 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / August 2007Should I buy Hyundai?
Hi, After I found out my Altima ('05)'s transmission is getting broke, I'm trying to buy new one and thinking about Elantra 07. And I have few questions and need some help from Hyundai-owner. 1. Does Elantra has Timing Belt or Timing Chain? 2. Elantra doesn't have engine immobilizer but I was told it has 'starter kill'. What is the starter kill? 3. I'm thinking about manual transmission because I had many of transmission problem with Civic, and Altima. Some people said manual transmission is very durable and reliable than automatic. Do you think getting a manual transmission is a good idea? If I buy Elantra, I wouldn't sell it until it is totally dead. -I know Hyundai's used car value. :'( 4. Does Elantra has old-style antenna for all model? I saw some picture of them, it was really ugly looking. 5. Do you, in overall, satisfies with your Hyundai? Thanks for reading and I really appreciate for your comments. fridayoff@gmail.com wrote in news:1182103098.625406.15730 @g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > Hi, > After I found out my Altima ('05)'s transmission is getting broke, Why don't you give it an allowance? Den it won't bees broke all da thyme. Earache >fridayoff@gmail.com wrote in news:1182103098.625406.15730 >@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Why don't you give it an allowance? Den it won't bees broke all da thyme. Baa daaa boom...............tish! >> Hi, >> After I found out my Altima ('05)'s transmission is getting broke, > >Why don't you give it an allowance? Den it won't bees broke all da thyme. > >Earache Nice. - Thee Chicago Wolf Okay, I'm going to let a rare ultra-bias stick out a little here, but if you bought an Altima, you were virtually asking for trouble. No matter what magazines like Consumer Reports says, the Altima keeps showing itself to be one of the great lemons of all time. And with all the good alternatives out there, including Hyundai, either the Elantra or Sonata (if you were in an Altima, I'm not sure why your first choice for Hyundai is the Elantra, but that's your business), I have seen little reason to buy an Altima, and that is since the first one rolled out. Hyundai/Kia has been making the transition from the timing belt to chain, but don't know if it is quite complete yet. I believe, though, that the new Elantra does have a chain. As for the transmission, almost every Hyundai manual tranny owner on this site has reported good luck with them. I'll let Mr. HyundaiTech or someone else explain that starter kill thing for you. Good luck. But please, don't let your children grow up to drive Altimas. > Hi, > After I found out my Altima ('05)'s transmission is getting broke, I'm [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks for reading and I really appreciate for your comments. 1. The 2.0 engine in the Elantra has a timing belt. 2. Once the car is locked with the remote, the starter won't operate unless unlocked with the remote. 3. The clutch is labor intensive to replace. In my experience, replacing the clutch at a dealer is only about $500 cheaper than replacing an automatic transmission. 4. I'm not familiar with all the feature options. You should probably ask your local dealer about the antenna. 5. I don't have a Hyundai, but part quality has greatly increased since the days of poor reliability issues. On the other hand, there's been a decrease in assembly quality. I have 3 Hyundai's in my family. 2 of my kids drive 5-speed Eantras. They love them and so do I. I have a 6 cylinder automatic Santa Fe. I will probably buy another one when this one goes. The only problem I have had so far is that the snobby Yuppies don't approve of Hyundai's. It's not on their list of approved cars. If that doesn't bother you, and I hope it doesn't, they are very good cars. My Hyundai dealer provides the best service I have ever received, and I also have 2 Honda's in my family. Yes.......go for it, buy a Hyundai.  SignaturePAUL > Hi, > After I found out my Altima ('05)'s transmission is getting broke, I'm [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks for reading and I really appreciate for your comments. > I have 3 Hyundai's in my family. 2 of my kids drive 5-speed Eantras. > They love them and so do I. I have a 6 cylinder automatic Santa Fe. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes.......go for it, buy a Hyundai. Advise not getting manual for Elantra, the gearing is such that high gear on the highway is geared too low and the engine revs are high at speed with associated noise. Automatic is fine. (they may have changed this for '07 or '08's) My '06 Elantra is very good so far, but looking at little things over the months you can see where Hyundai cuts corners in assembly. Nothing bad, but obviously not Toyota/Honda quality like my old Camry, Avalon, and Accords. Kinda flimsy in lots of places. But it never has given me any problems at all. So we bought my wife a Tuscon, no problems after 5 months. Lastly, gas mileage isn't going to be as good as a Toyota/Honda equivalent. My mixed(mostly city) is 26 mpg, though pure highway is around 40. Tuscon is 18ish in town, 25 on highway at best. I'm sure '08 models are better. I'd buy another. -But- you do get what you pay for. Didn't pay more for a Toyota etc., and saved money for gas, good warranty, but trade-in may bite our butts. :) > My '06 Elantra is very good so far, but looking at little things over the > months you can see where Hyundai cuts corners in assembly. Nothing bad, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But it never has given me any problems at all. So we bought my wife a > Tuscon, no problems after 5 months. The Elantra isn't as nice as an Avalon?....my, what a surprise. <grin> I love my Sonata LX, have'nt noticed any cut corners in the 48 thousand miles I driven it.Well equipped, fun to drive, and handsome. It is the favorite car of my wife and kids too, and our other car is a Volvo S60 T. "Unk" <unkadunk@nothere.com> wrote in message > I'd buy another. -But- you do get what you pay for. Didn't pay more for > a Toyota etc., and saved money for gas, good warranty, but trade-in may > bite our butts. :) In the past, trade in for Hyundai has not been very good because of hte reputation of the early models, Hopefully, that has changed. OTOH, some of us keep cars for a long time and the difference between a Sonata and a Camry will be one worth $100, the other worth $120. > Advise not getting manual for Elantra, the gearing is such that high gear > on the highway is geared too low and the engine revs are high at speed > with associated noise. Automatic is fine. (they may have changed this for > '07 or '08's) Everyone's opinion will be different, but I have the '07 Elantra with the 5 speed manual. Yeah, I wish they'd have given it an overdrive, but for what it is, it is smooth and quiet at highway speeds, much quieter than the competition I think. A. >> Advise not getting manual for Elantra, the gearing is such that high gear >> on the highway is geared too low and the engine revs are high at speed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it is, it is smooth and quiet at highway speeds, much quieter than the > competition I think. According to this, the 2006 had an overdrive 5th gear. I can't believe that did away with that for the 2007 model. http://www.hyundainews.com/Media_Kits/2006_Models/Elantra/Specifications.asp Matt From 07 Elantra Media kit 5-speed manual Gear Ratios First 3.31:1 Second 1.96:1 Third 1.26:1 Fourth 0.98:1 Fifth 0.78:1 Reverse 3.58:1 Final-drive 4.19:1 4-speed automatic Gear Ratios First 2.92:1 Second 1.55:1 Third 1.00:1 Fourth 0.71:1 Reverse 2.48:1 Final-drive 3.85:1 >>> Advise not getting manual for Elantra, the gearing is such that high >>> gear [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Matt > From 07 Elantra Media kit > 5-speed manual [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Reverse 3.58:1 > Final-drive 4.19:1 Dual overdrive gears! :-) Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > According to this, the 2006 had an overdrive 5th gear. I can't believe > that did away with that for the 2007 model. > > http://www.hyundainews.com/Media_Kits/2006_Models/Elantra/Specifications.asp > > Matt Overdrive is a meaningless term today anyway. The final drive ratio is what matters, and having enough engine torque to move the car at the desired speed. . > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> According to this, the 2006 had an overdrive 5th gear. I can't believe [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > matters, and having enough engine torque to move the car at the desired > speed. . Overdrive has the same meaning today as it has always had. And the overall drive ratio has always been what has mattered. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > Overdrive has the same meaning today as it has always had. In the dictionary, yes. As a means of being more economical or saving engine wear, not necessarly. Putting a .90 overdrive grear in a car then changing the rear from 3.08 to a 3.36 so it won't lug won't save you anything > And the overall drive ratio has always been what has mattered. > > Matt Exactly. Which is more economical, a regular trans with a 1:1 high gear and a 3.08 rear of a 4.56 with overdrive? Arguments can be made for both being best for different reasons but a blanket statement that "overdrive is better" is not correct. Engines have changed too, with differing power and torque curves than the Blue Flame 6. What gear is "best" varies depending on needs. I sometimes use a Chevy Silverado with a 5 speed and we rarely put any weight in it. IMO, the gearing sucks for our use, but is probably great for the guy that always hauls 800+ pounds of material. Cruises at 70 at a fairly low RPM, but 90% of its use is below 35 mph. At about 45, 4th is too low, 5th is too high. > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Exactly. Which is more economical, a regular trans with a 1:1 high gear > and a 3.08 rear of a 4.56 with overdrive? Don't know - what is the overdrive ratio? You're leaving out pieces of the equation Edwin. > Arguments can be made for both being best for different reasons but a > blanket statement that "overdrive is better" is not correct. Engines have > changed too, with differing power and torque curves than the Blue Flame 6. Overdrive is overdrive Edwin. It's an overdrive for a given rear end ratio. It's what takes you past 1:1. Overdrive is indeed better - when you're talking the realm of overdrive, which is economy. Regardless of final ration, overdrive is better. > What gear is "best" varies depending on needs. I sometimes use a Chevy > Silverado with a 5 speed and we rarely put any weight in it. IMO, the > gearing sucks for our use, but is probably great for the guy that always > hauls 800+ pounds of material. Cruises at 70 at a fairly low RPM, but 90% > of its use is below 35 mph. At about 45, 4th is too low, 5th is too high. Yeahbut, that has nothing to do with overdrive. That's just a matter of the wrong vehicle. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >> Exactly. Which is more economical, a regular trans with a 1:1 high gear >> and a 3.08 rear of a 4.56 with overdrive? > > Don't know - what is the overdrive ratio? You're leaving out pieces of > the equation Edwin. Yes, I did for a reason. The person that stated he wished he had overdrive made his statement without saying anything more. My point is, having overdrive is not necessarily a benefit. It may be, in the right engine and gear combination, but it may hurt performance in other combinations. There are many factors to take into consideration. Putting in a very high gear ration in and of itself is the necessarily a good thing. > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > in a very high gear ration in and of itself is the necessarily a good > thing. I made the original comment about wishing for an overdrive. Since 5th gear apprently technically is an overdrive, what I should have said is that I wish the Elantra had a 6th gear. To me, it just feels like it needs one spinning 3000 RPM before it even gets to 70. A. "Aeschylus" <winger383@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I made the original comment about wishing for an overdrive. Since 5th > gear apprently technically is an overdrive, what I should have said is > that I wish the Elantra had a 6th gear. To me, it just feels like it > needs one spinning 3000 RPM before it even gets to 70. > > A. Not having driven one at that speed, I can't say. I'd have thought if thee was an advantage to slowing the engine and getting better mileage, the engineers would have done so today, but may not have back in the days of cheap gas 50's and 60's. At lower RPM, it may not have the power to cruise at 70 at a lower speed. FWIW, my Sonata turns 2200 at 70 LeSabre turns 2000 Regal turns 2000 I had a rental Dodge Stratus a few years ago and it too was at or near 3000 rpm at 70 > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> Overdrive has the same meaning today as it has always had. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Putting a .90 overdrive grear in a car then changing the rear from 3.08 to a > 3.36 so it won't lug won't save you anything It means the same in the dictionary and in practice as it did 20 years ago. Tell me how it was different 20 years ago? >> And the overall drive ratio has always been what has mattered. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > better" is not correct. Engines have changed too, with differing power and > torque curves than the Blue Flame 6. I never said overdrive was better. I just said it means the same now as it ever did, and that is simply that the transmission has ratios less than 1:1. That is all it ever meant, no more and no less. And it means exactly the same thing today. Matt >> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >>> Overdrive has the same meaning today as it has always had. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It means the same in the dictionary and in practice as it did 20 years > ago. Tell me how it was different 20 years ago? I'm talking in practice, not in dictionary terms. Years ago, you paid extra for an "Overdrive" transmission and it was used on the highway to save gas. In practical terms, using overdrive today is not necessarily a good or a bad thing and it may not be best for a particular car. To say, as the poster did "I whish it had overdrive" is without merit unless you know if the car is going to perform properly with a higher gear ratio. It is did, the economy conscious car makers would put it in so they can get a higher number of that window sticker. If you are putting five gears in a transmission, it matters little cost wise what the ratio is, but it matters greatly on performance. Just like having 8 cylinders today. Most 6's will out perform the small block V-8's of years ago. Or a turbocharged 4. Just having a certain number of cylinders does not ensure a given performance level. >> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >>> According to this, the 2006 had an overdrive 5th gear. I can't believe [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Matt Correct. Overdrive is anything over a nominal 1:1. Still a very meaningful term today. As has always been the case, final drive ratio is the key, but overdrive determines what that ratio translates to in mileage - and performance. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >>>> According to this, the 2006 had an overdrive 5th gear. I can't believe [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > overdrive determines what that ratio translates to in mileage - and > performance. Maybe they ought to re-invent freewheeling. L. "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message > Correct. Overdrive is anything over a nominal 1:1. Still a very > meaningful term today. As has always been the case, final drive ratio is > the key, but overdrive determines what that ratio translates to in > mileage - and performance. Overdrive is a term meaning the transmission high gear ratio is greater than 1:1. The final drive gear ratio determines mileage and performance, overdrive or not. Having an overdrive ratio in the transmission does not bestow magical qualities in and of itself. It is merely a part of an engineered package. Number or cylinders is not a measure of mileage or performance either. Nor do many other popular misconceptions such as imported cars are small and get better gas mileage. Or that Jaguars are unreliable. Oh, wait, that one is true. > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >> Correct. Overdrive is anything over a nominal 1:1. Still a very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bestow magical qualities in and of itself. It is merely a part of an > engineered package. I believe overdrive is a ratio LESS than 1:1, not greater than. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > I believe overdrive is a ratio LESS than 1:1, not greater than. > > Matt Yes, I was thinking in terms of low (first gear) and high, in which case it is higher > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> I believe overdrive is a ratio LESS than 1:1, not greater than. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, I was thinking in terms of low (first gear) and high, in which case it > is higher Yes, people refer to the gears as high or low, but the actual ratio is lower for higher gears. Matt >> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >>> I believe overdrive is a ratio LESS than 1:1, not greater than. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Matt Unless you are standing on the other side of it. > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bestow magical qualities in and of itself. It is merely a part of an > engineered package. That's where you're missing the point Edwin. Overdrive effectively changes the final drive ratio given that it's greater than 1:1. No, I know it does not really change that ratio - it effectively changes it. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message > That's where you're missing the point Edwin. Overdrive effectively > changes the final drive ratio given that it's greater than 1:1. No, I > know it does not really change that ratio - it effectively changes it. Mike it is you that is missing the point. I know what overdrive is and what it does. My point is, unlike 50 years ago, it is not necessarily a benefit in a car today as they are designed more for optimum performance at highway speed, be it the high gear be 2:1, 1:1 or 1:2. Go back 50+ years ago and most cars had 3 speed manual transmission with a high gear of 1:1. As an option, you could get "Overdrive" for highway driving. On at least some cars, it was mechanically activated by some other means then the shift lever on the column. As time moved on and engines improved, some cars were given four speed transmissions. In some, but not all, cases, the top gear was an overdrive gear and it was not an option. Others, mostly smaller cars, still had the top gear at 1:1 because they did not have the power to operate properly with anything higher for the final drive.. They have to run at 2500 to 3200 rpm to make the power needed to drive the car. What is important is the final drive ratio. How you get there is not as important from the consumer end. It may be a 3.08 rear, or a 4.56. It may or may not have overdrive and no, you don't get to choose it as an option like you could in 1953. Back then, no one really cared about fuel cost and the government did not mandate anything as is the case today. Thus, drivetrains are built to optimize fuel and have as high a number for highway mileage as possible. Now, most importantly, put all of this in proper context with the original comment and see how it fits in. > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >> That's where you're missing the point Edwin. Overdrive effectively [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > today as they are designed more for optimum performance at highway speed, be > it the high gear be 2:1, 1:1 or 1:2. It is exactly the same benefit today as 50 years ago. The only difference is that today the overdrive ratio is integrated into the transmission/transaxle rather than being a separate box as in the early days. The fact that it is integrated rather than being tacked on makes no difference in the function. > Go back 50+ years ago and most cars had 3 speed manual transmission with a > high gear of 1:1. As an option, you could get "Overdrive" for highway [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > drive.. They have to run at 2500 to 3200 rpm to make the power needed to > drive the car. The advantage of an overdrive ratio in the transmission is that you can use a lower (higher numerical ratio) final drive ratio to allow easy starts and good acceleration in the lower gears, yet still have a lower RPM in high gear. There is nothing magical about having an overdrive ratio in the transmission as the same affect could be obtained by lowering all of the transmission ratios and raising the final drive ratio. I think the balance has more to do with the logistics of gear sizes than anything else. Very small gears driving very large gears places a lot of stress on the small gear and thus avoiding large numerical ratios is probably a good thing. However, the point remains that the 4 or 5 speed transmissions today accomplish exactly the same thing as did the old 3 and 4 speed transmissions with a separate overdrive gearbox. No difference other than packaging. > What is important is the final drive ratio. How you get there is not as > important from the consumer end. It may be a 3.08 rear, or a 4.56. It may [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > drivetrains are built to optimize fuel and have as high a number for highway > mileage as possible. No, what is important is OVERALL drive ratio. The final drive ratio is easily offset by the transmission ratios and isn't the final determinant of how fast the engine spins for a given road speed. Unfortunately, some people use final drive ratio as a synonym for overall drive ratio, but that doesn't make it correct. Here is the correct definition: http://autorepair.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-072a.htm > Now, most importantly, put all of this in proper context with the original > comment and see how it fits in. I agree, please do this! :-) Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > It is exactly the same benefit today as 50 years ago. The only difference > is that today the overdrive ratio is integrated into the > transmission/transaxle rather than being a separate box as in the early > days. The fact that it is integrated rather than being tacked on makes no > difference in the function. No sh.t, you figured out what I've been saying. It may or may not be integrated. If it works, it is, if it does not work for that particular drivetrain in that particular vehicle, it is not. It is not offered as an option any more. > There is nothing magical about having an overdrive ratio in the > transmission as the same affect could be obtained by lowering all of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > transmissions with a separate overdrive gearbox. No difference other than > packaging. By golly, I think you've got it! I knew you had it in you. I've not taken a survey of gear ratios, not do I intend to, but they may or may not be an overdrive ratio. It is what drives that particular vehicle the best. > Unfortunately, some people use final drive ratio as a synonym for > overall drive ratio, but that doesn't make it correct. And Matt would never leave a nit unpicked. (neither would I) > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> It is exactly the same benefit today as 50 years ago. The only difference [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > a survey of gear ratios, not do I intend to, but they may or may not be an > overdrive ratio. It is what drives that particular vehicle the best. Great, I'm glad you agree that your statement that overdrive today is different from overdrive of years gone by was incorrect. Overdrive is the same now as it was 50 years ago functionally. Only the packaging has changed. I knew you'd come around!! :-) >> Unfortunately, some people use final drive ratio as a synonym for >> overall drive ratio, but that doesn't make it correct. > > And Matt would never leave a nit unpicked. (neither would I) But of course! :-) Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > Overdrive is the same now as it was 50 years ago functionally. Only the > packaging has changed. I knew you'd come around!! :-) But the original subject was "is overdrive needed?" It is not always a benefit. Not every car has it, no matter the number of gears in the transmission. > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> Overdrive is the same now as it was 50 years ago functionally. Only the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > benefit. Not every car has it, no matter the number of gears in the > transmission. Sure it is a benefit. It allows a lower (higher numerically) final drive ratio which allows a lower 1st gear overall drive ratio to making starting out easier. Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > Sure it is a benefit. It allows a lower (higher numerically) final drive > ratio which allows a lower 1st gear overall drive ratio to making starting > out easier. > > Matt Sure, but not every car can take advantage of it. Some do, so don't. Other factors are important also. > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> Sure it is a benefit. It allows a lower (higher numerically) final drive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sure, but not every car can take advantage of it. Some do, so don't. Other > factors are important also. Every car is advantaged by having a greater number of gears and a wider span of ratios. What car would not be advantaged by this? Matt "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message > Every car is advantaged by having a greater number of gears and a wider > span of ratios. What car would not be advantaged by this? > > Matt I was talking about an overdrive gear. OTOH, I had a '59 Chevy with the 348 engine, 4.56 rear and a CLOSE ratio for speed with a 1:1 high gear. Corvette used the same transmission for the close ratio. > "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I was talking about an overdrive gear. You've really confused me now Edwin. Stop laughing - I know that's not a hard thing to do. But - overdrive is always a gear. > OTOH, I had a '59 Chevy with the 348 engine, 4.56 rear and a CLOSE ratio > for speed with a 1:1 high gear. Corvette used the same transmission for > the close ratio. Those 4.56 rear ends were awsome. Neck snappers. But - they cruised at about 5 grand at 60 mph. That's a tranny that screamed for an overdrive. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >> I was talking about an overdrive gear. > > You've really confused me now Edwin. Stop laughing - I know that's not a > hard thing to do. But - overdrive is always a gear. As opposed to a non-overdrive gear. > Those 4.56 rear ends were awsome. Neck snappers. But - they cruised at > about 5 grand at 60 mph. That's a tranny that screamed for an overdrive. We eventually swapped it out for a 4.11 The other guy did most of the work just to get it. It was a fast car, three two barrel carbs. It was the fasted car at or high school and caused quite stir racing a '58 Ford right in front of the school. You could do things like that back in the 60's. > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > '58 Ford right in front of the school. You could do things like that > back in the 60's. You can do things like that now too, you just can't post it on a usenet group :-) Eric > We eventually swapped it out for a 4.11 The other guy did most of the work > just to get it. It was a fast car, three two barrel carbs. It was the > fasted car at or high school and caused quite stir racing a '58 Ford right > in front of the school. You could do things like that back in the 60's. Yes... I know. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Now, most importantly, put all of this in proper context with the original > comment and see how it fits in. It fits as I've been saying all along. We're not really saying much different. I understand well the history of overdrive, but the overdrive in a car today serves the same purpose as it ever did - to reduct engine rpm and save fuel. Even in the good old days it served the purpose of saving fuel. You are correct that today's engines are more efficient, but they are indeed designed with an overdrive in mind. The final drive ratio is a determining factor but not the single determining factor. Regardless of what the final ratio is, an overdrive is still going to have the same effect of dropping engine rpm's at cruise. That's all overdrive was intended to do. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > GUEST wrote > Hi > After I found out my Altima ('05)'s transmission is getting broke I' > trying to buy new one and thinking about Elantra 07. And I have fe > questions and need some help from Hyundai-owner [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 3. I'm thinking about manual transmission because I had many o > transmission problem with Civic, and Altima. Some people sai manua > transmission is very durable and reliable than automatic. Do yo thin > getting a manual transmission is a good idea? If I buy Elantra, > wouldn't sell it until it is totally dead. -I know Hyundai's use ca > value. :' > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks for reading and I really appreciate for you comments My 02 Sonata has been a good car with almost 70,00 miles on it. It has had one recurring problem though. The brak rotors keep warping. The dealer turned the rotors 2 times an replaced the rotors once. The car is still under bumper to bumpe warranty but now the dealer will not do the repair under warranty. am very disappointed with this decision and will most likely buy Honda next time. Based on my experience Honda's are designed an manufactured with better quality. And the Hyundai warranty is no always honored On Jun 17, 1:58 pm, friday...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > After I found out my Altima ('05)'s transmission is getting broke, I'm [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks for reading and I really appreciate for your comments. -------------- I HAVE ISSUES WITH ELANTRAS ... One is the battery! I HAVE A 2004 ELANTRA GLS, AND THE BATTERY IS almost impossible to replace and service! That's if you can find one outside a dealer, where they're 40-percent more expensive than at parts dealers. Installation? That'll be up to $50 extra! Hyundai DOESN'T want you even try to: 1) Check the fluid level in the cells. 2) Check the body and terminals for corrosion. 3) Remove the old battery and install a new one. These tasks are almost impossible for the average motorist BECAUSE THE BATTERY SITS IN AN ENCLOSED, SEALED CASE! You can't see much less inspect the cell fluid levels. And half of the bolts under the hood on the driver's side have to be removed to free-up the battery. See, Hyundai wants you to go to a HYUNDAI DEALER, where a battery costs $90, plus up to $50 more to install it. And at most Hyundai dealers I know, you have to leave your car for an entire day -- then hope it's ready when you return in the late afternoon or early evening. "Aw, we're sorry, but you see we got real busy and couldn't get to yours. But tomorrow!" AdvanceAuto Parts, AutoZone, Olympic Auto Parts, and Batteries Plus sell the same battery for $52 to $69, some including free installation. Only problem? They can't get a sufficient supply of them to keep 'em in stock! And that's what your conniving, inscrutable Hyundai folks want -- to force you to spend more on a new battery than a normal car owner would expect. Parts companies list the Elantra batteries as "special." And that they are! Additionally, the OWNER'S MANUAL has neither a diagram or instructions for accessing and servicing your Hyundai Elantra battery. Just a one- paragraph entry that says, in effect, Be careful when servicing the battery." I've had my 2004 Elantra GLS for 3 years and the battery is already shot. Needless to say, with problems also with the air bags (two recalls), brakes (full brake job done already), power locks (unpredictable), and engine noise and vibration, I've bought my last Hyundai product! If I were you, I'd stay away from Nissan, too. Poor frequency of maintenance after the 2nd year. Toyotas are much better Hondas are good but overpriced. My advice to Hyundai? Hold up on building those factories in the U.S. Too many one-time customers could make for sluggish, then anemic, sales. ------------------------ "StoneMeThenBurnMe" <lilhornie@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I HAVE A 2004 ELANTRA GLS, AND THE BATTERY IS almost impossible to > replace and service! > Hyundai DOESN'T want you even try to: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 3) Remove the old battery and install a new one. > AdvanceAuto Parts, AutoZone, Olympic Auto Parts, and Batteries Plus > sell the same battery for $52 to $69, some including free > installation. Do you think they are the only ones? When is the last time you saw a battery that was easy, if at all possible, to check fluid levels? I have an '01 LeSabre and I've never seen the battery. I'll replace it before winter since it is the original, but the only price I can find is $100 for the battery. It is under the back seat so I have no idea how hard or difficult it is to install. I'm going to take it to Advanced Auto that advertises free installation. Ok, enough spam. Please...I can only endure so much... quit hogging bandwidth and leave the group!!! Steve SignatureNW AZ home for sale in growing area near Laughlin, NV- http://inlandempire.craigslist.org/rfs/370324491.html http://www.hoobly.com/0/0/383472.html > On Jun 17, 1:58 pm, friday...@gmail.com wrote: >> Hi, [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > ------------------------ |
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.