It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bought a new 2019 KIA Sorento EX 3.3
- Thread starter geekster
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
geekster
Thread starter
Originally Posted by Ws6
It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
The thing that swung us over vs the CX-9 was once on the highway and cruising the turbo 2.5 felt like it ran out of steam when passing (once up to speed already) on the other hand, the CX-9 had more low end torque from a stop. The Sorento wasn't bad from a stop, but seemed better when accelerating once at highway speed. The CX-9 interior was better to us but the headroom in the rear/third row was better in the Sorento.
The Highlander was very nice, but most of the ones with the options that we wanted had captain chair middle row and we didn't want that. Plus it gets pricey at that range.
The Hyundai was really a contender and we liked it, but the Sorento was a sweet spot in size. It's basically bigger than the Santa Fe and shorter than the XL. I also like the idea of a NA engine vs turbo.
It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
The thing that swung us over vs the CX-9 was once on the highway and cruising the turbo 2.5 felt like it ran out of steam when passing (once up to speed already) on the other hand, the CX-9 had more low end torque from a stop. The Sorento wasn't bad from a stop, but seemed better when accelerating once at highway speed. The CX-9 interior was better to us but the headroom in the rear/third row was better in the Sorento.
The Highlander was very nice, but most of the ones with the options that we wanted had captain chair middle row and we didn't want that. Plus it gets pricey at that range.
The Hyundai was really a contender and we liked it, but the Sorento was a sweet spot in size. It's basically bigger than the Santa Fe and shorter than the XL. I also like the idea of a NA engine vs turbo.
For us-a consideration was a $5,000.00 savings over the Toyo/Honda equivalent. But we could afford any vehicle in it's class.
As a matter of fact- I have a friend here in Utah-who is a multi-millionaire, they purchased one about the same time we did. The did get the "Limited Ultimate" while we got the "Limited" model.
As a matter of fact- I have a friend here in Utah-who is a multi-millionaire, they purchased one about the same time we did. The did get the "Limited Ultimate" while we got the "Limited" model.
geekster
Thread starter
Originally Posted by CKN
For us-a consideration was a $5,000.00 savings over the Toyo/Honda equivalent. But we could afford any vehicle in it's class.
As a matter of fact- I have a friend here in Utah-who is a multi-millionaire, they purchased one about the same time we did. The did get the "Limited Ultimate" while we got the "Limited" model.
So yours is a SX Limited? If so, those are really nice. I sat in one at the dealership. The leather in it is outstanding (compared to our EX).
For us-a consideration was a $5,000.00 savings over the Toyo/Honda equivalent. But we could afford any vehicle in it's class.
As a matter of fact- I have a friend here in Utah-who is a multi-millionaire, they purchased one about the same time we did. The did get the "Limited Ultimate" while we got the "Limited" model.
So yours is a SX Limited? If so, those are really nice. I sat in one at the dealership. The leather in it is outstanding (compared to our EX).
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by CKN
For us-a consideration was a $5,000.00 savings over the Toyo/Honda equivalent. But we could afford any vehicle in it's class.
As a matter of fact- I have a friend here in Utah-who is a multi-millionaire, they purchased one about the same time we did. The did get the "Limited Ultimate" while we got the "Limited" model.
So yours is a SX Limited? If so, those are really nice. I sat in one at the dealership. The leather in it is outstanding (compared to our EX).
Well. Hyundai uses different terms on their models than KIA. Yes-I believe the "Limited" model we have would be equivalent to the "SX" in Kias line.
Originally Posted by CKN
For us-a consideration was a $5,000.00 savings over the Toyo/Honda equivalent. But we could afford any vehicle in it's class.
As a matter of fact- I have a friend here in Utah-who is a multi-millionaire, they purchased one about the same time we did. The did get the "Limited Ultimate" while we got the "Limited" model.
So yours is a SX Limited? If so, those are really nice. I sat in one at the dealership. The leather in it is outstanding (compared to our EX).
Well. Hyundai uses different terms on their models than KIA. Yes-I believe the "Limited" model we have would be equivalent to the "SX" in Kias line.
geekster
Thread starter
Originally Posted by CKN
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by CKN
For us-a consideration was a $5,000.00 savings over the Toyo/Honda equivalent. But we could afford any vehicle in it's class.
As a matter of fact- I have a friend here in Utah-who is a multi-millionaire, they purchased one about the same time we did. The did get the "Limited Ultimate" while we got the "Limited" model.
So yours is a SX Limited? If so, those are really nice. I sat in one at the dealership. The leather in it is outstanding (compared to our EX).
Well. Hyundai uses different terms on their models than KIA. Yes-I believe the "Limited" model we have would be equivalent to the "SX" in Kias line.
Gotcha. Sorry. Thanks for the clarification.
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by CKN
For us-a consideration was a $5,000.00 savings over the Toyo/Honda equivalent. But we could afford any vehicle in it's class.
As a matter of fact- I have a friend here in Utah-who is a multi-millionaire, they purchased one about the same time we did. The did get the "Limited Ultimate" while we got the "Limited" model.
So yours is a SX Limited? If so, those are really nice. I sat in one at the dealership. The leather in it is outstanding (compared to our EX).
Well. Hyundai uses different terms on their models than KIA. Yes-I believe the "Limited" model we have would be equivalent to the "SX" in Kias line.
Gotcha. Sorry. Thanks for the clarification.
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by Ws6
It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
The thing that swung us over vs the CX-9 was once on the highway and cruising the turbo 2.5 felt like it ran out of steam when passing (once up to speed already) on the other hand, the CX-9 had more low end torque from a stop. The Sorento wasn't bad from a stop, but seemed better when accelerating once at highway speed. The CX-9 interior was better to us but the headroom in the rear/third row was better in the Sorento.
The Highlander was very nice, but most of the ones with the options that we wanted had captain chair middle row and we didn't want that. Plus it gets pricey at that range.
The Hyundai was really a contender and we liked it, but the Sorento was a sweet spot in size. It's basically bigger than the Santa Fe and shorter than the XL. I also like the idea of a NA engine vs turbo.
Interesting. In testing, the cx9 had better acceleration from 30 to 50, 50 to 70, but by 80mph, the Kia was faster, which began stretching out by 100, 120, etc notably, as tested by car and driver. I wonder if the peakier ppwer delivery of the NA motor just led to your perception? Or were you doing 70-90ish maneuvers?
Originally Posted by Ws6
It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
The thing that swung us over vs the CX-9 was once on the highway and cruising the turbo 2.5 felt like it ran out of steam when passing (once up to speed already) on the other hand, the CX-9 had more low end torque from a stop. The Sorento wasn't bad from a stop, but seemed better when accelerating once at highway speed. The CX-9 interior was better to us but the headroom in the rear/third row was better in the Sorento.
The Highlander was very nice, but most of the ones with the options that we wanted had captain chair middle row and we didn't want that. Plus it gets pricey at that range.
The Hyundai was really a contender and we liked it, but the Sorento was a sweet spot in size. It's basically bigger than the Santa Fe and shorter than the XL. I also like the idea of a NA engine vs turbo.
Interesting. In testing, the cx9 had better acceleration from 30 to 50, 50 to 70, but by 80mph, the Kia was faster, which began stretching out by 100, 120, etc notably, as tested by car and driver. I wonder if the peakier ppwer delivery of the NA motor just led to your perception? Or were you doing 70-90ish maneuvers?
Last edited:
geekster
Thread starter
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by Ws6
It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
The thing that swung us over vs the CX-9 was once on the highway and cruising the turbo 2.5 felt like it ran out of steam when passing (once up to speed already) on the other hand, the CX-9 had more low end torque from a stop. The Sorento wasn't bad from a stop, but seemed better when accelerating once at highway speed. The CX-9 interior was better to us but the headroom in the rear/third row was better in the Sorento.
The Highlander was very nice, but most of the ones with the options that we wanted had captain chair middle row and we didn't want that. Plus it gets pricey at that range.
The Hyundai was really a contender and we liked it, but the Sorento was a sweet spot in size. It's basically bigger than the Santa Fe and shorter than the XL. I also like the idea of a NA engine vs turbo.
Interesting. In testing, the cx9 had better acceleration from 30 to 50, 50 to 70, but by 80mph, the Kia was faster, which began stretching out by 100, 120, etc notably, as tested by car and driver. I wonder if the peakier ppwer delivery of the NA motor just led to your perception? Or were you doing 70-90ish maneuvers?
We were doing 75 on the highway. That's only when I noticed the difference. Could also be completely perceived on my part. Who knows. We really did like the CX-9 as it was the 2nd choice.
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by Ws6
It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
The thing that swung us over vs the CX-9 was once on the highway and cruising the turbo 2.5 felt like it ran out of steam when passing (once up to speed already) on the other hand, the CX-9 had more low end torque from a stop. The Sorento wasn't bad from a stop, but seemed better when accelerating once at highway speed. The CX-9 interior was better to us but the headroom in the rear/third row was better in the Sorento.
The Highlander was very nice, but most of the ones with the options that we wanted had captain chair middle row and we didn't want that. Plus it gets pricey at that range.
The Hyundai was really a contender and we liked it, but the Sorento was a sweet spot in size. It's basically bigger than the Santa Fe and shorter than the XL. I also like the idea of a NA engine vs turbo.
Interesting. In testing, the cx9 had better acceleration from 30 to 50, 50 to 70, but by 80mph, the Kia was faster, which began stretching out by 100, 120, etc notably, as tested by car and driver. I wonder if the peakier ppwer delivery of the NA motor just led to your perception? Or were you doing 70-90ish maneuvers?
We were doing 75 on the highway. That's only when I noticed the difference. Could also be completely perceived on my part. Who knows. We really did like the CX-9 as it was the 2nd choice.
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by Ws6
It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
The thing that swung us over vs the CX-9 was once on the highway and cruising the turbo 2.5 felt like it ran out of steam when passing (once up to speed already) on the other hand, the CX-9 had more low end torque from a stop. The Sorento wasn't bad from a stop, but seemed better when accelerating once at highway speed. The CX-9 interior was better to us but the headroom in the rear/third row was better in the Sorento.
The Highlander was very nice, but most of the ones with the options that we wanted had captain chair middle row and we didn't want that. Plus it gets pricey at that range.
The Hyundai was really a contender and we liked it, but the Sorento was a sweet spot in size. It's basically bigger than the Santa Fe and shorter than the XL. I also like the idea of a NA engine vs turbo.
Interesting. In testing, the cx9 had better acceleration from 30 to 50, 50 to 70, but by 80mph, the Kia was faster, which began stretching out by 100, 120, etc notably, as tested by car and driver. I wonder if the peakier ppwer delivery of the NA motor just led to your perception? Or were you doing 70-90ish maneuvers?
We were doing 75 on the highway. That's only when I noticed the difference. Could also be completely perceived on my part. Who knows. We really did like the CX-9 as it was the 2nd choice.
If you're super sensitive, it probably is/was a HAIR faster from a 75 punch than the CX9, ESPECIALLY if (mainly if) you were running 87 in the CX9 (which they probably were).
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by geekster
Originally Posted by Ws6
It should give you many years of good service. Out of curiosity, why did you prefer it to the other choices mentioned?
The thing that swung us over vs the CX-9 was once on the highway and cruising the turbo 2.5 felt like it ran out of steam when passing (once up to speed already) on the other hand, the CX-9 had more low end torque from a stop. The Sorento wasn't bad from a stop, but seemed better when accelerating once at highway speed. The CX-9 interior was better to us but the headroom in the rear/third row was better in the Sorento.
The Highlander was very nice, but most of the ones with the options that we wanted had captain chair middle row and we didn't want that. Plus it gets pricey at that range.
The Hyundai was really a contender and we liked it, but the Sorento was a sweet spot in size. It's basically bigger than the Santa Fe and shorter than the XL. I also like the idea of a NA engine vs turbo.
Interesting. In testing, the cx9 had better acceleration from 30 to 50, 50 to 70, but by 80mph, the Kia was faster, which began stretching out by 100, 120, etc notably, as tested by car and driver. I wonder if the peakier ppwer delivery of the NA motor just led to your perception? Or were you doing 70-90ish maneuvers?
We were doing 75 on the highway. That's only when I noticed the difference. Could also be completely perceived on my part. Who knows. We really did like the CX-9 as it was the 2nd choice.
If you're super sensitive, it probably is/was a HAIR faster from a 75 punch than the CX9, ESPECIALLY if (mainly if) you were running 87 in the CX9 (which they probably were).
Congrats! It looks very nice. AWD or FWD?
geekster
Thread starter
Originally Posted by kkreit01
Congrats! It looks very nice. AWD or FWD?
Thank you. FWD
Congrats! It looks very nice. AWD or FWD?
Thank you. FWD
geekster
Thread starter
Ws6--I forgot about the bump in hp with the high octane. I bet you're right. No way they were running premium. I know where they fill up and they are always using the "cheaper" 87 pump. It's got it's own black handle (only 87) and the non-ethanol with premium is a red handle.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 987
