Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Hyundi Azera Reviews

floridabob1floridabob1 Posts: 1,190
edited April 18 in Hyundai
I have viewed the new issue of Consumers Report. Although they gave it an OK review, they were unhappy with the fuel consumption, and they were basing it on 19 MPG City, which as all owners are aware, is not at all near achievable.
The car was not on their "recommended or buy" list.
«1

Comments

  • sundevilssundevils Posts: 100
    New cars (first model year) are very rarely on the recommended list. A brand needs to earn the respect over many years before Consumer Reports will put a new car on its recommended list. Hyundai doesn't yet get that respect.

    With respect to the cars it is compared against where does it rate?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    That is inaccurate. All the Azera needs to do to get on CR's Recommended list is do OK in its tests, score at least "Average" in predicted reliability based on the CR survey, and get decent crash test scores (which it has). So assuming the car scored at least "Good" in CR's tests and proves fairly reliable, it should show up on the Recommended list no later than next April.
  • floridabob1floridabob1 Posts: 1,190
    It was rated against the Avalon( new model) and the Lucern (new model). The Avalon, which is what Azera was designed to compete againt was recommended. I believe that the Lucern was also recommended.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    The Lucerne was not recommended. In fact it scored very low, just above the Kia Amanti overall in the Large Sedans group. The Azera is second now in that group, behind the Avalon XLS (89 to 83).

    This is strange, though. The Azera was tested against the Accord EX V6, Lucerne CXL V6, and three Camrys (XLE V6, Hybrid, and LE I4). Of the test group, the Azera had the quickest acceleration, fastest speed through the emergency avoidance maneuver, shortest braking, and most standard safety equipment. It also took first or tied for first in routine handling, ride, noise, driving position, front-seat comfort, rear seat comfort, access, controls and displays, interior fit and finish, and trunk. Oh, and the review raved about the Azera's roomy and luxurious interior. The only major negative noted by CR was the fuel economy, which was 19 mpg overall (12 city, 29 highway observed). But note the Azera was the 2nd heaviest car in the test, 10 pounds less than the Lucerne, which tied the Azera with 19 mpg overall yet was much slower. The other cars were in a smaller size class and much lighter.

    With all that, the Azera racked up only 83 points to the Accord's 89 points and Camry V6's 87 points. I guess CR puts a lot of importance on fuel economy. :P
  • ricwhitericwhite Posts: 292
    image

    and get decent crash test scores (which it has).

    ----------

    Having the worst frontal crash test scores of any 2006 passenger car in any class (NHTSA)is not a "decent" score. Side crash score is "acceptable" but not good (IIHS). Way below expectations on frontal crash and slightly below expectations on side impact.

    So, I disagree with that assessment.

    That's the only disappointment I have in the Azera right now. Even gas mileage is okay for me. It's about 2-3 mpg below that of my previous Passat, but the Azera is MUCH more car. I agree with everything else you said. Great car! Best I've owned.

    However, if I were working for CR, I would not recommend the car until it can perform a 5 star frontal and a "good" on side impact -- which I believe they are working VERY hard to do. I would expect it in 2007.

    Yep, next April, I would not be surprised to see the Azera on a "recommended" list.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    By "decent" I mean "Good" IIHS frontal rating and "Acceptable" IIHS side rating. If it had a "Good" IIHS side rating also I would have said "excellent crash test scores". The opposite of "decent" is "indecent." I disagree that Good + Acceptable IIHS crash test scores are indecent. Below expectations perhaps, but not indecent.

    CR has different standards than you do. As long as a car doesn't have "poor" crash test ratings, in any category, it will recommend it if its other criteria are met. Have you taken your disagreement up with them?

    What specifically is Hyundai working very hard on, with the Azera's crash protection?

    P.S. Did you notice the all-new 2006 Rabbit just got awarded dual four stars from the NHTSA for frontal crashes? Those can't be compared directly with the Azera's scores, but it shows the Azera isn't the only new car model with those kind of scores.
  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    Not that we'd know from the past six pages of posts that you were carrying a grudge over the Azera's crash test scores, but...

    Let's cover this well-worn path again (sigh).

    1) The "worst" frontal score, while certainly not commendable, is misleading in that the NHSTA has NOT run frontal crash tests at all on the vast, vast majority of all 2006 models.

    2) The "Acceptable" side score, for those unfamiliar with NHSTA's lexicon, is in fact a well above-average score in that test.

    3) The "expectations" that the car was "slightly below" in the side impact test were yours, based on your extrapolation of a single sentence of advertising hype in Hyundai's glossy brochure.

    4) Unmentioned by you, at least one independent article has singled out the Azera by name for praise of its side-impact performance, while naming another model as worst for structural crashworthiness in large-car class.

    To repeat myself once more, I neither work for Hyundai nor own a Hyundai. I merely like fairness.

    How about from now on, you just say "refer to my previous tirades on pages 136 through 140"? :cry:
  • ricwhitericwhite Posts: 292
    image

    Not that we'd know from the past six pages of posts that you were carrying a grudge over the Azera's crash test scores.

    How about from now on, you just say "refer to my previous tirades on pages 136 through 140"?


    ----------

    I'm not being disrespectful. Let's not go on about "grudges and tirades". I'm just pointing out that I don't interpret the crash data for the Azera as as "good" and that I'm disappointed with the results. Hey, I OWN an Azera. Love it! I have a vested interest in this car.

    I don't know what the "Ric, let it go" statement is supposed to mean. Someone posts that the Azera has good crash test results and I express an opposing view and suddenly I get "let it go," statements. :confuse: I think I can express an opposing view. You certainly don't have to agree with it.

    I'm not the only one that thinks the Azera's results are disappointing. Even Consumer Reports which stated about the side impact tests:

    The Buick Lucerne and Hyundai Azera did a little better, scoring Adequate overall--still a disappointing result for brand-new designs.

    The "below expectations" notion came from Hyundai themselves, not just me. They predicted the highest scores in both NHTSA front and side tests and, no, not from a single sentence of "advertising hype in Hyundai's glossy brochure" but from an actual press release.

    Link to Hyundai Press release

    Obviously if the Azera's crash data was not "below expectations" then why would Hyundai make "mid-year" structural changes to the roof and floor beams and also improve the air bag systems? It's unusual to make mid-year modifications such as those unless there's a compelling reason.

    IIHS - Azera Safety Upgrades in April

    "If the Toyotal Avalon can do it than we can do it better," should be the attitude of Hyundai and I'm sure it is. They will not settle for anything less than the highest scores for frontal and side tests from the NHTSA . . . And so it should be!

    I'm confident that this will be addressed and improved.

    But I respect your opinion. We can certainly "agree to disagree" on the interpretation of the crash data. :)
  • floridabob1floridabob1 Posts: 1,190
    As i posted on an earlier date neither Hyundai US or IIHS would not confirm any structural changes made on the Azera in April. When I called IIHS and inquired about their posting they could not confirm where they received that information.
    Does anyone have confirmation that these revisions were made? If so, what is the source of that information?
  • ratledgeratledge Charleston county, South CarolinaPosts: 233
    I don't think anyone can confirm that, and I seriously doubt a manufacturer would do anything other than specially prepare a car for the IIHS tests that late in the product year. Heck, they started making '07 models not too long after that point - they certainly didn't want to be liable for upgrading everybody with an '06!

    Frankly - I don't trust the insurance companies to test the darned cars anyway: their only purpose is to 'adjust' the price of the product they sell - believe me (speaking as the son of an ex-Allstate agent that put in 38 years)... How many times have you seen rates go down because a car got a better than average rating (the answer is 'never', by the way)? It certainly works the other way - prices are higher once the IIHS rates a car 'poor' every time.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    Someone posts that the Azera has good crash test results...

    I don't know who did that, but it wasn't me so I hope you weren't putting words in my mouth. I chose the word "decent" very carefully. It is in the ballpark of "adequate". "Good" is on a higher step. For example, the IIHS' top rating is "Good". Their next best rating is "Acceptable". A combination of Good and Acceptable is in my mind "decent."

    Have you checked with Hyundai to see if they will release you from the lease on your deathtrap early, maybe based on misleading advertising that set certain expectations in your mind?
  • ratledgeratledge Charleston county, South CarolinaPosts: 233
    Have you checked with Hyundai to see if they will release you from the lease on your deathtrap

    There you go again... Come on, give it up! Decent hardly equals deathtrap, either.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    That is my impression of what Rick thinks of his Azera. If I am wrong about that I know he will correct me.
  • jprybajpryba Posts: 201
    "Only" 83 points? That's still a really good score! Remember that CR's rating system isn't like the grades you would get in high school or college. If CR rates a vehicle between 40 to 60 points, for example, it's "good", not a failure. 83 points for the Azera is in the "excellent" range.

    I am curious how much better the Azera would have done if the fuel economy was better. I don't think it would beat the Avalon, but it would probably be 2 or 3 points closer at least...

    I was at a local Hyundai dealership this morning getting my Sonata serviced, and the salesman I talked to had already read the latest issue of CR. He was definitely excited about the Azera being "second place" to the Avalon, that's for sure. I'm just not sure how happy the Buick salesmen down the street were, though... ;)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    I agree that 83 points is an excellent score. I said "only" because the car seemed to score quite well in the tests (as I noted) compared to cars that scored higher, the Accord and Camry. The only difference I can see for why the Accord would rack up 89 points and the Azera 83 is fuel economy. Although the Accord was knocked for a noisy ride, which it definitely has (along with feeling every little bump in the road).

    Maybe Hyundai can work on the Azera's fuel economy in the future. For instance, they have improved the FE of the 2007 Elantra by 4 mpg, using the same engine as for 2006.
  • ricwhitericwhite Posts: 292
    image

    I agree that 83 points is an excellent score. I said "only" because the car seemed to score quite well in the tests (as I noted) compared to cars that scored higher, the Accord and Camry. The only difference I can see for why the Accord would rack up 89 points and the Azera 83 is fuel economy.

    ----------

    I haven't seen the Consumer's Report article yet, but it appears that the 83 is a tad low to me. I've looked at Camry's, Accords, Avalons, TLs, 325is, etc, and I think the Azera is heads above them in almost all cateogries.

    I also take exception to their fuel economy report. 12 city?? Come on. I drive 70-80% city and get about 19. When I go full city driving, I'm around 16. Last tank was 20.4 mpg.

    However, I DO believe they can squeeze more efficiency out of the engine. The Avalon, for example, has more horsepower (slightly) and is faster (slightly) and, yet, gets about 15% better gas mileage than the Azera. Can be done.

    My assessment is that the Azera is easily better than the Accord or Camry and about even with the Avalon. Factoring in price, it's better than the Avalon. It also has better styling than the Avalon (IMO).

    I only have one complaint about the Azera, which I will not mention at this time in order to be peacemaking. :)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    CR ranks the TL just above the Avalon, with 90 points. Yet they knocked the TL for turning circle, lack of a folding rear seat, and premium fuel. The TL did get 23 mpg overall in their tests however. They rank the Azera above the ES330, 325i, A4, etc.

    Actually, CR agrees with you that the Azera is better than (or at least as good as) the Accord and Camry in almost all categories. But the point totals say something else. The only areas in which the Accord was rated higher than the Sonata were transmission (strange since they knocked the tranny on the Accord but said nothing about the Azera's), emergency handling (even though the Sonata went through the avoidance maneuver faster than the Accord), and fuel economy. The Azera did better in acceleration, braking, avoidance maneuver, rear-seat comfort, and interior fit and finish.

    For the Camry V6, it outscored the Azera only in fuel economy and transmission (six-speed vs. five-speed). The Azera did better in acceleration, avoidance manuever, braking, driving position, front-seat comfort, rear-seat comfort, controls and displays, and interior fit and finish. Yet the Camry V6 also out-pointed the Azera overall. Kind of strange, isn't it?
  • ricwhitericwhite Posts: 292
    image

    For the Camry V6, it outscored the Azera only in fuel economy and transmission (six-speed vs. five-speed). The Azera did better in acceleration, avoidance manuever, braking, driving position, front-seat comfort, rear-seat comfort, controls and displays, and interior fit and finish. Yet the Camry V6 also out-pointed the Azera overall. Kind of strange, isn't it?

    I just read the article. I thought I was missing something because it never showed how the points are calculated and weighted. I was looking for a summary page of how they got to the "83 points" for the Azera. Nothing.

    It would certainly be helpful for them to indicate how the "points" are determined. Is it objective? . . . or subjective in some areas? Don't know. A little fishy if you ask me.

    BTW, I noticed that the VW Passat was rated high on their list with 89 points. I drove a Passat up until 3 months ago (which I traded in for the Azera). I also test drove a new 4-motion Passat on the same week as I test drove an Azera (back in March). No contest. The Azera was HEADS above the Passat.

    Plus the Passat I owned had reliability problems. I got tired of zip-tying the skid plate up all the time, and, instead, just ripped it off. Speakers kept shorting out. I was told the frame was bent and they couldn't align the wheels. Needed premium fuel. Engine hesitated. Etc.

    Hmm . . .
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,728
    That explains why CR doesn't recommend the Passat (yet)--not a good reliability record for past generations.

    I don't recall CR ever explaining how they come up with their point totals.
  • ratledgeratledge Charleston county, South CarolinaPosts: 233
    I've always wondered exactly where they get those numbers from, because I also read it today, and found that the totals just don't line up with the written comparisons and in line with each category one-to-one.

    Methinks there's some black magic involved, maybe? In general, they usually seem to come out where you think they should when you read the written analysis, but this one certainly does look a bit skewed, to say the least!
  • It is all about money under the table. CR is the biggest joke, and I do not understand why anyone trusts them. At one time they may have been trustworthy, but I bought alot of stuff they recommended and it was pure junk. Got the middle of the line that they rated at it worked great. :mad:
  • Just a note - CR does not recommend a car until it has at least an "Average" reliability history. Therefore they usually do not "recommend" brand-new, first-year models because of this requirement. They do sometimes recommend new models that have a fairly solid history of at least "Average" reliability. i.e. a new model of the Honda Accord or the Toyota Camry.
  • azera weights about 140lbs more than avalon. azera has thicker body than jappanies cars. that explains why it comsumes more, but mine has averagy about 28mpp. i drive mostly freeway tho. still not bad..
  • akoni1akoni1 Posts: 35
    The April 07 issue of CR recommends the Azera. It gives the Azera a rating of 83 compared to the Avalon which has a rating of 89. But CR faults the Azera only on fuel economy while the Avalon is faulted on agility, steering and brake feel.The bottom line is that CT recommends the Azera.
  • oskidunker1oskidunker1 Posts: 213
    Ok, I am the Audi guy who has driven nothing but Audi's for the last 20 years,mainly A6 type cars.I drove the car from Burlingame to Lake Tahoe and I am overall very impressed with the car. Got the limited XM with Ultimate pak.White with Tan inside.2007.

    I like this car better than my A6 in most cases.Suspension is fine, power very good.Front leg room better. My leg bangs the console in the A6 and I have been having leg pain for the past few years because I can mot get my right leg straight in the Audi. The Azera allows me to move my leg around and get it fairly straight. Leg pain is almost gone, definetly much improved. Cruise control much easier to use. Love the lock on the ventilation so I don't have to adjust two controls.Cup holders in a better place.More head room.Seat seems more comfortable.Azera is quieter.Less wind noise and less tire noise(had all weather in the Audi)

    What I don't like are the radio controls. Unable to read during the day with sunglasses on. Any ideas?Don't like the green backround but as CAL BEAR fan am overjoyed that there is no RED display.

    Trunk opens easier and seems bigger.This car seems to have almost everything the A6 has except a radio display near the trip computer and , of course, the four wheel drive. I am ,in fact, amazed.If the new A6 didn't cost $55,000 simolrly equiped, I probably would not have even looked at The Azera!

    The rental agency told me they are selling their Azeras in a few months. What would be a good price for this car with 8,000 miles on it and some very minor dings in the bumper.BTW, no front end clunk
  • gamlegedgamleged Posts: 442
    They were selling leftover 2006s for around $23k after the 2007s were released, so I'd hazard that a used 2007 rental unit ought to be available for around $19k or under, when the 2008 is out...
  • dborthdborth Posts: 474
    RE # 2 of 2: "when the 2008 is out..."

    What 2008? The Klowns in Korea have shifted gears to Genesis. Think upgrade, upgrade and more product upgrade. What product line needs a full size FWD 6 sitting next to a RWD 6 & 8?

    Too bad they won't address their biggest problem in the US market, their sleezy dealer network.
  • cobrazeracobrazera Posts: 352
    I just heard from a Hyundai dealer source that the Genesis has been pushed back up to a year due to development problems, so for the time being, Azera is still the top of the line.
  • gamlegedgamleged Posts: 442
    A Korean poster here has mentioned that the new models will be out in Korea for a year or so before US introduction, allowing the Korean buyers the "opportunity" to find problems so the foreign customers don't have to... for the most part... :shades:
«1
This discussion has been closed.