I traded in my Jeep Wrangler for a new 2007 Hyundai Sonota GLS 4cyl back in June 2007. I was very pleased with what i got on the trade and the car was only $14,300 nicely equipped. In town im getting mid 20's MPG but on the Highway is were this really shines...im getting 33+mpg. I just came back from a 800 mile round trip including driving on the beach and stop and go in the beach community...7 hour hike each way. Overall i got 30MPG but on the highway 33mpg easy even in a headwind....I never thought i would own a Hyundai...a guy at work had one for 3 years and raved about it so i gave it a try...glad i did...this is a keeper.......
If your reseting your MPG on each fill up this is why its reading this way. Its an average over the tank of gas or until you reset the guage. Mine does the same thing...When i fill up its just off the highway and when i reset and hit the highway its mid and one time even 50MPG..i was coasting downhill, lol....but by the end of the tank depending if ive driven more Highway or more city ive had an average range from 22MPG a tank to 30+mpg...just keep that in mind...overall 30MPG on my 4 day trip last week...very happy with the results...and the car..so smooth, quiet and comfortable....
Looks like I'll be around 27-28 mpg on my first tank ever on my 2009. I'm gonna hit probably 450 miles driven before even filling up. That's pretty impressive since at best I'm about 60/40 city/highway too. Amazingly better than expected, and I hope it stays that way.
500 mile + fillups are common for my car. Most of the mileage I put on my 06 GS is on the highway. The most recent fuel stop was 547 miles @ 16.9 gallons.
jim1299-I wanted to ask you if I missed it in your previous posts - What kind of mpg are you getting in the city with the v6? what is your best in the city? Thanks.
Earlier on in this thread there was some discussion about breaking in "like you intend to keep it" vs breaking in "like you stole it".....
Well, way back in the day before the EPA took over engine design parameters, there were two philosophies that "Street/ Strip" enthusiasts had for their bracket drag racing/ street engine rebuilds. One, was build a tight engine like the factory, the other a "clearanced" engine. The clearanced engine would already have the clearances a "broken in" engine would have.
For a clearanced engine, for, say, a 455 Buick {my personal experience}, instead of .002 inch clearance, piston to cylinder wall, you might have .005 inch. Instead of .001 clearance on main and rod bearings, you might have .002. {You might have to have see to it that the oil volume was increased over stock, but that's another story}......
Those that believed in "tight" rebuilds, generally broke their engines in slow and easy. Those {like me} that believed in a "loose" engine, broke them in hard and fast....
I can't tell you which worked best, I can tell you that I had great experienced doing it "run it like you stole it" with "clearanced" engines.......Both power and acceleration, in the 1/4 mile, and getting reasonable mileage while using the car for daily driving......
Since the Hyundai engines are supposed to be on the tight side that the industry builds these days, I didn't really break in my GLS V6 "like it was stolen". I did give it two full throttle bursts to get a feel for things.......
Currently, city driving is 20.3 mpg, highway a bit over 30.......
Thanks! That bit of information is very good to know. When I was a State Trooper, we all had different theories on how to break in the new vehicles. Mostly we drove them like we stole them, but brake fade was always a real concern.
When it comes to bad mileage, most often its considered either the driver, or the driving conditions that are at fault..... I don't really believe that... if you look at the longterm 2006 Sonata test, you have professional drivers comment on the bad mileage of their test car........
Of course, to offset that, you have folks, like the gent earlier in this thread, who complained about mileage at 90 mph.
But..... today, there's no warranty or guarantee on the mileage an individual car might have. The warranty is on emissions, not mileage. And if you look, you'll find some folks on every one of these boards that complain about mileage of the their purchase. Even if 90% of this is the driver or condtions, that still leaves a possible 10% that is the car.....
Back in the old days, when a person could tune his own car, there were three ways to tune it. By the "book", for economy, and for "performance". They weren't all the same.......
And, you could have tremendous tolerance differences in engines........ part of the reason that "blueprinting" an engine was moderately popular back then.......
Today, the manufacturing tolerances are tighter. But you also have a lot of electronic stuff happening... and there's some "tolerance" going on here too. And, the "tuning" spec is done at the factory...... and the tuning is done, to emission standards, not power standards, nor economy........
So, lets say something like an oxygen sensor isn't quite nominal in operation, but isn't "out" far enough to cause the engine light to come on, and the computer to record it........ If the sensors are a bit off, its possible to have either a rich condition, or a lean condition, and if the "emissions" are ok, a dealer's not going to change anything.
Of course, if your car is getting better mileage than average, you're probably not going to say anything......
But if your mileage is poor, you might not have any recourse, even it its the car. After all, its the emissions that will be checked once its hooked up at the dealer's. And if it checks out ok there, the average tech won't believe there's anything wrong......
Other things besides the electronics....... the transaxle might be "tight", the brakes might be tight, or just as likely {and more damaging to long run mileage}, the alignment might be off.
Usually its the driver, or the driving conditions.......... but when professional drivers point out poor mileage, you almost have to consider that there might be something "off" about that individual car.........
Good post. I always chuckle when someone posts that they have always achieved the EPA mpg numbers with previous cars on a given road course and now they are getting 5-8 under the EPA numbers on the same route. The reason I chuckle is when all the "know it alls" come back and ask how they drive or tell them it is probably how they drive that is causing the problem.
Question: Does one usually totally change the way they drive just because they got a different car? Usually I drive a new car a little easier for awhile but that's me. If they have gotten good mileage from other cars and say they are driving the same, why do all these people assume "oh, you must be driving crazy". Maybe it is the car that is off.
I think we need to give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes.
I'm actually getting better mileage since I got my new car. I'm used to doing things in a pretty economic manner already, so it's not like I'm going to change into an aggressive driver suddenly. Also it's breakin period, so who would drive it hard? I guess crazy people do
Roger that. People usually drive a new car easier. One, for break in. Two, just because there being a little more careful with their baby and now, Three, GAS PRICES!
I guess I am one of those "know it all" persons who puts most of the blame for "poor" fuel economy where the foot meets the accelerator. Of course, the driver is more likely to be at fault than the car. Oh sure we can go on forever pointing out lousy maintainence, low tire pressure, misalignment, etc etc. to blame on the vehicle but all things being equal and if we are talking about a new car it IS the driver that makes the most difference. Your post was prefaced by the "fact" that professional automobile magazine testers/drivers got poor fuel economy for a long term Sonata test. Consider this, much of the time those testers drive vehicles like the stole them, they do not pay for the fuel (the magazine expense accounts do) and they do not own the vehicle so do you think it is likely they are driving economically like many drivers (not all) are doing, especially now? nope! I always note the average fuel economy is much lower for ANY vehicle Car&Driver tests than when I happen to rent the same car and drive it myself. You make much over slightly "bad" sensors that may be possibly causing problems but I will tell you that the self diagnostics on any new car is so sensitive to malfunction that it can count individual sparkplug misfires and if they exceed a predetermined number the "check engine light illuminates...this was the level of technology on our 2000 Hyundai Elantra. One can only imagine at what level a 2008 car operates so for some part, sensor or otherwise, to "slightly" fail and go unnoticed by the onboard diagnostics is unlikely. Modern vehicles are more standardized than in the history of the motor vehicle. By that I mean each and every one is built to specs and computer controlled equipment sees to it they are within those specs. OK some guy on the line may hang a door crooked but engine and transmission management electronics see to it that car A operates like car Z without deviation. Sure, there are electronics failures from time to time but they tend to be hard failures and they sure let you know exactly what has happened. Finally with regard to "tight" assemblies, its called break-in! I know the luddites out there will decry all the technology as only something more to go wrong but think of the performance, driveability, safety, handling, low emissions, and fuel economy all made possible by technology. This "know it all" still believes the driver is #1 on the list with driving conditions close behind. Blame the car? maybe #15 or so.
This must be the shotgun approach to diagnosing mpg discrepancies. I totally agree that the driver is the most important aspect to mpg results in modern cars. My POINT was that when someone posts something like the following: 1. I have always achieved EPA(even the old ones) or better 2. I drive the same route, same weather, etc. etc. 3. I am getting 5-10 mpg less than the '08 EPA guidelines. 4. The dealer says there is nothing wrong.
there is always someone that comes back and asks how are you driving or it must be your type of driving.
If they just read the post and they still reply with something like that it means they believe original person is either lying or a numbskull. I am not pointing any fingers at any one particular person but it always seems there is somebody that replies like that and will not consider that there may be problem with the car. Most of the time it is the driver or conditions. But I was just stating that we should give people the benefit of having a brain.
I really don't have much disagreement with you, like you, I tend to believe that most of the time its the driver. Next most often is the driving conditions......
But.......
I'm a manufacturing guy. And...... I spent a lot of my mispent youth, after getting out of the Army in '72, hotrodding and rebuilding engines.....
So, I have a better understanding of tolerances and clearances than most.... particularly manufacturing tolerances.
Tolerances are tighter today, but the thing about "tolerances", is that there is some tolerance from nominal........
I didn't really go into sensors, but since you brought it up again, I thought I'd bring up some of my own experience. I have this 93 Taurus SHO, that has spent some of the last 4 years either being my daily driver, or part time driver. What I really liked it for, was the freeway use. There was a time four years ago, that I could drive from here to Portland Ore {I'm in Kent, WA}, and get over 34mpg at 70 to 75 mph. Now...... considering that the car was EPA rated at 16/26 when new, that should be impossible......
I failed an emission test with it, when that came up, and the fix was both oxygen sensors......
Next trip to Portland and back netted 28 mpg....... this was while weather was still warm enough that mileage wouldn't be affected by that....
Since then, three and a half years ago, the mileage has crept up again..... and the O2 sensors are definitely bad again {getting the cel light this time}. Mileage is over 32mpg. Needless to say, I'm not going to change them, until I fail the emission test again........
That is not to say, that when someone with a new 09 Sonata can't get better than 10 mpg on the freeway, that its the car. But my point is, that it might be..... and even if the odds are 25 to 1 against it, I think that we might give the individual some slack, at least until something gets checked......
The overwhelming majority of new cars are going to be real, real close in real world potential for performance, mileage or power {given the same model and equiptment}...... but there will be a few that don't make it, that's what we call lemons, and why we have lemon laws.
There's some pretty good reading on the Accord board. Take a look at the VCM stuff... is all that strictly the drivers? Or is it possible that there are a few, undiagnosed problem cars out there?
On another note.......... if you haven't already bought the I4 Sonata, I'd suggest the V6. The potential mileage of the two is real close, but someone with a hotrodder's soul will really appreciate living with the V6. I really like my GLS, and the acceleration "off the line" is such, that the SHO would have to have the guts to real it in from behind........ and I don't know that a 1/4 mile has enough room......
I believe any problems with a new-ish car in order to diminish fuel economy in a major way (e.g.8-10 mpg less than the new EPA estimates) must be large and easily detected by even the least mechanically inclined with the car running so poorly that virtually anyone could tell something was wrong. I try (try) to be diplomatic (up to a point) in replying in most cases when it comes to boasting/complaining about large fuel economy variations from the EPA, either way too high, or way too low, but frankly many people ahhh... enhance their actual economy for whatever reasons and sometimes a spade has to be called a spade. Yeah, they are lying or are misinformed about computing mileage, trying to stir up controversy here or some other reason . I am short on "benefits of the doubt" in some cases. I don't necessarily believe all I read on an open forum such as this and no one else should either.
"1. I have always achieved EPA(even the old ones) or better 2. I drive the same route, same weather, etc. etc. 3. I am getting 5-10 mpg less than the '08 EPA guidelines. 4. The dealer says there is nothing wrong.
Yeah....... part of my original point. I see too much of this, and too many other things to always come down on the side that it has to be the driver. There's an urban myth that manufacturing tolerances are such today that all mechanical parts and all electronic parts are all alike and all function alike......
Not exactly........ not yet.......better than anytime in our history maybe, but we're not perfect yet, and neither are our creations........
I'm with you on the enhanced mpg claims. I don't really reply to them as I think it is pretty much a waste of my time. It's hard to have a discussion with someone that thinks everyone else is gullible or is living in such a fantasy world that they actually believe their inflated claims.
I am also having a little problem with these hypermilers and the way they drive. I wanted to get into an empty right-turn-only lane the other day and this person in front of me took his foot off the gas way back from the intersection and coasted for a long time preventing me from being able to get into the right turn only lane. He was coasting to a red light but I could have pulled into the lane and turned before he was ever close to the intersection. I have had other cases where I have missed a "left turn on green arrow only" because of these "coasters".
I realize that everyone should try to conserve but not to the point of being totally inconsiderate to others.
I mostly agree with you again, targettuning.......
Many people do exagerate "online". Its easy, no one can see you, you're hiding behind computer screen. Some people lie and exagerate all the time, even when the truth will do, in person too........
But, not every story that varies from the "norm", is untrue. Take a couple things from earlier in this thread........
Guy claims that his earlier Accord got 30+ mpg at 90+mph. Claims to be really upset that his new Sonata can't do the same thing......90+ mph? I found this entertaining, but took it with a grain of salt......
Guy claimed to get 40 mpg with his Camry at 80.... in the Southwest. My opinion was again, grain of salt......... however, I can see that maybe this guy might have been close, but his engine would have to be running lean. And if his engine was running lean, on the freeway, I doubt it would pass emissions on that portion of an emissions test.
From experience, not everything that will cause you to fail an emissions test will be recorded........
I too had an SHO but mine was a 1989 and I bought it nearly new with only a couple of thousand miles showing. I kept it a few years but since we had two other more mundane cars for daily use and it was a garage queen I sold it. I don't think it had much over 20K miles when sold. I always marveled at its V-6 performance having owned several 60's and 70's muscle cars. It felt the equal to a couple of them and I distinctly remember running ahead of some type of contemporary (1988-89) Camaro up to and past 110 mph from a 50 mph roll-on on one occasion. I didn't keep track of fuel economy back then but maybe it got 24-25 mpg with my sometimes heavy foot. Nice car and quick for its time but I guess as you say V-6 Sonata's, Accord's, Camry's and Maxima's would pretty much destroy it today.
The trend of current cars to get worse MPG than the cars of 7-10-15 years ago is due to stricter emissions regulations, particularly NOx. In order to reduce NOx, an engine needs to be biased towards running a richer mixture than is really needed to just move the car from point A to point B.
Older cars would run leaner than the cars today. Case in point - older cars were much more prone to engine ping, where as today, no new car will ever knock because the computer always adjusts the mixture to the rich side.
What the brilliant folk in our government DON'T realize though, is that by lowering MPG through emission rules, they are causing overall more pollutants to enter the atmosphere.
No, they will never ping because the knock sensor will communicate with the engine management computer to adjust the timing to compensate for the brief time ping/knock is evident. Any rich or lean mixtures would cause the oxygen sensors to make the mixture more rich OR lean it via small variable voltage changes in response to the air/fuel ratio in the exhaust gasses. These small voltage changes get sent to the engine management computer (the ECU) thus keeping the mixture as stable as possible so having a "too rich" or "too lean" mixture isn't even possible if the O2 sensors are operating as designed that is, not worn out or damaged. Further, I don't believe the trend is worse fuel economy than old cars but better economy coupled with much less pollution. This is great, check how many cars are ULEV, SULEV, and PZEV and this isn't an increase in emissions. Take my word for it these initials mean emissions are now minimal to in the case of PZEV practically zero. These new cars are ingesting dirtier (more polluted) air through the intake than measured at the exhaust. How is it that the intake air is more polluted? Well, there are still lots of 7-10-15 year old cars on the road polluting as I type.
Actually PZEV emissions aren't much different from SULEV, not to say they aren't great. Also I don't see any MPG differences between a PZEV certified car vs a non-PZEV car of the same type. This leads me to believe emissions isn't a major cause of mileage drop.
No, target, you are incorrect. ECU's have been around since the 80's, the pinging was completely eliminated from cars only in the last 4-5 years due to reduced NOx regulations. The only way to get rid of NOx is to slightly enrich the mixture. Prior to the NOx rules, the ECU would tune the timing for optimal MPG, which would cause the engines to sometimes ping on long uphill stretches. Now, the ECU tunes the mixture richer so that the very same condition does not result in higher NOx, but at a cost of MPG.
Let me suggest something to you: if you do not believe what someone else has posted, just post your contrasting information. It is not up to you to imply (or outright state) that someone else is lying, but it is helpful if you post what your experience is.
Otherwise, the thing to do is just skip the post, as a previous member has said he does. It doesn't do anything for anyone to get into a "no you didn't", "yes I did" exchange with the original poster which is really the only where to go if you're gonna say or imply "no you didn't".
Anyway, like I said, we've gotten off topic. Let's get back to reporting the actual MPG you are seeing in your Sonata.
Actually, would you believe you're both correct? The uhh, timing thing has been with us since at least the mid-90s... the SHO for instance, its recommended that unleaded premium be used. But you can run unleaded regular just fine {though you don't have the same power}, because the computer will adjust the timing.....
Once upon a time, back in the 60's, mainstream V8s for the coupes and sedans of the time {made in the USA} generally had compression ratios of 10 to 1, up to 10.5 to one. Higher {11 to 1} in some of the specialty performance engines. By 72, in order to run unleaded, most of the mainstream engines had compression ratios of 8.5 to 1. Power was down, mileage really took a hit.
With the advent of unleaded premium, we started seeing some 10 to 1 engines again, and more power. Mileage got to where it is now, because engine design and car weights were designed around that...........
Really, up to '07, mileage hasn't increased much if any in the "fleet" from the mid 90's. Horsepower and torque are up, but so are car weights. All things considered, particularly with, say, the midsize segment of the fleet having gained around 300lbs, the mileage of the current stuff ain't bad...........
And you're right........ getting rid of NOx caused a hit for potential mileage too......
Yeah, mine is approaching garage queen status. For this summer at least, I'm going to keep it to establish baselines for the 08 GLS V6.
My driving conditions aren't optimum for mileage. My previous ride, a 94 Sable {3.8} averaged around 18.5 mpg during the better months of the year {90% city, 10% highway}. The SHO manages 21... { a dismal 15.5 during the winter though}.
As the GLS breaks in, the mileage has improved. I want a couple more fillups, but it appears to have caught the SHO's average summer's mileage. If it has, I'm really a happy camper. For mixed driving, I'd be really, really happy to get 22 to 23 mpg in the long run......
My first tank was slightly over 24mpg (calculated 24.4). The car's computer was almost dead on, too. I'm currently averaging 25.6mpg, according to the computer, on my second tank. This is in mixed driving. Very happy!
It's a huge improvement over my 6.0ltr Trailblazer SS. It averaged 14mpg on premium. I miss the power, though.
Bought the car a month ago. Just turned over a 1,000 miles on it today actually. I have a 20 mile drive to work one way, so a total of 40 miles a day. My mileage has been like this:
1. When brand new until about 600 miles - I was getting about 26.5 mpg.
2. 600 miles to a 1,000 - Between 27.5 mpg and 28.5 mpg. I actually just got 28.5 on my way home from work today.
My driving style is very easy on the throttle. I take off very easy from red lights and I never exceed 55 mph on the freeway. I also plan well in advance of stops, coasting to a stop and applying light brake, instead of speeding right to the light and then slamming on my breaks. What's interesting is my driving style is exactly what Hyundai recommends in the manual to break in the engine, so unlike some people who find the break in period torture, it's just normal driving for me. Nothing will change after the engine turns over 1,200 miles. Especially not with these gas prices. My heavy throttle and 80 mph freeway days are over for good.
I'm hoping that in another 500 miles or so when the engine is fully broken in I'll see that 29 mpg advertised on the window sticker for freeway driving. I'm getting real close, and I believe I'm actually driving my car easier than the new EPA testing methods for 2008, so I should actually be doing better than 29 mpg eventually. A 249 hp V6 that gets 29 plus miles to the gallon and runs on regular unleaded, sign me up! Oh, wait a minute, I already did sign up, I own the car!
Since your main concern is fuel mileage, why did you opt for the V6 over the 4 cyl? The cost savings alone would have bought you a lot of gas. I'm also surprised your fuel mileage is that close to mine. I would think driving like you would make a much bigger difference than just 1 to 2 mpg. What brand of gas do you use?
"Since your main concern is fuel mileage, why did you opt for the V6 over the 4 cyl? The cost savings alone would have bought you a lot of gas. I'm also surprised your fuel mileage is that close to mine. I would think driving like you would make a much bigger difference than just 1 to 2 mpg. What brand of gas do you use?"
A big concern was gas mileage, it wasn't my main concern. My main concerns were buying a comfortable, safe, roomy, reliable, fun to drive sedan with all the bells and whistles. By bells and whistles I mean luxury features, and to that end I wanted the navigation system. I know you can get the navigation system with the four cylinder limited model, but the dealership did not have any on their lot. As a matter of fact they only had one 2009 in the entire dealership with the nav system, and it was sitting on the showroom floor. They had just gotten the car in about three days before I got there. I took a test drive and that was all she wrote, I knew the car would be mine. The difference in gas mileage between the V6 automatic and I4 automatic was not enough for me to make the dealership start looking all over the place to find one. I believe it's only about a two mile difference in the city and highway. Plus I like the power of the V6. Even though I'm not a lead foot driver anymore it doesn't mean I don't like having that power under foot for the rare occassions I may need it.
Speaking of mileage, I finally hit the magic 30 mpg today on my way to work. Yes!!! As the car continues to break in I'm hoping it goes higher than that. My ride is 30% city and 70% highway during my 20 mile one way drive. To get 30 mpg average with a V6 pumping out 249 hp is incredible. I am very, very happy with this car. That's better mileage than a lot of four cylinders are making these days.
YOU trust the ECU? Welcome to the club! Check, no make that calculate, your mileage when filling up. Instantaneous readouts can be off, way off, from actual. I'm sure you will be happy. 4 or 6 great MPG is attainable with this car. We all made a good decision.
Yes, I feel I made a great decision on my 2008 4 cyl. This Sonata reacts great in city or hwy. I still average about 27 mpg city and about 35-38mpg hwy. Thats going by the vehicles gauge. I never have checked my mileage manually. I really hope there's not a big dif. I want to believe the vehicle. Going for a road trip soon. I will be checking it manually then!
This sounds believable and that is about what I would expect all things considered (new car, EPA estimates for this car, and speeds driven). I am considering either a Sonata Limited I-4 or a maxed out with options Elantra. Truthfully I think I like the Sonata idea better.
Mileage so far and driving conditions: I'm averaging about an even 25 mpg with a lot of city and a few moderate highway trips. The highway is really saving me because I realize I have one of the worst mpg commutes around. The drive is a 5 mile distance with 3 stop signs, about 8 traffic lights, and one freeway exit over(which means accelerating to freeway speeds for only a mile). The worst of all worlds. Amazingly I still get the EPA estimated 22 city during the commutes. I think the car has done damn good with what it has to deal with. I wish I could give her better driving situations.
I'm in the I4, PZEV version at that. I bet if you did this crazy set of lights, you'd be around 20 mpg. It's almost impossible to optimize this route or avoid stops
Just bought my new sonata a month ago. I drive 40 miles a day each way to work semi highway (back country roads, mostly long stretchs of hills). Also car pool so I only drive 2 weeks a month . Only put gas in twice so far averaging 28 mpg. Hand calculations. A lot better than my Grand Cherokee with 17 mpg!
As I mentioned in post #422 here in April, http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef9e4c5/422 I intended to drive the same stretch of highway periodically with the car on cruise control at as close to the same speed as possible to gauge fuel efficiency as the engine breaks in, and as I switch to synthetic oil. At 1800 miles in mid-April, I got 32.5 mpg for my 10 mile test stretch, and as much as 34.9 mpg over my total 30 mile highway one way commute. My inbound leg (the one I'm measuring) may have some slight elevation drop helping to boost it's mpg rating, so I am only referring to it as a relative test vice absolute one. With that as background, today I re-ran the test as my car closed in on 6600 miles on the odometer. I was pleasantly surprised to get 34.3 mpg for the 10 mile cruise control stretch at an even 70 mpg, and an astonishing 36.9 mpg including the remaining 20 miles and heavier traffic with speeds from 50-70. Since I left work earlier than usual this afternoon coming home-- which meant heavy but moving traffic, as opposed to stretches of gridlock-- I measured the return (and presumably, uphill stretch) fuel efficiency as well. Driving through torrential rains and intermittent traffic congestion as well as using the wipers, headlights, and defroster, I still logged 30.6 mpg.
Even leaving aside the absolute accuracy of these mileage numbers, the relative performance of the car is now 2 mpg better at 6600 miles than it was at 1800, despite a 'textbook' break-in period (liberal use of the Shiftronic paddle, and lots of engine unloaded deceleration) for the first 1200 miles as nominally specified by Hyundai. Other factors that are relevant to the improved fuel efficiency are my switch to 0W-20 synthetic oil (at 4800 miles) and my routine use of a fuel additive/injector cleaner.
When I went on a 350 mile continuous drive last month at speeds averaging in the low 70's (had a tight deadline to meet...), I averaged 32.1 miles for the first 100, 31.4 for the first 200 (which included some toll plazas and heavier traffic,and 30.4 for the full 350 miles (which included a couple of dozen miles of secondary roads with traffic lights). The on-board computer estimated my range as 550 miles, which seemed realistic, based on my refueling.
Have been averaging ~25mpg tank to tank, which is a realistic drop from pure highway mileage stats given the amount of in-town driving I do on the weekends. Regardless, I'm very happy with the fuel efficiency of the '09 Sonata's V-6, especially on the highway. It seems to handily beat the revised EPA estimate, and comes close to what Hyundai was citing for the new 4 cylinder Sonata. Has anyone gotten a good set of numbers for a 4-cylinder '09 that's well beyond it's break-in period? Am curious to see if those engines are beating the estimated fuel efficiency as well. Jim
I'm not familiar with the above term. Could you explain? I'd like to hear what the 09 I4 owners are getting too. I am still considering a Sonata and am on the fence on the V6 vs. I4. Your numbers are tempting. How would you describe your driving in general. I describe mine as 80% real easy going and about 20% in a hurry with fairly high revs and mostly suburban with occassional long trip. No heavy commuting with any gridlock ever.
As I understand it, an important part of the break-in for a new engine is to occasionally allow it to decelerate on its own (engine braking) from whatever maximum speed you are driving at to a dead stop. This can be done as you approach a traffic light-- or I have heard of folks doing it on a deserted country road (accelerating gently to 55mph, and letting the engine revs slow the car to a stop again). Supposedly this creates a higher vacuum in the cylinders, brings in more lubrication, and generates more load of the piston rings on a different part of the cylinder wall than during acceleration. (Or so I'm told). That's what I was referring to as 'unloaded' engine deceleration.
For about 800 miles of my break-in period I used the Shiftronic paddle to ensure that all five automatic transmission gears got some running time in the 2000-4000 rpm range (mostly 2-3K). I've heard this helps break in the transmission as much or more than the engine. I 'celebrated' by doing my first oil change at 1300 miles-- as soon as Hyundai's nominal break-in period was done. Continued to use conventional 'dino oil' until 4800 miles-- for any additional break-in benefit-- before switching (for good) to the more slippery and better lubricating synthetic.
Today's mileage for the same run as yesterday was 35.3 for the 10 mile cruise control stretch (I might have had cruise set at 69.5 mph, vice 70+ since it's hard to be precise). Oddly, the remaining 20 miles of my commute -- when I consciously 'babied' the engine (other than a couple of hard braking episodes from traffic) netted me a cumulative 30 mile total (36.2 mpg) less than the previous day's! Obviously there's still some variability at play even when using cruise to try to equalize things. (I'd filled the gas tank from yesterday to today, but wouldn't think 14 gallons of gas-- 120 lbs-- would account for the difference-- much less why today's measured stretch of the commute was *better* with the full tank!)
In answer to your query about driving pattern, by mileage my miles are probably 90%+ highway (60+ miles of a 70 mile daily commute by distance, with more around town miles in the evening and weekends) with half on a road rated at 65 mph but where traffic moves at 70+. Due to childcare issues I've been doing both ways in the height of rush hour; will try to get back to my 'time shifted' schedule where both ways can be done at off-hours once summer comes. Would like to see the mileage stats for that. If you look at driving time-- not distance-- I probably spend 75-80% of my time commuting on the highway, with the remainder broken down evenly between city/suburban and 'East Coast country secondary' roads (45mph w/traffic lights every mile or less).
If you're trying to choose between engines, another factor to consider is reliability. By Consumer Reports history, the I-4 Sonata engine is well above average in terms of reliability and maintenance, while the V-6 is just a bit above 'average'. Given the perfectly acceptable performance of the '09 I-4, had I known this I'd have taken another look-- or even two-- at the I-4 before opting for a V-6 in my commuter car. That said, the V-6 exceeds my expectations -- I just wonder if the new II I-4's are doing likewise. If I'm pushing 35 mpg in a V-6 at 70mpg, I wouldn't be surprised to see an I-4 breaking 40 mpg on straight highway runs at 55 mph. (Heck, whenever I get a chance to run on cruise control on a 55mph road for an extended period, I'll eager to see what even the V-6 can do!) Jim
Thanks a lot. I kind of figured that's what it meant but to be honest I've never heard of it being an integral part of engine/tranny breakin. Don't think I've ever read it in any of the manuals I've had for new cars over the years but it does kind of make sense. I'm leaning towards the I4 at this point. My '07 Mazda6 has the four and it moves along fine. I have a Tundra with a V8 if I want to burn some rubber.
I just bought an 09 Sonata 4 cylinder last week. filled up a half tank and it averaged 26 mpg on in town driving. we drove from OKC to Tulsa and back. average speed was 78 on the highway and used cruise control. MPG was 27. I was very disappointed but i have read on other forums that the MPG gets better as the motor gets broke in. i only have about 550 miles on the car so far. hopefully my MPG average will get better. i will start driving 76 miles a day to work and back in august and it is all highway except for 8 miles. my speed will probably average about 60 so i am really hoping for thirty plus, then.
As my odometer reading closes in on 8000 miles, my commute has changed a bit, and now I find myself covering an 11+ mile stretch of highway that is lightly traveled and heavily policed. A perfect venue for seeing how my Sonata performs at 55mph, instead of 'normal commuting speed' (65-75mph).
From my previous posts, a mix of one 10 mile@70mph on cruise control followed by 20 miles at 60+ without cruise was netting me mileage computer yields approaching 35mpg. Driving on this 'new' stretch of road, in the 'downhill' direction (the road is typical interstate, but I think it *may* have a slight drop in altitude from one end to the other so I'll term them 'uphill' and 'downhill'), I have averaged 37mpg, with one run of 37.9 The other direction has consistently been between 36 and 37mpg-- with the best mileage coming during a heavy rainstorm when I had wipers, headlights, and some use of the defogger. All of the 'uphill' runs have occurred with the AC on, since this is the East Coast in high summer.
I'm using 0W-20 synthetic oil and my favorite fuel additive. Will do my next experiment on a tank w/o the fuel additive, to see what change if any this makes. While it is tough to compare the 70mph and 55mph cruise control segments I've logged because they are different stretches of road, I am a bit surprised that the magnitude of the fuel economy increase at 55mph is not greater (~3mpg or so). Regardless, I am tickled pink to be averaging 36-37 mpg when I have the discipline (and open road conditions) to run at 55mph on cruise control. Sounds like on a relatively level interstate trip in a lightly loaded V6 Sonata one could manage to log as much as 600 miles on a single tank of gas!
These cars are really capable of surprising fuel economy. Recently, I went 220 miles, mostly city {freeway was only 42 miles}, and the mpg was just over 27mpg. Still have not taken a pure highway trip, most of my driving is city, with lots of stop and go. Since the first tank {which was 15.7mpg}, have not had a fillup where it was less than 20 mpg, and I average a bit over 21 mpg with at least 90% city
38mpg sounds plenty normal. Remember the 32 mpg epa figure includes air conditioning and imperfect driving to make it realistic. You're heading more into the older epa standard of driving 55 and not braking. A hypermiler could probably parley this into 50+ mpg even. I get over 30 when driving my standard 70-75, so 38 at 55 sounds just as expected.
Sorry to tell you that 78 mph is the worst thing you could have done to your new Sonata. It would be worse yet if you maintained that as a constant speed during your trip to Tulsa, which the cruise control probably did quite effectively. Sadly, you only get to do the break-in once, so your Sonata may have suffered some permanent deterioration.
The tenets of engine break-in are to continuously vary vehicle speed, never staying at the same speed for long periods. Gentle acceleration is usually regarded as better than full-throttle, though there are some who say that occasional full throttle is actually beneficial to seating piston rings.
You should probably spend some time with your owner's manual to learn a little about break-in as well as proper maintenance. Oil level and tire pressure are especially important and should be checked at least monthly.
Incidentally, 78 mph won't get optimum mileage in any car. You'd probably pickup 4-5 mpg by keeping it down to 60-65 mph, based on my experience.
I would like to hear comments on use of 100% synthetic oil in 2009 GLS I4 manual. In speaking with service techs, they recommend changing every 3,750 miles and using only Hyundai filters. (his reason for this had to do with the anti back-flow valve on the Hyundai filters doing a better job of keeping oil in the upper reaches of the engine and lessening valve knock upon startup)
When I told him my thoughts about using syn & going every 7,500 miles, he commented that the filters really weren't designed to go that long. But if that's the case, why would manufacturer show 7,500 mi oil change interval for "normal" driving conditons?? :confuse: I know that several manufacturers market an extended life filter specifically to use with their syn oils.
I live in Northern Maine where for about 6 months of the year, driving conditions could be considered normal, but winters can be brutal and 5-6 months long with extremely low temps. I'll put about 15,000 miles/year on the car. Based on that should I consider syn but stick with a more frequent oil change interval? Maybe 5,000 miles?? The last 3 cars I've owned, I've done dino oil & filter change every 4,000 miles and made out just fine.
Comments
Well, way back in the day before the EPA took over engine design parameters, there were two philosophies that "Street/ Strip" enthusiasts had for their bracket drag racing/ street engine rebuilds. One, was build a tight engine like the factory, the other a "clearanced" engine. The clearanced engine would already have the clearances a "broken in" engine would have.
For a clearanced engine, for, say, a 455 Buick {my personal experience}, instead of .002 inch clearance, piston to cylinder wall, you might have .005 inch. Instead of .001 clearance on main and rod bearings, you might have .002. {You might have to have see to it that the oil volume was increased over stock, but that's another story}......
Those that believed in "tight" rebuilds, generally broke their engines in slow and easy. Those {like me} that believed in a "loose" engine, broke them in hard and fast....
I can't tell you which worked best, I can tell you that I had great experienced doing it "run it like you stole it" with "clearanced" engines.......Both power and acceleration, in the 1/4 mile, and getting reasonable mileage while using the car for daily driving......
Since the Hyundai engines are supposed to be on the tight side that the industry builds these days, I didn't really break in my GLS V6 "like it was stolen". I did give it two full throttle bursts to get a feel for things.......
Currently, city driving is 20.3 mpg, highway a bit over 30.......
Of course, to offset that, you have folks, like the gent earlier in this thread, who complained about mileage at 90 mph.
But..... today, there's no warranty or guarantee on the mileage an individual car might have. The warranty is on emissions, not mileage. And if you look, you'll find some folks on every one of these boards that complain about mileage of the their purchase. Even if 90% of this is the driver or condtions, that still leaves a possible 10% that is the car.....
Back in the old days, when a person could tune his own car, there were three ways to tune it. By the "book", for economy, and for "performance". They weren't all the same.......
And, you could have tremendous tolerance differences in engines........ part of the reason that "blueprinting" an engine was moderately popular back then.......
Today, the manufacturing tolerances are tighter. But you also have a lot of electronic stuff happening... and there's some "tolerance" going on here too. And, the "tuning" spec is done at the factory...... and the tuning is done, to emission standards, not power standards, nor economy........
So, lets say something like an oxygen sensor isn't quite nominal in operation, but isn't "out" far enough to cause the engine light to come on, and the computer to record it........ If the sensors are a bit off, its possible to have either a rich condition, or a lean condition, and if the "emissions" are ok, a dealer's not going to change anything.
Of course, if your car is getting better mileage than average, you're probably not going to say anything......
But if your mileage is poor, you might not have any recourse, even it its the car. After all, its the emissions that will be checked once its hooked up at the dealer's. And if it checks out ok there, the average tech won't believe there's anything wrong......
Other things besides the electronics....... the transaxle might be "tight", the brakes might be tight, or just as likely {and more damaging to long run mileage}, the alignment might be off.
Usually its the driver, or the driving conditions.......... but when professional drivers point out poor mileage, you almost have to consider that there might be something "off" about that individual car.........
Question: Does one usually totally change the way they drive just because they got a different car? Usually I drive a new car a little easier for awhile but that's me. If they have gotten good mileage from other cars and say they are driving the same, why do all these people assume "oh, you must be driving crazy". Maybe it is the car that is off.
I think we need to give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes.
1. I have always achieved EPA(even the old ones) or better
2. I drive the same route, same weather, etc. etc.
3. I am getting 5-10 mpg less than the '08 EPA guidelines.
4. The dealer says there is nothing wrong.
there is always someone that comes back and asks how are you driving or it must be your type of driving.
If they just read the post and they still reply with something like that it means they believe original person is either lying or a numbskull. I am not pointing any fingers at any one particular person but it always seems there is somebody that replies like that and will not consider that there may be problem with the car. Most of the time it is the driver or conditions. But I was just stating that we should give people the benefit of having a brain.
I really don't have much disagreement with you, like you, I tend to believe that most of the time its the driver. Next most often is the driving conditions......
But.......
I'm a manufacturing guy. And...... I spent a lot of my mispent youth, after getting out of the Army in '72, hotrodding and rebuilding engines.....
So, I have a better understanding of tolerances and clearances than most.... particularly manufacturing tolerances.
Tolerances are tighter today, but the thing about "tolerances", is that there is some tolerance from nominal........
I didn't really go into sensors, but since you brought it up again, I thought I'd bring up some of my own experience. I have this 93 Taurus SHO, that has spent some of the last 4 years either being my daily driver, or part time driver. What I really liked it for, was the freeway use. There was a time four years ago, that I could drive from here to Portland Ore {I'm in Kent, WA}, and get over 34mpg at 70 to 75 mph. Now...... considering that the car was EPA rated at 16/26 when new, that should be impossible......
I failed an emission test with it, when that came up, and the fix was both oxygen sensors......
Next trip to Portland and back netted 28 mpg....... this was while weather was still warm enough that mileage wouldn't be affected by that....
Since then, three and a half years ago, the mileage has crept up again..... and the O2 sensors are definitely bad again {getting the cel light this time}. Mileage is over 32mpg. Needless to say, I'm not going to change them, until I fail the emission test again........
That is not to say, that when someone with a new 09 Sonata can't get better than 10 mpg on the freeway, that its the car. But my point is, that it might be..... and even if the odds are 25 to 1 against it, I think that we might give the individual some slack, at least until something gets checked......
The overwhelming majority of new cars are going to be real, real close in real world potential for performance, mileage or power {given the same model and equiptment}...... but there will be a few that don't make it, that's what we call lemons, and why we have lemon laws.
There's some pretty good reading on the Accord board. Take a look at the VCM stuff... is all that strictly the drivers? Or is it possible that there are a few, undiagnosed problem cars out there?
On another note.......... if you haven't already bought the I4 Sonata, I'd suggest the V6. The potential mileage of the two is real close, but someone with a hotrodder's soul will really appreciate living with the V6. I really like my GLS, and the acceleration "off the line" is such, that the SHO would have to have the guts to real it in from behind........ and I don't know that a 1/4 mile has enough room......
2. I drive the same route, same weather, etc. etc.
3. I am getting 5-10 mpg less than the '08 EPA guidelines.
4. The dealer says there is nothing wrong.
Yeah....... part of my original point. I see too much of this, and too many other things to always come down on the side that it has to be the driver. There's an urban myth that manufacturing tolerances are such today that all mechanical parts and all electronic parts are all alike and all function alike......
Not exactly........ not yet.......better than anytime in our history maybe, but we're not perfect yet, and neither are our creations........
I am also having a little problem with these hypermilers and the way they drive. I wanted to get into an empty right-turn-only lane the other day and this person in front of me took his foot off the gas way back from the intersection and coasted for a long time preventing me from being able to get into the right turn only lane. He was coasting to a red light but I could have pulled into the lane and turned before he was ever close to the intersection. I have had other cases where I have missed a "left turn on green arrow only" because of these "coasters".
I realize that everyone should try to conserve but not to the point of being totally inconsiderate to others.
Many people do exagerate "online". Its easy, no one can see you, you're hiding behind computer screen. Some people lie and exagerate all the time, even when the truth will do, in person too........
But, not every story that varies from the "norm", is untrue. Take a couple things from earlier in this thread........
Guy claims that his earlier Accord got 30+ mpg at 90+mph. Claims to be really upset that his new Sonata can't do the same thing......90+ mph? I found this entertaining, but took it with a grain of salt......
Guy claimed to get 40 mpg with his Camry at 80.... in the Southwest. My opinion was again, grain of salt......... however, I can see that maybe this guy might have been close, but his engine would have to be running lean. And if his engine was running lean, on the freeway, I doubt it would pass emissions on that portion of an emissions test.
From experience, not everything that will cause you to fail an emissions test will be recorded........
Older cars would run leaner than the cars today. Case in point - older cars were much more prone to engine ping, where as today, no new car will ever knock because the computer always adjusts the mixture to the rich side.
What the brilliant folk in our government DON'T realize though, is that by lowering MPG through emission rules, they are causing overall more pollutants to enter the atmosphere.
Further, I don't believe the trend is worse fuel economy than old cars but better economy coupled with much less pollution. This is great, check how many cars are ULEV, SULEV, and PZEV and this isn't an increase in emissions. Take my word for it these initials mean emissions are now minimal to in the case of PZEV practically zero. These new cars are ingesting dirtier (more polluted) air through the intake than measured at the exhaust. How is it that the intake air is more polluted? Well, there are still lots of 7-10-15 year old cars on the road polluting as I type.
Let me suggest something to you: if you do not believe what someone else has posted, just post your contrasting information. It is not up to you to imply (or outright state) that someone else is lying, but it is helpful if you post what your experience is.
Otherwise, the thing to do is just skip the post, as a previous member has said he does. It doesn't do anything for anyone to get into a "no you didn't", "yes I did" exchange with the original poster which is really the only where to go if you're gonna say or imply "no you didn't".
Anyway, like I said, we've gotten off topic. Let's get back to reporting the actual MPG you are seeing in your Sonata.
Thanks!
Once upon a time, back in the 60's, mainstream V8s for the coupes and sedans of the time {made in the USA} generally had compression ratios of 10 to 1, up to 10.5 to one. Higher {11 to 1} in some of the specialty performance engines. By 72, in order to run unleaded, most of the mainstream engines had compression ratios of 8.5 to 1. Power was down, mileage really took a hit.
With the advent of unleaded premium, we started seeing some 10 to 1 engines again, and more power. Mileage got to where it is now, because engine design and car weights were designed around that...........
Really, up to '07, mileage hasn't increased much if any in the "fleet" from the mid 90's. Horsepower and torque are up, but so are car weights. All things considered, particularly with, say, the midsize segment of the fleet having gained around 300lbs, the mileage of the current stuff ain't bad...........
And you're right........ getting rid of NOx caused a hit for potential mileage too......
Running lean does create the dreaded NOx.........
My driving conditions aren't optimum for mileage. My previous ride, a 94 Sable {3.8} averaged around 18.5 mpg during the better months of the year {90% city, 10% highway}. The SHO manages 21... { a dismal 15.5 during the winter though}.
As the GLS breaks in, the mileage has improved. I want a couple more fillups, but it appears to have caught the SHO's average summer's mileage. If it has, I'm really a happy camper. For mixed driving, I'd be really, really happy to get 22 to 23 mpg in the long run......
It's a huge improvement over my 6.0ltr Trailblazer SS. It averaged 14mpg on premium. I miss the power, though.
1. When brand new until about 600 miles - I was getting about 26.5 mpg.
2. 600 miles to a 1,000 - Between 27.5 mpg and 28.5 mpg. I actually just got 28.5 on my way home from work today.
My driving style is very easy on the throttle. I take off very easy from red lights and I never exceed 55 mph on the freeway. I also plan well in advance of stops, coasting to a stop and applying light brake, instead of speeding right to the light and then slamming on my breaks. What's interesting is my driving style is exactly what Hyundai recommends in the manual to break in the engine, so unlike some people who find the break in period torture, it's just normal driving for me. Nothing will change after the engine turns over 1,200 miles. Especially not with these gas prices. My heavy throttle and 80 mph freeway days are over for good.
I'm hoping that in another 500 miles or so when the engine is fully broken in I'll see that 29 mpg advertised on the window sticker for freeway driving. I'm getting real close, and I believe I'm actually driving my car easier than the new EPA testing methods for 2008, so I should actually be doing better than 29 mpg eventually. A 249 hp V6 that gets 29 plus miles to the gallon and runs on regular unleaded, sign me up! Oh, wait a minute, I already did sign up, I own the car!
A big concern was gas mileage, it wasn't my main concern. My main concerns were buying a comfortable, safe, roomy, reliable, fun to drive sedan with all the bells and whistles. By bells and whistles I mean luxury features, and to that end I wanted the navigation system. I know you can get the navigation system with the four cylinder limited model, but the dealership did not have any on their lot. As a matter of fact they only had one 2009 in the entire dealership with the nav system, and it was sitting on the showroom floor. They had just gotten the car in about three days before I got there. I took a test drive and that was all she wrote, I knew the car would be mine. The difference in gas mileage between the V6 automatic and I4 automatic was not enough for me to make the dealership start looking all over the place to find one. I believe it's only about a two mile difference in the city and highway. Plus I like the power of the V6. Even though I'm not a lead foot driver anymore it doesn't mean I don't like having that power under foot for the rare occassions I may need it.
Speaking of mileage, I finally hit the magic 30 mpg today on my way to work. Yes!!! As the car continues to break in I'm hoping it goes higher than that. My ride is 30% city and 70% highway during my 20 mile one way drive. To get 30 mpg average with a V6 pumping out 249 hp is incredible. I am very, very happy with this car. That's better mileage than a lot of four cylinders are making these days.
Average 33.5 at 65 mph with cruise control on.
Best in town so far around 24 and as low as 22.
I'm averaging about an even 25 mpg with a lot of city and a few moderate highway trips. The highway is really saving me because I realize I have one of the worst mpg commutes around.
The drive is a 5 mile distance with 3 stop signs, about 8 traffic lights, and one freeway exit over(which means accelerating to freeway speeds for only a mile). The worst of all worlds. Amazingly I still get the EPA estimated 22 city during the commutes. I think the car has done damn good with what it has to deal with. I wish I could give her better driving situations.
I intended to drive the same stretch of highway periodically with the car on cruise control at as close to the same speed as possible to gauge fuel efficiency as the engine breaks in, and as I switch to synthetic oil.
At 1800 miles in mid-April, I got 32.5 mpg for my 10 mile test stretch, and as much as 34.9 mpg over my total 30 mile highway one way commute. My inbound leg (the one I'm measuring) may have some slight elevation drop helping to boost it's mpg rating, so I am only referring to it as a relative test vice absolute one.
With that as background, today I re-ran the test as my car closed in on 6600 miles on the odometer. I was pleasantly surprised to get 34.3 mpg for the 10 mile cruise control stretch at an even 70 mpg, and an astonishing 36.9 mpg including the remaining 20 miles and heavier traffic with speeds from 50-70. Since I left work earlier than usual this afternoon coming home-- which meant heavy but moving traffic, as opposed to stretches of gridlock-- I measured the return (and presumably, uphill stretch) fuel efficiency as well. Driving through torrential rains and intermittent traffic congestion as well as using the wipers, headlights, and defroster, I still logged 30.6 mpg.
Even leaving aside the absolute accuracy of these mileage numbers, the relative performance of the car is now 2 mpg better at 6600 miles than it was at 1800, despite a 'textbook' break-in period (liberal use of the Shiftronic paddle, and lots of engine unloaded deceleration) for the first 1200 miles as nominally specified by Hyundai. Other factors that are relevant to the improved fuel efficiency are my switch to 0W-20 synthetic oil (at 4800 miles) and my routine use of a fuel additive/injector cleaner.
When I went on a 350 mile continuous drive last month at speeds averaging in the low 70's (had a tight deadline to meet...), I averaged 32.1 miles for the first 100, 31.4 for the first 200 (which included some toll plazas and heavier traffic,and 30.4 for the full 350 miles (which included a couple of dozen miles of secondary roads with traffic lights). The on-board computer estimated my range as 550 miles, which seemed realistic, based on my refueling.
Have been averaging ~25mpg tank to tank, which is a realistic drop from pure highway mileage stats given the amount of in-town driving I do on the weekends. Regardless, I'm very happy with the fuel efficiency of the '09 Sonata's V-6, especially on the highway. It seems to handily beat the revised EPA estimate, and comes close to what Hyundai was citing for the new 4 cylinder Sonata. Has anyone gotten a good set of numbers for a 4-cylinder '09 that's well beyond it's break-in period? Am curious to see if those engines are beating the estimated fuel efficiency as well.
Jim
and lots of engine unloaded deceleration
I'm not familiar with the above term. Could you explain? I'd like to hear what the 09 I4 owners are getting too. I am still considering a Sonata and am on the fence on the V6 vs. I4. Your numbers are tempting. How would you describe your driving in general. I describe mine as 80% real easy going and about 20% in a hurry with fairly high revs and mostly suburban with occassional long trip. No heavy commuting with any gridlock ever.
For about 800 miles of my break-in period I used the Shiftronic paddle to ensure that all five automatic transmission gears got some running time in the 2000-4000 rpm range (mostly 2-3K). I've heard this helps break in the transmission as much or more than the engine. I 'celebrated' by doing my first oil change at 1300 miles-- as soon as Hyundai's nominal break-in period was done. Continued to use conventional 'dino oil' until 4800 miles-- for any additional break-in benefit-- before switching (for good) to the more slippery and better lubricating synthetic.
Today's mileage for the same run as yesterday was 35.3 for the 10 mile cruise control stretch (I might have had cruise set at 69.5 mph, vice 70+ since it's hard to be precise). Oddly, the remaining 20 miles of my commute -- when I consciously 'babied' the engine (other than a couple of hard braking episodes from traffic) netted me a cumulative 30 mile total (36.2 mpg) less than the previous day's! Obviously there's still some variability at play even when using cruise to try to equalize things. (I'd filled the gas tank from yesterday to today, but wouldn't think 14 gallons of gas-- 120 lbs-- would account for the difference-- much less why today's measured stretch of the commute was *better* with the full tank!)
In answer to your query about driving pattern, by mileage my miles are probably 90%+ highway (60+ miles of a 70 mile daily commute by distance, with more around town miles in the evening and weekends) with half on a road rated at 65 mph but where traffic moves at 70+. Due to childcare issues I've been doing both ways in the height of rush hour; will try to get back to my 'time shifted' schedule where both ways can be done at off-hours once summer comes. Would like to see the mileage stats for that. If you look at driving time-- not distance-- I probably spend 75-80% of my time commuting on the highway, with the remainder broken down evenly between city/suburban and 'East Coast country secondary' roads (45mph w/traffic lights every mile or less).
If you're trying to choose between engines, another factor to consider is reliability. By Consumer Reports history, the I-4 Sonata engine is well above average in terms of reliability and maintenance, while the V-6 is just a bit above 'average'. Given the perfectly acceptable performance of the '09 I-4, had I known this I'd have taken another look-- or even two-- at the I-4 before opting for a V-6 in my commuter car. That said, the V-6 exceeds my expectations -- I just wonder if the new II I-4's are doing likewise. If I'm pushing 35 mpg in a V-6 at 70mpg, I wouldn't be surprised to see an I-4 breaking 40 mpg on straight highway runs at 55 mph. (Heck, whenever I get a chance to run on cruise control on a 55mph road for an extended period, I'll eager to see what even the V-6 can do!)
Jim
From my previous posts, a mix of one 10 mile@70mph on cruise control followed by 20 miles at 60+ without cruise was netting me mileage computer yields approaching 35mpg. Driving on this 'new' stretch of road, in the 'downhill' direction (the road is typical interstate, but I think it *may* have a slight drop in altitude from one end to the other so I'll term them 'uphill' and 'downhill'), I have averaged 37mpg, with one run of 37.9 The other direction has consistently been between 36 and 37mpg-- with the best mileage coming during a heavy rainstorm when I had wipers, headlights, and some use of the defogger. All of the 'uphill' runs have occurred with the AC on, since this is the East Coast in high summer.
I'm using 0W-20 synthetic oil and my favorite fuel additive. Will do my next experiment on a tank w/o the fuel additive, to see what change if any this makes. While it is tough to compare the 70mph and 55mph cruise control segments I've logged because they are different stretches of road, I am a bit surprised that the magnitude of the fuel economy increase at 55mph is not greater (~3mpg or so).
Regardless, I am tickled pink to be averaging 36-37 mpg when I have the discipline (and open road conditions) to run at 55mph on cruise control. Sounds like on a relatively level interstate trip in a lightly loaded V6 Sonata one could manage to log as much as 600 miles on a single tank of gas!
Jim
08 GLS V6.........
The tenets of engine break-in are to continuously vary vehicle speed, never staying at the same speed for long periods. Gentle acceleration is usually regarded as better than full-throttle, though there are some who say that occasional full throttle is actually beneficial to seating piston rings.
You should probably spend some time with your owner's manual to learn a little about break-in as well as proper maintenance. Oil level and tire pressure are especially important and should be checked at least monthly.
Incidentally, 78 mph won't get optimum mileage in any car. You'd probably pickup 4-5 mpg by keeping it down to 60-65 mph, based on my experience.
Good luck with your new car.
When I told him my thoughts about using syn & going every 7,500 miles, he commented that the filters really weren't designed to go that long. But if that's the case, why would manufacturer show 7,500 mi oil change interval for "normal" driving conditons?? :confuse: I know that several manufacturers market an extended life filter specifically to use with their syn oils.
I live in Northern Maine where for about 6 months of the year, driving conditions could be considered normal, but winters can be brutal and 5-6 months long with extremely low temps. I'll put about 15,000 miles/year on the car. Based on that should I consider syn but stick with a more frequent oil change interval? Maybe 5,000 miles?? The last 3 cars I've owned, I've done dino oil & filter change every 4,000 miles and made out just fine.