Facelifted Kia Cee'd

Zonda999

Well, here it is!:o







http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Kia-Cee'd/242386/

Now usually, i wouldn't start a thread on something as little as an uninteresting facelift as this, but something did catch my eye...

The 2.0-litre diesel is being replaced by 148bhp and 187bhp versions of the 1.6-litre diesel, both mated to a new six-speed manual

187bhp from a 1.6TD!

Thats as much power as you'd have got in a 2.7TDV6 LR Discovery 3, from a 1.6td.

Imagine the turbo lag!

Doesnt look to be a typo either becuase they also hint at the same thing on another site!

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/new-kia-cee-d-more-details/242382

Opinions!?:D

Saab Ed

Rotten :eek: It could have a gazilion horse power I'd still sooner walk across burning coals to get to work. ( Does sound like a crazy amount from a 1.6 though )

Bandara

vomit

maidhc

Were it a BMW people would be muttering about ultimate driving machines....

spank_inferno

The rear is ok but its a bit of a step backwards with the front design

They are nice cars though.

The 1.4 is ok and the current 1.6 diesel is quite a nice drive.
I dont get the snobbery.

I've yet to be in a Golf of the same engine size that I genuinely felt was better.

pburns

The C'eed is a fine little car and was very well received by the press, I can't stand all the negative snob b0ll0cx above...

Friend has one - rides well, handles well, great spec. If i was a bit more pinced in the penny department and needed something new and reliable it'd be on the list.

Cookie_Monster

Front looks to be copied from the i30 to me

Saab Ed

pburns wrote: »

The C'eed is a fine little car and was very well received by the press, I can't stand all the negative snob b0ll0cx above...

Ah now c'mon on. Have you ever sat in one. Its awful. On paper its a good car. The stats add up , it drives ok and the price is right BUT everything else in the class bar much older products leave it standing. What is this will to love Kias. If they make a really good one then I'll say it but for now I'll buy a cheaper Ex-Hire Focus thanks.

CivilServant

It looks way worse than before.

bazzachazza

Awful.

Mitch Connor

I have the current 1.6D - wish i was getting those BHP figures from mine!!

Mine is the 3 door model (much nicer looking than the 5 door versions imo)

I also think the current design looks a lot nicer, don't like the grill on the new ones.

Mitch Connor

Saab Ed wrote: »

Ah now c'mon on. Have you ever sat in one. Its awful. On paper its a good car. The stats add up , it drives ok and the price is right BUT everything else in the class bar much older products leave it standing. What is this will to love Kias. If they make a really good one then I'll say it but for now I'll buy a cheaper Ex-Hire Focus thanks.

I think the inside is very well designed - a far more interesting look than VW Golf/Polo. Much prefer it to the Toyota and Nissan looks too. My mate traded in his focus for his Pro Ceed and says it drives nicer. Another mate bought a Focus and having driven my ProCeed, and my mates, says they are a nicer car.

I really don't see how everything else in the class leave it standing, in any way. Though I wish it was a bit more fuel efficient.

unkel

It's a fridge. A very ugly one at that. If you want to go from A to B, it will do. Meh. Nice warranty though. If you were planning to buy a Toyota Auris, this might be a real alternative.

Stevie Dakota

The new corporate grill is better integrated into new designs, here it just looks a bit awkward, on the estate it looks especially tacked on.

thebiglad

Definitely a big disimprovement in the looks department - big mistake??

--Kaiser--

I'd rather drive a shopping trolley

EPM

Older grill is better looking. I think the Pro Ceed is keeping the older grill and just getting the interior improvements.

Had one a few times as loan cars and they do everything as well as the Focus I was usually driving when I needed a loan car. Steering and narrow seats are the only real negatives

smcgiff

I can't place what the old version looks like, but I quite like this - reminds me of a focus from front and old A3 from back/side.

And, the 1.6 will leave more than a few "hot" hatches a little embarrassed at traffic lights - a relative Q car in that respect.

unkel

smcgiff wrote: »

the 1.6 will leave more than a few "hot" hatches a little embarrassed at traffic lights - a relative Q car in that respect.

Hot hatches are at least 200BHP these days. And petrol. They won't be embarrassed by a Kia diesel

DUBLINHITMAN

sorry but its a sh!te box

EPM

I bet some of the people posting comments like the above haven't driven one. I was really suprised...

Bobo78

EPM wrote: »

I bet some of the people posting comments like the above haven't driven one. I was really suprised...

I guess they are just trying to be like Jeremy Clarkson

maidhc

unkel wrote: »

Hot hatches are at least 200BHP these days. And petrol. They won't be embarrassed by a Kia diesel

And this is 190bhp (assuming that is correct!). A Golf GTi owner would be upset to see Sr. Assumpta stealing a march on the open road with her Korean washing machine!

Getting 187bhp from a 1.6 diesel is a great achievement. I'm sure it is a very competent car, and while it may not have the cachet of a german marque, people shouldn't let that cloud their judgment too much.

Hooch

I liked the old Ceed SW, wouldnt be one to right off a car because of its badge. The 1.6 desiel was nippy, plenty space, good road holding, comfortable seats, not bad looking........but that new one looks terrible!!!

Total step backwards. I would have bought one of the old types. really enjoyed the test drive, I got to keep it for two days. And all this from someone who drives a 3ltr most days!!!

People shouldnt be so quick to decide about a car because of it name. Test drive people!

bazz26

Typical judge a car by it's badge boards.ie reaction. :rolleyes: Not a pretty car, then again neither is a Skoda Octavia but it seems to earn more street cred on this forum.

Good value for money and a comprehensive warranty package. I can see nothing else European or Japanese in this price range that offers similar.

smcgiff

unkel wrote: »

Hot hatches are at least 200BHP these days. And petrol. They won't be embarrassed by a Kia diesel

Note the "" around Hot - there's plenty of the hole in the exhaust with massive rear spoiler brigade that'll be eating Kia spun dust

niceirishfella

Bobo78 wrote: »

I guess they are just trying to be like Jeremy Clarkson

lol........like the "its a fridge"comment.
And that from a Rover 75 owner..................:D

Saab Ed

bazz26 wrote: »

Typical judge a car by it's badge boards.ie reaction. .
Good value for money and a comprehensive warranty package. I can see nothing else European or Japanese in this price range that offers similar.

Is this about the car or the people on boards??? I dont like it because the engine is noisy, the interior is awful, the ride quality is more than a touch on the poor side , the price isnt really that cheap at all , the warranty is very restricted in what it covers and worst of all it was only on par with class average when it was launched. It has since fallen back rapid. It did nothing to move the game on and its left behind these days by the Focus, New Megane, Astra ( outgoing version ), even the Fiat Bravo ( ever driven one of thoses? ). What is it when people nail a Tiida to a cross its good fun but dare not slate the underdog. If people think its great well good for them but open your eyes without blinkers on and you'll see its off the pace.;)

Mr Benevolent

It was actually nice looking before.

unkel

Saab Ed wrote: »

the price isnt really that cheap at all

I noticed that when the Cee'd was launched originally. A base spec was less than a grand cheaper than a Golf iirc. Now you probably get a better spec and the warranty is unmatched, but I doubt the Cee'd will keep its value anywhere near that of a Golf come resale time. Now if it was 5 grand cheaper than a Golf or a Focus...

As is, it is bad value for money in my book. The cheapest Cee'd diesel is very much in the same price bracket as the Subaru Impreza diesel. I know which one I'd buy.

Edit: The cheapest Golf retails at €15k, the cheapest Cee'd retails at €18k - surely Kia are taking the michael here? :eek:

bazz26

unkel wrote: »

I noticed that when the Cee'd was launched originally. A base spec was less than a grand cheaper than a Golf iirc. Now you probably get a better spec and the warranty is unmatched, but I doubt the Cee'd will keep its value anywhere near that of a Golf come resale time. Now if it was 5 grand cheaper than a Golf or a Focus...

As is, it is bad value for money in my book. The cheapest Cee'd diesel is very much in the same price bracket as the Subaru Impreza diesel. I know which one I'd buy.

Edit: The cheapest Golf retails at €15k, the cheapest Cee'd retails at €18k - surely Kia are taking the michael here? :eek:

Sorry Unkel where are you getting that price for the Golf, the cheapest 5dr Golf I can find starts at €21,400? The cheapest diesel 5dr Golf is €24k.

In comparision the cheapest petrol Skoda Octavia starts at €19600, the Hyundai i30 starts at €19k while the Fiat Bravo starts at €20k. These are the Kia's real competitors rather than a Golf, Focus, etc.

Cannot argue about the Impreza though at €22k the diesel puts the rest to shame.

colm_mcm

Hats off to Kia on the engine department, anyone who slags Hyundai/Kias abilities with diesel engines hasn't driven a H1 van or even an i30. Hyundai have been doing variable geometry turbos on diesels and continously variable valve timing on petrol for years, it's technical brilliance when someone like BMW does it, but scrap when Hyundai do it?

unkel

bazz26 wrote: »

Sorry Unkel where are you getting that price for the Golf, the cheapest 5dr Golf I can find starts at €21,400?

From www.volkswagen.ie

The base 3 door is €15k (RRP), the 5 door is €16k (RRP). Golf GTI for less than €27k. Not bad, the GTI was €35k 2 years ago iirc.

Bobo78

niceirishfella wrote: »

lol........like the "its a fridge"comment.
And that from a Rover 75 owner..................:D

Lol :pac:, I dont have a Rover 75 I v got even better car and it s called a Rover 45 :pac::D

But seriously Rover is gone 2 months ago, now I have Mazda 6 :P:cool::D

Saab Ed

colm_mcm wrote: »

Hats off to Kia on the engine department, anyone who slags Hyundai/Kias abilities with diesel engines hasn't driven a H1 van or even an i30. Hyundai have been doing variable geometry turbos on diesels and continously variable valve timing on petrol for years, it's technical brilliance when someone like BMW does it, but scrap when Hyundai do it?

Now I never called them scrap. The problem is that the neh sayers dont think there's much to shout about. 1.6 Diesel with 110 bhp. PSA since 2004. Fiats 1.3 gives up 90 brake. Now I've sold plenty of different brands in my life including Hyundai ( which in fairness is the same thing as Kia ) and I dont remember anything ground breaking about them either. But is it not stretching it a little bit to use the words "technical brilliance" whilst describing a Kia Ceed. On par when launched but now well behind I think is a fairer description. Nothing wrong with it just average.

maidhc

Saab Ed wrote: »

Now I never called them scrap. The problem is that the neh sayers dont think there's much to shout about. 1.6 Diesel with 110 bhp. PSA since 2004. Fiats 1.3 gives up 90 brake. Now I've sold plenty of different brands in my life including Hyundai ( which in fairness is the same thing as Kia ) and I dont remember anything ground breaking about them either. But is it not stretching it a little bit to use the words "technical brilliance" whilst describing a Kia Ceed. On par when launched but now well behind I think is a fairer description. Nothing wrong with it just average.

1.6 Diesel + 190bhp = technical brilliance. (I think!)

colm_mcm

especially when it has a 7 year warranty

Saab Ed

maidhc wrote: »

1.6 Diesel + 190bhp = technical brilliance. (I think!)

Well it all depends how it drives and if it really happens at all. But this link doesnt mention such bhp heights http://www.worldcarfans.com/109081020977/kia-ceed-facelift-revealed--debut-in-frankfurt so I dont know but I wonder is it a relation to this eh...fantastic looking, great warranty work of technical brilliance http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/223314/kia_ceed.html

But dont forget Fiat are getting 185 from a 1.9 thats knocking on the door of 15 years old.

And it seems the new nose doesnt stop at the ceed

VolvoMan

bazz26 wrote: »

Not a pretty car, then again neither is a Skoda Octavia but it seems to earn more street cred on this forum.

But have you seen the size of its boot?:eek:

colm_mcm

and you know what they say about big boots.

bazz26

unkel wrote: »

From www.volkswagen.ie

The base 3 door is €15k (RRP), the 5 door is €16k (RRP). Golf GTI for less than €27k. Not bad, the GTI was €35k 2 years ago iirc.

They are MkV Golfs though that VW Ireland obviously have not shifted. The MkVI costs alot more.

unkel

bazz26 wrote: »

They are MkV Golfs though that VW Ireland obviously have not shifted. The MkVI costs alot more.

Yup they are MkV. But at 15k vs a Kia at 18k they seem good value. Only a fool would buy a brand new Cee'd to be honest.

This time next year you will be able to buy a 1 year old Cee'd for about 8k. That really will be good value

galwaytt

unkel wrote: »

The base 3 door is €15k (RRP),..

....it's also a 1.4 petrol which, as everyone on here knows, is a complete ball of ****e. VW wouldn't give a minute over the bare minimum warranty on it as they know - as do we - that you'll be looking for a replacement engine long before the Cee'd original warranty runs out.

bazz26

unkel wrote: »

Yup they are MkV. But at 15k vs a Kia at 18k they seem good value. Only a fool would buy a brand new Cee'd to be honest.

This time next year you will be able to buy a 1 year old Cee'd for about 8k. That really will be good value

And still have a 6 year warranty.

unkel

bazz26 wrote: »

And still have a 6 year warranty.

Unless the first owner did 150k km in the first year. Then the warranty would be gone already after one year

galwaytt wrote: »

....it's also a 1.4 petrol which, as everyone on here knows, is a complete ball of ****e.

Bullsh1t. It's a cheapo common econoengine. It's fine in a cheapo common econobox like a Golf or an Octavia. It's the Euro equivalent of Jap/Korean sh1tboxes. It will be fine for the designed lifetime of the car, which will typically be not much more than 10 years and / or 150k miles

Do I have to make it any clearer that I am no fan of either sh1tbox? I hope not

ShadowHearth

they copyed it from New subaru impreza,which is a bad move... It looks crap as original allready

DUBLINHITMAN

EPM wrote: »

I bet some of the people posting comments like the above haven't driven one. I was really suprised...

why would i drive a sh!te box if i dont like it or want it.
fair enough its probably nice to drive economical but its cheaply made and looks terrible imho .
i drove my uncles ceed and it wasnt comfy and felt like it took ages to heat up and even when it did the gears still were crunchin
i had an alfa 147 in 2001 people advised me not to buy it i did and loved it but when i realised it spent more time in the garage getting fixed than it did on the road i realised i should have taken the advice ,
absolutley love alfa's but will never buy one again and will advise people not after my eposode with them
and after driving the ceed i would advise people not to buy ,each to there own anyway, actually just dont buy new because you'll get a second hand one or ex-demo fairly cheap with some warrenty left on it .

btw people can post there opinions afaik

Donnelly117

the ceed is gone from trying to be a golf to trying to be a focus