2011 Hyundai Sonata Gls on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video:

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.

Hyundai To Fight $248 Million Judgment Over Fatal Montana Crash

A Montana jury has levied a $248 million ruling against Hyundai in the case of a crash that killed two occupants in July 2011. The automaker plans to appeal the ruling. Cousins Trevor and Tanner Olson were driving a 2005 Hyundai Tiburon when they hit another vehicle head-on. According to lawyers representing their family, the steering knuckle on the car cracked and this allegedly caused it to lose control. Hyundai claimed that fireworks had been let off inside the vehicle, which caused the driver to swerve. The company alleges that evidence that could have proved its innocence was barred from the case. The jury found in favor of the family and awarded them about $8 million in damages after a two-week trial. It claimed that Hyundai had shown "actual malice," according to Reuters. The jurors also slammed Hyundai with a further $240 million in punitive damages. Hyundai told Reuters that it plans to appeal immediately and called the verdict "outrageous." Autoblog has received a copy of the automaker's official statement, detailing its plans to appeal this case. Scroll down to read it. Statement by Hyundai Motor America While a tragic accident, Hyundai firmly believes the jury's verdict in Olson vs. Hyundai is mistaken and award of damages at three times what was sought by the plaintiffs is outrageous and should be overturned as Hyundai is not at fault. Eyewitness testimony established – and experts for both sides agree – that fireworks exploded in the unbelted teenagers' vehicle immediately before the July 2, 2011 accident, which involved the driver losing control, crossing the median and crashing head-on into an oncoming Pontiac at a closing speed of approximately 140 miles per hour – a speed confirmed by experts for both sides. Hyundai believes the jury's view of the evidence was distorted by a series of erroneous rulings by the Court, the most egregious of which prevented the jury from reviewing performance testing conducted by renowned failure analysis experts that would have disproven the plaintiffs' theory of the case – a theory derived by a local resident with no previous automotive experience. Hyundai will seek an immediate appeal. Technical Background The 140 mph closing speed head-on collision crushed the steering knuckles of both vehicles involved, a Hyundai Tiburon and a Pontiac Grand Am.