2014 Kia Optima on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Hyundai developing safety system calibrated for 'secondary impacts'

There is an inherent flaw with how traditional airbags are used and deployed: They can only reply to one impact. The Hyundai Motor Group wants to address this with a new "multi-collision airbag system" that focuses on impacts that occur after the first point of contact. Hyundai defines multi-collision accidents as "those in which the primary impact is followed by collisions with secondary objects, such as trees, electrical posts or other vehicles." In a press release, Hyundai noted that about 30 percent of roughly 56,000 accidents between 2000 and 2012 in North America involved these types of multi-collisions, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)'s National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System division. The airbag systems in today's cars don't always go off when the first accident occurs, and when a car goes through a secondary impact, the airbags may no longer provide the best safety. Hyundai's new system can read the positions of the car's occupants and react in a more beneficial way. It can quickly recalibrate after the first impact based on readings from the vehicle and the people inside, which allows the second part of the crash to trigger the airbags. As of now the system is still in development, but Hyundai Motor Group is planning to use it in both Kia and Hyundai vehicles in the future. Which models and which markets it will apply to first are yet to be determined. Related Video:

2020 Kia Telluride comparison: Specs and pricing versus other 3-row crossovers

The 2020 Kia Telluride is a three-row family crossover that slots into the top spot in Kia's SUV lineup. It does not replace the three-row Sorento — rather, this bigger, more luxurious model is intended for those who need even more space. And that they'll certainly get, because as you'll see below, the Telluride is one of the biggest crossovers on the market. In this comparison of engine specs, dimensions, pricing and photos, we'll take a look at the 2020 Telluride versus the Honda Pilot, Subaru Ascent, Toyota Highlander, the all-new 2020 Ford Explorer, and the Telluride's mechanically related cousin, the equally new 2020 Hyundai Palisade. Of course, those just represent one corner of an iceberg that also includes the Mazda CX-9, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia and Dodge Durango. Passenger space Like most other entries in the three-row segment, the Telluride offers seven- or eight-passenger capacity. The difference is determined by whether you get second-row captain's chairs. Judging by the Telluride's 55.3 inches of third-row shoulder room, it looks like it won't be quite as spacious with three kids across back there as it would be in the Pilot or Ascent. Two inches can make a big difference in this regard. Third-row legroom is very competitive, however, and if it's indeed just as spacious back there as the Pilot and Ascent, two full-sized adults should be able to fit quite comfortably. Its third-row headroom is also quite good, one of the areas in which the Telluride surpasses its otherwise comparably sized Palisade cousin. If you're wondering about second-row space, there's really nothing outstanding to glean from these specs. As expected for this segment, it's huge, with abundant leg- and headroom. There should be no problem fitting child seats. Cargo space The Telluride would seem to have class-leading space behind its raised third-row seat. If we were to guess, this is the result of its rather boxy tailgate and roofline design. This should also help explain why it has more maximum space than all but the Explorer. Space with the third row lowered is middle of the pack, but when you're talking about vehicles this size, the differences in cubic feet behind the second-row ultimately don't matter much. 2020 Kia Telluride View 46 Photos Performance and Fuel Economy The Kia Telluride has the same powertrain as the Hyundai Palisade, although their tuning and consequent driving experience may differ even if their specs are seemingly the same.

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.