backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by Jedi2155.. on Dec 10 at 6:10 AM

Organization claims a high number of drivers are unable to come close to mileage estimates

Most drivers know that when they buy a vehicle the estimates for fuel economy on the window stickers are just estimates. In the real world, driving the fuel economy can be much different. There has been more than the typical number of complaints about the fuel economy that Hyundai is claiming for its new Elantra.
 
Hyundai is claiming that the Elantra gets 29 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway for an combined rated of 33 mpg. The problem is that according to the higher than usual number of complaints about the efficiency of the Elantra, the real world mileage is in the mid-20 mpg range. Drivers that purchased the vehicle based in large part on the efficiency claims are understandably upset by the real world figures. 
 
 
Consumer Watchdog is asking the EPA to investigate the mileage claims for the Elantra. The letter sent to the EPA read in part:
 
A notable exception to this rule has caught the attention of Consumer Watchdog. For the two most recent model years, Hyundai Motors has actively marketed its base models of the Elantra on their very high 29/40 MPG, and 33 MPG average, leaving a trail of disappointed drivers. An Edmunds online Town Hall discussion on the Elantra attracted scores of drivers who can't, no matter how hard they try, duplicate such numbers. One very public example of this was USA Today tech writer Jefferson Graham, whose Sept. 22 article on his new Elantra expressed his disappointment that he averaged only 22 MPG, a gap that no "break-in" period seems likely to fill.
 
Consumer Watchdog also pointed out that while automotive publication Motor Trend named the 2012 Elantra a Car of the Year contender, the fuel economy it achieved in testing was only 26.5 mpg. That number was poor enough compared to estimates for Motor Trend to mention it in the review. The consumer organization is asking the EPA to retest the Elantra and if it finds the estimates Hyundai is giving aren't accurate to impose a fine on the automaker to compensate drivers.
 
 
One of the big selling pints of the Elantra was that the 40 mpg highway claim was for the normal model of the car whereas other automakers needed special trims to hit 40 mpg. Hyundai also has the Accent with the same 40 mpg claim. Chevy has touted a version of its Cruze, the Eco, which gets 40 mpg on the highway. Ford has a special version of the Focus with a claimed 40 mpg highway rating that is called the SFE.
 
In October of this year, Hyundai announced that it planned to offer a plug-in hybrid to go against the Prius called the Elantra Touring

Source: Consumer Watchdog



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Ford Focus
By The Raven on 12/5/2011 2:07:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Had I known the car wouldn't get over 32 mpg at 70mph then I'd have just stuck with my Jetta and not gotten a new car. I used to do those drives at 80-95 mph in my Jetta and still got 26-28 mpg. Why in the world did I buy a new car that's supposed to be tested to a more real world standard and claims 37 mpg highway to get something barely better than my 2004 Jetta?
I'm sorry (Really. Not just saying this to be a punk.) but you should know that different cars perform differently at different speeds. That is unless that all are shaped the same drive the same, etc. There are so many factors to determine your mileage and that is why the EPA numbers are estimates. There are a lot of people out there who think the gov't should brand every car with a number and then we can all make our decisions based off of that, but we all have different tastes and weights and climates and driving styles etc.

It sounds to me that you let your guard down because of these magic one-size fits all numbers that the gov't comes up with. Read MT, R&T, CR, etc. and then make your decision. Don't just rely on that sticker.

And BTW, my understanding is that 50-60 is closer to the optimal speed for maximum fuel economy. Of course this varies model by model but 55 seems to be a good rule of thumb.

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=best+fuel+economy+speed


RE: Ford Focus
By Stuka on 12/5/2011 3:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming level ground, in practice, RPM is the only factor in economy. The lowest RPM you can achieve in the highest gear for the speed you want will net you the best economy. There are obvious variables, ie. wind, hills, turns, throttle position, but the only practical control point is RPM.

My DSG will hit 6th gear around 45mph which puts the revs near 1800; which just happens to be the point before the turbo starts spooling. If I remember correctly, cruising at 45mph in 6th gives an instant economy easily in the 50s.


RE: Ford Focus
By Solandri on 12/5/2011 8:51:40 PM , Rating: 1
No, RPM determines at what point in the engine's efficiency curve you're operating. If your engine operates at peak efficiency at low RPM, then low RPM will help improve mileage. If its peak efficiency is at a higher RPM, then a low RPM will actually hurt mileage.

For energy needed to move the car, it's almost entirely dependent on velocity (assuming steady state speed). You have two main sources of energy consumption:

- A steady "hotel load" below which the engine's fuel consumption cannot drop (i.e. you're still burning that much stopped at a red light). The faster you go, the less of this energy you use per distance covered. So faster is better.

- Air resistance. This goes as roughly the cube of your velocity at high speeds, so the faster you go, the more energy you use per distance covered. So slower is better.

When you add these two together, both slow and high speeds consume more fuel. 40-50 mph is about where the sum of these two yield the least energy required per distance traveled. That's considered unbearably slow for highway travel, so the speed limit was set at 55 mph when the country was trying to cut oil usage.


RE: Ford Focus
By Spuke on 12/5/2011 9:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you add these two together, both slow and high speeds consume more fuel. 40-50 mph is about where the sum of these two yield the least energy required per distance traveled.
Depends on the car. Mine is in 4th (5 speed) at those speeds and that's definitely not where I get my best mpg. Between 60-65 mph is where my best mpg happens but I have been able to mix it up a little (a few miles of stop and go) and still get my best mpg.


RE: Ford Focus
By steven975 on 12/6/2011 1:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
I won't rate you down for this, but your assertion of RPM being the prime factor is false. The prime determinant is really the amount of air going through the motor. More air means more gas. In many ways, MPG is determined more by fuel consumption over time. Gearing, drag, engine displacement, and engine design all affect that.

My S2000 runs 4000RPM in 6th gear at 75mph, but returns better-than-rated highway MPG of 27MPG. Doing 4000RPM constantly in most cars will overheat the oil and/or make mileage go into the 10s. Some of it is due to some power and efficiency upgrades I've made, but it met the EPA number without it.

At 4000RPM, I don't need to press the throttle as much, so less air per stroke is coming in. At lower speeds, I need to use more throttle in 6th gear, so mileage is in the same ballpark. I've tested numerous cruising speeds from 60-80 and they're pretty much the same except when I approach 80 and drop 1-2MPG.

My engine is most efficient at higher RPMs, because it has a ported head, huge valves with high lift, and a low-mass forged rotating assembly. An engine with long intake runners, small valves with low lift, and a heavier cast rotating assembly will be more efficient at lower RPMs and get good mileage at that range.


RE: Ford Focus
By BioHazardous on 12/5/2011 5:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you should know that different cars perform differently at different speeds.


Hence the EPA's testing standards and the changes they made in 2007 to them to more accurately reflect real world conditions. I wouldn't expect EPA estimates to go from fairly accurate in 2004 to over estimating in 2007 with changes meant to reduce those estimates from years prior to 2007.

quote:
It sounds to me that you let your guard down because of these magic one-size fits all numbers that the gov't comes up with.


The government didn't come up with these numbers, the manufacturers did. They didn't just arbitrarily say it's this size car so it gets x MPG because of some government guide to lying about real world fuel economy.


RE: Ford Focus
By The Raven on 12/6/2011 10:51:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hence the EPA's testing standards and the changes they made in 2007 to them to more accurately reflect real world conditions.
Who's real world conditions? You missed my point I think.
quote:
The government didn't come up with these numbers, the manufacturers did.
Yes they did and the gov't checked them and said, "Yup, you guys are right on the money! We'll endorse your car with our seal of accuracy!"


RE: Ford Focus
By BioHazardous on 12/6/2011 11:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who's real world conditions? You missed my point I think.

*whose
I got your point and you seem to be missing mine. 70 mph is real world conditions. MN and Iowa both have interstate speed limits of 70 mph.

quote:
Yes they did and the gov't checked them

Checked isn't the same as actually doing the testing. People 'check' a lot of things without actually checking anything.


RE: Ford Focus
By The Raven on 12/7/2011 1:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Checked isn't the same as actually doing the testing. People 'check' a lot of things without actually checking anything.
Correct. This is what I am saying. You left out the important part
quote:
and [the gov't] said, "Yup, you guys are right on the money! We'll endorse your car with our seal of accuracy!"
This is why you were mislead. Because of this number that the EPA put on the window.
quote:
I got your point and you seem to be missing mine. 70 mph is real world conditions [sic]. MN and Iowa both have interstate speed limits of 70 mph.
70mph may be real world conditions, but do it for 300 miles and it no longer is. The EPA says that they factor in speeds up to 80mph. We don't know at what distance, and that is an important factor.

I'm not going to argue with you about what the number or conditions should be, I was just pointing out that it sounds like you let your guard down because of these numbers that the manufs and gov't collectively come up with. You should've checked C&D and others where they let you know specifics of their testing methods and they do them independent of the manufs (or political agendas). You are the one saying that you feel cheated. I agree. Screw the EPA. Don't defend their deception. (All this said, I find EPA estimates to be relatively accurate based on personal exp. I just think this is completely unnecessary.)


RE: Ford Focus
By MonkeyPaw on 12/5/2011 5:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
I've tested the best fuel economy speed on an isolated long stretch of paved road (straight as an arrow for miles). I just kept reseting my MPG meter on my 2010 Focus to see what was the optimal speed for best MPG. Sure enough, about 50-55mph was best, bringing 50MPG. At 60-65MPH, I got about 40MPG, and 70MPH brings in 35MPG. The Focus is a pretty slippery car, but aerodynamics can only take you so far.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














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