Mazda5 vs KIA Rondo comparisons and articles (merged)
- Thread starter P5w3kids
- Start date
- :
- mazda5 2006, Focus ST
The choice is yours only, and good luck on your rondo. When you can post your comments about it and how its doing in your ownership.
- :
- mazda5 2006, Focus ST
No its not, i have just stock rims and brake, but its my dream to upgrade them in the future. They are from a picture of a mazdaspeed6 i found on the net.
How do you know this? Saying Kias don't have crumple zones might be the most absurd thing I have heard yet lol. Might as well say they have no wheels while your at it. I will say this once and say it again if need be. The kias you speak of that got crappy gas mileage was when they used a SPECIFIC motor.. thats right 1 motor which was the extremely heavy 3.5 liter V6 that is a cast iron block. It is outdated (used in the hyundai XG 350 since mid 1997) and not as efficient and also underestimated in HP. Someone dropped that motor into a tiburon and dynoed 218 whp when it's crank hp rating is 194 hp. The kia sorento which probably got the crappiest mileage of all kias was a large suv built on a truck ladder frame which weighed it down more. In fact if you look at the 2007 kia sorrento it is essentially identical to the model years before it but they swapped the old 3.5 liter motor for a modern all aluminum 3.8 liter that produces 262 hp and get way better mileage (17/23 mpg) than the old 3.5 liter rated at 194 hp which was (15/18 mpg). The kia optima, the new sportage the spectra, new sedona, and rio all have curb weights that are on par with or lighter than it's competition and the new optima is rated to get 34 mpg highway (highest mileage of any epa rated large car), Spectra 36 mpg, and Rio 38 mpg. The Rondo infact is on par with the MZ5 in weight with the rondos curb weight being 3,333 lbs with an EPA mileage rating of 21/29 mpg. Also if you see that 4 kia models, the sorento, optima, sportage, and sedona have all have quadruple 5 star crash test ratings for hits in all directions. Here are the crash test results for the rondo. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/4245.html The car tested is a V6 rondo and it too would have gotten a quadruple 5 star rating if not for the rear passenger side hit which was rated at 4 star. Oh and here is a URL with all the "inefficient" safety engineering the rondo has. http://www.kia.com/rondo/rondo-safety.php Hmm standard active head rests standard electronic stability control standard crumple zones side mounted front torso airbag, full curtain airbags, standard abs, energy absoring steering column... the list goes on and these listed are all standard. see for yourself. Or maybe, according to your theory, they just made all that stuff up and really put a huge iron block in the front and rear of the car so that if you get into an accident you just bounce off the object you hit and get massive internal injuries but still somehow recieve amazing crash test ratings. I appreciate the rondo much like I appreciate the MZ5, but one must get one's facts straight before you go slandering car companies that you clearly have no knowledge about.raspykart said:
Last edited:
Rio Racer, I'm just curious and I have no intention of offending you, but you seem to be a Kia/Hyundai guy yet you're hanging around in this forum. Is there a reason for that? Did you used to own a Mazda?
To tell you guys the truth, even though the Rondo has pretty much exactly what I want, I still have lingering doubts about its long-term reliability. I certainly don't want to purchase it and have that always lingering in the back of my mind.
After reading so many reviews about the Rondo, it did cross my mind whether vehicle reviews in general are really all that trustworthy. Can you truly evaluate how good a car is by one test drive (which is usually the case for most print reviewers)? So what publications or studies do you guys trust, if not JD Powers or Motor Trend or Consumer Reports or whatever? What is an ignorant guy to do?
To tell you guys the truth, even though the Rondo has pretty much exactly what I want, I still have lingering doubts about its long-term reliability. I certainly don't want to purchase it and have that always lingering in the back of my mind.
After reading so many reviews about the Rondo, it did cross my mind whether vehicle reviews in general are really all that trustworthy. Can you truly evaluate how good a car is by one test drive (which is usually the case for most print reviewers)? So what publications or studies do you guys trust, if not JD Powers or Motor Trend or Consumer Reports or whatever? What is an ignorant guy to do?
Last edited:
Problem with most car reviews is the same publications are dependent on advertising. So they can't tick off the manufacturers.
Motor Trend historically was known for writing really sunny reviews of just about everything they drove, although it seems to me that their writing has gotten somewhat better in recent years. Car and Driver--which has only given a small blurb on the 5 and nothing on the Rondo--used to be one of the better mags, but not as good these days; the magazine has gotten smaller and cheaper.
Offhand the only group I know of that doesn't take advertising is Consumer Reports. Although they get flak for not being car people, their reviews are always interesting and they don't mince words. The Truth About Cars, a web site, used to not take advertising, but finally succumbed due to financial pressures. Yet they're still pretty independent minded, and the US manufacturers hate them because they're very critical of the US auto industry. They did review the Mazda5 and praised the driving dynamics yet panned the cheap interior, which I thought was fair. But mostly they were bewildered about who would buy the thing.
Interestingly, I find CAR magazine--from the UK--one of the most interesting and entertaining reads. The Rondo is called the Carens in the UK, and they get far more of these mini-MPVs than we do in North America. CAR magazine is refreshingly honest, they like the 5 (actually won a comparo), but think the Carens is, well, terminally boring. The only thing is that I find they're usually really pro-British anything and anti-American everything.
Truthfully, I find scanning owner reports more interesting. They have to be taken with a grain of salt. But I think you get a good impression of the 5 by hanging out in this forum.
Motor Trend historically was known for writing really sunny reviews of just about everything they drove, although it seems to me that their writing has gotten somewhat better in recent years. Car and Driver--which has only given a small blurb on the 5 and nothing on the Rondo--used to be one of the better mags, but not as good these days; the magazine has gotten smaller and cheaper.
Offhand the only group I know of that doesn't take advertising is Consumer Reports. Although they get flak for not being car people, their reviews are always interesting and they don't mince words. The Truth About Cars, a web site, used to not take advertising, but finally succumbed due to financial pressures. Yet they're still pretty independent minded, and the US manufacturers hate them because they're very critical of the US auto industry. They did review the Mazda5 and praised the driving dynamics yet panned the cheap interior, which I thought was fair. But mostly they were bewildered about who would buy the thing.
Interestingly, I find CAR magazine--from the UK--one of the most interesting and entertaining reads. The Rondo is called the Carens in the UK, and they get far more of these mini-MPVs than we do in North America. CAR magazine is refreshingly honest, they like the 5 (actually won a comparo), but think the Carens is, well, terminally boring. The only thing is that I find they're usually really pro-British anything and anti-American everything.
Truthfully, I find scanning owner reports more interesting. They have to be taken with a grain of salt. But I think you get a good impression of the 5 by hanging out in this forum.
Last edited:
AviaK said:
Just looked closer the picture for the space behind the 3rd row when it is up... it is a lot smaller then the Mazda5.
Space Behind the 3rd Row
Three things come into my mind.
1. I can't fit my bowling gear in that space...
2. No wonder it has more leg room for 2nd and 3rd row, because Kia move the 3rd row to the back few in. more.
3. Kind of worry what will happen to the 3rd row passenger when the Ronda got rear-end...
doctorz, there is a review up at Car and Driver for the Rondo, which thought it was ugly on the outside, nice on the inside, and handles well enough. I also read the Car Magazine review of the Carens/Rondo. It was the first I've read so far that was generally negative about the Rondo (well, if by negative, we mean very boring). I agree with you--I find first-hand owner reports much more interesting, although you have to do some weeding and have a good BS filter.
I guess I have been somewhat naive, thinking I would find a "Holy Grail" publication or website that would just settle everything and I'll never have any more doubts. I suppose one can get a general idea of how good a vehicle is by the preponderance of good or bad reports from various sources. But really, at the end of the day, all you can really do is to go and kick the tires, do a test drive, and decide for yourself based on your own likes and dislikes.
king57721, like I said before, the pictures don't seem to give an accurate impression of what it's really like. On paper, there is supposed to be more volume behind the third row seats in the Rondo compared to the 5 (which may or may not be true). But isn't this like wondering if a hamster is bigger than a mouse? They're both pretty darn small.
I guess I have been somewhat naive, thinking I would find a "Holy Grail" publication or website that would just settle everything and I'll never have any more doubts. I suppose one can get a general idea of how good a vehicle is by the preponderance of good or bad reports from various sources. But really, at the end of the day, all you can really do is to go and kick the tires, do a test drive, and decide for yourself based on your own likes and dislikes.
king57721, like I said before, the pictures don't seem to give an accurate impression of what it's really like. On paper, there is supposed to be more volume behind the third row seats in the Rondo compared to the 5 (which may or may not be true). But isn't this like wondering if a hamster is bigger than a mouse? They're both pretty darn small.
AviaK, thanks for the Car and Driver test link. I hadn't looked at the online site in a long time because it used to be pretty useless. Seems that it's more useful and the print's become more useless these days. I'm impressed that you've seem to have looked at all the reviews out there.
Regarding cargo capacity: according to truedelta.com there is 11 cubic feet behind the third row of the 5. Published figure I saw for the Rondo was 6.5 cubic feet. In any case, the Rondo's cargo area, to my eye, seems considerably smaller. We can actually fit an umbrella stroller and a few small bags behind the third seat of the 5, something we find useful when transporting grandparents along with our family of four.
Regarding cargo capacity: according to truedelta.com there is 11 cubic feet behind the third row of the 5. Published figure I saw for the Rondo was 6.5 cubic feet. In any case, the Rondo's cargo area, to my eye, seems considerably smaller. We can actually fit an umbrella stroller and a few small bags behind the third seat of the 5, something we find useful when transporting grandparents along with our family of four.
king57721 said:
I have seen the back of the first row first hand and it is smaller than our 5. I can fit a folded Britax baby umbralla stroller or our large Inglesina baby stroller behind the 3rd row of our 5, I'm doubt that either of those could fit behind the 3rd row of the Rondo.
- :
- 2008 Mazda5 5MT Sport w/ Popular Package
After all the posts, I was 0.3% more in favor of the Rondo until Perfecto posted the Rondo's interior. The image made me have flashbacks of those small, reliable yet very Ugly (with capital U) 1990's Asian branded taxis I used to ride in places like Thailand, Panama and Chile.
No offense, taxi drivers choose them because they are reliable and very low cost maintenance, yet design and style? None.
Yes, when I got the 5 I did not expect a Beemer, an Audi or an RX-8 yet the 5 has a great exterior and interior design, nice colors, 5MT as an option and drives great!
No offense, taxi drivers choose them because they are reliable and very low cost maintenance, yet design and style? None.
Yes, when I got the 5 I did not expect a Beemer, an Audi or an RX-8 yet the 5 has a great exterior and interior design, nice colors, 5MT as an option and drives great!
coolmazda5 said:
Umm, why would you care if the Rondo is favoured (formerly by 0.3% in your eyes) or not favoured? If the Rondo is "better" in some areas than the 5, you shouldn't feel threatened by that; if the Rondo is "worse" in some areas than the 5, you shouldn't need that to validate your love for the 5. Just enjoy your 5.
That picture of the Rondo's interior is of the Rondo SX concept car that was shown at an auto show. Whether it will eventually be mass produced or not--who knows. I personally think that it looks ridiculous. The Rondo is what it is--a utilitarian people hauler--and trying to dress it up to look sporty is just plain laughable.
808mz5 said:
If you mean the total volume behind the first row to the back of the vehicle--yes, it does seem smaller in the Rondo because it has seating for seven people whereas the 5 has seating for only six. You don't have that small middle aisle in the Rondo like you do in the 5.
If you're talking about the legroom for the second and third rows, I'm over 6' tall and I tried sitting in both rows in both vehicles--I thought the Rondo had more legroom. That's just my personal experience, though, and it all depends on how you adjust the second row seats.
If you're talking about the headroom, there is more headroom in the 5's third row. I could sit in the Rondo's third row because I'm a sloucher. If I had good posture, my head would easily bang the top of the vehicle.
If you're talking about elbow room, it depends on how many people are sitting in the Rondo and where. Obviously, if there are seven bodies filling up the Rondo's 2-3-2 seating, it's much more cramped in the Rondo's second row.
About the space behind the third row, the number that I saw was 112 litres in the 5, which is less than the Rondo's 185 L (just google "112 litres" and "mazda5" and you'll find it). But that's just on paper and nothing beats first-hand experience. I doubt that the mentioned strollers would fit behind the Rondo's third row, either. Come to think of it, I never got to see behind the third row of the 5, which is a glaring oversight on my part.
Remember, though, that the Rondo has 2-3-2 seating compared to the 5's 2-2-2. If 6 people were in both vehicles, you can fold down half of the third row in the Rondo for cargo space whereas you can't do that in the 5.
Anyway, these comparisons and different permutations can go on forever, but it just comes down to individual tastes. Just a reminder, guys, I'm not here to nitpick every single detail on why the Rondo is better than the 5 and why you guys should have bought the Rondo instead. That would be ludicrous (or Ludacris, just to enhance my street cred
). My first post was about why one idiot--me--would choose to buy a Rondo over a 5. I chose it because it was right for me. Most of you got that.The main reason I chose the Rondo is the 2-3-2 seating configuration and the seating for 7. If the 5 had this, I'm not sure if the Rondo would be on my radar screen. Lest everyone forgets, I have a Mazda3 Sport GT. That's my fun car. The Rondo will be my "family" car. But I still have yet to purchase it, so you never know.
(Excuse my anal editing for those who have seen multiple drafts. It appears that I really am nitpicking, ha ha.)
Last edited:
The reason I'm a hyundai/kia owner on this site is because I like mazdas. Never owned one but one of my best buds that I grew up with is Kansei on the boards here (has a turbo P5). I have always appreciated mazda for their sporty vehicles so I join to look around read up on the latest news about them. Nevertheless, I am often told about how crappy hyundais and kias are and people write them off as crap just because of the brand's past reliability woes (clear example from that guy that posted on here saying they have no crumple zones etc.). I like to clarify foolish assumptions. That being said i am in no means stating that kias are the best cars in the world, but it is frustrating when people refuse to let go of past reputations. Go drive a new Kia before you think they suck. Look at what Americans thought about Japanese cars when they first hit the market, even mazda probably got written off as rusting crap when it first came over to the states and look at the 360 change they have in reputation now. Remember that kia north america first started in 1994 with a few dealers in california. Kia dealers were not even in the east coast until around 1997 so yeah they are a new car company. Did they have reliability problems in the past? you bet. Just like any fledgling car company, but they cleaned up their act. When your company gets criticized for how crappy their cars are isn't there an incentive to work harder to improve? This is where german cars took a nose dive in reliability since people look so highly on them they lose that incentive. This may not mean much but I have a 03 rio with 117k miles on it with amazing reliability, in fact the most reliable car my family has ever owned (We've owned Japanese, GM, and Korean). The local kia dealer I go to has a kia rio with 250k miles on it that comes in for service. Spike Blue on the mazda boards here has a sephia with over 300k miles on it. Yes of course there are kias that crap out at low mileage, but I am willingly to bet most of those are old models. Get any kia that was designed when hyundai owned the company, using hyundai parts, and i bet it's as reliable as Japanese cars. That being said, all reviews tend to be flawed even consumer reviews. Honestly not many people especially, non car enthuiasts go on a website to write "gee I got in my car today and it started right up the transmission shifted smoothly and wow great gas mileage" Most people don't care unless their car starts poopin out early then they go rant on a site. This is of course for non car enthuiasts. For us car fiends we tend to write about how sweet our car is, at least I do. That being said good luck on your decision. Both cars are nice, one is more focused on a sporty consumer niche the other is more mainstream oriented. Here in the US kia has a 10 year 100k mile powertrain warranty and 5/60k bumper to bumper so if they started breaking down left and right kia would go bankrupt in a hurry.
Thanks for the post, Rio Racer, I get where you're coming from. Can I make a little suggestion, though? It's hard to read your posts because you don't use paragraphs. I think some people might overlook your posts because of that.
I'm old enough to remember when no one mentioned "Mazda" and "quality" in the same sentence (unless it was "crap quality"). In fact, my oldest brother had a Mazda that he bought brand new in the mid-70's. We used to call it the Flintstones car, because the bottom had rusted out on the driver side and you could literally touch the road with your feet. No problem, though, it kept sputtering on like an old lawn mower and he kept driving it well into the late 80's. I guess you could call that "reliable," if you ignore the fact that it was a rolling death trap (he was lucky, really) and it would have felt more comfortable riding in a Tin Lizzie during Prohibition (google that, young'uns--btw, I'm not that old).
I know what you mean about guys posting rants. People should be careful about making snap judgements based on a guy's rant. That is, just because so-and-so had a problem with his car doesn't mean that all the cars, from the same line or from the same company, suck. People fall for that all the time, though. Non-enthusiasts, that is. Actually, I am a non-enthusiast, which explains why I'm stupid enough to prefer the Rondo over the 5 (that's a freebie for the 5 fanboys (lol2)).
I'm old enough to remember when no one mentioned "Mazda" and "quality" in the same sentence (unless it was "crap quality"). In fact, my oldest brother had a Mazda that he bought brand new in the mid-70's. We used to call it the Flintstones car, because the bottom had rusted out on the driver side and you could literally touch the road with your feet. No problem, though, it kept sputtering on like an old lawn mower and he kept driving it well into the late 80's. I guess you could call that "reliable," if you ignore the fact that it was a rolling death trap (he was lucky, really) and it would have felt more comfortable riding in a Tin Lizzie during Prohibition (google that, young'uns--btw, I'm not that old
).I know what you mean about guys posting rants. People should be careful about making snap judgements based on a guy's rant. That is, just because so-and-so had a problem with his car doesn't mean that all the cars, from the same line or from the same company, suck. People fall for that all the time, though. Non-enthusiasts, that is. Actually, I am a non-enthusiast, which explains why I'm stupid enough to prefer the Rondo over the 5 (that's a freebie for the 5 fanboys (lol2)).
mountjonas
Member
- :
- 2013 VRM MS3
i've probably said it in this thread, but sliding doors is key for my family. i've got a 10 month old daughter and having sliding doors makes it super easy to get her in her seat. i don't have to worry about accidentally hitting the door with my hips and denting the car next to us.
sure, it looks like a rolling suppository or a doorstop, but it gets the job done. i was a little hesitant to buy it even though it was my suggestion (minivans are about $7000 out of our budget) so this was the next best thing. 10 months later, i've grown to love the darn thing. if the kia rondo had sliding doors, i would've seriously considered it.
sure, it looks like a rolling suppository or a doorstop, but it gets the job done. i was a little hesitant to buy it even though it was my suggestion (minivans are about $7000 out of our budget) so this was the next best thing. 10 months later, i've grown to love the darn thing. if the kia rondo had sliding doors, i would've seriously considered it.
New Posts and Comments
- Article
