Topic: 2020 Hyundai Sonata - easy on the eyes!

[Jaeger]

This first drive review is rock solid.  In side profile and from the rear 3/4, I think this thing is freaking gorgeous.  Front end a bit too busy to my eyes, but not the worst offender.

https://www.automobilemag.com/news/review-the-2020-hyundai-sonata-is-a-class-act/

[bridgecity]

Looks good.  At first glance at the side profile I thought G35, which is a good thing.  Still love the lines of that car.  Rear end is nice and clean.  Front is OK, looks "smooshed", but like Jaeger says, not the worst offender.

[Davep]

I love the side profile, but the rear taillights look like Honda and as Jaeger said, the front looks busy.

What is the advantage of the 1.6T vs 2.5NA? The turbo probably has greater torque low down, but I suspect needs premium fuel. I assume the 2.5 NA runs on regular. From a maintenance standpoint, I would think the 2.5NA has better longevity.

[Jaeger]

I love the side profile, but the rear taillights look like Honda and as Jaeger said, the front looks busy.

What is the advantage of the 1.6T vs 2.5NA? The turbo probably has greater torque low down, but I suspect needs premium fuel. I assume the 2.5 NA runs on regular. From a maintenance standpoint, I would think the 2.5NA has better longevity.

Choice is good, no?  Those who want more torquey responsiveness can choose the 1.6, those who want to economize in price and (perhaps) at the pump can choose the 2.4.  Though I think that the notion that turbo motors are inherently short-lived is a bit outdated.  At least buyers better hope so - because damn near everything from the bottom to the top of the market is turbo charged these days.  Does Honda even sell a normally-aspirated Accord?

I'm really keen to see what the N-Line is like.

[Davep]

I love the side profile, but the rear taillights look like Honda and as Jaeger said, the front looks busy.

What is the advantage of the 1.6T vs 2.5NA? The turbo probably has greater torque low down, but I suspect needs premium fuel. I assume the 2.5 NA runs on regular. From a maintenance standpoint, I would think the 2.5NA has better longevity.

Choice is good, no?  Those who want more torquey responsiveness can choose the 1.6, those who want to economize in price and (perhaps) at the pump can choose the 2.4.  Though I think that the notion that turbo motors are inherently short-lived is a bit outdated.  At least buyers better hope so - because damn near everything from the bottom to the top of the market is turbo charged these days.  Does Honda even sell a normally-aspirated Accord?

I'm really keen to see what the N-Line is like.

I suppose I was questioning why a manufacturer would offer two engines with so much overlap? These days, all manufacturing decisions seem to be driven by economics.

[EV Dan]

A sad sucker fish face? 

[Seafoam]

I love the side profile, but the rear taillights look like Honda and as Jaeger said, the front looks busy.

What is the advantage of the 1.6T vs 2.5NA? The turbo probably has greater torque low down, but I suspect needs premium fuel. I assume the 2.5 NA runs on regular. From a maintenance standpoint, I would think the 2.5NA has better longevity.

Choice is good, no?  Those who want more torquey responsiveness can choose the 1.6, those who want to economize in price and (perhaps) at the pump can choose the 2.4.  Though I think that the notion that turbo motors are inherently short-lived is a bit outdated.  At least buyers better hope so - because damn near everything from the bottom to the top of the market is turbo charged these days.  Does Honda even sell a normally-aspirated Accord?

I'm really keen to see what the N-Line is like.

I suppose I was questioning why a manufacturer would offer two engines with so much overlap? These days, all manufacturing decisions seem to be driven by economics.

It didn't seem to work  for Mazda . They finally offer a turbo choice. Probably too late.

[Davep]

I love the side profile, but the rear taillights look like Honda and as Jaeger said, the front looks busy.

What is the advantage of the 1.6T vs 2.5NA? The turbo probably has greater torque low down, but I suspect needs premium fuel. I assume the 2.5 NA runs on regular. From a maintenance standpoint, I would think the 2.5NA has better longevity.

Choice is good, no?  Those who want more torquey responsiveness can choose the 1.6, those who want to economize in price and (perhaps) at the pump can choose the 2.4.  Though I think that the notion that turbo motors are inherently short-lived is a bit outdated.  At least buyers better hope so - because damn near everything from the bottom to the top of the market is turbo charged these days.  Does Honda even sell a normally-aspirated Accord?

I'm really keen to see what the N-Line is like.

I suppose I was questioning why a manufacturer would offer two engines with so much overlap? These days, all manufacturing decisions seem to be driven by economics.

It didn't seem to work  for Mazda . They finally offer a turbo choice. Probably too late.

Good point!

[dougjp]

I love the side profile, but the rear taillights look like Honda and as Jaeger said, the front looks busy.

What is the advantage of the 1.6T vs 2.5NA? The turbo probably has greater torque low down, but I suspect needs premium fuel. I assume the 2.5 NA runs on regular. From a maintenance standpoint, I would think the 2.5NA has better longevity.

Choice is good, no?  Those who want more torquey responsiveness can choose the 1.6, those who want to economize in price and (perhaps) at the pump can choose the 2.4.  Though I think that the notion that turbo motors are inherently short-lived is a bit outdated.  At least buyers better hope so - because damn near everything from the bottom to the top of the market is turbo charged these days.  Does Honda even sell a normally-aspirated Accord?

I'm really keen to see what the N-Line is like.

I suppose I was questioning why a manufacturer would offer two engines with so much overlap? These days, all manufacturing decisions seem to be driven by economics.

And a good question it is. There is no point trying to sell one as signifying upscale trims, when it adds little in comparison. They should have settled with only one of the two, and came with the 275 HP (presumably 2.0T) right from the start, and if the latter wasn't ready then just have one engine for now. Multiple manufacturers have tried the more than one/but close engine options at their peril. Best example was the Dodge Dart, which had 3 choices, 2 being very close, and there was no true performance option so people gave up.

That's the same 1.6T I had in my previous much lighter car. A very good motor for sure, and one that has not given Hyundai problems. If I was Hyundai, that would have been the base motor for this car.

[Seafoam]

A sad sucker fish face? 

Yeah not a fan. They ruined the  front end look of the Elantra  as well with this.

[dougjp]

A sad sucker fish face? 

Yeah not a fan. They ruined the  front end look of the Elantra  as well with this.

True that. And in addition, the 2019 Elantra Sport wheels are the worst ever. And many things are missing as there is no upscale Elantra Sport version either.

By the way if anyone is interested, my car may be still for sale, out here, and I can say its better than the way it came off the showroom in many ways.

https://www.lauriahyundai.com/inventory/certified-used-2017-hyundai-elantra-turbo-sport-tech-low-kms-loaded-fwd-sedan-kmhd04lb7hu359447

[OliverD]

No offence, but this car makes the Jetta look like a door stop.

I'd still rather have a GLI.

[OliverD]

No offence, but this car makes the Jetta look like a door stop.

I'd still rather have a GLI.

Why?

Smaller and can be had with a stick. And I'm just generally not a fan of Hyundai's styling.

[Jaeger]

Apples and oranges. The Sonata is a whole size class up from the GLI. Like preferring a Civic Si to a Camry. Understandable, but not really a class-comparable alternative.  I'd also prefer a Mazda 3 to a Passat.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

If making a comparison in the same class, then I would probably look at an Accord Sport 2.0T with a manual. 

But then if I'm looking at an Accord Sport 2.0T, then I may as well look at a GLI. 

Damn circular thinking!!!!

[OliverD]

If making a comparison in the same class, then I would probably look at an Accord Sport 2.0T with a manual. 

But then if I'm looking at an Accord Sport 2.0T, then I may as well look at a GLI. 

Damn circular thinking!!!!

Isn't that the comparison that Sir O made?

[rrocket]

If making a comparison in the same class, then I would probably look at an Accord Sport 2.0T with a manual. 

But then if I'm looking at an Accord Sport 2.0T, then I may as well look at a GLI. 

Damn circular thinking!!!!

Isn't that the comparison that Sir O made?

Yea.  I think he looked at the Civic too, didn't he?

[Jaeger]

If making a comparison in the same class, then I would probably look at an Accord Sport 2.0T with a manual. 

But then if I'm looking at an Accord Sport 2.0T, then I may as well look at a GLI. 

Damn circular thinking!!!!

Go watch the Throttle House vid on the Accord 2.0t manual. Dudes tell it like it is. Pretty sure I would not get that car.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

If making a comparison in the same class, then I would probably look at an Accord Sport 2.0T with a manual. 

But then if I'm looking at an Accord Sport 2.0T, then I may as well look at a GLI. 

Damn circular thinking!!!!

Go watch the Throttle House vid on the Accord 2.0t manual. Dudes tell it like it is. Pretty sure I would not get that car.

Hence why I brought up the GLI again. 

[Jaeger]

Nice profile.