Hyundai Forums banner

1 - 20 of 109 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
According to this website, it's: 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.0T AWD 0-60 mph 6.4 Quarter Mile 14.8.
Isn't that a little bit fast?, when I test drove the SFS I was flooring it and it didn't feel like it was capable of 6.4sec, what do you guys think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
According to this website, it's: 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.0T AWD 0-60 mph 6.4 Quarter Mile 14.8.
Isn't that a little bit fast?, when I test drove the SFS I was flooring it and it didn't feel like it was capable of 6.4sec, what do you guys think?
If your a very skinny person then maybe, idano, it is very very peppy and has great passing power but that does seems awful fast. My wife kinda did a drag race against her step mom's 2012 kia sorento V6 and barely won.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
Must have been tested at the PR guys desk. I have yet to floor mine, never had the need to do more than maybe half throttle to slip in and merge on the Interstates. But a 6.+ second 0-60 is a bit more than I expected.
Has anyone like Motor Trend, C&D, R&T, etc. done 0-60 tests? If so I haven't seen it.
Is the growl I heard coming from the exhaust? I've never been behind a SF Sport turbo to hear one and can't really tell even with the windows down.
 

·
MODERATOR
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
anyone with a torque app wanna test run? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
During the launch of the DM, I'm sure there were wide variations in reported performance figures.

6.4 secs for 0-60mph is equivalent to 7.0 for 0-100kph (0-62mph) which sounds too quick for a heavy vehicle with poor aerodynamics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
Finally found a road test with a 0-60 time that makes more sense, 8.1 seconds.

2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.0T drive review - Autoweek

This if fine with me for a CUV like this. Very easy to live with.

To be honest, in day to day driving 0-60 times are pretty much meaningless to me. I like to see the times in the 35-65 mph, 45-75 and even 45-80 mph ranges. If I am merging onto an Interstate those are the speeds that give me a better idea how the vehicle is going to perform in my day to day life. I don't do any 0-60 runs in my life any more.

Some how that became the industry standard many, many years ago. 0-60 mph, 0-62 km/h for our metric brothers.

I have in front of me an old Mechanix Illustrated magazine printed in 1952. Old Tom McCahill was testing a 1952 De Soto with a 160 HP "Fire Dome V-8" engine. 0-60 mph times ? 12.2 seconds. Actually not too bad for a 3,760 pound car with an automatic tranny back then. :D
I still haven't found any good performance test on the Sport 2.0T other than this one. If ya'll find any please post a link.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
It may well vary due to legal differences - in Europe, few magazines actually test acceleration or top speed, they simply report the manufacturer's brochure figures - as the manufacturer could/would be prosecuted under consumer legislation if false claims are made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
you might get that with a stripped out interior and 150lb driver with a 40mph wind. But I think its more in the mid 7's+
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
I have been wondering about this measurement because it varies wildly. In Motor Trend's test, 2.0t took 9.1 seconds.
2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport First Test - Motor Trend
The 2.0T moved the Sport to 60 mph in 9.1 seconds. While that's only two-tenths faster than the far less powerful 2.4-liter, most of the increase in speed can be attributed to the near 260-pound weight penalty the AWD turbo carries. The turbo Sport completed the quarter mile in 16.8 seconds at 82.7 mph and stopped from 60 mph in 122 feet.

One would think a turbo would shave off at least one second, but it doesn't look like it.
I'm considering the new RDX, 0-60 in 6.1-6.5, which I believe, I test drove it when it came out and it moves off the line real fast, always making tire noise, the trans has a true sport mode with paddle shifters, but it looks bland compared to the SFS, but the RDX tech package brings Nav, and power tailgate and HID, which it was the same for the SFS.
I know I'm gonna start some crap about people not buying the SFS sport for performance and I agree, but both performance and looks would be great, they should have kept it 2.4L and added the turbo, instead of downsizing to 2.0L
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
anyone with a torque app wanna test run? ;)
That or, even a basic 0-60 timer app using GPS, I tried one before and if all satellites are available, it's very accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,052 Posts
To be honest, in day to day driving 0-60 times are pretty much meaningless to me. I like to see the times in the 35-65 mph, 45-75 and even 45-80 mph ranges. If I am merging onto an Interstate those are the speeds that give me a better idea how the vehicle is going to perform in my day to day life.
+1!!! Would love to see more comparisons based on these speed ranges.

I don't do any 0-60 runs in my life any more.
Almost +1. Sometimes the urge to crush the gas pedal takes over my better judgement. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Almost +1. Sometimes the urge to crush the gas pedal takes over my better judgement. :D
+1, a big 1, I love being able to get off the line fast, sometimes it's needed to merge, and for fun too, 0 to 30 is what matter to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,456 Posts
I know I'm gonna start some crap about people not buying the SFS sport for performance and I agree, but both performance and looks would be great, they should have kept it 2.4L and added the turbo, instead of downsizing to 2.0L
[/COLOR][/LEFT][/QUOTE]

I was behind a BMW M6 today - that is a fast CUV - 555 HP . It is costly and it is designed to be fast. So for a car to be fast - it has to be designed with that in mind. In my mind the SFS 2.0l is not designed to be all that fast fast - if it was the peak torque band would be much fatter than the 1750 ~ 3000 rpm . GM has a 2.0L turbo that produces 262 lbs/ft from 1700 all the way to 5,500 rpm. Many other 2.0l turbos (Subaru, etal) have less peak output but a fatter torque curve and in 0 to 60 times - well the SFS will be seen in the rear view mirror.

So would the 2.4 be that much potent with a turbo - only if the designers wanted it to be and designed it as such. Also the "internals" of the engine need to be robust enough to handle higher power.

Some say 0 to 60 time is not important to them while I have seen others get a bit touchy on the subject but you can't rely simply on peak power output to tell the whole performance story.

Does the 100k mile warranty in the USA play a role with how the peak output is managed - I would tend to think so.

And yes Acura does make a nice engine in terms of smoothness, sustained power output - and using cylinder de-activation it yields very good highway fuel efficiency. Take a look at the EPA rating on the 2014 MDX.

But that M6 - what a machine and it only runs $ 100k or so. Time to buy some additional powerball tickets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
Turbos used to be fitted ONLY on performance cars but, like it or or not, manufacturers are downsizing with better fuel consumption as the objective and many are opting for smaller capacity engines with turbos.

The 2.0T falls into this camp - it replaces the V6 on the previous CM Santa Fe - it's not a performance SUV, that would be BMW M-series or supercharged Range Rover
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Turbos used to be fitted ONLY on performance cars but, like it or or not, manufacturers are downsizing with better fuel consumption as the objective and many are opting for smaller capacity engines with turbos.

The 2.0T falls into this camp - it replaces the V6 on the previous CM Santa Fe - it's not a performance SUV, that would be BMW M-series or supercharged Range Rover
I personally think that Hyundai made a huge error here. First of all the 2.0T is not achieving the fuel economy that the 3.5 v6 was getting and in my opinion the 2.4 is underpowered and really noisey. Test drove one of these and when I hit the pedal it sounded like and old John Deere pulling a plow through the field. Even with the cruise control on when we hit a slight grade that caused the cruise control to kick in the power the noise in the cabin was brutal. I knew this would be the case as soon as the salesman started the 2.4 it sounded rough just idling.
The new LWB with the V6 is in some cases getting equal to or better than the 2.0T? Go figure!
I realize that the fuel economy is a top priority here but that could have been achieved with a little tweaking of the V6. Oh well what do I know however it is me that is spending the money and the final choices are always mine.B)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,550 Posts
It's clearly disputed whether the 2.0T is an adequate alternative to the V6 but it's no way a performance SUV.

Santa Fe Sport 2.0T owners who thought they were buying a performance SUV need to save up for this Range Rover Sport Review | Autocar with a 0-62 of 5.3 secs, that's about 4.8 sec for 0-60 and top speed limited to 155 mph under the European "gentleman's agreement" - and don't knock current Jaguar Land Rover reliability, that's history
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,456 Posts
I personally think that Hyundai made a huge error here.
The new LWB with the V6 is in some cases getting equal to or better than the 2.0T? Go figure!
I realize that the fuel economy is a top priority here but that could have been achieved with a little tweaking of the V6. Oh well what do I know however it is me that is spending the money and the final choices are always mine.B)
I agree and if I could turn the clock back I'd be a LWB buyer because of the reasons you cite. Pre market release the 2.0T SFS looked very impressive from a number of considerations but then the "onion" began to unpeel and original EPA fuel numbers were revised downward and when performance tests came in from well known car reviewers the results were term "disappointing" and generally fell above 9 secs.
If you've been under the hood there is a fair amount of complexity to a turbo GDI - lots of hoses plumbing sensors - all should be good till 100k or so but after that could be a number of things that need replacement. So the question I've asked myself if the turbo 4 is not delivering better fuel efficiency than the V6 and it's performance is tepid - is this the best engine choice - and I've driven turbo 4s for decades.

So I've looked at that 0 to 60 website and there are numerous times for other cars that are clearly not real world. I'd make the SFS 2.0T around a 8.5 sec performer when tested under good conditions, if one stands on the brake and gets the boost up and has that 100 lb driver maybe something in the high 7 sec range but 6.4 sec - let's be serious here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
I was stoked when the Santa Fe Sport arrived on the scene, but wondered how the turbo in a heavier vehicle then my Sportage would hold up? There's a few posters on the Sportage forum with the turbo, that are blowing the tips off the spark plugs without much stressing, resulting in trashing the engine! :eek:

So, you might say I'm a bit leery of this. Then I also thought of the extra luggage room, comfort, & gas mileage with the SFS turbo, but it appears the gas mileage is not that good?! In fact I bet the V6 would do even better fuel wise in this platform, so why even bother to offer the turbo, & not the V6 :rolleyes:

The hype I had, is now dampened :( I think it's a case of too much boosting of a tiny 2.0 4cyl. Maybe a 2.4L might have held up better?
Think about it, a twin turbo design, plus DFI, plus high comression, and any type of extended engine lugging, & "BOOM!"

Plus the fact that you can't tow much with the turbo :(

IMO, I think using Super unleaded may prevent some of this, because it is a slower igniting, longer burning fuel. That's what I would use, but then where's the economical savings? :rolleyes:

The V6 don't need to run on Super to tow with a load, take more abuse, or get better mileage to keep from exploding!

You can bet once the 4cyl turbo design, & engineering is done, it's all gravy for the manufactuers, I'm sure it's less costly then building a V6, but I bet they charge you more for the 4cyl turbo, boasting "The power of a V6, & better gas mileage too!". "Let it be known, We are the good guys for doing this!" :) As they laugh all the way to the bank! :rolleyes:
 
1 - 20 of 109 Posts
Top