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
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.
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.
[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?
Personal home page - http://gogood.com
gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots
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.
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
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
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
wrote in message
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure it is. You said "There is no substitute for cubic inches."
There are lots of substitutes. Here are just a few:
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.
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.