Hi everyone new owner of a Tuscon also new to the site,although I have been reading the posts for a couple of weeks.

It seems that a lot of people have made a major purchase without researching what they have finally bought.Fuel effiency etc is one of the biggest bug bears that this site's members post.You purchased a 4x4 surely you must have read a little about what was out there before going along to the dealership.My purchase was made on a compromise of not great miles per gallon but at least you had all the comforts that other 4x4 only offer if you had departed with 10 or twenty thousand of pounds more.After only a couple of weeks of driving I still think I have made the correct decision and wouldn't hesitate to recommend these to friends and family.Sorry to bleat on but a positive response was needed to some gripes that people were making......

J
:thumbsup:

I agree when I bought mine I also realised that feul consumption would be higher than with anormal car.

I think what most people psi of is that a better milage is promissed than what the cars actually do. If the expectation was not made that high by Hyundai then most would not complain.

But it is clear enjoying a heavy car means also pay for it and have lots of tuctuc fun

You are right, but the fuel consumption for the 2.0 L 142 Hp engine is good for the size of the car.

The V6 with auto is a fuel gobbler........

I think you have missed the point. Hyundai published fuel consumption figures for the V6 that appear to be unreasonable. 8.2L/100km Highway and 11.5L/100km City, and it would seem very few have reached the City figures while driving on the highway. Fuel Consumption is terrible for such a small light SUV and this is a small SUV in Canada. I have owned a V8 Ford full size SUV that has gotten much better fuel economy both in the City and on the highway. The best I have achieved after 689 km of constant highway driving at 110km only stopping for fuel was 12.6L/100km. I would have expected the fuel consumption to have been between the City figure and the Highway.

GOOD LORD, the fuel consumption value given is the one with NORMAL driving condition. Of course, it sucks more fuel in winter, as any other internal combustion engine vehicle does, especially with an auto box.

Nice one Duke. Northern Hemisphere is different to the southern hemisphere in many ways other than being a long boat trip or a just bearable plane trip away.

It's summer in Australia funnily enough (see above) and I would have to agree with LNC. On a recent country run I could only achieve a FC of 12.2L/100kms and that was at speeds of 90 - 110 kms and hour. Surely this disproves the cold climate being resposible.

For my experience - and this does not include the use of cold weather additives which is not necessary in OZ - the winter months make no difference to a car when it is up to operating temperature. The only difference would be the amount of time that the vehicle is run 'rich' until it is up to temp.


Well thats my five cents stretched to a buck thirty five.

:glare:

Regardin driving in cold weather.

This is not per se a reason for high consumption, actually it is quite the oppositte

let me explain, cold wheather does make a car consume more on short distances as it takes more time to get the engine on operating temperature.

But once it is on the right operating temperature cold weather actually does the same as an Intercooler. it enhances power and reduces feul cosumption.

A test with a VW golf with diesel engine showed that at sea level with minus 5 degrees C as a reference the same engine at 30 degrees ( summer) at 2000 meters above sea level showe a decrease of 50% !!!!! of power.

Cold air is thicker, and thus has more oxigen per cubieke meter and this helps burning the petrol much better.

saving petrol and improving power!

Just to let you know !

first of all at 2000m a diesel will get a bit short breathed.

Also, thought the cold air is more dense as warm air, cooold temp will also go against the combustion temp. Lower combustion temp = lower power, wanting more power at low (freezing) temp = accelerate more = higher fuel consumption.

BTW, all HD-engine HP-rating (exept Accent) is done using 92 octane AKI ( 98 RON). This info is from the engineers at my last visit to Ulsan, at the last HD world olympics.

This post has been edited by duke: Mar 29 2005, 07:53 PM

All this talk about the very poor fuel economy has me thinking about not wanting the tucson :( . Gas went up another 5cents :crying: a liter today in my neck of the woods. Reading on the santa fe section,fuel consumption seems to be the biggest beef as well.

Duke wrote

" first of all at 2000m a diesel will get a bit short breathed.

Also, thought the cold air is more dense as warm air, cooold temp will also go against the combustion temp. Lower combustion temp = lower power, wanting more power at low (freezing) temp = accelerate more = higher fuel consumption. "

:(
If you were right then an intercooler would not make sense, all diesels with higher output use intercoolers because of the fact that the gain in power on the intake air is higher then the loss elswhere.

from a technical manual on intercoolers I also learned that "the lower air intake temperature also lowers firing pressure and therefore reduces stress on the engine"

:P

there you have it. The lower the intake temp = the lower combustion temp = the lower the combustion pressure.

Here is the scenario of combustion:

Combustion process:
The air-fuel mixture burning duration (at mixture of 14.7 parts of air to 1part of fuel) is +- 3.5ms (depending on combustion chamber design). The mixture is ignited +- 1/3rd of the time at BTC (Before the piston is at Top dead Centre), and continues as the piston descends after TDC (Top Dead Centre).
As the plug ignites a tiny flame, and the flame expands (like a stone into the pond creates ripples; the burning process at a mix of 14.7: is +- 3.5 ms, depending of the combustion chamber design), it creates heat, and want to expand. BUT, the piston is still going up towards TDC, and compressing the expanding mixture further. This in turn will heat the mixture further, which will speed the burning and heating process.
Pre-ignition:
If the mixture is ignited too soon, the mixture will get hot enough to overheat a particle (piece of carbon or machining edge etc.) in the combustion chamber (or piston top). This hot spot will act as a plug, and at the next compression stroke, will ignite the mixture just before the plug does. Now you have 2 flame fronts, and as they collide, you hear the PINKING. This pre/self ignition creates a sound frequency of 5550zh, which the knock sensor is tuned in to. Should this occur, the sensor signals the ECM, and it will retard the plug ignition of that cylinder. This will prevent a flame collision, and hence, no pinking.
Ignition process:
All today Hyundai’s have a high compression engine of 10:1 ratio, meaning, that the piston compresses its sweep-volume into a 1/10th big a volume (combustion chamber).
With 87octane fuel, the ignition time is very much retarded. At 91octane fuel, the timing is more advanced. The advanced timing creates a higher combustion temperature, and with it more power on the down stroke of the piston.
The higher octane is more resistant to pre/self ignition, and therefore will not self ignite on the next compression stroke.
There are other factors to consider. In the wintertime, where the ambient temp is in the freezing range, the cold intake air (no pre-heated air with fuel injected engines) alone causes lower combustion temp and is more “unfriendly” to ignition. A lower octane fuel will help compensate for it.
In summer, there is a different scenario. The warm intake air will add to the pre/self ignition possibility, and the result with low octane fuel is, a more than necessary retarded ignition time.
Thanks to the electronic technology, doe to the presence of the KNOCK-SENSOR, one can get away with 87 in the summer. This on the other hand will not give you the capable performance or the fuel economy.
With the help of the knock sensor, the ECM will advance the ignition time to the maximum possible, and always close to the pre/self ignition threshold.

The owner’s manual states “MINIMUM of 87 octane fuel is recommended”. Hyundai finally realises this mistake, and as from 2002 states “MINIMUM of 87 octane fuel OR HIGHER is recommended”.

I hope I was clear enough.

This post has been edited by duke: Mar 30 2005, 07:38 PM

Hi there new to the site, not new to the Hyundia Tuscon. I have now covered 5,000 miles of careful driving the car runs like a dream but the fuel consumption is appalling. I was advised by Hyundai it would improve after around 3,000 miles but this has not proved to be the case. Its been back to the garage twice (no fault found) I have been filling to the brim and keeping a regular check on the consumption.The best consumption on a full tank is 29 to the gallon on a long run at around 65 MPH
Interesting comments on research, surely you can only go on the published figures which look realistic for a 1.9 diesel. I have taken issue with the motor trade federation (they are useless and in the pocket of the manufacturers) They quote the published figures on fuel consumption are a guide and not representive of every day driving. It appears they are tested in a workshop on a rolling road so the torque on demand transmission could have been activated and this could be the reason for the high consumption. Whilst I accept everyone drives with a different style I fail to see why other manufacturers specified figures are usually within 10% of the published figures and not nearly 40% out.The point others have made on the site forum is quite clear. If we knew it was only going to do less than 30 MPG probably the cost of a competetively priced car is out weighed by the high fuel running costs. I previously ran a 2.0 litre auto diesel estate which turned in over 55 to the gallon on a run. I would have expected a drop due to the increased weight but not as stated nearly 40%.
There is a ray of sunshine however as I have been reliably informed Hyundia have sent some technical engineers to Hyundai in Korea to investigate why the fuel consumption is so poor on this model so we may all get some good news soon.
What a great pity this fuel consumption blights a superb car.

This post has been edited by curlyone: Mar 31 2005, 04:20 PM

Duke , nice destraction

we where talking about test results on low temp air, intercoolers for diesels and you turned in into a well described but not to the point explanation of benzine( petrol) engines.
A diesel explodes on pressure not by ignition by plugs or sparks.

but on petrol maybe some assitional factors need to be taken into account and taken care of by engine management but even that does not change thebasic fysics that say that cold air is more dense has more oxigen and therefor improves performance of each single explosion etc etc

regards

Hi Culvone its great for someone else to see exactly what we have all been talking about...see the ginger thread....Oh its wierd but lots of posts on the subject disappeared including the ones where we were proposing to visit High Wycombe Hyundai HQ to speak in person about our concerns re the High Fuel Usage.. Its now become even more of a concern now that Diesel has gone over the 91p a litre (thats about $1.65 a litre to the Americans- and they complain of a 5cent raise in price!) :(

My 2004 2.0 CRTD has now completed 3650 miles and I have not bettered 31.8 to the gallon :angry2:

The only good thing is I do enjoy driving my vehicle and it does tow a caravan without problems (Discount extra fuel)

Hyundai MUST do something soon a recall should then be made to placate all Tuscon owners.
I'm getting older and had planned to tow a caravan around the UK for lots of short breaks in my retirement....my pension is slimming down due to the cost of fuel and also the extra road tax we have to pay for emissions...
What say You ?? :wink2:

Cheers for Now

Geoff

Hi All

I too have not found the mpg a problem with the Tucson, my 2.0crtd manages minimum 30mpg even in heavy traffic, and on a two week holiday in Scotland with five passengers, a dog and a roof box up top it was still returning 35mpg no problem and didn't even feel sluggish with all the extra weight.

My previous car was a V6 Vitara which averaged 22mpg and was a pretty quick motor but just didn't have the low down torque of the diesel...

If fuel consumption was a problem I certainly wouldn't have considered a 4x4 when there is plenty of normal diesel cars out there that manage 50+ mpg.

Overall I'm very pleased with Hyundai, I also considered a Freelander and a RAV4 both were more expensive without the 5 year warranty. I've had mine for 12 months and covered 12000 trouble free miles.
I will be updating to a newer model soon, hopefully the VGT will be out here in the uk soon.


Regards JohnS

glad you're happy with your tuscan

welcome to the forum :00000732:

Thanks Montego its good to be here...

JohnS

Whoa, I think we are heading for a new fuel consumption debate on the same old gramaphone record :w00t:

We are really glad for you...

Hey Highlander all NEW Hyundai Tucsons are performing properly

Its the older vehicles that have the problem and to complain we all use the Fuel Consumption Issues site at the top of the page.

Regards
Geoff

:460: :460: :460:

Moved to a more appropriate category:)