Kia Owners Club Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone here owners of the new shape 2010 Kia Ceed, who previously had the older shape and can share their views as to the improvements?I'm considering buying a diesel estate. Would prefer to buy an old one, due to the long warranty still on them, but prices seem quite high still. I was wondering if I should stretch to a new one. The suspension improvements and better mpg interest me. Engines seem low powered though. We have a Kia Soul 1.6CDRI and the engine in this is more powerful that the Ceed. Just wondering if the 1.6CDRI is a bit too underpowered. I see they have dropped the 2.0CDRI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
I have Ceed SW "2" Ecodynamics with the low power 89bhp engine. 30horsepower is enough to move a car so anything above that is just down to enjoyment and preference. I am happy with a low powered engine, though the 1.6litre 89bhp is very torquey and overtakes nicely in my opinion. It's nowhere near as fast as a petrol focus etc but it's perfectly adequate. I am averaging 65mpg from my car and with £30 road tax I'm saving over a grand a year over my previous car. As I am sure you can tell I am motivated more by convenience, comfort and economy than speed. I am sure some people would hate the diesel Ceed SW but it suits my requirements. I don't think fuel's going to get any cheaper in future either.
I like the 2010 model - I think they have really improved the grille. The old one looks so bland in my opinion (sorry owners of pre-2010 models) but the new one looks nice and expensive. I use my car for modest business use and it gives the right signals: professional but not too expensive, good economy and comfortable enough to take take colleagues / customers in.
For me it's great, but you pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Did you test drive both the 89bhp and the 113bhp? Just wondering if there is a realnoticeabledifference.On paper, the Ecodynamics model isn't much more economical at 62.8mpg combined vs 61.4mpg. I do wonder why they bothered for that difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
d3Matt - they bothered with the EcoD to get the CO2 emiisions below the 120 mark which makes a big difference to taxation in most EU countries. In my case I get a ‚¬900 rebate from the French gov insteaed of ‚¬300.


I tested both & bought the 115. In town and at lower speeds there is not a lot of difference. However, on the motorway there is a lot more overtaking urge in the 115.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
My last car was a Focus 2.0 tdci, I had test drives in both the 89bhp and 113bhp Ceed facelift model. I found the performance of the 89bhp car just adequate around town but hopeless on the motorway. The 113bhp car is much nicer to drive, it has a good reserve of power around town and is fine on the motorway. I have now done about 1500 miles in my 113bhpSW3 and in everyday driving notice little difference in powerbetween it and the 135bhp Focus. It is certainly a nicer car to drive with much lighter controls. Mrs deeps likes the car as well, that definitely helps! Sorry I cant help with the old model, I deliberately held off for the new one with the modified engine, 6 speed gearbox, and softer suspension settings. Edited by: deeps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks for the replies. Glad to here about the comparison with the Ford Focus. I had one on hire for a week a while ago, so glad to here the 113bhp Ceed is a match for the Focus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
I had the 2007 SW Ls 1.6 CRDi 113 for 2 years before changing to the 2010 face-lift SW 3 CRDI 113 last November. Before Oct. 07 I had a Focus C-Max 1.6 Zetec TDCi.The Focus ride was much more comfortable and much softer than the Kias. I can take a large sweeping bend in the Kias at 70mph quite confidently, that made me feel a little uneasy at 60mph in the C-Max. I have not really not noticed much difference in the ride between the 2007 & 2010 Kias;they are both quite sporty and hard. The traction control and ESP on the new model does seem to make a little difference.
Fuel consumption on the C-Max was better, but it had already done 12,000 miles when I bought it. As the mileage on the 2007 SW increased, so the fuel consumption improved and at 18,000 miles was almost as good as the C-Max, although I was using more of its better performance. The acceleration in 2nd and 3rd is rapid, and putting your foot down at 70mph in top (5th) is quite an eyeopener for a 1.6 diesel.
The 2010 car ( 6 speed manual) has now done 5000 miles. On a 140 mile run (A1, M1, M25, M4) recently, I averaged 54.7 mpg sitting at 72+ in cruise control. The were a couple of stretches of 50 mph speed limit through roadworks, which obviously helped consumption on the 2hr 20min journey. In top, 2000 rpm gives 68 mph, 3000 rpm gives about 100 mph, I should imagine ;-). The acceleration in 6th from 70 mph is quite surprising. My previous experience leads me to believe that as the new engine loosens up, I should get even better fuel consumption results. Using the OGS (optimum gear selection) indicator recommendations would be the sensible thing to do. If only I could restrain my right foot and the car's urge to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I'm starting to feel much more confident about the 113bhp diesel now. It sounds like the 6th gear is high then if you get 68mph at 2000rpm and about 100mph at 3000rpm. I do a reasonable amount of motorway driving, so this is good news to me.I've read loads of reviews and the only common negative point is that there is too much road noise at speed. Any of you owners agree with this?

I hope to place an order for a SW 3 soon - if my wife lets me spend the money

I've called into a few Kia showrooms on my travels, but not yet managed to see a "3" model. I have seen a hatchback Strike which had the gloss black dash & door inserts and the tyre tread seat material - none of which are normal 'Strike's spec. However, electric rear windows are a must (as the kids are in the back most of the time and I need to be able to control the windows from the front), so it has to be a '3' model for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I have both a 2008 SW crdi (113) and a facelift (roughly equiv to 3 spec in UK). It's a little hard to compare them as my facelift is fitted with 17" alloys and eco dynamics (not sure if the 113Hp 3 has eco dynamics in the UK) - which I believe includes slightly sunk suspension.

6 speed box is a definite improvement. I can confirm 100mph at 3 000 rpm. Handling on the 17" alloys is the best I've experienced, and it's quite a difficult not to throw it around corners as it sticks like glue to the road. Despite both of these differences I think the ride comfort is slightly better on the facelift, driving over cobbles feels slightly smoother and less rattly.

The steering gearing also helps the feeling of confidence when cornering as I believe it's been rasised slightly from the pre-facelift (fewer turns on the new car).

Interior also feels slightly classier with softer dash covering and upgraded instruments.

As for road noise - both cars leave the inhabitants in no doubt of the road surface. They're quiet on smooth asfalt and noisy on rough ( a problem here in Norway as the road builders seem to use very course-grained gravel in the tarmac).

The only thing I like LESS on the new car is that the engine feels rougher and noisier. My 2008 is so quiet that I sometimes doubt whether it is a diesel at all. The new one knocks and rattles and just feels rougher. So much so that I've returned it to Kia to try to find out if there's a fault. Don't know whether others can confirm that the new engine is very noisy before it beds in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I have owned many diesels over the last 20 years and the ceed 1.6 crdiis among the best for engine noise and smoothness.You must havea duff one, hope it isfixed soon. Edited by: deeps
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top