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



  • 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.
  • fowler3fowler3 Posts: 1,919
    That's no letdown in a brand new car, by any measurement. You forget how testers drive new cars,
    as if they are paid to see how fast they can destroy them. A real-world test by real-world drivers like
    us could do much better, after giving the car a chance to loosen up. I think the Veloster did very
    well. :D
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Not sure if you are talking about just the Veloster or the Elantra or both. I concur, but just but, for the Elantra due to the miles. However, it now has over 6,000 so mileage had better improve a heck of a lot and fast. As for the Veloster, they were equally hard on all the other cars in the test. Only the Veloster couldn't achieve at least the city number when they averaged all their miles. Take their new Beetle which had 20/29 EPA figures and achieved 24.2 mpg. Or their CR-Z EX at 31/37 mpg but got 33.1 mpg. The Veloster's FE result in this test ends up being very unimpressive.
  • aqua33v6aqua33v6 Posts: 38
    edited January 2012
    "As for the Veloster, they were equally hard on all the other cars in the test."

    Were you one of the drivers for that comparison test? Were you on the sidelines watching them test all the cars?

    I've had 2 rental late-model Jettas with the same engine as the Beetle, and the real world MPG was not good at all. I was getting 20 MPG with mixed city/highway driving, and I was not going heavy on the gas pedal. I've gotten the same average MPG from larger V6 sedans with 50 to 80 more HP.

    BTW, I wonder what ever came of that movement to expose the "Hyundai - EPA" mileage rating conspiracy? Seems to have evaporated into thin air. Hmmmm.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    edited January 2012
    If you really think a car magazine is "harder" on one brand over others or not equally "hard" or "soft" on the cars they test, then you might check out the 2/12 issue of C&D. Here is what they wrote about the test results for their Veloster with DCT: "Although its EPA ratings (29 mpg city, 38 highway) are comparable to those of the manual version, the DCT did give us better observed mpg: 28 mpg versus 25."

    There does seem to be a trend in car magazines where Hyundai results come in below expectations. So here are some results all from the same 2/12 issue:

    Veloster: 29 mpg city EPA/38 mph hwy EPA=28 mpg achieved C&D
    Mini Cooper S Coupe: 27/35=27
    Honda CR-V: 22/30=28
    Porsche 911 Carrera S: 17/24=18
    Chevrolet Corvette Z06: 15/24=15
    Nissan GT-R: 16/23=14

    So the Honda CR-V is the only vehicle that appears to achieve an approx. EPA combined estimate (darn near achieving the hwy result overall!), and this far heavier vehicle with a much larger engine achieved the same result as the Veloster. Only the Veloster and GT-R fail to achieve at least their city rating. The other 3 vehicles at least achieve their city rating. I don't believe C&D went easy on the Porsche, Corvette, or GT-R.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    Except for the CR-V, we are talking about at most a difference of 2 mpg here: Veloster was 1 mpg under its city EPA rating; 911 was 1 mpg over; Mini hit the city rating; and GT-R was 2 under. In that company, the Veloster seems right in the ballpark.

    Also... the CR-V was tested separately from the other cars, was it not? So we don't know how it was driven relative to the other cars. Maybe it was driven more like a "mommy-mobile" compared to the sporty cars.
  • elantra4elantra4 Posts: 7
    edited January 2012
    I purchased my 2012 gls elantra auto in June,2011 just as they came out. I gave it a good break in with a trip from NYC to Palm Coast FL. It really drove nice and it was getting from 36-41mpg on the trip odometer all highway driving with the ECO off, air on.The mpg in NYC local driving and some highway 75-25 when i returned stayed about 28-29 mpg to about 3750miles on the car and took in for the first oil change. The mpg has steadily dropped since the oil change and now i am getting about 31-32 on all highway and 22mpg in city driving with ECO on air off. Why would an oil change have effected the mpg so much. I have 7000 miles on the car now. I have noticed that it has really been getting worse as the total mileage has increase, just the opposite to what people have been told.Could the dealer have made an adjustment when they changed the oil that has resulted in the mpg drop? Tire psi set at 32.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,682
    Do you live in NYC? It's winter now. It was summer when you bought the car. That could be a major contributor to the lower mpg you are seeing now. The timing on the oil change could have just been a coincidence.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,598
    Was your trip computer reset for the first time after your trip at the time of the oil change? A few thousand miles of highway driving, without resetting the computer, will lead one to think the local milage after the trip is better than it is due to the computer being based on weighted average.

    Many people, regardless of the car, think their computer MPG read out is wrong because 1) they haven't had one before & 2) they don't realize how much of a difference 1/4 or 1/2 gallon in a fill up can make in the manual MPG calculation.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    The test results are what they are. But people can't have it both ways. One can't say, the testers are being too hard on Hyundai and then say the numbers are so close to the estimate that they don't matter. The magazines have no incentive to be "too hard" or "too mommyish" in their tests, for if they did they'd lose credibility with readers. The C&D info was from separate tests: Veloster (a test), CR-V (a test), and the 3 high performance sports cars (all as one test). Oddly, the test results reported across many magazines and tests are showing Hyundais that are coming in at or below their city ratings. Notice how C&D pointed out that the (earlier separate test) result for the 6-speed manual Veloster was even WORSE (25 mpg overall) than the result for the DCT Veloster (28 mpg overall), even though the EPA figures are "comparable", at about 29 mpg city?
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Filled my Elantra GLS up twice yesterday. From the same station and the same pump. Used 87 octane non-ethanol regular unleaded. Tires all at 34 psi. Daily temp range for just yesterday was from about 54 deg F to 40 deg F (unseasonably warm this time of year in midwest). Car had about 1000 miles on ODO to start (start of tank 1) and ended with about 1400 miles total (end of tank 2). So while out of break-in period, she still doesn't have a lot of miles on her. And this is winter.

    Tank 2: 36.96 mpg overall. Drove 292.0 miles of mainly interstate and used 7.901 gals. Did speed limit entire time (mostly 70 mph). Used active Eco entire time and cruise control for nearly all of it. Drive out 1 adult and no luggage. Drive back 2 adults and 60 pounds of luggage. Filled tank up immediately upon completion of highway drive. Computer calculated 39.5 mpg, so read about 6% high.

    Tank 1: 22.78 mpg overall. Drove just 105.8 miles of city/suburb and used 4.644 gals. This was mainly short trips of 1 mile or so one way to grocery store, post office, etc. Didn't use any active Eco and no cruise control. Mostly 1 adult with no luggage but sometimes 2 adults. Temps were colder. Engine rarely heated up all the way. Filled tank up before going on the highway drive. Computer calculated 25.4 mpg, so read about 10% too high.

    No surprise with either tank. Short cold trips in winter kill FE. Long trips on interstate with nice weather show good FE. My computer continues to read too high on nearly every tank, so I have to go by actual gals used in light of actual miles driven for most accurate result.
Sign In or Register to comment.