There’s just something right about a compact hatchback. It’s roomy enough yet small enough, economical enough yet spry enough, inexpensive enough yet well-enough equipped. Small wonder it’s the benchmark passenger car form factor in much of the world. It’s also something North Americans have been largely deprived of, with options dwindling over the past decade. Well, good news. The Kia K4 hatchback is just about here, and it’s only a little more expensive trim-by-trim than the sedan.
When I drove the K4 sedan nearly a year ago, I came away impressed. It might look visually challenging, but it’s comfortable, spacious, thoughtfully equipped, economical, and might have the nicest headliner for the money on the entire new car market. If you’re okay with the looks, it’s a solid contender that genuinely feels like twenty-something thousand worth of car. But if something about the way the sedan’s squared-off quarter window emphasizes the massive quarter panel bugs you, or how the trunk’s limited aperture looks like it might annoy, the K4 hatchback might be just what you need.
There is no true base model for the K4 hatchback. While you can get the sedan in cheap and cheerful LX and LX-S trims, the hatch starts with the mid-range EX trim. This means it gets leatherette, heated seats, wireless phone charging, and alloy wheels as standard equipment. It also means the cheapest K4 hatchback comes with a 147-horsepower two-liter naturally aspirated inline-four and a continuously variable transmission. Figure zero-to-60 mph in more than nine seconds, with the tradeoff being fuel economy figures of 28 MPG city, 34 MPG highway, and 30 MPG combined.
The big hatchback bonus? A solid 22.2 cu.-ft. of cargo space behind the rear seats, up from 14.6 cu.-ft. of cargo space in the sedan. That perfectly splits the difference between a Subaru Crosstrek and a Honda Civic Hatchback, all for an extremely modest upcharge. At $26,085 including freight, the K4 EX hatchback is only $500 more than an equivalent sedan. That’s cheaper than throwing a Thule box on the roof.
Moving up the range, the $27,085 K4 GT-Line hatchback continues to be $500 more than its sedan equivalent while adding stuff you’ll actually want. The big mechanical change is the switch from torsion beam rear suspension to a truly independent multilink setup, with retuned springs and dampers all around. Paddle shifters join the party, as do 18-inch wheels and a host of cosmetic alterations. Mind you, it doesn’t add a ton of creature comforts, pretty much just a power driver’s seat with adjustable lumbar support and the ability to pay more for select packages. Then again, the GT-Line Premium package adds a lot. A heated steering wheel, ventilated seats, a big moonroof, Harman/Kardon audio, navigation, a 12.3-inch full color digital instrument cluster, that sort of stuff. It’s a big list for $1,200.
Lastly, there is a K4 hatchback for those wearing lead-clad Nikes. It’s the $29,985 GT-Line Turbo, and it’s definitely getting up there in price. Granted, this top trim does ditch the 147-horsepower two-liter for a 190-horsepower 1.6-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine. Hitched to an eight-speed automatic, Kia claims it can shave nearly two seconds from a run to 62 MPH without hitting fuel economy too hard. Figure 26 MPG city, 33 MPG highway, and 28 MPG combined. It also adds a bunch of the stuff from the GT-Line Premium package, with the two big exceptions being ventilated seats and a heated steering wheel. On this range-topping trim, those are part of a $2,300 option package that adds a bunch of advanced driver assistance stuff and ambient lighting, along with a 360-degree camera system.
On paper, the 2026 Kia K4 hatchback seems like a solid deal. Base trim to base trim, it undercuts the Honda Civic Hatchback by nearly $3,000, undercuts the Mazda 3 hatchback by $710, and offers loads more room than a Toyota Corolla Hatchback for only $710 more. So what’s the catch? Well, the preliminary fuel economy rating of 30 MPG combined is a bit disappointing compared to the Corolla Hatchback’s 35 MPG combined the Civic’s 34 MPG combined. At the same time, if you’re buying a mid-range or higher K4 sedan, the extra $500 for the hatchback seems like a no-brainer. With the K4 hatchback expected to roll into showrooms early in the new year, don’t be surprised if you see one in the wild soon.
Top graphic image: Kia
Compared to my ’14 Mazda3, it puts out slightly less hp from an identically sized engine and has a CVT vs my 6AT, but somehow manages to get 5 mpg less on the highway. Plus, it has vinyl seats. This is not progress.
I won’t be trading my Civic HyHb, but it looks good. I’m hoping somebody can make a business case for a well-equipped hatchback (not necessarily “hot”, but warm) that recalls some retro boxy/edgy 80’s styling cues.
The styling mostly works, but I just can’t get past the stupid fetish of the rear door handles in the c-pillars. In fact that whole c-pillar area is a clusterfuck of pointless ugly plastic inserts and what not. Maybe it was bring your kid to work day and the boss assigned that section to his 10 year old to keep him busy and the rest of the staff were to afraid to push back and left it there.
The gimmick of “hidden” rear door handles needs to go away. It doesn’t fool anyone into thinking the car is a “sporty” 2-door, it looks hideous when the rear door handles don’t match the front, and they are functionally much worse than regular-ass door handles.
Looks incredible, especially in the yellow. I’m assuming that packaging constraints precluded the 1.6T hybrid system. That would really make this compelling. With current gas prices near me (~2.75/gallon for 87), 30 vs 34 highway makes basically no difference.
Give this to the N weirdos at once
I’m curious as to how this fits in the lineup with the Niro. Unless they’re planning to phase out the Niro and in subsequent years add the hybrid, phev, ev to the K4.
Right now it does make a bit of sense because the Niro doesn’t have a gas only option.
Either way seems weird to have 2 hatchbacks in the market unless they stopped making the Niro and I just hadn’t seen the news.
More choice is better I guess.
The Niro apparently counts as a crossover and is on an EV dominant PHEV platform. It’s also heavily optimized for aero to get max efficiency, while the K4 is a sedan conversion that prioritizes styling. So there’s a decent amount of space between the two.
We used to have a Niro PHEV and it might be a crossover on paper, but it is definitely a small hatchback.
I would bet if you put it next to one of these(K4 Hatch) they would be the same size.
100% agree. Guy on my block has one, its a hatchback, its much closer to a small car than an SUV/CUV by far. They don’t want to call it a hatchback as its not the “in” style right now.
Cute. Give it to me with a manual trans, though please.
CVT? I’m out.
Only $710 more for a Mazda, and – curiously – the same amount for a Toyota? I know where I’d be going if I were in the market.
Not stated: there’s an 18-month wait for the Toyota. 🙂
I’d still choose the Mazda first. It uses actual gears. Looks great, too.
It’s also tiny. If you plan to use the backseats in any capacity at all the Mazda3 hatch and the CX30 are pretty much non-starters. But if you aren’t go right ahead, they are very pretty cars.
Indeed. The 3 and -30 do put style over substance. I gravitate more towards the CX-50 myself despite its shorter stature compared to the CX-5.
If I were buying a new Mazda for family duties I’d likely get a CX-70 since we already have a CX-5.
I was just thinking yesterday why they haven’t made a Mazdaspeed 3 out of the current gen hatchback. I think it would be pretty sweet
They do have the Turbo trim, but a Mazdaspeed it is not. I wouldn’t hold my breath either, Mazda is mainly focused on moving upmarket these days.
Mazda won’t build one, but you more or less can if you’re willing to fire the aftermarket parts cannon at it. It is not, however, cheap to do so.
It never ceases to amaze me how tiny mine looks until I drop the rear seats. It can handle two sets of wheels and tires with room to spare. Or one set, a pressure washer, a push mower, floor jack, jackstands, several bags of tools, and a collapsible wagon to cart it all into a storage unit.
I was waiting for a small hatchback and this was on the list until I read about the crappy mpg. My 2022 Rio gets 45 on long trips, as long as I drive ok. Looking like a Toyota hatch, Kia K4 or a hybrid Corolla is in my future.
Have you looked at the Niro? We had a PHEV and love it. Amazing gas milage.
I went 1 summer without spending a dime on gas; it was like 2500-3000 miles.
Honda Civic hybrid hatch?
I’d still go Civic, but this is all fine.
Cheaper with more standard kit than the Honda and Mazda, and in all likelihood the Toyota in the event you actually find a Corolla hatch given regional add-ons.
MPG being a little low is more surprising in relation to the K4 EX sedan (also on 17s) at 29/39/33. But the sedan is a 0.27 Cd vs. 0.30 for the hatch so that likely contributes. It will probably be something of a wash in real-world mileage against the others.
If you want a hybrid and you’re in a Kia showroom, they’ll point you to a Niro ($28,535 with destination). That’s rated for better mileage than the Civic hybrid anyway.
Assuming 15000 miles a year and $3.15 a gallon regular gas, the Kia is $225ish a year more to fuel up than the Honda. Age old dilemma of lower purchase price or lower running costs, not including depreciation.
Depreciation makes this an easy win for any of the Japanese options.
Which has the cheaper CVT fluid change that’s due every 30k miles?
I’ll take the Honda.
I already have the Honda. Sport Touring Hybrid.
It was the right decision.
I went Accord 2.0T, but the Civic Hybrid was high on my list if I didn’t find one of these.
How are the seats? A friend’s Pilot seems to have really thin seats. And I’ve read several owner-reviews which complain of uncomfortable seats in the Civic Hybrid. I really hope the seats are good, because it seems to be the only car worth buying these days. Also, I’m disappointed you’re forced to get the sunroof, but that I can look past if the rest of the car is good.
My mom went literally decades without finding a Honda seat that she deemed comfortable. She would go out and test drive Accords every time they received a full redesign, and would come back and say “Nope, still bad.” She gave up on Honda and has been leasing Ford Escape Hybrids one after the other for about 15 years, with a brief break for a Subaru Outback in the mid 2000s.
(Ironically, I found that generation Outback to have the most uncomfortable rear seats I’ve ever been in.)
“might look visually challenging”. Such words will never be seen on a dating app.
But you still could.
Props to Subaru for having proper mounting points for racks on the roof, even on models where they don’t include the rails
Roof boxes are car toupees.
More often than not they scream (loudly, and through the headliner where there’s less sound deadening) that the owner should have purchased a larger vehicle that better fits their needs.
Especially for the ones who leave them permanently affixed to their roof.
A larger vehicle doesn’t better fit my needs, though. I put the roof box on in 15 minutes before trips that need it, then take it off and leave it in a shed the rest of the time and enjoy having a smaller car to drive.
That’s encouraging. Far too many owners put them on as (seemingly) unused accessories and leave them there.
That’s, at least, slightly less laziness than people who leave the receiver in the hitch.
Folks who leave hitches on – especially if they’re never used – deserve to be forced to run through an obstacle course of hitched being deployed at shin and knee heights with enough force to cause bruises, but no bone breakage.
Maybe I’d also have them run barefoot over Lego bricks, too. Depends on my mood.
It takes so little time and effort to remove hitches that are kept in good order, it’s silly. They get harder to remove when they’re neglected.
Yeah, totally agreed on the ridiculousness of racks/roof boxes as a fashion statement. Every time I see a cargo basket I wonder what it is someone would actually put in one of those, but that’s a moot point because in most cases the answer is nothing.
FIFY
Both can be true. You didn’t really “fix” it as substitute your own narrative.
This, exactly. Roof boxes and other cargo extensions are tools that allow a “90%” car to cover a wider swath of the “10%” edge cases at a fraction of the cost and inconvenience of buying the gigantic beast of an SUV they want you to drive.
I absolutely love all the cargo extensions I’ve added to my quiver to make my Mazda5 do 99% of everything people buy a full size SUV or truck for.
Between hitch racks, roof racks and a lightweight trailer, I can bring 4 bikes, or 4 kayaks, or a 17′ canoe, or all my camping gear plus 4 bikes plus a canoe, or paddleboards plus the bikes and the camping gear and 2 kids and a dog, or a load of mulch, or my mother-in-law’s entire apartment’s worth of furniture, etc etc.
No, *vinyl tops* are car toupees, and I’ll die on that hill.
I’d call those bad hair transplants, not toupees, since toupees/wigs are removable.
Together with the cryptic “13.1” bumper stickers.
Yeah the marathon stickers are a smidge silly. I’ve wanted to have ones made that would be along the lines of “262.0…miles per tank” or “12.1… MPG if I floor it” and such.
My Mazdas both have fixed rack mounting points under the roof gutter trim. They’re so much better than the clamp-on style.
What? There are zillions of hatchbacks out there on the roads. We just all decided to call them crossovers.
It’s insane what they call a CUV/SUV these days. For example, I have an Ioniq 5, which is clearly a hatchback, but is it called a hatchback? No – otherwise (Hyundai thinks) it won’t sell.
Idk what I’d call the Ioniq 5. It certainly looks like a hatchback in photos, but in person the thing is huge. It’s 15 inches longer, 5 inches taller, and 5 inches wider than a Golf. I agree it shouldn’t be called an SUV; but I assert it shouldn’t be considered a hatchback either. I think for that reason, CUV fits it best.
Really? I feel the opposite – I’m not a big dude myself, but the Ioniq doesn’t feel large to me. The only thing I noticed when we first got it was how wide it is – literally had to look it up because I couldn’t figure out why I kept parking “badly” in the Ioniq vs the 2015 Civic we traded in for it.
For just a few hundred more dollars than the EX – you can get a manual Mazda3 S hatchback with more power, better performance, better looks, and only slightly lower mileage.
And cloth seats.
And less headroom.
and a virtually useless backseat with no visibility out the back. what a steal.
In the US to get a Mazda3 Hatch with the stick you are locked to the Premium trim with mandatory leather seats and a ~33k sticker before options. It’s a shame Mazda has limited the stick hatch so much, but that’s where we’re at.
Hmmm – Does not show that in the configurator.
https://www.mazdausa.com/shopping-tools/build-and-price#/26M3H/26M3H25S
Is the 3 S manual hatch an unobtanium spec?
The configurator shows it as an “option” if you’re building an S, but it forces you into the Premium trim if you select it.
If they were only allowed to make one trim with the manual, choosing a middle trim instead of the base trim is the correct choice for Mazda.
I’m glad you called out the low MPG. I was starting to think this thing must be more accord sized to get that bad, but a Civic competitor barely breaking 30 is abysmal today. And it’s 9 second 0-60 is fine, but if you’re going to have sub par MPG, there better be some performance to make up for it. Big nope on both here. Swing and a miss.
FE remains the achilles heel of the H/K bunch. Unless hybrid.
Yeah I’ve never understood why the base Kia engines always have bad efficiency
Yeah I can’t say I pay much attention to Hyundai/Kia, too many people I knew had major engine issues on theirs, and that was followed so closely by the Kia boyz thefts, so they are just dead to me but it does appear that they are quite bad at that.
The sport mode on the CVT is too aggressive. EPA requires testing done on the most aggressive driving mode, so just leave it in regular mode and easily beat the EPA estimates.
I thought it averages all the latching (doesn’t reset when you turn off) drive modes for the EPA rating? Either way that could explain it
There could also just be some psychology at play with a CVT and a naturally aspirated engine with variable valve timing. Things get a lot louder when it opens up the valves above 2500 rpm. Give steady pedal pressure until 2000 rmp and holding until the 45 mph speed limit is enough to keep up with traffic, but that is definitely not what the EPA is measuring. Unlike with small turbos where people get less in the city than the sticker, with a naturally aspirated the test shows the opposite bias. I think it is because the CVT will fight to keep the RPMs low with restricted valves unless you floor it and that is too much work for how much little extra satisfaction it gives at the expense of comfort.
Sport mode holds a higher rpm just going down the road even when you raise your foot from the pedal for some reason. Might be useful going down a steep road where you need engine breaking.
Rental-car spec using the less-problematic engines?
This looks great, and I really want this gold color, but the drivetrain is a major letdown. For as bad as the mileage is there’s no way I’m putting up with the CVT, and while the turbo-4 and regular auto might be better, the mpg is still pathetic without any real performance.
Plus the turbo is within $1500 of the last Mazda3 you can still get with a stick. That money would be more than worth it.
My GF has a 2020 Elantra with a CVT, I honestly did not know it was a CVT until recently, where I saw it in print somewhere. I was genuinely surprised, as it drives just like a conventional automatic.
I wouldn’t discount it over the trans till you drive one, but agree on the MPG. Her non-hybrid Elantra easily gets 40+ on my commute, and about 36-37 combined most weeks.
I prefer conventional automatics mainly from a reliability standpoint, but in reality any future car purchases will likely either be EV, hybrid (using a Toyota or Honda style system without a transmission), or manual.
I was pleasantly surprised by how the 2.0/CVT performed in a Forte rental a few years ago and thought it pretty comparable to the equivalent Civic powertrain.
It’s tough being a hatchback fan. It’s always some combination of low horsepower, no manual, CVT, way too expensive, or not available in the USA.
What’s the catch?
Oh yeah, it’s a Kia. And not a manual.
And the porn-mustache taillights.
Vinyl seats mandatory on every trim? no thanks.
Does decent cloth come from some now-endangered species?
What if it’s rich Corinthian vinyl?
Revealed early 2024. “Expected late 2025” per their own website.
I have a few thoughts. I may be unique, but I don’t really ever plan on buying a new car that isn’t either a hybrid or a stick. If I’m going to compromise on fun, I at least want to be rewarded with 50 mpg. While this hatchback looks really quite nice, and actually is a hatchback unlike the Civic fastback, that’s really it’s only upside compared to competitors. The Corolla is smaller, but it gets way better milage and can be had with AWD. The Civic likely has Honda’s reliability and resale value and is also available in hybrid form (that’s probably the one to get). The Subaru and Mazda both have their dedicated fan bases for whatever reason. While I appreciate a cool looking hatchback returning to the market, the uninspired powertrain would make it pretty low on my list. I trust a Hyundai/Kia turbo motor about as far as I can throw a steering wheel lock. This is coming from a Forte owner.
Yeah, I like the way this looks but I would never buy one. My ’14 Mazda3 gets better mileage, has better equipment, and still has a stick.
If I was buying new today, I’d spend a bit more to either get the Civic Hybrid or the Mazda3 with the stick.
Exactly. Those two are also my short list; although I would cross shop the Civic Si too. Pretty much everything else is too compromised in some way.
I love the Si, but I don’t know if I can give up the hatch. It’s a shame they killed the manual Civic hatch, as I like the looks of that better than the Mazda3.
Guess I gotta get a Type R.
yea, that is a curious decision. I can’t imagine hiding the stick behind the Type R paywall adds any sales from someone who absolutely needs a stick + hatchback. I suppose fewer option combinations makes for cheaper production, but it can’t cost that much to do.
I think it’s just putting space between the Type R and the Si so Type R buyers don’t settle for slapping a wing and some decals on an Si hatch.
That’s not enough fuel economy difference to really matter, IMO — especially when you’re splitting hairs against a Civic Hybrid that could outrun it AND deliver 50mpg for just a couple grand more, apples to apples.
I had high hopes for this, but was hoping they’d hybridize it at least. If you can’t get balls-out performance then at least give us some economy. The features list looks great, typical for Kiundai, but it wouldn’t sway me away from the more consistently reliable brands.
Also, that C/D pillar is horrendous. It would have looked so good if they had kept the black going all the way back instead of trying to kink it up and down along with a shark fin. That would also be a visual dealbreaker for me.
Not having a hybrid even as an option is a big miss. If I’m shopping the bottom of the market (which I am), MPG and reliability matter more than most everything else. This doesn’t deliver on the first, and it is dubious it will deliver on the second. The NA I4 will be fine, I’m worried about the Turbo and the CVT more than anything else.
I think overall it looks great, but I agree that I wouldn’t buy this. For my fake internet money I’m springing for the Civic hybrid or the Mazda3 Premium with the stick.
How about a proper wagon version with even more cargo space?
Oh wait, we live in the worst timeline and don’t deserve such nice things.
I read that there will be a wagon in the other parts of the world.
Of COURSE there will be.
Best I can do is offer you a 6-figure pickuptruck, some tariffs, and an apology from Stellantis for cars that may self-combust.
God forbid we actually get an affordable small wagon that gets decent fuel economy, haul a substantial amount of cargo that doesn’t ride a mile above the damn ground.
They insist that if you want to haul anything, you *HAVE* to buy a friggin’ Sportage. NO. I DO NOT WANT A SPORTAGE.
I DO NOT WANT TALL ROOF AND NARROWER AND SHORTER CARGO AREA WITH BLAH HANDLING.
I WANT LOW ROOF + WIDE AND LONG CARGO AREA AND SPORTY HANDLING FOR UNDER 30K.
They should market it as the ‘Anti-Crossover’, price it in the mid 20’s, and I think that Gen Z and Alpha would lap it up, because crossovers are ‘mom cars’ to them, just like minivans were to Millenials and wagons were to Boomers/Gen X.
I just find it, to this day, bizarre because we are the friggin’ THIRD LARGEST MARKET in the world for cars and yet we have the absolutely most asinine and restrictive market in the world for models/engines/transmissions and imports.
Preach!
I look forward to seeing the recalls this will have
I would rather have recalls than the old school method of “sweep the issues under the rug and let the customer pay for the problems”. At least they TRY to fix their broken crap.
Can I interest you in a $100 apology card from Stellantis because your car might self-combust for a variety of issues that haven’t been addressed properly?
You are making the invalid assumption that I would ever buy anything they currently make anyway. Recalls are FAR down the list of reasons why.