“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”
That single declarative statement succinctly defined the stakes established in HBO’s Game of Thrones and the series of books from which the show is adapted. Unlike nearly all entries in the fantasy genre, George RR Martin’s magnum opus shied away from the hero’s journey to tell a far more realistic tale of power hungry factions vying for power amidst the backdrop of an apocalyptic threat. Obviously, the automotive industry is not entirely characterized by swift wins or losses or even immediate consequences for poor decision making. There are winners and losers in every vehicle segment, but they coexist with a plethora of thoroughly average vehicles as well. The 2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport is one such vehicle. Depending on your priorities, it’s either an extraordinarily middling and outdated crossover or a competent and user friendly cargo carrier.
I recently had the chance to experience the Santa Fe Sport due to my neighbor’s misfortune, as his 2017 Honda Accord Sport was t-boned by a very inept driver several weeks ago. In this case I can personally attest to the driving skill of this particular human because his dashcam caught the whole thing. And I’d love to share the video with you all but I’d rather not risk the ire of his insurance company. Anyway, the necessity of the rental car meant that he had to temporarily give up his Sport for a “Sport.” With the two row Santa Fe Sport, Hyundai decided to enroll in Nissan’s Academy for Dishonest Names, as the sport moniker simply denotes a smaller variant. Like the Rogue Sport, there is nothing inherently athletic about the Hyundai, it was just the smaller vehicle in the Santa Fe lineup.
And what does smaller get you, at least in this case? A two row crossover with a total length of 185 inches. That’s three inches shorter than a Ford Edge and a whopping seven inches shorter than a Nissan Murano. Width is also an issue in the Santa Fe lineup: this model and the larger, three row Sante Fe XL are 74 inches wide, which is one inch short of the Nissan and two inches short of the Ford. Width is the most compelling reason to choose a midsize over a compact crossover. They’re the vehicles that can comfortably seat four people while simultaneously swallowing all their gear without a problem. And that width also pays dividends with the ride and handling. More on that later.
For now let’s focus on the interior. This is where the Sante Fe Sport makes the best case for itself, as all the materials are above and beyond what you’d normally expect for a base mid size crossover. Everything felt substantial. While the center console lid is not actually hand stitched or made from real leather, it nonetheless felt as close to the real thing as one would expect from a mainstream automaker. It also opens and closes with heft, a trait that competitors often fail to replicate, and one that goes a long way towards making the vehicle feel premium, even when it isn’t.
The console can absolutely swallow a quart of milk and probably comes just short of being able to accommodate a full gallon. It also contained a removable tray that I forgot to photograph. Unfortunately, there are no power outlets or USB charging ports in here, as they’re underneath the center stack.
The center stack and dash were outfitted with solid materials as well. Hyundai adorned the tan portions with some type of textured felt-like inserts, which ended up feeling better than the usual injection molded plastic that other automakers put in their respective vehicles. The aforementioned plastic felt good too. Many automakers resort to using scratchy plastics in those areas but in this case Hyundai opted for something a bit better. The fake wood is…fake wood. Apparently I am not capable of determining which mainstream automaker employs the real thing in their vehicles, as last year a Mazda representative chided me for wondering if the wood in a CX-5 was authentic or not. Oh well. Anyway, the enclosed storage space above the CD slot had enough room for phones or keys and such and also contained a removable rubber floor liner, a nice addition that Hyundai could have deleted without anyone noticing.
The audio system, which looks like a simple non-touch unit, can actually be manipulated with your fingers, and screen transitions are quick. The fonts for all the important stuff are large and easy to read, as are the physical buttons that govern them. I did not try and pair my phone so I cannot comment on its connectivity prowess. But I did listen to some music, which sounded good once I adjusted the bass, treble, and mid settings from their highest settings.
Like the audio controls, the buttons and dials that control the HVAC system are logically laid out and easy to use. The system itself is not digital but it does have a cool, lighted row of indicators that let you know where you stand in regards to the minimum and maximum heating and cooling capabilities of the system. The A/C was excellent.
It’s worth noting that once you get to the halfway point, the indicators turn red to indicate heat, which is a nice touch that is not found in vehicles from rival automakers.
Below the center stack is an additional storage area that also has a removable rubber floor. The centralized location of the USB, AUX, and dual 12V power outlets is nice but I prefer a setup that utilizes the center console for the USB connection to the audio system, as it allows you to conceal whatever it is you’ve got hooked up to the infotainment.
The interior gets a demerit for the button blanks, but with the quality of everything else in the Hyundai, it’s something I’m willing to overlook. It’s only a Zone of Sadness™ if the rest of the interior is depressing, and that is not the case with the Santa Fe Sport.
The cockpit contained backlit gauges and a nice screen that had better resolution than the system in dad’s 2016 Volkswagen Passat S. It was easy to navigate once I figured out the steering wheel controls, which were not ideally placed.
Beyond the dash and center stack, the drivers armrest and window switches also felt good.
Hyundai didn’t skimp on the second row either. Once nice touch was this Santa Fe badge, which was affixed to all four doors. Every door sill also featured a Santa Fe inscription, which is pretty rare for any mainstream vehicle, let alone a base model mid size crossover.
Hyundai also chose to buck the segment by placing its rear HVAC ducts on the B-pillars instead of the usual spot at the end of the center console. That location enables a rear passenger to more easily direct air to their face or chest region, which easier to accomplish when compared to the units that often sit close to the floor.
Hyundai also included a rear 12V power outlet for the rear passengers.
Overall, the seats felt pretty good. And I was able to adjust the seat and steering wheel in a way that properly accommodated my 5′ 6″ frame. But the rear visibility is terrible.
One final note on the interior: There were no squeaks or rattles whatsoever in this 38,000 mile rental, which I think is a pretty noteworthy achievement. The Japanese used to have a monopoly on high quality interiors but that has not been the case for several years.
Fortunately the Hyundai’s poor visibility is negated a bit by the integrated blind spot mirror and the rear view camera.
Unfortunately, the lack of an integrated mirror for the passenger mirror is notable. My 2013 Ford Focus has dual integrated mirrors and is easier to see out of, yet the passenger unit still feels necessary, especially at night. Proper adjustment might solve the issue but it is still an oversight that needed to be shared.
The area reserved for pulling the hatch upward also deserves criticism for its shallowness. There is far too little space to rest your fingers. Confident upward pulls are not possible here, unless you use the bottom lip of the hatch once it’s opened a little. That method will result in you touching whatever has accumulated on that section though, which in this case was a boatload of pollen, which is pretty common in New York this time of year. For an allergy sufferer like myself, this was unacceptable.
Less acceptable was the experience behind the wheel. I’ll cover the positive aspects first: The transmission shifts were crisp and gears changes were handled well once the car got moving. The brakes grab confidently as soon as you put your foot down and feel extremely linear. This concludes the section where I discuss anything good about driving the Santa Fe Sport.
The base Santa Fe Sport comes standard with Hyundai’s 2.4 liter four cylinder. With an output of 185 horsepower and 178 Ib-ft of torque, the 2.4 cannot sufficiently propel the Hyundai from a stop in any capacity whatsoever. The base curb weight is a little over 3600 pounds for this variant, which is about three hundred pounds more than your average midsize sedan, and newer entries in that segment come standard with powertrains that are more powerful than the one in the Santa Fe Sport. And the vast majority of compact crossovers have been equipped with engines that are just as powerful as the Hyundai.
From a stop the Santa Fe feels like a very poorly calibrated CVT paired to a turbocharger that suffers from extreme lag. It’s like the engine stares at your foot for about five seconds before finally realizing that you want to accelerate. The crossover can eventually get up to speed, and once it’s moving it feels okay, but the road to get there is terrible. Unfortunately, the Santa Fe Sport does not offer driving dynamics that can make up for the inadequate engine. Road imperfections quickly overwhelm the crossover to the point where you’ll wonder if Hyundai outfitted the Hyundai with a torsion beam suspension. And the utility doesn’t let you forget about potholes or abnormal road textures because road and wind noise are inextricably tied to the Santa Fe experience. My enjoyment of Better Than Ezra’s “Good” was severely diminished when the Sport encountered some grooved pavement and decided to let me know via loud howls and unsettling body roll. Not good at all.
You’d think after all that I’d condemn the Hyundai without hesitation, but I refuse to do so, because this crossover is perfect for new drivers in need of a cheap, reliable crossover that can haul all their stuff. It’s got a solid interior that doesn’t punish you for being price conscious. Slow acceleration? No problem. Risk taking drivers should start off with slow cars until they become acquainted to driving. And a punishing driving experience over rough roads will properly communicate to younger drivers that adverse road conditions will always require their attention.
Depreciation can be your friend. And in the case of the Santa Fe Sport it’s your best bud. There were three other Santa Fe Sport models at the small Enterprise lot where my neighbor returned his rental, and that tells you all you need to know about why these are priced so low. A comparable Edge or Murano is more expensive because they offer superior driving dynamics, but they may also provide complacency for amateur motorists.
When automakers play the game of cars, they create the vehicles that customers want, or they don’t. And there is absolutely a middle ground. The Hyundai Santa Fe Sport is the quintessential compromise vehicle. But that isn’t a bad thing, at least for a certain group of buyers. It’s a vehicle that will remind people of the halcyon days of 2010, when buying a car-based utility vehicle meant giving up the overall refinement and driving dynamics of a sedan. Hyundai’s elimination of the Sport for the 2019 model year might signal the end of the cheap, late model crossover, but for now the Santa Fe Sport represents a great value for those who just want a basic but cargo friendly piece of transportation.
Related Reading:
CC Rental Car Review: 2018 Jeep Compass Limited FWD – Another Point (Of View) by Jim Klein
CC Rental Car Review: 2006 Nissan Tilda (Versa) 1.5 Automatic – Meeting All The Requirements Of A Hire Car by Roger Carr
CC Rental Review: 2018 Dodge Caravan – Old Faithful by JP Cavanaugh
I have to appreciate your honest review of the Santa Fe Sport. As enthusiasts, it’s very easy to under appreciate a vehicle’s strengths in the face of poor driving dynamics, but it’s important to remember that all vehicles aren’t supposed to drive sporty. You’ve successfully avoided that trap, and made me see the good in this car!
Every now and then I tell myself I would rather read more tests like this where the driver went over the car with a fine tooth comb, but this test did start to get a bit too sterile towards the end.
Just a few….quibbles? I don’t see any wood, real or fake in that interior, and did the stated differences in length and width really make a difference in interior space?
Finally, that is one dull/boring looking vehicle, at least in the colors used for the profiled vehicle.
Every now and then I think I’d like to see a comment that’s a little bit more detailed and maybe even critical (hey, constructive criticism helps us all grow) but yours started to get a little pointless as I read it.
You had just a few quibbles, including that Edward’s review was sterile when I thought he explained quite well the driving experience and gave us a nicely detailed tour of the interior.
I like a good buff book review as much as the next enthusiast and I like reading about dynamics but they don’t often go into this level of detail. Beyond dynamics, this is the stuff I want to know about a car — is the cabin well put together, are there USB points, where are the rear air vents etc etc
Ok, to be a bit more specific, I felt like the review had a list of points or “highlights” that had been drawn up beforehand and that were not to be deviated from.
Maybe I need to re-read this now that I have been awake and out of bed for more than a few minutes?
I guess basically I felt like the review was written by someone from Consumers Reports, back when they still weren’t sure if they should treat a car the same way they treat a toaster or refrigerator. It was informative but…?
Maybe it’s best you have your morning coffee before commenting.
While I’ve had a few enthusiastic automobiles in my life, enjoyment on the road to me is much more two wheels than four, and I find that as I get older my tastes in cars are becoming more and more ‘transportation tool’ rather than ‘reason for living’. I just got back from the week in St. Augustine, FL, piloting my Kia Sedona minivan (a mommy van, for chrissakes!) that I really enjoy and value for its ability to haul large amounts of . . . . . anything . . . . and the comfort it gives me for 10 hours and 655 miles on the road. At 22mpg (I wish it was higher, but its within expectations).
And this is my idea of a car review, for this type of car. I could care less about how fast it’ll get around the north course at Virginia International Raceway. I do care about how comfortable I’m going to be in the driver’s seat for a long afternoon, how convenient the power outlets are because I’m probably reading a book in the Kindle app while the wife takes her turn at driving. Handing? Anymore, that’s more in line with how stable the car is on the road, and how predictable it’s going to react when I have to suddenly nail the brakes at 75mph because some idiot three cars ahead suddenly did something stupid.
The car tested is not meant to be a performance or handling car. It’s meant to be a transportation tool for people who really couldn’t care less about automobiles as long as they get the job done, don’t break down, and don’t drink too much gasoline in the process. And the review treated performance in just the manner that I would expect (in the eyes of a 911 owner, pathetically; in the eyes of someone who couldn’t even remember what make of car they traded in on the current one, sufficiently). It said enough about the car’s performance envelope: It’ll get out of its own way, probably has enough power to pass safely once moving, and beyond that don’t expect anything.
I though it was a very good review. Sterile, hit all the proper points, gave all the necessary information.
Just like the car being tested.
Picture 4 shows the wood, sort of, on the passenger dashboard, every other picture the reflections appear to make it look like it’s silver trim.
The wood here is a dark grayish/smoky hue. Yes it is definitely not real wood but with a sticker price in the mid-20’s I think it still looks better than it could and nobody would reasonably expect the real thing. I believe the other color interior got silver trim instead of “wood”.
Thanks for the review, Edward.
So, interestingly, Australia got this body in two- and three-row versions. The defunct Santa Fe XL never came here. I guess the official explanation would be that we’re the only RHD market that’d want a car of that size but, then again, we get the “big” Pathfinder, Kluger (Highlander), CX-9…
Worth pointing out for those not familiar that Hyundai’s chopped and changed their large crossover lineup. The first Santa Fe was kind of a tweener, a bit bigger than compacts like the Ford Escape. The second-gen grew and added an optional third row, but then Hyundai added the larger three-row Veracruz/ix55 to the range.
The Veracruz didn’t sell well, so Hyundai developed, again, a larger Santa Fe (by now the Tucson sat underneath) and offered it in Sport (two-row, swept-up window line) and Santa Fe variants. The bigger of the two had a 4-inch longer wheelbase and an extra 6 inches of overhang.
The fourth-generation Santa Fe was introduced for MY2019. It only has two rows of seating in North America as the all new Palisade now takes over from the “regular” third-gen Santa Fe, briefly called Santa Fe XL. So, effectively, the third and fourth-gen models briefly overlapped.
For markets that don’t get the Palisade, like Australia, we get the new Santa Fe in two and three row versions. They might look a bit awkward in photos but they look quite upscale in person.
If the third-gen Santa Fe is anything like the swoopy ’10 Sonata, it’s probably a very solid-feeling, well screwed-together car. I like Hyundai’s dashboard designs of this time and their fluidic sculpture design language has aged well in my eyes. Even the contemporary Hyundais that I disliked at first, like the previous generation of Elantra, now look good to me.
I had to rent one of these earlier this year to move some furniture, not an option when you drive an Elantra. I’d call a lot of your critiques fair, but some would be fairly be called picky considering the class. I found it disappointing that road and engine noise didn’t seem any more completely quelled than my smaller and cheaper Elantra. I felt that it accelerated with authority for a 4 cylinder SUV, and it peeled rubber on me by surprise when I floored it from a roll to merge once. I also felt the width was slightly restricting as my shoulder touched the B-pillar when driving. The backup camera was slightly blurry and low contrast. It averaged just over 30 mpg for me in mostly highway driving, a score which impressed me.
I was also impressed at the lack of squeaks, though the interior was showing some wear in the driver’s seat of my 35k mile example. I found the plaque on the root of the B-pillar, and it was just shy of its first birthday, so this wasn’t a car that had a lot of days off. It smelled smoky inside, though it had no ashtrays or lighters and had similar stickers to shown here. Like my reason for renting it, I’m sure many people put the SFS through some tasks, and it was doing the thankless job of a rental car with impressive style and economy if nothing else. In the hands of an owner who cared about it, I have no doubt that a SFS would be a long-lasting vehicle that’s cheap to run and ready for normal tasks.
A very good counterpoint, Dave. I don’t so much see the value of something in this class being its utility – I personally would go to a larger size for that. But this could be appealing as a replacement for a small sedan with significantly easier entry/exit for those of us (like me) getting to the age to appreciate such things. The fuel mileage you observed seems quite good for this package.
A turbo-4 is optional on the Santa Fe Sport. Perhaps your rental had that engine?
No, but my normal daily is a 1.8 with 6M, it does nothing fast without being flogged and revved. It rapidly adjusts your expectations down. The “Big-Bore 2.4” with a responsive automatic was always willing to downshift and make things happen.
That’s a very valid point, i.e. the frame of reference being used. If one is used to a tight handling lightweight hatchback and takes a brief drive in a CUV, the CUV will almost always feel sloppy, slow, and heavy. It takes time to get used to the vehicle and adapt to it. It works the other way too, if you drive a slow truck or whatever, anything small and lower will feel quick, handle great, and brake phenomenally compared to it, at least until the body “resets”.
I enjoy these reviews of the kinds of real-life cars we all may find at the rental lot or the CarMax. I also appreciate getting others’ points of view on Hyundai/Kia products after accumulating substantial experience there myself.
Your observations of quality materials and feelings of heft and solidity mirror my own. These guys have aced the exam on making occupants feel like they are in a quality car. If they could lick the road noise these would be something.
I do not have any experience with the 2.4 four cylinder. I will confess a prejudice against big fours. Anything that needs 2.4 liters to move in traffic would move much more pleasantly with a V6 of around 3 liters. But we seem to be living in an(other) era where turbos are offered in place of the two extra cylinders that people really want in a vehicle of this class. Or, with this being on the low end of the price spread, you don’t get the turbo either, I suppose.
I know what you mean about ‘big fours’. I’m still of the days that once it hit two liters, it had better have six cylinders, and by four liters, it better have eight.
Of course, they didn’t have turbochargers back then. At least not too often.
I’d rather drive a small six too, but big fours can be done fairly well. A battle must be waged against the inherent nature of the engine, but some can be battered into NVH submission to deliver decent refinement. One case in point, the 2.5 four in our Camry is just as quick as the Honda and Toyota 3.0 V6s in the early 2000s, while delivering fuel economy those could never approach and without sounding like gravel in a blender. But then its not trying to shove a chunky crossover around, either.
I’m good with big fours; in fact I rather like them. Fat torque curve. A 3.0 six (which pretty much is extinct) invariably has a much higher peak torque rpm.
Given your preference for low-speed fat torque bands, I’m a bit surprised at your preference for a small V6.
You need to try a Honda 2.4 sometime. Surprisingly smooth.
My Dad has the 2.4L in his 2017 Accord. After reading here on these very pages about inline fours having bad NVH when north of 2 liters, I expected that from his car when I drove it.
Surprisingly smooth is a very good description. I’m convinced that Honda counterbalanced that thing.
My (ex’s) ’88 Turbo Coupe’s 2.3L “Lima” felt like a thrashing machine in comparison from what I remember.
Of course that could just be three decades of refinement talking.
Those wheels from the 2016-2017 Accord Sport and Touring are by far the best looking wheels ever. I want to get a set for my 2015 Accord but from what I’ve been told they make the ride very crashy and they’re prone to blowouts thanks to the low sidewall so I’m sticking with my boring 17″. Honda should have designed them as 18″ instead of 19″
Personally, I have extensive seat time inside my neighbor’s 2017 Sport and the ride feels very smooth, obviously not as smooth as a smaller tire but something that you can definitely live with on a daily basis. And he’s never suffered a blowout. I highly doubt these wheels depreciate much so you might be able to sell them for the same purchase price if you dislike them.
Road quality is a big factor and in Massachusetts its very poor if youre not on a main road.
I recently had one of these as a rental. Overall I was happy to get the Santa Fe over a penalty box like the Nissan Sentra.
I agree with most of the comments here. The acceleration lags and the suspension is a bit crashy. It was serviceable enough for 3 days in and around NYC, but it was definitely not nice.
Oh. And it was an electric blue color. Mercifully, I didn’t have to see the color from inside the cabin. Then again, with poor sight lines, I couldn’t see much of anything.
When one of my cars was hit by a red light runner, we got a 2005 Santa Fe as a rental. I have very little recollection of it, perhaps due to the stress of the crash my son was in, the whole is the car going to be fixed or not question, the thirstiness of the rental compared to the little Cavalier that we lost, etc. It was an unhappy time. Thankfully everyone was OK, but the other driver who was at fault, got off.
Sounds like it was an unobtrusive mode of conveyance in a chaotic time of your life, which is exactly what it needed to be.
I’m glad no one was seriously injured.
The SantaFe Sport (2 row) has been eliminated in name only for 2019 – the replacement is just called the Santa Fe (no sport, 2 row) and is pictured in the last two pictures next to the test car and is completely new for 2019. The old Santa Fe (3row) is now the Santa Fe XL (3row) and about to be replaced by the Palisade (basically a Kia Telluride with different clothing)
My own Hyundai epiphany came a few years ago when I was picked up at O’Hare airport by the staff of SilverCar to take me to my Audi rental in a Hyundai Santa Fe much like this one. During the ride I was extremely impressed by the visual quality, design, and tactile feel of what I saw and touched. It left an extremely good impression and completely jibes with what Edward noted re: the interior accoutrements.
I don’t think many (any?) people cross-shop an SFS against a Murano or an Edge though. While some places may class it as a mid-size (such as rental car places) to me it’s firmly in the Rav4/CRV/Equinox/Rogue/Escape class with the Murano especially at least one or maybe a couple of classes higher, mainly due to Murano only being offered as a V6. Looked at it that way the base SFS engine is very on par from an engine size standpoint as are many other aspects of it instead of when just comparing it as the largest 2-row offering.
Lastly, one note of caution – the tires on a 38k mile rental may vary significantly from what you or I would consider acceptable for our own cars and can very easily impact the experience in terms of noise etc – to wit, the last Enterprise rental car I had was the Corolla I drove from STL to DEN and with 42k miles on it had three aftermarket Kelly-branded tires and one very worn, likely original, Firestone. One of the Kelly’s sounded like it was cupped and made a noticeably unpleasant noise. Perhaps this rental SFS had perfectly good and/or new tires, but there is the definite possibility that it did not based on my own recent experience with the vendor.
The new 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe (the short one) was supposed to offer a diesel engine, which would unlock a standard third row, but Hyundai wisely decided not to bother…so there’s no third-row either. Mind you, I don’t see why you’d want a third row in something that size.
Likewise, the Kia Sorento is rather short for a three-row vehicle. I think it only had one because they killed the short-lived Borrego, leaving the second-gen and later Sorento as their sole three-row crossover, up to the Telluride’s recent debut.
Very nice review. I have sampled a few of these, and agree with your assessment. The thing that turned me off was the video-game-like steering. It just has no heft whatsoever.
Of course, Hyundai didn’t get *rid* of the Santa Fe Sport for 2019 per se; they just renamed the shorter crossover back to the Santa Fe. It’s a bit larger, and considerably more refined. What used to be the three-row Santa Fe is now the Santa Fe XL, and will be replaced by the Palisade in the coming months (whose styling I think is busy and far less attractive than that of its handsome Kia Telluride sister).
I’m really trying not be a luddite and just accept the whole crossover thing. Now that less than 1 in 3 vehicles sold is a normal-style car, I figure I might as well get used to these darn things as they are only going to get more common on the roads and filter down to the used car lots as the years pass. The thought of actually buying one still makes me cringe, but I’m trying to at least… not actively hate them.
It’s hard though after reading reviews like this. I understand that this is hardly the pinnacle of current crossover engineering, as is mentioned in the review multiple times. But what I’m hearing is:
– Worse ride quality than a sedan (at least old school 12MPG real SUVs were comfy)
– Worse/same road noise and NVH as a sedan
– 3600 pounds
– Worse handling than a sedan
– (slightly) worse MPG than a sedan
– Higher price than sedan, new and used (the latter due to higher demand)
Ok, it has a hatch and you sit up higher. I realize that for a lot of buyers, especially women and older people, these attributes alone make the sale over a sedan. I get it. But I’m really failing to see what makes these such a revolutionary improvement over traditional passenger cars. Certainly not enough to make sedan sales plummet from 50% of the market to 30% of the market in FIVE years. For what I need and want, they are simply worse in so many ways. I’m convinced that Americans just buy whatever the largest vehicle their monthly payment can afford, and driving one of these jacked up compacts make them feel like they have an “SUV”, or like they’re more powerful in traffic, or successful, or something. I just can’t shake the feeling that they are a dorky, ugly downgrade over say, an Elantra or Sonata, personally.
So just embrace it and look at the positives from a sedan-lover perspective – there has never been a better time to buy a sedan, either new or used. All of the “good” offerings are still available, the only ones cut so far are what their makers themselves perceived to be also-rans and everything that is left from virtually EVERY manufacturer is being offered at out the prices that are far below what they would be otherwise. And good sedans will not go anywhere, they will still be around and the makers that have success at the genre will likely make their offerings even better to the detriment of the others that will have even more trouble competing if trends eventually shift yet again.
Would you rather everybody be driving around in 12 MPG BOF SUVs and never taking them off-road? Because that’s largely what was happening in Middle America 10 years ago, before CUVs took off.
And don’t forget, CUVs are just returning to the old form of automobiles before long-low-wide took over: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/mini-comparison-1949-plymouth-suburban-wagon-and-2017-toyota-rav4-almost-identical-dimensions/
For the longest time my folks would have agreed with you on this. However my folks bought a 2018 Escape and they love the thing. It is easier to get in and out of then their previous car (2003 Sable wagon). I can attest to this as I own their old Sable as a beater car and I bang my head on the roof getting in almost all the time.
This is perfect for two folks that are in their late 60’s or early 70’s. Plus the Escape is easier to park and no more under bumper/aid dam scrapes.
I enjoyed your review; a neighbor across my street has an exact clone, color and all. What I find perplexing is using the Murano and Edge as comparison points when they both are at least $5k plus more expensive out the door, MSRP. That becomes turbo Santa Fe territory, not this bare bones example. This Santa Fe you tested is MSRP’d at 25k, before any dealer discount, and is basically trading space for feature content against the compact segment. Let’s be serious, a private buyer could get this for 23k if they were bad at haggling. It doesn’t promise anything it can’t do at that price point. Good luck finding an Edge or Murano (new) for that type of coin.
Your point about competency for someone seeking basic transportation is well noted.
But after reading about the driving dynamics, another Better Than Ezra song came to mind…BTE’s one of my favorite acts of the 90’s, btw.
Thorough review, much appreciated. This vehicle reminds me of the recent Dodge Journey review–basic utilitarian transportation that doesn’t stand out for good or ill in the Era of No Truly Bad Cars. If it runs reliably and provides low ownership costs, it did its job.
That said, I see absolutely nothing remotely charming or endearing about this vehicle, and I can usually find that even in B-segment subcompacts. There’s something about Hyundai design language that just rubs me the wrong way, particularly their interiors. The architecture of the dashboard and center stack. The odd shapes to the window switches, shift lever, and storage bin, the yucky grayscale tan trim and dismal dark brown. It’s as if they took a normal interior and then distorted it along random planes, then aimlessly tweaked the color scale. I much prefer Kia’s approach to design.
I will join you in a knee-jerk preference for the styling at Kia over that at Hyundai. However, I think I would have a much, much higher confidence factor that one of these will run rings around a Journey (or most anything built by FCA these days) in terms of costs of ownership over 100k miles. Who would have thought the day would come when I would publicly prefer something from Korea over something from Chrysler. The world has indeed changed.
BTW, this is how you do a two-tone tan interior properly.
Properly!? Having different handles to pull the door close on drivers’ and passengers’ side would drive me bonkers! It’s like the left and right side of the interior door cards were designed by two different teams!
P.S. Left side looks like it come from circa 2010-2012 Ford Fusion and right door from Lincoln MkZephyr of the same time frame.
Couple weeks ago I had the opportunity to drive one of those 2.4L Santa Fe and yes, the car is painfully slow.
Other than that it is a nice car for the money.
Seems a lot like the RCR on the Hyundai Accent I wrote last Fall. Competent, nothing to love, but nothing to hate, either. And that’s what 95% of buyers want in a vehicle.
I was not aware, however, of the steep price drop on CPO models. A used Santa Fe is right about new Elantra money. I’d study a lot of CarFax and see if I could find one that wasn’t from a rental fleet.
Great review, thank you. Provided the right level and kind of information I would find useful for a vehicle like this. Makes me want to have a threesome between my daughter’s ’12 RAV, my ’16 Forester XT and my wife’s ’17 QX50. Which would lick which in the various categories one could pick. Such an article would need to have the same level of detail is this one on the SF Sport.
Motor Trend gives a 0-60 time of 8.3 seconds for the 2.4. That used to be pretty brisk once upon a time, and doesn’t seem all that slow even today. In fact, I’m somewhat surprised by it.
That is really amazing. A 1974 Camaro RS would do 0-60 in 8.0 seconds, and most people do not consider them slow or underpowered.
We are so spoiled that we forget what the good old days were REALLY like….
I have no idea how they accomplished that. My Focus has been quoted by numerous publications as having that exact same 0-60 time, and there is no way that the Ford was slower than the Sport I drove. I’m wondering if they got a preproduction vehicle that had a different calibration or something, because I find it extremely hard to believe that a 3600 pound vehicle could go so fast with only 185 horsepower.
You power to weight ratio is very similar. With slightly different gearing they could be the same to 60.
SantaFeSport FWD 185 HP 3600lbs is 19.4lbs/HP
2013 Focus 160HP 3000lbs is 18.75lbs/HP, less than a 5% difference.
Interesting. Perhaps it was something related to the gearing of the specific Santa Fe I was driving.
My first thought was that 3600 lbs and 180 hp was about the same as a 1978 Z28 with the same equipment.
The 2.0 Turbo would be faster. I’ve been living with one of those, a 2014. The 2014 model is essentially the same car. We use it around town and for occasional short to medium highway jaunts. We’re recently returned from a round trip, NY to Boston.
Mine has a higher trim level than the one you reviewed. For example, the button blanks in the center console of yours are filled with the seat heaters on mine. It was an improvement over the 15-year-old minivan it replaced. Neither car is something I’d buy if I need or wanted to drive fast on twisty roads, but the Hyundai does provide basic transportation, in a comfortable cabin.
I haven’t noticed every shortcoming you did, and some of yours may be related to high mileage and use as a rental car. Tire noise on irregular pavement, for example, might be due to replacement tires. I do find the steering too light. The adjustments of suspension and steering for sport and luxury settings don’t make any difference. The economy button on the dash doesn’t seem to improve mileage either.
I’m surprised yours doesn’t have digital climate control, because mine does. Is that possibly due to its higher trim level? Maybe. I certainly agree with you that the controls on the steering wheel are awkwardly placed. Trying to view different settings on the digital dash, Since I’m nearly a foot taller than my wife, I wish we had gotten one with memory seats.
All in all, mine is reliable transportation, but the handling is nothing to write home about.
The one fault I find annoying is that it falls very far short of the EPA mileage estimates for around-town driving. Over the road, I sometimes exceed the EPA estimate, but around town I never hit and rarely come within 20 percent of the target.
Would I buy another one? Maybe. Hyundai hasn’t done anything to turn me off the company, as GM did by making crap throughout the 1970’s. Would I buy another one without considering what else is out there, and weighing features against price? No.
Jim Klein’s point about the tires is well-taken, but it seems like even the much-improved Hyundai and KIA cars of the past decade have tended to not do so hot on the ride and handling scale. They aren’t dire anymore, but they’re not marked by any great inspiration on the chassis-tuning front.
It’s too bad because they’re attractively styled for the most part and this Santa Fe’s interior is really quite appealing. If it had a nice, quiet, well-damped ride, I think it would make a stronger case for itself even if the powertrain and handling were nothing special.
Things may be improving on the chassis front since Hyundai hired Albert Biermann several years ago. The KIA Stinger/Genesis G70 apparently has a pretty decent chassis despite its weight, so one may hope that trend spreads to the cheaper models.
Oh hey Edward Snitkoff, that vehicle should not have been rented to your friend since it is missing a front license plate and Missouri requires two plates.
Thank you for the writeup and now I am curious about the Santa Fe Sport, but first I have to find one to drive.