Howdy, Stranger!

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

Kia Forte 5-door



  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    Early I was not aware of how the rear cargo area seats function, so this is the correct set up as shown in this EX Canadian model.

    the headrest from the rear back cushion have to be removed but they have storeage slots in the base cushion to hold them in place.

    as you can see it gives you a nice flat cargo area with no wasted space.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,175
    Kind of strange the way the seat back moves forward and the headrests face the rear? Would it be too much to ask how that is accomplished?

    I agree, that is a nice flat storage area with nothing intruding. Would be nice to get the dimensions too.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    you pull the base cushion forward slightly then up and it hinges forward to the position you see behind the front seats; the headrests are removed off the back rest cushion and inserted into two rod slots for the two outer headrest, the centre one actually fits into two loops on the centre part of the base cushion; then drop the back rest cushion into the area where the base cushion was previously located. Does that make sense?

    Sorry I didn't think to take measurements.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,175
    Tks. Yeah, that makes sense. I couldn't figure out if the cushion that was raised up against the front seats was the seat bottom or back. Works very similar on my SUV. I have to take the headrests out and just throw on the floor of the backseat. This is a little more thoughtful way of providing for storage of the headrest while you have it configured for hauling something.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    okay here's the dimensions

  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,175
    Very nice. Tks much for the dimensions.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I got the chance to test drive a Forte5 a couple of days ago. It was a 2.0L EX automatic with moonroof.

    The 2.0L engine seemed more than up to the task for me. It was plenty eager to downshift when necessary. The brakes were a little touchy for my tastes, but it's nothing I couldn't get used to. It seemed sporty enough to get by, and the ride was comfortable.

    The interior was nicely put together, although it might be a little bit on the boring side. It seemed to have more room and as much cargo space as my 1999 Camry despite the fact that the Forte5 is well over a foot shorter in length. I'd forgo the moonroof for myself because I thought it cut into head room.

    Since pricing isn't on Kia's website yet. This particular model was $19,300 with destination. Take the sunroof off, and you're left with $18,550 for an EX automatic. That's about $900 more than the 2010 EX automatic sedan. I'd say it's worth it for the extra two gears on the transmission, and inclusion of 16" allow wheels
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,042
    edited November 2010
    A reporter is interested in talking with a recent and first-time owner of a Kia. If you are interested in commenting on your experience, please reply to no later than noon on November 10, 2010, and include your city and state of residence, the model year of your vehicle.


    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • Saw my first Forte5 at my local dealer. It was an SX, red, automatic. Checked out what I could, but didn't drive it. Weather was turning bad and I had other things to do. Cargo space with seats up was better than expected. Fit and finish looked good. Not equipped with sunroof. Six speed automatic should improve mileage and acceleration.

    The sticker was 20K. Perhaps the EX will be priced somewhat more afforably. This car resembles the Cee'd which is popular in Europe. There should be a market for this size hatchback. Am still awaiting the new Optima which hopefully will be here shortly.
  • CapeCodCapeCod Posts: 117
    Styling wise I do like the Forte 5dr better, BUT is it smaller in ways that will hurt my use? Anyone have dimensions for the storage area seats up and seats down?
    And please can someone refresh me on the engine differences. Both list a 2.0 but the Kia is new model, right? Substantially better in mileage and power?
    Funny how the Kia's look sporty to me, while the Hyundai's looked tricked out with curves and bump outs. I also think the Forte interior was better on first impression. Had red on the lighted dials which I did not like... was this only on the SX model I drove? I have a Pontiac and the orange dials are hard on my old eyes at night!
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    see post #37 for the picture I took with the dimensions with the rear seats down.

    The 2.0L engine between the Touring and the Forte 5 is dramatically different. This is Canadian info but I suspect its the same in the US:
    Forte 5 - 156 hp and 144 lbs of torque
    Touring - 138 hp and 136 lbs of torque

    Forte 5 - 6 spd manual or 6 spd auto
    Touring - 5 spd manual or 4 spd auto

    Substantially better mileage with the Forte. These are imperial mpg:
    Forte 5 range - 34 mpg to 50 mpg
    Touring range - 32 mpg to 43 mpg

    The Forte with the 2.4L gets similar mileage as the 2.0L in the Touring. The Touring does not offer an optional engine. The Touring is using old technology for their mechanics which is why it has a lower base price. The Touring will have the edge in overall cargo capacity due to its style.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    edited December 2010
    The US ratings for the Forte 5-door are 26/36 mpg. You can build one on the US kia website now.
  • jimpimmsjimpimms Pittsfield MAPosts: 81
    The 2011 Elantra Touring is really based on the European i30, and is quite different from the 2011 Elantra sedan, a newer design. The Touring is still using the older 138-hp 2.0-L cast-iron block engine, with 5-speed manuals and 4-speed automatics. The sedans are using the new and more efficient 148-hp 1.8-L all-aluminum engines with 6-speed manuals and automatics. The Elantra's 1.8-L engine is even more efficient than the Forte's 2.0-L, developing 82.2-hp/L vs. 78-hp/L. As of this morning, the 2011 Elantra sedan was shown on Hyundai's Web site, but all supporting information was still pointing to the 2010 model. Until Hyundai migrates the Touring onto the Elantra platform, the Forte 5-door is a better buy, with more power and better fuel efficiency. But the sedans are a different story, as the Elantra's rated at 29/40 mpg, regardless of trim level and transmission type; the best the Forte can achieve is 26/36 mpg, and only with an automatic.
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Waleska, GeorgiaPosts: 801
    I'm very anxious to see how well the 2.0 performs in the 5-door with the new 6-speed auto. It has killer EPA ratings, but the two additional gears should really give the engine a lot more flexibility compared to the 4-speed auto it was saddled to previously!

    The rear sub-floor organize layout looks very that a standard feature on all 5-doors?
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    I don't disagree with any of your analysis, but the Forte Eco does get 27/37 according to the EPA. I think that package is only available on the EX with Automatic.
  • CapeCodCapeCod Posts: 117
    Am I seeing double or is the Forte 5door an absolute dead ringer for a Subaru Impreza Hatchback. Only difference is the glitzy chrome around the taillights on the Subaru. Wait a minute maybe there is a rear side window difference?
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I don't think the 1.8L is more efficient than the 2.0L. Here's why:

    1) The 2.0L is more powerful (8hp and 13 lb. ft.)
    2) The Forte's CoD is higher.
    3) The Forte is marginally heavier.
    4) The smart alternator from the Kia Forte Eco is standard on the Elantra.

    I really think they just downsized the 2.0L to be able to reach that magical 40mpg barrier.

    HP per liter is a bad comparison. HP per lb. of engine weight would be a better performance indicator. A good example would be the 5.0L V8 from Ford and the 6.2L V8 from Chevy. Both make similar numbers so you'd think you'd be able to automatically say that the 5.0L is more impressive, but both engines weigh the same. I still give the win to Ford for other reasons though.
  • compensatecompensate Posts: 212
    I love Hyundai (about to sell my 2001 Elantra GT 5-speed with almost 250,000 miles on it), but if you check out real world gas mileage on the 2011 Elantra sedan with the new 1.8 liter engine, 40 mpg can only be achieved driving 55 on a relatively flat highway. Those that drove 65+ mph were only able to get 34-35 mpg, which is about the same as the 2011 Forte 2.0 liter engine.

    Just an FYI. :)
  • compensatecompensate Posts: 212
    edited April 2011
    I have been driving my 2001 Hyundai Elantra GT for almost 10 years. I've racked up almost 250,000 miles on the most reliable car I have ever owned. I still have the original rear struts, water pump, thermostat, alternator, and MANY other parts. I did have to replace 3 of the 4 wheel bearings, but that was after 200,000 miles. And I am a bit of a spirited driver, too, so I don't exactly take it easy on my cars (except that my cars get great maintenance). I currently get about 33 mpg highway, not bad considering the EPA number is 32 mpg. :)

    I am making a move to a new car because I am just beginning to hear a little manual tramission whinning on cold mornings, I am going to need to replace the valve cover gasket soon, have a crack in the front windshield, recently developed a pesky vacuum line problem (only making engine run slightly rough right now and fuel economy is barely affected), and have some minor clunking noise on front passenger side that no one has been able to figure out (beginning to suspect front strut looseness or damage). I also need new tires soon, so decided it was time to say goodbye to my old friend. I will miss her and her nice leather seats!!

    I have decided to replace my beloved Elantra GT with the 2011 Kia Forte 5-Door after reviewing hundreds of pages of car forums on at least 20 different models of compact cars. Here are my reasons:

    (1) I wanted a hatchback, preferably one that did not look too much like a wagon. This eliminated the Hyundai Elantra Touring, which looks way too boxy for me; plus it is still using the old engine technology from 2001. The Forte is the best looking compact 5-door on the current market in my opinion, as well as one of the roomiest.

    (2) I wanted a a good amount of standard features for a price around $18,000 or less. The Forte seems to be one of the few roomy compacts with a lot of standard features for under $18,000.

    I will miss my leather seats, lumbar support adjustment, and audio system the most. My 2001 Elantra's stock audio system still sounds much better than the audio system in the 2011 Forte. I think that is Forte's biggest downfall. Even with the bass and treble boosted, it was pretty mediocre at best. I will also miss the leather-wrapped steering wheel of my Elantra. The steering wheel feel is the Forte's second shortcoming.

    However, I used to install car stereos so I can improve the Forte's audio pretty easily. Now I just have to find some way to get the steering wheel wrapped with high-quality (durable) leather (or faux leather).

    Hope I like the car for the long haul the same way I have loved my 2001 Elantra GT. :)
  • jimpimmsjimpimms Pittsfield MAPosts: 81
    It's gratifying to read that you've gotten nearly 250K miles from your "lowly" Hyundai Elantra GT. Perhaps it'll quiet some of the Hyundai bashers out there.

    I think you'll be happy with your decision to get a Forte EX 5-door. The 2.0-L engine has plenty of oomph, especially with the manual transmission. In spite of the torsion-beam rear suspension and the lack of a rear anti-sway bar, it handles much better than I expected in spirited driving, although it can be brutal on frost-heaved roads. I, too, had a 2001.5 Elantra GT liftback (with a Tiburon rear anti-sway bar and modified camber settings to mitigate understeer), and it was a very tossable and fun ride. My Forte EX sedan is just as enjoyable to drive, and its acceleration is noticeably quicker than the GT's.

    Unfortunately, the 5-door wasn't available for 2010, nor was the 6-speed manual in the EX, otherwise I'd be driving what you'll be buying. The 5-speed manual has a few shortcomings, mainly a flat spot between 2nd and 3rd gears during maximum acceleration, and it forces the engine to turn at 3,000-rpm at 70-mph in 5th; presumably the 6-speed manual's gearing addresses these two deficiencies. But even at sustained highway speeds in the 70 to 75-mph range (with occasional higher bursts), I still get between 33 and 34-mpg. On one 200-mile round trip, mostly at 60-mph, I got over 38-mpg.

    I'm not an audiophile, so the Forte's sound system is quite adequate for me, and the access to satellite radio and the ability to use flash drives loaded with thousands of songs is a huge plus--no more lugging around cases of CDs. Although I "suffer" from congenital scoliosis, in a year and a half I've never missed the adjustable lumbar support. I do miss the leather seats, primarily because static shocks when exiting the car were a thing of the past, but I'm now in the habit of grounding myself on the metal door frame with my forearm as I exit.

    Since Kia is now on a par with Hyundai's technology and build-quality, you should have no problem getting similar reliability from your new Forte.
  • compensatecompensate Posts: 212
    edited April 2011
    Yes, all of the Hyundai bashers out there should keep quiet! My Hyundai was the most reliable car I have ever owned - even better than a few different Mazdas I owned.

    I have to retract my prior words about the steering wheel and audio system. Apparently the automatic Forte 5-door I test drove had a different steering wheel than the 6-speed manual I bought. The steering wheel on the automatic EX was rather hard with many small circular cut-outs in it - was not pleasant to steer! My steering wheel is actually smooth and comfortble - maybe the manual tranny car comes with some different finishing on the interior? The audio system sounds better than I remember from the test drive vehicle, too. I did adjust the bass and treble to boost +9 each and backed-off the midrange to -3, though, to get the sound I liked. Decent bass for no subwoofer, too!

    Glad to hear about your gas mileage! I was nervous buying the manual transmission car because the automatic boasted a little higher EPA mileage. I prefer manuals for increased off-the-line acceleration, easier maintenance, and ability to "jump start" it on a hill if the battery goes dead. :)

    So far, I think the handling is better than I expected (some reviews slammed the handliung of the EX), but I have not pushed it too hard since I am still within my break-in period. I am glad I got the EX over the SX because tires are going to be a heck of a lot cheaper (check tire prices on the tires on the SX model - ouch!) and gas mileage should be a lot better.

    I do miss the gas mileage calculator that my 2001 Elantra had - you can only get that option on the automatic tranny version of the Forte. I am also going to miss the leather seats, like you said. Leather just feels so "free" where I don't feel stuck to the seat. Plus spills are easily cleaned-up on leather. I may spring for leather seats after a year or so - will cost about $900-1000 here for full leather front and rear seats (local shop will cover existing upholstery with stitched leather covering). By the way, I also ground myself with my forearm when I exit my Forte now - ha ha!

    I'm glad to hear that you are doing good without the lumbar adjustment of the Elantra. I always kept my lumbar support at max and worried that I'd get uncomfortable without that adjustment on the Forte. I also miss the seat adjustment of the Elantra, as the Forte only allows for raising or lowering, where the Elantra would allow the front of the seat to be moved upward while the rear of the seat remained low - that was a great setting for driving as it gave great upper leg support. Time will tell!!

    Thanks for responding! It was pretty cool to find someone else who went from a 2001.5 Hyundai Elantra to a Kia Forte! Enjoy!
  • compensatecompensate Posts: 212
    Does anyone know how to find the radio ID (ESN or SID) on the 2011 Kia Forte radio? You need this ID to figure out which SiriusXM packages are available. I am considering extending the 3-month trial package ONLY if I am able to purchase the A La Carte package. The rest of the packages are not worth the monthly expense, in my opinion.

    Help please?

  • compensatecompensate Posts: 212
    Nevermind, I figured it out. Simply dial your Satellite to channel 0 (zero) and the number will appear on the screen.
  • gigahzgigahz Posts: 4
    Has the total volume, with the seats folded, been announced yet? It looks like 19 with the seats up.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    for some reason it doesn't mention it on either the US or Canadian websites, but if you go one page back to #37 entry you will see I put in the measurements when the back seats are in the cargo position. Does this help?
  • gigahzgigahz Posts: 4
    Also has the GVWR been released? The dimensions help yes.
  • conwelpicconwelpic Ontario, CanadaPosts: 600
    I would suggest you go to your local Kia dealer and check out the door tag for the GVWR for that vehicle.
  • Just bough (March 1st) a 2010 Kia Forte LX, just for the economy. After all I drive 120 miles a day (Northwest NY) and filling up was getting expensive with my Jeep Wrangler. (Average on dry road = 20-22 miles per Gallon - 15-18 mpg on 4x4).

    In the past 2 months, I have tried different "ways" of driving and have averaged, so far 37-39 miles per gallon.(my credit card company is crying as I am not spending as much as before).

    This last week, I decided to drive like a Floridian (no insult intended). Change gears at 2000rpm and "upping" from third to fifth (by-passing fourth) and keeping acceleration very slow. Still a little hesitation as the RPM falls to 1,100 RPM but slowly getting to speed (55mph). The result is that I drove 375 miles on 9 gallons (41.50 miles per gallons) Of course it takes the fun out of driving (but wallet feels better). If I do my commute using only Highways (70-75 mph), I still average 36-38 mpg.
    Good oomph in second gear and third (with a slight dead timing) but overall, good pick up even in fifth. The manual advises to change oil every 7,500 miles (or 12 months) but I'm kind of weary about this.
    Sound system is not Bose but does its job. Bluetooth is annoying with its "transfer complete" female robotic voice., but I kindof got used to it. (I still stall once in a while and the circuits have to "rearm' themselves I guess).

    it's a car and for the price and its operation, it should fit a lot of budget conscious drivers.

    Very good car with very good mileage per gallon.

Sign In or Register to comment.