Hyundai's Direct-Injected 2.4L Will Make 201 Horsepower in 2011 Hyundai Sonata

Sounds like a winner to me.

I hope they put that turbo version in the Elantra Touring.

Most powerful NA four-cylinder engine ? What about the Honda F20C engine from the S2000

As the article states, "In the current market". The S2000 is gone.

The F20C and F22C from the S2000 were awesome and made more hp (41 more, I believe) than Hyundai's 2.4L GDI, but are very much lacking the bottom end. I wouldn't want to put them in a vehicle as heavy as an Accord. The F20C made 152 lb. ft. at 7500 rpm, and the F22C made 162 lb. ft. at 6200 rpm. The 2.4L GDI is a torque monster by comparison.

Impressive numbers, although I think declaring parity is a bit premature. Hyundai's execution is usually at least a half-step behind Honda's.

Nice. I guess this makes up for them not offering a V6.

Everyone acts like DI is some new found technology with overly aggressive results and no negative consequences. DI mixed with turbocharged engines have showed advantages but normally aspirated engines don't see that much of an advantage or gains vs the substantial investment required to implement the technology. The gains simply don't outweigh the investment and nobody here ever mentions the substantial issues linked to DI.

For those who think that Honda is behind the game with DI, think again as Honda started developing DI engines way back in the late 90's. That 2.0 DOHC/DI engine (K20 based) debuted in 2003 in the 2004 JDM Honda Stream. That engine was short lived as it's replacement soon followed with a SOHC R20 (2.0L) (a larger version of the SOHC R18 currently used in the Civic). The engine made similar horsepower, similar torque, similar performance and gave similar fuel mileage yet didn't use DI or the more complex DOHC setup. Honda did more with less and it was cheaper to develop and produce. That's how Honda does it as they don't use technology just to say "I have it too".

http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4031127a/

http://paultan.org/2007/04/18/hondas-i-vtec-i-engine-direct-injection/

Honda doesn't need to hurry up and follow as they were among the first to release DI to the market. They subsequently pulled it, my guess being that it had something to do with problems like the ones in this link.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1414333

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?cmd=print&id=4397707

I am not anxious to see Honda jump on the DI bandwagon because it is pretty clear there are MAJOR downsides. Not only is this one reason I still doubt the longer term durability of the now "equal ________ (insert brand here)" but it was clear there was a reason Honda didn't continue development when they took the first production DI engine off the market. Honda is all about engine technology but they typically eschew gimmicky technology that doesn't pan out in the real world, especially in terms of durability.

I am sure they are working on solutions, as it is hard to deny some of the potential benefits, but frankly, as long as an engine needs EGR to meet emissions, DI is DOA.

People here keep saying that having DI is superior with absolutely no CLUE what the problem with it is and WHY Honda is NOT using it. They say that Honda engines are inferior, and that Honda is losing their grip because they don't have DI. But what they FAIL to realize is that VW owners, and BMW owners and anybody with DI engines that are around 3-5 years old are starting to have major problems with those engines associated with valve build up, injector problems and fuel pump failures.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1583125

People don't understand that the oil vapor that circulates in the EGR starts to build massive carbon deposits on the back of the valve because there is no atomized gasoline to keep the back of the valve wet and prevent the deposits from hardening on the back of the valve. As you drive the engine it starts forming these deposits from day 1. In reality the cost of these repairs is going to be more expensive than the car ever saved in fuel most likely, especially if it has a combination of the problems over time, and is not isolated to just one single issue at that given time.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/03/direct-injected-gas-engines-more-susceptible-to-efficiency-robbing-carbon-buildup.html

As of now the Lexus DI system seems to be the only one that might not have long term issues, because it uses BOTH port and direct injection. However, most likely it will also experience some sort of issue long term, because anytime it is running in DI mode, and the port injector is turned off, there is an opportunity for the deposits to build. They will probably just build more slowly.

Is it worth it?

Hondacura4,

Nice rant, but no one declared Honda to be inferior for not using DI. They're making 201hp in the TSX already without it. Secondly, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Toyota have been using DI since the late '90's with few reports of issues. Out of the many cars with DI, there have been limited problems. Saying the technology is bad is like saying "I had a car with a CD player that died so CD player technology must be bad."

I didn't read Hondacura4's post, but can't we just say it sounds like a good engine for economy sedans. frankly 200hp exactly all you need for your daily and highway maneuvers. Around 170hp and lb/ft is pretty is decent enough but sometimes i feel like i could just use a little more for the highway. If Hyundai can deliver 200 hp for around 20k then i'm in.

I wonder if Hyundai is gonna put the 240hp Turbo engine in something like a Forte with many many transmission/handling/suspension upgrades to to compete with, God forbid, the MS3. I'd like to see if Hyundai can pull something like that off.

Arumage, many here have bashed Honda for not offering DI (1487 is one of them, imagine that) engines when in fact they have already offered 2 in other markets. To be honest, I think Honda's do quite well with the simpler setups.

I never said DI was a bad technology as I stated that n/a applications the significant R&D investment required really isn't worth it as the gains aren't all that impressive. I also stated the potential of significant carbon buildup on the valves which is already occurring in DI engines that have been on the market for a few years.

As far as the issues reported, Mitsu, Toyota, Nissan may have been using DI but they aren't in high volume like say Audi/VW or GM's current crop of DI engines. I really hope this doesn't come back and bite them in the ass.

Nah, DI has been used in volume for a while, just not in the US, and not in larger motors. If you'd like to see what constant abuse has done to Hyundai's new engine, check out this link.

http://jalopnik.com/5409697/hyundais-theta-ii-24+liter-direct+injection-four+cylinder-first-look

Exactly arumage, nice info. Looking at that link and their serious testing...
Who cares about all of acurahonda fanboy´s rant? This hyundai engine is very good, setting almost a benchmark for family sedans at the low 20`s. Who else has such an engine?
Who else offers one at that price?
Im still expecting EPA mileage thou.

Why does Hyundai keep one-uping everybody. Hyundai is doing what many top car companies are SUPPOSED to be doing. 201 hp is amazing for a N/A non-sport engine. the Accord makes nowhere near the amount of torque.

To Hondaacura4:
DI brings lots of hp and extra torque. Take the IS350 and Camry V6. 306 hp to 268 hp, and 248 lb-ft to 277 lb-ft. Same size engine.

I dont think Hondacura meant to "rant" some of that seems to have come from talking to jackasses like 1487 on this site.

I do like that Hyundai seems to stand behind their products. If this is the technology they chose--and they think it will work for the long haul--go for it.

The reality is that there WERE some problems that were related to direct injection. If problems still exist, I don't know.

If the cost of DI implementation is pushed up beyond advantages (like the torque gain compared to Acura's 201 hp 2.4L) than thats another thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection

"DI brings lots of hp and extra torque. Take the IS350 and Camry V6. 306 hp to 268 hp, and 248 lb-ft to 277 lb-ft. Same size engine."

@Lexuslvr, the extra torque doesn't come from just DI as there are quite a few differences between those 2 engines. The Lexus 3.5 uses direct and port fuel injection, uses a more aggressive valve timing system, has a higher compression ratio and uses premium fuel.

"the Accord makes nowhere near the amount of torque."

@Lexuslvr, the Accord's 177/190hp 2.4 and the TSX's 201hp 2.4 use a different valve timing setup and have a lot of mechanical differences. The Accord's 2.4 simply isn't a "detuned TSX engine". The TSX's DOHC 2.4 uses an i-VTEC setup that's more performance oriented as it's very similar to the i-VTEC system used on the Civic Si. Both the K20 in the Si and the K24 in the TSX use VVT on BOTH the intake and exhaust cams and VTC on the intake cam. The Accord's DOHC 2.4 uses a more economy minded version of i-VTEC as it acts more like a SOHC configuration due to having the VVT only on the intake cam while still using VTC on the intake cam.

Currently the most aggressive, true DOHC i-VTEC setup resides in the JDM Civic Type R's K20 which has 225hp and 160ftlbs. That engine didn't require DI to improve peak torque vs the Si's paltry 139ftlbs and their fuel ratings are just about equal. The torque curve in the Type R is actually much more usable and fatter at any RPM vs the Si as 160ftlbs (which 90% of that is available from 2000rpm) out of a naturally aspirated 2.0L is quite impressive. With that said, if the same amount of aggressive tuning was implemented in the TSX's K24 I'm sure it would equal or maybe even surpass Hyundai's new DI.

"Who cares about all of acurahonda fanboy´s rant?"

@Crdriver, if you would actually read my posts they would tell you that I'm far from a fanboy as I've consistently grilled Honda/Acura of late for more than a few odd decisions they have made yet gave praise to many non Honda/Acura products. Yes, I like Honda and to a less extent, Acura but that doesn't make me a fanboy as I don't drink the Honda koolaid.

"If the cost of DI implementation is pushed up beyond advantages (like the torque gain compared to Acura's 201 hp 2.4L) than that's another thing."

@Inlinesix, there are quite a few 4cyls on the market that DON'T have DI and are around the same displacement as Honda's 2.4 yet they have more peak torque.

I'm certainly not bashing Hyundai as I really like my sisters 2009 Sonata Limited I4 but this new engine isn't some kind of new technological breakthrough. The funny thing is that many of you have already made the assumption that this engine is a "class leader" based on having DI and it's peak output numbers. In reality there are MANY MORE factors involved that make an engine a class leader. To make matters worse, NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE who made those claims have not sampled this engine as it's not yet on the market. With that said, how is it a benchmark?

If peak output was the basis for becoming a benchmark in the 4cyl midsize family sedan segment wouldn't the Passat's 2.0T be the benchmark? It makes more HP than virtually all other midsize family sedans and has a substantial advantage in torque. Wait...wait.....forget the Passat as the Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT would be the benchmark.

The normally aspirated 2.1L Honda Civic Mugen RR K21(?) makes 260hp/175ftlbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_K_engine#K20A

Honda uses higher rpms to make power in their 4-cyl engines, which is great for lighter weight vehicles like the Civic or S2000 (and possibly the original TSX), but if you stick those engines in heavier weight vehicles, people quickly become less enthusiastic. That's exactly why the TSX now has a V6 option. The heavier the vehicle, the greater the need for a more linear torque curve (and more torque in general). In an everyday vehicle, the power has to be usable to be enjoyable.

If Honda wants to bring back the popularity of their 4-cyl engines in their midsize cars, they have two options in my book. Number one: increase displacement or embrace DI to create a more linear torque curve. Number two: enroll their cars in Jenny Craig.

"The normally aspirated 2.1L Honda Civic Mugen RR K21(?) makes 260hp/175ftlbs."

But you must realize that that is a much more expensive engine that is designed to rev ultra high which is where that hp and torque are located. Now if you could get this engine in a civilian car such as an American Civic SI then that would be cool. Remember F1 cars with only 2.4L of displacement have 720 hp.

"@Lexuslvr, the extra torque doesn't come from just DI as there are quite a few differences between those 2 engines. The Lexus 3.5 uses direct and port fuel injection, uses a more aggressive valve timing system, has a higher compression ratio and uses premium fuel."

Ok...I'll use another example. The 3.6 in the Malibu has 252 hp and 252 lb-ft while the CTS 3.6 DI has 304 hp and 272 lb-ft. There aren't complicated differences between these two engines. DI simply allows for a higher compression ratio. The engine can operate at a lower temp. and rev more giving it more everything. Oh and it runs on regular.

"Arumage, many here have bashed Honda for not offering DI (1487 is one of them, imagine that) engines when in fact they have already offered 2 in other markets. To be honest, I think Honda's do quite well with the simpler setups."

I'm not bashing Honda for not having DI- I am saying that I get tired of the syncophants in the US media worshipping Honda as some sort of prodigy that always leads in technology. They don't and have not for years. Your rant about DI is comical- you failed to mention BMW and VW have high volume DI engines and to my knowledge there have been know reliability issues. If HONDA cannot get DI to work reliably for the long term that may be their issue- it doesn't mean the the technology hasn't been sufficiently tested. Would GM, VW, BMW and Ford be using this tech so widely if it wasn't well tested? I doubt it.

"As far as the issues reported, Mitsu, Toyota, Nissan may have been using DI but they aren't in high volume like say Audi/VW or GM's current crop of DI engines. I really hope this doesn't come back and bite them in the ass."

What DI engines does Nissan have? I'm not aware of any. VW has been selling Di engines for years and I have not heard of any problems from their first gen DI engines. Ford's powertrain warranty is good for 5yr/60k mi and GM's is good for 5yrs/100k miles so both companies would be pretty stupid for offering DI engines if the probabality of clogged ports was major. The edmunds link (with info provided by SHell in order to promote THEIR product) says that the likelihood of deposits is increased in a DI engine if "low quality" gas without the proper detergents is used. Where does such gas exist? Is such gas even sold at most gas stations? How many years would you have to use ONLY that type of gas in order to have a problem? All of those questions need to be answered.

As for cost, I really have to wonder how much DI actually costs to add per vehicle. It certainly hasn't made vehicles like the Camaro or Equinox unaffordable. Honda makes millions of cars per year and they could ammortize the costs of DI over millions of units and not be forced to charge an appreciable premium.

"Honda uses higher rpms to make power in their 4-cyl engines, which is great for lighter weight vehicles like the Civic or S2000 (and possibly the original TSX), but if you stick those engines in heavier weight vehicles, people quickly become less enthusiastic. That's exactly why the TSX now has a V6 option. The heavier the vehicle, the greater the need for a more linear torque curve (and more torque in general). In an everyday vehicle, the power has to be usable to be enjoyable.'

Exactly. If a vehicle is light you can make do with a high power, high revving engine but that becomes an issue with heavier vehicles. GM is using direct injection to increase power and torque to move heavy vehicles such as the Equinox and Lacrosse. Toyota has decided to go with a low revving, big displacement (2.7L) to move its heavy vehicles like Venza and Highlander. I'm sure Toyota could've gotten more power from the 2.4L without DI but it would have come on at high rpms and compromised low end torque so they just added .3L of displacement to get what they wanted.

I'll go on record to say that Honda is being left in the dust on the powertrain front. I mean the coporate Honda/Acura V6 still uses belts for valve timing which needs replacement and a high cost to the owner. Does any other mainstream engine still use belts isntead of chains? Hondas recipe for more power are increased RPMs and increased displacement- both of which do nothing to enhance MPG. For example, the 2.4L in the Accord EX makes 190hp but all of the addtional horsepower, compared to the LX version, is available at the very top of the power curve where you do the least of your driving. It's not really useful to the owner of a non performance oriented vehicle.

One of the main advantages to DI is reduced cold start emissions. DI doesn't always add lots of horsepower but it lets the engine run more efficiently with high compression while not requiring premium gas (at least in a naturally aspirate form).

BTW, Ford has addressed the lack of intake valve fuel bathing in their EcoBoost V6. Some of the detergents in gasoline are to keep the back of the intake valves clear and since DI fuel bypasses the intake plenum entirely, this has been a problme. Ford has added and auxiliary system to keep the valves free of build-up. All DI engines are not created equally. BMW and VW may have pioneered DI but that doesn't mean other companies cannot improve on the concepts. One reasons the N54 is being replaced with the N55 is to address some of the issues by diverting back to the Valvetronic/DI strategy like the European only 3L naturally aspirated version and the last generation 6L V12.

Also, let us not forget that DI with high pressure common rail technology has been sucessfully used in diesels for years.

I'll go on record to say that Honda is being left in the dust on the powertrain front. I mean the coporate Honda/Acura V6 still uses belts for valve timing which needs replacement and a high cost to the owner. Does any other mainstream engine still use belts isntead of chains? Hondas recipe for more power are increased RPMs and increased displacement- both of which do nothing to enhance MPG. For example, the 2.4L in the Accord EX makes 190hp but all of the addtional horsepower, compared to the LX version, is available at the very top of the power curve where you do the least of your driving. It's not really useful to the owner of a non performance oriented vehicle.

One of the main advantages to DI is reduced cold start emissions. DI doesn't always add lots of horsepower but it lets the engine run more efficiently with high compression while not requiring premium gas (at least in a naturally aspirate form).

BTW, Ford has addressed the lack of intake valve fuel bathing in their EcoBoost V6. Some of the detergents in gasoline are to keep the back of the intake valves clear and since DI fuel bypasses the intake plenum entirely, this has been a problme. Ford has added and auxiliary system to keep the valves free of build-up. All DI engines are not created equally. BMW and VW may have pioneered DI but that doesn't mean other companies cannot improve on the concepts. One reasons the N54 is being replaced with the N55 is to address some of the issues by diverting back to the Valvetronic/DI strategy like the European only 3L naturally aspirated version and the last generation 6L V12.

Also, let us not forget that DI with high pressure common rail technology has been sucessfully used in diesels for years.

If I remember correctly, VW's turbocharged four banger has been suffering from build-up issues before the DI turbocharged version was introduced. The 1.8T had clogging issues when it had port infection and the 5 valve head.