This one. So you’d be buying a 3 year old car with 40k miles on it for less than the Kia. Is a Toyota with 40k on it better than a new Kia? Absolutely. The reason is superior engineering - the design of the Toyota is going to have far more reliable components in it, and far more refinements. Even though at 40k miles there will be some worn parts that will need replacing a little sooner than with a new Kia (brake pads, struts, maybe tires), once you replace those you’re in a far better situation than with a car with a less good design.
The hybrid variant is also worth considering though the 2019 hybrid is so much more compelling.
This is kind of a load of hogwash. The 2020 Kia Soul is a brand new platform, the 2016 Rav4 was introduced in 2012. There’s 8 years of technology, safety, and reliability improvements in that Kia. It gets 27/33 mpg ratings versus 23/30 for the Toyota. I’m not a fan of buying new cars either, but it’s silly to ignore the benefits of 8 years of tech.
I’ve borrowed a saying from Willie Keeler (via auto journalist Sajeev Mehta), which is “Hit 'em where they ain’t.” I bought my first Kia in 2008, it was a 2006 Kia Sedona which was light years ahead of the 2005 Kia Sedona in terms of technology and refinement. It was 80% as good as a Honda for 40% of the price, because nobody else wanted to toss the dice on the Kia nameplate. I just replaced that car after 11 years of faithful service with a 2017 Sedona, which is 95% as good as a Honda at 80% of the price. If you buy the car at the top of the reliability ratings, you’re competing with everyone else who has a consumer reports subscription and doesn’t want to think too hard about value.
Kia isn’t a third world company anymore, you should check them out. It’s a world class company and you can still find some bargains with a Kia badge, but don’t expect that to last for long. At the rate they’re improving, the next Kia might be 110% as good as a Honda for 120% of the price.
As a longtime CR subscriber, I’m loath to reproduce their ratings here. But I’ll say this: Their current rankings of “small cars” indicate that the new Kia Soul is undoubtedly a “good car,” which was the OP query. I welcome independent verification. (In fact, I think everybody should subscribe to CR, because it’s the best ROI you can find.)
Very few cars get junked because the engine dies. They get junked because the transmission dies, or because expensive body work is needed, or because of a host of smaller, niggling problems.
I know a few people on their third Soul and who love them. And related to your question they seem to feel the car has gotten better as the platform has been improved over the years.
On the warranty ------- save your receipts and be sure you can document what was done when. Kia I cannot say one way or another but I have known other brands to us a lack of documentation to work around warranty issues down the road.
I have two, and we like them a lot. I bought mine new in 2014, because I wanted the warranty. I never had to use it. The car has never needed a repair outside of routine maintenance.
It has almost 80k on it now.
When my wife needed another car, we got her a 2 year-old used one last June. Zero problems with that one so far.
If I understand right, the pre-2014(?) Souls had power train problems which were corrected in that model year.
8 years of tech, cross brand? Kia doesn’t have the resources much less the corporate culture of Toyota much less the billions to reinvest to make their design better.
I think you’re wrong, and I think a 3-year old Toyota that was originally 27k will be better vehicle (this means the manufacturer has more money to put into the component quality much less the features) than a Kia that starts at 17k.
With that said, that’s just my opinion, and the opinion of the majority of America. I don’t have direct data to compare the reliability of the new Kia to a 3 year old Toyota.
So I got ahold of the 2019 car issue of Consumer Reports (April 2019, for those playing at home). It lists the Kia Soul as one of the “best new vehicles under $30K.” It also says that Kia’s reliability is on par with Honda (but below Toyota’s) and owner satisfaction surveys put Kia in the same category as both Hondas and Toyotas.
I’m not really seeing a compelling reason to avoid a new Kia.
Regarding buying a used Toyota, one thing to keep in mind (well, one thing that I’m taking into consideration) is that a 2016 Toyota Rav4 (which is probably the closest comparable vehicle to the Soul that Toyota makes) came with a 3 yr/36,000 mile basic, 5 yr/60,000 mile powertrain warranty. So if I bought one chances are I’ll be out of warranty within a year. A new Soul has a 5 yr/60,000 mile basic, 10 yr/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. I believe this is a good indication that Kia has a lot of faith in their vehicles — perhaps moreso than Toyota.
Right now, there are only two 2016 Rav4’s listed on the Portand Craigslist. One is $20K with 24K miles, the other is $18K with 33K miles. Both more expensive than a brand new base Soul (of course, the Rav4 has AWD and a few other features that the Soul lacks, but nothing that I want).
I’m confident going the used route isn’t necessarily better.
Question: are you actually just trying to justify a decision you’ve already made, or are you willing to look at the numbers?
Because you’re clearly and obviously wrong. Assuming you want a vehicle shaped object that meets your needs for the minimum cost, there’s a huge factor you are missing.
Depreciation. The cost of having a vehicle is fuel + depreciation + maintenance + interest + insurance.
Insurance and interest will be about the same assuming a similar priced, similar vehicle.
Maintenance will be similar, Toyota is more reliable but like you point out, Kia has a significant warranty. Fuel is similar enough to neglect as well.
So the primary cost difference is depreciation. And that’s hugely in Toyota’s favor.
It’s right there in the numbers : you lose $5,687 with the Kia right away, and around $1,373 a year for the RAV4.
Objectively, if you are scoring the decision by “which vehicle shaped object will meet my needs for the lowest predicted cost”, you are making a worse decision. Now, if you somehow think a cheap Kia is “sexier” than a RAV4 or some other non-objective factor, ok.
And the other excuse - this tells me you have already made a decision emotionally, you are just trying to justify it - doesn’t hold water. Use cargurus, not Craigslist. I see 63 “great deal” vehicles to choose from in Portland.
If you have to get a Kia, buy a 2-4 year old one. You will get it for 60-70% of the new price.
While it’s true that a new car takes about a 40% depreciation hit as soon as you drive it off the lot, if you’re planning to maximize your return by buying new and keeping it until it dies (or at least until the 10yr/100K warranty runs out), this is a good time to grab last year’s model at deep discount – if last year’s model is an option.
But I’m sure you’ll do what’s right for your situation; other than answering your question, I really don’t have much emotional investment in your decision, TBH. You do you, and let us know how it works out. Good luck!
This strategy does not maximize your return. (where max return = minimum cost) I extended the usedfirst data with a spreadsheet that models buying a car each possible year and calculates the minimum cost. I can share if you are interested.
Negative. The much touted “buy new and run into the ground” model is not cheaper than the strategy of “buy it a few years older and run it into the ground”.
Sure, the car doesn’t “last” as long but it ends up still being cheaper per year of ownership.
The Kia Soul is fine. If you like it, it’s plenty good and above average in reliability and workmanship.
If you don’t want to deal with salesmen (and who does?), try ordering online or via Costco (or similar if you have the option). You can choose the exact car you want that way.
Other thread notes:
Synthetic oil is becoming a requirement; regular mineral oil cannot meet many new car specs. And I strongly recomment using oil with the recommended viscosity; modern engines are designed with tighter tolerances, which often means less tolerance for deviations.
Toyotas? Reliable but boring. And I drove my niece’s brand new Prius for a couple of days; the HMI is nowhere near as intuitive as my Chevy’s.
Toyota’s level of “boringness” depends greatly on the type of car and transmission you’re driving…
all Priuses; completely soulless and utterly boring, everything else was sacrificed at the Altar Of Fuel Economy…
reliable, yes, fuel efficient, OG, yes!, fun to drive, NO!
Toyota Supra; for the price it had better be fun, it’d be more fun with a proper manual transmission
Toyota 86 manual; almost as fun as a Supra, but more affordable, 86 automatic; Meh, more fun than a Prius (but that’s an awfully low target anyway), but nowhere near as fun as the manual version
Toyota Corolla; Manual-fun, auto; not much better than the prius
I’ve never driven a RAV4, so I can’t speak for that one, but you can’t just use a blanket statement that Toyota as a whole is boring, most of their cars are, due to the automatic, but they do have some fun vehicles
as far as transmissions go, in terms of most to least fun, it would go;
Manual>Dual Clutch/DSG>Torque Converter auto (the “normal” automatic)>bicycle>horseback>running>walking>not going anywhere>CVT
