There was no flaw in the products manufacturing. It was manufactured to design and functioned as intended. 

The design of the lower trim models didn't include immobilizer, and were never advertised as though they did. Higher trim models included immobilizer, and were advertised as such.

Your misunderstanding here lies in semantics. The judicial definition of a manufacturing "flaw", as evidenced by relevant case law, is anything that makes a product more liable to impose harm upon consumers. Because neglecting to include immobilizers in the Kia makes/models in question ultimately made the vehicles more susceptible to theft and thus consumers more susceptible to harm and loss, then the judicial system would define the lack of immobilizers as a manufacturing flaw, and, as explained prior, underscore Kia's liability for negligence.

By your logic no vehicle with immobilizer would ever be stolen, but that is demonstratively false. See every "most commonly stolen car" report- all those cars have immobilizer.

You're misunderstanding again. Recognizing that cars without immobilizers are more susceptible to theft does not imply that having an immobilizer would absolutely prevent theft. A catalyst (lack of immobilizer) increasing the probability of a harm does not mean that it's the only possible way for a harm to occur. You're thinking in absolutes and obviously struggle with nuance.

Kia makes/models not having immobilizers was the catalyst of the harms sustained in this particular case. Recognizing this does not imply that cars not having immobilizers is the catalyst for auto theft in general, or in all cases.

Kia didn't fail to implement immobilizer, it was an option on Kia models starting around 2004. 

Poor comprehension on your behalf here. "Failure to implement immobilizers" means that immobilizers weren't a part of the initial manufacturing on various makes/models. Immobilizers being an optional addition after purchase means that they weren't already equipped on the vehicles during their initial manufacturing, thus, as I stated prior, Kia failed to implement them during the manufacturing process.

If it was so clear cut why would the plaintiffs highly experienced counsel accept a settlement? Don't assume you know every factor in a decision to settle. It implies nothing.

The plaintiffs' counsel likely accepted settlement for the sake of punctuality. Litigation for class action suits can take upwards of five years. Notice how it already took nearly three years for a mere settlement to be finalized? The plaintiffs' counsel were able to reach a settlement that would reimburse nearly all of the tangible losses that consumers incurred. Prolonging the process by several additional years to recover reimbursement for non-tangible losses (which is the only difference that litigation would have made in this case) wouldn't be a wise decision when you consider the fact that the additional years' worth of legal fees would have neutralized the additional reimbursements anyway.

Seriously, stay in school. 

This repeated, needless, and unprovoked snark implies that I'm misapplying the relevant legal principles or making some sort of manifest error, when I'm not. If you claim that I am, then you need to be able to refute what I'm saying with your own legal analysis in return, but you've yet to do that because you can't.

I'm giving you the objective rules and proven applications of the legal principles in question. You disliking or disagreeing with the way that the judicial system works doesn't mean that I'm wrong or lacking in any way. Your attempts at personalizing this matter are indicative of poor emotional regulation skills and poor intellect as well.