Ask the Car People.SM


Hyundi Azera Reviews

45 messages,  Last post on Mar 18, 2009 at 6:01 AM

You are in the Hyundai Azera Forum.

What is this discussion about? Hyundai Azera, Sedan

Messages Page 2 of 5

#6 of 45 Re: Consumer Reports [floridabob1] by backy

Jun 30, 2006 (5:40 pm)

Replying to: floridabob1 (Jun 30, 2006 3:06 pm)
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.

#7 of 45 Re: Consumer Reports [backy] by ricwhite

Jun 30, 2006 (5:49 pm)

Replying to: backy (Jun 30, 2006 2:00 pm)

 
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.

#8 of 45 Re: Consumer Reports [ricwhite] by backy

Jun 30, 2006 (8:33 pm)

Replying to: ricwhite (Jun 30, 2006 5:49 pm)
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.

#9 of 45 For God's sake, Ric, let it go. by tonycd

Jun 30, 2006 (8:42 pm)

Replying to: ricwhite (Jun 30, 2006 5:49 pm)
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"?

#10 of 45 Re: For God's sake, Ric, let it go. [tonycd] by ricwhite

Jun 30, 2006 (10:58 pm)

Replying to: tonycd (Jun 30, 2006 8:42 pm)

 
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. 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.

#11 of 45 Re: For God's sake, Ric, let it go. [ricwhite] by floridabob1

Jul 01, 2006 (6:15 am)

Replying to: ricwhite (Jun 30, 2006 10:58 pm)
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?

#12 of 45 "Structural Changes" in April? by ratledge

Jul 01, 2006 (6:25 am)

Replying to: floridabob1 (Jul 01, 2006 6:15 am)
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.

#13 of 45 Re: For God's sake, Ric, let it go. [ricwhite] by backy

Jul 01, 2006 (7:00 am)

Replying to: ricwhite (Jun 30, 2006 10:58 pm)
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?

#14 of 45 Re: For God's sake, Ric, let it go. [backy] by ratledge

Jul 01, 2006 (7:48 am)

Replying to: backy (Jul 01, 2006 7:00 am)
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.

#15 of 45 Re: For God's sake, Ric, let it go. [ratledge] by backy

Jul 01, 2006 (8:00 am)

Replying to: ratledge (Jul 01, 2006 7:48 am)
That is my impression of what Rick thinks of his Azera. If I am wrong about that I know he will correct me.

Messages Page 2 of 5

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement