My point, however, is that SUVs are sold under the tacit myth that they are fine without snow tires. THey aren’t. And yet most consumers pay a fortune in extra retail price and gasoline because they think they are getting a capable vehicle without modifications. When a more practical and efficient sedan or minivan with snow tires would be a far better all around and more sensible, albeit less ego-boosting alternative.

In these days of looming Peak Oil, is it responsible to drive vehicles soley for their ego-boosting “image?” Those transfer cases and front differentials burn up a lot of gasoline considering that the vast majority of them are rarely, if ever used.

Capability, I guess is a term of art. In the circles I run in, a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon is often derided as a barely marginal Store-bought-Barbie jeep. It is embarassing when I took mine out with some really skillful Jeepers with fine-tuned elderly CJ5s. They were in two-wheel drive most of the way, I got stuck three times with both lockers locked in. To even come close to acceptable in this crowd, a stock Rubie needs about $2,000 or so in modifications.

The truth is, these modern SUVS, because of liability concerns, are firmly biased towards on-road safety, rather than off-road capability, including the Rubicon.

I have to disagree with at least part of that statement. IMO, The current Santa Fe is pretty distinctive, and the Sonata slam-dunked the last gen Accord in the looks department.

But what IS up with their shitty gas mileage?

I gravely doubt the Sorento could go anywhere a Ford Ranger or F-150 two-wheel drive pickup with limited slip rearend couldn’t go. Folks, this is not a SUV that real offroaders would take seriously. It might do okay on a well-graded dirt road or in a slight skiff of snow, but so would a Toyota Prius with appropriate snowtires and a good driver.

A real SUV as opposed to a car based CUV with no low gear transfer case and front differential.

The Sorento benefits from a much shorter wheelbase than either your Ranger or F-150 so it really does have a climbing advantage (break over angle), in addition to traction and gearing. Its narrow width means it fits places the larger trucks can’t. Besides, it’s easier to park. That said, if I had to choose, I’d take the F-150, too (for a host of other reasons).

I can’t argue with your points regarding the need for appropriate tires for snow or off-roading, but you can put good snow tires on the Sorento as well in which case the 4WD would give it the upper hand over said Prius.

Good drivers are, of course, indispensable for any vehicle be it Miata, Saab or Sorento. But that is a separate discussion.

Since this webpage styles itself the “Truth about Cars,” how about commissioning some tests that show the real-world snow capabilities of some cute utes versus any of the decent front-wheel drive minivans or four-door economy cars and equip the latter two with some decent snowtires. Some Blizzaks or some Ice Pilots, or even a reasonable pair of studded snow tires.

Since I live less than 200 miles from the Canadian border in the true Snow-Belt, it is often very shocking to me just how BAD most SUVs are at fulfilling their stated, but demonstrably fraudulent justification.

Many a time, when I drove an older Saab 900 shod with good Ice Pilots or Blizzaks, it amazed me the looks of terror and white knuckle fear that SUV drivers would exhibit on mere unplowed snow after the night’s slight 4″ snowfall. SUV’s plus the standard factory all-season radials are a wallowing recipe for disaster in such conditions.

The Saab by contrast, was utterly glue-sticky miraculous. You could drive normal highway speeds and not just feel, but be in absolute serene control. The SUVS were sliding all over the road by contrast. It was obvious to me that most people bought and buy them under clearly fraudulent pretexts.

Last winter, I took the experiment even further and drove from November to April with a first-generation Mazda Miata equipped with some half-worn studded snow tires. My Miata lacks even the optional Limited slip rear diff.

Now a Miata is nobody’s idea – too light, RWD, too close to the ground – of a great snow car. Yet, I never had a single problem in inches of new snow, on glare ice, in snow drifts or staying in complete control.

For the mere price of the best snow tires, any generic minivan or front-drive sedan can surpass an SUV in almost any normal winter conditions, get far better gas mileage, and be far more fun and safer to drive the rest of the year (I just looked under the visor of a new Honda Civic. It lacks the standard SUV screaming “ROLLOVER DANGER” warning).

If the Truth is that most purveyors of SUVs make their living on a series of easily disprovabke brazen lies about the so-called capabilities of their vehicles, then I think this webpage owes the world the proof.

I gravely doubt the Sorento could go anywhere a Ford Ranger or F-150 two-wheel drive pickup with limited slip rearend couldn’t go. Folks, this is not a SUV that real offroaders would take seriously. It might do okay on a well-graded dirt road or in a slight skiff of snow, but so would a Toyota Prius with appropriate snowtires and a good driver.

$30,000 is solidly Jeep Rubicon territory, which would truly run circles around this pathetic gelding offoad. There is a vast yawning gulf between the self-deceitful “image” that would seduce someone into buying a Sorento versus its actual pathetic capabilities.

If you find the Jeep Liberty’s suspension too harsh for your daily commuting needs, then you probably have no business owning a SUV to begin with.

And even with that in mind, the Sorento still only gets 15/21 mpg? The fact that people still buy vehicles like this to cruise the mall is increasingly an obvious clear and present danger to the health and safety of the Republic.

And Bill,since you mentioned it, the Explorer is about the same price (incentives) its 6-speed/V8 loses 2MPG city and 1MPG highway, has a (somewhat) nicer interior, a real 3rd row, and something called a fully independent suspension. That’s bang for your buck.

Of course, mid size SUVs are all a moot point…people flock to CUVs today.

A big yawn for the Kia. Sounds like Lieberman had much more fun beating on the Suzuki SX4 which costs about half of a Sorento.

http://www.travelok.com/atv/ouachita.asp

In the world of High Performance Parts. They make a lot performance parts for the Hyundai http://www.roadracemotorsports.com/store/
The one you called a piece of sh__t car. If this Korean car is worthless those manufacturers will not be making those performance parts for this Korean dog, It’s just a waste of time.

But for those Mid Pro race car drivers looking for a cheap but fast reliable car, the Hyundai is the answer to their budget. I have respect for the Hyundai.

Just like buying a Generic Honda but made in South Korea.

I believe that on the Kia’s. Hyundai is still trying to convert the models over to their platforms now, and I know that some of the drive trains in the Kia’s were Kia drive trains up until a couple of years ago I believe. The quality of some of the current and definitely the older models is lacking.

Hopefully Hyundai can fix that sooner rather than later.

As far as engines and drive trains go, they are starting to fall behind. They need to innovate now instead of sitting on their duffs.

I’m actually a fan of Hyundai. When folks ask me what type of vehicle to buy… and they are looking at the lower end of the midsized market, I usually mention the Sonata (and Fusion). Hyundai is literally trying to dump the vehicle right in order to get sales numbers up, and the quality of that model is very good.

Hyundai has a huge cloud over the horizon though with Toyota’s hybrid system. For about 5k more you can get a comparable vehicle that gets nearly 40 miles to the gallon and Toyota’s 20+ year reputation for quality. In the next few years that price margin will most likely narrow considerably as the hybrid system becomes universal among Toyota’s product line.

Hyundai can offer all the V8’s and features they can fathom but unless they can show that their products are a far better deal than the Toyota offerings, they will have a lot of trouble staying profitable in North America. The fact that their exterior styling ranges from bland to just plain terrible for most of their high volume models isn’t going to help matters either.

I suspect people trade out of the Kia before the 100k mark because of perception and because of how cheap they are…if you do it right you can get them pretty darn cheap, and I’d really be surprised if anyone paid more than 22k for an ex as tested.

Three of the first ten ‘higher’ mileage Hyundais have issues with two of the first three with engine AND transmission problems. Only one vehicle older than 2000 in that entire group has a clean bill of health.

I’m starting to figure out why Hyundai and Kia are having so much trouble converting those Toyota buyers.

As far as the Sorrento goes, I can’t see this vehicle ever breaking 25k on a driveout. The only way they’re going to be able to move this metal is to roll out the proverbial red carpets of $5,000+ discounts and highly liberal levels of financing (which has been a Kia hallmark even after the Hyundai buyout).

Out of all the brands out there, Kia’s tend to be the rarest to be seen at over 150k at the dealer sales. In fact, I looked at all of Carmax’s trade-in’s a few weeks ago (several thousands per week) and not a single location showed a Kia with over 150k.

Just checked again. 25 Kia trade-in’s so far this week. Not a one with over 150k and only 4 with over 100k. On the flip side, Hyundai registers 13 out of 38 100k+ vehicles with a 2002 Sonata registering at 200k. Toyota already has 15 vehicles registered with over 200k and over 70% of their vehicles are at least 100k+. That should tell you something right there.

He’s already looking to get rid of it, too many problems with oil leaks and other bits coming unglued. Keep in mind the Sorento was designed before Kia’s buyout by Hyundai and the subsequent quality improvements.