Hey everyone,
I just wanted to comment about all the fuel consumption complaints.
From what I know, the manufacturers conduct their tests in absolutely ideal conditions that cannot really happen in real life . They do that so they can advertise the lowest possible MPG figure. I think that is the thing with all car companies.
You can't buy a 2.7 ltr V6 petrol, 1700 kg weighing, 215/65/16 tire wearing SUV and expect it to take you to work every day like a 1.0 ltr compact town car....It's like some other people that buy a MAZDA RX-8 (sports car, rotary engine) and complain after.
You have to know what you're buying.
I myself am about to order the 2.0 crdi 4x4 model. It looks like a well built car, and the reviews in magazines are pretty good (at least for the 2.0 petrol +torque for the diesel).

Here here, I agree with you 100%. :clap:

I agree with you, but de deviation from the numbers should be reasonable. I think they are for my 4wd 2.0L petrol Tucson. So far as I drive am hovering around 10L / 100 km. (9 to 11 ) depending where I drive and I have not yet reach the 5000 km that supposedly gives you even better fuel economy. The V6 with automatic 4 speed transmission is simply a fuel gobbler.

:)

I think many people are missing the point!

I purchased a Tucson because the fuel consumtion on paper was comparable to my previos car, a 2002 Sonata V6.

Hyundai stated 12.3l / 100 km highway and 8.8l / 100 km city for the Tuscon.
And my Sonata 12.1l / 100km highway and 7.9l / 100 km city!
Looks good on paper....Right?

Well on paper the Tucson V6 was supposed to burn 1% more than my Sonata V6 in the city and 10% more on the highway.
(I used to achieve near 500km per tank (fuel light on) city and just over 600km all highway in my Sonata be it winter or summer) That makes the actual difference between the two vehicles 40% for city & highway!

In the Tuscon I get 350km before the fuel light comes on and 430km highway.
This is 40% more consumed than stated figures in the city and 60% more than stated for highway! Wow!

May I also add that I drove the Sonata rather aggressively, while on the other hand I drive the Tuscon like there is a hot cup of coffee on the dashboard (no more than the posted speed limited and accelerating from stop slowly).

It doesn't matter how heavy the vehicle is. I am well aware that it is an SUV and I have high regards for this very nice ride. It is quite a great vehicle.

It is just that when you expect something to be as you are told and it turns out to be quite different one has to wonder how they cna get away with it.

And you say WHY COMPLAIN!!! Why not - they should be liable for fudging the figures so badly.

This post has been edited by mhurley78: Apr 30 2005, 11:21 PM

first I think its valid to point out the tucson is not really that heavy compared to some other 'big cars' like a saab 9-5 or volvo v70 yet it gobbles up fuel like there is no tomorrow. (even more than jeeps twice its size)
I had 2.4 santa fe before which returned between 500-600km per tank of fuel. The brochure figures are ususally not worth the paper they are written on, but I as the previous car was almost the same quoted figures from the sam manufacturer that I should get something similar. I thought even though the 2.7 was a slightly bigger engine, the santa fe was permament 4wd and bigger so the figures they quoted seemed ok.
So I was very happy when I filled up and the km to next refill showed 515km.

but then I soon realised I was returning 270km to 300km per refil. I was shocked and quite honestly after 3500km on the clock I still am... How can it be half the previous hyundai.

so I think people in this forum have every right to complain an I hope some of it rubs off on Hyundai eventually. (even my dealer says it seems a bit high but the hyundai response is to say keep driving and it will get better some time - although the santa fe returned the 'good' fuel consumption from day 1

cheers
Neil :(

Of course we are right to complain .......... at least here in UK anyway........and why ???

Because UK and EEC legislation states that vehicles must be within 4% compliance of claimed MPG figures as given by the manufacturer to UK Governments Vehicle Certification Agency.

There is no way that the achieved MPG is anywhere near 4%

Just to make a point..

The manufacturer does not test their own cars. All cars are tested by an independant body on a rolling road under ideal conditions.The figures provided are normally fairly representative of the figures you can expect to achieve and in many cases are slightly lower.
My grief is not what the fuel consumption is, but the misleading and continued advertising in the brochure and published road tests ( which incidently use the vehicle catalogue supplied figures as I challenged one in my local paper).
I think that we may all have a surprise now the warmer weather is here. I did my monthly motorway run to Manchester on Friday in glorious sunshine and for the first time used the Auto setting and the air conditioning set at 19 degrees. Normally on cruise control and careful driving (not exceeding 65 M.P.H.) I can turn in around 31 MPG on this run. This time I was in for a shock with fuel consumption dropping to an average of 23M.P.G.. The car simply drinks Diesel. I cannot believe that Hyundai are still selling cars without being prosecuted under the trade descriptions act as they have admitted to me in writing "there is a problem"
I have now covered over 7,000 miles of careful driving but its not improving and I now doubt whether it will as the car itself runs perfectly and it just the high cost of running the beast thats annoying me every time I take it out

Anyhow best of luck with your new CDI when you get it I hope Diesel fuel is cheaper in Greece than the UK :clap: .

This post has been edited by uktone: May 1 2005, 02:40 PM

the V6 and Disel sems to be way abowe what´s stated but I don´t think my 2.0L petrol engine is.

So far I saw that in Tucson for average use the best engine is 2.0 petrol.
It has normal consumption (avg 10L per 100 km, sometimes even less), engine is very elasitc (thanks to CVVT), has enough horsepower (144 HP), and from my point of view is the best value for money in case of Tucson.

I drove CRDi (2WD and 4WD) chip tuned and w/o chip tuning.
There is a big difference, in car performance and fuel consumption
which is for almost a liter lower with chip.

2.0 petrol is runnig very good and it's much better fun to drive then diesel,
it is elastic enough and much quiter, but this is just from my point of view.
In Croatia to build in LPG for 2.0 petrol costs around 1.000 eur and
this pays of in 2 years (if you have milage as I have, around 17.500 km per year).

Currently the biggest disadvantage of Tucson is - delivery.
This car is so hot and so wanted that you have to wait for it from 3-5 months.

As time goes by I am every day more and more sure that 2.0 petrol is the best
choice (for my needs) for Tucson. :wink2:

Hi
New to this forum
Boy am I glad to hear you have problems with MPG (Sorry!! :( )
We bought our Tucson CRTD CDX in Dec 2004 and have covered around 5,000 miles
Best MPG was 27 ( around 21.7-22 on the trip)
We have complained and been told to run it in.
Went back at 4K miles
They tested it again and said come back at 5K miles
Effectively this car will cost us an extra £500 over 10,000 miles per annum.
The Tucson is mainly the family car and does varied journies which included a trip to Paris in Feb. Took it steady on the Motorway... 22-25 on the trip!
I also have a 3.2 litre Merc E class which returns 41MPG without trying and it always has the climate on and the damn things automatic too! And I bet ( haven't looked) it weighs as much as the Tucson!
I am sending a letter to the MD of Hyundai UK to complain...
We bought the Tucson after having three years of a petrol Freelander... decision was mainly based upon value for money and the MPG of the diesel engine!
We have tried everything including driving at snail speed which gets it showing around 27 on the trip but cheeses off any motorist going your way that day!
Surely this is a total misrepresentation of the goods and the facts. The trip computer is not suitable for the purpose is was purchased for and the vehicle doesn't meet it stated fuel consumption????
Has anyone had anything positive from the dealers or Hyundai yet?

Me again...
Now that I've looked into it closer, we have:
1 uk gallon = 4.54 liters correct?
1 mile = 1.61 klm.
So then, 22 miles per gallon are about 12.8 lt/100km (thats the way they measure fuel consumption in greek magazines).
In the magazines they measure (on average throughout the whole test) around 13.5 lt for the 2.0 petrol but I don't remember the figure for the 2.7 test I have read. That includes performance measurements, off-road, city travel, and highway.
So from what I am already expecting from the tests I have read, 12.8 lt/100km are not bad at all. And that's from the 2.7 ?!
In my case, the problem is that from what I have read in the magazines, the 2.0 petrol does not have as much low-down torque as the 2.0 crdi, in fact they say it's a little lacking compared to other 2.0 liter SUVs (in the lower rpms at least).
That's the main reason I want the diesel instead of the petrol (the 2.7 is too expensive for me), low down torque.
To make a long story short: I am Ok with 12.8 lt/100km average for the 2.7 lt.
I would expect a little less than 13.5lt/100km (which is the average result for the 2.0 petrol) on the diesel, but I think that wouldn't stop me from buying it.
So finally I ask: Where are your measurements coming from, the trip-meter?

Join the club... :angry2: .I too purchased the Hyundai on the basis of comfort and economy as a retirement present (to myself).
I am livid over the fuel consumption issue and Hyudais "hiding" behind the official goverment figures. I fail to see how they can continue to leave this information in the brochure and sell cars to "unsuspecting" members of the public. The point has been made many times about the published literature and I based my purchase on the engine descriptions on "Page 13" of the brochure which describes "an even more economical 2.0 litre Common Rail Turbo Diesel".
I have written monthly to Mr Walker and all credit to him he has responded within a few days but with no real promise of a solution and no time scale. The letter I recieved yesterday reiterates their concerns and the fact the engineeres have been in contact with Hyundai. However I think it sums up my worst fears and to quote him " I am anxious not to raise expectations that these test results will give very different fuel consumption levels.If this was any other industry other than the motor trade it would have been all over the papers, somehow these manufactures seem to have a hold over the press and all the normal channels of complaint procedures do not seem to want to take up the issue.
To date I have kept a record of mileage and fuel consumption and, not including the fuel that was in the car at delivery, I have purchased £930 worth of Diesel in 6830 miles and the best consumption was 31 MPG on a long clear motorway run on cruise control. Re-fuel to re-fuel is the only accurate way to record the true MPG plus it takes about 5 miniute to completely fill the tank (another error in the brochure as I have put in 63 litres at one desperate fill up (brochure states 58) I wonder if they realised there is a problem and fitted the V6 fuel tank which holds 65 litres ?
The one thing we all need to be aware of is if there is not a solution and it is taken up by the press it could have an adverse affect on the resale value of the car which would be even more painful as we are being hit by the Guzzlers now and we would them take another hit later.

This post has been edited by curlyone: May 4 2005, 02:02 AM

I must admit I too was thinking about the effect on resale.
On the other hand how can a two litre diesel engine be so inefficient??
I hear the argument about the weight size and shape of the vehicle but I compare to my Merc which is 3.2 litres and the kerb weight of this is 1735kg or Gross vehicle weight 2260 (before adding extra for optional extras) The Tucson is stated at 1693kg Kerb and 2210 GVW.
Now I know the Tucson won't be as aero-dynamic but surely this shouldn't give this massive difference. I drove over two hundred miles to Leeds and back in the Merc taking it steady not exceeding 80 and not using cruise control as that tends to accelerate harder (adaptive cruise fitted) On the first journey I was up to 51.4 as I came into Leeds. The combined of the two runs there and back ( lost the plot on the way back I'm affraid!) I averaged 47.6. over two hundred miles and not down to three quarters full. Thats an Automatic with the climate control on permanently!!!
Talking to a colleague who has just bought a 2.7 litre Discovery 3 and he is getting 27-28 now regularly! Now thats a seriously heavy piece of kit with a 2.7 litre diesel with the climate on and automatic.
(Also comparision with the Freelander diesel.. which someone quoted.. isn't really fair as this is in permanent four wheel drive where the Tucson isn't (supposedly!!)

Letter has gone to the MD await reply and I will again be booking it into the dealer for it to be checked again there must be an error, even at a steady 50 it gets no where near the stated mpg. I don't really take much notice of the trip and work this out from the brimming of the tank. Which as already stated is not easy as the last bit takes ages to get to the top, I have even had pumps shut off on me on their timers as it has taken so long. I wondered if the capacity stated didn't include the feeder pipe to the tank???
Just to add to this the Merc has a 80 litre tanks which fills easy and straight to the top with only fiddling for the last couple of quid.

This is tooooo much.
First tank on 2.0 petrol test Tucson with 0 km was 12L / 100 km (city).
Second dropped to 11L, and after 1.000 km avg. consumption was around 10L.
No offroad, no highway, only city.

taken from the website of the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA), on New Car Fuel Consumption and Exhaust Emissions Figures.

FUEL CONSUMPTION TEST (Directive 80/1268/EEC as amended by 2004/3/EC)

The new test has been agreed internationally and provides results that are more representative of actual average on-road fuel consumption than previous tests. There are two parts: an urban and an extra-urban cycle. The test cycle is the same as that used to determine the official exhaust emission classification for the model of vehicle in question.

The cars tested have to be run in and must have been driven for at least 1,800 miles (3,000 kilometres) before testing.

Urban cycle
The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20°C to 30°C on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and idling. Maximum speed is 31 mph (50 km/h), average speed 12 mph (19 km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4 km). The cycle is shown as Part One in the diagram below.

Extra-urban cycle
This cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph (120 km/h), average speed is 39 mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3 miles (7 km). The cycle is shown as Part Two in the diagram below.

Combined Fuel Consumption Figure
The combined figure presented is for the urban and the extra-urban cycle together. It is therefore an average of the two parts of the test, weighted by the distances covered in each part.

Hi everyone I thought this article I found today in the Wisebuyers Guide (www.wisebuyers.co.uk)says what we as Tucson diesel owners have been trying to get across to those who ridicule the reasons for which we regularly complain..FUEL CONSUMPTION.
Here is the uncut article for your perusal....
"May Market Report

In a month when the price of a litre of unleaded petrol rose to over 80 pence, registrations of fuel-saving diesel cars accounted for a record 32.5 per cent of April's new car market (source: SMMT). 60,692 new diesel models took to Britain's road for the first time, accelerating the drive towards diesel as the fuel of choice for huge numbers of motorists.

Not long ago, most diesel cars were bought by fleet operators keen to reduce running costs to the lowest possible levels. According to motor trade experts here at WiseBuyers, the majority of buyers of new MPVs and 4x4s are now actively choosing oil-burning engines rather than thirstier petrol alternatives. People carriers and family/leisure 4x4s are two important growth areas in the car market; and they're areas where private buyers far outnumber fleet and company users.

Most family users find that today's clean, efficient modern diesels suit their needs well. Outright performance is not usually a big issue for them but affordable ownership is - especially now that fuel costs nearly £4 a gallon. For example, a Land Rover Freelander 2.0 Td4 estate giving an average 37mpg has a clear 10mpg advantage over a 1.8 petrol model. This translates into a fuel cost of about 10 pence per mile for the diesel and 13.5 pence for the petrol car. In the MPV market, the savings are equally impressive: a Ford Galaxy 1.9 TD Ghia gives an average 44mpg, while the 2.3 petrol alternative only manages 28mpg; the fuel cost saving increases to nearly 5 pence per mile. Factor in higher resale values for diesel models (up to £2500 more for a popular three-year-old diesel MPV, and even more for luxury 4x4 models) and the wise buyer is clearly 'quids in'."

I do wish Hyundai would read this and then listen to us carefully as if the Freelander 2.0 Tdi can give 37mpg and the Ford Galaxy 1.9 can give 44 mpg why oh why cannot the Hyundai 2.0 CRTD improve the measly 31.7 to the gallon that I personally have achieved.

WHAT SAY YOU ALL NOW !
Regards
Geoff

31 ?????
you are doing a stering job on the loud pedal
27-28 is out best!
totally agree and you need to also say that the black stufff is far more expensive than the "un leaded"
:devil:

I have been carefully measuring fuel consumption since I first had my concerns back in January. Not on the trip meter, but by fill up to fill up.

I got the Diesel for economy. It is NOT economical.

I have been misled by Hyundai.

I have written to Hyundai UK a couple of times, and had several phone calls with Bob Brampton.

I have carefully recorded my results in other threads on this forum.

I have now done 5800 miles with NO improvement. The BEST I get is still just 31MPG when driven extremely carefully. But generally when driving normally I get 27MPG. Frankly this is incredibly poor for a diesel as compared to other larger engine / heavier vehicles.

I am STILL NOT HAPPY!

Yes, I like the Tucson.

Yes I do weigh up what is reasonable to expect from this vehicle.

But as others have said, we feel that Hyundai have lied to us on paper.

Jim

:( I collected my Tucson 2.0 petrol 12/04, I immediately suspected there was something wrong with the fuel consumption. I took it back to my dealer in 01/05 who couldn't find anything wrong with it. I too have written to David Walker who has responded asking me to wait for the results of the test off the assembly line which will be ready mid June. I can not get more than 22 mpg on a 180 mile motorway trip much less round town. I can not afford to run this car. If they have not bought the Tucson back off me by the end of June I will take the matter up with my solicitor.
I have been miss-sold this vehicle, how they can release a car to the market in this age of environmental awareness with this low fuel consumption is beyond me.

This post has been edited by NickyC: May 22 2005, 08:37 AM

and it is not going to be better

see my posting on a CRDI diesel with 30.000 km on the clock and still drinking more than a petrol version