2019 Hyundai Sonata Se on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hyundai prices three-row Santa Fe from $28,350*

Each extra inch in the wheelbase of the six- and seven-passenger 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe, compared to the five-seat Santa Fe Sport, will cost you $1,000. The larger version of Hyundai's new people carrier is 3.9 inches longer, and whereas the Santa Fe Sport was priced at $24,450, the roomier Santa Fe comes in four flavors that start at $28,350 for the front-wheel drive GLS version. Adding all-wheel drive to the GLS tacks on another $1,750, stepping up to the front-wheel Limited takes you to $33,100, the all-wheel drive Limited topping things out at $34,850. For the true price, you'll need to add *$845 to those prices for freight.
The base price is the same as Hyundai's previous seven-seater option, the Veracruz, slapped on a vehicle with much better looks and more features. Compared to the Santa Fe Sport, the six- and seven-passenger option has 8.5 extra inches in overall length, 1.9 extra inches of second-row legroom and that third row of seating in its hind quarters. The second row can be had as a traditional bench or captain's chairs on the Limited. Under the hood is the same 3.3-liter direct-injection V6 with 290 horsepower and 252 pound-feet of torque, mated to a six-speed Shiftronic transmission, and the same EPA estimated 25 highway miles per gallon for the FWD version.
You also get extra standard amenities like a 115-volt socket, power liftgate and rear-seat climate controls. Check out the press release below to find out all about them.

Hyundai, Kia, Genesis and Subaru clean up in IIHS 2018 safety ratings

Hyundai, its partner Kia and its Genesis division are the big winners in the latest vehicle safety ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, accounting for six of the 15 models that earned the Top Safety Pick+ awards for 2018. Subaru was right behind with four, Mercedes-Benz had two, and Toyota, BMW and Ford each had one. Another 47 vehicles earned the Top Safety Pick designation, where Toyota had 10 vehicle models, with Hyundai recognized for nine models. All but one of the seven vehicles in Subaru's lineup, the BRZ, qualified for one of the awards. IIHS strengthened the criteria for the Top Safety Pick+ award for 2018 to require headlights to earn a "good" rating — an "acceptable" rating was previously enough to notch the "plus" award — and good or acceptable passenger-side protection in the small overlap front crash, which replicates a crash involving just the front corner of a vehicle. It also required vehicles to have acceptable or good headlights for the first time to earn a Top Safety Pick award. Most of winners for both awards qualified on the basis of optional upgrades. IIHS in October began evaluating the passenger side of vehicles in its small overlap front crash test after it said it became clear that automakers were neglecting that side of the vehicle as they focused on improving driver-side protections. IIHS first began conducting driver-side small overlap crashes in 2012. It began measuring both how well low and high beams illuminated the road and the amount of glare they produce for oncoming vehicles as part of its ratings in 2016. The Top Safety Pick+ winners are listed below. The list doesn't include any minivans, pickups or minicars, which don't appear on either list of awardees. Small cars Kia Forte Kia Soul Subaru Impreza (sedan and wagon) Subaru WRX Midsize cars Subaru Legacy Subaru Outback Toyota Camry Large luxury cars BMW 5 series Genesis G80 Genesis G90 Lincoln Continental Mercedes-Benz E-Class sedan Midsize SUVs Hyundai Santa Fe Hyundai Santa Fe Sport Midsize luxury SUV Mercedes-Benz GLC The full list of Top Safety Pick winners is available here.Related Video: Image Credit: IIHS BMW Genesis Hyundai Kia Lincoln Subaru Toyota Safety Crossover SUV Wagon Sedan crash test

What do J.D. Power's quality ratings really measure?

Check these recently released J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS) results. Do they raise any questions in your mind? Premium sports-car maker Porsche sits in first place for the third straight year, so are Porsches really the best-built cars in the U.S. market? Korean brands Kia and Hyundai are second and fourth, so are Korean vehicles suddenly better than their US, European, and Japanese competitors? Are workaday Chevrolets (seventh place) better than premium Buicks (11th), and Buicks better than luxury Cadillacs (21st), even though all are assembled in General Motors plants with the same processes and many shared parts? Are Japanese Acuras (26th) worse than German Volkswagens (24th)? And is "quality" really what it used to be (and what most perceive it to be), a measure of build excellence? Or has it evolved into much more a measure of likeability and ease of use? To properly analyze these widely watched results, we must first understand what IQS actually studies, and what the numerical scores really mean. First, as its name indicates, it's all about "initial" quality, measured by problems reported by new-vehicle owners in their first 90 days of ownership. If something breaks or falls off four months in, it doesn't count here. Second, the scores are problems per 100 vehicles, or PP100. So Power's 2015 IQS industry average of 112 PP100 translates to just 1.12 reported problems per vehicle. Third, no attempt is made to differentiate BIG problems from minor ones. Thus a transmission or engine failure counts the same as a squeaky glove box door, tricky phone pairing, inconsistent voice recognition, or anything else that annoys the owner. Traditionally, a high-quality vehicle is one that is well-bolted together. It doesn't leak, squeak, rattle, shed parts, show gaps between panels, or break down and leave you stranded. By this standard, there are very few poor-quality new vehicles in today's U.S. market. But what "quality" should not mean, is subjective likeability: ease of operation of the radio, climate controls, or seat adjusters, phone pairing, music downloading, sizes of touch pads on an infotainment screen, quickness of system response, or accuracy of voice-recognition. These are ergonomic "human factors" issues, not "quality" problems. Yet these kinds of pleasability issues are now dominating today's JDP "quality" ratings.