Is Muscle Coming to Hyundai's Crossover Lineup? Does It Need It?

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Hamstrung by Chinese animosity towards South Korea and a crossover lineup that wasn’t sufficiently buffet-like, the Hyundai brand missed its global sales target by nearly 600,000 vehicles last year. It’s a well-reported slump, and we’ve told you about the automaker’s strategy to get its mojo back.

Crossovers, man. Lots and lots of crossovers.

While fleshing out its lineup of two- and three-row haulers seems like a perfectly reasonable plan in a world addicted to cargo volume, it looks like Hyundai’s not stopping there. Some buyers will surely want more power, and Hyundai’s prepared to deliver it.

Speaking at the Korean launch of the 2019 Santa Fe (crossovers!), global sales chief Byung Kwon Rhim told Britain’s Auto Express that a hotter Tucson compact crossover is on the way. When asked what’s next for the company’s performance-minded N sub-brand, he replied, “Tucson is under development, and other models will come after that.”

A Tucson N would likely borrow the turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder from the overseas-market i30N, which is their version of our Elantra GT. That mill cranks out 271 horsepower and 260 lb-ft of torque. Currently, the uplevel powerplant in the Tucson is a 1.6-liter turbo making 175 hp and 195 lb-ft.

N-badged models, like North America’s upcoming Veloster N, complement the added power with performance goodies like upgraded brakes and a finely-tuned suspension — something a hot crossover will need in spades.

While a Tucson N seems like a decent fit for the North American market, especially with Ford adding the “ST” badge to models like the Edge and next-generation Explorer, Hyundai’s sales boss didn’t say which countries can expect the little brute ute. Clouding the issue entirely is Hyundai performance boss Albert Biermann’s recent comments concerning a new “N Sport” designation — a mildly meaner-looking appearance package bound for any number of vehicles in the brand’s lineup. N Sport means looks, maybe upgraded rubber, but no added horsepower or suspension trickery.

Will America get a Tucson N, or just a Tucson N Sport? It all depends on whether Hyundai believes the average U.S. consumer can be swayed by horsepower in this particular segment. A hotter Tucson could spark a fire in the bellies of young parents who loathe the idea of completely submitting to the expectations of their new lifestyle. As well, it’s not something offered by any other brand.

Sales performance is yet another reason to lavish extra attention on the Tucson. U.S. sales of the crossover rose 31 percent, year over year, in February. That’s the 12th consecutive month of year-over-year sales growth for the Tucson, and its best February showing to date.

Despite a brand-wide year-over-year sales drop of 13 percent last month, sales of Hyundai crossovers rose 19 percent.

[Image: Hyundai]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 29 comments
  • Sportyaccordy Sportyaccordy on Mar 05, 2018

    I don't know if the full N treatment is necessary. I think most crossover owners would just be happy with more power, brakes and maybe more aggressive damping. My wife's last gen MKX handles well enough... just needs about 100 more lb-ft down low, and maybe better brakes + wheels + tires. A stiff + clompy crossover makes no sense.

  • Saturnotaku Saturnotaku on Mar 06, 2018

    The 1.6-liter turbo is fine for the Tucson. What it really needs is a replacement for the awful DCT.

  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next