Hyundai Veloster Turbo (204 PS) specs

Groovy, thanks.

Ok, I added it.

@Eryk03 okay it is on the Motor Trend website, here is a link: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/hatchbacks/1211_2013_hyundai_veloster_turbo_vs_2012_mini_cooper_s_clubman/specs.html

Please reference 0-100 mph

@BR2 Motor Trend has now tested the Veloster Turbo: 0-60 6.9 seconds; 0-100 17.5; and the quarter mile in 15.2 seconds at 93.4 mph. Price as tested was only $25,320. Excellent fuel economy of course, and not a bad performance for the dollar, but not my cup of tea.

These UK sites are Horrid when building a Car, there US Counterparts are Sooo much better to use. And i find it quite interesting that this is one of the Few cars that can having the car painted in Matte Gray from the factory! Fully built at $27,800Usd I would just love to get one, but i still havent come up on a decision on what my next car shall be, the competition is very hard this time around, But unfortunetly, i cant seem to gey a Veloster Turbo where im at, or atleast its not on the Hyundai UK site;(

The base model Veloster is very equal to the CR-Z. Where the Veloster wins out is it's not a hybrid, gets about the same MPG and where the electric engine and batteries would go in a CR-Z the Veloster has a second row of seats. Oh and you're not driving a hybrid.

well there is also the fact that some may find this car fugly

@Inline 6
But what about +2 seats in the back. If you are buying base trim of a such type car you would probably expect some practicality. If you are buying more sporty wise, you would go Veloster Turbo route

@FastestLaps
With this engine it will probably be more expensive than the CR-Z. The base engine (1.6, 140PS) version has the same price as the CR-Z (at least in Hungary). They were tested by A5 (Hungarian site) and they said that the CR-Z is better because the Hyundai's engine (140 PS) didn't feel stronger and the fuel consumption and the suspension are worse.

Why should one buy Honda CR-Z when you can buy this?

Fastestlaps, the conversion from inches to m isn't working right, it also changed the figures I submited, well maybe a little error that only happened to me; here are the correct ones:

Wheelbase: 2.65m
Lenght: 4.25m
Width: 1.81m
Height: 1.41m

Front track: 1.56m
Rear track: 1.57m

Also, you should change the mass conversion to 1kg = 2.205lbs instead of 1=2.2 because, well, just for more accuracy, if possible.