2013 Kia Optima Lx on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Peter Schreyer designs the future of Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis

Peter Schreyer now leads the design teams at Hyundai, Kia, and the new Genesis brand. He has the difficult task of differentiating the three brands aesthetically, even if they share mechanical components. A new profile about the designer by Bloomberg shows just how much he means to the Korean brands, and it's well worth a read. According to Bloomberg, Schreyer has distinctive ideas for the Korean brands' design. A Kia should look sporty and appeal to young buyers. In contrast, a Hyundai would be for someone who prefers a minimalist design. So far, Genesis is blending those traits for its Athletic Elegance design language. Schreyer went to Kia from Volkswagen Group in 2006, and his mission was to revolutionize the Korean's brand's boring look. He succeeded with sharper, more modern designs for vehicles like the Optima and Sorento that arrived after he took over. He did such a good job there that Hyundai-Kia Motor Group appointed him as its first non-Korean president at the end of 2012. He also now oversees former Lamborghini designer Luc Donckerwolke at the Genesis luxury brand. Bloomberg speaks with industry analysts and other designers to get a better idea of Schreyer's meaning to the company. The piece presents him as an easygoing person who knows exactly how each vehicle should look. If you want to get a better Schreyer and his work at Hyundai, Kia, and Genesis, the story is worth checking out. Related Video:

Trump encouraged by talk of 'a level playing field' on trade with South Korea

South Korea is a longstanding American ally, but President Donald Trump has spoken harshly about U.S. trade imbalances and threatened to tear up the bilateral trade pact. "We will do more to remove barriers to reciprocal trade and market access," Trump said, adding that the two leaders had talked about the thorny trade areas of steel and autos. Trump said he was encouraged by South Korea's President Moon Jae-in's assurances that he would seek a level playing field for American workers and businesses, particularly automakers. A joint statement said the two sides had agreed to work together to reduce over supply of basic materials such as steel and non-tariff barriers. It also said Trump had accepted an invitation from Moon to visit South Korea this year. Bonnie Glaser, senior adviser for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said it was unwise for Trump to air the trade issue so publicly. "Public complaints by Trump about unfair trade and inadequate defense spending provide opportunities for China and North Korea to drive a wedge between the allies," she said. The U.S. goods trade deficit with South Korea has more than doubled since the U.S.-Korea free trade pact known as KORUS took effect in 2012. The agreement was forecast to boost U.S. exports by $10 billion a year, but in 2016 they were $3 billion lower than in 2011. At the start of Friday's talks, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the largest component of the deficit was automotive trade and many non-tariff barriers to U.S. auto exports to South Korea remained. "I think the way to address it is to deal product by product with what we can do to change the export side and what we can do to reduce the bad imports side," he said. Ross said later on Friday that some progress had been made in the talks. The current pact was agreed to despite protests by supporters of Moon, who was then in opposition. But analysts have suggested that given the need to preserve a unified front in the face of a hostile North Korea, there could be compromise on both sides to resolve issues. (By David Brunnstrom and Lisa Lambert. Additional reporting by Fatima Bhojani, Roberta Rampton, Tim Ahmann, David Chance, David Lawder and Eric Beech; Editing by Bill Trott and Andrew Hay) Related Video: Image Credit: Kim Hong-Ji / Reuters Government/Legal Genesis Hyundai Kia trade

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.