Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
There is a potential for that, yes. Trip computers can be off by as much as a couple of MPG. But I already countered that argument by stating that the 40 reported by the computer represented suboptimal conditions. There's no reason to think the number reported wouldn't be higher if conditions were better.
I am glad however you enjoy your car.
As I stated it is my wife's car, not mine. If it were mine I'd be able to tell you the exact MPG as I track economy (via miles driven/gallons consumed, not the TC) and vehicle expenses on my cars with a spreadsheet. My V6 AWD CUV, for instance, has a lifetime MPG of 21.15 but my last tank got 24.13. EPA is 20 overall/24 highway so in the grand scheme of things I'm exceeding expectations.
IF you ever owned a german car and understood the quality..
Nope. Never have and probably never will. Literally everyone I've ever known who has owned a VW loved the car but would never buy another due to reliability issues. And every issue was a few hundred bucks in repairs. That speaks wonders about German quality, at least from one manufacturer. They all - every last one of them - replaced their German cars with Asian cars.
There are many more people on here have an issue with trying to get 40 mpg..
In terms of active posters, yes. In terms of numbers of Elantra owners who are dissatisfied, we really don't know. There are perhaps 10 or 20 dissatisfied owners who post here. Maybe more. I haven't counted. But Hyundai is selling around 15K Elantras a month, give or take.
And many folks are failing to account for the 40MPG being just part of the actual range, which is something like 34-43MPG highway. Anything in that range is considered normal by the DoE.
..and then it also could be some cars in the production do and others dont? But again that would point to a lack of engineering perfection.
Or it would point to the various reasons that have been pointed out time and time again as to why people might not be getting the economy they expected. Or a bad batch of parts from a supplier.
Automotive engineering perfection has yet to be achieved. By any company.
What I can't understand is, why did you ever buy an Elantra in the first place? Since you love German engineering and needed 40+ mpg, I would think you would have gone for the Jetta or Golf TDI.
I do appreciate the Golf and it's on my shopping list for my next car. But I don't like diesels, so I could never hit 40 mpg in the 2.5L Golf. But I know I could do that in the Elantra, because I've done it. For the few miles a year I drive, 35 mpg highway in the Golf is close enough.
Just took a round trip Mesa, AZ - Tucson, AZ. Most driving on I10 where speed limit is mostly 75MPH (a few construction zones where it drops to 65). The speed limit on most of the other Hwys in the Phoenix area are set at 65MPH. Tucson (for those not familiar) has no city Hwy system (all streets with traffic lights and speed limits of 40-45 MPH). In addition to the Elantra's readouts, I also took my Garmin out of the Jetta for comparisons sake and the fact that the Garmin has a trip computer.
Some facts: I took the info from the Garmin when we arrived at our initial destination in Tucson and then again when I refueled at home.
OUT BACK Elantra
Distance...................... 115.9 126.5 237.9
Overall AVG MPH........... 53.4 46.0 51.0
Moving AVG MPH........... 59.5 51.8
Max Speed.................... 82.3 76.9
Stopped Time (min)....... 13.5 18.3
The two Max Speed number were both passing situations and lasted less than 30 seconds. Otherwise, based on the Garmin's satellite readout, I never exceeded the speed limit.
According to the Elantra's readout, for the entire trip we averaged 33.6MPG.
Based on the amount of fuel used, the average was 33.46MPG. I did find it interesting that according to the Garmin the distance traveled came to 242.4 miles (4.5 additional miles or just under 2% more). But, if that is correct, it changes the fuel economy to 34.1MPG.
Another pieces of info. There were only 2 of us in the car (together we weight under 260) and the AC was on. At 75MPH the Tach indicated approximately 2,500RPM. Drove very conservatively...no jack rabbit starts...slowly built up to speed limits and kept in highest gear possible (no abrupt downshifts...except for the passing situations). I did notice that, at the beginning of the trip, once I got on the first 65MPH road (about 6 miles into the trip) that the AVG MPG indicator was creeping up past 34MPG but then dropped once the speed limit went up.
So, what do I take from all of this? Still not getting the MPG expected (especially when considered against how aggressively I drive the Jetta which, at the same 75MPH speed, would be turning about 3,500RPM and I still would be getting 30+MPG). Even if we could have averaged 35MPG, that is still 13% below the EPA estimate of 40MPG.
I will say this. I probably would be less focused on the fuel economy if the car was more 'fun' to drive. But, it really does not handle that well; has three obvious (and in certain instances, dangerous) blind spots; automatically downshifts on the gentlest slopes; and the SAT/NAV system is a joke (on this trip it directed me to a route that was 30 miles and 45 minutes longer than my Garmin - not the first time this has happened).
Since moving to Minnesota and doing more city driving (especially shorter trips in very cold weather) I watched the MPG numbers on my Mazda 3 and Honda Odyssey plummet. Was I happy? No. But I understood why. Not exactly ideal driving conditions and I have learned that those shorter trips (lots of stopping and going) in cold weather are a mpg killer. Also letting your car idle for 10 minutes to warm up when it is 20 below is a killer...
What is odd about the Elantra is you have a high number of people getting at or near the EPA estimates, and what seems like a high number of people not hitting the numbers or coming close. It is very strange.
I am driving an Elantra loaner car while my Genesis Coupe is getting 3M Clearshield installed.
Not a bad car. I really like the exterior styling and the interior is nice. This car has over 5K miles on it and the trip computer says 32.7MPG average (and I am guessing most people who drive the loaner are doing a mix of city/highway like me). It has decent acceleration and the handling is actually better than I expected (I liked it better than the non-SE Sonata model I drove).
You're basing your statement on the premise that all Elantras coming off the line are exactly the same and that there is no possibility of some production error. I agree that in most cases they should be the same but there seems to be a disconnect here.
But I think you can search the internet for just about any car and find people that:
- Get below the EPA estimates
- Get above the EPA estimates
- Are right at the EPA estimates
I found this to be the case with every car I have ever bought in the last 10+ years. Mazda 3? Lots of people complained about not getting the EPA gas estimates on the Mazda 3 forums I frequent. I could point out a number of threads on the Mazda forums where people were upset with their gas mileage. And then there are folks who chime in and get better than the EPA numbers.. I rarely hit the EPA numbers for my Mazda 3 or Honda Odyssey. But I know why.. I would not say I have a lead foot, but I don't have a light foot either..
I really wouldn't call it an investigation. They tested one car in very favorable conditions and it hit the numbers. CR did the same thing and it didn't quite hit the number while most of the other high mpg cars did and even surpassed them in most cases. I think that is part of the problem. The vast majority seem to be doing well but there seems to be a large number that aren't.
I also see other forums with complaints about mpg re other cars. However, the sheer number of complaints about the mpg with this car has drawn a lot of attention with consumer's groups and the press. Never saw that with the Mazda3 so I assume the numbers were pretty small on the grand scheme of things.
"Hyundai is also the more earnest in following through on its fuel-efficiency claims. Both Ford and Hyundai are heavily touting their small cars' ability to achieve 40 mpg on the highway, but the Focus only does so when equipped with a dual-clutch automatic transmission and a special fuel economy package. Our test car, equipped with a five-speed manual -- no six-speed is offered -- is rated at a still impressive, but less sensational, 26/36-mpg city/highway. The Elantra, on the other hand, is rated at 29/40 mpg regardless of trim level and with either the six-speed automatic that was in our test car or the standard six-speed manual. Over the course of our three days of mixed city and highway driving (including the round trip to D.C. from Ann Arbor, MI), we observed an indicated 36 mpg in the Elantra, versus 33 mpg in the Focus."
Read more: http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1104_2011_hyundai_elantra_vs_2012_fo- rd_focus_comparison/viewall.html#ixzz1tYrDXKeY
With mixed driving they hit 36mpg on a 2011 with a six speed automatic.
Another point is that larger engines are more forgiving than smaller engines when getting the mass moving from a dead stop. Larger engines in older car models often achieved better MPG than smaller engine in same model. Cars used to be engineered for overall driveability - now EPA rating is king.
Think too many people underestimate their SPEED on highway, spending more time at higher speeds than they think. You won't get 40 MPG driving 70, 75, or higher MPHs. Max fuel economy is in the 50-65 mph range.
I have no difficulty seeing people driving a lot of MILES on highway getting 33-36 MPG due to (1) driving at higher speeds or (2) spending a decent minority amount of TIME idling at stops.
Anyone seriously looking at their specific car's FE needs to look at the computer's estimate of MPH and the elapsed time, both of which should be reset after each fill up.
Actually, it was the other way around. Hyundai submitted the numbers to the EPA and they verified the numbers: linky
The car idling hurts a lot, and it depends on how often breaking/stopping. The dashboard display has it raised 0.1 L/100km every one or two minutes when I was stuck in traffic.
However, Canada has it registered as 6.9L/100km for city (34mpg) and 4.9L/100km for highway (48mpg), so I am still looking forward for better gas consumption.
http://www.hyundaicanada.com/pages/showroom/showroom.aspx?model=elantra
- Avg MPH= 35 and achieved 35.45 MPG. Drove 231.4 miles and used 6.528 gals.
- Avg MPH= 24 and achieved 29.46 MPG. Drove 258.5 miles and used 8.776 gals.
So a 46% increase in avg MPH or an 11 MPH average increase leads to an increase in FE of 20.3% or 5.99 MPG!
Computer FE estimate continues to read about 7-9% too high. Computer estimated first tank at 38.4 MPG (got 35.45) and second tank at 32.3 MPG (got 29.46).
Thanks for the work and the thinking. Explains much of the confusion among drivers results.
There is a TSB which might address this issue: TSB 11-SS-001
The real world impact would be interesting to study, for buyers who saw the 2 different stickers. IF BMW is right and the EPA wrong, then buyers who see the lower 23/33 mpgs numbers will be pleased when they achieve better results. IF BMW is wrong and the EPA is right, then buyers who saw the original numbers will be miffed that their FE is lower than anticipated. Which group's relative happiness change would be higher? I suspect the ones who really, really wanted that 36 mpg figure and didn't get it.
You must've missed my earlier post here
- 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.
The result at 30 mph avg. is right in line with EPA combined estimate of 33 mpg. Spending more continuous time in 5th and esp. 6th gears really helps fuel economy. City driving, with all the stop and go issues, takes a serious toll.
Now if I could just do enough pure highway mileage for one tankful to get my avg MPH to 40 and 45!
FYI, the EPA HWY test is only a 10 mile drive with an avg speed of 48.3 MPH.
This past weekend after I got a fill up and reset the gauges, I did a 14 mile drive where I averaged 42 MPH and achieved a whopping 48.1 MPG. I posted some pics here. One of these weekends, I'm going to try for 50 MPG.
I THINK WE BEEN HAD.
- What were some real tank results? How many miles did you drive and how many actual gallons did up put in the tank? What did the computer say about your AVG MPH were and MPG for the tank?
- What type fuel are you using (e.g., FE-robbing ethanol)?
- How fast are you driving on interstate?
- Do you live in an area with a lot of road congestion on highways and in city?
- Do you make a lot of short city trips (where engine doesn't get to optimal thermal efficiency and AT spends a lot of time in 1st-4th gears)?
- Are you carrying any passengers or loads regularly?
- What were some real tank results? How many miles did you drive and how many actual gallons did up put in the tank? What did the computer say about your AVG MPH were and MPG for the tank?
- What type fuel are you using (e.g., FE-robbing ethanol)?
- How fast are you driving on interstate?
- Do you live in an area with a lot of road congestion on highways and in city?
- Do you make a lot of short city trips (where engine doesn't get to optimal thermal efficiency and AT spends a lot of time in 1st-4th gears)?
- Are you carrying any passengers or loads regularly?
Yes, I am the one with the 2001 Pro, still going strong, with only 48K on the ODO.
I moved closer to the healthcare and general services I need, which cut down on
trip distances and gas used. Great little cars. Trading enters my mind occasionally, but I rarely see anything that justifies trading. One exception, if I could trade up, would be the Kia Rio-5 hatchback. Now, THERE is a car that's right for the times.
Yes, it's small, but it has great utility, and loaded with the really new electronics features most of us would like, its a steal. Note that the side sheet-metal is void of creases which cost big bucks to remove if dented. Love the zoomy 21st Century Hyundai styling, but let it be somebody else's problem.
Thanks fro posting, Nor.
- Avg MPH= 52 and achieved 41.38 MPG. Drove 243.4 miles and used 5.882 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.
All of these were with Active ECO "on", no A/C, and maximum use of cruise control. Used only regular unleaded (no ethanol). Car now has about 4,000 total miles on her; I'm going to get first oil change next week.
Sadly, my computer continues to read high. It showed 45.4 mpg, which was off by 8.9% (too high).
Unless you drive 100% of time either city or highway, the only "real" number to work towards is the combined 33 EPA estimate. I figure anyone getting say 32-34 MPG overall combined should be entirely satisfied.
But I will admit that I am focusing pretty hard on achieving FE when I drive. I share the car with someone else, but she only drives it maybe 1/3rd as much as I do. However, her computer estimate is always under mine as she doesn't give a whit about FE and every time I see where she has left the number, I try to raise it. Almost like a game.
I figured since you're a very careful driver and concerned about economy that you''ve been keeping good records since you bought the car. 4000 miles would probably be around 11-13 fill ups. That's why I asked for an average over the whole 4000 miles. If you don't know that fine. I usually don't just measure 4 tanks of gas to determine a real average as there are a lot of seasonal and driving variables. I usually try to take about 6 fill ups a couple of times a year to give me a real good picture.
If people get the EPA combined number that's great. If they are only getting an average of around 27-29 with the Elantra I would be concerned if I knew I was driving conservately as that is below even the EPA city rating.
C&D used a "precision fuel-consumption meter" to determine the maximum speed the vehicles could obtain 40mpg. This is a key statistic not typically measured. The vehicles in the test included:
1. Chevrolet Cruze Eco
2. Ford Focus SE (not the SFE)
3. Hyundai Elantra GLS
4. Mazda 3 Skyactiv
5. VW Golf TDI
The results included C/D Observed Hwy mpg and the maximum speed at which 40mpg could be generated. Who won? The Golf TDI of course but the final tally was interesting. Here's the order of finish with the observed Hwy mpg then the max speed at which the magical 40mpg figure could be obtained.
1. VW Golf TDI: 46 mpg hwy and 77 mph for 40 mpg.
2. Mazda3 Sky: 45 mpg hwy and 76 mph for 40 mpg.
3. Elantra GLS: 41 mpg hwy and 74 mph for 40 mpg.
4. Cruze ECO: 36 mpg hwy and 69 mph for 40 mpg.
5. Focus SE: 36 mpg hwy and 66 mph for 40 mpg.
The Cruze was the loser here and Ford wasn't able to provide their high mpg SFE version Focus so that one's tossed out really. The Elantra did very well and Mazda's new 3 Skyactiv posted stunning numbers. The TDI performed as expected.
Just filled up after a real mix of downtown city, suburb, and highway driving, covering 25 mph to 70 mph. About 60% interstate at 70 mph posted speed limit and had 3 passengers for about half the driving. Temperatures in the 60s all day. I had cruise set at legal highway speeds (50-70 mph). My avg. MPH was 40 and I ended up with 36.75 mpg. So I now have 5 good recent data points. (Just need a 45 mph average point.)
- 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.
All of these were with Active ECO "on", little A/C, and maximum use of cruise control. Used only regular unleaded (no ethanol). Car now has about 4,200 total miles on her. My computer continues to read high. It showed 40.4 mpg, which was off by 9% (too high).
I'm not sure my Elantra GLS would get 40 mpg at constant 74 mph. Seems like her FE reaches a peak closer to 70 mph.
What they found was interesting and somewhat inline with the C/D report. Their average mpg on the previously-tested Elantra automatic was 29, and for the Mazda3 Skyactiv automatic was 32. The Corolla automatic was also 32. The Cruze ECO automatic averaged only 27 mpg (1 mpg better than a 1LT they previously tested); CR noted that the Sonata GLS and Camry LE they tested also averaged 27 mpg. The Focus SFE did better, averaging 31 mpg, 3 better than the Focus SE they previously tested. The Civic HF averaged 33 mpg, 3 better than the 30 they got on the LX. But they noted the Mazda3i Skyactiv and Corolla cost less than these and get 32 mpg. One place the Civic HF really stood out though was on highway FE: CR measured 49 mpg, which was better than the Prius C they tested, and tops all other gas-powered cars CR has tested. (Too bad C/D didn't include a Civic HF in their tests.) So someone who drives mostly on the highway might find the Civic HF appealing, if they can stand the rest of the car (CR declined to recommended it based on its overall test score).