KIA Cars - any good?

Lum

I never said the Ceed was crap. All I said was that the 90s Korean cars had a reputation for being crap, which still haunts them today. I never said that this reputation was justified.

That said, it's possible that Kia customers have lower expectations than customers of "posher" brands, skewing the satisfaction ratings somewhat.

E.g. you pay a premium for a VW Golf and something minor breaks, you're not happy (bonus points if the dealer messes you about, which seems to be common with VW dealers). You pay cheap for a Korean car, something minor breaks and it's quickly fixed by the dealer with no aggro, you're happy.

jase1

Oh I completely agree, and I wouldn't argue that these cars are the ultimate in quality (that accolade, for the mass-market at least, I would give to Honda).

BUT, they are a good car. I'd have one in an instant.

I've owned Japanese cars for years and years, and have never had cause for complaint. I've also owned Korean cars as second cars for a similar period, and I know what their vices were on the older cars -- the clutches never seemed all that durable, the interiors held together OK but looked a bit moth-eaten prematurely, they were noisy and minor electrical gremlins weren't unheard of. But they never let me down, and in a second motor that's all I ever wanted.

Now that they have upped their game in the perceived quality department I can well believe that they are the equal of most cars out there -- and experiences of work colleagues bears this out.

My only two disappointments have been Ford and Peugeot. The Peugeot was so bad I won't go into the list of problems I had, the Ford is merely "meh", a disappointment after all the hype that surrounds the Focus -- reliable enough.

I'll be back to my usual diet of Mitsubishis, Subarus, Nissans and Hondas soon enough.

Lum

The only good French car manufacturer was Citroen, before they got taken over by Peugeot.

Billy-no-Money

Wife's had a 1.5 CRDi Rio from new - 2008 model, 30000 on the clock.
Reliability has been perfect - and all electrics continue to work.
Gives a pretty consistent 50mpg in daily use - I've had 61mpg out of it on a long motorway run cruising at 70.

Interior trim is basic, lots of hard grey plastic, but it doesn't creak or rattle and the seats show no signs of wear.

Unfortunately I don't find it a joy to drive - the engine is really strong, but the ride isn't well controlled (and never has been), while I find the accelerator and brakes are both too light for my taste.

As a means of transport it's excellent - think of it as an appliance. The Cee'd, judging by most reviews, may well address the things I'm criticising, so if it's coupled with the reliability of this Rio then it could be a good buy.

Nilrem

We've had a Rio since 2003 and although it's not done a lot of mileage (it's mainly a town car ~5k a year), it's done 7 years without skipping a beat except for the time my dad left the door ajar for about 2 days and drained the battery*.

It's been reliable, reasonably comfortable (much more so than several other cars I've driven partly thanks to it giving reasonable room for someone ~6 foot) and the only non warranty/consumable works needed has been a wheel bearing and IIRC suspension bushes - possibly due to a combination of the potholes round here and my dad rather overloading it with decking on a couple of occasions.
Given that at the time we had the choice of something like an Astra or Vectra with no warranty and ~50K miles on the clock, or a ne Rio for less than a new Corsa we went with the Rio because it filled most of the requirements we had (car big enough for 4 adults + some luggage, reliable/warranty and reasonably cheap).

For the price and especially with the current warranty packages I think they would be hard to beat personally, I know we're looking at another one when we replace our current car, although the next one may be a Ceed rather than a Rio.
They aren't however a "drivers" car or for the enthusiast really, they are a car for someone who wants a reasonable quality car, without paying through the nose, basically a car for someone who wants to get from A to B reasonably reliably at a relatively low cost.


*He's never quite grasped that doors require closing fully and not just a nudge...

SALOPMAN

Thankyou all for the replies - Ive had the deal given to me today and I will be getting the Ceed 3 CRDi 1.6 Diesel SW Version - it looks smart has plenty of extras and seems a good deal, it says it does 60mpg (Diesel) on the Combined figure so that looks good, must be honest went to a dealer yday and had a good look at one and they seemed sound. Its a company car, low on emission table at 124 and also comes in with a P11D value of 18420 (With metallic paint) so good on tax as well, and even has only 90 quid road tax should pls the firm lol
Thanks for all the input!:j

thescouselander

jase1 wrote: »

There is more to an engine than how it feels to drive. These (effectively Japanese) engines are very solid. The ancilliary components around them were poor which led to an illusion of a poor engine.

In any case, the newer cars are known for their refinement. I own a 1.6 Focus, and the 1.6 Cee'd is an order of magnitude sweeter, quieter and more refined. The comparison is almost ridiculous.

(I personally think that the Focus is a bag of spanners, plasticky, noisy and with a poor driving position -- but that's a different argument).

Going back to one of your earlier points, I don't know where this "poor brakes" thing comes from at all. I've driven a number of Kias, and even on the old rubbish ones the brakes were if anything over-assisted -- the tiniest tap and your head was flung forwards.

Well, I drive a lot of different cars - sometimes 2 or 3 different models and brands in a week - I would say I'm well qualified to tell the difference. The brakes were indeed over assisted but the fact they did nothing for half the travel was a bit unnerving. As I mentioned the throttle response can be a bit sensitive on some models. It's these sorts of things most manufactures have fine tuned in their cars and I think Kia are lagging behind in these areas.

I certainly wouldn't dream of calling Kias refined - not in a million years. They probably represent fair value for money but personally, I'd rather buy an older car from a better manufacturer.

jase1

Well we are all entitled to our respective opinions. All I will say is that if the Cee'd is unrefined, the Focus is seriously unrefined. The 1.6 petrol wheezes and chatters at the slightest whiff of the loud pedal being pushed.

One area I will agree with you on is pedal travel. My bugbear is clutch feel -- a high bite point coupled with a lack of feel make me cringe when driving. That, and clunky gearboxes -- they make my blood curdle.

Why people buy Fords, Vauxhalls and VWs I will never know -- ALL have seriously nasty transmissions. Korean cars are similar in this regard. The worst of the lot though must be Peugeot/Citroen -- the gearchanges on those cars are like stirring porridge.

Oh yeah, I bought a Ford, so of course I know why people buy them -- peer pressure and price tag.

Lum

Oh god, I hate the clutch on my 59 Mondeo Econetic so much. Combined with a fussy diesel engine I end up stalling it more often than I did in my 18 yr old Volvo that was missing 3rd and 5th gears.

The Focus (and Mondeo) is just another cheap and cheerful white good* in my mind. They do, however, get slightly better emissions figures which matter to some people, such as company car drivers, but this comes at a price. The price being fancy gadgetry like DPFs which will eventually fail and be very costly to repair.

I wonder if Kia feel able to offer their long warranty because they haven't got any of this rubbish, sticking to more tried and tested ways of doing things, whereas Ford and their ilk know their car stands a high chance of being uneconomical to repair after 6 years. Ultimately a warranty is a gamble and you'd set it based on cost of honouring it vs the amount of extra business you think a long warranty will bring.

I also wonder which approach is better for the environment. A car with slightly lower emissions (Focus) or a car that lasts 5 years longer. (Ceed)


* Obviously the highly tuned RS and ST models are exceptions to this

jase1

Yeah well I think with Ford/Vauxhall, they know that the majority of their sales are to the fleets. Such cars are driven hard and far for three years then dumped for minimal resale value. I took advantage of this fact when I bought the Focus. They're effectively designed as a disposable car.

With such cars longevity isn't really an issue. But with the kind of private buyers that the Koreans attract, they don't go as far but require a car to last a (relatively) long time.

For all that I think that Hyundais are good cars, I'd still not be prepared to stick my neck out and say that a five-year-old one with 200,000 miles on the clock would be in perfect condition. It wouldn't. Fortunately for Hyundai (at present) their cars are rarely used in this way.

I bought a petrol precisely because of the complexity you mention. Petrols are still (relatively) simple affairs, although this is now changing with the small turbocharged petrols etc.

Engine design reached its zenith with the late 1990s large Japanese petrol-engined car IMO. Bulletproof. While they're still very good, when they do go bang it hurts these days!

I think, when all is said and done, most cars are white goods now. Run em for 5 years and throw away.