By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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}