Beautiful 2007 Kia Rio Sedan Manual 5 Speed Runs Great Low Miles Clean Title on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Kia dealers report K900 flagship RWD sedan is coming to US

Kia has told dealers that it will bring a $50,000 to $70,000, rear-drive flagship sedan to the United States early in 2014, although it won't be called what you think. Instead of the unloved Quoris name, the full-size sedan will be called the K900.
That name change is a welcomed one, judging by our initial reactions to Quoris. Names aside, though, the K900 sounds like an interesting piece of kit. It'll be riding on the same platform as the Hyundai Equus, although we suspect Kia's car will be quite a different beast than it's corporate cousin. Automotive News is reporting that the K900 should have a pair of engines when it arrives in the US - a 3.8-liter V6 and a 5.0-liter V8. The former puts out 290 horsepower, while the V8, which is likely the same Tau engine found in the Equus, should have around 420 hp. LED headlights, adaptive cruise control and all the other trimmings expected at this price point will also make appearances on the K900.
Kia's national dealer council, Don Hobden, told Automotive News the K900 should represent "7-Series value for a 5-Series price." While Kia wouldn't comment on the new model, AN reports that it's targeting 5,000 units next year, with a limited rollout at select dealerships.

Cars most likely to be involved in accidents

Data from Insurify shows which models have the most accident-prone drivers behind the wheel. It also shows the proportion of the drivers of said vehicles with an at-fault accident on record in the past seven years, based on Insurify’s analysis of over 4 million car insurance applications. For reference, the national average is 10.78%, and each of these vehiclesÂ’ drivers represent a statistically significant increase over that. Now, it would be easy to infer that these cars are dangerous, but such is not necessarily the case. Remember, drivers cause accidents, not cars. These just happen to be the cars that accident-prone drivers drive. YouÂ’ll notice that many are mainstream, affordable cars, often with decent crash ratings. Also keep in mind that vehicle accidents are up since the beginning of the pandemic, so no matter what you drive, please drive safely. 10. Hyundai Ioniq This affordable, electrified vehicle platform sneaks into this list with 14.45% of drivers with a recent at-fault accident on record. 9. Lexus CT Another hybrid, this Prius-powered Lexus beats the national average at 14.57%. 8. Toyota Prius V Yet another hybrid, the larger but discontinued member of the Prius family sees 14.72% of its drivers with recent accidents. 7. Mazda CX-3 The Mazda CX-3, which is discontinued for the 2022 model year, sees the accident-prone making up 14.9% of its drivers. 6. Infiniti Q60 The second and final luxury car on this list has more accident-prone drivers than average, at 14.93%. 5. Subaru Impreza The first of two Subarus on this list has 15.1% of drivers with recent accidents on record. 4. Hyundai Genesis Coupe The Genesis Coupe was only on the market for a brief span before it was discontinued and Genesis spun off into its own luxury brand. That said, it too beats the national average for accidents, at 15.29%. 3. Subaru WRX Despite its standard all-wheel drive, the boy-racer WRX has 15.44% of drivers with a prior accident in the last seven years. 2. Kia Stinger We love the Kia Stinger, and had great luck with our long-termer that graced the Autoblog garage for a year. That said, 15.75% of its drivers represent have a recent accident on record. 1. Scion FR-S This fun two-seater attracts the most accident prone drivers, with 15.87% with recent at-fault crashes. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

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.