Laugh it up. It's all fun. But still, i am serious.
Not that I'm trying to troll, but really really honestly speaking, the LF-A does not give exotic look. The build-quality and engineering is certainly is exotic, or top-notch, but that doesn't necessarily make the "appearance" of the vehicle exotic to some people... or many people (myself included). The side and rear end looks really boring.

Veloster has that exotic look. You need to check it out in person, and also see for yourself one on the road... It looks like an exotic car from the future, year 2052. The impression is about as good as the Koenigsegg CCX.

 

If you are referring to styling, the FR-S does look incredibly ugly. The front end looks very cheap econobox... The side and rear looks too plain and boring. Nothing stands out. I would avoid getting that car at all costs.

Now if you are referring strictly the performance, for that price the car is slow... I am guessing the price with some options will be well over $27k. That's overpriced. You can get a Mazdaspeed 3 with way more power. It will slaughter the FR-S from highway pulls. The review did mention low center of gravity on the FR-S, but did not find the slalom performance as well as laptimes at the road course circuits. MS3 has made a lot of establishments for the track times, which means not only faster in the straights, but faster at the tracks. It has more history. For performance, it wouldn't make sense for me to go with FR-S. I would get the MS3.

The torque on the FR-S is weak. MS3 has close to double that amount it's embarrassing.

I just can't see how FR-S has better fuel economy than the "Turbo" version Veloster. FR-S at 27 MPG highway. Turbo Veloster at 38 MPG highway. That's whopping 11 MPG difference.

And C&D generally have better 0-60 numbers on most cars. Expect good 6.5 sec 0-60 from other reviewers.


Still looks very boring for a sportscar.... the FR-S that is. The styling looks really boring and doesn't stand out, at all.


The Turbo Veloster has the upgraded suspension and steering. Didn't you read the article in the link? They were "impressed" with how well it handled in the curves in the mountain side.

 

There's more to it than handling.

lol?



Here's more about the FR-S...
That's EMBARRASSING... It uses PRIUS tires.... and they did admit it does not have good grip due to skinny tires. This ain't no sportscar.... it's "sporty" "econobox", and has very boring design.

It says due to slipperiness it gives you lively, playful feel??? not good for laptimes.

 

/thread. This and the GS/sonata thread are recent examples of horrific

Exactly

 

are you serious or are you joking? It reads as if you are trying to be funny.

If you are serious, wow.

 

Don't know what part you think I'm trying to be funny, but seriously, I find FR-S look extremely boring and looks cheap. The front is just terrible.



If you are talking performance, skinny tires can't give you good grip. You said "sportscar".... not enough grip for a sportscar, especially at the tracks. Is it fun to drive? I'm sure. That's about it, the driving fun side of it. If I get out of the car and look at the exterior.... Oh my God..... looks ugly. I would walk over to the Turbo Veloster and go emmm~~~~ Looks incredible. And the fuel economy there is no comparison. It is better by 11 MPG and has about as good handling with descent power. The power is actually pretty damn good for a 38 MPG sporty car. FR-S is 27 MPG. That is when you use the word "horrific".


btw, that FR-S side looks like a copycat of Ferrari 550 Maranello. Hyundai uses their own unique design but the Toyota and Scion are still copying other manufacturers designs...

 

 

ok, enough about the fr-s, which doesn't compete with the veloster, at all.
the fr-s is more like a cheap lotus elite. nice indeed though!