Last post on Aug 10, 2009 at 8:51 AM
You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hatchbacks Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, Car Comparisons, Hatchback
#382 of 443 Re: the real story with mileage
Jul 26, 2007 (4:12 pm)
may be different. if you look at the average of actual drivers on fueleconomy.gov, the difference between the cars is more dramatic. comparing automatic to automatic, the yaris avg is 35.2 vs 26.3 for the rio. that is a pretty dramatic difference.
its difficult to compare manual trannies, as the rio doesnt have a big enough sample. a 2006 rio sample has to be used since there are only 2 drivers for the 2007.(i believe the 06 rio is the current model). granted there are only 8 samples even with the 06 rio, so that is a pretty small sample.
my experience with toyota has been that ive never had any trouble getting or exceeding epa mileage numbers. with the new 2008 method of figuring mileage, they'll be exceeded by a fair margin.
i really should have looked at the accent rather than the rio. anyway, the 2007 auto accent faired barely better at 26.6 mpg. again a small sample with only 7 drivers. researching all forums discussing any and all subcompacts before making a purchase, i found the trend to be poor mileage (for a subcompact) in the korean makes, while many yaris owners were exceeding epa numbers (im talking 2007 epa numbers-not the new ones which are even lower). the differences were far more than 10%. since mileage is a top priority for me, i did not need to bother driving an accent or rio, as i personally would never accept the type of mileage numbers that actual owners are getting.
#383 of 443 Re: the real story with mileage [roxy11]
Jul 26, 2007 (5:31 pm)
Wow awesome post! This is useful. like I said before, I looked at the Huyndai and Kia and didn't like the gas mileage at all. It sort of defeats the purpose of buying these cars.
#384 of 443 Re: the real story with mileage [roxy11]
Jul 26, 2007 (5:50 pm)
A couple of things about the fueleconomy.gov numbers:
* There are only 7 ratings for the 2007 Accent AT and 3 for the MT. Not very large samples, compared to the samples for the 2007 Yaris. The samples for the 2006 Accent (the same car as the 2007 but in sedan form only) are even lower.
* Note that the mpg's for the 2006 Accents are significantly higher than for the 2007s. This is consistent with what I and many other Hyundai owners (per posts in CarSpace et. al.) have experienced, i.e., Hyundai engines are "tight" and get much better fuel economy as they loosen up, beyond 15-20,000 miles or so. Note for example the 2007 AT average is 26.6 while the 2006 average is 30.6, or 15% higher. The MT average is higher for 2006 also. This is consistent with what I saw on the two Hyundais I've owned. They both got 15-20% better fuel economy after the first 15,000 miles or so. (FE actually started going up after a couple thousand miles and kept going up.) After break-in, I had no problem exceeding the EPA numbers. And if you look at the fueleconomy.gov numbers, that is exactly what these Accent drivers are doing, except for the 2007 AT owners (1.4 mpg below the EPA average so far).
If you compare the average mpg of the Yaris MT drivers to that of the 2006 Accent MT drivers, the difference is 2.5 mpg. Not a huge difference. The difference for ATs is bigger, about 4.5 mpg. So if someone likes the Accent but wants the best fuel economy, they really need to get the MT--which is the way to go on small cars like these anyway, IMO.
#385 of 443 Re: the real story with mileage [backy]
Jul 27, 2007 (6:19 am)
the problem with the accent numbers is the tiny sample size. there is less evidence that as they break in the mileage goes up, rather as the sample size increases (example only 4 cars for 2006 accent and 30.6 mpg, whereas 7 cars for 07 accent and 26.6 mpg) the true numbers start to show. the 33.8 on the 07 manual accent is based on 2 drivers, just not credible enough at all.
the yaris has a much larger sampling and i expect no matter how large the yaris sample gets, the numbers wont change much.
like i said, any prospective owners would serve themselves well to thoroughly read mpg sections for any applicable owner forums for these cars. i did and the results were clear. there are a few hyundai owners claiming good mileage, but that simply is not the trend.
im confident that the average accent owner will get around 5-6 mpg less than the average yaris owner. this is around a 15% difference.
with little effort, im averaging 42.3 mpg over 6 tanks with 70/30 highway/city driving in an 07 yaris. this is on an engine that has only around 2500 miles on it. i think i might squeeze 35 mpg out of an accent, but its only a guess.
bottom line is what your priority is and what your confidence level is. i dont think the accent is an awful car overall, but the mileage numbers, imo, are disappointing for a subcompact. (much like the chevy aveo)
#386 of 443 Re: the real story with mileage [roxy11]
Jul 27, 2007 (6:31 am)
the problem with the accent numbers is the tiny sample size.
Yet you had no problem in your earlier post making generalizations about Yaris vs. Accent fuel economy using this small sample size. So if it's OK for you to do that, I guess it's OK for me to do that. Anyway, I'm not just generalizing based on the small sample size on fueleconomy.gov. I am also using as a base many posts here on CarSpace and other forums that confirm that FE on Hyundais goes up significantly as the engine gets some miles. Thus I think it's reasonable to conclude that the FE numbers on fueleconomy.gov for the 2006 Accents are more representative of what to expect from the Accent than the 2007 numbers. And the 2006 numbers show a small difference in fuel economy (about 7%) for the MT, a bigger one for the AT.
I think you would squeeze better than 35 mpg out of an Accent after break-in, given that I have no problem getting low 30s in a 50/50 pattern on a much larger Hyundai (2.0L 138 hp AT) and over 40 mpg on the highway with an MT. A lot depends on driving style however. I would guess from your numbers that, like me, you drive with an eye to FE rather than a lead foot.
#387 of 443 Let's Not Overlook the Cost to Insure these Cars
Jul 27, 2007 (8:41 am)
What is often overlooked is the difference in what it costs to insure these two cars. Typically the Yaris costs hundreds of dollars per year less than the Accent to insure. It is hard to believe, since they both have about the same replacement cost. Any ideas?
#388 of 443 Re: the real story with mileage [backy]
Jul 27, 2007 (12:55 pm)
i admitted in my original post that the sample size for the rio was quite small, and the same goes for the accent. i should have been using the accent, since that is what is being compared to the yaris.
i agree that nothing conclusive can be drawn from such a small sample of accents. its only my opinion that a larger sample size would bring the average to close to 30 mpg for an automatic accent, maybe a bit higher for a manual. however, i have to give more validity to the sample size for the yaris. yes, i drive with fuel efficiency in mind, but dont do anything drastic. i mostly watch my shift points and anticipate stop lights and signs. many people dont. much like my 5 speed corolla, my effort in getting 40+ mpg in the yaris is pretty minimal. for many, getting 35 mpg would be fine. for me, its not. my only tank with a solid 50% highway/50% city mix still gave me 40.8 mpg.
regarding insurance rates, there are so many factors to an individuals rates..for comparisons sake, i pay $580 per year on my 07 yaris with AAA, full coverage, michigan, 41 yrs old, completely clean driving record. im very pleased with my rates, but i know certain regions in the country would be much worse for me.
why should an accent be any more to insure? is it because the risk is spread over a smaller number of cars?
#389 of 443 Re: Let's Not Overlook the Cost to Insure these Cars [lhanson]
Jul 28, 2007 (10:35 am)
Part of the discrepancy in insurance costs may be parts costs. In a recent IIHS report on low-speed crashes, it noted that the Camry's damage cost less to repair than other cars that suffered less physical damage, due to the relatively low price for Camry parts. Perhaps the same is true for the Yaris.
#390 of 443 Yaris vs. Accent sales numbers
Jul 28, 2007 (11:46 am)
In the Toyota Yaris discussion, ttai made a post about the sales numbers for the Yaris vs. other small cars, and there was a thread that started about why Yaris sales numbers are much higher than Accent sales numbers. One suggestion was that it was due to Hyundai shipping relatively few Accents here; here is ttai's response to that:
I saw a ton of accents at the dealer I went to. I doubt it's a supply issue. I can believe the Fit is a supply issue. Honda is shipping them very slowly.
How many was "a ton"? (Also interesting that you, the proud owner of a Yaris, would be visiting a Hyundai dealer. Looking to trade? ) I stop by my nearest Hyundai dealer pretty regularly, to check out all the new Hyundai models (9 in the past 30 months) and for scheduled maintenance on my Hyundai. Typically, there's less than 10 Accents on the lot. Maybe 4-5 sedans, 2-3 GSes, and 1-2 SEs. I have never seen a stick SE on this lot, or any other Hyundai lot. (I've never seen an SE w/o the moonroof/sound system package also.) I did see a stick GS once. The dealer has told me that the stick Accents and base SEs fly off the lot as soon as they arrive and the others are selling well also. This story is backed up by the relatively low incentives on the Accent, just $500, lowest of any Hyundai except the brand-new Veracruz. If Accents weren't selling pretty well vs. supply, incentives would be higher.
#391 of 443 Re: Yaris vs. Accent sales numbers [backy]
Jul 28, 2007 (12:13 pm)
ummm Backy. When you go buy a car, you tend to visit different dealerships to see if you like the car before buying one. Soooooo. I did visit a Hyundai dealership to look at accents and completely hated it. I finally chose the Yaris. So did you need to know anything else like why is the sky up and the ground down.