Sonata Gas Mileage?

Page 2 of 3  


They are good ways of getting the most of the available cubic inches, but no matter how many of your add-ons you add, more cubic inches will still make them more powerful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

No kidding, but that isn't what you said.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You know exactly what I meant though
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

No, I thought you meant what you wrote.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

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

Ed, you are so far wrong on this topic that I'm not even going to bother discussing it further.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right, there is nothing to discuss. The more cubic inches the more potential power
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


&make=Hyund
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11107/2006-hyundai-sonata-lx-v - 6. html
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 :-)
Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eric G. wrote:

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

So to make your apples and oranges comparison more equal, toss a tangerine into the mix.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

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

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

evaluate
I can Tom, but that because as I said very early on - I just like that feeling of the acceleration getting up to those cruising speeds.
--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
--

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

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.
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.