 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / February 2007Sonata Gas Mileage?
I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only 15k on it so I am rather surprised that I am not getting 22 or 23 mpg. Please let me know what kind of mileage you get with an 06 or 07 Sonata so I can tell if it is just my car or if they all are bad on gas. Thanks Pat >I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when > driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only > 15k on it so I am rather surprised that I am not getting 22 or 23 mpg. > Please let me know what kind of mileage you get with an 06 or 07 > Sonata so I can tell if it is just my car or if they all are bad on > gas. I think you are doing OK around town. I drive a mix of highway, steady back road, fairly easy city (small town?)driving. I get about 23 on average, 25 to 26 on straight highway. EPS rating is 20 and no one ever gets the EPS rating so expecting 23 is out of the question, IMO. Ratings are being revised to be more realistic starting, I think, in 2008. >I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when > driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks > Pat I get about 19-20 mpg with the 4 cylinders local road, suburb style city. > I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when > driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only > 15k on it so I am rather surprised that I am not getting 22 or 23 mpg. > Please let me know what kind of mileage you get with an 06 or 07 > Sonata so I can tell if it is just my car or if they all are bad on > gas. Isn't the city rating 20 for your car? And given that the EPA ratings are typically optimistic, I'd say 17 in town is unusually low, especially if you live in a climate that is cold this time of year. I have a four cylinder Sonata and I get only 26-29 in the winter driving mostly on the highway commuting to work. I doubt I'd get more than 20 in the city and my car has a 24 MPG city rating nad 34 highway. I've never got about 32 even on the highway. I don't think Hyundai can match GM and Toyota for mileage, but I'm not sure they are the worst out there either. Although, one test I saw on the Sonata vs. a Camry, Accord and I think a GM car had the Sonata as the worst of the bunch. Matt [original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth] >> I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when >> driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >in the city and my car has a 24 MPG city rating nad 34 highway. I've >never got about 32 even on the highway. EPA figures are also based on using gasoline. In many areas of the country, "gas" is 10% ethanol. Ethanol has noticeably less energy per gallon than pure gasoline. The math seems to suggest only 3% or so less mpg. Subjectively (my experience when driving between areas that had 10% ethanol vs pure gasoline appear to have more than 3% mpg loss. Since the areas were not identical, it's impossible for me to me to be sure. Anybody have real test data of performance of different engines with different fuel blends? gerry  SignaturePersonal home page - http://gogood.com gerry misspelled in my email address to confuse robots >> I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when >> driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the Sonata vs. a Camry, Accord and I think a GM car had the Sonata as > the worst of the bunch. I meant to say "not unusually low" above. Sorry for the typo. Matt Another person opted for a V6 under the misconception that he needed more 'power'. :o) The 4 has more than enough power to move my '06 briskly in passing mode. I have been consistently getting 24.6 +- around town with an occasional 15 mile highway trip to the next town. People, you don't need a V6!!!!! Stop wasting gas! Sure you can afford to buy it but why????? I'll get off my soapbox now. I love my Sonata and will buy another. I wish they had a pickup truck, diesel, or hybrid, however. Tom >> I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when >> driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Matt > Another person opted for a V6 under the misconception that he needed more > 'power'. :o) The 4 has more than enough power to move my '06 briskly in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'll get off my soapbox now. I love my Sonata and will buy another. I > wish they had a pickup truck, diesel, or hybrid, however. Well, for a couple of reasons. First of all, the Limited (which I have) only comes with the V6. I wanted all the goodies and I'm willing to pay for it. Second, yes, the four is adequate, but I wanted more than just adequate. Sometimes I just like to accelerate fast, not just adequately. It may depress you further to know that I have and use my remote starter. Yes, on the really cold mornings, or after work, my car is just sitting there burning gas, getting warmed up so my pretty tush does not have to get onto a cold leather seat. I set the heated seat on when I park the car so it will warm my buns when I get in. I want to thank all of you that eat at Burger King and McDonalds for eating all those burgers and making leather for my seats readily available and reasonably priced. If all you ate was tofu, I'd be sitting on mohair seat covers. >>Another person opted for a V6 under the misconception that he needed more >>'power'. :o) The 4 has more than enough power to move my '06 briskly in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Second, yes, the four is adequate, but I wanted more than just adequate. > Sometimes I just like to accelerate fast, not just adequately. Then you need a Corvette or a Viper. Even a V-6 Sonata doesn't accelerate even close to fast. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > Then you need a Corvette or a Viper. Even a V-6 Sonata doesn't accelerate > even close to fast. I had a Mitsubishi 3000 for a while. Life is full of compromises and it was not a practical every day driver. Right now, the Sonata is as fast as I'm going to get. I got that yearning for power out of my system years ago with my Porsches, 390 Cougar GT's and 69 427 vette! Sold them for a song when gas prices went up and the wife bitched about repair costs. Now I see them on Barrett Jackson and just cry!!! :o) There really is very little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said. I guess you need that extra torque to pull all that extra stuff you bought to feel good. :o) For me, with the drives on the roads today, I don't care to stay out there any longer than I have to....... Tom > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> Then you need a Corvette or a Viper. Even a V-6 Sonata doesn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was not a practical every day driver. Right now, the Sonata is as fast as > I'm going to get. > There really is very > little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said. Without the benefit of anyone running a real scientific test between the two configurations (really 3 if you count the MT), I respectfully disagree with both of you. There is a medium to large difference between the 4 and the 6. I be willing to bet that in the real world, we are talking about a 1.5-2 second difference in the 0-60 time, and significantly more as speeds get higher. I know that neither of you feel the need for that extra power, and that is certainly your perrogative, but IMHO you are really talking apples and oranges by comparing the 4 to the 6. Eric 164 vs 234 hp, of course, makes a difference, but a 4 cyl with 164 hp giving 26 mpg is VERY respectable! Like I said earlier, I know what a 427 cubic inch vette or even a 429 Shelby Mustang feels like - unforgettable- but today it no longer seems so important whether I get to 60 mph 1.5 seconds later than you. We'll both be either stuck at the next light or behind a line of brainless, foreign truckers side by side going up the hill at 50 mph. I'd love a 6 too, but I had to ask myself why I needed it. I didn't really have a good answer so I went for the more fuel efficient, cheaper 4 with 164 hp. It's a no win conversation, of course, but always fun to debate. Thanks, tom >> There really is very >> little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Eric > 164 vs 234 hp, of course, makes a difference, but a 4 cyl with 164 hp giving > 26 mpg is VERY respectable! Like I said earlier, I know what a 427 cubic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's a no win conversation, of course, but always fun to debate. I agree that the debate is fun. However, it isn't HP that matters with respect to acceleration, but rather torque peak and the shape of the torque curve. The V-6 still has a large advantage here, but not as great. The HP ratio is 1.45 (235/162) and the torque ratio is 1.38 (226/164). However, even more telling is that the torque peak for the 6 occurs at substantially lower RPM (3500 vs. 4250). Given that the redlines are nearly identical (5800 for the 4 vs. 6000 for the 6), this means that the 4 will continue to increase acceleration for a greater portion of the RPM range. The 6 will begin to fall off above 3500 whereas the 4 still has 750 RPM to go before it begins to taper off. Add in the losses in the automatic vs. the manual and the extra 200 or so lbs of weight for the V-6, and you can see where the difference in acceleration is much less than folks might expect from a superficial look. I drove two or three V-6 automatics before buying my I-4 manual as I was trying to see if they all had the touchy throttle, and the full throttle acceleration was simply not distinguishable without a stopwatch once the clutch was fully engaged and the cars rolling. I tried several low speed runs and a couple of 50-75 MPH passing runs and the four felt as strong as the six up to the speeds I tried (I don't think I exceeded 75 maybe 80 at the most). Maybe there would be a difference if you started at 100 MPH and did a roll-on test, but I don't drive that fast on public roads so I don't know. Matt > 164 vs 234 hp, of course, makes a difference, but a 4 cyl with 164 hp giving > 26 mpg is VERY respectable! Like I said earlier, I know what a 427 cubic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > really have a good answer so I went for the more fuel efficient, cheaper 4 > with 164 hp. Very little difference or a difference? I can't keep up. One post says there's very little difference between a 4 and a 6, and the next says of course there is a difference. Oh well... but like I said before, I'm really happy that you like your 4. That's how it should be. I've had 400HP+ cars in the past also, but I have never ceased to enjoy the feeling of acceleration. I much prefer the performance of a 6 over a 4. Just my preference. I don't care if we're both at the same light down the road. I enjoy the acceleration and frankly, I get annoyed by people who poke off the line and who think that just because they don't care how soon they get there, that everyone else should see it their way. You go with your preferences, and I'll go with mine. We'll both be happy that way. And that sure beats flicking boogers at each other at the stop lights. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>There really is very >>little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1.5-2 second difference in the 0-60 time, and significantly more as speeds > get higher. Well, the data doesn't support your bet. The difference is slightly more than 1 second in 0-60 between my 4 cylinder and your V-6 (1.19 to be exact) and the difference in the quarter mile time is even less which suggests the difference narrows with higher speed rather than widens as you suggest. The quarter mile difference is only 1.06 seconds. So we're talking less than 150 feet difference at the end of a quarter mile. This is hardly an earthshattering difference and I'll bet that most of it is off the line. The throttle and clutch on the Sonata are terrible and making a quick launch is nearly impossible. I'll bet that a 5 MPH rolling start would make the times very nearly identical, but I can't find any data to prove that conclusively. However, I think it can be reasonably inferred from the fact that the gap between the quarter mile times is even less than that of the 0-60. The main reason for this difference is the time lost on the launch. The average acceleration is even higher for the 4 cylinder between 60 MPH and the quarter mile point since the time gap was actually narrowed during this period. http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=2006&make=Hyundai&model= Sonata&trimid=-1 > I know that neither of you feel the need for that extra power, and that is > certainly your perrogative, but IMHO you are really talking apples and > oranges by comparing the 4 to the 6. Well, it doesn't really matter, but I don't think the data supports this. From an acceleration perspective, my manual I-4 is nearly identical to your automatic V-6 once we get rolling. I won't argue that the V-6 is faster off the line, but if the Sonata had a decent throttle and clutch, even that advantage would pretty much disapper and I'll bet the 0-60 times would be within the error bands of being identical. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > The throttle and clutch on the Sonata are terrible and making a quick > launch is nearly impossible. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > even that advantage would pretty much disapper and I'll bet the 0-60 times > would be within the error bands of being identical. If, if, if. Thanks for pointing out the V6 is superior. Ifs don't win trophies. If you paid another $200,000 you could have had a Lamborghini. If your name was Buffet, you might inherit a billion dollars. If you'd have bought 1000 share of Microsoft the first day of issue you'd not have to inherit a billion dollars. If the sun was in the sky if would not be dark out. If . . . . . . There is no substitute for cubic inches. > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > inherit a billion dollars. If the sun was in the sky if would not be dark > out. If . . . . . . No the V-6 isn't superior at all, the clutch and throttle is simply inferior. Nothing to do with the engine. You do realize the difference between the clutch and the engine, right? :-) There are lots of substitues for cubic inches. Just look at Formula 1 cars vs. Nascar. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > There are lots of substitues for cubic inches. Just look at Formula 1 > cars vs. Nascar. Not a comparison at all. Put the displacement of each under the same rules. Cubic inches will win every time. Sure, a turbocharged 2 liter engine can outperform a naturally aspirated 3 liter, but put the turbocharger on the 3 liter and . . . . . you get the idea. > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > outperform a naturally aspirated 3 liter, but put the turbocharger on the 3 > liter and . . . . . you get the idea. Sure it is. You said "There is no substitute for cubic inches." There are lots of substitutes. Here are just a few: 1. Turbocharger 2. Supercharger 3. Nitrous Oxide injection 4. Higher compression ratio These are all ways to increase power without increasing the displacement. Maybe you have a different definition of subsitute. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > Sure it is. You said "There is no substitute for cubic inches." > There are lots of substitutes. Here are just a few: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > These are all ways to increase power without increasing the displacement. > Maybe you have a different definition of subsitute. 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. > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > matter how many of your add-ons you add, more cubic inches will still make > them more powerful. No kidding, but that isn't what you said. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > No kidding, but that isn't what you said. > > Matt You know exactly what I meant though > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You know exactly what I meant though No, I thought you meant what you wrote. Matt >> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Matt 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. >>>"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of cylinders means far less than the number of cubic inches. I'd agree that > the big four is better than a tiny six. Ed, you are so far wrong on this topic that I'm not even going to bother discussing it further. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > Ed, you are so far wrong on this topic that I'm not even going to bother > discussing it further. Right, there is nothing to discuss. The more cubic inches the more potential power >>>There really is very >>>little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=2006&make=Hyund > ai&model=Sonata&trimid=-1 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 >>>>There really is very >>>>little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > But again, I am happy that you are happy with your car. However slow it > might be :-) 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 "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > 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. So to make your apples and oranges comparison more equal, toss a tangerine into the mix. 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 >>>>>There really is very >>>>>little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said. [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Matt > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more horsepower to maintain the same speed as me. I can't justify that. > Maybe you 6 guys can. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more horsepower to maintain the same speed as me. I can't justify that. > Maybe you 6 guys can. 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. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net "Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message > 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. Yeah, but I've got to watch my a.s 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. > It depends on the speed through the traps. At 300 MPH, 1 second is a > big difference. At 90, not so much. 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. > 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. :-) 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 > 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. 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. > 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 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 >>It depends on the speed through the traps. At 300 MPH, 1 second is a >>big difference. At 90, not so much. > > 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. 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! :-) >>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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 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 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > conditions make much less of a difference than they used to. I think > altitude would play the biggest role. 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. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > miles. We swap cars too many times each year to have a MT sitting > around. 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 Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:9Cpzh.2616$Oc.157790 @news1.epix.net: > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Matt 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 > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:9Cpzh.2616$Oc.157790 > @news1.epix.net: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Imagine if the 6 had a MT available? Then we wouldn't be having this > discussion really, or maybe we would :-) 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. :-) > I know my car has ZERO torque at the rear wheels :-P Yes, I know it was a > typo. 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. > 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". 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 > 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. 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. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > I guess you need that extra torque to pull all that extra stuff you bought > to feel good. :o) For me, with the drives on the roads today, I don't > care to stay out there any longer than I have to....... 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. > Another person opted for a V6 under the misconception that he needed more > 'power'. :o) The 4 has more than enough power to move my '06 briskly in > passing mode. I have been consistently getting 24.6 +- around town with an > occasional 15 mile highway trip to the next town. People, you don't need a > V6!!!!! Stop wasting gas! Sure you can afford to buy it but why????? Many of us test drove 4 cylinders with automatics and found the performance to be less than remarkable. Quite poor, in fact. Therefore, we own six cylinders. I'm glad you like your 4, but please don't suggest that because a 4 is brisk enough for you, that it should satisfy the needs of everyone. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > > Another person opted for a V6 under the misconception that he needed more > > 'power'. :o) The 4 has more than enough power to move my '06 briskly in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -Mike- > mmarlowREM...@alltel.net Very true indeed Mike! i test drove a few 4 cylinders b4 giving in & going for what I felt was "adequate" power and picking up the V6. Yeah in response to the OP I feel an average of 17 is pretty good. I have a mix of highway(30%) & city driving & get an average of 17. I once did get 32 on the highway only driving through Virginia ( not faster than 55mph) >> > Another person opted for a V6 under the misconception that he >> > needed more 'power'. :o) The 4 has more than enough power to move [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > once did get 32 on the highway only driving through Virginia ( not > faster than 55mph) You guys must be pretty hard on the pedal. I tend to "open 'er up" a bit nowadays too, but I am still getting about 22 MPG with 19,000 on the odometer. Although with the cold here the last week, I only managed about 19.5 MPG on my last tank. Eric > You guys must be pretty hard on the pedal. I tend to "open 'er up" a > bit nowadays too, but I am still getting about 22 MPG with 19,000 on the > odometer. Although with the cold here the last week, I only managed > about 19.5 MPG on my last tank. > > Eric You can't say "hard on" in a usenet forum Eric. Geeze. I do like to feel acceleration but I'm not really too hard on the pedal. My wife's Sonata gets around 23 around town (roughly 1/3 interstate, 2/3 non-interstate) even with me driving it. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> You guys must be pretty hard on the pedal. I tend to "open 'er up" a >> bit nowadays too, but I am still getting about 22 MPG with 19,000 on the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -Mike- > mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net OK, lets get real here. If one drives 15,000 miles a year at 26 MPG average one uses 577 gallons of gas If one drives 15,000 miles a year at 22 MPG average one uses 682 gallons of gas The difference is 105 gallons At $2.19 per gallon the difference is $229.95 for the entire year. IMHO if $229.95 for the year is going to make a difference it is in all likelihood not a good idea to purchase either car. Double Tap > >> You guys must be pretty hard on the pedal. I tend to "open 'er up" a > >> bit nowadays too, but I am still getting about 22 MPG with 19,000 on the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Double Tap Huh??? Sorry guy - I don't get the reason for this post. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> >> You guys must be pretty hard on the pedal. I tend to "open 'er up" a >> >> bit nowadays too, but I am still getting about 22 MPG with 19,000 on [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Huh??? Sorry guy - I don't get the reason for this post. Let me see, Oh I guess someone forgot the subject of the thread is Sonata Gas Mileage and some people were discussing there mileage figures. Double Tap > >> >> You guys must be pretty hard on the pedal. I tend to "open 'er up" a > >> >> bit nowadays too, but I am still getting about 22 MPG with 19,000 on [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Double Tap Hmmmmm... I must be slow this weekend. I still can't see how the comments from Eric and myself warranted the "OK, let's get real here". I guess I just don't understand how what you were trying to say, fit into what Eric and I had just said. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Mike, I only stated what I feel. What you feel is your business. I know that I can pass safely on a two lane road, accelerate at a good rate when needed, and move up and down hills without a struggle. I have 15,000 miles on my car and see no reason for needing more power. Your opinion is respected just as well as mine. Different strokes for different folks. Tom >> Another person opted for a V6 under the misconception that he needed more >> 'power'. :o) The 4 has more than enough power to move my '06 briskly in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > because > a 4 is brisk enough for you, that it should satisfy the needs of everyone. > Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > car and see no reason for needing more power. Your opinion is respected > just as well as mine. Different strokes for different folks. Tom: I simply responded to your rather pointed post below. Please note your comment and tone. You admonished people to quit being wasteful and do as you do, since you consider it to be enough. I think I was kind enough in my response. If you are going to tell people what to do, you better be prepared for a response that differs from your own opinion. Or - don't tell other people what to do. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Tom > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > because > > a 4 is brisk enough for you, that it should satisfy the needs of everyone. Where do you live? I am in the Midwest, and it has been bitterly cold here. In Winter, the gas mileage in all my cars suffers pretty significantly, and when it is cold, it always will. But they all come up in Summer nicely. There have been some other long threads about Sonata fuel mileage in the past. Archive and read those - they are interesting. Tom Wenndt >I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when > driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks > Pat > I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when > driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks > Pat Pat, I have an 06 LX with the 3.3L engine also. It took us to about 12K to see any significant improvement in mileage over what you are seeing. Since the car hit ~15K to the current 25K I have seen very consistent numbers with each tankful and have had several instances to validate the numbers with use relegated strictly to city or highway driving only for a full tanks worth. What I have been getting is 23.4 City / 28.1 Hwy. I have a tendency to have a lead foot, so my guess is that the numbers could be improved upon somewhat if applied a more gradual approach to reaching crusing speeds :-) KW >> I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when >> driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > KW KW, I have to agree with you here. I am running slightly less than you on the city average, and slightly higher on the highway numbers, but overall you and I are pretty close. My lead foot only comes out once in a while. But I also noticed an improvement at the 16-17K level, and I am currently pushing 19K myself. Eric |
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.