@titogcubangonzalez Low 8's? Try 9.0, that's what I got, MT got, C&D got, and a few other magazines. Low 8's is terrible, my friend's Chevy Malibu can do it in about 6 and it feels slow. In addition, this car hideous. Why anyone would buy it is beyond me.
@asdfghjklsaab hey saab!!! listen man it is ur opinion to think that no one should buy this car but truth is a lot of people like it's futuristic look and sharp design, the turbo one is better.. and whats fast to you?? 0.1 secs 0-60mph????!!??
@titogcubangonzalez Sharp design? Are you serious? The asians can't design a car for their freaking lives. Asian cars used to be great, think about the original Civic's design, or the NSX. Those were classic cars. But now, Asian cars are hideous attempts at creating an everyday car for the masses. This car isn't futuristic, not does it have sharp design in the slightest. 2 doors on 1 side, and 1 on the other? What is that? And fast to me is mid fives and under. 8 is unacceptable.
@titogcubangonzalez Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I was stating mine. If you like the car, that's cool with me. I just like something more refined.
@asdfghjklsaab i only like the kind of fast ones , nd those are just the new 5.0l genesis and the turbo sonata and turbo veloster, i only like the performance ones haha.
@titogcubangonzalez And look man, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm really not. I just can't stand that people think Asian cars are the only good cars out there (I'm sure you don't, but I know a bunch of people who do). I really like the classy and crisp design of European cars. VW, while not luxury, per se, has some nice designs while being quite practical. Saab makes nice cars with sporty engines and good looks (IMO) for a great price. Audi (VW) also makes some truly nice cars.
@asdfghjklsaab o no asian cars are absuletly not the best car out there but for the money they are worth I think they offer enough luxury peroformance and reliabilty for their price! and haha cool man im not too mean either
@titogcubangonzalez See I don't think Asian cars (generally offer luxury). Also, look at Toyota's reliability over the past two years. After all those recalls, it's gone far down. But again, to each his own. If you like them, then be my guest to drive them, because there are some pretty cool Asian cars among the boring ones.
@mpgomatic How would you compare this car to the 2012 Kia Rio in terms of acceleration? I am led to believe they share the same engine... Thanks in advance dude! Im deciding between these two cars and it would be great to hear what you have to say :)
@ronnieseek I drove a manual Veloster and an automatic Rio ... and would give the nod to the Veloster with regard to acceleration and handling. Sure looks like the same engine. They're both solid cars for the money. I preferred the Veloster's larger Blue Link screen to the Rio's tiny Uvo display, but if you plan on carrying folks in the Veloster's back seat they better be relatively short.
@mpgomatic I realize that but it's not just this car, it's a lot of cars, a new Si won't beat a 92 Prelude, but the lude weighs more, has less gears, and as for tech features, honda likes to think they've come a long way, so...just another example. My stock Trans Am ran 13.20's with 126 less hp than a new camaro. It's hard to believe any of the new claims really
@RSXYYY. 1992 Prelude is 24mpg on the OLD EPA system. You have to remember the new EPA standards usually result in lower numbers for the same car. If a 1992 Prelude was tested to the new standard you'd probably be looking at less than 24. The Velostar's 32mpg is looking pretty good in comparison. (The kerb weights are fairly similar btw).
@mpgomatic Stock civic, please, the mid 90s SI civics just barely made it under 8 seconds. Yet everybody thinks they're so quick, pretty sure the veloster beat that, not to mention its a pretty spiffy little car. Unlike the thousands of civics you wouldnt look at twice
calculated 8.1 seconds. kinda makes me wonder why anybody would buy a honda crz. this is arguably better looking with a better interior, a less complicated design, and a rear seat. not to mention thousands cheaper.
@90Mrknowitall I'd treat them like how a smart person would treat what the media reports of certain car brands: with a grain of salt. Besides, most of these so-called trash talkers probably failed their driving test more than two times! That, and they are living in LaLa-Land.
I've seen a guy with a Veloster just like that living across the main road from me in my town. I really like it's individual design, as well as how they incorporated a third door into the whole mix. I certainly can not wait to see when some of the automotive writers (yourself included) review the turbo version of the car, whenever it happens!
This is supposed to be a versatile economy car in this guise. Why the hell is anyone comparing this four cylinder to an 8 cylinder built by Chrysler? If you're going to compare two engines, at least consider the Hyundai 5.0 liter @ 429 horsepower so it's a little more realistic.
@ello621 I have to agree with you on this one. If they put the extra rear door on it would be better...I also expected it to be much slower, maybe 11+ seconds, so that acceleration is good. Not sure on the gear number, was it saying change in to that gear or showing what it was in! It seemed to be a gear ahead. That car is £18,000 in the UK, vastly overpriced. I can get a far better ford focus diesel turbo or Mondeo for that, even a vauxhall astra diesel turbo!
that's not bad at all for a lil N/A 4cyl. The base model Golf/Jetta's 2.0L only manages a pathetic 115hp and i know it's a little dated, but even the old popular 1.8T is a mere 12hp more than this. Not to shabby at all.
@MangoSmoothie16 Cars don't necessarily need more displacement, that is always what Americans think but the 1.6T will get 201hp and have a little more power to weight than a Civic Si, should be fine. This is 2012, only Chrysler is moronic enough to have new cars with engines that produce less than 75hp/liter and call it impressive. For christ sakes my 2003 Nissan Maxima had around 73hp/liter with an old VQ35 block..
@WoZIMoo I dont care about displacement. I care about power. 200 hp isnt enough to compete with speed3's or subaru wrx's. They need aver 240bhp. The Chrysler 6.4 puts out more hp/liter than a LS3 btw. As displacement goes up, it gets exponentially harder to make 86 hp per liter like the Hyundai. Its a pushrod V8. What do you expect? Chrysler is keeping muscle alive. Chrysler also has the torque to match the power of the 6.4.
@MangoSmoothie16 At the end of the day, the 6.4 still belongs in a museum. I rather have a sophisticated high-revving engine with more power and a little less torque. Look at Audi's 4.2. For over 20 years they kept the same magnificent engine and made it better, tweaking and adding technology. The RS5 has a 450hp/320lbs-ft variant of that engine while getting around 21mpg. The Pentastar is the only engine I respect from Chrysler. By the way, this is my opinion, there's no being right or wrong.
@WoZIMoo Yes. Im aware of Audi's 4.2. I also like BMW's 4.0 V8 which revs to 8250 and makes 420 hp. I also like the Honda F20C. I would rather have the high revving engine too. But I compare pushrod to pushrod. Direct injection to direct injection. I dont think its fair to compare a 6.4 Chrysler pushrod to a 1.6 direct injection.
@MangoSmoothie16 This car is not meant to compete with the MazdaSpeed 3 or the WRX. This cars direct competition is the VW GTI, Civic SI, and Cooper S; Out of all the Veloster Turbo has a better power/weight ratio.
Keep in mind, it's capable of doing this while getting 40MPG. Something the WRX and Speed3 cannot. It's equipped with a twinscroll turbo popping out 18PSI. The car is a sporty sub-compact with economy in mind. Put a tune on it, and the numbers will go up at the cost of economy.
0-60MPH IN LOW 8'S IS NOT BAD AT ALL
titogcubangonzalez 2 weeks ago
@titogcubangonzalez Low 8's? Try 9.0, that's what I got, MT got, C&D got, and a few other magazines. Low 8's is terrible, my friend's Chevy Malibu can do it in about 6 and it feels slow. In addition, this car hideous. Why anyone would buy it is beyond me.
asdfghjklsaab 5 days ago
@asdfghjklsaab hey saab!!! listen man it is ur opinion to think that no one should buy this car but truth is a lot of people like it's futuristic look and sharp design, the turbo one is better.. and whats fast to you?? 0.1 secs 0-60mph????!!??
titogcubangonzalez 5 days ago
@titogcubangonzalez Sharp design? Are you serious? The asians can't design a car for their freaking lives. Asian cars used to be great, think about the original Civic's design, or the NSX. Those were classic cars. But now, Asian cars are hideous attempts at creating an everyday car for the masses. This car isn't futuristic, not does it have sharp design in the slightest. 2 doors on 1 side, and 1 on the other? What is that? And fast to me is mid fives and under. 8 is unacceptable.
asdfghjklsaab 4 days ago
@asdfghjklsaab u sound pretty entittlted to ur opinion! but thats not my issue
titogcubangonzalez 3 days ago
@titogcubangonzalez Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I was stating mine. If you like the car, that's cool with me. I just like something more refined.
asdfghjklsaab 3 days ago
@asdfghjklsaab i only like the kind of fast ones , nd those are just the new 5.0l genesis and the turbo sonata and turbo veloster, i only like the performance ones haha.
titogcubangonzalez 2 days ago
@titogcubangonzalez And look man, I'm not trying to be mean, I'm really not. I just can't stand that people think Asian cars are the only good cars out there (I'm sure you don't, but I know a bunch of people who do). I really like the classy and crisp design of European cars. VW, while not luxury, per se, has some nice designs while being quite practical. Saab makes nice cars with sporty engines and good looks (IMO) for a great price. Audi (VW) also makes some truly nice cars.
asdfghjklsaab 4 days ago
@asdfghjklsaab o no asian cars are absuletly not the best car out there but for the money they are worth I think they offer enough luxury peroformance and reliabilty for their price! and haha cool man im not too mean either
titogcubangonzalez 3 days ago
@titogcubangonzalez See I don't think Asian cars (generally offer luxury). Also, look at Toyota's reliability over the past two years. After all those recalls, it's gone far down. But again, to each his own. If you like them, then be my guest to drive them, because there are some pretty cool Asian cars among the boring ones.
asdfghjklsaab 3 days ago
@mpgomatic How would you compare this car to the 2012 Kia Rio in terms of acceleration? I am led to believe they share the same engine... Thanks in advance dude! Im deciding between these two cars and it would be great to hear what you have to say :)
ronnieseek 3 weeks ago
@ronnieseek I drove a manual Veloster and an automatic Rio ... and would give the nod to the Veloster with regard to acceleration and handling. Sure looks like the same engine. They're both solid cars for the money. I preferred the Veloster's larger Blue Link screen to the Rio's tiny Uvo display, but if you plan on carrying folks in the Veloster's back seat they better be relatively short.
mpgomatic 3 weeks ago
My Mercedes is faster
2002puravida 3 weeks ago
@2002puravida I would hope so.
MattHutzell 1 week ago
Timed 8.2 seconds. How does DCG do compared to the manual?
PieceOfRiceCake924 3 weeks ago
Slow
sssukaPSN 1 month ago
wow, no quicker than a 20 year old civic, gas mileage is the same too, nice to know we've come nowhere in the auto world...
RSXYYY 1 month ago
@RSXYYY Gotta factor in a bunch of stuff ... added safety equipment, tech features, weight, E10 gasoline ...
I'd love to do a comparison piece with a '12 Veloster vs a stock '92 Civic Hatchback ... one of these days ...
mpgomatic 1 month ago
@mpgomatic I realize that but it's not just this car, it's a lot of cars, a new Si won't beat a 92 Prelude, but the lude weighs more, has less gears, and as for tech features, honda likes to think they've come a long way, so...just another example. My stock Trans Am ran 13.20's with 126 less hp than a new camaro. It's hard to believe any of the new claims really
RSXYYY 1 month ago
@RSXYYY Hey, I don't believe the claims until I drive the cars. And capture it on video ... =)
mpgomatic 1 month ago
@mpgomatic Exactly, and we all appreciate your testing these vehicles and posting it.
RSXYYY 1 month ago
@RSXYYY Thanks!
mpgomatic 1 month ago
@RSXYYY. 1992 Prelude is 24mpg on the OLD EPA system. You have to remember the new EPA standards usually result in lower numbers for the same car. If a 1992 Prelude was tested to the new standard you'd probably be looking at less than 24. The Velostar's 32mpg is looking pretty good in comparison. (The kerb weights are fairly similar btw).
asmiddleditch 4 weeks ago
@mpgomatic Stock civic, please, the mid 90s SI civics just barely made it under 8 seconds. Yet everybody thinks they're so quick, pretty sure the veloster beat that, not to mention its a pretty spiffy little car. Unlike the thousands of civics you wouldnt look at twice
miniz33 4 weeks ago
@RSXYYY haha funny!! ;)
12345678993879 1 month ago
@RSXYYY it has three doors man.... it's from the FUTURE
moderntechhelp 4 weeks ago
Impressive !
popokman 1 month ago
calculated 8.1 seconds. kinda makes me wonder why anybody would buy a honda crz. this is arguably better looking with a better interior, a less complicated design, and a rear seat. not to mention thousands cheaper.
i bet the honda's manual is a lot better though.
coolerdude44 1 month ago
how did he start on Gear 2? Can someone explain?
ramsingh42797 1 month ago
@ramsingh42797 That's the upshift light ... the Veloster's way of saying "hey! switch gears!"
mpgomatic 1 month ago
@mpgomatic Thanks Dan! I appreciate it for you clarifying it! I like your vids!
ramsingh42797 1 month ago
@ramsingh42797 I think thats the backwards "Sport" mode lol
belizetj 1 month ago
I'm all for getting good mpg but this is just too slow for my taste
desimunda116 1 month ago
The Turbo should pep this up quite a bit ;)
brandongoldman 1 month ago
is veloster slow car
ramy270 1 month ago
My veloster goes 0-60 in 1.9 seconds
soylentgreeneater 1 month ago
@soylentgreeneater Maybe 9.1?
codeGard17 1 month ago
Not bad!!! But the gears are way too separated between them dont you think?
santopotter 1 month ago
@90Mrknowitall I'd treat them like how a smart person would treat what the media reports of certain car brands: with a grain of salt. Besides, most of these so-called trash talkers probably failed their driving test more than two times! That, and they are living in LaLa-Land.
silac1993 1 month ago
I've seen a guy with a Veloster just like that living across the main road from me in my town. I really like it's individual design, as well as how they incorporated a third door into the whole mix. I certainly can not wait to see when some of the automotive writers (yourself included) review the turbo version of the car, whenever it happens!
silac1993 1 month ago
slow as hell
whiteandnerdytuba 1 month ago
Boy that thing can revv!
moe346john 1 month ago
not bad but my R1 does 0-60 mph in 2.5 seconds
stangGTKKK187 1 month ago
not bad for a little gas sipper 1.6..
neptronix 1 month ago 7
Nice, but I'm waiting for the Cruze SS! ^_~
Jeredin13 1 month ago 11
@Jeredin13 So am I. 3.6 SIDI v6 powered Cruze anyone? lol
Thecarguy1254 1 month ago in playlist More videos from mpgomatic
Most of these people talkin trash on this vehicle don't even drive LOL
90Mrknowitall 1 month ago
Cant wait for the turbo to come out!
evilmagic43 1 month ago
This is supposed to be a versatile economy car in this guise. Why the hell is anyone comparing this four cylinder to an 8 cylinder built by Chrysler? If you're going to compare two engines, at least consider the Hyundai 5.0 liter @ 429 horsepower so it's a little more realistic.
ghrpdx 1 month ago
8.0 sec? Wow I was expecting much slower. Not bad. The styling of this car sorta ruins it, though.
ello621 1 month ago
@ello621 I have to agree with you on this one. If they put the extra rear door on it would be better...I also expected it to be much slower, maybe 11+ seconds, so that acceleration is good. Not sure on the gear number, was it saying change in to that gear or showing what it was in! It seemed to be a gear ahead. That car is £18,000 in the UK, vastly overpriced. I can get a far better ford focus diesel turbo or Mondeo for that, even a vauxhall astra diesel turbo!
urbex2007 1 month ago
I need 4 doors, not 3. What a stupid idea. Engine looks ok tho.
Nordic007Nordic 1 month ago
Not bad for an ugly little shit with an N/A 1.6L.
mgospeed31 1 month ago
No thanks, I definitely will pass.
shoelover10 1 month ago
that's not bad at all for a lil N/A 4cyl. The base model Golf/Jetta's 2.0L only manages a pathetic 115hp and i know it's a little dated, but even the old popular 1.8T is a mere 12hp more than this. Not to shabby at all.
DemonOfRazgriz89 1 month ago
not bad for a shitbox
240zLS2 1 month ago
we need the sonata 2.0t up in here. not some gay 1.6. If they want to beat Mazda they have to think about what they're doing.
MangoSmoothie16 1 month ago
@MangoSmoothie16 Cars don't necessarily need more displacement, that is always what Americans think but the 1.6T will get 201hp and have a little more power to weight than a Civic Si, should be fine. This is 2012, only Chrysler is moronic enough to have new cars with engines that produce less than 75hp/liter and call it impressive. For christ sakes my 2003 Nissan Maxima had around 73hp/liter with an old VQ35 block..
WoZIMoo 1 month ago
@WoZIMoo I dont care about displacement. I care about power. 200 hp isnt enough to compete with speed3's or subaru wrx's. They need aver 240bhp. The Chrysler 6.4 puts out more hp/liter than a LS3 btw. As displacement goes up, it gets exponentially harder to make 86 hp per liter like the Hyundai. Its a pushrod V8. What do you expect? Chrysler is keeping muscle alive. Chrysler also has the torque to match the power of the 6.4.
MangoSmoothie16 1 month ago
@MangoSmoothie16 At the end of the day, the 6.4 still belongs in a museum. I rather have a sophisticated high-revving engine with more power and a little less torque. Look at Audi's 4.2. For over 20 years they kept the same magnificent engine and made it better, tweaking and adding technology. The RS5 has a 450hp/320lbs-ft variant of that engine while getting around 21mpg. The Pentastar is the only engine I respect from Chrysler. By the way, this is my opinion, there's no being right or wrong.
WoZIMoo 1 month ago
@WoZIMoo Yes. Im aware of Audi's 4.2. I also like BMW's 4.0 V8 which revs to 8250 and makes 420 hp. I also like the Honda F20C. I would rather have the high revving engine too. But I compare pushrod to pushrod. Direct injection to direct injection. I dont think its fair to compare a 6.4 Chrysler pushrod to a 1.6 direct injection.
MangoSmoothie16 1 month ago
@MangoSmoothie16 This car is not meant to compete with the MazdaSpeed 3 or the WRX. This cars direct competition is the VW GTI, Civic SI, and Cooper S; Out of all the Veloster Turbo has a better power/weight ratio.
Keep in mind, it's capable of doing this while getting 40MPG. Something the WRX and Speed3 cannot. It's equipped with a twinscroll turbo popping out 18PSI. The car is a sporty sub-compact with economy in mind. Put a tune on it, and the numbers will go up at the cost of economy.
AJax969 4 weeks ago
@AJax969 If you go by the price point, they are all around the same $. I understand what Hyundai did I just think they could have done it better.
MangoSmoothie16 4 weeks ago
@WoZIMoo if I'd get a veloster it would be the turbo model, which should be out later this years. I liked the older maxima's.
Drewbie85 1 month ago
Not bad. Second gear needs to be a bit lower if you ask me though.
NattDogg01 1 month ago
Decent times!
talldude123 1 month ago
Not bad
tim3058 1 month ago
only 138 horsepower......
KManX1011 1 month ago
@KManX1011
That's quite a lot from a 1.6 l n/a engine.
4 x 1.6 = 6.4
4 x 138 = 552
Chrysler's 6.4 only puts out 470 hp
lfsracer79 1 month ago
Hyundai should've given it more under the hood as standard.
QueenTopGear 1 month ago