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

1356726

Comments

  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,234
    Here in Illinois, or at least the greater Chicago area, I have been unsuccessful in finding gas without Ethanol. Sam's Club or Shell, BP or Meijer doesn't matter; I can't escape E10. Regular is 87, midgrade is 89, and premium is 92-93 octane.

    The price gap from regular to midgrade is usually 10-14 cents, and another 10-19 cents from midgrade to premium. The cheaper stations like Thortons are more likely to only charge 10 cents/grade bump. Stations that sell the (subsidized) E85, well, I haven't been paying attention to but for a while they were consistently 30-50 cents cheaper per gallon.
  • "Most FE tests are not accurate the first 4000 to 5000 miles because the engines are new and tight, they have to be driven at least 4000 miles first."
    //////////////////
    From my Dodge Caliber, its first tank of gas was one of my highest. I've had excellent mpg from all my cars from the beginning.

    Many people have higher overall mpg than the EPA's highway average for their cars. However, most people drive their cars from point A to point B without thinking or caring what their mpg is!
  • "That extra 11 miles per gallon highway seems to be missing from everywhere but the sales pitch."
    /////////////////
    Looking at fueleconomy.com, the Elantra 6 speed manual transmission:
    one driver obtained 43mpg!
    Looking at truedelta.com, the Elantra 6 speed manual transmission:
    two Elantras averaged 38mpg, with their highway speeds being 75mph.
    Dropping to 60+mph(as is the EPA highway test), those two Elantras would have gotten 40+mpg.

    Well, how 'bout them apples! Manual transmissions beating automatic transmissions with real-world driving. Who woulda thunk it! Yes, even with the Elantra manual transmission which has higher rpms at highway speed than the automatic transmission, the manual tranny beat the auto tranny.

    Also, go to pure-gas.org for stations selling 100% gasoline in your area. Unfortunately, the accurate maps & addresses at pure-gas.org show that many many larger cities have few & no stations selling 100% gasoline.

    The ethanol industry, itself & the U.S. Federal gov't admit to 2% to 4% drops in mpg using the 10% ethanol blend. However, many many people report that the use of 10% ethanol drops mpg by 5% to 10+%. 10% ethanol blend has 3% less btus of energy than 100% gas. Also, many cars seem to be missing the 'sweet spot' of efficient combustion with the use of 10% ethanol.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,694
    Yes, in many US metro areas, the EPA mandates ethanol in gas for reduced air pollution... year-round. That is true in my area (Twin Cities). So telling us to use pure gas for better fuel economy is a no-op for many of us. :cry:

    Since we can't depend on pure gas, best to focus on fuel-saving techniques that can be used by anyone.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Keep in mind that a true automatic transmission, one with a torque converter, does sap some power, which is why MTs often get higher real world FE even though they are geared a bit more aggressively. Key is the overall gearing for each gear, which is the gear ratio of each gear multiplied by the final drive ratio of the differential/transaxle; the higher the number the more aggressive the gearing.

    The Elantra is a traditional AT. Same for Civic. Other cars, like the Fiesta and Focus, use a dual-clutch automated manual transmission; it really is a manual transmission but one that is controlled by the electronics rather than your left foot and a manual clutch. These tend to shift a lot more harshly, which is why Ford is seeing a lot of complaints about their "ATs". People are expecting the smoother torque converter AT, but get the jerkier/harsher automated DC MT. (If you go back into the 1960s and earlier, Detroit used to offer different, higher HP option engines, usually with higher compression ratios and hotter cams, for cars with automatic transmissions to compensate for the power drain of the AT.)
  • steven39steven39 Posts: 636
    hello folks,i thought i would give another mpg update on my 2012 elantra gls with auto.I purchased this car in august and recently as i hit the 2000 mile mark i noticed a siginificant increase in the mpg from when i purchased the car.i was averaging from the start about 22-23 city and about 37-38 highway.as the car has broken in more and now that i have a little over 2000 miles on the car iam now averaging about 28 city and about 43 highway according to the trip computer in the car.I think that the people who are not getting the advertised mpg on their new elantras need to be a little patient and let the car break in and put some miles on the car in order to get the advertised mpg like i did.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Is your estimate based entirely just on the trip computer reading? Have you calculated it based on actual fuel used and miles driven? My trip computer has consistently been 3-4 mpg off, in both directions (too low or too high). I wouldn't rely on the trip computer. The only real accurate way to calculate it is based on the actual amount of fuel used.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,694
    So your trip computer has an error of +/- 10% or so? I'd take that into the Hyundai dealer if I were you. I've never seen an mpg computer off that much, in any car, Elantra or other Hyundai or other brand. What I've seen is around a 0.5-1 mpg difference, and that assumes that my manual calculations are accurate. Since it's impractical for me to fill up at the same station and pump most of the time, it's possible that my manual calculations are inaccurate due to variations in pumps.
  • majorbenmajorben Posts: 16
    edited December 2011
    Hi All,

    Just a curious question for those 2012 Elantra owners with auto transmission: what is the engine RPM's at 65 mph? I think that I'm getting just over 2K. What is everybody else seeing at 65mph on a level roadway?
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    I'll keep comparing the two figures, but I have always, for decades, calculated my FE by using the actual amount of fuel pumped versus the actual miles driven. That is the only real calculation. The computer is just an estimate. I always wonder why people don't do the real math, since all you have to do is print off your receipt at the fuel pump showing what you pumped and write down the miles driven from the trip computer readout and do one simple division.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,694
    I do both, but I find the mpg computer to be handy, especially since it can take me 3-4 weeks between fills so the computer gives me some idea of where I am on FE in between fills.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Fuelled her for 4th time. Now just out of breakin period, at 667 miles. This was mainly a top off due to cold weather. We're in the 20-45 deg. range now. Took 4.812 gals for 107.0 miles equals 22.2 mpg. Trip computer said 24.8 mpg, so read about 2.6 mpg high. This was 100% city driving in colder weather and nearly all were short trips (less than 3 miles to destination; many just a mile or so). [I used same gas station, same pump, same 87 oct non-ethanol reg unleaded.]

    So no surprise that lots of very short trips, too short for engine to properly warm up, in cold winter weather caused fuel economy to tank. I did add 2-4 psi in each tire to compensate for colder weather.

    My girlfriend complained to me last night about the decline in fuel economy she is seeing in her '12 Civic EX. I helped her buy it new in August. She has over 5000 miles driven. She said she was getting 40-42 mpg early, then fell to 38-39 mpg. But now she is seeing 32-34 mpg. She is ticked as this is what she had been getting in her '07 Fit before she trade it in. Told her the impact of cold weather and any switch to winter fuel blends. She uses only non-ethanol regular unleaded. I checked her tire pressures all around and they were fine. She honestly told me she wondered if the dealer somehow sabotaged her car when she had the oil changed recently. I told her don't be paranoid.
  • rudy66rudy66 Posts: 26
    Did you familiarize yourself with the Consumer Reports has to say about the 2012 Civic?
    Dolf
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Yes, but not only for CR. MT, C&D, etc. I had her read all the comparisons and tests I could find in print. I'd had great luck with my '00 Sonata. Girlfriend has been driving nothin' but Hondas since 1990s and has had great luck with them (e.g., she had 130,000 miles on her '07 Fit and it never had a repair). I tried unsuccessfully to get her to look at Elantra, Cruze, Fiesta, and Focus. For her, the new Civic EX is a huge improvement over the old Fit; more luxurious, quieter, better riding, and better FE for Civic. But in July when she was looking there were hardly any out. My city has one Honda dealer (same corporate owner as of the one Hyundai dealership, too, which is next door). Since she has bought her last 4 cars from them, they wrote her up a truly great deal (which I negotiated but couldn't believe how much they gave for her Fit) and she did a factory order. Took 4 weeks but came right on time as promised.
  • Hi I just had my 2012 checked for this. Not only is it off they know it and have a tolerance chart for it at 60 miles per hour the speedometer is +3.5 MPH
    this also sets the odmeter off in the +direction witch recordes 63 miles when you only went 60 miles. This also eats up the warrenty faster.
    So your MPG is about 1 to 2 less than you think.
    Hyundai knows this and is ripping us off.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,694
    Did they say anything about adjusting the speedometer? If not, maybe you could take this "up the chain" to the service manager at the dealership, and then Hyundai Customer Service.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Issues regarding speedometers and odometers have come up periodically. I don't believe the two readings are directly related. Remember reading an article a few years back in one of the major car magazines (think C&D) that looked into speedometer readings. They found most manufacturers' speedos read high. BMWs, MBs, especially. (I'm also a member of BMWCCA and they've reported that BMW speedos read fast but the odos are accurate). Makes sense from a liability standpoint. No one sues if your speedo says 63 and you're doing 60; but God help you if you're doing 63 and your speedo says 60. But they also found out that even though the speedos read high, the odos were accurate. Which also makes sense from a liability standpoint as you'd get sued if your odo reads fast, eating up warranty.
  • puffin1puffin1 Posts: 276
    ya, I just had to get my snow blower fixed on account of how the ethenol is hurting 2 cyl engines. I bought some Stabil Ethynol killer and for every gallon I put in 2 oz. Snowblower cost $194.00 to fix.
    In my BMW I put some dry gas in and a whole bottle of Marine Stablelizer.
    In the VW as I drive it in the winter I put some ethnol stabilizer and dry gas when I fill it.
    Now this Ethynol stuff is making me paranoid.I mix 1/2 tank in BMW w/mobile 93 and the other half with 89 to get 91 octane.
    Lastly, how come states out west get gas w/o ethnoland back east we are screwed?
    ty Puffin
  • kagedudekagedude Posts: 407
    edited December 2011
    Has anyone taken a 150 plus highway trip using mainly cruise control within 60-70mph on an Elantra and calculating the mpg? I expect 40mpg with this test (because that is what the ad says) but curious how much higher it goes.

    If it doesn't break 40mpg, Hyundai definitely should re-test the Elantras or take a page from Honda.

    Following my driving criteria above, my old 2007 Honda Fit Sport was rated at 34mpg highway and I consistently got 37mpg or higher with 40mpg as the top within 37 fill ups.

    My current 2010 Civic LX-S is rated at 36mpg highway and I got a suprising high of 42mpg a few times and 40mpg a few times within 49 fill ups. I follow the old fashioned methodology of dividing miles traveled with the gas pumped and resetting the trip counter after.

    No bias against Hyundai but showing some tough love. I owned a 2002 Hyundai Accent GLS and currently have a 2001 Elantra and 2005 Elantra within our family (all original owners). I actually can't wait for the 2013 Elantra Touring. I was actually very disappointed with the Sonata not making the 35mpg claim as well so I ended up getting a Civic.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Just took a 250 mile highway trip in my '12 GLS AT. She turns over about 2050 RPMs at 65 mph.

    Interestingly, when I compare just the needle on the speedo versus the trip computer MPH data, looks like my speedo actually runs 2 mph fast. So when needle is centered on 65 mph, the computer calculates I'm doing 67 mph. With needle at 65 mph looks like I'm doing about 2100 RPMs. When computer says I'm doing 65 mph, looks like I'm doing about 2050 RPMs. These are eyeball estimates of RPMs. Too bad the tach is calibrated only in 250 RPM increments.

    From 55-70 mph, using computer and on level ground in 6th gear, it looked approx. like 55 mph was about 1750 RPMs, 60 mph=1900 RPMs, 65 mph=2050, and 70 mph was about 2250 RPMs. (I got these readings when the car had only about 900 total miles driven so far. Was a nice afternoon at about 48 deg F. A bit windy. Had tires at 33 psi and two adults total in car.)
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Went 321.3 miles on 9.357 gal of regular (non-ethanol) 87 oct unleaded for 34.34 mpg. [Used same station, pump, and gas as other tanks.]

    This was about 250 interstate miles (mostly at around 65-70 mph) and about 70 city miles. So this is about a 78% hwy/22% city split. I used active ECO only about 45% of time (on return portion). Had 3 adults plus about 50 pounds luggage on way out and just 2 adults and no luggage on way back. Ended tank at 990 total miles on odo. So this was the first full tank after the 600 mile break in period. Started trip when it was about 25 deg F (outbound in morning) but ended it when about 45 deg F (in later afternoon).
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    edited December 2011
    My girlfriend has been only driving new Honds since 1990s, 3 Civics and 1 Fit. She drives about 110 miles each workday on ame highway route at about 60-65 mph. She had an '07 Fit Sport AT. She was disappointed in its highway mileage as it would only get about 33 mpg. Over time mileage declined and when traded it at about 130,000 miles she was getting about 31 mpg. So in Aug this year she traded it in and bought a '12 Civix EX AT. At first she was happy with mileage, getting about 40 mpg but now she is complaining that her mileage has fallen to around 32-34 mpg. (She told me she wondered if the Honda dealer messed with her car at the first oil change. I told her it was just cold winter air and winter fuel blends. She keeps her tires inflated religiously.) Her Civic is far nicer car than her Fit. The Fit engine labors horribly at 65-75 mph. Very, very high RPMs, unlike with her Civic. Which is why Civic EPA sticker highway mileage estimate is so much better than Fit.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    My computer reading is still too high. Trip computer said I got 37.0 mpg, but when I fuelled up was 34.34 mpg. That 2.66 mpg reading off is about 7%. Computer has always been 2-3 mpg off each time. Usually high, but was low once.
  • Calculating with my own MPG after my last 2 fill ups I have gotten the following results;

    1st fill up - 9.7 gallons, 336 miles driven, 34.64 MPG, the computer read 37.2 MPG (7% error)

    most recent fill up - 10.44 gallons, 363 miles drive, 34.77 MPG, the computer read 38.2 MPG (9% error)

    Both fill ups were at the same gas station, same pump. My commute is 77% highway, 23% city. The first fill up had a few days of heavy traffic and slow downs on the highway. Most recent fill up, traffic was always good. Always using ECO mode and using cruise control when possible. This is in the great Cleveland, OH area, temperatures have been fluctuation between low 30s and low 50s for the last couple of weeks.

    To me, 7% and 9% error is pretty significant.
  • kagedudekagedude Posts: 407
    edited December 2011
    G2iowa - I would think the decrease in your girlfriend's Civic mpg is due to the cold winter air and winter fuel blends. My 2010 Civic LX-S auto's mpg also dropped recently from my combined average of 34mpg to 31mpg. I do notice the ethanol signs now on gas pumps and do expect the decrease in mpg which now shows a pattern over the last 2 winters. My driving pattern to work is about 80% hwy/20% city. I also only check my tire pressure when I bring it to the dealer every 6k miles which is a "long" interval. :P I assume the TPS will let me know if there is an issue.

    Date Miles Gal MPG
    12/25/10 338.0 11.04 30.6
    12/19/10 337.0 10.85 31.1
    12/13/10 335.0 10.73 31.2

    09/14/11 155.0 3.99 38.9
    09/14/11 269.0 6.69 40.2
    09/12/11 243.0 5.98 40.7

    12/8/11 337.0 10.72 31.4
    12/2/11 356.0 10.19 34.9
  • kagedudekagedude Posts: 407
    edited December 2011
    With a 40mpg rating, 34.34mpg mainly on the highway is quite low. I would think it would get at least 36mpg to justify the 22% city driving.

    I definitely am dissapointed with the ads. It has a 29 city/40 hwy with 33mpg combined rating. So that means driving 50% city/50% hwy should get 33mpg but real world driving of 78/22 only gets 1.34mpg more?

    Went 321.3 miles on 9.357 gal of regular (non-ethanol) 87 oct unleaded for 34.34 mpg. [Used same station, pump, and gas as other tanks.]

    This was about 250 interstate miles (mostly at around 65-70 mph) and about 70 city miles. So this is about a 78% hwy/22% city split. I used active ECO only about 45% of time (on return portion). Had 3 adults plus about 50 pounds luggage on way out and just 2 adults and no luggage on way back. Ended tank at 990 total miles on odo.
  • puffin1puffin1 Posts: 276
    Could be the added weight.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Getting 34.34 mpg...with 3 adults and some luggage...on a moderately windy day...when driving temps started around 27 deg F and ended at only about 49 deg F...and started this tank of fuel when car had only about 660 miles on the odometer...seems about right. Now if I got 34.34 mpg on a nice windless spring day when it was 70 deg F out and I was driving by myself and the car has 20000 miles on the odometer....
  • I think that unless your car ran out of gas then it is safe to assume that a few miles worth of gas was already in your tank when you refilled on those two occasions. Therefore it would be ridiculous for you to accurately calculate your MPG without, including that bit.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Check out the 2/12 issue of MT. The '12 Elantra Limited in their long-term fleet has been in service for 3 months & a total of 6,338 miles on odo. It is averaging a thirsty 20.7 mpg.

    And they have this to say about Veloster in the multi-car comparison test: "The real letdown...fuel economy, as [it] was the only car in the test whose observed fuel economy was lower than its EPA city rating." EPA rating for their 6-speed manual is 28/40 mpg but they averaged 27.6 mpg. Their Fiat 500 EPA'd at 30/38 mpg and averaged 30.0 mpg.

    Loved the Ford F150 results. The ECO-boost version got worse FE than the V8! 16.5 mpg (16/22 EPA) vs 16.6 mpg (14/19 EPA), though it did accelerate quicker.
Sign In or Register to comment.