2010 vs 2012 4.6 honestly

[GJEMD]

I have had my 2010 4.6 at the dealer to have the drive shaft replaced. The Service dept failed to order the shaft
for my scheduled service date. Instead of admitting the oversight the service Manager went into all kinds of double talk only to get caught in his own BS. to mitigate the CSI backlash he gave me a 2012 4.6 with 1800 miles as a loaner. I have been driving it for the last
2 days and feel comfortable submitting the following comparison.
Pro 2012
1.I think the drivers seat has better lat support.

2.Lexicon 17 speaker sound system is clearly superior to the excellent 14 speaker Lexicon

3. driver seat cool function was impressive

4. The Dynamic adjustable shock dampener
option on the window sticker might effect cornering but the ride seems very similar to the 2010

Con
1.The Michelin "ENERGY" tires are noisy above 60 mph, more so than the Dunlops

2. The performance is clearly reduced with 8 sd tranny
and around town under 50 mph there are definite issues

3. It appears the body contour, maybe the windshield
creates more wind noise than the 2010 at highway speed.

4. The drive train seems totally isolated from the passenger cabin. This may be welcomed by some

5. The DIS directly in front of where you park your drink is a recipe for malfunction over time. Seems the touch screen is more intuitive.

6. The new head and tail lights are not a design triumph.

7. Steering feels heavier than the 2010.

Overall seems like the ZF transmission is the BIG edge in this matchup of 2010 vs 2012

Just one man's opinion

 

[Ryan Shaw]

2 of those cons can be taken away by getting the tech package on the 2010 though.

i think getting a 2012 is kind of pointless with the 4.6 other than fewer wear, but the 5.0 is another story

 

[GJEMD]

I would go slow with GDI technology. It is now the industry standard and looks promising. realise it has been a long slog to work out the bugs on this engine technology. Just ask the 2006-7 BMW Mercedes owners.
It's not clear if hotter, higher compression engines will have reduced longevity.

 

[Mark_888]

Pro 2012
4. The Dynamic adjustable shock dampener
option on the window sticker might effect cornering but the ride seems very similar to the 2010

Con
1. The Michelin "ENERGY" tires are noisy above 60 mph, more so than the Dunlops

I believe that all Genesis Sedans since 2009 have had dynamic adjustable shock dampening. Keep in mind that it does not mean "user adjustable" just that the damping rate is variable (not linear). They have changed the shock damping rate several times since 2009, but they all have Sachs variable damping shocks/struts.

The Michelin "Energy" tires are "Energy Saving" tires, so it would be no surprise that they are noisier.

 

[nextcar]

I have had my 2010 4.6 at the dealer to have the drive shaft replaced. The Service dept failed to order the shaft
for my scheduled service date. Instead of admitting the oversight the service Manager went into all kinds of double talk only to get caught in his own BS. to mitigate the CSI backlash he gave me a 2012 4.6 with 1800 miles as a loaner. I have been driving it for the last
2 days and feel comfortable submitting the following comparison.
Pro 2012
1.I think the drivers seat has better lat support.

2.Lexicon 17 speaker sound system is clearly superior to the excellent 14 speaker Lexicon

3. driver seat cool function was impressive

4. The Dynamic adjustable shock dampener
option on the window sticker might effect cornering but the ride seems very similar to the 2010

Con
1.The Michelin "ENERGY" tires are noisy above 60 mph, more so than the Dunlops

2. The performance is clearly reduced with 8 sd tranny
and around town under 50 mph there are definite issues

3. It appears the body contour, maybe the windshield
creates more wind noise than the 2010 at highway speed.

4. The drive train seems totally isolated from the passenger cabin. This may be welcomed by some

5. The DIS directly in front of where you park your drink is a recipe for malfunction over time. Seems the touch screen is more intuitive.

6. The new head and tail lights are not a design triumph.

7. Steering feels heavier than the 2010.

Overall seems like the ZF transmission is the BIG edge in this matchup of 2010 vs 2012

Just one man's opinion

thanks for the interesting comparison. i didn't know they changed the seats (lateral support).
i'm surprised that you think there's more wind noise. they should have the same acoustic laminated glass.

like you, i am quite happy with the 6 speed ZF tranny, and the Dunlop tires.
my Dunlops have 15k miles on them, and are still very quiet.

i too noticed that the 2012 steering is a bit heavier.

 

[Vince2]

Mark 888 why is it not suprising that energy saving tires are noisier? Have "energy saving" tires become a catagory like "all season touring"? Do you have any idea what all of the Michelin tire designations stand for: MXM4, MXV4, MXM4 ZP and there are literally a dozen more.

 

[Mark_888]

Mark 888 why is it not suprising that energy saving tires are noisier? Have "energy saving" tires become a catagory like "all season touring"? Do you have any idea what all of the Michelin tire designations stand for: MXM4, MXV4, MXM4 ZP and there are literally a dozen more.

In order to make a tire that saves energy (better MPG) compared to a tire that is not an energy saver, but the same in all other respects, I assume one has to have less rolling resistance. I assume some compromise has to be achieved to make have less rolling resistance (more energy efficient), and that noise "might be" one of the compromises. If that is incorrect, please correct me.

 

[Vince2]

No corrections from me, Mark 888. I am ignorant about tires. The question was put because you said "it would be no suprise that they (energy saving tires) are noisier"...I thought maybe you understood something/read something about low resistence tires. Sorry OP about hijacking the thread. This was just a quick question for Mark 888.

 

[Mark_888]

No corrections from me, Mark 888. I am ignorant about tires. The question was put because you said "it would be no suprise that they (energy saving tires) are noisier"...I thought maybe you understood something/read something about low resistence tires. Sorry OP about hijacking the thread. This was just a quick question for Mark 888.

I have read that Energy Saving tires have better rolling resistance, which means they must be stiffer to some degree (wagon wheels get great MPG), and this could contribute to noise (or some similar compromise), if all other things are equal. However, many Michelin tires use advanced rubber compounds which make these compromises less severe than would otherwise be the case, except of course that they cost more money. So what that means is that an Energy Saver tire from Michelin might be quieter and more comfortable than an non-Energy tire from some lessor (and cheaper) tire/brand. I don't mean to suggest that Michelin has a monopoly on high quality rubber compounds and high-end tires.

 

[PMCErnie]

First, I have no complaints about my Michelin tires. Second, the recent ECU upgrade on my engine (what Hyundai calls a campaign) that I got at the 3,750 mile service improved the performance. One thing '12, 8 spd, drivers need to learn is not to mash the pedal when you want to peel out. Rather, you need to step on it with gradually increasing pressure. I fear, however, that some old dogs, can't learn new tricks.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!