2010 Kia Sedona Lx Minivan 4d on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Honda, Hyundai top car residual value / depreciation awards list

J.D. Power announced its 2022 U.S. ALG Residual Value awards Thursday, with Honda and Hyundai topping the charts at three models apiece in the industry-standard study. The term "residual" is an industry projection of how well a car will hold its resale value three years from the original purchase date – a key metric in calculating lease costs and projecting new-car depreciation.  Award winners included several enthusiast-friendly options, including the BMW 2 Series, Dodge Charger, Subaru WRX, Mercedes-AMG GT and Toyota Tacoma. Even the Ford Bronco was recognized, beating out the Jeep Wrangler in the Off-Road Utility segment. That may seem odd given the car's issue-plagued launch, but scarcity apparently trumps quality control issues over the longer term. Here's a scrolling complete list of winners broken down by segment: “Accurately forecasting residual values in the auto industry is a key factor in assessing an estimated $225 billion lease portfolio of vehicles in the United States,” said ALG VP Eric Lyman in the company's announcement. "The brands and vehicle models that rise to the top demonstrate that they score well across the award programÂ’s criteria, including manufacturersÂ’ superior design and quality." ALG looks at several factors to determine future value, which is especially tricky with new models. For 2022, 16 different brands were recognized across 29 segments. Behind Honda and Hyundai, Audi, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Land Rover and Subaru all managed to chart with two different models. Here's the rundown of those who won in more than one category: Honda Civic Honda Passport Honda Odyssey Hyundai Accent Hyundai Kona Hyundai Kona EV Audi A6 Allroad Audi Q3 Kia K5 Kia Telluride Land Rover Range Rover Velar Land Rover Discovery Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Mercedes-Benz Metris:  Subaru  WRX and  Subaru Forester Toyota Tacoma  Toyota Tundra "The award process consists of evaluating 284 models through analysis of used-vehicle performance, brand outlook and product competitiveness," the announcement said. "Eligibility for a brand award requires a manufacturer to have model entries in at least four different segments. To account for differences across trim levels, model averages are weighted based on percentage share relative to the entire model line."   Audi Honda Hyundai Kia Land Rover Mercedes-Benz Subaru Toyota

2014 Kia Forte Koup SX

The Kia Forte and Hyundai Elantra have long followed similar paths, with each available in a four-door sedan, a five-door hatch and (most recently) a two-door coupe bodystyle. The recent death of the Hyundai Elantra Coupe in the US may be threatening to change the narrative on these two affordable compact lines, of course, but the Korean two-doors have a lot in common under their distinct skins. Their most recent iterations came to market under the power of the same 2.0-liter, 173-horsepower four-cylinder paired with six-speed automatic transmissions and riding atop MacPherson strut front suspensions and torsion-beam setups out back. Each arrived weighing between 2,800 and 3,000 pounds and could be had in base form for less than $20,000. Considering this, the empirical performance stats figured to be similar.
There's an important distinction to be made, however. Rather than offer a simple two-door version of a four-door car, like Hyundai did with its Elantra Coupe, Kia has gone to lengths to craft a vehicle with its own unique attitude and attributes. Kia has embraced a sportier stance with its two-door Forte Koup, offering up a standard six-speed manual and going further in an effort to craft a more unique, aggressive coupe design.
That drive to be different was further accentuated last year, when Kia raided Hyundai's parts bin and plucked out the 1.6-liter turbocharged four-cylinder from the Veloster Turbo. The resulting car is decidedly different than any other Forte we've tested, while also feeling like a better all-around product than the smaller hot hatch it stole its engine from. To see just how much better, we drove the Forte Koup SX for a week and set about seeing how this enhanced model stacks up as a performance offering.

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.