• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kia Soul SX coming this winter: 201HP Turbo

Kaido

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Whoohoo!

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/09/29/kia-soul-turbo-201-hp-sx-official-paris/

37hp boost over the existing 2.0L, plus a new 7-speed dual-clutch transmission (same 1.6L as the Veloster Turbo & Elantra Sport have). 0 to 60 in 7.8 seconds, fwiw. No mention of a manual tranny, but iirc the stick was only offered in the smaller ~130hp engine anyway. I leased a 2L auto, which was fine, then had the 1.6L non-turbo 6-speed stick-shift, which was slow. Bumping up the auto to 201HP with a turbo would be really fun!
 
0-60 in 7.8 is slower than any hybrid Camry (even the 2007 model). This car seems to be getting rather little oomph considering it's supposed to be a 2.0L turbo.
 
ChronoReverse said:
0-60 in 7.8 is slower than any hybrid Camry (even the 2007 model). This car seems to be getting rather little oomph considering it's supposed to be a 2.0L turbo.
Click to expand...

I believe the regular 2.0 Soul is 8.3 & the EV version is 10.8. The automatic BRZ is 7.3, so 7.8 for a boxy budget car with a turbo is pretty decent. The 2.0 was adequate, but I always thought it could have used a bit more pep...the one downside is that the first-gen design, like my 2011, had much better handling because of a stiffer suspension. The 2014+ redesign has a softer ride & doesn't corner as sharp, so I'm curious to see if they're going to adjust the driving experience much to match the peppier new engine option. I'm a big fan of the Soul.
 
Kaido said:
. 0 to 60 in 7.8 seconds, fwiw. No mention of a manual tranny, but iirc the stick was only offered in the smaller ~130hp engine anyway. I leased a 2L auto, which was fine, then had the 1.6L non-turbo 6-speed stick-shift, which was slow. Bumping up the auto to 201HP with a turbo would be really fun!
Click to expand...

FWIW the Forte5 hatchy with the 1.6t and auto makes the 0-60 dash in mid 6 sec range. They weigh about the same and are using the same internals.

If it where my $$$ and shopping for a new bargain basement hatch/tiny CUV's I'd probably end up with a Golf.
 
XavierMace said:
Ugh. $7k price bump. Another $4k and you're at FR-S prices.
Click to expand...

Curious to see how it feels. I always felt that the Soul chassis could take a LOT more power, especially the first-gen design. My first-gen was nice & tight and cornered like mad; my second-gen was a lot more squishy (although a nicer ride). Definitely interested in taking one out for a test-drive!
 
leper84 said:
Meanwhile, stock pickup trucks with 1750lbs of payload are faster than this car....

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/texas-truck-showdown-2016-acceleration.html
Click to expand...

Eh...

1. All of those have V8 engines (or an equivalent V6 EcoBoost)
2. Each truck tested was $50,000 (or more)
3. The torque on each is like over 450 ft-lb per model

Not really a fair comparison to a 1.6L 4-cylinder turbo econobox with a base price of $22.5k...yeah, I'd hope that by paying double the money, I'd get a faster vehicle lol. I mean, it depends on what you want to do with your cash...if that's the base price for a turbo Soul, then I'd imagine a decently-equipped model would be around $25-$26k, which is the base price of the new Camaro & Mustang. That gets you a 4-cylinder Ecoboost with 310 horsepower (and a turbo!), which goes 0 to 60 in under six seconds. But then you don't get a boxy car that has flip-down rear seats that you sit upright in.
 
Kaido said:
Not really a fair comparison to a 1.6L 4-cylinder turbo econobox with a base price of $22.5k...yeah, I'd hope that by paying double the money, I'd get a faster vehicle lol.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure I'd call $22.5k MSRP an econobox any more. That's 4K away from an FR-S. And $3k more than the new Civic hatchback which is a solid full second faster 0-60 than the Soul.
 
XavierMace said:
I'm not really sure I'd call $22.5k MSRP an econobox any more. That's 4K away from an FR-S. And $3k more than the new Civic hatchback which is a solid full second faster 0-60 than the Soul.
Click to expand...

And if you really wanted a turbo Korea hatchback at that price, there's always its cousin, the Hyundai Veloster Turbo.
 
Just to bump the above, the veloster turbo hits low 7s for 0-60.

I don't think the soul turbo is for people who want to go fast, I think it's for people who want a soul already, but also don't want to feel like they're going to be rear ended any time they merge. Many older people buy souls because they are easy to get in an out of with bad joints, so a "sports car" soul wouldn't really be marketed to them.


The 7k price bump is a bit much though. It is a higher trim anyway though, right? Maybe it's not a bad option if you were going for a higher trim soul anyway.
 
Crono said:
And if you really wanted a turbo Korea hatchback at that price, there's always its cousin, the Hyundai Veloster Turbo.
Click to expand...

To be fair if I had to pick between the two, I'd probably pick the Soul. My brother was shopping for an Econobox a while back. Since I was playing taxi, I rode along for the test drives. He ended up with a Accent wagon. The Soul was my preference but it was a fairly hefty premium over the Accent. The Juke, Focus, and Fiesta were also tested. Juke was too pricey, and he didn't fit in the Focus or Fiesta.

However, Kaido, the Soul Turbo starting at $22.5k... That's $2k more than a base Juke (180hp, 6.9s 0-60) and $1.4k more than a Fiesta ST (197hp, 6.8s 0-60). I forget what the base interior is like in the FiSt, but I find the Juke's quite nice. Plus the aforementioned Civic is cheaper and faster. The Soul Turbo is less than $5k away from a Golf GTI (220hp, 5.8s 0-60) or Focus ST (252hp, 6.3s 0-60). Using the auto FR-S/BRZ is sort of unfair because the gearing in the auto is terribad which is why the manual does 0-60 in 6.2s. In either case, the Soul wouldn't touch the auto or manual in the corners and again, less than $5k away.

I like the Soul, but considering you're paying $7k to make it faster and it's slower than any of the above comparable vehicles you don't seem to be getting much for your money unless they've done a very hefty upgrade on the interior. Personally, at least for me, that's going to be a pretty hard sell. Especially since the Ricardo upgrade on the FiSt is $2k, which puts it only $500 above the Soul Turbo and it's the faster car as well. That's making the Soul Turbo a really hard sell in my book.

Also, the DCT transmission got horrific reviews in the Veloster.
 
Herr Kutz said:
Is the new CX-5 out of consideration as a replacement to your Renegade?
Click to expand...

Nope, still an option, I just happen to love the Soul! 🙂

I really don't quite know what to get next. The Renegade is still giving me massive problems - haven't gotten anywhere legally, so I just have to stick it out until next year. The one feature I'd really like is TACC (I'm mostly highway these days), which isn't offered on the Soul yet. Leaning towards a sixth-gen Ecoboost Mustang right now...not the best in the winter, but with snow tires, I'll live!
 
Bubbleawsome said:
Just to bump the above, the veloster turbo hits low 7s for 0-60.

I don't think the soul turbo is for people who want to go fast, I think it's for people who want a soul already, but also don't want to feel like they're going to be rear ended any time they merge. Many older people buy souls because they are easy to get in an out of with bad joints, so a "sports car" soul wouldn't really be marketed to them.


The 7k price bump is a bit much though. It is a higher trim anyway though, right? Maybe it's not a bad option if you were going for a higher trim soul anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen way more older people than younger people. I remember the sales rep telling me that Kia was shocked because they were marketing them to younger college-aged kids & the actual target market ended up being baby boomers because they were easy to get in & out of, affordable and had a nice amount of storage space without being an overly huge car.

My first Soul was the 2.0L automatic (164HP?) and it was fine. My second Soul was the 1.6L non-turbo 6-speed manual (~130HP) and it was imo underpowered. So jumping up to 201HP & adding a turbo would make it quite a bit more peppy (although they made the suspension way softer in the 2nd-gen Souls, so hopefully they'll stiffen that up appropriately).

As far as the price goes, the new Souls actually have some crazy-nice features...you can get them with a Porsche-style panoramic sunroof, Nappa leather, heated & ventilated seats, heated steering wheel, etc. It's really a pretty good value for what you get. I'll have to take out the turbo for a test-drive & see how it fares...although I'm betting they still won't offer TACC on them, so highway driving will be a little more work haha.
 
XavierMace said:
To be fair if I had to pick between the two, I'd probably pick the Soul. My brother was shopping for an Econobox a while back. Since I was playing taxi, I rode along for the test drives. He ended up with a Accent wagon. The Soul was my preference but it was a fairly hefty premium over the Accent. The Juke, Focus, and Fiesta were also tested. Juke was too pricey, and he didn't fit in the Focus or Fiesta.

However, Kaido, the Soul Turbo starting at $22.5k... That's $2k more than a base Juke (180hp, 6.9s 0-60) and $1.4k more than a Fiesta ST (197hp, 6.8s 0-60). I forget what the base interior is like in the FiSt, but I find the Juke's quite nice. Plus the aforementioned Civic is cheaper and faster. The Soul Turbo is less than $5k away from a Golf GTI (220hp, 5.8s 0-60) or Focus ST (252hp, 6.3s 0-60). Using the auto FR-S/BRZ is sort of unfair because the gearing in the auto is terribad which is why the manual does 0-60 in 6.2s. In either case, the Soul wouldn't touch the auto or manual in the corners and again, less than $5k away.

I like the Soul, but considering you're paying $7k to make it faster and it's slower than any of the above comparable vehicles you don't seem to be getting much for your money unless they've done a very hefty upgrade on the interior. Personally, at least for me, that's going to be a pretty hard sell. Especially since the Ricardo upgrade on the FiSt is $2k, which puts it only $500 above the Soul Turbo and it's the faster car as well. That's making the Soul Turbo a really hard sell in my book.

Also, the DCT transmission got horrific reviews in the Veloster.
Click to expand...

I think like Bubbleawsome said, the turbo Soul is for people who have (or want) a Soul, especially a faster, more fun version of the Soul...I don't imagine too many people would go out of their way to spend ~$23k base on a turbo box when you can literally spend a grand more & get a base Mustang.

But for us Soul enthusiasts, whoohoo! 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top