Hyundai Azera 2006

backy · June 2006

The recall of 1970 V6 Sonatas on the ESC was due to a programming error, not a mechanical problem.

ray_h1 · June 2006

A difference without a distinction if anyone was injured or killed due to the problem.

backy · June 2006

The question was, who manufactured the Sonata's ESC? The more important question is, who programmed the ESC?

Have there been any recalls for the Azera's ESC? Actually, have there been any recalls on the Azera at all?

averigejoe · June 2006

Interesting viewpoint. Why do you think it is true?
Just curious, can you cite case law or statutes that support your claim? I'm asking about a products liability/strict liability theory, not a negligence case.
And I'm not saying it has to be 147 mph on 125 mph tires either. It could be 99 mph on 81 mph tires, or some other set of numbers. Same principle, right?
A manufacturer could foresee that a driver might test the top speed of his car even in violation of the speed limits. Foreseeability is an important consideration.

m1miata · June 2006

So basically Hyundai screwed up. I guess those whiz-bang new tech items are for the better. That is unless it screws up and causes an accident. I have never owned a car with most of the this new stuff. I did have the anti-lock brakes on an Achieva and they were horrible. When completely stopped the back end would do a skip and a jump action. Had brakes adjusted and only to have it out of whack in about another few thousand miles. All these items included in the Hyundai line is amazing. The safety rating is excellent. Hyundai, Honda, Toyota, Subaru and Buick on on my list of cars to try out. Not many choices for sporty cars. I guess if the seats are comfortable for longer drives, the Tiburon is one to consider. Not too good of gas mileage though in the V6 model, and the 4 banger looks like it is not much HP.

Did sit in the Azera, and it looked pretty classy. Has a little more style to it than does the Sonata, I guess. Fairly close. The seats in feel better. Do wonder why the crash test score is not as good as the Sonata. Pretty close though. The 168HP is impressive. If they discount the base Azera near the end of the year, I may consider one. Or maybe wait another year. A Sonata Coupe would be kinda neat too. OR how about an Azera Coupe in bright red. :shades:
-Loren

backy · June 2006

Hey, and 263 hp is even more impressive!

m1miata · June 2006

Hey, thanks, I did do a typo. Got the HP way off. Thanks for catching that. The Azera is looking pretty good, as is the Sonata to me. If the Hyundais are as reliable as the Honda, and Toyotas of the World are, then they are indeed one heck of a value. Life is always a gamble I guess, and at least the Hyundai has a warranty. Was looking at Buicks and they have a four year now, which is better, but still not as good a warranty. Their old 3.8 V6 has been one pretty reliable old gal, but we are talking 197HP compared to 263. It won't match the Sonatas HP. That said, fairly good torque, and history behind it. Hyundai engines are brand new, which may be a good thing. Good to see Hyundai is on the move and not stuck in the 80's for technology. Hope it is reliable long term. To get anything close in Honda or Toyota say, we are talking thousands more. I guess thousands, even considering retained value. May narrow though give that as a consideration.
-Loren

snakeweasel · June 2006

Why do you think it is true?

Case law where manufacturers have successfully defended against liability when the product was used in unsafe manners.

jim101 · June 2006

Finally....

averigejoe · June 2006

Snakeweasel (love that name) thanks for your response.

The cases you refer to (without actually citing any) are probably those in which plaintiffs misused the product in a way that was different from the products intended use, e.g., using an ice pick to clean a child's ears. And I can find cases like that too. (If I am wrong about that, give me the actual citations, ok?)

But car tires are intended to be used to carry a car down the highway, so there was no misuse of that sort in my example.

I grant you that different states may treat product/strict liability cases differently, and I do realize court cases are all over the map when it comes to how much an award may be reduced for fault attributed to a plaintiff, but in my example, the winning argument would start out something like this: But for the defect, which defect is tires under-rated for the car's foreseeable attainable speed, the accident never would have happened. It was not plaintiff's speed which caused the blowout, but rather a tire which was not safe at the high speeds the car was designed to reach. That inadequate tire choice which caused the unreasonable risk of injury was the manufacturer's choice.
The risk was unreasonable because for just a little more expense on the part of that manufacturer, it could have eliminated that risk by choosing an adequately rated tire for speeds the vehicle was capable of attaining, or by having installed a speed governor on the car to keep it within the safety speed range of the selected tires.

It is well established in most states that a plaintiff's mere failure to discover or guard against a product defect does not support a finding of fault against him.
Refer to Restatement of the Law, Torts, 2nd or 3rd, since I am finished trying to explain it.

Anyway, thanks for your viewpoint. If you can cite a real case with facts similar to my example, let me know.

Peace, out.

snakeweasel · June 2006

The cases I know about come from when I worked in the insurance field, Since this was all knowledge through the actual files. Since I don't have those files at my disposal I can only cite from memory which would not be the best way to do it. I guess I could see if I could do a web search for them.

But it boils down to the fact that the user of an item has to operate said item reasonably and prudently.

the winning argument would start out something like this: But for the defect, which defect is tires under-rated for the car's foreseeable attainable speed, the accident never would have happened. It was not plaintiff's speed which caused the blowout, but rather a tire which was not safe at the high speeds the car was designed to reach. That inadequate tire choice which caused the unreasonable risk of injury was the manufacturer's choice.

To which the winning argument would be "Your Honor The car was being driven at speed at which the car was never truly designed for. Regardless of what the vehicle can acheive it is the responsibility of the driver to drive in a safe and prudent manner. The tires placed on the car were more than adequate for speeds in excess of any reasonable and prudent speed that said vehicle would be expected to be driven. This accident was not the fault of the tires but of the driver driving in a very irresponsible and reckless manner without regards to the safety of himself and others."

It is well established in most states that a plaintiff's mere failure to discover or guard against a product defect does not support a finding of fault against him.

But this is not an issue of a product defect, if it was I would agree with you. But we are talking about a product built and outfitted to be more than adequate for reasonable and prudent use. Driving at 135MPH in a Sonata is not reasonable nor is it prudent.

BTW the name is an old nickname I got back when I was just grass high to a kneehopper. It was said that I was as slippery as a snake and could weasel my way out of just about anything.

windycity7 · June 2006

has anyone noticed the anti humdified (humidifer) control vent to the right of the temperature control panel? Manual says it turns on the air when the humidity is high, but it does not tell how to turn it off. My car vent seemed to be cooler than outside even with the auto temp control and the A/C buttons off. Under the car was water condensation which seems to indicate the A/C was on.

Anyone else notice? Any way to see if A/C is on even without the A/C button pressed?

ray_h1 · June 2006

"Any way to see if A/C is on even without the A/C button pressed?"

Pop the hood while the engine's idling and watch the A/C compressor. If the inner hub of the compressor's drive pulley electric clutch is rotating, the compressor's operating.

ray_h1 · June 2006

"The more important question is, who programmed the ESC?"

Hyundai, not the individual programmer(s), would ultimately be held accountable through a recall and/or product liability litigation for damage awards in the event of injuries or deaths. Contingency lawyers follow the money trail in deciding whom to name as defendants. If the NHTSA orders a recall, it names the automaker, not one of the automaker's specialized component suppliers or programmers. Again, a difference without a distinction when considering the source of an anomolously functioning device.

jim101 · June 2006

Quit, enough, too much, not applicable, lets get off the tire blog, no point, no benefit and has nothing to do with the AZERA.

Thank you in advance.

averigejoe · June 2006

Snakeweasel, I now understand your opinion by zeroing in on your statement, "But this is not an issue of a product defect, if it was I would agree with you."

Whether or not the under-rated tires would make the car into a design defective product is, of course, central to the entire case. But that is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury, it would not be decided by summary judgment.

Your opinion is that a jury would not find such a car defective in design.

My opinion is that it would be found defective in design.
Here's why:

The Restatement (Third) of Torts, section 2, provides:
"A product: (b) is defective in design when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or even avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller or other distributor, or a predecessor in the commercial chain of distribution, and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe."

A jury instruction reflecting that test would no doubt be given to guide in the determination of whether the car was defective.

And here, an easy fix was available: The risk was unreasonable because for just a little more expense on the part of that manufacturer, it could have eliminated that risk by choosing an adequately rated tire for speeds the vehicle was capable of attaining, or by having installed a speed governor on the car to keep it within the safety speed range of the selected tires.

What you fail to realize is that whether the product is defective in design does not hinge on how an eventual consumer uses it.
It hinges on whether that foreseeable risk of harm could have easily and inexpensively been reduced or eliminated by an alternative design. (Surely you would not argue that the car manufacturer should not have anticipated that their cars would sometime be driven at top speed, right? For instance, during a road test conducted on a race track by a car magazine? Manufacturers test their own cars and they know their cars will be tested by others too. Or, hahaha, maybe you think the car manufacturer had decided to set a deadly trap for their own and other car testers or anyone else exceeding the speed rating of the tires on their cars? Would that be reasonably safe? Seems ridiculous to me that a manufacturer would do that.)

And here, that foreseeable risk could have been reduced easily and inexpensively. So, the car would be found defective in design.

Granted, in some states, if a degree of injury causing fault was found on the part of the plaintiff, it might be considered in apportioning damages and might reduce the dollar amount received by a plaintiff. But damages apportionment is an entirely different issue having nothing to do with whether the product had a design defect.

Bottom line: Any comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff would not be considered in the determination of whether the product had a design defect. And, that being the case, I see that you do (maybe reluctantly) agree with me after all.

That's probably about as clear as I can make it.

Send me the cites for those cases if you ever find them. (and how old are those cases anyway? The Restatement, Third, was promulgated in 1998.)

Thanks.

m1miata · June 2006

Anyone like Hyundai to produce a Coupe version?
-Loren

averigejoe · June 2006

Nah!

cookoo · June 2006

I have a same problem too. I understand it contols everything automatically when 'auto temp control' button is on but I don't get it how I can control temp related settings manually. I don't like cold air and want to cool down naturally using outside air but sometimes A/C is on by itself(A/C button LED stays off) and make it impossible. I just can't understand the Temp. control logic in this car. Anyone can clarify this confusion? :confuse:

snakeweasel · June 2006

I'll tell you what, I am seeing my Lawyer tomorrow and will ask him.

snakeweasel · June 2006

An Azera Coupe? Off hand I would say no, but I would reserve that until I saw one (or at least a rendering of one).

mechanic80 · June 2006

What has worked for me to turn off the compressor and supply outside air: from AUTO on, press the A/C button. The A/C light will come on and the AUTO light goes off. Press A/C again and neither light will be on and the compressor is off. I believe you can change the mode at this point without reactivating the compressor unless you call for defog which will automatically use the A/C.

averigejoe · June 2006

m1miata, I think I like the same movies you do. Dirty Harry, First Blood, Terminator, etc.

And I bet you have already answered your own question after reading my previous posts. But, just in case you are still wondering, here goes:

If you drive your car at 70 mph into a turn, that because of physics, can only reasonably be entered at speeds of 30 mph or less, then you are probably wasting your time talking to a lawyer since he's not going to present your case in a lawsuit against your car's manufacturer for making a defective car.

But, for example, if you could point to other cars with similar ESC systems that would have kept you safe at 70 mph in that 30 mph curve, then maybe you could make the case that your car's ESC was defective, and/or if you can show that the average consumer was lead by the manufacturer to believe that the car would definitely protect him during that type of driving behavior then maybe you'd have a chance.

In tort law there is an idea called the but for test. In short, if your injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence, or act or failure to act, then that defendant is a good target for a lawsuit.

In your example's set of facts, the only but for test I can imagine you presenting to the court would be something like this: "Your Honor, and distinguished jury members, I should win my case because but for my car's manufacturer not having installed an inexpensive and effective ESC system which temporarily suspends the laws of physics, notwithstanding that one has not yet been invented and which no other production car on earth now possesses, my injury would never have occurred. That being the case, you must find that the manufacturer owes me a boat-load of money, ok? Pretty please?"

Hahaha! Yeah. Go ahead and sue. Get rich. Send me 25% of the judgment, ok?

Can you discern how your case is different from under-rated tires?

chilliwack · June 2006

Azera now offering 1000. customer cash (CA). This means an Ultimate model can be had for 25,500 to 26,000 without any loyalty rebate. How low can you go? Crazy.

jim101 · June 2006

http://www.carspace.com/jim101

Take a look what time, patience and $$$ can do :shades: The more you look the more you see.

m1miata · June 2006

Then we are all doomed. There is no product safe from the use of idiots. Simply is impossible to produce a a fail-safe. This is my last post on this issue and on to.....

Here is a question for owners. Do they like the ESP or ESC or whatever it is for electronic nanny? I imagine the OFF only works per ignition switch cycle. If it is not overly aggressive, I would likely leave the nanny on. In the back of my mind though, I still have visions of strange computer driven commands sending me and my new car into a death spin. Never had a car sideways, as in really out of control, after 37 years of driving. But then again, never hit a car due to brakes locking up. Never been in a wreck on the road. I have to take it on recommendation of professional testers that this stuff all works. BTW, what happens to your eye glasses in a wreck with an air bag equipped car?
-Loren

hugobecker · June 2006

I would like the ability to switch off ESP/TSC (though I do not know - or have the secret decoder ring to completely disable ESP on the Azera).However, personally, I think they are good things for most drivers to leave on (including myself). Some of the "electronic nannies'' are not that intrusive. The early BMW M5's traction control was incredibly intrusive, the Stabilitrak (1 and now 2) on the Corvette's is wonderful (actually let the back end hang out for a fraction before intervening ; -). The Azera seems to be closer to the Stabilitrak mode, I've done a couple of hard launches in less than ideal traction and have not seen TCS intervention. I'd like to know who the supplier for the ESP/TCS system is (and if we know who makes the brakes - we may know who does those systems).

bhmr59 · June 2006

what happens to your eye glasses in a wreck with an air bag equipped car?

I was driving a rental Maxima when we were rear ended by an Explorer and pushed into an Toyota SUV, setting off the air bags and then spun into the median just south of Queen Creek Rd in Chandler, AZ on I-10. My glasses and golf cap wound up on the floor behind the passenger seat. My friend's golf hat went out the rear window and was found in the middle lane of the 3lane highway (the lane we were in when hit). His sunglasses could not be found.

joe97 · June 2006

Azera coupe is not likely but Sonata coupe is still in the works, AFAIK.

And while we are on the subject of coupes, I am really looking forward to the next-gen Hyundai Tiburon when it switches to RWD (supposedly) + 3.3 or 3.8, and I am sold

I digress...back to your regular programing

m1miata · June 2006

I noticed the rather large doors, with the little windows on the new concept sports car. While it looks great from the outside, once inside it may feel like the 350Z, or Crossfire. You feel like you are driving out of a bathtub. I think sporty or sports car is great. Owned a Stealth and a Miata, but those two had windows I could see out of, could hand an elbow out, and did not feel lost inside the car.

Ah the Azera has a pretty good roof line, which is kinda sporty, and I guess fair enough handling. Perhaps all the creature comforts, power and seating position is worth the difference between sports car and luxury fun car. If it was just a fun for the weekend, couple hour blast on the back roads, sport car is fine -- maybe a second car. The Tiburon is pretty good. I found though the door sills are high, the view out is not too bad. Feels better than other higher door cars. I may also consider the Cad. CTS used vs. Azera new. Give them a test on the same day.
-Loren

snakeweasel · June 2006

And while we are on the subject of coupes, I am really looking forward to the next-gen Hyundai Tiburon when it switches to RWD (supposedly) + 3.3 or 3.8, and I am sold

I know its off topic but any word on the convertible?

mechanic80 · June 2006

I've found the ECS to be very unobtrusive. It allows a bit of spin on off-the-line hard acceleration but reins it in quickly and smoothly. In fact, the difference in that particular situation between ECS on and ECS off is hard to notice. In wet weather (haven't had it in snow yet) the ESC is a smooth operating system IMHO. It's vastly superior to the '98 Q45 I had and as good if not better than my '01 ES300. As I have yet to get into any truly hairy driving situations, these comments are really about traction control, but I have full confidence in this car's capabilities.

P.S. I'm having the special ordered gulp valve replaced today, and I hope that's the last I see of my dealer (and that check engine light) for quite some time.

ray_h1 · June 2006

"BTW, what happens to your eye glasses in a wreck with an air bag equipped car?"

I was driving alone when my '96 Accord's airbags deployed in a head-on that totaled the car. My spectacles ended up on the floorboard in front of my seat. Like me, they were unbroken and still in adjustment. (Probably a fluke in both cases...)

roadkingtc88 · June 2006

Anybody tried relocating the drivers seat farther back than stock to get additional leg room?

shawal · June 2006

Got mine silenced by Hyundai....it took 20 mins...it's the same diner as the door, so you loos that too.

joe97 · June 2006

"I know its off topic but any word on the convertible?"

Hyundai had plans to build the convertible after the CCS concept came out, but now it is likely the 'vert would be built as the next-gen is released ('09 or '10 is my best estimate, one model year after the next gen coupe version is released).

ratledge · June 2006

This month's (July '06) issue of Consumer Reports doesn't have the promised Azera "in depth" content, but focuses on an "SUV Roundup" instead. However, in a half-page "first impressions" write-up of the '07 Camry, it signs off with "see how it stacks up against other sedans in the August issue...".

Maybe we'll finally get the full report promised for June next month? :confuse:

ratledge · June 2006

Where are you (country)?? There is no "overspeed" beep here in the US...

hugobecker · June 2006

From Automotive News:
"From the newsroom of Automotive News

Sources: Porsche, Hyundai make big gains in quality study

Porsche and Hyundai will emerge as the biggest winners Wednesday when J.D. Power and Associates releases its 2006 Initial Quality Study, industry sources say.

Porsche will vault to second overall in the study, improving from No. 32 in last year's ranking, making Porsche the top European nameplate.

Hyundai will place third, up from No. 11 in 2005. That makes the Korean automaker the top mass-market nameplate.

For the sixth year in a row, Lexus will retain the No. 1 spot.

Toyota will round out the top four, moving up three spots from No. 7last year.

The study, which measures quality after 90 days of ownership, asks owners to rate vehicle quality on 135 attributes."

sundevils · June 2006

The Consumer Reports review was never promised for the July issue. It has always been indicated as the August issue, which is distributed in July.

ratledge · June 2006

No - it was originally slated for June, but we "assumed" it would fall into July about a month ago when I got my June issue... Sorry for the (un)clarification!

m1miata · June 2006

Initial Quality Report

donboy93 · June 2006

I HATE the new cars that force me to fasten my seatbelt by constantly playing that awful chime. I generally do wear the seat belt, but I do not want my car to nag me, so I took a wire cutter and cut one of the 2 wires going into the seat belt buckle, does not matter which one, and no more chime.

ratledge · June 2006

"Behold the fastest Korean car ever". Downloading the issue to read the whole article... :surprise:

shawal · June 2006

The wonderful land of 60c/gallon fuel.....Sunny Saudi Arabia. Nigel

shawal · June 2006

From CNN.com the latest Hyundai good news....

"According to J.D. Power's survey of new vehicle owners, Porsche had 91 problems per 100 vehicles. Lexus, Toyota's luxury brand, came in a close second with 93 problems per 100 vehicles. Korea-based Hyundai ranked third with 102. The industry average was 124."

Well done Hyundai

allmet33 · June 2006

Anyone notice any issues with the dual climate control? I ask because the other day it was raining while I was driving and I had the A/C on (set at 70) and my wife was cold, so she turned her side up to 80 and there was no difference...it kept blowing out the air at 70. The only time there was a noticeable diffrence was when she turned her side all the way up to "HI", then hot air blew out while my side stayed cool.

I've got an appointment on Monday to have it looked at, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any issues with theirs.

Thanks.

jim101 · June 2006

That's one way, unplugging the connect under the driver seat is another.

sundevils · June 2006

here is the link ... http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/11168/short-take-review-2006-hyundai-- azera-se.html

shawal · June 2006

The Hyundai Tech removed a "black box" from under the dash...not seat...and shorted/isolated the speaker. After re-installing, he put on the computer to check no other systems were effected, he showed me the screen.."No Problems"...then, no ringer at 75, but also no door ringer either...same speaker.

Hyundai Azera 2006

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles