Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The mileage seems to crater at speeds higher than 65 mph and lower than 35 mph. So when your AVG speed was 65 mph, I'm assuming you spent some time above that and maybe in the mid-70 mphs? You won't get anywhere near 40 mpg at 75 mph or higher. Your FE starts dropping significantly at 65-70 mph.
Your 51 mph avg result is the most interesting one. And the one you achieved the highest FE result, which would be expected. Don't know if you had passengers, luggage, what type fuel you're using, etc. IF ethanol, expect 3-4% decrease in FE.
With the weather in Ohio getting much nicer (60+ degrees), I have noticed an increase in MPG, my last tank I got 36.8 MPG calculated (the computer said 41.2 MPG, my computer is routinely off by 3-4 MPGs). At the beginning of that tank, the computer was calculating as high as 49 MPGs.
I had been averaging in the 33-34 MPG range(calculated).
On the 65MPH trip there were two of us in the car but we were carrying some extra luggage (maybe 100 Lbs.) but the speed was relatively consistent. On the 51MPH trip there were three of us but no luggage so the weights were comparable. Since the 51MPH trip did follow different routes on the round trip, what I should have done was check the economy each way. I am sure the return trip (although longer) was at a higher speed.
Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective. I should mention that my other vehicle is another brand with about 125,000 miles on it; is a turbocharged 4 cyl with a 5 speed MT that requires 91 octane. Because of the way it is geared, I would say that at 65MPH this vehicle is turning about 3150 RPM. So, when I compare the driving between the two at similar speeds, it just seems logical that the Elantra should be getting significantly better economy. But it doesn't. On similar trips (2) to Tucson (the 51MPH average trip), this car got between 30 - 32.5 MPG. And, I drive this vehicle a lot harder (read faster).
I guess that I just feel, that considering the overall driving conditions in the Elantra, the fuel economy should be higher.
So, going back to my original query, is there a factory authorized adjustment that will boost MPG?
I must admit that, if I was looking to purchase today instead of last June, I would probably go for diesel. In comparing rated fuel economy and cost of fuel, it didn't make sense back then (diesel would have had to have double the economy). But, with cost of regular gas rising significantly faster than diesel, diesel would appear to be the more economical choice
I wish we had more posters here with the manual transmission. Seems like nearly all here are AT not MT. My '12 GLS turns over at 1500 RPMs at 25 mph in 4th (direct drive), 35 mph in 5th (an overdrive), and 45 mph in 6th (deeper overdrive). I find it fascinating that the AT won't go into 5th at 25-30 mph even when I use the manumatic feature. Same for getting her into 6th at 35-40 mph. Nice thing about an MT is that you can put her in whatever gear you want as long as their is enough engine torque for the resulting RPMs.
Although I have not read all the posts on this forum, from what I have read, most are in the less than advertised MPG situation.
Just filled up again. Now have 2528 miles on odometer. Computer estimated 29.7 mpg. Went 176.0 miles on 6.281 gals of regular (nonethanol) unleaded. Gets 28.02 mpg. BUT avgeraged a meagre 21.0 mph. So I know I was spending the vast majority of time and distance on city driving.
We just took a 200 mile trip with 2012 Sonata and averaged 34.6 on all highway at 75+. Key was MPH and constant speed - not stop and go.
The weather is colder this week, and I have already noticed a hit in MPG.
Check your car's owner's manual. I bet it says something to the effect that the engine can run fine on 10% ethanol. I also bet it says nothing about that level of ethanol contributing to fuel system "contamination". I expect this is just another ploy of your dealer's service department to sell you some overpriced fuel system cleaner. I have had 3 Hyundais over the past 11-1/2 years, all serviced at Hyundai dealers, and not once has the service personnel mentioned "fuel system contamination" due to use of ethanol at a level approved by the manufacturer for the car. I did have a dealer try to sell me a "throttle body cleaning" once. But I did some research and found out that service was not only unnecessary, but could damage the throttle body. Needless to say I declined the service, which was pretty pricey I recall.
My advice is, stick to the service schedule as recommended by the manufacturer, and avoid add-on services from dealers.
I have seen reports that the best mileage is at speeds at 55 mph...unfortunately I dont do 55 mph often....perhaps my gas mileage wil improve after its drivien a bit more, I have a little over 2k now...
on the plus side...I do feel like I am driving a much more expensive car (I have a Hyundai Limited) yes there is more road noise than in my 2010, perhaps its the 17 inch wheels? I have seen negative post about road noise...but all in all, for the price for what you get, I am extremely happy, a little less gas mileage doesn't change that.....nice car, and my 3rd Hyundau Elantra in a row...
Cars have been getting their best highway MPG results at around 55mph for decades....it's not something particular to "newer" cars. It's just aerodynamics as in fighting air/wind resistance. Even though the newer cars are more aerodynamically proficient, they still get the best MPG at around that same speed as it's all relative. Modern transmissions, once you've reached the point of cruising, should be in the top gear well below 55mph. My 5spd auto is in 5th gear by at least 40-45mph if I'm not pressing the gas hard and just cruising.
@22 MPH (1 reading) - 27.78428 MPG
@36 MPH (1 reading) - 30.58813 MPG
@38 MPH (3 readings) - 29.71566394 MPG (avg)
@39 MPH (3 readings) - 29.67246921 MPG (avg)
@40 MPH (1 reading) - 29.29158845 MPG
@41 MPH (3 readings - 30.78341837 MPG (avg)
@42 MPH (2 readings) - 31.04911614 MPG (avg)
@47 MPH (1 reading) - 32.71118059 MPG
@51 MPH (1 reading) - 33.59858589 MPG
@56 MPH (1 reading) - 32.69990606 MPG
@65 MPH (1 reading) - 33.59610093 MPG
Unfortunately, I do not have readings for every tank (did not think about this reading until I realized the MPG was not where I thought it would be and, only then, did I start to track all data).
Further notes: Almost all the readings in the 30's & 40's are my wife's travel to work (total 8.9 miles each way; 4.8 Hwy, 4.1 street)
The 51 MPH number has about 100 of 281 miles driven at 75MPH. The rest not over 65 (and some in bumper to bumper).
The 56 MPH number was 330 miles (approx 280 of which was at 65MPH - not over).
The 65MPH number was 286 miles ( and I believe the average is correct - all HWY, no stops)
So, it would appear that if I drive at a average speed of between 51 & 65, I can get about 33MPG. What do I have to do to get the 40MPG touted?
To your point on the Sonata. I had mentioned on a previous post that one of the reasons we purchased the Elantra was a similar experience in a rental Sonata. Excellent fuel economy on a round trip from St. Louis to Memphis. Expected as good (and yes, better) from the Elantra.
Two major reasons for not buying the Sonata. First, this was to be 'our' car for trips although my wife would be using it for her commute (my car, also as previously noted, is a manual). Her previous car was a Corolla and the Sonata felt "too big" for her. Second, the passenger seat. My wife under 5' and the passenger seat in the Sonata is set so low that on the Memphis trip she could not see out of the front or side glass in that seat. Since I do the bulk of the driving when we are together, that was a problem.
For starters:
* Don't drive at 75 mph.
* Realize that "bumper to bumper" will kill your average.
Thought some of you might be interested in this article, posted yesterday. I'm not saying it applies to each person having issues achieving the EPA estimates, but thought it could be worth a look.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
33 mpg at 65 mpg steady speed seems low... assuming... it was in fact steady speed, you did stay at 65 mph and didn't have stops/starts or speed up to pass people, weather was moderate, winds light, tires inflated properly, etc.
Many factors affect fuel economy.
However, 33 mpg is the EPA combined average for the car. Depending on what your low-speed travel was like and how you drive on the highway, that seems in the ballpark. Not great, but in the ballpark.
I can drive my 2007 Mazda6 on a freeway trip and surpass the EPA hwy estimate. I usually set the cruise at about 5 over the limit. If the speed limit is 70 I set it at 70 as I personally think it's not really safe to cruise faster than that but that's just me. Keep in mind that the EPA estimate on the 2007 was revised downward when they changed their methodology in 2008. I can do that with each of my three vehicles on a highway cruise of some distance. If I bought an Elantra and could only get 35 or 36mpg on the same kind of trip I would be upset as I would be expecting to meet or beat the estimate just like on other cars that I own or have owned.
The article you linked to made mention of the 2011 Elantra in the Edmund's test fleet that isn't achieving satisfactory hwy mpg which sort of reinforces what many of these people are saying.
I think if there are just very few circumstances where a car attain the hwy estimate(flat surface, moderate temp, highly inflated tires, eggshell on the gas pedal, clean air cleaner, driving the speed limit or even under, etc etc etc) than the manufacture should either explain that in detail to lower expectations or revise the EPA hwy number downward to a more realistice number. This was proven to be a manufacturers perogative in the recent Honda Civic Hybrid litigation.
Regardless of the reason - whether the detailed explanation is lacking, or if there's a problem, or if (without changing anything regarding driving habits) this vehicle simply fails to perform to the MPG level of previous vehicles that the owner has had - I can understand the disappointment if the vehicle was purchased largely on the basis of EPA estimated MPGs.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Even if it's not a huge consideration, it's still something that's expected. There's a couple of things that I could do without on my car but if the sticker said they were supposed to be there I would sure expect them to be.
It's a damn shame because I'm liking a lot of what I'm seeing about the 2013 Elantra GT. Except that it's got the exact same powertrain.
If only a few percent are problematic the chances that one picked for testing not performing would be slim. On the flip side, the Elantra in the Edmund fleet hasn't been able to achieve it's EPA hwy mpg.
A small percentage would also probably account for all the complaints while the vast majority are fine. Just a possibility that shouldn't be poohed-poohed as stupid consumers that don't know how to drive or maintain their cars.
What is comes down to is that, I can drive my 2001 VW 4 cyl turbo at 70 MPH (at which speed the engine is at about 3200RPM - about 1,000 higher than the Elantra at the same speed) aggressively, and still get 31+MPG (higher than the EPA estimate).
The Elantra should be getting closer to (or above) 40MPG on the HWY.
Have you had your car checked at the dealer? Asked about the reflash that was mentioned earlier (I think in this thread)?
I may just rent one for a couple of days so I can do my own testing.
Have both an 4 speed automatic & 5 speed manual Corolla with the same engine. With the same driving habits, the manual is much better with city driving, but only slightly better on the highway. Year round average is only about 30 with the automatic, but upper 30's with the manual.
Engine pumping losses are greatly reduced with proper manual transmission shifting techniques when accelerating. Large throttle opening + low engine speed = less pumping losses = more efficiency.
Unfortunately, this is just not possible, even with the modern automatic transmission as it allows the engine to rev too high while accelerating, which greatly increases pumping losses.
This is a misnomer. EPA figures are usually not provided by the EPA. They're provided by the manufacturer through internal testing to EPA specs. Theoretically. The EPA can choose to test models if they want to but they don't test all of them.
As for the manual/automatic propaganda, this is not the place to argue the religious war of manual versus automatic, and both transmissions are having a problem on the Elantra anyway. High RPMs = lower fuel economy. Two things lead to high RPMs: the gearing of the transmission and the foot of the driver. A manual transmission that is not geared tall enough is as bad as an automatic with gearing that isn't tall enough.
As far as high RPM's, proper acceleration is key to getting the great MPG numbers in city driving with constant stop & go. Keeping the RPM's around 2000-2200 is hugely important, so this is where only a skilled driver with a manual can really shine.
Anyway, the driver can only do so much in city driving regardless of transmission. If you have to jackrabbit just to get into traffic, or power peak is too far north of 3000 RPM not even a skilled driver with a manual will shine. Incidentally, given the Elantra's lofty HP and torque peaks, that could be causing an issue for a lot of drivers (you really need low-end torque for some things no matter what). Anyone have an HP/torque curve graph for the Elantra? I haven't been able to find one.
Not the case with modern trannies. I have seen 5 and 6 speed automatics very close to 2000 rpm even at 65-70 mph. And there's some sticks with tall top gears also. Examples are the Mazda3i Touring 6MT, which is around 2000 RPM @ 65 mph, and the Golf 5MT, which is a little over 2000 RPM @ 65 mph.
CVTs are great at low RPMing though. My 2010 Sentra can putter along all day at around 35-40 mph at around 1200 RPM (on level ground of course). And it's at about 2000 RPM @ 70 mph.
Long time not here. You are looking well.
The Elantra buyers seem to be having post-purchase doubts about their new rides. If I had
purchased an Elantra this year I wouldn't worry about high fuel economy the first 10 months.
The EPA *estimates* are based on driving at 55mph at 3000RPM or slightly lower. Not many
buyers drive at that low a speed and low revs. Also, the car should have only the driver in it
and a half tank of gas. Many probably have no trouble meeting the last requirement. My low
fuel warning light stays on most of the time.
Other things to consider: windows up and A/C off. Gonna be hot.
My suggestion is to try to get the best fuel economy most of the time, enjoy the wonderful new car,
and don't worry about it. If the Elantra had been advertised at a lower fuel rating wouldn't you have bought it for its styling and features? Of course you would! Even 36mpg is a rate many wish they were getting in their SUVs.