Hyundai Genesis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This might be something I could dig up in 1000s of posts about the subject. But I'd rather just ask and get an immediate answer.

Its been pretty common knowledge that the 2.0T is not getting anywhere near the estimated MPG for the car because the factory tune is garbage. The last time I was on these forums there had not yet been a full fix or perfect tune to change the issue with the car.

I am here to ask if anything on this front has changed...thanks for the help.
 

·
3.5L TT but wrong body
Joined
·
12,003 Posts
This might be something I could dig up in 1000s of posts about the subject. But I'd rather just ask and get an immediate answer.

Its been pretty common knowledge that the 2.0T is not getting anywhere near the estimated MPG for the car because the factory tune is garbage. The last time I was on these forums there had not yet been a full fix or perfect tune to change the issue with the car.

I am here to ask if anything on this front has changed...thanks for the help.
Only the 2.0t auto is getting bad mpg. i can easily pull 31+ mpg @ 75mph in a 6mt.

Only way around it is to get rid of the inefficient a5sr1. It has nothing to do with the tune.

I average 22-23 in the city in my coupe and in my wifes auto I average right under 19, and hers has 100whp less at the wheels.
 

·
Take 'em Fei!
Joined
·
9,280 Posts
This might be something I could dig up in 1000s of posts about the subject. But I'd rather just ask and get an immediate answer.

Its been pretty common knowledge that the 2.0T is not getting anywhere near the estimated MPG for the car because the factory tune is garbage. The last time I was on these forums there had not yet been a full fix or perfect tune to change the issue with the car.

I am here to ask if anything on this front has changed...thanks for the help.
If you mean a tune from Hyundai, then no not really. If you mean an aftermarket, there is a few. PowerAxel makes one as well as Seoulful Racing. Beyond Redline, being a dealer for PowerAxel, also uses the PowerAxel setup, but further enhances the tune to go with their mod kits.

That being said, it seems like it is 50/50 split among owners on whether they get the MPG or not as advertised. It begs the question on if driving style has anything to do with it...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,705 Posts
the stock tune is okay ... the auto tranny is garbage!! .. on stock tune i was able to achieve the 6.8L/100km rated on the highway at 110km/h on cruise control when i got my car
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Only the 2.0t auto is getting bad mpg. i can easily pull 31+ mpg @ 75mph in a 6mt.

Only way around it is to get rid of the inefficient a5sr1. It has nothing to do with the tune.

I average 22-23 in the city in my coupe and in my wifes auto I average right under 19, and hers has 100whp less at the wheels.
So your saying its more specific to the automatic than to the tune?

And this effect isnt seen in the 3.8L Auto Tranny correct?
 

·
3.5L TT but wrong body
Joined
·
12,003 Posts
So your saying its more specific to the automatic than to the tune?

And this effect isnt seen in the 3.8L Auto Tranny correct?
Yes and yes. The 3.8 auto may get 1mpg less than the manual but they're very close. Can't speak from first hand experience on those two though, just going on posts from random V6 owners.
 

·
Knows some stuff...
Joined
·
6,852 Posts
Only the 2.0t auto is getting bad mpg. i can easily pull 31+ mpg @ 75mph in a 6mt.

Only way around it is to get rid of the inefficient a5sr1. It has nothing to do with the tune.

I average 22-23 in the city in my coupe and in my wifes auto I average right under 19, and hers has 100whp less at the wheels.
/thread IMO

You have a guy with expereince in both so I am doubting it is driving style, who has great M/T mpg and terrible A/T mpg.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,012 Posts
Mileage is set by EPA, not by Hyundai. Just to make that clear.

I find that if I drive is a bit more agressively I get more gas mileage around city.

Not really sure how that works, but I think its mainly staying in the power/boost more and getting to 5th gear as quickly as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
I dont know... I mean I like to have fun in my car but I dont always keep my foot in the gas petal. I am averaging 17.5mpg in town. 2.0T / 6MT / Rspec
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
dont quote me on this but i read it in a statistics textbook looong time, an engine burns less gas around an avg of 30-50mph and burns more when over and under that average
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,795 Posts
I find that if I drive is a bit more agressively I get more gas mileage around city.
In my diesel truck I spent a few tanks taking a really long time to get up to speed and I got considerably worse mpg. It's better to just get up to speed and maintain imo.

Now you still need to avoid jackrabbit starts, coast whenever possible, plan ahead for redlights, and just generally plan your route to optimimize your use of fuel.
 

·
Out Pissing Off cops!
Joined
·
4,572 Posts
In my diesel truck I spent a few tanks taking a really long time to get up to speed and I got considerably worse mpg. It's better to just get up to speed and maintain imo.

Now you still need to avoid jackrabbit starts, coast whenever possible, plan ahead for redlights, and just generally plan your route to optimimize your use of fuel.
^^The MythBusters did the exact same thing and came to the same conclusion, mashing the gas to get quickly up to speed favors better MPGs...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,243 Posts
It really comes down to this guys.. the rear end ratio for the 2.0T auto is 4.2:1 (that is really,really low)..means better acceleration but worse mileage and the auto only has 5 speeds...means worse highway mileage than a 6 speed due to higher revs.
It's not really anymore complicated than that. (the efficiency of the two auto transmissions is about the same and falls into a "normal" range for auto's.)

For reference the 2.0T man is 3.9:1 (and has 1 more highway gear)
3.8 auto is 3.7:1 (and has 1 more highway gear)
and the 3.8 man is 3.5:1 (and has 1 more highway gear)

I personally really enjoy the acceleration but it is at the trade off of mileage, and I do wish it had one more gear. :hsugh:

Edit: I see for the 2011 year the man and auto now both have the 3.9:1 rear end so that should mean better mileage (if driven with a light foot) but that also means that ,from a light, a stock 2010 auto should walk away from a stock 2011 auto ...interesting.
 

·
Knows some stuff...
Joined
·
6,852 Posts
^^The MythBusters did the exact same thing and came to the same conclusion, mashing the gas to get quickly up to speed favors better MPGs...
I think there should be a caveat to that. If you go WOT or mash too hard and enter open loop, you are gauranteed worse mpg. Your AFR drops too rapdly and your rpm goes up.

I would like to see that episode though I missed it, that would be an interesting watch. A turbo does burn more efficiently than N/A air... but to be safe you drop the AFR and that is why a turbo ultimatly looses efficeincy. But if you could safely not get detonation, running max boost would be way more efficient than staying out of boost. Higher compression is more efficient, that is a fact, but higher compression could lead to engine death lol. But that could be why "mashing it" gave mythbusters better mpg's.

Which is intersting because mythbusters also did an MPG myth about drafting and it did obvoiusly help mpg's, BUT at 1' or how ever close they were, mpgs dropped a ton because they had to constanly change the gas pedal position. But I assume that probably had more to do with braking to avoid the truck rather than variable gas pedal position.

Though the faster you accelerate, the more force is required to overcome inertia, that is why "mashing" doens't sound right to me. But it is hard to argue mythbusters, especially since I didn't see it, though they are quite wrong sometimes. I think their most embarrasing display of their lack of knowledge was the plane and threadmill episode. That or they were just playing dumb to make a good episode (I hope).
 

·
3.5L TT but wrong body
Joined
·
12,003 Posts
It...I personally really enjoy the acceleration but it is at the trade off of mileage, and I do wish it had one more gear. :hsugh:

....
X2. I will say that even with only 220ft/lbs my wifes 2.0T 5AT seemed to pull just about as hard down low as my car, pre stage 3, and I was making 270ft/lbs at the time. A retuned 5AT is fun around town, without a doubt.
 

·
Out Pissing Off cops!
Joined
·
4,572 Posts
I think there should be a caveat to that. If you go WOT or mash too hard and enter open loop, you are gauranteed worse mpg. Your AFR drops too rapdly and your rpm goes up.

I would like to see that episode though I missed it, that would be an interesting watch. A turbo does burn more efficiently than N/A air... but to be safe you drop the AFR and that is why a turbo ultimatly looses efficeincy. But if you could safely not get detonation, running max boost would be way more efficient than staying out of boost. Higher compression is more efficient, that is a fact, but higher compression could lead to engine death lol. But that could be why "mashing it" gave mythbusters better mpg's.

Which is intersting because mythbusters also did an MPG myth about drafting and it did obvoiusly help mpg's, BUT at 1' or how ever close they were, mpgs dropped a ton because they had to constanly change the gas pedal position. But I assume that probably had more to do with braking to avoid the truck rather than variable gas pedal position.

Though the faster you accelerate, the more force is required to overcome inertia, that is why "mashing" doens't sound right to me. But it is hard to argue mythbusters, especially since I didn't see it, though they are quite wrong sometimes. I think their most embarrasing display of their lack of knowledge was the plane and threadmill episode. That or they were just playing dumb to make a good episode (I hope).
I should have stated differently. They didn't "mash" the throttle...They accelerated quickly, then tried accelerating slowly up to 60MPH IIRC...

And indeed they are wrong at times,last weekend I caught the episode where they crashed 2 SEMI trucks with a small car in between, in which Jamie clearly stated that the force of the 2 trucks smashing against each other going @ 50 MPH would equal 1 car hitting a wall @ 100mph, which is wrong, but they have enough integrity to prove themselves wrong(in a subsequent episode), which I commend.
 

·
3.5L TT but wrong body
Joined
·
12,003 Posts
I should have stated differently. They didn't "mash" the throttle...They accelerated quickly, then tried accelerating slowly up to 60MPH IIRC...

And indeed they are wrong at times,last weekend I caught the episode where they crashed 2 SEMI trucks with a small car in between, in which Jamie clearly stated that the force of the 2 trucks smashing against each other going @ 50 MPH would equal 1 car hitting a wall @ 100mph, which is wrong, but they have enough integrity to prove themselves wrong, which I commend.
Lol, I saw the original and their retest too. That is one thing I like about that show. When questioned about their data they have no issues proving it right or proving it wrong and owning up.
 

·
Out Pissing Off cops!
Joined
·
4,572 Posts
Lol, I saw the original and their retest too. That is one thing I like about that show. When questioned about their data they have no issues proving it right or proving it wrong and owning up.
I can't even imagine how many Uber nerdy guys/gals following them and trying to nit-pick at each Myth they do, It must be very touchy to even speak/make a solid statement without doubt.
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Top