By on June 6, 2012

This is the companion piece to yesterday’s pilot episode of our new video series. Did you watch it yet? If you didn’t, why not? Don’t you know that my son needs to eat? Have you no heart? Have you no sense of decency Sir, at long last? — JB

Context, to distort the phrase, is a hell of a drug. Anyone trying to make a purchase decision on this fully-loaded, $33,875 (in the United States), high-power, impractical, fully-loaded, sporting coupe will need to put their face down against a mirror and snort context with both nostrils open. In this brief review, we will first go cold-turkey, evaluating the Genesis Coupe’s on-track performance without referring to the competition. When that’s done, we will take a white-hot hit of context and try to determine if the pug-nosed Hyundai is worth buying.

Our venue for the test was Toronto Motorsports Park, a dead-flat road course located in the approximate middle of nowhere and approximately as close to Toronto as “French bread” is to France. TMP isn’t a very fancy place, and it’s definitely short of the kind of topography which makes for exciting racing, but it has quite a few second-and-third-gear corners, so it corresponds very well to what drivers will experience on fast back roads. A track map can be found here if you want to follow along.

To cleanse our palate and learn the track, I took my 2004 Porsche Boxster S “550 Spyder Edition” out for some warm-up laps. The Boxster has long been a standard for on-track behavior and clarity of feedback, even if it isn’t a paragon of durability or quality. To remove tires from the equation, I threw on a set of Hoosier R6 tires which I rescued from the trash stack at Mid-Ohio four years or so ago. They don’t grip very well any more, but they are consistent. After about fifteen laps, I swapped into the Genesis.

First impressions: the V-6 is strong and sounds good, rocketing us down the front straight with more than a Boxster’s worth of push. The brakes are good, but as is usual with “Brembo packages” on affordably-priced cars, they aren’t “anchors” or anything like that. The Porsche has the Hyundai beat six ways to Sunday here, offering more pad area for less weight. Not a surprise. Time to turn in for the fast third-gear Turn 1, and here we get the first surprise: the front end has good, solid, no-BS grip. We’re very near to the edge of tire traction on this very first corner, and I’m not worried at all. Small movements in the wheel are met with the appropriate responses.

The Genesis arrives at Turn 2 very quickly and already the brakes are starting to show their annoyance. I think that a good set of pads and some SuperBlue or similar fluid would fix this. The fundamentals are there, and indeed later on in the day when I worked consciously on managing brake temperature I never got an unpleasant surprise. Now it’s time for the first dynamic problem with Hyundai’s big coupe: gearing and throttle mapping. It’s reluctant to rev-match, no doubt due to the same kind of emission-test-friendly computer control that can be frustrating in recent BMWs. I need second gear for Turn 3, but I can’t get the revs high enough and the transmission’s synchros aren’t willing to cover the gap. Instead, we coast through in third.

The transmission ratios in the Coupe don’t match well with TMP, but a faster road course would let third gear shine a bit better. Mid-Ohio would be a nice place to run this car, as would VIR.

Turns 4 and 5 require a hard direction change, somewhat like a slalom test, and it’s here that the Genesis shows some weakness as well. Like it or not, this is a big car made smaller, not a small car expanded to hold a big engine. A Mustang’s worth of patience is required here. Your friends in Miatas will be long gone…

…but you will pull them back before Seven with the aid of the engine. Now we can slot second and hustle down the back straight. In an impromptu drag race with an Aston Vantage, the Genesis didn’t lose much ground. The 8-9-10 complex we handle like a straight and simply mash the Brembos for the hard left and run up to 11.

The weight of the Genesis tells through 11. Quite a bit of patience is required. In this respect, the Genesis really is a ponycar. My on-track definition of modern ponycars runs like so: good on fast corners, not so good on slow ones, and the Genesis lives up to the billing. And although the 3.8 has power, it’s low on the kind of torque which so effortlessly turns understeer into neutral balance in a car like, say, a 5.0 Mustang. (I know, I know! I promised “no context”. Not every lap, or every article, goes according to strict plan.)

Turns 12 and 13 aren’t that much of a chore here, since the Genesis is easy to accurately place on the curbing at 13′s exit. It’s also here where the rear suspension shines. Most cars are easily upset by curb-hopping, and in fact a lot of drivers will deliberately use the “kick” from a hard curb to throw a little extra rotation into a corner. Not so the Genesis. Any attempts to hooligan a curb are met with a well-damped outside tire firmly touching ground and stopping the fun/idiocy/whatever. As a result, our re-entry to the front straight is far more disciplined than it is in the Boxster.

The tale of the stopwatch is that we are about two seconds a lap behind the slick-shod Boxster and three seconds behind what we’re told an E92 M3 can do on street tires. This is respectable territory for any car, whether it’s a “budget Korean” or not. The Genesis can deliver the proverbial mail. You don’t need to make excuses for it.

I noted this in my video, but it’s worth stating again: this Genesis simply doesn’t deliver the long-hood, high-center-of-gravity feeling one gets in a Mustang or Camaro. This feels like any other two-door version of any other imported mid-size sedan. The hood isn’t very visible, the hip point is low but not excitingly so, and the control efforts are decidedly mild. Think 328i or G37. My Audi S5 actually had more dramatic proportions and a more conventionally ponycar-ish driving position than the Genesis. It was also usefully faster in the real world, leading me to suspect that Audi’s 350 rated horseps aren’t from the same breeder as Hyundai’s 348.

Once off the track, we can take a moment to notice that the interior is spacious enough for my 6’2″, 230-pound self, even if the air vent of my helmet rubs the roof at any seat setting besides that used by Ron O’Neal in “Superfly”. The shifter is acceptable but feels quite a bit like the cable-operated mechanisms used in FWD Hyundais. The precision of a Bimmer box isn’t available here. Visibility is outstanding to the front, slightly perilous to the rear. Everything I can see seems to be of reasonable quality and at least equal to what you’d find in, say, a used G35 Coupe.

With that phrase, “used G35 Coupe”, we enter into the decidedly contextual portion of the review. Can you go faster for $33,875? Sure. Go buy a D Sports Racer or used Formula Atlantic car. A five-liter Mustang costs a few grand more once you adjust for trim: the base GT is $2500 more than the 3.8 R-Spec and the GT Premium is two grand or so above this “Track” model. Don’t kid yourself that the cars are close: as we will see in a later test this week, the Mustang will put the hurt on the Genesis everywhere the track runs straight and it won’t lose much ground elsewhere. It has probably a genuine hundred horsepower over the Genesis and it’s geared much better for track work.

The Camaro and Challenger are really too bulky to be directly considered against the Genesis. What else is out there? Well, you have hardware like the base 328i coupe. I wouldn’t bet five dollars on a base 328i staying within shooting distance of a Genesis on course. Better upgrade to the 335i and make sure it’s nice and cool outside for the turbos. The Audi S5 plays in a different pricing neighborhood, plus it now comes with that candy-assed V-6. No thanks.

It goes without saying, almost, that FWD V-6 cars like the Accord Coupe don’t have a prayer of running with the Genesis, right? Well, you’ve been told, anyway. It would seem that the Genesis really has no natural competition, nothing that offers the same kind of package for the same kind of money.

Except, of course, for that used G35 Coupe. Too bad it isn’t fair to compare used and new cars. If it were fair, I could compare a beat-up Testarossa to the Genesis and declare it the victor based on the “Miami Vice Gotta Have It” factor. In the new-car world, I think the fairest, most honest competitor to the Genesis, on-track or off, is the six-speed Infiniti G37. It costs about eleven thousand dollars more than the Hyundai. Won’t be much faster, if at all. Doesn’t offer too much more in the way of interior quality, visual excitement, or — sad to say — brand prestige. I couldn’t recommend a G37 over this Genesis to anyone who wasn’t a raving Nissan or Infiniti fanatic.

The casual track rat will be satisfied by the Genesis Coupe. If you’re more hardcore than that, you need a five-liter Mustang for a few more bucks. If you don’t care as much about lap times, the Accord Coupe would fit the bill. Within its narrow range, however, the Genesis 3.8 Track is a solid winner.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

69 Comments on “Review: 2013 Hyundai Genesis 3.8 “Track” — Track Tested...”


  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I am either getting wiser or crankier as I get older (mid-30s now; feel much older), but I have a spontaneous “it’s overpriced by quite a bit given the competitors out there offering similar or better performance at the same or better price points” reaction to this car.

    “It brings nothing new to the table.”

    “It not only is no game changer, it’s as anonymous as plain vanilla.”

    This car seems bigger on the outside, smaller on the inside, heavier and pricier than it needs to be, and while the Hyundai badge is no reason for embarrassment anymore (compliment alert: that badge has actually become associated with more brains than money) , it’s also not exactly a proud flag bearing icon indicating a historically excellent pedigree of performance and quality.

    And then there’s the big problem: The practicality issue.

    How does this car fare as a daily driver? Does it rattle your teeth and compel you to bitch and moan over broken pavement? How big is that backseat for the occasional rear seat rider(s)? It’s certainly not going to instill a sense of pride in anyone driving it who happens to catch their side profile reflection in mirrored office building glass (IOW, it’s not exactly elegantly styled).

    I’m getting old and cranky or I’m just being realistic.

    Or maybe both.

    I say there’s a plethora of used AND new car (*Cough* Mustang V6) options that do everything this car does better for the same price or less.

    I give it Meh stars.

    • 0 avatar

      My 57 year old father drove this car and was sold on it…because he thought the seats were supremely comfortable. Keep in mind the man drives a Volvo XC60 every day, so that’s high praise in that department. I like to think that this car is the 21st century version of the Prelude VTECs that he owned when I was wearing Oshkosh overalls.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        I don’t doubt the sincerity of your father’s impressions or his fondness for this car, and I know that you drove and did a TTAC review on this vehicle, Derek.

        I just want to opine that 1) the seats don’t make the car (although bad seats can ruin an otherwise great car), and 2) I view this car as almost the antithesis of the VTEC Prelude, which was a lean, efficient, far lighter and typical no extraneous anything anywhere type Honda of that era.

        This is closer to a Japanese Camaro than a Honda Prelude.

      • 0 avatar

        @DeadWeight this is about as far from a Camaro as one can get while still staying in the segment

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        It’s waaaay closer to a Camaro than, say, a 1996 Prelude VTEC.

  • avatar
    duffman13

    With all your comparisons how do you leave out the 370Z? Were you only looking at 2+2s?

    I just say this because I thought price and performance were in the same ballpark, nd it has storage too thoguh it lacks the back seat.

    Plus as a guy who owned a 2+2 for 7 years (RSX) I think I had people in the back maybe 5 times. Many of us aren’t affected by the need for rear passengers. I would have bought a Z back then had I been able to afford it.

    • 0 avatar
      stottpie

      i always thought the Z was too much more money than the genny to compare them. but when you start optioning up the genny, it looks like it’s an apt comparison.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      As a current Z owner (not a new 370, but a used 350) I was about to ask the same thing.

      When I was looking for sporty daily driver I check out the G35, Genesis and the Z. The Z was my choice because: a) I don’t need a set of tiny, useless seats, b) I love hatchbacks in general due to their cargo friendly nature, c) in the older models there is nothing special about an Infiniti over a Nissan, and finally d) the previous Genesis Coupe needed a bumper swap to look halfway decent. The icing on the cake is the Z is kinda of legend, so owning one makes me proud.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      The Z is so much more nimble it isn’t really fair. If you don’t need the seats, the Z is a better bet. The problem is that a lot of people need the seats — or the reassurance of having them.

      • 0 avatar
        JMII

        Thanks JB – when comparing the Z to the G I got that vibe. Smaller is better.

        stottpie – the Z hatchback is more accessible then G35′s trunk. Which vehicle holds more “stuff” depends on the size/shape of the object. Take some fishing poles for example: in the Z no problem, but they don’t fit in the G35 because the back seats don’t fold down. I forget if the Genesis seats fold, but I remember the trunk was shockingly small. I’ve transported several large pieces of art in my Z. Strictly from an ease of loading point of view I find hatchback so much better, ’cause you just drop stuff in. Now there is no doubt that the strut bar is a major pain limiting the height of objects. However using the backseat as storage in others is not cake walk because you have get things in via the door and moving/folding the front seats out of the way. With the hatch its pop and drop, I’ve done a few airports runs with my Z and its fine. The lift over is a touch high however, but not as bad as my previous Eclipse.

      • 0 avatar
        stottpie

        ah i see. it’s true that the shape is the most important. i was able to fit 4 tires in my fox mustang hatch no problem. it’s odd that many luxury cars, like the G (and i know the TL also) don’t have folding rear seats. in the case of the TL, the accord it’s based on does have the fold-down seats.

        weird.

      • 0 avatar
        kvndoom

        The rear seats in my Accord coupe are used quite often, and I’m fortunate that both my stepdaughters are short enough to ride comfy back there. It was the lack of telescoping steering wheel more than anything that kept me from getting a Genny last year. That’s an unforgivable omission for me, and it’s been remedied now, but a year too late for me.

      • 0 avatar
        stottpie

        telescoping steering wheel was also a factor for me when i leased my 2012 focus.

        i got in an escalade recently – no telescoping steering wheel, no push-button start.

  • avatar
    doctorv8

    This was a great review even before the Testarossa reference!

    When mentioning daily driver/track dual purpose cars, it’s always hard for me to recommend anything over a C5Z06. Unless you routinely carry toddlers or amputees in the back of a 2+2, the 3100 lb C5 just can’t be beat in this setting, and it will get better highway mpg than the V6 Genesis on the way home.

    • 0 avatar
      Byron Hurd

      The one thing that keeps me away from a Corvette as a track car is running costs. Tires and brakes seem to go rather quickly.

      • 0 avatar
        doctorv8

        Rotors are dirt cheap from NAPA. And stock C5Z 17/18″ sizes can be had for reasonable prices. Or course, you will be going through consumables faster, as your lap times will leave any V6 powered ponycar in the dust.

      • 0 avatar
        hgrunt

        The internet is notorious for stripping away tone of voice, and so on, so I hope my question doesn’t come off the wrong way. I ask out of curiosity, and the question is: What are you comparing the ‘vettes running costs to?

        My friend’s LS6 CTSV ripped through about a quarter tank per 20 minute session on the track. The run-flats survived fairly well too, but we were in HPDE1 so the driving isn’t as aggressive as a full blown track session. I imagine a second set of R-comps, or good affordable summer tires, would last a good while.

  • avatar
    Sundowner

    preface to question: I don’t know jack about track, I’m limited by what I read online

    actual question: I thought I had read (possibly on this site) that the new 328 ran that little turbo 4 that was a hair’s breadth away from the 335 in terms of usable power and actually handled better on the track due to the reduced weight. you say the 335 is better choice to keep up with the Genesis. Can you elaborate on this a bit more?

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      I have no doubt that the 328i feels more nimble and flingable than the 335i, and that at the kind of speeds enjoyed by road users it seems strong enough.

      At the racetrack, torque and horsepower reign supreme, max lat G sits at their right hand, and how a car “feels” means precisely fock-all.

      If a car is one second faster in the quarter-mile, it will be two seconds faster around a major road course, all other things about equal. No amount of feel or tactile quality makes up for that. Thus, the supremacy of the 335i.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        “At the racetrack, torque and horsepower reign supreme, max lat G sits at their right hand, and how a car ‘feels’ means precisely fock-all.”

        On a track day? None of the cars mentioned, except for the D Sports Racer and used Formula Atlantic, can actually be raced competitively in anything near their stock form, they are all just track day toys.

  • avatar
    JohnTheDriver

    It really sounds like your bending over backwards to “like” this car. When the car doesn’t do what it’s supposed to it’s anybodies fault but the car. At one point you even blame the track! Wouldn’t Occam’s razor suggest that perhaps the better answer is the car is just not that great? It’s not a track car and was never intended to be. It lacks panache as well as pizzazz. You end up trying to compare it to used cars to make up the difference. That way lies madness. Or to put it another way, I think your gonna need a bigger lipstick tube (to cover this pig.)

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      At VIR or Mid-O, the Genesis would shine considerably more. The suppleness of the suspension and the semi-heroic engine would make a much bigger difference.

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    I get that it is a different animal entirely, but I’d go for a WRX hatch over this Hyundai.

    It offers very solid performance, loads more practicality, and is several thousand dollars cheaper.

    Sure it looks like a cartoon and is popular with the sideways-Monster-energy-hat crowd; but it still strikes me as the best thing going for an affordable hot car that you can use everyday year-round for just about anything.

    “Anything” includes picking up 2-3 adults and their luggage from the airport, which is something I suspect the Genesis would struggle to do comfortably.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    $33,875…or…carry the three…ONE MILLION CANADANIANESE DOLLARS.

  • avatar
    replica

    As a V6 Mustang owner, I’ll wait quietly until addressed.

    Oh, who am I kidding? I can’t help it. Save $10k and get the damn Mustang.

    • 0 avatar
      Byron Hurd

      MSRP for a 3.8L Genesis Coupe R-Spec is $29,625. A Mustang V6 with the Performance and Track packages (to get you the Recaros, Brembos, etc to match the Gen’s) will run you $26,585, so the difference is $3k, and the Genesis comes with summer tires, not the trackphobic Pirelli P-Good-For-Zeros you get on the Mustang, so that’s another $1,200-$1,600 you’ll need just to chase the Genesis Coupe after about half a lap of tire and brake fatigue.

      The comparable Mustang to the Genesis reviewed here would be a Premium + Performance Package + Recaros… $30,600 or so, and you’d still be rubber-deficient.

      I love the Mustang as much as anybody, just ask Jack, but the math doesn’t quite work the way you think it does.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Why would you need the premium package on the Ford? The R-spec Hyundai coupe doesn’t come with cruise control, a fancy stereo, leather, or any many other luxuries.

        The cheapest you can get the Mustang V6 with the Recaros and the Performance package is like 26500. You could probably get the Ford dealer to budge a bit on the price too. I’m not sure how much wiggle room Hyundai gives on the Gen Coupe.

      • 0 avatar
        racer-esq.

        IF you want to pay $30K you should probably get the Genesis Coupe. If you want a >300 HP rear wheel drive car for $20K then the Genesis is not an option.

      • 0 avatar
        replica

        Though it’s not a terribly fair point, most folks on the Mustang forums get a base V6 with the track package for about $23k after negotiation. Sticker price to sticker price, they look fairly priced, but it goes down like a prom date when you start negotiating at the Ford dealership.

      • 0 avatar
        Byron Hurd

        ajla, read the first paragraph of my reply, where it says you can get exactly what you said for exactly how much you said it would cost.

        My second point was that the Genesis Coupe reviewed here is not an R-Spec, but a Track model (I think, the video and text disagree here), which compares much more favorably with a Mustang V6 Coupe Premium, which is why I also gave the prices for those two models.

  • avatar
    Charlie84

    In terms of describing the qualities of the driving experience and conveying the information that I actually care about (how it really behaves beyond just saying “it understeers at the limit”), this might just be the best car review I have ever read.

    Well done, Jack. And thank you.

    P.S. – I eagerly await your “Track Day” review of the BRZ/FR-S twins!

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    The six seems kind of odd in this car**: it’s not quite enough for the kind of people who would skip the 2.0T, and people who don’t care will just get, well, the 2.0T. Or a Veloster.

    It would be interesting to see this equipped with the sedan’s V8.

    Actually, a question for Mr. Baruth: what’s your take on the 2.0T?

    ** it does make sense in the sedan, whereas the 2.0T would not.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      I think the 2.0T/V8 combo makes a lot of sense. I am kind of hoping the next Rustang goes that route, along w/a smaller more efficiently packaged body and IRS.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    So nice to see a track review and no mention of BRZ/FT86 comparison as a benchmark. Of course when R&T compared Genesis 2.0T it was 2 seconds ahead of the BRZ. Mustang V6 1.5s ahead FT86. See the trend? BRZ/FT86 twins are going to be the slowest in their class, but it’s strange how they win their comparisons.

    Funny you mention V6 Accord in a track review. Instructing HPDE from Mont Tremblant to Road Atlantain the mid-2000′s, I can’t recall a single V6 FWD Toyota/Honda appliance at any event.

    As you know brake ducts will stop most fade on a stock setup.

    I’m glad to see there is no critique of the car’s ability to drift. Pffft!

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    I wanted to like this car so bad when it came out. But if there’s one thing that’s apparent, it’s that you will never be able to make a fully convincing sports car made from a non-sports car chassis. There’s no reason for a 370Z to weigh more than an FR-S (or cost more than one for that matter) but that’s the price of compromise.

    And the compromise didn’t even pay off. You get the weight of a chopped down Genesis sedan, but none of the back seat space. And Hyundai is still goofing the details. Shift feel is bad. There’s no way to cut off the goofy “EPA fooling” throttle chicanery. The looks are very generic. They dropped the ball.

    Ironically, the “used G35 coupe” suffers a lot of the same follies, but even aside from the price makes up ground with the ones it avoids (throttle calibration, timeless classic distinctive looks, great suspension tuning out of the box, bottomless pit of aftermarket support). Maybe Hyundai will get it right on the third pass but I’m not gonna wait.

    • 0 avatar
      Charlie84

      “…you will never be able to make a fully convincing sports car made from a non-sports car chassis.”

      BMW must have not yet seen that memo when they created the E30 M3.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Note that BMW M3s of any generation manage that feat (sort of) through the application of considerable quantities of cash. And I still think that M3s are too big and heavy to be considered a “sports car”.

        But on the other hand, I don’t think raw speed is a necessary element of a sports car – or a race car for that matter. That is why race cars are divided into different classes. Miatas don’t race against 911s.

  • avatar
    thenewblack

    I have a few problems with this review, mostly about competition and pricing. First, a new G37 sedan costs $36,400 which is not 11k more than the Genesis coupe. If it were me, I’d spend the 3k extra and get the more luxurious car with similar performance and more features.

    Also the statement about no other rivals in this price range? I think the Lancer Evolution and the WRX/STI could easily hang with, or surpass this car on a road and on a track.

    • 0 avatar
      Byron Hurd

      A stock WRX is not going to be scaring off a Track or R-Spec Genesis Coupe. You need to get the STI for all the stuff the WRX lacks–confident braking, etc.–and out of the box, even the STI isn’t that fierce around a track. It might be heavier than the Genesis, actually, and with less power to back it up.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      How much does one cost with a six-speed manual? How much does the COUPE cost with a six-speed manual? Yeah, the G37 starts cheap. For an automatic sedan.

  • avatar
    SunnyvaleCA

    “It’s reluctant to rev-match … I can’t get the revs high enough and the transmission’s synchros aren’t willing to cover the gap.”

    You’re saying that with the clutch depressed, pressing on the accelerator won’t get the engine to rev to 6k so you can double-clutch to ease from 3rd to 2nd? Then you’re saying that without double-clutching, the brand new synchros won’t match things up and so trying to shift into second results in horrible grinding?

  • avatar
    dancote

    Coupe … shmoupe. Can’t think of a less useful, functional, appealing automotive category. Correct me if I’m wrong.

  • avatar
    XYGTHO Phase3

    Just curious – what happened to Turn 6?

    You guys in North America are lucky you still have track like this to go to – over here in Sydney, we’ve got bugger all, and what we did have have been turned into housing estates.

  • avatar

    You know what’s cool?

    As enthusiasts, we’re awash in reasonably priced, remarkably good sports cars. The “what about…” discussion surrounding the Geni highlights it.

    The answers to “what could I buy that’s fast and fun to drive?” cover the Genesis, Mustangs both 6 and 8, new and used Zs and G35/7s, WRXs, GTIs, S2ks, 20 years of Miatas, 30 years of 3-series BMWs, 35 years of RX7s…etc etc.

    If you want a good driver’s car at any price point, there are no more excuses. Go buy one.

  • avatar
    dolo54

    I’m curious about the fun-to-drive factor. You don’t directly say it, but I get the sense that it’s relatively not that fun. I don’t think anyone buying this car cares more about lap times than actual fun on or off the track. And I certainly would rather have a slightly slower, but more enjoyable sports car than a faster, boring one.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    Meh, normally I don’t let cosmetics get me but when I buy a sports car I want something thats nice, since I expect low practicality in the name of style.

    The Genesis was ugly from the start, and the Velostar nose (since we really want a sports car with a hatchbacks front end) has only turned me way more.

    That and the handling, I’d rather buy a Nissan Z or the Toyota F86, maybe an NSX if I could find one.

    Then theres the fact that its a Hyundai.

  • avatar
    rmwill

    Jack, Do you think its good enough for the Genesis to begin selling in decent quantities? Up until now, sales have been dismal.

  • avatar
    Cleatus

    The old grille looked better. Who at Hyundai thought this redesign was a good idea?

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    Not too bad for the money.. Love the sound of the motor as well (from the video). That front end though reminds me of taking an orange peel and putting it in your mouth and smiling. I just dont get that bass mouth grill aesthetic..

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    The fact that this car still looks like a Tiburon left out in the sun a little too long with a smiling orange peel grille really doesn’t sell me at all on styling. And the price is a bit high considering it’s just a Hyundai which has yet to prove to me any long term reliability and build quality is still sketchy on many used 06-09 Hyundai cars I have driven lately.

  • avatar

    I sold my Accord V6 6MT Coupe for a used 2011 Mustang 5.0 convertible. On the seat question, the rear seats are sometimes used. The Accord seats are comfortable and passengers commented favourably on them, although gaining access to them was a chore. With the Mustang folks cannot wait to get in the back seat and have me drop the top. If you even think of taking more than two folks on a long journey and your choice is a Mustang, Genesis or Accord, take the last two.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    Thank you JB. An enjoyable write up and video combo. I look forward to many more.

    On context, the obvious answer is a used V8 Stang, no?

  • 0 avatar
    replica

    I don’t really see Infiniti as a premiere brand. Most people don’t even know Infiniti exists. The G35/G37 is a nice car, as is the M35, M45, but they’re pretty forgettable in their price bracket.

    Generally this site is accused of strong domestic hate. Amusing to see someone think the exact opposite.

  • 0 avatar
    Jack Baruth

    I don’t think most twenty-something women could distinguish between the GenCoupe and the G37 at a distance. Until you’re an old man like me, that’s all that really matters, isn’t it? :)

  • 0 avatar

    This is your first and last warning, knock it off.

  • 0 avatar
    DubTee1480

    Right? He called us all domestic fanboys in another post.
    “Typical anti-japanese nonsense Ive come to expect from this site”
    For someone who is so well read in their TTAC they seem to have overlooked that one editor is married to a Japanese lady, another drove a Miata, another drives a WRX not to mention that the site rose to prominence through is GM Deathwatch series. I guess he has TTAC on the whole flying vag thing though.

  • 0 avatar
    DeadWeight

    To us old farts on TTAC, I raise a warm can of Pabst Blue Ribbon or Coors Banquet Beer (or whatever was on clearance at Kroger’s).

    I much prefer cold Pilsner Urquell in the summer, but we have to make small sacrifices as recompense for reckless addictions.


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