Print 46 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on Jun 24 at 4:36 PM

Hyundai goes high tech to reach mainstream fuel economy numbers

Hyundai may have been burned back in 2011 for fudging the numbers when it comes to fuel economy, but the company is doing its best to show that it can still make fuel efficient vehicles with the next generation Sonata.
While the 2015 Sonata was first unveiled back in April at the New York Auto Show, the newly announced Eco model will carry the crown as the most efficient trim level for the Sonata (at least until the new hybrid variant arrives). The Sonata Eco uses a 1.6-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine that generates 177hp and 195 lb-ft of torque.
Instead of going with a traditional “slush box” transmission, the engine is paired with a 7-speed dual-clutch transmission (DCT), which Hyundai says is a first in the mainstream midsize sedan market.

When the numbers are added up, the Sonata Eco will deliver 28 mpg in the city, 38 mpg on the highway, and 32 mpg combined. This represents a 10 percent improvement over the 2015 Sonata SE with its 2.4-liter, 185hp engine.
It should be noted that Nissan and Mazda are able to achieve similar fuel economy to the Sonata Eco with more powerful, less complex engines in the Altima and 6 respectively. Both competitors also used tried and true transmissions (a CVT for the Altima, and a 6-speed automatic for 6) instead of a more complex (and often times “jerky” at low speeds) DCT.

The 2015 Sonata Eco will have a base price of $23,275 with the only option being a $4,100 Technology Package which includes such niceties as Blind Spot Detection, Rear-cross Traffic Alert, Lane Change Assist, push-button start, dual-zone automatic climate control, 8” navigation screen, and a hands-free auto open trunk.

Source: Hyundai

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Now lets
By Shark Tek on 6/20/2014 8:45:57 AM , Rating: 5
That is what they say.
Lets see how close to those numbers is on the real world.

RE: Now lets
By Brandon Hill on 6/20/2014 8:54:04 AM , Rating: 3
You would think they learned their lesson after they got smacked the first time. The biggest issue is that they are throwing in a lot tech to achieve numbers that simply aren't mind blowing.

RE: Now lets
By bug77 on 6/20/2014 9:05:01 AM , Rating: 2
177 hp out of 1.6 liters is quite respectable, I'd say. I've always had trouble translating mpg into European units, but those numbers seem average indeed.

RE: Now lets
By Samus on 6/20/2014 3:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
That is pretty impressive, especially on 87 pump gas. I wonder what the torque curve looks like since it's a single turbo, though. It might feel very sluggish unless the chassis went on a diet.

Without substantial weight loss, they need tech to compete with the Mazda 6. Too bad nobody is doing both, although personally, I like Mazda's approach the best.

RE: Now lets
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/22/2014 7:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
I've driven the Veloster with the 1.6 turbo. It pushes 201 hp on 87 octane gas in a lighter car.

The torque shows up early on but runs gets pretty limp when it hits the higher revs closer to redline. You have to keep the revs max a little over mid-level to get the most power out of it.

Putting a cooler version of this motor in the heavier sonata will not be as responsive. The 2.0L turbo in the earlier sonatas feels a lot more satisfying.

RE: Now lets
By mikable on 6/20/2014 3:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
2014 Ford Fiesta st 1.6l turbo 197hp stock 215 with dealer installed kit. The 1liter turbo has 135hp now that's respectful

RE: Now lets
By Monkey's Uncle on 6/22/2014 7:18:57 AM , Rating: 2
Hyundai's own Veloster turbo 1.6L engine puts out 201 hp. Not sure why they didn't use that engine, but instead put something weaker in the new Sonata. I don't expect that Sonata to be a very exciting car to drive.

RE: Now lets
By rdhood on 6/20/2014 9:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
The biggest issue is that they are throwing in a lot tech to achieve numbers that simply aren't mind blowing.

This. I am getting a 32mpg ave in my 2013 Altima over the last 9k miles.

RE: Now lets
By Spuke on 6/20/14, Rating: -1
RE: Now lets
By rdhood on 6/20/2014 10:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hey DUMBASS, no one, thus far, has compared their numbers against EPA numbers. I merely mentioned MY ACTUAL MILEAGE. I did not make a comparison. So, DUMBASS, hold your tongue until someone actually does what you suggested they did.

RE: Now lets
By bug77 on 6/20/2014 10:25:35 AM , Rating: 1
Then what's the relevance of your post if you weren't comparing to this Hyundai?

RE: Now lets
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2014 10:43:42 AM , Rating: 3
Except his average is right around the average the EPA states.

RE: Now lets
By Flunk on 6/20/2014 10:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
If you lived in a congested city you would get fuel economy hugely worse than the rated fuel economy. Traffic makes a huge difference. This is why you don't compare EPA ratings with actual consumption.

I'm getting 25.8MPG average on a 2.0L Mazda 3, but that doesn't mean your vehicle is more fuel efficient than mine because I spend half the time sitting in traffic.

For reference, these are very good numbers the Ford Fusion 1.5L Turbo gets 25 city/37 hwy/29 combined, that's a pretty comparable car (it's very slightly more powerful and the same size class and price range).

RE: Now lets
By Nutzo on 6/23/2014 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
You should have considered a Hybrid. M
y Camry Hybrid is rated at 40/38 MPG, and even with 100% rush hour city driving, and a short commute I'm still getting over 36 MPG.
I've also seen as high as 50 MPG on 60+ miles highway trips, and usually average over 45 MPG on the highway if I keep the speed under 70 MPH.

RE: Now lets
By Flunk on 6/23/2014 3:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
It would also cost an additional $12,000 and drive like a slug riding a flying carpet. I'm not complaining about fuel economy, I'm giving an example of how traffic affects fuel economy.

RE: Now lets
By dgingerich on 6/20/2014 1:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm getting 26-28 out of my 2005 Monte Carlo with a 182hp V6. Having to dump 50% of my low end torque for 10 extra mpg is not good in my opinion.

RE: Now lets
By Moishe on 6/24/2014 4:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
The Triton V10 in my motorhome gets 8 MPG with a very nice *10* MPG on flat stretches with a tail-wind.

RE: Now lets
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/2014 3:28:55 PM , Rating: 4
But it has an "Eco" badge!! It must be good!

Seriously there's no way I could buy something named Eco-anything, or suffer a badge on my vehicle stating as such.

You can just be a regular person and appreciate saving money at the pump. But making the vehicle a sociopolitical statement, those people are disenfranchised and look elsewhere.

RE: Now lets
By Mathos on 6/21/2014 1:23:56 AM , Rating: 2
I know what you mean. The Eco badge means nothing to me, since I generally need a vehicle that can pull, even a small trailer. I can't complain though, managed to average, 19-20mpg on my old 97 Blazer 4wd with the 4.3 V6 in it, right till the transmission went out this last time. And that was just with upgraded plugs and wires.

One interesting thing though. The 2012 Impala my mother bought, with the newer 300hp direct injected V6. She averages around 27-29mpg daily driving, 31mpg on the highway. Pretty standard mix of country stop and go, city, and highway driving in that. And that's pretty similar to the 03 Impala she had previously, which only had a 194hp v6.

May not be great, but its fun to hear that thing growl when you need to put the accelerator down.

RE: Now lets
By Spuke on 6/21/2014 1:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
But making the vehicle a sociopolitical statement, those people are disenfranchised and look elsewhere.
I might have considered this but God I just hate these new marketing names.

RE: Now lets
By kypd275 on 6/21/2014 3:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't care less about what car companies decide to call their trims levels etc., Eco means as much to me as SE or ES or GT whatever - ie, not a damn thing.

Only thing that matters are the numbers that actually matters, Ford can call the engine in my Focus ST Poo-Poo-Boost for all I care as long as it's still pumping out the same number.

RE: Now lets
By marvdmartian on 6/23/2014 8:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
Comparatively speaking, their badge isn't bad. A while back, I saw a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid in the gym parking lot. Let me tell you, the boys at Caddy were awfully proud of that behemoth sporting a hybrid drive train!

I think the only sides of that SUV that didn't sport some sort of "HYBRID" logo were the top, bottom and front. Back hatch, both sides (multiple times!), the dashboard and the engine all sport one.

Now that's what I'd call obnoxious badging!

RE: Now lets
By Nutzo on 6/23/2014 11:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
That's fitting since the Cadillac Escalade IS the very definition of obnoxious.

RE: Now lets
By M'n'M on 6/20/2014 8:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest issue is that they are throwing in a lot tech to achieve numbers that simply aren't mind blowing.

A lot of tech ? How is a 'puter operated manual transmission more "tech" than a CVT (even w/dual clutches) ? Or how is a turbo "tech" at all ? All are pretty common fare these days. A better question might be why isn't Hyundai reaping the same benefits for the cost of their chosen tech as does ... say Ford ? For that matter what is the added cost to Hyundai of this "tech" vs what Nissan etal are doing ? Perhaps less than the cost of Mazda's conventional transmission and a GDI engine ? How much tech went into making the 6's chassis lighter and more fuel efficient ?

RE: Now lets
By fvbounty on 6/20/2014 11:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 2013 Sonata Limited and I get about 17 in town, and 30 on the highway if I'm lucky and thats in eco mode.....don't trust a word they say.....

RE: Now lets
By retrospooty on 6/20/2014 11:48:54 AM , Rating: 1
But these things are highly dependent on how you drive. Are you driving with fuel efficiency in mind at all times? No fast starts, coasting as much as possible as opposed to brake, accelerate, brake accelerate.

If you are driving with fuel efficiency as a goal and getting 30 that is bad.

RE: Now lets
By marvdmartian on 6/23/2014 8:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure why you got down-rated, since your comments make perfect sense?

I had a 2009 Hyundai Sonata, with the 2.4 liter 4-banger, and typically got 23-24 combined mileage (the car was rated at 22 city/32 highway). Highway mileage was usually spot on, even with the AC running.

I have somewhat of a heavy foot, and that's likely why my mileage wasn't any better. On the highway, using cruise control, I actually got OVER the rated mileage. Go figure!

RE: Now lets
By Jeffk464 on 6/20/2014 1:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
Thats one good looking car, it looks like they were heavily inspired by audi styling though.

RE: Now lets
By rhangman on 6/21/2014 8:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Weird. I was just thinking how fugly it was. Believe with Euro pedestrian safety ratings though, all cars will have that front. Nothing to do with being inspired by Euro brands.

As for jerkyness with DCT's at low speed. Believe Honda solved that by using a torque converter (which is bypassed at higher speeds).

Dual clutch transmissions
By NeoReaper on 6/20/2014 10:23:46 AM , Rating: 4
Dual clutch tranmission do not tend to be "jerky" at low speeds. The only one that happens to be plagued with that issue is the dual clutch (Powershift) implemented by Ford and even those have gone through quite a number of software updates that have supposedly remedied the issue.

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By twhittet on 6/20/2014 11:09:27 AM , Rating: 3
I own a VW with a DSG and it is "jerky" at low speeds. Is it manageable? Yes. Do I absolutely love the transmission for everything above 10 mph? Yes.

There are many benefits to DSG/DCT over CVT, but at low speeds they can be off-putting to many people.

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By Brandon Hill on 6/20/2014 11:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
VW DSG owner here too. All DCT transmissions that I have driven are the same way at low speeds. You just get used to it or "adapt" to manage it.

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By NeoReaper on 6/20/2014 12:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
Which year DSG do you own? I'm just curious as I do not own a DSG but I've driven the DSG (S-Tronic in Audi lingo) from the 2nd gen Audi TT (don't remember the year) and the brand new A3, neither of which are jerky at low speeds. I was always under the assumption the VW GTI would perform the same since they are on virtually the same platform. I've also been the passenger of a couple of Posche PDKs which didn't appear jerky either.

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By twhittet on 6/20/2014 12:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
2012 CC. Have had the firmware upgraded, which didn't necessarily help jerkiness, but I did think helped initial power delivery.

I need to try more CVT engines, but from the few I've driven, I'd much rather have the feel of a dual clutch. It doesn't hurt to have the torque of a turbo to go with it. It is possible an engine with less power/smaller power band would be horrible to drive with a DSG.

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By NeoReaper on 6/20/2014 3:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Good point about engine power, never really thought about that. I've only driven 3 CVT cars in my life, all if which sucked bad LOL. I drove a Corolla CVT in Asia and 2 Nissan Altima CVT's. This generation Altima and last gen's Altima. In "tip tronic" mode it wasn't terrible, the virtual 6/7 speed (depending on manufacturer) is pretty convincing but in full auto, the rubberband effect is irritating.

If you're looking for an alternative to a dual-clutch, I would suggest testing out any car running the ZF 8 speed before bothering with a CVT. The transmission is silky smooth in full auto and the manual operation is "near" instant.

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By Spuke on 6/21/2014 1:55:48 AM , Rating: 2
Wife's car has a ZF 8 speed. Probably the best transmission out there next to Porsche's PDK IMO.

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By euler007 on 6/20/2014 2:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take a DCT over a CVT 100% of the time.

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By BernardP on 6/20/2014 8:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
+1 You beat me to it

RE: Dual clutch transmissions
By Murloc on 6/21/2014 8:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
they are jerky compared to manual cars. I've only driven DSG and tiptronic and manuals.

You notice it but it's not a disadvantage at all in normal driving conditions and you get used to it.

If you're on a steep slope covered in ice though, it can be a problem, manual allows the necessary control to avoid losing traction, DCT not so much.

2011 Sonata owner
By zlandar on 6/20/2014 12:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
I average 29-30 mpg on mostly highway driving. I drive in the low 80's which is going to decrease the fuel economy of any car. If you drive it like a granny at 55 mph you can hit the 34 mpg rating.

RE: 2011 Sonata owner
By FITCamaro on 6/20/14, Rating: 0
RE: 2011 Sonata owner
By kypd275 on 6/21/2014 4:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
IIRC EPA ratings are based on flat ground @ 55mph, increasing your speed by 50%+ and the exponentially higher wind resistance isn't going to net you better MPG.

By btc909 on 6/21/2014 5:32:56 AM , Rating: 2
This is the same engine in the Veloster and to get the "Best Performance" you need to run 91 octane. So if you are crying the blues about not getting those MPG numbers start spending 15-20 cents more per gallon.

My Eco-Car
By kondor999 on 6/22/2014 11:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
I get an awesome 10.1 mpg on my M6 with a V10. Damn those 10 ITB's suck it down but 500hp at 8300rpm feels good.

This has nothing to do with this econobox. I was just real proud of my fuel economy ;)

By flyingpants1 on 6/23/2014 2:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
As usual, this is all a joke. 100mpg cars have been available since forever.

Brought to you by
By Pombe on 6/20/14, Rating: 0
“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki