Hyundai Kona Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I realize I saved about 2 grand getting the 2.0 vs the 1.6T, but now I'm realizing how much more torque the turbo has!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
I have the 1.6T and from a full stop it accelerates ok... but at higher speeds a kickdown does just about nothing. If i wouldnt make such a great loss in money, I'd sell it in a heartbeat.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I have the 1.6T and from a full stop it accelerates ok... but at higher speeds a kickdown does just about nothing. If i wouldnt make such a great loss in money, I'd sell it in a heartbeat.
I realize I saved about 2 grand getting the 2.0 vs the 1.6T, but now I'm realizing how much more torque the turbo has!
Mahalo, Kona Ultimate here. Actually, the 1.6 has better performance specs and the acceleration to over 100 is excellent for any SUV. Torque is what moves the vehicle quicker and the 1.6T has bucket loads. (175 HP @ 195 ft lbs Torque.) . Of course these are crankshaft rated but there's a definite deference. The turbo spools quickly with very little lag at all.

As far as regret, why? You choose the naturally aspirated 2.0 for your own reasons. Enjoy what you bought and don't look back.:wink: Either way the Kona was a good choice. Got our Ultimate for $27,000 TTL out the door. I just bought a Genesis G80 Ultimate from the same dealer in February. They sold me the Kona at below invoice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
I would also have to disagree as far as the kick down or high speed pick up also the hill climb with a 1.6T. I have had more time to experience the feel of the turbo but remember this is matched with the 7 spd which can give lag due to its choice of right gear. So far this engine and turbo has shown very little lag to none. Going up several passes these past few days it picked up with out any problems also entering the freeways took nothing to get up to 60 or more.
Lag is one thing so far not to experience no lag in a STI/WRX is another question.

The 1.6T definitely needs some fine tuning , of which I am slowly looking at and light tune and replacement of the purge system to atmospheric.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
I to have the 2.0 SEL W / Tech Package and just came back from a 400-mile trip last night and what I encountered on the highway with Hills and Valleys I thought it did great ! Did 80 miles per hour 95% of the time and still got 38 miles to the gallon and got up the hills with no problems ! I'm hoping in the future though come out with a ECU upgrade that might give me a little bit more and I seen a full exhaust from Korea for the Kona for 700-plus change which I might look into !
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
Just a bit of brotherly(spiritual brother) advice from a friend; why would you want to predispose yourself to a particular regret? It's not good for the spirit or the heart. You made the choice you determined was the best for you at the time you made it, despite what anyone else tells you or says. Give it to God and go your way, you have nothing to regret.:smile:

God is Good all the time! Be thankful, it's a much better thought for the heart.

Grace, Mercy, Peace and Blessings from my heart to yours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
I have the 1.6T and from a full stop it accelerates ok... but at higher speeds a kickdown does just about nothing. If i wouldnt make such a great loss in money, I'd sell it in a heartbeat.
I don’t own a Kona YET, but I did test drive both the 2.0 and the 1.6T. I was not impressed at all with the 2.0, but I had no complaints with the 1.6t. Quite the contrary actually, as I found the acceleration more than adequate. I decided in an instant this was the car for me. I beieve it was Car&Driver that rated its 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds. That’s not slow by any means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
I to have the 2.0 SEL W / Tech Package and just came back from a 400-mile trip last night and what I encountered on the highway with Hills and Valleys I thought it did great ! Did 80 miles per hour 95% of the time and still got 38 miles to the gallon and got up the hills with no problems ! I'm hoping in the future though come out with a ECU upgrade that might give me a little bit more and I seen a full exhaust from Korea for the Kona for 700-plus change which I might look into !

80 mph 95% and 38 mpg is not possible. :surprise:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Hey now......for what little difference there is between the two point ohhh and the turbo performance wise.....turbo shmurbo.....ahhhhhhhh.....just hit the sport mode button and life is good......such little performance to compare.....so you get to the next red light quicker......wooopee doopeee......loving my two point ohhh very much......but the turbos have better wheels........but those can be purchased easily.....ENJOY IT!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Like MarKona says, the "sport" mode does make a difference on the 2.0. As I said in another thread, when test driving its worth making sure you play around with that mode on the 2.0. Really changes how it feels as the default mode is designed to maximize fuel economy. It's obviously not going to equal what the 1.6T can do, but for some of us the cost savings are important.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20 Posts
In all honesty, there is nothing wrong with choosing the 2.0l over the 1.6t. The 2.0L was my original choice, but the dealership was unable to find me the SEL with tech package, in the Thunder grey, with the dark interior anywhere in the surrounding states. I almost walked out on the deal. 2 days later they called with an alternative. The Limited model, with the 1.6lt, in Thunder grey, with the light grey leather interior for $1500 less then the SEL that i wanted. Even though it had the lighter interior, it was an option i could not pass up. They took a loss on the vehicle as far as im concerned. Personally, i think the 2.0 will be a great engine, both reliabilty and mpg. So dont fret.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
I don’t own a Kona YET, but I did test drive both the 2.0 and the 1.6T. I was not impressed at all with the 2.0, but I had no complaints with the 1.6t. Quite the contrary actually, as I found the acceleration more than adequate. I decided in an instant this was the car for me. I beieve it was Car&Driver that rated its 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds. That’s not slow by any means.

Not to poo poo the post, and it's not that big of a deal BUT, Car & Driver times are always "hot" and other magazines and other testers with the right equipment always seem to show a slower time. I would guess it is more like to 7.5+. Still good, but I think not 6.6.


Here is Hyundai's own est.


The 1.6-liter turbo makes 175 horsepower and 196 pound-feet of torque with a 7-speed dual-clutch automatic, so it should be a lot more fun. Hyundai predicts 0-60 mph times of 7.7 seconds and a top speed of 131 mph.


https://www.newcartestdrive.com/reviews/2018-hyundai-kona/


.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I note the words and comments;
Car & Driver times are always "hot" and other magazines and other testers with the right equipment always seem to show a slower time. Hyundai's own est.
Just an observation; far to many absolutes and not enough factual information to support the claim or comments.

Just a question; why not rely upon you're own acceleration test from 0-60, under your conditions instead of someone else's? You can't duplicate their testing methodology. They don't specify how it was actually conducted, under what conditions and most important, how they arrived at the their conclusions.

Try the 0-60 test yourself and report the results. It would be far more interesting, especially at your altitude. Then others could do the same and compare results. We could then come up with a more accurate general consensus and conclusion among actual Kona owners. We might all be surprised!:wink::smile: Suggest the 2.0 owners conduct the same 0-60 mph test, making comparisons amongst themselves and the 1.6T owners doing the same. Then average both 2.0 and 1.6T results.

A thread is easy to start and compile. Just be realistic and use the same standing start criteria. Simply report the temp and weather conditions (humidity), road conditions or road you utilize (presumably flat with no elevation changes), and actual standing start time from 0-60 . Taking the best of three runs. You won't be breaking the law, as it only from 0-60 on the properly designated road. You're not speeding if you are within the speed limit and certainly not drag racing or demonstrating an exhibition of speed. I will be at a disadvantage as I'm at a higher average altitude then most. I'll make due though.:wink:

What do you all think?:smile:

Blessing and Peace:smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
As a 2.0L owner, this was a main point at purchase, knew nothing about hyundia at all. All my limited knowledge of turbos was $$ to rebuild before 50k miles, probably all after market turbos ? Yes the turbo kicked it all, but coming from a toyota matrix that did 0-60 mph in about 9 seconds, that was the range of my 1960 chevy impala wagon with a 300hp 327 corvette engine in it, the better 2.0 speed was good for me. Reading now of the fuel vapors mixing with the oil some, makes me worry even more about the turbo 1.6. No real numbers to compare, just all hear say? Also how some people have gone through three turbo engines in other models before 80k miles, though the bigger turbo in tuscon and sante fa ? Senior years and a run around vehicle, no need to keep up the the jone's ! As stated, can alway kick in the sport mod for fun. Only after thought for me, is "was I ever really going to put on the miles like I use to, to worry about it"? Use to drive 30k miles a year just, to work. Now I drive half a gas tank a month ! Yes hyundia replaces engines with little argument, but really, why in the first place ? Trust in the faith, what is to be is to be ! Many times in my life I could have been dead, for foolish things done, but still here ! Same with kona,, may it be the best vehicle yet !
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top