Snail00 Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 I'm unsure how ergonomic the car really is until i test drive one, but at face value, i'm going to have to disagree with anime52 and say that the car looks pretty sweet. It's not as a good as the Sonata (especially now that the Sonata has a 276hp turbo motor), but for its marketed price range and competition, for the first time it's actually looking like a competitor. well not that I could not afford a fancy schmacy car like some of the hot shots here (on lease of course)but I like something that can get me from A to b and it looks nice. I am never insecure with my self or have physical short comings that I need to compensate by having a car as an accessory. I feel a lot of cars are overpriced from the parts that they use today ie more plastic polymers versus metal. Overall I am very impressed with Hyundai. I have never bought a new car as I like out right dropping between 8 to 10k on a 4-6 year old car and dont have to worry about payments. Cars in the canada are about 20-40% more than the ones sold in America, hence the canadian government going after people for buying cars in the US. For example when I went to the dealer to look at the then brand new 2002 Elantra GT the dealer wanted 23k for the show model. I almost farted in front of the salesman when i saw he was serious. When I went online I saw the same exact car in the US for 12k. Now I understand market share but come on the car is made just across the border! I remember the dealer telling me if I wanted silver they wanted to charge me an extra 1000 bucks. But people are buying cars by the boatloads which tells me soon enough the Economy will burst much like the american one did.. sigh all those silly smug canadian shepple. Anyhoo, for the pricepoint I think Hyundai makes some serious quality cars. I plan to keep my 2003 GT for another 3 to 4 years. Its in great shape, peppy with the small mods I made, and I save a lot in gas if i shift like good ol grandma. By 2014 I will either pick up this 2011 elantra or a 2009 Vera cruz. If humanity hasnt blown itself to bits by then.
anime52k8 Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 I'm unsure how ergonomic the car really is until i test drive one, but at face value, i'm going to have to disagree with anime52 and say that the car looks pretty sweet. It's not as a good as the Sonata (especially now that the Sonata has a 276hp turbo motor), but for its marketed price range and competition, for the first time it's actually looking like a competitor. I could really care less about how well it performs or how economical/practicle/whatever it is, the thing looks like it just got kicked in the face.
areaseven Posted February 15, 2011 Author Posted February 15, 2011 I could really care less about how well it performs or how economical/practicle/whatever it is, the thing looks like it just got kicked in the face. Can't be any worse than the Pontiac Aztek or the Nissan Juke, can it?
emajnthis Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 I could really care less about how well it performs or how economical/practicle/whatever it is, the thing looks like it just got kicked in the face. To each their own, i think it looks better than most of its current competition: Civic, Focus, & Corolla. Most of the competition at that price point is blander than cardboard, while i don't think it's some kind of game changer, at least it's not boring.
reddsun1 Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Could this be the beginning of the "ascendency" of Hyundai in the American marketplace, much like that of Toyota, Nissan et. al. in the 70's-80's? They're definitely looking to change their brand image, take it more upscale. Also: prepare for the emergence of the "sport wagon" (or attempt at it). Automakers will likely be looking to shift away from SUVs towards vehicles they can pitch as "having a smaller carbon footprint" or some other enviro-mumbo-jumbo, so I'm guessing they're going to try to make station wagons "cool" again or something. Motor Trend takes the new McLaren MP4-12C for a spin. Hey, that Ascari--er, McLaren looks like a real screamer...
emajnthis Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Manufacturer's are already trying the sport wagon thing, personally, i don't care for it. The only real sports wagons on the market today are the wrx wagon and the Audi Avant models, there are a few other euro models, but those two are easily the most popular and deserving of the "sport" nomenclature (they really give you that great balance between performance/practicality). I hate the idea that these new "sport" wagons need to look like some step child of an suv and a car, just follow the original wagon formula and give me a bad ass motor.
reddsun1 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Manufacturer's are already trying the sport wagon thing, personally, i don't care for it. The only real sports wagons on the market today are the wrx wagon and the Audi Avant models, there are a few other euro models, but those two are easily the most popular and deserving of the "sport" nomenclature (they really give you that great balance between performance/practicality). I hate the idea that these new "sport" wagons need to look like some step child of an suv and a car, just follow the original wagon formula and give me a bad ass motor. Indeed. I think stationwagons can be cool (depending on your taste). But I wouldn't presume to call them "sporty" by any stretch of the imagination--at least in the handling/performance department; you just have to recognize some inherent limitations of the platform, compared to more conventionally designed sedans/coupes/sports cars (at least with older cars). But yeah, given the right look, I'd rock a 'wagon.
Vifam7 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Manufacturer's are already trying the sport wagon thing, personally, i don't care for it. The only real sports wagons on the market today are the wrx wagon and the Audi Avant models, there are a few other euro models, but those two are easily the most popular and deserving of the "sport" nomenclature (they really give you that great balance between performance/practicality). I hate the idea that these new "sport" wagons need to look like some step child of an suv and a car, just follow the original wagon formula and give me a bad ass motor. So I'm guessing you don't like the BMW X5M and X6M?
emajnthis Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 So I'm guessing you don't like the BMW X5M and X6M? The X5 is a full size SUV, while the X6 is more like a sports SUV (due to its size) as opposed to a sports wagon, the genre of car that they fit into has been established for awhile. The genre i was referring to belongs to the Acura ZDX, for some reason they thought a car that's not as practical as a station wagon and not as performance oriented as a sports car would work well together. The traditional sports wagon addresses both issues and does it without looking genre confused (am I an SUV? am I a Hatchback? Sports car??? how about none of the above).
areaseven Posted February 17, 2011 Author Posted February 17, 2011 The X5 is a full size SUV, while the X6 is more like a sports SUV (due to its size) as opposed to a sports wagon, the genre of car that they fit into has been established for awhile. The genre i was referring to belongs to the Acura ZDX, for some reason they thought a car that's not as practical as a station wagon and not as performance oriented as a sports car would work well together. The traditional sports wagon addresses both issues and does it without looking genre confused (am I an SUV? am I a Hatchback? Sports car??? how about none of the above). Regardless of which, both the BMW X6 and Acura ZDX are hideous and do not serve their purposes at all. Just watch this Top Gear segment.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) Indeed. I think stationwagons can be cool (depending on your taste). But I wouldn't presume to call them "sporty" by any stretch of the imagination--at least in the handling/performance department; you just have to recognize some inherent limitations of the platform, compared to more conventionally designed sedans/coupes/sports cars (at least with older cars). But yeah, given the right look, I'd rock a 'wagon. I see your Buick Sport Wagon and raise you an Audi RS2. And on the subject of X6s and Co. I FR3$G1N6 HATE EM ALL!!! Takes up so much space on the dang road, normally driven by slow-pokes! @#$#@%!!! Roadster, Hatch, Sedan, Estate (ok Shooting Brake for you landed gentries going for your fox hunt) and 4x4s like the Cherokee/Landcruiser/Discovery. Thats it, we don't need crossovers, sport activity vehicles, metroactive lifestyle wagon, fusion sport intelligent active (you wait, the Japanese will come up with something like this sooner or later). And lastly, 4000lb+++ hybrids mated to v8 turbos or whatnot trying to 'promote' ecogreeness. WTF?!? Its like I made a nuclear weapon with 15% less radiation fallout and suddenly I am GREEN and ECO Friendly. Edited February 17, 2011 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
emajnthis Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I see your Buick Sport Wagon and raise you an Audi RS2. And on the subject of X6s and Co. I FR3$G1N6 HATE EM ALL!!! Takes up so much space on the dang road, normally driven by slow-pokes! @#$#@%!!! Roadster, Hatch, Sedan, Estate (ok Shooting Brake for you landed gentries going for your fox hunt) and 4x4s like the Cherokee/Landcruiser/Discovery. Thats it, we don't need crossovers, sport activity vehicles, metroactive lifestyle wagon, fusion sport intelligent active (you wait, the Japanese will come up with something like this sooner or later). And lastly, 4000lb+++ hybrids mated to v8 turbos or whatnot trying to 'promote' ecogreeness. WTF?!? Its like I made a nuclear weapon with 15% less radiation fallout and suddenly I am GREEN and ECO Friendly. I hear you on that, as I recall only up until recently have Audi RS' series cars come in sedan form, they were always released as Avants first and Sedans later (if at all). Of course we only got the RS4 recently only to have it discontinued, same with the RS6 which saw a one year run in 2003. The whole "Eco" thing is just marketing, they'll slap Green on anything as long as the dollar projections are high. The sad thing is people will buy that crap up because they'll "feel" like they're doing their part, there's a lot of money to be made to help people feel self-righteous. I could care less about saving the environment to be completely honest, but i do like the idea of buying a motor that is turbocharged, direct injected, and puts out around 400hp with gobs of torque, even if it is being pushed as a "green" solution.
ron5864 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Just read the stats on the 2012 Honda Civic Si. It gains 3HP with the 2.4L engine and 30+ft-lb of torque. So it will have 200HP and 170ft-lb of torque. It looks like Honda is not into the horsepower war with Ford, Subaru, Mazda, and VW. But the Si become more fuel efficient, up to 31MPG on the highways. One the bright side, the 1.6L 200HP turbocharged CR-Z seems like the most interesting product from Honda in the near future.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I could care less about saving the environment to be completely honest, but i do like the idea of buying a motor that is turbocharged, direct injected, and puts out around 400hp with gobs of torque, even if it is being pushed as a "green" solution. Stuff that into a 3600lb sedan or 2800lb coupe and I'd gives the manufacturer a thumbs up. Stuff it into a 4500lb Smart Activity Life Intelligence Sport Crossover with 9 speed automatic + 256 nanny features and it'll be purchased by idiots who will hold up traffic, block your view and cause insurance premiums to go up because when they crash, 4500lbs x 400hp = lots of momentum.
reddsun1 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Stuff that into a 3600lb sedan or 2800lb coupe and I'd gives the manufacturer a thumbs up. Stuff it into a 4500lb Smart Activity Life Intelligence Sport Crossover with 9 speed automatic + 256 nanny features and it'll be purchased by idiots who will hold up traffic, block your view and cause insurance premiums to go up because when they crash, 4500lbs x 400hp = lots of momentum. Hear Hear! Well said. But with safety regs, crumple zones, sound deadening, etc. that's become an integral part of modern car design, is a 3600lb sedan or 2800lb coupe even possible any more? or is that now relegated to the good-old-days, relics of a time before stringent governmental safety standards? I'd have expected the weights for each of those classes to be 500-750+ lbs heavier on average? Edited February 18, 2011 by reddsun1
jenius Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 I see some mean wagon talk. Has anyone checked out Cadillac's CTS-V Sport Wagon? Being a golfer it has a certain appeal to it (as in I could pick up some friends with their clubs and we could all golf and only need one designated driver). I haven't looked at the wagon yet though and I'm not quite sure I can convince myself to go the wagon route... and with any luck my current car will last long enough until the next big thing comes around.
anime52k8 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Hear Hear! Well said. But with safety regs, crumple zones, sound deadening, etc. that's become an integral part of modern car design, is a 3600lb sedan or 2800lb coupe even possible any more? or is that now relegated to the good-old-days, relics of a time before stringent governmental safety standards? I'd have expected the weights for each of those classes to be 500-750+ lbs heavier on average? ah yes, the good old days; when cars where loud, uncomfortable deathtraps.
areaseven Posted February 19, 2011 Author Posted February 19, 2011 If only go-karting were like this in real life.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Hear Hear! Well said. But with safety regs, crumple zones, sound deadening, etc. that's become an integral part of modern car design, is a 3600lb sedan or 2800lb coupe even possible any more? or is that now relegated to the good-old-days, relics of a time before stringent governmental safety standards? I'd have expected the weights for each of those classes to be 500-750+ lbs heavier on average? I guess there is a moderate path. There are still a lot of features which seem to be there because the manufacturers need to have some marketing gimmick and outdo each other and be the first. Cut out that fluff and you save a lot of fuel and other consumables from weight saving. As for safety, well, put it this way. When does it stop? A newish 3600lb Camry is a lot safer than a 1800lb Corolla from 1979 but driving in an 8000lb armored A8 is safer than the Camry and driving in an 120,000 lb Abrams is safer yet! I don't have the answers but really, about 100-200lbs should be easily cut from most new cars without affecting safety if the manufacturers don't push all these nanny features.
Hiriyu Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I guess there is a moderate path. There are still a lot of features which seem to be there because the manufacturers need to have some marketing gimmick and outdo each other and be the first. Cut out that fluff and you save a lot of fuel and other consumables from weight saving. As for safety, well, put it this way. When does it stop? A newish 3600lb Camry is a lot safer than a 1800lb Corolla from 1979 but driving in an 8000lb armored A8 is safer than the Camry and driving in an 120,000 lb Abrams is safer yet! I don't have the answers but really, about 100-200lbs should be easily cut from most new cars without affecting safety if the manufacturers don't push all these nanny features. Further to Ter Ter's comments in terms of safety, consider the physics of two sub-ton vehicles colliding at speed 'n' as compared to two 2+ ton vehicles colliding at speed 'n'. Which is safer? The only problem with lightweight and (by definition) more efficient smaller vehicles is that they have to share the road with vehicles which are... not.
areaseven Posted February 21, 2011 Author Posted February 21, 2011 What an intense race yesterday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHNy-30TESI
Snail00 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Regardless of which, both the BMW X6 and Acura ZDX are hideous and do not serve their purposes at all. Just watch this Top Gear segment. Those things are just to ostentatious blah. They look nice. But if I did have the money I would never want to be seen in one because of all the rich HK punks driving around in them. Barf. If I want an SUV like vehicle. I would like to get the GM/Ford Duel Cab Short box. Can be as luxurious and tough as any of the HIGH END suvs that always seem to have the same ground clearance of some sport utility cars and you don't look like a punk. If my mother in law gets her permanent status I will get the Hyundai Vera Cruz. I did see the Elantra and didn't expect it to be so short. Its a Sonata with its back end trimmed. Its nice but the kids make all sort of marks on the back seat. I think if my mother doesn't get her permanent residence I might go with the 07 or 08 Mazda 3 Hatchback. I dont know the exact year but its before they went with the McGrimace happy meal grill plate.
Snail00 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) Just read the stats on the 2012 Honda Civic Si. It gains 3HP with the 2.4L engine and 30+ft-lb of torque. So it will have 200HP and 170ft-lb of torque. It looks like Honda is not into the horsepower war with Ford, Subaru, Mazda, and VW. But the Si become more fuel efficient, up to 31MPG on the highways. One the bright side, the 1.6L 200HP turbocharged CR-Z seems like the most interesting product from Honda in the near future. The faster you drive the faster you get a ticket. The fastest car on the road always gets the trap on the highways here. As of late M3s, Audi's, Porches have all be clocked over 150K posted speed limit. You get your car taken away and a 3000 fine. if your over 50 Km posted limit. I dont understand all those guys that need alllllll that horsepower. Edited February 21, 2011 by Snail00
myk Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I dont understand all those guys that need alllllll that horsepower. Emotional compensation, plain and simple...
jenius Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 While there is some compensation going on, there's a heck of an adrenaline rush with some high horsepower beasts when you open them up. If you've got the extra cash why not give yourself the ability to have that fun occasionally?
Agent ONE Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 ... I dont understand all those guys that need alllllll that horsepower. I drove my M3 and my Lotus on the race track... Does that make some sense?
reddsun1 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 If only go-karting were like this in real life. That was pretty dog-gone good. I drove my M3 and my Lotus on the race track... Does that make some sense? Indeed. While I may like to "time trial" myself through some of my favorite sections of twisty back roads, I'd never consider trying to post triple-digit speeds on public roads. That's nothing short of irresponsible and plain f'ing stupid. When I finally get my car to the level of power I want it at, I've every intention of wringing it out at track-day events--where that sort of thing belongs...
Nightdare Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I dont understand all those guys that need alllllll that horsepower. I've got a rice rocket It has nothing to do with the size of my wang, because going 0-160 full blast, that little bugger is crawling into my bladder from fright, my heart is racing, windresistance increases and involuntarily makes me start to eat my helmet, wind turbulence is like I'm tornadohunting and below me something is imitating a small nuclear explosion ....meanwhile I'm hanging on for dear life other people go fishing or collect stamps
Snail00 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 I drove my M3 and my Lotus on the race track... Does that make some sense? I did that once with one of my rich buddies. It was fun letting it go to the limit. But it was funny when he had a baby seat in the back too
mikeszekely Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Why are all existing rally cars so ugly? Dunno... especially because I've liked most Evos from the Evo III on.
Vifam7 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 While there is some compensation going on, there's a heck of an adrenaline rush with some high horsepower beasts when you open them up. If you've got the extra cash why not give yourself the ability to have that fun occasionally? IMO much of that want for horsepower goes out the window when you have to commute to work (ie. drive in rush hour traffic for over a hour - Monday through Friday). You start to care more about comfort, ameneties, reliability, and fuel economy.
jenius Posted February 22, 2011 Posted February 22, 2011 IMO much of that want for horsepower goes out the window when you have to commute to work (ie. drive in rush hour traffic for over a hour - Monday through Friday). You start to care more about comfort, ameneties, reliability, and fuel economy. Isn't that why all the luxury brands have their performance versions? You can have your cake and eat it too!
Recommended Posts