Hyundai Coupe Siii thoughts ?
Discussion
Looking to downsize from 3 cars to two, currently have a diesel clio van as the work hack, a 58 plate Smart car on a 3 year PCP lease plan which we plan to hand back, and to sell the 51 plate BMW 330ci coupe.
We are looking at the 2 litre, 140 BHP Hyundai coupe, the latest shape, series 3 with an auto box, as Mrs Mfugly only has an auto license.
Budget around 8K.
Any thoughts on these Hyundai's, some of mine are that yes it is down on power vs my 330 and perhaps badge snobbery, though TBH I'm not that bothered.
We are looking at the 2 litre, 140 BHP Hyundai coupe, the latest shape, series 3 with an auto box, as Mrs Mfugly only has an auto license.
Budget around 8K.
Any thoughts on these Hyundai's, some of mine are that yes it is down on power vs my 330 and perhaps badge snobbery, though TBH I'm not that bothered.
Why are they incredibly boring to drive,because they don`t have rocket ship like performance?
I`ve had my coupe for 7 years now and the only thing to go wrong has been a bust drivers window motor.
They aren`t fast but are a nice place to be but don`t expect much above 30mpg average.
If you are not going to do alot of mileage I would seriously consider an older 2.7V6. with the tiptronic box.
If you do go for the S111 i`d go for the grey with red leather, looks stunning.
I`ve had my coupe for 7 years now and the only thing to go wrong has been a bust drivers window motor.
They aren`t fast but are a nice place to be but don`t expect much above 30mpg average.
If you are not going to do alot of mileage I would seriously consider an older 2.7V6. with the tiptronic box.
If you do go for the S111 i`d go for the grey with red leather, looks stunning.
Edited by dowahdiddyman on Saturday 4th June 19:40
Evening
My wife has a Mk3 coupe - the one before this face lift (2002-2006) in Samba red.
Disclaimer: I’m working on the assumption that the SIII facelift is just that, as there appears to be very little mechanical change in suspension components between the SIII and the Mk3 Coupe I have from what I can see on service manuals.
It is undoubtedly a very good looking car, and inside is well kitted out (if 1.6 avoided).
But
That’s where the good stuff ends.
In my opinion it is a very poor car to drive, for the following reasons:
1. The engine has no appreciable power band - it’s awful everywhere. It doesn’t rev sweetly, but gets slowly to the redline sounding tortured. The exhaust note is rough, with no nice rasp you’d expect from an IL4. Overtaking is an ordeal.
2. The version we have is 135bhp- but can barely return 35mpg, even on a motorway run. That’s a very poor bhp/mpg compromise for a modern-ish 2.0 16v IMO. It’s faster than shopping cars, but is nowhere near hot hatch territory.
3. The suspension – just shocking. Lots of reviews (e.g. HJ) called it harsh and crashy. But surely that’s a sports car all the coupe forums splutter. No – sports cars can be firm and still suspend the car without every shock going into your back. Yes, there’s very little body roll, but it really does feel like the springs and shocks were badly matched for the weight of the car, with it seeking out pot holes to crash into (this car’s suspension was tuned by Porsche too!)
4. Steering – the wheel is too big, and the PS is over-light
5. Brakes – fine, but over-servo’d
The engines I’m comparing it to are the ones I’ve had direct experience of in Toyota’s
1.8 7AFE in my wife’s’ earlier gen 6 Celica ST- miles better. Better handling (just as good in corners, but you could go over a speed hump without wincing). Far more economical (40mpg) and just as fast (car was a lot lighter) even though it had the lean burn economy head rather than the GE fast one. Comfier inside, but not as stylish (outside or in)
1.8 1ZZFE in my 1.8 avensis. This engine is much more eager to rev, it’s got a nice exhaust note when doing so, just as fast if you engage “VVT” (yo) and more economical too. This engine was rebuilt under warranty for the poor design of early piston oil drain holes (same as Mk3 MR2 and others sharing the 140bhp engine)
2.0 3SGTE in my old MR2 – OK, the engine is a different kettle of fish here – no comparison, but the MR2 did have far sportier handling – you could flick it around, it stayed level in corners, was engaging and fed back well, and in comfort terms was about half way between the coupe and Celica. And the Mk2 MR2 wasn’t even well regarded for its handling. The brakes and steering were really well weighted and progressive too – 100x nicer to drive.
To be fair to the Hyundai:
The gear change is really slick.
It’s much more modern and stylish to be in than the Toyota’s I’ve mentioned
The boot and access to rear seats is no worse than other coupes.
It’s fairly well put together, although I’ve found rot on the inside of rear wings (probably caused by condensation), and have had to strip the sub frames to metal and re-paint they were so rusty.
Hyundai just did a recall on our 9 year old car to spray some waxoyl on the brake lines and subframe as they’ve obviously spotted this flaw.
Alternatives
When my wife got the Hyundai, the decision was between a Gen 7 Celica 140bhp, or the Hyundai. Celica’s were above her budget, and the engine oil usage issue put me off.
But she didn’t consider a lot of other credible cars, e.g. 3 series, golfs/leons/A3, Civics, as she liked the look of the coupe and wasn’t into hatch backs or BMWs.
To try and summarise, I don’t want this to be a “buy a Toyota” post at all.
Hopefully, it is a “buy a Hyundai coupe as long as you don’t really like driving, but just want a pretty box to sit in”
But I would go for a test drive in a SIII, and see if the handling / engine issues were resolved in the SIII face lift.
hth
Ian
My wife has a Mk3 coupe - the one before this face lift (2002-2006) in Samba red.
Disclaimer: I’m working on the assumption that the SIII facelift is just that, as there appears to be very little mechanical change in suspension components between the SIII and the Mk3 Coupe I have from what I can see on service manuals.
It is undoubtedly a very good looking car, and inside is well kitted out (if 1.6 avoided).
But
That’s where the good stuff ends.
In my opinion it is a very poor car to drive, for the following reasons:
1. The engine has no appreciable power band - it’s awful everywhere. It doesn’t rev sweetly, but gets slowly to the redline sounding tortured. The exhaust note is rough, with no nice rasp you’d expect from an IL4. Overtaking is an ordeal.
2. The version we have is 135bhp- but can barely return 35mpg, even on a motorway run. That’s a very poor bhp/mpg compromise for a modern-ish 2.0 16v IMO. It’s faster than shopping cars, but is nowhere near hot hatch territory.
3. The suspension – just shocking. Lots of reviews (e.g. HJ) called it harsh and crashy. But surely that’s a sports car all the coupe forums splutter. No – sports cars can be firm and still suspend the car without every shock going into your back. Yes, there’s very little body roll, but it really does feel like the springs and shocks were badly matched for the weight of the car, with it seeking out pot holes to crash into (this car’s suspension was tuned by Porsche too!)
4. Steering – the wheel is too big, and the PS is over-light
5. Brakes – fine, but over-servo’d
The engines I’m comparing it to are the ones I’ve had direct experience of in Toyota’s
1.8 7AFE in my wife’s’ earlier gen 6 Celica ST- miles better. Better handling (just as good in corners, but you could go over a speed hump without wincing). Far more economical (40mpg) and just as fast (car was a lot lighter) even though it had the lean burn economy head rather than the GE fast one. Comfier inside, but not as stylish (outside or in)
1.8 1ZZFE in my 1.8 avensis. This engine is much more eager to rev, it’s got a nice exhaust note when doing so, just as fast if you engage “VVT” (yo) and more economical too. This engine was rebuilt under warranty for the poor design of early piston oil drain holes (same as Mk3 MR2 and others sharing the 140bhp engine)
2.0 3SGTE in my old MR2 – OK, the engine is a different kettle of fish here – no comparison, but the MR2 did have far sportier handling – you could flick it around, it stayed level in corners, was engaging and fed back well, and in comfort terms was about half way between the coupe and Celica. And the Mk2 MR2 wasn’t even well regarded for its handling. The brakes and steering were really well weighted and progressive too – 100x nicer to drive.
To be fair to the Hyundai:
The gear change is really slick.
It’s much more modern and stylish to be in than the Toyota’s I’ve mentioned
The boot and access to rear seats is no worse than other coupes.
It’s fairly well put together, although I’ve found rot on the inside of rear wings (probably caused by condensation), and have had to strip the sub frames to metal and re-paint they were so rusty.
Hyundai just did a recall on our 9 year old car to spray some waxoyl on the brake lines and subframe as they’ve obviously spotted this flaw.
Alternatives
When my wife got the Hyundai, the decision was between a Gen 7 Celica 140bhp, or the Hyundai. Celica’s were above her budget, and the engine oil usage issue put me off.
But she didn’t consider a lot of other credible cars, e.g. 3 series, golfs/leons/A3, Civics, as she liked the look of the coupe and wasn’t into hatch backs or BMWs.
To try and summarise, I don’t want this to be a “buy a Toyota” post at all.
Hopefully, it is a “buy a Hyundai coupe as long as you don’t really like driving, but just want a pretty box to sit in”
But I would go for a test drive in a SIII, and see if the handling / engine issues were resolved in the SIII face lift.
hth
Ian
Ian Geary said:
Evening
My wife has a Mk3 coupe - the one before this face lift (2002-2006) in Samba red.
Disclaimer: I’m working on the assumption that the SIII facelift is just that, as there appears to be very little mechanical change in suspension components between the SIII and the Mk3 Coupe I have from what I can see on service manuals.
It is undoubtedly a very good looking car, and inside is well kitted out (if 1.6 avoided).
But
That’s where the good stuff ends.
In my opinion it is a very poor car to drive, for the following reasons:
1. The engine has no appreciable power band - it’s awful everywhere. It doesn’t rev sweetly, but gets slowly to the redline sounding tortured. The exhaust note is rough, with no nice rasp you’d expect from an IL4. Overtaking is an ordeal.
2. The version we have is 135bhp- but can barely return 35mpg, even on a motorway run. That’s a very poor bhp/mpg compromise for a modern-ish 2.0 16v IMO. It’s faster than shopping cars, but is nowhere near hot hatch territory.
3. The suspension – just shocking. Lots of reviews (e.g. HJ) called it harsh and crashy. But surely that’s a sports car all the coupe forums splutter. No – sports cars can be firm and still suspend the car without every shock going into your back. Yes, there’s very little body roll, but it really does feel like the springs and shocks were badly matched for the weight of the car, with it seeking out pot holes to crash into (this car’s suspension was tuned by Porsche too!)
4. Steering – the wheel is too big, and the PS is over-light
5. Brakes – fine, but over-servo’d
The engines I’m comparing it to are the ones I’ve had direct experience of in Toyota’s
1.8 7AFE in my wife’s’ earlier gen 6 Celica ST- miles better. Better handling (just as good in corners, but you could go over a speed hump without wincing). Far more economical (40mpg) and just as fast (car was a lot lighter) even though it had the lean burn economy head rather than the GE fast one. Comfier inside, but not as stylish (outside or in)
1.8 1ZZFE in my 1.8 avensis. This engine is much more eager to rev, it’s got a nice exhaust note when doing so, just as fast if you engage “VVT” (yo) and more economical too. This engine was rebuilt under warranty for the poor design of early piston oil drain holes (same as Mk3 MR2 and others sharing the 140bhp engine)
2.0 3SGTE in my old MR2 – OK, the engine is a different kettle of fish here – no comparison, but the MR2 did have far sportier handling – you could flick it around, it stayed level in corners, was engaging and fed back well, and in comfort terms was about half way between the coupe and Celica. And the Mk2 MR2 wasn’t even well regarded for its handling. The brakes and steering were really well weighted and progressive too – 100x nicer to drive.
To be fair to the Hyundai:
The gear change is really slick.
It’s much more modern and stylish to be in than the Toyota’s I’ve mentioned
The boot and access to rear seats is no worse than other coupes.
It’s fairly well put together, although I’ve found rot on the inside of rear wings (probably caused by condensation), and have had to strip the sub frames to metal and re-paint they were so rusty.
Hyundai just did a recall on our 9 year old car to spray some waxoyl on the brake lines and subframe as they’ve obviously spotted this flaw.
Alternatives
When my wife got the Hyundai, the decision was between a Gen 7 Celica 140bhp, or the Hyundai. Celica’s were above her budget, and the engine oil usage issue put me off.
But she didn’t consider a lot of other credible cars, e.g. 3 series, golfs/leons/A3, Civics, as she liked the look of the coupe and wasn’t into hatch backs or BMWs.
To try and summarise, I don’t want this to be a “buy a Toyota” post at all.
Hopefully, it is a “buy a Hyundai coupe as long as you don’t really like driving, but just want a pretty box to sit in”
But I would go for a test drive in a SIII, and see if the handling / engine issues were resolved in the SIII face lift.
hth
Ian
Gen 7 140bhp Celica only suffer oil issues on pre-03 plate.My wife has a Mk3 coupe - the one before this face lift (2002-2006) in Samba red.
Disclaimer: I’m working on the assumption that the SIII facelift is just that, as there appears to be very little mechanical change in suspension components between the SIII and the Mk3 Coupe I have from what I can see on service manuals.
It is undoubtedly a very good looking car, and inside is well kitted out (if 1.6 avoided).
But
That’s where the good stuff ends.
In my opinion it is a very poor car to drive, for the following reasons:
1. The engine has no appreciable power band - it’s awful everywhere. It doesn’t rev sweetly, but gets slowly to the redline sounding tortured. The exhaust note is rough, with no nice rasp you’d expect from an IL4. Overtaking is an ordeal.
2. The version we have is 135bhp- but can barely return 35mpg, even on a motorway run. That’s a very poor bhp/mpg compromise for a modern-ish 2.0 16v IMO. It’s faster than shopping cars, but is nowhere near hot hatch territory.
3. The suspension – just shocking. Lots of reviews (e.g. HJ) called it harsh and crashy. But surely that’s a sports car all the coupe forums splutter. No – sports cars can be firm and still suspend the car without every shock going into your back. Yes, there’s very little body roll, but it really does feel like the springs and shocks were badly matched for the weight of the car, with it seeking out pot holes to crash into (this car’s suspension was tuned by Porsche too!)
4. Steering – the wheel is too big, and the PS is over-light
5. Brakes – fine, but over-servo’d
The engines I’m comparing it to are the ones I’ve had direct experience of in Toyota’s
1.8 7AFE in my wife’s’ earlier gen 6 Celica ST- miles better. Better handling (just as good in corners, but you could go over a speed hump without wincing). Far more economical (40mpg) and just as fast (car was a lot lighter) even though it had the lean burn economy head rather than the GE fast one. Comfier inside, but not as stylish (outside or in)
1.8 1ZZFE in my 1.8 avensis. This engine is much more eager to rev, it’s got a nice exhaust note when doing so, just as fast if you engage “VVT” (yo) and more economical too. This engine was rebuilt under warranty for the poor design of early piston oil drain holes (same as Mk3 MR2 and others sharing the 140bhp engine)
2.0 3SGTE in my old MR2 – OK, the engine is a different kettle of fish here – no comparison, but the MR2 did have far sportier handling – you could flick it around, it stayed level in corners, was engaging and fed back well, and in comfort terms was about half way between the coupe and Celica. And the Mk2 MR2 wasn’t even well regarded for its handling. The brakes and steering were really well weighted and progressive too – 100x nicer to drive.
To be fair to the Hyundai:
The gear change is really slick.
It’s much more modern and stylish to be in than the Toyota’s I’ve mentioned
The boot and access to rear seats is no worse than other coupes.
It’s fairly well put together, although I’ve found rot on the inside of rear wings (probably caused by condensation), and have had to strip the sub frames to metal and re-paint they were so rusty.
Hyundai just did a recall on our 9 year old car to spray some waxoyl on the brake lines and subframe as they’ve obviously spotted this flaw.
Alternatives
When my wife got the Hyundai, the decision was between a Gen 7 Celica 140bhp, or the Hyundai. Celica’s were above her budget, and the engine oil usage issue put me off.
But she didn’t consider a lot of other credible cars, e.g. 3 series, golfs/leons/A3, Civics, as she liked the look of the coupe and wasn’t into hatch backs or BMWs.
To try and summarise, I don’t want this to be a “buy a Toyota” post at all.
Hopefully, it is a “buy a Hyundai coupe as long as you don’t really like driving, but just want a pretty box to sit in”
But I would go for a test drive in a SIII, and see if the handling / engine issues were resolved in the SIII face lift.
hth
Ian
I test drove both Celica and Hyundai.
Celica easily won out as it has better handling, steering and therefore more rewarding to drive.
Thanks for the comments.
The car will probably do 4000 miles tops per annum, for UK holidays and the gatwick/heathrow holiday run, as we'll use the hack for all the local shopping stuff that were using the Smart for now, I know I will miss the BMW's power, hopefully I wont be too bothered.
The car will probably do 4000 miles tops per annum, for UK holidays and the gatwick/heathrow holiday run, as we'll use the hack for all the local shopping stuff that were using the Smart for now, I know I will miss the BMW's power, hopefully I wont be too bothered.
Absolutely awful. When I was just getting into cars I considered buying one as it looked sporty and was cheap to insure. (always the most important things when you're young!).
When my mate with an M3 showed me around them I quickly realised what a load of crap they are. Absolutely dreadful. If you must have something like that, get a later Toyota Celica. Still naff but much better than the Hyundai.
If you're into good cars, get a Celica GT4!
When my mate with an M3 showed me around them I quickly realised what a load of crap they are. Absolutely dreadful. If you must have something like that, get a later Toyota Celica. Still naff but much better than the Hyundai.
If you're into good cars, get a Celica GT4!
Baron, sorry but that is just crap, you`ve looked around one, but never driven one judging by your post. I agree they are never going to set the world alight, but were never meant to.
What exactly makes them awful, mines never let me down, has been ultra reliable and has as ive said in 7 years has had an electric window motor go, end of.
What exactly makes them awful, mines never let me down, has been ultra reliable and has as ive said in 7 years has had an electric window motor go, end of.
dowahdiddyman said:
Baron, sorry but that is just crap, you`ve looked around one, but never driven one judging by your post. I agree they are never going to set the world alight, but were never meant to.
What exactly makes them awful, mines never let me down, has been ultra reliable and has as ive said in 7 years has had an electric window motor go, end of.
I agree.What exactly makes them awful, mines never let me down, has been ultra reliable and has as ive said in 7 years has had an electric window motor go, end of.
Always better to take advice (good or bad) from someone who has actually owned one and lived with a car from day to day for a year or two.
My brother in-law had the 1.6, obviously underpowered and very cramped in the rear, I was forever smashing my head off the roof, but very reliable nothing went wrong in 4 years of ownership, very reliable as an a to b car with decent looks thrown in, obviously anyone buying isn't going to expect the best handling car in its class, but shock horror some people just want a reasonably nice looking car that can get them too their destination.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff