Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

17117127147167171064

Comments

  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    Take a look at the "detailed comparison" tab at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

    I would seem to me that other than the 8.46 mph/s max acceleration in the high speed test, the EPA test schedule would not appear to cause the turbo to kick in? So as someone else implied, you may only get the mileage advertised and maybe better, if you drive in a way that does not actually require much turbo assist.

    I wonder what they do when a car can not accelerate at 8.46 mph per sec, which would imply 0-60 time of 7.1 sec? I suppose they just floor it.

    For myself the 175 or so HP from the current crop of I4s would be sufficient, I'd not pay extra for the (to me) excessive HP of a either a V6 or turbo.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    edited March 2010
    Downsides to a turbo...

    Insurance rates. Compare a natrually aspirated V6 and a turbo-4 and I think you'll find the rates for the turbo to be higher, simply because of the sporty connotations "turbo" has.
  • syitalian25syitalian25 Posts: 303
    edited March 2010
    If you were looking for more power you should have waited for the 2011 Sonata 2.0T ... 274 HP, 269 ft. lb. torque @ 1800-4500 rpms, 34 mpg highway, all on regular 87 octane. Wow!! I am excited to make this my next new vehicle so I can smoke those yuppies in their Volkswagen GTIs and such haha.

    Turbo

    http://hyundainews.com/Auto_Show_News/New_York_Auto_Show/2011_Sonata_2.0T/Press_- - Release.asp

    Hybrid

    http://hyundainews.com/Auto_Show_News/New_York_Auto_Show/2011_Sonata_Hybrid/Pres- - s_Release.asp
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,951
    edited March 2010
    I knew you could shed some light on the EPA methods. Thanks. I would think to achieve that 0-60 in 7.1 they would still have to engage the turbo so maybe the ratings would be close. Plus if you drive a normal engine like you would to engage the turbo it would definitely affect mpg as well but probably not quite as much. Little too "engineery" for me to comprehend.

    I would possibly opt for the turbo if the cost was maybe $1500 more, but I think it's going to be more like $3k more and that's too much for me.

    I was watching the webcast but my DSL connection must be crap as it was really cutting out and I can only hear about 40% of what is said. Prices weren't stated but the CEO did mention that you could get into the turbo for "around 25k".
  • syitalian25syitalian25 Posts: 303
    He said a "well equipped" turbo would be under $25K, who knows what that means but the director of sales just said it will have more road noise similar to the SE. As far as the 0-60, the turbo is going to do WELL better than a measily 7.1 seconds. I do 7.2 in my non-turbo.. I will guess closer to 6 seconds, maybe even high 5's.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,951
    edited March 2010
    I wasn't questioning whether or not the turbo would do 7.1 or a lot better. I was just commenting regarding the EPA test that they would still have to engage the turbo to reach those numbers.

    The press release(your links don't work....for me at least) says the turbo will be availalbe in the SE and LTD w/ the the Limited getting these items in addition to the turbo:
    Panoramic sunroof
    18-inch hyper silver alloy wheels
    Dual exhaust system
    Steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters

    My assumption is that he was talking about the SE for under 25k. I thought he said "about 25k" but you may well be right. Anyway, the current SE w/destination chg. is about $23300. That would mean the turbo would only add maybe $1600-1700 to the price of an SE. Pretty darn competitive if it turns out that way.
  • shabadoo25shabadoo25 Posts: 216
    I couldn't find a Suzuki dealership with a map and a compass...not that I have any desire to...
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,951
    edited March 2010
    Mazda6 diesel confirmed with hybrid-like 43 MPG

    That's a headline from an article on autoblog. That would be sweet. It's supposed to be attached to new 6 speed auto that is similar to a DSG.

    The Sky-D will be introduced in the U.S., and the company says it will be used in its “next generation midsized diesel car” and will get up to 43 mpg. We’re not sure what car that would be, as the Mazda3 and Mazda6 have been recently redesigned.

    Above was from cars.com. The Mazda6 was redesigned for 2009 so it's possible they could do a major touch up and call it a redesign especially with an all new drivetrain.
  • dash5dash5 Posts: 417
    Did they mention if it was basically an SE with a turbo or would it be in a limited package? Interested to see how they work that. Ideal for me would be a limited, with the turbo and the dual exhaust.

    Hmmmmmmmm.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    edited March 2010
    Yes, I also assumed that the acceleration rate that was equivalent to 7.1s 0-60, would cause the turbo to kick in. However, EPA only accelerates that fast in the "high speed test" and even for that test it just says that the max acceleration rate is 8.46 mph per sec, so we do not really know how often or for how long they go at that rate.

    In the "AC" test cycle, the max acceleration is 5.1 mph per sec, that being equivalent to almost 12 sec for 0-60, means probably no turbo effect there. In the other 3 test cycles, they use a max acceleration rate of 3.2 or 3.3 mph per sec, that'd be about 18-19 sec to get to 60 and there would definitely be no turbo needed to achieve that.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,951
    The press release(your links don't work....for me at least) says the turbo will be availalbe in the SE and LTD w/ the the Limited getting these items in addition to the turbo:
    Panoramic sunroof
    18-inch hyper silver alloy wheels
    Dual exhaust system
    Steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters


    I posted the above about 3 posts back.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,951
    Looks a little murky then. I looked up some subu, saab, and vw turbos on fueleconomy.gov but none that I checked had user reported numbers. Probably have to the check the forums and see if can get an idea. For the way I would normally drive the EPA numbers would probably be pretty close anyways.
  • dash5dash5 Posts: 417
    Whoops I missed that somehow thank you. Very tempting indeed.
  • Nissan Altima or hyundai Azera both fully loaded. Which one should I pick. I want a quiet comfortable ride with all the goodies.
  • stephen987stephen987 Posts: 1,994
    If you want quiet and soft, the Azera's a better bet than the Altima. The Sonata's also worth a look, for a bit less money.
  • what year on Azera? refreshed one right? those looks very nice. mpg got better and it's very very quiet and soft ride. very underrated.
  • syitalian25syitalian25 Posts: 303
    Get a slightly used 2008/2009 Azera. You can pick one up with 35K miles for about 15-16K if you look around, it is an excellent bargain considering everything that comes in that car.
  • carstrykecarstryke Posts: 168
    altima......those cheap korean cars aren't even in the same league as the altima.....just remember "you get what you pay for"
  • carstrykecarstryke Posts: 168
    edited April 2010
    and you Sonata lovers need to get in and out of your backseat multiple times......if that doesn't knock some sense into you, i don't know what will.

    There is a reason i don't wipe my butt with no name toilet paper...and its the same reason i don't buy Korean engineered automobiles.
  • shabadoo25shabadoo25 Posts: 216
    I've had passengers in my backseat. They have no problems whatsoever.

    As for your insults on Korean cars, check your calendar...it's not 2003 anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.