Super Clean Car In Excellent Condition ! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Imported pickup tax in play in Trump trade talks with South Korea

WASHINGTON/SEOUL - Talks starting Friday to amend a U.S.-South Korean trade deal must balance President Donald Trump's domestic agenda against the need to contain a nuclear armed North Korea and will have to be completed swiftly, officials from both sides told Reuters. The U.S goods trade deficit with South Korea has doubled since the 2012 signing of the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). Almost 90 percent of the 2016 shortfall of $27.6 billion came from the auto sector, an issue the United States is expected to press hard in the Washington talks. A quick deal could give Trump his first trade victory at a time when NAFTA negotiations are dragging on without agreement and pressure on China to change trade practices has yielded little progress. The talks, led by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Michael Beeman and Yoo Myung-hee, director general for FTA negotiations at South Korea's trade ministry, begin at a time of heightened tensions with Pyongyang. A trade ministry official in Seoul said South Korea was waiting for Washington's formal proposals and substantial negotiations would not take place on Friday over a deal Trump has repeatedly threatened to scrap. "The U.S. brought up lowering non-tariff barriers, especially for their auto industry. At the moment, we are not sure whether the U.S. will ask that but we will be prepared (for the U.S. demand)," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to talk to the press. A top priority for the Americans is maintaining a 25 percent tariff on Korean pickup truck imports, which was meant to have been phased out from 2019 under the current deal, according to a U.S. official and a South Korean car industry source. South Korea has two major automakers, Hyundai and Kia, both of which are heavily reliant on exports due to the small size of their domestic market. Critics charge that South Korea discriminates against imports with a range of non-tariff barriers. South Korean auto companies believe that Washington will also seek to increase the 25,000-vehicle per U.S. automaker threshold for U.S. car shipments to South Korea that can enter the country without meeting Seoul's domestic industry regulations. The official at a South Korea auto company, who was not authorized to speak to the media, also said the United States was interested in easing Seoul's vehicle emissions targets. These are viewed as discriminating against U.S. autos.

Surprise Costs Have A Cost: Why we turned down the Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell

They say you can always tell the pioneers. They're the ones with the arrows in their backs. Unfortunately, that was our experience pursuing – and eventually rejecting – the new hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson. I first heard about Hyundai's new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (FCV) at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November 2013. As a tech buff, the thought of driving a new, clean technology vehicle sounded exciting. Best of all, Hyundai was wrapping the new vehicle in a smart, familiar package, as a loaded current-generation Tucson SUV. The FCV Tucson was billed as $499 a month with $2,999 down, with free fuel and free maintenance. Our family needed a new, small, fuel efficient SUV, so I signed up for information on the upcoming lease program. Someone has to go first. Why not us? In the spring of 2014, I learned more at a Clean Fuel Symposium, held on the Queen Mary in Long Beach. The panel was packed with experts on alternative fuel vehicles. One spokesperson outlined the chicken or egg problem with alternative fuels like hydrogen: fuels first or vehicles? Another said something that I should have heard more clearly. "If the argument [to move to alternative fuel vehicles] has to start with a change of behavior from consumers, that's a hard row to hoe." I would soon to learn what an FCV would really cost, both in hours and in dollars. Nonetheless, I was ready to try jumping the hurdles and get an alternative fuel car. A low impact on the environment, plus free fuel and a solo car pool lane sticker? What could go wrong? My wife was a much harder nut to crack. My habit of jokingly calling it a "nuclear-powered" car probably didn't help much either. Our conversations went like this: "A what kind of car?" "Hydrogen fuel cell." "What?" "It's essentially an electric car." "Don't those things have a really short range?" "Yes. That's what the hydrogen is for. You fill it with hydrogen to fill the fuel cell, instead of charging it overnight like an electric car." "Where do you get hydrogen?" "Well..." It turned out the nearest hydrogen station was in Burbank, about 13 miles from our house. In LA traffic, that could be more than half an hour's drive each way. Since there's an excellent bakery in Burbank (Porto's), I told my wife I was fine with taking the time each week to fuel up every 200 miles or so.