Which Vehicle Will The Kia Telluride Conquest MOST And Will It Become The Poor Man’s Land Cruiser?

Kia is a low quality, inexpensively designed and economically built vehicle. It exists in its intended class of economy vehicles. It is indeed the epitome of a 'poor person's' car. There is no basis to compare it to any high end vehicles if only to dramatize it low line nature. Sometime has to occupy the very bottom billet and Kia is it.

You're stuck in 1995.

I do not know on what you are basing this opinion. Kia/Hyundai has made dramatic strides in the last 10+ years. Their vehicles have climbed to the top of quality surveys and safety scores. The new Genesis is a genuine challenger to top tier luxury cars.
I believe FCA is occupying the bottom rung.

I saw this car at the Chicago Auto Show and to the naked eye the build quality was quite good for the prince point. I don't know how long this vehicle will hold up but I thought it was significant departure from past Kia vehicles.

What's wrong with lower cost-inexpensive vehicles designed to "look" upscale?

I hate seeing luxury-level prices for basic (materials, content, design) vehicles. But when a particular trend is carrying the market, can we really complain?

This is coming from someone who has owned both brands. You are obviously extremely uneducated about vehicles and the modern KIA. People like you have a common misconception that KIA’s are junk, when in fact if you did some simple research you would find otherwise. Have you ever driven a modem Kia? The interior materials and quality blow Toyota’s out of the water. Toyotas sound like tin cans when you tap a door panel, hell, the Sorento beats the Highlander in crash test ratings. Have you heard of JD Power and Consumer Reports? This isn’t the 90’s, KIA is a completely different brand.

Wow, the Kia’s interior looks just as good if not better than the X7’s which cost 3x as much, interesting

It will all come down to marketing. Based on its size, price, and design this has the potential to make a big impact. However I’m not sure Kia’s initial impression of a trail ready SUV is the right approach. Personally I’d choose it over the Highlander, Pilot, and pretty much anything in the class. I don’t disagree that it could be a game changer but that’s what was said about the Stinger which is a really really good car but lacks the overall refinement and quality of even Honda. If Kia has improved its quality, build structure and refinement and with the right marketing it could carve out a nice place for itself with the Telluride

But I would hardly make an LS comparison. The car landscape was much much different back then and it’s parent company is Toyota.

Looks best in class to me. Should steal sales from everyone. Heated AND cooled second row seats? Nice!

This is a very nice vehicle - I have started seeing them on the street and Kia did a great job.

and when is the last time anyone saw a land cruiser? aka the official vehicle of 3rd world strongmen

This vehicle is awesome. Kia priced them reasonably to appeal to a wider market and get them on the road. Have had a variety of SUVs in my time and this is worth every penny and then some. Why would anyone pay more?

#1 It's not a "poor man's Land Cruiser" because it's not cheap nor is it as rudimentary as a Land Cruiser. The Land Cruiser is an archaic truck with much of its design being new for 1996 with nothing but nip/tuck since then.

#2 It's not about conquest so much as getting into the market in the large crossover segment.

#3 Like the Stinger, it's a leap forward for Kia in terms of refinement.

Mine had none of those issues. The Giulia I had was atrocious for build quality though.

Jazzyjazz - No.

Buick and Lincoln mostly. Will sale to those who can't get anything better.

A Land Cruiser isn't a good comparison but the Toyota fanboys should learn to not be so touchy. The build quality of the Land Cruiser is till very good, but Toyota needs to start updating the Land Cruiser as the gas mileage is horrific by todays standards.

Agree, it should not be compared to the Land Cruiser. The Highlander or Sequoia is a more apt comparison. This 80ho keeps making references such as "will sell to those that cannot afford anything better" as though this is supposed to impress. Why do I suspect he is driving a Chrysler 200.

We never said it is as high quality or as reliable as a Land Cruiser. But we live in a world where only looks matter to most and when you see a Telluride outfitted in off-road aftermarket stuff like they showed in Detroit, MANY people will look at them and not be able to tell the difference. And they will say to themselves maybe LC is better but not $40k better and will be THRILLED in the Kia. Remember, the LC started at a reasonable price point and was not a super high end purchase. Mark our words, 10 years from now the original Tellurides in good condition and outfitted right will be selling on the used market at close to the original price. You're all looking at this wrong...It's a fun, good looking, image product with decent reliability for a BARGAIN price.

Watch this ball get hit out of the park.

001

And another way to look at it is an old Pathfinder won't outperform or outlast a Land Cruiser. But it will come pretty damn close for a LOT less $$$. The Telluride outfitted with the right gear reminds me of the first Pathfinders.

001

The C-HR is much smaller. Is your Chrysler 200 due for service?

Telluride will surely take sales from the new Cadillac XT6 and Volvo XC90.

have an 81 land cruiser and a 2009, they are built to last forever. no issue with this new truck but i don't think this is designed to the same specs.

Right, the Telluride is not the go-anywhere SUV that the Land Cruise is.

It is big vehicle comparable in size to a Tahoe that looks pretty good. Just saw a dark burgundy Telluride today. Looked good. But if it is a descent rough & tumble "do whatever" mobile, Kia hit that design point on the nail.

While $50,000 may seem like a "low" price for such a vehicle -it is still well above the price that the average American can afford - Making it a car for the upper class who make $100,000 and up.

Of course the problem there is that those richer folk probably can afford a lot of different vehicles in the $50-60,000 price range and maybe even higher - and the more they make - the more they are likely to be snobbish about brands they will consider.

Most of these fully loaded are 46k...not sure where the 50k number is coming from

@Deutschland Indeed you are correct, Mine has everything on it and it was about that price at list.

Why the obsession over the comparison to the twice as expensive Land Cruiser. This is a well designed, well built, in short well executed, crossover. it follows the same formula as the Pilot, GM crossovers (pick one), Atlas, current Explorer. Why, because this is a big, profitable and growing portion of the market. They needed a vehicle here and it is well done. If you don't like it, buy something else.

Finally saw one on the road, I definitely like the boxier looks of it over Explorer/Traverse/Pilot/Pathfinder.

I see people are going to act like Kia is the only low budget car. Let's put them all out there then.

Mitsubishi, Saturn, Suzuki, Daewoo, So all we have left in this year is Mitsubishi and Kia I see. So why didnt no one buy Suzuki or Saturns when they were on sale at the time?

Why compare this to a Land Cruiser....totally different markets in the USA. Land Cruiser is the toughest, best built and most reliable vehicle on the road and it has real off road ability. Land Cruiser (and LX) appeal to a niche market of people who appreciate those factors, and It is neither "cheap" nor "rudimentary" as others have posted.
The Telluride has much more mass market appeal, it is a 3 row crossover and is built to sell at a certain price point. The design both inside and outside is very nice and it looks to be well packaged. The Telluride hands down is a better people hauler than a Land Cruiser, but it will not be nearly as well built or have the same capabilities as a Land Cruiser.