FR-S/BRZ vs. Genesis Coupe

[cassidy0998]

I hate straying from the topic, but I just wanted to make a simple point that... the tC is still fwd.

No offense, I mean, I don't have anything against fwd cars... well, not for the most part.

but...

it's still... fwd...

The GC offers rwd driving characteristics, which to me is important for a sports car. I consider all trim levels of the GC to be sports cars, the tC is simply a sporty car.

The 2012 tC is a high 15 second car. (It is essentially the missing link between the GT 1zzfe and GT-S 2zzge Celicas) The 2.0T GC is a low 15 second rwd car and is already turbocharged and it still gets similar mpg to the tC. All for only a few grand more than the tC.

Also, Hyundai has a much longer warranty than Scion.


I would buy a GC over a tC any day, that's just me though. Now an FR-S/BRZ vs. a GC though, well that's another story - and is what this thread was originally created for.

[Mr.Jay]

the GC also has a terrible stick transmission which I hope they fixed in this updated model

[prighello]

Originally Posted by Mr.Jay

the GC also has a terrible stick transmission which I hope they fixed in this updated model

+1 the tranny is not so good too bad they can't use put in an aisin. A diet and some extra hp too.

[CyberFormula]

new genesis coupe is rediculous...

2.0L turbo with 270hp? Ummm RWD lancer evolutiON?
PLUS the interior in spy shots show Boost gauges, oil gauges..

[MTD]

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by cassidy0998

I hate straying from the topic, but I just wanted to make a simple point that... the tC is still fwd.

No offense, I mean, I don't have anything against fwd cars... well, not for the most part.

but...

it's still... fwd...

Doesn't stop it from being a capable performer.

Originally Posted by cassidy0998

The 2012 tC is a high 15 second car. (It is essentially the missing link between the GT 1zzfe and GT-S 2zzge Celicas) The 2.0T GC is a low 15 second rwd car and is already turbocharged and it still gets similar mpg to the tC. All for only a few grand more than the tC.

That is not accurate. The 1st gen tC is a mid 15sec car with an average driver. The 2012 tC is a mid 15sec car with an average driver, but it traps higher so it's possible to get it to low 15s. The GC runs the same as the tC, which is sad because it has a turbo and is RWD.

Originally Posted by cassidy0998

Also, Hyundai has a much longer warranty than Scion.


I would buy a GC over a tC any day, that's just me though. Now an FR-S/BRZ vs. a GC though, well that's another story - and is what this thread was originally created for.

They kinda have to due to their past reputation. It's a insentive to buy their brand.

If I didn't already have a tC, I would still buy it over a GC.

[blur]

Lol when did this thread become tC vs GC?

[Mr.Jay]

Originally Posted by blur

Lol when did this thread become tC vs GC?

since no thread on this forum stays on topic XD

[cassidy0998]

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

[/B]


Doesn't stop it from being a capable performer.

That is not accurate. The 1st gen tC is a mid 15sec car with an average driver. The 2012 tC is a mid 15sec car with an average driver, but it traps higher so it's possible to get it to low 15s. The GC runs the same as the tC, which is sad because it has a turbo and is RWD.

They kinda have to due to their past reputation. It's a insentive to buy their brand.

If I didn't already have a tC, I would still buy it over a GC.

It absolutely is a capable performer. I used to own a Celica GT several years ago. Great little car, and not so different than the tC. But I would never put it in the same class as a GC. It is hard to separate the two cars just by their 1/4 times. I have seen many tCs run high 15s, but maybe it's mid 15s for the tC with an average driver, but it's still low 15s for the GC with an average driver. Regardless, They are still 15s. The tC is much lighter, but as we discussed, the GC is a rwd car, which opens the car up to other possibilities. If the tC was rwd, it would be heavier as well, but it isn't. It's a different car.

I would simply buy a GC because it's already turbo'd, and rwd. I wouldn't look at it like "well, the tC is also a 15 second car, although slower, and fwd, but a little cheaper". The qualities of the GC outweigh the qualities of the tC (to me).

And about the warranty, it is what it is - Hyundai offers a much better warranty. Despite their products of the past.



BACK ON TOPIC - if the new GC ends up having 270hp for the 2.0T, will anybody seriously consider it over the FR-S/BRZ?

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by cassidy0998

It absolutely is a capable performer. I used to own a Celica GT several years ago. Great little car, and not so different than the tC. But I would never put it in the same class as a GC. It is hard to separate the two cars just by their 1/4 times. I have seen many tCs run high 15s, but maybe it's mid 15s for the tC with an average driver, but it's still low 15s for the GC with an average driver. Regardless, They are still 15s. The tC is much lighter, but as we discussed, the GC is a rwd car, which opens the car up to other possibilities. If the tC was rwd, it would be heavier as well, but it isn't. It's a different car.

I would simply buy a GC because it's already turbo'd, and rwd. I wouldn't look at it like "well, the tC is also a 15 second car, although slower, and fwd, but a little cheaper". The qualities of the GC outweigh the qualities of the tC (to me).

And about the warranty, it is what it is - Hyundai offers a much better warranty. Despite their products of the past.



BACK ON TOPIC - if the new GC ends up having 270hp for the 2.0T, will anybody seriously consider it over the FR-S/BRZ?

It's mid 15 for the average GC driver. Everyone I see is mid 15sec runs. Again, I think that's poor performing for a RWD turbo 2.0L vehicle regardless if it's mid or low 15's. Should be in the 14's somewhere, but it can't because it's overweight.

Nope, wouldn't even give it a second look if you put it next to the FRS.

[cassidy0998]

Originally Posted by Dragonitti

It's mid 15 for the average GC driver. Everyone I see is mid 15sec runs. Again, I think that's poor performing for a RWD turbo 2.0L vehicle regardless if it's mid or low 15's. Should be in the 14's somewhere, but it can't because it's overweight.

Nope, wouldn't even give it a second look if you put it next to the FRS.

I've seen several stock 2.0Ts run low 15s. Still though, just inconsistent 15s for both cars.

We also have to consider the fact that the GC also offers the V6 platform. (and when comparing this to the FR-S/BRZ, that's a fair point to bring up, as they will most likely be in a similar price range) And in comparison to a vehicle with similar weight, such as a G35/350z etc. it puts up a pretty good fight. The 2.0T is simply a choice, but one that offers characteristics that may appeal to someone who wants a rwd turbo car at a very reasonable price.

It's a bold statement to say that you would take the FR-S, considering it isn't even out yet - and we don't know what it's really going to turn out like in the end. Given its specs, I'm going to guess that it will also be a 15 second car.

Again, we don't know exactly what the new GC is going to turn out like either. If the new GC stays around the same price, I have a feeling that it's going to be incredible. (incredible as in.... maybe 14s for the 2.0T? haha)


EDIT: Here are some new pictures of the GC

[Dragonitti]

Originally Posted by cassidy0998

I've seen several stock 2.0Ts run low 15s. Still though, just inconsistent 15s for both cars.

We also have to consider the fact that the GC also offers the V6 platform. (and when comparing this to the FR-S/BRZ, that's a fair point to bring up, as they will most likely be in a similar price range) And in comparison to a vehicle with similar weight, such as a G35/350z etc. it puts up a pretty good fight. The 2.0T is simply a choice, but one that offers characteristics that may appeal to someone who wants a rwd turbo car at a very reasonable price.

The G35 and 350z are no longer produced. Car makers don't compare to out of production cars. It's the G37 and 370z the 3.6 GC would be compared to. And compared to those two, it gets destroyed. Weighs more than a 370z and don't have the power. So, it gets little love as well.

Originally Posted by cassidy0998

It's a bold statement to say that you would take the FR-S, considering it isn't even out yet - and we don't know what it's really going to turn out like in the end. Given its specs, I'm going to guess that it will also be a 15 second car.

Not a bold statement. If I didn't like the FR-S "when" it comes out, then I wouldn't take either. I don't like the interior of the GC either aside from the exterior. I like the old exterior better than the new one. But the old GC is slow for what it is. With the specs, FRS should be mid 14sec car.

[spin9k]

Seeing these pics of the updated GC, it's obvious that relieving it of the previous awful drooping looking front end has made a vast improvement and given the car a welcome aggressive stance. It's certainly a different car from the FR-S, more GT car than lightweight coupe, but that doesn't make it bad in any way shape or form, just different. With the turbo 4 maybe improved, a 333HP V6 and perhaps even an 8 one day, things in the Hyundai garage are looking good!

Hyundai is improving the breed, as any maker would be expected to do. I fully expect power, weight, and overall performance to notch up and make it a better drivers car than before. Hyundai is defintely on a roll.

[Dark]

Wow, new GC looks awesome. Sorry, I was kidding, it looks like an ass.

Overweight, lack of feature for its price, crappy interior built(at least the last one), econobox looking front( corporate front) and interior.

Do we really need 10 year/100K mile warranty on Toyota? my family '99 RX300, '95 Camry, '04 Camry, '06 IS250 are trouble-free. If you have a bad luck, you will always get lemon. that's said, I don't really anything more than Toyota 5yr/60Kmile warranty.