EDMUNDS: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Full Test and Video
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
EDMUNDS: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track Full Test and Video
Sounds like it should do well.
The part about the torque management is interesting. Due to that, the 306hp acts more like 250hp. It'll be interesting to see how much faster the auto version is, since it'll have the ZF 6 speed, IIRC.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=142686
The part about the torque management is interesting. Due to that, the 306hp acts more like 250hp. It'll be interesting to see how much faster the auto version is, since it'll have the ZF 6 speed, IIRC.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=142686
Last edited by teal98; Feb 26, 2009 at 01:14 AM.
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
We'll see what they say when they get their hands on a Camaro...
It is interesting what they say about torque reduction... GM has been notorious for that in their vehicles recently....
It is interesting what they say about torque reduction... GM has been notorious for that in their vehicles recently....
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 393
From: Houston Tx
It looks like it might be a handful for a 6 cylinder Camaro but nothing for Mustang GT or 370Z owners to worry about.
MT First Test: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track
Their 2010 GT test incase you missed it.
Genesis/ Mustang GT
0-60: 5.5 sec/ 4.9 sec
1/4: 14.0 at 101mph/ 13.5 at 104.2mph
lateral grip: .91G/ .95G
figure-eight: 26.3 sec, at .68G/ 25.5 sec at .7
60-0: 111ft/ 108ft
[/magazine racing]
MT First Test: 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8 Track
I realize that on paper this is a 300-plus-horsepower car, but it doesn't feel like it. It was pretty quick off the line, but I guess I expected a little more thrust."
-editor Allyson Harwood, Motor Trend
-editor Allyson Harwood, Motor Trend
Genesis/ Mustang GT
0-60: 5.5 sec/ 4.9 sec
1/4: 14.0 at 101mph/ 13.5 at 104.2mph
lateral grip: .91G/ .95G
figure-eight: 26.3 sec, at .68G/ 25.5 sec at .7
60-0: 111ft/ 108ft
[/magazine racing]
Last edited by yellow_99_gt; Feb 26, 2009 at 08:21 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
New Camaro V6 may be a tick or two slower. Caddy CTS automatic with the same engine and transmission, but hundred extra pounds (4060 lbs!!! 
), did a 6.3 0-60 / 14.8 @ 95.6 mph at MT. I bet the Camaro is in the 5.7-6.0 range depending on auto vs. manual. Within spitting distance of the Genesis's 5.5 second run, and a bit behind the Genesis's LT1-like 14.0 @ 101 mph / 14.2 @ 99.5 mph.
But that Genesis was over $30k (albeit pretty loaded, I'm sure). New Camaro V6 will be way, way below that (starting price) with similar performance. Loaded V6 Camaro may be a decent comparison in terms of price / equipment / performance. Or, for about the same money (not loaded), the SS version will destroy it.
This is good news. Not that the Genesis isn't a good car; but good news for Camaro (and Mustang) enthusiasts that they haven't been equaled in performance.
Too bad the Camaro can't weigh closer to the Genesis's 3500 lbs.
), did a 6.3 0-60 / 14.8 @ 95.6 mph at MT. I bet the Camaro is in the 5.7-6.0 range depending on auto vs. manual. Within spitting distance of the Genesis's 5.5 second run, and a bit behind the Genesis's LT1-like 14.0 @ 101 mph / 14.2 @ 99.5 mph. But that Genesis was over $30k (albeit pretty loaded, I'm sure). New Camaro V6 will be way, way below that (starting price) with similar performance. Loaded V6 Camaro may be a decent comparison in terms of price / equipment / performance. Or, for about the same money (not loaded), the SS version will destroy it.
This is good news. Not that the Genesis isn't a good car; but good news for Camaro (and Mustang) enthusiasts that they haven't been equaled in performance.
Too bad the Camaro can't weigh closer to the Genesis's 3500 lbs.
Last edited by 96_Camaro_B4C; Feb 26, 2009 at 09:08 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Car and Driver short take test of the turbo 4.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
0-60 in 7.0 (not sure why MT was predicting 6.0 seconds when they only got 5.5 from the V6 with 100 more hp).
NOTE: The photos of the seats in this link reminded me of something. In the MT article, they mention the headrests protruding into driver comfort (sticking out too far). This was a concern of mine on the Camaro development car I sat in for a moment. The head restraint was "proud" with respect to the seatback, with no way to move it backward. Moving it higher up would have been ok, too, except that even at its highest level of adjustment, it was still hitting me in the bottom of my neck / top of my back. Maybe if I'd had more time I could have adjusted seat angle to help a bit. Or, MAYBE they've added another notch or two of travel to the head restraint height adjustment.
But I remember a big feeling of despair when I felt that, because it could be a dealbeaker if the seat simply doesn't fit me. I'm 6'2" with a long torso. Most normal people probably wouldn't have the upper part of their spine quite that high, so it might not be an issue for most. But I'm sick of not fitting in cars, damn it. Lutz is 6'3" or 6'4", and Wagoner is 6'5" or so. You'd think this wouldn't happen...
The seats in my '96, by contrast, have no adjustable head restraint. Probably rather inadequate for a person of my height in the event of a rear end collision (i.e. my head would be free to flop back partially over the seat). My Colorado also has fixed highback buckets, but they are much higher and my head would actually be stopped by the seat. But in both of those cases, the top of the seat does not protrude forward, so they don't interfere with my back, regardless of height.
These Genesis seats look like they may have the same affect on me that the development Camaro seats had.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
0-60 in 7.0 (not sure why MT was predicting 6.0 seconds when they only got 5.5 from the V6 with 100 more hp).
NOTE: The photos of the seats in this link reminded me of something. In the MT article, they mention the headrests protruding into driver comfort (sticking out too far). This was a concern of mine on the Camaro development car I sat in for a moment. The head restraint was "proud" with respect to the seatback, with no way to move it backward. Moving it higher up would have been ok, too, except that even at its highest level of adjustment, it was still hitting me in the bottom of my neck / top of my back. Maybe if I'd had more time I could have adjusted seat angle to help a bit. Or, MAYBE they've added another notch or two of travel to the head restraint height adjustment.
But I remember a big feeling of despair when I felt that, because it could be a dealbeaker if the seat simply doesn't fit me. I'm 6'2" with a long torso. Most normal people probably wouldn't have the upper part of their spine quite that high, so it might not be an issue for most. But I'm sick of not fitting in cars, damn it. Lutz is 6'3" or 6'4", and Wagoner is 6'5" or so. You'd think this wouldn't happen...
The seats in my '96, by contrast, have no adjustable head restraint. Probably rather inadequate for a person of my height in the event of a rear end collision (i.e. my head would be free to flop back partially over the seat). My Colorado also has fixed highback buckets, but they are much higher and my head would actually be stopped by the seat. But in both of those cases, the top of the seat does not protrude forward, so they don't interfere with my back, regardless of height.
These Genesis seats look like they may have the same affect on me that the development Camaro seats had.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
So the 2.0L is from the GEMA and is practically the same as in the Lancer.... So if I was buying one of these cars I would have a hard time not getting the 2.0L + a boost controller... Was nice to see the 3.8L does not take premium gas.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Nor will the Camaro. 
I am confused why the articles aren't really mentioning the Camaro as a competitor.
The Car and Driver test of the V6 shows the 370Z, the 2010 Mustang GT, and the Challenger R/T, but not the Camaro...
I am confused why the articles aren't really mentioning the Camaro as a competitor.
The Car and Driver test of the V6 shows the 370Z, the 2010 Mustang GT, and the Challenger R/T, but not the Camaro...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Car and Driver short take test of the turbo 4.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
0-60 in 7.0 (not sure why MT was predicting 6.0 seconds when they only got 5.5 from the V6 with 100 more hp).
NOTE: The photos of the seats in this link reminded me of something. In the MT article, they mention the headrests protruding into driver comfort (sticking out too far). This was a concern of mine on the Camaro development car I sat in for a moment. The head restraint was "proud" with respect to the seatback, with no way to move it backward. Moving it higher up would have been ok, too, except that even at its highest level of adjustment, it was still hitting me in the bottom of my neck / top of my back. Maybe if I'd had more time I could have adjusted seat angle to help a bit. Or, MAYBE they've added another notch or two of travel to the head restraint height adjustment.
But I remember a big feeling of despair when I felt that, because it could be a dealbeaker if the seat simply doesn't fit me. I'm 6'2" with a long torso. Most normal people probably wouldn't have the upper part of their spine quite that high, so it might not be an issue for most. But I'm sick of not fitting in cars, damn it. Lutz is 6'3" or 6'4", and Wagoner is 6'5" or so. You'd think this wouldn't happen...
The seats in my '96, by contrast, have no adjustable head restraint. Probably rather inadequate for a person of my height in the event of a rear end collision (i.e. my head would be free to flop back partially over the seat). My Colorado also has fixed highback buckets, but they are much higher and my head would actually be stopped by the seat. But in both of those cases, the top of the seat does not protrude forward, so they don't interfere with my back, regardless of height.
These Genesis seats look like they may have the same affect on me that the development Camaro seats had.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
0-60 in 7.0 (not sure why MT was predicting 6.0 seconds when they only got 5.5 from the V6 with 100 more hp).
NOTE: The photos of the seats in this link reminded me of something. In the MT article, they mention the headrests protruding into driver comfort (sticking out too far). This was a concern of mine on the Camaro development car I sat in for a moment. The head restraint was "proud" with respect to the seatback, with no way to move it backward. Moving it higher up would have been ok, too, except that even at its highest level of adjustment, it was still hitting me in the bottom of my neck / top of my back. Maybe if I'd had more time I could have adjusted seat angle to help a bit. Or, MAYBE they've added another notch or two of travel to the head restraint height adjustment.
But I remember a big feeling of despair when I felt that, because it could be a dealbeaker if the seat simply doesn't fit me. I'm 6'2" with a long torso. Most normal people probably wouldn't have the upper part of their spine quite that high, so it might not be an issue for most. But I'm sick of not fitting in cars, damn it. Lutz is 6'3" or 6'4", and Wagoner is 6'5" or so. You'd think this wouldn't happen...
The seats in my '96, by contrast, have no adjustable head restraint. Probably rather inadequate for a person of my height in the event of a rear end collision (i.e. my head would be free to flop back partially over the seat). My Colorado also has fixed highback buckets, but they are much higher and my head would actually be stopped by the seat. But in both of those cases, the top of the seat does not protrude forward, so they don't interfere with my back, regardless of height.
These Genesis seats look like they may have the same affect on me that the development Camaro seats had.
The Camaro definitely felt better to me.
I cannot fit in an RX8 or MX5 though. And as nice as they look, the Recaro seats in the CTS-V and even those in the Cobalt SS are just too narrow for me. To me, seat width or the area between the boltsters means more than the height of the headrest. You would laugh at the "headrests" in my 96 Impala SS...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Sounds like you and I are similarly built. I wouldn't be surprised if I am a heavier than you though. I did not feel uncomfortable when I tried out the driver's seat in the Genesis Coupe. I don't remember where the headrest hit though.
The Camaro definitely felt better to me.
I cannot fit in an RX8 or MX5 though. And as nice as they look, the Recaro seats in the CTS-V and even those in the Cobalt SS are just too narrow for me. To me, seat width or the area between the boltsters means more than the height of the headrest. You would laugh at the "headrests" in my 96 Impala SS...
The Camaro definitely felt better to me.
I cannot fit in an RX8 or MX5 though. And as nice as they look, the Recaro seats in the CTS-V and even those in the Cobalt SS are just too narrow for me. To me, seat width or the area between the boltsters means more than the height of the headrest. You would laugh at the "headrests" in my 96 Impala SS...
@ the Impy seats. I had a Caprice 9C1. Yeah, the head restraints were pretty weak.