I am giving serious thought to buying my third Sonata ( after previously
owning two Elantras). My previous Sonata was a 99 4-Cyl and my current one
is a 03 6-Cyl. The only difference I have noticed with the 6 is that it gets
much worst gas mileage. My question is, and I hope that Hyundaitech will
respond, does the 4 have any reliability issues or any disadvantages that I
should be aware of? I know that its with a 4 speed auto rather than a
5-speed, but that's no concern. Heck, one of my first cars was a 2 speed
hydramatic and I was glad to have it. I know the 4 has less get up and go
but I haven't found any roads nearby with a 130MPH speed limit. thanx

--

 

"Partner" <Murphy23@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bPidnZcNmr-Y-BbYnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com...
>I am giving serious thought to buying my third Sonata ( after previously
>owning two Elantras). My previous Sonata was a 99 4-Cyl and my current one
>is a 03 6-Cyl. The only difference I have noticed with the 6 is that it
>gets much worst gas mileage. My question is, and I hope that Hyundaitech
>will respond, does the 4 have any reliability issues or any disadvantages
>that I should be aware of? I know that its with a 4 speed auto rather
>than a 5-speed, but that's no concern. Heck, one of my first cars was a 2
>speed hydramatic and I was glad to have it. I know the 4 has less get up
>and go but I haven't found any roads nearby with a 130MPH speed limit.
>thanx

I'm not so sure you can do a good comparison of the 03 models to the 07
models for the engines. The V-6 is new in 06. The performance is great. If
you do highway driving and want to get into traffic easily, this is the car
for you.

Another factor is that is has a timing chain, not a belt. If you keep the
car for 120k miles, that is a big cost factor for the two belt changes. You
also get the 5 speed trans instead of the 4 speed. The final drive ration
for the 6 is 3.33 while it is 3.77 for the 4. That means, in theory, the 4
is going to turn a higher RPM and wear out faster since it has to turn more
for every mile driven. According to the EPA numbers, the 4 gets about 3
mpg more, but your actual mileage will vary depending on your particular
driving situation.

I'm very happy with the V-6. Much better performance than my V-6 Buicks.

 

Partner wrote:

> I am giving serious thought to buying my third Sonata ( after previously
> owning two Elantras). My previous Sonata was a 99 4-Cyl and my current one
> is a 03 6-Cyl. The only difference I have noticed with the 6 is that it gets
> much worst gas mileage. My question is, and I hope that Hyundaitech will
> respond, does the 4 have any reliability issues or any disadvantages that I
> should be aware of? I know that its with a 4 speed auto rather than a
> 5-speed, but that's no concern. Heck, one of my first cars was a 2 speed
> hydramatic and I was glad to have it. I know the 4 has less get up and go
> but I haven't found any roads nearby with a 130MPH speed limit. thanx

I have more than 16,000 miles on my 06 Sonata four cylinder and no
problems thus far. I believe that Chrysler had a significant role in
the design of this engine and that is one reason I wasn't too worried
about it. I've owned several Chryslers over the last 30 years and their
engines are bullet-proof.


Matt

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Partner" <Murphy23@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:bPidnZcNmr-Y-BbYnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>I am giving serious thought to buying my third Sonata ( after previously
>>owning two Elantras). My previous Sonata was a 99 4-Cyl and my current one
>>is a 03 6-Cyl. The only difference I have noticed with the 6 is that it
>>gets much worst gas mileage. My question is, and I hope that Hyundaitech
>>will respond, does the 4 have any reliability issues or any disadvantages
>>that I should be aware of? I know that its with a 4 speed auto rather
>>than a 5-speed, but that's no concern. Heck, one of my first cars was a 2
>>speed hydramatic and I was glad to have it. I know the 4 has less get up
>>and go but I haven't found any roads nearby with a 130MPH speed limit.
>>thanx
>
>
> I'm not so sure you can do a good comparison of the 03 models to the 07
> models for the engines. The V-6 is new in 06. The performance is great. If
> you do highway driving and want to get into traffic easily, this is the car
> for you.

The four is new also, so, yes, it is hard to compare either engine to
their predecessors. The four has plenty of power to get into traffice
as well.


> Another factor is that is has a timing chain, not a belt. If you keep the
> car for 120k miles, that is a big cost factor for the two belt changes. You
> also get the 5 speed trans instead of the 4 speed. The final drive ration
> for the 6 is 3.33 while it is 3.77 for the 4. That means, in theory, the 4
> is going to turn a higher RPM and wear out faster since it has to turn more
> for every mile driven. According to the EPA numbers, the 4 gets about 3
> mpg more, but your actual mileage will vary depending on your particular
> driving situation.

This isn't a factor as the four has a timing chain also. The final
drive ratio isn't the only factor involved with RPM at cruise and you
can't draw any conclusion from that alone. You need to look at the
overall drive ratio. I'm sure the four revs a little higher at the same
cruise speed, but I doubt it is enough different to bother.

All else being equal, more revolutions per mile will likely cause more
wear, but all else is never equal and how the engine is driven and
maintained makes more difference that RPM at cruise. Often, engines
that are run harder last longer as they run a little warmer and tend to
develop less sludge and junk from too cold operation at part throttle.

The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging
29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is
with the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2 with the automatic.


> I'm very happy with the V-6. Much better performance than my V-6 Buicks.

I'm happy with the I-4, better performance than my V-6 minivans. :-)


Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
> All else being equal, more revolutions per mile will likely cause more
> wear, but all else is never equal and how the engine is driven and
> maintained makes more difference that RPM at cruise. Often, engines that
> are run harder last longer as they run a little warmer and tend to develop
> less sludge and junk from too cold operation at part throttle.

Maybe, but I'd still put my money on the engine that turns 15,840 times less
per hour to last longer over time. There will always be exceptions due to
overall care and environment. If you plan to keep the car for af ew y ears
and 50k, not a big deal as any engine should be free of major problems in
that time.

>
> The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging
> 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is with
> the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2 with the automatic.

Given the size of hte car, that is not bad. I've hit 29 on highway drives
with the 6, but my overall average is closer to 23. The EPA ratings
between manual and automatic is only 1 mpg. Real life can vary either way
depending on how you drive. Too lazy to shift can use much more fuel than
any automatic today. 1955 Chevy Powerglide excepted, of course.

A big factor in the decision is how you drive. If you never reach the speed
limit and saving a gallon of gas a month is top priority, get the 4. If you
like to drive a "spirited" auto with great performance, get the V-6.

 

I have read that this is one of the new "world" engines developed by a team
from Hyundai, Chrysler and a third company, I'm not sure but I think
Mitsubishi.

--


"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:jHPih.1430$Oc.113527@news1.epix.net...
I believe that Chrysler had a significant role in
> the design of this engine and that is one reason I wasn't too worried
> about it. I've owned several Chryslers over the last 30 years and their
> engines are bullet-proof.
>
>
> Matt

 

Thanks for reminding me its PowerGlide that I was trying to think of when I
originally posted. All I could come up with was Hydramatic that was in one
of the bigger GM cars.

--


"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:XpTih.12$6f4.1@trndny08...
> Given the size of hte car, that is not bad. I've hit 29 on highway drives
> with the 6, but my overall average is closer to 23. The EPA ratings
> between manual and automatic is only 1 mpg. Real life can vary either way
> depending on how you drive. Too lazy to shift can use much more fuel than
> any automatic today. 1955 Chevy Powerglide excepted, of course.

 

"Partner," in a post about the new 4-cylinder engine in the Hyundai Sonata
said: "I have read that this is one of the new "world" engines developed by
a team from Hyundai, Chrysler and a third company, I'm not sure but I think
Mitsubishi."......

Yes, and that is becoming a trend. I just read where Ford and GM are
actually sharing a new 6-speed automatic transmission. I never thought I
would see the day when that happened.

But as long as it allows these companies to produce better power trains, and
maybe at a better price, I'd say go for it.

Tom Wenndt

 

I know of no issues with the chain-driven 2.4L four cylinder in the 2006
and newer Sonatas.

Make sure you keep the timing belt changed regularly on the 1999, however.
That engine really does like eating timing belts.

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>
>>All else being equal, more revolutions per mile will likely cause more
>>wear, but all else is never equal and how the engine is driven and
>>maintained makes more difference that RPM at cruise. Often, engines that
>>are run harder last longer as they run a little warmer and tend to develop
>>less sludge and junk from too cold operation at part throttle.
>
>
> Maybe, but I'd still put my money on the engine that turns 15,840 times less
> per hour to last longer over time. There will always be exceptions due to
> overall care and environment. If you plan to keep the car for af ew y ears
> and 50k, not a big deal as any engine should be free of major problems in
> that time.

I've owned several four cylinders in the last 30+ years and have yet to
wear one out. I had a Chevette that turned 3,000 RPM at 60 MPH. It ran
150,000 miles before the second owner totaled it. I have a Jeep
Comanche with 150,000 on the clock (it is 20 years old) and it still
runs fine. I wouldn't worry about wearing out a four-cylinder in
anything less than 200K ... and I personally wouldn't even worry about
it then. In the northeast your car will rust out long before the four
cylinder engine wears out, unless you are a traveling salesman who
drives 50K miles a year.



>>The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging
>>29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is with
>>the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2 with the automatic.
>
>
> Given the size of hte car, that is not bad. I've hit 29 on highway drives
> with the 6, but my overall average is closer to 23. The EPA ratings
> between manual and automatic is only 1 mpg. Real life can vary either way
> depending on how you drive. Too lazy to shift can use much more fuel than
> any automatic today. 1955 Chevy Powerglide excepted, of course.

Yes, it isn't bad. I was hoping to get above 30, but at least it is close.


> A big factor in the decision is how you drive. If you never reach the speed
> limit and saving a gallon of gas a month is top priority, get the 4. If you
> like to drive a "spirited" auto with great performance, get the V-6.

Yes, how you drive and what you value. If performance is important
above all else, get the V-6. If you want to balance performance and
economy, get the I-4. And the I-4 has no problem with the speed limit,
or even a lot more than the speed limit.


Matt

 

Partner wrote:

> I have read that this is one of the new "world" engines developed by a team
> from Hyundai, Chrysler and a third company, I'm not sure but I think
> Mitsubishi.
>

I believe it was Mitsu. That gave me some pause, but I was hoping the
Chrysler engineers made the big decisions. :-)


Matt

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging
> 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is
> with the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2 with the automatic.
>
>
>> I'm very happy with the V-6. Much better performance than my V-6 Buicks.
>
> I'm happy with the I-4, better performance than my V-6 minivans. :-)
>
>
> Matt


I am driving an I-4 that is closing on 8000 miles. My average is about
23 mpg, driving mostly local roads in short trips of 5-6 miles. I just
came from a trip to Poconos of about 450 miles, the average was 27 mpg
(3 persons in the car, light baggage) at an average speed of 75-78 mph
highway driving.

 

praf wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm averaging
>> 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my Sonata. This is
>> with the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2 with the automatic.
>>
>>
>>> I'm very happy with the V-6. Much better performance than my V-6
>>> Buicks.
>>
>>
>> I'm happy with the I-4, better performance than my V-6 minivans. :-)
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>
>
> I am driving an I-4 that is closing on 8000 miles. My average is about
> 23 mpg, driving mostly local roads in short trips of 5-6 miles. I just
> came from a trip to Poconos of about 450 miles, the average was 27 mpg
> (3 persons in the car, light baggage) at an average speed of 75-78 mph
> highway driving.

Is this with the automatic tranny? It sounds too low to be the stick shift.

Matt

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> praf wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The fuel mileage on the four isn't fantastic either, but I'm
>>> averaging 29.5 MPG overall for the 16,000 miles I've owned my
>>> Sonata. This is with the standard tranny so I expect you'll lose 1-2
>>> with the automatic.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm very happy with the V-6. Much better performance than my V-6
>>>> Buicks.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm happy with the I-4, better performance than my V-6 minivans. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> I am driving an I-4 that is closing on 8000 miles. My average is about
>> 23 mpg, driving mostly local roads in short trips of 5-6 miles. I just
>> came from a trip to Poconos of about 450 miles, the average was 27 mpg
>> (3 persons in the car, light baggage) at an average speed of 75-78 mph
>> highway driving.
>
> Is this with the automatic tranny? It sounds too low to be the stick
> shift.
>
> Matt

Automatic, indeed. I thought it might be the high speed 80 mpg and
higher at certain moments that lowered the millage.

 

"praf" <praf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Automatic, indeed. I thought it might be the high speed 80 mpg and higher
> at certain moments that lowered the millage.

Speed certainly will. Above about 60, wind resistance is a bigger factor to
overcome than anything else.

I did some testing on my Buick that has an "instant" readout for mpg. The
same road, the same spot at different speeds and I'd get a loss of about 4
mpg at 70 compared to 55. Of course, at 55 it was unsafe because I'd get
run over by other traffic.