G70 Print Media Reviews (US Release)

[Beefer]

I call BS. Sorry. I’ve driven it. WTF is wrong with these mags.

 

[Ed Okin]

I call BS. Sorry. I’ve driven it. WTF is wrong with these mags.

Even Sofyan’s informal Redline video has the G70 to 60 well under 5 sec.

Is there something about the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires and “the performance-tun[ing]” that affect these tests?

 

[devellis]

The R&T numbers are more what I was expecting. I think all this talk of mid-to-low 4 sec. range to 60 has been overly optimistic. There may be some additional instrumented road tests that roll in but honestly, I'd be surprised to see figures clustering below about 4.7. The Stinger figures that have been thrown about seem like the outliers, not the higher figures we've been seeing for the G70. And the manufacturers' 4.5 sec. time likely reflects ideal conditions that may not apply out in the real world.

These times don't make the G70 a slow car by any stretch. It's unquestionably quick and we continue to see good reports of its handling across a pretty wide range of conditions. It's just not as quick as some had supposed it would be. Still darn quick though. Also, comparisons to other manufacturers' claims are less relevant than to other brands' results when tested by the same media outlets, like C&D or R&T. I think they tend to be more consistent than the various manufacturers.

 

[devellis]

I call BS. Sorry. I’ve driven it. WTF is wrong with these mags.

Why BS? Subjective and objective impressions can be very different, which is why insrumented testing exists. It's good to hear that the car "feels" even quicker than it actually is, because that's indicative of the fun factor it provides. But instrumented, timed runs provide more precise information than even the best of us can guesstimate just by driving the car.

 

[Beefer]

The R&T numbers are more what I was expecting. I think all this talk of mid-to-low 4 sec. range to 60 has been overly optimistic. There may be some additional instrumented road tests that roll in but honestly, I'd be surprised to see figures clustering below about 4.7. The Stinger figures that have been thrown about seem like the outliers, not the higher figures we've been seeing for the G70. And the manufacturers' 4.5 sec. time likely reflects ideal conditions that may not apply out in the real world.

These times don't make the G70 a slow car by any stretch. It's unquestionably quick and we continue to see good reports of its handling across a pretty wide range of conditions. It's just not as quick as some had supposed it would be. Still darn quick though. Also, comparisons to other manufacturers' claims are less relevant than to other brands' results when tested by the same media outlets, like C&D or R&T. I think they tend to be more consistent than the various manufacturers.

Folks on here have driven it...including myself. So until you do...don’t even try to justify any numbers.

 

[Beefer]

Why BS? Subjective and objective impressions can be very different, which is why insrumented testing exists. It's good to hear that the car "feels" even quicker than it actually is, because that's indicative of the fun factor it provides. But instrumented, timed runs provide more precise information than even the best of us can guesstimate just by driving the car.

First...manufacturers rarely misrepresent their numbers. If anything they are usually bettered.

I personally have pegged the car against fast cars several times in comparison. Read my prior reviews.

There is NO WAY this is a 4.9 second car. Just wait and see. These mags should be ashamed for putting bullshit out.

 

[AWD]

Here is paragraph from the article suggesting it is the same press car that Car and Driver tested in California Proving Grounds. The article narrative is otherwise based on the Maine press event weeks ago.

Don’t be underwhelmed by our instrumented tests
recorded in hundred-degree California heat: The V-6
Genesis certainly is quick enough to surprise and perhaps
embarrass many German sedans short of full-fledged
AMG and M cars. More important, you’ll have a great
time. This Genesis is more fun than the Mercedes-AMG
C43 and as good as BMW’s 3-series.

 

[Buckdes]

First...manufacturers rarely misrepresent their numbers. If anything they are usually bettered.

I personally have pegged the car against fast cars several times in comparison. Read my prior reviews.

There is NO WAY this is a 4.9 second car. Just wait and see. These mags should be ashamed for putting bullshit out.

LOL, i would like to know if the testers are using launch control, i have used launch control several times an it feels significantly slower than just mashing the gas, i do feel these numbers are wayy off.

I just test drove a 2019 x3 m40i and it felt slower than my G70 back to back

 

[jlin101]

No launch control, just mash the gas and go.

 

[Bamm1]

Here is Road & Track's test of the Dynamic Edition, seems slower than Car and Driver or just uncorrected numbers

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Beefer]

Exxxaaactly. The G70 should be 0.2 sec quicker than the Stinger GT. If they do things right...they should get it to 4.4 seconds which is 0.1 less than what the manufacturer claims.

G70 is 200 lbs lighter.

To add...they praise the launch control of the Stinger...yet dog the G70. Same RPM launch. Inconsistent. Pylons.

Braking is off as well. Light car same brakes (actually better than Sport I think) should stop in less distance. I don't trust them one bit.

 

[Edmguy]

It is interesting that both C&D and R&T have had similar results with the G70 being slightly slower than the Stinger. In test drives it definitely didn't feel that way. But I wonder if there was a chance that some early Stinger media cars were a little more potent than later cars?

Either way, published numbers are good for bragging, but I really don't care between a few tenths here or there. The 3.3T is still really strong and competitive with anything else available in its class right now.

 

[Beefer]

It is interesting that both C&D and R&T have had similar results with the G70 being slightly slower than the Stinger. In test drives it definitely didn't feel that way. But I wonder if there was a chance that some early Stinger media cars were a little more potent than later cars?

Either way, published numbers are good for bragging, but I really don't care between a few tenths here or there. The 3.3T is still really strong and competitive with anything else available in its class right now.

They used the same Havana Red car...there’s something wrong with it.

 

[Edmguy]

I hope that is the case. At 200lbs lighter with the identical engine, transmission, and gearing it should be faster by a tenth or two, not the other way around.

 

[canucklehead604]

in 2006 i achieved a 5.9s 0-60 in my '04 G35 6MT sedan. this was at the 1/4 mile track so i trust the times and had the slips for years. sea level, warm day. the best published instrumented times back then were ~5.7-5.8 so i was actually able to get close to what the auto mags could get.

that car had 260 hp / 260 tq, weighed ~3500lbs, was RWD, had an LSD, and had similar gearing to the G70 2.0T 6MT.

unless Genesis is over-rating their engine (i hope not), i see no reason why the usual auto mags should not be able to get into the high-5's or 6.0s on the button with the G70 6MT. i'm no scientist, but two similar cars with essentially identical spec sheets should be very close - and not just on paper.

as for G70 vs Stinger, again, i see no reason why the G70 should not edge out the Kia by a tenth 0-60 and maybe a couple/few tenths in the quarter. lighter equals quicker every time assuming all other specs remain constant. i'm no physicist, but that's just physics.

we need to see comparison data with cars tested the same day at the same facility.

 

[Buckdes]

It is interesting that both C&D and R&T have had similar results with the G70 being slightly slower than the Stinger. In test drives it definitely didn't feel that way. But I wonder if there was a chance that some early Stinger media cars were a little more potent than later cars?

Either way, published numbers are good for bragging, but I really don't care between a few tenths here or there. The 3.3T is still really strong and competitive with anything else available in its class right now.

You are right, any car will see 0.5s difference in 0 to 60 times depending where you look, i know what the G70 feels like compared to the competitors because i have driven them all lol, the G70 is up there with the best

 

[devellis]

Folks on here have driven it...including myself. So until you do...don’t even try to justify any numbers.

You're lending more credence to your seat-of-the-pants impressions than formal, instrumented road tests? Fine. Be my guest. I prefer the more objective data.

 

[devellis]

First...manufacturers rarely misrepresent their numbers. If anything they are usually bettered.

I personally have pegged the car against fast cars several times in comparison. Read my prior reviews.

There is NO WAY this is a 4.9 second car. Just wait and see. These mags should be ashamed for putting bullshit out.

Okay, so you contradict yourself in the first line, first claiming that car manufacturers' numbers are accurate and then suggesting that they're inaccurate but that serves your argument that the Genesis must be faster than what the most objective (albeit preliminary) assessment data indicate. I've found the opposite to be true. An example that comes readily to mind is the twin turbo RX-7 I had, for which the manufacturer claimed 4.8 seconds 0-60 and for which nobody who tested it subsequently got better than 5.2. Did it matter much? Not really. But the manufacturer was clearly reporting the number they wanted buyers to believe -- one that didn't hold up to objective testing. I'm not sure that every manufacturer in every instance misrepresents their cars' performance but I see no iron-clad evidence to support their consistent accuracy either, and at least some that refutes such a claim.

Then, you proclaim that the automotive magazines are wrong simply because your subjective impression diverges from their instrumented test results and, of course, you have to be right and the professional automotive journalists wrong, because, well, that's just the way it is. Might want to read up on confirmation bias. And you seem to think that adding even more subjectivity via unknown, amateur drivers in other cars next to you at stop lights somehow makes the "proof" more compelling? Well not to me.

Look, you may end up being right. But the evidence you present is anecdotal while the evidence the automotive magazines present is based on formal assessment procedures. Both types of data can have sources of error but there are far more potential sources of error in anecdotal than in standardized, formalized assessments. That's simply, factually, the way it is. Had you said that you found their results surprising given the way the car feels, I'd have taken your claims more seriously. Some cars can feel quicker than they actually are, to be sure. But a declaration that the pros are wrong but the seat of your pants is right just isn't a credible claim unless backed up by better evidence than you've offered.

Why do you believe R&T when they tell you what you want to hear (from the Stinger test) but not what you want to hear for the car we're actually talking about here?

Please believe whatever you like. Just don't present your beliefs as facts, especially when more controlled data contradict your claims. As I've said all along, eventually we'll get a nice set of instrumented tests from multiple sources and we'll be able to aggregate findings in a way that give us a more accurate picture of what numbers we should believe. That time hasn't come yet and I'll suspend judgment until such time as it does. But feel free to rush to the judgment you prefer, if that's what suits you.

 

[Beefer]

Okay, so you contradict yourself in the first line, first claiming that car manufacturers' numbers are accurate and then suggesting that they're inaccurate but that serves your argument that the Genesis must be faster than what the most objective (albeit preliminary) assessment data indicate. I've found the opposite to be true. An example that comes readily to mind is the twin turbo RX-7 I had, for which the manufacturer claimed 4.8 seconds 0-60 and for which nobody who tested it subsequently got better than 5.2. Did it matter much? Not really. But the manufacturer was clearly reporting the number they wanted buyers to believe -- one that didn't hold up to objective testing. I'm not sure that every manufacturer in every instance misrepresents their cars' performance but I see no iron-clad evidence to support their consistent accuracy either, and at least some that refutes such a claim.

Then, you proclaim that the automotive magazines are wrong simply because your subjective impression diverges from their instrumented test results and, of course, you have to be right and the professional automotive journalists wrong, because, well, that's just the way it is. Might want to read up on confirmation bias. And you seem to think that adding even more subjectivity via unknown, amateur drivers in other cars next to you at stop lights somehow makes the "proof" more compelling? Well not to me.

Look, you may end up being right. But the evidence you present is anecdotal while the evidence the automotive magazines present is based on formal assessment procedures. Both types of data can have sources of error but there are far more potential sources of error in anecdotal than in standardized, formalized assessments. That's simply, factually, the way it is. Had you said that you found their results surprising given the way the car feels, I'd have taken your claims more seriously. Some cars can feel quicker than they actually are, to be sure. But a declaration that the pros are wrong but the seat of your pants is right just isn't a credible claim unless backed up by better evidence than you've offered.

Why do you believe R&T when they tell you what you want to hear (from the Stinger test) but not what you want to hear for the car we're actually talking about here?

Please believe whatever you like. Just don't present your beliefs as facts, especially when more controlled data contradict your claims. As I've said all along, eventually we'll get a nice set of instrumented tests from multiple sources and we'll be able to aggregate findings in a way that give us a more accurate picture of what numbers we should believe. That time hasn't come yet and I'll suspend judgment until such time as it does. But feel free to rush to the judgment you prefer, if that's what suits you.

Your novel-long replies are getting really freaking old. Sorry...I should have structured my first sentence better. FO.
They rarely misrepresent numbers in a negative way. How is that? Better?

Next...stick to cars in the past 2 decades. Your RX7 was tested long before the current equipment existed...as well as launch control, etc.

Lastly...yes...I am always right. Deal with it. Well...mostly anyway. I mash a pedal just like any f'ing wanker out there can. Even the car mag guys. So we are equally qualified. Got it? Good. I am right.

It has been CONFIRMED that they said their test car was off. Add to it high altitude, heat, etc.

Use your common f'ing logic man...instead of writing story books replies. Same engine and transmission...G70 is lighter by 200 lbs. A 10 year old can deduce the outcome.

 

[devellis]

Your novel-long replies are getting really freaking old. Sorry...I should have structured my first sentence better. FO.
They rarely misrepresent numbers in a negative way. How is that? Better?

Next...stick to cars in the past 2 decades. Your RX7 was tested long before the current equipment existed...as well as launch control, etc.

Lastly...yes...I am always right. Deal with it. Well...mostly anyway. I mash a pedal just like any f'ing wanker out there can. Even the car mag guys. So we are equally qualified. Got it? Good. I am right.

It has been CONFIRMED that they said their test car was off. Add to it high altitude, heat, etc.

Use your common f'ing logic man...instead of writing story books replies. Same engine and transmission...G70 is lighter by 200 lbs. A 10 year old can deduce the outcome.

Wow, your exquisite logic and reasoned arguments have totally persuaded me. Like I said, please feel free to believe whatever you like.