I’ve always thought the pics looked ok, but the in-person impression was really something else. It looks pleasingly large and solid in person (visually looked a good bit larger than the V6 Mustang in front of me), and the downward-angled belt lines gave it a very imposing presence. The size and stance made it much more than a gussied-up Tiburon. Of course it helped a lot that the Hyundai “H” had been pried off of the hood and replaced with that cool winged Genesis logo they sport in Korea. The overall look honestly reminded me of a Ferrari F430 (I know, different styling details, different configuration, price is a different order of magnitude, but a similar visual feel). Before you flame me, I’m not saying the Hyundai is anywhere near a Ferrari-lite for 1/10 the price, just that the styling was a clear cut above the Mustangs, 370Zs, and even Camaros I would cross-shop it with. (Btw, who in their right mind would compare a Genesis to a G37? Totally different cars on so many levels…) It looks much fresher to my eye than just about any other mass-produced car.

Haven’t driven it yet, but it’s on my short-list for when my lease is up next year.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=USDKRW=X&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

It isn’t all bilateral — i.e. US/Korea. The USD is on a roll. Nothing is simple.

Having said that, devaluing your currency is the protectionism 2.0.

Japan is in worse shape vs Korea than the US.

That’s right, all those rubes have been had. For the more astute ones, time to rethink what else came from the sources of information they’ve trusted.

Spoken like a true believer in your sources of information.
That is your definition of individual freedom; if you are in the US, the government in question is a constitutional republic that, like it or not, has as its basis God-given individual liberty, and, plethora of demagogues lately who would redefine that according to their particular whim notwithstanding, the assurance of that God-given liberty is the primary purpose of this government. This government is not the anti-thesis of individual freedom, but there are always those within government who would abuse the reigns of power they hold to turn citizens into subjects in the name of the “collective greater good”. History is replete with examples of governments most brutal in the name of the “collective”, and history will repeat itself if those in government aren’t held accountable under the constitution as public servants, not masters, every bit as much as the greedy corporation is held accountable for dumping toxic waste or toxic debt onto the “collective”.

Hope the Genesis is all it seems it may be; have been considering it along with the Camaro & WRX, but the Genesis seems to be doing what the original WRX did, raising the bar on affordable all-around performance, and with decent looks to boot.

I mean, there’s the racetrack and there’s driving around town. If a cop sees you testing your quarter mile time, you will go to jail! Do you do many 0-60 sprints?

Is the car fun? Does the car have enough power to put a grin on your face?

If yes, hooray, 5 stars.

I drove the GT coupe and the 2.0T; I’d rather have the 2.0T. The track pack is a must, it makes the car shine. The grand touring model is blah and doesn’t feel as good as the 2.0, even though it has 2 less cylinders.

This is your first premise and the reason that post is wrong.

The interest of gov is the benefit of collectivization, ie the greater good. Most of the that benefit are mutual to individual interests. Just down the list of gov orgs and agencies (FDA, CDC, EPA, edu, police), and the far majority of them benefit the vast majority of individuals. In fact, selfish self interest at others is the greatest one not commonly served. For example, the easiest way to obtain material goods is to steal it. For the greater good, we set laws, enforced by a force hired by the collective, to protect against this. Of course, there are always those who feel that a private vigilante force might be more profitable, and that the wealthy who can hire the most goons deserve the most justice, but that would go against the great collective interest vs. the interests of capital.

The hilarious irony in this that the kind of doctrine you propagate to is one perpetuated by private parties for their own gain. If your capital constituents are hampered by the regulatory agencies, what better way than to create propaganda to “get government off your back”?
-

Do government policies profit anyone?

Collectivization, for the most part, as shown above, benefit everyone. Capitalists, which are mainly corps these days, like to create the world view where laisse-faire is the law of the land, but note in this worldview, the gov still exists, but instead of serving the majority, the goal is that is serves the most wealthy. So don’t be confused, government is important to them, it’s just not for YOU.

It’s quite ironic that contrary to that meme, democracy can be pretty anti-capitalist. It’s well known in most of the 3rd world that the desires of capital are best served by more authoritarian means. But since we’re stuck with that system in parts of the world, the best immunization against the masses is the disinformation that the capital interest IS THE MOST IMPORTANT collective interest. This is why the PR organization is one of the most powerful and funded parts of any such system, and their effectiveness is undeniable given the sheer numbers of outsiders to that group in our society who’ll bat for them, often so ironically against their own self interest.

The result of such training is people would so freely give up the power to have capital serve at the pleasure of the public vs the other way around, without thinking twice.
-

Your statement about “internalize these profits” is a loaded phrase and the phrase supposes that everything is profitable.

That’s not the point at all. You clearly don’t know much about econ, because external costs are integral to the capital discussion. The quintessential example generally use is the environment. Eg. dumping toxic material into the river is cheaper than proper disposal, which is why we regulate that externalization (ie which is why it’s called external costs, since that “cost” is to the society outside of the biz), or internalize that cost. By your incorrect understanding, even if the corp is still unprofitable, the damage is not automatically reversed.

One of the more dramatic recent examples of external costs is the devastation to the economy as the result of the desire to profit from derivatives and many other forms of underregulated risk taking. The ultimate and often immense profit is usually to the few, and the great cost to the many. Of course, even at this stage, there are still the apologists trying to excuse or at least distance themselves in to order to save the worldview that from uncontrolled selfishness and greed comes our salvation.
-

You are implicitly rationalizing the current situation on everything because what you are saying is that the government should centrally manage the inputs and outputs of the goods and services either wholly and partially.

That’s not what I’ve said, and it’s quite clear at this point the reason why you like to assume it in such a way is because the people who created your worldview also created this false dichotomy where the “gov” is the anti-thesis of individual freedom, when individual freedom is the artificial creation of our system of laws and backed by our government and governance, right along with a system that allows capitalism.

That’s right, all those rubes have been had. For the more astute ones, time to rethink what else came from the sources of information they’ve trusted.

In other words, the social benefits which people and therefore gov’s should care about, are not tangible figures on balance sheets. So the solution is to either internalize these ‘profits’ or use alternative means or backing for finance.

Individual and government have very different interests. Most of the time, they go against each other. Individual and government do desire to gain most with the least effort. However, capital that they use to achieve these objectives and wealth are very different. Almost always, individual uses one’s own resources { own capital or borrowed } to acquire wealth. Government in the other hand acquire wealth and achieve objectives by taking capitals from others, individuals. They again this authority with their political capitals (votes). Note that unlike individual acquiring capitals which the individuals have almost 100% control over, government capitals are largely gain with less than 100% of the vote. Their capital produces a package of policies that are implemented to everyone. The package never, cannot, and does not satisfy everyone, and most of the items in a package are undesired by the large group of people. People who are dissatisfy with the package do not have choice in the matter. As such, the capital taken from the groups individual do not meet the desires of the group of individuals. Government gains (political) capital by catering to its constituencies, regardless of the outcome of their implemented policies. Thus, government tends to cater to the lowest common denominating intersection of these disperate and often opposing groups/constituencies.
So, how does the government and the individuals “profit” together in cars? Looking at the record of US automakers, contribution of US automakers to the law makers, and the government implemented policies; can anyone say that they are working together? If they haven’t worked together, is it a good bet that somehow they could in the future? If so, on what basis or historical data that answer can be affirmative? What social benefits did the past government involvement brought the society? After all, when government implements 10% ethanol, CAFÉ standards, seat belt laws, and other often onerous laws, they are working together to benefit X.

Also, the word profit implies that the people now need to spend time to acquire certain item. So, if you make $50 per hour instead $40 per hour, you are profiting $10 per hour in respect to the past wage. Did the cost of doing auto business went down due to the government involvements? Who profited from the government involvements in the auto business. I can say for sure that automakers did not get benefited. And the volt, boy, that’s a big bomb if I ever seen one coming through the future pipe of GM. If Volt doesn’t kill GM, nothing will. [side note: since the bitching law of price dynamics, hybrids aren’t selling very well due to the economic conditions and the gas prices.]

Business isn’t just a profit system. It is a profit and loss system. As such, loss is just important as profit. Do government policies profit anyone? If so, how do anyone explain the growing debt and deficit? This isn’t really about Dem vs Rep. It is really about does the government entity create profits for people. If so, how do they? Affirmative cases are very rare and hard to find.

In other words, the social benefits which people and therefore gov’s should care about, are not tangible figures on balance sheets. So the solution is to either internalize these “profits” or use alternative means or backing for finance.

Your statement about “internalize these profits” is a loaded phrase and the phrase supposes that everything is profitable. Most thigns are not profitable. Most things lead to failure. AS such the free-market lessie-faire market allows these failures to occure in small scales instead of nationalized scales where the failure has to be shared with everyone (spreading the misery). Meeting the “tangible figures on balance sheets” is very critical. Because if the balance sheet is negative and it is keep going negative with no end in sight, that should tell the player to stop it all together. Instead, almost all programs that’s suppose to benefit and “profit” are continued indefinitely, thus the debt and deficit we have today. How does the debt of $11 trillion and $56 trillion SS liability profit anyone?

I’m not rationalizing about the current US auto situation. That’s more of a political decision than a financial one anyway. Everyone knows they are done for; the only impact for choices henceforth is how hard they fall, and falling on a cushion of money is easier.

You are implicitly rationalizing the current situation on everything because what you are saying is that the government should centrally manage the inputs and outputs of the goods and services either wholly and partially. Again, the political capital and productions are quite different from the individuals’ capital and productions. They often oppose and do not agree. As such, unagreeable do not “work-together.” How can they or should they? If so, why? The important part is that the business decisions shouldn’t be made based on a national political decisions mostly based on feelings, sentiments, and moods of the voting blocks. Instead it should be solely made by the billions of individual participants in the market. Another way to put it, the individuals should be allow to free to trade with its neighbors freely without government concerning with profit and loss. It is conceivable that the voting block do not have desires for GM, Ford, or any other companies to become profitable. If they do, they only want them to succeed to the certain point and stop. It’s like people wanting the US basketball team to win by 10 points but not more at the Olympics. It’s okay with x efficiency, don’t go any higher because its success on x efficiency would have unfair advantage. As such, it limits the innovation, success, growth, and profit… and ultimately the long term prospect and the life of the company.

Sure it’s all built in. That’s why you’ll find imports have a much more difficult time penetrating that market. A small margin on products means it’s fairly price sensitive. If it’s not, everyone can just raise the price to make more.

It is built in because it’s part of the tax. When people shop for a car, they calculate the TTL, don’t they? Even though the retail price doesn’t reflect the TTL, people calculate it nonetheless. Also, the reason the most producers/sellers can’t raise the price at will is because there is market clearing price not the price sensitivities or other factors. Because if the price of the product is higher than the what buyer is willing to pay then you don’t have equilibrium. If the seller continues to sell at the market clearing price then the you have loss. The loss tells the sellers to stop selling that product or do something to lower the production and transaction cost.

Also, you make assumption that the imports have a much more difficult time penetrating a market. I think when Hyundai came on to the US scene, it had a booming sale. The price and demand met the equilibrium. The subsequent quality issues are another matter but your statement regarding the difficult market entry point isn’t true. The entry to the car market requires huge capital but this does not equate to your assertion. If the producer meets the demands of the consumer, it will clear all products. If the product has good quality and pricing but it can’t be cleared, there are other problems besides the quality and the pricing.

I think our disagreement is based on your assumption that government does x then produces a profit y. Almost all cases, the result is the opposite. If the outcome is profitable, you wouldn’t have the government debts where the production y did not help the auto companies, hospitals, trains, ect… Because if government did help, Am-track would be running profit and the Medicaid/medicare would pay itself. The bus systems in the most cities run 1 to 9 profit to loss ratio. Meaning, every $1 they get, they spend about $9. All these government systems are loss system. Also, there are strong data that suggests that there is opposite corollation between the increase of public transportation system and the road traffic log. There are so many cases where the argument against such a government control actions, I don’t know why anyone would be for the government actions. As if the government is all sweetness and light. The fact is the government has the highest union membership. Unions are formed to fight against the “employers” from the bad practices. I think the ever growing government union number gives us a clear sign that the government isn’t the answer.

I’m curious as to whether TAC tested theirs with the revised ECU?

There were a pile of rumors surrounding this and the sedan. Hell, just a year ago everyone thought this was the Tiberon replacement. There’s no reason they couldn’t put the v8 in the coupe later on of course.

About the only new Hyundai model that seems to be a turkey, to me, is their new Starex (i80, issit?) van. Sure, it’s a whole lot better than the old one, but it rides like a pile of rocks.

I don’t think anyone here is an “automotive expert” per se, not unless they personaly worked in multiple factories of multiple makers and hold engineering degrees.

And no, BMW 323 is not a whole generations ago.

My local “friendly” BMW dealer is selling new 323s at this very moment. It starts at $34,900. After options, discounts and expected repairs, it’s comparable to, if not more expensive than, an Infinity G37.

http://www.bmw.ca/ca/en/newvehicles/3series/sedan/2008/carconfigurator/compare_models.html

Don’t forget the first Hyundai Excel was designed and built by Mitsubishi. Hyundai didn’t design their own cars until almost 1990. Still shows lots of growth and forward momentum though.

People, can we please stop using “Jap”. That hasn’t been politically correct since at least the 80’s and probably since WWII.

Eh, decent car but it’s nothing to get your panties in a bunch about unless it’s priced in the mid-upper $20s, then it’s a better car for sure than a G37. The power to weights are similar (.088 to .091 (G37), but the G37 is a heavy POS at 3,633. You can’t hide that girth, and they handle like shit. I drove one a guy owns where I work, and was appalled at how bad it under-steered (the interior was crap too). Moreover, paying $40K for a “performance” Nissan is retarded since you could get a used BMW 335i for that much. Jap cars are good for a couple of years before they go out to rusting pastures. You don’t see many old 350Zs.

Heh! Thanks for the laugh. Interior crap on the G37? Infiniti’s latest models boast some pretty nice interiors, unless of course your benchmark is a Maybach. I take it you hold BMW in much higher esteem – yet I find those sorely lacking for the asking price.

Maybe some folks think spending $40k on a used BMW is ‘retarded’, you know? Some folks want a car that they can trust beyond a factory warranty.

“Jap” cars only good for a “couple of years” before rusting? Is this 1985? My first car, a slightly-neglected-when-I-found-it 1993 Sentra XE didn’t have a trace of rust when I sold it in 2006 with 165k miles and no garage time in the 7 years I owned it. Funny enough, none of my or my family’s “Jap” cars have experienced rust issues.

So you really think rust is killing used 350Zs? My buddy has an 06, still going strong with plenty of miles on the clock. I guess he better sell it though, might not last another year.

I happen to see plenty of 350Zs in my area, not to mention quite a few 300Zs. Granted, I don’t doubt the early Z cars had their share of rust issues, but I think you’re reaching for straws to bolster your fading faith in Germanic supremacy. That’s typical when you test drive your buddy’s car and it scares you into thinking that you spent too much.

The Genesis Coupe, by the way, sounds great. Should be considered a crowning achievement for the creators of the Excel.

That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m merely pointing out that the gov can provide a very useful role in the creation and growth of business because it’s not necessarily easy to privatize all profits from these high risk endeavors.

In other words, the social benefits which people and therefore gov’s should care about, are not tangible figures on balance sheets. So the solution is to either internalize these “profits” or use alternative means or backing for finance.

I’m not rationalizing about the current US auto situation. That’s more of a political decision than a financial one anyway. Everyone knows they are done for; the only impact for choices henceforth is how hard they fall, and falling on a cushion of money is easier.
-

Again, you missed the point that Europe had 10% import tax and Hyundai/Kia do fine there. People do buy BMW with or without the additional taxes. All the taxes are calculated as part of the cost. The profit after the cost is very similar whether you have taxation of 5% vs 10%.

Sure it’s all built in. That’s why you’ll find imports have a much more difficult time penetrating that market. A small margin on products means it’s fairly price sensitive. If it’s not, everyone can just raise the price to make more.

WSN….. Not sure when this article became a Infinity v BMW story, but you should at least try comparing something a little closer? 323? That was a whole generation ago. How about a 328 vs G35? Oh wait, they already did that comparison on this site and the 328 was the overall winner.

So back to the Hyundai. It seems to have a rather large engine…but average in the performance? Where does it go? I think what is ultimately going to happen with this car is that it is going to be a strong choice for the under 25 and under $40k demographic.

Agreed. RWD does not a Mustang competitor make. The Genesis Coupe 2.0 is more of a modern-day 240SX, while the 3.8 is clearly aimed at the 370Z and G37 market.

I would not quite call it a Japanese knockoff, however… its look is distinctly Korean. For better or for worse, I swear I can see the first-gen Santa Fe in its curves.