Gray/gray Seats Tow Hitch Ex 3.5l 192 Hp 3.5 Liter V6 Dohc Engine We Finance! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Buying bang for your buck: Chrysler 300 and Kia Cadenza

In today's car market a Chrysler or Kia with a base price of $30K can easily become $45K, just by checking a few random boxes. You can do the math – that extra $15K will cost you $300/month over the life (and death) of a 60-month payment book. If your goal is only to get places in a stylish sedan capable of staying with traffic, you can keep your outlay far closer to the base price of these cars. Although they may not appear on many shopping lists, there's a lot to like in the lower-spec versions of both Chrysler's 300 and Kia's upscale Cadenza. The Chrysler is relatively ancient among current product platforms, while the Cadenza was Kia's first upmarket initiative, now supplemented by the larger K900 and the fall debut of Kia's Stinger GT. But you will not find a better transportation value in a Kia showroom than its underappreciated Cadenza. Here's a closer look at both: CHRYSLER 300: This car is a testament to all that was right about the DaimlerChrysler merger of the late '90s. At the time of the 300 introduction, elements of its platform were taken from the Mercedes E-Class, and with proportions suggesting a mix of stately American and neoclassic German, the 300 continues to offer a "just right" mix of respectable accessibility. The guy owning the package store could "Dub" it, while Miss Daisy would have been eminently comfortable in its back seat. In 2017, the 300 is an outlier in the sedan landscape. This is a large four-door with rear-wheel drive (all-wheel drive is optional). But in a sea of Accord this or Avalon that, the 300 impresses as an almost-relevant update of sedans in your murky past. The attachment to Chrysler products of 50 years ago goes beyond the Hemi that might be under the hood; it's the entire vibe of a car company trying hard to distinguish itself in today's marketplace. Despite numerous updates, the Chrysler still seems last century, and that's just fine with older drivers with the cash – or credit rating – to consider a $40K car. Behind the wheel, Chrysler's 300 exhibits all we love about American motoring. You would never confuse the handling with 'crisp,' but it's competent, while the ride is almost sublime. This is a car that in fully-loaded form deserves a Hemi, but the V6 is generally unobtrusive, and might net you 30 mpg on the highway. The conventional, 8-speed automatic goes about its business exactly as an automatic should.