Hyundai Genesis: Rear-wheel drive? What!?

Discussion in 'Hyundai Genesis' started by Thee Chicago Wolf, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. Thee Chicago Wolf

    pdp11 Guest

    It's a relative measurement. From where I sit, 34 is still pretty wet
    behind the ears. (I've been driving my car since nearly before you
    were born!)
    Because not everyone agrees on what is "better for everyone," for
    In 1967 (I was there), a gallon of regular gasoline typically cost
    about 30 cents. A candy bar, as one example, cost a nickel. Today a
    gallon of gasoline costs about $3.00 and a candy bar costs at least 50
    cents if not more. The inflation rate for various items is different,
    of course, but most commodity/staple items have experienced about a
    tenfold increase.
    A vary large component of high European fuel prices is taxation.
    You are looking at it as a "loophole." I am looking at it saying that
    the federal government should not have the authority to set these
    standards in the first place. The U.S. is supposed to have a limited
    central government with specific, enumerated powers. The "interstate
    commerce" clause of the Constitution was intended to prevent the trade
    wars and tariffs between the States that were such a problem under the
    Articles of Confederation, not to give the federal government carte
    blanch to micro-manage products and services. (Though of course
    additional authority may be granted via the amendment process.)

    A government powerful enough to dictate how much fuel your vehicle can
    use, how much water your toilet can use, etc., is not one that is
    conducive to personal liberty. Fuel economy should be dictated by the
    market. (As fuel prices rise, people will naturally purchase smaller
    No, I am not. In general you seem to want to correct the "problems"
    that you see via government intervention. By definition, every
    government action is an action of force and coercion.
    I don't listen to NPR.
    What I care about is the continual growth of government power at the
    expense of individual liberty that we have experienced under both
    major political parties for decades.
    There are plenty of oil resources in and around North America. The tar
    sands of Alberta alone would be enough to fuel the entire world for
    the next century. There is no need to sell North American oil to China
    or India.

    As I said, I've been hearing that we'll run out of oil in 20-30 years
    for about 50 years now.
    Now it is you who are twisting my words. I said no such thing. I
    simply disagree with you on what problems we may be facing and how to
    go about addressing them.
    You still have not made a case for why the year is of any relevance.
    Car makers produce the cars they believe the public will purchase. If
    they do not do so they go out of business. This is the case regardless
    of what the year is.
    Once again, you are twisting my words and making assumptions. I
    question the effectivness of these gadgets, as well as possible
    undesirable side effects. Air bags in particular are not necessary for
    people wearing seat belts, they are supplemental systems that were
    developed in the first place because a lot of idiots would not wear
    their belts. (Every policeman that I have talked to has a saying, that
    they have "never unbelted a corpse.")

    For examples of cars that are extremely safe and protect their
    occupants in horrific accidents sans airbags, check out pre-airbag
    Saabs and Volvos.
    It is ridiculous to think they are necessary. As far as statistics, as
    the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. (The
    stats for air bags are cooked, as it is assumed that every time an air
    bag goes off that someone's life is saved. On the other hand, I
    personally know someone who was blinded by an airbag that went off in
    a low-speed parking lot fender-bender.)

    Neither anti-lock brakes nor stability control are needed by a driver
    who actually knows how to handle their vehicle. (Having spent many
    years in software development, including embedded microprocessor
    systems, the idea of a computer taking over from and making judgements
    for the driver is not something I believe is a particularly good
    There are "dummy" inserts available to replace steering-wheel airbags
    for people who either don't want to replace them after they have gone
    off, or want to remove them. So there is at least some market for
    disabling them.
    True, they were not developed until the 1970s.
    Well, you're still a relative beginner, give it time. :)
    You call for the expansion of government-mandated fuel economy
    standards, for one.
    You forget, in my own case I have never left the carburetor days.
    Nowhere did I state that you or anyone else should do the same.
    I have seen few "facts" from you, just opinons. (An opinion is not a
    "fact" just because it's stated by someone else on a web page.)
    Once again, you are putting yourself in the position of dictating what
    is and is not waste. Some might say that Al Gore and John Kerry are
    wasting huge amounts of energy in living their fabulously wealthy
    lifestyles. (I, on the other hand, have no problem with them or anyone
    else enjoying their wealth.)

    As I have said, why don't you calculate the amount of energy used and
    waste produced in the manufacture of a new car. (Be sure to include
    the mining and refining of the raw materials.) After looking this up,
    come back and tell me again how much I'm "wasting" by driving the same
    "inefficient" car for 30 years or more versus the more conventional
    approach of purchasing or leasing a new vehicle every few years.
    Electric cars to my knowledge never had to be cranked. Early gasoline
    cars had to be cranked, prior to the invention of the Kettering
    electric starter. The early electrics suffered from limited range and
    battery life.
    Not at all. You are comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.
    Don't forget that part of Detroit's problems stem from legacy expenses
    engendered by their union contracts.

    There have been periods of time when the domestic auto industry tried
    at least in part to push safety and economy. Since you are not wet
    behind the ears or anything, I'm sure you remember when Ford made a
    big safety push for the 1956 model year and saw their sales plummet.
    Likewise I'm sure you must remember when under George Romney, Nash/AMC
    (which specialized in small cars) waged a very public media war
    against "gas guzzling dinosaurs" and "trundling tanks." Also, caught
    between domestic compacts and rising import sales, as I am certain you
    will remember, there was a flurry of compact car development in the
    1959-1960 timeframe by the Big 3. (That's without even getting into
    the real small fry like Crosley and King Midget, which I am certain
    you must recall as well.) Public response was enough to keep
    relatively small companies going for a while, but consumers for the
    most part preferred larger vehicles, and were not concerned with
    safety. The Big 3 compacts within a few years became "longer, lower, &

    The long Hyundai warranty is nice, but the real reason for it is that
    the companyi had a reputation for poor-quality products and needed a
    way to instill consumer confidence. (Even today despite all the
    improvements there are many people who still equate Hyundai with junk.
    It takes a long time to outgrow that kind of reputation.) However,
    Hyundai is fairly infamous for looking for excuses to disallow
    coverage on the 100,000 mile warranty, and the items covered are
    fairly limited. They are not really a consumer-oriented company, but
    then again none of the auto companies are. (As you may recall, once
    again not being wet behind the ears or anything, one of the few
    attempts at an auto company being truly consumer-oriented was when AMC
    introduced their "Buyer Protection Plan" in the early 1970s. It was
    considered revolutionary at the time.)
    The U.S. is not a "Democracy," it is a Constitutional Republic. A
    Democracy is little more than mob rule, essentially two wolves and a
    sheep voting on what to have for lunch. In a Constitutional Republic
    the government is supposed to be limited to specific enumerated powers
    no matter what the voters decide. (It imposes limits on the "will of
    the people," or at least is supposed to. The U.S. government has
    largely escaped these limitations due to a variety of factors.)
    And with government, the people get hosed and the politicians make out
    like bandits. While the Enron execs were corrupt, they learned from
    the best. (Government thugs, with a monopoly on the legitimized usage
    of force on their side, have the potential to do much more harm than
    any private-sector thugs.)
    If the Constitution does not authorize it, yes, I would be opposed to
    it. (Prosecuting fraud is generally a state matter.) I do not buy the
    "ends justify the means" argument. That is a very slippery slope and
    the battle cry of every tyrant to come down the pike. If a specific
    new federal power is truly needed, that is what the amendment process
    is for.
    If people want the federal government to take on authority outside
    those powers explicitly authorized by the Constitution, they are
    obligated to to make a case for an amendment rather than looking for
    ways to do an end run around the restrictions. (Note that this has
    been done in the past for things as stupid as alcohol prohibition. But
    at least people at that time still realized an amendment to the
    Constitution was needed to give the federal government that kind of
    authority. Contrast that to today's drug prohibition laws.)
    Old news. This has been the case with pretty much every president, and
    every politician. Follow the money trail.
    pdp11, May 8, 2007
  2. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Mike Marlow Guest

    That's because cops don't have a thing to do with unbelting occupants. They
    generally don't get anywhere near the victim. Having been a paramedic for
    12 years, and attended a lot of car wrecks, I can assure you that I have
    "unbelted" quite a few corpses.

    Amen. Anti-lock brakes only attempt to do what drivers have always done
    before their introduction. There is no technology that can replace driver
    skill - despite the best intention of the automotive industry to attempt
    Mike Marlow, May 8, 2007
  3. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Matt Whiting Guest

    That is completely false. No driver can independently control the
    brakes on each wheel. Both ABS and traction control can do this. Sure,
    on a completely uniform dry road where all tires see the same
    coefficient of friction, a very skilled driver and match or beat ABS.
    However, put one or two wheels on a wet or icy part of the road and the
    other two on dry pavement and the computer will beat the human every
    time. Same for stability control. Independent control of the brakes at
    each wheel can do things that a human driver with only one brake control
    simply can't match.

    Matt Whiting, May 8, 2007
  4. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Mike Marlow Guest

    Nor is it necessary.

    An average skilled driver who understands how to apply brakes can match or
    beat ABS. That's the point - it's not a solution that addressed a need of
    the masses. Rather, it created a mass of drivers who now need it - to the
    lessening of driver skills.

    The computer will excel in the realm of precise measurements, but not in
    real world driving. As well, the computer treats all road conditions the
    same and in real world driving, braking differs with conditions.
    Mike Marlow, May 9, 2007
  5. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Sure it is. Let's assume that a road has a dry side and another side
    with black ice. Without ABS and stability control, hitting the brakes
    hard would quickly cause the car to rotate towards the dry side of the
    lane. Stability control can prevent this.

    I've seen no data that suggests this is true. I haven't seen a
    exhaustive test of cars, but there was one of motorcycles some time ago,
    and only one rider could out brake an ABS equipped BMW and that was only
    on dry pavement. And the rider that did so could not do so consistently
    and he was a world-class road racer at the time. Nobody even close to
    average could beat or even match the BMW on dry pavement and on any
    other road surface it wasn't even close.

    This isn't the test I was thinking of, but it is similar. The results
    speak for themselves. Only the best riders can beat the ABS on dry
    pavement, and on wet pavement it isn't even close.

    Do you have any data that supports your claim?

    The computer "treats" available traction. It has no way to directly
    detect road conditions, nor does it need to do so. It tests for the
    start of wheel lock-up and reacts. The braking force differs with
    conditions dramatically. On dry pavement, the ABS will allow
    substantial braking force as the tires can handle that before they begin
    to slide. On ice, the ABS will allow very little braking force. And it
    adjusts braking force to all road conditions in between.

    Matt Whiting, May 9, 2007
  6. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Matt Whiting Guest

    This report suggests you are incorrect.

    Matt Whiting, May 9, 2007
  7. I have to disagree here. I was in a situation a couple of weeks ago where I
    had to do a quick lane change to avoid a collision. I was doing about 65
    mph, the road surface was wet and I cut the wheel as hard as I could to the
    left, then to the right. I did feel the ESC kick in. I'm confident that in
    my Buick I'd have been in serious trouble. The Hyundai with ESC made the
    change and then straightened out as if it was riding on rails.

    Now you can argue that perhaps I should have not been in that situation, but
    the fact is, I was and I was able to get out of it quickly, safely, with
    clean underwear. Based on that one incident, I don't think I'd buy a car
    that does not have ESC.
    Edwin Pawlowski, May 9, 2007
  8. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Mike Marlow Guest

    No - I wouldn't suggest you shouldn't have been in that situation at all.
    But - you're comparing two very different cars with very different
    suspensions and handling characteristics. I could also tell of tales where
    I've executed similar maneuvers in vehicles without ESC, with equally
    successful results. I believe features like ESC are credited with more
    success than they actually deserve.
    Mike Marlow, May 9, 2007
  9. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Matt Whiting Guest

    I haven't had occasion to really test the ESC in my Sonata, but I've
    intentionally coaxed it into action a couple of times and it seems to
    work as advertised.

    The only thing I wish for is a button to turn off ABS as I can with ESC.
    There are a few conditions such as deep snow and sand/gravel where ABS
    is a detriment and it would be nice to disable it for a time. However,
    most of the time it is a real benefit.

    Matt Whiting, May 9, 2007
  10. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Mike Marlow Guest

    Sorry Matt - I was too tired to read this link last night, so I just now
    took a look at it. It was an incomplete look, as I have to get going, but I
    did look at it. From what I can see of this report, it is quite consistent
    with my view of life as it relates to ABS. My contention is not that ABS
    does not work - it does. My contention is that ABS is not the end-all that
    consumers are lulled into believing it is and the test itself points out
    several areas where driver input would have been better or at least equal to
    the benefit of ABS. Not in terms of stopping distance, but stopping
    distance is not all there is to the issue of control. In fact that's one of
    the issues with ABS today - drivers, especially newer or more inexperienced
    drivers, rely on ABS thinking it is foolproof. There are indeed (as
    indicated in the tests) driving conditions where ABS is a worse solution.
    Driving requires more than just stopping distance. Longer stopping
    distances do not define better scenarios. Too much focus has been placed on
    stopping distance and too much of the driving public has come to view this
    as something to rely upon. Vehicle control and accident avoidance is about
    more than stopping distance.
    Mike Marlow, May 9, 2007
  11. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Mike, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here. This sounds
    different than your earlier writing that said an average driver could
    outperform ABS. I simply do not believe that is true. ABS is not a
    replacement for a skilled driver, but it certainly adds another
    dimension of capability (except in snow and gravel!) as does ESC.

    Matt Whiting, May 9, 2007
  12. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Eric G. Guest

    I agree as well. There is no way the "average' driver could out perform
    ABS or ESC. In fact, the average driver around here can barely figure
    out which way to turn the steering wheel to go where they want. I also
    believe that most think the turn signal lever is an arm rest.

    Pet peeves aside, most of the time I find the ESC to be intrusive. With
    that said, it has also probably saved my life a time or two. I say
    probably because it was a hair faster than I was, but I would have most
    likely been able to avoid the problem without losing control of the car
    either. But I do think it should be standard equipment for the average
    driver out there, and will save many lives.

    I find the ABS to be a bit more useful than the ESC. But basically it
    makes me lazy. I no longer have to modulate the brakes myself. In my
    personal experience, I have found it to be better at stopping in the
    snow and ice (especially the snow) than I would be without it.

    Eric G., May 10, 2007
  13. Do you have readings of G forces and the friction coefficients of the road
    surface for comparison? That is the only way to say it was really similar.
    I've done some fast lane changes over the years myself. Some easier than
    others. Sure, the two cars are different and the Buick would have been
    going backwards across the grass in the center median, but without ESC, the
    Sonata would have been at least troublesome to keep in some sort of control.
    We can lay out all sorts of scenarios but the fact is, I performed a very
    difficult, dangerous, and possibly "would-have-been" a spin out maneuver
    with ease and full control.

    This past winter I played with it in our parking lot at work. I did some
    turns with ESC on that were not possible under the same exact circumstances
    when I turned it off. Under normal bad weather driving I'd avoid having to
    do those turns, but the ESC is a big help if you have to. Like seatbelts
    and airbags, I hope never to use it but it may sure be a help at the right
    Edwin Pawlowski, May 10, 2007
  14. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Intrusive in what way? Mine basically never activates.

    Matt Whiting, May 10, 2007
  15. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Mike Marlow Guest

    I think I could be accused of not stating myself well in my first post on
    this topic Matt. Combination of having been tired when I posted it, and the
    complacency of feeling that most of the regulars here probably know what I
    really feel about ABS, so I didn't have to be careful in what I wrote.
    Mike Marlow, May 10, 2007
  16. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Mike Marlow Guest

    Not really Edwin - those things would prove how similar my experiences were
    to yours... up to the point of possibly being exactly like yours. Absent
    those readings we can call such less precise things as the amount of suddend
    steering input, change in direction, etc. as similar. We don't have to
    experience the exact same incident to have shared similar experiences.

    I have to believe you when you say that you believe it would have been a
    loss of control situation - you were there and I wasn't. Besides that I've
    come to know something of you via a few newsgroups that we jointly hang out
    in, and I don't see you as an exagerting person. I didn't question whether
    it was an extreme situation. My only comment was that the Buick would be
    expected to perform differently - it's a much different car. Likely, even
    with ESC a car the size of your Buick with similar suspension, would not
    handle as nimbly as a Sonata with ESC.
    Mike Marlow, May 10, 2007
  17. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Well, saying that you don't like ABS is one thing, but making false
    claims about it is another! :)

    I don't like it in deep snow as it is definitely less effective than
    manual braking (and both my experience and test data support this).
    However, on almost any hard surface it will outperform all but the most
    skilled driver ... and probably outperform 95% of the drivers on the
    road today.

    Matt Whiting, May 10, 2007
  18. Thee Chicago Wolf

    pdp11 Guest

    Cops see a large amount of carnage as well. I have no doubt they were
    speaking figuratively and in terms of the odds rather than absolutes.
    Of course it is possible to die in an accident while belted in, just
    much less likely than if you are not..

    If your car folds up in a severe accident the air bags are not going
    to do much for you either. (A Hyundai Accent taking on a tractor
    trailer would not fare very well, air bags or not.)

    The efficacy of seat belts has been proven in the real world for
    decades. It was recently and dramatically demonstrated in New Jersey
    when that state's governor suffered severe injuries in a high-speed
    crash. He was in an air-bag-equipped vehicle, but not wearing seat
    belts. (Oh well, laws like seat belt mandates are just for the little
    people to follow.) He was very lucky not to be killed. Belted
    passengers suffered far less severe injuries.

    I have no qualms about driving a car that has no air bags as long as
    the 3-point safety belts are in place and in good condition. If the
    general public had consistently buckled up there's a good chance that
    passive restraints would never have been mandated.
    Having dealt with buggy, unreliable software and computers for a very
    long time I find the idea of systems that take over control for the
    driver pretty scary. (The only reason engine control computers work
    so well is they have hardware watchdog timers that reboot them
    automatically if they crash and "go stupid" for a short time.)

    As you indicated, there is no real replacement for the nut behind the

    BTW, when I first saw the commercial for the Lexus that parallel parks
    itself, my immediate thought was not "wow," but instead "that's a
    product liability lawsuit waiting to happen."
    pdp11, May 10, 2007
  19. Thee Chicago Wolf

    Bob Adkins Guest

    That's the nature of ESC and ABS*. An average driver could go 25, 50,
    75K miles without the ABS or ESC ever engaging. Then suddenly, BANG, 1
    or both engage and saved your life.

    My ESC engaged one time so far, but it was my bad. I applied too much
    throttle going around a wet street corner at 10mph.

    *May as well add seat belts and air bags to the list.

    Bob Adkins, May 14, 2007
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.