We Finance 09 Sonata Gls I4 Auto Cloth Bucket Seats Cd Audio Popularequipmentpkg on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2018 Hyundai Accent vs subcompact sedans: How it compares on paper

Hyundai first revealed the new 2018 Hyundai Accent a few months ago, but that debut was in Canada for the Canadian-market car. We didn't get our look at the U.S. version until just recently, which is when we also finally got plenty of specifications on the little car. So as we did with the Genesis G70, we've brought you a breakdown of the Accent's specs and some of the segment's best and most popular: the Nissan Versa, Kia Rio, Chevrolet Sonic and Toyota Yaris iA. Before we get to the chart, let's give you a quick reintroduction to the 2018 Accent. The subcompact is completely new this year, and under the hood is again a naturally aspirated 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. It makes 7 fewer horsepower and 4 fewer pound-feet of torque than the outgoing model with totals of 130 horsepower and 119 pound-feet. This drop in power probably won't be noticeable, though. It's also available with either a manual or automatic transmission, both featuring six speeds. Fuel economy hasn't been announced, but the Rio's numbers below are probably a good indicator as they share powertrains. The one thing that isn't available with an Accent is a hatchback. According to Autoweek, the hatchback was canned with the assumption that hatch buyers would simply purchase an example of the upcoming Kona crossover. But if you want a traditional subcompact hatch from South Korea, Kia is happy to oblige, as the Rio is still available as a hatchback. Learning that the Kona may have killed the Accent hatch causes us to wonder if Kia brought the Rio hatch to the U.S. because it wasn't planning on offering the Stonic. Related Video: News Source: Hyundai, AutoweekImage Credit: Hyundai Chevrolet Hyundai Kia Nissan Toyota Sedan nissan versa hyundai accent kia rio toyota yaris ia

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video:

BMW, Hyundai score big in JD Power's first Tech Experience Index

While automakers are quick to brag about winning a JD Power Initial Quality Study award, the reality, as we've pointed out before, is that these ratings are somewhat misleading, since IQS doesn't necessarily distinguish genuine quality issues. JD Power's new Tech Experience Index aims to solve that problem. The new metric takes the same 90-day approach as IQS but focuses exclusively on technology – collision protection, comfort and convenience, driving assistance, entertainment and connectivity, navigation, and smartphone mirroring. It splits the industry up into just seven segments, based loosely on size, which is why the Chevrolet Camaro is in the same division (mid-size) as Kia Sorento and the Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class is in the same segment as the Hyundai Genesis (mid-size premium). It makes for some screwy bedfellows, to be sure. Still, splitting tech experience away from initial quality should allow customers to make more informed and intelligent decisions when buying new vehicles. In the inaugural study, respondents listed BMW and Hyundai as the big winners, with two segment awards – the 2 Series for small premium and the 4 Series for compact premium, and the Genesis for mid-size premium and Tucson for small segment. The Chevrolet Camaro (midsize), Kia Forte (compact), and Nissan Maxima (large) scored individual wins. Ford also had a surprising hit with the Lincoln MKC, which ranked third in the compact premium segment behind the 4 Series and Lexus IS. This is a coup for the Blue Oval, whose woeful MyFord Touch systems made the brand a victim of the IQS' flaws in the early 2010s. But Ford and other automakers might not want to celebrate just yet. According to JD Power, there's still a lot of room for improvement – navigation systems were the lowest-rated piece of tech in the study. Instead, customers repeatedly saluted collision-avoidance and safety systems, giving the category the best marks of the study and listing blind-spot monitoring and backup cameras as two must-have features – 96 percent of respondents said they wanted those two systems in their next vehicle. But this isn't really a surprise. Implementation of safety systems from brand to brand is similar, and they don't require any input from users, unlike navigation and infotainment systems which are frustratingly deep.