Kia Rondos Demise In USA: Can Small People Movers Sell Here?

[DKaz]

wooooh

that thing is expensive and ugly.

Expensive? The Mazda 5 starts at $20,495 and goes all the way up to $28,185 once the leather and NAVI is included... $21,695 to $29,385 for automatic transmission versions, so arguably the Kia might have better bang for the buck, but I still see more Mazda 5s than Kia Rondos around here.

 

[coolmazda5]

wooooh that thing is expensive and ugly.

Expensive?

wooooh that thing is ugly.

OK, no arguing guys, that has been fixed... (lol2)

I'm sure the new color is to make German taxi companies happy...

 

[Rockin03mp5]

Expensive? The Mazda 5 starts at $20,495 and goes all the way up to $28,185 once the leather and NAVI is included... $21,695 to $29,385 for automatic transmission versions, so arguably the Kia might have better bang for the buck, but I still see more Mazda 5s than Kia Rondos around here.

are you talking canadian $? i know the difference isnt much, but i think the article is in US $. I know i can get a base 5 sport for under 19K here. And the GT for under 24K. Im sure navigation and leather will add a bit, but those prices for the kia there exclude destination which it says is $1650!

 

[DKaz]

are you talking canadian $? i know the difference isnt much, but i think the article is in US $. I know i can get a base 5 sport for under 19K here. And the GT for under 24K. Im sure navigation and leather will add a bit, but those prices for the kia there exclude destination which it says is $1650!

The article can't be in US$ because they discontinued the Rondo in the US. Now pity our high vehicle prices. Whenever I watch the Seattle stations I always see Car Pros ads (high volume dealer I guess) selling cars for what seems like minimum $2,000 MSRP = $5,000 below what we can get a car for in Canada and I'm like (eek) This is just Hyundai and Kia though so maybe that's why I see Korean cars everywhere in the US but not so much in Canada. It's still an uphill battle for the Koreans to sell cars at the same price as Japanese and American cars, but they're not undercutting the competition in Canada like they are in the US except during the clearance months.

 

[Rockin03mp5]

gotcha.

poor canadians.

 

[WhiteStar III]

When I was in the wine business many years ago there was a constant struggle with the buyers over whether or not a certain wine was in the grocery store. The buyers did not want to carry any wine that was in the grocery store as that meant their wine list was not exclusive. Any wine in a store must be bad, because it was mainstream, and bourgeoisie. Junk in other words.

However, those of us on the other side of the business knew that the best way to create a sucessful brand was to have it sold in a restaurant by the glass. The consumer would try the wine, like it, and then search for it in their local - gasp - grocery store.

The whole argument about fleet sales strikes me the same way. For some reason there is one group that thinks fleet sales (grocery store) implies desperation and poor quality.

I'm sure that Mazda thinks that fleet sales = trial and acceptance ("by the glass") and results in retail sales at the dealer.

Moral of the story is selling cars to fleets is not always an act of desperation. Nor does the general public think that if it's a rental it must be junk.

RE: Wine

Premium branding and cache vrs value, familiarity and accessibility.

Your approach for wine wouldn’t work in PA – no wine or liquor w/o license and as a result most grocery stores don’t stock (which must require significant production volumes to meet the accessibility requirement).

RE: Mazda fleet vrs retail

Do you have any information regarding the fleet vrs retail numbers of the Mazda3? How do they compare to the Mazda5 ratio?

As is a volume manufacturer, why would you take the Mazda5, your lower volume, higher profit platform/factory linemate (as I understand it MZ3 & 5 come from the same plant) and sell them at a discount to a high volume buyer versus the high volume, lower production/material cost Mazda3?

As a high volume fleet buyer why would you purchase a low demand vehicle, in a style (minivans) which is shrinking and becoming “uncool”, especially when other alternatives exist in the minivan marketplace that is among the segment leaders which is larger than the Mazda ie Dodge Caravan?

I don't think given the tough global automotive landscape and the position that Mazda is in for this situation to continue.

Note my argument does not center upon perceptions.

 

[WhiteStar III]

Sorry but I dont see ecoboost performing as advertised. Rather than hijack, follow me here if you care to listen to me rant: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5433345#post5433345

Pickup trucks have terrible aerodynamics and large frontal areas, add to that the particulars of the EPA testing process and of course your milage may vary.

I have a Nissan Titan (5.6 ltr V8) the best highway milage I've gotten is 17 mpg highway vrs EPA of 19 (IIRC, forum average is around 14.5-15). I have a 4Runner with the 4.0 V-6; similar terrible aerodynamics with a slightly smaller frontal area vrs the Titan and I can get 22-22.5 mpg highway which is slightly better than EPA (% wise I'm roughly 10% better than EPA). As you may note in my posts, I have no problem getting better than EPA highway numbers with the Mz5 and every other vehicle I have owned (2 Honda Accords, a 94 where I could get 31 highway and a 2005 where 34 highway was achieveable).

To me the EcoBoost numbers seem to be achievable even in the real world given in the context of the vehicle application.

 

[coolmazda5]

New Vanilla Milkshake colour (same one as the Kia Soul)

I knew I've seen it before

Good for KIA, they seem to be stretching its life without a major facelift, except for the folding keyfob a-la Mazda, the new color and the grille

 

[twintrbo]

I have a Nissan Titan (5.6 ltr V8) the best highway milage I've gotten is 17 mpg highway vrs EPA of 19 (IIRC, forum average is around 14.5-15). I have a 4Runner with the 4.0 V-6; similar terrible aerodynamics with a slightly smaller frontal area vrs the Titan and I can get 22-22.5 mpg highway which is slightly better than EPA

To me the EcoBoost numbers seem to be achievable even in the real world given in the context of the vehicle application.

Your Titan engine is 40% larger than the 4Runner engine. Amazingly, if your Titan returned 16 MPG, the 4 Runner is doing 40% better economy. So given that they might be aerodynamically similar, this makes sense, and it makes my point exactly. Do you really think Ford can get almost 10 MPG better from the same size engine by putting a slightly better aero package on the vehicle? Keep in mind that only a wind tunnel can tell how slippery the design is, I was shocked to find out a Lamborghini Countach which looks wickedly slick, has a cd of .42, which sucks

Edit: If you had a 2.4L accord, the 4Runner is about 66% bigger and the accord got about 60% better mileage, interesting how that works right?

 

[WhiteStar III]

Your Titan engine is 40% larger than the 4Runner engine. Amazingly, if your Titan returned 16 MPG, the 4 Runner is doing 40% better economy. So given that they might be aerodynamically similar, this makes sense, and it makes my point exactly. Do you really think Ford can get almost 10 MPG better from the same size engine ... ?

(sssh)

1) EcoBoost V-6 is 3.5 liter engine. It's 12.5% smaller than my 4Runner's 4.0.

2) EcoBoost has not been EPA certified in the F-150 application; nor has Ford released final power output numbers for it. All that Ford claims is 20% more efficient than the 2010 5.4 liter V-8 (14/20) which would put the EcoBoost at 16.8/24.

 

[twintrbo]

(sssh)

1) EcoBoost V-6 is 3.5 liter engine. It's 12.5% smaller than my 4Runner's 4.0.

2) EcoBoost has not been EPA certified in the F-150 application; nor has Ford released final power output numbers for it. All that Ford claims is 20% more efficient than the 2010 5.4 liter V-8 (14/20) which would put the EcoBoost at 16.8/24.

How do I keep getting my info wrong on the Ecoboost, I think I need to reeducate myself on them! I know its a 3.5 but for some reason I thought there was a 4.0L NA version for the mustang.

After looking into it, the Mustang engine is a 3.7L but not billed as Ecoboost, just very efficient according to EPA. I think I need to retreat to the batcave to crunch some numbers.

Just so I'm not still confused, the 3.5L ecoboost for the F-150 would be 35% smaller than the 5.4L V-8 and they are claming it would be 20% more efficient. Right?

 

[twintrbo]

(sssh)

1) EcoBoost V-6 is 3.5 liter engine. It's 12.5% smaller than my 4Runner's 4.0.

2) EcoBoost has not been EPA certified in the F-150 application; nor has Ford released final power output numbers for it. All that Ford claims is 20% more efficient than the 2010 5.4 liter V-8 (14/20) which would put the EcoBoost at 16.8/24.

How do I keep getting my info wrong on the Ecoboost, I think I need to reeducate myself on them! I know its a 3.5 but for some reason I thought there was a 4.0L NA version for the mustang.

After looking into it, the Mustang engine is a 3.7L but not billed as Ecoboost, just very efficient according to EPA. I think I need to retreat to the batcave to crunch some numbers.

Just so I'm not still confused, the 3.5L ecoboost for the F-150 would be 35% smaller than the 5.4L V-8 and they are claming it would be 20% more efficient. Right?

 

[flcruising]

Checkout the drag coefficient for a Formula 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient

The Mazda5 has a cd of 0.29

You guys should keep in mind that the EPA tests vehicles for just a few minutes through various speed/condition changes even when quoting Highway MPG - http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

 

[DKaz]

With the old EPA method, they subtracted something like 22% from their test results to give real world result. So really if you choose to cruise at 50mph on a highway with no A/C on, all lights off, you could achieve over 40 MPG in a Mazda 5. I don't like to go below 60 on a highway though, unless it's multi-lane and absolutely empty aside from one or two cars a minute.

 

[WhiteStar III]

How do I keep getting my info wrong on the Ecoboost, I think I need to reeducate myself on them! I know its a 3.5 but for some reason I thought there was a 4.0L NA version for the mustang.

After looking into it, the Mustang engine is a 3.7L but not billed as Ecoboost, just very efficient according to EPA. I think I need to retreat to the batcave to crunch some numbers.

EcoBoost = Duratec + direct injection + turbo

Just so I'm not still confused, the 3.5L ecoboost for the F-150 would be 35% smaller than the 5.4L V-8 and they are claming it would be 20% more efficient. Right?

Correct and they are claiming at least 20% greater efficiency.

 

[WhiteStar III]

One can knock Mazda for quite a few things but all they ever set out to sell was 20K annually; the problem with that number is that according to the "internets" a significant portion of that number is due to fleet sales. I remember there was a posting early on in the MZ5 cycle that brought this issue up in this board.

EDIT: found it!

http://www.msprotege.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123674934

I haven't come across any updated retail vrs fleet splits recently but rumors persist that it hasn't improved.

Updated info according to TTAC (The Truth about Cars) article "The Top 20 fleet Queens of 2009"

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/11/the-top-20-fleet-queens-of-2009/

http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/11/AFFB10-20-car-reg.pdf

37.5% of all Mazda5 sold in 2009 have gone to fleet (almost all to rental channels). By contrast Rondo was at 41.5%. Besides these two the only other minivan that have comparable splits the the Gran Caravan (43.2%) & Sedona (39.3%). The Mazda6 is the next highest model with 19.9%.