 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / December 20064 Cyl vs 6 Cyl Sonata
I am giving serious thought to buying my third Sonata ( after previously owning two Elantras). My previous Sonata was a 99 4-Cyl and my current one is a 03 6-Cyl. The only difference I have noticed with the 6 is that it gets much worst gas mileage. My question is, and I hope that Hyundaitech will respond, does the 4 have any reliability issues or any disadvantages that I should be aware of? I know that its with a 4 speed auto rather than a 5-speed, but that's no concern. Heck, one of my first cars was a 2 speed hydramatic and I was glad to have it. I know the 4 has less get up and go but I haven't found any roads nearby with a 130MPH speed limit. thanx -- >I am giving serious thought to buying my third Sonata ( after previously >owning two Elantras). My previous Sonata was a 99 4-Cyl and my current one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and go but I haven't found any roads nearby with a 130MPH speed limit. >thanx I'm not so sure you can do a good comparison of the 03 models to the 07 models for the engines. The V-6 is new in 06. The performance is great. If you do highway driving and want to get into traffic easily, this is the car for you. Another factor is that is has a timing chain, not a belt. If you keep the car for 120k miles, that is a big cost factor for the two belt changes. You also get the 5 speed trans instead of the 4 speed. The final drive ration for the 6 is 3.33 while it is 3.77 for the 4. That means, in theory, the 4 is going to turn a higher RPM and wear out faster since it has to turn more for every mile driven. According to the EPA numbers, the 4 gets about 3 mpg more, but your actual mileage will vary depending on your particular driving situation. I'm very happy with the V-6. Much better performance than my V-6 Buicks. >>I am giving serious thought to buying my third Sonata ( after previously >>owning two Elantras). My previous Sonata was a 99 4-Cyl and my current one [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you do highway driving and want to get into traffic easily, this is the car > for you. The four is new also, so, yes, it is hard to compare either engine to their predecessors. The four has plenty of power to get into traffice as well. > Another factor is that is has a timing chain, not a belt. If you keep the > car for 120k miles, that is a big cost factor for the two belt changes. You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mpg more, but your actual mileage will vary depending on your particular > driving situation. This isn't a factor as the four has a timing chain also. The final drive ratio isn't the only factor involved with RPM at cruise and you can't draw any conclusion from that alone. You need to look at the overall drive ratio. I'm sure the four revs a little higher at the same cruise speed, but I doubt it is enough different to bother. All else being equal, more revolutions per mile will likely cause more wear, but all else is never equal and how the engine is driven and maintained makes more difference that RPM at cruise. Often, engines that are run harder last longer as they run a little warmer and tend to develop less sludge and junk from too cold operation at part throttle. The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is with the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2 with the automatic. > I'm very happy with the V-6. Much better performance than my V-6 Buicks. I'm happy with the I-4, better performance than my V-6 minivans. :-) Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > All else being equal, more revolutions per mile will likely cause more > wear, but all else is never equal and how the engine is driven and > maintained makes more difference that RPM at cruise. Often, engines that > are run harder last longer as they run a little warmer and tend to develop > less sludge and junk from too cold operation at part throttle. Maybe, but I'd still put my money on the engine that turns 15,840 times less per hour to last longer over time. There will always be exceptions due to overall care and environment. If you plan to keep the car for af ew y ears and 50k, not a big deal as any engine should be free of major problems in that time. > The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging > 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is with > the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2 with the automatic. Given the size of hte car, that is not bad. I've hit 29 on highway drives with the 6, but my overall average is closer to 23. The EPA ratings between manual and automatic is only 1 mpg. Real life can vary either way depending on how you drive. Too lazy to shift can use much more fuel than any automatic today. 1955 Chevy Powerglide excepted, of course. A big factor in the decision is how you drive. If you never reach the speed limit and saving a gallon of gas a month is top priority, get the 4. If you like to drive a "spirited" auto with great performance, get the V-6. Thanks for reminding me its PowerGlide that I was trying to think of when I originally posted. All I could come up with was Hydramatic that was in one of the bigger GM cars. > Given the size of hte car, that is not bad. I've hit 29 on highway drives > with the 6, but my overall average is closer to 23. The EPA ratings > between manual and automatic is only 1 mpg. Real life can vary either way > depending on how you drive. Too lazy to shift can use much more fuel than > any automatic today. 1955 Chevy Powerglide excepted, of course. > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and 50k, not a big deal as any engine should be free of major problems in > that time. I've owned several four cylinders in the last 30+ years and have yet to wear one out. I had a Chevette that turned 3,000 RPM at 60 MPH. It ran 150,000 miles before the second owner totaled it. I have a Jeep Comanche with 150,000 on the clock (it is 20 years old) and it still runs fine. I wouldn't worry about wearing out a four-cylinder in anything less than 200K ... and I personally wouldn't even worry about it then. In the northeast your car will rust out long before the four cylinder engine wears out, unless you are a traveling salesman who drives 50K miles a year. >>The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging >>29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > depending on how you drive. Too lazy to shift can use much more fuel than > any automatic today. 1955 Chevy Powerglide excepted, of course. Yes, it isn't bad. I was hoping to get above 30, but at least it is close. > A big factor in the decision is how you drive. If you never reach the speed > limit and saving a gallon of gas a month is top priority, get the 4. If you > like to drive a "spirited" auto with great performance, get the V-6. Yes, how you drive and what you value. If performance is important above all else, get the V-6. If you want to balance performance and economy, get the I-4. And the I-4 has no problem with the speed limit, or even a lot more than the speed limit. Matt Well, I might as well jump in, too. The 4 cyl which I have in my 2006 Sonata is MORE than adequate to merge into traffic and pass on the expressways. I confess that for 40 years I absolutely loved the 'kick in the pants' of a 427 or 390 cubic inch engine and owned vettes, Camaro's, Cougars, and Mustangs with those engines. Sure the 6 cyl has more 'kick' but with all the cars on the roads today, who really and truly needs it. Don't forget even IF the 4 turns more RPM's per mile (which hasn't been proven), your 6 cyl will have more parts wearing out and needing replacement...... It's an age old question with two groups agruing for their side. No easy answer. I just got back today from a 703 mile trip from Georgia to Pa and got 32.0 mpg up 85, 77, and 81. That's at 70 -80 mph. :o) and loaded with gifts and 3 people. Tom > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you like to drive a "spirited" auto with great performance, get the > V-6. > even IF the 4 turns more RPM's per mile (which hasn't been proven), Not proven? Prove it to yourself. Just look at the specification on the web page for final gear ratios and do the math. >> even IF the 4 turns more RPM's per mile (which hasn't been proven), > > Not proven? Prove it to yourself. Just look at the specification on the > web page for final gear ratios and do the math. Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site. Also, comparing the final drive ratio doesn't tell you anything. You need to know the transmission ratios in high gear as well as the tire overall diameters. Matt > Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site. > > Also, comparing the final drive ratio doesn't tell you anything. You need > to know the transmission ratios in high gear as well as the tire overall > diameters. Under the specifications. At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours? >>Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours? I see the final drive ratio, but not the overall drive ratio or the ratio of each transmission gear so as to calculate the overall drive ratio. The final drive ratio is very close for the manual that I have (3.44) vs. the automatic (3.33), however, I suspect that the overall drive ratio is not nearly so close. I haven't been to 70 in some time, so I'm not sure. I believe it runs about 2200 at 55 which would be about 2800 at 70, but I'll try to remember to check next time I'm on the highway. Matt >>Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours? I just got back from a short trip and here are the figures roughly (within 50 RPM or so). 55 MPH = 2300 60 MPH = 2500 65 MPH = 2750 70 MPH = 2950 Basically, it is one tick on the tach for each 5 MPH increment from 55 through 70, but at 55 it is maybe a needle width above the 2250 tick mark and at 70 it is maybe a needle width below the 3000 tick mark. This is in 5th gear with the manual transmission and I-4 engine. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > I just got back from a short trip and here are the figures roughly (within > 50 RPM or so). [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Matt For comparison 55 = 1800 60 = 2000 65 = 2100 70 = 2200 80 = 2450 100= Did not keep a steady enough speed long enough to be accurate > The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging > 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Matt I am driving an I-4 that is closing on 8000 miles. My average is about 23 mpg, driving mostly local roads in short trips of 5-6 miles. I just came from a trip to Poconos of about 450 miles, the average was 27 mpg (3 persons in the car, light baggage) at an average speed of 75-78 mph highway driving. >> The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging >> 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (3 persons in the car, light baggage) at an average speed of 75-78 mph > highway driving. Is this with the automatic tranny? It sounds too low to be the stick shift. Matt >>> The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm >>> averaging 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Matt Automatic, indeed. I thought it might be the high speed 80 mpg and higher at certain moments that lowered the millage. "praf" <praf@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Automatic, indeed. I thought it might be the high speed 80 mpg and higher > at certain moments that lowered the millage. Speed certainly will. Above about 60, wind resistance is a bigger factor to overcome than anything else. I did some testing on my Buick that has an "instant" readout for mpg. The same road, the same spot at different speeds and I'd get a loss of about 4 mpg at 70 compared to 55. Of course, at 55 it was unsafe because I'd get run over by other traffic. > I am giving serious thought to buying my third Sonata ( after previously > owning two Elantras). My previous Sonata was a 99 4-Cyl and my current one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hydramatic and I was glad to have it. I know the 4 has less get up and go > but I haven't found any roads nearby with a 130MPH speed limit. thanx I have more than 16,000 miles on my 06 Sonata four cylinder and no problems thus far. I believe that Chrysler had a significant role in the design of this engine and that is one reason I wasn't too worried about it. I've owned several Chryslers over the last 30 years and their engines are bullet-proof. Matt I have read that this is one of the new "world" engines developed by a team from Hyundai, Chrysler and a third company, I'm not sure but I think Mitsubishi. I believe that Chrysler had a significant role in > the design of this engine and that is one reason I wasn't too worried > about it. I've owned several Chryslers over the last 30 years and their > engines are bullet-proof. > > Matt "Partner," in a post about the new 4-cylinder engine in the Hyundai Sonata said: "I have read that this is one of the new "world" engines developed by a team from Hyundai, Chrysler and a third company, I'm not sure but I think Mitsubishi."...... Yes, and that is becoming a trend. I just read where Ford and GM are actually sharing a new 6-speed automatic transmission. I never thought I would see the day when that happened. But as long as it allows these companies to produce better power trains, and maybe at a better price, I'd say go for it. Tom Wenndt > I have read that this is one of the new "world" engines developed by a team > from Hyundai, Chrysler and a third company, I'm not sure but I think > Mitsubishi. I believe it was Mitsu. That gave me some pause, but I was hoping the Chrysler engineers made the big decisions. :-) Matt I know of no issues with the chain-driven 2.4L four cylinder in the 2006 and newer Sonatas. Make sure you keep the timing belt changed regularly on the 1999, however. That engine really does like eating timing belts.
|
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.