2013 Kia Rio Ex 5 Door Hatchback No Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Kia Optima 2.0T Quick Spin [w/video]

Kia might live under the corporate shadow of parent company Hyundai, but don't confuse the Kia Optima for a rebadged Hyundai Sonata. That hasn't been the case for years, and the new 2016 Optima is more of its own car than ever before. Yes, both cars share a 110.4-inch wheelbase and 191.1-inch length, two engines, and under-the-skin hardware components. But you wouldn't know they were related just by looking – or by driving. In addition to the 2.0-liter turbocharged engine, Kia offers a 2.4-liter naturally aspirated four on the base end, and a 1.6-liter turbo-four aimed at higher fuel economy. For more on those powertrains, stay tuned for our full First Drive story coming in a few days. My drive time in the Optima focused mostly on the 2.0-liter turbo-equipped version, in loaded trim. Sure, I drove the fancy one, but this car feels so refined that Toyota should be worried. Driving Notes 2.0-liter turbo models use a rack-mounted steering assist motor, compared to the column mounted unit paired to other engines. It's a costly upgrade for Kia, but it offers better feedback and steering feel. Kia firsts include automous emergency braking, and high-intensity discarge headlamps with active cornering and automatic high beams. I didn't have a chance to try either feature, but I can tell you the adaptive cruise control works with minimal frustration. Another new item, first used on the Sorento, is Harmon Kardon Clari-fi digital music restoration, which claims to improve the sound quality of compressed music. I sampled the optional 14-speaker, 630-watt system with some 320 kbps MP3 files over the USB input and was amazed by the clarity and sound quality. The interior layout, with its horizontal swatch of buttons on the dash, is a clean and refreshing. It's a welcome break from more over-styled sedans that sacrifice swoopy contours for functionality. Kia focused on quality materials and feel. The push-button start is metal, models with the panoramic sunroof get ceiling mood lighting with rear LED reading lamps, and top-of-the-line SXL come with nappa leather. It goes a long way to justify the SXL's base price of $36,615. This car is quiet. The roads outside of Las Vegas are smooth, but the desert sun leaves the surface pockmarked. That's usually a recipe for tire noise, but I didn't hear any hum. Kia's product planners gave credit to the Michelin tires. I'll have to sample the car on some worse roads before giving a final impression.

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.