Hyundai Veloster test drive since 2011 hatchback

Comparative test: Hyundai Veloster Turbo against Scion Fr-S (Toyota GT 86)

Fighters for the purity of morals are firmly worth the fact that few truths about sportsmen are more obvious than the undeniable superiority of the rear -wheel drive. Dot. This dogma was so unconditionally accepted by the SCION FR-S developers (American analogue of Toyota GT 86 and Subaru Brz), even the name of the model literally shouts about this (FR Front-Rar, the abbreviation accepted in English, which means that the car has the front location of the engine and drive to the rear wheels of approx. Translator).

But then the front -wheel drive Hyundai Veloster Turbo appears and goes around it on slalom. Yes, 109.4 km/h against 107.5 km/h at Scion.

I suggest taking a small step back. The more obvious competitor of Scion Fr-S in Hyundai is the rear-wheel drive Genesis Coupe ... but wait! Veloster Turbo, which we tested, costs $ 25,320 and produces 201 hp, which is almost identical to the FR-S parameters (our FR-S costs $ 24,930 and gives out 200 hp). If you close your eyes to obvious inconsistencies in the number of doors and the location of the leading axis, you will get a very interesting comparison. Let's see how it looks in the real world.

The difference is at a pace
Veloster Turbo is relatively light, only 1,320 kg, his suspension is tough, but in moderation. Veloster Turbo reactions and responsiveness when driving along a winding road at the so -called inertial speed at a good pace, but not so fast that you have to lose speed before turning, hint at outstanding abilities if you are interested in higher speeds and even more dodgy tracks.

But, unfortunately, these hints did not justify themselves, since it was worth us to press a little more on the accelerator pedal, and the suspension ceased to cope with the task. If you enter the turn the way you want, there is a feeling of something foreign in the chain of the driver-road, like the rubber Kumho Solus KH25 215/40 is too soft, or the suspension bushings are excessively suppressed. And the steering wheel, fast in the center, loses its elasticity, if you unscrew it all the way. Try to give gas at the output of the turn, and one of the Weloster wheels begins to slip, since he does not have a limited friction differential, although he clearly needs it.

The more aggressively you control the machine, the more Veloster Turbo is annoyed. And his pretty decent clutch has nothing to do with it. The thing is how he behaves on an ordinary road far from ideal. Even in the city, there is an increased sensitivity of the rear suspension to bumps, and if the rear wheel enters the pothole in the center of the turn, the wheel will tear off the ground 8-10 centimeters. When braking on an uneven surface, the suspension behaves as if not sufficiently loaded. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the comments, such as the machine seems unfinished and we do not find terrible suspension.
 
Determination
Once in the salon of the miniature FR-S after Veloster control, you immediately note that the SCION seats are installed below, with more effective support, its body is noticeably tougher, and all controls are more mechanical. In turns, he is much more accurate. FR-S brakes are confident, the pedal is perfect. Despite the fact that the Veloster switching lever is more agile, it seems to be some kind of toy in comparison with the Scion lever that gives the feeling of controlling something truly mechanical. And even his rudeness and periodic difficulties when decreasing by the fourth is not able to spoil the pleasure that you get from this balanced unit.

The SCION steering wheel is much sharper than Veloster, and much more balanced. He does not hide anything from you, but at the same time he does not respond so painfully to the imperfection of the road surface. On the ideal asphalt of our test track, he showed 0.90G side acceleration, which is much better than the results of Veloster (0.86G). A complete stop at the FR-S at a speed of 60 miles/hour (96 km/h) takes 35.9 meters, which again exceeds the result of Veloster, although this slight defeat can be attributed to the modest characteristics of the Korean summer rubber.

But the main quality of FR-S is still responsiveness. Even at the limit of the capabilities of the Michelin Primacy HP 215/45, the car remains the most collected and communicative as possible. It clearly makes it clear what and how to do it, to get the maximum from its abilities in any situation, exceeding the permissible speed will lead to the skidding of the front axis, but if you carefully lose speed and work slightly with gas, you can easily restore equilibrium and adhesion. And, to be honest, in the case of FR-S, this is incredibly exciting. And unlike Veloster, this car allows the driver to use the full potential of the tires offered by the manufacturer.

The main advantage
We do not want to say at all that Veloster is so bad. Its 1.6-liter turbocharged engine provides a flexible power range and so inconspicuous praises of the turbine that sometimes you even forget that it is here. Put the leg on the gas, and the car smoothly accelerates to a pleasant speed until the tachometer rises to the cut -off (6,750 rpm). At cruising speed, the sound of the motor is like a whisper. Despite the solid 264 Nm of torque, fed to the front axle, there are no problems with controllability.

We managed to fix 7.7 seconds to accelerate from zero to 60 miles/hour (96 km/h), and the quoter was passed in 15.6 seconds (speed at the finish of 143 km/h), although the usual acceleration is more dynamic than possible To assume, looking at these numbers. In fact, the dynamics of the Turbo model is precisely what the basic Veloster should first have, especially if you take into account the predicted era fuel consumption (10.8 liters per 100 km around the city, 7.4 l on the highway) all It is equally better than Scion (12.8 and 9.4 liters, respectively). At a speed of 96 km/h, it will stop for 38.4 meters, which in itself is not bad, except for very quickly overheating tires that cannot stand such exercises.

The car who came to our test was equipped only with a Ultimate package worth $ 2,500, which also includes such useful things as automatic headlights, a navigation system with a rear view camera and obstacle detection sensors. Unfortunately, it also includes a devouring space above his head and a panoramic hatch negatively affecting the hardness of the body. But in any case, Velosteer Turbo offers a much richer list of options than relative to the Spartan FR-S.

Vicissitudes of option lists
Just like Veloster's performance on Slalom, he says yes, but, the same can be said about the behavior of FR-S on Drag-Stip. From zero to hundreds of FR-S, it accelerates in 6.6 seconds, which is almost a second faster Veloster, and it passes in 14.9 seconds, accelerating at the finish line up to 149 km/h. Such a difference in results can easily be attributed to 80 extra kg Veloster, which, in principle, does not contradict reality. But a real test on an ordinary road with many turns and turns showed that their difference in the ability to accelerate between turns is not so noticeable.

The torque plays only an insignificant role in this. Veloster has it, and FR-S, let’s say, there is, albeit with a small pit in the middle of the range. To get the maximum torque from the FR-S, you need to spin the engine to 5,000 and abruptly throw the clutch, while having time to catch the ass. The wheels, heated by such a start, continue to scroll and when switching from the first to the second, but in the same way, the four -cylinder two -liter opposite is not lost with such an appeal, which avoids failure at the torque. Any other launch method on FR-S in order to achieve better time on the quota is absolutely irrelevant. Veloster, on the contrary, has no problem with traction, but there is a clutch, its only effective wheel is located on the wrong side of the machine that does not allow it to carry out the correct start and which in turn is reflected on the results of tests, where a sharp acceleration from the place is necessary .

An additional torque in the middle range of revolutions would definitely have a positive effect on the handling of the rear-wheel drive FR-S. The existing 204 nm issued by a 2-liter engine is undoubtedly not enough for, say, a little disgrace on dry asphalt. This is a smooth engine, and it is comfortable when the tachometer arrow flutters around 7,400 revolutions (practically resting on the cut -off). It does not sound very good, and in the literal sense, since work at such high speeds is quite noisy. Veloster, by the way, during acceleration, also resembles a lawn mower, but it is practically no heard at cruising speed.

All this is quite difficult to describe. If you play the mountain serpentine in catch-up, Veloster will lose the easier and more agile FR-S, but in everyday life its ability to pull in the middle range is much more practical.

Sports against sports
From Veloster Turbo, we left disappointed. This is not the best offer if we are talking about a sports car, and all its sports is an aggressive style and unusual asymmetry. We want to believe that better rubber and differential will be able to significantly revive it, although more likely, in the case of Veloster Turbo, cheap multi -link, carbonate and other marketing moves.

Scion FR-S quickly acquires the status of default choice, when cost and fun are placed at the forefront. Having reduced to fundamental truths, Scion demonstrated that a simple dynamics can be affordable, and thereby forced other automakers to be nervous.

Dogma about the unsurpassive of the rear -wheel drive is truth. Scion Fr-S wins our comparative test.

short information
1st place: Scion Fr-S
Dynamics and controllability is the key to success.

2nd place: Hyundai Veloster Turbo
More practicality, less interest.

Source: Insideline