Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
My '07 Santa Fe Limited AWD w/trailer pkg gets horrible mpg pulling my trailer. 11.5 over a 200 mile trip. 60mph max. Mostly highway with some hills up and down. I used manual locked in 4th and 5th on real flat sections. Other than the poor mpg it pulls it great. Plenty of power. I never had to floor it up steep hills. But, overall my Santa Fe mpg without the trailer hasn't been that great either. It now has about 4500 miles on it. City 16-17. Highway 19-22 depending on the type of highway.
I'm curious, what is the trailer weight and type? I would think a high profile trailer would seriously impede your MPG.
Our AWD Santa Fe SE+touring pkg. got 16-18 MPG both to and from the high desert in Southern California.
My gripe is that there is no auto leveling suspension, or any manufacturer that makes some sort of direct replacement air shock or overload shocks for this vehicle. I am presently trying to do some modifications on some Monroe Air Shocks to see if I can get a pair to fit properly.
I traded in my 2004 Isuzu Ascender (AWD/4WD) which is a GMC Envoy clone. The 4.2L 6cyl in that truck had plenty of power and is comparable to the SF SE AWD with the 3.3 engine. The SF does get better Mpg and handles far better than the soft suspension of the Envoy. Add the stability and traction (of the SF) control and it is a far safer truck/Xuv than the one I had. Good luck.
My trailer is an '07 FunFinder 189FBS made by CruiserRv. Total loaded weight is about 3300# and it has tandem axles with 4 trailer brakes. It does have a slightly slanted front face that sticks up about 3 feet above the Santa Fe. So yes pulling a brick like that in the wind will hurt mpg. I'm going to get an air deflector to mount on the car roof rack. That should help the mpg.
With a weight distribution hitch and sway control I'm riding perfectly level and it pulls/stops just fine. I won't need to upgrade the suspension/shocks at all. I'm taking it this weekend on a longer trip (400 mile roundtrip) to Bass Lake, Ca. We'll see how it hauls up the grades and brakes coming back down!
Jeez, when EPA say an extra 100 lbs in your car, like hauling unnecessary stuff in a trunk can cut your mpg by 1 - 2 %. what do you think towing an extra 3300 lbs will do to your mpg? And, of course, you are recognizing that extra air drag from the trailer having a 3 foot (!) higher profile. That's about 50% higher than your Santa Fe.
The trailer weights pretty near as much as the vehicle and the air drag is huge. Don't expect anywhere near the EPA estimated mileage.
i took my santa fe in today for the 15k service- i asked for a fuel consumption test as suggested by hyundai and they said they don't do it there... so i had to call consumer affairs to find out what the deal is - so now it's going up the ladder - i'm waiting to see what they say... they also do not include the fuel injection cleaning in their 15k service but they recommend it in their service brochure... I asked why their brochure was so generic and did not include the services included in the manual like electronic throttle control- they just said they would check everything - but i'm like- why should i pay you to do basic crap when i can do it myself! once they come out with the repair manual the dealer will be lucky if they ever see me again!
Let me know how you make out. The Hyundai Rep authorized one car payment($294.00) for me but I can't get them to work on the warrantee problems. I don't know what is up with the company. Keep us informed if you would. Ed
Just got back from a 3200 mile, week long trip. Overall MPG was 24.1. Worst MPG from a tank of gas came after driving 75 MPH into a 20 MPH head wind, 95 degree temperature so the air conditioner was running hard and I crossed the Continental Divide: 22.0. Best MPG was 28.4 when I was driving a more sedate 65 MPH with light breezes and 75-80 degree temperature. I've got over 18K on my Santa Fe now and my average MPG is 22.9
yeah - i digress - i think it all depends on driving conditions - i went to a mountainous region of NJ and could not speed and there was a lot of opportunity to coast downhill - that was the first time i got over 24mpg - all the other driving i've done after the breakin period has been mixed with hwy driving and being stuck in city traffic for hrs on end - so...
Filled up with gas at the same pump, to first stop click of pump, same as always. Ran it down until the low fuel light came on (to check it worked), noticed the needle was almost on the "E" line before the light came on. Refilled at the same pump 'til the first stop click again.
Put in 16.005 gals gas having done 288.7 miles on the trip meter. That worked out to be 18.04 mpg.
BUT the AVG.MPG meter said 20.4 mpg. pretty much most of that tank of gas - therefore the trip meter must be wrongly calibrated. Also it means that if the tank holds 19.8 gals gas when full, and the light came on at the range of 49 miles left in tank, and I put 16.005 gals in, there must be at least 3 1/2 gals of gas left in reserve, from the warning light.
If the meter says less than 50 miles range, at the metered AVG MPG of 20.4, then that would consume 2.45 gals of gas until you completely run out of gas. BUT if you actually use 18 mpg x 3.5then you only have a max. of 63 miles left after the warning light comes on to complete empty. So in fact you only have 12-13 miles of leeway before completley running out of gas after travelling that last 50 miles. That's pretty close.
Or maybe the prior fill up on which you based your calculations shut off earlier than your next fill up. Could happen due to speed of the pump, temperature, the way the nozzle was in the filler or other things which could cause the vapors to accumulate more rapidly and shut off the pump.
Keep your paper records and don't reset the trip computer for 3 or 4 tanks to get a more accurate paper calculation.
Yes, your computer could be off, but don't assume it is.
A friend bought a new Azera in April. The car supposedly had a full tank of gas, but the guage only read 3/4's. I drove him the 100 miles to NJ to pick up the car and had let my tank run low to fill up on $.30 per gallon cheaper gas. Just after leaving the dealer I stopped for gas and my friend decided to fill up also since he only had 3/4 of a tank. In NJ, on ei snot allowed to pump their own gas and they have some kind of environmental thing to stop vapors from getting into the air. Well, his car took $.39 of gas (@ $2.699 per gallon) and the guage still showed 3/4 tank. He thought there was something wrong with the guage.
When we got home about 100 miles later he filled up and took about 8 gallons of gas. That would have been a little better than 12 mpg. But, without resetting his trip computer he has been averaging almost 23 mpg with roughly 50/50 hwy/local usage.
Clearly there was something wrong with the pump or the guy pumping it in NJ.
Hello, all, well I actually own a tucson, the tucson forum is pretty dead so I thought I would chime in on my mpg on the tucson. I have a 2006 gls v6 with the trip comp, when I first got it, could not get more than 18 mpg in city and 22 hwy, no matter how many times I reset the comp. Now I have 15k miles and see 20.2-20.5 avg in city and 25-26 on hwy, sometimes getting 27 or more. I have noticed that my mpg is much better once hitting the 10k miles mark. Just return from vacation and test the trip comp, was pretty close only off by 1/10th of a mpg, the comp said 24.5, but got 24.43 mpg, I used the formula of miles driven divided by gallons used since filing up. :shades:
You have to take the miles driven and divide them by the number of gallons you put into the take to get the actual, realistic mile per gallon. And do it over a month or so AND then take the average Don't go by the trip computer
I have both the 2007 SF SE AWD (5500 miles) and the 2007 Sonata SE V6 (1600 miles) and the trip computer is pretty much right on the money for both vehicles. Both get similar city/combined mileage ~18mpg while the SF gets ~23mpg hwy and the Sonata around 28mpg (75mph with ac on). I have no complaints on either vehicle.
After a month and a half of ownership I am very happy with my SF. So far after 2522 miles I have used 124.365 Gals of gas for an average mileage of ~20.28 MPG. The trip computer I reset at each fill up. The computer varies widely as to accuracy. The worst tankful the Trip Computer was off by 1.7 MPG reading 21.7 when calculated MPG was 19.0. The best was recorded the next tankful with the computer reading 20.9 and the calculated MPG was 20.92. I drive about 40/60 city/hwy running 70-80 on the highway portions. I am for the most part satisfied with my mileage which falls well within EPA range, which I understand is not a measure of what I will get but a tool to compare vehicles. I expect it will improve as time goes on.
The manual says 5w30. So far, the dealership has been the only one to change the oil (and will do so again in August). I use ethanol. We live in Iowa and it's 10 cents cheaper. I haven't had any problems. When we traveled to Louisiana in the spring, I think my husband ran premium once or twice.
I continue to love driving my SF :shades: !
SF Limited FWD Premium w/XM built in Feb. 06. Golden Beige exterior and beige interior 6,000 miles since end of March.
I just passed the 3,000 mile mark on my '07 Limited AWD with Touring. Overall, I am averaging 18 mpg. The highest I've seen for a full tank was 20.4, and the lowest was 16.6 (lots of short trips, and included some towing of a small boat). The vast majority of the time, I'm seeing 17.5 to 18.5 mpg average over a tank of gas. I'm using 87 octane (regular unleaded), and my driving is mostly short trips (5-10 miles one way). In steady state cruising on the freeway at 70 mph, the computer has been showing 24-25 mpg. If I reset the computer when I fill the tank and don't touch it until my next refill, it almost always reads about the same as I calculate, i.e., about 18 mpg give or take a few tenths.
I just turned over 20,000 miles today. Overall mpg since I bought it is 23.0. The mpg has steadily increased: mile 0-5000 21.8 mile 5k-10,000 22.9 mile 10K-15,000 23.4 mile 15K-20,000 23.9
I got my 07 limited SF a few months ago. My mileage on a long road trip was 22.5 at best during the break in. Since then, 21.1 is the best I can get on short trips and errands. I have 5-20 synthetic oil in it now, and am using name brand premium fuel, here in Colo, thats 91 octane. I am getting a K&N air filter soon, but have heard that enlargeing the exhaust pipes a given amount will help with HP and mileage. Anyone tried this? thanks..
"I have 5-20 synthetic oil in it now, and am using name brand premium fuel, here in Colo, thats 91 octane. I am getting a K&N air filter soon, but have heard that enlargeing the exhaust pipes a given amount will help with HP and mileage. Anyone tried this?"
First of all, you are wasteing money on that 91 octane premium fuel. Your engine is designed for use with 87 octane fuel. Running 91 octane won't make any difference at all. Premium fuel only makes a difference in vehicles designed for use with them, and those are typically engines with high compression ratios and/or forced induction (turbochargers or superchargers). In those engines, higher octane resists detonation (aka "knock") that would otherwise sap performance and potentially damage the engine. In an engine designed for 87 octane, however, and that runs fine on 87 octane, running 91 doesn't do anything but lighten your wallet.
Also, skip the K&N air filter, and the larger exhaust. Both are wastes of money. They will not significantly increase your horsepower or mileage. In fact, they are more likely to hurt than to help. Plus, they will void your manufacturer's warranty.
I use 89 in my 2.7 gls it provides better highway acceleration in my opinion. As far as wasting money, if the performance was acceptable with 87 I wouldn't be wasting my money on 89. However, gas mileage continues to stink as the higher grade gas has no effect on gas mileage.
That's the trouble with gizmos like that. People rely on SOTP feelings instead of quantifiable measurements. After spending $50 on a "lifetime" air filter that I can get in paper for $9 at Wally World, I'm going to feel something too. :shades:
Note how the ads on such things will say (if they make a claim at all) that you'll get up to X% more power, mileage or whatever. Up to includes zero benefit.
Even if you closely track mpg and then swap filters, who's to say any increase in mpg you see would have resulted from a new paper one?
"I use 89 in my 2.7 gls it provides better highway acceleration in my opinion."
Um, no it doesn't. You may THINK it provides better acceleration, but it doesn't. Don't believe me? Find a local dyno shop, and run your SF on it using 87 octane, and then using 89 octane. Heck, run it with 91 octane! I have $100 that says you get NO measurable difference in horsepower or torque.
There is no difference in energy content between 87 and 91 octane. High octane gas is NOT more powerful, and it is physically impossible for it to make your car perform better. Higher octane does exactly one thing and one thing only -- it raises the temperature at which the air/fuel mixture will spontaneously combust. Gasoline engines use spark plugs for ignition, so spontaneous combustion is a bad thing. It's what is known as "detonation" or "knock."
This matters because when you compress a gas, its temperature rises. In your engine, the piston draws the air/fuel mixture in on the downstroke. The valves then close as the piston moves up. This is the "compression stroke" because the piston movement is compressing the air/fuel mixture. As that happens, its temperature climbs. Ideally, the spark plug fires at just the right point, which ignites the mixture and starts the power stroke.
In engines with a LOT of compression, the temperature of the mixture can rise so high that it will ignite spontaneously BEFORE the spark plug fires. This early ignition is obvious. You hear it as a loud knocking sound. Since it happens at the wrong point in the cycle, it actually fights the piston movement and reduces power, while at the same time putting enormous stresses on the pistol that will eventually damage the engine.
So engines designed with lots of compression, or with external compressors like turbochargers and superchargers, need fuel that will resist auto-ignition better than standard 87 octane fuel -- they need "premium" fuel. It has exactly the same amount of energy as 87 octane, but it can be used in high compression engines without causing knock.
But in engines that don't knock on 87 octane, running 91 octane accomplishes nothing it all. If your engine doesn't knock on 87 (and it won't if it was designed for 87), it is running as efficiently as possible and additional octane will not provide improved power or economy.
"Plus, they will void your manufacturer's warranty"
That's a pretty broad statement. Where do you get that a K&N filter voids a manufacturer's warranty? I've had one on every one of my cars for the past several years and never voided a warranty.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
After reading several sources commenting on it's fuel efficiency, have been carefully monitoring my Santa Fe 3.3L GL FWD fuel consumption.
With odometer at 3000km: 12L/100km, then soon after oil change at 6000km: 10.5L/100km. Just exceeded 11000km using light accelerator touch with mainly driving at 110km/h (5% in town commuting): 2wks ago, 8.9L/100km (26.5mpg) and then last week, 35L/430km = 8.1L/100km (29mpg)!
Though I have no regrets with the quietly powerful gasoline powerplant, I wouldn't hesitate to exchange it for the Santa Fe CRDilink title. This quiet and clean-burning Diesel can achieve more than 50mpg & is quicker off the mark with 253lb-ft torque (gasoline 3.3L has only 226lb-ft)! --- Available in Europe, Asia, S Africa and Oceania, why isn't it marketed in North America?
Americans don't view diesels as well as those in other countries (one visit to Europe changed my mind, however). We tend to percept diesels mostly coming from those dirty rigs; that, plus the strict emission regulations in the US has limited diesel entries on commercial fleet. By the end of the decade, however, there should be flew of diesel variant entries, including Hyundai's 3.0L V6 diesel (above the 2.2 CRDi), which is expected to arrive first, and added to Veracruz's powerplant.
"This quiet and clean-burning Diesel can achieve more than 50mpg & is quicker off the mark with 253lb-ft torque (gasoline 3.3L has only 226lb-ft)! --- Available in Europe, Asia, S Africa and Oceania, why isn't it marketed in North America?"
For several reasons. First of all, emissions regulations in the U.S., and in particular those in several states with their own emissions standards (California, for example), make it very hard for diesels. And the standards are getting progressively tighter, so even some diesels that make current standards won't in the next few years. Automakers need to standardize and mass produce as much as possible. Adding engine options to a model is very expensive, especially when you can only sell that option in some markets, and then only for a few years before you'll have to pull it. It is much cheaper to offer a single standard engine that you will put in every vehicle that comes down the line and sell everywhere.
In addition, diesels are MUCH more expensive to build than gas engines. To have any hope of meeting emissions standards, they need very high pressure computer controlled injection systems (30,000+ psi). Those are very expensive. In addition, they need very complicated and expensive emissions control equipment. As a result, diesels typically require a $3-5,000 premium over comparable gasoline engines. In a vehicle like the Santa Fe that stickers for $20-30k, and sells in large part on its value as compared to Honda and Toyota, you can expect very few buyers would be willing to pay that kind of premium. Since diesel fuel is just as expensive as regular gas, and in many cases more expensive, it also wouldn't save you much money on fuel unless the mileage gains are tremendous, which they aren't.
Umm, I consider 50mpg a major gain over the low 20s to upper teens. I would purchase this truck in a heart beat. Once canada has this truck I will do my best to try to import one.
"can achieve 50 mpg" does not mean that a vehicle equipped with it actually achieves a 50 mpg EPA rating, let alone gets that kind of mileage in practice. If you look at other vehicles in the U.S. and Canadian markets that have both gasoline and diesel engines available, you typically find that the diesel offers 30-40% better mileage than a gasoline engine with the same torque output. For an Santa Fe, that would mean a likely EPA city rating of 26-28 mpg instead of 19-20 mpg. I guaranty you that there is no diesel-powered passenger car or light truck on the market that achieves 150% better mileage than a comparable gasoline-powered version of that same vehicle.
There are certainly people willing to pay a premium for that 30-40% increase in fuel mileage. With diesel fuel prices running about 10% higher than gasoline, though, you're left with only a 20-30% net gain. For most people, that translates into annual fuel cost savings of a few hundred dollars, at best. Since diesels cost thousands of dollars more than gasoline engines, that's not a trade-off many people are willing to make.
Now, if there was such a thing as a diesel-powered Santa Fe that performed as well as the 3.3L gasoline V6 and got 50 mpg, Hyundai would sell a LOT of them, even at a price premium of several thousand dollars. You can't buy one, though, because it doesn't exist.
I quoted the >50mpg from article link title. EPA numbers are difficult to achieve, but if you review the article that i quoted in my previous post, the author measures his CRDi test drive 32 mpg on "hair-pin bends and cliff-side gullies ...[&] at times well above the 110 km/h limit on mostly-deserted two-lane major highways". I personally find that these test driver's numbers tend to apply more to the leaden footed.
If you search for "hyundai santa fe 2007 diesel" you'll find a world (i.e. English articles from Europe, S Africa, Australia and N Zealand) of articles on a powerplant that is alien to us, amongst which link title, where it's described as "efficient common-rail injection system that ...reduces noise, vibration and harshness (NVH). Fuel economy... 38.7mpg with emissions... 193g/km...as much junk as a good 1.3L 4-cylinder gas engine [&]...compliant even with strict European emission regulations". Anyone whose driven a Diesel from this decade knows how quiet and torquey these are relative to their gasoline equivalents,... and to previous generation Diesels with which N Amer's bitterly familiar (or would rather forget).
Thanks for your cogent explanation for the unavailability of Diesel in N Amer, kdahlquist. However, you mustn't live in Canada, because my local highest prices are Cdn$1.06/L gasoline and Cdn$.94/L Diesel. Perhaps the price difference explains the greater popularity of Diesel N of 49th.
Supposing a cost premium of Cdn$2000 for the Santa Fe CRDi (as it was for the Mark IV Golf TDI), then the point at which Gasoline engine costs $G begin exceed Diesel engine's costs $D is defined by: $D + $2000 fuel costs $ = Mileage (km) x combined fuel Consumption (L/100km) x fuel price (Cdn$/L). Therefore, the mileage M at which Diesel becomes more cost-efficient after factoring in its upfront purchase premium, ceteris paribus: MD x (6L/100km) x (Cdn$.94/L Diesel) + Cdn$2000MG x (9.8L/100km) x (Cdn$1.06/L Gasoline) Since we are seeking MD = MG, then M = Cdn$2000 / (.10388-.0564) = 42000km. If the cost difference is $3000, then the long-term savings start after 63000km.
These calculations don't factor in the cheaper maintenance costs of Diesel nor that incentives for low-emission vehicles will be legislated in Cdn. Since Santa Fe purchasers are generally buying for long-term use, a Diesel engine, at least in Canada, is a reasonably economic option. N Amer market's acceptance of Diesel is the primary obstacle, but judgeing by their enthusiasm for their "bluetec" Diesel, Mercedes-Benz isn't hedging that it is insurmountable: canadiandriver-link title & autobyte-link title. Would CRDi's 193g/km emissions pass the California standard?
...Now, if there was such a thing as a diesel-powered Santa Fe that performed as well as the 3.3L gasoline V6 and got 50 mpg ...it doesn't exist.
Actually, doesn't the better torque and fuel economy of the 2.2L CRDi already come close to this link title?
So I guess the article was lying about the close to 50mpg claim on the 2.2 Santa Fe Diesel? I doubt it. These diesels are coming. Jeep has one in the works that gets close to 40mpg, as does isuzu.
Jeez. Relax a little. I was explaining why a diesel isn't currently offered in the U.S. market. FWIW, diesels are very common in Europe. If I remember correctly, they make up around half of all new passenger vehicle sales in the EU. The last time I was in Europe, my rental car was a Volvo wagon with a diesel. It was awesome, and I'd love to own a diesel in the U.S., IF I didn't have to pay $5,000+ over a comparable gas-engined vehicle.
The U.S. is very different from Europe. A big part of the reason is the very different emissions regs. The vast majority of diesel engines on the market in Europe do not pass U.S. emissions regulations. As I recall, Europe's emissions regs focus mainly on carbon output, so diesels do well because of their improved efficiency. In the U.S., we have much tighter restrictions on things like oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides are a HUGE problem for diesels, as are many other pollutants that are quite hard to control downstream of the combustion chamber. High pressure common rail systems and extremely complicated emissions systems help, but making a diesel compliant with U.S. emissions regs is hugely expensive. Even some current diesels that do meet U.S. standards have been taken off the market in the U.S. because the U.S. standards are tightening annually, and the manufacturers are well aware that the powertrain will not meet the standards in a year or two, or because they meet the U.S. federal standards but not the tighter standards in certain states, and it's just too expensive to offer a diesel that you can only sell in some parts of the U.S. market. Volkswagen recently discontinued diesel offerings in many of its vehicles for that reason.
So the fact that Hyundai has a diesel on the market in another country doesn't tell you anything about whether it would be legal for sale in the U.S. If it was, don't you think Hyundai would be selling it?
Then again, maybe not. As someone noted above, Mercedes is one of the few manufacturers offering a diesel option in a passenger car for the U.S. market -- the "bluetec" diesel in the E320. In fact, when I noted the 30-40% economy gains, I was referring to the E320's EPA ratings as compared to the gasoline powered E350. The E320 doesn't get anywhere near 100% better mileage than the E350.
And the diesel Santa Fe's sold in Europe are very expensive by U.S. standards. According to one of those articles, the price for a diesel Santa Fe is 21-24,000 British Pounds. That's $43-49,00 in U.S. Dollars. The Mercedes E320 is north of $50k. In the U.S., the Santa Fe is positioned to sell for $20-28k. At that much lower price point, it is very, very hard to cover the much higher costs of diesel engines.
The bottom line is that car manufacturers aren't idiots. If they could put a diesel powertrain option in U.S. showrooms that would sell, they would. If Hyundai had a U.S.-legal 2.2L CRDi Santa Fe that got 50 mpg, and could sell it for under $30k, I guaranty you that they would. Heck, they might even do it with a price in the low 30s. When they do, I'll seriously considering trading in my 3.3L model.
"But in engines that don't knock on 87 octane, running 91 octane accomplishes nothing it all. If your engine doesn't knock on 87 (and it won't if it was designed for 87), it is running as efficiently as possible and additional octane will not provide improved power or economy. "
Virtually no modern engine will knock regardless of what octane fuel you run. Engines today can sense the knock and retard timing, essentially reducing compression and elminiating the knock at the expense of power and efficiency. So, theoretically, running a higher octane gas -can- improve performance if the lower octane gas is causing the engine to run at non-optimal timings.
Is this applicable on the Santa Fe? Probably not, and I certainly wouldn't pay the extra money for the higher octane fuel. However, in the Santa Fe's owner manual, it says:
Unleaded gasoline with a Pump Octane Rating of 87(Research Octane Number 91) or Higher must be used. For improved vehicle Performance, premium unleaded gasoline with Pump Octane Rating of 91(RON 95) or higher is recommended.
Are you pulling your trailer with a 2007 Santa Fe using a weight distribution hitch? I am having an issue with the the Draw-Tite hitch installed by the RV dealer. The sticker on the hitch states that I can't use a weight distribution hitch, which it desperately needs. The hitch is a class III three receiver rated at 3500/350. Can I have your vehicle specs and hitch/weight distribution hitch specs?
Anyone else have experience towing with the new 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe Limited with Tow package. Mine seems to have more rear end sag than it should. Trailer weighs in at 2800 lbs. Tongue weight at 340, a little heavy. From what I have read/researched, a weight distribution hitch is strongly discouraged by Hyundai (owners manual). Anyone have an idea why it is discouraged? There aren't aftermarket suspension airbags or load adjusting shocks at this time for this vehicle. I need lots of help!!
I have to say it runs better on 89, this is the 2.7 gls. I think this is the sweet spot especially on the highway, probably not with the bigger engine.
But I would be interested in how the bigger engine does with other than 87.
Around the time I took a test drive the bigger engine felt no more peppy than the 2.7 in suburban driving.
Of course as always gas mileage stinks.
With a least 89 I compare the gls auto awd to the 2005 awd 6 cyl Ford Escape, maybe better.
This vehicle has the least 70 mph vibration of any vehicle I've had in a long time.
One problem with a leaking windshield, but nothing else.
None of the tramission problems that some are reporting with the gls 4 speed.
Comments
Our AWD Santa Fe SE+touring pkg. got 16-18 MPG both to and from the high desert in Southern California.
My gripe is that there is no auto leveling suspension, or any manufacturer that makes some sort of direct replacement air shock or overload shocks for this vehicle. I am presently trying to do some modifications on some Monroe Air Shocks to see if I can get a pair to fit properly.
Thanks for sharing.
With a weight distribution hitch and sway control I'm riding perfectly level and it pulls/stops just fine. I won't need to upgrade the suspension/shocks at all. I'm taking it this weekend on a longer trip (400 mile roundtrip) to Bass Lake, Ca. We'll see how it hauls up the grades and brakes coming back down!
The trailer weights pretty near as much as the vehicle and the air drag is huge. Don't expect anywhere near the EPA estimated mileage.
Close to 600 miles round trip, up to 8500 feet in elevation. Sure will be great towing with our Santa Fe instead of our old under-powered 94 4-runner.
The Hyundai Rep authorized one car payment($294.00) for me but I can't get them to work on the warrantee problems. I don't know what is up with the company.
Keep us informed if you would.
Ed
I've got over 18K on my Santa Fe now and my average MPG is 22.9
Put in 16.005 gals gas having done 288.7 miles on the trip meter. That worked out to be 18.04 mpg.
BUT the AVG.MPG meter said 20.4 mpg. pretty much most of that tank of gas - therefore the trip meter must be wrongly calibrated.
Also it means that if the tank holds 19.8 gals gas when full, and the light came on at the range of 49 miles left in tank, and I put 16.005 gals in, there must be at least 3 1/2 gals of gas left in reserve, from the warning light.
If the meter says less than 50 miles range, at the metered AVG MPG of 20.4, then that would consume 2.45 gals of gas until you completely run out of gas. BUT if you actually use 18 mpg x 3.5then you only have a max. of 63 miles left after the warning light comes on to complete empty. So in fact you only have 12-13 miles of leeway before completley running out of gas after travelling that last 50 miles. That's pretty close.
Keep your paper records and don't reset the trip computer for 3 or 4 tanks to get a more accurate paper calculation.
Yes, your computer could be off, but don't assume it is.
A friend bought a new Azera in April. The car supposedly had a full tank of gas, but the guage only read 3/4's. I drove him the 100 miles to NJ to pick up the car and had let my tank run low to fill up on $.30 per gallon cheaper gas. Just after leaving the dealer I stopped for gas and my friend decided to fill up also since he only had 3/4 of a tank. In NJ, on ei snot allowed to pump their own gas and they have some kind of environmental thing to stop vapors from getting into the air. Well, his car took $.39 of gas (@ $2.699 per gallon) and the guage still showed 3/4 tank. He thought there was something wrong with the guage.
When we got home about 100 miles later he filled up and took about 8 gallons of gas. That would have been a little better than 12 mpg. But, without resetting his trip computer he has been averaging almost 23 mpg with roughly 50/50 hwy/local usage.
Clearly there was something wrong with the pump or the guy pumping it in NJ.
City Driving 19-20 Average
Interstate 26-27 Average
These numbers are right above the 19/24 rated mpg, so I'm pleased. I'm hoping that they will continue to improve as the engine gets broken in.
Don't go by the trip computer
I'm hoping the trip computer is not too far off. But I guess I will find out.
Gals of gas for an average mileage of ~20.28 MPG. The trip computer I reset at each fill up. The computer varies widely as to accuracy. The worst tankful the Trip Computer was off by 1.7 MPG reading 21.7 when calculated MPG was 19.0. The best was recorded the next tankful with the computer reading 20.9 and the calculated MPG was 20.92. I drive about 40/60 city/hwy running 70-80 on the highway portions. I am for the most part satisfied with my mileage which falls well within EPA range, which I understand is not a measure of what I will get but a tool to compare vehicles. I expect it will improve as time goes on.
Happy motoring all.
It only took 15.5 gallons to refill which means there were still 4 gallons left and actually closer to 80 miles range.
Is this pretty typical?
BTW, the computer figures out when to turn on the low fuel light when it reads > 50 miles range left.
I continue to love driving my SF :shades: !
SF Limited FWD Premium w/XM built in Feb. 06.
Golden Beige exterior and beige interior
6,000 miles since end of March.
17.9, 18.2, 17.0, 18.2, 21.5, 17.5, 20.8, 19.8, 20.5, 23.3, 18.9, 24.4, 22.3, 22.7, 22.2, 18.0, 23.6, 19.4, 21.8
... there was a mix of different driving ratios (highway-to-city) in there.
The mpg has steadily increased:
mile 0-5000 21.8
mile 5k-10,000 22.9
mile 10K-15,000 23.4
mile 15K-20,000 23.9
I have 5-20 synthetic oil in it now, and am using name brand premium fuel, here in Colo, thats 91 octane.
I am getting a K&N air filter soon, but have heard that enlargeing the exhaust pipes a given amount will help with HP and mileage. Anyone tried this? thanks..
psmitty, "GMC Sierra: Problems & Solutions" #1462, 19 Aug 2006 4:50 pm
New intakes or air boxes would be a different story I suppose.
I am getting a K&N air filter soon, but have heard that enlargeing the exhaust pipes a given amount will help with HP and mileage. Anyone tried this?"
First of all, you are wasteing money on that 91 octane premium fuel. Your engine is designed for use with 87 octane fuel. Running 91 octane won't make any difference at all. Premium fuel only makes a difference in vehicles designed for use with them, and those are typically engines with high compression ratios and/or forced induction (turbochargers or superchargers). In those engines, higher octane resists detonation (aka "knock") that would otherwise sap performance and potentially damage the engine. In an engine designed for 87 octane, however, and that runs fine on 87 octane, running 91 doesn't do anything but lighten your wallet.
Also, skip the K&N air filter, and the larger exhaust. Both are wastes of money. They will not significantly increase your horsepower or mileage. In fact, they are more likely to hurt than to help. Plus, they will void your manufacturer's warranty.
That's the trouble with gizmos like that. People rely on SOTP feelings instead of quantifiable measurements. After spending $50 on a "lifetime" air filter that I can get in paper for $9 at Wally World, I'm going to feel something too. :shades:
Note how the ads on such things will say (if they make a claim at all) that you'll get up to X% more power, mileage or whatever. Up to includes zero benefit.
Even if you closely track mpg and then swap filters, who's to say any increase in mpg you see would have resulted from a new paper one?
Um, no it doesn't. You may THINK it provides better acceleration, but it doesn't. Don't believe me? Find a local dyno shop, and run your SF on it using 87 octane, and then using 89 octane. Heck, run it with 91 octane! I have $100 that says you get NO measurable difference in horsepower or torque.
There is no difference in energy content between 87 and 91 octane. High octane gas is NOT more powerful, and it is physically impossible for it to make your car perform better. Higher octane does exactly one thing and one thing only -- it raises the temperature at which the air/fuel mixture will spontaneously combust. Gasoline engines use spark plugs for ignition, so spontaneous combustion is a bad thing. It's what is known as "detonation" or "knock."
This matters because when you compress a gas, its temperature rises. In your engine, the piston draws the air/fuel mixture in on the downstroke. The valves then close as the piston moves up. This is the "compression stroke" because the piston movement is compressing the air/fuel mixture. As that happens, its temperature climbs. Ideally, the spark plug fires at just the right point, which ignites the mixture and starts the power stroke.
In engines with a LOT of compression, the temperature of the mixture can rise so high that it will ignite spontaneously BEFORE the spark plug fires. This early ignition is obvious. You hear it as a loud knocking sound. Since it happens at the wrong point in the cycle, it actually fights the piston movement and reduces power, while at the same time putting enormous stresses on the pistol that will eventually damage the engine.
So engines designed with lots of compression, or with external compressors like turbochargers and superchargers, need fuel that will resist auto-ignition better than standard 87 octane fuel -- they need "premium" fuel. It has exactly the same amount of energy as 87 octane, but it can be used in high compression engines without causing knock.
But in engines that don't knock on 87 octane, running 91 octane accomplishes nothing it all. If your engine doesn't knock on 87 (and it won't if it was designed for 87), it is running as efficiently as possible and additional octane will not provide improved power or economy.
That's a pretty broad statement. Where do you get that a K&N filter voids a manufacturer's warranty? I've had one on every one of my cars for the past several years and never voided a warranty.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
With odometer at 3000km: 12L/100km, then soon after oil change at 6000km: 10.5L/100km.
Just exceeded 11000km using light accelerator touch with mainly driving at 110km/h (5% in town commuting): 2wks ago, 8.9L/100km (26.5mpg) and then last week, 35L/430km = 8.1L/100km (29mpg)!
Though I have no regrets with the quietly powerful gasoline powerplant, I wouldn't hesitate to exchange it for the Santa Fe CRDi link title. This quiet and clean-burning Diesel can achieve more than 50mpg & is quicker off the mark with 253lb-ft torque (gasoline 3.3L has only 226lb-ft)!
--- Available in Europe, Asia, S Africa and Oceania, why isn't it marketed in North America?
Americans don't view diesels as well as those in other countries (one visit to Europe changed my mind, however). We tend to percept diesels mostly coming from those dirty rigs; that, plus the strict emission regulations in the US has limited diesel entries on commercial fleet. By the end of the decade, however, there should be flew of diesel variant entries, including Hyundai's 3.0L V6 diesel (above the 2.2 CRDi), which is expected to arrive first, and added to Veracruz's powerplant.
--- Available in Europe, Asia, S Africa and Oceania, why isn't it marketed in North America?"
For several reasons. First of all, emissions regulations in the U.S., and in particular those in several states with their own emissions standards (California, for example), make it very hard for diesels. And the standards are getting progressively tighter, so even some diesels that make current standards won't in the next few years. Automakers need to standardize and mass produce as much as possible. Adding engine options to a model is very expensive, especially when you can only sell that option in some markets, and then only for a few years before you'll have to pull it. It is much cheaper to offer a single standard engine that you will put in every vehicle that comes down the line and sell everywhere.
In addition, diesels are MUCH more expensive to build than gas engines. To have any hope of meeting emissions standards, they need very high pressure computer controlled injection systems (30,000+ psi). Those are very expensive. In addition, they need very complicated and expensive emissions control equipment. As a result, diesels typically require a $3-5,000 premium over comparable gasoline engines. In a vehicle like the Santa Fe that stickers for $20-30k, and sells in large part on its value as compared to Honda and Toyota, you can expect very few buyers would be willing to pay that kind of premium. Since diesel fuel is just as expensive as regular gas, and in many cases more expensive, it also wouldn't save you much money on fuel unless the mileage gains are tremendous, which they aren't.
I consider 50mpg a major gain over the low 20s to upper teens. I would purchase this truck in a heart beat. Once canada has this truck I will do my best to try to import one.
There are certainly people willing to pay a premium for that 30-40% increase in fuel mileage. With diesel fuel prices running about 10% higher than gasoline, though, you're left with only a 20-30% net gain. For most people, that translates into annual fuel cost savings of a few hundred dollars, at best. Since diesels cost thousands of dollars more than gasoline engines, that's not a trade-off many people are willing to make.
Now, if there was such a thing as a diesel-powered Santa Fe that performed as well as the 3.3L gasoline V6 and got 50 mpg, Hyundai would sell a LOT of them, even at a price premium of several thousand dollars. You can't buy one, though, because it doesn't exist.
If you search for "hyundai santa fe 2007 diesel" you'll find a world (i.e. English articles from Europe, S Africa, Australia and N Zealand) of articles on a powerplant that is alien to us, amongst which link title, where it's described as "efficient common-rail injection system that ...reduces noise, vibration and harshness (NVH). Fuel economy... 38.7mpg with emissions... 193g/km...as much junk as a good 1.3L 4-cylinder gas engine [&]...compliant even with strict European emission regulations". Anyone whose driven a Diesel from this decade knows how quiet and torquey these are relative to their gasoline equivalents,... and to previous generation Diesels with which N Amer's bitterly familiar (or would rather forget).
Thanks for your cogent explanation for the unavailability of Diesel in N Amer, kdahlquist. However, you mustn't live in Canada, because my local highest prices are Cdn$1.06/L gasoline and Cdn$.94/L Diesel. Perhaps the price difference explains the greater popularity of Diesel N of 49th.
Supposing a cost premium of Cdn$2000 for the Santa Fe CRDi (as it was for the Mark IV Golf TDI), then the point at which Gasoline engine costs $G begin exceed Diesel engine's costs $D is defined by:
$D + $2000 fuel costs $ = Mileage (km) x combined fuel Consumption (L/100km) x fuel price (Cdn$/L).
Therefore, the mileage M at which Diesel becomes more cost-efficient after factoring in its upfront purchase premium, ceteris paribus:
MD x (6L/100km) x (Cdn$.94/L Diesel) + Cdn$2000 MG x (9.8L/100km) x (Cdn$1.06/L Gasoline)
Since we are seeking MD = MG, then M = Cdn$2000 / (.10388-.0564) = 42000km. If the cost difference is $3000, then the long-term savings start after 63000km.
These calculations don't factor in the cheaper maintenance costs of Diesel nor that incentives for low-emission vehicles will be legislated in Cdn. Since Santa Fe purchasers are generally buying for long-term use, a Diesel engine, at least in Canada, is a reasonably economic option. N Amer market's acceptance of Diesel is the primary obstacle, but judgeing by their enthusiasm for their "bluetec" Diesel, Mercedes-Benz isn't hedging that it is insurmountable: canadiandriver-link title & autobyte-link title. Would CRDi's 193g/km emissions pass the California standard?
...Now, if there was such a thing as a diesel-powered Santa Fe that performed as well as the 3.3L gasoline V6 and got 50 mpg ...it doesn't exist.
Actually, doesn't the better torque and fuel economy of the 2.2L CRDi already come close to this link title?
The U.S. is very different from Europe. A big part of the reason is the very different emissions regs. The vast majority of diesel engines on the market in Europe do not pass U.S. emissions regulations. As I recall, Europe's emissions regs focus mainly on carbon output, so diesels do well because of their improved efficiency. In the U.S., we have much tighter restrictions on things like oxides of nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides are a HUGE problem for diesels, as are many other pollutants that are quite hard to control downstream of the combustion chamber. High pressure common rail systems and extremely complicated emissions systems help, but making a diesel compliant with U.S. emissions regs is hugely expensive. Even some current diesels that do meet U.S. standards have been taken off the market in the U.S. because the U.S. standards are tightening annually, and the manufacturers are well aware that the powertrain will not meet the standards in a year or two, or because they meet the U.S. federal standards but not the tighter standards in certain states, and it's just too expensive to offer a diesel that you can only sell in some parts of the U.S. market. Volkswagen recently discontinued diesel offerings in many of its vehicles for that reason.
So the fact that Hyundai has a diesel on the market in another country doesn't tell you anything about whether it would be legal for sale in the U.S. If it was, don't you think Hyundai would be selling it?
Then again, maybe not. As someone noted above, Mercedes is one of the few manufacturers offering a diesel option in a passenger car for the U.S. market -- the "bluetec" diesel in the E320. In fact, when I noted the 30-40% economy gains, I was referring to the E320's EPA ratings as compared to the gasoline powered E350. The E320 doesn't get anywhere near 100% better mileage than the E350.
And the diesel Santa Fe's sold in Europe are very expensive by U.S. standards. According to one of those articles, the price for a diesel Santa Fe is 21-24,000 British Pounds. That's $43-49,00 in U.S. Dollars. The Mercedes E320 is north of $50k. In the U.S., the Santa Fe is positioned to sell for $20-28k. At that much lower price point, it is very, very hard to cover the much higher costs of diesel engines.
The bottom line is that car manufacturers aren't idiots. If they could put a diesel powertrain option in U.S. showrooms that would sell, they would. If Hyundai had a U.S.-legal 2.2L CRDi Santa Fe that got 50 mpg, and could sell it for under $30k, I guaranty you that they would. Heck, they might even do it with a price in the low 30s. When they do, I'll seriously considering trading in my 3.3L model.
Virtually no modern engine will knock regardless of what octane fuel you run. Engines today can sense the knock and retard timing, essentially reducing compression and elminiating the knock at the expense of power and efficiency. So, theoretically, running a higher octane gas -can- improve performance if the lower octane gas is causing the engine to run at non-optimal timings.
Is this applicable on the Santa Fe? Probably not, and I certainly wouldn't pay the extra money for the higher octane fuel. However, in the Santa Fe's owner manual, it says:
Unleaded gasoline with a Pump Octane
Rating of 87(Research Octane Number
91) or Higher must be used. For improved
vehicle Performance, premium
unleaded gasoline with Pump Octane
Rating of 91(RON 95) or higher is recommended.
Anyone else have experience towing with the new 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe Limited with Tow package. Mine seems to have more rear end sag than it should. Trailer weighs in at 2800 lbs. Tongue weight at 340, a little heavy. From what I have read/researched, a weight distribution hitch is strongly discouraged by Hyundai (owners manual). Anyone have an idea why it is discouraged? There aren't aftermarket suspension airbags or load adjusting shocks at this time for this vehicle. I need lots of help!!
But I would be interested in how the bigger engine does with other than 87.
Around the time I took a test drive the bigger engine felt no more peppy than the 2.7 in suburban driving.
Of course as always gas mileage stinks.
With a least 89 I compare the gls auto awd to the 2005 awd 6 cyl Ford Escape, maybe better.
This vehicle has the least 70 mph vibration of any vehicle I've had in a long time.
One problem with a leaking windshield, but nothing else.
None of the tramission problems that some are reporting with the gls 4 speed.