Sonata Gas Mileage?

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.

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.

OK, lets get real here. If one drives 15,000 miles a year at 26 MPG average one uses 577 gallons of gas If one drives 15,000 miles a year at 22 MPG average one uses 682 gallons of gas

The difference is 105 gallons At $2.19 per gallon the difference is $229.95 for the entire year.

IMHO if $229.95 for the year is going to make a difference it is in all likelihood not a good idea to purchase either car.

Double Tap

Tom:

I simply responded to your rather pointed post below. Please note your comment and tone. You admonished people to quit being wasteful and do as you do, since you consider it to be enough. I think I was kind enough in my response. If you are going to tell people what to do, you better be prepared for a response that differs from your own opinion. Or - don't tell other people what to do.

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.

Huh??? Sorry guy - I don't get the reason for this post.

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

Matt Whiting wrote in news:e6azh.2598$ snipped-for-privacy@news1.epix.net:

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

But again, I am happy that you are happy with your car. However slow it might be :-)

Eric

Let me see, Oh I guess someone forgot the subject of the thread is Sonata Gas Mileage and some people were discussing there mileage figures.

Double Tap

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 increases. :-)

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 animal.

Matt

So to make your apples and oranges comparison more equal, toss a tangerine into the mix.

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.

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.

Tom

Pat,

I have an 06 LX with the 3.3L engine also. It took us to about 12K to see any significant improvement in mileage over what you are seeing. Since the car hit ~15K to the current 25K I have seen very consistent numbers with each tankful and have had several instances to validate the numbers with use relegated strictly to city or highway driving only for a full tanks worth. What I have been getting is 23.4 City / 28.1 Hwy. I have a tendency to have a lead foot, so my guess is that the numbers could be improved upon somewhat if applied a more gradual approach to reaching crusing speeds :-)

KW

Matt Whiting wrote in news:5Alzh.2609$ snipped-for-privacy@news1.epix.net:

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 around.

Eric

"KW" wrote in news:1d4d5$45ce0a20$4528174e$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:

KW, I have to agree with you here. I am running slightly less than you on the city average, and slightly higher on the highway numbers, but overall you and I are pretty close. My lead foot only comes out once in a while. But I also noticed an improvement at the 16-17K level, and I am currently pushing 19K myself.

Eric

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

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.

Matt

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 good reason.

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 cylinder engines.

Matt