Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Hyundai Elantra Real World MPG 2012

18911131416

Comments

  • camaroman2012camaroman2012 Member Posts: 6
    My Hyundai Elantra has barely even come close to the EPA estimates. At 90% highway driving, I was able to get 37mpg. This has been the best I have ever achieved. The next closest was 36mpg (once) and then 35mpg a couple times after. Most of the time though, I was getting high twenties to low thirties. I mentioned it to the dealership when it was still new and only had around 6k miles on it and they stated that once it broke-in, that it should get better. Well, at 16k miles, my mileage has continued to decline. So, I asked the dealership about it and they stated that if no check engine light was on, there was probably nothing wrong. I adamantly advised them that something must be wrong, so today they finally agreed to look at it. Well, they stated that the vehicle computer stated the vehicle was misfiring due to too much alcohol in the tank. First off, how did the alcohol get in there, and secondly why isn't it burning it up like any other car would. HEET is all alcohol and is used to remove water. It safely burns up and out along with any water, but I have not used any HEET product or put anything in my tank but gasoline. Generally Chevron or Texaco fuel. On occasion, (Road Trips) Shell or other gasoline, but I always try to stay with a big name brand. I don't cut corners on my fuel or maintenance. I have a 2001 Ford Escape bought new and have put 176k on it and have always used the same fuel and maintenance schedule and it purrs like it always has. So, my question is what type of BS is this their giving me? Too much alcohol in the tank? Why won't the vehicle burn it up like any other vehicle? Also, they are stating that it won't be covered under warranty (Big surprise) and that I have to replace the spark plugs (16k miles) and drain the tank and remove all the alcohol. Again, this crappy gas mileage has been since new, and steadily declined. We don't live in a cold climate and don't have a lot of stop and go traffic. Also, the last fill-up showed me 23mpg. My average is 25mpg. No heavy foot driving as its my wife's car and she drives VERY conservative. Sounds like Hyundai has no idea why it's misfiring and made up this bogus story.......
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Any chance that some E85 was accidentally put into the tank? Does anyone but you ever put gas into the car?
  • gman4911gman4911 Member Posts: 43
    If I were you, I'd verify the OBD code. It's possible a sensor is malfunctioning. If you don't have a code scanner, go to Advanced Auto Parts or AutoZone and borrow one.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    When you wrote, "At 90% highway driving, I was able to get 37mpg. This has been the best I have ever achieved. The next closest was 36mpg (once) and then 35mpg a couple times after.", you didn't say anything about how fast you were driving. If you are driving over 70 mph, you can't expect to see max highway FE. And if you are driving at 75-80 mph, then getting 35 or so mpg would likely be pretty reasonable.
  • camaroman2012camaroman2012 Member Posts: 6
    No kidding Sherlock. Like this is the first car I have ever owned. Are you serious? Obviously these cars were tested under NON-real world driving scenarios, with NON realistic uses of the vehicle (no AC) etc. All this tells me is that they are trying to fudge the numbers and to deceive people into thinking that if they use the vehicle (normally) on normal highways and with normal city driving conditions, that they will achieve the stated MPG's. As you clearly stated above, that is NOT THE CASE. Deception seems to be a normal marketing strategy in this day and age. Why not be honest with people? I know this would probably be a new concept, but wow, nobody would be able to have any legitimate complaints, unless there really was an issue with the vehicle. It's when deception meets reality is when issues arise. How about this novel idea, test ALL the vehicles at 65, 70 & 75 MPH for highway tests? Wow, that seems to be the speed of most highways and freeways. Novel idea?

    For everyone that has a legitimate complaint like myself, continue reading below, for all others, take a hike.

    Ok, lets throw highway out the window for now, since we know they are false tests, and that it's just deception at its best. Ok, my 2011 Hyundai Elantra is stated to get 29MPG city? Well, what type of deceptive test were used to achieve that number? I have NEVER been able to get anywhere near that number? My combined city/highway average is 25MPG. I don't even want to know how bad strictly city driving would be. I don't have a large city like a lot of people here, and I try to use the roadways with the least amount of lights, so I don't understand how it's even possible to get 29MPG. I guess I use the A/C, so there it is. I'm guilty of using the vehicle under normal driving conditions. You got me Hyundai with your false tests, or what ever company they are PAYING to achieve these ridiculous (unrealistic) numbers.

    Here's an idea. How about some of the other car companies who's car's can achieve their stated MPG's come on board and stomp these liars into the dirt?
    Why don't these other manufactures take these other car companies to court and get them to at least, post real numbers. I would have most likely bought a Chevy Cruz or Toyota Camry had I known this car would have been so far off the numbers. I can tell you one thing, my experience with Hyundai so far, tells me I WILL NOT recommend them or buy another vehicle from them. The only way I will have respect for this company at this point is if they come clean with owners that are not getting the stated MPG's and provide compensation or offer an option with hugh incentives to get into another model that gets the stated numbers. Or, they can work on my car and at least get it closer than 11MPG off the normal stated average. I can accept 2-3 mpg off, but 11MPG off is hugh. Don't believe me, my Chevy pickup pulling a 21' fully loaded travel trailer at 75-80 MPH didn't even drop 11MPG. It dropped 8MPG, which is expected when pulling a heavy parachute behind you, especially at those speeds.
  • gman4911gman4911 Member Posts: 43
    edited June 2012
    If you know that the EPA tests are not under real-world driving condtions, then why are you trying to apply it to real-world conditions?

    The primary purpose of the EPA tests are to allow people to compare one car to another under the exact same test conditions. If there was no standardized test, there'd be no way to fairly compare one car to another.

    As far as your assertion that Hyundai is fudging the numbers, sure it's possible, but they didn't. All the car mfrs test their cars the exact same way under the exact same conditions using parameters specified by the EPA. There was an instance where, I think it was BMW, who had to revise their numbers down after the EPA found the numbers that BMW submitted to be high. The EPA has verified Hyundai's numbers and their results were the same as what Hyundai reported.

    The bottom line is that the closer your driving conditions are to the test conditions, the easier it is to attain the EPA results. This is why the window stickers always specify a range of what you can expect. The more you deviate from the test conditions, the more likely your results will differ, for better or worse. There are many people who've been able to exceed the EPA numbers, myself included.
  • maxx4memaxx4me Member Posts: 1,340
    edited June 2012
    Sorry for those who continue to deny, but where there is smoke, there is very likely a fire burning somewhere. My Vibe is rated 26/31. I get 33 in summer driving with a light foot. That is all suburban driving. I get 28 when I drive like a maniac. I just got 41 on all highway with the cruise control and maintaining the speed limit and carrying my golf clubs, luggage and a 2.5 ton jack in case of emergency. So there was enough weight to simulate a second person in the car. So, right now, with a very light foot, I am able to attain 33/41 on a car rated 26/31. Please don't slam the Elantra drivers who are not coming close to EPA ratings. There is something clearly amiss when so many have complained. I would not be happy either. All I can add is that they were brave enough to post their issues, and it has influenced my next car purchase. I will NOT be buying an Elantra. My Corolla-Vibe is far exceeding the EPA numbers, and many Yaris owners are doing so also. So for those who have "informed the electorate," I thank you for keeping me from stepping into the same troubles, and I wish you better mileage when your car's engine hits the sweet spot. Mine seemed to have occured right around 50,000 miles.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    What seems more than a little odd to me is that many of the people complaining the most are those that provide the least information about the actual details of specific tank fill ups (how many miles driven and how many gals used) or how they are actually driving. For example, the Elantra's computer provides you average MPH data. So anyone complaining about FE can readily provide this info for any tank of fuel. But so many don't; they just complain. Why? They could also provide relevant info on things like how fast they are driving on interstate, if they use ethanol, carrying passengers, make lots of short trips, do a lot of stop-and-go driving in city, how many miles are on odometer, etc. Anyone complaining would have far more credibility if they provided as much info as possible so others could see how they are actually driving. Just complaining doesn't help anyone understand anything.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    So...how fast are you choosing to drive on interstate? Are you using cruise control? Ethanol? What is the average MPH figure for some of your recent fill ups? I'd love to have the relevant info to see what might be going on and why. If you drive 80 mph on interestate, you won't get 40 mpg and it wouldn't be realistic to expect it. You should study the EPA methodology for the FE numbers.
  • eweinereweiner Member Posts: 36
    There are so many rocket scientists on this thread its really silly.

    The facts are really quite obvious and all of the details you are requesting will do little to change these facts.

    The Elantra is only capable of achieving 40MPG under very specific conditions that most drivers do not experience on a regular basis.

    Every single report of 40MPG has been on a relatively flat highway going 65 to 70 in warm clear weather and no AC. That's it. I, for one, do not live where the speed limit is higher than 55, and its hot in the summer and cold in the winter.

    I have only experienced 40MPG when I reset my MPG right before entering the highway. I can then see 40 but only if I drive like an old man.

    The second I am off the highway the 40 is gone. I mean REALLY gone. The local MPG on the Elantra is terrible so if the car is getting 40MPG more often it is completely masked by the rotten local MPG. And dont get me started on what happens when you add AC.

    My driving is 70/30 mix of highway and city with the average trip of about 40 highway miles on work days. The rest is local driving. Average MPH 39. I have monitored my tanks since I bought the car and in 6 months of direct measurement at the pump I have seen about 32 MPG.

    I am lucky, my MPG is not bad....so many others are worse. The Elantra is a let down as a 40MPG car. And in a few other ways like seat comfort, drive stability, engine idle, constant air circulation you cannot shut off, intermittent bluetooth etc...
  • gman4911gman4911 Member Posts: 43
    You do know that the EPA results are NOT from testing the entire tank of gas, don't you? No? Maybe you should read up on the test parameters.
    EPA Detailed Test Information
  • oldburbnewcx9oldburbnewcx9 Member Posts: 53
    Congratulation! You are gettting almost what the car is rated. The EPA combined rating for the Elantra is 33mpg.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    Keep in mind that the 40 mpg EPA estimate is for highway driving and that the 29 mpg EPA estimate is for city driving. Anyone expecting to get 40 mpg all the time, combined, just doesn't understand the EPA 29/40 FE estimate. But sounds like you are achieving the EPA's combined estimate of 33 mpg, so you should be quite pleased with your FE.
  • dc_driverdc_driver Member Posts: 712
    LOL. So you are essentially achieving the combined EPA numbers with your car and you still complain?

    There is no pleasing some people. By all means, sell you Elantra and get a Prius.. Clearly you are expecting more out of this car than it is capable delivering. If you are expecting 40mpg from a car in the city you need to be looking into something like a Prius or Volt. I don't even think a VW diesel can achieve 40mpg in the city.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    After reading what others have written, the car press, and my own experience of nearly 4500 miles, I believe the crux of the Elantra FE issue is NOT the highway estimate (the 40 mpg people foolishly obsess over) but the city estimate (the oh-so-hard to achieve 29 mpg).

    I fuelled up today. Avg. MPH a mere 20 (so this was a very, very city-heavy tankful) and I get 27.23 mpg (210.3 miles and 7.724 gals of non-ethanol). I use same station and same pump and same method (stop when auto shut-off kicks in). The computer estimated 29.6 mpg, so it remains 8% off, always too high (which is starting to really tick me off).

    Now I bust my rear to max out city FE and I can't get the 29 city. I come oh-so-frustratingly close, but.... I think most people seriously underestimate BOTH the amount of miles spent in city driving and, more importantly, the amount of time spent in city driving (where stop lights and stop signs kill your time). This is a rather large car (size wise, if not necessarily weight wise) that relies on a small engine with limited low-end torque. The top 2 gears in the AT are overdrive, so city driving is pretty much mostly 1-2-3, 0-25 mph, with little time in direct-drive 4th before you come to yet another stop.

    Posters really should focus on how much time and mileage they are spending in city.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    How do you explain the cases where people have the same commute etc and acheived EPA avgs easily with prior vehicles and now cannot come close with the Elantra, many even trying harder than in previous vehicles? All this avg MPH stuff goes out the window when you compare it to previous vehicles experience. I would highly doubt the avg MPH changed unless they significantly changed their route to work or changed shifts/traffic patterns or something like that.

    I realize that tracking mph is interesting but it does not tell the whole story as their are many ways to achieve avgs. A steady 45mph results in a 40mph avg. A combo of 70 mph and 25mph in the right combination would also result in a 40mph avg. However, I imagine driving a steady 45 would result in great MPG while the combo of 70mph and 25mph with stop and gos would result in substantially worse MPG. Just saying that avgs aren't the end all be all of this question.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    edited June 2012
    I don't care what other cars people were driving years ago, myself included. I only care about what my '12 Elantra GLS AT is achieving today in light of today's EPA estimate.

    And we have the car data readily at hand to help us all better understand how we each drive and what we are achieving for FE. So we should be using it. It makes me suspicious when people deliberately withhold that readily available information. Why tell us you drive "90% highway" and then not say what the avg MPH is when all you have to do is hit a button and look at a number? Makes a huge difference if the real avg MPH is 30 mph vs 55 mph for your tankful. And why just say what the computer said (mine reads too high anyway) when you know how many gals of fuel you pumped into the tank for the tankful? Is easy to give both numbers.

    So that means anyone who wants to be taken real seriously should post all the relevant data that is readily available. That includes...

    1. Computer's avg MPH per tankful,
    2. Computer's avg MPG per tankful,
    3. How many actual total miles driven per tankful,
    4. How many actual total gallons of fuel you pumped into the tank for the tankful,
    5. Whether they are using ethanol or not, and
    6. Any other unique factor (e.g., they routinely drive with passenger or set cruise on highway to 80 mph).
  • fowler3fowler3 Member Posts: 1,919
    edited June 2012
    I think you are correct. I keep burning up gas sitting at traffic lights all the time, very maddening! Keep in mind that the EPA estimate is based on 55mph and 3000 RPM, not over 60mph highway. Good weather and cool temperatures. The Elantra is stuck with tall gearing at low speeds, a real gas burner. The EPA probably did not try out their estimates in real world situations, no traffic lights at their tracks probably. At least no 3-minute traffic lights.

    And Elantra owners do not take into account their bank drive-thru and drive-in stops. Turn off your engine waiting in lines. Before fuel injection that did not save gas, it does now.

    I'm watching this forum closely, thinking about buying either a Veloster or a KIa Rio-5.
  • gman4911gman4911 Member Posts: 43
    edited June 2012
    The EPA tests the cars on a dynamometer in a lab not on a test track. The avg idle time for the city test is a little over 14 seconds. In real life, my idle time at major intersections is usually around 2.5 minutes. Worse during rush hour.

    I've posted this before and I'll post it again:
    EPA Detailed Test Information will tell you everything you need to know about the various test cycles. The city cycle is not realistic and the only way to achieve the city EPA numbers is to drive the way they test it - avoid driving during rush hour and avoid routes with stop lights.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I don't care what other cars people were driving years ago, myself included. I only care about what my '12 Elantra GLS AT is achieving today in light of today's EPA estimate.

    I understand that's it how you feel. I'm am not talking about comparing the MPG to a prior vehicles MPG. I'm talking about the ability of the previous vehicle to achieve the EPA numbers which is predicated on the type of driving the person does to a large degree. Which is what you are getting at. I'm also not talking about cars years ago. If you want to exaggerate that's fine but please consider: If you had a car, just prior to getting the Elantra, that the EPA said would give a combined avg of 28mpg and you averaged say 29mpg. Now I would say to achieve that, given how the EPA tests, one would be driving fairly conservatively. Now you get the Elantra and the EPA says 33 combined avg. Well, the avg person is going to think since they avg'd better than the EPA combined mpg before and my commute hasn't changed, that I should be able to at least achieve the Elantra's combined avg. Then, as hard as they try, they can only get 28 or 29mpg or worse avg. I would be questioning things also.

    Ethanol, believe it or not, is all you can get in most major cities and surrounding areas and does not affect mpg more than about 4% which would be about 1mpg per gal so it's not a major player.

    I don't disagree that avg mph can play a role. But like I explained..averages can be the combination many different speeds. Your 50mph avg may be accomplished vastly different than someones elses 50mph avg but on paper they look the same.

    Unique driving factors are the same with one car as the other if the commute did not change. The conversation centers around how the Elantra does in regards to the EPA numbers but also how it does to the cars that people replaced. After all, high mpg is major factor that most of that most owners of Elantras considered before purchasing to replace their old vehicles.

    This whole debate seems to center around many people that, try as they might, can't get anywhere close to the EPA numbers when they could before. They complain or look for help and many others(because their particular Elantras are getting the correct MPG) keep posting that it's their fault and they just don't know how to drive. Kind of condescending if you ask me. I agree there are some that are just complainers, you get that with all makes/models, but when somebody seems to genuinely have a problem it seems some people just want to make them out to be crazy or something.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    Don't forget that the EPA significantly revised how it comes up with its estimates, so you really can't compare EPA estimates from even a few years ago to today. The apples to apples comparison is only with the EPA estimates under the current methodolgy. Supposedly, the earlier way was less realistic and more achievable, so no suprise more people achieved those earlier numbers. But we are talking about today's estimates with today's cars.

    And there is absolutely no reason why anyone posting here can't provide all the relevant data that is at their fingertips. Only then can we all have a better picture about how they are driving and what they FE result is like in line with EPA estimate.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Supposedly, the earlier way was less realistic and more achievable, so no suprise more people achieved those earlier numbers.

    I'm not forgetting the EPA changed at all. The EPA changed their methodology for the 2008 model year.....about 5 years ago, not like it just happened. So there are plenty of people that had cars that were replaced by the Elantra that were 2008 or newer.

    You're wrong about the EPA making it more achievable. That is why they changed, the old method was hard to achieve for most people and the EPA was regarded as a joke so they changed their methodology to make it more realistic. Most cars that had the same drivetrain actually had their numbers reduced. Like my 2007 Mazda6. The revised numbers substantially reduced the MPG the EPA said my car could get. Funny thing was I never had a real problem achieving the old numbers. I didn't often surpass them but did achieve them regularly.

    I think most people still measure their MPG by the gals/miles method over a period of time which is what I do. Most people realize if they drive in extreme conditions. Do most people underestimate the amount of time they spend in city driving? Probably, but the percentage amount they may be off would hardly result in the problems with MPG many of these people are having. The trip computers are nice but seem to be hit or miss on accuracy. If they are 5-10% off on MPG, I also believe they could be 5%-10% off on avg MPH. I agree that it would be nice to have every single iota of data to determine a complete picture but most people just aren't that anal about keeping track of all that relevant data.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Most people realize if they drive in extreme conditions.

    I am beginning to doubt that, based on the posts I've seen in the "fuel economy" discussions. Perhaps many people don't realize how extreme (compared to the EPA test regimen) their driving conditions are because: 1) they are "normal" for them, and 2) they don't know the details of how the EPA does its tests.

    So they drive a car that, let's say for discussion sake, has an EPA rating (based on 2008 figures) of 21/29 with 24 mpg average. They have been able to achieve the 24 mpg number in their everyday driving. (And note this is a fully broken in car.) So they buy a new Elantra and expect they will achieve at LEAST 33 mpg, the EPA average FE number, in their everyday driving. And let's say they were able to achieve at least 29 mpg on the highway with the old car. So they expect to achieve at least 40 mpg with the new Elantra. Unreasonable assumptions? No. But maybe not good assumptions.

    Why not? First, it's a lot easier for a car to achieve 24 mpg average or 29 mpg highway than for a car to achieve 33 mpg average and 40 mpg highway. For the two cars I am talking about here--a 2004 Elantra and a 2013 Elantra--the 2013 Elantra has 10 more hp and the weights are within a few pounds of each other. The 2013 has a 6AT vs. 4AT and is more aerodynamic, so it should be able to achieve better FE than the 2004. But at low speeds, as in city driving, those advantages are minimal at best. They really kick in on the highway, where the engine can rev lower due to the two additional cogs and the aerodynamics help--up to a point! Start driving over about 65 mph, and wind resistance will cut that FE quite a bit (which I saw first-hand on a long trip this weekend in a 2007 Sonata--FE went down considerably over 65 mph).

    The other thing is, the old car and the new Elantra are different cars (duh). Thus what worked fine for getting at least the EPA rating on the old car may not lead to optimal FE in the new Elantra. It has different hp, differnt hp to torque ratio, it's geared differently, etc.

    Please note that I am not saying that people who complain about the FE on their Elantras are stupid or crazy or whatever. But there are factors that can explain, other than "it's a conspiracy by Hyundai" or some-such, why some people can't hit the EPA numbers on their new Elantras when they were able to do it on their old cars. And there's also the possibility of sample defects (e.g. 4,000 complaints--a lot of complaints!--out of the 400,000 or so 2011+ Elantras sold to date is 1%--well within the range that can be explained by sample defects).
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    At least you're recognising that there is a possiblility of a 1% defect rate unlike many so called experts in here.

    I agree wholeheartedly that most people don't know exactly what their true ratio city/hwy is. But I maintain that most have a pretty good idea. But I'm confused on your example. Why is it easier for the 2004 Elantra to achieve 24 city on the EPA test than it is for the 2013 Elantra to achieve 29? We're not talking wind resistance and the added hp and tranny ratios should still be an advantage even at lower speeds. Since it's a pretty standard test, shouldn't the 2013 Elantra be able to achieve it's rated city mpg just as easy? If not, should it really be rated at 29 city. I'm not so hung up on the EPA numbers per se, but I do use them for comparison as every car goes throught the same exact testing.

    Maybe I'm missing something which has been known to happen from time to time. ;)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Why is it easier for the 2004 Elantra to achieve 24 city on the EPA test than it is for the 2013 Elantra to achieve 29?

    I have no idea. That's not what I said in my post, and the EPA city rating of the 2004 Elantra is 21, not 24.

    What I said was, it's harder for a car to achieve 33 mpg overall than 24 mpg overall. That's a 38% increase in fuel economy--for two cars that are about the same weight, the one with 33 mpg average is more powerful, and as I mentioned, the factors that work towards the high mpg don't come into play much in the lower-speed driving. Also, 40 mpg highway is harder to achieve than 29 mpg for two cars about the same size and weight and power (again, the higher mpg car is actually more powerful). Plus I see many folks comparing a well-broken-in car to a brand-new car, or one with only a few thousand miles on it. My experience with two Elantras purchased new is that FE improved over the first few thousand miles and got better up past 15k miles. And now at 70k miles my 2004 is still doing much better on FE than when new (always had recommended maintenance of course).

    The 2013 Elantra should be able to meet its EPA city rating in city driving... of the kind similar to how the EPA runs its city cycle tests. I find when I drive a car--any car--in real-world all-city driving, I have a real hard time meeting the EPA rating. As I said, I don't think a lot of people have any idea how much their "city" driving differs from what the EPA considers "city" driving.
  • gman4911gman4911 Member Posts: 43
    edited June 2012
    People who are frustrated with not getting the EPA numbers don't understand how the tests are done. It's easy enough to prove to yourself whether or not it's possible for a 2011+ Elantra to meet the EPA numbers and whether or not you have a defective car - drive it the way the EPA did.

    In the city, it means an 11 mile route with no stop lights, stop signs are ok, little to no traffic i.e. no rush hour traffic, gentle acceleration, total idle times of not more than 5.6 minutes, avg speed 21 MPH, top speed 56 MPH, as level terrain as possible, nice weather, no A/C.

    On the highway, it means a 10 mile route with little to no traffic, your avg speed is 48 MPH, your top speed is 60 MPH, as level terrain as possible, nice weather, no A/C.

    That's all the EPA tests do except in a lab with the car on a dynomometer and with 100% gas, not 10% ethanol. They don't drive the car for one tank of gas and calculate the MPGs. The posted EPA numbers are the MPGs attained from driving those two scenarios. If you can't get the EPA numbers under the driving scenarios above, then it's possible you have a defective car.

    Once you've determined it's possible for the car to achieve the numbers, then any differences over the entire tank of gas is due to differences in driving styles, traffic conditions, terrain differences, weather conditions, etc.

    When Popular Mechanics test drove the Elantra and Ford Focus, they did everything they could to mimic the EPA test but in the real world, and exceed the EPA numbers.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I guess the EPA needs to revise the testing methodology again. Prior to 2008 people were complaining so the EPA revised their tests and made it more realistic. Now, it seems with these high MPG cars, the EPA tests are unrealistic again. Are we going to go through this cycle every few years each time cars make any kind of jump in MPG?

    I guess I have to agree with Backy that achieving the EPA numbers in these newer cars is harder and harder. Time for another revision...but just for cars made after 2011 or 2012 I guess or only cars that are supposed to be able to achieve a combined MPG of, say, 33 or better.

    Or maybe a better way of posting the EPA numbers would be to forget the city/hwy/combined and just post the ranges for city and hwy like the fine print does now. Now that would a lot more realistic but I don't know if the car manufacturer lobbies would want that.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I think the main problem is with the "city" EPA estimates. From what I've seen in many sources, including auto mags, CR tests, and owner posts, it's easier to hit the highway estimates in the real world if one doesn't go over 70 mph or so. CR usually meets or exceeds the EPA numbers for highway driving, for example. But "city" in the real world, for many people, seems to be a lot more severe than "city" in the EPA tests. So I'd focus there if the EPA is to change the test regimen.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    There's so much mis-information in this post, I'll just link the EPA test criteria here. It includes 18% idling time for the city, 80mph driving factored into highway, and tests with A/C on.

    EPA Test Information
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    On the highway, it means a 10 mile route with little to no traffic, your avg speed is 48 MPH, your top speed is 60 MPH, as level terrain as possible, nice weather, no A/C.

    Where did you get this information?
  • gman4911gman4911 Member Posts: 43
    edited June 2012
    What part is mis-information? Everything I listed came from that site. I just did not point out EVERY test.
  • gman4911gman4911 Member Posts: 43
    edited June 2012
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited June 2012
    What you described in your original post was just the two testing phases that took place prior to 2008. In 2008 the EPA added 3 additional tests. If you click on the additional 3 tabs you will see the additional testing post 2008 which includes 80mph speeds, A/C use etc. The city tests include about 31 minutes "drive time" of which about 6 is spent at idle which I assume to is to simulate traffic lights/stop signs. Since we are talking about the 2011/12 Elantra, it would have been tested using all 5 phases which would include 80mph, A/C use, etc.

    So the information provided in your original post was incomplete, incorrect and misleading.
  • gman4911gman4911 Member Posts: 43
    edited June 2012
    >>>So the information provided in your original post was incomplete, incorrect and misleading.
    What are you talking about? The information in my post is just for the city & hwy tests which are the big numbers posted on the window sticker and to which everyone compares their results to. That is what everyone is bitching about not being able to achieve.

    Some people are under the impression that the EPA tests involve an entire tank of gas when the reality is that it only involves 10 or 11 miles of driving.

    Assuming the car is not defective, if you drive the car using the same parameters in those two tests, you should be able to achieve those numbers.

    The point of my post was to offer a way for people to prove whether or not their cars were defective and whether or not the car was capable of achieving the EPA numbers.

    The three additional tests is what gives the city and hwy tests the 'range' of what to expect. IOW, for the Elantra's city test, the rating is 29 but the range is 24 thru 34.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Member Posts: 574
    What? You are mistaken. The City and Hwy numbers factor in the A/C on, High Speed, and Cold Temp testing. That's why those numbers dropped in 2008 for every car on the market.

    You (apparently) believe only the combined number includes those tests. That is incorrect, all the reported numbers factor them in. The current City and Hwy EPA estimates are not derived solely from the City and Hwy portion of the testing.

    Here's an example from the 2007 Elantra's revised number's factoring in the 3 additional tests: EPA Ratings 2007 Elantra
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    Check out the August issue of MT. Test 6 40-mpg cars and Elantra comes in 6th. Mazda 3 comes first.

    They publish FE results for each car for each of 4 different drivers. Elantra has the highest standard deviation (3.1). As they put it, "Our differing driving habits had nearly 10 times the influence on the Elantra's mileage than on that of the Focus. Perhaps the Hyundai's more susceptible to enthusiatic outbursts?"

    MT's overall FE result for GLS was 35.4 mpg. The avg. for the 4 specified drivers was 36.2 mpg, but the highest driver achieved 39.1 mpg and the lowest a mere 31.3 mpg.

    Their FE chart shows Elantra achieving 40 mpg highway at speeds at or under about 65 mph. After that, MPG falls under 40 mpg.

    Their overall test results for the 5 gasoline-powered cars:

    Honda Civic HF= 39.4 mpg (5-spd AT)
    Chevy Cruze ECO= 39.3 mpg (6-spd manual)
    Mazda 3= 37.8 mpg (6-spd AT)
    Ford Focus SFE= 36.6 mpg (6-spd dl-cl AT) (lacked cruise control)
    Elantra GLS= 35.4 mpg (6-spd AT)
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    When you say the Mazda3 came in first, do you mean in the overall evaluation? It was 3rd of the gas-powered cars.

    Interesting that they picked the MT on the Cruze but ATs on the others. Not apples to apples. I expect the Cruze AT would have fared worse based on other reviews, including one by C/D recently.

    If I am not mistaken, all of these cars exceeded their EPA averages. The results on the Elantra with different drivers helps explain why many owners are reporting less-than-expected FE, while others are happy with FE.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    edited June 2012
    Yes, the Elantra came in last place for both FE and in the overall comparison test. The Mazda 3 Skyactiv came in third for FE and first overall.

    As regards their Chevy Cruze ECO, per MT, "We wanted to drive the [MT] version precisely because of its no-compromise 28/42 mileage." They point out how even its gas tank is 3 gals smaller, an exclusive for the MT model.

    The other very interesting feature of this test comparison is how they point out the "percentage difference" figure: "how depressed this is compared with these lap's theoretical mpg modeled from our constant-speed mileages--that is, what they'd ideally do were they unimpacted by accelerating, fidgeting with the throttle, hill-climbing, and stopping." They base this off of their 27.3 miles real world driving loop. Elantra's FE fell by 24%, Cruze ECO by 30%, Civic HF by 25%, 3 Skyactiv by 25%, and Focus SFE by 20%. As they put it, "If you don't drive very gingerly, pay attention to this [figure]."

    So for drivers not focused too much on FE or who just have a heavy foot, MT estimates these drivers will lose upwards of 25% FE from the possible max. This is most important for the Elantra as MT's figure show the GLS achieving the lowest FE at every constant MPG.

    Here is their constant MPG chart for the GLS, their "theoretical maximum" for each speed point:

    35 mph= 51 mpg
    40 mph= 52 mpg
    45 mph= 52 mpg
    50 mph= 50 mpg
    55 mph= 47 mpg
    60 mph= 44 mpg
    65 mph= 40 mpg
    70 mph= 37 mpg
    75 mph= 35 mpg

    Note, at highway speeds in their test with this specific GLS, 40 mpg won't be achieved at speeds over 65 mph. So drivers routinely driving 70-80 mph won't get 40 mpg.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    So drivers routinely driving 70-80 mph won't get 40 mpg.

    Was there any car in the test that achieved 40+ mpg at 80 mph? That would be really impressive.

    Since the FE numbers were taken from only 27.3 miles of driving, I have to wonder how they really relate to real-world long distance driving, e.g. cruising on a freeway all day.

    I'm a bit surprised the Elantra's FE didn't max out at 50-55 mph rather than 40-45. That tells me the car is in 6th gear at 40-45.

    It's too bad the test didn't include the Impreza. I know it's not a "40 mpg" car, but it has the highest FE of any AWD vehicle. Would be interesting to see how it fared in these tests with its CVT.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    It is an excellent article, so I'd encourage you to read it and study how they describe their various test methods.

    No, not a single car here could achieve 40 mpg at 80 mph.

    From the line graph, appears only the Cruze ECO could just barely hit 40 mpg at 75 mph. All the other cars were UNDER 40 mpg at 75 mph. Looks like the Civic HF, the 2nd best, was about 39 mpg at 75 mph. The 3 Skyactiv, Focus SFE, and Elantra GLS were all well under 40 mpg at 75 mph. And at 70 mph, only the Cruze ECO and Civic HF are clearly shown above 40 mpg. But at 65 mph, all the cars are at or above 40 mpg (though at this speed all were below 50 mpg).
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Now why can't manufacturers or the EPA provide this information? I mean, they MUST be collecting it as part of the testing, right? I could understand not putting it on the Monroney sticker (it's a little crowded as it is) but make the info available on epa.gov or something. This way people could have an idea of how many MPG they might expect to lose if they choose to drive at, say, 70 MPH. Which, if it only cost me 3 MPG, I still would (I'd get run over if I tried to do slower than 65 on the interstate). Though I'd probably re-think the long sprints at 75-80...
  • crankeeecrankeee Member Posts: 298
    We have a 2012 Sonata GLS that also has the 6-speed AT and the 2.4L I-4. The car gets 33 MPG at 80 and 37-38 at 65-70 which appears to be the sweet spot. As pointed out by prior posts, the car has to be in highest gear and the sooner the better for max MPG. Speed is the biggest factor in highway MPG. A/C does not effect the larger I-4 engine as much, due to the larger higher torgue engine. Smaller engine may be more impacted by A/C. City MPG is 22-24 MPG and is totally driven by stop & go and driver attention. We are amzxed that a 3000# car can get 33 MPG at 80 with A/C on and better if speed is set on 65 with cruise control. Elantra is MUCH better in city due to lower gross weight and smaller engine. Great to have a choice. Enjoy those Hyundais, even the domestic mfrs are generating small cars with 30-40 MPG and they always said they could not build and economic small car in the USA. Competition breeds more competition and better car choices. Companies that build crap are doomed to failure.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    It is an excellent article, so I'd encourage you to read it and study how they describe their various test methods.

    Well, when the USPS sees fit to deliver the August issue to me, I will read the article! :shades:
  • eweinereweiner Member Posts: 36
    edited June 2012
    All of this BS highway vs. city is useless information because it demonstrates nothing.

    What are you getting at the pump?

    To measure... put the pump on the lowest setting and when it clicks off dont top off. Do this over time and pose those results.

    I bought the car because it is was supposed to be high mileage (approaching 40). I dont see that at the pump.

    In six months of driving my MPG is 30ish and with summer heat the AC is sending that average downward.

    My driving during the week is highway and weekend local. I live in Maryland so I have equal amounts of ALL seasons.

    From my interactions with others... the high mileage goes to hyper-milers. F-that I drive normally. I dont gun it and I dont drive slowly so as to be unsafe.

    I am not going to drive like a granny and I should not have to do so to reach Hyundais ratings.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Ok, let's break it down: at what speeds are you driving when you see 30-ish MPGs? Not average, the full range and approximate times at each speed?

    DEFINITELY wish manufacturers would provide MPG@MPH data...and yes, I just named it, so what? :shades:
  • eweinereweiner Member Posts: 36
    edited June 2012
    You're not getting it. I dont care about point in time MPG. I measure at the pump as in what I am achieving at each fill up. Who cares if you can get you car to hit 40 on a flat highway going 65? That not realistic for most drivers and is quickly erased by local driving. Last time I checked speed limit was 55 in most areas.

    My highway speeds are 55-60, and generally no more. City can be in the range of 20 to 55.

    Some of you would argure that 30 is good...but I want at least the mid MPG. My drive is fairly typical so my MPG should be better. If this car does so well on the highway, where the hell is my higher MPG.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Actually most highways around here the limit is 65, and most people do 70. More if the cops aren't looking too hard (oh, they do 85). Which is why "highway" is too generic a term. I hear in Texas the word "limit" is illegal, for example. :shades:

    As posted earlier, MPG can diverge pretty widely between 55 and 75 MPH, possibly by more than 10 MPG. Yet everything in that range could be considered "highway" speed.

    Anyway, you weren't getting it: you might not care about point in time MPG, or MPG at a certain speed, but your car does. So if you're blasting around at 70 MPH and passing at 75 MPG on one fillup and doing 65 on a flat highway steadily on another fillup, your MPGs could be very different.

    Frankly it's not your fault for not understanding that: the EPA, rather than guiding people on what "highway" speed is in their eyes, keeps labeling their test "highway" and lets people fill in the blank on their own.
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    My data points seem to line up pretty well with the test results reported by MT, C&D, etc.

    Just filled up after a near 97% highway driving (miles but not time), mostly with cruise control set at 70 mph. Had 2 adult passengers (est about 525 lbs. total for all 3 of us). Temperatures were nearly 90 for half the trip and about 82 for ride home in early evening, so had A/C on entire time. My avg. MPH was 61 and I ended up with 38.46 mpg. (Before that trip I filled up to top off tank. With just a 20 mph avg. I achieved only 26.18 mpg.) So I now have 7 recent data points.

    - Avg MPH= 61 and achieved 38.46 MPG. Drove 196.8 miles and used 5.117 gals.
    - Avg MPH= 52 and achieved 41.38 MPG. Drove 243.4 miles and used 5.882 gals.
    - Avg MPH= 40 and achieved 36.75 MPG. Drove 232.3 miles and used 6.321 gals.
    - Avg MPH= 35 and achieved 35.45 MPG. Drove 231.4 miles and used 6.528 gals.
    - Avg MPH= 30 and achieved 32.68 MPG. Drove 292.0 miles and used 8.934 gals.
    - Avg MPH= 24 and achieved 29.46 MPG. Drove 258.5 miles and used 8.776 gals.
    - Avg MPH= 20 and achieved 26.18 MPG. Drove 103.0 miles and used 3.935 gals.

    I calculated these from the actual number of gals pumped from the same gas station and same fuel pump. All of these were with Active ECO "on"and maximum use of cruise control. Used only regular unleaded (no ethanol). GLS now has 4,717 total miles on her. My computer continues to read high. It showed 41.6 mpg, which was 7.5%, and the other tank showed 28.2 mpg, which was 7.2% too high.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The other useful data point on your last trip is the 525 lbs. of passenger weight:

    Avoid keeping unnecessary items in your vehicle, especially heavy ones. An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by up to 2 percent. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drivehabits.shtml

    So for example if the driver weighs 200 pounds, the extra weight on your last trip could have reduced fuel economy by over 6%. On a 20 mpg car, that's a bit over 1 mpg so might not be that noticeable. But on a car capable of 40 mpg highway like the Elantra, that's almost 2.5 mpg. And note the statement from the EPA re how extra weight affects smaller (lighter) cars more than larger ones.

    I wonder how often owners take cargo/passenger weight into account when considering their mpg?
  • g2iowag2iowa Member Posts: 123
    Yes there are a plethora of relevant factors when measuring achieved FE in the real world.

    I'd like to think my small mother and big 6' 10" brother (the two passengers, who combined probably weigh about 350 lbs.) were "necessary" weight for this trip, to see my other brother.

    The MT article also discusses tire pressure issues (e.g., deliberately underinflating the Cruze ECO's tires by 5 psi led to a .6% reduction in FE). They also noted that all of their gasoline-powered cars "are actually travelling slightly faster than their speedometers indicate. Our best explanation is their new (unworn) tires."
Sign In or Register to comment.