Last post on Dec 07, 2012 at 9:13 PM
You are in the Hyundai Accent
What is this discussion about?
Hyundai Accent, Hatchback, Sedan
#56 of 95 Re: mpg a bit low for a small hatchback [kuripot]
Jun 01, 2008 (6:12 am)
well I don't know why I am getting 21mpg in the city. Next thing I will do, is to change my fuel filter. Then I will post the results here.
I think my car has a problem, this all happened after I used the tank all the way till it was empty last year. Then, it started to have startup problems so I used Gumout and the problem went away but low MPG stayed. I don't know the MPG before this incident.
#57 of 95 Re: mpg a bit low for a small hatchback [misterno]
Jun 19, 2008 (6:17 pm)
I have a 2007 Accent. The Sticker which is based on the UNREALISTIC EPA criteria for the 2007 model year states 32 CITY and 35 HGWY.
Until now, I have NEVER after 21,000 miles gotten anywhere near the EPA estimates. First of all let me state that I ACCURATELY check my MPG's by totally filling the tank and resetting the trip odometer to 0 then driving on the tank and then refilling to the top and then divide miles driven by gallons filled to the top.
OK, here's what I have found works in my case to improve milage. I am not advocating it's use for anybody but myself, but I can tell you it works for me. My Accent is a 5speed manual tranny and I'm sure that most of you others that have the same model year with a manual gearbox can attest to the fact that 5th gear is geared WAY TOO LOW for the 65 mph speed limit on the highway. Sometimes it almost seems that it feels as if I am still in 3rd when on the highway, ...but I'm not. My wife suggested when going down hills in what would normally be 5th gear, to drift down the hill in NEUTRAL instead.....with the engine ON , of course. As a result of her suggestion, this tank got me the highest MPG ever posted since we owned the car. 37.61 MPG!!!
My other car is a VW Passat TDI at 296,000 miles and I always get 45 + on that car which even with diesel being $1.00 + per gallon still is more economical than this little pod of a car and might I add a whole lot safer for my kids to be in the back seat as well. Man, I remember when I had my 92 GEO Metro and CONSISTENTLY GOT 45 + and now we try desperately to eek out over 30mpg. And car manufacturers brag about highway milage at 30!!?? WTF?
#58 of 95 Re: mpg a bit low for a small hatchback [wantecon]
Jun 19, 2008 (6:26 pm)
Might want to be careful with that technique.. not only is it unsafe (since you lose control of the car with it in neutral), but at least in some states it's illegal to coast downhill in neutral.
#59 of 95 Re: mpg a bit low for a small hatchback [wantecon]
Jun 19, 2008 (6:49 pm)
You didn't mention what year or trans you had in the Passat TDI, but the 98 manual trans was rated at 50 MPG Hwy, so at 45 MPG even that gets less than the EPA rating for you (if that's what you have). Although coasting will improve MPG slightly, I doubt if the coasting would actually add very much to your MPG. One of my cars has an instant MPG readout, and although that one gets about 27MPG overall, it will exceed 99MPG going downhill without coasting so the downhill sections do not hurt your MPG even if the revs remain the same, because you're not pushing the gas pedal down.
#60 of 95 Re: mpg a bit low for a small hatchback [radar1]
Jun 19, 2008 (7:32 pm)
I'm sorry, yes the 98 Passat TDI manual tranny was rated at 50 MPG, but I have a 1997 manual rated at 38 and 47. I get a combined 45 with AC. I use the SCANGUAGE II to calculate exact instant, current and tank milage as well as many other engine functions. Just having that guage has improved my fuel economy and I recommend it to everyone because it encourages good driving habits and is NOT the same as the OEM driving computers that come with many cars. Well worth the $159 pricetag. Additionally, I use the "pulse and glide" method to maximize economy. Pulse and glide is not possible on the 2007 manual ACCENT simply beacuse of the low 5th gear ratio.
I will be going on trip to DC this weekend in the VW and will be getting 50 + on the HGWY using alternative fuel as I have done for the last 8 tanks which costs me about $.50/ gallon to make. I am not a shill for any company, so if anyboby is interested please look it up on the internet. Sorry about mentioning Scanguage by name.
Regarding the coasting, like I said... It works for me and I do not suggest it for everyone. However, I must disagree with you in that you must not be familiar with the 2007 tranny. IT IS JUST SIMPLY GEARED TOO LOW! YOU MUST ACCELERATE DOWN A HILL ON THE INTERSTATE to keep it from slowing down. Coasting does improve speed DRAMATICALLY....PERIOD. Check out some others' post on this thread from those who have the 2007 with manual trannies. I have literally taken it out of gear and re-shifted into 5th thinking that I put it in 3rd by mistake. I understand the engine is not under load going down hills in gear, but the low 5th gear ratio simply acts as a brake which in turn causes the driver to HAVE TO accelerate to keep up to hghwy speeds, which in turn DRAMATICALLY decreases fuel efficiency because the engine must be PUSHED to go DOWN a hill. Once again, you MUST PUSH THE GAS PEDAL DOWN, unlike you posted. Yes, it is that bad because it is geared THAT low in 5th. I hope I'm making my point, it geared that low my friend.
As for the safety issue, I'm not sure if I buy that either. If evasive action is needed the driver needs to shift into gear. Let me add this caveat to my previous statements... I do not recommend this coasting technique in and inclement weather such as rain, snow or sleet.
As for legality, I guess if I'm ever driving with a policman in my car I won't use the technique either. LOL
In summary , with kids and wife in the car I never got over 31 mpg with the tires inflated to 95% of maximum allowed pressure. Now, with this coasting method with wifey and kids in car for most trips, I got 37.61 on this tank.
#61 of 95 low mpg of 21
Jun 22, 2008 (8:01 am)
Back to my MPG problem
2002 Accent Auto Transmission, hatchback 1.6 Engine
I think I need to have the following done; spark plugs, wires, air filter, fuel filter, cleaning the throttle, check the o2 sensor..
Anythingelse I should do? 21mpg in city 33 mpg in hwy
somebody on a different folder said he cleaned the carberator. This car does not have carberator does it?
#62 of 95 Re: low mpg of 21 [misterno]
Jun 22, 2008 (9:29 am)
Fuel injection. So you might add injector cleaner to your list. Also be sure your car's tire pressures are at least at the Hyundai-recommended numbers, if not a few pounds higher.
#63 of 95 45.1 MPG! Whoa!
Jul 16, 2008 (11:01 pm)
My January comments in this thread indicated that my wife was getting OK MPG from her hard commute to work. She is a careful driver tho, & I was hoping she might get better with her 2008 Accent. As the weather warmed, her MPG increased a bit but again, nothing outstanding.
As a feather footer, I always got good MPG out of my cars. Finally, on 3 day trips over 1400, 3000, 4000, & 5500 mountain passes & to Mt. Rainier, the Accent performed spectacularly, giving 41.5, 42.6 & 45.1 MPG.
Again, these were not flat highway MPG, but excellent mountain driving trips, starting near sea level.
Agree with others tho, that the Accent has too low a gearing & should be driven slowly to get MPG well over 40MPG. However, the Toyota Yaris & Honda Fit manual gearing is best at lower speeds too.
Jul 23, 2008 (9:27 am)
Looking over the user supplied MPG numbers for the Accent vs. the FIT. If you compare users and their driving habits, which is limited to breaking down the miles driven by city/hwy you can see that the average is higher for the FIT partially because the driving habits of those reporting data have more highway miles than city driving. There is also more data because there are more FIT owners reporting their fuel economy.
I don't see a problem with Accent numbers. There are WAY too many variables that dictate what a user is getting to draw large sweeping conclusions from one user. From looking at the weight, engine and gearing it is pretty obvious that the two vehicles should be within a 1-3mpg difference of each other. The FIT has the advantage. If there are larger numbers than that, there is something wrong with the vehicle, or you are driving in unusual conditions that don't reflect the average user.
If you consider that the street price of the FIT is $3000-$6000 higher, depending on configuration, that difference obviously doesn't favor the FIT in terms of cost of transportation. Even if you figure the lower side of the cost differential up-front ($3000) and the Maximum difference in terms of efficiency (3MPG $4.00/gal), at 15,000 miles per year you have a $163/year difference in gasoline paid per year (favoring the FIT) and a $696/year extra cost in the vehicle favoring the Accent. I figured the cost of money amortized over five years 6% interest. The payment would be $58 per month to pay for the extra cost of the FIT. The fuel savings if it gets 3MPG better than the Accent would only be $14.25 per month $4.00/gallon. The FIT cost an extra $44 per month due to the up-front premium cost of the vehicle.
I think that is a fair comparison both in terms of the market cost of the vehicles (what you can actually buy them for), the cost of money considered on a conservative metric, and the cost of gas (best guess on this one). If you drive a LOT more than 15,000 miles a year the numbers get a little better for the FIT but not enough to overcome the up-front cost difference. If gasoline drops back below $4/gallon that will favor the Accent.
If you plan to sell the car in a couple years, the resale value favors the Honda but when you consider the up-front cost, the better resale value is largely negated. I can buy the Accent for less than $10,000 out the door, sales tax and all related dealership cost. The cheapest I've been quoted on the Honda is $16,250 out the door. That is a $6250 difference in price that wouldn't be made-up even if the price of gas quadrupled to $16/gallon and if the Accent got 6MPG worse fuel economy. Even under those conditions, the Accent is cheaper.
#65 of 95 Re: Govt. Data [kevperro2]
Jul 23, 2008 (1:33 pm)
I agree that logic dictates that the Accent is a better value. However, I don't see where you come up with the cost of $10,000 out the door, unless your talking abot a used vehicle. When I bought my 2007 in July 2006, it was 12,780 and that price was not negotiable at all by the dealer, although they did give me a fair trade on my vehicle I was trading and there was a rebate of 1,000 I think. Even if you factor in all the college grad rebates, etc. ,etc., which most everybody won't qualify for, a new Accent still isn't gonna be $10,000 out the door even with the base model w/o air when all is said and done.
On a seperate note, while my Accent was a very nice and reliable car without any problems, I just sold it on eBay and went backwards to a 2003 VW Jetta TDI Diesel because I am making my own alternative fuel for both it and my Passat at $0.46/ gallon and getting 45- 50 mpg. Sorry, I'm not bragging but doing the math, it didn't make sense to keep the Accent even with the 100,000 mile warranty, which BTW become 60,000 miles for subsequent owners despite what some sellers on eBay will tell you. All in all, if you don't have access to used french fry oil, an Accent is fine car to drive. Just don't believe the EPA estimate sticker unless you plan to drift down hills in neutral like I did on the interstate ( in clear weather only), in which case you can EXCEED the EPA highway estimates by 2 - 3 mpg's. Bye ,. bye.