Fuel Capacity and Range and MPG readings

[7milesup]

Originally Posted by SantaFeBill

. On the Valley floor I saw 27.1 for the last leg of the trip up and I drove mostly 70-80 miles per hour (that's what the traffic was doing). I intend to keep the car.

Was the 27.1 calculated or what you saw on the dash?

70-80mph kills MPG. It is actually pretty impressive considering the speeds.

[SantaFeBill]

27.1 is what I saw on the dash. My fillups were as follows: 177 miles-7.3 gals- 24.3 avg, 286 miles- 12.7 gals - 22.5 avg, 221 miles - 9.0 gals - 24.6 avg. Total 684 miles - 29.0 gals - 23.6 avg. I also saw a lot 24.5 or so on the dash on the first and last legs and 20. 2 or so in the mountains, but, i was doing 70 most of the time. The Grapevine is a wide open hwy as long as you don't get stuck in a pack and lose your rpms. I try to never let that happen. I have driven that route for over 40 years in every kind of car and truck imaginable and I feel like I really know the road pretty well.

[SantaFeBill]

I need to say that I have the FWD model. I will try and update my profile.

[rico567]

I was hoping that the new generation Santa Fe with the 2.0T engine would give us something like the current combination of power and mileage we enjoy with our '04 SAAB......although I wasn't sanguine from the start about the ærodynamics. The reporting across this thread has pretty much killed those mileage expectations, and moved the Santa Fe down the list. It appears that the 2.4L normally aspirated engine will return better mileage, but that would be expected, and one loses the power advantage of the 2.0T......

[Whiteride]

I see all the talk about milage. My concern at 500 miles is how accurate the fuel gauge isn't. At 1 block past the 1/2 mark it took 5.04 gallons to fill. With gal/miles I am getting about 25 mpg combined intown and highway. When the fuel gauge hit 1/4 I filled and it took not quite 12 gallons. Fuel MPG displayed is close to what we are getting. I learned real quick that a light foot is much better than a heavy foot for better milage, on highway we set cruise and let it stay there.

[prmax]

That is my main complaint, the fuel gauge. Hopefully they will have a fix for it in the near future.

[golfermack]

Did my second fill up today, giving me my first chance to manually calculate MPG.
2.4 FWD, Eco off, in cool Massachusets.
333 miles driven (80-90% suburban) on 14.5 gals of gas yielding 23 manually calculated MPG. The computer said 25.8 MPG and 29 MPH average speed.

I'm not disappointed with the 23 MPG, yet, because a lot of time was spent with the engine running while I played/learned the electronics. Plus our temps have been in the 30-50 degree range. I'm not sure if the idle engine running accounts for any of the 2.8 gals discrepency between actual and computer.
John

[dtech]

I had 2 Saab 9-5s, mine a 1999 my wife drove a 2004 both I4. Bought a Sante Fe Sport 2.0L AWD and sold the 1999 9-5. I am happy to say that I am now driving what I consider the better of the two cars - but my wife loves the Sport with it's tony looks and the premie and tech packages.

The Sport would benefit from something like the twin turbo 2.8L holden in the NG 9-5 or even the 2.3 with it's 260 ponies and 260 ft/lbs - I think the real power of the 2.0L just isn't quite what I was expecting. Still there is much to like about the car - but you do get what you pay for.

[dlab]

I hope they find a fix very soon for the wonky fuel gauge!

Has anyone had any luck with their hyundai service department fixing the fuel gauge problem.

[KenDude]

Originally Posted by dlab

I hope they find a fix very soon for the wonky fuel gauge!

Has anyone had any luck with their hyundai service department fixing the fuel gauge problem.

BTW No one at the Hyundai booth at the LA Auto Show had even HEARD of this problem, let alone knew if there was any sort of fix coming...