which color is this?

my 2018 have HUD,i did not use it that much

Hat evt was mit der Außenteperatur zu tun ? Oder hat sich da vielleicht ein Fehler im system eingeschlichen?

They should be good for 200-250k kms when slightly abused (on the smaller i30 and below cars). Great little engines, try to get them with the i20 or i10 if you have them available on those models I personally drove I30 N-Line rental for a while with 1.0T-gdi and it does great. Now i am the proud owner of 2024 Kona N-Line with 6-Speed manual 1.0T-Gdi (Not Mild hybrid just petrol) and it's not that great at crawling speeds on parking lots and speed bumps, idle speed(RPM) can't push the car easily without clutch slip or going above idle eapecially with inclines. So go for the hatchbacks and you won't regret it. Note: there is slight turbo lag, but once it gets boost it acts like 1.6 or 1.8 naturally aspirated or even 2.0. plenty of power and low end torque at around 1.8 2k rpm best of luck.

Note, Hyundai is way better than Ford and french manufactures (Renault, Dacia) with their 1.0 1.0 on hyundai is much smoother and more refined. i test drove brand new Ford Puma (1.0Mild hybrid) and it was shaking badly (Engine mounts are suffering to keep the engine in place).

Culoarea este cea pe care o vedeți, un gri maroniu

Considering something that is a mild hybrid must mean it is an eco-friendly, tree-hugging, environmentally-conscious, car with excellent fuel consumption is like trying to use an electric kettle to cook a roast dinner. But I've had to state this to you before but it clearly didn't work. It's a small boost from an electric motor at low speed. That is it. In official WLTP fuel consumption figures, its urban cycle result is not much higher than its overall average, but that's the only test it influences. I also fail to comprehend your other statements. The fuel consumption isn't high - it's about on par with most cars (not even crossovers) with small turbocharged petrol engines, it's not that slow (not fast either, but what can you expect from 120hp in a near-1400kg car), and the pricing is very competitive and that is before you consider just how many toys and features this N-Line version comes with. Even the base model with this engine is well-equipped and is cheaper than most rivals. So please check your facts before making a fool of yourself on the internet.

@@CheesemanGT fuel consumption are enormous and I think it is most higher ever for this class of vehicles

@@Mr11ESSE111 That is just not true. I've checked 15 cars in the same segment with petrol engines they have tested and the consumptions are very much the same as the rest. At 80kph it is almost the best tested. The best was 2.8 l/100km and the worst was 4.2 l/100km. I didn't consider the Crossland X which got a higher result because the car was in the wrong gear. This managed 3.2 l/100km. Very good. At 100kph it is better than average. The best was 4 l/100km (although I question how legitimate this number is), and the worst 5.9 l/100km. This got 4.6 l/100km. Fairly good. At 120kph it is better than average again. The best was 4.5 l/100km (yet this seems highly incorrect as the 2nd best is 5.5 l/100km), and the worst 7.2 l/100km. This got 5.8 l/100km. Perfectly adequate. At 140kph, the Kona seemed to see its instantaneous fuel consumption fluctuate quite a lot, meaning the result may not be very accurate. That being said, it was about average for this speed and class. The best was 6.7 l/100km, and the worst 9.2 l/100km. Acceptable for sure. At 160kph, the Kona was about average once again. The best was 8 l/100km, and the worst 11.9 l/100km. This got 10 l/100km. Could it better? Maybe. But still, it is around average. At 180kph, the Kona appears to have a poor reading. At the beginning of the test it is around 14 l/100km, but halfway through, the instantaneous fuel consumption drops to around 11-12l/100km. My guess is that the true 180kph consumption is around 12 l/100km. Therefore, this figure is not correct to compare to others, but assuming the 12 l/100km figure instead of the 14.1 l/100km indicated, it would be better than average once more. It is also worth noting this car was tested at the highest temperature of all the cars of this type using small petrol engines, so although air is less dense at higher temperatures, I do not know whether it would have been an advantage or disadvantage, since it is unclear whether these tests are done with A/C on or not. It is also impossible to determine whether other cars had been tested with a tailwind or headwind, so results could be skewed with other cars and even for or against this Kona tested here. It is also worth bearing in mind this is the N-Line model, with larger wheels and tyres, meaning it already comes at a disadvantage over most other models tested and other versions of the Kona with this engine and transmission. So instead of just assuming, maybe go back and check the results of similar cars before you say this is the worst one. If you want to do that, head on over to the Fiat 500X or Ford Ecosport, because they had pretty awful fuel consumption compared to rivals and certainly compared to this car.

@@CheesemanGT tiguan tsi 190hp consume less especially on higher speeds

@@Mr11ESSE111 The Tiguan 2.0 TSI 190 consumed 8.7 l/100km at 140kph and 9.9l/100km at 160kph. The Kona did 7.8 l/100km and 10 l/100km respectively. At lower speeds, the Kona is significantly more efficient. How is the Tiguan consuming less exactly? The numbers seem to say otherwise.

There is no Hyundai Sonata in Germany, only US import

@@TESTDRIVEFREAK well, do you have a santa fe model of hyundai in Germany or can you shoot new Hyundai models?