J
Jody
sticks also dont have the power loss that autos do.
a v6 sonata 5 spd would be a hoot
a v6 sonata 5 spd would be a hoot
M
Matt Whiting
Jody 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.
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
R
Rev. Tom Wenndt
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
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
M
Matt Whiting
Rev. Tom Wenndt said:
Yes, it seems to vary a fair bit by type of car and type of driving.
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!
I'm a subscriber so it'll be fun to see what they say.
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
J
James Atkinson
Eric G. said: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".
Sure there are! There are plenty roads around Atlantis, too.
But it's just that little preposition "in" that made me comment!
E
Eric G.
LOL, yeah, I know
D
Don
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.
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.
B
Bob
Don said:
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.
Z
Zotto
Matt Whiting said:
Not really so in all parts of Italy, but more and more similar to
description going to southern cities.
D
Don
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.
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.
M
Matt Whiting
Don said:
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
M
Matt Whiting
Bob said:
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
M
Matt Whiting
Don said:
Does anyone know how IIHS gets their vehicles? Do they buy them off the
street or are they provided by the manufacturers?
Matt
E
Eric G.
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.
D
Don
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.
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.
M
Matt Whiting
Don said:
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
D
Don
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.
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.
M
Matt Whiting
Bob said:
I'll trade you insurance bills!
I haven't got by final bill yet as they messed up and put my daughter as
the primary driver on the Hyundai when I got it rather than keeping her
on the oldest vehicle as before. Probably since the Hyundai replaced my
oldest van which was totaled in an accident, they just kept her on that
"same" vehicle. I'm hoping for a significant reduction in rate as I
currently pay as much for just the comprehensive coverage on my Sonata
as you pay in total!
Matt
R
Rev. Tom Wenndt
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
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
G
GeoUSA
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
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
