Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Hyundai Elantra Real World MPG 2012

1161719212226

Comments

  • bpizzutibpizzuti 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 Posts: 297
    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 Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    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 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 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 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 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 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 Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    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 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."
  • rudy66rudy66 Posts: 26
    The Elantra's real problem is city driving, not highway. And anyway, who wants to spend their lives worrying about mpg because of Hyudai's unreliable estimates? Whatever they say, these estimates do not relate to the real world. So maybe we should just drive our Elantra's and, when the time comes for a new car, just get another brand that doesn't broadcast unrealistic mpg. For guys like me who are not into the technicalities (which is the vast majority of drivers) we should not spend our lives trying to "get good mileage". It takes the fun out of driving.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    I think it can be kinda fun, like a game, to see how much FE I can get out of a car. But I see your position. If that's not fun for you, don't worry about it.

    But you won't get optimal FE out of your Elantra or ANY car if you "just drive" it w/o regard to FE. I know because I've done that. I rent a lot of cars, I don't pay for the gas, often I'm rushed for time when driving the rentals so frequently I don't drive them for optimal FE. Guess what? I don't come close to the EPA numbers. I've done experiments with my own cars where I'll drive them for awhile like I don't care about FE--fast starts, quick stops, drive faster than I need to, etc. Guess what? My FE sucks. When I drive with attention to FE, I almost always meet or exceed the EPA numbers in any car. There's sometimes I don't, e.g. driving very short distances in very cold or very hot weather.

    Drive as you want to drive. It's your car, your money.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    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.

    I never said your family members weren't necessary, sheesh. But they represent weight not factored into EPA estimates. And it's a fact that the more weight in a car, the lower the FE.

    I figured someone like you who is careful to document the conditions under which you achieve mpg would find that useful.

    I am surprised a 5 psi reduction resulted in only 0.6% reduction in FE. I thought underinflated tires would have a bigger impact. On the Cruze at least, looks like it doesn't. Would have been interesting if they had OVER-inflated the tires by 5 psi to see the effect. I have done that before and I know others do it to achieve better FE. But if it's such a small improvement, probably not worth the tradeoff in ride quality.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,992
    I never said your family members weren't necessary, sheesh.

    I think he was was making a joke.
  • eweinereweiner Posts: 36
    What the heck are you talking about. I gave you my speeds and I understand full well how it impacts MPG.

    65 to 75 is not realistic here and in most places. Point in time FE does not matter. What you get at the pump does. Elantra does not deliver at the pump performance unless you drive 95%+ highway.

    In fact, I don't think many here care to even hear from people who do 95%+ highway...as they're not typical drivers.
  • Kate, I agree totally. I was averaging about 25mpg, now I'm averaging about 22mpg. I finally got the dealership to take a look at it (even though no check engine light was on) and they stated that it was missing (I believe on all four cylinders as there were four separate codes, all in series). They did a fuel test and stated that I had 15% alcohol in the tank and that this was an issue with contaminated fuel and would not be covered under warranty. Well, after doing some research, it looks like about 90-95% of all gas has 10% ethanol standard. By the way, 10% ethanol equates to about a 7-8% loss in fuel economy(FE). It's hard to find a station that sells ethanol free. No gas stations near me that sell ethanol free. The nearest is just over 100 miles. So, after a bit more research, we are already suppose to be at 15% ethanol and after talking with the gas stations themselves, they stated that they were already suppose to be selling 15% ethanol mixed fuel. I requested that they get a report so that I can verify that they indeed are at 15%, which is what the EPA is pushing for. So, we will see if Hyundai still tries to pull this bull of not honoring the warranty. Either they don't know why its missing and are incompetent and trying to make stuff up, or they do know why its missing and don't want to honor the warranty and so are being snakes in the grass, either way, they have lost my business. I'll drive two hours to the next major town to get my work done by a reputable dealership.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    edited June 2012
    These are for the 2008 Elantra, different engine, but still interesting I think in light of your post re ethanol content:

    http://www.hyundaiproblems.com/investigations/Elantra/2008/

    And this more general comment re ethanol-laced gas and Hyundais:

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_ethanol_fuel_be_used_in_2002_Hyundai_elantra

    What does your car's owner's manual say about ethanol content in the gas? Does it say 15 percent ethanol (E15) is OK? If so, you should show that page to your dealer. There's a lot of buzz on the Internet about whether E15 can be used with all newer cars, even though the EPA has given it its blessing. However, pumps that dispense E15 are supposed to be clearly labeled as such, as it is not supposed to be used on any pre-2001 vehicles.

    And since YOUR car seems to have been affected adversely by E15, I wonder if that can explain at least some of the other cases where owners are dissatisfied with the FE on their Elantras?
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    I drive 95% highway. So guess what? I care. But I also know how much difference in FE 5 MPH can make, and how some people (not making any accusations or implications) like to wave off the fact that their "highway" driving might be at 80 MPH as they wonder why they're not getting the MPGs the EPA got on their 65 MPH "highway" test. It's important to keep in mind. And whether you care about "point in time" or not, a "point in time" where you do 85 MPH will reduce your average MPG.
  • gman4911gman4911 Posts: 43
    The Elantra owner's manual warns not to use gas containing more than 10% ethanol and states that the warranty may not cover any damage caused by using it.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,992
    So much for E15 not harming anything built after 2001.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    That's common knowledge. The 2001 cutoff means, don't EVER EVER put E15 in a pre-2001 car. Newer cars... check with the manufacturer. E15 is so new only the newest cars will mention it in the owner's manual. If the manual says something about E10 being OK, don't assume E15 is also.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,992
    That's common knowledge.

    Common for who? From what I've read previously I thought it was OK to use the E15 in post 2001 vehicles. I think I stay up on auto industry news pretty well so I have to believe the average person doesn't have a clue.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,715
    From what I've read previously I thought it was OK to use the E15 in post 2001 vehicles.

    Just do a google on "E15 gasoline" and you'll get several hits about the controversy on whether E15 is safe for post-2001 vehicles. I just did it (again) and the first hit was pretty good:

    http://www.startribune.com/local/149444025.html
  • Our 2012 limited is coming up on 6,000 miles.

    We avg about 26 mph overall but much of our driving is non highway.

    On the rare occasion that I do take a trip I can get 36-40 on the highway. I have just resigned to the fact that 26 is tops based on how we drive our car.

    I would love to avg 33 but that is just not realistic.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Since you've been tracking the FE for your Elantra, what were your actual results for some of your most recent tankfuls of gas? Say the last 2 or 3 tankfuls?

    - What was the average MPH for the tank?
    - How many miles did you drive for the tankful?
    - How many gals of gas did you pump into your tank for the tankful?
    - Are you using ethanol?
    - Do you do a lot of stop and go city driving?
    - How many drivers are there for your car and are they driving similarly?
    - Are you routinely carrying passengers while doing city driving?
    - Are you routinely using A/C while doing city driving?
    - How did your car's computer MPG estimate compare to what you came up with based on actual miles driven and actual gals used?
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    September '12 issue of MT has an update on their long-term '12 Elantra. After 9 months and 19,593 miles of driving, MT has only been able to average a woeful 26.8 mpg! Compare to...at just 4 months and 6774 miles MT achieving 24.3 mpg in their '12 Passat 2.5 SEL, which is only EPA'd at 22 city/31 hwy/25 comb. (Their '11 Jetta TDI is at 39.5 mpg after 36,643 miles, with EPA est. at 30/42/34.)
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Weren't they the guys who did a test and said yes it really does meet the EPA numbers? :shades:

    I"m glad I crossed the Elantra off my list...they made a mistake with the 1.8L Nu. I'm convinced the problem is low end torque: it doesn't have any, which means even a piddling 5% grade means a downshift in most cases, and that hurts FE.

    To get good MPGs you have to deeply cut the cruising RPMs and keep them low. But to keep from having to upshift to do anything you have to provide sufficient twist at those low RPMs (the 1000-2500 RPM range) to overcome the gearing and any mild grades, so you can STAY at those low RPMs longer.

    Mazda, Nissan, VW, and several others meet their EPA numbers because they provide enough low end torque (and then some in some cases). That Hyundai engine is absolutely torqueless at low RPMs though, so while yeah, it might get high MPGs at cruising RPMs, you can't stay in that cruising RPM range long enough to matter.

    I don't think the EPA's treadmill actually simulates driving up or down slopes. Which may be an issue. MPGs are complicated: it's a combination of MPH, grade, and engine RPMs (people forget that it isn't just vehicle speed...guys, 55 MPH at 3000 RPM burns more fuel than 55 MPH at 1500 RPM!)
  • pflyerpflyer Posts: 25
    edited July 2012
    BP

    I checked out of this discussion several months ago and said I wouldn't comment anymore, but here I am again.

    You CAN get the mileage posted on the sticker without too much trouble or effort. I drive it as I have every other car I have ever owned in my 50+ years.
    If I need to step on it, I do. If I can, I use cruise.

    I have NEVER gotten less than 30 mpg (based on fuel added, not readout) and I live in DFW (ac on constantly/lots of city driving).

    If you "have crossed the Elantra off my list," I take it you have never been an owner, so how are you so "well versed" on the Elantra's engine?

    How many miles do you have driving an Elantra?

    I am an owner and have been for 15 months and 16,000 miles. I routinely exceed the city mpg and match the hwy mpg.

    YMMV, but I am very happy with my mpg.

    PS: Wish you the best on your car search, btw. I think you will find "haters" on any mpg car forum. Some get the mpg listed, some don't.
  • bluengoldbluengold Posts: 1
    I'm glad I did not cross the Elantra off my list. Bought a 2013 GLS with preferred package in June. Driving w/AC on, no Eco on, I gotten 33mpg, 32 mpg, & 34 mpg on first three fill-ups as measured by taking miles traveled and dividing by gallon used. The conditions have been a mix of rural, hwy, and city driving. My actual MPG is about 2MPG lower than the computer MPG. My colleague who has a 2012 Elantra got similar results at first, and now matches or exceeds the Govt. MPG rating.
  • Just so everyone knows, I never use 15% ethanol, but according to the dealership, I had 15% ethanol in my tank. So, I just used it all up, went to another gas station(different brand to rule out contamination) and guess what? Still the same MPG. (not just once, but several fill-ups) So, I have come to a conclusion that my low MPG has nothing to do with the supposed 15% ethanol. Also, I did get a chance to fill-up with non ethanol fuel when I was out of town, but only seen a slight increase in MPG. I'm currently averaging 22mpg, vehicle computer states 24. I have noticed a trend, Hyundai falsely reports the MPG's as being 2mpg better than what you are really getting. For the average consumer, this is a great deception, as they think that they are getting better mileage than they really are. For those of us with a bit more smarts, we manually check our fuel mileage at every fill up. I am gas mileage conscious and try my best to coast, slow acceleration, avoid stop and go situations as much as possible, yet I still get an average 22mpg. I can get over 30 when its nothing but highway, but realistically that is not the majority of my driving. So, Hyundai seems to be a hit and miss as far as MPG goes. Some get great, some don't. Maybe it does have something to do with the fuel pump issue like the earlier model Elantra was having. Sounds very similar. But, they have to be aware of the issue, yet turn a blind eye to help the consumer. Plus, they try to deceive us by having the on board computer fudge the numbers (in their favor) by 2 mpg. Sounds like a shady company to me. At this point, they have done nothing to help me out with my low MPG, other than to blame it on bad fuel. Next time I should have it tested the same day by another company and then get them for false reporting. All they did was create a situation where they didn't have to help me and pushed me out the door once again.
Sign In or Register to comment.