GM Inside News Forum banner

21 - 40 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,401 Posts
Whats different about the two? I had no idea the two engines were that vastly different.

I do know one thing, trying to find specifics about Hyundai cars are pretty hard.

EDIT: NVM, found it. Direct injection, twin-scroll, and reinforced pistons and connecting rods. Basically, aside from the direct injection, just things needed to support the dual scroll turbo.
and a balance shaft! The 2.0 Theta one is ROUGH! Who the heck builds a 4cly without a balance shaft?

These were changed too--unique block, valvetrain, front end accessory drive (FEAD), intake manifold, , crankshaft, variable induction system and catalyst
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Yea, i just literally read that. I had to pour through about 5 forums to just find that.

Ive now have come to the conclusion that the Gen Coupe would be awesome with this updates. lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,998 Posts
As I understand it the GDI Turbo is not related to the 2.0T in the Genesis Coupe, which has some of its roots with Mitsubishi. As someone else suggested, you should try the Optima SX and see if its sportier tune is to your liking or if even that doesn't go far enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
I might have to try it out. The Kia dealer did have some new Optimas in stock but no turbo models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,998 Posts
Meh, I like the Mazda 6s GT. Too bad its mileage sucks. If I was shopping for a new family sedan I'd probably buy the Hyundai-Kia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,897 Posts
As far as the suspension, its unchanged between the 2.4 and 2.0T models which is quite sad actually. Only difference is the SE gets dual exhaust and bigger wheels with stickier rubber. It handles pretty good but our Malibu felt better around town to me.
The SE does get a little bit sportier suspension tuning than the other Sonata trims, but not really enough of a diff. to satisfy those wanting a sportier drive (well, for a FWD midsize).

The Optima in SX trim is the way to go - not only is the suspension tuned for a sportier ride, but the steering feel is quite a bit better than the rather non-communicative steering of the Sonata.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
Drove both a 2.0T Harbor gray Sonata with $2600 Nav/roof/sound system upgrade and floormats/ipod cable that stickered for 27715 and a crystal red 2LT Cruze loaded with roof/full size spare, 17" alloys, RS pkg, NAV/sound system and 2LT pkg that stickered for a shocking 26690, both at the same dealer. The Cruze was on sale for 25515 and the Sonata was 24999 with an additional 500 off if you show an in- household registration of another Hyundai model to the dealer meaning the Sonata turbo would have been 24499.

The 2.0 liter turbo never reminded us of a V6 in the sound department but it's performance and fuel mileage were best in class for sure. We also noticed the torque steer somewhat in the midrange when all 274 horses were called on but it wasn't severe. The transmission was light years better than the terrible 6 speed in the Cruze and the poor 1.4 turbo doesn't even come close to feeling as powerful as even the base Sonata 200 HP SE we drove a few weeks before or the 2011 Optima for that matter. We liked the steering in the Cruze better and that car felt a tad more agile but the Sonata more than made up with it's more comfy seats, far greater back seat legroom, greater stretch out space and larger trunk. Both cars were equipped with Nav and sound system upgrade. We didn't mess with the Nav too much but sampled each sound system and each sounded very good with the 360 watt Dimension system in the Hyundai sounding a tad crisper at half volume compared to the Pioneer 250 watt setup in the Cruze. Both cars had a power driver seat but it was 6-way in the Cruze and 8-way in the Sonata. The Cruze countered with leather seats compared to the Sonata which used cloth middle inserts.

Ironically both cars turned in nearly identical MPG numbers from the trip computers on the same exact route at 26.4 MPG with mid 20's temps. Not to turn this into a direct comparison of two different cars but the cheaper car ends up being the far better choice in our eyes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
For me, the Cruze wins because it was levels quieter especially on the concrete roads around here. I test drove both pretty much back to back and was really surprised at how well the Cruze handled the NVH.

I will agree with the steering. The Sonata felt really numb even with the SE. The on center feel is just strange. Its hard to describe unless you feel it.

The Cruze I test drove had the updated TCM firmware in it. Id confirm if the one you test drove had it as well. Supposedly, it makes a huge difference. Im not sure when the update was applied but your dealer should know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,401 Posts
Drove both a 2.0T Harbor gray Sonata with $2600 Nav/roof/sound system upgrade and floormats/ipod cable that stickered for 27715 and a crystal red 2LT Cruze loaded with roof/full size spare, 17" alloys, RS pkg, NAV/sound system and 2LT pkg that stickered for a shocking 26690, both at the same dealer. The Cruze was on sale for 25515 and the Sonata was 24999 with an additional 500 off if you show an in- household registration of another Hyundai model to the dealer meaning the Sonata turbo would have been 24499.
Interesting and shocking on the prices.

I know Canadian cars are sometimes differently equipped, even under the same trim levels.

I get a price of $33,499 Sonata 2.0T Limited (Nav and sunroof, loaded)

and $28,880 for an almost loaded Cruze 2LT RS. Way too much for 138hp!!!
That kind of cash better bring 200 or better HP.

In CDN terms I like the Sonatas price--but I'd skip the nav and sunroof---drops it too 28,999----you can't buy a more powerful car--or even a V6 compeitor in Canada for the same or less.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,458 Posts
What scares me is those are the things they cheaped out on that you can see. What did they cheap out on that you can't see?
Everyone cuts costs when and where they can. Except Rolls Royce, Maybach, etc.

Couldn't that argument be used for a majority of auto manufacturers? Nothing very much scary about mid grade interior materials to me...
I might have to try it out. The Kia dealer did have some new Optimas in stock but no turbo models.
Local guy has yet to see a turbo.

Drove both a 2.0T Harbor gray Sonata with $2600 Nav/roof/sound system upgrade and floormats/ipod cable that stickered for 27715 and a crystal red 2LT Cruze loaded with roof/full size spare, 17" alloys, RS pkg, NAV/sound system and 2LT pkg that stickered for a shocking 26690, both at the same dealer. The Cruze was on sale for 25515 and the Sonata was 24999 with an additional 500 off if you show an in- household registration of another Hyundai model to the dealer meaning the Sonata turbo would have been 24499.

The 2.0 liter turbo never reminded us of a V6 in the sound department but it's performance and fuel mileage were best in class for sure. We also noticed the torque steer somewhat in the midrange when all 274 horses were called on but it wasn't severe. The transmission was light years better than the terrible 6 speed in the Cruze and the poor 1.4 turbo doesn't even come close to feeling as powerful as even the base Sonata 200 HP SE we drove a few weeks before or the 2011 Optima for that matter. We liked the steering in the Cruze better and that car felt a tad more agile but the Sonata more than made up with it's more comfy seats, far greater back seat legroom, greater stretch out space and larger trunk. Both cars were equipped with Nav and sound system upgrade. We didn't mess with the Nav too much but sampled each sound system and each sounded very good with the 360 watt Dimension system in the Hyundai sounding a tad crisper at half volume compared to the Pioneer 250 watt setup in the Cruze. Both cars had a power driver seat but it was 6-way in the Cruze and 8-way in the Sonata. The Cruze countered with leather seats compared to the Sonata which used cloth middle inserts.

Ironically both cars turned in nearly identical MPG numbers from the trip computers on the same exact route at 26.4 MPG with mid 20's temps. Not to turn this into a direct comparison of two different cars but the cheaper car ends up being the far better choice in our eyes.
Those price points are pretty amazing. KIA offers $500 active duty military, competitor, and KIA-owner discounts, good through April 4. I'd be eligible for two of those, and IIRC could get a turbo (EX, not SX) for perhaps $23,200 (assuming a $1000-off sticker negotiation). Better drive one first. :yup:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,398 Posts
Isn't the current Malibu 3.6 faster than the Sonata Turbo?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,458 Posts
Isn't the current Malibu 3.6 faster than the Sonata Turbo?
I got lucky here and found something without searching for more than 3 minutes:

We hit the test track then dug through our archive of comparison tests to find out.
With a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds and quarter mile of 15.0 seconds at 94.7 mph, the Sonata 2.0T is legitimately quick. But the big surprise is how it completely embarrasses the all-new 2011 Buick Regal CXL. That premium-priced, turbo 2.0-liter is a full second behind at 60 mph and needs 15.7 seconds and 92.8 mph to finish the quarter mile.
The Sonata turbo is also faster than the V-6 Ford Fusion Sport (6.8 sec/15.2 sec @ 94.0 mph) and splits times with the V-6 Honda Accord EX-L (6.5 sec/15.5 sec @ 95.5 mph), V-6 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ (6.5 sec/15.1 sec @ 93.7 mph) and Passat 2.0T (6.7 sec/15.0 sec @ 93.4 mph). Those times were pulled from comparison tests we did in the February 2008 and June 2008 issues.
The Sonata turbo does not fare quite so well against its other V-6 rivals, however. Though the Sonata recently passed the Altima for the number-three spot in segment sales, the Nissan isn't that easy to pass on the road. The V-6-powered Altima SE we tested back in 2008 needed only 6.3 seconds to hit 60 and 14.8 seconds and 96.1 mph for the quarter mile.
The Toyota Camry is faster still -- a 2007 SE model we tested laid down a 6.3-second blast to 60 and a 14.6-second quarter mile at 96.8 mph.

http://ettleson-hyundai.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-test-2011-hyundai-sonata-20t-is.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,998 Posts
Isn't the current Malibu 3.6 faster than the Sonata Turbo?
Best times I've seen for an Epsilon I V-6 compared to the best times I've seen for the HK GDI Turbo twins are below. Vehicles specifically were the Saturn Aura XR and Hyundai Sonata SE 2.0T.

GM 3.6L :: HK 2.0T
0-60: 6.2 :: 6.2
0-100: 16.6 :: 15.1
Quarter Mile: 14.9 @ 95 : 14.7 @ 99

Looks as though the Hyundai-Kia 2.0Ts are quicker overall, but quite similar in what you might call a "stoplight" drag race.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,458 Posts
Best times I've seen for an Epsilon I V-6 compared to the best times I've seen for the HK GDI Turbo twins are below. Vehicles specifically were the Saturn Aura XR and Hyundai Sonata SE 2.0T.

GM 3.6L :: HK 2.0T
0-60: 6.2 :: 6.2
0-100: 16.6 :: 15.1
Quarter Mile: 14.9 @ 95 : 14.7 @ 99

Looks as though the Hyundai-Kia 2.0Ts are quicker overall, but quite similar in what you might call a "stoplight" drag race.
If you want to clean up with the turbo, race at 9000'. :lmao:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,121 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
The other issue is that the 2.0T pretty much destroys the MPG of the 3.6 V6.

22/33 vs 17/26
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,458 Posts
The other issue is that the 2.0T pretty much destroys the MPG of the 3.6 V6.

22/33 vs 17/26
Rather. Jeez, that 3.6 is hardly better than my Poncho 5.3.

And I'll take the 325 lb-ft of torque, if I have to eat it in the MPG department, thank you very much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,998 Posts
The other issue is that the 2.0T pretty much destroys the MPG of the 3.6 V6.

22/33 vs 17/26
That's terrible mileage. That mileage is comparable to V-8/twin-turbo V-6 versions of the Charger, Taurus, and Genesis. Even a big Avalon will clean up shop at 19/29 or 20/29, whatever it is rated for.

But I fully expect the 12 Malibu to do better, as the LaCrosse FWD/3.6L combo already is good for 17/27.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,398 Posts
I got lucky here and found something without searching for more than 3 minutes:

We hit the test track then dug through our archive of comparison tests to find out.
With a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds and quarter mile of 15.0 seconds at 94.7 mph, the Sonata 2.0T is legitimately quick. But the big surprise is how it completely embarrasses the all-new 2011 Buick Regal CXL. That premium-priced, turbo 2.0-liter is a full second behind at 60 mph and needs 15.7 seconds and 92.8 mph to finish the quarter mile.
The Sonata turbo is also faster than the V-6 Ford Fusion Sport (6.8 sec/15.2 sec @ 94.0 mph) and splits times with the V-6 Honda Accord EX-L (6.5 sec/15.5 sec @ 95.5 mph), V-6 Chevrolet Malibu LTZ (6.5 sec/15.1 sec @ 93.7 mph) and Passat 2.0T (6.7 sec/15.0 sec @ 93.4 mph). Those times were pulled from comparison tests we did in the February 2008 and June 2008 issues.
The Sonata turbo does not fare quite so well against its other V-6 rivals, however. Though the Sonata recently passed the Altima for the number-three spot in segment sales, the Nissan isn't that easy to pass on the road. The V-6-powered Altima SE we tested back in 2008 needed only 6.3 seconds to hit 60 and 14.8 seconds and 96.1 mph for the quarter mile.
The Toyota Camry is faster still -- a 2007 SE model we tested laid down a 6.3-second blast to 60 and a 14.6-second quarter mile at 96.8 mph.

http://ettleson-hyundai.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-test-2011-hyundai-sonata-20t-is.html

I read a Road and Track review of an LTZ road test... :)

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/updates/2008-chevrolet-malibu-ltz


Best times I've seen for an Epsilon I V-6 compared to the best times I've seen for the HK GDI Turbo twins are below. Vehicles specifically were the Saturn Aura XR and Hyundai Sonata SE 2.0T.

GM 3.6L :: HK 2.0T
0-60: 6.2 :: 6.2
0-100: 16.6 :: 15.1
Quarter Mile: 14.9 @ 95 : 14.7 @ 99

Looks as though the Hyundai-Kia 2.0Ts are quicker overall, but quite similar in what you might call a "stoplight" drag race.

Aura XR did it in 5.9 and the LTZ in 6.0 flat...


http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/updates/2008-chevrolet-malibu-ltz
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/updates/2007-saturn-aura-xr



If you want to clean up with the turbo, race at 9000'. :lmao:

Bye bye Sonata! :lmao:


The other issue is that the 2.0T pretty much destroys the MPG of the 3.6 V6.

22/33 vs 17/26

My friends Aura XR regularly gets 36 on the freeway. It's the city that rapes him.


That's terrible mileage. That mileage is comparable to V-8/twin-turbo V-6 versions of the Charger, Taurus, and Genesis. Even a big Avalon will clean up shop at 19/29 or 20/29, whatever it is rated for.

But I fully expect the 12 Malibu to do better, as the LaCrosse FWD/3.6L combo already is good for 17/27.

But the LaCrosse isn't really a ball of fire... (Like the Malibu is :rolleyes:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,144 Posts
Saturn Aura 3.6 was a nice car. I like it better than the turbo sonata. I'm sort of disappointed that the 274hp vehicle is not faster.

Just an opinion but still a nice car.
 
21 - 40 of 65 Posts
Top