Kia Optima Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi, I'm Charlie from Maryland. I've owned my Forte SX for ten years now. I was planning to keep it for another 2 years, but figure this might be a good time to get the Optima, or K5, or whatever they call the replacement. I Took a chance with the Forte, but it has turned out to be a great car. 206,000 miles, and very low maintenance costs. I am hopeful the Optima will be at least equal to my Forte.

I am hoping to be guided in the right direction for which features to look for before purchasing my Optima.

Thanks for having me in the forum.
 

·
Your K5 Optima Vendor
Tesla Model X P100D
Joined
·
28,772 Posts
Hey Charlie, welcome to the Optima Forum community!

Glad to hear you enjoyed your Forte ownership. The Optima should be a nice upgrade for you.

Let us know if you have any specific questions, or need help navigating the site.

-David
K5 Optima Store
 

·
Registered
2011 Kia Optima
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
Welcome to the site and I owned an '08 Optima that was a workhorse, 300,000 miles and still going strong, however with the '11 2.0T it's a different story, but after all these years hopefully they've got most of the problems straightened out. Hit or miss I guess as some have been completely satisfied with their cars. Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks for the welcome Turbonut. Based on your user name I assume you are all about the turbo versions of these engines. I am still in the stage of deciding if I want turbo or not. I am mostly concerned about longevity, and added service costs because of the turbo.

I don't plan to use the turbo for zipping around.

If you can point me to an appropriate discussion on this, I would appreciate it. Your personal thoughts are most welcome too!
 

·
Registered
2011 Kia Optima
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
Thanks for the welcome Turbonut. Based on your user name I assume you are all about the turbo versions of these engines. I am still in the stage of deciding if I want turbo or not. I am mostly concerned about longevity, and added service costs because of the turbo.

I don't plan to use the turbo for zipping around.

If you can point me to an appropriate discussion on this, I would appreciate it. Your personal thoughts are most welcome too!
Actually the name was generated with the RX7 Turbo we own and just continued to use it on the various forums, but yes, it's fitting being we have the 2.0T.
Always enjoyed a vehicle with additional HP, so the '11-'15 274HP was what I was searching for in SWP, >'16- only 245 HP, but the one I found came with every option for a great price. Personally if you don't need the additional HP, I'd stay away from the 2.0T as the fuel mileage is terrible, much less than the 1.6T/2.4 and plug changes at 45k miles, same as 1.6T, but the 2.4 98000 miles. The engine was replaced 172,000 miles by Kia, no charge 12/19, but if your talking new, the 1.6T is certainly a fuel miser.
Suggest take the various year/model that you might be interested in for a test drive and make a choice.
 

·
Registered
2012 Black SX Prem. & Tech.
Joined
·
1,693 Posts
Also, the benefit of Kia is that even with a turbo, if it breaks, they fix it under warranty. Like with my 2.0T, there was an issue with the oil line leaking. So of course Kia fixed the line for free.

I guess if you are deciding between the turbo and non-turbo, I'd focus on the fuel economy, and not for any mechanical concerns.

But, I gotta say, I like having the turbo. If you are careful with the gas pedal, it's not too bad. Also, when you are doing road trips, it's crazy to see how when you fill up the tank, the dashboard gives you over 500 miles remaining before empty! That happens because the computer estimates your range based on the fuel mileage of the previous tank. So if you are driving around town it will be less. But it's a great car for road trips.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Actually the name was generated with the RX7 Turbo we own and just continued to use it on the various forums, but yes, it's fitting being we have the 2.0T.
Always enjoyed a vehicle with additional HP, so the '11-'15 274HP was what I was searching for in SWP, >'16- only 245 HP, but the one I found came with every option for a great price. Personally if you don't need the additional HP, I'd stay away from the 2.0T as the fuel mileage is terrible, much less than the 1.6T/2.4 and plug changes at 45k miles, same as 1.6T, but the 2.4 98000 miles. The engine was replaced 172,000 miles by Kia, no charge 12/19, but if your talking new, the 1.6T is certainly a fuel miser.
Suggest take the various year/model that you might be interested in for a test drive and make a choice.
Great information here. Thanks!
Also, the benefit of Kia is that even with a turbo, if it breaks, they fix it under warranty. Like with my 2.0T, there was an issue with the oil line leaking. So of course Kia fixed the line for free.

I guess if you are deciding between the turbo and non-turbo, I'd focus on the fuel economy, and not for any mechanical concerns.

But, I gotta say, I like having the turbo. If you are careful with the gas pedal, it's not too bad. Also, when you are doing road trips, it's crazy to see how when you fill up the tank, the dashboard gives you over 500 miles remaining before empty! That happens because the computer estimates your range based on the fuel mileage of the previous tank. So if you are driving around town it will be less. But it's a great car for road trips.
Thank you King. I keep my cars until they die, so reliability is at the top of my list. I’ve never had a turbo on a vehicle of mine, so I am a bit concerned with adding something more that can go wrong. I am also concerned about running the engine with higher compression with the added wear and tear. I checked the 2020’s, and the ratio on the naturally aspirated and turbo was not much different. Perhaps that is not as big a deal as I am making it to be?
 

·
Registered
2011 Kia Optima
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
Also, the benefit of Kia is that even with a turbo, if it breaks, they fix it under warranty. Like with my 2.0T, there was an issue with the oil line leaking. So of course Kia fixed the line for free.

I guess if you are deciding between the turbo and non-turbo, I'd focus on the fuel economy, and not for any mechanical concerns.

But, I gotta say, I like having the turbo. If you are careful with the gas pedal, it's not too bad. Also, when you are doing road trips, it's crazy to see how when you fill up the tank, the dashboard gives you over 500 miles remaining before empty! That happens because the computer estimates your range based on the fuel mileage of the previous tank. So if you are driving around town it will be less. But it's a great car for road trips.
Let's clear up "Also, the benefit of Kia is that even with a turbo, they fix it under warranty".
Kia in no way shape or form will fix or replace a turbocharger unless it's in the warranty period. They had an upgrade on the turbo oil line and replaced it free as the OEM hose was junk, but not the $2000 turbo. As far as the engine, 2.4 or 2.0T, the engine, depending on the year, has a lifetime warranty.

As far as fuel mileage:
1.6T 27/37 avg 31
2.4 FE 25/35 avg 29
2.4 24/32 avg 27
2.0T 21/30 avg 24
As one can see that there's quite a big difference in fuel mileage.
If one drives 15k miles p/yr. just using the above numbers, with the 2.0T 144 more gal will be used.
To some, that's not a problem, to others.....
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top