Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:e6azh.2598$Oc.157606@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Eric G. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>>>news:4j7zh.1411$O8.1041@bignews2.bellsouth.ne t:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There really is very
>>>>little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said.
>>>
>>>
>>>Without the benefit of anyone running a real scientific test between
>>>the two configurations (really 3 if you count the MT), I respectfully
>>>disagree with both of you. There is a medium to large difference
>>>between the 4 and the 6. I be willing to bet that in the real world,
>>>we are talking about a 1.5-2 second difference in the 0-60 time, and
>>>significantly more as speeds get higher.
>>
>>Well, the data doesn't support your bet. The difference is slightly
>>more than 1 second in 0-60 between my 4 cylinder and your V-6 (1.19 to
>>be exact) and the difference in the quarter mile time is even less
>>which suggests the difference narrows with higher speed rather than
>>widens as you suggest. The quarter mile difference is only 1.06
>>seconds. So we're talking less than 150 feet difference at the end of
>>a quarter mile. This is hardly an earthshattering difference and I'll
>>bet that most of it is off the line. The throttle and clutch on the
>>Sonata are terrible and making a quick launch is nearly impossible.
>>I'll bet that a 5 MPH rolling start would make the times very nearly
>>identical, but I can't find any data to prove that conclusively.
>>However, I think it can be reasonably inferred from the fact that the
>>gap between the quarter mile times is even less than that of the 0-60.
>> The main reason for this difference is the time lost on the launch.
>>The average acceleration is even higher for the 4 cylinder between 60
>>MPH and the quarter mile point since the time gap was actually
>>narrowed during this period.
>>
>>http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Sp...aspx?year=2006
>
> &make=Hyund
>
>>ai&model=Sonata&trimid=-1
>
>
> http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...i-sonata-lx-v-
> 6.
> html
>
> Funny, Car and Driver was able to get a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds with
> the 2006 LX. I have a GLS V6, which is close to 200 lbs. lighter which
> should make it about a tick quicker. The problem here is CD didn't test
> the 4 banger so we have no way to know how really bad the MSN data is.
>
> But in any event, you do realize how much faster 1.06 seconds is in the
> 1/4 mile, right? Like night and day if you ever been to a drag strip.
>
> But again, I am happy that you are happy with your car. However slow it
> might be :-)

It depends on the speed through the traps. At 300 MPH, 1 second is a
big difference. At 90, not so much.

The interesting part is that the 4 gained on the 6 between 60 MPH and 90
MPH. Too bad your car starts losing ground to my lowly 4 as the speed
increases. :-)

It all depends on how they measure the 0-60 time. Some places measure
where the front wheels trip the timer. Some places measure the time
from a light signal which means the driver reaction time is also
factored in. I have no idea how either the MSN data or the C&D data was
taken. Also, weather conditions play a significant role. Sea level on
a cold day is nothing like 5,000' on a hot day.

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.

Matt

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> 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.

So to make your apples and oranges comparison more equal, toss a tangerine
into the mix.

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message

>
> There are lots of substitues for cubic inches. Just look at Formula 1
> cars vs. Nascar.

Not a comparison at all. Put the displacement of each under the same rules.
Cubic inches will win every time. Sure, a turbocharged 2 liter engine can
outperform a naturally aspirated 3 liter, but put the turbocharger on the 3
liter and . . . . . you get the idea.

tjnamtiw

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.

Tom


"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:5Alzh.2609$Oc.157750@news1.epix.net...
> Eric G. wrote:
>> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
>> news:e6azh.2598$Oc.157606@news1.epix.net:
>>>Eric G. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>>>>news:4j7zh.1411$O8.1041@bignews2.bellsouth.net :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There really is very
>>>>>little difference between the 4 and 6, like Matt said.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Without the benefit of anyone running a real scientific test between
>>>>the two configurations (really 3 if you count the MT), I respectfully
>>>>disagree with both of you. There is a medium to large difference
>>>>between the 4 and the 6. I be willing to bet that in the real world,
>>>>we are talking about a 1.5-2 second difference in the 0-60 time, and
>>>>significantly more as speeds get higher.
>>>
>>>Well, the data doesn't support your bet. The difference is slightly more
>>>than 1 second in 0-60 between my 4 cylinder and your V-6 (1.19 to
>>>be exact) and the difference in the quarter mile time is even less
>>>which suggests the difference narrows with higher speed rather than
>>>widens as you suggest. The quarter mile difference is only 1.06
>>>seconds. So we're talking less than 150 feet difference at the end of
>>>a quarter mile. This is hardly an earthshattering difference and I'll
>>>bet that most of it is off the line. The throttle and clutch on the
>>>Sonata are terrible and making a quick launch is nearly impossible. I'll
>>>bet that a 5 MPH rolling start would make the times very nearly
>>>identical, but I can't find any data to prove that conclusively. However,
>>>I think it can be reasonably inferred from the fact that the
>>>gap between the quarter mile times is even less than that of the 0-60.
>>> The main reason for this difference is the time lost on the launch. The
>>> average acceleration is even higher for the 4 cylinder between 60
>>>MPH and the quarter mile point since the time gap was actually
>>>narrowed during this period.
>>>http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Sp...aspx?year=2006
>>
>> &make=Hyund
>>
>>>ai&model=Sonata&trimid=-1
>>
>>
>> http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...i-sonata-lx-v-
>> 6.
>> html Funny, Car and Driver was able to get a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds
>> with
>> the 2006 LX. I have a GLS V6, which is close to 200 lbs. lighter which
>> should make it about a tick quicker. The problem here is CD didn't test
>> the 4 banger so we have no way to know how really bad the MSN data is.
>> But in any event, you do realize how much faster 1.06 seconds is in the
>> 1/4 mile, right? Like night and day if you ever been to a drag strip.
>> But again, I am happy that you are happy with your car. However slow it
>> might be :-)
>
> It depends on the speed through the traps. At 300 MPH, 1 second is a big
> difference. At 90, not so much.
>
> The interesting part is that the 4 gained on the 6 between 60 MPH and 90
> MPH. Too bad your car starts losing ground to my lowly 4 as the speed
> increases. :-)
>
> It all depends on how they measure the 0-60 time. Some places measure
> where the front wheels trip the timer. Some places measure the time from
> a light signal which means the driver reaction time is also factored in.
> I have no idea how either the MSN data or the C&D data was taken. Also,
> weather conditions play a significant role. Sea level on a cold day is
> nothing like 5,000' on a hot day.
>
> 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.
>
> Matt

KW

"komobu" <curranpg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170959256.529837.190040@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
> I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when
> driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only
> 15k on it so I am rather surprised that I am not getting 22 or 23 mpg.
> Please let me know what kind of mileage you get with an 06 or 07
> Sonata so I can tell if it is just my car or if they all are bad on
> gas.
>
> Thanks
> Pat
>

Pat,

I have an 06 LX with the 3.3L engine also. It took us to about 12K to see
any significant improvement in mileage over what you are seeing. Since the
car hit ~15K to the current 25K I have seen very consistent numbers with
each tankful and have had several instances to validate the numbers with use
relegated strictly to city or highway driving only for a full tanks worth.
What I have been getting is 23.4 City / 28.1 Hwy. I have a tendency to have
a lead foot, so my guess is that the numbers could be improved upon somewhat
if applied a more gradual approach to reaching crusing speeds :-)

KW

Eric G.

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:5Alzh.2609$Oc.157750@news1.epix.net:

> It depends on the speed through the traps. At 300 MPH, 1 second is a
> big difference. At 90, not so much.

Let's see....at 300 MPH it is ~466 ft. and at 90 MPH it is ~140 ft. So
you'd be 140 ft. behind me at 90 MPH. Seems like quite a bit to me.

> The interesting part is that the 4 gained on the 6 between 60 MPH and
> 90 MPH. Too bad your car starts losing ground to my lowly 4 as the
> speed increases. :-)

Actually, my car wouldn't lose any ground to yours in the above scenario
since you'd be lifting off the throttle at 65 MPH. Aren't you the one
that claims to almost never violate the posted speed limit :-P

> It all depends on how they measure the 0-60 time. Some places measure
> where the front wheels trip the timer. Some places measure the time
> from a light signal which means the driver reaction time is also
> factored in. I have no idea how either the MSN data or the C&D data
> was taken. Also, weather conditions play a significant role. Sea
> level on a cold day is nothing like 5,000' on a hot day.

MSN results are known to be overly conservative. CD usually is the
industry standard for this stuff, but as you said, and I said, there is
no way to use the data provided to make a fair comparison. And for the
record, with the computer controlled cars of recent years, the weather
conditions make much less of a difference than they used to. I think
altitude would play the biggest role.

> 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.
>
> Matt

Thought we were comparing AT to AT? I know at least in my case, the MT
wasn't a consideration. My wife, while she could drive a MT in an
emergency, would probably eat a clutch for breakfast every few thousand
miles. We swap cars too many times each year to have a MT sitting
around.

Eric

Eric G.

"KW" <keith_warrennospamatallteldotnet> wrote in
news:1d4d5$45ce0a20$4528174e$21903@ALLTEL.NET:

>
> "komobu" <curranpg@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1170959256.529837.190040@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
>> I have a 2006 Sonata with a 3.3 v6 engine. I only get 17mpg when
>> driving around town. I drive pretty conservatively and there is only
>> 15k on it so I am rather surprised that I am not getting 22 or 23
>> mpg. Please let me know what kind of mileage you get with an 06 or 07
>> Sonata so I can tell if it is just my car or if they all are bad on
>> gas.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Pat
>>
>
> Pat,
>
> I have an 06 LX with the 3.3L engine also. It took us to about 12K to
> see any significant improvement in mileage over what you are seeing.
> Since the car hit ~15K to the current 25K I have seen very consistent
> numbers with each tankful and have had several instances to validate
> the numbers with use relegated strictly to city or highway driving
> only for a full tanks worth. What I have been getting is 23.4 City /
> 28.1 Hwy. I have a tendency to have a lead foot, so my guess is that
> the numbers could be improved upon somewhat if applied a more gradual
> approach to reaching crusing speeds :-)
>
> KW

KW, I have to agree with you here. I am running slightly less than you
on the city average, and slightly higher on the highway numbers, but
overall you and I are pretty close. My lead foot only comes out once in
a while. But I also noticed an improvement at the 16-17K level, and I
am currently pushing 19K myself.

Eric

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>There are lots of substitues for cubic inches. Just look at Formula 1
>>cars vs. Nascar.
>
>
> Not a comparison at all. Put the displacement of each under the same rules.
> Cubic inches will win every time. Sure, a turbocharged 2 liter engine can
> outperform a naturally aspirated 3 liter, but put the turbocharger on the 3
> liter and . . . . . you get the idea.

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.

Matt

Matt Whiting

tjnamtiw wrote:

> 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.

Yes, you are correct. I spend about 95% of my driving cruising at a
steady 55-60 MPH so acceleration isn't a concern. My 4 banger handles
that just fine and gets 3-5 MPG better fuel mileage in the process.

I'm glad that most folks buy the V-6 as it helped me get a great deal on
the I-4. Most folks don't want standard shift either, but I much prefer
it, especially given a decent clutch and throttle, which unfortunately
the Sonata lacks. After my car sat on the lot for about 4 months, the
dealer was ready to deal.

Matt

Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:

> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:5Alzh.2609$Oc.157750@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>It depends on the speed through the traps. At 300 MPH, 1 second is a
>>big difference. At 90, not so much.
>
>
> Let's see....at 300 MPH it is ~466 ft. and at 90 MPH it is ~140 ft. So
> you'd be 140 ft. behind me at 90 MPH. Seems like quite a bit to me.

I get 132 feet, but that isn't much to me, only 10% of the total
distance traveled. And I've gained on you since we hit 60 so if we keep
going I'll catch you! :-)


>>The interesting part is that the 4 gained on the 6 between 60 MPH and
>>90 MPH. Too bad your car starts losing ground to my lowly 4 as the
>>speed increases. :-)
>
>
> Actually, my car wouldn't lose any ground to yours in the above scenario
> since you'd be lifting off the throttle at 65 MPH. Aren't you the one
> that claims to almost never violate the posted speed limit :-P

I assumed we were on a track. Yes, I not only claimed to almost never
exceed the speed limit, I almost never do exceed the speed limit. I
never say never, but almost never is accurate. If I'm on a stretch of
road with no other traffic and can see a good distance, I'm not opposed
to opening her up a little. My only beef is with the idiots that do
this in traffic. I really don't care if somebody wants to kill
themselves, but I have no tolerance for those who endanger others for no
good reason.


>>It all depends on how they measure the 0-60 time. Some places measure
>>where the front wheels trip the timer. Some places measure the time
>>from a light signal which means the driver reaction time is also
>>factored in. I have no idea how either the MSN data or the C&D data
>>was taken. Also, weather conditions play a significant role. Sea
>>level on a cold day is nothing like 5,000' on a hot day.
>
>
> MSN results are known to be overly conservative. CD usually is the
> industry standard for this stuff, but as you said, and I said, there is
> no way to use the data provided to make a fair comparison. And for the
> record, with the computer controlled cars of recent years, the weather
> conditions make much less of a difference than they used to. I think
> altitude would play the biggest role.

It still makes a big difference. The computer can optimize the amount
of fuel to match the amount of air, but it can't change the density of
the air coming in. The best controlled engine in the world will
steadily lose power as density altitude increases. Likewise, the
computer can't control the amount of water vapor in the air either.


>>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.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Thought we were comparing AT to AT? I know at least in my case, the MT
> wasn't a consideration. My wife, while she could drive a MT in an
> emergency, would probably eat a clutch for breakfast every few thousand
> miles. We swap cars too many times each year to have a MT sitting
> around.

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

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> 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.


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.

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
>>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.
>
>
>
> 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.

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

Matt

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> No kidding, but that isn't what you said.
>
> Matt
You know exactly what I meant though

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
>>No kidding, but that isn't what you said.
>>
>>Matt
>
> You know exactly what I meant though
>
>


No, I thought you meant what you wrote.

Matt

Eric G.

Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in news:9Cpzh.2616$Oc.157790
@news1.epix.net:

> 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

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