RSS
The introduction of the 2011 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T is particularly exciting for Hyundai, giving the South Korean automaker an additional opportunity to show how the Sonata has grown up. In a broader sense, it gives us a chance to see if Hyundai can do with four cylinders what its competitors can do with six.
The 2.0T is the latest Sonata to join the Hyundai lineup before the upcoming Sonata Hybrid. In terms of performance, the 2.0-liter four cylinder’s figure of 274 horsepower wallops the base 2.4-liter engine’s output — as well as nearly every competitor in the segment, whether a four or a six-cylinder variant. As if that weren’t enough, the turbocharged engine still delivers 34 mpg on the highway, giving up only 1 mpg to its naturally aspirated sibling.
Today’s Snap Judgment:
Is a turbocharged four-cylinder a real replacement for a six-cylinder engine?
We’ve heard this story before, of an automaker using a more powerful small engine to reproduce the results of a larger one. From Ford’s EcoBoost six-cylinder engine to Fiat’s innovative proposal to squeeze power out of a two-cylinder engine, if there ever were an age of lazy power, it seems to be coming to an end.
But in everyday driving, is there something to be said for having a larger engine? Or is the way of the future to squeeze out more efficient power from smaller powerplants?
Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
I think the turbo maintains high torque levels for longer which makes it feel more powerful than a V6. http://www.turbosonata.com
Turbos seem to go in and out of style. Ferrari tried them in the past as did F1 and even GM gave them a shot. Same story each time the cost, the lag, and durability. The real future is the CR-Z. Ferrari has it’s patents ready as does the other exotics. Honda was the first to have a real hybrid and now the first attainable sport hybrid. Short burst of power for out of the whole acceleration or for passing and a small I-4 to sip the fuel. It’s tried and tested. Toyota’s Supra HV-R won at the Tokachi 24-hour in 2007. I’m waiting for that Global Hybrid Cooperation transmission (around 160hp) to make its way to the Corvette.
@ DaveVolvo S60R is a turbo I-5, not I-4.As with everyone else, it completely depends on execution. In family sedans, a turbo-four can definitely be as good as a V-6. Turbo fours are typically smoother and lighter than V-6s which means automakers don’t have to engineer the car to hold the heftier V-6 or work out the NVH problems inherent with a V-6. To that end, most I-4s won’t sound as good as a V-6 though.The real downside to a turbo-four is its turbocharger. A lot of the turbo-fours around have some pretty serious lag, but are getting better. Once turbo-fours in sedans like the Sonata (I’ve only driven the 2.0T Genesis Coupe which has terrible lag) have the same linear power band as a V-6, I don’t see the reason for a V-6 family sedan.Certain cars, such as muscle cars and large luxury sedans, should never have a turbo-four no matter how good it is.
As others have said, it’s all about execution. I test drove a Volvo S60R, which had 300HP cranking out of a turbo 4 cylinder, and I honestly didn’t miss the sound or power of a V6. Likewise, my old GTI kicked a lot of butt without a 6. Still, there’s a perception factor that kicks in around 40K (the S60R was an exception) and for certain sports cars. A Vette and Mustang absolutely could never have a 4 cyclinder, no matter how much HP they kicked out. Likewise, a hot turbo 4 in a BMW 7, Mercedes S Class, or Aston Martin would be wrong on so many levels.
Well, I’ll take a stab at Subaru. On the performance side, the GT with the turbo four is a far better performer than the six cylinder that they also offer. Fuel economy, both are the same, which doesn’t compare to Hyundai’s. So, like Jason said, it depends on the execution. And for performance, I would say yes. I think the new Volvo S60 versus the Acura TL say the same?
With Honda’s V6 getting 29 mpg on the hwy the case for a 4 cylinder engine like the Sonata’s is pointless. It would take more than a 5 mpg difference to get me out of the Honda 6 and into a 4 cylinder of any make, especially as the weight of automobiles continues to go up and not down. Part of the fuel savings is in the lighter weight of the 4 cylinder engine and not its superiority over the 6.A smaller engine has to work harder to do the amount of work as a larger engine, so the life of the smaller engine would be shorter in my estimation.At any rate, I don’t see ANY 5 year or older Hyundais still running around, here in the South East, and you see Hondas from as far back as the late 80s and early 90s and they don’t smoke. For my money give me the HONDA 6 not the Hyundai T4.
It all depends on application and execution, if you ask me. It certainly worked in the Volkswagen GTI, where the delicious 2.8-liter VR6 was replaced with a 2.0T that’s so good nobody complained.But the 2.0T is an exception: it’s more refined than most V-6s. If other manufacturers can make downsized, turbocharged engines that rival their higher-cylinder-count predecessors in refinement and power, then sure.Of course, it doesn’t end there. Ford’s EcoBoost is one hell of an engine, but I certainly don’t want to see it in the Mustang. The Mustang gets a V-8 in my book; no V-6 will ever feel (or sound) right.So it all depends on the execution — and application.