Sonata Gas Mileage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter komobu
  • Start date Start date
Matt Whiting said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Edwin said:
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.
Click to expand...

No kidding, but that isn't what you said.

Matt
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Eric said:
@news1.epix.net:




Imagine if the 6 had a MT available? Then we wouldn't be having this
discussion really, or maybe we would :-)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...

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
 
Double Tap said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tjnamtiw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Matt Whiting said:
No, I thought you meant what you wrote.

Matt
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mike Marlow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I've got to watch my ass 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.
 
Edwin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ed, you are so far wrong on this topic that I'm not even going to bother
discussing it further.

Matt
 
Matt Whiting said:
Ed, you are so far wrong on this topic that I'm not even going to bother
discussing it further.
Click to expand...

Right, there is nothing to discuss. The more cubic inches the more potential
power
 

Latest posts

Back
Top