2011 Kia Optima Ex Turbo Call Today on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2021 Kia Sedona's new look revealed as Korean-market Carnival

Last week, Kia showed teaser sketches of the next-generation Carnival, which we'll get as the 2021 Kia Sedona. Now the company has released actual photos of the minivan with the Carnival nameplate. No other information about powertrains or features have been announced, but there's plenty in the design to take a look at. Overall, the Sedona has a boxy, upright design seemingly more inspired by crossovers than traditional minivans. The low ride height and tall body do give it away as a van, though. Other crossover design cues include the faux skid plate panels on the front and rear bumpers. Look closer, and you find some really fascinating details across the van. At the front, you find an intricate variation on the Kia "Tiger Nose" grille with intersecting chrome diamonds. You'll also find that the LED running lights run out from the headlights and down the lower section of the grille surround. Hidden just inside the grille are the high beams for the headlights, and the lights each have chrome eyebrows. Along the side, a strong shoulder line blends into the door sliders, and the C-pillar is the most prominent of any modern Kia. It has a sort of chrome or aluminum finish with a light diamond cross-hatched pattern molded into it. At the back, there's a full-width taillight housing with LED elements. In the middle section, there are little chrome highlights just behind the red plastic adding another fine detail to admire. As previously mentioned, Kia only revealed photos of the new van, and no information on what's powering it or what other features it will have. It could continue using the 276-horsepower 3.3-liter V6 in the current Sedona, or it could upgrade to the 291-horsepower 3.8-liter V6 from the Telluride. There's also the possibility of using a turbocharged four-cylinder or possibly both a four-cylinder and a V6 depending on trim levels. We should know more closer to the on-sale date. It goes on sale first in South Korea at the end of the year's third quarter and other markets some time after. Related Video:    

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.

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.