2015 Kia Sorento Sx on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 Cadenza is Kia's take on the Hyundai Azera

No, this is not the oh-so pleasantly named Quoris rear-wheel-drive flagship sedan - this is Kia's new front-drive entry into the North American market, the Cadenza. (If that sounds familiar, it's because Kia has long used the Cadenza name in other markets.) And while it's a sharp-looking thing, it's not exactly an original masterpiece. Peel away that slick exterior and you'll find a trusty Hyundai Azera doing the grunt work.
That's no bad thing, though; the Azera's a smooth-sailing sedan. Under the hood is a 3.3-liter direct-injection V6 putting out 293 horsepower and 255 pound-feet of torque, mated to a six-speed automatic transmission with, oh yes, Sportmatic manual mode. That power hits the ground via a sport-tuned suspension with MacPherson struts up front and a multi-link rear configuration, matched with either 18- or 19-inch alloy wheels.
Inside, there's a whole host of nice leather surrounded by wood and chrome accents, with a driver-focused cockpit (sort of like the Optima) with a seven-inch TFT color touchscreen display. Premium options include things like Nappa leather seats, a panoramic sunroof, Kia's UVO infotainment system, HID headlamps with active lighting, heated seats and a heated steering wheel. Sounds comfy.

Audi, Jag, Kia and Tesla top Strategic Vision 2014 Total Quality Index

A couple weeks ago, J.D. Power released its latest Initial Quality Study, which gave high marks to Porsche, Hyundai and General Motors, with the latter earning more individual IQS awards than any other manufacturer. Now, it's Strategic Vision's turn, and it's doling out its praise not to Porsche, but to Tesla, which wasn't even included in the JD Power IQS.
The Model S was named the best vehicle overall in total quality, while Porsche's corporate brother and endurance-racing rival, Audi, was named the best premium brand, alongside Jaguar. Strategic Vision cited the Q5 and the ancient Q7 for individual segment awards, as well as the A5, which was a mere point off the top of its segment. SV also handed out compliments for the Audi's interior work. The win for the German brand is a nice improvement over its IQS score, with which it landed above the industry average, but solidly mid-pack.
Jaguar was without a segment winner, although SV did say that the Indian-owned English brand had a number of vehicles very near the top of their segments. This is the second significant win for Jag in two weeks, after it finished second overall on the JD Power IQS a few weeks ago.

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.