2015 Genesis Pricing, a bit more …

[YEH]

Im hoping Hyundai does not have a significant price increase. I know they will not be offering the big discounts right after launch, but if the discounts dont come, they will price me out of the market. Im no auto industry analyst but IMO they need to keep their identity of being a value brand.

The value is in not having to price in the cost of a luxury brand and separate dealer network, not to mention higher end service.

The cost of the aforementioned would add around $7-8k per vehicle for the Genesis, so $7-8k below the GS and M is where Hyundai should target the pricing.

They can make the price differential greater if they decide not to offer service amenities like a guaranteed loaner, but I think they should offer for the new Genesis if they are serious about the 2G Genesis being a contender in the midsize luxury segment.

The reason why the Equus has a higher price relative to its segment is that Hyundai had to price in the higher end service amenities like valet service calls and guaranteed loaners.

Along the same lines, the Kia Cadenza is priced higher than the Azera due it offering free maintenance (not really free - the cost is just built into the price) and having a more luxurious interior.

 

[sandy]

While Equus may have a higher sticker price relative to its segment, the reality of the marketplace has many dealers already discounting the 2014's close to $10k. There is a limit to the demand for and how high a price a non-status, status car can command. That's why I anticipate good deals on the upcoming Kia K900

 

[Mark_888]

While Equus may have a higher sticker price relative to its segment, the reality of the marketplace has many dealers already discounting the 2014's close to $10k. There is a limit to the demand for and how high a price a non-status, status car can command. That's why I anticipate good deals on the upcoming Kia K900

Assuming 2015 is not discounted much initially, that might make the "out the door" price of a loaded 2015 Genesis to be about the same as 2014 Equus.

 

[grandpamike]

IF they can pull it off, they will succeed in getting folks who are buying BMW' Lexus and Audi to at least look at the car as an option, but at the top of the price range, not sure many will switch.

Looks like I'll be keeping my 2012 Avalon for a bit longer.

Skip

I like my 2012 Genny 4.6, but at the stated price points, I would look to Audi to replace my 2012. I have an Audi, as a second car, a 2001 A6 2.7T, which only has 60K miles on it and it still drives great. The only downside to German cars is the cost of maintenance.

 

[whatever]

I agree. I'm also happy for Medusa and anybody else who can enjoy their cars as much as he (she?) does. Nuff said. BTW I'm a very happy person

Back to the thread. Canadian prices are currently about 9%-10% higher for the same model in the USA, just looking at dollar values. The exchange rate doesn't really apply since the cars are coming to Canada from Korea, not the USA. In other words, you can expect the 2015 US pricing to be about 10% less than those stated for the same Canadian model.

As 'whatever' stated, the increase for the new model is less than I would have thought given that AWD is standard - although I still really wish it was an option.

The price for the AWD Canadian Genesis is in Canadian Dollars. $43,500 in Canadian Dollars is about $39,600 US Dollars. Assume AWD costs about US$2,500 and the base RWD would be about $37,100. Make similar 9% adjustments and the prices are quite competitive.

 

[crepen]

2013 3.8 in Canada is $40k, without AWD or Nav, so if they can sell the 2015 with AWD and Nav (and other improvements) for $43k, the 2015 will be a BETTER value than the 2013, assuming OP is correct about the base model having a nav system (and assuming you value AWD and Nav System). No sunroof on base, or just not panoramic?

I'll be starting to look for the next ride in 2015 or 2016, so if they can do that pricing, it will be on the short list for sure.

Well, depending on how it looks in real life. Not sure about the front end in most photos I have seen, although the profile is (IMHO) elegant.

(update)

Looks like the 3.8 Premium (Luxury) and Tech packages are also $3000-3500 more than equivalent 2013. The R-spec on the other hand is about $9.5k more. That is a big jump, but, adaptive suspension, 10"'; nav, super-lex sound system, may be justified? What is the direct competition at $62k? A 535xDrive is $65k WITHOUT a whole whack of the tech, and with 241hp (vs 429) and 6.4s 0-60. This still looks like a whole lot of car for the money.

My personal experience with an '09 Canadian 3.8 Premium, 5 years and 5 months years and over 160000 km (100k miles), has been quite positive. I love the looks, luxury, features and performance, can live with the suspension, and have only had minor niggling issues - one park sensor and MAF sensor under warranty, passenger side power lock just stopped working recently, will have that looked at when next in for service.

Most importantly, I can live with the monthly payment. Dropping $500 more a month for 10% more car just because of a nameplate does not appeal to me.

 

[italiabrain]

2013 3.8 in Canada is $40k, without AWD or Nav, so if they can sell the 2015 with AWD and Nav (and other improvements) for $43k, the 2015 will be a BETTER value than the 2013, assuming OP is correct about the base model having a nav system (and assuming you value AWD and Nav System). No sunroof on base, or just not panoramic?

I'll be starting to look for the next ride in 2015 or 2016, so if they can do that pricing, it will be on the short list for sure.

Well, depending on how it looks in real life. Not sure about the front end in most photos I have seen, although the profile is (IMHO) elegant.

(update)

Looks like the 3.8 Premium (Luxury) and Tech packages are also $3000-3500 more than equivalent 2013. The R-spec on the other hand is about $9.5k more. That is a big jump, but, adaptive suspension, 10"'; nav, super-lex sound system, may be justified? What is the direct competition at $62k? A 535xDrive is $65k WITHOUT a whole whack of the tech, and with 241hp (vs 429) and 6.4s 0-60. This still looks like a whole lot of car for the money.

My personal experience with an '09 Canadian 3.8 Premium, 5 years and 5 months years and over 160000 km (100k miles), has been quite positive. I love the looks, luxury, features and performance, can live with the suspension, and have only had minor niggling issues - one park sensor and MAF sensor under warranty, passenger side power lock just stopped working recently, will have that looked at when next in for service.

Most importantly, I can live with the monthly payment. Dropping $500 more a month for 10% more car just because of a nameplate does not appeal to me.

I agree with you on pricing considerations, but not on performance numbers:

The 535xi is underrated at 300hp and (if the previous generation is an indicator) the Genesis will be slightly overrated at 420. The actual difference at the wheels between the two is likely to be more like 80hp.

Same for 0-60. Apples-to-apples: Motor Trend has the 535xi at 5.5s while they have the RSpec at 4.8s. Adding weight and drivetrain loss on AWD the new Genesis V8 Htrac will probably be in the 5.1 ballpark. Different, but not worlds apart.

 

[ksoze]

Adding weight and drivetrain loss on AWD the new Genesis V8 Htrac will probably be in the 5.1 ballpark.

Not convinced of that. The 535iX is faster in tests over the 535i. Not to start the AWD debate again, but similar cars do not show a loss for their AWD models, where increased traction overcomes weight.

 

[italiabrain]

Not convinced of that. The 535iX is faster in tests over the 535i. Not to start the AWD debate again, but similar cars do not show a loss for their AWD models, where increased traction overcomes weight.

I disagree. Your general point is taken, however the Motor Trend testing (just to stay apples to apples) is identical for the Xi and the i. Additionally, every car I can think of that does the same or better with AWD (vs RWD) has forced induction and a resulting extremely flat torque curve. In other words, the cars you're referring to aren't actually similar. With a relatively low torque NA engine mild to moderate wheelspin is often advantageous because it gets the car into the power band sooner. The Lexus GS and Infiniti Q50 lose time with AWD. While it is more powerful, the Tau V8 is more likely to follow that trend IMO.

It's certainly not as simple as AWD universally adding or subtracting time, but I think in the case of the Genesis where there is a large disparity between peak power and low-end torque AWD is more likely to hurt, especially with the 275 rears on the 2015.

Even if you disagree with every word of that, the point remains that he was saying 535 and talking 535 pricing while giving 528 hp and 0-60 numbers that exaggerated the difference.

 

[ksoze]

Scusa Italian, you are incorrect. Tests show the X drive versions of BMW's cars to be faster 0-60, with the same HP. It is not really that surprising - in some cases the gearing is different in the AWD drivetrains and the added traction to all fours wheels on full throttle will slow up any anti-slip nannies from coming on resulting in quicker 0-60.

How will Hyundai's AWD versions fare? No idea, but based on other brands who use similar hardware (AWD), there may not be the gap you proposed. Even you agreed, quoting a MT test that had both BMW cars the same.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Aquineas]

Well when (if?) the US version of the AWD V8 version of the Genesis is released, I suppose it will settle the argument. I generally agree with Italia though. I don't think the BMW RWD-AWD comparison numbers are entirely comparable as BMW tends to under-promise and over-deliver on power, whereas with the 2012-2014 5.0 Genesis, I'm of the opinion that it's de-tuned slightly (particularly for torque). As Nissan has discovered time and time again when they have aimed for the M3 with the 350 and 370z, German horses are a lot stouter.

Personally, I'm estimating the AWD version of the Genesis will be about .1-.2s slower, so about 5.3 0-60, which is still pretty damned respectable.

 

[ksoze]

I generally agree with Italia though. I don't think the BMW RWD-AWD comparison numbers are entirely comparable as BMW tends to under-promise and over-deliver on power, whereas with the 2012-2014 5.0 Genesis, I'm of the opinion that it's de-tuned slightly (particularly for torque).

There might be shift in the original argument happening here. There is no comparison between car brands being attempted here by me. The HP rating between the cars being discussed here are the exact same - the 535i and 535iX have the exact same engine (as does the 550i & 550iX), so how they rate them to other brands does not matter, it's the same rating between the two F10 cars models.

One will assume the new Genesis AWD and RWD model also share the exact same power plant, forget the viability of the rating. We do not have both drivetrain versions to gauge the 0-60 yet, so a similar platform may give some insight into the suggested "loss" of performance of AWD.

 

[italiabrain]

Scusa Italian, you are incorrect. Tests show the X drive versions of BMW's cars to be faster 0-60, with the same HP. It is not really that surprising - in some cases the gearing is different in the AWD drivetrains and the added traction to all fours wheels on full throttle will slow up any anti-slip nannies from coming on resulting in quicker 0-60.

How will Hyundai's AWD versions fare? No idea, but based on other brands who use similar hardware (AWD), there may not be the gap you proposed. Even you agreed, quoting a MT test that had both BMW cars the same.

How am I "incorrect"? I never said the Xi was slower than the i. I said the BMW trend wasn't comparable to the Genesis trend because the BMW benefits from significant low-end torque as a result of forced induction that the Genesis does not have.

I also suggested that the Genesis was more likely IN MY OPINION to follow the trend of other NA cars with significant disparities in peak HP and low-end Torque such as the GS and Q50.

 

[crepen]

I agree with you on pricing considerations, but not on performance numbers:

The 535xi is underrated at 300hp and (if the previous generation is an indicator) the Genesis will be slightly overrated at 420. The actual difference at the wheels between the two is likely to be more like 80hp.

Same for 0-60. Apples-to-apples: Motor Trend has the 535xi at 5.5s while they have the RSpec at 4.8s. Adding weight and drivetrain loss on AWD the new Genesis V8 Htrac will probably be in the 5.1 ballpark. Different, but not worlds apart.

Sorry - you are right the 535xi is 300 not 241.

Still, you think that BMW understates by 20 and Hyundai over by 20 (or some such combo adding up to 40hp)? What facts do you have to support this? I don't buy it.

The G is bigger, faster, better kitted for less $. I have long been a BMW fan, but having driven recent BMWs (especially those on run-flats) the G is better suited to pot-holed CDN roads. It's not a fair fight.

 

[italiabrain]

Sorry - you are right the 535xi is 300 not 241.

Still, you think that BMW understates by 20 and Hyundai over by 20 (or some such combo adding up to 40hp)? What facts do you have to support this? I don't buy it.

The G is bigger, faster, better kitted for less $. I have long been a BMW fan, but having driven recent BMWs (especially those on run-flats) the G is better suited to pot-holed CDN roads. It's not a fair fight.

On the Hyundai being over rated (at least vs industry standards), here's a comparison to a non-German car advertised as having 9 fewer horsepower than the Genesis:

Edmunds on the same dyno has the 535 at 277. 277 vs 364... That's a difference of 87. I think that makes 80 a pretty good guess, don't you?

 

[tompass]

Perhaps that has something to do with Hyundai downgrading HP numbers on 2015 models. I compared performance of Acura TL SH AWD to '13 Genesis 3.8. Genesis rated at 333HP and TL at 306HP but TL much faster 0-60.

 

[Aquineas]

Perhaps that has something to do with Hyundai downgrading HP numbers on 2015 models. I compared performance of Acura TL SH AWD to '13 Genesis 3.8. Genesis rated at 333HP and TL at 306HP but TL much faster 0-60.

I haven't checked this, but how close are they in weight?

 

[tompass]

Acura TL SH AWD 4001 Genesis 3.8 3824

 

[italiabrain]

Perhaps that has something to do with Hyundai downgrading HP numbers on 2015 models. I compared performance of Acura TL SH AWD to '13 Genesis 3.8. Genesis rated at 333HP and TL at 306HP but TL much faster 0-60.

I think downrating on the 2015 is just that. I would bet that on the dyno it actually gains a little bit of power (dual intake and increased compression ratio seem like definitive positives). I think they're just moving toward the industry standard in terms of how they rate it. I'm betting the dyno line will move up to match the peak HP of the M56, and the advertised rating is also moving down to match it.

I haven't seen weight numbers for the 2015 Genesis in US spec 5.0 yet, but if the weight gain is minimal I wouldn't be surprised if the 275 rears and increased low-end torque shaved a tenth off the 2013 times.

I didn't think the TL was that much faster, at least not the automatic. Allow for an AWD clutch dump and the TL might do 5 flat, but I've seen 5.5ish for the auto.

 

[tompass]

Yes, 5.5 for the TL SH AWD is about right but I have also seen 5.3 and 5.4. Don't think the Genny 3.8 can get there. I know the 4.6, which I have, is advertised at 5.3 but not so sure that is attainable unless completely defeating the ESC. So how can the heavier TL perform better than the lighter Genny with more advertised horsepower? 333/305.