2012 Hyundai Elantra Limited**beyond Loaded! Tons Of Options**cheap on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hyundai Motor shares slide following U.S. probe of airbag failures

SEOUL — Shares in Hyundai Motor tumbled on Monday on a U.S. probe into why airbags failed to deploy in some of its Sonata sedans, with investors fretting about potential recall costs for the once popular cars. The probe, which follows crashes that reportedly killed four people and left six injured, will review the 2011 Sonata sedan as well as the 2012-2013 Forte made by affiliate Kia Motors, encompassing some 425,000 vehicles. It marks the second investigation by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration into the South Korean duo in less than one year, exacerbating headaches for Hyundai which reported in January its worst annual earnings in seven years. Hyundai has issued a recall for more than 150,000 U.S. Sonatas after incidents of non-deployment were linked to electrical overstress in the airbag control unit, but said it did not have a final fix. "What I am concerned about is that the recall will be expanded to other markets," said Ko Tae-bong, an analyst at Hi Investment & Securities. The Sonata and Forte sedans were responsible for driving sales for Hyundai and Kia in key markets in recent years, although they are no longer as popular as they once were. Ko estimated the U.S. recall could cost as much as $575 million if airbags were replaced in 425,000 vehicles under review and the automakers were found responsible for the problem. Hyundai Motor shares tumbled 4.8 percent while Kia Motors lost 3.7 percent. Parts supplier Hyundai Mobis fell 5.4 percent while the broader market was down 0.7 percent. Hyundai declined to comment on whether the recall would be expanded. Kia said it has not confirmed problems with the airbags but added it would "act promptly to conduct a safety recall, if it determines that a recall would be appropriate." The automakers told the South Korean regulator that the Sonata and Forte models sold in the domestic market were not affected, an official at South Korea's transport ministry told Reuters. The U.S. regulator said the airbag control units were built by ZF Friedrichshafen-TRW, a German auto supplier that acquired TRW Automotive in 2015, adding that it would determine if any other manufacturers used similar airbag control units and if they posed a safety risk. The NHTSA also said that electrical overstress appeared to be the root cause in the 2016 recall by Fiat Chrysler America of 1.4 million U.S. vehicles for airbag non-deployments in significant frontal crashes.

U.S. appeals court preserves $210M Hyundai-Kia fuel economy class settlement

A U.S. appeals court restored a $210 million nationwide class-action settlement for hundreds of thousands of owners of Hyundai Motor Co and Kia Motors Corp vehicles whose fuel economy estimates were inflated. By an 8-3 vote on Thursday, in a case closely watched by class-action lawyers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, said vehicle owners had enough in common to let them settle as a group. It also rejected arguments by owners opposed to the settlement that the claims process was too burdensome, and that lawyers for the class had colluded with the automakers to extract a "sweetheart deal" that undervalued their claims. The case began after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found flaws in Hyundai's and Kia's testing procedures, prompting the automakers to lower fuel efficiency estimates for about 900,000 vehicles from the 2011, 2012 and 2013 model years. Lawyers for objecting drivers had no immediate comment. Hyundai said it was grateful for the decision. Kia and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The decision by Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen upheld a settlement approved in June 2015 by U.S. District Judge George Wu in Los Angeles. Wu "made careful findings, which the objectors here largely do not challenge, and which more than support the judgment," Nguyen wrote. The decision reversed a divided three-judge 9th Circuit panel's January 2018 rejection of the settlement and decertification of the class action. That panel said Wu failed to assess whether differences in state laws prevented certification of a nationwide class. It also said used car owners should have been excluded because it was unclear whether they had relied on the South Korean automakers' fuel economy claims. Lawyers had said it would become much harder to obtain nationwide settlements if the panel ruling stood. Nguyen had dissented from the panel ruling. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, who wrote it, dissented on Thursday. Ikuta accused the majority of failing to determine what law should apply to the nationwide class or how the settlement, and thus attorneys' fees, should be valued. "The majority's failure to correct these errors may be beneficial for the class action bar, but it detracts from compliance with Supreme Court precedent," Ikuta wrote. The 9th Circuit covers nine western U.S. states, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

2016: The year of the autonomous-car promise

About half of the news we covered this year related in some way to The Great Autonomous Future, or at least it seemed that way. If you listen to automakers, by 2020 everyone will be driving (riding?) around in self-driving cars. But what will they look like, how will we make the transition from driven to driverless, and how will laws and infrastructure adapt? We got very few answers to those questions, and instead were handed big promises, vague timelines, and a dose of misdirection by automakers. There has been a lot of talk, but we still don't know that much about these proposed vehicles, which are at least three years off. That's half a development cycle in this industry. We generally only start to get an idea of what a company will build about two years before it goes on sale. So instead of concrete information about autonomous cars, 2016 has brought us a lot of promises, many in the form of concept cars. They have popped up from just about every automaker accompanied by the CEO's pledge to deliver a Level 4 autonomous, all-electric model (usually a crossover) in a few years. It's very easy to say that a static design study sitting on a stage will be able to drive itself while projecting a movie on the windshield, but it's another thing entirely to make good on that promise. With a few exceptions, 2016 has been stuck in the promising stage. It's a strange thing, really; automakers are famous for responding with "we don't discuss future product" whenever we ask about models or variants known to be in the pipeline, yet when it comes to self-driving electric wondermobiles, companies have been falling all over themselves to let us know that theirs is coming soon, it'll be oh so great, and, hey, that makes them a mobility company now, not just an automaker. A lot of this is posturing and marketing, showing the public, shareholders, and the rest of the industry that "we're making one, too, we swear!" It has set off a domino effect – once a few companies make the guarantee, the rest feel forced to throw out a grandiose yet vague plan for an unknown future. And indeed there are usually scant details to go along with such announcements – an imprecise mileage estimate here, or a far-off, percentage-based goal there. Instead of useful discussion of future product, we get demonstrations of test mules, announcements of big R&D budgets and new test centers they'll fund, those futuristic concept cars, and, yeah, more promises.