All New Carnival, 2008 Nissan Serena or Mitsubishi Grandis?

**imperialv** · December 15th, 2007 05:25 AM

Hi guy

I am planning to dispose my 02 Serena... Which one will you pick?

**papalord** · December 15th, 2007 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by imperialv

Hi guy

I am planning to dispose my 02 Serena... Which one will you pick?

got to http://motioncars.com/ and checkout their differences

my vote goes to the Carnival
If you want more seating capacity Go again for Serena

**basti08** · December 19th, 2007 06:25 PM

Gasoline? get the Grandis
Diesel? it's the Carnival...

but if i were in the market for a diesel van, i have a hunch that the current Carnival is not yet their top model. they might release a Sedona model which is more luxurious later in the van's life cycle.

**IMm29** · December 20th, 2007 07:57 PM

Carnival for me, too. Please check out the New Carnival thread.

**ecport** · January 2nd, 2008 11:55 PM

I have a 2001 2.9 Liter A/T Carnival and recently purchased a Grandis to replace it. I had a horrible experience with a Kia Carnival and will probably never buy a Korean. I would still bet on a Japanese car when it comes to quality, build, maintenance and ease of use. No doubt the new Carnival has many improvements and will probably improve even more over the years but until such time I will stick to Japanese cars. The Carnival has more space, sliding doors, captain seats, riding comfort is ok too. But the quality of Carnival parts are terrible, break quickly and are expensive (odometer broke after 20K Kms; power steering hose, after 30K; replaced front shock absorbers after 35K, and many more). After 2 years, it felt like I was maintaining a 5 year old car! Tawag ko nga, Carnival of Horrors. The Carnival also has a huge turning radius. Ang baba pa ng resale value.
When you talk to a Kia salesman, they will say "Naayos na po yung mga problema ng dating Carnival". That just goes to show na may mga problema talaga.

I just hit 11K on my 7 month old Grandis, so far, so good. Took it to Banaue and Baguio over the past 2 weeks with 6 of us along with luggage.
The tiptronic feature was really helpful when overtaking. Rear seats are easy to reconfigure (kahit isang kamay lang gamit mo) and since my wife drives it most of the time, she finds it a lot easier to drive than the Carnival. It's also sporty, so ok lang sa mga tatay. Gas consumption for the Grandis is 6 Kms/liter for city driving, and around 10 Kms/liter for long drives. I use Petron unleaded 93 Octane.

False economy ang Korean cars, mura pag bili mo, katay ka sa maintenance ang baba pa ng resale. I guess that sums up my experience.
My comments may be on the extreme but surprisingly a lot of Carnival owners do have similar problems. I have another car, a Cefiro, where I just changed the spark plugs for the first time...after 5 years.

I hope this helps.

**pup2** · January 3rd, 2008 04:03 PM

I don't think I would've been brave enough to buy a carnival in 2001, either. I've read bad exeriences from buyers of the old carnival myself. But that was 7 years ago. Not only was KIA lacking in experience, they hadn't even been bought by Hyundai yet.

Siyempre, only time will tell how much KIA has improved. Still, improvements are forthcoming, I believe. Kaya I wouldn't count it out yet.

OTH, we've had nightmare stories with Mitsu ourselves -- enough to turn us off AFTER having gone through the wonderful colt mirage and lancer box types.

**vinj** · January 3rd, 2008 04:09 PM

Carnival for me... diesel with a new body and Kia/Hyundai quality is quite different from where it was several years ago.

**niky** · January 3rd, 2008 04:22 PM

Ibang iba ang modern Kias from the older ones... the 90's (which produced the previous gen Carnival, the old Rio and such) were a difficult time for Kia and Hyundai, as they were transitioning from the relatively reliable licensed Japanese technology they were using (from Mazda and Mitsubishi) to in-house designs, which included some really unreliable engines and models.

The current Kia offerings are of a different generation from previous ones. While I still have my doubts about the long-term durability of some items (the folding third row of the Carnival, for instance, is heavy and can become mis-aligned after some use), the apparent quality (from road testing a number of new products) is at least at par with the mid-level Japanese manufacturers.

Amongst the three cars, I'd say it'd be a personal choice. The Serena has a good gas engine and lots of toys... the Grandis has a good suspension and the Carnival has the most space and is the most versatile. Fuel economy won't be much better, considering the Carnival is using a 2.9 liter CRDi and is very heavy... but it's still a bit cheaper in terms of pesos per kilometer.

Concerns about the reliability of the CRDi in the long term are an issue, though... but I think that the higher resale value of diesel vehicles might just outweigh any additional maintenance cost.

**ecport** · January 4th, 2008 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by pup2

I don't think I would've been brave enough to buy a carnival in 2001, either. I've read bad exeriences from buyers of the old carnival myself. But that was 7 years ago. Not only was KIA lacking in experience, they hadn't even been bought by Hyundai yet.

Siyempre, only time will tell how much KIA has improved. Still, improvements are forthcoming, I believe. Kaya I wouldn't count it out yet.

OTH, we've had nightmare stories with Mitsu ourselves -- enough to turn us off AFTER having gone through the wonderful colt mirage and lancer box types.

imperialv,

I've owned a 1976 Lancer (Saturn engine), a 1978 Lancer, a 1991 Lancer as well as a 1992 Corolla. While not problem free, these cars were assembled and sold locally in the tens of thousands. Parts were readily available and the cars were relatively easy to maintain. Resale was alright too. Compare that to a Kia Carnival with only a few hundred units sold but with so many complaints and relatively low resale value.

The salesperson will always tell you that improvements are there and that the new models are better than the old generation vehicles. This is probably true but I suggest you talk to actual users of the vehicles you are considering especially those who've had the vehicle for several years. A good way to assess the possible performance of a new car is to look at the track record of similar vehicles from the same manufacturer.

I have both the Carnival (2001) and Grandis (2006). Wala pang problema ang Grandis, bago pa kasi, so I really can't comment much. But if I compare my experience with the Carnival and previous vehicles (Lancer, Toyota) and the Cefiro, I spent more money owning a Carnival. The worst is not being able to use the vehicle because its always being repaired at the casa. Then there's always the fear that the Carnival may break down anytime. Maybe the quality is just bad, because the parts break down easily---from warped disc rotors to a busted evaporator, faulty starter, broken door handle, alternator, etc. These are parts you replace when the car is about 10 years old! I might have saved on the diesel fuel but whatever I saved was negated by maintenance expenses.

**niky** · January 4th, 2008 01:12 PM

Well, you can always check online or from big statistics collecting bodies like Consumer Reports... while manufacturers that have made lemons in the past may continue to make lemons in the future (Land Rover is a sore case in point), others have their ups and downs. Nissan made one batch of terrible cars with the 89 Sentra... then their Sentras through the mid-90's were decent, then quality went down a bit when production shifted to Yulon, and now it's going up again...

Heck... the Cefiro? Many owners complain of the common headgasket problem, which is quite expensive to fix if it causes a catastrophic overheat.

Mitsubishi was once regarded as good, then they started having problems financially, durability went down... now... the cars seem to be of decent durability, but service is bad.

Not even Toyota and Honda are immune to ups-and-downs in quality.

When you evaluate a vehicle for durability, you take into account how durable its predecessor is, yes, but you also consider the company's financial situation, technological improvements, and how much of the "new" vehicle is "new" and not just shared with the old one.

Right now... Kia is still low on the totem pole in terms of long-term reliability, but it's not that low, anymore... and Nissan and Mitsubishi aren't exactly known for having the best reliability, either (the QR-series engine in the Serena was the subject of numerous recalls in the US, for example... the Grandis? I'm not too familiar with it, but Mitsubishi is rated lower than Nissan in the US).

None of these vehicles will be perfect. Yes, you might have extra repairs to pay for with the CRDi system down the road, but any of the three should serve well if treated properly.