[dmlexpert]

[In your opinion, what will be the updates or improvements to Hyundai's recent IVT trans? I know as you, there will be improvements to that recently released trans.]

There's no way of knowing other than to wait and see how the new units handle daily life in owners' cars. Updates are usually rollups of software tweaks that address consumer complaints. There's only so much they can do before they have to get the powetrain recertified by the EPA, so actual tangible improvement after an update is usually fairly minor. When the new-for-'02 Toymota Crappy sedan with the 5 speed automatic hit the dealers, people found out quickly that it was calibrated for fuel economy and not for passenger comfort. Complaints stacked up, but there was little that could be done without having to recertify the powertrain - an expensive and time consuming proposition. So they just sold them and let the victims deal with the shift shock. Thank the government for not allowing changes in computer settings that can affect emission levels.

[Just amazing when I look back on power and fuel economy now, compared to the "old days" of power and fuel mileage. Just amazing!]

And that's the main reason why you rarely hear me talk about horsepower other than to say today's cars have too much. A 1979 Mustang - born in a sad time in automotive history, where the Center for Auto Safety and the EPA were two vultures picking at the carcasses of the Big 3.5 as though they had already expired - was a new-that-year coupe base on the boxy and tinny Fairmont. The V8 version weighed about the same as the Elantra, and the biggest 5.0 you could cram under the hood was rated at 140hp. Today's Elantra has 5% more horsepower, yet the auto press declares that the car would be more fun with 200hp. Why would they say something so assinine? How fast do you need to blast forward 150 feet in a traffic jam? Food tastes better when you dump in two pounds of sugar, but you'd be stupid to do it because the food in its existing form tastes good enough and gets the job done.

[So, way back when, the 70's, the government used a different procedure to measure mileage than current techniques.]

Not quite. Back in the 1970s, they printed the actual result - rounded to the nearest integer - on the sticker. They use the same exact tests today, because the primary purpose of the tests is to check emission levels from the engine. But they run the test result through a formula to lower it down to something they think average people will see in their driving.

[I understand your comments. From your analysts, the current "dyno" numbers are roughly about 30% higher than official numbers. The window sticker numbers. It would seem in order to get those extremely high dyno numbers, it would take steady state throttle application? Just can't see how those very high dyno numbers can happen with somewhat aggressive throttle movements, like you can get in real world applications?]

Steady throttle is a big part of it, at speed, but you need to get up to speed. The city test involves acceleration of 3.3mph/sec, which is 0-30mph in 9 seconds. In the real world, I accelerate faster than the test rate because I want to see engine load numbers above 70 because that means you're using more of the energy from the fuel.
Look for FTP75 and HWFET and the supplied graphs from this EPA page - https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules
And this is the actual test speeds for the HWFET test - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/hwycol.txt
If you ever wondered why you car shifts to overdrive in the low 40mph range and hangs onto overdrive with a deathgrip down to about 38mph, check those test numbers in the 130-150 second range and it will all become clear.

[So, the government mandated, for now that is, "much-lamented 54.5mpg CAFE requirement" is predicated on "dyno" numbers, and not "window" numbers? If so, the car makers aren't far of now. But, that is corporate numbers, and not vehicle specific numbers. Weighing in trucks, SUV's, sports cars, crossovers, etc numbers, it may need dyno numbers to achieve?]

CAFE numbers are based on the actual test numbers, and many compact cars are very close even today.
True, but the various classes have different weighting and the 54.5 is for "passenger cars". E85 compatiblity counts as a higher number, for a given car/engine combo, and different types of vehicles (MPV, light truck, etc) actually have CAFE requirements based on their "footprint" (length x width). Bigger = lower mpg requirement. Result of that law: It wiped out any hope for a compact truck market (think "Ford Courier, Chevy LUV, Dodge Ram-50"), virtually destroyed the midsize truck market, and large trucks are bigger than ever. They're just giant turtle shells over the basic truck frame. It's the best way to hit the CAFE targets on the big trucks.

The compact MPVs are getting interesting. The 2020 versions of the Fiat Renegade, Ford Escape and the coming-late-this-year Buick "Encore GX" are all rolling into showrooms with three cylinder engines. These cute utes are small by design, and small needs to hit higher mpg targets. The fastest way to get there is to put in the little weedwhacker engines. The public will, of course, treat the gas pedal like an on/off switch and get a real-world 20mpg with them, but the EPA drone creeping from 0 to 30 in 9 seconds will stay comfortably out of boost and record the big numbers the cars need in order to hit the targets.

[Your comments come from knowledge you have acquired over the years, and what appears to be genuine interest in the automobile. Or, maybe mechanical interest in general?]

I am a pretty good researcher with natural curiosity about how things work and the ability to understand the details. So I can borrow my friend's login for access to the techinfo site, or dig information out of the US patent database, or at times have received information directly from people working within the automakers. There are gray areas where they don't dish the dirt, and so you have to study the facts and draw your own conclusions. You can usually get the answer you want by watching their face while you ask the question. If they look startled, you hit a nerve and you're on the right track. If they just rattle off answers and it sounds like they're reading off an index card, switch subjects - you're not striking oil with that line of questioning.

Appreciate your kind words, by the way. Going back and reading the start of the thread, a lot has been covered - and at a depth of detail far beyond whether the 1.8 and 2.0 are the same basic block.

 

[todd72173]

like reading novels here./.way too long.
1.8 engines are horrible. Put the A/C on and forget it..everybody passes you.
i cant imaging 2.0 are any better.
there.. three lines.. lot quicker read than prior books.

 

[sciencemagic]

[In your opinion, what will be the updates or improvements to Hyundai's recent IVT trans? I know as you, there will be improvements to that recently released trans.]

There's no way of knowing other than to wait and see how the new units handle daily life in owners' cars. Updates are usually rollups of software tweaks that address consumer complaints. There's only so much they can do before they have to get the powetrain recertified by the EPA, so actual tangible improvement after an update is usually fairly minor. When the new-for-'02 Toymota Crappy sedan with the 5 speed automatic hit the dealers, people found out quickly that it was calibrated for fuel economy and not for passenger comfort. Complaints stacked up, but there was little that could be done without having to recertify the powertrain - an expensive and time consuming proposition. So they just sold them and let the victims deal with the shift shock. Thank the government for not allowing changes in computer settings that can affect emission levels.

[Just amazing when I look back on power and fuel economy now, compared to the "old days" of power and fuel mileage. Just amazing!]

And that's the main reason why you rarely hear me talk about horsepower other than to say today's cars have too much. A 1979 Mustang - born in a sad time in automotive history, where the Center for Auto Safety and the EPA were two vultures picking at the carcasses of the Big 3.5 as though they had already expired - was a new-that-year coupe base on the boxy and tinny Fairmont. The V8 version weighed about the same as the Elantra, and the biggest 5.0 you could cram under the hood was rated at 140hp. Today's Elantra has 5% more horsepower, yet the auto press declares that the car would be more fun with 200hp. Why would they say something so assinine? How fast do you need to blast forward 150 feet in a traffic jam? Food tastes better when you dump in two pounds of sugar, but you'd be stupid to do it because the food in its existing form tastes good enough and gets the job done.

[So, way back when, the 70's, the government used a different procedure to measure mileage than current techniques.]

Not quite. Back in the 1970s, they printed the actual result - rounded to the nearest integer - on the sticker. They use the same exact tests today, because the primary purpose of the tests is to check emission levels from the engine. But they run the test result through a formula to lower it down to something they think average people will see in their driving.

[I understand your comments. From your analysts, the current "dyno" numbers are roughly about 30% higher than official numbers. The window sticker numbers. It would seem in order to get those extremely high dyno numbers, it would take steady state throttle application? Just can't see how those very high dyno numbers can happen with somewhat aggressive throttle movements, like you can get in real world applications?]

Steady throttle is a big part of it, at speed, but you need to get up to speed. The city test involves acceleration of 3.3mph/sec, which is 0-30mph in 9 seconds. In the real world, I accelerate faster than the test rate because I want to see engine load numbers above 70 because that means you're using more of the energy from the fuel.
Look for FTP75 and HWFET and the supplied graphs from this EPA page - https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules
And this is the actual test speeds for the HWFET test - https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/hwycol.txt
If you ever wondered why you car shifts to overdrive in the low 40mph range and hangs onto overdrive with a deathgrip down to about 38mph, check those test numbers in the 130-150 second range and it will all become clear.

[So, the government mandated, for now that is, "much-lamented 54.5mpg CAFE requirement" is predicated on "dyno" numbers, and not "window" numbers? If so, the car makers aren't far of now. But, that is corporate numbers, and not vehicle specific numbers. Weighing in trucks, SUV's, sports cars, crossovers, etc numbers, it may need dyno numbers to achieve?]

CAFE numbers are based on the actual test numbers, and many compact cars are very close even today.
True, but the various classes have different weighting and the 54.5 is for "passenger cars". E85 compatiblity counts as a higher number, for a given car/engine combo, and different types of vehicles (MPV, light truck, etc) actually have CAFE requirements based on their "footprint" (length x width). Bigger = lower mpg requirement. Result of that law: It wiped out any hope for a compact truck market (think "Ford Courier, Chevy LUV, Dodge Ram-50"), virtually destroyed the midsize truck market, and large trucks are bigger than ever. They're just giant turtle shells over the basic truck frame. It's the best way to hit the CAFE targets on the big trucks.

The compact MPVs are getting interesting. The 2020 versions of the Fiat Renegade, Ford Escape and the coming-late-this-year Buick "Encore GX" are all rolling into showrooms with three cylinder engines. These cute utes are small by design, and small needs to hit higher mpg targets. The fastest way to get there is to put in the little weedwhacker engines. The public will, of course, treat the gas pedal like an on/off switch and get a real-world 20mpg with them, but the EPA drone creeping from 0 to 30 in 9 seconds will stay comfortably out of boost and record the big numbers the cars need in order to hit the targets.

[Your comments come from knowledge you have acquired over the years, and what appears to be genuine interest in the automobile. Or, maybe mechanical interest in general?]

I am a pretty good researcher with natural curiosity about how things work and the ability to understand the details. So I can borrow my friend's login for access to the techinfo site, or dig information out of the US patent database, or at times have received information directly from people working within the automakers. There are gray areas where they don't dish the dirt, and so you have to study the facts and draw your own conclusions. You can usually get the answer you want by watching their face while you ask the question. If they look startled, you hit a nerve and you're on the right track. If they just rattle off answers and it sounds like they're reading off an index card, switch subjects - you're not striking oil with that line of questioning.

Appreciate your kind words, by the way. Going back and reading the start of the thread, a lot has been covered - and at a depth of detail far beyond whether the 1.8 and 2.0 are the same basic block.

dmlexpert, thanks for your reply. Yes, agree with your comment, "Today's Elantra has 5% more horsepower, yet the auto press declares that the car would be more fun with 200hp." Most auto journalists it seems are trying to keep up with other auto mag journalists? I understand being a gear head and being passionate about cars, but a 200 m.p.h. car, or 750 h.p. is obviously not a vehicle that is used to what the engineers had created, unless you rent a race track, and have the talent. Maybe, it is being used to 1% of the people who buy it. Yes, a waste of money, but it happens all the time in society.

Understand your comments about the EPA test procedures, both current and of yesteryear. It does get real confusing how all of it is put to practice.

Agree with your statement. "You can usually get the answer you want by watching their face while you ask the question. If they look startled, you hit a nerve and you're on the right track. If they just rattle off answers and it sounds like they're reading off an index card, switch subjects - you're not striking oil with that line of questioning."

Thanks again, dmlexpert for your thorough detailed comments.

 

[dmlexpert]

[Most auto journalists it seems are trying to keep up with other auto mag journalists? I understand being a gear head and being passionate about cars, but a 200 m.p.h. car, or 750 h.p. is obviously not a vehicle that is used to what the engineers had created, unless you rent a race track, and have the talent. Maybe, it is being used to 1% of the people who buy it. Yes, a waste of money, but it happens all the time in society.]

The magazine authors need to make anything on wheels exciting and passionate or they won't sell any magazines. Take away the starry-eyed reviews and you end up with Consumer Reports - a vapid opinion piece where cars are downgraded for having "confusing buttons" on the dash or not having the Computerized Collision Generator system installed that allows the car to randomly slam on the brakes without any way for the driver to regain control of the vehicle. The auto press offers their idea of the "10 Best Handling Cars" in order to provide fantasies for people who imagine what it'd be like to own an unreliable $150k sports car that can't drive into a Burger King lot without ripping its front bumper off. Being able to pull 1.0g on the skid pad is important to anyone who happens to own a race track. It's the same nonsense that sells TV sets with 8k resolution when people who don't know any better are watching ESPN that broadcasts at 720p - 1/6 of what the TV can display.

The Elantra sells very well because it meets the market need very well. It's a compact car with the interior space of an intermediate. It has as much horsepower as the 350 2 barrel they dropped under the hood of the 1974-1976 Chevy Impala that weighed 4400 pounds. It gets about the same mpg as the Rabbit Diesel of 1978 that had manual transmission and 240 air conditioning (2 windows open at 40mph). Crash ratings are good. Repair/replacement parts are cheap so there's no reason for the crack heads to steal them. It's not a perfect car but it meets the need for owners who depend on their car every day, and it's an unbeatable value at the price.

[Understand your comments about the EPA test procedures, both current and of yesteryear. It does get real confusing how all of it is put to practice.]

That's the US government in action. Take a simple test and make it ridiculous in its complexity and use a type of fuel (100% gasoline) that few people can actually buy. Then say the numbers are "for comparison purposes only", like the calorie count on a bag of potato chips where the serving size is "3 chips" of undisclosed size.

When I look at window stickers for a new car, I figure the "combined" number is my target for actual around-town driving, and twice the city number is my target for highway driving. For the Elantra (27/32/38), I'd shoot for 32 in town and 54 on the highway. In test driving various cars, I find that I am able to hit those numbers without any elaborate techniques. YMMV

The EPA and NHTSA are collectively the reason they don't offer more manual transmissions. The EPA requires every engine/trans combination to be certified for emissions, which is expensive and time consuming and makes the few thousand cars the automakers would actually sell very unprofitable. And NHTSA is trying to ram through the requirement that the car can slam on the brakes all by itself, which is not compatible with stepping on the clutch so the engine doesn't stall. I found a patent that Toyota filed that describes a clutch that can be released by computer control - probably to make a stick shift compatible with the auto-rearend-crash feature our next car will probably have.

[Agree with your statement. "You can usually get the answer you want by watching their face while you ask the question. If they look startled, you hit a nerve and you're on the right track. If they just rattle off answers and it sounds like they're reading off an index card, switch subjects - you're not striking oil with that line of questioning."]

You should have seen the look on the face of one of the Toyota powertrain development reps when I started asking specific questions about their new 8 speed automatic. He started squinting and looking at the press pass because he was trying to figure out who I was. Ha! I got my answer, though, and I can say that the Hyundai 8 speed has less internal friction than the Toyota 8 speed, and also has the capability to shift more smoothly.

I remember test driving an early build Sonata Hybrid at the 2011 LA auto show. In the passenger seat was a Hyundai rep (a vehicle line manager). I told him that it was unfortunate that Hyundai doesn't offer something like Onstar that allows a driver to call for help if needed. The population is aging and it's a feature that the AARP demographic wants. He just smiled and said, "wait six months". I asked, "Hyundai is going to license Onstar technology and offer it in their lineup?!" He paused for a few seconds with a subtle smile and repeated, "wait six months". Well, six months later, they unveiled the 2012 Veloster with - BlueLink. What he was saying suddenly made sense. I could tell by the look on his face that he really wanted to say something but he couldn't. But he still wanted to make the point that they had something coming in the near future. You never know when you're going to meet someone who will give you a real scoop.

 

[sciencemagic]

[Most auto journalists it seems are trying to keep up with other auto mag journalists? I understand being a gear head and being passionate about cars, but a 200 m.p.h. car, or 750 h.p. is obviously not a vehicle that is used to what the engineers had created, unless you rent a race track, and have the talent. Maybe, it is being used to 1% of the people who buy it. Yes, a waste of money, but it happens all the time in society.]

The magazine authors need to make anything on wheels exciting and passionate or they won't sell any magazines. Take away the starry-eyed reviews and you end up with Consumer Reports - a vapid opinion piece where cars are downgraded for having "confusing buttons" on the dash or not having the Computerized Collision Generator system installed that allows the car to randomly slam on the brakes without any way for the driver to regain control of the vehicle. The auto press offers their idea of the "10 Best Handling Cars" in order to provide fantasies for people who imagine what it'd be like to own an unreliable $150k sports car that can't drive into a Burger King lot without ripping its front bumper off. Being able to pull 1.0g on the skid pad is important to anyone who happens to own a race track. It's the same nonsense that sells TV sets with 8k resolution when people who don't know any better are watching ESPN that broadcasts at 720p - 1/6 of what the TV can display.

The Elantra sells very well because it meets the market need very well. It's a compact car with the interior space of an intermediate. It has as much horsepower as the 350 2 barrel they dropped under the hood of the 1974-1976 Chevy Impala that weighed 4400 pounds. It gets about the same mpg as the Rabbit Diesel of 1978 that had manual transmission and 240 air conditioning (2 windows open at 40mph). Crash ratings are good. Repair/replacement parts are cheap so there's no reason for the crack heads to steal them. It's not a perfect car but it meets the need for owners who depend on their car every day, and it's an unbeatable value at the price.

[Understand your comments about the EPA test procedures, both current and of yesteryear. It does get real confusing how all of it is put to practice.]

That's the US government in action. Take a simple test and make it ridiculous in its complexity and use a type of fuel (100% gasoline) that few people can actually buy. Then say the numbers are "for comparison purposes only", like the calorie count on a bag of potato chips where the serving size is "3 chips" of undisclosed size.

When I look at window stickers for a new car, I figure the "combined" number is my target for actual around-town driving, and twice the city number is my target for highway driving. For the Elantra (27/32/38), I'd shoot for 32 in town and 54 on the highway. In test driving various cars, I find that I am able to hit those numbers without any elaborate techniques. YMMV

The EPA and NHTSA are collectively the reason they don't offer more manual transmissions. The EPA requires every engine/trans combination to be certified for emissions, which is expensive and time consuming and makes the few thousand cars the automakers would actually sell very unprofitable. And NHTSA is trying to ram through the requirement that the car can slam on the brakes all by itself, which is not compatible with stepping on the clutch so the engine doesn't stall. I found a patent that Toyota filed that describes a clutch that can be released by computer control - probably to make a stick shift compatible with the auto-rearend-crash feature our next car will probably have.

[Agree with your statement. "You can usually get the answer you want by watching their face while you ask the question. If they look startled, you hit a nerve and you're on the right track. If they just rattle off answers and it sounds like they're reading off an index card, switch subjects - you're not striking oil with that line of questioning."]

You should have seen the look on the face of one of the Toyota powertrain development reps when I started asking specific questions about their new 8 speed automatic. He started squinting and looking at the press pass because he was trying to figure out who I was. Ha! I got my answer, though, and I can say that the Hyundai 8 speed has less internal friction than the Toyota 8 speed, and also has the capability to shift more smoothly.

I remember test driving an early build Sonata Hybrid at the 2011 LA auto show. In the passenger seat was a Hyundai rep (a vehicle line manager). I told him that it was unfortunate that Hyundai doesn't offer something like Onstar that allows a driver to call for help if needed. The population is aging and it's a feature that the AARP demographic wants. He just smiled and said, "wait six months". I asked, "Hyundai is going to license Onstar technology and offer it in their lineup?!" He paused for a few seconds with a subtle smile and repeated, "wait six months". Well, six months later, they unveiled the 2012 Veloster with - BlueLink. What he was saying suddenly made sense. I could tell by the look on his face that he really wanted to say something but he couldn't. But he still wanted to make the point that they had something coming in the near future. You never know when you're going to meet someone who will give you a real scoop.

dmlexpert, thank you for your reply. I agree, the Hyundai is a good value. Yes, there are some warts, but for the money you can't complain, at least I can't. I do have a complaint about the new grilles there putting on the new model of the Elantra. For the most part, the car is a pretty good looking car. That is until you get to the front. Yes, I know looks are subjective, but the new grill looks cheap and a after thought. Just doesn't mesh with the rest of the car, in my opinion. It seems almost as if they felt obligated to make a grill change, regardless what it looked like? Maybe safety and crash issues were at play?

How true, "That's the US government in action. Take a simple test and make it ridiculous in its complexity". Boy, they sure have done that!

Thank you for your time and comments, dmlexpert. It is always appreciatated.

 

[dmlexpert]

[I do have a complaint about the new grilles there putting on the new model of the Elantra. For the most part, the car is a pretty good looking car. That is until you get to the front. Yes, I know looks are subjective, but the new grill looks cheap and a after thought. Just doesn't mesh with the rest of the car, in my opinion. It seems almost as if they felt obligated to make a grill change, regardless what it looked like? Maybe safety and crash issues were at play?]

Since the 2011-2016 Elantra was introduced, they brought Peter Schreyer on board as head of styling. He worked for years at Audi, and you can see his influence in the big hexagonal grille that looks like it was swiped off an A4 or A6. The rear lighting also has a bit of Audi flavor to it. Since they hired the former Bentley stylist to redo the Genesis line, you will see the Genesis start to look like the Bentley products over the next few years.

I'm personally not a fan of the 2019-2020 Elantra refresh with it's awkward rear bumper with black plastic blanks. Also on my sh*tlist is the oddball nose that I call "The Devil's Triangles" with blunt surfaces and sharp angles that clash with the somewhat softer lines behind the front clip. But it wouldn't stop my from buying the car, since the powertrain, ride and handling, and interior feautures are still excellent. I also like the fact that they are still building the Elantra in South Korea (VIN "K") and Montgomery, AL (VIN "5") and not tooling up the Kia plant in Mexico to build them. The Mexico plant builds the Accent (you'll see VIN "3" on the new ones) alongside the Rio and Forte. The Elantra shares the same skeleton and powertrain as the Forte so they could technically build the Elantra there.

Crash issues don't affect grille size or shape although pedestrian impact standards affect hood shape and construction. The grille needs to be flexible enough to not increase the injuries of the unfortunate soul that's being struck by the car. Next time you see an Elantra in traffic alongside a 1980s compact or midsize car, note how much lower those old cars were. Their hoods were flatter and the cowl and roofline lower. You don't really see it until you see a 'new' car in the lane next to the 'old' car. As sedans morph into 'crossovers', height will grow still higher, and the bulbous pedestrian-crash-friendly nose won't look so tall.

 

[todd72173]

Grill should have never been changed..that was one of the best looking features of 2011-2016 Starting in 2017, they ruined it...I am now reading that the Kia Optima is now a better buy overall with better looks than the Elantra. Well, I plan on riding my 2011 Elantra to the ground since I love it so much. However, I highly doubt I will ever buy another Elantra again due to these negative changes.

 

[sciencemagic]

dmlexpert, Not sure how many people have the negative point of view about the grill of the newer Elantra's, but it just seems they are straying away from the original, what I guess is called "fluid" styling? Not sure if that was the correct styling term?

I do agree though with your statement, "Also on my sh*tlist is the oddball nose that I call "The Devil's Triangles" with blunt surfaces and sharp angles that clash with the somewhat softer lines behind the front clip. But it wouldn't stop my from buying the car, since the powertrain, ride and handling, and interior feautures are still excellent.

Is there a quality issue with Mexican built cars? Your comment, " I also like the fact that they are still building the Elantra in South Korea (VIN "K") and Montgomery, AL (VIN "5") and not tooling up the Kia plant in Mexico to build them."

Yes, it appears the pedestrian injury issues have changed the styling of cars in recent years, making then rather tall in general. Not really a fan of the tall look.

Thanks once again dmlexpert for your comments and insight.







#46 2 days ago

 

[Mr.Plop]

Kia is coming out with overall better designs lately unfortunately. I do think the telluride is way sexier than the palisade.

 

[dmlexpert]

[Not sure how many people have the negative point of view about the grill of the newer Elantra's, but it just seems they are straying away from the original, what I guess is called "fluid" styling? Not sure if that was the correct styling term?]

The 2011-2016 Elantra, 2011-2014 Sonata and similar Accent/Veloster/Azera/Tucson/SantaFe had the "Fluidic Sculpture" design language. The current generation of Sonata/Elantra is said to be an evolution of the same design langauge although I see it as a "toning down" of the swoopy styling. The 2020 Sonata previews the new "Sensuous Sportiness" design, which the other models will likely inherit in their upcoming reskins.

[Is there a quality issue with Mexican built cars? Your comment, " I also like the fact that they are still building the Elantra in South Korea (VIN "K") and Montgomery, AL (VIN "5") and not tooling up the Kia plant in Mexico to build them."]

Here's the Kia plant in Mexico, via aerial photography - https://goo.gl/maps/uPXrWuiKia5PpsuZ6 - located in Nuevo Leon ("new lion" in English) Mexico. It's all-new, built within the past few years. The people working there seem genuinely happy. From what I know, there are no issues with line workers driving a mile away to a local park and getting wrecked on beer and marijuana during lunch hour and then going back to the plant to build another few hundred cars, like you see at the the Jeep Jefferson North plant that builds the Grand Cherokee.

Some brands that build identical cars in Mexico and other countries tend to generate comparisons between the same cars from the two nations. Some of that goes on in the Elantra forums with comparison between US and SK models. Cars like the Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Cruze, Mazda 2 and 3, Honda Fit, Chevy/GMC and Dodge trucks all generate internet content with people perceiving better build quality in Michigan (Ford), Ohio (Chevy) and Japan (Mazda and Honda). Diehard VW fans don't hold the Puebla-built VWs in high regard. If I had an extra hour to kill, I'd check out two or three used Kia Fortes in the used car inventory at local dealers to see how they held up over two years of normal use. If they're rattletraps with water leaks and broken trim bits, then I'd skip the .MX cars. IF they seem to be about the same as the .KR cars of the same age and mileage, there's no reason to snub one car over the other just because of its country of origin. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with Mexican cars, as long as the manufacturers don't source cheap equivalent parts and rush the assembly line to the point where quality goes out the window.

 

[Arthur Ryan]

[/QUOTE]

he 1.8 and 2.0 are from the same engine family. Just as the Oldsmobile 350 and 403 V8s are identical except for bore (and pistons/rings),

Hi dmlexpert and forum partners, I am new here I have searched for information, and I think this discussion has clarified some doubts, my main question is the following, it could be used pistons engine nu 1.8L in a 2.0L nu engine ?, since they bring the same diameter, and they are very similar, would there be any mechanical problem in occupying them? I have a problem with an elantra 2018 engine, but I have not found oversized pistons, only for 1.8L engines, thank you very much for any comments you would like to make, excellent day.

 

[dmlexpert]

Hi dmlexpert and forum partners, I am new here I have searched for information, and I think this discussion has clarified some doubts, my main question is the following, it could be used pistons engine nu 1.8L in a 2.0L nu engine ?, since they bring the same diameter, and they are very similar, would there be any mechanical problem in occupying them? I have a problem with an elantra 2018 engine, but I have not found oversized pistons, only for 1.8L engines, thank you very much for any comments you would like to make, excellent day.

I see two different part numbers for Nu pistons - 23041-2E000 and 23410-2E500. I don't know why they would have two different part numbers if the pistons were interchangeable.
A longer stroke requires a slightly longer connecting rod or the piston skirt could contact the crank counterweights. The longer rod means the piston pin needs to be in a different spot unless you make the deck height taller. If you have lots of time and money and want to take a whack at it, order 1.8 pistons and let us know if they really do interchange.

In other news, I am seeing 2.0L Nu oversize pistons on ebay, among other places. Look for pistons for a 2012+ Kia Soul, which has the 2.0L Nu engine. The pistons will physically fit within the cylinders, although they may have a different shape on the top surface due to the Soul's GDI fuel system and "Atkinson on Demand" setup versus the Elantra's MPI fuel system and Always-Atkinson cam.

 

[Arthur Ryan]

I see two different part numbers for Nu pistons - 23041-2E000 and 23410-2E500. I don't know why they would have two different part numbers if the pistons were interchangeable.

Hello, I have looked for the aftermarket pistons of the 1.8 engine, I put a picture of my piston, I see them very similar but I am not a mechanic, what do you think?, the other image corresponds to the 2.0 soul engine is different just a little, will it be worth the risk of trying to use them? What things could go wrong? about the engine I wish they would like to comment.

piston atkinson 2.0 2018

piston 1.8 nu aftermarket

piston 2.0 soul 2013

 

[2002duce]

If you used to build race engines, then you will know quite a bit about the engines in the Elantra and other Kia/Hyundai models that use the same engine "family".
Hyundai calls it the "Nu" engine, and it's different from the "Gamma" 1.6L in the Accent and older Veloster, the "Theta" in the Sonata, Santa Fe, 2019 Tucson, etc. Working with older Fords, you will know that there are several V8 engine families, and a they share similar or matching displacements. You will know there are a few 351 engines - Cleveland, Windsor, and the somewhat hated M that's just a destroked 400 motor - that have the same displacement but are different engines. The "352" size sounds like 351 but it's the FE old block from the late '50s. And don't get me started on the 427 and 428 (FE), 429 (385 block) and 430 (MEL) engines, which look the same on paper but little to nothing interchanges.

There is a 2.0L Nu engine in the Elantra Sport from the MD (2011-2016) generation with GDI and the standard cam. It makes around 160hp. It's got the same engine parts as the 2017+ Elantra 2.0L but the newer engine has multiport injection (cheaper to build and a little quieter) and the Atkinson cam.

You will also understand the longer stroke typically offers more torque at a lower rpm, all other variables being constant, and the tradeoff is an engine that isn't as happy near the redline. The actual difference in stroke between the 1.8 and 2.0 isn't enough for the average driver to notice in terms of NVH, and they've been making steady progress in lowering NVH on these engines.
Where you notice the loss of low end torque is in the manual version. My wife has an '18 Elantra with the 2.0L Atkinson engine and 6 speed stick and I can tell you it's a little flat when taking off in 1st and the engine doesn't start to wake up until it gets toward and beyond 2500rpm. But she's also averaging 46-50mpg tank average, so I like that tradeoff.

What makes the 2.0 a better choice in the new Elantra is that they use a version of the hybrid's Atkinson cycle cam. They leave the intake valve open too long so some of the air drawn into the cylinder is pushed back out into the intake. The result is in effect a shorter intake stroke and the full length of piston travel for the power stroke. This "longer expansion stroke" is what they mean when they talk about the Atkinson cycle. It's used mostly on hybrid powertrains because it's a little flat on low end power and has lower total horsepower because the engine is taking smaller sips of air/fuel on the intake. By using a larger displacement with a "shorter" intake, they got the same basic hp/torque numbers as the 1.8 but they get more power from the fuel. The engine's thermal efficiency improves. That explains the higher mpg numbers from the larger engine.

There's another secret to the older 1.8L Nu engine that's shared with other Hyundai engines with CVVT. Under light load on the highway, the computer adjusts the intake cam to close the valve later than its native cam timing. In effect, it switches to Atkinson operation when operating under low load at steady speed. With an Elantra 1.8L with an UltraGauge plugged into the OBD port, I can adjust throttle with a trained right foot to get the parameters (throttle position, engine load, road speed) to where the computer will change the cam timing. You see spark advance go as high as 40 degrees BTDC and instantaneous fuel economy goes into the low 60s. If it weren't running on the Atkinson cycle, a spark that far advanced would cause some nasty detonation.
In most Elantras I've driven, getting the car to this mode takes a little extra air in the tires, a smooth and fairly level road, and sticking to the posted speed limit. All manufacturers I've seen use this Atkinson trick with varying degrees of success, and it explains why the EPA highway numbers are so much higher than city numbers. They're programming it to switch the cam timing when driven in a manner that mimics the EPA's HWFET ("highway") cycle, and the actual dynamometer numbers mirror what I'm seeing - low 60s. It's adjusted downward to make the number "more realistic" and it rounds to 38 highway. But there's nothing stopping us from driving "EPA style" and getting some stupid-high numbers from a very roomy compact car.

Wow you sound like a Hyundai zone man,a trouble shooter, thanks for all that cam info, take care.

 

[Link Auto]

Good afternoon, I have a quick question I have a 2015 Hyundai Elantra GT I bought from a rental car company, it has 96k miles engine sounds knocking and drove it home and engine seized, it has the 2.0L engine can I put a 1.8L engine in it instead please advice, Thank you.

 

[dmlexpert]

The 2.0 in your car is GDI and the 1.8 is MPI. Cylinder head is way different and the engine controller and harness is configured for the GDI engine.
Look for a 2.0 GDI engine from an Elantra GT, a pre-2017 Elantra Sport, or a 2013-2018 Kia Soul.

 

[Link Auto]

I appreciate your response, I found a 2.0L engines on Ebay for the 2017 Elantras does it fit on my 2015 Elantra GT????

 

[dmlexpert]

The 2017+ Elantra 2.0s are also multi port injected. They increased the displacement from 1.8 to 2.0 and changed the intake cam to run on the Atkinson cycle but they share more with the 1.8L than the GDI 2.0 found in the Elatntra GT / Elantra Sport (pre 2017) and Kia Soul.