Topic: 2011 Hyundai Elantra

[rrocket]

Car was getting prepped today: it'll be ready tomorrow.  For those that care, that's 64 days after I signed the deal.  I decided against a spoiler for now until they have one in stock, and I can see what the rear visibility is like from inside.

ALREADY??  That was fast!!   

[safristi]

Huh...!!!    Manager's daughter.................free down pipe eh!!!

[Jaeger]

Better late than never, I guess.  Congrats on the belated delivery and please make with the pics when you can.

Jaeger

[Leviathan]

Checked this out at the auto show. The design language fits better on this than the Sonata to my eyes. Liked the car overall  . This, the Cruze, new Focus and Mazda3 are all very nice and would be in the running t'were I buying.

[mgaida]

I would like to know who Hyundai is paying off at the EPA or at NRC.  The automatic Elantra is rated at 41/58 mpg in Canada and, I believe, 29/40 mpg (smaller gallon) in the U.S.  In the most recent C&D comparo of small sedans, the mileage on the Elantra was 20 mpg (about 24 mpg in Canada).  Now granted, the C&D mileage likely includes all their 0-60 etc. testing, but also included quite a bit of highway driving.  In fact, this mileage was midpack among the other vehicles (Ford Focus, Chevy Cruze, Mazda 3s, Volkswagen Jetta) and was soundly beaten the the Focus.  Even the Autos.ca recent test only got 36 mpg, all on the highway.  We used to have a 2003 Honda Accord V6 that could get 36 mpg on the highway travelling at 10 over the limit generally.

Is anyone with a new Elantra getting even remotely close to the rated figures?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I would like to know who Hyundai is paying off at the EPA or at NRC.  The automatic Elantra is rated at 41/58 mpg in Canada and, I believe, 29/40 mpg (smaller gallon) in the U.S.  In the most recent C&D comparo of small sedans, the mileage on the Elantra was 20 mpg (about 24 mpg in Canada).  Now granted, the C&D mileage likely includes all their 0-60 etc. testing, but also included quite a bit of highway driving.  In fact, this mileage was midpack among the other vehicles (Ford Focus, Chevy Cruze, Mazda 3s, Volkswagen Jetta) and was soundly beaten the the Focus.  Even the Autos.ca recent test only got 36 mpg, all on the highway.  We used to have a 2003 Honda Accord V6 that could get 36 mpg on the highway travelling at 10 over the limit generally.

Is anyone with a new Elantra getting even remotely close to the rated figures?

EPA or NR Canada numbers are useful in comparing vehicles because they have standardized testing procedures, but serve as only a rough guide to what an individual will get on the road. EPA numbers are easy to achieve with a little restraint. NR Can numbers require a dedicated effort. Of course weather and road condition certainly can play havoc with fuel consumption too. That's why they always say, "Your mileage may vary".

Car and Driver typically get much worse than EPA numbers because their performance testing is included in their consumption numbers. I think it was during the testing of the Infiniti G37, they got it down to 13mpg. It is very unlikely that a typical driver will get that low.

[PJungnitsch]

CR got 39 mpg on the highway, so practically identical to the EPA 40 rating.

Their city results though are much lower, 20 vs 29 EPA.

[Erik]

Sounds like Hyundai have the EPA a ringer for their testing

[CatsEye68]

Sounds like Hyundai have the EPA a ringer for their testing

It's dummied up by the same guy who inflates their HP numbers...

[Jaeger]

I would like to know who Hyundai is paying off at the EPA or at NRC. 

Sounds like Hyundai have the EPA a ringer for their testing

And Ford, and Chevy and Mazda and VW - they all turned out pretty crappy mileage numbers in that test.  Hyndai was in the middle of those crappy results, none of which approximated the EPA figures.  It did better than the Cruze, though.  Who is Chevy paying off at the EPA?  Did they use a ringer for testing?  It's as fair a question for them - and the others tested - as it is for Hyundai.

Jaeger

[Ice]

I feel like they can get pretty realistic numbers for the highway test but the city test is far too variable for any testing regimen to give a fully accurate number. Ideally those are the numbers possible but it comes down to the type if city driving. City driving in Hamilton with the timed lights and typically less traffic means pretty decent fuel economy numbers. City driving in downtown Toronto on Young Street with people dashing out in front of you is going to suck (literally).

[PJungnitsch]

Sounds like Hyundai have the EPA a ringer for their testing

Cruze tested similarly, 17/36 for CR, 24/36 EPA. Down 19% for the city rating vs 21% for the Elantra. Might have been identical before CR rounded things to even numbers.


Interesting thing is the Sonata tested 18/39 for CR, 22/35 EPA

The city number is down 18%, again similar to the Cruze and the Elantra, but the highway test is up 11%.

Weight of all three:

Elantra, 2770 lbs
Cruze, 3130/3140 lbs
Sonata 3210 lbs

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Sounds like Hyundai have the EPA a ringer for their testing

Cruze tested similarly, 17/36 for CR, 24/36 EPA. Down 19% for the city rating vs 21% for the Elantra. Might have been identical before CR rounded things to even numbers.


Interesting thing is the Sonata tested 18/39 for CR, 22/35 EPA

The city number is down 18%, again similar to the Cruze and the Elantra, but the highway test is up 11%.

Weight of all three:

Elantra, 2770 lbs
Cruze, 3130/3140 lbs
Sonata 3210 lbs

IIRC the CR test loop is on public roads, so it is subject to varying conditions. Interesting numbers, but, like C&D, not ones I'd take to the bank.

[PJungnitsch]

Edmunds results for their long-term Cruze and Sonata (no Elantra yet):

Identical averages @25.2 (CR rates them at 26 and 27 combined, respectively)

Best highway mileage Cruze: 32.1, Sonata 33.9.

[Jaeger]

Edmunds results for their long-term Cruze and Sonata (no Elantra yet):

Identical averages @25.2 (CR rates them at 26 and 27 combined, respectively)

Best highway mileage Cruze: 32.1, Sonata 33.9.

Those are some surprising results, to say the least.

Jaeger

[wing]

\/ 

[dougjp]

Edmunds results for their long-term Cruze and Sonata (no Elantra yet):

Identical averages @25.2 (CR rates them at 26 and 27 combined, respectively)

Best highway mileage Cruze: 32.1, Sonata 33.9.

Those are some surprising results, to say the least.

Jaeger

Looks like the Cruze got all dressed up and then couldn't find its way to the party. The Cruze should have been a 1.8 - 2.0 L turbo as the optional engine instead of this messing around at the 'bottom end' of the food chain. OR, the base engine should have been the 1.4L turbo and just put the base engine buzzy boat anchor out to pasture. 

[Jaeger]

Looks like the Cruze got all dressed up and then couldn't find its way to the party. The Cruze should have been a 1.8 - 2.0 L turbo as the optional engine instead of this messing around at the 'bottom end' of the food chain. OR, the base engine should have been the 1.4L turbo and just put the base engine buzzy boat anchor out to pasture. 

The more I think about it the more I am scratching my head over these results.  Considering how much larger, more spacious and more powerful the Sonata is, the Cruze's failure to best it in fuel economy borders on the embarrassing.

Jaeger

[PJungnitsch]

Considering the Cruze/Sonata are basically the same weight and the Cruze 1.4 lacks direct injection, it makes sense.

After all in CR's test the Sonata tied the much lighter Elantra in highway economy.

[rrocket]

CR rated the Elantra as the only "Recommended" buy in the compact class....