By on April 1, 2015

2016 Tucson

Here it is: the new face of the 2016 Hyundai Tucson, as revealed at the 2015 New York Auto Show

The new look for the Tucson comes with LED lighting throughout the front, surrounding its new corporate grille. The wheelbase gains over an inch in length, LEDs can be found the door handles and taillights, and 19-inch alloys surround all corners for the first time in the crossover’s existence.

Power comes from a standard 2-liter four-cylinder pushing 164 horses and 151 lb-ft of torque through a six-speed automatic to the front or all four wheels with optional AWD, the latter due after the crossover’s showroom arrival.Fuel economy for the FWD version is estimated to be 23 mpg in the city, 31 mpg on the highway, and 26 mpg combined.

An optional 1.6-liter turbo-four — paired with a dual-clutch transmission — is available for Eco, Sport and Limited trims, bringing 175 horses and 195 lb-ft of torque to the Tucson. Economy figures range from 26 mpg city/33 mpg highway for the FWD Eco model, to 25 mpg city/30 mpg highway for the FWD Sport and Limited models.

The crossover’s interior takes its inspiration from the Hyundai Sonata, and includes leather-wrapped instrument panel, premium soft-touch materials, refined switchgear, and an available full-length panoramic sunroof. Cargo space is increased to 31 cubic feet, and the crossover is wider and longer overall with over an inch gained in the wheelbase.

Other features include: standard five-inch color LCD with rearview camera and touchscreen functionality; Apple CarPlay and Android Auto connected-vehicle technology; blind-spot detection; tire-pressure monitoring; Hyundai Blue Link; and extensive sound insulation and improved aerodynamics for reduced NVH levels.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

31 Comments on “New York 2015: 2016 Hyundai Tucson Revealed...”

  • avatar

    As expected, it looks like a Santa Fe that was left in the dryer too long.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Hyundai/Kia really need to offer their hybrid drivetrain in these vehicles.

    I’m not a fan of the new Hyundai Sonata interior (too flat, too many buttons), which evidently is copied into the Tucson, Kia Optima, and (I assume) the next Kia Sportage.

    19″ wheels – I hope/expect that to be the bling option – no thanks. Ever price 19″ tires?

    But I’d consider the Eco FWD version when it appears in the Sportage, whose exterior will almost certainly be cleaner than the Tuscon.

    • 0 avatar

      Is there any demand for the hybrid drivetrain in the Tucson? It would add ~$10K to the price.

      That said, the Tucson has been a favorite in my area with the 25-35 yo ladies and mommies, many of them sold by the Hyundai dealership in Las Cruces, NM. I see their logo on Tucsons everywhere in my area.

      I have never seen a dude driving one. Not saying it doesn’t happen, I’ve just never seen it.

      The biggest selling point of the Tucson, at least in my area, is its low price when compared to CR-V and RAV4.

      • 0 avatar

        I drove one. Briefly. As a loaner while our 2012 Sonata had some minor warranty work done on it…

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        The hybrid premium wouldn’t really be that high; I’d suggest maybe $4k.

        My experience is this: Last May, we bought a leftover (new) 13 Optima Hybrid whose MSRP was $26k, for $20k even. It uses a similar 2.4 engine and 6-speed auto as the current Tuscon/Sportage. All H/K would have to do is find room for the battery, which is only 1.6 kWh.

        Toyota is going to offer the RAV4 as a hybrid. With CUVs ruling the world now, it makes sense to improve their poor fuel economy via hybrids.

        As far as turning in my man card… well, I’ve never liked the Tuscon, but I’ve seen lots of guys driving Sportages and it wouldn’t bother me. :)

        • 0 avatar

          “but I’ve seen lots of guys driving Sportages and it wouldn’t bother me. :)”

          That doesn’t make it right, old boy – but do what you think is best.

        • 0 avatar

          My sister drives a Sportage and calls it cute, so that automatically makes it a “chick car” in my book, but that’s not the reason I wouldn’t drive one.

        • 0 avatar

          SCE to AUX, you need to include in your comment what your experiences with that drive train in your ’13 Hybrid Optima have been.

          Like, performance, mpg, handling, added drive-train weight, significant differences between hybrid drive-train and non-hybrid drive-train.

          No need to write an extensive article, just publish it as part of your comment on this thread.

          Like you said, lots of people choosing to buy these cute utes. Getting actual/factual experiences outlined can be very helpful for those on the fence.

      • 0 avatar

        The current Tucson is a good bit smaller than the CR-V and RAV-4, which the new model mostly rectifies (but still smaller).

        The new Tucson is rather handsome (may give the new Sportage a run for its $$) and a much needed improvement over the current one which is aesthetically challenged (esp. up front).

        As for hybrid, I’m thinking an e-AWD system would be a good compromise.

  • avatar

    A much more viable looking vehicle (in this segment) than the CR-V, Rav-4 & Escape… closest competitor (in terms of style) is the MX-5

  • avatar

    It’s…well, all of the ingredients are there, but thats just it. That’s all they are. This vehicle doesn’t look to be any more than the sum of its parts, and is a rather lazy exercise in updating the current model (which became stale halfway into its run) with Hyundai’s latest design cues and tech bits. And the plastics and leather look especially cheap compared to what other competing products offer. I was hoping for much more.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Kyree S. Williams,
      I agree with you. It seems the Hyundai component of the Hyundai/Kia partnership is using Toyota as a model.

      Kia seems to be a little more stylish and courageous with their offerings.

      This Tucson is more an appliance targeting the RAV 4 crowd.

      I’m not a big RAV 4 fan.

  • avatar

    This needs to be painted in white, with big black letters on the side saying “CROSSOVER” or “CUV.” That’s how generic it is.

  • avatar

    Is it just me or do all of these things look pretty much exactly the same? I guess the automaker elves are busy making yet another vehicle for overweight Americans who can’t bend down far enough to get into a regular car.

    • 0 avatar

      1. “Hurr durr they all look the same” can be said of any school of automotive design. If you removed the front clip and badging from any car of any era, could you tell each one apart?
      2. Ergonomically, CUVs are the return to an earlier era of tall-and-boxy, which is more functional for all drivers, tall, short, overweight, normal weight, young, or old. The fact that you call the long-and-low aesthetic a “regular car” is more indicative of its predominance during your formative years than of any attributes it has of normality or regularity.

      • 0 avatar

        “Ergonomically, CUVs are the return to an earlier era of tall-and-boxy, which is more functional for all drivers, tall, short, overweight, normal weight, young, or old.”

        This would be true if they had less ground clearance. The bodies are not tall; they’re just on stilts, with high floors. And gigantic wheelwells take a lot of the remaining interior space away.

        Ingress and egress are easier, but CUVs are not well-packaged, by and large. There are a few exceptions such as the Forester and CR-V that prove the rule.

        • 0 avatar

          Sorry, I misworded that. They’re “an attempt to return to an earlier era.” Happy?

          But I’m talking waay earlier. Like, ground clearance of a stock ’32 Ford. And given the state of our roads (they seem to be approaching 1932 levels of disrepair in some places), that may not entirely be a bad thing.

          The bodies are getting shorter, which is lamentable. But they’re still taller than their sedan counterparts.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Drz is right.

      The CUV is aptly named. They can haul 4-5 regular people, tow, and offer decent road visibility and value. And they’re not $50k pickup trucks or Suburbans. Those of us with aging knees don’t enjoy falling into or climbing out of low cars anymore, and don’t want to park a tank in the parking lot.

      There actually is a lot of diversity among CUVs, if you do comparisons on dimensions, fuel economy, options, warranties, etc, just as with most vehicle classes. Do all trucks look the same to you, too?

      • 0 avatar

        I agree with the exception of the visibility point – it appears the bottom of the rear window (the usable, non-opaque section) will be approximately the same height as the bottom of the rear view mirror – not great visibility to the rear. Yes, rear view cameras exist, but usually only when reverse gear is selected.

        • 0 avatar

          I have no idea what the inside visibility of the Tucson will be, but it couldn’t be any worse than the Sportage. My mother was looking for something to replaced her ’08, and looked at a ’13. I sat in the back and already had feelings of claustrophobia, given that there were no windows at all behind the doors. Although maybe it was my (pseudo-)medical conditions.

          • 0 avatar

            I think Outback’s point is not that it would be any worse, its just they ALL are losing the view out the rear and rear side.
            The rear windows are in fact fake…and after including the size of the black-out…then real viewing glass area is small.
            The offer they have is views over cars from the remaining windows.
            Certain makes, IMO, are far worse. Hyundai is at the top of this list.
            The best views will be from the Subaru line.
            This is one reason I look forward to experiencing the next Edge over the new Nissan. The Murano is terrible.

  • avatar

    These new cars are all really starting to blend into one another. Back in the day, you had the impression that designers weren’t building a brand or a design language, you had the impression they hated the guys across the street and they were going to prove who was better. Now, it looks like they design cars for the company they want to next work for. Hence, bland, mish-mash, cliched design with no coherence.

    • 0 avatar

      [Citation needed]

      Tell me, which Ford/Lincoln/Mercury in the mid-to-late 1970s didn’t have a Rolls-Royce grille? (Well, okay, the F-Series, the Pinto, and the Maverick.)

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      I would put a lot of the design down to aerodynamics and computer software designing the vehicles.

      What’s the difference between an A320 and 737 aesthetically?

  • avatar

    You know, this is the first article I’ve read on this reveal that mentions AndroidAuto and Apple CarPlay? Bet the rest of them don’t even know what these are.

  • avatar

    I see the Mazda CX-5 body rolling on VW GTI wheels. No one else does?

  • avatar

    I see a Subaru Legacy grill here.

  • avatar

    Oh good they used Honda’s patented 1970’s cartoon feet wheels.

  • avatar

    So, I basically called it. They couldn’t even keep the skinny side mirrors from the sketch? Oh, the disappointment…

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • jalop1991: “EVs are improving every year (every month, actually), as is charging infrastructure.”...
  • Tachyon: Living in SoCal, the dirty little secret is that “outside the Tesla ecosystem” Public Charging...
  • EX35: Meh. The one I drove was mediocre and seemed overpriced for what it was. H/K just doesn’t have the value they...
  • Jeff S: I have mentioned the pitfalls of EVs with range, cost, and infrastructure before. Those are givens and those...
  • sumgai1986: If you take this car for what it is, and try not to make it too much more, it is an absolutely wonderful...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber