4 Cyl vs 6 Cyl Sonata

Discussion in 'Hyundai Sonata' started by Partner, Dec 22, 2006.

  1. Partner

    Partner Guest

    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, Dec 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
     
    Edwin Pawlowski, Dec 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Partner

    Matt Whiting Guest

    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
     
    Matt Whiting, Dec 22, 2006
    #3
  4. Partner

    Matt Whiting Guest

    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.

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


    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Dec 22, 2006
    #4
  5. 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.
    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.
     
    Edwin Pawlowski, Dec 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Partner

    Partner Guest

    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.
     
    Partner, Dec 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Partner

    Partner Guest

    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, Dec 22, 2006
    #7
  8. "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
     
    Rev. Tom Wenndt, Dec 22, 2006
    #8
  9. Partner

    hyundaitech Guest

    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.
     
    hyundaitech, Dec 22, 2006
    #9
  10. Partner

    Matt Whiting Guest

    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.


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

    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
     
    Matt Whiting, Dec 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Partner

    Matt Whiting Guest

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


    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Dec 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Partner

    praf Guest


    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, Dec 27, 2006
    #12
  13. Partner

    Matt Whiting Guest

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

    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Dec 27, 2006
    #13
  14. Partner

    praf Guest

    Automatic, indeed. I thought it might be the high speed 80 mpg and
    higher at certain moments that lowered the millage.
     
    praf, Dec 27, 2006
    #14
  15. 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.
     
    Edwin Pawlowski, Dec 27, 2006
    #15
  16. Partner

    Tom Guest

    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. :eek:) and loaded with gifts and 3 people.

    Tom
     
    Tom, Dec 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Not proven? Prove it to yourself. Just look at the specification on the
    web page for final gear ratios and do the math.
     
    Edwin Pawlowski, Dec 28, 2006
    #17
  18. Partner

    Matt Whiting Guest

    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
     
    Matt Whiting, Dec 28, 2006
    #18
  19. Under the specifications.

    At 70 mph, my V-6 is running 2200 rpm. Yours?
     
    Edwin Pawlowski, Dec 28, 2006
    #19
  20. Partner

    Matt Whiting Guest

    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
     
    Matt Whiting, Dec 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.