Midsize Sedans 2.0

akirby

The time to buy Ford stock was last year when it was below $2. Heck of a deal based on the current price.

m6user

You're the Ford expert. Thanks for telling us now. :sick:

akirby

I don't think anybody really predicted Ford would turn it around so fast or that the stock would perform the way it did. And that includes Ford itself. The public backlash against GM, Chrysler and Toyota has certainly helped.

vwpassatw8

Out of all the midsize sedans, I would take the new 2011 Sonata. 275 horsepower, turbocharged, and like 33 mpg? Why not? and its a great looking car now. Hyundai is really coming a long way

smarty666

I agree it sounds really interesting and nice on paper but I will have to wait to see it to believe it. I tell you, if Hyundai is able to get that kind of mpg out of a turbo 4cyl, Nissan, Honda, and Toyota are going to have to step up their game or be left in the dust.

I just read a rumor the other day that Nissan/Infiniti is possibly toying with a turbo 4cyl to combat this Hyundai one within the next year or two. Not sure if it would be in the Infiniti or Nissan line but it should go to Nissan since they are more of competitor against Hyundai then Infiniti would be.

Honda has that 240 HP turbo I4 in the RDX. It will be interesting to see if they bring that down from Acura, tweak it, and put it into a Honda to go to post against Hyundai.

I love when competition is so strong against the mainstream divisions, because you know when someone introduces something new the others will scramble to either catch up or come out with something better to top it off with. That puts more pressure on everyone to improve their models as best they can. Its nice to see Hyundai and Ford giving Toyota, Honda, and Nissan a run for their money now! Thats a real benefit for us consumer!

Nice to have multiple choices in the midsize sedan category

backy

If Chevy can put a 260 hp 2.0L turbo into a Cobalt, why doubt that Hyundai can put a 274 hp 2.0L turbo into a Sonata, several years later?

smarty666

I'm not questioning the engine itself, but the suppose fuel economy that it is suppose to yield. I'm going to wait to see once people start buying it, if they get the fuel economy Hyundai claims. If so, then it will be a real winner for Hyundai.

m6user

Hyundai, of late, has done a pretty good job of having their ducks in a row before they open their mouths. I think unless they are pretty darn sure of something they don't give it to the press. If they say they are planning on getting 34mpg hwy I would lay odds that is what the EPA rating will be or better and people that don't drive like maniacs will be able to achieve it.

It's funny, there are always those people that say "I've never got the EPA ratings in my life...they're a bunch of crap". Or, the old standby "We'll see what the REAL WORLD mpg ends up". Well, HELLO...it depends on which world you live in. If it's boy racer....you won't get the EPA numbers, if you drive sensibly you will. It's pretty simple.

smarty666

Well that used to be the case 10-20 years ago. I never got the EPA ratings on the window stickers. In the last 10 years though, I've either achieved the EPA ratings or surpassed them.

I don't care what Hyundai's track record has been, but I don't trust anything with any of the manufacturers or what they say until I see the vehicles in person and later on once people have driven around with them and given reviews of mpg, ride quality, etc etc! The latest spout with Toyota in the hot seat, and my own person history with GM has taught me better then to believe what the manufacture says or to take their word for it.

This is the first time a company is introducing a turbo 4cyl with that kind of HP and torque with that high of a mpg rating. I'm not saying that the numbers might not be true, my gut tells me, considering most people exceed EPA ratings now a days, that Hyundai's claim for mpg with this turbo 4 are most likely accurate, but I'm going to wait till I see and read the car in action to know for sure.

Maybe its just me being the scientist that I was educated to be, remaining skeptical until their is concrete proof to prove otherwise! :P

tallman1

Hyundai's claim for mpg with this turbo 4 are most likely accurate

Of course, the EPA ratings are not done by the manufacturer so if you are comparing, they are the most objective numbers. Whether anyone is able to achieve or surpass those numbers isn't the point of having the EPA do the tests.

"Real world" numbers just let us know how well (or poorly) a certain driver can make a vehicle perform in his or her circumstances.

m6user

Well, obviously none of us know for sure just what Hyundai's new turbo will do so we'll all have to wait to see the official HP and EPA numbers. I was just saying that Hyundai has been pretty accurate with it's press releases so I have no real reason to doubt them at this point. Would I bet my house on their predictions? No.

schnellesauto

"It's funny, there are always those people that say "I've never got the EPA ratings in my life...they're a bunch of crap". Or, the old standby "We'll see what the REAL WORLD mpg ends up". Well, HELLO...it depends on which world you live in. If it's boy racer....you won't get the EPA numbers, if you drive sensibly you will. It's pretty simple."

Exactly! Agreed! Or it can be people that drive very short distances or bumper to bumper traffic not getting the #'s either. I've gotten the EPA highway rating or better on my cars.. even my 2005 GTO with the 400 horsepower Vette engine, I get 1mpg bttr tahn EPA, 22 highway, sticker is 21.

schnellesauto

"Honda has that 240 HP turbo I4 in the RDX. It will be interesting to see if they bring that down from Acura, tweak it, and put it into a Honda to go to post against Hyundai. "

The problem with the 240hp Turbo I4 in the current RDX application is that it uses Premium gas to make it's current power ratings, where as the Hyundai turbo is regular gas only. Furthermore the RDX gas mileage rating is not good for a 4cyl. Only 17/22 in AWD mode. There are competitor V6 in that segment (EX35 for example) that get the same or better gas mileage and more refined and faster.

tallman1

Believe it or not, I've never had a tank of gas below the city EPA rating on my 06 Accord. Bought it new and it now has 79k miles. That was also under the old EPA rating system for the 4 cyl manual: 26 City/34 highway. That translates to 23/31 under the new system. The lowest tank ever (I keep track of them all the old fashioned way) was 28.

I've seen people post that they only get 18 in the city.

It all depends on where you live and how you drive.

lilengineerboy

Believe it or not, I've never had a tank of gas below the city EPA rating on my 06 Accord. Bought it new and it now has 79k miles. That was also under the old EPA rating system for the 4 cyl manual: 26 City/34 highway. That translates to 23/31 under the new system. The lowest tank ever (I keep track of them all the old fashioned way) was 28.

I've seen people post that they only get 18 in the city.

It all depends on where you live and how you drive

My 4 cyl manual '07 Accord EX spends 80-90% of its time traveling at speed of traffic (which might not be the same as the posted speed ) on I94 in SE MI. It has never returned less then 28 mpg and usually is between 30 and 34 (on sprin/summer gas).

mickeyrom

I have NEVER gotten the EPA city mileage on any car I've had.My 97Chrysler was EPA 17 city,I was happy to get 14,and usually less.2006 Sonata 4 cyl I got 14 same as my 2007 Optima,which was rated I believe 24 city. I think it may be somewhat unfair though,because I live in a very small town, and in city driving the distances are so short that the car never gets a chance to warm up.Even my Prius barely gets over 30 MPG in town,yet exceeds the highway EPA.
I have to add that I am not "boy racer". I drive with a very light touch on the gas pedal,and here in Kewanee,there are no trafffic jams.I would love to get 18 in town on my KIA.

jeffyscott

Short trips, especially in cold weather will kill mpg.

My wife used to drive a 97 Windstar maybe a mile to work and I'd see 10 mpg on that sometimes in winter. Same vehicle at least once got 25 mpg on a freeway trip.

My kids drove a 1991 Nissan Sentra, very light car with a small engine, about 3 miles to school. That sometimes showed about 14 mpg.

The only mpg numbers I look at for comparison are those from EPA and from CR, as both are based on at least somewhat consistent tests. CR always shows a much bigger range as, compared to EPA, their city test is more severe, while their highway test is less severe (steady cruise at 65, I believe).

smarty666

If you noticed what I said, Honda will have to go and tweak and improve upon that turbo 4cyl to make it competitive against the new Sonata turbo I4!

As you pointed out, Honda would have to do something so that it could run on regular and get a lot better gas mileage then its getting in the RDX, as you pointed out! I'm sure if they put their mind to it, it could be done!

aviboy97

If Chevy can put a 260 hp 2.0L turbo into a Cobalt, why doubt that Hyundai can put a 274 hp 2.0L turbo into a Sonata, several years later?

I don't think that anyone is doubting Hyundai's ability to turbo charge a car. I think what is in question is a 274hp turbo charged motor AND 33mpg highway.

Honestly, I would like to see the combine FE. That is the true factor on how fuel efficient the engine really is.

On a side note, I was able to get 30mpg out of a Mazdaspeed3 on the highway, but, that was going 65 and hardly depressing the gas pedal. However, if you want to use all the power, the FE goes way down. I see the same thing happening with the turbo Sonata.

thegraduate

On a side note, I was able to get 30mpg out of a Mazdaspeed3 on the highway, but, that was going 65 and hardly depressing the gas pedal. However, if you want to use all the power, the FE goes way down. I see the same thing happening with the turbo Sonata.

Of course that's true of any car, though. Personally, I think it'd be nice to have the option of doing both. Most people that say they "drive their cars hard and still get XX mpg" probably have cars with relatively low power, meaning that the difference in MPG of 1/4 throttle and flooring it isn't as drastic as it would be in a car of more power.

aqua33v6

There is no reason to doubt the estimated MPG numbers for this engine. At low-RPM highway speeds the turbo will be running very low boost. Consider this, in addition to direct fuel injection's inherent ability to run in ultra lean "economy mode" (mix of mostly air with very little fuel), and those MPG estimates appear very believable.

jeffyscott

But if they are saying that the EPA hwy mpg will be X, that means that it will achieve X in the combination of the EPA highway test schedule and the high speed test schedule. These EPA tests are not restricted to cruising at steady highway speeds.





http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

aqua33v6

This is just an educated forecast, but I'd expect that the only time the turbo engine will use substantially more fuel than the naturally aspirated 2.4L is during hard acceleration, where the turbo is running higher boost. Higher peak output = more air + more fuel; no way around it with internal combustion engines.

Higher speed highway driving (~80 MPH), with higher average RPM, will have the turbo at slightly higher boost than cruising at 65 or 70. We're talking only a few-hundred RPM difference. Quick passing will spike boost toward the max, but just for a matter of a few seconds each time you pass a car.

I'd expect normal highway cruising at 65 to 75 MPH to net pretty much identical mileage between the 2.0T and 2.4 engines. Factor-in higher speed driving and/or more frequent passing, and I'd expect MPG to drop by a couple MPG with the turbo.

schnellesauto

"On a side note, I was able to get 30mpg out of a Mazdaspeed3 on the highway, but, that was going 65 and hardly depressing the gas pedal. However, if you want to use all the power, the FE goes way down. I see the same thing happening with the turbo Sonata."

Agreed! The moer powerful car you don't have to hit the gas as hard as the weaker car. Example.. My 400hp V8 GTO gets nearly the same 18mpg gas mileage as my 268hp V6 Accord did in my commute. In the Accord with it's lack of low rpm torque, I had to hit the gas much harder.

tlong

... strikingly handsome car, at least from the rear/side. Looks most like the Mazda 6. It's a looker - will be interesting to see how it does.

jeffyscott

Of course, with any car if you never or very rarely use the available power you will get better mpg. But then, why would you buy a car with a 200, 300, or 400 HP engine if the way you drive never requires more than, say, 150 HP?

I don't think it is at all surprising to exceed the EPA highway number by quite a bit, if you are driving at a steady 65 mph. CR just reported 34 mpg highway for the Mazdaspeed3 in their May issue.

acdii

I don't see any reason why it can't get 33 MPG or better. The Flex Ecoboost I own is rated 18-22, and I saw it hit 25 MPG on the highway. That is a 350 HP V6 that can rocket a 4800 pound AWD brick 0-60 in 6 seconds. It gets better MPG than the Crown Vic Sport I had with a 230 HP V8.

plekto

... that can rocket a 4800 pound...

That's why it won't get 33mpg. Physics wins every time and highway MPG is really a function of gearing, displacement, and weight.

schnellesauto

"Of course, with any car if you never or very rarely use the available power you will get better mpg. But then, why would you buy a car with a 200, 300, or 400 HP engine if the way you drive never requires more than, say, 150 HP? "

Pretty obvious...More power/faster car equals more safety, esp in emergency situations, passing, merging, pulling out onto a highway from a dead stop which I do daily.

C&D car mag. a while back got 28+mpg on a Corvette with a 400hp V8... I've gotten 23mpg highway on my GTO on a 2hr highway trip at 70mph. (EPA rated at 21)

From EPA...Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.

jeffyscott

Got it...400 HP is a safety feature. IIHS ought to add that to their requirements to be a "Top Safety Pick", I guess.

backy

I've been trying to convince my wife of that for years... no luck, though. But then she has trouble keeping to the speed limit in her 162 hp Sonata.

akirby

highway MPG is really a function of gearing, displacement, and weight.

You forgot aerodynamics which become exponentially more important as you increase speed over 30 mph.

captain2

for many years and until just recently, GM, if you remember took a vintage and quite antiquated crapo V6 and because it had relatively high torque at lower engine speeds they could gear a fullsize car to deliver 30 mpg highway - and that was 20 years ago. Now, of course, while the mfgrs can still set up almost anything to do well in government tests, technology has now provided a new way for the mfgrs to effectively falsify real world results - the computer.

m6user

and I think weight would be less of a factor at steady hwy speeds over long distances and aerodynamics would be a relatively huge factor.

schnellesauto

Not sure which GM V6 you are talking about, but the 3800 series II was named to Wards top 10 engine list 2yrs in a row (1996 to 1997) and to their top 10 of the 20th century list. 240hp, 280 torque, 0-60 in 6.8 seconds and EPA 28 to 30mpg highway is still pretty good, even by today's standards..

While not the most refined engine, it was fairly reliable and outperformed any Accord/Camry in those years.

plekto

highway MPG is really a function of gearing, displacement, and weight.

You forgot aerodynamics which become exponentially more important as you increase speed over 30 mph.
****
Not really, since for most cars of the same body style, this is almost identical now. Technically gearing isn't really one either, since most similar cars have about the same overdrive final ratios.

The big deal is how much fuel it uses while idling/coasting along. Displacement is a big deal. If you notice, you can almost exactly predict the highway MPG of any car by just looking at the cylinders and displacement.

For instance, almost every 3.6-3.8L V6 engine on the planet gets roughly 28-30mpg highway. The only way to get this better is... right - smaller engine. But nobody makes a 2.4L 6 any more or something like a 3.8L V8.

akirby

The Prius is not shaped like it is for aesthetics. Aerodynamics is a lot more important than you think.

acdii

OK I'm confused, displacement means more fuel used? hmm a 6.2L gasoline engine geared to 3.73 finals turning 1900 RPM gets ~ 12 MPG, a 7.3 diesel with the same final ratio at 1900 gets ~15 MPG. OH I see bigger displacement, less fuel used. OK I got it.

Size doesn't matter when cruising at a set speed, weight doesn't play that big of role once cruising at highway speed, Aerodynamic drag, plays the biggest role. The lower the COD of a vehicle, the less drag on the car at any given speed, the more efficient the motor will be pushing the car down the road. Road friction also plays a big part, tires with a low rolling resistance can help even the boxiest vehicle get a good FE. The 3.5L V6 in my Fusion Sport gets exactly the same FE rating as the 3.0 V6 in the SEL. The 3.5 L V6 turbo gets the same FE as the non turbo engine in the AWD model Flex. If you can keep your foot out of it, but on the highway set on cruise they are identical. I can get 31 MPG out of my Fusion Sport with the same engine as in the Flex. The difference is a smaller, lighter more aerodynamic FWD car. The final gearing is the same though, both engines turn the same RPM at the same speed.

syitalian25

Hey everyone,

Someone posted this link to a C&D review in the 2011 Sonata forum. The Sonata came out on top, finally unseating the Accord which had been a C&D favorite forever.

You can read it over here - http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q1/2010_honda_accord_ex_vs._20- - 11_hyundai_sonata_se_2010_subaru_legacy_2.5i-comparison_tests

plekto

OK I'm confused, displacement means more fuel used? hmm a 6.2L gasoline engine geared to 3.73 finals turning 1900 RPM gets ~ 12 MPG, a 7.3 diesel with the same final ratio at 1900 gets ~15 MPG. OH I see bigger displacement, less fuel used. OK I got it.
Either one car weighs a LOT more than the other or you're just making those figures up.

iluvmysephia1

only $23,795 the new Suzuki Kizashi Sport is the best value in the midsize category.



Blows the new Hyundai Sonata cleanly, clearly and defiantly out of the water. In looks it does obviously but all one has ta do is go to the Suzuki website and look up the new Sport. You will discover that this Autobahn-tested midsizer is the darkhorse that you've been looking for.

Tested-tough, quiet in the cabin, safety-proven through the year 2014 already and looking like a midsize racecar, this new Kizashi Sport is ready to take on it's hardiest challenger.

Any takers?

jeffyscott

The larger engine in his example is a diesel. That is the reason for the higher mpg.

(not sure what the point is, don't we all know that a diesel will get maybe about 50% higher mpg, all else being equal?)

mickeyrom

Only your opinion.

backy

Well, all we have to do is wait a bit until the 2011 Optima is available. Then iluv will say THAT car blows everything else in the mid-sized class out of the water.

shabadoo25

You're correct about it blowing, all right.

iluvmysephia1

how car purchase decisions are such an individual delight sort of a thing? I mean, in the luxury Hyundai column you've got people stretching their necks out ta put Hyundai down. Saying they can't deliver a luxury product. Hogwash. Hyundai is doing it.

Then, on here, I entice you all ta do yer research in the 2011 Suzuki Kizashi and none of you do it. You only put me down for doing my reearch and telling the truth about it.

You'll hear more about Suzuki. Oh, and they're not a fly-by-night carmaker. Someone go find out how many years they've been at this. You would be surprised. Do you think OKC and Kevin Durant can beat da Lakers? Open your minds up. You'd be surprised what I could stuff in yer thick heads if you'd only let me.


2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport

Ahh. This car is like a breath of fresh air in the midsize category.

In comparison.


2011 Hyundai Sonata

First impressions, you're daring me ta ask? This new world order Sonata smacks too much of a Toyota Camry. It lacks individuality. Too much. Better than a Toyota Camry. At least it won't take off on ya while you're not looking. But I like my rigs to look sporty. This doesn't.

The 2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport does. Anyone who wants to ruminate on that and then be sure and get back ta me. Please. :shades: I can't wait to get a Kizashi Sport.

backy

This new world order Sonata smacks too much of a Toyota Camry.

A Camry in which parallel universe? Certainly not this one. No Camry I know of looks anything like that, inside or out. No Camry I know of has 198-200 hp from the normally aspirated I4 and 274 hp from a turbo 4. No Camry I know of has features like XM radio, Bluetooth, and a 10-year warranty standard on all trims.

Maybe someday the Kizashi SE (not sure what you mean by "Sport", as there is no such trim) will have the power of a "sport" model, instead of a pedestrian 180 hp. Not today though. Maybe someday it will come somewhat close to the fuel economy of the Sonata. Not today though. Maybe someday it will have the eye-catching styling of cars like the Sonata and Mazda6. Not today though. Maybe someday the Kizashi will have enough of a market presence so that Suzuki can afford to show it off in all of the major auto shows in the USA, to help people who want to research it. Not today, though. Maybe they are afraid of what will happen when lots of prospective buyers directly compare it to the likes of the Sonata, Fusion, and Mazda6. They'll look at the Kisashi SE and Sonata SE for example, and think, "Hmm, for $1000 more MSRP I can get 18" alloys vs. the 17" wheels on the Kizashi, I can get Bluetooth and XM radio, I can get leather-trimmed seats, I can get a lot more interior room and cargo room, a lot more power yet better fuel economy, plus that beautiful, sleek styling of the Sonata vs. the relatively plain Kizashi (plain except for the huge S in front). Plus a larger dealer network and longer warranty."

Let us know when you get your Kizashi, so we can place bets as to how quickly you'll trade it in on the all-new Optima.

houdini1

I can't wait to get a Kizashi Sport.

I can't wait for you to get one also. Get back to me once you actually spend the money. Did Suzuki actually make this one or did they farm it out to Dawoo?

carstryke

At least the Kizashi is unique and sexy. The Sonata is pretty much a rip off the a camry/mazda 6 exterior styling with a ugly [non-permissible content removed] grill and punch yourself in the head rims. Now don't even get me started on a Hyundai interior....

syitalian25

lol the Sonata is the most unique thing in the midsize category by far. If by "ripoff of the camry/Mazda 6" you mean is has 4 wheels, 4 doors, and a pair of headlights then I suppose so. The styling is much closer to a Lexus ES 350 than anything else I've seem, not some boring Camry. And I dare say the Sonata looks even better than the Lexus (see comparison pics below).

And on a side note, I saw the Kizashi at the auto show. Not a bad little car - I'd take one over a Chevy Cruze any day. But it is relatively small and I didn't see any trim that I would consider luxurious. The grill is black matted plastic that would look more fitting on a 2003-2007 budget Kia. And the rims look way to busy for such an otherwise ordinary car. While it sounds like it handles pretty well from the reviews I've read, it's not all that cheap in price and they really need to drop a decent engine into it if they want enthusiasts to consider buying a Suzuki when even a 4-Cylinder Accord has more HP.