Hyundai Forums banner

2.4 Versus 2.0T ?

26K views 45 replies 29 participants last post by  dtech 
#1 ·
I'm still considering a new 2018 Sonata and contemplating between the 2.4 naturally aspirated and the 2.0 Turbo engine. Here is why I am leaning toward the 2.4 instead of the turbo:

- The 2.0 Liter Turbo appears to only be about 1.25 to 1.5 seconds faster from 0-60 MPH than the 2.4 base engine.

- The competitor Manufacturers Turbo 4-cylinders are notably faster than the comparably sized Hyundai turbo. The Accord 2.0T for example is significantly quicker.

- The price of the turbo equipped trims are more expensive and they get worse MPG.

- I tend to keep cars for 10+ years, so the long-term reliability of the turbo engine scares me.


Thoughts/Insights?
 
#2 ·
I don’t currently own a Sonata but having driven several Santa Fe’s this is a no-brainer. Absolutely would get the Turbo.

Fact is the Turbo will get better fuel mileage as well if you don’t stand on it constantly and when you have to get out of jams a turbo might save your life.

I drove a Santa Fe Turbo about 130 miles and it got 30 mpg. My previous non Turbo got about 24 mpg over 11,000 miles.

I currently do not have a turbo I either if my cars but that has to due to a big difference of weight.

I base that on my former Tucsons and Santa Fe’s.
 
#6 ·
Fact is the Turbo will get better fuel mileage as well if you don’t stand on it constantly and when you have to get out of jams a turbo might save your life.

I drove a Santa Fe Turbo about 130 miles and it got 30 mpg. My previous non Turbo got about 24 mpg over 11,000 miles.
Depending on the time difference between the two cars, such a comparison might be flawed. At some point, in the second half of [20]00's-early 10's, there was a leap in the gas economy of the cars: the engines were made more economical, and the cars became lighter. (My understanding is that GDI introduced in Sonata in 2011 was in response to the higher-MPG demand.)

Forget the turbo if you plan on keeping the car as long as you suggested.
The turbo is a waste of money for what it is and not worth the extra headache when it comes to overall maintenance and reliability.
No forced induction car will ever be more reliable overall than a normally aspirated car.
That's a well known principle in engineering: a more complex system has more places where it can break.

An additional factor here is the issue with the Hyundai's GDI reliability. I don't know where that issue is more prevalent. Intuitively, I'd expect that on average, turbo engine would still be more prone to fail due to its higher complexity.
 
#3 ·
I went through the same decision process and bought the 2018 Limited/Ultimate. I also keep cars ten years and reliability is of prime importance. Most of my driving is to and from my golf course on city streets, so the 0 to 60 time didn't factor in to my decision. 2,800 miles in seven months with mpg at 27-28. A few 300 mile Interstate trips produced mpg in excess of 30.
 
#4 ·
Forget the turbo if you plan on keeping the car as long as you suggested.
The turbo is a waste of money for what it is and not worth the extra headache when it comes to overall maintenance and reliability.
No forced induction car will ever be more reliable overall than a normally aspirated car.
 
#7 ·
Drive them both and make the decision.

I drove the 2.4 and would not have purchased a Sonata if the 2.0 was not available. For me hands down the 2.0T was the better driving, more spirited car and when driving any turbo if you are not into boost your gas mileage will be very good. I drive 130 miles a day commute most on freeway at 70-85 mph. I accelerate fast and often using the paddles to get to speed or to pass and the rest of the time is cruising at 70-805 mph , I av greater than 30 mpg always.

The 0-60 times are due to the transmission more than anything and they limit the boost off the line so the more realistic difference in driving is the 10-15 mph -60/80 mph that is where you will see a huge difference over the 2.4.

For reliability long term, yes any engine being pressured (turbo / supercharge) has more to maintain, break and the engine in general is pushed harder but if the design of the engine id to run a turbo the engineers have taken that into the design, also our cars as most turbos are pretty low amount of boost. This is why it is easy for a tuner to gain 80-150 hp/ 100 yq with some ecm tuning and a intake /exhaust (the 1.6 T in the Elantra already has aftermarket tunes available that take it to almost 300 hp) If you keep cars 10 yr are you a high mileage driver or is it 10 yr but under 100,000 miles, if that is the case your drivetrain (engine, turbo. trans etc) are covered by the 10/100,000 warranty so what to worry about?

Drive them both and make your choice.
 
#8 ·
The 1.6Eco gives a blend of power and great fuel economy with 7 speed DCT. Doesn’t have quite the breadth of features, however.

I got the 2.4 is 2015 because no trim with 2.0T gave you a heated steering wheel, which was odd but true at the time.

Put a K&N air filter on the 2.4 and it helped quite a bit.
 
#9 · (Edited)
That's a well known principle in engineering: a more complex system has more places where it can break. An additional factor here is the issue with the Hyundai's GDI reliability. I don't know where that issue is more prevalent. Intuitively said:
What do auto transmissions, A/C, power steering, fuel injection, power windows, ECM's, PCM's, BCM's, etc, etc, etc................. all have in common?

They add complexity. They all had their naysayers who all lost.

But they are all ubiquitous to the point that it's hard to buy anything without them.

Turbos are becoming ever so common.

Let's give the engineers some credit - they find ways.
 
#11 ·
So, what's your point? That more complex systems do not break more often? That's not correct!
That more complex features became standard? - Yes. But they do break.

From the features you've listed, in the past 5-7 years, I had the following repairs: A/C, power windows, CVT (repeated major problems).
Other repairs were limited to CV-joints and one water pump leak.

Fuel injection, - we all know about Theta II GDI failures. PCM/BCM, - there have been several recalls for Sonatas.

Even for the feature that is 50-years old - power window - Nissan Altima 2001 had a recall, because the motors there were failing routinely.

Nobody says that turbo engines do not have their place. And if you want one, - have it, by all means. But if you are comparing reliability, - you cannot close your eyes to the reality.
 
#10 ·
While it is true that turbo charged engines are quite reliable in things like long haul big rigs, the same cannot be said for your average family car.
Hyundai cut corners on their turbo design and those shortcomings with rear their ugly head in terms of long term reliability.
Power windows have been a staple in cars for around 30 years with the earliest ones arriving in the 50's and 60's so there has been plenty of time to work out the bugs.
While the turbo has not been a staple in cars except for the last 5 years or so.
Hyundai did not design their turbo setup with longevity in mind.
 
#19 ·
While the turbo has not been a staple in cars except for the last 5 years or so.
Hyundai did not design their turbo setup with longevity in mind.
Your opinion.. but the engine design says otherwise.. Oil jets for piston cooling, Water/oil cooled turbo bearings, Engine oil cooler, Intercooler for lower intake air temps, ECM control over EGT temps, Etc.. These systems are all for longevity and reliability.. turbos have been around a long time.. early 60's for affordable passenger cars... Turbos have been In existence since the early 1900's.. smaller engine equals less weight and more packaging options..
twin scroll turbos have virtually no lag and work well with hyundai's low rpm torque curve... Well engineered system.. You're missing out...
 
#12 · (Edited)
Guy I work with just got a 2018 SEL 2.4. I have a 17 2.0T Sport. We messed around a few times from 20 and 40mph and I pull him non stop. It's not even close, even when I give him a head start.

My aunt has a 2015 2.0T and has had no issues with it other than a window motor going out. And she's even been a few thousand late on oil changes.
 
#14 ·
The best way to determine what you want is to test them both out and see. In terms of reliability I never wanted to give the turbo engines a chance because I just never trusted them long term. The 2.4L in my ‘16 Sonata is plenty for me in terms of power but if you want something a little more then consider the turbo for sure. Hope this helps!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old's Cool
#15 ·
(This is an old thread, comparatively...I wonder what he bought...?)

I always go for displacement. A turbo can give good power, but is another thing that can fuc...er..go bad. I have a 2.4 Scion and it is all the power I need.


Well, almost...;)

I did talk to a guy with a new Civic Si 1.5 turbo. He can tune it from the Infotainment system, and has had it up to 300HP and 300 torque.

I couldn't even imagine it! :eek:
 
#18 ·
I get mileage and performance when I want it...in the 2.4! Turbo is just another thing to go wrong (I was young once and had one). :nerd:
 
#20 · (Edited)
Turbos have only been in your mom and pop daily drivers and ecoboxes as of late.
When Chevy starts throwing turbos on their Cruz you know it's gone mainstream.
Sure, there have been diesel turbos in commercial applications that have been used for decades with hundreds of thousands of miles on them, but those systems are designed from the get go with longevity in mind and operate at much lower RPMs than your typical gas engine.
I have yet to see a family car with a pyrometer or factory turbo timer.


I drove Class A equipment for awhile so I am well aware of how you need to operate commercial equipment and the average consumer would never want to put up with those rules in their grocery getter.
 
#21 ·
Well I had a mazda turbo back in the mid 80's. The 626 and ford probe.
The diamond star cars of the early 90's all factory turbos.. GM olds 1962 jetfire was a turbo engine as well as the corvair monza.. now most of GM cars offer a turbo engine.. its been more than mainstream for some time..
 
#24 ·
Turbochargers have been allowed in general aviation for decades.

I’m sure there are many different kinds of turbo with varying levels of quality control, but saying the tech isn’t proven doesn’t seem like a good argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bad~PaPa
#27 ·
I don't think the 2.0T is worth the extra money. I'm going to turbo my 2.4L and will easily be able to make more power than the 2.0 does and probably for cheaper when all is said and done. Hardest part is going to be locating someone who can do the tune but as the stingers catch on, that probably won't even be an issue either.
 
#31 ·
I am content with my entry level base model Sonata with the 2.4GDI. But, if it weighed too much more, loaded with bloated options, I'd probably want more motor. Is the 2.0T an option on lesser models? Or just the bloated Limited?

Needless to say, I have no need for the 2.0T in a Sonata. It is a good choice for the AWD SantaFeSport and Sportage. I'd be very content with the 1.6T and 8 speed. Too bad the 8 speed hasn't rolled out to all engines/models yet. I'd even take a 2.4GDI with the 8 speed if it was an option.

You will get better MPG with the 2.4. You will have real passing power with the 2.0T and high-altitude turbo power when naturally aspirated engines end up suffocating.

So, instead of expecting everybody to make the decision for you, you should test drive both and pick the one you want for your driving style. Remember that the turbo has more frequent maintenance intervals too.

Both are 'lower cost' GDI nigthmares
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2009-01-1486/
 
#32 ·
Why cite an article that's almost a decade old? This was written 5 years before a company made 700+ HP with a theta II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bad~PaPa
#34 ·
Back when I bought the YF, test drove the 2.4 and 2.0T back to back. My usage case drove me towards the 2.0T. I wish it had a quicker responding transmission (impossible to upgrade) and better brakes (easy to upgrade calipers, rotors and paid). The acceleration from 0 feels neutered, but highway overtaking or merging is effortless.

If I had the 2.4, I would likely have traded it in earlier and wanted something more powerful. The 2.0T is now a calculated risk with the GDI issues and mileage, and I find the 2.0T provides more satisfaction for my driving style / usage case.
 
#35 ·
I would not have bought the sonata without the 2.0T. The acceleration is great and with the 8 speed is more than fast enough off the stop light for a family car. As mentioned above, passing is effortless. As for the GDI issues everyone mentions. They require more maintenance, that much is true. This is my 2nd 2.0T and 3rd GDI equipped hyundai and I have had no significant issues.
 
#36 · (Edited)
In actuality, programming has nothing to do with the inherent problems of any GDI, Hyundai included. Now a multi-port FI will. The GDI was simply an automotive engineers quick fix for getting around the emissions standards and related problems. Here's some reading on the subject There's quite a bit more available also; Cheers and good reading!:smile::beer:https://www.enginebuildermag.com/20...e-direct-injection-issues-facts-fictions-gdi/
 
#40 ·
I don't recall ever seeing Prius hypermilers backing up traffic going up mtn passes - slower traffic I've seen usually caused by mammoth RVs or motor homes, then there is of course the smaller cars of many makes which may struggle to maintain the speed limit on the uphill, but once on the downhill the drivers feel empowered to come flying by well in excess of the speed limits, stuff like KIA Soul, Elantras, Tucsons, Crossteks, Civics, Focus, Corolla, Sentra, Mazda 3 and so on.

I posted some yrs back had a Sante Fe 2.4 tailgate me driving on a mtn road, then pass illegally , but after a couple of miles the road began the uphill approach to Loveland Pass, there was a maybe 3 mile section that I passed in our SFS 2.0T , I made the pass with inital ample power but the 2.4 driver was determined to try and keep up and I was surprised that by the end of the passing stretch he wasn't that far behind, the power curve of the 2.0T seems to fall off pretty quickly after the initial rush of power and mine is the 2013 rated at 264 HP.
 
#39 ·
The 2.4 liter on my 2012 Tucson is sufficient with it's power output at about 170hp (pzev model) - even with a full load. I added an AEM intake and Borla muffler so possibly 172.8hp now -lol. It's obviously no where near my wife's v8 Silverado in terms of hauling and quick get up and go power. I remember being excited when Hyundai announced a turbo engine for the Tucson and I had the intention to do a trade in. After learning the power and torque of the 1.6 liter turbo; I decided to pass. Numbers seemed to be inline with what the 2.4 already had. As far as the Santa Fe I know the power difference is substantial enough for someone looking for more power and torque. It all comes down to your personal preference; do you want to pay extra for more power or is the 2.4 liter sufficient for you?
 
#41 ·
That was actually a really good read kona. I bookmarked the site for later perusal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JR KONA
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top