Apparently, part of the problem was that only around 10% of the buying
public was getting the V6.
Too bad, because that American-built powerplant was a seriously good motor.
I do hope they keep it for other applications.
BTW, I had heard about these new 6-speed transmissions a few years ago, and
was wondering if Hyundai was every actually going to get around to using
them. Up to now, almost everything, even in the Genesis, had been a
When I was at the dealer the other day, he was trying to steer me to a 4
($2000 cheaper) and had a bigger selection on the lot. I like the 6 so I
insisted. Quiet, smooth, and trouble free for 66,000 miles. Next owner
should get at least that much too.
New mileage regulations will kill them off on a lot of cars though.
Very bad idea on their part.
My guess is that the V-6 is going to become a luxury only on the really big
car. The CAFE standards will do them in. I'd also guess that even the big
cars will shrink a few inches and shed a few pounds in order to comply.
To shed both weight and cost, the spare tire is going away. The Chevy
Cobalt and Malibu come with a sealant and inflation kit. The spare tire and
jack is a $100 option package.
My understanding is that Hyundai is attempting to improve their CAFE
figures. To my knowledge, the Sonata will be offered with three
powertrain options-- naturally aspirated, turbo, and hybrid.
Purportedly, I'm to receive training next month and should be able to
confirm/deny at that time.
I think I am in a minority on this list as I bought a 4 cylinder Sonata
with the 5 speed manual. I have been very happy with its power and
performance. My only complaint with the power train is with the clutch,
not the engine. The clutch is lousy. If Hyundai would hire BMW to
design their clutch, then the 4 cylinder would be more than adequate,
especially with a 6 speed manual so that first gear could be lower and
high gear could be higher.
My 5 speed isn't bad from a ratio selection perspective, but first gear
is too tall for the hilly country where I live and the engine turns much
faster in 5th than it needs to for highway cruising (I think close to
3,000 at 70 MPH). A lower low and higher high would be nice.
I drove all three combinations when I bought my 06 (4 cyl/5 speed, 4
cyl/automatic, 6 cyl/automatic). The V-6 certainly pulls harder than my
4, but the difference was pretty minor and is offset by the crisper
handing of the 4 cylinder due to something like 200 lbs less weight,
much of which comes off the front wheels. A turbo 4 would be the cat's
A 4 cylinder turbo with a 6 speed manual and a GOOD clutch would smoke
the V-6 all day long and still return better fuel mileage when cruising
I get it will.
The regular 4 is also $2000 less cost than the V-6, the turbo will probably
take up a big chunk of that. I've not checked rear end specs, but my '10
cruises at 70 mph and 2000 rpm while the '07 was at 2200 rpm for the same
speed. Final drive is 3.33 but I don't recall what it was on the old one.
Shift points seem a bit different too. The HP was increase from 234 to 249
too but I've not yet had a chance to wring it out as there are only 250
miles so far. The 4 at 175 is pretty hefty power though.
For comparison, the Malibu is 163 hp and the spare tire and jack are
options. All you get is an inflator kit unless you pay $100 extra.
Not too sure I agree with you on this. They have a modified 4 with a turbo
in Korea (an aftermarket job) that just stays neck and neck with the stock
6 off the line. Not sure if it has the stock clutch or not though. If I
can find that reference I will post it. I saw it over a year ago.
Can't argue about the mileage though. The 4 will win that one hands down I
think. Although C&D recently did a test of large displacement normally
aspirated engines in the same car with a smaller displacement turbo and the
larger engine usually wound up getting better gas mileage.
As one who owns a Hyundai, but has also owned a SAAB Turbo in the
past, I can assure you that a turbocharged 4-cylinder SOHC or DOHC
engine can more than keep up with practically any naturally aspirated
V6. SAAB was one of the pioneers in turbocharging, and developed the
APC (automatic performance control) system which varied the boost
based upon the octane of the fuel. If you've ever driven a SAAB
Turbo, you know what a properly engineered turbocharged 4-cylinder can
do. Have no fear, this should be a good engine.
Well, I'm certianly not afraid of the engine, but your point really doesn't
make much sense.
V-6: 245HP/230 lb.ft.
4 TURBO - 250 HP/196 lb.ft.
Given that the 4 turbo, all else being equal, will probably weigh a bit
less, it might be able to keep up. But usually the gearing will be
different, among too make other variables to mention.
Sure, the 4 COULD beat the 6, no question. But again, all thing being
equal, the 6 will win this comparo.
And a properly engineered V-6 made by the same manufacturer as the properly
engineered 4 turbo, should have a significant difference in HP and tourque.
Sure, it depends on how well they engineer the turbo, but assuming they
do it well it isn't hard to get 50% more output and that is about what
the difference is between the current 4 and 6. And going beyond 50%
isn't much harder if they add an intercooler and some other goodies.
I agree though that the devil is in the details and we haven't yet seen
the details. And you still end up with a much lighter package generally
as the turbo is much lighter than two more cylinders in an engine. The
weight helps performance also, and more than just straight-line
performance. My 4 cylinder definitely has crisper handing than does the
V-6s that I have rented.
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.