Sonata Gas Mileage?

[Mike Marlow]

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.

 

[Mike Marlow]

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.

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.

 

[Edwin Pawlowski]

The throttle and clutch on the Sonata are terrible and making a quick
launch is nearly impossible.
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.

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.

 

[Double Tap]

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.
-Mike-
[email protected]

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

 

[Mike Marlow]

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:

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.

 

[Edwin Pawlowski]

I guess you need that extra torque to pull all that extra stuff you bought
to feel good. ) 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.

 

[Mike Marlow]

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

Huh??? Sorry guy - I don't get the reason for this post.

 

[Matt Whiting]

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 . . . . . .

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

 

[Eric G.]

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=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

 

[Double Tap]

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

 

[Matt Whiting]

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

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

 

[Edwin Pawlowski]

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.

 

[Edwin Pawlowski]

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.

 

[tjnamtiw]

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

 

[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
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

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

 

[Eric G.]

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

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

 

[Eric G.]

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

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

 

[Matt Whiting]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Matt Whiting]

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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