2022 Kia Sportage Lx on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Insider trading ahead of Hyundai-Kia MPG debacle suspected

Reuters is reporting that large-scale insider trading may be at the heart of some particularly fishy stock-selling behavior, just prior to the original announcement about the Hyundai-Kia fuel economy ratings debacle.
On November 1st, Hyundai-Kia shares traded roughly 2.2 million times (the single highest-volume day of the year), and the stock price fell by about four percent. For reference, a standard daily trading volume for the stock in 2012 saw about 600k shares trading hands. On November 2nd, the company made public the bad news about the dropping fuel economy ratings for many of its models. In other words: No one outside of the company (and only a smallish group inside the company, we'd imagine) should have known anything about the impending bad news as of the first day of November. After the announcement, the stock price tanked, as you'd expect, and trading volume was way down as well.
Experts seem fully aware that the whole thing reeks of leaked information and subsequent insider trading. If chicanery on this sort of scale seems wacky to you, you'd be inline with the experts who report to Reuters that the level of trading is absolutely suspicious.

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.

Small 3-row crossover SUVs specifications compared on paper

There's no shortage of three-row vehicles on the market for carrying seven or more people and their stuff wherever they all need to go. Just about every car company has at least one large crossover or traditional SUV with three rows of seats, and there are still plenty of minivans to pick from. But most of these vehicles are large, pricey, and frequently thirsty. Fortunately, there are still a handful of smaller crossovers that deliver 7-passenger capability in a smaller, cheaper package. We've gathered four of the small three-row set here to compare them based on space, power, fuel economy, pricing, and more. They include the very old Dodge Journey, the slightly less old Mitsubishi Outlander and Kia Sorento, and the relatively new Volkswagen Tiguan. You can see the raw numbers in the chart below, followed by a more detailed breakdown and some notes on how we like each of these vehicles. For in-depth opinions on the vehicles, be sure to check out our full reviews, and if you want to compare these with other vehicles, try out our comparison tools. Engines, transmissions and performance Interestingly, three of the four crossovers here utilize similar engines for their four-cylinder offerings. The Dodge, Kia and Mitsubishi all feature naturally aspirated 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines. Only the Volkswagen Tiguan chooses turbocharging and a smaller 2.0-liter displacement. But because of its turbocharger, the Tiguan's four-cylinder is easily the most potent, making a healthy 221 pound-feet of torque, which is more than 40 more than the Sorento, the crossover with the next most torque. The VW is also second-most powerful, just one horse behind the Sorento. The Outlander is the least powerful in the four-cylinder class. The Journey is only barely better, but it will probably feel as slow or worse thanks to its ancient 4-speed automatic. The four-cylinder Sorento and Outlander each have 6-speed automatic transmissions, and the VW has an 8-speed. The Sorento with a V6 has an 8-speed, too. View 17 Photos Moving up to the V6 class, the Outlander is once again at the bottom. It actually makes less torque than the turbo VW Tiguan. The Journey and Sorento are almost perfectly matched. The Journey makes a bit more torque; the Sorento makes a bit more power. The Journey also gets upgraded to a 6-speed automatic. Another powertrain consideration to bare in mind is whether all-wheel-drive is necessary.