I did. Cubic inches will always come out ahead. Add-ons are just that and
can be applied to any engine, You still need cubic inches. A given
turbocharger is a small block is not going to give the power that you can
get from a big block. Interpret how you wish, but bigger is better. Number
of cylinders means far less than the number of cubic inches. I'd agree that
the big four is better than a tiny six.
Funny, Car and Driver was able to get a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds with
the 2006 LX. I have a GLS V6, which is close to 200 lbs. lighter which
should make it about a tick quicker. The problem here is CD didn't test
the 4 banger so we have no way to know how really bad the MSN data is.
But in any event, you do realize how much faster 1.06 seconds is in the
1/4 mile, right? Like night and day if you ever been to a drag strip.
But again, I am happy that you are happy with your car. However slow it
might be :-)
It depends on the speed through the traps. At 300 MPH, 1 second is a
big difference. At 90, not so much.
The interesting part is that the 4 gained on the 6 between 60 MPH and 90
MPH. Too bad your car starts losing ground to my lowly 4 as the speed
It all depends on how they measure the 0-60 time. Some places measure
where the front wheels trip the timer. Some places measure the time
from a light signal which means the driver reaction time is also
factored in. I have no idea how either the MSN data or the C&D data was
taken. Also, weather conditions play a significant role. Sea level on
a cold day is nothing like 5,000' on a hot day.
The only thing obvious to me is that most folks posting here didn't
drive a manual transmission 4 cylinder. Yes, the automatic 4 was a fair
bit slower than the V-6, but the standard shift is an entire different
You all keep talking about speed in the 1/4 mile and acceleration off the
line, but the original theme of this whole thing was MPG. If all you are
doing is dragging (which is now unfortunately illegal) from the stoplight,
MPG means nothing. You have to take a trip to truly appreciate and evaluate
MPG so that means you are AT speed and not accelerating at all. So now,
with a lighter car with a 4 cyl, guess who wins the MPG battle? Sure
accelerating is fun. I love it too, but on a trip, who cares? You're
hauling around a more complex, heavier engine putting out the same or even
more horsepower to maintain the same speed as me. I can't justify that.
Maybe you 6 guys can.
Yes, you are correct. I spend about 95% of my driving cruising at a
steady 55-60 MPH so acceleration isn't a concern. My 4 banger handles
that just fine and gets 3-5 MPG better fuel mileage in the process.
I'm glad that most folks buy the V-6 as it helped me get a great deal on
the I-4. Most folks don't want standard shift either, but I much prefer
it, especially given a decent clutch and throttle, which unfortunately
the Sonata lacks. After my car sat on the lot for about 4 months, the
dealer was ready to deal.
Yeah, but I've got to watch my ass though. My last three cars totaled
370,000 miles and in all that time I don't think I've ever exceeded 85 at
any time. My Sonata has 9500 miles and I've topped 100 three times already.
Each time is was the same place for a short time with no traffic and good
visibility to see if there is radar. It can be very expensive.
Let's see....at 300 MPH it is ~466 ft. and at 90 MPH it is ~140 ft. So
you'd be 140 ft. behind me at 90 MPH. Seems like quite a bit to me.
Actually, my car wouldn't lose any ground to yours in the above scenario
since you'd be lifting off the throttle at 65 MPH. Aren't you the one
that claims to almost never violate the posted speed limit :-P
MSN results are known to be overly conservative. CD usually is the
industry standard for this stuff, but as you said, and I said, there is
no way to use the data provided to make a fair comparison. And for the
record, with the computer controlled cars of recent years, the weather
conditions make much less of a difference than they used to. I think
altitude would play the biggest role.
Thought we were comparing AT to AT? I know at least in my case, the MT
wasn't a consideration. My wife, while she could drive a MT in an
emergency, would probably eat a clutch for breakfast every few thousand
miles. We swap cars too many times each year to have a MT sitting
I get 132 feet, but that isn't much to me, only 10% of the total
distance traveled. And I've gained on you since we hit 60 so if we keep
going I'll catch you! :-)
I assumed we were on a track. Yes, I not only claimed to almost never
exceed the speed limit, I almost never do exceed the speed limit. I
never say never, but almost never is accurate. If I'm on a stretch of
road with no other traffic and can see a good distance, I'm not opposed
to opening her up a little. My only beef is with the idiots that do
this in traffic. I really don't care if somebody wants to kill
themselves, but I have no tolerance for those who endanger others for no
It still makes a big difference. The computer can optimize the amount
of fuel to match the amount of air, but it can't change the density of
the air coming in. The best controlled engine in the world will
steadily lose power as density altitude increases. Likewise, the
computer can't control the amount of water vapor in the air either.
I didn't see the AT to AT requirement. I just saw 6 vs. 4. It is
amusing to see the I'll take a 4 over a 6 discussion when people ignore
all of the other factors. It is the torque available at the rear wheels
that matters, not how many cylinders are in the engine. There are lots
of 4 cylinder engines that generate a lot more torque than 6 or even 8
Imagine if the 6 had a MT available? Then we wouldn't be having this
discussion really, or maybe we would :-)
I know my car has ZERO torque at the rear wheels :-P Yes, I know it was a
But then we should throw diesels in the mix when talking torque, right?
And you should probably ammend the last sentence anyway. I would admit
that there are a FEW 4's that out-torque a FEW 6's, but not many, and
certainly not "lots".
Probably not. :-)
Although, I have to admit that I'm more than happy with the power of the
four and I did buy this car mainly for cheap transportation to work
that got good fuel economy. When I'm ready for performance, I will buy
a Vette. :-)
Your rear brakes don't work? :-)
Yes, when I think of cars and performance my mind automatically goes to
RWD as all real performance cars are RWD.
Yes, a performance oriented diesel is pretty amazing. Even more amazing
are electric motors. A friend had an EV-1 for several years and that
car would smoke anything from 0-35 or so. He used to have fun with the
yuppies and their BMW and Porsches. They never knew what hit them. The
only problem was wheelspin...
Therein lies the difference, I believe. Speaking only for myself, I wanted
an automatic because that's what my wife prefers. I'd be happy with a
standard, but the Sonata is her car. The 4 cylinders I drove with an
automatic were something to be ashamed of in my opinion. Comparing a
standard transmission 4 cylinder to an automatic transmission 6 cylinder is
somewhat foolish. Compare like transmissions in both engine styles if you
want to talk about something meaningful.
Yep, I have a 26 mile ride to work and enjoy it. I've got the 6 CD changer
loaded with MP3's so there are hours of music that sounds just great with
the Infinity sound systemj. The climate control set at 70 degrees does a
good job of keeping me warm and cuddly too. I don't mind a long drive
because I can move th at power seat a bit if I want to change position and
the lumbar support is good for my back. The vanity mirror is lighted so I
can see to comb my hair if any ever grows back. Hey, it can happen.
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.