thoughts on KIA??

[sethster27]

So from what I hear the Rio has been making waves in the car market recently. I’ve been doing some work with Kia and there has been a lot of talk about the JD Power award they recently won. It’s surprising because I like Kia cars but that’s not something I expected. On the other hand it’s really cool to see an auto company working hard on improving their cars and not just going through the motions. Has anyone heard about this or agree with me? Let me know.

[del]

kia today is what hyundai was over 10 years ago. hyundai stepped up their game and as long as they keep up their momentum, they'll stay on their way to being on the same playing field as toyota, honda and nissan. the new sonata has ranked quite high amongst the popular car critics. haven't driven one myself but they at least look better. i think kia has that same potential but not quite there yet. my personal experience with kia was a sephia that belonged to a good friend of mine. and it wasn't positive. just felt, well like a kia - generic, cheap inside and out, brittle as if it were completely snapped together with plastic rivets. not to mention it broke down more than a new car should - at the time. they'll do what hyundai has done - introduce cheap, affordable econoboxes, like the rio into a new market, make themselves at home and eventually come out with some real contenders. i believe honda started out the same way too and now look where they are.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by del

i believe honda started out the same way too and now look where they are.

Toyota started out that way, Honda took a slightly different root, similar to Ferrari, they started building sports cars to help finnance the racing program.
Only they were very Japanese sports cars, small, efficient and effective, cars like the S600 etc.

[Jimster]

Kia are working hard, thier cars are still a little short of the mark, but the Picanto and new Magentis (As well as the Sportage and Sorrento) have certainly moved the brand on from the low point of the last Rio and Magentis etc.

[stamar]

Originally Posted by Moppie

Toyota started out that way, Honda took a slightly different root, similar to Ferrari, they started building sports cars to help finnance the racing program.
Only they were very Japanese sports cars, small, efficient and effective, cars like the S600 etc.

i recomend reading the history of honda because its a very fascinating story.

Honda and Toyota ( toyoda) were born out of the same contract. Both were auto parts suppliers for mitsubishi holding company.

Toyoda wanted to make small cars and honda wanted to make motorized bicycles. So they traded factories.

Honda was a race car driver no doubt. But honda motors made motors, spinning the wrong way. They were a motorcycle comapny that eventually made motorcycle derived cars. I think the first honda cars came out in the late 60s

I cant see how KIA is actually like either of these companies which started in post ww2 japan in a market where the average income was about $100 a month in todays dollars.
In a vague parallel suzuki cars sort of parrallels honda in that their orignal cars use their motorcycle engine.

Anyhow my opinion of KIA is that its the butt end. A company so horrid hyundai drove them out of business.

[Right_LiRrr]

I don't understand why anyone would want to buy a korean car (cost aside). they're all imitation japanese cars. Just get the real thing.

Unless they differentiate themselves and have their own distinct style, I'd always choose jap over korean.

[bluevp00]

You also have to consider the cost of ownership. Sure they're cheap when you buy them new, and thats what attracts customers, but the resale value for Kia goes WAY down after you buy it. It's not as bad as in years past, but still expect the car to lose a lot of value once you drive it off the lot.

Japanese cars (espically Honda & Toyota) have the best resale value, but are more expensive when bought new. So if you want a good medium, go for a used Japanese car in your price range.

[kachok25]

OK I respect the fact that KIA is really trying their best to be a real car company, but untill they build a good car I won't touch one. Sure all the auto mags like the Rio but everbody I know who has to drive one every day hates them with a passion. Out of the 7 kia owners I know 5 of the 7 of them have had their car just eat tires like candy one of them says she has to change tires every 8000-10000 miles (no she does not race it)! Others have had thier tires explode for no good reason. I saw a brand new Kia have a total blowout right in front of me the other day. One has gone through three transmissions and the car is not even three years old yet! Everybody builds the occasional fluke but this is crazy untill I start meeting happy kia owners I will keep far away from them.

[stamar]

I want to add on to my previous post a key point.

I dont know what the story of KIA is.
BUT I DO know how it ends. It ends with them being bought out by ford, and then sold to hyundai.

Their full function seperate car company image actually ended more than 10 years ago, and as of today I dont believe there is even one car sold as a KIA in north america that is made by KIA. I think if the sportage is still the old model its a KIA. The rest are made by hyundai.

The name brand itself will dissolve within a few years. At the moment it is the plymouth of hyundais dodge.
So really when you are talking about KIA today you are talking about used cars. Like what, a sephia? Horrid. And the very worst thing about KIA that doesnt make sense is they get worse gas mileage than us v6s
The most desireable vehicle KIA got off was called the sedona, a bad gas mileage minivan.

If you find a low mileage sportage for a steal, you have a disposable 4 x 4 which would be nice. I mean if youre worried about like rolling your geo tracker you have a true beater you can call on.

ok and to further pontificate, vehicles carrying a KIA nameplate are now built by hyundai which is a great improvement. So next you have to think what do you think about hyundai? I dont think a whole lot of them either but I can say its a real 2nd world car manufacturer something like chrysler or ford in quality to me.

[twospirits]

Originally Posted by stamar

I cant see how KIA is actually like either of these companies which started in post ww2 japan in a market where the average income was about $100 a month in todays dollars.
In a vague parallel suzuki cars sort of parrallels honda in that their orignal cars use their motorcycle engine.

Anyhow my opinion of KIA is that its the butt end. A company so horrid hyundai drove them out of business.

Originally Posted by stamar

I want to add on to my previous post a key point.

I dont know what the story of KIA is.
BUT I DO know how it ends. It ends with them being bought out by ford, and then sold to hyundai.

I really don't know where you are getting your information from, but its wrong.

One doesn't have to go far to see that there are similarities between the companies in one way or another. Just going to the companies websites and looking at their official record of history/timelines will show what I mean.

Year	Kia	Honda	Toyota	Hyundai
1933	-	-	Toyoda Automatic Loom establishes Automobile Department	-
1935	-	-	First Car produced	-
1937	-	-	Toyota Motor Established	-
1944	Hyungsung Precision Industry established	-	Wartime truck production	-
1946	Tubing and Bycycle parts	-	-	Hyundai Auto Service
1947	-	A Type bicycle engine	Commercial Car Production begins	-
1948	-	Honda Motor established	-	-
1949	-	First motorcycle	-	-
1952	First Motorcycle	-	-	-
1952	Production of Trucks	-	-	-
1963	-	First Sports Car and Light Truck	-	-
1967	-	-	-	Hyundai Motor Company

I don't know, maybe its me but looking at the timelines it seems that Toyota was started in the 1930s and then Both Kia and Honda in the post ww2 timeframe. Both Kia and Honda started with motorcycle/parts production and within a few years of each other started automobile production. Toyota is the more establish one with more years of experience.

As for their relationship with Ford, Kia under license with Mazda produced a few vehicles which were sold in the US but Ford never did have any holdings on Kia. The company did eventually have finiancial troubles which contributed to the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and through government intervention was acquired by Hyundai in 1998. Although its under the wing of Hyundai, its reputation precides it. Hyundai also had this problem and in some peoples mind still does, but it has improved it ranking to third place while its sister Kia continues to place near the bottom of the durability lists.

TS

[VAD0R]

KIA started in 1944 as a bicycle maker and stopped existing as their own automotive company in 1997 according to this website.

Right now though it seems Hyundai wants to bolster KIA as their sporty brand like Ford did with Mazda judging by the Spectra5 and recent Sedona commercials.

[stamar]

Im not sure what you are contradicting on my post.

Where did I get my information from?

I referenced it, a book called THE HISTORY OF HONDA.

I said I dont know the history of KIA. Everything I said was true they ceased being their own automobile company around 10 years ago. The were bought out by ford
( they produced ford festiva, ford aspire. Ford owned controlling interest, ford owns controlling interest of mazda, Kia makes mazda 121....) when Hyundai bought KIA, that is who they bough it from lol.

Only one or two of the vehicles sold in north america is made by KIA, the rest are made by hyundai. Its possible none at all are. This is fact.

The one thing I said that I stand corrected on was the founding of toyota. Not really only in somantics. I personally think I was talking about toyota automobiles.

You will have to follow the timeline you printed.
Toyota commericial car company 1947,a type motorcycle engine honda. honda motors established 1948. This is what Im referencing. Do you see.
1947, honda a type motorcycle engine, toyota commercial car production?
Will you reread what I wrote?
Wow check it out " honda and toyota were formed out of the same contract in post war japan. Toyota to make small cars honda to make motorized bicycles. Honda didnt make cars until the late 60s." Isnt all that some cool factual information? Related in clear and correct english for you to understand. 1947 is post ww2. Japan is japan. Forming at the same time is the same time. motorized bicycles. commercial automobiles. Meditate.
Sort of verified everything I posted in your information but somehow you want to contradict me.


According to this Toyota existed before they started a commercial car industry, but what was established was the business. That is what started at the same time, in the same place. In the same city. Hopefully if you are trying to keep your history clear you understand now. I know that toyota existed in some fashion before this now too but it is not actually relevant to the history of car manufacturing which is what we were talking about.... Honda existed before 1948 as well. They were a part supplier for mitsubishi holding company. Not called Honda obviously. Not honda motors. Not toyota automobiles. No those two things started at the same time from the same contract like I said. I mean Im telling you what I read in the history of HONDA, so who is probably mistaken?
Mr toyoda and Mr Honda knew eachother well.

I dont have time to write out all the facts but i recomend you read this same book called the history of Honda.

I reread what I wrote, I reread what you wrote and everything I said was correct.


and then, where is this sidetrack leading? The poster is wondering if they should buy a KIA car. Another poster is describing some abstract connection between KIA improving and Honda Cars who when they reached the us market in the 70s were rusty or something.
Ok, NO, KIA doesnt make cars anymore. They are not improving. They are not like Honda in any way that I can think applies to us as car consumers. 20 years from now they wont be making civics and accords, theyre already gone.

I spent a lot of time typing in this thread. Im fairly certain some of you benefitted from my education on this subject. If you dont want to thats fine as well. In the end I dont have time to explain every detail to you but if you have questions and interest I recomend you read up on it. I dont think theres a better book on the subject than the one I referenced I think that will explain a whole lot about japanese cars and will even give you a lot of important information about anything you can buy cars or otherwise.

[drunken monkey]

you said that kia is nothing like honda or toyota.

Originally Posted by stamar

I cant see how KIA is actually like either of these companies which started in post ww2 japan in a market where the average income was about $100 a month in todays dollars.

he said that kia is like them and produced a rough timeline to illustrate their similar history in terms of inception, to timelines of developments.

you also seem to have missed the bit about toyota having already produced a car in the 1930s which puts their (bespoke-ish) car production as pre-war whereas the first honda car was exhibited in 1962 (that's 29 years AFTER toyota in cased you missed it) and even then, the cars didn't really see serious production for another year or so with the 500 being quickly replaced.

You also say that toyota (motor) and honda (motor) were born out of the same contract deal. Toyota motor was formed in 1937. Honda motor was formed in 1947. Again, this is from TS' timeline.

anyway, let me get this right, you're basing this discussion on THREE car brands on ONE book about ONE of them?

[Moppie]

stamar I have no idea what your on, but i suggest you see your doctor and get the dosage changed.

Soichiro Honda was born in 1906, and passed away in 1992.
Sakichi Toyoda was born in 1867 and passed away in 1930.
Soichiro would have been only 24 and working in a different part of the country to Sakichi Toyoda when he passed away.

After running his own workshop Soichiro Honda was able to live and share his passion of cars, bikes, and engines by starting a company that not only designed and produced some of the best in the world, but also took part in all forms of motor sport at all levels, and did so with a great success.
He had a hands on role with in the company right up until his death, and the same love of motor sport and passion for great cars still exists with in the company.
Soichiro Honda's involvement with Honda, and the reason he created the company are why is so often compared with Enzo Ferrari.
Its also why Honda and Ferrari are regarded as the worlds best engine manufacturers (along with BMW).

Sakichi Toyoda died not only before the Toyota motor company was founded, but even more Soichiro Honda had made a name for himself, let along started Honda.
He was regarded as a bit of a Thomas Edison in Japan, and was a very creative inventor and business man.
However his interest was with Looms, the Toyota company move into Automobiles occurred only after his death.

I can find no evidence that Honda EVER supplied Mitsubishi with anything, except a licence for VTEC (called Mivec by Mitsubishi) in he 90s.
Nor is there an evidence of involvement by Toyota with Mitsubishi.
Mitsubishi has a very interesting history, it is a very old Japanese company, and after WWII one of the largest corporation's in the world.
Because of its size, and therefore potential threat to US and European manufacturers, the allies broke Mitsubishi up into 3 separate companies. Each retained the name, and 3 pointed logo, but was initially banned from interacting with each other.
For example Mitsubishi engineering make Turbo chargers, but when Mitsubishi Automotive first started turbo charging cars they had to buy them from a different manufacturer.

In terms of pure Automotive history Honda started out building small sports cars, then when Soichiro saw the success of Alec Issigonis Mini design, and saw how much it could be refined, they started making the Civic and invented the modern hatch back. Despite their size and age, I dare anyone to drive an original model Civic and not smile.
The very easy to build, and fun to drive nature of the Civic made it an instant success in Japan, and gave Honda an easy introduction to over seas markets. It also served as a very good platform to base bigger cars on, a design approach they still use, and its why every new Honda passenger car generation is lead by a Civic model.
They of course retained their sports car history with RS, Si, SiR Type R, Type S and VTiR models in most of their range. And of course the NSX and S2000.
Honda started building cars because he wanted to share his passion for them the rest of the world.

Toyota started building cars because they saw a market opportunity.
Like wise Mitsubishi, and in 1974, so did Kia.

In terms of overseas market penetration Toyota and Honda took two very different approaches.
Honda simply built a bike that filled a huge hole in the market, it sold world wide in record numbers, and still does.
This gave them a presence in all the large over seas markets which they were able to exploit, along with the oil crisis in the 70's, to set up manufacturing plants in North America and Europe (they bought into the collapse of British Leyland, and got a lot of cheap factories etc). They have been producing cars in America since 1982, and in 1988 they started exporting US made cars back to Japan and out to the rest of the world.
However, in the mid 80s they decided that the oil crisis and the popularity of the Civic had hurt the Honda image. They were known as a cheap economy car maker only.
So they used an American marketing company to start the Acura brand name, and used it to sell their higher end models in North America.


Toyota lacked the market penetration and brand awareness outside of Japan that Honda benefited from.
Instead they had to go about it the hard way, introducing one model into the US and Europe in the, I think, early 60s.
They then gradually and slowly expanded the model range as brand awareness grew, but it took them nearly 20 years to reach the same sort of market penetration that Honda gained in only 7.
However, by the 80s both were competing successfully in the international market.

I think Kia has tried to follow the Toyota Model, it worked for Hyundai as well. Like Hyundai they have also, and continue to do so, built previous generation Mazda's, Toyota's and Mitsubishi's under licence.
They are in a similar position to Toyota 40 years ago, and Toyota has a roughly 40 year head start.
However Toyota in the 60s still had a massive non-car related manufacturing industry to fall back on when things were tough.
I don't know if Kia does anymore, and give how tight and competitive the current car market is, and how far behind Kia is in terms of product compared to Toyota in the 60s and 70s I have to wonder how successful they will be following the Toyota model.

[stamar]

Some of the responses are showing really poor reading comprehension.

So, if you didnt understand what I wrote previously why would you understand if I rewrote it?

I took a class on market economics. We studied the auto industry.

You have not. Obviously.

The last poster has some interesting opinions on history. A great deal of what is in it is false. A quote like
" I see no evidence that honda supplied mitsubishi with anything"
Is pointless to respond to. No kidding you dont see any evidence. You dont know of course.
Go ahead and go to borders bookstore. Pick up the history of honda. Pick up the history of japanese motorcycles. Then you will know

You made a lot of comments, based off of google search cut and paste. And so many many of them are incorrect and I dont have time to edit them. Some are containing some facts.

The only thing you have communicated to me though Moppie, is that you dont know. AND that you are interested IN KNOWING about the auto industry, and possibly about the japanese economy. And be knowledgeable as opposed to ignorant.
And I appreciate that much more than some of the other posters so Im spending some of my time responding to you and giving you a reference to read to put the whole picture together.


Its all actually a confusing mess to try and communicate with you in this format. I would need to say a short point, made sure you clearly understood it and then move on.


You also posted that you are beggining research into mitsubishi. A holding company works in a very different method than a western company. Again I must say you have no idea how mitsubishi holding company works, not the current company mitsubishi automobiles. BUT, you still know more than the average person and if you are interested in learning I say go for it.

Honda and toyoda were parts manufacturers for mitsubishi holding company THE HISTORY OF HONDA.

Ok so who was the head of toyoda? It wasnt a MR toyoda? LOLOLOLOLO yes it was. Mr honda and Mr toyoda knew eachother

http://www.amazon.com/Illust-History...e=UTF8&s=books


BOOKS. There you go. For some reason you dont believe me telling whats directly in the book you will have to read it.