2014 Kia Sorento Sxl Gdi V6 Sunroof Nav Rear Cam 19k Mi Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

8 fastest depreciating cars in America

Getting a new car is an amazing experience. The fresh new scent, the barely touched interior, the double digit miles on your odometer, and... the depreciation once it leaves the car dealers lot? Maybe not that last one. To save you from the hurt of a quickly depreciating new car, we collected 8 of the fastest depreciating cars in America. And here's a surprise, one of them is a Toyota. Learn more at Autoblog.com Cadillac Infiniti Jeep Kia Lincoln Toyota Autoblog Minute Videos Original Video jeep compass cadillac xts infiniti q50 camry q50

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.