Considering the cargo.... I believe that is the best proof that the real 2.0T is well within the estomiates 7.4 secs

 

Nice. Much better than 9.1! Thanks for the time and effort!

 

maybe we should send this to Motor Trend to show them that the car is faster than 9.1 seconds. To be honest I think they might have confused the 2.4 with the 2.0T. Mistakes happen but I dont think it would have won the competition. The Mercedez seems to be the best car out there even though it only really appeals to 1% of the population. great comparison MotorTrend!

 

To be honest I think they might have confused the 2.4 with the 2.0T.

...I don't think that was the problem, since the article stated that the Turbo's time is 0.2 quicker than the 2.4L.

 

Maybe the Motor Trend driver weighed 1,000 pounds.

 

or maybe they had the Eco mode on...
Still, I find non professional to publish "numbers" without reviewing them first

 

In my post I put that I was running 88 octane fuel. Should have been 87. We don't have 88 here.

 

At the risk of starting a flame war, I'm surprised that the 2.0T is this slow, given its lighter weight and monster torque rating. Watching the video it doesn't seem to move the needle any faster than my old 3.3 did. And in the critical 40-60 highway merging range, it appears slower than my new FWD Veracruz. Or maybe I just want to see it that way to support my buying decision.

To be honest I've never understood 0-60 times. Teenage red light drag races are won and lost according to 0-30 times, and highway merging power is determined by 40-60. But 0-60 is just plain meaningless IMO.

 

At the risk of starting a flame war, I'm surprised that the 2.0T is this slow, given its lighter weight and monster torque rating. Watching the video it doesn't seem to move the needle any faster than my old 3.3 did. And in the critical 40-60 highway merging range, it appears slower than my new FWD Veracruz. Or maybe I just want to see it that way to support my buying decision.

Remember, he had about 600 pounds of additional weight hindering his acceleration. I'll have to give it a shot one day with a near-empty fuel tank on my way to work with a cleaned out car (like it is now, except with half a tank less, so Sunday after work) just to see what I can do.

 

It's simple: 0-60 is a time honored performance benchmark, which is used to compare various vehicles. It may not be ideally relevant t the way people drive, but it's certainly more so than the other benchmark - quarter mile time.

 

The 0-60 is a very important index if you want to figure out how quickly your vehicle can move. A vehicle doing well in 0-60 will most likely do so in 40-60.
The pure number does not tell the full story though. A personal test drive is still very important to see how that time is delivered.
A vehicle may sprint the 0-60 in 8 secs with some sort of rpm hiccups , vibrations and noise.
Another may sprint the 0-60 in 7 secs smoothly, quietly and effortless.
You may think the latter was slower than the first one...
We buyers are not supposed to do the 0-60 test. I like to learn that 0-60 number from serious car magazines. By serious I mean that if the crono does not make sense then the test should be repeated because many factors can play in this.

 

The trap speed a vehicle gets in the 1/4 is my personal favorite indicator of a cars passing power and speed. I'm sure the FWD version of the Santa Fe is actually faster as it weighs a good bit less than the AWD version. my wife is looking at getting a 2013 Santa Fe 2.0T FWD.

I have a Sonata SE 2.0T, and Motortrend got a terrible time with that car too 0-60. I think in the 7's, when I myself have gotten my Sonata down to the high 5's, low 6's to 60. Maybe they have something against Hyundai lol.

 

A 2.0T Sonata in the High 5's? Unless you have a massive turbo or something I doubt that's accurate.

 

Sorry for quality. Used my camera phone. Started freezing towards the end.
YouTube - Sonata SE 2.0T acceleration. TC off in manual mode

 

There are two things I noticed in the first video (Santa Fe) that I can see are hurting 0-60 times. First, the transmission shifts are lazy. It's obvious Hyundai designed the shifts with grandmothers in mind.

Second, the car is shifting about 1,000 rpm shy of it's redline. Now, this may be intentional, as most small displacement engines with turbochargers run out of steam early, but it's causing the third issue.

Third, the transmission is forced to shift into third gear before it hits 60 mph. Three shifts 0-60 mph with a slow shifting transmission will kill times. Hyundai unfortunately choose odd ratios when designing the tranny...

However, I would definitely agree...considering all of the above issues, the additional weight of the AWD, and the 600 lbs of "stuff" onboard...the run was not terrible. In fact, it was still 1.1 seconds faster than what Motor Trend recorded, and I firmly believe, may even be good for a 7.5 second, 0-60 run.

I would also think the FWD would be capable of 0-60 times in the low 7 second range, perhaps even crack into the 6's.

If this Hyundai was a GM or Ford with a fan following, an aftermarket company would create a simple transmission re-flash that would fix the sloppy shifts, and an ECM upgrade that would help the engine create more boost and power. Unfortunately, this will never happen.

 

Ramair, Very well put. This only reinforces the fact that Motortrend may have made a mistake and should do a proper assessment of the vehicle. At the end of the day this car is not designed for drag racing or sports car accelerations but for a vehicle of its side and performace it does pretty well. I have no problems with passing or getting up to speed on the highways. So Motor Trend must be using editors with feather like feet when pressing the accelerator.

 

The more I think about it, I wonder if what happened was:

They had two Sportage "Sport" on hand. Both had the 2.4L engine...one with AWD and one with FWD. The slower time was most likely the 2.4L AWD, and the 9.1 was the 2.4L FWD time.

Because all models are called the Sport, I'm thinking the editor/driver assumed the Turbo model was called the Sport and documented the test as the 2.0T AWD, when in fact the difference between the two vehicles tested that day was the the driven wheels, not the engine.

 

Nope, that wasn't it. You can see from the pictures with the article that they had a 2.0T.

 

i read that article too the 2.0t 0-60 time is too slow for a 265hp crossover.