- Kia released more images and details about the 2013 Kia Cee'd five-door hatchback which debuts next month at the 2012 Geneva Auto Show — but it is remaining mum about the car's powertrain details.
- The 2013 Kia Cee'd goes upmarket, with such touches as LED daytime running lights and a cabin with better-quality materials.
- The Cee'd, which is sold only in Europe, borrows cues from the new Kia Optima.
GENEVA — Kia released more images and details about the 2013 Kia Cee'd five-door hatchback that debuts next month at the 2012 Geneva Auto Show — but it is remaining mum about the car's powertrain details.
The 2013 Kia Cee'd goes upmarket, with such touches as LED daytime running lights and a cabin with better quality materials. The Cee'd is a sibling to the Kia Forte that is sold in the U.S. and shares a platform in Europe with the Hyundai i30.
The redesigned Cee'd borrows cues from the new Kia Optima. The new Cee'd is longer, wider and lower than its predecessor, but shares the same wheelbase. Kia said in a statement on Wednesday that the Cee'd is designed to have a "more premium look" in the cabin, with better-quality materials and touchscreen technology.
The details on the Cee'd's powertrain apparently will have to wait until its formal unveiling in March. But European media speculate that the redesigned Cee'd will share the new turbocharged 1.6-liter GDI engine announced in January for the Hyundai Veloster Turbo.
The redesigned Cee'd will go on sale in Europe in the second quarter of 2012.
Inside Line says: A closer look at the redesigned Cee'd reveals a sporty profile and a wide track — and heralds a new grown-up era for Kia design.
Add A Comment »
macsaan says:
11:16 AM, 03/09/2012
beautiful exterior n interior!
sar305 says:
08:00 AM, 02/17/2012
@akitadog
No matter...suffice it to say, though, I am looking forward to checking out, in the metal, Kia's next generation of "sporty" hatchbacks and other c segment cars, as I'm already liking their new, "too big" Optima and "too small" Rio5. And rest assured, if those dash plastics are as cheap as you're predicting...then I'll be the first to post about it...that is, if you don't get here first.
akitadog says:
07:45 AM, 02/17/2012
sar305, I could bother to refute your points, but I'm not interested in an endless tete-a-tete on such a completely pointless topic.
So, you win, I guess.
sar305 says:
07:35 AM, 02/17/2012
@akitadog
Your laconically slinking concession transparently masquerading as "trollage" recrimination has been duly noted.
Next time, just read more carefully.
Next.
akitadog says:
06:57 AM, 02/17/2012
Man, I really fed, no, stuffed, the blog-war troll, didn't I?
sar305 says:
01:20 AM, 02/17/2012
@akitadog
"ooh, more baseball punnage"- Mocking yourself?
"You argued points that were never made"- You mean, emphasizing the absurdity that is claiming to know the quality of a car's interior based on 2 photos? How about your nonsensical "default assumption" assertion...you see, a photo was presented, people looked, an assessment was given, and a decision was...rendered. And regardless of whether or not you happen to disagree with that decision. Period. Speaking of hilarious, your cringe-inducing "cursory analysis" "canard" and the desperately flailing argumentation that followed. Stop embarrassing yourself. ^^Exhibits A,B,C,D...^^
"If we were to run the entire continuum of the nature of these images, from completely unretouched studio photos, to retouched, or, "affected," photos, to 100% laboriously computer-generated, the point remains that the dash plastic LOOKS CHEAP IN THESE PHOTOS (which was WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID)."- Yes, I understand your "best foot forward" argument, always have, and you're fully entitled to your opinion and expression thereof, however, I simply posited the notion that one should refrain from forcefully asserting judgment, even if speculatively,("imagine how cheap it looks and feels")on matters necessarily requiring an in-person evaluation. That's all. Reread my op...carefully...and without bias...and you'll see how "off-base" your subsequent response truly was.
"the point remains that the dash plastic LOOKS CHEAP IN THESE PHOTOS (which was WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID)."- That's not all you said, take a look-see: "Considering how cheap that dash plastic looks in the photos, imagine how cheap it looks and feels in person." "And if they WERE rendered, then the dash really WILL look and feel cheap." Meanwhile, my original point remains, and one that you strangely continue to deflectively contest, which is- a meaningful opinion regarding the perceived "cheapness" of a car's interior can only be had by experiencing an actual vehicle, and not simply from viewing a photo. Further, "cheap" is a relative term. "Cheap" compared to what? Other cars in its class? Or an Aston Martin? Context is critical you know...or maybe you don't.
"So, it's a mere extrapolation that, from KIA's proverbial "best foot forward" in these images released for public consumption, and considering their "budget sporty brand" intentions and price points, the dash will look just as cheap in person as it does here."- Needs work.
"Oh, so NOW it's not image-rendering we're talking about here. What we REALLY mean to be arguing is "computer-generated affectation." "- NOW? That's always been MY contention.
"Well, why didn't you say so earlier?"- Earlier? Why would I? What don't you understand about the narrowly intended point of my op? Everything, apparently.
"No one responding to my posts said that they believed these were retouched or enhanced photos."- If you'll NOW notice that nowhere do I specifically reference "those responding to your posts", and what I actually said was- "Regardless of whether an actual car was photographed for this presser, which I believe there was, it still remains clear to everyone except you, apparently, that some stylized computer-generated affectation was employed in the production of these images." Points being, I was challenging your nonspecific, unqualified assertion that "those aren't rendered images, those are photographs". And consequently, I was also suggesting that you appear to be alone in this assertion, cosmically(hyperbole), and not that "those others" were entirely correct, assuming they believed those images to be completely computer-generated. If you'll notice, mine was never intended, nor expressed, as a direct defense of others, but rather, an assertion of my own, and a derision of you. Understand now?
"As well, my initial commentary on the interior was on the cheapness of the DASH PLASTIC. You decided, however, to conflate that to the entire interior"- The dash is a component of the interior. A major component. There was no overreaching "conflation". Further, are you implying that only the dash looks("and will probably feel") cheap? And that the rest of the interior is comprised of sumptuously tactile, high-grade materials?...or at least nothing warranting your overt disparagement?...well then, why didn't you say so earlier? Really, you make this way too easy for me.
"Of course, you tried to weasel your way around that point"- Weasel my way...? Peace-loving man, what are you talking about? Reread my first two comments...carefully...processing each assiduously crafted word...then come back and apologize for your burdensome reading deficiency.
"I'm sure you are aware of the "straw-man" device."- I am, but it doesn't appear you are. Are you familiar with Pope's "a little learning is a dangerous thing"? I mean explicitly? No? Well, you're the quintessence...
Speaking of quintessence, here's you attempting to "weasel your way" out of that sophistical "default assumption" screed:
"No one who bothered to give even a cursory analysis of these photos could believe these were rendered images unless 1) their eyesight was bad, or 2) they didn't bother to take a close-enough look. For either scenario, to conclude the images were rendered would require a bias toward such. So, there WAS a "default assumption."
Makes me laugh(mockingly) every time.
akitadog says:
07:41 PM, 02/16/2012
sar305, you're so out of the game, it's hilarious.
Let's start with the default assumption of rendered images:
No one who bothered to give even a cursory analysis of these photos could believe these were rendered images unless 1) their eyesight was bad, or 2) they didn't bother to take a close-enough look. For either scenario, to conclude the images were rendered would require a bias toward such. So, there WAS a "default assumption."
Strike 1.
Next, let's move to your willingness to put words in other posters' mouths:
Oh, so NOW it's not image-rendering we're talking about here. What we REALLY mean to be arguing is "computer-generated affectation." Well, why didn't you say so earlier? After all, you know better what other people mean than they do, don't you?
No one responding to my posts said that they believed these were retouched or enhanced photos. You're introducing that canard yourself. They claimed they were RENDERED - a conclusion requiring a far higher "burden of proof." Of course, you tried to weasel your way around that point by assigning intentions. I'm merely going on WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID.
As well, my initial commentary on the interior was on the cheapness of the DASH PLASTIC. You decided, however, to conflate that to the entire interior... twice. I'm sure you are aware of the "straw-man" device. You definitely introduced it here. Nice try.
Strike 2.
Let's end with the actual dash plastic, okay?:
If we were to run the entire continuum of the nature of these images, from completely unretouched studio photos, to retouched, or, "affected," photos, to 100% laboriously computer-generated, the point remains that the dash plastic LOOKS CHEAP IN THESE PHOTOS (which was WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID). Relating to my second post, in any of the scenarios above regarding these images' origins, KIA couldn't make the dash look any better than grainy, hard plastic. So, it's a mere extrapolation that, from KIA's proverbial "best foot forward" in these images released for public consumption, and considering their "budget sporty brand" intentions and price points, the dash will look just as cheap in person as it does here. No hard stretch of the imagination needed.
Strike 3.
Well, it looks like I did have to work hard, at least in this post, in order to show how completely off-base (ooh, more baseball punnage) you are with this whole issue. You argued points that were never made, and even tried to change the points others were making.
At least you agreed these were actually photos, so you're not a total loss.
sar305 says:
12:18 PM, 02/16/2012
@akitadog
First, there was no "default assumption that such images are automatically considered computer-generated renderings". Regardless of whether an actual car was photographed for this presser, which I believe there was, it still remains clear to everyone except you, apparently, that some stylized computer-generated affectation was employed in the production of these images. Period. Second, in your follow-up replies, your evidentiary thrust remains "how cheap" the interior is based solely on what you're seeing in these "photographs". So much for "leaving the topic of cheap plastics long before...". And hence that "working hard" bit earlier.
You lose. Game over.
akitadog says:
08:15 AM, 02/16/2012
Actually sar305, my attention went from the cheap-looking dash to the apparent default assumption that such images are automatically considered computer-generated renderings, thanks to ed341's response to my initial comment, and then to j2j's back-up of ed341's comment.
I left the topic of cheap plastics long before you bothered to comment. Thanks for playing.
sar305 says:
07:53 AM, 02/16/2012
akitadog
^This guy is working awfully hard to thoughtfully apprise us all of how cheap this new Cee'd's interior will almost certainly be. Here's a thought, perhaps waiting until one has actually sat in the car and are then able to better assess quality markers such as tactility, fit and finish, etc. before bothering to offer an opinion on said matters would be a tad more prudent. You think? Otherwise, one risks looking like a fool.