They (semi-trucks) run at about 70-75 mph here in Pa. on interstates and the Turnpike. I like the Ohio turnpike because they are forced to travel in the "slow" lane at considerably slower speeds (by Ohio law the truck speed is at least 10 mph slower and agressive enforcement of this law). However, you should see the mass "speed up" to make up for lost time when they cross into Pa. I often wondered how many of those "single car roll-overs in the median" or those passenger cars that cross through the median into oncoming traffic that are attributed to the driver falling asleep (they occur in the wee hours) that occur on interstates are the result of semi's playing games that accidentally went wrong or deliberately went the way they did.
When I first got my 06 GL w/5 speed manual, it got around 35 mpg on the highway. Lowest was San Francisco driving @ 16.7 mpg. Mileage dropped noticeably using Arco or other cheapo brands. Average mileage (80% freeway 20% urban/traffic jams) came out to be 28.7. Attempts to anticipate braking situations by coasting and avoiding a lot of hard acceleration yielded 30-31 mpg. I stopped doing that because it was too much work for such meager results. As my car approached 38k on the odo, the mileage has suddenly risen to something over 32 mpg average. I do not know what pure highway mileage at present. Has anyone else here experienced something like this?
Any ideas where I can find the build date of the car? I see every where (maybe, not in the right areas, obviously) - under the hood, on the door sides, under the arm rest... nada! I know its there some where but can't seemed to find it... Any ideas?
Btw, the V6 is unbelievably smooth as you already know by now and with so many awesome amenities in Limited, I don't know why people spend so much more on other cars. If you drive for 8 years, then the car is practically free and who cares about the resale value at that point? Any how, that's for another post altogether
Over 1000+ miles so far and averaging about 25 - 26.5 mpg (60% highway and 40% city) and hope the engine breaks-in in another 200 miles or so and can test 70+ on the highways! First Hyundai and sure feels like I am going to be a long and strong Hyundai fan! Kudos Hyundai for building a solid and remarkable V6 engine!
Bingo target...... as you know i do my weekly commute from So Cal to Phoenix, and word for word have found exactly what you're talking about reguarding the truckers. Professional drivers as they were once called, have gone out the window years ago. Ive experienced every single thing you wrote about. Doing my 60,000+ miles per year you have to be careful and drive defensively. And concur with your mpg#,,, If im at 60 to 65mph, i get anywhere from 37 to 40 mpg with my 03 4cyl camry, but once i hit 80 its about 28-29 unless i have a back wind and ONLY going with the jetstream from cal to phx...never from phx to cal do i get as good.but with a backwind and jetstream at times ill hit 31 to 33 @80. Ive been run off the road several times by the truckers...or slammed on my brakes way too many times, and you're right, its a game to them. they see you coming fast in the left lane and wait till you're right by them ..Pop on the turn signal and whip the steering wheel hard left. By my mpg numbers you can see speed kills (kills your mpg) and sometimes the driver if you're not careful..Anyway. Good luck out there, keep ur eyes open Later Caaz
The build date for Hyundai products is on a plate on the "B" pillar (between the front and rear doors on the driver side front) about 1/4 of the way up from the bottom. It also give the build location and VIN number as well.
I guess insanity prevails across the country as far as "over the road" truckers go, it isn't a regional thing. As I previously said, Ohio is the only state I have criss-crossed (via the Ohio Turnpike) where truckers are mostly confined to the slow or right hand lane at considerably slower speeds than other vehicular traffic (at least a 10 mph slower posted "truck speed limit" as I recall). Why? it is the aggressive enforcement of this Ohio law by the troopers and nothing else. If you ever drove across Ohio from end to end west to east or visa-versa the truckers are in endless lines where they belong...in the far right lane driving at speeds they should be driving in all states. It is wonderfull not to have to worry about all the dangerous stunts for several hundreds of miles but that all changes abruptly at the Ohio-Pennsylvania line then look out..they are making up for lost time and you had better clear the way. The Pa. Turnpike from the Ohio line to beyond Somerset Pa. is hilly..curvy and NOT the place to push 80,000+ pounds of loaded semi to 80 mph or more, but they do. I only wish the PSP (Pennsylvania State Police) would be much more agressive with trucks. It is interesting to note there is no slower "truck speed" posted on the Pa Turnpike. Don't get me started on the lack of speed reduction by semi-truckers in the winter's snow. I can't tell you how many times I have been passed by trucks traveling 55-60 mph in snow when I didn't feel confident going more than 40 in my car....simply insane!!!!
As promised the "city" fuel economy for the 2007 GLS V-6 Sonata we rented over Easter. It was used by my wife in her normal short (2 1/2 mile) commute to work...drive to Wal-Mart....drive to lunch....drive to the health club kind use for a couple of days last week. We live in a small city/large town with its compliment of traffic lights, a real but short "rush-hour" every day and a major busy cross country road (U.S.Rt-30) passing directly through town and the business strips as well. This road while always busy to some degree (it is a conduit for tourists traveling to Gettysburg) is more heavily traveled by those tourists as the weather gets better. Anyhow, fuel economy for three days under those conditions was 19.6 mpg per the onboard fuel computer. Again this compares favorably with the 2007-08 EPA sticker for the V-6 which is 19 mpg city/28 highway. So both the highway AND the city ratings are able to be achieved using our driving style and may be able to be exceeded by someone who drives slower than I do on the open road.
Btw, it looks like the car was built on July 27, '07 and it must have *sat* in some lot for more than 7 months as I bought only in March... Interesting! I thought I will see 2008 some where on the build label but it just says "July 27, 2007". So, I guess the VIN number must have been registered for the 2008 year.
You understand that although it was built in 2007 the 2008 models were already being produced therefore it technically IS a 2008. Hyundai (as well as most other manufacturers) has been irregular with the release of successive model year vehicles. For instance the 2009 Sonata has already started to show up on dealer lots. This is the refreshed model that sports improved engines, interior, front design and colors.
Same here. My 08 V6 Limited with 2300 miles gets me around 19 mpg city in cold weather (we'll see how it does now that the weather is warming up).
Last Saturday I went for a drive of about 70 miles. The weather was 40 F, slight wind, sunny, flat terrain. Out of the 70 miles I drove about 15 miles on interstates at around 65 mph, about 45 miles on country roads at 55-60 mph, and about 10 miles in city traffic, but really easy on the accelerator. I had close to empty tank. Overall I got 29 mpg for this 70 miles trip. Pretty good I think, especially considering that the cars is relatively new.
I bought a I4/5M last Friday, my first tank, with almost every condition you could imagine-easy highway, city traffic, snow (In April!!!) and the resulting traffic jam, plus a good workout for the ESC system, 27 mpg right on the nose, 350 miles 12.9 gallons. Compared to my Aztek, I found a receipt here 307.1/13.17, 23.3.....what I have figured so far is that I used to fill the Aztek 2 or 3 times a week, depending on what day of the week I filled it. I picked the Sonata up Friday, drove it on the weekend, didn't have to fill it again until Wednesday...I'm thinking that instead of filling up 2 or 3 times a week it will be 1 or 2, depending on the day, at $45 a fillup that's going to add up fast. And that 27 mpg is on a motor with less than 600 miles on it. BTW, plenty of power unless you tow, I'm thinking. RPM at 70 MPH is about 2500, pretty comfortable for a I4, maybe even on the low side. You would still want to drive on for yourself. I wouldn't wait to long. With the $3K incentive, Sonatas seem to be moving pretty briskly. The only local dealer had a row of them right before the incentive, they now have one left. I got the last one with the 5M, to the consternation of a lady who was in the dealership when I took delivery. Apparently she'd had her eye on the car too, but the early bird got the worm.
I just purchased a 2008 Hyundai Sonata 4 cylinder. It was a demo, therefore, the purchase price was $14,500. Original price was 22,995. It has 18, 000 mi.
I took a first time Hwy ride to work over the weekend and couldn't believe my eyes. At one point, at 59 mph, I had hit 36 mpg. It toggled between 34-35 mpg on average. The ride was solid, quiet and smooth. I live in Chicago, where most suburban streets post 35 mph. I averaged 24 mpg.
Awesome vehicle. I love it. HUGE relief from my past 2002 Ford Explorer. This is probably the best vehicle I have ever owned.
One thing to watch for...The seats are like a cream colored cloth. They pick up dirt somewhat easily. Seat covers will be the next purchase.
Took my '09 V6 Limited out for a spin today on a 65mph road that I will be driving regularly, and decided to start a series of tests of fuel efficiency to look at break-in, synthetic oil, and fuel additives. The car had 1800 miles on it, was broken in 'by the book' (complete with lots of 2000-4000 rpm run time in all the gears), and had an oil change at 1300 miles. I reset the mileage computer and put the Sonata on cruise control @70mph on the nose (the slowest one can go even in the right lane w/o becoming a moving roadblock!) as soon as I was past the on-ramp, and kept it on w/o tapping the brakes or the accelerator until that segment of road ended some 11 miles later. This section of freeway (actually, a toll road) features rolling hills, but I think the starting and ending elevations are comparable. I was blown away to see that the mileage for this 11 mile segment was 32.5 mpg! On a comparable length (~10 mile) run on a somewhat flatter section of toll road at 67/68 mph cruise control setting, I averaged 33.5 mpg!
I plan to test this same stretch of road at least at the 2800, 3800, and 4800 mile odometer readings, since I have heard acecdotally about Hyundai cars breaking in and getting progressively better gas mileage up to ~5000 miles. I'll then be switching to 0W-20 or 0W-30 synthetic oil (haven't decided which weight) and will measure the mileage gain. I'm a big fan of using "Fuel Power" gas additive, which tends to add a couple of mpg as well. Who knows how efficiently this Sonata will be running at the end of this! Will post the results here, if there is interest.
Since my mileage is 90% highway and includes this stretch of road (albeit usually a bit faster...), you can bet I'm pleased as punch at the preliminary results! I agonized over the 4 cylinder vs. 6 cylinder decision, before deciding that for the seven bucks a week or so the extra gas would cost me, the power of the 6 cylinder was 'worth it', but now it looks like I'll be exceeding what I would have expected to see from the I-4. (Of course, that begs the question of how much better the Four would perform, but I'll stick to Hyundai's notional 3 mpg difference...)
I'm glad you're happy with your results and your car. However, are the MPG computers that exact? I find it hard to believe that an 11 mile test is anything more than a waste of time. I read all over these forums of people getting 40mpg for a stretch of 30 miles or 38mpg for a stretch of 8 miles. Of what use are these numbers? Personally, the only time I really give any credence to these postings is when somebody reports that they took a long hwy trip of at least 300 miles and computed their mpg the old fashioned way.
I've calculated FE both ways and find that the trip computers are pretty close to "the old fashioned way." And consider that it could be "the old fashioned way" that is inaccurate, or moreso than the computer-measured FE. There's so much variation just between different pumps, for example (one pump shuts off when there's still 1-2 gallons of space left, another down the road doesn't shut off until gas is nearly spilling out of the filler tube).
I guess I wasn't questioning the accuracy of the computer as much as I was questioning the usefulness of an 11 mile test of fuel economy. You're right about the pumps/etc. Thats why I usually use three or four long trips and average the mpg to come up with my own estimate of what my car is getting. I had a 93 LaSabre that I drove for 13 years and it consistently would get 29-30 on long trips and would avg about 24-25 mpg on mixed driving on a tank to tank basis. In it's last two years the mpg dropped to about 23 mpg avg but it was becoming a beater at that point so I didn't really care. It finally went to Kars for Kids.
Am not going to swear to the accuracy of the computer as an *absolute* gauge of fuel efficiency, but since I can repeat this drive under controlled circumstances (same speed setting on cruise control) to my mind it is a reasonable test of *relative* efficiency, where an 11 mile course should be long enough to capture at least some of the efficiency gains of tire pressure, synthetic oil, fuel additives, etc. A longer distance would certainly be better, but that is the longest stretch of my daily commute that will not involve stopping for a toll booth or merging onto another highway. Will certainly measure the end-to-end mileage as well, but think this is a more useful predictor of long distance/interstate conditions.
FWIW, though, I have never found a long trip to be a perfect test of fuel efficiency either. Even if you put the car on cruise control for a full tank's worth of driving (which I find too hypnotic to do for more than a couple of hours), my experience is that you have to tap the brakes or accelerator fairly often unless the road is nearly empty. In any event, some long distance trips involve more favorable terrain than others (hills) which can affect the mileage significantly. Unless you are heading down a basically flat highway (like parts of I-95) with minimal traffic, I wouldn't be surprised to see your mpg vary somewhat from tank to tank. At least mine always did.
I have been doing a lot of 'out of pattern' driving since getting this car, but once I return to my customary commute I should be able to verify or refine the MPG computer's estimate over multiple tanks of gas, since I almost always fill up at the same station (Costco) and this stretch of test road comprises a significant chunk of my daily commute. Have found the gas computer to reasonably accurate thus far, at least as a gauge of remaining fuel, since the low fuel light seems to come on when ~16 gallons have been used. At that point, the computer's estimated remaining range tracked closely in both cases to what I could expect to cover in the remaining 1.7 gallons nominally left in the tank. (Note that, once the computer got down to 30 miles remaining estimated range, it stopped counting, and began flashing an empty row of numbers and the range symbol.)
Even if it turns out that I am 'only' getting 30 mpg at this point in my car's life, I'm frankly surprised it is that good, and am optimistic that 'tweaks' such as synthetic oil and fuel additives will kick it up another notch or two.
Measuring a short trip's FE via computer is useful if you are interested in what a car can do driving under certain conditions, e.g. on a highway, flat terrain, and a certain speed, or over some other particular, repeatable course. Consider that when the EPA tests cars for FE, they don't run them over long distances either.
I sometimes reset the computer after I am up to speed on a long stretch of highway just to see what the car will do cruising on the highway, i.e. under ideal conditions for FE. It may not be all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things, but it's kind of fun.
I just have never had a car with the trip computer and my perception was that they were inaccurate and usually overly optimistic in their calculations. Maybe they were when they first came out many years ago but have drastically improved(based on what I have read recently on these forums). Now that I understand why you are conducting this test it is easier to see the potential use. However, I'm sure you too have read some of the outlandish claims on some of the "real world mpg" forums based on what they see on their computer for a fairly short stretch. I look forward to hearing about the results of your tests in regards to different "enhancers". Cheers.
Now I have a question for everyone. I have drafted behind semis and obviously it helps mileage to do this. I know that some people just can't stand to do this and thats fine. However, I always read that following so close that the truck driver can't see you in his mirrors is dangerous. I know my midsize sedan can brake probably twice as fast as the truck can and I don't expect him to throw it in reverse on the freeway. Except for not being able to see down the road ahead for potential problems(which I probably couldn't see even if I was a ways back but still behind the truck), what is the big deal?
However, I always read that following so close that the truck driver can't see you in his mirrors is dangerous.
Yes.
Consider that a minimum safe following distance is considered to be 2 seconds, to allow for your reaction time plus braking time. Since you can't see what's in front of the semi, you won't know the truck is braking until you see its brake lights. How far behind the semi would you be to have a 2 second gap, at freeway speeds? And would it still provide much benefit from drafting? From what I've heard/seen (e.g. Mythbusters), the car has to be pretty darn close to the semi to get much benefit in FE.
Another question to consider: how would you like it if someone were riding your tail on the freeway for many miles--especially if you couldn't see them? Don't you get just a little nervous when someone rides your tail? I know I do.
I don't think the 2 second rule applies as much when the vehicles are so different in stopping distances but I agree that to benefit you would probably have to be a little closer than prudence would suggest. I don't think it bothers them much. I asked my uncle, who drove truck all his life, and he says that he could care less cause a car running into him from the rear would just mean poor luck for the car and money in the bank for him. He also said that a car could stop so much quicker than he could that unless you didn't see his brake lights at all, a car could easily brake in time. Pretty much a matter of physics.
I didn't see the Mythbusters epidode. Did they cover this exact topic ie. drafting?
I think I have discussed this so-called drafting to obtain better fuel economy with someone here...it may have even been you, but while your midsized (or any other sized vehicle) can probably outbrake a loaded semi whatcha gonna do when out of the blue he locks em up at 75 mph and there you are 10 feet from his rear bumper. I'll tell you what you'll do, you will be so damned shocked (probably into immobility) that the time it takes for you to do anything (if you do anything at all) you will be a permanent addition to the underside of the trailer. That little steel bracket on the back of most trailers will be through your roof slicing it off at about head level.. hope you think fast enough to duck!!! The big deal is you will be dead!!! and if that weren't enough you'll never know if you saved any fuel on that,your last trip. Graphic enough for you? It can easily be LETHAL to do this. The end,full stop.
Yes, they covered drafting. I don't recall the episode number, but you may have luck at the Mythbuster's site. The gist of it was fuel economy improved nicely but it was nerve-wracking to maintain a distance close enough for it to be useful.
I'm curious; what makes you think the semi will have time/awareness to brake before colliding with something?
Somewhere in this thread (message #405 and 416) is an account of me and a rental 2007 V-6 Sonata GLS driven over four days, a 360 mile trip, and a day or two of in town daily type commutes by my wife. Results: fuel economy @ 72-75 mph = 27.7 or .6 mpg (fluctuated) per the on board fuel computer. Faster at about 80 mph, fuel economy drops to the upper 26 mpg range. I never drove much slower than 70 mph so 29 or 30 mpg might be possible at that speed but if you drive normally (not dangerously slow or criminally fast) I'll bet this is about what you will get. In our small city/large town it returned about 19 mpg. I consider the "new" EPA sticker to be a reasonable estimate of what you can expect if driven reasonably.
Thanks for the input. A little heavy on the drama but true. I guess I was thinking a more like a few car lengths behind...not 10 ft which would be a little reckless(spelled ridiculous). I'm not suggesting anyone do this, I was just curious as to the physics involved. I'm sure even a locked up semi versus a locked up car would be quite a difference in stopping speed and distance.
I guess that's what I was curious about. I don't suggest doing it but many years ago, before gas prices were even much of a consideration, I used to follow semis at maybe a few car lengths behind and it seemed to buffet the car to the point where if I took my foot off the gas my speed would drop off at a slower rate than if I had not been behind the truck. I certainly was not anywhere near 10ft, probably more like 3 to 5 car lengths. It seemed like the truck created a vortex of some sort and the sweet spot was not right behind the truck but several car lengths back. Now I don't know if I was drafting or not but it seemed that way. If I recall that was about the time the CB was all the craze and if you followed a convoy of trucks going well over the speed limit you kind of felt that you had a better chance of avoiding "smoky bear".
It's called r-e-a-c-t-i-o-n time and even at a greater distance yours (or mine) isn't good enough to matter @ 75 mph. I suppose the suggestion to keep back a distance measured in multiple "car lengths" isn't empty talk.
Controlled road test: fuel consumption decrease from baseline at 55 mph:
100ft 50ft 20ft 10ft 2ft 11% 20% 27% 39% 28%
The above was from the Mythbusters web site synopsis of the program #80 "Big Rig Myths". They confirmed that drafting did save gas and their results were as above. Now 100 feet is almost 7 car lengths and is probably not that far off what lots of people follow. Take a look next time you are out on the freeway. In Chicago area I would say that at 55-65 mph there is almost always less than 100 ft in following distance.
I'm not saying that is the safest distance but it is the flow of the traffic so to speak. Just like going 10 over when going the limit would be like a moving roadblock. If you're out in the middle of the booddocks it probably would be easier to maintain ideal distances and speeds.
How many freeways do you know have a 55 mph cruising speed? Not many. At 70 mph, a more typical cruising speed, 2 seconds following distance is 205 feet. 100 feet is a bit under 1 second. I think that's cuting it way too close for comfort. 50 feet or less? Forgettaboutit. I guess I'd rather arrive at my destination relaxed--and increase my odds of arriving at my destination, period--rather than save 11% by drafting. Also, I usually have one or more family members in the car with me when I'm on the freeway for a long distance. No way I will risk their safety by sitting 100 feet or closer behind a semi, driving at high speed.
Also, it is a little-known fact that if you are killed by ramming into the rear of a semi because of drafting, you will NOT get into heaven. When you see St. Peter and explain how you met your demise, he'll say, "Sorry, you go to h*ll. Next!"
I imagine there are other things that have happened in my life that will account for a stop sign from St Peter. In Chicago area, a lot of the time the actual speed on the freeways is closer to 50-55mph because of heavy traffic. But even when going 70 everybody around here is not many car lengths behind or somebody jumps in the slot and people hit brakes and oualah, instant traffic jam.
I just fill my new 09 GLS with the 2nd tank of gas. This time is my normal daily commute, I normally drive 100 mile round trip per day. ( long long commute, i may hit 100k in 4 years). i am getting 30 MPG on the fuel. I think i may get more after the engine pass the 1200 mile broke in zone.
Following 100 feet or less behind a semi in heavy Chicago traffic at 50-55 mph is one of the last things I'd do. Actually, that could literally be true...
I think if you actually look around you on the freeway, even in the Twin Cities, when traffic is heavy you will find that very few people maintain 100(6 or 7 car lengths). I am not saying you don't....I'm just saying that I think most people don't. Now when traffic is flowing smoothly at or above the speed limit, maintaining a decent following distance is a lot easier. Cheers.
When traffic is heavy, we aren't going 55 mph in the Twin Cities.
I think there's a lot safer ways than drafting to get good fuel economy in a Sonata or any other car. I could get really great fuel economy driving about 50 mph on the highway, probably upper 30s on the Sonata I4, but under many circumstances that wouldn't be safe, or courteous, either.
The computer in an old Cadi I once had was so accurate that fillup was always within one gallon. Running MPG reading reacted instantly from normal of 14. Creeping closer to semi, even at 45 or 50 increased mpg to 32, and car was really getting that. I wonder if drafting decreases the mpg of the 18 wheeler?
That's a good question. I don't think it would because of the size/weight difference. If any it would probably be miniscule. I'm not suggesting that anyone do it, I was simply discussing the physics and safety aspects. But being 100 ft behind or less is pretty common from what I see on expressways around Chicago area. I know someone can say that common doesn't equal safe but the alternative is people jumping in front of you and this, IMO, causes another or even worse situation. I can honestly say that between cars on the freeways when traffic is heavy, the average distance between vehicles is probably 2 or 3 car lengths and that is at 50-60 mph. I have driven in every state in the union including Alaska and Hawaii and about 15 different countries and don't find it that much different wherever I drive.
I've noticed a really weird thing with my 2008 Hyundai Sonata. When I have a full tank of gas I report vastly higher MPG than when my car is low on gas. For example, when I drove it from the dealership I was getting as high as 26 in the city. When the tank hit below quarter-full, however, I was getting as low as 17. Likewise, I filled it up yesterday, and my MPG magically shot up to 29mpg in the city. I know there is no way this car can really get 29 in the city so it makes me worry that the trip computer is malfunctioning. Does anyone have any experiences like this? Can anyone help explain the discrepancies I'm experiencing? Thanks.
A post from 2008 Sonata board about the accuracy of the mileage computer. I realize this is probably an anamoly but kind of proves that some aren't working correctly.
Keep in mind we know nothing about the circumstances of this situation. The Sonata uses a cumulative mpg readout, so it's quite possible that the mpg started out at 26, based on conditions, then declined based on how the car was driven over time so it was down to 17 after 1/4 tank was gone. Then when the tank was filled and the meter reset, it started out at 29. I've seen the mpg readout on my car act just this way before. I fill up, reset the meter, I'm driving around maybe on an urban highway, mpg is doing good, maybe low 30s, then I do a lot of driving on city streets and it starts dropping into the 20s. Then I do some highway driving and it goes up again.
So I don't think it's fair to say this Sonata's mpg computer isn't working correctly until we know the circumstances. And yes, a Sonata CAN get 29 mpg in the "city" depending on what was meant by "city". I know because I've done it.
3rd fillup, 399 miles, 13.9 gallons. 28.7, with 1600 miles on the engine. I like this trend, up from my last of 26 and change. I'm ready to try a long highway trip to see what she'll dop on the really open road!
Did a test of my 09 V6 Sonata Limited. Before heading out of town to the mountains I gassed up and re-set the mileage average and trip odometer. When I returned, I went to the same pump at the same station (and pulled in facing the same direction) and again used auto-fill to cut-off to minimize the pump as a variable.
On my trip I encountered miserable bumper-to-bumper gridlock (65 minutes to go 25 miles), which pulled the average down. The computer said I averaged 24.2 mpg over the 209.9 miles driven. It took 8.84 gallons refilling the car before the pump cut off. I make this 23.74 mpg, or a bit less than 0.5 mpg lower than the computer's estimate.
Am not sure what effect if any the significant amount of idling I did had on the result. Will try this repeatedly over full tanks (although hitting the same pump twice in a row at my usual station-- Costco-- is tough!) to see how things hold up with my normal commuting routine (95% highway), but it suggests that the estimates of 33+ mpg that I've been getting from the Sonata's computer for highway commuting trips of 30 miles or so thus far aren't totally fictitious. My commuting numbers for Friday included 33.6 mpg for a 30.5 mile run; even at the end of it, the average would fluctuate a half mpg depending on hard passing acceleration or a quarter mile of coasting, so this distance is still a bit short for reliable numbers. Did get 29.9 over the 100 miles in total I logged Friday, including some stop and go congestion.
Couldn't contain myself any longer, and have added my favorite fuel enhancer (LCD Inc's "Fuel Power") to my latest tank, and will report the results. Hadn't wanted to use it before this point (2400 miles total) since it helps lubricate the upper cylinders, and I wanted to ensure that cylinder break-in was complete.
What auto did you have before and what kind of mpg did you get? That's very good mpg from that much hp. My Mazda6 I4 would probably not do any better even driving pretty conservatively.
The computer does not estimate your mileage. It calculates your mileage based up the amount of gas that makes its way into the engine and the number of miles driven.
You get zero MPG for every second/minute that your car is running and stopped at a traffic light, stop sign, traffic jam or drive-up window. Idling for 5 minutes at a drive-up window will make a noticable difference. 65 minutes in gridlock, stop & go, to go 25 miles will make a big difference because you are constantly accelerating in addition to idling. A steady 25 MPH would give you better MPG than 25 miles of grid lock stop & go.
Your mileage check really was over too few miles to place any significance on .5 MPG or so. Even though you were at the same pump, the "fill-ups" could have been a slightly different amount. Recalculate your MPG assuming you took 1/10th less of a gallon. The new calculation would indicate about .3 MPG better. To lessen "rounding errors" check your MPG over a longer haul, say 1,000 miles. Or do it by the tankful and track several tanks using total miles devided by total gallons. This will give you a more accurate reading of your average MPG.
You should find that your calculation and the compter agree. (That is, don't reset the computer for that 1000 miles or so, just do each tank manually and then compare your manual calculations with the computer.)
Previous car was a '91 Plymouth Acclaim. 3L V6 with nowhere near the pep of the V6 Sonata (~140hp). Used to get as much as 29 mpg w/"Fuel Power" additive and the tires inflated an extra few psi, until 'they' switched to the reformulated gas (ethanol) in the Washington DC area, then my commuting efficiency dropped to ~26 mpg. That is why I am so impressed by the Sonata's performance on this same cruddy gas! I figure that the ~33mpg total I'm getting on my toll road commute at a cruise controlled 70mph will still be 30+mpg if I am manually accelerating/decelerating. Add a few mpg for synthetic oil and "Fuel Power" additive and I'll feel like I'm in Elantra efficiency territory. Not bad for a 249hp V6!
I for one don't believe a change to any brand synthetic oil will "add a few mpg". In fact I currently use Mobil1 in both our cars...a 1995 Dodge Stratus ES and 2006 Honda Civic EX sedan and while I may be doing the engines a favor by reducing wear using a synthetic (and even that is questionable) I have not seen a measurable, by crude mechanical calculations, increase in fuel economy. I concede a small, but not normally measurable, increase might have happened but don't go into the change to synthetics expecting a large, or even measurable change. As for the addition of "fuel power" while I have not used this particular brand I would not expect any measurable change with its use either. Consider this, a modern fuel injected, high voltage ignition, computer controlled gasoline engine with a computer controlled 5, 6 or more speed automatic transmission is probably about as perfect a fuel squeezing vehicle as there ever was (size class for size class), excluding diesel and hybrids of course. They are certainly the best combination of performance, fuel economy, and meeting strict emission standards that I have ever seen in my 40+ year affair with all things automotive. I seriously doubt anything except sensible driving practices and regular maintance will affect fuel economy in a relatively large positive way. Conversely poor driving habits, speeding, jack rabbit starts, excessively varying speeds combined with poor maintainance such as low tire pressures, dirty air filters etc. will make even a fuel efficient vehicle seem bad. The notion that fuel additives, gizmo's that are installed into the air intake tract (Tornado?), super premium air filters aka K&N, or types of oil being able to largely influence fuel economy to the positive is, in my opinion, not valid. I have used some of these (K&N filter, Change to Mobil 1 and various fuel additives) for reasons other than better fuel economy and in the context of what I had hoped to achieve I am happy with the results or perceived results but in no case did I see signifcantly better fuel economy numbers.
I just got a 2009 Sonata GLS with I-4 Auto. Have had about 3 weeks. Getting 26.5 average according to the computer. According to old fashion method, gettting a tad less at 26. That is combining city and highway.
I have a 2003 Sonata LX V6 and I always get 29-30 MPG on the Highway with the cruise set at 70mph.. No computer with this year. All done with a calculator. Only get about 15 or 16 around town though.
2012 Highlander Limited AWD V6 and 2015 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE
Now have 1400 miles on a '08 GLS V6. Mileage is 90% city. First fillup {only ran it down to the 3/4 mark} was 15.7mpg. Since then, the average has been over 20mpg, and if anything improving slowly. Last fillup was 9.5 gal, for 219 miles.
Very pleased with this, the car it replaced, a '94 Merc Sable, averaged 17.5mpg in its best days {3.8L, 210 tq, 140hp}
Comments
Btw, the V6 is unbelievably smooth as you already know by now and with so many awesome amenities in Limited, I don't know why people spend so much more on other cars. If you drive for 8 years, then the car is practically free and who cares about the resale value at that point? Any how, that's for another post altogether
Over 1000+ miles so far and averaging about 25 - 26.5 mpg (60% highway and 40% city) and hope the engine breaks-in in another 200 miles or so and can test 70+ on the highways! First Hyundai and sure feels like I am going to be a long and strong Hyundai fan! Kudos Hyundai for building a solid and remarkable V6 engine!
Later
Caaz
Btw, it looks like the car was built on July 27, '07 and it must have *sat* in some lot for more than 7 months as I bought only in March... Interesting! I thought I will see 2008 some where on the build label but it just says "July 27, 2007". So, I guess the VIN number must have been registered for the 2008 year.
Last Saturday I went for a drive of about 70 miles. The weather was 40 F, slight wind, sunny, flat terrain.
Out of the 70 miles I drove about 15 miles on interstates at around 65 mph, about 45 miles on country roads at 55-60 mph, and about 10 miles in city traffic, but really easy on the accelerator. I had close to empty tank.
Overall I got 29 mpg for this 70 miles trip. Pretty good I think, especially considering that the cars is relatively new.
I wouldn't wait to long. With the $3K incentive, Sonatas seem to be moving pretty briskly. The only local dealer had a row of them right before the incentive, they now have one left. I got the last one with the 5M, to the consternation of a lady who was in the dealership when I took delivery. Apparently she'd had her eye on the car too, but the early bird got the worm.
I took a first time Hwy ride to work over the weekend and couldn't believe my eyes. At one point, at 59 mph, I had hit 36 mpg. It toggled between 34-35 mpg on average. The ride was solid, quiet and smooth. I live in Chicago, where most suburban streets post 35 mph. I averaged 24 mpg.
Awesome vehicle. I love it. HUGE relief from my past 2002 Ford Explorer. This is probably the best vehicle I have ever owned.
One thing to watch for...The seats are like a cream colored cloth. They pick up dirt somewhat easily. Seat covers will be the next purchase.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED VEHICLE!!!
I plan to test this same stretch of road at least at the 2800, 3800, and 4800 mile odometer readings, since I have heard acecdotally about Hyundai cars breaking in and getting progressively better gas mileage up to ~5000 miles. I'll then be switching to 0W-20 or 0W-30 synthetic oil (haven't decided which weight) and will measure the mileage gain. I'm a big fan of using "Fuel Power" gas additive, which tends to add a couple of mpg as well. Who knows how efficiently this Sonata will be running at the end of this! Will post the results here, if there is interest.
Since my mileage is 90% highway and includes this stretch of road (albeit usually a bit faster...), you can bet I'm pleased as punch at the preliminary results! I agonized over the 4 cylinder vs. 6 cylinder decision, before deciding that for the seven bucks a week or so the extra gas would cost me, the power of the 6 cylinder was 'worth it', but now it looks like I'll be exceeding what I would have expected to see from the I-4. (Of course, that begs the question of how much better the Four would perform, but I'll stick to Hyundai's notional 3 mpg difference...)
Color me happy!
FWIW, though, I have never found a long trip to be a perfect test of fuel efficiency either. Even if you put the car on cruise control for a full tank's worth of driving (which I find too hypnotic to do for more than a couple of hours), my experience is that you have to tap the brakes or accelerator fairly often unless the road is nearly empty. In any event, some long distance trips involve more favorable terrain than others (hills) which can affect the mileage significantly. Unless you are heading down a basically flat highway (like parts of I-95) with minimal traffic, I wouldn't be surprised to see your mpg vary somewhat from tank to tank. At least mine always did.
I have been doing a lot of 'out of pattern' driving since getting this car, but once I return to my customary commute I should be able to verify or refine the MPG computer's estimate over multiple tanks of gas, since I almost always fill up at the same station (Costco) and this stretch of test road comprises a significant chunk of my daily commute. Have found the gas computer to reasonably accurate thus far, at least as a gauge of remaining fuel, since the low fuel light seems to come on when ~16 gallons have been used. At that point, the computer's estimated remaining range tracked closely in both cases to what I could expect to cover in the remaining 1.7 gallons nominally left in the tank. (Note that, once the computer got down to 30 miles remaining estimated range, it stopped counting, and began flashing an empty row of numbers and the range symbol.)
Even if it turns out that I am 'only' getting 30 mpg at this point in my car's life, I'm frankly surprised it is that good, and am optimistic that 'tweaks' such as synthetic oil and fuel additives will kick it up another notch or two.
I sometimes reset the computer after I am up to speed on a long stretch of highway just to see what the car will do cruising on the highway, i.e. under ideal conditions for FE. It may not be all that meaningful in the grand scheme of things, but it's kind of fun.
Now that I understand why you are conducting this test it is easier to see the potential use. However, I'm sure you too have read some of the outlandish claims on some of the "real world mpg" forums based on what they see on their computer for a fairly short stretch. I look forward to hearing about the results of your tests in regards to different "enhancers". Cheers.
Now I have a question for everyone. I have drafted behind semis and obviously it helps mileage to do this. I know that some people just can't stand to do this and thats fine. However, I always read that following so close that the truck driver can't see you in his mirrors is dangerous. I know my midsize sedan can brake probably twice as fast as the truck can and I don't expect him to throw it in reverse on the freeway. Except for not being able to see down the road ahead for potential problems(which I probably couldn't see even if I was a ways back but still behind the truck), what is the big deal?
Yes.
Consider that a minimum safe following distance is considered to be 2 seconds, to allow for your reaction time plus braking time. Since you can't see what's in front of the semi, you won't know the truck is braking until you see its brake lights. How far behind the semi would you be to have a 2 second gap, at freeway speeds? And would it still provide much benefit from drafting? From what I've heard/seen (e.g. Mythbusters), the car has to be pretty darn close to the semi to get much benefit in FE.
Another question to consider: how would you like it if someone were riding your tail on the freeway for many miles--especially if you couldn't see them? Don't you get just a little nervous when someone rides your tail? I know I do.
I didn't see the Mythbusters epidode. Did they cover this exact topic ie. drafting?
I'm curious; what makes you think the semi will have time/awareness to brake before colliding with something?
Results: fuel economy @ 72-75 mph = 27.7 or .6 mpg (fluctuated) per the on board fuel computer. Faster at about 80 mph, fuel economy drops to the upper 26 mpg range. I never drove much slower than 70 mph so 29 or 30 mpg might be possible at that speed but if you drive normally (not dangerously slow or criminally fast) I'll bet this is about what you will get.
In our small city/large town it returned about 19 mpg. I consider the "new" EPA sticker to be a reasonable estimate of what you can expect if driven reasonably.
decrease from baseline at 55 mph:
100ft 50ft 20ft 10ft 2ft
11% 20% 27% 39% 28%
The above was from the Mythbusters web site synopsis of the program #80 "Big Rig Myths". They confirmed that drafting did save gas and their results were as above. Now 100 feet is almost 7 car lengths and is probably not that far off what lots of people follow. Take a look next time you are out on the freeway. In Chicago area I would say that at 55-65 mph there is almost always less than 100 ft in following distance.
I'm not saying that is the safest distance but it is the flow of the traffic so to speak. Just like going 10 over when going the limit would be like a moving roadblock. If you're out in the middle of the booddocks it probably would be easier to maintain ideal distances and speeds.
Also, it is a little-known fact that if you are killed by ramming into the rear of a semi because of drafting, you will NOT get into heaven. When you see St. Peter and explain how you met your demise, he'll say, "Sorry, you go to h*ll. Next!"
In Chicago area, a lot of the time the actual speed on the freeways is closer to 50-55mph because of heavy traffic. But even when going 70 everybody around here is not many car lengths behind or somebody jumps in the slot and people hit brakes and oualah, instant traffic jam.
I think there's a lot safer ways than drafting to get good fuel economy in a Sonata or any other car. I could get really great fuel economy driving about 50 mph on the highway, probably upper 30s on the Sonata I4, but under many circumstances that wouldn't be safe, or courteous, either.
Good night, and good luck.
A post from 2008 Sonata board about the accuracy of the mileage computer. I realize this is probably an anamoly but kind of proves that some aren't working correctly.
So I don't think it's fair to say this Sonata's mpg computer isn't working correctly until we know the circumstances. And yes, a Sonata CAN get 29 mpg in the "city" depending on what was meant by "city". I know because I've done it.
On my trip I encountered miserable bumper-to-bumper gridlock (65 minutes to go 25 miles), which pulled the average down. The computer said I averaged 24.2 mpg over the 209.9 miles driven. It took 8.84 gallons refilling the car before the pump cut off. I make this 23.74 mpg, or a bit less than 0.5 mpg lower than the computer's estimate.
Am not sure what effect if any the significant amount of idling I did had on the result. Will try this repeatedly over full tanks (although hitting the same pump twice in a row at my usual station-- Costco-- is tough!) to see how things hold up with my normal commuting routine (95% highway), but it suggests that the estimates of 33+ mpg that I've been getting from the Sonata's computer for highway commuting trips of 30 miles or so thus far aren't totally fictitious. My commuting numbers for Friday included 33.6 mpg for a 30.5 mile run; even at the end of it, the average would fluctuate a half mpg depending on hard passing acceleration or a quarter mile of coasting, so this distance is still a bit short for reliable numbers. Did get 29.9 over the 100 miles in total I logged Friday, including some stop and go congestion.
Couldn't contain myself any longer, and have added my favorite fuel enhancer (LCD Inc's "Fuel Power") to my latest tank, and will report the results. Hadn't wanted to use it before this point (2400 miles total) since it helps lubricate the upper cylinders, and I wanted to ensure that cylinder break-in was complete.
You get zero MPG for every second/minute that your car is running and stopped at a traffic light, stop sign, traffic jam or drive-up window. Idling for 5 minutes at a drive-up window will make a noticable difference. 65 minutes in gridlock, stop & go, to go 25 miles will make a big difference because you are constantly accelerating in addition to idling. A steady 25 MPH would give you better MPG than 25 miles of grid lock stop & go.
Your mileage check really was over too few miles to place any significance on .5 MPG or so. Even though you were at the same pump, the "fill-ups" could have been a slightly different amount. Recalculate your MPG assuming you took 1/10th less of a gallon. The new calculation would indicate about .3 MPG better. To lessen "rounding errors" check your MPG over a longer haul, say 1,000 miles. Or do it by the tankful and track several tanks using total miles devided by total gallons. This will give you a more accurate reading of your average MPG.
You should find that your calculation and the compter agree. (That is, don't reset the computer for that 1000 miles or so, just do each tank manually and then compare your manual calculations with the computer.)
Very pleased with this, the car it replaced, a '94 Merc Sable, averaged 17.5mpg in its best days {3.8L, 210 tq, 140hp}