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



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

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

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

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

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

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

    So the Honda CR-V is the only vehicle that appears to achieve an approx. EPA combined estimate (darn near achieving the hwy result overall!), and this far heavier vehicle with a much larger engine achieved the same result as the Veloster. Only the Veloster and GT-R fail to achieve at least their city rating. The other 3 vehicles at least achieve their city rating. I don't believe C&D went easy on the Porsche, Corvette, or GT-R.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,905
    Except for the CR-V, we are talking about at most a difference of 2 mpg here: Veloster was 1 mpg under its city EPA rating; 911 was 1 mpg over; Mini hit the city rating; and GT-R was 2 under. In that company, the Veloster seems right in the ballpark.

    Also... the CR-V was tested separately from the other cars, was it not? So we don't know how it was driven relative to the other cars. Maybe it was driven more like a "mommy-mobile" compared to the sporty cars.
  • elantra4elantra4 Posts: 7
    edited January 2012
    I purchased my 2012 gls elantra auto in June,2011 just as they came out. I gave it a good break in with a trip from NYC to Palm Coast FL. It really drove nice and it was getting from 36-41mpg on the trip odometer all highway driving with the ECO off, air on.The mpg in NYC local driving and some highway 75-25 when i returned stayed about 28-29 mpg to about 3750miles on the car and took in for the first oil change. The mpg has steadily dropped since the oil change and now i am getting about 31-32 on all highway and 22mpg in city driving with ECO on air off. Why would an oil change have effected the mpg so much. I have 7000 miles on the car now. I have noticed that it has really been getting worse as the total mileage has increase, just the opposite to what people have been told.Could the dealer have made an adjustment when they changed the oil that has resulted in the mpg drop? Tire psi set at 32.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,905
    Do you live in NYC? It's winter now. It was summer when you bought the car. That could be a major contributor to the lower mpg you are seeing now. The timing on the oil change could have just been a coincidence.
  • bhmr59bhmr59 Posts: 1,601
    Was your trip computer reset for the first time after your trip at the time of the oil change? A few thousand miles of highway driving, without resetting the computer, will lead one to think the local milage after the trip is better than it is due to the computer being based on weighted average.

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

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

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

    No surprise with either tank. Short cold trips in winter kill FE. Long trips on interstate with nice weather show good FE. My computer continues to read too high on nearly every tank, so I have to go by actual gals used in light of actual miles driven for most accurate result.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,905
    edited January 2012
    Notice how C&D pointed out that the (earlier separate test) result for the 6-speed manual Veloster was even WORSE (25 mpg overall) than the result for the DCT Veloster (28 mpg overall), even though the EPA figures are "comparable", at about 29 mpg city?

    The key phrase is "earlier separate test". Since the manual and DCT cars were tested separately, we don't know how conditions and driving behavior compare between the two tests. What would be interesting is a comparison of the manual and DCT under exactly the same conditions--as close as is possible anyway.

    Oddly, the test results reported across many magazines and tests are showing Hyundais that are coming in at or below their city ratings.

    The test reports from car mags like C/D almost always have low fuel economy numbers, based on how they drive the cars. CR tends to drive cars more like normal people would, and they've reported:

    Accent: 31 overall (above city rating)
    Elantra: 29 overall (at city rating)
    Elantra Touring: 26 overall (above city rating... actually at the EPA combined rating)
    Sonata GLS: 27 overall (above city rating... actually above the EPA combined rating)
    Tucson: 22 overall (at city rating)
    Santa Fe: 20 overall (at city rating)

    So from CR's tests at least, all the Hyundais they've recently tested at least hit the EPA city rating, and 50% exceeded the city rating.
  • Just purchased a used Elantra Limited last week. 13K miles on it, well maintained with several oil/filter changes to date.

    Drive about 100 miles/day to work and have averaged about 32 mpg on winter gas in Northeast corridor.

    ECO on, cruise control sometimes, other times around 80 to blend with the flow of traffic.

    Based on what I've been reading here I think 40 may be possible in warmer temps, all highway etc., but I'm pretty sure it won't be happening anytime soon for me.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Think a key to achieving 40 mpg highway is to be realistic on the speeds driven. From what I'm seeing in my '12 GLS AT, both FE achieved at driven speeds and looking at the tachometer as speed increases, I seriously doubt one should expect 40 mpg if one routinely is driving 75 mph and up. So if you're going 80 mph, getting 32 mpg may be quite realistic. But it seems entirely realistic to achieve 40 mpg at steady speeds in the 60-65 mph range. Just because the EPA stickers it at 40 mpg highway doesn't mean one can drive at 75, 80, or 85 mph and expect to get max FE. Higher speeds force engine to work much harder and FE to suffer accordingly.

    I took my daughter back to campus yesterday. I decided to drive on interstate at 62 mph with active ECO and cruise control. Only 90 miles roundtrip. The other 18 miles were city/suburb driving. But the computer mpg reading was at 42 mpg and rising. When I filled her up, I achieved 37.62 mpg (107.6 miles and 2.860 gals). Once again the computer reading higher than actual result achieved. Used 87 oct unleaded (non-ethanol). Was about 40-45 deg F. Two adults and 60 pounds luggage on way up; only 1 adult on way back.
  • This is the 1st tank that I started tracking. 500 miles on the Limited.

    Drove it 80 miles highway and 180 non highway and I averaged 24.8mpg - computer had it at 25.8.

    Only got 258 miles on a tank and took 10.4 to fill up.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,905
    Can you tell us more about conditions of the 260 miles? Speed on highway, temperature, wind, # of stops, traffic, average speed (I think the Elantra tracks that?), tire pressures? Thanks.
  • majorbenmajorben Posts: 16
    edited January 2012
    I just wanted to let you know that for the past 5 weeks my wife has used the vehicle exclusively (long story behind that). Anyway, she travels to and from work, and she does most of the shopping, so her use has mostly been local. Short trips between 5 and 25 miles. Her daily drive to work is approximately 15 miles round trip. The car has been averaging approx. 24.5 mpg per tank, and to me, that doesn't seem to be too bad considering that we've been using 87 octane with 10% ethanol and that we're now in winter temps (Although, it has been a rather mild winter with most night time temps getting into the 20's-30's and most daytime temps in the 40's-50's.) The car is kept in the garage overnight (lucky her), so there hasn't been any warmup period in the morning when she starts it.

    This past weekend when the car was averaging approx, 22.5 mpg as per the car's readout, she had to take it on a 90 mile drive that was mostly (95%) highway. The speed limit on the highway is mostly 65, and she most always did just that. (She's a very conservative driver.) She had 2 passengers for the entire trip (approx 275 lbs in addition to her weight), and the hills were minor on the first part of her trip, but there were some average to above average hills on the 2nd part of the trip. Thankfully, the FE went up to 33 mpg after she calculated it at a fill up. It seems to me that the FE is about as good as it is going to get because the breakin period is just about done. Although, I would expect, and I would hope, that it got better FE during the warmer months especially with non-ethanol gas, I rather doubt that it is going to get much better than 35-36. All in all, that's not too bad, but it remains to be seen.

    We'll be taking it in to the dealer for it's 1st service soon, and we'll be asking for a fuel consumption test. I doubt that anything will be found, and if not, I, too, will be contacting Hyundai for what it is worth, if nothing changes after the car gets more tank fulls after this 1st oil change and after the warmer weather arrives. I still remain to be impressed.
  • crankeeecrankeee Posts: 298
    Backy: Your post on Hyundai models is exactly the reason we chose the 2012 Sonata GLS over the Elantra and other models to include Camry, Altima, Malibu etc. 24/35 vs. 29/40 for the Sonata vs. Elantra. We were tempted by the high Elantra numbers but opted for the larger (read more comfort) choice. so far the MPG is 22-25 in city driving and 37.6 at 67MPH average for highway on a100 mile trip with some hills. Increased speed of 10% resulted in drop to 35 that makes sense. Car not broken in but hoping these figures hold up. If fuel use is #1 concern and/or mostly city driving and not highway, then the Elantra is the choice. Both deliver a lot of value.
  • I drove all of the highway miles using cruise at 65mph. Slight hills and wind that day no traffic. I babied it.

    The non highway miles my spouse drove over the course of a week or 2 back and forth to work and errands.

    Avg temps was about 40.

    The avg computed speed was 27 but I have my doubts about that being accurate.

    I took the avg from 25 to 30 during my highway miles but the avg speed only went from 27 to 31. Considering there weren't many miles on the tank at that point, I thought if should have went much higher.

    Not sure what the tire pressures were.

    Second tank is averaging 24.0 per the computer. Coast for a half mile and it goes up .1 then lightly step on the gas and it drops .2. lol

    Nothing even close to 29.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,905
    Second tank is averaging 24.0 per the computer. Coast for a half mile and it goes up .1 then lightly step on the gas and it drops .2. lol

    I see similar behavior on my Sentra when it hasn't been long since I reset the mpg meter. When coasting, FE is likely over 100 mpg. One key to high FE is to keep one's foot off the accelerator as much as possible.
  • My 2012 Elantra Limited only gets 32 MPG highway. I drive 100 miles per day and 90% of that is highway. I am the only person in the car with nothing else in it. I have tried everything changing fuel types, higher octain, but no help. Hyundai dealer says it will get better. I have 13K on the car now. I wish I would have knwon this before I bought the thing. This car has AT.
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Posts: 804
    What is your top speed during that highway drive? The EPA Highway test cycle that gives that 40 mpg number has a 60 mph top speed and an average overall speed for the test of about 48.3 mph. Speeds above that top or average will drop fuel economy, sometimes a great deal.
  • steven39steven39 Posts: 636
    on a recent trip to orlando from where i live in hallandale beach,fla i achieved 43 mpg on the highway according to the trip computer with a little over 3000 miles on the mpg with mostly stop and go traffic is about 27.
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    edited January 2012
    The EPA Highway test cycle that gives that 40 mpg number has a 60 mph top speed and an average overall speed for the test of about 48.3 mph.

    Incorrect. Read the test criteria: "Beginning with 2008 models, three additional tests will be used to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures."

    It was 2007 and earlier EPA estimates (which were generally reported higher MPG) that did not exceed 60mph. High speeds, A/C, and cold weather driving were incorporated in 2008.

    P.S. Steady speed driving at 70mph or more will rarely yield EPA Hwy numbers in any car. It is aimed more at what you SHOULD achieve at 65mph with a warm engine, level terrain, appropriate tire pressure, fuel, cruise on etc.

    My bet is I could get 40mpg out of a new Elantra if I tried, but I don't own one. ;) Driving 75mph I wouldn't expect more than 35mpg.
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Posts: 804
    What I said was true. If you look at the detailed comparison tab on the page I referred to, you will see that the tests you mentioned do change the parameters somewhat, but only somewhat as the adjusted highway test has an average test cycle speed of 48.4 mph even though the max speed is up to 80 mph. Now if that high speed highway test had an average speed of over 60-65 mph, that would be a difference maker!
  • tenpin288 you said, and I quote, "The EPA Highway test cycle that gives that 40 mpg number has a 60 mph top speed...".

    That is incorrect. It goes to 80mph and the high-speed cycle includes several starts from a complete stop running to high speeds. The parameters are changed dramatically.

    Telling people they have a 60mph top speed on the 40mpg hwy test? Simply not true.
  • tenpin288tenpin288 Posts: 804
    edited January 2012
    Let me rephrase/refine/restate/clarify my previous posts/statements.

    Telling people they have a 60mph top speed on the 40mpg hwy test? Simply not true.

    Actually it is true. The highway test top speed is 60 mph. The high speed test has a spike to 80 mph for a short time but is not a highway only test as it is designed to also include some city-style stop and go driving during its 9.9 minute/8 mile in length test cycle!

    The highway test and the high speed test both have an overall average speed of just over 48 mph. And the high speed test along with the two other new tests are used to "to adjust the city and highway estimates to account for higher speeds, air conditioning use, and colder temperatures" per the EPA.

    The point I am trying to bring out is that given these EPA testing parameters, it is unlikely for anyone to expect their Elantra, or any car for that matter, to get the EPA highway mileage figure when they are driving for an extended highway stretch at speeds in excess of posted speed limits. If their average speed (not top speed) for their commute exceeds the EPA average of 48 mph by a significant amount, say by averaging 70-80 mph for 10, 20, 30 miles or more due to traffic, their fuel mileage will suffer. It's just simple physics.

    What I would really like the EPA to do is come up with a testing methodology closer to what Backy usually advocates for people to try. Do an extended drive at a steady state in two directions and then check mileage. It might surprise many a person!
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 574
    edited January 2012
    Actually it is true. The highway test top speed is 60 mph.

    You need to re-read the EPA test critieria. The new EPA (in 2008) hwy numbers don't only include the hwy portion of the test. That's why they are (usually) much lower than the pre-2008 numbers that ONLY included the Hwy test you cite. The testing takes into account various factors to allow for high speed driving over long distances. That's what EPA Hwy numbers are supposed to reflect, not short commutes under 10 miles.

    Most people can easily hit the EPA Hwy numbers driving 65 to 70mph on the highway. I'm basing this on actual drivers and actual cars; me, friends, family, acquaintances, etc. The EPA Hwy numbers were revised (usually 10% or more downward) after the Hwy only portion you cite was modified to reflect the other test critieria.

    Again, most drivers easily hit the EPA Hwy numbers these days if driving 70 mph or less on over-the-road type driving. I'll quit beating the dead horse now. If you still think the Elantra's EPA 40 mpg Hwy estimate was obtained at under 60 mph, so be it. You're wrong.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Elantra owners should get to know their cars well at highway speeds. By this I mean study the speed, tachometer reading, and achieved fuel economy. Compare tach readings at 60 mph, 65, 70, and 75. Obviously, the higher the speed the higher the RPMs and the lower the FE. Max highway fuel economy is usually in the 60-65 mph steady state range. My recent longer trip was mostly (about 90%) at 70 mph using active Eco and cruise and I achieved nearly 37 mpg. A shorter one, that had some city driving but was nearly 80% 62 mph interstate with Eco and cruise achieved 38 mpg. Both on 87 octane non-ethanol.
  • I have my 2011 Elantra for a month now and all I can say is I'm very dissapointed. I've been driving a 2009 Corolla for the last 3 years averaging 28-30 miles a gal, but with this Elantra only 24-25 mpg. It has only 900 miles on it but I just can't see more than a few miles improvement. The reason I went with the Elantra is for the gas mileage, I don't see how they can claim 29/40, it's not even close. I thought I would average at least 31mpg, it's still new so I'm gonna be patient.
  • g2iowag2iowa Posts: 123
    Check out the link to the interesting Ward's article that is on the new "Hyundai Car of the Year" forum. This excerpt caught my eye:

    "Typically, what we find is these are urban drivers who have a lot of time, much more time than they realize, just sitting and idling at a stop sign,” Krafcik says. “When we show them that’s much more severe than the EPA city-cycle, and that here are some tips on how you can drive the car, the light bulb goes off.”

    Interesting. I suspect people do seriously underestimate the time spent at stop lights and stop signs which is why the Europeans are making a big deal about the auto stop/start feature, which I believe they include in their FE calculations but which our EPA may not? Hyundai may explore that feature in near future, esp. if other car makers add to their small fuel efficient vehicles? Guess only time will tell.
Sign In or Register to comment.