5.0 Ultimate Discontinued?

[Monolith2001]

Interesting that Consumer Reports is now stating that turbo engines don't really get better gas mileage in real world use than NA power plants with equivalent HP and have higher maintenance and repair costs.

Of course, that's just Consumer Reports opinion based on surveys of actual users not a genuine Internet Meme.

It's just physics. It takes x amount of energy to move y mass. If it takes 50 hp of energy to move a car down the road, it will take the same energy (fuel) whether forced-inducted or normally aspirated. Where the savings comes is when modest amounts of power are required and at idle where a smaller turbo engine will use less fuel than a larger NA engine.

There are situations where a turbo engine will get worse gas mileage simply because they tend to generate more power/torque at a lower rpm and people are more likely to use that power as opposed to revving into the NA motor's higher rpm power band.

 

[greekgeek]

It's just physics. It takes x amount of energy to move y mass. If it takes 50 hp of energy to move a car down the road, it will take the same energy (fuel) whether forced-inducted or normally aspirated. Where the savings comes is when modest amounts of power are required and at idle where a smaller turbo engine will use less fuel than a larger NA engine.

There are situations where a turbo engine will get worse gas mileage simply because they tend to generate more power/torque at a lower rpm and people are more likely to use that power as opposed to revving into the NA motor's higher rpm power band.

Not really, the point of a turbo is to recover the heat from the exhaust gas so more energy utilized per unit fuel vs. NA.

 

[ksoze]

You're neglecting a further $2,500 taken off after tax was calculated, so right around $10k off sticker.

Ok, I guess I read your original post wrong - it seems like $48.3 was pre-tax:

http://genesisowners.com/hyundai-genesis-forum/showpost.php?p=168020&postcount=362

 

[greekgeek]

Ok, I guess I read your original post wrong - it seems like $48.3 was pre-tax:

http://genesisowners.com/hyundai-genesis-forum/showpost.php?p=168020&postcount=362

Well it was pre-tax, so net effect is I paid tax on the $2500. Probably should have simplified my OP somehow.

 

[Doc W]

There are situations where a turbo engine will get worse gas mileage simply because they tend to generate more power/torque at a lower rpm and people are more likely to use that power as opposed to revving into the NA motor's higher rpm power band.

Huh???

 

[PaFromFL]

Not really, the point of a turbo is to recover the heat from the exhaust gas so more energy utilized per unit fuel vs. NA.

I thought the point of the turbo was to cram more fuel into each cylinder so that smaller displacement engines (lighter weight) could be used.

 

[Monolith2001]

Huh???

Most modern turbocharged engines can get to their peak torque around 1500-2500 rpm while a similarly powered modern NA engine typically does this around 4000-5000 rpm. HP is a function of torque...HP= (rpm x T)/5252.

If we take a car like the current Sonata 2.0T Sport which makes 245hp @ 6000 rpm and 260 ft-lbs or torque at 1350 rpm and compare that to an Azera (3.3 V6) that makes 293 hp @ 6400 rpm and 255 ft-lbs of torque at 5200 rpm we see that the turbo 4 in this case not only makes more total torque but does it very low in the rpm band. Accelerating hard, if the Azera managed to make 80% of its peak torque at 1350 rpm, it is generating 52 hp if we plug it into the formula. The Sonata is making 66 hp at 1350 using the same formula. To make that 14 extra hp, it must burn more fuel assuming both motors are equally efficient.

I am not accounting for things such as the 4 cylinder having less reciprocating mass, less friction, less total mass and reduced pumping losses of the engines. I am just assuming what would happen if you were to put these two different engines into the same car with same efficiency, weight, aero, trans ratios, etc..

 

[greekgeek]

I thought the point of the turbo was to cram more fuel into each cylinder so that smaller displacement engines (lighter weight) could be used.

Yeah, I should have said feature instead of point. The turbo is powered by hot exhaust gas, which would be released as waste heat in a NA engine, and compresses air to increase oxygen content in the cylinder, allowing for more fuel to be burned.

 

[Monolith2001]

Not really, the point of a turbo is to recover the heat from the exhaust gas so more energy utilized per unit fuel vs. NA.

Sorry, missed your post. I don't mean to be pedantic but turbochargers don't run on or recover heat, they run on exhaust gas pressure created from the rush of spent gases exiting the cylinders.

It also does not get more energy per unit of fuel. Air-fuel ratio is generally a constant where for a given volume of air, you need a given amount of fuel to burn the mixture without running too lean or too rich. The turbo allows more air volume to be put into the cylinder and hence you can burn more fuel creating more energy inside the cylinder during combustion. The air-fuel ratio for a turbo engine is going to be pretty much the same as a NA engine.

Too much fuel and not enough air will result in incomplete burns and fuel being wasted out the exhaust, while too much air will result in a lean mixture and lost power potential. Most cars run very close to stoic (ideal) but some applications such as racing, they may choose to run rich for a cooling effect.

 

[Mark_888]

I was just told that the 2015 5.0 Ultimate is discontinued by a salesman in Arizona (Scottsdale Chapman). I'm assuming this is BS based on how pushy the guy has been already, but has anyone heard anything?

Always a good idea to check the Hyundai website when a salesman says something like that. Right now, the Ultimate Package is still listed as an option on the 2015 Genesis 5.0, so I would discontinue the salesman who told you that.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[greekgeek]

Sorry, missed your post. I don't mean to be pedantic but turbochargers don't run on or recover heat, they run on exhaust gas pressure created from the rush of spent gases exiting the cylinders.

Fair enough, they recover waste energy rather than heat per se, point was that in principle you are utilizing more energy per unit fuel in a turbo engine than in a NA engine.

 

[Midnightsun]

Fair enough, they recover waste energy rather than heat per se, point was that in principle you are utilizing more energy per unit fuel in a turbo engine than in a NA engine.

There is no real waste recovery so to say as the only thing it does is spin the exhaust gas spins the impeller of the turbo like a wind turbine which in turn force feeds the gas into the engine. You are now impeding proper exhaust flow with a restriction which causes enough loss in power to negate the exhaust gas recovery in terms of recovered power. You could do the same with a belt drive but now its called a supercharger. Turbos have lag which sucks big time, Superchargers do not. Volvo has recently come out with a dual system which uses a supercharger so to say for low speed operation and then turbo for high speed. http://articles.sae.org/13626/ Any way you slice or dice this for any given quantity of gas consumed you can only get x amount of energy out of it. Innovations in other areas such as reduced internal friction, transmission improvements with more gears, engine shutdown/restart on stop and go and many other items all combined together is slowly making a difference. The again when gas prices plummet like they just did no one gives a hoot and in fact Ford had record breaking sales on the V8 pickups just recently because of it.

 

[Monolith2001]

Fair enough, they recover waste energy rather than heat per se, point was that in principle you are utilizing more energy per unit fuel in a turbo engine than in a NA engine.

The "more energy PER unit of fuel" is throwing me. Turbos don't get any more energy out of a unit of fuel than a NA engine. Both engines will burn a mixture of 14.7 parts of air for every part of gasoline. A molecule of gasoline has a fixed amount of energy it will release when ignited and turbos can't change that.

 

[greekgeek]

The "more energy PER unit of fuel" is throwing me. Turbos don't get any more energy out of a unit of fuel than a NA engine. Both engines will burn a mixture of 14.7 parts of air for every part of gasoline. A molecule of gasoline has a fixed amount of energy it will release when ignited and turbos can't change that.

my remark was a bit narrow in that more energy per unit fuel is utilized by the engine, maybe I'm wrong, according to midnightsun? Anyhow it sounds like you both know more about turbos than I do, so I'll bow out of the thermodynamics discussion arena.

It is truly remarkable that the growth in turbos is huge lately in the NA market and poised to grow considerably more on the premise that they are more fuel efficient. And that the EU has been on board for years.

 

[DRS]

^ +1 if the no choice forced becomes sputtering wheezing gas burners of less than V8, go with diesel alternative with the benefits you list.

 

[ksoze]

Following up on this thread - although no reliable info has turned up on an official response to this rumor, it does appear that the 5.0 inventory is lower than ever from my cursory checks. It would be interesting to see the build date on any recent 5.0's and see if there any correlation to lower inventory at various regions.

Even if a change was imminent with a new blown engine or other configuration, that would likely not occur until the fall with the 2016's - seems early to see depleting stock, unless the 5.0 sales numbers are not justifying dealer stock.

 

[Alwaysforward]

To find them in the color combo I wanted back in July of last year, it took a little over a month to locate my 5.0 Ultimate. I didn't pick up mine until September but it was worth the wait.

 

[Iostream]

I am guessing they just hit expected production numbers. Most dealers here have a few 5.0 Ultimate's in stock. Several I checked which shopping had 10 or so, over 20 5.0 total, and over 20 3.8. Considering Genesis sales numbers, I would expect they are not shipping many more this year. Most of the 2015s they plan to sell between now and October are sitting in dealer lots.

 

[Seattle Genesis]

I suspect the salesman only had a 3.8 to sell you at the time. I would get another salesman and/or dealership.

 

[Ivan2740]

Update on this:

I went to another dealer and they where able to get an ultimate in.. They also have more on the way so it appears that the first dealer I spoke to was just lying to try and sell cars.. Took my business to the dealer that wasn't lying and I now own a 5.0 Ultimate in white False alarm everyone!