Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
I throw a can of dry gas in(Isoppro) I wonder if I'm waisting my money.
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.
The price gap from regular to midgrade is usually 10-14 cents, and another 10-19 cents from midgrade to premium. The cheaper stations like Thortons are more likely to only charge 10 cents/grade bump. Stations that sell the (subsidized) E85, well, I haven't been paying attention to but for a while they were consistently 30-50 cents cheaper per gallon.
//////////////////
From my Dodge Caliber, its first tank of gas was one of my highest. I've had excellent mpg from all my cars from the beginning.
Many people have higher overall mpg than the EPA's highway average for their cars. However, most people drive their cars from point A to point B without thinking or caring what their mpg is!
/////////////////
Looking at fueleconomy.com, the Elantra 6 speed manual transmission:
one driver obtained 43mpg!
Looking at truedelta.com, the Elantra 6 speed manual transmission:
two Elantras averaged 38mpg, with their highway speeds being 75mph.
Dropping to 60+mph(as is the EPA highway test), those two Elantras would have gotten 40+mpg.
Well, how 'bout them apples! Manual transmissions beating automatic transmissions with real-world driving. Who woulda thunk it! Yes, even with the Elantra manual transmission which has higher rpms at highway speed than the automatic transmission, the manual tranny beat the auto tranny.
Also, go to pure-gas.org for stations selling 100% gasoline in your area. Unfortunately, the accurate maps & addresses at pure-gas.org show that many many larger cities have few & no stations selling 100% gasoline.
The ethanol industry, itself & the U.S. Federal gov't admit to 2% to 4% drops in mpg using the 10% ethanol blend. However, many many people report that the use of 10% ethanol drops mpg by 5% to 10+%. 10% ethanol blend has 3% less btus of energy than 100% gas. Also, many cars seem to be missing the 'sweet spot' of efficient combustion with the use of 10% ethanol.
Since we can't depend on pure gas, best to focus on fuel-saving techniques that can be used by anyone.
The Elantra is a traditional AT. Same for Civic. Other cars, like the Fiesta and Focus, use a dual-clutch automated manual transmission; it really is a manual transmission but one that is controlled by the electronics rather than your left foot and a manual clutch. These tend to shift a lot more harshly, which is why Ford is seeing a lot of complaints about their "ATs". People are expecting the smoother torque converter AT, but get the jerkier/harsher automated DC MT. (If you go back into the 1960s and earlier, Detroit used to offer different, higher HP option engines, usually with higher compression ratios and hotter cams, for cars with automatic transmissions to compensate for the power drain of the AT.)
Just a curious question for those 2012 Elantra owners with auto transmission: what is the engine RPM's at 65 mph? I think that I'm getting just over 2K. What is everybody else seeing at 65mph on a level roadway?
So no surprise that lots of very short trips, too short for engine to properly warm up, in cold winter weather caused fuel economy to tank. I did add 2-4 psi in each tire to compensate for colder weather.
My girlfriend complained to me last night about the decline in fuel economy she is seeing in her '12 Civic EX. I helped her buy it new in August. She has over 5000 miles driven. She said she was getting 40-42 mpg early, then fell to 38-39 mpg. But now she is seeing 32-34 mpg. She is ticked as this is what she had been getting in her '07 Fit before she trade it in. Told her the impact of cold weather and any switch to winter fuel blends. She uses only non-ethanol regular unleaded. I checked her tire pressures all around and they were fine. She honestly told me she wondered if the dealer somehow sabotaged her car when she had the oil changed recently. I told her don't be paranoid.
Dolf
this also sets the odmeter off in the +direction witch recordes 63 miles when you only went 60 miles. This also eats up the warrenty faster.
So your MPG is about 1 to 2 less than you think.
Hyundai knows this and is ripping us off.
In my BMW I put some dry gas in and a whole bottle of Marine Stablelizer.
In the VW as I drive it in the winter I put some ethnol stabilizer and dry gas when I fill it.
Now this Ethynol stuff is making me paranoid.I mix 1/2 tank in BMW w/mobile 93 and the other half with 89 to get 91 octane.
Lastly, how come states out west get gas w/o ethnoland back east we are screwed?
ty Puffin
If it doesn't break 40mpg, Hyundai definitely should re-test the Elantras or take a page from Honda.
Following my driving criteria above, my old 2007 Honda Fit Sport was rated at 34mpg highway and I consistently got 37mpg or higher with 40mpg as the top within 37 fill ups.
My current 2010 Civic LX-S is rated at 36mpg highway and I got a suprising high of 42mpg a few times and 40mpg a few times within 49 fill ups. I follow the old fashioned methodology of dividing miles traveled with the gas pumped and resetting the trip counter after.
No bias against Hyundai but showing some tough love. I owned a 2002 Hyundai Accent GLS and currently have a 2001 Elantra and 2005 Elantra within our family (all original owners). I actually can't wait for the 2013 Elantra Touring. I was actually very disappointed with the Sonata not making the 35mpg claim as well so I ended up getting a Civic.
Interestingly, when I compare just the needle on the speedo versus the trip computer MPH data, looks like my speedo actually runs 2 mph fast. So when needle is centered on 65 mph, the computer calculates I'm doing 67 mph. With needle at 65 mph looks like I'm doing about 2100 RPMs. When computer says I'm doing 65 mph, looks like I'm doing about 2050 RPMs. These are eyeball estimates of RPMs. Too bad the tach is calibrated only in 250 RPM increments.
From 55-70 mph, using computer and on level ground in 6th gear, it looked approx. like 55 mph was about 1750 RPMs, 60 mph=1900 RPMs, 65 mph=2050, and 70 mph was about 2250 RPMs. (I got these readings when the car had only about 900 total miles driven so far. Was a nice afternoon at about 48 deg F. A bit windy. Had tires at 33 psi and two adults total in car.)
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.