2018 Hyundai Elantra GT GLS Review - Wouldn't You Really Rather Have a Car?

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems
Fast Facts

2018 Hyundai Elantra GT GLS

2.0-liter inline-four, DOHC (162 horsepower @ 6,200 rpm; 150 lb-ft @ 4,700 rpm)
Six-speed automatic, front-wheel drive
24 city / 32 highway / 27 combined (EPA Rating, MPG)
9.4 city / 7.2 highway / 8.4 combined (NRCan Rating, L/100km)
30.5 mpg [7.7 L/100 km] (Observed)
Base Price
$20,235 (U.S) / $22,281.50 (Canada)
As Tested
$22,035 (U.S.) / $25,931.50 (Canada)
Prices include $885 destination charge in the United States and $1,832.50 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada and, because of cross-border equipment differences, can't be directly compared.

Back in late June, Hyundai’s Canadian division bundled myself and a group of fellow journalists into a Quebec hotel, then proceeded to explain how crossovers are eating the compact car’s lunch.

The 2018 Elantra GT, the company’s representatives said, almost didn’t happen because of the unstoppable popularity of high-riding, cavernous utility vehicles. Hyundai’s U.S. crew apparently needed convincing that the next-generation GT was even worth the trouble. Essentially just an overseas-market i30 with a name change, the new GT’s North American salvation came from the fact few buyers opted for an Elantra-badged hatchback in recent years. Far more buyers take home a Ford Focus or Mazda 3 with five doors.

And so, having been assured that a much-improved GT — a hatchback with more cargo room, more available power, greater handling and sporting prowess, and cohesive, flirting-with-premium looks — would boost overall Elantra sales, we’ve come to this. An Elantra GT, now with more GT.

In GT Sport trim, the vastly reshaped, fourth-generation compact hatch dons the turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder from the Elantra Sport, calls dibs on its athletic cousin’s sporty transmissions, and goes to town delivering value-packed driving excitement for the commuter who likes taking the long (and twisty) way home. This tester, however, is no Elantra GT Sport. Nope. It’s the plain ol’ Elantra GT — the Elantra GT you’ll see far more often than the throaty, scrappy Sport, probably while its owner performs the mundane cargo-hauling duties Hyundai so desperately wants its buyers to attempt.

Even in base form, Hyundai hopes the Elantra GT’s sporting abilities and generous cargo volume whispers a siren song would-be subcompact crossover buyers simply can’t ignore. Is it a convincing come-on?

“Luckily” for me (most journalists would surely regard my plight with pity), I was in a position to find out. This tester embodied the volume-model persona to a “T.” While U.S. Elantra GTs arrive in two trims — GT and GT Sport — those cold creatures across the border see each U.S. trim broken down into two more: GL and GLS, plus Sport and Sport Ultimate. This tester was a GT GLS, essentially an entry-level model outfitted with popular options and 17-inch wheels.

The big news for 2018, at least to any observer, is design, design, design. The GT’s top-down re-do looks mature, leaning towards the Germanic, with straight lines and a longer nose fronted with air-curtain vents and a large grille. A traditional two-box shape. None of this clashing angles or bland oval crap.

Overall length is up 1.6 inches, with width growing by 0.6 inches. A slightly lower ride height and more upright rear glass adds up to an impression of greater length.

Friends incapable of giving praise to a Korean hatchback for any reason stayed silent on the tester’s looks. For what it’s worth, those who might be in the market for a compact in the foreseeable future were instant converts —my father, owner of two small crossovers, among them. This news no doubt provides hope to nervous Hyundai execs.

Under the hood sits another perk: a direct-injection 2.0-liter four-cylinder pumping out significantly greater oomph than a base Elantra sedan — 162 horsepower and 150 lb-ft of torque. (That’s actually down from last year’s sole offering: a 173-horse, 154 lb-ft 2.0-liter.)

Naturally, marshaling that base power to the front wheels is a six-speed automatic, only fitting for a volume model. There’s a six-speed manual available, something I craved every moment of my week spent in this vehicle. Not because the base GT is a slug, or that it can’t keep up with the duties of a modern compact — rather, it’s because a stick-shift would only enhance the GT’s long list of positives.

Hyundai’s German engineering braintrust endowed the i30 fourth-gen GT’s body with 53 percent high-strength steel (up from 27 percent), extra structural adhesive and sound insulation, while decreasing the number of body parts from 418 to 314. It all translates into a far more rigid structure than before. Appreciation grew with every pavement crack and chopped-up curve, with the GT emitting zero rattles or squeaks, even with that liftgate out back. Keeping its composure in check is a refined-feeling suspension — firm but forgiving — which softens jolts small and large without feeling like a skateboard.

The GT Sport tested in June checked numerous hot(ter) hatch boxes, but road imperfections came calling by way of the firmer suspension. Tossing the thing around the hills (and one parking-lot handling course) revealed less body roll more than the already steady GT — kudos to a rear anti-roll bar and independent multi-link suspension — but both models can only take a corner with so much gusto before the front end washes out.

Yes, the experience of throwing this volume GT into a tight turn — manumatic locked into 2nd gear, of course (*sigh*) — soon elicits memories of the 1970s cop flicks you watched as a child. Is there a Dodge Polara nearby? No wait, that’s you. Embarrassing front-tire squeal from even cautious attempts at corner-carving shows this competent commuter, shod with upgraded 225/45 R17 tires in GLS trim, needs stickier rubber before playing the role of value performer.

Still, the potential’s there. Even the nicely weighted steering provides a surprising amount of feedback.

That low-drag rubber also keeps things reasonably quiet at speed, though wind noise wasn’t helped by the optional panoramic sunroof. Who buys a compact hatch with one of these, really? Have we hit peak glass? It’s a clear selling point for Hyundai, and I’ll admit to making ample use of it. It also brightens up the roomy, two-tone cabin (sorry, monochrome motifs only in the GT Sport, though colorful accents abound).

However, the real story, as Hyundai would tell it, remains the interior volume. Horsepower’s nice, and ride quality, too, but cargo space is king on North American roads. As such, the GT’s crossover-fighting cargo area is the first thing mentioned in Hyundai marketing materials. With 24.9 cubic feet behind the rear seats and 55.1 cubes with backseat folded, there’s almost enough room on the nearly flat surface to lie down and take a nap (I tried, but alas…too tall). There’s even a 12-volt plug back there, presumably for wild and crazy liftgate parties.

Volume-wise, the Elantra GT smokes the Chevrolet Cruze hatch, Volkswagen Golf, Mazda 3, Toyota Corolla iM and Ford Focus five-door. Score one for Hyundai. It’s also more cargo room than you’ll find, seats up or down, in the Chevrolet Trax, Mazda CX-3, Jeep Renegade and Toyota CH-R. Honda’s subcompact HR-V falls behind the GT in rear cargo volume, but beats the GT by just under 4 cubes with seats folded.

Obviously, the GT doesn’t provide the perk of available all-wheel drive or a lifted ride height, though you won’t find AWD on a C-HR or Kia Niro (or Soul) option list, either.

All GTs arrive with an 8.0-inch touchscreen rising from the centre stack, each equipped with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto connectivity. A host of driver’s aids fall into the “available” category. This uplevel tester boasted the two nannies drivers want above all else: blind-spot monitoring and rear cross-traffic alert.

While it excels in many areas, a week in the GT wasn’t without gripes. The front seats, while not uncomfortable, remain on the flat side. The engine, smooth and quiet at speed, doesn’t exactly emit a knee-weakening note under hard acceleration, and the optional automatic is merely okay. Rear-seat passengers will find their knees threatened by hard plastic seat backs that look plucked from the 1990s. As well, very tall back-seat passengers suffer the same lack of headroom found wherever panoramic sunroofs roam (though six-footers needn’t worry). Navigation, always a perk, remains reserved for buyers with deeper pockets.

With a pre-delivery entry price of $19,350 in the U.S. and $20,449 in Canada, the Elantra GT shows Hyundai hasn’t lost its head and forgotten the company’s traditional value proposition. In base trim, a Elantra GT retails for $350 less than the less capacious Honda Civic hatch. In GT Sport guise, the little Hyundai undercuts the price of a Volkswagen Golf GTI by more than $2,000. (Meanwhile, Honda’s Civic Si isn’t available in a five-door bodystyle.)

Unfortunately, sweeping differences in trim and equipment between Canada and U.S. Hyundai models makes for a tricky pricing situation. This GLS tester retailed for $25,931.50 after delivery, taxes and fees, equipped with all options found in the $1,800 U.S. GT A/T Style Package, plus the $1,000 automatic transmission. However, in the U.S., panoramic sunroof availability (standard on a Canuck GLS) requires the purchase of the $4,300 Tech Package.

With that package, you’ll gain LED headlamps and taillights, leather, a host of creature comforts (including upgraded audio), and Hyundai’s Blue Link connected car system.

It’s a tough world for any new compact car. You know it, we know it, and Hyundai knows it. Still, with its fourth-generation Elantra GT, the Korean automaker has produced an impressive vehicle in a segment once known for yawns, not lust. The availability of a truly sporting powertrain only makes the new GT more desirable.

To some, targeting the GT’s marketing at would-be crossover shoppers might seem like desperation. However, if even a small fraction of those people are value-conscious and capable of appreciating driving dynamics, it could be a smart move. Maybe buying a car isn’t a silly thing to do after all, they’ll think.

[Images: © Steph Willems/The Truth About Cars]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 35 comments
  • JerseyRon JerseyRon on Aug 10, 2017

    Looks good to me. Worthy of consideration. Despite it having a track record in Europe, I would like to have some reliability history in NA before making a purchasing decision.

  • WildcatMatt WildcatMatt on Aug 25, 2017

    This is pretty much the 2018 rendition of the 2009-2012 Elantra Touring wagon, isn't it?

  • FreedMike Not surprisingly, I have some ideas. What Cadillac needs, I think, is a statement. They don’t really have an identity. They’re trying a statement car with the Celestiq, and while that’s the right idea, it has the wrong styling and a really wrong price tag. So, here’s a first step: instead of a sedan, do a huge, fast, capable and ridiculously smooth and quiet electric touring coupe. If you want an example of what I’m thinking of, check out the magnificent Rolls-Royce Spectre. But this Cadillac coupe would be uniquely American, it’d be named “Eldorado,” and it’d be a lot cheaper than the $450,000 Spectre – call it a buck twenty-five, with a range of bespoke options for prospective buyers that would make each one somewhat unique. Make it 220 inches long, on the same platform as the Celestiq, give it retro ‘60s styling (or you could do a ‘50s or ‘70s throwback, I suppose), and at least 700 horsepower, standard. Why electric? It’s the ultimate throwback to ‘60s powertrains: effortlessly fast, smooth, and quiet, but with a ton more horsepower. It’s the perfect drivetrain for a dignified touring coupe. In fact, I’d skip any mention of environmental responsibility in this car’s marketing – sell it on how it drives, period.  How many would they sell? Not many. But the point of the exercise is to do something that will turn heads and show people what this brand can do.  Second step: give the lineup a mix of electric and gas models, and make Cadillac gas engines bespoke to the brand. If they need to use generic GM engine designs, fine – take those engines and massage them thoroughly into something special to Cadillac, with specific tuning and output. No Cadillac should leave the factory with an engine straight out of a Malibu or a four-banger Silverado. Third step: a complete line-wide interior redo. Stop the cheapness that’s all over the current sedans and crossovers. Just stop it. Use the Lyriq as a blueprint – it’s a big improvement over the current crop and a good first step. I’d also say Cadillac has a good blend of screen-controlled and switch-controlled user interfaces; don’t give into the haptic-touch and wall-to-wall screen thing. (On the subject of Caddy interiors – as much as I bag on the Celestiq, check out the interior on that thing. Wow.)Fourth step: Blackwing All The Things – some gas, others electric. And keep the electric/gas mix so buyers have a choice.Fifth step: be patient. That’s not easy, but if they’re doing a brand reset, it’ll take time. 
  • NJRide So if GM was serious about selling this why no updates for so long? Or make something truly unique instead of something that looked like a downmarket Altima?
  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Next