Did anyone else compare the Elantra Touring to the Kia Rondo?

 

What do you want to know?

 

Heh heh ... yeah, pretty dumb, vague, general question, wasn't it?

Well, it's sort of moot now because I committed to the ET today. I was impressed with the Rondo test drive - compared to the ET, a little more power (even in the 4-cyl), and slightly smoother.

But Kia could not give me definite lease numbers yet, so I said to heck with it and went with the ET. I think that when KIA ARE able to give me a quote, the Rondo will come in with a considerably higher lease payment.

But to respond to your question ... I suppose I was particularly curious - hence my post - about the acceleration and general driving feel of the ET, as compared to the Rondo.

And I still am curious, even though, as I said - it's moot now.

 

The 4-cyl in the Rondo is the larger and more powerful 2.4L Theta compared to the 2.0L Beta in the Elantra (175-hp vs 138-hp). The Rondo is larger and heavier. Those 2 things make the Rondo more thirsty and more expensive. The Rondo is also available with 3-rows for 7-passenger seating. The Rondo has a few more standard features and some options not available in the Touring (such as an in-dash navigation system).

As for driving, I think the Touring has a slightly sportier feel even with less power but to be honest, neither of these cars can be considered "sporty". The Rondo feels more robust because it has more power and is about 400-lbs heavier.

For fuel economy alone, I think you made a great choice. I feel the only reason to get a Rondo over a Touring is if you wanted 7-passenger seating without having to buy a minivan or SUV.

 

Thanks again for the response. Yeah, I was aware of the engine size & weight issues. I suppose it's just my fear of buyer's remorse; I am hoping I won't find myself wanting in power or acceleration. I actually doubt it, even though I'm coming from a 2.4L Saturn Ion. I'm a pretty sedate driver - I think the extra .4L is probably wasted on me I don't even need the extra seating, actually !

Meanwhile, I agree with your assessment of the EL being slightly 'sportier' - it does have more of that feel to it.

Where I noticed the difference in power was up around 100km/h or so ... the EL didn't seem to kick in as quickly as the Rondo did. But unfortunately in the EL I was distracted (by the sales guy ) and didn't pay proper attention to my test drive.

Good point about the fuel ! I am actually hoping the Rondo quote comes in way too high, and then I won't have ANY buyer's remorse at all

Good info ... thanks again

 

I test drove the Kia Soul but the Rondo was off the list just from looks alone. My better half went shopping with me and said "Nope". The Soul was ok but I wanted a bigger cargo area when the seats were up.

I know that's not much of a comparison but that was my experience.

I am also feeling a bit of buyers remorse since it came down to a Honda Fit or the ET. I parked next to one the other day and that helped. The look of the Fit was a little more fun but I think the ET will be a keeper for a longer time.

 

Doesn't the Fit have even less space than the Soul?

EDIT:
Yeah, the Fit and Soul are about the same. Both smaller than the Touring:

Max Cargo:
- Fit = 57 cu ft
- Soul = 53 cu ft
- ET = 65 cu ft

Max Luggage:
- Fit = 20.6 cu ft
- Soul = 19.3 cu ft
- ET = 24.3 cu ft

Front Leg Room:
- Fit = 41.3"
- Soul = 42.1
- ET = 43.5"

Rear Leg Room:
- Fit = 34.5"
- Soul = 39.0"
- ET = 43.5"

Plus, the Fit is only a 117-hp 1.5L engine compared to 138/142-hp of the 2.0L engines in the Touring/Soul.

 

I also test drove the Honda Fit - I just didn't like how it feels on the road - more like a go-cart than the ET. I also know someone who has a Fit and she has not been happy at all with her purchase. I think you'll love the ET over the long haul, just like you said. Pack it up with some camping gear and hit the road (weather permitting :-) ) and you'll be glad you got the ET over the Fit!