2020 Hyundai Sonata Unveiled in New York

Hmmm no more 2.0T.  Hyundai has some nice looking vehicles inside and out now but not sure I trust their powertrains.

2 minutes ago, frogger said:

Hmmm no more 2.0T.  Hyundai has some nice looking vehicles inside and out now but not sure I trust their powertrains.

 

On top of some rather anemic HP numbers for a midsize car. The rest of it is pretty sharp though. 

How does the optional engine have less horsepower and fuel economy than the base engine?

Other than that it looks great inside and out.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

How does the optional engine have less horsepower and fuel economy than the base engine?

Other than that it looks great inside and out.

That’s a huge WTF to me. 

Meh, another coupe based 4 door sedan. Sharp enough to stand out, will make sales, but not sure just how much if any market share it will take.

What is the point of the 1.6T?  It's about the same power as the 2.5, and I imagine the fuel economy improvements wouldn't be that substantial, soooooo why opt for it?  No more powerful engine option is confusing to me.

Like the looks. ..want more power

4 hours ago, dfelt said:

Meh, another coupe based 4 door sedan. Sharp enough to stand out, will make sales, but not sure just how much if any market share it will take.

Fusion, Focus, Impala, Lacrosse, Taurus are all dying.  Sedan buyers have to go somewhere, they might as well go here as this looks like a good sedan.

4 hours ago, Paolino said:

What is the point of the 1.6T?  It's about the same power as the 2.5, and I imagine the fuel economy improvements wouldn't be that substantial, soooooo why opt for it?  No more powerful engine option is confusing to me.

The fuel economy is 2 mpg  worse on the 1.6T.   It makes zero sense.  

28 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The fuel economy is 2 mpg  worse on the 1.6T.   It makes zero sense.  

It might feel torquier at the lower rpms than the 2.5L but I hope they don't force that engine on you at the upper trims because I rather have a non-turbo to deal with that gets slightly better fuel economy.

Interesting looks...

Engines for these tend to have issues...lots of traded in ones around here....

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Fusion, Focus, Impala, Lacrosse, Taurus are all dying.  Sedan buyers have to go somewhere, they might as well go here as this looks like a good sedan.

The fuel economy is 2 mpg  worse on the 1.6T.   It makes zero sense.  

True they might as well go here for those that want another bland coupe style car.

I agree, the worse MPG on that engine just does not make sense to me either.

22 hours ago, smk4565 said:

How does the optional engine have less horsepower and fuel economy than the base engine?

Other than that it looks great inside and out.

Peak horsepower doesn't matter. Deep torque curve does.  If the 8-speed does its job, it should still feel plenty fast with the 1.6T

43 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Peak horsepower doesn't matter. Deep torque curve does.  If the 8-speed does its job, it should still feel plenty fast with the 1.6T

Yes but I can’t imagine it is that much of a difference in acceleration times and not enough that typical Sonata buyers are going to notice.

29 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Yes but I can’t imagine it is that much of a difference in acceleration times and not enough that typical Sonata buyers are going to notice.

0-60 doesn't really matter in this class either. What matters is responsiveness. 

The turbo torque comes on at a crazy low rpm. With the right gearing it will feel quicker.

4 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

0-60 doesn't really matter in this class either. What matters is responsiveness. 

The turbo torque comes on at a crazy low rpm. With the right gearing it will feel quicker.

It is an 11 hp loss for a 14 lb-ft gain.  I guess we’d have to see a torque curve comparison to see the difference but these engines are awfully close in power.  I find it a hard sell for a salesperson to convince a buyer to pay extra for the turbo that has less horsepower and mpg, because consumers will understand the numbers not that the turbo might feel a little more responsive.

Now if it was a 2.0 turbo I could see the benefit.

3 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

It is an 11 hp loss for a 14 lb-ft gain.  I guess we’d have to see a torque curve comparison to see the difference but these engines are awfully close in power.  I find it a hard sell for a salesperson to convince a buyer to pay extra for the turbo that has less horsepower and mpg, because consumers will understand the numbers not that the turbo might feel a little more responsive.

Now if it was a 2.0 turbo I could see the benefit.

It just shows that you still don't understand how horsepower works after all these years. 

I can't imagine anyone buying a family sedan like the Sonata would care about the HP, torque or 0-60.  This is functional point A to point B transportation. 

14 hours ago, dfelt said:

True they might as well go here for those that want another bland coupe style car.

Almost everything is a coupe-style car now. That's what the CT5 is, Accord,...

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Almost everything is a coupe-style car now. That's what the CT5 is, Accord,...

Yup, a reason that I am not excited by them, they all are too generic and look the same.

Reports out today:

Sonata going to get a hybrid version and an N-Line version with over 275 HP. 

"over 275hp" doesn't sound like anything impressive.. 

10 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

"over 275hp" doesn't sound like anything impressive.. 

Better than the default 180hp motor it has now.

17 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

"over 275hp" doesn't sound like anything impressive.. 

It's better than the Altima, Accord, Passat, Arteon, Regal, and Malibu.  Only the Camry and Regal GS have more. Maybe Maxima too if there is price overlap. 

But we may be finally moving into an era where torque is king again and we can finally get away from these relatively useless HP numbers. 

4 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It just shows that you still don't understand how horsepower works after all these years. 

I understand how it and torque work.  You usually back the NA V6 with less torque than the 2.0T when Cadillac used to have those 2.  If the 1.6T is better drivability then just make the standard engine.  I am not arguing one is better than the other, I just think it senseless to offer 2 engines so close in power output.

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

I understand how it and torque work.  You usually back the NA V6 with less torque than the 2.0T when Cadillac used to have those 2.  If the 1.6T is better drivability then just make the standard engine.  I am not arguing one is better than the other, I just think it senseless to offer 2 engines so close in power output.

You're mixing things up.  I prefer larger displacement engines to small ones of similar output.  5-10 lbft here and there don't really matter.

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You're mixing things up.  I prefer larger displacement engines to small ones of similar output.  5-10 lbft here and there don't really matter.

Well this is 2.5 liter vs 1.6.  I just don’t see why they didn’t pick one and run with it, hybrid as an option and N line as an option.  3 choices in a Sonata is enough.

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

Well this is 2.5 liter vs 1.6.  I just don’t see why they didn’t pick one and run with it, hybrid as an option and N line as an option.  3 choices in a Sonata is enough.

You have a point there.