Tom

Well, I might as well jump in, too. The 4 cyl which I have in my 2006
Sonata is MORE than adequate to merge into traffic and pass on the
expressways. I confess that for 40 years I absolutely loved the 'kick in
the pants' of a 427 or 390 cubic inch engine and owned vettes, Camaro's,
Cougars, and Mustangs with those engines. Sure the 6 cyl has more 'kick'
but with all the cars on the roads today, who really and truly needs it.
Don't forget even IF the 4 turns more RPM's per mile (which hasn't been
proven), your 6 cyl will have more parts wearing out and needing
replacement...... It's an age old question with two groups agruing for
their side. No easy answer. I just got back today from a 703 mile trip
from Georgia to Pa and got 32.0 mpg up 85, 77, and 81. That's at 70 -80
mph. ) and loaded with gifts and 3 people.

Tom

"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:XpTih.12$6f4.1@trndny08...
>
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>>
>> All else being equal, more revolutions per mile will likely cause more
>> wear, but all else is never equal and how the engine is driven and
>> maintained makes more difference that RPM at cruise. Often, engines that
>> are run harder last longer as they run a little warmer and tend to
>> develop less sludge and junk from too cold operation at part throttle.
>
> Maybe, but I'd still put my money on the engine that turns 15,840 times
> less per hour to last longer over time. There will always be exceptions
> due to overall care and environment. If you plan to keep the car for af
> ew y ears and 50k, not a big deal as any engine should be free of major
> problems in that time.
>
>>
>> The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging
>> 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is with
>> the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2 with the automatic.
>
> Given the size of hte car, that is not bad. I've hit 29 on highway drives
> with the 6, but my overall average is closer to 23. The EPA ratings
> between manual and automatic is only 1 mpg. Real life can vary either way
> depending on how you drive. Too lazy to shift can use much more fuel than
> any automatic today. 1955 Chevy Powerglide excepted, of course.
>
> A big factor in the decision is how you drive. If you never reach the
> speed limit and saving a gallon of gas a month is top priority, get the 4.
> If you like to drive a "spirited" auto with great performance, get the
> V-6.
>

Edwin Pawlowski

"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:zTFkh.13929$%e7.10611@bignews2.bellsouth.net. ..

> even IF the 4 turns more RPM's per mile (which hasn't been proven),

Not proven? Prove it to yourself. Just look at the specification on the
web page for final gear ratios and do the math.

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:zTFkh.13929$%e7.10611@bignews2.bellsouth.net. ..
>
>
>> even IF the 4 turns more RPM's per mile (which hasn't been proven),
>
>
> Not proven? Prove it to yourself. Just look at the specification on the
> web page for final gear ratios and do the math.

Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site.

Also, comparing the final drive ratio doesn't tell you anything. You
need to know the transmission ratios in high gear as well as the tire
overall diameters.


Matt

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:rHPkh.1902$Oc.118627@news1.epix.net...

>
> Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site.
>
> Also, comparing the final drive ratio doesn't tell you anything. You need
> to know the transmission ratios in high gear as well as the tire overall
> diameters.

Under the specifications.

At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours?

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:rHPkh.1902$Oc.118627@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site.
>>
>>Also, comparing the final drive ratio doesn't tell you anything. You need
>>to know the transmission ratios in high gear as well as the tire overall
>>diameters.
>
>
> Under the specifications.
>
> At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours?

I see the final drive ratio, but not the overall drive ratio or the
ratio of each transmission gear so as to calculate the overall drive
ratio. The final drive ratio is very close for the manual that I have
(3.44) vs. the automatic (3.33), however, I suspect that the overall
drive ratio is not nearly so close.

I haven't been to 70 in some time, so I'm not sure. I believe it runs
about 2200 at 55 which would be about 2800 at 70, but I'll try to
remember to check next time I'm on the highway.


Matt

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:rHPkh.1902$Oc.118627@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site.
>>
>>Also, comparing the final drive ratio doesn't tell you anything. You need
>>to know the transmission ratios in high gear as well as the tire overall
>>diameters.
>
>
> Under the specifications.
>
> At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours?
>
>

I just got back from a short trip and here are the figures roughly
(within 50 RPM or so).

55 MPH = 2300
60 MPH = 2500
65 MPH = 2750
70 MPH = 2950

Basically, it is one tick on the tach for each 5 MPH increment from 55
through 70, but at 55 it is maybe a needle width above the 2250 tick
mark and at 70 it is maybe a needle width below the 3000 tick mark.
This is in 5th gear with the manual transmission and I-4 engine.


Matt

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> I just got back from a short trip and here are the figures roughly (within
> 50 RPM or so).
>
> 55 MPH = 2300
> 60 MPH = 2500
> 65 MPH = 2750
> 70 MPH = 2950
>
> Basically, it is one tick on the tach for each 5 MPH increment from 55
> through 70, but at 55 it is maybe a needle width above the 2250 tick mark
> and at 70 it is maybe a needle width below the 3000 tick mark. This is in
> 5th gear with the manual transmission and I-4 engine.
>
>
> Matt

For comparison

55 = 1800
60 = 2000
65 = 2100
70 = 2200
80 = 2450
100= Did not keep a steady enough speed long enough to be accurate