Early Owner Feedback

[KDX]

91. And c'mon, the turbo lag is very pronounced. A lot of the reviews note that it's significantly worse that other cars in the class.

I had a 2.0 loaner and it wasn't a dog by any means.

 

[NurburggreenG70]

91. And c'mon, the turbo lag is very pronounced. A lot of the reviews note that it's significantly worse that other cars in the class.

91 might be your problem, it might not need it, and no salesman advised to use it when i asked. Higher octane rating doesn't automatically mean more performance, if its not knocking or retarding its very likely 91 will give you worse performance. If you pigback/chip and the compression gets into knocking areas than 91 will be necessary. 91 is less combustible than 87

 

[R.K.]

91 might be your problem, it might not need it, and no salesman advised to use it when i asked. Higher octane rating doesn't automatically mean more performance, if its not knocking or retarding its very likely 91 will give you worse performance. If you pigback/chip and the compression gets into knocking areas than 91 will be necessary. 91 is less combustible than 87

It's what the manufacturer recommends, so that's what I went with. Interesting that a cheaper fuel might do better.

 

[NurburggreenG70]

It's what the manufacturer recommends, so that's what I went with. Interesting that a cheaper fuel might do better.

Just a theory, not sure what car you came from, but i still have my lancer GTS with mods, and it does sub 7.3s 0-60s, and the G70 pulls harder everywhere in the rev range, its faster.

 

[EdP]

It's odd for someone who doesn't like acceleration to hang out on a car forum. What parts of driving do you like?

'Tis you that may be the odd one. There is much more to driving and car ownership that getting to 60 mph is less than 6 seconds. In the past 1000 miles you drove how many times would a second difference in time have made a difference?

Sure, I like to make a spirited entrance to the highway at times, but really, how many times did you use full acceleration?

More to the point, at what time to 60 must your car do in order to join a car forum?

 

[R.K.]

'Tis you that may be the odd one. There is much more to driving and car ownership that getting to 60 mph is less than 6 seconds. In the past 1000 miles you drove how many times would a second difference in time have made a difference?

Sure, I like to make a spirited entrance to the highway at times, but really, how many times did you use full acceleration?

More to the point, at what time to 60 must your car do in order to join a car forum?

Any difference to what? What difference has having power windows, power doors, power adjustable seats, or leather seats made to your driving in the past 1000 miles?

15K will get you everything needed to drive a car. Everything past that is enjoyment. And I, and a LOT of people, especially people on a car forum, get enjoyment out of acceleration. More acceleration, more enjoyment.

And it was that other blowhard that decided that what I didn't like, didn't matter. Not the other way around.

 

[NurburggreenG70]

Any difference to what? What difference has having power windows, power doors, power adjustable seats, or leather seats made to your driving in the past 1000 miles?

15K will get you everything needed to drive a car. Everything past that is enjoyment. And I, and a LOT of people, especially people on a car forum, get enjoyment out of acceleration. More acceleration, more enjoyment.

And it was that other blowhard that decided that what I didn't like, didn't matter. Not the other way around.

True, but you mashed the rant button right through the keyboard and desk lol. I think we can all agree each of us have different but equally valid priorities. I personally upgraded b/c i wanted something more comfortable, luxerious and quite inside, but also faster and more sporty. Goldilocks thinks im just right

 

[EdP]

Any difference to what? What difference has having power windows, power doors, power adjustable seats, or leather seats made to your driving in the past 1000 miles?

15K will get you everything needed to drive a car. Everything past that is enjoyment. And I, and a LOT of people, especially people on a car forum, get enjoyment out of acceleration. More acceleration, more enjoyment.

Was it not you that asked why someone would be in a car forum that did not like acceleration?

It's odd for someone who doesn't like acceleration to hang out on a car forum. What parts of driving do you like?

There is much more to driving than just acceleration. One of the most fun cars I has was in the 9 second range down hill. Your question is short sighted as to why people would be in a car forum if it did not go fast. .

 

[devellis]

'Tis you that may be the odd one. There is much more to driving and car ownership that getting to 60 mph is less than 6 seconds. In the past 1000 miles you drove how many times would a second difference in time have made a difference?

Sure, I like to make a spirited entrance to the highway at times, but really, how many times did you use full acceleration?

More to the point, at what time to 60 must your car do in order to join a car forum?

I get the point. But none of the data reported in reviews is dependent on frequently driving at extremes for its relevance. When was the last time you had a head-on collision? Do you care about safety ratings? These data points are just indicators of broader automotive traits. They're not literally the reason for buying or foregoing a car. A car tht can withstand crash testing will also withstand less etreme challenges to its integrity and passenger safety. The testing provides "reference values" from which we can extrapolate. Similarly, a 0-60 time provides a benchmark for acceleration across a wide range of conditions, not just literally how fast a car goes from 0-60. Each of those attributes has value for certain drivers to varying degrees. They don't need to anticipate a collision or a drag race, let alone frequently do those things, to find that value.

I have no problem with folks who value different things than I do. In fact, I embrace the idea. But some seem to be conflating placing value on certain attributes with behavior that doesn't follow from those preferences (not you, Ed).

The 2.0 is a quick car -- for some, plenty quick. Others prefer something more. It's all good.

 

[Mcc]

The 2.0 is a quick car -- for some, plenty quick. Others prefer something more. It's all good.

And some don’t care at all. I think you have gotten off the point that EdP was replying to. He was asked “why someone would be in a car forum that did not like acceleration?” As if those that don’t care don’t belong here. That’s a pretty narrow view.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[NurburggreenG70]

And some don’t care at all. I think you have gotten off the point that EdP was replying to. He was asked “why someone would be in a car forum that did not like acceleration?” As if those that don’t care don’t belong here. That’s a pretty narrow view.

Fortunately hes not the arbiter of this forum, therefore this tangent is pointless and tiresome. Im more interested in finding out why his car isnt performing. Be interested to hear what car hes comparing it to with his butt dyno.

 

[Beefer]

Fortunately hes not the arbiter of this forum, therefore this tangent is pointless and tiresome. Im more interested in finding out why his car isnt performing. Be interested to hear what car hes comparing it to with his butt dyno.

My wheelbarrow...he’s leasing from me. Gave him a great deal. Threw in an extra wheel.

 

[NurburggreenG70]

My wheelbarrow...he’s leasing from me. Gave him a great deal. Threw in an extra wheel.

Lulz

 

[YEH]

Bit sad to see that the real-world G70 0-60 times are turning out so damned slow. 7.4 seconds for Alex on Autos. That's... really slow.

Wishing I had gone for the 3.3T at this point.

I don't understand why so many people are freaking out about 0-60 on the 2.0T. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have an official number from Genesis, right? The 7.4 second number is from one person and we don't know what conditions were present. It could've been completely heat-soaked for all we know. It's got a better power to weight ratio than my current car so it should be alright for me.

Exactly.

Wouldn't put much credence into what Alex got (wasn't one of his official review times), esp. considering that C&D got a 6.1s 0-60 time for the 2.0T Stinger which is larger/heavier.

Granted, C&D tends to have quicker than norm 0-60 times, but at worst, probably talking 6.5s for the 2.0T G70 (MT got a 6.6s time for its test of the Stinger - which was only 1.4s slower than what MT got for the A5 coupe ).

 

[devellis]

And some don’t care at all. I think you have gotten off the point that EdP was replying to. He was asked “why someone would be in a car forum that did not like acceleration?” As if those that don’t care don’t belong here. That’s a pretty narrow view.

You're right. I was really responding to an earlier post and should have quoted that, not Ed's. And I agree that the view that people who aren't interested in acceleration have no place on a car forum is overly narrow. Sorry for the veer. I should have read more carefully before I replied.

 

[R.K.]

Exactly.

Wouldn't put much credence into what Alex got (wasn't one of his official review times), esp. considering that C&D got a 6.1s 0-60 time for the 2.0T Stinger which is larger/heavier.

Granted, C&D tends to have quicker than norm 0-60 times, but at worst, probably talking 6.5s for the 2.0T G70 (MT got a 6.6s time for its test of the Stinger - which was only 1.4s slower than what MT got for the A5 coupe ).

Considering that Car and Driver had a 2.0T Audi A4 at 5.1s, that would not be good news for the 2.0T.

 

[NurburggreenG70]

Considering that Car and Driver had a 2.0T Audi A4 at 5.1s, that would not be good news for the 2.0T.

Well the a4 has 13 ftlbs more torque, but the specs are so similar id have a hard time believing they perform that disparate. A WRX STIs 0-60 time is mid 5's so i have a hard time believing a car with 50 less hp, at least 20 ft/lbs less torque and more weight is .5 seconds faster to 60. I call BS on that spec. My buddys A4 isnt faster than my G70

 

[Beefer]

Well the a4 has 13 ftlbs more torque, but the specs are so similar id have a hard time believing they perform that disparate. A WRX STIs 0-60 time is mid 5's so i have a hard time believing a car with 50 less hp, at least 20 ft/lbs less torque and more weight is .5 seconds faster to 60. I call BS on that spec. My buddys A4 isnt faster than my G70

I have a 2013 A4 with the 210 hp engine. I think consensus is about 6.4 seconds...and I agree...LOL.

The newer A4 with the slightly bigger engine performs alot better. I have driven it for lengthy periods...and it is a solid 5.5 seconds. No way it is faster. I don't care what C&D says. Perhaps they used 100 octane fuel...and went downhill...I don't care.

 

[EdP]

Well the a4 has 13 ftlbs more torque, but the specs are so similar id have a hard time believing they perform that disparate. A WRX STIs 0-60 time is mid 5's so i have a hard time believing a car with 50 less hp, at least 20 ft/lbs less torque and more weight is .5 seconds faster to 60. I call BS on that spec. My buddys A4 isnt faster than my G70

Specs you quoted are part of the story. While I agree that more power "usually" means faster, not always. Differential gearing, transmission gearing, weight, weather, what the driver had for breakfast come into play.

Only true comparison is both tested at the same location by the same driver, etc. Testing is a good guide, but can vary.

 

[NurburggreenG70]

Specs you quoted are part of the story. While I agree that more power "usually" means faster, not always. Differential gearing, transmission gearing, weight, weather, what the driver had for breakfast come into play.

Only true comparison is both tested at the same location by the same driver, etc. Testing is a good guide, but can vary.

True, i was just pointing out that a 2.3 second spread between the 2 seems extremely unlikely.. and that i don't believe a stock A4 2.0t can hit 5.1, i see STIs spank A4s all the time.