Insideline: Hyundai Veloster Turbo vs Scion FR-S
 

Interesting read:
http://www.insideline.com/scion/fr-s...ison-test.html

Attachment 11547

2013 Hyundai Veloster Turbo vs. 2013 Scion FR-S Comparison Test

Which $25K Sports Car Is the Real Deal?

Purists stand firm on the notion that few sports-car truths are more self-evident than the superiority of rear-wheel drive, full stop. This is a dogma that was fully embraced by the creators of the 2013 Scion FR-S to the extent that the car's very model name acronymically trumpets this fact.

And then the front-wheel-drive 2013 Hyundai Veloster Turbo goes and out-slaloms it. Yep, 68.0 mph to the Scion's 66.8 mph.

But let's take a step back. A more obvious competitor for the Scion FR-S is Hyundai's rear-drive Genesis Coupe. But what's this? The Veloster Turbo we tested costs $25,320 and generates 201 horsepower, stats that read as though lifted from the FR-S window sticker (our FR-S tester stickered at $24,930 and produces 200 hp). Get past the obvious dissimilarities in door count and drive wheels and we have a surprisingly level playing field. So let's see how they stack up in the real world.

Pace Makes the Difference

The Veloster Turbo is relatively lightweight at 2,910 pounds and the suspension is dialed up to a stiffness that's busy but not quite uncomfortable. Unraveling a winding road at what we call momentum pace — a quickish clip that's not so rapid that you have to brake for corners — the Veloster Turbo's responses suggest that promising things await those willing to draw more deeply from its well.

Unfortunately, the Veloster's well is shallow, and its chassis wilts when confronted with a more determined charge through the same canyon. Turn into a bend like you mean it and there's an elastic imprecision between your hands and the road as though there's too much sidewall flex in the Veloster's 215/40 Kumho Solus KH25 tires, or its suspension bushings are too soft. And the steering, though quick immediately off-center, slackens off as you wind on lock and is overboosted. Attempt to power out of a corner on the throttle and the Veloster Turbo does a one-tire fire, as there's no limited-slip differential. And it needs one.

The harder you drive it, the more the Veloster Turbo frustrates. Its modest ultimate grip of 0.83g is not the issue. It's the way it composes itself on imperfect roads. Even around town the rear suspension's sensitivity to bumps is obvious and when it encounters a pavement seam midcorner, the ass end will step out several inches. The chassis also wallows as though underdamped when told to brake hard on lumpy bitumen. No wonder the logbook entries ranged from "it feels unfinished" to "This chassis is a mess."

Purpose-Built

Slide into the little FR-S coupe after wheeling the Veloster and you immediately notice that the Scion's seat is lower slung and more supportive, its structure is noticeably stiffer and the control interfaces move with more mechanical heft. It turns in with far more precision. The FR-S's brakes are firm and the pedal placement makes heel-and-toeing a cinch. While the Veloster's shifter is quick, it feels toylike in comparison to the Scion's more substantial-feeling gearchange. The FR-S's lever is a bit notchy and sometimes balks at downshifts into the 4th gear gate, but on balance it is a pleasure to row.

The Scion's steering is leagues sharper than the Veloster's, and better weighted besides. It tracks more honestly and isn't flustered at all by pockmarked pavement. On the smooth surface of our skid pad it produced a 0.90g orbit, considerably grippier than the Veloster. Braking the FR-S from 60 consumed 118 feet, edging the Veloster yet indicative of rubber that is on the meek end of its summer tire classification.

Yet it is tactility that defines the FR-S. This is a car that is completely at ease when the limits of its 215/45 Michelin Primacy HP tires are being explored, remaining sharp and communicative. It telegraphs clearly how to get the most out of it — ham-handed overdriving will drag the nose wide, yet prudent trail braking and throttle manipulations allow the balance of grip at both ends of the car to be managed. Extracting this balance in the FR-S is just loads of fun. And unlike the Veloster, this is a chassis that can clearly exploit more tire.

The Goods Under the Hood

That's not to say that all is bad in Velosterland. Its 1.6-liter turbocharged engine churns up a flexible torque curve and transitions into boost so seamlessly that you might not guess it's turbocharged. You step on it, and the creamy-smooth mill delivers satisfying hustle all the way through the midrange, tapering off as the 6,750-rpm rev limiter looms. At cruise, the engine note drops to a whisper. Despite channeling 195 pound-feet of torque to the front wheels, torque steer is essentially nonexistent.

In our testing it hit 60 mph in 7.7 seconds (7.4 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip) and the quarter-mile in 15.6 seconds at 89.1 mph, though its in-gear acceleration is lustier than these numbers suggest. Indeed, the Turbo has the power delivery that the base Veloster should have had in the first place, especially as its EPA fuel economy (26 city/38 highway mpg) still pips that of the Scion (22 city/30 highway mpg). It'll come to a halt from 60 to zero in 126 feet — not bad, but then its tires quickly succumb to hard driving-induced heat.

Our test car was equipped only with the $2,500 Ultimate package which includes useful bits like automatic headlights, a nav system with rearview camera and back-up alerts. It is unfortunate that a headroom-eating, chassis-flimsifying panoramic sunroof is larded into the package's mix as well, but there's no denying that this Veloster Turbo offers a more formidable features list than the relatively spartan FR-S.

The Dangers of Spec Sheets, Part Two

Just as the Veloster's slalom result prompts a "yeah, but," so, too, does the FR-S drag strip performance. The FR-S ran to 60 in 6.6 seconds (6.3 with 1 foot of rollout) — more than a second quicker than the Veloster — and did the quarter-mile in 14.9 seconds at 93.1 mph. It would be easy to attribute this performance chasm to the 176-pound lighter curb weight of the FR-S and call it a day. But in running both of the cars in our test over hill and dale, the difference in their ability to sprint between corners just wasn't that vast.

Torque is the reason. The Veloster has it and, well, the FR-S has a big dip in middle of its torque curve. As such, achieving the FR-S's acceleration numbers above takes a 5,000-rpm, dropped-clutch, tire-spinning launch. This damn-the-torpedoes launch hazes the tires until just before the 1-2 upshift, which keeps the normally aspirated 2.0-liter flat-4 on boil and bypasses its torque hole entirely. Any other type of launch and the FR-S's 0-60 and quarter-mile times suffer dramatically. Conversely, the Veloster has the torque but not the traction — it's effectively got one tire at the wrong end of the car to handle the launch, and this hampers its ability to perform a holeshot, hampering its numbers.

More thrust in the midrange would only enhance the inherent handling attributes of the FR-S's rear-drive layout. As it is, its 151 lb-ft in the 2.0-liter mill is just not enough poke for when you want to, say, intentionally upset the chassis and induce a sustained powerslide on dry pavement. It is a smooth power plant, however, and is totally at home when the tach needle is flirting with the 7,400-rpm rev limiter. It doesn't sound very good — beyond a bit of intake honk at wide-open throttle, this flat-4 is a fairly agricultural noisemaker. Granted, the Veloster whooshes like a yard appliance at full whack, but at least it falls silent while cruising.

All of this is a long way of explaining that despite the numbers, the Hyundai doesn't really cede any straight-line giddy-up to the FR-S when playing cat-and-mouse on our canyon road. The Veloster's midrange-rich brand of shove is more useful in day-to-day driving, too.

Sporty Vs. Sports

We came away from the Veloster Turbo disappointed. It's not a convincing sporting proposition, rather a package that trades heavily on its funky styling and unusual asymmetry. We want to believe that the Veloster Turbo would brighten up substantially with better tires and a limited-slip differential, but more likely the low-rent beam-axle rear suspension is at the root of the Veloster's dynamic shortcomings, and not even the most exotic concoction of carbon, silica and gears will help it.

The Scion FR-S is quickly becoming the default choice when cost and fun are the priorities. By nailing the fundamentals of the package, the Scion has shown that engaging dynamics need not be out of reach of the common man, and in doing so has put other automakers on watch.

The rear-drive dogma is rooted in truth. The Scion FR-S wins our comparison test.

Exactly like the 2012 Velsoter drove. >< ......

The Veloster is a disaster. This is what happens when you try to please everyone- you end up pleasing nobody.

The FR-S/BRZ is quickly becoming the benchmark for inexpensive sporty cars.

And it has only been out for a little over 2 months.

Pretty sure the FR-S and BRZ is the SPORT car of the year.

It's simply amazing! :)

... I'll have to get a BRZ come forth a few years.

That truly disappoints me. Hopefully Hyundai takes the L, and goes back to the drawing board for next year's model.

As for the BRZ/FR-S getting sports car of the year, I would have to agree, but then again, it would definitely be a default award, since there really isn't anything that competes with it.

Yeah, i haven't heard many good things about the Veloster Turbo-- which is a shame because i was hoping it was gonna be bold.

I drove a NA Veloster for about 8 months. It was a nice little car. Great warranty, really well equipped for the price etc. If they ever get their suspensions figured out they will do much better in the "sporty" category they seem to be trying to get in to.

I know, there is nothing....nothing is its class. It's in a class of its own!

Oh and the Mazda MX5 Miata is not in the FR-S\BRZ\86 class. Sure it's a lightweight relatively cheap roadster, which means the miata is in a class all its own too until the FR-S\86 convertible comes out next year....hehe!

I can respect the unique nature of the Veloster, but really it's a Jack of all trades, master of none.

There's a reason why there are different lines of cars to cater to each need. The whole cross-over in my opinion is a fad and I'm just predicting it's downfall in the near future. It's supposed to be a daily commuter sedan but with SUV gas-draining qualities to it that has the space of of a hatchback at best.

In my honest opinion, the Veloster has a serious identity crisis.

Very true. If you look at it from a pricing standpoint, it has competitors, if you look at it from a size standpoint, it has its competitors. If you factor all of that in though, it is truly on its own. The Genesis Coupe is in the GT/Sports car class (Mustang, Camaro, G37, RX8), the Z is in the Sports car class (Corvette, Cayman, Audi TT), the Miata is in the Roadster/Sports Car class (Z4, Boxster S). I honestly think the only one that MIGHT be in it's class is the Porsche 911, and the thought of that is just flat out retarded to me.

The Veloster gets 38 mpg highway....

Hyundai better sell as many of these as they can before the Focus ST comes out. That thing is going to dominate the affordable sporty car segment.

i like the new veloster turbo...but i'm not feeling the hatch back so much...

The Veloster gets 38 "hyundai" miles per gallon or HMPG on highway.
1 HMPG ~= 0.8 MPG

I wasn't pointing at the Veloster as a Cross-over :rolleyes:. I'm saying that in general, cars that try to be good at everything aren't excellent in a single thing and brought the cross-over up as an example. Funny you bolded the the part with elements of SUV since since the veloster exhibits none of the SUV traits I would think that the example i brought up with exclude the veloster entirely.

The Veloster is a sporty coupe/hatch/half-of-a-half-sedan (one quarter). :barf:

Exactly.

It tries to be sporty but has a horrible suspension. Fail.

It tries to be practical but has 2 "real" doors and that useless abortion, and the backseats are useless to anyone over 5'9". Fail.

It tries to be edgy but has styling that will either excite you or remind you of the Pontiak Aztek, and will look dated in a few years. Fail.

I will happily give Hyundai credit when they come up with something good - see Genesis Coupe - but this? Forget it.

Such a shame about the performance because every time I drive by one, I swoon at the styling. I think it's a really out there hatchback. Just a shame that it doesn't come "hot".

Good read.

Agreed. I can't say I'm much of a Hyundai fan but I'm a car enthusiast so I can appreciate all interesting cars. I love the unique (perhaps goofy) look of the Veloster. I had no idea it had a beam axle. This is pretty disappointing.

For funs, a picture of one with a personalized plate near me. I loled when I saw it. I enjoy when people have a sense of humor with their cars.

http://i.imgur.com/EnneT.jpg

Or when Mazda makes a Skyactic Miata Coupe...Just saying...

which is weird. maybe everyone just forgot about the miata
not happening but i cant wait for the skyactiv to be worked into the miata

I don't see it happening for 2014, but Miata enthusiasts have been begging Mazda for a long time now...Either way, I, too, am excited for a Skactiv Miata! My buddy's girlfriend just got a `13 Mazda3 with the Skyactiv engine, and he took me around the block in it; for 150 hp in a 3000 lb car with almost 500 lbs of passengers, it pulled hard! And that is the auto tranny...If Mazda can deliver on the Skyactiv chassis and suspension, like they have with the engine and transmission, then Toyota and Subaru are going to have to do more than just cut the top off the twins if they plan on selling any roadsters!

yeah we have been asking for it since 89. it isnt going to happen. i almost bought a skyactiv 3 but decided that i dont care about money because my commute would kill me so i went with the ls430 instead. dont let the auto thing fool you. its using a direct transfer so you dont lose any power at speeds. but back to the point...i dont think a company in the world can go toe to toe with mazda when it comes to the classic roadster formula

There's a black Veloster Turbo on the same street where my parents live. I see it parked out front every time I visit. One time the owner (I presume) was doing some yard work and stared as I drove by. :D

I was curious about the car but it seems disappointing. How in the world does it weigh not only more than the FRS, but also any Civic?!

It's not so much that the RWD dogma wins but more to do with how poorly sorted the Veloster's chassis is. You can't simply slap a turbo into a regular econobox and call it a day. Hyundai still has a long way to go before it can be taken seriously in the performance category.

I almost bought a veloster, that's right the non-turbo version! whew, dodged a bullet there, thanks big guy.

i daily a na veloster. it's fine for the purpose it serves. great gas mileage(i see 41 normally), space to haul stuff, and a back seat. it's actually not that bad with the beam suspension just driving around, but on a good pace it's kinda scary. the back end lifts under threshold braking, it doesnt plant well for fast corner exit, but the turn in isn't bad at all. it corners pretty well if you keep it revved up, but besides that it's nothing to call home about.

exactly, they always use all kinds of tricks to practically cheat in the EPA mpg test

The WRX says hi.

And so many people give the FR-S/BRZ crap for its hp numbers and performance...

I honestly think it was Hyundai's intention to make the car like this. Its just like the Sonata Turbo where you just get more power and some interior upgrades. If they released a R-Spec version of the Turbo Veloster and it is complete shit then you can justify how you feel about Hyundai.

lol
It's funny, but it's true.
It's at very least 1 MHPG ~= 0.9 MPG.

wait the FR-s did 6.6 secs 0-60????
I thought it was in the 7 sec range. I guess the lack of torque makes it
feel slower than it is.

With the manual transmission, 6's. Does it matter?

I actually really like Hyundai for what they are doing. They wanted to make the successor to the 240SX since Nissan didn't have the balls to do it, and filled the void when Toyota was still exclusively making beige and boring cars.

The Veloster Turbo is a great car, considering the car is supposed to compete with a Scion tC, I think it fares quite well.

:word:


The FR-S's whole definition; it's ethos, is that of a "driver's car."

It would say a lot if Toyota/Subaru created this chassis and failed instead of reciving all of this positive attention.

Hyundai on the other hand (like you've stated) set out to make a quirky, quick, sporty car and I think they've done a good job.

In the end it's kinda like saying USA Basketball is going to beat Tunisia. You know it's going to happen, you just don't know by how much.

2013 Hyundai Veloster Turbo: 6.8s
2013 FRS: 5.9s per zeroto60times.com to be exact if you care :)
Oh well it just depend how you launch for the money !

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If you mean the base WRX 5MT and you're not impressed with it because of what I said about 'not slapping a turbo in an econobox and calling it a day', then you and I are in agreement.

You have a point. It would make sense if this was what Hyundai had intended to make - something with good power for its size, geared towards fuel economy and grocery getting/DD.

If it didn't matter you wouldn't know it and magazines wouldn't test it.