Steve R.

Greetings all;

My wife's best friend has a 2000 Sonata and really doesn't get that great of
mileage. She (I) maintains it well and it just clikced over 100k miles.

Were these years known for poor mileage? She claims 18 city/highway combined
with the 2.7l V6. 90% of her driving is in town.

I suspect the combination of gearing and the fact that it rarely sees the
highway contribributes to her mileage dilemma. My 2008 gets 22-23 combined,
27 highway while my Pastor at church gets 30 out of his! We both are CC
users.

TIA,

Steve

--

2008 Sonata SE- His
2005 Grand Cherokee-Hers

Matt Whiting

Steve R. wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> My wife's best friend has a 2000 Sonata and really doesn't get that great of
> mileage. She (I) maintains it well and it just clikced over 100k miles.
>
> Were these years known for poor mileage? She claims 18 city/highway combined
> with the 2.7l V6. 90% of her driving is in town.
>
> I suspect the combination of gearing and the fact that it rarely sees the
> highway contribributes to her mileage dilemma. My 2008 gets 22-23 combined,
> 27 highway while my Pastor at church gets 30 out of his! We both are CC
> users.

18 for 90% city driving is about right.

I doubt that your 22-23 is in 90% city driving, but I wouldn't be
surprised that your 2008 gets a little better than a 2000 with 100K miles.

And I'll bet a steak dinner that your pastor is not driving in the city
much at all and getting 30!!

Matt

Richard Steinfeld

Steve R. wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> My wife's best friend has a 2000 Sonata and really doesn't get that great of
> mileage. She (I) maintains it well and it just clikced over 100k miles.
>
> Were these years known for poor mileage? She claims 18 city/highway combined
> with the 2.7l V6. 90% of her driving is in town.

I'm not surprised. I get around 19-20 from mine. Somehow, I'd have
thought that it would have gotten a lot better than my Ford Aerostar did
(16-17) -- a true klutzmobile. The Sonata seems rather heavy from its
specs. Maybe that's it.

Richard

John

My wifes 2.7l V6 Sonata gets ~ 37mpg on a trip. Extraordinary. Thats
imperial gallons, not sure of the conversion to USA though.
John

Matt Whiting

John wrote:
> My wifes 2.7l V6 Sonata gets ~ 37mpg on a trip. Extraordinary. Thats
> imperial gallons, not sure of the conversion to USA though.
> John
>
>


That would be 1.2 US gallons or 30.8 mpg which is about right for a 2.7L
Sonata and not all that extraordinary. Many full-size GM cars (Buick's
in particular) get better than that with a larger car and a larger engine.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/fuelvolumeconverter.html

Matt

Harry Smith

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:%qFsk.9009$cp6.5413@fe109.usenetserver.com:

> John wrote:
>> My wifes 2.7l V6 Sonata gets ~ 37mpg on a trip. Extraordinary. Thats
>> imperial gallons, not sure of the conversion to USA though.
>> John
>>
>>
>
>
> That would be 1.2 US gallons or 30.8 mpg which is about right for a
> 2.7L Sonata and not all that extraordinary. Many full-size GM cars
> (Buick's in particular) get better than that with a larger car and a
> larger engine.
>
> http://www.csgnetwork.com/fuelvolumeconverter.html
>
> Matt
>
I'm confused. The 2000 Sonata V-6 is a 2.5L engine. The 2.7 was
introduced aafter 2001.

That said, our 1999 and 2001 Sonatas (one auto, one stick) routinely get
slightly over 30 in highway driving. City mileage is much lower, tho -- in
the 22-24 MPG range.

One poster mentioned gearing. The standard transmission version runs about
500 RPM higher in high gear than does the automatic. Curiously, tho, that
doesn't produce a detectable difference in average highway mileage between
the two.

Harry
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Matt Whiting

Harry Smith wrote:
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:%qFsk.9009$cp6.5413@fe109.usenetserver.com:
>
>> John wrote:
>>> My wifes 2.7l V6 Sonata gets ~ 37mpg on a trip. Extraordinary. Thats
>>> imperial gallons, not sure of the conversion to USA though.
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That would be 1.2 US gallons or 30.8 mpg which is about right for a
>> 2.7L Sonata and not all that extraordinary. Many full-size GM cars
>> (Buick's in particular) get better than that with a larger car and a
>> larger engine.
>>
>> http://www.csgnetwork.com/fuelvolumeconverter.html
>>
>> Matt
>>
> I'm confused. The 2000 Sonata V-6 is a 2.5L engine. The 2.7 was
> introduced aafter 2001.
>
> That said, our 1999 and 2001 Sonatas (one auto, one stick) routinely get
> slightly over 30 in highway driving. City mileage is much lower, tho -- in
> the 22-24 MPG range.
>
> One poster mentioned gearing. The standard transmission version runs about
> 500 RPM higher in high gear than does the automatic. Curiously, tho, that
> doesn't produce a detectable difference in average highway mileage between
> the two.

Two things (at least!) in play here:

1. The manual car is lighter than the automatic as I recall. In fact, I
don't think the V-6 even came with a manual when I bought mine 2006
Sonata. The lighter weight helps a little.

2. It takes a certain amount of HP to move the car at a constant speed.
Even though one engine is revving 500 RPM higher, it is still
producing the same power to propel the car. Now, at the higher RPM, the
engine is developing more frictional and pumping losses so it will take
a little more HP, but not a huge amount.

Matt