By on April 14, 2014

sedona6

 

With a 276 horsepower 3.3L V6, Kia’s UVO infotainment system and a trick sliding second row (see gallery), Kia is looking to take on the Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna and TTAC darlings, the Chrysler/Dodge minivans. And, of course, the Nissan Quest.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

158 Comments on “New York 2014: 2015 Kia Sedona Revealed...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Well, I’m liking the two-tone chestnut/black leather, it adds some tastefulness. But:

    -The inside at the back looks like a circa 05 Sienna, and the headrests from an old Merc.

    -The chrome wheels are straight up 2002.

    -The mesh grille looks ghetto, and the chrome egg-crate belongs on a 98 Grand Marquis.

    -Headlamps straight from a Chrysler van.

    -The upper glove box has a huge handle from a 92 Civic, and why does it need to look so prominent? GLOVE BOX UP IN HURR.

    -BD2 will be here shortly to tell us how Hyundai and Kia are preferred by God and Jesus, and how nobody will ever make a better van because H/K win car ultimate infinite time.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Well, it doesn’t look like anything Ford’s making at the moment. So there’s that.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Only because Ford doesn’t make a minivan currently, lol.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Ehh, the Flex is a pseudo-minivan. And there’s the Transit Connect, which is more of a “mini van.”

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I don’t count either of those! Flex is wagon, and the Connect is a commercial-use product which AFAIK is not available with 7 seats.

          • 0 avatar
            jaydez

            The Transit Connect Wagon with the extended wheelbase is a 7 seat minivan.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Ah, but the 2014 Transit Connect Wagon, with the available 120″ wheelbase, is now a 7-seater. I drove one a couple weeks ago now when my C-Max was getting an oil change. I think Ford should have brought the Grand C-Max over instead, but I understand why they didn’t. The Transit Connect Wagon is the cheapest way for them to dip their toes into the minivan market.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Ah, I was thinking previous version, the little one. If you’re talking Connect Wagon, then I agree. They’re very different vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            colin42

            The 7 seat Transit connect wagon is the best advert for the Mazda5. Same engine, worse fuel economy and leaf rear suspension

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            “I think Ford should have brought the Grand C-Max over instead, but I understand why they didn’t.”

            That was the original plan. I remember that at one of the auto shows there was a Grand C-Max on display, and that was the one they were planning on selling here. But I think Americans responded poorly to the sliding doors, so they brought the other version instead. To me, the one we have is more awkwardly-styled than the Grand C-Max (though not as awkward as the Prius V, which reminds me of an anteater).

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          I count the Flex as a minivan. They pretend it isn’t by putting hinged instead of sliding rear doors on it, but Honda showed us with the 1st gen Odyssey that sliding doors are not necessarily pretense for minivanism.

      • 0 avatar
        mars3941

        Ford tried their hand at making a decent minivan but failed miserably. There’s definitely a still decent market for them especially for young growing families. Can’t figure how Ford missed the mark on these.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          The Windbag/Freestar things would have been acceptable attempts if they had been engineered for any kind of longevity.

          • 0 avatar
            gearhead77

            Indeed, engineered at all. Minivans aren’t getting love from their owners in general, but the Ford twins ( Mercury Monterey anyone) seemed to fail/disintegrate/expire faster than anything but GM’s last “snout” vans.

            Or the first gen Sedona…

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            The Ford vans are far worse than the GM snout vans. By the time they got the snout, the GM vans’ powertrains could generally go the distance but still have the odd electrical and chassis foible. The Ford vans still had glass transmissions, major corrosion problems and all the electrical issues to boot.

            It shows up in the resale values with the Ford vans typically fetching the least when compared to GM and especially Chrysler vans of similar content.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            The rear drive Aerostar was nice. I’ll admit it’s the only minivan I ever had, but I thought it did everything it was designed to do and did it well.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Aerostars remained on the road longer than their horrid depreciation ever should have let them.

          • 0 avatar
            gearhead77

            I had an Aerostar. 93 SWB with the 3.0. In the context of the time, it wouldn’t have been terrible. But it would be very truck like compared to a period Mopar van, thanks to Aerostar being Ranger based.

            By the time I had mine in 2004 with only 69k, it wasn’t a bad drive. RWD is always preferable for handling and ride, though the ride was a bit choppy, power was OK, fuel economy OK and the velour Ford interior actually held up well. Transmission did it in, a common issue with these vans.

            Bring back the Aerostar?

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            The reason I’ve owned 4 used Fords is because, at least before One Ford, their financial depreciation happened faster than they were used up.

            My 1998 Ranger was a fantastic value, and the 2002 Escape was dramatically undervalued foir what it was. Even the POS 1989 Tempo I had exceeded my admittedly low expectations by a bit….

            That’s probably why those Aerostars hung around longer than they should have…

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I like it. If I ever have to replace my 09 Sedona, this would be a leading candidate.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      The Sedona was past due for replacement, can’t believe it’s been around (looking the same) from 06-14.

      • 0 avatar
        bigdaddyp

        Even better, as an owner of an 06 Sedona, I like it so far, but that is just a heavy face lift of the current model. If you don’t like the current one, I bet you won’t like this one.

    • 0 avatar
      alsorl

      The new sedona looks like a winner compared to the jap junk that is being sold today. Dodge and Chrysler have the best price. But, will not be built as well as the Kia.

      • 0 avatar
        Kenmore

        “jap junk”

        Well, you’ve certainly removed all doubt.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Don’t get him started on kraut kars

        • 0 avatar
          alsorl

          The Nissan quest interior looks like it’s melting in the Florida sun. Interior bits and molding fall apart. I work with a lot of women that have had Honda Odyssey’s I think everyone of them has had transmission failures and or major valve issues. The Toyoda sienna se is pretty sweet . But way to much $$$$ . The Dodge/Chrysler mini vans seem to hold up well in the Florida heat and humidity. So if your an anti American driving type. This leaves the kia Sedona. Which from the looks of it should put a nice dent in mini van sales.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            ” So if your an anti American driving type.”

            Welcome to 1980

          • 0 avatar
            alsorl

            Or just read through the comments on this site.

          • 0 avatar
            steevkay

            I feel like when it comes to minivans, it’s difficult to pass up the Dodge Caravans. Other vehicles aside, I feel like they’ve always done this one right (my grandfather had a ’98 or 99 model, our family had a ’02). Prices are reasonable, especially with incentives (important if you have a family and their stuff to pay for, which you do, otherwise you probably wouldn’t be minivan shopping), plenty of power, and very practical (most recent model I drove I think was a ’12 Grand Caravan). I wasn’t enthused about driving it, but it’s what a family needs. When my family had the ’02 Caravan, it had no issues during our time with it.

            Never could get over why other minivans were so absurdly expensive (reliability isn’t an argument for me, based on my experience) when something else that does the exact same job can be had for so much less.

            For those concerned with badges/looks, I’m pretty sure that’s why crossovers exist.

          • 0 avatar
            Luke42

            My Toyotas have been really good daily-grind cars.

            My used Fords have been good values, though not as reliable as the Toyotas.

            My Volkswagen was $#!t. $#!t that I liked, but $#!t nonetheless.

            Does that make me anti-American car? Or maybe I just like cars, and choose the right tool for the job?

            P.S. I bet you can’t guess which cars I’ve owned were made in which countries!

  • avatar
    Sammy B

    The folding/sliding middle row is good when there’s no center pass through (like when the center row 8th seat is mounted).

    Center console up front is an interesting idea. Everything on the market now has that big open area to help with storage and such. I wonder how different this will be. For us, that space between is perfect for my wife’s purse or small diaper bag. Not only stays within arm’s reach, but it’s not crowding the passenger footwell.

    Either way, solid effort. Some things to differentiate from the established players. I’ve said it before, but I really think this thing is going to wipe out the Nissan Quest. Any shopper looking for something different than Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota would find themselves at Nissan. Now, it’s likely at Kia. Other than desire to remain “full line” company in the US, I can’t imagine the Quest does a lot for Nissan.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      The best Quest was the Mercury Villager Nautica.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        The Quest is the only vehicle I can think of that has gotten almost objectively worse with each new model.

      • 0 avatar
        raresleeper

        Don’t forget your Nautica Competition Fleece while driving.

        Ahhh… the 90′s….

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          It’s yellow and blue and I already have it zipped, to just below the button on my polo shirt.

          • 0 avatar
            raresleeper

            I’m sporting mine, also.

            Reflective letters with my fresh-to-death Bowl Style haircut.

            How about The North Face Edition Odyssey?

            Ralph Lauren Sienna?

            Awwww, sh*t….

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I like all of those things!

            I’m thinking there was a North Face or Columbia version Avalanche as well.

            Edit: OH FOR GOD’S SAKE

            http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/24546324.jpg
            http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/15645956.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Is wearing a “Polo” branded polo shirt a fashion faux pas now?

            (typed while wearing my Jason Kidd Nike Zoom Flight95s, Adidas windbreaker zip up pants, and Umbro t-shirt)

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            No, it’s not necessarily a faux pas. Polo more for the older crowd in a “polo” style shirt – younger people would probably go for Lacoste.

            I wasn’t aware they still made Umbro.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Umbro? Adidas?

            Did I stumble into an 80s time warp?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Haha, I don’t have any of those things anymore, but there are pictures to prove that I made bad decisions at some point. The only clothes I have from the late 80s or early 90s are my Detroit Pistons T-shirts. Since a men’s small/medium has not fit me since 5th grade, my wife has claimed ownership of them.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Lacoste?

            Yeah, maybe they could do faux-aligator leather seats

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            @lie2me

            Lol, I was speaking only of clothes at that point.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            I was still reeling from the pics you posted and didn’t realize the conversation had changed from by-gone auto fashion to by-gone men’s fashion. I still like the idea faux-aligator leather seats or perhaps a collaboration with the House of Member’s Only

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Yes! A Members Only CTS with snap-on grey/blue landau.

            Lol the North Face Avalanche is just ghastly.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Wow that is the angriest minivan I’ve ever seen. Maybe it will be butch enough for most CUV/SUV buyers.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Remember the Chevy Uplander and its platform mates? “Butch” doesn’t seem to sell in the minivan market.

      • 0 avatar
        gearhead77

        Yeah, but they were “butch” by bean-counter. This was designed to be a reverse mullet vehicle. Sorrento party up front, minivan business box in the back.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        I was thinking the same thing. GM tried the SUV look on the minivan and it didn’t really work out. So far the most aggressive looking minivan that the market will tolerate seems to be the Grand Caravan R/T.

        That being said, this Kia doesn’t look awful, but dramatic styling on minivans typically doesn’t fly. If they wanted to give it some more machismo, they could have called it the Cydonia. Men are supposed to be from Mars, right?

      • 0 avatar

        Could be that minivan drivers are not into SUVs. That’d be my case. FWIW, this looks much better than the current version.

        • 0 avatar
          gearhead77

          +1. Just not an SUV person for many reasons. But there’s no value to a SUV or CUV for me personally. The packaging of a minivan makes much more sense and cents for fatherly duties that don’t include off roading.

          Unless you’re talking SRT or Rover Sport. But I don’t have the money for those and neither do most folks.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          You hit it on the head. More than anything a Minivan is for hauling….people! That’s right a minivan on a fairly regular basis hauls probably 4-7 people (usually small/er children). An SUV is probably hauling 1-3 adults or near adults on a regular basis. That and getting into a comparably sized SUV that has the carrying capacity is another 10-15K for less options and lower MPG.

          Basically the demographics have shifted. The upper-middle class family of 1984 had 2-5 kids and with station wagons being phased out the Minivan was the obvious choice. Fast forward 30 years and that upper-middle class family has 1-2 kids (Or none at all) and owns 2-3 cars so a minivan just isn’t a requirement.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        The GM U-Body minivans had bigger issues beyond quasi-SUV styling.

        I speak from experience on this one.

        Self-destructing head gaskets due to Dexcool eating the 3.4L under the hood – check.

        Heck the 3.8L being dropped for the less powerful 3.4L and then replaced with the coarse, at least more reliable 3.5L. GM should have just made the 3.9L standard.

        Power doors designed by Satan – check.

        Electrical system also designed by the British Satan – check.

        The traction control and ABS system designed by Rube-Goldberg Satan – check.

        A rolling death trap on wheels until the Gen II revision in 2005. Check – got to keep Satan happy with fresh souls

        Being homely was the least of the problems.

        The dust buster version seem to have a cult following.

        I was partial to the 96 – 04 Trans Sport / Montana design which was still minivan but at least somewhat wrapped in an attempt to be attractive on the outside.

        The quasi-Suburban looking 2005 – 2008 models – meh.

        Only redeeming quality – they are dirt cheap used.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          “GM should have just made the 3.9L standard.”

          They did just that on their full line of minivans for the 2007 model year I believe. I drove a shorty fleet special Uplander with that engine once and it moved pretty good.

          • 0 avatar
            gearhead77

            I drove a late model Uplander once. Late build, 85k on it. 3.9 went really well, made all kinds of awful noises doing it. Felt fairly solid, but terrible dynamics. Drove bigger than it was and typical awful GM plastics inside.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Most minivans have no resale, perhaps U-body is the steal of the lot but then you know why.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            Agreed. The Honda and Toyota have their Odyssienna tax attached but the rest of the herd – not so much.

            I wouldn’t say it would be a bad purchase to find a stripper Gen II U-Body with the 3.9L under the hood, FWD only, with no power doors, no air suspension and without Stabilitrak (standard TC/ABS only). But the price would have to be very right.

        • 0 avatar
          anti121hero

          Lol!

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        That Terraza was suuuuuch crap. Poor mileage, poor wallowy handling, poor MPG, poor interior.

        • 0 avatar
          PrincipalDan

          GM got so desperate to move Terrazas that our local Magistrate Court has one as a paddy wagon hauling prisoners back and forth to court. It always makes me chuckle to see it parked in front of the court with the seal painted on the doors, windows blacked out, and the faint outline of the cage between the two front seats and the rear.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        They weren’t “butch”….they had a long nose with a flat stuck onto the old body with GM saying they’re “Crossover Sport Vans”…..wonder how much GM saved by phoning in the styling on those.

    • 0 avatar
      EquipmentJunkie

      I agree…and I like it. The overall design looks better to my eyes than the Sierra and Odyssey.

  • avatar
    gearhead77

    Looks like a mash-up of all the current players. Not digging the grill or chrome wheels, but the overall styling is pleasing. Interior looks very car like, with the center console, not an opening. Continues the Audi-lite look in the current Kias, which is not an accident nor badly done.

    No threat to our forthcoming T&C lease, but maybe when the lease is up, might be a player. We’ll see how the new FCA vans come out in their overdue complete redo.

  • avatar
    raresleeper

    Look at Kia! All grown up, takin shots at The Big Boys.

    It’s gonna come down to price point here.

    Keep it competitive, Kia…

    I’m torn between the Sienna AWD and Odyssey, personally.

    Stow and Go is great, but I’m not drinkin what Sergio’s pouring up.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Two of my daughters-in-law drive the minivans you are interested in; one a 2013 Odyssey, the other a 2012 AWD Sienna, and they each LOVE their mom-mobiles.

      The only way that I can see Kia undercutting the big boys is by offering their minivan full-pop at a price significantly lower than that of a Sienna or Odyssey. But that should be easy to do.

      I figure the sweet spot for a full-pop Kia Sedona to be around $25K, without NAV, or high-end entertainment system. By full-pop I mean Automatic, PW/PDL, AC, Cruise Control, and enough airbags to go around for all occupants it can carry. A backup camera can also be a dealer-installed option.

      • 0 avatar
        raresleeper

        25K makes it attractive.

      • 0 avatar
        jpcavanaugh

        Uh – your definition of “full pop” describes my strippo base 2012 Sedona, which stickered for about $24K and which I bought for about $19k after rebates/dealing. Except that you forgot the bluetooth, satellite radio, rear air and dual power mirrors.

        The sticker on a well-equipped Honda or Toyota minivan cracks $40K these days, so a Sedona with leather, power doors/hatch, sunroof, full infotainment and all of the rest of the toys like heated seats could probably sell very nicely if it stickered for around $32-33K.

        I like the look of this new one quite a bit. The interior looks to be upgraded substantially, which is a must if this thing expects to sell on anything other than price. The powertrain on my 2012 is really sweet, so an upgraded (and slightly larger) cabin should help a lot.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          jpcavanaugh, I suppose I should have been more descriptive of what my definition of full-pop is vs the different levels of ‘trim’.

          Full-pop to me means standard equipment, like a Camry LE vs an Accord LX, where the Camry has more equipment standard than the Accord does, or did, at one time.

          Accord used to include amenities like Cruise Control only on the upper trim levels. I was more thinking in terms of my buddy’s 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo which is full-pop with ALL the amenities, including power driver seat, traction control, satellite radio, and on and on, but still has the basic cloth interior, and none of the extra trim additions of the Limited, the Overland, or the Overland Summit, nor the engine options of the Limited and the SRT8.

          IOW, full-pop to me means all the bells and whistles for functionality, without going to a higher level of trim with leather, sunroof, electric liftgate, DVD system, NAV, etc. Much of that COULD be dealer add-ons.

          If what I consider full-pop is considered a “stripper” in this day and age, I can live without the higher trim levels because leather does not hold up well in the desert heat and sun, and sunroofs are a definite no-no. NAV systems are not as good as a Garmin you can tuck in your pocket, and a backup camera doesn’t show you what’s going on along the sides of your car as you are backing up.

          We’ve got one on our Overland Summit. Never used it! Prefer to use the mirrors and look over our shoulders to get the bigger picture.

          Oh, and one more thing: an Apple iPad Air with 3G or 4G capability, or other tablet is preferable to a system built into the vehicle, because you can take the iPad/tablet with you even after you leave the vehicle. And they cost a whole lot less than the systems built into the cars these days.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Base model vs base model (or lightly optioned)

      Sienna

      Loaded up versions

      Odyssey

      The Sienna gets awful expensive awful fast when checking off the option boxes.

      • 0 avatar
        raresleeper

        Fortunately, they’ve dropped the 2.4L Sienna (still making those puppies for the fleets, IIRC).

        But I wouldn’t have a Sienna- PERIOD- unless it was AWD equipped :)

        Or you could save several thousand dollars and just buy an All-Trac Previa… but good luck finding one of those.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Looks like that second row combines the disadvantages of Stow ‘n’ Go (thin, uncomfortable seats) and old-style second rows (bulky objects in your cargo space that have to be stored if you want to use the space).

    • 0 avatar
      bigdaddyp

      Those seats shapes look basically like the ones in my 06 Sedona, which would be quite a bit taller, and more comfortable than the stow and go. Not saying mine have the ottoman style foot rest, but I’d have to say way more comfortable (for larger humanoids) than those convienant, but uncomfortable stow and go’s.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    Nailed it. Outstanding redesign. A minivan I would drive over any pouser crossover.

  • avatar
    Russycle

    Looks like a Caravan/Oddysey mashup, not necessarily in a bad way. Yay for dual glove boxes, hate to see that real estate go to waste.

  • avatar
    BunkerMan

    My 2002 Mazda MPV had sliding captains chairs in the middle row. This isn’t a new feature.

    • 0 avatar
      rudiger

      To this day, the 2002-06 Mazda MPV was just about the perfect minivan. It was large enough to carry most cargo (human and otherwise), but still small enough to drive like a car. It was actually quite close in size to the original 1984 Chrysler minivan, but with all the useful modern features, and none of the extraneous, unnecessary stuff. As an added bonus, they were pretty reliable, too.

      About the only thing that could have been improved was fuel mileage, but it was no worse than anything else. I was sorry to see the MPV replaced by the Mazda5. But, then, MPV sales were never that great, either.

      • 0 avatar

        The real problem with the MPV is rust. They are really rare these days in Buffalo which is a shame, they are really solid mechanically, but they just dissolve into nothingness in the saltier climates.

        I loved the Mazda MPV we owned in Japan but with the 2.3 liter four it would have been outgunned on the highway back stateside. If they had imported the new MPV when they introduced it in Japan I’d be driving one today – I test drove them over there and fell in love and we would have bought one brand new as soon as we got stateside instead of the Torrent I eventually selected because it was “big enough” until we had a third child.

        Even though I love the T&C we bought last year, you can expect a new update either this week or next, I still take the time to twist the knife in Mazda USA for failing to bring the MPV here…

        • 0 avatar
          rudiger

          The only other problem with them was the first 2000-2001 versions were underpowered with the 2.5L V6 and 4-speed auto, but that was fixed in 2002 with the larger 3.0L V6 and 5-speed auto which made them ‘just right’.

          Shame about the rust issues, though. They were really right-sized vehicles which drove and rode much more like a car than a full-sized van.

  • avatar
    nguyenvuminh

    I much prefer a smaller minivan, the size of a Mazda5 or the Ford Grand-C Max in Europe. Still 3 rows of seat, definitely sliding door, even a pass through aisle in the second row that can turn into the middle seat, but smaller exterior dimensions. These gaz guzzlers, whether “minivan” or CUV or SUV just don’t do anything for me. But then, that’s just me.

    • 0 avatar
      bryanska

      I really, really wanted the CMax 3-row. What we ALL want is a Mazdaspeed5. Even more enthusiasts are ripping out their hair for a MazdaSpeed5 than for a brown diesel wagon. Mazda usually complies with batshit special editions but WHERE’S MY MAZDASPEED 5?

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    the center console shifter is a huge mistake.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      How so?

      • 0 avatar
        johnhowington

        kids

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Again, how so? I’m not calling you out on your observations, I’m just asking you to elaborate. You’re not getting penalized for using more words.

          • 0 avatar
            jerm

            I’ll use more words. He’s right.

            Imagine this situation: Cruising down highway in the foul weather of your choice. Kid in rear rear pukes / craps his pants / wakes up and screams bloody murder for a bottle. Wife needs to get back there RIGHT NOW. With an open pass-through it is easy, without one you have to pull over and deal with the elements and assorted roadside hazards. Yes, walking around inside a vehicle unbelted is dangerous too. Every parent does it though, and it’s more dangerous when you have to climb over a shifter. Being able to just walk back there is a HUGE bonus and the reason we are in a minivan and not an SUV. Even without the kids, as skiers and climbers we use the back of the van as a mobile lodge to suit up and sometimes sleep. Having that easy access between front and back is key. So, dropping this feature is a huge mistake, it effectively eliminates this otherwise decent looking van from our list.

    • 0 avatar
      Truckducken

      +1
      While some might worry about the shifter getting beaned by a sippy cup, in my van it’d get bumped by 10′ 2×6′s and the like. That’s actually valuable real estate they are wasting.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Depends – some people don’t want to lose the space/practicality while others just abhor the aesthetics of a column or center stack mounted shifter.

  • avatar
    Car Ramrod

    I like it for the center console that connects to the dash.

    My wife’s Odyssey is usually so full of crap rolling around on the floor of the passenger foot well that I’d consider thefull center console a safety feature.

    • 0 avatar

      Would agree with you if that center console doesn’t eat up too much space. I many cars today, the center console snugs up uncomfortably against the driver’s right leg, knee and thigh. Of course would have to sit in one to see, but for the most part I really don’t see the pointing of consoles butting up into the dashboard.

      • 0 avatar
        Car Ramrod

        I know what you mean about unconfortable snugness, as I am 6’4″. At my height a center console shifter is always preferable to a column shifter– in out 1st gen Pilot, I’m sure I would have broken my right knee on the shifter in any major collison. Still like console shifters best though.

        As weird as they look, the chicken leg dash shifters that most of the new minivans have are probably the best use of space. I think the Quest gets credit for doing that first.

  • avatar
    bryanska

    Makes me kinda want the BMW 2-series Active Tourer. It’s like a minivan without the bulky third row, and damn is it nice inside.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    Aside from the chrome rims, I think this car looks pretty well done. I would dare say that it is attractive…..among minivans. My wife currently drives an Odyssey, though she is not really brand loyal, she typically will fall in line with what I recommend. However, I know that she would protest if I told her she was getting a Kia. I know its 2014, but Kia still has a ways to go with image unfortunately…at least in my household. We definitely arent brand snobs either.

    • 0 avatar
      Car Ramrod

      My wife would balk at a Kia as well. For the same reason, the Buick Enclave never made her shopping list.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @ thegamper: Yes, you and your wife are brand snobs, if you’re concerned about Kia’s image. You’ve said so yourself.

      1 in 30 vehicles sold in the US last year wore a Kia badge (535k). My one Honda – an Odyssey – was a lemon. So much for trusting a brand.

      • 0 avatar
        gearhead77

        @SCE to AUX: Kia might be growing and there is no doubt their vehicles keep improving. But gamper and ramrod aren’t the only ones wary of putting a Kia in their driveway and you can’t fault them for it due to just snobbery. Kia put out subpar products for a long time, as did Hyundai. The brand still has a long way to go to generate the trust required for Honda sales levels, if they get that far. Not saying they couldn’t, but I just don’t think there’s enough room left in the US market.

        As for the lemon argument, everyone builds lemons. Everyone. Car makers, appliance makers,etc.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Kia’s vehicles are alright. It’s just too bad that (around here anyway) their dealer advertising hasn’t caught up yet.

          IF YOU MAKE AT LEAST $299 A WEEK THEN YOU’RE APPROVED!!! $89 DOWN DELIVERS!!! WE WILL PAY OFF YOUR TRADE!!!

        • 0 avatar
          Car Ramrod

          My wife is undoubtedly a brand snob. It’s not becuase of a bad experience–her parents have had 3 Hyundais: an ’01 Santa Fe, an ’06 Sonata, and an ’11 Tuscon. While the Santa Fe looked and drove lke absolute garbage, it was reliable for 9 years and did not rust out in the Maine winters. The other two have been good cars.

          The same snobbery lead her to not want a ‘Buick’ anything, including the Enclave, although she liked the Acadia until we rented one and experienced the horrific interior fit and finish.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          @gearhead77: I’m well aware that everyone builds lemons. I also know that Honda builds good cars, but I got a bad one. But most of us aren’t willing to try a brand a second time which has burned us.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        “Yes, you and your wife are brand snobs, if you’re concerned about Kia’s image. You’ve said so yourself.”

        It depends on why they are reluctant to purchase Kia vehicles. If it’s because they think of its products as “off-brand” or “second-rate”, then yes, they are badge-snobs. If, however, it’s because Kia did have a long string of subpar vehicles before getting its act together, then they aren’t. I happen to be a brand-snob insofar as the fact that I will not drive a Mitsubishi or Suzuki. I would prefer to stay away from orphaned brands, too (e.g I might purchase a pre-owned Traverse, Acadia or Enclave, but I’d skip the Outlook).

      • 0 avatar
        thegamper

        Maybe you are right SCE. I do believe Kia would be rejected as it is viewed as subpar/cheap product for the poors. I know that is not true, but not that long ago it had some basis in truth and its an image that Kia needs to continue to work to shed. I suppose what I meant by not being brand snobs is that I generally have no issues buying mass market volume brands as opposed to supposed luxury brands. My last few cars have been all Mazda, Honda, Ford, Nissan. Not exactly brands that one brags to their “friends” about owning.

    • 0 avatar
      VenomV12

      Umm, you just contradicted yourself. By definition you and your wife are brand snobs. lol Hyundai/KIA have the looks, reliability, quality and features, so literally the only reason to not buy one or consider one is brand snobbery.

  • avatar
    GiddyHitch

    Well, that happened.

    Trick sliding second row doesn’t work with child seats strapped in. No sale.

    • 0 avatar
      gearhead77

      Not much different than Chrysler’s Stow and Go, can’t do that with the seats in place. But at least the Chrysler’s disappear, these are still there and in the way. Not the best for hauling large things, where those extra inches might be the difference between hatch closed or open.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I do think it’s a very attractive looking package for a mini van.

    The engine choice of only a gasoline 3.3 V6 is limited. I would like to see the 2.2 diesel version offered. This engine would work much better when the van is loaded with the kids, parents and of the support equipment for a day visit to the museum and zoo.

    • 0 avatar
      johnhowington

      europe has been blessed with diesel sedona(carnivals) for some time.

      • 0 avatar
        Spartan

        They have diesel Carnivals (Sedonas) in the Korean market as well. There’s all kinds of good stuff here in Korea that we don’t see stateside, particularly the top trim model Grandeur (Azera) that’s a lot better than the USDM model.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    The only issue I see is getting into that third row if you’re any bigger than a child. Of course that’s a rare occurrence but stow and go is a practical answer to dealing with that and getting larger people and big packages out without going through the tailgate (for the packages). I wonder how it will fair in the conversion market though. That’s not going to be the primary field but it makes up a nice bit of fleet sales and if it plays well with motorized vehicles. It seems like a nice selection overall.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Why are the Chrysler minivans “TTAC darlings?” Has no one here owned one out of warranty? Or even owned one? Is all relevant experience with them at the rental counter?

  • avatar

    Looks good on the outside, maybe even great, but the inside doesn’t stack up compared to my T&C. I’m not sure I’d want to spend years and years looking at something that already looks dated. No stow-and-go is also a big minus in my book, I hate the way these seats fold forward.

    The vehicles in the photos look great and would definitely draw me into the showroom. If the base models look this good they’ll have a fighting chance, but if they do what Nissan has done with their Quest, make a van that looks great with all the options but unreasonably plain in the base models, they’ll turn people off.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Thomas Kreutzer
      Here in Australia, Kia/Hyundai are like the US vehicles, they seem to be cheap and blinged quite well so they can sell.

      The FE with the 3.3 fully loaded might be a downside. I had a V6 2004 Kia Sorento that was horrendous on fuel, especially when driving at speed or loaded.

      The 2.2 diesel we have here is around 190hp and 320ftlb or torque and in this vehicle would be pushing over 35mpg on the highway.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        A diesel minivan would be nice, but it simply won’t happen in the US.

        My 09 Sedona has gotten 22-24 mpg fully loaded (7 people) if obeying the speed limit (55-60 mph), but honestly it only got 12 mpg with the same people but towing 1800 lbs of trailer at much higher speeds (65-75 mph). That’s just the nature of gas engines under increased load.

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        Except the new Kia models are little like the not-so-good previous generation models.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        Our 2003 3.5-liter V6 Sorento (with 4WD) did excellently as far as fuel-economy went…better than the 2005 Nissan Murano (also 3.5-liter V6) that eventually replaced it.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @Kyree S. Williams
          My FE was returning 16-19 litre per 100km between 130-150kph. Using a calculator that’s around 12-15mpg US at 85-95mph.

          If I drove sedately 65-70mph I was getting 20mpg. They did weigh about 2 100kg or 4 600lbs.

          It was a very good vehicle other than the high FE. It had 4×4 hi-lo, leather and enough bling to keep you very happy.

          • 0 avatar
            Kyree S. Williams

            Ours was probably the same, since it had leather and advanced 4WD as well. That kind of fuel-economy doesn’t surprise me, since the first-generation Sorento *was* a ladder-frame truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Kyree S. Williams
            The Sorento actually received the European 4×4 of the Year Award back in 2004?

            The Sorento chassis is based on a military vehicle built by Kia.

            Kia at the time was the world’s 3rd largest manufacturer of military vehicles.

            The V6 is actually based on a Mitsubishi engine that was used in our NJ Pajero’s.

            The engine was sourced through Hyundai, which was essentially part of the Chrysler/Mistubishi clan. This was also during the period when Hyundai took over Kia.

            Mine had the 4 speed auto as the 5spd Triptronic came out in 2004 as well. I got a really good price on it. $35k, when they were going out for $40k at the time.

            If I remember they were around $30k in the US at the time. They were built in Malaysia by Naza with a 2.4 litre Mitsubishi engine. I don’t know if Naza.

            We also had a 2.7 litre CRD diesel variant as well.

            When I looked at the Sorento in 2004, I knew then that the Koreans were going to really become a challenge for other global manufacturers. It’s quality was the best Korean built vehicle at the time.

            It was the vehicle that showed that Korea can build a quality car.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      I bought my 09 Sedona BECAUSE it was plain. I don’t want the bling – sunroofs, TV screens, big wheels, captain’s chairs, etc. Consequently, as a 1-yr-old used rental, I paid only $17k rather than the $40k many people pay for a new Sienna or Mopar. Steel wheels tow as well as aluminums.

  • avatar
    anti121hero

    Nissan Quest Take two. I understand the concept of a corporate grill, but in cases of painfully obvious grafting of it onto vehicles it turns out rather horrible, ie this and any lincoln.i long for the days when the model itself had enough recognition to be designed on its own.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    GCs exist and are swell. Why pay 3-5 K more for this? Under 20 K plus Stow & Go; GC wins. I’ve been mooching my kid’s for almost a year now.

    • 0 avatar
      gearhead77

      Remembering what Thomas Kreutzer or maybe JB posted about shopping the Grand Caravan versus the Chrysler T&C. The Caravan is all you want, but the Chrysler is everything you need.

      If you don’t like lots of “stuff”, the Caravan is fine. If you do, there is the Town and Country.

      Someone else mentioned the dreaded “base” model syndrome. Example: The picture shown is of an SX or whatever the high trim will be. What will the base look like? Anymore, it’s terrible and obvious. An LX Odyssey has black door handles, mirrors and wheel covers. Base Quest is not attractive either and neither are most HyunKia vehicles.

    • 0 avatar

      Why indeed? It’s painfully obvious HyunKia are flunking the last test. Or they just don’t care. Or their design blinds everybody. But even a Chrysler gets suspension and engine better than them. I’m still waiting on a product from them that gets “I approve” instead of “yeah, good enough”.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    Honda said the reason for their lumpy lower window line was to increase visibility for third row riding children, so they can see out the window instead of staring at something in the van and getting motion sickness. Here we have Kia copying the zig-zag window treatment in reverse, since they don’t have time for form following function, just monkey-see, monkey-do. Dumb.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      Except, you got it wrong (as usual).

      Aside from the window-line rising (as opposed to dropping – which is totally different), Hyundai did it 1st on the Genesis coupe with the rear window “dip” – so, it was Honda copying Hyundai (and this time, the window-line actually goes in the same direction) and Opel did the same thing with their MPV.

      Funny how you didn’t go off on Honda for that.

      And there are numerous auto-makers who have picked design over practicality or having an ugly design element so it’s hardly “dumb” (again, don’t see you harping on what Nissan designers have done to the new Murano where the rear window treatment is far worse when it comes to visibility).

      But then again, that’s your typical MO.

  • avatar
    DrGastro997

    It looks like a mishmash of Honda, Toyota and Chrysler just like the rest of their cars…

  • avatar
    bd2

    As minivans go, pretty good sheetmetal, but would have been better if it lost some of that unnecessary chrome accent and the shape of the taillights look unfinished.

  • avatar
    doug-g

    I like the blue interior,

  • avatar
    akatsuki

    Our T&C is nice, I wish it had a bit more sound insulation and some of the minor rattles would not be there. But overall very happy with it.

    Would love to see more competition in the space. Not everyone is so penis-insecure that they need to buy an SUV, are they?

  • avatar

    Definitely the nicest looking minivans on the market. They did a good job blending just enough SUV into the style that if you squint real hard it kinda looks like the new Suburban/Tahoes.

    My wife would never go for a minivan but this is close enough to looking like an SUV that I may be able to get her to at least look at it.

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    It looks very nice. Reclining captains chairs with footrests and old S Class headrests, man this thing is seriously trying to win me over and make me fall in love.

    I would never buy a minivan unless I absolutely had to or was made to, but I will say one thing, I have owned and driven in damn near every car and my favorite vehicles to drive in are minivans. If you have to take a long drive with a lot of people, nothings beats those things. This looks like it would be quite fantastic for one of those trips.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      So minivans are your favorite vehicles ever, and you’ve driven nearly every car. But you won’t buy your favorite vehicle because… why? It’s your favorite for driving, it shouldn’t be a problem.

      • 0 avatar
        VenomV12

        1. I don’t have a wife
        2. I don’t have kids
        3. I drive an S-Class, self explanatory
        4. If I take a trip with, I can rent a minivan or drive theirs if they have one.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          Which part of having an S-Class is self-explanatory? Surely it’s not brand snobbery, as you crucified someone above for doing that.

          I can’t imagine why an S-Class driver isn’t married though. Surely they must just throw themselves at you when they see the badge.

        • 0 avatar
          gearhead77

          Wait, you have an S-Class and would rather drive a minivan on trips?

          And on that bombshell…

          Seriously though, what makes the minivan better than the S class? Taking people AND stuff? View outside? Economy? I have a wife and two kids, but if I were in your shoes, it’d be the S-Class.

  • avatar

    The best minivan dash I’ve ever seen

  • avatar
    RHD

    It looks entirely CGI… and the offspring of a Ford Flex and a Ford Fusion.

  • avatar
    gearhead77

    We’ve pulled the trigger on our minivan purchase. We leased an 2014 Honda Odyssey EX-L. We went without built in entertainment, deciding to leave that to our various Apple devices when we so choose.

    First, we didn’t like the Sienna because it was too soft and lazy to drive. Neither of us really dug the Quests styling and after 3 years of Nissan CVT in the Altima, that was a pass. It did have the nicest interior of them all though. We rented a Town and Country for a week because we thought there was no way we could get an Odyssey for what we wanted, with what we wanted in it. We weren’t totally impressed and we decided to give Honda another chance.

    It was a hard choice, but only on paper. But after renting a Town and Country for a week, we weren’t sold. But then we drove an Odyssey for 15 minutes, our choice was made. It was only a bit more money down.

    The Chrysler is good enough, but the Honda is definitely a much more refined vehicle. The steering isn’t as nice as the Chrysler, but the ride is more controlled. It turns tighter and drives smaller than it is. The interior is just higher quality all around in the Honda, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t cheap touches.

    As for build quality, well… As I write this, the Oddy’s driver door and fender are making contact as the door open and closes. It’s pissed me off, but I know it’s a machine screwed together by humans. They are going to fix it of course, but it’s the first time I’ve bought a new car with body issues. A check of the interweb shows that it’s not an isolated case, but not common. It was the first time either the GM of the Honda dealer or service manager had seen it. The “glass” transmission isn’t much of a concern since it’s a lease.

    It was a hard battle, but to me and my wife, the better vehicle won. We never even talked numbers with the Chrysler dealer. She said to me “I don’t care if the Chrysler is $100/month cheaper, it just isn’t the same caliber of vehicle.” She’s learned something in 11 years of marriage ;)

    This is why we drive cars before we buy them and why we put so much thought into our vehicles. If we just went by spec and price, it would have been a Chrysler in our garage.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States