Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
To summarize, 12,969 miles(13,354-385), 699.759 gallons, 18.5 mpg, average speed =22.9. (Note that average speed was calculated using the average speed column weighted by the trip mileage column, not just by adding all the average speeds and dividing by the number of fill-ups.) I wanted to calculate overall average speed by using engine running time in order to be more accurate but I can't figure out how to add up the engine running time properly using Excel.
What do you think about this mileage at this average speed? Also, let me know if you have any questions.
4/28/06 6 miles on odo at receipt
5/3/2006 13.771 gal to fill completely
Date Odo Trip Gal. MPG Speed
5/12/2006 385 235.6 13.321 17.7 18
5/12/2006 777 392.7 13.632 28.8 63
5/15/2006 1,097 320.3 11.338 28.3 49
5/25/2006 1,404 306.2 14.710 20.8 22
5/30/2006 1,528 123.9 6.047 20.5 21
6/5/2006 1,819 291.2 15.410 18.9 21
6/12/2006 2,073 254.5 14.229 17.9 18
6/21/2006 2,298 224.7 13.458 16.7 16
6/26/2006 2,471 172.5 10.954 15.7 15
7/6/2006 2,670 199.1 12.892 15.4 13
7/13/2006 2,889 219.4 12.767 17.2 16
7/16/2006 3,099 210.0 8.298 25.3 40
7/21/2006 3,298 198.8 10.420 19.1 23
7/28/2006 3,473 174.4 11.157 15.6 15
8/2/2006 3,613 140.0 8.850 15.8 16
8/14/2006 3,852 239.6 14.279 16.8 16
9/8/2006 4,026 173.9 11.874 14.6 13
9/17/2006 4,160 133.8 8.538 15.7 14
9/28/2006 4,329 168.8 10.046 16.8 15
10/6/2006 4,438 108.7 7.280 14.9 15
10/14/2006 4,577 139.4 8.053 17.3 16
10/23/2006 4,831 254.1 14.069 18.1 18
11/3/2006 5,015 183.1 12.139 15.1 15
11/17/2006 5,255 240.1 15.165 15.8 15
11/28/2007 5,524 269.2 14.246 18.9 20
12/10/2006 5,755 230.9 15.521 14.9 14
12/19/2006 5,973 218.2 12.653 17.2 16
12/23/2006 6,268 294.9 13.385 22.0 27
12/26/2006 6,554 286.1 11.299 25.3 52
12/27/2006 6,967 412.8 14.280 28.9 65
1/3/2007 7,182 214.4 11.104 19.3 21
1/17/2007 7,413 231.5 14.653 15.8 15
1/30/2007 7,597 183.9 12.750 14.4 14
2/12/2007 7,774 176.8 12.277 14.4 13
2/21/2007 7,980 206.3 13.376 15.4 14
3/6/2007 8,188 207.8 11.679 17.8 17
3/10/2007 8,263 75.0 5.000 15.0 14
3/26/2007 8,506 242.2 14.075 17.2 17
4/7/2007 8,776 269.9 15.774 17.1 16
4/19/2007 8,981 205.7 13.169 15.6 14
5/3/2007 9,214 232.3 13.817 16.8 15
5/11/2007 9,516 302.7 15.077 20.1 18
5/23/2007 9,730 213.6 12.804 16.7 16
6/4/2007 9,969 239.1 13.194 18.1 17
6/13/2007 10,135 166.2 11.356 14.6 12
6/16/2007 10,400 264.8 10.330 25.6 29
6/19/2007 10,585 184.7 7.451 24.8 31
6/29/2007 10,847 262.2 14.788 17.7 18
7/12/2007 11,113 265.2 15.394 17.2 16
7/19/2007 11,452 339.1 13.823 24.5 31
7/27/2007 11,696 244.2 12.894 18.9 18
8/5/2007 11,922 226.1 12.989 17.4 15
8/16/2007 12,098 175.6 11.369 15.4 15
8/20/2007 12,472 374.0 15.487 24.1 30
8/29/2007 12,677 205.4 10.991 18.7 17
9/7/2007 12,913 236.2 12.759 18.5 17
9/14/2007 13,114 200.7 10.447 19.2 18
9/28/2007 13,354 239.8 13.943 17.2 15
Summary:12,969 miles (13,354-385), 699.759 gallons, 18.5 mpg
Below is a comparison:
US Catalog
.................MPG---------Conv to Lit/100km
City Cycle------20--------------11.8
Highway---------30---------------7.8
European Catalog
................Lit/100km----------Converted to MPG
City Cycle-------14.8-----------------25.9
Highway-----------7.4-----------------31.8
Combined---------10.1-----------------23.3
Confusing enough? Surely these figures are achieved on different driving conditions or regimes. But my real life consumptions are closer to European figures i.e.
Real Life figures
...............Lit/100km----------Converted to MPG
City Cycle------13.5------------------15.9
Highway----------8.0------------------29.4
So my car is according to its claimed specification, and I am sure US Sonata are not more fuel efficient than other parts of the world. Mine is originally made in Korea.
I get 29 at 85-90. :P I4
what's your city mileage?
85mph = 31mpg
80mph = 33.1mpg
75mph = 35.1 mpg
70mph = 37.3mpg
65mph = 40.1 mpg
60mph = 40.2 mpg
in my 03 camry I4, which is why i kept it and gave my parents my New Elantra. I would so buy the 09 Sonata if i thought in could get anywhere near 40@ 65...or 33@ 80. , When i hear of them getting near that mileage, i'll be 1st in line.
Later
Caaz
p.s. I travel every week from Phx to So cal. 405mi trip which is where these numbers come from and back again each week, so i report twice each week in Toyota. All with cruise, both wind & non wind trips all reported. i'd love a Sonata once they can reach this mpg that Toyota has been able to achieve 6 yrs earlier...wheres Hyundais current technology to achieve high mpg?....at least 6 yrs behind.
Later
Caaz
p.s. Even though im going uphill from So cal to phx....(sealevel to 1500ft.) i always get better mileage than going from phx to So cal..which is downhill interesting the jet stream plays that much importance. Dont forget, i'm doing these runs, no a/c jetstream at my back.
pps. i think for fun I'll rent a Sonata and try my drive to see the difference myself, maybe i can achieve similar numbers since in post #354 somebody else got 37 mpg at exactly the same speed i barely got my 40 mpg. Then i'll report back
A lot has to do with the internal design of the engine, the materials used to make pistons, cylinder liners and the rings, the ring gap at the top of the piston, injection pattern, port design, valve shape and form, mixture distribution (swirl) inside the cylinder, relative heat inside the combustion chamber, spark reach, computer controlled timing and mixture algorithms, location of sensors, and a plethora of other factors.
Toyota has A LOT more experience with engine design than Hyundai, that's why their engines are 10-20% more efficient.
1. new Malibu....24 mpg
2.Dodge Avenger...26 mpg
3. Ford Fusion...24mpg
4. Honda Accord EX...25 mpg
5. Hyundai Sonata Limited...25 mpg
6.Nissan Altima 2.5S...23 mpg
7.Toyota Camry LE...26 mpg
As you can see 3 mpg was the spread with the Hyundai tied with the Accord and 1 mpg less than the leader/s.
It isn't going to take 10 years to achieve parity it has already happened.
For the record Toyota uses no unobtanium or alien derived designs in their engines...same old aluminum block and head, 16 valves, alloys of iron, etc with the same computer assisted designs for combustion chambers etc and every manufacturer uses them. Most modern engines, no make that ALL modern engines, use pretty much the same materials and technology. Don't make it sound as if Hyundai is using 1930's technology.
A lot has to do with the internal design of the engine, the materials used to make pistons, cylinder liners and the rings, the ring gap at the top of the piston, injection pattern, port design, valve shape and form, mixture distribution (swirl) inside the cylinder, relative heat inside the combustion chamber, spark reach, computer controlled timing and mixture algorithms, location of sensors, and a plethora of other factors.
Toyota has A LOT more experience with engine design than Hyundai, that's why their engines are 10-20% more efficient.
From the press release announcing the 2009 Sonata (note the bolded phrases):
The 2009 Sonata debuts Hyundai's second-generation Theta four-cylinder engine. The Theta II 2.4-liter DOHC inline four-cylinder engine delivers more horsepower and quicker acceleration, while also improving fuel economy. In fact, the Sonata I4 is now more fuel-efficient than both Camry and Accord four-cylinder engines, delivering an impressive 22 mpg city/32 mpg highway fuel economy rating with the standard five-speed manual transmission or the newly available five-speed automatic transmission with SHIFTRONIC®. The Theta II is rated at 175 horsepower and 168 lb.-ft. of torque. This high-tech, all-aluminum, 16-valve engine now features Continuously Variable Valve Timing (CVVT) on both camshafts and a Variable Induction System (VIS) for better engine breathing. A version of this engine also meets Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) standards.
Theta II 2.4-liter DOHC inline-four cylinder engine
Sonata's 3.3-liter V6 engine has also been improved for more performance and efficiency. It now pumps out 15 more horsepower and three more pound-feet of torque (249 horsepower @ 6,000 rpm and 229 lb.-ft. of torque at 4,500 rpm). The first member of Hyundai's "Lambda" V6 engine family, this newly refined powerplant features all-aluminum construction, dual overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, CVVT on both camshafts and stiffer hydraulic engine mounts for optimum power, efficiency and refinement. A variable intake system is added for 2009, which further broadens its power curve, improving off-the-line acceleration and passing performance. New mileage figures for V6-powered Sonatas are 19 mpg city/29 mpg highway, which represents unsurpassed V6 fuel economy in the mid-size sedan segment.
All V6-powered Sonatas use Hyundai's five-speed SHIFTRONIC automatic transmission, which features an overdrive lock-up torque converter for improved highway fuel economy. Neither Accord nor Camry offer manual-mode operation as standard equipment. The automatic transmission has a new reducing valve and solenoid valve for smoother shift quality while the manual transmission has been refined for more precise shifts.
Source: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/03/chicago-08-preview-2009-hyundai-sonata/
Nuff said!
Glad they came around sooner rather than in 5 years. They now have a shot at being competitive with the leaders and the consumer will certainly benefit.
Rresults....405.6mi 14.6 ga = 27.78 mpg...my worst ever. my usuall @ 80 is 31 to 33. When i go back oin thursday, i'm going to try @ 65..providing there's no wind.
Later
Caaz
Below is a comparison:
US Catalog
.................MPG---------Conv to Lit/100km
City Cycle------20--------------11.8
Highway---------30---------------7.8
European Catalog
................Lit/100km----------Converted to MPG
City Cycle-------14.8-----------------15.9
Highway-----------7.4-----------------32.4
Combined---------10.1-----------------23.3
Confusing enough? Surely these figures are achieved on different driving conditions or regimes. But my real life consumptions are closer to European figures i.e.
Real Life figures
...............Lit/100km----------Converted to MPG
City Cycle------13.5------------------17.4
Highway----------8.0------------------29.4
So my car is according to its claimed specification, and I am sure US Sonata are not more fuel efficient than other parts of the world. Mine is originally made in Korea.
Perhaps Specifications are according to different drive regimes, but then what about real world results!?
What was your take on the 4 cyl?
Can anybody explain this to me? Thank you very much, I will really appreciate your answer.
Thanks,
1. The 4 cylinder was driven from Chambersburg Pa to Gettysburg Pa on US Rt. 30 which is moderately hilly terrain at about 60 mph. I drove through Gettysburg which has a fair amount of tourists even in the winter and all the traffic lights there. From Gettysburg I drove to Harrisburg Pa on Rt 15 which is a 4 lane 65 mph highway and I drove 65. Once there traffic increased and there was quite a bit of stop-go. We accomplished what we went there for. We then stopped for supper, after getting lost and doubling back for quite a few miles through a small town trying to find a new restaurant we wanted to try. The return trip was via I-81 at higher speeds of 72-75 mph. After returning home the trip computer fuel economy said 31.4 mpg. The next day we puttered around town and I ran a few impromptu full throttle 0-80 and 50-70 mph acceleration runs because I am considering buying a Sonata (V-6 or 4? 4 or V-6? can't decide) and I wanted to know if the 4 would be satisfactory for me. (it was). Anyhow, when I turned it in on Monday it showed 28.8 MPG over-all for the week-end.
2. Last week-end I rented a V-6 ( continuing my quest in trying to decide V-6 or 4 ) but the drive was somewhat different. We drove this one from Chambersburg Pa to pick up the Pa Turnpike via US Rt-30 then a rural 2 lane during which I drove at between 55-60 MPH. Upon entering the Turnpike we drove west with the cruise locked on at 70 MPH to Somerset. There are mountains between Chambersburg and Somerset (even though they are minimized and gentled as much as possible on the Turnpike). The car was parked when we got where we were headed until the return trip. Again after negotiating mountains on Rt-30 in Somerset county I picked up the turnpike in Bedford Pa. The return was driven somewhat faster, between 75-80 mph, because the V-6 is truly quick and fast not to mention cruising at 80 is the same as cruising at 60 as far as the car is concerned....effortless. Anyhow after driving at these speeds I again retraced our route back home. Once again that night I performed some impromptu 0 to ? acceleration runs. I originally wanted to see 0-60 mph but before it could register I had hit 60 mph it was well on the way to 80 mph and beyond so these were 0-80 mph runs. I also wanted to see 50-70 mph to simulate a 2 lane pass and again it went well beyond 70 to nearly 100 mph. Needless to say I was giddy with its power. Back to fuel economy....the computer said between 26.7 to 27 mpg on the turnpike part, dropped a bit on the mountain parts on US Rt-30 to the high 25's then oddly enough returned to the high 26's on the return trip at higher speeds. Overall when returned it showed 25.7 mpg including the speed runs.
This is long and detailed but I learned, as I thought, the I-4 is more economical but the V-6 isn't bad on the highway and waaaay quicker. I still don't know what I want to buy but increasing gas costs (with higher yet predictions) will probably dictate the I-4....too bad in a way because that 6 is great.
The total miles driven for the 4cyl was between 250-300 and the total for the V-6 was over 300.
and we ended up with the SE V6...
my wife's averaging between 24-25 daily commute of about 20 miles (one way) to and from work with mixed city/hiway 50/50. very pleased so far at almost 11,000 miles now :shades:
This compares to my previous vehicle (Corolla DX 95). In the same routes, my Corolla 95 has 20~22 mpg local and 33~35 on PCH. The 50000 miles average is 28mpg.
Target, if you haven't pulled the trigger yet, go for the 4. You'll be satisfied with it. Now if you want MORE power I'd go with the 6. Thinking of your past my friend. :shades:
You're right the 4 is the smart buy these days. How did the 4 sound as it was getting up to speed? Could you live with it? I may trade up to an 08 or 09. Heard my local Hyundai dealer is putting up some poor sales numbers. May have to go knock on their door.
How much quicker is the 09 4cyl vs the 08 4cyl? I am not sure if it was worth passing up a $3k rebate for the improved engine & interior......thanks
I have had minimal experience with a 2007 I-4 we rented three weeks ago and even though about two weeks passed between that rental and the 2009 test drive I remember thinking the 2009 seemed quieter even though the 2007 rental was acceptable in that regard. This in answer to your "getting up to speed" noise question.
I am disappointed they will not have Steel Gray anymore, as that was the color I liked the most. I wonder how close the Willow Gray will be in the 09 model.
As before when we had it I found myself driving faster than my normal 70-72 mph instead driving 75 with several stretches of nearly 80 mph. At those speeds the onboard fuel economy ave.readout was 27.6 mpg. The few times I drove slower at about 72 mph it crept up about .1-.2 mpg. I firmly believe after driving this same car twice now for a total of nearly 1000 miles that 28+ mpg is possible at 65 mph but as speed increases economy drops....duh!! I always knew that but there are some on this and another forum who absolutely insist they get fabulous fuel economy at extra-legal speeds of 80 on up mph. I believe that if you expect to achieve 30 mpg you will be disappointed with the V-6 unless you drive much slower than 65 mph. So, from my experience about 27-28 mpg would be the norm on the highway at speeds ranging from 70-80 mph.
I find it incredible that so many drive so fast with the price of fuel hovering around $3.30 per. Even driving at 75-80 mph I was passed with regularity AND like I was parked. Once I accelerated to catch up with one of those passing drivers and found them to be traveling 90+ mph!!! Unreal...
Finally, I am coming to believe the current EPA window stickers are about dead on as far as the posted numbers. I won't go so far as to say that ALL vehicle stickers are so close but between our 2006 Civic EX sedan automatic (the original EPA sticker had it at 30/40 city/highway) that in actuality gets about 24/35 city/highway as compared to the new EPA sticker (25/36 city/highway) and now the Sonata that seems to get a consistant 27.6 or so mpg highway as compared to 28 mpg on the new EPA sticker...city mileage to be determined. I would now advise a prospective customer for a new car to be confident the posted numbers will be about what you will get as opposed to the "fantasy land" the old stickers promoted.. Of course there will ALWAYS be those who drive slower or significantly faster than "normal" or prudent and their numbers will vary.
Mythbusters had an episode where they tested how much better milage you can achieve if you follow a semi truck. They concluded via model testing that wind resistance drops by up to 90% depending on how close a car follows a semi. Obviously, it has to be dangerously close for the drag to drop by 90%, but even from a distance of about 100 feet drag drops significantly. They used an old Mustang for real life test and they achieved somewhere between 35-40 mpg at highway speed by closely following a semi. DO not try this at home kids
I was in some heavy traffic the other day, traffic was moving around 60-65 mph. I was behind a semi, distance varied between 50-100 feet. I reset my trip computer and alas, I got 35 mpg for those few miles while I was following the truck.
So I guess if you take a highway trip and travel a considerable portion of your trip behind semis, 30+ mpg is plausible.