Sonata Gas Mileage?

Page 1 of 3  
I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only 15k on it so I am rather surprised that I am not getting 22 or 23 mpg.
Please let me know what kind of mileage you get with an 06 or 07 Sonata so I can tell if it is just my car or if they all are bad on gas.
Thanks Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you are doing OK around town. I drive a mix of highway, steady back road, fairly easy city (small town?)driving. I get about 23 on average, 25 to 26 on straight highway. EPS rating is 20 and no one ever gets the EPS rating so expecting 23 is out of the question, IMO. Ratings are being revised to be more realistic starting, I think, in 2008.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I get about 19-20 mpg with the 4 cylinders local road, suburb style city.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
komobu wrote:

Isn't the city rating 20 for your car? And given that the EPA ratings are typically optimistic, I'd say 17 in town is unusually low, especially if you live in a climate that is cold this time of year. I have a four cylinder Sonata and I get only 26-29 in the winter driving mostly on the highway commuting to work. I doubt I'd get more than 20 in the city and my car has a 24 MPG city rating nad 34 highway. I've never got about 32 even on the highway.
I don't think Hyundai can match GM and Toyota for mileage, but I'm not sure they are the worst out there either. Although, one test I saw on the Sonata vs. a Camry, Accord and I think a GM car had the Sonata as the worst of the bunch.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]

EPA figures are also based on using gasoline. In many areas of the country, "gas" is 10% ethanol. Ethanol has noticeably less energy per gallon than pure gasoline.
The math seems to suggest only 3% or so less mpg. Subjectively (my experience when driving between areas that had 10% ethanol vs pure gasoline appear to have more than 3% mpg loss. Since the areas were not identical, it's impossible for me to me to be sure.
Anybody have real test data of performance of different engines with different fuel blends?
gerry
--

Personal home page - http://gogood.com

gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matt Whiting wrote:

I meant to say "not unusually low" above. Sorry for the typo.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another person opted for a V6 under the misconception that he needed more 'power'. :o) The 4 has more than enough power to move my '06 briskly in passing mode. I have been consistently getting 24.6 +- around town with an occasional 15 mile highway trip to the next town. People, you don't need a V6!!!!! Stop wasting gas! Sure you can afford to buy it but why?????
I'll get off my soapbox now. I love my Sonata and will buy another. I wish they had a pickup truck, diesel, or hybrid, however.
Tom

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, for a couple of reasons. First of all, the Limited (which I have) only comes with the V6. I wanted all the goodies and I'm willing to pay for it.
Second, yes, the four is adequate, but I wanted more than just adequate. Sometimes I just like to accelerate fast, not just adequately.
It may depress you further to know that I have and use my remote starter. Yes, on the really cold mornings, or after work, my car is just sitting there burning gas, getting warmed up so my pretty tush does not have to get onto a cold leather seat. I set the heated seat on when I park the car so it will warm my buns when I get in.
I want to thank all of you that eat at Burger King and McDonalds for eating all those burgers and making leather for my seats readily available and reasonably priced. If all you ate was tofu, I'd be sitting on mohair seat covers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Then you need a Corvette or a Viper. Even a V-6 Sonata doesn't accelerate even close to fast.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I had a Mitsubishi 3000 for a while. Life is full of compromises and it was not a practical every day driver. Right now, the Sonata is as fast as I'm going to get.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I got that yearning for power out of my system years ago with my Porsches, 390 Cougar GT's and 69 427 vette! Sold them for a song when gas prices went up and the wife bitched about repair costs. Now I see them on Barrett Jackson and just cry!!! :o) There really is very little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said. I guess you need that extra torque to pull all that extra stuff you bought to feel good. :o) For me, with the drives on the roads today, I don't care to stay out there any longer than I have to.......
Tom
wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Without the benefit of anyone running a real scientific test between the two configurations (really 3 if you count the MT), I respectfully disagree with both of you. There is a medium to large difference between the 4 and the 6. I be willing to bet that in the real world, we are talking about a 1.5-2 second difference in the 0-60 time, and significantly more as speeds get higher.
I know that neither of you feel the need for that extra power, and that is certainly your perrogative, but IMHO you are really talking apples and oranges by comparing the 4 to the 6.
Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
164 vs 234 hp, of course, makes a difference, but a 4 cyl with 164 hp giving 26 mpg is VERY respectable! Like I said earlier, I know what a 427 cubic inch vette or even a 429 Shelby Mustang feels like - unforgettable- but today it no longer seems so important whether I get to 60 mph 1.5 seconds later than you. We'll both be either stuck at the next light or behind a line of brainless, foreign truckers side by side going up the hill at 50 mph. I'd love a 6 too, but I had to ask myself why I needed it. I didn't really have a good answer so I went for the more fuel efficient, cheaper 4 with 164 hp.
It's a no win conversation, of course, but always fun to debate.
Thanks,
tom

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom wrote:

I agree that the debate is fun. However, it isn't HP that matters with respect to acceleration, but rather torque peak and the shape of the torque curve. The V-6 still has a large advantage here, but not as great. The HP ratio is 1.45 (235/162) and the torque ratio is 1.38 (226/164). However, even more telling is that the torque peak for the 6 occurs at substantially lower RPM (3500 vs. 4250). Given that the redlines are nearly identical (5800 for the 4 vs. 6000 for the 6), this means that the 4 will continue to increase acceleration for a greater portion of the RPM range. The 6 will begin to fall off above 3500 whereas the 4 still has 750 RPM to go before it begins to taper off. Add in the losses in the automatic vs. the manual and the extra 200 or so lbs of weight for the V-6, and you can see where the difference in acceleration is much less than folks might expect from a superficial look. I drove two or three V-6 automatics before buying my I-4 manual as I was trying to see if they all had the touchy throttle, and the full throttle acceleration was simply not distinguishable without a stopwatch once the clutch was fully engaged and the cars rolling. I tried several low speed runs and a couple of 50-75 MPH passing runs and the four felt as strong as the six up to the speeds I tried (I don't think I exceeded 75 maybe 80 at the most). Maybe there would be a difference if you started at 100 MPH and did a roll-on test, but I don't drive that fast on public roads so I don't know.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

giving
Very little difference or a difference? I can't keep up. One post says there's very little difference between a 4 and a 6, and the next says of course there is a difference. Oh well... but like I said before, I'm really happy that you like your 4. That's how it should be. I've had 400HP+ cars in the past also, but I have never ceased to enjoy the feeling of acceleration. I much prefer the performance of a 6 over a 4. Just my preference. I don't care if we're both at the same light down the road. I enjoy the acceleration and frankly, I get annoyed by people who poke off the line and who think that just because they don't care how soon they get there, that everyone else should see it their way. You go with your preferences, and I'll go with mine. We'll both be happy that way. And that sure beats flicking boogers at each other at the stop lights.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eric G. wrote:

Well, the data doesn't support your bet. The difference is slightly more than 1 second in 0-60 between my 4 cylinder and your V-6 (1.19 to be exact) and the difference in the quarter mile time is even less which suggests the difference narrows with higher speed rather than widens as you suggest. The quarter mile difference is only 1.06 seconds. So we're talking less than 150 feet difference at the end of a quarter mile. This is hardly an earthshattering difference and I'll bet that most of it is off the line. The throttle and clutch on the Sonata are terrible and making a quick launch is nearly impossible. I'll bet that a 5 MPH rolling start would make the times very nearly identical, but I can't find any data to prove that conclusively. However, I think it can be reasonably inferred from the fact that the gap between the quarter mile times is even less than that of the 0-60. The main reason for this difference is the time lost on the launch. The average acceleration is even higher for the 4 cylinder between 60 MPH and the quarter mile point since the time gap was actually narrowed during this period.
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year 06&make=Hyundai&model=Sonata&trimid=-1

Well, it doesn't really matter, but I don't think the data supports this. From an acceleration perspective, my manual I-4 is nearly identical to your automatic V-6 once we get rolling. I won't argue that the V-6 is faster off the line, but if the Sonata had a decent throttle and clutch, even that advantage would pretty much disapper and I'll bet the 0-60 times would be within the error bands of being identical.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If, if, if. Thanks for pointing out the V6 is superior. Ifs don't win trophies. If you paid another $200,000 you could have had a Lamborghini. If your name was Buffet, you might inherit a billion dollars. If you'd have bought 1000 share of Microsoft the first day of issue you'd not have to inherit a billion dollars. If the sun was in the sky if would not be dark out. If . . . . . .
There is no substitute for cubic inches.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

No the V-6 isn't superior at all, the clutch and throttle is simply inferior. Nothing to do with the engine. You do realize the difference between the clutch and the engine, right? :-)
There are lots of substitues for cubic inches. Just look at Formula 1 cars vs. Nascar.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not a comparison at all. Put the displacement of each under the same rules. Cubic inches will win every time. Sure, a turbocharged 2 liter engine can outperform a naturally aspirated 3 liter, but put the turbocharger on the 3 liter and . . . . . you get the idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Sure it is. You said "There is no substitute for cubic inches." There are lots of substitutes. Here are just a few:
1. Turbocharger 2. Supercharger 3. Nitrous Oxide injection 4. Higher compression ratio
These are all ways to increase power without increasing the displacement. Maybe you have a different definition of subsitute.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.