2007 Kia Spectra Ex Sedan 4-door 2.0l Clean Tile,no Emails Please!!(617)9388702 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Kia GT spied looking like a rakish, sexy Forte

Just over four months ago, we told you that Kia would offer a production version of its handsome GT concept. Now, we have images of the svelte new four-door testing in Germany. It looks like we're getting a sexy, rear-drive performance sedan the size of a Kia Forte. And we're pretty stoked. Judging by our spy images, Kia is going to stick pretty close to the concept car's rakish lines. That means more four-door coupe than three-box sedan, which is precisely the kind of thing Kia could use. Beyond the overall shape, the headlights retain the same interesting shape as the concept, albeit in a more production-focused look. They crown a production-spec fascia, with more conventional vertical intakes. In back, the vehicle-spanning taillight element from the concept car appears to have been replaced by a conventional set of lamps – there's camo where the lighting element should be. Speaking of the tail, look at those tailpipes. Few things shout "Rawr, I'm a performance car," like a meaty set of quad exhausts. It's hard to tell here, but the rear fascia looks much more conventional than the GT concept, too, which went with a very aero-intensive design. Under the skin, our spies tell us the GT rides on a shortened version of the rear-drive platform slated to underpin the upcoming Genesis G70 – that backs up the reports that the GT would challenge the BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe. Our most recent report pointed to a range of four and six-cylinder engines from 2.0- to 3.3-liters. Our spies suggest that twin-turbocharged V6 will put out anywhere from 365 to 400 ponies. Obviously, this would be a range-topping model, but what a range-topper it would be. It's like a budget M4. Our best intelligence points to the GT's production debut at the 2016 Paris Motor Show, with an on-sale date in just under a year.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

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.