Almost a quarter-century ago, Chrysler rocked the automotive scene by putting a two-box body on the K-car platform, calling it a minivan and inventing the soccer mom. Unfortunately, the intervening years haven’t been kind to the concept; the mini minivan is no more. In fact, the 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan is almost two feet longer than the full-sized 1984 Dodge Ram van. If you’re looking for a three-row people mover that won’t max out your garage, you can always go the CUV route– if you’re into poseurmobiles. Or you can consider the Mazda5 or Kia Rondo. But do these reborn minivans carry the torch, or has the genre’s flame fizzled-out?
The Mazda5 Grand Touring and the Rondo EX adhere to the original formula. Both are built on passenger car platforms and share drivetrains with economy cars. Both are within a couple of inches of the size of the original Chrysler minivan. Both have three rows of seats; like the original Caravoyagers, the third row is optional on the Rondo. And like those early minvans, you can have a flat cargo floor if you desire. But that’s where the similarities between them end.
Mazda and Kia took decidedly divergent design directions. The Mazda5 looks like the love child of a Mazda3 and the space shuttle. The family DNA shows in the grille that precedes a steeply sloping hood and windshield. While the more traditionally minivannish of the two, it shows some style with a beltline that swoops upward from the obligatory swept-back headlights, past the dual sliding doors and toward the rear– where you’re greeted by two huge silver… things… mounted next to the rear window. These pods contain the LED taillights and backup lights. They’re easy to see, but look oh-so-last-decade.
The Rondo eschews zoominess for cute. With its huge headlights, trapezoidal grill opening and rounded corners, it looks like one of the talking cars in the Chevron commercials. The Rondo departs from the standard minivan recipe with parking lot-unfriendly hinged doors instead of sliders. The softly rounded shape continues to the rear where it’s abruptly terminated with a sharp crease below the rear window.
At first blush, both vehicles look similar inside, down to the shift levers sprouting at a 45-degree angle from the console. However, differences abound. The Mazda5 is rated at six passengers, offering front buckets, center captain’s chairs and a two-person bench in the wayback. The Rondo claims to seat seven, with a split bench in the middle and an optional two-seater in the rear. Unfortunately, the compact dimensions of both become glaringly apparent when you get to the rearmost seats. There’s only enough room for preteens (or adults you hate) in the back of either minivan. If you have to buckle the kids into car seats or booster seats, hip room’s too tight to mention. In an attempt to give access to the torture chamber, the door openings are wide and the center seats slide forward. But you’ll still have a long stretch to get everyone settled back there.
The second row is much better. The Rondo provides ample legroom, even with the front seats pushed all the way back. But all the Rondo’s second row does is recline, move fore and aft and fold flat. The Mazda’s does that and more. Flip-up the cushion on the left side and there’s a storage bin large enough to stash an extra supply of diapers for long trips. Flip up the cushion on the right and there are cup holders and tray you can flop over into the space between the seats. Lift the bottom of that tray and there’s a net beneath to hold small toys and other flotsam that seems to be de rigueur for traveling with young ‘uns nowadays. In contrast, the Rondo’s rear cup holders slide out of the bottom of the console at floor level where they would be totally useless for little ones who are strapped in high above them.
Both cars offer plenty of space up front. But the Mazda5 has a very annoying bulge at the side of the console where the driver’s leg should be. It partially blocks the accelerator, making you hold your foot at a strange angle. Then, when you rest your leg against the console, it’s against hard plastic with a 90-degree edge on it. If you’re above average size, you’ll notice they made it feel so spacious by downsizing everything in the interior. The steering wheel is the size of a dinner plate and every time I wedged my 6’3” carcass behind it I felt like I was in a parent-teacher conference sitting in a third-grader’s chair. The mail-slot sized sunroof opening only added to the sensation. The second-row seats have very low backs-– so low in fact that when the headrests were all the way down they didn’t even come to the top of my shoulders. You adapt to the seven-eights scale furniture eventually, but it’s still disconcerting.
Neither the Rondo or the Madza5 have an abundance of cargo room with the third seat up. The Mazda’s trunk has enough room to hold a small suitcase or a few soccer balls. The Kia offers only 6.5 cubic feet. Fold down the third row in either, though, and there’s plenty of room for the beer run. The Rondo has 35 cubic feet behind the second seat and the Mazda5 holds 44 cubic feet.
The Mazda5 Grand Touring and Rondo EX are both at the apex of their respective model’s food chain. The Mazda blows the Kia out of the water equipment-wise. Both come with the usual power stuff, remote locking, six-speaker sound systems, and steering-wheel mounted radio and cruise controls. However, the Grand Touring also includes leather seats, electroluminescent gauges, automatic headlights, rain-sensing wipers, the aforementioned sunroof, heated seats, Bluetooth and it an optional nav system. The leather, sunroof and heated seats are optional on the Rondo EX and you have to pay extra for third row seating. The remaining electronic toys aren’t available at any price.
In return, the Rondo offers two things that aren’t available on the Mazda5. The first is electronic stability control, standard on the Kia. The second is a V6 engine. Mazda’s excellent 2.3-liter four-pot pumps out 153hp; it isn’t enough to provide the zoom-zoom you expect, especially if there are three or four people on board. It takes almost 10 seconds to stroll from 0 to 60 mph. You find yourself wishing they built a MazdaSpeed5.
The Rondo’s standard 2.4-liter four cranks out 162hp, and the smooth 2.7-liter V6 ups the ante to 182hp. With the larger engine, the Rondo does the 0 to 60 shuffle in just under nine seconds. Around town it’s more than sufficient. Push the mill into the higher RPM ranges to wring-out more speed and methinks it doth protest too much. With both of these vanlets, you should plan your passing maneuvers in advance, especially in hilly terrain.
The Kia and Mazda both handle fairly well for nose-heavy 3500-pound boxes. The Mazda5’s steering feels more directly connected to the front wheels than the Rondo’s, but it exhibits more body roll when pushed into a corner. Both are very maneuverable in city traffic and small enough to squeeze into spaces where larger SUVs fear to tread. You wouldn’t want to enter any gymkhanas, but there is driving fun to be had. As an added bonus, the base-level Mazda5 is available with a five-speed manual transmission.
For highway cruising, the Rondo beats the Mazda5, hands-down. Its front seats are more supportive and much more comfortable. The large analog instruments are easier to read than the Mazda’s high-tech electroluminescent ones. The radio controls are much more straightforward than Mazda’s radio cum nav system, where you have to agree not to sue them just to get to the basic radio functions. The only really annoying thing about the Rondo was the wind noise around the rearview mirror on the driver’s side.
The Mazda’s shrunken front seats and strange shaped console conspire to keep anyone above average size from getting comfortable. That, added to a resonance that boomed through the interior at speeds above 40 mph, made me wish I’d taken the Rondo every time I drove it.
Pricewise, it’s advantage Kia, as you’d expect. My fully-loaded tester listed for $23,495. They’re offering $2k incentives, so you’re just above the $21k mark before you start haggling. The admittedly much-better-equipped Mazda5 stickered for $25,395 (currently there are no incentives offered).
When you’re talking about a Kia, there are a few other considerations to factor in. First is the horrible first-year depreciation. You can expect the Rondo’s value to drop by about a third of its sticker price as soon as you drive it off the lot. Then, there’s the matter of durability. Although Kias have improved quality-wise and include one of the best warranties in the business, it’s still too soon to tell how well the Rondo will hold up over the years. Everything in my tester was tight and felt solid. But that doesn’t mean it’ll hold up for five or ten years.
In spite of that, I preferred the Rondo. It was more comfortable, more fun to drive and provided more straightforward controls than the Mazda5. Still, either is preferable to the bloated monstrosities they currently market as “minivans” and would probably do 95 percent of what people driving SUVs need a vehicle to do. Maybe the real minivan’s time has come again.
[Kia and Mazda provided the cars reviewed, insurance and a tank of gas.]
110 Comments on “2008 Kia Rondo EX vs. 2009 Mazda Mazda5 Grand Touring...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Thanks for the great review. That kind of vehicle is extremely popular in Europe, where they’re called “monospaces”, for the ability to perform so many different tasks, at a decent price and with pretty good fuel economy.
Diesels would probably be more adapted to those, especially when loaded up with cargo and passengers.
Being childless for now, I don’t need one as my hatchback is roomy enough for the occasional friend or trip to Ikea, but yes, those vehicles are the most logical step up if one does not like CUVs (and why would you like CUVs)?
I’ve looked at both, but still driven neither. The Mazda wins in the looks department (IMHO) by such a large margin, the Kia has an uphill battle.
Also, sliding doors and 5-speed make a pretty strong case to overcome the shortfalls…but the 5-speed is only available with bare-bones options, sadly. Damn American marketing.
I just can’t get over the Kia’s looks in person. The low beltline is very functional for visibility, but it doesn’t have the same cuteness that causes a Scion xB or Honda Element to grow on you over time. Every time I see a Rondo on the streets, I do a double-take (and not in a good way).
Guess it’s time to go drive them back-to-back. Nice review!
You find yourself wishing they built a MazdaSpeed5.
Can’t be repeated enough.
I like the side by side comparison of the vehicles. I don’t think I’ve seen this on TTAC before. There should be more of these!
While Minivan shopping my wife and I looked at the Mazda5, but never even considered the Rondo. It’s hard to have a minivan without the sliding doors, so the Rondo was out even before we saw the Kia badge.
There is a reason that minivans have grown larger over the last 20 years. Both of these vehicles are nicely packaged, but just a bit too small if you are really in the minivan market. Hard to fit 2 carseats and 2 strollers in the back without folding down the rear seats (aka the Penalty Box).
The entire seating setup in the 5 is just plain weird. The models we drove didn’t have armrests on both sides, only one side was available as an option. WTF, who builds a car with no armrests?
The center console looked like an afterthought and would be much better if they had chosen a console shift instead.
Make the 5 about 6 inches longer and drop in a Direct Injection Diesel, THAT would be a heck of a minivan.
rpenna
I like the side by side comparison of the vehicles. I don’t think I’ve seen this on TTAC before. There should be more of these!
We’ve also done the G6 vs. Sebring convertibles, M3 vs. RS4, and Matrix AWD vs. Impreza. These comparisons all depend on being able to get the cars simultaneously or at least back-to-back. I got really lucky in that I was able to get both at the same time and keep them for a week.
More comparison articles!
A family member owns one and I like it. I would take one in a heartbeat. Forget all the extra appointments and the base model with V-6 is very affordable. As to long term durability, I would give KIA a break on this since Hyundai has the reins and they have proven to be a dramatically better maker the past few years.
So, over 6′1″ tall, Kia. Under 6′1″, Mazda.
The Mazda is much better looking inside and out.
Middle row has a center egress to the 3rd row, by that picture? So that you don’t have to slide the seat forward to get to the back? If so, you don’t know how valuable that is…
unregular :
Middle row has a center egress to the 3rd row, by that picture? So that you don’t have to slide the seat forward to get to the back? If so, you don’t know how valuable that is…
There’s 9 or 10 inches between the seats, so smaller folks could shuffle between them, provided the cup holders are folded back under the seat cushion. Don’t expect anyone school age or above to do it easily, though, because there’s even less space between the seat backs thanks to the arm rests mounted on the sides.
That center section in the Mazda’s second row is also used for the optional 7th seat…in Europe only. Allegedly they couldn’t certify the seat belt anchors for US standards, so they left the seat out. Too bad…
In Europe these kind of vehicles are quite popular, ever since the first Opel Zafira (about 1999) was launched which was then the first vehicle of this size with 7 ’seats’.
The Zafira was rushed to the European market after the ‘much acclaimed’ Chevrolet/Pontiac Transport derivative Opel Sintra had proven to be a death trap in Euro NCAP testing and was pulled from the Euro market after the bad publicity.
Of course then a small decade later the Transport in its ultimate form went on to so deservedly win the erstwhile TTAC TWAT award.
Anyway, nowadays you have 7 seat versions of the Volkswagen Touran, Renault Scénic, Citroën C4 Picasso, Mazda5, Toyota Corolla Verso etc. You see a lot of all of those, while I haven’t seen a new Voyager yet, even if in the past Voyagers used to be on every streetcorner here as well (really one of the view popular US cars over here in the more recent past). Obviously the price of fuel and the cars itself helps here in communist Western-Europe but also, in many ways for most families it’s the best ‘utility’ car they can buy.
What a straight-forward, thought-out review. I love the styling of the Rondo and the four normal doors, but I can’t believe the Mazda doesn’t offer ESC. And the MPG isn’t alot better than other more powerful, larger vans like the Sienna. Actually, at the Mazda’s price, you could get a Chrysler T+C, as it’s super discounted and heavily rebated, which the Mazda isn’t.
More comparison reviews!! May I suggest the Camry and Sonata? :o)
Thank you for posting this. I’ve been looking for a professional comparison of these two for some time. I guess neither is sexy enough for “real” car journalists to address.
And yes, the front-row space in the Mazda is a problem. If the seat could travel rearwards even an inch or two, it’d help, though pushing the console and back would be the ultimate fix. I’d have to give it to the Kia, after driving both:
* ESC: I can’t stress how critical this is in a family car. This makes the decision
* Content: You get more for the same price with the Kia.
* Smarter packaging: It holds slightly more while being shorter
* Driver accomodations: People can fit in the front seat. As much as the Mazda’s sliding doors are useful, this more than makes up for them.
* Noise & ride: The Mazda’s more fun, but for this market, the Kia’s ride and quiet make more sense.
I drove the four-cylinder Rondo and found it totally adequate. The mileage isn’t great, but it’s appreciably better than the next-best fullsize van (the Sienna) while being significantly cheaper. If Kia could see fit to putting a five-speed automatic (entirely do-able) or a more frugal powerplant (unlikely) it’d be even better.
@jberger: the missing armrests were added for MY2008. For some reason the outboard 2nd row armrests didn’t make it across the Pacific the first couple of model years, and the front passenger seat’s armrest conficted with the lid to the center console. For ‘08 that lid was deleted and sorely needed 2nd row center AC vents added. Lack of room in a small vehicle + cheap gas are I believe the reasons why minivans got so big. It’s just so convenient to have all that space in the well behind the 3rd row.
@romanjetfighter: our Sienna gets 19mpg, the Mazda5 gets 24mpg in mixed driving. Agreed, the lack of ESC in the US is a bad marketing decision.
–
I have base (Sport) 07 Mazda5 with the 4 speed slushbox, and it’s my daily driver with occasional kid-hauling duty. With short legs I fit up front just fine; the Mrs. gripes about the hard seats and the cheap interior plastics. The interior noise doesn’t bother me, must be the combination of aftermarket speakers + impending deafness. The Rondo was just beginning to arrive in showrooms and didn’t have any reliability data, so we passed.
A couple of pictures I posted on the Mazda5 forum: A Britax Roundabout in the second row, two Britax Monarch boosters in the 3rd row. There’s just enough room in back there, but rear visibility with the booster headrests raised is minimal. Thanks to the lack of a 2nd row bench, the school-age boys don’t need any help getting in and out, and the lightweight spring-loaded sliding doors are a nice touch.
Since space behind the third row is tight, we save the Mazda5 for short-duration road trips. A well-packed big duffel back fits back there, and the front seat gets the other half of our stuff.
And the MPG isn’t alot better than other more powerful, larger vans like the Sienna
Yes, but it is better, especially around-town. And both these cars a lot less expensive than the Sienna.
Actually, at the Mazda’s price, you could get a Chrysler T+C, as it’s super discounted and heavily rebated, which the Mazda isn’t.
I don’t know about the US, but in Canada, the Caravan Value Package and SXT track the price of the Rondo (LX and EX/V6) and 5 (GS and GT). I looked at the Caravan and, even with the dealer practically offering to polish my shoes it wasn’t fair.
Yes, the GC is bigger, but they’re also about a thousand pounds heavier, the engine (especially the 3.3 in the Value edition) isn’t helpful, the feature content spotty (manual mirrors on a car this wide?!) and the materials just awful. I’ll take small and quality, though admittedly I’d be using this for in-city and wouldn’t need to haul people and stuff long distances.
And the MPG isn’t alot better than other more powerful, larger vans like the Sienna
Yes, but it is better, especially around-town. And both these cars a lot less expensive than the Sienna.
Actually, at the Mazda’s price, you could get a Chrysler T+C, as it’s super discounted and heavily rebated, which the Mazda isn’t.
I don’t know about the US, but in Canada, the Caravan Value Package and SXT track the price of the Rondo (LX and EX/V6) and 5 (GS and GT). I looked at the Caravan and, even with the dealer practically offering to polish my shoes it wasn’t fair.
Yes, the GC is bigger, but they’re also about a thousand pounds heavier, the engine (especially the 3.3 in the Value edition) isn’t helpful, the feature content spotty (manual mirrors on a car this wide?!) and the materials and build just awful. I’ll take small and quality, though admittedly I’d be using this for in-city and wouldn’t need to haul people and stuff long distances.
If I ever get kids (God help them), I’m shipping over a Nissan Urvan.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/nissan-urvan-review/
Even so, I think the (right-sized) minivan market is undersupplied in the US. Besides these two, what’ve you got? The people demand the Ford S-Max!
What a great little segment. I had fun driving a Mazda5 Sport as a loaner car and that was a 2005 with the 4AT. I would mind a newer model as a replacement for the Mazda3 wagon I have. It’s on my list of more family-like vehicles once we get a #2. I was considering an Escape and used XC70 as well, which are more suited for Idaho but the Mazda5 would take care of any issues with needing room when people visit or future carpool scenarios…while still being fun and frugal.
-more comparos whenever you can!
-very nice review but comparative gas mileage in real world use would have been very useful, esp in this class of vehicle
-IMO if you have a family and need a minivan these are too small
-i have driven the Kia, not the Mazda, and it is nowhere near as comfortable as the honda or toyota minivans, esp for a long highway drive.
Frank
Great review
As a 20 yr minivan owner I have to say the Kia without sliding rear doors,by definition, is not a minivan. the easy access with the sliding door is the whole point.
A cousin and her Swiss husband were back in the States visiting. They borrowed our standard length Voyager to go camping, with their young daughter. When they returned he stated that he never understood why Americans liked these things. Then he said “Now I get it, I wish we could buy these.”
Plus, few people are buying them. They are being outsold over 10 to 1 by traditional Minivans. The market has spoken and the market is always right.
psarhjinian :
If Kia could see fit to putting a five-speed automatic (entirely do-able) or a more frugal powerplant (unlikely) it’d be even better.
I don’t understand why they don’t put the 5-speed automatic on the 4-cyl. It’s standard with the V-6 so it shouldn’t be that much of a problem (unless the housings are different and would require a retooling to fit the 5-speed on the four).
Incidentally, there’s only a 1 mpg penalty in the city for the six. The highway rating is the same for both, so I don’t see why anyone would want the four unless they were really pinching pennies at purchase time.
It’s not for me and my wife (dinks), but I thought the Mazda5 was cute, better alternative to the “mini” vans available from the other manufacturers the first time I saw it in 2004.
Great comparison review, by the way. Beats the heck out of the type offered by the more traditional mags (MT, C&D, etc.). A mention of observed and EPA mileage ratings for each vehicle that you drove as well as the EPA mileage rating for the 4 banger Rondo would have been a nice addition, though.
The Mazda5 has appealed to me from the first time I read about it. Being a Mazda3 owner, I won’t deny being a bit biased. But the idea of a small people-mover with “Zoom Zoom” DNA was unlike anything else on the US market. A few months after they were introduced, I drove one for a day while my MZ3 was in for service.
I was very impressed with the handling, design and the interior design/layout. But the lack of power was it’s Achilles’ heel. I couldn’t believe that it had the same 2.3L under the hood as my Mazda3 s! The added weight of the Mazda5 plus the automatic transmission do NOT “Zoom Zoom” make!
Advice to Mazda- you can’t get the new 2.5L from the Mazda6 under the hood fast enough!
My best friend’s mom recently bought a Kia Rondo LX V6. I’m very impressed with the quality of materials, ride/handling and the V6 is buttery smooth. I wasn’t expecting much in terms of performance- I’m pretty sure it has the least hp of any V6 available here….but it’s more than enough for the Rondo. I’ve driven it quite a bit and can’t find anything to dislike. It’s the perfect car for a young family or anyone who needs room for a few passengers.
Nice to hear from you again, Frank.
Here is the question…and answer, WHY buy any of these over the full(er) sized Caravan?
The Caravan has the power, size and mpg.
Facts:
09 Caravan 4.0 EPA 17/25/20 overall
09 Mazda5 2.3 21/27/23 overall
09 Kia Rondo 2.4 20/27/22 overall
2.7 18/26/21
I sure as hell wouldn’t get these for a gain of 2 mpg.
Not even close.
With three kids, I need one of these, but neither quite fits the bill.
No second-row bench in the Mazda. So I’d have to choose between my family and my luggage on trips–or get a rooftop carrier.
No manual transmission in the Kia. And Lynn Hunt repeatedly rejected my request for a sport version while he was still running the show at Kia USA–said the market wouldn’t be large enough.
The solution: Ford’s European S-Max. Except that it would cost too much here.
On the reliability front, TrueDelta’s surveys reported a moderately high problem rate with the 2006 Mazda5 when it was new. Reliability has since improved to average, maybe a bit better. And the 2007, based on a small sample size, appears to be better than average. The 2007 Kia appears to be similar to the first-year Mazda, about average, maybe a bit better.
Insufficient data for the 2008s of both–they don’t seem to be strong sellers. Instead, everyone’s buying CUVs…
The full set of results:
http://www.truedelta.com/latest_results.php
Juniper +1
Sliding doors make the minivan. With kids getting in and out all the time the sliders mean they can open the doors themselves without risk to other cars, dogs, my car, etc. My wife drove an R class MB on vacation and agreed with the (non) buyers that it is a complete joke for a three row vehicle.
While our Odyssey seems so large at times, a daily carpool with five and even six kids and weekend runs with gear, 3 kids, 2 dogs proves its worth.
It would be interesting to see how the Dodge Journey compares…isn’t it in sort of the same class, more or less?
In Canada, you can get the top of the line Mazda5 (we call that the “GT” model) with leather and a 5 speed instead of the slushbox. That pretty much sealed the deal for me as it is a great tranny and doesn’t make me feel so bad for having to drive a minivan (I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that it’s anything but that). Plus it makes it feel faster then it is. Not sure why in the US the manual only comes with the base model. If the Kia had a manual transmission option, I would consider it, especially if they mated it to the V6, but otherwise, no way.
That is also why I would never drive anything like a Caravan or Odyssey. Granted, I’m sure there are only a small number of enthusiasts that would demand a manual transmission in their minivan or SUV, but I’ve always found it strange how there are so few offerings in either of these categories in N. America.
@ Juniper: I’m sure your friends in Switzerland can by the Caravan… at least the previous SWB version was sold in Europe. With a CRD no less.
@ Micheal: Don’t the rear seats fold independently? Or would that not give enough cargo room. I have just one kid and we pack the cargo area in the Mazda3 wagon pretty tight (3 person weekend trip with pack n’ play and stroller). Camping uses up the rear seat a bit.
In fact each of these vehicles would make great camping vehicles…even if you towed a small pop-up, you can still fit an air mattress inside for 2.
One final comment on the MZ5. That green LCD screen is terrible, why not the amber from all the other Mazdas (save the Ford-clones). Out of curiousity, what color is the illumination of the gauges and switches?
I haven’t been able to concretely determine which Hyundai platform underpins the Rondo yet, but I know the Elantra “Touring” version that is coming has the same wheel base. The kicker is the engine choices are the same as the old Sonota (not the current generation).
Kia would do well to ditch the 2.7 and go with the 3.2 in the Sonata for the EX.
Incidentally, there’s only a 1 mpg penalty in the city for the six. The highway rating is the same for both, so I don’t see why anyone would want the four unless they were really pinching pennies at purchase time.
There’s a few reasons: the four (at least in my opinion) is a smoother engine, gets better mileage in the real world and should be cheaper to maintain (less complexity, wider availability, more modern design). The five-speed would help economy, though I don’t think Hyundai (or Dodge or Mitsubishi) have equipped this engine with a five-speed; Mitsubishi does tie it to a CVT.
And yes, it’s cheaper at purchase time. I’m not exactly going to go racing in a seven-seat family hauler, so the few thousand dollar difference is fine, and more than makes up for the performance hit. And hey, if Europeans can cope with a 2.0L-equipped Rondo, I can certainly accept the 2.4.
It would be interesting to see how the Dodge Journey compares…isn’t it in sort of the same class, more or less?
It’s much longer and, despite that, more cramped inside. Check the floor height of the Journey (or any crossover) and it’ll be apparent how stupid crossovers-as-minivans really are.
Nice Review Frank.
In the various long term tests, the real world Kia Rondo MPG numbers have been about the same as full-size minivans. The Mazda 5 does a couple MPG better but at the cost of elbow room etc. Kudos to Mazda for offering a 5-speed stick. Hopefully the Mazda5 will be getting the 170+ horsepower 2.5 liter engine that the Mazda6 and Ford Fusion get in 2009.
The Dodge Journey seems to share the same problems that these vehicles have, the third row seat is not completely usable. The Journey with the 3.5 liter V6 and 4wd actually has worse gas mileage than the T&C + no sliding doors.
Thanks to deep discounts and rebates, you can actually get a fairly well equipped Dodge or Chrysler minivan for mid-20s, $6-7 k off sticker.
The Rondo is not a bad deal. For the money, it is hard to beat. You can get a base model with all basic power features and cruise for around 14K after rebates. Cheaper than a Yaris right now.
drzombie
US marketing is still stuck very much in the “manual tranny is low-rent” for most cars, the only exceptions being expensive sports/sporty cars. I understand most options packages, but I will never understand nor accept that an automatic tranny is necessary for luxury packages.
This is a great review! I love the head-to-head, and the mini-MPV segment is one I’m personally very interested in. Up to now, the Mazda5 had a definite place as 1/2 (maybe 1/3) of my dream garage. While I think the sliding door is the best, most useful portal ever devised, I will definitely be giving the Rondo a closer look when it comes time to replace my aging Jeep with something more… paternal. The Mazda definitely gets the style crown, but this Rondo sounds better than expected.
“I sure as hell wouldn’t get these for a gain of 2 mpg.
Not even close.”
Mileage isn’t the only consideration. I want a vehicle that actually fits in my garage (without dominating it) and is easy to park in the city. Both of these vehicles win over a standard minivan or CUV on that count. If I had 3 kids, I’d have considered one of these in a heartbeat. As it is with 2, my ‘08 xB fits perfectly.
For all those who are saying that a minivan would be a better choice, you need to consider….
1) Size – A lot of folks simply don’t want to have a bigger vehicle these days. Not only because of gas pumps. But the very fact that size is no longer a fashionable quality for a lot of consumers. Throw in the younger, more enthusiast oriented and environmentally focused folks (and those who are simply young at heart) and you now have a very substantial market for both these vehicles.
2) Economy – The fellow who mentioned the diesel may be right on the money. But a lot of folks looking at these cars would gladly sacrifice one to two seconds of acceleration for 2 to 3 MPG’s. You rarely will need to go for flat out acceleration in a mini-minivan.
3) Safety – We’re reaching a turning point in the development of vehicles where size does not equate to safety. The very high strength steels in Volvo’s and Honda’s, combined with the development of materials that didn’t even exist a decade ago, is enabling these smaller family haulers to be exceptionally safe.
Honda and Volvo would likely be able to offer these mini-minivans and get sales in the 100,000+ range if they did it well. The opportunity for minivan buyers to cross over to this smaller segment is huge given the changes in tastes in today’s market.
I can easily see a Honda Fit stretched out in both directions and simply blowing these two vehicles away. The powertrain and chassis represents a world of difference vis-a-vis the Mazda/Kia compromise. The Ford S-Max with a more upscale interior, and a far friendlier cost structure, would also likely be very popular as would a Renault Modus sold in the states as a Nissan model.
Of course, all bets are off if the next gen Sienna hybrid offers high 20 mpg’s combined and a competitive price. I think the former will happen. Not the later.
A very useful and funny review!
I drove a Rondo (V6/5 sp auto) as a rental from Milwaukee to Pittsburgh – quite a useful and comfortable ride, surprisingly stable at highway speeds (a quick lane change on I 94 to avoid debris did NOT faze it).
But: The center console definitely “caressed” my right knee (I’m 6′4″); they should pad those darn corners!
And the V6, if stomped, lets out a noise not unlike a woman with a narrow pelvis giving birth*
The lack of sliding doors does lend it more to “adult people mover” duty.
I’ve not driven the “5″, but I’m sure that poor 2.3 is being asked a bit too much in the larger platform.
It’s a matter of preference, though, both are
the onlysolid choices in their segment…* from “Venus On The Half Shell” by Kilgore Trout (aka Philip Jose Farmer, I believe)
Frank said: “I don’t understand why they don’t put the 5-speed automatic on the 4-cyl. It’s standard with the V-6 so it shouldn’t be that much of a problem (unless the housings are different and would require a retooling to fit the 5-speed on the four).
Incidentally, there’s only a 1 mpg penalty in the city for the six. The highway rating is the same for both, so I don’t see why anyone would want the four unless they were really pinching pennies at purchase time.”
Well, Frank, I can think of one reason to go with the four instead of the V6. My wife had a 2002 Sonata with this 2.7 V6 and it has cam belts, not cam chains. At 70,000 miles we dropped $800 on replacing the belts, then when Hyundai offered us an unpass-up-able deal on a 2007 Sonata, we traded the ‘02 in at 73,000 miles. The four banger actually has two things going for it; it has cam chains (no huge expense at 70,000 miles) and it is engineered to last 250,000 miles (I read the SAE type paper before it even came out).
The same four banger is used in the Kia Optima (which has had the 5 speed automatic since 2006.5 intro) and the 2009 Hyundai Sonata (new 5 speed auto), as well as the 2006-2008 Sonata (4 speed auto). Unsure if the 5-cog will fit in the Rondo, but if it will, at a guess, I’d say you’ll see it (or the upcoming 6-cog auto box instead) by 2011.
What kind of real world fuel mileage do this vehicles get?
Thank you.
I can easily see a Honda Fit stretched out in both directions and simply blowing these two vehicles away.
Behold, the Honda Freed
I think a lot of manufacturers are holding back selling their EDM/JDM microvans because they’d eat into the margins of the high-profit crossovers and larger minivans. Honda, for example, would lose a lot of Pilot, CRV and Odyssey sales to the Freed, and there’s no way they could make the kind of money on Freed sales that they do on the Pilot.
It’s the same reason we get don’t get wagons: a automaker cannot justify >$2K+ over the sedan for a wagon, but they sure as hell can do it for a “crossover”. Seriously, would you pay $27K (Canadian, versus $21K for a top-trim Civic) for a Civic wagon with AWD? Because that’s what the CRV is, and that’s what it sells for.
What kind of real world fuel mileage do this vehicles get?
Per Consumer Reports, which I find pretty accurate:
City/Highway/150-trip/Overall vs EPA City/Hwy
Mazda5: 16/31/28/23 vs 21/26
Rondo V6: 14/29/25/21 vs 20/27
Caravan 3.8: 11/26/20/16 vs 16/23
Sienna FWD: 13/28/24/19 vs 19/26
Overall, real-world, these two cream their full-size competition in MPG–especially in city mileage, where the big vans are atrociously bad. The full-size vans weigh a thousand pounds more, there’s no way to escape that.
I’m glad you did a comparo on these 2 as I’ll be shopping in this segment soon.
Why is the short wheelbase version of the Sedona never considered a competitor? I know it’s in the no-man’s land with it’s size (bigger than these 2, smaller than everything else), but price-wise it’s close.
@psarhjinian
Thanks allot for the quick reply.
Great review Frank – a good functional focus for what are utilitarian vehicles.
I looked at a Mazda5 when I was shopping for a Mazda3 and found the two-seat only middle row a deal breaker. Since the third row is so tight, a family with three kids would probably be better served by a wagon with back seat that seats three.
Also, if the real world city mileage of the Ronda and Mazda is 14/16 MPGs then that isn’t much of an advanatage over some larger wagons and CUVs which provide better utility and are better long distance highway cruisers.
Yes I would rather invest $23,000 on a car than putting that money on my 403b or 401k retirement plan in a unpredictable stock market or money market.
What’s next retirement plan down the drain too!!!
God help the American people and I am predicting a full blown recession by the end of this year. I hope not another great depression.
Last year, I drove a rental (w/about 22k miles) Grand Caravan from Pittsburgh to Milwaukee and back. The 3.3L V6 auto got 20MPG at a 70mph average speed (verified by calculation).
I was astounded that it got 6 MPG less than a Grand Marquis V8 RWD That I had rented previously for the same trip.
Glad to see that the 3.8 does better — that would be my choice.
Also, if the real world city mileage of the Ronda and Mazda is 14/16 MPGs then that isn’t much of an advanatage over some larger wagons and CUVs
Yes, it is. People don’t think about MPG in the right terms; they think “Well, it’s only 1-2 MPG better”, which, especially below 20MPG, is grossly incorrect. MPG “distorts” the real-world mileage and gives a psychological advantage to gas-guzzlers.
Let’s convert those figures to gallons per 100 miles travelled:
14mpg = 7.14 g/100mi (Mazda)
16mpg = 6.25 g/100mi (Kia)
11mpg = 9.09 g/100mi (Dodge)
13mpg = 7.69 g/100mi (Toyota)
For reference
25mpg = 4.0 g/100mi
35mpg = 2.8 g/100mi
45mpg = 2.2 g/100mi
See the difference, as well as the distortion that MPG creates? For every 100 miles you travel, the Mazda uses three fewer gallons than the Caravan. That’s a lot.
Psarhjinian
Using Your numbers, comparing the Rondo V6 to the Sienna (which has a honey of a V6), the Rondo is 1 MPG better city, highway and 150 mile trip, and 2 mpg overall.
It makes it clear that Kia has a long way to go before it can move metal as efficiently as Toyota. When you figure the Toyota’s lower depreciation, it’s probably actually cheaper to buy (or lease) the Sienna.