4 Cyl vs 6 Cyl Sonata

  • Thread starter Thread starter Partner
  • Start date Start date
P

Partner

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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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


Matt
 
Matt Whiting said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
"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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

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


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


Matt
Click to expand...


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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

Matt
Click to expand...

Automatic, indeed. I thought it might be the high speed 80 mpg and
higher at certain moments that lowered the millage.
 
praf said:
Automatic, indeed. I thought it might be the high speed 80 mpg and higher
at certain moments that lowered the millage.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Well, I might as well jump in, too. The 4 cyl which I have in my 2006
Sonata is MORE than adequate to merge into traffic and pass on the
expressways. I confess that for 40 years I absolutely loved the 'kick in
the pants' of a 427 or 390 cubic inch engine and owned vettes, Camaro's,
Cougars, and Mustangs with those engines. Sure the 6 cyl has more 'kick'
but with all the cars on the roads today, who really and truly needs it.
Don't forget even IF the 4 turns more RPM's per mile (which hasn't been
proven), your 6 cyl will have more parts wearing out and needing
replacement...... It's an age old question with two groups agruing for
their side. No easy answer. I just got back today from a 703 mile trip
from Georgia to Pa and got 32.0 mpg up 85, 77, and 81. That's at 70 -80
mph. :o) and loaded with gifts and 3 people.

Tom
 
even IF the 4 turns more RPM's per mile (which hasn't been proven),
Click to expand...

Not proven? Prove it to yourself. Just look at the specification on the
web page for final gear ratios and do the math.
 
Edwin said:
Not proven? Prove it to yourself. Just look at the specification on the
web page for final gear ratios and do the math.
Click to expand...

Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site.

Also, comparing the final drive ratio doesn't tell you anything. You
need to know the transmission ratios in high gear as well as the tire
overall diameters.


Matt
 
Which web page? I don't find this information at the Hyundai site.

Also, comparing the final drive ratio doesn't tell you anything. You need
to know the transmission ratios in high gear as well as the tire overall
diameters.
Click to expand...

Under the specifications.

At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours?
 
Edwin said:
Under the specifications.

At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours?
Click to expand...

I see the final drive ratio, but not the overall drive ratio or the
ratio of each transmission gear so as to calculate the overall drive
ratio. The final drive ratio is very close for the manual that I have
(3.44) vs. the automatic (3.33), however, I suspect that the overall
drive ratio is not nearly so close.

I haven't been to 70 in some time, so I'm not sure. I believe it runs
about 2200 at 55 which would be about 2800 at 70, but I'll try to
remember to check next time I'm on the highway.


Matt
 
Back
Top