Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Low End Sedans (under $16k)
3819 messages, Last post on May 29, 2008 at 8:42 PM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: moparblue2 (Dec 03, 2006 8:11 pm) Both Hyundais I have owned, a 2001 and 2004 Elantra, have given dependable service. My sister bought the 2001 from me last spring and she loves it. I drive the 2004 and it still looks and drives like new. So I have tried "that." 
|
|
|
|
|
people's creakily slow acceptance of Hyundai and Kia. I know that Kia is still scoring lower than Hyundai on quality reports overall but they are vastly improving. The perceived value of these South Korean rigs should now start moving upwards. I'd say Hyundai's and Kia's since, say, 2000 and on should now be worth about double what they are on the resale open market and dealer market. I have gotten really nice longevity and value out of my 1999 Kia Sephia and my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4. I traded the Sephia in on the Sportage 4x4 in Sept.of 2001 and the Sportage 4x4 now has 123,933 miles on it and purrs like a baby kitten idling. I am really impressed with the South Korean rigs. As time moves on I am thinking that a Suzuki SX4 or a Kia Optima or a Kia Rio LX or Rio5 might be nice as my next new rig. I saw an Optima in steel grey today in downtown Tucson that really looked sharp. The 4 cylinder Optima's only go for about $16,399 too, for the 5-speeders. Last I looked the mileage expected was 24 in the city and 34 on the highway. Since the Optima's price exceeds this thread's boundaries I'll hold any more comments on them for the appropriate columns. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: iluvmysephia1 (Dec 03, 2006 11:15 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 11, 2006 9:56 pm) |
|
|
|
|
New IIHS scores are out for "mini-cars" Yaris, Fit and Versa scored highest (Versa receiving "good" in all 3 areas) Accent/Rio received embarassingly low scores for cars equipped with SAB: Acceptable, poor, poor (Hyundai should be ashamed selling a 2007 model that does so poorly) So, do these scores change anyone's opinion? Does the fact that the cost difference between a safe car and the unsafest car is so small matter?
|
|
|
Replying to: germancarfan1 (Dec 19, 2006 8:36 am) For the record, here is a summary of the scores. Note that SABs and curtains are standard on the Versa, Fit, Mini, Accent, and Rio, and optional on the Yaris. The Aveo has only SABs, not curtains--I'll bet that didn't help. The xB has no side bags, so its score isn't surprising, and it doesn't have long to live in its present form anyway (I'm actually surprised the IIHS published its results--in the past, it held off publishing results if a car was due for a redesign in the near future, e.g. they did that with the Civic before the 2006 model came out). (Note that the Versa is actually in a different weight class than the other cars, so frontal impact scores should't be directly compared with the other cars.) Car - Front/Side/Rear Versa - G/G/G (SAB) Yaris - G/G/M (SAB) Fit - G/G/P (SAB) Mini - G/A/M (SAB) Aveo - A/M/P (SAB) xB - G/P/M (no SAB) Yaris - G/P/M (no SAB) Accent - A/P/P (SAB) Rio - A/P/P (SAB) http://www.iihs.org/ |
|
|
Replying to: germancarfan1 (Dec 19, 2006 8:36 am) Really surprised at the Hyundai scores? The side impact beams and structure between A, and C pillars are made of what? Quaker oatmeal? ~alpha
|
|
|
Replying to: alpha01 (Dec 19, 2006 1:21 pm) "For each seat/head restraint, rear-end crash protection is an assessment of occupant protection against neck injury in rear impacts at low to moderate speeds. Although such injuries usually aren't serious, they occur frequently." So I think they're looking at the movement of adult heads when the car is hit from the rear at about 20mph. It seem that this is really a test of the head restraints, but remember that it also depends on the person's seat position and how they position the headrests. So for kids, short folks, and kids/babies in carseats, the rear tests don't mean much. To me, the front and and side tests are the most meaningful to passenger safety.
|
|
|
Replying to: alpha01 (Dec 19, 2006 1:21 pm) A couple other things I found interesting: both the Versa and Fit were tested with last-minute mods, in fact the Fit was actually re-tested with modified airbag programming when the driver's front bag fired late in the initial test. To Honda's and Nissan's credit, they made fixes quickly. But buyers of Fits and Versas made before the dates noted in the IIHS report should be sure they get the fixes--the report noted Honda has initiated a customer action to fix their cars. |
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Dec 19, 2006 1:27 pm) Dynamic ratings: Seat/head restraints with geometry rated good or acceptable (current and recent model cars) are tested in a simulated rear impact conducted on a sled to assess how well the seats support the torso, neck, and head of a BioRID dummy. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/head_restraint_info.html So there's actually two rear tests: a geometric (measurements only) test, and a dynamic test (impact test on a sled). If the car is reated Marginal or Poor for Geometry, they don't even get a Dynamic test--they are scored "Poor" on the rear test. So the Geometry test is a test of head restraints, but the Dynamic test goes to testing the entire seat and the affect on the upper body.
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2005 Toyota ECHO
2009 Chevrolet Aveo
2009 Kia Rio
2008 Nissan Sentra
2009 Honda Fit
2009 Hyundai Accent
2009 Toyota Yaris
2009 Kia Spectra
2008 Suzuki Forenza
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
