Kia Rondos Demise In USA: Can Small People Movers Sell Here?

[Rickman]

The Kia Rondo is directly responsible for me buying a Mazda5.

About a month ago my wife was side-swiped in my Scion xB. While it was in the shop we had a Rondo as a rental. While it was nothing special, it made me realize how cheap the xB felt compared to it. I was frankly surprised that the Rondo was as nice as it was. The only Kia I had ever been in was a first gen sportage... and that was complete garbage. Anyhow, after driving the Rondo for a week the car bug bit me hard (it usually happens every year or so).

We have one child and are considering another, so we were already looking for more space than the xB affords. So the search began for a Rondo or something similar. Well as you can imagine, that search led me to the Mazda5. I had never even looked at one before (online or in person). The first few I found were nice, but I wanted something a little nicer for my wife this time (ie: Leather, heated seats, etc.). When I purchased my Miata, I sold my wife's Audi A4 to cut down on our payments. So the xB was never really "hers" anyway.

I looked at everything from Subaru Foresters, Mazda3s, Rondos, and even the HHR. Then we saw a Mazda5 GT out our local carmax. It was an 09 with 12k and it had EVERY option on it. The wife fell in love instantly. Too bad it was about $5k over our budget and already sold. After that, it was decided that were going to try to find an 08+ M5 GT with under 75k for between $10-15. For two weeks there was nothing that fit the bill. Then about a week ago a listing popped up for an 09 GT with all options except Nav. They were asking $16k... still over our budget, but I'm pretty good at negotiating, so we drove an hour and a half to have a look at it. Well, it's sitting in the driveway as I type and we both LOVE IT.

Anyhow, sorry for the narrative. And thanks to Kia for convincing me to buy a M5!

 

[Robotazky]

I've been thinking more and more about this thread. Mazdas are relatively uneconomical cars as far as fuel economy goes. Nobody likes to hear it, but it's true. All you have to do is look at the 24 MPG HWY mileage of the new F150 with 350+ HP and you are just leveled by how much more economical the 5 could be.

Can small people movers sell well in North America? Yes, when they have the economy of a small vehicle. The engine in our cars is not economical even in a 3. You may argue, but if I have to I can list dozens of HP:weight:gas mileage ratios that smoke any Mazda for that matter. Take the fact they put an engine that isn't economical in a small car and crammed it into ours, and you can see why bigger vehicles are being bought to move people. Actually, not many cars are selling period. A smart car company is going to bet the house and stop at nothing to have economy numbers that drop jaws. If somebody does this with a 5-type car, you bet it will sell and be very popular.

My $.02.

 

[twintrbo]

Robotaz, while its true Mazdas don't seem to lead the way in MPG, the one thing you are overlooking is the EPA rating vs. RWU (real world usage). Cars dont always return what they are "supposed" to. Think about how you would study for a specific test, the automakers know exactly how the EPA tests their cars and how to tune the vehicle to succeed on it. Just look at any site that tracks fuel mileage and check the real world usage vs. EPA rating, I bet you will find big differences. Try looking at the test reviews on Autoweek, sometimes their test cars run right at the EPA average. I have also seen ones do less than city EPA or maybe right at the city rating.

Just skimming our own forum, its very easy and common to beat the EPA highway rating. I know I got 28.5 mpg on a recent trip, averaging about 75 MPH with the AC on and a decent load of people and stuff, NOT how the EPA test goes for sure!

Here is one example that makes you go Hmmm.......
2009 Pontiac G8
8 cyl 361 hp 6.0L 15mpg city 24mpg highway
6 cyl 256 hp 3.6L 17mpg city 25mpg highway

If this were true, why would anyone buy the 6? The info on fuel economy.gov is questionable, but shows almost 28 MPG for the 6 and just over 20 MPG for the 8. The answer is that the cylinder shutdown technology works to improve the EPA ratings but is not as effective in the real world.

 

[thaxman]

Totally whay I always use my 2.2L VTEC Accord 4AT as a baseline. EPA mileage was 23/29, adjusted down to 21/27. Best I could do was 20/26.5 w/no A/C, or 17.5/25 in the Summer.

So when I can get 24.5 mpg in the Mazda5 in town w/no A/C, I jump for joy. It beats the EPA average, but for the way I drive road trips, we can do no better than 25, usually 23.5 or lower. So while the 5 does FANTASTIC in the city, It sucks lemons over 80 mph loaded w/5 + belongings. This is from the tall-geared 5MT, tho. The AT is better highway, I understand.

 

[DKaz]

Slow down. Going 70MPH will probably improve your economy to 27MPG, 60MPH maybe 32MPG.

 

[twintrbo]

I think at 80 I'm spinning about 3000 RPM but I would have to check to be sure. There isn't anywhere close to me I can go that fast without it being a problem

 

[was98strat]

I dunno know about that. when I'm going 100km/h (62mp/h) I'm already spinning at 3000rpm to get to to get to 130 I'm nearing 3500 rpm the AT mush have much lower gearing than the MTX

 

[flcruising]

I run at 3000rpm @ 70mph in my Mitsubishi 1.8L auto and get 33mpg.

 

[dan4behr]

I've been thinking more and more about this thread. Mazdas are relatively uneconomical cars as far as fuel economy goes. Nobody likes to hear it, but it's true. All you have to do is look at the 24 MPG HWY mileage of the new F150 with 350+ HP and you are just leveled by how much more economical the 5 could be.

Can small people movers sell well in North America? Yes, when they have the economy of a small vehicle. The engine in our cars is not economical even in a 3. You may argue, but if I have to I can list dozens of HP:weight:gas mileage ratios that smoke any Mazda for that matter. Take the fact they put an engine that isn't economical in a small car and crammed it into ours, and you can see why bigger vehicles are being bought to move people. Actually, not many cars are selling period. A smart car company is going to bet the house and stop at nothing to have economy numbers that drop jaws. If somebody does this with a 5-type car, you bet it will sell and be very popular.

My $.02.

Robo, fwiw, my partner has a 2010 F150 XLT. The 2WD 4.6 multivalve V8/six speed auto is the most 'economical' version of the truck and it's what we have. It's rated at 15 city/21 highway. Power is 292hp.
The 15 is realistic in town, but it's easy to get much less than that. The 21 is not even close to what you get in the real world. We live in Eastern North Carolina (read....flat) and freeway cruising at 70 nets about 17-18mpg.
Other than that, it's a great truck and I'd recommend it. But the fuel mileage Ford touts isn't realistic...(crazy)

EDIT: You're referring to the 2011 Ecoboost V-6, right? Power of teh googles...
Maybe it'll do somewhat better than the present V-8 lineup....

 

[twintrbo]

I dunno know about that. when I'm going 100km/h (62mp/h) I'm already spinning at 3000rpm to get to to get to 130 I'm nearing 3500 rpm the AT mush have much lower gearing than the MTX

I took the long way to an appt just to check, I could only get to 75 but the 5AT was turning about 2800 RPM. I got 2200 at 60 and about 2500 at 65. So if 80 isn't 3000 it should be really close to it. As far as I know, the 5th gear of the 5AT is geared higher than the 5MT.

Back to the thread though, the Rondo was also low on sales because the extra seating was more of an afterthought than actual seating. In the 5 its obvious that the seating was intended because of the sliding door access. So when you stack the Rondo against the other small CUV's and SUV's it didn't stand a chance. I'm sure they were sold on price primarily, they didn't offer anything a CR-V/RAV4/Escape didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if KIA brings a replacement of some kind, their new products are getting WAY better so it makes more sense to kill an old model and bring an all new replacement.

 

[Robotazky]

Robo, fwiw, my partner has a 2010 F150 XLT. The 2WD 4.6 multivalve V8/six speed auto is the most 'economical' version of the truck and it's what we have. It's rated at 15 city/21 highway. Power is 292hp.
The 15 is realistic in town, but it's easy to get much less than that. The 21 is not even close to what you get in the real world. We live in Eastern North Carolina (read....flat) and freeway cruising at 70 nets about 17-18mpg.
Other than that, it's a great truck and I'd recommend it. But the fuel mileage Ford touts isn't realistic...(crazy)

EDIT: You're referring to the 2011 Ecoboost V-6, right? Power of teh googles...
Maybe it'll do somewhat better than the present V-8 lineup....

Yes. I am referring to the Eco-boost. Also referring to the 305 HP Mustang V6 that is going to be the base model engine in the F150. I've had a 3V 4.6 and an '06 FX4 with the 5.4L. There is no question the F150s are getting a huge bump in fuel economy. I have gotten better than the numbers Ford posted on all three of my F150s. It's not uncommon to hear such variation from one owner to another though. That said, I cannot wait to see what people get from the 3.7L V6 in the F150. If you don't tow lots of very heavy weight it will get great mileage since it gets 30+ in the Mustang. I'm guessing 25-26 MPG for the F150.

 

[KBrian]

At 2.50 a gallon, gas is cheap enough to drive at the flow of traffic instead of worrying about saving 2 or 3 mpg.

 

[DKaz]

Where is gas $2.50 a gallon??

 

[twintrbo]

Sorry but I dont see ecoboost performing as advertised. Rather than hijack, follow me here if you care to listen to me rant: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5433345#post5433345

 

[5zoom]

Ever since we hit the $3 dollar mark in San Diego I am paying more attention to my scangauge. I am getting 24-27 mpg with some AC and mixed city/highway driving in my 08 5AT. When I drive over 75 I feel it in the pocket book.

 

[DKaz]

Gas first hit $3 CAD/gallon in Vancouver in summer of 2001... with the exchange rate of 1.40 at the time, that would've been $4.20USD/gallon. In my driving life, the cheapest that gas has ever been was $2.10 CAD/gallon, in spring of 2001. Seeing how gas is $4.37CAD/gallon ($4.60USD) now, we're not much worse now than we were nine years ago. Of course where I live outside the Metro Vancouver region with lower gas taxes, I'm enjoying $3.96CAD/gallon

The chart says (US $/G) but it is definitely in CA $/G.

 

[Robotazky]

Sorry but I dont see ecoboost performing as advertised. Rather than hijack, follow me here if you care to listen to me rant: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5433345#post5433345

I get better than the quoted EPA mileage in my '09 Focus coupe. We'll see when the ecoboost comes out. Who knows at this point. I can tell you that I drove a '10 Fusion 6-speed 2.5L 4 cyl and reset the mileage indicator and came back to the dealership with it on 31 MPG. That was not highway. You could be right, but I won't be surprised if the ecoboost is revolutionary in terms of economy. I mean, why else would Ford take such a huge risk with the F150 putting a turbo V6 in a work truck? The F150 is bullet proof and a testament to quality and reliability(yes I have an old F150 with 285,000 on the first engine and still doesn't burn oil, I'm biased). Ford has everything to lose on that engine not living up to what they claim.

 

[Rocket]

Where is gas $2.50 a gallon??

South Carolina

 

[flcruising]

I've paid under $1.00/gal in my last 14 years of driving. I can remember us paying $.60/gal in the early 90's at one location on I-75 in KY.

 

[twintrbo]

I won't be surprised if the ecoboost is revolutionary in terms of economy. I mean, why else would Ford take such a huge risk with the F150 putting a turbo V6 in a work truck? Ford has everything to lose on that engine not living up to what they claim.

I think their ad campaign is working then. There is absolutely nothing new or revolutionary about Ecoboost. Its a turbo engine, period. Its supposed to get the performance of an engine 2 cylinders larger than it actually is and keep the fuel savings. You still cant beat the laws of physics, if you look for a calculator on-line, you will see that a turbo engine needs more fuel to make a certain amount of HP than a NA engine. The turbo makes it up when its NOT making full power and its operating as a smaller NA engine. I hope Ford does well because I hate to see manufacturers fail but I dont think it will take off like they hope.