Topic: Preview: 2016 Hyundai Tucson

[Autos_Editor]

Meet cute.
Read More...

[jww]

I have to admit that I find the front end a bit garish. However, true to form, Hyundai is packing this with tons of kit. Wonder what that will do to the price point. The 7speed gear box sounds interesting. And with the Hyundai warranty, I expect these to fly out of the showrooms when they show up -- and for a good while afterwards.

[JohnnyMac]

No doubt this is one good looking CUV.  I'm sure Hyundai will sell a boat load of these.  I won't be one of those buyers though.  Seems like most people I have talked to in the past couple of years who have a Hyundai product have issues, some rather serious involving the engine.  I know that they've improved in the reliability ratings but when the majority of the people I know had major issues I take my real life experience over anything else.  Plus the dealers here in NB are crap and try to rip you off at every chance they get (that's most dealers though). 

Our Santa Fe has been fairly reliable but averages about once per year for some kind of minor warranty work, non of which would have cost more than a few $100 if it was outside warranty.  I hope it stays this way over the next 5 years or so, as we plan on running it for a full 10 years and around 100,000 kms before replacing it.

[Danno001]

Seems like most people I have talked to in the past couple of years who have a Hyundai product have issues, some rather serious involving the engine.  I know that they've improved in the reliability ratings but when the majority of the people I know had major issues I take my real life experience over anything else. 

What is the age of those vehicles, kms on the vehicle and nature of the serious engine issue?

[Noto]

and trotted out their Santa Monica concept trucklet once again.

Wasn't it called the Santa Cruz?  Is it now the Santa Monica?

The one concern is the 19″ alloy wheels – sure, they look great now, but just cost out replacing a set of tires. Calm down Hyundai, you aren’t Porsche.

, but hilariously, FIL's 'new' Porsche uses 18" wheels and the cost of the tires alone (thanks to the 295/35R18 rears) is >$2200!  Insane.

This last pops open if you just stand behind the car for three seconds and yell “Open Sesame” at the top of your lungs. Remember, you have to yell “Open Sesame.” Won’t work otherwise. Nope.

The 1.6T makes 175hp and 195lb/ft of torque,

...surprising, since the same (or similar) engine in the Veloster Turbo makes 201 hp and 195 lb-ft.
...and just to be , lb/ft is incorrect

How does the size of this new Tucson compare to, say, a Crosstrek/Trax/RVR/HRV/CX-3?  Even with the lower output, it'll still be the most powerful in its class (in some cases by a large margin!).  Interesting.

[Brendan McAleer]

*snip*

Oh right, Santa Cruz. I knew it was Santa Something, but not Santa Claus.

The Tucson's almost the size of a CR-V now, much more space than the CX-3, etc.

[JohnnyMac]

Seems like most people I have talked to in the past couple of years who have a Hyundai product have issues, some rather serious involving the engine.  I know that they've improved in the reliability ratings but when the majority of the people I know had major issues I take my real life experience over anything else. 

What is the age of those vehicles, kms on the vehicle and nature of the serious engine issue?

All under 5 years old, all somewhere in the 50,000km to 120,000km mileage.  In one case the vehicle wasn't right from the get go, the dealer couldn't/wouldn't fix the issue, she ended up trading it in on a Santa Fe.  I should point out that most of the issues that I've heard have come from Tucson and Elantra owners.

[JRM]

Very nice styling with smooth lines and right sized, much better than the overstylized tiny looking gen. it replaces, and the new engine should be a big attraction too.  This could be the replacement for my wife's aged Vibe. 

[pi314]

In Fredericton at least I've found the Kia service experience to be fantastic. I'd buy a Kia over a Hyundai for that reason alone.

[Noto]

The Tucson's almost the size of a CR-V now, much more space than the CX-3, etc.

that was my concern.  *sigh* I want an alternative to the Crosstrek that's a little 'fancier'

In my parking garage (underground, poorly lit), I pulled in today and then a car behind me came down, xenons turned on, and I was all like, "ooh, fancy, what is it?"

...it was a Santa Fe.  Proper (non-multireflector  ) HIDs or LEDs can really fancy-up a car.

I'd have to see its size in the metal to conclude, but it seems like a REALLY nice update and a great alternative to the bloated 'compact' segment that is available these days.

...the more I look at the pictures, the more I really, really like it.  I think it looks more cohesive than the Santa Fe (a good thing) and the liftgate window seems (and Brendan, please confirm?) decidedly larger than on the last generation's rear.

[JacobBlack]

The 1.6T makes 175hp and 195lb/ft of torque,

...and just to be , lb/ft is incorrect

BWAMP! Wrong!
lb-ft is correct (though we write it "lb-ft" in our style.
http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2013/10/24/foot-pounds-and-pound-feet-whats-the-difference/

[conwelpic]

How does the size of this new Tucson compare to, say, a Crosstrek/Trax/RVR/HRV/CX-3?  Even with the lower output, it'll still be the most powerful in its class (in some cases by a large margin!).  Interesting.

Length comparison:
2016 Tucson - 176.2"
2015 CR-V - 179.4"
2016 HR-V - 169.1"
2016 CX-3 - 168.3"
2015 Trax - 168.5"

Wheelbase comparison:
2016 Tucson - 105.1"
2015 CR-V - 103.1"
2016 HR-V - 102.8"
2016 CX-3 - 101.2"
2015 Trax - 100.6"

does that help 

[redman]

Nice job from a design aspect. Makes a Rav4 look like the ugly step sister.

Like to see fuel economy levels vs the competitors and what variety of AWD system is being deployed.

[Noto]

The 1.6T makes 175hp and 195lb/ft of torque,

...and just to be , lb/ft is incorrect

BWAMP! Wrong!
lb-ft is correct (though we write it "lb-ft" in our style.
http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2013/10/24/foot-pounds-and-pound-feet-whats-the-difference/

BWAMP yourself.  I said that pounds PER feet ("/" instead of "-") is incorrect.  It is pound-feet or foot-pounds.  Not "per", as that would be a different unit entirely.

How does the size of this new Tucson compare to, say, a Crosstrek/Trax/RVR/HRV/CX-3?  Even with the lower output, it'll still be the most powerful in its class (in some cases by a large margin!).  Interesting.

Length comparison:
2016 Tucson - 176.2"
2015 CR-V - 179.4"
2016 HR-V - 169.1"
2016 CX-3 - 168.3"
2015 Trax - 168.5"
2015 Crosstrek - 175.2"

Wheelbase comparison:
2016 Tucson - 105.1"
2015 CR-V - 103.1"
2016 HR-V - 102.8"
2016 CX-3 - 101.2"
2015 Trax - 100.6"
2015 Crosstrek - 103.7"

does that help 

Very much, thank you!  I have added in the Crosstrek for my own purposes.

So it's bigger, but not quite CRV/Forester/Rogue etc. size.

It's back in the 'sweet spot', I think!  I'm very impressed with this update!

[JacobBlack]

The 1.6T makes 175hp and 195lb/ft of torque,

...and just to be , lb/ft is incorrect

BWAMP! Wrong!
lb-ft is correct (though we write it "lb-ft" in our style.
http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2013/10/24/foot-pounds-and-pound-feet-whats-the-difference/

BWAMP yourself.  I said that pounds PER feet ("/" instead of "-") is incorrect.  It is pound-feet or foot-pounds.  Not "per", as that would be a different unit entirely.

BWWAAAAAMMMPPPP!
First, pound-feet is not interchangeable with foot-pounds, they are different.
Second, From the link:

"The proper term for torque in English units is the pound-foot, which we can find abbreviated any number of ways, such as lb.-ft., lb-ft, lb/ft, and so on."

#lawyered 

[Patrick_D1]

Wait until you all see how it drives. 

[Blueprint]

Wait until you all see how it drives. 

Tucson or NoTo?

[Noto]

BWWAAAAAMMMPPPP!
First, pound-feet is not interchangeable with foot-pounds, they are different.
Second, From the link:

"The proper term for torque in English units is the pound-foot, which we can find abbreviated any number of ways, such as lb.-ft., lb-ft, lb/ft, and so on."

The hyphen does not denote that one can be above or below the other, unlike the slash.  From a physics perspective, lb/ft is something wholly different, suggesting that there is a pound of force being exerted per foot.

From your link:

For example, if a one-pound force is exerted on a wrench with an effective length of one foot, one pound-foot of torque is applied to the fastener.

That's not the same thing as there being one pound of force PER foot.

#keeplawyerandbwaaaampingyourself.

Wait until you all see how it drives. 

Tucson or NoTo?

Everyone will see on Tuesday.

[JacobBlack]

You're trying hard but you're just flat out wrong mate! 
Read the link.

[Noto]

You're trying hard but you're just flat out wrong mate! 
Read the link.

I disagree.

Let's take it to the arbitration.  I suggest a neutral party.  Let's say...notBrigitte...Jeff.  Yeah.  Jeff.