Eric G.

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:czAng.10$Pa.1630@news1.epix.net:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I meant to also post this link to the weights.
>
> http://www.hyundaiusa.com/vehicle/so...ecs/specs.aspx
>

The 07's don't really compare. My GLS only has 16" wheels. I would
imagine that is probably 50 lbs. right there, but admittedly, that is a
guess. I can only guess at the rest too, since none of the car
magazines that I read tested a GLS V6 (all LX's), but you've got a few
other things that could easily add up to 50 lbs. or more.

The final drive ratio is so small of a difference it is insignificant,
but like you said, the 5 gear ratios could be different. Although both
being 5 speeds I would suspect they are similar too.

If you have ever been into reading the car magazines like I have for the
last 25 years, you would know that the numbers even they come up with
are variable and not always accurate. Car and Driver seems to have the
most consistant numbers and it put the LX at 6.6 seconds to 60 MPH. I'd
be willing to bet that the GL I4 would be in the low 8's for a 0-60 run.
That is a very significant difference. You don't just add 50% more
torque and HP and reduce your times by 50%, even if you could keep the
weight the same. It is far from a linear relationship.

Eric

Eric G.

"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:TEEng.31931$EX2.8964@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

> On mine, if it's stuck out, the car won't lock with the key fob! You
> think it's locked but it's not! Suprise Suprise.
>

Don't you open the door from the INSIDE to get out :-) I do, and haven't
had that problem yet. I really hate when I am getting in the car and I
close the door only to have it pop open again.

Eric

Eric G.

"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:TEEng.31931$EX2.8964@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

> On mine, if it's stuck out, the car won't lock with the key fob! You
> think it's locked but it's not! Suprise Suprise.
>

Don't you open the door from the INSIDE to get out :-) I do, and haven't
had that problem yet. I really hate when I am getting in the car and I
close the door only to have it pop open again.

Eric

Eric G.

"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:TEEng.31931$EX2.8964@bignews5.bellsouth.net:

> On mine, if it's stuck out, the car won't lock with the key fob! You
> think it's locked but it's not! Suprise Suprise.
>

Don't you open the door from the INSIDE to get out :-) I do, and haven't
had that problem yet. I really hate when I am getting in the car and I
close the door only to have it pop open again.

Eric

Matt Whiting

JS wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> Actually, isn't the aluminum block 2.7L *lighter* than the cast iron
> block 2.4L?
>
> Is the 3.3L a cast iron block?

I don't know. I was going simply by the GVW published by Hyundai.


> BTW - HP is a silly figure, the greater torque curve dictates the
> drivability of a car, the peak torque/HP means much less than most
> people want to put into it..

I agree. Torque is the name of the game for all practical purposes.
Horsepower's only relevance is for top speed.

Matt

Matt Whiting

JS wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> Actually, isn't the aluminum block 2.7L *lighter* than the cast iron
> block 2.4L?
>
> Is the 3.3L a cast iron block?

I don't know. I was going simply by the GVW published by Hyundai.


> BTW - HP is a silly figure, the greater torque curve dictates the
> drivability of a car, the peak torque/HP means much less than most
> people want to put into it..

I agree. Torque is the name of the game for all practical purposes.
Horsepower's only relevance is for top speed.

Matt

Matt Whiting

JS wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> Actually, isn't the aluminum block 2.7L *lighter* than the cast iron
> block 2.4L?
>
> Is the 3.3L a cast iron block?

I don't know. I was going simply by the GVW published by Hyundai.


> BTW - HP is a silly figure, the greater torque curve dictates the
> drivability of a car, the peak torque/HP means much less than most
> people want to put into it..

I agree. Torque is the name of the game for all practical purposes.
Horsepower's only relevance is for top speed.

Matt

Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:0yAng.9$Pa.1706@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>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
>
>
> I was not aware of that "recall" but I will check into it. What you
> describe as being replaced seems like the exact spot that is causing me the
> problem.

They replaced all four of these little plastic pieces on my car. My
door handles worked fine before and after, so I was scratching my head.
And then the dealer admitted that they didn't know the purpose for
that particular recall either. They did mine at the same time they did
the seat recline lever, the cup holder insert and the headliner adhesive.


Matt

Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:0yAng.9$Pa.1706@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>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
>
>
> I was not aware of that "recall" but I will check into it. What you
> describe as being replaced seems like the exact spot that is causing me the
> problem.

They replaced all four of these little plastic pieces on my car. My
door handles worked fine before and after, so I was scratching my head.
And then the dealer admitted that they didn't know the purpose for
that particular recall either. They did mine at the same time they did
the seat recline lever, the cup holder insert and the headliner adhesive.


Matt

Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:0yAng.9$Pa.1706@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>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
>
>
> I was not aware of that "recall" but I will check into it. What you
> describe as being replaced seems like the exact spot that is causing me the
> problem.

They replaced all four of these little plastic pieces on my car. My
door handles worked fine before and after, so I was scratching my head.
And then the dealer admitted that they didn't know the purpose for
that particular recall either. They did mine at the same time they did
the seat recline lever, the cup holder insert and the headliner adhesive.


Matt

Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:czAng.10$Pa.1630@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eric G. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>>>>news:Mlvng.1$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.
>>
>>I meant to also post this link to the weights.
>>
>>http://www.hyundaiusa.com/vehicle/so...ecs/specs.aspx
>>
>
>
> The 07's don't really compare. My GLS only has 16" wheels. I would
> imagine that is probably 50 lbs. right there, but admittedly, that is a
> guess. I can only guess at the rest too, since none of the car
> magazines that I read tested a GLS V6 (all LX's), but you've got a few
> other things that could easily add up to 50 lbs. or more.

I'm 95% sure that the 06 figures were similar with the V-6 models coming
in ~200 lbs heavier than the I-4. Unfortunately, I don't see an archive
with the 06 data at the Hyundai web site.


> The final drive ratio is so small of a difference it is insignificant,
> but like you said, the 5 gear ratios could be different. Although both
> being 5 speeds I would suspect they are similar too.

Usually standard transmission cars are geared much lower than the
automatics so I suspect that the 3.77 really should be for the 5 speed
manual and the 3.44 for the 4-speed automatic. Then the 3.33 for the 5
speed automatic would be consistent as it could handle a higher final
drive ratio as it likely has a lower 1st gear given the extra gearset.


> If you have ever been into reading the car magazines like I have for the
> last 25 years, you would know that the numbers even they come up with
> are variable and not always accurate. Car and Driver seems to have the
> most consistant numbers and it put the LX at 6.6 seconds to 60 MPH. I'd
> be willing to bet that the GL I4 would be in the low 8's for a 0-60 run.
> That is a very significant difference. You don't just add 50% more
> torque and HP and reduce your times by 50%, even if you could keep the
> weight the same. It is far from a linear relationship.

I was using the numbers Hyundai published. I don't see why they would
have any reason to intentionally skew the V-6 vs. the 4 cylinder. I
suspect their profit margin is larger on the V-6 so if anything the
would want to make the V-6 look better against the 4 rather than worse.

Since F=ma, if the torque is 50% greater then the acceleration will be
50% greater also since this is a linear relationship.

However, since x(t) = 1/2*a*t^2, t=sqrt((2*x(t)/a)), the difference in
time will vary as to the square root of the change in acceleration. So
a 50% increase in acceleration will yield only a 22% reduction in time
over a given distance (say 1/4 mile). However, this assumes all else is
equal, which it isn't as the V-6 is a couple of hundred pounds heavier
and has different gear ratios. I believe the performance posted by
Hyundai had the performance difference being only in the 10% range. I
posted the stats a while back, but don't remember them precisely from
memory now.


Matt

Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:czAng.10$Pa.1630@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eric G. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>>>>news:Mlvng.1$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.
>>
>>I meant to also post this link to the weights.
>>
>>http://www.hyundaiusa.com/vehicle/so...ecs/specs.aspx
>>
>
>
> The 07's don't really compare. My GLS only has 16" wheels. I would
> imagine that is probably 50 lbs. right there, but admittedly, that is a
> guess. I can only guess at the rest too, since none of the car
> magazines that I read tested a GLS V6 (all LX's), but you've got a few
> other things that could easily add up to 50 lbs. or more.

I'm 95% sure that the 06 figures were similar with the V-6 models coming
in ~200 lbs heavier than the I-4. Unfortunately, I don't see an archive
with the 06 data at the Hyundai web site.


> The final drive ratio is so small of a difference it is insignificant,
> but like you said, the 5 gear ratios could be different. Although both
> being 5 speeds I would suspect they are similar too.

Usually standard transmission cars are geared much lower than the
automatics so I suspect that the 3.77 really should be for the 5 speed
manual and the 3.44 for the 4-speed automatic. Then the 3.33 for the 5
speed automatic would be consistent as it could handle a higher final
drive ratio as it likely has a lower 1st gear given the extra gearset.


> If you have ever been into reading the car magazines like I have for the
> last 25 years, you would know that the numbers even they come up with
> are variable and not always accurate. Car and Driver seems to have the
> most consistant numbers and it put the LX at 6.6 seconds to 60 MPH. I'd
> be willing to bet that the GL I4 would be in the low 8's for a 0-60 run.
> That is a very significant difference. You don't just add 50% more
> torque and HP and reduce your times by 50%, even if you could keep the
> weight the same. It is far from a linear relationship.

I was using the numbers Hyundai published. I don't see why they would
have any reason to intentionally skew the V-6 vs. the 4 cylinder. I
suspect their profit margin is larger on the V-6 so if anything the
would want to make the V-6 look better against the 4 rather than worse.

Since F=ma, if the torque is 50% greater then the acceleration will be
50% greater also since this is a linear relationship.

However, since x(t) = 1/2*a*t^2, t=sqrt((2*x(t)/a)), the difference in
time will vary as to the square root of the change in acceleration. So
a 50% increase in acceleration will yield only a 22% reduction in time
over a given distance (say 1/4 mile). However, this assumes all else is
equal, which it isn't as the V-6 is a couple of hundred pounds heavier
and has different gear ratios. I believe the performance posted by
Hyundai had the performance difference being only in the 10% range. I
posted the stats a while back, but don't remember them precisely from
memory now.


Matt

Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:czAng.10$Pa.1630@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eric G. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>>>>news:Mlvng.1$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.
>>
>>I meant to also post this link to the weights.
>>
>>http://www.hyundaiusa.com/vehicle/so...ecs/specs.aspx
>>
>
>
> The 07's don't really compare. My GLS only has 16" wheels. I would
> imagine that is probably 50 lbs. right there, but admittedly, that is a
> guess. I can only guess at the rest too, since none of the car
> magazines that I read tested a GLS V6 (all LX's), but you've got a few
> other things that could easily add up to 50 lbs. or more.

I'm 95% sure that the 06 figures were similar with the V-6 models coming
in ~200 lbs heavier than the I-4. Unfortunately, I don't see an archive
with the 06 data at the Hyundai web site.


> The final drive ratio is so small of a difference it is insignificant,
> but like you said, the 5 gear ratios could be different. Although both
> being 5 speeds I would suspect they are similar too.

Usually standard transmission cars are geared much lower than the
automatics so I suspect that the 3.77 really should be for the 5 speed
manual and the 3.44 for the 4-speed automatic. Then the 3.33 for the 5
speed automatic would be consistent as it could handle a higher final
drive ratio as it likely has a lower 1st gear given the extra gearset.


> If you have ever been into reading the car magazines like I have for the
> last 25 years, you would know that the numbers even they come up with
> are variable and not always accurate. Car and Driver seems to have the
> most consistant numbers and it put the LX at 6.6 seconds to 60 MPH. I'd
> be willing to bet that the GL I4 would be in the low 8's for a 0-60 run.
> That is a very significant difference. You don't just add 50% more
> torque and HP and reduce your times by 50%, even if you could keep the
> weight the same. It is far from a linear relationship.

I was using the numbers Hyundai published. I don't see why they would
have any reason to intentionally skew the V-6 vs. the 4 cylinder. I
suspect their profit margin is larger on the V-6 so if anything the
would want to make the V-6 look better against the 4 rather than worse.

Since F=ma, if the torque is 50% greater then the acceleration will be
50% greater also since this is a linear relationship.

However, since x(t) = 1/2*a*t^2, t=sqrt((2*x(t)/a)), the difference in
time will vary as to the square root of the change in acceleration. So
a 50% increase in acceleration will yield only a 22% reduction in time
over a given distance (say 1/4 mile). However, this assumes all else is
equal, which it isn't as the V-6 is a couple of hundred pounds heavier
and has different gear ratios. I believe the performance posted by
Hyundai had the performance difference being only in the 10% range. I
posted the stats a while back, but don't remember them precisely from
memory now.


Matt

Eric G.

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:B0Hng.19$Pa.2708@news1.epix.net:

> Eric G. wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>> news:0yAng.9$Pa.1706@news1.epix.net:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>> I was not aware of that "recall" but I will check into it. What you
>> describe as being replaced seems like the exact spot that is causing
>> me the problem.
>
> They replaced all four of these little plastic pieces on my car. My
> door handles worked fine before and after, so I was scratching my
> head.
> And then the dealer admitted that they didn't know the purpose for
> that particular recall either. They did mine at the same time they
> did the seat recline lever, the cup holder insert and the headliner
> adhesive.
>
>
> Matt
>

My handle works fine about 98% of the time too, so if you had the car
only two days before the work was done, you may not have experienced the
problem. All of the other "recalls" you mention were done on my car
before I picked it up.

Eric

Eric G.

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:B0Hng.19$Pa.2708@news1.epix.net:

> Eric G. wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>> news:0yAng.9$Pa.1706@news1.epix.net:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>
>>
>> I was not aware of that "recall" but I will check into it. What you
>> describe as being replaced seems like the exact spot that is causing
>> me the problem.
>
> They replaced all four of these little plastic pieces on my car. My
> door handles worked fine before and after, so I was scratching my
> head.
> And then the dealer admitted that they didn't know the purpose for
> that particular recall either. They did mine at the same time they
> did the seat recline lever, the cup holder insert and the headliner
> adhesive.
>
>
> Matt
>

My handle works fine about 98% of the time too, so if you had the car
only two days before the work was done, you may not have experienced the
problem. All of the other "recalls" you mention were done on my car
before I picked it up.

Eric