2013 Kia Rio Ex 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 Provo Concept is a Mini-sized hatch debuting in Geneva

The machine you see above is, according to a report from Autocar, the Kia Provo Concept, and it's set to debut at the rapidly approaching Geneva Motor Show. As you can see, the Korean concept draws inspiration from young and hip hatchbacks like the Mini range and the Citroën DS3.
We can't say how much of the Provo's somewhat radical conceptual design will make it into production, such as the contrasting roof color, oversize wheel arches filled with some pretty radical wheels, and one-piece headlight and taillight housings. Suffice it to say, though, we're definitely intrigued by what we see.
Also note the diamond stitching in the interior with chrome, suede and carbon fiber accents. The flat-bottom steering wheel is also rather interesting. These details, along with the racy elements of the exterior design, make us think Kia may be targeting performance-minded buyers with the Provo.

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.