Gas mileage revisited

[captainofiron]

This horse has been beaten to death, it's the speedo being optimistic ONLY, odometer is on the money, it's SOP for decades with most cars.

not to beat another dead animal, but thats not an Standard Operating Procedure, its more likely a CDP, or LBI

(sorry for the nitpick, but Im an engineer)

[Shawn S]

2-Weeks of ownership and 1,200 miles on the car and I’m getting a consistent 29-30 MPG calculated.
The ECO coach is always a bit optimistic of course, but I’ve gotten 3 ECO points already.
Keeping the RPM’s low are key which means driving in 5th & 6th more than I’m used to.

[Mingo85]

I wonder if they'll ever explain why the revised fuel efficiency labels don't even match up from country to country. For example Canada and the United States. It makes you wonder sometimes.

So I calculated on Google the US MPGs to L/100km and this is what I came up with (hopefully not a repeat post):

hyundaimpginfo.com (VT AT):
City = 24 mpg (9.8L/100km)
Hwy = 31 mpg (7.6L/100km)
Comb = 28 mpg (8.4/100km)

hyundaifuelconsumption.ca (VT AT):
City = 8.5L/100km (27.7 mpg)
Hwy = 5.8L/100km (40.6 mpg)
Comb = 7.3L/100km (32.2 mpg)

That's quite a bit of variance, wouldn't you agree? I mean many go on to beat about how it differs from the label but even the labels differ from one another. Just seems weird. I don't think they could be enough different in the cars to make that happen right? In fact in Canada we come with so much more standard equipment (including the spare tire), realistic just by assumption our label should be less efficient since they are likely heavier out the door. I don't know, seems weird...

EDIT: This was with the AT Turbo. For MT Turbo it looks like this

hyundaimpginfo.com (VT MT):
City = 24 mpg (9.8L/100km)
Hwy = 35 mpg (6.7L/100km)
Comb = 28 mpg (8.4/100km)

hyundaifuelconsumption.ca (VT MT):
City = 8.3L/100km (28.3 mpg)
Hwy = 5.7L/100km (41.3 mpg)
Comb = 7.1L/100km (33.1 mpg)

EDIT2: For NA V

hyundaimpginfo.com (NA V DCT):
City = 28 mpg (8.4L/100km)
Hwy = 37 mpg (6.4L/100km)
Comb = 31 mpg (7.6/100km)

hyundaifuelconsumption.ca (NA V DCT):
City = 7.2L/100km (32.7 mpg)
Hwy = 5.2L/100km (45.2 mpg)
Comb = 6.3L/100km (37.3 mpg)

hyundaimpginfo.com (NA V MT):
City = 27 mpg (8.7L/100km)
Hwy = 37 mpg (6.4L/100km)
Comb = 31 mpg (7.6/100km)

hyundaifuelconsumption.ca (NA V MT):
City = 7.5L/100km (31.4 mpg)
Hwy = 5.3L/100km (44.4 mpg)
Comb = 6.5L/100km (36.2 mpg)

All for 2013 models only. List getting too long already...

[Kenster]

Veloster Turbo (Automatic): I get ~270 miles on a single tank (base on ~ 11 gallon). From my own calculation, I average 23 mpg. :/

[Shawn S]

Based on some of the posts in this thread, I really think that some people don't know how easy it is to ACCURATELY check the MPG's.
You can't just say "I get XXX miles per tank" and go from there.

It's real easy....Follow these steps.

Fill up the gas
Reset one of the trip counters to 0
drive---drive---drive
Fill up the gas again and then record the miles from your trip counter and the gallons you put in from the pump

Miles / gallons = MPG

That's it....REALLY That's all there is to it.



Sent from AutoGuide.com App

[snooze]

I just based mine on the computer.

[Kenster]

Based on some of the posts in this thread, I really think that some people don't know how easy it is to ACCURATELY check the MPG's.
You can't just say "I get XXX miles per tank" and go from there.

It's real easy....Follow these steps.

Fill up the gas
Reset one of the trip counters to 0
drive---drive---drive
Fill up the gas again and then record the miles from your trip counter and the gallons you put in from the pump

Miles / gallons = MPG

That's it....REALLY That's all there is to it.



Sent from AutoGuide.com App

That's exactly how I calculate mine. The numbers I have posted are just rough average estimates. I don't know how others get such high mpg.

[snooze]

who based it on the computer readout?

I do

[Kenster]

I do

its not accurate

[Mingo85]

Whatever the computer is doing to track to provide the readout it is as flawed as their slow clocks. I went to the pump once with 6.3L/100km on the read out. After I brought the receipt home with a picture of my odo and trip counter, I was over 8L/100km. I have no idea what's going on there but it is weird... I know it is tracking stuff as fresh from the pump you can see it go up on idle at the first light you first, you can see it react to large amounts of revving and then react to huge stretches of steady speeds. But what formula/methods they use, it sure isn't accurate...

What I really don't understand is how the labelled FE can differ so greatly between the US and Canada that in some instances it is almost 10 MPG difference.


For example:

hyundaimpginfo.com (VT AT):
Hwy = 31 mpg (7.6L/100km)

hyundaifuelconsumption.ca (VT AT):
Hwy = 5.8L/100km (40.6 mpg)

[Ricky-D]

Seeing that the average mpg indicated on the dash resets each tankful of fuel, it is easy to understand that it is not too accurate, but only a guide to how efficiently you are driving. Much like the instant mpg you can choose to watch which is in the same information block.

The average MPG figure you see, is a buffered accounting as opposed to an instant computation and additionally it is attenuated with the driving habit of the previous few miles

The most noticeable and easiest time to see this would be at a fill up on the interstate. Jumping right back on the interstate, you know what kind of mileage you are getting but the average mpg figure doesn't just jump right back up to that figure, but slowly starts to climb, until it gets back to where you expect it to be. It's like 10.8 mpg, then 14.4 mpg, then 20.6 mpg, and so on, until it settles back in, at the correct figure.

***

[dianebrat]

I wonder if they'll ever explain why the revised fuel efficiency labels don't even match up from country to country. For example Canada and the United States. It makes you wonder sometimes.

So I calculated on Google the US MPGs to L/100km and this is what I came up with (hopefully not a repeat post):

A: Different countries have different testing methods, this will naturally lead to different results.
B: You're from up north, are you compensating from a US gallon to an imperial? that's the most frequent mistake folks make.

[Mingo85]

A: Different countries have different testing methods, this will naturally lead to different results.
B: You're from up north, are you compensating from a US gallon to an imperial? that's the most frequent mistake folks make.

A: Makes sense, it did cross my mind but I figured that having such varied results didn't seem like it would more sense then taking one tested result and just converting it so it would be consistent across the board. But I guess different countries have different requirements and standards for testing. Still quite silly how different they could be.

B: Definitely took the time to double check my work and not make such a silly mistake. If it was imperial MPG, we'd hit almost 54MPG on the NA V highway.

Thanks for the further info on the computer Ricky-D I think that will be good info for others who ever have any similar curiosities. It makes more sense if I track back to my normal habits and the instances I have that are out of habit that doesn't seem to get captured by the computer.

Went for a fuel up today, it was the most accurate it has ever been. Manual calculation was 7.194L/100km and the computer had 7.1L/100km. Maybe some of the variance is because of variance in pump cut off when we fuel up? I guess anything that could effect the calculations would be considered a contributing factor.

[dianebrat]

B: Definitely took the time to double check my work and not make such a silly mistake. If it was imperial MPG, we'd hit almost 54MPG on the NA V highway.

Pretty much my reason for asking, we had a northern member in here INSISTING he was getting 54 MPG US, and he never understood why I said it's not comparable to a US rating, and it's exactly the number you get when you use the IMP gallon.

[Curmudgeon]

Are all V engines in the U.S. CARB compliant, i.e. same emission standards, same horsepower, etc. It makes sense that the answer is yes with 13 states now having adopted CARB standards, but I am having difficulty confirming it.

I would bet however that CDN and other V engines are not the same as U.S. engines re: emissions and, therefore, hp/mpg.

[Mingo85]

Pretty much my reason for asking, we had a northern member in here INSISTING he was getting 54 MPG US, and he never understood why I said it's not comparable to a US rating, and it's exactly the number you get when you use the IMP gallon.

I can see where/how people could make the mistake though. I do recall the days when it wasn't so obvious. Could it be possible that whoever did the table screwed it up? I mean the numbers seem closer to imperial MPG for the Canadian V's when you punch out the L/100km to US MPG conversions. Maybe they were provided their results in Imperial MPG and did a US MPG to L/100km conversion instead?

My calculations today of 7.194L/100km would come to 32.7 US MPG and 39.3 imp MPG. That difference is so close to the difference in stated fuel efficiency for the US and CDN labels that it makes me wonder.

[captainofiron]

I do

its fairly simple to do, just need to track your odometer and always fill to the "click" so you know how much volume of fuel you used

[captainofiron]

Are all V engines in the U.S. CARB compliant, i.e. same emission standards, same horsepower, etc. It makes sense that the answer is yes with 13 states now having adopted CARB standards, but I am having difficulty confirming it.

I would bet however that CDN and other V engines are not the same as U.S. engines re: emissions and, therefore, hp/mpg.

look at the sticker under the hood and it should say on the emission diagram sticker

[Mingo85]

Was just doing some preliminary research for an addition car to add to the driveway (either a summer toy or something heavier like an SUV). Anyway so of course as I'm looking at fuel economy and fine print, I did some digging around. Here is how the testing process is in Canada and our Fuel Consumption Guide.

Vehicle testing - Transport Canada
Fuel Consumption Guide | Office of Energy Efficiency

[ROBBS468]

I have a 2013 with approx 8000 miles on it , not happy with the gas milage at all , best to date is 236 miles ( this was one bar , with less than 30 miles to go ) with normal driving containing 50% city / 50 % highway , Its a turbo with the auto trans ** Complained to the dealership they said wait for the break in period and I'd see a difference ... REALLY NOW ... then the idiot sales guy says if I use the ECO button I'll get 7 more miles a gallon ,, BULLSHIT , car runs like **** with that on and gets worse gas mileage .. Not even close to the 28 city / 40 hwy as stated on the sticker , traded in a 2011 Focus that got way better gas mileage .. and then got the gas card from them ,,and there was ! & dollars on it ,, ARE THEY KIDDING ............ I need to see what others are getting ... I think there is something wrong with this car ... LOVE the car , love the way its runs and drives , upset about the gas mileage ....


Also does anyone know how this eco button works ?