Matt Whiting wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>> Yea, you all are correct. I was talking about the 4 cylinder. When
>> the dealer showed me the cartridge for the 6 cylinder, all I could
>> think of was my 1954 Chevy that had a cartridge filter!!!!! Talk
>> about a step backwards. Those were a pain in the ****, for sure.
>> First thing you need is a cooking baster to get the oil out of the
>> housing, I guess. What a messy job! Now I'm glad I have a 4
>> cylinder. You may beat me off the line (like I care), but I'll beat
>> you out of the Oil Change Lane. )
>
> I'm with you, Tom. I'm very happy with the four-cylinder. We'll also
> save on spark plugs, plug wires, coils, etc. And I don't think the V-6
> will beat me off the line. It might beat me after 30 MPH, but the 4
> pulls pretty good off the line if I rev it enough! If you compare the
> performance numbers (I posted a link to them some time ago), the V-6 has
> a very minor performance advantage over the four. I'm guessing the
> extra weight it carries and different gearing probably account for most
> of it.

I dunno... Can you have 3 cylinders shut down and it keep running?

On the 2.7 you can

Of course that only happens on the occasion a cam jumps time (ouch), or
somebody forgets to plug the 'rear bank' of fuel injectors back in

JS

 

I dunno, my 2.7 has
http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlook...asp?Part=51324
screwed to it right now.

Damned nice filter. I think you could smack it with a roofing hammer
and not dent it.

JS

Tom wrote:
> Yea, you all are correct. I was talking about the 4 cylinder. When the
> dealer showed me the cartridge for the 6 cylinder, all I could think of was
> my 1954 Chevy that had a cartridge filter!!!!! Talk about a step backwards.
> Those were a pain in the ****, for sure. First thing you need is a cooking
> baster to get the oil out of the housing, I guess. What a messy job! Now
> I'm glad I have a 4 cylinder. You may beat me off the line (like I care),
> but I'll beat you out of the Oil Change Lane. )
>
> Take care,
>
> Tom
> "JS" <jsuter@intrastardot.net> wrote in message
> news:1zkng.23450$R11.3047@fe25.usenetserver.com...
>> Tom wrote:
>>> In earlier posts, people were asking where to get oil filters for their
>>> Sonatas to avoid the high prices at the dealer. I yahooed and found
>>> several places that list multiple filters. For instance,
>>> http://replacement.autopartswarehous...ilter&dp=false
>>> lists three different ones. One of them is a Bosch, which is listed as
>>> OEM. The other two are listed as Hyundai specific. The Bosch one is
>>> $5.17. Shipping for three of them is only about $5.25. These should meet
>>> the requirements, shouldn't they?
>> My inner redneck says we need a remote oil filter assembly for these cars
>> pronto, or an adapter... Can't beat a good ol' $2.50 Motorcraft FL1A.
>> I'll mention this to my friend, he specializes in these sorts of things...
>> (aluminum/brass/copper/etc casting/finishing)
>>
>> Plus, who wants to get their fingers all dirty, or have *that much*
>> opportunity to introduce something abrasive to the 'clean' side of the oil
>> filter housing? The world abandoned cartridge style filters for a
>> reason...
>>
>> Oh well, I'm sure its some environmental boob that came up with this. If
>> you *really* want to deal with the problem figure out a profitable way to
>> recycle cartridge filters - this would fix the problem with new and old
>> cars alike.
>>
>> Then again, theres a reason why anybody can buy R134A and its a serious
>> pain in the **** (or a vacation to Mexico, which leads to the ****-pain)
>> to get R12 - and it has very little to do with the ozone layer... :|
>>
>> JS
>>
>
>

 

I dunno, my 2.7 has
http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlook...asp?Part=51324
screwed to it right now.

Damned nice filter. I think you could smack it with a roofing hammer
and not dent it.

JS

Tom wrote:
> Yea, you all are correct. I was talking about the 4 cylinder. When the
> dealer showed me the cartridge for the 6 cylinder, all I could think of was
> my 1954 Chevy that had a cartridge filter!!!!! Talk about a step backwards.
> Those were a pain in the ****, for sure. First thing you need is a cooking
> baster to get the oil out of the housing, I guess. What a messy job! Now
> I'm glad I have a 4 cylinder. You may beat me off the line (like I care),
> but I'll beat you out of the Oil Change Lane. )
>
> Take care,
>
> Tom
> "JS" <jsuter@intrastardot.net> wrote in message
> news:1zkng.23450$R11.3047@fe25.usenetserver.com...
>> Tom wrote:
>>> In earlier posts, people were asking where to get oil filters for their
>>> Sonatas to avoid the high prices at the dealer. I yahooed and found
>>> several places that list multiple filters. For instance,
>>> http://replacement.autopartswarehous...ilter&dp=false
>>> lists three different ones. One of them is a Bosch, which is listed as
>>> OEM. The other two are listed as Hyundai specific. The Bosch one is
>>> $5.17. Shipping for three of them is only about $5.25. These should meet
>>> the requirements, shouldn't they?
>> My inner redneck says we need a remote oil filter assembly for these cars
>> pronto, or an adapter... Can't beat a good ol' $2.50 Motorcraft FL1A.
>> I'll mention this to my friend, he specializes in these sorts of things...
>> (aluminum/brass/copper/etc casting/finishing)
>>
>> Plus, who wants to get their fingers all dirty, or have *that much*
>> opportunity to introduce something abrasive to the 'clean' side of the oil
>> filter housing? The world abandoned cartridge style filters for a
>> reason...
>>
>> Oh well, I'm sure its some environmental boob that came up with this. If
>> you *really* want to deal with the problem figure out a profitable way to
>> recycle cartridge filters - this would fix the problem with new and old
>> cars alike.
>>
>> Then again, theres a reason why anybody can buy R134A and its a serious
>> pain in the **** (or a vacation to Mexico, which leads to the ****-pain)
>> to get R12 - and it has very little to do with the ozone layer... :|
>>
>> JS
>>
>
>

 

I dunno, my 2.7 has
http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlook...asp?Part=51324
screwed to it right now.

Damned nice filter. I think you could smack it with a roofing hammer
and not dent it.

JS

Tom wrote:
> Yea, you all are correct. I was talking about the 4 cylinder. When the
> dealer showed me the cartridge for the 6 cylinder, all I could think of was
> my 1954 Chevy that had a cartridge filter!!!!! Talk about a step backwards.
> Those were a pain in the ****, for sure. First thing you need is a cooking
> baster to get the oil out of the housing, I guess. What a messy job! Now
> I'm glad I have a 4 cylinder. You may beat me off the line (like I care),
> but I'll beat you out of the Oil Change Lane. )
>
> Take care,
>
> Tom
> "JS" <jsuter@intrastardot.net> wrote in message
> news:1zkng.23450$R11.3047@fe25.usenetserver.com...
>> Tom wrote:
>>> In earlier posts, people were asking where to get oil filters for their
>>> Sonatas to avoid the high prices at the dealer. I yahooed and found
>>> several places that list multiple filters. For instance,
>>> http://replacement.autopartswarehous...ilter&dp=false
>>> lists three different ones. One of them is a Bosch, which is listed as
>>> OEM. The other two are listed as Hyundai specific. The Bosch one is
>>> $5.17. Shipping for three of them is only about $5.25. These should meet
>>> the requirements, shouldn't they?
>> My inner redneck says we need a remote oil filter assembly for these cars
>> pronto, or an adapter... Can't beat a good ol' $2.50 Motorcraft FL1A.
>> I'll mention this to my friend, he specializes in these sorts of things...
>> (aluminum/brass/copper/etc casting/finishing)
>>
>> Plus, who wants to get their fingers all dirty, or have *that much*
>> opportunity to introduce something abrasive to the 'clean' side of the oil
>> filter housing? The world abandoned cartridge style filters for a
>> reason...
>>
>> Oh well, I'm sure its some environmental boob that came up with this. If
>> you *really* want to deal with the problem figure out a profitable way to
>> recycle cartridge filters - this would fix the problem with new and old
>> cars alike.
>>
>> Then again, theres a reason why anybody can buy R134A and its a serious
>> pain in the **** (or a vacation to Mexico, which leads to the ****-pain)
>> to get R12 - and it has very little to do with the ozone layer... :|
>>
>> JS
>>
>
>

 

Tom wrote:

> Wow, that sounds great. Now I wish I had that setup!!! Maybe we did make
> some progress in the last 50 years! Unfortunately, my 54 Chevy got 20 miles
> per gallon and look how far we progressed in the area. ( That old car
> weighed 3250 pounds, too. Sad Sad Sad.

If new cars were allowed to pollute like your 54 Chevy and had its same
performance, then they'd get way more than 20 MPG for the same weight car.

We've progressed a long way in the last 50 years. My 4 cylinder Sonata
outperforms most of the cars made in the 50s regardless of engine size
and gets 31 MPG.


Matt

 

Tom wrote:

> Wow, that sounds great. Now I wish I had that setup!!! Maybe we did make
> some progress in the last 50 years! Unfortunately, my 54 Chevy got 20 miles
> per gallon and look how far we progressed in the area. ( That old car
> weighed 3250 pounds, too. Sad Sad Sad.

If new cars were allowed to pollute like your 54 Chevy and had its same
performance, then they'd get way more than 20 MPG for the same weight car.

We've progressed a long way in the last 50 years. My 4 cylinder Sonata
outperforms most of the cars made in the 50s regardless of engine size
and gets 31 MPG.


Matt

 

Tom wrote:

> Wow, that sounds great. Now I wish I had that setup!!! Maybe we did make
> some progress in the last 50 years! Unfortunately, my 54 Chevy got 20 miles
> per gallon and look how far we progressed in the area. ( That old car
> weighed 3250 pounds, too. Sad Sad Sad.

If new cars were allowed to pollute like your 54 Chevy and had its same
performance, then they'd get way more than 20 MPG for the same weight car.

We've progressed a long way in the last 50 years. My 4 cylinder Sonata
outperforms most of the cars made in the 50s regardless of engine size
and gets 31 MPG.


Matt

 

Tom wrote:

> Yea, Matt, I'm happy with the performance side of my 4 banger. Actually,
> 162 horses out of a 4 is pretty darn good. No complaints so far except a
> sticking drivers side outside door handle that doesn't close all the way.
> They'll replace it at the next visit.

I just got back from my first trip of any length with my Sonata and was
disappointed in the mileage. I got 30.8 on the outbound leg (200 miles)
which is basically what I've been getting commuting to work. This was
on good two-lane roads (routes 6 and 66 in Western PA), however, we did
get caught in a couple of construction zones and spent a fair number of
miles driving around Grove City so that may have offset the highway
mileage. The car seemed to do real well on the way back, but I haven't
filled it up to check yet. I made the trip back (190 miles) and the
gauge was right on the 3/4 tank mark. I typically get 140-150 before it
hits this point so I think the mileage on the highway was pretty good.
However, I'll drive it to work this week before filling it again so that
will bring the average down a little. Still need a good long highway
trip to get a good test.


Matt

 

Tom wrote:

> Yea, Matt, I'm happy with the performance side of my 4 banger. Actually,
> 162 horses out of a 4 is pretty darn good. No complaints so far except a
> sticking drivers side outside door handle that doesn't close all the way.
> They'll replace it at the next visit.

I just got back from my first trip of any length with my Sonata and was
disappointed in the mileage. I got 30.8 on the outbound leg (200 miles)
which is basically what I've been getting commuting to work. This was
on good two-lane roads (routes 6 and 66 in Western PA), however, we did
get caught in a couple of construction zones and spent a fair number of
miles driving around Grove City so that may have offset the highway
mileage. The car seemed to do real well on the way back, but I haven't
filled it up to check yet. I made the trip back (190 miles) and the
gauge was right on the 3/4 tank mark. I typically get 140-150 before it
hits this point so I think the mileage on the highway was pretty good.
However, I'll drive it to work this week before filling it again so that
will bring the average down a little. Still need a good long highway
trip to get a good test.


Matt

 

Tom wrote:

> Yea, Matt, I'm happy with the performance side of my 4 banger. Actually,
> 162 horses out of a 4 is pretty darn good. No complaints so far except a
> sticking drivers side outside door handle that doesn't close all the way.
> They'll replace it at the next visit.

I just got back from my first trip of any length with my Sonata and was
disappointed in the mileage. I got 30.8 on the outbound leg (200 miles)
which is basically what I've been getting commuting to work. This was
on good two-lane roads (routes 6 and 66 in Western PA), however, we did
get caught in a couple of construction zones and spent a fair number of
miles driving around Grove City so that may have offset the highway
mileage. The car seemed to do real well on the way back, but I haven't
filled it up to check yet. I made the trip back (190 miles) and the
gauge was right on the 3/4 tank mark. I typically get 140-150 before it
hits this point so I think the mileage on the highway was pretty good.
However, I'll drive it to work this week before filling it again so that
will bring the average down a little. Still need a good long highway
trip to get a good test.


Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:Mlvng.1$Pa.531@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>>Yea, you all are correct. I was talking about the 4 cylinder. When
>>>the dealer showed me the cartridge for the 6 cylinder, all I could
>>>think of was my 1954 Chevy that had a cartridge filter!!!!! Talk
>>>about a step backwards. Those were a pain in the ****, for sure.
>>>First thing you need is a cooking baster to get the oil out of the
>>>housing, I guess. What a messy job! Now I'm glad I have a 4
>>>cylinder. You may beat me off the line (like I care), but I'll beat
>>>you out of the Oil Change Lane. )
>>
>>I'm with you, Tom. I'm very happy with the four-cylinder. We'll also
>>save on spark plugs, plug wires, coils, etc. And I don't think the
>>V-6 will beat me off the line. It might beat me after 30 MPH, but the
>>4 pulls pretty good off the line if I rev it enough! If you compare
>>the performance numbers (I posted a link to them some time ago), the
>>V-6 has a very minor performance advantage over the four. I'm
>>guessing the extra weight it carries and different gearing probably
>>account for most of it.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Bear in mind that those numbers were for the LX model as I recall. The GLS
> V6 is significantly lighter than the LX, but a bit heavier than the GL-4.
> With my traction control off, I have done a few 6.5 sec. 0-60 unofficial
> runs. While I agree that it would be close to 30 MPH, I would be ahead and
> pulling away. With that said, the 4 has my respect compared to other 4's
> of the same class.

That wasn't my recollection, but unfortunately the web site now has the
07 models. The big difference was the V-6 vs. the 4, not the trip
levels. Even the automatic trans doesn't add that much weight, it was
the engine and the heavier suspension required to support it that
appears to be the big difference. Even for the 07 models the Limited
(which appears to be the successor to the LX) and the SE (appears to be
similar to the former GXL-V6) have identical weights. The GLS
(successor to the GL) weighs more than 200 lbs less than the SE and
Limited with the standard transmission and just under 200 lbs less with
the automatic. 200 lbs makes a difference on a car that weighs less
than 3500 lbs.

The standard shift tranny also has a slightly lower final drive ratio
than the 5 speed automatic (althought it is higher than the 4 speed auto
if the web site is correct - but this doesn't seem right so I'm
wondering if they made a typo). However, not knowing the 1st gear
ratios I don't know if the overall ratio is less or more for the 4
cylinder. I'm guessing it is a fair bit lower given the relatively
minor performance difference from the 50% more torque in the V-6. I
suspect that much of that torque advantage is lost in the gearing.


Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:Mlvng.1$Pa.531@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>>Yea, you all are correct. I was talking about the 4 cylinder. When
>>>the dealer showed me the cartridge for the 6 cylinder, all I could
>>>think of was my 1954 Chevy that had a cartridge filter!!!!! Talk
>>>about a step backwards. Those were a pain in the ****, for sure.
>>>First thing you need is a cooking baster to get the oil out of the
>>>housing, I guess. What a messy job! Now I'm glad I have a 4
>>>cylinder. You may beat me off the line (like I care), but I'll beat
>>>you out of the Oil Change Lane. )
>>
>>I'm with you, Tom. I'm very happy with the four-cylinder. We'll also
>>save on spark plugs, plug wires, coils, etc. And I don't think the
>>V-6 will beat me off the line. It might beat me after 30 MPH, but the
>>4 pulls pretty good off the line if I rev it enough! If you compare
>>the performance numbers (I posted a link to them some time ago), the
>>V-6 has a very minor performance advantage over the four. I'm
>>guessing the extra weight it carries and different gearing probably
>>account for most of it.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Bear in mind that those numbers were for the LX model as I recall. The GLS
> V6 is significantly lighter than the LX, but a bit heavier than the GL-4.
> With my traction control off, I have done a few 6.5 sec. 0-60 unofficial
> runs. While I agree that it would be close to 30 MPH, I would be ahead and
> pulling away. With that said, the 4 has my respect compared to other 4's
> of the same class.

That wasn't my recollection, but unfortunately the web site now has the
07 models. The big difference was the V-6 vs. the 4, not the trip
levels. Even the automatic trans doesn't add that much weight, it was
the engine and the heavier suspension required to support it that
appears to be the big difference. Even for the 07 models the Limited
(which appears to be the successor to the LX) and the SE (appears to be
similar to the former GXL-V6) have identical weights. The GLS
(successor to the GL) weighs more than 200 lbs less than the SE and
Limited with the standard transmission and just under 200 lbs less with
the automatic. 200 lbs makes a difference on a car that weighs less
than 3500 lbs.

The standard shift tranny also has a slightly lower final drive ratio
than the 5 speed automatic (althought it is higher than the 4 speed auto
if the web site is correct - but this doesn't seem right so I'm
wondering if they made a typo). However, not knowing the 1st gear
ratios I don't know if the overall ratio is less or more for the 4
cylinder. I'm guessing it is a fair bit lower given the relatively
minor performance difference from the 50% more torque in the V-6. I
suspect that much of that torque advantage is lost in the gearing.


Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:Mlvng.1$Pa.531@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>>Yea, you all are correct. I was talking about the 4 cylinder. When
>>>the dealer showed me the cartridge for the 6 cylinder, all I could
>>>think of was my 1954 Chevy that had a cartridge filter!!!!! Talk
>>>about a step backwards. Those were a pain in the ****, for sure.
>>>First thing you need is a cooking baster to get the oil out of the
>>>housing, I guess. What a messy job! Now I'm glad I have a 4
>>>cylinder. You may beat me off the line (like I care), but I'll beat
>>>you out of the Oil Change Lane. )
>>
>>I'm with you, Tom. I'm very happy with the four-cylinder. We'll also
>>save on spark plugs, plug wires, coils, etc. And I don't think the
>>V-6 will beat me off the line. It might beat me after 30 MPH, but the
>>4 pulls pretty good off the line if I rev it enough! If you compare
>>the performance numbers (I posted a link to them some time ago), the
>>V-6 has a very minor performance advantage over the four. I'm
>>guessing the extra weight it carries and different gearing probably
>>account for most of it.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Bear in mind that those numbers were for the LX model as I recall. The GLS
> V6 is significantly lighter than the LX, but a bit heavier than the GL-4.
> With my traction control off, I have done a few 6.5 sec. 0-60 unofficial
> runs. While I agree that it would be close to 30 MPH, I would be ahead and
> pulling away. With that said, the 4 has my respect compared to other 4's
> of the same class.

That wasn't my recollection, but unfortunately the web site now has the
07 models. The big difference was the V-6 vs. the 4, not the trip
levels. Even the automatic trans doesn't add that much weight, it was
the engine and the heavier suspension required to support it that
appears to be the big difference. Even for the 07 models the Limited
(which appears to be the successor to the LX) and the SE (appears to be
similar to the former GXL-V6) have identical weights. The GLS
(successor to the GL) weighs more than 200 lbs less than the SE and
Limited with the standard transmission and just under 200 lbs less with
the automatic. 200 lbs makes a difference on a car that weighs less
than 3500 lbs.

The standard shift tranny also has a slightly lower final drive ratio
than the 5 speed automatic (althought it is higher than the 4 speed auto
if the web site is correct - but this doesn't seem right so I'm
wondering if they made a typo). However, not knowing the 1st gear
ratios I don't know if the overall ratio is less or more for the 4
cylinder. I'm guessing it is a fair bit lower given the relatively
minor performance difference from the 50% more torque in the V-6. I
suspect that much of that torque advantage is lost in the gearing.


Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> "Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:lcwng.31846$EX2.3911@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
>
>>Yea, Matt, I'm happy with the performance side of my 4 banger.
>>Actually, 162 horses out of a 4 is pretty darn good. No complaints so
>>far except a sticking drivers side outside door handle that doesn't
>>close all the way. They'll replace it at the next visit.
>>
>>Tom
>
>
> I have the same problem with my door handle. Guess I'll mention it on my
> next visit to the dealer. It didn't annoy me enough so far to think of it
> when I was there. But it does seem to be happening more often.
>
> Eric
>

Did they do the trim piece "recall" on your cars? They replaced the
trim pieces on my car before I had hardly driven it (I think it was two
days after I picked it up). The dealer said he had no idea why they had
to change them, but this piece is right behind the handle and fairs it
into the body. I wonder if that is causing the failure to close and is
the reason for the recall.

Matt

 

Eric G. wrote:

> "Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:lcwng.31846$EX2.3911@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
>
>>Yea, Matt, I'm happy with the performance side of my 4 banger.
>>Actually, 162 horses out of a 4 is pretty darn good. No complaints so
>>far except a sticking drivers side outside door handle that doesn't
>>close all the way. They'll replace it at the next visit.
>>
>>Tom
>
>
> I have the same problem with my door handle. Guess I'll mention it on my
> next visit to the dealer. It didn't annoy me enough so far to think of it
> when I was there. But it does seem to be happening more often.
>
> Eric
>

Did they do the trim piece "recall" on your cars? They replaced the
trim pieces on my car before I had hardly driven it (I think it was two
days after I picked it up). The dealer said he had no idea why they had
to change them, but this piece is right behind the handle and fairs it
into the body. I wonder if that is causing the failure to close and is
the reason for the recall.

Matt