K-A

Yeah, the Genesis is more reliable on an operational level, but the reasons show through how well the car itself holds up. The current gen Genesis is a POS in terms of aging abilities. Yes, it'll work for a long time, but it starts to fall apart prematurely. Lots of reported issues there. Just sit in a used one, especially if you're acclimated to how the better German cars age, and you'll notice lots of "peeling and cracking" whether metaphorical or literal.

The way I see it, is just like its imitation therefore second-rate-of-the-original design designation, the same has held true in terms of mechanical engineering, thus far. Of course, this is comparing to the more expensive German cars, not against like-sized peers.

drsaab

The worst aging interiors were the Audi and vw. They used a black rubber on all the radios, window switches etc. I sold used cars and they had a 100% fail rate on this vinyl/rubber. Not sure how the new ones will last. The BMW had almost a 100% fail rate in the pixels in the digital odometer and message center under the speedometer etc. All makes have some bad seeds.

Arrie

My friend has a Genesis. Nice car but one day my friend sat in my car when I had to go for some business. I come back and heard the radio blast very loud.

He told me he cannot play radio that loud in his Genesis as the whole interior rattles...he likes to play it loud...

cbeck44

He should have opted for the premium 17-speaker Lexicon system standard in the R-Spec model.

DubVBenz

Where are you getting your torsional rigidity figures. I googled but can't seem to find them. My biggest complaint with my W211 is the body flex that allows my panoramic roof to crack and rattle when going over uneven surfaces. It's the main reason I've decided to avoid that feature in the future but was wondering if there were significant enough improvements made to the 212 to not worry about it.

DubVBenz

BMWs, especially late 90s to mid 2000s, had all sorts of pixel failures, not sure how the newer ones fare.

As for the peeling rubber bits, I do know that W210s and W208's had all sorts of problems with this on the radio volume knobs and steering wheel buttons. My 211's interior looks basically showroom after 90K miles except for a little piece of fake chrome on the center console storage compartment that my ex girlfriend managed to scrape off while hoping over the seats.

K-A

The rigidity lists are posted in various places, based off of manufacturer specs via press releases, etc.

The W211 chassis was a little flex-y indeed. The W212 is 20% stiffer, and my first W212 with Pano was pretty solid, but started rattling after a while, as did my fixed roof second W212 for that matter. My BMW F10 feels very noticeably and largely more rigid and has absolutely no rattles. I find that modern M-B's tend to rattle after time (or in some cases, after practically no time at all), at least all 3 of my E Classes did (the W211 was a symphony of rattles, and both my W212's had many off and on creaks, groans and rattles.

Hyundai, knowing that BMW set the torsional rigidity benchmark in this segment, said that they wanted to make the new Genesis "more rigid than the 5 Series, and succeeded". Apparently they just eked out a slightly higher rigidity figure than the 5er.

cbeck44

I'd say "just ecking out" one of the highest rigidity factors in their class by things like using their own steel production cannot be waved off so easily. Could it also then be said that the 5 series was not successful and unable to eke out a better rigidity factor than a Hyundai?

K-A

Oh, I didn't mean that as a dig toward Hyundai AT ALL. It is EXTREMELY impressive that they could even match the incredible (and industry leading at the time of its launch, and still industry leading when compared to basically any other mass-production car, only the W222 S Class just barely topped it, and the Genesis even less so, 3-4 year newer launched cars, fyi, the 6 Series is THE most rigid mass production car in existence, beefing up the F10 5 chassis to an astonishing 43,500k nm's of rigidity, showing the sheer potential of this chassis) rigidity of the 5 Series.

Of course, the next 5 Series, due in 2017 (MY), I'm certain will top all the above mentioned cars in rigidity again, as hard as that is to believe (i.e because cars are getting so incredibly rigid at this point).

DubVBenz

Still.. I'd love to see that list and see what other cars rigidity come out as as well. I recall having a W204 loaner and thinking it felt more solid than my W211.

I'll be upgrading in the near future, but I simply don't think I can go for the new 5 (slightly used) because of the reliability issues. I do like the way it looks and would love the twin-turbo version, but I trust MB with their engines more than BMW at this point.

K-A

Sharing my own relevant experience on that topic:

For the record, my 5 Series has been THE most reliable mechanical car I've had, in my first 1.5 years with a car. ALL my M-B's had to go back to the dealer at least once for either mechanical or fit/finish issues. The only thing my Bimmer has had are odd technology glitches that resolve themselves, which I forgive as the car is far more advanced technologically than my E Classes. To be fair, 2 of my cars doors, on separate occasions did pop open on the freeway, into their secondary latches (so didn't actually "open"). Though, a new S Class just caught fire, and M-B's certainly aren't free of their share of random/oddball safety related occurrences.

Early F10 models are definite stay-aways as lots of electronics issues had to get resolved. But by 2013, the 535i's are seemingly bulletproof so far.

Best part is, NO RATTLES! A definite factor of the rigidity and BMW's newfound fit/finish expertise (Rolls I'm sure helped there, which the 5 Series shares its chassis with). My M-B's were all reoccurring on/off rattle traps, while the W212's got rougher with time as the suspension/chassis combo did a poor job of isolating from harshness.

This is my experience though, we all have our setbacks. To be honest, due to BMW's past performance in reliability, I'd be weary of owning one long term, though my confidence has gone up tremendously with mine.

The W204 is certainly more solid than the W211. I LOVE the W211, my favorite Mercedes I had (I like it more than the W212), but it had a flaw, which was a lack of that expected Mercedes solidity.

Here's a list:

Numerical order (Nm/deg)

Koenigsegg Agera R - 65000 Nm/deg
Bugatti Veyron - 60000 Nm/deg
Koenigsegg Agera - 58000 Nm/deg
BMW 6 Series Coupe- 43000 nm/deg
Rolls Royce Phantom - 40500 Nm/deg
Mercedes Benz S Class (W222) - 40500 Nm/deg
Audi R8 (2014 MY) - 40000 Nm/deg
Lexus LF-A - 39130 Nm/deg
BMW F10 5 Series - 37,500 Nm/deg
BMW F01 7 Series- 37,500 Nm/deg
Volkswagen Phaeton - 37000 Nm/deg
Lamborghini Aventador - 35000 Nm/deg
Lamborghini Gallardo Super Trofeo Stradale - 35000 Nm/deg
Ferrari F50 - 34600 Nm/deg
Fisker Karma - 33000 Nm/deg
Porsche 911 (997) - 33000 Nm/deg
Volkswagen Passat (2006) - 32400 Nm/deg
BMW Z4 Coupe - 32000 Nm/deg
Alfa 159 - 31400 Nm/deg
BMW E65 7- 31,200 Nm/deg
BMW F07 5GT - 31000 Nm/deg
Mazda Rx-8 - 30000 Nm/deg
Mercedes Benz W212 E - 29920 Nm/deg
Aston Martin Vanquish - 28500 Nm/deg
Koenigsegg CC8 - 28100 Nm/deg
Aston Martin Rapide - 28000 Nm/deg
BMW E70 X5 - 28000 Nm/deg
Land rover Freelander 2 - 28000 Nm/deg
Mercedes Benz S Class (W221) 27,500 Nm/deg
Ford GT - 27100 Nm/deg
Aston Martin DB9 Coupe - 27000 Nm/deg
Pagani Zonda F - 27000 Nm/deg
Porsche 911 Turbo 996 - 27000 Nm/deg
Lotus Evora - 26600 Nm/deg
Pagani Zonda C12 S - 26300 Nm/deg
Porsche Carrera GT - 26000 Nm/deg
Audi A8 - 25000 Nm/deg
Pagani Zonda C12 - 25000 Nm/deg
Volkswagen Golf V GTI - 25000 Nm/deg
Mini (2003) - 24500 Nm/deg
BMW E39 5 - 24000 Nm/deg
BMW E60 5 - 24000 Nm/deg
BMW E53 X5 (2004) - 23100 Nm/deg
BMW E30 M3 - 23000 Nm/deg
Lambo Gallardo - 23000 Nm/deg
BMW E90 - 22500 Nm/deg
Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport - 22000 Nm/deg
Jaguar X (Sedan) - 22000 Nm/deg
Mercedes Benz SL (top up) - 21000 Nm/deg
Saab 9-3 Sportcombi - 21000 Nm/deg
Ford Mustang 2005 - 21000 Nm/deg
Chrysler Crossfire - 20140 Nm/deg
Lamborghini Murcielago - 20000 Nm/deg
Volvo S60 - 20000 Nm/deg
Ford Focus 3d - 19600 Nm/deg
Audi TT Coupe - 19000 Nm/deg
Bugatti EB110 - 19000 Nm/deg
Volvo S80 - 18600 Nm/deg
Bentley Azure - 18000 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Sedan (w/o folding seats) - 18000 Nm/deg
Maserati QP - 18000 Nm/deg
Pagani Zonda Roadster - 18000 Nm/deg
Volkswagen Fox - 17941 Nm/deg
Ford Focus 5d - 17900 Nm/deg
Chevrolet Cruze - 17600 Nm/deg
Ford GT40 MkI - 17000 Nm/deg
Mercedes Benz SL (top down) - 17000 Nm/deg
Jaguar X (Estate) - 16319 Nm/deg
Ford Mustang 2003 - 16000 Nm/deg
Jaguar XK - 16000 Nm/deg
Aston Martin DB9 Convertible - 15500 Nm/deg
Mazda Rx-7 - 15000 Nm/deg
BMW Z4 Roadster - 14500 Nm/deg
Ferrari 360 - 14455 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Wagon (w/folding seats) - 14000 Nm/deg
McLaren F1 - 13500 Nm/deg
Porsche 911 Turbo (2000) - 13500 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Sedan (w/folding seats) - 13000 Nm/deg
Porsche 959 - 12900 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Coupe (w/folding seats) - 12500 Nm/deg
Opel Astra - 12000 Nm/deg
Audi A2 - 11900 Nm/deg
Porsche 911 Turbo 996 Convertible - 11600 Nm/deg
Lotus Elise 111s - 11000 Nm/deg
BMW E36 Touring - 10900 Nm/deg
BMW E46 Convertible - 10500 Nm/deg
Lotus Elise S2 Exige (2004) - 10500 Nm/deg
Ferrari 355 - 10042 Nm/deg
Lotus Elise - 10000 Nm/deg
Renault Sport Spider - 10000 Nm/deg
Ford Mustang Convertible (2005) - 9500 Nm/deg
Chevrolet Corvette C5 - 9100 Nm/deg
Lotus Elan GRP body - 8900 Nm/deg
Ferrari 360 Spider - 8500 Nm/deg
Lotus Elan - 7900 Nm/deg
Dodge Viper Coupe - 7600 Nm/deg
Chrysler Durango - 6800 Nm/deg
Lotus Esprit SE Turbo - 5850 Nm/deg
BMW E36 Z3 - 5600 Nm/deg
Mazda MX-5 (later w/ bracing) - 5150 Nm/deg
Mazda MX-5 (1990) - 4880 Nm/deg
Ford Mustang Convertible (2003) - 4800 Nm/deg
Lamborghini Countach - 2600 Nm/deg

cbeck44

Some updated numbers of the rigidity numbers being tossed around :

Precent of Advance High Strength Steel used:
Genesis - 51.5%
5 series - 32%
E Class - 16.2%

Torsional Stiffness (10^4kgf*m^2 / rad)
Genesis - 39.4
5 series - 30.2
E Class - 28.6

Bending Stiffness (10^2kgf / mm)
Genesis - 11.6
5 series - 9.3
E Class - NA

K-A

I'm pretty sure those numbers are off. Firstly, the W212 uses way more than 16% HSS, and the F10 is much more rigid than that figure (37.5k).

cbeck44

Those figures are directly from the Hyundai product managers and engineers presentations at the press launch two weeks ago. Also, the High Strength Steel use of the E350 is 60.2, the figures I noted were Advanced HSS (16.2). If you have some counter numbers with a reference, bring them on.

Not trying to belabor the issue here, but the topic was rigidity and the numbers are at least impressive when compared to the market leaders. Wait until you see the Length of Body Joint Adhesives comparison (hint: the E beats the 5).

fintail

It shouldn't be a surprise that a brand new design exceeds some random technical specs of one that has been in production for 5 years...should it? One is only a leader for so long. Sometimes I wonder if some are maybe employed by the group, or have some other interest.

IMO, those specs won't determine any sales - design and brand/model equity will. That's still Hyunkia's biggest obstacle in the premium segment, no matter the technical merits of the car.

K-A

I had a feeling those came from Hyundai, thus not being a true barometer. What is "Advanced" High Strength Steel. Are they talking about "Ultra High Strength Steel"? Usually HSS is split into "HSS" and "UHSS". The Genesis obviously uses much more than the E anyway, as it's much stronger. Hyundai got the 5 Series rigidity figure wrong as BMW has released the figures themselves, at 37,500. As well, the E60 is around 28,000 and the F10 is about 40% (can't remember exact number, somewhere between 30+-40% stiffer) than that. Maybe Hyundai is slyly using the E60 torsional rigidity, but certainly not the F10's.

Exactly, it's a much newer car. And it's a very expensive car for the Hyundai brand. This is impressive, but isn't mind blowing. The next E and 5 will set the bar that Hyundai thus will later chase, as usual.

cbeck44

I guess we 'll just stick with your numbers then. Certainly if numbers came from a manufacturer they are not accurate. Ok.

It's $38K, like $2K more than the outgoing model, but with more features.

K-A

Of course, BMW's figures about their chassis rigidity are more accurate than Hyundai's random/unofficial quote about BMW rigidity.

The 5 Series clearly uses a lot of "Advanced High Strength Steel", the Genesis states an even more ridiculously impressive amount of it, and although the E certainly lacks both the other in rigidity specs thus advanced steel usage, I'm surprised if it's "only" 16% on the W212, when the total HSS on the car is supposed to be almost 70%, as stated per M-B at the time of its launch. I guess it's basically all HSS and less "AHSS" (which I'm still assuming is another term for "Ultra High Strength Steel".)

The car is a bargain for what you get, but for it's an expensive price to pay for the Hyundai brand. Whether it's PC or honorable to admit it, obviously that's the leading setback for most consumers at that price range. Case in point, how a general C Class will outsell it massively, when the C Class offers massively less for the dollar.

pamiboy

I guess if you want to figure out if the E class or Genesis is better, you may want to crash them into each other head on and see. Anyway I don't want to be sitting in that Hyundai if it happens.

HotFreshPopcorn

LOL.

drsaab

well I do not think you would do to bad sitting in the Genesis, if you follow the ppl with the crash test dummies...


"The Genesis is one of only three large luxury cars to earn the Institute's highest award for 2014. To qualify for TOP SAFETY PICK+, a vehicle must earn a good or acceptable rating for small overlap protection, a good rating in the Institute's other four tests, and a basic, advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention."

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/07/2...sp-plus-video/

thefisch

It looks like the last time IIHS tested the E sedan was back in 2010. They did not do the small overlap test back then (started in 2012?) and they did not test any auto-brake feature on the E. So the + rating is not available unless they retest the car with all 5 tests. It's likely they won't test another E sedan until there is a new body style so it is hard to compare the + ratings. Also, since IIHS issues broad ratings when results are in a range (i.e. good, acceptable, etc.), it is hard to compare vehicles head to head. But I did see in their full report of each vehicle they included detailed results of the roof strength test which can provide some insight on the strength of the chassis. See below:

Tested vehicle 2010 Mercedes-Benz E 350 4-door
Curb weight 3,880lbs
Peak force 20,961lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 5.40 (higher is better)

Tested vehicle 2015 Hyundia Genesis
Curb weight 4,323lbs
Peak force 21,387lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 4.95

Tested vehicle 2011 BMW 528i 4-door
Curb weight 3,803lbs
Peak force 15,364lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 4.04
Rating does not apply to 6-cylinder 4-wheel drive, hybrid, and all V8 models. Rating of these models is Acceptable.[I assume this is because the higher curb weight of those models drops the STW below 4.]

Also, if you look at measurements of acceleration/force on the test dummies and geometry, it appears the dummies would rather be in the 2015 Genesis, but the differences are negligible in some cases. If you compare the previous body Genesis (2009 model tested) to the W212, it appears the dummies would prefer the W212. For the dummies, the BMW 5 series performed well and was comparable in most categories, but not as good as the W212 if your roof is crushed or you are in the passenger seat.

I would think MB would make improvements in the next E body and perhaps outperform again. But these all appears to be very safe cars based on these tests.

K-A

Roof strength is not an accurate way to tell the strength of an overall chassis actually.

The W212 is significantly less stiff than either the 5 Series or Genesis (and reflects that in other safety tests that aren't the singular roof test) who are more comparable in stiffness and chassis solidity.

M-B's have generally very strong roof test showings. The 5 Series' only relative "weak spot" seems to be its roof, which makes sense as its otherwise astonishing 37,500 km torsional stiffness (compared with 29,900 of the W212) goes to one of the best of any production car in existence (more than any Benz in history including the new W222) in the 6 Gran Coupe at 43,000, simply because they strengthened that roof portion with stronger steels.

thefisch

Dimiss the roof test if you want, but if you watch the IIHS video of the roof crush test of the VW versus the KIA you will be glad when a car performs well in that test. While the roof test only considers one aspect of the chassis, it is a test that focuses solely on the chassis, not other safety mechanisms present like airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, etc. that impact the results of the other tests. Also, I wouldn't say there is any difference in the results of the other tests that shows the W212 is significantly less stiff (or less safe if you prefer). In some cases the BMW did better, but in some cases the MB outperformed. Maybe BMW can direct some of their uber stiffness towards the roof next time.

K-A

The F10 largely did outperform the W212 in the Euro NCAP test, and I believe the U.S Govt. tests (definitely a decent margin in the NCAP, which is considered to be the most comprehensive and demanding of all tests).

The F10 5 Series gets a 95% NCAP Rating (takes into account various and extensive crash tests, side, pole, roof, front, occupants, etc.) while the W212 E Class got an 86% rating.

Chassis stiffness is the overall best barometer of chassis integrity as it tells you just what's the most important, i.e if the E's stronger roof still renders it 30% less stiff than the F10 overall, it must be sorely lacking in most if not all other areas. The F10 uses some very strong steels in more places.

However, I agree that I wish the F10 had a stronger roof. Maybe BMW used so much of their budget on all the other areas that they had to cut back there. When you look at the 6 Gran Coupe's chassis specs, the steels and chassis are largely the same, however it uses Ultra High Strength Steels in areas of the roof where the F10 doesn't, which earns it an astonishing and practically world-beating torsional stiffness of 43,000, which is Supercar territory (actually above it in some respects if you look down that list). Not sure if you've driven the Gran Coupe, but you can truly feel that stiffness, the thing feels like a bank vault, noticeably more than the 5 Series.