What link?

 

Sorry. Got distracted. Fixed now

 

1st place: Kia Cadenza
A huge value proposition, solid fuel efficiency, near-luxury ride, and pretty sheetmetal make the Kia our near-unanimous choice for first place.

2nd place: Chevrolet Impala
Despite a few flaws, the Impala offers a well-thought-out package at a reasonable cost. This is a solid step forward for the American sedan.

3rd place: Toyota Avalon
Extremely efficient and generous in interior room and features, the Avalon is let down by a bone-shaking ride and an uninspiring drive.

4th place: Chrysler 300S
A pretty face goes a long way, but it can't argue with reality. Poor fuel economy and interior room relegate the good-looking Chrysler to fourth.

5th place: Ford Taurus
The Taurus needs more than a refresh to compete in this segment. If you're on a budget, shop for something in the midsize category.

 

Powertrain warranty on the Taurus is 4yrs/60k, not 5yr/60k unless they changed it.

 

"Pretty sheetmetal"?

It's all subjective of course, but the Cadenza is an OK design. I don't think I would have given it the nod based on its appearance. In any case this article spoke well of the Impala.

 

With a starting MSRP of $35,100, the Impala is going to easily outsell the Cadenza.

Also, $42,000 for a fully loaded Cadenza that has no powertrain upgrades at all is pathertic. I would rather spend the extra $1,500 dollars and step into a SS, as much as I hate the name. At least you get RWD and V8.

 

Of course the new Impala will (handily) outsell the Cadenza, but sales is not what Kia is looking for with the Cadenza (otherwise, they would be offering a lower-priced base trim). See below.

And one can make the same argument about picking the RWD SS and 300 over all the large, upscale FWD sedans (which when loaded, retail for around $40k, if not over).

A bit of discussion of this test in the CD Tests Six (Avalon, Impala, 300, etc., in that order) thread.

It's been years since I drove the Taurus, and over a year since the Chargers, so I really can't opine on how right or wrong MT, and CD, are. And everyone has an opinion, so who cares?

Performance figures are pretty close. Looks are subjective. Emphasis on ride vs. handling is personal.
What stands out as much as anything for me, perhaps because I've bought some KIAs over the years, is that the Cadenza is hugely overreaching in its base price.

$30,000 is where it should start. $35+ grand base price is just a bad joke.

KIA and Hyundai traditionally have been bang-for-the-bucks propositions. As the highest-priced car in the comparo, it seems KIA has decided they can now pretend they're Mercedes.
NOT, and sales will suffer.

The Cadenza comparably equipped is still a better value play than an Avalon and the Cadenza has a nicer interior and complimentary 3 year maintenance and the Cadenza starts at $35k b/c it doesn't offer a base, stripped down model.

Also, the Cadenza is priced higher than the Azera b/c Kia is positioning the Cadenza as more of a tweener - competing not only against the FWD, upscale sedans, but the entry-level midsize luxury sedans like the ES and MKZ (which is why the Cadenza has a nicer interior than the rest of the segment and offers complimentary maintenance - not really "complimentary" since these things are priced into the MSRP).

Kia is slotting the Cadenza above the Azera b/c due to its upcoming lineup in the premium/luxury segment.

While Hyundai will have the following sedan lineup -

Azera (upscale, not luxury)
RK compact sedan
Genesis
Equus


Kia, in about a year's time, will have the Quoris - which will slot btwn the Genesis and Equus.
The production version of the GT concept will slot btwn the RK and Genesis.

So, in effect, Kia will have a tweener strategy when it comes to its higher-end offering; one benefit with the Cadenza being more upscale is that it will better pave the way for the Quoris when it hits the dealer lots (ideally, it would be better if Kia launched the GT before the Quoris, but the GT is still in development).

Even before the national ad campaign for the Cadenza started, Kia managed to sell nearly 500 Cadenzas in May.

I think Kia would be quite please if the Cadenza averages around a 1k/month (one thing that will hurt the Cadenza, as well as the Impala, is not having a full-hybrid variant - the hybrid versions of the Avalon, ES and MKZ are selling very well).

the kia will be a total flop just like every other attempt they have made to get into this market. No one will spend 35k+ for a car that will be work 10K the day you drive it off the lot.

Interesting, considering that the Optima has one of the highest ATP for the midsize segment w/ an ATP of $25.5k - which is due to the strength of SX and SX-L trim sales.

The SX-L goes for $35k and one Kia dealership has the SX-L comprising 15% of its Optima sales.

Yes, the Amanti flopped but c'mon, really, was that really much of an effort? (One could just as well say pretty much all of Kia's models flopped until the current generations hit the market - case in point, the current Optima compared to its predecessor).

Motor Trend could have tested the Limited version on the Taurus, which retails for $34K, instead of the SEL, which retails for $27K. It's light on features which is why it stickers for $6K less. They picked the wrong trim line to test!

If you want performance, then an SHO that starts at $39K would smoke the other cars. Just saying.

Auto publications test what the manufacturers provide for them and the SHO is a performance trim with AWD so wouldn't exactly be a fair comparison.

 

Good to see the new Impala do so well. I was afraid that the GM torque nanny's would castrate the V6 Impala, not so! The Impala is at the top or close to the top in all performance measurements. Welcome back Impala!

 

Chevy's transmission hunted endlessly for the proper gear, resulting in frustration and a lot of engine noise.

Is it possible that MT got a bad trans unit in their tester? I don't recall any other reviews mentioning this.

 

Being such an early car, it is perfectly possible that the transmission hunting is the result of a programing issue. Also it is an issue that can be fixed with an upgrade (just like the infotainment system). Also they didn't like the interior color options which is something that you can change so I think it is silly not pointing that out. Also they called the Kia a great value proposition when the Impala had everything that the Kia had for some $3,000 less........

 

No surprises in the finishing order for me, with the most interesting tidbit being the second to last place finish of the 300. Internet forums have long been much too easy on this car because it's rwd, but the reality is that never has really resulted in a handling advantage for the car and there have always been better driving fwd alternatives. I'm just glad we see a review that is stating as much. The only hook the 300 has in it's arsenal other than styling is the availability of a V-8, so if a V-6 is what you are after the 300 just doesn't have much to offer.

As for last place, Taurus is getting old and it shows. That cars Fusion-based replacement can't get here soon enough. A good showing for the Impala, this car is one of GM's better efforts of late IMO.

 

A bit of discussion of this test in the CD Tests Six (Avalon, Impala, 300, etc., in that order) thread.

It's been years since I drove the Taurus, and over a year since the Chargers, so I really can't opine on how right or wrong MT, and CD, are. And everyone has an opinion, so who cares?

Performance figures are pretty close. Looks are subjective. Emphasis on ride vs. handling is personal.
What stands out as much as anything for me, perhaps because I've bought some KIAs over the years, is that the Cadenza is hugely overreaching in its base price.

$30,000 is where it should start. $35+ grand base price is just a bad joke.

KIA and Hyundai traditionally have been bang-for-the-bucks propositions. As the highest-priced car in the comparo, it seems KIA has decided they can now pretend they're Mercedes.
NOT, and sales will suffer.

I'm glad the Impala placed consistently in these two major carnut magazine comparos.
In the top two, twice, :clap: is pretty good, especially since the top dog in one was near/at bottom in the other, and vice-versa.

Diffr'nt Strokes, folks.

 

Kia could price the Cadenza at $35,000, if everything was standard. The joke is that there are only 2 packages available, the Luxury package and the Technology package, both $3,000 options. There are no a-la-carte options meaning that if you want a sunroof and 19 inch wheels they slap another $6,000 onto the base price. For $35,000 base this baby should have sunroof and 19 inch wheels standard.

The fact that I can get a 1LT Impala for a little over $30,000 (i hate leather anyway) and it has a more powerful V6 that gets better FE is just icing on the cake. Plus IMHO it looks better.

 

I'm happy to see the Impala in a solid second position. Also, the transmission issue may be due to pre production status. Final tranny tuning is usually one of the last things tackled, before production.

As for the Taurus.................. completely expected. It is old, and its packaging isn't the best. As others have said, the surprise is the 300. While I have never cared for the cars styling myself, it has been gushed about so much, that I just "assumed" it was a good car. That it is barely better than the Taurus is sad.

 

That Kia front end is fugly...what are they thinking?

What's really funny about this is how many people pissed and moaned about the Impala topping out at $42k and now EVEN the KIA does.

 

I did not read anywhere that the 300 performed poorly in any acceleration or handling metric. In fact, I read that it is good looking, has a pleasant dash layout and display, smooth and intuitive transmission, tied for best in braking, 0.2 slower than the top 1/4 mile, best figure 8 time, and offers enough options that rival other luxury sedans at a higher price level...

I also read was that it finished 4th because of a monotone interior, being a tad porky, getting worse than expected gas mileage, and having rear seat/space issues (yeah, ok).

Of course, there are 2 optional engines to be had, as well as a two tone interior on the S and a different one on the C. As for the gas mileage? Scroll down and do the math on the total cost to own less initial all-in cost. The Kia loses that "value" equation.

Obviously, I am a 300 owner. Take as many grains of salt as necessary for my comments.

 

Imo, they kneecapped the Chrysler.

And to a much lesser extent, the Impala - who as others are pointing out, is the real winner here ( or really one of the two ) - and elsewhere.

Spotted the Avalon and the Cadenza.


The new group @ MT seems quite different than the old.


Perhaps because they picked the GC DT over the ML DT, the Touareg DT and ...... the Cayenne DT.....( in the same issue ) they had to pound the 300 ?


Funny thing is.... independent of what they said about the GC and the rankings etc, definitely felt they lined it up hard against the (ML & Cayenne ) especially - and even the Touareg a bit too.

 

If I were shopping for an economy car I would consider a Kia product. For A $35,000 large luxury car though Kia would not even be on my radar. There's more to a good car than features for the dollar and flashy styling.

 

A good first shot across the bow by the new Impala, even though the interior was nit picked to oblivion by the MT testers.

Hmmm, Chevrolet auto transmissions always hunt when it comes to comparison tests like these. Malibu's auto transmission also hunted for shifts too. GM should look into their programming to see if they can mitigate annoying transmission hunting.

So they had to give the KIA Cadenza the nod. The car dont look good to me, I'd prefer the Hyundai Azera to that ugly vehicle.

 

Motor Trend could have tested the Limited version on the Taurus, which retails for $34K, instead of the SEL, which retails for $27K. It's light on features which is why it stickers for $6K less. They picked the wrong trim line to test!

If you want performance, then an SHO that starts at $39K would smoke the other cars. Just saying.

Also, go back and look at the 5-year cost of ownership of these cars. I guess they did not weight value very highly.

 

I think they put a lot of weight into back seat space - and I guess that makes sense, since if back seat space doesn't matter to you, you can buy a midsize car instead. That extra weight on rear seat room might explain why the Cadenza edged out the Impala and why the 300 did so poorly.

But on the other hand, trunk space wasn't mentioned at all and obviously in that respect the Impala and Taurus are the segment leaders and everyone else is in a very distant third place.

Generally, though, I think the comparison was fair. Ten years ago, right or wrong we just would have been listening to complaints about General Motors quality and panel gaps and handling and so forth, and Toyota would be unable to do wrong.

If you want performance, then an SHO that starts at $39K would smoke the other cars. Just saying.

Most of the cars sold in this segment are without the performance engine, so I think it's fair to keep it that way. I see lots of Taurus Limited trims around, and that's more expensive than the SHO. I rarely see the new SHO.

So I think the comparison is fair. I'm also disappointed an 8 speed auto and the Pentastar V6 did so poorly in the 300 - I know the 300 is heavy, but I expected better performance and fuel economy.

 

I guess GM has improved a lot and done a lot of homework. Not too long ago the complaint list would be very long and they'd be in last place. I myself like the Chrysler 300 but have nothing but respect for what GM has brought to the table with the Impala. Once again you are getting a Lux car without the badge in the Impala, great job GM.

 

WTF? I read that whole article twice. Can someone please explain to me why Impala was not declared the winner?
I don't buy the tranny BS either.

Not that it matters but they brought the wrong Taurus to the party.

 

Teal stitching vs. faux wood trim and an analog clock probably.

 

the kia will be a total flop just like every other attempt they have made to get into this market. No one will spend 35k+ for a car that will be work 10K the day you drive it off the lot.

 

Good for GM and the Chevrolet Impala. I find it hard to compare the ride to the 300. There is an 8 inch difference in the wheel base. The Impala is Front Wheel Drive...

Whoa, that a FWD car got a good report is amazing.

 

There is one major problem with owning the "winner" here - it's having to utter the words "Kia Cadenza" when asked about your ride. Sounds like a made-up name from Seinfeld. Go ahead, try it.

Btw, Car & Driver picked the Avalon, with the Impala 3 points shy.

 

There is one major problem with owning the "winner" here - it's having to utter the words "Kia Cadenza" when asked about your ride. Sounds like a made-up name from Seinfeld. Go ahead, try it.

Heh.

I would have found it hard to believe that the new Impala was a bad car... the Lacrosse bones are a good base to start with.

 

This is a great article for those who don't understand what full size sedan pricing is in this market. Every one of these sedans goes over 40K so anyone saying the Impala is overpriced has their head in the sand.

Good job by the Impala; it does many things well. It won't win at everything all the time but I think it's more important that it is consistently ranked at the top of comparisons. I think it's safe to say they Impala is well respected by the media right now.

 

Impala has gone from an also ran last place finisher to at least second place. With all the different alternatives out there this is really good news.

 

Hyundai/Kia must be spending some big $$$ to buy off so many of the magazines and websites that always pick their vehicles ahead of others that are clearly of better quality and design.

Impala FTW here.

 

First place is arguable on these reviews while the Impala is a solid second.

This is good news for Chevrolet sales.

 

GM deserves strong praise for Impala - it's a good well thought out car that will attract a lot of sales.

and that's coming from a blue oval biased person...