 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / January 2006How much better is the '06 Sonata?
Hi all. As noted in a previous post, Hyundai Sonata has captured my interest with the great reviews and impressive equipment list on its re-designed '06 model. It looks and sounds so good on paper that I am thinking about buying one. This despite the fact that I have never driven a Hyundai, until recently I never seriously considered one, my current Chevy is fully adequate and it would take some penny-pinching to afford a new Sonata. All that leads up to the question: Just how big an improvement is the '06 Sonata over previous generations? It's roomier, the standard equipment, especially safety equipment, is clearly better and the mpg has risen, at least per the EPA. With all that the price is still quite reasonable, at least for the base 4-cylinder. Is the '04 or '05 Sonata worth looking into? I'd like to hear from anyone who has driven both the '06 and also the previous generation Sonata. Are there any trade-offs for all the improvements, i.e. ways in which the earlier Sonata is better than the '06? Thanks for all advice. Regards, Eric M >Is the '04 or '05 Sonata worth looking into? I'd like to hear from >anyone who has driven both the '06 and also the previous generation >Sonata. Are there any trade-offs for all the improvements, i.e. ways in >which the earlier Sonata is better than the '06? I drive a 2004 Sonata LX that I bought new and that I love. It has been perfect. No complaints. BUT, I have driven a friend's 2006 Sonata LX, and I consider it a distinct step up in several regards. I especially like the power delivered with the new V6 (a full 65 horsepower increase) and the fact that the new bigger engine actually gets better mileage. Try one. It just feels like a more substantial car in every respect. In my opinion, of course. I will probably get the new model next year. >>Is the '04 or '05 Sonata worth looking into? I'd like to hear from >>anyone who has driven both the '06 and also the previous generation [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > horsepower increase) and the fact that the new bigger engine actually > gets better mileage. Does it really get better mileage or are you just going on the EPA ratings? Matt Matt, I saw you posted on the other Sonata string about mileage. My '06 gets 34 on the highway, which is better than the 33 claimed on the sticker. That's with two people in the car. When it was FULLY loaded for our 700 mile Christmas ride to Pa. and 3 adults aboard, it got 31.7. That's at 80 mph up and down the mountains of Va. We live in the country and have to drive at least 13 miles to anything, so I don't have a good city reading, but for everyday travel for us, we get about 27 mpg. Tom >>>Is the '04 or '05 Sonata worth looking into? I'd like to hear from >>>anyone who has driven both the '06 and also the previous generation [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Matt tjnamtiw . . . do you have the V6 or the Inline-4 in your '06 Sonata? We're considering the purchase of a Sonata GLS later in 2006. Of course, we prefer the smoothness and power of the V6, but are concerned about gas mileage and long-term maintenance cost differentials with the V6. V-style engine designs are always more difficult to service than an Inline-4. We currently own a '06 Elantra GLS, and like it well, and are looking at adding a Sonata later this year. Don Sorry for the delay in answering. Yes, my Sonata is the 4 cyl. I don't see ANY reason for the V6 except boosting one's ego to say the have more power, even though more power is not needed. Hyundai does limit some 'extras' to the V6 model only, but they are non-essentials in my book concidering all the things that come on the 4 cylinder version. > tjnamtiw . . . do you have the V6 or the Inline-4 in your '06 Sonata? > We're considering the purchase of a Sonata GLS later in 2006. Of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don We have a 6 cyl. on our 06 Sonata and our choice of the 6 has nothing to do with"ego" (independent of the "non-essentials" as you describe, that came with a 6 cylindert). Some driving situations, depending on driver and conditions, may warrant and additional boost of power. We drove the 4cyl. and found it, for our tastes, to noisy and "overlabored" in some instances. We wanted a safe quiet and comfortable car , and we have just that, an '06 6Cyl Sonata and we love it........Doc > Sorry for the delay in answering. Yes, my Sonata is the 4 cyl. I don't see > ANY reason for the V6 except boosting one's ego to say the have more power, > even though more power is not needed. Hyundai does limit some 'extras' to > the V6 model only, but they are non-essentials in my book concidering all > the things that come on the 4 cylinder version. Ego? I'd say the ego is attached to the one who feels he can determine the motives of others. Sorry - you missed. The power is not needed? Maybe not for you. I was under-impressed with the performance of the Hyundai 4 cylinder. As I have been with all 4 cylinders. I don't want a car that works as hard as a 4 cylinder does when I step on the pedal. Your driving style may differ greatly from mine, and for your driving style *or*... <get this...> your driving *needs*, the 4 may well be perfectly adequate. It's not up to you to decide what's adequate for others though. Some actually need the increased power of a 6 cylinder. Some carry bigger loads on a regular basis than you and a 6 cylinder makes a big difference in how hard the car works. Some may like to get up to speed faster than you, or pass a car without the inadequacy of a 4 cylinder over-reving in the process. 6 cylinders perform much better in all of these areas. We aren't talking monster engines here - the 6 cylinder, even with its increased horsepower over the 4 cylinder is far from an ego machine.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> Sorry for the delay in answering. Yes, my Sonata is the 4 cyl. I >> don't [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > We aren't talking monster engines here - the 6 cylinder, even with its > increased horsepower over the 4 cylinder is far from an ego machine. I echo your sentiments exactly, Mike. I think Tom might have some "issues" himself, but we won't go there. Where I live, in the traffic congested parts of NJ that I travel, I consider the V6 to be a safety device for pulling out into traffic without getting squashed. It's not about ego, it's about not getting hit or killed. If Tom came up behind me on the highway, and my "V6" emblem were to scare him, I would gladly pull to the side and let him pass me. In fact, most people pass me on the highway (I feel like a "Grandpa" sometimes doing only 70-75 on the highway). I would even give up my V6 if I drove on the highway more than about 25% of the time. But I absolutley feel safer and more secure (especially carrying my kids) with the V6 for the other 75% of my driving. Eric > Where I live, in the traffic congested parts of NJ that I travel, I > consider the V6 to be a safety device for pulling out into traffic > without getting squashed. It's not about ego, it's about not getting > hit or killed. Why not get a V-8 then and be even safer? Matt Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:xfgxf.5092$lb.440214 @news1.epix.net: >> Where I live, in the traffic congested parts of NJ that I travel, I >> consider the V6 to be a safety device for pulling out into traffic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Matt Look, the bottom line is that I would have been happy with the 4, and the gas mileage, if the darn thing could get out of its own way. I drove both the auto and the manual 4, and the 6 before I made my purchase. Just pulling out of the dealer's lot on to busy Rt. 1 made the decision fairly easy. If you don't need the power then, pardon the pun, more power to you. Really, you can stop trolling now. > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:xfgxf.5092$lb.440214 > @news1.epix.net: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Really, you can stop trolling now. But you are so easy to troll. :-) It's easier to just admit that you wanted the extra power of the V-6. Trying to make claims like safety, just makes you look silly. Matt >It's easier to just admit that you wanted the extra power of the V-6. >Trying to make claims like safety, just makes you look silly. Well aren't we superior and judgmental? I drive the freeways of Southern California. It would be hard, I think, to live in the U.S. and not be at least somewhat aware of what a driving horror that is. I find the V6 gives me a bit more "escapabilty" than does a four cylinder. And I do know the difference. I drove a four for years, and was scared to death many times trying to get out of situations caused by really bad drivers. And the argument about going all the way to a V8 is specious and not worthy of discussion, as well know. Cheers >>It's easier to just admit that you wanted the extra power of the V-6. >>Trying to make claims like safety, just makes you look silly. > > Well aren't we superior and judgmental? No, just talking usenet reality. > I drive the freeways of Southern California. It would be hard, I > think, to live in the U.S. and not be at least somewhat aware of what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And the argument about going all the way to a V8 is specious and not > worthy of discussion, as well know. No, it is a logical extension of your original argument. Matt >>It's easier to just admit that you wanted the extra power of the V-6. >>Trying to make claims like safety, just makes you look silly. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Cheers I am pretty sure Matt has never had the opportunity to drive in conditions that we call "normal". So please go easy on the troll, for he knows not what we speak of :-) I Even I can only imagine how much worse it is for you than me. >>>It's easier to just admit that you wanted the extra power of the V-6. >>>Trying to make claims like safety, just makes you look silly. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that we call "normal". So please go easy on the troll, for he knows not > what we speak of :-) Maybe, maybe not. What are your normal conditions? I've driven in Boston, LA, Atlanta, Paris, most of England and many large cities in the USA. I haven't driven in Italy and I hear that is one of the most challenging places to drive. Are you in Italy? :-) Matt Wowwee, you certianly do get around on this planet...........jeez! You should do a tv travel show. Just one question why would you think he was in italy?....Doc > Wowwee, you certianly do get around on this planet...........jeez! You > should do a tv travel show. Just one question why would you think he > was in italy?....Doc I didn't, I was being facetious. He was implying that I'd never driven in hectic urban conditions. I believe I've driven in conditions as bad as anything short of Italy. :-) I have friends you spent time in Italy on a project while I was working on a similar project in England. We compared notes from time to time and it was clear that driving in Italy was quite an adventure. Routinely passing down the middle of a two-lane (narrow at that) road against opposing traffic was apparently quite routine. And the protocol for going through an intersection marked with a stop sign was to honk your horn a 100 yards away and if you heard no honks in return, you simply drove through the intersection at cruise speed. Maybe they were pulling my leg, but I've heard similar stories from a number of people who have lived or driven in Italy. Matt > Maybe they were pulling my leg, but I've heard similar stories from a > number of people who have lived or driven in Italy. Not really so in all parts of Italy, but more and more similar to description going to southern cities. SignatureZotto Sonica V6 MY2002 driver http://www.g2kweb.it/?85 >> I am pretty sure Matt has never had the opportunity to drive in >> conditions that we call "normal". So please go easy on the troll, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Matt I've driven in all of those cities as well as Rome and Venice in Italy. That still doesn't answer the question of what your normal conditions are. Southern California was the worst I've seen by far, but where I live is second on the list without a doubt, although I'd have to say that Atlanta wasn't too far behind. >>>I am pretty sure Matt has never had the opportunity to drive in >>>conditions that we call "normal". So please go easy on the troll, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > second on the list without a doubt, although I'd have to say that Atlanta > wasn't too far behind. My normal conditions are primarily rural two-lanes and four-lanes with lots of semi traffic. I drive route 15 to work and it is the only north-south route in central PA and is very heavily trafficed with large trucks being dominant. Probably deer are one of the biggest road hazards. I don't drive in the city on a daily basis, but I travel a lot in my work so I drive fairly often in a number of cities around the US and the world. Matt > >>>I am pretty sure Matt has never had the opportunity to drive in > >>>conditions that we call "normal". So please go easy on the troll, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > I've driven in all of those cities as well as Rome and Venice in Italy. Venice is one of the most challenging places to drive especially if you don't float too well. I guess I don't understand. someone wrote "how much better is the '06' Sonata... Then everyone get's their claws out. If you guys wanna bitch to each other, please change the Subject and take it there. I wanted to see what everyone thought about the '06' sonata and Learned NOTHING... PS.. It's appears that it's not just this tread but many ones in many groups. >> >>>I am pretty sure Matt has never had the opportunity to drive in >> >>>conditions that we call "normal". So please go easy on the troll, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Venice is one of the most challenging places to drive especially if you > don't float too well. > I guess I don't understand. someone wrote "how much better is the '06' > Sonata... > > Then everyone get's their claws out. No, we were just having a little fun. > If you guys wanna bitch to each other, please change the Subject and take it > there. Who appointed you guardian? > I wanted to see what everyone thought about the '06' sonata and Learned > NOTHING... I've posted extensively about my 06 Sonata in another thread as have others. If you've learned nothing, then you aren't paying attention or reading much. > PS.. It's appears that it's not just this tread but many ones in many > groups. That's usenet. Get used to it. It's been that way for decades, well at least the two that I've been using it. Matt >> > I've driven in all of those cities as well as Rome and Venice in >> > Italy. > > Venice is one of the most challenging places to drive especially if > you don't float too well. I drove an amphibious Volkswagen Beetle there wise guy :-) I would have to guess that you've never actually been to Venice to say that, because there are plenty of roads around Venice "proper". > >> > I've driven in all of those cities as well as Rome and Venice in > >> > Italy. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I would have to guess that you've never actually been to Venice to say > that, because there are plenty of roads around Venice "proper". Sure there are! There are plenty roads around Atlantis, too. But it's just that little preposition "in" that made me comment! "James Atkinson" <James__@yahoo.com> wrote in news:fdiyf.3767$Aq5.334 @fe08.lga: >> >> > I've driven in all of those cities as well as Rome and Venice in >> >> > Italy. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But it's just that little preposition "in" that made me comment! LOL, yeah, I know :-P >> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:xfgxf.5092$lb.440214 >> @news1.epix.net: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Matt It's only easier to admit if it were actually true. If telling the truth just makes me look silly, then just call me Mr. Silly. I'll stop feeding the troll now because I know that almost everyone that bothered to drive the V6 bought it. > It's only easier to admit if it were actually true. If telling the truth > just makes me look silly, then just call me Mr. Silly. > > I'll stop feeding the troll now because I know that almost everyone that > bothered to drive the V6 bought it. I drove both. I liked both. The decision point for me was three-fold: 1. I like stick shift and the Sonata doesn't offer a stick with the V-6 2. I was after fuel economy. 3. I wanted to keep the initial price as low as possible. So, the 4 cylinder was an easy decision. And the ironic part is that it easily out accelerates my V-6 minivan and my V-6 pickup truck. :-) Matt >> It's only easier to admit if it were actually true. If telling the >> truth just makes me look silly, then just call me Mr. Silly. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Matt Fair enough. I'm not judging your decision. For me, having to sit in daily crawling traffic, a stick just doesn't make any sense. I did NOT drive the 4 with a stick (the dealer didn't have one even if I wanted to). Maybe that has good enough power, but you have to admit that the automatic was a bit on the feebler side as far as pulling out into traffic, no? The V6 was even an easier decision for me without the stick in the equation. Just out of curiosity, do you know how much the minivan and pickup weigh versus the Sonata? >>>It's only easier to admit if it were actually true. If telling the >>>truth just makes me look silly, then just call me Mr. Silly. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > was a bit on the feebler side as far as pulling out into traffic, no? The > V6 was even an easier decision for me without the stick in the equation. And I wasn't judging your decision, I just was picking on your justification for it. :-) I didn't drive a 4 cylinder automatic, but I found the V-6 automatic to be fairly peppy both at low speeds and at high. I found the 4 cylinder stick nearly as peppy up until about 80 MPH (don't tell the dealer about my test drives!). The V-6, once it shifts down, pulls better at higher speeds, but if you hold it in 5th, the advantage over the 4 cylinder stick seemed minor to me. Yes, I likely wouldn't buy a stick in the city, then again, I just might as I really like stick shift and nearly despise automatics. I'm probably the only person in my county who has a snow-plow equipped pickup truck with a 5 speed. Everyone tells me you can't plow snow with a standard without burning up the clutch. Well, I've done it for 50,000 miles or so with no problem (the truck has 90K, but has only had the plow for the past 50K). I also tow a camper with a manual tranny. I should say that I drove semis for 5 years so I really do know how to drive a stick. Driven properly, a stick will do just about anything an automatic will do, and does a lot of things better and for less money and maintenance cost and far fewer failures. > Just out of curiosity, do you know how much the minivan and pickup weigh > versus the Sonata? I'm not precisly sure, but my truck weighs about 5,600 lbs empty (I've had it on scales so I know this number is pretty close). I'm not sure about the minivan, but I'm guessing it weights 4,000 or so (it is an 03 Grand Caravan). The truck has the 4.3L Vortec V-6 and the van has the 3.3L V-6. I'd have to go out and get my manual to look up the Sonata weight, but I was thinking that the 4 cylinder/5 speed was just shy of 3,000 lbs and it seems that the V-6 automatic was a couple of hundred pounds heavier. The extra weight, and I believe higher final drive ratio, is the likely reason that the acceleration difference isn't as pronounced as the torque difference between the two engines might suggest. If I get a minute, I'll Google and find the exact weights of the GC and Sonata. Matt >> Fair enough. I'm not judging your decision. For me, having to sit >> in daily crawling traffic, a stick just doesn't make any sense. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And I wasn't judging your decision, I just was picking on your > justification for it. :-) The bottom line is the AT 4 could not get out of its own way. If anything, it was about the same as my Elantra. Considering the traffic, merging and general acceleration needed in my daily driving area, it wasn't an option for me. Again, it is a safety issue. If you don't consider that safety, come live here for a while and see for yourself. People will, for the most part, push you off the road if you're in their way. > I didn't drive a 4 cylinder automatic, but I found the V-6 automatic > to be fairly peppy both at low speeds and at high. I found the 4 > cylinder stick nearly as peppy up until about 80 MPH (don't tell the > dealer about my test drives!). The V-6, once it shifts down, pulls > better at higher speeds, but if you hold it in 5th, the advantage over > the 4 cylinder stick seemed minor to me. I also ran both of my test drive vehicles hard and the 4AT couldn't hold a candle to the V6. I find it hard to believe that the 4MT would have much more pop, but it does have a higher final drive ratio, so that could make a difference. It is also probably 200-300 pounds lighter (guess) which would also help it out. Sounds like you should have also looked at the Elantra GT. > Yes, I likely wouldn't buy a stick in the city, then again, I just > might as I really like stick shift and nearly despise automatics. I'm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > had the plow for the past 50K). I also tow a camper with a manual > tranny. I also drove a MT for 20 years. I love it too (my Elantra was my first AT purchased more because of the wife). I still have an '88 chevy P/U with a MT. It's a light buty truck, and I don't plow with it, but we do plow with the 1990 Dodge Ram P/U with an MT at work. As you said, it works fine. We're at 100,000 miles at work with the first clutch and my own truck is at 175,000 miles with the clutch replaced only once. > I should say that I drove semis for 5 years so I really do know how to > drive a stick. Driven properly, a stick will do just about anything > an automatic will do, and does a lot of things better and for less > money and maintenance cost and far fewer failures. I have never driven a semi, but I drive a 1968 Mack tanker truck with 14 gears at work. Ten years ago I would have agreed with you completely. I still agree that a manual will run for less money and maintenance cost, but honestly there is almost nothing a stick will do these days that an atuo can't. >> Just out of curiosity, do you know how much the minivan and pickup >> weigh versus the Sonata? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If I get a minute, I'll Google and find the exact weights of the GC > and Sonata. Exact numbers aren't important really. Just run a general HP/weight ratio and you will see why the Sonata accelerates better. Yes tourque can be a factor too, but usually not unless you are comparing a diesel engine. Eric > The bottom line is the AT 4 could not get out of its own way. If > anything, it was about the same as my Elantra. Considering the traffic, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > People will, for the most part, push you off the road if you're in their > way. Sounds like you need a Hummer, not a Sonata. :-) > I have never driven a semi, but I drive a 1968 Mack tanker truck with 14 > gears at work. Ten years ago I would have agreed with you completely. > I still agree that a manual will run for less money and maintenance > cost, but honestly there is almost nothing a stick will do these days > that an atuo can't. A stick can be push or coast started if the battery dies. A stick can be more safely towed. I can control which gear my transmission is in at all times. I realize the shiftronic can now do this as well, but it seemed a little gimicky to me. I am simply too used to the "H" pattern and couldn't remember which way to move the lever to shift up and down manually. A stick won't overheat like an automatic can. And manual still gets better fuel mileage in almost all vehicles, though I have seen a couple where the auto was the same or even claimed to be better. It is is better, then I believe that is due to a poorly designed manual or an improper final drive ratio. > Exact numbers aren't important really. Just run a general HP/weight > ratio and you will see why the Sonata accelerates better. Yes tourque > can be a factor too, but usually not unless you are comparing a diesel > engine. Actually, torque is the only factor insofar as acceleration is concerned as torque is a measure of force and force is the factor in acceleration as Newton told us so many years ago. Remember, F=ma. Horsepower determines the top speed capability as it is a measure of work and the faster the car goes the more work it is doing. Matt sticks also dont have the power loss that autos do. a v6 sonata 5 spd would be a hoot >> The bottom line is the AT 4 could not get out of its own way. If >> anything, it was about the same as my Elantra. Considering the traffic, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Matt > sticks also dont have the power loss that autos do. > a v6 sonata 5 spd would be a hoot True, but the difference is now much smaller with the lockup TCs. Although you still have some pumping loss in the tranny, it is minor when you aren't shifting. Yes, I likely would have bought a V-6 if I could have obtained the 5 speed with it. Quite an oversight on Hyundai's part IMO. Matt Matt, in a continuing post on the Sonata automatic transmission vs. the manual, said: "True, but the difference is now much smaller with the lockup TCs. Although you still have some pumping loss in the tranny, it is minor when you aren't shifting."...... Quite true. In fact, people with manuals, who do a lot of open road, country or interstate driving will probably get as good or better gas mileage with an automatic. The close numbers of EPA ratings of the Sonata 4 (maunal vs. automatic) bear this out. In real life, it may be even more stark. Consumer Reports just released its February guide, where it tested the new Honda Civic - same trim line, same engine, one with a manual, one with an automatic. Overall, the manual whipped the automatic, 31 mpg to 28. And city mileage had a distinct advantage to the manual. But in highway driving, the manual got 40 mpg, the automatic got 43. Indeed, with me personally doing much more open road driving than city driving, that is more than enough to convince me, if I ever bought one, to get the Civic automatic, even if I like driving a manual. By the way, Consumer Reports, no matter what you may think of them, will be releasing a full report in the March issue (due on newsstands in about a month) on the new 2006 Sonata, and from what I hear, they will release a full test on both the GLS 4 and the LX V6, though my hunch is both will have an automatic. CU will also release tests of the new Ford Fusion (probably also the 4 & 6), and the Dodge Charger. It will be an issue to buy, if only for one perspective. Although some of CU's slants on cars are occasionally goofy, I do commend them for running cars for over 15,000 miles in every possible test to get the best sense of what they are really like. Green Valley Giant > Overall, the manual whipped the automatic, 31 mpg to 28. And city mileage > had a distinct advantage to the manual. But in highway driving, the manual > got 40 mpg, the automatic got 43. Yes, it seems to vary a fair bit by type of car and type of driving. > Indeed, with me personally doing much more open road driving than city > driving, that is more than enough to convince me, if I ever bought one, to > get the Civic automatic, even if I like driving a manual. I'd still buy a manual as I simply enjoy shifting and being in more control of the car. Cars are so automatic and boring these days that I need something to do to keep me awake! > By the way, Consumer Reports, no matter what you may think of them, will be > releasing a full report in the March issue (due on newsstands in about a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > also the 4 & 6), and the Dodge Charger. It will be an issue to buy, if only > for one perspective. I'm a subscriber so it'll be fun to see what they say. > Although some of CU's slants on cars are occasionally goofy, I do commend > them for running cars for over 15,000 miles in every possible test to get > the best sense of what they are really like. Yes, I agree with about 50% of their conclusions and question some of their test methodologies. I also don't buy their "we aren't biased BS" as that simply isn't true. They may not be biased by advertising, but they are biased by fund raising through other means. The whole issue with the Suzuki roll-over was clearly, IMO, largely contrived by CU to make headlines and help raise money. I've read a number of things over the years about that, including court transcripts and they weren't clean at all on that deal. Not dirty enough for Suzuki to win a suit, but not clean at all either. So, I read their tests, but apply a large dash of salt to their conclusions. Matt Perhaps he doesn't want the V8. Could be any number of reasons why, expense, purchase price, point being, that wasn't his choice.......Doc good one =-) >> Where I live, in the traffic congested parts of NJ that I travel, I >> consider the V6 to be a safety device for pulling out into traffic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Matt >>Sorry for the delay in answering. Yes, my Sonata is the 4 cyl. I don't > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > We aren't talking monster engines here - the 6 cylinder, even with its > increased horsepower over the 4 cylinder is far from an ego machine. The interesting thing is that the 4 cylinder engines of today have more power than the 6 cylinder engines had just a few years ago... Actually, my 4 cylinder Sonata accelerates nearly as hard as my 1970 Plymouth Fury III did and it had a 383 V-8 in it. :-) Matt > The interesting thing is that the 4 cylinder engines of today have > more power than the 6 cylinder engines had just a few years ago... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Matt Not really all that interesting, but it is true. The part your forgetting about is that many vehicles today are heavier than they were just a few years ago too. >>The interesting thing is that the 4 cylinder engines of today have >>more power than the 6 cylinder engines had just a few years ago... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > about is that many vehicles today are heavier than they were just a few > years ago too. I don't think the Expedition outweighs a 1970 Fury III. :-) I think the bumpers on that outweighed my Sonata. ;-) Matt >>>The interesting thing is that the 4 cylinder engines of today have >>>more power than the 6 cylinder engines had just a few years ago... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Matt See, I knew it was reading comprehension problem!! I wasn't comparing anything to your 1970 Fury, unless you are that much in a fog to think that 1970 was "just a few years ago". >Does it (My 2004) really get better mileage (compared to my friends 2006) or are you just going on the EPA ratings? Those parts of the quote in ( ) added by me. No his 2006 gets better mileage than my 2004 in actual driving. It's not a lot, just a couple of MPG, but in the meantime he has the advantage of the great increase in power all the time. > >Does it (My 2004) really get better mileage (compared to my friends 2006) or are you just going on the EPA ratings? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not a lot, just a couple of MPG, but in the meantime he has the > advantage of the great increase in power all the time. Yeah, better gas mileage, more power, more standard equipment, more safety features, etc. for about the same price. (Comparing 'new' prices, that is.) It almost makes you wonder where's the catch?..... If I buy a car this year it will be a 2006 Sonata with the 4-cylinder. It really looks almost too good to be true. I've never done this before but I might schedule a test drive just to see how it handles on the road, even though it will be at least spring before I could buy one. Is that a sin of some kind? Regards, Eric M > >Does it (My 2004) really get better mileage (compared to my friends 2006) or are you just going on the EPA ratings? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not a lot, just a couple of MPG, but in the meantime he has the > advantage of the great increase in power all the time. Yeah, better gas mileage, more power, more standard equipment, more safety features, etc. for about the same price. (Comparing 'new' prices, that is.) It almost makes you wonder where's the catch?..... If I buy a car this year it will be a 2006 Sonata with the 4-cylinder. It really looks almost too good to be true. I've never done this before but I might schedule a test drive just to see how it handles on the road, even though it will be at least spring before I could buy one. Is that a sin of some kind? Regards, Eric M > Hi all. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Regards, > Eric M I just bought a Sonata GL 4 cyls today. My other car is a V6 Camry. The Sonata feels the same as the more powerful Toyota and I paid about 5000 less for it. I am ecstatic by the new acquisition. James. Speaking of Consumer Reports, and their testing, I would like to wonder what's going on with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)? The 2006 Sonata was available in the Spring of 2005, whereas the new 2006 Honda Civic wasn't available until Fall 2005. IIHS has already tested the new Civic (passed with flying colors) and they've listed it as the Best Buy and Safest Small car. However, nothing as yet on the Sonata. One really wonders if the IIHS is biased a bit as well, especially rushing the new Civic through their testing and publishing reports so quickly. > Speaking of Consumer Reports, and their testing, I would like to wonder > what's going on with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > especially rushing the new Civic through their testing and publishing > reports so quickly. I'd say the insurance industry is biased. My insurance went up $200 for the new Sonata from a 2003 Malibu. Why???? They say they don't know. It's not just 'cause it's a new car, either. I swapped a 2000 Caravan for a brand new 2004 T&C at the end of 2003 - same basic vehicle. Insurance changed a few $ for that one. I know what you mean on the insurance rates. The insurance cost for our new 2006 Elantra GLS is much higher than expected. But, I think I know why, and I hope I don't offend anyone here! It appears from speaking to my insurance agent, Hyundai's rates are higher because of its historical insurability record. As you know, rate structures are not based only on "your" driving record, rather the whole "universe" of drivers of that make and model. Similar to one's homeowner's insurance because of hurricane insurance payouts, etc. . . . Hyundai, for better or worse, historically sold its vehicles to many of those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, some of whom did not have enviable driving records or accident histories. Again, my intent is not to offend anyone, but just stating what's on the record. Because of this, most of us who are buying Hyundai products today tend to pay higher rates than a Honda or Toyota. Hopefully, as Hyundai continues to improve its products and market penetration, this will change as the brand is perceived differently. I've never had a chargeable accident, nor a moving violation, and am in the lowest rate category possible, but my rates on the new Elantra are higher than that of a 2006 Accord or Camry. I know, because I checked prior to buying the Elantra. It's certainly very frustrating to be sure. Regarding the IIHS, I never perceived that organization as biased, but because of the "fast-tracking" of the new Civic testing and results, I truly wonder. Unless the new Sonata failed miserably (which I seriously doubt), and the IIHS is holding the results until a retest, there is no excuse for publishing the crash test results of the new Civic prior to the new Sonata. > Regarding the IIHS, I never perceived that organization as biased, but > because of the "fast-tracking" of the new Civic testing and results, I > truly wonder. Unless the new Sonata failed miserably (which I > seriously doubt), and the IIHS is holding the results until a retest, > there is no excuse for publishing the crash test results of the new > Civic prior to the new Sonata. Does anyone know how IIHS gets their vehicles? Do they buy them off the street or are they provided by the manufacturers? Matt >>Speaking of Consumer Reports, and their testing, I would like to wonder >>what's going on with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 2004 T&C at the end of 2003 - same basic vehicle. Insurance changed a few $ > for that one. Yes, the Sonata cost me a lot more for insurance than I expected. $1100 just for comprehensive coverage alone! Are Hyundai parts unusually expensive? Minivans are relatively cheap to insure compared to other vehicles in my experience. Only my Chevy pickup was less expensive than my minivans. Matt >>>Speaking of Consumer Reports, and their testing, I would like to >>>wonder what's going on with the Insurance Institute for Highway [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Matt I'm a little surprised by you guys and your insurance. I live in NJ, which last I heard was the most expensive state for insurance, and my insurance went DOWN with the Sonata, as compared to my 2002 Elantra (we still have a 2003 Elantra). I believe it went down about $100 (according to the wife, I don't have the dec page in front of me). In fact, we pay $1250/year for 3 vehicles. The two I mentioned above both have full comp and collision, while my P/U truck has just liability. We live in a city (much higher than the rural area we moved from 6 years ago), but we have no kids on the policy (2 kids age 4 and 1). On top of that, we've made 4 collision claims in the last 3 years. My wife has the only "at-fault" accident, but I have the other 3 "fender benders". Maybe NJ rates aren't as bad as they make them out to be? Although I'm fairly sure I would have anyone outside of NYC beat on property taxes (yeah!). $6400 this year for a 1.5 story Cape Cod on 1/4 acre. I'm 59 years old, never filed a claim with my insurance company, never had a chargeable accident or a moving violation (as per my earlier post), and am in the lowest-rate preferred group within my insurance company. The rate for full coverage with just my wife and I on the policy with $500 deductible on collision and $100 deductible on comp is $610 per year for the new 2006 Elantra GLS 4-door sedan. I live in Champaign-Urbana, IL - the location of the University of Illinois (pop. around 120K, excluding the 35K students) about 130 miles south of Chicago. Not high rates certainly (Matt - $1,100 just for comp - wow! - where do you live!!), as compared to many parts of the country, but much higher than what I was paying before on a more expensive vehicle. > I'm 59 years old, never filed a claim with my insurance company, never > had a chargeable accident or a moving violation (as per my earlier [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you live!!), as compared to many parts of the country, but much higher > than what I was paying before on a more expensive vehicle. I live in PA. Part of the problem is having a 16 year-old driver now, however, comp on my other vehicles is much lower than the Sonata. I used to pay $1000/year for three vehicles, now I pay $2600 or something like that with a 16 year-old daughter. I've only had one accident in the last 30 years and it wasn't my fault. I was hit by a drunk driver this past 12/21. It totaled one of my minvans, but fortunately the other guy's insurance had to pay. I was talking more about the relative rates on the Hyundai than the absolute amount as my daughter obviously skews that a fair bit. :-) The Hyundai was also more than a Toyota, Honda, Chevy or Dodge would have been by a $100 or so per year. Matt I've been there and done that on the kids. Actually, I'm still doing it to a certain extent. The biggest hit was with our son from age 16. His big insurance break came at 25. With all of our vehicles, including our daughter who is 21 and a Senior at the University of Illinois, our total insurance bill is just a tad over $2,000 per year. However, she has her own car which we cover with insurance, and she's not a listed driver on the new Hyundai. The cheapest to insure by far is our Dodge Grand Caravan. I fully agree, the relative rates on the Hyundai are higher than the norm. > Speaking of Consumer Reports, and their testing, I would like to wonder > what's going on with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > especially rushing the new Civic through their testing and publishing > reports so quickly. I have no doubt that the IIHS is biased. EVERY organization and government agency is biased one way or another. The hard part is figuring out their bias so you can account for it. On the other hand, given that the Civic is a much better seller than the Sonata (at least the last I knew), it makes sense to test the high-volume cars before the low-volume ones. That would be a bias that I could understand at least. Matt Don wrote: "Speaking of Consumer Reports, and their testing, I would like to wonder what's going on with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)? The 2006 Sonata was available in the Spring of 2005, whereas the new 2006 Honda Civic wasn't available until Fall 2005. IIHS has already tested the new Civic (passed with flying colors) and they've listed it as the Best Buy and Safest Small car. However, nothing as yet on the Sonata. One really wonders if the IIHS is biased a bit as well, especially rushing the new Civic through their testing and publishing reports so quickly."...... I don't know if I would call it bias. What I do know is that automobile manufacturers themselves may pay the IIHS to put certain cars on a fast track if they want their safety results out there quickly. This is often done when a manufacturer's car comes up sub-standard on an IIHS test. The manufacturer will re-design it (maybe for the next model year), and as soon as the cars are publicly available they will submit one to the IIHS and pay the costs of the testing. Without this "fast-track-paying," the IIHS still does a lot of its own testing, but on its own time-line. I am convinced that they do not test a car paid for by a manufacturer any differently than one they test on their own. Nor do they slant results for those that pay. They probably only have a certain budget and so many vehicles that they can (and feel they need to) test in a certain time period. The good news is that apparently these results are valued enough by manufacturers (for PR or whatever) that if a vehicle does come back poorly they will go back and make design changes to make it safer and pass these tough tests. That would have been unheard of just a couple of decades ago. And the true beneficiary is the consumer with safer vehicles. Don't fret - IIHS will be testing the '06 Sonata soon. Green Valley Giant Eric, I traded in a 2002 Sonata GLS V6 on a 2006 Sonata GLS V6. Naturally I appreciate the increase in power and interior space. Otherwise for me two main improvements stand out. The 2006 Sonata does not handle like a large car and corners extremely well. Pushing the car beyond physical limits triggers the electronic stability programming which is interesting to experience. The best way I can describe it is the feeling of an invisible hand nudging the car around the turn. The 2nd main improvement is safety. Like the 2002 Sonata, braking is excellent and even best in class. Styling preferences are individual, but I do miss the stand-out styling of the 2002. I find fuel economy to be very slightly less than my 2002, but given the increase in power it's hard to complain about that. I knew the 2006 Sonata was an excellent deal, but watching a recent Lexus ES (starting at $32,000) commercial it really hit home. The commercial shows the ES navigating any icy landscape filled with ice sculptures while the dialog mentions that the importance of safety leads Lexus to make stability control available (as an option) on the ES. Even the base Sonata includes this feature standard. GeoUSA, moderator www.HyundaiExchange.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.