If they used a Diesel engine (and I'll bet they do in Korea), they would sell like strawberries in season( five more days)...
I imagine they do use a subframe, however.
"Full frames" have been obsolete for fifty years- for regular passenger vehicles !! !

Read the fine print on the 10 year 100000 mile warrany it not really what it appears to be.Atleast its not a Bumper to Bumper coverage.

the hyundai/kia warranty is spelled out good, they dont hide anything from you. its 10yr drive train, 5yr 60k bumper to bumper.both the hyundai and kia web sites, explain what is and isnt covered in plain english. still the best warranty in the buisness. by the way if you like the tucson, check out its sister the kia sportage, it has a tighter tuned suspension, and handles a bit better, other than a couple of sheet metal tweaks its the same vehicle.

Earthworm-

Just because something's obsolete doesn't meant that what replaced it is an improvement...

I drive a pickup simply becaue it has a real frame. I have a much better chance of surviving an accident than those driving the puddle-jumpers.

Zofie- Everyone I've talked to who has a Hyundai sings their praises. I've heard some complaints about the dealers, but that's universal here in the states.

Even higher praise comes from an old retired guy I know who wouldn't have an oriental vehicle if it was given to him (Something about a kamikaze plane taking off the midship tower he happened to be in a few years ago...) He shuttles cars for dealers across northern Indiana, into Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois. Not only does he enjoy the ride and workmanship he sees in the Hyundais, he even commented that he would have to seriously consider the "big" Hyundai when it's time to trade in the Crown Vic.
Never thought I'd hear that...That's pretty high praise

"Earthworm-

Just because something's obsolete doesn't meant that what replaced it is an improvement...

I drive a pickup simply becaue it has a real frame. I have a much better chance of surviving an accident than those driving the puddle-jumpers. "

oaa9898>>Not so, you may have a better chance of surviving with your full frame truck because its heavier, which is beneficial if you are hitting an object lighter than your truck. However, if you hit a stationary object where your full-framed truck has to absorb its own energy, the story will not likely be as good. Only the newest full-framed trucks achieve good frontal crash test ratings, far behind the uni-body alternative. Also, your truck is more likely to be involved in a rollover, the most deadly kind of crash. So no, the safest vehicles on the road aren't trucks or SUVs. Cars today are safer then they've ever been, period.

Even higher praise comes from an old retired guy I know who wouldn't have an oriental vehicle if it was given to him (Something about a kamikaze plane taking off the midship tower he happened to be in a few years ago...) He shuttles cars for dealers across northern Indiana, into Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois. Not only does he enjoy the ride and workmanship he sees in the Hyundais, he even commented that he would have to seriously consider the "big" Hyundai when it's time to trade in the Crown Vic.
Never thought I'd hear that...That's pretty high praise

oaa9898>>I know your point was to emphasize that the new Hyundais are of good quality; but, perhaps you should give your friend a geography lesson and point to South Korea on a map, which is not in the same location as Japan. Koreans are not Japanese and Japanese are not Koreans. Oh by the way, the term "oriental" can be taken as racist now a days.

The Hyudais do draw interest from Ford owners.Because they look like a Ford.That full size car they build looks like a Crown Victoria.Also Kia that mini van looks like a Ford.Then you look at the price and its cheaper.The elderly are starting to buy them.Because they make up to groups.One group hates to spend money.So they like the price.The other group trades every few years .So as long as you keep buying them and do not plan to go back to a Ford you do not get beat to bad on trade in value.

Plaidthumb, the frame vs frameless was settled 50 years ago.
Neither won !
Almost all decent, modern cars (NOT trucks) use sub-frames, even Volkswagen.
But for really long vehicles, maybe a frame works out better - back in the 60s, Lincoln tried the unibody and as they tried to maintain stiffness, the weight gain proved to be too much..

But my old VW truck used no frame and did not really need one, IMO...

earthworm--old VW truck? Based on the van chassis? I don't have much knowledge about those, I'll admit. I thought they were body-on-chassis like the beetles.

oaa9898--it's only more likely to roll over if I'm more likely to not know how to drive. If I can't drive and roll over and do myself in, the gene pool has just improved. The more we protect ourselves from ourselves, the more incompetent we become--look at Washington DC...

"Cars today are safer than they've ever been"? I don't buy it. They may be more forgiving of our inability to drive competently, but that's it. If I hit somthing with my '51 Chevy (to which I've added properly anchored seat belts--30 years ago), I'm more apt to come out ahead than if I hit the same thing with a mini-mobile.

And yes, I know, and he knows, that Korea isn't next door to Japan. However, for a great number of that generation, the nationalities/countries are lumped togehther as Oriental. And if "Oriental" is offensive, is "European"? The PC crowd strikes again...

I can understand he wont buy and japanese car but why not korean? No one likes China but they also were allies with the US during WWII.

The PC crowd has never been known for having their PC rules be anything resembling consistent or logical, so it's anyone's guess as to what's considered offensive and what isn't.

"oaa9898--it's only more likely to roll over if I'm more likely to not know how to drive. If I can't drive and roll over and do myself in, the gene pool has just improved. The more we protect ourselves from ourselves, the more incompetent we become--look at Washington DC..."

What exactly is "not knowing how to drive"? We get into accidents because we canÂt predict the future; not because weÂre bad drivers. Some situations are out of our control and that doesnÂt make us incompetent behind the wheel  situations that could result in a roll over.

"Cars today are safer than they've ever been"? I don't buy it. They may be more forgiving of our inability to drive competently, but that's it. If I hit somthing with my '51 Chevy (to which I've added properly anchored seat belts--30 years ago), I'm more apt to come out ahead than if I hit the same thing with a mini-mobile."

Yes, cars are perhaps more forgiving in our "inability" to drive, which I take to mean human error. A vehicles safety isnÂt necessarily a measure of its ability to protect you in an accident, but avoid it altogether with. However, whichever measure youÂre speaking of, cars are still safer. You completely repeated what I said in my earlier post in your hypothetical about a 50s Chevy. As I said, "Â. you may have a better chance of surviving with your full frame truck because itÂs heavier, which is beneficial if you are hitting an object lighter than your truck." However, if you hit an object that is stationary, youÂre much better off in the non-framed car. My point still stands.

"And yes, I know, and he knows, that Korea isn't next door to Japan. However, for a great number of that generation, the nationalities/countries are lumped togehther as Oriental. And if "Oriental" is offensive, is "European"? The PC crowd strikes again..."

Again, the term is "Asian" not "Oriental". Yes, it is offensive and overly simplistic to lump people who look the same into the same group. That's like saying that since the Japanese attacked us that all Asians attacked the US during Pearl Harbor. Or that since one African-American robbed a bank; therefore all African-Americans are bank robbers. How can you not see that your line of reasoning is entirely incorrect? It borders on idiotic. Now, do you get the point that it might be something more than being PC??

"The PC crowd has never been known for having their PC rules be anything resembling consistent or logical, so it's anyone's guess as to what's considered offensive and what isn't."

My vent isn't that he isn't being politically correct, but that his logic is fallacious.

"We get into accidents because we canÂt predict the future; not because weÂre bad drivers."

The main point of the National Safety Council's driver improvement class is that there are no unpreventable accidents.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but a large number of accidents are due to what is, without mincing words, best described as bad driving.

"I don't know if I'd go that far, but a large number of accidents are due to what is, without mincing words, best described as bad driving."

Yeah, but his point was that he won't get into an accident because he isn't a bad driver. There is no disagreement amongst us that bad driving is the cause of some, if not most accidents. But that doesn't mean that you were the "bad driver" in question. The fact is, and feel free to disagree if you must, there are some situations that are out of our individual control. If a car runs a stoplight and you're hit it, the accident wasn't caused by your bad driving (you couldn't have predicted the car running the stoplight), but by the other persons bad driving; however, you're still in an accident and at risk of injury. You could have been defensive, covering your break, slowing down at the intersection, but you still wouldn't be able to avoid the accident.

My general view of the situation is this:

A good driver can compensate for the actions of a poor driver, and avoid what would have been an accident.

A poor driver cannot compensate for the actions of another poor driver. There will be an accident.

Because someone is not legally at fault for an accident they were involved in does NOT mean that the accident isn't a result of their poor driving.

There are some situations beyond your control, yes, but my experience in 10 years and probably 170,000 miles of driving in what has to be an area with some of the nation's worst drivers (Washington, DC) is that they are VERY far and few inbetween.

So far two rear-endings (not my fault, ie, the vehicle behind me failed to stop) and an encounter with Bambi round out my experiences with "unpreventable" accidents.

I could have avoided the first rear-ending. I believe that was a preventable accident. I could have changed lanes or slowed down to make the tailgater change lanes, so he wasn't behind me when the light changed to yellow that I stopped for. Or I could have continued through the yellow light instead of stopping for it.

But, I had just started driving and therefore I did not have the experience I do now.

As far as predicting the future, there is a process which is taught in driver's manuals:

Identify.
Predict.
Decide.
Execute.

It's possible to predict a certain situation based on events which precede it. This is highly dependent upon the analytical abilities of the driver, however.

"It's possible to predict a certain situation based on events which precede it. This is highly dependent upon the analytical abilities of the driver, however."

Sorry, you can't predict when a driver is going to run a red light at a blind intersection, unless of course you can predict the future. You can slow down, guard your brake, keep alert, but that doesn't mean it will prevent an accident. The only way to prevent that kind of accident is to not go through the intersection. Does the Bureau of Motor Vehicles have classes in ESP? I live in deer country as well. There are spots that you know are frequented by suicidal deer, and you are more cautious, but a deer can jump out at any point, giving you NO response time. Again, neither of those situations that end in an accident are a result of bad driving. Sorry, again, it IS NOT possible to predict every situation based on prior events, that would entail knowing the future. Therefore, your thesis would have to be that good drivers predict the future. There is such a thing as defensive driving, but not soothsaying.

No, it is not possible to predict every situation, but the vast, vast majority of them CAN be predicted.

As far as the blind intersection (which are so rare that I can't remember the last time I drove through one), if you cannot find a safer alternate route, how about checking for stopped cars on either side? If there are no stopped cars, guess what--that increases the likelyhood that someone will run the light. If there ARE stopped cars, the red-light runner, assuming he/she doesn't see the stopped cars, will need to get through them before they get to you.

How about considering how long it has been green for your leg and red for the opposing traffic? If you have no idea, is the left-turn phase on? Most lights here are configured to give the left-turn phase first. In other areas it may be different.

Both by reports from transportation agencies and my own observations, the vast majority of red-light running incidents happen in the first 2 seconds that the light has been red (which, incidentally, is why most lights are programmed with 2-second all-red clearance interval).

For driving, you don't need ESP to avoid the majority of accidents. You just need intelligence, coupled with good powers of observation.

By the way, you never want to hit your brakes in the event that you see someone running a red light and heading towards you. That just pretty much guarantees that they'll hit you.