Hyundai Centennial

Hyundai Centennial: which version to buy

The Hyundai Centennial was sold in one generation (September 2003–September 2008) as a Sedan with three named versions: 3.5 AT, 3.8 AT, and 4.5 AT. All three share a 5-speed Automatic, FWD, Gasoline, no boost, 150 mm ground clearance, and an 80-litre tank. The buying choice is therefore engine size, power, torque, kerb weight, and the one measured 0–100 figure — not body type, drive, or gearbox.

The Hyundai Centennial was sold in one generation (September 2003–September 2008) as a Sedan with three named versions: 3.5 AT, 3.8 AT, and 4.5 AT. All three share a 5-speed Automatic, FWD, Gasoline, no boost, 150 mm ground clearance, and an 80-litre tank. The buying choice is therefore engine size, power, torque, kerb weight, and the one measured 0–100 figure — not body type, drive, or gearbox.

Specs comparison: 3.5 AT vs 3.8 AT vs 4.5 AT

Power in the table is as given: 3.5 AT 210 hp (154 kW) at 5500 rpm; 3.8 AT 252 hp (185 kW) at 6000 rpm; 4.5 AT 270 hp (199 kW) at 5000 rpm. Torque for all three is quoted at 3500 rpm: 314 Nm, 343 Nm, and 381 Nm.

What the extra displacement actually buys

3.8 AT versus 3.5 AT. Displacement rises 281 cc (3778 versus 3497). Power rises 42 hp (252 versus 210), which is +20% on the 3.5 AT figure. Torque rises 29 Nm (343 versus 314), +9%. Specific output improves: 252 / 3.778 ≈ 66.7 hp per litre on 3.8 AT versus 210 / 3.497 ≈ 60.1 hp per litre on 3.5 AT. The 3.8 AT is the densest of the three engines by this measure.

The cost in mass is large. Kerb weight is 2075 kg on 3.8 AT versus 1940 kg on 3.5 AT — +135 kg. Weight per horsepower still improves: 2075 / 252 ≈ 8.23 kg/hp versus 1940 / 210 ≈ 9.24 kg/hp. Top speed is 195 km/h versus 180 km/h (+15 km/h). 0–100 km/h is not measured on either of these two.

Both keep 6 cylinders, V-shaped layout, 4 valves per cylinder, No boost, Distributed injection (multi-point), Automatic with 5 gears, FWD, 95 fuel, 80-litre tank, 150 mm clearance. Compression is 10.4 on 3.8 AT versus 10 on 3.5 AT. Bore × stroke differs: 96 × 87 on 3.8 AT, 86 × 96.8 on 3.5 AT.

4.5 AT versus 3.8 AT. Displacement jumps 720 cc (4498 versus 3778). Cylinder count changes from 6 to 8; layout stays V-shaped, valves stay 4 per cylinder, boost stays No. Injection changes: Direct injection (direct) on 4.5 AT, Distributed injection (multi-point) on 3.8 AT. Power only rises 18 hp (270 versus 252), +7%. Torque rises 38 Nm (381 versus 343), +11%. Specific output falls: 270 / 4.498 ≈ 60.0 hp per litre, essentially the same as 3.5 AT and well below 3.8 AT.

Kerb weight of 4.5 AT is 1990 kg — 85 kg lighter than 3.8 AT (2075 kg) and only 50 kg above 3.5 AT (1940 kg). Weight per horsepower is the best of the three: 1990 / 270 ≈ 7.37 kg/hp. Top speed is 230 km/h versus 195 km/h on 3.8 AT (+35 km/h) and versus 180 km/h on 3.5 AT (+50 km/h). Peak power arrives earlier: 5000 rpm on 4.5 AT versus 6000 on 3.8 AT and 5500 on 3.5 AT. Compression is 10.7, the highest of the three. Bore × stroke on 4.5 AT is 86 × 96.8 — the same pairing as 3.5 AT, not 3.8 AT.

4.5 AT versus 3.5 AT. +60 hp, +67 Nm, +1001 cc, two extra cylinders, Direct injection (direct) instead of Distributed injection (multi-point), +50 kg kerb, +50 km/h top speed. 0–100 km/h is 8.5 s on 4.5 AT and not measured on 3.5 AT.

Performance and mpg: what is measured

0–100 km/h: 4.5 AT 8.5 s; 3.5 AT not measured; 3.8 AT not measured. Do not treat the missing times as “slow”; they are simply not in this dataset.

Top speed: 3.5 AT 180 km/h, 3.8 AT 195 km/h, 4.5 AT 230 km/h.

City, highway, and combined consumption: not measured on 3.5 AT, 3.8 AT, and 4.5 AT. CO2: not measured on all three. Eco class: not measured on all three. There is no mpg ranking possible from these figures. Fuel type is 95 for every version; tank volume is 80 litres for every version.

Dimensions, weight, and what they imply for choice

Wheel sizes: not measured on 3.5 AT, 3.8 AT, and 4.5 AT. Ground clearance is 150 mm on all three. Front suspension Independent, spring; rear Independent, spring; front brakes Ventilated disc; rear brakes Disc — same labels on all three.

Kerb weight: 3.5 AT 1940 kg (lightest), 4.5 AT 1990 kg, 3.8 AT 2075 kg (heaviest). Gross weight: 3.5 AT 2265 kg; 3.8 AT not measured; 4.5 AT not measured. On 3.5 AT the implied payload is 2265 − 1940 = 325 kg. That comparison cannot be repeated for the other two because gross mass is not measured.

If the goal is the lowest kerb mass in this catalogue, 3.5 AT is the only answer (1940 kg). If the goal is the lowest mass per horsepower, 4.5 AT wins (≈7.37 kg/hp) over 3.8 AT (≈8.23) and 3.5 AT (≈9.24). 3.8 AT is the odd one out: more power than 3.5 AT, but 135 kg heavier, and heavier than the 4.5 AT despite 18 hp less.

Engine location: not measured on all three.

Generations: what changed (and what did not)

There is only 1 generation (key 2277), September 2003 to September 2008, Sedan, three versions. No second generation exists in this dataset, so there is no later facelift, no drive-layout change, and no gearbox-count change to “wait for.” Every version listed ran the same start and stop dates: 2003-09-01 to 2008-09-30. Choosing a generation is not a decision here; choosing among 3.5 AT, 3.8 AT, and 4.5 AT is.

Shared across the generation: Automatic, 5 gears, FWD, Gasoline, No boost, 80-litre tank, 150 mm clearance, 95 fuel, torque peak at 3500 rpm, Independent spring suspension front and rear, Ventilated disc front / Disc rear.

What actually differs: displacement (3497 / 3778 / 4498 cc), cylinders (6 / 6 / 8), injection (multi-point / multi-point / direct), compression (10 / 10.4 / 10.7), power (210 / 252 / 270 hp), torque (314 / 343 / 381 Nm), power rpm (5500 / 6000 / 5000), kerb (1940 / 2075 / 1990 kg), top speed (180 / 195 / 230 km/h), and the single 0–100 figure (not measured / not measured / 8.5 s).

Which version to choose

Choose 3.5 AT if the numbers you care about are kerb weight and a known gross weight. It is the lightest (1940 kg), the only version with a measured gross mass (2265 kg), and it still uses the same Automatic, 5 gears, FWD, and 80-litre tank as the others. You give up 42 hp and 15 km/h versus 3.8 AT, and 60 hp and 50 km/h versus 4.5 AT. 0–100 km/h is not measured. Specific output is ≈60.1 hp/L, matching 4.5 AT and trailing 3.8 AT.

Choose 3.8 AT if the number you care about is power per litre. At ≈66.7 hp/L it is clearly ahead of both siblings. You get 252 hp and 343 Nm from 3778 cc, still 6 cylinders, V-shaped, Distributed injection (multi-point). The trade is mass: 2075 kg kerb, 135 kg more than 3.5 AT and 85 kg more than 4.5 AT. Top speed 195 km/h sits in the middle. 0–100 km/h is not measured. Gross weight is not measured. Versus 4.5 AT you give up 18 hp, 38 Nm, 35 km/h top speed, and the only timed sprint in this catalogue, in exchange for a smaller 6-cylinder engine with higher specific output.

Choose 4.5 AT if the numbers you care about are peak power, torque, top speed, and the only measured acceleration. 270 hp, 381 Nm, 230 km/h, 8.5 s to 100 km/h, 8 cylinders, V-shaped, Direct injection (direct), 4498 cc. Kerb 1990 kg is only 50 kg above 3.5 AT and 85 kg below 3.8 AT, so the extra two cylinders did not produce the heaviest car in the line. Specific output (≈60.0 hp/L) does not beat 3.8 AT; the 4.5 AT wins on absolute output and on kg per hp, not on hp per litre. Fuel consumption is not measured, so you cannot score it on mpg from this data. Gross weight is not measured.

Practical ranking from these figures only. Lightest / only known payload: 3.5 AT. Highest hp per litre: 3.8 AT. Highest hp, Nm, top speed, best kg/hp, only 0–100 number: 4.5 AT. There is no generation-to-generation upgrade path; all three sat in the same Sedan generation from September 2003 to September 2008. Prices are not in this dataset, so “what the extra money buys” can only be stated as what the extra displacement and cylinder count buy in hp, Nm, kg, and km/h.