2008 Kia Optima Ex Sedan 4-door 2.4l Leather Seats,exc.condition,garage Kept on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Kia Forte GT Road Test | Budget-friendly sport compact

It’s slim pickings out there for sport compact buyers. Just a decade ago, inexpensive sporty cars were relatively plentiful. Now? Not so much. If thereÂ’s any silver lining, itÂ’s that the few remaining small enthusiast sedans and hatchbacks are by and large quite decent little cars, this 2020 Kia Forte GT included. They also seem to be coming from the darndest places. Back when Mazda and Mitsubishi were still building cars like the Mazdaspeed3 and the Lancer Ralliart, Hyundai and Kia were effectively nowhere to be found in the sport compact segment. Yeah, the Tiburon existed; what more do you want us to say? Today, these Korean juggernauts are producing several affordable, enthusiast-friendly models. While itÂ’s no Stinger, the Forte GT boasts some reasonably credible specs. For starters, itÂ’s powered by a 201-horsepower, 1.6-liter turbo-four that also produces 195 pound-feet of torque. It can be ordered with either a six-speed manual or a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic. The GT also gets bigger brakes up front (12-inchers rather than the 11-inch discs on the base car) and larger wheels with optional Michelin Pilot Sport 4 summer performance tires. Plus, it ditches the base ForteÂ’s twist-beam rear suspension in favor of a multi-link setup, which improves both ride quality and handling. ThereÂ’s a weight penalty to all this added kit, of course. The GT checks in at 2,989 pounds with the six-speed and 3,079 with the dual-clutch unit, amounting to about 300 pounds of added heft compared to a plain-Jane Forte.  The dearth of alternatives in this segment makes it somewhat difficult to put these numbers into context, but the best analogs (aside from the equivalent Hyundai Elantra) would be the VW Jetta GLI and the Honda Civic Si. Volkswagen and Honda have been in this game for decades, and it shows; the GLI has the Forte GT beat by just about every measurement save one – curb weight. The VW is as much as 300 pounds heavier depending on equipment, which is noteworthy considering their dimensions are otherwise just about identical. The Civic is lighter but otherwise goes pretty much spec-for-spec with the Forte GT. The HondaÂ’s edge comes from a helical limited-slip differential and an adaptive suspension, neither of which is found on the Kia. We sampled a loaded-up 2020 Forte GT with the dual-clutch automatic, and for better or worse, we found its real-world performance lined up just about perfectly with its spec sheet.

2014 Kia Cadenza

Teenage passengers are often among the first people I turn to for second opinions about a test vehicle. While they understandably aren't allowed behind the wheel - most aren't even old enough to drive - their honest and generally unbiased observations, coupled with a complete lack of understanding about what a particular vehicle costs, can provide a wealth of insight.
An open-minded approach is especially important when taking a closer look at the 2014 Kia Cadenza, a premium sedan from an automaker best known for providing affordable transportation for entry-level buyers. But unlike the Rio and Forte, low-priced compacts designed to cater to consumers looking for fuel economy and value, this more substantial four-door sedan asks for twice the out-of-pocket investment in exchange for promises of luxury and technology.
With an impartial mindset and a genuine curiosity, I recently spent a week with the more substantial Cadenza to see if it could live up to its aspirations.

Here’s how 20 popular EVs fared in cold-weather testing in Norway

Electric vehicles are known to suffer diminished performance in cold weather, but some do a better job than others hanging onto their range capacity while cabin heaters and frigid outdoor temperatures sap power from their batteries. Recently, the Norwegian Automobile Federation put the 20 of the best-selling battery-electric vehicles in the country to the test, to see not only how winter weather affected their range but also their charging times. The major findings: On average, electric vehicles lost 18.5% of their official driving range as determined by the European WLTP cycle. Electric vehicles also charge more slowly in cold temperatures. And interestingly, the researchers learned that EVs don’t simply shut down when they lose power but instead deliver a series of warnings to the driver, with driving comfort and speed levels maintained until the very last few miles. Because itÂ’s Norway, the worldÂ’s top market for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles by market share, the test included many EVs that arenÂ’t available here in the U.S. But there are many familiar faces, among them the Nissan Leaf, Tesla Models S, 3 and X, Hyundai Kona (known here as the Kona Electric) and Ioniq, and Audi E-Tron. In terms of range, the top-performing EV was the Hyundai Kona, which lost only 9% of its official range, which the WTLP rated at 449 kilometers, or 279 miles, compared to its EPA-rated range of 258 miles on a full charge. It delivered 405 km, just enough to nudge it ahead of the Tesla Model 3, which returned 404 km. Other top performers included the Audi E-Tron, in both its 50 Quattro (13% lower range) and higher-powered 55 Quattro (14% lower) guises; the Hyundai Ioniq (10% lower); and Volkswagen e-Golf (11% lower). At 610 km (379 miles) the Tesla Model S has the longest WLTP range of all models tested and went the furthest, but still lost 23% of its range, though it also encountered energy-sapping heavy snow at the end of its test, when many cars had dropped out. The Model 3 lost 28% of its range. The worst performer? That goes to the Opel Ampera-e, better known stateside as the Chevrolet Bolt. It traveled 297 km (about 184 miles) in the test, which was nearly 30% lower than its stated WLTP range. We should also note that Opel, now owned by Groupe PSA, is phasing the car out in Europe and that Chevy recently upgraded the Bolt here in the U.S.