'05 Accent Gas Mileage

Okie: I also have the 1.5 5 speed and get the mileage you quoted. I have always been amazed at how much lower the ratings were for the 1.6. If I were you I would wait for the 2006. They will have a new engine with variable valve timing and should get a substantial boost in MPG. Regards, Bob

Only problem is, the '06 is UGLY!

Okie

Doesn't matter. As recently as the 2002 model, the Accent 1.6/5spd got better EPA mileage figures than the 1.5/5spd. Either the EPA has changed the way they measure mileage, or the 1.6 is not as good now. Also doesn't make sense that the auto tranny should get better mileage, especially since it has a higher drive ratio than the manual.

Okie

"" wrote: > I am considering an '05 Accent GT with 5-speed. The "EPA" > mileage > estimate is 33 highway which seemed low to me, especially > since the > 4-speed auto was rated at 35 mpg. My '01 Accent 1.5 5-speed > was rated > at 35 hwy but gets 38-40 mpg. I was wondering if anyone here > has an > '05 5-speed and what mileage you get? > > Thanks, > Okie

a buddy of mine has a 04 accent 5spd. He gets 23 around town and 28 on the freeway. so be it he is a lead foot, but I have yet to find a car that meets the EPA MPG except downhill on a freeway with a tail wind. then again how much of your driving is level track with a 150lb driver and no extra weight when it doesnt matter how fast you get upto speed. I got a new test they can try: Any freeway, any city in the USA between 6-8am and 4-6pm. then tell me the MPG and I might beleive it.

This all seems rather odd considering that the larger, heavier Elantra gets better gas mileage with a 2.0 liter engine. My '04 GT consistently gets 34-35 mpg on the highway @65 mph and last week I averaged 36.2 (calculated, not the trip computer figure, which was 36.5) for a two-way trip to Cape Cod and back. It would have been even higher, but a couple of traffic jams knocked it down a half mpg or so. That's impressive for a car the size and power of the EGT. The only changes I've made to enhance the mileage are full synthetic engine oil (5W-30), synthetic transmission oil (Redline MT-90), and running the stock tires at 36 psi front/32 psi rear.

I would have thought that the Accent would get in the neighborhood of

38-40 highway mpg, with ease.

My '03 1.5L consistently does 30-33 MPG around town (more rural than city). Highway mileage at a very steady 65MPH is always 40+MPG.

That was the main reason I changed it. I live in NH, where it gets cold, too. With the synthetic, the tranny oil doesn't thicken anywhere near as much as with conventional oils. I would definitely recommend it for cold climates. The one caveat is that you must use a GL-4 oil in the Hyundai tranny. Do not use GL-5 or oils that claim to be GL-5/GL-4 compatible, which are what you will find at most auto parts stores. Redline MT-90 is GL-4 and Amsoil also makes a GL-4 oil, though I don't recall the name.

alot has to do with the weight vs engine size on how many MPG you get. If you know any jeep guys they are a good example of this: a 2.4l wangler gets about 2mpg more than the 4.0l because the engine in the

2.4l has to work harder for the same results. I have often heard that the elantra gets better milage than the accent, especially on the hwy, thoe I beleive EPA estimates argue that fact.

I ended up getting an Elantra GLS hatchback instead of the Accent. The Accent GT rode much stiffer than my '01 Accent, to the point of being uncomfortable. The deal I got on the Elantra was too good to pass up

-- $2200 more than the Accent, plus it had the moonroof and the upgraded stereo. They had a nice Elantra GT but it was an automatic and I desperately wanted a 5-speed. My first tankful of gas appears to have gotten 35+ mpg :-).

Okie

I Did the same math twice...have a blue 04 EGT & a red 05 EGT. The EGT is in a sweet spot of Price, Performance & Features. I bought 2..My mom got a 05 GLS,Bro got 04 GLS,Niece got a 05 GT all within a space of 14 months bookended between our 2.

Unfortunately, that flies in the face of facts about engine efficiency. Internal combustion engines are most efficient (horsepower produced for a given amount of fuel) at wide open throttle, since that's when the cylinders fill most efficiently. That's why overdrives increase fuel mileage; they force the engine to run at lower RPMs, which requires a larger throttle opening that increase efficiency. A smaller engine "working harder" should be more efficient than a larger engine, not less. If you look at vehicles that are available with multiple engines, the smaller engines always get better fuel mileage.

In the case of Jeep, a lot of their engines are "dinosaurs" with some of the lowest output for their size in the entire industry. This is especially true of older models.

some

Fair enough for the jeeps, but that only works when it is based strictly on the engine. In reality I could put a hamster in a wheel and have my car run off hamster power if everything was geared correctly. that would really save on gas...lol (remember 6th grade physics with the pullies) but the sad reality is we use the same (or very similar) gearing in all cars on the road today (especally in the same class). so it is very possible that you get better milage with a bigger engine. but since you can have 30 people behind 30 accents or just 1 and get 30 different MPG its kinda a mute point.

Gearing isn't the issue. It's engine efficiency which is better in a small engine due to better breathing at the larger throttle opening required for the same horsepower output and lower internal friction, what is commonly known as "pumping losses".

There's no doubt that the ultimate determiner of gas mileage is driving habits. It's also the biggest variable.

BTW, I think you mean "moot", not "mute". The former means "deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic", whereas the latter means "to muffle, reduce, or eliminate the sound of" or "a person who cannot or does not speak", according to Merriam-Webster.