Hyundai Santa Fe Forums banner

'23 Santa Fe Limited 2.5T 1300 mile review

1178 Views 25 Replies 10 Participants Last post by  ELP_JC
I received my Santa Fe on March 9 and have about 1300 miles on it now. I'm really liking it and thought I'd post up my thoughts on it so far.

I'll start with the negative stuff first:
The Limited and Calligraphy (at least in the US) don't come with a spare tire. I bought an aftermarket complete spare kit which for now I just keep in the back of the car. I'll pick up a carrier for it when Hyundai comes out with one for the 2023 model year. I know that there are carriers out there but not specifically for a '23. I'll wait for one that will fit for sure.
It has paddle shifters which I love, but the transmission won't stay in that manual mode. I reverts back to 'D' after a very short while.
No wireless Android Auto. It works well when plugged in. But why? My '19 Sorrento had wireless Android.
There are a lot of buttons. I prefer actual buttons and switches instead of touch screen for everything, but while driving, there's a lot of buttons to peruse when looking for what you want. Over time though, they will become memorized I guess.

Next is things that are not bad but just OK:
So far that is just the push button trans. It works. No more, no less.

Now for the things that I like:
I find the ride to be very smooth and quiet. The suspension could be a little stiffer though.
I love this 2.5 Turbo. It moves out pretty quickly. Passing on the interstate is effortless. That turbo torque is quite fun.
The seats are comfortable, but not the most comfortable car seats I've ever experienced. But they're good. Heated and cooled.
The radio is a giant upgrade from the radio in the Sorento that I traded in. That radio was pretty much like the transistor radio that I had when I was 9 or 10 and it had no satellite. The Santa Fe radio is much better.
The Santa Fe's MPG calculations are spot on. On my Sorento and my wife's Kia Seltos the car's calculation was optimistic by 10%. If the car read 30 mpg it was really 27 by hand calculation. This Santa Fe is correct to the tenth so far. When I filled up the other day the car was telling me 25.4 mpg and the actual calculation was 25.45. I'm very impressed with that level of reporting.

So that's my story so far. I know that there were some issues with the double clutch trans is the beginning, but I think they are worked out now. At least I hope so.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
21 - 26 of 26 Posts
Suggesting a hybrid is more expensive to own than an ICE is just patently false.
He's talking about in general to produce. It's all a show and highly environmentally unfriendly and not sustainable.
Suggesting a hybrid is more expensive to own than an ICE is just patently false.
It's NOT patently false in all cases. Both of you should have said 'IT DEPENDS' how the vehicle is used. If you drive very little, a SF Hybrid would be more expensive to own than a similarly equipped ICE SF due to its higher initial price, since it requires at least the same maintenance as an ICE vehicle (it IS an ICE vehicle, after all). And the few miles driven wouldn't offset the higher purchase price during ownership (and current gas prices), with the lower MPG. If driven a lot of miles, then it'd be the opposite.
It's NOT patently false in all cases. Both of you should have said 'IT DEPENDS' how the vehicle is used. If you drive very little, a SF Hybrid would be more expensive to own than a similarly equipped ICE SF due to its higher initial price, since it requires at least the same maintenance as an ICE vehicle (it IS an ICE vehicle, after all). And the few miles driven wouldn't offset the higher purchase price during ownership (and current gas prices), with the lower MPG. If driven a lot of miles, then it'd be the opposite.
If your caveat is that you have to not drive the car very often, then we don't really have an argument.

He's talking about in general to produce. It's all a show and highly environmentally unfriendly and not sustainable.
Never mind that he was quoting someone talking about a hybrid - not a full EV - the truth is, except in the case of vehicles that are unnecessarily large (think Hummer EV), the GHG investment is made up for over time by not burning gasoline (unless, of course, you drive far fewer miles than the average person) - even with fossil fuels powering the grid used to charge the EV. But I digress.
If your caveat is that you have to not drive the car very often, then we don't really have an argument.
Yes, if you don't drive a lot (for whatever reason, like us), it typically doesn't make economical sense to buy a more expensive hybrid, EV, or diesel vehicle. And it's a very valid argument. But I said 'typically' because I bought my wife a new Tesla in '21, to give EVs a try (it was a disaster for us), but miraculously, I actually made 3 grand profit after all expenses, including a 240V charger cost, plus all taxes and accessories, after using it a full year, and 10K miles, due to the pandemic usar car craziness. So that was nice. Ha ha. I also made $500 on the '21 Palisade Calligraphy after also a year and 10K miles (bought them at the same time), which I swapped for the current '22 SF Calligraphy.
To be clear, based upon EPA city driving numbers, and assuming $3/gallon, it would take 21,340 miles of city driving to make up the $970 cost increase going from a Santa Fe (ICE) Limited to a Santa Fe Hybrid Limited. That's not that much driving unless you are primarily a highway driver. If gas costs more than that where you are (likely it does), then the miles required drops.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
In my case, where probably 90%+ of my miles are highway (I exclusively use the SF for trips, so the only city mileage is while traveling), and at high speeds at that (it's 80 here in TX, so at least that fast), a hybrid probably wastes the same (if not more) gas than my Calligraphy on the highway, due to a lot less power. The ideal hybrid use is city use only. My ex-Tesla range was horrible at 80+, and downright ridiculous if cold. It went from a theoretical 353 miles, to less than 200 in real life. And the stupid things only charged at 150kW at less than 10% charge. By 40% charge, it was 75kW tops, so fast charging is mostly a myth with current battery technology (that needs to change). Charging added TWO HOURS of travel time to Austin (600 miles away); ridiculous. EVs have a ton of disadvantages as travel vehicles you don't know about until you own one. Glad I was actually paid to do that. Ha ha.
21 - 26 of 26 Posts
Top