EPA mileage ratings is bull? (Elantra vs Civic vs Corolla)
 

My sister recently decided to buy her first car. She is rather cheap when it comes to cars and therefore fuel efficiency, price and maintenance are all top priorities. She recently test drove the elantra, civic and the corolla. really liked the elantra. I decided to ask her why she hasn't test drove the fit? it has ample cargo and very reliable. Well it turns out the fit is only rated 34mpg highway and the elantra is 39mpg according to US government fuel economy ratings. So i thought to my self this just can't be right, I have driven both the elantra and the fit as rentals and I remember the fit using same if not less than elantra. Surely to find out and to bypass the EPA rating gimmicks I looked at sites like truedelta and fuelly and what I found was according to my thoughts. The fit does in fact average better MPG returns than the elantra. I see 7.8L/100km for the elantra and 7L/100km for the fit. So this begs the question whether EPA ratings are to be totally ignored? I sometimes see new cars with big V6 engines having better EPA ratings than my old corolla, but when you drive them you average much MUCH less than that. eg. ford mustang v6, chrysler 200 and acura RDX.

Wasn't Hyundai one of the companies with grossly overstated EPA numbers ?

There is this, and how they drive. The v6 Mustang gets wicked fuel economy, the 200 is a chrysler, and who is driving the RDX?

The EPA runs the exact same test. So under the exact same conditions, it should show how they compare.

How often are Fits taken to a drag strip? (Mustang turf)

How often are Mustangs driven efficiently? (Fit turf)

How often are RDX owners caring about their fuel economy? (Who cares about cost, turf)

But I do not trust hyundai or their EPA numbers, either.

The wife gets about $90 a year (from Kia) for the overestimate of MPG on her 2012 Sorento. The sticker said 32 highway, now they dropped it to 29 highway. Some Hyundai and Kia models were worse. I could get 32 but only under conditions where my Fiesta (rated at 38 highway) would get over 50.

I can usually meet or beat the top numbers on fuelly, if those numbers are real. Those that do better than my self, on fuelly, are either wrong or drive-ride at slower average speeds. My average speed is high 30s to mid 40s or more on road trips. I have averaged 70 MPH on a few trips without fuel or food stops.

regards
Mech

I'm quite sure some OEMs are 'gaming' the EPA ratings much more than others. There are cars known to get above epa ratings (VW TDIs for example), and cars that get consistently below (kia / hyundai).

The EPA rating system is not the problem. It is those few car makers who cheat & lie that are the problem.

Once they know the test and how it's conducted, they can build the car specifically to get good numbers on the test. Not necessarily to get the best numbers in the real world.

It depends on the kind of driving you do, too. The Fit and most other subcompacts are marketed as "city" cars with close ratio transmissions that aren't going to do as well at 65+ mph.

Absolutely true. The Elantra is a better highway car. Pick the right horse for the course.

The adjusted/new EPA numbers for the Elantra are spot on. Except when its cold of course. Below 40*F the car struggles. With an upper grill block and tires at 40ish psi this summer I got a round trip average of 40mpg at 65 miles an hour. The trip mph avg was 62. 360 miles each way. 30miles of city and 5-10 minutes of idle at the boarder check point included.

I forgot to mention I run ~2100 rpm at 65mph. Pale what rpm does the fit run?

The Canadian fuel consumption ratings and the US EPA are quite different for my Corolla. Just for highway...

Canada - 5.6L/100km highway, 50mpgImp, or 42mpgUS
USA - 6.7L/100km, ~42mpgImp or 35mpgUS

The city ratings have about the same kind of spread. That is quite a variance IMO. Of course I aim for the Canadian ratings as they are more challenging and I usually meet them occasionally beat them, but I have to drive with fuel economy in mind to do it. The US EPA ratings..I could match that driving like a hooligan. I can get those kind of numbers with the LeSabre.

In looking at some of the ratings for the same car from the UK, they more match the US EPA ratings. The testing must have some huge variances between the two countries. I don't completely understand what is happening.

The Mazda 3 is another car that has large differences, I am sure there are a lot more out there.

Sorry off topic but if your sister is looking at cars...I like the new Mazda 3's. If I could go back and do my car purchase over I would definitely look at the new 2014 Mazda 3. Not to mention the Mitsubishi mirage. How can you pass up a new car priced at under $14,000. If the geo metro owners on here are any indication of what a 3 cylinder car can do mpg wise then this car should perform well in the real world.

Buy her a gauge to go with her new vehicle, and make sure she buys something from Japan.

Absolutely!

And unless she's doing the majority of her driving on the freeway, she should seriously consider getting a manual. Honda Fit manuals can do remarkably well in sub/urban driving. Pale can show that. Also see: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post337338

http://ecomodder.com/imgs/attachmentfit.jpg
(Note these results are from plain, vanilla driving techniques -- nothing you wouldn't encourage your mom to do. This Fit's owner in this case wasn't able to match the 41.2 MPG "demonstration" results very closely during the "coaching" lap, but most drivers could.)

Remember, the EPA does not do the testing. They lay out testing rules, and the automakers are left to do the testing themselves and report the numbers to the EPA.

However, the EPA is focusing more on auditing what the OEM's report -- http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ims-27224.html .

2850 at 60, so ~3100 at 65. That's its big handicap on the highway.

Holy crap! I do like 2400 at 60, maybe 2550-2600 at 65. Is 5th just really short?

Thanks Pale, just trying support you comment about right car for the right job. Highway vs urban driving. Thats some crazy high highway rpm. Not that I think she should buy an Elantra. I don't think it is suited for a Canadian winter.

That is really low gearing...I know someone else who runs that RPM on the highway...my friend's Nova, with 4.10 rear and 3-spd, no overdrive lol.

I can't understand why they wouldn't build the car to be more "well rounded". I was considering the Fit as a car to look into if the Saturn ever dies but with my life being 90% highways, 3000rpm just won't do... Cross Fit off my list of options lol.

Metro: are you recommending an auto for a highway car? Care to explain why? I know autos are caught up to manuals when it comes to efficiency but I thought manuals still have the advantage?

Sorry for the thread hijack, like I said, I've been looking at cars just to start my homework early that way if I need to make a quick decision in the future I'll have more knowledge of the market

Why's that? Hyundais are very popular up here. Three of my co-workers had or have Hyundais, and we do a lot of driving in snowy conditions.

And diesels will win the highway RPM test. I run about 2,000 RPM at 65 mph...until I shift into 6th :p

He is stating that the auto could be used on the highway, I don't think he recommended it, more of a if you have to it could be used.

The reason autos trash manuals in some models is because of ideotic gearing used on the MT varient, all autos loose a few percent over the MT at a minimum, they just usualy now come with better gearing.

From my experience the elantra does not due well in the cold. Sub 50*F, I see at least a 15-25% drop in efficiency if not more in the winter. I don't know if anyone else sees that bad of a change. Texas is usually 80-30F in the winter and 70-110F in the summer. These are really rough numbers.

Well, all cars will suffer in the cold. I've never heard of Hyundais being worse than anything else, but I suppose it's possible. All I know is my old boss's started at -25F.

Where is the air intake on the elantra? If it is a stock 'CAI' of sorts, then that could, at least partially, explain the big drop.

It does have 2-3??? separate tubes for bring air into the air filter box. One is blocked by my upper grill block at the moment. Maybe I need to look into a WAI.

The automatic Fit does a lot better. It's at 2150 @ 60 mph instead of 2850. The advantages of a manual are mainly at low speed, so if your driving is mainly highway I wouldn't hesitate to get the auto.

Thanks for explaining everyone. Seems every nugget of info. I get about the auto industry, the more I hate it. Manuals with only "sport" gearing...how about adding an "eco" gear resulting in a close ratio 5spd with a big overdrive 6th...or 7th...I don't car how many of their gears I have to skip, just give me over 45mpg@65mph...

YES! If you're doing the sport thing you're going to be in gears 1,2,3. My 3rd gear maxes out at 78 mph, 4th at 108. Who needs a "sporty" 5th gear? If you're driving that way you're not going to be using 5th.

wow thanks for all the responses people. She did consider the manual but with heavy traffic that might be a pain so she will probably go for the auto. we did a 24hr test drive of both the fit and the elantra this week and thr fit returned about 28mpg for city driving and the elantra about 23mpg. the fit was also more fun to drive and had lots of cargo for her needs. the elantra had more gadgets and she liked the technology better. 23mpg was a turn off for me since thats what I get with my 4wd subaru around town. but that could be because the hyundai only had 10k miles. although the hyundai was better equipped she will probably buy the fit for lower costs. I still think hypermiling in the fit will return better results with smaller more proven engine and the 100lbs weight saving.


but back to epa ratings I have more examples. my subaru which weighs nearly 3200lbs and has a full time AWD system returned about 33.5mpg for a 150 mile highway trip with no fancy tricks. I just cruised at 70-75mph the whole way. this is much better than the 27mpg epa rating. at the same time driving the hyundai for a short while on the highway returned only about 36mpg for about 70mph cruising (lower than epa). I noticed that a lot of times on slight grades and uphills the elantra had to downshift to maintain speed (a no no in hypermiling). the subaru however could just take the grade without downshifting, this was in part due to the higher displacement as well as shorter gearing (2800rpm at 70mph). I think the epa doesnt take grades and more realistic factors into consideration. yes I didnt have time to take the elantra for a 150mile exact same trip but we averaged 5mph slower highway speed. didnt have time to test the fit on the highway but at one time I saw the trip computer dip into 40mpg territory while cruising at 70mph for a short while. the honda tranny downshifted less than the elantra on the highway.

ps. it seems epa highway tests are done at 48mph avg speed. of course real world highway speeds are much higher. also apparentlly tests are done on chasis dynos which doesnt take aero drag into consideration?

At a steady 65mph the Elantra will return its epa 38mpg. At 75mph 33mpg. With a upper grill block and tires at 41-42 psi I returned just over 42 mpg at 65.

The EPA is working on auditing manufactures data in order to try to take car of discrepancies.

I hope the fit works out well for her.

I'm sure you are already aware but most oem on board computers are optimistic in their readings. The Elantra's readout is typically ~2 mpg higher than the actual calculations for my fill ups.

The decreased avg speeds that the EPA runs its testing at will not compare well to real world driving (people doing 70+ on the highway). This fact means for most people the numbers won't match. You car exceeding the EPA's numbers is not unheard of, Honda may also be conservative with its EPA numbers. For example, if you look at Pale's speed vs mpg chart for his Honda fit.

yes the onboard computer on my subaru is about 7% too good. I think in my case though it's an unscaled MAF sensor. in anycase I use a calibrated scangauge 2.

Exactly my frustration with the TSX. It will win a drag race against the same car with an automatic, but revs at 3000 RPM at 70 MPH. With 6 close-ratio gears, this is ridiculous. There isn't a racetrack with a straight long enough for me to need 6th gear, so it's useless as a racing gear, and useless as a gear on the highway. I've yet to encounter a mountain pass steep enough to cause me to downshift.

While a single experience is useful as a single data point, there are so many variables at play that could return different results.

I got 38.3 MPG headed East on a trip, and on the exact same section headed back, got only 32.4 MPG, and this despite an elevation drop going West. The variable at play was the wind. I had a strong tailwind on the trip out, and a strong headwind coming back.

I can remember a few decades ago that EPA ratings were quite accurate and in line with actual, real world results. Not any more.

After quoting the EPA rating, car manufacturers' ads used to say the disclaimer "your mileage may vary". I recently heard radio commercials for Lincolns that actually say "your mileage will vary" (my emphasis).

Probably nobody noticed this. Probably most prospective Lincoln owners wouldn't care, either... :rolleyes:

So yes, EPA ratings are now mostly fantasy or 'puffing' the product.

I dont know some manufacturers were good with their ratings like honda, but they too have starting spitting out inflated numbers with their new cars like the civic. in canada they claim 47mpg! the civic has virtually stayed the same since 2006 with minor cosmetic changes. in canada the mileage rating system is just criminal.

Two things about the Canadian / NRCAN ratings:

1) NRCAN MPG uses Imperial gallons (~20% larger than US gallons). So you can't compare NRCAN MPG to EPA MPG without converting.

2) NRCAN testing is still based on the old 2 cycle approach. The EPA has significantly changed its testing/reporting methodology since the days of the 2 cycle tests. So our two countries' ratings have not been aligned since pre-2008.

I was not comparing imperial gallon. I simply converted 5l/100km (civic highway) to US MPG on google.

The Mustang and the Insight are not optimistic in their numbers. I haven't calculated how low they are, but I record it at each tank, and it's usually off by 3-5 mpg. The last two Insight tanks were optimistic by a MPG or two.

I don't think the EPA numbers are to show real world, they are to compare vehicles to one another. So the Fit or Elantra or Civic or whatever should not be expected to always hit those numbers, rather, if the Fit is the most fuel efficient in the city, all things being equal, the Fit will be the most fuel efficient in the city COMPARED to the others.

If the Fit gets 40 MPG highway,
the Civic gets 20 MPGh,
the Elantra gets 10 MPGh,
but the test is at 65 mph, then at 85, they should be in that order efficient to least efficient- not necessarily the same performance.