Edmunds: Genesis coupe is a "world-class ride"

[Tave]

The Genesis Coupe isn't on sale yet, and it isn't even on Hyundai's website.

We've already been through this earlier in the thread. He doesn't live in North America.

[sportyaccordy]

Not really, the STI/EVOs don't get good mileage, a 350Z gets better, the weight isn't that different.

EVO/STI are AWD

Small displacement turbo engines are not always more efficient.  That kind of stupid blanket statement that ignores the countless variables that go into the efficiency of an engine makes me really question if you know what you're talking about.

I'm not sure why you're using such an aggressive tone... if you don't agree just state why, no need to pull out your penis & make a show of it all.

[SVT666]

We've already been through this earlier in the thread. He doesn't live in North America.

[Nethead]

Tave:  "We've already been through this earlier in the thread. He doesn't live in North America."


Did Canada secede from the continent???

[Tave]

Tave:  "We've already been through this earlier in the thread. He doesn't live in North America."


Did Canada secede from the continent???

I believe he's living in Asia at the moment.

[SVT666]

Tave:  "We've already been through this earlier in the thread. He doesn't live in North America."


Did Canada secede from the continent???

He's not talking about me.

[MrH]

EVO/STI are AWD
I'm not sure why you're using such an aggressive tone... if you don't agree just state why, no need to pull out your penis & make a show of it all.

It wasn't meant to be aggressive.  Sorry if it came off that way.  I'm just thoroughly confused.  You know that there's more to efficiency than just the number of cylinders, the amount of power, and if it's turbo'ed.

[Nethead]

He's not talking about me.

Good!  I was wondering where they mighta gone with Canada.  Somewhere warmer woulda been my guess...

[sportyaccordy]

Just running some #'s through my car performance simulator:

3.7L motor, 3500# curb weight, 300HP/266TQ: 13/20/15 MPG city/hwy/overall

2.0L turbo motor, 10:1 compression ratio, 3400# curb weight, same power/gearing: 17/25/20 MPG city/hwy/overall

"what the hell does your simulator know"

It's based on old EPA guidelines, so the actual #'s are off but it's on point proportionally

Why would there be such a huge difference in fuel consumption? The power, gearing, aerodynamics etc are all the same...

???

[GoCougs]

Just running some #'s through my car performance simulator:

G35 w/ 3.7L motor, 3500# curb weight, 300HP/266TQ: 13/20/15 MPG city/hwy/overall

G35 w/ 2.0L turbo motor, 10:1 compression ratio, 3400# curb weight, same power/gearing: 17/25/20 MPG city/hwy/overall

"what the hell does your simulator know"

It's based on old EPA guidelines, so the actual #'s are off but it's on point otherwise...

Why would there be such a huge difference in fuel consumption? The power, gearing, aerodynamics etc are all the same...

???

You'll have to delve into exactly how it works. The only theoretical stat that I see is pumping losses - given the same power output a smaller motor will be more efficient.

[MrH]

Just running some #'s through my car performance simulator:

3.7L motor, 3500# curb weight, 300HP/266TQ: 13/20/15 MPG city/hwy/overall

2.0L turbo motor, 10:1 compression ratio, 3400# curb weight, same power/gearing: 17/25/20 MPG city/hwy/overall

"what the hell does your simulator know"

It's based on old EPA guidelines, so the actual #'s are off but it's on point proportionally

Why would there be such a huge difference in fuel consumption? The power, gearing, aerodynamics etc are all the same...

???

13 mpg in the city?  You even showed you based this off the G35 to start, and it gets no where near that bad of gas mileage...

Real great simulator...

If the actual numbers are off, how do we know it's proportional?

And you can't take one isolated case and apply a blanket statement that low displacement turbos are always more efficient than larger displacement engines.

And you ask why I questioned whether you're an engineer...

[SVT666]

13 mpg in the city?  You even showed you based this off the G35 to start, and it gets no where near that bad of gas mileage...

Real great simulator...

If the actual numbers are off, how do we know it's proportional?

And you can't take one isolated case and apply a blanket statement that low displacement turbos are always more efficient than larger displacement engines.

And you ask why I questioned whether you're an engineer...

I'm beginning to have my doubts as well.  Even a V8 Mustang GT gets around 17 mpg in the city.

[sportyaccordy]

13 mpg in the city?  You even showed you based this off the G35 to start, and it gets no where near that bad of gas mileage...

Real great simulator...

If the actual numbers are off, how do we know it's proportional?

And you can't take one isolated case and apply a blanket statement that low displacement turbos are always more efficient than larger displacement engines.

And you ask why I questioned whether you're an engineer...

The program just uses #'s, the G35 came close to the Genesis coupe #wise

I take back that they are always more efficient (despite any examples presented beside's MX973) but in this case I think the 2.0t would do better than the 3.8L during normal driving

Would u at least agree that at idle the 2.0L would consume significantly less fuel than the 3.8L? Is it wrong to assume that overall the 2.0L would have less pumping losses (especially out of boost) than the 3.8L? While it's true that the 2.0L will have to work "harder" (it will eventually have to come into boost to keep up with the 3.8L) it has a broader range of energy consumption. Valvetrain, friction, pumping losses, it seems pretty obvious to me that the 2.0L would win out, and w/2009 turbo+motor technology it's not impossible for a little motor to deliver a broad range of torque with a turbo, esp. with a high compression ratio

Not to mention the 4 banger Genesis is about 100# lighter which also helps

I don't see what the problem is