Ask the Car People.SM


Hyundai Elantra Real World MPG 2012

752 messages,  Last post on Jun 16, 2013 at 12:33 AM

You are in the Hyundai Elantra Forum.

What is this discussion about? Hyundai Elantra, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Hatchback, Sedan

Messages Page 54 of 76

#524 of 752 Re: Is crux of the FE issue really city estimate? [g2iowa] by m6user

Jun 16, 2012 (8:18 am)

Replying to: g2iowa (Jun 16, 2012 7:32 am)
How do you explain the cases where people have the same commute etc and acheived EPA avgs easily with prior vehicles and now cannot come close with the Elantra, many even trying harder than in previous vehicles? All this avg MPH stuff goes out the window when you compare it to previous vehicles experience. I would highly doubt the avg MPH changed unless they significantly changed their route to work or changed shifts/traffic patterns or something like that.
 
I realize that tracking mph is interesting but it does not tell the whole story as their are many ways to achieve avgs. A steady 45mph results in a 40mph avg. A combo of 70 mph and 25mph in the right combination would also result in a 40mph avg. However, I imagine driving a steady 45 would result in great MPG while the combo of 70mph and 25mph with stop and gos would result in substantially worse MPG. Just saying that avgs aren't the end all be all of this question.

#525 of 752 Use today's data for our Elantras [m6user] by g2iowa

Jun 16, 2012 (8:59 am)

Replying to: m6user (Jun 16, 2012 8:18 am)
I don't care what other cars people were driving years ago, myself included. I only care about what my '12 Elantra GLS AT is achieving today in light of today's EPA estimate.
 
And we have the car data readily at hand to help us all better understand how we each drive and what we are achieving for FE. So we should be using it. It makes me suspicious when people deliberately withhold that readily available information. Why tell us you drive "90% highway" and then not say what the avg MPH is when all you have to do is hit a button and look at a number? Makes a huge difference if the real avg MPH is 30 mph vs 55 mph for your tankful. And why just say what the computer said (mine reads too high anyway) when you know how many gals of fuel you pumped into the tank for the tankful? Is easy to give both numbers.
 
So that means anyone who wants to be taken real seriously should post all the relevant data that is readily available. That includes...
 
1. Computer's avg MPH per tankful,
2. Computer's avg MPG per tankful,
3. How many actual total miles driven per tankful,
4. How many actual total gallons of fuel you pumped into the tank for the tankful,
5. Whether they are using ethanol or not, and
6. Any other unique factor (e.g., they routinely drive with passenger or set cruise on highway to 80 mph).

#526 of 752 Re: Is crux of the FE issue really city estimate? [g2iowa] by fowler3

Jun 16, 2012 (2:59 pm)

Replying to: g2iowa (Jun 16, 2012 7:32 am)
I think you are correct. I keep burning up gas sitting at traffic lights all the time, very maddening! Keep in mind that the EPA estimate is based on 55mph and 3000 RPM, not over 60mph highway. Good weather and cool temperatures. The Elantra is stuck with tall gearing at low speeds, a real gas burner. The EPA probably did not try out their estimates in real world situations, no traffic lights at their tracks probably. At least no 3-minute traffic lights.
 
And Elantra owners do not take into account their bank drive-thru and drive-in stops. Turn off your engine waiting in lines. Before fuel injection that did not save gas, it does now.
 
I'm watching this forum closely, thinking about buying either a Veloster or a KIa Rio-5.

#527 of 752 Re: Is crux of the FE issue really city estimate? [fowler3] by gman4911

Jun 16, 2012 (6:46 pm)

Replying to: fowler3 (Jun 16, 2012 2:59 pm)
The EPA tests the cars on a dynamometer in a lab not on a test track. The avg idle time for the city test is a little over 14 seconds. In real life, my idle time at major intersections is usually around 2.5 minutes. Worse during rush hour.
 
I've posted this before and I'll post it again:
EPA Detailed Test Information will tell you everything you need to know about the various test cycles. The city cycle is not realistic and the only way to achieve the city EPA numbers is to drive the way they test it - avoid driving during rush hour and avoid routes with stop lights.

#528 of 752 Re: Use today's data for our Elantras [g2iowa] by m6user

Jun 16, 2012 (5:47 pm)

Replying to: g2iowa (Jun 16, 2012 8:59 am)
I don't care what other cars people were driving years ago, myself included. I only care about what my '12 Elantra GLS AT is achieving today in light of today's EPA estimate.
 
I understand that's it how you feel. I'm am not talking about comparing the MPG to a prior vehicles MPG. I'm talking about the ability of the previous vehicle to achieve the EPA numbers which is predicated on the type of driving the person does to a large degree. Which is what you are getting at. I'm also not talking about cars years ago. If you want to exaggerate that's fine but please consider: If you had a car, just prior to getting the Elantra, that the EPA said would give a combined avg of 28mpg and you averaged say 29mpg. Now I would say to achieve that, given how the EPA tests, one would be driving fairly conservatively. Now you get the Elantra and the EPA says 33 combined avg. Well, the avg person is going to think since they avg'd better than the EPA combined mpg before and my commute hasn't changed, that I should be able to at least achieve the Elantra's combined avg. Then, as hard as they try, they can only get 28 or 29mpg or worse avg. I would be questioning things also.
 
Ethanol, believe it or not, is all you can get in most major cities and surrounding areas and does not affect mpg more than about 4% which would be about 1mpg per gal so it's not a major player.
 
I don't disagree that avg mph can play a role. But like I explained..averages can be the combination many different speeds. Your 50mph avg may be accomplished vastly different than someones elses 50mph avg but on paper they look the same.
 
Unique driving factors are the same with one car as the other if the commute did not change. The conversation centers around how the Elantra does in regards to the EPA numbers but also how it does to the cars that people replaced. After all, high mpg is major factor that most of that most owners of Elantras considered before purchasing to replace their old vehicles.
 
This whole debate seems to center around many people that, try as they might, can't get anywhere close to the EPA numbers when they could before. They complain or look for help and many others(because their particular Elantras are getting the correct MPG) keep posting that it's their fault and they just don't know how to drive. Kind of condescending if you ask me. I agree there are some that are just complainers, you get that with all makes/models, but when somebody seems to genuinely have a problem it seems some people just want to make them out to be crazy or something.

#529 of 752 Use today's EPA method & data for our Elantras [m6user] by g2iowa

Jun 18, 2012 (6:39 am)

Replying to: m6user (Jun 16, 2012 5:47 pm)
Don't forget that the EPA significantly revised how it comes up with its estimates, so you really can't compare EPA estimates from even a few years ago to today. The apples to apples comparison is only with the EPA estimates under the current methodolgy. Supposedly, the earlier way was less realistic and more achievable, so no suprise more people achieved those earlier numbers. But we are talking about today's estimates with today's cars.
 
And there is absolutely no reason why anyone posting here can't provide all the relevant data that is at their fingertips. Only then can we all have a better picture about how they are driving and what they FE result is like in line with EPA estimate.

#530 of 752 Re: Use today's EPA method & data for our Elantras [g2iowa] by m6user

Jun 18, 2012 (7:16 am)

Replying to: g2iowa (Jun 18, 2012 6:39 am)
Supposedly, the earlier way was less realistic and more achievable, so no suprise more people achieved those earlier numbers.
 
I'm not forgetting the EPA changed at all. The EPA changed their methodology for the 2008 model year.....about 5 years ago, not like it just happened. So there are plenty of people that had cars that were replaced by the Elantra that were 2008 or newer.
 
You're wrong about the EPA making it more achievable. That is why they changed, the old method was hard to achieve for most people and the EPA was regarded as a joke so they changed their methodology to make it more realistic. Most cars that had the same drivetrain actually had their numbers reduced. Like my 2007 Mazda6. The revised numbers substantially reduced the MPG the EPA said my car could get. Funny thing was I never had a real problem achieving the old numbers. I didn't often surpass them but did achieve them regularly.
 
I think most people still measure their MPG by the gals/miles method over a period of time which is what I do. Most people realize if they drive in extreme conditions. Do most people underestimate the amount of time they spend in city driving? Probably, but the percentage amount they may be off would hardly result in the problems with MPG many of these people are having. The trip computers are nice but seem to be hit or miss on accuracy. If they are 5-10% off on MPG, I also believe they could be 5%-10% off on avg MPH. I agree that it would be nice to have every single iota of data to determine a complete picture but most people just aren't that anal about keeping track of all that relevant data.

#531 of 752 Re: Use today's EPA method & data for our Elantras [m6user] by backy

Jun 18, 2012 (8:42 am)

Replying to: m6user (Jun 18, 2012 7:16 am)
Most people realize if they drive in extreme conditions.
 
I am beginning to doubt that, based on the posts I've seen in the "fuel economy" discussions. Perhaps many people don't realize how extreme (compared to the EPA test regimen) their driving conditions are because: 1) they are "normal" for them, and 2) they don't know the details of how the EPA does its tests.
 
So they drive a car that, let's say for discussion sake, has an EPA rating (based on 2008 figures) of 21/29 with 24 mpg average. They have been able to achieve the 24 mpg number in their everyday driving. (And note this is a fully broken in car.) So they buy a new Elantra and expect they will achieve at LEAST 33 mpg, the EPA average FE number, in their everyday driving. And let's say they were able to achieve at least 29 mpg on the highway with the old car. So they expect to achieve at least 40 mpg with the new Elantra. Unreasonable assumptions? No. But maybe not good assumptions.
 
Why not? First, it's a lot easier for a car to achieve 24 mpg average or 29 mpg highway than for a car to achieve 33 mpg average and 40 mpg highway. For the two cars I am talking about here--a 2004 Elantra and a 2013 Elantra--the 2013 Elantra has 10 more hp and the weights are within a few pounds of each other. The 2013 has a 6AT vs. 4AT and is more aerodynamic, so it should be able to achieve better FE than the 2004. But at low speeds, as in city driving, those advantages are minimal at best. They really kick in on the highway, where the engine can rev lower due to the two additional cogs and the aerodynamics help--up to a point! Start driving over about 65 mph, and wind resistance will cut that FE quite a bit (which I saw first-hand on a long trip this weekend in a 2007 Sonata--FE went down considerably over 65 mph).
 
The other thing is, the old car and the new Elantra are different cars (duh). Thus what worked fine for getting at least the EPA rating on the old car may not lead to optimal FE in the new Elantra. It has different hp, differnt hp to torque ratio, it's geared differently, etc.
 
Please note that I am not saying that people who complain about the FE on their Elantras are stupid or crazy or whatever. But there are factors that can explain, other than "it's a conspiracy by Hyundai" or some-such, why some people can't hit the EPA numbers on their new Elantras when they were able to do it on their old cars. And there's also the possibility of sample defects (e.g. 4,000 complaints--a lot of complaints!--out of the 400,000 or so 2011+ Elantras sold to date is 1%--well within the range that can be explained by sample defects).

#532 of 752 Re: Use today's EPA method & data for our Elantras [backy] by m6user

Jun 18, 2012 (8:58 am)

Replying to: backy (Jun 18, 2012 8:42 am)
At least you're recognising that there is a possiblility of a 1% defect rate unlike many so called experts in here.
 
I agree wholeheartedly that most people don't know exactly what their true ratio city/hwy is. But I maintain that most have a pretty good idea. But I'm confused on your example. Why is it easier for the 2004 Elantra to achieve 24 city on the EPA test than it is for the 2013 Elantra to achieve 29? We're not talking wind resistance and the added hp and tranny ratios should still be an advantage even at lower speeds. Since it's a pretty standard test, shouldn't the 2013 Elantra be able to achieve it's rated city mpg just as easy? If not, should it really be rated at 29 city. I'm not so hung up on the EPA numbers per se, but I do use them for comparison as every car goes throught the same exact testing.
 
Maybe I'm missing something which has been known to happen from time to time.

#533 of 752 Re: Use today's EPA method & data for our Elantras [m6user] by backy

Jun 18, 2012 (10:27 am)

Replying to: m6user (Jun 18, 2012 8:58 am)
Why is it easier for the 2004 Elantra to achieve 24 city on the EPA test than it is for the 2013 Elantra to achieve 29?
 
I have no idea. That's not what I said in my post, and the EPA city rating of the 2004 Elantra is 21, not 24.
 
What I said was, it's harder for a car to achieve 33 mpg overall than 24 mpg overall. That's a 38% increase in fuel economy--for two cars that are about the same weight, the one with 33 mpg average is more powerful, and as I mentioned, the factors that work towards the high mpg don't come into play much in the lower-speed driving. Also, 40 mpg highway is harder to achieve than 29 mpg for two cars about the same size and weight and power (again, the higher mpg car is actually more powerful). Plus I see many folks comparing a well-broken-in car to a brand-new car, or one with only a few thousand miles on it. My experience with two Elantras purchased new is that FE improved over the first few thousand miles and got better up past 15k miles. And now at 70k miles my 2004 is still doing much better on FE than when new (always had recommended maintenance of course).
 
The 2013 Elantra should be able to meet its EPA city rating in city driving... of the kind similar to how the EPA runs its city cycle tests. I find when I drive a car--any car--in real-world all-city driving, I have a real hard time meeting the EPA rating. As I said, I don't think a lot of people have any idea how much their "city" driving differs from what the EPA considers "city" driving.

Messages Page 54 of 76

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement