Jump to content
News
Reviews
Discussons
Activity
Create New...
Close

  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    By William Maley •

    Quick Drive: 2017 Kia Cadenza Limited

      Take Three for Kia's Big Sedan

    Kia’s second attempt at a full-size sedan, the Cadenza wasn’t a big success for the company. Over the course of four years, less than 30,000 Cadenzas were sold. This might make you think Kia would get out of this segment. Not so. Last year, Kia introduced an all-new Cadenza with various improvements to try and improve the fortunes of it. Let us see if they make a difference.

    • The previous-generation Cadenza didn’t really stand out in terms of design. The only distinctive item you could point out was the tiger nose grille. Otherwise, it was 195.7-inches of car. This has been addressed with the redesign of the Cadenza and it looks quite sharp. Up front, Kia has widened and added a concave shape to the tiger nose grille The front LED headlights feature a unique Z-strand to provide some eye candy. Move towards the side and it looks like an Audi A7 in profile with the hatchback-esq sloping roofline.
    • Kia has made some noticeable improvements to the Cadenza to look and feel more premium. There is abundance of soft-touch materials used on the dashboard and door panels, along with surprising touches such as the dark wood trim and quilted leather on the seat bolsters. The center stack has been slightly tweaked with a revised layout that makes it easier to find the various functions.
    • In terms of tech, the Cadenza Limited features an 8-inch touchscreen with Kia’s UVO infotainment system. We like UVO as its interface is simple to understand and is quite fast in terms of performance. The addition of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto add another plus point for this system. The Limited also comes with a heads-up display which can display speed, navigation, and other details. In our test car, the display was quite blurry and you had to really focus on it to make out what it was showing. Hopefully, this issue was only limited to this particular vehicle.
    • Those sitting the back will appreciate the large amount of legroom available. Headroom is quite tight for taller passengers due to the roofline and optional panoramic sunroof. 
    • Power comes from a 3.3L V6 offering up 290 horsepower and 253 pound-feet of torque. This is hooked up to an eight-speed automatic. Compared to the last Cadenza we drove back in 2013, the new model feels slightly quicker. Part of that can be attributed to the new automatic that helps keep the engine in the sweet spot of power. However, the Cadenza does lose out to competitors in terms of acceleration. Those who timed the Cadenza to 60 mph said it takes between 6.5 to 6.8 seconds, which puts it on the slow end of the full-size sedan class.
    • Fuel economy also falls behind competitors with EPA figures of 20 City/28 Highway/23 Combined. I saw an average of 22.1 mpg for the week with mostly city driving.
    • Kia has done a great job of giving the Cadenza one of the smoothest rides in the class. Even roads ladened with potholes are mostly ironed out. Road and wind noises are kept to very acceptable levels.
    • This does mean the Cadenza shows a fair amount of body roll when cornering. Passengers will be bracing themselves if you decide to take a corner a bit too fast. For most buyers, this isn’t a huge deal.
    • Our test Cadenza Limited rung in at $45,290 with destination, which is a lot of cash to drop on a big sedan. It is a nice sedan and can justify the large price tag, but will people be willing to spend that much for a Kia? Personally, I would get the Technology as that gets you everything you need and comes in under $39,000.
    • It seems odd that Kia is competing in a class where their previous attempts didn’t really make a dent. But the second-generation Cadenza shows Kia isn’t willing to give up in a certain class. While the full-size sedan class is venturing into the sunset, it is nice to see automakers give it their all to produce models that stand out. The Cadenza is a prime example of this.

    Disclaimer: Kia Provided the Cadenza, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas

    Year: 2017
    Make: Kia
    Model: Cadenza
    Trim: Limited
    Engine: 3.3L DOHC 24-Valve GDI V6
    Driveline: Eight-Speed Automatic, Front-Wheel Drive
    Horsepower @ RPM: 290 @ 6,400 
    Torque @ RPM: 253 @ 5,200 
    Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 20/28/23
    Curb Weight: 3,770 lbs
    Location of Manufacture: Hwaseong, South Korea
    Base Price: $44,390.00
    As Tested Price: $45,290.00 (Includes $900.00 Destination Charge)

    Options: N/A

    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    cp-the-nerd

    It's an OK car in a dying segment competing with great cars (Impala, Avalon, Lacrosse). At $45k, you can get a loaded Lacrosse that will dust this thing in acceleration, luxury, and fuel economy, not to mention available torque vectoring AWD. At $35-40k, you're squarely against the Impala and Avalon with better V6s and great road manners.

    I see the Cadenza as the car getting passed over for Kia Optima Limited models (which I see regularly) on their own lot, which is unfortunate because it's better than the Optima. It's not the segment buster it has to be to succeed.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    smk4565

    The problem with all these full size sedans, is what does a Cadenza do that an Optima Limited doesn't?  The Optima with a turbo is probably quicker and rides/handles similar.  The Optima seats 5, probably has most of the same features, same infotainment, and the Optima is about 4 inches shorter, so it isn't like you give up loads of interior room.   It is just a tough segment for any automaker as most people don't want a large sedan, and even if they do, they probably don't see it worth paying $10k extra to get an Avalon or Cadenza over a Camry or Optima.

    I always thought the Cadenza had a nice interior.  But I wouldn't spend $45k on a Kia sedan, it isn't that nice.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    cp-the-nerd
    On 5/31/2017 at 10:15 PM, smk4565 said:

    The problem with all these full size sedans, is what does a Cadenza do that an Optima Limited doesn't?  The Optima with a turbo is probably quicker and rides/handles similar.  The Optima seats 5, probably has most of the same features, same infotainment, and the Optima is about 4 inches shorter, so it isn't like you give up loads of interior room.   It is just a tough segment for any automaker as most people don't want a large sedan, and even if they do, they probably don't see it worth paying $10k extra to get an Avalon or Cadenza over a Camry or Optima.

    I always thought the Cadenza had a nice interior.  But I wouldn't spend $45k on a Kia sedan, it isn't that nice.

    Optima turbos are slow. Like 7+ seconds to 60 and a mid-15 1/4 mile while sounding like a blender. I'd definitely take a Cadenza over the Optima Limited.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    A Horse With No Name
    On 5/31/2017 at 0:20 PM, Frisky Dingo said:

    45K for a KIA......let that sink in for a moment.

    I'd spend a few grand more and get an A4 Prestige, lol. Or anything else, really.

    Or a life time supply of bus passes, actually...or a Cannondale and $43,500 in the bank.....

    On 6/1/2017 at 11:39 PM, cp-the-nerd said:

    Optima turbos are slow. Like 7+ seconds to 60 and a mid-15 1/4 mile while sounding like a blender. I'd definitely take a Cadenza over the Optima Limited.

    I have a kitchen appliance that would like a written apology from you for defamation of character.

    On 5/31/2017 at 10:15 PM, smk4565 said:

    The problem with all these full size sedans, is what does a Cadenza do that an Optima Limited doesn't?  The Optima with a turbo is probably quicker and rides/handles similar.  The Optima seats 5, probably has most of the same features, same infotainment, and the Optima is about 4 inches shorter, so it isn't like you give up loads of interior room.   It is just a tough segment for any automaker as most people don't want a large sedan, and even if they do, they probably don't see it worth paying $10k extra to get an Avalon or Cadenza over a Camry or Optima.

    I always thought the Cadenza had a nice interior.  But I wouldn't spend $45k on a Kia sedan, it isn't that nice.

    Actually the Avalon is a pretty decent product and everyone I know with them is very happy with them. Better yet, they don't go around comparing them to every other car on the planet on automotive forums.  C and G is the only place where we can go from talking about a 65 VW Bus and van life to an S class Mercedes and its role as the number one selling luxury car in less than ten posts.

    • Haha 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    ×



  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • oldshurst442
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

      Canada's waterbomber fleet These guys Manitoba's fleet is 40 years old While Quebec's youngest fleet is also at 40 years old while its oldest is 53 years old.     Spain, Greece and France also have the same age range as Quebec's.  The older version which is the CL-215,  is 50 years plus in service for all that use it. They are still flying.  The next gen CL 415 is 30-40 years in service for all fleet users.  Canadair/Bombardier has sold the license to Viking and they are currently working on updating the airplane. It is called the CL 515.   European users are desperately wanting to replace their fleets.  Deliveries of the new CL 515 is said to be in early 2026.  With the water bombers, its not just cycles that put pressure on the sheet metal for metal fatigue. Its the weight of the water itself taking off from a lake. But mostly, when the water gets released.  HUGE amounts of pressure stresses  the structure when the water is released and all that weight that is released instantly and is no more.  
    • trinacriabob
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By trinacriabob · Posted

      I also like black cats. I flew on a 747-400 within the last year or two.  I think it was about 25 years old.  It's an incredible machine.  I'm always a happy camper (without a Subaru) when I'm aboard one. 
    • G. David Felt
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By G. David Felt · Posted

      @A Horse With No Name @oldshurst442 You guys are correct, cycle of take off and landing more than age. I should have expanded myself as my brother inlaw is a manager at Boeing with many patents for his specialty which is the airplane engines on the 737, 757, 777, 787 and the king 747. He has stated that the force of the engines cause fatigue in ALL aircrafts that hit 10 years and depending on the flying they have done, passenger versus freight, while a plane can go 20 or 30 years, many should have a very close inspection at 10 years for corrosion, metal fatigue, etc. Could be one reason some airline companies retire their aircraft after 10 years rather than continue to fly them.  Many things make up the age of an aircraft and years is only 1 little part of it, Force makes up a much bigger part.  Thank you for pointing out what I failed to expand on in my original post.
    • G. David Felt
      How to disable AI CoPilot on Windows 11

      By G. David Felt · Posted

      As one who deals with AI daily, building training, coding for data lakes to help others understand their data and what it can do for them, I have come to one reason for turning off copilot, the attempt that it makes over and over in correcting my writing and word use when it does not understand technical terms, legal terms, medical terms and then changes the whole meaning of a sentence due to the changes if I do not catch it. AI bots are great for helping find info on processes and configuration of a product such as our Dell PowerScale OneFS filer or our ObjectScale Object storage devices so that admins can quickly get the instructions on how to configure features. Otherwise, the rest of AI trying to tell me how I should do something makes it annoying and worse yet is the incredible amount of memory / CPU cycles it takes that I would rather use on other things that I do with my computer. Personally, I wish AI bots would not use any resources until I click on it and want it to work, once I close it, it should totally turn off rather than idle in the background listening to you.
    • oldshurst442
      Random Thoughts Thread

      By oldshurst442 · Posted

      Yes and ummmmm...no.  Yes.   Metal fatigue is a very real thing in aviation.  Its more about how many times the sheet metal has expanded and contracted  under stress rather than the age of the airplane itself.  10 years is somewhat too young for an airplane to be retired as airplanes are engineered fly double and even triple that age.  Unless of course the airplane in question has taken off, flown and landed enough times that would equal its maximum lifespan in 10 years.   This latest accident, UPS had a 34 year old McDonnel-Douglas MD-11 flying around.  Now...at 34 years of age, this airplane should been of concern... yes.   Like I said, airplanes' lifespans reach 30 years.  Sometimes more than that if maintenance is done properly and rigorously.   Using google and Wikipedia, if fact, 2 months prior, the airplane in question HAD been grounded for 6 weeks because cracks were found in the fuel tanks. Corrosion was also found in the structural beams in its fuselage. Repairs were made.  However, with airplanes, age is not a criteria for maintenance. But hours of flight and "cycles".   A cycle is 1 take-off and 1 landing sequence.  The airplane had logged 21000 and change cycles and the maintenance threshold for what had ultimately failed in the airplane was not due until 28 000 and 29 000 cycles.  Now...at 34 years old, maybe more vigilance was needed... This is how the airplane safety industry works. It takes an accident to amend and/or instate new safety regulations.  Maybe with this accident, NTSB will implement an age criteria too alongside flight hours and cycles.  At age 30 and a more rigorous inspection is to happen and not rely solely on cycles and flight hours.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_2976 The aircraft, N259UP, was a 34-year-old McDonnell Douglas MD-11F with manufacturer serial number 48417. The aircraft was first delivered to Thai Airways International in 1991 with the registration HS-TME,[7] after which it was converted to a cargo aircraft and delivered to UPS Airlines in 2006. It had flown 21,043 cycles and for about 92,992 hours,[8] and was equipped with three General Electric CF6-80C2D1F engines.[9][10][11] The last visual inspections of the left pylon aft mount were performed in October 2021. More rigorous "Special Detailed Inspections" for the mount lugs and wing clevis were not yet due, as the aircraft's 21,043 accumulated cycles were well below the 28,000 and 29,200 cycle thresholds required for those checks. Two months before the crash, it had been grounded for six weeks to repair a cracked fuel tank, and corrosion was later found along two structural beams in the fuselage. The aircraft re-entered service a few weeks before the crash.[12]    

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

I've whitelisted
Continue without support

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search