2023 Kia K5 Lxs on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Kia Optima SX Limited Quick Spin

There are some questions that aren't easily answered. Is it possible to only eat one Pringle potato chip? Who decided the band Creed was a good idea? And why the heck isn't the Kia Optima more popular? That last one that floated through our heads as we tested the refreshed 2016 Optima. Kia sold just under 160,000 Optimas in 2015, while Ford sold 300,000 Fusions, Honda shipped 355,000 Accords, and Toyota moved 429,000 Camrys. The Optima's low numbers didn't make sense then, and they certainly won't make sense when sales figures for the refreshed 2016 model roll in. For the third-generation Optima, Kia applied its trademark exterior design to a segment-leading interior and one of the most comfortable driving experiences in the segment. The result is a damn fine family sedan that really ought to help Kia find its way into a lot more driveways. Driving Notes We can debate the value of top-trim family sedans until we're blue in the face, but in the case of the Optima, you want the SX Limited that we tested. It's one of the only ways to score Hyundai/Kia's stout 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder engine (the other is the $30,515 SX). At 245 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque, it's down on output for model year 2016 – the 2015 model had an extra 27 hp and 9 lb-ft of torque – but gains two miles per gallon in the city and one on the highway, for a total of 22 and 32 mpg, respectively. Should we lament the loss of power? That's what we did when Kia first showed the 2016 Optima at the 2015 New York Auto Show. On the road, though, it's tough to pick out the drop in output. Nine pound-feet is negligible, and unless you're regularly playing in the high part of the rev range, you won't miss the extra power. The Optima pulls hard from a standstill, developing peak torque between 1,350 and 4,000 rpm. It'll get to 60 in what we guesstimate is the high six-second range. Yes, that is slower than both the six-cylinder Toyota Camry and Honda Accord, two sedans that are also lighter than the 3,600-pound Kia. Let's remember that these are family sedans, though, and the broad torque peak (and improved fuel economy) will be more important to your average consumer than the stopwatch figures. The Optima is more fuel efficient than the Japanese V6-powered competitors. Barely. And only in the city. That means the 2.0-liter's fuel economy has improved incrementally, not massively.

Kia Venga puts a fresh face on mini minivans

Minivans in America have grown to become anything but mini. That's not the case overseas, however, where Ford offers the B-Max, Citroen the C3 Picasso and Kia the Venga. On the European market now since 2009, the Venga shares its underpinnings with the Soul and with the Hyundai i20. The shape which Peter Schreyer sketched for it won a prestigious iF Design Award upon its debut, but five years later, it was time for a bit of a refresh. Debuting alongside the updated Rio at the Paris Motor Show, the new Venga has received some updated sheetmetal, an upgraded cabin and enhanced equipment – all the better for transporting a (small) family around some European metropolis, where the streets are narrow and the parking even tighter.

EPA says it will more closely monitor fuel economy claims from automakers

The unintended acceleration brouhaha at Toyota led to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration tightening the vise on recall procedures. Likewise, the fuel economy kerfuffle that blew up with Hyundai and Kia's admission of overstated fuel mileage claims could lead to the Environmental Protection Agency policing automaker assertions by performing more audits.
At least, that's what a senior engineer with the government agency said while in Michigan giving a talk, according to a report in Automotive News. What that actually means, however, is still in question. Just ten to 15 percent of new vehicles - something like 150 to 200 cars per year - are rested by the EPA to verify automaker numbers. The EPA's own tests include a "fudge factor" to adjust lab mileage for real-world mileage, and the agency still relies on automakers to submit data for tests that it doesn't have the facilities to perform. How much more auditing can the EPA really expect to do, or perhaps a more relevant question would be how much more accurate could the EPA's audits become?
The price of gasoline, the psychological importance of 40 miles per gallon to a frugal car buyer, an automaker wanting to further justify the price premium of a hybrid, all of these things contribute to fuel economy numbers that insist on creeping upward. Perhaps the senior engineer encapsulated the whole situation best when he said, "Everybody wants a label that tells you exactly what you're going to get, but obviously that's not possible. A good general rule of thumb is that real-world fuel economy is about 20 percent lower than the lab numbers." If the lesson isn't exactly 'buyer beware,' it's at least 'buyer be wary.'