Topic: Kia cost cutting safety

[Bullet Blue]

I went to a KIA dealer earlier tonight. Why? Well a friend of mine spotted used Civic that she wanted to look at. that was being sold on the Kia lot. So while she was looking at the civic, I helped myself to a peak of the new Rios. A salesman immediately came over and introduced himself. He started telling me all about the new Rio. I asked what the main differences were between the 2005 and the 2006 Rio (just to test his knowledge a bit). He informed me that the 2006 Rio did not have ABS brakes anymore. Not even as an option. When I asked why, he said " you don't really need ABS on a car this small. ABS is really for heavier cars. Since the Rio is lighter in weight, it will stop quicker anyway." Giving him a WTF look, i asked about the 2006 Spectra that was parked beside it. I said "It's good to see that folks can get side impact air bags on a cheaper car". His response was "uhh, well actually, Kia has decided to get rid of the Side impact air bags on the 06 Spectras". I had to ask why again, so I did. His response? "Well, they have made the doors a lot stronger to withstand side impacts, so there's really no need for side air bags anymore".... giving him ANOTHER WTF look, I said "are you serious?" and he said, "yes, why?"... and I simply replied "just wondered. so you're telling me Side impact air bags are no longer needed?" and he said "well, not with Kia's, because they are a solidly built car. Other cars may still need them because they are not as well built". I whiped my brow with my hand to make sure there was no "I am stupid" sign on my forehead. He then asked If i wanted to take one for a test drive and said "thank you for you time, but without these safety features I am not interested"

So, no ABS for the Rio and no SAB's for the Spectra. Cost cutting safety it seems. I  was very disapointed to learn this. What was even more disapointing were they pittiful excuses that the sales rep made. While it's true, he is not responsible for Kia's cost cutting, you'd think he could better than the excuses he gave. Just when I thought Kia was making headway in the industry...

[mdxtasy]

Wow.

[Bullet Blue]

Yeah that was pretty much my impression.

Actually when My friend and I got into the car, the salesman that SHE was dealing with for the Civic was trying to get her to look at a new Rio saying "the Civic's are dated. Especially this version. Why not get into something that's newer looking?". My friend remarked on how she was interested in the Civic because of reliability. His response was "well, the new Rio is just as reliable, if not more reliable". My friend then said "Im not really interested in Kia products. Just this Civic or possibly other used Civics that you may have". His response? "well we're a Kia dealership ma'am".... she just looked at him and said "then I guess I'll go to a Honda dealership". He said "have a nice night then" and took out a cigerette and started smoking.

Very unprofessional all around.

[tenpenny]

If the salesmen had been rude as well as clueless, I would have assumed this was our local Kia dealer.  Are they all trained that way?

[Shnak]

I think that the problem is that most canadians price-shop instead of car-shop. They want the best "deal" possible. So when your consumers want the best "deal" possible, you have to keep your prices low... and how do you keep your prices low? You take out a few features...

Only when a brand becomes desirable can that brand start increasing their asking prices while not having to give away a ton of features without making money out of them. KIA is not in that position.

[Shnak]

Ya think they don't price shop in the US? The market is so much bigger over there, the car companies can afford to give them everything. I don't think Canadians are necessarily cheaper.

Yes we are... check the best selling vehicles list for both country... their best selling vehicle is the F150, ours is the Civic. Their only compact car in their top ten is the Civic, ours is DOMINATED by compact cars. We are VERY different from the states...

[tenpenny]

The thing about the cars is that the target price range is established, and then they have to tailor the features they include to make sure they can meet the target price.  These decisions are made months ago.

So the lack of some saftey features in Canadian cars has more to do with relative foreign exchange rates (and predictions) and target market price levels.  If Kia Canada has targeted a price range that doesn't support including these safety features, then that basically means they think the car is less than you would like.  So your sights are set higher than what Kia Canada thinks of their own car.  So why fight it?  You want a car with certain safety features, Kia has decided not to build it.

[Wetson]

It's interesting that the 2005 KIA RIO only received a 2 star side impact rating in crash tests.  It sounds to me like this guy at the dealership was on Smack  or Crack. 

[sterling]

Of course Canadians are cheap. Ask anyone who has worked in the hospitality industry abroad. Canadians are notorious world-wide as poor tippers. It's only been a couple of years that Canadian cars have become more expensive than U.S. cars because of the strength of the dollar vs. the U.S. dollar. Before that it was the opposite, with Americans complaining about why Canadian cars were so cheap. However, even during this time, Canadians were still buying way more entry level cars than Americans. Face it. We're cheap.

[a4_tom]

Just when Hyundai is upgrading their dealerships to premium status, Kia still selling cars by the junkyard-like dealers. Oh well....when the new Civic arrives, Rio is even harder to sell.

[kevlounik]

safety features...shouldn't vehicle safety be ?standard?

[munk]

I remember a story I heard on Motoring TV a long time ago.

Back when air bags were not standard equipment, Honda was trying to push the front air bag on their Accords. As a promotion they offered either free front air bags or a free CD player. Guess what most customers choose ... the CD player.

Now I believe most consumers today are more aware of safety features, but I would guess a lot just don't give a damn about them. Just look at this thread http://www.cartalkcanada.com/forum/index.php/topic,40115.0.html. I think KIA realized it's core customers care more about the OTD price than the standard features. Leaving some features out just results in a lower advertised price. I suppose they could have made some of these features optional. But I think the small size of the Canadian market means it cost less to just make them not available.

[wing]

Of course Canadians are cheap. Ask anyone who has worked in the hospitality industry abroad. Canadians are notorious world-wide as poor tippers. It's only been a couple of years that Canadian cars have become more expensive than U.S. cars because of the strength of the dollar vs. the U.S. dollar. Before that it was the opposite, with Americans complaining about why Canadian cars were so cheap. However, even during this time, Canadians were still buying way more entry level cars than Americans. Face it. We're cheap.

I think a lot of it has to do with the amount of taxation, since 70% or more of my income goes to the gov, I am "cheap" or carefull with the remainder.

[a4_tom]

I remember a story I heard on Motoring TV a long time ago.

I recall that one also, its from Kenzie's Corner I believe.

[sirAQUAMAN64]

Soooo, let me get this straight. Kia intro's the Spectra without SABs... then makes a running change to make them like the US (probably due to sluggish sales), SABs standard - great work as it was one of the first, and now in '06 reverses it's decision just as other cars are coming on board with them standard? 

Kia will be seen as an inferior brand with decisions like that.

And no ABS at all available on Rio? What the hell is that about?
I like the way it looks, but I wouldn't buy a car without ABS and other safety features. I should at least have the option to pay for them.

What dim-wads.

These cars will continue to sell at levels below the targets they set for themselves.
Worse yet, they'll probably wonder why.

At least I believe Hyundai is moving forward with better safety features.

[Shnak]

...but you don't need ABS on lighter cars!! And the side airbags are only useful in cars that aren't solidly built!! 

[Drivesideways]

Am I seeing triple?    SAM, you've got some company in logo-land.

[random006]

Yes, it sounds ultimately self defeating, not to mention stupid.  However, isn't Kia's move part of a larger trend?  Aren't Mazda and Toyota doing the same thing?  I seem to recall recent posts involving Toyota and Mazda not installing one or both SAB and ABS on some of their Canadian models while the American versions had both.

See
------
"Honda is good! Shame on you Toyota/Mazda!" thread: http://www.cartalkcanada.com/forum/index.php/topic,40115.0.html
------
for one example.  There are others if you search for ABS and SAB.


Not that the above excuses the decisions, just that the moves by other companies might explain those decisions.  Makes me glad I bought when I bought.  Otherwise I might have received a lesser vehicle, safetywise.

[Bullet Blue]

While its true that MAzda and Toyota do not offer them in our market, the fact of the matter is, Kia once did, and now they don't. Someone correct me if im wrong, but i don't think Toyota and Mazdas competitors in this segment ever had SAB's either as standard or as options. Their slaes reps are probably far better too.

[robsaw]

safety features...shouldn't vehicle safety be ?standard?

How safe is safe enough?  Absolute safety and security is an impossibiltiy.  As I said on a related thread, whether you or anyone else admits it, safety is traded-off everyday in almost everything we do because of an implicit cost-benefit analysis we all perform unconsciously.  If it meets the current vehicle reg's and they can sell it, why not?  Riding a bicycle to work is far more dangerous statistically than driving a car, are bike's unsafe?

Yeh, it is a cheap-out by Kia, but it is a trade-off most consumers are willing to make because they have made a rational cost-benefit trade-off not because they aren't safety conscious.