My Brother's New Kia Sportage.

[mmcartalk]

I recently asked your opinions on the all-new Honda HR-V (though, of course, I also looked at it and test-drove it myself).......a vehicle my brother was quite interested in. My thanks to all of you who posted and gave your opinions and insight on whether my brother should get that Honda HR-V, or go with something else. (He needs, and wants, a small economical reliable AWD vehicle for future winter commutes, as his company is moving to a position further away from his house, and he does not have at telecommute option).

Well, today he made a decision. He had previously had a 2010 Kia Soul, and received superlative customer treatment at the dealership, particularly in the service department, so he decided to reward that dealership with another purchase (I concurred). Subarus, though excellent inexpensive snow vehicles, were out because of the recent issues with piston-rings and oil-consumption on the N/A 2.0L ad 2.5L engines. There were many other competitors, of course, from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Korea, but he decided on a nice gunmetal blue-gray AWD Sportage LX with light gray cloth interior...IMO a sharp-looking color combination. The dealership gave the usual Internet discount price, a $750 factory rebate on top of that, another $750 credit for an all-cash purchase, and a partial-refund of the extended warranty price he had on his old vehicle (yes, Kia refunds it if you don't use it or trade before it takes effect). He got a reasonable $9450 trade-in on a vehicle that was only some $17K brand-new, 5 years ago. He was generally pleased with the deal, and so was I....I don't think that a Honda shop would have done that good a deal, as Honda is notorious for driving a hard bargain on its products...rebates and credits are very uncommon.

We both knew an all-new Sportage is coming year, but he liked the present design, we figured it was likely to be less-expensive (with more rebates/discounts) than the next Sportage, both Hyundai and Kia have been raising their prices lately as their products get more and more popular, it was the last day of the month (traditionally a good day to purchase), Kia has had several years to get this model right, and this particular sample he bought seemed well-built, easily passing my inspection and test-drive. So, it was do the paperwork and take it home.

A miserably hot, humid day in D.C....typical for this time of year. I came home tired, sweaty, and worn out at the end of a long day......that dip in our condo swimming pool afterward, with nice cool water, was NICE.

Once again, thanks to all of you for your input. :thumbup:

 

[IS-SV]

Nice, I've driven a couple of these. Bought a Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD, but I considered this to near top of that particular class in early 2012 but well-equipped ones were hard to find then. Like your brother I like the styling too.

What are the EPA city/highway/combined ratings (AWD) now? I'm confident they are reasonably accurate now, after they got busted for flagrant cheating regarding ratings.

 

[mmcartalk]

Nice, I've driven a couple of these. Bought a Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD, but I considered this to near top of that particular class in early 2012 but well-equipped ones were hard to find then. Like your brother I like the styling too.

Thanks. The Sportage does what it was designed to do pretty well, but, of course, it is not the kind of machine that one would drive for thrills. But, for my brother's needs, it seems to be right on the mark.

Congratulations on the CX-5....especially with a top-line Grand Touring. Have you found it reliable..or is it too new to tell? The CX-7 had some well-known reliability issues, but those didn't necessarily flow down to the CX-5 or upcoming CX-3.

What are the EPA city/highway/combined ratings (AWD) now? I'm confident they are reasonably accurate now, after they got busted for flagrant cheating regarding ratings.

For the AWD non-turbos, 19/26/22....not economy-car figures by any means, but probably not bad for a car-based, non-hybrid/non-diesel 350o-lb. AWD SUV. Hyundai, Ford Ecoboost, and Ford Hybrids did get slapped for inaccurate EPA readings.....I'm not sure about Kia, even though they are a Hyundai division and use much the same drivetrains.

 

[IS-SV]

For the AWD non-turbos, 19/26/22....not economy-car figures by any means, but bad for a non-hybrid/non-diesel 350o-lb. AWD SUV. Hyundai, Ford Ecoboost, and Ford Hybrids got slapped for inaccurate EPA readings.....not sure about Kia, even though they are a Hyundai division.

Kia of course in lock step with Hyundai cheated the same, and was busted accordingly. Those revised/recent numbers should be achievable (revision to Sportage numbers only about 1mpg). The severity of Hyundai/Kias cheating was more significant than most if not all of the others (1-6 mpg) resulting in record fines and plenty of high profile publicity too. Settlements and fines of at least $500 million.


EPA Mazda CX-5 2.0L Awd (Skyactiv 3400 pounds) numbers 25/31/28 in contrast.

 

[IS-SV]

Congratulations on the CX-5....especially with a top-line Grand Touring. Have you found it reliable..or is it too new to tell? The CX-7 had some well-known reliability issues, but those didn't necessarily flow down to the CX-5 or upcoming CX-3.

Sorry just saw that I failed to respond to these questions ^

I sold CX-5 last Summer to close family member, her Subie Outback w/179K miles was tired and she needed replacement (needs Awd, second home at Lake Tahoe, loves safety and lux features of GT). I put 30K miles on it, very reliable and fuel efficient. Highly recommended. I would not sell to family member if not reliable and safe.

CX-7 issues are not applicable to these all-new Skyactiv vehicles, they share nothing (parts-wise) other than logo fortunately. CR reliability results for CX-5 reflect same as what I said.

 

[mmcartalk]

Sorry just saw that I failed to respond to these questions

I knew you'd get to them....you always do.

I sold CX-5 last Summer to close family member, her Subie Outback w/179K miles was tired and she needed replacement (needs Awd, second home at Lake Tahoe, loves safety and lux features of GT). I put 30K miles on it, very reliable and fuel efficient. Highly recommended. I would not sell to family member if not reliable and safe.

Do your vehicles get along OK at Tahoe's 6000'+ elevation and thin air without a turbo...or was it a turbo Outback XT? I've got close friends in Carson City, just East of the lake, which sits a little lower, around 5000', but still, they note that their normally-aspirated VW Jetta doesn't have quite the spunk there that it did at their former home at sea level. A little off-topic maybe, but when I was an active pilot, I noticed that turbocharged light planes were quite popular in the Western mountains for better performance in and out of shorter runways at high altitudes and/or hot days when the air was thinner.

 

[IS-SV]

I knew you'd get to them....you always do.



Do your vehicles get along OK at Tahoe's 6000'+ elevation and thin air without a turbo...or was it a turbo Outback XT? I've got close friends in Carson City, just East of the lake, which sits a little lower, around 5000', but still, they note that their normally-aspirated VW Jetta doesn't have quite the spunk there that it did at their former home at sea level. A little off-topic maybe, but when I was an active pilot, I noticed that turbocharged light planes were quite popular in the Western mountains for better performance in and out of shorter runways at high altitudes and/or hot days when the air was thinner.

Power loss is very significant at 6000-7000 feet ((Tahoe) for any modern normally aspirated engine, feels like about 20%, experienced drivers (like pilots) take this into account. Subie was NA stick so she knows the drill, good planning and use of gears allows decent speed. The manual/sport mode in Mazda CX-5 is the best in affordable car business, very BMW-like complete w/throttle blips on downshifts, etc., very usable.

In contrast I drove the turbo4 Mercedes C250 to Tahoe last fall, tons of smooth power over high passes, 30+ mpg at 70-80 mph freeway speeds (same as CX-5), never felt short on power.

 

[CIF]

Especially at higher altitudes, torque figures and a strong torque curve matter more than horsepower. I should know, I live at a higher altitude .

 

[mmcartalk]

Power loss is very significant at 6000-7000 feet ((Tahoe) for any modern normally aspirated engine, feels like about 20%, experienced drivers (like pilots) take this into account.

I'm a licensed pilot myself. What we learned in flight school was that, on average, air decreases in density roughly 2% for every thousand feet above sea level, which affects both engine power (especially with non-turbo engines, which don't compress the air), propeller-bite, and lift from the wings....it also affects pitot-static instruments and their readouts, but that's another topic.

As to how this relates to cars (beyond the obvious) I don't know how they ever managed to do the famous Pikes' Peak Hill Climb (to over 14,000') before the days of automotive turbos and superchargers.........maybe they didn't.

 

[IS-SV]

As to how this relates to cars (beyond the obvious) I don't know how they ever managed to do the famous Pikes' Peak Hill Climb (to over 14,000') before the days of automotive turbos and superchargers.........maybe they didn't.

Yes I know what you mean, in 2006 I drove up Pikes Peak in a pathetic Saturn SUV wheezing 4 banger rental, not a pleasant vehicle, but an amazing day trip. Have you been there?

But a modern turbo4 with strong torque curve and less power loss at altitude sure would have been appreciated.

 

[IS-SV]

Especially at higher altitudes, torque figures and a strong torque curve matter more than horsepower. I should know, I live at a higher altitude .

Yes. Exactly what the modern turbo 4's in the better premium cars excel at (high torque numbers and nice torque curve, torque numbers greatly exceeding the horsepower numbers) especially when compared to the NA engines they replaced.

 

[mmcartalk]

Yes I know what you mean, in 2006 I drove up Pikes Peak in a pathetic Saturn SUV wheezing 4 banger rental, not a pleasant vehicle, but an amazing day trip. Have you been there?

But a modern turbo4 with strong torque curve and less power loss at altitude sure would have been appreciated.

Haven't been to Pikes Peak itself, but have been up to the top of some other, lower peaks...high enough to notice at least some loss of power.

If you are taking about the 1Gen Saturn VUE, I agree that, except for the nice dent-resistant plastic panels, that vehicle was very unimpressive. Its 2Gen successor, though with loss of the plastic panels, was otherwise a major improvement.

 

[IS-SV]

Haven't been to Pikes Peak itself, but have been up to the top of some other, lower peaks...high enough to notice at least some loss of power.

Pikes Peak is one of a kind, beautiful too.

Drive there, could be fun. And better than viewing the amazing U.S. via a computer screen.

 

[CIF]

Yes. Exactly what the modern turbo 4's in the better premium cars excel at (high torque numbers and nice torque curve, torque numbers greatly exceeding the horsepower numbers) especially when compared to the NA engines they replaced.

Yeah that's true. It's also true for well-designed NA engines that have good torque numbers and strong torque curves, instead of focusing on horsepower.

Additionally, it's very true for hybrids as well, especially well-designed systems like Toyota's system. The instant torque is a big advantage at higher altitudes.

 

[mmcartalk]

Yeah that's true. It's also true for well-designed NA engines that have good torque numbers and strong torque curves, instead of focusing on horsepower.

Additionally, it's very true for hybrids as well, especially well-designed systems like Toyota's system. The instant torque is a big advantage at higher altitudes.

If you guys don't already have them (or just want a quick reference)......here are the HP and Torque formulas:

HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252

TORQUE = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM

For most engines and types of vehicles, torque is the primary figure that determines acceleration, while HP determines ultimate top speed. (of course, HP partly determines torque, hence the formulas). Electric motors are markedly different from gas engines in this regard, in that they produce maximum torque at very low RPMs (technically at 0), where gas engines usually generate max HP at very high RPMs (near the redline), while max torque is dependent on a number of factors and can occur either lower or higher in the RPM range. Personally, like many American drivers, I prefer torque responsiveness at low RPMs....and not to have to wind the engine out to get power, like on older European engines and Japanese VTEC fours.

My brother's Sportage, BTW (since that was what I was originally talking about) has adequate power for its day-to-day mission, but is clearly no drag-racer. The turbo SX model adds some 80 more ft-lbs. of torque, but cost substantially more, and my brother, like me, doesn't care for its overly-stiff sport-suspension and low profile tires....and generally prefers a better ride.

 

[IS-SV]

Yeah that's true. It's also true for well-designed NA engines that have good torque numbers and strong torque curves, instead of focusing on horsepower.

.

Agreed, and seen in some of the better light truck and SUV applications.

And rarely do the entry level NA engines (small NA base sixes in premium cars) have those characteristics to the same degree as the latest premium turbo4's. Of course the main motivator for the automaker is the improved gas mileage.

 

[mmcartalk]

Agreed, and seen in some of the better light truck and SUV applications.

And rarely do the entry level NA engines (small NA base sixes in premium cars) have those characteristics to the same degree as the latest premium turbo4's. Of course the main motivator for the automaker is the improved gas mileage.

Speaking of small N/A base V6s, do remember the tiny 1.8L V6 that Mazda transversely (sideways) crammed into the old subcompact early-90s vintage MX-3 coupe? That engine was one of a kind........V6 refinement in a tiny enough size for a car like that. But its torque curve was a joke. Torque at low RPMs was virtually nonexistent.....from my memory, the standard in-line four had better response down low, though the V6 caught up with later.

 

[IS-SV]

Yes, bu

Speaking of small N/A base V6s, do remember the tiny 1.8L V6 that Mazda transversely (sideways) crammed into the old subcompact early-90s vintage MX-3 coupe? That engine was one of a kind........V6 refinement in a tiny enough size for a car like that. But its torque curve was a joke. Torque at low RPMs was virtually nonexistent.....from my memory, the standard in-line four had better response down low, though the V6 caught up with later.

Yes, but a bit OT and odd.

Can you recall any recent small premium sixes with significantly higher torque numbers versus horsepower numbers (Lexus MB, BMW, Audi, Acura)?

 

[mmcartalk]

Can you recall any recent small premium sixes with significantly higher torque numbers versus horsepower numbers (Lexus MB, BMW, Audi, Acura)?

Not from among those five manufacturers, but Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost V6 (a fairly small V6 by today's standards), in the Edge, cranks out 315 HP (on 93 octane) and 350 ft-lbs. of torque at a fairly low 2750 RPM....impressive figures for an engine that size.

 

[IS-SV]

Not from among those five manufacturers, but Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost V6 (a fairly small V6 by today's standards), in the Edge, cranks out 315 HP (on 93 octane) and 350 ft-lbs. of torque at a fairly low 2750 RPM....impressive figures for an engine that size.

Certainly a interesting and unique engine but not applicable for following reasons:

. non-premium brand
. light truck/SUV
. turbocharged (yes it has the high torque numbers of modern turbo4 engine discussed earlier), not NA

But sorry we are getting too OT from your original Sportage topic. I remember Kia does offer a turbo option for those needing the additional power and torque.