Why is the 2.0T slower then advertised?

[mikeg70]

I currently have a 2.0T AWD and have been testing 0-60 times. Thus far I have not been able to get any lower than approximately 7.3 seconds on 91 octane; I know that a lot of factors play into this time. The advertised time for 0-60 is 6.2 seconds, which is way off from what I'm hitting.

I've done a little digging and have noticed a lot of people have complained that the 2.0 is hitting 0-60 in the 7s. What gives?

 

[EdP]

I currently have a 2.0T AWD and have been testing 0-60 times. Thus far I have not been able to get any lower than approximately 7.3 seconds on 91 octane; I know that a lot of factors play into this time. The advertised time for 0-60 is 6.2 seconds, which is way off from what I'm hitting.

I've done a little digging and have noticed a lot of people have complained that the 2.0 is hitting 0-60 in the 7s. What gives?

Looks about right according to this. Not sure where you saw the 6.2 for your model
Genesis Motors 0-60 Times & Quarter Mile Times | Genesis G70, G80, G90 Luxury Cars & More 0 to 60 stats!
2019 Genesis G70 2.0T Advanced 0-60 mph 7.4


Temperature, humidity, tire pressure, AWD, Driver ability, method of timing are all factors.

 

[carguy75]

I currently have a 2.0T AWD and have been testing 0-60 times. Thus far I have not been able to get any lower than approximately 7.3 seconds on 91 octane; I know that a lot of factors play into this time. The advertised time for 0-60 is 6.2 seconds, which is way off from what I'm hitting.

I've done a little digging and have noticed a lot of people have complained that the 2.0 is hitting 0-60 in the 7s. What gives?

You time is slower than a "tested" time because many of the claimed 0-60 numbers are obtained by aggressive launch techniques(torque braking) that were repeated until the best time was obtained by many magazines like Motor Trend and Car & Driver.

Do your 2.0T AWD model has launch control?

 

[Beefer]

Use proper fuel. What do you expect from 91?

Try again when cold out and no humidity...also drive to the ocean

 

[PMCErnie]

‘Bout the same as my ‘19 Santa Fe.

 

[mikeg70]

Looks about right according to this. Not sure where you saw the 6.2 for your model
Genesis Motors 0-60 Times & Quarter Mile Times | Genesis G70, G80, G90 Luxury Cars & More 0 to 60 stats!
2019 Genesis G70 2.0T Advanced 0-60 mph 7.4


Temperature, humidity, tire pressure, AWD, Driver ability, method of timing are all factors.

Let me take that back - there was no official 0-60 listed on the Genesis website, but the 0-60 times tested by people on the 2.0 is all over the place. In that link I don't understand why the 2.0 Advanced is slower than the 2.0 AT Sport; I thought they shared all the same mechanical components minus the exhaust/brakes. Is it tuned differently?

It's also strange to me that the G70 2.0 has similar power output to the 330i, A4, and base Gulia - yet it is almost two seconds slower to 0-60.

 

[mikeg70]

You time is slower than a "tested" time because many of the claimed 0-60 numbers are obtained by aggressive launch techniques(torque braking) that were repeated until the best time was obtained by many magazines like Motor Trend and Car & Driver.

Do your 2.0T AWD model has launch control?

I do believe so. Only one way to find out!

 

[EdP]

Let me take that back - there was no official 0-60 listed on the Genesis website, but the 0-60 times tested by people on the 2.0 is all over the place. In that link I don't understand why the 2.0 Advanced is slower than the 2.0 AT Sport; I thought they shared all the same mechanical components minus the exhaust/brakes. Is it tuned differently?

It's also strange to me that the G70 2.0 has similar power output to the 330i, A4, and base Gulia - yet it is almost two seconds slower to 0-60.

Of course they are all over the place because people are all different too. Already mentioned a bunch of other reasons.

As for it being slower than the others mentioned, I did not look at all the comparisons, but HP is only one factor. Gear ratio of both the differential, transmission, power curve are big factors, as is weight. Not to mention, the G70 is warranted for 100k miles so it may be tuned with that in mind.

Best thing you can do is put the stopwatch away, stomp the pedal and enjoy the ride. In the scheme of life is is really not shabby at all. In every day life you may have been late for work because of traffic, but not because your 0 - 60 time was a second slower than some magazine writer got.

 

[Toddasaurus]

2.0 Advanced is faster than the 2.0 Sport in 0-60 because the Advanced weighs less, no other reason. All that extra luxury (ie sunroof, creature comforts, etc) come at a cost of increased weight.

 

[LandOfConfusion]

Let me take that back - there was no official 0-60 listed on the Genesis website, but the 0-60 times tested by people on the 2.0 is all over the place. In that link I don't understand why the 2.0 Advanced is slower than the 2.0 AT Sport; I thought they shared all the same mechanical components minus the exhaust/brakes. Is it tuned differently?

It's also strange to me that the G70 2.0 has similar power output to the 330i, A4, and base Gulia - yet it is almost two seconds slower to 0-60.

One thing I can tell you is that the G70's powerband in the 2.0T is much narrower than that in the 330i's 2.0 (and probably others). I haven't seen the dyno printouts to know what the HP and torque curves look like, but you can back into this by looking at the acceleration numbers produced by a single source. In this case, I'll use Car & Driver.

Look at their acceleration data for the new 330I xDrive here: C&D 330i xDrive Tested. You'll see the acceleration runs of 30–50 mph: 3.2 sec and 50–70 mph: 3.9 sec, both in top gear. Now, look at the same data for the G70 2.0T (in manual spec -- I didn't see any results for AT) here: C&D G70 2.0T Tested. 30–50 mph: 9.4 sec and 50–70 mph: 8.2 sec. I don't know the gear ratios or final drive ratios of either car, and this would obviously affect the results. That said, I can't imagine it could possibly affect them to this degree, not without there being a significant power disadvantage of the G70's 2.0T at low revs.

Remember, too, that German manufacturers (and BMW in particular) have a reputation of underrating their engine specs. That, combined with how power is delivered at certain engine speeds and in AWD configuration, can have big effects on performance.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Gen127]

Results ‘slower than advertised’? The nature of advertising: selling the ‘sizzle’ rather than the steak. As mentioned in this thread, results used for selling tend to be highly favorable done in conditions the provide the best results. One can see this in the mpg listings for vehicles as well, often with the disclaimer “ (your) results may vary.”

 

[canucklehead604]

Look at their acceleration data for the new 330I xDrive here: C&D 330i xDrive Tested. You'll see the acceleration runs of 30–50 mph: 3.2 sec and 50–70 mph: 3.9 sec, both in top gear. Now, look at the same data for the G70 2.0T (in manual spec -- I didn't see any results for AT) here: C&D G70 2.0T Tested. 30–50 mph: 9.4 sec and 50–70 mph: 8.2 sec. I don't know the gear ratios or final drive ratios of either car, and this would obviously affect the results. That said, I can't imagine it could possibly affect them to this degree, not without there being a significant power disadvantage of the G70's 2.0T at low revs.

^ we can't compare the 330 8AT and G70 6MT. the AT would kick down to optimal gearing, whereas the 6MT would not and would remain in top gear. this is the standard method to test and makes it impractical to compare MT/AT passing acceleration data. 0-60 and 5-60 times can be compared, although we all know now that AT's are quicker (like for like) due to gearing advantages, etc, unlike the old days.

 

[LandOfConfusion]

^ we can't compare the 330 8AT and G70 6MT. the AT would kick down to optimal gearing, whereas the 6MT would not and would remain in top gear. this is the standard method to test and makes it impractical to compare MT/AT passing acceleration data. 0-60 and 5-60 times can be compared, although we all know now that AT's are quicker (like for like) due to gearing advantages, etc, unlike the old days.

I wondered about that. If this is how C&D and other publications manage to test acceleration runs in "top gear," then this is very misleading.

 

[canucklehead604]

^ as this detailed C&D how-to video states, any comparison between manual and automatic cars' passing acceleration times are meaningless. not misleading once you understand how the tests are performed.

skip forward to ~7:00 minute mark for discussion on how they test 30-50 and 50-70 acceleration. top gear for manuals, D for autos.

 

[OMG70]

Just to add: I recall someone (@NLJ ?) mentioning something about the 2.0 bogging down because the tires don't slip a little at launch. Aka too much grip for the amount of power. Might help to start your run with the tires on some crosswalk lines or something

 

[Revvdmedia]

Another thing to keep in mind is that magazine tests take their number and then adjust for "sea level" conditions as a method to keep everything "standard." Doing this eliminates variables like ambient conditions. Three real life factors that hurt 0-60 is ambient conditions, road surface quality (or prep) and fuel quality.

 

[MG8]

where you located? elevation is a big deal.

 

[NLJ]

Just to add: I recall someone (@NLJ ?) mentioning something about the 2.0 bogging down because the tires don't slip a little at launch. Aka too much grip for the amount of power. Might help to start your run with the tires on some crosswalk lines or something

Yup let it slip and launch. Once I figured that out, I was getting 6.0secs flat. I believe even the MT review of the 2.0T mentions how it bogs down at launch. Should launch better on the 18" tires.

 

[SimpsonTide985]

where you located? elevation is a big deal.

I was just thinking that. Depending on elevation, the 0-60 times can vary up to a second or more.