Hyundai Sonata 2006-2007

averigejoe

Automobile dealerships may use the loss leader tactic, offering a "1 only at this price" vehicle below cost in a newspaper ad. Potential buyers are usually told that the vehicle has been sold (which may or may not be true) and the salesperson then tries to sell another vehicle at a profit. The loss leader vehicle is never in a conspicuous place, and may even be on an off-site lot.

Under some jurisdictions, this is considered dumping and is illegal.

snakeweasel

Boy, you sure like to argue.

Not really but it does irk me a bit when someone starts to say that they didn't say what they actually said.

It's simple, the dealer has more money if he sells more at MSRP, so that dealer can afford to sell one really cheap once in a while. Ok?

yes it is simple if more people paid MSRP the more likely you are going to pay MSRP. If a dealer has people buying the car at MSRP then he would be a fool to sell it to you for 60% of that.

snakeweasel

Actually thats called bait and switch.

Dumping is selling at below market prices/cost to drive out competition.

A loss leader is an item sold at below cost in hopes that other things will be bought at the same time. Grocery stores will sell something like hot dogs at a loss and hope that those that buy the hot dogs buy hot dog buns at a normal mark up along with other groceries while they are there.

ergsum

Fc = mv2/r, where Fc = centrifugal force, m = mass, v = speed, and r = radius

The speed of the vehicle the projectile is thrown from does not apply to the speed of the projectile (plus or minus) only the speed of the rotating tire and the angle of release plus the added speed of the impacted vehicle (modified by the impact angle) = damn fast.

averigejoe

I said what I said, and you misquoted me more than once.
We are both guessing about what a dealer may or may not do and why. Our guesses are different. So what?
And I like those (foolish?) dealers I bought from. I don't really much care why they sold to me for a low price.

snakeweasel

However that only applies to when a tire is spinning. If it is not spinning its speed in relation to the ground it is touching is O MPH. A point on the tire where it is touching the road is not moving in relationship to the road it only moves in relationship to the road after it breaks contact with the road.

Again unless you are spinning your tires the "projectiles" don't have much force behind them.

snakeweasel

I said what I said, and you misquoted me more than once.

I never misquoted you, I may have paraphrased you with the actual quote afterwards. But I never misquoted you.

I don't really much care why they sold to me for a low price.

Mainly because the cars are sold at a low cost to begin with. That supports my claim that its the market that directs the price.

averigejoe

Take it up with Wickipedia.

averigejoe

Here are two quotes from what you posted about my posts:

1. "At first you said that that more people paying MSRP will allow you to get a better deal (or allow the dealer to price it lower)."

2. "You said that if everyone would you could buy at well under MSRP"

I did not say either of those, even though you posted that I did. I call that misquoting. I guess you don't.

snakeweasel

If you mean Wikipedia I would not use them as a reference.

If you doubt me just stand along side a gravel road and watch it from a stationary position.

averigejoe

No, I think you know your rocks, but are only guessing about car dealers.

snakeweasel

You strongly implied it.

What you said was the same thing that you just posted. It may not be word for word, but it is what you said.

averigejoe

No implication from me.
Read the words. Don't draw unwarranted inferences.
Don't assume. Lots of people do, but that does not make it right.

snakeweasel

Read the words. Don't draw unwarranted inferences.

I did you said:

"And besides, if more people pay full boat, then the dealer can more easily afford to sell me a new one every once in a while for less than 60% of MSRP."

You are saying that just because someone pays more the dealer can afford to sell to you for less which implies that you can get a better deal if others pay more.

averigejoe

Nope, sorry. You are adding words and meanings I did not state. Use a dictionary.
And, I take it back about you knowing your rocks, too.
If a car runs over a rock with a tire rotating fast enough to carry that car down the road at 70 mph, the tire IS going to throw, or "squirt" that rock out behind the car, and maybe at a "damn" fast velocity too.
Remember, that tire contact patch which eventually contacts the rock on the road IS moving very fast in relation to the rock at the moment the tire first and last contacts the rock. That is why the rock is thrown/squirted back at high speed.
Of course, the speed of that car behind is also a factor on how much damage will be done by that thrown rock.

snakeweasel

Oops thats the trouble with more than one conversation going on at once.

But looking at what they have for loss leader:

"One use of a loss leader is to draw customers into a store where they are likely to buy other goods. The vendor expects that the typical customer will purchase other items at the same time as the loss leader and that the profit made on these items will be such that an overall profit is generated for the vendor."

Not to possible for a car dealer to do.

Bait and switch:

"A bait and switch is a form of fraud in which the fraudster lures in customers by advertising a good at an unprofitably low price, then reveals to potential customers that the advertised good is not available but that a substitute good is."

Which is what a lot of car dealers do.

And dumping:

"a practice of charging a very low price in a market for such economic purposes as putting rival suppliers out of business."

snakeweasel

You are adding words and meanings I did not state

Nope sorry if you didn't mean it why did you say that "the dealer can more easily afford to sell me a new one every once in a while for less" Again the implication is that you can get for less when others pay more.

If a car runs over a rock with a tire rotating fast enough to carry that car down the road at 70 mph, the tire IS going to throw, or "squirt" that rock out behind the car, and maybe at a "damn" fast velocity too.

Remember that the portion of the tire in contact with the rock is not in motion as it is in contact with the rock. It only starts to move after it breaks contact.

Remember, that tire contact patch which eventually contacts the rock on the road IS moving very fast in relation to the rock at the moment the tire first and last contacts the rock. That is why the rock is thrown/squirted back at high speed.

I reality it is slowing down at a considerable pace until it makes contact. when it is in contact its not moving in relation to the rock.

If what you say is true then every gravel road would have few rocks with the exception of a very large pile at the beginning of the road as every car shoots all the rocks further back.

As I said stand alongside a gravel road when traffic goes by and see what it looks like from a stationary position. trust me I have been alongside such roads, I have been hit by those so called "thrown" stones. Trust me I have been hit harder by 8 year olds trowing stones.

averigejoe

Okay, so the terms are somewhat interchangeable.
Here's a quote from Wickipedia under loss leader specifically mentioning car dealers:

"Automobile dealerships also use this practice, offering a "1 only at this price" vehicle below cost in a newspaper ad. Potential buyers are usually told that the vehicle has been sold (which may or may not be true) and the salesperson then tries to sell another vehicle at a profit. The loss leader vehicle is never in a conspicuous place, and may even be on an off-site lot.

Under some jurisdictions, this is considered dumping and is illegal."

The practice in the quote refers to the topic loss leader in Wickipedia.

averigejoe

First, the reader does not get to dictate to the writer what the writer implied or did not imply. Give it up.
The reader only gets to draw inferences from what the writer wrote and/or guess what the writer was implying, if anything.
You as the reader may infer anything at all from what you read. I don't care. But in this writer's opinion, your inference is unwarranted because I did not imply it.

And as to the rocks, you are thinking, but you have it backwards. Your statement,
"...If what you say is true then every gravel road would have few rocks with the exception of a very large pile at the beginning of the road as every car shoots all the rocks further back..."
while indicating some correct thought about the tires and rocks, is exactly opposite of what is true.
Think again. If a gravel road is not maintained periodically, what you would see is that at the end of the gravel road, where the road becomes pavement or dirt, there would be a patch of previously gravelled road which would be devoid of rocks entirely for that lane of travel, at least for those portions of the lane which tires normally traverse. Why? Because the tires which passed over it squirted them all back a ways. And yes, the longer the road is not maintained, the longer that patch of bare, but previously gravelled road would become.
And why do 8 year olds hate you so much that they throw stones at you anyway? Or were they throwing at something else and were just bad in aiming?

snakeweasel

First, the reader does not get to dictate to the writer what the writer implied or did not imply. Give it up.

Actually in reality that is how communication works. If you don't want to say something be clearer and more careful with your words.

Because the tires which passed over it squirted them all back a ways.

yes but it takes a considerable amount if time. The way you are making it out to be that it would only take a very short time (maybe as little as 100 or so cars) to devoid an area or stones. The fact that it will take years supports what I have been saying. If what I am saying is rue the it will be the occasional rock that gets kicked up and would take a considerable time to clear a road.

If it were what you are presenting not only would the rocks get thrown back a hundred or more feet every time a car drives over the road but said car would get no traction at all until it removed all the stones then jerk ahead until it lost traction on the stones again. Thats not how it works.

Again the stones just pop out more from the weight of the vehicle than the rotation of your tires. Place a golf ball on the ground, place your foot to cover 1/3rd to 1/2 of it and then put your weight on it. The golf ball will pop out, thats the same way most of the rocks are "shot" back.

lightfootfl

MSRP ?? or additional ad on sheet ??? Basically, most people don't have any idea what the price of the car is, and the salesperson lies about it to get the most profit for the company (and self). Some folks have refused to go with the ad on sheet, and think they have really done something great when the seller drops to the msrp. So, that said, who knows where the "good price" falls? We can't let the poor dealership go out of business by not allowing them to make money, can we?? The dealer sells for whatever gives him a profit, if and when the deal strikes his fancy. :P :P Thank goodness we have this site to help us find out what we should be paying. We should all be grateful.

snakeweasel

MSRP ?? or additional ad on sheet ???

What I get a kick out of is people who say "I got it for $100 under invoice" but don't mention the extended warrantee, the mop and glow and the $350 Doc fee.

jal012773

I thought this was a forum about the Hyundai Sonata, not an interpretation debate. Move on!!!!

averigejoe

Beware!

Whether the Sonata is the best choice for the money depends on how you order your priorities.
What is most important to you? Consider everything and compare. Look at safety and convenience and luxury features, purchase price (or even MSRP), interior size, ease of driving, engine power, styling, fuel economy, warranty, quality of materials, fit and finish, noise/vibration/harshness, accolades from industry magazines and rating services, likely repair costs and resale value compared to purchase price.
Oops! It doesn't really matter what order those priorities are in. The Sonata wins any way.

Nevermind.

pat

is if we could just stick to the Sonata and leave off the personal comments. I'm thinking some of you will not be surprised to learn that some posts have been removed.

bhmr59

Hey, Snake, I'm not a scientist or an engineer, but how can A point on the tire where it is touching the road is not moving in relationship to the road it only moves in relationship to the road after it breaks contact with the road. mean the entire tire is not moving? Surely the whole tire has to be in motion.

Aren't you talking about an instant in time in which there is static contact (if that's the correct terminology) aka friction? In other words, an entire tire spinning at 40 mph is spinning at 40 mph even though for a brief instant one point of the tire is in a static relationship with the road. How many nano-seconds would that be? And at speeds other then 40 mph, what would the nano-seconds be?

Finally, if the tire is not spinning, how does that point on the tire move in relationship to the road?

backy

I don't know if the tires are or are not spinning. I know my head is spinning. :sick:

20nothing

I just wonder what is the difference between Sonata 2006 and 2007 models?

The only thing I noticed is that trims are renamed and some options are made available to the 2007 GLS model.

joe97

No major changes, some neat additions here and there, as this is only the 2nd year since introduction. Like you said, renamed trims and more flexiblity to play around with features/combinations.

herolet

...I take it back about you knowing your rocks, too.
If a car runs over a rock with a tire rotating fast enough to carry that car down the road at 70 mph, the tire IS going to throw, or "squirt" that rock out behind the car, and maybe at a "damn" fast velocity too.
Remember, that tire contact patch which eventually contacts the rock on the road IS moving very fast in relation to the rock at the moment the tire first and last contacts the rock. That is why the rock is thrown/squirted back at high speed.
Of course, the speed of that car behind is also a factor on how much damage will be done by that thrown rock

Please pardon my broken English. However, most high-school students should know how to calculate the possible speed throwing off the edge of a spining tire.

1. Let's talk about the maximum possible speed a stone can be throwed at the opposite direction of the car is heading to.

Suppose the car is moving East at 60MPH. The maximum speed (including direction) of the stone can travel is the speed of the outter edge of the tire, (We are talking about throwing-off the edge). Since we want maximum West speed of the stone. The launch point of the stone will be right at the ground level. And its initial speed would be exactly the 60MPH, respect to the tire. However, don't forget, the tire has been moving 60MPH east. So in repect to the road side, object, the stone would be standing still, at the most, in terms of the maximum speed to the West.

2. Let's talk about the maximum possible speed a stone can be throwed at the same direction of the car is heading to.

If you understood point 1). It's easy to figure out the maximum initial speed the stone can travel toward East (the same directory as the car travels), is 120MPH East, using the roadside object as referecne point.

3. Maximum height of the Stone: about 45 degree towards (60MPH) the Upper West. However, at this point, the horizontal speed is about 60/2MPH West - 60MPH East. Which means, its actually travel toward the same direction as the car moves.

Again, we are only talking about the Throwing Force off the edge of the tire.

So, there is no way, the stone would be thrown backwards, period!

Of course, the stone could be squeezed of the rear end of the tire off the ground.

Because the ground is not travelling, if the stone launches right off the ground, what ever speed it gets is the absolute speed, in respect to the road side object.

So, I guess snakeeweasel was right, it's that the following car hit the stone, not really the stone hits the car that follows, if we use the roadside objects as the reference point.

herolet

I meant the maximum distance between the launch point and where the stone lands. Not the maximum height.

miamixt

within a time frame of 18 Minutes or 980 seconds, I would just edit the first post, as we all know it must have been the maximum distance, and not the maximum height with the Sonata!.

pat

I think we are all about rocked out ... :sick:

Let's get back to the Sonata itself, please.

snakeweasel

In other words, an entire tire spinning at 40 mph is spinning at 40 mph

No wheels spin at a certain RPM, the axis of that wheel is moving 40 MPH. But for the wheel to rotate part of the wheel must be going slower than the wheel axis and part must be going faster.

Look at it this way, as you walk do both your feet move at the same speed as your body? No, one will be stationary on the ground as it moves you forward.

targettuning

At the risk of being stoned..I originally meant the ejection of a stone stuck in the tread of a tire not one picked up as one drove over it. That object will be slung out at a great velocity...think pitching machine at a batting cage...at 70 mph the tire is rotating at how many rpm?? 500 hundred? 800? less? more? whatever it is it is plenty enough to accelerate a stone to maybe 100 mph? then add the closing velocity of the following vehicle=instant stone chip. That was, and is, my point no current paint work on any common vehicle can withstand such a sharp hit without some damage.

mamamia2

...How about a stone thrown at an MSRP of an '07 Sonata?

I'm startin' getting bored here.

backy

Maybe what everyone is trying to say is that the Sonata rocks.

billward

I REALLY hate to get involved with this, but...

Targettuning, the TOP of the wheel is going at twice the speed of the axle, relative to the ground, but it's in a forward motion (i.e., toward the front). So, a car doing 70 would have the top of the wheel going forward at 140. The bottom of the wheel, making contact with the ground, is going 0. The point is, that YES a stone can be "thrown" due to friction between the stone and the tire (the trailing edge DOES start having motion relative to the ground as it moves toward the upper edge), but the "loft" is also strongly related to mechnical bounce (not to be confused with an engine, we're talking mechanical in the Physics sense). A stone doesn't have much physical bounce, but the rubber chips that folks use on childrens playsets (made out of shredded tires, no less) has huge chunks; if you ran over that, you'd have a huge spray behind you (like a motorboat... it's the same principle with the spray they throw up, literally.)

Now, can we talk about Sonata's and not argue over who needs to be hit with a rock?

Or we can let those folks duke it out, loser has to give me their Sonata along with the Pink Slip... sounds good to me!

reject1

Herolet, your #6495 post makes sense. Targettuning, take note:

RPM of a tire is not the same as the speed the tread is moving.
If it is not clear to you, you can calculate it by using the circumference of the tire and converting RPM into MPH. You will find that on a car travelling at 60 mph, the tire tread speed is also 60 mph, regardless of the size of the tire.
Of course, the rpm of a smaller circumference tire would be greater than a bigger tire, but the tread speed of both would be 60 mph.
However, as was pointed out long ago in previous posts deleted by our kind host, the tire's flexible rubber and tread design each has the ability to hold onto a rock momentarily or for a longer time. When the spinning tire "lets go" of the rock (actually it is when the inertia of the rock overcomes the frictional forces holding it to the rubber) the rock will be “thrown off” at some speed. The speed of the rock relative to the car cannot be greater than the speed of the tread/car, but may vary depending on how much of the rock's inertia is dissipated by various frictional sources.
The “throwing off” of the rock, relative to the tire, could be up, down, forwards or backwards depending upon which point during the tire’s revolution it separates from the rubber , except when the rock is trapped between the rubber and the road.
But, relative to the road, since the rock is already moving at an average speed of 60mph in the same direction as the car, the “throwing off” of the rock could be only in a direction other than opposite to the car’s direction of travel. That is, the rock could not be “thrown” backwards from the car at all, but would always have at least a small forward component to its direction. Those frictional forces mentioned above, even the smallest ones, would prevent the rock from going backward. If the rock were “thrown” in the same direction as the car’s travel, then the speed of the rock relative to the road would be greater than 60 mph, even approaching 120 mph.
So, it seems to me, that from unfendered semi-trailer tires on a rig travelling 60 mph, a rock could be “let go” towards the sky at speeds between 0 and 60 mph in the verticle. The rock’s verticle speed would never be as great as 60 mph though. And those rocks “thrown off” in other directions could bounce off of something and become missiles hazardous to following cars. And those cars’ speeds would have an effect on how much damage would be inflicted by hitting the rocks.
(The above ignores the slight slippage of the drive wheels on the road which causes the speed of the tire tread to very slightly exceed the mph of the car.)

reject1

Ahh, but the pitching machine is not travelling along at 70 mph at the same time it is spitting the balls out behind it, right?

targettuning

Geez...I give. All I know is that my windshield AND my bumper AND the leading edge of the hood get beat up despite my best efforts at leaving a proper, or large as possible anyhow, distance between me and the guy in front. Ideally, I prefer to be in front of at least the truck trailers and gravel hauling construction vehicles. Too everyone involved...thanks for the physics lessons though. I'll probably feel better that the next time I hear the thud of a piece of thrown road debris impacting my glass or paintwork it probably isn't traveling as fast as I once thought!! Seriously though, thanks to all those who responded even though the point of my original post was that paintwork cannot stand up to a stone hit at speed...yeah I did bring up stone speed and for the answer thanks. Once again the old dog has learned something new.

samiam_68

You people have left no stone unturned :sick:

You should start a separate thread - I almost forgot that this is the Sonata thread :confuse:

johnap2

Pat,

Do you think you could delete all these posts about the stupid rock thing? It is making it really hard to find anything actually pertaining to the Sonata!

pat

Please!!

We need to get back to the Sonata and further posts on this topic will be removed.

Thank you.

mamamia2

It's actually a NICE exchange of technical ideas and opinions, and if I was an engineering student -- I would have enjoyed it much....

But, hey, enough is enough.

inuvik

I hate to sound like a party pooper, but the whole "stone wars" saga has really gone on too long. My question is this: Does anyone own a 2007 Sonata with the I-4 with the 5-speed transmission? I'm interested in anyone's comments that actually owns one, I am considering a 2007 5-speed with the sport package. Cheers

targettuning

Actually it did start with someone complaining that Sonata paintwork was fragile and susceptable to chips. I pointed out that it is pretty much standard to have damage with a s**** hit and the conversation evolved from there. If you are adverse to learning something new skip all the above s**** velocity posts. It may have been off topic but not stupid.

pat

I don't think anyone said it was stupid. We just said it is past time to let it go and get back on topic.

Who has an I-4 five-speed and can help out inuvik?

mamamia2

You must mean 5-speed MANUAL, right? Or does the '07 I-4 come now with 5-speed AUTO???

inuvik

Yes, the 5-speed manual transmission. :surprise: