2009 Hyundai Santa Fe ( Limited) 7 Seater on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Hyundai Veloster Turbo Rally Edition Quick Spin [w/video]

Our year-long test of the Hyundai Veloster Turbo was a mixed experience. There were plenty of not-very-nice anecdotes about the blown Hyundai – at one point, our own Managing Editor Steve Ewing suggested we "stop thinking of the Veloster Turbo as a proper hot hatch," and Senior Editor Seyth Miersma said it was a car that "doesn't feel especially hot-hatchy." We felt this way despite the car's overt hot-hatch trappings: the red turbo badging, matte-gray paint, upgraded body kit, huge center-exit exhaust pipes, and sticky Michelin tires. Our reaction to this Rally Edition was lukewarm when it debuted earlier this year at the Chicago Auto Show. You can imagine, then, our trepidation with the arrival of the matte blue tester. As it turned out, a week behind the wheel proved that Hyundai has addressed a number of the complaints we lodged during our prior year-long Veloster test. Driving Notes There was only so much Hyundai could do to the Veloster during this year's mid-cycle refresh. That means the 1.6-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder is still there, writing checks its performance can't cash. We still get 201 horsepower and 195 pound-feet of torque, the latter of which is available between 1,750 and 4,500 rpm. Despite the generous torque spread, there's no sense of urgency with this engine. Pair that with the still persistent turbo lag, and the Veloster Turbo feels slower from behind the wheel than other hot hatches, even less powerful competitors like the Fiat 500 Abarth. There were a number of complaints about our Veloster Turbo's fuel economy during our year behind the wheel. At 24 miles per gallon, this Rally Edition managed to come in just under the EPA-estimated 25-mpg city rating, improving measurably on the less than 22 mpg Senior Editor Miersma returned in his long-term wrap-up. Still, we were four mpg below the 28-mpg combined rating in what was largely mixed driving. Aside from the unchanged powertrain, the Rally Edition brings a lot to the Veloster Turbo package worth liking. The inclusion of a B&M Racing short-throw shifter makes this gearbox not only easier but also far more enjoyable to manipulate, although the gearing is still too tall for our taste. The shift knob is just the right size, and the shift action feels rifle-bolt precise. It is delightful, aside from an annoying, almost inexcusable flaw, which you can see in the video below.

2015 Hyundai Genesis

It's not easy to drive a prototype-level version of the upcoming, second-generation Hyundai Genesis sedan.
Three hours in airports; fourteen hours in a plane; two hours riding in a car from a Iuncheon to my hotel in the now-famous Gangnam district of downtown Seoul; another two hours-plus on a bus from Seoul out to the Hyundai nerve center in Namyang. And that's just the travel.
Finally settled into a massive presentation room deep in the heart of the Namyang R&D center, freshly denuded of all of my camera gear and fortified with abundant coffee and green tea cookies, I still faced hours of product presentation; question and answer sessions with a large team of engineers, designers and executives; an official unveiling under the soaring dome of the Design Hall; a strolling lunch and more coffee. And then, finally, a shuttle ride to the proving grounds around which the whole facility hums with enterprise for an all-too-brief stint behind the wheel of a car that, by this point, I'm basically slavering to get my hands on.

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.