Topic: Long-Term Test Update 1: 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe XL

[Autos_Editor]

Our long-term Hyundai Santa Fe XL is put to immediate use, proving its flexible functionality as the Yarkony's family hauler.

Read More...

[Patrick_D1]

Glad to hear it's been a good companion to date!

Regarding the slush on the sills, I don't think it will be an issue. If you look at the doors, you'll see that the outer panels extend all the way below the sill. This full length is intentional, as it keeps the door sills cleaner and carries any slush build-up away as you open it.

[Jaeger]

Fuel consumption to date is pretty darned good for a big vehicle doing mostly city work.

[aquadorhj]

Fuel consumption to date is pretty darned good for a big vehicle doing mostly city work.

+1

my buddy got the new santa fe (not XL) and he said he's getting about 11L/100 mostly city being careful.

[blotter]

this vehicle is slowly creeping into my list of what i'm looking at.
the fuel numbers are certainly quite good for it's size. 

[Spheric]

I would consider this except for Hyundai Canada's money grabbing 6000km service intervals which negates any cost savings made up front in the purchase.

[Ace]

I don't trust the "on dash" computer  fuel consumption figures. Try the old fashioned manual calculation next fill-up, I'll bet the numbers are higher.

[jyarkony]

I don't trust the "on dash" computer  fuel consumption figures. Try the old fashioned manual calculation next fill-up, I'll bet the numbers are higher.

The overall 10.5 L/100 km was calculated using receipts and odometer, not the in-dash trip computer. Only the 8.5 for highway trip was referencing the in-dash figure. In this case, the in-dash seems to be giving a fairly accurate result.

Others I've found tend to take longer distances (and several fill-ups) beofre the manual calculations agree. after several long-term tests, in which I've always maintained receipts to calculate fuel consumption, every car's manual calculation has landed within 0.1 or 0.2 L/100 km of the trip computer calculation.

Just because you have trust issues doesn't mean they are not accurate. Then again, I don't trust them entirely either, which is why i always track long-term cars manually as well... we're working on a story about that, results should be in soon...

[nlm]

The 40/20/40 split second row and built-in window shades are a nice and convenient touches.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I don't trust the "on dash" computer  fuel consumption figures. Try the old fashioned manual calculation next fill-up, I'll bet the numbers are higher.

The overall 10.5 L/100 km was calculated using receipts and odometer, not the in-dash trip computer. Only the 8.5 for highway trip was referencing the in-dash figure. In this case, the in-dash seems to be giving a fairly accurate result.

Others I've found tend to take longer distances (and several fill-ups) beofre the manual calculations agree. after several long-term tests, in which I've always maintained receipts to calculate fuel consumption, every car's manual calculation has landed within 0.1 or 0.2 L/100 km of the trip computer calculation.

Just because you have trust issues doesn't mean they are not accurate. Then again, I don't trust them entirely either, which is why i always track long-term cars manually as well... we're working on a story about that, results should be in soon...

I check every car I get, and invariably my hand calculations end up like yours, within .1 or so of the trip computer.

[mixmanmash]

I don't trust the "on dash" computer  fuel consumption figures. Try the old fashioned manual calculation next fill-up, I'll bet the numbers are higher.

The overall 10.5 L/100 km was calculated using receipts and odometer, not the in-dash trip computer. Only the 8.5 for highway trip was referencing the in-dash figure. In this case, the in-dash seems to be giving a fairly accurate result.

Others I've found tend to take longer distances (and several fill-ups) beofre the manual calculations agree. after several long-term tests, in which I've always maintained receipts to calculate fuel consumption, every car's manual calculation has landed within 0.1 or 0.2 L/100 km of the trip computer calculation.

Just because you have trust issues doesn't mean they are not accurate. Then again, I don't trust them entirely either, which is why i always track long-term cars manually as well... we're working on a story about that, results should be in soon...

I check every car I get, and invariably my hand calculations end up like yours, within .1 or so of the trip computer.

I have found this true of certain cars only.  My dad's 2006 E320 CDI is pretty accurate.  In fact, it reports 0.1-0.2 L/100km worse than what the hand calculation works out to.  You have the ability to reset it after every fill if you like.

My dad's 2000 ML320 is totally all over the place.  It appears it only reports the average for the last 100 km.  I had a 2011 Ford Focus rental in California (drove from San Francisco down to San Diego while touring) and it too was all over the map, probably because it does the same thing only reports for the last 100 miles.  At one point I had it reading 54 mpg.  When I did the hand math, it worked out to 42 mpg.

[blotter]

if i'm reading the Hyundai site correctly it's interesting to see that the FWD, Premium and Luxury models come with a bench second row seats and the Limited model has the second row captains chairs.
?

[Fobroader]

Great looking vehicle and a very well written review. Too bad it has the same problem as all other "7 seat" suvs, they are really 5.75 or 6 seaters in reality.

[carcrazed]

Seems like Hyundai got their fuel consumption numbers straight after the whole misrepresentation fiasco.

I don't see very many of these on the road.. although it's probably too early to tell, I wonder how its sales figure is like so far?

[blotter]

^^^
I see tones of them around here.   I just can't always tell if it's the XL or the 5-seaters.

[dirtyjeffer]

i too have seen a TON of new Santa Fe's around...i think they are the "Sport" versions though (5 seater) as they have been out longer.

[sailor723]

I agree with the comment about the 6000km service intervals. That does seem like a cash grab in this day and age.

[dirtyjeffer]

my Rio5 is 8,000km intervals, but i get lifetime free oil changes anyway, so no big deal.

[sailor723]

It's actually more about time/hassle than money with me. I really like the every 15K schedule with the MB.

[Ace]

I don't trust the "on dash" computer  fuel consumption figures. Try the old fashioned manual calculation next fill-up, I'll bet the numbers are higher.

The overall 10.5 L/100 km was calculated using receipts and odometer, not the in-dash trip computer. Only the 8.5 for highway trip was referencing the in-dash figure. In this case, the in-dash seems to be giving a fairly accurate result.

Others I've found tend to take longer distances (and several fill-ups) beofre the manual calculations agree. after several long-term tests, in which I've always maintained receipts to calculate fuel consumption, every car's manual calculation has landed within 0.1 or 0.2 L/100 km of the trip computer calculation.

Just because you have trust issues doesn't mean they are not accurate. Then again, I don't trust them entirely either, which is why i always track long-term cars manually as well... we're working on a story about that, results should be in soon...

Thanks for confirming those numbers, I look forward to your story on those PooPoo el Toro fuel consumption numbers claimed by many of the manufacturers,
I'm really impressed with this Santa Fe V-6, I have to take it easy to keep my average under 10L/100KM with my Kia Sorento  2.5 4 cylinder AWD.