13th Jun 2006, 09:58

I concur with the MPG issue: my girlfriend has a 2003 Getz 1.1 GSi, and she usually only gets 34-36 mpg, with normal, gentle driving. She once got 46mpg on a VERY steady cruise down from Scotland, but that seemed to be a one-off. For the performance, which is poor (but probably just about OK for the engine size) the MPG is much, much too low. It's a shame, as the car is generally very good in all other areas!

20th Jun 2006, 13:11

I have a Getz 1.4GSI (2006) and as a very careful driver can only get 33mpg in semi rural Sussex. I thought about having it checked out, but can see that it will be a waste of time. However, other than mpg it is the most comfortable car I have ever driven and I look forward to getting behind the wheel every time. Previous car was a Ford Ka. (Tin box on wheels, but 42mpg without even trying)

30th Jun 2006, 16:21

I agree that mpg is poor, but have found that it has improved a lot after 11000 miles.these engines are very tight! no oil used at all between annual services!now can achieve range between 31 and 44 mpg. same as a jazz if owners are realalistic.Govt.figs are always rubbish. Bob Worthing... Tyre wear is more of a problem!

6th Sep 2006, 03:09

I own a 1.1 GSI getz and I really can't see what you lot are moaning about. I've had a comfortable 60mpg on the motorway holding about 60mph. obviously the faster you go the more fuel you use. around town these cars are going to suffer as the engines have to work harder.

6th Sep 2006, 16:50

To the 6th September comment poster, I think you are one of the lucky ones! I'm glad that you are enjoying such good mpg returns, but if you look on Getz forums etc, you will see that many, many people have issues with their mpg, irrespective of how their car is driven. There is clearly a problem somewhere that Hyundai have unfortunately decided to state does not exist.

As I said in my previous comment, it's such a shame, as the car is generally very competent in all other areas.

11th Sep 2006, 12:31

Agree with the comments about poor MPG, but not to the same extent. I do keep an extremely close and regular eye on my MPG and these are my personal findings. I have a 1.1 CDX 5 door, purchased brand new in September 2005.

For the first 3,000 miles or so, the car was getting 37 to 45 mpg. After one year and 12,000 miles, it is now getting 39 to 47 mpg, so it is a little better. Average mpg since new is 43.1. It is used for town driving and also long distance motorway. The best I ever got was a long motorway-only drive where I attained 47.6 mpg.

I do not use the air-conditioning much, and on motorways I tend to stick to around 70-75mph, going up to 75-80 only rarely, and never over 80. I usually have a little bit of weight in the car, probably equivalent to an extra passenger or two.

Apart from the mpg problem (and it IS a problem - I bought it on the understanding that I would get an average of more than 50mpg so my running costs are more than I planned), the car is marvellous. Nice and comfy & loads of space with the seats down (I am a musician and carry lots of equipment – sometimes loads of it).

15th Dec 2007, 02:58

Although I have seen many complaints about fuel consumption, I have to wonder if these represent the majority of owners, or if those whom are getting good consumption are not speaking up. My 1.6 is giving me about the same as other 1.6 cars I have owned.

I have driven the 1.3 and would say the performance is comparable to other cars with a similar size engine. Same for the 1.6.

The boot space is fairly small with the seats up - this gives more space to the passengers in the back. With the seats down the space is very good. If you're going to Ikea, don't take passengers in the back and you'll have plenty of space.

24th Dec 2007, 08:06

I've never really tested it properly as my mum and I drive it, but we got 32MPG (some highway driving, some city driving in sydney) and then my driving: flooring it everywhere haha.

1st Feb 2009, 15:37

Really like my 54 plate 1.3 CDX, but if I had bought it for good mpg I would have been disappointed; 35mpg overall is doing well. Maybe a bit more on a long journey at moderate speed.

I had noisy rear brakes after 3 years, but new brake cylinders sorted that -- old ones were leaking and I presume sticky.

27th Jul 2009, 19:25

Do not check your cars. They are not broken. They just work like that. The petrol engines from the older generations burn more fuel. Period. I have tested 1997 VW Polo 1.4 (60 hp) and 2002 Ford Fiesta 1.3 (73 hp) and they return 30 MPG (or 9,5 L/100km) in the city. The modern 'lean burn' engines are probably better, but not much. If you drive more than, lets say 10 000 miles per year the answer is simply - a diesel engine. Cheers.

17th Jul 2019, 15:46

As a previous commentee (?), thinking back to the MPG on the Getz, it was a big shame. I think we would have kept the car longer had it been cheaper on fuel. We changed into an older Renault Clio 1.2 to save some costs (purchase and running) and the fuel returns were (despite the quoted figures being very similar) noticeably better, mid-high 40's and more.

We later got a new VW Fox 1.2, which pretty much did the 46 MPG it was quoted at, and then changed to a Peugeot 107 which we still have, which straight away would give 55+ MPG, sometimes 65+ although it doesn't give as good figures now with nearly 90k on the clock.

Such a shame as the Getz was a very nice car to drive, smooth, quiet, comfortable... but 33-36 MPG (accurate from repeated filling measurements) was just not good enough for a 1.1 small car! I was getting similar average MPG from a 2.3T 230bhp Saab 9-5 Aero!