Consumer Watchdog requests that the EPA re-test the 2011 and 2012 Elantra
02-05-12, 11:22 AM
#16
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Popular Mechanics just released this bit of info between the Ford focus and Hyundai Elantra.
Results
Counter to our original hypothesis, both cars demonstrated significantly* better fuel economy than advertised. Cruising along at 55 mph on the highway, our cars easily cleared 40 mpg and, astonishingly, approached 50. At higher speeds, with greater aerodynamic drag, the cars were still very efficient. They didn't quite get 40 mpg, but they were close. City results were equally* impressive, with each into the mid-30s. Bear in mind that we made no effort to be overly frugal—no drafting, no excessive coasting—and we made a point to keep up with traffic. Sure, we were a little light with the pedal, but slowpokes we were not.
What, then, should we make of our own previous fuel-economy tests and the cries of Consumer Watchdog? To put it simply, your results will vary, and that is why the window-sticker figures are called estimates. For our test, we simply concentrated a little more on thrifty driving than usual, and it was 40 F outside, so we didn't use the air conditioning. There will never be a lab test that can cover all environmental variables or account for how differently we all drive. But these two cars demonstrate that with very little behavior modification, 40 mpg is quite a realistic figure. Not only is it easy to achieve, it's easy to surpass, even under less than ideal conditions. If you choose a car with a high-economy claim and drive within reason, you should be able to match those window-sticker figures. Considering that these cars are also decent performers on the road, the benefit of this high-efficiency engineering really goes to consumers, who are apparently getting more than they've bargained for.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...0?src=soc_fcbk
Results
Counter to our original hypothesis, both cars demonstrated significantly* better fuel economy than advertised. Cruising along at 55 mph on the highway, our cars easily cleared 40 mpg and, astonishingly, approached 50. At higher speeds, with greater aerodynamic drag, the cars were still very efficient. They didn't quite get 40 mpg, but they were close. City results were equally* impressive, with each into the mid-30s. Bear in mind that we made no effort to be overly frugal—no drafting, no excessive coasting—and we made a point to keep up with traffic. Sure, we were a little light with the pedal, but slowpokes we were not.
What, then, should we make of our own previous fuel-economy tests and the cries of Consumer Watchdog? To put it simply, your results will vary, and that is why the window-sticker figures are called estimates. For our test, we simply concentrated a little more on thrifty driving than usual, and it was 40 F outside, so we didn't use the air conditioning. There will never be a lab test that can cover all environmental variables or account for how differently we all drive. But these two cars demonstrate that with very little behavior modification, 40 mpg is quite a realistic figure. Not only is it easy to achieve, it's easy to surpass, even under less than ideal conditions. If you choose a car with a high-economy claim and drive within reason, you should be able to match those window-sticker figures. Considering that these cars are also decent performers on the road, the benefit of this high-efficiency engineering really goes to consumers, who are apparently getting more than they've bargained for.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...0?src=soc_fcbk
02-05-12, 11:42 AM
#17
Lexus Champion
The thing with the Elantra is that if you're buying a car with noticeably higher fuel economy ratings than the competition, you expect better fuel economy under everyday conditions, regardless of if you actually hit the EPA ratings. If you buy a 40mpg Elantra and it gets similar fuel economy in the real world to cars rated much worse, it's easy to feel cheated.
02-05-12, 11:48 AM
#18
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing with the Elantra is that if you're buying a car with noticeably higher fuel economy ratings than the competition, you expect better fuel economy under everyday conditions, regardless of if you actually hit the EPA ratings. If you buy a 40mpg Elantra and it gets similar fuel economy in the real world to cars rated much worse, it's easy to feel cheated.
02-05-12, 01:18 PM
#19
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Park Ridge IL
Posts: 2,485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-05-12, 01:30 PM
#20
Popular Mechanics just released this bit of info between the Ford focus and Hyundai Elantra.
Results
Counter to our original hypothesis, both cars demonstrated significantly* better fuel economy than advertised. Cruising along at 55 mph on the highway, our cars easily cleared 40 mpg and, astonishingly, approached 50. At higher speeds, with greater aerodynamic drag, the cars were still very efficient. They didn't quite get 40 mpg, but they were close. City results were equally* impressive, with each into the mid-30s. Bear in mind that we made no effort to be overly frugal—no drafting, no excessive coasting—and we made a point to keep up with traffic. Sure, we were a little light with the pedal, but slowpokes we were not.
What, then, should we make of our own previous fuel-economy tests and the cries of Consumer Watchdog? To put it simply, your results will vary, and that is why the window-sticker figures are called estimates. For our test, we simply concentrated a little more on thrifty driving than usual, and it was 40 F outside, so we didn't use the air conditioning. There will never be a lab test that can cover all environmental variables or account for how differently we all drive. But these two cars demonstrate that with very little behavior modification, 40 mpg is quite a realistic figure. Not only is it easy to achieve, it's easy to surpass, even under less than ideal conditions. If you choose a car with a high-economy claim and drive within reason, you should be able to match those window-sticker figures. Considering that these cars are also decent performers on the road, the benefit of this high-efficiency engineering really goes to consumers, who are apparently getting more than they've bargained for.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...0?src=soc_fcbk
Results
Counter to our original hypothesis, both cars demonstrated significantly* better fuel economy than advertised. Cruising along at 55 mph on the highway, our cars easily cleared 40 mpg and, astonishingly, approached 50. At higher speeds, with greater aerodynamic drag, the cars were still very efficient. They didn't quite get 40 mpg, but they were close. City results were equally* impressive, with each into the mid-30s. Bear in mind that we made no effort to be overly frugal—no drafting, no excessive coasting—and we made a point to keep up with traffic. Sure, we were a little light with the pedal, but slowpokes we were not.
What, then, should we make of our own previous fuel-economy tests and the cries of Consumer Watchdog? To put it simply, your results will vary, and that is why the window-sticker figures are called estimates. For our test, we simply concentrated a little more on thrifty driving than usual, and it was 40 F outside, so we didn't use the air conditioning. There will never be a lab test that can cover all environmental variables or account for how differently we all drive. But these two cars demonstrate that with very little behavior modification, 40 mpg is quite a realistic figure. Not only is it easy to achieve, it's easy to surpass, even under less than ideal conditions. If you choose a car with a high-economy claim and drive within reason, you should be able to match those window-sticker figures. Considering that these cars are also decent performers on the road, the benefit of this high-efficiency engineering really goes to consumers, who are apparently getting more than they've bargained for.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...0?src=soc_fcbk
And main problem is that other cars get better real life numbers, while having worse EPA numbers. It shows that Hyundai for instance, has heavily optimized for the EPA cycle to get the best results possible.
As I said long time ago, this was bound to happen - for instance real life data shows Elantra doing worse than Corolla in real life, as reported by users, and at the same time, Elantra users expect to get better mpg because thats what they saw when they compared the two cars.
02-05-12, 01:40 PM
#21
The thing with the Elantra is that if you're buying a car with noticeably higher fuel economy ratings than the competition, you expect better fuel economy under everyday conditions, regardless of if you actually hit the EPA ratings. If you buy a 40mpg Elantra and it gets similar fuel economy in the real world to cars rated much worse, it's easy to feel cheated.
Corolla is rated 26/34 and averages 33 MPG on fueleconomy.gov, while Elantra is rated 40 mpg highway, and gets 29.5 MPG on average.
Obviously a lot of people who purchased Elantra did so because stellar economy.
Same goes for Sonata Hybrid. Sonata Hybrid in real life gets 33.5 MPG while OLD Camry, which should be 5 MPG less, gets 36.5 MPG. A lot of people upgraded from Camry to Sonata Hybrid due to fuel economy and what do you think happens when it sucks?
on the other hand Sonata 2.4l gets excellent fuel economy and nobody is complaining about its scores, many people are posting good numbers everywhere, which is good for their sales.
02-05-12, 05:15 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Last edited by DaveGS4; 02-06-12 at 07:46 PM. Reason: Flippant and inappropriate reply, do not direct emails to that address for the purpose of your insults again.
02-05-12, 06:11 PM
#23
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by DaveGS4; 02-06-12 at 07:45 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LexFather
Car Chat
25
07-11-12 11:55 PM
