2014 Kia Sportage Lx on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

EPA says it will more closely monitor fuel economy claims from automakers

The unintended acceleration brouhaha at Toyota led to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration tightening the vise on recall procedures. Likewise, the fuel economy kerfuffle that blew up with Hyundai and Kia's admission of overstated fuel mileage claims could lead to the Environmental Protection Agency policing automaker assertions by performing more audits.
At least, that's what a senior engineer with the government agency said while in Michigan giving a talk, according to a report in Automotive News. What that actually means, however, is still in question. Just ten to 15 percent of new vehicles - something like 150 to 200 cars per year - are rested by the EPA to verify automaker numbers. The EPA's own tests include a "fudge factor" to adjust lab mileage for real-world mileage, and the agency still relies on automakers to submit data for tests that it doesn't have the facilities to perform. How much more auditing can the EPA really expect to do, or perhaps a more relevant question would be how much more accurate could the EPA's audits become?
The price of gasoline, the psychological importance of 40 miles per gallon to a frugal car buyer, an automaker wanting to further justify the price premium of a hybrid, all of these things contribute to fuel economy numbers that insist on creeping upward. Perhaps the senior engineer encapsulated the whole situation best when he said, "Everybody wants a label that tells you exactly what you're going to get, but obviously that's not possible. A good general rule of thumb is that real-world fuel economy is about 20 percent lower than the lab numbers." If the lesson isn't exactly 'buyer beware,' it's at least 'buyer be wary.'

2017 Kia Cadenza is a redesigned head scratcher

The second-generation Kia Cadenza has unexpectedly bowed at the 2016 New York Auto Show, and we're left wondering how this thing even survived to get a second generation. The Cadenza has been on sale since 2013 and it's never sold over 10,000 units in one year. Even if you combine US and Canadian sales, Kia's best year for the Cadenza was 2014, where it sold just 9,427 cars. So, what's Kia done to the second-gen car to improve on that disappointing stat? Perhaps the biggest change is the platform the Cadenza rides on. It's lighter and stiffer, which means it's probably going to be a far better dancer than the boat-like first-gen model. Cutting the weight also allowed Kia's engineers to fit more sound deadening, which alongside a sound-absorbing laminated windshield and front windows will likely lead to a quieter ride. Better handling and a quieter ride? Okay Kia, we're paying attention. The Cadenza's 3.3-liter V6 still sits under hood, but it's paired to an eight-speed automatic for the first time. That, alongside a new tune for the engine, should improve on the current Cadenza's 19-mile-per-gallon city and 28-mpg highway stats. Kia hasn't released an estimate of how much of an improvement it will be, but we suspect it'll be modest. Frankly, we're still a bit confused about why Kia is carrying on with the Cadenza. Its rivals sell in far higher volumes – in 2015, the Nissan Maxima sold over 40,000 units, the Buick LaCrosse did 42,000, and the Toyota Avalon did 60,000 – and two of those cars, the Maxima and LaCrosse, have just been fully and completely reworked. Then take into account America's increasing disdain for sedans/infatuation with crossovers, and Kia pushing through the second-gen Cadenza is just a puzzling move. Still, the visual updates, platform improvements, and powertrain changes are positive – will that be enough to turn around the Cadenza's struggling sales? We have no idea, but things can't get much worse.