2007 Tuscon Mileage

Our '07 Tucson with v6 after 5000ish miles got 24-25 steady state cruising on our last trip, far less in stop and go, right now we're averaging around 19 mpg, and that's with the tires inflated +3 lbs and steady feet. It ain't no Toyota. Save money up front, or save it later, it's all a wash it seems.

Matt,

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I might be opening a can of worms here, which is not my intention.

I have a brother (Air Force trained) rotary wing mechanic and saw their use in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. on choppers, tanks, Humvees, etc.

Why would they be used if their filtration isn't all that great? And as far as racing goes, the company originally was founded and developed air filters for off-road motorcycle use, which is inherently dusty as well?

Steve, AZ

I seem to get conflicting reports. The dealer says 24, Hyundai USA says 27 (of course give or take a few.)

Well, there was this little incident in Iran a few years ago. Need I say more?

Hey, it is your engine, you get to make the call. However, for me, I'll stick with a good paper filter.

Matt

Hyundaiusa.com lists the 4FD at 24 highay. Do you have the window sticker?

I don't recall the incident in which you refer to, however I do offer my rebuttal:

It's ironic in the fact the AC Delco filter finished 1st in all categories, when considering the test vehicle was a Chevrolet....although the claim is made that the testing facility offered to perform all these tests for free? The machine was $285,000....

I'm home 1 day now and driving around town it's already down to

17.9. > >

I called the dealer and I'll be bringing it in this week, but the >

salesman started with the " break-in period" . When I questioned how long >

till I see the rated 28 or so highway, he didn't know. > > Thanks

I do not understand why people buy SUVs. They are not economy cars. If you want gas milage, get a Prius.

Interesting how they make no comparison tests of their filter to other filters. And how they use only "coarse" dirt in their testing.

The test wasn't performed by or commissioned by Chevrolet or Delco. It was performed by an owner of a Chevy and an owner of a Ford. I've seen other similar tests of K&N filters compared to OEM paper and the results are always the same.

Like I said earlier, your car, your choice.

Matt

Oh, I forgot to answer this in my last post.

The incident was the failed rescue attempt of the Iran hostages. This mission had many problems, but one was that the helicopters couldn't handle the sand and dust...

Matt

Thanks for the opportunity to debate Matt. It's refreshing to hear one's point of view.

Steve

A couple of points:

1- K&N lies, period. All you have to have is a basic understanding of filtration and you'll realize that their claims are nonsense (I used to be in the filtration industry). Except for a few out-and-out scam sites, I've rarely seem more misleading or blatantly untrue information posted on a website. Based on that, I won't trust them at all. 2- The military has their own specs for the products they buy and there in not necessarily ANY correlation between products supplied to the military and consumer products from the same company, ANY company. 3- Racing applications are essentially meaningless too, as racing engines only have to survive for the length of a race, or at most between frequent rebuilds. Their main concern is horsepower output, not longevity. That's quite different from an engine that's expected to last well over 100,000 miles without a rebuild in a typical car. 4- Every independent test of air filters I've seen has drawn the same conclusion: K&N filters improve airflow at the cost of a loss of filtration.

As Matt said, it's your call.

I echo southluke's response. Why cry about mileage when you buy an SUV? Look around the roads and imagine how much less fuel we would use if the SUV's of all sizes were off the road.

The K&N filters do help airflow but beware of overoiling the filter when you clean it. The oil vapors will destroy your mass airflow sensor. Also, It really shouldn't impact fuel economy because the fuel/air mixture is set by the computer. If air flows in more easily through your filter, the computer will still adjust to the same mixture. The K&N's are great for older cars before computers but do nothing for newer models, IMHO. Tom

Many of the Jeep's have absolutely horrible mileage. The Jeep Liberty was really, really bad. My boss had one as a company car and was lucky to get

15 mpg.

Snow. Many SUVs are good in snow because of 4WD or AWD. Econo cars with tiny tires are not.

Back in the 'old days', I drove a VW beetle through some major snowstorms in NE Pa and never got stuck, so the argument of large is better in snow isn't always true. Driving in snow is more a function of the skills of the driver and familiarity with his car's reaction in snow.

In theory, you may have a point, but we get a fair amount of snow here and I see more SUV's in the ditch than plain old sedans. Could partly be the superiority attitude of the SUV driver that thinks his high center of gravity vehicle is invincible. 4WD is better in deep snow, but on a plowed highway, good tires and good driving skills are the better choice.

Best car I ever had for snow was a Corvair with 13" wheels.

Fuel economy isn't just a function if air/fuel ratio. It is also a function of pumping loss. Pulling air past a restriction requires energy and the energy comes from the fuel. A less restrictive intake and/or exhaust will reduce pumping loss and in theory will increase fuel efficiency. However, the restriction from a paper element filter is extremely low to start with so the K&N advantage is very small. I'd be very surprised if the difference in fuel economy is enough to even detect without very sophisticated instrumentation. A K&N may flow better when heavily loaded than will a paper element filter, but very few street vehicles will clog a paper filter in even 50,000 miles. I still have the original air filter on my 2003 Dodge minivan at 85,000 miles and it is barely dirty. Unless you drive off-road or on a lot of dirt roads behind other vehicles, you simply don't pick up much dust.

Old cars had the intake inside the engine compartment behind the front wheels and the turbulence in the engine compartment from normal airflow and the big old metal fans would stir a lot of road dust up around the engine where the intake snorkle would pick it up. Virtually all modern vehicles have the air intake up high behind the grill with a plastic duct carrying the air to the air filter and then the fuel injector. Even on a dirt road, you don't get dust into the top of the grill unless you are driving behind another vehicle or passing a steady stream of vehicles going the other direction. This is very different from the "old days" when the engine compartment intake would pick up dust from your own vehicle, not just other vehicles.

Matt

Brian and Matt;

Thanks for the information. I will definitely reconsider their use based upon input from you and others. I'm still garnering input from others and I hadn't thought about the 3rd point Brian made.

In all reality, I don't do much "dirt" driving, and yes, the snorkels on both vehicles are higher than normal.

Mileage vs. longevitiy? I plan on keeping this 06 Sonata post-100k.

Steve