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 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.
First thing..... Don't believe the lie-ometer fuel computer average!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.
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.
Could not disagree with you more on some of your points :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.
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.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.
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 savingsyeah 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.
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.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
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.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.
I'm getting around the same this time of year with city and highway combined.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.