By on February 21, 2012

“If you want a Veloster Turbo,” quipped Hyundai CEO John Krafcik, at September’s launch of Hyundai’s oddball, front-drive Veloster hatchback, “you can buy one right now. It’s called the Genesis Coupe.” The Veloster Turbo ended up materializing at the 2012 Detroit Auto Show – and so did a new Genesis Coupe. Apparently, Hyundai never planned on making a Veloster Turbo until after the car’s launch. But they did plan on a refreshed Genesis Coupe, and a brawnier Veloster means that the Genesis gets to move up in power and price.

Gone are the Coupe’s sleek, almost generic lines up front, replaced by an aggressive, open-mouth design that looks like, you guessed it, the Veloster. Unfortunately, the Genesis Coupe also gets clear “Altezza” tail lights. Initial photographs elicited a groan from myself and others, who liked the “grown up” styling of the Genesis Coupe, but in the flesh, the new look works quite well, adding some character to a car that many criticized as looking derivative.

Substantial powertrain upgrades should delight anyone with a pulse. The formerly wimpy turbocharged 4-cylinder engine gets a boost from 210 horsepower and 223 lb-ft to 274 horsepower and 275 lb-ft of torque while the 3.8L V6 is up to 348 horsepower and 295 lb-ft of torque from 306 horsepower and 266 lb-ft. The two powerplants can run on regular or premium gas, but 87 octane will take the power down to 260 horsepower and 260 lb-ft for the 2.0T . For the V6, 87 octane will result in outputs of 344 horsepower and 292 lb-ft. Hyundai also claims that fuel economy is up for the 2.0T, 20/31 mpg for the auto and 21/30 mpg for the manual. The V6 rates 18/28 mpg for the auto and 18/27 mpg for the manual).

As a charter member of the Normally Aspirated Snobs Club, I was taken aback with how lovely the revised turbo 4-banger is. The 2.0T is still not that quick, but it now has enough power to be satisfying, and the boost comes on in a very linear, lag-free fashion, with peak torque generated at 2000 rpm. On the other hand, the V6 engine, which delivers lots of quantitative performance but little in the way of qualitative excellence. There’s nothing wrong with the engine per se; it delivers lots of power at a moment’s notice, but wringing out the 2.0T engine proved to be more fun on the street, while the 3.8 was perhaps better suited to the 1.5 mile road course, if only because it allowed for fewer shifts on the tight, technical circuit.

The drive to the Spring Mountain Motorsports Ranch was conducted in a 3.8L V6 Track model with an 8-speed automatic transmission – the heaviest car in the lineup. The 3,600 lb car “didn’t feel like it had 348 horsepower” according to my co-driver, and while it wasn’t slow by any means, the Genesis Coupe felt like it could have benefited from lap-band surgery. Even the lightest Genesis Coupe, a base model 2.0T, weighs 3,362 lbs, a not insignificant figure for a small sports coupe. The porky package is an inevitable consequence of sharing a platform with a large luxury sedan, but with the 2800 lb Scion FR-S around the corner, a whole new generation of drivers are about to feel what lightweight sports cars are all about.

The 8-speed auto worked well, with crisp quick shifts when using the paddle shifters and a pleasant, seamless feel in normal situations. We also got to try out the 6-speed manual gearbox in both the 2.0T (on the street) and the 3.8 R-Spec (on the track). The stick shift feels similar to other Hyundai models, with a vague shifter and a too-soft clutch that feels as if there’s a leak in the hydraulic lines. Hyundai managed to get so much right with the driving dynamics of this car, yet their treatment of the car’s manual gearbox stands as a glaring oversight for an otherwise competent performance car.

The test route’s marble-smooth roads gave little opportunity to evaluate the Genesis Coupe’s ride quality. One gremlin that was immediately evident was wind noise. At 80 mph, it became excessive, with most of it seeping in through the A-pillar. The interior, while better than before, is still largely composed of hard plastics that aren’t the most impressive in the business (though competitors like the Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang are hardly any more impressive). An addition for 2013 is a series of three gauges in the center stack that displays fuel consumption, torque, boost (on the 2.0T) and oil temperature – the gauges may look cool initially, but the novelty wears off fast.

While there were roughly 8 cars available to drive on the road course, only one was a 2.0T Despite sampling both trim levels, I felt little difference between the “Track” and “R-Spec” models. Both models get bigger sway bars, 4-piston Brembo Brakes (13.4″ rotors up front, 13″ in the rear), adjustable camber bolts (that can be installed by the owner, and allow as much as 1.5 degrees of negative camber), and get 19” wheels. The Track Package comes with a higher grade of standard equipment and a spoiler on 3.8 models. The R-Spec, which I spent most of my time in, is more Spartan. I decided to go out with an instructor riding shotgun- even after a year of karting and a year of ice racing (with podiums in both series) my driving needs work. The stakes are higher when driving a brand new $28,750 3.8 R-Spec versus a 125 cc TAG kart, or a $500 BMW E30.

What makes the Genesis Coupe such a rewarding track car are the little details – the important kind that won’t impress anybody on web forums but will make your track experience more enjoyable. The seats are comfortable, and allow you to get a perfect driving position, with your elbows bent and your hands at 9 and 3, without sacrificing any visibility or comfort. The pedals allowed for flawless heel-toe downshifts even with my size 12 feet. The steering is heavy, well-weighted and provides ample feedback while the brakes (even the standard ones on the R-Spec) resisted fade and provided a consistent pedal feel. I kept the stability control on during the session, but could still use the throttle to adjust the direction of the car; not in a heroic, tail out fashion, but enough that it would make my times faster were anyone timing me. Despite the noticeable heft, body roll is well controlled and the car’s not insignificant curb weights become a secondary concern on the track. The 3.8L had plenty of useable power on the tight circuit, but the 2.0T did require more shifting to stay in the power band. The Genesis Coupe seems like it would make a great learning tool for anyone interested in seriously honing their driving skills, rather than just a toy for those who want to brand themselves as a car enthusiast to their Facebook friends.

To make room in the pricing structure for the Veloster Turbo the Genesis Coupe gets a price bump of about $2,000. The base car is now  $24,250, with an 8-speed automatic costing an extra $1,250. A 2.0T R-Spec will run $26,500, while a 3.8 R-Spec will set you back $28,750. An automatic 3.8 R-Spec rises to $32,000, with a loaded track model retailing for $34,250. The price may have gone up, but the Genesis continues to slot between the Mustang/Camaro V6 on the low end, and the Nissan 370Z on the high end. It’s difficult to imagine many buyers cross-shopping the Pony cars with their import competition, as the two flavors are as distinct as chocolate and vanilla.

Making direct comparisons between the revised Genesis Coupe and the competition would also be difficult. Press trips like these give us an early look at new vehicles, but under carefully choreographed circumstances.  This event, from the long, straight stretches of highway to the specially designed track sessions provided gratis tell us what Hyundai wants us to know about the car, and nothing more. In that context, the Genesis Coupe seems promising. Compared to a Camaro or Mustang V6, the driving dynamics seem more engaging (and feel more at home for someone like myself, who grew up with imports rather than muscle cars) and the whole package is attractive and affordable enough for the everyman. But I’d prefer to reserve final judgment until I can drive the Genesis Coupe in an environment full of potholes, traffic jams and real world fuel economy observations – the kind of driving that we all face once the afterglow of a track day has faded.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

71 Comments on “Review: 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe...”


  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    Nice review and good way of contrasting the two. Everytime I see a review of this vehicle I am still reminded of the time C&D decided to put the V6 Genesis coupe against a V6 Camaro and then when the Hyundai beat the Camaro in nearly every category gave the win to the Camaro based on “got to have” factor.

    This car is clearly head and shoulders above the Tiburon.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      That C&D story was terrible; I guess Hyundai didn’t pay enough in advertising that month.

    • 0 avatar
      parabellum2000

      That was the last C&D article I read. I was so obviously biased. I haven’t picked up a car mag since.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      In C/D’s defense, that’s a legitimate and probably fairly widely-shared opinion on these two cars – just see Zackman’s post below. No matter how clearly superior a car is in any objective measure, it’s human nature to make a gut call on styling, feel, and any number of other factors that can’t be listed on a grid. This is probably even more the case in $26,000 playthings: if you’re looking for a pony car, no Hyundai is ever gonna cut it, particularly when it’s styled like, well, a Japanese sports coupe and pitted against a testosterone-inspired brick like the Camaro.

    • 0 avatar
      niky

      Well, there was an issue with that generation of Genesis… the driving never quite gelled for me. And it does lack that certain je ne sais quoi…

      But yeah, I don’t think the Camaro has enough personality to overcome all its own flaws versus the Genesis, either…

  • avatar
    Zackman

    There’s only one thing that would have me choose this over a Camaro – it appears I could see out of it marginally better. Other than that, no contest – Camaro wins each and every single time.

    Unfortunately for me, this is all immaterial – with my eyesight and the need to have a sedan…

    I’m also getting rather tired of the constant complaining about hard interior plastics – that’s the way the wind is blowing right now as OEM’s are trying to build their cars for free, or as near to free as possible. Take any dashboard: gauges – check. Center stack – check. Glove box – check. All the same, just outline to suit taste. Enjoy.

    • 0 avatar
      kvndoom

      I think it’s common (and fair, by my experience) to equate hard plastic with interior rattles, as the inevitable rubbing will be noisier. I know the Mazda’s I had in the past were the damn most prolific rattle traps I ever had.

      All folks are different; some people could not care less about noise, and some (me!) are OCD to hell and back.

      • 0 avatar
        JCraig

        Even hard plastics won’t rattle if they are lined with felt where the pieces touch. I’d think all cars are made that way these days.

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        Our 2007 MX5 has a very annoying “buzz”-like rattle behind the “piano black” (love that ridiculous term) strip above the glove box when it’s cold. It goes away when it warms up, so I don’t worry about it, but may take things aart just to have a look-see when the weathe warms up.

      • 0 avatar
        tankinbeans

        Count me in the camp that doesn’t give a fig about a few rattles; that’s what the radio is for – turn it up and enjoy. Mind you I don’t have subs and don’t need to “bang” or however you say it.

        FWIW, my car has hard plastic and so far things don’t seem to be rubbing or making noise. I have just over 13k on it though, so maybe it’ll change. I’m not one to get worked up over the small things.

      • 0 avatar
        dts187

        I too am tiring of hearing about hard plastics in sub $30k car reviews. Let’s just assume that they have hard plastics and stop using it as a knock against every car. That’s like going to Walmart and complaining that the $350 laptop doesn’t have a SSD. Or going into Guitar Center and complaining that the Squier Affinity Strat has crap tuners.

        For me, hard plastics have some decent advantages. They clean up easy, they’re fairly rugged, and don’t hold on to adverse odors. Maybe I don’t have the delicate elbows and forearms of journalists, but hard arm rests have never bothered me.

        Can we give “hard plastics” the same status as “game changer”?

    • 0 avatar
      strafer

      Recently there was a list of cars with least “out-gassing” from car interiors.
      Cars with least out-gassing also had the most hard surfaces, so cheap hard plastics seem safer than the upgrade soft touch surfaces.

    • 0 avatar
      mountainman

      Ditto the complaining on plastic interiors. Spend some time in an ’83 Mercury Lynx and you’ll think the Hyundai is just fine. I’ll take durable, coupled with well-screwed together over a more easily damaged soft-touch dash that you only ever touch when you clean it.

  • avatar
    michal1980

    I wonder how many people will start crying about the weight of this thing.

    I recently started looking at the Regal GS, and the amount of whining, GM bashing because a 4 door largish sedan, weighs 3700lbs, and only goes 0-60 in 6.5-6.6 secs is epic fail.

    I have no doubts this will be faster in 0-60, especially the v6. but its a sports car. 3600 lbs.

    I wonder how many GM bashers will go after Hyundai.

    • 0 avatar
      FJ60LandCruiser

      3800 pounds is a lot for a “sports coupe” and it’s really not about speed, it’s the handling. I can’t imagine something that weighs 2 tons with me in the driver’s seat is as fun to drive as a car that weighs half of a ton less.

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      I’m happy to go after any car that is overweight no matter the badge. Weight and general size is why I have zero interest in actually purchasing this car. If I’m getting a car this big and heavy, I’d rather have 4 doors for practicality. If I’m giving up the practicality of 4 doors, I’d better be getting a light chassis.

    • 0 avatar
      threeer

      “Only goes 0-60 in 6.5-6.6 secs is epic fail?” Man, there was a time (not that long ago) that I would have given body parts to drive a car with that kind of 0-60 (for that kind of car)…how things have changed!

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I would venture to guess anyone wailing about 0 to 60 times under 7 seconds being an epic fail (when we’re not talking about pure sports cars or exotics) were not driving prior to 1995.

      I learned to drive during the post-oil shock malaise era. During a time when you could count on one hand, including exotics, the number of cars that produced 200 HP SAE at the CRANK (not at the axle). If you could do zero to 60 in under 10 seconds, you were living large. If you could 0 to 60 in and around 9 seconds, you had a sports car.

      How bad was the peak of this era? A 1984 Celica GT-S would take you from a standstill to 60 in, are you ready because hang on, 11.7 seconds. That my friends was a GOOD time. Ten years later the Celica GT coupe could do the same run in 8.4 seconds.

      A stock 1989 Acura Integra RS, which was one of THE AutoX cars to have back in the day did 0 to 60 in a blistering 9.2 seconds, the 1/4 mile in 16.8.

      A 1989 Ford Probe GT could rip the 1/4 mile in 7.0 seconds and had a top speed of 134 HP. Ford rated the turbo 4 at just 145 HP and 190 pound feet of torque at the crank – those numbers were called into question as pure lies to make insurance adjusters happy the moment the car launched. But look at the technology in the Probe GT. 4-wheel discs with ABS, 4-cylinder intercooled turbo, electronic ride control with three position setting; this was a state of the art car for the masses. Slap on a fair number of options and you could be paying $18,000 to get that kind of performance, in 1989 dollars. There were no rebates or dealer breaks on an ’89 Probe either, Ford sold 340K of them in the first year of production and many buyers had to wait 6 to 8 weeks.

      During that era Mazda was probably making some of the fastest, best handling cars that the average slob could easily afford. If you thought AWD rally car you did not think Subaru in 1989. You thought Mazda 323 GTX. But even the adored GTX could “only” eek out 0 to 60 in 8.7 seconds.

      As the era started to fade, and 200 HP became more common, the 1994 Integra GS-R still couldn’t break seven seconds, stock.

      In 1990 the Corvette was one of the most blistering fast acceleration machines the remotely average slob could hope to buy – 0 to 60 in 5.7 seconds with the 6-speed manual (and this was during an era when manuals were faster in the 1/4 mile because the automatics couldn’t shift fast enough and robbed you of power at the axle) and all that done with just 250 HP at the crank.

      Here is another impressive thing to consider. That was done on 275/40R17 tires, which were insanely large for the era; and by modern standards the compound would be considered garbage. No traction control, no stability control, no torque management, no computer to do the shifting and certainly no dual-clutch setup. You, a gas pedal, a shifter, and a clutch.

      I snicker when I read statements like a car that goes 0 to 60 in the 9 second range (basically the entire B and C-segment with their base engines) be called “death traps” for being too slow – and anything under 7 seconds in an affordable sedan as an epic fail.

      Will be interesting to see what the wails and complaints will be come 2016/2017 assuming the much tighter CAFE standards kick in.

      • 0 avatar
        michal1980

        Thanks for these comments. They are refreshing. Because, even though I’m way younger (based on you experience with cars, you can guess my age)I’m shocked when I read all these spec racer comments.

        I agree they have some validity, because you can’t just compare to the past, and have to compare to the current. But sometimes its helpful have perspective.

      • 0 avatar
        JCraig

        Good points on the great 80’s cars. You reminded me of the 323 GTX that I dreamed of owning as a first car (ended up with a Fox instead…)

        Keep in mind the highways are moving a lot faster these days. Back then the national speed limit was 55 so merging into traffic was a lot easier. Now days you’re merging into 75-85 mph traffic and need a lot more to pull a heavy modern car up to those speeds. My car is in the mid 8 second 0-60 range and feels just fine, but I would not want to think about another 2 seconds to make it to 60, much less 70 or 80 when I drive to and from work.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        If you go back to the “classic” muscle-car era — aka the late 1960s, you will find very little that hits 60 in less than 7 seconds and practically nothing that has a top speed of twice that. The culprits: the greasy bias-ply tires of the era (and early radials, like the Michelin-X were not certified for speeds over 75 mph and would explode if you pushed them past 80) and brick aerodynamics. The engines sure sounded good, however!

        My own experience is that, on the street (unless you’re a complete maniac with a death wish), acceleration capability of reaching, say 60 mph any quicker than about 6 seconds is just never used. The rest is just bragging rights. Even on a mountain two-lane (where lots of delta-vee is nice to have for passing trucks and other slowpokes), being able to accelerate more quickly than this just means that you’re hitting the next curve with far more speed than you want and you’re really finding out how good your brakes are.

      • 0 avatar
        niky

        Hell… anything quicker than 9 seconds is superfluous unless you’re overtaking going up a mountain, and even then, anything quicker than 8 seconds is just unnecessary.

        This is coming from someone who has one car that hits 60 in around 7 seconds and another that takes about 30 seconds to hit the same mark…

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Very well said. I drove an ’84 Jetta GLI though college and beyond – that car was considered a rocket with a just under 10 sec 0-60 time.

        I do think that part of the problem is that current cars are SO smooth and refined that they feel slow even when they are not. So to get that feeling of “sturm und drang” that my Jetta had, you need to be down in the low sixes.

        I disagree with the theory that traffic moves faster now. No, it doesn’t, because there is SO much more of it! And the 55mph speed limit was all but completely ignored. And the ticket fines were a whole lot lower too.

      • 0 avatar
        joeveto3

        Thanks so much for this post.

        Horsepower keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, and the collective opinion of what counts as a fast or powerful car just gets more and more out of whack. I laughed when I read that Derek’s passenger said the Hyundai didn’t feel like it had 348hp.

        Ok, did it feel like maybe it had 300 hp? 290? When I grew up, these were exotic numbers that only a few cars could produce. Honestly, 10 years ago, did anyone think a relatively affordable car, let alone a HYUNDAI, would be offering 348 horsepower?

        Go back to the 80’s when I came of age and really understood what horsepower meant, back when 130 horsepower was quick (albeit in a 2400 pound car — did any of us think a Camaro would weigh in at over 3700 pounds?), and when Corvettes had 240 horsepower (via the magic that was Tuned Port Induction) believe me, you felt every single pony. Then, as cars improved, we’d take our hands off the wheel and say “Can you believe it? We’re going 70. It doesn’t even feel like it.”

        I’d argue you could push that Hyundai to 130 mph, take your hands off the wheel (to send a text of course) and say the same thing.

        Power is cheap and easy, and in my humble opinion, no longer relevant. The new 3-series, with a 4 cylinder is quicker than the M3 of not too long ago. The Grand Caravan has 276 horsepower. These stats are important if you’re one of the counters, who prefer to keep things simple.

        300 is more than 276, so it must be better, which is more than 250, so it must be better, which is more than 200, so it must be better…these are easy times for easy minds.

        But cars are so much more than that, a fact of which I hope we don’t lose sight. How is it that manufacturers can lay 350 horsepower on our doorstep (with acceptable highway mileage to boot) but most still can’t/won’t provide delightful steering feel and chassis response?

        I’ll answer my own question. Power is (now) easy, but chassis engineering takes real talent. And it’s easier to brag about horsepower than it is a well executed suspension.

        Or more simply: a great handling car won’t get the driver laid.

        I saw the upcoming Subaru at the Chicago auto show. I took the opportunity to explain to my 17 year old why the car is so important and what makes it so good: it’s a lightweigh car that puts an emphasis on balance, quick reflexes, and feedback more than brute strength.

        The BRZ is a gymnast in a room full of knuckleheads.

        I also saw the Genesis Coupe. There were two there: a gray with red leather and a steel blue with saddle leather. Both cars were absolutely stunning. On the way home, as we each named our favorite car, based purely on aesthetics, the Genesis took my vote.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        “In 1990 the Corvette was one of the most blistering fast acceleration machines the remotely average slob could hope to buy – 0 to 60 in 5.7 seconds”.

        In 1990 a poor slob could buy a simple $14K Mustang LX with the 5.0L HO 302 option and with some adjustment to the soft suspension and a new chip in the computer could easily reach those numbers for much less than a base Corvette of the same era.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        dolorean wrote:

        …n 1990 a poor slob could buy a simple $14K Mustang LX with the 5.0L HO 302 option and with some adjustment to the soft suspension and a new chip in the computer could easily reach those numbers for much less than a base Corvette of the same era…

        A 1990 Mustang could go 0 to 60 in 6.5 seconds with the V8 option. Top speed was 135 MPH when equipped with the V-rated tires.

        A 1990 Camaro IROC was slower, at 6.8 seconds.

        No “chip” or suspension tweaks is going to shave a full second off the 0 to 60 time of a car, not in 1990, and not today.

      • 0 avatar
        wumpus

        While I might not have learned to drive in the malaise era, I did learn to drive in cars built during that time. While you are comparing apples to oranges:

        1970s-1990 roads weren’t filled with SUVs. Sure, there were the odd Blazer and Suburban, but typically involved in hauling much stuff outdoors.

        1970s-1990 roads weren’t as target rich. Also the drivers learned to drive with drum brakes as opposed to anti-lock brakes tailgating wasn’t assumed mandatory.

        1970s-1990 had the double nickle enforced (with somewhat varying degrees of enthusiasm). Try merging onto a highway uphill after leaving a “25 mph” ramp in one of those cars into raging 75mph SUV hell. Doubt you will try it again.

      • 0 avatar
        james2k

        This is the kind of insightful commentary that makes the TTAC comments section worth reading. Bravo for taking the time to share with us.

        Glory to the Hypnotoad.

    • 0 avatar
      majo8

      Can we give the phrase “epic fail” the same status as the phrase “game changer”?

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        APaGttH: So I over simplified with the parts but you’re wrong. If our poor slob was to purchase in 1990, about $1500 worth of mods (larger throttle body, new fuel pump, MAF or custom remapped chip, free flow exhaust, stiffer struts, MSD ignition coil, and higher rated tires) and did it himself, which most Stang moders do. He would easily see a gain of 35-50 HP and have the traction to put much more of the power down. This would still be cheaper than a base Corvette at the same time. http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/5-0l-tech/1337-5-0-beginners-guide-mods.html

  • avatar
    JCraig

    Derek – did Hyundai have any 0-60 or other performance claims on this?

  • avatar
    John R

    I love that hyundai makes this. I’ve been recommending this over the Accord coupe.

    • 0 avatar
      suedenim

      Yeah, I became annoyed when I discovered that I bought my 2009 Honda Accord one year too early. If I’d been buying a year later, I definitely would have bought a Genesis Coupe. Looking to trade in the Accord on a 2013 GC as soon as they hit the dealerships.

  • avatar
    parabellum2000

    Great review, I just found this site a week ago. I’ve spent hours reading old articles. I’ve learned more on this site than any of the other car blogs I’ve seen. Thanks for your candor, thoughtful analysis, and useful reviews!

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    …To make room in the pricing structure for the Veloster Turbo the Genesis Coupe gets a price bump of about $2,000. The base car is now $24,250, with an 8-speed automatic costing an extra $1,250…

    This gives Toyota/Scion more breathing room in pricing the FR-S.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Derek – what size rubber do these have on the back? I remember the last generation model was limited in tire width which made it quite tail happy.

  • avatar
    geozinger

    I would have one of these in my dream garage. My actual garage is full of furniture from one of my kids moving back into the house. Grrrr…

    I like the face lift, as the original car looked way too generic for my tastes. I’m not too worried about the weight, as I don’t plan on returning to auto-x anytime soon.

    If I were in the market for a car like this, it would be on my short list. Oddly enough, behind a Challenger and a Camaro.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    This is definitely more impressive. Good to see the 4 cylinder turbo is no longer getting embarrassed by the v-6 mustang as much in terms of power vs fuel economy. Surprised it isn’t that much more thrifty than the V-6. A weight differential of 300 lbs across the lineup also seems quite substantial. 3,300 lbs isn’t’ anything too impressive, but in line with (if not ahead of) the Mustang and 370z (the Camaro is an overweight whale that shouldn’t even be in the same league), and even more expensive but similar size cars like the 1 series. AFAIK, the similarly powerful impreza and Evo Ralliart’s are just as, if not heavier and get worse mpg without much of an increase in performance (but add awd). Of course, the elephant in the room is the FR-S with that oh god its so wonderful can it be true 2700 lb curb weight. That’s the car Hyundai should have been building all along.

  • avatar
    JMII

    Still trying to figure out why this car isn’t a hatchback. Sure the Veloster has that covered but Hyundai could have really set themselves apart form the other pony cars. 260 HP from a turbo that can runs on regular and gets 31 mpg on the highway… hard to believe anyone would complain about that. Still not sold on the styling. I plan on having my 350Z for awhile but the Genesis remains on the list of possible replacements.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      I have the same complaint about the FR-S/BRZ. With a sloping rear like that it is a perfect candidate for a fastback-style hatch like the Integra/RSX/Celica.

      It’s not the actual reason, but is one of the reasons I went and got a used S2000 this weekend instead of waiting for the FR-S

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      My ’97 Camaro was a hatchback that got 30MPG HWY (with the 3.8 and 5-speed) and I loved that car. Even with the admittedly superior powertrain, the “new” Camaro is a step backward. If the Genesis Coupe had debuted with a hatchback, there would probably be one in my driveway right now, but alas…

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        Simple answer. Americans hate hatchbacks. Refer to the TTAC Junkyard find: ’88 Dodge Colt for reasons why. Also, hatchbacks denote practicality. Most people do not want that in their sports car either. I’d say the demise of the hatchback was fully realized once the SN-95 Stang rolled out with only a trunk option, but looking like it had a hatch. The Camaros and Firechickens kept the hatch, as I understood it, in order to load the T-Top windows.

  • avatar
    stryker1

    “But I’d prefer to reserve final judgment until I can drive the Genesis Coupe in an environment full of potholes, traffic jams and real world fuel economy observations – the kind of driving that we all face once the afterglow of a track day has faded.”

    Good call. I traded in my 2010 3.8 for the simple reason that, as a daily-driver, its kinda harsh (especially with that vague clutch).

  • avatar
    noxioux

    I drove last year’s V-6 model while my mom was shopping Elantras. I liked just about everything about the car. It was a hoot.

    The problem in comparing this to the Camaro and Mustang is that’s exactly what everyone in the real world is going to do. And unfortunately for Hyundai, a base V-8 ponycar vs. the loaded-up Genesis does look more attractive to many buyers who don’t care about the finer points.

    If I had the money to spend right now, I’d likely go pick up the Genesis Coupe. We’ve had 3 Elantras over the years, and they’ve been great little cars. That alone would steer me back to the Genesis.

  • avatar
    AMC_CJ

    The previous model crossed my mind when car shopping. But it was already looking very dated. They got the outside right, but that interior; it’s so forgettable. Perhaps they took a page out of BMW’s book.

    Either way, I think Camaro and Mustang comparisons are perfectly appropriate. The 348hp V6 is quite impressive compared to the two’s V6 offerings. Well, almost impressive, save the fact that the Korean V6 model touches the price realm of V8 base-models from the Americans.

    I would still pick the Camaro over it, except for the fact that I’ve driven the new Camaro….. and bought a Mustang.

    • 0 avatar
      tankinbeans

      “I would still pick the Camaro over it, except for the fact that I’ve driven the new Camaro….. and bought a Mustang.”

      In other words this is a 3rd choice pick?

      I like it, but have no interest in a sports coupe. My favorite is still the Mustang, on looks alone. The Camaro looks a little “Little Tykes”ish. The Challenger is nice, but looks hefty.

      I wouldn’t want to try to feed one either.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Speaking of the American V8s, it would be nifty if this could be equipped with the Genesis sedan’s 5.0L.

      • 0 avatar
        dolorean

        How porky would the Tau V8 make this car? Be nearly Camaro tuna boat weight. Would also put a lot more of that weight in the front, ruining the distribution. I like the thought of the turbo four banger in this. It already looks the boy-racer, may as well have the engine to go with it.

  • avatar
    fincar1

    Sounds like an interesting car. Maybe I’ll check one out when I go looking at Mustangs. Incidentally I have to wonder where the name Veloster came from. I assume it’s pronounced with the accent on LOST.

    Ya, Sven, ve used to have a cow but she got out of the gate and Veloster.

  • avatar
    Jaeger

    The Regal GS isn’t an epic fail, in absolute terms, because it needs 6.5 seconds to get to 60 (though that trails a good many mainstream family sedans). It is an epic fail because it is priced against cars that are quicker, more powerful, more luxurious, more prestigious and aren’t driven by the wrong wheels. It is an epic fail because GM already has a terrific no-excuses much-more-powerful AWD variant sitting on the other side of the pond, but decided to saddle North Americans with a trumped-up FWD family sedan on styling steroids instead.

    On to the Hyundai – major props for the bump in power for both mills, but aesthetic changes are not a net improvement, and both versions could stand to go on a diet.

    • 0 avatar
      michal1980

      I’m considering the Regal GS, because there is tons of money on the hood if you are looking to lease. (the money is good enough to lease then buy if your into it).

      I’m getting quotes of fully loaded (nav+sunroof) Regal GS for ~31,000 for leases. The MSRP being in the 38k range. I agree for 38k, its not worth it, even the 35.5k purchase price quote I got isn’t worth it.

      For 31k brand new… Very tempting.

    • 0 avatar
      TheHammer

      Regal is an epic fail? News to everyone!

  • avatar
    bd2

    Don’t know why KR expects the GenCoupe to be as light as the FRS/BRZ.

    The GenCoupe is about the same size as the Mustang and G37 coupe whereas the FRS is similar in size to the Miata.

    A no. of people have done overlays of the various coupes and the diff. in size between the GenCoupe and FRS is startling.

    And with the smaller size comes smaller rear seat room; the rear seats are useless in the FRS except for children or petite adults.

    Supposedly, Kia has a smaller RWD coupe concept in the works which would be more of a direct competitor to the FRS.

    Interesting enough, other reviews take the opposite tack and prefer the V6 over the 2.0T – just shows that reviewers reviewing the same cars can have widely differing opinions.

    Hyundai’s Krafick has stated that they geared the refreshed GenCoupe to split the difference between the 370Z and the G37, and with the next generation GenCoupe, Hyundai will have the G37 directly in its crosshairs as the GenCoupe will be paired with Hyundai’s new compact RWD sedan.

    • 0 avatar
      Kevin Jaeger

      When you first stand next to one of these they look like they should provide the driving dynamics of a smallish 2+2 sport coupe. Certainly you don’t get much interior room or trunk space for the size of the car. These aren’t dealbreakers for a car like this, but I figure if it isn’t light and tossable I ought to get some practical utility out of all that weight I’d be hauling around.

      I’m sure the actual times you can turn in on a track are just fine with these cars but driving it doesn’t really feel sporty. It’s just too heavy for that.

      I really wanted to like this car but I opted for a GTI instead.

  • avatar
    Juniper

    How many of these do they actually sell? I think I’ve seen two on the road here near Chicago.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Oh goody, Hyundai decided to give it a giant, generic engine cover for the refresh.

  • avatar
    kuman

    Mmmm Great review. I absolutely agrees with this

    “But I’d prefer to reserve final judgment until I can drive the Genesis Coupe in an environment full of potholes, traffic jams and real world fuel economy observations – the kind of driving that we all face once the afterglow of a track day has faded.”

    We’ll be driving that car 80% of the time on regular roads no? so its best to know how will it perform under our daily circumstances.

    In my place small SUV / MPV is the star of the sales charts, not that because we are all boring people, but face it, we ( mere mortals / commoners with mere man incomes, who cant afford track days and own several cars ) don’t have good enough roads n proper traffic to actually enjoys bahn burners and sports car and the like…

    Yes ferraris are fast without doubts, but its a murder when u drive it here… if our pot holes might be considered as bottomless pit for your standard, and our undulating road perhaps equivalent of your washboard.

  • avatar
    PlentyofCars

    I had the opportunity to drive the current 4cyl and 6cyl back to back. The 4cyl was first.

    It was no contest in my mind. I thought the 6 was much more refined and powerful. If I had gone for the Genesis Coupe, I would have cut back on the options and gotten the 6cyl for about the same price as the 4cyl loaded up.

  • avatar
    itsgotvtak

    I haven’t driven any iteration of the Genesis but it sounds like a great alternative and value in the sub-30k sports car segment. I have driven a 12 Mustang GT and that would appear to be the Genesis’ only weakness. Truecar puts a base coupe GT w/brembo package and a 3.73 rear at $27,633… Assuming that’s an achievable transaction number I don’t think it would be much of a contest between the two. The Genesis would at least deserve a look and that’s more than you could say about any of the Korean sport offerings until very, very recently. Good for them.

  • avatar
    dougjp

    What caused the big weight increase in the V6? The manual with the turbo is 68 lbs. more than last year’s 2.0 according to this article. That’s disappointing enough to look into further. However this article is claiming the V6 weight is up over 200 lbs, which is huge and offsets entirely the engine improvements.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    I drove a good friends 2004 Grand Prix GTP with it’s 260 HP 3800 and can say that car didn’t fee like 260 HP. It felt like more than that by the seat of the pants and how alarmingly fast it climbed up past 100 MPH. By contrast my 1996 Caprice LT1 which also made 260 HP felt a bit slower and would get beat by that same Grand Prix in a drag race each and every time. The lesson here is that horsepower is not the only indicator on how quick your car is or feels. There is that thing called torque which many of today’s revvy DOHC engines lack, final drive ratios which are being lowered numerically for that ever important mileage figure, transmission gears, ratios etc and of course the weight of the vehicle. I would imagine that the 275 HP 2.0 liter T will prove more than enough for 98% of the buying public unless your racing this car.

  • avatar

    I own a modern fast sports car, I am fifty, I have always owned fast sports cars. My current one is Japanese, street cred is zero. My neighbor, drives a triple black SS Camaro, street cred off the charts. My Japanese rocket does so many things much better than the Camaro, and I can see what am I doing. What really rubs it in, is that my neigbor gives my friends a ride on our golf outings, it’s like there is a waiting list.

  • avatar
    SuperCarEnthusiast

    The new Genesis Coupe has improve alot in the interior and has a much more attractive center console and seats look much better too. It so sad that the front grid is just plain ugly!


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States