REPORT: 2011 Hyundai Sonata won't offer a V6
Posted Sep 27th 2009 9:26AM by Sam Abuelsamid
2010 Hyundai Sonata - Click above for high-res image gallery
Just a few days ago we saw the first images of the all-new Hyundai Sonata as it was introduced in South Korea. The Korean press release only mentioned two powertrain options, a 2.0-liter four cylinder and a 2.4-liter direct-injected four. No reference was made to a V6 such as the one offered in the current-generation Sonata. Ward's reports that they have been told even the North American-market Sonata will go four-cylinder only.
The current Sonata V6 only accounts for just 15 percent of total sales, and with the DI engine becoming standard in the new model, the larger engine likely be even less popular. We checked with Hyundai spokesman Dan Bedore, who responded "We have officially declined to comment further on that report." Bedore did tell us that further announcements would be coming at either the Los Angeles or Detroit Auto Show when the US model is revealed. The one thing we do know for sure is that a Sonata hybrid is coming later in 2010. Thanks for the tip, Derrick!
[Source:Ward's Auto World]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Avinash machado 9:39AM (9/27/2009)
A four cylinder is enough for a family sedan anyway.
Reply
Sea Urchin 9:49AM (9/27/2009)
Most people do not realize that.
MikeW 11:05AM (9/27/2009)
hypothetical Nissan Altima:
QR25 I4 (as offered) or VQ25hr V6.
Both 2.5 liters (2.488 to 2.496) 3/10 of 1%
175hp, 180ft-lbs for the I4, and say 200hp, 189ft-lbs for transverse installation & regular fuel VQ25hr V6.
I'd take the V6 every time, even if that mean 1/4 mpg reduced city mileage, 1/2 mpg reduced highway mileage.
Santosh Tiwari 12:32PM (9/27/2009)
Let me see.
A 4-cylinder engine with
direct injection
variable valve timing (and hopefully variable valve lift)
turbo charger (it should be there if it is not)
should be more than sufficient.
They can crank out 200+ bhp easily.
MikeW 5:08PM (9/27/2009)
or a very hypothetical 2.5 liter V12 for the Nissan Frontier
70mm bore, 54mm stroke 2.494 liters
250hp@7500, 200ft-lbs@5000
(with 7.5mm between cylinders, and a short camshaft & accessory drive, the total length can be 21")
or QR25 I4
152hp, 171ft-lbs
Aki 7:30PM (9/27/2009)
It's not a matter of what's enough, but a matter of being competitive with the market segment (Camrys and Accords).
Yes 4-cylinders far outsell V6 models, but even if V-blocks are 20% of the market, that's 20% of the market you're pushing away from Hyundais towards Toyota/Honda. I'd opt for the 4-cylinder version myself, but I think they should offer a higher-powered V6 option to spread the net wide.
the4thheat 11:41PM (9/27/2009)
Well clearly most people do since most sales are of 4-cylinder models, not just for the Sonata but for competitors like the Camry and Accord as well.
XJ 2:48AM (9/28/2009)
I own an '07 Sonata Ltd (V6 234hp) and a '09 Sonata GLS (I-4 175hp). Although I prefer the V6 because it is smoother, the 4 cylinder is quite peppy and at times feels just as powerful as the V6. If they can get at least 150hp from the 2.0L and 200hp from the DI 2.4, then I think Hyundai can go without a V6. I still think they'll bring a V6 to the states though. It'll be hard comparing the "top-of-the-line" 200hp performance numbers to +260hp Accords, Altimas, Camrys and Mazda6s.
PJ 4:26AM (9/28/2009)
"A four cylinder is enough for a family sedan anyway."
Bingo. We enthusiasts get hot and bothered about which family sedan has the biggest/most powerful V6, but as with virtually all segments that offer the choice, the lower-priced, smaller-engined vehicles are the volume sellers. As with all things, follow the money.
Remember the Suzuki Verona and its pitch about getting a Six (and only a Six) for four-cylinder money? Cubic inches don't sell anymore--certainly not in that case.
Serge 9:41AM (9/28/2009)
@MikeW
Do you have any idea how much more expensive a 2.4L V12 is compared to a 2.4L i4? What about complexity and repair costs down the road?
This is not a tiny 2,800lbs Ferrari Dino... family sedans don't need tiny high-revving V12 engines. Besides, a 2.4L i4 has more usable low-end torque than a 2.4L V12... and that should matter when hauling a family of 5 and a full trunk.
MikeW 2:53PM (9/28/2009)
Okay, years ago the automakers, primarily US, used to sell cylinder count instead of displacement (4,6,8, as if the world stopped at 8). To an effect they still do.
Then they used to only offer bigger transmissions with the bigger cylinder count [bigger displacement] engines.
Oh, you want the Inline 4, you have a choice of 2 speed auto or 3 speed manual. You'll take the V6-you have a choice of 3 speed auto or 4 speed manual. V8: you get a 4 speed auto or 5 speed stick.
That was also ridiculous/insulting. Everyone should have a modern/adequate transmission. (see Dodge Journey 4 speed auto with the 2.4 I4, '6' speed auto with the 3.5 V6. Bad Chrysler!)
You just determine how much displacement you need/want, and how many cylinders to divide that displacement among.
That was a 2.5 V12 vs. 2.5 I4, and that was for pickup truck duty.
Forget the cost differential, it was a thought experiment. A V12 can have less specific stress, hence less 'repair costs'.
'more usable low-end torque' that is just nonsense. For the same peak power, more cylinders will have more torque. (V12 vs. V8) For the same torque, more cylinders will have more power-it is about how you move the air. (camshaft duration)
There was a good article in Road and Track (circa 12-13 years ago) discussing V8 vs. V10 vs. V12 for Formula1. The V12 had the most power, but also highest fuel consumption. The V8 [flat plane crank] had the least power but best mileage (works for strategy). The V10 was the 'optimal compromise'.
For the same displacement, more cylinders does equal more surface area, which equates to more heat loss and reduced mileage. But if that is what you want, so be it.
Otherwise, why not use an 3 cylinder, or how about a 2 cylinder, why not just 1 cylinder?
If the US wanted high mileage cars, we'd use diesels.
I am for smaller engines with bigger transmissions.
If Nissan adopts the newest iteration of the CVT (7.3:1 vs. 6:1), then they can use the VQ25hr V6 and have an increase in mileage.
jbrumsey 9:48AM (9/27/2009)
Wow, that is a sexy car!
Reply
sk 10:23AM (9/27/2009)
I don't like it, to many design cues from Mercedes used in a rater bad way.
Pokey 12:54PM (9/27/2009)
You must have a very different definition of the term "sexy" than I do.
Yeah, this is a nice looking car, but it is NOT sexy. There is too much Toyota Solara going on in the front for this car to ever be considered sexy.
I do like it though.
click_playaz 2:00PM (9/27/2009)
Ugly. Camry, Accord, Altima look better. U guys think they're boring, because there are too many on the road. And Japan Big 3 are always on top of the US sales list. I don't hate Korean cars, but they're really overdone. Japanese looks simple and last long.
216 9:50AM (9/27/2009)
Makes sense, just have a V4, Turbo/Faster V4, and then a Hybrid
That's waay more than the average family would ever need
Reply
dmoneycivicsi 9:54AM (9/27/2009)
@ 216: when was the last time you saw a production V4?
Mattias 9:59AM (9/27/2009)
Ford had some rather funny V4s...
dmoneycivicsi 10:26AM (9/27/2009)
Haha yeah exactly my point. It's been over 30 years since the Taunus V4 or the Essex V4.
Mattias 10:28AM (9/27/2009)
AFAIK there never was an Essex V4. The V4 in the Taunus was used as a base for the Cologne V6. The Essex V6 was developed from scratch. Was there ever a V4 derived from the heavy Essex engine?