Hyundai Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hello all, long time lurker first time poster, I recently purchased a 2014 SFS 2.4 AWD model. I was initially considerably disappointed with the gas mileage reading I was receiving, 3 weeks of 19-21 mpgs with my commute consisting of primarily highway driving. In an effort to test if I was the problem I used my fiancees 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee for my commute, v6 4x4, and found I was averaging roughly 25 mpg with her vehicle.

Lately however, after passing 1000 miles on the car, I have found my mpgs to have increased significantly. Just this morning for example, I was averaging 27 mpg. My question is whether any of you have experienced a similar phenomenon with your vehicles. I must confess those early low mpg readings with the weaker engine had me strongly questioning my purchase. This is also my first vehicle with the mpg calculator so if this is a common issue I apologize in advance for my ignorance of the subject. Any help or info would be greatly appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
There is actually another thread with 100's, maybe 1000's, of questions and answers on this subject. I'm sure the mods might move this one, not a big deal, but since you asked:
I'd advise NOT paying any attention to the dash computer as far as MPG goes, Miles left in the tank, etc. To check your "real" mpg use paper and pen and/or a calculator. You know the old fashion way.:) That computer is notorious for wrong calculations. Some are way off, others just a few % off.
I will tell you this, after getting some miles on our Sport 2.0T TWD and changing to Mobil 1 my mpg went up to an acceptable number. Not what I'd like but OK. For now do your mpg numbers on your fingers, ignore the numbers on the dash!!:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
JRM is correct about the computer..mine is about .6 to 1.0 too optimistic, but close enough for me...

Though my MPG when I first got my SFS in Oct. of `12 was acceptable, when the mileage started to pile up, the MPG did also..Since early last spring, I have consistantly hit, or surpassed, the EPA ratings using the pencil/paper method...It`s so consistant, I don`t bother anymore, I just subtract 1 MPG from the computer reading..

I suspect you will be happy as the mileage goes up....golfermac (forum member) has the same SFS as you..check out his 'fuelly' records...^_^
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
On my 13 SFS 2,4 AWD, the computer mileage is several MPGs off. The mileage did increase to the 25-26 range after a few thousand miles. I did find better mileage during the wamer weather in the spring and summer. With the cold returning, the mileage is dropping again. BTW, I usually have the ECON button on. Not sure what difference is makes other than taking away the little power of the undersized engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
474 Posts
On my 13 SFS 2,4 AWD, the computer mileage is several MPGs off. The mileage did increase to the 25-26 range after a few thousand miles. I did find better mileage during the wamer weather in the spring and summer. With the cold returning, the mileage is dropping again. BTW, I usually have the ECON button on. Not sure what difference is makes other than taking away the little power of the undersized engine.
I don't have the 2.4 engine but with my turbo 2.0 I get better mpg with the ECO button off. Try it on and off at fill ups. Right now you don't have the miles on it to really tell how effective it would be on or off. Pile on the miles and keep checking, I'll bet it will get better.
 

·
Registered
2020 Santa Fe SEL Plus
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
I no longer have my Santa Fe 2.4, but in over 9,000 miles I never could break above 28.3 mpg. The on-board computer was wildly optimistic. I did my computations using a spreadsheet so I know whereof I speak.

I drive from time to time for a local dealer when they trade vehicles. I've driven both the 2.4 and two turbos. I'm almost to the point of declaring that the turbo will actually exceed the 2.4. Last night on a 185 mile return trip I was getting right at 31.2 mpg on the computer and from my off the top my head computations seemed pretty close to realistic. The "range" was showing 156 miles to go when I left and I would have made it all the way back but stopped to get $5 worth of gas so I wouldn't run out on a rural highway. (Just to be safe) But it wasn't really needed. When I pulled in I still had 77 miles on the "range" showing. I started out with 1/2 of the bars showing. When I arrived at the dealership two bars were still showing.

I don't know if there is any solid data on this subject regarding the turbo but if anyone does, I'd be interested in seeing it. It may be that the smaller engine not getting into the turbo (I don't) might explain this seeming contradiction.

I would suspect the AWD would have an noticeable effect on the mpg. I haven't driven one to date.

As an aside if I were to buy one personally, today, I would opt for the turbo and would not get the pano roof. It won't have the GPS but a $160 Garmin will do just fine and it does have the back-up camera in a smaller screen. And it costs less than did my 2.4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,458 Posts
I no longer have my Santa Fe 2.4, but in over 9,000 miles I never could break above 28.3 mpg. The on-board computer was wildly optimistic. I did my computations using a spreadsheet so I know whereof I speak.

I drive from time to time for a local dealer when they trade vehicles. I've driven both the 2.4 and two turbos. I'm almost to the point of declaring that the turbo will actually exceed the 2.4. Last night on a 185 mile return trip I was getting right at 31.2 mpg on the computer and from my off the top my head computations seemed pretty close to realistic. The "range" was showing 156 miles to go when I left and I would have made it all the way back but stopped to get $5 worth of gas so I wouldn't run out on a rural highway. (Just to be safe) But it wasn't really needed. When I pulled in I still had 77 miles on the "range" showing. I started out with 1/2 of the bars showing. When I arrived at the dealership two bars were still showing.

I don't know if there is any solid data on this subject regarding the turbo but if anyone does, I'd be interested in seeing it. It may be that the smaller engine not getting into the turbo (I don't) might explain this seeming contradiction.

I would suspect the AWD would have an noticeable effect on the mpg. I haven't driven one to date.

As an aside if I were to buy one personally, today, I would opt for the turbo and would not get the pano roof. It won't have the GPS but a $160 Garmin will do just fine and it does have the back-up camera in a smaller screen. And it costs less than did my 2.4.
So it is correct that you have a turbo in your Sonata ? If so my comment/opinion is the either the 2.4 or the 2.0T are better matched for the Sonata (weight and other vehicle attributes ) in terms of fuel efficiency. If you have read my posts - I have an AWD 2.0T my concerns and whining have been largely around fuel efficiency. I postulate that the 3.3 V6 would have been a more suitable engine - but it's not an option in the SFS.

So for 2014 the AWD SFS 2.0T and the SF LWB AWD have the same epa rating save for 1 mpg in overall but city and highway estimates are the same.

And I've looked a fuelly.com and although the sample size of the LWB is too small to be conclusive - it is showing overall higher mpgs than that of the SFS and I think more 2.4 are sold than 2.0T but irrespective the SFS is tracking lower and the LWB is a larger and heavier vehicle.

So draw your own conclusion as to whether the 4 cylinders are best suited for the SFS - yes they perform reasonably well and many here are satisfied but I had higher expectations at least in terms of fuel efficiency. The AWD SFS with pano roof is very close to 4,000 lbs - no lightweight.

The biggest drawback I see with the 2.0T AWD is that fuel consumption when driven at speeds above 65 mph .

My decision to buy the 2.0T SFS was based on an EPA rating of 20/27 - that was of course revised downward and I usually see around 22 mpg in my highway driving.
 

·
Registered
2020 Santa Fe SEL Plus
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
So it is correct that you have a turbo in your Sonata ? If so my comment/opinion is the either the 2.4 or the 2.0T are better matched for the Sonata (weight and other vehicle attributes ) in terms of fuel efficiency. If you have read my posts - I have an AWD 2.0T my concerns and whining have been largely around fuel efficiency. I postulate that the 3.3 V6 would have been a more suitable engine - but it's not an option in the SFS.

So for 2014 the AWD SFS 2.0T and the SF LWB AWD have the same epa rating save for 1 mpg in overall but city and highway estimates are the same.

And I've looked a fuelly.com and although the sample size of the LWB is too small to be conclusive - it is showing overall higher mpgs than that of the SFS and I think more 2.4 are sold than 2.0T but irrespective the SFS is tracking lower and the LWB is a larger and heavier vehicle.

So draw your own conclusion as to whether the 4 cylinders are best suited for the SFS - yes they perform reasonably well and many here are satisfied but I had higher expectations at least in terms of fuel efficiency. The AWD SFS with pano roof is very close to 4,000 lbs - no lightweight.

The biggest drawback I see with the 2.0T AWD is that fuel consumption when driven at speeds above 65 mph .

My decision to buy the 2.0T SFS was based on an EPA rating of 20/27 - that was of course revised downward and I usually see around 22 mpg in my highway driving.
I have the 2.4 non turbo in my Sonata and I also had it in my Santa Fe. For a long time I believed the 2.4 was adequate but have changed my mind regarding the Santa Fe. There is no shortage of power with the Sonata.

It will be difficult to accurately compute the mileage in a Santa Fe Turbo as my goal is to get home and not dump a lot of gas in the gas tank to get back home to the dealership. But my (as I said) off the top of my head computations tell me that the turbo might actually exceed the non-turbo 2.4.

The Sonata has essentially the same engine (although the HP ratings differ slightly which I believe to be a marketing tool), but it is substantially lighter at 3,199 pounds. Edmunds does not show the weight of the Santa Fe ??, but I would estimate about 600 pounds more for the FWD only version.

Although I have only owned the Sonata since July I have been very pleasantly surprised at its fuel economy. It appears to have a range of nearly 500 miles as best I can tell. I would be leary of stretching the Santa Fe much beyond 400 miles and more likely 350 miles on the safe side. In any event, weight plays a very important part in fuel economy. An underpowered vehicle requires more attention to the gas pedal while a suitably powered vehicle can have the throttle "feathered" at about 65 mph and get extremely good fuel economy. An underpowered vehicle will labor and take a very big toll on economy.

I would agree that in your situation the 3.3 V6 would probably be preferable. But I didn't see it as necessary in the FWD model. It seemed to have adequate power but the vehicle "feels heavy" compared to my Sonata and especially my Elantra, the latter that I can wheel around like a go-cart.

Note: My details somehow do not allow me to add the engine size and type. Maybe it will be changed later as I have updated it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
I agree with rmissourimule's comments re the 2.4L engine in the Sonata vs. the same engine in the SFS.

The main reason I bought the 2.4L SFS in 10/12 was because of my experience driving my daughter's 2012 Sonata. We bought it in Florida and delivered it to her in Albuquerque, NM. There were times during the trip west that the MPG was showing over 40 on the Sonata. Also, the engine power was awesome.

I knew that the SFS was heavier and would therefore not get the MPG's that the Sonata got. However, the difference was far more than I envisioned. I never got above about 28 on an all freeway trip and averaged around 24-25 on most fillups. I think rmissourimule's comment re the weight difference between the two vehicles being the primary cause of the MPG differences is correct.

Our 2013 SF LWB, purchased in September, now has about 4,300 miles on it. The MPG on it is better than I ever got with the SFS. Also, the SF LWB does not show a falling MPG at higher freeway speeds (70 and up). Even at those speeds, the MPG reading goes up. Also, the instrument panel MPG matches almost exactly my calculated numbers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
37 Posts
My Turbo Santa Fe is giving me 260 miles on city driving 18 mpg and on highways 410 using the cruise control at 65 MPH.... just one time went at that speed, average at my speed +75 MPH plus gave me 308 on the highway. I also changed my oil to Mobil1.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top