http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/d/265667-4/Sonata_Turbo_11.JPG

2011 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T Turbo Review – First Drive
Hyundai achieves an industry first, packing the terms “turbocharged” and “value” in a mid-size sedan

The Hyundai Sonata has gone from complete obscurity to overnight sensation, but the trip from second-rate rental car lots to one of America’s Top 3 mid-size sedans was a long one. With every generation getting better engineered and more attractive, the 2010 Sonata seems to be Hyundai’s opus.

The launch of the current Sonata, in the midst of a recession, was a gamble for Hyundai in itself. No one was quite sure how customers in this typically conservative segment would react to its swoopy, Mercedes-like styling and only one engine option, an adequate but not exactly soul-stirring 2.4L 4-cylinder engine – even if it did deliver the most power in its class.

BEST-IN-CLASS POWER AND FUEL ECONOMY

For 2011, Hyundai is offering more power, but chose to stick to their guns by not offering a V6. Instead, the hottest Sonata is motivated by a 2.0-liter 274-horsepower four-cylinder engine, with a 6-speed automatic gearbox putting power to the front wheels. The horsepower figure is just ahead of 6-cylinder offerings from Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford and Chevrolet. Turbo four engines in cars like the Volkswagen Passat and Buick Regal offer significantly less power to boot, despite identical displacement. Hyundai’s quantitative edge extends to fuel economy, where the Sonata is capable of getting 22-mpg in the city and 33-mpg on the highway, figures that none of the other rivals can match.


Read More 2011 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T Turbo Review at AutoGuide.com (http://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/hyundai/2011-hyundai-sonata-20t-turbo-review-first-drive-1441.html)

Hmm, my '09 V6 3.6 got me 17-19 winter/ 20-22 summer CITY and 32-34 HWY. I hope my '11 V6 3.6 does the same. Both the '09 and '11 are/were rated 17 and 26, so I guess I did better than average!

Sonata sounds like a good deal but I'm not ready to get a Korean car just yet. I need to see if the turbos and pulling that much power from such a small engine will endure long-term.

Sounds like a good powertrain. I am hoping the turbocharged 4 in the next gen Malibu is like this. May take some time to sway V6 buyers, but this really is a better choice.

I just find it hard to believe that there aren't going to be any durability issues squeezing every little horsey from a four banger? You generally sacrifice something when you try to get as much out of a motor as possible. You will have higher compression and higher revs resulting in a lot more heat and friction being generated.

I just find it hard to believe that there aren't going to be any durability issues squeezing every little horsey from a four banger? You generally sacrifice something when you try to get as much out of a motor as possible. You will have higher compression and higher revs resulting in a lot more heat and friction being generated.
Actually no, forced induction has LOW compression, and makes peak torque down low. The 3.6L in the Malibu actually has high compression. Add into the mix direct injection and you can have a nice little motor that will make nice power and get good mileage. Will it be like a 5.0L V12? Hell no, but it can better even a large V6 easily.

I don't know a lot about tearing down engines that have been driven hard and put away wet, but I did stay at a Howard Johnson's last night!

Even with a lower compression ratio there is more power being generated through the reciprocating mechanisms, meaning the bottom end needs to be beefier and will sustain a greater deal of forces and, therefore, wear. Now I don't suggest that the engineers can't or won't increase the strength. But if history can be used to gauge the future, manufacturers will usually choose to cut costs to the cheap and play the wait-and-see game on failures. Meanwhile, the general public (their paying customers!!!) are suffering and griping. Then suddenly they'll design in a little more endurance, but not so much that it costs too much and lasts a long time. After all, they're trying to cut down on weight and improve mileage (that's the main game here after all!) and adding strength just goes counter to that.

Yeah, they may just make it last long enough for the first owner to drive it hard and trade it in, but that would mean that they're just thinking short-term. And that's wrong, too!

So, since the technology is still emerging into the mainstream and history is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions, I'll go with displacement for now. Later on I may pick up a little wheeser with a blower, but not now.

I don't know a lot about tearing down engines that have been driven hard and put away wet, but I did stay at a Howard Johnson's last night!

Even with a lower compression ratio there is more power being generated through the reciprocating mechanisms, meaning the bottom end needs to be beefier and will sustain a greater deal of forces and, therefore, wear. Now I don't suggest that the engineers can't or won't increase the strength. But if history can be used to gauge the future, manufacturers will usually choose to cut costs to the cheap and play the wait-and-see game on failures. Meanwhile, the general public (their paying customers!!!) are suffering and griping. Then suddenly they'll design in a little more endurance, but not so much that it costs too much and lasts a long time. After all, they're trying to cut down on weight and improve mileage (that's the main game here after all!) and adding strength just goes counter to that.

Yeah, they may just make it last long enough for the first owner to drive it hard and trade it in, but that would mean that they're just thinking short-term. And that's wrong, too!

So, since the technology is still emerging into the mainstream and history is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions, I'll go with displacement for now. Later on I may pick up a little wheeser with a blower, but not now.

I see your point, but it is not really that way. Most forced induction motors as I said have WAY lower compression. That is a HUGE thing for long-term longevity. Also, most forced induction cars have forged bottom ends that are super strong. Not to mention that a turbocharger is a pretty simple thing driven by a waste product (exhaust) of an engine. Also, turbocharging has been around about 50 years and is long since a mainstream thing. Not some new technology. While I 100% prefer a big engine to a small one for a "toy" car, for a daily driver a 4 with some boost will make more power, get better mileage, and have less overall moving parts then a comparable 6, IMO.

Ya know, that's a good point, too! If we're not gonna race it (who does?) all the time then fewer moving parts and the occasional boost ought to translate into better mileage and reasonable wear overall.

Makes sense, but I have the V6 already. (Again!) I'll just keep the payments up and wait to see how this whole CAFE vs. Displacement thing affects it all. I have nuttin' but time.

Even with a lower compression ratio there is more power being generated through the reciprocating mechanisms, meaning the bottom end needs to be beefier and will sustain a greater deal of forces and, therefore, wear. Now I don't suggest that the engineers can't or won't increase the strength. But if history can be used to gauge the future, manufacturers will usually choose to cut costs to the cheap and play the wait-and-see game on failures. Meanwhile, the general public (their paying customers!!!) are suffering and griping. Then suddenly they'll design in a little more endurance, but not so much that it costs too much and lasts a long time. After all, they're trying to cut down on weight and improve mileage (that's the main game here after all!) and adding strength just goes counter to that.

Yeah, they may just make it last long enough for the first owner to drive it hard and trade it in, but that would mean that they're just thinking short-term. And that's wrong, too!

So, since the technology is still emerging into the mainstream and history is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions, I'll go with displacement for now. Later on I may pick up a little wheeser with a blower, but not now.

I think Silver left something out (feel free to correct me).:) I always thought the effective compression ratio goes up once the boost kicks in which in turn makes a turbo/supercharged engine more efficient in producing power. This is the reason for the usual requirement for higher octane fuel (burns slower and thus less likely to knock). I think the same sort of thing is going on with SIDI, i.e., the ignition process can be controlled better with DI which allows a higher compression and efficiency.

These ideas aren't new and they aren't much more complex than what you already have. Your V6's got, what, three timing chains, four camshafts with position sensors and actuator set each, two exhaust banks with O2 sensor and catalytic converter set each (basically two banks are independently metered) among the most notables.

As far as the durability is concerned, I venture a well-engineered turbocharged engine will be no less durable than a NA engine with the similar power.