AD #2753 – Hyundai Elantra Impressions; FCA Forms Electric JV With Foxconn; JLR Creates “Morphable” Seat

January 17th, 2020 at 11:54am

Audio-only version:

Listen to “AD #2753 – Hyundai Elantra Impressions; FCA Forms Electric JV With Foxconn; JLR Creates “Morphable” Seat” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 10:04

0:07 FCA Forms Electric JV With Foxconn
0:43 Car Sales Up in Europe in 2019
1:23 Senate Approves USMCA
2:26 JLR Creates “Morphable” Seat
2:59 Corvette V8 Makes Wards 10 Best List
4:30 Buick Getting Rebadged Chevy Bolt for China
5:18 Audi Adds Q5 & A8 Plug-In Hybrids to U.S. Lineup
6:05 New Set Piece Details
7:58 Hyundai Elantra Impressions

Visit our sponsor to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website:

46 Comments to “AD #2753 – Hyundai Elantra Impressions; FCA Forms Electric JV With Foxconn; JLR Creates “Morphable” Seat”

  1. Kit Gerhart Says:

    That Elantra looks pretty nice, but for not much more, you get get a one size larger, much more efficient Camry hybrid. Maybe you can do more effective haggling with the Hyundai, though.

  2. Larry D. Says:

    A. Buick. The Velite, of which I saw a few in China last Nov, looks good, as it is a clone of t he 2nd gen Volt. Their Bolt looks even worse than the US Bolt, and has less power. The Art of Joyless Driving. Bring on the Aztecs.

    B. Elantra. $27k for a lousy Elantra? You guys are insane if you think this is some… bargain. But I forgot, it has to have the “new car smell”… so if you restrict it to only brand-new cars, I say, RUN and go buy a CIVIC. Life is way too short to pinch pennies on a vehicle you will drive for hours every day for maybe 10 years. I doubt the Civic costs any more than this cheap econobox.

    PS I DID drive an Enterprise 2015 Elantra, for a whole week, in the snowbelt, in Jan 2015. Talk about JOYLESS and CHEAP. It was an almost new car, and it did start every time, but other than that, it really REEKED cheapness and lightness. The panels felt paper-thin, and you had to sit in it to experience how cheap and unsafe it felt. But Masochists are people too, and so are the billions of auto illiterates on this planet…

  3. Kit Gerhart Says:

    You can get an Elantra GT hatchback, with a manual transmission, for about $20K. That would be a semi-fun, utilitarian car.

  4. buildmore2doors Says:

    Nice to see the Elantra isn’t going with the iPad-growing-out-of-the-dash craze sweeping the automotive landscape, I wonder how many of those pods will be broken off at the base by purses, kids, elbows, or brief cases over the years.

  5. Drew Says:

    The Chinese Buick Bolt looks good in the front view. The rear looks under-adorned in comparison to the front and in comparison to its Chevy donor.

    Hyundai and Kia have been delivering reasonable value, but I am noticing the Elantra interior styling is losing its bling, and hence, is looking drab.

  6. cwolf Says:

    I have a hunch Hyundai/Kia interiors will improve within the next couple years. Given that GM & Ford gave up the car business to the benefit of Honda & Toyota, the Koreans will want a larger piece of the market. They can only achieve that if their quality is considerably improved.

  7. cwolf Says:

    Kit, you get the reward for the day for doing the impossible; You are the first one to ever beat Larry in the number of comments made! Nice job.

  8. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Thanks. It’s been a slow day here.

    Speaking of Hyundai/Kia, a friend recently bought a 3 year old Kia Cadenza, and it is a pretty nice car, with a n/a V6. It nominally competes with Toyota Avalon, but depreciates much faster, making it a good buy used.

  9. Larry D. Says:

    In case you still wonder why American Consumers buy so many breadvans (Crossovers and SUVs), today’s drive of the Elantra has all the answers for you.

    Note that the pimped up elantra at 27k, (with options well over 30k) is practically the SAME Price as a well-equipped, higher quality, far better reliability than the Elantra, AWD for all those who NEED it, included, THREE ROW SUV, the Subaru Ascent, which, well equipped, sells for a PALTRY $31k.

    Even Myself, who would not give those breadvans the time of day, if somebody told me I have a choice between the Elantra and the twice as much car (AND MORE!) AScent, I would go for the Ascent every time, and until the cows come home, and SO have the American Consumers, say what you want, they bought over 700,000 Subarus in 2019, more than all of Hyundais or all of Kia models.

  10. Larry D. Says:

    9 so how can we avoid the extinction of the sedan?

    The answer is also obvious, and related to the above. $27 for a little tinny Elantra is just ludicrous. Prices have to come WAY DOWN for such vehicles, and the answer to this is VOLUME production (as well as other efficiencies).

    To achieve higher volumes, the number of sedans in each class has to be cut MERCILESSLY.

    It is 100% silly for Hyundai to have a civic size sedan AND for Kia to have another.

    In addition, other makers should bite the bullet like FORD did and kill some more loser sedans (not the few ones that sell well!!!)

    THIS is win-win.

    1. These makers will be more profitable, selling less loser cars.

    2. The OTHER makers will ALSO be more profitable, selling MORE copies of their sedans, and

    3. If they also give some of the gain to the consumers in lower prices for those sedans, the UNIT sales of these sedans will rise again.

    Problem solved, and really it is so OBVIOUS a solution.

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    9 The Elantra starts at ~$19K, and tops out at $27-28K, with all the options. An Ascent starts at $32K, and tops out at near $50K. The two are not in the same price range, or even close.

    10 The Fusion was selling fairly well, even after 7 years in the same form, but they are dropping it anyway, rather than selling the new one. I guess they figure the people who would have bought a Fusion will now buy Ford CUVs, rather than going elsewhere to buy a car. I suppose most of them will.

  12. Larry D. Says:

    11 My recommendation in 10 was not to kill the Fusion or any other OK selling vehicle, but the Fiesta and the Taurus (onetime great, that they managed to ruin) which both I bet lost money.

    Many SUVs, incl luxury SUVs, are better bargains than the sedans on whose platform they are built. There are a few that are priced too high, either because the market can handle it (Gladiator, Escalade-Navigator) or because as Lutz suggested are milked to pay for the poor selling compliance BEVs and other green cars they make.

    Subaru is flooding the sites I use with ads for the Ascent claiming that a “well Equipped” version goes for $31,995. Similar 3 row SUVs from the Big 3 go for twice as much. The 100% opposite from 30 years ago, when Japanese cars were at a 20% premium over same size domestics.

  13. Larry D. Says:

    Nasty.. It was fine at 6 AM when I had to drive, and in a few mins I will return home, after more snow and rain, fortunately my tires are only a year old, or I would wish I had the 4matic.

  14. Kit Gerhart Says:

    12 “Many SUVs, incl luxury SUVs, are better bargains than the sedans on whose platform they are built.”

    This is especially true with German luxury brands, like M-B, where a GLS starts at $19K less than an S-Class sedan. The sedan would have a nicer standard interior, and probably has more standard equipment, but that is a huge price difference.

    “Similar 3 row SUVs from the Big 3 go for twice as much.” (as Subaru Ascent)

    Not really, the base price of the Ascent is $31,995. Tha base price of the bigger, faster, roomier Chevy Traverse, with AWD, is $33,595. That is a long way from “going for twice as much.”

  15. FSTFWRD Says:

    Also, just curious, Does anyone know how many BEV’s are in owned by single car families? My thinking is it is very few but don’t really know.

    And Sean, no need to trim your hair or beard. I believe it is personal preference and you should do what you like. I would wear both longer if it was me.

  16. Bob Wilson Says:

    My experience is each adult needs ready access to one vehicle. So a couple should have two. Upon graduation, the son/daughter needs one. A city with a well developed 24×7, public transportation system can substitute depending on connectivity between the current home and employment.

    Ride-sharing or car-pooling can help but the problem is the daily cost needs to be small enough that it doesn’t take too much from the budget. Cars are expensive but losing a day of work is worse.

  17. Kit Gerhart Says:

    15 SCCA must have guessed, and guessed wrong on the Model 3 performance when they put it in street B. I suspect it would be much easier to drive well than most of those cars in its new class.

  18. ChuckGrenci Says:

    Just saw on the evening news that Tesla has had over 100 intentioned accelerations reported. A lot of previous complaints from other auto manufacturer’s have been mixed, some true, some driver error; I don’t know which this one will fit in the mix. Perhaps more soon (or from other sources).

  19. ChuckGrenci Says:

    ………..duh, that’s unintentional accelerations.

  20. Kit Gerhart Says:

    18,19 Yeah, I figured there would be more than 100 intended accelerations. It would be nice to be able to edit comments here, but we can always post corrections, as I have done a few times.

  21. Larry D. Says:

    From down under. If you don’t mind the accent, lots of interesting stuff here. I think Cwolf would particularly enjoy this one (and learn from it)

  22. Kit Gerhart Says:

    21 The video was interesting, but obviously biased, as he admitted to holding Tesla stock.

  23. cwolf Says:

    Yes, the article was interesting. The word of mouth is a strong seller of new innovations just like the telephone, indoor plumbing and automobiles. But like all good things the market gets saturated; Tesla will be no exception and will only be a matter of time.

  24. Larry D. Says:

    22 I did not even notice that. Everyody is biased. You are missing the forest for the trees. Did you see the end of it with the Porsche GT3 owner (500+HP, 3,000 lbs) which is still 2 full seconds slower than his Tesla?

    PS I looked up Traverse vs Ascent and there was a comparison by “unbiased’ Motortrend, and despite its bigger interior, the Traverse lost.

    BTW the Subaru commercials have $31,995 not for the base price but for a well-equipped version. The base was just below $31k. The versions tested at Motortrend were both around $45k.

  25. Kit Gerhart Says:

    24 If the 911 GT3 is 2 seconds slower 0-60 than his Tesla, the Tesla does 0-60 in one second. I don’t believe that.

    The $31,995 is the base price, but nearly all new US market vehicles are “well equipped,” with power steering, power brakes, power windows, radio, heater, air conditioning, cruise control, and a few other things. Yeah, the base Ascent is generally well equipped, but it still has an old fashioned key to start it.

    I’ll have to look up the MT article, and see what they like, and don’t like about the two vehicles. I suspect part of what that wouldn’t like about the Traverse, it that it “drives big,” and maybe not in a good way.

  26. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Both Ascent and Traverse got very good “road test” scores from CR, but the Subaru is rated higher overall, because of better reliability survey results.

  27. Kit Gerhart Says:

    24 The base price of the Ascent is $31,995. Check out the Subaru web site.

  28. ChuckGrenci Says:

    I saw the GT3 0-60 @ 3.2 seconds. I’ll admit it’s slower than the Tesla, however, what grates my craw is the over-enthusiasm of the Tesla fanatics. Tesla and its followers don’t need to hype everything as the vehicles speak for themselves; just don’t care for the lemmings mentality of some of these owners/followers. “Just the facts mam, just the facts.”

  29. Kit Gerhart Says:

    28 I don’t understand the reason for the misinformation, or exaggeration, whichever you want to call it. It’s impressive that the ~$60K Model 3 performance or ~$100K model S performance is quicker 0-60 than the ~$145K GT3, but why say it is “more than 2 seconds quicker,” when it clearly is not. OK, maybe his Porsche is an older one, that is slower than the current one, but from what I can find, even the earliest GT3 RSs do about 3.5 seconds 0-60. Neither performance Tesla is 2 seconds quicker.

  30. cwolf Says:

    I too find it disturbing!
    We all error once in awhile but deliberately making false claims only makes one a fool.

  31. ChuckGrenci Says:

    Changing the subject but I also just saw that the first production C8 (vin 001) brought 3 million dollars at the Barrett Jackson Aution for charity. I think it was Rick Hendrick but not sure. Charity was Detroit Children hospital (or such); good show to whomever it was.

  32. Larry D. Says:

    28 29 2 sec lower than that Porsche seemed too high but I did not check it. It’s probably “Poetic license”

  33. Larry D. Says:

    27 the ads I have to see 10-20 times a day on the web say “$31,995 well-equipped”.

    Also, the MT test had interior pics and the Subaru looked great. (the $45k version vs the Traverse $45k version), really upscale, while the Traverse looked cheap.

  34. Lambo2015 Says:

    29 Did the article state the top speed of each car? I’m guessing the GT3 RS has a higher top speed and can stay their longer.

  35. Kit Gerhart Says:

    33 If you want a Traverse with a nicer interior, Buick will sell you one, but it might end up costing $50K.

  36. Kit Gerhart Says:

    34 Top speed of a 2018 GT3 RS is 193 mph, according to this.

    The Model 3 performance has a top speed of 162 mph. Yeah, the Porsche could probably stay at top speed longer on a tank of gas than the Tesla on a charge, and the Porsche could stay at the Model 3′s 31 mph slower top speed for MUCH longer, not that any of this matters much.

  37. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Model 3 performance top speed

  38. Larry D. Says:

    35 I sure don’t want a Traverse with any interior, or a Buick clone thereof. My next purchase will probably be a S65 AMG or a Tesla S, but I’ll look for the top, performance, ludicrous mode version.

  39. Larry D. Says:

    34 How important is top speed in the US? If you lived in Germany or other nation with no or very high speed limits, it might matter. If you don’t want to pay $140 each time you merely go 1 mile above the speed limit, (and $10 per every 5 miles thereafter)you can only try the speed on the few (if any) occasions you go to the track.

  40. Larry D. Says:

    38 I’d also consider a Porsche 911 Turbo S or that in Cabrio

  41. Larry D. Says:

    Will Tesla design a compact car in its new China design studio?

    It sure is a hole in its lineup, and it could bring millions of new buyers, BUT can it make it profitably?

    In China, it could!

  42. Kit Gerhart Says:

    39 Top speed over 130 mph or so isn’t important anywhere, even Germany and on tracks, except for bragging rights, kind of like 0-60 times when they get under 6 seconds or so.

  43. Larry D. Says:

    42 There are two huge differences that make top speed not matter (and be very dangerous and also cause a big ticket) but acceleration still hugely matters, is infinitely safer to go 0-60 real fast than to drive 130 MPH, and there is no ticket for accelerating.

  44. Kit Gerhart Says:

    43 I didn’t say anything about the relative safety of running fast cars at top speed, or quick cars from 0-60. I said that neither high top speed nor exceptionally quick low speed acceleration is important. My VW Jetta TDI wagon with a 0-60 time of about 14 seconds was quick enough for any normal driving. For three years, I have had a car that does 0-60 in fairly quick 4 seconds, and I have run it from 0-60 at full throttle about twice.

  45. Kit Gerhart Says:

    41 He seems to have more confidence than I do, that fully autonomous cars are almost here.

    As far as Tesla making a smaller car, it makes great sense. Since it would be used mainly for commuting/shorter trips, it wouldn’t need huge range, so the price could be kept down by using a small battery. Bolt and Kona Electric have about 250 mile range, with a 60 kWh battery. Use a 30 kWh battery, and given the saved weight, and the rest of what Tesla does to get good efficiency, you’d still have 150 mile range, fine for the use most of the cars would see, if there is decent charging infrastructure, which there already is in Chinese cities, and there may be sometime in the future in the US.

  46. ChuckGrenci Says:

    There can be for ‘a ticket for an exibition of speed’ so 0-60 at too rapid a pace can be illegal.