I haven't checked in awhile, but my XG 350 seems to average about 25 hwy,
18-20 city. The lack of a computer setting that shows current and average
mpg is one of my main reservations about my '02 model. Not positive, but I
believe the feature was added in '03.
-Les


"Robin" <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:robinxjoy-462956.08573805012004@news.west.***.net...
> In article <h43jvvs4k6ksfl7u9vghvsdo2mpjhgate8@4ax.com>,
> Jason <none.of.your.business@see.left.of.at.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 09:48:12 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article
> > ><mmXJb.595876$0v4.23483932@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > > "BJ" <rajohngm@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Have a 2003 Sonata with 2.7 engine that gets poor mileage. My mileage
runs
> > >> from 15.5 to a best ever of 18.5 mpg. 90% of my driving is in town.
> > >> Insurance rate with up $160.00 per year on Sonata over Chrysler T&C.
> > >> Bob
> > >>
> > >> "Robin" <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:robinxjoy-4338AF.00352304012004@news.west.***.net...
> > >> > city and Hwy.... Also, if new to Hyandai, has your insurance rate
> > >> > remained similar to last car, or increase or decrease?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Do not email if posting response. To email, replace x with 4
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >You may have read Jason's response that he averages 20-21mpg city. Is
> > >there something in the way you drive that might account for the poor
> > >mileage? Have you taken it in to the dealer to check for a malfunction
> > >that might be correctable?
> >
> > It's worth mentioning that I have a K&N Drop-In Filter installed which
> > adds another 0.5-1.0 MPG (depending on how you drive) and another 2-3
> > HP.
> >
> > As for getting 15.5-18.5 MPG, you're either beating the hell out of
> > that car, driving in 1st and 2nd gear at cruising speeds, or there's
> > something wrong with your car. If you're driving like a normal human
> > being then take that car to the dealer and have them give it a look.
>
> Jason,
> Regarding the K&N drop in filter, I'm unfamiliar with this as I am with
> anything having to do with the mechanics of a car, but is this something
> that can be used in any make car?
> 1) If I should decide against purchasing a Sonata, and go for one of my
> other two choices (an Accord XLV6 or Altima), can that filter be used
> and would it be to any significant advantage since, if I'm not mistaken,
> the HP is higher in those cars than Sonata?
> 2) If I should decide for a Hyundai XG350, would it be compatible? One
> of the main reasons I'm leaning away from this car is the reported city
> mpg of only 17.
> 3) Are you the same Jason that's active on the misc.consumers NG?
> Robin
>
> --
> Do not email if posting response. To email, replace x with 4

 

So are the people who blindly believe that K&Ns magically increase power
by just replacing a filter. CANNOT HAPPEN. The stock paper element will
flow much more air than the engine can ever draw in, So if you already
have to much air how can a higher flowing filter make a difference, It
cannot. Also you do know that it K&N themselves explain that their
filters let in more "non-harmful" (their words not mine) particles than
a factory filter. It is on their site that they don't consider particles
under a certain size to be a problem because the oil film "should" be
thicker than that size. I guess those particles couldn't ever stack up
and cause problems huh? Oh and before you start bragging about the
racers using the K&N consider that race engines are torn down after an
event and any item considered marginal is replaced, this works out to be
just about everything in the engine short of the block, heads, intake
and sometimes the crank. These parts are also magnafluxed and
repolished every time they come off as well. The BIG reason the K&N gets
used is that they hand them out for very low price to most racers who
use them.
Also make sure you read how their filter also filters better as it gets
dirty, hmm I wonder if that's because the dirt clogs the larger pore in
the gauze?
Oh and I don't have anything against K&N other than they very seldom
prove their claims. Kind of like slick 50 and the Vortex inserts, claim
everything with the statements that all start with "up to" or
"possible". Well it is "possible",if you add up all the gains, to gain
almost 50% more HP and use 70% less fuel IF they all met even the lowest
claims they make, Guess what it doesn't happen.

--
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Steve Williams
I am the NRA
http://www.nra.org/
http://www.mooreexposed.com/ Go here to read the truth about gun
controls poster boy....
http://armingamericafraud.grimfacts.org/ And more about the Arming
America Lies.

"Jason" <none.of.your.business@see.left.of.at.com> wrote in message
news:trilvvsq57ovc4f32ec3dstv35n8l4l5er@4ax.com...
> Those people are stupid. First of all, oil should not be dripping off
> of the filter. Second, when re-oiling the filter you spray on the
> outside (so that the oil must pass through the filter). Third, it
> sounds more like the person had a full intake system (like K&N's
> Typhoon of FPIK). That means that they removed the entire stock
> intake up to the throttle body and replaced it with the K&N product.
> The problem here is obvious.. Engine vibration (combined with
> off-roading) WILL pull a cone filter right off the end of a tube
> unless you crank it down REAL tight. The fault here is not K&N, the
> blame lies with whoever installed the intake.
>
> I've been using K&N filters for years and have never had a problem.
> In fact, I just pulled apart my intake tube. There is not a drop of
> oil on my MAF.
>
> Oh, and you should NEVER, NEVER install a cone filter right to the end
> of the MAF. It is well known that this will cause problems because
> the increased air flow will cause quite a bit of vibration. The MAF
> should be at least 4-6 inches from a cone filter.
>
> FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS FOLKS AND THINGS DON'T BREAK!
>
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:39:51 GMT, theta00k@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >In article <sfvjvvcf8c9h29sdr4btkh4csanogc0gip@4ax.com>, Jason
<none.of.your.business@see.left.of.at.com> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:04:42 GMT, theta00k@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <robinxjoy-462956.08573805012004@news.west.***.net>,
Robin
> >> <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>In article <h43jvvs4k6ksfl7u9vghvsdo2mpjhgate8@4ax.com>,
> >>>> Jason <none.of.your.business@see.left.of.at.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 09:48:12 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >In article
> >>>>> ><mmXJb.595876$0v4.23483932@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >>>>> > "BJ" <rajohngm@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >> Have a 2003 Sonata with 2.7 engine that gets poor mileage. My
mileage
> >> runs
> >>>>> >> from 15.5 to a best ever of 18.5 mpg. 90% of my driving is in
town.
> >>>>> >> Insurance rate with up $160.00 per year on Sonata over
Chrysler T&C.
> >>>>> >> Bob
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >> "Robin" <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> >> news:robinxjoy-4338AF.00352304012004@news.west.***.net...
> >>>>> >> > city and Hwy.... Also, if new to Hyandai, has your
insurance rate
> >>>>> >> > remained similar to last car, or increase or decrease?
> >>>>> >> >
> >>>>> >> > --
> >>>>> >> > Do not email if posting response. To email, replace x with
4
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >You may have read Jason's response that he averages 20-21mpg
city. Is
> >>>>> >there something in the way you drive that might account for the
poor
> >>>>> >mileage? Have you taken it in to the dealer to check for a
malfunction
> >>>>> >that might be correctable?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's worth mentioning that I have a K&N Drop-In Filter installed
which
> >>>>> adds another 0.5-1.0 MPG (depending on how you drive) and
another 2-3
> >>>>> HP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As for getting 15.5-18.5 MPG, you're either beating the hell out
of
> >>>>> that car, driving in 1st and 2nd gear at cruising speeds, or
there's
> >>>>> something wrong with your car. If you're driving like a normal
human
> >>>>> being then take that car to the dealer and have them give it a
look.
> >>>>
> >>>>Jason,
> >>>>Regarding the K&N drop in filter, I'm unfamiliar with this as I am
with
> >>>>anything having to do with the mechanics of a car, but is this
something
> >>>>that can be used in any make car?
> >>>>1) If I should decide against purchasing a Sonata, and go for one
of my
> >>>>other two choices (an Accord XLV6 or Altima), can that filter be
used
> >>>>and would it be to any significant advantage since, if I'm not
mistaken,
> >>>>the HP is higher in those cars than Sonata?
> >>>
> >>>K&N filter will not give any horsepower boost to any Honda, Hyundai
or
> >>>whatever. Please do not use that filter on any car as it passes
more
> >>>contaminants than the OE filter.
> >>
> >>Not true on either count. While it's true that the aftermarket
> >>filters you find at PepBoys or AutoZone for $9.99 are crap, K&N
> >>filters are race tested and are recommended by everyone who knows
> >>anything about automobiles.
> >>
> >>It's widely known (and easily proved) that reducing restriction in
the
> >>intake and exhaust systems WILL increase power and WILL increase gas
> >>mileage.
> >>
> >>As for passing more contaminates, than the OE filter, I don't
believe
> >>it. There is a standardized testing procedure for filtration (SAE
> >>J726). Most OE paper filters fall between 93-97%, K&N cotton
filters
> >>hover between 97-99%.
> >
> >
> >================================================= ===========
> >2000 Toyota Tundra SR5
> >
> >Engine: 4.7 L / 8 cyl / Gas / DOHC
> >Fuel: Fuel Injection
> >Ignition: Distributorless
> >Trans: 4-speed Automatic Transmission (Electronic)
> >Mileage: 26,434 mi
> >Emissions: OBD-II Compliant
> >VIN: 5TBBT441XYS047306
> >
> >Symptoms: MIL Lamp on
> >Occurs: Idle
> >More Info: Test results & repair history included below
> >
> >_______________________ CLOSED W/FIX _______________________
> >
> >hi all thanks for all the replies to this post. i knew all
> >about the maf problems but was glad to hear from all of you
> >about what i suspected all along. the problem wasnt the
> >maf,it was the aftermarket k&n intake system that 'adds
> >horsepower' lol. i compaired the g/s with another tundra
> >that happened to come in the next day and found that at
> >idle the K&N system saw 2g/s less at idle and 4g/s less at
> >2k rpm. decided to swap maf for fun. maf worked grate in oe
> >intake no problems. ordered up oe intake system installed
> >and drove vehicle fuel trim adjusted its self back to 0.
> >with after market intake too much unmetered air was
> >entering the intake system causing all 4 o2 sensors to show
> >0v on aceleration. with the suport of the iatn was able to
> >show and convince the customer that the K&N intake dosent
> >alwas help and sometimes cause problems. thanks hugh
> >
> >_____________________ ORIGINAL MESSAGE _____________________
> >
> >hi all got this tundra in the shop strait from the
> >dealer.well it left the dealer about 400 miles ago.the
> >problem is system too lean fuel trim code.let me tell you
> >what i know about this truck first. i beleave that this is
> >a rich kids truck. customer states that he was off roading
> >in the desert when his aftermarket k$n intake fell off and
> >sucked a bunch of sand in the engine. result daeler
> >installed new engine. customer pay about 11k. now he states
> >that check engine light on with p0171. peformed smoke test
> >to check for vac leak none found. manifold vacuum is
> >21hg.engine stlii equiped withk$n intake and dealer
> >recomends oe air intake to solve the problem? freez frame
> >data is 692rpm 0mph 192f 11.3load ltftb1&b2=34.4 stftb115.6
> >b214.8 fuel press normal maf reading 4grm/sec the only
> >other thing to add is that i noticed on the scaner that all
> >4 o2 sensors went to 0 when climbing a hill? any and all
> >help apriceated.
> >=============================================== ==
> >2001 Nissan Pathfinder LE
> >
> >Engine: 3.5 L / 6 cyl / Gas / DOHC
> >Fuel: Fuel Injection / SEFI
> >Ignition: Distributorless
> >Trans: 4-speed Automatic Transmission (Electronic)
> >Mileage: 48,665 mi
> >Emissions: OBD-II Compliant
> >VIN: JN8DR09Y51
> >
> >Misc Data: Calif.
> >Symptoms: Cuts out, Stall, MIL Lamp on
> >Occurs: Always
> >More Info: Test results & repair history included below
> >
> >_______________________ CLOSED W/FIX _______________________
> >
> >A new (rebuilt actually) MAF fixed it. All the evidence was
> >there, but I appreciate everybody's input. It really was
> >fairly cut and dry. 12v was good, 5v was good, ground was
> >good, but the MAF signal wouldn't change at all. I checked
> >it right out of the sensor and it was always right at 1
> >volt. I felt checking at the sensor ruled out wiring or PCM
> >problems. I don't think I mentioned in my original post
> >that it had a K & N air filter. Today I noticed on a 98
> >Sable a message molded into the air filter box that oiled
> >air filters might void the MAF warranty. I guess Ford
> >doesn't like them. Ther were signs of oil on the screen in
> >the MAF housing.
> >
> >Nissan and some of you said this should be covered 3
> >years/50,000 miles. The customer refused to take it to the
> >dealer, which is unfortunate, because I have found our
> >local deater to be responsible and capable. Thanks
> >everybody.
> >
> >_____________________ ORIGINAL MESSAGE _____________________
> >
> >Vehicle was cruising down the highway when Check Engine
> >light came on. Then it started running bad. After they
> >stopped, vehicle wouldn't run. Actually, it will idle, but
> >when throttle is applied, it coughs and dies, like a not-
> >enough-fuel problem. P0100 and P1320 were in memory. In
> >pending codes were:
> >
> >P0340: Cam positon sensor
> >
> >P0464: Fuel level sensor
> >
> >P1140: Right bank intake valve timing control position
> >sensor
> >
> >P0732: Incorrect shift to 2nd gear
> >
> >P1320 and P0100
> >
> >The only code that comes back after clearing is P0100, MAF
> >sensor.
> >
> >In testing the 4 wires, 3 are OK: Blk/wht-bat. voltage,
> >blk/pink-ground,pink/blk-5 v.
> >
> >The orange wire, however should vary from 1 v at KOEO to
> >2.2 v at 2500 RPM to 4.0 v at 4000 RPM.
> >
> >I am only getting 1 v all the time. Actually, it won't run
> >much above 1500 RPM before it falls on it's face.
> >
> >It looks like a bad MAF, but at $488 I need to be sure. Is
> >there anything else I should check? Does this fall under
> >any kind of federal emission warranty?
> >
> >I am inclined to ignore the other codes until I deal with
> >the P0100.
> >
> >Thanks for any input.
> >=============================================== =
> >1999 Toyota Tacoma
> >
> >Engine: 3.4 L / 6 cyl / Gas / DOHC
> >Fuel: Fuel Injection
> >Ignition: Distributorless
> >Trans: 5-speed Standard Transmission
> >Mileage: 36,463 mi
> >Emissions: OBD-II Compliant
> >VIN: 4TAWN72N3XZ
> >
> >Symptoms: Poor Fuel Economy, MIL Lamp on
> >Occurs: Always
> >More Info: Test results & repair history included below
> >
> >_______________________ CLOSED W/FIX _______________________
> >
> >Thanks to IATN, another customer is driving his REPAIRED
> >vehile with a minimum of trouble or unnecessary expense. I
> >replaced the MAF, re-scanned the vehicle, and as the ECU
> >re-established its running information, watched as it
> >brought the LTFT back to a more normal range. The idle
> >started out very rough at first, which concerned me, but
> >after 20 minutes of normal driving, it smoothed out, and
> >the LTFT went from -40% ) -35% )-20% ) -9.4% and was
> >running very nicely as the happy customer drove off. By the
> >way, I was able to talk him into putting a Toyota air
> >filter back into the vehicle as well. Thanks to everyone
> >for the help and advice! Stephen
> >
> >_____________________ ORIGINAL MESSAGE _____________________
> >
> >This Tacoma will trigger the DTC light very soon after
> >erasing the PO 172 code-system too rich. OBD 2 scaning
> >shows the LTFT trying to lean out the system as much as 40%
> >@ idle, and less as the load/throttle use increases. I am
> >not able to find any information on the air/fuel sensor,
> >and the scanner does not provide any information when
> >plugged in. Does anyone have a recommendation to test the
> >units, either with a scanner or current probe? Thanks for
> >your time
> >=============================================== =
> >1996 Toyota Tacoma
> >
> >Engine: 2.7 L / 4 cyl / Gas / DOHC
> >Fuel: Fuel Injection
> >Ignition: Distributor-Breakerless
> >Trans: 5-speed Standard Transmission
> >Mileage: 75,134 mi
> >Emissions: OBD-II Compliant
> >VIN: 4TAPM62NOTZ212410
> >
> >Symptoms: No Start, MIL Lamp on
> >Occurs: After a Hot Soak
> >More Info: Test results & repair history included below
> >
> >_______________________ CLOSED W/FIX _______________________
> >
> >Well thanks again to the IATN members for help of another
> >successful fix! The problem was an oil contaminated hotwire
> >(air flow meter) the oil was from a K&N air filter. I
> >cleaned it with brake clean and then test drove while
> >monitoring the STFT and LTFT, the STFT immediatly dropped
> >from 25 percent to a negative 3 percent, the LTFT of course
> >was a little slower to respond but also started dropping
> >negative. Repair verified! Thanks to all who responded!
> >
> >_____________________ ORIGINAL MESSAGE _____________________
> >
> >This vehicle has power loss and intermittently starts hard
> >(extended crank times) especially after hot soak. Although
> >the customer has intalled an aftermarket intake system (not
> >intake manifold) the factory airflow meter and air intake
> >temp sensor are installed. The fuel pressure is within
> >specs and does not bleed down. The O2 sensors also check
> >good. The scan tool shows the airflow at idle at about
> >3.5-3.7 g/s, is this correct? For some reason the Snap-On
> >scanner does not give me "normal values" for this vehicle.
> >All ideas are appreciated and TIA.
> >=============================================== ==
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>city and Hwy....

16 City, 24 Hwy @ 75MPH, XG300L

Fred, W8OY
notjfriley@ieee.nospam.org

 

If you don't trust K&N, that's fine, don't use their products. Still,
they DO make a difference in MPG and HP. Have you ever used a K&N air
filter? Back when I decided to give K&N a try I was a little
skeptical as well. That's why I decided to install the filter without
my girlfriend's knowledge. I let her drive the Sonata to go out to
the grocery store. The first thing she said when she got back was
"Did you do something to the car? It seems a little peppier."

It's not about the quantity of O2 you can cram into the cylinders,
it's about eliminating restriction. Sure, you can stick a 1" exhaust
pipe on a 3.0L engine but the car isn't going to make any serious
power above 2500 RPM. The best size would be 2.25-2.5" because it can
easily flow the exhaust at redline but maintains enough back pressure
to keep your low-end torque.

Why did people a decade or two ago remove the catalytic converters
(before inspections came about) from their cars? It was because the
cats are very restrictive and replacing them with a straight pipe
freed up 5-15 HP (depending on a few other factors) and increased gas
mileage.

The same principle goes to work here on the intake. By eliminating
restriction in the intake you can free up some power and slightly
increase gas mileage.

Oh, and yes, particles under a few microns in size will not do any
damage to the engine because the you change the oil every 3000 miles
(or at least you should). Also, Slick 50 is mineral oil and the
Vortex and Tornado Air products don't work on fuel injected vehicles
but HAVE shown some promising results when installed on carbureted
engines.


On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:16:31 -0500, "Steve W." <me@home.org> wrote:

>So are the people who blindly believe that K&Ns magically increase power
>by just replacing a filter. CANNOT HAPPEN. The stock paper element will
>flow much more air than the engine can ever draw in, So if you already
>have to much air how can a higher flowing filter make a difference, It
>cannot. Also you do know that it K&N themselves explain that their
>filters let in more "non-harmful" (their words not mine) particles than
>a factory filter. It is on their site that they don't consider particles
>under a certain size to be a problem because the oil film "should" be
>thicker than that size. I guess those particles couldn't ever stack up
>and cause problems huh? Oh and before you start bragging about the
>racers using the K&N consider that race engines are torn down after an
>event and any item considered marginal is replaced, this works out to be
>just about everything in the engine short of the block, heads, intake
>and sometimes the crank. These parts are also magnafluxed and
>repolished every time they come off as well. The BIG reason the K&N gets
>used is that they hand them out for very low price to most racers who
>use them.
>Also make sure you read how their filter also filters better as it gets
>dirty, hmm I wonder if that's because the dirt clogs the larger pore in
>the gauze?
>Oh and I don't have anything against K&N other than they very seldom
>prove their claims. Kind of like slick 50 and the Vortex inserts, claim
>everything with the statements that all start with "up to" or
>"possible". Well it is "possible",if you add up all the gains, to gain
>almost 50% more HP and use 70% less fuel IF they all met even the lowest
>claims they make, Guess what it doesn't happen.

 

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:57:01 -0500, Jason
<none.of.your.business@see.left.of.at.com> wrote:

>If you don't trust K&N, that's fine, don't use their products. Still,
>they DO make a difference in MPG and HP. Have you ever used a K&N air
>filter? Back when I decided to give K&N a try I was a little
>skeptical as well. That's why I decided to install the filter without
>my girlfriend's knowledge. I let her drive the Sonata to go out to
>the grocery store. The first thing she said when she got back was
>"Did you do something to the car? It seems a little peppier."
>
>It's not about the quantity of O2 you can cram into the cylinders,
>it's about eliminating restriction. Sure, you can stick a 1" exhaust
>pipe on a 3.0L engine but the car isn't going to make any serious
>power above 2500 RPM. The best size would be 2.25-2.5" because it can
>easily flow the exhaust at redline but maintains enough back pressure
>to keep your low-end torque.
>
>Why did people a decade or two ago remove the catalytic converters
>(before inspections came about) from their cars? It was because the
>cats are very restrictive and replacing them with a straight pipe
>freed up 5-15 HP (depending on a few other factors) and increased gas
>mileage.
>
>The same principle goes to work here on the intake. By eliminating
>restriction in the intake you can free up some power and slightly
>increase gas mileage.
>
>Oh, and yes, particles under a few microns in size will not do any
>damage to the engine because the you change the oil every 3000 miles
>(or at least you should). Also, Slick 50 is mineral oil and the
>Vortex and Tornado Air products don't work on fuel injected vehicles
>but HAVE shown some promising results when installed on carbureted
>engines.
>
>
>On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:16:31 -0500, "Steve W." <me@home.org> wrote:
>
>>So are the people who blindly believe that K&Ns magically increase power
>>by just replacing a filter. CANNOT HAPPEN. The stock paper element will
>>flow much more air than the engine can ever draw in, So if you already
>>have to much air how can a higher flowing filter make a difference, It
>>cannot. Also you do know that it K&N themselves explain that their
>>filters let in more "non-harmful" (their words not mine) particles than
>>a factory filter. It is on their site that they don't consider particles
>>under a certain size to be a problem because the oil film "should" be
>>thicker than that size. I guess those particles couldn't ever stack up
>>and cause problems huh? Oh and before you start bragging about the
>>racers using the K&N consider that race engines are torn down after an
>>event and any item considered marginal is replaced, this works out to be
>>just about everything in the engine short of the block, heads, intake
>>and sometimes the crank. These parts are also magnafluxed and
>>repolished every time they come off as well. The BIG reason the K&N gets
>>used is that they hand them out for very low price to most racers who
>>use them.
>>Also make sure you read how their filter also filters better as it gets
>>dirty, hmm I wonder if that's because the dirt clogs the larger pore in
>>the gauze?
>>Oh and I don't have anything against K&N other than they very seldom
>>prove their claims. Kind of like slick 50 and the Vortex inserts, claim
>>everything with the statements that all start with "up to" or
>>"possible". Well it is "possible",if you add up all the gains, to gain
>>almost 50% more HP and use 70% less fuel IF they all met even the lowest
>>claims they make, Guess what it doesn't happen.

Are we talking about race cars or about family transportation
vehicles. I would have no reason whatsoever to try to get a couple
more horsepower out of my family car. Hyundai extended the warranty
on my Sonata because the tested HP was a little bit less than the
published HP. I gladly accepted the extra warranty but I had no grief
at all in regard to the published HP and the tested HP. The car, a
V6, has all the power that I need in a family car. Had I been
interested in having a car with a more powerful engine I would have
bought something that had a larger more powerful engine.

Old_Timer

 

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:12:02 -0800, Old_Timer wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:57:01 -0500, Jason
><none.of.your.business@see.left.of.at.com> wrote:
>
>>If you don't trust K&N, that's fine, don't use their products. Still,
>>they DO make a difference in MPG and HP. Have you ever used a K&N air
>>filter? Back when I decided to give K&N a try I was a little
>>skeptical as well. That's why I decided to install the filter without
>>my girlfriend's knowledge. I let her drive the Sonata to go out to
>>the grocery store. The first thing she said when she got back was
>>"Did you do something to the car? It seems a little peppier."
>>
>>It's not about the quantity of O2 you can cram into the cylinders,
>>it's about eliminating restriction. Sure, you can stick a 1" exhaust
>>pipe on a 3.0L engine but the car isn't going to make any serious
>>power above 2500 RPM. The best size would be 2.25-2.5" because it can
>>easily flow the exhaust at redline but maintains enough back pressure
>>to keep your low-end torque.
>>
>>Why did people a decade or two ago remove the catalytic converters
>>(before inspections came about) from their cars? It was because the
>>cats are very restrictive and replacing them with a straight pipe
>>freed up 5-15 HP (depending on a few other factors) and increased gas
>>mileage.
>>
>>The same principle goes to work here on the intake. By eliminating
>>restriction in the intake you can free up some power and slightly
>>increase gas mileage.
>>
>>Oh, and yes, particles under a few microns in size will not do any
>>damage to the engine because the you change the oil every 3000 miles
>>(or at least you should). Also, Slick 50 is mineral oil and the
>>Vortex and Tornado Air products don't work on fuel injected vehicles
>>but HAVE shown some promising results when installed on carbureted
>>engines.
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:16:31 -0500, "Steve W." <me@home.org> wrote:
>>
>>>So are the people who blindly believe that K&Ns magically increase power
>>>by just replacing a filter. CANNOT HAPPEN. The stock paper element will
>>>flow much more air than the engine can ever draw in, So if you already
>>>have to much air how can a higher flowing filter make a difference, It
>>>cannot. Also you do know that it K&N themselves explain that their
>>>filters let in more "non-harmful" (their words not mine) particles than
>>>a factory filter. It is on their site that they don't consider particles
>>>under a certain size to be a problem because the oil film "should" be
>>>thicker than that size. I guess those particles couldn't ever stack up
>>>and cause problems huh? Oh and before you start bragging about the
>>>racers using the K&N consider that race engines are torn down after an
>>>event and any item considered marginal is replaced, this works out to be
>>>just about everything in the engine short of the block, heads, intake
>>>and sometimes the crank. These parts are also magnafluxed and
>>>repolished every time they come off as well. The BIG reason the K&N gets
>>>used is that they hand them out for very low price to most racers who
>>>use them.
>>>Also make sure you read how their filter also filters better as it gets
>>>dirty, hmm I wonder if that's because the dirt clogs the larger pore in
>>>the gauze?
>>>Oh and I don't have anything against K&N other than they very seldom
>>>prove their claims. Kind of like slick 50 and the Vortex inserts, claim
>>>everything with the statements that all start with "up to" or
>>>"possible". Well it is "possible",if you add up all the gains, to gain
>>>almost 50% more HP and use 70% less fuel IF they all met even the lowest
>>>claims they make, Guess what it doesn't happen.
>
>Are we talking about race cars or about family transportation
>vehicles. I would have no reason whatsoever to try to get a couple
>more horsepower out of my family car. Hyundai extended the warranty
>on my Sonata because the tested HP was a little bit less than the
>published HP. I gladly accepted the extra warranty but I had no grief
>at all in regard to the published HP and the tested HP. The car, a
>V6, has all the power that I need in a family car. Had I been
>interested in having a car with a more powerful engine I would have
>bought something that had a larger more powerful engine.
>
>Old_Timer

Well, the HP increase was not the reason I've been buying and
installing K&N Filters in my vehicles for the past 5 years. The
increase in MPG is the reason. That's even more important to me now
that gas prices are so high.

 

Just drove 381 freeway miles from San Diego, CA. to Tempe, Az on Jan
21st. 2001 XG300L, 41,000 miles on the odometer. Avg speed 72 mph Air
conditioner on most of the way. Gas mileage computes to 27mpg.
City/highway driving combined, my wife usually gets @19mpg. Speed,
terrain, and driving habits all make a difference. Keep your foot out
of the accelerator, where ever you are trying to get to will still be
there 2 minutes later.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:35:23 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>city and Hwy.... Also, if new to Hyandai, has your insurance rate
>remained similar to last car, or increase or decrease?

 

In article <qh7010hrfm1c4o058cvjpi8ev9v2f31p8c@4ax.com>,
3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Just drove 381 freeway miles from San Diego, CA. to Tempe, Az on Jan
> 21st. 2001 XG300L, 41,000 miles on the odometer. Avg speed 72 mph Air
> conditioner on most of the way. Gas mileage computes to 27mpg.
> City/highway driving combined, my wife usually gets @19mpg. Speed,
> terrain, and driving habits all make a difference. Keep your foot out
> of the accelerator, where ever you are trying to get to will still be
> there 2 minutes later.
>
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:35:23 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >city and Hwy.... Also, if new to Hyandai, has your insurance rate
> >remained similar to last car, or increase or decrease?
>

Do you and your wife drive the same car to have such a variation in mpg?
Are you a San Diego resident, and if yes, how have your insurance rates
compared with your last car? (I live in southern Orange County so
curious)
Robin

--
Do not email if posting response. To email, replace x with 4

 

Yes, we are San Diego residents. Mileage difference is because my wife
drives in much more stop & go traffic (she is the main driver and she
loves the car, especially the heated seats). The other mileage I
mentioned (27mpg) was almost pure freeway driving on our recent trip.
Her previous cars have been Ford Taurus's. I typically drive a 1995
Ford Ranger. May buy a second Hyundai toward the end of this year.
Keep in mind that the 2001 XG300 had a slightly smaller engine than
the newer XG350's. As a matter of fact, the only real difference
between the 2001 XG300, and the 2002 XG350 was the larger engine. I
don't believe the difference to be significant with regard to gas
mileage. The Hyundai XG's get slightly lower gas mileage than similar
cars because they are much heavier cars (read safety). Consumer
Reports compares the ride of the XG to a classic Buick (means it's not
sporty and rides real nice)

For insurance rates, we have been Wawanesa customers for probably 20
years or more. currently paying $829 total for 2 vehicles (100,000 /
25,000/ 300,000 liability). A 1995 Ford Ranger and a 2001 XG300L.
Rates for the Hyundai are as follows:

Bodily Injury Liability 125.00
Property Damage 104.00
Comprehensive ($100 Ded) 69.00
Collision ($300 Ded) 211.00
Uninsured/Underinsured 32.00
(30,000/60,000)
Uninsured Collision Deduct Wav 10.00

Total for Hyundai: 551.00

Clean driving record, age's 48, discounts applied (multi-car, good
driver, persistency (loyalty)). I can completely recommend Wawanesa as
an Insurance company. Not even sure if it's the cheapest, but
fantastic customer service in our experience. Hard to compare old car
rates to the Hyundai as the old car was a 1995 Taurus, but in 2001 the
Taurus was $404 for the year and the Hyundai was $499.00. That equates
to less than $10 a month for a new $24,000 car compared to a 6 year
old Ford.

Hope all this helps.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:44:48 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <qh7010hrfm1c4o058cvjpi8ev9v2f31p8c@4ax.com>,
> 3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just drove 381 freeway miles from San Diego, CA. to Tempe, Az on Jan
>> 21st. 2001 XG300L, 41,000 miles on the odometer. Avg speed 72 mph Air
>> conditioner on most of the way. Gas mileage computes to 27mpg.
>> City/highway driving combined, my wife usually gets @19mpg. Speed,
>> terrain, and driving habits all make a difference. Keep your foot out
>> of the accelerator, where ever you are trying to get to will still be
>> there 2 minutes later.
>>
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:35:23 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >city and Hwy.... Also, if new to Hyandai, has your insurance rate
>> >remained similar to last car, or increase or decrease?
>>
>
>Do you and your wife drive the same car to have such a variation in mpg?
>Are you a San Diego resident, and if yes, how have your insurance rates
>compared with your last car? (I live in southern Orange County so
>curious)
>Robin

 

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:27:30 -0800, 3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Yes, we are San Diego residents. Mileage difference is because my wife
>drives in much more stop & go traffic (she is the main driver and she
>loves the car, especially the heated seats). The other mileage I
>mentioned (27mpg) was almost pure freeway driving on our recent trip.
>Her previous cars have been Ford Taurus's. I typically drive a 1995
>Ford Ranger. May buy a second Hyundai toward the end of this year.
>Keep in mind that the 2001 XG300 had a slightly smaller engine than
>the newer XG350's. As a matter of fact, the only real difference
>between the 2001 XG300, and the 2002 XG350 was the larger engine. I
>don't believe the difference to be significant with regard to gas
>mileage. The Hyundai XG's get slightly lower gas mileage than similar
>cars because they are much heavier cars (read safety). Consumer
>Reports compares the ride of the XG to a classic Buick (means it's not
>sporty and rides real nice)
>
>For insurance rates, we have been Wawanesa customers for probably 20
>years or more. currently paying $829 total for 2 vehicles (100,000 /
>25,000/ 300,000 liability). A 1995 Ford Ranger and a 2001 XG300L.
>Rates for the Hyundai are as follows:
>
>Bodily Injury Liability 125.00
>Property Damage 104.00
>Comprehensive ($100 Ded) 69.00
>Collision ($300 Ded) 211.00
>Uninsured/Underinsured 32.00
> (30,000/60,000)
>Uninsured Collision Deduct Wav 10.00
>
>Total for Hyundai: 551.00
>
>Clean driving record, age's 48, discounts applied (multi-car, good
>driver, persistency (loyalty)). I can completely recommend Wawanesa as
>an Insurance company. Not even sure if it's the cheapest, but
>fantastic customer service in our experience. Hard to compare old car
>rates to the Hyundai as the old car was a 1995 Taurus, but in 2001 the
>Taurus was $404 for the year and the Hyundai was $499.00. That equates
>to less than $10 a month for a new $24,000 car compared to a 6 year
>old Ford.
>
>Hope all this helps.
>

My rates compare very closely to yours except for uninsured motorist
where mine are much higher. I must live in an area where there is a
greater percentage of uninsured motorists.

In order to compare rates in California go to www.insurance.ca.gov
click on the heading "consumers" and then click on "Looking for
insurance" then on "Compare premiums."

Old_Timer

 

Thanks for all this info. I'll be calling Wawanesa for a quote. I'm
very unhappy with Auto Club Insur company.
Robin



In article <ojn210pll9bcdvsbffqcm74gncaglce3mi@4ax.com>,
3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, we are San Diego residents. Mileage difference is because my wife
> drives in much more stop & go traffic (she is the main driver and she
> loves the car, especially the heated seats). The other mileage I
> mentioned (27mpg) was almost pure freeway driving on our recent trip.
> Her previous cars have been Ford Taurus's. I typically drive a 1995
> Ford Ranger. May buy a second Hyundai toward the end of this year.
> Keep in mind that the 2001 XG300 had a slightly smaller engine than
> the newer XG350's. As a matter of fact, the only real difference
> between the 2001 XG300, and the 2002 XG350 was the larger engine. I
> don't believe the difference to be significant with regard to gas
> mileage. The Hyundai XG's get slightly lower gas mileage than similar
> cars because they are much heavier cars (read safety). Consumer
> Reports compares the ride of the XG to a classic Buick (means it's not
> sporty and rides real nice)
>
> For insurance rates, we have been Wawanesa customers for probably 20
> years or more. currently paying $829 total for 2 vehicles (100,000 /
> 25,000/ 300,000 liability). A 1995 Ford Ranger and a 2001 XG300L.
> Rates for the Hyundai are as follows:
>
> Bodily Injury Liability 125.00
> Property Damage 104.00
> Comprehensive ($100 Ded) 69.00
> Collision ($300 Ded) 211.00
> Uninsured/Underinsured 32.00
> (30,000/60,000)
> Uninsured Collision Deduct Wav 10.00
>
> Total for Hyundai: 551.00
>
> Clean driving record, age's 48, discounts applied (multi-car, good
> driver, persistency (loyalty)). I can completely recommend Wawanesa as
> an Insurance company. Not even sure if it's the cheapest, but
> fantastic customer service in our experience. Hard to compare old car
> rates to the Hyundai as the old car was a 1995 Taurus, but in 2001 the
> Taurus was $404 for the year and the Hyundai was $499.00. That equates
> to less than $10 a month for a new $24,000 car compared to a 6 year
> old Ford.
>
> Hope all this helps.
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:44:48 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <qh7010hrfm1c4o058cvjpi8ev9v2f31p8c@4ax.com>,
> > 3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just drove 381 freeway miles from San Diego, CA. to Tempe, Az on Jan
> >> 21st. 2001 XG300L, 41,000 miles on the odometer. Avg speed 72 mph Air
> >> conditioner on most of the way. Gas mileage computes to 27mpg.
> >> City/highway driving combined, my wife usually gets @19mpg. Speed,
> >> terrain, and driving habits all make a difference. Keep your foot out
> >> of the accelerator, where ever you are trying to get to will still be
> >> there 2 minutes later.
> >>
> >> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:35:23 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >city and Hwy.... Also, if new to Hyandai, has your insurance rate
> >> >remained similar to last car, or increase or decrease?
> >>
> >
> >Do you and your wife drive the same car to have such a variation in mpg?
> >Are you a San Diego resident, and if yes, how have your insurance rates
> >compared with your last car? (I live in southern Orange County so
> >curious)
> >Robin
>

--
Do not email if posting response. To email, replace x with 4

 

My understanding of (AAA) Auto Club is great service but very
expensive. Not sure though, haven't checked them in years.

We have always had their standard membership (roadside assistence,
etc.) Not necessary with the Hyundai but we have the Ford also. Plus
we use the Tour Books and maps.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:14:01 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thanks for all this info. I'll be calling Wawanesa for a quote. I'm
>very unhappy with Auto Club Insur company.
>Robin
>
>
>
>In article <ojn210pll9bcdvsbffqcm74gncaglce3mi@4ax.com>,
> 3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, we are San Diego residents. Mileage difference is because my wife
>> drives in much more stop & go traffic (she is the main driver and she
>> loves the car, especially the heated seats). The other mileage I
>> mentioned (27mpg) was almost pure freeway driving on our recent trip.
>> Her previous cars have been Ford Taurus's. I typically drive a 1995
>> Ford Ranger. May buy a second Hyundai toward the end of this year.
>> Keep in mind that the 2001 XG300 had a slightly smaller engine than
>> the newer XG350's. As a matter of fact, the only real difference
>> between the 2001 XG300, and the 2002 XG350 was the larger engine. I
>> don't believe the difference to be significant with regard to gas
>> mileage. The Hyundai XG's get slightly lower gas mileage than similar
>> cars because they are much heavier cars (read safety). Consumer
>> Reports compares the ride of the XG to a classic Buick (means it's not
>> sporty and rides real nice)
>>
>> For insurance rates, we have been Wawanesa customers for probably 20
>> years or more. currently paying $829 total for 2 vehicles (100,000 /
>> 25,000/ 300,000 liability). A 1995 Ford Ranger and a 2001 XG300L.
>> Rates for the Hyundai are as follows:
>>
>> Bodily Injury Liability 125.00
>> Property Damage 104.00
>> Comprehensive ($100 Ded) 69.00
>> Collision ($300 Ded) 211.00
>> Uninsured/Underinsured 32.00
>> (30,000/60,000)
>> Uninsured Collision Deduct Wav 10.00
>>
>> Total for Hyundai: 551.00
>>
>> Clean driving record, age's 48, discounts applied (multi-car, good
>> driver, persistency (loyalty)). I can completely recommend Wawanesa as
>> an Insurance company. Not even sure if it's the cheapest, but
>> fantastic customer service in our experience. Hard to compare old car
>> rates to the Hyundai as the old car was a 1995 Taurus, but in 2001 the
>> Taurus was $404 for the year and the Hyundai was $499.00. That equates
>> to less than $10 a month for a new $24,000 car compared to a 6 year
>> old Ford.
>>
>> Hope all this helps.
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:44:48 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <qh7010hrfm1c4o058cvjpi8ev9v2f31p8c@4ax.com>,
>> > 3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just drove 381 freeway miles from San Diego, CA. to Tempe, Az on Jan
>> >> 21st. 2001 XG300L, 41,000 miles on the odometer. Avg speed 72 mph Air
>> >> conditioner on most of the way. Gas mileage computes to 27mpg.
>> >> City/highway driving combined, my wife usually gets @19mpg. Speed,
>> >> terrain, and driving habits all make a difference. Keep your foot out
>> >> of the accelerator, where ever you are trying to get to will still be
>> >> there 2 minutes later.
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:35:23 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >city and Hwy.... Also, if new to Hyandai, has your insurance rate
>> >> >remained similar to last car, or increase or decrease?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Do you and your wife drive the same car to have such a variation in mpg?
>> >Are you a San Diego resident, and if yes, how have your insurance rates
>> >compared with your last car? (I live in southern Orange County so
>> >curious)
>> >Robin
>>

 

Hard to understand how you could have a greater number of uninsured
motorists with me being right next to the border but anything is
possible I guess. Thanks for the link to insurance comparisons.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:38:55 -0800, Old_Timer wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:27:30 -0800, 3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Yes, we are San Diego residents. Mileage difference is because my wife
>>drives in much more stop & go traffic (she is the main driver and she
>>loves the car, especially the heated seats). The other mileage I
>>mentioned (27mpg) was almost pure freeway driving on our recent trip.
>>Her previous cars have been Ford Taurus's. I typically drive a 1995
>>Ford Ranger. May buy a second Hyundai toward the end of this year.
>>Keep in mind that the 2001 XG300 had a slightly smaller engine than
>>the newer XG350's. As a matter of fact, the only real difference
>>between the 2001 XG300, and the 2002 XG350 was the larger engine. I
>>don't believe the difference to be significant with regard to gas
>>mileage. The Hyundai XG's get slightly lower gas mileage than similar
>>cars because they are much heavier cars (read safety). Consumer
>>Reports compares the ride of the XG to a classic Buick (means it's not
>>sporty and rides real nice)
>>
>>For insurance rates, we have been Wawanesa customers for probably 20
>>years or more. currently paying $829 total for 2 vehicles (100,000 /
>>25,000/ 300,000 liability). A 1995 Ford Ranger and a 2001 XG300L.
>>Rates for the Hyundai are as follows:
>>
>>Bodily Injury Liability 125.00
>>Property Damage 104.00
>>Comprehensive ($100 Ded) 69.00
>>Collision ($300 Ded) 211.00
>>Uninsured/Underinsured 32.00
>> (30,000/60,000)
>>Uninsured Collision Deduct Wav 10.00
>>
>>Total for Hyundai: 551.00
>>
>>Clean driving record, age's 48, discounts applied (multi-car, good
>>driver, persistency (loyalty)). I can completely recommend Wawanesa as
>>an Insurance company. Not even sure if it's the cheapest, but
>>fantastic customer service in our experience. Hard to compare old car
>>rates to the Hyundai as the old car was a 1995 Taurus, but in 2001 the
>>Taurus was $404 for the year and the Hyundai was $499.00. That equates
>>to less than $10 a month for a new $24,000 car compared to a 6 year
>>old Ford.
>>
>>Hope all this helps.
>>
>
>My rates compare very closely to yours except for uninsured motorist
>where mine are much higher. I must live in an area where there is a
>greater percentage of uninsured motorists.
>
>In order to compare rates in California go to www.insurance.ca.gov
>click on the heading "consumers" and then click on "Looking for
>insurance" then on "Compare premiums."
>
>Old_Timer

 

My complaint isn't with their roadside service, its with their car
insurance. I was involved in an accident (my fault). My car sustained
the majority of damage to the front left side of the car and i had no
injuries; the other parties car had only scratches to their car (an SUV,
larger and higher than my Accord). They claimed all kinds of bodily
injuries, I requested the Auto Club to fight this to avoid future
premiums to be assessed with bodily insurance penalty in addition to the
accident. They did fight it, agreeing that the other party was
manufacturing false claims. The day before we went to trial, the other
party agreed to drop out with a minimal settlement ($100 to the male
driver, $500 to his wife, a passenger because she was pregnant) because
it was less expensive than going forward with the trial because of
attorney fees, and in doing so, in paying those token payouts, commited
me to the responsibility of having caused bodily injury, for which my
premiums are now based upon at almost 100% higher than before. That
includes a premium increase that everyone was assessed but the majority
was due to my responsibility of the accident (which I accept), and
balance for my causing bodily injury. I have fought with the
underwriters to no avail, as has the attorney they had hired to
represent me who felt the bodily injury assessment was not appropriate.
I think that put him in an awkward position, and after a few attempts
of communicating to the underwriter supervisor, gave up.

That's why I'll be shopping for a new insur company and will soon find
out how what has transpired will effect my ability to switch companies
at all, let alone what I would be charged for their premium. Until this
accident 2.5 yrs ago, there were no accidents or tickets, had been
receiving good driver discounts for many many years.
Robin


In article <eml410l42s5qgr1qot3dc9seibnggt3o9e@4ax.com>,
3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:

> My understanding of (AAA) Auto Club is great service but very
> expensive. Not sure though, haven't checked them in years.
>
> We have always had their standard membership (roadside assistence,
> etc.) Not necessary with the Hyundai but we have the Ford also. Plus
> we use the Tour Books and maps.
>
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:14:01 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for all this info. I'll be calling Wawanesa for a quote. I'm
> >very unhappy with Auto Club Insur company.
> >Robin
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <ojn210pll9bcdvsbffqcm74gncaglce3mi@4ax.com>,
> > 3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, we are San Diego residents. Mileage difference is because my wife
> >> drives in much more stop & go traffic (she is the main driver and she
> >> loves the car, especially the heated seats). The other mileage I
> >> mentioned (27mpg) was almost pure freeway driving on our recent trip.
> >> Her previous cars have been Ford Taurus's. I typically drive a 1995
> >> Ford Ranger. May buy a second Hyundai toward the end of this year.
> >> Keep in mind that the 2001 XG300 had a slightly smaller engine than
> >> the newer XG350's. As a matter of fact, the only real difference
> >> between the 2001 XG300, and the 2002 XG350 was the larger engine. I
> >> don't believe the difference to be significant with regard to gas
> >> mileage. The Hyundai XG's get slightly lower gas mileage than similar
> >> cars because they are much heavier cars (read safety). Consumer
> >> Reports compares the ride of the XG to a classic Buick (means it's not
> >> sporty and rides real nice)
> >>
> >> For insurance rates, we have been Wawanesa customers for probably 20
> >> years or more. currently paying $829 total for 2 vehicles (100,000 /
> >> 25,000/ 300,000 liability). A 1995 Ford Ranger and a 2001 XG300L.
> >> Rates for the Hyundai are as follows:
> >>
> >> Bodily Injury Liability 125.00
> >> Property Damage 104.00
> >> Comprehensive ($100 Ded) 69.00
> >> Collision ($300 Ded) 211.00
> >> Uninsured/Underinsured 32.00
> >> (30,000/60,000)
> >> Uninsured Collision Deduct Wav 10.00
> >>
> >> Total for Hyundai: 551.00
> >>
> >> Clean driving record, age's 48, discounts applied (multi-car, good
> >> driver, persistency (loyalty)). I can completely recommend Wawanesa as
> >> an Insurance company. Not even sure if it's the cheapest, but
> >> fantastic customer service in our experience. Hard to compare old car
> >> rates to the Hyundai as the old car was a 1995 Taurus, but in 2001 the
> >> Taurus was $404 for the year and the Hyundai was $499.00. That equates
> >> to less than $10 a month for a new $24,000 car compared to a 6 year
> >> old Ford.
> >>
> >> Hope all this helps.
> >>
> >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:44:48 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <qh7010hrfm1c4o058cvjpi8ev9v2f31p8c@4ax.com>,
> >> > 3 Wire <padrefan45@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Just drove 381 freeway miles from San Diego, CA. to Tempe, Az on Jan
> >> >> 21st. 2001 XG300L, 41,000 miles on the odometer. Avg speed 72 mph Air
> >> >> conditioner on most of the way. Gas mileage computes to 27mpg.
> >> >> City/highway driving combined, my wife usually gets @19mpg. Speed,
> >> >> terrain, and driving habits all make a difference. Keep your foot out
> >> >> of the accelerator, where ever you are trying to get to will still be
> >> >> there 2 minutes later.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:35:23 -0800, Robin <robinxjoy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >city and Hwy.... Also, if new to Hyandai, has your insurance rate
> >> >> >remained similar to last car, or increase or decrease?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Do you and your wife drive the same car to have such a variation in mpg?
> >> >Are you a San Diego resident, and if yes, how have your insurance rates
> >> >compared with your last car? (I live in southern Orange County so
> >> >curious)
> >> >Robin
> >>
>

--
Do not email if posting response. To email, replace x with 4