I should have known. It was right there in front of me the whole time. When I signed the paperwork to borrow the car, it said Kia K4 Hatchback GT-Line Turbo. These are mostly good words. Kia is a strong brand that makes many vehicles I like. K4 is its affordable model, and the world sure needs more of those. Hatchback? Turbo? Two of my favorite modifiers when it comes to cars.
It’s the GT-Line part that should have been a warning. GT-Line brings with it a real Assistant to the Regional Manager energy that the car, unfortunately, can’t shake when you drive it.
Not like this is my first time with a looks-fast-but-really-isn’t trim car from Hyundai/Kia. I’m usually fine with the concept. The Kia EV6 GT-Line I drove last year was plenty quick enough, as was the similar Sonata N-Line.
The problem with the Kia K4 Hatch is that the gap between what it looks like it can do and what it actually can do is too vast. I was at the vehicle’s debut last year in New York, and I was fairly effusive in my praise. My hope was that it would come in at a reasonable price and offer reasonable performance.
Aesthetically, the car delivers. It’s far more compelling to me than any other equivalent lower-trim hot hatch. It’s cleaner than the Corolla Hatchback XSE, more grown-up than the Civic SI, and, unlike the GTI, looks like it was designed this century. The K4 sedan is strange, but it’s a strange I like. The K4 Hatch is striking.
On paper, too, there’s a lot to like from the setup. In GT-Line Turbo trim, the K4 gets a 1.6-liter turbo good for 190 horsepower and 195 lb-ft of torque. There’s no CVT to complain about here, as the Turbo gets an actual, proper eight-speed automatic. While these aren’t quite Civic SI or Golf GTI numbers, power is only a few rows back.
Even sitting in the car, it’s like: Oh, this thing rules. I will be having fun here. I can’t wait to drive it. The materials and the infotainment display look better than what anyone else offers at this point. The seats are comfortable. There are flappy paddles behind the steering wheel.
This was already well-stated when David drove this car (maybe this exact car) a few weeks ago, but it doesn’t drive how it looks. It’s a comfortable car, with an admirably low level of road noise, reasonable handling, and mid steering.
I don’t want to join the complainers, though; I want to fix it. I want there to be an actual Kia K4 GT that splits the difference between this car and the Hyundai Elantra N that it shares a platform with. I’m not going crazy. I’m not asking for a transverse V6 or even a new transmission. Just tweaks!
How I’d Make A Kia K4 GT Out Of This
Let’s start with the obvious: Don’t change the way it looks. Other than, maybe, a different set of wheels and a custom color, I think it’s aesthetically close to perfect. I’m only suggesting wheels because you’ll want something to differentiate it from a GT-Line. Kia makes great wheels, so this should be easy.
Power? I think to be in the conversation with the Civic SI and the Golf GTI, you’re looking at maybe 15 more horsepower. Would I like the bigger, faster 2.0-liter out of the Elantra N? Sure, but then it’s getting too expensive. The 1.6-liter turbo produces up to 201 horsepower in other vehicles, so there’s gotta be a little more juice in there, even if not much more twist.
Would this kill with a six-speed manual transmission? Absolutely. Will Kia give me one? Probably not! That’s ok. The eight-speed that’s here is a good enough place to start. The problem is that it acts like the stereotypical Gen Z employee, somehow present and yet randomly and unpredictably absent at times. Some tweaking here will go a long way.
If I’m going to spend any real money on this car to differentiate it, it’s going to be offering some sort of adaptive damper, similar to what you can get on the N. One of the benefits of the K4 Hatch is that it feels nicer than a car in this class usually does, and I don’t want to have to choose between comfort and performance. If this is the only change I’m making, I think it would go a long way.
Obviously, if you start messing with the suspension, you’re going to impact the steering. I didn’t think that K4’s steering was all that bad, although understeer came on so abruptly that it hardly mattered what I felt. The brakes on the GT-Line Turbo far outmatch the rest of the car and, curiously, seem like the one piece of the car that was overbuilt.
It goes without saying that the stock Kumho Majesty tires are there for comfort, and not performance. The rubber on the GT-Line probably gives the suspension a little boost here and, if I didn’t care about going fast, I think it’s a good compromise. I do care about going fast, so even a more performance-oriented all-season tire will do better than these glorified crossover tires.
All of this isn’t that unreasonable, and the goal would be to get the car in at around $34-35k so that it’s just under the Elantra N, but perhaps a bit ahead of the Civic SI. The only other car I like as much as this in this class is the Mazda 3 Turbo, but that’s AWD and a lot pricer at $38k fully loaded.
Alternatively, the base version of this car with the smaller motor and CVT is a lot cheaper, looks almost as good, and isn’t going to tease you with the promise of performance. I’d be quite tempted to go this route, although I haven’t driven it yet, so caveat emptor and all that.
The Kia K4 Hatchback GT-Line Turbo is a good car, and I’m not going to judge anyone who buys one harshly. In this class, there are reasonable arguments for all the cars, and some of it is just personal preference.
It’s a bummer that this car has almost all the right pieces, though, and I hope Kia makes a few tweaks before the next generation or, even better, gives us a real GT version. Having only a GT-Line version is like only having a sequel. It’s Die Hard 2 without the Die Hard.
So, c’mon. Yippie-Ki-Yay, Hyundai Kia, let’s build this thing.
Top graphic image: Matt Hardigree
$26,125 (including destination) gets you a mini oxford edition with 2doors, 18inch wheels, panoramic sunroof, heated seats/steering wheel plus a few safety features.
$1000 more gets you the 4 door.
https://www.miniusa.com/model/special-editions/oxford.html
Kia needs to do what they’ve done in the past – GT-line should be the hot looks with the mild motor, but there should be a proper GT slotted above that with the looks and the performance to back it up.
Do it, Kia!
The Forte GT was basically this same engine as the GT Line Turbo but at a slightly higher state of tune at the 201 hp level but with the 7 speed dct instead of the 8 speed automatic. There was no actual GT to rival the Elantra N with the 2.0L turbo with a manual or DCT.
It was a shame they wasted the GT and GT line trim on Forte as that left no room for a real GT level model.
The Elantra N-line was the equivalent of the Forte GT because of sharing the same 1.6L engine as the older Forte and the N was better.
I hate all of these trims and the inconsistency of them. Pick GT or N, then make -line for cosmetic changes only. It’s not hard!
I’m almost 100% sure they will inevitably do a more performance-oriented variant of this, though for my money I’d be going for a Civic Hybrid hatch.
Big Elantra Touring circa 2012 energy. Which is sad bc this looks cool and we need more hot hatches.
Surprised they went with an auto after years of Kia selling some of their small SUVs(or at least the Sorrento) with the wildly inappropriate for crossovers 7 speed DCT that would be a great fit for this car if they weren’t going to offer a stick.
If that is what passes for a good looking car, we are all well and truly doomed.
We are, in fact, well and truly doomed. Sigh.
Oof. These words felt like a punch in the gut.
But you have redeemed yourself.
That “proper eight-speed automatic” also hurt me, and that’s coming from someone who has never even owned a stick.
I’ll defend a good auto all day long (one that has good paddles and obeys you by holding the gear YOU pick, redline be darned), but that sentence left me depressed after reading it slowly several times and thinking how far we’ve fallen.
Referring to it this way vs the automated manual DCT that was in the predecessor vs a planetary gearbox with a torque converter makes sense as it replaced the dry dual clutch transmission with one that is more traditional/ normal for the masses who don’t want to have to learn how to drive like a manual
Wat
The Forte GT with the automatic transmission used a dual clutch automated manual transmission. This K4 GT-Line with the same engine used a standard automatic transmission with 8 speeds in it’s planetary gear train or the chain and pulleys of the CVT with infinite ratios when not pretending to shift through 7-8 fake shift points
Dang. I really don’t want this car to be a bummer.
Just searched Cars dot com, not 1 base model within 300mil of me. They were all GT Line and above. Also not one in that gold color
They just hit dealerships, so I’ll give them a bit of a break on this one.
I am all for more hatchbacks. I dearly miss my 3 turbo hatch. I am really not a fan of the rear on the sedan version but I feel like the hatch really fixes up the proportions.
RE: exclusive color – a deep metallic purple with either optional rose gold wheels would be a great combo for this. Hell, call it the Demon Hunter edition.
THIS!
It needs more name, like the Kia K4 Hatchback GT-Line Turbo x Hardibird Limited Edition Spec 2 Eurosport
…Do any cars in this class have adaptive dampers as an option?
Really feels like that is veering into the N-line and not splitting the difference.
Different motor, but yes. We are getting close. I don’t think all of the above needs to be done, but some mix. I also, to Anthony’s point below, think it would make this an A Spec competitor to some degree.
“In this class” is the caveat, but here’s what’s close.
Depending on your definition of “Class” VB WRX Wagon has Adaptive Dampers too
Insert the “Okay, this is on me” for poor phrasing. When I was saying “class” I was thinking front/AWD sedans/hatches in the $30-35K price range. You’re spending low 40s and prices only go up for the CTR / Integras and the GTI Autobahn.
That said, I will grant the four door Mini Cooper S, which with the packages and options ticked for adaptive dampers puts you right around the $36K range.
So you’re saying “no.”
The Kona N did, but as for how effective they were, that’s a question for Nsane In The MembraNe.
Alas, the Kona N no longer exists, but when it did exist it was in that $36K range, so I’ll grant you that. (even though today it’d be more around $38K like the Mazda 3 hatch).
I don’t really care for the looks of this thing. It just looks like the pudgy guy wearing clothes that are too tight. The bodywork seems to muffin top around the taillights, the fenders give me flabby love handle vibes instead of nice hips, and the black trim around the rockers/wheel wells/bumpers seems just kinda ugly. Maybe I’m just seeing to much of myself in this….
Oh stop, your fenders are lovely just the way you are.
Calling the Gen11 Civic overwrought but not the K4 itself?
The Gen11 Civic was the pendulum swing after the Gen10.
Still really like the way this car looks, especially in that fantastic shade of yellow. I’ve never had a yellow car, and would love to before I shrug off this mortal coil.
Of course, the CVT bums me out even if it’s not as bad as all that. And yes, a manual would be excellent (and probably get me out to a dealership) but that’s never going to happen (even though Honda and Mazda both still have a manual option or two in their small cars).
Maybe I’ll go test drive one anyway.
he said it wasn’t a cvt, it’s an 8speed auto.
The base car is a 2.0L GDI and CVT (IVT in Kia/Hyundai parlance), but the GT line turbo does use the 1.6L gtdi and an 8 speed automatic.
Yes, I know the CVT is in the base model. Realistically, that’s the one I’d probably be fine with, but for the uneasiness about the CVT. Moot though, since I only just got all my (3) old cars to pass smog at some expense, so adding a new car seems silly atm.
I always prefer the biggest available motor, naturally aspirated, and with a manual or true automatic transmission for any car I plan/hope to keep using for many years. Sadly, that’s not what most manufacturers put in base models.
Do it. I miss my yellow car so much. It wasn’t actually a good enough car to be the one that got away (I have a strong suspicion the seats were particle board under the foam), but damn if I don’t think about it a lot.
Aside from one medium blue metallic (a ’79 Supra) and a very faded maroon metallic (an ’81 Rabbit convertible) all of my cars have wound up being silver or black, with a couple of beigish ones too, which were so bland as to be almost monochrome.
However, all of these dozen plus cars were bought used except one, and that one (a ’98 CLK 320) I specified in silver because that was historically appropriate for a Benz (and there weren’t a ton of good colors to choose from).
Aside from that CLK, which I only kept for a year due to how shockingly unreliable it was, I’ve never been able to choose the color of a car really, since practical considerations (condition, mileage, price…) have always taken precedence.
As I’m well into middle age now and the number of new (to me) cars left for me is finite, I’d almost kill for a yellow, or green, or orange, or even some decent/dark purple car now, but of course, I usually buy used and monochromes are the most common unless you’re shopping for 20+ year old cars. Which I often do.
You’ve seen that metallic teal with the orange interior on some 2000s Volvos? Doug DeMurro reviewed an S60 (IIRC, it might have been something else) in that combo. I admit the orange (called Atacama, I think) is a bit much, but I would swap my beige on tan XC90 for one in that combo in an instant were such a thing possible. 🙂
I agree with a lot of this! Mostly with just a bit more punch- couldnt have made the double century mark?
This is why “OEM+” is a thing in tuning.
Not sure why “better rubber” is a frequent complaint. They’re gone in 20,000 miles (if you drive it hard), so put on new ones then. Also, not sure why the tire is mentioned in car reviews at all, for the same reason. It should be something that can be swapped out before taking title without too much cost (dealer gets a set of 4 in return).
And, yes, manual. Not every car built needs a manual, but it should be available, even if it takes an extra two weeks/months to assemble and ship. I’m probably missing the reasons why not to, besides simply, “we don’t want to” or, “we didn’t design it to fit one.”
I think “better rubber” is a standard complaint of OEM tires from virtually any manufacturer.
And I’d be willing to consider a higher price for a manual transmission.
Speaking to standard complaint, it kind of annoys me when companies put something like an AWD badge on their cars when it’s literally the only drivetrain they offer (looking at the back of a CX-50 and 90 right now). Manufactures are all about saving pennies and they do that. I guess I get that they want to let you know it’s AWD but there are no other options than AWD so why need to specify?
Ok old fart rant over. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
Advertising. The CX-90 also only has one engine option (with different states of tune and hybrid options), but you get a badge on the front wing that says inline 6 anyway. Most of car badging/branding is an insult to the buyer’s intelligence, and holds many assumptions about the image they wish to project.
I mean I know that’s the answer and you’re not wrong but it still gets under my skin. Companies will cheap out on things that seem rather significant and then not on stuff that really doesn’t matter.
I agree with you, but in this case, the CX-90 Hybrid uses the 2.5L 4-cylinder, so at least the Inline 6 badge actually means something for once
I thought the hybrid CR-90 still had the inline 6, but I stand corrected.
There are FWD-only CX-30s sold in non-US markets (and there was one year where FWD-only was an option in the US).
My OEM tires were the worst thing about my car. I’m on my fourth set, and all have been vastly better. I certainly don’t miss the false TPMS readings from the originals.
The tire is mentioned because it completely changes the test-drive experience of a car, and a set of tires is a substantial expense to account for if you’re about to buy a vehicle that rolls off the line wearing inappropriate rubber. It’d be really hard to find buyers for new performance-adjacent cars with the tagline “it just needs tires”.
I also often see comparison articles/videos mentioning how a car is kneecapped by its tires (say, when one press vehicle comes with Summers and the other with run-flats), usually with the objective of pointing out that the car had a handicap in that particular test, and might have fared better if tires were equal.
Tires can make a big difference even in non-performance vehicles. My experience is old, but replacing OEM Goodyear garbage on our Highlander with Michelin’s made a world of difference. If there is a next vehicle in my life, I’d do the swap (if called for) at the point of sale.
Changing the tires on my wife’s CR-V also made a huge difference to ride quality, cabin noise and steering feedback, it’s really amazing.
Crap tires are a complaint because when you’re spending ~$30k or more on a new car, it sucks to have to then spend another few hundred bucks just to fix something you shouldn’t have to. I would like to see more OEMs offering different tires as add-ons for non-performance vehicles.
And the literal only reason for every car not having a manual is because it costs money. It’s a crap ton of work for an OEM to either design or source a transmission, make it work with the car’s existing powertrain/ECU, and make it able to fit in the car. All of that costs dough that they will never make back in sales.
I don’t know if I’d advocate for adaptive dampers or more rated power, but a FWD car with this kind of torque and sporting aspirations really should have a limited-slip. But then…are we really viewing this as a Civic Si or VW GTI competitor?
This thing is strangely slower than the Forte with the same engine, however. Curious about that one.
I am open to either. A real, legit LSD would be helpful. There are a lot of ways this can go better.
A diff and performance tires would be plenty for me, maybe throw in half a degree of camber up front to further mitigate the understeer (just change the spec sheet, it should be well within the factory adjustment range).
Less power and more weight plus softer tuning and the slushier 8 speed automatic transmission vs the potentially violent 7 speed dual clutch would all smooth and slow down the K4 vs the Forte
Shame; between that and the elimination of the manual, it turned a reasonable Civic Si competitor into a something that needs to watch itself next to a naturally aspirated base Mazda3.
I think calling this car a “bummer”, especially in the headline, is way too harsh. From what I can tell, you actually like the car. I’d go with a headline like “Almost there Kia, but here’s what I would do.” I know it sounds like I’m being soft on Kia but here’s the thing: I feel LUCKY that we are getting a hatch version. I feel lucky to get anything that is not another damn CUV/ SUV/ high riding brick. And if we want more low, sexy hatchbacks and wagons, we gotta sing more praise for them. I know it’s irrational but in the part of my head that that worries way too much, I fear Kia reads the headline and goes “screw them, make more CUVs. This is what we get for trying.”
I think the author is trying to make it something it’s not. It’s a reasonably priced mid-grade trim level that’s a little more exciting than the base model, but not a true performance car. This isn’t anything other automakers don’t do.
“But I can add these and this and power and tires and that too!” Yeah, now it’s $10k more and in a different class of vehicle. Leave it alone.
Before it was T-boned and totaled a few months back, I had a ’24 Forte GT. It had the 201 hp version of this engine and a 7-speed DCT and was a HOOT. Loud exhaust, fun to drive, quick (if not fast), a bit juvenile. When I test-drove a K4 GT-Line Turbo sedan it was none of these things, to its detriment. I’d stack the K4 Turbo against the NA Mazda3 rather than the Turbo Premium Plus which reduces the appeal significantly.
A proper GT version of this car would be pretty easy for Kia to do and would go a long way toward rebuilding some of their enthusiast cred. Show those exhaust tips, remap that transmission and give us back those extra ten horses, you cowards! I dare ya!
The Forte GT was basically the same engine as this K4 in a slightly hotter state of tune, which when compared with the Elantra N vs N line it was aligned with the performance of the N Line and not the N. Apart from the new car being heavier and more refined than the outgoing BDm Forte the GT line moniker is more fitting for both the Forte GT and this K4 turbo GT line. There wasn’t an Elantra N rivaling Forte GT.
Kia differentiated the Forte GT enough from the gutless GT-Line that a separate designation was probably necessary. The K4 GT-Line vs GT-Line Turbo is basically the same car with the exception of the engine. A Forte GT with the 2.0t motor would have been sweet, though!
Without the 2.0L turbo the power trains were aligned to the N-Line variant of the Elantra despite other feature differences over what they called the GT Line on Forte GT for marketing purposes, the Forte GT should have been the GT line and what they called the GT line shouldn’t have existed without the actual GT equivalent of the Elantra N but we never got one and the likelihood of any manual K4 in the USA or Canada is likely slim to none.
And exactly how much are you wanting to pay for this Kia?
In the article: “All of this isn’t that unreasonable, and the goal would be to get the car in at around $34-35k so that it’s just under the Elantra N, but perhaps a bit ahead of the Civic SI.”
Still too much.
I’ve tried the base version and it was totally acceptable. If it could be had with a manual it would be excellent, since cheap hatchbacks need a manual to be properly fun.
It’s not atypical for a manufacturer to release a new model that isn’t all it could be, so they can “improve” it a couple years down the road.
oooooooooooo yellow 😀
It’s a good yellow!