Is the 2.0T AWD G70 still fast enough to be fun?

[Electrode]

I'll be coming from a 2012 Audi S4 with a SC/V6. The 333 HP power is fun, but I don't get many chances to go full throttle due to traffic. It's really overkill. I'm thinking the AWD 2.0 top trim G70 would give me better gas mileage. But, will I be disappointed from what I'm used to?

 

[challenge88]

For what it's worth, I got my 3.3T sport a couple of weeks ago and I don't regret the purchase. This is the most powerful car I've owned after I traded in my 2014 A4 for it. I think only you can answer your question though. Test drive both engines and decide?

 

[Electrode]

Yes, test drive for sure, but it's not in the US yet. Is the 2.0T the same engine in the Kia Stinger?

 

[PD705]

The 2.0T has more than enough power to be fun, it never feels lacking. The 3.3T definitely falls into the overkill category - fun but not easy to exercise.

 

[devellis]

It's really a personal decision, based on your driving style and what you're used to. For me, the 2.0T wouldn't cut it.

I currently drive an Infiniti QX50 with 328 HP and frankly, it's getting pretty boring. Now, that's largely due to its being a crossover rather than a sedan. But it's built on a sedan platform and weighs about the same as the G70. To be honest, I'm not even sure the 3.3 will cut it for me but I suspect that the total package will be a far more responsive car than the QX50 (which my wife will use if we get a new car for me).

It's not that I want to drive the car flat out all the time or that I'll be flooring it every time I go somewhere in it. It's that I'll be in situations where I'll be driving on 2-lane roads with fairly short and infrequent passing zones where great acceleration is very handy, and I'll be pulling onto highways from on-ramps where people sometimes come to a stop rather than accelerating along the length of the ramp. And I'll be driving on country roads where crisp performance makes covering the miles a treat rather than a chore. In all of those situations, the capacity to accelerate quickly, either from a standing stop or from a moderate initial speed, really is useful.

The 2.0 may manage all of those tasks reasonably well but, in every case, the 3.3 should manage them better because of its capacity for greater acceleration. Either car should also serve well for more sedate situations.

Frankly, if I were interested in a highway cruiser or around-town errand-runner that would never be taken over 80 MPH and that was comfortable for four or five people and got great mileage, I wouldn't be looking at the G70 at all. In fact, the QX50 would be more than adequate for those purposes and my wife's Subaru Outback would probably be even better. They're both great cars that have served us very well. It's just that I'm looking forward to getting back to something more performance-oriented, not because I want a car to race but because I want one that will be highly capable in a variety of situations that I typically encounter. I enjoy driving and the right car greatly enhances that experience for me. Performance (primarily handling and acceleration) is a big part of that equation.

 

[KDX]

I bought the 3.3 and like it. I had an issue with the radar cruise control and was given a 2.0 as a loaner while mine was being repaired. The 2.0 definitely has enough power for the type of driving that I do which is probably 75% highway.

 

[devellis]

I bought the 3.3 and like it. I had an issue with the radar cruise control and was given a 2.0 as a loaner while mine was being repaired. The 2.0 definitely has enough power for the type of driving that I do which is probably 75% highway.

Yeah, once you're actually on the highway, more power isn't going to make much difference unless the terrain is exceptionally hilly. And even when driving in the mountains, I've done fine with cars having about the amount of power the 2.0T produces. And passing on highways usually doesn't need stellar acceleration, as there's usually plenty of space to accomplish the pass (unless there's a ton of traffic, in which case aggressive passing isn't necessarily a good idea anyhow). It's on other sorts of roads that I think the 3.3T would shine for me. And we have a fair number of those roads around here. In lots of places, there will be a stretch between the crests of two hills that provide excellent visibility but only a limited distance in which to pass safely. A car with good zip can do so with no problem or excessive drama. A car with a bit less may not be able to do the same maneuver safely. And getting stuck behind a slow vehicle on back roads can mean that you won't get unstuck for many miles, unless you can capitalize on this kind of passing opportunity.

The top speed the 3.3 is capable of is hard to imagine anyone really caring about unless they are taking the car to the track. I don't think I've ever drive any car I've ever owned, except for a 1969 VW bug, at its maximum speed. And as those top speeds go up, it becomes far less likely that any road would be a suitable place for such speeds. They may not even be attainable on most tracks, frankly.

But acceleration is another matter, at least for me, and on roads other than highways. For others, this may not be the case at all. And I can totally understand why some folks would opt for the sportiness of the 6-speed in lieu of the more power of the 3.3 liter engine, even on smaller roads. It's really a matter of personal preference. The 2.0T is by no means a slow or underpowered car. Whether the 3.3T is better enough to be worth the exra costs depends on what a particular driver is looking for.

 

[Electrode]

It's not that I want to drive the car flat out all the time or that I'll be flooring it every time I go somewhere in it. It's that I'll be in situations where I'll be driving on 2-lane roads with fairly short and infrequent passing zones where great acceleration is very handy, and I'll be pulling onto highways from on-ramps where people sometimes come to a stop rather than accelerating along the length of the ramp. And I'll be driving on country roads where crisp performance makes covering the miles a treat rather than a chore. In all of those situations, the capacity to accelerate quickly, either from a standing stop or from a moderate initial speed, really is useful.

I know exactly what you mean and I do enjoy the effortless power at all speeds. I'm leaning towards the turbo 6 after some further thought. I will probably do the dynamic trim because I don't want the 19" 35 series ultra low profile street/track tires. 18" is perfect for this car, in my opinion.

 

[Beefer]

Tell you what folks...I'm sure the car will be quite fun. But...RaceChip will put it over the top. Add 60 hp and 100 lb-ft of torque !!!! What ?!?!?!?

That's over 300 horses and over 360 torque. Sweet.

I don't think it has been tested on anything but the Stinger as of now...but it will come...I am sure of that.

Kia Stinger (ck) 2.0 T-GDi performance tuning | Racechip

 

[ACCHRM]

The car is supposed to be decently light, so with 250hp should be good, it's minimal difference in power. Look at me, I'm going from a 455hp to 250hp, I should be worried, not you lol

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Beefer]

The car is supposed to be decently light, so with 250hp should be good, it's minimal difference in power. Look at me, I'm going from a 455hp to 250hp, I should be worried, not you lol

What do you have now?

Update: Nevermind...saw where you posted pics of your Camaro.

 

[GenesisYEG]

The 2.0T AWD G70 is pretty quick and it doesn't feel like it loses steam up top which is quite refreshing for a 4 cylinder turbo car. Considering the superb balance of the car I believe the 2.0T AWD G70 is quite fun to drive especially as it is very tossable around corners. Usually turbo 4 cylinder cars in the 200-300HP range are FWD-based so even if they may have more power than the 2.0T G70 they definitely don't feel as fun to drive.

 

[PD705]

The 2.0T hustles just fine. At the launch event it acquitted itself really well in a pretty high-speed autocross. Fun fact: I went faster with it in the wet, since in the dry the car had so much traction it bogged down out of the slow corners. In the wet I could keep the revs up and in the boost.

 

[GenesisYEG]

The 2.0T hustles just fine. At the launch event it acquitted itself really well in a pretty high-speed autocross. Fun fact: I went faster with it in the wet, since in the dry the car had so much traction it bogged down out of the slow corners. In the wet I could keep the revs up and in the boost.

I still remember my hysterical laughing when you took me out on one of the runs!

 

[PD705]

I still remember my hysterical laughing when you took me out on one of the runs!

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Electrode]

Continuing this topic, what is the 0-60 time for the 2.0? I can't find that number anywhere.

 

[Toddasaurus]

Continuing this topic, what is the 0-60 time for the 2.0? I can't find that number anywhere.

I haven't found anything official either, but I do remember hearing it on Redline Reviews. He says it feels like a 6-6.2 second 0-60 for the 2.0T.

Not bad, actually.

I wonder how the pistons and rods look in that engine. Barring any major weak points, I bet it would love one of Garret's new G25 turbos.

 

[Brock Samson]

With all the news and messages I have lost track of things. For the same trim level, other than the engine, what (if any) difference is there between the 2.0 and 3.3? If I'm looking at the Prestige what does the $5100 difference get me other than more power?

 

[Mike_TX]

I'll be coming from a 2012 Audi S4 with a SC/V6. The 333 HP power is fun, but I don't get many chances to go full throttle due to traffic. It's really overkill. I'm thinking the AWD 2.0 top trim G70 would give me better gas mileage. But, will I be disappointed from what I'm used to?

Being in the U. S., I of course have no direct experience with the G70, but since it's essentially the same as the 2.0T in my Optima, I can make a guess.

The Optima 2.0T moves with the best of them in spirited around-town driving. And pressing the "Sport" button really wakes it up and makes it squirt around with authority. The two cars weigh about the same, but the G70 has the added benefit of an 8spd trans vs. the Optima's 6spd.

I never thought I'd want a 4-cyl until I test drove the Optima and was really surprised at the performance. 100% of the torque is served up slightly off idle, so you get all the surge virtually all the time.

I suspect the 2.0T G70 will be pretty lively. No supercharged V6, but plenty energetic.

 

[Ed Okin]

Continuing this topic, what is the 0-60 time for the 2.0? I can't find that number anywhere.

Alex on Autos informally (no fancy instruments) tested it at 7.4, noted about 2/3 of the way through the video below.

Genesis Archives — Alex on Autos