Hyundai Forums banner

141 - 160 of 181 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Another fill up - this time I calculated 26.1 (computer said 28.5). The weather was 10 degrees warmer, eco off, and there was a lot more downhill driving. Closer, but not there yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
For one the santa fe weighs a lot more than your old one. I have a Tucson and found that it got terrible mileage but got better on the way to 20,000kms.
Fill the tank and record the mileage when you get gas again fill it and record mileage. Both my hyundais get within 1-2 mpg of the usa posted mpg.
fueleconomy.gov
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
I think you're missing the main point on fuel economy and power ratings. It's not a matter of crappy gas or differing weather; it has to do with designing cars to the test. Auto manufacturers live and die at the intersection of government regulations demanding cars operate like golf carts and the car-buying public who want a combination of Ferarri, Rolls-Royce, and HUMMV for less than $40k. In order to satisfy, to the maximum extent possible, these conflicting requirements, car makers use EVERY possible advantage in meeting government standards while still making it possible for real customers to enjoy their vehicles.

As an example, if you run the 2.0T with a feather foot, you will get great fuel economy (it will run as a normally aspirated 2 liter engine). But run it to keep up with traffic, make that yellow light, and get up that hill, and it's a gas-guzzling turbo-charged MONSTER that means you'll NEVER going to see anything like EPA numbers.

Just the name of the game, in other words. As CAFE and European standards really begin to bite in a few years, you can expect even wider gaps between regulatory requirements and customer desires. When, finally, engineering and gentle test fudging can no longer bridge the two demands, customers will have to settle for driving stripped-down golf carts. You won't be complaining anymore about crappy fuel economy - you'll be lamenting the de-contented, down-sized, gas-sippers you are forced to "choose" from. This really is the golden age of automotive tech features and performance. Enjoy it while you still can.
Very well said. These vehicles will hit the numbers only if driven just right. Most wont in real world especially if you do a lot of short trips, hills, and heavy traffic. Break in will help a little. Our Sonata was averaging 22 mpg in a fairly consistent commute, 90% city. A year later 24. Now its been closer to 25 mpg. It exceeds the hwy rating every trip we take(38-40 mpg), so Hyundai doesnt lie about all their cars mpg:) A heavier CUV is going to make you pay a bigger penalty for dipping into the power. Even if its just slightly more aggressive.

I know for a fact different drivers can make a big difference. My wife doesn't drive aggressively but I still get up to 2 mpg better when I drive. I am smoother, look for any chance to coast, and anticipate stops better. In short, I'm very aware of MPG because I like to see what is possible.

I like these little turbo engines that are coming out, but they are more about maintaining HP numbers than any huge mileage gains. Most people cant resist putting their foot in it and real world mileage suffers. They exist to meet CAFE while driven conservatively and to feel like a V6 when not. They cant do both. Its not just Hyundai. Ford v6 ecoboost F-150s get mediocre real world mileage too. Im sure other turbo owners have similar disappointing results.

I agree this is the golden age of auto design. Rising fuel costs and CAFE standards will change everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
When I bought my Santa Fe last May the Range said 280. I have approx. 11K miles and it says 370. I'm much happier. I have gotten over 400 on trips, but I did not buy this vehicle for the fuel savings either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
This fuel reimbursment program should go way further back if you ask me... my 2005 Santa Fe gets 14 miles per gallon.
I am lucky to get 235 miles out of a full tank and that's AFTER a recent full tune up!
Does this reverse sensor I read about on here affect me?
I cant for the life of me figure out why mpg so bad.. spark plugs right ones, air filter good, fuel filter supposedly lifetime one.. so never changed that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I went from a 2008 RAV4 4 cyl. to my 2013 SFS 4 cyl. turbo FWD. I get about the same mileage in town. Have yet to take it on a long highway trip. I have had my first service at 3200 miles and I average 22.5 MPG. I don't think that's bad. That is according to the on board computer. I haven't heard any wind noise that I hear so many people talk about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
I went from a 2008 RAV4 4 cyl. to my 2013 SFS 4 cyl. turbo FWD. I get about the same mileage in town. Have yet to take it on a long highway trip. I have had my first service at 3200 miles and I average 22.5 MPG. I don't think that's bad. That is according to the on board computer. I haven't heard any wind noise that I hear so many people talk about.
First thing..... Don't believe the lie-ometer fuel computer average!

When filling the fuel tank, be consistent in how you finish the fill. Let the pump handle auto stop. I have found that you will not be able to add more that a Quart/Liter of fuel after the first stop! You are done.

If you persist to top up the fuel tank, it "MAY" adversely affect the breather filter on the top of the tank like what happened on the Ford F150's.

Calculate your fuel economy. It will not be the same as the on board computer. Ever. (Sorry)

I keep track of all the fuel that we use on an excel spreadsheet and through the android app Fuel Log. I think it was $1.99 for the Pro version that lets you also keep notes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Getting ok

I bought my 2013 SFS 2.4 AWD (Canyon Copper, fully loaded) on 12/13/13 and have had it exactly a month. I now have 5100 miles on it. I live at 9000 ft and travel down to 5280 ft on a daily basis. I have been averaging 23-25 mpg with the ECO button on, and took a 2000 mile trip to KS and back and got about 28 mpg for the trip. I traded in a 2011 Sonata Hybrid which was getting 33-37 mpg but would not get me up to my house in the winter. I do hate walking uphill in the snow 1/4 mile because my car slides into the ditch or spins out. I get about 375+ miles on a tank of fuel. I bought it so I could get home in the snow, carry more stuff than in the Sonata, and I really like the Panoramic sunroof and the heated steering wheel! It gets much better mileage than my 2004 Dodge Durango (15 mpg combined) and even better than the 2008 Suzuki Grand Vitara that I owned that got 22 combined mpg. I have recently turned off the ECO button after reading your thread and will let you know how it goes. I am also going to put Mobil 1 fully synthetic in it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
I've read most of this thread from the very beginning and quite honestly am bothered by the expectations stated by those who complain about what MPG they're getting and/or what they believe they should be getting. My comments are specific to the 2.0T as that's where most of the complaints are.

Allow me to point out a few obvious things which should have already set off alarms before the purchase was made:

1. It's a CUV. This specific vehicle type/body for the most part has the aerodynamic profile of a brick. I don't care what brand/trim it is. They will always consume more fuel than anything that's slung lower.

2. It has a turbo. These devices were designed to extract more power out of a smaller engine, not return fuel economy. Good MPG on a turbo engine is only relative to how gently you drive it to approximate a similar engine without the turbo or a bigger engine. Dip into it and there goes MPG - same as with most other engines forced induction or not.

3. Horsepower - this has to come from somewhere right? The 2.0T isn't exactly akin to your normal four-pot that cranks out 100+ horses. It blows my mind how some people expect to get 264 HP / 269 Tq on a few drops of fuel. The only reason why that engine puts out that number is because it's capable of cramming more fuel and air into the engine thanks to... yup, the turbo. With the exception of battery-assist, more power will always come at the expense of fuel.

I personally get an average of 22 MPG and my right foot is quite heavy at times. Is it disappointing? Yes sometimes but I do have a firm understanding of WHY that is the case. When I am cruising and fighting the urge to stomp on the gas, I get 26 MPG and slightly more.

I am under the impression that a lot of those who complain about terrible mileage simply had the wrong expectations going in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
The only way to see 26 (or 27) in my Santa Fe is to cruise at 55ish on flat ground. I bet that the SFS would get at least that under similar conditions. Perhaps someone with a Santa Fe Sport can set cruise at 55mph on his/her next trip and compute the mileage by hand and get back to us.

That has been done...and the result was 30.10 MPG...:eek:

See the thread..."Fuel capacity and range and MPG readings"...page #74,...post #739...for the complete break-down and results...:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,397 Posts
I've read most of this thread from the very beginning and quite honestly am bothered by the expectations stated by those who complain about what MPG they're getting and/or what they believe they should be getting. My comments are specific to the 2.0T as that's where most of the complaints are.

Allow me to point out a few obvious things which should have already set off alarms before the purchase was made:

1. It's a CUV. This specific vehicle type/body for the most part has the aerodynamic profile of a brick. I don't care what brand/trim it is. They will always consume more fuel than anything that's slung lower.

2. It has a turbo. These devices were designed to extract more power out of a smaller engine, not return fuel economy. Good MPG on a turbo engine is only relative to how gently you drive it to approximate a similar engine without the turbo or a bigger engine. Dip into it and there goes MPG - same as with most other engines forced induction or not.

3. Horsepower - this has to come from somewhere right? The 2.0T isn't exactly akin to your normal four-pot that cranks out 100+ horses. It blows my mind how some people expect to get 264 HP / 269 Tq on a few drops of fuel. The only reason why that engine puts out that number is because it's capable of cramming more fuel and air into the engine thanks to... yup, the turbo. With the exception of battery-assist, more power will always come at the expense of fuel.

I personally get an average of 22 MPG and my right foot is quite heavy at times. Is it disappointing? Yes sometimes but I do have a firm understanding of WHY that is the case. When I am cruising and fighting the urge to stomp on the gas, I get 26 MPG and slightly more.

I am under the impression that a lot of those who complain about terrible mileage simply had the wrong expectations going in.
Could not disagree with you more on some of your points :

- I purchased the the 2.0T AWD vehicle when it was EPA rated at 20/27. I did have an expectation that at 65 ~ 70 mph I would see around 24 mpg . I don't.

- According to Hyundai it has a pretty good COD , so it is not at all like a brick, neither are many recent CUVs.

- Yes it has a turbo but the whole idea of a turbo is to provide power when needed, but when not needing boost such as cruising at 65 mph ~ 75 mph you will get the gas efficiency of a 4 cylinder - so in a Sonata for instance or a good many mid sized competing SUVs - you only need 3 and sometimes 4 cylinders and you get good fuel efficieny. But the SFS is a bit larger and heavier than some CUVs powered by 4 cylinder turbos and you pay a penalty in gas mielage. I've pointed out those SUVs in posts as well as those with 6 cylinder engines that are heavier but more efficient. Factually gasoline engines operate most efficiently in a limited rpm range, so when driving 75 mph and the engine is turning 2400 or 2500 like the SFS it is operating out of it's desired efficieny range.

- Lastly I thing Hyundai has some engineering work ahead of them if they wish to improve efficiency of the 2.0T - get an 8 or 9 speed tranny and go to work on drive train friction loses. And reducing more weight wouldn't hurt - my 2.0T AWD with pano roof weighs over 3900 lbs.

They are only mid pack in fuel efficiency of their vehicles - a lot of air came out of their balloon when the EPA made them conduct the mpg test properly.

I've been driving turbo 4 cylinder Saabs for over 30 yrs - and yes you can cruise at 70 mph and the rpms are several hundred lower than the SFS and that 200 or 300 rpms makes a big big difference , my recent ones are 2.3l in displacement and that also matters.

So in my estimation Hyundai has fallen short in producing a vehicle offering "class leading fuel efficiency" as they originally boasted - because it just ain't so. It's not horrible but far from "class leading "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
I'm happy with my mileage as I'm beating the EPA estimates by a couple of miles per gallon.

Improving mileage in this car is pretty simple. Reduce weight and improve the trans. I love the car, I would buy it again but it is a porker, and another gear in the trans would greatly improve the highway economy at higher speeds.

I live in an area where most of the highways are 55 or 65 (some are just now going to 70). 60 mph is the sweet spot for my car. At that speed I match the EPA economy on the eco screen, and that seems to pretty close to match when I calculate at the pump. I start to taper off above 60 and by 70, the MPG takes a big hit. At 75 I was only pull between 16 - 18 MPG on the eco screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
At 17,000km's the mileage is not going to improve any more. As a matter o fact it will slowly, slowly, get worse as the years and miles pile on at this point.

I put it down to the turbo, and the overall weight of the vehicle. Would I want to bail on the turbo and our almost 300hp? No sir re bob!!!

IMO it's still sad that it took a SUV for me to say this is the most powerful vehicle I have ever owned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,397 Posts
I'm happy with my mileage as I'm beating the EPA estimates by a couple of miles per gallon.

Improving mileage in this car is pretty simple. Reduce weight and improve the trans. I love the car, I would buy it again but it is a porker, and another gear in the trans would greatly improve the highway economy at higher speeds.

I live in an area where most of the highways are 55 or 65 (some are just now going to 70). 60 mph is the sweet spot for my car. At that speed I match the EPA economy on the eco screen, and that seems to pretty close to match when I calculate at the pump. I start to taper off above 60 and by 70, the MPG takes a big hit. At 75 I was only pull between 16 - 18 MPG on the eco screen.
yeah if you don't have to or choose not to drive fast - it doesn't matter at all. I just point out some realities to using 4 cylinders - if you have to run fast and the vehicle is geared in a way that the rpms are in that 2400 range and beyond the efficiency falls off and quite steeply - along with that other stuff like wind resistance and so on.
Some will say that any vehicle at 75 mph will consume more gas - true but generally not to the degree a 2.0l engine does when pushing a 3900 lb CUV with a 6 speed tranny. It would be interesting to see where the boost level goes above 70 mph.
That 16 to 18 at 75 mph is less than I get at that speed, I'm in the 18 to 20 range - depending on season, inclines and so on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
yeah if you don't have to or choose not to drive fast - it doesn't matter at all. I just point out some realities to using 4 cylinders - if you have to run fast and the vehicle is geared in a way that the rpms are in that 2400 range and beyond the efficiency falls off and quite steeply - along with that other stuff like wind resistance and so on.
Some will say that any vehicle at 75 mph will consume more gas - true but generally not to the degree a 2.0l engine does when pushing a 3900 lb CUV with a 6 speed tranny. It would be interesting to see where the boost level goes above 70 mph.
That 16 to 18 at 75 mph is less than I get at that speed, I'm in the 18 to 20 range - depending on season, inclines and so on.
mine was an AWD. The day I did that trip it was 90+ degrees so that will hurt mpg some. Trans would be the biggest help. From everything I've seen on other cars they would need to shave 500lbs to gain 1 mpg. 10% weight reduction nets 3-4% fuel savings
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,397 Posts
mine was an AWD. The day I did that trip it was 90+ degrees so that will hurt mpg some. Trans would be the biggest help. From everything I've seen on other cars they would need to shave 500lbs to gain 1 mpg. 10% weight reduction nets 3-4% fuel savings
Jeep Cherokee gets their respectable mpg numbers through the 9 speed tranny - it's a heavier vehicle than the SFS though smaller inside I believe.

With the 9 speed the shift points are programmed to keep the rpms low and of course if you have the V6 the rpms at 75 mph are likely a good deal lower than in the SFS.

Ford has an aluminum body version of the F150 out now - wonder what effect that will have on the mpgs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Jeep Cherokee gets their respectable mpg numbers through the 9 speed tranny - it's a heavier vehicle than the SFS though smaller inside I believe.

With the 9 speed the shift points are programmed to keep the rpms low and of course if you have the V6 the rpms at 75 mph are likely a good deal lower than in the SFS.

Ford has an aluminum body version of the F150 out now - wonder what effect that will have on the mpgs.
They dodged that question at the auto show. They say it will get up to 7 mpg more than the 2013 model. The new frame saves them 700 lbs but it's not clear how much the frame is getting them. First there are some questions to what they mean by up to 7 mpg, they did admit that is not the EPA number. That is also with the new smaller v6 turbo engine, and a new transmission. The wouldn't say how many gears were in the trans, it's rumored to be 10. Given all that I'm betting the 700 lbs is only getting them 1 - 1.5 mpg. Some sites have estimated the Aluminum adds 2K to the price of the truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Currently I'm getting 11.4L/100km. I was having 11.2-11.3L/100Km in the summer.

To be honest, I do find that it has pretty bad fuel consumption in the city. (Close to 15L/100km so times) However, I do enjoy the extra power vs 2.4L engin on the highway. The L/100km on the highway is actually pretty good. Fortunately, I do a lot of highway. So I can keep my fuel consumption almost at the optimum level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Currently I'm getting 11.4L/100km. I was having 11.2-11.3L/100Km in the summer.

To be honest, I do find that it has pretty bad fuel consumption in the city. (Close to 15L/100km so times) However, I do enjoy the extra power vs 2.4L engin on the highway. The L/100km on the highway is actually pretty good. Fortunately, I do a lot of highway. So I can keep my fuel consumption almost at the optimum level.
I'm getting around the same this time of year with city and highway combined.

Lurn 2 Spel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I'm a brand new HYUNDAI SANTE FE SPORT AWD owner - and notice POOR FUEL CONSUMPTION also - I'm Only getting 330kms per 60L tank !!?? WTF ? --- and Why is it, that the fuel gauge "reader" starts at 600km til empty - but after Only 330kms I'm on empty !??? the Advertised 21MPG is actually working out to 13MPG ( after converting from KM to G ) - What am I missing here ?!?
 
141 - 160 of 181 Posts
Top