2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
02-21-2006, 10:41 AM
#76
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.
02-21-2006, 10:46 AM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
I must apologize to all respondants to this part of my inquiry, and
offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
02-21-2006, 10:46 AM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
I must apologize to all respondants to this part of my inquiry, and
offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
02-21-2006, 10:46 AM
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
I must apologize to all respondants to this part of my inquiry, and
offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
02-21-2006, 01:12 PM
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
notice how you left the other persons message out..;-)
"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140535938.319136.193210@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> 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?
>
"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140535938.319136.193210@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> 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?
>
02-21-2006, 01:12 PM
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
notice how you left the other persons message out..;-)
"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140535938.319136.193210@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> 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?
>
"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140535938.319136.193210@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> 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?
>
02-21-2006, 01:12 PM
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
notice how you left the other persons message out..;-)
"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140535938.319136.193210@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> 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?
>
"WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungoncetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140535938.319136.193210@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> 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?
>
02-21-2006, 02:05 PM
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> notice how you left the other persons message out..;-)
I notice how you gloss over the fact that your previous response was
brain-dead. In any event, the "other person's" message was
non-inflammatory, so its content was not relevant with regard to the
asinine tone of your response.
I notice how you gloss over the fact that your previous response was
brain-dead. In any event, the "other person's" message was
non-inflammatory, so its content was not relevant with regard to the
asinine tone of your response.
02-21-2006, 02:05 PM
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> notice how you left the other persons message out..;-)
I notice how you gloss over the fact that your previous response was
brain-dead. In any event, the "other person's" message was
non-inflammatory, so its content was not relevant with regard to the
asinine tone of your response.
I notice how you gloss over the fact that your previous response was
brain-dead. In any event, the "other person's" message was
non-inflammatory, so its content was not relevant with regard to the
asinine tone of your response.
02-21-2006, 02:05 PM
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
> notice how you left the other persons message out..;-)
I notice how you gloss over the fact that your previous response was
brain-dead. In any event, the "other person's" message was
non-inflammatory, so its content was not relevant with regard to the
asinine tone of your response.
I notice how you gloss over the fact that your previous response was
brain-dead. In any event, the "other person's" message was
non-inflammatory, so its content was not relevant with regard to the
asinine tone of your response.
02-21-2006, 05:38 PM
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
>>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.
>
I'm curious, why didn't you buy another Explorer or an Escape if you
wanted something smaller?
Matt
>>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.
>
I'm curious, why didn't you buy another Explorer or an Escape if you
wanted something smaller?
Matt
02-21-2006, 05:38 PM
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
>>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.
>
I'm curious, why didn't you buy another Explorer or an Escape if you
wanted something smaller?
Matt
>>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.
>
I'm curious, why didn't you buy another Explorer or an Escape if you
wanted something smaller?
Matt
02-21-2006, 05:38 PM
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
>>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.
>
I'm curious, why didn't you buy another Explorer or an Escape if you
wanted something smaller?
Matt
>>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.
>
I'm curious, why didn't you buy another Explorer or an Escape if you
wanted something smaller?
Matt
02-21-2006, 05:41 PM
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
> I must apologize to all respondants to this part of my inquiry, and
> offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
> of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
> indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
> didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
> previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
> event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
> electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
> is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
>
I have a similar problem with my 06 Sonata. The dealer told me that the
electronics can't be adjusted. Mine is clearly an electronics problem,
not a sticking problem. The throttle is very touchy and has a slight
delay in actuation. Makes driving standard shift a bear.
I should have taken a longer test drive. I assumed my trouble was
simply lack of familiarity with the car since I typically drive a
full-size Chevy pickup with standard shift. However, now that I've
owned the Sonata for two months, I know it isn't a familiarity issue.
It is a design issue with the electronic throttle. I've gotten better
with it, but I still can't make consistent smooth starts without either
over or under reving the engine.
If I'd known this was characteristic of the vehicle, I would not have
bought it, or at least wouldn't have bought the standard shift model.
Matt
> I must apologize to all respondants to this part of my inquiry, and
> offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
> of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
> indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
> didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
> previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
> event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
> electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
> is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
>
I have a similar problem with my 06 Sonata. The dealer told me that the
electronics can't be adjusted. Mine is clearly an electronics problem,
not a sticking problem. The throttle is very touchy and has a slight
delay in actuation. Makes driving standard shift a bear.
I should have taken a longer test drive. I assumed my trouble was
simply lack of familiarity with the car since I typically drive a
full-size Chevy pickup with standard shift. However, now that I've
owned the Sonata for two months, I know it isn't a familiarity issue.
It is a design issue with the electronic throttle. I've gotten better
with it, but I still can't make consistent smooth starts without either
over or under reving the engine.
If I'd known this was characteristic of the vehicle, I would not have
bought it, or at least wouldn't have bought the standard shift model.
Matt
02-21-2006, 05:41 PM
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2005 Santa Fe Accelerator
WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
> I must apologize to all respondants to this part of my inquiry, and
> offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
> of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
> indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
> didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
> previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
> event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
> electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
> is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
>
I have a similar problem with my 06 Sonata. The dealer told me that the
electronics can't be adjusted. Mine is clearly an electronics problem,
not a sticking problem. The throttle is very touchy and has a slight
delay in actuation. Makes driving standard shift a bear.
I should have taken a longer test drive. I assumed my trouble was
simply lack of familiarity with the car since I typically drive a
full-size Chevy pickup with standard shift. However, now that I've
owned the Sonata for two months, I know it isn't a familiarity issue.
It is a design issue with the electronic throttle. I've gotten better
with it, but I still can't make consistent smooth starts without either
over or under reving the engine.
If I'd known this was characteristic of the vehicle, I would not have
bought it, or at least wouldn't have bought the standard shift model.
Matt
> I must apologize to all respondants to this part of my inquiry, and
> offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point
> of paying extra attention to the issue and noted that, while there is
> indeed a little extra mechanical resistance, the sudden acceleration
> didn't correlate as closely with the "breaking" of the pedel as I
> previously perceived. There is actually a very tiny delay between that
> event and the sudden acceleration, leading me to suspect the
> electronics as the culprit. Does that sound more reasonable? If so,
> is it something easily addressed by the dealer?
>
I have a similar problem with my 06 Sonata. The dealer told me that the
electronics can't be adjusted. Mine is clearly an electronics problem,
not a sticking problem. The throttle is very touchy and has a slight
delay in actuation. Makes driving standard shift a bear.
I should have taken a longer test drive. I assumed my trouble was
simply lack of familiarity with the car since I typically drive a
full-size Chevy pickup with standard shift. However, now that I've
owned the Sonata for two months, I know it isn't a familiarity issue.
It is a design issue with the electronic throttle. I've gotten better
with it, but I still can't make consistent smooth starts without either
over or under reving the engine.
If I'd known this was characteristic of the vehicle, I would not have
bought it, or at least wouldn't have bought the standard shift model.
Matt
