Anyone have a fenderbender yet? How did you and the Santa Fe fare? Not much is available about safety. Consumer Reports and NTSA have ignored this new SUV so far. Just seeking real life comments as to and to see if the dealer was good about repairs.
Having worked in Orthopedics changes how I look at any vehicle.
Shabazz, I'm just giving you Sheeeet. We're all very of the Santa Fe and I'm just trying to keep some humor here. I also had a wonderful experience with a Hyundai dealer and would recommend them to anyone.....by the way Champion Autoplex in Austin Texas. Sonya my sales person was wonderful!!!!
I'm seriously considering buying a Santa Fe and trading in my 96 Maxima GXE. I still have 3 and a half years to go on my Max in terms of loan payment. I thought I would rather get a new car and pay it off in 4 or 5 years. What do you think? Since I've heard all these positive comments on Santa Fe, I think I'll test drive it this Saturday. My local Hyundai dealer is offering 3% over invoice on SFs. Well, at least that's what the sales manager guy told me over the phone. But, he wouldn't give exact price over the phone. Should I believe him??
If he's offering you 3% over INVOICE, RACE down there and seal that deal TODAY! One, the Santa Fe is WORTH paying sticker--even more in light of what you get for even an inflated price versus other SUVs. Two, the likelihood that you will drive one and NOT immediately want to buy it is slim...so you might as well go on and jump in this wonderfully delicious Santa Fe "stew" with the rest of us! I paid sticker for mine, and it's the first time I've ever bought a car I'll admit that PROUDLY... $21K for a loaded LX was fine with me, I know I'm probably going to keep mine for a LONG time, so all the "mish-mash" about resale is of no concern to me, but I THINK the Santa Fe will turn out to have such a tremendous demand that value retention will be quite good. The Santa Fe is just THAT well built and appointed.
The salesman lied to you--as all too many are prone too do when they want you to take what THEY have on the lot. I just bought MY Santa Fe LX last Sunday and it is a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE only. They has several AWD GL V6 models on the lot as well, but I wanted the LX because I really like the way leather seats look--and in the Santa Fe they look FABULOUS! ALL versions of the Santa Fe come in either FWD or AWD, and that's a FACT you can verify right here on the Edmund's review site. I didn't need nor want AWD drive, not for any "traction" reasons, well, actually, maybe so... with front wheel drive ONLY you actually HAVE all the benefits obtainable. Making the rear wheels drive also--for highway and normal road use, actually adds back IN all the detrimental handling characteristics of rear wheel drive while not actually adding any increased control authority. Sorry for all those who "like" the notion of having full-time AWD, but all the marketing hype aside, front-wheel drive ALONE is the idea driveline layout for any vehicle driven on ROADS--whether dirt, gravel, or paved. If you loose traction on the front wheels while "bombing" down the highway, driving rear wheels will act to exacerbate any "out of line" movement of the rear end. Sure, when "punching" the gas from a stop it may SEEM you have better traction because you may not get "tire squeal", but that isn't due to added traction so much as the fact that LESS power is being routed to each wheel, so there is less torque reaching any one wheel. As long as you have front wheel drive with a traction sharing differential set-up, you've GOT the best driveline money can buy...on the Santa Fe you save about 300 pounds, and that makes a difference in acceleration and economy. You also have less mechanical complexity and driveline power loss which means more of your engine power reaches the front driving wheels...all this adds up to quicker, more responsive acceleration, better mileage, and fewer POTENTIAL headaches concerning driveline wear. I CAN deliver a very technical, engineering "treatise" on the physics of WHY AWD is not only NOT "better" for vehicles driven on road surfaces, but is actually "worse", but I'll save that unless anyone really cares. If you think you might like to go "rock crawling" or driving over uneven terrain, THEN the picture changes and AWD has a useful purpose, though without a LOW-range transmission true rock-crawling isn't possible which increases the chances of body strikes as you go bumping over obstacles...ask any true off-road enthusiast. Since the price difference between FWD and AWD on the SANTA FE isn't any big deal, if you LIKE the idea of four driving wheels, and you find "comfort" in believing it provides a measurable advantage, by all means get it, but if you like the advantage of lower weight, slightly better fuel economy (probably much better in real world conditions), and less concern over driveline issues, then don't hesitate to get the FWD version and be content that you got an excellent vehicle. One last point: with traditional, REAR-drive SUVs you have the WORST possible driveline layout, so in those models, going with full-time AWD that functions on pavement is a better choice simply to have the front wheels "attenuate" all the bad handling characteristics of a heavy, generally HIGH center of gravity vehicle that can become dangerous to operate at speed when road conditions are slippery. Since the Santa Fe is devoid of THOSE liabilities--it has a lower CG due to unibody construction, and FRONT wheel drive standard, adding full-time AWD is really just "a thang"..if you "like it" fine.
I know...I tend to write in a "serious" manner, but I understood your comment was "tongue-in-cheek". I DID however, read a review over on the MSN carpoint site where a lone, so-called owner gave the Santa Fe a rather dismal "rating" with no supporting commentary. It stood out in stark contrast to all the other VERY favorable ratings by legitimate owners...probably some chump just trying to muck up the system. I can't imagine ANYONE who has actually driven a Santa Fe being any less than highly impressed with it...I think I'm a pretty "hard-core" analyst when it comes to automobiles, and from the two Hyundais I own, I've become a "true believer". About the only almost "negative" comment I've read by official reviewers is that it doesn't have rocket-like power. I have to question THAT assertion based on two personal points: One: MY Santa Fe LX seems quite energetic during acceleration--in merging with highway traffic I've not found any need to "hammer" it to max power, and accelerating from around 50mph to 70mph is virtually effortless and even when I press hard enough to get a downshift, the transmission is devoid of jerks and surges so common in many other brands--including the "high-end" models. TWO: I used to have a Taurus LX with the 3.0L DOHC V6 making 200hp/200lb/ft tq, and IT tipped the scales around 3600 lb., yet delivered pretty impressive performance--DAMNED impressive performance when the engine was in the upper end of the rpm band--it actually "felt" stronger than my previous 5.0L T-bird, and THAT car would "fly". So, the Santa Fe, with its 2.7L DOHC, making 181-185hp (depending on who's review you read), pulling a roughly 3500+lb vehicle around, CAN'T be that sluggish, and my real-world experience supports that. Who really CARES if it will do 0-60 in 9 seconds--for most driving conditions, hard, WOT accelerations are kind of rare--unless the vehicle is being driven by someone who "doesn't have to pay for it", or simply has no regard for their car, and driving in a manner that promotes longevity. If getting too "60" in record time was my goal, I'd have bought something like a Mustang Cobra with 4.6L DOHC engine making over 300hp, THEN slap a supercharger on it and set to work running up my tire bill. Jeep is one manufacturer that is "big" on high horsepower--they really DO market their vehicles to be fully capable of handling the toughest off-road terrain, and high-torque engines are nice to have when you're climbing a steep rock face, BUT there is a serious "penalty" to be paid in terms of mileage. I used to have a Jeep Cherokee with the 4.0L I6 that could go 0-60 in just a hair over 7 seconds (190hp/225 BIG tq/3000lb curb weight), but in real, everyday driving, it barely broke 20mpg hwy. In choosing the Santa Fe, I didn't mind the compromise--if there is one, in power, because it is without a doubt a better vehicle, and has a "comfortable" mileage rating that IS important to me...so dropping 1.3L or more from the engine, while still getting brisk acceleration and great mileage seems like a good thing....IMHO.
I am starting my search for a new vehicle. I am interested in the Santa Fe. I was reading the Edmunds report and have a couple of questions. What does underwhelming powertrains means? This is stated in the CONs section of the report. Does anyone know anything about how safe the Santa Fe is?
Underwhelming powertrain is "magazine-speak" meaning they think the Santa Fe lacks power. I have a Santa Fe LX with 2.7L DOHC V6 with shiftronic automatic transmission and I have not found it to be lacking in power at all. I think sometimes, auto reviewers let their personal biases overshadow objective reporting. They expect an SUV designed to deliver an excellent compromise between power and economy to also deliver blistering 0-60 acceleration along the lines of a sports car which is pretty idiotic. If you go back and read my previous posts you will see that the "numbers" on the Santa Fe aren't bad at all. Weighing in a bit over 3500lb, with 181-185hp (depending on reviewer), it's not exactly "pedestrianlike" in comparison to other vehicles. My '96 Ford Taurus LX had a 3.0L DOHC V6 making 200 ponies for about 3600lb weight, and IT certainly wasn't sluggish, and I can personally attest that MY Santa Fe does not leave me feeling I need more power. I've ONLY had it cruising up around 80mph so far, but it had plenty of pedal travel left and felt smooth and confident. I'm not a big fan of the "0-60" foolishness that tends to reduce cars to just "numbers", but in MY normal style of driving, the Santa Fe seems fully capable of running in any traffic situation. BEST thing to do is go find one and take it for a spin...you'll be surprised.
The Edmunds review of the Santa Fe says it has onlt 7.4" ground clearance. However, below that in the spec data it says its 8.2"! 8.2 is OK for mild off road and rough roads but not 7.4. So which is it?
I have seen the ground clearance listed at 7.4" for the front wheel drive and 8.2" on the all wheel drive, though they have the same size wheels and tires. Must be a suspension thing.
Someone said that they got a loaded Santa Fe for 21 K. I am looking at a Santa Fe Lx AWD with ABS, Traction control, chromatic mirrors heated leather seats. It is coming up to 23 K for me. Is that the same configuration you have? The invoice is 22698 and I am getting it for 23K. Thanks for your posts.
Thanks for answering my question. I am not a big fan of 0-60 either. I plan on test driving a Santa Fe real soon. The one thing that I don't like about the Santa Fe is that it is not available in 4WD. I know that AWD is 4WD drive all the time. I live in MD and would only need 4WD during the winter months. So, I would like the option to turn 4WD on and off.
My boyfriend and I have had a couple recent experiences with 2 different dealers that lead us to believe "NEVER BELIEVE THEM!!" First, we test drove the Santa Fe with automatic transmission. We inquired if they had any in manual to see the difference. The dealer informed us that they were not making them right now, there were none in the country available. So the next weekend, we go to a different dealer and sure enough, they had 4 Santa Fes with manual transmission sitting on the lot. We drove one and loved it. We received a phone call the next day asking us to make a deal. we wanted the pewter color and were informed that there were none available currently. We said call us when they are. Coincidently, we were driving by the dealer again the next evening when they were closed and noticed the exact car we wanted in pewter sitting there on the lot. We called the dealer again to check to see if any pewter colored cars had come in and he said no. Meanwhile there was one sitting right there on the lot!! So far, no one knows what they are talking about. Does anyone know of a reputable dealer in Eastern Mass? (Not Herb Connolly or Mirak please!!!) I can't imagine that this is good business for either dealer.
Motorweek on speedvision gave Santa Fe a glowing report.My concern is stability of service and parts.Daewoo just went bankrupt and a division of Hyundai is having problems.I don't know about the rest of the country but here in San Diego the lot's are full of them and I haven't seen any on the road.I see big discounts in the spring.I think a BMW sportwagon would be fun but $10k more ain't. I'm looking for a luxury mini suv/wagon but not much in the market place under $30k.
I find it highly unlikely that Hyundai is EVER going to go banckrupt...a visit to the "big" Hyundai web-set should be enough EVIDENCE to overcome the perennial BS that gets spewed about who's going banckrupt. For Starters, the car division of Hyundai is only a huge iceberg "tip" of the gigantic GLACIER that is Hyundai, second, they sell PLENTY of cars WORLDWIDE--a feat that even our own "big-three" can only look on with envy. Third, sales of Hyundai here in the US are RISING at a very fast pace...I know of NOBODY who has actually looked at one, driven one, and was with "class bias", who did not WANT one. Your assertion that you have found the ONE Hyundai dealership in the NATION that has a lot filled with models that "nobody wants", is in direct contravention to almost every "post" that arrives on this forum--from people who actually INTEND to buy one, or have actually BOUGHT one, and is certainly in direct contravention to my own personal EYES having seen how fast Hyundai vehicles are selling in CENTRAL California...Selma Auto Mall is huge, and they sell other brands than Hyundai, but I'm always struck by the larger number of people to be found in the Hyundai area...no my "friend"...whoever has told you Hyundai is tottering on its last legs LIED...in the not too distant future, EXPECT Hyundai to have become a MAJOR player in U.S. sales...they are certainly doing EVERYTHING "right" that it takes to get there.
I take it that you feel you "need" 4-whl drive in the winter due to things like snow and ice, rain, etc? If you were talking a REAR-WHEEL DRIVE vehicle, that becomes 4WD by adding the front wheels, then you have a "need" for 4WD "in the winter". If you START OUT with a vehicle that drives the FRONT WHEELS, then for use on any highway, any road surface, and ANY weather condition including SNOW AND ICE, you do NOT "need" 4WD...even though the "marketeers" are heavily into promoting the notion that somehow having the back wheels "pushing" on normal road surfaces is of benefit...but the truth is, it ain't. Without attempting to deliver an engineering treatise to PROVE my point, it's as simple as this: REAR drive layouts create traction and handling nightmares in snow and ice conditions, due to the force of the rear wheels. FRONT wheel drive systems--EVERY ONE ON EARTH, generate excellent traction because they are ALWAYS "pulling" the front "away" from the back of the car--this acts to maintain the vehicle's longitudinal stability. If you add BACK IN the characteristics of rear-drive, then you have NEGATED the advantages you reaped with front wheel only...now, if your front wheels do slip, instead of "application of power" acting to stabilize the vehicle, it will actually act to place the vehicle in a skid/spin thanks to your rear wheels being only too happy to always "push" the backend around. The REAL danger of snow and ice driving is all about BRAKING, and no amount of driving wheels can fix the fact that when you have to brake to hard with little traction, you're going to slide--period, and in this case, things like ABS have proven to be of NO value--though again, ABS is always being marketted as some panacea for proper driving in bad weather. If you LIKE 4x4--get it, if you THINK you "need" it to drive the ROADS of this country, and don't really WANT it, then go with a FRONT-WHEEL drive SUV like the Santa Fe. 4WD is needed ONLY when you move from generally smooth and "regular" surfaces to gullies, ditches, rocks and boulders where each wheel needs to be able to "climb" its own obstacle, rather than being shoved, or dragged over it, AND where having one, or two wheels off the ground is not uncommon--then you NEED 4, REAL driving wheels, but on pavement, dirt, gravel...basically ROADS... the BEST driveline is FRONT DRIVE...it has the most predictable handling, is lighter than any AWD system, more fuel efficient, AND since there is no power-sharing between front and rear axles, will ALWAYS outperform AWD, or 4x4 with the SAME engine power, vehicle weight and gear ratios. You MAY have noticed that when you check towing ratings for trucks...the 4x2 versions are rated to tow more--with REAL trucks. When you look at sports cars that come in either AWD or RWD, the AWD is ALWAYS slower...the reason is power at each wheel is less, driveline friction wastes power, and there is added weight. You definitely do NOT need 4x4, nor AWD capability to drive up and down any roadways in Maryland or any other State, at ANY time of the year...unfortunately, most Americans think "bigger, or more is better", so they automatically believe if some car company makes it, and it costs more, and more wheels "drive".. it MUST be better...but it ain't so...
2 weeks and still loving my Santa Fe. 1st tank - 18 mpg - mixed city /highway. 2nd tank - 20 mpg mixed driving. my dealer tinted my front windows and windshield a little darker for me- to match the back. with that little extra tint- my baby truck is even better!
OK....so I've put down a deposit and my dealer tells me that there is a shiny new Santa Fe with my name on it in Portland, Oregon ready for the trip to Illinois. He told me three weeks to delivery. It's been almost two weeks since this auto was reserved, and the shiny new car is still in Portland, still ready for the trip to Illinois. My dealer is very excited for me. "Soon" he says. Does anyone have experience with "the wait." I am pretty used to the non-information from dealers.....as I spent a few weeks eyeing a Tribute. Ha!
Thinking about a Santa Fe, however I do have a small bass boast (approx 1000 with trailer and all gear). Anyone think I'll have much prob towing this? Also will the front wheel drive be enough with ramps and all or should I consider the AWD. I live in the south, no snow and don't off road. Thanks for any advice
I am considering the Santa Fe, but to be honest am a little scared. It is more due to ignorance about this company than anything. Does anyone have any experience with Hyundai and their quality. I realize their warranties are tremendous, but if you are hauling it to be serviced constantly...it's not worth it to me. Any response is appreciated. Hey, I am not a snob, my current car is a 94 Geo Prizm and has been incredible (Toyota/Chevrolet venture)
The Santa Fe can tow up to 2,000 pounds according to what I have read. That should be fine for a 1,000 pound boat and trailer. As far as boat ramps, front drives don't have as good of traction pulling up hill as even rear drives. More likely depend on the ramp. Normal ramps wouldn't be a problem with a light boat and trailer. Steep ramps are another thing.
i just purchased a gls and so far am very happy with it. i rate it very high in value for content. i got pretty much everything except leather and purchased it for 20,000 total price. my dealer was victor hyundai in madison, alabama. my salesman was bill swann.
prashantk: The sticker price of around $23K for a fully loaded LX with 4WD is correct. The person who says he/she got everything for $21K probably didn't get it all.
My personal experience with Hyundai has spanned a number of years. The first one I ever saw up-close was the Excel--a friend of mine had one that he kept in positively NEW condition and he loved it--all the claims of poor quality notwithstanding. My brother has owned TWO Sonatas, one of which I had the opportunity to drive quite a bit--back when the Sonata was costing only around $13K. I thought his Sonata was a remarkable value, it drove well, NEVER had any mechanical problems, and was very plush. When I decided to make my second to last car purchase, I started with a "clean sheet of paper" and threw out all my "brand name" biases. At that time, we were in the market for an economical car, and after doing exhaustive comparisons between other brands and the Elantra, I settled on the Elantra with the first test drive. I now have around 10,000 miles on the E-wagon and I STILL love it--very solidly built, powerful, and stable. We happened to need to buy yet another car recently, and decided that since our experience with they Elantra was so positive, we'd take a look at the new Santa Fe (I intended to buy SOME version of Hyundai anyway). As with the Elantra, when we test drove the Santa Fe, we were "hooked". From MY experience, the salesmen don't have to "sell" these cars, they do indeed sell themselves, which is why I encourage anyone who is looking, but unsure to go TEST-DRIVE one...I think Hyundai's motto, "driving is believing" is appropriate. As far as build quality and fit & finish, I've yet to find a single flaw in either of my vehicles, and both are free of squeaks and rattles. They are BOTH responsive to drive, feel solid and stable, and deliver ample power. As for the corporation, HYUNDAI, anyone who tells you a multi-bazillion dollar a year company doesn't have the wherewithal to "back" their vehicles, I have to disagree. Hyundai is NOT going to "go away"...if they were, they would have several years ago when sales were meager; instead, they improved their product line, backed it with an industry-leading warranty to give buyers confidence, and have now expanded their model line to include two new "upscale" vechicles; the Santa Fe and the XG300 full-size luxury sedan. Over the last few years, Hyundai sales have been on a steady increase--the company is not anywhere close to abandoning the U.S. market--though I am quite sure those who are fans of other brand names wish they would. Just go LOOK at one, READ the reviews by both professionals and private owners, then drive one, THEN you will have sufficient information to make an informed decision.
I just calculated the mileage on my new Santa Fe LX with 520 miles on it. MOST of my driving is highway, with a reasonable amount of driving around town, and I tend to drive conservatively in terms of acceleration and braking. My very first mileage calculation is: 20.174 gallons used 520.2 miles driven 25.78 miles per gallon.
Pros: 1. Handsome beast-- a cross between a Volvo wagon and an SUV. Good soft lines without looking weak. 2. Seating-- very comfortable front and rear. 3. Driver's position-- plenty of headroom for this 6-footer, with a commanding view of the road. 4. Interior fit and finish-- solid, almost plush-feeling. 5. Dashboard controls--extremely well thought out and convenient, especially the flashers and rear defroster buttons, located high up on dash, in the center. 6. Front and rear leg and knee room is excellent, even for a long-legged person.
Cons: 1. Center armrest/console much too low and too short for comfortable elbow resting (This is partially compensated for by one of the most comfortable steering wheels I've ever held-- I had little need to rest one elbow on the armrest). 2. Power window controls are awkward and placed too far back on the door to be reached without taking your eyes off the road. 3. Clock is in overhead console, requiring you to take your eyes off the road to find it. 4. An exceptionally high left-foot rest tends to cramp the driver's leg. To stretch your leg, you have too maneuver your foot into the narrow space between it and the brake--not a great idea. 5. A dim salesman who tried to tell me that the GLS did not come in FWD. I had to show him a printout before he'd believe me. 6. An appraiser who undervalued my "better than good" (his words) trade-in $2500 below the lowest estimate I could find on the internet ( and $7000 below the average retail for the car in my area)
7. The biggest problem I found with the car was the stop-sign pickup. I'm currently driving a '98 Cherokee Limited. When I ask it to respond, it does so with a will. Not so the Santa Fe I drove. It took almost a half second after I stomped the pedal for it to arrange its skirts and decide to move. When it finally did, it did so in a thoroughly prim and proper manner, almost as if admiring the scenery too much to want to leave it behind. Decidedly leisurely.
Overall-- I like the car, but not enough to buy it. I suppose that its acceleration would be adequate in most circumstances, but if like me, you have the need to dart through a hole in cross traffic occasionally or want to be sure that when you enter the stream anything behinds you stays there, you'll be disconcerted by the car's genteel acceleration
I just finished reading all 289 posts on the subject of the Santa Fe. Thank you all for further informing me .
Yesterday, my wife and I purchased a Black over grey 2001 Santa Fe 2WD LX with all the trimmings (except 4WD/AWD and that mysteriously absent sunroof). We purchased our Santa Fe in Joplin, Missouri where the sticker price was $21489 (which included no pin striping or "dealer markup" cost or any other costs)... With our trade (93 Ford Aerostar) we ended up financing $21103 for 60 months.
Needless to say, when we drove 70 miles west (from Springfield, MO where we live) to initially test drive the Volkswagon Passat and Toyota Camry, I never thought we would end up buying a Santa Fe. In fact, I didn't know they existed until yesterday when we saw the Sandstone 4WD and the Black 2WD on their lot after taking the Camry for a test run!
The excitement increased when I read the sticker price on the window included all the options that I really wanted in the first place (with the exception of the sunroof)... Plus, here in Missouri, I haven't the need for the 4WD model as our weather is typically mild compared to the northern states at this time of year plus, I'm not the "4-Wheeling" type! The mileage factor on the 2WD model was definitely a big PLUS!
The "Let's Make A Deal" process was far from fun or even remotely exciting. After 5 hours of wrangling (about 4.75 hours too long) we ended with our deal as stated above. Since we were backward on our trade, we ended up getting the Santa Fe for almost $500 under sticker price (with a little cash out of pocket)... It wasn't the best deal ever made. However, the dealer would not move one millimeter on sticker price.. So I had to make it up by having them increase my trade value (which they eventually did by $1000)...
The dealership I went to was the epitome of sharks in suits although we liked our salesguy more than the rest... They tried every little tactic to get us to pay more for the Santa Fe. I resisted them all... I do not recommend the extended warranty as the Hyundai already has a phenomenal warranty to begin with... Most often, if it's going to break, it will do so into the first 5 years anyway... FYI, they were only trying to charge me $5 more on my payment for the extended 5 year bumper to bumper warranty (10 years total) as opposed to the $8 someone here posted previously...
Needless to say, we did get the deal done. We have to go back this week to pick it up as they hadn't "PDI'd" it yet (changed the oil, washed and vacuumed and gassed it up)..
I had done exhaustive research on the Honda Accord, Volkswagon Passat and the Toyota Camry... After test driving all three, we were leaning toward the Accord.. But then, well you all know now, the Santa Fe stepped into our lives and we have made the leap... After reading many reports and posts on the internet when we got home last night, I feel even more sure that I did the right thing... I wasn't so sure at first since I hadn't researched this vehicle at all plus the Hyundai name made me shake. After driving it and checking out all the other features, I think it was meant to be for us to take that fateful Saturday trip 70 miles west...
I will post more info after I pick it up this week (hopefully Tuesday).. If you'd like to ask any questions, my E-mail is mrtwix500@cs.com
Good luck to all new Santa Fe owners! MrTwix
p.s. The luggage rack on our Santa Fe comes with horizontal and vertical bars (4 total) for no extra cost by the dealer...
Has anyone had a dealer install a moonroof? If so, how much did it cost? Any problems?
I would really like a moonroof in my Santa Fe. Anyone have an idea what this should cost? Don't mind paying for it, but don't want to be taken advantage of either!
Is anyone concerned about the shiftronic transmission? Seems like this has lots of potential to be problematic. Has Hyundai used it in other vehicles? Have there been any problems? Is it covered under the 5yr/50,000 mile or the 10yr/100,000mile warranty?
We took our Santa Fe LX FWD out for a "little" drive today. Since we live in central Ca where "hills" are few and far between, I was curious as to how a 3500+lb vehicle with a "mere" 2.7L displacement engine would fair when put to the test of driving over a few of our smaller mountains. In driving over to Santa Cruz we crossed the coast mountains, as well as had the opportunity to wend out way around an "up & down", curve-filled "scenic route" where any vehicle's ability to slow going down-hill, into a 180 degree switchback, then accelerate UP another steep hill, is well-tested. On the open freeway I let the smooth-shifting 4-spd auto do its work. When climbing long, steep grades, as speed fell below about 60mph, it downshifted with no perceptable "jerk"--only the tachometer, and an increase in engine noise denoted it had downshifted. When we got on the scenic route where speeds were seldom above 45mph, I moved the shifter into "manual" and played with controlling engine speed as I had to slow to 20mph in some cases; "sweep" around a 180 degree turn and then accelerate. For starters, the transmission shifted smoothly each time I tapped the shifter--whether down-shifting, or up-shifting. By manually keeping engine speed around 3000rpm, I found I needed only moderate throttle pressure to keep the vehicle responsive. Going up and down steep hills at speed, the Santa Fe had NO problems keeping up with traffic, merging in the VERY congested, high-speed traffic around San Jose (I-280), or maneuvering. In traversing the scenic switchbacks the vehicle displayed very stable handling, though I tried to hold speed to the posted limits as much as possible. For anyone who has not yet tested this feature, the shiftronic transmission will automatically downshit--even in "manual" mode when the vehicle slows to a speed commensurate with that particular gear (it also states this in the owner's manual). I will also automatically upshift--in manual mode, if the rpm approaches redline and the driver doesn't do so. I found it allowed me to keep the engine closer to its powerband without adding throttle. I must also state again--for the record, I've driven my share of "high-end" cars, and the transmission in the Santa Fe is the best of them all. For anyone who wishes to draw so-called "equal" comparisions between the available power of the Santa Fe with its 2.7L engine, and something like a Jeep with 4.0L MINIMUM, I certainly concede that the Jeep will "outrun" the Santa Fe, but it does so at the price of fuel economy--and I've owned a total of FOUR Jeeps in my life, so I KNOW the mileage Jeeps are capable of--about 22 when driving straight highway using sensible acceleration. When driven "hard", Jeeps drop below 20mpg. For those who don't care about mpg, that's fine, but I DO care...here in central CA gas prices are some of the cheaper to be found in the State, and they run just a penny under $1.80/gal at the least expensive stations. I've already "clocked" the mileage in my Santa Fe LX at over 25mpg driving about 75% highway, 25% city, and I think this difference is significant enough to make Hyundai's choice of using a "smaller" engine that still delivers what "I" find to be ample power, to be a wise one, and quite in keeping with the fact that fuel economy is NOT a "non-issue"...though by the number of gigantic SUVs I see driving around with ONE person using them as daily commuter vehicles, one would think for "some", the price of gas is meaningless. To put this in perspective; my Hyundai Elantra Wagon with 2.0L and 5-spd has demonstrated a "high" of 34mpg. The Santa Fe, weighing roughly 900lb more, as well as offering more "drag", has DEMONSTRATED (my driving), almost 26mph (25.78 to be precise), for a net difference of "only" about 8mpg while driving what is without doubt a much more refined and comfortable vehicle (not to demean my E-wagon in the least, because I think it stands head & shoulders above all other cars in its class). The difference in yearly fuel cost between 20 and 26mpg is only around $250 based on 12Kmi/yr at $1.80/gal, or around $21/month, but to me, it matters.
I've visited the Hyundai website--where you can view MANY more offerings than Hyundai presently imports to the United States. The shiftronic "feature" seems to be something Hyundai has been using for quite some time now. In "fairness" to automatic transmissions, they have a demonstrated "reliabilty" that is actually higher than manual transmissions. The only "downside" I've found with autos is when they are mated to small engines with low torque output and tasked to motivate increasingly heavier vehicles. This isn't an indictment of automatic transmissions per se, more the laws of physics in that they tend to be less efficient and result in more power loss through the driveline. There is really nothing revolutionary about the "shiftronic" as used in the Santa Fe. ALL automatic transmissions are capable of being "manually-shifted" while driving. If anything, you could call the "electronic-shift" part "innovative" in that the action of initiating gear changes is handled by electro-mechanical servos rather than being directly linked via a "linkage" to the actual shifter, though even this is nothing new--all of the newer autos are now using electronic shifting, and many other makers are coming out with "manual shift on the fly" capability precisely because the "electronics" eliminate the stresses a "human" operator tends to place on any auto when manually shifting it--tradionally speaking. As with all aspects of modern, computer-controlled cars, when the "electronics" work "right", the system is near flawless. One look at computer-controlled engine management systems tells us that the engines we have today stand light-years above the old systems in terms of reliability, drivability, economy, and "tuning". On the other end of the scale, it is possible to mate TOO large of an engine with a "practical size" automatic, and this contributes to transmission maladies fully as much as anything else. This is the ONLY reason the trucking industry still relies on manual transmissions in fact. They KNOW automatics would actually lower maintenance costs and "down-time", but an automatic transmission SIZED appropriately for the job of pulling an 80,000 tractor/trailer down the highway would be prohibitive in terms of weight and size. I have no "less" faith Hyundai's transmissions than I do in any other make--its quite easy to visit other forums and see that ALL makes of vehicles have "problems", and I would like to say here, that one of the main contributors to automatic transmission problems by and large is the OPERATOR. So many people are "conditioned" to think they can abuse their car and it should be "bullet-proof" to their treatment...and in fact, it IS possible to build "bullet-proof" automatic transmissions that can handle quite a bit of abuse without failure, but we must keep in mind, any car is designed to be a BALANCE of factors--cost being a primary one. In all my years of driving and WATCHING the way others drive, I'm not surprised at all by the number of complaints I see levied "against" automatic transmissions in ALL makes of cars/trucks. I've seen VERY few people who even know the proper way to shift into "park" by holding pressure on the brake, then, AFTER going to "P", applying the HAND-BRAKE (or parking brake), BEFORE releasing the foot brake--this prevents the weight of the vehicle being "held" by the transmission alone, yet most people just "rack" the shifter into park and leap out, allowing the vehicle to "lung" against that magical "parking gear", which binds the shift-linkage and over time causes problems. I was pleased to note that in the Santa Fe owner's manual they actually ADDRESS the proper way to place the vehicle in park--something I've never seen in any other owner's manual. Then there are those who love to rack the shifter from reverse to drive while the vehicle is still rolling backward--obviously oblivious too, or unconcerned that this TOO causes harm to the transmission which, over time, comes back to haunt them. Then there is the FACT that whereas many people have become "fanatical" about oil changes at "half" recommended intervals, FEW even realize their transmission might desire an oil and filter change at its specified intervals, and a testament to how "rugged" autos are in general is that they STILL manage to run over 100K miles even without "routine" service, or in some cases, ANY service. I've owned a LOT of cars and trucks over the years, some manual, some automatic, and without regard to "brand", I've NEVER had a transmission failure of any kind on a vehicle with less than 100,000 miles on it, and NEVER on one that I was the first owner of. The only thing I can attribute this too is that I "religiously" observe the practice of holding full brake pressue as I shift into park, and apply the parking brake--fully, before releasing the foot brake--even on level ground. I NEVER move the shifter from a forward gear to reverse (or vice-versa), unless I am FULLY stopped, and I ALWAYS "pause" for an instant to let the transmission's "hydralics" catch-up before I apply throttle. I also pay attention to my transmission's service intervals, and I change my own oil and filter--as I do with my engine, because then I KNOW without a shadow of a doubt it WAS done, and it was done by someone who "has to pay for the vehicle"--meaning with due care and diligence. (I recognize that not everyone CAN do their own maintenence, but that only means they must be vigilant in choosing who WILL). Just sit in any large parking lot for awhile and you can see an endless series of examples of "driving styles" that are eventually going to lead to transmission problems, but that's THEIR car to do with as they like. This is why I seldom give credence to the complaints I see about auto transmission problems, because the FIRST rule of "complaining" that a particular car "sucks", is to deny that "you" (the operator--not YOU personally), were in any way a contributing factor, though "extrapolating" from the way I see so many people operating their cars in "real life", the number of "complaints" is pretty small. So to get back to the "point"..."experience" has taught me that a well-balanced power-train, operated sensibly, and with an understanding of certain basic principles, is pretty reliable regardless of WHO manufactures it. Rough, and improper shifter movement, jack-rabbit starts (a favorite of CA drivers), and hard throttle operation that pushes the engine high in the rpm band between shifts, will all shorten the life of ANY automatic transmission. Doing just the opposite can give an automatic a VERY long, trouble-free life.
I've read on this sight that a cassette player DOES NOT come with the santa fe as part of the audio system. If that is the case, does anyone know if it would be possible to have one ADDED to the system after I purchase the vehicle? Or would I have to acquire a completely different audio system than the one it comes with. -I love CD's, but have tons of great compilation tapes!
I haven't read much here on what kind of rates their offering for leasing (money factor) and financing (APR). What kind of deals have you been getting (especially leasing)?
shabazz: does it mean you don't have traction control either? My neighbor wants a Santa Fe too, after seeing how my husband and I have one each. However, she doesn't care much for AWD. But she is concerned about not having traction control, what with the winters we have here in Iowa.
Okay... can anybody compare the Santa Fe to the Mazda Tribute/Ford Escape and the Nissan Xterra??? I hope Car and Driver soon puts out this review... Im looking for a new SUV to replace my 1998 Nissan Pathfinder whose lease is gonna expire in march. THX...
The Santa Fe i demoed came with a Clarion radio/CD player. There was a hole under the Clarion which i bet you can put some sort of cassette deck under. Check out the Crutchfield magazine @ http://www.crutchfield.com
Is $17,500 a decent deal for the base GL model plus the utility package (MSRP is $18,009) or is it possible to get them to go lower. The dealer says the invoice is $17,335 but we all know that they will make more than $165 on the deal!!
Traction control is being listed as part of the LX option package 13 available "winter 2000". Of course things aren't fully locked in yet, so who knows if it will be available, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't be. Most traction control systems utilize a form of modulating wheel spin through the ABS system, and since the LX with pkg 13 also has ABS, it should be on it...the question is when it will arrive.
Either way you calculate--either lb/hp, or hp/lb the results will be that same in terms of relative values. Using pounds/horsepower is the generally accepted term in automotive circles because it gives us whole numbers which are easier for most people to compare. There is however, another factor that is actually more important...TORQUE. Generally speakin, with normally aspirated eninges (non-supercharged), greater displacement will always deliver greater torque even when horsepower is equal. The reason is because horsepower--a rather ambiguous term, is related to how much mass (weight), a given amount of force can move in a specific time. Torque is the actual "twisting moment" imparted to a crankshaft, or other rotating body as measured in "pound/feet". Larger displacement = more twisting force, or torque applied to the crankshaft, and "horsepower" is derived by the calculation: HP = torque X RPM/5252 (a constant). Below 5,252rpm any engine's Tq will always be > its HP. Above 5,252rpm the HP will always be higher. The smallest engine offered in the Jeep Grand Cherokee is the 4.0L I6 SOHC...roughly 1.3L more displacement that the 2.7L of the Santa Fe V6. The Jeep 4.0L, it produces 195HP/230lb/ft Tq at 4600/3000rpm respectively - NOTE that this indicates it produces it maximum RATED HP BELOW 5252 rpm. The Santa Fe produces 181HP/177lb/ft Tq at 6000/4000 rpm respectively. Again, note that the maximum rated HP for the Santa Fe arrives ABOVE 5252rpm. For comparitive purposes, the Jeep Grand Cherokee 2WD CURB weight is 3880lb. The Santa Fe LX FrontWD weighs 3549. Thus the Grand Cherokee must move: 19.9lb/hp, and has 16.87lb/lb-ft of "torque" with which to do it. The Santa Fe FWD must move: 19.6lb/hp, but has 20lb/lb-ft of "torque" with which do do it. NOTE that the Jeep is delivering MAX torque at a very modest 3000rpm, while the Santa Fe must rev to 4000rpm to deliver its maximum torque. Clearly the Jeep has the edge in sheer "motivating force", and of course GEAR RATIO comes into play as well. when "cruising" at say, 2500rpm, the Jeep is resting well within the "bubble" of its torque curve, while the Santa FE is somewhat below its maximum by 1500 rpm. In a "top gear" full throttle acceleration from 2500rpm, the Jeep will "win" hands down, everyday of the week. In a full-throttle acceleration from 0-60, the Jeep will win hands down everyday of the week. The PRICE for this shows up in fuel economy...though the Jeep is EPA "rated" to get 21mpg hwy with the 4.0L I6, in actual practice, it seldom will break 20mpg unless driven very "gingerly". In "all around" driving so far, I've actually gotten over 25mpg--almost 26 in my Santa Fe LX, though to be fair, I tend to drive "modestly"...I'm sure if I started doing hard accelerations and driving 75-80 on the hwy, my mpg would also drop noticably. IF you compare the 2WD Santa Fe to the FWD Jeep GC, the GC does carry substantially more weight--4130lb, which would raise the number of pounds being shoved forward, but it would still be less than the Santa Fe has to motivate. Of course, in 4WD, the GC drops in mpg. Personally, I don't find a comparison between Santa Fe and Jeep to be "fair" since the Jeep is fully INTENDED to be used off road; comes with a LOW-range transfer case designed to allow it to "crawl" over obstables while keeping rpm in the torque band, and certainly, when climbing VERY steep hills at slow speed, BIG engines with BIG torque are the "order of the day". Without a low-range, the Santa Fe would "best" be kept to "light-duty" off-road use because it just doesn't have the low-end "grunt" of a Jeep. YES, having an automatic "helps" in that it allows the vehicle to "idle along", but when traversing body-busting rocks, "idling along"--in "four-wheeler terms", is like ONE mph or less with the engine delivering sufficient power to allow the GEARING to do the work without abrupt throttle inputs. This is not to infer that the Santa Fe CAN'T climb steep hills, it just can't do it with the unremitting smoothness of a Jeep. What the Santa Fe DOES do, is deliver virtually the same size and capacity of a Jeep GC, very nice "road manners"--which the Jeep also has, but more, it does so while getting better mileage and costing nearly half as much...and IMHO, being built to a higher level of quality and fit--and yes, I speak from experience having owned FOUR Jeeps in my lifetime. However, it's hard to really say anything negative about the Jeep, since it too uses unibody contruction--with low "step-over height" and high ground clearance, AND has a wonderful, "quadra-coil" suspension that gives it very "civilized" road manners...but with MacPherson struts up front and double wishbone coils in the rear, the Santa Fe is "suspensioned" just as well. The Jeep DOES have sturdy, semi-floating, "solid" axles which are paramount in heavy-duty off-road use--independent suspension is great "on-road", but off-road can allow the vehicle to "bottom out" on the engine/tranny area--something that cannot happen with a solid axle set-up. Solid axles are also stronger and can handle more torque, but in the end we wind up comparing "apples to pears"...the Santa Fe is a GREAT vehicle for doing what MOST people "do" with an SUV, or "XUV" as Hyundai likes to call it.
I have the LX front wheel drive. Advertising aside, for street driven vehicles, front wheel drive is equal to all-wheel, or four-wheel drive. In slippery conditions, AWD can "induce" handling problems precisely BECAUSE the rear wheels are "pushing", and if the front wheels slip momentarily, the rear WILL be happy to "come on around"...though the natural "instinct" to let off the throttle will curb this--if done in time. With front wheel drive alone, application of throttle (with the front wheels anywhere near "center"), tends to "enhance" steering authority, even when the front wheels are "slipping" as in snow or on ice. If this situation is occuring with ALL wheels driving, application of power will promote a skid/slide. WAY BACK when "4x4s" were all primarily REAR wheel drive, adding the "fronts" in slippery conditions certainly "couldn't hurt" since the handling characteristics of RWD and usually "light" back end are the worst of all. With the "newer" 4x4s and that drive the FRONT wheels as primary, what you have is really unnecessary "overkill" for any form of STREET driving--whether ice, snow, or rain. The REASON to drive all wheels is when you are traversing rough, uneven, rock/boulder/limb/gully-strewn terrain where EACH WHEEL needs to have "torque" as well as aggressive-tread tires in order to "climb over" things. A good way to see this in action is to place something like a "4x4" fence post on the ground directly in front of your DRIVING wheels. Then "ease" on the throttle and note how the vehicle just "climbs up and over" (though if you have smooth-tread street tires they may well slip and not climb). THEN note what happens when your NON-driving wheels get to the "obstacle"... if not "bolted down", the non-driving wheels will simply "push" it ahead of them without going over. Yes, when you hit something on the highway going 60mph, you do tend to go over it with all wheels, but that is a function of the MASSIVE inertia generated by a car, but is also why you can suffer suspension and wheel damage as these parts are literally "rammed" over the object. With Front wheel drive, the bulk of the weight is over the driving wheels, and the driving wheels are always "pulling" the vehicle which means the "tendency" is to "pull" the back-end in line, creating a VERY stable handling platform--equal too any AWD system--though I am SURE there will be those who wish to disagree, though to do so will reveal a lack of understanding about the physics of moving vehicles. All wheel drive has become a "sales gimmick" that has carried over from the REAL 4X4 arena. People are TOLD they "need it", and that it will enhance handling and traction--just as they are "told" SUVs are actually MORE stable than "cars" (which they absolutely CANNOT be). 90% of people who buy "4x4s" of any drive-system NEVER drive "off-road" and are basically carrying around extra weight, extra complexity--getting less efficiency, and the part the manufacturer's like best, PAYING a PREMIUM to get something they absolutely DO NOT need! In fact, there was a Dateline special that detailed all of this--in light of the numerous roll-over accidents in SUVS. So... after THAT "diatribe", yes, I have the FWD Santa Fe LX... I absolutely did NOT want AWD. There is NO advantage to AWD in snow and ice--unless one wishes to INCREASE the chances of sliding, skidding, and spinning out. I would say this is all "in my humble opinion", but I can't... it's an engineering fact.
An intesting engineering analysis for FWD vs AWD/4WD . . . however, living in the Rocky Mountain area where snowfall is abunant I would have to disagree with you. I have owned both FWD and a 4WD vehicle. The FWD vehicles performed pretty well in the snow and ice but when the snow got deep it was easy to get stuck. And once stuck it was difficult to get moving again. Granted, with a typical FWD car you don't have as much ground clearance under the car and getting stuck in the deep stuff is more likely. But I have been stuck in snow or ice that is not very deep and had to get a push to get out when I had my FWD cars. In my 4WD vehicle I NEVER got stuck in the snow. I repeat NEVER. I also never encountered a situation where the rear wheels forced me to lose control of my car. People who drive an AWD or 4WD vehicle that think it provides additional traction once it is moving are the ones you see lying in the bottom of a ditch during winter storms. Regardless of which type of drive you have (FWD or AWD/4WD), you cannot drive recklessly while in adverse/slippery road conditions.
Your logic sounds convincing but in real world conditions in snow and ice, AWD or 4WD has its advantages. These advantages are not in maintaining traction once you are moving, or in helping you stop once you have managed to get under way (that where anti-lock brakes provide help) , but AWD or 4WD are much appreciated in getting moving in the first place. The additional traction provided to the rear wheels in addition to the front wheels gives a big advantage in getting a car moving on snowy roads. Also, if AWD /4WD has no advantage in snowy/icy conditions, then explain the following;
I used to live along the benches of the city. All of the roads that led up to my home were fairly steep. My parents owned front wheel drive vehicles (Honda Accord, Ford Taurus, Dodge Caravan) and on many occasions they were forced to park their car at the bottom of the hill and call me at home. They then had to wait until plows had cleared the roads before returning for the car. I owned a 4x4 Suzuki Sidekick and during the same snowy conditions I was able to get down to them, pick them up, and get back up the roads and safely home. I did not make the trip without some wheel slip but I never lost control due to the "rear wheels pushing the back end around and forcing me to slide, skid or spin out". I STRONGLY disagree that AWD/4WD has no advantages in snowy/icy conditions. This is not based on a "logical analysis" of FWD vs. AWD/4WD but rather based on personal REAL LIFE experiences with both types of vehicles on snowy roads.
There are other variables to consider. First, very FEW so-called 2-wheel drive cars, whether front or rear are actually TWO-wheel drive. The way differentials--in this case, "open differentials" work, is such that when either wheel looses traction, 100% of "power" is diverted to THAT wheel! This is why, when you see any "normal" 2WD vehicle "stuck", ONE wheel always spins freely, while the one with FIRM traction remains stationary. In traditional 4x4s the same "open differential" rule holds true, but now you have two separate AXLES, so if say, your left front wheel is without traction, yet both rears HAVE traction, you will be able to "pull away" without any problem. Of course if one front and one rear wheel is without traction, then any 4x4 will be just as stuck as any 2WD. Now enters the "limited slip" or locking differential...and it is VERY common to find some version of limited slip differential on MOST 4x4s, though usually only in the rear. What THIS gives you is TRUE, REAR-wheel drive with limited front wheel drive, since the open diff front is still prone to losing traction the instant either wheel looses traction. With a limited slip, as one wheel begins to loose traction, the differential mechanically "senses" wheel-slip and directs a maximum of 50% of available torque to the wheel WITH traction...the result is that your traditional 4WD seems, and does indeed, have more traction than ANY "traditional" 2WD vehicle, whether front or rear. I won't go into locking differentials, or "lockers" as they are usually called since these are generally found ONLY on dedicated OFF-ROAD vehicles and beyond the scope of this diatribe. Then comes the latest "fad"... ALL wheel drive... using viscous coupling systems to automatically "share", or "transfer" as they like to advertise, power between front and rear "axles" as well as limited slip diffs to then "share" power between wheels on each axle. What makes these systems "AWD" is the fact that they are without rigid mechanical interaction, and are therefore capable of being operated on pavement, thus they are often also called, "full time 4WD" since you don't have to disconnect them to run the highway. because they DO send power to each wheel, and because they DO direct power to the wheel with the most traction, they are certainly going to demonstrate impressive "getting started" characteristics. Now, let me point out that if you place a limited slip differential (such as will be offered in the Santa Fe 2WD), in the FRONT axle of any front wheel drive vehicle, it SHALL demonstrate an equal "ability" to "pull" even in deep snow...the lighter rear will, and does, tend to slide up and on top of snow--I've actually observed the rear wheels appearing to leave "ski tracks" since they had insufficient resistance to make them roll over snow--they just acted as SKIS....and this has absolutely NO deleterious effect on handling since the rear end will follow the front as long as power is applied. Since very few 2WDs HAVE any sort of power-sharing diff, like as not, 99% of the time, when you see someone trying to "get going" in deep snow, they are pretty "bogged down"--but it's NOT the front drive, nor lack of AWD that is the culprit, it's the lack of a TRUE, TWO-wheel, front drive capability...slap in a limited slip diff, or even a manual "locker" such as an ARB "air locker" and that 2WD would just zoom right away--assuming of course it had TIRES to grip in snow...again, 4WDs tend to be sold with more aggressive tires. But there is a "secret" to making ANY 2WD car with the normal open differntial perform like a serious 4x4...and for that matter, to make any "so-called" 4x4 that lacks power transfering differentials to also "act" like a "limited slip" equipped 4x4...and guess what, the AUTO MAKERS are using it ALL THE TIME, albeit in another "fashion". "Traction control" these days, most often uses a form of applying braking to a slipping wheel to control wheel spin, which does indeed work, but it validates a principle of mechanics "4-wheelers" learned years ago. IF you have a front-drive, or rear-drive, or even a 4x4 with "open diffs", and you get "stuck"--meaning one wheel spins, the other stationary, simply applying the BRAKES...just enough to apply "friction" to the spinning wheel, will be "read" by that mindless open differential as "resistance" and power will then be again directed to the wheel that actually DOES have traction. This is so easy, and works every bit as well as if you really did have a $300 LSD in your drive axle. It is VERY easy to do when "getting going" in snow or ice. It must also be remembered that TIRES make a difference... if you are "stuck" with both wheels on the same axle "spinning" then the problem is ZERO tire traction due to the wrong tread, or not using chains when needed. when I refer to the negative consequences of "handling" in an AWD system, I am NOT speaking about relatively slow speed operations, but more those situations where people continue to "fly" down the highway when road conditions are poor because they THINK they have "more" traction than someone with only front wheels--not only is this NOT so, it's been VALIDATED as "not so" by accident statistics. When you talk about motoring up and down a steep hill in your Saumari while "cars" had to remain at the bottom.. first, even with open diffs on both axles, your Saumari STILL had TWICE the "chance" to achieve usable traction since it had TWO drive axles instead of one...so even if one wheel "slipped" and might have stalled, the others (on the other AXLE) was more likely to HAVE traction at that moment, and so you "motored along". IF your Saumari had a limited slip diff in the rear, then definitely you had ONE complete driving AXLE that would indeed keep turning both rear wheels even if they slipped, as well as the normal front axle drive that could "help out". With a SINGLE AXLE driving TWO opposite wheels through a limited-slip, or locking differential, AND using tires appropriate to the road surface conditions, ANY FRONT wheel drive SHALL perform as well as ANY all wheel drive when operated over NORMAL roads...meaning ROADS, not wash-outs, gullies, boulders, etc. It may SEEM hard to believe in a world inculcated to think "more is better" and when disregarding the various "details" that differentiate drive systems, but it is nonetheless true. Actually, ANY front-drive, with LSD and proper tires will OUTPERFORM ANY "4x4" that has OPEN DIFFERENTIALS--period! Now, as for "experience" versus "logic & theory"...I too have driven RWD, FWD and 4x4s for many years in all kinds of weather. I KNOW from not only having studied the "mechanics" and engineering theory, but also from having actually DRIVEN and tested each and every combination at some time or another, BECAUSE I wanted to KNOW what each could do and could not do. Speaking of 4x4 traction and your assertion that the back-end won't "come around" when the front looses traction, I happen to KNOW it will do just that--as long as those back wheels HAVE traction, and the fronts DON'T, the vehicle WILL spin-out. This happened to ME driving a Jeep Wrangler on a MUDDY, rain-soaked, QUAGMIRE of a road...the road surface was a slippery "ooze" of mud with puddles of water. I was "motoring along" in my Jeep doing MAYBE 25 mph, IN 4WD, driving CAUTIOUSLY--I NEVER drive in 4-wheel conditions like a fool. Suddenly, my front wheels hit a deep "bog" of mud hidden under a puddle...the Jeep began to "slide" laterally and I applied corrective steering ONLY to discover the front wheels, no longer having ANY resistance, underneath EITHER wheel, also had ZERO STEERING ability! As the vehicle slid it naturally started to "rotate around", there was NO possibility to "steer into the skid" (though I tried) since the front wheels had no traction and therefore NO steerage way. In that instant, my Jeep did a very nice, 180 degree rotation in the middle of the road, turning completely around and NOW in a full BACKWARD slide as it's original "lateral" movement carried it off the road, into a shallow ditch, and I slammed into a nice, high, dirt back which mercifully brought things to a halt. THAT, my friend, was a PERFECT example of FRONT wheels losing traction while rear wheels still have plenty, and THAT is the result you will get 100 out of 100 times! HAD I been driving a FRONT-drive ONLY, when the front wheels slipped and skidded, I probably would have been forced to the side of the road and into the ditch, but I would NOT have done a "180" in the middle of the road BECAUSE there would have been NO rear-driving wheels to INDUCE that force! I was "lucky" in that being EXPERIENCED in 4-wheeling", I had enough sense to slow down so that when I lost traction, the result was minor...had I been blasting along--as we have ALL seen so MANY people doing on slick roads (because they THINK they have 'super-traction'), I would most likely have rolled and ended up a lot worse off than just a slightly bent front bumper and "mud-splatted" right side on my Jeep. After my spin, I cranked right up and drove out of the ditch and "off" the dirt bank...no traction problems at all... the spin was a direct result of the imbalance between a slipping front pair of front wheels and a driving rear set, AND LSDs in BOTH axles would NOT have prevented it. REAR wheel drive would have done it, and 4WD DID do it, yet FRONT wheel drive alone could NOT have done it..and THAT is simple PHYSICS. An interesting caveat; had I HAD a locking rear differntial--engaged at that time, the spin-out would have been even MORE violent since neither wheel would have been able to "slip" as the back end came 'round. You mentioned that having AWD gives you increased "braking traction"...how is this? Which wheels "drive" has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with braking. When you lift your foot, ALL "driving wheels" become "rolling wheels", and function with no greater efficiency than ANY other drive system! 4-whl discs on a front-drive, rear-drive, or AWD, will have EXACTLY the same effectiveness when stopping--period. Unfortunately, this too is an area where hyperbole has crept into everyday thinking--people DO actually think that IF they have more "drive traction" then it follows they have more STOPPING traction, but this is physically impossible. The biggest "killer" in snow and ice is stopping, because you have the considerable inertia of a 2500-5000lb vehicle that is reliant upon the tires CONTINUING to rotate, albeit "slowing", rather than "locking" and turning ALL wheels into "skis"...which we get to enjoy watching on TV all the time when certain places get hit with a large snowfall and people come careening along--THINKING that since they had "traction" to get going, they MUST have traction to stop, which of course, they do not. We DO agree that when conditions warrant, the very BEST "option" on any car is the BRAIN behind the wheel.. slow down, drive with caution, and allow LOTS of time and distance to come to a stop...the biggest, and STUPIDEST mistake I see drivers making every single day is riding bumper to bumper down the freeway, leaving themselves NO time to react to frontal hazards, and when THEY have to stand on the brakes, the idiot who is "tailgaiting" them while yagging on a cell phone ALSO has no time to react. The most fundamental "rule" of safe driving is to realize that you have ZERO control over what is BEHIND you--people WILL tailgate; you have only moderate control over what is BESIDE you, because heavy traffic may dictate that you drive alongside other cars (though this should be avoided whenever possible--even if it means pressing the accelerator to get on around when everyone is using "cruise"). The ONE "space" around your vehicle over which you have ABSOLUTE control is that space to your FRONT--by maintaining proper and generous following distances, and when conditions warrant, increasing those distances. I see SO many people trying to stay on the "bumper" of the car ahead to "block" other cars from "jumping in front of them", yet this is only denying THEM of their only REAL safety margin, and in fact, if one is "moving" at a given rate of speed, it doesn't matter if EVERYONE "cuts in", because one STILL arives at their destination in the same amount of time. Sorry for the lengthy diatribe, but there really isn't any way to pare it down. I do enjoy a lively "discussion" though.
This is my first car with AWD (my first car was rear-wheel drive with an option to turn on 4WD). What should I do if my Santa Fe starts to skid across lanes of traffic? Am I along for the ride just the same?
I couldn't agree more with your discussion on driving habits, engine/transm. reliability, etc. I've had several cars, good and bad, american and european and never had any transm/engine problems by following all those steps in shifting gears/ engine operation.I've had other problems, but no major engine/transm problems. I do beleive it does make a difference.
First of all, I never said that AWD gives you increased braking traction. I said that ABS gives you help in braking. Preventing the wheels from locking up during braking helps in maintaining control during adverse conditions. I would never drive an AWD or 4WD vehicle too fast or recklessly when the road conditions are poor. (I do not drive too fast or recklessly when the road conditions are good either.) No amount of mechanical assistance (traction control, LSD, 4WD, etc.) will help you if you do not drive withing reasonable limits.
You also noted that the natural response when you start to lose traction is to let up on the throttle. During snowy or icy conditions, this is exactly what you do NOT want to do in a FWD car especially if the back end of the car is "floating" along on the snow. Since the front wheels are connected to the engine, letting off on the throttle will apply engine braking to the front wheels. This will slow the rotation of the front wheels allowing the "floating" rear end to swing around. This happened to me during a significant snow storm a number of years ago. I was driving a FWD Subaru Sedan (w/ good snow tires) along the freeway when the front wheels hit a patch of thicker snow which slowed the front of the car down. (I was traveling about 25 to 30 mph.) Because there was very little weight over the rear wheels the back end of the car was simply "skiing" along on the snow. The back end of the car started to slide around as soon as the front slowed down. My instinctive reaction was to let off on the throttle which slowed down the front wheels even more and the back end slid completely around. I did a 540 on the freeway and panicked and stomped on the brakes (locking up all the wheels). This placed the car in a backward slide. As snow built up under the front wheels I eventually came to a stop . . . about 18 inches from a snow packed guard rail. I was able to get moving again but I learned the lesson that if the back end of a FWD car starts to slide that you need to increase throttle to have the front wheels pull the rear wheels back in line. Once the rear wheels are tracking properly then you can let off on the throttle to slow down. I also learned that adding two 50lb bags of rocksalt in the trunk will prevent the back end from floating so easliy (not to mention providing a source of traction when you get stuck). I am not sure what would have happened in a 4WD or AWD vehicle but I imagine that since the drive train would be connected to both the front wheels and back wheels that letting off on the throttle would have applied engine braking to both sets of wheels instead of just the front. Since I have not encountered the same situation in a 4WD car I can not say how it would react in real life. All I can say is that through personal experience I have found that 4WD has its advantages in snowy driving conditions.
In addition, there are very few FWD cars that are offered with LSD. More and more are offered with traction control which helps people that do not know how to modulate braking and throttle by themselves. For most motorists, a FWD vehicle is just fine. Add traction control or LSD and you would have a pretty good poor weather vehicle . . . however, as you have stated, the brain behind the steering wheel is what prevents accidents. Idiot proofing a car is the best way to increase the handling of a vehicle in adverse conditions. Giving any car LSD, ABS, and traction control will greatly increase the control ability of a car in adverse conditions . . . as long as you drive at reasonable speeds for the existing conditions. This applies to FWD and AWD/4WD cars. The problem is that once you idiot proof a car you invite idiots to drive them. I completely agree with you that todays driver causes more accidents by driving too aggressively and too close to other cars, which in turn, reduces reaction time to nothing and creates dangerous conditions. Some drivers with mechanical gizmos such as LSD, ABS, and traction control start to think the same way as some drivers of 4x4's . . . and think they can drive faster in poor conditions.
My biggest pet peeve during winter driving is seeing some moron in a Ford Expedition (Jeep Cherokee, Nissan Pathfinder, etc.) flying down a snow packed freeway at 55 mph thinking, "Hey, I have a 4x4, I can go anywhere and have complete control." Any vehicle should be driven with care when the flakes start to fly. Moral of the story, "Slow down, think, and be a courteous driver."
Comments
Having worked in Orthopedics changes how I look at any vehicle.
Thanks for any comments.
I still have 3 and a half years to go on my Max in terms of loan payment.
I thought I would rather get a new car and pay it off in 4 or 5 years.
What do you think?
Since I've heard all these positive comments on Santa Fe, I think I'll test drive it this Saturday.
My local Hyundai dealer is offering 3% over invoice on SFs. Well, at least that's what the sales manager guy told me over the phone.
But, he wouldn't give exact price over the phone.
Should I believe him??
One, the Santa Fe is WORTH paying sticker--even more in light of what you get for even an inflated price versus other SUVs.
Two, the likelihood that you will drive one and NOT immediately want to buy it is slim...so you might as well go on and jump in this wonderfully delicious Santa Fe "stew" with the rest of us!
I paid sticker for mine, and it's the first time I've ever bought a car I'll admit that PROUDLY... $21K for a loaded LX was fine with me, I know I'm probably going to keep mine for a LONG time, so all the "mish-mash" about resale is of no concern to me, but I THINK the Santa Fe will turn out to have such a tremendous demand that value retention will be quite good.
The Santa Fe is just THAT well built and appointed.
I just bought MY Santa Fe LX last Sunday and it is a FRONT WHEEL DRIVE only. They has several AWD GL V6 models on the lot as well, but I wanted the LX because I really like the way leather seats look--and in the Santa Fe they look FABULOUS!
ALL versions of the Santa Fe come in either FWD or AWD, and that's a FACT you can verify right here on the Edmund's review site.
I didn't need nor want AWD drive, not for any "traction" reasons, well, actually, maybe so... with front wheel drive ONLY you actually HAVE all the benefits obtainable. Making the rear wheels drive also--for highway and normal road use, actually adds back IN all the detrimental handling characteristics of rear wheel drive while not actually adding any increased control authority. Sorry for all those who "like" the notion of having full-time AWD, but all the marketing hype aside, front-wheel drive ALONE is the idea driveline layout for any vehicle driven on ROADS--whether dirt, gravel, or paved.
If you loose traction on the front wheels while "bombing" down the highway, driving rear wheels will act to exacerbate any "out of line" movement of the rear end. Sure, when "punching" the gas from a stop it may SEEM you have better traction because you may not get "tire squeal", but that isn't due to added traction so much as the fact that LESS power is being routed to each wheel, so there is less torque reaching any one wheel. As long as you have front wheel drive with a traction sharing differential set-up, you've GOT the best driveline money can buy...on the Santa Fe you save about 300 pounds, and that makes a difference in acceleration and economy. You also have less mechanical complexity and driveline power loss which means more of your engine power reaches the front driving wheels...all this adds up to quicker, more responsive acceleration, better mileage, and fewer POTENTIAL headaches concerning driveline wear.
I CAN deliver a very technical, engineering "treatise" on the physics of WHY AWD is not only NOT "better" for vehicles driven on road surfaces, but is actually "worse", but I'll save that unless anyone really cares.
If you think you might like to go "rock crawling" or driving over uneven terrain, THEN the picture changes and AWD has a useful purpose, though without a LOW-range transmission true rock-crawling isn't possible which increases the chances of body strikes as you go bumping over obstacles...ask any true off-road enthusiast.
Since the price difference between FWD and AWD on the SANTA FE isn't any big deal, if you LIKE the idea of four driving wheels, and you find "comfort" in believing it provides a measurable advantage, by all means get it, but if you like the advantage of lower weight, slightly better fuel economy (probably much better in real world conditions), and less concern over driveline issues, then don't hesitate to get the FWD version and be content that you got an excellent vehicle.
One last point: with traditional, REAR-drive SUVs you have the WORST possible driveline layout, so in those models, going with full-time AWD that functions on pavement is a better choice simply to have the front wheels "attenuate" all the bad handling characteristics of a heavy, generally HIGH center of gravity vehicle that can become dangerous to operate at speed when road conditions are slippery.
Since the Santa Fe is devoid of THOSE liabilities--it has a lower CG due to unibody construction, and FRONT wheel drive standard, adding full-time AWD is really just "a thang"..if you "like it" fine.
I DID however, read a review over on the MSN carpoint site where a lone, so-called owner gave the Santa Fe a rather dismal "rating" with no supporting commentary. It stood out in stark contrast to all the other VERY favorable ratings by legitimate owners...probably some chump just trying to muck up the system.
I can't imagine ANYONE who has actually driven a Santa Fe being any less than highly impressed with it...I think I'm a pretty "hard-core" analyst when it comes to automobiles, and from the two Hyundais I own, I've become a "true believer".
About the only almost "negative" comment I've read by official reviewers is that it doesn't have rocket-like power. I have to question THAT assertion based on two personal points:
One: MY Santa Fe LX seems quite energetic during acceleration--in merging with highway traffic I've not found any need to "hammer" it to max power, and accelerating from around 50mph to 70mph is virtually effortless and even when I press hard enough to get a downshift, the transmission is devoid of jerks and surges so common in many other brands--including the "high-end" models.
TWO: I used to have a Taurus LX with the 3.0L DOHC V6 making 200hp/200lb/ft tq, and IT tipped the scales around 3600 lb., yet delivered pretty impressive performance--DAMNED impressive performance when the engine was in the upper end of the rpm band--it actually "felt" stronger than my previous 5.0L T-bird, and THAT car would "fly".
So, the Santa Fe, with its 2.7L DOHC, making 181-185hp (depending on who's review you read), pulling a roughly 3500+lb vehicle around, CAN'T be that sluggish, and my real-world experience supports that.
Who really CARES if it will do 0-60 in 9 seconds--for most driving conditions, hard, WOT accelerations are kind of rare--unless the vehicle is being driven by someone who "doesn't have to pay for it", or simply has no regard for their car, and driving in a manner that promotes longevity.
If getting too "60" in record time was my goal, I'd have bought something like a Mustang Cobra with 4.6L DOHC engine making over 300hp, THEN slap a supercharger on it and set to work running up my tire bill.
Jeep is one manufacturer that is "big" on high horsepower--they really DO market their vehicles to be fully capable of handling the toughest off-road terrain, and high-torque engines are nice to have when you're climbing a steep rock face, BUT there is a serious "penalty" to be paid in terms of mileage. I used to have a Jeep Cherokee with the 4.0L I6 that could go 0-60 in just a hair over 7 seconds (190hp/225 BIG tq/3000lb curb weight), but in real, everyday driving, it barely broke 20mpg hwy.
In choosing the Santa Fe, I didn't mind the compromise--if there is one, in power, because it is without a doubt a better vehicle, and has a "comfortable" mileage rating that IS important to me...so dropping 1.3L or more from the engine, while still getting brisk acceleration and great mileage seems like a good thing....IMHO.
I have a Santa Fe LX with 2.7L DOHC V6 with shiftronic automatic transmission and I have not found it to be lacking in power at all.
I think sometimes, auto reviewers let their personal biases overshadow objective reporting. They expect an SUV designed to deliver an excellent compromise between power and economy to also deliver blistering 0-60 acceleration along the lines of a sports car which is pretty idiotic.
If you go back and read my previous posts you will see that the "numbers" on the Santa Fe aren't bad at all. Weighing in a bit over 3500lb, with 181-185hp (depending on reviewer), it's not exactly "pedestrianlike" in comparison to other vehicles. My '96 Ford Taurus LX had a 3.0L DOHC V6 making 200 ponies for about 3600lb weight, and IT certainly wasn't sluggish, and I can personally attest that MY Santa Fe does not leave me feeling I need more power.
I've ONLY had it cruising up around 80mph so far, but it had plenty of pedal travel left and felt smooth and confident.
I'm not a big fan of the "0-60" foolishness that tends to reduce cars to just "numbers", but in MY normal style of driving, the Santa Fe seems fully capable of running in any traffic situation.
BEST thing to do is go find one and take it for a spin...you'll be surprised.
report.My concern is stability of service and
parts.Daewoo just went bankrupt and a division of
Hyundai is having problems.I don't know about the rest of the country but here in San Diego the lot's are full of them and I haven't seen any on the road.I see big discounts in the spring.I think a BMW sportwagon would be fun but $10k more
ain't. I'm looking for a luxury mini suv/wagon
but not much in the market place under $30k.
Your assertion that you have found the ONE Hyundai dealership in the NATION that has a lot filled with models that "nobody wants", is in direct contravention to almost every "post" that arrives on this forum--from people who actually INTEND to buy one, or have actually BOUGHT one, and is certainly in direct contravention to my own personal EYES having seen how fast Hyundai vehicles are selling in CENTRAL California...Selma Auto Mall is huge, and they sell other brands than Hyundai, but I'm always struck by the larger number of people to be found in the Hyundai area...no my "friend"...whoever has told you Hyundai is tottering on its last legs LIED...in the not too distant future, EXPECT Hyundai to have become a MAJOR player in U.S. sales...they are certainly doing EVERYTHING "right" that it takes to get there.
If you were talking a REAR-WHEEL DRIVE vehicle, that becomes 4WD by adding the front wheels, then you have a "need" for 4WD "in the winter".
If you START OUT with a vehicle that drives the FRONT WHEELS, then for use on any highway, any road surface, and ANY weather condition including SNOW AND ICE, you do NOT "need" 4WD...even though the "marketeers" are heavily into promoting the notion that somehow having the back wheels "pushing" on normal road surfaces is of benefit...but the truth is, it ain't.
Without attempting to deliver an engineering treatise to PROVE my point, it's as simple as this: REAR drive layouts create traction and handling nightmares in snow and ice conditions, due to the force of the rear wheels. FRONT wheel drive systems--EVERY ONE ON EARTH, generate excellent traction because they are ALWAYS "pulling" the front "away" from the back of the car--this acts to maintain the vehicle's longitudinal stability.
If you add BACK IN the characteristics of rear-drive, then you have NEGATED the advantages you reaped with front wheel only...now, if your front wheels do slip, instead of "application of power" acting to stabilize the vehicle, it will actually act to place the vehicle in a skid/spin thanks to your rear wheels being only too happy to always "push" the backend around.
The REAL danger of snow and ice driving is all about BRAKING, and no amount of driving wheels can fix the fact that when you have to brake to hard with little traction, you're going to slide--period, and in this case, things like ABS have proven to be of NO value--though again, ABS is always being marketted as some panacea for proper driving in bad weather.
If you LIKE 4x4--get it, if you THINK you "need" it to drive the ROADS of this country, and don't really WANT it, then go with a FRONT-WHEEL drive SUV like the Santa Fe.
4WD is needed ONLY when you move from generally smooth and "regular" surfaces to gullies, ditches, rocks and boulders where each wheel needs to be able to "climb" its own obstacle, rather than being shoved, or dragged over it, AND where having one, or two wheels off the ground is not uncommon--then you NEED 4, REAL driving wheels, but on pavement, dirt, gravel...basically ROADS... the BEST driveline is FRONT DRIVE...it has the most predictable handling, is lighter than any AWD system, more fuel efficient, AND since there is no power-sharing between front and rear axles, will ALWAYS outperform AWD, or 4x4 with the SAME engine power, vehicle weight and gear ratios. You MAY have noticed that when you check towing ratings for trucks...the 4x2 versions are rated to tow more--with REAL trucks. When you look at sports cars that come in either AWD or RWD, the AWD is ALWAYS slower...the reason is power at each wheel is less, driveline friction wastes power, and there is added weight.
You definitely do NOT need 4x4, nor AWD capability to drive up and down any roadways in Maryland or any other State, at ANY time of the year...unfortunately, most Americans think "bigger, or more is better", so they automatically believe if some car company makes it, and it costs more, and more wheels "drive".. it MUST be better...but it ain't so...
1st tank - 18 mpg - mixed city /highway.
2nd tank - 20 mpg mixed driving.
my dealer tinted my front windows and
windshield a little darker for me-
to match the back. with that little extra tint-
my baby truck is even better!
My brother has owned TWO Sonatas, one of which I had the opportunity to drive quite a bit--back when the Sonata was costing only around $13K. I thought his Sonata was a remarkable value, it drove well, NEVER had any mechanical problems, and was very plush.
When I decided to make my second to last car purchase, I started with a "clean sheet of paper" and threw out all my "brand name" biases. At that time, we were in the market for an economical car, and after doing exhaustive comparisons between other brands and the Elantra, I settled on the Elantra with the first test drive. I now have around 10,000 miles on the E-wagon and I STILL love it--very solidly built, powerful, and stable.
We happened to need to buy yet another car recently, and decided that since our experience with they Elantra was so positive, we'd take a look at the new Santa Fe (I intended to buy SOME version of Hyundai anyway).
As with the Elantra, when we test drove the Santa Fe, we were "hooked". From MY experience, the salesmen don't have to "sell" these cars, they do indeed sell themselves, which is why I encourage anyone who is looking, but unsure to go TEST-DRIVE one...I think Hyundai's motto, "driving is believing" is appropriate.
As far as build quality and fit & finish, I've yet to find a single flaw in either of my vehicles, and both are free of squeaks and rattles. They are BOTH responsive to drive, feel solid and stable, and deliver ample power.
As for the corporation, HYUNDAI, anyone who tells you a multi-bazillion dollar a year company doesn't have the wherewithal to "back" their vehicles, I have to disagree. Hyundai is NOT going to "go away"...if they were, they would have several years ago when sales were meager; instead, they improved their product line, backed it with an industry-leading warranty to give buyers confidence, and have now expanded their model line to include two new "upscale" vechicles; the Santa Fe and the XG300 full-size luxury sedan. Over the last few years, Hyundai sales have been on a steady increase--the company is not anywhere close to abandoning the U.S. market--though I am quite sure those who are fans of other brand names wish they would.
Just go LOOK at one, READ the reviews by both professionals and private owners, then drive one, THEN you will have sufficient information to make an informed decision.
My very first mileage calculation is:
20.174 gallons used
520.2 miles driven
25.78 miles per gallon.
Pros:
1. Handsome beast-- a cross between a Volvo wagon and an SUV. Good soft lines without looking weak.
2. Seating-- very comfortable front and rear.
3. Driver's position-- plenty of headroom for this 6-footer, with a commanding view of the road.
4. Interior fit and finish-- solid, almost plush-feeling.
5. Dashboard controls--extremely well thought out and convenient, especially the flashers and rear defroster buttons, located high up on dash, in the center.
6. Front and rear leg and knee room is excellent, even for a long-legged person.
Cons:
1. Center armrest/console much too low and too short for comfortable elbow resting (This is partially compensated for by one of the most comfortable steering wheels I've ever held-- I had little need to rest one elbow on the armrest).
2. Power window controls are awkward and placed too far back on the door to be reached without taking your eyes off the road.
3. Clock is in overhead console, requiring you to take your eyes off the road to find it.
4. An exceptionally high left-foot rest tends to cramp the driver's leg. To stretch your leg, you have too maneuver your foot into the narrow space between it and the brake--not a great idea.
5. A dim salesman who tried to tell me that the GLS did not come in FWD. I had to show him a printout before he'd believe me.
6. An appraiser who undervalued my "better than good" (his words) trade-in $2500 below the lowest estimate I could find on the internet ( and $7000 below the average retail for the car in my area)
7. The biggest problem I found with the car was the stop-sign pickup. I'm currently driving a '98 Cherokee Limited. When I ask it to respond, it does so with a will. Not so the Santa Fe I drove. It took almost a half second after I stomped the pedal for it to arrange its skirts and decide to move. When it finally did, it did so in a thoroughly prim and proper manner, almost as if admiring the scenery too much to want to leave it behind. Decidedly leisurely.
Overall-- I like the car, but not enough to buy it. I suppose that its acceleration would be adequate in most circumstances, but if like me, you have the need to dart through a hole in cross traffic occasionally or want to be sure that when you enter the stream anything behinds you stays there, you'll be disconcerted by the car's genteel acceleration
Yesterday, my wife and I purchased a Black over grey 2001 Santa Fe 2WD LX with all the trimmings (except 4WD/AWD and that mysteriously absent sunroof). We purchased our Santa Fe in Joplin, Missouri where the sticker price was $21489 (which included no pin striping or "dealer markup" cost or any other costs)... With our trade (93 Ford Aerostar) we ended up financing $21103 for 60 months.
Needless to say, when we drove 70 miles west (from Springfield, MO where we live) to initially test drive the Volkswagon Passat and Toyota Camry, I never thought we would end up buying a Santa Fe. In fact, I didn't know they existed until yesterday when we saw the Sandstone 4WD and the Black 2WD on their lot after taking the Camry for a test run!
The excitement increased when I read the sticker price on the window included all the options that I really wanted in the first place (with the exception of the sunroof)... Plus, here in Missouri, I haven't the need for the 4WD model as our weather is typically mild compared to the northern states at this time of year plus, I'm not the "4-Wheeling" type! The mileage factor on the 2WD model was definitely a big PLUS!
The "Let's Make A Deal" process was far from fun or even remotely exciting. After 5 hours of wrangling (about 4.75 hours too long) we ended with our deal as stated above. Since we were backward on our trade, we ended up getting the Santa Fe for almost $500 under sticker price (with a little cash out of pocket)... It wasn't the best deal ever made. However, the dealer would not move one millimeter on sticker price.. So I had to make it up by having them increase my trade value (which they eventually did by $1000)...
The dealership I went to was the epitome of sharks in suits although we liked our salesguy more than the rest... They tried every little tactic to get us to pay more for the Santa Fe. I resisted them all... I do not recommend the extended warranty as the Hyundai already has a phenomenal warranty to begin with... Most often, if it's going to break, it will do so into the first 5 years anyway... FYI, they were only trying to charge me $5 more on my payment for the extended 5 year bumper to bumper warranty (10 years total) as opposed to the $8 someone here posted previously...
Needless to say, we did get the deal done. We have to go back this week to pick it up as they hadn't "PDI'd" it yet (changed the oil, washed and vacuumed and gassed it up)..
I had done exhaustive research on the Honda Accord, Volkswagon Passat and the Toyota Camry... After test driving all three, we were leaning toward the Accord.. But then, well you all know now, the Santa Fe stepped into our lives and we have made the leap... After reading many reports and posts on the internet when we got home last night, I feel even more sure that I did the right thing... I wasn't so sure at first since I hadn't researched this vehicle at all plus the Hyundai name made me shake. After driving it and checking out all the other features, I think it was meant to be for us to take that fateful Saturday trip 70 miles west...
I will post more info after I pick it up this week (hopefully Tuesday).. If you'd like to ask any questions, my E-mail is mrtwix500@cs.com
Good luck to all new Santa Fe owners! MrTwix
p.s. The luggage rack on our Santa Fe comes with horizontal and vertical bars (4 total) for no extra cost by the dealer...
I would really like a moonroof in my Santa Fe. Anyone have an idea what this should cost? Don't mind paying for it, but don't want to be taken advantage of either!
Thanks in advance for the help, Heather
Is anyone concerned about the shiftronic transmission? Seems like this has lots of potential to be problematic. Has Hyundai used it in other vehicles? Have there been any problems? Is it covered under the 5yr/50,000 mile or the 10yr/100,000mile warranty?
Thanks again, Heather
In driving over to Santa Cruz we crossed the coast mountains, as well as had the opportunity to wend out way around an "up & down", curve-filled "scenic route" where any vehicle's ability to slow going down-hill, into a 180 degree switchback, then accelerate UP another steep hill, is well-tested.
On the open freeway I let the smooth-shifting 4-spd auto do its work. When climbing long, steep grades, as speed fell below about 60mph, it downshifted with no perceptable "jerk"--only the tachometer, and an increase in engine noise denoted it had downshifted.
When we got on the scenic route where speeds were seldom above 45mph, I moved the shifter into "manual" and played with controlling engine speed as I had to slow to 20mph in some cases; "sweep" around a 180 degree turn and then accelerate. For starters, the transmission shifted smoothly each time I tapped the shifter--whether down-shifting, or up-shifting. By manually keeping engine speed around 3000rpm, I found I needed only moderate throttle pressure to keep the vehicle responsive.
Going up and down steep hills at speed, the Santa Fe had NO problems keeping up with traffic, merging in the VERY congested, high-speed traffic around San Jose (I-280), or maneuvering.
In traversing the scenic switchbacks the vehicle displayed very stable handling, though I tried to hold speed to the posted limits as much as possible.
For anyone who has not yet tested this feature, the shiftronic transmission will automatically downshit--even in "manual" mode when the vehicle slows to a speed commensurate with that particular gear (it also states this in the owner's manual). I will also automatically upshift--in manual mode, if the rpm approaches redline and the driver doesn't do so. I found it allowed me to keep the engine closer to its powerband without adding throttle.
I must also state again--for the record, I've driven my share of "high-end" cars, and the transmission in the Santa Fe is the best of them all.
For anyone who wishes to draw so-called "equal" comparisions between the available power of the Santa Fe with its 2.7L engine, and something like a Jeep with 4.0L MINIMUM, I certainly concede that the Jeep will "outrun" the Santa Fe, but it does so at the price of fuel economy--and I've owned a total of FOUR Jeeps in my life, so I KNOW the mileage Jeeps are capable of--about 22 when driving straight highway using sensible acceleration. When driven "hard", Jeeps drop below 20mpg. For those who don't care about mpg, that's fine, but I DO care...here in central CA gas prices are some of the cheaper to be found in the State, and they run just a penny under $1.80/gal at the least expensive stations.
I've already "clocked" the mileage in my Santa Fe LX at over 25mpg driving about 75% highway, 25% city, and I think this difference is significant enough to make Hyundai's choice of using a "smaller" engine that still delivers what "I" find to be ample power, to be a wise one, and quite in keeping with the fact that fuel economy is NOT a "non-issue"...though by the number of gigantic SUVs I see driving around with ONE person using them as daily commuter vehicles, one would think for "some", the price of gas is meaningless.
To put this in perspective; my Hyundai Elantra Wagon with 2.0L and 5-spd has demonstrated a "high" of 34mpg. The Santa Fe, weighing roughly 900lb more, as well as offering more "drag", has DEMONSTRATED (my driving), almost 26mph (25.78 to be precise), for a net difference of "only" about 8mpg while driving what is without doubt a much more refined and comfortable vehicle (not to demean my E-wagon in the least, because I think it stands head & shoulders above all other cars in its class).
The difference in yearly fuel cost between 20 and 26mpg is only around $250 based on 12Kmi/yr at $1.80/gal, or around $21/month, but to me, it matters.
In "fairness" to automatic transmissions, they have a demonstrated "reliabilty" that is actually higher than manual transmissions. The only "downside" I've found with autos is when they are mated to small engines with low torque output and tasked to motivate increasingly heavier vehicles. This isn't an indictment of automatic transmissions per se, more the laws of physics in that they tend to be less efficient and result in more power loss through the driveline.
There is really nothing revolutionary about the "shiftronic" as used in the Santa Fe. ALL automatic transmissions are capable of being "manually-shifted" while driving. If anything, you could call the "electronic-shift" part "innovative" in that the action of initiating gear changes is handled by electro-mechanical servos rather than being directly linked via a "linkage" to the actual shifter, though even this is nothing new--all of the newer autos are now using electronic shifting, and many other makers are coming out with "manual shift on the fly" capability precisely because the "electronics" eliminate the stresses a "human" operator tends to place on any auto when manually shifting it--tradionally speaking.
As with all aspects of modern, computer-controlled cars, when the "electronics" work "right", the system is near flawless. One look at computer-controlled engine management systems tells us that the engines we have today stand light-years above the old systems in terms of reliability, drivability, economy, and "tuning".
On the other end of the scale, it is possible to mate TOO large of an engine with a "practical size" automatic, and this contributes to transmission maladies fully as much as anything else. This is the ONLY reason the trucking industry still relies on manual transmissions in fact. They KNOW automatics would actually lower maintenance costs and "down-time", but an automatic transmission SIZED appropriately for the job of pulling an 80,000 tractor/trailer down the highway would be prohibitive in terms of weight and size.
I have no "less" faith Hyundai's transmissions than I do in any other make--its quite easy to visit other forums and see that ALL makes of vehicles have "problems", and I would like to say here, that one of the main contributors to automatic transmission problems by and large is the OPERATOR. So many people are "conditioned" to think they can abuse their car and it should be "bullet-proof" to their treatment...and in fact, it IS possible to build "bullet-proof" automatic transmissions that can handle quite a bit of abuse without failure, but we must keep in mind, any car is designed to be a BALANCE of factors--cost being a primary one.
In all my years of driving and WATCHING the way others drive, I'm not surprised at all by the number of complaints I see levied "against" automatic transmissions in ALL makes of cars/trucks. I've seen VERY few people who even know the proper way to shift into "park" by holding pressure on the brake, then, AFTER going to "P", applying the HAND-BRAKE (or parking brake), BEFORE releasing the foot brake--this prevents the weight of the vehicle being "held" by the transmission alone, yet most people just "rack" the shifter into park and leap out, allowing the vehicle to "lung" against that magical "parking gear", which binds the shift-linkage and over time causes problems. I was pleased to note that in the Santa Fe owner's manual they actually ADDRESS the proper way to place the vehicle in park--something I've never seen in any other owner's manual.
Then there are those who love to rack the shifter from reverse to drive while the vehicle is still rolling backward--obviously oblivious too, or unconcerned that this TOO causes harm to the transmission which, over time, comes back to haunt them.
Then there is the FACT that whereas many people have become "fanatical" about oil changes at "half" recommended intervals, FEW even realize their transmission might desire an oil and filter change at its specified intervals, and a testament to how "rugged" autos are in general is that they STILL manage to run over 100K miles even without "routine" service, or in some cases, ANY service.
I've owned a LOT of cars and trucks over the years, some manual, some automatic, and without regard to "brand", I've NEVER had a transmission failure of any kind on a vehicle with less than 100,000 miles on it, and NEVER on one that I was the first owner of. The only thing I can attribute this too is that I "religiously" observe the practice of holding full brake pressue as I shift into park, and apply the parking brake--fully, before releasing the foot brake--even on level ground. I NEVER move the shifter from a forward gear to reverse (or vice-versa), unless I am FULLY stopped, and I ALWAYS "pause" for an instant to let the transmission's "hydralics" catch-up before I apply throttle. I also pay attention to my transmission's service intervals, and I change my own oil and filter--as I do with my engine, because then I KNOW without a shadow of a doubt it WAS done, and it was done by someone who "has to pay for the vehicle"--meaning with due care and diligence. (I recognize that not everyone CAN do their own maintenence, but that only means they must be vigilant in choosing who WILL).
Just sit in any large parking lot for awhile and you can see an endless series of examples of "driving styles" that are eventually going to lead to transmission problems, but that's THEIR car to do with as they like. This is why I seldom give credence to the complaints I see about auto transmission problems, because the FIRST rule of "complaining" that a particular car "sucks", is to deny that "you" (the operator--not YOU personally), were in any way a contributing factor, though "extrapolating" from the way I see so many people operating their cars in "real life", the number of "complaints" is pretty small.
So to get back to the "point"..."experience" has taught me that a well-balanced power-train, operated sensibly, and with an understanding of certain basic principles, is pretty reliable regardless of WHO manufactures it.
Rough, and improper shifter movement, jack-rabbit starts (a favorite of CA drivers), and hard throttle operation that pushes the engine high in the rpm band between shifts, will all shorten the life of ANY automatic transmission. Doing just the opposite can give an automatic a VERY long, trouble-free life.
Of course things aren't fully locked in yet, so who knows if it will be available, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't be.
Most traction control systems utilize a form of modulating wheel spin through the ABS system, and since the LX with pkg 13 also has ABS, it should be on it...the question is when it will arrive.
George
The Santa Fe AWD is 3752 Lbs at 181 HP whcih is 20.73 lbs. HP.
Does this mean the Santa Fe has more power? I am sure it does not but why?
There is however, another factor that is actually more important...TORQUE. Generally speakin, with normally aspirated eninges (non-supercharged), greater displacement will always deliver greater torque even when horsepower is equal.
The reason is because horsepower--a rather ambiguous term, is related to how much mass (weight), a given amount of force can move in a specific time. Torque is the actual "twisting moment" imparted to a crankshaft, or other rotating body as measured in "pound/feet".
Larger displacement = more twisting force, or torque applied to the crankshaft, and "horsepower" is derived by the calculation:
HP = torque X RPM/5252 (a constant).
Below 5,252rpm any engine's Tq will always be > its HP. Above 5,252rpm the HP will always be higher.
The smallest engine offered in the Jeep Grand Cherokee is the 4.0L I6 SOHC...roughly 1.3L more displacement that the 2.7L of the Santa Fe V6.
The Jeep 4.0L, it produces 195HP/230lb/ft Tq at 4600/3000rpm respectively - NOTE that this indicates it produces it maximum RATED HP BELOW 5252 rpm. The Santa Fe produces 181HP/177lb/ft Tq at 6000/4000 rpm respectively. Again, note that the maximum rated HP for the Santa Fe arrives ABOVE 5252rpm.
For comparitive purposes, the Jeep Grand Cherokee 2WD CURB weight is 3880lb. The Santa Fe LX FrontWD weighs 3549.
Thus the Grand Cherokee must move:
19.9lb/hp, and has 16.87lb/lb-ft of "torque" with which to do it.
The Santa Fe FWD must move:
19.6lb/hp, but has 20lb/lb-ft of "torque" with which do do it.
NOTE that the Jeep is delivering MAX torque at a very modest 3000rpm, while the Santa Fe must rev to 4000rpm to deliver its maximum torque.
Clearly the Jeep has the edge in sheer "motivating force", and of course GEAR RATIO comes into play as well.
when "cruising" at say, 2500rpm, the Jeep is resting well within the "bubble" of its torque curve, while the Santa FE is somewhat below its maximum by 1500 rpm. In a "top gear" full throttle acceleration from 2500rpm, the Jeep will "win" hands down, everyday of the week.
In a full-throttle acceleration from 0-60, the Jeep will win hands down everyday of the week.
The PRICE for this shows up in fuel economy...though the Jeep is EPA "rated" to get 21mpg hwy with the 4.0L I6, in actual practice, it seldom will break 20mpg unless driven very "gingerly". In "all around" driving so far, I've actually gotten over 25mpg--almost 26 in my Santa Fe LX, though to be fair, I tend to drive "modestly"...I'm sure if I started doing hard accelerations and driving 75-80 on the hwy, my mpg would also drop noticably.
IF you compare the 2WD Santa Fe to the FWD Jeep GC, the GC does carry substantially more weight--4130lb, which would raise the number of pounds being shoved forward, but it would still be less than the Santa Fe has to motivate. Of course, in 4WD, the GC drops in mpg.
Personally, I don't find a comparison between Santa Fe and Jeep to be "fair" since the Jeep is fully INTENDED to be used off road; comes with a LOW-range transfer case designed to allow it to "crawl" over obstables while keeping rpm in the torque band, and certainly, when climbing VERY steep hills at slow speed, BIG engines with BIG torque are the "order of the day".
Without a low-range, the Santa Fe would "best" be kept to "light-duty" off-road use because it just doesn't have the low-end "grunt" of a Jeep. YES, having an automatic "helps" in that it allows the vehicle to "idle along", but when traversing body-busting rocks, "idling along"--in "four-wheeler terms", is like ONE mph or less with the engine delivering sufficient power to allow the GEARING to do the work without abrupt throttle inputs.
This is not to infer that the Santa Fe CAN'T climb steep hills, it just can't do it with the unremitting smoothness of a Jeep.
What the Santa Fe DOES do, is deliver virtually the same size and capacity of a Jeep GC, very nice "road manners"--which the Jeep also has, but more, it does so while getting better mileage and costing nearly half as much...and IMHO, being built to a higher level of quality and fit--and yes, I speak from experience having owned FOUR Jeeps in my lifetime.
However, it's hard to really say anything negative about the Jeep, since it too uses unibody contruction--with low "step-over height" and high ground clearance, AND has a wonderful, "quadra-coil" suspension that gives it very "civilized" road manners...but with MacPherson struts up front and double wishbone coils in the rear, the Santa Fe is "suspensioned" just as well.
The Jeep DOES have sturdy, semi-floating, "solid" axles which are paramount in heavy-duty off-road use--independent suspension is great "on-road", but off-road can allow the vehicle to "bottom out" on the engine/tranny area--something that cannot happen with a solid axle set-up. Solid axles are also stronger and can handle more torque, but in the end we wind up comparing "apples to pears"...the Santa Fe is a GREAT vehicle for doing what MOST people "do" with an SUV, or "XUV" as Hyundai likes to call it.
In slippery conditions, AWD can "induce" handling problems precisely BECAUSE the rear wheels are "pushing", and if the front wheels slip momentarily, the rear WILL be happy to "come on around"...though the natural "instinct" to let off the throttle will curb this--if done in time.
With front wheel drive alone, application of throttle (with the front wheels anywhere near "center"), tends to "enhance" steering authority, even when the front wheels are "slipping" as in snow or on ice. If this situation is occuring with ALL wheels driving, application of power will promote a skid/slide.
WAY BACK when "4x4s" were all primarily REAR wheel drive, adding the "fronts" in slippery conditions certainly "couldn't hurt" since the handling characteristics of RWD and usually "light" back end are the worst of all.
With the "newer" 4x4s and that drive the FRONT wheels as primary, what you have is really unnecessary "overkill" for any form of STREET driving--whether ice, snow, or rain.
The REASON to drive all wheels is when you are traversing rough, uneven, rock/boulder/limb/gully-strewn terrain where EACH WHEEL needs to have "torque" as well as aggressive-tread tires in order to "climb over" things.
A good way to see this in action is to place something like a "4x4" fence post on the ground directly in front of your DRIVING wheels. Then "ease" on the throttle and note how the vehicle just "climbs up and over" (though if you have smooth-tread street tires they may well slip and not climb). THEN note what happens when your NON-driving wheels get to the "obstacle"... if not "bolted down", the non-driving wheels will simply "push" it ahead of them without going over.
Yes, when you hit something on the highway going 60mph, you do tend to go over it with all wheels, but that is a function of the MASSIVE inertia generated by a car, but is also why you can suffer suspension and wheel damage as these parts are literally "rammed" over the object.
With Front wheel drive, the bulk of the weight is over the driving wheels, and the driving wheels are always "pulling" the vehicle which means the "tendency" is to "pull" the back-end in line, creating a VERY stable handling platform--equal too any AWD system--though I am SURE there will be those who wish to disagree, though to do so will reveal a lack of understanding about the physics of moving vehicles.
All wheel drive has become a "sales gimmick" that has carried over from the REAL 4X4 arena. People are TOLD they "need it", and that it will enhance handling and traction--just as they are "told" SUVs are actually MORE stable than "cars" (which they absolutely CANNOT be).
90% of people who buy "4x4s" of any drive-system NEVER drive "off-road" and are basically carrying around extra weight, extra complexity--getting less efficiency, and the part the manufacturer's like best, PAYING a PREMIUM to get something they absolutely DO NOT need!
In fact, there was a Dateline special that detailed all of this--in light of the numerous roll-over accidents in SUVS.
So... after THAT "diatribe", yes, I have the FWD Santa Fe LX... I absolutely did NOT want AWD.
There is NO advantage to AWD in snow and ice--unless one wishes to INCREASE the chances of sliding, skidding, and spinning out.
I would say this is all "in my humble opinion", but I can't... it's an engineering fact.
Your logic sounds convincing but in real world conditions in snow and ice, AWD or 4WD has its advantages. These advantages are not in maintaining traction once you are moving, or in helping you stop once you have managed to get under way (that where anti-lock brakes provide help) , but AWD or 4WD are much appreciated in getting moving in the first place. The additional traction provided to the rear wheels in addition to the front wheels gives a big advantage in getting a car moving on snowy roads. Also, if AWD /4WD has no advantage in snowy/icy conditions, then explain the following;
I used to live along the benches of the city. All of the roads that led up to my home were fairly steep. My parents owned front wheel drive vehicles (Honda Accord, Ford Taurus, Dodge Caravan) and on many occasions they were forced to park their car at the bottom of the hill and call me at home. They then had to wait until plows had cleared the roads before returning for the car. I owned a 4x4 Suzuki Sidekick and during the same snowy conditions I was able to get down to them, pick them up, and get back up the roads and safely home. I did not make the trip without some wheel slip but I never lost control due to the "rear wheels pushing the back end around and forcing me to slide, skid or spin out". I STRONGLY disagree that AWD/4WD has no advantages in snowy/icy conditions. This is not based on a "logical analysis" of FWD vs. AWD/4WD but rather based on personal REAL LIFE experiences with both types of vehicles on snowy roads.
In traditional 4x4s the same "open differential" rule holds true, but now you have two separate AXLES, so if say, your left front wheel is without traction, yet both rears HAVE traction, you will be able to "pull away" without any problem. Of course if one front and one rear wheel is without traction, then any 4x4 will be just as stuck as any 2WD.
Now enters the "limited slip" or locking differential...and it is VERY common to find some version of limited slip differential on MOST 4x4s, though usually only in the rear. What THIS gives you is TRUE, REAR-wheel drive with limited front wheel drive, since the open diff front is still prone to losing traction the instant either wheel looses traction. With a limited slip, as one wheel begins to loose traction, the differential mechanically "senses" wheel-slip and directs a maximum of 50% of available torque to the wheel WITH traction...the result is that your traditional 4WD seems, and does indeed, have more traction than ANY "traditional" 2WD vehicle, whether front or rear. I won't go into locking differentials, or "lockers" as they are usually called since these are generally found ONLY on dedicated OFF-ROAD vehicles and beyond the scope of this diatribe.
Then comes the latest "fad"... ALL wheel drive... using viscous coupling systems to automatically "share", or "transfer" as they like to advertise, power between front and rear "axles" as well as limited slip diffs to then "share" power between wheels on each axle. What makes these systems "AWD" is the fact that they are without rigid mechanical interaction, and are therefore capable of being operated on pavement, thus they are often also called, "full time 4WD" since you don't have to disconnect them to run the highway. because they DO send power to each wheel, and because they DO direct power to the wheel with the most traction, they are certainly going to demonstrate impressive "getting started" characteristics.
Now, let me point out that if you place a limited slip differential (such as will be offered in the Santa Fe 2WD), in the FRONT axle of any front wheel drive vehicle, it SHALL demonstrate an equal "ability" to "pull" even in deep snow...the lighter rear will, and does, tend to slide up and on top of snow--I've actually observed the rear wheels appearing to leave "ski tracks" since they had insufficient resistance to make them roll over snow--they just acted as SKIS....and this has absolutely NO deleterious effect on handling since the rear end will follow the front as long as power is applied.
Since very few 2WDs HAVE any sort of power-sharing diff, like as not, 99% of the time, when you see someone trying to "get going" in deep snow, they are pretty "bogged down"--but it's NOT the front drive, nor lack of AWD that is the culprit, it's the lack of a TRUE, TWO-wheel, front drive capability...slap in a limited slip diff, or even a manual "locker" such as an ARB "air locker" and that 2WD would just zoom right away--assuming of course it had TIRES to grip in snow...again, 4WDs tend to be sold with more aggressive tires.
But there is a "secret" to making ANY 2WD car with the normal open differntial perform like a serious 4x4...and for that matter, to make any "so-called" 4x4 that lacks power transfering differentials to also "act" like a "limited slip" equipped 4x4...and guess what, the AUTO MAKERS are using it ALL THE TIME, albeit in another "fashion".
"Traction control" these days, most often uses a form of applying braking to a slipping wheel to control wheel spin, which does indeed work, but it validates a principle of mechanics "4-wheelers" learned years ago. IF you have a front-drive, or rear-drive, or even a 4x4 with "open diffs", and you get "stuck"--meaning one wheel spins, the other stationary, simply applying the BRAKES...just enough to apply "friction" to the spinning wheel, will be "read" by that mindless open differential as "resistance" and power will then be again directed to the wheel that actually DOES have traction. This is so easy, and works every bit as well as if you really did have a $300 LSD in your drive axle. It is VERY easy to do when "getting going" in snow or ice.
It must also be remembered that TIRES make a difference... if you are "stuck" with both wheels on the same axle "spinning" then the problem is ZERO tire traction due to the wrong tread, or not using chains when needed.
when I refer to the negative consequences of "handling" in an AWD system, I am NOT speaking about relatively slow speed operations, but more those situations where people continue to "fly" down the highway when road conditions are poor because they THINK they have "more" traction than someone with only front wheels--not only is this NOT so, it's been VALIDATED as "not so" by accident statistics.
When you talk about motoring up and down a steep hill in your Saumari while "cars" had to remain at the bottom.. first, even with open diffs on both axles, your Saumari STILL had TWICE the "chance" to achieve usable traction since it had TWO drive axles instead of one...so even if one wheel "slipped" and might have stalled, the others (on the other AXLE) was more likely to HAVE traction at that moment, and so you "motored along". IF your Saumari had a limited slip diff in the rear, then definitely you had ONE complete driving AXLE that would indeed keep turning both rear wheels even if they slipped, as well as the normal front axle drive that could "help out".
With a SINGLE AXLE driving TWO opposite wheels through a limited-slip, or locking differential, AND using tires appropriate to the road surface conditions, ANY FRONT wheel drive SHALL perform as well as ANY all wheel drive when operated over NORMAL roads...meaning ROADS, not wash-outs, gullies, boulders, etc. It may SEEM hard to believe in a world inculcated to think "more is better" and when disregarding the various "details" that differentiate drive systems, but it is nonetheless true. Actually, ANY front-drive, with LSD and proper tires will OUTPERFORM ANY "4x4" that has OPEN DIFFERENTIALS--period!
Now, as for "experience" versus "logic & theory"...I too have driven RWD, FWD and 4x4s for many years in all kinds of weather. I KNOW from not only having studied the "mechanics" and engineering theory, but also from having actually DRIVEN and tested each and every combination at some time or another, BECAUSE I wanted to KNOW what each could do and could not do.
Speaking of 4x4 traction and your assertion that the back-end won't "come around" when the front looses traction, I happen to KNOW it will do just that--as long as those back wheels HAVE traction, and the fronts DON'T, the vehicle WILL spin-out.
This happened to ME driving a Jeep Wrangler on a MUDDY, rain-soaked, QUAGMIRE of a road...the road surface was a slippery "ooze" of mud with puddles of water. I was "motoring along" in my Jeep doing MAYBE 25 mph, IN 4WD, driving CAUTIOUSLY--I NEVER drive in 4-wheel conditions like a fool. Suddenly, my front wheels hit a deep "bog" of mud hidden under a puddle...the Jeep began to "slide" laterally and I applied corrective steering ONLY to discover the front wheels, no longer having ANY resistance, underneath EITHER wheel, also had ZERO STEERING ability! As the vehicle slid it naturally started to "rotate around", there was NO possibility to "steer into the skid" (though I tried) since the front wheels had no traction and therefore NO steerage way. In that instant, my Jeep did a very nice, 180 degree rotation in the middle of the road, turning completely around and NOW in a full BACKWARD slide as it's original "lateral" movement carried it off the road, into a shallow ditch, and I slammed into a nice, high, dirt back which mercifully brought things to a halt.
THAT, my friend, was a PERFECT example of FRONT wheels losing traction while rear wheels still have plenty, and THAT is the result you will get 100 out of 100 times!
HAD I been driving a FRONT-drive ONLY, when the front wheels slipped and skidded, I probably would have been forced to the side of the road and into the ditch, but I would NOT have done a "180" in the middle of the road BECAUSE there would have been NO rear-driving wheels to INDUCE that force!
I was "lucky" in that being EXPERIENCED in 4-wheeling", I had enough sense to slow down so that when I lost traction, the result was minor...had I been blasting along--as we have ALL seen so MANY people doing on slick roads (because they THINK they have 'super-traction'), I would most likely have rolled and ended up a lot worse off than just a slightly bent front bumper and "mud-splatted" right side on my Jeep.
After my spin, I cranked right up and drove out of the ditch and "off" the dirt bank...no traction problems at all... the spin was a direct result of the imbalance between a slipping front pair of front wheels and a driving rear set, AND LSDs in BOTH axles would NOT have prevented it.
REAR wheel drive would have done it, and 4WD DID do it, yet FRONT wheel drive alone could NOT have done it..and THAT is simple PHYSICS.
An interesting caveat; had I HAD a locking rear differntial--engaged at that time, the spin-out would have been even MORE violent since neither wheel would have been able to "slip" as the back end came 'round.
You mentioned that having AWD gives you increased "braking traction"...how is this? Which wheels "drive" has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with braking. When you lift your foot, ALL "driving wheels" become "rolling wheels", and function with no greater efficiency than ANY other drive system! 4-whl discs on a front-drive, rear-drive, or AWD, will have EXACTLY the same effectiveness when stopping--period. Unfortunately, this too is an area where hyperbole has crept into everyday thinking--people DO actually think that IF they have more "drive traction" then it follows they have more STOPPING traction, but this is physically impossible. The biggest "killer" in snow and ice is stopping, because you have the considerable inertia of a 2500-5000lb vehicle that is reliant upon the tires CONTINUING to rotate, albeit "slowing", rather than "locking" and turning ALL wheels into "skis"...which we get to enjoy watching on TV all the time when certain places get hit with a large snowfall and people come careening along--THINKING that since they had "traction" to get going, they MUST have traction to stop, which of course, they do not.
We DO agree that when conditions warrant, the very BEST "option" on any car is the BRAIN behind the wheel.. slow down, drive with caution, and allow LOTS of time and distance to come to a stop...the biggest, and STUPIDEST mistake I see drivers making every single day is riding bumper to bumper down the freeway, leaving themselves NO time to react to frontal hazards, and when THEY have to stand on the brakes, the idiot who is "tailgaiting" them while yagging on a cell phone ALSO has no time to react. The most fundamental "rule" of safe driving is to realize that you have ZERO control over what is BEHIND you--people WILL tailgate; you have only moderate control over what is BESIDE you, because heavy traffic may dictate that you drive alongside other cars (though this should be avoided whenever possible--even if it means pressing the accelerator to get on around when everyone is using "cruise"). The ONE "space" around your vehicle over which you have ABSOLUTE control is that space to your FRONT--by maintaining proper and generous following distances, and when conditions warrant, increasing those distances.
I see SO many people trying to stay on the "bumper" of the car ahead to "block" other cars from "jumping in front of them", yet this is only denying THEM of their only REAL safety margin, and in fact, if one is "moving" at a given rate of speed, it doesn't matter if EVERYONE "cuts in", because one STILL arives at their destination in the same amount of time.
Sorry for the lengthy diatribe, but there really isn't any way to pare it down. I do enjoy a lively "discussion" though.
You also noted that the natural response when you start to lose traction is to let up on the throttle. During snowy or icy conditions, this is exactly what you do NOT want to do in a FWD car especially if the back end of the car is "floating" along on the snow. Since the front wheels are connected to the engine, letting off on the throttle will apply engine braking to the front wheels. This will slow the rotation of the front wheels allowing the "floating" rear end to swing around. This happened to me during a significant snow storm a number of years ago. I was driving a FWD Subaru Sedan (w/ good snow tires) along the freeway when the front wheels hit a patch of thicker snow which slowed the front of the car down. (I was traveling about 25 to 30 mph.) Because there was very little weight over the rear wheels the back end of the car was simply "skiing" along on the snow. The back end of the car started to slide around as soon as the front slowed down. My instinctive reaction was to let off on the throttle which slowed down the front wheels even more and the back end slid completely around. I did a 540 on the freeway and panicked and stomped on the brakes (locking up all the wheels). This placed the car in a backward slide. As snow built up under the front wheels I eventually came to a stop . . . about 18 inches from a snow packed guard rail. I was able to get moving again but I learned the lesson that if the back end of a FWD car starts to slide that you need to increase throttle to have the front wheels pull the rear wheels back in line. Once the rear wheels are tracking properly then you can let off on the throttle to slow down. I also learned that adding two 50lb bags of rocksalt in the trunk will prevent the back end from floating so easliy (not to mention providing a source of traction when you get stuck). I am not sure what would have happened in a 4WD or AWD vehicle but I imagine that since the drive train would be connected to both the front wheels and back wheels that letting off on the throttle would have applied engine braking to both sets of wheels instead of just the front. Since I have not encountered the same situation in a 4WD car I can not say how it would react in real life. All I can say is that through personal experience I have found that 4WD has its advantages in snowy driving conditions.
In addition, there are very few FWD cars that are offered with LSD. More and more are offered with traction control which helps people that do not know how to modulate braking and throttle by themselves. For most motorists, a FWD vehicle is just fine. Add traction control or LSD and you would have a pretty good poor weather vehicle . . . however, as you have stated, the brain behind the steering wheel is what prevents accidents. Idiot proofing a car is the best way to increase the handling of a vehicle in adverse conditions. Giving any car LSD, ABS, and traction control will greatly increase the control ability of a car in adverse conditions . . . as long as you drive at reasonable speeds for the existing conditions. This applies to FWD and AWD/4WD cars. The problem is that once you idiot proof a car you invite idiots to drive them. I completely agree with you that todays driver causes more accidents by driving too aggressively and too close to other cars, which in turn, reduces reaction time to nothing and creates dangerous conditions. Some drivers with mechanical gizmos such as LSD, ABS, and traction control start to think the same way as some drivers of 4x4's . . . and think they can drive faster in poor conditions.
My biggest pet peeve during winter driving is seeing some moron in a Ford Expedition (Jeep Cherokee, Nissan Pathfinder, etc.) flying down a snow packed freeway at 55 mph thinking, "Hey, I have a 4x4, I can go anywhere and have complete control." Any vehicle should be driven with care when the flakes start to fly. Moral of the story, "Slow down, think, and be a courteous driver."