backtop


Print 37 comment(s) - last by TheDoc9.. on Nov 17 at 2:13 PM


2011 Hyundai Elantra achieves 29 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway.
Hyundai continues its push for great fuel economy across the board

Even though many manufacturers are looking to hybrid vehicles to boost the fuel economy of their automotive fleets, advances in traditional internal combustion engines can also lead to increased in fuel economy. Last week, we told you about the Chevrolet Cruze Eco which achieves a healthy 28 mpg in the city and a whopping 42 mpg on the highway.

Not to be overlooked, Hyundai has announced that its all new 2011 Elantra will also reach the magic 40 mpg mark. According to Autoblog, the Elantra is powered by a brand new 1.8-liter "Nu family" engine that generated 148hp at 6,500 rpm and 131 pound-feet of torque at 4,700 rpm.

Motor Trend reports that these power figures and fuel economy are achieved using a 10.3:1 compression ratio and traditional port fuel injection. Direct injection is no doubt a feature that will be added down the road and should further improve power and fuel efficiency.

The resultant fuel economy is 29 in the city and 40 mpg on the highway. Those figures are for all models of the Elantra, and not just specific trim levels like the Cruze Eco. For example, while the Cruze Eco is rated at 28/42, other trim levels are rated at 24/36.

Hyundai made the bold claim earlier this year that it wants to meet a self-imposed CAFE of 50 mpg by 2025. Vehicles like the Hyundai Sonata hybrid and new Elantra should help it inch closer towards those goals.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Great, but how about the looks of it
By Gungel on 11/15/2010 7:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
Sure it's great news for Hyundai, but when are they going to change that god awful interior. It looks like they used 10 different designers, one for each control unit and than threw it all together.




RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/15/2010 7:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I like the exterior, but the interior is a ghastly mess.


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2010 9:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
All they did is copy the Civic and put swushier headlights on it.


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By TerranMagistrate on 11/15/2010 5:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad they can't copy the Civic's level of quality.


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By dougwenzel on 11/15/2010 6:51:27 PM , Rating: 4
According to the most recent JD Power IQS study, the top three Compact Cars in terms of quality are Ford Focus, Honda Civic and Hyundai Elantra.


By TheDoc9 on 11/17/2010 2:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
They might be ok quality, but his comment was about copying. Plus, I owned one a decade ago and no matter how much 'better' they've gotten I'll never own another.


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By Randomblame on 11/15/2010 12:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
hyundai interiors are god awful, my inlaws have a set of two 2010 accents a 2 door and 4 door and they are soooo uncomfortable. They sold us their 03 accent and I've had nothing but problems with it. However the problems are probably related to the fact that it has 250,000 miles on it and is only 7 years old! These things last a while when maintained. If only they could make the seats comfortable


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/15/2010 12:51:59 PM , Rating: 3
I actually just bought a 2011 Sonata SE 2.0T and the interior is quite pleasant.

But I don't really think you can go by Hyundai's cheapest subcompact econobox (2010 Accent) as a testament to its interior quality/design/comfort as a whole.


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2010 3:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
The commercials for that thing are some of the most ridiculous ones I've ever seen. As if a Hyundai Sonata, turbo or not, is going to be the least bit exciting. I can turbocharge my lawn mower, doesn't mean its going to be more fun to push around.


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/15/2010 4:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
Are you talking about the "Turbo Face" commercial? I think it's hilarious because that's the exact same expression I had on my face when I took my car to the highway for the first time last week.

The passing power from 60 to 80 is tremendous. Just tap on the gas, and the thing just hauls ass. After all, it does have 269 lb-ft of torque available between 1800 and 4500 rpm.


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By Spuke on 11/15/2010 4:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
Fit, have you driven a DI turbo 4 cyl yet? Pretty impressive. Power delivery is really smooth. There's no harshness even at idle. Now I'm going off the LNF. I would assume the Hyundai would be similar (they have more to lose at this point).


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2010 9:15:16 PM , Rating: 3
Have driven far faster cars. I'm not saying they can't be fun to drive. Just that there's nothing exciting about a Hyundai Sonata. Anything can pull on the highway with power. Putting a turbo 4 banger in a boring car doesn't make it an exciting car. I'd be more concerned with the brakes to slow it down.

Cars like the SRT4 and Cobalt SS Turbo at least put Brembos up front to match the slow to the go and pretty tight suspension. On Hyundai's website it doesn't look like they've done anything more than throw a turbo-charged 4 banger in an otherwise boring car.


RE: Great, but how about the looks of it
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/15/2010 10:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
That's assuming that everyone else wants an "exciting" car all the time. I wanted a family car that was powerful, reasonably priced, stylish, and fuel efficient.

All that power while returning 22/33 was appealing to me along with a 5/5/10 bumper to bumper/roadside assistance/powertrain warranty. You may have different criteria and that's perfectly fine.


By Alexvrb on 11/16/2010 10:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
Fit makes a good point. Why bother with all that power, if it doesn't have the suspension, handling, and stopping upgrades to match? I'm not saying its a bad car. But if they're going to advertise it as a high performance variant, put it on a mean track and see if it is worth its salt.

Also, I don't feel that was the only thing that fit your criteria... but you're a Hyundai fan, so it's only natural to get this car. Nothing wrong with that. I do like their powertrain warranty - I wish it was transferable though, because I never buy new.


By Shlong on 11/15/2010 2:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
The Hyundai Genesis interior is very nice, I would say it's similar to a Lexus GS. The new Sonata also has a very nice interior as well.


Higher mileage in Europe
By ssobol on 11/15/2010 9:15:53 AM , Rating: 1
The last couple of times I've been in Europe and rented cars I find that they have get much higher mileage than in the states.

In 2009 I rented a Ford Fusion (4-door hathback, different body than the US version). It was diesel and I got 54.9 mpg in normal combined driving around the UK (I was not driving in a manner to extend the mileage). I believe that this model of the Fusion will be available in the US in 2011 as a gas model, but will have a listed fuel economy in the low 30's.

In 2010 I rented some Nissan 4-door hatchback (don't remember the model, but haven't seen it in the US). This ran on gas and got 49+ mpg (same sort of driving).

Granted that a UK gallon is about 17% bigger than a US gallon, this difference does not entirely explain the different.

Why aren't some of these cars available in the US?




RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By protosv on 11/15/2010 9:43:52 AM , Rating: 3
The gasoline version of the UK Fusion gets 43 miles per british imperial gallon, which works out to just under 36mpg in US units. The rest of the difference might account for differences between the EPA's method of mpg measurement and the British equivalent agency's methods perhaps?


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2010 9:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
Also the difference between diesel and gas.


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By Flunk on 11/15/2010 10:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
Also, "Regular" fuel is higher octane than it is in the US. Around the same rating as "Premium" is here.


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2010 12:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Is there not midgrade and premium then? Or do they go up to 100 octane or so for premium gas. Would definitely make a difference in fuel economy and power as you could run higher compression ratios.


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By GreenEnvt on 11/15/2010 1:30:34 PM , Rating: 4
Not really, that is a common misconception.

North America rates octane using the formula (RON+MON)/2. Europe just uses RON. RON has a higher value than MON, so the European values appear higher, but in essence are quite similar (slightly higher, but nothing like it looks at face value).

Also, even if that were the case, higher octane doesn't mean better mileage or better performance unless the vehicle is equipped to detect and handle it. Lower octane is actually preferable in most cases, but at high compression ratios, you end up with pre-detonation which will damage the engine. Thus you need to use higher octane fuel, which resists burning more then lower, to prevent pre-detonation.


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By Richard875yh5 on 11/15/2010 9:51:23 AM , Rating: 1
Something of big importance is failed to be mention here. The high compression of the Hyundai engine will require premium fuel. Add that extra cost per gallon, and it now does not look that good. With the Eco Cruze, it is done using regular gas, a savings of about twenty cents per gallon over the Hyundai.


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By dougwenzel on 11/15/2010 10:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you see that? None of the information Hyundai has sent out says anything about needing Premium fuel?


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By goku on 11/15/2010 10:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
exactly, I see no mention of needing premium fuel either. Anyway this isn't all that high as some of toyota's engines are already like 10.5:1 CR and they too only require regular grade fuel. Part of the reason why they can have such a high compression ratio w/o needing premium is thanks in part to knock sensors and variable valve timing. Variable valve timing can be used if and when the car knocks and or to adjust the car's dynamic compression ratio which is the actual measure that you should lookout for. An example of this is the Prius with the compression ratio of 13:1 using regular gasoline but due to the valve timing, it's dynamic compression ratio is only like 9.5:1.

Compression ratios listed are only the "geometric" ratio, they do not take into account effective ratio like a dynamic compression ratio rating would.


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By Randomblame on 11/15/2010 12:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
It really depends on the design of the cylinder head and the shape of the combustion chambers. I have a 78 280z running a block from an 81 with flat top pistons and a cylinder head from a 74 to make just under 10:1. I had to do a little bit of work to the head to prevent detonation like grinding down the extra thread where the spark plugs go in and removing burs left by the machining process but it runs regular just fine with the ignition timing unmolested.

If I can build a 10:1 engine with different components from 30 year old engines and have it run regular I'm fairly certain hyundai can do it from scratch in 2010


RE: Higher mileage in Europe
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2010 3:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really see the point of having a high compression engine if you're just going to bleed all that compression out the exhaust valves. I had a 10.4:1 compression 355 in my 89 Camaro. Looking at the static compression it was barely on the verge of being able to run premium gas (carbed). But with the valve overlap of the cam, it bled off more compression than it should have.

Should've gone with the LT4 hotcam.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/15/2010 10:38:21 AM , Rating: 3
I HIGHLY doubt that Hyundai would release a non-sporting econobox that required premium fuel.


Not very impressive
By Rebel44 on 11/15/2010 8:10:45 AM , Rating: 1
Still much higher fuel consumption than VW Polo Bluemotion.




RE: Not very impressive
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/15/2010 8:18:39 AM , Rating: 3
The Polo is:

1) a subcompact IIRC while the Elantra is a compact
2) not even available here (in the U.S.)

So not exactly a fair comparison


RE: Not very impressive
By MrTeal on 11/15/2010 9:07:28 AM , Rating: 3
And 3) Elantra MSRP is US$14k, the Polo Bluemotion is $23k


RE: Not very impressive
By Rebel44 on 11/15/2010 5:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
VW Polo Bluemotion is $19K here incl. tax.


RE: Not very impressive
By Flunk on 11/15/2010 10:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
The bluemotion also has 75HP vs 148HP on the Elantra. That would be really difficult to drive on the highway.


RE: Not very impressive
By Rebel44 on 11/15/2010 5:11:21 PM , Rating: 1
1. I only need space for 4 people + some cargo, so this is big enough for me.

2. I dont care, I live in EU.


Looks like...
By Led12345 on 11/15/2010 8:14:36 AM , Rating: 3
Anyone else think the center console looks like the head of a Salarian from Mass Effect?

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Salarian




RE: Looks like...
By FITCamaro on 11/15/2010 10:01:06 AM , Rating: 3
I'm thinking you need to lay off the video games a bit.


RE: Looks like...
By Brockway on 11/15/2010 10:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
I see it.


2012 Ford Focus
By jah1subs on 11/15/2010 11:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
IIRC, the automatic transmission on the 2012 Ford Focus will be a 6 speed transmission, replacing the 4 speed transmission that has been in the Focus since the beginning. I will not be surprised to see this vehicle also get 40mpg highway, and not just some special version of it.




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki