Gls 2.4l Cd Front Wheel Drive Power Steering 4-wheel Disc Brakes Heated Mirrors on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche tops J.D. Power quality index as Korean brands soar

While complaints about infotainment systems remain a thorn in the side of automakers for J.D. Power's annual Initial Quality Study, there's a lot to celebrate this year. The average number of problems reported per 100 vehicles fell to 112 in 2015 – a three-percent improvement compared to 116 in 2014. The results of this year's survey are based on the responses of over 84,000 people about problems within the first 90 days of buying or leasing a 2015 model-year vehicle. For the third consecutive year, Porsche tops the rankings with an average of 80 problems per 100 vehicles. Although, that's slightly more than the 74 the German sportscar maker scored in 2014. "While the Japanese automakers continue to make improvements, we're seeing other brands, most notably Korean makes, really accelerating the rate of improvement," Renee Stephens, vice president of US automotive quality at J.D. Power, said in the study's release. In fact, Kia ranks as one of the biggest movers in this year's list. The Korean brand jumped to second place from seventh last year. The company had an average of 86 problems per 100 vehicles, a 20-point improvement. Third place went to Jaguar with an average of 93 problems reported, versus last year's second-place finish with 87 of them. Fourth place was Hyundai, and fifth-place Infiniti also earned a gold star for improvement with 97 issues per 100 vehicles – 31-points better than last year. Fiat still anchored the bottom of the list. However, its 161 problems this year is a lot better than the 206 in 2014. Ranked by nationality, Korean brands (Hyundai and Kia) are now leading the industry in initial quality with an average of 90 problems reported per 100 vehicles. According to J.D. Power, this is the first time Europe's figure beat Japan with 113 and 114 issues, respectively. The American brands also averaged 114. Whereas General Motors dominated last year, the segment awards are spread out in 2015. GM, Hyundai, Nissan, and Volkswagen Group are all tied with four models each earning prizes. For more information, you can also see all of the graphs, here. J.D.

Hyundai, Kia launching dedicated hybrids in 2017

The currently weak green car market isn't stopping Hyundai and Kia from staging an ongoing electrified onslaught, and it's primed to just keep growing. Already familiar with the field thanks to vehicles like the Sonata Hybrid, Tucson Fuel Cell, and Kia Soul EV, for the 2017 model year the Korean siblings are launching their first dedicated hybrids, according to Automotive News. Since last year, the hybrids have been spotted testing several times while wearing heavy camouflage. Hyundai's version will reportedly be styled as a Chevrolet Volt-fighting sedan. Conversely, Kia will go for a more directly Prius-challenging hatchback. Underneath, they'll share a powertrain consisting of a direct-injected, 1.6-liter four-cylinder and electric motor. Both will use the same platform based on the next-gen Elantra and Forte, according to Automotive News. In addition, Hyundai will get a pure EV version of its model to launch in California in 2017, while Kia reportedly won't. According to Automotive News, the companies' strategy is reportedly to be ready when gas prices eventually rise again. "When they come back up and people start looking for hybrids again, it'll be very nice to be able to give buyers an option besides just the Prius," said Adam Kraushaar, president of a New Jersey Hyundai dealer. Further complimenting the electrified plans, a plug-in version of the Kia Optima Hybrid is also reportedly on the way. With its launch, the two brands would have a total of nine hybrid, EV or fuel cell vehicles on offer by the 2018 model year.

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.