37.0 mpg for 2.5T AWD on Highway Trip.

[Dan00Hawk]

I had to drive from Plainfield, IL up to Milwaukee today for work and was just able to hit 37.0 mpg on the display for the trip. Had the auto-cruise set most of the way between 72 and 77 mph and driving moderately. I don't yet know how far off the read-out is vs hand calculated, but can check that later.

My return trip I drove more aggressively and typically over 80mph, and still was at 31.5 mpg over the course of 100+ miles. Nice to know the car can be quite frugal if you want it to be, but it's certainly more fun to let it stretch its legs and pass more than you're being passed.

 

[Samou]

Thank you for being one of the first to share the fuel economy of the 2.5 T.

now that has been said I'm loving my 2019 GT1 more as in highway with cruise control I usually get between 29 to 35 MPG depending on the climate and the wind etc so not that big of a difference specially if we look at the power difference.

 

[jthrelf]

impressive!

 

[JSolo]

I've gotten upwards of 35 mpg but it took considerable restraint to keep the car at 65 mph or less on the highway. 35 on the 3.3 is even more impressive. Must of been a good tail wind

Cruise control is a funny thing. On flat roads it's great for improving mpg. On hills however I can see it being counterproductive. I would let the car increase in speeds on the down hills, recapture that momentum on the uphills (with less throttle). Cruise on the other hand would engine brake going down, while increasing throttle on the uphill. Can't see that improving mpg.

 

[MerlintheMad]

Thanks for confirming Kia's claim that the 2.0L and 2.5L get the same miles per gallon. I was wondering if that is true.

Calculation by hand has consistently shown that Kia's mpg is c. two mpg too generous: a number of people on the forum have shared this.

There is no way that the 3.3L will ever give me anywhere near 35 mpg. The best I ever saw was one downhill trending stage on the freeway with a tailwind: I got 32.5: I've seen over 30 mpg three times in three years, hah. Typically on a road trip I'm seeing either side of 25 mpg.

 

[Dan00Hawk]

Thank you for being one of the first to share the fuel economy of the 2.5 T.

now that has been said I'm loving my 2019 GT1 more as in highway with cruise control I usually get between 29 to 35 MPG depending on the climate and the wind etc so not that big of a difference specially if we look at the power difference.

That's impressive fuel economy for your 3.3. Driving with a light foot can really help, but it's oh so boring and soul crushing! LOL Of course, I realize most GT owners didn't get the 3.3 with fuel economy as a concern. There's generally about a 20% power difference, and a 20% fuel economy difference between the 3.3 and the 2.5.

I'm at 27 mpg average with mixed city and hwy for my first 1900 miles, and I expect that to creep up as the car gets some more miles on it. That compares quite favorably to the averages reported on Fuelly (20-22 mpg avg) for the 3.3 owners. I'm looking forward to minimizing the power difference between my 2.5 and the 3.3, while keeping the 20% fuel economy difference for those longer highway trips. Trying to have my cake and eat it too!

 

[Dan00Hawk]

I've gotten upwards of 35 mpg but it took considerable restraint to keep the car at 65 mph or less on the highway. 35 on the 3.3 is even more impressive. Must of been a good tail wind

Cruise control is a funny thing. On flat roads it's great for improving mpg. On hills however I can see it being counterproductive. I would let the car increase in speeds on the down hills, recapture that momentum on the uphills (with less throttle). Cruise on the other hand would engine brake going down, while increasing throttle on the uphill. Can't see that improving mpg.

In Smart and Eco mode (at least on my 22), you can have it automatically disengage the transmission and it will coast in certain conditions and avoid engine braking, like going downhill or letting off the throttle when slowing down for other traffic. Like you said, I feel like we're better at managing that on our own than using cruise, which doesn't anticipate terrain and traffic as well as an attentive driver.

I feel like I could get a better result with lower speeds in the 60's, but it's disconcerting to drive that slow and have nearly everyone passing you.

 

[JSolo]

I was able to get the eco to disengage once. It was an odd sensation when it reconnected. Seemed like it was very slow to do so. Probably not a good idea to use that in any steep/long grades, but the stuff we have around here is fine.

A few years ago I was coming back from Omaha. Couldn't handle the mundane boredom of I80 so took some county roads IA-44, Jefferson Township to Sugar Grove Township .

This was relatively straight, but talk about rolling hills. Could probably get the car to 80 or 90 without any throttle on a downhill. Feather it coming back up. Repeat.

 

[Samou]

That's impressive fuel economy for your 3.3. Driving with a light foot can really help, but it's oh so boring and soul crushing! LOL Of course, I realize most GT owners didn't get the 3.3 with fuel economy as a concern. There's generally about a 20% power difference, and a 20% fuel economy difference between the 3.3 and the 2.5.

I'm at 27 mpg average with mixed city and hwy for my first 1900 miles, and I expect that to creep up as the car gets some more miles on it. That compares quite favorably to the averages reported on Fuelly (20-22 mpg avg) for the 3.3 owners. I'm looking forward to minimizing the power difference between my 2.5 and the 3.3, while keeping the 20% fuel economy difference for those longer highway trips. Trying to have my cake and eat it too!

Of course it's need to be light foot driving to achieve this numbers and highway with speed below 80 MPH now with that said. I really like the Stinger with the 2.5 engine as it's giving the base models a very respectful power compared to the top range of main stream Japanese mid size sedans. And the BMW 330I MB C300 AND AUDI A5.

And yes no 3.3 stinger owner bought it for the fuel economy but it's very good to know that if you treat it gently it will going to return that much of MPGs.

As of my average fuel consumption it's around 26 MPG for the last 4500 miles as I'm nearing my next service ( I change oil every 5000-6000 miles).

My daily commute is around 45 - 50 miles 65% highway. And every weekend I go to my parents house which is 85 miles away of highway.

Enjoy your cake .

 

[Samou]

For the cruise control. I don't really like how the Hyundai/ Kia cruise control is working it's not bad by any means but it's not that good as well it's just fine. I have two other cars currently a 2015 BMW 328 Xdrive and Toyota FJ cruiser while the bimmer is for my wife I use it occasionally and I can say it's cruise control is simply better as well as Toyota's cruise control system.

I only use the cruise control in the flat roads and when there is any hills involved I usually drive it by myself.

I still love my Stinger and just hope they will update their cruise control behavior.

 

[JSolo]

^^Define better?

 

[General_Vodka]

wait you guys are getting over 25mps? lol I did get 26 once with a mountain trip going downhill in eco mode. then I realized the $20 i saved were not worth it and proceeded to shred the road in sport mode. With more and more cars driving on the road the opportunity to not be stuck behind some Prius going under the speed limit in the left lane is decreasing. With more cars, there is more traffic and with more traffic, there is more wear on the roads and with more wear comes more repair work which in turn causes more traffic. In the future, all new gas cars will be banned and cars will have 40mpg average but like 0spg (smiles per gallon). We have a Camry hybrid and yes while that car will destroy mine in the economy and range, I still will take my stinger 9/10 times on a road trip. Might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

Thank you for being one of the first to share the fuel economy of the 2.5 T.

now that has been said I'm loving my 2019 GT1 more as in highway with cruise control I usually get between 29 to 35 MPG depending on the climate and the wind etc so not that big of a difference specially if we look at the power difference.

 

[RM7]

37 is definitely better than I've done, the best I've seen so far is around 33-34 with mixed speeds, 60 and 70mph. In the 70mph segments, I was averaging a little below above. In the 60mph segments, a little above. It's not bad on my 2.5 AWD IMO, but it's not 37 for sure. I'm not sure how I would do that good.

 

[Samou]

^^Define better?

By better I mean the way the cruise control is reacting for changes of altitude and the adaptive cruise control being sometimes twitchy and break harder than needed even when it's set to lowest option.

I will still buy the Stinger again if I would have to choose again . I'm only saying that something's can be done in better way. And by knowing how Hyundai/Kia history and where they were 15 years ago I'm sure they will do it.

 

[Dan00Hawk]

By better I mean the way the cruise control is reacting for changes of altitude and the adaptive cruise control being sometimes twitchy and break harder than needed even when it's set to lowest option.

I will still buy the Stinger again if I would have to choose again . I'm only saying that something's can be done in better way. And by knowing how Hyundai/Kia history and where they were 15 years ago I'm sure they will do it.

It does seem to over-react with hard braking when I would normally just let off the throttle. I am just adapting to the system's quirks. Like either using the throttle to maintain a closer space between me and the car in front so others don't switch lanes in between us, or tapping the brake or hitting cancel to manually take over throttle control when necessary. I am hopeful it may be improving over the next few years, as Genesis is using "machine learning" to better adapt the auto-cruise to driver habits such as acceleration, following distance, and response time.

 

[TeeWadeG]

Thank you for this. This is what I expected. This is one of the most frustrating things about them not giving the press new ‘22 GT-Lines.

Based on what I saw from the re-designed G80 and the N-Line sonata, I had a strong feeling the Stinger would out perform its EPA estimates.

 

[RM7]

It does seem to over-react with hard braking when I would normally just let off the throttle. I am just adapting to the system's quirks. Like either using the throttle to maintain a closer space between me and the car in front so others don't switch lanes in between us, or tapping the brake or hitting cancel to manually take over throttle control when necessary. I am hopeful it may be improving over the next few years, as Genesis is using "machine learning" to better adapt the auto-cruise to driver habits such as acceleration, following distance, and response time.

It's assuming the car ahead is stopping or stopped, since the movement is so slow. It basically can't calculate that the car will be out of the way. Every ACC car I've driven has been like this. If you see a car preparing to turn off ahead of you and you are comfortable, just click the CC off for that little period, because it's going to calculate that you'll hit it, based on it's rate of speed. The other thing all ACC cars I've drive do is "preload" the brakes in these situations, so if you hit the brakes while it's doing this, it delivers a lot more brakes than you would normally use. Same with all of these cars. I'm not sure how you change the slowing down thing when someone ahead starts turning off. If that person stalled out, you'd smack into them with a lot of speed...

 

[stoopid]

Seeing 27-28 highway with the 3.3 , around 21 mixed city/highway [which means upper teens city]. I always turn off the stop/start when I get in, so the 1 MPG that might afford me isn't reflected in that number.

I'd like to see a LONG roadtrip that consumes a full tank of gas, returning over the same roadway (to account for any elevation and wind change/loss in either direction), at the same speeds. 37MPG isn't realistic for the 2.5L , the 31.5 MPG result is closer to reality. None of the car computers do a good job estimating on only 3-4 gallons of fuel. They need a healthy sample size to be at least ballpark close.

 

[Dan00Hawk]

Seeing 27-28 highway with the 3.3 , around 21 mixed city/highway [which means upper teens city]. I always turn off the stop/start when I get in, so the 1 MPG that might afford me isn't reflected in that number.

I'd like to see a LONG roadtrip that consumes a full tank of gar, returning over the same roadway (to account for any elevation and wind change/loss in either direction), at the same speeds. 37MPG isn't realistic for the 2.5L , the 31.5 MPG result is closer to reality. None of the car computers do a good job estimating on only 3-4 gallons of fuel. They need a healthy sample size to be at least ballpark close.

The Auto Stop obviously won't impact the highway numbers at all. Sorry that my trip was only 110 miles and not a full tank of gas going in both directions to account for wind, elevation changes, and the rotation of the earth. I'm not sure I have the patience to drive with the flow of regular traffic for 5 to 6 hours in a row on the interstate to accommodate your request, so this is likely my only contribution to a "good mpg thread". It was just a sample of driving moderately and I wanted to see what it could achieve.

 

[stoopid]

The Auto Stop obviously won't impact the highway numbers at all. Sorry that my trip was only 110 miles and not a full tank of gas going in both directions to account for wind, elevation changes, and the rotation of the earth. I'm not sure I have the patience to drive with the flow of regular traffic for 5 to 6 hours in a row on the interstate to accommodate your request, so this is likely my only contribution to a "good mpg thread". It was just a sample of driving moderately and I wanted to see what it could achieve.

Understood Dan, my post was for the casual reader to remind them that the numbers aren't something they should expect*. My testing parameters were for the next person with the 2.5L that perhaps does have that kind of itinerary.

* I just checked and they're saying 35 MPG highway, that's damn good for a 300+ hp engine/drivetrain. 2 MPG over doesn't seem unreasonable. I though I read 30MPG, and I did but that was for the outgoing powerplant.