 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / February 20062005 Santa Fe Accelerator
My apologies if this is a re-hash of an existing topic, but I was unble to locate anything via a search of the group. I just bought a '05 Santa Fe (unbeatable set of clearance rebates), new, and am so far happy with the vehicle, save for one annoyance. The accelerator pedal offers what I consider to be excessive physical resistance before giving way, making it being very difficult to smoothly accelerate from a dead stop. I'm wondering if: 1) This is common to all new '05 Santa Fes. 2) If so, is it something that will ease after break-in? Anyone have any experience with this? I have also got myself a 05 Santy 3.5L v6 but even thought I don't find the pedal 'excessively resistant' but the pickup is. Invariably the car needs reving to 2.5-3K rpm before settling down to 2K rpm to take it from stationary to 30-40mph from stop . I have driven 3000 miles but the 'proverbial' break-in hasnt't happened. anyone can help? What engine do you have? > What engine do you have? I replied to this 2 days ago from another account, but for some reason the post never showed up here. In any event, I have the 3.5L. I experienced something a bit different from the way you are describing it with my 2005 3.5L Santa Fe. The car would either hesitate when the gas was depressed or surge as if I had tromped on it. The dealer reprogrammed the ETCS and this fixed it. I believe these is a TSB out for the problem as well. Could that be what you are experiencing? Jon > > What engine do you have? > > I replied to this 2 days ago from another account, but for some reason > the post never showed up here. In any event, I have the 3.5L. > I experienced something a bit different from the way you are describing it > with my 2005 3.5L Santa Fe. > > The car would either hesitate when the gas was depressed or surge as if I > had tromped on it. The dealer reprogrammed the ETCS and this fixed it. I > believe these is a TSB out for the problem as well. It's more mechanical in nature (and yes, I realize its an electronic accelerator). The problem is that the pedel is very "stiff" (for lack of a better word) when I first begin to apply pressure to it with my foot. Rather than giving way gradually and smoothly, it "breaks" in that it just suddenly gives way. As a result, acceleration is also sudden and jerky from a dead stop. I can overcome it with effort by stiffening my foot and ankle muscles so that the pressure I apply is even and compensates for the sudden give by the pedel. :: I experienced something a bit different from the way you are describing :: it with my 2005 3.5L Santa Fe. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : stiffening my foot and ankle muscles so that the pressure I apply is : even and compensates for the sudden give by the pedel. Nah, never had that filling on my 03, cannot remember mpg during break-in, but it was baaaad, after second tank of gas start to improve, now I get 20-22 in the city, 24-26 in the hwy, if I keep the hwy speed under 65 then it goes up to 28, but no fun at all. 03 XL 3.5/5Auto. You might have something sticking then. I'd ask the dealer to look at it again and make sure they understand you have an issue with the pedal sticking when begin to apply pressure. Could be either the cable or the mechanical dealie to which the sensor attaches. 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 must apologize to all respondants to this part of my inquiry, and > offer a modification to my observations. This morning I made a point [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 believe the accelerator position sensor is adjustable as well as perhaps the throttle position sensor, but if these were far enough out of adjustment to cause an issue, your check engine lamp should be on. I've experienced defective sensors, but never one out of adjustment on this electronic throttle system (XG, Santa Fe). You could try reinitializing the throttle plate, but I suspect your dealer has already done that. To reinitialize, turn the ignition key to the on position (do not start engine) and immediately turn it back to off. Then leave the key off for at least ten seconds. This often relieves some of the suddenness of the acceleration. I still think, however, that if the throttle is binding, that's an issue. I don't think it'll significantly affect your fuel mileage, but it's a serious safety concern. Of course, I haven't driven your vehicle, so I don't know how much it sticks. > I don't think it'll significantly affect your fuel mileage... Since I'm doing primarily highway driving you're probably right. If I were mostly a city driver I'd disagree. > > I experienced something a bit different from the way you are describing it > > with my 2005 3.5L Santa Fe. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > stiffening my foot and ankle muscles so that the pressure I apply is > even and compensates for the sudden give by the pedel. Have Hyundai or their dealerships recognized this acceleration problem? > > I experienced something a bit different from the way you are describing it > > with my 2005 3.5L Santa Fe. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > stiffening my foot and ankle muscles so that the pressure I apply is > even and compensates for the sudden gi ve by the pedel. Also, after my first tank of gas, and mostly highway driving, I'm getting 16.7 mpg. The much heavier, 10 year-old 4.0L Ford Explorer my Santa Fe replaced was giving me just over 17 mpg with the same driving. Someone please tell me that this is going to improve after break-in. > Also, after my first tank of gas, and mostly highway driving, I'm > getting 16.7 mpg. The much heavier, 10 year-old 4.0L Ford Explorer my > Santa Fe replaced was giving me just over 17 mpg with the same driving. > Someone please tell me that this is going to improve after break-in. I have a 2004 3.5L 4WD. Im getting 25mpg. All hwy. Cathy Diamond Bell, AZ I've got a '05 Santa Fe (funny....I too had a '94 Ford Explorer before!) oNce the breakin was over, my milage improved to 24 highway...18 city with a 3.5l engine Len  Signature....Order the "Accordion Evolution" documentary of the Las Vegas International Accordion Convention from my website: http://users.accesscomm.ca/limbery/ ...Del Sur Al Norte...Regina Sk. Canada Latin and South American Folk dance band: www.DelSurAlNorte.com > Also, after my first tank of gas, and mostly highway driving, I'm > getting 16.7 mpg. The much heavier, 10 year-old 4.0L Ford Explorer my > Santa Fe replaced was giving me just over 17 mpg with the same driving. > Someone please tell me that this is going to improve after break-in. > I've got a '05 Santa Fe (funny....I too had a '94 Ford Explorer before!) > > oNce the breakin was over, my milage improved to 24 highway...18 city with a > 3.5l engine What was it like before the break-in? The 3.5 has an electronic throttle. Depressing the accelerator simply activates a sensor under the hood. The computer controls everything from there. It'll probably take a little time to become familiar with its idosyncracies. As for the fuel economy, I don't know that it will improve. We've had many complaints about fuel economy on the 3.5 Santa Fes. I've never been able to find anything conclusively wrong with any of them. I replaced an oxygen sensor in one of them because the values looked a little funny, but the customer was still getting poor fuel economy. I also do not know whether fuel economy will improve. This I do know - that powertrain combo is used in some other Hyundais and Kias. It is a nice, smooth and responsive powertrain, and seems to be able to handle whatever is given it. It also seems to have given VERY few problems in its years of operation (since about '01 or '02). But one thing this powertrain has never been is very fuel efficient. I've had this powertrain combo in two different vehicles - one was an '02, and now I have an '04. The '04 is decidedly better than the '02, and I love it in my vehicle. But I will never jump for joy over its fuel economy. But I will gladly keep running it and running it and running it - as long as I keep the timing belt replaced. It is one of the most impressive powertrains I have ever had. Tom Wenndt > The 3.5 has an electronic throttle. Depressing the accelerator simply > activates a sensor under the hood. The computer controls everything from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > oxygen sensor in one of them because the values looked a little funny, but > the customer was still getting poor fuel economy. > As for the fuel economy, I don't know that it will improve. We've had > many complaints about fuel economy on the 3.5 Santa Fes. I've never been > able to find anything conclusively wrong with any of them. I replaced an > oxygen sensor in one of them because the values looked a little funny, but > the customer was still getting poor fuel economy. Since I got superior fuel economy from a substantially heavier 10 year-old vehicle (with 154,000+ miles on the all-original hardware) with a larger, more powerful engine I'm forced to conclude that either there IS something wrong with my Santa Fe or its drivetrain is very poorly designed/constructed. what do you expect from an SUV, didnt you do ANY research BEFORE you bought it??? maybe you be better suited with a horse and buggy... then you wont have to WHINE about your fuel mileage... I own a 2006 Santa Fe.. LOVE it dont care bout the fuel mileage because I knew what it was BEFORE I purchased it... Pete... >> As for the fuel economy, I don't know that it will improve. We've had >> many complaints about fuel economy on the 3.5 Santa Fes. I've never been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > there IS something wrong with my Santa Fe or its drivetrain is very > poorly designed/constructed. > what do you expect from an SUV, didnt you do ANY research BEFORE you bought > it??? maybe you be better suited with a horse and buggy... then you wont > have to WHINE about your fuel mileage... I own a 2006 Santa Fe.. LOVE it > dont care bout the fuel mileage because I knew what it was BEFORE I > purchased it... I know that UseNet is the home of ignorant knee-jerk reactions, but the level of stupidity behind them never ceases to amaze me. Yes, I did research before I bought. What I expected was mileage at least approximating the EPA estimates as well as what the company itself touts. I also read many reports from owners (like those above) describing much better mileage than I'm seeing. There is absolutely nothing in any of my posts to suggest otherwise. So, in short, trying giving those two brain cells that are desperately clinging to a lonely existence on the inside of that otherwise empty skull of yours some exercise before shooting off your ill-informed mouth next time. not the one WHINIG about my gas mileage. YOU ARE...;-) did your mommy throw you out of the sandbox too early in life?? ;-) >> what do you expect from an SUV, didnt you do ANY research BEFORE you >> bought [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > skull of yours some exercise before shooting off your ill-informed > mouth next time. > 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. EPA fuel estimates are notoriously inaccurate and should be used only for purposes of comparison with other vehicles. > 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. Well, I checked some of your other posts in this group and found that this really isn't about anything I said. You're just another belligerant, mouthy jag-off in general: - "go pay another 20K and get yerself a REAL 4WD then and quit yer bitching... a.shole..;-) " making friends all over I see.. hmmmmmmmmmmmm makes ya wonder dont it??? > Well, I checked some of your other posts in this group and found that > this really isn't about anything I said. You're just another [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bitching... > a.shole..;-) " > 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? notice how you left the other persons message out..;-) >> 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? > 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. 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. > 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. >>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. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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 > I'm curious, why didn't you buy another Explorer or an Escape if you > wanted something smaller? Primarily because of the Santa Fe's superior value and warranty. I no longer needed anything quite as large as the Explorer, and was willing to trade size for improved gasoline milage, lower price, etc. The Escape, though a nice vehicle, simply couldn't compete in terms of bang for the buck. >>I'm curious, why didn't you buy another Explorer or an Escape if you >>wanted something smaller? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Escape, though a nice vehicle, simply couldn't compete in terms of bang > for the buck. Yes, I think that unfortunately, we lose something with the lower price of the Hyundais. I nearly bought a Toyota and sometimes now regret that I didn't. The money I saved on the Sonata will buy a lot of gas to be sure, but it won't fix this crappy electronic throttle and it reminds me every day about itself! Once the Sonata is paid for, I'll likely trade it for something else as it annoys me more every day I drive it. Matt > Yes, I think that unfortunately, we lose something with the lower price > of the Hyundais. I nearly bought a Toyota and sometimes now regret that > I didn't. The money I saved on the Sonata will buy a lot of gas to be > sure, but it won't fix this crappy electronic throttle and it reminds me > every day about itself! Once the Sonata is paid for, I'll likely trade > it for something else as it annoys me more every day I drive it. Ahhhh - the reason for so many types of cars on the road today. We all have our triggers and when something like the pedal on the 06 Sonata just seems to lay on your hot-button it's almost amazing how big a small issue can become. So far my Sonata (04) hasn't let me down, but I bought it used. It was pretty much what it appeared to be, so for me, all the car really has to do is continue to run like it does for a reasonable time before I have to fix it. I believe I'd be a lot like you with the gas pedal issue though Matt. That would probably bug the hell out of me. Think back to how we used to work to get the hesitation and little hic-cough out of a Rochester carburetor in the 60's and 70's, so that throttle response was instantaneous and full. To sit in a car today which by design somehow intends to defy that fundamental, just wouldn't seem right. It would certainly drive me nuts. Can't for the live of me understand why such a simple and reliable system as has been in place for every car now for years (cable) would ever be replaced by an electronic equivalent(?). Sometimes improvement is not really. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Can't for the live of me understand why such a simple and reliable system as > has been in place for every car now for years (cable) would ever be replaced > by an electronic equivalent(?). Sometimes improvement is not really. I was wondering precisely the same thing. Mind you, I'm no automotive engineer so there may well be some advantage to the electronic throttle that I'm not yet aware of...but such an "improvement" strikes me as a violation of the two prime directives of engineering: 1) KISS (keep it simple, stupid). 2) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. >> Can't for the live of me understand why such a simple and reliable >> system as has been in place for every car now for years (cable) would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 2) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Although it is only a minor annoyance to me personally, I have to agree with you guys. I do think that it plays some part in the whole traction/skid control system, but I would think that a cable system would be workable somehow too. Eric Auto manufacturers can control emissions better with electronic throttle. You stomp the pedal, the computer opens the throttle plate gradually as it sees fit. Prevents a large amount of fuel dumping. Then again, it also can prevent the car from doing what you want it to. I'm not sold on the idea that electronic throttle is the way to go. > Auto manufacturers can control emissions better with electronic throttle. > You stomp the pedal, the computer opens the throttle plate gradually as it > sees fit. Given the sudden acceleration issue I've described, this might be a case of unrealized potential...at least in this one instance. > Auto manufacturers can control emissions better with electronic throttle. > You stomp the pedal, the computer opens the throttle plate gradually as it > sees fit. Prevents a large amount of fuel dumping. Then again, it also > can prevent the car from doing what you want it to. I'm not sold on the > idea that electronic throttle is the way to go. But even cars with cable actuated throttles can do this as the throttle only controls the butterfly (air flow), the computer still controls the fuel injection. Matt > Can't for the live of me understand why such a simple and reliable system as > has been in place for every car now for years (cable) would ever be replaced > by an electronic equivalent(?). Sometimes improvement is not really. Yes, even though my degrees are in CS and EE, even I don't think that EVERYTHING has to be controlled with electronics and software! It is like the headlights on my 03 Dodge minivan. They are controlled via the BCM rather than directly switched like my 96 Plymouth minivan. There is a noticeable delay between flipping the switch and having the lights change from low to high and back. I'm not really sure that having the computer dim the headlights is really progress, especially when there is a detectable delay. They either should use a faster processor or go back to a relay. I assume the Sonata is controlled by computer also, but I haven't noticed any significant delay in the dimmer switch, unlike the throttle which has a noticeable delay and then too much gain once it begins to move. It also seems to be rate sensitive. It feels, to me anyway, that the faster I move the throttle the faster it responds, but not linearly with speed as one would expect. It seems that moving the throttle twice as fast gets 3-4 times the rate of RPM increase. Matt Presumably, the lower compression results in better durability. Realistically, this powertrain has been around in the U.S. since 2001 (only since late 2003MY in the Santa Fe) and there have been a few improvements in that time, mostly in the transmission and throttle controls. This makes it difficult for me to make any kind of experiential conclusion in terms of real long-term reliability. In my opinion, there have been very few serious problems, but I've also seen more issues than I'd like with the variable intake and throttle motors. I'm currrently replacing the block in an XG because of an issue with coolant in one of the cylinders, but this is also the only vehicle with this powertrain that I've seen with such a serious engine issue that wasn't owner-induced. > Presumably, the lower compression results in better durability. That may well be true (at least theoretically), but with gasoline at $2+/gal (and almost certain to at LEAST double over the next decade) it's going to take an awful lot of increased durability to even come close to offseting that extra cost due to decreased fuel efficiency...especially considering how long most engines go now days without any significant maintenance anyway. Add in the fact that my new powertrain is warranteed for 10 years and I fail to see the benefit of sacrificing mileage (especially when the vehicle is newer, smaller and ligher) for some potential reduction in engine cylinder wear. Update: After my 2nd tank of fuel my mileage has improved to 17.3 mpg. Nowhere near where it should be yet, but a positive trend anyway. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.