Your thoughts on Hyundai Santa Fe and Mitsubishi Outlander

Stuart Wright

AVForums Founder
Staff member
Joined
Jan 24, 2000
Messages
17,033
Solutions
1
Reaction score
14,121
Points
7,647
Location
Birmingham, UK
Hello folks, we're thinking about changing our 2001 Hyundai Coupe for something a bit larger so the kids and bails of wood chippings fit and sometimes flooded lanes/icy, sloping drive can be tackled.
(If it snows, there is little chance of getting either of our current cars on to the road).
Budget is less than £4,000. A 2006/07 (06-12 style) Hyundai Santa Fe 2.2 CRTD CDX any good? It would have around 100,000 miles on it. Is that a problem? Any other thoughts from owners?

Also our 09 Audi A4 Avant is manual and I want to change if for a newer automatic car (with a DAB radio).
I was thinking a 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander GX4h for the same reason as getting the Santa Fe. And also for the economy. Budget around £15,000. Any owners got any feedback or thoughts on this?

Many thanks in advance.
 
I wouldn't be looking at a Mitsubishi Outlander if its the PHEV for economy as there shocking and no better if not worse then a decent diesel.
 
I wouldn't be looking at a Mitsubishi Outlander if its the PHEV for economy as there shocking and no better if not worse then a decent diesel.
The main use for both cars would be short, sub 40mph journeys, so I think they would be quite economical. Especially if we charge them at home when our solar panels are raging. But economy is not the primary reason.
I'm after an SUV and Mitsubishi are supposed to be reliable.
 
They only do about 20 miles on a full charge and struggle to get 30mpg around town.
 
But they don't chuck soot everywhere, so probably a win.

Given Stuart's journeys are short, it's even more of a win.
 
ive been in similar situation but going with a double cab pickup LOL
 
They only do about 20 miles on a full charge and struggle to get 30mpg around town.

And? If you drive it like a toyota/lexus hybrid 4x4 and then yes, it's not an efficient car. It's loaded down with a battery pack eight times the size for one thing.

But the whole point of a plug-in hybrid is to plug it in. It's not as efficient on the battery as a Zoe or Leaf of course - it's biggier and heavier - but if you're doing the majority of trips on electric then it's still substantially cheaper to run than anything petrol or diesel.

@Stuart: Generally the critical component for getting up icy slopes is winter tyres rather than 4-wheel drive. I guess you don't have them fitted to your current vehicle?

 
The fact they claim 166mpg for the PHEV is my main problem with it, I couldn't care if it ran on electric, diesel, petrol or bio its the fact it gets nowhere near 166mpg, hell its not even close to half that.
 
winter tyres rather than 4-wheel drive. I guess you don't have them fitted to your current vehicle?
No. Everyone I've spoken to about them says they are not worth it.

That's a convincing video and logic dictates that 4 wheels will be almost as useless as 2.
Winter tyres are so expensive, though. Maybe it's worth buying a set and swapping them over just for Winter.
 
Last edited:
No. Everyone I've spoken to about them says they are not worth it.

That's a convincing video and logic dictates that 4 wheels will be almost as useless as 2.
Winter tyres are so expensive, though. Maybe it's worth buying a set and swapping them over just for Winter.

If they do them in your size, Michelin cross climate tyres are as good as winters, and can be left on all year round.
 
The fact they claim 166mpg for the PHEV is my main problem with it, I couldn't care if it ran on electric, diesel, petrol or bio its the fact it gets nowhere near 166mpg, hell its not even close to half that.
Why? If it's running on 100% electric, it's actually infinity mpg.

For what it's worth, as so many people find this difficult for some reason, the 166mpg is what it achieves on the cycle specified by the regulatory authorities.

This is the same cycle used for all cars, so you can get some sort of a comparison between different cars

As we all know, in real life, no cars get anywhere near the mpg figures returned as a part of this test.

It's really not difficult to understand.
 
Its not even in the same ball park though is it, most cars will still get 70%+ of the claimed, not less then 50% how is that hard to understand.
 
Have you thought about suv/car hybrid type 4x4's? Some great value on the used market. All have raised ride height but handle similar to a car and have aerodynamics similar too, so less impact on fuel economy.

Things like audi allroad, skoda octavia scout, Passat Alltrack, subaru outback...

Screenshot_20170114-212955.png

Screenshot_20170114-213015.png
Screenshot_20170114-213222.png
Screenshot_20170114-213401.png
Screenshot_20170114-213523.png
Screenshot_20170114-213621.png
Screenshot_20170114-213646.png
 
Its not even in the same ball park though is it, most cars will still get 70%+ of the claimed, not less then 50% how is that hard to understand.
If it's getting infinity mpg, it's way more than 166, not hard to understand at all.

In other words, the mpg, as with all cars , depends on how it's driven.
If you use electric only, you'll get infinity mpg.
If you drive 30 miles, you'll get infinity mpg for the first 20 and then maybe 40 for the next 10. You use 1/4 of a gallon for a total of 30 miles. That's 120mpg.
If you drive 200 miles, it'll be much closer to the 40mpg.

The key thing is context. The OP stated the car would be used mostly for short journeys, so the mpg for the PHEV will be excellent, especially using the OP's solar panels for free electricity.

Had the OP been sing the car for long distance tracel, then the PHEV is not a great idea.

Understand now?
 
Last edited:
The reason why I've narrowed the search to the Santa Fe and the Outlander is simply because my wife's sister's partner is a very experienced mechanic who advised me to go for these because they are the best choice from price and reliability. He specifically told me to avoid the land/range rover.
The reason I chose the hybrid is because most days, journeys are under 10 miles and the saving on road tax will help.
 
For what it's worth, as so many people find this difficult for some reason, the 166mpg is what it achieves on the cycle specified by the regulatory authorities.

This is the same cycle used for all cars, so you can get some sort of a comparison between different cars

As we all know, in real life, no cars get anywhere near the mpg figures returned as a part of this test.

The line about it being comparable between cars is nonsense, just compare real world fuel economy submissions on sites like RealMPG or Spritmonitor with test figures and you'll find some cars are very close and others are a long way off. And it's always the cars/brands where tax and fuel economy have the biggest impact on buyers where the figures are furthest off.

Mazda's 1.5L in the MX-5 does and claims 45mpg. If you look at the exact same engine in the taller and heavier Mazda 3 the fuel economy goes down a little, as you'd expect, but the claim goes up to 55mpg. Entirely coincidentally, this is the point where tax drops from £110 a month to £30 a month (the CO2 and MPG figures are derived from the same test).

It's purely a broken test.

The testing has so much play in it that Mitsubishi could easily have manipulated the number to be closer to something more representative, and there's absolutely nothing that says they were required to highlight the number in their advertisements. FWIW the average usage pattern seems to get around 65-70MPG equivalent.

A combined figure is a somewhat dubious idea that's always going to differ far more than petrol/diesel economy does, but equally Mitsubishi could easily have achieved/advertised much more average figures.

Have you thought about suv/car hybrid type 4x4's? Some great value on the used market. All have raised ride height but handle similar to a car and have aerodynamics similar too, so less impact on fuel economy.

I wouldn't include the yeti in that list. It's an interesting point to bring up though as most people these days are buying crossovers for the increased ride height and more upright driving position so they're not a particularly popular choice.

If you want more traction on slopes rather than a car with higher seats or more ground clearance than a non-raised 4WD car may actually be a better option due to the lower center of gravity and potentially lighter weight. A Subaru Legacy perhaps, they're supposed to be mechanically reliable and have plenty of space for wood chippings and children.

No. Everyone I've spoken to about them says they are not worth it.

That's a convincing video and logic dictates that 4 wheels will be almost as useless as 2.
Winter tyres are so expensive, though. Maybe it's worth buying a set and swapping them over just for Winter.

If you look at car manufacturers from colder countries like Volvo and Saab then they never bothered with 4x4 systems on most of their range.

Maybe you could transfer them to the replacement car if they weren't as effective as hoped on your current vehicle? I guess the coupe has fairly small wheels by current fashion but ones for the Audi would be more likely.
 
Winter tyres are so expensive, though. Maybe it's worth buying a set and swapping them over just for Winter.
That's exactly what you do. You swap them over when it's consistently below 7 deg C and whip them off in the spring. You should get years of use out of them. If course it's only worth it if you know you are keeping the vehicle for several years, or replacing it with one that can take the same winter wheels. It also depends on where you live, we've only fitted ours once in the last 4 years :facepalm:
 
Hmmm.

I have a Nissan X-Trail 4wd. (Diesel). We live in a moderately hilly area.
A few years ago we had a severe (as they go) winter such that main roads were closed, trains stopped running and so on.

In these circumstances, and for what was really an essential reason, we did actually set out from home. While owners of "ordinary vehicles" were stuck at the roadside, our 4x4 was quite able to proceed - with a huge degree of caution, of course.

I leave the 4x4 system in it's "auto" mode meaning it runs 2wd (front) until/unless it detects a difference in speed front-back and then 4wd kicks in for as long as it's needed - like anti-lock brakes "in reverse". I have one set of tyres, used all year. They have just been replaced (10,000 miles ago) for the second time - and we're up to 130k or thereabouts. So the first two sets did about 60k each.

Even in good conditions, there are just rare/odd occasions when the 4wd helps - like when you HAVE to cut it fine pulling out into traffic from a stand - no wheelspin when the 4wd is engaged.

I can't claim to have used, owned nor driven huge numbers of vehicles but I certainly find 4wd to be a good thing.

As to the PHEV - for frequent short trips only occasionally interspersed with longer drives - it seems like a no-brainer to me and I don't understand the "hate" - in these specific circumstances.
 
Remember, with a plugin hybrid / hybrid in electric mode you are not only hauling around the weight of the batteries, but the weight of an engine and fuel in the fuel tank as well.
 
I appreciate the feedback. My concern is more about the high mileage and I'm inviting replies from owners to share their experiences.
 
Mazda's 1.5L in the MX-5 does and claims 45mpg. If you look at the exact same engine in the taller and heavier Mazda 3 the fuel economy goes down a little, as you'd expect, but the claim goes up to 55mpg. Entirely coincidentally, this is the point where tax drops from £110 a month to £30 a month (the CO2 and MPG figures are derived from the same test).
Apart from VW cheating I think the days of claiming a figure are gone? The cars (examples of) go through the same test and I can't see why it is expected each car in the real world will achieve those numbers on runs each driver thinks is the same as the tesy cycle. Some cars will be closer but that is more likely the way they are geared or mapped that means the test cycle matches a real life 'combined' journey with reasonable drivers. The example above is likely to be gearing you would think assuming the engine map is identical in the two cars as well (which you would think is unlikely). The way the cars move off and use the power and torque will be different by design surely.

I think it unlikely the 'same' engine will give the same results in different cars - the difference here looks reasonable to me but they might be cooking the books to lower the tax for owners, who knows.
 
I suppose on offshoot discussion would be whether the government boffins have come up with a test cycle or two that suits hybrids better or removes electric only power so it is all about the improving in consumption with electric assistance or thought about ways to ensure comparisons aren't made between hybrid and non hybrid cars or..........

Safe to say comparing the test figures among hydrocarbon powered cars is difficult enough - comparing hybrid powered cars with those cars using the same tests seems to cause even more issues with both logic and theory:)
 

Thanks for posting that vid, was talking about this at work this week but regarding 4x4 with summer tyres vs a rear wheel drive with winter tyres. Have been looking for winter tyres for my BMW but struggling to find any run-flats that aren't stupid money.
 
More direct comparison would be between the Outlander and the IX35 or the Santa Fe and the Shogun? Size wise at least.

Cant say I have owned either (Outlander or Santa Fe) but I have a 61 plate Hyundai IX35 and I dont have any complaints, thinking of going for a Santa Fe later in the year as im after something a little bigger. I have the 2L Diesel, AWD manual "premium". Not the most exciting car in the world to drive but its comfortable and reliable.

Only things that have went wrong on it in the ~4 years I have owned it, damper started leaking and was replaced under warranty (during which I was given a free courtesy car, think it was a Volvo C30 which was a nice change of pace). The sunroof gets a little sticky and can refuse to close, just need to lubricate the mechanism and its fine.

Other than that I have had to change the break pads and discs all round which is a straight forward job for the driveway mechanic. changing the front pads can be done by removing 1 bolt once the wheel is off! And the front drivers side coil spring has snapped which stung me for £200 to get replaced (didnt fancy doing springs in the driveway!)

Last MOT only advisory was suspension bushes will need replaced. Sitting at ~60K miles now and happy enough.

Only downsides I have from it: the diesel engine can sound a little rough cold but once warmed up its fine. The A-pillar can make visibility at some junctions harder (just need to move your head more), the placement of the iPod connector is annoying, would much rather have this in the armrest cubby rather than out on display.

My old man has the same car, currently sitting at ~90K miles, my sister in laws folks have the same car (no idea of millage) and my misses drives a Hyundai IX20.

No complaints from anyone on Hyundai so far, seem to get allot of bang for your buck as even the base models come loaded with gear. When I bought mine even the base model came with heated front and rear seats!

EDIT: Just re-read the opening post and now realise that the above is not really applicable......hey ho, if anyone is looking at 10-15 plate IX35s I have no complaints! :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is Home Theater DEAD in 2024?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom