By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
but im wondering whether the accent fits the bill. the entry price is right, but i have heard some worrying comments indicating that maintenance and repairs r in the german car range.
any1 already driving korean who can give some figures ? or who can point out where to get the figures. preferably online. im not in the habit of buying car mags. nice, but pricey...
You might want to post your question on the Hyundai Accent board here to see what owners say.
To add to my last post above concerning the relationship between Hyundai and Kia, yes, Hyundai does own a 51% controlling interest in Kia. That is true, but, saying that Kia is a subsidiary of Hyundai does not mix right with press releases from both Hyundai and Kia regarding their relationship. Their earnings are separate, for one thing. A certain percentage of Kia vehicle sold doesn't go into a Hyundai pot, for instance. Yes, Hyundai can and I'm sure they do dictate some factory jig and tooling and platform decisions to Kia. It would be interesting to know more about this relationship between them, perhaps a knowledgeable insider could take this project up and write a book on it. I'd go out and immediately snatch it right up.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Here's how the low-end sedan makers ranked by nameplate (in defects per 100 cars):
Honda - 99
Hyundai - 102
Toyota - 104
Chevy - 119
(Industry Average - 119)
Dodge - 121
Ford - 130
Mitsubishi - 130
Saturn - 149
Suzuki - 149
Kia - 153
Nissan - 154
Mazda - 157
Scion - 158
http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2004037
A) How low Scion is.
Does anyone know exactly what qualifies as a "problem" in a vehicle? Certainly, it is something more minute than how Consumer Reports classifies it. By their measure, the average 1 year old model vehicle has 17 problems per 100 vehicles.
I find it hard to believe that of every 100 cars sold there are greater than 100 "problems" as JD Power calls it. So, what exactly are these problems?
~alpha
"IQS measures a broad range of quality problems, heavily weighted toward defects and malfunctions, quality of workmanship, drivability, human factors in engineering (ease of use) and safety-related problems."
So the IQS doesn't just measure defects, but also design issues and driveability issues. I wonder if that means that if someone doesn't like some design point of a car, or doesn't like how it drives, that can show up on the IQS? That might explain the low ranking for Scion. Maybe some buyers aren't happy with certain aspects of the cars--too firm a ride, not fast enough, fuel economy not high enough, whatever. It seems as if there might be a huge subjective element to the J.D. Power IQS. The CR reliability study is subjective also, but at least it focuses on defects.
"I find it hard to believe that of every 100 cars sold there are greater than 100 "problems" as JD Power calls it."
Buy a Chrysler product and you'll find out real fast how this can happen! :-))))))))))
fastdriver
"Maybe some buyers aren't happy with certain aspects of the cars--too firm a ride, not fast enough, fuel economy not high enough, whatever. It seems as if there might be a huge subjective element to the J.D. Power IQS."
This is my impression as well, and why I take issue with JDP. IMO, dont call it an "Initial Quality" Study, if youre also evaluating elements of design and execution. I've posted on other threads here, but one of the reasons cited for the HORRID showing of the Hummer H2 (of which I am no, fan, but nonetheless) is that owners couldnt believe they were getting 10MPG. Meanwhile, they drive around San Diego in stop and go traffic with 3 tons of metal and a V8 engine. What did these people really expect? And shouldnt qualitative evaluations such as that be included in satisfaction studies instead?
~alpha
Yes.
What’s the difference performance wise?
4 cylinder turbos feel faster. But thats my subjective feel.
Are there other factors to consider when evaluating power?
Ive been told that the feel is due to broad torque curves. So that could be a factor.
2) Does anyone have suggestions for a kind of car in the area of $15,000 that combines reliability and power?
Used Japanese V6. Eg V6 Camry, V6 Accord or Maxima.
Hyundai got a bad rep in the early 90s due to poor quality control, but they were still better than Dodge/Chrysler, and on par with Chevy and Ford, when you average out the whole decade. Currently, the Elantra and it's cousin, the new Kia, are the cars to beat in this segment. They are cheap, loaded with stuff the others make you pay extra for, and have that 10yr warranty. Are they as bulletproof as Japanese? Not yet maybe, but with Americans and Mexicans actually building the Japanese cars, the playing field may be leveled considerably.
The Aveo? Chevy learned a lot from their Geo venture with Toyota, and Ford has owned Mazda long enough to get some good engineering ideas from them (compare a Focus to an Escort, and see the difference). But neither of them could realistically offer a 10yr warranty on any of their products, they'd lose their shirts. They design their cars to be obsolete (and not worth repairing) at about five years old. Take a look around and see the number of 10 year old Toyotas and Nissans and Hondas still being driven, happily, by people who will gladly tell you they spend little or nothing on maintenance. Even 10 year old Geos (especially Prizms with the Toyota engine) are still cruising. You don't see hardly any 10 year old Hyundais on the road (yet), and Daewoo hasn't been in business long enough (stateside) to have a real track record. I hope you can find a dealership in a couple years if you ever need parts or service.
The 2005 Corolla is available and has had some styling upgrades, as well as much nicer instrumentation on the LE models, with Optitron standard. Think Lexus. Backy, the armrest you take issue with is also different, offering the padding that you missed, and coveerd in the same fabric that adorns the seats.
I agree, the driving position sucks. However, the ride- that is your preference, and youre the first I've heard or read thats complained about the quality of the HVAC controls. Perhaps this was due to the rental? The Corolla engine offers a better tradeoff of performance and economy than the Spectra/Elantra engine (reference CR's standarized economy loops and also the Nov 2002 road test by C/D of the Corolla and the Elantra engine- the Corolla trumped the Elantra in speed and by a HUGE margin in economy over the Elantra, although it has gained VVTi now.). The Corolla's engine, however, I will agree- could use finishing school at higher RPMs. And finally, the Corolla resale values remain at the top of the class, just below Civic values. The Elantra and Corolla have VERY similar interior specs as well, and the Corollas actual seats I find more comfortable, the Elantras are VERY firm. Also, the rear head restraints in the Corolla are a welcome safety feature. The Corolla also offers side curtains with a larger side impact chest airbag this year, which I'd take over the Elantras standard head/chest setup (which is a great standard, IMO, but its time to offer curtains).
In terms of the 3i vs. the Elantra, the difference on the MSRP when comparably equiped (auto, ABS, side airbags) is about $3500. The 3 is a better overall package, period. Given the money, Id take the 3i, which offers a better ride, better handling, better economy, side curtains, larger, grippier wheels and tires, and more interior room.
The Forenza, IMO, is a good waste of money. I havent driven it, so I will be honest and qualify my statement with that. But why should I? Theres no competitive advantages with the Spectra available, with the Elantra available, and basically every other small car available. No side airbags, low power, poor fuel economy, unremarkable though fine interior, unproven reliability, poor resale. I was in one at NYIAS. That was enough. Anyone considering the Forenza should look very hard at the Elantra first, or for an extra grand the Spectra, or if you can go higher, as Ive said, the 3.
~alpha
~alpha
* Traction control
* Leather seating surfaces, steering wheel cover, shift knob
* Variable intermittant wipers
* Eight-way adjustable driver's seat
* Two power outlets
* Trip computer
* "Theater-style" courtesy lights
* 5 year/60,000 bumper-to-bumper warranty
* 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty
* Three years free scheduled maintenance
What I gave up is a bit sharper handling (in exchange for a bit smoother ride), no side air curtains (but a 4 or 5-star side impact scores--and 4 stars is "good enough", right?), no manumatic shifter (IMO if you want to shift for yourself, do it right and get a stick shift), no CD changer (which I don't want, but I'd have to get if I want a moonroof on the 3i), no telescopic steering wheel (not needed as the driving position is great), and 10 more horsepower. If I need bigger wheels/tires (which I don't), I can take some of the $4000-5000 savings and get some.
It is true that the 3i has more interior room than the Elantra--0.3 cubic feet more. The Elantra has more overall volume (especially in hatchback form). The 3i also has slightly better EPA numbers than the Elantra--26/34 vs. 24/32 with the automatic. So if those differences plus the others mentioned are worth $4000-$5000 to someone (plus extra T&L and financing costs), then the 3i is the better bet.
As for the Corolla, I'm glad to hear Toyota improved the arm rest for '05 and now offers side curtains and VSC. The cheap-feeling HVAC controls had nothing to do with the fact I drove a rental. They just don't have the smooth precision feel I would expect from a Toyota, and that I get from less expensive cars like Elantra and Spectra, and other low-end cars like the Civic. But it's really a moot point for me because until Toyota fixes the horrible seating position on the Corolla, I could never consider buying one.
I agree that the Forenza is not a great buy compared to the Elantra in particular. It does have sharp styling IMO, a comfortable interior and a roomy back seat, some nice features like an 8-speaker stereo, but not enough plusses. Must be why I've seen Forenza S models advertised for $10k in my town recently.
With regard to side curtains, the NHTSA's side impact is flawed for its lack of inclusion of Head Injury rating in the star rating. (The thresholds for stars in the frontal and side impacts are different, also, for what its worth.) For me, 4 stars in the frontal is fine.4 stars in the side impact would be fine too, if the side impact included HIC measures. The Hyundai provides excellent side protection for frontal passengers, but there is nothing even offered for rear passengers.
The leather in the Elantra. Well, thats arguable. Sure looks and feels like vinyl to me. Id prefer the Elantras high quality cloth. The 3i felt more comfortable to me, more airy, despite its scant room advantage.
Im not sure why youre taking issue with my comments on the Elantra. Its an excellent car at an excellent price. But the 3 is a better car. Consumers can choose extreme value, or they choose to pay a higher price for a newer design whose execution as an overall package surpasses that of the Elantra.
~alpha
If Mazda is successful at continuing to forego rebates on the 3, then that will help boost the resale values on the 3. That remains to be seen, however, since the Protege was also highly regarded when it debuted but in its last few years Mazda put large rebates on it, and its resale value didn't do too well compared to Honda and Toyota.
BTW, have you tried out the leather in the '04 GT? It's been improved over earlier years, is softer and is perforated now. It's not glove-soft like in a Lexus, but far superior to what I've seen on cars like the Focus and some $30,000 minivans. Also it's a lighter color than before, so the interior is brighter. And it does smell like leather, not vinyl. I'm not a huge fan of leather myself, but I know many people like it so it's a selling point for them. And the GT is mostly for my wife, and she likes the leather, so that's what's important.
It's true the NHTSA doesn't include the head injury scores in their "star" ratings, but at least they are publishing the head injury scores now so buyers can include them in their decision. It is strange that they would count only chest injury in their side impact ratings--a blow to the head can be just as dangerous, if not more so, than a blow to the chest.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
No educated buyer would pay sticker price unless they had too because it is a super hyped up car. Why don't you compare Edmund's TMV for the different vehicles since they claim it is the "average price people are paying for the car". Hot cars will be at MSRP or higher while others will be less . . .
We bought an '04 Elantra GT Hatchback last weekend and I'm pretty sure the seats aren't vinyl. In fact I didn't particularly want leather, but it's standard on the GT. The seats certainly have been pleasant so far. I guess I'm saying I'm not missing the cloth . . .
I think I sense a negative connotation in the use of "extreme value". If you meant that, I just want to say neither my wife nor I feel we sacrificed anything in purchasing an Elantra . . . we liked the styling, the driving experience, the features, and of course the price.
"Worrying about resale value never has played a part in what kind of car I want to buy, anyway. The market in general should not help you decide what kind of car you want to buy and drive. Doesn't work that way for this padre and it never will. It doesn't sit right with me that a whole mass of people in general plays a part in what my car should be re-sold at. That's kind of a silly way to guage things because it's(car ownership and maintenance)an individual thing-not a mass-marketed type of thing. Therefore resale amounts are flawed and goofy and do not play a part in what I choose to buy, maintain and enjoy driving. Period. "
I do not "worry" about resale value. However, I also do not pay for cars in cash. With regard to resale/estimated values for cars, it matters to me for the first year or two of ownership, around which point the majority of the financing public SHOULD be concerned about the difference in amount owed on the loan and the worth of the car, especially, and God forbid, in the event of a major accident or theft. Sure, one can purchase GAP insurance on the loan, but this is rarely practiced outside of leasing. The bottom line is that the lower the value of the vehicle, the longer the average buyer is "in the hole."
Now, for those that consider this risk minimal, great. For those run cars until they die, also great... cause I agree... why care about resale?
BUT... its not a non-factor.
~alpha
That is a false statement. Resale value, as a percentage of cost is NOT tied to MSRP. The dollar amount of resale value matters not at all, but rather, the percentage of worth that is retained is crucial. A $45,000 Buick Park Avenue has terrible resale value, much worse than Civic or Corolla, but when you turn it in after 3 years, you'll still get more dollars than turning in a 3 year $16,000 Civic. Who cares though, because you're losing a far greater percentage? Cars that are priced higher to begin with do NOT necessarily command higher resale as a percentage of original cost.
"The other thing to include in such a calculation is opportunity cost, i.e., what could you do with the cash saved up front on the less expensive (and presumably faster-depreciating) car during the years before you sell the car? Not only could that money be put to work earning more money or paying off debt, but people who finance their cars will be paying interest on the extra amount paid for the more expensive car until the loan is paid off."
Good point.
But what about the issues I spoke in terms of being "in the hole"?
~alpha
If you are asserting that it is not true that one of the reasons a car like a Civic has a higher resale value than a car like an Elantra is that the Civic costs thousands more up front, you have the right to think that but I disagree.
And resale value as a percentage of cost is tied to MSRP. For example, take a look at the resale percentages published by Kiplinger's. They are tied to MSRP. What else would they be tied to?
As for being "in the hole", there are two ways to avoid that, both of which I've employed: 1) negotiate a really low price up front, so "the hole" is no worse than it would be than if buying the car with lesser depreciation percentage; 2) get gap insurance, even when buying vs. leasing. I found that the price of the gap insurance is offset by lower insurance premiums (because I was able to raise the deductible on my insurance coverage, based on the gap coverage).
A third way to avoid being upside down on the loan is to get a shorter loan term. A person who gets a 36 or 48 month loan has a very low chance of being upside down. Someone financing a car on a 72, 84 or even (gasp) 96 month loan has an increasingly higher chance of being "in the hole" because they are paying off the principal so slowly on those loans. Someone purchasing a car on an 84 or 96 month loan, however, is probably buying a car that they really shouldn't be able to afford. Someone who needs an 84 month loan to afford a "low end sedan" in my opinion should think twice, or even three or four of five times about buying a car at all.
"I am saying that if you buy a $16,000 compact car and someone else buys a $11,000 compact car, they might both lose $5000 after 3 years. In percentage terms, the less expensive car will look worse, but in dollar terms you are even."
My point, and the reason why I used the extreme and obvious example of the Park Avenue, is that "in dollar terms" doesnt matter to original owners/second hand purchasers, leasing companies, insurance companies etc. What matter is how well the vehicle holds its value, as a percentage of MSRP. Theres a big difference between holding an asset thats lost 31% of its value, and one thats lost 46% over the same course of time/usage. Maybe not to you, but there is to me.
"If you are asserting that it is not true that one of the reasons a car like a Civic has a higher resale value than a car like an Elantra is that the Civic costs thousands more up front, you have the right to think that but I disagree."
That depends on your statement. If by "resale value" you mean absolute dollars involved in a resale transaction, then yes I would agree with you.
But, if when you say "resale value", you mean as a percentage of MSRP, you can disagree, but I think you are wrong. Example- A Cavalier is significantly more expensive than a comparably equipped Elantra, competes in the same class, but its resale is significantly WORSE than the Elantra's. Under your explanation, this cannot be true, but it is. The car with a greater MSRP has a lower resale value.
"And resale value as a percentage of cost is tied to MSRP."
I should have been more clear on this one, I apologize. Resale value, as presented in Kiplingers (actually ALG's figures) is expressed as a percentage of MSRP for standardized comparison purposes. The vehicles retained value, essentially the numerator in the ratio presented in Kiplingers, is NOT a function of the MSRP, which is the point I was trying to make. The retained value is a function of the vehicle's desirability in the second hand market, itself a function of many factors (perceptions, location, availability, etc). The MSRP is simply the denominator, and the retained value (numerator) is not a function of it. Obviously, the final percentage, is calculated off the retained dollar value/MSRP.
~alpha
Suppose you are choosing between two cars, each of which meets your needs. One costs $20,000, the other costs $15,000. You plan to keep the car for five years. The residual value percentage of the $20,000 car is 50%, while the residual value percentage of the $15,000 car is only 40%. That means that over those five years, the $20,000 car will lose $10,000 in value, and the $15,000 car will lose $9000 in value. The way I see it, I am $1000 ahead financially by buying the $15,000 car--actually more than that if financing costs and opportunity costs are factored in. But what you seem to be saying is that these "dollar terms" don't matter to original owners. It's more important that the car have a high percentage of residual value. Frankly, I don't understand that position.
The easiest way to do that is to keep making car payments after your current loan is paid off. Make those payments to a savings account or other investment. When the time comes to buy a car, you can pay for a significant portion of it up front. My brother started that in the 70s and has basically been able to pay cash for every car he's bought since then.
On resale, both alpha and backy are right. Insurance companies and ratings agencies will go by the % of MSRP while consumers will generally go by the actual dollar cost. Honestly, with rebates-a-plenty and fewer and fewer people paying MSRP, the %MSRP benchmark should probably be revised. A normalized average purchase price should be used. The data is readily available and would provide a much more realistic picture.
Specifically related to the Elantra vs. Civic, etc. My only fault with the Elantra and other Korean cousins is their fuel economy is not as good as Civic, Corolla, etc. But even that is a reasonable tradeoff considering Hyundai/Kia owners won't have significant maintenance costs for years.
My wife's 01 Elantra has 35K trouble-free miles so far.
An honest, sincere question- you are not employed in any finance or accounting related field, correct?
~alpha