@LikwiDgAngStr The handling numbers are in line with a lot of sporty cars. Watch Inside Line's similar review on the '12 Civic Si (.86g Skidpad, 67.3 Slalom) and the '12 Focus Titanium (.88g Skidpad, 67.7 Slalom). Keep in mind that both of those cars are the performance versions of their respective models. I agree with you completely about the turbo. I can only assume they'll beef up the suspension on that one. I can't wait to see/drive it.
From the tests that I've seen so far, this car is not nearly as impressive as its appearance suggests. Not only is it slow, it's not overly-impressive in the mpg department either, it's just good. There are so many other cars that will do more than this in almost every way that this looks to be the first misstep by Hyundai in an otherwise impressive recent run of offerings. The Versa is way faster and much cheaper than this for god's sake!
@Noahfreak10 The problem is that bacause the car is so aggressive looking, everybody thinks it's a sports-car. It's actually an economy car that just looks fast. I'm looking forward to the 200+ hp turbo. That should help the numbers quite a bit. As a very long time Hyundai owner, I do believe this car, in this form, is overpriced but the exterior and the interior are much more interesting than a lot of comparable cars out there. From what I've seen, the handling is pretty good too.
@TV843 Agreed. Just based on what I've seen coming from the compact car market recently, and Hyundai's stellar track record in recent years, I expected even the entry level model of the Veloster to be better. With that aggressive styling, this is a big swing and a miss. Let's see what the turbo does.
@Noahfreak10 Here's where it would be a better hit. Let me know what you think. At this price with this power it's a miss (but I bet they'll still sell a bundle on styling alone). This car, with this power should be around $13 to start and top at $16 fully loaded. It should definitely NOT be starting in the $17 range and topping anywhere over $20. Maybe the turbo could start at $17 and top at around $20. I think that would make more sense across the line. As is, it's is too expensive.
@TV843 Exactly what I'm thinking. I keep coming back to the Versa as an example of what this car is competing with. It's very similar all around in its size, utility, performance and efficiency. I remember recently seeing a Versa advertised starting under $11K. The only thing I like about the Veloster is the way it looks. For styling, you can ask a little bit of a premium, but $6K more is just too much in this segment.
Super aceleração do Lentoster!!! uhuhauahauha...Com certeza meu Chevrolet Chevette 1975 ou meu Renault Symbol 1.6 andam mais rapido do que o "super esportivo" da Hyundai...
I don't understand Hyundia's strategy for this car. It looks FANTASTIC (save for the catfish mouth front) and fast so why bring it to market with such a hokey-pokey engine? The proper way to do it is bring the turbo out FIRST, then the lack-luster engine model for the posers, finally a high output turbo with a snazzy body kit and trick suspension. I think they want to focus on technology and packaging which is... yaaaaaawn, BOOORING!
who the heck buys the veloster for speed anyways? rofl If you want speed, wait a few more months for the turbo. Pointless to test a base car with no power....its meant to get 40mpg! Not 20 with 300hp!
I'm a Hyundai fan myself and I really wanted to buy this car but when I test drove it I was super disappointed on how SLOW it is. It seriously lacks power. I'm waiting for the turbo version to come out.
@umadbrow What did you expect from a1.6L engine? Cmon you can't be expecting a rocket, can you? Think of it as a runabout car with an interesting styling.
About the same as the Fiesta. But wow... they touted it as a contender to a Mini. In which area does it compete? It is about 1.5S slower to 60, 1 second slow in the quarter, about 15 FT longer to stop, -.02 on the skidpad (when compared to 15" tires) and about 3mph slower in the saloms.... ohh... it is much cheaper... but wow...
james may and this car go hand in hand. but anyways, DCTs are meant to smooth out fast aggressive herky jerky shifts that most sporty cars with a single clutch tranny would make. however, this car is so damn slow that i don't think its possible for it to make fast aggressive shifts. oh yeah, and from the sound of it its also one of the slowest shifting DCTs ever made. it really begs the question of, WHATS THE POINT OF A DCT IN A CAR LIKE THAT????
I think I almost peed my pants laughing so hard at a track test video of this car.....1/4 mile 17.4 minutes and 9.8 to 60 with rollout! Oh boy watch out GTR!
This thing is a pure embarrassment. I mean I know its not MEANT to be Fast but in this day and age, NO car should be THAT slow...especially one that is half decent looking and has sporty characteristics...They should rename it Veloster EcoSHIT
Most people that are commenting are idiots. This is the entry vehicle of this model. Wait until next years model before you tear it apart with how crappy it is in all those different areas.
It looks very sharp and gets 40mpg. That'll prob be plenty for most young buyers. Enthusiast drivers? It doesn't appeal to us at all, so look elsewhere and stop making the rest of us look like idiots with you!
The good news is, I have noticed Hunday and Kia refreshing or changing things on their models as soon as they hear customer complains. I'm pretty sure by next year they'll have the turbo.
I love this car, except for the damn acceleration! I don't need to do 0-60 in 5 seconds flat, but 10.2 seconds is ridiculous. This car has the style, handling, and transmission to perform pretty well. But it was set up for mediocrity because of the engine...smh
My experience with this car last weekend wasn't bad at all. It is just good for normal driving.
I like the fact that this car has the rigid feeling which you usually can feel from European cars and the good gas mileage. No wonder the set-up for this car is more like for fuel economy than spirited driving. However, we all know turbo is coming and Hyundai promises turbo model is aiming at GTI territory.
Its not the slow acceleration for me, its the abysmal skidpad results. For comparison, according to Inside Line, the 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander SUV is 0.80g on the skidpad vs 0.81g for the Veloster.
@talldude123 If honda can make a 200 hp 2 liter non-turbo civic, how come this supposedly better hyundai cant achieve it? I bet this car even with the turbo wont pass the 200 hp mark! Hyundai fanboys hilarious and stupid! hahahaha
@colombiankilla01 Yes, so Hyundai is in the 2012, Honda in the 1996 with its J-series naturally aspirated V6 :D If the Veloster is too slow for you Hondafan, you can still get an HONDA CR-Z 1.5 122HP :D
@colombiankilla01 Because they had to think of a name, and they close that...nobody would buy a Hyundai Tiburon because they'd think of what Hyundai was like in the late 90's.
@talldude123 I read somewhere it had a turbo. Maybe I read wrong. It's a decent looking car. I'm quite impressed with Hyundai's new movement in their fleet.
@VIRAJ818 It has an optional turbo, yes. The base engine, which they tested, is just the same engine from the Accent, which will mean incredible fuel efficiency.
This must be the Slowest DCT car ever made! why did they even bother putting a double clutch anyway!! they better hurry up with that Turbo model they promised because this one is a total FAIL !!! these numbers are straight out from the 1950's
@onoff314 Cause the main reason for having DCT is Faster Shifts! not for MPG bro! nor to save money, hence they're way more expensive than regular automatic gearbox!
@luimarco It's the other way around in a compact. Dual clutches have none of the drivetrain loss of a standard auto from the pumping losses. A torque converter is what makes the shifts slower but it is also what makes the mpg worse as well since they are converting mechanical energy through different mediums.
How about do some real world tests and be more like motorweek and not just performance oriented testing. Ride quality, fuel mileage, interior noise, etc. etc. etc.
HOLY SHIT!!!! look at that thing! it launches off the line like, like... well i was gonna try and make it sound decent, but i can't, so lets be honest. a snail on a snort of coke could leave that thing in its dust. and the handling isn't exactly best in class either. A 2003 Mini Cooper (NON-S and without the sport suspension) could run full rings around it.
@achuck4322 you are right that a lancer ES is faster but dont you mean 0 to 60 time cuz a quarter mile of 7.9 sec for a stock 4 cyl. economical car seems impossible
Is this a joke or what. I would expect some kind of pumped up turbo engine in this but no, they decided to put an engine in this that's slower than a Toyota yaris.
It is an attractive car, and I can see it being used as a base ride for Tuning and Mod's... but stock it sucks monkey balls. It just does not live up to the hype; too bad that.
I don't understand how it's so slow? It's got a decent amount of power, it's pretty light, and edmunds predicted a 0-60 time of..under 8 seconds?! How is it over 2 seconds slower than that! It doesn't even add up..
I don't see why people are OK with this but so harsh with CRZ. They have similar performances. The look is more of a personnal preference. For me, the CRZ looks cooler.
@rforracing last i checked, 8.2 is still faster than 8.5. learn your math. So in closing, the veloster still got owned by a minivan, now by 2 different sources of info.
@rforracing well i was comparing a minivan to this. If i wanted to compare a 4cyl to this, I could compare that of a lancer (Inside line did a track test of that car, watch?v=VfufMF39EdU ) but if that's still not comparing it right, then i bet there are tons of 4 banger cars that will do a 1/4 mile well under "8.5 seconds". All I was trying to point out is that a minivan is faster ( watch?v=z6fIuJ0q2Co ). Turns out in the process, I pointed out that you're an idiot.
@rforracing everyone of your comments makes me laugh, cause I go, look up some numbers, and easily have a response for you. The lancer (not evo) falls in the same PRICE point as the veloster. Lancer ES quarter mile time 7.9 seconds. I'm pretty sure as well that a lancer is a subcompact. According to insideline anyway.
cant wait for the performance version to come out... this car rly needs a BiTurboBlasterDuperChargers for some added power... some brembos wouldnt hurt eather
Its not suppose to be a sports car its an economy car you know like the Ford Fiesta, Chevy Sonic Kia Rio etc etc.. Wait till the turbo comes out its suppose to have alot of different upgrades on it..
That tranny is the 1st DCT of Hyundai and it shows. VW / Audi DCT does better then there manuals in 0-60, Hyundai's does it in 10.2 and there stick 8.8...
Oh my god this sucks so bad. Nissan Versa times. Who buys this thing?
motormusique 1 week ago
I should call this " slowster" instead
Dosalt 3 weeks ago
I usually don't mind cars that go to 60 is over 7.5 seconds, but 10 seconds? That's awful, even the "euro-boxes" can do better than that.
redman6657 1 month ago
shit
kaiji32003 1 month ago
Turbo should be better. Those handling numbers are horrible...need to fix that
LikwiDgAngStr 1 month ago
@LikwiDgAngStr The handling numbers are in line with a lot of sporty cars. Watch Inside Line's similar review on the '12 Civic Si (.86g Skidpad, 67.3 Slalom) and the '12 Focus Titanium (.88g Skidpad, 67.7 Slalom). Keep in mind that both of those cars are the performance versions of their respective models. I agree with you completely about the turbo. I can only assume they'll beef up the suspension on that one. I can't wait to see/drive it.
TV843 1 month ago
I couldn't make my mind up about this car for a while, but now I got it. It's slow and fug. And the turbo version is only MORE fug.
motormusique 1 month ago in playlist Track Tested
The guy leaned forward to get it moving like a Radio Flyer.
DUBSAC 1 month ago
From the tests that I've seen so far, this car is not nearly as impressive as its appearance suggests. Not only is it slow, it's not overly-impressive in the mpg department either, it's just good. There are so many other cars that will do more than this in almost every way that this looks to be the first misstep by Hyundai in an otherwise impressive recent run of offerings. The Versa is way faster and much cheaper than this for god's sake!
Noahfreak10 1 month ago
@Noahfreak10 The problem is that bacause the car is so aggressive looking, everybody thinks it's a sports-car. It's actually an economy car that just looks fast. I'm looking forward to the 200+ hp turbo. That should help the numbers quite a bit. As a very long time Hyundai owner, I do believe this car, in this form, is overpriced but the exterior and the interior are much more interesting than a lot of comparable cars out there. From what I've seen, the handling is pretty good too.
TV843 1 month ago in playlist Track Tested
@TV843 Agreed. Just based on what I've seen coming from the compact car market recently, and Hyundai's stellar track record in recent years, I expected even the entry level model of the Veloster to be better. With that aggressive styling, this is a big swing and a miss. Let's see what the turbo does.
Noahfreak10 1 month ago
@Noahfreak10 Here's where it would be a better hit. Let me know what you think. At this price with this power it's a miss (but I bet they'll still sell a bundle on styling alone). This car, with this power should be around $13 to start and top at $16 fully loaded. It should definitely NOT be starting in the $17 range and topping anywhere over $20. Maybe the turbo could start at $17 and top at around $20. I think that would make more sense across the line. As is, it's is too expensive.
TV843 1 month ago
@TV843 Exactly what I'm thinking. I keep coming back to the Versa as an example of what this car is competing with. It's very similar all around in its size, utility, performance and efficiency. I remember recently seeing a Versa advertised starting under $11K. The only thing I like about the Veloster is the way it looks. For styling, you can ask a little bit of a premium, but $6K more is just too much in this segment.
Noahfreak10 1 month ago
eww
MrUpgraydde 2 months ago
Why the heck do you need to know the numbers of a efficient car??? In my point of view this car looks very cool and is cheap to own
M3ntalMind 2 months ago
@M3ntalMind Not cheap and not in Brazil it costs R$ 97 000 ( US$53. 586 ) suahsuahsuahsuah
AndreLuiw 1 month ago
Super aceleração do Lentoster!!! uhuhauahauha...Com certeza meu Chevrolet Chevette 1975 ou meu Renault Symbol 1.6 andam mais rapido do que o "super esportivo" da Hyundai...
Gutto69x 2 months ago
verrryyyyy slooowwww xD
LenonSlater 2 months ago
hmm motor trend has 0-60 in 8.8 seconds in a manual
krispy022 2 months ago
Why is everyone making a big deal out of the Veloster?
its just a Korean Honda civic, nothing to get excited about.
DualofChaos 2 months ago
I don't understand Hyundia's strategy for this car. It looks FANTASTIC (save for the catfish mouth front) and fast so why bring it to market with such a hokey-pokey engine? The proper way to do it is bring the turbo out FIRST, then the lack-luster engine model for the posers, finally a high output turbo with a snazzy body kit and trick suspension. I think they want to focus on technology and packaging which is... yaaaaaawn, BOOORING!
rawsketch 2 months ago
who the heck buys the veloster for speed anyways? rofl If you want speed, wait a few more months for the turbo. Pointless to test a base car with no power....its meant to get 40mpg! Not 20 with 300hp!
Niche79 2 months ago
i hate it when some car reviews takes a car that has a manual option and not test it.
You can control the car better with a manual better than the dual clutch transmission in this car
Derrick021594 2 months ago
i thought they were slowing the video down hahahaha
SuperJuandude 2 months ago
this car actually looks toooo good for its power.
chriztrax 2 months ago
speaking of not matching your looks, echk!!
wjtoro73 2 months ago
I'm a Hyundai fan myself and I really wanted to buy this car but when I test drove it I was super disappointed on how SLOW it is. It seriously lacks power. I'm waiting for the turbo version to come out.
bertito43 2 months ago
quick enough for me, id use it as a basic daily driver
siamiam 2 months ago
0:25 the driver head down to resist from Gforce but the car doesnt really pull back his head lol
wbimota 2 months ago 2
oh jeez...I get that this is supposed to be an economy model, but this is embarrassing. The turbo can't come soon enough.
lildieselboy 2 months ago
looks sporty.... yet its not... whats wrong in this picture?
chriscas1993 2 months ago
its an ugly son of a bitch when its going slow but whens its goin fast its looks pretty cool
chinchillawrangler 2 months ago
0:25 this piece of shit is so slow instead of snapping the drivers neck back it snapped it forward.
umadbrow 2 months ago 27
@umadbrow What did you expect from a1.6L engine? Cmon you can't be expecting a rocket, can you? Think of it as a runabout car with an interesting styling.
bsp1148 1 month ago
Its more like the hyundai slowster!
colombiankilla01 2 months ago
zzz.zzz..zzz....zzz pretending to fall asleep from this test drive
mugentech87 2 months ago
I understand its slow...but they should have really made its handling world class
LikwiDgAngStr 2 months ago
slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
bboychoc 2 months ago
About the same as the Fiesta. But wow... they touted it as a contender to a Mini. In which area does it compete? It is about 1.5S slower to 60, 1 second slow in the quarter, about 15 FT longer to stop, -.02 on the skidpad (when compared to 15" tires) and about 3mph slower in the saloms.... ohh... it is much cheaper... but wow...
biscuitninja 2 months ago
stupid video...
chrisluvjh 2 months ago
this better be like over 50mpgs this is tooooo slooowww for meee
Jorge50505 2 months ago
Hmmmm, the new Fiesta has a Dual-Clutch, so does the new Focus... and they're both faster than this... thumbs up if you agree. :D
brandenkhan15 2 months ago
If its purpose wasn't to be fast, then at least it shouldn't have been called "Veloster" in the first place ...
MisakiLeasim 2 months ago 11
@MisakiLeasim Why not? I guess you are hoping too much from it. I testdrove it and I've found it good enough but it could use more power.
bsp1148 1 month ago
@bsp1148 I actually like this car. But the name...
MisakiLeasim 1 month ago
@MisakiLeasim new turbo model is coming out.
JustBoostThis 1 month ago
Nice subdued low exhaust note. I'm ready for the turbo though.
vothry 2 months ago
james may and this car go hand in hand. but anyways, DCTs are meant to smooth out fast aggressive herky jerky shifts that most sporty cars with a single clutch tranny would make. however, this car is so damn slow that i don't think its possible for it to make fast aggressive shifts. oh yeah, and from the sound of it its also one of the slowest shifting DCTs ever made. it really begs the question of, WHATS THE POINT OF A DCT IN A CAR LIKE THAT????
Edrox5000 2 months ago
i looks so sweet but 10.2 to 60? really ? when you hear a car has dct your thinking it will do 60 in at most 7 sec
xdragosx 2 months ago
Umm why so many dislikes??..............Umm I think its a good car for people who like this type of car.
CAJFB 2 months ago
either Edmunds tests suck or this guy was going downhill- you decide after watching this /watch?v=o45GU99PbW0 he got around 8.8 with DCT
runjocar 2 months ago
most new small eco cars coming out are just as slow. the smart car has a 0-60 of 12 sec,
Fiat 500 0-60 in 9.4 sec , mini cooper convertible 0-60 10.1 sec. honda cr-z 0-60 10 sec
you give up speed for mpg, if you want a faster version get the turbo model with less mpg.
matrixloader 2 months ago 4
a shameful engine
maaaaaaaaaaan
MO19916 2 months ago
Ass is very ugly...
narutouzumaki1550 2 months ago
still in the infant stages
mellowocean 2 months ago
Video about Hyundai accelerating and driving by several times...
autotiiseri 2 months ago
I hope it gets 60 MPG to make up for the loss of any sense of performance. I think I got the same performance from a 10 year old Kia wagon.
videonaj 2 months ago
just like all the Hyundai they just have looks
immortal4942 2 months ago
I think I almost peed my pants laughing so hard at a track test video of this car.....1/4 mile 17.4 minutes and 9.8 to 60 with rollout! Oh boy watch out GTR!
grwaldron 2 months ago
An Eco car without mpg figures.....*sigh*
vitessemeister 2 months ago in playlist More videos from InsideLineVideo
it's not a DCT ... it's EcoShift DCT ..
aqa722 2 months ago
looks nice, hella slow tho
aaarsix 2 months ago
Wait next year when the turbo version comes out.
markjwil 2 months ago
This thing is a pure embarrassment. I mean I know its not MEANT to be Fast but in this day and age, NO car should be THAT slow...especially one that is half decent looking and has sporty characteristics...They should rename it Veloster EcoSHIT
NismoFinder 2 months ago
I think the 2012 Camry hybrid is faster than this.....
joshuaglen91 2 months ago
Has Insideline ever heard about HTML5? Flash SUCKS!.
JELH 2 months ago
Think makes my old Cavalier look quick.
GlaciusNLV 2 months ago
Fit his gearbox to the turbo version !
Prostreetcrazy 2 months ago
why the fuck are you even test tracking this car...it isn't meant to be fast ofc
IAmTrolololol 2 months ago
is he flooring that thing? I mean every grandma in a standart buick can beat this at the lights :).
Rockport1911 2 months ago
Needs
1. Bigger engine
2. New front fascia
DansWorld31 2 months ago
inside line acceleration tests are a real pain :D Guess others don't care about the test carsat all....
egycsab 2 months ago
Most people that are commenting are idiots. This is the entry vehicle of this model. Wait until next years model before you tear it apart with how crappy it is in all those different areas.
It looks very sharp and gets 40mpg. That'll prob be plenty for most young buyers. Enthusiast drivers? It doesn't appeal to us at all, so look elsewhere and stop making the rest of us look like idiots with you!
asdfgoogle 2 months ago
my snail trail goes faster than this slug!!!!!!! WTF. Why are we track testing this???
robbyjai 2 months ago
The good news is, I have noticed Hunday and Kia refreshing or changing things on their models as soon as they hear customer complains. I'm pretty sure by next year they'll have the turbo.
OneOfaKind949 2 months ago
I love this car, except for the damn acceleration! I don't need to do 0-60 in 5 seconds flat, but 10.2 seconds is ridiculous. This car has the style, handling, and transmission to perform pretty well. But it was set up for mediocrity because of the engine...smh
1990flyerboy 2 months ago
Slow
kaliuv 2 months ago
Only good performance came out of this slalom
ron20102002 2 months ago
It is all about the set-up.
My experience with this car last weekend wasn't bad at all. It is just good for normal driving.
I like the fact that this car has the rigid feeling which you usually can feel from European cars and the good gas mileage. No wonder the set-up for this car is more like for fuel economy than spirited driving. However, we all know turbo is coming and Hyundai promises turbo model is aiming at GTI territory.
molythro 2 months ago
My 2003 pickup can outdo this ricer every which way
uberjorge5737 2 months ago
@uberjorge5737 That's not a ricer. The modified/noisy/flamboyantly "decorated" ones that are bound to come along will be.
jaretkady 2 months ago
Its not the slow acceleration for me, its the abysmal skidpad results. For comparison, according to Inside Line, the 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander SUV is 0.80g on the skidpad vs 0.81g for the Veloster.
zivan56 2 months ago
This car is not a turbo
lizardgreen2121 2 months ago
It's sad to think that this car is a turbo....
VIRAJ818 2 months ago
@VIRAJ818 It's a 138 horsepower 4-cylinder, non-turbo. It's not meant to be fast.
talldude123 2 months ago 19
@talldude123 then why call it veloster?
ricky041878 2 months ago
@talldude123 If honda can make a 200 hp 2 liter non-turbo civic, how come this supposedly better hyundai cant achieve it? I bet this car even with the turbo wont pass the 200 hp mark! Hyundai fanboys hilarious and stupid! hahahaha
colombiankilla01 2 months ago
@colombiankilla01 BTW hyundai sonata has a 2.0 274HP... Honda Accord 3.5 271HP...
10tenable 2 months ago
@10tenable yea but thats with a turbo dumbass!
colombiankilla01 2 months ago
@colombiankilla01 Yes, so Hyundai is in the 2012, Honda in the 1996 with its J-series naturally aspirated V6 :D If the Veloster is too slow for you Hondafan, you can still get an HONDA CR-Z 1.5 122HP :D
10tenable 2 months ago
@talldude123 If is not meant to be fast then why did they named it veloster?
colombiankilla01 2 months ago
@colombiankilla01 Because they had to think of a name, and they close that...nobody would buy a Hyundai Tiburon because they'd think of what Hyundai was like in the late 90's.
talldude123 2 months ago
@talldude123 I read somewhere it had a turbo. Maybe I read wrong. It's a decent looking car. I'm quite impressed with Hyundai's new movement in their fleet.
VIRAJ818 2 months ago
@VIRAJ818 It has an optional turbo, yes. The base engine, which they tested, is just the same engine from the Accent, which will mean incredible fuel efficiency.
talldude123 2 months ago
cool channel !!
Marcsautos 2 months ago
wow thats really pathetic acceleration
AlternativeUses 2 months ago in playlist Track Tested
This must be the Slowest DCT car ever made! why did they even bother putting a double clutch anyway!! they better hurry up with that Turbo model they promised because this one is a total FAIL !!! these numbers are straight out from the 1950's
luimarco 2 months ago 43
@luimarco agreed
Colleptic2 2 months ago
@luimarco Even the skidpad numbers are bad for this decade......
Colleptic2 2 months ago
@luimarco And a car with a dual clutch needs to be fast why?
onoff314 2 months ago
@onoff314 Cause the main reason for having DCT is Faster Shifts! not for MPG bro! nor to save money, hence they're way more expensive than regular automatic gearbox!
luimarco 2 months ago
@luimarco It's the other way around in a compact. Dual clutches have none of the drivetrain loss of a standard auto from the pumping losses. A torque converter is what makes the shifts slower but it is also what makes the mpg worse as well since they are converting mechanical energy through different mediums.
flatblackstrat 2 months ago
The car is pretty good looking but it needs some more protein
Canokno 2 months ago
Looking out for the turbo, too slow as it is....
urafudgehead 2 months ago
The Veloster is slow, but it handles great. Ultimately I decided not to get it because it was slow, so I'll wait for the turbo model. :)
ak5504 2 months ago
eh...it would make a good rental car, constant WOT
dickcheese663 2 months ago
wait a minute these are insideline drivers i forgot to deduct 2 seconds off there times.
chrisw40 2 months ago
very slow
chrisw40 2 months ago
this veloster from hyundai sucks, its ugly and poor performance, but other hyundai cars are awesome
zipobob1 2 months ago
Slower than the 2012 Honda CR-V.
Phophenomenon 2 months ago
Attention Hyundai. Volvo called. They want their rear window back
khunopie 2 months ago
@khunopie LOL sooo true...good eye captain
dickcheese663 2 months ago
Yup, these guy forget about all of that.
ZR1Terror 2 months ago
How about do some real world tests and be more like motorweek and not just performance oriented testing. Ride quality, fuel mileage, interior noise, etc. etc. etc.
moe346john 2 months ago
@moe346john then watch motorweek. duh!
Phophenomenon 2 months ago
Captain Slow!!
Texan972 2 months ago
these people can't even test this car to its fullest
Derrick021594 2 months ago
What is special about this car? It sure isn't performance.
hawkermustang 2 months ago
Yeah Hyundai, use this base model Velostar to make a checklist on how to improve Velostar Turbo that much more...
BBoyCrownedOne 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HOLY SHIT!!!! look at that thing! it launches off the line like, like... well i was gonna try and make it sound decent, but i can't, so lets be honest. a snail on a snort of coke could leave that thing in its dust. and the handling isn't exactly best in class either. A 2003 Mini Cooper (NON-S and without the sport suspension) could run full rings around it.
Edrox5000 2 months ago
Comment removed
Edrox5000 2 months ago
Well its slow... but braking shouldn't be just as slow... in fact should be easier to brake.
Guess Hyundai overstep their boundaries a little bit this time.
GundamAngelicDevil 2 months ago
@achuck4322 you are right that a lancer ES is faster but dont you mean 0 to 60 time cuz a quarter mile of 7.9 sec for a stock 4 cyl. economical car seems impossible
01Chenti 2 months ago
Is this video suppose to help sell this car?
It won't.
frozencanuckreviews 2 months ago
Comment removed
Edrox5000 2 months ago
Is this a joke or what. I would expect some kind of pumped up turbo engine in this but no, they decided to put an engine in this that's slower than a Toyota yaris.
remelsheikh 2 months ago
It is an attractive car, and I can see it being used as a base ride for Tuning and Mod's... but stock it sucks monkey balls. It just does not live up to the hype; too bad that.
Bravo21 2 months ago
It is really no longer necessary for a car to be that slow in this day and age. Especially a so caled sporty car.
arion45 2 months ago
That is so slow off the line, it could be dangerous.
ManuelCarrillo3 2 months ago
i would never ever spend my money int his shit
GH0192837465 2 months ago
What a waste of nice styling, I can't wait for the turbo, or even the 1.8...
crocsteven 2 months ago
Saw one today and in a parking lot and thought it looked really sharp and futuristic, I liked it. Then I walked to over to my VR4 ;)
nitroboyn2o 2 months ago 12
@nitroboyn2o That's funny because IRL you don't have a VR4, you have, you have an automatic Eclipse that does a 0-60mph in 11-12 seconds =)
It's ok to lie though to sound cooler, i guess?
LaenPvP 2 months ago
I don't understand how it's so slow? It's got a decent amount of power, it's pretty light, and edmunds predicted a 0-60 time of..under 8 seconds?! How is it over 2 seconds slower than that! It doesn't even add up..
jacoale 2 months ago
@mkm230 Lmco FUNNY SHIT if u want a subcompact - ecno car wait for the dodge dart
kdog18ful 2 months ago
that was horrendous...
bradmax39 2 months ago
10.2? Jeez, who's driving?? Most other places say 8.5-9..
techdude6693 2 months ago
my moms odyssey is faster than this car
XxdemonzhackerxX 2 months ago
Hyundai: Good brakes, good looks, good handling...power? Damn, I knew we forgot something!
mkm230 2 months ago
my 97 acura cl has better numbers :P
halfhappy117 2 months ago
I don't see why people are OK with this but so harsh with CRZ. They have similar performances. The look is more of a personnal preference. For me, the CRZ looks cooler.
afyaff 2 months ago
More like EcoShit.
tacomanfan344 2 months ago
Way too slow for the looks.
bubbauknow 2 months ago
This car looks so bad ass and it's name is Veloster then how the fuck is so slow?
Supernova1295 2 months ago
So i did some research in old inside line videos; the 2008 dodge caravan SXT went from 0-60 in 8.2 seconds. Veloster got owned by a minivan; hard.
achuck4321 2 months ago
@achuck4321 Veloster manual does 0-60 mph in 8.5 seconds tested by Road and Track. Do your research,
rforracing 2 months ago
@rforracing last i checked, 8.2 is still faster than 8.5. learn your math. So in closing, the veloster still got owned by a minivan, now by 2 different sources of info.
achuck4321 2 months ago
@achuck4321 That minivan is a V6 dumbass. Watch what you're comparing it to.
And show me the source where you got the 8.2 seconds from??????
rforracing 2 months ago
@rforracing well i was comparing a minivan to this. If i wanted to compare a 4cyl to this, I could compare that of a lancer (Inside line did a track test of that car, watch?v=VfufMF39EdU ) but if that's still not comparing it right, then i bet there are tons of 4 banger cars that will do a 1/4 mile well under "8.5 seconds". All I was trying to point out is that a minivan is faster ( watch?v=z6fIuJ0q2Co ). Turns out in the process, I pointed out that you're an idiot.
achuck4321 2 months ago
@achuck4321 This is a SUBCOMPACT car you dumb shit. Compare a Lancer to an Elantra.
Know the basics of what a vehicle class/category is. Idiot.
rforracing 2 months ago
@rforracing everyone of your comments makes me laugh, cause I go, look up some numbers, and easily have a response for you. The lancer (not evo) falls in the same PRICE point as the veloster. Lancer ES quarter mile time 7.9 seconds. I'm pretty sure as well that a lancer is a subcompact. According to insideline anyway.
achuck4321 2 months ago
cant wait for the performance version to come out... this car rly needs a BiTurboBlasterDuperChargers for some added power... some brembos wouldnt hurt eather
spornicu 2 months ago
I'm faster, and I have an arrow in my knee!
achuck4321 2 months ago
mean look with petty performance
dannykhoo 2 months ago
Why was the driver taking off so slowly during the 0-60?
sexyboi142 2 months ago
whats the point of this thing? i mean really, its slower than a 1990 4 cyl pickup truck, its not a real coupe, its not practical... what P.O.S
cb7pwn 2 months ago
minivans are faster.
PappaPak 2 months ago
The Hyundai Veloster is not about 0-60! It's about low price and 40 MPG HWY! This car is great looking handles great and cost very little.
gene978 2 months ago
@gene978 Exactly. People here are too stupid too realize that. They just look at the 0-60 times lol.
rforracing 2 months ago
My 13 year old wagon is faster....
SubieSean 2 months ago
My FIAT is faster.........
SeadGBosnia 2 months ago in playlist Track Tested
Its not suppose to be a sports car its an economy car you know like the Ford Fiesta, Chevy Sonic Kia Rio etc etc.. Wait till the turbo comes out its suppose to have alot of different upgrades on it..
soyntgo4it 2 months ago
The back looks like a Megane III
anjoLas 2 months ago
why is it called veloster? slowster might had been more like it.
ricky041878 2 months ago 2
Does anyone else think this car would be bad ass if it was rwd and had the V6 from the Genesis...? It would sell!
ShawnSubaru 2 months ago
once the veloster turbo comes out it will do a lot better.............hopefully
i kinda like the veloster even though im a hardcore domestic car lover
n8dh 2 months ago
its slower than the new prius...LOL
bluedrangon69 2 months ago 25
A modern day Yugo. Cheap, slow as shit and gets decent mileage
EatmyDust1311 2 months ago
Why are people surprised its slow? Its a cheap Korean hatchback.
mgibbs88 2 months ago
Fast shifting of DCT gives you a 0-60 of 10 secs? SMH
Jabid21 2 months ago
That tranny is the 1st DCT of Hyundai and it shows. VW / Audi DCT does better then there manuals in 0-60, Hyundai's does it in 10.2 and there stick 8.8...
Work on it guys.
Virnagtach 2 months ago
0:26 the dude shifted his head forward, expecting it to be a quick launch. then he just kinda looked around going "huh?"
ivanlai0225 2 months ago
that is surprisingly slow... wow
manbearpigonabike 2 months ago
Wait for the turbo version. Should be out next year. Something like 210hp I believe. This one is clearl