Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2010 Toyota Corolla vs 2010 Kia Forte

steven39steven39 Posts: 636
hello folks,i recentley compared the new 2010 kia forte with the 2010 corrolla and the forte imo beats the corolla in every category except resale value.the forte has more hp,more standard features,better warranty,and is a sharper looking car..has anybody else had the chance to compare these 2 cars?.if so,please comment...
«13

Comments

  • Yes! I agree completely. I just compared the two, and ended up leasing a corolla. The only reason I did so was b/c you can't lease a forte... However, I think it is a great car to buy!
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    you can lease a Forte in Canada. Seems very strange that you can't do it in the US.
  • sandman_6472sandman_6472 Coral Springs, FLPosts: 2,578
    These company's need to watch their backs no matter what some posters in here think. The Korean cars are coming into their own right now and with more features, better warranties & comparable prices, people now have many choices in the econobox category. The Corolla is looking old & tired while the Civic needs an update just to be able to compete. The Corolla LE looks and drives like an old persons car...rented one this past May and it looked old and wasn't very comfortable, while the interior was so "plain jane" I couldn't wait to turn it back in. The "S" and "XLE" are the sweet spot in the Corolla lineup but it still needs a major revamping inside and out.

    Cars like the Mazda 3 and the Forte have the looks nailed down and for the "fun to drive" factor, the 3 is a blast to drive...we own a '05 "S" model so I speak from experience. Waiting to do a test drive on the Forte but from what I've read, it's a home run for Kia and a much better ride than the Spectra. Still love my '06 Civic, but when it comes time to replace it, I will definitely look closely at the competition before I buy.

    This is just my personal opinion so no need, to get all riled up in here. We all like and buy what fits us best, but all I'm saying is that the "Honota's" should be very concerned about their competition from now on & stop living on their past successes...it's a whole new ball game now in this car segment. So please folks, no flames... just move on. But I'd love to hear any constructive opinions!

    The Sandman :sick: :shades:

    2014 Hyundai Tuscon SE/2005 Mazda 3s/2008 Hyundai Accent GLS/2009 Nissan Versa SL hatch

  • steven39steven39 Posts: 636
    hi folks,i have a 2010 kia forte ex that i really enjoy.however,on a recent long distance drive i noticed that when i set my trip odometer to 0 it only goes to 1000 miles then goes back to start over again.it won't go over 1000 miles.iv'e had cars in the past where i have had over 50,000 miles on the trip odometer.
  • terceltomterceltom Posts: 1,017
    I don't think the 2010 Corolla's is like that.
  • odongodong Posts: 1
    I think there are three types of odometers. You can click your odometer (there is a pin I believe) ant check with odometer A, B and C something like that. I think you pick the local trip odometer which will be automatically reset after 1000 mile drive.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    Resale value is one of the most important aspects when choosing a car to lease, so if leasing, the Corolla will make the most sense.

    I think the Forte is a better buy at first because you get more for less, but I wonder if the Corolla will work out cheaper in the end after you subtract the resale value returned when you buy the next car?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    How is resale value important when leasing a car? Don't most folks turn in the car at the end of a lease? I would say the out-of-pocket costs for leasing the car, including monthly payment and up-front fees, are most important on a lease. Of course, if a car has a high residual value, the lease payments should be lower. But that isn't always true, especially if the manufacturer subsidizes the lease.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    Because a lease is based on the difference between the cap cost and the residual value. If the car has a high resale value, difference will be small and you have lower payments and lower total cost.
    So, leasing a car like a Civic or Corolla that costs more to start may cost you less than a Kia or Hyundai or a Dodge Caliber to lease due to the lower depreciation.

    Example: $18000 Civic with residual of $11,000 is $7000 cost to base lease on.
    $16000 Kia with $8000 residual is $8000 cost to base the lease on.
    The higher MSRP car would still end up cheaper to lease because of high resale value.
    In that case the car that started off cheaper really cost you more money at the end.

    Of course you could lower the payments on the Kia to match by putting more money down, but it still costs you more in total cost of all payments, plus down payment if the depreciation cost is higher.

    The same thing happens if you buy a Kia Forte brand new for $1000 less than a Corolla, but at resale time you have to sell or trade it for $2000 or $3000 less that if you had the Corolla.
  • thanks for that lease explanation. I have looked at them from other angles before but never really understood the difference between cap cost and residual value deal. Which looks like it is a lot of understanding what leasing an automobile is really about. Since the cars I've bought new are usually lower cost economy type vehicles (that also don't keep their value well) I have fully understood that l would lose money by leasing those vehicles.

    But your explanation above really drives home the point about how depreciation affects the amount of one's lease payment. Ouch! :D

    2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    A Honda Fit, Honda Civic and Corolla are economy cars that always keep high resale value, so you will have lower depreciation if you choose those than almost any other new car under $20K other than a base Mini Cooper.

    I will test drive the Corolla XLE, Sentra SL and Kia Forte EX with fuel economy package and if I really prefer the Kia Forte the best by a wide margin then I will choose the Forte anyway since cost is one of the major reasons, but not the only reason I'm choosing a car.

    If I was choosing a brand new car based 100% only on how well it does on resale, then I'd get a Mini Cooper.

    One thing I read in one of the forums here about the Forte that might cause me to choose one of the others is that the A/C is weak. If that's true, I will buy something else because the summers are very hot where I drive and I will not deal with a weak air conditioner for 5 to 7 years.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    As I noted, a higher residual value should make lease payments lower. But I have seen some great lease deals offered because of manufacturers subsidizing the lease, even when the residual wasn't that great. So a higher residual is all well and good, but the bottom line on a lease is the payment, and fees.
  • man, the Corolla is so lame looking, please do us all a favor and pass on it. :D

    Are you dead set on leasing a vehicle? Because really, the price on all three of those rigs is not high at all. If you like to keep your vehicles for 6-10 years anyway, it just makes more sense to purchase the vehicle. Keep it well-maintained and just trade it in later or hang on to it. Or give it to one of your kids or something.

    Leasing always means spendy to me, I just can't come to grips with leasing a rig...it's like renting a house vs. buying one. Not exactly the same, in fact there are some practical differences, yes, but leasing a lower-end rig like the ones you've mentioned just doesn't make sense. The one that makes the most sense with how the leasing system works would be the Toyota Corolla, and that car just looks dead in the water to start out with, man.

    Get the Kia Forte EX! :P

    2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    I'm not planning on leasing. Someone else here is.
    The Forte looks good, but if the A/C is weak, it will be a deal killer even if I otherwise like it best.
    I can't test it in winter, so unless I can find proof that the problem was fixed and the Forte EX's a/c is as good as any other similar car's a/c, I will either buy something else wait until summer orwhen I can test it for myself.

    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f1d9559/36#MSG36
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    CR has a report on the Forte in their latest issue. They were not very impressed. They complained about a hard ride, noisy engine, and spartan interior. They did like the fuel economy (28 mpg overall with 4AT) and roomy back seat for 2 adults, among other things. They noted the Forte is a big improvement over the Spectra.

    I am a bit surprised by this as the Spectra was one of the smoothest riding cars in its class, with one of the quieter driving environments and roomiest interiors. I wonder if Kia back-tracked on some qualities in the Forte, in favor of more power and better fuel economy?
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    Some of those issues would be fixed with an EX 5 speed AT. I wonder if they plan to test that model?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,624
    Well, maybe the engine noise at high revs would be reduced, since the engine would be turning slower on the highway with the 5AT. But the ride and interior issues, and engine noise at mid-revs, would remain, since they did test the EX trim.

    Another plus CR mentioned and I forgot to note before was the handling. Also they liked the big trunk, but not the hinges that can crush stuff (too bad Kia didn't opt for struts on the trunk). But I don't think the Corolla has struts on the trunk lid either, does it?

    It seems the Forte would be a good choice over the Corolla for someone who wants a roomy compact with good handling being more important than a smooth ride.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Posts: 2,697
    Which requires the less frequent and less expensive scheduled maintenance over 100K miles?
    I have heard that the maximum oil change interval for the Corolla is only 5K miles even though it uses expensive synthetic oil.
    Oil changes are only one part of the scheduled maintenance. How does the rest of maintenance compare between the two?
    Do they both have timing belts or chains?
  • terceltomterceltom Posts: 1,017
    Geeez, I can't even believe I am posting on a thread that compares Kia to Toyota. Kia doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Toyota. Anyway, Corollas use chains which never need maintenance replacement. So your going to judge vehicle reliability on the recomended mainteneance schedule? Oil doesn't last any longer in a Kia then it does in a Toyota. If you want cheap, get the Kia, if you want a car with proven economy, reliability and safety buy the Toyota.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    the 2.0L and 2.4L on the Forte use timing chains. To answer your question on service comparison go to the Toyota dealer and price out their service and then the same for the KIA.
    All I know that the dealer service on my Rondo is very reasonable, but you don't necessary have to have your vehicle serviced at a dealership.

    If you want cheap, get the Kia, if you want a car with proven economy, reliability and safety buy the Toyota.

    I would have agreed with this statement a few years ago, but not anymore things have changed dramatically.
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.