There is a lot to unpack here, but I will give it a go....
You're trying to make a point about your personal speculation. Makes no sense. You speculate about the possibility the HTRAC fits the Kona N. It's a moot point, it won't be used and the Kona is a FWD. End of conversation. I believe I mentioned cost and weight to begin with. You went to the extreme in an attempt to try to prove what?
I don't mind revisiting speculation and generalities. You stated that HTRAC couldn't be used with the new DCT. I stated it already was in the Santa Fe, twice. Then you strawmaned me by pivoting from HTRAC and DCT incompatability to the DCT can't bolt to the 2.0T and a center differential at the same time, with zero evidence.
Now, let's go back to my first post on this subject to look at my original point. I stated, without AWD, the KN is just a heavier VN with a higher ride height. Both of those reduce performance, on a vehicle one purchases for it's performance. Secondarily, I questioned the ability of the KN to do things shown in the teaser trailer without AWD (e.g. flying down a muddy/dirt road like an AWD rally car, camping in the wilderness, etc.).
I suggest this in the beginning about cost and weight. (Subjective reasoning) you have no proof or nothing to substantiate what you're commenting too, simply personal speculation or conjecture. You're suggesting it's true based upon a personal belief, pattern of reasoning, whim or opinion.
Huh? A subjective opinion is like saying red is the best color. That can never be proven to be correct. Whether or not a transmission can be used in a specific application is objective because it can be proven. The 8A DCT bolts to the 2.0T in the VN and to a center diff in the Santa Fe. That is evidence, not my personal opinion. The last piece of evidence I examined is the quote from the Hyundai N devision. That quote doesn't read "we didn''t utilize AWD because it won't work in combination with the 2.0T and the 8A DCT." That would have been a clear and succinct response to the question if factual.
I believe I suggested this in the beginning. (Posts 98 & 100 So yes), you're right back where we originally started. I simply listened and commented to your subjective reasoning. (personal conjecture).
Again, huh? My post was questioning a subjective opinion. If less weight and complexity is more important than maximizing traction to aid acceleration in as many different conditions as possible, then the VN, having the same level of complexity, with less weight, is the better choice for someone that holds said opinion.
So do what you wish. It's your choice, money and time. I've got nothing to do with it. However, you obviously wasted a bunch of time discussing something I already knew and suggested to you, not once but twice. Sometimes, people take the ball and run with it. Other times they can't see the trees for the forest.
I never disputed you said weight, cost and complexity were reasons why AWD was not chosen. Nor did I disagree with the legitimacy of those reasons. I clarified that complexity and reliability are not the same thing. I disputed the "it won't work, so they couldn't even if they wanted to" notion. My issue was and still is, if you use weight, complexity and cost as your criteria to pick an N model, the Veloster N wins everytime.
No offense but I'm standing here scratching my head, attempting to understand all the necessity for all your comments. Then simply to realize in the end, it was
weight and cost as I originally stated.
I had already done the research well prior. So, I suppose you didn't believe me in the beginning. That’s fine but all you had to do is ask me where I got the information from.
The problem is I never actually asked why it didn't have AWD. I stated without AWD in the equation, the VN is the better pick. You started commenting about why the KN didn't have AWD and I responded in kind as this is a discussion forum after all. So don't ascribe all the back and forth to me.
Oh and one last thing; I was just having a good discussion and let you lead it. I’m not angry, upset, frustrated or being condescending. I was sort of waiting for you to realized it’s just not that complicated with Hyundai. They are a volume manufacturer and their sales depends upon it. So, it’s about getting the product to market without all the frills.
Occam's razor describes my comments to a tee;
Ocham's razor, or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity", or more simply, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
In this case the simplest answer was correct, based upon factual information already printed by Hyundai. I just recanted it to you as simply as possible. The rest, I was just being courteous.
Let's start off with there are zero official communications from Hyundai that even state the Kona N is FWD only, never mind the reasoning behind that decision. If you have one I would love to see it. I will take Hyundai's official twitter, FB, YT, et al. So please stop with the you provided me with verifiable undisputed facts but I wouldn't accept them diatribe. All I have is a quote from an article published on an auto news website, that I found myself.
Speaking of which.... Hyundai tells me weight and complexity are very important, in their SME opinion, to accomplishing an N model's mission. So it follows, if complexity levels are equal, I pick whatever model weighs the least. So they are also telling me to buy a Veloster N.
Finally, if "SUV's sell" is the primary driver to make a Kona N, when the VN and i30N already exist, I think the huge lack of U with the subcompact dimensions and no AWD is not going to do them any favors. Why have hill decent control (info from same article mentioned above) when the lack of AWD will prevent you from getting to the top of the hill in the first place?
