Hyundai Genesis: Rear-wheel drive? What!?

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
starters.

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
vehicles.)

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
thing.)

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, &
wider."

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.

 

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
otherwise.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

http://www.ibmwr.org/prodreview/abstests.html

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

 

This report suggests you are incorrect.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/NHTSAabsT4FinalRpt.pdf

Matt

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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, 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

 

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

 

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
time.

 

Intrusive in what way? Mine basically never activates.

Matt

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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
wheel.

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."

 

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