Sorry I gave the impression that I condone the dishonest practices of auto-makers, dealers and salespersons.

The fuel mileage of my Tucson is usually about 27 miles to the imperial gallon (10.9L/100km) which is about 4 miles to the gallon less than the advertised maximum of 31 miles to the gallon (8.9L/100km). It would seem the company has made a misstake in putting a trip-o-meter that compute fuel mileage.

A little off topic but here in Ontario you can not buy a vehicle for the advertised price. The dealer adds freight, commission fees and taxes to the price. So as you can see we are conditioned to accept dishonest practises. Imagine if you went into a mens shop and when you made your purchase you were charged freight in addition to the price, You would not stand for it. Then why do we allow car dealers to do it?

However I agree if fuel mileage fraud has been committed the company should be sued.

LNC

 

13.6 L / 100 km

We've got 2,500km on the Tucson now.

Getting into colder weather these days 5-10 deg C.

My 94 Elantra gets 7.2L/100km and it has 318,000km on it.

 

My Tucson is now constantly getting consumption figures of around 12 - 12.5 L/100Km (Average fuel consumption since I got the car now lies on 13L/100Km), with 11000Km's on the clock. The advertised consumption were 13.8L/100Km, so no evil advertising shenanigans there! I use 95 Octane unleaded fuel, drive 60% Freeway (avg speed between 110Km/h and 130Km/h), 20% Town and 20% back roads (including dirt). I'm happy with the consumption, and being a 2.7L V6 I'm realistic enough not to expect miracles!

:thumbsup:

 

I just made a run to Lake St. John and back to Montreal, 6 hours each way. All highway driving and actually hit a snowstorm over 30 miles north of Quebec city.

Tucson 2.7 AWD
110 to 125 kph average.
100 % highway, partially hilly, 80% flat.
34,000 on odometer.
87 octane and 5W-30 full synthetic.
Light winds.

9.1 L / 100kms 31 MPG imperial.

Love that traction system, it handled the two inches of snow with no problem even with the original four season tires. This will be my second winter with the vehicle.

Rod. :beer:

 

Full Disclosure!!

There isn't any with the automakers.

And govt. testing officials too.

They all work hand in hand to keep us buying stuff.

Which keeps us having to work.

Which keeps us paying taxes.

Etc, etc, etc.

I think they call it "free enterprise"!

 

rod_lang,

Impressive! I think that you are the closest one to acheive the rated MPG. I guess I'll have to wait until I hit the 21K miles mark. I'm sitting at 19K miles now. Congrats to ya!

Itsatusconmatey,

I agree! I can understand why manufactures would fuged the numbers, but why would the gov't want to? I think someone like Consumer Reports sould evaluate the gas mileage INDEPENDENTLY!! That way there is no bias.

 

Hi guys, Im new to this site but so far it has lots of info on it. any way I just bought a 2005 tucson V6, I love it , I just filled up ,it took 58L to fill up and I drove 450 km if my math is right that is 7.8L per 100Km. and I only have 1800 km on it so far ( not even broke in yet),I drive 50% hwy 50% city . not bad ah .

 

Sorry to advise but your fuel consumption is 12.888L/100km. You divide the Litres used by the distance driven times 100.

Your calculation is Kilometres/Litre.

 

oops, my bad. thanks for the correction. :whistling:

 

when I bought my tucson I expected it to get about 400-450 kms per tank and im getting that with only 1800 kms on it , I love it and I have no complaints . remember its a suv not a smart car. but thats just my opinion . also I just got rid of my 99 tiburon and I was only getting around 10L per 100k so to me thats not much of a diffrence. and the tib was a 4 cyl and the tucson is a V6.

 

Hi I am in Perth and have owned my Tucson for 1 year. It has never produced better than 13.5litres per 100kms and has been as high as 15 litres!!! It is currently running at 14.7litres on mainly city driving. The 13.5 was after a 500km country trip.

I have the Elite which shows the current fuel consumption and I presume it averages it over the total kilometres driven. I have done 18,000 plus so its about time the engine "freed" itself up and gave me a better consumption figure, but I'm not holding my breath.

By the way the new Landrover Discovery with a V6 2.7 supposedly gives consumptipn of around 13 litres per 100kms, but is a significantly bigger vehicle.

I would love to hear Hyundai's comments on fuel consumption, because I'm not getting anywhere near its advertised level. Neither my wife or me are leadfoots by the way!!

 

I don't understand why so many people are getting bad mil. just the other day I filled up and figured out that I got 12.8L per 100 km I drive pretty hard on regular streets and on the hwy I drive 110-120. and also my car only has 1800 kms on it . every one must have a very heavy foot . lol. :57:

 

:trophy: :thumbsup: I fail to see the problem, you can still make a comparision between different cars.

:w00t:

 

Hi guys,

As an update I have seen inprovements in the mileage achieved. I had been getting less than 350km before a refill (80-100% city) My last refill for example was 56 litres @ 425 km which is about 13.1 per 100...

This is not bad for mostly city driving with rolling hills and lots of turns and traffic lights in St. John's Newfoundland. From what I have experienced thus far though, there is not a significant improvement from this on the highway.

I drive less than 120 km/hr on the highway which in my mind is not excessive. Please note though I have installed a K & N filter which may have played a role in achieving slightly better mileage...I read an article regarding the disappointing mileage in a new car guide, and also comparisons to other SUV's such as the RAV4, X-Trail, CR-V stating that the V6 of the Tucson is of not much advantage to the competitors 4 cylinders due to lack of ponies.

One who actually test drives the competitors vehicles is quick to realize that the Tucson's V6 is a lot smoother and quieter in acceleration which is why I chose it in in the first place...Also in Newfoundland we get the 5yr/100,000 Free Ride at no charge which includes everything from Oil changes to wheel alignments at no charge! And as a bonus I got a free set of Nokian Hakkapeliita snow tires which are amongst the best there are!.
If you stop and think the amount of money you save buying a tuscon versus the others due to cheaper financing and the vehicles coming fully accessorized, the savings you make offset the relatively higher fuel comsumption. Not to say that this justifies being disappointed. I hope it doesn't get worse again as the ice and snow are soon upon us in Newfoundland...we got loads!

 

12.2 L/ 100km

Mostly city

 

Originally posted by Fraz103@Oct 29 2005, 01:13 PM
The problem is when you fill the tank, if you only fill it until the pump automaticly stops you cannot be sure if the tank is full or not and if you have filled it to the same point as before, if you fill the tank to the brim and do 250 miles then fill the tank to the brim again this is the only accurate way to ensure that the calculation is correct, if you don't beleive us ask Hyundai, or your local dealer. The way you do it you may be as much as 5 litres out on your calculation,

[snapback]22482[/snapback]​

I'm aware that cars can take a little more gas than when when the automatic thing shuts it off, but how do you go about filling it to the brim then?

Or I guess a much better way of putting that is - how do you know it's actually to the brim - do you just do it until a bit of gas literally is leaking/coming out of the opening where you put the nozzle in?

Also, what if you just went back to the same gas station and used the same automatic pump you used the first time - wouldn't it mean the auto thing would turn off at the same level of full and you could go on that, or do you think it would be inconsistent?

Cheers

 

Originally posted by Itsatusconmatey@Aug 18 2005, 03:27 PM

Get your dealer to do an mpg check (they have an approved Hyundai way to do this !)

Then wait for answers...

..you are not checking your mileage by looking at the indicator guage are you?

...

Fill up your tank to the neck then when your empty again repeat it then do the manual check ---miles completed divided by the litreage used then multiply by 4.54 and the final figure will be your mpg for that tankfull.

[snapback]18007[/snapback]​

On the dealer check - do they just run some kind of quick test, or do they have to drive it some - I've never heard of such checks?

Is the indicator guage known to be incorrect? I would rather no indicator guage at all, which at the time of sale gives me the impression I'll get a nice little extra feature, rather than one that's incorrect, which then is going to be pain in the neck when it's time to resell the car and the buyer says "this only gets 17 mpg according to your gauge" and I try to convince them - "no, it's not really the case - i really get more - i did a manual check of my own."

What is the multiply by 4.54 part of your equation for? Never heard of it - isn't it just number of miles driven by # of litres/gallons used.

 

I think it is still a problem because you don't really know which vehicles are off by 25-30% for example versus which ones are off by only 5-10%.

Also, there are some auto sites, I think Car and Driver, that report actually mileage that the cars get. They test it themselves. But the problem with that is that it's only 1 car, and what if that particular car for whatever reason had better or worse than normal results.

The thing that is most off about the whole thing is that the government reports are so far off. It's bad enough that the companies are skewing the data, but a supposedly independent group is skewing it as well.

It's probably just another sign that too many major governmental bodies are in the pockets of big biz today. The companies want to look good so are probably getting the governmental groups to skew the data. Also, the companies in many countries and states, such as California, must meet minimum mpg levels so to get around those, they probably are lobbying, pressuring and/or outright paying people off to make it seem the mileage levels are better than they are so they can keep selling their cars in California and other major markets like that. The California car market is bigger than that of probably all but ten countries in the whole world.

 

UPDATE: My Tucson reached 20,000 miles this week.
I called customer service at Hyundai USA and he told me to run a tank of 91 octane or better through it and see what it does, so I ran a tank of 93 through it. At 70 mph, cruise control, and no A/C on the interstate with almost no traffic, I got about 22.5 mpg which is better than the average I was getting. So I guess this means that I have to spend more on gas to get better mileage? Wait, that doesnt make any sense! The manual says to use 87 octane. It doesnt say anything about using 91 or better.
And to set some people straight in this forum who think that I am whinning about the gas mileage: I bought a 26 mpg compact SUV, and I think that I should get somewhere close to that.
I am not upset so much that the vehicle is NOT getting close to what it was "estimated" at, I am more upset because of the fact that there seem to be so many "loopholes" in the gas mileage estimate process. If the best gas mileage is achieved using 91 or better octane, then they need to put that in the manual! If I start a company that builds cars and I put a gas mileage "estimate" on the car of, say, 40 mpg. You then buy that car thinking that you should get somewhere in the ballpark of 40 mpg, right? Well, you only get about, say, 30 mpg wouldnt you be a little upset? This is my point, it is not only that fact that Hyundai lied to us, its the fact that they wont do anything to fix it. Although, in other fuel related posts in this forum, I have noticed that the 2.0L UK models seem to have a fix which includes changing the trip computers that show fuel consuption rates. How nice of them to cover up a problem by removing the indication that there IS a problem.

Can we all expect to see some fixes?

 

Your driving at 70 Mph!!!

Of course your going to get worse fuel economy at that speed.

Drive at 55mph steady an see what you get.

A better explanation might be...

Imagine your in Walmart with a full shopping cart.

To push that cart at walking speed you'll need a little bit of energy (one chocolate bar)

To push that same cart at a jogging speed you'll need more energy ( 1.5 chocolate bars)

Get it?

I'm not saying that my Tucson is getting the stated fuel economy...

but if we're going to test we should follow the testing guidlines as they tested the vehicles.

Go here to read the exact testing guidlines.

 

First, 70 mph is the average speed limit in the US. At 55 mph, I would be the extremly slow guy in the right hand lane that would cause a wreck, and thus, unrealistic.
Second, the FTP (Federal Testing Procedure) that you quoted is a Canadain testing procedure not an American. I guess I need to find some documentation for the testing procedure in America and see how much, if any, it is different.

 

The federal testing procedure is the same in Canada and the US.

All the automakers follow this procedure.

And we here don't drive at 100km/hr it's more like 120 +

We're all complaining about poor fuel economy.

If your going to test your cars economy, at least test it close to how they tested it.

I have not yet had a chance to do a long trip and do the speed limit.

When I get the oportunity I'll post my results.

 

hello all
our 2.7 tuscon has suddenly started to return an average MPG of only 17/18[was 21/22] , we are in the UK so this data is X 1.2 as the computer is calibrated for the smaller US gallon.
what consumption do YOU get from your 2.7 {need to know if you are US or UK gallon size]
thanks
Bob

 

welcome to the forum :00000732:

 

:00000732: :00000732: :00000732: