2004 Hyundai Santa Fe Gls Sport Utility 4-door 2.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2013 Hyundai Veloster Turbo: June 2013

There are an awful lot of good reasons to get into the Hyundai Veloster family and formula. This car looks good, is loaded out with tech and offers a great deal of practicality in a small form factor. One good reason not to consider a Veloster, at least if you're a city dweller or have primarily urban daily driving path, is the turbocharged 1.6-liter engine in the eponymous Veloster Turbo.
Two major factors kill the Veloster Turbo in terms of said city driving: turbo lag and fuel economy.
Two major factors kill the Veloster Turbo in terms of city driving: turbo lag and fuel economy.

Hyundai, Los Angeles Times and Consumer Reports in fuel economy skirmish?

On Wednesday, Consumer Reports issued a story taking umbrage with the auto industry's move toward smaller, turbocharged engines, noting its own testing revealed that many such powerplants fail to deliver their promised fuel economy numbers. The story covered a variety of domestic and foreign automakers, with Ford and Chevrolet featuring prominently in the discussion. Hyundai was also mentioned for its Sonata Turbo, but the Korean automaker's family sedan came within one observed mile per gallon of its EPA ratings in CR's test, and its normally aspirated 2.4-liter counterpart actually beat its combined EPA ratings, 27 mpg to 26.
Good news for Hyundai, right? The automaker was so pleased with its report card that it sent out a small statement to a handful of news outlets including Autoblog, reading in part:
"We at Hyundai believe that Consumer Reports real-world average fuel economy testing results and EPA combined fuel economy results should correlate, and in fact do correlate nicely for some brands. Among all brands, Hyundai does particularly well in this correlation, with no high-volume brand having a better correlation between EPA combined and Consumer Reports real-world fuel economy."

Ford Mustang Mach-E fails Sweden's moose test

The infamous moose test has claimed another casualty. This time it's the Ford Mustang Mach-E AWD Long Range, which was tested in an electric four-way alongside the Tesla Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Skoda Enyaq iV (an electric utility vehicle closely related to the Volkswagen ID.4 that is sold in the United States). According to the Swedish testers at Teknikens Varld, Ford's electric car not only failed to hit the speed necessary for a passing grade, it didn't perform well at slower speeds, either. To pass the outlet's moose test, a car has to complete a rapid left-right-straight S-shaped pattern marked by cones at a speed of at least 72 km/h (44.7 miles per hour). The test is designed to mimic the type of avoidance maneuver a driver would have to take in order to avoid hitting something that wandered into the road, which in Sweden may be a moose but could just as easily be a deer or some other member of the animal kingdom elsewhere in the world, or possibly a child or car backing into the motorway. Not only is the maneuver very aggressive, it's also performed with weights belted into each seat and more weight added to the cargo area to hit the vehicle's maximum allowable carrying capacity. The Mustang Mach-E only managed to complete the moose test at 68 km/h (42.3 mph), well below the passing-grade threshold. Even at much lower speeds, Teknikens Varld says the Mach-E (which boasts the highest carrying capacity and was therefore loaded with more weight than the rest of the vehicles tested in this quartet) is "too soft in the chassis" and suffers from "too slow steering." Proving that it is indeed possible to pass the test, the Hyundai and Skoda completed the maneuver at the 44.7-mph figure required for a passing grade and the Tesla did it at 46.6 mph, albeit with less weight in the cargo area. It's not clear whether other versions of the Mustang Mach-E would pass the test. It's also unknown if Ford will make any changes to its chassis tuning or electronic stability control software, as some other automakers have done after a poor performance from Teknikens Varld, to improve its performance in the moose test. Related video: