backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by OoklaTheMok.. on Jul 1 at 3:34 PM


Hyundai Veloster Concept

Prototype Veloster testing alongside a VW Scirocco  (Source: Motor Authority)
Hyundai is taking on the big guns from Japan

Reaction to Honda's CR-Z two-seater has been mixed. While the vehicle attempts to capture some of the essence of the CRX which came two decades before it, its performance (0 to 60 mph in around 10 seconds) and fuel economy aren't exactly inspiring given its hybrid powertrain.

The CR-Z only manages to achieve 31/37 mpg (city/highway) with a manual transmission and 36/38 mpg with a CVT transmission -- both figures are well below that of the larger and heavier Toyota Prius.

Hyundai, which is doing its best to punch Toyota and Honda (among others) right in the throat, is now said to be setting its targets on the CR-Z. According to Autoblog, the upcoming Hyundai Veloster -- the replacement for the Hyundai Tiburon -- will achieve 40 mpg by using a regular four-cylinder engine. This shouldn't be too hard a target for Hyundai to reach considering that its 3,200-pound Sonata midsize sedan can already hit 35 mpg on the highway.

While the CR-Z needs a hybrid powertrain to extract somewhat disappointing fuel economy numbers given its 2,750-pound weight, Hyundai says that it needs no such excess baggage. The lighter Veloster is said to be powered by a 1.6-liter engine producing around 140 hp. For comparison, Honda's CR-Z is powered by a 122 hp four-cylinder engine coupled with a 13 hp electric motor.

And if toppling the CR-Z in fuel economy and performance wasn't enough, Hyundai will likely also undercut the pricing of the CR-Z as well due to the Veloster's lack of an expensive hybrid powertrain and batteries. The Veloster also comes with the added utility of seating for four people instead of only two like the CR-Z



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Higher Goals Needed
By transamdude95 on 6/22/2010 8:40:46 AM , Rating: 5
Honestly, 40mpg? I get 40-44mpg with my 1990 Honda Civic with just a hair under 200k miles. In 20 years, we should be a lot closer to 70-80mpg on a 4cyl. Instead we have tv's in headrests, alarms (and cameras) that let us know when we're about to hit a curb (use your eyes!), self-parking cars, and rain-sensing wipers. These auto makers have been getting away with focusing on the WRONG areas. And to compound the problem, the US is afraid of diesel (clean as hell now) and hinders the progress of these vehicles (some 80+mpg).




RE: Higher Goals Needed
By TheMouse on 6/22/2010 8:46:49 AM , Rating: 1
Does your civic get 40mpg average? Or highway? I ask because my 2009 198hp Altima gets 36mpg average and I thought that was good... but your civic is making me jealous. Even though your car is a lot smaller.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By transamdude95 on 6/22/2010 8:57:54 AM , Rating: 1
Best I ever got was 50mpg in the hills of TN on vacation. I was getting 40-44mpg when I was living around 55mph speed limit max, but it's 70mph where I live now, so I dropped to 38mpg average. I still hit 40+ occasionally.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By SoulBlighter on 6/22/2010 9:05:57 AM , Rating: 4
I used to drive 2008 Corolla in Pakistan (1.3) modified with CNG kit and it used to give me an average of 65-70 miles on CNG tank in the city with A/C. I believe technology is out there but people having mind concept of higher HP is still hovering in order to make small engine efficient cars to capture the market. I never cared much if it will take 10 or 15 sec to reach 0-60 as long as i can easily hit 90-100 mph and safe to drive at that speed.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By TheMouse on 6/22/2010 9:10:48 AM , Rating: 1
Well that's the problem. A car that takes 15 seconds to hit 60, will not easily hit 90 by any of the current standard drivetrains.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By transamdude95 on 6/22/2010 9:14:58 AM , Rating: 4
I would definitely take a 15 second 0-60 car with a top speed of 90 or 100mph if it nets me 70+mpg. That's a fair trade off for a daily driver.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By mindless1 on 6/22/2010 12:44:48 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is there is no market for such a car, in many areas of the world it is REQUIRED to be able to accelerate faster than that in order to safely merge with other traffic.

If you cannot even merge with traffic you cause everyone to put on their brakes and lose fuel economy and cause traffic jams, nevermind the potential safety issues of pileups while riding in a tin can amongst other larger vehicles.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By sebmel on 6/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Suntan on 6/22/2010 3:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
Just FYI, manganese has a density similar to steel. I think you mean magnesium.

Also, your old diesel lupo would not meet emissions or crash impact standards here in the States.

You want better gas mileage, one way to help would be to get the government to relax its requirements for emissions, and/or get the government (read: insurance lobbyists) to relax their demands on crash worthy-ness.

-Suntan

-Suntan


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By OoklaTheMok on 7/1/2010 3:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
of course!... unrelated regulations are the cause for the lack of significant progress in improving fuel efficiency. We should all just drive cars that are made like tinfoil and crumple up in a little ball when hit by an SUV killing all the passengers inside... but the gas mileage is incredible, or is to die for?

I think you've gotten a bit too much sun...


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Spuke on 6/22/2010 3:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
85mpg UK = 70mpg USA
It would not be 70 mpg US because the way you measure fuel economy is different than how the US does it.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Fireshade on 6/23/2010 4:55:40 AM , Rating: 2
He was referring to his own usage, man. Like the other posters above. Not referring to an EPA rating or such.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By HelToupee on 6/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Higher Goals Needed
By TheMouse on 6/22/2010 12:36:33 PM , Rating: 1
It will hit 90. But having to floor it is not hitting 90 "easily".


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By mindless1 on 6/22/2010 1:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
... and rag the engine out meaning no you can't do 90 in that car on a regular basis, it can barely even accelerate up a hill from a stop if there are 4 adult passengers in it.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Spuke on 6/22/2010 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it can barely even accelerate up a hill from a stop if there are 4 adult passengers in it.
My sisters old Metro would overheat on 6% grades in the summer and that was with just her in the car (no A/C installed either). Nothing wrong with the car either. Just inadequate cooling. No thanks. YOU go drive that.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By lelias2k on 6/23/2010 5:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
You are talking about a 20 yr old project that was a failure. Although I certainly doubt there was nothing wrong with the car. Maybe your mechanic couldn't find anything wrong... or maybe it was a lemon.

How about looking into newer technology?

I've driven many 1.0L cars in Brazil and 1.4L in Europe. No problems at all going into freeways and sustaining high speeds.

I used to have a 1993 Fiat Uno 1.0 when I lived in Brazil and I would constantly hit 80-90mph. Many trips going through mountains: Never ever had a problem with it. And that's with a brand that is constantly made fun of here in the US.

Which is not to say that it isn't awesome to have great acceleration, but I think the whole point here is that it's not essential. I just traded my TSX for a new Civic EX and I'm not crying. Yet. lol :)


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Aloonatic on 6/22/2010 9:21:24 AM , Rating: 2
My 2004 190hp Corolla can get around 40 MPG* if driven sensibly (read legally) on a combination of motorway (@70 MPH) and local/town centre roads.

Of course, in that case I am nearly always never getting full power out of my car and I rarely get above 6000 RPM, where I get the extra power on my VVTLi engine ( at which point, fuel-economy drops like a stone) but still, it's rare to need to in reality, so the amount of times that I need to doesn't really affect my overall economy too much, and is nice to have available.

I guess we are just seeing that the internal combustion engine is near its development limit, at a reasonable cost, and we wont be seeing many more large improvements over what has been available for a while now. Only a bit of tinkering around the edges until we move on to cars with electric motors, be it battery, hydrogen, hybrid or MrFusion powered.

* Great British miles and Great British gallons.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By transamdude95 on 6/22/2010 9:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't the British gallon about 20% more than US gallon? If so, you'd be getting 32 mpg (US) from your Corolla.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Aloonatic on 6/22/2010 10:20:00 AM , Rating: 2
According to my unit converting dudad on my phone, 40 MPG UK = 33.30 MPG US.

1 MPG UK = 0.832 MPG US#

I'm not sure what the "book" figures are though. When my wife drives, she usually gets a better mileage out of the car too, so maybe the solution to our problems is to make it so that only women can drive, but they have to drive us about wherever and whenever we want, as if we could drive ourselves? :oD


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Alexvrb on 6/22/2010 9:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
No thanks, I'm quite willing give up a few MPGs to live a while longer.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Samus on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Higher Goals Needed
By EJ257 on 6/22/2010 9:01:40 AM , Rating: 5
Actually we would be close to 70mpg today if it wasn't for all the safety features in today's Civic. Compare your 1990 Civic to the 2010 model and see the weight difference. Any advancements we've made in engine & drive train efficiency has been negated/eaten up by all that extra weight. I bet if you swapped your Civic's engine for a modern one you'll get even higher mileage than right now.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By transamdude95 on 6/22/2010 9:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
I agree on the safety requirements hindering progress of efficiency. Maybe if we made having a drivers license more of a privelege (with tougher testing), we would have safer/smarter drivers and not need so many safety features on cars.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By xsilver on 6/22/2010 9:23:57 AM , Rating: 5
when lobby groups are able to force hybid cars to make "noise" just for safety, I dont have high hopes for that.

Standard diesel cars are already getting 50mpg+ so unless you're getting 70-80+ its hardly inspiring.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By TheMouse on 6/22/2010 9:28:59 AM , Rating: 4
Silence is golden.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By AlexWade on 6/22/2010 9:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
It is my opinion that nobody is perfect. Even if we had stricter requirements to get a license, I still want all the extra safety requirements. Even the best driver is going to make a mistake. I want to protect myself from that. That is why the first thing I look at in a car is the safety rating.

And I do agree we need to make it much harder to get a driver's license. It is also my opinion that no less than 50% of the people on the road should not be allowed to drive.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By marvdmartian on 6/22/2010 10:26:09 AM , Rating: 3
This is exactly the reason. That, and the heavier side impact construction required in today's cars.

I remember going to an auto junk yard back in the early 90's, and seeing a lot of these late 80's/early 90's Japanese compacts and sub-compacts that had been t-boned, and it would pretty much crush the side of the car to the point where it's doubtful anyone would have survived the accident if they'd been sitting there.

Add to that the weight of airbags and other mandated safety gear, and you've got much heavier vehicles nowadays. Until the more exotic materials available become more commonly used (carbon fiber, etc), we won't see the days of too many vehicles under 2000 pounds curb weight, if any even exist now (maybe the Smart4two?).


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By mydogfarted on 6/22/2010 10:47:40 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I used to have a '90 Civic 4 door. I always felt the car was way too light. The final straw for me was when I hit a puddle on the highway, and hydroplaned over completely into the next lane. I bought a new car, my family made me give it to my sister who needed a car, and it was totaled shortly there after a simple accident.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By mindless1 on 6/22/2010 12:49:32 PM , Rating: 4
Totalling a '90 Civic means little, any '90 car that isn't slated to be a classic would be totaled if you merely cracked the plastic on the front grill by kicking it.

That's not meant to be snobbery against older cars, rather that most types of body repair on something that age can easily reach a high % of its market value if it weren't damaged if not exceeding that value... unless you DIY with junkyard parts.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By lelias2k on 6/23/2010 5:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
lol... you think it hydroplaned because it was too light?

There are multiple factors involved, and under the right circumstances any vehicle will hydroplane.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Spuke on 6/22/2010 3:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet if you swapped your Civic's engine for a modern one you'll get even higher mileage than right now.
I had a 1992 Civic hatch with a 2004 Acura RSX Type S K20 engine in it. Granted, mine was um, not stock but I still got 36 mpg out of it when I stayed off the high cam. That was very difficult though and I didn't do it very often (not the point of the car).


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By callmeroy on 6/22/2010 9:02:41 AM , Rating: 1
Well its a non-issue with this car anyway...it looks like ass..

I honestly don't find the car appealing at all...


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By amanojaku on 6/22/2010 9:23:57 AM , Rating: 1
RE: Higher Goals Needed
By callmeroy on 6/22/2010 10:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
HA HA..Touche'

Point well taken...the car still looks terrible though...


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By mattclary on 6/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: Higher Goals Needed
By SSDMaster on 6/22/2010 9:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
If I put my car in fourth gear and stick at 40 MPH I can get over 40 MPG with my Mitsubishi Lancer. So what?

These numbers are meaningless. We need real world numbers at real world speeds. 70MPH for ex.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By transamdude95 on 6/22/2010 9:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
See above. The speed limit where I used to live was no higher than 55mph. Where I live now, it's 70mph and I typically go 5mph over. I still get 38mpg much of the time. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower, depending on conditions. These numbers are per tank, too, and not instantaneous measurement (like some new cars provide).

I don't see your point.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By callmeroy on 6/22/2010 10:59:19 AM , Rating: 1
Agreed...and I love this articles whenever a new car is released claiming extreme MPG stats....like you said are they REAL WORLD numbers though?

Go to ANY dealership in the world -- you are a fool if you believe the EPA ratings posted on the vast majority (if not all) new cars are what you will actual attain after driving it.

That said 40 MPG at this point in time isn't that impressive to get all excited about...

Hell my new car isn't even designed to be super efficient has over 300 HP and even *city* driving I get slightly better than half of that 40 MPG and I'm talking real numbers , not "paper numbers"...and its a damn spot faster than this ugly thing is too.

So again 40 MPG...big deal.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By AoWARHEADoF on 6/22/2010 11:35:39 AM , Rating: 3
You know..... my 1979.. ehh em.. MY 1979 EL CAMINO gets 24 MPG. This data was recorded by a GPS device and calculator with the capacity of my tank and miles traveled. Also (wait it gets better) i had roughly 400 pounds of camping gear in the bed and 2 extra people. I know thats nowhere near the numbers everyone else is posting but (wait it still gets better) its a carbeurated 383 stroker. Now without the extra 400 pounds of gear and 350 pounds worth of extra people it got 29 MPG. IT STILL GETS BETTER! I have 5x the horsepower of all these cars.

The only catch is, i have to drive it like a grandma to get these numbers but, if i have to pass ur asses on the freeway, the 415 Horses are going to gallop by you very quickly.

And i also agree that 40 MPG is rediculous and it all does come down to weight. If you put these tiny super efficient engines in these cars now days that are bloated like an hp laptop with all this extra crap that is franky unecessary. Weighing down the vehicle and negating the efficiency of the engine all together.

Funny story, i got yelled at by a hippie in a prius (which are crap and terrible to drive BTW!) while stopping for gas at a atation is San Fran. "Don't you know your car is a strain on the environment?" he shuddered. I looked at him sideways for a second and kindly showed him the data i presented to you folks on this fine day. Also i informed him that the pollution involved in the production of a prius (particularly the battery pack) will never be gained back by the "efficiency" of a prius. Especially once you have to replace the pack and thus restarting the entire process. So i'll stick with my "gas guzzling" El Camino, and its actually fun to drive.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By mindless1 on 6/22/2010 12:52:04 PM , Rating: 4
I would've just punched him in the face.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By AoWARHEADoF on 6/22/2010 1:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
yeah i wasnt really nice about his snide remark, i actually got loud and called him some certain things that i have no bad feelings about calling him. HEH! but i still "informed" him of his lame cars problems and my awesome cars stats. then proceeded to do a mild burnout out of the gas station for which i was promtly reprimanded by the local authorities ;) .


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Spuke on 6/22/2010 3:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yeah i wasnt really nice about his snide remark
I guess that wannabe so-called "hippie" never heard of recycle, reuse before?


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Klober on 6/22/2010 12:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
I can attest to the OPs numbers. I had a '97 Civic HX that got 37-42 MPG every single tank no matter how I drove it - and that was in Arizona with the A/C full blast most of the time. Civics historically just post impressive mileage numbers. :)


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By theapparition on 6/22/2010 12:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
Real world tests, however, vary far to wildly for any realistic comparison. Too many variables in an uncontrolled enviroment.

EPA numbers may not be indicitive of the mileage that YOU will get (either better or worse) but they do offer a standard set of tests that all cars can be compared to.

That's exactly why the regulation exists. Otherwise it's the wild west with each car mfr using thier own standards.

For an analogy, see the days of computer LCD mfrs each claiming better refresh, GTG, contrast, etc. Some claims were outlandish but the mfr could back it up under a specific set of conditions. Manufacturer's keep one-upping each other, stretching the truth while consumers were confused.

EPA numbers are the only reliable way to compare automobiles. Do you really want to go backwards?


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By chaos386 on 6/22/2010 11:23:12 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, the EPA's fuel economy test has gotten a lot tougher over the years (and even in 1990, the Civic's official fuel economy was only 28/33 MPG). I'd wager you could get a lot more than the rated 40 MPG with your driving style.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Iridium130m on 6/22/2010 11:29:58 AM , Rating: 3
You've hit the dilemma which is weight, but we are also picking it up not just form luxury items, but government mandated safety items as well: ABS, stability control, reinforce roofs and side impact beams, airbags galore...all of this adds to weight which is the number one killer of fuel economy.

your 1990 civic weights ~2300 pounds. Todays civics weigh in at 2700, add 180 lbs for the hybrid. Thats almost a 20% increase in weight. Engine technology, for the most part, has covered that discrepancy in weight keeping fuel economies today somewhat in line with before.

But couple government mandated safety features with E10 blended fuels (soon to be E15, i hope not!) and its an uphill battle to get fuel economy up.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Jeffk464 on 6/22/2010 12:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I might have to get one of these. I was kind of looking for an economy car hidden under a sporty exterior. I currently average 19mpg.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By jthistle on 6/22/2010 12:22:20 PM , Rating: 1
The low MPG comes from Honda's stupidity and EPA testing regulations. The CR-Z has 3 modes Econ, Normal and Sport. The EPA required the car be tested in Normal which resulted in the 36/38 rating. Honda has said the Econ mode will get you close to 50MPG. If Honda had been smart they would have named the modes Normal, Sport1 and Sport2. Then the EPA would have tested in the most efficient mode.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By HotPlasma on 6/22/2010 12:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
If you crash your '90 Civic, you will die. That new car has air bags all around, side-impact beams, anti-lock brakes, stability control and lower emissions.

That's why the mileage isn't any better. The car weighs a lot more and is a lot safer because of all of these things.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2010 2:18:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I get 40-44mpg with my 1990 Honda Civic with just a hair under 200k miles.


No. You don't.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By FredEx on 6/24/2010 12:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Not hard to believe. I used to work in a Honda dealership service department and we had people praising the mileage and fewer damning it. A test drive would prove they had poor driving habits for good mileage. There are a lot of people out there expecting top mileage out of their cars, yet they don't drive anywhere near how they should drive for exceptional mileage.

I have had a few Honda's. My first was a 1981 Prelude, the year before a redesign/upsize. Over 40 mpg was the norm on the highways and 40 mpg in city. I used to drive a lot to teach training classes, especially between Michigan and Atlanta, and would have my big 300 pound buff body in the car and a few hundred pounds of equipment I used for training classes.

I was anal about about tweaking my car for mileage. Back then I used Mobil One or Amzoil synthetic with a Tufoil additive. Also used it in the 5 speed tranny even though self proclaimed experts told me I shouldn't. A friend who worked for a bearing company would get me a synthetic bearing grease containing PTFE. I ran hard compound tires on it for lower rolling resistance. Used to get tires via Tirerack which is now 8 miles from me.


RE: Higher Goals Needed
By rdhood on 6/22/2010 2:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, 40mpg? I get 40-44mpg with my 1990 Honda Civic


Bingo! I had a 1993 Civic VX that got 44mpg (advertised at 55mph). It would get 55mpg IF you drove highway at 55mph.
But this care had about 98 HP, and would barely hold 65mph/40mpg through rolling hills if I had a bike rack on top. This car relied on aerodynamics, low horsepower, and careful driving to achieve the best mpg. Otherwise, 40mpg was pretty standard and performance was less than stellar.

I have been waiting a LONG time for both performance AND good gas mileage. It looks like the Altima Hybrid and the Sonata Hybrid are the closest to that at this point



Old School
By Nodestiny on 6/22/2010 9:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
I built a 98 DOHC neon that got 33-35MPG city and 39-42MPG highway on its 2.0L. Car weighed in at 2150 and engine dyno'd at around 175-180whp... (Very modified, Naturaly Aspirated manually tranny)

They REALLY need to work on making cars weigh less... that is one of the big keys to getting better millage and speed. Either that, or move on with a new technology... using gasoline engines is beyond "old school".




RE: Old School
By TheMouse on 6/22/2010 10:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Make cars weigh less, and add turbos to them. I don't understand why manufacturers don't downsize the engines and put in turbos.


RE: Old School
By Jeffk464 on 6/22/2010 12:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
There are lots of things auto makers can do. Direct fuel injection, turbo, cvt transmissions, dual-clutch DSG automatic transmissions, and of course more use of aluminum and composites to reduce weight. I can't think of one manufacturer that has put all of these goodies into a cool looking coup, they would sell like crazy.


RE: Old School
By mindless1 on 6/22/2010 12:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
No they wouldn't, nobody wants to pay a premium for a tiny anemic car. Well I concede there are some nutjobs out there that would but I'm talking about a customer base large enough to make it a viable product in a manufacturer's lineup.

Already today the larger reason the existing tiny cars sell in the US is their lower price, and all those advanced features would result in higher repair bills too.


RE: Old School
By Spuke on 6/22/2010 4:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No they wouldn't, nobody wants to pay a premium for a tiny anemic car.
I agree with this. History shows that US consumers don't like tiny cars. They never sell well. Not for lack of trying either. Every now and then an automaker will take a billion and flush it down the toilet to see what happens. Ford is trying again with the Fiesta. Honda has the Fit but admittedly hasn't spent much money on it. I doubt that as good as the new Fiesta is, it will not sell in large numbers. Your best bet is to make the meat and potato cars (Camry, Accord, Fusion) more fuel efficient like Hyundai with its new Sonata (number 10 btw in last months US sales) if you want to improve fuel efficiency in the US.

BTW, that new Sonata is VERY nice. And with 4 cyl only engines (including a new turbo 4 coming with 274hp, estimated 34 mpg) this should be the pick for those concerned about economy but still want the mid-sized sedan that so many of us Americans enjoy.


RE: Old School
By EJ257 on 6/22/2010 2:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ford is doing that with the EcoBoost line of engines.


RE: Old School
By Spuke on 6/22/2010 3:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand why manufacturers don't downsize the engines and put in turbos.
They're doing this now. You should try picking up a magazine sometime.


cr-z mileage = joke
By tastyratz on 6/22/2010 8:42:32 AM , Rating: 5
Man did Honda fall short on this one. For something so lightweight (compared to many modern cars) those numbers were easily achieved with traditional 4 cylinders 10 years ago. They set the bar with the insight and miserably flopped with the cr-z... even considering new epa testing standards.
But at least its sporty and fast... OH- wait...




RE: cr-z mileage = joke
By zodiacfml on 6/22/2010 10:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.
In reality, it is not Hyundai competing with the cr-z or hybrids, but with other cars of the same class.

They could be competing against Toyota's FT-86.


RE: cr-z mileage = joke
By Jeffk464 on 6/22/2010 12:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
Honda needs to give up on making anything besides accords and civics. Everything else they make seems to have very poor sales.


Take a good look at the pictures
By YashBudini on 6/22/2010 10:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
And now tell me this car has any rear visibility.




By mindless1 on 6/22/2010 12:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
The rear window is kinda irrelevant if a car is so small you have to stick your head up out of a sunroof to drive it.


RE: Take a good look at the pictures
By rtrski on 6/22/2010 4:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that too, at first. Those rear pillars are huge, but that funky wrap-around sunroof/back window, from the driver's head position, might blend pretty well for rear view.

Not that the 'real thing' will end up looking anything like this concept, unfortunately. I think it's just unique enough to be interesting.


Hyundai doesn't ENGINEER they copy
By pcfxer on 6/23/2010 9:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
Where have I seen a dip from the doorline down to the rear fender before, and that long hood and sweeping roof line onto the rear deck lid....oh wait NISSAN 370Z.

Hyundai has been "engineering" photoshopping again! Watch out for it to claim higher horsepower but be slower than the competition just like the Genesis.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/23/2010 11:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
Hyundai produces reliable vehicles with good fuel economy at affordable prices. That's what matters to most people -- only diehard fanboys care about who rips off who.

Everyday people really don't care.


so many variables
By DoeBoy on 6/22/2010 9:05:45 AM , Rating: 1
There are so many variables to take into consideration when calculating mpg. Do you live in a hilly area? Do you drive aggressive? I would prefer to test mpg by going to a track and doing a few laps where all things for the most part are equal.. unlike going over varied terrain or coming down the Appalachians and saying wow my mpg jumped so much.. well duh you didn't step on the gas pedal the whole way down the mountain.. gee




RE: so many variables
By TheMouse on 6/22/2010 9:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Right now I work from home, so I don't really drive in rush hour anymore. My current MPG is 36MPH combined average on my 2009 198HP Altima.

Last year when I was driving to work in rush hour (NJ congestion), I was getting 42MPG.

When, where, and how make a big difference.


Ethanol ruins the day
By Cullinaire on 6/22/2010 5:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
I take it these MPG numbers are calculated without compensating for any pisswater I mean ethanol blended in with the gasoline. Where I live, 5-10% is the norm...so I highly doubt I'd get anything like 40MPG here.




Miles per Gallon and Power
By motts on 6/23/2010 8:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
Miles per gallon and power vary with altitude. when I lived in Johanesburg,S.A, I found the car a lot less reponsive
than when I was at sea-level.




Butt ugly!
By androticus on 6/23/2010 10:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that is one butt-ugly looking car! Looks uglier than the Acura ZX, which if you've seen one in person (the pics in ads really don't give an accurate impression) you know is ugly!




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki