Genesis G70 Reviews

[Buckdes]

And in other tests, the Stinger didn't break 5 seconds. And we don't have enough information yet to lend much credence to either of those results. We really do have to wait until we get multiple reports before we get a reliable estimate. Of course, I guess we can focus on the result we like best and ignore all the others but, as an outlier, that time isn't likely to reflect the actual performance of a car we'd actually find ourselves in. It may well be that the car is quicker than 4.5 from 0-60 but we don't have data that support expecting that on the typical car or even necessarily consistently on the tested car.

The places where the stinger dosnt break 5 s are in high altitude (which i am not) so i usually do my research where testing is being done ( i have not researched stinger times) but i believe CarandDriver tests at sea level.

I saw tests of the jeep trackhawk in high altitude and it was getting 4.2-4.5s 0 to 60 and that jeep is tested elsewhere getting 3.5s 0 to 60

 

[devellis]

Altitude definitely matters.

 

[Beefer]

And another...

First Drive: 2019 Genesis G70 - NY Daily News

 

[Gianttama]

just pulling up one of those old reviews, www.topgear.com/car-reviews/genesis/33-turbo-sport-4dr/first-drive, there it says the G70 is faster than a M3 which i find hard to believe (i am not a car guy and have never driven a M before). i think the writer was referring to the G70 having a higher top speed than a M3??? under normal city driving and launching, i suspect the M3 will still eat the G70 for breakfast?

 

[Beefer]

just pulling up one of those old reviews, www.topgear.com/car-reviews/genesis/33-turbo-sport-4dr/first-drive, there it says the G70 is faster than a M3 which i find hard to believe (i am not a car guy and have never driven a M before). i think the writer was referring to the G70 having a higher top speed than a M3??? under normal city driving and launching, i suspect the M3 will still eat the G70 for breakfast?

Older one maybe...which was 4.4 seconds to 60 with the dual clutch. New M3 is 3.9 seconds to 60...but with dual clutch. So with the RaceChip...probably same...or a touch quicker than the M3.

 

[Buckdes]

Older one maybe...which was 4.4 seconds to 60 with the dual clutch. New M3 is 3.9 seconds to 60...but with dual clutch. So with the RaceChip...probably same...or a touch quicker than the M3.

Yeah with the race chip i suspect it gets below 4s and beats an M3 but without a chip even with AWD no way it touches an M3.

That being said there is a video on youtbe of a G70 (must be chipped or tuned) beating performance cars -M3, cts v, cant remember the rest- in a 1/4 mile drag it was done in Korea

 

[cheez]

Don't forget guys that 100 kph is not the same as 60 mph. 96.5 kph is 60 mph just a friendly reminder.. G70 was tested in Korea for 4.27 sec 0-100 kph which approximates to around 4.15~ 4.17 sec 0-60. If you take this to nicely prepped dragstrip with a few weight savings tricks (like many people do with muscles cars and rice cars) you are looking at 4~ 4.1 sec if not faster, on an unmodded car meaning no chip all stock.

 

[BlancaGenny]

AutoGuide review...

2019 Genesis G70 Review - AutoGuide.com News

Not sure where he got the 0-60/0-100 numbers from...I can guarantee you they are incorrect.

This car is likely underrated from the factory, just like the Stinger is. We will need to put it on a dyno multiple times to get a range of the hp it's actually putting down. A car with a power-to-weight ratio of about 10.7lbs/hp (G70) is not "almost" as fast as my C6 that had a power-to-weight ratio of 7.5lbs/hp.

I'm not doubting that the Genesis can't do a low 4 sec 0-60 run. There is power that they are not disclosing. An efficient powertrain could be the link but not to that extent.

 

[cheez]

Blanca - go to this link for the dyno run on the G70. Fast forward to 8 min mark and pause it when tou get to the dyno results.

G70 - 289.94 hp @ 5720 rpm
Stinger - 270.88 hp @ 5100 rpm
Q50S - 255.31 hp @ 6210 rpm

The G70 puts down almost 35 more horspower than the Q50S and thats just at 4th gear. Yes the G70 is heavily underrated.

 

[Beefer]

Wow

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[devellis]

This is the new Q50S but not the RS? The Q50S has 300HP while the RS has 400. The older Q50s with the 3.7 liter normally aspirated engines had 330, I believe, and the hybrid has 360. All but the RS are nominally under the G70. Am I missing something? I'm also not inclined to put a lot of faith in random dyno tests (especially at the wheel as opposed to flywheel) under unknown conditions.

There's no question that the G70 is a powerful car and it well may be under-rated. But this hasn't been the most persuasive evidence I've seen of that.

 

[Buckdes]

This is the new Q50S but not the RS? The Q50S has 300HP while the RS has 400. The older Q50s with the 3.7 liter normally aspirated engines had 330, I believe, and the hybrid has 360. All but the RS are nominally under the G70. Am I missing something? I'm also not inclined to put a lot of faith in random dyno tests (especially at the wheel as opposed to flywheel) under unknown conditions.

There's no question that the G70 is a powerful car and it well may be under-rated. But this hasn't been the most persuasive evidence I've seen of that.

I test drove a q50 red sport a couple days before i drove the G70 and i felt a pretty big difference in acceleration, the Genesis felt quite a bit quicker, this may be due to the higher torque in the G70 as well as possibly a better transmission as i know reviews ragged on the infiniti tranny. But i do agree i would not trust some random korean dyno

 

[devellis]

I test drove a q50 red sport a couple days before i drove the G70 and i felt a pretty big difference in acceleration, the Genesis felt quite a bit quicker, this may be due to the higher torque in the G70 as well as possibly a better transmission as i know reviews ragged on the infiniti tranny. But i do agree i would not trust some random korean dyno

Thanks for the info. I actually think drivers' impressions are very valuable and it's good to get yours.

 

[Toddasaurus]

Gotta admit I'm a little bummed about the gas mileage people are getting thus far. :c Though I'm not sure what I was expecting in the first place.

Either way, I appreciate all of the reviews/insight so far!

 

[devellis]

More a commentary than a review but interesting nonetheless: 5 Things We'd Do To Improve The Genesis Brand

 

[BlancaGenny]

G70 - 289.94 hp @ 5720 rpm
Stinger - 270.88 hp @ 5100 rpm

I don't trust the dyno but I trust the difference these two cars are making. Same motor, same marketed 365hp powertrain yet there is a 19 hp difference. You couldn't replicate that with the same car so how it is different in another application yet be the same motor? I'd say insurance reasons. But my God, Kia and Genesis underrated the heck out of this car. And, I'm sure they'll get away with it. It's a win-win for us; no complaints here.

 

[Gianttama]

a non-car-guy question here, i thought the G70 and the Stinger both have way over 300HP, so the numbers in this test result seem kinda low???? also, shouldn't they compare the same power at the same rpm? wouldn't comparing 5720 rpm and 5100 rpm seem like comparing apples to oranges?

 

[BlancaGenny]

a non-car-guy question here, i thought the G70 and the Stinger both have way over 300HP, so the numbers in this test result seem kinda low???? also, shouldn't they compare the same power at the same rpm? wouldn't comparing 5720 rpm and 5100 rpm seem like comparing apples to oranges?

In basic form since you said you're a non car guy:

A dyno measures the hp that the motor puts to the wheels. The crank hp is the hp a car company advertises. Through estimates, trails, and data, there is an agreed 15-17% power loss from the crank (motor) to the wheels. In this instance, a 15-17 % power loss from the advertised crank of these two (365hp) would mean a range from 303-311 wheel hp. As you can see, 270 for the Stinger and 289 for the G70 are, indeed, a bit low. Take it as a grain of salt, there's a member that dynoed a Stinger with 351whp.

Because dynos go for peak hp at a given RPM, they will be a bit different. The test is the same, they run the cars to redline. The hp that was given was their peak hp throughout the dyno run. A dyno can compare the two cars at the same RPM. However, the inconsistency of max power would be prevalent. The inconsistency of max power represented in this test shows how different the mapping is for the two cars. That's probably why the G70 edges on the Stinger.

 

[EdP]

Because dynos go for peak hp at a given RPM, they will be a bit different. The test is the same, they run the cars to redline. The hp that was given was their peak hp throughout the dyno run. A dyno can compare the two cars at the same RPM. However, the inconsistency of max power would be prevalent. The inconsistency of max power represented in this test shows how different the mapping is for the two cars. That's probably why the G70 edges on the Stinger.

Good explanation. Keep in mind, the same engine in two different cars can be tuned to give different results also. The powertrain can also differ with gear ratio. Think of them as fraternal, not identical twins. They share may parts but are adjusted to appeal to different market segments.

 

[Edmguy]

I test drove a q50 red sport a couple days before i drove the G70 and i felt a pretty big difference in acceleration, the Genesis felt quite a bit quicker, this may be due to the higher torque in the G70 as well as possibly a better transmission as i know reviews ragged on the infiniti tranny. But i do agree i would not trust some random korean dyno

I drove the red sport as well and I think the big weak link was the transmission. I ended up with so many hard shifts or times it didn't seem to know what to do and just rev. The transmission in the G70 is one of its biggest pluses for me. Better than the ZF in my 5 series was imo. In a straight line though, I do the red sport and the G70 would be pretty close. But then that red sport costs more money, has no wireless phone charging, no HUD, no AC front seats, no heated rear seats or rear USB, no app to start the car...and the list goes on... Oh, and it feels like driving a 5 year old car. It was probably the worst car I compared the G70 to.

Gotta admit I'm a little bummed about the gas mileage people are getting thus far. :c Though I'm not sure what I was expecting in the first place.

Either way, I appreciate all of the reviews/insight so far!

So hopefully this helps you feel better about mileage, I just averaged 9.9L/100km on my second tank. Mostly highway mileage on this one but still some hard driving in there. I noticed my drive to work this morning I averaged 8.8L/100km and that is mostly Whitemud and Henday plus 7-8 lights. And I am just under 1000km on the car.

I think once broken in a drive from Edmonton to Calgary (with light traffic if that is at all possible) you could easily do low 9's. Some cars I have driven (especially turbo ones) are very difficult to replicate expected highway mileage, but I don't think that will be an issue with this car.

Hard city driving in this car can get ugly, but same with any car imo.