After owning a Kia I feel I can speak from real world experience. The car I
(a Sephia) was a steaming pile. In the last six months I owned it, it was in the
shop fourteen times, each time for something else. I've never owned a less
reliable car, not even my Spitfire. I didn't dare say "break" around that car,
something would! Personally I think less of what auto magizines have to say than
what independant owner surveys bring to light (if there are any available for
Kias). The magizines usually don't have a car long enough for the real problems
to surface. I didn't have any trouble at all for the fist 60 days or so.
Stick with Triumphs. They look better and break less often!
'79 Spit - "Bitsy"
-Broncos football is not a matter of life and death. It's WAY more important
"Bowen, Patrick" wrote:
> <Joe Curry said>
> I have a lot of thoughts! The first one is, "Why is that warranty
> necessary?" The answer is the same as it was for Chrysler back in the 60's
> think, it may have been the 70's). That is because it is necessary in order
> to offset the reputation for poor reliability!
> Or perhaps it is an effective marketing ploy to increase its market share by
> demonstrating an added value that other car makers are not willing to offer.
> Lets face it, if the manufacture thought they would be repairing these
> things constantly up to 100,000 miles they would lose money. They base it
> on the fact that they believe they won't have to fix them.
> If you have a faulty product do you warranty it for longer or for shorter?
> Patrick Bowen
/// email@example.com mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool