Terry & Patricia Swinamer wrote:

> Not trying to start a war here.

I understand that.

> All Im going on is the experience Ive had
> with my 2002 Elantra. Its been bad from the get go. Hyundai Canada is not
> taking me seriously, or the cars quality, I can assure you that. Maybe I got
> a bad one, but its been in the shop more than out. When I hear about them
> fudging the gas milage ratings and ignoring problems like the 2-3 upshift
> flare, it makes me angry. The car is beautiful, and Hyundais reputation has
> improved greatly, but until they FIX actual problems rather than explaining
> them as normal operation, they wont move ahead.

Perhaps this is an issue with Hyundai Canada? All I can say is that
Hyundai USA has been really good to me, including covering one large
repair when the car (a '94 Excel) was 4K miles out of warranty. I also
seem to have an exceptionally good dealer. Perhaps we're comparing
apples and oranges?

> Its an excellent warranty
> also. I needed mine. Over and over again. Now that its expired, Im living in
> fear of the next big problem.This is whats been replaced on my 2002 Elantra
> so far:
> Both ball joints
> transmission, engine seal, window tapes, seat, power window motors (4)
> rotors, tires(twice) a defective air bag went on its own.tie rod ends
> alternator and a oxygen sensor. All under 100,000K. Can you blame me? Canada
> has no lemon laws.

Well, let's examine this objectively.

Of the items you list, the ball joints, tie rod ends, the alternator and
the O2 sensor are pretty typical for any car within the first 100K miles.

Ball joints and tie rod ends are typical maintenance items for
suspensions. I wouldn't expect more than 60K miles out of them and I
wouldn't be surprised if they failed sooner. A lot depends on the
quality of the roads you drive on. Rough roads will shorten the life of
these parts.

Alternators are a crapshoot. I've had one fail in three weeks (in a
Saab) and others last over 100K miles (in a Hyundai). For some reason,
the rebuilt alternators from my local shop have always lasted longer
than the original parts. Go figure.

I've only replaced one O2 sensor, but their life span varies and I
probably should have replaced more of them.

These parts all have limited life spans and they're all manufactured by
other companies. They're also relatively easy and inexpensive to fix. I
don't see how you can count these items as quality problems, unless they
failed very early in the car's life. Even at that, Hyundai didn't make
them.

Tires are obviously a maintenance item and their life span is dependent
on how you drive and the condition of the roads. If you do actually have
a warranty problem with a tire, it's not Hyundai's fault.

I'm curious about the rotors, as they're a common "scam" item that are
often sold unnecessarily during brake jobs. Calipers are the other item
that's commonly part of the same scam, which is well known in the
industry. Employees in brake shops are taught to sell these items as a
means of boosting repair bills. The brake job that was advertised at $50
suddenly costs you $400 if you fall for their lies. Perhaps this wasn't
your situation (were your rotors warped or something?), but I thought
I'd throw it out as a warning to others in case someone tries to pull
this nonsense on them.

On the other hand, the other items on your list shouldn't have failed
and you have a legitimate gripe about them. I'd be concerned, too, but
if they were covered under warranty and didn't cost you anything, I
guess the warranty served it's purpose. If you're nervous about the car,
by all means sell it and get a new one with a new warranty.

If your car's an '02, you sure drive a lot! ;-)

 

Pinokkio wrote:

> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
> news:aaaqc.16743$hH.413245@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Pinokkio wrote:
>>
>>>Here is a another BS.
>>>Wow, there must be two Hyundai company's.
>>>My Hyundai company is not responding to ridiculous full consumption of
>>>1 to 8 -10 liters/km, from my Getz, gives no answer's regarding to the lies>
>>>published in there brochures. Unfortunately the name on my POS is Hyundai,
>>>my first and for sure my last, next time I by a Car.
>>
>>Gee, do you think your nasty attitude might have something to do with
>>it. I'd like to hear the story from their side.
>
>
> Oh I'm sorry Your a so right. When you by a car from Hyundai, you base your
> dissission on the 1 to 16.4 average fuel consumption from there brochure,
> but in fact it's not 1 to 16.4, but 1 to 8 or 1 to 10 if your very lucky,
> course's you do nothing about it,dont even talk about it. If you do, your
> nasty!

No, that's not what I said, but your post certainly conveyed a bad
attitude. As someone who's worked in customer service and support, and
also in retail for many years, I know how much of an effect a customer's
attitude has on the service they get. People who are nasty get poorer
service by far.

Now as far as your problem, by my math, you say that they claimed your
car would get 39 MPG and you're actually getting 19-24. Does that sound
correct? That brings up a few questions:

- Was the advertised mpg for highway driving? (I assume so)
- At what speed?
- Do you drive at the same speed used in the tests?
- What was the city rating? (if there was one)
- What standard was used in the test?
- Who certified the results?
- Was the same type of fuel used? (gasoline/alcohol blends get
poorer mileage)

I'm not trying to let Hyundai off the hook for a legitimate problem, but
if the car was advertised to get 39 mpg on the highway at 55 mph on
straight gasoline and you're doing city driving on a gas/alcohol blend,
your mileage results wouldn't be unreasonable. If you drive 75 mph on
the highway, can't reasonably expect the same mileage. If the tests are
unrealistic but they're certified by the Canadian government, who's
fault is that?

Perhaps I'm completely off base here and I don't claim to be familiar
with the way fuel consumption is rated in Canada (feel free to clue me
in). I'm just trying to make the point that you need to examine the
whole picture before blaming someone.

It certainly appears that there are problems with Hyundai Canada, but
the story seems to be quite different in the US. That's a shame, but it
may well be due to the relative size of the marketplace and the level of
competitive pressure. For example, American car manufacturers build
garbage for decades (some still do) until the Japanese moved in and
showed them how it should be done.

Do other brands which are well respected in the US have problems in
Canada, similar to what you're seeing with Hyundai? Again, there's no
excuse for there to be any difference, but in Hyundai's case, apparently
there is. If I were in your situation, I wouldn't be too happy, either.

> But your even more right in your second sense, I do like to here the story
> from there side.
> Till now I been waiting from novembre last year on.

If they haven't been willing to communicate with you, you have a right
to be angry. That's inexcusable, period.

> Just for your information Petrol over here cost about 1 dollar 35 per litre
> or about 3,60 dollar per gallon.

I feel for you, but you have to blame your government for taxing it to
death. That's the price of socialism. In exchange for low quality, free
health care, you get an oppressive government and confiscatory levels of
taxation. Sounds like a raw deal to me. Our system needs a lot of work,
no doubt, but I definitely prefer it.

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
news:8cpqc.19954$hH.483899@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Pinokkio wrote:
>
> > "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:aaaqc.16743$hH.413245@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >>Pinokkio wrote:
> >>
> >>>Here is a another BS.
> >>>Wow, there must be two Hyundai company's.
> >>>My Hyundai company is not responding to ridiculous full consumption of
> >>>1 to 8 -10 liters/km, from my Getz, gives no answer's regarding to the
lies>
> >>>published in there brochures. Unfortunately the name on my POS is
Hyundai,
> >>>my first and for sure my last, next time I by a Car.
> >>
> >>Gee, do you think your nasty attitude might have something to do with
> >>it. I'd like to hear the story from their side.
> >
> >
> > Oh I'm sorry Your a so right. When you by a car from Hyundai, you base
your
> > dissission on the 1 to 16.4 average fuel consumption from there
brochure,
> > but in fact it's not 1 to 16.4, but 1 to 8 or 1 to 10 if your very
lucky,
> > course's you do nothing about it,dont even talk about it. If you do,
your
> > nasty!
>
> No, that's not what I said, but your post certainly conveyed a bad
> attitude. As someone who's worked in customer service and support, and
> also in retail for many years, I know how much of an effect a customer's
> attitude has on the service they get. People who are nasty get poorer
> service by far.
>
> Now as far as your problem, by my math, you say that they claimed your
> car would get 39 MPG and you're actually getting 19-24. Does that sound
> correct? That brings up a few questions:
>
> - Was the advertised mpg for highway driving? (I assume so)
> - At what speed?
> - Do you drive at the same speed used in the tests?
> - What was the city rating? (if there was one)
> - What standard was used in the test?
> - Who certified the results?
> - Was the same type of fuel used? (gasoline/alcohol blends get
> poorer mileage)
>
> I'm not trying to let Hyundai off the hook for a legitimate problem, but
> if the car was advertised to get 39 mpg on the highway at 55 mph on
> straight gasoline and you're doing city driving on a gas/alcohol blend,
> your mileage results wouldn't be unreasonable. If you drive 75 mph on
> the highway, can't reasonably expect the same mileage. If the tests are
> unrealistic but they're certified by the Canadian government, who's
> fault is that?
>
> Perhaps I'm completely off base here and I don't claim to be familiar
> with the way fuel consumption is rated in Canada (feel free to clue me
> in). I'm just trying to make the point that you need to examine the
> whole picture before blaming someone.
>
> It certainly appears that there are problems with Hyundai Canada, but
> the story seems to be quite different in the US. That's a shame, but it
> may well be due to the relative size of the marketplace and the level of
> competitive pressure. For example, American car manufacturers build
> garbage for decades (some still do) until the Japanese moved in and
> showed them how it should be done.
>
> Do other brands which are well respected in the US have problems in
> Canada, similar to what you're seeing with Hyundai? Again, there's no
> excuse for there to be any difference, but in Hyundai's case, apparently
> there is. If I were in your situation, I wouldn't be too happy, either.
>
> > But your even more right in your second sense, I do like to here the
story
> > from there side.
> > Till now I been waiting from novembre last year on.
>
> If they haven't been willing to communicate with you, you have a right
> to be angry. That's inexcusable, period.
>
> > Just for your information Petrol over here cost about 1 dollar 35 per
litre
> > or about 3,60 dollar per gallon.
>
> I feel for you, but you have to blame your government for taxing it to
> death. That's the price of socialism. In exchange for low quality, free
> health care, you get an oppressive government and confiscatory levels of
> taxation. Sounds like a raw deal to me. Our system needs a lot of work,
> no doubt, but I definitely prefer it.


Ok, lets start all over again.
First I live in the Netherlands not in Canada?
Hyundai claims in there brochure about gas millage:
12,5 km per liter petrol for city driving
20,0 km per liter petrol for high way driving
16,4 km per liter average (city / highway combination)


I'm driving almost only highway (90%) at a moderated speed
of 100 km/h wich is 60 mph.


The Getz then scores about 8 to 10 km per liter.
At first I blamed my car but in the meanwhile I found a lot
other Getz owners with the very same extreme high fuel consumption.
Even test drives from car magazines having the same conclusion.
A miner group of people claim's around 12 to 12,5 km per liter, but
for a small car even this is far to much.


I ben driving cars and bikes for 30 years now all kinds of and
without any exception with al of them I used less fuel than claimed by
the manufacturer.


Hyundai is not answering questions about this problem, not to me,
not to others as far as I know, and read in this newsgroup.
All there did so far, sending me a letter with the same claims as mentioned
above and saying that this is measured in very "nice"circumstances, without
wind....
There also say that it is possible to use more fuel when circumstances are
worst,
up to 17 % more. If this was the case, believe me I had no problem at all.
But in fact its 100% more.


Course's your right when you say blame your government about the price
of petrol, unfortunately the don't listen to me :-).
That's why I chose a car with a friendly gas millage.

 

You are really using too much fuel for a car/engine that size. I drive a
2002 Elantra 2L engine and get 12.65 Km/l at a constant speed of 120Km/H in
the highway, the city is a different matter I get only 8Km/l in heavy
trafic.

 

Pinokkio wrote:

> Ok, lets start all over again.
> First I live in the Netherlands not in Canada?

Sorry about that.

> Hyundai claims in there brochure about gas millage:
> 12,5 km per liter petrol for city driving
> 20,0 km per liter petrol for high way driving
> 16,4 km per liter average (city / highway combination)
>
> I'm driving almost only highway (90%) at a moderated speed
> of 100 km/h wich is 60 mph.
>
> The Getz then scores about 8 to 10 km per liter.
> At first I blamed my car but in the meanwhile I found a lot
> other Getz owners with the very same extreme high fuel consumption.
> Even test drives from car magazines having the same conclusion.
> A miner group of people claim's around 12 to 12,5 km per liter, but
> for a small car even this is far to much.

That does seem pretty ridiculous for a small car with a small engine.

> I ben driving cars and bikes for 30 years now all kinds of and
> without any exception with al of them I used less fuel than claimed by
> the manufacturer.

That's great, but it's not something you can count on to happen with
every vehicle.

> Hyundai is not answering questions about this problem, not to me,
> not to others as far as I know, and read in this newsgroup.
> All there did so far, sending me a letter with the same claims as mentioned
> above and saying that this is measured in very "nice"circumstances, without
> wind....
> There also say that it is possible to use more fuel when circumstances are
> worst,
> up to 17 % more. If this was the case, believe me I had no problem at all.
> But in fact its 100% more.

I wish I could offer you a solution, but I'm not sure that there is one.
That problems doesn't exist here in the US.

One thing you could try is resetting your ECU. This can be done by
either disconnecting the battery for a few minutes or by removing the
fuse for the ECU. This allows the ECU to re-learn the correct settings
for the fuel mixture and other parameters it controls. Sometimes it can
help with fuel and power related problems.

> Course's your right when you say blame your government about the price
> of petrol, unfortunately the don't listen to me :-).

Welcome to the club.

> That's why I chose a car with a friendly gas millage.

Or at least you thought you did.

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
news:MUFqc.3783$fF3.86302@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> One thing you could try is resetting your ECU. This can be done by
> either disconnecting the battery for a few minutes or by removing the
> fuse for the ECU. This allows the ECU to re-learn the correct settings
> for the fuel mixture and other parameters it controls. Sometimes it can
> help with fuel and power related problems.

Thanks for that suggestion,
I have a other problem with my doors, there open and close
automatically, not on my command, but when ever there feel to.
Sometimes 30 times in a row, I open them and there clos again.
Or the other way around I close, their open!
Luckily not when I'm driving.
So resetting the ECU would maybe cure this problem to.
On the other hand next week I have a appointment by the
dealer for this problem, the second time. The first time their
did something, don't know what, but anyway it did not help.
Thanks again, sometimes the solution to the problem is very simple,
maybe I get lucky.




>
> > Course's your right when you say blame your government about the price
> > of petrol, unfortunately the don't listen to me :-).
>
> Welcome to the club.
>
> > That's why I chose a car with a friendly gas millage.
>
> Or at least you thought you did.
>

 

On Wed, 19 May 2004, Pinokkio wrote:

>
> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
> news:MUFqc.3783$fF3.86302@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > One thing you could try is resetting your ECU. This can be done by
> > either disconnecting the battery for a few minutes or by removing the
> > fuse for the ECU. This allows the ECU to re-learn the correct settings
> > for the fuel mixture and other parameters it controls. Sometimes it can
> > help with fuel and power related problems.
>
> Thanks for that suggestion,
> I have a other problem with my doors, there open and close
> automatically, not on my command, but when ever there feel to.
> Sometimes 30 times in a row, I open them and there clos again.
> Or the other way around I close, their open!
> Luckily not when I'm driving.
> So resetting the ECU would maybe cure this problem to.
> On the other hand next week I have a appointment by the
> dealer for this problem, the second time. The first time their
> did something, don't know what, but anyway it did not help.
> Thanks again, sometimes the solution to the problem is very simple,
> maybe I get lucky.
>

Are you sure its not due to some ghost in your car?

 

My wife uses the car for work. She's a private conveyor for school
children.So the car is driven a lot. The tires were replaced because of the
premature wearing of the ball joints. Second time because of a rim problem
that wore them unevenly. ( the car vibrated at about 60mph.) They replaced
rims and tires. It worked. Maybe it is a Canada thing. All of the listed
items were dealer repaired under warranty. Which is a very good thing. I
wish they would clear up the 2-3 upshift flare, I really want a sonata when
I trade in, but im afraid to take the risk

Terry
"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
news:eDoqc.19781$hH.481241@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Terry & Patricia Swinamer wrote:
>
> > Not trying to start a war here.
>
> I understand that.
>
> > All Im going on is the experience Ive had
> > with my 2002 Elantra. Its been bad from the get go. Hyundai Canada is
not
> > taking me seriously, or the cars quality, I can assure you that. Maybe I
got
> > a bad one, but its been in the shop more than out. When I hear about
them
> > fudging the gas milage ratings and ignoring problems like the 2-3
upshift
> > flare, it makes me angry. The car is beautiful, and Hyundais reputation
has
> > improved greatly, but until they FIX actual problems rather than
explaining
> > them as normal operation, they wont move ahead.
>
> Perhaps this is an issue with Hyundai Canada? All I can say is that
> Hyundai USA has been really good to me, including covering one large
> repair when the car (a '94 Excel) was 4K miles out of warranty. I also
> seem to have an exceptionally good dealer. Perhaps we're comparing
> apples and oranges?
>
> > Its an excellent warranty
> > also. I needed mine. Over and over again. Now that its expired, Im
living in
> > fear of the next big problem.This is whats been replaced on my 2002
Elantra
> > so far:
> > Both ball joints
> > transmission, engine seal, window tapes, seat, power window motors (4)
> > rotors, tires(twice) a defective air bag went on its own.tie rod ends
> > alternator and a oxygen sensor. All under 100,000K. Can you blame me?
Canada
> > has no lemon laws.
>
> Well, let's examine this objectively.
>
> Of the items you list, the ball joints, tie rod ends, the alternator and
> the O2 sensor are pretty typical for any car within the first 100K miles.
>
> Ball joints and tie rod ends are typical maintenance items for
> suspensions. I wouldn't expect more than 60K miles out of them and I
> wouldn't be surprised if they failed sooner. A lot depends on the
> quality of the roads you drive on. Rough roads will shorten the life of
> these parts.
>
> Alternators are a crapshoot. I've had one fail in three weeks (in a
> Saab) and others last over 100K miles (in a Hyundai). For some reason,
> the rebuilt alternators from my local shop have always lasted longer
> than the original parts. Go figure.
>
> I've only replaced one O2 sensor, but their life span varies and I
> probably should have replaced more of them.
>
> These parts all have limited life spans and they're all manufactured by
> other companies. They're also relatively easy and inexpensive to fix. I
> don't see how you can count these items as quality problems, unless they
> failed very early in the car's life. Even at that, Hyundai didn't make
> them.
>
> Tires are obviously a maintenance item and their life span is dependent
> on how you drive and the condition of the roads. If you do actually have
> a warranty problem with a tire, it's not Hyundai's fault.
>
> I'm curious about the rotors, as they're a common "scam" item that are
> often sold unnecessarily during brake jobs. Calipers are the other item
> that's commonly part of the same scam, which is well known in the
> industry. Employees in brake shops are taught to sell these items as a
> means of boosting repair bills. The brake job that was advertised at $50
> suddenly costs you $400 if you fall for their lies. Perhaps this wasn't
> your situation (were your rotors warped or something?), but I thought
> I'd throw it out as a warning to others in case someone tries to pull
> this nonsense on them.
>
> On the other hand, the other items on your list shouldn't have failed
> and you have a legitimate gripe about them. I'd be concerned, too, but
> if they were covered under warranty and didn't cost you anything, I
> guess the warranty served it's purpose. If you're nervous about the car,
> by all means sell it and get a new one with a new warranty.
>
> If your car's an '02, you sure drive a lot! ;-)
>

 

"Sudip Bhattacharjee" <ciesudip@WPI.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0405191246420.15593-100000@ccc3.wpi.edu...
> On Wed, 19 May 2004, Pinokkio wrote:
>
> >
> > "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:MUFqc.3783$fF3.86302@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > One thing you could try is resetting your ECU. This can be done by
> > > either disconnecting the battery for a few minutes or by removing the
> > > fuse for the ECU. This allows the ECU to re-learn the correct settings
> > > for the fuel mixture and other parameters it controls. Sometimes it
can
> > > help with fuel and power related problems.
> >
> > Thanks for that suggestion,
> > I have a other problem with my doors, there open and close
> > automatically, not on my command, but when ever there feel to.
> > Sometimes 30 times in a row, I open them and there clos again.
> > Or the other way around I close, their open!
> > Luckily not when I'm driving.
> > So resetting the ECU would maybe cure this problem to.
> > On the other hand next week I have a appointment by the
> > dealer for this problem, the second time. The first time their
> > did something, don't know what, but anyway it did not help.
> > Thanks again, sometimes the solution to the problem is very simple,
> > maybe I get lucky.
> >
>
> Are you sure its not due to some ghost in your car?


I was thinking about that to, as far as I know
there is a Ghost in my car (little green one), but he has no drivers
licence.
So its not him.

 

Terry & Patricia Swinamer wrote:

> My wife uses the car for work. She's a private conveyor for school
> children.So the car is driven a lot. The tires were replaced because of the
> premature wearing of the ball joints. Second time because of a rim problem
> that wore them unevenly. ( the car vibrated at about 60mph.) They replaced
> rims and tires. It worked.

Glad to hear that.

> Maybe it is a Canada thing.

That seems to be the case, at least based on what I've seen and heard.

> All of the listed
> items were dealer repaired under warranty. Which is a very good thing. I
> wish they would clear up the 2-3 upshift flare, I really want a sonata when
> I trade in, but im afraid to take the risk

You could always get a car with a manual transmission. ;-)

 

On Thu, 20 May 2004 11:16:39 GMT, Brian Nystrom
<brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote:

>
>
>Terry & Patricia Swinamer wrote:
>
>> My wife uses the car for work. She's a private conveyor for school
>> children.So the car is driven a lot. The tires were replaced because of the
>> premature wearing of the ball joints. Second time because of a rim problem
>> that wore them unevenly. ( the car vibrated at about 60mph.) They replaced
>> rims and tires. It worked.
>
>Glad to hear that.
>
>> Maybe it is a Canada thing.
>
>That seems to be the case, at least based on what I've seen and heard.
>
>> All of the listed
>> items were dealer repaired under warranty. Which is a very good thing. I
>> wish they would clear up the 2-3 upshift flare, I really want a sonata when
>> I trade in, but im afraid to take the risk
>
>You could always get a car with a manual transmission. ;-)

But then you can't get the leather interior and that nifty
electrochromatic mirror (I love this thing, never buying another car
without it).

 

Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message news:<UY4qc.15769$hH.389068@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Moshe Jacobson wrote:
>
> > Jason <none.of.your.business@see.left.of.at.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hyundai vehicles have very restrictive intake and exhaust systems.
> >>Open either up wider and you'll not only see better gas mileage but
> >>more power as well.
> >
> >
> > Interesting. Makes you wonder why they don't do that to begin with.
> > I'm curious.
>
> Less restrictive intake and exhaust systems are noisier, though not
> necessarily to an objectionable level. If you go to
> www.elantragtclub.com, there are DIY instructions for intake and exhaust
> modifications and numerous discussions on these subjects in their
> forums. Another good site is www.elantraxd.com.
>
> I've removed the intake resonator on my car (easy, no cost, no added

You don't gain anything by doing that.

> noise that I notice) and will probably replace the stock intake with a
> cold air intake system (aka, a "CAI") eventually, once I decide which
> system to go with.
>
> The rear muffler is known for being restrictive, so that will soon be
> replaced with a Magnaflow. Again, you can do this without adding a lot
> of noise if you select a muffler of similar size and configuration.
> Magnaflow has information on this in the FAQ section of their web site
> (www.magnaflow.com).
>
> A change to synthetic oil in the engine (0W-30 or 5W-30) and
> transmission (if you have a manual trans) should help some. I'll be
> doing both once my engine is broken in a bit more (at ~6000 miles).
>
> Still, as another poster mentioned, driving style makes the most
> difference. If your car has a trip computer, use the MPG readout to help
> you learn the effects of various driving techniques.
>
> Despite the fact that my car is still new and breaking in, I'm getting
> 32+ mpg on the highway and ~27 in the city, with an average of 29-31
> combined.

 

theta00k@yahoo.com wrote:

> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message news:<UY4qc.15769$hH.389068@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...

>>Less restrictive intake and exhaust systems are noisier, though not
>>necessarily to an objectionable level. If you go to
>>www.elantragtclub.com, there are DIY instructions for intake and exhaust
>>modifications and numerous discussions on these subjects in their
>>forums. Another good site is www.elantraxd.com.
>
>>I've removed the intake resonator on my car (easy, no cost, no added
>
> You don't gain anything by doing that.

Actually, you do. The stock intake (at least on the '04) pulls warm air
from the engine compartment behind the radiator. Removing the resonator
and the "snorkel" results in the intake pulling cooler air from inside
the fender, which is fed by the openings around the fog light. Call it a
poor man's cold air intake. Aftermarket CAI's route air from the same
location.

Besides, the 5 or 6 pounds you remove makes HUGE difference in
accelleration! ;-)

A similarly inexpensive modification involves bypassing the coolant
passage that heats the throttle body. While warming the incoming air can
be useful in the winter, it reduces air density and horsepower in warm
weather.

 

In article <V5Rtc.5392$_k3.115147@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote:
>theta00k@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@att.net> wrote in message
> news:<UY4qc.15769$hH.389068@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>>Less restrictive intake and exhaust systems are noisier, though not
>>>necessarily to an objectionable level. If you go to
>>>www.elantragtclub.com, there are DIY instructions for intake and exhaust
>>>modifications and numerous discussions on these subjects in their
>>>forums. Another good site is www.elantraxd.com.
>>
>>>I've removed the intake resonator on my car (easy, no cost, no added
>>
>> You don't gain anything by doing that.
>
>Actually, you do. The stock intake (at least on the '04) pulls warm air
>from the engine compartment behind the radiator. Removing the resonator
>and the "snorkel" results in the intake pulling cooler air from inside
>the fender, which is fed by the openings around the fog light. Call it a
>poor man's cold air intake. Aftermarket CAI's route air from the same
>location.
>
>Besides, the 5 or 6 pounds you remove makes HUGE difference in
>accelleration! ;-)
>
>A similarly inexpensive modification involves bypassing the coolant
>passage that heats the throttle body. While warming the incoming air can
>be useful in the winter, it reduces air density and horsepower in warm
>weather.

Do you know what part of your car measures the quantity of intake air?

 

theta00k@yahoo.com wrote:

> Do you know what part of your car measures the quantity of intake air?

Of course. On the '04, it's the MAF that's located between the throttle
body and the filter box.

If you're implying that removing the resonator will impact the MAF
function, you're wrong. The resonator is downstream of the MAF and
filter box.