2014 HYUNDAI

A couple of weeks ago I rented a 2014 Elantra for a 1200 mile trip. 4 cyl, 6 speed trans., tire press 33#s calm wind and the AC on. Avg MPG from the on
board computer was 41 MPG for the trip. I thought that was outstanding, I was wondering if the MPG computer is all that accurate, any thoughts?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B.C. MALLAM wrote:

I rent cars about every 1.5 weeks and drive about 1000 miles each time. I've found the electronic mpg meter to be fairly accurate on all cars that I rent, usually within 1 mpg compared to writing down mileage and computing.
The best average I've been able to do in an Elantra (April 2014) was 33.7 mpg. Mileage depends on how and where you drive. I always check tires, air cleaner, fluids, etc. before starting off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/2014 11:08 AM, B.C. MALLAM wrote:

That is remarkable. I have to think you were on the highway/freeway most of the time in 6th gear: automatic or manual transmission?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We get about 36.5mpg overall city/highway, so 41mpg looks reasonable to me.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/14, 8:41 AM, in article lmn7ln$osq$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, "Victek"

Automatic 6th gear, Texas to Nebraska--flat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/6/2014 6:17 AM, B.C. MALLAM wrote:

>

That explains it. I guess there's some advantage to living on the "plains" :-) It's interesting to note that rated MPG for the 6spd automatic is actually 1 MPG higher then the manual.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Automatics have come a long way since the '55 Chevy Powerglide. They not only lost slippage of the old days, they know when to shift by computer control better than by most drivers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/7/2014 4:46 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

It's great to see that the automatics have improved to this extent. They even allow for manual override for those who still want to move a stick around. I don't see any advantage to the manual anymore, except perhaps to save some money at the initial purchase.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, June 7, 2014 5:36:47 AM UTC-10, Victek wrote:

Manuals are kind of a drag. I tried out a Suzuki Aerio with a manual and my left leg started cramping up half-way through the drive i.e., I'm getting too old for this shit.
My Passat has a 5-speed automatic that shifts into high gear as soon as it can. It's well suited to my driving style. There is a manual mode but with a 1.8L four in a 3700 lb car, it's not so much fun. My Sonata was a lot mor e fun with the automatic in manual mode. That's pretty much what 240 HP wil l do for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Few more factors for me:
- Lower maintenance cost/higher reliability of manual transmission. - Rentals in much of the world are still cheaper if manual, so by buying stick only I ensure that all of my family can drive any car anywhere in the world. - Maybe it's just me but I am definitely less "engaged" driving automatics, bordering on being sleepy and losing attention.
DK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/11/2014 7:56 PM, DK wrote:

True on the lower maintenance, but in 50 years of driving I've had one automatic go bad but have replaced a couple of clutches and a synchronizer.
Agree on knowing how as you point out other countries are mostly stick.
Only time I'd feel sleepy is cruising on the highway in high gear where shifting would be rare anyway. I do like driving a stick once in a while, but not all the time. PITA in heavy traffic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I haven't replaced a clutch yet in 40 years of driving standard shift cars and trucks. Then again, I rarely go past 150,000 miles before the PA rust gets to my vehicles. My current pickup is a 1994 Chevy with 147,000 miles including 13 winters of plowing snow and it is still going strong on the original clutch.
I know people who can wear out a clutch in 30,000 miles. That is why most American cars are automatics - most Americans can't use a clutch properly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/11/2014 1:56 PM, DK wrote:

I've never had problems with automatics. I've had to replace the clutch assemblies on 4 of my cars. I would never call them low maintenance.
I'm just waiting around for self-driving cars so I can fit some nappy time in. Boy, that would be wonderful!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:56:17 PM UTC-4, DK wrote:


s,

I don't think the lower maintenance cost is true any more. Most automatics have fluid designed to last 100,000 miles or the life of the vehicle. At the same time, clutches are becoming more and more expensive. I've seen cl utch replacement prices higher than automatic transmission replacement (fac tory remanufactured) prices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's pretty crazy. Clutch replacement nearing $2K???
Good to know about the newer automatics. My knowledge of them is firmly in the last century.
DK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/2014 2:08 PM, B.C. MALLAM wrote:

From my experience, they are optimistic. I've had three cars with mpg readouts and they were 1 to 3 mpg higher than actual. It also varied from tank to tank.
I've read where others said they were very accurate. Never heard of one reading under though. I'd say in real terms, you got from 37 to 41 mg.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>

Perhaps we are getting US and Canadian gallons mixed in here too. I believe that 41 mpg imperial is 34 mpg US.
--
Jim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.