Impressions

[jkohn]

Based on the number of posts and join date, I am assuming you have a 2010 model (please correct me if I am wrong). Not many have complained about the 2010 Genesis suspension, because Hyundai made changes to it mid-year 2009 and again in 2010 (they changed the shock and spring rates, and changed some bushings).

I have a 2010 4.6 (Feb build). I'm not complaining the ride is too firm. My Infiniti was firmer. The word 'bouncy' may be more severe than is warranted, but going over 'wavy' concrete (like some of the worse freeways in and around Houston), there's more vertical travel in the suspension compared to what I'm used to. And there's definitely more body roll in turns

It's not a deal-breaker, I knew this car was going to drive differently than my G, after all it's considerably bigger/heavier. But I don't think the suspension is in the same class as the Infiniti's and BMW's, even with the 2010 revisions. It's as if they couldn't decide whether they wanted to emulate the BMW ride or the Lexus ride, so they tried to split the difference and the result has both good and bad aspects of each.

I'm sure they'll continue to refine things in future models. I would certainly hope they don't go more towards the Lexus LS type suspension, that's not what I want at all. Personally, I think they need to have a "sport" model with more performance-oriented suspension and paddle shifters. That's what I would have purchased if there was such a thing.

 

[Sayantsi]

From the source.

So, as usual, your information is mis-based and incorrect then. The Genesis is part of Hyundai's drive to increase market share, one reason the original concept was released in New York, and the early Genesis concept - designed in California - was showcased in Detroit in 2002, is because of its importance and focus for the North American market. Hyundai years ago stated it wanted to make itself the fifth largest automaker in the world, and you don't do that by selling only in your domestic market.

 

[Sayantsi]

Mark

Thank you for the alert, but there is still a great deal of talk about the 2010 suspension and the ride issues. This thread and others indicate that the upgrades did not resolve the issues for some/many owners.

Dave

You are correct Dave - the Genesis ride is what it is, and there is no "fix" despite what Mark states. I doubt you will see any significant changes until a new sedan is released.

 

[Konig]

I have a 2010 4.6 (Feb build). I'm not complaining the ride is too firm. My Infiniti was firmer. The word 'bouncy' may be more severe than is warranted, but going over 'wavy' concrete (like some of the worse freeways in and around Houston), there's more vertical travel in the suspension compared to what I'm used to. And there's definitely more body roll in turns

It's not a deal-breaker, I knew this car was going to drive differently than my G, after all it's considerably bigger/heavier. But I don't think the suspension is in the same class as the Infiniti's and BMW's, even with the 2010 revisions. It's as if they couldn't decide whether they wanted to emulate the BMW ride or the Lexus ride, so they tried to split the difference and the result has both good and bad aspects of each.

I'm sure they'll continue to refine things in future models. I would certainly hope they don't go more towards the Lexus LS type suspension, that's not what I want at all. Personally, I think they need to have a "sport" model with more performance-oriented suspension and paddle shifters. That's what I would have purchased if there was such a thing.

why not let the v6 has kdm suspension and all you v8 guys get bmw suspension! clearly the people who went for the v8 requires a sporty suspension but the v6 guys just want a compliant ride. the v6 and v8 already have different engine, tires, transmission, whats the harm in having slightly different springs and shocks?

 

[sandy]

why not let the v6 has kdm suspension and all you v8 guys get bmw suspension! clearly the people who went for the v8 requires a sporty suspension but the v6 guys just want a compliant ride. the v6 and v8 already have different engine, tires, transmission, whats the harm in having slightly different springs and shocks?

Probably because the vast majority of V6 owners are not looking for it and are happy with the suspension as it is.

 

[Sayantsi]

Hyundai always marketed the car as a sports sedan in the US - I don't know about Korea, but the firmer suspension is part and parcel of its sporting intentions. All I ever read about the KDM suspension was that it was softer, but that could mean anything. When people say it is too brittle, or jouncy, you need to differentiate if they mean for a sports sedan or if they are looking for a more relaxed ride in general.

Fwiw I went with the V6 because it helps the car feel sporty, among other reasons.

 

[hazelwood7]

Its only an issue to some - most people are fine with it.

You seem to be the only person with an early 09 build who says its fine. I just had the 2010 suspension parts put into my early 09 build and the ride is much better and far less bouncy. The ride is still firm which is fine by me but they have taken care of the design flaw in the early 09's that you like so much.

 

[hazelwood7]

Be careful, the overwhelming majority of negative comments relating to the suspension are about the 2009 Genesis. Hyundai made changes in 2010 and it is much better. Still a firm ride, but much better.

Agreed since I am one person with an early 09 car that upgraded the suspension and it's much better. Still a firm ride.

 

[Sayantsi]

You seem to be the only person with an early 09 build who says its fine.

riiiight. At any rate, I'm glad you are happier with your car now and that the new parts are working for you.

 

[PINGGOLF]

You seem to be the only person with an early 09 build who says its fine.

Nah, I'm here...and wouldn't change a thing.

I purchased a "sleeper," a "wolf in sheep's clothing" and I probably would not have purchased the car had the suspension been set up like a floaty Lexus.

I take turns hard! I am a "light to light" guy, even when I am the only one at the light... so my suspension, brakes, tranny and motor have a HARD life! Hence the reason I opted in for the REAL 100K B-B warranty option.

I didnt purchase a V8 to pamper it. Im running Mustangs, 350z's, BMW's, Charger's and Diesel Trucks on a daily basis.

The car is fine to me and I got the first V8 in Alabama (meaning mine is an early 09). Personally, I cant fathom spending an additional $2G's for a "slightly" better ride...or an additional $15-30G's for a different car with a "slightly" better ride.

Of course, to each his own! Hazlewood, I'm glad you took the plunge though. There are a LOT of 09 owners around here that want the softer ride and as far as I'm aware, YOU are the first to make the official change. (I may be wrong there...not sure)

***As a reminder, lets stay on topic and keep the bickering to a minimum. I really dont want this thread to end up on my watch list...its almost too full as it is!***

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[dataguy]

You seem to be the only person with an early 09 build who says its fine. I just had the 2010 suspension parts put into my early 09 build and the ride is much better and far less bouncy. The ride is still firm which is fine by me but they have taken care of the design flaw in the early 09's that you like so much.

How early is early? I have a Nov 08 build and although the ride is a bit firm for my tastes, I and a variety of passengers I have 'chauffeured' haven't made an issue of it. That includes my adult sister as a frequent back seater, and she can get car sick with a car not in motion

Not saying that the issue doesn't exist or that it hasn't changed with the new model and parts, but it strains credibility when anyone says something along the lines of 'you must be the only one' in defense of either pro or con. Datasets are somewhat limited.

 

[oreipa]

I'm also very happy with my '09, and I'd guess mine is one of the earliest one's here -- build date: June 2008. Again, it amazes me how well the motor press received the Genesis when it first arrived and the revisionist history that's taken place since. Sure, there were comments about how the suspension could be tweaked, but no one ever commented that it was terrible, unsafe, nauseating, or whatever else has been said about it here. It's also true that it was tweaked for 2010 and from some comments, seems to have been improved. Good for Hyundai for making changes. But to hear comments from some people now, you'd think the '09s were death traps, and you'd be insane not to upgrade to the '10 components. Look folks, auto manufacturers are constantly tinkering. If you've read anything about cars and their subsequent model years, you know constant improvement are made. One thing you see very frequently is improvements in structural rigidity--often to the tune of 50% or greater from one model year to the next. Improvements in steel, welding, stamping, etc. make these huge leaps possible. It does not make the prior model unsafe or anything close. A nationwide Cars.com search right now shows exactly 212 2009s available. Not exactly a scientific study, but using this limited data, not exactly a mass exodus from the '09s either.

 

[Sayantsi]

I'm also very happy with my '09, and I'd guess mine is one of the earliest one's here -- build date: June 2008. Again, it amazes me how well the motor press received the Genesis when it first arrived and the revisionist history that's taken place since. Sure, there were comments about how the suspension could be tweaked, but no one ever commented that it was terrible, unsafe, nauseating, or whatever else has been said about it here. It's also true that it was tweaked for 2010 and from some comments, seems to have been improved. Good for Hyundai for making changes. But to hear comments from some people now, you'd think the '09s were death traps, and you'd be insane not to upgrade to the '10 components. Look folks, auto manufacturers are constantly tinkering. If you've read anything about cars and their subsequent model years, you know constant improvement are made. One thing you see very frequently is improvements in structural rigidity--often to the tune of 50% or greater from one model year to the next. Improvements in steel, welding, stamping, etc. make these huge leaps possible. It does not make the prior model unsafe or anything close. A nationwide Cars.com search right now shows exactly 212 2009s available. Not exactly a scientific study, but using this limited data, not exactly a mass exodus from the '09s either.

You make a good point. While the Genesis's ride quality has been critiqued that it can use further refinement, no report has ever stated that it was wrong or dangerous. That fact is very different to some arguments made here that the suspension is "broken" and that Hyundai needs to replace things. Just because something can be improved doesn't mean that it is currently bad, just that it has room to improve. The problem is people take any kernel of negativity and cultivate it to a field of discontent, which is not reality. I can understand the desire for having personal discontent allayed, but I don't agree with propagandic methods and skewing the truth to make a point. Speaking of revisionism, the automotive press continues to praise the Genesis as it always has - the main point of negativity has come from a small but vocal set of owners. Their opinions are valid, but their generalizations are not.

The Genesis is and always will be the most awarded new car of 2009 and for good reasons. A myopic view of the car's suspension blinds people to how great the car is, and makes a mountain of a mole hill, so to say. The fact that there is such discussion on the matter among owners only highlights the fact that people's perceptions and expectations are different and that colors their opinion. Look at the actual evidence, and cited sources, and you can get a better idea of the situation, but only personal experience can allow an individual to make a true informed decision.

 

[Mark_888]

You make a good point. While the Genesis's ride quality has been critiqued that it can use further refinement, no report has ever stated that it was wrong or dangerous. That fact is very different to some arguments made here that the suspension is "broken" and that Hyundai needs to replace things. Just because something can be improved doesn't mean that it is currently bad, just that it has room to improve. The problem is people take any kernel of negativity and cultivate it to a field of discontent, which is not reality. I can understand the desire for having personal discontent allayed, but I don't agree with propagandic methods and skewing the truth to make a point. Speaking of revisionism, the automotive press continues to praise the Genesis as it always has - the main point of negativity has come from a small but vocal set of owners. Their opinions are valid, but their generalizations are not.

The Genesis is and always will be the most awarded new car of 2009 and for good reasons. A myopic view of the car's suspension blinds people to how great the car is, and makes a mountain of a mole hill, so to say. The fact that there is such discussion on the matter among owners only highlights the fact that people's perceptions and expectations are different and that colors their opinion. Look at the actual evidence, and cited sources, and you can get a better idea of the situation, but only personal experience can allow an individual to make a true informed decision.

I don't recall anyone saying that the early 2009 Genesis suspension is dangerous (unless a doctor is trying to do a circumcision on a baby in the rear seat ala the Saturday Night Live fake commercial about Lincoln Continental of years ago).

However, some people do think that the 2009 Genesis did need some suspension improvements and there is nothing wrong with saying that. It does not mean the Genesis is a bad car any more than complaining about the armrest means the Genesis is a bad car.

It is important to note that Hyundai apparently agreed that the suspension needed improvements since they made suspension changes mid-year 2009 (build date starting April 8, 2009 according to a Hyundai Tech on this forum posting as HYTECH) and more changes again for the 2010 model year. So if you think the 2009 suspension needed no improvements, then you are in direct opposition to Hyundai management and engineers (as well as Car and Driver magazine, Consumer Reports, NY Times, etc, etc).

I think you are the one who is making the mountain out of a mole hill. Some of us who have early 2009 models would like to update our suspensions to 2010 specs, and we should not be attacked for wanting to do so or for discussing it on this forum.

 

[Mark_888]

The car is fine to me and I got the first V8 in Alabama (meaning mine is an early 09). Personally, I cant fathom spending an additional $2G's for a "slightly" better ride...or an additional $15-30G's for a different car with a "slightly" better ride.

Of course, to each his own! Hazlewood, I'm glad you took the plunge though. There are a LOT of 09 owners around here that want the softer ride and as far as I'm aware, YOU are the first to make the official change. (I may be wrong there...not sure)

Just to clarify, Hyundai claimed that the 2010 suspension changes did not make the ride softer. It still has a firm ride, just more controlled with better damping (apparently by beefing up the shocks and slightly softening the springs so they are in better balance with each other).

 

[Mark_888]

Mark

Thank you for the alert, but there is still a great deal of talk about the 2010 suspension and the ride issues. This thread and others indicate that the upgrades did not resolve the issues for some/many owners.

Dave

Dave, those who say that fall into 2 categories:

1. Those who want a really soft ride, which they will not get in the 2009 or 2010 Genesis.
2. Those who say the early 2009 suspension is perfectly fine and needed no improvement (even though Hyundai did improve it).

But if you were to go back and read all the posts from people who are actually familiar with the early 2009 and the 2010 suspensions, most agree that the improvements are noticeable. But you should not define improvement as making the Genesis into a car with a cushy ride, because you are barking up the wrong tree if you try that. If you want a cushy ride, look elsewhere (or wait for a possible adjustable air suspension like they have in the KDM version of the Genesis, or get an Equus).

BTW, John Krafcik (HMA CEO) told me (in answer to a specific question I asked of him) that he personally tested out the suspension changes made to the Genesis and was satisfied with the improvements.

 

[sandy]

Dave, those who say that fall into 2 categories:

1. Those who want a really soft ride, which they will not get in the 2009 or 2010 Genesis.
2. Those who say the early 2009 suspension is perfectly fine and needed no improvement (even though Hyundai did improve it).

But if you were to go back and read all the posts from people who are actually familiar with the early 2009 and the 2010 suspensions, most agree that the improvements are noticeable. But you should not define improvement as making the Genesis into a car with a cushy ride, because you are barking up the wrong tree if you try that. If you want a cushy ride, look elsewhere (or wait for a possible adjustable air suspension like they have in the KDM version of the Genesis, or get an Equus).

BTW, John Krafcik (HMA CEO) told me (in answer to a specific question I asked of him) that he personally tested out the suspension changes made to the Genesis and was satisfied with the improvements.

Mark, you keep repeating this conclusion that the 2010 suspension is noticeably improved over 2009. It may well be. But not on the evidence you provide. Several people claim they've compared both. How carefully we don't know. Of those, a couple liked the 2010 better whuile some felt there was no difference.

So when you say "most" agree, you present a distorted picture which could be misleading.

It's like we now have a "fact" that the suspension change was made October 2009 based on the one post, repeated now many times, by someone who claims to work at a dealership. These are the same dealerships that frustrated you and others with their complete lack of knowledge about suspension changes, part numbers, etc......but now you are willing to take at face value they know the date on which the suspension change was made.

You make valuable contributions to this forum on other subjects but I think when it comes to the suspension issue you are so keen to make your point that you sometimes take liberties with the facts.

In fact I've heard that you actually called someone who liked their 2009 suspension and disagreed with some of your conclusions a "denier". Could that be true?

 

[Mark_888]

Mark, you keep repeating this conclusion that the 2010 suspension is noticeably improved over 2009. It may well be. But not on the evidence you provide. Several people claim they've compared both. How carefully we don't know. Of those, a couple liked the 2010 better whuile some felt there was no difference.

So when you say "most" agree, you present a distorted picture which could be misleading.

It's like we now have a "fact" that the suspension change was made October 2009 based on the one post, repeated now many times, by someone who claims to work at a dealership. These are the same dealerships that frustrated you and others with their complete lack of knowledge about suspension changes, part numbers, etc......but now you are willing to take at face value they know the date on which the suspension change was made.

You make valuable contributions to this forum on other subjects but I think when it comes to the suspension issue you are so keen to make your point that you sometimes take liberties with the facts.

In fact I've heard that you actually called someone who liked their 2009 suspension and disagreed with some of your conclusions a "denier". Could that be true?

You make "some" valid points, but on balance I would disagree.

I don't even know why we are arguing about this. Those who have an early 2009 that can drive the 2010 and decide for themselves.

Those who have never driven an early 2009 (and probably never will), but are considering a 2010, are being frightened-off by yourself and Sayantsi who keep insisting that either no changes to the suspension have been made, or the changes are extremely minor. I think these potential 2010 Genesis buyers are being done a big disservice because they are now thinking (as a result of your posts and Sayantsi posts) that:

1. There has been much discussion in many forums about the 2009 suspension and by the media (Car and Driver, Consumer Reports, NY Times, etc) and there "appears" to be some problem, and

2. The changes in 2010 are not noticeable (or may have been faked by Hyundai and not even made).

and therefore:

3. They will not be buying a 2010 Hyundai Genesis.

I think this is a mistake and a big disservice to Hyundai and to the potential buyers. However, if someone is looking for a soft cushy ride like a Caddy, they should look elsewhere because the 2010 is still firm (firmness was NOT the problem with the 2009 suspension).

 

[Mark_888]

In fact I've heard that you actually called someone who liked their 2009 suspension and disagreed with some of your conclusions a "denier". Could that be true?

If someone says they think the early 2009 suspension is perfect and needs no improvements, I have no problem with that. Each person is entitled to their own opinion.

If someone says that the vast majority of owners with early 2009 Genesis sedans think the suspension is perfect and does not need any improvement at all, then my opinion is that that person is in denial (or still has 2009 inventory they are trying to get rid of).

Sorry if we disagree on that.

I avoid threads where changing the headlights, rims, (and a few other parts) are discussed because I like the stock rims, lights, etc. I don't understand why people who think the 2009 suspension is perfect are attracted like flies to these threads where we discuss the suspension. This seems very strange to me.

 

[sandy]

Mark, the point I am trying to make with the examples I gave you has less to do with suspensions than with presenting stray comments as "facts".