I wouldn't touch Volkswagens with a 10 foot pole based on past reliability, but if you're leasing and getting a new car every 3 years, it may not be an issue to you. Of course there are new Audi's out there with engine problems in the first 3 years. lol. I'd take the Kia, but only because of how much I hate VW's and the issues they've had.
VW's reliability has more to do with electrical wiring than actual engine problems... as with most German cars. You will have a much greater chance of having your audio system go hey wire than the tranny give out in VWs. Their engines are actually solid.
if you are going to compare... compare with similar trims. I agree the picture you posted of the passat interior is ugly. Only because any modern car with a wood trim in the interior is ugly. Plus I said in its class. Acura is a premium level car. An Audi vs Acura comparison is fair. Simplicity is not a common concept when it comes to interiors of Japanese cars. If you look at the Passat the gauges are much easier to read.
Anyone buying a V6 TSX should be shot anyway. It's overpriced (almost overlaps in price with a TL) and the TSX may be on the way out as a model.
To me, both of those look luxurious. Now, people are dismissing the Kia for being a Kia. My wife did, before seeing it. Here's it's interior. I'll admit the TSX and Passat both look a little better... but not much, and the Kia picture doesn't do it complete justice. The Passat, for example, unless you get the "L" package (i.e. SEL vs. SE), you don't get leather, you get leatherette. Minor things like that. Also, with regards to the TSX, performance wise, the comparison is again the V6. The V4 doesn't have the same speed and acceleration. I've read reviews of the TSX V6, however, that note it just doesn't feel as good as the 4... meaning, yes, it's got a bigger engine and is faster, but it changes the drive, and you don't get the typical Acura drive out of it as you do out of the better paired 4 cylinder with the TSX. Just as an example stat, whereas the 4 gets you 0-60 in mid 7's, the six cylinder gets in that +/- 6 seconds. Comparable to the new Passat or the Optima SX. But again, reviews note speed aside, the TSX 4 cylinder just drives better. http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/impressions/2010-acura-tsx-v-6 All THAT aside, you probably could get the 4 cylinder TSX BASE model, with no add-on's, around $28k. You can't get the comparable included tech package, which includes navigation (nice, not a must have, but include in the Optima's $28k price), and better sound and iphone connectivity (a need) without MSRP'ing at over $33.5k - hard to see that getting down to $28.5k with negotiations. But if you wanted the V6 for comparable speed (but worse handling), and the "tech" package, youre looking at a base MSRP of over $38k. On an apples to apples basis, you get a comparable TSX, but a little smaller, with worse gas mileage, and not exactly loved for the handling, even though you get the joy of paying likely $6k - $9k more.
V6 TSX isn't worth it imo and yes, it does overlap with the TL. That probably explains why Tsx sales are cannibalizing TL sales right now (2,691 tsx sold vs 2,412 tl). The new ILX, which is probably going to start out in the mid 20's is going to replace the TSX because of the overlap and the expense of selling a vehicle mij.
Basically where I was going. At the end of the day, if you can find a true apples to apples comparison in any of the premium badges - Acura, Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Inifiniti, etc. you will be paying a meaningful amount more. It's just the "badge" premium. Still, the Kia specifically is lagging behind in "badge" perception to even it's actual competitors - Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyunda and now the VW Passat.
I think most TSX's sold are the 4-cylinder variety, which is much cheaper, so I doubt people are cross-shopping unless they don't care about power but just want a similarly-sized car. The TL isn't selling because of its butt-ugly fascia, but for the price, the car is a steal.
Every tsx comes with ipod connectivity standard. Same thing as iphone connectivity? People have reported paying 30-31k for the tech package, which include the navi, upgraded audio, and back up camera. Just curious, what other options would you need on a tsx? I think it comes with almost everything standard, (sunroof, hid, leather, automatic climate control, premium audio, bluetooth/hands free, etc). Btw, the manual is at least one second quicker in the 0-60 vs the auto.
Maybe the iphone connectivity is standard. I was just quickly at the build your own page, and you need the tech package for navigation, back-up camera, premium audio and bluetooth. Not that all of these are required, but again, trying to make an apples to apples comparison. beside that, though, you're still talking about the 4 cylinder, no?
I don't know who this guy is... probably some Kia shill, but accurately describes where I'm at. It's a great car, but perception... <iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/27662444?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/27662444">2011 Kia Optima SX Turbo review</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/cartype">Cartype</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p> http://www.cartype.com/pages/5631/kia_optima_sx_turbo__2011
The newly revised grill makes the TL look much nicer. I would've ordered a 2012 TL instead of the 2012 TSX if the vehicle wasn't so big. The TL has a nicer interior and is a better value over the v6 Tsx imo. Reading in the forums, one of the big reasons why they purchased the v6 tsx over tl was because it was smaller and mij.
I didn't realize this was a lease situation. As others have said, if you plan on ditching it after 3 years, the Passat may be the way to go. If you're looking at buying, the Kia is a no-brainer.
Yes, the 4 cyl. Bluetooth is standard for every tsx. I was trying to give you a different alternative to look at that is similarly priced, but it looks like you're sold on Kia. If those two vehicles were my only choices, I would pick Kia > VW. I've had numerous cousins who purchased VW and every one of them regretted it, traded it in and never looked back. The Toureg is different from the rest of the VW line up because it shares the same platform with the Porsche I think and it's $10k more expensive than the second most expensive VW. Perhaps they should've branded it Audi instead.
Yeah, I own a 3G and with the revised grille, the 4G is on my list of cars to buy if my 3G dies. Of course by 2013, the 5G will be out, so I'm holding out hope they fix some of the appearance issues in the TL.
You're right. It's so confusing. Bluetooth is standard, but the "tech" package gets you the Bluetooth phonebook exchange. I guess that means you can connect with Bluetooth on the standard, but if you want to import your address book, you have to get the upgrade?? I guess. No, I'm not sold on the Kia. I'm trying to rationalize it to myself, frankly. There seem to be more than enough people here saying VW's are really finicky. Noted. I appreciate the TSX you've suggested. But I agree with you, the TL seems the better purchase. Unfortunately, it truly is more expensive. So, while I'm not sold on the Kia, if I am just comparing: Speed/performance - Kia wins. Meaningfully faster than the TSX 4 cylinder. TSX v6 not well reviewed. Kia cheaper than the TSX v6 anyway. Exterior styling - Kia wins. This is subjective, but absent the Kia badge (brand perception), it's a beautiful car. If it was badged Lexus or BMW, you wouldn't be surprised. That said, the TSX is also a looker. I drove an Acura Legend in the mid 90's, and loved the hell out of that car. So do love the look of the current model Acura's... but think the Optima edges it out. Interior - Acura wins. It's an Acura. Like the Passat, there is a slightly more refined feel, imo. Packages - Kia wins. This factors primarily into price. But even without price, Kia offers a few extra bells and whistles. It has bluetooth audio streaming. It has the panoramic sun/moon roof. It has the heated and cooled front seats and heated rear seats. Price - Kia. It's cheaper, especially if you compared as apples to apples as possible. Reliability - Acura. This may not be a meaningful difference going forward, but can only gauge on past history, and Acura wins this. Resale/Residual value - Acura. Brand perception - Acura. Not that those are all possible categories, but it's a 4/4 tie there, but with Acura taking things that are harder to quantify (reliability, resale, perception) and Kia taking the thing that is easiest to quantify - PRICE. Again, I made this thread for suggestions and advice, so appreciated, but just trying to be somewhat objective. If money was less of an issue (it's not a huge issue, I can splurge if I wanted to, but if I was going to do that, I would just wait and lease the new 3 series coming out, and I don't want to, because I'm opposed to overpaying for cars... until I win the lotto), I would certainly consider more options.
I still may buy. I need to work out the lease specifics still, but with both companies, the finance "charge" is very low, if not zero. The Kia salesman said he thought that was zero imputed finance charge in the lease, but I don't think he is the expert on that front. But if it is zero or close to, I'm happy to pay the depreciation of the car through the lease. There might be a few other administrative charges that might be in there because of the lease, but won't add up to very much. So leasing is basically a free option, then, to purchase the car later, if I want. If the car is actually worth more than the residual value, even if I don't want to keep it, I can purchase and then flip to make sure I keep the difference. If the car is worth less than the residual value, especially with the Kia, then the brand hasn't gone where I wanted, and I might not want to keep anyway, so can just walk, having in the end not even having to have paid as much as I otherwise would have lost in value if I did buy outright. Does that make sense? Perhaps I'm looking at leases wrong, but seems to make sense to me. So it's not entirely that I want to move onto something else in 3 years... I might, but it's that I already don't put on a lot of mileage, so why not take the free (or close to free) option? The other cost is GAP insurance, which I might want to get in a lease, in case the car is stolen or damaged beyond repair and I'm left with that "gap"
I took a look at Kia's website and it's not a bad value for the Optima. If it helps, one of my nco's own a Optima and he loves it. Doesn't GDI = diesel??
No, its Gasoline Direct Injection. I actually like the movement towards more diesel, especially with today's clean diesel and great fuel mileage. But here in Austin, diesel is like $1 more a gallon. Add on the increased cost of the diesel engine, and you still need a lot of mileage to make your money back. The Kia website is good, but I think you'll find the various video reviews of the Optima SX to be as, if not more, helpful. Moreover, the car is really nice in person. Also, they seem more willing to deal a bit more. Just remembered the power folding mirrors, another small thing, but a nice add.
