By on June 14, 2019

Allow me to take you on a trip in the Wayback Machine for a moment. The year was 2001, and a 23-year-old Bark (that’s me) had just gotten a job as a Kiosk Sales Representative for Verizon Wireless. My first month, my sales quota was 55 new phone activations — I ended up selling over 120. If you doubled your quota, you qualified for a 300 percent payout. The regular commission was $27 an activation, which meant that I earned $81 per activation on 120 or so sales. I literally didn’t know what to do with all of the money — my dad was still paying my rent, and I didn’t have a dime of debt. A lot of it ended up going to a lovely young professional dancer named “Skyy,” if I remember correctly.

The rest of it, I took to Hatfield Hyundai for a down payment on a 2001 Hyundai Santa Fe GLX. Hyundai Finance was kind to young buyers back then, and they allowed me to pay something like 5 percent APR over 60 months for the new-for-2001 SUV. My black and gray version had every box checked — leather, V6, and all-wheel-drive. My Santa Fe was the only one I had ever seen with chrome door handles, and I door-handle checked every other model I saw on the road just to confirm. I think the princely sum I paid was somewhere around $23k.

Yes, it’s true that Hyundai overstated the horsepower numbers, and the car had some minor issues along the way, but when I traded it in on my RX-8 in 2005, I had gotten about 100,000 worry free miles from Hyundai’s first SUV effort. Overall, I was incredibly pleased with the ownership experience — bland, perhaps, but reliable and competent.

Well, fast forward about eighteen years or so, and Hyundai has another small SUV on the market, and it’s roughly the same price that my Santa Fe was in 2001 (yes, I’m aware of inflation). But unlike that Santa Fe, this one is awful. It’s called the Kona, and what I’m about to tell you about it flies directly in the face of every other review you’ve read. Why? Read on.

You might remember that we last discussed the base model Hyundai Kona about a year or so ago on these very digital pixels. My complaint at that time was that Hyundai was only allowing journalists to review the Ultimate models, which was making up approximately six percent of the available inventory nationwide at the time. The top trim of the Hyundai “SUV” is equipped with a 1.6-liter turbo four and has a zero-to-sixty time in the mid six-second range. It also has leather seats, an 8-inch display, Infinity sound system, and a whole host of other features designed to make you forget how terrible the rest of the car is.

Well, the Kona SE, otherwise known as the Base AF model, has exactly none of that stuff, leaving me with plenty of time to focus on just how miserable I was when driving it through the gorgeous landscape of Vancouver Island last week. I was rewarded with an “upgrade” to a “small SUV” upon arrival at the Victoria International Airport. When the young man behind the National Car Rental counter said “Hyundai Kona,” I may have actually cackled like a Scooby Doo villain.

You see, Hyundai has unofficially continued their policy of not allowing journalists to test the 147 horsepower, naturally aspirated Kona. We’ve even specifically requested to test the SE and SEL models of the Kona here at TTAC, but Hyundai has thus far refused to send our testers one. (Hyundai barely speaks to me, mostly due to the fact that I once charged, er, a lot of alcohol to my room at a Hyundai press event.)

But the rental car gods had smiled upon me on this day, for I was handed the keys to a 2019 Hyundai Kona SE AWD. As equipped, this rental would have an MSRP of $22,560 USD on the window. My example was built for the Canadian market, so all of the gauges were in metric. However, using my handy Canuckistan-to-Freedom calculator app, I was able to determine that my rental had about 1,300 miles on the clock, and it had no visual flaws.

Of course, the moment I began driving it, several non-visual flaws reared their ugly heads. The Kona is easily the most depressing vehicle I’ve driven since, well, the old Veloster. Good job, Hyundai. Everything about this car screams, “We have more expensive trim levels available, sir — please step this way. It’s only $75 a month more!”

Steering is most comparable to trying to eat pasta after your dentist has numbed your mouth with Novocaine — rarely have I encountered a wheel that provides so little back to the driver. One can manipulate the wheel by several degrees in either direction with no discernible effect on the direction of the Kona. The wheel itself is made of the hardest possible plastic, as though it were built for a Power Wheels that’s expected to be abused by preschoolers. Seating is devoid of support, with industrial-grade fabric covering the surfaces. Just look at those HVAC controls. Look at them. Will you just look at them?

The brakes squealed like a B-movie horror actress with the slightest application of pressure. The six-speed automatic transmission reacted to any degree of incline with guttural howls and gasps. The available 132 pound feet of torque generated by the two-liter was remarkably insufficient for even the mildest aggression off the line. Car and Driver somehow managed to get the Kona SE from zero-to-sixty in less than ten seconds (9.2), but I suspect heavy tailwinds and a steep decline were involved. (They also named the Kona to their Top Ten list, so I recommend canceling your subscription.) I don’t like to use the phrase “dangerously slow,” as I once owned a Jetta III, but the Kona SE is close.

Switching the car from “Normal” mode to “Sport” made the transmission act even more exasperated, but the improved throttle response at least gave the impression of attempted acceleration. I think that if I were cursed with a Kona SE as my daily, I’d have to put it in Sport mode and leave it there permanently. However, driving in said Sport mode cripples the fuel economy badly. I averaged around 34 MPG in regular mode, but only 26 MPG in Sport.

I can’t excuse the road noise that the Kona dumps into the cabin, either. At highway speeds, it’s genuinely loud inside. I wish I’d had the Infinity sound system from the Limited and Premium, but I didn’t, so I just got the devil’s combo of wind noise and low-fidelity stereo on my jaunts around the island.

The suspension does appear to have received some improvements for 2019, as it wasn’t nearly as harsh as the 2018 example I drove a year ago. Canadian roads are typically a lot better than what’s found in urban Miami, though, so I can’t give Hyundai all the credit on this one.

And let’s dismiss any sense or notion that the Kona is an SUV, or even a CUV. It’s a hatchback, a barely lifted Kia Rio. It’s smaller inside than my Ford Focus RS, and I think the roofline is lower.  Nobody except the smallest of children could sit in the backseat for any length of time, but they’d have to also be big enough to not require a car seat, because there isn’t enough room for one of those, either.

Storage is a joke. Pictured here is a 20-inch carry on and a laptop bag. God forbid more than one person is making the airport run. A trip to the grocery store for a family of four would exceed the capacity of the Kona’s hatch by quite a bit, so in addition to being squashed painfully behind their parents, your kids will also have to hold the bread and eggs in their laps.

Let’s see…what are some positives? Visibility is pretty decent. Apple CarPlay works well enough. It’s among the cheaper options on the market if you absolutely must have AWD for some reason. That’s all I’ve got.

I can’t think of a single reason to buy the Hyundai Kona SE. Not one. It’s small, slow, uncomfortable, and ugly. Anybody visiting the local Hyundai dealer would be much better served by looking at an Elantra. I have to believe that the only reason this trim exists is so that Hyundai can advertise the Kona for under $20K in FWD configuration, and maybe for fleet sales.

No wonder they won’t let anybody review this car. It’s trash.

[Images: Mark “Bark M” Baruth/TTAC]

Recommended

87 Comments on “Rental Review: 2019 Hyundai Kona SE...”


  • avatar
    dwford

    Non-existent acceleration is common on low level Hyundais. I had the same problem with my 2012 Accent and 2013 Elantra GT. Even with the manual transmission, there was no appreciable acceleration to be had, no matter which gear I picked. I regularly had the pedal full made to the floor.

    What you’ve got here is just a CUV version of the Accent, complete with nasty upholstery, cheap switchgear and hard plastics. Just like the Veloster was the “sports car” version of the Accent. It is what it is.

    When the previous generation Tucson came out in 2010 it also came in a nasty base version. I don’t even know why the automakers bother, no one buys these models.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      A stick shift accent with the 1.6 GDI motor can actually do 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, beating many base motor options in mid size sedans and certainly the quickest cheap subcompact. Hardly poor acceleration IMO unless your other cars are Hemi mopars or whatever

      • 0 avatar
        BuzzDog

        dwford didn’t state which model of 2012 Accent he owned, and you didn’t state the model year of the Accent 1.6 GDI you’re referring to, so I’m not sure this is a direct comparison. I’ve seen 0-60 times for 2012 accents ranging from 7.9 seconds for a manual SE hatchback, to 9.9 seconds for an automatic GLS sedan.

        Nonetheless, I agree that sub-10 second times in this segment hardly qualifies as “non-existent acceleration.”

    • 0 avatar
      Joe Enrico

      If you’re wanting to buy a Hyundai, what do you expect really? A nice car that looks good, drives well and is quality built? If so, then I definitely have a bridge to sell you.

  • avatar
    Rnaboz

    I am SO glad TTAC exists. Best review since the Toyota CHR (C/D) or the Tribeca.

    • 0 avatar
      brettc

      I’m not sure if he liked it or not. It’s hard to tell. /s

      Thanks for the honest review, Bark! Seems like quite a turd, but people seem to be buying them. I haven’t paid attention to what trim levels are on the road, but I will now.

  • avatar
    PM300

    Great review, Bark. This reminds of an Elantra rental I had in 2014 with 2.0 engine. My daily at the time was a 2012 Focus (punishment in itself but I was young/saving for a house) and I just could not believe how numb, slow, and noisy it was compared to the Focus. I do like some of Korea’s latest offerings but that experience left a rather bad taste in my mouth.

    Funny enough, my best friend’s parents had an 03 Santa Fe’ and aside from gernading it’s transmission just outside of it’s powertrain warranty (101k miles IIRC), it was dead reliable and I was even quite found of it compared to an Escape/Equinox at the time.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I’m quite certain that this review is accurate. However, I wonder if this Kona is really any worse than things like the Ecosport, Trax, HRV, CHR, etc. Basically, I think everything in the micro-CUV class is a dumpster fire and I’d rather drive ’99 Grand Am.

    It seems like all shoppers in this segment want are a high hip point, higher-than-a-car ride height, available AWD, ability for over 25MPG, and a price at $25K or less. Having a driving experience worse than a 2001 Santa Fe doesn’t seem to matter.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Collectively, this class of car makes about as much sense as using Roundup to trim the fern in your living room.

    • 0 avatar
      quaquaqua

      It’s not. It’s actually more engaging (and faster) than the HR-V and C-HR and Trax and the Kicks. It’s a class of crappy cars. This review was written to be cool and edgy and angry-man-ish and it successed. And seriously, comparing a price over 18 years of inflation (something like 40%) is so effing stupid.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      No, the Renegade is in this class and gets great reviews

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I’ve never driven a Renegade. I have driven a 500x “Lounge” for a few days. I thought it was “fine” and much better than the Encore (which is the only other micro-CUV I’ve driven), but the price still seemed very dear for what you got. Although I guess massive FCA discounts would help.

        In the end, this segment is a galaxy away from what I’m interested in owning so it’s hard for me to get into the shoes of what matters to a potential buyer.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Right now FCA is giving away Renegades nicely equipped in the low 20s. Good deal :)

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            I don’t see how a renegade in the “low 20s” is ever a good deal to be honest. It’s certainly more interesting looking than this Hyundai, at least in Trailhawk trim, at least there’s that.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            You can get Renegades for less, but nicely equipped as in 4X4 and higher trim and option packages, but I’ve seen base Renegades(2WD) in the teens

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            I guess what I’m saying is that the Renegade is kind of a sh*t car no matter what trim or price, but I think that applies to literally every car in this CUV segment. At least the Renegade is somewhat interesting looking and offers a trim with surprising rough-road capability, as well as a stick shift+AWD combo.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            What I’m trying to say that according to reviews, the Renegade is the one car in a field of crappy cars that really isn’t. The only negative I’ve read is that it’s kind of slow which is the one deal breaker that’s kept me from buying one. 30 more hp and there would be one in my driveway

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I actually like the looks of the 500x – it just needed more power.

          (Story of this segment’s life.)

          • 0 avatar
            hondaaustin

            I rented a Renegade on a trip to Phoenix in August 2018. I wrote this on the plane back to Indiana:

            Rental Car Review: 2018 Jeep Renegade

            I rented a 2018 Jeep Renegade on a recent trip to Phoenix. During a three day trip I had the opportunity to drive the Renegade a total of 213 miles both in town and on the highway. How does the Renegade stack up? Let’s explore:
            My temporary use 2018 Renegade came in standard issue rental spec with a small touchscreen radio and 16” steelies. The only damage I made sure to note at the rental counter was a missing radio antenna. Either someone really needed an antenna for their FCA vehicle or it was never attached. This was a bummer because when I could get a signal the radio in the Renegade had decent sound quality. (It didn’t blow me away, but keep in mind this is the base model.)
            Loading luggage into the Renegade’s cargo area was painless. A light hatch combined with plenty of space for my bag made it easy. I took a moment to lift the cargo floor and was astonished to find yet another floor about 6-8 inches below the main cargo area. Had I needed extra space this would have come in quite handy.
            Driving the Renegade started off just how I expected with decent handling around the tight airport parking garage. Getting out on the street and to my hotel in light traffic was an easy endeavor. I was starting to think this Mini-Jeep may be the best rental vehicle I’ve ever been assigned… but then I got on the highway in heavy traffic.
            The acceleration of the Renegade can be described as mostly pomp with very little circumstance. Put your foot to the floor and you’ll be sure to hear the Renegade’s 2.4 liter naturally-aspirated engine wheezing like an eighty-five year old two-carton-a-day smoker at the end of a marathon. But that’s okay… as the Renegade finally gets up to freeway pace (after what seems like an hour) the engine noise will be replaced with road noise coming from the 16” Continentals rolling along the well maintained Arizona highway.
            Other than the noise at highway speed, the Renegade was a comfortable little runabout. The driver’s seat was firm, yet supportive and had the ability to adjust to a comfortable position for my overweight 6’3” frame. For the sake of this review I did try to squeeze myself into the rear seat, but gave up when I realized it would have been uncomfortable for someone much smaller, and downright unbearable for someone of my proportions. However, the air conditioning did a wonderful job in the desert heat. I even had to turn down the A/C when driving at night in mere 85° weather. The Renegade was also fairly easy to see out of which helped to increase driving confidence.
            Is the Jeep Renegade a good vehicle? That depends on your needs. If you need a vehicle that’s easy to maneuver around a city with 1-2 occupants and a good amount of cargo… check out the Renegade, it just may be the Jeep for you. However, if you’re looking for a family hauler or a luxurious highway cruiser, you may be a bit disappointed.

          • 0 avatar
            bill h.

            This past weekend we did a day trip to Philly from the metro DC area using our 2015 Renegade (Latitude trim, AWD but 1.4t and 6 speed manual, midgrade gas). Three people up, two coming back. No issues with space and of course the boxy styling gives a ton of headroom that isn’t always the case in this size class. As I’ve found driving this over the past couple of years, the turbo can move it as long as you’re willing to spin it above 3000 rpm. Not GTI quickly, but fast enough that I rarely have issues merging, and where it’s my shifting style that is probably the rate limiter. Sixth gear is a bit tall, so it’s often better to keep it in 5th for better throttle response if you’re driving in anything other than flat terrain. As per usual in this class of vehicle, headwinds can drop your fuel economy measurably, but we did the round trip on 1 tank–mostly highway, but several stretches of slow, stop and go on I-95, and calculated 33+ average mpg when I refilled the tank that evening.

      • 0 avatar
        HotPotato

        The Renegade has been trashed a number of places too — including on these pages, IIRC. Its platform-mate, the Fiat 500x, is a better car, but nobody buys it.

        The main problem I have with the micro-utes is they’re so narrow that the front seats are unsuitable for Americans over age 18. A Rogue Sport is a wee bit wider than a Kicks, just enough so that you can sit in it without spasms of physical pain and/or psychological self-loathing.

    • 0 avatar
      darex

      The Ecosport is the worst car I’ve driven since the Pontiac (Kia) LeMans, or the Opel Corsa. It is insultingly badly outfitted, poorly finished, and dangerously slow to accelerate. I cannot fathom the Kona being as bad as the Ecosport, the exterior design of the Kona is extremely appealing. If the car doesn’t live up to the exterior’s fetching good looks, then that’s a shame.

      Whenever I feel I paid way too much for my 2018 MINI Countryman S All4 with manual transmission, I just drive our company’s Ecosport, and I feel much, much better afterwards. You do get what you pay for… usually!

      • 0 avatar
        tankinbeans

        That particular LeMans was a Daewoo, not a Kia. Kia worked briefly with Ford/Mazda in the 1990s.

        FWIW a Festiva, built by Kia is generally regarded as a decent inexpensive car.

    • 0 avatar
      bd2

      This whole segment is underwhelming.

      That being said, C/D ranked the Kona #1 in its subcompact SUV/CUV rankings.

      Renegade is #10.

      HRV – 11
      500X – 13
      CH-R – 15

  • avatar
    stingray65

    You forgot to add that it also looks like a Lexus (on the outside).

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    SAVAGE, Bark!!!

    I’ve tried out the base and turbo versions of the Kona, and I wouldn’t trash the base model nearly as badly as Bark has; at the end of the day, the SE’s flaws (slow, cheap interior, dinky trunk, etc) are more or less endemic to every other vehicle in this class. If he thinks this car is bad, he should try the Ecosport – the Kona’s a S-class Benz compared that to that dungheap.

    On the other hand, I actually liked the 1.6T model quite a bit, if for no other reason than this simple fact: it’s relatively quick and entertaining to drive. The problem, of course, is that the thing costs upwards of thirty grand, which is nuts.

    And then you eyeball the Tucson sitting next to the Kona on the lot, which is better in almost every conceivable way, and can be had for a low-20s out-the-door price, and you wonder why the f**k anyone actually buys *any* of these tiny CUVs.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Large urban centre driving. Members of my family have decided that both a Grand Caravan and a Nissan Rogue are too ‘big’ to drive comfortably in downtown Toronto. Their favourite is now a Kia Soul. The desired ride height, higher roofline, room for 4, and ‘right sized’ for an urban runabout.

      Ironically built on the same platform as the Hyundai Kona, which was not even mentioned in this review.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        And the Soul is a FAR more usable vehicle than this is – a big back seat, more cargo room, better performance, etc. Oh, and yeah…the Soul’s several grand cheaper.

        Aside from AWD and the fake-butch looks, I don’t see the point of any of these cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Tim Healey

      It’s a big difference between trims. My assessment of the higher-trim Kona, which I’ve written up twice, is similar. The base just seems so much worse.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      ” Good job, Hyundai. Everything about this car screams, “We have more expensive trim levels available, sir — please step this way. It’s only $75 a month more!””

      I had about same impressions of the AOB Santa Fe. People nearly killed me for it. But I see the pattern from Hyundai. Make the base so bad no one wants it. Opposite from Mazda. Their base is pretty darn good

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Well if Hyundai is trying to force people to take the next trim level up…

        GM was a master of that for decades. Now with GM it depends on the model.

  • avatar
    quaquaqua

    Worth repeating, in a big dumb review like this, that comparing a 2019 price to a 2001 price is to ignore the *44.7% inflation* that has occurred since then. I mean come on.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Fair enough, but then there’s this: the current Tucson is about the same size as that old Santa Fe and goes out the door for about the same money as the Kona in this test.

      Inflation aside, tell me how that makes sense.

      (Good luck – it doesn’t.)

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @q: Umm, the writer mentioned that in the same sentence.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I am in a 2019 Chevrolet Traverse rental car right now, with about 4,500 miles on it, and I feel exactly the same. FWD, base infotainment system, base instrument cluster, cloth seats. It’s either an L, an LS, or some fleet special.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      I had a base model 2.5L Acadia and it was a total dog, just an unpleasant driving experience. Then had a leather-trimmed 3.6L V6 rental more recently and it turned my impression of the car around 180 degrees. A good lesson in how sometimes some up-charge options can have a dramatic effect.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Agreed, and I think Bark was way too harsh on the bigger-engined Kona. The main problem with that car is its’ ridiculous pricetag, not the way it drives.

      • 0 avatar
        formula m

        Gtem just heard a Chevy Truck owner complain that the rental traverse he drove for a week was worse on gas than his truck. This man sold Fords in the 90’s and currently puts on over 50,000km per year working for a natural gas company. He is pretty knowledgeable and didn’t seem to be exaggerating.
        What did you observe for fuel mileage?

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      I had a GMC Acadia this past week. It was some sort of mid-spec – cloth seats, but heated and 8-way powered seats (no lumbar, and very uncomfortable), stereo with Sat Radio. FWD as well. Absolutely as cheap and nasty inside as a ’90s Pontiac. And it drove like an anesthetized whale. I was in Virginia – running through the mountains on I-64 with the cruise on 75, it was regularly spinning at 5k rpm. No idea what was under the hood.

      How is something so vast on the outside so cramped on the inside? I kept hitting my head on the overhead console above the mirror getting in it!

      I had a really dire rental-spec KIA Optima last week too. Podunk airports – New Bern NC last week, Charlottesville VA this week. Next week Washington Dulles – last time I was there a month ago they had a whole row of Hemi Chargers in the Pres Circle area – not something I would ever buy but they sure are fun on someone else’s dime.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    So you’ve compared a totally base $23,000 subcompact CUV to a loaded $33,000 midsize (?) CUV, and dislike the former because it has fewer options and is smaller and would be the same price if it wasn’t $10,000 cheaper?

    I mean, I don’t doubt that a base Kona isn’t a super great place to spend time. And yeah, it’s small. But so what? A 5lb bag of sugar has half the sugar that a 10lb bag does, too, but that’s not a great reason to give it a bad review.

    You’ve either convinced me that base-model subcompact CUVs aren’t pleasant or that bigger vehicles have more space than smaller ones, but not that this particular small cheap CUV is bad compared to other small cheap CUVs. Now, if it turns out you can spend the same money and get a Trax or a CHR and get nice seat fabric and dual zone climate control and a leather-wrapped wheel, then that’s useful! But… I don’t know that, because the review didn’t say. Negative reviews are fun, but I’m not sure that anyone who was thinking, “I’ve got 25 grand to spend and I want a CUV” will really actually be *helped out much* by this one.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Spot on. For the price and what is asked of this vehicle I’m sure it acceptable. Is it better or worse then the competition? My guess is that its perfectly average. The seats look a flat and thus likely not very comfy. The rear storage is about what I expected – everything in this class suffers due to being rounded off too much in the back resulting in lost space. Every H/K product I’ve rented felt much better in sport mode, but then again I daily a C7 Z51 so mushy and slow is how everything feels in comparison.

      If I was reviewing this thing I would be more upset at that mail slot in the hood (WTF?), the squished lights, odd body line creases and over use of plastic cladding. Just too much ugly here.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    An enjoyable read.

    However 2 of the items that the writer trashes are I believe instead positives.

    1) It appears that the Kona has an actual AT rather than a CVT. Isn’t that a long term positive.
    2) The HVAC controls. They are almost exactly what I want. Big large, dials. Easy to read. Easy to use, even with winter gloves on. Well placed. No fiddly buttons. No need to take your eyes off the road to make adjustments. Almost perfect.

    The fact that these 2 positives are presented as negatives, impacts my overall belief in the reliability of this review.

    That and the fact that he did not make a comparison with the Kia Soul, which shares the same platform are disconcerting. As is the fact that as others have posted, in general the small CUV segment is sorely lacking. However it does provide the higher ride height, which I have now decided at my age is not only preferable but required. No more bending to get into or out of a coupe or a sedan, unless it has a drop top.

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      One other feature that was not mentioned but might be appreciated. An actual handbrake!!!!!!

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      I’m with you on the HVAC knobs, BUT…there’s no reason they have to look like they were designed by Playskool. It is possible to make nice large knobs that look and feel quality…as I found out in a rental Dodge Caliber of all things.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      Yeah, I’m with you on the HVAC controls; was about to make the same comment myself. That’s about the easiest possible design. That style of knob can be operated entirely by feel, and is intuitive to operate.

      (Personally, I wish most automatics came as close to this design as possible; all I can do by-feel on my ’17 CR-V with automatic controls is adjust the temp. Adjusting the fan requires finding the correct buttons, and if I want to manually turn the A/C off or change which vents are active, I have to do that through the touchscreen.)

    • 0 avatar
      newenthusiast

      I’m also going to chime in and agree with Arthur Dailey and
      sirwired and also say that as I read this, I thought “…but those HVAC controls are exactly what every car should have”.

      – they operate independently of whatever infotainment system the vehicle has

      – the knobs can be controlled without taking your eyes off the road

      – the knobs can be controlled if your hands are wet or greasy (although, I don’t drink or eat in my cars, but I know many do)

      – the knobs can be controlled if you are wearing gloves in the winter.

      – and most importantly, the knobs stay put, so that once you set your temp and fan speed to where you like, it won’t revert to some default setting or turn on the hated ‘auto’ function upon start up. (I’m not even sure the vehicle Bark drove has an ‘Auto’ function, based on that pic.) Our last 4 cars have done this. They never remember your previous settings, but default to “auto”, which means upon start up, you get the fan at full blast and the temperature changes to 65 degrees. Maybe its just German marques that do this, but I hate it. They also always turn off the “Max AC/re-circulation” setting. Its annoying as hell. If my stereo can remember how I left things, why can’t the AC? I don’t ever want the fan at full, or even really to be able to hear it over road/wind noise or the radio. I always want it as cold as possible (even in the winter, I’d have the temp as low as my kids could stand without complaining.)

      Making the HVAC all analog is fine by me, and I wish all manufacturers realized how dumb it is to tie it to the car’s brain.

      • 0 avatar
        tankinbeans

        That particular LeMans was a Daewoo, not a Kia. Kia worked briefly with Ford/Mazda in the 1990s.

        FWIW a Festiva, built by Kia is generally regarded as a decent inexpensive car.

    • 0 avatar
      Dingleberrypiez_Returns

      After switching between cars with temperatures setting you can set and cars with hot/cold sliders, I will never purchase the latter for myself. You’re always fiddling with the temperature to get it right. Way easier to just set a temperature and be done with it.

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    That’s a damned shame. We have Soul, and it’s terrific. I was hoping to replace my Accent, also terrific, with a Kona AWD. We’ll see, when to time comes, if they’ve been able to improve it.

  • avatar
    gtem

    “Nobody except the smallest of children could sit in the backseat for any length of time, but they’d have to also be big enough to not require a car seat, because there isn’t enough room for one of those, either.”

    I’d level precisely the same complaints against the current generation of Focus (like your RS, Bark).

    Sounds like a pretty mediocre car all around then, I simply don’t understand this class of automobile.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      I don’t understand this complaint.

      My brother has had car seats in a current gen Focus for 7 years now (2 seats for the last 4 years) and he has no complaints.

      I have a forward facing seat in the back of a Fiesta currently, and will be adding a rear facing seat next month when the second kid arrives.

      No it’s not super spacious, but it’s not like it’s a struggle to fit the seats either.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        Is he using rearward facing in the Focus? No idea how he’s doing that unless he’s like 5’8” or less. Likewise, good luck with rear facing in Fiesta, I’m assuming whoever will be in front of the child seat will be very short

        The Focus rear seat puts a rear passengers face just a few palm widths away from the rear headrest, it’s astoundingly cramped feeling, the actual number (33.7 iirc) is subcompact-tier as well.

        • 0 avatar
          jack4x

          No rear facing for him at the moment, but he’s had the car through two kids and both he and his wife are average height or so. I’m not sure if they ever had them both facing backwards at the same time though.

          As for us in the Fiesta, it really depends on if the rear facing seat is the infant one that snaps into the base (no problems sitting in front of that) or the larger reversible seat. In the latter case, only my 5′ 4″ wife can sit in front of it, and I wouldn’t put her through that for a long trip. But really we only dealt with that situation for a year, between the time when my son outgrew the infant seat and when he turned around at 2.

          We are lucky not to have to count on the Fiesta as an only car, because that might get old in a hurry. But for the most part it does OK

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            https://www.cars.com/articles/2016-ford-focus-car-seat-check-1420684936656/

            “To fit the rear-facing infant seat, we had to move the front passenger seat so far forward that our 5-foot-6 tester’s knees were pushed against the glove box. However, the infant seat installed easily thanks to the accessible Latch anchors.
            While our tester had more legroom with the rear-facing convertible installed behind the front passenger seat, taller passengers are likely to need more space. This seat also installed easily.”

            https://www.cars.com/articles/2012-ford-fiesta-car-seat-check-1420663104814/

            “Infant-safety seat: We moved the vehicle’s front passenger seat forward several inches to create enough room for this rear-facing seat. The front passenger has her knees pushing against the glove box.”

            Yeah both sound pretty marginal compared to other cars in the class. I’d argue my criticism is completely valid. Particularly in lieu of Bark criticizing this Hyundai for issues whilst owning a Focus himself that he makes comparisons too elsewhere in the review on the basis of practicality.

            FWIW, yes the Kona gets very poor marks as well for infant seats:

            https://www.cars.com/articles/how-do-car-seats-fit-in-a-2019-hyundai-kona-400802/

            “Infant seat, grade D: We had to move the front passenger seat up as far as it would go to make room for this seat. The front passenger’s knees were against the dash. It was also tricky to connect to the Latch anchors.”

  • avatar
    ajla

    It’ll be interesting to see how the Kona manages once the Venue debuts.
    There might be enough ride height fandom these days for both to succeed, but it seems like a narrow window between them.

  • avatar
    theflyersfan

    I wish there were more of these reviews posted here – direct from the rental counter and away from the auto manufacturer official release parties at tracks with paid hotels, meals, booze, and free trinkets that doesn’t look good for an objective review.

    However, 15 years ago, did the sub-$20K class of vehicle come with a touchscreen, smartphone integration, steering wheel controls, large wheels and tires, and options like BSM, lane assist, and other self-driving features? It is amazing what has trickled down into the cheapest of cars.

    Having recently driven an EcoSport as a rental, and reading this review, I must agree with others here – not sure why this class of vehicle exists. I mean the car versions of these mini-CUVs push or exceed 40 mpg, accelerate and brake better, and can hold the same amount or more stuff. I guess we can’t underestimate the power of marketing, the allure of a slightly higher seating position, and the perceived need of a utility vehicle. And when it’s all said and done, by the time the average buyer options one of these crapboxes to a decent level, there are better models available on the same showroom floor.

    And, even in the pictures, that looks like the saddest, harshest cloth fitted in any new vehicle. Wow…

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      Perhaps length makes a difference – the Kona is 8.6” shorter than an Accent, and in a congested urban setting that may make a difference….

      Personally at 6’3” I love the Age of the Crossover…sitting more upright is immeasurably more comfortable for me rather than my legs splayed out in front of me. The penalty of 2-4 mpg is worth it. Other bonuses include usually a shorter vehicle with just as much room inside, large cargo loading area, and higher ingress/egress point. While my Outback has been a revelation these past 6 years (I love flinging that thing around, which I couldn’t do in my previous SUV), with my next vehicle I want to go a little taller for a better seating position. I wish there were more compact CUV hybrid choices out there besides the RAV4.

      With the strong deals out there on the Tucson, Sportage and Rogue, buying an entry-level Kona doesn’t make sense unless you’re shopping with size limitations.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    “this one is awful”

    It even looks awful. Good review, Bark, I could actually feel your pain

  • avatar
    Maymar

    I’m definitely getting the sense that this is some combination of the Wobble (proving objectivity by eviscerating a target few care to defend), and the desire to prove the journosaurs as biased hacks bought off by a few plates of shrimp and an XL t-shirt.

    I was able to poke around a similar Kona this afternoon (there’s one sitting on the lot at work). The interior is generic Hyundai. Bark’s not wrong that they still throw in a couple touches meant to remind you you could have spent more and got a nicer model (the graining on the steering wheel is the bit that would annoy me), but it’s otherwise fine – budget, but not egregiously so, decently laid out, and I’ve found Hyundai’s entertainment system perfectly competent in other vehicles. As far as space goes, well, I’m Bark’s height, and I didn’t find anything wanting either front or back (although the low roofline makes it feel more cramped than it is). The trunk isn’t big, but it’s comparable to the Buick Encore previously deemed acceptable (maybe because the cargo area wasn’t mentioned in his review of it). Also, the floor can drop a couple inches (like a lot of newer hatchbacks), albeit at the expense of a flat floor.

    I can’t/won’t speak to ride quality, but as far as the powertrain goes, it’s plenty adequate in the similar sized Elantra (at least for the purpose of someone without an SCCA license), so I’m astounded the similar-sized Kona is as much slower as it is. At the same time, calling something with a 0-60 time in the 9 second range “dangerous” is a bit hyperbolic. My daily driver is that slow, and I’m still usually tailgating people trying to merge on the highway. Surely if it were an actual danger, someone could point to some statistic as to how underpowered cars were involved in so many more accidents than others (and also, how basically anything over a decade old was an absolute death trap).

    Admittedly, should my hypothetical dollars go to something Korean of a similar size and price, it’d be the Kia Soul (like several others have mentioned), or the Hyundai Elantra GT, and I don’t think there’s anything in that compact SUV class I’d ever care to buy.

  • avatar
    AutoPatriot

    Ah yes fancy seeing the Kona again so soon, last week I was just as fortunate as the author to get that two tone plastic,wanta be smaller Pontiac Aztec. Yes I meant that too. As you guessed if you haven’t already the Kona certainly left me with a salty taste in my mouth, and it tried to kill me! I don’t look into the thriving cuv market these days but from my five days I spent taking the Kona on a 1600 mile trip to Panama City Beach and I know for sure I would never buy one of these. First of all my base my model was the lowest of the low equipped with Fwd only having 5,000 miles on the clock. I’d like to think one of these in awd would be much better but then again I’m not holding my breath. The ride was terrible, very rigid if you will,you can feel the road in a bad way. I tried to like the Kona but it was determined to turn me into a foe. This thing(maybe other new cars too)will drive you crazy with its seatbelt dinger. I know most manufacturers have their own quirky systems as well but this one is special, If at any point you move the vehicle with out a seat belt it dings,,(Fine) okay Well for example say I’ve moved the vehicle to a better parking situation (more like parking lot hoping for Beach stores) I move the Kona put the vehicle in Park, IT STILL DINGS, okay open the door to stop the ding, nope it still dings, get out of the car with no one in the driver seat you can hear it dinging as you walk away. It will ding you and your passengers into to buyers remomorse. cheap, cheap, I do really feel bad for those that will have to live with the Kona. Surely the real guts of the thing will run for years(I’ve never owned a Hyundai) but I will be optimistic, I will also be optimistic that plastic trim pieces are made better in 2019 vs my early 2000s xterra because in a few years half the Kona is going to fade away if it makes it. As I said earlier the Kona blend tried to kill me, this is something that really did create the salt that you are reading and my biggest factor in deciding not to ever purchase one, It happened driving down a classic Alabama Sr (2 way highway), patiently waiting behind a slow camper van, watching the dotted lanes and on coming traffic for my chance to pass, finally my chance! I cross over to the next lane over the horizon in the distance I see a 18 wheeler coming right at me, no worries plenty of time, wrong! As I’m right beside the guy I’m trying to pass the Hyundai just did nothing, my jaw went to the floor man, I floored the thing expecting quick releif, NO! Nothing 5 10 seconds nothing I started pumping the gas flooring anything to go! This semi is coming right at me, finally after enough tension and open Jaw from my wife at this point I slowed down and got back behind the guy I was trying to pass, red in the face. Never have experienced that, What a Pos. Luckily it didn’t kill me but I felt no remorse returning this thing floorboards full of sand.

  • avatar
    tankinbeans

    Auto temperature controls work pretty well in my Mazda. It remembers all of my settings and doesn’t intrude.

    Though I tend to change my desires temps based on season. 68° in the winter, 72° in summer. Prevents the HVAC working too hard and keeps it nice and cool in the winter. I absolutely can’t stand getting into some people’s cars where the knob is all the way to the red and the fan on full, but since it’s their car I deal. However, if I’m driving I’m putting it where I like it.

  • avatar
    here4aSammich

    I had one of these for a last minute road trip from Detroit to Philadelphia when Delta failed me miserably. I slummed down from National’s Executive Selection to try it mostly for the better fuel economy. Yes, the interior is a pretty miserable place to be. But as an everyday driver, it wasn’t bad. I wasn’t looking for neck snapping sports car performance. It did what it was designed to do. Cruised all day at 75, got good mileage. I only stopped twice, personally I didn’t find it uncomfortable. But yes, the interior alone would keep me from ever considering it as a purchase.

  • avatar
    conundrum

    One thing this review avoids completely, thank goodness – and that is the tired standard auto-journalistic gruel and pap we get fed which goes something like this: “Hyundai vehicles in the last couple of years are now approaching the standards of mainstream manufacturers.” Huh, really? That 2001 Santa Fe Bark bought was up to snuff way back then. It’s not a recent thing at all that Hyundais made the grade to mainstream mediocrity, although the circa 2000 Kia Rio was a complete joke.

    Presonally, I cannot stand the wide-set eyes/lights of the Kona – looks like a cartoon elephant caricature to me. I tried a CX-3 some time ago, and it reminded me of when I was a kid in a bathtub – the rim was only a bit below eye level, just like the window ledge of the tiny Mazda. Add in what seemed like zero elbow room, and I couldn’t get on with the thing.

    In Canada, they advertise the Kona as the SUV for the city. Best to keep it there for those hard jobs tackling curbs on the trot. A highway car? Not a hope. Trying to climb that long steep gradient outside Victoria around Duncan which Bark no doubt encountered, I’d expect many cars to huff and puff and shuffle the cogs, what with today’s long gearing and great weight. My last time up it was back in ’66 being driven by a mad dog ex-rally-driver Englishman in his Cortina GT, all four seats filled. We went up it at a steady 5200/5500 rpm in third about 65 mph, no sweat at all. The original Weber-carbed 1500 cc Kent engine was a far smoother unit than the later 1600s most people knew later, and once I realized it wasn’t going to turn into oily bits, I liked the sporting noise it made. H/K’s two liter engine, on the other hand is not a shining example of a great design, high revs sound discordant, and it’s a torqueless wonder to boot.

    I agree with a lot of posters here – subcompact crossovers are for the retired urban and suburban set. Highway cruising is not their forte and not what they were designed for. Now and then maybe they can be let out for a canter, but not as a general rule. Just common sense.

    Want to read what the British proles had for a sports sedan 55 years ago? 645 pounds before tax brand new, and slower than a Prius at full chat, but somehow much more with it.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerscarstuff/7067638505/in/album-72157629428273002/

  • avatar
    Raevoxx

    I looked at the Kona briefly before I pulled the trigger on my N-Line.

    Kona only makes sense if you like the form factor and the look of the vehicle, and you “need” AWD.

    In top AWD trim, the Kona costs the same as the Elantra GT N-Line…. and the GT is the roomier, nicer place to be with markedly better interior materials ( a European would accept nothing less!).

    The performance comes close to the GT only because of AWD grip, it otherwise weighs about the same and is rated at a power 175HP. But it posts surprising numbers for allegedly being down 26HP by comparison.

    At least when you’re choosing GT vs Veloster, you’re trading some practicality and a few creature comforts (no ventilated seats available in the Veloster, small armrest that doesn’t slide forward, etc) for better performance (Veloster is more aerodynamic, almost 200lbs lighter, e-Diff, different ECU tuning, better tires).

    There ARE small variations in the 1.6T Gamma engine between the various models, such as compression ratio and ECU tuning, but it doesn’t appear to make much difference past fuel efficiency and ease of tuning. Veloster has a torque limit programmed into the ECU, GT doesn’t, Kona is deturned as well as last year’s Tucson, etc

    Kona? just the AWD and the looks and the price premium to match the more practical cars, because the Kona segment is what’s hot.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I am with the rest of the analog dials and on the geared auto trans. Maybe it is a little slower but it doesn’t sound to be death trap slow. Has Bark ever driven the fleet version of his Focus? That is the true definition of a penalty box and would have you rushing for a cheap version of a Hyundai or Kia. Plasticky cloth seats and double clutch automatic. I am going to say without even driving this Kona that it is a better car to drive than a fleet spec Focus.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      I drive a fleet spec Focus on the reg. It’s a great-driving car: handles well, minimal noise, comfortable seats and ride, adequate acceleration and MPG. If it were your own money, OF COURSE you’d upgrade a level to get floor mats, a color driver information display, cruise control, a rear stabilizer bar, and alloys. But even in we-made-it-worse-on-purpose trim, it’s just fine.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    Very interesting review .

    I thought all non luxury rentals were automatically fleet specials and so not expected to be overly nice .

    I also like very basic vehicles and see no problems with them .

    0 to 60 in 9 seconds is only dangerous of you commute on a racetrack, let’s be serious here .

    The photos aen’t enough to tell how good or bad it looks, I don’t think much looking at them here .

    -Nate

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      I agree that these photos don’t really give you a full perspective. To really appreciate the Kona you’ve got to see the extra set of tail lights in the back

      https://fe14c20ed80411728164-44b5059e5ed6306cc92b5804761a61cb.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/KM8K12AAXKU302167/3a9048966da26a440ff8d397b86b0899.jpg

      This car really doesn’t have a good angle

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I don’t think it is any uglier than most subcompact crossovers, after awhile they all start to look alike. I might like it a little better with a 5 or 6 speed manual.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    A few months ago, Car and Driver did a comparison of the Kona EV and Bolt. They liked the Kona EV better, but I don’t know if that’s saying much. Not to mention that the Kona EV is only stocked on the West Coast (but can be ordered anywhere). It’s pricey, too (at least relative to the non-EV versions) but I suppose it’s got all the bells and whistles of the top line ICE Kona.

    Regardless, these ‘Ace of Base’ reviews are truthfully the most helpful. I remember reading a long time ago that if you really wanted to know how good or bad a vehicle was, test the most stripped version. A manufacturer can gloss over and hide a lot of basic shortcomings by ladling on the extras, but that’s not possible with the base versions that don’t have all that stuff.

    GM was the true master at this little game. The cars were b-a-d but it was easy to overlook when everything on the lot had bunches of upper-trim options. It seems that Hyundai has discovered this little bait-and-switch trick, as well, when they only supply reviewers with the highest trim models.

    Interestingly, the opposite of GM in this regard is none other than Toyota. The top level cars routinely end up at the bottom of their class (newer models like the lastest Camry don’t seem quite as bad, though). But if you stick with a base model Toyota, compared to the base versions of Toyota’s competitors, the Toyota isn’t quite as bad in that group.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      I imagine Kona plays the same game with the EV version as other makes do: offer it only in a high trim level to make the price more palatable, with an undisclosed sound deadening kit to hush the racket that would otherwise be disguised by mechanical noise.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    There are so few real stripped down vehicles like there were 30 to 40 years ago. I could see the Kona working for someone who needed an urban vehicle with all wheel drive that was small enough to park anywhere. As a commuter vehicle in an urban area I could live with a base level Kona or almost any base level but if I were using it for longer distance driving I would pass. For a little more I would buy a compact crossover or I would save my money and get a Kia Soul with a little more interior room. The Kona is not my cup of tea but I doubt it is a totally bad vehicle. As for stripped GMs they were not a totally bad vehicle but they left you wishing you had gotten the one with a few more options.

    If Bark is looking for a performance vehicle with lightning fast acceleration there are other vehicles. If Bark wants to experience a disappointing vehicle he needs to drive the fleet Focus sedan which is a night and day difference to his Focus. I don’t think the Chinese could do any worse than the fleet Focus sedan. If I were getting a Focus I would definitely skip the automatic and go with the manual.

  • avatar
    IBx1

    And after all that, keep in mind they’re making another car somehow smaller and even cheaper.

  • avatar
    BeerMe45

    OMG. An actual car review. Used to be reviews had pride of place at TTAC. Now it’s mostly news snippets that are so industry related my boredom index is close to maxed out.

    Bark, thanks for the review, and thanks for this review of a base Kona. My snack bracket goes up to new-car price on a mid range Highlander, and I’m never going to buy a Titanium-level tiny car if a bigger car is available at a lower cost. So it’s great to know your opinon on the base Kona.

    This extends to the Kona electric- which I WAS interested in till I read about the interior space in the Kona.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    LOL and to think they are coming out with something even smaller than this. Anything to get into a CUV that sits up higher and has AWD. America’s car enthusiasm has hit a new low with these things and it’s hard to fathom why they are so popular considering how useless that tiny back space is. I’ll stick with my mid size sedans thank you!

  • avatar
    tsoden

    “Canadian roads are typically a lot better than what’s found in urban Miami”

    I am not sure what part of Canada you are referring to… but a LOT of roads up here are TERRRIBLE due pot holes and cracking from frost heaving. If you are talking about west cost CANADA, they don’t get the same winter that the rest of Canada seems to get.

    • 0 avatar
      conundrum

      Nothing like a quick jaunt to Vancouver Island like Bark made, and by inference imply/decide all Canadian roads are like that.

      We talk around here of taking a trip to Maine or down to New England, or Florida for the winter, but most Americans, I think, view Canada as an gigantic amorphous frozen blob that’s the same everywhere. Vermonters and Mainers don’t talk of Quebec as their next door neighbor – it’s all just Canada, a sort of vast unknown that someone told them was socialist and they believed it, incurious to learn more.

      Probably just as well. We know Canada is made up of four main parts. Toronto and surrounding area, Quebec, and Alberta all of which feature navel-gazing as their pastime, and then the rest of the country. I live somewhere in the rest with only log cabins, moose steaks sizzling on the wood stove, snowshoes hanging on a peg by the door, wildlife and ruined roads for company. You?

  • avatar
    tsoden

    Bark, you are one of few journalist to give this car a crappy review. You really need to figure out the target audience of a vehicle before announcing that it is pure junk. Not everyone needs to own a sports car with an over engineered super charged ultra turbo engine to rocket them to their appointments.

    Hoenstly, Hyundai must be doing SOMETHING right for the vast number of these I see on the roads. Think of it this way… The Corolla has a target market and it stil sells like hot cakes. Sure… It is plain vanilla and non inspiring, but some people are just happy with that.

    Different strokes for different folks!

    • 0 avatar
      BklynPete

      The Corolla is a competent vehicle. Sounds like this one looks the part but is miserable to live with.

      So which is worse, the Kona or Ford EcoSport?

    • 0 avatar
      Mark "Bark M." Baruth

      Did you read the post? How many journalists reviewed the SE? Here’s a hint: NONE

      • 0 avatar
        bd2

        Yeah, I read it and the main complaints were weak engine/leisurely acceleration and a bit too much hard plastics which is norm for the segment.

        And you’re WRONG.

        Both C/D and Motor Trend reviewed the Kona SEL or SE (you actually referenced the C/D review of the SEL when you noted the 9.2s 0-60 time they got).

        In each of Edmunds’ review for the Kona, CH-R and Kicks, they list as a con the slow acceleration time for the base/only engine; and while Edmunds also noted the hard plastics in the Kona, rather take that than the pervasive road and engine noise they complained about in the C-HR (more on that later).

        MT did a comparison test w/ the SE trim against the EcoSport SE and Kicks SE.

        MT got a 0-60 time of 8.3s whereas the Ecosport was ponderously slow at 11.2s and the Kicks split the difference at 9.9s.

        Needless to say, the Kona easily won the comparison test.

        And while the C-HR wasn’t included in the comparison, MT’s review of the Toyota was less than stellar – complaining about the slow acceleration, noise (all types from various sources) and the CVT (stating that the C-HR’s CVT hearkened back to the days when CVTs were “bad”).

        Autoguide stated that base engine in the Kona wasn’t a strong point, but noted that it wasn’t as awful as the base engine in the HR-V.

        As for the 9.2s time achieved by C/D for the Kona, that still rates well compared to what they got for…

        Kicks – 9.7s
        HR-V – 10.2s
        C-HR – 11.0s


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • probert: People don’t value global manufacturing as the should – what you get for the money in terms of...
  • -Nate: Dopn’t sweat it L2M ~ All TAF1 ever does is regurgitate alt right propaganda ~ remember, he recently...
  • Lie2me: “You regurgitated propaganda.” Your comment wasn’t very nice, nothing I said wasn’t...
  • ToddAtlasF1: I made a statement of fact. You regurgitated propaganda. Lee Iaccoca was a Republican. He said it...
  • Scoutdude: I should also note that sometimes mfgs play games with the gov’t and rental car fleets. A couple of...

New Car Research

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
Sennator хайп

форекс альпари

www.buysteroids.in.ua
Terms of Use
Copyright
Privacy Policy