2014 Hyundai Elantra Gt Base on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hyundai Santa Cruz could get green light this year

The market for smaller trucks is gaining steam in the United States with introductions like the Chevrolet Colorado, GMC Canyon, and the forthcoming, updated Toyota Tacoma. After the enthusiastic reaction to the Hyundai HCD-15 Santa Cruz concept at 2015 Detroit Auto Show, that pickup is looking increasingly likely to see production, as well. "There is a very high probability we get the approval of the truck soon," Hyundai Motor America CEO Dave Zuchowski said to the TheDetroitBureau.com. Customer surveys have shown the possible pickup to be quite popular around the country, except among Texans, according to Zuchowski. However, the final sign-off still needs to come from corporate headquarters in South Korea. The production Santa Cruz might be very different from the vehicle on the stand in Detroit. The concept was just there to gauge reactions, and the company hadn't even decided on a platform at that time. The slide-out bed extension was thought to be possible in the real world, but there were reportedly still other hurdles to overcome. The unibody pickup isn't the only project Hyundai is developing for North America. The automaker also wants to step into the expanding compact crossover market with an entry specifically designed for this market. "This is a growth segment," Zuchowski told TheDetroitBureau.com. "We want a piece of it." While neither of these new models are fully approved yet, it certainly looks like Hyundai intends to be a bigger player in the truck and crossover world in the coming years. Related Video:

Did Lexus make a BMW? Or did BMW make a Lexus? This and other 2017 surprises

It's that time of year again. The calendar is about to reach its end, Star Trek Cats 2018 is about to take its place, and I'm reflecting about all the cars that graced my driveway this year or summoned me to exotic places. You know, like Stuttgart or Phoenix. In 2017, I drove at least 57, and as I perused the list of them, I started to notice a common refrain: "This car surprised me." Most were pleasant surprises, but there were a few head scratchers and facepalms for good measure. In both cases, it was generally the result of car companies seemingly trying to break out of an existing mold. Nowhere was that more apparent than the pair of Lexuses slathered in Infrared paint: The LS 500 that left me this week and the LC 500 that was my favorite car of 2017. Though Lexus has been trying to shake its crusty, gold-packaged reputation for some time now, its efforts always seemed like an old man choosing Hollister to redo his wardrobe after realizing it hasn't been updated since 1987. I fell in love with the LC, genuinely floored by its near-perfect take on the GT. It's characterful in sound, appearance and tactility. It was at home in the city, in the mountain and on the open road. It was both comfortable and thrilling, and after driving the mechanically related LS 500, I can report that the LC's talents aren't an outlier. The LS 500's turbo V6 may make different noises than the LC's naturally aspirated V8, but it nevertheless invigorates the cabin when the car is placed in Sport+ mode. The steering is truly communicative, body motions are kept in miraculous check, and I absolutely forgot I was in an enormous luxury limo ... and a Lexus one at that. It was everything that the BMW 530e was not. I drove that on the exact same roads and was utterly bored the entire time. Generally doughy, lifeless steering, more distant than Planet 9. And no, the plug-in hybrid powertrain had nothing to do with that. At least it shouldn't. The Porsche Panamera S e-Hybrid I also drove this year proves that, as do the Hyundai Ioniqs, which are surprisingly adept and fun little cars regardless of what powers their wheels (Hyundai + hybrid = fun really blew me away). I would drive that Lexus LS F Sport over the BMW 5 Series any day of the week, which seems like a shocking thing to say in relation to either car. While Lexus is seemingly breaking out of its old crusty mold, BMW seems to be climbing into one.

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.