Article Comments - 2010 Kia Soul First Drive and Full Test

70 messages, Last post on Jul 10, 2009 at 2:34 PM

You are in the Kia Soul Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Kia Soul, Future Vehicle, Coupe, Hatchback

2010 Kia Soul First Drive - First Impressions: Finally and quite fittingly, a Kia with some soul. (more)

2010 Kia Soul Full Test and Video - Bottom Line: Fashion sense is everything in a funky hatchback and the Soul has it. But we're more attracted to this box's driving dynamics, which are among the best in this class. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 7 of 8: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; Prev; Next; Last

#57 of 70 Re: No Deal [borgward1] by jaxs1 May 15, 2009 (7:29 pm)
Replying to: borgward1 (May 15, 2009 5:17 am) I have yet to see a review saying the Soul doesn't handle well. The main reason it has a torsion beam rear axles is for cargo room. There is much more rear cargo room in the Soul than there would have been with the strut towers from IRS. People would have been complaining about lack of rear space otherwise. In these very small cars, the extra space gained can easily make the difference between certain objects fitting inside or not. At the rear, the Soul suspension is also sub-frame mounted and employs a transverse torsion beam axle with trailing arms, designed to deliver a smooth ride and to ensure the minimum intrusion into the trunk space. The coil springs and dampers are mounted separately to ensure smooth operation and minimal intrusion into the cabin/trunk space. In addition, ‘third generation’ hub bearings improve durability and urethane bump stops improve refinement. To optimise use of space, the rear anti-roll stabiliser bar is mounted inside the torsion beam. Nitrogen gas-filled shock absorbers, tuned to best suit specific market requirements, are standard fit for both the front and rear suspension systems for optimal damping performance and body control. The Honda Fit also has a similar type or rear suspension setup because the Fit is all about space efficiency. It will list for between $14K base model and $19K maxed out top trim.
#58 of 70 No Deal by borgward1 May 16, 2009 (8:24 am)
$14K plus is way too much for solid beam rear axle. There are many ways to accomplish IRS w/out compromising space constraints. I trust Edmund's reviews, but nobody is perfect. What is the criterion for "good" handling? Clearly the handling is not excellent. Do you work for Kia or are financially involved with Kia in any way? Replies to this message: jaxs1 (May 16, 2009 9:20 am)
#59 of 70 Re: No Deal [borgward1] by jaxs1 May 16, 2009 (9:20 am)
Replying to: borgward1 (May 16, 2009 8:24 am) The Honda Fit is in the same price range and has a similar type rear suspension and there is no handling problem with the Honda Fit either. It's not as if they're leaf springs form a 70's pickup. This is what they do for space efficiency and to keep the price from going higher. I don't work for Kia and I probably won't get a Kia Soul but having this type of suspension is not the reason why not. Too many reviews say the Soul is noisy on the highway and I will probably do a lot of highway driving, so this will be an issue for me. If they add a 6 speed automatic and make other improvements in the next year or two, I'll give the Soul more consideration at that time. I want good fuel economy and good cargo space without having to deal with a noisy ride. I am more likely to get a new Fiesta or next generation Focus or even a new Prius if I want hatchback space and I'll also consider a next generation Camry 4 cylinder or Camry Hybrid with fold down rear seat if I decide I can live with less cargo carrying space. I want a 5 or 6 speed automatic for relaxed highway cruising and more sound insulation than you get with a Kia Soul.
#60 of 70 Focus Deal by borgward1 May 16, 2009 (3:21 pm)
IMHO a solid beam rear axle is a deal breaker, unless the price was way cheap, and then I would still probably not enjoy driving it. A focus is probably what I would drive if I was in the market. I am not affiliated w/Ford. All I can say to the other folks reading this is walk away from anything having a solid beam rear axle. Replies to this message: jaxs1 (May 16, 2009 3:46 pm) csandste (May 18, 2009 9:38 pm)
#61 of 70 Re: Focus Deal [borgward1] by jaxs1 May 16, 2009 (3:46 pm)
Replying to: borgward1 (May 16, 2009 3:21 pm) That sounds really dumb for that one particular aspect to be a deal breaker for anyone especially when they haven't even driven the car and the road tests reviews of the car do not indicate any problem related to that. I wouldn't buy the current Focus because it is a warmed over very old design and lacks stability control. Lots of space taken up in the trunk be the independent suspension strut towers on both sides plus factory subwoofer on the left. Not a design a good design for space efficiency at all. Even if you got a base model with the cheapest stereo that lacks the subwoofer, the cargo area is still cramped and awkward to load because of suspension intrusion into that area. I expect the fully redesigned new Focus to be nice though. The new Focus is still years away.
#62 of 70 Re: Focus Deal [borgward1] by csandste May 18, 2009 (9:38 pm)
Replying to: borgward1 (May 16, 2009 3:21 pm) You keep making the same statement. Did you actually drive the car? I can't imagine making statements based on platform engineering unless you actually did a test drive. I've owned some vehicles that had a solid rear axle that were surprisingly good handlers, although it's been quite a few years ago, and other items like tires have since improved. In my case, having strut towers greatly decreasing usable room would have been a negative.
#63 of 70 Strut by borgward1 May 19, 2009 (5:36 am)
You are assuming strut towers are required to achieve IRS. There are a variety of ways to achieve IRS. I have driven other KIA w/rear beam axle on twisty roads. It's handling while not absolutely terrible, it just did not feel right. Was not my car. A co worker had a KIA and she remarked that it just did not feel right. Actually, struts are not the best way to design an independently sprung suspension, they are a way to speed up production and cut down costs. KIA is marketing the car as a sporty item. Handling comes first, and zip second. Perhaps they would look more honest if they portrayed it is a mini minivan rather as a sporty zippy vehicle. Replies to this message: csandste (May 19, 2009 7:25 am) jyym (Jun 18, 2009 2:22 pm)
#64 of 70 Re: Strut [borgward1] by csandste May 19, 2009 (7:25 am)
Replying to: borgward1 (May 19, 2009 5:36 am) It's priced at under $15K before negotiations, will soon be discounted heavily like all Kias and is based on a modified Accent/Rio platform. That doesn't scream sophistication. On the other hand it appears to be a pleasant transportation box, less finished but a hell of a lot cuter than the second gen. xB.
#65 of 70 No Heated Mirrors! Again! by ike3 May 30, 2009 (5:55 am)
Love the look of the vehicle, really. Was at a Buffalo area dealer this past week. Being along the border, I curiously checked and compared the specs between the U.S. and Canadian models. They have 5 trim levels, not 4. But ALL their trim levels included "Dual power, heated, body-coloured mirrors." I look at the U.S. specs, and on the 3 upper trim levels all I see is "Body color, power-adjustable outside mirrors." Oh the base U.S. model is "Black, manually-adjustable outside mirrors." So, I beg the question, why was this feature "decontented" for the U.S. market? The heated mirrors can be turned on and off, but a life saver in climates as harsh as ours are in the winter months. I won't say its a deal breaker, and its too bad that a Canadian Kia dealer can't sell one to me if I plate it in the U.S. Why is it that Kia and Nissan (among others) delete this feature for the U.S.?
#66 of 70 Could be... by iluvmysephia1 May 30, 2009 (12:54 pm)
ike3. All I would say is this car is priced bargain-basement cheap. What a great car for the money. Kia just keeps getting better and better. And the last time I typed this was about a year ago!