Matt Whiting

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:M4mhg.9362$lb.841944@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>Did you drive a Sonata 4 cylinder? Mine has the performance that the
>>V-6s had just a few years ago. It isn't the number of cylinders, it is
>>the torque.
>>
>
>
> All things have to be equal though Matt. Your 4 has the performance of the
> six of a few years ago because the 6 of a few years ago lacked torque. You
> have to compare current models. All things being equal, it is the number of
> cylinders. That said, it's good to see the performance of the 4 cylinders
> improving. I drove a four before buying our six and I really hated
> everything about it. It was rougher, and it dramatically lacked power.

I disagree. The number of cylinders doesn't mean squat. It is the
torque curve shape and magnitude that matters. A 4 can be made very
smooth and a V-6 can shake like a paint mixer.

I prefer fewer cylinders as it lowers maintenance costs all the way
around and lessens the chance of failure. Having more parts means
greater likelihood of failure, in general.

I'm personally quite amazed at the performance of the new
Chrysler/Hyundai/Mitsubishi (I think the 3rd partner is Mitsu anyway)
2.4L. It is smooth, quiet and performs very well in a car the size of
the Sonata, at least with the standard shift. I didn't drive an
automatic 4, so maybe that is different as automatics are almost always
poorer performers than standard shift vehicles. And they ALWAYS feel
more sluggish.

I drove three different V-6 automatic Sonatas and the 4 with standard
just felt more responsive to me in almost all circumstances, except
right off the line. It is hard to get a good launch with the touchy
throttle combined with a too light clutch with too narrow an engagement
band.


Matt

Mike Marlow

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:aRHhg.9384$lb.843782@news1.epix.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> >
> > All things have to be equal though Matt. Your 4 has the performance of
the
> > six of a few years ago because the 6 of a few years ago lacked torque.
You
> > have to compare current models. All things being equal, it is the
number of
> > cylinders. That said, it's good to see the performance of the 4
cylinders
> > improving. I drove a four before buying our six and I really hated
> > everything about it. It was rougher, and it dramatically lacked power.
>
> I disagree. The number of cylinders doesn't mean squat. It is the
> torque curve shape and magnitude that matters. A 4 can be made very
> smooth and a V-6 can shake like a paint mixer.

Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a higher
torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read my
comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:aRHhg.9384$lb.843782@news1.epix.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> >
> > All things have to be equal though Matt. Your 4 has the performance of
the
> > six of a few years ago because the 6 of a few years ago lacked torque.
You
> > have to compare current models. All things being equal, it is the
number of
> > cylinders. That said, it's good to see the performance of the 4
cylinders
> > improving. I drove a four before buying our six and I really hated
> > everything about it. It was rougher, and it dramatically lacked power.
>
> I disagree. The number of cylinders doesn't mean squat. It is the
> torque curve shape and magnitude that matters. A 4 can be made very
> smooth and a V-6 can shake like a paint mixer.

Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a higher
torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read my
comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:aRHhg.9384$lb.843782@news1.epix.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> >
> > All things have to be equal though Matt. Your 4 has the performance of
the
> > six of a few years ago because the 6 of a few years ago lacked torque.
You
> > have to compare current models. All things being equal, it is the
number of
> > cylinders. That said, it's good to see the performance of the 4
cylinders
> > improving. I drove a four before buying our six and I really hated
> > everything about it. It was rougher, and it dramatically lacked power.
>
> I disagree. The number of cylinders doesn't mean squat. It is the
> torque curve shape and magnitude that matters. A 4 can be made very
> smooth and a V-6 can shake like a paint mixer.

Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a higher
torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read my
comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.


--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Matt Whiting

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:aRHhg.9384$lb.843782@news1.epix.net...
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All things have to be equal though Matt. Your 4 has the performance of
>
> the
>
>>>six of a few years ago because the 6 of a few years ago lacked torque.
>
> You
>
>>>have to compare current models. All things being equal, it is the
>
> number of
>
>>>cylinders. That said, it's good to see the performance of the 4
>
> cylinders
>
>>>improving. I drove a four before buying our six and I really hated
>>>everything about it. It was rougher, and it dramatically lacked power.
>>
>>I disagree. The number of cylinders doesn't mean squat. It is the
>>torque curve shape and magnitude that matters. A 4 can be made very
>>smooth and a V-6 can shake like a paint mixer.
>
>
> Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a higher
> torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
> limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read my
> comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.

It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
Sonata V-6.

Yes, no doubt the Sonata V-6 has a more HP and torque than the Sonata
I-4, but the difference in performance is pretty slight and actually
doesn't seem consistent with the difference in published power and
torque figures. Barely 1 second difference in the quarter mile time
(see link below). Given that the V-6 has 38% more torque and 45% more
horsepower, the quarter mile time is only 7% quicker. Part is due to
the extra weight of the V-6 engine and automatic transmission, and part
is due to the higher power loss in the automatic as compared to the
standard. I'm not sure what the rest is due to, but I have to wonder if
the V-6 stats haven't suffered from "marketing inflation" to more
closely compete with the V-6s from Toyota and Honda.

For me the deciding factors in favor of the 4 were fuel economy, better
handling of the 4 vs. the 6 due to having 200 or so fewer pounds up
front, and just a more responsive feel of the 4 vs. the 6. And my "seat
of the pants" assessment of the difference in acceleration jives very
closely with the numbers published here. The V-6 simply didn't feel
much faster than the 4, and the only place it did was during
acceleration above about 70 MPH. It actually felt more sluggish to me
in the 30-60 range which is where I do about 99.44% of my driving.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Sp...nata&trimid=-1


Matt

Matt Whiting

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:aRHhg.9384$lb.843782@news1.epix.net...
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All things have to be equal though Matt. Your 4 has the performance of
>
> the
>
>>>six of a few years ago because the 6 of a few years ago lacked torque.
>
> You
>
>>>have to compare current models. All things being equal, it is the
>
> number of
>
>>>cylinders. That said, it's good to see the performance of the 4
>
> cylinders
>
>>>improving. I drove a four before buying our six and I really hated
>>>everything about it. It was rougher, and it dramatically lacked power.
>>
>>I disagree. The number of cylinders doesn't mean squat. It is the
>>torque curve shape and magnitude that matters. A 4 can be made very
>>smooth and a V-6 can shake like a paint mixer.
>
>
> Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a higher
> torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
> limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read my
> comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.

It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
Sonata V-6.

Yes, no doubt the Sonata V-6 has a more HP and torque than the Sonata
I-4, but the difference in performance is pretty slight and actually
doesn't seem consistent with the difference in published power and
torque figures. Barely 1 second difference in the quarter mile time
(see link below). Given that the V-6 has 38% more torque and 45% more
horsepower, the quarter mile time is only 7% quicker. Part is due to
the extra weight of the V-6 engine and automatic transmission, and part
is due to the higher power loss in the automatic as compared to the
standard. I'm not sure what the rest is due to, but I have to wonder if
the V-6 stats haven't suffered from "marketing inflation" to more
closely compete with the V-6s from Toyota and Honda.

For me the deciding factors in favor of the 4 were fuel economy, better
handling of the 4 vs. the 6 due to having 200 or so fewer pounds up
front, and just a more responsive feel of the 4 vs. the 6. And my "seat
of the pants" assessment of the difference in acceleration jives very
closely with the numbers published here. The V-6 simply didn't feel
much faster than the 4, and the only place it did was during
acceleration above about 70 MPH. It actually felt more sluggish to me
in the 30-60 range which is where I do about 99.44% of my driving.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Sp...nata&trimid=-1


Matt

Matt Whiting

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:aRHhg.9384$lb.843782@news1.epix.net...
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All things have to be equal though Matt. Your 4 has the performance of
>
> the
>
>>>six of a few years ago because the 6 of a few years ago lacked torque.
>
> You
>
>>>have to compare current models. All things being equal, it is the
>
> number of
>
>>>cylinders. That said, it's good to see the performance of the 4
>
> cylinders
>
>>>improving. I drove a four before buying our six and I really hated
>>>everything about it. It was rougher, and it dramatically lacked power.
>>
>>I disagree. The number of cylinders doesn't mean squat. It is the
>>torque curve shape and magnitude that matters. A 4 can be made very
>>smooth and a V-6 can shake like a paint mixer.
>
>
> Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a higher
> torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
> limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read my
> comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.

It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
Sonata V-6.

Yes, no doubt the Sonata V-6 has a more HP and torque than the Sonata
I-4, but the difference in performance is pretty slight and actually
doesn't seem consistent with the difference in published power and
torque figures. Barely 1 second difference in the quarter mile time
(see link below). Given that the V-6 has 38% more torque and 45% more
horsepower, the quarter mile time is only 7% quicker. Part is due to
the extra weight of the V-6 engine and automatic transmission, and part
is due to the higher power loss in the automatic as compared to the
standard. I'm not sure what the rest is due to, but I have to wonder if
the V-6 stats haven't suffered from "marketing inflation" to more
closely compete with the V-6s from Toyota and Honda.

For me the deciding factors in favor of the 4 were fuel economy, better
handling of the 4 vs. the 6 due to having 200 or so fewer pounds up
front, and just a more responsive feel of the 4 vs. the 6. And my "seat
of the pants" assessment of the difference in acceleration jives very
closely with the numbers published here. The V-6 simply didn't feel
much faster than the 4, and the only place it did was during
acceleration above about 70 MPH. It actually felt more sluggish to me
in the 30-60 range which is where I do about 99.44% of my driving.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Sp...nata&trimid=-1


Matt

Mike Marlow

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:hpKhg.9394$lb.844310@news1.epix.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >
> >
> > Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a
higher
> > torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
> > limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read
my
> > comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.
>
> It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
> design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
> Sonata V-6.
>

Matt - I had just said that it's displacement. These days you seem to be
quick to disagree without reading what posters are saying. If we're going
to argue then let's argue like a man - let's argue about which is *really*
better - red heads or brunettes.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:hpKhg.9394$lb.844310@news1.epix.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >
> >
> > Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a
higher
> > torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
> > limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read
my
> > comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.
>
> It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
> design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
> Sonata V-6.
>

Matt - I had just said that it's displacement. These days you seem to be
quick to disagree without reading what posters are saying. If we're going
to argue then let's argue like a man - let's argue about which is *really*
better - red heads or brunettes.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:hpKhg.9394$lb.844310@news1.epix.net...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >
> >
> > Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a
higher
> > torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
> > limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read
my
> > comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.
>
> It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
> design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
> Sonata V-6.
>

Matt - I had just said that it's displacement. These days you seem to be
quick to disagree without reading what posters are saying. If we're going
to argue then let's argue like a man - let's argue about which is *really*
better - red heads or brunettes.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Matt Whiting

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:hpKhg.9394$lb.844310@news1.epix.net...
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a
>
> higher
>
>>>torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
>>>limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read
>
> my
>
>>>comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.
>>
>>It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
>>design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
>>Sonata V-6.
>>
>
>
> Matt - I had just said that it's displacement. These days you seem to be
> quick to disagree without reading what posters are saying. If we're going
> to argue then let's argue like a man - let's argue about which is *really*
> better - red heads or brunettes.
>

OK, but when you said "cylinders do matter", that seemed like a
discussion about number of cylinders, which don't matter much in this
context, vs. displacement which matters a lot.

Blondes. :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:hpKhg.9394$lb.844310@news1.epix.net...
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a
>
> higher
>
>>>torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
>>>limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read
>
> my
>
>>>comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.
>>
>>It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
>>design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
>>Sonata V-6.
>>
>
>
> Matt - I had just said that it's displacement. These days you seem to be
> quick to disagree without reading what posters are saying. If we're going
> to argue then let's argue like a man - let's argue about which is *really*
> better - red heads or brunettes.
>

OK, but when you said "cylinders do matter", that seemed like a
discussion about number of cylinders, which don't matter much in this
context, vs. displacement which matters a lot.

Blondes. :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:hpKhg.9394$lb.844310@news1.epix.net...
>
>>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Go look at the Hyundai performance chart Matt. The 6 clearly has a
>
> higher
>
>>>torque and a higher horsepower rating. Cylinders do matter. There's a
>>>limit to what you can get out of a given engine displacement. But read
>
> my
>
>>>comment above again. That was not the point of my comment.
>>
>>It isn't the number of cylinders, it is the engine displacement and
>>design. I can show you 4 cylinder engines with way more torque than a
>>Sonata V-6.
>>
>
>
> Matt - I had just said that it's displacement. These days you seem to be
> quick to disagree without reading what posters are saying. If we're going
> to argue then let's argue like a man - let's argue about which is *really*
> better - red heads or brunettes.
>

OK, but when you said "cylinders do matter", that seemed like a
discussion about number of cylinders, which don't matter much in this
context, vs. displacement which matters a lot.

Blondes. :-)


Matt

Mike Marlow

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
newsRShg.9401$lb.845823@news1.epix.net...


>
> Blondes. :-)
>

Contrarian!

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Mike Marlow

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
newsRShg.9401$lb.845823@news1.epix.net...


>
> Blondes. :-)
>

Contrarian!

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net