Talk:Hyundai Tiburon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Somebody had said the design was by Pininfarina which is incorrect. It is an in-house Hyundai design. However many people have noticed a similarity betweek the 2003/2005 Coupe to Pininfarina's work on the Ferrari 456. (Spectrumz80 13:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Given that many people continue to add links to informal and less encyclopedic Hyundai Tiburon/Coupe sites (fan sites, forums, modifying information etc), I propose that these should be put in a seperate links section call "Forums, Modifications & Miscellaneous Links" or something named equivalent. I believe that many of these sites still provide a lot of useful and extremely detailed reference information and therefore are valuable to those interested. G. 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the coupe has similarities with the Ferrari 456, someone has added the following statement, "It has also a very similar look of the Ferrari 360 Modena and its successor the F430 but without the engine in the back." This sounds like rubbish to me, does anyone else agree? Tomcork 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes Tomcork, I agree with you - I've never seen that written or mentioned anywhere whereas the Ferrari 456 reference has been mentioned in a number of notable motor press articles [1][2], therefore I propose it is removed as Wikipedia isn't the place for original thought G. 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that--and straying into original thought--it is to me a completely unique car, and hence I guess that it was the design team's very first attempt at a sports car. This last idea I would love to confirm.--John Bessa (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of the new 2008 concept?[edit]

Anyone know where to find more(and larger) pictures of the new concept model? -Mike Payne 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 new V6 engine?[edit]

Can someone please cite the reference link for the new Sonanta derrived engine? I am not seeing any official information on the engine change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by College Watch (talk • contribs) 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

too much data[edit]

are listing all the options on there now really necessary?RCHM 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Model[edit]

The way the article is talking about the 2008 model makes it seem like it hasent been released yet, and it has been, so I think someone needs to update that section with current information and re-word it. 71.98.156.88 01:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There doesn't seem to be much data out there on the new models in reality, the majority is scattered across the web, really leaving no credible source to derive from. --Jkharris07 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it the "2008" model if it is already on sale (in fact one drove past me today) - it seems a bit misleading as those "not in the know", ie those who this article is written for, will then think the model was launched in 2008 not 2007. There seems to be a similar issue with the "2003" model, which was available from early 2002. Halsteadk 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport compact?[edit]

This is not a sport compact by the definition given in that article. Would it be better to just say compact? Friday (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently people think sport compact is the right designation. I still don't see it, any more than (say) a Honda Civic is a sport compact. I suppose one could argue that the optional-engine-equipped cars qualify, but that doesn't mean the Tiburon as a model is a sport compact. Friday (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, yahoo autos calls it a "family coupe" or "sports coupe". Friday (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further for what it's worth; mine handled nicely at 130 mph, lifting neither front nor back, handling no differently than at 60 or 80 mph. One time I cooked the rubber up to 80 mph from a stop light, and I only stopped accelerating because I was already 30 mph over the speed limit. The clutch was so tight when new (in 2000), that "chirping" between gears was not an option. While it was still new, I found myself straining in the safety harness because the suspension was so hard. The car was not offered with normal tires, and the stock V-rated tires were useless either in snow, mud, or heavy rain. (I bought 14" rims after several close calls because of sliding and hydro-planing.) So who cares what they say! In fact, classic car sports car racers in Limerock, Connecticut invited me to their race. Even with several dents and countless front-to-back key scratches, it is still always the prettiest car on the block and it gets attention standing still.--John Bessa (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third generation section[edit]

I have reorganised this a bit as it wasn't previously logical because "branding", "performance" and "engineering" were previously all within that section, but related to all generations. I left the equipment section within third generation as that is probably only specific to the 3rd gen. Within "engineering" and "performance", I also turned some bold headings into proper section headings - I think some of these performance figures are not now from the original referenced sources, as some look a little optimistic. I note that the 1.6 is currently missing from both sections for the 2002- models. Performance and engineering could be split back into the specific generations. Halsteadk (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth generation[edit]

I am doubting the validity of calling the last incarnation of the tiburon the "fourth generation". I am of the opinion that this is another facelift for the car in preparation for the new platform to come out in 2009/10. There have already been concepts shown at numerous show and I think that model would embody what is really the fourth generation of the car.

The newest model is infact just a facelift. It retains the same engine, platform and specifcations as the previous model. The main changes are to the cosmetics of the car and some interior tweaks. This is similar to the facelift that was given to the third generation at the end of 2004/start of 2005 although they are more severe and greater in number.

I'll leave this here for discussion for a week and if nobody objects i'm going to change it. Furthermore I went through and added the year dates for the generations in the headings of the sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.95.147 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, it's questionable whether the "second generation" is anything more than a cosmetic facelift of the first one. I'd suggest that there have been two "generations", the first had a major facelift, the second has had a minor and a major facelift. Halsteadk (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is considered the 4th gen in your opinion do you think we should create an info box fox this specific model? Sorry, i just created an account so the previous post was by me. Barring that getting some references that refer to the second generation as a seperate generation would help.--Polmerfox (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with halstead, if your going to call the GK1 GK2 and GK3 all one generation you need to call the RD1 and RD2 tibs all one generation, in fact, if you look on NewTiburon.com, they have an email from a Hyundai rep indicating there are, in fact, two generations of tibs, 1st gen is RD, second is GK. I'll link to the thread/email when I have more time. (Alex01tib (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I agree Alex, If Hyundai say it is two generations then that's what it is. The only other option is five generations - I can't see that four is correct at all. I would put in the intro brief words saying there have been two generations and reference the message, then change the structure of the rest of the article to suit. Just one thought, is the word "generation" a universally recognised term? In the UK we would use "Mark" but I'm not sure if that's internationally recognised. Halsteadk (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the move to a two generational break-up of the cars is the most factual option (RD and GK). As for calling it a "generation" I think it is just a matter of semantics, its not going to greatly affect the clarity of the article. What needs to be properly expressed is that there are two main incarnations of the car. In material that I've seen written about cars the more commonly used term is generation.
Is it too soon to put information about the upcoming platform into the article? A car has been shown at recent motor shows and information about its make-up and specifications have been released.Polmerfox (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this concept: [3]. I have heard elsewhere that this is not going to replace the Coupe. Halsteadk (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again halstead is right, the Genesis Coupe is a production bound concept car that is a completely new car. The Genesis Coupe is going be RWD and have a I4 turbo and 300hp V6, the new generation Tib will remain FWD but gain some "major performance and cosmetic changes" my guess is Theta turbo, just like the genesis coupe, but FWD. Krafick talks about the new tib at the debut of the genesis coupe, he wanted to clear up the misconception that the genesis coupe was the new Tib. Heres the wiki page Hyundai Genesis Coupe Alex01tib (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made the change to the format of the article and changing it to a two generation model as we discussed. Any comments?Polmerfox (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, just made some fixes in the "Media" section. It is far clearer now what have been major and minor changes to the car of this name. Thanks. Halsteadk (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Plagiarism[edit]

I'd like to point out the user with the IP 65.32.205.43 has completely plagiarized a news article by Consumer Guide.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-hyundai-tiburon.htm

I don't know if it's the simple copy and pasting that is ignorant, or the purely speculative data the Consumver Guide review full of non-facts that was taken as fact. Ether way, nothing is concrete, the car isn't in production, a specs box full of 'TBA's' is useless, and the article itself doesn't say much.--24.222.156.92 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiburon vs Coupe article naming[edit]

I thought this might have been previously discussed, but couldn't see anything so here goes! Hyundai's international website refers to this car as the "Coupe".[4] As Wikipedia is an international project, not an American or British one, should we not be using the international name that Hyundai themselves actually refers to their own vehicle as? I would also propose that the link to the international website is more appropriate than links to UK and USA specific sites. Halsteadk (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UK uses the Coupé name. I Think it should really be under its home market name Which i think is the Coupe but I don't actually know. (86.31.182.119 (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Per WP:CARS, the article showld use home markert name, which is Tuscani.

The article is now at "Hyundai coupe" with a small "c" which is wrong. Unfortunately "Hyundai Coupe" exists as a redirect, can someone arrange to correct the title please? Halsteadk (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Body style[edit]

I'm sure that at least some generations of this cars were 3-door rather than 2-door which makes them hatch rather than coupe. Please reflect this in the article. Netrat (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chassis codes....[edit]

So I've been around the hyundai scene for 10 years now. I've read on here that the 1st gens are being called a "RD". If fact the chassis code is "RC".

Someone told me that it was "RD" in Korea, but when I look the vehicle up on the Korean site, its still "RC".

Will someone please change this once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.58.1 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel Bearing Problems[edit]

Many car pages are including critical sections discussing the problems their respective cars have with citable sources.

I have replaced every wheel bearing in my car at least once, and two of them twice. While I corner excessively, I have been no harder on my 2000 Tiburon than I was on my previous compacts, which were a Dodge Omni, a Plymouth Horizon, and a Chevy Cavalier--none of these three needed new wheel bearings.

I can show many examples of Tiburon forum users expressing the same problem. The rear bearings are easy enough to replace, and the bearing component costs only about $50 (the anti-locking brake versions work for either brake systems). The front bearings are a different matter and may require special tooling; often mechanics replace the entire knuckle rather than press in a new bearing. From what I have learned, the front rotor is also pressed in, making front brake repair difficult. I was working each time my front bearings were replaced, and both times I was shocked by the cost. Neither mechanic would give me a straight answer as to how they did the repair.

Other than wheel bearing failures, the car has had no mechanical problems. When I check the oil, it always reads full, and this with over 100,000 hard miles on the car. And the clutch is original.--John Bessa (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information in Wikipedia requires good sources, not just forum posts. Your own experiences can't be used as a source, either. Friday (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved —harej (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hyundai Coupe → Hyundai Tuscani — Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions convention states that the "article titles shall bear the name used in the original market by the original manufacturer or marketer, regardless of sales". The other reason is to turn this current title into a disambiguation page because the recent Genesis Coupe have retained the Coupe nameplate in some countries. Donnie Park (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: however, only the second generation cars were badged "Hyundai Tuscani". I cannot seem to find the South Korean name for the first gen, but I would just move the article and split it in two when this name is known (I have looked on the South Korean Wikipedia, but they don't seem to have anything). OSX (talk • contributions) 06:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Until very recently http://worldwide.hyundai.com referred to it as the "Hyundai Coupe" (it was due to this that I originally suggested it was moved from Tiburon to Coupe). Regardless of the convention, I can't help feeling that if the original manufacturer has a worldwide name, that should be the one. If the vast majority of readers won't understand it (are there any English speaking markets where it is called the Tuscani?) then who exactly does it help? I realise that's probably more of an argument against the convention than for this particular page though, and I guess provided there is a redirect or disambig and all the terms are bolded in the article then not much harm is done... Halsteadk (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a good example of where a guideline need not be literally followed, per WP:COMMON and WP:IGNOREALLRULES. If this name was not used in any English speaking market, it's nonsensical to use it an English 'pedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per my comment and that the worldwide English speaking site referred to it as Coupe and on the basis that changing this article name to something that no-one reading it will have heard of is daft - ie ignore a rule that does not improve Wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

--99.192.17.52 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Class action lawsuit[edit]

Shouldn't this page mention the serious defects in the 2003's flywheel and clutch parts? http://www.girardgibbs.com/hyundai.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.179.194 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

indicator no functioning[edit]

i have a hyundai tascani 2003 model, im happy with it,,my only complain about is that i have a problem with its indicataor to the right, the bulbs are 100% ok i sayb so because when i turn the album on or unlock the doors all the indicators work,the problem only comes when indicating to the right or putting on the harzadas,only one side works. please can anyone help me with this problem  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.134.1 (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD2[edit]

The article says the 2001 Tiburon is in the second generation but this is wrong. The 2001 Tiburon was definitely a RD2 model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B467:FBAC:89A0:E127:7CE8:B323 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hyundai Tiburon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hyundai_Tiburon&oldid=1202875513"