|
Good luck to you Dieselboy is a thrill getting a new car, Im like a kid with a new toy. Petrol is the safer choice at the moment because diesel is falling out of favour, probably for all the wrong reasons.
Like you my car is neering its third birthday and Im looking around but cant find a car that makes me want to take the plunge. I think Ive been hovering around the margins of suitability for diesel for years, never had the slightest problem though. Like any situation where you dont know what to do doing nothing is the best choice.
Kia and Hyunai are sister brands as far as I understand but are they much the same or is one better than the other?
Edited by Stanb Sevento on 19/07/2017 at 10:16
|
Kia and Hyundai are sister brands as far as I understand but are they much the same or is one better than the other?
They're both Hyundai's underneath - some models sharing production lines others built in specific factories. They try to differentiate in character, style and equipment levels but their suspension settings are different so if that matters, make sure you test drive both versions.
Their warranties are different - Hyundai being 5 years unlimited mileage while Kia is 7 years or 100,000 miles whichever occurs first - but both have a list of items with shorter specific warranty lengths - not unreasonable IMO.
Like most brands, their dealers vary - the good ones being very good, the poor ones being appalling!
|
We get far more compliments than complaints about Kias on this forum, so I'm sure it'll do you well.
Whatever you do I recommend that you DO NOT visit the Kia Forum. We had a Ceed for 5 years. Other than a leaking A/C Condenser (probably a stone but replaced under the 7 years warranty at 4 years old) it was trouble free and the dealer was good once I made him realise we were not the avaerage idiots who will take his word as gospel. The Forum is populated by owners who are convinced that the 7 year warranty is a worthless waste of time, Kia's are rubbish because they do not do the mpg Kia promise, owners of 15 year old cars bought for pence that are found to be rusty and unreliable etc.
But you know they are good cars so just enjoy it and leave to whinging bugg3rs to their own misery.
Their warranties are different - Hyundai being 5 years unlimited mileage while Kia is 7 years or 100,000 miles whichever occurs first - but both have a list of items with shorter specific warranty lengths - not unreasonable IMO
Not quite correct. Kia's warranty is unlimited for the first 3 years but once you hit the 3 year point it dies once you have done 100,001 miles. Kia limit Taxi's to 100,000 miles, no idea if Hyundai do. Kia also exclude wearing items such as brakes and clutches unless a manufactiuring defect is proven, same as all makes in truth.
Edited by skidpan on 19/07/2017 at 11:38
|
|
I suppose that any single-make forum is bound to attract the whingers, although when I used to look at the Skoda forum it wasn't too bad.
If the make is one driven by enthusiasts, it'll be better. There were - probably still are - more vRS owners on the Skoda forum than one might expect, so this is partly true of Skoda too.
To ban people from a forum for saying that their car is good, as the Nissan moderators apparently did, means that they have some sort of an agenda and defeats the whole object of a forum.
|
I suppose that any single-make forum is bound to attract the whingers, although when I used to look at the Skoda forum it wasn't too bad.
The Superb section of the Skoda Forum seems OK but is populated by a majority who seem to have spent £35K + on their cars. That is a lot for any car but when you think its nearly double what I paid for our excellent 1.4 TSi 150 PS in SE trim (almost everything anyone could ever need) it does make you wonder what peoples priorites are.
The Seat Leon forum was a joke and I gave up on it very quickly. The main topics appeared to concern fitting sports suspension, huge wheels and tyres and remapping to stupid power levels. All perfect ways to spoil a class leading car. And when you think that the Cupra had 280 PS from the factory with only front wheel drive to up that to over 400 PS in many cases is bordering on irresponsible.
|
|
Most car forums, whether one model, one brand or general tend to be populated by enthusiasts or those with a problem - the contented owners never feeling the need to join or contribute - while there's lots of good information from the enthusiasts on most car forums, they DON'T represent a balanced viewof a brand or model's reliability.
|
|
I did consider a Hyundai Tucson, however it was ruled out due to smaller discounts being available at the time, even though both have a £1000 manufacturer contribution and the same PCP APR. In truth, I do prefer the look of the Tucson, but it's not like I dislike the Sportage, so I'm not that bothered. Equipment levels between the two were much of a muchness, with the Kia just in front.
I've been very happy with the C'eed. My only criticism would be it is a little cramped in the back. When I have the driver's seat set up for me there is very little rear legroom. The Sportage has no such issues.
Delivery is 31st July, just after we get back from a trip to France, using the C'eed.
|
|
I assume you drove the petrol Sportage. We did seriously consider it a short while ago and concluded from what we read that the petrol version was a bit lifeless, though the body shape is excellent. Maybe the current ones are better - we would have been buying second hand, though.
I gave up on diesel some time back; after my Peugeot 306 HDi - a great car in nearly every way - I decided petrol was the way to go. We recently acquired a Mazda CX-5 (2-litre petrol) and are very pleased with it, in particular the economy. My first brim-to-brim calculation showed the computer read-out was surprisingly accurate: it said 45.9 and I reckoned 45.7 mpg. That's from mixed driving - some short motorway runs, shopping and other local stuff.
Edited by FP on 19/07/2017 at 17:37
|
|
The 1.6GDi unit has been fettled on the new Sportage, so it's meant to be a lot better. Besides, I get the 'thrills' of spirited driving whilst at work, I'm quite a plodder when it comes to driving day to day.
|
|
|
|
I keep reading that the Mazda 2.0 petrol is sluggish at low revs but much better to ask someone who actually drives one. I think you had a 2-litre Focus before the Mazda, FP - if I'm right, I wonder how they compare.
The 2.0 Focus was a great 'small car / big engine' combination, and it was a pity that Ford dropped it except for the rather aggressive ST.
|
I keep reading that the Mazda 2.0 petrol is sluggish at low revs but much better to ask someone who actually drives one. I think you had a 2-litre Focus before the Mazda, FP - if I'm right, I wonder how they compare.
The 2.0 Focus was a great 'small car / big engine' combination, and it was a pity that Ford dropped it except for the rather aggressive ST.
When I test drove a new CX-3 (auto) and 3 (both) with the skyactive 2 ltr (standard 120bhp) engine, I found the accelerator pedal response to be a bit sluggish unless you gave it a boot, not terrible, but I was hoping for more from a 2 ltr engine. I suppose its because they've probably set it up for low CO2, decent mpg and increased engine longevity that it isn't what you'd expect from a 'standard' (nor many new ones around now) normally-aspirated 2 ltr petrol engine. By all reports, the 165/160bhp version in the 3 Sport 165 and MX-5 (perhaps not the heavier 6 and CX-5) are better, at the expense of mpg, CO2 emissions and noise.
Perhaps now that CO2 emissions will feature less in new cars' VED tax bands, Mazda may consider remapping their engines to get back to having a decent response across the whole rev range and accelerator pedal position.
|
|
|
Wow that's amazing fulel consumption, was that calculated or just from the onboard computer?
I'm seriously considering one of these but used prices have been inflated significantly this year.
Probably the best looking SUV out there.
|
|
"Wow that's amazing fulel consumption, was that calculated or just from the onboard computer?"
Wayne, not sure if this is aimed at me, but, as I made clear, 45.7 is the brim-to-brim figure - slightly under the car's own read-out. By the way, the current figure on the display is 47.1 - maybe the result of fewer short journeys, or maybe the dose of Miller's is responsible! I do have a light foot, though.
"I keep reading that the Mazda 2.0 petrol is sluggish at low revs but much better to ask someone who actually drives one. I think you had a 2-litre Focus before the Mazda, FP - if I'm right, I wonder how they compare."
Avant, I don't find the Mazda much different from the Ford. The former has a little more urgency. I haven't compared the two for torque, but the Mazda does have about 30 more bhp in a car that's about the same weight. You wouldn't mistake it for a diesel, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, have to disagree on your opinion of the Leon forum.
Basically it has saved me 100s on maintenance bills in providing guidance and even detailed instructions on how to fix a range of problems that the s****** would have fleeced me for.
|
|
|
|
|
