Sonata GLS V6 Pricing?

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:1149572790.220304.114050 @y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

I have the same car, purchased in September, 2005. That is a fair price. Take a look at Edmund's or Consumer Reports and you will see that the price is just about at the bottom line for the dealer including rebates and other incentives. The only chance for a bit of a rip off is that in your region, there may be another incentive that I can't check because I don't know where you are located.

As far as gas mileage goes, there is a lot of discrepency over that. I am averaging just over 23 MPG with my GLS V6. Considering the EPA numbers are

20 city and 30 hwy, and I drive about 80% city or so, I think I am actually beating the numbers (just barely). But some have reported mileage as low as 15 MPG. And I have had tanks as low as 18 MPG myself in the Winter.

I can't speak with too much authority on the 4 cyl., but it does seem that they typically get about 4 MPG more than the V6.

Eric

...its not always just mpg, its the type of car you want to drive. I have not driven the 4, but i sure do enjoy the 6. It may cost me 300 bucks a year more (my rough math), but its worth it to me. People spend(waste!) money in all sorts of ways. I'd treat myself to the 6, buts thats just me.

I was going to post something similar to the OP's question. I am not a 4 cyl person at all. I like the feeling of some power when I step on the gas and the 4 cylinders just don't deliver that. No matter whether it's off a stop light or out in the passing lane, I like to feel a decent motor under the hood without the thing winding itself out like a bumble bee in heat. And I like smooth too. Not many 4 cylinders deliver a smooth ride like a 6 does. I don't think it's a waste of money at all. It's your money and your preference - a waste of money would be buying something other than you really want.

The mileage you get depends alot on your driving habits. I've got the V6 and averaged 29.3 on a trip of 1300 miles two weeks ago. This was a combination of interstate and highway driving in mildly hilly country (Southern Indiana and Kentucky). A lot of the time either the windows and sunroof were open or the A/C was going.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:d51e7$44856866$452897be$ snipped-for-privacy@ALLTEL.NET:

I'm not arguing any of that. I can't!! I bought the V6 after driving both of them too. The OP asked for mileage numbers. I just provided mine, and a few examples of what others are claiming to get with the same engine.

I would say you can expect to get between 15-24 MPG City and 24-32 MPG Hwy depending on just how much you like to push the non-linear, electronic throttle. A few weeks ago I managed to get 32.7 MPG on a trip to VA from NJ. It was a 1:00 AM - 5:00 AM trip with the cruise control on most of the time, windows closed, air off and so on. Almost "prefect" conditions. My trip home was 28.5 MPG in the evening with high humidity and the A/C on for a good portion of the trip.

Eric

The 4 is not a whole lot better on price or gas. I got my basic GLS V6 for

18500 OTD, paying very high tax in my area. I've owned a moon roof, but never liked it. Just too much noise, dust, and exhaust fumes for me. The 17" wheels in the sport package are not to my taste. Too harsh and noisy over highway expansion joints.

I am averaging ~27mpg, mostly on 70% highway, 30% town, with A/C always running.

An acquaintance got 36.5 by commuting to work for a week. He drove ~52mph, using Shiftronic, and A/C turned off. It must have been a very boring week, because he drove over 500 miles at that speed.

The V6 typically gets pretty poor mileage in heavy city traffic. Expect under 20mpg with 70% city and 30% highway.

YMMV!

See my other post. What a coincidence!

I was going to do this myself, but you guys did it for me! :)

I see the roughly similar numbers, but haven't hit 32 mpg (yet), and nothing worse than 22. As you, when I close the roof with windows up and a/c off my MPG improves significantly......problem is I'm a big guy and cherish the wind all about me......2006 lx v6, 18500 miles....PS drive thru's kill you mileage, teenage drivers don't help either. (duh!!)

I agree. I really enjoy shifting for myself, so I had to buy the 4. I'd have loved to have Hyundai offer the V-6 along with a real standard shift, not that pseudo standard that comes with the automatic.

Matt

Did you drive a Sonata 4 cylinder? Mine has the performance that the V-6s had just a few years ago. It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the torque.

Matt

I paid $16,300 for my 4 cylinder. I think $2,200 is significant. :-)

I'm getting 31 MPG of late commuting to work. This is also about 70% highway and 30% city. I haven't taken a long trip yet, but I fully expect that the EPA highway rating of 34 is within reach on the interstate.

Matt

My v-6 LX is a great car...except, the ride is harsh with the 17 inch wheels, I drove a GLS with 16 inch wheels and ride was much softer..BUT It also had cloth seats which I think contributed to the nice ride. general mileage depends on your driving habits, etc, expect 15-19 city and 24-31 highway. the more people, stuff in the car, the less the mileage. probably on smoothe road one person and no luggage no headwind at 60 MPH you could probably get 33MPG!! But who drives that way

I have posted my mileage statistics for GLS V6 to this group a few weeks ago.

Search using Google and you will find my numbers.

All things have to be equal though Matt. Your 4 has the performance of the six of a few years ago because the 6 of a few years ago lacked torque. You have to compare current models. All things being equal, it is the number of cylinders. That said, it's good to see the performance of the 4 cylinders improving. I drove a four before buying our six and I really hated everything about it. It was rougher, and it dramatically lacked power.

I disagree. The number of cylinders doesn't mean squat. It is the torque curve shape and magnitude that matters. A 4 can be made very smooth and a V-6 can shake like a paint mixer.

I prefer fewer cylinders as it lowers maintenance costs all the way around and lessens the chance of failure. Having more parts means greater likelihood of failure, in general.

I'm personally quite amazed at the performance of the new Chrysler/Hyundai/Mitsubishi (I think the 3rd partner is Mitsu anyway)

2.4L. It is smooth, quiet and performs very well in a car the size of the Sonata, at least with the standard shift. I didn't drive an automatic 4, so maybe that is different as automatics are almost always poorer performers than standard shift vehicles. And they ALWAYS feel more sluggish.

I drove three different V-6 automatic Sonatas and the 4 with standard just felt more responsive to me in almost all circumstances, except right off the line. It is hard to get a good launch with the touchy throttle combined with a too light clutch with too narrow an engagement band.

Matt

Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a higher torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read my comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.

It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a Sonata V-6.

Yes, no doubt the Sonata V-6 has a more HP and torque than the Sonata I-4, but the difference in performance is pretty slight and actually doesn't seem consistent with the difference in published power and torque figures. Barely 1 second difference in the quarter mile time (see link below). Given that the V-6 has 38% more torque and 45% more horsepower, the quarter mile time is only 7% quicker. Part is due to the extra weight of the V-6 engine and automatic transmission, and part is due to the higher power loss in the automatic as compared to the standard. I'm not sure what the rest is due to, but I have to wonder if the V-6 stats haven't suffered from "marketing inflation" to more closely compete with the V-6s from Toyota and Honda.

For me the deciding factors in favor of the 4 were fuel economy, better handling of the 4 vs. the 6 due to having 200 or so fewer pounds up front, and just a more responsive feel of the 4 vs. the 6. And my "seat of the pants" assessment of the difference in acceleration jives very closely with the numbers published here. The V-6 simply didn't feel much faster than the 4, and the only place it did was during acceleration above about 70 MPH. It actually felt more sluggish to me in the 30-60 range which is where I do about 99.44% of my driving.

Matt

Matt - I had just said that it's displacement. These days you seem to be quick to disagree without reading what posters are saying. If we're going to argue then let's argue like a man - let's argue about which is *really* better - red heads or brunettes.

OK, but when you said "cylinders do matter", that seemed like a discussion about number of cylinders, which don't matter much in this context, vs. displacement which matters a lot.

Blondes. :-)

Matt