Did you (or will you) buy a V6 or V8 2015 Genesis This Year?

[jimb100]

I was curious about other cars in the class with the smaller of the engines offered and here's what my search yielded, 0-60.

BMW 535 5.2

Cadillac CTS 3.6l 5.9

Audi A6 5.5

Mercedes E350 5.9

If you are a slower driver you won't notice but if you drive the Genesis like a performance sedan you'll need to use the gas and trans.

 

[PMCErnie]

Most of the auto mag reviews said that the '15 3.8 was plenty and to fuhgedabout the need for the thirstier 5.0.

 

[Nikgen]

...if you drive the Genesis like a performance sedan you'll need to use the gas and trans.

... But the Genesis is not a performance sedan - even with the 5.0 under the hood. Anyone who bought it thinking that is misguided.

 

[jimb100]

Most of the auto mag reviews said that the '15 3.8 was plenty and to fuhgedabout the need for the thirstier 5.0.

Car mag reviewers push what they are told to push. They all have an agenda.

I prefer to go by my own experience backed up by performance numbers generated by reputable tests.

6.5 seconds to 60 is not 'plenty' to all those people buying BMW, Infinity, Mercedes, Cadillac, etc. If the same reviewers really thought it was 'plenty' they would be telling readers the 3.6 L engine in the CTS is a waste, having too much HP. Same with the other luxury/performance sedans.

But they never do.

 

[jimb100]

... But the Genesis is not a performance sedan - even with the 5.0 under the hood. Anyone who bought it thinking that is misguided.

Who told you that?

0-60 in 5.2 seconds. Should do the 1/4 in the low 13 sec range. Staggered tire sizes for better steering feel and traction. Z rated tires, dbl wishbone suspension.

Drive one, look at the specs. Drive a Jag XF, 535, A6. Then decide for yourself.

 

[Mark_888]

I don't think so. It's well over 4100# with a tank of gas and driver and it puts out only 311 HP and that's not happening low in the rev range.

Put another way, it's about 6.5 sec 0-60 and that's with the pedal on the floor.

You said when you pull away from a stop light, your RPM is 3-4,000 with pedal to floor? I was out driving today, and when I briskly pulled away from a stoplight, my PRM never exceeded 2200. Like I said, you are a lead-foot (which is your choice, but not everyone drives like that).

 

[DFWGenny]

I've owned a few Corvettes and a 64 XKE. On most tracks a well prepared mid year Corvette will smoke the Jag. I think you're overrating the handling of the Jag. It's a 2500# sports car with a 3.8 L or 4.2 L truck engine up front. Not the best handling set up and not much different from the V8 up front in the Corvette. The big double over head cam engine in the Jag has a 10 quart oil sump, triple SUs and those wire wheels aren't all that light. Also, in the back the Jag has inboard brakes, mounted just either side of the differential, not a cool spot. A fun car and a real head turner but a handful to push through a corner. Look at race result from the era.

I've seen that the comparison of the C2 corvette and the E type Jag with the 3.8 was pretty much a tie. The Corvette was faster in the straight and the Jag was faster in the curves. The Corvette had Ball-Race steering whereas the Jag had Rack and Pinion which gives more road feel.

You make fun of the inboard rotors, but that is where they should be to reduce unsprung weight. Speaking of brakes, the C2 Corvette didn't get disk brakes until 1965.

Look, the C2 was evolutionary for the Corvette. It did introduce performance with independent suspension and even the Ball-Race steering was a step up from the previous generation. When I said the Jag would beat the Corvette of the same year, I'm talking up until about 1965 and then Jaguar lost it's way and the Germans started taking over in the twisty curvy part of the road. The funny part is that it wasn't the Corvette that BMW chose to copy and save the company, it was the Corvair ... with an independent rear suspension as it should have been.

 

[jimb100]

You said when you pull away from a stop light, your RPM is 3-4,000 with pedal to floor? I was out driving today, and when I briskly pulled away from a stoplight, my PRM never exceeded 2200. Like I said, you are a lead-foot (which is your choice, but not everyone drives like that).

As I said, if you are a slower type of driver it will be fine for you.

 

[jimb100]

I've seen that the comparison of the C2 corvette and the E type Jag with the 3.8 was pretty much a tie. The Corvette was faster in the straight and the Jag was faster in the curves. The Corvette had Ball-Race steering whereas the Jag had Rack and Pinion which gives more road feel.

You make fun of the inboard rotors, but that is where they should be to reduce unsprung weight. Speaking of brakes, the C2 Corvette didn't get disk brakes until 1965.

Look, the C2 was evolutionary for the Corvette. It did introduce performance with independent suspension and even the Ball-Race steering was a step up from the previous generation. When I said the Jag would beat the Corvette of the same year, I'm talking up until about 1965 and then Jaguar lost it's way and the Germans started taking over in the twisty curvy part of the road. The funny part is that it wasn't the Corvette that BMW chose to copy and save the company, it was the Corvair ... with an independent rear suspension as it should have been.

The C2 was a mid 50s design. By 64, much of the car had been upgraded and the engines were producing over 300 HP even without fuel injection. Saving unsprung weight in the back of the Jag is less important, the Jag was designed as a race car and had a differntial module in the back that bolted to the monocoque. As I remember, its 6 bolts, some wires and unhook the axles and drop the unit out. It was very popular among hot rod builders as you could bolt it to the bottom of tub.

The Germans in the 60's weren't building high horsepower cars. The 911, 914, BMW was just really getting started. Even then there were taxes to be considered.

At tracks like Daytona and Sebring the Jags couldn't beat the Corvettes. Even tight tracks like Watkins Glen the Corvettes were faster. I'm not even sure if Corvettes ran against Jags in SCCA production classes. The vettes might have been "B" class and the Jags C or D.

In Europe they called the Jag the "dachshund" because it was so long and narrow. I worked for a European company and the owners brother drove for Ferrari. I pulled up to the office in my 64 XKE and he told me the dachshund story. I was quite insulted but it was true.

IIRC the Jag was rated at 260 HP but they were hard to keep in tune, especially the carbs. The big motor pulled but it was a straight 6 and by 64 an old design. mid year Corvettes had the same virtues and vices current models have. Very fast, easy to drive up to 6/10ths. After that you need to be good to get the most out of the car without hurting yourself. My last Corvette had the LS 3 and put out 436 HP. It was a beast at 3250 lbs.

Anyway, despite what the magazines might say, my Genesis has very good acceleration and fair low end torque. Above 3500 rpm the exhaust note changes and it scoots real well. The suspension very well damped, much better than a big Lexus and actually, it feels very close to a big Mercedes, CLS or S550.

Now you can say it isn't a performance car but I think enough attention has been paid to the engine, transmission, tires, suspension, steering and brakes to let you hustle this car around pretty well. Yeah, you can drive it like a Lexus 460 and never push it, but what fun is that?

I'm starting to get the feeling that the vast majority of Genesis buyers on this forum are luxury car buyers and not interested in the performance envelop. That's fine but the car has some nice performance features.

 

[Midnightsun]

I'm starting to get the feeling that the vast majority of Genesis buyers on this forum are luxury car buyers and not interested in the performance envelop. That's fine but the car has some nice performance features.
___________

I am well out of breakin and have started to play with my car quite a bit. I can tell you this car is twice the "sports" car the Rspec ever was. What I enjoy the most about it is it can be pushed with confidence yet you can float in comfort. Best of both world IMHO. The car in sports mode with the CDC suspension is just awesome in all respects.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[DFWGenny]

The C2 was a mid 50s design. By 64, much of the car had been upgraded and the engines were producing over 300 HP even without fuel injection.

The same can be said for the E type Jag. Much of it was derived from the D type race car. As you said, it was a race car. As I said from the beginning, it was a maintenance nightmare. Much of its components came from a design philosophy that you had a pit crew to constantly tweak the car. The argument comes as to when you compare "apples to apples" between the Corvette and the E type. The E type did not evolve as did the Corvette and the design became long in the tooth. When it was replaced, it was like the T-bird, it became big, soft and bloated.

We can agree to disagree.

Anyway, despite what the magazines might say, my Genesis has very good acceleration and fair low end torque. Above 3500 rpm the exhaust note changes and it scoots real well. The suspension very well damped, much better than a big Lexus and actually, it feels very close to a big Mercedes, CLS or S550.

Now you can say it isn't a performance car but I think enough attention has been paid to the engine, transmission, tires, suspension, steering and brakes to let you hustle this car around pretty well. Yeah, you can drive it like a Lexus 460 and never push it, but what fun is that?

I'm starting to get the feeling that the vast majority of Genesis buyers on this forum are luxury car buyers and not interested in the performance envelop. That's fine but the car has some nice performance features.

I was looking at Gen 1, but the performance issues kept me away. It was a close, but no cigar. When this generation came out, there was no hesitation, this car really drove great. I had test driven the Lexus GS and Infiniti M and Q series and they left me cold. I drove the Genesis, found a bumpy road and was impressed at how it absorbed the bumps, without jarring but yet was not "floaty". This particular release is tuned more for comfort and luxury, but the car has great bones.

It is a little heavy, but other than that ... wow. If you take the 3.8 and add twin turbos, magnetic adjustable suspension, shed some weight, it will be a BEAST. I think I have to agree with one reviewer, if you make the performance adjustable, you need to be able to tweak the individual components. The one size all "Sport" would not be proper in the BEAST.

Right now, I think luxury is the most profitable side of the market and they are taking market share from Infiniti, Lexus and Acura, but with some minor adjustments, this platform has the potential to shake up the market.

 

[Nikgen]

As I said, if you are a slower type of driver it will be fine for you.

Many of us have matured past the stoplight racing phase of our teen years and don't feel the need to rocket away from every stop. No doubt that the 5.0 will beat the 3.8 in a drag race for those so inclined but, in real world driving, the 3.8 has more than enough power. As I live in the US Northeast, the AWD in the 3.8 will also allow me to actually get the power to the road in adverse conditions where the RWD 5.0 will flounder.

 

[DFWGenny]

Many of us have matured past the stoplight racing phase of our teen years and don't feel the need to rocket away from every stop. No doubt that the 5.0 will beat the 3.8 in a drag race for those so inclined but, in real world driving, the 3.8 has more than enough power. As I live in the US Northeast, the AWD in the 3.8 will also allow me to actually get the power to the road in adverse conditions where the RWD 5.0 will flounder.

But here is the thing I tell my 4x4 buddies ... when it comes to stopping, we're all equal

 

[chronic]

A vehicle of such prestige and significance like the Genesis defiantley NEEDS a V8! Particularly one like that sweet Tau 5.0L

As for the 3.8 V6? Yeah it's adequate to get you moving but like that other guy said, you have no where near the power reserves of the V8.
Also the 3.8 always has that typical labour sensation you get with underpowered cars.

The V8 is awesome and extremely smooth & powerful!

 

[ferrethouse]

Many of us have matured past the stoplight racing phase of our teen years and don't feel the need to rocket away from every stop. No doubt that the 5.0 will beat the 3.8 in a drag race for those so inclined but, in real world driving, the 3.8 has more than enough power. As I live in the US Northeast, the AWD in the 3.8 will also allow me to actually get the power to the road in adverse conditions where the RWD 5.0 will flounder.

First of all, suggesting that wanting a V8 is immature is petty. I love the feeling of quickly accelerating and am not immature.

Bottom line here folks is that the V6 is pretty quick and the V8 is quicker. In terms of being nimbler, once I'm in sport mode the V8 is every bit as nimble as the V6.

My 5.0 is AWD so it won't flounder in any conditions

 

[jimb100]

Many of us have matured past the stoplight racing phase of our teen years and don't feel the need to rocket away from every stop. No doubt that the 5.0 will beat the 3.8 in a drag race for those so inclined but, in real world driving, the 3.8 has more than enough power. As I live in the US Northeast, the AWD in the 3.8 will also allow me to actually get the power to the road in adverse conditions where the RWD 5.0 will flounder.

I'm 67 and retired, but I'm not old. It must be tough to be old. At any age.

 

[jimb100]

The same can be said for the E type Jag. Much of it was derived from the D type race car. As you said, it was a race car. As I said from the beginning, it was a maintenance nightmare. Much of its components came from a design philosophy that you had a pit crew to constantly tweak the car. The argument comes as to when you compare "apples to apples" between the Corvette and the E type. The E type did not evolve as did the Corvette and the design became long in the tooth. When it was replaced, it was like the T-bird, it became big, soft and bloated.

We can agree to disagree.


I was looking at Gen 1, but the performance issues kept me away. It was a close, but no cigar. When this generation came out, there was no hesitation, this car really drove great. I had test driven the Lexus GS and Infiniti M and Q series and they left me cold. I drove the Genesis, found a bumpy road and was impressed at how it absorbed the bumps, without jarring but yet was not "floaty". This particular release is tuned more for comfort and luxury, but the car has great bones.

It is a little heavy, but other than that ... wow. If you take the 3.8 and add twin turbos, magnetic adjustable suspension, shed some weight, it will be a BEAST. I think I have to agree with one reviewer, if you make the performance adjustable, you need to be able to tweak the individual components. The one size all "Sport" would not be proper in the BEAST.

Right now, I think luxury is the most profitable side of the market and they are taking market share from Infiniti, Lexus and Acura, but with some minor adjustments, this platform has the potential to shake up the market.

Maintenance nightmare doesn't begin to tell the story. I had leak from the rear main seal. 10 bolts hold the oil pan. The last two are under the sub frame and the engine had to be loosened and jacked to get them out.

Of course there was always Lucas (Prince of Darkness) to deal with. The multipin connector in the nose would come loose going over a bump and loose the headlamps. Timing chain was tensioned by a slipper that would wear and pop out of its housing allowing the chain to slip. Wire wheels always getting loose. Biggest problem was rust in the front footwells and behind the drivers seat. Always something to do.

Don't get me wrong, Corvettes of that era were pretty horrible. Poor braking performance was just one area. Shakes, rattles and jarring impacts made them tough to use as daily drivers. Sharp looking cars, though and very fast for the time. The mid 60's Corvettes real racing rival wasn't the Jag, it was the Cobra. The small block Chevy's held their own against the small block Fords until they started putting the 427 in the Cobra. Even after putting the big block in the Corvette it wasn't as fast as the Cobra.

I think you're right, the 3.8 in the Genesis has more performance potential than the V8. A twin turbo set up should put out the same power as the V8 but getting the car down to the 37-3800 lb level might be tough. So much of the safety and electronics is really integral its not easy to lose.

You're right that the V8 Ultimate is a fine luxury touring car. Fit and finish are very good, quality materials throughout, cutting age tech that's really easy to use. And, as someone else said, a big luxury/performance sedan needs and deserves a V8. The Genesis takes care of the "value proposition" quite well but in today's world, 400 hp is what the big cruiser should have.

 

[Nikgen]

But here is the thing I tell my 4x4 buddies ... when it comes to stopping, we're all equal

That's very true but not broadly understood (as evidenced by the # of SUV's and AWD cars I see speeding and skidded off the road each winter) - used properly AWD is about being able to get started and keep going in tough conditions.

 

[Nikgen]

I'm 67 and retired, but I'm not old. It must be tough to be old. At any age.

not talking about age - talking about maturity. And stop light racing is not the latter.

 

[Nikgen]

A vehicle of such prestige and significance like the Genesis defiantley NEEDS a V8! Particularly one like that sweet Tau 5.0L

As for the 3.8 V6? Yeah it's adequate to get you moving but like that other guy said, you have no where near the power reserves of the V8.
Also the 3.8 always has that typical labour sensation you get with underpowered cars.

The V8 is awesome and extremely smooth & powerful!

No one is arguing that the V8 is a little quicker - but you clearly have not spent time in the V6 if you think it labors as it doesn't labor at all. What some seem to need all this reserve of power for is beyond me - but whatever floats your boat, I guess. However, to suggest that the V6 is underpowered is ridiculous.