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



  • rudy66rudy66 Posts: 26
    Boys, Boys, so touchy. The point is, the mpg discussion is about city driving, stop and go, not highway driving at a steady pace with cruise control. As I said before, the gentleman with 44 gallons --- we won't hear from him again when he uses a whole tank with nothing but stop and go traffic.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Added gas for 3rd time. Only regular unleaded (no ethanol). With colder weather (mostly 30-50 deg F), I don't let her get below half a tank. Went 194.7 miles on 5.917 gals for 32.91 mpg. Trip computer had calculated it at 30.3 mpg. This was about 50% highway/50% city-suburb, but no trip was more than 10 miles one way. And had passenger about half the time. Highway driving was in city-suburb area, so stayed at or under 65 mph. No A/C. Windows up all the time. No cruise control. No ECO. Tires at 32 psi. Now have about 570 miles on the engine. Coming from the car traded in which got about 22 mpg and used premium fuel, I'm pleased. But will admit I'm really trying to max out the fuel economy in a way I never did before.
  • Just leased a 2012 Elantra about a week ago. My regular commute is about 77% highway and 23% city (32 miles one way). I am getting over 37 MPG combined. I am going to verify this next time I fill up and calculate it on my own. My tire pressure is whatever the dealers put it at and I am using the ECO mode. the highway speed limit is 65 mph for half the time, than 60 mph for the other half, I normally do 5 MPH over. I am not using cruise control yet, but will be after 1000 miles

    I am very satisfy with the car so far.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,910
    The point is, the mpg discussion is about city driving, stop and go, not highway driving at a steady pace with cruise control.

    Huh? Isn't it about all kinds of driving--however people may drive their Elantras? Some people do drive their cars at a steady pace on the highway, with cruise control. And some do stop-and-go city driving. And some do both. And everything in between.
  • fowler3fowler3 Posts: 1,919
    You will not get the best fuel economy in any new car until it has at least 5,000 miles on it. The engine is tight and trying to force it to do better will damage it. Just drive it easy, don't hold a steady
    speed for long periods of time, vary the speed for the first 1,000 miles, regardless of what the manual says. No fast starts and no panic stops.

    When you do a fuel test top off the tank. Note the ODO setting. Then the next time you fill up return to the same gas station and fill from the same pump you used previously. It's the only way to get an accurate number. If your car has a mpg rating on it's instrument display they are usually wrong.
  • fowler3fowler3 Posts: 1,919
    The April winner of the Power Ball jackpot told the news media he was going to buy a 2012 Elantra as soon as he could. His jackpot was $27-million after taxes. :) If I won that much money I would buy one of each style: Tucson, Elantra, and Kia Soul.
  • steven39steven39 Posts: 636
    why not the whole hyundai dealership while he's at it...
  • fowler3,

    You are correct. This is the only reliable way to get a reasonably accurate reading on mpg. And I also agree with your comments on the 5K breakin, driving it easy and varying the speed for the first 1000 miles. Time will tell.
  • Personally, if I won that lottery, I wouldn't even come close to going near a Hyundai dealership :) .
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,910
    edited December 2011
    How about an Equus? The one with recliners in back. Need a chauffeur also of course ;)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    An interesting article I stumbled across yesterday. I wonder if a group like this actually has any weight to throw around to help those who are experencing poor FE with the Elantra? claim/
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    The Jan 12 issue of MT has their COTY results. They publish actual FE results only for the finalists, not the contenders. Civic, Focus, and Rio are just contenders, so no FE results. But Elantra, Veloster, and Sonic are finalists. Their respective EPA numbers are 29/40, 28/40, & 29/40 mpg. MT's actual observed fuel economy results for these tests were:

    Elantra (with 6-speed manual): 30.5 mpg
    Veloster (with 6-speed manual): 29.1 mpg
    Sonic (1.4L turbo with 6-speed manual): 28.3 mpg

    So the larger Elantra with a larger engine (1.8L vs 1.6L & 1.4L) had better fuel economy (and quicker acceleration!) than the two smaller cars. Oddly, MT criticizes the Elantra's FE but praises the Sonic's ("it [manual transmission's long gearing] helped return 28.3 mpg during our hard-driving test") and is silent on the Veloster. Go figure!
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    I haven't heard of Consumer Watchdog. Quick Wiki seems to indicate they are a left-wing/progressive group that doesn't like business. Seem rather political. Will be interesting to see if Consumer Reports looks into this and does some more of their independent testing. And if EPA does anything.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    edited December 2011
    MT's Jan 12 issue also shows they've added a '12 Limited to their test fleet. They say they'll explore "whether there's any real-world truth to the 40-mpg highway EPA figure." So far, MT's Elantra has put on 4,687 miles and averaged 28.9 mpg.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,910
    Hyundai should voluntarily ask the EPA to re-test the Elantra, just to get this behind them... one way or another.

    While they're at it, Consumer Watchdog should go after Buick:

    Mileage isn't great. Government ratings of 21 mpg in town, 32 on the highway, 25 in mixed use are OK. But Buicks in general seem to do worse than other cars in the Test Drive regimen of suburban slog and bustle, with a few wide-open throttle moments tossed in for fun. Verano managed 17 mpg. o-test-drive-james-healey/51553716/1
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    edited December 2011
    I had to laugh at Healey's mileage comments on the Verano. He quotes, "5.88 gallons in 100 miles". My first question: You drove exactly 100 miles? Not 99.9, not 100.1, but exactly 100.0 miles. You used exactly 5.88 gallons? How do you know? Because the trip computer said so?

    I have the exact same engine in my Lacrosse (400 pounds heavier) and average close to 25 mpg in mixed driving. I calculate miles driven versus gallons burned. My trip computer reads a touch low on mpg (0.5 mpg low). Trip computers are better than they use to be but cannot be your sole source of data when reporting or the report has low validity.

    It's gotten to the point with Healey and USAToday that I read it for a good laugh. He has zero credibility. Healey is one guy, beasting a brand new car, getting F150-like mileage, and then reporting it. A joke.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,910
    If you've seen multiple Healy reviews you should realize that he notes the number of gallons consumed in 100 miles as a point of reference. It's a simple calculation based on the mpg he achieved in his tests.

    A review is credible to me if it's clear how the car was driven. Healy at least makes it clear how the car was driven. I've seen many posts in the mpg discussions in Town Hall that don't give much info at all on how the car was driven. I'll take Healy's reviews over those any day.

    Also, I'll bet your driving pattern is a lot different than Healy's.
  • fowler3fowler3 Posts: 1,919
    edited December 2011
    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. Even then, how you drive, the weather, the temperature, the altitude, etc. plays a part. Some people get over 40mpg by driving very cautiously. When you achieve 40mpg, remember, you will not get that every time you hit the road because you go back to bad driving habits. Hyundai did not set the FE numbers, they are EPA estimates.

    I have found the only way to get EPA estimates is to drive at max 60mph highway and not let the tach get above 3000rpm on the highway or in the city. Often achieving much higher true
    FE when I stick to this rule. 2001 Mazda Protégé LX with EPA estimate 25/30, always averaged 36mpg
    on trips. You cannot have performance and low FE at the same time.
  • Healey is a joke of an automotive journalist. I've been laughing at his columns for decades. I'm a manufacturing engineer who spent many years in the light vehicle automotive systems. Test validity and data source are in contention here.

    Feel free to use Healey's reviews as your standard of refereence. When a guy reports 5.88 gallons burned? Yeah, "I drove exactly 100.0 miles, the trip computer read exactly 17.0, so 100.0 divided by 17.0 = 5.88 gallons burned!"

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,910
    I use Healy's reviews and other reviews of cars from a variety of sources as points of information, not as a standard of reference. I find it useful to get different perspectives on cars. I don't always agree with Healy's opinion on cars but I think he has a more practical approach to reviewing cars than some of the automotive mags that focus mainly on one aspect of the car, e.g. handling or acceleration.

    I think you are misunderstanding the comment re gallons used per 100 miles and how it was calculated. I tried to explain it in my previous post.
  • I understand Healey's calculations. He's simply taking whatever the trip computer reads, in this case it had to be 17.0, and divides it into 100 miles. That equals 5.88 gallons.

    Healey also took a shot at Buick mileage stating, "But Buicks in general seem to do worse than other cars in the Test Drive regimen...". I've owned 3 different Buicks over the years and never had a problem acheiving EPA mileage numbers. Nor have most other Buick owners.

    Back to the Elantra. :) My take on the owner reports revolves around the eye-popping 40mpg hwy figure on the window sticker. Buyers see that and think they will get that kind of mileage. Most won't come close (and aren't supposed to ;) ). The Elantra is a mid-size car that will weigh in at over 3000 pounds with just the driver and several gallons of fuel on board. The city rating of 29mpg and the combined rating of 33mpg should give people more realistic expectations.

    Now if you're getting 20 to 25 mpg, something is wrong. If you're getting 30mpg? I'd be happy with that in a car like an Elantra.
  • puffin1puffin1 Posts: 276
    Where can you buy non ethynol gas? Just curious.
    Also, i drive a2011 BMW 3 and a 2010 VW Golf 5cyl 5 peed and if I drive the speed limit like 35 mph in fifth gear I can get 35 mpg. On CC flat highway only 34 mpg.
    Doesn't the milage on the stcker like 40 mpg mean at 55 miles an hour?.
    Well I like this forum becaues of the milage alot of people put on for a true road test.
    I suppose that you drive DSG's(dry)but if your doing 65 or 70 on the freeway. No way you'll cme close to 40 mpg, maybe 29 0r 30. Have a good day Puffin :shades:
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,910
    Doesn't the milage on the stcker like 40 mpg mean at 55 miles an hour?.

    No. It means that if someone drives in conditions exactly like the EPA highway tests are conducted, they should expect to get 40 mpg. Anything outside the EPA test regimen can cause fuel economy to be different than the EPA ratings.

    It's not much different than 0-60 times. If someone were to use exactly the method used by one of the auto mags in a 0-60 test, under exactly the same conditions (weather etc.), they should be able to get the same 0-60 time or really close to it. But look at all the different 0-60 times reported in test drives. Why? Because everyone does that test a little differently, and conditions are different for each test.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,910
    Buyers see that and think they will get that kind of mileage.

    Their mistake.

    And the city rating of 29 shouldn't make people think they'll get 29 mpg in their "city" driving.

    Now if you're getting 20 to 25 mpg, something is wrong.

    Not necessarily. It could be that low due to a driving pattern of mostly short trips, city or suburban traffic with lots of stops and idling, hot weather (A/C on full blast) or cold weather (takes longer for the car to warm up, maybe the driver starts it and lets it warm up for awhile before driving), etc. If it's 20-25 mpg driving at 50-70 mph on the highway with few stops for more than a few miles, then I'd say there's something wrong.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I think you are getting a head of yourself here. If James Healey is writing a review, which most of his are garbage anyway, it does not represent a vast quantity of people.

    Given the mass documentation of upset Elantra owners and now a group headed by Consumer Watchdog, there is obviously an issue here that needs to be resolved.

    I agree with you about Hyundai re-testing these cars. Just get it out of the way with. The longer this lingers, the worse it will get.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,910
    My comment re Consumer Watchdog investigating Buick because of Healy's experience with Buicks was in jest. Mostly. The part that wasn't in jest is that the Elantra isn't the only car to not hit its EPA estimates for some large segment of the driving population. IMO (emphasis on the O) is that the reason so much is being made of cases where the Elantra isn't meeting expectations of owners for fuel economy is: 1) its EPA number is so high, hence expectations are high; 2) the Elantra is one of the top-selling high mpg cars in the country, so there's likely to be more dissatisfied owners just because of the size of the bell curve; 3) Hyundai doesn't have the decades of customer goodwill that brands like Honda and Toyota have. So if a Hyundai doesn't meet owner expectations, there will be less tolerance.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Fortunately here in the midwest where I live nearly all the gas stations sell 3 blends of gasoline: 87 octane (regular, no ethanol), 89/90 octane (10% ethanol) and 91 octane (premium, no ethanol). There are a few stations that sell only 87 octane ethanol and 90 octane ethanol, but I never buy from them. Ethanol cheapest, then regular about 13 cents more than ethanol, then premium an additional 17 cents over regular. I only buy non-ethanol gasoline. Always have.
  • fowler3fowler3 Posts: 1,919
    I don't know what the fuel ratings in NC are other than 87, 90-91, and High grade. No ethanol posted on the pumps to tell us. On Edmunds I learned that it is a mistake to use the middle or high grade if the car is tuned to run on 87. The additives are different for each grade. Engines that can use 87 grade in and emergency, should use at least 91 or higher as soon as possible.

    Too many car owners think the manufacturers are trying to trick them. They are interested in your car running as smoothly as possible and your satisfaction buying it.
  • puffin1puffin1 Posts: 276
    Well, I live in the East and we go according to CA emission laws. Our cars are PCEV something like that. I know it drops the HP at least 10 HP.
    I throw a can of dry gas in(Isoppro) I wonder if I'm waisting my money.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I could not agree more about your last sentence. With high expectations comes the possibility of large let downs.

    I will say, when the Accord debuted with their VCM in the V6 engines, there was an uproar with loyal Honda buyers about the power surge issues and Honda did make a fix for it. So, I don't think it is necessarily about having a tenured reputation as it is there is an easy outlet (the Internet) to express discontent with a product that one buys.
Sign In or Register to comment.