They could increase it a couple grand and it would still be the best deal on the market for price for features.
This is a highly competitive segment (which also overlaps into the minivan segment with the "form follows function" crowd who don't value AWD). You have to look past the viewpoints of early adopters and car geeks that populate sites such as this to the general car buying public. I seriously doubt that Kia will bump the Telluride price for 2021 in any meaningful way and I'll illustrate why.
I did a detailed look at base AWD versions of the 2020 Ascent (AWD is standard, of course), the 2019 Highlander and the 2020 Telluride looking toward a purchase this fall which I've now decided to wait on for another year.
While you might have had a point earlier in the year with respect to the base 2019 HIghlander AWD which stickers at about $1,500 over the base Kia AWD (or $1,100 if you want red) with Highlander lacking a lot of the Kia's features and perforance attributes, with the all new 2020 Highlander (not a refresh) soon to be released dealers in my neck of thei woods are advertising the 2019 Highlanders at $4,000 off sticker including cash back.vs. $1,000 cash back on the Kia. So, now it comes down to what you don't get in the Toyota but for $1,500 - $2,000 less. The price/trim packaging in the 2020 Highlander is a comparison for another day once Toyota posts the full pnce/package details.
Style preferences aside, your contention does not hold up with respect the 2020 Subaru (for the base AWD trim levels in question). The Subaru stickers for about $400 more, or on par if you want red. If the buyer is not especially particular about having a 4L turbo vs. a V6, size and performance are comparable if you look past something like 0.8 seconds in a 0-60 time which few buyers would notice and fewer would ever use. The Subaru is actually a shade quicker from 45-65 according to Consumer Reports testing which is the more useful performance metric for most drivers when merging.
Personnally, I would not buy a turbo from any maker at this juncture, and maybe never, since I buy vehicles with the intent of getting 10 years / 150,000+.miles. The CVT in the Subaru also gives me pause from a longevity standpoint. Leasees may be less discriminating. As for buyers, how many would share my turbo concerns is debateable especially with Consumer Reports giving the Subaru the highest overall rating in the class including a 5 star reliability estimate vs 3 stars for the Kia's reliability based on the makers historical records. I would not trust those Subaru 5 stars until they have a couple years under their belt but I'm not everybody. That aside, here are notable feature differences at these trim levels at virtually the same price:
The base Subaru has the following features, in no particular order, which the comparable Kia does not:
- the Subaru is 200 lbs. heavier in a slightly smaller package with a lighter 4 cylinder motor. It is 2" narrower, the same length, about the same height when you subract the Subaru's standard roof rails, while the Subaru has 1" more ground clearance. This raises the question of whether the Subaru in general uses more robust materials. Comparative mpgs in the different approches are very close.
- roof rails are standard, absent in the base Kia
- machined 18" alloy wheels instead of Kia's painted 18" alloys
- 1" narrower turning circle in the Subaru, a little helpful in parking these big vehicles
- both front seats are heated, the Kia's are not
- driver's seat is 8-way power, the Kia's is manual
- automatic climate control, the Kia's is manual
- the Subaru has automatic over-the-air software updates of the safety systems; Kia may have this feature but I have not found it in the literature
- CD player, absent in the Kia
The base Kia AWD has the following features absent in the comparable Subaru and some marginally higher Consumer Reports test drive rating:
- Consumer Reports gives the Kia very slight edges in braking (2-3 feet in dry and wet from 60-0); the Kia gets a very slight 2 mph edge in maintaining grip in an avoidance manuever. Most drivers would never detect a difference.
- leatherette seats, the Subaru's are cloth; I question whether the cloth might be better from the standpoint of breathability since I don't see performations in pictures of the Kia seats so real world experience comments are welcome
- other than the seats, the interior materials, fit and finish appear comparable; I find the Subaru's contrasting beige strip across the dash to be ugly; at first I thought it was some protective strip from the factory to be peeled off, but that's a matter of taste not price/performance/features
- CR gives the Kia a 5 star interior noise rating; 4 stars for the Subaru
- reverse parking warning, absent in the Subaru (all others in the panoply of safety features are comparable)
- remote engine start, absent in the Subaru
- multiple AWD modes, absent in the Subaru
- longer warranties and road side assistance service in the Kia; the exception is the Kia's 5 year/100,000 mile limit on rust-through vs. 5 years/unlimited on the Subaru which is trivial in the general market but does pose a question.
- On the other hand, Subaru reliability/longevity has historically been superior which many buyers will take into account. That's why Kia/Hyundia offer these warranties in the first place as they try to build brand value that was seriously damaged in past decades. Whether that difference applies to these two particular model years is a matter to be taken up a year or two into prodution, if not longer, but reputation matters to the general population (except those who buy Chrysler products, a hopeless class of buyers.)
The long and short of it is that the Subaru and Kia models are comparable in price/performance/features. It just depends on which side a particular buyer leans in terms of a few particular priorities and their aesthetic preferences. Does someone prefer the wagon look in the Subaru or the 2-box SUV look in the Kia? We know what readers here might think but that's not the buying universe. Different strokes. It should be clear that I'm not some Subaru troller. Like I said, I wouldn't buy one with that turbo/CVT set up, but again that's just me. The point being, with this level of competition in a crowded market I would not expect a significant price increase in the Kia come the 2021 model year.
I'm pretty confident the 2020 Highlander will not stack up as well as the Subaru against the Kia in terms of price/features/performance given Toyota's historical price premium in this class. Then again, Toyota has always sold a ton of vehicles based on a bulletproof reputation whether that is justified in a particular vehicle in any one model year or not. Again, that's part of the general marketplace. Kia cannot price equivalently with Toyota on features and performance. It just wouldn't work, at least not yet.
So I look forward to comparing the 2020 Highlander to the Kia with a view toward a year from now. Both with have a year or more of working out the kinks. Frankly, I've had great success with a string of Toyotas taken to high mileage while spending next to nothing on repairs. If the Toyota turns out to cost a grand or two more for the same perforance/features I'd probably go that way as would many buyers. The mere fact I'd even look this closely at Kia/Hyundai, something I would not have done not so long ago.on quality concerns, says something. Besides, the Telluride's execution of the 2-box design is a very cool looking thing to my eye, but I discipline myself to make that a secondary consideration. Love for a style wears off about on pace with the new car smell and the next other new-new thing that hits the market at which point all the other factors, particularly reliability, come into play.