Economy Sedans (~$16k-$20k)

backy · August 2006

I drove a Spectra EX 500 miles last week, in two 3.5-hour stints. The structure did seem a little more solid than that of the Elantra (and with the Spectra being several years newer, that is not surprising). The ride was quiet and smooth, a bit smoother than the Elantra GLS I used to own. Ergonomically, I'll take the Elantra any day. The Elantra has more adjustments on the driver's seat (dual height adjuster and lumbar support) which allow me to set just the right position. With the Spectra, I was uncomfortable within an hour. I couldn't measure FE closely because the rental agency filled the tank to only about 3/8 and I didn't have time to top it off before I left. But it was roughly low 30s, driving at 70-75 mph with AC on half the time. That is just a bit under what I get on my Elantra GT automatic.

The 2007 Elantra is supposed to be much stiffer than the '06, so it will be interesting to see how that car compares to the Spectra.

thegraduate · August 2006

If you must have new, have you considered a 2006 Sonata?

He wanted high-20s for city mileage. If you (gcroft) are willing to trade a little mileage (24/33 for Sonata) for a bigger, safer car, go with the Sonata GL, or GLS even. I'd be willing to be you could get a GLS in your area for under $17k OTD if you try hard. I have an Accord that I love, but for the buyer on your particular budget (under $18k), the Sonata looks like the place to be if you want a safer, larger car for your child.

backy · August 2006

You're right, it's unlikely he can get high-20s with a Sonata, but I think it's possible with the Accord I4, especially with a stick. I think the price range was $15-16k. It's possible to get a new 2006 Sonata I4 for that, or a used current-generation Accord.

thegraduate · August 2006

True about averaging high-20s in the Accord. I average about 29 MPG in mixed suburban (a routine trip of mine is 9 stop signs, speed limit of 30MPH, for about 8 miles, then 10 miles of interstate to destination (at 70 MPH). That's about how I average 28-30MPG.

I have an auto I-4 Accord, so bump those numbers by one or two points for a stick-shift. A 2004 EX Accord stick in good condition should be in that 15-16k price range (assuming 40k miles or so).

joe97 · August 2006

Backy, many Sonata owners in my area reporting mid to high 20s on the V6 Sonata (overall between city and highway), and I4 wasn't even a problem. The other day, I was talking with a Sonata owner, and she had reported to me a consistent 31-32 hwy and 24-25 city/local in her '06 GLS V6 over her 7 months ownership.

backy · August 2006

This guy wanted upper 20s in the city. A lot depends on what "local" driving is, how much stop-and-go etc. Not impossible to get upper 20s in "local" driving in a Sonata, but I maintain it's not typical.

gcroft · August 2006

I appreciate all the great comments. While i have only seen a sonata on the used car lot, it seemed rather large compared to what I've been looking at and I hadn't previously considered a Kia. I've mainly looked at 2005 accords I4 auto but I'd have to change my expectations from my earlier post. I think they post 24/34 on mpg and pricing has been around 16500 +TTL without trying hard. Still beats the 18000+TTL I was offered today on a new corolla! There's a wide discrepancy on NADA vs KBB vs Edmunds. They're each $1000 apart from the other which makes it difficult to determine market value.

thegraduate · August 2006

Still beats the 18000+TTL I was offered today on a new corolla!

Total with Options With Side Airbags and ABS, the Corolla LE TMV is about $16,400 per Edmunds.com... $18,000 is way too high unless it had alloys, sunroof, JBL, stability control, mats, etc... And even then, I'd have a hard time paying over $17k for a Corolla.

gcroft · August 2006

I pretty much agree with you. This one had SAB, and alloy wheels and 6 disc changer. What kills you in the south is

TAF $295
TMF $200
2% Holdback MSRP $322
PIO Holdback $31
1% Finance Reserve MSRP $161

Dealers seem firm on this.

I see jettas on sale in the paper this morning for $16995. Ill have to do some research on those and the sonata.

snakeweasel · August 2006

Forgive me for sounding ignorant but other than additional profit what is all that stuff?

pat · August 2006

They are charging you for holdback? That is money the manufacturer pays them after the car is sold!!

I don't know what PIO holdback is, but it still shouldn't be a charge to you. You should read Edmunds piece on Dealer Holdback and maybe follow up in the Dealer Holdback Questions discussion over on the Smart Shopper board. Also you may want to check into the Toyota Advertising Fees discussion as well.

But the best way to get by all of this stuff is make your offer an out-the-door price with which you are comfortable, meaning it includes everything but tax, tags and licensing. Then they can allocate the money into whatever categories make them happy.

Keep us posted!

gcroft · August 2006

Oh yes, I'm very familiar with holdbacks and I've read the other boards. I'll refresh myself to see if there's anything new I'm unaware of but this is why I've more or less given up on a new toyota. Best anyone can figure POI means port installed options. Port installed options IMHO is another great Gulf States scam as are TAF (toyota advertising fees - national) and TMF (toyota maketing fees - local)

joe97 · August 2006

I4 Sonata is very possible and likely, I would say. To date, every 06/7 Sonata owners I have talked to has V6s so I can't account for real-world city/local mpg in the I4s. I would say if the V6 can easily acheive mid 20s city, then the I4 should have no problme acheiving upper 20s.

gcroft, good luck in your search, whatever you may end up with.

pat · August 2006

Oh, of course, port installed options, thanks. In any case, an out-the-door offer for what you have determined the car is worth (totally disregarding the add-on baloney) is the way to go. They can do whatever with all of their pesky fees.

gcroft · August 2006

Thanks for all the help. Went with the 2006 Sonata GL!

joe97 · August 2006

Great! Hope you enjoy your new Sonata.

pat · August 2006

Congrats - enjoy! And do drop by the Sonata board to give us your report!!

backy · October 2006

I got my first look at the 2007 Elantra today and I think it will be strong competition for Civic, Mazda3 and others in this class. Here's my impressions:

backy, "2007 Hyundai Elantra" #1224, 14 Oct 2006 12:04 pm

thegraduate · October 2006

Sounds pretty good, based on what you said. You didn't seem to indicate that it was a "runaway" victory for Hyundai, but it certainly sounds "as good" or possibly better than Corolla, 3, and Civic in the department of the interior

Did I hear correctly, though, that no upgrades have been made to the engine? Is the automatic a 4-speeder or 5-speed transmission?

Not that the Hyundai had a problem with its outgoing Elantra engine, but in a world of constant re-benchmarking (either by adding power or economy) it seems a little dangerous not to improve the powertrain in some way.

snakeweasel · October 2006

Not that the Hyundai had a problem with its outgoing Elantra engine,

The new Elantra is supposed to get improved economy (I think like 3 MPG better).

thegraduate · October 2006

The new Elantra is supposed to get improved economy (I think like 3 MPG better).

That's good. I believe the sticker for the last Elantra I saw had something like 24/32? That's pretty bad these days... my larger Accord beats those numbers, weighs more, and a good deal more power. Something like 28/36 would be class competitive, if not class leading, for an Automatic Elantra. Of course, if it could match the 30/40 of the Civic and offer the same horsepower, even better!

snakeweasel · October 2006

my larger Accord beats those numbers,

Question do you beat those numbers in real life driving? The reason I ask is that I beat those numbers in a second gen Elantra thats not even rated that high by the EPA. I actually achieve 8-10% higher than EPA estiments.

backy · October 2006

Yes, the powertrain was tweaked but it's still the 138 hp Beta CVVT engine. EPA fuel economy is 28/36 for both the stick and automatic. So while not class-leading in power or fuel economy, I think it's competitive--more power than Corolla and just two hp shy of Civic and Sentra. It's certainly some of the best fuel economy numbers for a mid-sized ICE car.

I haven't driven it yet so I really don't know how it compares to the class leaders in ride, handling, and NVH. The reviews lead me to believe it's improved there too, but proof is in the pudding.

We also have to remember that Hyundai has its next-generation engines waiting in the wings. It's interesting to me that DC has already begun deploying the small-displacement engines from the DC/Mitsubishi/Hyundai partnership, but Hyundai has not--at least not in North America.

thegraduate · October 2006

Question do you beat those numbers in real life driving? The reason I ask is that I beat those numbers in a second gen Elantra thats not even rated that high by the EPA. I actually achieve 8-10% higher than EPA estiments.

Yes, I have never had lower than 28 MPG since my first fillup (not including the gas that was in the car at purchase - that one was 26 MPG). I filled up last night, and with my mixed suburban/hwy route (probably 50% interstate) I bought 10.2 gallons on 320.3 miles. Basically, 32 MPGs.

On trips, I always beat the EPA estimates, usually around 38-39 MPG when I drive 75 MPH. When I go faster (80-85 MPH) that figure drops to around 35 MPG.

Average: 31 MPG
Low: 28 MPG
High: 39.96 MPG (I was so close to cracking 40 MPG!)

I am super pleased with my Accord's economy because it beats the numbers by a good 2-5 MPG when not driven like a madman (I don't rev a lot, normal acceleration for me keeps RPMs under 3,000). Chevron 87 Octane every time.

I think if people would just slow down and not race to every red light, they could match and beat EPA numbers like you and I have; I guess people would rather hurry up and wait, eh?

thegraduate · October 2006

28/36 is certainly fine (Fine meaning good, not "fine" as in so-so)mileage. It's not the top of the class, but it is quite good for what else we'll be able to get at a likely value-minded purchase price (the Civic is getting expensive when loaded nowadays).

backy · October 2006

Yep, and I also have to remember that even on my old '01 Elantra 5-speed, EPA rated 25/33, I routinely got over 40 mpg on the highway and around 30 in town if I drove with a light foot. But the other bar the Civic has set pretty high for the Elantra is the IIHS "Gold" designation for Good scores on frontal, side, and rear impact tests. Hyundai has been improving in crash safety with its new models, so I'm eager to see how the new Elantra does.

thegraduate · October 2006

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Elantra at least match the Civic; the current Sonata raised the safety bar over the Accord when it debuted.

germancarfan1 · October 2006

How can Hyundai claim the 2007 Elantra is one of the safest (if not the safest) car in its class when Traction Control nor Stability Control are EVEN OPTIONS? When cars such as the Jetta make Traction Control standard and Stability Control a very cheap option, I find the Elantra's claim baseless.

Doesn't the lack of even a traction control option make sales in the snow belt a bit difficult? Thoughts?

When a 2007 Jetta BASE with Traction Control, Stability Control, and ABS w/ Brake Assist can be had for MSRP $17,570 DELIVERED, and a 2007 Elantra Limited costing nearly $20K has neither option (save for ABS), isn't that a bit odd? Leather and a few more centimeters of interior space won't help the driver in Upstate NY stuck in a ditch on the side of I-90 in the winter.

Hyundai better pray for 5 stars all around NHTSA and a Gold rating by IIHS to atleast try and compensate for this.

snakeweasel · October 2006

How can Hyundai claim ....

Just remember that traction and stability control does not make a car the safest nor does the lack of them make a car unsafe. There are many things that contribute to safety.

Doesn't the lack of even a traction control option make sales in the snow belt a bit difficult? Thoughts?

As one who has never spent a winter south of the 41st parallel I can say that if it does hamper sales its not going to be by much. I, as well as many others, managed to survive very well with out them for years. To be perfectly honest they will be noticeably useful very seldom.

When a 2007 Jetta BASE with Traction Control, Stability Control, and ABS w/ Brake Assist can be had for MSRP $17,570 DELIVERED, and a 2007 Elantra Limited costing nearly $20K has neither option (save for ABS), isn't that a bit odd?

Seeing that I and everyone I know that has one, has had no trouble with our Elantras and everyone I know that has a Jetta has had serious issues with the car the answer is easy. Take the Elantra.

And while you are at it compare the base with the base in each car, it makes for a better price comparison.

Now please take your Hyundai bashing someplace else.

germancarfan1 · October 2006

"Just remember that traction and stability control does not make a car the safest nor does the lack of them make a car unsafe. There are many things that contribute to safety."

That seems quite contrary to the majority of opinions on the Sonata forum who relentlessly tought the advantages of these devices as absolutes for safety while condemning those autos who lack such options.

I am curious as to what else the Elantra offers that "contributes to safety" that is not found on competing vehicles. Judging by past reviews/experience of the prior generation Elantra and recent reviews of the 2007, it certainly isn't a taunt suspension. What about NHTSA and IIHS scores? If history is any indicator, the Elantra doesn't score well in that category either? Other than some extra standard exploding airbags, what can the Elantra claim?

"I, as well as many others, managed to survive very well with out them for years. To be perfectly honest they will be noticeably useful very seldom."

Really? I guess that's why my ex-local (i've sinced moved to sunny FL) Hyundai dealer in Rochester, NY stocked nothing but previous gen Elantra's with traction control. To those who brave 8 months of cold, snowy winters, it is a necessity.

"Seeing that I and everyone I know that has one, has had no trouble with our Elantras and everyone I know that has a Jetta has had serious issues with the car the answer is easy. Take the Elantra."

Where did annecdotal reliability play a role in my comparison of safety features of the two cars? I have had major problems with my 2004 Elantra and you know me

"And while you are at it compare the base with the base in each car, it makes for a better price comparison. "

Right. Let's compare the base Elantra with no A/C to a base Jetta. That makes economic sense.

How is this Hyundai bashing?? Hyundai claims the Elantra is one of the safest cars in its class yet fails to equip it with modern safety equipment (even taking away previously available TC). How is this "bashing" to point this out?

snakeweasel · October 2006

That seems quite contrary to the majority of opinions on the Sonata forum

Well then I am not of the same opinion. I have 3 winters worth of driving experience in the snow and ice of Alaska and 26 winters (going into my 27th) of Upper Midwest snow and ice. None of the cars I have driven in those winters had stability or traction control. Never have I gone off the road or gotten into an accident because of lack of traction. And only twice where I actually got stuck (and I don't think traction control would have helped in either of those circumstances).

I am curious as to what else the Elantra offers that "contributes to safety" that is not found on competing vehicles.

Your working under a false assumption here. Two cars with the exact same safety equipment would not have the same amount of safety.

Really? I guess that's why my ex-local (i've sinced moved to sunny FL) Hyundai dealer in Rochester, NY stocked nothing but previous gen Elantra's with traction control. To those who brave 8 months of cold, snowy winters, it is a necessity.

Really? In 29 winters of driving in northern snowbelt winters I have not really found a need. Nor have I ever really thought "gee I could use traction control".

Where did annecdotal reliability play a role in my comparison of safety features of the two cars?

It doesn't but since you are comparing the two cars I would like to mention the the thing more important to me than traction control is the ability to stay out of the mechanics bay. That is something that VW is having a hard time doing. Yet I rarely, if ever, run into an Elantra owner that spend very much time there.

Right. Let's compare the base Elantra with no A/C to a base Jetta. That makes economic sense

Yep because the base Elantra fully loaded stickers for only $275 more than the Jetta. Plus your getting a sun roof and better gas mileage all in a roomier and more reliable car. Its a no brainer.

How is this Hyundai bashing??

Because all you ever do here is trash Hyundai. If you don't like it fine don't get one. Most people I know who try to tear down something down that they don't like do so because they know how good it is but don't want to admit it. Its a sour grapes sort of thing.

germancarfan1 · October 2006

"Your working under a false assumption here. Two cars with the exact same safety equipment would not have the same amount of safety."

I'm confused. Other than a taunt, responsive suspension (nope), active safety equipment (TC/ESP)(nope) and passive equipment (ie. airbags), what else does the Elantra offer that contributes to safety that's any better than its competitors?

Considering both Hyundai and VW are BOTH rated far below the industry average in long term dependability, i'm not sure your "argument" holds water. Through a Lexus into the mix and then i'd be inclinded to agree with you.

"Yep because the base Elantra fully loaded stickers for only $275 more than the Jetta. Plus your getting a sun roof and better gas mileage all in a roomier and more reliable car. Its a no brainer."

Your numbers make no sense but I fail to see how a car with a few more "ammenities" like a sunroof and cheap leather interior is the better option when it lacks the very standard features (or even options) that might save your life.

If the definition of trashing Hyundai is simply stating that the car fails for not have significant safety features standard (or even options), then I guess so be it.

snakeweasel · October 2006

Nope my definition of bashing Hyundai is the fact that every post I see you post is an rabid attack on Hyundai.

Now I will get out from under your bridge.

backy · October 2006

Hyundai claims the Elantra is one of the safest cars in its class yet fails to equip it with modern safety equipment (even taking away previously available TC).

Let's examine that claim (ABS implies EBD):

Car / Major Standard Safety Equipment (all trims) / Major Optional Safety Equipment

Civic / 6 airbags, ABS, active front head restraints / none
Cobalt / 2 airbags / 4 airbags, ABS, traction control
Corolla / 2 airbags / 6 airbags, ABS, VSC
Elantra / 6 airbags, ABS, active front head restraints / none
Jetta / 6 airbags, ABS, traction control, active front head restraints / ESC
Focus / 2 airbags / 4 airbags, ABS
Mazda3 / 2 airbags, active front head restraints(?) / 6 airbags, ABS, traction control, ESC
Sentra / 6 airbags, active front head restraints / ABS

(Note there are several safety features left off the list, but almost all of them with the exception of a few like 4-wheel discs are on all cars these days. I also left a couple of cars such as the Spectra and Forenza off the list, but their standard safety equipment doesn't match the Elantra's anyway.)

So by the facts, I think Hyundai is justified in saying the Elantra is one of the safest cars in its class, based on standard safety equipment. The only car that surpasses the Elantra there is the Jetta, by virtue of its traction control. The Civic is equivalent to the Elantra in features. All the rest are behind these three.

Note that ESC and traction control are available on Elantras in other countries. I think we'll see both on the Elantra in the U.S. as early as next year, as the automakers jockey for the "best in safety" ring and get ready to support the ESC mandate from the Feds.

Now, if the Elantra doesn't do well on crash tests, I think they have some 'splanin to do.

tsgeisel · October 2006

I find that especially odd because traction control was available on the 2k6 Elantra. Or maybe it was ESC. One of those two - I know that I have a version without it, and there's a blank button on my dashboard where I would activate it.

You got it when you got the ABS package. I'm surprised it's not an option now.

backy · October 2006

Traction control was included with ABS on the Gen 3 Elantra--but not ESC, at least not in the U.S. TCS is available on the Gen 4 but not yet in the U.S. for some reason (cost I'd guess). I'd like to see it come back--it's activated maybe twice in nearly 3 years on my '04 Elantra, but it's nice to know it's there.

spmrebel · October 2006

Backy, not sure where you get the impression that Spectra doesn't match 07 Elantra in safety equipment. Spectra has the following:

Spectra/6 airbags, 4-wheel disc/ABS, TCS

I have an 05 Spectra EX it it has all of the above safety equipment minus ABS/TSC option.

backy · October 2006

As I noted, ABS is not standard on the Spectra. It is on the 2007 Elantra. Also, active front head restraints are not available on the Spectra (very important in rear crashes). They are standard on the Elantra. That's where I got the impression that the Spectra doesn't match the '07 Elantra in safety equipment.

The Spectra does have standard side bags and curtains, but the car didn't do well on the IIHS crash tests: Poor on the side tests, and only Acceptable on the frontal tests. We don't know yet how the new Elantra will fare, but the Spectra's scores aren't very good at all, especially for a car with six airbags.

spmrebel · October 2006

Why do you give both Mazda 3 and Sentra exceptions over Spectra when your list indicates that there both have ABS as options - exactly like Spectra. Remember that Elantra has recieved very poor IIHS scores back in 01, 02 and 03 because of misfirings of side impact airbags. Hyundai had to do this test over 3 times. Just because a car has all these safety features doesn't necessarily makes it the safest car. The body structure has a lot to do with also. This is something that Spectra and Elantra share.

backy · October 2006

Mazda3 and Sentra have active front head restraints standard. That is a valuable safety feature for protecting the neck in rear-end collisions. Elantra and Civic have this feature also. Spectra does not.

Just because a car has all these safety features doesn't necessarily makes it the safest car.

I agree. For example, note the poor IIHS side crash test scores on the Spectra even though it has standard side airbags and side curtains.

The Spectra and Elantra do not share the same body structure. Just by looking at them one can tell they are much different. The Elantra has been redesigned for 2007. So we'll need to see the crash test results on it before making judgments on its crash-worthiness.

backy · October 2006

How does the power of the current economy cars stack up? Here's the weight-to-power ratios for most of the cars in the class; remember that the LOWER the number (in pounds per hp) the better. All cars are 2007 models except the Jetta, Forenza, and Spectra, and all are automatics with the base engine if more than one is offered:

Car / HP / Curb Weight (lbs.) / Weight/power

Mazda3i Sport / 148 / 2811 / 18.99
Civic LX / 140 / 2751 / 19.65
Focus S / 136 / 2706 / 19.90
Elantra SE / 138 / 2747 / 19.91
Spectra / 138 / 2767 / 20.05
Corolla LE / 126 / 2615 / 20.75
Sentra S (CVT) / 140 / 2951 / 21.08
Forenza / 126 / 2736 / 21.71
Cobalt / 148 / 3216 / 21.73
Jetta / 150 / 3285 / 21.90

Class average: 20.57

The "champ" is the Mazda3i due to its relatively light weight and powerful engine--tied with the Cobalt for 2nd most powerful in the class. The Jetta has the most powerful engine but also weighs the most.

Of course, there are other factors to straight-line performance, such as torque and gearing. But as these numbers show, having more power isn't everything.

moparbad · October 2006

Isn't ECONOMY more important in economy cars than HP?

How does the fuel economy stack up?

snakeweasel · October 2006

Economy doesn't always boil down to gas mileage. Some people want as much acceleration for as little cost as possible.

comp386 · October 2006

Actually for most people Weight/Torque is a better measurement. Torque is what actually accelerates your vehicle not horsepower. Horsepower is more of a speed measurement that comes into play at higher RPMs. Higher HP means higher torque at higher RPMs. Since few people redline their vehicles, especially with an automatic, you should really consider torque.

snakeweasel · October 2006

I agree with that its been said people buy HP but drive torque.

backy · October 2006

I agree that on an economy car, fuel economy is more important than power. From the EPA web site (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/) here's the order of EPA fuel economy, best to worst, with base engines and ATs/CVTs:

Civic 30/40
Corolla 30/38
Sentra (CVT) 29/36
Elantra 28/36
Focus 27/34
Mazda3i 26/34
Spectra 25/34 (2006)
Lancer 25/31
Aerio 25/31
Cobalt 24/32
ION 24/32
Forenza 22/31
Jetta 22/30

(I didn't include AWD models, e.g. Aerio AWD and Impreza, because AWD extracts a penalty for fuel economy and thus it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Note that the Elantra and Spectra are in the EPA Family Sedan class, while the others are in the Small Car class.)

So comparing the power and mpg lists, the Civic has the best overall blend of power and fuel economy, while the Forenza and Jetta are at or near the bottom of both lists.

backy · October 2006

Maybe you could give us the torque figures for these cars?

comp386 · October 2006

Car / Torque / Curb Weight (lbs.) / Weight/power

Jetta / 170 / 3285 / 19.32
Focus S / 136 / 2706 / 19.90
Spectra / 138 / 2767 / 20.05
Sentra S (CVT) / 147 / 2951 / 20.07
Elantra SE / 136 / 2747 / 20.20
Cobalt / 155 / 3216 / 20.75
Mazda3i Sport / 135/ 2811 / 20.82
Forenza / 131 / 2736 / 20.89
Corolla LE / 122 / 2615 / 21.43
Civic LX / 128 / 2751 / 21.49

Now we just needs weight/power/price :P. The Focus seems to be the best deal on that list. I got my Focus SE for 14,000 out the door.

backy · October 2006

Thanks for the stats. A couple of corrections: Spectra has 136 ft./lbs. of torque, same as the Elantra, so the Sentra and Elantra edge out the Spectra in weight/torque (Spectra's ratio is 20.35). Also the torque on the 2.2L Cobalt is only 152, so its ratio is 21.16, below the Forenza. Revised rankings:

Jetta / 170 / 3285 / 19.32
Focus S / 136 / 2706 / 19.90
Sentra S (CVT) / 147 / 2951 / 20.07
Elantra SE / 136 / 2747 / 20.20
Spectra / 136 / 2767 / 20.35
Mazda3i Sport / 135/ 2811 / 20.82
Forenza / 131 / 2736 / 20.89
Cobalt / 152 / 3216 / 21.16
Corolla LE / 122 / 2615 / 21.43
Civic LX / 128 / 2751 / 21.49

As for weight/power/price, you are kidding, right? But price is important also. The thing that makes it difficult to compare prices is that not everyone wants the same level of equipment, and some cars have more equipment standard (or optional) than other cars. So price is only meaningful when comparing cars equipped the way a particular buyer wants them.

Here's an interesting tidbit: what's the only car that's in the top four in all four lists above (safety, fuel economy, power, and torque)? The Elantra. No other car is even in the top 6 in all of the lists. Looks like the exterior curves on the Elantra aren't the only thing about that car that are "well-rounded".

herolet · October 2006

...people buy HP but drive torque.

Without RPM, torque means nothing. It's the combination of torque and RPM matters. The combination of torque*rpm divide by a constant number is HP.

A lot of people are confused by the torque on the flywheel and the torque they "feel" on the driving wheels.

When talking about engines, torque means nothing if the RPM is not mentioned at the same time. However, HP is different. It's the combination of borh RPM and torque. 200HP@8000rpm or 200HP@5000rpm will accelerate the same car about the same fast (suppose the trasmittion is optimal, and if you could bear with the engine noise). However, 300ft.lb@2000rpm and 300ft.lb@4000rpm are totally different. Or 300ft.lb@2000rpm and 150ft.lb@4000rpm would do about the same thing.

HP is not a myth. It's the ultimate measurement how much work an engine can do within a given time period. Torque alone doesn't mean anything.

Most ancient windmill generates a few 1000 ft.lb of torque, but they can only rotate a few times per minutes, meaning, it doesn't do much work at all. They are torqueier than almost all car engines. But their output can barely match a scooter.

Economy Sedans (~$16k-$20k)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles