2011 Hyundai Elantra

carfreak09

Horrifying accident scenario....warning...it's a bit graphic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSr4ZFwq2rA&NR=1

benjaminh

yikes, that was a horrible looking accident.

I did find a website that said the manual 2011 Elantra will also get 40 mpg hwy. Impressive figures. Esp. now that you can actually believe the epa #s.

The GL model is going to be the big seller I think. I wonder what the list on that one is?

Since these are now at the dealers, why aren't we seeing test of the new Elantra?

fushigi

"I did find a website..."

How about the official release: http://hyundainews.com/Media_Kits/2011_Models/Elantra/Press_Release.asp

benjaminh

Thanks fushigi--that's an excellent press release. Learned a lot. 4 more mpg than Civic with more power is pretty darn impressive. Wonder how the next gen Civic will do. This will be tough to equal, let alone top.

Seems like since that press release they've maybe created a new extra entry level L model....?

So is the new elantra considered a 2011 or 2012?

benjaminh

To answer my own question, I think it's the all-new 2011 Elantra, and so the title of this thread is incorrect, I think. Perhaps a moderator could correct it?

And I found out there was a press event and test drive for it a while ago, but there's an "embargo" on publishing test drives until Monday. So we only have to wait until tomorrow and we'll probably have half a dozen reports on this car.

Like the Sonata, however, it looks potentially like it ties or beats everything else in the field.

I also read that it looks like this car might be being put together at the same plant as the Sonata in Alabama? If that's so, how are they possibly going to have the capacity to build Optimas too?

crkyolfrt

Yup, over 50..

I am not the dinosaur you have presumed though. I'm pretty up to date on stuff except for iPod and Bluetooth. (interesting to hear XM is distortion free now tho. I listen to my tunes loud and if it isn't clean sounding, I'd rather listen to nothing. Is Bluetooth stereo now? I know the first ones were only mono). As for the sunroof tho there are situations (weather) that you aren't considering.

as an aside...if you have an iPod and you hook it up thru USB to let's say an Elantra or Sonata stereo...is the sound clean and tight at loud db? I mean really clean and tight? I always figure there is loss, especially on those wireless systems that have you tune your radio to a certain frequency. Any I have heard 5 years ago was total junk. I was with a young person who thought it sounded great, but really iy was crap. What they liked was the tech ability, even tho the sound ability was garbage. So I lost interest in that tech.

Black cars are the worse for this condition. I had a black 05 X Trail with sunroof that easily endured torrential rain storms with nary a drop.... but...in the winter on a bright sunny day after a big snow storm the night before, the south sun warms the roof area, snow melts, runs down the north side of the runoff lines till they are below sun level and freeze, then the water backs up and leaks inside the vehicle. The only way they could prevent this type of leak would be to heat the drain lines that run down both A pillars. Not practical by anyones estimation.

I have had the same thing happen on a Rabbit many years ago.

carfreak09

Your right, we don't encounter those issues in Florida..sucks to be you! LOL Perhaps that's a good reason to clear the roof of snow before the sun has a chance to melt it or utilize some form of covered parking? It would have to be pretty darn cold for water to freeze in its tracks like that before getting a chance to exit the drain hole 4 feet away. How cool that you owned a Rabbit! What year and model? I had an 84 GTI all the way until 2009. Loved that car. It drove so good and you could always depend on it. Funny thing is, the moonroof leaked on that car too, but it was caused from rust chunks blocking the rear drainage tube and a few rust holes on the drainage tray right over the front passengers heads. I bondoed the tray and cleared the rust chunks out (after destroying the rear part of the headliner in the process) and no more leaks. :surprise:

I couldn't tell you about Ipod or bluetooth as I'm very old school there. I've never owned an MP3 player and I still hold the phone to my ear as I drive!

backy

Points of reference: my 2004 Elantra is rated 29 mpg highway, on the current EPA scale, but it gets 34 mpg cruising at 70-75 mph--and better at 55-60. My 2010 Sentra 2.0S is rated 34 mpg highway but will touch 40 mpg at 70 mph. So I think mid-40s is very doable on the highway for the new Elantra, after the engine breaks in (a characteristic of Hyundai engines--FE improves significantly after 1000 miles or so).

The Elantra has had a 14-14.5 gallon tank for a long time. My 2004 has 14.5; 2007-10 Elantra has 14. I agree the likely reason Hyundai downsized the tank for 2011 is to keep weight down, plus with the higher FE the cruising range doesn't suffer. Compare: 29 mpg x 14.5 gallons = 420.5 miles. 40 mpg x 12.8 gallons = 512 miles. Even compared to the 2010 Elantra, range is better on the 2011. 2010 (AT): 34 mpg x 14 gallons = 476 miles.

For comparison: Civic and Corolla have 13.2 gallon tanks, just a bit bigger than the Elantra's, but lower FE than the Elantra, so their cruising range is less.

There are bigger tanks on most mid-sized cars, for folks who like putting more gas into the tank with each fill. But it won't necessarily increase driving range.

So Hyundai has INCREASED the driving range of the Elantra for 2011, while keeping weight down (and maybe allowing more storage space). Also, it costs less to fill a 12.8 gallon tank than a 14 gallon tank. (smile)

crkyolfrt

-30 is not at all out of the question in mid day even tho the sun is shining bright and hot after a storm. But even at 0, water will freeze pretty fast if it surrounded by cold sunk metal with no sun or source of heat on it. The water is suppose to go out the drain slots in the floor behind the lower kick panels, but again, that freezes and then it will flow into the foot well area. As for clearing the snow, you'd have to be out there every 30 min. Today for example, we had some sun, lots of wind that was blowing heavily laden snow off the trees, so there was a fine mist of snow. Now, a few hours later, the sun has given in to light flurries. The problem is when you don't have enough snow to keep the sun from heating the black paint. So what is a person to do when getting home from shopping, shovel some snow onto the roof and A Pillars so that the sun can't get to it? If you haven't experienced this climate, then it might be hard for you to relate I think.

I had a 77 4 door n/a diesel. With a pile of miles on it. It was a great car. I smoked back then and it was, to this day, one of the quietest sunroofs on the hwy when cracked an inch or so.

The one in the X Trail was panoramic sized, and just too big. it fluttered and fluffed no matter how little it was open. And to open it any more than 18 in it was like a giant Hoover with a mission to suck any and all things light, right out of the roof. (including some paper money you set on the seat after that last drive thru) And why are they glass? No one sits there looking up at the sky, so they have to have covers that are always in the way, or having to pull it back cuz they are hot as the sun blazes its solar trail thru it.

I too have never MP3'd. Maybe someone else can weigh in if they see my question.

carfreak09

Yea, I totally can't relate. Only thing I can suggest is park in a garage, LOL. Or not buy a black car. If I lived where you do, you wouldn't see me exit the house for at least 3 months. I turned the heat on recently because the temp dropped to 67 in my apartment.

I love panoramic roofs! I'm so jealous you used to have one. They make the interior feel brighter, airier, and roomier. And it is neat to park somewhere, put the seat back and gaze at the cloud or stars. They are noisy though unless you lower a window too.

m6user

There are bigger tanks on most mid-sized cars, for folks who like putting more gas into the tank with each fill. But it won't necessarily increase driving range.

I like a bigger gas tank because it's just a pain in the winter months to fill up on cold, windy days so the less times I need to fill the better. The extra 2-3 gallons on a midsize car doesn't adversely affect MPG much in my opinion but if you drive all city stop and go it would a little more. Plus I like the range on trips. Not that I don't want to stop once in awhile but not necessarily to fill up with gas.

Not quiet sure what you mean by your last sentence above. Wouldn't a couple more gallons always increase driving range? The extra weight certainly couldn't affect MPG enough to offset the added capacity. Maybe you meant something that I'm not getting.

backy

I like a bigger gas tank because it's just a pain in the winter months to fill up on cold, windy days so the less times I need to fill the better.

It's not about the number of gallons... it's about how far you can go on a tank. And the Elantra can go farther on a tank than most mid-sized cars because it has much higher fuel economy than non-hybrid mid-sized cars. So if you don't like filling a tank in the cold, the Elantra wins out in two ways:

1) Fill up less often (greater driving range).
2) Takes less time to fill because the tank is smaller (e.g. 12.8 gallons vs. 14-16).

Sorry I confused you. I was trying to say something simple: the 2011 Elantra has a greater driving range than previous Elantras. Which is a good thing, in my book.

m6user

I think you either really like sunroofs and get one or you don't like them so you don't get them. As to some of the more practical reasons for not geting one consider the following.

1. They can and some do leak. Vast majority don't but some do. Check the Infiniti EX35 threads. They had a rash of leaking sunroofs and they are not exactly a cheap car. I'm sure there are instances on other threads I haven't read about but you get the jist.

2. They cost more. Plain and simple.

3. They are hot with the sun beating down through them when they are open. Some people like but others don't.

4. You can forget to close it upon exit from vehicle. Possible security and inclement weather or unfriendly bird problem.

5. Where's the crank? I've had two or three cars in the past ten years that had sunroofs but I don't recall seeing or reading anything about a crank.

6. Noisier than a closed roof. Nuff said.

7. If I did roll over I would rather have a solid roof above than broken glass or a hole for my arm to flail out of and get tore off. My daughter actual flipped a little rented Suzuki SUV with a some of her girlfriends and that happend. Only a broken arm and wrist though.... thank God.

It really has nothing to do with age....being practical and weighing pros and cons can come at any age. When you live where summers are only 3-4 months long the desire for a sunroof tends to be less as well.

m6user

It's not about the number of gallons... it's about how far you can go on a tank.

Regardless of the benefits of a smaller tank(quicker fills/less weight), the 2011 Elantra would have a substantially longer range if the gas tank were 14+ gallons. I agree though that it's range is more than adequate and better than before.

stickguy

when you fill up. That is the attendants problem.

unless you don't have the luxury of living in NJ and have to pump your own gas!

the range though was more in relation to mixed driving, with a long commute, and may not apply to everyone. The same way that I can't relate to my car being outside when it is -30!

if you have a 90 mile RT commute, with a combo of stop/go highway and local, you aren't getting peak MPG out of that. so that is where the estimate of maybe 35 comes in. 35x9 = 315. It is irrelevant to me how far you can go on 12.8, unless you like to visit with the AAA guy that comes out to fill the tank for you. My rule is no to let it get less than 4 gallons (1/4 tank in my car) so that is where the 9 came from.

You do what you want, but I never ever want to see the low fuel light on my car.

it does sound like you will be getting good MPG. it would just be nice to have a little bigger tank to go along with it. Who wants to have to stop for gas any more often than you need to?

m6user

if you have a 90 mile RT commute, with a combo of stop/go highway and local, you aren't getting peak MPG out of that. so that is where the estimate of maybe 35 comes in. 35x9 = 315.

Weren't you the one that brought your Accord that gets 35mpg in a straight run and how far you can go on a tank? Please apply the same to logic to the Elantra instead of coming up with some personal commuting average. What does the Accord get for that same commute. I'm sure it's not 35mpg. If Accord has a 16 gal tank and you always leave 4 gal than your range is using 12 gals. If your mpg in your Accord is say 27mpg for your stop/go commute that would be 324 miles. The Elantra at your estimated 1/4(using 9.6 gals) tank left and avg 35mpg would be 336 miles(9.6 gals X35).

Anyway, they would be very close to the same fill up schedule it looks like.

backy

What AAA guy? Hyundais come with five years of roadside assistance. (wink)

I remember a sketch a long time ago, during one of the gas crises, of a car pulling a trailer with a 700 gallon (?) fuel tank on it. The idea was, only fill up ONCE per year. This was back when long lines at gas stations were common. It was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but I see some of the same sentiments here.

But I have trouble relating to some of these complaints because I only drive about 600 miles per month, per car. So that's two fills a month, worst case, if I don't want the gas gauge to drop much. I can handle that, even when it's -20 F in Minnesnowta. Heck, in the winter I WANT to visit the gas station that often, to use their nice all-cloth automatic wash that only costs $5 and get the salt off the car.

Who knows? Maybe if the Elantra's tank were bigger, it wouldn't get 40 mpg highway. And I'll bet that was THE target for Hyundai to hit on the Elantra. Look at all the attention they're trying to bring to that number. Now they're even reporting number of "40 mpg cars" sold every month (192 in November).

stickguy

it gets about 32 in that use. and I expect if I could keep it to 60-65 on a long stretch, easily 37ish. 35 is doable on more normal longer runs.

no idea exactly what the Elantra would do. 35 was a guesstimate.

m6user

Curious? So you're saying that an Accord gets as good or better than it's EPA hwy rating in your stop/go commute but you guess that the Elantra will do substantially worse than it's hwy EPA rating in that same scenario. I don't follow your logic .

Also, if you hit reply instead of starting a new title it's a little easier to follow the conversation and who you're directing the comment to.

stickguy

actually the accord is rated 34 on the highway. and it is a stick, so probably gets closer to the high end in the type of driving involved then you would get with an AT.

backy

Unless you're doing all low-speed city driving in which the automatic can't get into and stay in lockup, the stick won't do any better in the "high end' than the automatic. Especially in the case of a car like the 2011 Elantra, which has 6-speed stick AND automatic. If it were a 5-speed stick vs. 3-4 speed AT, that might be a different story.

Notice in recent years the mpg difference between sticks and ATs is narrowing, even going away (example: 2011 Elantra). Where there is a difference in favor of the stick, it's almost always in the EPA city cycle. Another example: 2011 Accord I4 with 5-speed stick gets 23/33 EPA, but 5AT gets 23/34.

stickguy

the driving I was talking about is mostly stop and go, occasional short bursts up to 50 before it clogs up again. Nothing steady state or high speed.

closer to city than highway, and should favor the stick.

the epa #s aren't always the best indicator of real world use anyway. It also seems to be the stick that can do better than rated more often than an AT

backy

It also seems to be the stick that can do better than rated more often than an AT.

Based on? That hasn't been my experience, and I've owned lots of both.

In the conditions you described, the Accord did very well to get 35 mpg, i.e. mostly stop-and-go driving, accelerate to highway speed, stop again.

carfreak09

1. The only reason a sunroof would physically leak into the interior is if the drain hoses are plugged up, which shouldn't happen unless there is a design flaw or you live in Canada and encounter what gimmetranny guy was talking about.

2. True, but not near as much as a full convertible

3. If hot, simply close the sunroof and the shade. On a nice cool day, the sunroof being open won't make you hot, especially if you crack open a window. It's a nicer, more serene alternative to getting more outside airflow into the car than opening the windows all the way. It also greatly improves airflow with the windows down.

4. If someone is that boneheaded, I don't know what to say. I'm pretty sure most people are smart enough to make sure everything is closed and locked when parking in a bad area or if it looks like it's gonna rain.

5. Trust me, those cars had a manual backup. It's discreetly integrated into the headliner or map light enclosure. With my mom's old 92 Accord, there was a flat head plastic piece integrated into the headliner above the rear seat. A tool was provided with the car that you inserted into this piece and rotated to manually close the sunroof (although a screwdriver could be used in a pinch). On my old 95 Integra, the same screw head was hidden behind a plastic cover on the map light enclosure. This is also where it's located on current Hyundais (per my Accent's owner manual). It's a backup, just like all automatics have a way to manually release the lever from park should the brake switch ever fail. They provide this so it's hard to be sued for water damage when an owner claims their sunroof motor quit working and they couldn't close it and it poured overnight.

6. If it's too noisy, just close the roof. When the roof is closed and the shade is closed, it's just as quiet as a solid roof.

7. The glass used in a sunroof is the same as what's used in the windshield (ie it's tempered). It will crack, but not turn into a bunch of tiny sharp pieces showering down on you. The chance of a limb exiting through the sunroof if belted down is minute. You can be just as injured by the metal roof crushing down. You must be petrified of convertibles...I'm just saying.

Summer lasts a good 5 months here and if I have a sunroof, it stays tightly closed, unless I open it slightly to vent out hot air while parked. I only use it when the temps are in the 50s-70s, ie spring and fall. During the winter, opening just the shade provides some extra sun driven heat, which is nice.

crkyolfrt

The times that a stick can do better in town than an auto, even today in the world of 5 and 6 speed autos, is usually driver technic. The gvt testing usually does allow an auto to shine in those controlled dynamometer tests. EPA is more real world, and a good driver that's tries, can usually beat EPA by a fair degree. I find it interesting that EPA is far more real world than Natural Resources Canada testing. Regardless of our 20% larger gallon, our gvt tests are still very optimistic. I can beat it with my CRV stick, but I really have to work at it. I know the technic to extract the max out of a gallon, and with the CRV I can barely get what our tests say it should get. But I can exceed EPA (converted to our Imp gallon and working it down to two decimal places) in city or hwy without too much trouble.

In order to grasp how a stick can still do better than an auto in the city, (in real world, nevermind the gvt tests) you have to understand the principle behind how an auto works and yet lets you stay in gear while at a stop. It is loss through the torque converter. This is loss that does not a balanced equation of tire rotation with engine RPM used. And this loss presents itself longer (in seconds) during each upshift, than a properly driven stick during the clutch engagement of full engagement. With the stick, you get to have positive lock up in each gear. Every single one, every single time. And WHEN you say. That is key. With the auto, it spends a lot of time slipping through the TConverter...and can get close to lock up during 35 and 40 mph sections at times, but never quite getting there, and even if it does, it is not there for long in town. With the stick you have lock up on each gear, no matter what speed you're doing. Further to that, I don't believe gvt testing skips gears with a stick. And in real world it is very easy to go to 3rd from 1st, depending on the terrain, but super easy to consistently go to 4th from 2nd with a 5 spd CRV. A manual 6 sp just gives you that many more options, as does a six sp auto.

Forgot to add...that on the hwy, the ONLY reason autos do as well as they do is cuz the autos almost universally have a taller finalk drive ratio in the tranny, that allows lower revs at exactly the same speed than a stick would have at that same speed. One exception to this would be for some small cars with autos that have tiny engines. In order to allow reasonable urge, mfgrs will often keep gearing fairly low still. Like a Fit or Accent. I'll bet the stick gives better mpg on the hwy, especially on high cruising speeds. The smaller the engine, the more it will burn when it is pushed beyond normal anticipated speeds of 55 to 75. The fact that in most cases the stick does better on the hwy (think Sonata) is proof that the stick would do waaay better if it was allowed the same final drive ratio that the autos have. The stick manages as good and sometimes better, even with more engine rpms at the same speed.

carfreak09

I'm jealous of your highway mileage. So far, the mileage on my '10 Accent auto is pretty much the same whether on the highway or stop and go. I consistently get 29-30 mpg in city/suburban driving with the AC on, 30-31 with AC off, and 31-32 90% highway with AC off most of the time and speeds of 75-80. I'm over 5k already and have had my first oil change. Either the engine needs some more break in time (which is possible since my 00 Accent started getting better mileage after 12k) or the aerodynamics aren't so great. So far I'm loving the city mileage but am bummed with the highway. The good thing is I rarely travel on the highway so I won't notice it much.

m6user

Did you read what I said happened to my daughter which you refer to as a minute chance. I guess she was just extremely unlucky. Have you ever been in a serious accident? Limbs end up in the strangest places. Many of which you would think would be minutely possible.

I believe the leakers in the Infiniti thread were caused by problems with installation at the factory if I remember correctly. So it does happen and it wasn't because of simple plugged drainholes so you are wrong. I'm just saying that anytime you cut a hole in a perfectly good roof there is a chance of problems. Again, I admit not often but the risk is there.

If you would temper many of your statements with "most of the time" or "usually" you would sound more credible. When you make absolute statements regarding a complex piece of machinery you can never be right. Anything is possible when it comes to cars. That's like saying a car can never accelerate unintentionally because there are safeguards built in. Things break sometimes and things are installed incorrectly sometimes.

I have nothing against sunroofs. I have one in my Infiniti and had one in my last Maxima. If I hadn't gotten a great deal on those vehicles that already had them I would have bought without sunroofs. Can't say I use it much because of some of the reasons I cited plus the Bose sounds better with it closed. I did forget to mention that headroom in the vehicle is affected by sunroofs. Usually an inch or so is lost. Not a biggee unless your tall or have a very long torso and really need the headroom but it does affect it regardless.

Sunroofs are fine if you like them. I was just stating that they aren't perfect and a lot of people don't really care that much for them which doesn't make them old, stupid or uncool.

Does that mean they are petrified to ride in convertibles? Kind of a immature statement don't you think?

m6user

First post of a review. They tested a GLS stick and a Ltd. auto.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/06/first-drive-2011-hyundai-elantra/

"Both cars deliver a remarkably quiet cabin thanks to a three-layer door system and heaps of insulating foam in the vehicle's body cavities. A set of hydraulic engine mounts do a smart job of keeping any vibration from the engine out of the cabin, and more than once we found ourselves wondering whether or not the four-pot was actually running at idle."

Be interesting to see a comparo which I'm sure will take place between the Cruze and the Elantra. However, we might not see one until they can include the new Focus. This segment is heating up nicely.

stickguy

true about the segment. The Focus is very interesting too. And the cruz is a major leap forward.

not sure when the new civic comes out, but they better have done a good job on it.

and man, the corolla is seeming more and more crappy every day! I expect it would finish so far behind in a comparison test they would have to take it behind the barn and shoot it.

carfreak09

Good god, why so defensive? The tone of my message was not rude in any way. Are you suggesting I sound like I have no idea what I'm talking about? Heck, you didn't even know your cars had manual backups in case of power sunroof failure. Check your Infiniti manual. It's in there. You didn't even acknowledge the useful info. You just went straight to saying I'm not credible.

As far as leaky factory roofs, I stand by my statement. Unless something is way out of wack, they won't leak. Open your sunroof and look from above at the hole. Notice it's bigger then the actual glass? That's because whatever water gets through the seal around the glass will fall into the channels that guide the water to the drain tubes. Even if the glass was slightly crooked and it didn't seal properly to the metal roof, it would take a heavy downpour to overflow those channels. However, IF there is a design flaw (as I previously stated), such as a kinked drainage tube, too shallow drainage channel, a drip tray that is misplaced, or the seal where it connects to the glass is loose, a leak can occur. However, these issues are very rare. Perhaps I should have been clearer in my original statement, but I was trying to keep it shorter. I should also modify my statement by saying I'm refering only to regular sized sunroofs that seal to metal on all sides, not the large panoramic roofs that seal to a stationary piece of glass in the middle. I've never seen one of those close up so I have no knowledge of them.

I asked his age not to be rude. More to verify my gut feeling that he was from the same generation as my dad. The older generation tends to not trust newer technologies or judges them based on outdated opinions about crappy aftermarket addons. My dad recently said when looking at a Lexus IS, "I don't want a sunroof because they leak". I looked at him in disbelief and had to remind him that his previous 92 Accord EX went 184k with no leaks, his 95 Integra went 160k, his 01 Audi A4 1.8T went 60k, and his current car, 05 Acura TSX, had 80k leak free miles. He stated it like it was common and he had personal experience with it. Frankly, I thought it was the most retarded statement he ever made. Especially considering he owns a 66 Ford Fairlane GT convertible that leaks water in numerous places....Oh, and a 2008 Honda S2000 that has a much better chance of developing a leak than the TSX. When asked why he said that, he referred to aftermarket hack jobs, something that has no bearing on a properly designed factory roof. Again, it was a stupid blanket statement for him to make.

I'm curious what kind of Suzuki your daughter was driving? Reason I ask is if it was a Sidekick 2 door, its fabric panoramic sunroof is a totally different animal from what I'm discussing. That being said, I have my doubts that her arm wouldn't have broke had there been no sunroof. We will never know though. Is there a risk? Yes, but statistically it's a minor one and not something I would even think about when buying a car. My comment referring to you being petrified of a convertible was simply deduced from your fear of a limb being severed from a sunroof. Really it was more of a question.

carfreak09

Ewwwwww....not liking the looks of the base Elantra in white. The styling doesn't look so hot in that example. The tan interior does seem to have a yellow/orange hue that you mentioned earlier that isn't too attractive either.

I think this is a car that will look much better in darker hues with gray or black interiors.

I do like the almost bucket like rear seats. It looks like you would feel like sitting in a coddling chair that holds you in place around turns instead of sliding around with no support on a flat bench.

benjaminh

gimmestdtranny: wow. Great explanation of this stuff. ++ Thanks. I'm a manual tran lover myself, and it's nice to read this. I'm a dunce, however, and I'm not sure I fully understand lock up, but I get that it's a good thing in terms of maximizing the translation of power to the wheels through the transmission. I don't skip gears often, although do once in a while. But I'm certainly in neutral at a light.

I get about the epa rating for my 08 Accord 5MT--which I think is 22 in the city and 31 on the hwy. I might possibly get 35 mpg at 65mpg without AC. But normally on long trips in the summer I'm going more like 72+, the AC is on, the thing is fully loaded with 4 passengers lots of luggage, etc., and so it's really 29-31--which is still pretty good for what is considered a "full size" car.

benjaminh

I think it looks fine in white.

But isn't the epa city rating for this 29 not 27?

The manual sounds good, but then they say there's not much reason to go for it (except to save $1000 and have more fun driving if you like shifting, that is...?). Well, I guess they do mention long gear ratios. I wonder how long. Esp in a 6 speed?

"When equipped with the manual transmission, long gear ratios keep the Elantra from feeling as peppy as its automatic-equipped counterpart. The clutch is predictably soft for vehicle that's more comfortable fielding the morning commute than carving canyons, and the piece provides a much more linear release than its corporate cousin, the Kia Forte. The friction point is miraculously forgiving, making the Elantra an appealing option for those new to the third pedal. The shifter is surprisingly precise, providing a tactile notch to let you know exactly when you've landed the next gear."

wolverinejoe80

Autoblog got it wrong again. it's 29, not 27. i saw one in my local dealer already. it says 29/40. and go check Hyundai's website, it clearly says 29. Autoblog is full of mistakes. they think Elantra came out first came out 4 years ago. lol

m6user

"We will never know though".

Yes, we will know because her wrist was pinned under the vehicle.

Sunroofs are great if you like them....not so great if you don't. Simple as that.

m6user

I think it was typos not ignorance. I''m pretty sure they know the Elantra's been around a long time. Terrible proofreading though.

crkyolfrt

You're welcome, glad you got something out of it.

" I get that it's a good thing in terms of maximizing the translation of power to the wheels through the transmission."

You are no dunce by any means... you got that exactly right. I was using the term lockup meaning that at the point there is no slip. Each rotation of the engine has a relative, consistent affect on wheel rotation, determined by the ratios in the gears and the transmission's final drive. Well... technically, the differential gearing and tire circumference are also factors, but not in the example of describing lock up.

That is why autos have torque converter lockup abilities, so that there becomes a direct connection, eliminating slip. But until you have lockup, there is a lot of slip. This touches a bit on the principle as to why a CVT tranny can do better in town than most conventional autos. While it may sound like the tranny is slipping, it is actually as the variable ratio pulleys match engine rpm in relation the road speed. That is why you can deadfoot your gas pedal and see the car speed raise, while the revs drop. There are still losses though, because of course there has to still be a torque converter in use at stops while in gear. Some CVTs may use dual clutch tech, if not maybe all of them. I am not up on the newer CVTs.

Your practice of using neutral at a light is a good habit. Some driving course instructors might argue it (more on 2 wheels..mbikes), as there are yah and nay sayers, but there is no denying that you extend the clutch throw-out bearing's life a lot with your habit. I do it too.

I think that besides the obvious reasons many people prefer autos in heavy congested stop and go traffic and the generally accepted universality that more people can accomplish the task of driving easier with an auto, is that emission regulations played a part in people going away from sticks. It's the drivability while upshifting when the revs hang between gears. It can be really annoying. My old Pathfinder 4 cyl did that more than most. It used a throttle body injection, but it was common practice to hang revs as some means of controlling emissions. It made/makes gear matching a bit harder. It is most noticeable the more aggressive you are as you accelerate up thru the gears. While some cars still do it, it is not as freq as it used to be years ago. And of course an auto camouflages that trait by nature of its operation.

wolverinejoe80

well, they fixed it now. and fixed it to 29/40.

backy

So... not sure you noticed, but I agreed with you: if a stick outdoes an automatic in fuel economy, it's more likely in city driving.

Ok, then... forward with the Elantra discussion!

backy

Despite some errors in the Autoblog review, I am grateful to them for a couple of things. One, they tested a base, stick GLS. Not many auto mags test the base trim these days. Two, they have LOTS of photos--both of the tan and grey interior. Which leads me to some conclusions:

* I could easily live with the plastic wheel covers on the GLS. Actually, I kinda like them more than the alloys on the Limited.

* The tan interior is definitely a "nyet". What looks particularly bad/cheap is the mis-matched color of the lower dash and the door panels. Plus the orangeish tint to the lower dash. The grey looks MUCH better, and from what I can tell the GLS in grey will be pretty sharp. The cloth on the seats looks OK, but it would have to be grey. Need a close inspection of the seat fabric though.

* Since I don't need leather or a factory nav system (a portable or my Blackberry is just fine the few times I need nav), looks like the GLS Popular AT would do it. No Bluetooth, but with a Bluetooth headset not sure I really need that. I can live w/o the steering wheel audio controls, lights on the vanity mirrors, and sliding armrest also--although those would all be nice to have.

I would like a moonroof, but that's not available on the GLS and I can't see getting the Limited just to get one.

wolverinejoe80

http://www.windingroad.com/articles/reviews/driven-2011-hyundai-elantra/
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20101205/CARREVIEWS/101209946
http://www.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1052200_2011-hyundai-elantra-first-dr- ive
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/12/hyundai-elantra-40-- mpg-review/1

"More impressive than making a compact model physically bigger, though, is how Hyundai has made its Elantra drive with the smoothness and composure that most would expect of a vehicle a class or two larger. We immediately were struck by the very low levels of wind noise in the new car, as well as being thoroughly impressed with the stability exhibited by the car at high freeway speeds. Smaller models, even some of the very newest, have a tendency to wander a bit on the highway with too-light steering coming off as a bit fidgety when one would simply like to drive in a straight line. Elantra tracked true at 80 miles per hour, and did so without having to resort to a weirdly weighted steering experience for a relatively low-mass car. There was still a bit more tire noise that we’d like, but overall the car proved utterly calm and capable in the role of high-speed commuter." Winding Road

m6user

I know you're somewhat of a minimalist but I would pop for the Limtied. I look at my car as something more than just what's absolutely necessary to get me from point a to point b safely. Like to splurge a little. Heck, we're talking about an Elantra here, aren't we saving enough money already. Dropping a couple of extra k on something I'm going to live with for 6-7 years is worth it IMO. I especially liked the sliding armrest as it put my elbow far enough forward to be able to rest it on the armrest and still hold the bottom of the steering wheel. Damn short arms.

The grey looks really good in both GLS and Limited I think. Cars.com did a short review and they said they drove fairly aggresively for about 100 miles on hilly, curvy country roads and still averaged 38mpg. Pretty darn good on a brand new engine!

From the windingroad review:

"We were able to see 40 mpg when we reset the calculator for a strictly freeway portion of our drive—still a fairly long, hilly stretch of highway, so we’ve little doubt that a steady cruise of 70 miles per hour or so in the flatter parts of the country could net numbers in the low- to mid-forties."

Impressive.

backy

You don't like moonroofs, so I'm surprised you'd go for the Limited.

I don't like leather interiors that much. The seat heaters help in the winter, but they don't have seat coolers for the summer (well, no economy car has those). And I actually prefer plastic wheel covers over alloys, if the covers look OK. Alloys get beat up and pitted over time, and can leak.

There's some features that I've grown to love over the years and now I wouldn't want to be without them. They include AC, power windows (esp. on anything with more than 2 doors), power mirrors, seat height adjuster, telescopic steering column, trip computer, and of course all the latest safety features including ESC and traction control. But I can:

* Use the controls on the radio instead of on the wheel.
* Use my phone headset if I have to talk on the phone in the car, instead of a built-in speaker.

And my arms are long enough for most center armrests. I haven't had a sliding one yet; haven't missed it.

Also, at the same time I buy my next car, I'm going to buy my daughter a car for school. That one will most likely be gently used. But it's going to mean $25k or so at least for both. So the $3k extra for the Limited might be important... especially if I manage to retire at about that time.

m6user

You don't like moonroofs, so I'm surprised you'd go for the Limited.

It's not really that I don't like them. They help resale I guess but I just don't end up using them. But I would want just about everything else in the Limited and you just can't get the Limited without the sunroof. I was disappointed with the Optima in that if you wanted the tech pkg you have to order the other pkg with the moonroof. Still may go that route but wish I didn't have to. To me it's just a useless hole in the roof. Once in a great while when cruising on a perfect day I may open mine but I can't say it really does much for me.

The buttons on the wheel for the radio are not that big of deal but I hate wearing the earpiece for bluetooth. I have a little Blueant speaker that works pretty good but I think it is starting to go as people are starting to get annoyed with the way it sounds. I look forward to getting the bluetooth built in so the radio automatically mutes and you hear the other person through the car's speakers. Hopefully, the mike they use for these systems is of good quality.

I see where the Feds may require backup cameras in a couple of years. I think that is a good idea and I look forward to having that as well.

Save your pennies for when all these doodads start blanking out.(sad face)

wolverinejoe80

could you post the cars.com review? i can't find it. i read the couple of first drive review, but didn't see any mpg numbers.

m6user

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2010/12/2011-hyundai-elantra-first-drive.html-

bobad

Who knows? Maybe if the Elantra's tank were bigger, it wouldn't get 40 mpg highway. And I'll bet that was THE target for Hyundai to hit on the Elantra. Look at all the attention they're trying to bring to that number. Now they're even reporting number of "40 mpg cars" sold every month (192 in November).

Losing weight makes better mileage, and you get an "un-snowballing" effect.

Car makers have barely touched the primary reason for poor mileage, which is weight.

At some weight point, suspension, wheels, tires, brakes, etc, can be made lighter/smaller. The lighter weight then requires a smaller engine, smaller tank,,, so you get a chain reaction. It all starts with the engine, and everything follows. Hyundai is a leader in specific power. I can foresee 55mpg Elantra-sized cars with small turbodiesels in 2-3 years.

crkyolfrt

"I can foresee 55mpg Elantra-sized cars with small turbodiesels in 2-3 years."

Me too, but only if we, as North Americans, were smart enough to buy (demand) them. We live with our collective heads up our butts, as we soak up less than totally accurate representations of what real world fuel mileage expectations we can have. And even if the gas jobs do fairly well, the percentages fall off the farther north and the colder climates you go. Diesels still get the most work done on a gallon of fuel and do so on consistently less fuel (out of a 12 month, 4 season climate) than even hybrids do.

Make mine a proper manual transmission please..

One comment I have on weight. As consumers demand more and more crash protection (rather than learn defensive road sharing with a smile and a wave {and exhibit the ability to drive a manual would be a nice touch indicating true driving competency}) then cars are always fighting the weight penalty. Aluminum can only replace steel in so many places, because it has a more rigid (read brittle) impact component, which is not as conducive to absorbing impact forces, and those are the ones that cause the worse injuries to us in a collision. It is also more expensive than steel and requires greater costs to smelt (i think), so for now its use will be reserved for replacing iron blocks in engines, and certain steel suspension parts and of course wheel rims, which have the bonus of less unsprung weight, thereby allowing easier and more effective suspension tuning.

bobad

Me too, but only if we, as North Americans, were smart enough to buy (demand) them. We live with our collective heads up our butts, as we soak up less than totally accurate representations of what real world fuel mileage expectations we can have

A large obstacle to weight savings that many don't consider is passenger load.

The new Elantra probably has close to 1000Lb weight capacity. Reduce passenger weight limit to say 500Lbs, and the vehicle weight could take another huge round of reductions. (overloaded car wouldn't start).

If car makers would rate their cars for weight capacity, they would be unhampered in reducing vehicle weight in smaller cars. Of course that may be politically incorrect to some.

Crash worthiness is not as big a factor as you may think. It can be accomplished with less steel these days.

I'll bet you the next Elantra has a TD engine, weighs significantly less than the 2011, though interior room may suffer just a tad, and a 10 gallon tank.

backy

If you want a car with a ~500 lb capacity i.e. two largish adults and with less steel (and more plastic), it exists today: the Smart ForTwo.

I'll take the heavier, more commodious Elantra any day though, even though its fuel economy is a bit less.