Genesis G70 Reviews

[devellis]

But people don't devote their full attention to driving. Even good drivers encounter distractions, stressors, and other factors that lead to minor mistakes. Insurance companies' offering first-accident forgiveness is premised on the fact that someone may goof up without being a systemically dangerous driver. If one slip-up were diagnostic of the inability to drive, they'd pull your insurance after that first accident, not forgive it.

And changes that require adaptation should have a reason other than novelty. Something should be gained as a trade-off for requiring an additional adaptation.

And people don't necessarily look at their dashboard when they're dashing out of their car to get to a meeting on time.

And having to put your foot on the brake to get into reverse doesn't preclude the potential problem of then removing your foot from the brake. Ever get into an elevator when you were expecting it to go up and been momentarily fooled into thinking it was, only to realize a second later that it was moving downward? Most people have had this experience. Motion perception is pretty fluid, which is why a flight simulator is useful for training pilots and capable of convincing them that they're dropping like a rock from 30,000 feet. Expectations and other sensory cues play an important part in how we perceive apparent motion. So, is it that implausible that the load shift felt when a braked car goes into reverse might be misperceived as the load drop felt when a car goes from Drive to Park?

I agree that this isn't some sort of fundmental disaster that will send every G70 to a body shop. Most people most of the time won't be confused. But it will certainly happen occasionally. It's a potential risk (as the WHEELS.ca reviewer also noted). And it's completely unnecessary. With all of the inconvenient, safety-motivated nags in cars these days, like shutting out certain functions when the car exceeds 5 MPH, creating even a minor risk to no apparent advantage just seems really odd. Don't these companies have any human factors people on board anymore?

 

[GenesisYEG]

All my personal cars have been manual so it's no big deal for me to hit a big P button when parking the car. Took me 10 minutes to get used to but for people that have been driving with traditional automatics for quite some time I can understand it being a hard habit to break.

 

[GenesisYEG]

I dont see a big deal never even thought this was an issue i like the push button, drive to a stop - keep foot on break- push P button- check cluster for the P takes 3 seconds....

100% agreed! You should never be in enough of a rush to not ensure your vehicle is properly stationary.

 

[K-Rock]

But people don't devote their full attention to driving. Even good drivers encounter distractions, stressors, and other factors that lead to minor mistakes. Insurance companies' offering first-accident forgiveness is premised on the fact that someone may goof up without being a systemically dangerous driver. If one slip-up were diagnostic of the inability to drive, they'd pull your insurance after that first accident, not forgive it.

And changes that require adaptation should have a reason other than novelty. Something should be gained as a trade-off for requiring an additional adaptation.

And people don't necessarily look at their dashboard when they're dashing out of their car to get to a meeting on time.

And having to put your foot on the brake to get into reverse doesn't preclude the potential problem of then removing your foot from the brake. Ever get into an elevator when you were expecting it to go up and been momentarily fooled into thinking it was, only to realize a second later that it was moving downward? Most people have had this experience. Motion perception is pretty fluid, which is why a flight simulator is useful for training pilots and capable of convincing them that they're dropping like a rock from 30,000 feet. Expectations and other sensory cues play an important part in how we perceive apparent motion. So, is it that implausible that the load shift felt when a braked car goes into reverse might be misperceived as the load drop felt when a car goes from Drive to Park?

I agree that this isn't some sort of fundmental disaster that will send every G70 to a body shop. Most people most of the time won't be confused. But it will certainly happen occasionally. It's a potential risk (as the WHEELS.ca reviewer also noted). And it's completely unnecessary. With all of the inconvenient, safety-motivated nags in cars these days, like shutting out certain functions when the car exceeds 5 MPH, creating even a minor risk to no apparent advantage just seems really odd. Don't these companies have any human factors people on board anymore?

You are 100% right, and you are entering my field of expertise, flying and simulator instructor/examiner. The more automated the machine the more you can check that your input has a response. It's a learned discipline. You can complain, but you probably won't influence a change, so a driver's best option is to learn to live with it, and be in the moment enough to observe what you are doing. It takes zero seconds, just a bit of attention. That habit pays off in so much better driving, not just this one aspect. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast Being in a rush to get to a meeting makes you spill you coffee, forget your wallet and drop your keys in the snow. I know - I've been that guy, but I'm getting better!

 

[joneillnj]

I don't get the difference?

Audi has Park button...on the shifter. Then you have R, N and D...in that order from front of car to back.
G70 has a Park button...separate from shifter. Then you have R, N and D...in that order from front of car to back.

Same...right? What am I missing?

Also, on the Audi Shifter, P lights up in red on the selector after you press the P button on the shifter - so again feels more like the gear selector display you see on a conventional shifter and gives a similar visual cue that you are in park.





Overall, much slicker than a conventional mechanical shifter and easier to operate. We have 4 cars at the house currently and the Audi is the only one with an electronic shifter. I have no issues moving between any of the vehicles so folks should not be concerned - the “issues” raised are much ado about nothing, in my experience.

 

[devellis]

You are 100% right, and you are entering my field of expertise, flying and simulator instructor/examiner. The more automated the machine the more you can check that your input has a response. It's a learned discipline. You can complain, but you probably won't influence a change, so a driver's best option is to learn to live with it, and be in the moment enough to observe what you are doing. It takes zero seconds, just a bit of attention. That habit pays off in so much better driving, not just this one aspect. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast Being in a rush to get to a meeting makes you spill you coffee, forget your wallet and drop your keys in the snow. I know - I've been that guy, but I'm getting better!

I agree. People who are attentive, take their time, and generally practice safe driving won't have a major issue. Problem is, that doesn't describe all drivers or even any one driver all of the time if their life has those rare crises that impact pretty much anyone at some point.

Obviously, this isn't a major hazard that will result in dozens of daily mishaps wherever the car is sold. My point is that it increases the likelihood of mishaps for new users and that increased likelihood could have been avoided. Of course most people will figure it out. Most people don't have accidents driving. But some do, especially when their routine is disrupted.

I remember thinking when automatic locking doors were introduced that people would end up locking their keys in the car. And they did. Not everyone, but I saw it several times (when people asked me to help them retrieve their keys -- something I'd gotten pretty good at after a few such requests). The systems were eventually changed. If you have a keyless system, for example, the car won't lock if the fob is inside the car. But there was a time when cars locked if you got out and closed the door, whether you took the key with you or not. I remember picking someone up at the local hospital and seeing a fiasco in front of me where a woman got out of her car (a GMC product, don't remember which one) and left the engine running. And the car doors locked, with the engine still running and no one in the car. And her car was blocking the road to the hospital entrance and the Emergency Room. Fortunately, a cop was able to use a door shim to get her car opened. Was she at fault for getting out and closer her door while the engine was still running? Yes. But the "convenience feature" of automatically locking the doors when the engine was running and all doors were closed was also to blame. A foreseeable situation was missed at the design stage.

Problems like this didn't happen to everyone. They were rare. But they also were a potential problem. Most manufacturers have changed things so the doors won't automatically lock until the car attains a certain speed, like 15 MPH. If you surveyed owners or potential owners and asked them if they were concerned about the automatic door locks being a problem, most would say that just a little bit of attention would avoid any such problem. And that's true. But circumstances can conspire to sap that attention. The woman at the hospital was bringing an injured kid there and she wasn't giving her full attention to her car. I can think of many other situations were people who were normally excellent drivers made mistakes under extreme duress (often involving concerns about the well being of their children, now that I think about it). We can never eliminate every instance of that. But making a change that creates new opportunities for mistakes when any advantages of the change are trivial just seems like poor engineering to me, especially when there isn't a marked advantage to offset a given risk.

Genesis isn't alone in doing this. Other cars have the same design. And it mostly won't be an issue. But sometimes it will, almost certainly. That doesn't make the G70 a bad car or an unsafe one. Apparently, its overall safety ratings are outstanding. Nor do I think that the primary responsibility for safety should reside with anyone but the driver. And I'm no fan of sucking all of the joy out of driving in the interest of avoiding every possible mishap a driver may stumble onto. I'm not disparaging the car in general. I'm just wondering (admittedly, perhaps too much) about why they stuck in what I see as a potential issue for some drivers on some occasions when I really can't see any up-side to the design. It's like making a staircase with unequally spaced steps. Most people will adapt. Those who look before they step shouldn't have any problem. But sooner or later, someone who's looking at their phone or is otherwise distracted will trip up, literally. And what did the departure from the expectation of equally-spaced steps achieve that offset that added risk?

 

[Edmguy]

The problem I have with the shifter on the G70 (and Stinger) is that it doesn't feel natural (at least still not after ~2500km). You have to awkwardly reach in front of the shifter to push the park button. My last two BMW's had similar auto shifters, but like the Audi pictured above, they had a park button on the shifter which just feels more natural.

Owners will get used to it sure, but it is still odd if you lend your car out to someone not familiar with it. I let a buddy drive my car and without looking he put it into reverse thinking it was park and took his foot off the brake and the car started rolling back. He did hit the brake within a second or so and only rolled a few feet, but depending on where/how he parked, that could have been enough to do damage.

I don't care about learned behavior or that people will get used to it, I just don't think it is a great design. I thought that when I test drove the car and I still feel that way after almost a month with the car and I don't think that will change. Even though I am "used" to it. I do find that more and more I just hit the start button to turn off the car after I park rather than pushing the park button since it is awkward to push.

I have a feeling this may end up like the shifter in the Jeep Grand Cherokees that they had for 14 and 15. They changed it for 2016 after only two years due to it not being as natural of a shifter and some people having issues with it (and lawsuits due to damage/injury). Don't get me wrong, most of the lawsuits were from stupid people, but I still think we may end up with an early redesign.

 

[Beefer]

I think this horse has been beaten to death...to a pulp actually. You'll be fine in a week.

 

[Edmguy]

I think this horse has been beaten to death...to a pulp actually. You'll be fine in a week.

I am fine now, but I think it will always be a pet peeve of mine with this car.

 

[KDX]

2018 Genesis G70 3.3 V6 T-GDI

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Beefer]

2018 Genesis G70 3.3 V6 T-GDI

Idiot reviewer. I immediately stopped reading when he says 0-100 comes in 5.5 seconds. Wrong. Then falsely states it’s not the quickest or most powerful in its class...um...it most certainly is.

 

[Buckdes]

Idiot reviewer. I immediately stopped reading when he says 0-100 comes in 5.5 seconds. Wrong. Then falsely states it’s not the quickest or most powerful in its class...um...it most certainly is.

No idea why they said 5.5 0 to 100, thats not even close lol unless they are on mt. everest or something or maybe regular fuel or just guessing, horrible info

 

[devellis]

No idea why they said 5.5 0 to 100, thats not even close lol unless they are on mt. everest or something or maybe regular fuel or just guessing, horrible info

This underscores a point I've made before. Until there are multiple reviews from trusted sources, it's really hard to have any sense of how the car performs. Sure, we can believe the fastest time we find in print but that's no more likely to be accurate than the slowest. Only when we see where numbers converge across conditions do we get an accurate idea. I have no trouble believing that 5.5 is off the mark but I don't yet have confidence in what that mark actually is, and won't until we get reviews from several mainstream sources and those numbers start to converge. I've been through this with cars for decades now. The manufacturer promulgates a number that nobody is ever able to replicate and the "word on the street" is based on that number. My twin turbo RX-7 was supposed to do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds but no road test from a reputable source ever got better than 5.2. That may not be a huge difference, depending on your point of view, but the faster time was unattainable outside of whatever conditions Mazda used to get it in the first place. We really need to see how this car (or any car) performs across multiple trials.

It's also worth noting that this car may not have exactly the same specs as what eventually shows up in the US. For example, it apparently has a full-size spare tire. I was expecting a compact spare for the US. Isn't that what Canada gets?

As for power, I think it's true that the G70 isn't the most powerful in its class. The Infiniti Q50RS has 400 horsepower and I think it's in the same class. There are other things about the Infiniti that I think put it at a disadvantage relative to the G70 but it seems to have more horsepower. And again, the reviewer is in the Middle East. here may be cars offered there that we're not seeing in North America that would go head-to-head with the G70 and with more power. Hard to know. But I agree that it wasn't the most informative review.

 

[EdP]

This underscores a point I've made before. Until there are multiple reviews from trusted sources, it's really hard to have any sense of how the car performs. Sure, we can believe the fastest time we find in print but that's no more likely to be accurate than the slowest. Only when we see where numbers converge across conditions do we get an accurate idea. I have no trouble believing that 5.5 is off the mark but I don't yet have confidence in what that mark actually is, and won't until we get reviews from several mainstream sources and those numbers start to converge.
.

In the past few weeks, both here and other threads had a lot of 0-60 discussion. We all like good performance, We all want to pass quickly. We all want to merge easily on the highway. But, how critical is it to anyone here? This seems to be the singular performance factor for the past 60 years I've had an interest in cars.

Has anyone actually bought one car over another they liked just because it had a faster 0-60 time? What is acceptable? Would you eliminate any car that could not do better that 6, 7, or 8 seconds?

Just curious. Carry on.

 

[KDX]

I'm not sure if this link was previously posted or not, but there is a video on this page that shows some of the different colors.
First Drive: 2019 Genesis G70 | Automobile Magazine

 

[devellis]

In the past few weeks, both here and other threads had a lot of 0-60 discussion. We all like good performance, We all want to pass quickly. We all want to merge easily on the highway. But, how critical is it to anyone here? This seems to be the singular performance factor for the past 60 years I've had an interest in cars.

Has anyone actually bought one car over another they liked just because it had a faster 0-60 time? What is acceptable? Would you eliminate any car that could not do better that 6, 7, or 8 seconds?

Just curious. Carry on.

I've certainly eliminated cars that couldn't do 0-60 in better than 6 seconds. It's not literally how fast the car gets to 60 that matters but that's a reference value that is indicative to some degree of the car's performance. To me, it's no different than someone else eliminating a car from consideration because it doesn't comfortably seat 5 adults. For me that's a non-issue but for someone else, potentially crucial. Responsiveness is something I value quite a bit in a car.

 

[EdP]

I've certainly eliminated cars that couldn't do 0-60 in better than 6 seconds. It's not literally how fast the car gets to 60 that matters but that's a reference value that is indicative to some degree of the car's performance. To me, it's no different than someone else eliminating a car from consideration because it doesn't comfortably seat 5 adults. For me that's a non-issue but for someone else, potentially crucial. Responsiveness is something I value quite a bit in a car.

If you have a family of five, a car that seats four is of little value for a family outing. That is a problem evey time you want to go out as a family.

How often do you need the sub 6 second performance that a 6.2 car would be a real detriment? My point of the question, is there a hard line? Would you just eliminate every car that is not 6 seconds or lower?

Responsiveness also includes steering and suspension. I'd assume you'd evaluate that in a test drive. There could be a 5 second car that just does not feel as good as a 7 second car. To me, it would seem silly to eliminate it.

 

[KDX]

In the past few weeks, both here and other threads had a lot of 0-60 discussion. We all like good performance, We all want to pass quickly. We all want to merge easily on the highway. But, how critical is it to anyone here? This seems to be the singular performance factor for the past 60 years I've had an interest in cars.

Has anyone actually bought one car over another they liked just because it had a faster 0-60 time? What is acceptable? Would you eliminate any car that could not do better that 6, 7, or 8 seconds?

Just curious. Carry on.

If the 0-60 time is not an issue for you (or anyone else), buy the loaded 2.0 model and be happy with your purchase. I've driven both the 3.3 and the 2.0 and they are both very nice vehicles. I chose the 3.3 Sport.

 

[GenesisYEG]

I like the 3.3T Sport based on both the handling and acceleration. This is a car that you can throw around corners and the AWD system + LSD + tires pull it through in such a confidence-inspiring (and hilariously fun) fashion that you just want to push it even harder around corners. I've driven cars with much more power that weren't nearly as fun as this car on a daily basis.

I fully expect that despite the 110 HP deficit the 2.0T Sport will also be a blast to drive! You can't go wrong with RWD and manual (although I absolutely love how the AWD system pulls you out of corners).

 

[devellis]

If you have a family of five, a car that seats four is of little value for a family outing. That is a problem evey time you want to go out as a family.

How often do you need the sub 6 second performance that a 6.2 car would be a real detriment? My point of the question, is there a hard line? Would you just eliminate every car that is not 6 seconds or lower?

Responsiveness also includes steering and suspension. I'd assume you'd evaluate that in a test drive. There could be a 5 second car that just does not feel as good as a 7 second car. To me, it would seem silly to eliminate it.

Clearly, we simply disagree.

A 5-second car that doesn't handle well would also warrant disqualification, in my view. I want a car that can really enhance the driving experience and acceleration, for me, is a critical aspect of that. Handling and control are, also. I'm far less sensitive to mileage or trunk space or minor cosmetic features -- things others might find important. I care more about the driving experience and less about a car turning heads when I pull into a parking lot. I don't demean those who focus on the latter. I can understand why that would be a source of enjoyment and I enjoy it, too. But it's farther down my list than crisp performance.

My current drive is a low-mileage 2015 Infiniti QX50 with 328 HP. It's roomy, peppy, and handles well for a car of its type. I suspect that it can do 0-60 in well under 7 seconds (the Zero-to-Sixty website actually lists it at 5.8 seconds). But I miss the fun that I've had with other cars that were quicker and nimbler. My previous 2009 Infiniti G37 did 0-60 in about 5.5 seconds and the 6MT Sport model that I had handled very well for its size. Prior to that Infiniti, I had 5 true sports cars (as in 2-seater), all of which had very good to outstanding performance characteristics for their eras. I don't need to get another car and unless I can find one that will provide the driving enjoyment I'm seeking, I really won't be motivated to buy. At my present life stage, I prefer something a bit roomier than a true 2-seater and the sport sedan and sport coupe offerings seem to fit that bill, at least on paper. If the Genesis offered a coupe equivalent of the G70 (something they may do in the next 5 years), I'd undoubtedly be looking at that, as well. I sort of consider the G70 a 4-door coupe because of its styling (roof line in particular) and limited foot room in the rear seat. The G70 seems like it might provide the level of driving enjoyment I'm after and if it's priced well, I'd certainly consider buying one. But for me, another car that can do 0-60 in, say, 6.5 seconds just wouldn't represent any improvement and wouldn't fulfill my goals for a new car purchase. I've had cars that are really quick and handle really well and I want at least to approximate that sort of daily driving experience. So, yes, for me the kind of performance that is associated with fast 0-60 times is an important consideration.

As noted above, if that isn't particularly important, I'm not sure why anyone would bother with the 3.3 at all. For many, the 2.0 will be "quick enough" and offers the same level of comfort as the 3.3 at a lower price. But I'm guessing that for many, that won't be enough.