Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Wagons Kia Rondo Rondo vs Outlander/Rav4/Santa Fe/Mazda5
271 messages, Last post on Jul 30, 2008 at 12:09 PM
You are in the Kia Rondo Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Dec 03, 2007 2:21 pm) Rondo 31.7 Mazda5 44.4 Mazda figures on 2007 for storage was very strange and same on the Canadian site, but now they seem more realistic with the 2008 information as they now state 70.9 cu.ft. with the 2nd and 3rd seats folded which makes more sense when I had actually measured both vehicles. The Rondo is 73.4 cu.ft. for the same area. Passenger cargo room 97.7 cu.ft. for the Mazda 5 and 107.8 for the Rondo. The Rondo 5-seater has storage through to the dash on the passengers side as you can recline the back of the back seat but the 6/7-seater set up is basically the same on both vehicles.
|
|
|
Replying to: 08outtie (Dec 03, 2007 3:18 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: conwelpic (Dec 03, 2007 4:54 pm) And while our Fit has upright seating, it's not any more upright than a minivan or SUV seat, so I'm fine with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Dec 03, 2007 6:02 pm) I've read in another forum about someone selling a washer and dryer set. The seller recounted how the buyer came by in a Rondo and was surprised that the buyer could fit both in the cargo area behind the first row. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that would be even remotely possible in my own Rondo, so you learn something new every day. When comparing cargo space, you have to remember the different seating arrangements in each vehicle. The Rondo is 2+3+2 (or 2+3 in the five seater) and the Mazda5 is 2+2+2. Let's say there are 4 people in the vehicle and you want to store stuff behind the second row. In the Rondo, you have the option of folding down one seat in the second row to free up additional cargo space. That option, of course, isn't available in the Mazda5. You can probably make use of the space between the second-row bucket seats in the Mazda5, but that space obviously isn't as large or useful as the space created when folding down one of the second-row seats in the Rondo. Now let's say there are 6 people in the vehicle. When I was checking out the Mazda5 earlier this year, it appeared to have more space behind the third row seats than the Rondo. You can probably store a bulky stroller behind the third row in the Mazda5, whereas I can just fit an umbrella stroller behind the third row in my Rondo. With the Rondo, however, you also have the option of folding down one of the third-row seats to free up additional cargo space. In the Mazda5, all seats would have to be deployed. As for how well seven people actually fit in the Rondo, I've posted about this before in much detail (my motto is, why say something in ten words when you can say it in a hundred?). That was in another forum, though. Long story short, sitting in the middle of the second row is comparable in comfort to sitting in one of the third-row seats. That's based on my subjective reading of the whine factor of my passengers. I think we can all agree that, for either vehicle, four people can sit in relative luxury and the additional seating is really for occasional use only. I've sat in the third row in both vehicles and my take is this: the Rondo seems to have more leg room and the Mazda5 seems to have more head room. This is after making adjustments in both vehicles so that the leg room is optimized in all rows. |
|
|
Replying to: 08outtie (Dec 03, 2007 3:18 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bgw (Dec 30, 2007 5:04 pm) Judging by the sheer numbers of Rondos that I see, I can only assume these owners don't feel the same way either Hmmmm, not all of the Rondo owners buy them because they have comfortable sitting. I own 2 Mazda5s and I wish they had 1-2 inches of extra legroom for the driver, yet it pays off with the rest of its space design. All cars have their little or big griefs, it is not just about sitting. |
|
|
Replying to: bgw (Dec 30, 2007 5:04 pm) I bought an 08 Mitsubishi Outlander earlier in December. The 7 seats were very handy as my family just came to town for Christmas and I was able to caravan all 7 of us. However, my sister gave the third row in the Outlander a level 9 in UN-comfortableness with the scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst back seat ever. The third row in the Outlander was low to the ground, so my sister basically had her knees touching her chin when she was back there. The cushioning in the third row was also not good, which made my sister went "ouch" everytime we went over a bump on the road. The upside was that the second row in the Outlander continued to have better than good legroom and headroom whether the third row was in use. This was the area where Mazda5 and Rondo cannot match. The sixth and seventh seat in the vehicle are really just for occasional uses only, so the comfort in the second row seats are a bigger concern in my case. The second row in the Outlander is so much bigger than Mazda5 or Rondo. That is why I got the Outlander instead. In addition to that, the 4wd on the Outlander is also one of the deciding factors. It is funny that I cross-shopped these three vehicles. The outlander is an CUV, the Mazda5 is "almost" a mini-van and Rondo is "almost" a station wagon. I thought I was having a weird shopping list. But after I saw this discussion thread, I guess I'm not alone cross-shopping these three cars. Cheers and happy new year. |
|
|
In road test review made by Edmunds in four vehicles, i.e. Mitsubishi Outlander (V6), RAV4 (V6), Honda CR-V (4-cyl), and Nissan Rogue (4-cyl) reported that the RAV4 (V6) was the winner of this road test. The test, however, has shown an involuntary bias in the criteria for this evaluation. Owners of the RAV4 have reported the poor payload capacity of the RAV4 that may demonstrate the lack of meat in the construction of the vehicle. The max payload capacity of any RAV4 is the equivalent of 7-persons weight (approximately 150 lbs each). So if you load your RAV4 with 7-persons the roof rail and the roof box are just decorations. Camping or picnic with 7-person is unpractical in a RAV4, i.e. no cargo for the usual stuff. Let’s us now see the Outlander (V6) where its payload capacity is enough to carry a total weight of 9-people (150 lbs each). This is to say 7-people as passengers and the weight equivalent of 2-people as cargo. The roof rail and roof box make sense here. This situation is much better with the Outlander ES 2.4L which its payload capacity is equivalent to 10-people weight. Making some allowances for the engine weight of both vehicles (RAV4 (V6) and Outlander (V6)) the Outlander has more than 80 lbs of meat. This weight difference in material of construction makes the Outlander stronger for carry more cargo than the RAV4. Road test in the future should test the drivebility of the vehicle with maximum payload capacity no find out if the vehicles still responds as expected. In my research for a 7-seat SUV I was almost ready to order a RAV4 (V6) but after going into the details of both vehicles plus some comments of RAV4’s owners about the poor payload capacity of the Toyota I am now more inclined to order an Outlander ES 2.4L. I am not in the business of towing anything (boat, motor home, etc) so at a price of MSRP $23,100 I think the Outlander ES 2.4L suit my requirements (although the vehicle is 5-seats only). |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: batman47 (Dec 31, 2007 5:55 am) It's kind of apples to oranges to compare 4 cyl. vs. V6, though. They said the Outlander has the most interior room. If you look at one, check out the V6-6 speed. It's a nice powertrain. |
|
|
Replying to: batman47 (Dec 31, 2007 5:55 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Wagons Kia Rondo Rondo vs Outlander/Rav4/Santa Fe/Mazda5
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Kia Rondo
2010 Mitsubishi Outlander
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe
2011 Toyota RAV4
2009 Mazda MAZDA5
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
