It’s not. Clutching is the problem.
2 Likes
Go with the Avalon, those engines, if take care of course, are good for around 300,000 miles, the Amanti is only good for around 150,000 miles, a huge difference.
Also the Amanti performs horribly in crashes, I saw one hit the rear of a medium size American SUV, and the Amanti hood and front end was smashed about 1/2 way up into the hood area, just driving by I couldn’t see any damage on the SUV! I’ve seen this happen before with other Korean cars, they don’t do well in crashes. I had friend who was rear ended in their Hyundai, the person hit her at about 5 mph with no damage to the other car, she brought it to me because the back door was acting odd, so I looked, sure enough the back in was pushed in just far enough to make the door rub on the door jam, and when I opened the truck and lifted the trunk carpet away I could see where it folded the body very slightly but enough to push the rear left quarter panel just enough to rub the door when it opened and closed. I told her to turn it into her insurance, the car was totaled!
That had nothing to do with it being a Korean car
2 Likes
That is what is suppossed to happen . It is called crush zone. It is more important to let people walk away that have a vehicle act like a tank and injure people.
4 Likes
Better a crushed car than crushed passengers.
1 Like
No, not like that. Yes there are crush zones, but when a car crushes front or rear much faster than another there is something wrong with the way the manufacture makes their cars.
Or, what you are saying is that only Korean cars are the best in accidents, and the rest suck because they’re crash zones don’t work properly. Tell that to the NHTSA, I’m sure they would love to hear about that.
No , I am not saying Korean vehicles are better than others in accidents . You are one worried about a 17 year old vehicle in a crash so you contact NHTSA.
But the other cars I saw that crashed were only less than 5 years old. I was making a point that Korean cars are inferior to just about any other car on the market for crashing in.
Hyundai and Kia vehicles have been noted for their susceptibility to damage in minor accidents for a few reasons:
- Cost-Cutting Measures: To keep prices competitive, Hyundai and Kia often use materials and designs that may not be as robust as those in more expensive vehicles. [This can result in parts that are more easily damaged]
- Design and Engineering Choices: Some models might have design features that, while improving other aspects like fuel efficiency or aesthetics, can make them more vulnerable in minor collisions.
- Safety Features: While modern Hyundai and Kia models are equipped with a range of safety features, the structural integrity in minor accidents can sometimes be compromised due to the focus on other safety technologies]
- Repair Costs: The cost and availability of parts can also play a role. Even minor damage can lead to significant repair costs if parts are not readily available or if the design makes repairs more complex.
These factors combined can make Hyundai and Kia vehicles appear more prone to damage in minor accidents compared to some other brands.
Not to mention they’re easy to steal with car thefts jumping 5,000%! on those two makes.
There is no further need for me to respond to this post anymore, I’ve stated facts that are very well known in the auto industry, like it or not, it doesn’t concern me.
IIHS says that 9 Hyundai models and 4 Kia models are top safety picks. Toyota also has 9 top safety picks. Nissan only has 2, Ford only has 1, and VW has only 3. The tests are identical. How can Hyundai and Kia be so bad if many other brands have the same or fewer top safety picks?
1 Like
You DO realize an extremely high percentage of the regulars here are professionals in the auto industry . . .
It obviously DOES concern you, as you’re clearly seeking validation
3 Likes