2014 Kia Optima Ex on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Kia previews its Super Bowl baby commercial, far cry from Adriana Lima

We're going to go ahead and give Kia the benefit of the doubt - the automaker brought us a bathing-suit-clad Adriana Lima in its Super Bowl spot from last year. That kind of thing doesn't go unappreciated.
But, if we're really honest, and judging solely on the "teaser" video below, the space suit-wearing, baby-star from Kia's commercial this year is really creeping us out.
In any event, the Kia ad (sorry, "mini-movie") called Space Babies will be set on the distant planet of "Babylandia," and will attempt to present some kind of lie about where babies come from in the ultimate service of selling the 2014 Kia Sorento. Don't let the panda, dog, pig, giraffe, rhino and unholy baby stare make you take your eye off the ball, folks - there's a car on sale here.

2014 Kia Forte Koup bows with new look, new engine

Third time's the charm. The final member of Kia's Forte trio has been revealed here at the New York Auto Show, and this new coupe Koup will join the sedan and five-door models when it goes on sale near the end of this year.
The two-door Forte looks sharp, and we like the way Kia's new design language for its compact car has translated onto this coupe model. LED running lights are found up front, matching the LED taillmaps at the rear. EX models will ride on 16-inch alloy wheels, while the upgraded SX model will use 18-inch rollers.
Two powertrains will be offered in the Forte Koup: a 2.0-liter naturally aspirated inline-four in the EX, producing 173 horsepower and 154 pound-feet of torque, mated exclusively to a six-speed automatic transmission; and a turbocharged 1.6-liter four in the SX, rated at 201 horsepower and 195 pound-feet of torque, available with either a six-speed manual or automatic transmission. The five-door Forte also gets this turbocharged mill, and if its specs sound familiar, it's because this engine is also found under the hood of the Hyundai Veloster Turbo.

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.