Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

Hello everyone,

I bought a 2004 Santa Fe LX with the 3.5L V6 back in November. I've got
about 4400 miles on it and I am quite disappointed in the mileage I am
getting, which has been 14 city and 18 highway. The sticker claimed it
would get 17/21. I know that stickers lie but I didn't think it would
be this bad. The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 4L V6 that I traded in
got better mileage.

I've done some searching on this group to try and get some idea of
whether or not this is normal but there aren't many postings about the
3.5L engine. So I'm putting it out there now to get opinions,
experience, etc.

Thanks for any responses!!

Babunga
www.babunga.com

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

.....well I've got a '05 with a 3.5 ....barely broken in.....and I get 17.5
in town....(mind you this is with imperial gallons)
Len
"seemore_babunga" <seemore@babunga.com> wrote in message
news:1113698748.814209.295950@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello everyone,
>
> I bought a 2004 Santa Fe LX with the 3.5L V6 back in November. I've got
> about 4400 miles on it and I am quite disappointed in the mileage I am
> getting, which has been 14 city and 18 highway. The sticker claimed it
> would get 17/21. I know that stickers lie but I didn't think it would
> be this bad. The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 4L V6 that I traded in
> got better mileage.
>
> I've done some searching on this group to try and get some idea of
> whether or not this is normal but there aren't many postings about the
> 3.5L engine. So I'm putting it out there now to get opinions,
> experience, etc.
>
> Thanks for any responses!!
>
> Babunga
> www.babunga.com
>

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

3 mpg difference, thats not all that bad really...
"seemore_babunga" <seemore@babunga.com> wrote in message
news:1113698748.814209.295950@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello everyone,
>
> I bought a 2004 Santa Fe LX with the 3.5L V6 back in November. I've got
> about 4400 miles on it and I am quite disappointed in the mileage I am
> getting, which has been 14 city and 18 highway. The sticker claimed it
> would get 17/21. I know that stickers lie but I didn't think it would
> be this bad. The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 4L V6 that I traded in
> got better mileage.
>
> I've done some searching on this group to try and get some idea of
> whether or not this is normal but there aren't many postings about the
> 3.5L engine. So I'm putting it out there now to get opinions,
> experience, etc.
>
> Thanks for any responses!!
>
> Babunga
> www.babunga.com
>

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:49:58 -0600, "Krazy Kanuck"
<limbery@removethisaccesscomm.ca> wrote:

>....well I've got a '05 with a 3.5 ....barely broken in.....and I get 17.5
>in town....(mind you this is with imperial gallons)

No such thing. There's not a country in the world where they exist
anymore. They're as extinct as the dinosaur so why mention them?

>Len
>"seemore_babunga" <seemore@babunga.com> wrote in message
>news:1113698748.814209.295950@g14g2000cwa.googleg roups.com...
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I bought a 2004 Santa Fe LX with the 3.5L V6 back in November. I've got
>> about 4400 miles on it and I am quite disappointed in the mileage I am
>> getting, which has been 14 city and 18 highway. The sticker claimed it
>> would get 17/21. I know that stickers lie but I didn't think it would
>> be this bad. The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 4L V6 that I traded in
>> got better mileage.
>>
>> I've done some searching on this group to try and get some idea of
>> whether or not this is normal but there aren't many postings about the
>> 3.5L engine. So I'm putting it out there now to get opinions,
>> experience, etc.
>>
>> Thanks for any responses!!
>>
>> Babunga
>> www.babunga.com
>>
>

To view the day to day life of a loser go here.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~farmerjim/log/log.html

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

I have the same 04 lx / 3.5 v6 and I am getting about the same mileage as
you. They are pretty hard on gas. It is just the opposite of my 05 Nissan
sentra that I brought for commuter service I drive about 100 miles daily,
the sticker had 35 hwy and I am getting 37 mpg.
"seemore_babunga" <seemore@babunga.com> wrote in message
news:1113698748.814209.295950@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello everyone,
>
> I bought a 2004 Santa Fe LX with the 3.5L V6 back in November. I've got
> about 4400 miles on it and I am quite disappointed in the mileage I am
> getting, which has been 14 city and 18 highway. The sticker claimed it
> would get 17/21. I know that stickers lie but I didn't think it would
> be this bad. The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 4L V6 that I traded in
> got better mileage.
>
> I've done some searching on this group to try and get some idea of
> whether or not this is normal but there aren't many postings about the
> 3.5L engine. So I'm putting it out there now to get opinions,
> experience, etc.
>
> Thanks for any responses!!
>
> Babunga
> www.babunga.com
>

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

You should see a better mileage after about 6000 miles

--
Zotto Sonica V6 MY2002 driver
http://www.g2kweb.it/public/download/zottotach.AVI
http://www.g2kweb.it/?85

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

"Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:qh246117s5c96nqfnirpcvecu2486pgc60@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:49:58 -0600, "Krazy Kanuck"
> <limbery@removethisaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>>....well I've got a '05 with a 3.5 ....barely broken in.....and I get 17.5
>>in town....(mind you this is with imperial gallons)
>
> No such thing. There's not a country in the world where they exist
> anymore. They're as extinct as the dinosaur so why mention them?
>
.....I mention them because even though we use litres in Canada, everyone
still talks about "mileage" and so I use a sheet program that will
convert for litres, US gallons or imperial.....

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

"seemore_babunga" wrote:
>The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 4L V6 that I traded in got better
>mileage.

The santa fe weighs four hundred pounds more than the jeep cherokee
and the engine is tuned tighter on the santa fe (you’ll get more
power, but you’ll have to rev it higher than you used to with the
cherokee). It’s also wider and taller, and not as high off the
ground, all of which increase drag.

Drive at the speed limit, don’t use the brakes and accelerate gently,
and your fuel economy will increase.

Oh, and not buying an SUV will help.

--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/Hyundai-Aw...ict112470.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=529196

Re: Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

"Balfa" wrote:
> [quote:261e6ecd61="seemore_babunga"]The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee
> with a 4L V6 that I traded in got better
> mileage.[/quote:261e6ecd61]
>
> The santa fe weighs four hundred pounds more than the jeep
> cherokee and the engine is tuned tighter on the santa fe
> (you'll get more power, but you'll have to rev it higher than
> you used to with the cherokee). It's also wider and taller,
> and not as high off the ground, all of which increase drag.
>
> Drive at the speed limit, don't use the brakes and accelerate
> gently, and your fuel economy will increase.
>
> Oh, and not buying an SUV will help.

>>....well I’ve got a ’05 with a 3.5 ....barely broken in.....and I
get 17.5
>>in town....(mind you this is with imperial gallons)
>
> No such thing. There’s not a country in the world where they exist
> anymore. They’re as extinct as the dinosaur so why mention them?
>

They’re used in the UK. Anyway, what does it matter to you what unit
someone chooses to use?

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

"Krazy Kanuck" <limbery@removethisaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:426271e5$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
>
> "Jim Vatunz" <rot13.snezrewvz@vvarg.arg.nh> wrote in message
> news:qh246117s5c96nqfnirpcvecu2486pgc60@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:49:58 -0600, "Krazy Kanuck"
> > <limbery@removethisaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>....well I've got a '05 with a 3.5 ....barely broken in.....and I get
17.5
> >>in town....(mind you this is with imperial gallons)
> >
> > No such thing. There's not a country in the world where they exist
> > anymore. They're as extinct as the dinosaur so why mention them?
> >
> ....I mention them because even though we use litres in Canada, everyone
> still talks about "mileage" and so I use a sheet program that will
> convert for litres, US gallons or imperial.....
>
>
OK, that explains how you are doing it. However since you are doing this to
use for comparison purposes wouldn't it make more sense to convert to what
everyone else is using?

Jon

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

I'm getting about 16 with mixed suburban/highway driving with my 2005 LX. I
was a bit disappointed as well but then realized it was still better than
the mini-van it replaced.

I've only put 2500 miles on it so far and no real highway trips so I'm
hoping it does better on the open road. Others have indicated it might do
better after 10K miles or so, too.

Jon


"Krazy Kanuck" <limbery@removethisaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:4261b2a0$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
> ....well I've got a '05 with a 3.5 ....barely broken in.....and I get 17.5
> in town....(mind you this is with imperial gallons)
> Len
> "seemore_babunga" <seemore@babunga.com> wrote in message
> news:1113698748.814209.295950@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I bought a 2004 Santa Fe LX with the 3.5L V6 back in November. I've got
> > about 4400 miles on it and I am quite disappointed in the mileage I am
> > getting, which has been 14 city and 18 highway. The sticker claimed it
> > would get 17/21. I know that stickers lie but I didn't think it would
> > be this bad. The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 4L V6 that I traded in
> > got better mileage.
> >
> > I've done some searching on this group to try and get some idea of
> > whether or not this is normal but there aren't many postings about the
> > 3.5L engine. So I'm putting it out there now to get opinions,
> > experience, etc.
> >
> > Thanks for any responses!!
> >
> > Babunga
> > www.babunga.com
> >
>
>

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

I've read something about this in another forum. Apparently the Santa
Fe's have some kind of strange 'break-in' period for mileage, althought
there's not science behind it.

Well thanks to everyone for your input!

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

"seemore_babunga" <seemore@babunga.com> wrote in message
news:1113698748.814209.295950@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello everyone,
>
> I bought a 2004 Santa Fe LX with the 3.5L V6 back in November. I've got
> about 4400 miles on it and I am quite disappointed in the mileage I am
> getting, which has been 14 city and 18 highway. The sticker claimed it
> would get 17/21. I know that stickers lie but I didn't think it would
> be this bad. The 95 Jeep Grand Cherokee with a 4L V6 that I traded in
> got better mileage.
>
> I've done some searching on this group to try and get some idea of
> whether or not this is normal but there aren't many postings about the
> 3.5L engine. So I'm putting it out there now to get opinions,
> experience, etc.
>
> Thanks for any responses!!
>
> Babunga
> www.babunga.com
>I think you better check you web site for viruses

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

On 18 Apr 2005 08:45:40 -0700, "seemore_babunga" <seemore@babunga.com>
wrote:

>I've read something about this in another forum. Apparently the Santa
>Fe's have some kind of strange 'break-in' period for mileage, althought
>there's not science behind it.
>
>Well thanks to everyone for your input!

That's exactly what happened with my 2004 Sonata LX 2.7 V6. I thought
the explanation from the service manager when I was concerned early on
about my mileage was absolute B.S., but it proved to be correct. My
mielage did, indeed adjust upwards just as advised. Weird.

Re: Awful mileage w/2004 Santa Fe 3.5L
 

Excellent points. One question though, is anyone able to accelerate
gently with these cars??? I test drove both the 2.7L and the 3.5L
several times and was surprised that the accelerators are extremely
touchy when moving from a standing position. I have to warn people who
drive my car about this.

Just curious....