Even the non-turbo has gotten solid reviews (tho there have been reviews which have been overly harsh and overly superlative), but while the VT gets a much needed bump in power, it seems that the VT is something that, while appealing to the general public, doesn't quite "hit it" when it comes to enthusiasts looking for a "hot hatch."
The Kia Koup SX seems to be the more exciting drive (than the Veloster or the Elantra coupe), even if it needs some fine-tuning (a new Koup will be due out sometime after the new Forte is launched next year, so Kia may very well take the next step w/ the Koup).
I guess Hyundai could inject a bit more excitement if they do an R-Spec trim, but we'll see.
Still can't stand that center stack.
Why you wouldn’t (buy an Optima SX):
Because you have your eyes on the Frigidaire Limited Edition Camry that you saw last weekend at the neighborhood Autoplex.
Still looks like a fun little car.
Hyundai's new grilles look horrible in real life.
I'm seriously considering a normal Veloster, I don't think I'd go for the turbo.
I drove one yesterday and was pleasantly surprised.
I'm not a fan of the center stack either, but the interior quality in general is very good and the tech package for ~$17.5k is outstanding. It's a little slow, but at 40mpg as a commuter with that much visual impact, it's pretty compelling.
My only worry is it looks sort of toy-like, and I need to drive people around for work and generally look professional, and while I love it, I don't want people thinking it's goofy. Normally (i.e. personally) I'd never care, but professionally I care a little.
People bag on Mazda with the grin, but love this thing? I don't care for either, styling wise, but the VT is a disaster....it's a random mash of swoops and curves that looks like it's designed by kids.
It will look dated pretty quickly.
From what I read, it is a great car....I just need my cars to look good.
2006 Mazda 3
The original Veloster to me looks ok in pictures but pretty bad in person.
It's too high off the ground. The third door stands out like a sore thumb. The rear-end looks like a pregnant woman. For a small hatch, it's definately not small. The rear visibility..
I just can't convince myself to like the exterior styling.
$22.5k for the turbo is almost FR-S terrirtory.
Last edited by jumbo11; 06-27-2012 at 12:25 PM.
Looks are subjective, plenty of people like the looks of the Veloster and they are selling quite well ( and I see them all over the place where I live), so no one really cares if you or anyone else like the looks or not. I am sure many people think the cars that you "need to look good" in order to own are ugly, for example I find that Magnum of yours to be hideous and the front of the MX5 ain't great either
And the whole it will "look dated" thing is a bunch of crap. Just like any design, whether it be architecture, fashion, graphics, photography, etc., car design follows trends that go in and out of style and car companies don't want cars to stand the test of time, they want you to buy a new one
Last edited by MoPho; 06-27-2012 at 12:35 PM.
The new CRX?
I see C&D and IL follow the typical form by not offering any real negatives. I'll wait for the full tests and matches against other cars. Sounds like this car sells more on overall value than trying to steal the crown for performance.An impressive machine based on all the available statistics, the Veloster Turbo is undeniably fun but fails to deliver that wow factor.
In nearly all categories, Hyundai’s value approach has allowed it to rise to the top, but not here. After all, this is a segment where value is far from being a main priority and where ‘fun-to-drive’ comes standard.
Regardless, Hyundai will sell lots of Veloster Turbos by nature of the fact that it delivers the goods on paper while in reality isn’t too hard-edged and won’t scare off the average consumer. A hot hatch for all, enthusiasts need not apply.
The Hooniverse review:
Complete with confusing intro paragraph!
Last edited by MoPho; 06-27-2012 at 12:48 PM.
Personally, I think the idea of a quick but compact and reasonably efficient commuter for $22k is pretty compelling. No, it's not a track star, but for someone who likes owning a smaller, more efficient commuter but hates the lack of balls that characterizes most such cars, it'd be a worthy option.
It reminds me, actually, of a Saab 900. Its stance, proportions, and overall package is something that late-'80s Saab would have done if it existed now.
I don't really care, I appreciate at least some of these reviews have the balls to give a balanced review unlike the bigger guys like IL who seem to do nothing but sing phrase for any new car.
I forgot... you are a reviewer for MT or someone else?
$23-25k is too much for a turbo Accent hatchback with a twist-beam rear end, in my opinion.
$25k will get you a Volvo C30 T5, Focus ST, Cooper S, GTI, MazdaSpeed 3, Miata, FR-S, etc. Hell, Hyundai's own Sonata 2.0T SE is $25.6k. Veloster Turbo should be $20-21k, tops.
Improving the signal-to-noise ratio
Suggesting that they benchmarked certain cars doesn't mean they had to beat them, only that they looked to those vehicles for part of their engineering criteria. I think you're reading too much into the statements
And there is no balls or no balls to give a balanced review, if you go into it expecting some fire breathing sports car of course you're going to be disappointed, but if you adjust your expectations to what the car is meant to be, like one should when reviewing a car, then their isn't much to complain about. The same could be said of the GTI, as the C/D article notes of the VT, it is a sporty car, not a sports car
All cars have to compromise in one way or another
Maybe its an age thing...kids raised on transformers movies and video games look at this thing with envy. I think it looks like a bad cartoon drawing.
I see plenty of them around, though...oddly, it's mostly retired people. A sporty economical package makes sense for them, I guess.
2006 Mazda 3
Now, then, personally, subjectively, I think the Veloster makes a case for itself as an alternative to what you mentioned. The Miata and FR-S are not what I'd call comfortable commuter cars and they don't deliver 34-38mpg highway. The MS3, GTI, and C30 likewise struggle to top 32mpg highway. The Cooper S is more expensive, less powerful, and smaller. It's more practical and comfortable than a tiny 500 Abarth. And the Sonata is a large midsize sedan, and not terribly good to drive. None of those alternatives are bad, and the Veloster is not necessarily superior, but the Veloster represents a fairly unique mix of attributes - just as the rest of them do. I think there's a place in the market for an affordable, efficient commuter that makes no pretense of being a track star, but has enough balls that it doesn't run out of breath going uphill, and styling that's not totally soporific. If it's not for you, there's plenty of cars that are, but I think this will find plenty of buyers.
Last edited by Turbio!; 06-27-2012 at 01:43 PM.