2006 Hyundai Tiburon Gt on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hyundai Veloster Turbos strut their SEMA stuff

Hyundai brought a pair of very yellow Velosters to this year's SEMA Show. The first is the car you see above - the Veloster Hylighter. Built in a partnership with aftermarket accessory supplier EGR Group, it's based on a Veloster Turbo, but has been extensively modified for its trip to Vegas.
The paint, a custom color called Yellowcake, a type of uranium powder used to prepare fuel for nuclear reactors, certainly catches the eye. And if for some reason it doesn't, black graphics and a LED light bar on the roof most certainly will. An EGR widebody kit has been fitted for an even bigger visual impact, while the DPE three-piece wheels add some flair. The cabin sports a pair of Takata racing seats and harnesses, as well as a roll cage from Creations n' Chrome.
The engine is an uprated version of the turbocharged, 1.6-liter engine found in the standard Veloster Turbo, but it's been fitted with an AEM intake and a MagnaFlow exhaust, for a bit of extra oomph. A coil-over suspension from ARK, an AEM strut-tower bar and Toyo Proxes R888 tires afford a bit more handling potential for the VT, while a Brembo brake package can bring things to a rapid halt.

Hyundai says, maybe driverless cars won't be so bad

The allure of autonomous driving for many people is the tech's ability to free up their time behind the wheel from paying attention to the road. However, the driverless future might also increase the mobility of folks all over the world. Toyota's recent billion-dollar research investment aims to tackle both of these questions, and Hyundai now has a moving commercial that offers a glimpse at some of these possibilities. Hyundai also used a clever approach to show off its driver assistance systems in an ad last year, but this time it took a more emotional style to demonstrate the future. We don't want to spoil the optimistic spot's hook, but the video stars a little boy who just wants to drive. The way that he does it is heartwarming and beautifully shot. The commercial is in Korean, but like any good piece of marketing, the visuals break down the language barrier.

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.