smallest independent mainstream automotive manufacturer in the world. That means stretching their engines and drive trains to cover multiple vehicles and targeting investment in new products very carefully.
    1
  156. Sorry, my friend. Toyota is absolutely NOT going to turbocharge the Avalon, much less give it a twin turbo. You have to recognize that the single most important feature of Toyota/Lexus products is their reputation for reliability. Not only is it the most important, it outweighs EVERYTHING else put together. Anything that threatens to risk that reputation even slightly is verboten as far as Toyota is concerned. If they were to consider a turbocharged performance version, it would be for the Camry, not the Avalon. But rather than turbocharge the 4 banger in the Camry Toyota opts to put the same under-stressed and proven V6 in the Camry as in the Avalon for their "performance" model. Put a 400 HP engine in the Avalon? No way. The bottom line is that Toyota knows its market and it doesn't include consumers who want a 400 HP sedan, especially since such buyers are more likely to "abuse" (i.e.take advantage of) that performance and threaten Toyota's reputation for reliability. What all this means is that Toyota will always be accused of lacking innovative features. There will be no Highlander "ST" to compete against the Ford Explorer. The RAV4 will compete with other compact crossovers not in terms of raw performance but with the hybrid version that cannot be produced fast enough. There won't be a Corolla competitor of the Civic Type R. Want a rugged midsize SUV? Toyota will happily sell you a 4Runner that's barely been changed in a decade but in 2019 had its best sales year in history. Ironically, though Toyota and Lexus remain at the top of the rankings in reliability, their advantage in terms of reported issues has been shrinking for years as other manufacturers have improved their vehicles. But that makes it all the more important (and more challenging) for Toyota to protect its rank as the most reliable brand in the world and even less likely to risk it with innovation and to compete in terms of raw performance.
    1
  157.  @dwnshft  As I noted in another comment "Sixty is the new forty." If you're in that age group you don't have the option of improving your performance by much but you can get a face lift and a tummy tuck. And as noted above, Toyota knows their customers. :) Excellent review as usual, by the way.
    1