Topic: CD Article: 2007 Kia Rondo

[jww]

Might be more accurate to say the Lacrosse is called the Allure here; GM changed the name for Canada as Lacrosse, in Quebec, is a slang term for a sexual act - not the image Buick wants to portray, I don't think.

Yeah - I remember living in Finland in 1979-1982, and VW sold a car that's name was a Finnish slang for dung. Guess what - no one bought the cars! When they changed the name, it took a bit of time before people would drive them. 

hahaha I would have to buy one. I pick brown too.
.

That wasn't a colour option at the time - but it would have been brilliant marketing if they could have pulled it off. 

[UDB]

I think the deisgners have missed the boat with the design of this 'wagon'.   The Mazda5 looks way better.  But I guess, like for the Mazda5, your height must be less 6' tall to fit in any of the seats of these vehicule.  When we are going to have the the Fit XL version with 7 passengers ?    I guess Nissan will come back with the Multi or the Axxess  .   Personnally, if want to carry 5 and more passengers, I'll go definitely for a 'real' minivan or the new trend that's now: cross-overs

[jww]

 

It really needs to be a full-blown mini-van if you need to carry 5 -  people. 7 seat cross-overs simply don't have the real space for 7 bona-fide passengers. Ever tried to sit in the back of one of these babies? No room at the inn!

[bearymore]

I also believe the cargo dimensions quoted for the mazda5 are wrong... In the canadiandriver.com review of the mazda5, the cargo volume listed (3rd row folded) is :

Cargo capacity 1256 litres (44.3 litres)(3rd seat folded).
( see canadiandriver Test Drive: 2006 Mazda5 GT )

That was consistent with the specs from mazda.ca back then... perhaps the specs on mazda.ca are wrong now???

Would be nice to get the facts right on this one...

Figures for one car or the other are definitely wrong. According to the review here, the Kia is 65mm wider than the Mazda but 65mm shorter. That means that the surface areas of the two vehicles are identical. Since the Kia is only 20mm taller, that means short of leaving the engine out, there is no way that the Kia could have twice as much rear space behind the second row of seats than the Mazda5.

In any case, I know from personal experience. I was on a consumer panel this summer and had the opportunity to drive a Kia Rondo for a month. They had recruited Mazda5 owners to get comparative impressions. It always felt to me like the Kia's cargo room was smaller. Faced with a week's trip with three people, luggage, and a Newfoundland dog, I needed all the space I could get. Since I felt obliged to drive the Kia, I decided to measure the space behind the second row of seats in both the Kia and the Mazda 5. I found that the Kia was wider, but the Mazda was longer. Tthe cargo areas were identical in size.

I finally took the Mazda on the trip. Neither car could hold everything and I had a roof rack for the Mazda. Kia had not yet developed a rack for the Kia, so I had no choice.

I will say this, though -- both cars have far more interior room than any of their purported competitors -- the Chevrolet HHR, the PT Cruiser, or the Toyota Matrix. I haven't driven the Matrix so I won't comment, but I would easily choose either the Mazda5 or the Kia over the HHR or the PT Cruiser.  You get far more car for the money with either one.

[avtoller]

"According to the review here, the Kia is 65mm wider than the Mazda but 65mm shorter. That means that the surface areas of the two vehicles are identical."

Your reasoning is DEFINITELY flawed. Just to make it obvious, try these two figures and apply your logic:

66mm X 65 mm = 4290 sq. mm

1 mm X 130 mm = 130 sq. mm

These two rectangles meet the conditions you specified and obviously do NOT have the same area.

[Lurker]

They probably got the info from the Mazda.ca website which is also wrong.  When I took the 5 for a test drive I asked the salesman to compare the cargo room to my Hyundai Elantra and it said my Elantra had way more room.  Mazda you're shooting yourself in the foot.  Fix the website!

Just try comparing a vehicle to the Mazda 5. 

                                Mazda 5          Elantra Gt
Passenger volume   2,768 L            2,690 L
Interior cargo volume   112 L             569 L
Interior cargo volume
w/seats folded             426 L               1,048 L

[bearymore]

"According to the review here, the Kia is 65mm wider than the Mazda but 65mm shorter. That means that the surface areas of the two vehicles are identical."

Your reasoning is DEFINITELY flawed. Just to make it obvious, try these two figures and apply your logic:

66mm X 65 mm = 4290 sq. mm

1 mm X 130 mm = 130 sq. mm

These two rectangles meet the conditions you specified and obviously do NOT have the same area.

True. Wasn't thinking. However, 65mm is a tiny proportion of either the length or the width of the vehicle. The difference in surface areas is only 0.18 sq. meters based on the specifications on Kia's web site. So somehow they would have had to have eked out more than double the cargo space through an addition of 20mm in height and 0.18 sq. meters of floor area assuming that all the added area went to the interior. That would be quite a feat. The error should have been as obvious to the author as mine should have been to me.

[arumage]

"According to the review here, the Kia is 65mm wider than the Mazda but 65mm shorter. That means that the surface areas of the two vehicles are identical."

Your reasoning is DEFINITELY flawed. Just to make it obvious, try these two figures and apply your logic:

66mm X 65 mm = 4290 sq. mm

1 mm X 130 mm = 130 sq. mm

These two rectangles meet the conditions you specified and obviously do NOT have the same area.

True. Wasn't thinking. However, 65mm is a tiny proportion of either the length or the width of the vehicle. The difference in surface areas is only 0.18 sq. meters based on the specifications on Kia's web site. So somehow they would have had to have eked out more than double the cargo space through an addition of 20mm in height and 0.18 sq. meters of floor area assuming that all the added area went to the interior. That would be quite a feat. The error should have been as obvious to the author as mine should have been to me.

All the reviews I've read have said the Rondo has a very low step in height similar to a minivan.  That doesn't explain the math, but it could explain how the Rondo could put up better interior numbers despite being shorter (definitely not double though).  On the US sites, with a little conversion, the Rondo has about 280L more passenger volume.  If there is that much difference in passenger volume, cargo volume must be improved similarly over the Mazda5 as well.

[danlisahall]

Bearymore: It sounds like you have more experience with the Rondo than almost anyone else. I would love to hear more of your impressions. Did you have the  I4 or V6.  What are the pluses & minuses?  Thanks.

[Slow_lane]

The Mazda interiors volumes seem to be very understated or everyone else is over stated. I remember comparing Matrix to Mazda 3 Sport. The Mazda had 883 L of storage with seats folded and the Matrix had 1506! I thought Matrix would be bigger but not by over 60%.

[avtoller]

The Mazda interiors volumes seem to be very understated or everyone else is over stated. I remember comparing Matrix to Mazda 3 Sport. The Mazda had 883 L of storage with seats folded and the Matrix had 1506! I thought Matrix would be bigger but not by over 60%.

You MAY be right, but based upon my comparison last year, it really wouldn't surprise me if those figures were fairly accurate. The Matrix seemed MUCH larger (interior) to me. Don't forget, the Matrix is a much taller vehicle than the Mazda3 Sport.

[Lurker]

Bearymore: It sounds like you have more experience with the Rondo than almost anyone else. I would love to hear more of your impressions. Did you have the  I4 or V6.  What are the pluses & minuses?  Thanks.

I'd also like to hear what people have to say about the engines especially the 6 cylinder which isn't used in any other vehicle in NA. 

[soj]

As far as I know the Magentis uses the same V6.  I wouldn't be surprised if the V6 actually out performs the I4 on the fuel economy front if you actually drive the vehicle with a full family load.  The Mazda 5 has my vote when it comes to styling but I suspect the Rondo trumps it on practicality.  I'm disapointed a MT isn't offered with the I4 (it'd be great with the V6 as well but that's too much to ask) but what else is new.  I guess yummy mummys don't drive 5 speeds. 

[soj]

I've had another thought, a dangerous thing indeed.  In this class of vehicle (mini minivan or is that compact minivan) presumably the appeal is 90% of the functionality of a full sized minivan with considerably improved fuel economy.  As the owner of a Pontiac Montana, I've actually achieved 27 - 28 mpg on the HW (@ 115 km/hr) with 4 passengers onboard provided I've nothing on the roof nor am I pulling anything.  Now why should I exchange that for a vehicle with considerably less room so I can achieve 30 - 31 mpg (36 mpg X 0.85 = real fuel economy)?  Admittedly a 10% improvement is not bad but gas has to become pretty expensive before it starts making enough of a difference for people to start giving up that extra room.  This is where the marketing guru's at Mazda and Kia have missed the boat.  For vehicles such as the the Rondo to live up to their true potential, they have to be equiped like they are in Europe, with a MT and a diesel.

[arumage]

I've had another thought, a dangerous thing indeed.  In this class of vehicle (mini minivan or is that compact minivan) presumably the appeal is 90% of the functionality of a full sized minivan with considerably improved fuel economy.  As the owner of a Pontiac Montana, I've actually achieved 27 - 28 mpg on the HW (@ 115 km/hr) with 4 passengers onboard provided I've nothing on the roof nor am I pulling anything.  Now why should I exchange that for a vehicle with considerably less room so I can achieve 30 - 31 mpg (36 mpg X 0.85 = real fuel economy)?  Admittedly a 10% improvement is not bad but gas has to become pretty expensive before it starts making enough of a difference for people to start giving up that extra room.  This is where the marketing guru's at Mazda and Kia have missed the boat.  For vehicles such as the the Rondo to live up to their true potential, they have to be equiped like they are in Europe, with a MT and a diesel.

For an LX 7-seater, the Rondo is more than $6k cheaper than the Montana was in 2005.  The gas mileage and maneuverability are definitely a plus as well for people who only occasionally need the 3rd row.  A diesel would definitely be nice though.

[soj]

For an LX 7-seater, the Rondo is more than $6k cheaper than the Montana was in 2005.  The gas mileage and maneuverability are definitely a plus as well for people who only occasionally need the 3rd row.  A diesel would definitely be nice though.

You're quite right when it comes to the capital cost but unless it's one of the 0% financing deals GM has offered in the past, who would buy a Montana new.  I bought my 2000 with 65,000 km on the clock and a full load including tow package for $11.5K.  I guess what I was getting at was not that the Rondo wouldn't find buyers, just that it wouldn't have mass market appeal.

[G0dspd]

The Kia Rondo is comparable to the Mazda 5 but the manufacturers both have their name for it ... according to the ads.  Mazda calls the Mazda 5 a micro-van or compact minivan and Kia calls the Rondo an Urban utility vehicle (UUC).

They can't even figure out what a CUV is and they already have another class to name. 

[jww]

The Kia Rondo is comparable to the Mazda 5 but the manufacturers both have their name for it ... according to the ads.  Mazda calls the Mazda 5 a micro-van or compact minivan and Kia calls the Rondo an Urban utility vehicle (UUC). ...

Who in the heck thought this one up? UUC?

[arumage]

The Kia Rondo is comparable to the Mazda 5 but the manufacturers both have their name for it ... according to the ads.  Mazda calls the Mazda 5 a micro-van or compact minivan and Kia calls the Rondo an Urban utility vehicle (UUC). ...

Who in the heck thought this one up? UUC?

Hyundai is calling the upcoming Veracruz an LUV (luxury utility vehicle).  It's all just semantics.  Many buyers in this market don't want to be put in anything classified as a "van".  That's probably why they called it something different than Mazda.

[jww]

Semantics