Hyundai Santa Cruz Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Maverick 2.5 Hybrid FWD: 40 city / 33 highway / 37 combined (87 octane recommended)
Maverick 2.0T AWD: 22city / 29 highway / 25 combined (91 octane recommended)
Santa Cruz 2.5 AWD: 21 city / 27 highway / 23 combined (87 octane recommended)
Santa Cruz 2.5 FWD: 21 city / 26 highway/ 23 combined (87 octane recommended)
Santa Cruz 2.5T AWD: 19 city / 27 highway / 22 combined (87 octane recommended)

These numbers are from an AWD Ecoboost with the 4K tow package that has shorter gearing due to a 3.81 vs 3.64 final drive. A lighter FWD Ecoboost without the tow package might get another mpg or two. :oops: (y)
1729

1730
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 · (Edited)
To add a bit more context:

Maverick 2.5 Hybrid = 191hp
Santa Cruz 2.5 = 191hp
Maverick 2.0T = 250hp
Santa Cruz 2.5T = 281hp

Based on 15K miles per year with national average fuel prices of $3.18 for regular and $3.81 for premium fuel using combined fuel economy figures:

Maverick 2.5 Hybrid = $1,288 / year or $12.8K over 10 years
Santa Cruz 2.5 = $2,073 / year or $20.7K over 10 years
*Maverick 2.0T = $2,286 / year or $22.9K over 10 years
Santa Cruz 2.5T = $2,169 / year or $21.7K over 10 years
Ram 1500 5.7 RWD = $3,320 / year or $33.2K over 10 years (my current vehicle, 89 octane)

Fuel Cost: Maverick Hybrid < Santa Cruz 2.5 < Santa Cruz 2.5T < Maverick 2.0T

*Note that Ford indicates that while the 2.0T Ecoboost is designed for 91+ octane for optimum performance, it can operate on 87 octane so for long trips of relaxed highway cruising you could certainly put in regular or midgrade without issue.
 

·
Registered
2022 Sage Grey SC Ultimate
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
Ford also doesn't tell you what your MPG is with lower octane fuel. End of the day, outside of the hybrid offering actual fuel savings, the rest are REALLY basically on par with each other in terms of fuel costs. But this is also why Ford has been very careful not to release any of the 2.0T EPA numbers until they were in dealerships and they couldn't hide it anymore. 29 highway on premium isn't 40 - and cost-wise, isn't better than 27 highway on regular. Naturally, if you ran 91 in the SC you should also see mpg increases. At least we tend to in Canada because premium is generally (but not always) ethanol-free and ethanol lowers fuel economy. I can literally see the difference when I fill at the place that says up to 10% ethanol and the ones that are up to 15% ethanol. That 5% difference results in literally 3mpg differences CONSISTENTLY in our Equinox.

I'm hoping the Santa Cruz will give me the same kind of "better than EPA" mileage on my commute that the Chevy does. I average about 5mpg better on the highway than the window sticker said. Sticker is 30 highway, I normally get 35, have even hit 38 a couple of times. One thing I've yet to complain about with that vehicle ... mileage has been outstanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Ford also doesn't tell you what your MPG is with lower octane fuel.
Typically you should see no fuel economy difference on the EPA test, and in fact I'd be surprised if they don't do the EPA test cycle on 87 octane, as even vehicles that recommend 91 often do that... maybe it helps their fleet #s or something, not sure. The EPA test cycle is pretty chill, and higher octane usually comes into play under high loads like towing or punching it.
I'm hoping the Santa Cruz will give me the same kind of "better than EPA" mileage on my commute that the Chevy does.
Yeah, the EPA combined guesstimate is just a nice ballpark number to start with. If people are trying to figure out geographical differences for their area:

Maverick 2.5 Hybrid:
  • subtract power/efficiency if you are at high altitude and/or very long cold winters
  • add efficiency if you are in dense urban environment w/ heavy traffic and intersections

Santa Cruz 2.5:
  • subtract power/efficiency if you are at high altitude

Maverick 2.0T:
  • subtract power/efficiency if you have very hot long summers
  • subtract efficiency for dense urban environment w/ heavy traffic and intersections
  • add efficiency if you do a lot of highway cruising

Santa Cruz 2.5T:
  • subtract power/efficiency if you have very hot long summers
  • subtract efficiency for dense urban environment w/ heavy traffic and intersections
  • add efficiency if you do a lot of highway cruising
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Ford also doesn't tell you what your MPG is with lower octane fuel. ...Naturally, if you ran 91 in the SC you should also see mpg increases.
Ford's HP and Torque numbers are also based on higher octane fuel. So while one can run lower octane the ECU is going to dial the power back. It's interesting that Hyundai cites power and MPG with lower octane. I wonder if power bumps up with higher octane fuel as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
While a midsized pickup, I think it's interesting to note the Ford Ranger's power and fuel consumption since its engine (2.3 liter Turbo) is close to the SC.
  • 4x2... 21 city/26 hwy/23 combined
  • 4x4... 20 city/24 hwy/22 combined
  • HP... 270
  • Torque... 310
On one hand, I think it's a bit disappointing that the SC doesn't get a bit better fuel mileage. However, the SC has a slight edge on power delivery and the vehicles are nearly the same weight (the Ranger is a few 200-300 lbs heavier depending on trims). Again, the Ranger is certainly not the same category of vehicle, so like Maverick vs. SC, I think it more a matter of truck vs. truck-like and which one someone needs/prefers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Again, the Ranger is certainly not the same category of vehicle, so like Maverick vs. SC, I think it more a matter of truck vs. truck-like and which one someone needs/prefers.
Yeah, it gets confusing if you start shopping totally different categories. From a fuel economy standpoint, if you don't mind being much slower and giving up handling performance and parking agility (biggest PITA at my work) along w/ more challenging ingress/egress for elderly passengers, you can actually match a Santa Cruz Limited with a fullsize truck.

For giggles I had put together this build of a 2021 Ram 1500 Lonestar RWD Quad Cab 6'4" bed with the 305hp V6 Full Level 2 equipment group (pretty loaded) with a Night Edition package that has a upgraded exterior and interior and adds a mechanical LSD with folding blinker mirrors and what not, the tri-fold tonneau, and the trailer brake controller and it came out to $41,870 on par with a SC Limited.

Same 22mpg combined EPA rating:
1731

1732
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
So its about a wash between the SC and Mav both using the bigger engines given the 91 octane recommendation on the Mav. They are close enough that MPG wouldn't change my mind as to which I would buy.

My other choice before the SC was a Ranger. I think the reason the Ranger gets better city mileage is the 10 speed. On the highway the SC has a slight aero advantage so its gains a few MPG that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
So its about a wash between the SC and Mav both using the bigger engines given the 91 octane recommendation on the Mav. They are close enough that MPG wouldn't change my mind as to which I would buy.

My other choice before the SC was a Ranger. I think the reason the Ranger gets better city mileage is the 10 speed. On the highway the SC has a slight aero advantage so its gains a few MPG that way.
I dunno, yeah its two extra gears, but 10-speed is a slushbox and 8-speed is a DCT which is supposed to be more efficient mileage wise. shrugs
1749
 

·
Registered
2022 Sage Grey SC Ultimate
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
I looked at the Ranger too. And Canyon AT4. And Ram 1500. All of them feel like they're kind of stripped down and featureless for about the same money (more money in all cases, but as close as I could compare at) as the Santa Cruz. And they're all big. The Ram was the comfiest of the bunch, but a true behemoth - even if the 5.7 has satisfying giddyup and noise when you push down on the go pedal. I'd say it would be my second choice of the bunch. Plus, you KNOW you can always score some pretty massive discounts on them. $14k+ off MSRP is pretty normal.

End of the day, none of them are what I want in my driveway though, or I'd already be in that Ram. Best looking (to my eye) of the full size trucks out there. But nothing smaller comes close to the style of the SC!
 

·
Registered
2022 Sage Grey SC Ultimate
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
I looked at our local dealer last week ... averaging about $8500 off right now. Granted, they have all of three on the lot, and they're all black. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
I dunno, yeah its two extra gears, but 10-speed is a slushbox and 8-speed is a DCT which is supposed to be more efficient mileage wise. shrugs
The Ford 10 speed skips gears to get into fuel save mode as quickly as possible under light acceleration in city type driving. This transmission mapping changes in Sport Mode. Thus I bet a Ranger driven in Sport would get compare mileage to the SC with the DCT.

Either way your talking 1 MPG here or there, hardly anything to worry about as mileage varies so much depending on driving habits, traffic, terrain, temperature, tire pressure, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Sorry, if I derailed this thread somewhat with comparisons to body-on-frame trucks. I think the main point I was trying to get at (perhaps unsuccessfully) was that the SC'c 2.5T engine is more capable than the Maverick turbo option and more on par with the Ranger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,025 Posts
I think the main point I was trying to get at (perhaps unsuccessfully) was that the SC'c 2.5T engine is more capable than the Maverick turbo option and more on par with the Ranger.
As someone who was considering the Ranger once the SC's HP and TQ was announced that pretty much sealed the deal. Because now I could get Ranger like power in a smaller, nicer looking and better equipped vehicle.
 

·
Registered
2022 Sage Grey SC Ultimate
Joined
·
1,076 Posts
And yet here is a USED couple year old warlock 4th generation asking for more than they sold for new after haggling in 2019: Autotrader - page unavailable
That's just weird. Also, heard the sales guy on the radio this morning ... Ram Classics are currently $9,750 off MSRP here. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
As someone who was considering the Ranger once the SC's HP and TQ was announced that pretty much sealed the deal. Because now I could get Ranger like power in a smaller, nicer looking and better equipped vehicle.
I was looking at a Ranger as well... until I saw the SC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
Sorry, if I derailed this thread somewhat with comparisons to body-on-frame trucks. I think the main point I was trying to get at (perhaps unsuccessfully) was that the SC'c 2.5T engine is more capable than the Maverick turbo option and more on par with the Ranger.
Nothing wrong with comparison to any other vehicle that might compete. If someone was parking their truck outside, didn't care about performance and handling, and the extra climb up into a body on frame truck is a non-issue, I probably would get a Ram.

And if they really are $10K off, I just priced out a Ecodiesel with a loaded up 12" infotainment screen interior, and that would be $46K MSRP - $10K = $36K, comparable to a SC Premium. Diesel is 22 city / 32 highway / 26 combined, very frugal for such a large vehicle, and more than compensates for the higher price of diesel, and the 3.0 ecodiesel is supposedly a good engine, just redesigned for 2020. On a personal note though, its mostly the size of my current paid off Ram that's the biggest issue.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top