Matt Whiting

Eric G. wrote:
> 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 :-)

Probably not. :-)

Although, I have to admit that I'm more than happy with the power of the
four and I did buy this car mainly for cheap transportation to work
that got good fuel economy. When I'm ready for performance, I will buy
a Vette. :-)



> I know my car has ZERO torque at the rear wheels :-P Yes, I know it was a
> typo.

Your rear brakes don't work? :-)

Yes, when I think of cars and performance my mind automatically goes to
RWD as all real performance cars are RWD.


> 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".

Yes, a performance oriented diesel is pretty amazing. Even more amazing
are electric motors. A friend had an EV-1 for several years and that
car would smoke anything from 0-35 or so. He used to have fun with the
yuppies and their BMW and Porsches. They never knew what hit them. The
only problem was wheelspin...

Matt

Mike Marlow

"Double Tap" <doubletap@37.com> wrote in message
news:Wxlzh.22853$w91.17376@newsread1.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:e38e8$45cd45d0$a2270047$15291@ALLTEL.NET...
> >
> > "Double Tap" <doubletap@37.com> wrote in message
> > news:%tbzh.20438$pQ3.16101@newsread4.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> >>
> >> "Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
> >> news:d846a$45cd40de$a2270047$13549@ALLTEL.NET...
> >> >
> >> > "Eric G." <NgOrSePeAnM99@Zoptonline.Znet> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns98D2AD1C3E874Xz124HiiUdfEEE6@140.99.99.130 ...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You guys must be pretty hard on the pedal. I tend to "open 'er up"
a
> >> >> bit nowadays too, but I am still getting about 22 MPG with 19,000 on
> > the
> >> >> odometer. Although with the cold here the last week, I only managed
> >> >> about 19.5 MPG on my last tank.
> >> >>
> >> >> Eric
> >> >
> >> > You can't say "hard on" in a usenet forum Eric. Geeze. I do like to
> > feel
> >> > acceleration but I'm not really too hard on the pedal. My wife's
> >> > Sonata
> >> > gets around 23 around town (roughly 1/3 interstate, 2/3
non-interstate)
> >> > even
> >> > with me driving it.
> >> > -Mike-
> >> > mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
> >>
> >> OK, lets get real here.
> >> If one drives 15,000 miles a year at 26 MPG average one uses 577
gallons
> > of
> >> gas
> >> If one drives 15,000 miles a year at 22 MPG average one uses 682
gallons
> > of
> >> gas
> >>
> >> The difference is 105 gallons
> >> At $2.19 per gallon the difference is $229.95 for the entire year.
> >>
> >> IMHO if $229.95 for the year is going to make a difference it is in all
> >> likelihood not a good idea to purchase either car.
> >>
> >> Double Tap
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Huh??? Sorry guy - I don't get the reason for this post.
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Mike-
>
> Let me see, Oh I guess someone forgot the subject of the thread is Sonata
> Gas Mileage and some people were discussing there mileage figures.
>
> Double Tap
>
>

Hmmmmm... I must be slow this weekend. I still can't see how the comments
from Eric and myself warranted the "OK, let's get real here". I guess I
just don't understand how what you were trying to say, fit into what Eric
and I had just said.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow

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

>
> 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.
>

Therein lies the difference, I believe. Speaking only for myself, I wanted
an automatic because that's what my wife prefers. I'd be happy with a
standard, but the Sonata is her car. The 4 cylinders I drove with an
automatic were something to be ashamed of in my opinion. Comparing a
standard transmission 4 cylinder to an automatic transmission 6 cylinder is
somewhat foolish. Compare like transmissions in both engine styles if you
want to talk about something meaningful.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow

"tjnamtiw" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Lumzh.2689$19.1031@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> 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.
>

I can Tom, but that because as I said very early on - I just like that
feeling of the acceleration getting up to those cruising speeds.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:Meszh.2629$Oc.157876@news1.epix.net...
> 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

I did. Cubic inches will always come out ahead. Add-ons are just that and
can be applied to any engine, You still need cubic inches. A given
turbocharger is a small block is not going to give the power that you can
get from a big block. Interpret how you wish, but bigger is better. Number
of cylinders means far less than the number of cubic inches. I'd agree that
the big four is better than a tiny six.

Edwin Pawlowski

"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message
> I can Tom, but that because as I said very early on - I just like that
> feeling of the acceleration getting up to those cruising speeds.
>

Yeah, but I've got to watch my *** though. My last three cars totaled
370,000 miles and in all that time I don't think I've ever exceeded 85 at
any time. My Sonata has 9500 miles and I've topped 100 three times already.
Each time is was the same place for a short time with no traffic and good
visibility to see if there is radar. It can be very expensive.

Matt Whiting

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:Meszh.2629$Oc.157876@news1.epix.net...
>
>>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
>
>
> I did. Cubic inches will always come out ahead. Add-ons are just that and
> can be applied to any engine, You still need cubic inches. A given
> turbocharger is a small block is not going to give the power that you can
> get from a big block. Interpret how you wish, but bigger is better. Number
> of cylinders means far less than the number of cubic inches. I'd agree that
> the big four is better than a tiny six.

Ed, you are so far wrong on this topic that I'm not even going to bother
discussing it further.

Matt

Edwin Pawlowski

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> Ed, you are so far wrong on this topic that I'm not even going to bother
> discussing it further.

Right, there is nothing to discuss. The more cubic inches the more potential
power