2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
There are often trade-offs for better fuel economy -- many times higher
compression, which allows more power but exerts more force on the engine
components. Hyundai has never been known to be on the upper spectrum of
engine compression.
If you rate a design poor just because of fuel economy, then you're being
rather narrow-minded as to all the variables of powertrain design.
compression, which allows more power but exerts more force on the engine
components. Hyundai has never been known to be on the upper spectrum of
engine compression.
If you rate a design poor just because of fuel economy, then you're being
rather narrow-minded as to all the variables of powertrain design.
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> not the one WHINIG about my gas mileage.
Learn the difference between an inquiry and "whining", Einstein.
> did your mommy throw you out of the sandbox too early in life??
No...but it sounds like your mommy dropped you on your head one time
too many.
Learn the difference between an inquiry and "whining", Einstein.
> did your mommy throw you out of the sandbox too early in life??
No...but it sounds like your mommy dropped you on your head one time
too many.
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> not the one WHINIG about my gas mileage.
Learn the difference between an inquiry and "whining", Einstein.
> did your mommy throw you out of the sandbox too early in life??
No...but it sounds like your mommy dropped you on your head one time
too many.
Learn the difference between an inquiry and "whining", Einstein.
> did your mommy throw you out of the sandbox too early in life??
No...but it sounds like your mommy dropped you on your head one time
too many.
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> not the one WHINIG about my gas mileage.
Learn the difference between an inquiry and "whining", Einstein.
> did your mommy throw you out of the sandbox too early in life??
No...but it sounds like your mommy dropped you on your head one time
too many.
Learn the difference between an inquiry and "whining", Einstein.
> did your mommy throw you out of the sandbox too early in life??
No...but it sounds like your mommy dropped you on your head one time
too many.
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> EPA fuel estimates are notoriously inaccurate and should be used only for
> purposes of comparison with other vehicles.
Thanks, but I'm well aware of that, and that is precisely how I viewed
them. That's also why I didn't rely on them primarily, as indicated by
my citations of other sources of information in my previous post.
> purposes of comparison with other vehicles.
Thanks, but I'm well aware of that, and that is precisely how I viewed
them. That's also why I didn't rely on them primarily, as indicated by
my citations of other sources of information in my previous post.
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> EPA fuel estimates are notoriously inaccurate and should be used only for
> purposes of comparison with other vehicles.
Thanks, but I'm well aware of that, and that is precisely how I viewed
them. That's also why I didn't rely on them primarily, as indicated by
my citations of other sources of information in my previous post.
> purposes of comparison with other vehicles.
Thanks, but I'm well aware of that, and that is precisely how I viewed
them. That's also why I didn't rely on them primarily, as indicated by
my citations of other sources of information in my previous post.
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> EPA fuel estimates are notoriously inaccurate and should be used only for
> purposes of comparison with other vehicles.
Thanks, but I'm well aware of that, and that is precisely how I viewed
them. That's also why I didn't rely on them primarily, as indicated by
my citations of other sources of information in my previous post.
> purposes of comparison with other vehicles.
Thanks, but I'm well aware of that, and that is precisely how I viewed
them. That's also why I didn't rely on them primarily, as indicated by
my citations of other sources of information in my previous post.
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> making friends all over I see.. hmmmmmmmmmmmm makes ya wonder dont it???
Yes...it makes me wonder how you've managed to survive this long
without any demonstrable brain activity. The quote in the post you're
replying to was from YOU in another thread. Are you on some sort of
medication?
Yes...it makes me wonder how you've managed to survive this long
without any demonstrable brain activity. The quote in the post you're
replying to was from YOU in another thread. Are you on some sort of
medication?
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> making friends all over I see.. hmmmmmmmmmmmm makes ya wonder dont it???
Yes...it makes me wonder how you've managed to survive this long
without any demonstrable brain activity. The quote in the post you're
replying to was from YOU in another thread. Are you on some sort of
medication?
Yes...it makes me wonder how you've managed to survive this long
without any demonstrable brain activity. The quote in the post you're
replying to was from YOU in another thread. Are you on some sort of
medication?
#73
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> making friends all over I see.. hmmmmmmmmmmmm makes ya wonder dont it???
Yes...it makes me wonder how you've managed to survive this long
without any demonstrable brain activity. The quote in the post you're
replying to was from YOU in another thread. Are you on some sort of
medication?
Yes...it makes me wonder how you've managed to survive this long
without any demonstrable brain activity. The quote in the post you're
replying to was from YOU in another thread. Are you on some sort of
medication?
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> If you rate a design poor just because of fuel economy, then you're being
> rather narrow-minded as to all the variables of powertrain design.
20 years ago you might have been right, but today there's precious
little excuse for sub-17 mpg efficiency - given primarily steady
highway driving - in a vehicle as relatively small and light as the
Santa Fe. As already indicated, my 10 year-old, much heavier Explorer
(with performance that easily equals the SF's) was not only giving me
better gas mileage, it did so for over 154,000 trouble-free miles, and
with minimal maintenance on my part. What advantages above that should
I expect from the SF as my "trade-off" for the reduced mileage? I'm
not being confrontational about this (I prefer to leave the mindlessly
obnoxious behavior to Pete and his ilk). I'm genuinely looking for
answers.
> rather narrow-minded as to all the variables of powertrain design.
20 years ago you might have been right, but today there's precious
little excuse for sub-17 mpg efficiency - given primarily steady
highway driving - in a vehicle as relatively small and light as the
Santa Fe. As already indicated, my 10 year-old, much heavier Explorer
(with performance that easily equals the SF's) was not only giving me
better gas mileage, it did so for over 154,000 trouble-free miles, and
with minimal maintenance on my part. What advantages above that should
I expect from the SF as my "trade-off" for the reduced mileage? I'm
not being confrontational about this (I prefer to leave the mindlessly
obnoxious behavior to Pete and his ilk). I'm genuinely looking for
answers.
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> If you rate a design poor just because of fuel economy, then you're being
> rather narrow-minded as to all the variables of powertrain design.
20 years ago you might have been right, but today there's precious
little excuse for sub-17 mpg efficiency - given primarily steady
highway driving - in a vehicle as relatively small and light as the
Santa Fe. As already indicated, my 10 year-old, much heavier Explorer
(with performance that easily equals the SF's) was not only giving me
better gas mileage, it did so for over 154,000 trouble-free miles, and
with minimal maintenance on my part. What advantages above that should
I expect from the SF as my "trade-off" for the reduced mileage? I'm
not being confrontational about this (I prefer to leave the mindlessly
obnoxious behavior to Pete and his ilk). I'm genuinely looking for
answers.
> rather narrow-minded as to all the variables of powertrain design.
20 years ago you might have been right, but today there's precious
little excuse for sub-17 mpg efficiency - given primarily steady
highway driving - in a vehicle as relatively small and light as the
Santa Fe. As already indicated, my 10 year-old, much heavier Explorer
(with performance that easily equals the SF's) was not only giving me
better gas mileage, it did so for over 154,000 trouble-free miles, and
with minimal maintenance on my part. What advantages above that should
I expect from the SF as my "trade-off" for the reduced mileage? I'm
not being confrontational about this (I prefer to leave the mindlessly
obnoxious behavior to Pete and his ilk). I'm genuinely looking for
answers.