2005 Kia Sportage Lx on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 Kia Sorento

For most new car shoppers, three-row crossovers are little more than a way for the family-minded to avoid succumbing to the minivan stigma. Admit it - the only things that differentiate most larger CUVs from minivans are their lack of sliding side doors and - on most of them - the option of all-wheel drive. Having blossomed into a popular segment with thicker profit margins, though, automakers have plenty of incentive to keep their offerings fresh, and that's exactly why Kia is presenting its 2014 Sorento so soon.
At first glance, the crisply styled utility vehicle seen here appears to be nothing more than a mid-cycle refresh - and not a particularly extensive one, at that. But that's not the case at all. Despite looking very similar to the second-generation vehicle that came on the scene for the 2010 model year, this is an all-new Sorento. Or, more precisely, it's about 80-percent new. Kia says less than 20 percent of the parts have been carried over from the 2013 Sorento, and that's a pretty typical amount for an 'all-new' vehicle generation.
Since we've yet to spend quality time with the "Made in the USA" Sorento for more than a short First Drive in Arizona last February, we snagged the keys to a 2014 model in the all-new SX Limited trim level for a lengthy backroad sojourn from Florida to South Carolina.

2017 Kia Sportage First Drive

It's hard to get excited about most mainstream crossovers, but the truth is this is one of the hottest segments of the market right now. The automotive space is saturated with a glut of these profit-making, two-box, semi-practical, soft-roading vehicles, and the tide isn't likely to abate soon. At first blush, Kia's redesigned 2017 Sportage isn't the most eye-catching of new products, but it's poised to do very well in the ongoing CUV wars. Progress in this kind of battle is often measured in inches of space, and the 2017 Sportage grows both inside and out. The new Kia measures the same 73 inches wide as its predecessor, but it gains 1.2 inches on the wheelbase, and 1.6 inches in overall length. There's more room overall for passengers, and there's 18-percent greater cargo space in back. Plus, the luggage floor can be moved down into a lower position to make more vertical space when needed. The Sportage was penned by renowned designer Peter Schreyer (he of first-gen Audi TT fame), but the end result is a bulbous-looking crossover, especially when viewed from the front – it's like a chipmunk with too many acorns in its cheeks. The "tiger-nose" grille – a hallmark of Schreyer – was moved up to accommodate the "ice-cube" fog lamps, while the headlights sweep back along the sides of the car. The A and C pillars are thinner, allowing occupants better visibility from inside the car, but from the outside, the rear three-quarter view looks blocky and cut up. The rear doesn't seem to match the rest of the car, either – it's more svelte and understated. Looking past its exterior design, the new Sportage is marginally, uh, sportier, thanks to a new, lighter, stiffer body, a redesigned suspension, and new engine tuning. Kia is mostly chasing improved fuel efficiency with its latest powertrain updates, as both engines have slightly lower outputs than their predecessors but have marginal improvements in fuel economy. The entry-level 2.4-liter inline-four (same as the Optima and Sorento) puts out 181 horsepower and 175 pound-feet of torque – decreases of only 1 hp and 2 lb-ft – and can be had with front- or all-wheel drive. Step up to the top-of-the-line SX Turbo and you get a 2.0-liter turbo-four that puts out 240 hp and 260 lb-ft of torque (that's 20 hp and 9 lb-ft less than before). Kia estimates the 2.4/FWD combination will return 23 miles per gallon city, 30 mpg highway, and 26 mpg combined, while the 2.0T/AWD will score 20/23/21.

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.