Kia - Thoughts Second Hand?

mointainwalker said:
I'm puzzled about the Kia comments because of the contrast with those made by Scotty Kilmer on YouTube. For those not familiar, he is YT's most successful independent producer with (IIRC ) 7 million followers for his frequent car programmes.. He hates Kias ( and Hyundais ) and thinks they are absolute junk: there have been some major problems and recalls due to engine problems (see link below ) during the last decade . Kia has a manufacturing plant in the USA, so it is possible that cars from there are not as well built as those built in Europe, although I would have expected Kia HQ to have established and implemented identical engineering standards.

www.thetruthaboutcars.com

Hyundai and Kia's Decade of Very Troublesome Engines Continues

In what’s only the latest in a long history of engine-related legal battles in the form of recalls, individual owner lawsuits, and class action suits, Hyundai and Kia find themselves entangled in the latter once more. This time, the list of the affected vehicles is much larger than in previous...
www.thetruthaboutcars.com www.thetruthaboutcars.com
Click to expand...
I guess every manufacturer has issues from time to time - including Ford with the Ecoboost motor flying apart.
I've only worked on Kia diesels - Sorrento, Sportage and C'eed - all high mileage and all good! Hopefully the seven year warranty will help others out.
John :)
 
Hard to tell what's what these days with the "incestuous" sharing of floorplans and engines between manufacturers.

Still amazes me that today's car makers can, after over 100 years, produce so many flawed engines. I suppose it's driven by emissions regulations. For me (who runs cars from 5 to 15 years old), the jury is still out on these tiny turbocharged petrol engines, especially in big cars.
 
The EU Commission is currently drawing up plans for the "Euro 7" emissions regulations. Tyre and friction particulates are likely to be included for the first time, as well as ammonia emissions. Tyre particulates are a massive and relatively newly-discovered problem - about 1800 times worse than anything that comes out of a diesel tailpipe these days, PLUS, they tend to get washed down the stormwater drains when it rains and they are, of course, microplastics too.

I wouldn't think twice about buying a new diesel now, instead of a petrol, as I don't think the emissions are significantly worse any more - even at the current Euro 6d. (That said, they've just changed my company car and I've gone electric to see what that's like)! In any case, petrol or diesel, (or electric!), the tyre and brake particulates dwarf anything that comes out of the tailpipe. Urban use for a modern diesel shouldn't bring DPF problems either. Remember most taxis are predominantly urban and they don't seem to suffer many DPF problems.

Other interesting ideas for Euro 7, include a possible requirement for vehicles to have to transmit live emissions data to roadside beacons as they pass - the intention being to catch the de-catted, remapped, DPF-deleted, EGR-blanked (etc) ones.

Obviously, as no longer a part of the EU, nobody actually knows what GB is going to do yet...

Within the industry, there are mutterings that history is about to repeat itself, with politicians pushing everyone down the battery-electric route, without really understanding the bigger picture - just like they did with diesel a couple of decades ago. The whole regulatory framework is focused on tailpipe emissions, so it favours technologies that produce nothing at the tailpipe. Just suppose, for example, that someone developed a synthetic fuel that actually REMOVED carbon from the atmosphere in order to make the fuel. Vehicles that ran on such fuels, would be penalised for their tailpipe CO2 emissions - even though, there was either a small net removal of CO2 when making the fuel was considered, or at worst, a break-even. But the current emissions tests won't give any brownie points for that.
 
If you worried about all these potentially lethal concerns that science is uncovering every day you would enclose yourself in a bubble, or better still not get out of bed in the morning ;)
Stress is more 'harmful to life' than any of them.
 
cdbe said:
Hard to tell what's what these days with the "incestuous" sharing of floorplans and engines between manufacturers.

Still amazes me that today's car makers can, after over 100 years, produce so many flawed engines. I suppose it's driven by emissions regulations. For me (who runs cars from 5 to 15 years old), the jury is still out on these tiny turbocharged petrol engines, especially in big cars.
Click to expand...
My two have a combined age that approaches 60 years :cool:
 
I do wonder if the small Turbocharged petrol engines are going to produce nasties like turbo diesels after they have been in use for a while.
 
But that's a very subjective measure. What is "highly stressed"? To a 1950s American, that might be anything producing more than 50 horsepower per litre. To a 1990s European, that might be anything over 100 horsepower per litre. These days, small engines like the little Fiat TwinAir are around 120 horse per litre.
 
Avocet said:
But that's a very subjective measure. What is "highly stressed"? To a 1950s American, that might be anything producing more than 50 horsepower per litre. To a 1990s European, that might be anything over 100 horsepower per litre. These days, small engines like the little Fiat TwinAir are around 120 horse per litre.
Click to expand...
If I may simplify my own definition of 'stressed' in this instance.
The difference between a naturally aspirated engine developing both power & especially torque through cubic capacity, as opposed to a light-weight small capacity unit totally reliant on forced induction & high revs.
The latter my well be good for lower emissions/fuel consumption but not, I suspect, longevity.
 
I know two people who have had big issues, one with a VAG 1.2 TSI and one with a 1.0 Ecoboom.

Not impressed with them.

I don't like autos either, although I may be remembering the old boxes with torque converters.

My Mum's got a 15 plate Yeti with a 1.2 TSI and a DSG box. Double trouble!
 
securespark said:
I know two people who have had big issues, one with a VAG 1.2 TSI and one with a 1.0 Ecoboom.

Not impressed with them.

I don't like autos either, although I may be remembering the old boxes with torque converters.

My Mum's got a 15 plate Yeti with a 1.2 TSI and a DSG box. Double trouble!
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with torque converters, linked to a modern (ish) autobox, far less trouble than today's twin-clutch/DSG etc..
My 24 year old BM has a TC coupled to a 5 speed ZF with the added refinement of Steptronic driver control .. love it ;)

nb. friend of mine swears by his Yeti, but that's a manual.
 
norseman said:
If I may simplify my own definition of 'stressed' in this instance.
The difference between a naturally aspirated engine developing both power & especially torque through cubic capacity, as opposed to a light-weight small capacity unit totally reliant on forced induction & high revs.
The latter my well be good for lower emissions/fuel consumption but not, I suspect, longevity.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of forced-induction engines still going strong at 20 years old though. As for "small capacity", again, what do you mean? Is 2 litres "small capacity"? 1500cc? 1250? Where do you draw the line?
 
securespark said:
I know two people who have had big issues, one with a VAG 1.2 TSI and one with a 1.0 Ecoboom.

Not impressed with them.

I don't like autos either, although I may be remembering the old boxes with torque converters.

My Mum's got a 15 plate Yeti with a 1.2 TSI and a DSG box. Double trouble!
Click to expand...
My wife's DSG Kodiaq is impressive - and none of the inefficiencies associated with traditional torque converter autos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top