Topic: 2011 Kia Sorento EX-V6; Day 1

[Shnak]

One comment though is that I'm always concerned about rear-passenger safety in vehicles that try to maximize rear-passenger occupancy in hatchback-style vehicles. It may be a little safer because the Sorento rides higher than a typical hatchback car or wagon, but with the third row set up, the rear passengers have the back of their heads awfully close to the rear glass where there isn't a lot of structure to protect in a rear-end collision. Like I said, it's a little bit protectionist to think along these lines, and I'm not the guy that avoids buying vehicles because 'what if', but the 3rd row has always made me nervous for that reason. Minivans typically have a whole bunch of room behind the 3rd row, so if you really need to haul people and safety is a concern, I would think that or a bigger SUV would be a better option.

I don't disagree with the sentiment about safety, however, on short rides around town, I wouldn't worry too much about that. If I had a need to have more than 4 passengers very frequently, I wouldn't think twice about getting a real minivan (Sienna, Odyssey, Sedona, Grand Caravan) for space as well as safety reasons, as you mentionned. But if my need is only to have more than 4 passengers a couple of times a month, especially for shorter trips around town where high speed impacts are basically null, I would go with a 5+2 SUV.

[sacrat]

I don't remember how bad the santa Fe was I haven't tested in in forever, I've never been given a Rav4 with the third row, Toyota is smart they know they are useless so they give me a car I won't complain about

Hyundai reached this conclusion a couple of years ago and stopped offering  7 seats in the Santa Fe. They (wisely) left this market to the larger Veracruz.

As for the blue dash lighting issue, my Sonata is much the same. Hyundai tried to differentiate themselves here, but didn't get it perfect.

However, like the Santa Fe, I'm astounded how good the headlights are given that they aren't HIDs.

[aknutson]

As for the low mileage number, keep in mind this Sorento tester has only 100 Kms on the clock! While it is nowhere near what the EPA suggests, the cruising speed on the highway is a major factor in mileage - I believe the EPA highway test averages close to 80 km/h, so if you're cruising at 120 and asking 'why does my mileage suck?' well, that's why. Break in the engine and lower the cruising speed, I wouldn't be surprised to see 9-9.5 l/100 Kms, which is excellent for a vehicle of this size/capacity.

[Shnak]

Gas mileage was not bad for the week, either, although not anywhere close the optimistic published ratings of 11.1/7.9 L/100km (city / highway) — in mixed (mostly highway) driving, I averaged 11.9L/100km.

I'm curious James; how does this compare with other small-to-mid-size SUVs with ~3.5L V6 pumping out around 276hp?

I'm asking because my Sportage with all of its 173hp only rarely averages 11.9L/100km over a full tank of gas, it's usually closer to 12.5-13L/100km under our driving conditions and patterns. To me, an average of 11.9L/100km on a brand new 3.5L V6 making 276hp looks excellent. I'd be surprised if other similar spec'd vehicles averaged much less that 12L/100km...

[Breeze-E]

Gas mileage was not bad for the week, either, although not anywhere close the optimistic published ratings of 11.1/7.9 L/100km (city / highway) — in mixed (mostly highway) driving, I averaged 11.9L/100km.

I'm curious James; how does this compare with other small-to-mid-size SUVs with ~3.5L V6 pumping out around 276hp?

I'm asking because my Sportage with all of its 173hp only rarely averages 11.9L/100km over a full tank of gas, it's usually closer to 12.5-13L/100km under our driving conditions and patterns. To me, an average of 11.9L/100km on a brand new 3.5L V6 making 276hp looks excellent. I'd be surprised if other similar spec'd vehicles averaged much less that 12L/100km...

Maybe I can help, our 09 Edge, which has a similar size and engine, gets around 13L/km with mostly city driving.

[Shnak]

I did a quick research amongst James' day-by-day reviews for fuel econonmy numbers he got over the last litte while in other vehicles:

4-cylinder engines
GMC Terrain 2.4L: 9.8L/100km
Jeep Compass: 12.5L/100km
Suzuki Grand Vitara: 12.0L/100km
Dodge Journey: 9.9L/100km
Honda CR-V: 11L/100km

V6 engines
Honda Crosstour: 11.7L/100km
Suzuki Grand Vitara: 11.1L/100km
Lincoln MKT: 13L/100km
Volvo XC60 T6: 12.1L/100km
Buick Enclave CX: 12.7L/100km
Ford Flex: 13.4L/100km
Honda Pilot: 14.5L/100km
Nissan Murano SL AWD: 12L/100km
Ford Taurus X: 14L/100km
Toyota Highlander 4WD: 11.5L/100km
Subaru Tribeca: 14.5L/100km
GMC Acadia: 15.6L/100km

I'm not sure what to make of all this, but I suppose I meant to show that I was surprised to see James underplay the fuel economy displayed by the Sorrento when amongst the vehicles with similar engines and AWD, only the Highlander performed slightly better over the Sorento. Some were close (Murano, XC60, Enclave, Crosstour), but many of them were much higher (Pilot, Taurux X, Acadia!, Tribeca).

Frankly, it's the choice of word James made that is confusing. A think a little more context to his statement would have been beneficial... maybe compare it to a few other vehicles to see how it fares. Only comparing a vehicle to its published numbers is useless and greatly misleading.

[Spec5]

^ That certainly does give it some more perspective. Perhaps something for all reviewers to add into their articles. Maybe compare it to the reviewed vehicles 3 closest competitors (arguable of course but at least its something). Of course time of year would probably play a pretty significan role in those numbers. Ie. if it snowed a lot in Ottawa that week. (pfff snow - you guys don't even know what snow is! )

[wing]

I chose the wording because I altered my driving style to achieve those numbers.  Take it how you will I suppose, good or bad I'm not sure.  If I would have continued on my typical driving style I would have averaged about 13.5-14L/100km but adjusted.  Some vehicles vary greatly dependent on driving style some do not and I noted this vehicle does.

It was not bad fuel economy but I spend nearly the entire week on the highway as well rather than my typical mixed driving which played a factor.  It is very difficult to compare with just numbers that is why I chose the wording as some of the factors were different.

[Shnak]

I chose the wording because I altered my driving style to achieve those numbers.  Take it how you will I suppose, good or bad I'm not sure.  If I would have continued on my typical driving style I would have averaged about 13.5-14L/100km but adjusted.  Some vehicles vary greatly dependent on driving style some do not and I noted this vehicle does.

It was not bad fuel economy but I spend nearly the entire week on the highway as well rather than my typical mixed driving which played a factor.  It is very difficult to compare with just numbers that is why I chose the wording as some of the factors were different.

I think what I was missing was comparing this number to another vehicle or two. "I achieved similar/worse/better numbers with vehicle XYZ under similar driving circumstances"... Something like that. That puts the number in context.

Moving on... I'm surprised about the 3/5 on handling... since you said the steering was nicely weighted, was it the suspension that you didn't like very much?

Overall, good review. I'm kind of disappointed with the apparent lack of quality interior materials... I'll have to see for myself, I suppose.

[wing]

Yeah seemed to lean a lot in corners but 3/5 is average for my reviews so it is average for the type of vehicle.

[goonboy]

As I pointed out earlier, the front end looks dated.  I actually like the rear end.

The era of smoked headlamps was in the early 2000's.  Kia please update the headlamps.