2006 Kia Sorento Lx Sport Utility 4-door 3.5l, White, Excellent Condition on 2040-cars
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:3.5L 3497CC V6 GAS DOHC Naturally Aspirated
For Sale By:Private Seller
Body Type:Sport Utility
Fuel Type:GAS
Make: Kia
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Model: Sorento
Trim: LX Sport Utility 4-Door
Options: Sunroof, 4-Wheel Drive, CD Player
Safety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes, Driver Airbag, Passenger Airbag
Drive Type: 4WD
Power Options: Air Conditioning, Cruise Control, Power Locks, Power Windows
Mileage: 123,000
Sub Model: LX
Exterior Color: White
Number of Cylinders: 6
Interior Color: Gray
This is a family owned 2006 Kia Sorento LX, 4-wheel drive option.
This car has been extremely well maintainence, and drives like new. White exterior, gray/tan cloth interior in good shape.
Have always used fully synthetic oil,
Everything on this car is in great working order.
Adult owned, never smoked in.
We really didn't want to sell this car, just fell on financial hardship and have bills that need to be paid immediately.
The winning bidder of this car will be very happy with it.
Specs
Kia Sorento for Sale
2003 kia sorento ex 4x4 heated leather cd sun roof alloy history report 04 05 06(US $8,990.00)
2014 kia sorento 2wd 4dr v6 sx navigation only 600 miles(US $34,991.00)
2008 kia sorento lx 4wd alloys cd player low miles fresh trade(US $13,995.00)
2013 kia sorento lx, 1-owner, rearview camera, more!(US $22,989.00)
Lifetime engine warranty on this beauty,why buy new, call bob 480-584-8454
2005 kia sorento lx sport utility 4-door 3.5l
Auto Services in Oklahoma
Robert`s Auto Service ★★★★★
Regal Car Sales and Credit ★★★★★
Precision Auto Body ★★★★★
Pit Stop ★★★★★
Oklahoma Upholstery Supply Inc ★★★★★
NAPA Auto Parts ★★★★★
Auto blog
Kia leads J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study for 2022
Thu, Feb 10 2022For the first year ever, Kia leads J.D. Power's annual Vehicle Dependability Study with a score of 145 problems per 100 vehicles. Buick (147) and Hyundai (148) round out the top three. The highest premium brand on the list is Genesis, with a score of 148. It's common for so-called "mass market" brands to lead this particular study, according to J.D. Power, as "premium" brands "typically incorporate more technology in their vehicles, which increases the likelihood for problems to occur" and aren't necessarily built to a higher standard that less-expensive brands. The highest-rated single nameplate is the Porsche 911. It's the third time out of the past four years and the second year in a row that Porsche's quintessential sports car has taken top honors. Porsche as a brand sits in seventh place (162) just behind Lexus (159) and ahead of Dodge (166). At the very bottom of the list is Land Rover with a dismal score of 284; the SUV specialist held the same unfortunate distinction on last year's list. Ram (266), Volvo (256), Alfa Romeo (245) and Acura (244) also performed poorly. The overall industry average score sits at 192 — mass market brands average a score of 190 while premium brands sit 14 points lower at 204. While Tesla is unofficially included in some of J.D. Power's results, the agency says the sample size it has access to for this study is too small to include. As has been the case for the past several years, infotainment systems dominate the list of problems reported by owners. Popular (or unpopular, depending on your point of view) complaints include built-in voice recognition (8.3 PP100), Android Auto/Apple CarPlay connectivity (5.4 PP100), built-in Bluetooth system (4.5 PP100), not enough power plugs/USB ports (4.2 PP100), navigation systems difficult to understand/use (3.7 PP100), touchscreen/display screen (3.6 PP100), and navigation system inaccurate/outdated map (3.6 PP100). While problems with the car's infotainment and technology packages are indeed bothersome, it's important to remember that such issues aren't usually leaving owners stranded with an immovable vehicle like a broken transmission or blown engine would. Culling infotainment complaints from the results would reduce the average problem-per-100-vehicle score by a staggering 51.9 points. The vehicles included in this study are from the 2019 model year. That means owners have had three years to get to know their cars and trucks. It's the 33rd year that J.D.
Behind the scenes of our subcompact crossover comparison
Tue, Oct 15 2019The cameras had been set up for almost an hour, and now, the living room filled with the sweetness of freshly brewed blonde roast. The late-summer sun had just started peaking over towering maples. In a week the colors will start changing, the inevitable sign of the coming gray skies and snow. Half past eight, the editors arrived. The Scandinavian inspired house that served as the headquarters for our subcompact crossover comparison couldn’t accommodate all seven of us, so they had stayed at a turn of the century farmhouse down the road. While geese, chickens, cats and sheep made for an authentic Northern Michigan farm experience, ingredients for a good nightÂ’s sleep they were not. Within minutes Red Bulls cracked open and short, cocoa-colored mugs appeared, filled with a variety of caffeinated beverages. “I thought we were gonna have fried eggs,” Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore said, smiling, before refusing a muffin. Associate Producer Alex Malburg ran from camera to camera, adjusting focus and exposure, trying to keep up with the ever-changing light, which poured into the room faster each minute. “I was promised food. IÂ’m not filming.” Consumer Editor Jeremy KorzeniewskiÂ’s sarcasm thinly veiled his true feelings. To keep the group content I promised a craft-services buffet next time. For the second time, we shot our comparison just outside of Traverse City. While we took advantage of a local off-road park for the first, this round proved a bit more tame, utilizing the hilly, winding, wine-country roads that define the region. An air of nervousness could be detected. Only one person knew the outcome of our test, Senior Green Editor John Beltz Snyder. I found myself both impressed and surprised he had kept this secret overnight, though I came to find out later that he revealed the winner to Producer Amr Sayour on the drive to dinner the evening before. The cameras started rolling, the audio recording, but the caffeine hadnÂ’t yet entered the bloodstream, with one exception. Associate Editor Joel Stocksdale sipped his lime green Mountain Dew. That seemed to be working, as he passionately laid out his argument for the Kia Soul and his preference for winter tires over all-wheel drive. From behind the camera I silently disagreed with him. “No one buys winter tires,” Jeremy argued. As we consumed more coffee, the sun came up, and so did the energy of the debate.
Here’s how 20 popular EVs fared in cold-weather testing in Norway
Sat, Mar 21 2020Electric vehicles are known to suffer diminished performance in cold weather, but some do a better job than others hanging onto their range capacity while cabin heaters and frigid outdoor temperatures sap power from their batteries. Recently, the Norwegian Automobile Federation put the 20 of the best-selling battery-electric vehicles in the country to the test, to see not only how winter weather affected their range but also their charging times. The major findings: On average, electric vehicles lost 18.5% of their official driving range as determined by the European WLTP cycle. Electric vehicles also charge more slowly in cold temperatures. And interestingly, the researchers learned that EVs don’t simply shut down when they lose power but instead deliver a series of warnings to the driver, with driving comfort and speed levels maintained until the very last few miles. Because itÂ’s Norway, the worldÂ’s top market for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles by market share, the test included many EVs that arenÂ’t available here in the U.S. But there are many familiar faces, among them the Nissan Leaf, Tesla Models S, 3 and X, Hyundai Kona (known here as the Kona Electric) and Ioniq, and Audi E-Tron. In terms of range, the top-performing EV was the Hyundai Kona, which lost only 9% of its official range, which the WTLP rated at 449 kilometers, or 279 miles, compared to its EPA-rated range of 258 miles on a full charge. It delivered 405 km, just enough to nudge it ahead of the Tesla Model 3, which returned 404 km. Other top performers included the Audi E-Tron, in both its 50 Quattro (13% lower range) and higher-powered 55 Quattro (14% lower) guises; the Hyundai Ioniq (10% lower); and Volkswagen e-Golf (11% lower). At 610 km (379 miles) the Tesla Model S has the longest WLTP range of all models tested and went the furthest, but still lost 23% of its range, though it also encountered energy-sapping heavy snow at the end of its test, when many cars had dropped out. The Model 3 lost 28% of its range. The worst performer? That goes to the Opel Ampera-e, better known stateside as the Chevrolet Bolt. It traveled 297 km (about 184 miles) in the test, which was nearly 30% lower than its stated WLTP range. We should also note that Opel, now owned by Groupe PSA, is phasing the car out in Europe and that Chevy recently upgraded the Bolt here in the U.S.



