Genesis G70 Reviews

[Aquineas]

LOL!

Having had done some research on human physiology/heights - not surprising, as those guys look like they're in their 50's - so, for S. Koreans of around that age, avg. around 5'7" in height.

The younger generations have grown taller due to higher standards of living; the avg. height of a S Korean male under the age of 30 is 5'8.5".

In addition to increased height, body proportions have also changed; the younger generation having longer arms and legs in relation to their torso.

North Koreans used to be taller (the north having been the more prosperous, industrialized region), but now are thought to be on avg., about 2.5" shorter.

While environmental/nutritional factors play a part, so do genetics.

For instance, Japan industrialized more than half a century ahead of S. Korea and thus has experienced a higher standard of living for a considerable longer period of time, but on avg., Japanese are shorter than S. Koreans.

Among Asians, it's the NE Asians (Mongols, Koreans and Northern Chinese - who are actually Manchu and various other northern ethnic groups separate from the Han) who are the tallest (not surprising to see 6'4" and taller).

Northern Italians tend to be taller than their southern compatriots, but many Northern Italians are actually of German stock (Lombards).

Centuries ago, the Dutch used to be among the shortest in Europe due to having poorer living conditions, but are now among the tallest.

Records kept during the Napoleonic Wars showed that the common conscript was several inches shorter than
the typical aristocrat officer (Napoleon aside).

Up til around WWII, Americans were generally noticeable taller than Europeans.

Charlie Min (of Asian Petrolhead) would have issues fitting in the 2nd row as he's something like 6'2"-6'3", but he's in his 30's and spent a part of his formative years in California (so had plenty of access to American hormone-injected beef).

I love this stuff!! I share a fascination with genetics and history as well. I'm 6'2, and at one point in my career I spent a lot of time in Portugal, where honestly I could have had a very lucrative career as a barber because none of my clients would have had to sit. My next assignment was in the Czech Republic, where honestly I rode the Metro in Prague and felt dwarfed, all in a 60 day period.

 

[Slip_Angle]

 

[Slip_Angle]

 

[NLJ]

So with their 6MT the best they could do was 7.4secs for 0-60 which is the slowest time seen yet!

 

[Beefer]

This guy is a full blown idiot. I posted it above...then deleted it. Couldn’t do it.

His obsession with the Stinger and the Nav is enough to punch him out.

 

[TOGuy242]

This guy is a full blown idiot. I posted it above...then deleted it. Couldn’t do it.

His obsession with the Stinger and the Nav is enough to punch him out.

Right? He harps on it so much! I agree it may not look as fancy as some of the others, but it‘s intuitive and fast. I’ve never had to think about “how do I do that?” in the G70.

 

[NLJ]

This guy is a full blown idiot. I posted it above...then deleted it. Couldn’t do it.

His obsession with the Stinger and the Nav is enough to punch him out.

He didn't know to wait for Launch Control to activate!

 

[Aquineas]

This guy is a full blown idiot. I posted it above...then deleted it. Couldn’t do it.

His obsession with the Stinger and the Nav is enough to punch him out.

Definitely a snob. I'm glad his wife prefers the newer, sexier model than those staid, old-world models he keeps comparing the G70 to . Also I was multi-tasking somewhat when watching it- did he at any point mention the differences in the warranty? Reliability will dramatically affect the cost of ownership for most German vehicles.

 

[canucklehead604]

So with their 6MT the best they could do was 7.4secs for 0-60 which is the slowest time seen yet!

^ i couldn't tell if that time was for the 6MT or the AT. regardless, that is the slowest i've seen. so we've seen the published 0-60/100 range from 5.9s to 7.4s. that is nuts. what the heck is going on with this data? it further annoys me, just like the lack of rationale for the times being so far behind the competition to begin with. if the Stinger 2.0T AT is posted at 0-60 in 6.2 and is heavier, how are we seeing times over a second slower with the lighter G70? makes no sense. the 5.9s time posted on this thread earlier seems logical...but i'm beginning to wonder about HMC's power rating being suspect or massive manufacturing discrepancies if we are seeing these much higher times.

the 3.3T times seem to be a much tighter spread, in the 4.5s-4.8s range.

 

[NLJ]

Definitely a snob. I'm glad his wife prefers the newer, sexier model than those staid, old-world models he keeps comparing the G70 to . Also I was multi-tasking somewhat when watching it- did he at any point mention the differences in the warranty? Reliability will dramatically affect the cost of ownership for most German vehicles.

^ i couldn't tell if that time was for the 6MT or the AT. regardless, that is the slowest i've seen. so we've seen the published 0-60/100 range from 5.9s to 7.4s. that is nuts. what the heck is going on with this data? it further annoys me, just like the lack of rationale for the times being so far behind the competition to begin with. if the Stinger 2.0T AT is posted at 0-60 in 6.2 and is heavier, how are we seeing times over a second slower with the lighter G70? makes no sense. the 5.9s time posted on this thread earlier seems logical...but i'm beginning to wonder about HMC's power rating being suspect or massive manufacturing discrepancies if we are seeing these much higher times.

the 3.3T times seem to be a much tighter spread, in the 4.5s-4.8s range.

I'm going based on the 2 cars they have in the video since he mentions putting them to work for a whole week. 6 secs is the best I have gotten stock.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[joschneider]

He didn't know to wait for Launch Control to activate!

did he not? I heard the double chime that indicates launch control as being active

 

[YEH]

I love this stuff!! I share a fascination with genetics and history as well. I'm 6'2, and at one point in my career I spent a lot of time in Portugal, where honestly I could have had a very lucrative career as a barber because none of my clients would have had to sit. My next assignment was in the Czech Republic, where honestly I rode the Metro in Prague and felt dwarfed, all in a 60 day period.

Always wanted to make it out to Prague (and Budapest), but haven't had the chance yet.

Yeah, various Slavic ethnic groups are known for their height - Serbs being another.

 

[CaliG70]

So with their 6MT the best they could do was 7.4secs for 0-60 which is the slowest time seen yet!

Giving Genesis a bad rep with their stats. The comments are ridiculous lol

 

[KusaKusa]

Australian review: 2019 Genesis G70 2.0T Sport review | Luxury, Power and

What's interesting about this review is that Genesis actually quoted a time for the 2.0T engine: 0-100km in 5.9 seconds. That's a really low time for 0-60mph compared to what we've been seeing from testing from other outlets, let alone 0-100km. The time is so much lower that I think Genesis may have recently re-tuned the 2.0T engine differently than what we've been seeing in the past; it doesn't make sense to claim 5.9s with current performance numbers, especially when tests with the 3.3T are so close to the claimed numbers.

 

[NLJ]

Australian review: 2019 Genesis G70 2.0T Sport review | Luxury, Power and

What's interesting about this review is that Genesis actually quoted a time for the 2.0T engine: 0-100km in 5.9 seconds. That's a really low time for 0-60mph compared to what we've been seeing from testing from other outlets, let alone 0-100km. The time is so much lower that I think Genesis may have recently re-tuned the 2.0T engine differently than what we've been seeing in the past; it doesn't make sense to claim 5.9s with current performance numbers, especially when tests with the 3.3T are so close to the claimed numbers.

Best I’ve gotten is 6.0 with the heaviest AWD variant. I done see why 5.9 is impossible with a lighter RWD Sport.

 

[Toddasaurus]

Australian review: 2019 Genesis G70 2.0T Sport review | Luxury, Power and

What's interesting about this review is that Genesis actually quoted a time for the 2.0T engine: 0-100km in 5.9 seconds. That's a really low time for 0-60mph compared to what we've been seeing from testing from other outlets, let alone 0-100km. The time is so much lower that I think Genesis may have recently re-tuned the 2.0T engine differently than what we've been seeing in the past; it doesn't make sense to claim 5.9s with current performance numbers, especially when tests with the 3.3T are so close to the claimed numbers.

It's funny because the AUS 2.0 G70 is rated lower in HP compared to its US and CDN counterparts....yet it's faster than what our (US) reviewers have published. Lol

 

[canucklehead604]

Australian review: 2019 Genesis G70 2.0T Sport review | Luxury, Power and

What's interesting about this review is that Genesis actually quoted a time for the 2.0T engine: 0-100km in 5.9 seconds. That's a really low time for 0-60mph compared to what we've been seeing from testing from other outlets, let alone 0-100km. The time is so much lower that I think Genesis may have recently re-tuned the 2.0T engine differently than what we've been seeing in the past; it doesn't make sense to claim 5.9s with current performance numbers, especially when tests with the 3.3T are so close to the claimed numbers.

^ that 0-100kmh time of 5.9s is logical, seams reasonable, and can be explained given documented specifications (i.e. hp/tq, weight, gearing, etc). note that this would equate to 0-60mph in the ~5.7-5.8s range.

the crazy data we are seeing that range up to 7.4s are what have me scratching my head. i understand conditions change, blah blah blah, but a reasonable spread should be a few tenths at most - not 1.5s - just like we are seeing with the 3.3T. i have yet to hear a reliable explanation - probably because on car forums most things are speculation.

also, the 240hp rating in Aussieland is curious. why would Genesis detune AU market cars? is this common? i thought those Mad-Max-loving fiends were power hungry. the AU Stinger 2.0 is rated at 244, which is also down from the NA market of 255. what gives?

one conspiracy could be that NA cars are over-rated and actually dyno at 240hp just like the AU cars, so that in fact the AU cars are not detuned rather they spec the accurate rating (i hope for Genesis' sake this is not the case). however, the impossibility of this idea is that the AU cars are rated at 240hp and still show 0-100 in 5.9s - whereas NA cars are rated at 252/255hp and have slower-to-much-slower test data than do the AU cars. I don't believe Genesis NA lists acceleration data like AU does, but we've seen enough reports by now that show slower times than 5.9s (for 0-100 kmh).

so, NA cars are more powerful and slower. i hope someone can explain that to me...

 

[NLJ]

^ that 0-100kmh time of 5.9s is logical, seams reasonable, and can be explained given documented specifications (i.e. hp/tq, weight, gearing, etc). note that this would equate to 0-60mph in the ~5.7-5.8s range.

the crazy data we are seeing that range up to 7.4s are what have me scratching my head. i understand conditions change, blah blah blah, but a reasonable spread should be a few tenths at most - not 1.5s - just like we are seeing with the 3.3T. i have yet to hear a reliable explanation - probably because on car forums most things are speculation.

also, the 240hp rating in Aussieland is curious. why would Genesis detune AU market cars? is this common? i thought those Mad-Max-loving fiends were power hungry. the AU Stinger 2.0 is rated at 244, which is also down from the NA market of 255. what gives?

one conspiracy could be that NA cars are over-rated and actually dyno at 240hp just like the AU cars, so that in fact the AU cars are not detuned rather they spec the accurate rating (i hope for Genesis' sake this is not the case). however, the impossibility of this idea is that the AU cars are rated at 240hp and still show 0-100 in 5.9s - whereas NA cars are rated at 252/255hp and have slower-to-much-slower test data than do the AU cars. I don't believe Genesis NA lists acceleration data like AU does, but we've seen enough reports by now that show slower times than 5.9s (for 0-100 kmh).

so, NA cars are more powerful and slower. i hope someone can explain that to me...

I've seen a Stinger 2.0 dynoed at 223whp. So seems about right at 250ish at the crank.

 

[OMG70]

Does the 2.0t have launch control? If not, maybe Genesis testers did something other than just plain hammering it off the line

 

[NLJ]

It has LC. Genesis never officially released 0-60 times for the 2.0t.
So not sure if they are making it up or assuming cause they didn't test it themselves.