Hyundai Forums banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys I'm noticing some REALLY low numbers with my SFS Limited 2.0T.

So far on 3/4 of a tank it's only gone 346kms and I rekon that by the time the gas light comes on we will have just reached or just passed 400kms. To me this seems kind of low as we've been running it in ECO the whole time. I know the AWD system may kick in every now and then and all the bells and whistles the car comes with makes it heavier than a FWD version but for an AWD system that is only active when the car needs it to be, approximately 400kms on one tank seems a bit low. Is anyone else getting the same numbers?

LOVE the car but the mileage blows!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
I would suggest that you turn the ECO off as I have found that in my case the difference was small.

I have the same vehicle and I get over 530 kms per fill up..What is you mix of driving city to highway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
On my very first fill up I did 253 miles on 14 gallons of gas so that would be 18.07 mpg on a brand new engine all city driving and a lot of idle while playing with all the features.

Since that fill up I've done 196 miles 25%/75% hwy and city and the gauge is at the 50% mark now. So I'm suspecting it's going to come in around the 24 or 25 mpg mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I track all my tanks, your "low" numbers seem to be considerably better than mine.

I've got a 2013 SFS Premium AWD 2.0T with 6,301km (ECO is always OFF)

Last 10 fill ups (almost all city driving, unless otherwise noted) and I usually drive it until the light is on. The "smaller" fill-ups below are to fill up the tank before a trip:

KM driven / Required L to fill tank / L/100km

333km / 54.38L / 16.33
327km / 14.33L / 14.33
286km / 47.67L / 16.67
388km / 47.82L / 12.32 (mostly highway)
175km / 24.78L / 14.16
186km / 32.06L / 17.23
492km / 58.08L / 11.81 (mostly highway)
330km / 55.51L / 16.82
381km / 54.45L / 14.29
310km / 45.02L / 14.52

You mention that you've still got a 1/4 left: that is going to be misleading, you're going to run out of fuel soon. I had to fill up this morning because my light was flashing. Yesterday on the way home from work (~12km trip) I had two bars left.

As you can see, entirely city driving I'm averaging about 330km per tank. I would probably class myself as an 'aggressive' driver, so I'm probably losing a bit of mileage there, but overall I've been a little disappointed with the fuel economy.. probably the only thing I'm a little disappointed with on the SFS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
I track all my tanks, your "low" numbers seem to be considerably better than mine.

I've got a 2013 SFS Premium AWD 2.0T with 6,301km (ECO is always OFF)

Last 10 fill ups (almost all city driving, unless otherwise noted) and I usually drive it until the light is on. The "smaller" fill-ups below are to fill up the tank before a trip:

KM driven / Required L to fill tank / L/100km

333km / 54.38L / 16.33
327km / 14.33L / 14.33
286km / 47.67L / 16.67
388km / 47.82L / 12.32 (mostly highway)
175km / 24.78L / 14.16
186km / 32.06L / 17.23
492km / 58.08L / 11.81 (mostly highway)
330km / 55.51L / 16.82
381km / 54.45L / 14.29
310km / 45.02L / 14.52

You mention that you've still got a 1/4 left: that is going to be misleading, you're going to run out of fuel soon. I had to fill up this morning because my light was flashing. Yesterday on the way home from work (~12km trip) I had two bars left.

As you can see, entirely city driving I'm averaging about 330km per tank. I would probably class myself as an 'aggressive' driver, so I'm probably losing a bit of mileage there, but overall I've been a little disappointed with the fuel economy.. probably the only thing I'm a little disappointed with on the SFS.

Thanks everyone for the input.

Like "jblasutti" said, I'm judging too soon but I'm just hoping that it will be better than my Audi with All time mechanical AWD which definitely sucks up quite a bit of premium fuel. To be honest. I was hoping to get at least 600 kms on one tank and I'm starting to wonder if it would blow less fuel if we were to use it manually instead of letting computer shift the gears. It's always shifting up and down and all this shifting affects mileage.

Thanks for your figures JBLASUTTI. I think I'm gonna start logging the same info and post when I get enough numbers. Also, like "daverpatgmail.com" I've also been idling the engine a lot to learn how all the new toys work since we got it 2 weeks ago. The car is great, the features are great, I just hope the distance traveled per tank improve over time.

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
No prob.

I think 600km is probably the absolute max you'll ever get with this vehicle and even then, I think it's probably a stretch. The most I've gotten in the last 10 fill-ups was a hair under 500km. With that said, though, that trip was a camping trip where my SFS was loaded to the brim with me, my wife, our two full sized dogs, all of our gear and pulling a jam packed 5x8' utility trailer, so my mileage could have been better.

I downloaded an app for my cellphone: FuelLog. At every fill-up you enter your ODO reading, the # of litres to fill the tank, the price per litre and it calculates your L/100km and is a good way to track your actual expenditures on gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
I have the 2.0T AWD SE - getting about 530-550 km per tank, and i'm 80% city. On a drive from Ottawa to Hamilton (about 6 hrs) I got it down to 8.2L/100 - so 600+ km on a tank is possible - but on HWY, not city.
I also drive with the ECO button off - only because I hate the way it lags with it on... for the microscopic difference it might make, i'm not going to sweat it.

PS - I noticed it took me 5000-6000km to "break in" before getting over 500km to a tank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Thanks everyone for the input.

Like "jblasutti" said, I'm judging too soon but I'm just hoping that it will be better than my Audi with All time mechanical AWD which definitely sucks up quite a bit of premium fuel. To be honest. I was hoping to get at least 600 kms on one tank and I'm starting to wonder if it would blow less fuel if we were to use it manually instead of letting computer shift the gears. It's always shifting up and down and all this shifting affects mileage.

Thanks for your figures JBLASUTTI. I think I'm gonna start logging the same info and post when I get enough numbers. Also, like "daverpatgmail.com" I've also been idling the engine a lot to learn how all the new toys work since we got it 2 weeks ago. The car is great, the features are great, I just hope the distance traveled per tank improve over time.

Cheers
Keep in mind miles per tank is not a good comparison between cars. The Santa Fe Sport has a 16.2 gallon tank. The Audi Q5 (not sure what model you have) has a 19.8 gallon tank.

10 years ago manufactures were selling their cars on the range. And tanks were getting larger and larger. Over the last couple of years fuel tanks are starting to get smaller. At least in the US, the mileage test now have to be done with the fuel tank full and not near empty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
Keep in mind miles per tank is not a good comparison between cars. The Santa Fe Sport has a 16.2 gallon tank. The Audi Q5 (not sure what model you have) has a 19.8 gallon tank.

10 years ago manufactures were selling their cars on the range. And tanks were getting larger and larger. Over the last couple of years fuel tanks are starting to get smaller. At least in the US, the mileage test now have to be done with the fuel tank full and not near empty.
that! ^^^ You beat me to it!

My buddy owns Q7 and he makes ~900km on one tank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The Audi Q5 (not sure what model you have) has a 19.8 gallon tank.
I have a 2002 Audi A4 Manual Quattro with a 5 speed manual (not 6 as some of the later B6 A4 models have). It comes with a 66 litre tank and I could usually get to my friends house in Mississauga from Ottawa with 1/8th of a tank left, a total of 467 kms leaving me with 8.25 litres so I could have easily gone an extra 50 kms making my total on one tank 517 kms.... BTW, to make a fairer comparison the car's curb weight is 3,406 pounds. My Santa Fe also has a 66 litre tank with a curb weight of 3459 according to this site.

Specifications - 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.4 FWD - Yahoo! Autos

So there you have it. Both cars weigh roughly the same and have the same size fuel tank. Now it comes down to technology (old vs new) and aerodynamics.... I sure hope the Santa Fe with a 2013 updated and current engine can *easily* exceed 500 kms. ;)


Time will tell I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I have the 2.0T AWD SE - getting about 530-550 km per tank, and i'm 80% city. On a drive from Ottawa to Hamilton (about 6 hrs) I got it down to 8.2L/100 - so 600+ km on a tank is possible - but on HWY, not city.
I also drive with the ECO button off - only because I hate the way it lags with it on... for the microscopic difference it might make, i'm not going to sweat it.

PS - I noticed it took me 5000-6000km to "break in" before getting over 500km to a tank.
Really eh? ****, you're getting much better mileage than I am. I've logged every km I've ever driven on the SFS into my fuel consumption app and I've only ever seen it go under 10L/100km ONE TIME.. and that was an unspectacular 9.93L/100km which was 100% highway driving.

I'm usually right around 10L/100km on the highway and around 17L/100km in the city. When I've got a mix of both, it's somewhere in between.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
I'm usually right around 10L/100km on the highway and around 17L/100km in the city. When I've got a mix of both, it's somewhere in between.
Something isn't right at all!
With my 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee, that was a 3.7L V6 - 550km on $95-$100 fill up... and that got me 15.2 L/100...
The SFS is almost 2000 lbs lighter with a 4 cyl engine... there's no way you should be at 17 l/100!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Well there is the fact that you have a small 2 litre engine pushing a relatively heavy and boxy car as opposed to the weights and shapes that most 2.0Ts are pushing these days.

Furthermore I noticed while driving that the automatic transmission is constantly second guessing itself and shifting all over the place. I'd like to try a full tank shifting manually as opposed to letting the AT do it and see if there is a difference. I think there will be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,458 Posts
I have a 2002 Audi A4 Manual Quattro with a 5 speed manual (not 6 as some of the later B6 A4 models have). It comes with a 66 litre tank and I could usually get to my friends house in Mississauga from Ottawa with 1/8th of a tank left, a total of 467 kms leaving me with 8.25 litres so I could have easily gone an extra 50 kms making my total on one tank 517 kms.... BTW, to make a fairer comparison the car's curb weight is 3,406 pounds. My Santa Fe also has a 66 litre tank with a curb weight of 3459 according to this site.

Specifications - 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.4 FWD - Yahoo! Autos

If you have a AWD SFS with pano sun roof it weighs over 3900 lbs. Car and driver also weighed it and found that to be the case. Below MT testing

2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport First Test - Motor Trend
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I have a 2002 Audi A4 Manual Quattro with a 5 speed manual (not 6 as some of the later B6 A4 models have). It comes with a 66 litre tank and I could usually get to my friends house in Mississauga from Ottawa with 1/8th of a tank left, a total of 467 kms leaving me with 8.25 litres so I could have easily gone an extra 50 kms making my total on one tank 517 kms.... BTW, to make a fairer comparison the car's curb weight is 3,406 pounds. My Santa Fe also has a 66 litre tank with a curb weight of 3459 according to this site.

Specifications - 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport 2.4 FWD - Yahoo! Autos

If you have a AWD SFS with pano sun roof it weighs over 3900 lbs. Car and driver also weighed it and found that to be the case. Below MT testing

2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport First Test - Motor Trend
You know what I'm gonna try Dtech. The next time I'm on the highway and I see one of those truck inspection stations I'll pull in and ask if I can have the car weighed... Who knows they may do it. Or they may give me a ticket for trying lol...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,458 Posts
You know what I'm gonna try Dtech. The next time I'm on the highway and I see one of those truck inspection stations I'll pull in and ask if I can have the car weighed... Who knows they may do it. Or they may give me a ticket for trying lol...
yes that would be a good idea and I'd also suggest if you see a Q5 try to engage it from a stoplight - I've not seen many in CO but if you want to test 0 to 60 and can't find a Q5 you could try turbo versions of Escape, Forester and NA versions of Pathfinder Pilot and so on . There is definately a reason the 0 to 60 times are seen in that 8.5 to 9.1 range and it's not because the reviewers "don't like Hyundai" or "don't know how to drive" - these are quotes from earlier posts.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Actual my cousin drives a Q5 S-line so I'll see if he would be up for a run. The Q5 SL is a bit heavier than the SF 2.0T Limited so it would be interesting to see how the cars measure up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,458 Posts
Actual my cousin drives a Q5 S-line so I'll see if he would be up for a run. The Q5 SL is a bit heavier than the SF 2.0T Limited so it would be interesting to see how the cars measure up.
I don't follow Audi much but knew a guy who was an Audi fanatic, raced them and was into customing and with very high psi turbos - showed me a pic where the turbo blew up and partially tore through the hood. I think it was the same 2.0 L block that Audi has in the Q5 - this guy said it's a very strong engine as are the Audi drive trains, he said the twin turbo 3.0 was to be avoided as if driven hard up mountain passes the turbos were know to be a weak point and engine had to be pulled to replace.

I posted the Q5 2.0T specs which showed a wide peak torque curve - from 1500 rpm to 4800 rpm IIRC . That makes a big difference in sustained power output - the SFS 2.0 is 1750 rpm to 3000 rpm and I suspect it falls off steeply after 3k rpm, if it didn't the 0 to 60 times would be faster.

So that is why I believe the SFS will be no match for a Q5.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top